THFRF A SHAKFSPI PRORl FM? A ,1 V V*^ .i-r JLjf JLtfX ▼ 1. • dEORGE aREENWOOD,M.B G ? / 1 7 (Slatmll Hntnetattg ffiibtarg Stifuta, Ntm fork BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF'YrtEji |i .| SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 Cornell University Library PR2944.G81I7 Is there a Shakespeare problem?with a re 3 1924 013 153 535 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 31 53535 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? BY THE SAME AUTHOR THE SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM RESTATED IN RE SHAKESPEARE THE VINDICATORS OF SHAKESPEARE &c. &c. THE BODLEY HEAD IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? WITH A REPLY TO MR. J. M. ROBERTSON :: AND MR. ANDREW LANG :: By G. G. greenwood, M.P. LONDON JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD NEW YORK' JOHN LANE COMPANY MCMXVI h^S']6']S^ Printed ky Morrison & Gibb Limited, Edinhurs^ NOTICE TO THE READER IN this work I have again followed the convenient practice of writing " Shakespeare " where I am speaking of the author of the Plays and Poems, and "Shakspere" where I refer to William Shakspere of Stratford {whether he was or was not the author in question), except in quotations, where I, of course, follow the originals. N.B. — This distinction is made for convenience only, and involves no assumption whatever as to the authorship. I have also, and I trust without offence, in order to avoid circumlocution, occasionally employed the com- pendious term " Stratfordians " to indicate those who hold the generally received opinion that William Shakspere of Stratford was the author of the Plays and Poems, being, of course, the vast majority of readers — those who are not readers I do not take into consideration. Similarly I have used " Stratfordian " as an epithet denoting such belief, as in the expression "Stratfordian faith." My references to Sir Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare are to the Illustrated Library edition, 1 899. My references to Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines are to the sixth edition, 1886. THE STRATFORD BUST THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING T PREFACE HE following sonnet, from the pen of my friend and colleague, Mr. G. H. Radford, M.P., appeared in The Academy of April 4th, 1914:— "THE 'VINDICATORS' OF SHAKESPEARE "i To George Greenwood, M.P. When, Greenwood, you assert that those who write On Shakespeare's Life invariably place A heavy structure on a narrow base. And finding that the facts are few and slight Indulge conjecture in unmeasured "flight — You state the simple truth, and prove your case. Indeed, biographers must now efface The fabulous and bring the truth to light. But though you are unable to believe The author of the plays and poems made The hasty marriage and the philistine will, And stalked the sawdust stage, I cannot cleave In twain Ben Jonson's gentle friend who played In his own comedy of Bobadill. In the " octave " of this excellent sonnet Mr. Radford does but reiterate, in poetical form, what was written by that distinguisbedscholar and critic, Mr. Thomas Seccombe, in a review of my book. The Shakespeare Problem Restated, to wit that the biographers must now rewrite their " lives " ' With reference to my book bearing that title (John Lane). viii IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of " Shakespeare "; 1 and if I could think that as the result, or partly as the result, of anything that I have written concerning the immortal bard these " biographers must now efface the fabulous and bring the truth to light," I should feel that, whether or not I am right in my main thesis, I have not written all in vain. But such a con- summation, though devoutly to be wished, is, I fear, too good a thing to be hoped for. With my main thesis, it will be seen, Mr. Radford does not agree. He "cannot cleave in twain Ben Jonson's gentle friend, who played in his own comedy of Bobadill." "An apple cleft in two is not more twin Than these two creatures." He does not, I apprehend, look upon the fact that Shakspere of Stratford played a part, as we are told, in Every Man in His Humour as in any way evidentiary of the authorship of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, but he finds it impossible to conceive th at Shakspere (or, if you like, Shakespeare) the actor was not also the author of the immortal works. He cannot picture him without the hyphen: Shake-speare, actor-author; Shake- speare, player-poet. He can imagine him only in that dual capacity, and I have no doubt that if he were to " take a division " upon the question he would emerge from the literary lobby with a large majority at his heels. Nevertheless, there are some — and they are, really, not all amenable to the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Act — who are convinced that if the true facts could only ' With special reference to the ten critical years of Shakespere's life, from twenty-one to thirty-one, Mr. Seccombe writes : " The biographers (as Mr. Greenwood emphasises) tell us that he was busy thus and thus. And their results neither tally among themselves, nor do they explain the ' problem ' by making the Works of Shakespeare correspond adequately, or, indeed, in any way satisfactorily, with his Life. Let them to it again ! And let the biographers begin by confuting Mr. Greenwood. I cannot " {Daily News, September gth, 1908). PREFACE ix be known, it would be found that it was not the player who wrote Hamlet, and Lear, and The Tempest, and Twelfth Night, and other such-like " trifles," as Messrs. Heminge and Condell (or whoever was the author of the Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to the Folio of 1623) style the death- less dramas.^ Now some years ago I endeavoured to set forth, as best I could, the facts, arguments, and considerations which had led me to that heretical way of thinking.^ I con- fined myself, as I do now, entirely to the negative case, and said no word in support of any positive hypothesis, " Baconian " or otherwise. My book, if I may judge both by the demand for it, and by certain kindly notices in the Press, has niet with a far better reception than I had dared to hope for. Of course, I have not escaped hard knocks, nor was I so foolish as to anticipate such immunity. On the contrary, I was prepared for all the slings and arrows of outraged orthodoxy. But now, after the lapse of some six years, yet another thunderbolt has fallen. As a writer in The Times {Literary Supplement, A^n\ 3rd, 1913) has put it, " Mr. J. M. Robertson, a serious student of literature as well as of politics, with a ready pen, a con- siderable ratioeinative faculty, and no hampering sense of humour, has descended into the arena and . . . has pro- ^ Mr. John Hutchinson, late Librarian of the Middle Temple, writes : ' ' It was having to take Shakespeare as a school manual for the study of English which really engendered my first doubts as to his individuality. ' How is it,' I remember saying to myself, 'that a man like this' — that is, like what I had been taught to believe him, and who had had less opportun- ities than myself of acquiring knowledge — ' should know so much more than I — that he should become my teacher, and not only mine but the teacher of all the scholars in the world — the man whose definition or use of a word (testibus all the Dictionaries) was regarded as final, just as Cicero (e.g.) amongst the Latins ? ' And this set me thinking, and I have been thinking ever since, till I am persuaded that the Stratford man, at any rate, is not ' Shakespeare,' whoever else may be." I give this merely as a sample of the way in which this matter strikes some cultivated minds. ^ See The Shakespeare Problem Restated. John Lane, 1908. X IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? duced a volume which for thoroughness, and we must add prolixity, recalls the performances of our Puritan divines." The idea of that uncompromising Rationalist, Mr. J. M. Robertson, emulating the performances of the Puritan divines is distinctly quaint. But it is against "The Baconian Heresy " that Mr. Robertson's book is nominally directed, wherefore, as the setter-forth of a merely negative argument, I might have fondly hoped to be left in peace, and sitting " on safety's rock," E terra magnum alterius spectare laborem. But if I had laid such flattering unction to my soul Mr. Robertson's ponderous tome would have rudely dis- pelled the delusion. He has aimed quite as many blows at my devoted head as at the cranium of the " crankiest " and most fanatical Baconian of them all, and it is in order to reply to this attack, and also to the courteous and, therefore, perhaps more effective criticism of the late Mr. Andrew Lang, as well as to consider once more, I trust in a reasonable and temperate spirit, the question which I have chosen as the title of this work, that I have ventured, greatly daring, to add yet another volume to the mountainous literature that has accumulated around the immortal name of " Shakespeare." Well, with Mr. Robertson's controversial methods 1 deal at the outset of this work,^ and here I will only say a word more with regard to his magnum opus so far as it concerns myself. "It is in regard to the knowledge of law and the classical scholarship which the plays are ' I claim to have proved that Mr. Robertson has, in certain instances, been guilty of grave misrepresentation of my arguments (due, as I conceive, to haste induced by pressure of other business), but I need not say that I have made no charge of intentional misrepresentation. Of that, it goes without saying, Mr. Robertson is incapable. He has been so good as to speak of me as his " friend." I heartily reciprocate, and trust such amicable relations may continue — outside these lists ! PREFACE xi supposed to exhibit that Mr. Robertson makes the most effective use of his method of exhaustive induction." So writes the Times reviewer. I wonder how much time he had expended before so writing upon Mr. Robertson's " exhaustive " analogies ! What Mr. Robertson attempts to do is to " snow under " the reader by innumerable quotations from writers contemporary with Shakespeare, designed to show (i) that several of such writers, who had no special legal training, made use of legal terms and expressions quite as accurately and effectively as Shake- speare, and (2) that Shakespeare's classical allusions can also be paralleled in the works of such contemporary writers for whom no classical scholarship can be claimed. " He goes through the alleged quotations from the classics" (I again quote from the reviewer) "and en- deavours to show that they are either hackneyed phrases used by other poets and playwrights, or else passages easily accessible in Florio's Montaigne, and other books known to have been in Shakespeare's hand," etc. etc. Again I say, I wonder how many readers will have the patience to consider carefully and seriatim Mr. Robertson's multitudinous supposed analogies under each of the above heads, and how many of such patient readers will be competfent to pronounce an opinion thereon ! For my- self, I venture to think that the careful and competent reader will find that a large number of Mr. Robertson's citations are, in fact, irrelevant, as showing no real analpgy with the Shakespearean quotations whereunto they are compared ; and that sometimes they are examples, not of "exhaustive induction," but of positive error, as where Mr. Robertson parallels Shakespeare's use of the words " fine and recovery " by two passages from Dekker and Porter, in each of which the word " fine " is used with no reference to the transfer of land, but in its ordinary signification of the premium on the grant of a lease, thereby affording us an excellent illustration of the truth xii IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of Lord Campbell's observation that " there is nothing so dangerous as for one not of the craft to tamper with our freemasonry."' In other cases this same careful and competent reader will find that Mr. Robertson's analogies, even when they may appear to hold good, are fallaciously applied ; as when, for example, after quoting two or three legal expressions from Dekker, let us say, he proceeds to ask, " Was Dekker, then, a lawyer ? " Such reasoning has, indeed, cogency as against those, if such there be, who would build up a theory of Shakespeare's legal knowledge upon two or three citations such as Mr. Robertson pro- duces from Dekker; but the contention that Shakespeare had a special knowledge of law, whether it be right or whether it be wrong, is founded upon far wider considera- tions than this. " Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung." But I have dealt with these matters at considerable length further on.^ And now a word upon the general question. One cannot but recognise how" greatly the position of him who ventures to express heretical views concerning the Shakespearean authorship is prejudiced by the wild utterances of some extreme Baconians — Baconians enrages, as I may call them. When, for instance, the late Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence proclaimed ex cathedrA that indisputable proof that " Bacon is Shakespeare " is revealed by an anagram to be found in " honorificabilitud- initatibus," the merely unorthodox, the mere doubter of the Stratfordian faith, winced to think that the derision provoked by such pronouncement would inevitably react upon his own sceptical, or agnostic, utterances. For what was this anagram which was to settle the question ^ See chap, ii, p. 37. * See chaps. 11 and ni. It will be seen, and I must ask the reader to note the fact, that I have not claimed classical "scholarship" for Shake- speare, nor have I made any attempt to defend the late Dr. Theobald's work. The Classical Element in the Shakespeare Plays, against Mr. Robertson's vigorous onslaught. PREFACE xiii authoritatively in favour of Bacon for all time ? It is, we are told, "a correct Latin hexameter, which reads as follows : — HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI (These plays F. Bacon's offspring are preserved for the world.) Poor Francis Bacon ! Such an hexameter is enough to make him turn in his grave. Moreover — add this alone would be sufficient to dispose of the " anagram," which, however, is absurd upon the face of it — -Bacon himself never Latinised his name as Baco, with genitive Baconis, but always as Baconus, with genitive Baconi^ although the form Baco was not unfrequently adopted by editors of his works after his death, as, for instance, on the title-page of the De Augn^ntis published at Leyden in 1645.* But Sir E. Durning-Lawrence's anagram was not altogether original, for in 1897 the late Dr. Isaac Hull Piatt of WalHngford, Pennsylvania, had sent a note to The Conservator in which he set forth the following anagram discovered by him in the long word from Lov^s Labour's Lost, viz. : Hi ludi, tuiti sibi, Fr. Bacono nati, which he said " may be translated : ' These plays, originat- ing with Francis Bacon, are protected for themselves,' or ' entrusted to themselves,'," and this discovery he re- published in a little book, of which he kindly sent me a copy, called Bacon Cryptograms in Shake-Speare (Boston, 1905). Dr. Hull Piatt, therefore, avoided the fatal Baconis, but I fear this is the only superiority which his quaint anagram can claim over that of Sir E. Durning-Lawrence.' ' I pointed this out to Mr. Robertson soon after the publication of Sir E. Duming-Lawrence's Bacon is Shakespeare, and he has reproduced the observation at p. 3 of The Baconian Heresy. , ^ Fr, Baconis De Verulam, Angliae Cancellarii, De Augmentis Scienti- arum. Lib. ix. Lugd. Batavorum, 1645. ?Atp. 153 of his book, Sir E. Durning- Lawrence presents us with it copy of the title-page of Bacon's History of Henry VII., published in 1642 (plate xxxT.), which he tells us is a picture of " the Virgin holding the salt xiv IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? It is, alas, under the shadow of such things as these that I am condemned to publish the present unorthodox work, in the unhappy knowledge that all " heretics " will be liable to be " tarred with the same brush." Well, I must bear it with such philosophy as I can summon to my aid.^ Equally to be deplored is the absurd and indiscrimin- ate abuse which is now constantly showered upon the memory of Francis Bacon by certain Shakespeariolaters in high dudgeon at the claims made for that great man by modern " Baconians." It really seems as though the fact that these claims have been made has so provoked some of the orthodox of the Stratfordian faith that they would fain relieve their feelings by maliciously venting their spleen upon poor Lord St. Alban, with entire disregard of historical justice, as though he were himself to blame for a wicked conspiracy to appropriate to himself the glory of the Shakespearean authorship ! I have remarked this ridiculous tendency over and over again of late. Let me give one example. I have before me an article headed " Shakespeare Himself Again " ! by Richard C. Jackson, Chairman and Warden {pro tern!) of London's National box," and from which he extracts much cryptic " Baconian " meaning. The picture obviously represents Fortune, turning her wheel with her right hand, and holding in her left a funereal urn (of. Horace's "funeribus vertere triumphos ") and what I take to be a bridle, not " without a bit," as Sir E. Durning-Lawrence tells us, but with a bit. The goddess is standing upon a stone globe, saxum ghbosum, cut instat apud Pacuvium. See Orelli on Horace, Car. I. xxxv. 18-20, and Henry V. Act III. Sc. vi. 29-31. ' I would here acknowledge the very fair and courteous criticism of my book by Mr. H. Chisholm, the editor of the last (eleventh) edition of the EncycloprBdia Britannica, who in an article on "The Shakespeare-Bacon Theory" (Vol. 24, p. 786) writes: "What may be considered the more reasonable way of approaching the question is shown in Mr. G. Greenwood's S/uOiespeare Problem Restated (iyc&), in which the alleged difficulties of the Shakespearean authorship are competently presented without recourse to any such extravagancies." Of the short criticism which follows, I, certainly, have no right to complain, neither, I suppose, am I entitled to complain tnat It IS mcluded m a considei-ation of ■• The Shakespeare-Bacon Theory" ! PREFACE XV Memorial to Shakespeare, as re-stated by the Athenceum of November 6th, 1909. From this article I extract the following gems : " The true character of Francis Bacon is black enough; why rise to intensify it?" "England's one scoundrel Lord Chancellor, Lord Verulam, Viscount St. Albans" {sicY — "this bundle of villainy" — and so forth and so forth. All this is lamentable in the extreme. Bacon's character was not faultless, but if he be considered with an unprejudiced mind, and in the light of the times in which he lived, I am convinced that a just and fair- minded historian will equally repudiate Pope's malevolent line, and Macaulay's warped, and, as I think, uncritical estimate, and rather subscribe to the impartial judgment pronounced by that honest writer, Professor John NichoL* In any case, it hardly becomes those " Shakespeareans " who are constantly appealing to Ben Jonson's testimony in support of the Stratfordian tradition to set aside as of ' This instructor of the masses not only calls Bacon "Viscount St. Albans,'' but animadverts on the fact that he is "commonly spoken of by the vulgar in the twentieth century as ' Lord Bacon,' " although " in a general way, he was never spoken of as Lord Bacon ! " He is doubly misinformed. Francis Bacon was not "Viscount St. Albans," but "Viscount St. Alban," ahd he was constantly spoken of by his contemporaries as "Lord Bacon," albeit there was "no such creation in our Peerage," his chambers in Gray's Inn being known as "Lord Bacon's Lodgings." But when, commenting on a statement of Sir E. Durning-Lawrence, this critic writes, " Sir Edwin tells you and I," we are forced to conclude that his grammar is no better than his history. As to Bacon's title, to style him " Lord St. Albans" may no doubt be considered a venial offence, but it is certainly erroneous. Mr. Spedding, for example, tells us that " on the morning of the 7th of January (i6zo-i) Norroy king-at-arms had been sent for to consult about the arrangements for his (Bacon's) investiture with the title of Viscount St. Alban " (Letters and Life of Bacon, Vol. VII, p. 166), and in a letter to James I, Bacon writes thanking the king for "first making me Baron Verulam, arid now Viscount St. Alban" (Ibid., p. 168). Bacon, after this title was conferred upon him, habitually signed himself " Fr. St. Alban." ^ See Francis Bacon : His Life and Philosophy, by John Nichol, Professor of English Literature in the University of Glasgow, 1901. It should, by the way, be added to my comments concerning John Davies's much-quoted epigram to " Mr. Will Shakespeare " (see p. 353 and Appendix A) that this cryptic writer's authority may equally be claimed in A 2 xvi IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? no account Ben's deliberate estimate of Bacon — as splendid a eulogium as was ever pronounced by man on his fellow-man, and committed to writing after Bacon's death by one who wrote from the intimate knowledge of many years. I say this, not because I hold any brief for Bacon, but merely in the interest of historical justice. It is deplorable that truth should be so perverted because some " Shakespeareans " are out of temper. These thoughtless and ill-balanced disparagers of one of England's greatest sons — who "build their evils on the graves of great men " — would do well to remember the fine lines of Tennyson, who, though he would not hear a word against the orthodox Shakespearean faith, yet wrote of those " two godlike faces " — Plato the wise, and large-brow'd Verulam The first of those who know. A less serious, but perhaps quite as foolish, example of this not very edifying irritation which prevails amongst some of the self-constituted priests of the Stratfordian shrine, is to be found in the appellation, " Defamers of Shakespeare," employed to designate those who, while they yield to none in their profound appreciation of the immortal works, have conceived doubts as to whether player " Will," as Mr, Andrew Lang has styled him, was in fact the author of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare. The epithet has been most absurdly applied to my humble self, amongst others, though how I can be said to support of the proposition that Bacon was a poet, and a good one. I refer to his sonnet to Bacon (eirc. 1610) and particularly the lines — " And to thy health in Helicon to drink As to her Bellamour the Muse is wont : For thou dost her embosom ; and dost use Her company for sport twixt grave affairs. My Muse thus notes thy worth in ev'ry line ! With ink z(/* thus she sugars ; so to shine." PREFACE xvii have defamed the deathless bard, for whom I have expressed unbounded admiration, I find it difficult to imagine. No, as I have already written, " the real defamers of ' Shakespeare ' are the men who wrote, and the men who have repeated with approval, those pre- posterous lines which tell us that the poet who is not of an age but for all time, For gain not glory, winged his roving flight And grew immortal in his own despite. And it was the same man, we may remember (and he has been followed by all the servum pecus of literature), who, like a wasp stinging among flowers, left on record of another immortal of that golden age the malignantly perverted judgment that he was The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.' Have I, then, "defamed" Shakspere the Stratford player? I have dealt with that foolish and spiteful charge later on. I will not waste more words upon such a childish accusation. And now, if any reviewer should do me the honour to notice this work, let me humbly beg him to avoid such a description as the following, which experience has taught me I may expect to find in some few (very few, I am glad to think) highly " orthodox " journals : — " This is another Baconian book. The author thinks that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare, but by another gentleman of the same name ! [That time- honoured joke is never musty.] He believes that there were two Shakespeares, the actor and the poet, distinct, but two Dromios as like as two peas. He bases his argument upon the difference between the actor's name ' Shakspere ' and the poet's name ' Shakespeare ' ; in fact, that is the very keystone of his arch. He maintains that ' See Tht Vindicators of Shakespeare, p. 32. xviii IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? no one not well born and well educated could write works of genius," and so forth and so forth. All these things have been actually said in serious and, presumably, sober print concerning The Shakespeare Problem Restated, and they are all ludicrously untrue. Those who may do me the honour to read this work will find that it is not a " Baconian book " ; that so far from thinking that "Shakespeare" was written by "another gentleman of the same name," my suggestion is that the man who signed the dedications of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece in the name " Shakespeare " was himself the bearer of an entirely different name, whatever that name may have been ; that I have, therefore, lent no colour to the ridiculous idea that there were "two Dromios," Shakespeare the author, and Shakespeare the actor ; that I do, indeed, attach some importance to the fact that there is much difference both in spelling and sound between the name " Shaksper " (or " Shakspere ") and " Shakespeare " (or " Shake-speare "), but to describe any argument which I have based upon this difference as " the keystone of the arch " is to use the language of wild and preposterous exaggeration.^ One word more to bring these prefatory remarks to a conclusion. It will perhaps be said that this work, whether or not there be any reasonable grounds to doubt the generally received tradition concerning the Shake- spearean authorship, is but a waste of time. It may be so. I am not concerned to deny it. I will only say that there is a luring fascination about the question, and that during long hours, when I have been unfortunately in- capacitated for work except such as could be done in the quiet of home, I have found it a solace and a relief. 'I have pointed out (e.g.) that "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" makes an excellent nom de plume, which cannot be said of " Shaksper " or "Shakspere " (see chap. ix). As to the last proposition of my hypothetical reviewer I have dealt with it fully in chapter vi on " Professor Dryasdust and ' Genius '." PREFACE xix Moreover, when we find among the "orthodbx" a (distinguished writer like Mr. Robertson lecturing us with the same air of ex cathedrd infallibility as was assumed by the late Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence among the "heretics," it is perhaps well that the spirit of opposition should be aroused. I am very sensible that the reply to him and others which I have attempted in the following pages is not as adequate as it (jiight be made by abler hands. The subject is one of immense magnitude and " magnificent distances," and though I have written at con- siderable length I have perforce left much unsaid, many vistas of argugient unexplored. But J venture to hope that I have at least brought forward some considerations which may emphasise in this controversy the wisdom of that often repeated but too frequently neglected maxim, audi alteram partem. Had I been some thirty years younger I might have added, magna est Veritas et prae- valebit. Alas, age and experience have rudely shaken my faith in that optimistic adage. But since " the truth will sometimes leak out, even in an affidavit," let us hope that in this matter also, as in all others, it may ultimately prevail. Meantime I am much struck by the fact that all the recent much-paraded " new Shftkespeare discoveries," whether they be records at Belvoir concerning Burbage and "Mr. Shakespeare," and their not extravagantly paid work " about my Lorde's impreso" ; or those unearthed by Dr. Wallace with reference to " Will's " dealings with, the " tire-maker " at his lodgings in " Muggle Street," and the paltry case of " Bellolt v. Mountjoy " ; or, again, with reference to Shakspere's shares, with the other " deserving men," in the Globe theatre, have brought to light nothing whatever to support the hypothesis that the player was the immortal poet and dramatist, but, when considered in the light of reason and common sense, appear rather to leave the very contrary impression upon the impartial mind. I submit, therefore, that there is scope for further XX IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? research, further investigation, and further consideration before this question can be dismissed from the minds of thinking men as the mere craze of perverted fanatics, and I venture to hope that the present work will prove a use- ful contribution to the discussion, even though the reader may not find himself able to adopt the sceptical conclusion at which I have arrived.^ ' As everybody knows, such is the dearth of evidence and trustworthy in- formation concerning ' 'Shakespeare " that unscrupulous persons have frequently, from time to time, endeavoured to supplement it by forged documents, faked portraits, stories of their own invention, and other dishonest means. One is often confronted by some statement concerning " Will " of Stratford, perhaps published in a widely read newspaper, which is at once accepted as true by the uncritical, and the refutation of which requires no little trouble and investi- gation. As a sample of such a statement — not a very pernicious one, but a mere invention of some perverted ims^nation — I will present the reader with the following, which appeared in the Evening Standard of March isth, 1913, and is therefore quite a " modem instance " : — "A tombstone in the old Masonic Graveyard at Fredericksburg, Virginia, records that Edward Heldon, one of Shakespeare's pall-bearers, is buried there. The inscription on the stone is as follows : ' Here lies the body of Edward Heldon, Practitioner in Physics and Chirurgery. Bom in Bedfordshire, England, in the year of our Lord 1542. Was contemporary with and one of the pall-bearers of William Shakespeare of the Avon. After a brief illness his spirit ascended in the year of our Lord 1618, s^ed 76.' This gravestone was discovered lying flat on the ground, under a tangle of weeds and creepers, with the upper*corner clipped off and the old EngUsh letters dim but traceable." A cutting from the paper containing this remarkable paragraph was forwarded to me by a friend, who apparently considered it a matter of some interest and importance. I pointed out to him that the story \i3S prim& facie very improbable, Edward Heldon (whose "spirit ascended .... aged 76 ") is represented as being one of Shakespeare's pall-bearers at the age of 74. He then either returns to Virginia or goes there for the first time, and dies there at the age of 76. Perhaps he just came over to Stratford for the funeral! What his connection was with "William Shakespeare of the Avon" (I) we do not know. But in order to settle the matter if possible I sent the cutting to my friend, Mr. Thomas Harned, of Philadelphia, Pa., who was so kind as to make inquiries at Fredericksburg, in reply to which he received the following letter from the Clerk of the City Council of that place : — " Sir, — Yours of the 2nd inst. to hand, and in reply will say that I have looked through the Masonic Cemetery here, as well as all the old cemeteries PREFACE xxi of the City, and I can find no trace of any such stone as you describe in the extract sent The Masonic Cemetery here does not date back further than 1752 at the latest [an obvious slip for earliest'], as the Lodge here was not organised until 1752, and if such an inscription as you describe was on a stone the remains would necessarily have been reinterred. It Is ray opinion, after investigation, that such a statement must have been manufactured and not taken from facts, as I made a carefiil examination of all the stones in the Masonic Cemetery, accompanied by one of the best-informed Masons in the State, and could find nothing to corroborate the statement. " (Signed) " A. G. Billingsley, Clerk, City Council." I have thought it worth while to give this instance of a "manufactured" piece of evidence, " not taken from facts," just to show how necessary it is for the Shakespearean student to be constantly on his guard against the "many inventions" of certain unscrupulous members of the "orthodox" faith. CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. Mr. Robertson's Controversial Methods . i II. Shakespeare's Legal Knowledge . . -37 Note on the Stratford Court of Record . 103 III. The Learning of Shakespeare . . ,111 Note {A) On Taylor the Water Poet . 168 Note (£) Mr. Robertson and Judge Willis 171 Note (C) Farmer and "The Hystorie of Hamblet" . . . . .175 IV. The Real Shakespeare Problem . Note on the Elizabethan Playhouse V. The Real Shakespeare Problem {contintied) VI. Professor Dryasdust and "Genius" VII. Shakspere's Will .... VIII. "Shakespeare's" Writing IX. The Name "Shakespeare" . X. Some Allusions to Shakespeare . XI. The Jonsonian Utterances and the First Folio Note on the Jonsonian Utterances . i8i 237 239 283 299 320 33S 35° 371 433 xxiv IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? CHAP. 'AGS XII. More about the First Folio . . • 43S Note on Mr. Pollard's Theory of the Arrangement thereof . . • 45° XIII. Many Pens and One Master Mind . ■ 454 (With a Word on Shakespeare's Vocabitlary) XIV. The Book of the Revels at Court . . 475 XV. Shakspere as a Groom of the Chamber . .481 XVI. The Stratford Monument and the Portraits of Shakespeare ..... 487 XVII. Shakespeare and "Nature". Appendix A. John Davies of Hereford, His Epigram ...... 513 559 Appendix B. The Original Drawing of the Stratford Bust . . . . .563 Appendix C. Mrs. Stopes on Shakespeare . 566 Postscript— Professor Wallace again . 579 Index . . . -587 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? CHAPTER I MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS WHEN, in the summer of 1908, I published my book The Shakespeare Problem Restated, through the good offices of Mr. John Lane, my apprehension, indeed I may say my expectation, was that, except for some hostile and con- tumelious reviews, it would be treated, as I said in my Preface, " with frigid and contemptuous silence." I have, however, been agreeably surprised. Some of the re- viewers were so good as to consider my work, heretical though it was, in quite a sympathetic spirit. But, better still, as showing that the book was not to be treated as a quantiti n^gligeable. Canon (now Dean) Beaching did me the honour to read a paper, highly antagonistic of course to my views, before the Royal Society of Literature, which he subsequently embodied in a book bearing the title William Shakespeare, Player, Play-maker and Poet, published in, I think, November, 1908. This was followed by two long articles in The Nineteenth Century, of March and April, 1909, from the pen of Sir Edward Sullivan, under the genial heading of " The Defamers of Shakespeare." To 2 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? Canon Beeching I replied in a little book, also published at "The Bodley Head/'^ and to Sir Edward Sullivan, first in The Nineteenth Century for June, 1909, and later in The Vindicators of Shakespeare? In the Preface to the latter work I wrote, with reference to my first rather ponderous tome : " The leviathans of literature have, as I anticipated, not condescended to take much notice of it. . . . The Dreadnoughts have remained at their moorings, while the submarines have been despatched to the attack." This state of things, however, was not destined to con- tinue, for in 19 1 2 a "Super-Dreadnought," the late Mr. Andrew Lang to wit, came into action with Shakespeare, Bacon, and the Great Unknown (alas that the work should have been published posthumously), and now, in 1913, Mr. J. M. Robertson, whom I feel unable to characterise respectfully in terms of naval architecture, has launched into this sea of troubles a volume of some six hundred pages, which, as I understand, he believes to have settled the question of Shakespearean authorship for all time to come ! ^ Both Mr. Lang's and Mr. Robertson's works are directed against the Baconian hypothesis, but in large measure also against my humble self Now, for my part, I have never subscribed to the " Baconian Heresy." My book. The Shakespeare Problem Restated, was simply an attempt to put together, in something like rational form and sequence, the arguments, or some of the arguments, which appeared to me to cast doubt upon the received belief that the Stratford player, whom Mr. Lang con- veniently designates by the familiar name of " Will," was the author of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare. I made no attempt, neither have I any thought of making ' In re Shakespeare. Beeching v. Greenwood. Rejoinder on behalf of the Defendant. (John Lane. ) ' Originally published by Messrs. Sweeting & Co., now by John Lane. * The Baconian Heresy — a Confutation. (Herbert Jenkins.) MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 3 any attempt, to say who the author may have been, supposing " Will " was not really the author. " But you are bound," say some, "if you deny the authorship of 'Will,' to tell us who the author really was." What nonsense! I put forward certain arguments against a received hypothesis. If my readers agree with me, well. If they feel shaken in their former faith, and put upon further inquiry, also well. If they disagree with me — if they gnash their teeth, and cry "Yah, defamer of Shakespeare ! " — yet again " well, though not so well " 1 I regard the question as one of great literary interest. But whether it be solved, or whether it be left unsolved, the world will go on very much as before. The Works of Shakespeare will, thank heaven, be still with us, and, that being so, what matters it who wrote them ? just about as much as it matters whether one man, called Homer, wrote the Iliad, as Mr. Lang thdught (not to rriention the Odyssey as well), or whether those immortal books were the product of evolution, as Professor Gilbert Murray so forcibly and learnedly argues in his Rise of the Gree^ Epic. These, I repeat, are fascinating questions, of great literary interest, but certainly it does seem rather absurd to wrangle, and lose our tempers about them, and to hurl vituperative epithets at those who disagree with us. So, dear but explosive critic, whoever you may be, let us both remember that When you and I behind the veil are past. Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last. Which of our coming and departure heeds As the Sea's self should heed a pebble-cast ! And now let me make a frank admission. Since I published The Shakespeare Problem Restated some six years have passed away. Much critical water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I fully admit that were I to bring out a new edition of that much-assailed work I 4 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? should find much to alter, much to re-model, much to re- write. What was responsible for bringing it into exist- ence? Mainly the perusal of so-called " Biographies" of Shakespeare, full of the "fanciful might-have-beens," stating bare possibilities, and sometimes extreme improbabilities, as actual biographical facts; works of imagination and not of history; fond things vainly invented. I have at least done something useful if I have helped to clear away some of these finely-spun delusive cobwebs, to prick some of these preposterous bubbles of uncritical and not too scrupulous imagination. "The biographers must re-write their Lives of Shakespeare," exclaimed a well-known critic in a review of my book which appeared in one of the London newspapers, soon after its publication ; and I am not without hopes that his advice may bear good fruit. It is just possible that its effect may be seen in Professor Saintsbury's very re- strained account of Shakespeare's Life which appears in The Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. V, chap. VIII, wherein he writes that "almost all the com- monly received stuff of his [Shakespeare's] life story is shreds and patches of tradition, if not positive dream work." Now one of the ideas which were operative in my mind when I wrote my book — which, by the way, had taken several years to put together — was to take the assertions of the " Shakespeareans " — or may I, without offence, make use of the very convenient and compendious term, " Stratfordians"? — as I found them, and carry them to what seemed to me their logical conclusions. 1 found, for example, that one of the acutest, most learned, and most distinguished of Shakespearean critics, Malone to wit, himself a lawyer of no mean authority, had written of Shakespeare : " His knowledge of legal terms is not merely such as might be acquired by the casual observa- tion of even his all-comprehending mind ; it has the MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 5 appearance of technical skill." I found that Steevens entertained a similar opinion. I found that such an eminent lawyfer as Lord Campbell, who had been both Lord Chief Justice of England and Lord Chancellor, had written a letter to Mr. Payne Collier, subsequently- published in book form, in which he bore testimony not only to the frequency but to the wonderful accuracy with which Shakespeare makes use of legal terms and expressions. I found that another lawyer, of unimpeach- able "orthodoxy," namely Richard Grant White, a very distinguished Shakespearean, had written : " No dramatist of the time, not even Beaumont, who was the younger son of a judge of the Common Pleas, and who, after studying in the Inns of Court, abandoned law for the drama, used legal phrases with Shakespeare's readiness and exact- ness ! . . . legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his vocabulary and parcel of his thought." I found that Charles and Mary CoWden Clarke — ^not lawyers these, but critics whose names will ever be remembered in the history of Shakespearean bibliography — spoke of "the marvellous intimacy which he displays with legal terms, his frequent adoption of them in illustration, and his curiously technidal knowledge of their form and force." I found that even Sir Sidney Lee had spoken of " Shakespeare's accurate use of legal terms, which deserves all the attention that has been paid it," making reference in a foot-note to Lord Campbell on Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements. There was more authority to the same effect,! and as this appeared to be, on the whole, an accepted position among Stratfordians of light and lead- ing, I certainly imagined I was fully justified in making ' Amongst others Mr. W. L. Rushton, a well-known barrister in his day, had written a book called Shakespeare a l.awyer (1858) before Lord Campbell published his letter to Mr. Payne Collier. It has been said that his lordship made free use of Mr. Rushton's work without making acknowledgment. It must be remembered that all the lawyers I have cited were entirely "orthodox." 6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? argumentative use of it, relying more especially on Malone's high authority both as lawyer and critic. But John P. Robinson he Sez this kind o' thing's an exploded idee. In other words, " M.P. Robertson he " now asserts that the whole of this is ridiculous nonsense ; that beyond a knowledge of "the common vocabulary of lawyers," so easily picked up, there is really no law at all in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems, or, at any rate, no more than is to be found in the works of many contemporary dramatists who were not lawyers and had had no legal education. He waxes wroth with the unhappy Lord Campbell's " scandalous deliverances," and declares that the use which I have made of his "egregious treatise" calls for " somewhat serious reprehension " ! He therefore proceeds to " reprehend " me in good set terms, and to his own entire satisfaction. Well, it amuses him and does not muck hurt me ! But if it can really be proved that Malone, and Steevens, and Lord Campbell, and Rushton, and Grant White, and Mr. Castle, K.C., and all the rest, were labouring under an entire delusion as to Shakespeare's supposed knowledge of law, the sooner that delusion can be dispelled the better will it be for all parties concerned. For myself I am conscious of only one desire in this con- nection, which is to ascertain the truth. But I will say another word or two later concerning this question, and on the proof offered by Mr. Robertson in support of his thesis.