DUNEDIN SHAKESPEARE CLUB.

Otago Witness, Issue 2253, 6 May 1897, Page 54

DUNEDIN SHAKESPEARE CLUB.

The Dunedin Shake3peare Club gave an entertainment at oho Choral Hall on 26th ult., on the occasion of the anniversary of the poet's birth. Mr A. Wilson (president) occupied tha chair, and there was a very large attendance, the hall being crowded. The Chairman delivered the following address :—: — The play of "Henry the Eighth" has an interest of a very special kind as compared with other plays from the baud of Shakespeare — the interest of doubtful authorship. Did Shakespeare write this play ? Did he write any of it ? If he wrote only parts of ifc, which parts ? A few years ago " Henry the Eighth " was held to be as indubitably Shakespeare's as "Haml=t"; whereas good critics are now of opinion that only certain scepes were written by Shakespeare, and that the rest is from the hand of his contemporary and fellow-dramatist, John Fletcher, who, we know, was in the habit of collaborating with others, and almost certainly collaborated with Shakespeare in "The Two Noble Kinsmen." To some it may seem a ridiculous thing to challerge the genuineness of an authorship" so long accepted without question ; bub, after all, the authorship of " Henry the Eighth," aparb from inherent evidence, rests on the by no means uuimpuguablc authority of the First Folio — the firsl. collective edition of Sbake&peare's plays, published in 1623, seven years atter the peek's death. The persons responsible for this coition have to answer for mauy »ins. Certainly the editing was nob done in such a way as to make the inclusion of a play in the F.rat Folio ipso /aeto proof of its having been written by Shakespeare. Fortunately, however, Shakerpeare's work bears its own sign-manual, unforgenble and tolerably unmistakable.

I Whon you have once became familiar with a | voice, you cannot fail to recognise it among a thousand. How you do it you cannot tell, bub you do ib; even when it is transmibbed through the telephone, or attenuated to gho*tlinets by the phouograph, you still recognise it. And there isi a recognisable voice, too, in writing, which an accustomed ear does noc easily mistake ; unless perhaps some Ekilful mimic sets himself to imitate the tones ; and the mimic has not yeb been found cunning enough to counterfeit Shakespeare's voice with any success. Towards the end of the Jast century a forger tried his hand at manufacturing Shakespeare plays ; for, as you will easily understand, a Shakespeare factory, if ib could turn out a passable article, would ba a profitable concern. William Ireland unearthed, to he said, a drama in Shakespeare's handwriting — the play of " Vortigern," which was duly brought out at Drury Lane, wibh some of the btst actors of the time in the cast, among them John Kemble. It is curious to think that " Vortigern " at the time deceived a considerable number of shrewd persons, professed rfcaderß and students .of Shakespeare. You cannot understand how curious this fact is unless you read the play ; for I am sure that no boy iv the Sixth Form of the High School would now believe that Shakespeare wrote " Vortigern," not if ib were sworn to by the mayor and corporation before a justice of the peace ; though I am bound to confes3 that the handwriting displays in an eminent degree the crabbedness and illegibility that characterise the caccgraphy of genius. If therefore a, clumsy forgery by a youth of twenty could have been received as Shakespeare's work by any person capable of reading and understanding " Hamlet" and "Lear," ib is no wonder that " Henry the Eighth " should have been accepted as entirely Shakeepeare's, seeing that the non-Shakespearean scenes are held, by good judges, to be from so redoubtable a hand as Fletcher's.

But how, you will ask, comes the name of Fletcher to be affixed to a play with which until comparatively recent years his name had no association ? That is a long story, and I could not hope in an address ot a few minutes to show you explicitly how this conclusion baa been reached ; though ib is possible, I think, to indicate the general grounds on which the reasoning is based. All reading people feel that in the style of great writers there is a quality as UDinislaksible as that in the tones of the living voice. You could not mistake a sentence of Horace or Tacitus, though they and their language have been dead as door nails this many a day. Suppose, for instance, you had been listening for years in the House of Commons to the voice of Mr Gladstone, and suppose, further, that a mimic were to go behind a screen and deliver you an oration in the statesman's manner and voice, he musb be a skiful mimic indeed to deceive you if your ear is of the most ordinary sensitiveness. The subject matter ib would, of course, be possible to steal ; but, that achieved, the various and numerous idiosyncracies of inflection, accent, pronunciation, "pitch, emphasis, and so on, musb be accurately reproduced, and these are things not co easily stolen. But suppose, yet again, that instead of any deliberate attempt at mimicry, Mr Gladstone and Mr Cbamberlain were to go behind the screen, and that they were to speak alternately, each in his natural voice. Do you suppose that an ear trained to the'accents of both men could fail to be aware where the one left off and the other began ? 16 is something like this that take? place in "Henry the Eighth." Esau and Jacob go behind the screen ; now you hear Esau, and now you hear Jacob ; but the oldest of Isaacs, sans everything, would know the difference in their tones.

