marks of Greene’s hand.  All those marks, however, were disciplined out of them, as they have come down to us in Shakespeare’s works.  There can be no doubt, then, that Greene, and perhaps Marlowe also, had a part in them as they were printed in 1594 and 1595, though no author’s name was then given.  Now it was much the custom at that time for several playwrights to work together.  Of this we have many well-authenticated instances.  The most likely conclusion, therefore, is, that these two plays in their original form were the joint workmanship of Shakespeare, Greene, and Marlowe.  Perhaps, however, there was a still older form of the plays, written entirely by Marlowe and Greene; which older form Shakespeare, some time before Greene’s death, may have taken in hand, and recast, retaining more or less of their matter, and working it in with his own nobler stuff; for this was often done also.  Or, again, it may be that, before the time in question, Shakespeare, not satisfied to be joint author with them, had rewritten the plays, and purged them of nearly all matter but what he might justly claim as his own; thus making them as we now have them.

As regards the occasion of Greene’s assault, it matters little which of these views we take, as in either case his charge would have some apparent ground of truth.  It is further probable that the same course of remark would apply more or less to The Taming of the Shrew, and perhaps also to Titus Andronicus, and the original form of Pericles.  At all events, I have no doubt that these five plays, together with the First Part of King Henry the Sixth, The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and Love’s Labour’s Lost, in its first form, were all written before the time of Greene’s death.  Perhaps the first shape, also, of Romeo and Juliet should be added to this list.

My reasons for this opinion are too long to be stated here:  I can but observe that in these plays, as might be expected from one who was modest and wished to learn, we have much of imitation as distinguished from character, though of imitation surpassing its models.  And it seems to me that no fair view can be had of the Poet’s mind, no justice done to his art, but by carefully discriminating in his work what grew from imitation, and what from character.  For he evidently wrote very much like others of his time, before he learned to write like himself; that is, it was some time before he found, by practice and experience, his own strength; and meanwhile he relied more or less on the strength of custom and example.  Nor was it till he had surpassed others in their way, that he hit upon that more excellent way in which none could walk but he.