The representative., 1900-05-31

II -
there the last years OF. HIS life" Mr..
Edwards likewise asserts that there il
no existing evidence that what Ne know
as the Shakespeare plays" were ever
acted In any shape at q private London
theater during the career Of William
ShaksDer." This strikes us as bold,
but we do not propose to enter into con
troversy and attempt refutation. Mr..
Edwards r on surer ground whom he
produces evidence to demonstrate that
the audiences Of the period were quite
uniitted to hear the Shakespeare dramas
and would most certainly have failed TO
appreciate them. The mention OF
Shakespeare by contemporaries are
strangly few and eQuivocal, and lack
precision. The Shakespeare dramas are
alluded to more often than the man,
and every earnest student finds it dis
appointing that what references there
are do not reveal the loveliness or the
nobility Of the poets character.
Mr.. Edwards naturally devotes q
chapter to that unpleasant feature
William Shaksper's thirst for wealth.
and makes the customary deductions.
When we come to the testimony OF the
plays, what grand, complex, supreme
genius Is revealed-the deep thinker.
the word maker, the inimitable poet.
the philosopher, the artist. The ques-
ton is asked whether we can reconcile
the author as revealed In his works
with the man who gave up his life to
litigation and left his wife and children
to shift for themselves, and whose
daughters grew up in illiteracy?"
THE man made a heap of money"
writes Mr.. Edwards, "and that was the
sole outcome Of the so odd years of life
work. While he lived he was known to
no one as poet or playwright; indeed
his handwriting as well as his illiteracy
forbade that, and any reputation he now
has In that direction is wholly myth
CAL No one during his lifetime
testified in prose or verse that William
Shaksper, OF Stratford-on-Ayon. wrote
poems or plays. He Is represented
5O times as a man of business No one
said he had ever seen him with a book
or pen in his hand, or heard him speak
OF writing plays. There is nothing
up to the players death that implies that
anyone thought player and author was
the same individual These are the
conclusions which Mr.. Edwards arrives
at In Part l of his work and he de-
votes 255 pages to proving his points.
Ii so much can be said on one side
why do not investigating Shakespear-
cans take up the challenge in all earnest
and tell US what is said on the other.
the popular side? Our only object in
devot1ng so much space to these anti
shakespeare works Is to show them the
necessity OF doing SO. The time has
gone by when "a mere shrug of the
shoulders, or the utterance of the word
"NonAepse, can be regarded as suffic
lent to overthrow the immense pile
which the neutrality-suspicious. have SO
carefully and patiently constructed.
The Sonnets" provide Mr.. Edwards
with another chapter, and then we leave
controversy and come again to hard
facts perhaps the hardest facts of all
Tor they concern the last years of the
poets life, his law suits, his abstention
from literary labor, his retirement to
Stratford and the making of that extra
ordinary will in which he does not even
mention that he was an author and
that ne possessed valuable literary prop
erty. MIR. Edwards can be trusted to
make the most Of these circumstances.
and he does SO, together with the facts
concerning the alleged signatures, the
alleged likeness, and so forth. We
can but indicate these things, and all
that we will venture to say is that Mr..
Edwards presents such mighty acumu-
latlon OF facts that we scarcely see how
they can be ignored. If he is wrong.
and let us hope he is, it should be DOS
sible to prove him so. We await the
rebutting statements with the gloomy
foreboding that If they are not speedily
Forthcoming such volume as this must
do incalculable harm to the Shakespear-
can cause.