THE SHAKESPERIAN CONTROVERSY.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 April 1923, Page 4

THE SHAKESPERIAN CONTROVERSY.

TP I, WI 1.1, O' THK WISP."

Ii is rather odd that Shakespeare, himself the very soul of sanity, should have been the inspirer of so much fantastic disputation. Save for his genius, Shakespeare was ijuite a typical Englishman. Like many another Dick Whittington, lie left his country home as a lad to conquer great London. He succeeded, although he had a hard struggle at first, and although he was never one to let work interfere unduly with play. He was a shrewd man ul business with a keen eye for a lucrative investment. Thanks to this he found himself in independent circumstances while still in middle life, and retired to his native town to spend the lew years remaining to him. this i- the man whose identity ami achievement.- have provoked so much perverse speculation. His contemporaries weik? not plagued by any doubts on the .-object. It never occurred to them that no was a jackdaw in borrowed plumes, and for upwards of two ant! a half centuries hi- title was unquestioned. But then the curious theory was propounded 11 1 at Shakespeare was not Shakespeare at all, but somebody el-c. and the unprofitable controversy about the author-hip of the play- has heeii llickerin_ spa-medically ever -jive. Tin latc-t contribution to ii is "Mill o' the Wi-p." by Mr ('forge Honkham. which de-erves some con--ii!,.;:' t ion i i Hilly hcea.u-e Air Ifeekhiiiii i- 1,--- dogmatic than most ol his

1,-,-!. 11 j,. al Li ode is ihat ol the a; in "tie. He doe- md believe that i in- a’liliui' ef the plays is "Slmks,,j' Si ro.l !onl. lie bolds that

