indications of this, unmistakeable, though expressed, perhaps, but by a
single word. Now it is true both Mr. Collier and Mr. Dyce are committed
to a positive opinion on this subject; and it would be unreasonable to
expect either of those gentlemen to change their views, except with the
fullest proof and after the maturest consideration. But who, besides
these, is interested in maintaining the precedence of Marlowe? These
remarks have been called forth by an article in the _Athenæum_,
containing the following passages:--

"All Marlowe's works were produced prior, we may safely assert,
to the appearance of Shakspeare _as a writer for the stage_, or
as an author, in print.

"It is now universally admitted among competent critics, that
Shakspeare commenced his career as a dramatic author, by
remodelling certain pieces written {370} either separately or
conjointly by Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele."

An anonymous writer commits himself to nothing, and I should not have
noticed the above but that they illustrate my position. In the passage
first cited, if the writer mean "as a writer for the stage _in print_,"
it proves nothing; but if the words "in print" are not intended to be so
connected, the assertion cannot be proved, and _many_ "competent
critics" will tell him it is most improbable. The assertion of the
second quotation is simply untrue; Mr. Knight has not admitted what is
stated therein, and if I recollect right, an Edinburgh Reviewer has
concurred with him in judgment. Neither of these, I presume, will be
called incompetent. I cannot suppose that either assertion would have
been made but for the spirit to which I have alluded; for no cause was
ever the better for allegations that could not be maintained.