The quotations we have given from many of the best known Shakesperian commentators and critics glaringly reveal the unreliability of their opinions, and the impossibility of reconciling the personality and life of the Stratford actor with the authorship of the works they so facilely concede to him; especially is this true when we consider those of them, all anonymous, which were in existence at or near the time when he reached London. These have proved to be a stumbling-block of annoying immobility to those interested in the case of their favorite client Shakespeare, and have caused a division among them.
On the one hand, the crass and ready method has been adopted of assuming that there were old works, some lost, which their client appropriated and altered, at a period, of course, as late as possible, to allow a certain margin of time for him to acquire a modicum of education. It is edifying to note how some of these critics endeavor to stretch this period as much as possible, and others to minimize the significance of the erudition displayed in the works they ascribe to him, so as to give some color of reasonableness to their assumptions. Had none of these anonymous works survived to vex them, this procedure would have possessed plausibility; but several of them are still extant, showing, as a rule, more or less immaturity, but possessing internal evidence which identifies them beyond question with the admittedly orthodox works.
On the other hand, a bolder and more. difficult position has been chosen by some who set out by admitting that the author of the works as they now exist was the author of the early anonymous ones, and, ignoring the necessity of education to account for the almost pedantic display of learning in them, --much of it so marked as to excite the admiration of the greatest scholars, --they go so far as to assert that they were the product of pure genius, free from those trammels imposed by the necessity of education upon mankind.
The enthusiasts who adopt this method of explaining how the actor could have written poems and dramas while leading a life so disgraceful that it subjected him to the degradation of being driven out of his native town, though a married man, and father of children, are not in the least fazed by the fact that the works they ascribe to him exhibit a knowledge of several languages; of the rarest books of the age--though Stratford was bare of books, and there was not a public or even private circulating library in London; of the rules of poetic composition; of etymology; of law; philosophy; medicine; botany; the natural history of his time, and much more; but jauntily assert that genius, as in the case of Burns, accounts for it all, though the simple and homely lyrics of Burns display nothing of the kind.
Certainly the position of these visionaries is so pathetically untenable as to quite reconcile us with their more cautious brethren, the old play advocates, who make their client a plagiarist of the first water; a logical position, at least, considering the character they unblushingly accord him. To these old play advocates Knight refers when he declares, referring to Malone, that if the actor had done all he represented him to have done, namely: "New versify, new model, transpose, amplify, improve, and polish, he would have been essentially a dishonest plagiarist." Of course, this applies equally to Lee, Collins, Robertson, and those German critics who have followed the English lead, and other Stratfordians who have adopted the opinions of earlier commentators, without any effort at originality. Such commentators will doubtless continue to thrash out the same musty straw to the edification of those who are contented with such results, for there is no literary work which brings to orthodox writers such a satisfying reputation for scholarship as a rehash of the speculations of the old Shaksperian commentators however stale they may be.
PLAYS EXCLUDED FROM THE FIRST FOLIO:
There is ample evidence that the actor became identified with plays of which he had the handling and, as he had skill in placing them upon the stage, the public naturally came to speak of plays, the exhibition of which this able factotum supervised as "Shakespeare" plays, and ran to see them in preference to others not so attractive. This accounts for the allusions to them by writers of the period, who knew nothing and cared nothing about their real authorship. Such a man would be a godsend to a writer who desired to preserve anonymity, and at the same time secure publicity for his productions, and what a ready solution he would offer for the fact over which the actor's biographers have wondered and lamented, that though inferior plays were published under his name by others he made no complaint. Why should he? He knew the authors; they were good fellows, or in a higher rank than he, influential and helpful to his accumulation of the wealth which he coveted in common with the world at large. This is quite in keeping with, and not derogatory to, the man as his biographers reveal him to us. Certainly no one will question the fact that writers used his name as the author of their works, not only with his knowledge, but without objection from him.