^ Then, again, there was the vexed question of the learning of Shakespeare. A very learned and distinguished Professor, who regarded unorthodox opinions concerning Shakespeare with positive loathing, had written three very striking articles in The Fortnightly Review for April, May, ' See chap. ii. MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 7 and July, 1903, with the object of demonstrating that Shakespeare, in spite of all that had been advanced to the contrary, had really a very extensive knowledge of classical literature. These articles, which were subse- quently republished in Mr. Churton Collins's Studies in Shakespeare (1904), had won, I found, a large measure of acceptance among orthodox Shakespeareans. Being convinced myself that the author of Hamlet and Leavy if not a " scholar " in the modern acceptation of that term, was, at any rate, not an unlearned but, on the contrary, a highly cultured man, I made argumentative use of those articles also. Mr. Robertson says I did so "without investigation," and that this amounts to " a confession of critical insolvency " on my part. I am unable to " own the soft impeachment." But I must postpone the further consideration of this matter to a later page.^ Suffice it here to note that Mr. Robertson's two main contentions are (i) that Shakespeare really knew no more law than " the common vocabulary of lawyers " of his date, and (2) that Shakespeare had really no classical knowledge at all, but only " small Latin and less Greek " in the strictast interpretation of those familiar words. If these two pints are established, Mr. Robertson appears to think that fhe unorthodox case is finally disposed of. ^ to that we shall see further. But at this point it may be well to consider briefly Mr. Robertson's own position and controversial methods. He begins by depre- cating the resentment of those to whom the term " heresy," as used by him, may apply, since " a heresy is but a mode of ophion " ; and he is careful to tell us that " being him- self ojen to indictment for serious heresy in more than one fidd of doctrine," he " is not likely to employ it as an asperson." Mr. Robertson, therefore, does not take me to task fcf impugning the authority of a tradition which has been ii existence for nearly three hundred years ; indeed, ' See chap. in. 8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? he could not well do so, seeing that he himself has taken arms against a tradition now nearly two thousand years old. For that length of time it has been generally held that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical personage, who really lived and breathed and had being in Judaea, and who really suffered death in the time of Pontius Pilate. Now Mr. Robertson denies the truth of this tradition. He has written strongly in opposition to "the historicity of Jesus." I am not finding fault with him for that. I am for the free and unrestricted discussion of all these questions. I only mention the fact to show, in the first place, that Mr. Robertson is trebly a heretic as compared with me, though I am quite aware that at the present time it is considered a far worse thing to be heretical in the matter of the Stratfordian than in the matter of the Christian gospel ; and, secondly, because these heretical views of Mr. Robertson's have brought dim into violent conflict with Dr. F. C. Conybeare, the au hor of Myth, Magic and Morals, and himself a rationalist ; and in view of the position which Mr. Robertsonlhas assumed in the Shakespearean controversy, and his qaim to instruct us in matters of scholarship and claiical knowledge, I think it is not irrelevant to glance pr a moment at a passage which this critic, Mr. Robeijtson to wit, who is nothing if not strictly sane and ruly " scientific," has committed to paper. " He hunts up," writes Dr. Conybeare (in The Literary GuicR of December ist, 1912), "in a dictionary of mythqogy, mother-goddesses with names distantly resempling Maria — forgetting or ignorant that Mariam is the Greek form — and triumphantly concludes that Miriam in Mark was a myth blended of them all. Hire is the passage : | It is not possible from the existing data to connect histjrically such a cult with its congeners ; but the mere analogy of nanEs and epithets goes far. The mother of Adonis, the slain ' Lord/ of the MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 9 great Syrian cult, is Myrrha ; and Myrrha in one of her myths is the weeping tree from which the babe Adonis is born. Again, Hermes, the Greek Logos, has for mother Maia, whose name has further connections with Mary. In one myth, Maia is the daughter of Atlas, thus doubling with Maira, who has the same father, and who, having 'died a virgin,' was seen by Odysseus in Hades. Mythologically, Maira is identified with the Dog Star, which is the star of Isis. Yet again, the name appears in the East as Maya, the Virgin-Mother of Buddha ; and it is remarkable that, according to a Jewish legend, the name of the Egyptian princess who found the babe Moses was Merris. The plot is still further thickened by the fact that, as we learn from the monuments, one of the daughters of Ramses II was named Meri. And as Meri meant 'beloved,' and the name was at times given to men, besides being used in the phrase 'beloved of the gods,' the field of mythic speculation is wide. " And we feel that it is indeed wide," adds Dr. Conybeare, "when, on p. 301, the three Mariams mentioned by Mark are equated with the three Moirai or Fates ! " Mr. Robertson has referred to many ignorant and silly pronouncements — cryptic utterances, supposed parallels, and "mythic speculations" — made by some extreme Baconians, but I doubt if he can produce from the publications of that derided sect anything much worse than this. Quantula sapiential as Mr. Andrew Lang would have said. I make no attempt to pronounce on the merits of the main issue as between Mr. Robertson and Dr. Conybeare. It is a very pretty quarrel as it stands. I only cite the above amazing passage as illus- trating Mr. Robertson's credentials, as furnished by himself.' ' Dr. Conybeare concludes his article with the following words : " Mr. Robertson's explanations of the origins of Christianity are many times more miraculous than anything in the Gospels, and irequire of us, in order to their acceptance, far more credulity than would satisfy the present Pope ! " Dr. Conybeare has now {1914) republished this criticism in his book. The Historical Christ (Watts & Co. ), wherein he roundly accuses Mr. Robertson of " childish, all-embracing, and overwhelming credulity," as well as of lack of scholarship, and says that his " temper is that of the Bacon-Shakesperians," lo IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? Here let me say that Mr. Robertson has been so very frank and outspoken in his expression of opinion con- cerning my views and arguments that he has relieved me of all necessity to mince my words when dealing with his book. If therefore my language should be found to be somewhat vigorous at times, he will, I am sure, recognise in it that sincerest form of flattery which consists in imitation. I will not, however, go as far as that highly distinguished and most " orthodox " Shakespearean scholar and critic, Professor Saintsbury, who has styled Mr. Robertson one of the "craziest topsy-turvyfiers of actual fact," and charged him with having passed the bounds of all rational literary criticism ! " But where has Professor Saintsbury said that ? " Mr. Robertson will ask. I will tell him. In The Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. V, at p. 178, Professor Saintsbury writes : " Titus Andronicus, as we have it, has been denied to Shakespeare, but this denial really passes the bounds of all rational literary criticism. The play, we know, was acted and published in 1594; it is included with Shakespeare's by Meres in 1 598 ; it is included in the folio by Shakespeare's intimates and dramatic associates in 1623. If we are to disregard a three-fold cord of evidence like this, the whole process of literary history becomes a mere absurdity — a game of All Fools with the prize for the craziest topsy-turvyfier, as Thackeray would say, of actual fact." Now Mr. Robertson holds very strongly that Titus Andronicus ought to be " denied to Shake- speare." He has, indeed, written a book in support of that contention. So here is Mr. Robertson — the rationalist, the sane, the scientific — actually held up to scorn by a in which remark I find not a little entertainment. (See the work cited at p. 70 et seq. and p. 182.) Dr. Conybeare's book will well repay perusal. I am by no means sure that he has not proved Mr. Robertson guilty (to use that writer's own characteristic expression at p. ix of his Preface) of having published "the most consummate paralogism in the literature of biography " ! MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS ii learned and " orthodox " Professor as having passed the bounds of all rational literary criticism! The fact is, however, that the Militants of the orthodox Stratfordian faith are constantly engaged in internecine wars, being hopelessly at variance in their opinions, and are given to make use of language concerning one another almost as strong as they employ concerning the deluded Baconians, and sometimes concerning my humble self Mr. Robertson may, indeed, retort, as against me, that I have myself expressed the belief that Titus is not Shakespearean, and must, therefore, be equally amenable with him to Professor Saintsbury's contumelious observations. That is true. But it must be small comfort to Mr. Robertson to find himself associated in this matter with one for whose reasoning powers he appears to entertain such lofty scorn. But Professor Saintsbury's remarks might, I think, give him pause with regard to his own excessive " cocksureness " of tone and language. My friend, Mr. Thomas Harned, of Philadelphia, one of Walt Whitman's literary executors, told me that Walt used frequently to say to him, "Be sure, Tom, be sure — but don't be too damned sure " ! I would respectfully commend that excellent advice to Mr. J. M. Robertson. At this point I think it will be instructive to give two samples of Mr. Robertson's controversial methods. At p. I S of The Baconian Heresy I read as follows :— " The argument [i.e. my argument] is in parts so inco- herent that I cannot be sure of its drift. ' Another extraordinary fact in this amazing life,' writes Mr. Greenwood (p. 199), ' is that with the exception of the Plays, and Venus and Adonis, and the Lucrece, and the Sonnets, and that puzzle-poem The Phoenix and the Turtle, Shakespeare appears to have written nothing, unless we are to accept the above-mentioned doggerels ^ [on ' The italics are Mr. Robertson's. 12 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? the tombstone] as his indeed! If 'Shakespeare' was but a nom de plume this need not excite surprise.'" . . " ' With the exception of . . . ! '" cries Mr. Robert- son. "Mr. Greenwood seems to mean that the man who wrote the Plays and Poems must (for some occult reason) have written many other things, and that these other things are presumably extant over another man's signature. Yet he makes no attempt whatever to identify the man. Of such reasoning I can make nothing." The innuendo here is obvious, and Mr. Robertson accentuates it by italics. " See," he says in effect, " what an idiot this fellow is ! He is amazed to find that Shakespeare wrote nothing except, forsooth, the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare! What more does he want, I wonder 1 " And, that there may be no doubt of what is intended, Mr. Robertson asks me in a note if I "deny the hall-mark of the sonnet to Florio, prefixed to the First Frutes" and if I am "quite sure about The Lover's Complaint." He then proceeds to speculate as to what my meaning can possibly be, but says he "can make nothing" of it. But if my readers will kindly turn to the passage quoted from my book they will see that Mr. Robertson has unaccountably sup- pressed the words that immediately follow upon those which he has selected for publication, words which make my meaning absolutely clear, and which show that my " reasoning," though, perhaps, not very original, is quite sane, and perfectly simple. After the words cited by Mr. Robertson, in order to exhibit me in a ridiculous light, the passage proceeds: "But if Shak- spere was indeed Shakespeare it does seem unaccount- able that he should have written no lines to friends or patrons, no elegies on famous men or women of his day, no lyrics other than those, or some of those, which appear in the dramas, no epigrams, no epitaphs, no epitha- MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 13 lamiums. Take Jonson's case, for example. Jonson wrote hundreds of poems which in that day were classed as ' epigrams.' ... In these poems, and in his prologues and epilogues, he is continually giving us broad indications cJf his own personality; Shakespeare never gives us a glimpse of his. . . . His plays ' did take Eliza and our James,' yet the great Queen dies, and he sheds no melodious tear. . . . Prince Henry dies, 'than which,' says Grosart, 'no death since Sydney's had so moved the heart of the nation as none evoked such splendid sorrow from England's foremost names — with one pro- digious exception.' And the one prodigious exception is Shakespeare " ! ^ I feel at a loss to know how to characterise this. A fair-minded critic would surely have quoted the whole passage as it stands in my book. The reader would then have seen that I have only here expanded and emphasised the "remarkable fact," recognised by Mr. Robertson himself, that Shakespeare played the part of " William the Silent " on occasions when one would have confidently expected to have heard his voice. For in Mr. Robertson's Montaigne and Shake- speare I find this reflection (p. 219): "It is certainly a remarkable fact that Shakespeare abstained from joining in the poetic outcry over her (Elizabeth's) death, incurring reproof by his silence." It would then have been perfectly fair to have objected that, in the critic's opinion, this "remarkable fact" has not the relevancy which I suggested it might have upon the question of authorship. But what am I to say of the passage published in mutilated form, and Mr. Robertson's 1 The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 200. In his recently published posthumous work, Shakespeare Personally, Professor Masson characterises this "reticence," "non-concern," and "non-participation" on the part of Shakespeare as "perfectly astonishing." "In this respect," says Masson, "he was almost [? quite] singular among his contemporaries" (p. 52 et seq. ), 14 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? comments upon it so exhibited ? I will leave the impartial reader to answer that question.^ I will give one more instance of the same method of procedure. In order to show that the use of legal terms and expressions was habitual with seventeenth-century writers and speakers (this, of course, upon the question of Shakespeare's alleged knowledge of law), the late Judge Willis published some extracts from a sermon preached by one Thomas Adams at St. Paul's Cross in 1612, in which he introduced some not very striking legal terms, which will be found quoted at pp. 392-3 of my book, The Shakespeare Problem Restated. Upon this instance of a divine making use of legal expressions I then proceed to make certain comments. But let us first see how Mr. Robertson puts the case. Having cited certain utterances of Bishop Hooper, he proceeds (p. 170): "After this we can understand how a later divine, Thomas Adams, could deliver in a sermon the ' legal ' passages cited from him by Mr. Judge Willis \sic\, and candidly quoted by Mr. Greenwood, who can offer no better semblance of a rebuttal ' Before leaving this matter I feel I ought to answer the question put to me by Mr. Robertson: "Does Mr. Greenwood deny the hall-mark of the sonnet to Florio, prefixed to the First Fruits ? And is he quite sure about TkeLovet's Complainti" Well, as to the latterpoem, which was first printed in 1609, at the end of the volume of Sonnets, I have no wish to dispute the Shakespearean authorship, which Sir Sidney Lee says is "possible." As Mr. Gollancz writes : ' ' Francis Meres may possibly have included it in his suggestive 'et cetera,' when he enumerated the poems of 'mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare.' " The sonnet to Florio, prefixed to his Second Frutes (not "First Frutes" as Mr. Robertson writes in error) is a matter of greater interest. Mr. Robertson suggests that it bears the " hall-mark " of Shakespeare, and I think he is probably right. Of that opinion were Professors Minto and Baynes amongst others. The sonnet purports to be from "Phaethon to his friend Florio," and if Mr. Robertson's suggestion be accepted, ' ' Phaethon " is Shakespeare. But Florio describes this sonnet as written by " a gentleman, a friend of mine that loved better to be a Poet than to be counted so." This is remarkable. Can it be said of William Shakspere of Stratford that he was "a gentleman that loved better to be a Poet than to be counted so " ? Hardly ! MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 15 than the suggestion that Adams had ^probably looked into some law books, and perhaps been thrown into legal com- pany.' ^ Now the passages cited are so technical that, had Lord Campbell found them in Shakespeare, he would have reckoned them 'the best stakes in his hedge,' as Hooker would say. If it be rational to explain Adams' law by the ' probably ' and the ' perhaps' above cited, why, in the name of reason and consistency, should not the same suggestion hold in the case of Shakespeare ? " Now, if the reader will once again be so kind as to turn to my book, at p. 393, he will find that this is another distressing instance of quoting what is convenient, and leaving unquoted that which does not so well suit the critic's case. It is not true that I "can offer no better semblance of a rebuttal than the suggestion that Adams had probably looked into some law books, and perhaps been thrown into legal company." True it is that I suggest this as a reader's first comment on Adams's repro- duction of some legal jargon which, though Mr. Robertson, following Judge Willis, calls it "technical," is, certainly, not a proof of anything more than a superficial acquaint- ance with the ordinary vocabulary of lawyers, but, so far am I from contenting myself with this explanation that I proceed to show why, in Adams's case, the use of such language can hardly be cited as typical of the ordinary practice of seventeenth-century preachers. "This legal terminology," I say, " used by the preacher certainly does not prove that he had had a regular legal training ; they (the legal expressions) are, however, examples of that ' omnivorous learning and recondite reading ' for which, as Dr. Grosart has told us, he was famous, and ' the spoils ' whereof he constantly ' lays under contribution.' " But I do not stop there, for I point out that there was a special reason why Adams was " so fond of displaying his • Mr. Robertson puts " probably " and " perhaps " into italics. The other italics are mine. i6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? familiarity with certain legal terms," viz. because "he was ' observant chaplain ' to Sir Henry Montague, Lord Chief Justice of England, and had dedicated to^ him a work on the ' Spiritual Prerogatives of the Church.' That Thomas Adams, a man of omnivorous learning and recon- dite reading, observant chaplain to the Lord Chief Justice, thrown much among lawyers, and constantly preaching to them, should have affected the use of legal terminology in his sermons is not very remarkable. The only thing which, as it seems to me, can be inferred from the analogy is that Shakespeare also was a man ' of omnivorous learn- ing and recondite reading.' " All this is omitted by Mr. Robertson, with the effect that he represents me as having no better " semblance of a rebuttal " to the case cited by the gentleman whom he quaintly styles " Mr. Judge Willis" than the "probably" and the " perhaps " of which he speaks so contemptuously. It is very easy to " score " off an opponent by such methods as these. I will now present the reader with another very re- markable instance of the Robertsonian style and the Robertsonian conception of evidence. In The Times of December 27th, 1905, Mr. Lee (as he then was) occupied two columns with an account of " a discovery about Shakespeare." " It is," he wrote, " in a household account of the expenses incurred at Belvoir by Francis, sixth Earl of Rutland, for the year beginning August, 1612, and ending August, 161 3, that there has lain concealed for nearly three centuries a notice of the great dramatist, which only to-day is made public property. The precise words read thus: — ' 161 3, Item, 31 Martii, to Mr. Shakspeare in gold about my Lorde's impreso, xliiij s ; to Richard Burbage for paynting and making yt, in gold xliiij s — iiij li viij s.' . . . It should be added that the clerk who entered the transaction in the Earl of Rutland's household-book was named Thomas Screvin, and that MR. ROBERTSON'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS 17 the ' item ' was set under the general heading of ' Pay- mentes for howshold stuff, plate, armour, hammers, anvyles, and reparacions.' " Now, in the first place, what is an " impreso," or, more correctly, an "impresa"? I will give the mean- ing in the words of Puttenham (i 533-1600), who, in his Second Book of Proportion Poetical, speaking of device or emblem, says : " The Greeks call it Emblema, the Italians Impresa, and we a Device, such as a man may put into letters of gold and send to his mistresses for a token, or cause to be embroidered in scutchions of arms on any bordure of a rich garment, to give by his novelty marvel to the beholder." So here we have an entry showing that, in the year 161 3, after all the great Shakespearean works had been written, and after William Shakespeare had retired to end his days at his native Stratford, he, "the great dramatist," was engaged with Dick Burbage to work at the Earl of Rutland's new " device," and that each received a sum of 44s. in payment of their services. I pointed out, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated {"p. 343, note), that there is "not much here to show that he (" Will " to wit) was recognised as the 'great dramatist,' and immortal poet," who ought then to have been at the zenith of his fame. And, on thinking it over, some " Shakespeareans " of light and leading seem to have been not a little troubled by this brand-new discovery among the Belvoir papers. The entry, wrote the learned Mrs. Stopes, " did not quite seem to fit into the known facts of the poet's career " ! I should have thought myself that it fitted excellently well into " the known facts " of the life of William Shakspere of Stratford. But, before considering further what Mrs. Stopes has to say on the matter, let us see how Mr. Robertson treats this little incident. Referring in this connection to M. Demblon's theory that the real Shakespeare was Roger Manners, fifth Earl of Rutland, Mr. Robertson writes (p. $86, note) : c i8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? " M. Demblon asserts that the payment, as noted in the family accounts, was to 'William Shakspeare.' It was not: there is no prenomen. M. Demblon is evidently unaware that it has been shown (by Mrs. Stopes, in the Athencmm, May i6, 1908) that 'Mr. Shakspeare' was probably one John Shakspeare, a fashionable bit-maker of the time, concerning whom there are many entries in the Wardrobe Accounts of Charles I, as prince and as king. Among other things, he made ' guilt bosses charged with the arms of England.' Such an artist was very likely to be employed to do the metal work of an impresa. Mr. John Shakspeare would seem to have been a cousin of the poet, which would explain the connection with Burbage. Et voild tout — for the theory of M. Demblon." Now I ask the reader — the sensible, impartial, re- flective reader — to give a few moments' consideration to this passage. With M. Demblon's theory I am not con- cerned, nor have I read his book. It is upon the entry in the Bel voir accounts and Mr. Robertson's treatment thereof that I want to concentrate attention. It will have been seen that, although " no prenomen " is mentioned, yet Sir Sidney Lee has not the least doubt that "Mr. Shakspeare," who was Burbage's companion at Belvoir in 161 3, is "the great dramatist." But that belief does not seem to fit at all nicely with ideas of what the immortal bard ought to have been doing at this time of his life, so near to the " quiet consummation " of his labours, when all his wondrous works had been given to the world. So the thought occurs to the ingenious Mrs. Stopes that, after all, it may be possible to suggest that this " Mr. Shakspeare " was not the immortal William, but " some other gentleman of the same name." Now this would be mighty convenient, if it could be effected ; so she writes a letter tothe.<4/'>%eK which is so unlike the ordinary speech of that airy and sylph-like creature," evidently had in his mind the prophetic speech of Celaeno in Virgil {Mn. Ill, 245), and, for myself, I do not doubt he is right. It will be remembered that Ariel here speaks as a "Harpy," and that Celaeno was chief of the Harpies. (Compare lines 255-8 with the passage in Shakespeare.) See Hunter's New Illustrations of Shakespeare, Vol. I, p. 176. Dr. Anders is of the same opinion (Skakespear^ s Books, p. 31). " See chap. xvii. THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 135 admire and appreciate the immortal bard quite as much as he does, nevertheless protest against the ascription to him of, inter alia, an accurate knowledge of natural history. Among other instances, Sir Edward alludes to Shake- speare's references to the weasel, which is spoken of by Jaques, in As You Like It, as an animal that "sucks eggs," and in other places is referred to as a night- wanderer. As to the latter description of this little animal. Sir Edward writes : " There is one remarkable instance where, without any question, Shakespeare was right in calling the weasel ' night-wandering,' and where, indeed, he shows a knowledge of classical antiquities of a curious kind. When Tarquin has forced an entry into the chamber of Lucrece we read, ' Night-wandering weasels shriek to see him there' — a line that seems to have baffled all the commentators so far as I am aware. But Shakespeare must have known the fact, well under- stood by classical scholars of to-day, that the Romans had no knowledge of what we call a cat, and were in the habit of keeping some animal of the weasel tribe tame in their houses, for the same purposes for which we use the cat." In support of this proposition Sir Edward refers us to Mayor's Juvenal^ and to a learned article in Notes and Queries, Ser. II, viil, pp. 261-3 (1859), and, certainly, it seems established that " some animal of the weasel tribe " was kept by the Romans in their houses for some purpose or another.^ Further, there is no doubt that the weasel, ' The reference given is to " Sat. II, 360, note," but this is an error. It should be "Vol. II, p. 360." The note is on Sat. XV, 7. ^ In one characteristic this animal appears to have been akin to the mon- goose, viz. in its propensity to kill serpents. Abundant authority is to be found in Facciolati's Dictionary, where we read : " Mustela, 70X17, animal quadrupes parvum, sed oblongum, flavi coloris, muribus, columbis, gallinis infestum. Duo autem inquit Plin. I, 29, t. 4, sunt genera : Alterum domesticum, qubd in domibus nostris oberrat, et catulos suos, ut auctor est Cicero, quotidie transfer!, mutatque sedem, serpentes persequitur : alterum silvestre, distans m^nitudine, Graeci IktHo, vocant. " 136 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? though not, perhaps, properly described as a nocturnal animalj is a night-wanderer. This gives us an adequate explanation of the line in Lucrece which has baffled all the commentators. But if Shakespeare really had this knowledge of a curious and obscure fact of "classical antiquity," such knowledge is, surely, very cogent proof of that " wide familiarity with the classics " which I have ascribed to him. However, Sir Edward Sullivan wrote his article before the publication of Mr. Robertson's book, and he will now, "doubtless," sing a palinode and dutifully subscribe to the definite proof which that work has given to the world that Shakespeare was an unlearned man, more especially with reference to the Latin classical authors, and the classics generally ! A word now as to The Comedy of Errors. Con- cerning this play Dr. Johnson wrote (1765) that it " is con- fessedly taken from the Menaechmi of Plautus ; from the only play of Plautus which was then in English. What can be more probable than that he who copied that would have copied more but that those which were not translated were inaccessible ? " The learned Doctor, however, was here in error. Nicholas Rowe, who wrote fifty-six years earlier, was more accurate : " There is one Play of his, indeed. The Comedy of Errors, in a great measure taken from the Menaechmi of Plautus, How that happened I cannot easily divine, since, as I hinted before, I do not take him to have been master of Latin enough to read it in the original, and I know of no translation of Plautus so old as his time." Now, as Mr. Collins writes {Studies in Shakespeare, p. 20), " it is all but certain that the Comedy of Errors was written between 1589 and 1592, and it is quite certain it was written before the end of 1594." In the latter year, indeed, the play was acted at Gray's Inn, as related by the author of the Gesta Graiorum : " After such sport, a THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 137 Comedy of Errors (like to Plautus his Menechmus) was played by the players ; so that night began and continued to the end, in nothing but confusion and errors ; Where- upon it was ever afterwards called the Night of Errors." But Warner's version of the Menaechmi did not appear till 1595. "True," say the critics of the "unlearned Shakespeare" school, "but does not a notice from the printer to the readers, prefixed to Warner's translation, state that this version of Plautus's Comedy had been ' Englished for the use and delight of this private friends, who in Plautus's own words are not able to understand them ' ? What more natural, then, than that Shakespeare should have seen the translation in manuscript? True there is not a jot of evidence to show that Shakespeare was among Warner's friends, or, indeed, had any acquaint- ance with him at all. But he ' might have been '" ! ^ Unfortunately for this theory it is found that not a single name, word, or line of Shakespeare's Comedy is taken from Warner's translation ! Moreover, in the Folio ' Mr. Robertson writes (p. 197 note) : " I may point out to Mr. Greenwood, who is so contemptuous of any ' manuscript ' suggestion, that the printer's advertisement to Warner's translation (entered in 1594) expressly states that it had been circulated some time in MS." Mr. Robertson, I presume, took this from the statement of some careless writer, but it is quite erroneous. He should have examined the work in question (1595) at the British Museum. The printer says nothing about the translation of the Menaechmi having been " circulated " in MS. What he does say is this : " The writer hereof (loving Readers) having diverse of this Poettes comedies Englished, for the use and delight of his private friends, who in Plautus's own words are not able to understand them, I have prevailed so far with him as to let this one go further abroad for a publike recreation and delight to all them that affect the diverse sorts of bookes compiled in this kind, whereof (in my judgment) in harmlesse mirth and quicknesse of fine conceit the most of them come far short of this." It does not necessarily follow from these words that the version of the Menaechmi was one of the ' ' diverse of this Poettes comedies " which had been previously ' ' Englished by Warner for the use and delight of his private friends " ; but even if it was so there is not a scintilla of evidence that Shakespeare was one of these "private friends," and there is no warrant at all for Mr. Robertson's allegation that the printer "expressly states that it had been circiilaied some time in MS." 138 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? edition, Antipholus of Ephesus appears as "Sereptus," evidently taken from the " Menaechmus Surreptus " of Plautus, which agnomen, however, does not appear in Warner's translation. Then, again, the first scene of the third act of Shakespeare's play is directly imitated from another play of Plautus, viz. the Amphitruo (Act I, Scene i, and Act IV, Scenes 1-6). This seems to dispose of the theory that Shakespeare took his Comedy from Warner's translation, even if we assume that he saw it in manuscript. But the " unlearned Shakespeare " school have another string to their bow. There was, it seems, an old play called The Historie of Error performed before Queen Elizabeth "by the children of Powles" in 1576. Shake- speare's play may have been founded upon this old play, and Mr. Robertson calls this a "natural surmise." I point out that we know nothing whatever about this old play. We do not know whether the plot bore the remotest resemblance to that of The Comedy of Errors, ^.n^ there is not one tittle of evidence to connect the two plays together. But then, " after all," says Mr. Robertson, " we do know that there was such a play." If necessary, there- fore, we can fall back upon this old play, and, by making all necessary assumptions, we can escape once more from the danger of admitting that Shakespeare might have been able to read Plautus in the original. Mr. Robertson, however, says that all this is " otiose," and " in the interests of rational Shakespeare-criticism," he says he " will simply indicate what seems the reasonable view of the genesis of the early play. ... It is really not in the least necessary to find a given original for the Comedy. The essential point is that it is a composite work. Anyone who will carefully scan the first two scenes will note that in the first, which has 152 blank-verse lines, the double endings are only 2 per cent. ; while in the second, with 103 blank-verse lines, the double endings number 25 — over 24 per cent." THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 139 And says Mr. Robertson : " I know no theory of verse evolution which would ascribe the two scenes to the same hand in the same period." Therefore the two scenes are by different authors. Which, then, if either, is by Shake- speare ? Apparently the first scene. Here is the proof : " Whereas Shakespeare, like the preceding poets, can broadly be seen to have increased his proportion of double endings as he progressed in his art, the first scene of the Comedy, which has only three double endings, is much better and more pregnant in style than the shorter second scene which has twenty -five. No such dififuse verse as that is to be found in any unquestioned ^ work of his at the time at which he used any such large proportion of double endings. The verse of the second scene, with all its double endings is mostly end-stopped, — a sure mark of early work. Then the second scene is not Shakespeare's to begin with." Q.E.D. Mr. Robertson styles this a " strictly inductive line of inference." We find an increasing number of double endings in Shakespeare " as he progressed in his art," and as this play is early work, he could not have written a scene in which the double endings amount to 24 per cent. It is evident that he wrote the scene where the double endings are only 2 per cent. If we object that in Richard III (e.g.) the double endings are very numerous, we are met by the reply that Shakespeare's share in that play " has long been in dispute." The rule holds in all unquestioned work of Shakespeare's. In fact, the work must be questioned wherever the rule is found not to hold. Then " the verse of the second scene ... is mostly end-stopped." And this is " a sure mark of early work." But this is an early play. Why then should not this be " early work " of Shakespeare's ? I do not know what the answer to that question is. There must, of course, be 1 My italics. I40 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? some conclusive answer, because this is " strictly inductive " logic, and leads up to a very necessary conclusion which brings all things into line. " Two alternatives are open. The play may have been one of collaboration, or it may have been an adaptation by Shakespeare of a previous work. There is certainly no trace of versification in the style of 1576: the double endings in the second scene could hardly be dated earlier than 1591 for any author ; and the theory of collaboration is therefore the more likely one. But on either theory we are relieved of the problem of the classic ' source ' ; for the collaborator may have known his Plautus without resort either to Warner or to the Historic of Error; and it is the collaborator (or previous writer) who begins the Plautine work of the play." The ratiocination is admirable. The play shows no signs of "versification in the style of 1576," the date of the old playacted before Elizabeth, when Shakspere of Stratford was a little boy of twelve, doubtless roaming dreamily by the sweet banks of the Avon, lost in deep poetic musings. On the other hand, Mr. Robertson is able to tell us, from his knowledge of the literature of the period, that the double endings in the second scene cannot be dated (or "could hardly be dated") earlier than 1591, for any author. Therefore, in all probability, Shakespeare wrote this play in collaboration with some unknown author — Mr. Lang's " Bungay " perhaps ! And this " collaborator " (unless, indeed, it were the " previous writer ") wrote the second scene which " begins the Plautine work of the play." And this unknown collaborator (or previous writer) may very well have been able to read Plautus in the original, which Shakespeare certainly could not have done. So now we need not bother about Warner's translation, supposed to have been circulated in manu- script among his private friends, or the old play acted by " the children of Powles " in 1 576. And not only are we relieved of this incubus, but by "this strictly inductive THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 141 line of inference we reach a view of Shakespeare's early work which clears up other mystifications." We can now insist on " a loyal acceptance " of the words " first heir of my invention." If any Shakespearean play can be shown to have made its appearance before 1 593 then such play was either an old play written up by Shakespeare, or it was written in collaboration with somebody else ; for such plays would not have been styled by Shakespeare " heirs " of his invention. And inasmuch as it is impossible to prove that any single play of Shakespeare's was not written in collaboration (if not written over an earlier play), the theory is a perfectly safe one, and cannot possibly be refuted. As to its reasonableness and proba- bility I must leave the reader to form his own opinion. To me it does not commend itself To begin with, it appears to me that the conclusions are arrived at first, and that the arguments in support of them are then adapted to them. The two postulates are : (i) Shakespeare had no knowledge of Latin, and (2) " the first heir of my invention " must be taken to mean that before 1 593 no wholly Shakespearean work, poem, or play had been published. The collaboration, or "writing yp," theory will fit in with both these conclusions, and, therefore, " inductive logic " tells us to adopt it. For myself, I do not profess to know exactly \yhat Shakespeare had in his mind when he wrote of the " first heir of his invention," or how far he would consider it necessaiy to be absolutely and strictly accurate in such a matter ; further, I doubt the validity of these '' metrical tests " except within very wide limits indeed ; ^ and I regard the theory that The Comedy of Errors is either an old play " written over," or a play written in collaboration, as merely an unproved ' As to metrical tests, Professor Masson writes : " There are objections to any trust being placed in these tests, and to some extent they conflict with each other, and with the external evidences" (Shakespeare Personally, P- 75)- 142 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? hypothesis. But the theory is, doubtless, a mighty con- venient one, and has just that appearance of being scientific which is so dear to the votaries of pseudo- science. In marked contrast with all this is the opinion of that enthusiastically "orthodox" Shakespearean scholar, the late Professor Churton Collins, who tells us, "it is probable almost to certainty that Shakespeare must have read Plautus in the original," adding, " of his familiarity, indeed, with Plautus, there can be no question." As to the arguments in support of this proposition, I can only refer the reader to the Essay on " Shakespeare as a Classical Scholar " in the work cited. I may, however, give one of them as an example. In The Comedy of Errors (III, i) Antipholus of Ephesus says to Dromio of Ephesus, " Well, I'll break in ; go borrow me a crow." To which Dromio replies, "A crow without a feather? ... If a crow help us in, sirrah, we'll pluck a crow together." To which Antipholus rejoins, " Go get thee gone ; fetch me an iron crow." Mr. Collins points out, as Steevens had done before him, that " the play on the word ' crow,' meaning a 'crow-bar,' as well as the bird, is exactly analogous to the play on ' upupa,' which means a ' hoopoe ' or a ' mattock,' in the third scene of the fifth act of the Captive'' I do not think considerations of this nature — and there are a great many others — deserve to be treated with quite that measure of Olympian contempt which Mr. Robertson metes out to them ; but no doubt he would say, if he recognises that there is any substance in the argument at all, that this portion of the play was written by the " collaborator," who, of course, knew his Plautus "without resort either to Warner or to the Historic of Error." Et voild, tout I Mr. Collins has written that Farmer is silent "on almost all of the classical parallels which are really worth THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 143 considering"; upon which Mr. Robertson says: "That charge was disingenuous in the highest degree.'' The epithet is sadly misplaced. Whatever else Mr. Collins's statement (which Mr. Robertson calls a "charge") may have been, it was not " disingenuous." One cannot doubt that Mr. Collins so wrote because he was convinced that the statement was true, and true I submit it is. If Mr. Robertson can prove that it is not warranted by the facts let him do so. "Mr. Greenwood," says Mr. Robertson, " without going to Farmer for himself, does not scruple to cite from Mr. Churton Collins — whose judgment he elsewhere derides — the charge" in question. This, of course, is " pretty Fanny's way," but it happens to be quite untrue. " Without going to Farmer for himself" ! I very much doubt if Mr. Robertson has spent half the amount of time that I have in the study of Farmer's notorious Essay. As to the not very wise parenthesis with regard to my having dissented from Mr. Collins's judgment concerning Shakespeare's law in Titus, it is but a re- petition of the fallacy previously noticed, that if one accepts a writer as an authority upon one thing one must so accept him upon all things — that if one agrees with him on one point one must agree with him on all points, and viceversa} Again, Mr. Collins writes, concerning the "classical parallels " adduced by Farmer, " of the very few which he is obliged to notice he disposes by assuming that Shakespeare had been raking in Ronsard, mediaeval homilies, and the uncouth Scotch jargon of Douglas's Virgil. That a sensible man like Farmer should not see that, if Shakespeare recalls the jiEneid and the Fasti, the balance of probability is much more in favour of his having ' Mr. Robertson calls Judge Willis as a witness in his favour in the matter of the "Baconian Mint," but "derides," or, at any rate, discredits his "judgment " in the matter of Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin. 144 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? gone to the Latin than of his having troubled himself to spell out mediaeval homilies and archaic Scotch is indeed strange." But this, says Mr. Robertson, "is mere mis- representation on Mr. Collins's part," because " Stanyhursfs Virgil is not mediaeval homily or archaic Scotch; and Farmer's point was that the phrase could have currency in English." Mr. Robertson, we observe, has here substituted " Stanyhurst's Virgil " for " Douglas's Virgil," but he should have quoted the entire passage to which Mr. Collins was alluding. Gildon had written : " It is plain that he [Shakespeare] was acquainted with the Fables of antiquity very well : that some of the arrows of Cupid are pointed with lead, and others with gold, he found in Ovid ; and what he speaks of Dido, in Virgil : nor do I know any translation of these poets so ancient as Shakespeare's time." Whereupon Farmer observes: " We are not answerable for Mr. Gildon's ignorance ; he might have been told of Caxton and Douglas, of Surrey and Stanyhurst, of Phaer and Twyne, of Fleming and Golding, of Tuberville and Church)rard." Farmer adds, very truly, that " these fables were easily known without the help of either the originator or the translations," but Mr. Collins was, of course, alluding to the list of old authors above cited as possible sources of Shakespeare's information, just as an ode of Ronsard had been pre- viously suggested by Farmer as the possible source of a passage in Timon of Athens (IV, 3, 439 et seq.), in which critics had seen strong reminiscences of Anacreon. On the whole, I venture to say a charge of" misrepresentation " has seldom been made with less justification than this which is so lightly brought by Mr. Robertson against the late Professor Collins.