New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-25
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
pp,pr AGAINST SHAKESPEARE.

J,uonld renuire n very diligcnt search 10 i'u ""S
v,rarc in literature a better exainp'o ''' ~ 80
affords of what Mr.. Herbert spencer . -.
No,biug can be moro obvious than tha' MI ~
real;v helieyes his book to be an essay III
hotter of fact il is an example OF spec'a,
,,I.od;ng and one which illustrates supremacy Weii
sa,ors that attend hahitual indul9ence III that
sort of intellectual Jugs''y VIM" -
of special pleading.
Mr. Noroan,s ayowed purpose is to examine such
oxternal evidence as there is, for the purpose OF
discovering as nearly as NAV be the truth concern
ing the authorship of Shakespeares plays ana IL ~
probable that he has honestly endeavored 10 10
tins vet no fairly intelligent reader can Iali 10 see
that he has done nothing of the KIND lie mas
made a brief instead of a judi ,ial opinion ne mas
examined the question from the point oil vic" Vi
an advocate who has case to make, theorS W
maintain. side to support in whatever way he can
leaving it to the lawyer on the other size 10 o's-
cover. if he can, the flaws In tho argument anu
.stir - abstract truth and Justice to take care OF
tbemselves For evidence of this temper on the part
of the writer we need not go far ana cannot go
amiss We find it even in the title OF the DOCK. III
which it is assumed at the outset thattne "orius
beI;ef-unouestioned for three hundred years-n
tho Shakespeatean authorship of Shakespeares
plays is nothing more than the creduious accept
ance of myth. We find 1t in the preface, ID winch
Nj. Guizots misstatement of the known historical
facts concerning Slakespeare's life and work-a
misstatement including such errors OF fact as that
ali of Shakespeare works written during his
life IN London, that he wrote nothing after his
retnrp to Stratford, and that he was ignored and
unknown us quoted and made the foundation OF
an argument Finally upon every page OF the
book almost in every sentence there IS the unhiS-
taxable tone of the special peader wto accepts as
undispnted fact everything that helps MS case anu
,eiects with disdain as improbable whatever gives
color to an opposing theory.
We have no purpose to discuss the question OF the
authorship of Shakespeare; there Is neither s. ace
nor occasion for that at present. and our immediate
duty is simply to show what manne- OF BOOK IL is
that Mr. Morgan offers the public under the title
pruted above With that end in view we dircct
attention next to the fact that Mr.. Morgan III his
character of advocate assumes broadly and posi-
lively that so far Shakespeare is concerned the
question OF authorship has been finally settled adj
xerselv to the dranlatists claim. He puts Shake
sncare aside as a claimant whose pretcnsions have
heen effectualy set at naught. He assumes that
the argument against him has been submitted ana
accented as conclusive, and that nobody chngs 10
the exploded myth except credulous folk who still
believe in William Tell the MaelStrom and I'M
known seas swarming with krakens and shp-de-
yourlng reptles-people with whom 1t Is Idle 10
argue because they are incapable OF hearing ana
comnrehendipg reason Formidable it was in
age.n he SAYS. the presumption as to William
Shakespeare's authorship of the great dramas which
for three hundred years had gone by his name had
only to be touched by the thumb and finger OF
common sense to cracke and sryel like the eggthat
sat on the wall in the kindergarten rhyme" Ana
vet there are men in the world reputed TO be sane,
men not SUSPECTED of imbeclity, scholarly men and
honest, who have never been able to see that the
thumb and finger of common sense or any other
thumb and finger whatever. have succeeded III
cracking and shrivelling that presumption.
noll of The men and women competent to form an
opinion on that subject would scarcely show a
majority convinced that the case against Shake
speare is made out 1t would not be difficult to
prove that Mr.. Morgan himself is Convinced to the
contrary He believes indeed, that Shakespeare
was not the author of the plays, but he does not
believe as the passage quoted and its Immediate
context indicate that ne does thai the Shake
spearean theory was thrown out Of court before he
began to write; and he shows that he does not so
believe by arguing elaborately lngenlously
laboriousy and like lawyer to establish tho very
point which he assume as already established DC
yona question. Certainly he would not be at such
mains to demonstrate that which is already demon
strated and which nobody doubts Who is capable
Of conviction by evidence and logic.
Morgan toward the questions which he discusses, it
is only because that attitude determines the whole
character of his work. Hero IS another illustration
of it, In his effort to overthrow that presumption
of the Shakespearean authorship OF the plays which
he declares to already overthrown he Is at great
pains to show that there is evidence that Shake
speare the plays, except the facts That they
were put forth as his and that nobody doubted the
assertion for three hundred years. then he en-
ohn,- hot fapf
nothing as evidence, saying that If, three hundred
wears hence n question were TO arise concerning the
actual authorship of OF the plays produced THIS
wear at Mr. Days theatre, 1t would be almost I'M
possible to prove that the alleged author whose
name it bore at the time of production not the
real author We accept current assertions OF
authorship lightly he urges; we make 10 investl-
CATION raise no question, harbor no doubts In ike
manner Shakespeare s contemporaries did not doubt
or investigate, the intimation being that if they
had done so they would have discovered that
Sbakespeare was not the author of his plays, but
took 20 himself credit for work done by others.
IL ia essentially an argument for the bewider-
nent OF the jury it is the sophsm of the advocate
intent upon making his case, not the calm reason
ing of the judge tryiI to discover truth; Tor the
Judge must ask himself, Why it is that we do not
usually question the truth of the men who profess
TO be the authors of plays and books. lie must
take account Of the inherent improbabllty that an
author has consented TO lei succession Of literary
works pass under the name of man who did not
wlite them He must reflect that the reason we do
not question the geuuncuess of the alleged author
ship of books aud plays published in our own time,
is because there is no rational occasion TO do any
thing Of the kind. The presumption for example.
that Mr.. Appleton Morgan is the author of the book
before us is so strong overwhelming, that no
body living will entertain the thought of addressing
question on that point to the publishers; and yet
we have absolutely evidence CT the fact except