The Hawaiian gazette., 1874-07-22
REIMBURSEMENT OF wIRs.
"who Wrote shicle-pur:''

]
"Who Wrote ShicIx<pur:"
Controversy on the Authorship OF :. Tanning OF
the ShreNN.'
Mr.. F. J, Furnivall is the founder and director
OF a new Shakespeare Society in London, aud the
I Rev f. c. Flesy is one Of the Executive Commit
tee, and they have already INDUCED in warm
controversy on the authorship Of The Tanning
I Of the Shrew.n Mr.. Furuivall wrote to the
AtheuGum. accusing Mr.. Fleay Of adopting the
views Of Mr. Collier advanced in 1851 and afler-
wards abandoned or greatly modified by himself,
in preference to those Of later authorities, such
I as that very able American Shakespeare editor
/ Richard Grant White who in 1857 gave the
opinion that in " The Tuning ofihe Shrew@ three
hands at least, are traceable that of the author
Of the old play that Of Shakespeare himself, and
that Of colaborer. The FIRST appears in the
structure Of the plot, and in the incident and
dialogue Of most Of the minor scenes to the last
mus, be assigned the greater part Of the love
business between Blanca and her two suiiors
while to Shakespeare belong the strong, clear
characterization, the delicious humor, and the
rich verbal coloring OF the recast Inductiou, and
/ all the scenes in which Katharine and Peiruchio
and Grumio are the prominent figures, together
with the general effect produced by scattering
lines aud words and phrases here and there,
and removing others elsewhere, throughout the
rest Of the play. This opinion was endorsed by
Mr.. Dyce, and accepted by Mr.. Furnival. The
latter has indicated the exact lines of demarcation,
and this Mr. FIeay accused him of claiming as
original, which be says he never did. Mr.. Fleay's
criticism on Mr.. Furnivals view the latter speaks
Of as a reproach for not using Goldmith's History
OF England, but preferriug FrOude aud Macaulay
Mr.. Fleay responds with quiet bat singing
warmth as follows;
BlAckuEsrH, May p, 1874
6ud am expected to answer Mr.. Furnivalls
letter in your issue Of 22d INST. hardly know
why. Mr.. Furniyalrs own statements, when stript
Of their rich verbal colorlug.n show distinctly
a that Mr.. Graal-White added nothing what
ever to the theory originally proposed by Mr..
CoIlieri (2) that Mr. Grant-Whi,e omitted a
main part Of Mr.. Golfers view, namely that the
play was not produced till l6OO-I. In fact, l am
not aware that Mr.. Collier has received any sup
port. however small. on this important point till
the reading Of my paper. Add to this that Mr.
Dyce expressly states that Mr.. Golfers theory is
based on slight and insufficient grounds, or words
to that effect q quote from memory the book is
not accessible to me here), and every statement
made by me on these points is fully justified.
shall not notice Mr.. Furuivall's statements as
to the relative amounts of research displayed 10
his work and mine His comparing Mr.. Golfers
work to Goldsmith's History, and that very
able American editors" to Froudes or Macaulay's
viii be sufficient to show his accuracy in this
subject; but when he accuses me Of making an
untrue statement, in saying that he produced bis
exact lines of demareation as original mast say
that the notice in the Athensam certainly, taken
per Sc, would fairly lead to that conclusion; that
no other report Of what took place at the meet
ing has been furnished to me, though have sew
eral times applied for one and that in the only
reports Of discussions that have reached me, the
variety Of versions sent me at different times
from the society, is SO remarkable that even
yet feel doubtful as to what really did take place.
The error on my part in suppOsing Mr.. Furni
vail to have meant to claim originality arises part
" from his basiy way OF writing partly from the
notice in the Atheneam having to be so short,
that after the statement in full Of Mr.. Furnivals
views there was no space for the mention Of Mr..
Golfers or Mr.. Grant-Whiie's
10 conclusion have only to say that have
vast amount of work before me to do in this and
other scientific matters, much more than shall
probably have life to do it in that Mr.. Furnivall
is welcome henceforth to say whatever he peases
but that will not be led into answering any
thing further Of his, as have been in this instance
publicly, and in ninety-eight others privately,
during the last Eve months.
extremely regret the bitterness of tone i'm
ported into a matter Of go little importance By
Mr.. Furniyall, 10 answer to Q letter which in
tended to be iucfIensive 10 him, and nothing
more than just to Mr.. Collier. II there be any
thing unpleasant in the manner or matter of my
previous letter that can be in any way objected to-
l withdraw it unaskt. wish for no controversy,
nor for notOrity. nor for anything but quiet, so
that may lcork as far as in me lies. entreat Of
Mr. Furnivall to direct" the new Shakespeare
Society in that tranquil spirit in which alone the
works Of our great author can be duly studied
10 so doing be will be earnestly supported by the
committee and the general body Of Shakespeare
students, and far higher ends will be attained
than 80 ephemeral victory in petty sguabble
over few expressions hastily written and as
hastily misinterpreted. &c. FLEAY.
GRANTS Growing PERSONAL Prominence
10 the strange and discouragiug bewilderment
into which parties and politics with Us are fast
hurying, the increasing personal conspicuous
ness Of President Gran; Is fact which attrncts