What, then, are the marks that are said so unmistakably to distinguish Shakespeare's voice from Fletcher's. The whole story, as I have said, is too long for me to attempt to tell it. It is a somewhat complicated question of rhythm and metres, and the evidence, even if it were set down in full, might not appear to you conclusive, though ib is absolutely convincing to many keen critics. Really, to be in a position to judge the whole question, one requires to be as familiar with Fletcher as with Shakespeare. Discoveries, as we know, have & knack of being made simultaneously. In or about the year 1850 the attention of several investigators converged on the authorship of "Henry the Eighbb," and careful analyses of the play were made independently by various competent scholars. In that year Tennyson remarked to Spedding, the distinguished Bacon scholar, that he found certain parts of " Henry the Eighth " to bs written very much in the manner of Fletcher. Spedding, acting on the hint, seb himself to submit the play to a careful critical analysis, with the result that he assigned to Shakespeare the following scenes : — Act I, scenes 1 and 2 ; act 11, scenes 2 and 4 ; act 111, scene 5 (to line 203) ; act V, scene 1. At the same time that Spedding was forming his conclusions as to the joint authorship of the play, or rather a short time before, another Shakespeare student, Samuel Hickeon, working independently of Spedding. and unknown to him! reached pie*

oiselythe same conclusion. Inthesameyear, also, we find Emerson noting in hit essay on Shakespeare the unmistakably mixed charac-er of " Henry the Eighth." B'lt though mosb scholars now accept the dual authorship of the play, they are not absolutely in accord as to the parts that are Fletcher's and Shakespeare's respectively. They agree in the main," but differ as to certain scenes. Thu3 Spedding and Hickson attribute the whole ot act IV to Fletcher (though Spedding confessed himself puzzleo), whilst Etnerson says of the first scene of this set— the coronation seene — that ib is like Shakespeare's autograph.

Those who have not studied the question of metres are as likely as not to pooii-pooh the metrical tests. I fiud them myself sufficiently convincing and conclusive, and jeir, speaking again for myself , Ido not seera to want them. I have grown sa familiar wioh the tones of Shakespeare's voice that I fancy I can recognise it when I hear it. I daresay evan Shakespeare is not always afc Shakespearean level — he had, no doubt, moments of fiimss and unfitness like cthtr mm) ; further, the early Shakespeare ruan:.er differed very materially from the lata Shakespeare manner, and the middle Shakespeare manner from either. But early or late, in his best vein or in his worst, he is always Shakcpeare ; and if all at once you find little unaccustomed tricks in his style you may be excused for requiring an explanation of the change. Auy old friend may chance to drop an initial "h" once in a way, or even a final "g" ; bub if all at once you find these irregularities of speech b:coming conQrmed habits you are entitled to some explanation. There are in cartain scenes of " Henry the Eighth " two such little tricks of speech, cartainly nob characteristic of Shakespeare. Ona is the use of "ye" for "you," as in these lines —

Is tbis your comfort ? The cordial that ye bring a wretched lady — A woman lost among ye, laughed at, sorned? T will not wish ye half my miseries, I have moie charity ; but say I warned ye ; Take heed for heaven's sake ; take heed, lest at

once The burthen of my sorrows, fall upon ye. Now to use " ye " as ib is used in this passage, except in the second line, is really as faulty as if you were to say A woman lost arnonc they ; laughed at, scorned— I will not wish they half my miseries, &z. As a matter of fact, this usage may be found in other and indisputably genuine plays of Shakespeare. It occur*, for instance, in "Julius Ciß3ar " and in "The Tempest." but very exceptionally ; whereas in certain ecsnes of •' Henry the Highth," though only of course where more than one person are addressed, it is th*e' usual thing. Again, ib is certainly nob Shakespeare's common usage to substitute " 'em " for " them." To be sure he uses '"em" occasionally, as most El'z^bethan writers do, and historically it is a perfectly correct form. It occurs at least eight times in " The Tempest," and here and there in other plays. But, as~ far as I can remember, in no play credited to Shakespeare except "Henry the Eighth" ia ib general, and there only in the so-called Fletcher scenes, though it does occur exceptionally also in the Shakespeare scenes. To myself both these peculiarities, trifling as they are, happen to be particularly unpleasant, and therefore I am very conscious of their frequent occurrence in this play. If you read Fletcher you will soon be unpleasantly aware that " 'em " is his usual form, and that the peculiar objective use of "ye" abounds in scenes where several persons are addressed. I do not mean to contend that this is any cogent reason for concluding that Fletcher wrote part of " Henry the Eighth, " though it strengthens the other circumstantial evidence. What I do mean to cay is thab I canuob balievo that Shakespeare, for no dramatic purpose whatever, suddenly developed thesa two peculiarities into a general usage.

