THE SHAKESPEAREAN MYTH WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE By Appleton Morgan Author Of "The Law Of Literature," "Notes To Best's Principles Of Evidence," Etc., Etc= ````Sic vos non vobis nidificatis aves; ````Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves; ````Sic vos non vobis melliflcatus apes; ````Sic vos non vobis fertis aratra boves. `````--_P. Virgil. Maro_= Cincinnati, Robert Clarke & Co 1881 TO D. T. MORGAN, ESQ., OF WHIP'S CROSS, WALTHAMSTOW, ESSEX, ENGLAND. My Dear Sir: I do not know your opinion on the matter treated in these pages. Very possibly you will disagree with every line of my Brief. But it gives me pleasure to connect my name with yours on this page, and to subscribe myself Very faithfully, your kinsman, APPLETON MORGAN. October, 1881. PREFACE. |M. Guizot, in his History of England, states the Shakespearean problem in a few words, when he says: "Let us finally mention the great comedian, the great tragedian, the great philosopher, the great poet, who was in his lifetime butcher's apprentice, poacher, actor, theatrical manager, and whose name is William Shakespeare. In twenty years, amid the duties of his profession, the care of mounting his pieces, of instructing his actors, he composed the thirty-two tragedies and comedies, in verse and prose, rich with an incomparable knowledge of human nature, and an unequaled power of imagination, terrible and comic by turns, profound and delicate, homely and touching, responding to every emotion of the soul, divining all that was beyond the range of his experience and for ever remaining the treasure of the age--all this being accomplished, Shakespeare left the theater and the busy world, at the age of forty-five, to return to Stratford-on-Avon, where lived peacefully in the most modest retirement, writing nothing and never returning to the stage--ignored and unknown if his works had not forever marked out his place in the world--a strange example of an imagination so powerful, suddenly ceasing to produce, and closing, once for all, the door to the efforts of genius." But M. Guizot is very far from suggesting any prima facie inconsistency in this statement as it stands. Since every man reads the Shakespearean pages for himself and between the lines, much of what we are expected to accept as Shakespearean criticism must fail of universal appreciation and sympathy. But none who read the English tongue can well be unconcerned with the question as to <b>who wrote</b> those pages; and it would be affectation to deny that the intense realism of our day is offering some startling contributions to the solution of that question.