Collectanea; 1st-2d series

91쪽

T Iove high hou through heavens bras-paved way, Drawne os sayre pecocks that excen in pride, Anis stillis Argus yes their layles dis predden ide.

Eoo I. canto iv. stanZa xvii.

So much has been attribu ted o Mariowe, ho

lived ut illi ri years that it a b asked, Howmuch more V My an siue is that in ly claim Selimus for him, in addition to the play an poem S in Dyce. Notis ni so Passer that Mariowe ad n hand in

I itus Xndronicus o the various versions os Henr M.; and Pana preparet to prove in assertion. In theSe

dramas Marlowe is meret copi ed by hahespeare,

who is thei Sole aut hor.

Edmund

enser,cc Locrine and Selimus

92쪽

Selimus has ali the appearance of be in an older play than ιDn rLine, and there recit eum to bellae id est o Mariowe's orks. The construction to V ith an infinitive occurs in Selimus no sewerthan hirteen times, and severat times the play has for V in the sense of hecause,' and ther iis of aphrasing that was ast ying ut This phrasingoccursi ut raret in Marlowe's the work, ut it is extremely common in penser, homo h author of the play imitates throughout As a matter of taci,sonae of these turn o expression in Selimus an e

pro 'edo have been ahen direct frona The aerie

Likeo amburiaine Selimus Was written illi an Cye to continuation, and the rema inde of the playwas o follow, provide that Par I pleraei the Genties. V ut thes Genties V apparently were notpleased, o nobodyias everrit eard of Selimus, Par II. The aut hor' own word in his Prologue o Par II. os amburtaine are orth notin in his ConneXion, a they ho Clearly that this portion of his reat trama ould noti ave been writte iaci the publici ad withheld thei approvat frona Par I.

The generat et comes amburiat ne receiv'd, Whenae arrived last pon the stage, Have ad oti author pen his Secondiart.

93쪽

It is possit, te, ilicii, ilia theirs partis Selimus proved mundi hera ad velature, tu ilia Mario e resolve do, enser, change hi subjecto one presentin simila aspecis 'Locrine, and capable of reatinent on simila lines. In Tam and burluine e finit Such a subjeci, and a reat ment that Selimus is identical in ali iis eatures illi that dis played in Selimus, even to the minutest iis of phrasing. The aut hor of Selimus as et acquaintud illithe i -stor of the Scythian Shepher l, hom hementions three times in his play. Each time that he alludes to amburiatiae, he oes o in ternas that instanti recali amburtia in

Again, like amburiatiae, Selimus is called a sco urge

Occhiali. Selimus

94쪽

and A scolarge and terror O mine e nenates

The Seli= iu Bajaget is, ases have hown associaledin the play ith ais amesahe of iamluι rLine nor loes it orget to naalce a passin allusion to sum-caSane, ne os amburialiae' devoted followers. Infact, uisi de myth and abie, and barring refere iacesto personages directi concerned illi the play, Selimus ahes allusion to only si historical ames Constantine, Mahomet, the reat Sullan Ottoman the ounder of the Ottoman dynasty), BajaZet, Tam buriat ne and Usum casane. The has three, fCourse, have been made immortal by Mario ve. Prester olin, oo, is mentioned in Selimus as elicis in amburLine, ut e must e classe Damongst themyths. et these allusion in Selimus how that heauthor ould no experience much troubie in passingsrom ne subjecto the othCr. The Conclusioni Selimus is ne illic more nor leSSthan a forccas os amburiaine, expressed in termS

95쪽

The Prologue tora amburluine promise the Spectacle of amburiat ne

and in severat places the play exhibit the Scythian conqueror divid in hiragdom into equat hares an dgiving them to his arithe fosso ers. Se Dyce, P. IO, Ol. I, and lse here. Great Arabia V is Ta/nburtaine phraseology, and the promise of the Selimus Conclusion is, i I mistahe not directi MSocialed by the aut hor illi the speech e ut intod amburiat ne 's mouili, heia that conqueror ad dreSSCS his victoriou generat S

