Tlw Reputation of Christopher Marlozve. A°S 



those of Shakespeare.' 'There is an awful melancholy about 

 Marlowe's ]\Iephistopheles, perhaps more impressive than the 

 malignant mirth of that fiend in the renowned work of Goethe.' 

 Of the historical plays founded upon English chronicles, Edivard 

 II 'is certainly by far the best after those of Shakespeare.' 'No 

 one could think,' Hallam concludes, 'of disputing the superiority 

 of Marlowe to all his contemporaries of this early school of the 

 English drama.' 



Leigh Hunt's Iinagiiiation and Fancy (1844) praises Marlowe 

 eloquently, though in somewhat general terms. 'If ever there 

 was a born poet,' he says, 'Marlowe was one. }ie perceived 

 things in their spiritual as well as material relations, and impressed 

 them with a corresponding felicity.' He 'prepared the way for 

 the versification, the dignity, and the pathos of his successors, who 

 have nothing finer of the kind to show than the death of Edward 

 the Second — not Shakespeare himself . . . Marlowe and Spenser 

 are the first of our poets who perceived the beauty of words ; not 

 as apart from their significance, nor upon occasion only . . . but 

 as a habit of the poetic mood, and as receiving and reflecting 

 beauty through the feeling of the ideas.'"' 



Modern understanding of Marlowe probably owes most of all 

 to Alexander Dyce, whose edition of the poet appeared in 1850, 

 and in revised form in 1858. It is not likely that any other book 

 will ever bring together more new information relating to this 

 writer, interpreted with sounder judgment, than is to be found in 

 Dyce's introductory Account of Marlozvc and his Writings. Cun- 

 ningham's edition (1870, etc.) added nothing to Dyce, and Bullen's 

 (1884-85) very little. In the way of general criticism, the essays 

 of Lowell, Dowden. and Symonds are still of interest, as are the 

 more exul^erant writings of Swinburne, who throughout his life 

 made a special cult of Marlowe. Sir Adolphus Ward's History 

 of English Dramatic Literature (ist ed., 1875) contains solid and 

 valual)le criticism ; while his steadily revised editions of Doctor 

 Faustus in the Old EnglisJi Drama (ist ed. 1878; 4th ed. 1901) 

 register the advances made in the study of that play. 



A tasteless memorial to Marlowe at Canterbury was unveiled 



'^" Creizenach remarks, for no very clear reason : 'Die eigentlichen 

 Erneuerer von Marlowes Ruhm sind Hazlitt und Leigh Hunt.' (Geschichte 

 des neticrcn Dramas IV. 495.) 



