New-York tribune., 1869-04-03
dead inSS;;sa having been seen in the mettopO-

dead 1na1;ssn having been seen IN the metfopo-
lis. These simple facts seem quite suilicient 70
overthrow Malone's theGry. Later essay .'tI,
adopting his arguments, have eneeaygVreu ore ~
strengthen them, BY showing that the comeuy
was represented in 19ll before the Court o.
James l., taking it for granted that lt was
therefore novelty But "The winters NeY
was also given at Court, some time a1ter Ihe
Tempest y and there is ample reason 10 De1eVe
that this play had long before been acted az
the Globe. Another point assumed by Malones
followers is that Ben Jonsons clumsy ndieule
of "The Tempest in Bartholomew Fair"
which was produced not earlier than l6l2'
would not have been attempted unless the SUD-
iect had recently come before the public notice.
For that matter, so it had, in the most notable
way known to the periOd-a performance at
Court, which is as likely to have been reyi-
val as not, for all we positively know upon the
subject. So much for the evidence that its
date was necessarily later than 1909.
The opinion that it may have preceded 1909,
but must have been later than 1903, rests upon
firmer foundation. A passage in the first
scene of the second act has been discovered
by Capell to bear close resemblance, indeed
TO be to some extent identical, with para
graph in Florio's translation of MOntaigne which
appeared in that year. 1t is supposed by many
that Shakespeare necessarily took from Flono's
work the words and phrases in which the SIM
ilarity exists. Hunter, nevertheless, contends
that an earlier manuscript translation was seen
by Shakespeare, and Halliwell admits that the
poet may himself have read the French work
This last supposition is usually set aside on the
assumption that no two separate trans
lations of the original could be so
nearly alike. Upon this point we may call
attention to one or two facts which appear to
have escaped the consideration they merit. In
the first place. while it is true that, OF the half
dozen phrases taken from Montaigne, one or
two are identical in "The Tempest" and IN
Floros book it is also true that these are
literal translations, and could hardly have been
rendered in any other way. For "nulle espece
ode traffiquen we have mo kind of traffic !"
and for "nul nom de magistrat,' "nO name OF
"magistrate.n 1t is difficult to see how else
they could have been translated by anybody,
unless for some special purpose, as In the line
"nuls contrats, MULES SUGGESTIONS" which in
Florio is again literal, whereas in Shakespeare
the second "no" is dropped, to preserve his
measure Identity fn such cases as these proves
nothing. Other expressions in Gonzales speech,
based upon Montaigne's description, reappear
in very free form, and reproduce the spirit
of the original in language very different from
Florio's, excepting that the nouns are generally
given alike In the second place, there is one
line" nul metal, nul usage de vim on de bled,"
-Florio's version of which is trifie less exact
than that which appears in "The Tempest"
Nobody doubts that Shakespeare understood
French and it is acknowledged that the circu-
lation of French literature at that time in
England was far from uncommon. All these
things being considered collectively, 1t If n
question whether the theory OF 1903 stands
upon much stronger proof than that of 1909.
This is all that the most rigid investigation
has hitherto disclosed concerning the date OF
"The Tempest Mr. Tayleure will earn the
gratitude of the literary world if he can pro-
duce any new intelligence even if 1t should
not bo wholly conclusive