These circum Stances teli in favo ur of the priori tyos Selimus ver amburta ine, and a re orth of con-Edmund

96쪽

Edmund

and Selimus sideratiota. Mor over, the strange ord os penSerani his peculiar phraseolog are more prevalent in

Selimus than in amburia ine, and I conclude, here- fore, that Mariowe in the alter play a graduallydrawing way rom his master although stili greatly unde his influence Myoun writer ould more closely imitate his master a firs than sterwardS. But et the student closely rea the Prologue o Parid os amburiatne and he will, I hin k, concludewith in that it is no the production o a riter Who was appeat in to the public so the rs time. This Prologue ill also ea comparison illi the Prologue o Selimus. As in his the work, o in Selimus, Mariowe has subordinate Deverythin in his play to the de vel op-ment of a single dea, hici, he has em hodie in the

character hos nam is i ven to the play. It is the fame idea a is personated in amburiat ne and in the Duke o Gui se-thecius o powe or ungersor an earthi crown Similarly too, he mahes Guise, Tam buriat ne and Selimus pronounce Datheisis, menwho scoria religion, and only use ii as a cloah tocove thei designs. Ad falso that Guise and Selimusare ardent discipies of the eachings o Machiavelli. The confession o faith ad by Selimus in his great Speech, l. 235-385, is ei ther more nor tess

97쪽

thali an exposition by the aut hor of his own helie f. Edmunda nil opinions; and the substance of this speech enser, condensed by Machi avel in the prologue o The L ' Locrine, in salta It also finiis a parallel in the long speech iandi, Guis in The Massacre a Paris, Dyce, p. 28, Selimus 229, and iis sentiments and phrasin are echoed in inan passage of Marlowe' acknowledged work. Moreove it is on record in an ossiciat document that Mariowe was in the habit os expressin his opinion in the very ord that he has ut in to themolith of Selimus. Greene might have ritien, and ver possibi didwrite Locrine, and a Strong cas could e made ut

for hii as it author but he is impossibi a theauthor of Selimus. Compared illi his, or generat ly, but specialty illi his plays the style of Selimus is severe simplicit itself and iis ustained powe and vigorou phrasin are things hich Greene in his wildest ream could ne ver ope to aspire tot eveni initate. Besides, Greene a no a proSelyti Zingat heis who vented his opinions in ali comparates, norwas e a fossower o Machi avelli. In deed, he hadsucti an aversion to Mariowe's opinion that he went out of his a to make the fac publici known. In The Grocis orth of Vit Greene admonishes Mar-lowe to abandon atheisin and to uide his life and

98쪽

Edmund his thoughts by other an belle precept than those emer, of pestilent Machivili an poli cie. V It is qui te clear Locrine ' from his riting that Greene a no an atheis ofand the aggressive type that Mariowe was, and that his

Mariowe's irreligious vlews e re notoriou among his contemporaries, and we indisne of his ne mi es, Richard a1ne or anus, layin an informationagainst him on that Score, ne of the counts in the

indictinent eing that he Marlowe had frequentlyrema rhe that the rste eginnynge of Religion

99쪽

The casu sor Marlowe as against Greene oes no Edmund

iae ed fur ther argument. Spenser, Marlowe affected a supreme contem p for religion, Locrine, and e ransacked a copiolis vocabularyo give that and

count it sacrilege, sor orae holy, o reverence this thread-bare a me of good Leave to id me and babes thalaind of sol ly, Cotin itis equa value illi the ud. An scor religion it disgraces man. So that religion, o iis et a bauble, c. Selimus, est 2 9-sa, Ss, and 3 2.

100쪽

Edmund

Sinam. here is a hel an a revenging od. Selimus usi Sinam these a re schoo conditions, T sea the devi or his cursed dam. Selimus, ' li. 22- .