j’L V. hi!.. I here i- eviilen: •' lo support the pivieu-iou- of olhers to authorship il Is hi MO means conclusive. II is ere-. .1. in fad. is negative. Air Heokham. u 1 10 , l-y the way, attaches too mucli importance to variations ol j spoiling ill all age of happy-go-lucky orthography, stres-es two points. Fie ho seems lo imply that heeaiisc Shake--110 pi,me avowedly wrote lor gain lie could not have '.M'itt.n lhe "inspired” ~ . plays. A very daring deduction sure- .,,, ly ; we should remember, moreover, Id. that many of the greatest plays were 'd. mriti-'U when Shakesjieare was jiart owner ot the Globe Theatre and no i i-'iiger depended on his pen for a livc- '' J | liu,aid. lie unite from tlm sheer doll, j -To .or self expression. Further. Air ! 11: okii.iin es in the scantiness of ily I c ull einporary I'eferenees to Shake--iee 1 pcare an argument against his itulhor--11.1 ' slop 01 tim drama-. But it is .-imply ' 1 ; IIK . I-I ay tha i Ihe tel i-rciices ai - ;io ', in niimLt-r. AVe liud allu-icns lo ~ t ■ ..ale--- ea re, cxp'icii or unmistakable, ell in eonieinporary p-vis such as Daniel -’lt. ami i >!•;• y l«m. in play weights such as he \Ve’ : - le- and .luii-im. in historians - t'ani-leu. and ill many others. 1111 | Gicein-'s iihe in liu- "(Irunt’s Woilh J e| Wit” shows that a? early as FAIL ; Shakespeare was becoming popular ce I ami a scriniis rival to the established x- [ dra mat i-t s. In sueli an issue the o- | onus of proof must he on the objee--111 j liirs ; Me do not think that Mr llonkI ham has materially -hakim Shake or j . |v j U'a'e - title. n _ ■ 'I ho.-e who altrihiile the play- to as He-, nil. Oxford, de Vere. Dei by. olid j anyone and evei-yotu- hut Sliakesh’j pea re, rely upon one fundamental a-- , l! j sllin j>t ion. Almost all of t heir a rgu- \ : tni'ii t s ret urn in l lie la i esurt to Lie j ! nine proposition. The plays reveal | -ij| a goad deal of ■-peeiaiisod or technical j ■- j knowledge. The wider knew saino- j d i tiling of jdiilosophy, law. medicine. | 1 natural history, music, ehemi -i ry. and j 1.1 so 1 u: i: cough, a I any date, I > u-e j i to- ir i-a-iibiliary eorrec-tly. How could I ! i!. -■ '• a-a a provincial luitcluw. Ihi j ; lad u I aeeeiali ng lo I rad i 1 i - - 11 . ,ea ru- I ml !" 1 ol by menial sei vice- n i -> u | : b. lim t ■■'.•■ill to i.omlon. the uii.ilicoi-c j j a i it.f ll'.. wa - Old V ciiirii'ti I V. ill: | ; subunli -a 1 e ] >;■ vt - luiu , ould I his Mian j 7 ! ha; •- ; epiurod i a sart know- ; | I •: The ph > ■ mu-: :a; -• I veil i , wi n ..■ i> lo a |o. .hi;.-e li’e-au-1 p -rsou. I ! am! tie: an i i- c ha lii'sp>pa ria n s ca-t j al i.-iit lor -ll,■ -h a ,-i;e. Franei- Ba-aiii ,! Is Hie ms Ipm 1,:l !.1 .' e.l lldiuate. Bill j *" d ■ 111 -1111 ; 1 elea 111 Man-, of the . ! id.,; - Wi -v I, : mallv l 01-aed 111 (lie j ."a 1 1 I : - Hall Ol" l-'-r -ha I- m pea I e's j .-a, -ee : Cl ilia's v. ei a ji in g-i I under ids I. 11l e. Ug tie all I i-siia. l-.e-jiaa lia ns | make light o' i!u . 'i'he man of rank i and -, au. h :u- .'La v. ' e i 1,.- phi \m did I ... ‘ i Tint v. i -1: to incur ; lie -I igma of w !'ii- ' ; ing foi ihe (lami re. and pm -uaded I Sl;akt-'-p same to iai her lie- v,,irk . Knell I i - the arti-Nliake ■; -a ria. n - a-a in a. uc t - j h- 4. I ii i In-re are llaw.-, ill iI . I! -. | prep-embers exaggerate I lie pivjrdiee -against writing for the theatre. Again. -oi i"-! i: Sim !e -a -ea I-- lied not the I,tn iv. I- !p;e to w- ", e his Jlia; -, I Ill'll cun,illy Baron, s-afe-maii, juri-t, scientist, and aulher of a veritable library, had net I !‘e 1 imc. ( 'oiihl inpm s, b|y have added! to Ids mult i lari • oils ael i', Stic; I lie com pi- llioll il! t hilly-six play-., t imm-rlv-- the 'Work oi a lii’.-t inn- r But t: i<-ri • is a -till stronger a.rgu.'ii'eiit against the aitti-.Sluki'-peafiaii i ,evr. ’i 1 e w liolo | h.-ory l e.-i - tipno the hipmlie-d- Dial .Vimke.pearc couh! uni have I'vguii't'd the knowledge rei ealed in Ihe play-. If it he sliinvi: I 1 ha; in- co.iilil, then the theory breaks *» down, and there seem- to he no rea- -: a wha ■ev,-! v, liv in- should not liave aepitired it. Hi- fa 1 her was a in; •- g-'-.s ef V't rat ford, a whilom magistrate, ami clii-'f alderman ot the town, and at om- time a merchant of substance. Slmkc-peare attended tin local grammar school. That i- to sav. ! he received the onlinari education ol j a middle-gin-- youth, although in- may I not have cnmpleU-d the lull term. I Ben d-iii-oii says that he had snm]l ] Imi till and less Greek. But .lonson'-. j standards were exacting, and, in any j ca-e. tin- would he no ilisq ualieation ! The stimulating atmo-phere of Eliza- j Let l-au I.<- 111 1 .• >ll would ill itself he an * iutelleel ual ionic io th.e recepti’ C j yeutli. and as lie la-gail to make Ids t mark he would eoii-ort with the Uni- | vi-r-itv wit -. Thus it would be tpiile t pns-ihle lev Shakespeare to have gain- j

ed in -me way or another the “tcclini<:i I’' knowledge in the play- which inot. al!er all, very piofouud. Lawyer-. for example, tell us that the legal knowledge exhibited might ea-ily have been picked up hv uiie wiio Inid mixed with niemhei'- of the prole- ioii or had boon involved in litigation him-eT. Similar te-iiinony Is borne by s|i;.-cia!ists with regard to miter -u h jeet -. tdiake-pea re. moreover. i - guilty of hhinders ami errors wi-ieh ir i- impos-ilde to conceive that Ikn on would commit. The knowledge in the plays, io tact, i- m-t academic, but is of e. far raivt' - ,rt -c. kno’.vledgi- of the human heart and spirit. nisi i tii- i- i.'.uml ;- - often in the humble col as in tlie on-tlo or ihe Ui’.i-M-i'-ily I!,ill. A S'- >t tis.li |)lotighboy, Hum-, had it : "a tinker out of Bedlam." Runyan, bad it. The soil of a Stratford shopkeeper had it. And the Shako-pea riaim can advance one «rmvning argiimen: which their onimiieiH- hue never ani-mpt-ed to iehm. I.ilerary J.-mdou in those daywax a small place, and a -eerct of t!:e kind nrcdicted could not have been kept. Vet during .Shakespeare’s life and uii Ills death tlte re wa- not a word, not a syllable, to suggest that the play- were other tha.n hi- own. Tho-e nearest to him never dreamed of challenging hi- title. It has been left for ;t later age to assail it with the weapons of far-fetched inference and conjecture.