himself, who has founded a sort of religion in us: I, for my part,
would not be bound not to omit, in a hasty enumeration, and having
no books to refer to, more important works than the _Taming of the
Shrew_. In short, the omission by Meres proves no more than that
he either did not think of the play, or did not think it necessary
to mention it. To the second assumption, I answer that the date of
the _first Hamlet_ is "not proven:" it may have been an early
play. From the play of _Hamlet_, in its earlier form, is the
name Baptiste, where it is used in conjunction with Albertus, taken;
the scene mentioned is Guiana; and there is nothing to lead one to
suppose that the name is used as an Italian name at all. Both the
date of _Hamlet_, therefore, and--whichever way decided--the
conclusion drawn from the supposed mistake, I regard as open
questions. There is yet another circumstance which Mr. Collier
thinks may strengthen his conclusion with regard to the date of this
play. He refers to the production of Dekker's _Medicine for a
Curst Wife_, which he thinks was a revival of the old _Taming
of a Shrew_, brought out as a rival to Shakspeare's play. This is
easily answered. In the first place, Katharine, the Shrew, is not a
"curst wife:" she becomes a wife, it is true, in the course of the
play; but this is a part of the process of taming her. But what
seems at once to disprove it is, that, according to Henslow's
account, Dekker was paid 10_l_. 10_s_. for the piece in
question; as Mr. Collier observes, an "unusually large sum" for a
new piece, and not likely to be paid for the bashing up of an old
one. I am thus left entirely without a clue, derivable from external
evidence, to the date of this play; and shall be glad to know if
there is any thing, throwing light upon the point, which I may have
overlooked. That more important consequences are involved in this
question than appear upon the face of it, I think I shall be able to