Page:The Review of English Studies Vol 1.djvu/53

Rh pointing out; it is striking. Then there are the two words of the last signature of the will: “By me,” which contain a capital B which is so thoroughly unlike the capital B’s in the manuscript, that one is at a loss to understand how they should be written by the same hand. On the whole one gets the impression from the signatures that Shakespeare’s handwriting was a good deal more angular than that of the manuscript, which is characterised by its curves. But be that as it may, the decisive tests will in any case have to be looked for in other fields.

The whole controversy takes its origin from the impression that Sir Thomas More contains scenes (or at least one scene) that are worthy of Shakespeare’s authorship. It depends, as Simpson (Noses and Queries, July 1, 1871) says, “on the Shakespearian flavour, which only a critical taste can thoroughly discriminate.” A number of distinguished scholars have tried to characterise, define, and dissect this flavour and to find out its components. These consist, to quote Simpson again, as well in “the imagery as the morality of these lines.” The imagery and the style show, on the one hand, what R. W. Chambers calls “repetitions” from Shakespeare’s acknowledged works, on the other hand they have, to quote A. W. Ward, “the true Shakespearian manner.” Moreover, the ideas expressed in these lines, particularly the political ideas, are exactly what we should expect from him. As regards the first of these arguments, it is certainly not to be denied that there are many things in the insurrection-scene which suggest Shakespearian passages. But it is scarcely worth while to discuss the degree of relationship between passages like “sit as kings in your desires” and “entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,” Sonn. 37 (Simpson, Chambers), or “you in the ruff of your opinions clothed” and “dressed in a little brief authority” (Longworth, Chambers, Times Lit. Supp., December 20, 1923), considering that there are plays by other Elizabethans, e.g. by Heywood—it will be seen later on that he is not mentioned without purpose—which although abounding with unmistakable Shakespearian reminiscences nobody ascribes to Shakespeare. Of real importance, therefore, are those