^ ' I may mention that Stanyhurst translated the first four books only of the ^»«rfin English hexameters (1583). Douglas, Bishop of Dunkeld, translated " The XIII bukes of Eneados of the famose poete Virgill. Book XIII from the Latin of M. Vegius" (1553). THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 145 Then says Mr. Robertson: "Neither Mr. Collins nor Mr. Greenwood has made the slightest attempt to medt Farmer's point, that Taylor, the Water-poet, who avowed his failure to get through the Latin accidence, and his ignorance of all languages but his own, has a far greater number of classical allusions than occur in. all the Shakespeare plays." It is sad to have to waste valuable time in meeting such an argument, but it must, I suppose, be done if only for the edi6cation of those members of the community whom "we suffer gladly." I may mention, in the first place, that Farmer does not ascribe to John Taylor " a far greater number of classical allusions" as Mr. Robertson writes, but " more scraps of Latin, and allusions to antiquity" than are to be found in Shakespeare. Farmer, When he wrote as above, was answering an argument of Mr. Whalley, who thought the words in The Tempest, High Queen of State, Great Juno comes. I know her by her gait, were an indication of "Shakespeare's knowledge of ancient Poetick story, and that the hint was furnished by the Divum incedo Regina of Virgil." Hereupon Farmer SElys that " by the help of Mr. Whalley' s argument " he will prove "honest John Taylor, the Water-poet," to be " a learned man." He then quotes a passage from Taylor where this " honest John " makes a gallant address his lady : " Most inestimable Magazine of Beauty — in whom the Port and Majesty of Juno, the Wisdom of Jove's braine-bred girle, and the Feature of Cytherea, have their domestical habitation." Here I may say in passing that I do not think the passage cited from " the Water-poet " is really a parallel to that quoted from The Tempest, because, as I have already said, I conceive the words " I know her by her gait " are really founded — not on the Divum incedo Regina L 146 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of Mr. Whalley, but — on the Latin words et vera incessu patuit dea, and that they do show knowledge of Virgil to that extent, whether derived from the original or from a translation. But let that also pass. Dr. Farmer pro- ceeds to comment on an observation made by Dr. Warburton to the effect that Shakespeare shows "his knowledge in the Antique" because " in the Merchant of Venice we have an oath ' By two-headed Janus.' " Here Farmer again cites the Water-poet, " who describes Fortune Like Janus with a double-face.'' He continues : " You perceive, my dear Sir, how vague and indeterminate such arguments must be: for in fact this sweet Swan of Thames, as Mr. Popq calls him, hath more scraps of Latin," etc., as quoted above.^ Now, as against " such arguments " as those quoted by Farmer from Whalley and Warburton (more especially in the latter case), we may, perhaps, admit some force in Farmer's appeal to the writings of John Taylor. If anyone attributes to Shakespeare a knowledge of the Latin classics, or of the Latin language, simply on the " scraps of Latin " that are to be found in his works, or to such " allusions to antiquity " as is afforded by the mention of the names of classical gods, goddesses, heroes, ^ Charles Knight writes thus upon this piece of criticism : " Fanner upon this displays his unfairness and impertinence very strikingly : ' In the Merchant of Venice we have an oath, By two-headed Janus ; and here says Dr. Warburton, Shakespeare shows his knowledge in the antique, and so again [says Farmer] does the Water-poet, who describes Fortune — 'Like Janus with a double face.' Farmer had just told us that 'honest John Taylor, the Water-poet, declares that he never learned his Accidence, and that Latin and French were to him Heathen Greek.' Now, Warburton's remark does not apply to the simple use by Shakspere of the term ' two- headed Janus,' but to the propriety of its use in association with the image which was passing in Salario's mind, of one set of heads which would ' laugh like parrots,' — and others of ' vinegar aspect ' — the open mouth'd and closed mouth'd — ' strange fellows,' — as different a? tlje Janus looking to the east, and the Janus looking to the west." . THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 147 localities, et hoc genus omne, then he may well be answered, as Farmer answered " such arguments " as those he was considering, by being confronted with the case of Taylor, the Water-poet. If he will turn to the works of that " sweet Swan of Thames," he will find instances in plenty of such " allusions to antiquity " as these. Take, for example, Taylor's poem, A Very Merry Wherry Ferry Voyage. Here he will find Lucifer, Aurora, Phoebus, Zephyrus, Auster, Neptune, Scylla, Ckarybdis, Aeolus, Apollo, Astraea, Jove, Saturn, Inachus, Thetis, Latona. In other works he will find Achilles, Ulysses, Pallas, Melpomene, Cerberus, Charon's boat, Cimmerian gloom, Tantalus, Sisyphus, Argus eyei, Nemesis, Dis, Polyphemus, etc. Now, if there is nothing more than this in Shake- speare to indicate " a wide familiarity with the classics," then we must freely admit that the Immortal Bard and the Water-poet — the Swan of Avon and the Swan of Thames — are on the same plane so far as their knowledge of Latin and of " the classics " is concerned. And this evidently is the opinion of Mr. Robertson. Just as he showers upon our devoted heads passage after passage from writers contemporaneous with Shakespeare, who make use of legal terms although they show no real knowledge of law, so he would, apparently, invite us to compare such lists of names as that which I have com- piled from Taylor's works, and such " scraps of Latin " as he may find there, with the classical allusions which are to be found in the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare ! Here, if I might be allowed to indulge in that sincerest form of flattery which consists in imitation, I would write as follows : " Mr. Robertson, without going to Taylor for himself, does not scruple to cite from Farmer — whose argument he distorts and perverts — the allegation that there is ' a far greater number of classical allusions ' (which are Mr. Robertson's words and not Farmer's) in Taylor the Water-poet than in all the works of Shake- 148 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? speare. That allegation is ridiculous in the highest degree, except as applied with reference to certain arguments of a particular kind ; and Mr. Robertson's reproduction of it without investigation is a confession of critical insolvency." ^ But, possibly, I do Mr. Robertson wrong ; possibly he had read Taylor's works, and possibly he had in mind that learned poet's allusion to Quintilian. Here it is, taken from "Three Weekes, Three Daies, and Three Houres Observation and Travel from London to Han- burgh," 1617: "Most worthy, Sir, as Quintilian in his apothegmes to the naked, learned, Gimnosophists of Aethiopea, very wittily says, Potanto Michayo, Corbatio Monormosco Kayturemon Lescus Ollipufftingere whingo " ! Here we have a very fair sample of Taylor's learning. Ex uno disce omnia. So far as classical learning goes, therefore, these two Swans are, it seems, to be yoked to the same car ! So much for honest John Taylor, the Water-poet Let us now proceed. Farmer, writes Mr. Collins, " makes no reference to the fact that the Rape of Lucrece is de- rived directly from the Fasti of Ovid, of which at that time there appears to have been no English version. . . . The story as told by Shakespeare follows the story as told by Ovid in the second book of the Fasti (H, 721-852). It had also been told in English by four writers, who had likewise modelled their narratives on Ovid — by Chaucer in the Legende of Goode Women, by Lydgate in his Falls of Princes, by Gower in his Confessio Amantis, and, in prose, by Painter in his Palace of Pleasure \ but a careful comparison of these narratives with Shakespeare's, which cannot be given in detail here, will conclusively show that Shakespeare has followed none of them. That Ovid and Ovid only is his original. The details given in 1 I quote from The Baconian Heresy, p. 194, Mutatis mutandis I See Note on John Taylor at the end of this chapter. THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 149 Ovid, which neither Chaucer nor any of the other narrators reproduce, but which are reproduced by Shakespeare, place this beyond question. Thus Shakespeare alone represents the Nunc primum extern^ pectora tacta manu (746) ; Her breasts . . . A pair of maiden worlds unconquered, Save of their lord, no bearing yoke they knew (407-9) ; the fine touch Quid victor gaudes ? haec te victoria perdet (811); A captive victor that hath lost in gain (730). Nor has the 'ter conata loqui, ter destitit' (823) been noticed by Chaucer or the others, though it is reproduced by Shakespeare. ... In Ovid and Shakespeare, though not in Chaucer, or in the others, Lucretia's father and husband throw themselves on her corpse. . . . One touch, indeed, not only proves the scrupulous care with which Shakespeare follows Ovid, but his scholarship too — for the Latin is obscure and difficult. ' Brutus adest, tandemque animo sua nomina fallit,' that is stultifies his name {brutus, stupid) by the courage he shows. This Shake- speare interprets, in the stanza beginning, ' Brutus, who plucked the knife,' etc. ... In a word, a comparison of Chaucer's and Shakespeare's narratives will show that each represents an independent study of the Latin original, and that Shakespeare has followed Ovid with scrupulous care. When this poem was written there was no English translation of the Fasti, and Shakespeare must therefore have read it in the original." ^ ^ In his Did Shakespeare write Titus Andronicus ? (p. 77) Mr. Robertson cites the word "triiimpher" as one of the words special to Titus, and not elsewhere found in Shakespeare, though found in Peele. He had not, it seems, noticed that in Lucrece (1388) we find "triumphing." And in L.L.L., IV, 3, we have the same word so accented: "So ridest thou tridmphing in my woe." ISO IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Then take the well-known passage in The Tempest (V, I): Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes, and groves, etc. Here Farmer tells us that Shakespeare merely followed Golding's version of the Metamorphoses of Ovid (VII, 197- S06), without reference to the original. Mr. Collins, however, makes it certain, to my mind, that this cannot have been so, and that the poet, although he certainly had Golding's translation before him, nevertheless referred to Ovid in the Latin also, for he has translated certain words in the original which have been left untranslated by Golding. Take, for instance, the following lines of Ovid : Ventos abigoque vocoque, Vivaque saxa, suS. convulsaque robora terri, Et silvas moveo ; jubeoque tremiscere monies, Et mugire solum, manesque exire sepulcris. Shakespeare has : ... I have bedimmed The noon-tide sun, caWd forth the mutinous winds. ... To the dread rattling thunder Have I given fire, and rifted Jove's stout oak With his own bolt : . . . . . . graves at my command Have wak'd their sleepers, op''d and let them forth. Now on reference to Golding's version it will be seen that Golding has not, as Shakespeare has, translated the words I have put in italics. "There is nothing in Golding corresponding to the original in ' sua convulsaque robora terra,' which he omits entirely, but Shakespeare accurately recalls it in rifted Jove's stout oak\ while the touch in 'op'd and let them forth' unfolds the meaning of 'exire,' which Golding does not; so again Shake- speare represents 'voco' — 'call'd forth,' which Golding altogether misses." Mr. Robertson makes no atttempt to THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 151 deal with Professor Collins's arguments here, or, indeed, at all. It was from Ovid's Metamorphoses^ again, that Shake- speare got the name "Titania," which in the original is always used as an epithet, and an epithet which Golding invariably translates by a periphrasis, the word itself nowhere occurring in his version.^ At pp. 94-96 of The Shakespeare Problem Restated I have pointed out at length how Mr. E. A. Sonnenschein has proved, almost to demonstration, that Shakespeare drew upon Seneca's De dementia for Portia's great speech in The Merchant of Venice. Here the parallel is so striking that it can hardly be disputed. As Mr. Sonnenschein puts it, "It is only the inimitable form of expression that is Shakespeare's." The ideas are Seneca's. Again, the last two of Shakespeare's sonnets (cliii and cliv) are simply adaptations of a Greek epigram of Marianus, which is to be found in the Palatine Anthology (IX, 637), and which Shakespeare must have read either in the original Greek or in the Latin translation, as there was at that time, so far as is known, no English version.* Of all these, and numerous other arguments to the same effect, Mr. Robertson has really nothing to say — except it be that similar classical allusions may be found in John Taylor, the Water-poet ! In The Shakespeare Problem Restated {^. 124), I wrote as follows : " Hallam, though, as he tells us, he shrank from reopening the vexata quaestio of the learning of ' Why is it that Shakespeare speaks of a " hound of Crete " and of hounds "bred out of the Spartan kind"? (Midiummer Nighfs Dream). Surely he must have had in mind the line of Ovid's Metamorphoses (III, 208), " Gnosius Ichnobates, Spartan^ gente Melampus " ! But, of course, it does not follow that he knew the line in the original. Forbid it, Farmer ! " As to these sonnets, and the allusion to the city of Bath therein, see The Shakespeare Problem Restated, pp. 127-8, 152 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Shakespeare, does not conceal his belief that the great poet had very much more Latin than was commonly supposed. Speaking of 'the phrases unintelligible and improper, except in the case of their primitive roots which occur so copiously in the plays,' he writes : ' In the Mid- summer Night's Dream these are much less frequent than in his later dramas, but here we find several instances, thus: 'Things base and vile, holding no quantity' — for value; rivers 'that have overborne their continents' the continente ripd of Horace; 'compact of imagination ' ; ' something of great constancy ' — for con- sistency; 'sweet Pyramus translated there'; 'the laws of Athens, which by no means we may extenuate'. I have considerable doubt whether any of these expressioris would be found in any of the contemporary prose of Elizabeth's reign ; but could authority be produced for Latinisms so forced, it is still not very likely that one who did not understand their proper meaning would have introduced them into poetry.' " On this I pointed out, inter alia, that it had been denied by Mr. Willis, in his Baconian Mint, that this use of the word continent indicates any classical learning, because the word was, as he showed by reference to North's Plutarch and other writers, used, in Shakespeare's time, for " that which contained," as opposed to the contents. Thus North writes : " The continent exceedeth the thing contained." While freely admitting this, how- ever, I pointed out that it did not altogether dispose of the value of Shakespeare's allusion to rivers "that have overborne their continents" as suggestive of classical knowledge, because " the point is that Shakespeare uses ' continents of rivers ' in the sense ' banks of rivers,' which is exactly Horace's continente ripd" although Horace is speaking of sea-banks and not river-banks. Mr. Robertson (p. 254. note) says this is an "obvious error" on my part. It may be an "obvious error" to the scholars of THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 153 Mr. Robertson's "Academe" who take their pleasure in the 'Aiaivihog xijroi, but to others, I fancy, the error will appear to be Mr. Robertson's own. The " continents of rivers " means the containing banks of rivers ; and continens ripa means the containing bank, so that the one expression is exactly the equivalent of the other. In each case it is the bank which is the continent} Mr. Robertson does not appear to dispute Hallam's proposition that "could authority be produced for Latinisms so forced, it is still not very likely that one who did not understand their proper meaning would have intro- duced them into poetry." It follows, therefore, that the poet at least understood the derivation of these Latinisms from " their primitive roots," and made use of them with an appreciation of their original meaning; just as he understood and appreciated the derivation of the word "capricious" from caper, a goat, when he made Touch- stone say {As You Like It, 111,3): "I am heere with thee, and thy Goats, as the most capricious Poet, honest Ovid was among the Gothes." Ovid in his banishment dwelt among a Thracian tribe, Goths or Gates, the ^ Mr. Robertson writes, more suo, that " Hallam's qualified oditer dictum has been adopted without scrutiny " by me, " as a support to the ' classical ' theory." Hallam's observations are not an obiter dictum, but represent his considered judgment; and they were not adopted "without scrutiny" by me. When, by the way, Mr. Robertson says of the word " confer " (p. 256) that for writers of Shakespeare's time it "meant ... as in Latin, 'com- pare,' " it seems that he had misread the Oxford Dictionary in this case. When (e.g.) Ben Jonson said that he wrote his verses prefixed to Sylvester's translation of Du Bartas "before he understood to confer," he did not mean to "compare" but to converse in French so as to understand it. In the same way he wrote : " How can I speak of thy great pains but err? Since they can only judge who can confer." Hence we have the word "conference." "The 'cf.' of our foot-note references," referred to by Mr. Robertson, does not stand for the English word " copfer," but for the imperative of the Latin verb conferre. 154 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Getae, so we have here a double pun on " Gotes " and I still think, then, that there is much more force in Hallam's observation, with regard to the use by Shake- speare of these Latinisms (i.e. of words with meanings in close connection with their primitive Latin roots) than Mr. Robertson supposes ; but, leaving Hallam to take care of himself, I will now invite attention to a passage which I do not think has been hitherto cited in support of what Mr. Robertson calls " the classical theory," but which has always seemed to me to afford evidence of that " wide familiarity " with the classics which I have attributed to Shakespeare. Mr. Robertson and the champions of the " unlearned Shakespeare " school, will, of course, treat it with the same contempt as that which they have showered upon all other arguments tendered in support of this view, — mais quand mime. The passage I allude to is in that marvellous play Hamlet, of which it may be said that the more it is studied the more does it unfold new wonders, and I refer to the Second Quarto Edition of 1604, of which the Cambridge editors said that although it might differ from the Folio version for the worse in twenty places, yet it differs for the better in forty-seven places. It is this Quarto, be it remembered, that contains " the one especial speech," as Swinburne called it, "in which the personal genius of Shakespeare soars up to the very highest of its height and strikes down to the very deepest of its depths"; the speech whence Shelley took his famous line, " We look before and after " ; the speech that the editors of the Folio cut away, and which we never hear upon the stage, unless it be on some special ^ Mr. Robertson thinks Shakespeare could not have made legal allusions in his plays which would have been unintelligible to his audience. But what of passages like this ? Does he think the audience in a public theatre would be sufficiently well educated and intelligent to understand the pun in the word capricious ? THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 155 occasion, as when Mr. F. R. Benson, during some " Shake- speare celebration," ventures to perform the entire Hamlet before an audience of votaries at the Stratfordian shrine. It is this Quarto which contains so many things that go far to justify Mr. Swinburne's critical observations : " Scene by scene, line for line, stroke upon stroke, and touch after touch, he [Shakespeare] went over all the old laboured ground again ; and not to ensure success in his own day, and fill his pockets with contemporary pence, but merely and wholly with a purpose to make it worthy of himself and his future students. . . . Not one single alteration in the whole play can possibly have been made with a view to stage effect or to present popularity and profit; or we must suppose that Shake- speare, however great as a man, was naturally even greater as a fool. . . . Every change in the text of Hamlet has impaired its fitness for the stage, and increased its value for the closet in exact and perfect proportion'' Now in this Quarto we find, among other passages which are not in the Folio, the following words (Act III, Scene 4, 71, — Hamlet is speaking to the Queen, his mother) : Sense sure you have Else could you not have motion. The old commentators could make nothing of this. Warburton proposed to read "jiotion " instead of" motion," an absurd suggestion, which, nevertheless, several editors have thought worthy of being placed on record. Some forty years ago, being fresh from the reading of Aristotle's De Anima, it struck me that Shakespeare showed by the words in question that he was undoubtedly familiar with the Aristotelian psychology. I explained this at some length in the Athencmm of February 27th, 1875, and, eight-and-twenty years afterwards, in the Cambridge Classical Review of December, 1903. Here is the explana- tion as it appeared in the latter journal : " In the £>e Anima 156 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? (Book II, chaps. II and Hi) we are told that the faculties (hvvdifieis) of the soul (which is here co-extensive with the vital principle) are growth, sense (or sensibility), desire, motion, and reason. Plants have only the principle of growth ; animals have sense as well, which is the dis- tinguishing faculty of the animal soul, ' For even of things which do not move or change their place, provided that they have sense {uiadriaig) we say that they are animals, not only that they live.' Then comes motion, so that motion {xiv^ats tj xara roicov) implies sense, and an animal that has motion must necessarily have sense as well. I take the following from M. Barthdemy Saint- Hilaire's translation : 'Quant a la serie reguli^re des facult^s, voici comment elles se subordonnent entre elles: la nutrition d'abord, sans laquelle les autres ne sont pas : la sensibility, dans laquelle le toucher peut s'isoler des autres sens, puisqu'il y a des animaux qui n'ont ni la vue, ni I'ouie, ni I'odorat ; la locom,otion, qui suppose toujours la sensibility, mais dont la sensibility peut bien se passer ; enfin I'intelligence, qui suppose n^cessairement toutes les facultds inf^rieures.' " Now that we have here the true explanation of Shake- speare's words, " sense sure you hav^ else could you not have motion," cannot I think be disputed.^ It does not, of course, follow that Shakespeare had read the De Anima in Greek, but it does seem to me highly improbable that a man who had not " a wide familiarity with the classics " — even though he might only be able to read Greek authors through the medium of translations — would have ' My old friend Dr. Jackson, O.M., f.b.a., of Trinity Collie, Cambridge, told me he had no doubt my explanation was correct. He, further, sends me his opinion that Shakespeare writes in " a highly Latinized English style." He thinks this would be accounted for by his education at the Grammar School, which he supposes was subsequently developed in London. I cannot myself adopt this as a satis&ctory explanation of Shakespeare's "highly Latinized " style, but it is, at any rate, entirely at variance with Fanner's assertion, followed by Mr. Robertson (since he endorses Farmer's celebrated Essay), that Shakespeare was ignorant of the meanii^ of the simplest Latin words. THE Learning of Shakespeare 157 these ideas of the Aristotelian psychology in his mind, and actually introduce them into a play. That a man so destitute of learning as Farmer's Essay makes Shakespeare to have been would write thus surely goes far beyond the limits of rational hypothesis. The reader will observe, too, that these remarkable words are not in the acting edition of the great tragedy ; they are, it would seem, introduced for the reader, not for the spectator ; or, as Swinburne puts it, for the closet and not for the stage. This, I presume, would be considered by Mr. Robertson as illustrating my tendency to "clutch desperately at every semblance of classical knowledge which the Plays and Poems present " — an error which he thinks arises from my setting out " with a primary ideal of a highly 'cultured ' mind as being alone capable of writing ' Shakespeare.' " ^ Yet it certainly appears to me that here is no " desperate clutching," and that here is no mere " semblance of classical knowledge," but reasonable, and I would even say cogent, evidence that the author of Hamlet was not only possessed of " a highly cultured mind " (is that really disputed ?) but also, as part of that culture, of a full share of "classical knowledge." But I must be content to leave the judgment upon that question to the intelligent and " cultured " reader. The difficulty in dealing with Mr. Robertson's argu- ments concerning the learning, or ignorance, of Shake- speare is to know how much education, or knowledge, or culture, he Is really willing graciously to allow him. In his Montaigne and Shakespeare (1909) he describes Shakespeare as "not much cultured, not profound, not deeply passionate; not particularly reflective though copious in utterance ; a personality which of itself, if under no pressure of pecuniary need, would not be likely to give the world any serious sign of mental capacity what- ever " (p. 147). Such, it seems, is Mr. Robertson's con- 1 The Baconian Heresy, p. 192. 158 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? ception of the man before he had developed "into the Shakespeare of the great tragedies and tragic comedies." He repudiates the idea that Shakespeare can be repre- sented as " presque inculte." " This," he says, " nobody but a Baconian ever did." ^ At the same time he denies him any vestige of " classic culture," and maintains that the Sonnets " distinctly avow the lack of it," in support of which proposition he quotes the lines of Sonnet Ixxviii, But thou art all my art; and dost advance As high as learning my rude ignorance, and he further prays in aid the words "my untutored lines " in the dedication to the Lucrece? Yet in both the Svorks referred to, as I have already shown, he proclaims his entire concurrence in Farmer's Essay, whose argu- ments, he says, have not been upset in a single case, whence it follows that Shakespeare was so ignorant that he knew not a word of French or Latin ! ^ I will now pass, and it is a relief to do so, to the courteous and humorous, but, alas, posthumous criticism of Mr. Lang. Mr. Lang writes (p. 43) : " We must say that while the author of the plays had some lore which ^ Baconian Heresy, p. 589. ° Shakespeare and Montaigne, p. 341. Mr. Robertson twice quotes these lines of Sonnet Ixxviii, viz. at pp. 151 and 341. I have seen them quoted by other writers also in support of the theory of Shakespeare's want of culture. Such an argument seems to me singularly unintelligent. Self-depreciation is a very common thing among men of genius and learning, and especially among poets, and. Unless it be carried to such an extreme as to become mere affectation, such irfocnroli\ais ivl xeifov is generally recognised as rather creditable than otherwise, and, of course, is never taken au pied de la leitre. Yet I have seen it said that Shakespeare himself proclaims his "rude ignorance " ! As to the " untutored lines " of the dedication of the Lucrece, if the reader is familiar with dedications in Elizabethan times, and knows the grovelling style in which a young author would address himself to a great noble of the day, he will know, too, just how much importance is to be attached to such an expression. ^ Ibid., p. 306. Mr. Robertson expressly states his agreement in the proposition that Shakespeare's studies had been " confined to nature and his own language " (p. 308). THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 159 scholars also possessed he did not use his knowledge like a scholar." Here I pause for a moment to repeat that I " fight shy " of applying the term " scholar " to Shakespeare, because the amount of learning and knowledge implied by the word differs according to the conception of those who make use of it. But let us see what arguments Mr. Lang adduces in support of the proposition that the immortal bard was " no scholard." " We do not see how a scholar could make, as the scansion of his blank verse proves that the author did make, the second syllable of the name of Posthumus, in Cymbeline, long. He must have read a famous line in Horace thus, Eheu fugaces Posthoome, Posthoome ! which could scarce 'scape whipping, even at Stratford school. In the same way he makes the penultimate syllable of Andronicus short, equally impossible." And even if he was not the author of Titus Andronicus, but only revised and improved it, "a scholar would have corrected, not accepted, false quantities." I do not think that there is really much force in this argument, because I believe that in " the spacious days " even scholars were much inclined to " play fast and loose " with " quantities " in Latin names, if not when they wrote Latin verse, at any rate in their use of such names in English prose or verse composition. We must remember that there was always a struggle going on between quantity and accent In my day one of the books which we were called upon to read for the Classical Tripos at Cambridge was Peile's Introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology^ and although that learned work may be " out of date " at the present time, it contains much useful information. I take the following from the edition of 1872 (p. 300): "In the prime of Latin literature the quantity ruled the accent in the main. But the inevitable tendency of the accent to win the day at last, was only i6o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? checked, in no way beaten back, by the Augustan rules. How supreme it had become by the beginning of the fifth century after Christ, is to be seen by a glance at the inscriptions of that time. We find, for example, these lines at the beginning of a pathetic epitaph of that date : it marked the grave of a little girl, called Felicity : — Quod dulcis nati, quod cara pignora praestant, Continet hie tumulus, membra qui parva retentat. Dolorem sine fine dedit Felicitas isto, Clauditur infelix falso cog'nomine dicta. The first three lines all contain 'false quantities': the last happens to be correct by the Virgilian standard ; and at first sight we set down the whole epitaph as full of barbarous errors. But this is wrong : the epitaph is right enough in the main if judged by the principle on which it was written. The old hexameter-form is retained: but the beat of the first syllable in each foot, which is given by a long syllable in the old hexameter, can be given here by accent as well as quantity." I quote this passage not with the idea of contending that the accent in " Posthumus " naturally fell on the penultimate, but in support of the contention that a writer in Elizabethan times, albeit a scholar, might if he intro- duced such a name into a play, consider himself as little bound by "the Augustan rules" as the writer of the above-quoted epitaph. Even if in writing Latin verse he might think it advisable to conform to "the Virgilian standard" he would, very possibly, opine that such standard could have no necessary application to English composition. The author of The Merchant of Venice, by the way, makes the penultimate of " Stephano " long, while in The Tempest we have " Stephano," in accordance with classical rule. What argument are we to found on this ? That the two plays are by different authors ? Or that Shakespeare when he wrote The Tempest had learned the THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE i6i proper pronunciation of the name ? Or that he conceived that he was at liberty to use either the form Stephano, or the form Stephano, according to his will and pleasure ? I should myself strongly incline to the last hypothesis. I imagine that the author of the inscription on the tablet below the Stratford bust must have been " a bit of a scholar," for the lines, especially the pentameter, are very good in their way, and one would imagine that the unknown " Gentlemen of London " who caused the inscrip- tion to be placed there must have been scholars " of sorts." But to write Socratem with a short o was to perpetrate a " howling " false quantity according to " Augustan rules." But, after all, did not Shelley write : C1JU.1 iXdv6puriros Si^/iiOKpartKOs r* aOtOi te And nobody, I presume, will deny that Shelley was a scholar. So, on the whole, I do not think we need trouble our- selves much about the " false quantity " argument. Really, if it be pressed it becomes an argument against the generally received, though unproved, hypothesis, that Will Shakspere (assuming him to have been the author of Cymbeline) was for some years at the Stratford Grammar School. For, as Mr. Lang says, to quote Horace's line as he writes it, by way of illustration, could scarce have 'scaped whipping there, so that " Will " must have learned the right pronunciation of Posthumus, according to Augustan rules, supposing that he was a "scholar" at the Free Grammar School. Then Mr. Lang brings out once more the well-worn passage in Troilus and Cressida where Hector is made to speak of Aristotle. " When Greeks and Trojans," writes Mr. Lang, "cite Plato and Aristotle, while Plato and Aristotle lived more than a thousand years after the latest conceivable date of the siege of Troy, I cannot possibly suppose that a scholar would have permitted to himself i62 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the freak, any more than that in the Winter's Tale he should have borrowed from an earlier novel the absurdity of calling Delphi ' Delphos ' (a non-existent word), of con- fusing 'Delphos' with Delos, and placing the Delphian Oracle in an island " (p. 44). Let me first consider the mention of Aristotle in Troilus and Cressida. It has always filled me with astonishment that learned critics should find herein an argument in support of the proposition that Shakespeare must have been a man of no learning. Do they really suppose that the author of this passage in Troilus and Cressida (whoever he may have been) was not only " no scholar," but so astoundingly ignorant as to believe that Aristotle lived before the Homeric age ? Such a supposi- tion appears to me absolutely preposterous. It might just as well be argued that because Handel introduces the rumbling of the guns in the " Dead March " in Saul he really believed that artillery and gunpowder existed in the days of the kings of Israel. For myself, I very gravely doubt whether that extraordinary and anomalous play Troilus and Cressida, in which most critics see the work of two, if not more, hands, is " Shakespearean " at all, but I feel quite confident that whoever the author was of the passage alluded to he introduced the " Aristotelian " anachronism knowingly and deliberately, in the same spirit as that in which the author of Lear wrote when he made the Fool say, " This prophecy Merlin shall make —for I live before his time " 1 ^ ^ Mr. Robertson, in his Shakespeare and Montaigne (p. 337), not only repeats this foolish argument (as it seems to me) that Shakespeare could not have been a scholar because he makes Hector quote Aristotle, but goes on to ask whether, if he had been a scholar, he would "speak of the Lupercal as a hill." If Mr. Robertson had given some little consideration to the play of Julius Casar he would not have put such a silly question. Shakespeare nowhere speaks of the Lupercal as a hill. In Julius Casar (Act 1, Sc. I, 72), MaruUus says, "You know it is the feast of Lupercal," namely, as Mr. M. Macmillan annotates in the " Arden " edition of Shakespeare, ' ' the Lupercalia, a festival celebrated at Rome on 15th February in honour of Lnpercus, the THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 163 Then what are we to. say about "Delphos" in the Winters Tale — " Delphos " which Mn Lang calls " a non- existent word," that " never was a place-name " ? We can only say, as the truth is, that Mr. Lang here makes a mistake which we should never have expected to find in a scholar of his wide reading and great knowledge. For the truth is that "Delphos," so far from being "a non- existent word," was the form employed by writers generally in this country (scholars or not) up to the reign of Queen Anne. So much was this the case that Boyle, in his controversy with Bentley, actually styles Bentley pedantic because he uses the form " Delphi " instead of the usual " Delphos." Nay more, " Delphos " is used by Florio in his translation of Montaigne's Essays, by Puttenham in his Arte of English Poetry, by Lyly (if he indeed wrote Midas), and moreover by Milton (whose " scholarship " nobody will dispute) in his Ode to the Nativity \ So the argument that he who wrote " Delphos " must have been an ignorant, or, at any rate, an unlearned man is pretty well disposed of. But then we have Delphos as an "island," and talk about " the sea-coast of Bohemia." Is not this a proof of gross ignorance on the part of the writer? How these earnest " Shakespeareans " do strive to make the great poet an ignorant man ! But the answer seems very simple. In the first place, "the island of Delphos" and "the sea- coast of Bohemia " both occur in the novel Pandosto, or god who defended sheep against wolves. " He further observes : ' ' Shakespeare probably Anghcises the name of the feast in this short form for metrical reasons." In Act III, Sc. 2, Mark Antony says, "You all did see that on the Lupercal/ 1 thrice presented him a kingly crown." Here Mr. Macmillan annotates, as every sensible commentator would, "ok the Lupercal — at the feast of the Lupercalia. See I, i, 72." Mr. Robertson seems to have taken the stupid idea that Shakespeare speaks of the Lupercal as a hill, without consideration, from some critic who had gone hopelessly astray. But such are the arguments by which it is sought to prove that Shakespeare could not have been a learned, and, in fact, was a very ignorant man. And this is Shakespearean "orthodoxy" ! i64 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Dorastus and Fa/wnia, upon which Shakespeare founded his play of the Winter's Tale. And who was the author of this novel? None other than Robert Greene. Was Greene then an ignorant man? Hardly, for he was educated at Cambridge, was a graduate of both Univer- sities, and was, admittedly, a man of learning.^ But really it is absurd, as it seems to me, to found theories (I had almost written "charges") of ignorance on the part of the author of A Wintet's Tale on these flights of fancy. What is A Winter's Tale ? Its very title, like that of A Midsummer Nights Dream, indicates that it is in the nature of a fairy tale, a romance of fancy and imagination. It is, as Halliwell wrote, "a mediseval romance, in which manners of several ages, localities in- consistent with the plot and with each other, and the wildest anachronisms are connected with circumstances that can only be referred to a remote antiquity." Shake- speare took Greene's story and dramatised it, with many additions and variations, and without the slightest attempt to render it historical. I can see here no indication of ignorance, but only of that exuberant fancy, untram- melled, in such works of imagination, by the rules of time and space, - whidi made Theseus and Hippolyta, Oberon and Titania, Bottom and Snug, all contempo- raneous at Athens. Shakespeare adds to Greene's flights of fancy an ana- chronism of his own — " a known and wilful anachronism," as Theobald rightly calls it — by introducing a reference to Julio Romano (1492-1546), whom he makes "con- temporary with the flourishing age of the oracle of the Pythian Apollo " ; and, says Mr. Lang, " this, at least, would not be ignorance." Then why, we may ^ It has been stated that, unijer King Ottocar I, the boundaries of Bohemia, or its dependencies, extended to the sea, but it is certainly not necessary to suppose that Shakespeare had any knowledge of this fact, if feet it was. Doubtless he was content to take Greene's story as he found it, and Greene probably took it from some unknown source. THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 165 ask, should the other anachronisms be a sign of ignor- ance? But it has been objected further that Julio Romano was a painter, and Shakespeare speaks of him as a sculptor! Well, it would seem that this is a proof of knowledge rather than of ignorance, and somewhat remarkable knowledge too ; for Dr, Elze long ago in- formed us that in the first edition of VasarFs Lives of the Painters two epitaphs are printed which were originally inscribed on the tomb of Julio Romano at Mantua, testify- ing to the fact that he was celebrated for three arts — painting, architecture, and sculpture : Videbat Jupiter corpora sculpta pictaque Spirare, aedes mortalium aequarier coelo, Julii virtute Romani. It would really appear that the prophet who was summoned to curse Shakespeare — as an ignorant man — has blessed him altogether, and if the only arguments against the hypothesis that Shakespeare was a classical scholar, even in the modern sense, were such as those founded on the passages in Troilus and Cressida and A Winter's Tale I should think it reasonable to look upon that hypothesis as a perfectly tenable one. Thus, then, stands the case. I read Hamlet, and Lear, and Othello ; I read Antony, and CcBsar, and Coriolanus ; I read As You Like It, and Twelfth Night, and Much Ado ; I read Romeo, and Cymbeline, and The Winter's Tale ; I read The Merchant, and The Tempest ; I read the Histories, and especially Henry IV; I read Venus, and Lucrece, and the Sonnets ; and the more I read those marvellous works the more deeply I am impressed with the certainty that the man who wrote them was a man of wide reading, much learning, and high culture. I am more and more convinced of the " highly cultured mind " as the necessary condition precedent of a " Shakespeare. i66 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? My reason revolts against the postulate of the unlearned, untravelled man, who knew no country and no language but his own. But this, it seems, is but fanaticism, and nearly akin to heresy. Shakespeare, says Mr. Robertson, was a man of little culture, if any, and of no learning. The classics and modern languages were sealed books to him ; he is not indeed properly described as a " rustic " (except, may- be, in his Stratford days), but he may be truly called a " Farmer's boy," so far as learning was concerned, if a mild joke may be allowed on such a serious subject! The simplest French and the simplest Latin words were un- intelligible to him.