The Chautauquan, Vol. 05, April 1885Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Philosophy
The Chautauquan, Vol. 05, April 1885
Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Institution -- Periodicals; Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle -- Periodicals
The fourth century of Shakspere will be remembered either as the century
of Shaksperean skepticism or as the one in which the play-actor was
stripped of Bacon’s clothes and reduced to his proper condition of
play-actor. That we can so much as entertain this latter thought proves
that the skepticism has made considerable progress. We do not believe
that Bacon wrote the Shaksperean plays; but we are obliged to pay to
those who do believe it such respect as is paid to Strauss with his
theory that Jesus is a mythical person. Another Shaksperean year is
completed on the 23d of April, and its most significant event is an
increase of skeptics. We are doubtless to have a thorough sifting of the
facts and a large debate. No lover of the great dramas need regret the
discussion. It will provoke the study of them and enlarge their fame.
They are the great dramas of the world. No others equal them in breadth
and fervor. Whatever stimulates the study of them must be useful to the
higher forms of literature. One way of looking at the subject of the
authorship of these plays is to regard the question as of no absolute
importance. The plays are what they are, whoever wrote them; just as the
Homeric poetry does not lose a line through the Homeric skepticism. It
is an audacious thing to attack Shakspere as a wearer of another man’s
clothes, after three centuries of his renown. He lived in the public eye.
All London knew him. Some envied and sneered, but none doubted him until
some three hundred years after his birth; if there were doubts they were
so feeble that nothing came of them. Is it the function of the press and
the reporter—making great and small seem alike—which has made Shaksperean
skepticism almost respectable, if not entirely so? Whatever be the cause,
“the news” spreads that Bacon wrote our Shaksperean works, and the debate
is growing into bulk, if not into a serious concernment. We are not a bit
touched with the skepticism; it seems to us unreasonable, beyond ordinary
measure in unreason; and yet we must recognize the growth of the new
theory of the authorship of our glorious drama.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account