As before remarked, not a single play or book of any kind was ever entered for license on the Stationers' Register in the name of the actor; but the "copy," so-called, was in all the cases we have named entered by others. The especial object of the license was to enable the censors to perform the duty assigned them, thus preventing the publication of writings injurious to the Government. The license gave the owner the right to publish, and this right could be assigned at any time. Had Jaggard and Blount possessed the privilege of printing more plays bearing the actor's name, they might have printed a larger number; or, if written by an author who desired to remain unknown, he might have controlled their selection. It should be noted that when the Folio was published, sixteen of the plays were entered by Jaggard and Blount as "soe manie of the said Copies as are not formerly entered to other men." This is a significant fact worthy of the reader's attention. Of the plays omitted called "doubtful," "Pericles" has been admitted into the Canon, while "Titus Andronicus," vouched for by the editors of the Folio, is still strenuously disputed by most critics.
But what other plays existed during the actor's life, some if not all of which were performed by the company to which he belonged, and which, though not written by him, bore his name or initials, and were popularly known as "Shakespeare plays? This inquiry will show that he permitted writers to use his name to promote his interest, and from what his biographers tell us, can we doubt that it was a pecuniary one?
SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH FOLIOS
The First Folio of 1623 having become scarce, a Second Folio was printed in 1632, and was a duplicate of the First with a few unimportant corrections of the text. But the question of other plays which were also known as "Shakespeare"plays had been discussed, and Herninge and Condell's seemingly arbitrary selection was considered too narrow. Why, it was 'asked, were not more of the "Shakespeare" plays in included in the First Folio? In 1663, a Third Folio, a duplicate of the Second, was printed, and reissued the following year with seven of the ignored plays. On the title-page the questioning public is informed that:
Under this impression are added seven Plays never before
printed in Folio, viz:
Pericles; London Prodigal Thomas Lord Cromwell; Sir John
Oldcastle; The Puritan Widow; A Yorkshire Tragedy, and Locrine.
A large portion of this edition was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666, and it is now a rare book. In 1685 the Fourth Folio was printed. It was a duplication of the Third except that the spelling was modernized. Thus it is seen that the later Folios have seven plays selected from a larger number which, during the actor's life, were known as "Shakespeare" plays. Few modern readers of the works, however, are acquainted with them.
There were other so-called "Shakespeare" plays, namely: "Arden of Feversham," published in 1584; "The Arraignment of Paris," 1584; "The Birth of Merlin," 1662; "The Two Noble Kinsmen," 1634; "Cardenio," acted as early as 1610, first printed in 1653; "The Double Falsehood," first published by Theobald in 1728, as "written originally by W. Shakespeare," and which, we are told, "according to tradition" was written by the actor for "a natural daughter of his -in the time of his retirement from the stage." "Duke Humphrey," by "Will: Shakspeare, registered 1660; "Eurialus and Lucretia," registered as a work of "Shakespear," 1683; "Fair Em," published in 1631, found in a collection of plays belonging to Charles II, and lettered "Shakespear"; "George a Green," acted in 1593, published 1599; "Henry First and Second," by "Will Shakespear and Rob. Davenport," registered, 1653. "Iphis and Ilantha," by "Will: Shakspeare," 1660: "The Merry Devil of Edmonton," mentioned in 1604, registered, 1607; "Mucedorus," printed, 1598; and "Oldrastes and the Second Maiden's Tragedy," registered, 1611; "The History of King Stephen," by "Will: Shakespeare," registered, 1660: "King Edward Second, Third and Fourth," 1595.
From this it will be seen that the editors of the First Folio, out of at least sixty-four plays popularly known as " Shakespeare" plays, published a little over half, or thirty-six. These plays were on the stage in the actor's lifetime, many bore his name on their title-pages, and their authorship was tacitly acknowledged by him. Certainly this presents a condition of affairs hardly consonant with modern methods, and throws a flood of light upon the actor's relations to a large number of the plays of his time which passed under his name, but in which his only interest was in getting them properly before the patrons of the theater. Phillipps, (Phillipps, Outlines, etc., p. 194. Ed. 1882.) reflecting upon the strange fact that he made no objection to the use of his name by others, makes these remarks while treating of the "Passionate Pilgrim," and "Sir John Oldcastle."