Mere tricks of phrase, construction, or metre may seem to you small things on which, to challenge the authorship of a play. And yet many a man has been deservedly hanged on evidence the details of which have been in themselves equally slight. In determining grave questions of forgery or libel your case may hang on the stroke of a "t" or Ih9 tail of an • s ' ; the point being that every man has his tricks of handwriting which ib is difficult for himself to drop or for others to simulate. And so authors have their tricks of speech, predilections for the frequent use of certain words, forms, phrases, rhythms, and so on which others are nob likely to adopt except by intentional imitation, and which would bo accepted in a law court as strengthening, if not constituting, evidence of identiby.

These, however, are question of objectiva form. The reasons that; weigh mosb with myself are almost as little capable of being set oub as the reasons that some witty person ones had for disliking Dr Fell. There is a certain quality in Shakespeare which thoae who read him feel, and "which they flatter themselves they cannot mistake. I do not know wherein the quality lies, or to what exacbly ib is owing — thoughts that come crowding thick as hail and yet* never jostle ; an unexpectedness and inevitablenesa ; and a certain, not merely masterliness, bub masterfulness of expuessioa which, in doing un-heard-of violenc9 to words, yeb seems to compel them to their best; uses. Shakespeare is always a surprise, though you parcel ve the current of his thought to be as inevitable as the course of a mighty river. Surely uo other writer was ever so audacious, or so little commonplace. If Shakespeare had to say, "Ba good enough to pass the bread and bulter " —do you think ho would say it so ? Fletcher would, but certainly not Shakespeare. How he would say it, I cannot tell. In such a way as no man ever said ib before, but in such a way as every man, in the circumstance?, would wish to say ib if he could.

If you tell me that Shakc3peare makes a great statesman and prince of the church say to an illustrious queen —

For goodness' sake consider what you do," you muab permit me not to bslieve it. Shakespeare would bestow more dignity on a beadle. Per contra, if you read me these few lines— So much the more Must pity drop upon her. Verily I swear 'tis better to be lowly born, And range with humble livers in content.

Than to be perked up in a glistening grief, And wear a golden sorrow— if you read theße lines and tell me they are Fletcher'?, I must again say No. Never man ■wrote like that but one, and he was no'j Fletcher ; which, however, is far from saying that Fletcher has not written things as true, as musical, poetic, picturesque, and so on — only that he never wrote like that. The voice is the voice of Shakespeare.

All of which reasoning is exceedingly subjective and unmathematical, to say nothing of its being perhaps a trifle pig-headed and selfsufficient. For what seems to me Shakespearean may seem to some much better judge Fletcherian. There is for instance that fourth aot, from which Spedding and Hickson exclude Shakespeare. So likewise does the Shakespeare scholar Mr Fleay with his metrical test. Bub on the other hand you Sad an eminent judge like Emerson who says that the first scene of this

act is lik» Shakespe»re'a autograph. I hava mj'aelf read and read and read this scene, tryiDg to feol what there is in ifc so uumistfikably Shakespearean ; bub much as I should be flattered if 1 could feel with litaerson, I cannot find in the scene the unmistakable Shakespeare quality that so impresse3 him. Discussing this part of the play Spedding say* : "Of the fourth act I did nob so well know whab to think. For the mosb part jt'scerned bo bear evidence of a more vigorous hand than Fletcher's, with less manuerism, especitilly in the description of the coronation, and the character of Wolssy ; and yet ib bad not to my mTtid the freshness and originality of Shakespeare." In shorb the jury cannot agrea on this count.

