Collectanea; 1st-2d series

발행: 1906년

분량: 157페이지

출처: archive.org

분류: 미분류

71쪽

of his own play a Locrine IV. i. imitates li. 87ψto I99 of Selimus. The action, the order of the speecheS, the incident iself, and the conceiis and sayings by hicli it chel pedivi are ali remembered. No we come o The aeri Oueene and to the eviden ce hic hiso oni demolisti es the theor os a common authorshi for Locrine and Selimus, but proves that Mario e mus have ritiei the alter play. Selimus is fuli of he aeri seueene; ut Locrine, so far a I have been able to disco ver, neve Onceborrow Dom penser' poem That Soer Strange, for Spense telis the stor of Locrine at ome tengi hin book ii cant x. Beyond that coincideiace Phaveno been able to findisnythin in the shape of verbalor ther parallel, X cepi in a se cases here Locrine borrow Dom Selimus. The age of miracle is past. I the aut hor of Selimus ere also the author os Locrine, hy oes he habituali avoid borrowingsrom penser' great poeni t The answer is lain hecis a different man rom the aut hor of Selimus-aman who ad neve rea The aeri seueene. The irs three book of The aeri seueene erepubliShed in I 59o the fame ear hich a thepublication os amburiaine. ut a portion of the poem a in circulation a early a I 588 some lines

of book ii beingaccurateircited by Abraham Fraunce, si und

72쪽

emer, note p. 66, col. 2 Marlowe's Voris. Selimus as ' Locrine, irin ted in I 59 , Locrine in the following year There an is an enlr of Locrine in the Stationers Register under Llimus V date o Jhily, 59 , butione of Selimus, ei ther here

I have said that Selimus is fulti The aeris stupene.

Battailous' is a word that occur man times in Spenser, and the phrase battailous array is used by that poet three times in the firs three book of hὸ Faeri seueene. I, ill quote ne case only, and cite

73쪽

Glistring in armes and battailous array. Locrine, Book II. canto vii stanEa xxxvii. Gna Glistring in armes and wartile ornament. Book II. cant xi stanEa xxiv.

To tos the spe a in batti eous array. Selimus, Q. II 8.

Spense constanti uses vermeti Vior vermilion, and the passage in Selimus, hici, follows sui is almost an ex ac repetitionis a linei The aeri seueene:

Gyre Vias a peculia mean ingrattached torii, andit is a word that occursi ut raret in poets of Spenser 's

74쪽

62 Edmund

Stan Za xxiii. Hur ile' and gyre V are sed in the Same Onnexion in Selimus:

To come urthia in V means to come in illi a rusti in a threaten in manner

Who, ait en rag'd with smari and frantic yre, Cameaurilinii sui fiers, and fors the Knight etyre. Book I. canto viii. stanZa xvii. Here the Poloni an, he contes hiarti in in Unde the conductis sonae fore ignarince, To figlit in honour of his crucifix Selimus, ' ll. 5 ψ-ψ6.

75쪽

Edmund

76쪽

Edmund Note that the playwright sed sacre in the sense of

Doth weepe sub fore, and sheddeth tender ears, . c. Book I. canto v. tanga xviii. Even a the great Egyptia crocodile

77쪽

Book I. canto Vi Stan Z XXXV. No a the weary and 'ring tra veller

Edmund

78쪽

Edniund Thus far L have proved that both Locrisi and Spenser, Selimus e re indebled to penser' Ruines of Ro=ne, Locrine ' that both plays copi ed the poein, laough no in theand sanae manner, Locrine ichin frona pense ita the cietinius ' mos barcsaced manner, and neve redeeminitis auliso plagiar by any qualit, inito uchesis original reat-

sider hether o no Spenser 's descriptions ill applyto hings in iis play, ut steat with the aste Dabungi in robber. I liave also hown that Selimus scopi ed in Locrine in the sanae bold fas hion a Spenseris, and that Mariowe, hilsi ahinii mages frona The Ruines of Rome agi eos illi Selimus and penser, and differs rom Locrine, in his phrasing. Nei ther illitie vertooked that Phave o been able to howtha Locrin was unde any obligation or materia toThe aeri Queene. I the two play were by one writer, e liould catch limpses of penser' great poem in both the abse iace of suci materia in Locrine

logica impossibili ty.

turn no to the otia relation of Selimus and Marlowe illi SpenSer. As was usual a that time, Selimus a printed without iis author' nam bella mentione. On the

79쪽

tit le-page. It was allo exto remalia in neglectintilthe late Dr. Grosar took it in and and included itamongst the works o Greene in his Huth Library, VI 881-6. t has since been made accessi bie in Dent's Temple Dramatisis, V 898. Dr. Grosari a that the play was a Work of uncommon power anilis he had race in t two passages that re quoted in Englan V Parnassus asbein by Greene, he hastil concluded that Greene was the actuat author of the play. Unfortunately forthis conclusion there is noth in in Selimus to suggest Greene and as a matteris fact, iis atheisin iis boldadvocac of the doctrines of Machiavelli, it style, and it phrasin are totali dissimila stom anythingillat an e found in that writer 'sanown ork. Again the editor of Engian Ps Parnassus, hic hwas printed in I 6OO, and consist os quotations DomEnglisti literatur u to that ear, a not twayScorrect in his assigninents of passages that he quotes. He actuali gives to Greene three passages that belongio penser, and e mahes simila mistahes in regardio ther authors. Tahe two the instances He

Edmund

80쪽

the followin passage in Si Philip idne to the

author os Hero an Leander

I follows that in cases here the authorshil os apieceris oubiful the dictum of the ed oro England's Parnassus is no at way to e re hed pona and thati he could ake suci palpabie mistahes a theSe hecould fati in to the fame error in attributin lines of Selimus to Greene. Moreover, it must e borne inmin that severat ears ad elapsed et ween thedeati, o Greene and Marlowe and the publicationos Englan 's Parnassus and a Mariowe and Greene were frien is and inseparabies, it is excusable that theeditor of the antholog should attribute his elimus quotation to Greene instea of to Mariowe OfCOurSe too the abSeiace of the author' nam Domi heri ille page is a circumstance that ould len Ditselfio suci, an error os attribution. Mariowe notini borrowed much from The Faerie Uueene, but hat he horrowed frequently paralleis or

SEARCH

MENU NAVIGATION