The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-01-06
Did Shakespeare write Shak.
sPeare.

sPeare.
A clever answer TO this absurd question i:
given in the February number, of this year
of De Bosc's Rstielr, of which We publish
merely short extract, the article being BY
far to voluminous for our space.
WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE?
1t is related that on the Prince Regent:
visit to Edinburgh, one of the actors on the
stage inquired, at the moment that the au.
thor Of Waverly entered the theatre, "Who
wrote Shakespeare ?" and the immediate re.
ply was: "Sir Walter Scottl" OF course,
this jat fesprH was received with tumultu-
Gus roar of applause, and the presence of the
Grown Prince was forgotten in the wild en-
thusiasm of admiration for the great roman
Ger. There was more point and sense in this
extravaganza, and just as much truth in it, as
in some recent speculations in regard to the
authorship of the productions habitually as
cribed TO William Shakespeare.
The skepticisln in relation to Roman his
tory, which found its ultimate triumph In
Niebuhr; the doubts in respect to the COM
position of the Homeric poems, which
through the labor of Heyne, Wolf and Lapen
have reduced Homer to myth; the cavils
relative to the genuineness of the Sacred
Scriptures, which have been carried to such
| TtpuieiNe cACtes6s W DauT, GlTduss, ENalQ,
and multitudinous other Rationalists, have
been frantieally applied to other subjects
but in no instance more unwarrantably
or more ridiculously than in questioning
Shakespeare's claim to the dramatic and
other poems which have given immortality
to his name, and uhequalled renown to his
mother tongue. The recent period Of their
production, the publicity attending their
presentation, the habitual and notorious re-
cognition of the labors of his genius in his
own age, the abundance of contemporaneous
| testimony, the unbroken chain of evidence
| which connects the present assured convic-
ton with the unsuspecting belief of his
friends, colleagues, fellow dramatists and fel-
low actors, might seem TO leave no room for
incredulity at this late day. But these cir
cumstances have only stimulated the ingenu-
ity of the sceptics, and inspired the design OF
contriving an elaborate and complicated the
DRY to explain the necessity, nature, and de-
liberate caution of the scheme by which the
real authorship of the Shakesperian works
was concealed during the years of their
PRONUNCIATION, and their creation attributed
to mere stage player, who was far from be-
ing the chief representative Of that art in his
own day.
There are some circumstances which have
| favored this iconoclastic enterprise of de-
stroyiDg the literary name and the fame of
William MISREPRESENTATION with
out which none would have been so adven-
turous as to have attempted it. The obscu-
rity and uncertainty which surround almost
every incident of the life of Shakespeare,
from his infancy 10 his death, leave a wide
opening for conjecture and for fantastic rep
reservations When was he born? what was
the condition, and what the occupation of
his father? what opportunities of education
did he possess what were the employments
of his boyhood and youth when did he
/ frat fCr1 orN1 60. 40.
how did he support himself during the first
years of his abode in the overgrown metro
| polls? when did he begin to write for the
stage what were his early productions
what are his genuine dramas? when were
they written and first represented when
did he leave the city and return to Stratford?
when did he close his dramatic industry I?
how did he die? what was his creed what
was his character, in youth, manhood, old
age, are the portraits of him authentic? is
the bust of him at Stratford a contemporary
work of rude art, and can its fidelity be re-
lied on? To none of these questions can
plain, direct, and indubitable answer be re-
turned. At one time, indeed, it appeared as
ifmuch new and authentic information had
been obtained from contemporary records,
and from entries of diverse character. But
as most of these were professedly discovered
and were published by Collier, who has been
convicted of literary forgery in connection
with Shakespeare works, their validity has
been rendered doubtful in all cases. Hence,
we are not merely RENTED TO our ancient
ignorance, but our steps are made hesitating
and insecure from the increased sense of
doubt which attends every supposed discov-
cry, and which undermines every conclusion.
In order to avoid the appearance of being
guilty of any such fallacies as we have charg-
ed to those who impugn the validity of
Shakespeare's claim TO Shakespeare's works.
it is proper to observe that both Miss Della
Bacon and Judge Holmes admit that these
productions were habitually ascribed to
Shakespeare in his lifetime, and were never
ascribed to Raleigh, or Bacon, or any one
else; and that the same belief has subsisted
without challenge from the end of the six
teenth century down to the time of the COM
position OF these volumes Of preposterous
revelation. II is, therefore, unnecessary, as
1t would be invalid, to show by way of refu-
tation that the entries in his stage books, and
the records of the censorship the belief of
fellow-actors, brother dramatists, friends, and
contemporaries of all sorts; the title pages
of the first editions of his plays, and the tes-
timony of Heming and Condell, the editors
of. the first collection of the Shakespearian
Drama, all bear undivided evidence to the
authorship of William Shakespeare great
difficulty is thus removed out of the way of
the assailants; for, if this evidence could be
employed, 1t is absolutely irresistible. Con-
sidering the dense mist which surrounds every
period of the private and personal career Of
Shakespeare--the absense of any detailed or
credible chronology of bis plays, it is amazing
that so many testimonies should have been
preserved to, the authorship of the several
plays.
From Greene's "Groat's Worth of WITT
and Mass's Treasury of W.T." to the enco-
miastic verse of Ben Jonsou prefxed to the
first edition of the collected dramas of
Shakespeare, seven years after Shakespeare's
death; and to the slight but deliberate no.
tees in Ben Jonson's a Underwoods," there
is a continuous series of attestations-all of
which, however, must be thrown out and
left unemployed.
1t is perfectly legitimate, however, to OBJ
serve that II is wholly inexplicable, if Shakes
peare did not write the works ascribed to
him, that nowhere should any suspicion of
the public error, or any intimation of the
borrowed plumes be furnished in the copious
array of notices extending over a period of
forty years during the lives of his associates. |
1t is unintelligible that Ben johnson, a fell |
low actor, a rival dramatist, a compotator, a !
lifelong, though perhaps querulous friend, |
attached in common to Shakespeare and Ba- |
con, should never have indicated the least |
doubt on the subject, but should have writ |
ten his eulogy of the deceased poet in terms |
utterly incompatible withNny such suspicion, |
and should even have alluded to the appear |
ance of the manuscript of Shakespeare's plays |
with which he was familiar, without any hes /
itation in regard TO their authorship. 1t is |
equally unintelligible that Shakespeare /
should have received the complimentary re-
CARDS of Queen Elizabeth and King James |
for works written BY some one else, and for
merits to which he was conscious of having /
no claim. There must have been something /
in his appearance, manner, bearing, seDti- 1
ments, conversation, which eomported with I