^ If he read, it was only in his own language that he could read. If he wrote great things, it was only " under pressure of pecuniary need " — " for gain, not glory." If he " grew immortal," it was " in his own despite." Such, briefly stated, is, as I understand it, the faith of the orthodox Shakespearean of to-day ; such the definitive doctrine as finally settled ex cathedrd by Mr. J. M. Robertson. The rest is but "bluff" and " paralogism." Well, it's a free country, and every man may decide for himself Dr. Anders, whose learned work on Shakespeare's Books (1904) is so well known, and so constantly cited, came to a very different opinion from that held by ^ Mr. Robertson, who accepts Farmer's Essay, must accept this along with it; otherwise he must repudiate Farmer's authority in toto, for the argument here stands upon precisely the same footing as the other arguments of that famous essayist. As for Shakespeare's youth, accord- ing to the orthodox view, it really seems to be the standard example for all young men of the great advants^e of keeping aloof from books, and the moral of it appears to be well described by that somewhat sarcastic comedian who wrote the following lines, the first of which is, of course, Shakespeare's own : " In my young days I never did apply Myself to the lore of books or sages ; I idled all my time away, and that's the reason why I'm the poet and the teacher of all ages ! " THE LEARNING OF SHAKESPEARE 167 Mr. Robertson and the " unlearned Shakespeare " school. It may be worth while to cite the following passages: " It is my purpose to show that Ovid, a favourite author with Shakespeare, was known to him both in the original and in the English translation, and to supply further evidence of his familiarity with the Roman poet" (p. 21, where, and in the following pages, the evidence will be found); "Shakespeare's mind was richly furnished with the antique MYTHOLOGY, to which we find innumerable allusions, introduced with perfect ease and naturalness, throughout his works " (p. 29) ; " / think there ought to be no doubt that Shakespeare had recourse to the Latin writers direct" {ibid^; "Taking a final review of the matter already dealt with in the present chapter, we may now safely assert that Shakespear^s knowledge of the Latin language was considerable, and that he must have read some of the more important Latin authors " (p. 39) ; "Lastly, Shakespeare has the ancient mythology and history at his fingers' ends, and throughout his plays and poems we find frequent allusions .introduced with ease and naturalness " (p. 40). It needs not to be said that Dr. Anders is a writer of unexceptionable " orthodoxy." I am waiting with interest to see whether he will bring out a new edition of his book in order to recant these opinions as to Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin in view of Mr. Robertson's definite and definitive pronouncement. Surely he will no longer lend his high authority to the heretical view that the great poet was other than an ignorant man ! ^ ' The opinion of an eighteenth-century writer, John Upton, Prebendary of Rochester, author of Critical Observations on Shakespeare (1746), seems very much to the point : "I have often wondered with what kind of reasoning anyone could be so far imposed on as to imagine that Shakespeare had no learning ; when it must at the same time be acknowledged that, with- out learning, he cannot be read with any degree of understanding or taste," i68 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? NOTE A TO CHAPTER III JOHN TAYLOR, THE WATER POET Of course Mr. Robertson may have " gone to John Taylor for himself," just as I went to Farmer for myself. My parody of his criticism is but a tu quoque, but, I submit, a quite legitimate one. Mr. Robertson (p. 555) appeals to John Taylor's own testimony as to his wide reading in English translations, and refers to the 1630 edition of his works, section II, p. 57. This collected Folio of the works of the " Water Poet " is a very curious volume. On the title-page we are confronted with an impression of the identical block which was used in printing Venus and Adonis, and turning over the pages till we come to " Sir Gregory Nonsense, His Newes from no Place," we find an epistle dedi- catory addressed " To the (Sir Reverence ^) Rich worshipped Mr. Trim Tram Senceles, Great Image of Authority and Hedgborough of the famous City of Goteham and to the rest of that admired and unmatchable Senate, with their Corruptions and Families." It must be confessed that Taylor's humour is not a little difficult to appreciate at the present day, but it is interesting to note that the Dedication commences with the words " Most Honorificicabilitudinitatibus," while above it is the same head-piece as that which appears over the Epistle Dedicatory of the Shakespeare First FoUo (1623) addressed to " the Incomparable Paire." ^ Proceeding, we come, at p. 44, to "Taylor's Motto," in which poem, at p. 56, we have some lines headed " My serious cares and Considerations," the " Motto " being " et habeo, et careo, et euro, I have, I want, I care." The lines referred to by Mr. Robertson are as follows : ' This word, as I need scarcely say, bore at the time an interpretation suggestive of Cloacina. It is often so employed by Taylor. ^ This head-piece is repeated a few pages farther on, over another dedicatory preface. JOHN TAYLOR, THE WATER POET 169 I can to get good books, and I take heed And care what I do either write or read. Though some through ignorance, and some through spite, Have said that I can neither read nor write. But though my lines no scholarship proclaime Yet I at learning have a kind of ayme. And I have gathered much good observations From many humane and divine translations. I was well entered (forty winters since) As farre as possum in my Accidence, And reading but from possum to posset, There I was mir'd and could no further get. Which when I think upon (with mind dejected) I care to think how learning I neglected. The poet Quid (or Ovid if you will) Being in English, much hath helpt my skill : And Homer too, and Virgil I have scene. And reading them, I have much better'd beene. Godfrey of BuUoyne, well by Fairfax done, Du Bartas, that much love hath rightly wonne. Old Chaucer, Sidney, Spencer, Daniel, Nash, I dip'd my finger where they us'd to wash. As I have read these poets I have noted Much good, which in my memory is quoted. Of Histories I have perusde some store As no man of my function hath done more. The Golden Legend I did overtosse. And found the gold mixt with a deale of drosse. I have read Plutarch's Morals and his Lives, And like a Bee, suckt Hony from those Hives. Josephus of the Jews, Knowles of the Turks, Marcus Aurelius, and Guenara's works : Lloyd, Grimstone, Montaigne, and Suetonius, Agrippa (whom some call Cornelius) Grave Seneca, and Cambden, Purchas, Speed, Old Afonumentall Fox and Hollinshead. It will be seen that the old " Water Poet " gives a long list of works read, in whole or in part, by him, and though he speaks in depreciatory terms of his own learning, it is impossible to look through his collected works without seeing that he was very far from being an uneducated man. He had, apparently read much, and unlike Shakspere (testibus Sir Sidney Lee and others) he had seen not a little of foreign countries. But as to his " scraps of Latin," and "allusions to antiquity" (as Farmer I70 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? calls them), can it be seriously maintained that the use he makes of such things is in any way, or in any degree, comparable to the classical allusions to be found in Shakespeare? I do not think we should entertain much respect for the critic who would so maintain. I may add that in the Preface to Taylor's Pastorall we find the following : " And this Advertisement more I give the Reader, that there are many things Imprinted under the name of two Letters I. T. for some of which I have been taxed to bee the Author : I assure the world that I had never anything imprinted of my writing, that I was either afraid or ashamed to set my name at large to it ; and therefore if you see any Author's name I. T. I utterly disclaime it : for I am as I have bin, both I. and T. which with addition of Letters, is yours to bee commanded in any laudable endeavours, John Taylor." On the strength of this it has been suggested that we ought to consider any writings in the 1630 Folio signed " I. T. " to be not of his authorship, but the words cannot, surely, be so construed. Moreover, the title-page tells us that the works are " 63 in number, collected into one volum by the Author." Again, it has been said that in the Epistle Dedicatory addressed to The World the suggestion has been thrown out that the book may not have been written by Taylor, but, here again, if the words be carefully considered they will be found not to bear this meaning. Taylor merely suggests that if his readers were persuaded that the book was not of his writing, in view of his humble position as " a Sculler " and a "Water-poet," they might think more highly of it, and he gives certain examples in illustration of that suggestion. In conclusion I would only say that a consideration of his writing leads me to the conclusion that, like many another writer of humble origin, he is unduly self-depreciatory concerning his learning and education, and " doth protest too much, methinks,' in this regard. He does not appear, however, to have been much of a naturalist, since he writes in The Begger : — His Musicke waytes on hira in every bush, The Mavis, Bulfinch, Blackbird, and the Thrush, apparently supposing that the Mavis and the Thrush were different birds ! MR. ROBERTSON AND JUDGE WILLIS 171 NOTE B TO CHAPTER III ■MR. ROBERTSON AND JUDGE WILLIS'S " BACONIAN MINT " Mr. Robertson devotes many pages to Judge Willis's " con- futation '' of Dr. Theobald's chapter on " the classic diction of Shakespeare" in his Shakespeare Studies in Baconian Light. That " confutation " is contained in the late Judge's work, The Baconian Mint, its claims examined, which now lies before me. Now so far as Dr. Theobald endeavoured to show that Bacon had introduced a large number of new words of classical origin into the English language, and into the First Folio, under the pseudonym of " Shakespeare," I think it must be acknowledged that Judge Willis has proved that such contention cannot be upheld, and as I hold no brief in support of such a claim I am quite content to let it go by default. I will venture, however, to say a few words with regard to some of Mr. Robertson's criticisms and pronouncements upon the case. " I will," he says, " present summarily the series of words in Shakespeare which Dr. Theobald puts forward as 'classically' framed and therefore Baconian, and which Judge Willis shows to have been in current use long before or about 1600." ^ Then follows the list, which I certainly do not propose to consider in detail. I will only comment in passing on some of the instances mentioned by Mr. Robertson. I have already drawn the reader's attention to his illuminating reflection on the word "Academe," viz. that "the scansion of the word in Love's Labour's Lost is precisely what a good classical scholar would not do with it," which remark is, I think, almost sufficient to dispose of Mr. Robertson as a critic of classical scholarship. Judge Willis, more prudently, says nothing as to the " scansion of the word," but quotes "Thy villa, nam'd an Academe, doth host" J the reference being to "Sandys, 1610, p. 275, 4th ^ In many instances, I may remark, Judge Willis by no means shows that the word in question was used "long before" l6cxj. 172 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? edition." This quotation, which might have saved Mr. Robertson from his unwise comment, is not repeated by him from Judge Willis's book, possibly because bearing date, as it does, 1610, it is not relevant so far as concerns Dr. Theobald's contention, though "Achademe," cited from Book of Good Manners (1487), is more to the point.^ I have also already adverted to the word "capricious" as used by Shakespeare. As to this, Judge Willis (p. 15), after quoting the words from As You Like It, writes : " Capricious has a double reference to the Italian word cappriccioso, humorous or fantastical, and to the Latin word caper, a goat." Mr. Robertson omits these words, which draw attention to the double pun in " goats " and " goths," " capricious " and caper, and contents himself with quotations to show that the word "capricious" was already in use, which nobody disputes. Then we have allusion made to the word "captious." Dr. Theobald had quoted. Yet in this captious and intenible sieve I still pour in the waters of my love, and added, " Captious has the meaning of the Latin word capio, I take." Now, as to this. Judge Willis says (p. 15) : " I do not think the word is used by Shakespeare in any new meaning. The word ' captious ' was in common use from 1447. In 1530 Palsgrave, 'capcious, crafty in words to take one in a trap.' I think Shakespeare used the word ' captious ' in this sense." Mr. Robertson, following Willis, quotes Palsgrave to this effect, and adds " By captious words to make me do it," from Three Ladies of London, Hazlitt's Dodsley, VI, 293. But quite obviously these are not parallels at all to the Shakespearean use of the word. The use of the word " captious,'' as in the familiar expression "a captious critic" (e.g.), is well known, and it is much in this sense that it is used by Palsgrave, and in the Three Ladies of London. But this is not its meaning as used by Shakespeare. "A captious and intenible sieve" means a sieve capable of receiving but incapable of retaining, 1 See Willis's Baconian Mint, p. 10 ; Robertson, work cited, p. 278. MR. ROBERTSON AND JUDGE WILLIS 173 and it is indisputable that the word is here used, as Dr. Theobald says, "in its classic meaning" with close reference to the Latin capio, from which it is derived. I doubt whether any pre-Shakespearean parallel to this use of the words " captious and intenible " can be produced. With regard to the word " decimation," Dr. Theobald wrote : " Dr. Abbott points out that Shakespeare uses the word deci- mation in its technical sense for a tithed death. By decimation, and a tithed death . . . take thou the destined tenth (Timon, V, 4, 31)." Whereupon Judge Willis comments: "Dr. Abbott might have pointed out that many before Shakespeare used the word decimation in the same sense." I see no "sense" in this criticism. There can be no point in it unless Theobald had suggested that Shakespeare makes use of the expression for the first time; but, of course, Theobald does no such thing. He only says that Shakespeare used the word "in its technical sense," the obvious implication being that it had been used in that sense before Shakespeare. But it would serve no good purpose to go further into these details. Let it be granted that Judge Willis is generally successful in showing that the words cited from Shakespeare as new coinage of classical origin can be found in some pre-Shakespearean writer. What effect has such an admission upon the purely negative argument as to the " Stratfordian " authorship of the Plays and Poems ? I will here venture to quote a writer in Baconiana for July, 1913 : "Judge Willis, on whom the controversialist mainly relies, had read extensively the writings of Divines, ecclesiastical records, and correspondence extant at the time. He draws his materials principally from these sources. He quotes from Rolls of Parliament 1436; Beggar's Petition against Popery 1538; State Papers of Henry VIII 1546; Com- mission of Edward VI to his Council 1552; The King's Authorization, Preface to Constitutional Canons Ecclesiastical, 1604; various translations of Calvin's works, viz., on 'Deuter- onomy'; on 'The Harmony of the Evangelists'; 'Enchiridion,' 174 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? 1533 ; Philpot's translation of Curio's Defence of Christ's Church, c. 1550; Sermons; Tyndale's translation of Erasmus; Hooker's 'Ecclesiastical Polity'; John Rainhold's lecture on 'Obadiah,' 1584; Hutchinson's 'The Image of God,' and his other works ; Hooper's ' Declaration of Christ and His Office ' ; Whitehorne's 'Arte of Warrs,' 1560; and numbers of similar works. All those, be it observed, are the works of classical scholars. To these out-of-the-way books and manuscripts has Judge Willis to have resort to produce examples of words used in their classical sense as Shakespeare used them ! . . . Not one contemporary author is quoted who was not a classical scholar ! Judge Willis proves this and no more — that the author of the poems and plays was so familiar with the writings of classical scholars that he employed words which were used by them in their root meanings." Of a truth, then, it would seem that " Will " of Stratford had read to a prodigious extent in the pages of these learned authors, from whom he is supposed to have borrowed the words cited in Dr. Theobald's list. Mr. Robertson, indeed, says : " Any English- man of Shakespeare's day, whether he knew Latin or not, used those words in the so-called ' classic ' sense, if he used them at all, simply because they had been introduced and adopted in the past by men who were habituated in Latin." But this is mere assertion, and assertion which has no basis of proof to rest upon. For, as the writer m Baconiana observes, "Judge Willis does not give one single instance of the use of one of these words by a writer who was not a classical scholar." To suppose that Shakspere became familiar with such words from the common talk of his fellows is really to suppose an absurdity. "Will," therefore, must have found time, amongst his other numerous occupations, to be a close student of learned and "out-of-the- way " literature. Judge Willis, by the way, while denying that Shakespeare's use of the word "extenuate" {M.N.D., I, i, 120) is an indica- tion of his Latinity, adds, " although I have no doubt he was well acquainted with the Latin Tongue." ^ Mr. Robertson does not cite his witness on this point ! 1 Work cited, p. 43. "THE HYSTORIE OF HAMBLET" 175 NOTE C TO CHAPTER III SHAKESPEARE AND "THE HYSTORIE OF HAMBLET" An Illustration of Dr. Farmer's Methods of Criticism Whalley, in his Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare (1748), contended that Shakespeare must have read " Saxo Gram- maticus " in Latin, as he derived the plot of Hamlet from it, and no translation of the work into any modern language had been made. Whereupon Farmer wrote (1657): " But the truth is he did not take it from Saxo at all ; a Novel called ' The Historic of Hamblet ' was his original." And in 1767, after observing that the novel " proved to be a translation from the French of Belle- forest," he wrote that his friend Capell tells him " that all the chief incidents of the Play, and all the capital characters, are there in embryo, after a rude and barbarous manner ; sentiments indeed there are none that Shakespeare could borrow ; nor any expression but one, which is, where Hamlet kills Polonius be- hind the arras; in doing which he is made to cry out, as in the Play, 'a rat, a rat/'" Upon which Farmer remarks, in his characteristic " cock-sure " manner : " So much for Saxo Grammaticus ! " Now this is, in truth, a very instructive example of Farmer's untrustworthiness as a critic. The Hystorie of Hamblet which was owned by his friend Capell, and which is now in the Capell Collection at Trinity College, Cambridge, bears date 1608. It was printed "by Richard Bradocke for Thomas Pavier." The argument is in ordinary type, the preface in italics, and the " hystorie " in black letter. It is the only copy known. It would really seem as if Farmer had not taken the trouble to examine the work referred to before making his characteristic pronouncement, which, he says, will " put the matter out of all question " ! Moreover, apart from the date borne by the unique copy in the Capell Collection, it has been demonstrated by Professor 176 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Elze, and others, that The Hystorie of Hamblet must have been published subsequently to the play. In the first place, as Dr. Nichol Smith informs us, in a note to Farmer's Essay, " No English ' translation from the French of Belleforest' appears to have been issued before 1608 ";i and, as the late Dr. Furness remarks, Professor Elze's argument "in favour of the existence of the drama before the translation" appears to be "convincing." To begin with, in Belleforest's novel — one of his Histoires Tragiques, which are mainly derived from the Italian of Bandello — we find that the counsellor who acts the spy during Amleth's interview with his mother, conceals himself under the quilt (stramentum according to Saxo ; loudier or lodier, according to Belleforest), and Amleth on entering the chamber, jumps on this quilt (sauta sur ce lodier), whereas the English " novel " substitutes a curtain or tapestry for the quilt, and makes use of the same terms as those employed by Shake- speare, viz. "hangings" and "arras"; and it is still more re- markable that the English translator makes Amleth exclaim, in the words of Shakespeare, " A rat ! a rat ! " words which are nowhere to be found in Belleforest's version of the story. It is pretty clear, then, that the English translator followed Shake- speare's play here, for, as it is well put by a writer in Baconiana (October, 1913), "It is more probable that the translator adopted an incident and phraseology which had caught the popular fancy and become almost proverbial, than that two such striking passages were invented by a translator of a manifestly inferior stamp, and transferred from his work to Shakespeare's, ' specially when,' as Dr. Furness remarks, 'they are the only two points where the phraseology is common to both.'" Moreover, as Professor Elze points out, it is noticeable in the popular legends of both England and Germany that prose versions invariably follow the poetical version.^ " It is readily conceivable that a poet should select from Belleforest the story of Hamlet's feigned insanity and revenge, and cast it into a dramatic or poetic mould ; but it is not so conceivable that a mediocre translator ^So, too, Sir Sidney Lee (Life, p. 178). = Baconiana, ubi supr., and see Histoires Tragiques, par Fran?ois Belle- Forest, Comingeois. A Rouen 1604. Tome Sixierae, Histoire cviii. "THE HYSTORIE OF HAMBLET" 177 should pick out this single story unless he was led to it by the popularity of the poetical version." The clumsy translation adheres to the original of Belleforest with slavish fidelity, except in the two places referred to, which betray the mark of a superior hand, and, as Professor Elze says, " point decisively to Shake- speare." It appears, therefore, that Shakespeare did not found his play on The Hystorie of Hambkt ; indeed, when one comes to consider that work, and Belleforest's version from which it is taken, it really seems impossible to conceive that Shakespeare could have based his immortal play on such wretched stuff, " rude and barbarous," as Capell truly styles it.^ In truth the play and the story differ toio caelo the one from the other. After all, therefore, it would appear that Whalley had some warrant for his contention that Shakespeare must have read " Saxo Grammati- cus " in Latin. Farmer himself notes the contention that it was " almost impossible that any poet unacquainted with the Latin language (supposing his perceptive faculties to have been never so acute) could have caught the characteristical madness of Hamblet, described by Saxo Grammaticus, so happily is it delineated by Shakespeare," but, nevertheless, as we have seen, he will have nothing of Saxo, but finds the origin of Shakespeare's great play in the black-letter Quarto, which was undoubtedly pub- lished subsequently to the production of the play. So much for Farmer ! But, nevertheless, those of the school of the "unlearned Shakespeare" have another string to their bow. Shakespeare could not have founded Hamlet upon " Saxo Grammaticus." Certainly not. He could not read Latin. But there was an "^old play" of Hamlet in existence. What it was we do not know, nor do we know who the author of it was. It is usually said to have been by Kyd, but that is a mere guess, unsupported by any evidence. But, anyhow, it was upon this supposed old play that Shakespeare, we are told, founded his immortal drama. Et voila tout/ as Mr. Robertson would say. In this simple way it is always possible for the school of assumption to avoid such ' Sir Sidney Lee, however, thinks that Shakespeare may have read Belleforest in the original — a very probable hypothesis. He may have read Bandello also. 178 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? a dangerous supposition as that Shakespeare was able to read a Latin work in tl^e original. I may here say a word with regard to the date of Hamlet. In The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 504) I made allusion to the argument that the play must have been produced by Shakespeare before the year 1598: "It appears that Gabriel Harvey in this year (1598) purchased a copy of Speght's edition of Chaucer, and in it he inscribed the following manuscript note : ' The younger sort take delight in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece and his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, have it in them to please the wiser sort.' " ^ But it was persistently said that Harvey's copy of Speght's "Chaucer" had been destroyed in a fire at Northumberland House, in the eighteenth century, so that this note could not be verified. Now, however, it has been announced by Mr. A. H. BuUen, in The Times of December 3rd, 1913, that this "precious volume," which once belonged to Bishop Percy, is in the possession of his great-granddaughter, Miss Meade, who allowed the notes to be transcribed by Mr. Moore Smith, and a collotype facsimile to be made, for publication with his volume,^ of the page containing the well-known reference to Hamlet. Now Speght's "Chaucer" was published in 1598, and in that year was purchased by Harvey, whose signature, together with the date, in his own figures, is on the title-page, and on the last page also. Harvey's note mentions "translated Tasso," which convinced Malone that the note could not be dated earlier than 1600, the year of the pubUcation of Fairfax's " Translation " ; but, as Mr. BuUen says, he forgot that a render- ing by Richard Carew of a part of Tasso had appeared in 1594, and, after further consideration of some of the items of the note, Mr. BuUen concludes as follows : " To say the least, the evidence seems to suggest very strongly that Hamlet in its first unrevised form was produced not earlier than the end of 1598 and not later than the beginning of 1601." ' This was part only of Harvey's MS. note, which is set out in full in Mr. A. H. BuUen's contribution to The Times, presently referred to. * Harvey's Marginalia, edited by Professor G. C. Moore Smith, and pub- lished by the Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford-upon-Avon. "THE HYSTORIE OF HAMBLET" 179 This contribution to The Times produced a letter from Professor Boas, published in that paper a day or two subse- quently, in which that learned writer, speaking of Harvey's note, says : " The note, I venture to think, does something to confirm my suggestion in the August number of the Fortnightly Review, based upon an examination of the payments to Elizabethan theatrical companies in the Oxford city accountSj that Shakespeare's Hamlet, in its unrevised form, may have been acted at Oxford as early as 1593. For if Harvey knew Hamlet, in 1598-9, the play may well have been written and performed some years previously. His mention of it neutralizes its omission by Meres from his list of Shakespeare's plays in 'Palladis Tamia,' in 1598, unless we assume that it was written in the interval. And it is noticeable that the two poems mentioned with it, 'Vefius and Adonis,' and 'Lucrece,' are both early works." Upon this Mr. E. N. Adler writes a letter, dated December nth, 1913, giving certain entries, which, as he contends, show "that Hamlet was notorious before 1592 " ! Now, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated, after stating these facts as to Harvey's note in Speght's "Chaucer," and the publication of five books of Tasso by R. Carew in 1594, I wrote (p. 505) : " If this note of Gabriel Harvey's is to be received as proving that Shakespeare's Hamlet was written before 1598, i.e. more than five years before the publication of the First Quarto (and it seems strong evidence to that effect), this is, undoubtedly, a fact which ' gives furiously to think ' ! " But now we have learned and orthodox critics who contend that Hamlet was written (at any rate " in its unrevised form ") as early as 1593, or even 1592, and Mr. BuUen himself is of opinion that it may have been produced as early as 1598. Well, no doubt, this will be no trial to the orthodox. They possess powers of digestion equal to the assimilation of the strongest food. O dura messorum ilia I But there are some of weaker faith who find it absolutely impossible to believe that the young provincial who left Stratford in or about 1587, and who, after undergoing various vicissitudes, became a player in London, actually produced that masterpiece, the world's wonder play i8o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of Hamlet, even "in its unrevised form," in 1592, or 1593, or even in 1598. Henslowe, by the way, records in his Diary on June 9th, 1594, that Hamlet was, as Payne Collier puts it, " performed by his company, while acting at Newington Butts, apparently in conjunction with the association to which Shake- speare belonged."^ This is generally assumed to have been " the old Hamblet," but, in the light of what the above critics write, why may we not think that it was "Shakespeare's"? But if so, it was, I trow, not " Shakspere's " ! ' See Shakespeare's Library, Vol. I, edited by Payne Collier, Introduction to " The Historie of Hamblet." Professor Boas writes as follows on this matter (Nineteenth Century, August, 1913): "On their tour of 1593 Lord Strange's men were accompanied by Edward AUeyn of the Lord Admiral's Company. After their return to London the two Companies performed together from June 3rd to 13th, 1594, at Newington Butts. V?hen we find from Henslowe's Diary that one of the seven pieces which they performed together was Samlet, acted, not as a new play, on June 9th, there is a strong presumption that it had been already staged at Oxford and elsewhere in the previous year. And till proof is forthcoming of a visit of Shakespeare's Company to Oxford between 1593 and 1601, it is a reasonable hypothesis that this Hamlet, which is mentioned again by Lodge in 1596, was the First Quarto version, and not (as is the accepted view) the pre-Shakespearian play." According to this quite " orthodox" hypothesis, therefore, player Shakspete had written Hamlet, in its first form at any rate, previously to 1593 ! ' Shakespeare " may have done this, certainly, but if so, I venture to say, " the less Shaksptre he " ! CHAPTER IV THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" I SHALL always feel indebted to certain assistant Masters at Eton, in the long ago, who gave a prize for a paper on Macbeth and As You Like It. I did not get the prize, but I read and studied the plays, and learned to appreciate their delight. That reading, naturally, led to more ; and then, as a Cambridge under- graduate, I turned, with eager interest, to read the life of the great poet as set forth by one of his numerous " biographers." I shall never forget the feeling of blank amazement and bitter disappointment with which I read it. Was this the man who had called into existence those marvellous works of fancy and imagination, those master- pieces of poesy, and wisdom, and philosophy ? It is true that little was known about him ; but how much better would it have been if that little had never been revealed ! How much better if it had been left to us only to look Not on his picture but his book ! For, try to disguise the fact as you may, the plain truth is that in all that is known about Shakspere of Stratford, all that the most diligent search has been able to discover — and no man's life has been the subject of such constant and indefatigable investigation — there is (apart from " the works themselves ") absolutely nothing to inspire, nothing to warm our hearts towards him. Nay more, there is not i82 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? one single generous act, not one single even creditable act, recorded to his credit. Had he been, like Homer, only " nomen et umbra" our imagination would have been free to supply the rest. As it is, though we know so little, we know, alas, so much too much. Why is it that so many educated and thinking men and women have been led to doubt of the " Shakspearean " authorship ? Is it that they are all " mentally deficient," all fools and fanatics? Only the blindest and most in- tolerant Shakespeariolater would so affirm. That there are cranks and fanatics among the Baconians I should be the last to deny. But among the sceptics — those who cannot escape the belief that there is something in the background that we do not know — that there really is a " Shakespeare Problem " — there are men and women, in large and increasing number, of undoubted sanity, and of excellent understanding. Why, then, have these doubts arisen ? It is because, like Emerson, they cannot " marry " the facts of Shakspere's life " to his verse." ^ But is there a " Shakespeare Problem " ? Some there are, of course, who deny that there is any problem at all. It is clear as daylight, they say, that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare ; and there an end. There is no difficulty at all. All who feel any doubt upon the subject are ignorant fools or purblind fanatics. " Et voilct tout!" — as Mr. Robertson would say. Thus Professor Saintsbury, in the Cambridge History of English Literature (Vol. V, p. 167), writes of " the difficulty which has been raised as to a person of no, or little, education having written the plays." " The difficulty," he • Mr. Edward H. Sothern, in Munsey's Magazine of January, igiZi complains that Emerson has been misquoted in this connection, and even claimed as a Baconian on the strength of a garbled quotation. I was not aware that such claim had ever been made. It is, of course, a ridiculous one, as will be seen by reference to the passage in question, which later on I will set forth in extenso. See p. 275 et seq. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 183 says, " comes from a surprising mixture of ignorance and innocence. A lawyer of moderate intelligence, and no extraordinary education, will get up, on his brief, at a few days' notice, more knowledge of an extremely technical kind than Shakespeare shows on any one point, and will repeat the process in regard to almost any subject. A journalist of no greater intelligence and education will, at a few hours' or minutes' notice, deceive the very elect in the same way." This argument may certainly have some force as against those who base their doubts concerning the author- ship of the Plays and Poems upon the " knowledge of a technical kind" displayed by Shakespeare. They may be asked to accept the Professor's hypothesis that the great poet and dramatist " got up " his " technical know- ledge " as " a lawyer of moderate intelligence " gets up his brief, "at a few days' notice," or as a journalist "of no greater intelligence," but, evidently, of greater mental rapidity, gets it up " at a few hours' or minutes' notice," so as to " deceive the very elect." Let that pass as the orthodox and professorial solution of any difficulty con- nected with all knowledge of a technical kind to be found in the works of Shakespeare. But that does not happen to be the point, in my view of the case at any rate. It is not that knowledge which gives rise to the difficulty. It is the knowledge of life in all its aspects, knowledge of men, knowledge of human nature, knowledge of society, knowledge of the philosophy of life, and, above all, it is the manner in which he has embodied that know- ledge in immortal poetry, which has raised doubts and difficulties in the minds of the sceptics. The lawyer or the journalist can, indeed, "get up" a large amount of technical knowledge at short notice (provided, of course, he has the materials duly set before him in his brief, or otherwise), but he cannot " get up " all that is denoted by the term " culture "^ if he does liot ' See p. H2, n. 2. i84 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? happen to be possessed of it. Ask a vulgarian half- educated barrister to make himself a refined and highly cultured man at a few days' notice, or at any notice for the matter of that. You might as well ask him to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But how far are such considerations applicable to the case of William Shakspere of Stratford? In order to answer that question, and to set forth what I conceive to be the real " Shakespeare Problem," I must (there is no help for it) restate as briefly as may be the facts of his life so far as they are known to us. But why go to records? Why go to biographers? Shakespeare's " real life — his character and his intellect, which are both included in his genius — is to be found in his writings." So says Mr^ G. W. Foote, in The English Review of March, 191 3, and there are many who have said the same. Ought we not then to seek for Shakspere's life in " the works themselves " ? Well, yes, my friend, if, with a Podsnappian wave of the arm, you are going to put aside all question of the authorship as unworthy of even a moment's consideration. In that case you may delight yourself by compiling a history of" The Life and Character of Shakespeare " from the First Folio, Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, the Sonnets, and The Phoenix and the Turtle. And one of the fascinations of this method is that by it you can evolve the portrait of a " Shakespeare " drawn and painted in accordance with any form that your imagination may choose to postulate or picture. The result may be a man such as Matthew Arnold conceived. Who to the stars uncrowns his majesty, Planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea, Making the heaven of heavens his dwelling place, or it may present you with such a creature as Mr. Frank Harris has brought to light, by a "scientific" analysis, namely a "neuropath," "inordinately vain and self-centred," THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 185 who suffered from "erotic mania." Thus by confining your attention to " the works themselves " you will have a delightfully large range of choice for the working of your imagination. But if you are willing to condescend for one moment to examine the question of authorship (I only say " if"), you will probably admit that it is not altogether profitable to commence by assuming the very point at issue. Reasoning in a circle is a fascinating process, but it is not supposed to be very fertile of substantial results. This being so, I must, I fear, trouble the reader to consider once more the facts of Shakspere's life, so far as those facts can be gathered from the scanty evidence that is left to us. William Shakspere (I spell the name as he himself appears to have spelt it ^) was baptized at Stratford-on- Avon on April 26th, 1564. The exact date of his birth is not known. It may have been April 22nd, or April 23rd. The place at which he was born is, also, a matter of con- jecture. " We are not quite certain of the identity of" his " father," writes Professor Saintsbury,^ but he may reason- ably be assumed to have been one John Shakspere, born at Snitterfield, who in or about the year 1557 had married Mary Arden, the daughter of a well-to-do farmer of Wilmecote, near Stratford. Aubrey, who was born ten years after Shakspere's death, tells us that John Shakspere was a butcher. According to Sir Sidney Lee, he set up at Stratford " as a trader in all manner of agricultural produce ; corn, wool, malt, meat, skins, and leather were among the commodities in which he dealt. Documents of a somewhat later date often describe him as a glover." ^ Perhaps we might appropriately describe him as a general ' I am not sure, however, that "Shaksper" is not the proper form. See infra, chap. IX. ' Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. V, p. 165. ' Illustrated Life, p. 3. i86 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? dealer. Neither he nor his wife could read or write, but in this they were by no means exceptional, for, as Malone tells us, " about the time of our poet's birth the majority of the Corporation of Stratford appear to have been entitled to the eulogy bestowed by Jack Cade upon those who ' do not use to write their names, but have a mark of their own, like honest plain-dealing men ' ; for out of nineteen persons who signed a paper relative to one of their body who had been elected bailiff, ten of whom were aldermen, and the rest burgesses, seven only could write their names ; and among the twelve marksmen is found John Shakespeare." Facsimiles of these nineteen signatures have often been published. They may be seen in Halli- well-Phillipps's Outlines, Vol. I, p. 38. It may be noticed that in the second column the name " John " occurs five times, one being the baptismal name of John Shakspere. All these " Johns " are marksmen, and in each case the name " John " seems to have been written by the same hand, no doubt that of the " learned clerk " who wrote the document. William Shakspere, therefore, was born of illiterate parents, and in illiterate surroundings; but it does not follow that he was himself without education. There was a Free Grammar School at Stratford, and tradition says that the boy was sent there. It is a reasonable hypothesis, and I am well content to follow tradition in this matter. Unfortunately there are no records of the school telling us when Shakspere went there, or when he left, or what he learnt there. Whether he was idle or industrious, whether or not he gave proof of great ability and intelligence, we do not know. Tradition is absolutely silent on these points. It is generally assumed that he entered the school at the early age of seven, and, of course, he may have done so. But, whatever may have been the age at which he commenced his schooling, tradition, which has been generally followed by the biographers — including THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROfeLEM" 187 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps and Sir Sidney Lee — tells us that he was taken away from school at the age of thirteen, in order to assist his father who had become involved in financial difficulties. Mr. Robertson, as we have already seen, seems inclined to follow the quite baseless but highly convenient theory, put for^yard by the Rev. T. Carter, that John Shakspere never wag in financial difficulties, the idea of his being in embarrassed circum- stances having, somehow or other, arisen from the fact that he was a Puritan " recusant." On this hypothesis it is not necessary to suppose that John Shakspere re- moved his son William from school at the age of thirteen ; whence it follows that William might have continued to prosecute his studies at the Grammar School for several more years and so have greatly improved his classical education. I have shown how Sir Sidney Lee has ex- posed the absurdity of this theory, and why Mr. Robertson should be enamoured of it I cannot imagine. For agreeing' as he does with Farmer that Shakspere was ignorant of the meaning of the simplest Latih words, he cannot, surely, desire to prolong the schooling of his unlearned hero, in order that he may acquire large Latin, and, possibly, some Greek, only in order to forget both ! So far as I know, however, Mr. Robertson and his reverend mentor have a monopoly of the " Puritan recu- sant " theory. I have already cited Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps and Sir Sidney Lee. Let us now see what Professor Dowden says on the subject : " What cannot be doubted is that his [Shakspere's] father had passed from wealth to comparative poverty. In 1578 he effected a large mortgage on the estate of Asbies; when he tendered payment in the following year it was refused until other sums due had been repaid ; the money designed for the redemption of Asbies had been obtained by the sale of his wife's reversionary interest in the Snitterfield property. His taxes were lightened, nor was he always able to pay i88 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? those which were still claimed ... he fell into debt and was tormented with legal proceedings." ^ We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that tradition is right in telling us that William Shakspere was re- moved from school at the age of thirteen, i.e. in the year 1577. We may allow him, then, iive or six years of schooling at the Free Grammar School. And what would he have learnt there ? The answer is, Latin. That was the subject, and one might almost say the only subject, that was really taught at the old Elizabethan grammar schools. Such knowledge of Latin, therefore, as a boy might have acquired at this school between the ages of seven, or eight, and thirteen, I think may fairly be claimed for William Shakspere. It is all guess-work, certainly, and there is no evidence to support it ; but it seems a reasonable hypothesis. I will not here enter upon the question of the amount of Latin which a boy might reasonably be supposed to have learnt at the Stratford Grammar School in five or six years, or what authors he may be supposed to have read, but I would remind those who are tempted to follow the highly exaggerated estimates (as I corjiceive them to be) of Mr. Spencer Baynes and Professor Collins, that accord- ing to Mr. Baynes's own authorities, Hoole and Brinsley, such authors as Horace, Juvenal, Persius, and Seneca were read in the highest class only of Elizabethan grammar schools, the boys of which were about fifteen years of age, or in their eighth school year, so that if Shakspere left school at thirteen, in all probability he would not have read these ^.uthors." Nor, I venture to think, would he have become familiar with Plautus or Terence. Moreover, we are not justified in assuming that the curriculum at the Stratford Free School was of the same high class as * Introduction to Shakespeare, p. 7. John Shakspere left no will — pre- sumably because he had nothing to leave. Vide supra, p. loj. ' See Anders, Shakespeare's Books, p. lo, n. 4. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 189 that of the best schools of the time, such, for instance, as Wolsey's celebrated foundation at Ipswich. The modern "orthodox" who adhere strictly to Jonson's "small Latin " must, surely, agree with me here.^ But what was Shakspere's occupation after having been prematurely removed from school ? Aubrey, writing some time before 1680, says: " His father was a butcher, and I have been told heretofore by some of the neighbours that when he was a boy he exercised his father's trade, but when he killed a calf he would do it in high style, and make a speech." This testimony, which is corroborated by one Dowdall, who visited Stratford in 1693, so far as the story that Shakspere was bound apprentice to a butcher is concerned, is accepted as probable by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, Messrs, Garnett and Gosse, and by most of the " biographers." The fact, if fact it be, that the youthful Shakspere when he killed a calf would make a speech, and " do it in high style," is certainly suggestive of the actor. This probably was the first indication given by " Will " of his histrionic talent. The life of William Shakspere now becomes an entire blank for some five or six years. It is, indeed, a blank, only very partially filled in by hypothesis, from his baptism till his thirteenth year, when he is supposed to have been removed from the Free School. But now ' Halliwell-Phillipps writes (Vol. I, p. 52): "The best authorities unite in telling us that the poet imbibed a certain amount of Latin at school, but that his acquaintance with that language was, throughout his life, of a very limited character. It is not probable that scholastic learning was ever congenial to his tastes, and it should be recollected that books in most parts of the country were then of very rare occurrence. Lill/s Grammar and a few classical works, chained to the desks of the Free School, were probably the only volumes of the kind to be found in Stratford-on-Avon. Exclusive of Bibles, Church services, Psalters, and education manuals, there were certainly not more than two or three dozen books, if so many, in the whole town." Whether these statements as to the chained books at the school and the number of books at Stratford are accurate I leave to the antiquarians to determine. The " unlearned Shakespeare " school, of course, accepts them. The "learned Shakespeare " school disputes them ! igo IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? even hypothesis has nothing to tell us. Let me once more quote Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps as to " Will's " life from his "fourteenth" (he might have said "thirteenth") to his eighteenth year: "Although the information at present accessible does not enable us to determine the exact nature of Shakespeare's occupations from his fourteenth to his eighteenth year, that is to say, from 1577 to 1582, there can be no hesitation in concluding that, during that animated and receptive period of life, he was mercifully released from what, to a spirit like his, must have been the deleterious monotony of a school education. Whether he passed those years as a butcher or a wool-dealer does not greatly matter." This passage is, really, so delightful that no account of " Will's " life could be complete without it. I presume it is only in the case of a " genius " that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps would have dispensed with "the deleterious monotony of a school education," but it is painful to think how many geniuses at the present day are forced to undergo that malignant influence, whereas had they been put to calf-killing or wool-stapling, they might in after life have ripened into great poets and dramatists! However, happily for literature and the human race, Will Shakspere was pre- served from the paralysing effect of school education, or, indeed, of any education at all, for these five or six years, and thus became adequately equipped for the composition of Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth. We now come to the fateful year 1582, when William Shakspere had attained the age of eighteen years. At that not very mature age — he was, to be accurate, a little more than eighteen and a half — " Will," as we know, joined himself in the bonds of matrimony with a lady who was his senior by eight years. Who was that lady? " Anne Hathaway, of course," will, I presume, be the reader's reply. For are not delighted pilgrims to the shrine taken to see " Anne Hathaway's cottage," just as THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 191 they are taken to see the very room in which " Shake- speare" was born? Yet in each case there is no certainty whatsoever. "We are not quite certain of the identity of Shakespeare's father; we are by no means certain of the identity of his wife." So writes Professor Saintsbury.^ We are usually told that the lady was " Agnes," daughter of Richard Hathaway, a "husbandman" of Shottery, a hamlet in the parish of Old Stratford, and we are further told that in the sixteenth century, when nomenclature was in such a fluid, indeed such a nebulous state, Agnes and Anne were alternative spellings of the same Christian name. Mr. Joseph Hunter, however, was of opinion that "Will's" bride was the daughter not of Richard but of one John Hathaway.^ And if we turn from the biographers to see what the records tell us we shall find that here again we are met by difficulty and un- certainty. In the first place, we have to note that "no record of the solemnisation of Shakespeare's marriage survives. Although the parish of Stratford included Shottery, and thus both bride and bridegroom were pa,rishioners, the Stratford parish register is silent on the subject." ^ Further, no licence for the marriage of William Shakspere and Anne Hathaway has been discovered, but in the Registry of the diocese of Worcester there is to be found a " Bond against Impediments," executed on November 28th, 1582, by two bondsmen named Sandells and Richardson, described therein as " agricolae," and, apparently, belonging to the class of agricultural ' The Cambridge History of English Literature (1910), Vol. V, p. 165. ^ New Illustrations of Shaluspeare, Vol. I, p. 51. ".^ines," writes Mr. E. K. Chambers (Encyc. Brit., nth ed.), "was l^ally a distinct name from Anne, but there can be no doubt that ordinary custom treated them as identical." "Agnes" is a very "distinct name from Anne" not only "legally" but in all other respects, and I am not so sure about the absence of all doubt as to the curious "ordinary custom" referred to. ^ Lee's Life, p. 18. 192 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? labourers, both of Stratford, who bound themselves in the sum of £40 to "save harmless the right reverend Father in God, Lord John Bishop of Worcester" for licensing "William Shagspere" and "Anne Hathwey of Stratford " " to be married together with once asking of the bannes of matrimony between them." ^ Of these bondsmen, who thus undertook that there were no impediments to the marriage, such as pre- contracts for example, Mr. Hunter writes {New Illus- trations of Shakespeare, Vol. I, p. 50): "Two more un- seemly persons to attend at a poet's bridal can hardly be conceived . . . two husbandmen who were unable to write their names and whose marks are so singularly rude that they betray a more than common degree of rusticity." Whether these two worthies were the friends of the bride, or of the bridegroom, or of both, does not appear, but by the execution of this bond they enabled " the poet " to be married in haste, with only once asking of the banns, and that was, perhaps, important, since he was making, as Mr. Lang says, " a marriage tainted with what Meg Dods calls ' ante-nup.' " ^ But here we are confronted with another very re- markable record. In the Episcopal Register of Worcester there is a minute to the effect that on November 27th, 1582, the very day before the execution of the marriage bond, a licence was issued for the marriage of William Shaxpere \sic\ and Anna Whateley of Temple Grafton. What is the meaning of this? Is "William Shaxpere" of this minute identical with "William Shagspere" of the bond? Is "Anna Whateley of Temple Grafton" identical with " Anne Hathwey of Stratford " ? Professor Saintsbury calls this "a coincidence extra- ordinary in any case, most extraordinary if we note the extreme closeness of the names Hathwey and W/tateley, 1 See Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines, Vol. II, p. 55. ^ Shakespeare, Bacon, and the Great Unknown, p. 8, THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 193 and remember that Anne Hathaway is not otherwise traceable, though Agnes Hathaway (the two names are in practice confused) is." Are we to conclude from this that in the learned Professor's opinion " Anna Whateley " is just a little error on the part of the scribe, who ought to have written " Anna " (or " Anne " or " Agnes ") " Hathwey," and that similarly " Temple Grafton," which is not one of the hamlets of Stratford, is another trifling error on the part of the same scribe or clerk? Or are we to accept the hypothesis Of those highly speculative critics who have suggested that the gallant gay Lothario " Will " had intended to marry Miss Anna Whateley of Temple Grafton, but that Anne (or Agnes) Hathwey's indignant relatives (her father having died in the summer of this same year 1582), on discovery of the plot, had sent two stalwart hinds to compel him to " make an honest woman " of Anne ? Or shall we follow Professor Saintsbury's- advice, who prudently writes with regard to the difficulties attending the question of Shakspere's marriage, " the only rational course of conduct is to decline to solve a problem for which we have no sufficient data, and -which, very likely, is no problem at all " ? For myself, I am quite content to adopt the agnostic attitude recommended by the Professor, though it is difficult not to indulge in a little speculation. But that Shakspere's marriage was, in fact, affected by what Mr. Lang — or rather " Meg Dods "-^calls " ante- nup," seems an entirely reasonable assumption, and is now, I think, generally accepted by the "biographers." I should be the last to throw a stone at him on that account. I merely note, as a fact of this life, where known facts are so few and far between, that not quite six months after the marriage, viz. on May 26th, 1583, Shakspere's daughter Susanna was baptized. Less than two years afterwards, viz, in 1585, the twins Hamnet and Judith were born to him; and both o 194 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? were baptized on February 2nd of that year. Hamnet died when he was aged some eleven years, and was buried at Stratford on August nth, 1596. Of Judith we shall have something to say later on. " Anne Hathaway 's greater burden of years," writes Sir Sidney Lee, " and the likelihood that the poet was forced into marrying her by her friends were not circum- stances of happy augury. . . . To both these unpromising features was added, in the poet's case, the absence of a means of livelihood, and his course of life in the years that immediately followed implies that he bore his domestic ties with impatience. . . . All the evidence points to the conclusion, which the fact that he had no more children confirms, that in the later months of the year 1585 he left Stratford, and that, although he was never wholly estranged from his family, he saw little of wife or children for eleven years." Farther on, however, the same biographer tells us : " To London Shakespeare naturally drifted, doubtless trudging thither on foot during 1586, by way of Oxford and High Wycombe."^ Here I may profitably quote Professor Saintsbury once more : " No biography of Shakespeare which deserves any confidence \sic\ has ever been constructed without a large infusion of the tell-tale words ' apparently,' ' probably,' ' there can be little doubt,' and no small infusion of the still more tell-tale ' perhaps,' ' it would be natural,' ' according to what was usual at the time,' and so forth." It will be observed that the Professor has omitted to mention the adverb " doubtless," perhaps out of delicacy ! ^ Whether, then, it was his wife's age, or her. temper, or * Life, pp. 23 and 28. ' At p. 181 of The Shakespeare Problem Restated (note i) I have collected some four-and-twenty instances of Sir Sidney Lee's use of this adverb, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. It is remarkable that Professor Saintsbury should say that only those biographies of Shakespeare which make use of these convenient adverbs are deserving of confidence ! THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 195 her too opulent fecundity, or whether it was the res angusta domi, or all these together, which drove Shak- spere from his native town it is impossible to say. Neither can the date of this Hegira be ascertained with any certainty. As we have seen, Sir Sidney Lee first puts it " in the later months of the year 1585," and then "during 1586." Mr. Fleay, however, tells us that the London theatres were shut during 1586, owing to an outbreak of plague, and he puts the date of Shakspere's exodus with more probability "in or about 1587." ^ Another reason has been commonly assigned for "Will's" flight from Stratford, to wit the animosity of Sir Thomas Lucy who, " in the words of Nicholas Rowe (1709), redoubled the prosecution against him to that degree that he was obliged to leave his business and family in Warwickshire and shelter himself in London." Now I am not going to discuss all over again this old story of Shakspere's stealing deer from Sir Thomas Lucy. In The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 23 et seq^ I have given reasons why I think the story cannot be true. Briefly stated, they are these. Deer were animals ferae naturae, and as such were not the subject of larceny at the common law. It was criminal to take them in a royal forest, but of that there is no question here. Further, there were statutes which made it an offence to kill deer in a" Park impaled " (see 5 Eliz. c. 21). But then Sir Thomas Lucy had no " Park impaled " at Charlecote, and the suggestion that the deer-stealing may have taken place at Fulbroke is, as Sir Sidney Lee shows (p. 26), a " pure invention.'' Here I desire to allude to a charge brought against me by Mr. Robertson that I am possessed by a " resolve to disparage the Stratford actor." Such a charge is grossly unfair and absolutely untrue. I have endeavoured to set forth such meagre facts as are known of his life ' Fleay's Life of Shakespeare (1886), pp. 91 and 94. 196 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? with strict impartiality, — to " nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice." If I had been possessed with a malicious and insensate desire to "disparage" (or to " defame," as Sir Edward Sullivan would say) William Shakspere of Stratford I should have unhesitatingly adopted the deer-stealing story. I should have dilated upon the (assumed) fact that he was, as his first biographer tells us, a poacher and a thief; I should have revelled in the tale told by Archdeacon Davies {c. 1688) that " Will " was " much given to all unluckinesse in stealing venison and rabbits," i.e. that he was a " cony-catcher " as well as a deer-stealer, and that Lucy had him — the (supposed) immortal poet that was to be-^" oft whipt and sometimes imprisoned," and that this wretched outcast, in a spirit of mean "revenge," wrote the contemptible doggerels about "lousy Lucy." But I should not have stopped here. I should have dilated further on the ancient stories of Shakspere's drunken habits; of his having passed a night drunk under the famous crab- tree, long shown to visitors as " Shakespeare's tree " ; and of his death being caused by a drinking bout. All these tales, for which I might have quoted good " orthodox " authority, would have suited me admirably if I had been so malignant and so idiotic as to wish to blacken the character of the Stratford player. As a fact, however, I have rejected them all as mythology .^ I am " aghast at my own moderation " ! ' The particular instance which Mr. Robertson cites (p. 574) as evidence of my alleged " resolve to disparage the Stratford actor," viz. my interpreta- tion of a statement of Heywood's with regard to the publication by Jaggard of two poems of his in an edition of The Passionate Pilgrim, under Shake- speare's name, shows to what absurd lengths this controversialist is prepared to push his " resolve to disparage " me\ I absolutely adhere to my statement that "Shakspere made no protest," which fact is implied in the pass^e quoted from Heywood (see The Shakespeare Problem Restated, pp. 202 and 348), and it is not the least " disparagement " of Shakspere to say that he made no protest in the case mentioned. See infra, p. 460, where I deal fully with this matter. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 197 The fact that stands out very clearly is that WilHam Shakspere, somewhere about the year 1587, when he was tbree-and-twenty years of age, left his wife and children, — I do not say " deserted," though, perhaps, that would not be too strong a word, — and found his way to London. What happened to him there ? Well, we are all familiar with the story that, in Sir Sidney Lee's words, "his original connection with the playhouse was as holder of the horses of visitors outside the doors," and, as Sir Sidney also says, " there is no inherent improbability in the tale," which seems to have been related by D'Avenant to Betterton. From this precarious employment outside the theatre he appears to have been promoted to a place within it, for, according to Rowe, " he was received into the company then in being at first in a very mean rank," to wit, according to William Castle, an old parish clerk at Stratford, as " servitor," which is interpreted by Malone as " prompter's attendant whose employment it is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter as often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage," — a charming periphrasis for " call-boy." These stories of Shakspere's humble occupations when he came to London, homeless and penniless, are not, be it observed, the invention of malignant " heretics," but repose upon good " orthodox " foundations. . Mr. Robertson tells us that the preposterous idea that Shakespeare was a learned man, and that he had some special knowledge of law, originated in the imagination of injudicious Shakspeariolaters, who have thus supplied the heretics with arguments (quite baseless, of course) against the received theory of authorship. I do not know whether he also holds that these stories of Shakspere's mean occupations in London likewise originated with indiscreet admirers, who wished to magnify the greatness of his subsequent rise by contrasting it with such lowly begin- nings; but, however that may be, it would seem that igS IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? " Will " performed the duties of " call-boy " quite to the satisfaction of his employers, and in due time, though we are ignorant of the precise date, was allowed to tread the boards as one of the actors. Here it becomes material to consider the position of an actor in the seventeenth century. Some writers really seem to imagine that the status of a " player '' in the " spacious days " was very much that which is held to-day by such a man as Sir J. Forbes-Robertson, let us say. Such a view is, of course, absurd. I myself am old enough to remember the day when " a gentleman," and still more " a lady," was supposed to lose caste by " going on the stage." Happily that stupid idea is a thing of the past; so much so, indeed, that not only is our peerage being constantly recruited from the stage, but our peers themselves are frequently possessed with a consuming ambition to appear before the footlights. Different indeed was the case of the actor in Elizabethan times. In those days the "Common Players" were by statue classed with " Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars," and liable to be " openly whipped," amongst other things, unless they had a licence to pursue their calling from " any Baron " of the Realm, " or any other honourable Personage of greater degree." ^ "These players," says Asinius Lupus, in Jonson's Poetaster (1601), "are an idle generation, and do much harm in the State, corrupt young gentry very much, I know it." To which, and further observations to the same effect, Tucca replies : " Th'art in the right. . . . They are grown licentious — the rogues. Libertines, flat libertines. They forget they are i' the statute, the rascals ; they are blazoned there ; there they are tricked, they and their pedigrees ; they need no other heralds, I wiss." The last words are a hit at those players who, like Shakspere, 'See 14 Eliz. c. 5 (1572) and 39 Eliz. c. 4 (1597), quoted in The Shakespeare Probkm Restated, pp. 175-6. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 199 were desirous of obtaining a grant of a coat-of-arms, and " the statute " is the statute of Elizabeth above referred to. Robert Greene, who knew them only too well, character- ised the players as " apes " and " rude grooms." " It must be borne in mind," says Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, "that actors occupied an inferior position in society, and that even the vocation of a dramatic author was considered scarcely respectable." "At this day," writes Dr. Ingleby, " we can scarcely realize the scorn which was thrown on all sides upon those who made acting a means of liveli- hood." 1 No doubt a man like Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College, who rose to the very top of the tree, was held in good estimation. But Alleyn was the exception that proves the rule, and, taken as a class, the players were certainly looked upon as " lewd fellows of the baser sort." When we read the description of the public theatres in those days, and remember that women's parts had to be played by boys, we shall be helped to realise the low position of an actor in Elizabethan times. When, there- fore, Mr. Robertson and others write as though the very fact of leading an actor's life in those times would tend to endow a man with exceptional polish and culture, it is pretty clear that they do greatly err. Such, then, was the position of William Shakspere when he became a player, and a member of the Lord Chamberlain's company. What histrionic ability he dis- played we do not know. " Though I have inquired," says Rowe, " I could never meet with any further account of him this way than that the top of his performance was the 1 " In keeping with his quality of pariah," writes Mr. W. T. Lawrence, " the Elizabethan player entertained no very lofty opinion of his calling, made no particular effort to keep the temple of the Muses undesecrated " ( The Elizabethan Playhouse, Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford-upon-Avon (1912), p. 3). He further says: "Subject to certain reservations, the stage still remained, as it had been constituted by Act of Parliament, a banned vocation" (p. i). 200 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Ghost in Hamlet" If this be true, Shakspere does not appear to have been exactly a Roscius. Let us now make a brief retrospect. At the age of twenty-three, or thereabouts, William Shakspere, leaving wife and children to shift for themselves as best they may, comes to London, a homeless and penniless adventurer. How are we to conceive of him at that time ? We have seen that both his parents were illiterate. We have seen that this was nothing at all unusual in a provincial town and in the sixteenth century, for, as Dr. Johnson has told us, "to be able to read and write, outside of professed scholars, or men and women of high rank, was an accom- plishment still valued for its rarity." Accordingly we have seen that of nineteen aldermen and burgesses of Stratford, about the time of Shakspere 's birth, six only could write their names. We have seen that the two friends who became bondsmen for " Will," in order that he might be married with only one asking of banns, were not only unable to write their names, but that their " marks are so singularly rude that they betray a more than common degree of rusticity." We have seen, too, that books were few and far between at Stratford-on-Avon at the period in question, Shakspere, indeed, as we may reasonably assume, had had a few years' schooling at the Free Grammar School, but he had been removed pre- maturely, and had been put to calf-killing, or glove-selling, or some other not very intellectual employment. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's description of the " young man from Stratford " at this time has been quoted again and again, but it seems so reasonable that I will place it before the reader once more : " Removed prematurely from school, residing with illiterate relatives in a bookless neighbour- hood, thrown into the midst of occupations adverse to scholastic progress — it is difficult to believe that when he first left Stratford he was not all but destitute of polished accomplishments. He could not, at all events, under the THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 201 circumstances in which he had then so long been placed, have had the opportunity for acquiring a refined style of composition." This appears to me a very sensible estimate of what "Will's" condition must have been when he came to London. Exception has been taken to the phrase " a book- less neighbourhood," and, certainly, it is one of those general propositions which it is very dangerous to advance, inas- much as, in the words of Mrs. Stopes, they are " liable to be proved untrue by a very limited opposite," as, for example, that a certain curate of Bishopton, who died in 1607, was possessed of a large number of books of sorts, and that certain great men had fine libraries. But Mr. Phillipps's meaning is plain enough, and the expression is true enough in the sense in which he intended it to be understood.^ It is quite natural that the youthful Shak- spere, in these circumstances, and under these conditions, should seek such employments as those of horse-holding, and " call-boy," and there is at any rate respectable tradi- tion to the eiifect that he did so. But certain critics of the " orthodox " school, being, naturally, very anxious to pro- vide Shakspere with the means of improving his mind, have invented the story that, on his arrival in the metropolis, " Will " at once repaired to the office of Richard Field, a native of Stratford, and that Field found him work in VautroUier's printing-office, an hypothesis for which there is not a tittle of evidence, and which Sir Sidney Lee, very justly, characterises as fanciful. One thing more we ought, I think, to bear in miijd. Even at this day, when intercommunication between the various parts of England has become so easy, the peculiar dialects of various counties remain very distinctly marked. It is easy, for instance, to recognise a man of Devon (I am not, of course, speaking of those of the higher, and more highly educated, class) by his peculiar accent and ^ See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 55 note. 203 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? pronunciation. The same may be said of the man of Northumberland, of Lancashire, of Hampshire, of Sussex (I allude especially to the yeomen and agricultural labourers), and of many other counties. In Shakspere's day these distinctive dialects, or "brogues," must have been even more strongly marked, and we may say with confidence that "Will," when he first came to London, must have spoken the Warwickshire patois. Some " anti- Willians," as Mr. Lang has styled them, have referred to him as " a yokel " at this period. I have never so called him, but I think we are quite justified in speaking of him, in these early days, as a " Stratford rustic," for in so doing we have the high authority of Messrs. Garnett and Gosse, who write of " that knowledge of good society " and " that easy and confident attitude towards mankind which appears in Shakespeare's plays from the first, and which (we must concede this much to the Baconians) are so unlike what might have been expected from a Stratford rustic, or a London actor." ^ One fact stands out clearly, and that is that Shak- spere's life for many years after he came to London is an absolute blank. He arrives in London, according to the most probable theory, in 1587, and except for the traditions as to horse-holding, and the employment as call-boy, nothing is heard of him till 1593, when, according to the received faith, he suddenly burst into light by publishing the poem of Venus and Adonis? And now to the darkness of night there succeeds a 1 History of English Literature (1903), Vol. II, p. 199. My italics. These distinguished critics actually propound a theory, for which there is not a shred of evidence, that Shakspere joined Leicester's force which sailed from Harwich in December 1585, to take part in the war against Spain in the Low Countries. They appear to think that by serving as an Elizabethan " Tommy Atkins " he would have been enabled to acquire all the culture necessary for one who was to write the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare ! See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. I lo. ^ I have not forgotten the allusion to Shake-scene in 1 592, but I leave that to be dealt with later on. THE REAL " SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM " 203 blaze of limelight. It has taken but five short years to turn " Shakspere " into " Shakespeare " ; to transform this " Stratford rustic " into the immortal, the world's great poet, who is not of an age but for all time — "if that hypothesis of theirs be sound"! And for the next few years there streams from this man a succession of master- pieces, all of which belong to the supreme rank of litera- ture, and all, apparently, thrown off with ease, " as an eagle may moult a feather or a fool may break a jest," to borrow an expression from Mr. Swinburne. First, then, let us consider that remarkable poem Venus and Adonis, which was published in the year 1593, and which the author calls "the first heir of my invention." On its title-page appear these lines, from Ovid's Amores: Vilia miretur vulgus ; mihi flavus Apollo Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua. So the poet who, according to Dr. Farmer (the " sweet reasonableness" of whose criticism is acclaimed by Mr. Robertson), did not even know the meaning of the simple Latin word praeclarissimus whpn he wrote Henry V, somewhere about the year 1 599, leads off with a dashing couplet taken from a Latin poet. But is not this some- thing like a false pretence of scholarship ? For, whatever else Shakespeare may have been, we know (for has not Mr. Robertson said so ?) that a " scholar " he cannot have been. These lines, then, must, I presume, have been supplied to him by some more learned friend. And what is the meaning of them ? " Let the common herd admire common things, so long as to me Apollo's self hands goblets brimming with the waters of Castaly"; or, as Jonson translates : Kneel hinds to trash— me let bright Phoebus, swell With cups full flowing from the Muses' well. 204 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? A somewhat arrogant and self-assertive motto for a first attempt in poesy ! Of a truth the young player, at his first literary venture, was not troubled with any super- fluous modesty ! Sir Philip Sidney, it is true, inscribed a similar haughty motto, taken from classical sources, upon the title-page of his Apology for Poetry (published two years afterwards), viz. : Odi profanum vulgus et arceo. But in the case of a man of Sidney's rank and position this sort of thing seems natural enough. We should, I think, hardly have expected it from a young unknown provincial actor, nullis majoribus ortus ! Turning over the page, we find a dedication, signed " William Shakespeare," to " the Right Honorable Henrie Wriothesley Earle of Southampton, and Baron of Titch- field." Now the young Earl of Southampton, then in his twentieth year, was, as we all know, one of the most brilliant figures of the time — a man of vast possessions, in the front rank of society, and reckoned the handsomest man at the Court of Queen Elizabeth. To this great nobleman, then, player Shakspere, one of the statutory " rogues and vagabonds " were it not for the Lord Chamberlain's licence, without permission, as the words of the dedication itself appear to show, has the audacity to dedicate the " first heir of his invention." To the Earl of Southampton, says Mr. Grant White, Shak- spere dedicates his Venus and Adonis, '' although he had not asked permission to do so, as the dedication shows, and in those days and long after, without some knowledge of his man, and some opportunity of judging how he would receive the compliment, a player would not have ventured to take such a liberty with the name of a nobleman." Dean Beeching, as orthodox an exponent of the Strat- fordian faith as of theology, adverting to the curious theory that the earlier of the sonnets of Shakespeare were THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 205 addressed to Southampton, not as an adored friend, but merely as a patron, very sensibly remarks : " If it is re- membered that Shakespeare's patron, Lord Southampton, was one of the greatest peers in England, at a time when all social degrees, even that between peer and gentleman, were very clearly marked ; and that Shakespeare belonged to a profession which, by public opinion, was held to be degrading, it will hardly need saying that such addresses from a player, however fashionable, to a patron, however complaisant, were simply impossible." These considera- tions, obviously, apply, with almost equal force, to such an address as that contained in the dedication of Venus and Adonis, if it were indeed written by player Shakspere to the great Earl of Southampton, when we consider that which, according to Dr. Ingleby, " at this day we can scarcely realize," viz. " the scorn which was thrown on all sides upon those who made acting a means of livelihood." But here I have to advert to the criticism which has been passed upon such observations as these by Mr. Lang and Mr. Robertson. Mr. Lang suggests (p. 108) that there is no real force in the argument, because, whether the true author of the poem was the Stratford player or somebody else, the player was, at any rate, identified with the author by "all in the world of letters or theatre," so that "whatever happened, whatever the Earl knew, if it were discreditable to be dedicated to by an actor, Southampton was discredited." Mr. Robertson has taken up this argument from Mr. Lang and improved upon it in characteristic fashion : " There is really not a grain of good ground for suggesting any difficulty in the matter [there never is any difficulty in anything for Mr. Robertson], and the very reason assigned — the differ- ence of status between poet and patron — destroys itself the moment it is understood. If it be held unlikely that a literature-loving nobleman in Shakespeare's day should allow a mere actor to dedicate to him, as to a friendly 2o6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? patron, two poems, how in the name of common sense are we to suppose that the nobleman would let all the world go on believing that the poems were so dedicated, if they really were not ? The cavil is sheer absurdity." ^ I greatly admire the ingenuity of this contention, which will, doubtless, appear most impressive to those who have not followed the argument. I had said, as others had said before me, that a young player, in Shak- spere's position, would not have dared to dedicate a poem, his first essay in poetry, to the great Earl. Mr. Robertson quietly ignores that argument (as, indeed, Mr. Lang had done before him), and substitutes another of his own. If the Earl was "discredited" (Mr. Lang's word) by the dedication, why did he suffer it ? Why, " in the name of common sense " (Mr. Robertson's characteristic question), " are we to suppose that the nobleman would let all the world go on believing that the poems were so dedicated ? " Thus the argument is shifted from the consideration of what the player would have dared to do to the considera- tion of what the nobleman might have been expected to tolerate! Now I never suggested that Southampton would have been " discredited " by the dedication of the poem to him, even though it were assumed that " Shake- speare " who signed it was the Stratford player. What I siiggested as incredible was that " Will," a young provincial actor, at that time quite unknown to fame (Mr. Robertson himself tells us that no truly Shakespearean play was published till after 1 593), would have had the unparalleled audacity to dedicate his first poem to a great nobleman, more especially without his permission to do so; but I never suggested, nor do I see any force whatever in the suggestion, that if the real author were known to South- ampton, if he were one of his friends, he would not have permitted him to make use of the dedication signed " Shakespeare," because people would, either certainly, or ' Work cited, p. 558. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 207 in all probability, identify "Shakespeare" with Shakspere the Stratford player. I do not imagine the gay young Earl would have cared two straws what people thought in such a case. The one hypothesis appears to me quite reasonable; the other, again to use the words of Dean Beeching, with regard to the Sonnets, " simply impossible." "The cavil is sheer absurdity," says Mr. Robertson. That, again, is altogether " pretty Fanny's way." There is no " cavil," and the criticism is quite sound. The " sheer absurdity" is one of those expressions so dear to con- troversialists of the Robertsonian type. " It is no use arguing with Johnson," said Goldsmith, " for if his pistol misses fire he knocks you down with the butt-end " ! Many years before the publication of The Baconian Heresy I had pointed out how applicable this saying is to Mr. Robertson's controversial methods. And now, having noticed the audacious Latin motto, and the still more audacious dedication of Venus and Adonis (I speak, of course, on the assumption that it is the player who, posing as a scholar, quotes the arrogant Latin lines, and dedicates the first heir of his invention to the Earl), let us proceed to examine the poem itself. Upon this I wrote, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 59) : " Here is the young Warwickshire provincial writing, ' as his first essay in English composition, the most elegant verses the age produced, and which for polish and care surpass his very latest works.' " ^ I went on to write : " Polished, indeed, and scholarly, is this extra- ordinary poem, and, above all, it is impressed throughout with that which we should now call Culture. It is, in fact, imbued with the spirit of the highest culture of the age in which it was written." I fondly imagined that these pro- positions would be disputed by nobody who was competent to judge of poetry and literature. I did not, and I do not, assert that the poem affords proof of " scholarship " as • Appleton Morgan, The Shakespearian Myth, p. 219. 2o8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? we now understand the term, meaning thereby classical scholarship as apprehended by the Universities. But that it is a " scholarly " poem, I do, most confidently, assert, and that it is a most carefully " polished " poetical study few, I imagine, will deny. It may not, albeit " Shakespearean," be inspired by the highest poetic afflatus. As to that I am not concerned to argue ; but that it fully merits the epithets I have bestowed upon it, and that the author must have been "imbued with the spirit of the highest culture of the age " in which he lived, seem to me self- evident propositions. