172 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 



Even though one rates evidence derived from parallel passages 

 at its very lowest value, making every allowance for possible coin- 

 cidence, I believe that the cumulative force of this long list of resem- 

 blances must go very near to proving identity of authorship between 

 the Contention and True Tragedy and the plays of Marlowe. In the 

 face of the number, complexity, and closeness of the parallels in the 

 first list (nos. 1—28) Grant White's theory of mere accident seems 

 now entirely indefensible. And reason argues hardly less strongly, 

 I think, against the other alternative of conscious plagiarism. Mar- 

 lowe, to be sure, was a much imitated writer. Yet it is notorious 

 that none of the poet's imitators was ever able to raise his own style 

 near enough to that of his model to prevent the presence of the 

 stolen finery striking the attention of any careful reader. The 

 probability of Marlowe's authorship of the Contention and True 

 Tragedy gains in force very considerably upon comparison of their 

 Marlovian parallels with the conspicuous borrowings from Tamhur- 

 laine and Doctor Faustus in the pre- Shakespearean Taming of a 

 Shrew.''- The two cases are fundamentally different. The passages 

 in the Contention and True Tragedy which are reminiscent of accepted 

 plays do not arouse attention in their contexts. In every instance 

 they are homogeneous with the rest of the speeches in which they 

 occur, and they illustrate the same habits of mind shown in the 

 parallels between the genuine plays. On the other hand, the borrow- 

 ings from Marlowe in the Taming of a Shrew are totally different 

 in style from the rest of the play and incongruous with its spirit. 

 Of this unevenness, indicating the presence of an alien mind, no 

 trace is found in the dramas we are discussing. 



A strong additional proof of the Marlovian quality of the Con- 

 tention and Trtie Tragedy is implied in the list of parallels (nos. 

 29—43) occurring within those plays alone. Here no model was 

 furnished by other plays of Marlowe. Yet the distinctive note of 

 Marlowe's style seems clearly apparent in the more conspicuous of 

 these passages, such as nos. 32, 33, 38, 39, 42 : and the repetition 

 of wording and idea is in these cases of precisely the same kind as 

 that found in the parallels between the various accepted plays (a — ^j) 

 and between those plays and ours (nos. 1—28). Here we have a 

 state of affairs which seems quite unexplainable on any assumption 

 of plagiarism. Even if we admit the possibility that another writer 

 could imitate passages in Marlowe's plays with the delicate fidelity 



^ A detailed list uf these parallels is given in Appendix I of Prof. Boas's 

 edition of The Taming of a Shretv, 1908. 



