Prev | Current Page 223 | Next

Coppee, Henry

"English Literature, Considered as an Interpreter of English History Designed as a Manual of Instruction"

, Titus
Andronicus,[31] and Pericles his work? Did he not write others not found
among these? Had he, as was not uncommon then and later, collaboration in
those which bear his name? Was he a Beaumont to some Fletcher, or a
Sackville to some Norton? Upon these questions generations of Shakspearean
scholars have expended a great amount of learned inquiry ever since his
day, and not without results: it is known that many of his dramas are
founded upon old plays, as to plots; and that he availed himself of the
labor of others in casting his plays.
But the real value of his plays, the insight into human nature, the
profound philosophy, "the myriad-soul" which they display, are
Shakspeare's only. By applying just rules of evidence, we conclude that he
did write thirty-five of the plays attributed to him, and that he did not
write, or was not the chief writer of others. It is certainly very strong
testimony on these points, that seven years after his death, and _three
years before that of Bacon_, a large folio should have been published by
his professional friends Heminge and Condell, prefaced with ardent
eulogies, claiming thirty-six plays as his, and that it did not meet with
the instant and indignant cry that his claims were false.


Pages:
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235