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps speaks of it as an "epic" not only "highly finished," but ^^ completely devoid of patois!' The author, as Mr. Churton Collins tells us, " draws on Ovid, the material, profusely and superbly embroidered and expanded with original imagery and detail, being derived from the story as told in the tenth book of the Metamorphoses, with much which is borrowed from the story of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus in the fourth book, and from the story of the Calydonian boar- hunt in the eighth book." The Metamorphoses, as we know, had been translated by Golding, but Mr. Collins, as I have already shown, adduces cogent reasons to show that the poet made use of the original as well as the translation, if, indeed, he made use of the translation here at all. Dr. Appleton Morgan, again, has written, and I do not think the description is an exaggerated one: "The Venus and Adonis is the most carefully polished production that William Shakespeare's name was ever signed to, and, moreover, as polished, elegant, and sumptuous a piece of rhetoric as English letters have ever produced." " In this beautiful poem," writes Coleridge, " there is an endless ac- tivity of thought, in all the possible associations of thought with thought, thought with feeling, or with words; of feelings with feelings, and of words with words." ^ Some ^ Lectures on Shakespeare (Dent & Co. ), p. 40. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 209 may consider that exaggerated praise, but, at any rate, it shows what a great poet, and a great critic, thought of Shakespeare's first publication. I wrote of the author that he was "a courtly, scholarly poet, saturated with Ovid," and I believe that description is amply borne out by a study of the poem. Then take the famous description of "the ideal horse." Here we are at once reminded of Virgil, but we find that the poet has really borrowed from the Divine Weeks and Works of Du Bartas, who imitated and expanded the Virgilian descrip- tion. But, as I have shown, it seems probable that Shakespeare referred to Joshua Sylvester's translation of Du Bartas's work, though, as that translation was not published till 1598, he must, apparently, have seen it in manuscript. Then, again, Sir Sidney Lee gives us to understand that the poet must have read the Ode de la Chasse in Estienne Jodelle's Ouvres et Meslanges Poetiques, where, he says, there are " curious resemblances " to the "minute description" of the hare-hunt in Venus and Adonis. And here it is interesting to take notice that Shakespeare was not only imbued with the spirit of "culture," but with that which was rare indeed in the sixteenth-century Englishman, viz. the spirit of " humani- tarianism." He does not write of the hare-hunt in the spirit of the sportsman eager to "break up" the hare, and " blood the hounds." On the contrary, his sympathies are all with the poor hunted creature. The stanzas are so full of tender compassion, and give such an exquisite description of the miseries of the bSte chassee, that I must set them forth in extenso : By this, poor Wat, far off upon a hill. Stands on his hinder legs, with listening ear, To hearken if his foes pursue him still. Anon their loud alarums he doth hear ; And now his grief may be compared well To one sore sick that hears the passing-bell. 2IO IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Then shalt thou see the dew-bedabbled wretch Turn and return, indenting with the way ; Each envious briar his weary legs doth scratch ; Each shadow makes him stop, each murmur stay. For misery is trodden on by many. And, being low, never relieved by any. Here we are reminded of the " melancholy Jaques " of As You Like It, and his sympathy with the stricken deer, the poor sequestered stag, That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt. And, in this connection, we recall the glorious saying of Cordelia : Mine enemy's dog. Though he had bit me, should have stood that night Against my fire. Nor can we forget the passage in Cymbeline (1, 6, i8 ; I, 5, 18 in the " Temple " edition), where the Queen tells Cornelius, I will try the forces Of these thy compounds on such creatures as We count not worth the hanging, but none human, To try the vigour of them, etc., and is answered by that good physician : Your highness Shall from this practice but make hard your heart: Besides, the seeing these effects will be Both noisome and infectious. I lay stress upon this humanitarian aspect of the great poet, because it shows how far Shakespeare was in advance of his times. It is true that, even in the days of Henry VHI, Sir Thomas More had spoken strongly of the cruelty of hare-hunting, but that was an Utopian utterance, and if any man ever was before his time it THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 211 was the author of Utopia?- It is also true that Montaigne was a humanitarian, and, as we know from The Tempest, Shakespeare had read some part, at any rate, if not all, of Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays. But ten years elapsed between the publication of Venus and Adonis and that of this translation, so Shakespeare could hardly have taken his humanitarian ideas from Montaigne.^ Then in this very remarkable poem we have a curious and, it must be confessed, a very unpoetical legal allusion. "The Queen of Love proposes to 'sell herself to the young Adonis, the consideration is to be a 'thousand kisses,' the number to be doubled in default of immediate payment : the deed is to be executed without delay, and the purchaser is to ' set his sign manual on her wax-red lips.'" 3 Then exclaims Venus : Say, for non-payment, that the debt should double, Is twenty hundred kisses such a trouble ? This is an allusion to the penalty for non-payment which, as every lawyer knows, was a feature of a "common money-bond " — rather out of place, it must be admitted, in such a collocation. More might be said, but I have written enough to show the true character of the " first heir " of Shakespeare's " invention." What says Mr. Robertson hereupon ? ^ If there had been any truth in the malicious charge that I desire to dis- parage the Stratford player, and to blacken his character, I should have dwelt upon the contrast between the mild humanitarian Shakespeare and Shakspere the deer-stealing poacher. But, as I have already said, I discard the poaching story as a myth. ' Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays was first published in 1603. Therefore all Shakespeare's reading in Montaigne must have been done after that date, unless he either read the original, or saw Florio's translation in manuscript. I should, of course, be the last to deny that " Shakespeare " may have read Montaigne in the original P'rench. ' The Mystery of William Shakespeare, by Judge Webb, p. 167. 212 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? He denies "that there is any noteworthy scholarly culture" in the poem (p. 556). When I first read this astounding pronouncement it almost seemed to me that Mr. Robertson had, under stress of controversial feeling, taken leave of intelligent literary criticism. But, on further consideration, I came to the conclusion that he probably attaches great importance to the word "scholarly." There is, surely, "noteworthy culture" in Venus and Adonis I No reasonable being can, I think, deny that. But is it " scholarly " culture ? Well, perhaps, not, if that epithet is to be understood as implying that the author might have taken a high place in classical honours at Oxford or Cambridge. But putting an ordinary and reasonable interpretation upon the word, I should be disposed to say that any critic who would deny that there is "noteworthy scholarly culture" in Venus and Adonis, in my humble judgment, proclaims himself a quantity n^gligeable so far as the poetical and strictly literary criticism of Shakespeare is concerned. That is my very strong opinion, and every reader must be left to form his own. But first let him give conscientious study and consideration to the poem in question. Mr. Robertson, however, thinks that all the culture necessary for the writing of Venus and Adonis might have been amply supplied to him by "his training as an actor." ^ Are we really to take such utterances as words of wisdom? Is this the recognised exponent of the orthodox Stratfordian faith in the twentieth century? I have already given some description of the status of a player in Elizabethan times. A very good idea of it, and of the estimation in which they were held by men of education, may be obtained by reference to the old play, The Returne from Parnassus. Here we have Kempe and Burbage brought on to the stage by the unknown University playwright. "Welcome M. Kempe • Work cited, pp. 536, 537. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 213 from dancing the Morrice over the Alpes," cries Studioso, alluding to the fact that Kempe, as he tells us in his Nine Days Wonder, had danced the Morrice from London to Norwich. " Clownes," says Dromo, in the earlier play of the trilogy, " have been thrust into playes by head and shoulders ever since Kempe could make a scurvey face." Burbage and Kempe display their culture by talking about " that writer Metamorphosis " ! " For honours," says Kempe, "who of more report than Dick Burbage and Will Kempe? He is not counted a gentleman that knows not Dick Burbage and Will Kempe. There's not a country wench that can dance Sellengers Round but can talk of Dick Burbage and Will Kempe." As to the player's occupation, Philomusus styles it "the basest trade," and styles the players " mimick apes." " Must we," he asks, be practis'd to those leaden spouts That nought' doe vent but what they do receive ? And he proceeds, in well-known lines, thus : England aifordes those glorious vagabonds, That carried earst their fardels on their backes Coursers, to ride on through the gazing streets, Sooping it in their glaring satten sutes, And Pages to attend their maisterships. With mouthing words that better wits have framed, They purchase lands, and now Esquires are namde.* " Kempe," says Gifford, in the Memoir prefixed to his edition of Ben Jonson's works, " is brought forward as the type of ignorance in this old drama ... he was probably brought on the stage in a fool's cap, to make mirth for the University wits, and is dismissed, together with his associate, in a most contemptuous manner, as a mere ' leaden spout' " "• This, which seems to be the original reading, is adopted by Mr. Macray. Shakspere, as we know, was named "Esquire." Was it for "mouthing words, which better wits had framed " ? 214 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? If it be objected that Will Kempe, jigging buffoon though he was, did not merit quite such contemptuous treatment as that meted out to him in this old play, I reply, possibly not, but none the less the passage is of great value for the purpose for which I quote it, viz. to show the very low estimation in which the players were held by educated men of that day. Such was the player of the time, and in such society we are now told by Mr. Robertson, Will Shakspere, the Stratford provincial, acquired all the culture necessary for the composition of Venus and Adonis. It is not, ap- parently, necessary, according to this latest of critics, to send him off with Leicester to the Low Countries, in accordance with the happy suggestion of Messrs. Garnett and Gosse, in order that he may there acquire, in the camp and on the field of battle, that refined education for which the foot-soldier of all ages, and, more particularly, the Elizabethan fantassin, has always been so pre-eminently distinguished ! But let us here consider the dates. The date of Shakspere's flight from Stratford was, in all probability, the year 1587. In that year we may assume he came to London. But he did not become an actor all at once. Nemo repente fuit histrio. We must really allow a year or two for horse-holding, and functioning as a call-boy. That brings us to the year 1589 or 1590. Let us suppose that at about that date he is taken into the Lord Chamberlain's company as a beginner. "The art of acting," I wrote in The Shakespeare Problem Restated, " is not exactly to be learned in a day." " Quite so," observes Mr. Robertson ; " it is only the art of play-making that, in the opinion of Mr. Greenwood and the Baconians alike, requires no apprenticeship ! " This is a curious|observationi " How foolish," says Mr. Robertson, in effect, "to suppose that no apprenticeship is required for the art of play- making"! THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 215 Now the actor, as we know, does require, as a general rule, at any rate, a very considerable amount of training. He can be instructed in elocution, gesture, " deportment," and all the ways and manners — all the technique — of the stage. But what sort of " apprenticeship " does Mr. Robertson think necessary and sufficient to make a man a successful dramatist? He is probably aware that the ability to write a successful play is among the rarest of nature's gifts. The dramatist ««jaV«^,«o«^?. Naturally, in order to write plays for educated audiences, the dramatist must be an educated man. He must have knowledge of the world, and some knowledge of the theatre. But the possession of all these things, even in a superlative degree, will not enable a man to become a successful dramatist un- less he be exceptionally gifted in that direction — unless his genius lies that way. I do not think I do Mr. Robertson any injustice if I express the belief that with all his learning, his experience, and his controversial ability, no amount of " apprenticeship " would enable him to graduate as a "playwright." I know that it would be so in my own case, even if I had all Mr. Robertson's accomplishments. On the other hand, if a man's genius does lie that way, he may, if he be a man of the world, or at least mediocriter doctus, write successful plays though he knows very little about the ways of the theatre. Take Sheridan's case, for example. His father, it is true, had been an actor, and was for some years manager of the Dublin Theatre ; but in the year 1762, when Richard Brinsley was but eleven years of age, his parents settled in England, and the future dramatist and statesman was sent to Harrow. In 1774, when he was about twenty-three, he produced The Rivals, and at that time we may say with confidence that he knew little or nothing about the theatre. For this excellent comedy he had, as Mr. Rudolf Dircks says, " drawn freely on his late experiences ; his stolen interviews with Miss Linley, the duels, the numerous suitors, the 2i6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? unreasonable jealousies, provided the incidents and characters." In the same year The Duenna was produced with brilliant success. In 1777, when the author was only twenty-six, appeared The School for Scandal, which Hazlitt has pronounced " the most finished and faultless comedy which we have," and which, according to Mr. Dircks, " remains the most brilliantly effective comedy in our tongue." Here, again, " the materials were gathered from his Bath experiences." In these comedies, we may remark in passing, the " exits and entrances " are admirably managed. Yet the young playwright knew nothing of the technique of the stage at that time. Later on, when he wrote Pisarro, it was very different. Let me again quote Mr. Dircks : " Nowadays, we hear that to be a good dramatist it is essential above all things to inhale ' the scent of the footlights.' Pizarro is nauseating with this. Since the day of The Rivals and The Critic Sheridan's long association with the theatre had thoroughly acclimatized him to the atmosphere which makes dramatists ; and we see the result. The tragedy shows mastery of stage technique, the action is smart ; there is ample room for scenic display ; claptrap in plenty — everything, in fact, we might expect from one who had inhaled that fatal perfume." In other words, Sheridan could write immortal plays when he knew little or nothing of the theatre and " stage technique " — when he had served no " apprenticeship " ! — and wrote a very bad one when he had long inhaled " the scent of the foot- lights." This, I think, affords a tolerably complete answer, not only to Mr. Robertson's thoughtless remark concerning the supposed necessity of an " apprenticeship " for play- wrights, but also to those who maintain that "Shake- speare" must have been an actor. There is no more reason why Hamlet and Lear must have been written by an actor, than why we should be compelled to affirm the THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 217 same concerning The Rivals, The Critic, and The School for Scandal. ^ I have, however, been led into a digression by Mr. Robertson's quaint obiter dictum. We had assumed that " Will " of Stratford made his first appearance on the boards somewhere about the year 1589 or 1590. Venus and Adonis was published in 1593. How long it took to compose we do not know, but I suppose we may assume that it was written some little time before it was handed over to the printer — say in the year 1591, or 1592.^ An " actor's training " of two or three years, therefore, had enabled the young man who has been, with much reason, described by Messrs. Garnett and Gosse, on his arrival in London, as " a Stratford rustic," and whom Dr. Farmer, * As to Shakespeare's "exits and entrances," they were doubtless (if I may be allowed to use that adverb) arranged in early days by the players — or rather by the stage managers — during rehearsals. Since writing the above I have come across the following in an article on "Writing Plays," by Mr. Arnold Bennett, in The English Review for July, 1913 : "An enormous amount of vague reverential nonsense is talked about the technique of the stage, the assumption being that in difficulty it far surpasses any other literary technique, and that until it is acquired a respectable play cannot be written. One hears that it can only be acquired behind the scenes. A famous actor-manager once kindly gave me the benefit of his experience, and what he said was that a dramatist who wished to learn his business must live behind the scenes — and study the works of Dion Boucicault ! The truth is that no technique is so crude and so simple as the technique of the stage, and that the proper place to learn it is not behind the scenes but in the pit, . . . I tremble to think what the Mandarins and William Archer would say to the technique of Hamlet, could it by some miracle be brought forward as a new piece by a Mr. Shakspere. They would probably recommend Mr. Shakspere to consider the ways of Sardou, Henri Bernstein, and Sir Herbert Tree, and be wise. Most positively they would assert that Hamlet was not a play. And their pupils of the daily press would point out — what, surely, Mr. Shakspere ought to have perceived for himself — that the second, third, or fourth act might be cut wholesale without the slightest loss to the piece." I would merely add: "Yes, without the slightest loss to the piece, perhaps, but with infinite loss to the reader." ^ If, as Mr. Lee, Mr. Robertson, and others think, Shakespeare drew some of his inspiration for this poem from Lodge's Scillaes Metamorphosis, Venus and Adonis must have been written at any rate subsequently to the year 1589. See Lee's Life, p. 66. 2i8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? with Mr. Robertson's full approval, tells us was not troubled with any learning at all, to write this wonderful poem ! I must not say Credat Judaeus ! That, ap- parently, is a very annoying quotation to Mr. Robertson, and I should be loath to hurt the feelings of such a sensitive critic. What shall I say, then? Perhaps he would prefer Credat Christianus ! I should like to adapt myself to his susceptibilities in this matter.^ The following year, 1594, sees the publication of The Rape ofLucrece, also dedicated by " William Shakespeare " to the Earl of Southampton. In the dedication of Venus and Adonis the poet had vowed " to take advantage of all idle hours till I have honoured you with some graver labour." Lucrece must, therefore, have been written after the dedication containing these words, and before its entry on the books of the Stationers' Company, i.e. between April, 1593, and May, 1594. I confess that this poem seems to me tedious and pedantic, and I find it hard — presumptuous though it be to say so — to discover much real poetic inspiration in it. As Coleridge writes : " We find in Shakespeare's manage- ment of the tale neither pathos nor any other dramatic quality. There is the same minute and faithful imagery as in the former poem, in the same vivid colours, inspirited ' In connection with Venus and Adonis it is, perhaps, worth while to note that by Elizabeth's Injunctions of 1559 it was provided that every book should be licensed by Her Majesty, or by six of the Privy Council, or perused and licensed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of London, the Chancellors of both Universities, the Bishop being Ordinary, and the Archdeacon also of the place where the book was to be printed, or by two of them, the Ordinary of the place being always one ; and the names of the allowing Commissioners were to be added at the end of the work. It is somewhat surprising, in view of the nature of the poem, to find not only that the "young actor" had, apparently, no difficulty in obtaining a licence for Venus amd Adonis, but that one of the guarantors of its fitness for publication is Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury ! Some reckless Shaksperiolaters, by the way, think the poem was written by " Will " before he had left his happy home at Stratford ! Heretics are, of course, "fanatics," but if one holds the orthodox faith the most fatuous suggestion may pass for sanity and wisdom. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 219 by the same impetuous vigour of thought, and diverging and contracting with the same activity of the assimilative and of the modifying faculties, and with a yet larger display, and a wider range of knowledge and reflection ; and, lastly, with the same perfect dominion, often domina- tion, over the whole world of language. What, then; shall we say ? Even this, that Shakespeare, no mere child of nature, no automaton of genius; no passive vehicle of inspiration possessed by the spirit, not possessing it; first studied patiently, meditated deeply, understood deeply, till knowledge became habitual and intuitive." An excellent criticism this, in my humble judgment, and one which is mightily provocative of reflection. Mr. Robertson, I presume, denies "that there is any note- worthy scholarly culture " in the case of this poem also. For Such an opinion I can feel not a particle of respect. If ever there was a scholar's poem — but here again I protect myself as to the meaning of the word " scholar " — it is this studied and laborious poem of Lu<:rece. It is, says Mr. Churton Collins, " derived directly from the Fasti of Ovid, of which at that time there appears to have been no English version." I would especially refer the reader to the long digression as to the siege of Troy and the Homeric heroes, commencing at stanza 196, where the outraged Lucrece calls to mind where hangs a piece Of skilful painting, made for Priam's Troy, the contemplation of which leads to a prolonged train of reflection concerning Ajax and Ulysses, Paris and Helen, Hector and Troilus, Priam and Hecuba, etc. etc. All this, if I may say so with bated breath, appears to me singularly out of place in the mouth of Tarquin's unhappy victim, but it indicates undoubtedly, as it seems to me, that the poet, as Coleridge said, was "no mere child of nature, no automaton of genius," but a scholarly. 220 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? cultured, and, to say the very least, well-educated man, who had "studied patiently" and "meditated deeply," and who, to speak plainly, laid himself open to the criticism of being over-laborious, and not a little pedantic.^ I cannot " marry " the young Stratford player to verse of this Academic character.^ Here it may be well just to note that these two poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, were the only works ever published by " Shakespeare '' himself, and, further, that the earliest known allusion to " Shakespeare " by name refers to the second of these two poems ; for in the anonymous " Commendatory Verses " prefixed to Willobie his Avisa (1594) we read: Though Collatine have deerely bought To high renowne, a lasting life. And found, that most in vaine have fought, To have a Faire, and Constant wife. Yet Tarquyne pluckt his glistering grape And Shakespeare paints poore Lucrece rape. Where we further note that the earliest allusion to the poet's name presents it in the hyphenated form ' Concerning Lucrece the late Rev. Walter Begley well says, " The com- pressed philosophic thought, the wonderfully polished verse, and the technique throughout displayed in this early poem, all point to a man of great reading in deep suhjects, and also of abundant scholarly leisure " (Bacon's Noma Resusciiatio, Vol. I, p. 92). * I would invite the reader's consideration of the passage concerning heraldry (lines 54-72) and " the notes written thereon by the orthodox and most cultured commentator that the poems of Shakespeare have ever had," as the late Rev. Walter Begley writes in Bacon's Nova Hesuscitatio (Vol. II, p. 227). Mr. Wyndham asserts that : " Whenever Shakespeare in an age of technical conceit indulges in one ostentatiously, it will always be found that his apparent obscurity arises from our not crediting him with a technical knowledge which he undoubtedly possessed, be it of heraldry, of law, or of philosophic disputation." Mr. Begley's comment is that the knowledge of heraldry displayed by the author of Lttcrece and the immortal plays "could not possibly belong, in 1594, to the provincial who had not so very long left the kitchen middens of Stratford, his illiterate parents, and those hostages to fortune, his callow twins." But, perhaps, "Genius" supplied "Will" with a knowledge of these technicalities ! THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 221 " Shake-speare," which we may say with certainty, Shakspere of Stratford never himself made use of. Was the reference to player Shakspere, or to the poet, who- ever he was, that wrote under the name of " Shakespeare " or "Shake-speare"? We have seen, then, that " his training as an actor," albeit of very short duration, and among men of low breeding and, to say the least, very imperfect education, and whose profession was held in contempt, had already borne marvellous fruits in Shakspere's case ! Heminge, Condell, the jig-dancer Kempe, and the rest, although, doubtless, '' deserving men," were not, I apprehend, men of great intellectual attainments, or of high culture, nor, except for the fact that Burbage was a respectable painter, do they seem to have been in any way dis- tinguished. In Shakspere's case the results of their society, together with the impersonation of the rdles assigned to him (such as the ghost in Hamlet) were truly extraordinary both in quantity and quality. One almost wonders that promising young men in the present day are not sent round the country with provincial companies in order that they may attain to that high level of education, culture, and refinement which is so necessary for the dramatist ! The " transpontine tragedian " is, alas, no longer available for educational purposes, but the strolling player still remains. Let us now move forward to the year 1 598, and see what Shakspere's literary output had been up to that date. In that year was published Francis Meres's oft- cited work Palladis Tamia, or Wiis Treasury. Con- cerning Francis Meres very little is known, but he is described on his title-page as being " Master of Arts of both Universities," 1 which description is followed by the ' As to the mystery of Meres, Puttenham, and Bodenham, the reader who is not afraid to open a "Baconian" book may consult the late Rev. Walter Begley's Bacoris Nova Resuscitatio, Vol. I. Mr. Robertson writes (p. 307) 222 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? suggestive words : " Vivitur ingenio, coetera mortis erunt." Now Meres, as everybody knows, mentions twelve plays — six comedies and six tragedies — as having been written by "Shakespeare" previously to the publication of his work, viz. The Two Gentlemen of Verona, the Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, Lov^s Labour's wonne, Midsummers night dreame, Merchant of Venice, Richard the 2., Richard the J., Henry the 4.., King John, Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet. Meres further makes mention of Shakespeare's "sugred Sonnets among his private friends." Thus be- tween the year 1593, when " the first heir of his invention " was published (viz. Venus and Adonis'), Shakespeare had produced at least (for Meres's lists do not pretend to be exhaustive) the Lucrece, the Sonnets (or the greater part of them),^ and these twelve plays. Of these latter Love's Labour's Lost was published, with the name of " W. Shakespere " on its title-page, in the very same year as Meres's book, and by the same publisher.* Therefore, if we are to take the expression, " the first heir of my invention," in its literal sense, as Mr. Robertson "Puttenham who had been educated abroad." There is no evidence that any Puttenham who might, possibly, have written the Arte of English Poetry, was educated abroad. But who was the author who wrote under that name ? It is not easy to say. As to Meres, he appears to have been at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and graduated in 1587, becoming m.a. in 1591. He was afterwards Rector of Wing in Rutland, and kept a school there from 1602 to his death in 1646-7. He was John Florio's brother-in-law. Bodenham is merely nomen et umbra. He is erroneously described as editor of England's Helicon. 1 1 would be almost content to rest the negative case on the Sennets only. Is it possible to believe that the Stratford player wrote those extraordinary poems in his early days in Loudon ? I would add that no solution of the difficulties which they present, and over which critics have disputed so long, will ever be found so long as we vainly endeavour to read them into the life of the Stratford player. Such, at least, is my profound conviction. ^ It must have been composed a considerable time previously. Mr. Fleay and Mr. Knight give 1589 as the date of composition. Mr. E. K. Chambers (in Encyc. Brit.) puts it as late as 1594; but that eminent Shakespearean Mr. Fleay writes : " The date of the original production cannot well be put later than 1589" (see Life of Shakespeare, p. 202). THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 223 insists that we ought to do, we have all these twelve plays, besides Lucrece and the Sonnets, written by Shak- spere between 1593 and 1598, unless we adopt Mr. Robertson's convenient theory that any play ascribed to Shakespeare which appeared before 1593 must either have been an old play " written over " by him, or must have been written by him in collaboration with softie other writer, and, therefore, not counted as an " heir " of his "invention," but only as an illegitimate child, as it were. In any case, we have a truly marvellous output ; nor, as I have already said, does Meres's list purport to be exhaustive, and if we are to take the three parts of Henry VI as Shakespearean (and most critics so take Parts 2 and 3 at any rate) those plays also must be included in the list. Again, there is very strong reason to believe that Hamlet was written before 1598. Truly an extraordinary testimony to the supreme merit of an " actor's training," more especially when we remember how much of the young man's time must have been taken up in acting and rehearsing ! ^ And we must remember, further, that, as Messrs. Garnett and Gosse bear testimony, these plays "from the first " are characterised by " that knowledge of good society" and "that easy and confident attitude towards mankind . . . which are so unlike what might have been expected from a Stratford rustic or a London actor " ! " If," writes Mr. Lang, " I believed that half a dozen, ' As to Hamlet, see The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 504. I have already discussed the arguments for the early date of this play in Note C to chap. III, ante, p. 175. Evidently Professor Boas, vvho thinks that Hamlet was produted before 1593, does not adopt Mr. Robertson's theory with regard to the plays above named, for he writes that Meres " omits King Henry VI, where Shakespeare was also working on older material" — as in the case of Hamlet according to the usual hypothesis. Therefore the twelve plays named were not instances of Shakespeare "working on older material " according to this, and, I should think, most other critics, nor, I would add, of collaboration either, except, possibly, in one or two cases. 224 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? or eleven Shakespearean plays, as we have them, had been written or composed between 1587 and 1592, I should be obliged to say that, in my opinion, they were not composed in these five years, by Will." And, again : "It gives me ' pause,' if I am to believe that, between 1587 and 1592, Will wrote Lov^s Labour's Lost, The Comedy of Errors, A Midsummer Nights Dream, and Romeo and Juliet. There is a limit even to my gullibility, and if anyone wrote all these plays, as we now possess them, before 1593, I do not suppose that Will was the man." 1 But then, says Mr. Lang, "the dates, in fact, are unknown. The miracle is apocryphal." Well, I admit that we cannot prove the propositions which Mr. Lang said would, if proved, shake his faith in "Will." But, surely, taking the facts as we know them, there is.^ven on the orthodox assumption, something very like a "miracle"! I do not start with the year 1587 as the terminus a quo of Shakspere's (alleged) composition. I think the probability is that he came to London in that year, but it would, obviously, be absurd to assume that he at once began composing plays and poems. The most orthodox " Stratfordian " will, surely, give him some three years before he "commences poet." Say that he began to write as early as 1 590 : then between that year and 1598 — in less than eight years — he had written the Venus, the Lucrece, the Sonnets, and the twelve plays.^ In truth it might be said of him that his literary " promises " were like Adonis gardens That one day bloomed and fruitful were the next ! Yet I cannot believe but that Coleridge speaks the truth — and a profound truth — when he says that ' Work cited, pp. 112 and lij. ^ If some of these plays were written " in collaboration," why were they ascribed to Shakespeare's sole authorship P Quim sabe ? THE REAL ''SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 225 " Shakespeare " was no " automaton of genius," but one who had " studied patiently and meditated deeply." Here we cannot but remember that the best dramatists of Shakespeare's time were University men. Marlowe, Greene, and Nash, for example, were Cambridge men ; Lyly, Lodge, and Peele were at Oxford. Thomas Heywood was, we are told, a Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge. Jonson, indeed, does not appear to have been at either University as a student, but he held honorary degrees at both, and, moreover, had been Camden's special prot6g6 at Westminster, and had got the best he could out of the best school of the time. But Shakespeare, according to the orthodox faith, sprang upon the world fully armed with learned, literary, and poetic equipment, like Pallas from the head of Jupiter. It is curious, however, to find that the writer of a work printed in 1595, the year after the publication oi Lucrece, by John Legate, printer of the University of Cambridge, couples Shakespeare with Marlowe and Watson, both University men, and conceives of him as being himself a member of one of the Universities, and, as it would seem, of one of the Inns of Court also.^ Here I should like, if time and space permitted, to examine each of the twelve plays mentioned by Meres, but it would take far too long to do so. It may be well, however, to say a word concerning some of them, and more particularly concerning The Comedy of Errors and Love's Labour's Lost. Of the former of these two plays I have already spoken, and have but little to add. Mr. Churton Collins writes : " It is almost certain that it was written between 1589 and 1592, and it is quite certain that it was written before the end of 1594." We learn 1 I refer to PoHmanleta, dedicated to the Earl of ssex by " W. C," which initials are generally supposed to stand for Wm. Clark (see The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 342). I have never come across any satis- factory explanation of this curious allusion. Q 226 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? from the Gesta Graiorum that it was acted at Gray's Inn, by the company in which Shakspere had enlisted, at the end of the year 1 594. The reference to France, " armed and reverted making war against her heir," is clearly an allusion to the civil war in France between Henry of Navarre and the Leaguers, which commenced after the assassination of Henry HI, in 1589, and was in effect concluded by Henry's renunciation of the Protestant faith in 1593. As already stated, the play is founded on the Menaechmi of Plautus, of which at that time there was no English translation, while Act HI, Scene i, is taken from another play of Plautus, viz. the Amphitruo. That this play was composed in these early days by the young man who had come to London "a Stratford rustic" in 1587, really seems to me incredible. That it was written by an unlearned man, or by a man who had no knowledge of Plautus in the original, seems also ex- tremely difficult to believe. Mr. Robertson, as we have seen, solves the difficulty by assuming that in this case Shakspere collaborated with some other unknown author, or, possibly, wrote over an old play by such unknown author ; " the essential point," he says (p. 197), " is that it is a composite work." Well, it is, of course, impossible to prove that Shakspere did not write this play with some unknown collaborator, but what a thousand pities it is that there is no evidence, except what Mr. Robertson finds in " style," to support this assumption ; that there is not even a tradition to that effect ; and that the name of the collaborator has been irretrievably lost ! It would be interesting, indeed, to know who were the dramatists who were collaborating with the young Shakspere in 1592, or 1593. This particular "collaborator" evidently knew "his Plautus" and so made up for Shakspere's ignorance, but from some excess of modesty he refrained from putting his name on the title-page. Or was he, perchance, someone in high station who did not wish THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 227 his name to be known ? Mr. Robertson has here opened up an interesting field for speculation and hypothesis ! And now let us turn to that extraordinary work Love's Labour's Lost. This play is unique among the Shakespearean dramas — unique in style, and unique in the fact that it bears upon it the name of " Shakespere," Commentators have generally, and with reason, con- sidered it one of the earliest of the poet's compositions. Fleay, and Charles Knight, and Dr. Furnivall concur in putting the date of the original production as early as the year 1589. "It was in 1589," writes Sir Sidney Lee, "in or about which year our most trustworthy critics are agreed that Love's Labour's Lost must have been written, that England was startled by the news of the assassina- tion of Henry III by a fanatic monk." ^ But whether the play was composed in 1589, or 1590, or 1591, or even ayear or two later, if any reader, after carefully studying this extraordinary work, thinks it probable that it was written at one of those dates by the young man who came from Stratford to London in 1587, I can only say that his conception of what is probable — I had almost said of what is possible — differs very widely indeed from mine. Everyone must judge for himself in such a matter. But here let me make a frank admission. In The Shakespeare Problem Restated I had cited with approval Judge Webb's eloquent description of this play. Mr. Lang, however, has subjected the learned Judge's summing up to some very telling criticism, and I have to confess that I quoted it without having given it sufficient consideration. • " A New Study of ' Love's Labour's Lost,' " Tkt Gentleman! s Magazine, October, 1880, p. 448. How Mr. E. K. Chambers (in the Encyc. Brit.) comes to put the date of the composition of this play as late as 1594 I am unable to conceive. But those who think that no Shakespearean play can be earlier than 1593, the date of thep publication of Venus and Adonis, not unnaturally endeavour to date all the plays (or, in Mr. Robertson's case, all such as are not supposed to have been written " in collaboration ") after that date. 228 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? I recognise that some of the statements contained therein cannot be supported. I must, therefore, " withdraw and apologise " for allowing myself to be thus led astray. But having done this, let me now consider what are the true facts concerning this very remarkable comedy. Mr. Lang writes (p. 127) : " There are no French politics in the piece " (original italics). Yet, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, " the story of this play is made to arise out of an event in the genuine history of the relations between the Kings of France and Navarre." In the Chronicles of Monstrelet we find the following passage : " Charles, King of Navarre, came to Paris to wait on the King. He negotiated so successfully with the King and Privy Council that he obtained a gift of the castle of Nemours, with some of its dependent castlewicks, which territory was made a duchy. He instantly did homage for it, and at the same time surrendered to the King the castle of Cherburg, the county of Evreux, and all other lordships he possessed within the Kingdom of France, renouncing all claims or profits in them to the King, and to his successors, on condition that with the Duchy of Nemours the King of France engaged to pay him two hundred thousand gold crowns of the coin of the King our Lord." Upon this Mr. Hunter observes : " The contract about the two hundred thousand crowns forms the link by which the story of this drama is connected with a real historical transaction. The poet, or the inventor of the story whom the poet follows, represents Ferdinand, who is become King of Navarre by the death of Charles, who is called his father, which is at variance with history, challenging the payment of one half of this sum, and insinuating even (but the passage is a little obscure) that no part of the two hundred thousand crowns had been paid. The claim is disputed on the part of France, and it is for the purpose of settling this disputed account that the Princess of France goes in embassy to the Court of Navarre, whence arise all the present THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 229 embarrassments of the principal portion of the whole plot?' Now it is to be noted that Charles, King of Navarre, to whom the King of France undertook to pay the two hundred thousand crowns, died in 1425, and as the action of the play is supposed to take place not long after, the time of the piece may be fixed to the year 1427, or very near that period. The play, therefore, had a foundation in history, and there was in reality a King of Navarre to whom a King of France was indebted for a large sum of money. The name of this King of Navarre was Charles ; Shakespeare's King of Navarre is named Ferdinand, who is stated to be the son of Charles, the original claimant of the debt. Further, the leading event, the meeting of the King of Navarre with the Princess of France, was probably borrowed from the visit of Catherine de Medici, with her " escadron volant," to Henri IV of Navarre, at the end of 1586.1 Thus the play, although it has a historical basis, and {face Mr. Lang) does contain " French politics," does not affect to follow the facts of history, but is a work of imagination. And what as to the names of the lords attending the King of Navarre — Biron, Longaville, and Dumain ? The first two bear the actual names of the most strenuous supporters of Henry of Navarre. "Of all the leaders on Navarre's side," writes Sir Sidney Lee, Biron " was best known to Englishmen," and " the relation in which he stood to the English people between 1589 and 1598 would fully account for the distinction conferred upon him " in the play. ' " The mediator," writes Sir Sidney Lee, " was a Princess of France — Catherine de Medici — who had virtually ruled France for nearly thirty years, and who now acted in behalf of her son, decrepit in mind and body, in much the same way as the Princess in Love's Labour's Lost represents her ' decrepit,' sick and bed-rid father.'" I feel sure that Mr. Lang could not have read this very interesting article in The Gentleman's Magazine by Sir Sidney Lee when he wrote " there are no French politics in the piece." 