Perhaps the mast interesting ecsne ia "Henry tb.9 Eighth," in respect of recent criticism, i* the second scene of the third act. The Spedding school of critics divide the sccue between the two playwrights—allotting to Shakespeare the first half up to the exit of the King (line 203;, to Fletcher the rest of the seem. Pkteher, therefore, is credited with that favourite amongst the beauties of Shakespeare, Wolsey's soliloquy, "So farewell to the little good you bear me.'' In all conscience Shakespeare has weaibh enough, and needs to steel no man's jewels. And yet one grudges to think that this speech, so worthy of Sbakeepeara in its thought, is nob Shakespeare's after " all. It does not stand the test, and the critics tell us ib musb go. Be it so : I do nob care whose ib is, ib is a great speech, and the mart who wrote it was capable ot noble thoughts stnd of giving thorn noble 'expressiou. I cannot enter at lengbh into bhe arguments for mixed authorship that rest on the defective construction of the play and tbe vpry unequal treatment of the character*. Of all the notable plays in this world "Henry the Eighth" is probably the worst constructed. Our sympathies are divided hither and thither in a way that comes near to destroying them altogether. From the close of the third &ot onward the play declines in interest, and ultimately ib closes in a bathos. As for the characters, you find them full of Shakespearean fire iv onS" scene, flit and commonplacs in the next. Take Buckingham*' What could be more Shakespearean than the hob and mettlesome Buckingham of the first act, or less Shakespearean than the whining, maudlin, sanctimonious Buckingham of the second. The one is no more like the other than an Arab* b!oad is like an ill-fed Flanders dray-horse.

I do not know that it is incumbent on those who allege a mixed authorship for this play to provide a theory that will explain how the mixed authorship came about. Spedding pro- - pounds a theory, but, though I would not apeak disrespectfully of a suggestion made by so eminent a scholar, ib appears to ma a trine far-fetched. Ib seeras pretty certain that the play of " Henry the Eighth," uuder the name of "AH- Is True," was biing acted ali tbe Globe Theatre on Jane 29, 1613, when the theatre was burnb to the ground. With other, properties it' is probable that the actors' manuscript copies of the play were partly destroyed by the fire. By the time the theatre was rcbuilb Shakespeare had ' finished his course as dramatist and bad retired - to Stratford, to write no more plays. If, therefore, the play that was played st the Globe Theatre on the day of the fire wa3 Shakespeare's it is conceivable" enough that, failing Shakespeare himself, another great dramatist should have been asked to reconstruct missing scenes. It is even possible that the Fletcher scenes were not composed till after Shakespeare's death.

At the conclusion of the chiyrman's address, which was warmly applauded, Mr A. J. Birth played a piano solo with his customary ability, the selection proving very acceptable to the audience. Miss Lily Joel subsequently sang "The lifted bur.len" (Mascheroni) very pleasingly, the item beiDg received with loud demonstrations of approval. The. readings given by the members of the club were selections from-" Henry the Eighth" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream." In the former play the selections were scenes 3 and 4-, act ii ; scene 2, act iii ; and scene 2, act iv. Mr A. H. Burton, as Cardinal Wolsey, read his part very effectively, some of the passages bfiiog particularly well delivered, notably thosu beginning " Farewell, a long farewell, to all my greatness," and "O Cromwell, if I had 88rved my God," &c. Mr H. A. Webb as the King, Mr A. H. Tonkinson as Eirl of Surrey, Mr Brugh as Cromwell and Cardinal Campeius and Mr Whitson as Griffith all did fairly well in their respective parts. Miss Alexander was cast as Qaeen Katharine, and read her Jines intelligently and well ; as also 'did Mias M'lntyre, who appeared as Anae Bullen. The remainder of the cast was made up as follows -.—Miss G. White, Lady of the Court ; Mr W. A. W. Wathen, Duke of Norfolk and Lord Chamberlain ; and Me W. Scoular, Duko of Suffolk. The reading appeared to be much enjoyed by the audience, who frequently applauded the readers. " A Midsummei: Night's Dream," which was subsequently read, ' also afforded a great deal of amusement to those present. The selections were scene 2, act: i ; scene 1, acb iii ; and scone 1, act v. As Bottom, the weaver, Mr Burton had a parb which suited him admirably, and he succeeded in greatly amusing the audience. Mr Brugh as Quince, the carpenter, and Mr Tonkinson as Snout, the tinker, were also very entertaining. Mr Whitson as Theaeus had * bet'.er ' opportunity to display his talent as a reader than in the previous play, and he was heard to much better advantage. The following also took part in the reading:— Mr Scoular* (Philo« atrate), Miss Whinan (Hippolyta), Mr Webb (£>nug, the joiner), Mr Wathen (Flute, the bellows-mender), and Mr A. C. Hanlon (Starveling, the tailor).