That
Shakespeare wrote any part, though Theobald declares it _incontestible_,
I see no reason for believing.
The testimony produced at the beginning of this play, by which it is
ascribed to Shakespeare, is by no means equal to the argument against
its authenticity, arising from the total difference of conduct,
language, and sentiments, by which it stands apart from all the rest.
Meeres had probably no other evidence than that of a title-page, which,
though in our time it be sufficient, was then of no great authority; for
all the plays which were rejected by the first collectors of
Shakespeare's works, and admitted in later editions, and again rejected
by the critical editors, had Shakespeare's name on the title, as we must
suppose, by the fraudulence of the printers, who, while there were yet
no gazettes, nor advertisements, nor any means of circulating literary
intelligence, could usurp at pleasure any celebrated name. Nor had
Shakespeare any interest in detecting the imposture, as none of his fame
or profit was produced by the press.
The chronology of this play does not prove it not to be Shakespeare's.
If it had been written twenty-five years, in 1614, it might have been
written when Shakespeare was twenty-five years old. When he left
Warwickshire I know not, but at the age of twenty-five it was rather too
late to fly for deer-stealing.
Ravenscroft, who in the reign of Charles II, revised this play, and
restored it to the stage, tells us, in his preface, from a theatrical
tradition, I suppose, which in his time might be of sufficient
authority, that this play was touched in different parts by Shakespeare,
but written by some other poet.
Pages:
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163