230 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? But what of Dumain ? " This," writes Sir Sidney Lee, " is a common Anglicised version of that Due de Mayne, or Mayenne, whose name was so frequently mentioned in popular accounts of French affairs in connection with Navarre's movements." But, says Mr. Lang (p. 129), inasmuch as this lord was an opponent of Henri IV, " the introduction of Mayenne as an adherent of the King of Navarre, shows either a most confused ignorance of foreign politics on the part of the author, or a freakish contempt for his public." With submission, however, the criticism (or, as Mr. Robertson would say, "the cavil") is quite baseless. If Shakespeare had introduced Dumain as a supporter of Henri IV in a historical play concerning that hero there might have been some point in Mr. Lang's remarks, but inasmuch as the dramatist is presenting to us imaginary events (though, as I have shown, based on some historical foundation), supposed to have taken place about the year 1427, more than 150 years before the date of Henry of Navarre, at the Court of the imaginary King Ferdinand, the criticism appears to me to suggest only that the critic had not paid sufficient attention to the real facts of the case.^ We may further note that, as Sir Sidney Lee points out, " Mothe, or La Mothe, was the name by which a French Ambassador was known in London for many years," whence Shakespeare seems to have taken the name of his " pretty ingenious " page, and that the " mention of the Duke Alengon must have been due to some re- miniscence of the French nobleman of the same name who had so persistently and so publicly sued for the Queen's ' The same considerations apply to Sir Sidney Lee's remark (Gentleman's Magazine, October, 1888, p. 448) that " Shakespeare was not unnaturally led to number him [Dumain] also among his [Navarre's] supporters." Obviously no such inference can be made in the case of a work of imagination which does not deal with Henry of Navarre at all. Shakespeare merely took the well- known names of three lords specially connected with Henry IV, and introduced them as friends of his ims^inary Ferdinand. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 231 hand." Moreover, Sir Sidney Lee shows that the incident in the play, when Navarre and his attendants introduce themselves to the Princess and her ladies disguised as Russians, has, in all probability, a very interesting historical basis. " Mr. Greenwood," writes Mr. Lang (p. 128), " does not attribute the wit (such as it is), the quips, the conceits, the affectations satirised in Love's Labour's Lost, to Will's knowledge of the artificial style then prevalent in all the literatures of Western Europe, and in England most pleasingly used in Lyly's comedies. No, ' the author must have been not only a man of high intellectual culture, but one who was intimately acquainted with the ways of the Court, and the fashionable society of his time, as also with contemporary foreign politics.'" Well, I adhere to my statement as quoted, which I believe to be true, and I see no contradiction between such statement and Mr. Lang's assumption of the poet's " knowledge of the artificial style " which he affirms was " then prevalent in all the literatures of Western Europe." But if his allusion to " Lyly's comedies" implies his endorsement of the statement so frequently made that Shakespeare in this play makes an attempt to imitate or ridicule " Euphuism," I can only refer the reader to the Preface to this comedy in the late Dr. Furness's " New Variorum " Edition, where he will find that that most learned editor has very effectually disposed of the idea that Shakespeare made any such attempt at all. In fact, Shakespeare's supposed satirical references to " Euphuism " appear to be " a fond thing vainly invented." ^ Much more might be written concerning this eccentric and whimsical play, but I think I have said enough, after ' Dr. Furness further writes (Preface to Z.Z,.Z., p. xv) : " For the prevalent belief that the common language of Elizabeth's Court was Euphuism, I can trace no other authority than the advertisement by a bookseller twenty-nine years after that Court ceased to exist." 232 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? making all necessary allowance for the exaggerations, or, if you will, the misstatements, of Judge Webb concerning it, to show that, if indeed it was the work of " Will " of Stratford, and one of the very earliest of his productions, miracles had, certainly, not ceased in " the spacious times of great Elizabeth." I must pass over with little more than a bare mention the other plays on Meres's list. Both Richard II and Richard III were first published in the year 1597. As to the former, Mr. Gollancz, who gives very good reasons for the statement, tells us that the date of its composition "may be safely assigned to about the year 1593"— the year, be it remembered, which witnessed the publication of Venus and Adonis. As to the latter, the same editor writes, with regard to the date of composition: "Authorities are agreed in assigning Richard III to 1594 or thereabouts." There are good reasons for putting the date of composition of The Dream at about 1 592-3. Romeo and Juliet, in its first form, at any rate, appears to have been composed as early as the year 1591. The Two Gentlemen, which the critics unani- mously place among the earliest of Shakespeare's pro- ductions, must, surely, have been written, as Mr. Gollancz says, about 1590-2. Love's Labour's Won, which may, I think, be almost certainly identified with All's Well that Ends Well, must be assigned to the same period, but King Henry IV, Part i, and The Merchant of Venice are, ap- parently, later plays, and are usually assigned to the year 1596. And now what are we to say about King John and Titus Andronicus} The play which is now known as Shakespeare's King John was first printed in the Folio of 1623. There was, however, a play called The Trouble- some Raigne of King John which was published, in two parts, in the year 1591. In 161 1 these two parts were put together and published in one volume. The title-page THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 233 of this edition (161 1) bore the words "written by W. Sk." In 1622 appeared a third edition, the title-page of which informs us that the work was written by " W. Shakespeare." And here we may pause to ask how it came about that, if player Shakspere wrote the grand play of King John as printed in the First Folio, he was content to allow a very inferior play to be published in his name — "W. Sh." — in 161 1, without, apparently, making any protest? Then, secondly, we have to ask to which of these King John plays was it that Meres alluded? These are questions which I would commend to the reader's very serious con- sideration. Mr. Gollancz and other critics tell us that " the play [Shakespeare's] may safely be dated circa 1595." Of a truth player Shakspere must have been tossing off plays and poems from 1593 to 1595 "as an eagle moults feathers." The mention by Meres of Titiis Andronicus among Shakespearean plays is not a little remarkable if, as Mr. Robertson contends, in agreement with the great majority of critics, this play is not Shakespearean at all. If it is by Shakespeare, and if Shakespeare and Shakspere are one, the young man from Stratford must have written this repulsive tragedy at any rate before the year 1 594, when a quarto edition of it was published. But if it is not Shakespearean how came Meres to make the mistake of including it in his list of Shakespeare's plays extant in 1 598 ? I suspect that Meres was in error both as regards this play and the play of King John, though it would suit my argument much better were I to follow Professor Courthope in the opinion that both Titus and The Trouble- some Raigne, as well as other old plays, were the work of Shakespeare. For the earlier we place the date of Shake- spearean writings the more difficult, of course, does it become to conceive that William Shakspere of Stratford was the author of them. Meres, it will be observed, makes no mention of 234 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Henry VI. Now in Henslowe's Diary (F. 7) we have an entry of a receipt in respect of "harey the vj the 3 of marche 1 591 ," the play being marked as a new play. Upon which Mr. W. Greg comments {Diary, Ft. II, p. 152): " Performed by Strange's men, as a new play, 3 Mar. iS9i/2, and thence till 31 Jan. 1593, 16 performances. . . . Printed as i Henry VI in the 1623 folio of Shakespeare's plays, after being erroneously entered as the third part, S.R.i 8 Nov." Mr. E. K. Chambers writes in the Encyclo- fadia Britannica : "It is probable that / Henry VI is to be identified with the ' Harey the vj ' recorded in Henslowe's Diary to have been acted as a new play by Lord Strange's men, probably at the Rose, on the 3rd of March 1592," i.e. 1 591-2. Those, therefore, who believe that i Henry Vlis a Shakespearean play, and who adhere to the " orthodox " faith, must assume that player Shakspere was writing plays as early as 1590 or 1591. But Mr. Greg writes : " It is possible, or probable, that there was an earlier version of this play which may have belonged to the Queen's men, and that it was only ' new ' owing to the addition of the Talbot scenes by Shakespeare." Now this suggestion, viz. that " the Talbot scenes " (Act IV, 2-7, which are con- cerned only with Talbot's last fight near Bordeaux in 1452) were added by Shakespeare, was made by Mr. Fleay in 1876 (see Fleay's Life of Shakespeare, p. 259). To me it does not seem very probable that Henslowe should have marked an old play as " new " just because of the addition of these scenes, but it is not, of course, impossible that he may have done so. If we adopt this hypothesis, and accept the " Stratfordian " authorship, then player Shak- spere was engaged in dramatic composition previously to March 1591-2.* Many critics also believe that the scene in the Temple Gardens (Act II, So. 4) was added by ' i.e. Stationers' Registers, ' I need hardly remind the reader that in England and Ireland the year was reckoned from the 25th March to the 24th March from 1 155 to 1751. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 235 Shakespeare, but at a much later date. Others, again, have been unable to find any trace at all of Shakespeare's hand in this play. The reader, if he chooses to do so, may spend many hours in considering the multitudinous arguments in support of all these three positions. Non nostrum tantas componere lites. Lastly, in this connection, we have to note that Meres makes mention of the Sonnets — those extraordinary poems to the interpretation of which many commentators have devoted the best part of their lives with conspicuous want of success — as having been written before the year 1598. Here, then, without travelling beyond the lines of orthodox hypothesis, and even after rejecting some quite orthodox assumptions which would materially assist the sceptical argument, we are confronted with a mass of marvellous and immortal literature all of which, according to the received faith, was written by the young man who came to London in 1587 a penniless, unknown, and (as we are, surely, warranted in saying) uneducated, or very poorly educated, wanderer from a small provincial town. And the greater part of it — poems and plays belonging to the supreme rank of literature — was thrown off in some four or five years ; the whole of it in a brief period of some six or seven years — anni mirabiles indeed ! There is no " Shakespeare Problem," so we are assured. A young provincial, with such smattering of education as he may have procured during some four or five years at a Free Grammar School ; late butcher's, or glover's, or grocer's apprentice (it really does not much matter which), speaking the dialect of his native county, comes, a penni- less wanderer, straight from the society of the boors and petty tradesmen of obscure and illiterate Stratford ; becomes successively (according to the best information we possess) horse-holder outside, and "servitor" inside, one of the London playhouses (and such playhouses ! i) ; * See p. 66 and note at p. 237. 236 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? obtains a place in the company, is constantly playing to London audiences, or touring in the provinces ; an actor- manager (as we are told) with shares in two theatres, and with a keen eye to business (taking rem facias rem as his motto), and with all this turning out each year, on an average, two plays, but in the earlier years a much greater number, all belonging to the supreme rank of literature — marvellous works, " not of an age, but for all time," replete if not with classical learning (as some high authorities insist), at any rate with profound knowledge of the world, and of mankind, and of the philosophy of life and human nature, and redolent of the highest culture (as no one, surely, but a fanatic enrage can deny), besides wondrous, courtly, polished, and scholarly poems, composed in quite early days, but marked in the same, or in even higher degree, by the same learning, and the same culture ; yet remaining (for so the fact is, in spite of the indefatigable, continuous, and lifelong investigations of enthusiastic admirers) nomen et umbra, and nothing more, for posterity — except, indeed, for that little knowledge of his life- history which we could so well spare — here is no problem, no mystery; here is nothing to marvel at, except "for those to whom the ways of genius are a stumbling- block " ! Well, as to " genius " I shall have a word to say anon. But we have not yet exhausted all the elements of the Shakespeare Problem. To those that yet remain a new chapter must be devoted. THE ELIZABETHAN PLAYHOUSE 237 NOTE TO CHAPTER IV THE ELIZABETHAN PLAYHOUSE As to the character of the Elizabethan theatre the reader who is interested in the subject is, doubtless, familiar with the descrip- tion given by Taine {English Literature, chap. 11) already quoted at p. 66. I will here append a quotation from a more recent authority, viz. Mr. W. T. Lawrence, who, in his work on The Elizabethan Playhouse (Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford-upon- Avon, 1912), writes as follows : " No evidence exists to show that up to the period wben James Burbage solved a difficult problem by building the Theater .under protection of a royal patent, either players or playgoers were otherwise than content with the primitive histrionic conditions obtaining in the several inn-yards. For years it had been customary to give performances twice or three times a week on removable stages — possibly the ' boards and barrel-heads ' referred to in The Poetaster as the later resource of ' strutters ' — in the yards of well-known hostells like the Cross Keys in Grace- church Street, the Bull in Bishopgate Street, and the Bell Savage on Ludgate Hill. . . . Following on the heels of his visit to London in 1596, Ludwig, Prince of Anhalt, wrote a poem commemorative of his travels, in which he pointed out that the English capital boasted four theatres which were utilised, not only for dramatic purposes,_but for the baiting of bulls and bears and for cockfights. ... As a matter of fact little deviation took place at either house [viz. the Theater and the Curtain] from the stage conventionalities and playgoing habits of the inn-yard. So insensible was the transition that the space occupied by the groundlings (who remained standing at all save the private theatres for long after Shakespeare's day) inherited the old designation of ' yard.' That the later term ' pit ' was a contrac- 238 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? tion of ' cock-pit ' ... is clearly indicated in Leonard Digges' lines on Shakespeare's Poems (1640) : Let but Beatrice And Benedicke be seen, loe in a trice The cock-pit, galleries, boxes, are all ftill, To hear Malvoglio that crosse-garter'd gull. As in the inn-yards, acting in the Shoreditch theatres took place in the afternoon by natural light. Beyond the covering in of the circumambient galleries, the two houses remained unroofed. Exposure to the elements having been thitherto the normal experience of the groundling, the perpetuation of his discomfort was accepted with equanimity. . . . For the benefit of those who, through coming early, arrived dinnerless, eatables and drinkables, including fruits, nuts, and bottled beer, were vended in the theatre. No prehminary music to wile away the time was vouchsafed these eager enthusiasts, but powdered tobacco and the latest thing in pamphlets were procurable for a consideration, and the tedium of waiting could be allayed by reading, smoking, and playing cards.'' "The stinkards in the yard," as Mr. Lawrence reminds us, had to " brave the elements '' as best they could. CHAPTER V THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE VlSiOSLEM" {continued) IN the preceding chapter I pointed out how pro- digious, both in quantity and quality, was, according to the received hypothesis, the literary output of the young player, William Shakspere, very shortly after he had arrived in London from Stratford in those un- favourable circumstances upon which we have sufficiently dwelt ; and, following those high Shakespearean authori- ties Messrs. Gamett and Gosse, we have taken due note of that " knowledge of good society " and " that easy and coniident attitude towards mankind which appears in Shakespeare's plays from the first, and which . . . are so unlike what might have been expected from a Stratford rustic or a London actor." We must now, before passing on to consider the meagre facts of Shakspere's later life that have been handed down to us, pause to consider once more a familiar passage of Elizabethan literature in which it is alleged that reference is made to him, and which is cited as proving that he was at an early date, viz. the year 1 592, if not actually writing plays of his own, at any rate " writing up," or " writing over," old plays by other authors. I allude, of course, to Robert Greene's well- known utterance in his Groatsworth of Wit, a work probably published in 1592, having been entered at Stationers' Hall on the 20th of September iii that year, 239 240 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? though the earliest known edition bears date 1 596.^ The passage in question has been quoted ad nauseam, but I must ask the reader's indulgence while I refer to it yet again. Greene, addressing three "play makers," as Chettle subsequently calls them, who are, I believe, to be identified with Marlowe, Peele, and Nash,^ warns them against the players, of whom he speaks in terms of bitter hostility: "those puppets that speake from our mouths, those anticks garnished in our colours. . . . Yes, trust them not ; for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that, with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you ; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the onely Shake-scene in a country." Now at first sight it seems obvious that " Shake- scene" is a parqdy on the name " Shake-speare," more especially as the phrase "Tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide " is evidently a parody of the line " O tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide," which occurs in J Henry VI, Act I, Scene 4. Still, as Professor Churton Collins recognised, " it is at least doubtful " whether this "supposed allusion" to Shakespeare has "any reference to him at all," ^ and there are certain considerations which appear to lend colour to the doubt so expressed by that distinguished Shakespearean critic. In the first place, the word " Shake " in combination with another monosyllable occurs frequently in the slang expressions of the time. Thus Will Kempe, the clown and jig-dancer, in his Nine Days Wonder (1600), wherein he describes how he danced the Morris from London to Norwich, addresses the ballad-mongers, who had 1am- * Robert Greene died on September 3rd, 1592- "^ They have sometimes been identified with Marlowe, Peele, and Lodge. But see my In re Shakespeare (John Lane, 1909), p. 96. ' See Ephemera Critica, by the late Professor Churton Collins. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 241 pooned him, as " My notable Shake-rags." And in the anonymous play, Arden of Feversham (1592), which some critics have, unaccountably to my way of thinking, ascribed to Shakespeare, one of the two murderers is called Shake- bag.^ In the same way Shake-scene might well be applied to any ranting actor, " a stalking-stamping Player, that will raise a tempest with his tongue, and thunder with his heels." ">■ Secondly, although the line, " O Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide," occurs in j Henry VI, it had pre- viously appeared in the old quarto play, The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, published anonymously in 1 595) but,. no doubt, written before 1592, and probably before 1590, being the second part of the Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster, which Malone, in a dissertation on the three parts of King Henry VI (pronounced by Porson to be " one of the most convincing pieces of criticism he had ever met with"), stoutly maintains not to be a Shakespearean play at all.^ These two considerations seem to detract somewhat from the force of the arguments of those who think that there is here an allusion to Shakspere. But assuming that such a reference is intended (as I am well content to do), what is its effect, and what does it amount to? I wrote in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 313): " The utmost that we should be entitled to say is that Greene here accuses Player Shakspere of putting forward, as his * I do not think it very likely that " Shakespeare " would have adopted ' ' Shakebag " as a murderer's name. But considerations of style appear to me fatal as against the theory of the Shakespearean authorship of this play. ^ See The Puritaine (1607). Mr. W. A. Chapman^ of Santa Monica, California, in his William Shakspere and Robert Greene (1912), contends that "Shake-scene " = " Dance-scene," and that the allusion is to Will Kempe the jig-dancer. (We may compare the term "Shakers.") But I hardly think his argument will carry conviction. ' See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. iji «< seq. R 242 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PJiOBLEM? own, some work, or, perhaps, some parts of a work, for which he was really indebted to another. Anyhow, Greene refers to this ' Shake-scene ' as being an impostor, an upstart crow beautified with the feathers which he has stolen from the dramatic writers (' our feathers ') ; a ' Poet Ape,' to borrow Jonson's expression ; a ' Johannes Facto- tum,' who could do a little bit of everything ; and withal self-conceited, and so far from being, as Shakspere is so often represented, an easy-going, genial, boon-companion, that he is fitly described as hiding a tiger's heart under a player's hide ! " Now Mr. Lang takes me to task for this : " How can mortal man squeeze from these words the charge that ' Player Shakspere ' is ' putting forward, as his own, some work, or perhaps some parts of a work, for which he was really indebted to another ' ? It is as an actor, with other actors,^ that the player is ' beautified with our feathers ' — not with the feathers of some one not ourselves, Bacon, or Mr. Greenwood's Unknown. Mr. Greenwood even says that Shake-scene is referred to ' as beautified with the feathfcrs which he has stolen from the dramatic writers ' (' our feathers '). Greene says absolutely nothing about feathers ' which he has stolen! The ' feathers,' the words of the plays, were bought, not stolen, by the actors, 'anticks garnished in our colours.' " ^ And, again : " Like all players, who are all ' anticks garnished in our colours,' Shake-scene, as player, is ' beautified with our feathers.' It is Mr. Greenwood who adds 'beautified with the feathers which he has stolen from the dramatic writers.' Greene does not even remotely hint at plagiarism on the part of Shake-scene: and the feathers, the plays of Greene and his friends, were not stolen but bought." ^ Thus Mr. Lang. But let the reader please note • My italics, • Shakespeare, Bacoh, and the Great Unknown, pp. 143-4. ^ Ibid., p. 145. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 243 that Greene says nothing about "other actors" being " beautified with our feathers." It is one particular actor, " an upstart crow," who is thus beautified. It would be absurd indeed for a dramatist who had got his play accepted by a company of players to make it a grievance against them that they were doing just what he desired, and intended, them to do, viz. reciting the lines which he had written for themf to recite! That cannot be the grievance which Greene (who, although on his death-bed, was not a lunatic) had against the players. Am I wrong, then, in suggesting that Greene charges the " upstart crow " with having stolen the feathers — " our feathers " — with which he was " beautified " ? Let us remember whence the image of the crow decked out with the feathers of other birds comes from. It is, of course, from ^sop's Fables. The fable in question is sometimes told of the " crow," but more frequently, and, if I remember rightly, in .^sop's original, of the jackdaw. I have a small edition oi ^ sop's Fables done into English before me, published in Routledge's "New Universal Library." In it I find the fable of " The Vain Jackdaw," thus : " Jupiter determined, it is said, to create a sovereign over the birds, and made proclamation that, on a certain day, they should all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose the most beautiful among them to be King. The Jackdaw, knowing his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many-feathered finery. On Jupiter proposing to make him King, on account of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly protested, and ea.ch plucking from him his own feathers, the Jackdaw was again nothing but a Jackdaw." 244 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Here, if there was not actual theft, there was certainly the taking of the feathers of others, and making free with them for self-adornment, an operation which roused the indignation of the birds whose feathers had been thus appropriated for the purpose of deception. In a word, here, certainly, was " plagiarism " ; here was, implied by the metaphor, the " putting forward as his own " of "some work, or, perhaps, some parte of a viork, for which he was really indebted to another " ! And it is this fable which, without question, was the origin of Greene's ex- pression. Moreover, that Greene's feathers were " stolen " from him was freely asserted by other writers. Thus in Greene's Funeralls, by " R. B. Gent." (1594), we read : Greene, is the pleasing object of an eie ; Greene, pleasde the eies of all that lookt uppon him ; Greene, is the ground of evrie Painter's die ; Greene, gave the ground, to all that wrote upon him. Nay more, the men that so eclipst his fame Purloynde his Plumes, can they deny the same? This, surely, is pretty strong testimony to show that Greene's complaint was that the "upstart crow" had " stolen " the feathers with which he was beautified from himself and other dramatists (" our feathers ") ! ^ But according to Mr. Lang the meaning of the passage is very simple indeed : " Do not trust the players, for one of them writes blank verse, which he thinks as good as the best of yours, and fancies himself the only Shake-scene in a country." Here Mr. Lang confines his attention solely to the words, " supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you," and the words following about the " absolute 1 Mr. Robertson writes (p. S43) (assuming as certain that the allusion is to Shakespeare) : " Shakespeare had in his youth been railed at by Greene, the dying playwright, for eking out his and others' handiwork, and a friend of Greene's had later asserted openly that men who had eclipsed Greene's fame in comedy had stolen his plumes, challenging them to deny it." "Eking out," here, appears to be a euphemism, like " convey the wise it call " ! THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 245 Johannes Factotum!' We may admit that these words appear to imply that " Shake-scene " (whether Shake- speare or some other) supposed himself able to compose inflated blank verse — to bumbast it out — as well as the best of the dramatists of the time, like those who, in the words of Nash, " mounted on the stage of arrogance, think to outbrave better pens with the swelling bombast of bragging blank verse." ^ But Mr. Lang's "simple" interpretation, as I confidently submit, omits to give due effect to the image of the " upstart crow, beautified with our feathers." And when he goes on to say (p. 145), ■ " This proves that the actor from Stratford was accepted in Greene's world as an author of plays in blank verse" methinks he doth protest too much ; for to be able to bombast out a blank verse is very far from meaning by necessary implication the authorship of whole plays, and, if it really means authorship at all, need signify no more than the addition of certain passages to the works of others, and, for the sake of argument, I am quite content to accept the theory that Shakspere of Stratford was at this time stuffing out old plays with blank verse of his own.2 Only let us remember that all this is only plausible guess-work after all.* Mr. Lang has commented in a similar manner upon my observations concerning Ben Jonson's sonnet " To Poet Ape," but I must reserve my remarks as to this till we come to consider Ben's various allusions to Shakespeare.* ' Introduction to Greene's Menaphon (1509). ^ To bombast appears to have meant originally to stuff out with cotton wool, as in " they bombast their doublet " (Bulwer, cited in the New English Dictionary), ' The term " Shake-scene," or "stage-shaker," we must remember, properly applies to an actor, not to an author. * See p. 372. I will here venture to refer to some remarks made by one of the ablest and best-informed of the "Baconians," namely, the late Rev. Walter Begley. He points out that " Shake-speare " is written with a hyphen 246 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Together with the allusion to " Shake-scene," in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, it is usual to consider Chettle's alleged reference to Shakspere's " facetious grace in writing," etc., in his Preface to the Kind-Hart's Dreame. I have, however, already so fully discussed this matter that I will not go over that well-trodden ground again. I claim to have shown that this supposed allusion to Shakspere cannot be a reference to him at all.'^ Of that opinion also were Mr. Fleay,^ Mr. Howard Staunton, and Mr. Castle, K.C., and I am glaid to see that Mr. E. K. Chambers, in his article on " Shakespeare " in the Encyclopcedia Britannica (nth ed.), holds the same view. " It is most improbable," he writes, " that the apologetic reference in Chettle's Kind-harts Dream (Dec. 1592) refers to Shakespeare." In any case, the statement that Shakspere was intended had nothing to rest on but pure guess-work, and the practice adopted by so many critics and biographers of quietly slipping Shakespeare's name into the passage, as though he had been actually mentioned by Chettle, is utterly unjustifiable, as leading the reader to believe, contrary to the fact, that Chettle makes actual mention of Shakespeare and that there is no doubt at all in the matter.^ In no other biography but " Shake- in some of the earliest allusions, for example in the verses prefixed to Willobie his Avisa (1594). But, says Mr. Begley, "the Stratford man never had a ' Shake ' in his name, nor yet his ancestors ; and as to having a hyphen in the middle, all his people would have stared with amazement." Moreover, there is an "absence of any reference to an actor in the earliest allusions to Shake-speare or Shakespeare, who, too, is never called Shak- spere at this date." Mr. Begley, therefore, believes that these allusions are to the poet who had published Venus and Adonis and Lucrece in the name of "Shakespeare." Those who care to do so may refer to Bacon's Nma. Resuscitatio (Gay & Bird, 1905), Vol. II, pp. 44, 67 et seq. ^ See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, pp. 307-19 ; In re Shakespeare, chap. V ; The Vindicators of Shakespeare, p. 65 et seq. ^ Life of Shakespeare, p. III. 'It is done in this way: "I am so sorry," Chettle wrote, "as if the originall fault had beene my fault, because myselfe have scene his (i.e. Shakespeare's) demeanour no less civill than he (is) excellent in the quality THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 247 speare's " would such methods be considered consistent with common honesty. So much, then, for the supposed allusion to Shak- spere as writing, or patching, plays in the year 1592.1 Let us now take up again the slender thread of his life in London and at Stratford until his death in the year 161 6. Whether or not " Will " revisited Stratford for the first ten years or so after his flight to London, there is no evidence to show. "Between the winter of 1585 and the autumn of 1596, an interval which synchronises with his first literary triumph, there is," says Sir Sidney Lee, "only one shadowy mention of his name in Stratford records." It is conjectured that he may have been there in 1587, because in April of that year died Edmund Lambert, the mortgagee of the estate at Asbies belong- ing to John and Mary Shakspere, and a few months later William Shakspere's name, "as owner of a con- tingent interest, was joined to that of his father and mother in a formal assent given to an abortive proposal to confer on Edmund's son and heir, John Lambert, an absolute title to the estate on condition of his cancelling the mortgage and paying ;^20. But the deed does not he professes,'' etc. (Lee's Life, p. 53. But herein Sir Sidney Lee has only followed many earlier commentators). The parenthesis "(i.e. Shake- speare's) " is quietly and quite unwarrantably slipped into the quotation ! ' That " Will " should have been writing, or " writing up," plays as early as the year 1592, if such were indeed the fact, seems not a little astonishing. But, says Mr. E. K. Chambers, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, "much indeed might be done in eight years of crowded Elizabethan life. " But how does he get his "eight years"? This " crowded Elizabethan life" could hardly have begun until " Will " arrived in London, and that, as Mr. Fleay has shown, was in all probability not before 1587. It is not generally supposed that he fled in 1585, the very year when his twins were bom, and in 1586 the pls^ue was raging, and the London theatres were closed, so we can hardly date the Hegira in that year. Thus we have only five years, instead of eight. Then, surely, " Will " did not all at once enter upon this strenuous crowded life ! Must we not allow a little time for horse-holding, acting as " servitor " in the theatre, etc. etc, ? 248 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? indicate that Shakespeare personally assisted at the transaction." ^ This is the " shadowy mention " referred to by Sir Sidney Lee, but, as I have already shown, it is probable that " Will " did not leave Stratford till this very year, 1587. But how fared it with his wife and children after his departure for the metropolis? The twins Hamnet and Judith were, as we know, baptized on February 2nd, 1585. Poor Hamnet died in 1596, and was buried at Stratford on August nth of that year. Was his father present at the funeral ? He may have been, but there is no record to show it. And what of Judith ? Here we are confronted with a fact that has always appeared to me astounding, if the received hypothesis be accepted, but which seems to be regarded as the most natural thing in the world by those of the orthodox faith. Judith Shakspere was allowed to grow up in such entire ignorance that she could neither read nor write. She could not even write her own name, but had to use a mark for signature, and a terribly illiterate scrawl it is. Now for a player's daughter this was natural enough. But for the bard who was not of an age but for all time ; the bard who has provided an appropriate word of poetry or philosophy for every incident and contingency of human life ; the bard whom to know is indeed a liberal education ; the literary light of the world ; the myriad- minded man who wrote that " there is no darkness but ignorance " — for him to permit his daughter to remain in that darkness — to take no care or thought whatever as to her education — that seems to me one of the most extra- ordinary facts (if fact it be) in the world's history. From the player we expect little or nothing in such matters. From the author of Hamlet is it too much to expect some little care for the intelligence of his children ? Mr. Lang, however, has an easy answer to this ' Lee's Life, p. 24; " H.-P.," Vol. I, pp. 59 and 78 (6th ed.). THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 249 question. He finds the solution of the difficulty in the method of analogy : " It appears that Shakespeare's daughter, Judith, could write no more than her grand- father. Nor, I repeat, could the Lady Jane Gordon, daughter of the great Earl Huntly, when she was married to the Earl of Bothwell in 1566. At all events, Lady Jane ' made her mark.' " ^ I confess I did not know much about " the great Earl Huntly " when I read this passage. I imagined that he, too, must have written great works, such as Hamlet, Lear, and Othello, for instance. I flew, therefore, with " great expectations " to that invaluable work the Dictionary of National Biography, and there read the life of George Gordon, 4th Earl of Huntly (15 14-1562), whose daughter Jean, or Jane, married James, 4th Earl of Bothwell, on February 22nd, 1566. I respectfully ask the intelligent reader, unless he is already familiar with that life, to go and do likewise. Having done so, I hope he will ask himself whether there is any analogy whatsoever between the case of " Shakespeare," the immortal lord of literature, and this turbulent, fighting Scottish lord. George Gordon, Earl Huntly, allowed his daughter to be a " marks- woman"; therefore it is quite natural and appropriate that " Shakespeare " also should allow his daughter to remain in ignorance ! Such is the argument. But we really must have some corresponding elements in the two subjects of comparison when we attempt to reason by analogy. Here there is as much correspondence between the two as there is between a horse-chestnut and a chest- nut horse. But this is not the only analogy that has been found in this connection. Mr. Henry Davey, who writes the " Memoir " in the Stratford Town Shakespeare, casting about, like other Stratfordian apologists, for a parallel case to Judith's, has fixed upon Milton's daughter Anne. ^ Work cited, p. 176. He had already made the same statement at p^ 47. 2SO IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Of Judith he writes (Vol. X, p. 293) : " Probably like Milton's eldest daughter, she could not write." Now Milton's motherless daughters, living with their blind father, may not have received the best of educations; but at any rate they could all read ; indeed, the two younger girls, as we are told, read to their father works in French, Latin, Italian, and Spanish. It is said, and Mr. Robertson adopts the legend, apparently without giving it a moment's critical consider- ation, that he forced them to read in these languages " without understanding a word." The only authority for this is Edward Philips. Now Philips tells us that Milton excused his eldest daughter, Anne, from reading, on account of her bodily infirmity, but that he made the other two read, and " exactly pronounce," works not only in the languages mentioned, but also in Hebrew, Syriac (as he thinks), and in Greek. I take leave to discredit this wondrous tale altogether. It is obvious that in order to read Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek, the girls must have first mastered the Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek characters. That Milton caused them to do this is incredible. Masson apparently recognised the mythical character of the legend, for he says " the story is credible only in the sense that it roughly describes the actual result," which Sir Leslie Stephen, in the Dictionary of National Bio- graphy, interprets to mean that if such was the result it certainly was not Milton's " intention," for it is pointed out that he particularly disliked works to be read aloud to him when not understood by the reader. But to my mind the whole story bears upon its face the mark of exaggerated over-statement, to say the least. Milton at this time was blind, infirm, and poor. In this pitiable state it was very natural that he should desire his daughters to remedy, so far as they could, that terrible privation, the loss of his eyesight. We read of them that they were by no means dutiful or sweet-tempered children, THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 251 but even took advantage of his blindness to rob him. But why should we be " side-tracked " into the details of this wretched story ? The whole point (if point there be) is in the comparison between Judith Shakspere and Anne Milton. Of Anne we are told that although (unlike Judith) she had learnt to read, yet she could not write. But Anne was a deformed cripple, and Professor Masson tells us that it was " her bodily infirmity " which prevented her from writing. Now, many a man — and woman too — unable to read or write, has learnt to scribble a signature (such was, apparently, the case with Shakspere's eldest daughter, Susanna Hall), but this poor girl, who, although she could read perfectly well, was prevented by her bodily infirmity from writing, is put before us as a parallel to the ignorant and entirely uneducated Judith ! Is it, then, really suggested that Milton would not have caused his eldest daughter to be as well educated as her sisters, had it not been for her physical, and, perhaps, mental infirmities ? The supposed analogy breaks down at every point. I had written much to this effect in The Shakespeare Problem Restated, and supposed that I had pretty well disposed of the fancied parallel between Judith Shakspere and Anne Milton. And there I might have left it, but Mr. Robertson has now taken up the cudgels — in Mr. Robertson's case it is generally the bludgeon ! — and appears as the newest champion of the method of justi- fying Shakspere by defaming Milton. Mr. Robertson says I have "never faced the real issue, the probable difference between the culture-standards of Stratford in Shakespeare's day and those of London in Milton's." The suggestion, therefore, is that, making allowance for the difference in these " culture-standards," Milton treated his daughters in the matter of education quite as badly as Shakspere treated Judith. But first of all I should 252 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? like to ask " why on earth '' the standard in Shakspere's case should have been the Stratford standard, and not the London standard? Judith was born in 1585, and in 1590, or thereabouts, when the girl was only five years old, Shakspere was, according to Mr. Robertson and those of his faith, writing plays, or " writing up '' plays, or " writing over " plays, whichever they like. In 1 592 he had got on so far that he was " the only Shake-scene in a country." He must, surely, have known the London " culture-standard " by that time ! Could he not, while writing the great works which were to raise him to one of the highest pinnacles among the immortals, have spared one thought for the education of his little daughter whom he had left behind at Stratford ? But this, it seems, was the common "Stratford standard," to leave the girls in the darkness of ignorance. Was " Shakespeare " then a common man? Are we not justified in expecting some- thing more from the myriad-minded man than from such " deserving men " as Heminge and Condell ? Are Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, and the Sonnets, and the early plays, such as Loves Labow^s Lost, and The Comedy of Errors, indicative of the Stratford " culture-standard " ? And if not, why should this Janus-faced demigod have one " culture-standard " for his works and another for his children ? But, secondly, in my judgment, it is really a con- temptible kind of criticism which would suggest that Milton's treatment of his daughters in the matter of edu- cation is in any way comparable to Shakspere's treatment of his daughters, to whom, in point of fact, he gave no education at all. Observe, it is not a question whether or not Milton treated his daughters unkindly. That seems to me altogether irrelevant. The question is, Did he leave them uneducated as Shakspere left his daughters? Notoriously such was not the fact, and, to my mind, it only shows to what length the animus of an habitual THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 253 controversialist may be carried when Mr. Robertson is found trying to support this discredited comparison. Mr. Robertson objects to my characterising such methods as " pitiful." I think I might with justice have employed a much stronger epithet. So much for poor Judith, who in February, 1616, but two months before her father's death, married an honest vintner of her native town, named Thomas Quiney, but, like her father, married in haste, so much so, indeed, that the pair were married without a licence, for which they were, a few weeks afterwards, fined and threatened with excom- munication by the ecclesiastical court at Worcester. And now what of Shakspere's wife, the Anne (or Agnes) Hathwey (or Hathaway), around whom so much poetic mythology has accumulated ? She seems to have fared no better than his father, John Shakspere, who, as we know, got into sad financial difficulties, and was un- ceasingly harassed by creditors. " The only contemporary mention made of her," writes Sir Sidney Lee, " between her marriage in 1582, and her husband's death in 1616, is as the borrower at an unascertained date (evidentlybefore 1595) of forty shillings from Thomas Whittington, who had formerly been her father's shepherd. The money was unpaid when Whittington died in 1601." That the last statement is correct is shown by the following extract from Whittington 's will : " Unto the poore people of Stratford, xl. s. that is in the hand of Anne Shaxspere, wyfe unto Mr Wyllyam Shaxspere, and is due debt unto me, being paid to mine executor by the sayd Wyllyam Shaxspere or his assignee according to the true meaning of this my will." ^ It is sad indeed to think of Anne Shakspere being constrained to borrow 40s. from her father's ex-shepherd, and to read that the money was still unpaid in 1601. Yet Shakspere was in no want of money at the time » Halliwell-Phillipps,, Outlines, Vol. II, p. 186. 