Notes and Queries, Number 43, August 24, 1850 | Page 6

of Gregory IV., who is known to have recommended to the early disseminators of Christianity in this country, that on the anniversary of the dedication of churches wrested from the Pagans, the converts should build themselves huts of the boughs of trees about their churches, and celebrate the solemnities with religious feasting. In former times, the rushes were spread upon the floor of the sacred edifice, and the garlands remained until withered. Possibly the practice of covering the floors of buildings with rushes by way of protection against the damp earth, may have had something to do with keeping the custom in existence, long after the origin of the institution had been forgotten. The ceremony of Rushbearing has now fallen into complete disuse, except in a few secluded hamlets in Westmoreland, and in one or two other places in the kingdom; nor can that disuse be much regretted, since what was founded as a religious act, every where degenerated into an occasion for unseemly revelry, in fact, into a sort of rustic saturnalia. And yet, when we look at this remain of the olden time, as observed at Ambleside, we are tempted to say with the poet,--
"'Many precious rites And customs of our rural ancestry Are gone or stealing from us: _this_, I hope Will last for ever.'"
* * * * * {198}
QUERIES.
WHO WROTE SHAKSPEARE'S HENRY VIII.?
I had no sooner read the title of an essay in the current number of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, "Who wrote Shakspeare's Henry VIII.?" than I became aware that I had been anticipated in at least the publication of a discovery I made three or four years ago, but for the making known of which a favourable opportunity had not occurred. The fact is, that I was anxious to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion than has yet presented itself to me, and a paper on the subject commenced more than two years ago, I, with this feeling, laid aside. My present object is to strengthen the argument of the writer in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, by recording the fact that I, having no communication with him, or knowledge of him, even of his name, should have arrived at exactly the same conclusion as his own. That conclusion is (should any of your readers not have seen the article referred to), that Fletcher has at least an equal claim with Shakspeare to the authorship of Henry VIII.
In the unfinished paper to which I have alluded, having asked how it was that, with so much to be learned personal to Shakspeare from his works, our criticism was so limited, and having stated it to be my intention to confine myself to the simple inquiry, "_What did Shakspeare really write?_" I continued:
"To those who consider the text as having been settled 'by authority,' this question may seem superfluous; but, not to refer to plays of very early date, in connection with which we could bring forward facts that, we doubt not, would be considered sufficiently startling; we now state it as our belief that a great portion of the play of Henry VIII.--nay, more than half, was not written by Shakspeare."
My intention now is not to enter into any argument in support of this view, but to state the results, which will be shown in the following extract from my note-book:
_Henry VIII._ Act I. Scene 1. Shakspeare. " 2. Ditto. " 3. Fletcher. " 4. Ditto. Act II. " 1. Ditto. " 2. Ditto. " 3. Shakspeare. " 4. Ditto. Act III. " 1. Fletcher. " 2. Shakspeare, (ending with 'what appetite you have.') " 2. Fletcher, (beginning from the above.) Act IV. " 1. Ditto. " 2. Ditto. Act V. Scene 1. Shakspeare " 2. Fletcher. " 3. Ditto. " 4. Ditto. Prologue and Epilogue, Ditto.
So far all is clear, and in this apportionment Mr. Urban's correspondent and myself are agreed. My conviction here is as complete as it is of my own identity. But beyond, at present, all is dark; I cannot understand the arrangement; and I doubt if my friend, who has treated the question with so much ability, is altogether satisfied with his own explanation.
In the meanwhile, I would suggest one or two points for consideration. In those parts which I have set down as Shakspeare's, and in which this writer imagines he occasionally detects "a third hand," does the metre differ materially from that of Shakspeare's early plays?
It will be observed that, in Act iii., Scene 2., there are two farewells, the second being a kind of amplification of the first; both, however, being in the part which I ascribe to Fletcher. Is it not probable that these were written at different periods? And supposing Fletcher to have improved his part, might there not originally have been a stronger analogy than now appears