254 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? when these forty shillings were borrowed, and still less in 1 60 1, when Thomas Whittington died ; for in the spring of 1 597 he had purchased New Place, the largest house in Stratford, for the sum of £60, representing about ;^48o if we take the value of money at the present time. One would have imagined that he might have paid off his wife's debt to the old shepherd. We can only say that this is one of the remarkable things which strike us at every turn in this most unsatisfactory life. Moreover, in 1 596, the year previous to the purchase of New Place, we find the erst penniless John Shakspere, backed, as we must suppose, by his now well-to-do son, making application to the Heralds' College for a coat- of-arms. This application John Shakspere had made once before, viz. in 1 568, while he was bailiff of Stratford, supporting it by numerous fictions concerning his family. The negotiations of 1568, however, proved abortive. The application was, therefore, now renewed by John and William Shakspere, or, rather, as it would seem, by William in John's name, and was accompanied by more fictitious allegations ; and changes having taken place at the Heralds' College in 1597 (Essex becoming Earl Marshal, and Camden Clarenceux King-of-Arms), a novel procedure was adopted by the applicants, who now audaciously asserted that certain draft grants prepared by the heralds in the previous year had been assigned to John Shakspere while he was bailiff, and the heralds, instead of being asked for a grant of arms, " were merely invited to give a ' recognition ' or ' exemplification ' of it," which was a thing much more easily secured than a grant, for "the heralds might, if they chose, tacitly accept, without examination, the applicant's statement that his family had borne arms long ago, and they thereby regarded themselves as relieved of the obligation of close inquiry into his present status." ^ There was, however, a ' Lee's Life, p. 151 and note. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 255 limit beyond which these complaisant heralds refused to go. The Shaksperes, father and son, had coolly desired them to recognise the title of Mary Shakspere, John's wife, to bear the arms of the great Warwickshire family of Arden, then seated at Park Hall. " Ridiculous state- ments," says Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps (Vol. I, p. 162), " were made respecting the claims of the two families. Both were really descended from obscure country yeomen, but the heralds made out that the predecessors of John Shakespeare were rewarded by the Crown for distinguished services " ; but as to the Arden arms they appear, as Sir Sidney Lee writes, to " betray conscientious scruples," and this audacious claim was abandoned. The Shaksperes, however, obtained their coat-of-arms in 1599, with the motto, so provocative of criticism, non sans droict, which as their right seems to have been altogether imaginary, was presumably assigned to them on the Incus a non lucendo principle.^ Whether Mr. William Shakspere, Gent., Armiger, etc., now settled permanently at Stratford seems not quite clear. The purchase of New Place was, owing to the sudden death of the vendor, not finally completed till 1602, but in February, 1597-8, we find Shakspere a householder in Chapel Street Ward, in which New Place was situated, "and owner of ten quarters of corn." Only two inhabitants, we are informed, were credited ' We cannot doubt that Jonson had this motto in mind when he made Puntarvolo say in Every Man Out of His Humour {III, Sc. i), "Let the word [i.e. motto] be 'not without mustard.' Your crest is very rare, sir." Sogliardo tells us that he had "toiled among the harrots" (i.e. the Heralds) to get this coat-of-arms, but " I thank God I can write myself a gentleman now." See the whole passage quoted in Hie Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 461. We have also an allusion in The Poetaster (Act I, Sc. i) where Tucca, speaking of the players, exclaims : " They are grown licentious the rogues ; libertines, flat libertines. They forget they are i' the statute, the rascals, they are blazoned there, there they are tricked, they and their pedigrees ; they need no other heralds, I wiss." The statute here referred to is 39 Eliz. c. 4 (cf. also 14 Eliz. c. 5). 256 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? with a larger holding. "In the same year (1598) he procured stone for the repair of the house, and before 1602 had planted a fruit orchard." In 161 1, at any rate, he appears to have been permanently settled at New Place. As the poor student says, in The Returne from Parnassus, speaking of "those glorious vagabonds" the players who had enriched themselves, in lines already cited, With mouthing words that better wits had framed They purchase lands and now esquires are made.' But these lines cannot, of course, apply to William Shakspere if he was really, according to the accepted belief, the author of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare. But before saying a word as to his life in the retire- ment of New Place, we must turn back to certain notices of player Shakspere in the years 1601 and 1604. The first reference is to two well-known entries made in his diary by John Manningham, Barrister-at-law; of the Middle Temple, and of Bradbourne, Kent, a well- educated and cultured man, who, under date February 2nd, 1 60 1, makes the following record: "At our feast we had a play called Twelve Night, or What You Will, much like The Comedy of Errors, or Menechmi in Plautus, but most like and near to that in Italian called Inganni. A good practice in it to make the steward believe his lady widow was in love with him, by counter- feiting a letter as from his lady in general terms, telling him what she liked best in him, and prescribing his gesture in smiling, his apparel, etc., and then, when he came to practise, making him believe they took him to be mad." Here we have an undoubted reference to the per- formance of "Shakespeare's" Twelfth Night in the Middle Temple Hall in February, 1601. The allusion ' Or "named." Vidt supra, p. 213. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 257 to The Comedy of Errors and Plautus's " Menechmi" is rather cryptic, but I gather therefrom that Manningham had seen The Comedy of Errors (perhaps when acted at Gray's Inn in 1594), which he knew was founded on the Menechmi, and conceived that there were points of comparison between the two plays. At any rate, he clearly took much , interest in the play of Twelfth Night. Now on March 13th of the following month (1601) he makes another entry as follows: "Upon a time when Burbidge played Richard Third there was a citizen gone so far in liking with him, that before she went from the play she appointed him to come that night unto her by the name of Richard the Third. Shakespeare overhearing their conclusion went before, was entertained, and at his game ere Burbidge came. Then message being brought that Richard the Third was at the door, Shake- speare caused return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third. Shakespere's ^ name William." Here we have another undoubted reference to a play of " Shakespeare's," viz. Richard III, and also an undoubted reference to player Shakspere; and this, says Sir Sidney Lee, is "the sole anecdote of Shakespeare [Shakspere] which is positively known to have been recorded in his lifetime." I have characterised this allusion as a striking example ol ^Hoit negative pregnant. Manningham had seen Twelfth Night and had been so much entertained by it that he makes a lengthy entry concerning the play in his diary. Yet when, but a month later, he records a story about player Shakspere, in connection with the Shakespearean play Richard the Third, instead of saying that William Shakespeare, who assumed the r61e of "William the '^ Manningham appears to have varied the spelling of the player's name, a practice of dealing with proper names which was common enough at that period. S 258 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Conqueror," to the discomfiture of Burbage, was "the brilliant author of that Twelfth Night play which so much amused me at our feast last month," he finds him- self constrained to add, " Shakespere's name William," showing that he has not the least idea that he was the author of the play. This certainly struck me as " giving furiously to think." But Mr. Lang has his answer cut and dried. I had written : " Nobody outside a very small circle, troubled his head as to who the dramatist or dramatists might be." ^ Thereupon says Mr. Lang : " To that 'very small circle' we have no reason to suppose that Manningham belonged, despite his remarkable opinion that Twelfth Night resembles the Menaechmi. Consequently it is not 'extremely remarkable' that Manningham wrote 'Shakespeare's name William,' to explain to posterity the joke about 'William the Conqueror,' instead of saying 'the brilliant author,' etc." But, with all deference, I dissent entirely from Mr. Lang's view that Manningham stood outside the small circle to which I referred. Manningham was, I repeat, a barrister and a cultured and well-educated man of the world. He had witnessed the performance of Twelfth Night in the Middle Temple Hall, at their " feast," one of the " grand nights " of 1601, and had been so much struck by it that he thinks it worth while to record certain details of the play in his diary. I should say that this was the very man who would have been likely to take an interest in the author- ship of the play. I certainly had no thought of including such a man as this in the ranks of the general public ("the great stupid") who in Shakespeare's day would see and applaud a play without ever troubling their head to ask who the dramatist might be. On the contrary, I regard John Manningham as typical of the small circle to which I alluded. Yet he sees Twelfth Night and, ' In re Shakespeare,, p. 54. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 259 presumably, he sees Shakspere act in it. He tells a story of Burbage and Shakspere in Richard III, but he has evidently no idea that player Shakspere was the author either of the one play or of the other. He has no suspicion of the identity of Shakespeare the author and Shakspere the merry player. But I made reference here to the story of William Shakspere playing a trick on his fellow-actor Burbage, such as d'Artagnan played on "miladi's" lover, mainly because it throws light upon the sort of man that Shakspere was, or was traditionally held to be. But I must crave leave to repeat the words which I formerly wrote upon this matter : " I desire to guard against misunderstanding. I do not mean, of course, to suggest that because Shakspere was a lover of ' wine and woman,' therefore he could not have been the author of the Plays and Poems. Such a suggestion would, indeed, be idiotic, for ' wine, woman, and song ' are a notorious and a time- honoured association. Still less do I write in any censorious spirit. I have too much anxiety for the preservation of my own glass house to think of throwing hypocritical stones at either the living or the dead. But what I submit is that this traditional Shakspere, taking him as a whole, and considering his parentage, his en- vironment, his character, and all the circumstances of his life, so far as the old witnesses reveal them to us, does not, in any way, or in any measure, fulfil the conditions necessary for the sublime poet, the profound philosopher, the universal teacher, the object of the world's adoration, the writer of the Sonnets, the author of Adonis and Lucrece, the creator of Hamlet, and Lear, and Prospero, the cultured courtier, . . > the— in short, the all in all that the greatest of critics have recognised in Shakespeare, as revealed to them not by tradition, ' I omit the words "the erudite lawyer" in order not to beg the question of Shakespeare's legal knowledge. 26o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? and not by biographers, but by the immortal works themselves." And a further consideration suggests itself with reference to Shakspere's escapade as related by John Manningham. It is easy enough to conceive of Shake- speare as playing the part of a "gallant gay Lothario,'' even although we may reject the picture of him as an erotic and neurotic decadent presented to us by Mr. Frank Harris ; but it is difficult to imagine him, in the pursuit of his amours, acting in the particular manner adopted by the player of Manningham's story. It seems incongruous to conceive the immortal poet playing this trick on a fellow-player in the assumed r61e of " William the Conqueror." I cannot help thinking that his cult of the Cnidian and Paphian Queen would have been rather more refined. Of course the story may be untrue, albeit the only one recorded in Shakspere's lifetime. But true or untrue it is very good " evidence of reputation." ^ It fits the player admirably. I can hardly think it appropriate to the Poet. These entries in Manningham's diary bear date, as we have seen, in 1601. Let us now pass to the year 1604. In that year, according to Dr. Charles William Wallace, Professor in the University of Nebraska, Shakspere was lodging with one Mountjoy, a " tire maker," i.e. a maker of " head-dresses and wigs," who lived at a corner house at the meeting of Silver Street and Muggle, or Mugwel! (now Monkwell) Street, and in the Cripplegate Ward. In fact — so, at least. Dr. Wallace tells us — Shakspere lodged at that house with the worthy "tire maker" for ' Needless to say, I do not use this expression in its strict legal sense. It may not be out of place to note here what diflferent and apparently antagonistic qualities are assigned to player Shakspere. At one time he is the pleasant, "gentle," easy-going, joke-loving, amatory boon-companion, a lover of pleasure and good company ; at another he is the shrewd, cautious, litigious, money-lending, money-saving man of business. It seems difficult to reconcile these contradictory aspects of the same character. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 261 some six years, from 1598 to 1604.^ This the Professor deduces from the records of an action brought by one Stephen Bellott against the before-mentioned Mountjoy, in the year 161 2, which Dr. Wallace has discovered at the Record Office, and so the fact may have been, though it does not seem to appear very clearly from the case cited. The story of this action is told by the learned Professor in Harpers Magazine for March, 1910, and I have given an abbreviated account of it in The National Review for April of that year.^ It seems that Mountjoy had taken this Bellott "as apprentice to learn the trade of tire- making," and Bellott boards with Mountjoy, as also does Shakspere. Mountjoy has an only daughter, Mary, and when Bellott had finished his term of apprenticeship it appears to have occurred to the worthy tire-maker and his wife that it would be a desirable thing to arrange a match between him and Mary. Bellott, however, seems to have been a timid and bashful wooer, so the Mountjoys conceive the happy idea of making Shakspere an intermediary to do a little honest marriage-brokage. " So," writes Dr. Wallace, in a tender and gushing passage, "the greatest poet of all the world, moved by the simple impulse of humanity that is the key to all he ever wrote, did the wished-for service among these simple-hearted, simple - passioned folk." To Stephen Bellott, then, goes William Shakspere, and tells him that Barkis (i.e. Mary) is willing, and that the bride will have a dower of £i^o, say £afiO in money of to- day. In fact,- he plays the part of honest broker so ' Shakspere, we must remember, bought New Place in IS97, and in February, 1598, is found to be a householder in Chapel Street Ward, Stratford. In that year he is recorded as having procured stone for New Place, and in 1602 he had planted an orchard there. But his residence at that time was apparently " Muggle Street." See Dr. Wallace's article " New Shakespeare Discoveries " in Harper's Monthly Magazine for March, 1910. ' This article is reprinted with some additions in The Vindicators of Shakespeare. 262 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? well that the marriage was solemnised on November 19th, 1604. But, alas, The best laid schemes of mice and men Gang aft agley. " It had been agreed," writes Dr. Wallace, " that dear Stephen and Mary were to live in the paternal home," in Muggle Street, "but before the end of the first year Bellott refused to remain longer." He clears out and removes, with his wife, to the parish of St. Sepulchre, where they have " a chamber in the house or inn " of one George Wilkins, described as a " victualler." Subsequently, after Mrs. Mountjoy's death, Bellott brings an action against Mountjoy concerning Mary's dower, and hales his father-in-law before the Court of Requests,^ hoping to compel the old man to fulfil his alleged promises. The hearing of the case was, we are told, set down for Easter term, 1612, and, on May 7th, "the Court issued a compulsory to William Shakespeare, gent, and others, ad testificandum inter Stephen Bellott querentem et Christoferum Mountjoy deft." Interrogatories also were issued to the witnesses, which are set forth at length in Dr. Wallace's article and which show the trifling nature of the matter at issue. To these interrogatories the several deponents make answer. And first Johane Johnsone, who was a "servant to the defendant at that time," declares, amongst other things, that "as she remembereth the defendant did send and perswade one Mr Shakespeare that laye in the house to perswade the plaintiff to the same Marriadge," and thereunto she sub- ^ Courts of Request were Courts for the collection of small debts, and were in existence down to a. comparatively recent date. Sergeant Ballantyne tells us that in his early days " there were no County Courts, but here and there in the Metropolis were dotted small debts Courts, not remarkable for dignity or use ; they were called Courts of Request. " Some Experiences of a Barrister's Life (1882), Vol. I, p. 31. These " Courts of Request" were superseded by the County Courts. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 263 scribes "her mark." This is apparently the only evidence that " Mr Shakespeare " lodged with Mountjoy, for he, himself, in his answer, does not mention the fact. Then one Danyell Nycholas says that " Mr William Shakespeare tould him this deponent that the defendant sent him the said Mr Shakespeare to the plaintiff about suche A marriadge to be hadd between them [Stephen and Mary], And Shakespeare tould this deponent that the defendant tould him that yf the plaintiff would Marrye the said Marye his daughter he would geue him the plaintiff A some of money with her for A porcion in Marriadge with her," — a fearful example of hearsay evidence ! ^ Then comes the man himself, ipsissumus, viz. "William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Aven in the Countye of Warwicke, gentle- man, of the Age of xlviii yeres or thereabouts," who deposes, inter alia, that "the said defendantes wyeffe did sollicitt and entreat this deponent to move and perswade the said Complainant to effect the said Marriadge and accord- ingly the deponent did move and perswade the Com- plainant thereunto." This answer is, according to Dr. Wallace, signed by the abbreviated signature, "Willm Shaks." Moreover, we have an answer from one William Eaton, concerning whom Dr. Wallace says, " Even young William Eaton, an apprentice now to Bellott, had the privilege of knowing Shakespeare and has heard him and Bellott talk over the question of dower, probably in the shop." And " young William Eaton," the apprentice, says, " he hath herd one Mr Shakespeare saye that he was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff to move the plaintiff to have a marriadge between them, the plaintiff and the defendante's daughter, Mary Mountioye." It is to be noticed that all these witnesses speak of ^ This is to be found in Danyell Nicholas's second deposition. In his first he speaks of hearing "one Mr. Shakespeare" say so and so. See Harper's Monthly Magazine for March, 1910, pp. 498, 501. 264 is THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? "one William Shakespeare," or "one, Mr Shakespeare," and never describe him, or allude to him, as a poet or dramatist, although in the year 161 2, when this case was tried, " Shakespeare " was at the zenith of his fame, so far as he had contemporary fame at all. It is really most disappointing that this should always be the case. Here, then, we find William Shakspere of Stratford, in the years 1598 to 1604, according to Professor Wallace, lodging with a wig-maker in Muggle Street, and being "sent" by him (viz. tire-maker Mountjoy) and his wife to act as intermediary between Mary Mountjoy and the ci-devant apprentice Bellott, in order to bring about a marriage between the two if possible. Now this is exactly what we should have expected of player Shakspere. It is just the sort of environment in which we should have expected to find him, a bourgeois among bourgeois. It is just the sort of thing which we might have expected him to do. How does it suit " the greatest poet of all the world " ? Remember that before the year 1604, when this bit of marriage brokage was done by William Shakspere, some of the very greatest of the plays had been written, including such works as the Midsummer Nighis Dream, Julius Ccesar, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, and Hamlet, greatest of all. Can we imagine the immortal bard in these sordid surroundings and employed in such paltry services ? Yet Dr. Wallace does not hesitate to write : " The evidence at hand makes it certain at least that here at the corner of Muggell and Silver Streets Shakespeare was living when he wrote some of his greatest plays, Henry V, Much Ado, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Hamlet, Julius Ccesar, Troilus and Cressida, Macbeth, Measure for Measure, Othello. And it is most likely that he wrote his subsequent plays here"! All this appears to me most supremely foolish ; but THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 265 when Dr. Wallace goes on to say that Shakespeare " honours his host by raising him in the play {Henry V) to the dignity of a French Herald under his own name of Mountjoy," he provides us with a measure of the erudition and intelligence of some of the modern Stratfordian critics and commentators. Mountjoy, the French Herald, it seems needless to say, was taken by Shakespeare directly from Holinshed. Moreover, Mountjoy is not a personal name, but the official name of a French Herald (like Rouge Dragon, e.g., in this country), so that Professor Wallace's blunder is really quite outrageously absurd. After this it is not surprising to find Professor Wallace informing us that the copy of Florio's Montaigne's Essays purchased by the British Museum in 1838, bears on the fly-leaf the name " William Shakespeare," whereas, in truth and in fact, thfe name on the fly-leaf is " Willm Shakspere " ! Nor is it surprising that the Professor is unaware that Sir Edward Maunde Thompson has pro- nounced that signature an undoubted forgery. After this I will not waste time by discussing the singularly futile contention that the abbreviated signature " Willm Shaks," in the Bellott v. Mountjoy suit, is "conclusive proof" of the genuineness of the still further abbreviated signature (so called) " Wm Sh« " which is found in a copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses in the Bodleian Library, written nobody knows when or by whom.^ We have it, then, that Shakespeare purchased New Place in 1597, that in 1598 he was a householder in Chapel Street Ward, Stratford-on-Avon, and that in the same year, and thenceforward till 1604, he was lodging ^ Nor will I here discuss Dr. Wallace's very characteristic method of proving, to his own satisfaction at any rate, that " George Wilkins, victualler," mentioned in the suit, must have been George Wilkins pamphleteer and hack writer, as to whose life little or nothing is known, but who is supposed by some to have written a portion of Pericles. All these things are fully dealt with in The Vindicators of Shakespeare, Part III. 266 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? with the wig-maker in Muggle Street (according to Dr- Wallace). But by 1611 at any rate the authorities seem to be agreed that he had finally retired to Stratford, and was permanently resident at New Place. Now, therefore, we find Shakspere comfortably settled in his little native town of Stratford among the petty trades- men, butchers, glovers, wool-staplers, mercers, drapers, haberdashers, vintners, innkeepers, et hoc genus omne, from whose society he had fled so many years before. He now occupies himself with building, planting orchards, etc., lending money, bringing law-suits, buying up tithes, attempting to enclose common-lands, etc. One letter written to him in 1598 has been preserved. It is the only one. The water is Richard Quiney, a fellow-townsman (whose son, Thomas, afterwards married Shakspere's daughter, Judith), begging for a loan of money. Whether the request was granted is not known. In the same year another townsman, Abraham Sturley, writing, as it seems, to a brother in London, mentions "our countriman, Mr Shaksper," as " willing to disburse some money upon some odd yard-land or other at Shottery or near about us : he thinketh it a very fit pattern to move him to deal in the matter of our tithes." And the same Sturley, writing in November, 1598, to Richard Quiney aforesaid, points out to him that since the town was wholly unable, in conse- quence of the dearth of corn, to pay the tax, he hoped " that our countriman, Mr Wm. Shak. would procure us money, which I will like of as I shall hear when and where and how." Rare old Ben Jonson remained poor to the end of his days, but Shakspere, the cautious, prudent, worldly-wise, saving Shakspere, actor and actor-manager, had acquired a fortune, and Sir Sidney Lee tells us that " Pope had just warrant for the surmise that he For gain not glory winged his roving flight • And grew immortal in his own despite " ! THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 267 Imagine it ! This is not the verdict of one of the " de- famers of Shakespeare," it is the deliberate pronouncement of orthodox worshippers at the Stratfordian shrine. And what do they tell us ? This : that the sublime poet, who did " the stars and sunbeams know," Planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea. Making the heaven of heavens his dweUing place, gave the world all his everlasting work "for gain," and that though he became "immortal" it was "in his own despite " that such consummation was arrived at. A pre- posterous theory, as it appears to me, but, at any rate, quite orthodox, sane, and respectable, and to be subscribed to by all who do not wish to be classed among fools and fanatics. Shakspere too had inherited, so Sir Sidney Lee tells us, his father's love of litigation. Litigious he certainly was, and, as certainly, he " stood rigorously by his rights in his business relations." ^ He seems to have found gain if not glory in money-lending, and was as rigorous as Shylock in strictly enforcing the conditions of the bond. "In March, 1600, he recovered in London a debt of £'j from one John Clayton. In July, 1604, in the local Court at Stratford, he sued one Philip Rogers to whom he had supplied since the preceding March malt to the value of £\. 19. lod., and had on June 25th lent 2/ in cash. Rogers paid back 6/ and Shakespeare sought the balance of the account, £\. 15. lod. During 1608 and 1609, he was at law with another fellow-townsman John Adden- broke." Then, in February, 1609, he obtains judgment against Addenbroke for the payment of £6 and £1. 5. costs, "but Addenbroke left the town, and the triumph proved barren." One Thomas Horneby, however, had made himself surety for Addenbroke, and Shakspere "avenged himself," says Sir Sidney Lee, by proceeding against the unfortunate surety.^ '^ Lee's Life, p. 164. ' Jbid, 268 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Such was the life of Shakspere, the retired gentleman, among the petite bourgeoisie of the place which Garrick, more than a hundred years later, described as "the most dirty, unseemly, ill-paved, wretched-looking town in all Britain." It is what the French would style banale in the extreme. What many people have found extra- ordinary, on the received hypothesis, is that these " astute business transactions," as Sir Sidney Lee calls them, " of these years (i 597-161 1) synchronise with the production of Shakespeare's noblest literary work — of his most sustained and serious efforts in comedy, tragedy, and romance." Sir Sidney, however, thinks this to be an inconsistency " more apparent than real." It does not strike him as at all out of the way that a man should be writing Hamlet (where, by the way, we find the sound advice " neither a borrower nor a lender be ") and at the same time bringing actions for petty sums lent on loan at some unspecified interest. Why should it be ? Shakespeare wrote Hamlet not for " glory," either contemporaneous or with posterity, but merely for " gain." It was something that would pay, and there would be so much the more for building, money- lending, tithe-buying, etc. Such is the orthodox creed which except a man believe faithfully without doubt he shall be damned everlastingly as fool and fanatic. The incident of the attempt to enclose the common- fields at Stratford affords such a characteristic example of Shakspere's shrewd habit of looking after his own interest that it ought not to be passed over in silence. It seems that one William Combe (son of that John Combe whose usurious propensities Shakspere is said to have satirised in doggerel verses), about the year 1614, attempted, in conjunction with a neighbouring owner, "to enclose the common fields which belonged to the corporation of Stratford about his estate at Welcombe. The corporation resolved to ofTer the scheme a stout resistance. Shake- speare had a twofold interest in the matter by virtue of THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 269 his owning the freehold of 106 acres at Welcombe and Old Stratford, and as the joint owner now with Thomas Greene, the town clerk, of the tithes of Old Stratford, Welcombe, and Bishopton. His interest in his freeholds could not have been prejudicially affected, but his interest in the tithes might be depreciated by the proposed enclosure. Shakespeare consequently joined with his fellow-owner Greene in obtaining from Combe's agent, Replingham, in October, 16 14, a deed indemnifying both against any injury they might suffer from the enclosure. But having thus secured himself against all possible loss, Shakespeare threw his influence into Combos scale" and supported the scheme of enclosure. Verily a sharp man of business this ! " Happily," however, as Sir Sidney Lee says, "Combe's efforts failed and the common lands remain unenclosed," in spite of the efforts of the wealthy owner of New Place.^ " It is certain,'' writes Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, " that the poet [i.e. Shakspere] was in favour of the enclosures, for, on December the 23rd, the Corporation addressed a letter of remonstrance to him on the subject, and another on the same day to a Mr. Mainwaring. The latter, who had been practically bribed by some land arrangements at Welcombe, undertook to protect the interests of Shake- speare, so there can be no doubt that the three parties were acting in unison." * In the face of all this it certainly does seem extra- ordinary, even in Shaksperian biography, where we have been taught not to be surprised at anything, that a lady, whose integrity no one would impugn, should write as follows : " It was all wild forest land, an outlying bit of the Forest of Arden.* Arfd when, in 1614, an attempt was 1 Lee's Life, p. 2i8. Italics mine. ^ Outlines, 6th ed. p. 228. ' Really it was not a common, but " common-fields," a very different thing. 270 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? made to enclose Welcombe, the Corporation of Stratford opposed the project on the ground of hardship to the poor, and we find Shakespeare resisting the encroachment with all the vigour of a modern preserver of open spaces. . . . The whole episode is a ' touch of nature ' that brings one closer to the man ; and only those who have groaned over the enclosure of some beloved bit of wood- land by the nineteenth-century barbarians can fully appreciate the poet's righteous indignation against the Vandals of 1615."! This, really, is almost enough to take one's breath away. Let the reader observe that it purports to be just plain narrative of undisputed facts ; and do not our hearts go out to the beloved poet, the defender of the rights of the poor, the protector of the beauties of nature against the threatened usurpation of "the Vandals"! And yet all the evidence before us goes to show that Shakspere of Stratford (poet or not) was himself one of these very "Vandals of 161 5." What possible explanation is there, then, of such a gross perversion of history? Well, there is a very simple one, and it is also a very instructive one, though it can hardly be called edifying. The above-mentioned Thomas Greene, clerk to the Corporation of Stratford, and joint tithe-owner with Shakspere, was the latter's cousin, and resided for a time at New Place. He kept a diary in which he made sundry entries concerning the proposed enclosure of the common-fields, and the part played by Shakspere in that transaction. One of these entries, under date September 1615, is in these words: " Mr Shakespeare telling J. Greene that I was not able to bear the encloseing of Welcombe " ; i.e. Thomas Greene makes a note to the effect that Shakspere told J. Greene (who must not be confused with Thomas) that he, Thomas ' From an article on "Shakespeare in Warwickshire," by Miss Rose G. Kingsley, published in The Nintteenth Century for May, 1910. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 271 Greene to wit, was not able to bear the enclosing of Welcombe.1 It seems, therefore, that Thomas Greene, the clerk of the Corporation, was, not unnaturally, at one with that body in opposing the enclosures, and felt so strongly on the matter that Shakspere mentioned to J. Greene that he, Thomas, was not able to bear it, which remark Thomas thinks well to record in his diary. Now, how does this appear in Miss Kingsley's article ? I will quote her words: "We find this further pathetic entry in Greene's diary on the ist of September, 161 5 : ' Mr Shakespeare told Mr J. Greene that he was not able to bear the enclosing of Welcombe.'"^ And thus we have that "touch of nature" which "brings one closer to the man." A " pathetic entry," indeed, and all obtained by the simple expedient of substituting "he" for " I" ! Let us, however, be quite fair. This is not the first time the suggestion has been made that Thomas Greene may have written " I " by mistake for " he." Dr. Ingleby was, I believe, the first to put forward the hypothesis that Greene, being a careless scribbler, intended to write " he." But this, so far as I am aware, is the first time that that emendation, tentatively suggested as a possible one, has been quietly adopted, and read into the document so as to give it a meaning the very opposite to that which it bears as it stands in the original, and without the slightest intimation that the reading is mere conjecture, and that all the "authorities" are on the other side! This really strikes one as almost the ne plus ultra of Stratfordian audacity. Moreover, although one can, of course, quite under- stand the anxiety of the " orthodox " to disprove, if ' Thomas Greene, Shakspere's cousin, always speaks of " Mr. Shake- speare" or "my cousin Shakspeare." Unfortunately he never alludes to him as poet or dramatist. Nobody ever did. ' My italics. It will be noticed that the quotation is inaccurate in other respects also. 272 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? possible, that the object of their adoration (William Shakspere to wit) was one of the Vandals of his day, yet there appears to be no kind of warrant for this falsification of an ancient document. "The pronoun in this entry," writes Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps (Vol. II, p. 382), "is considered by Mr. Edward Scott, of the British Museum, a very able judge, to be really the letter J," which is but another form of the letter " I." Then, after alluding to Dr. Ingleby's conjectural emendation, he says : " If Shakespeare had not favoured the enclosure scheme, why should the majority of the Corporation have addressed one of their letters of remonstrance to him, as well as Main waring, or why should Greene have troubled the former with 'a note of the inconveniences' that would arise from the execution of the proposed design ? " So, too. Sir Sidney Lee : " The entry, therefore, implies that Shakespeare told J. Greene that the writer of the diary, Thomas Greene, was not able to bear the enclosure. Those who represent Shakespeare as a champion of popular rights have to read the ' I ' in 'I was not able ' as 'he.' Were that the correct reading, Shakespeare would be rightly credited with telling J. Greene that he disliked the enclosure ; but palaeographers only recognize the reading ' I.' " ^ That this entry in Thomas Greene's diary should now be given to the world in the amended (i.e. falsified) form, in order to enlist the sympathy of the reader with Shakspere of Stratford, as making a " pathetic " struggle during the last months of his life for the rights of the poor and the beauties of nature, is a deplorable illus- tration of the manner in which an unfortunate id^e fixe may lead enthusiasts of quite honest intention to be guilty of perversions of history not distinguishable in their results from those of conscious dishonesty. So much, then, for Shakspere's action, in 1615, with * Lee's Life, p. 2i8 note. THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 273 regard to the proposed enclosure of the Stratford common- fields. I must here mention once more an incident which had taken place two years previously. In 16 13, as we know, "Mr Shakespeare" and Richard Burbage had been employed at Belvoir Castle "about my Lorde's impreso," and had each received the sum of 44s. for their pains. I need not, however, dwell further on this curious record, since I have already discussed it at some length.^ As I have shown, there can be no reasonable doubt, in spite of Mrs. Stopes's courageous but not very wise attempt to identify " Mr Shakespeare " here with one John Shakespeare bit-maker to Charles I (wherein she is followed with uncritical docility by Mr. Robertson), that " William Shakspere of Stratford, Gent," was Burbage's companion and fellow-worker. Thus a single line in a steward's account of household expenses tells us that Shakspere, three years before his death, at a time when he had finally retired to Stratford, and when, according to the received hypothesis, he must have been at the zenith of his fame, if fame he had at all in his lifetime, — for all the immortal plays had been written previously to the date in question, — is paid forty-four shillings for this trivial fancy-Work. No wonder the faithful Mrs. Stopes wishes to substitute the " bit-maker " for the "bard," and that Mr. Robertson shows such alacrity to follow suit ! The above are all the incidents of William Shakspere's life of which I need here make mention. It is un- fortunately true that no single fact is recorded concerning him to suggest that he was other than a very common man ; nothing whatever to suggest that he was a great and generous and high-souled man. And all we know further of this singularly unattractive life — the life that has been handed down to us by Rowe, and the old journalists ; the life apart from the assumed authorship — ' Ante, p. 16 et seq. 274 IS tHERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? is that it came to an end on April 23rd, 1616 (O.S.). According to the Rev. John Ward, Vicar of Stratford (writing in 1661-3), " Shakespear, Drayton and Ben Johnson had a merry meeting, and itt seems drank too hard, for Shakespear died of a feavour there contracted." This meeting is said to have been held at New Place, but the Rev. John Ward was writing at least five-and- forty years after Shakspere's death, and there can be little doubt that the whole story is a myth. Shakspere's friends, as his will shows, were Stratford worthies, like Thomas Combe, Thomas Russell, and Hamnet Sadler, or his fellow-players, " John Hemynges, Richard Burbage and Henry Cundall." " There is no mention," says Halliwell-Phillipps (Vol. I, p. 233), "of Drayton, Ben Jonson, or any of his other [supposed] literary friends." Moreover, if Jonson had really been present, with Dray- ton, at the supposed Stratford meeting, we may be pretty sure that we should have found some mention of it in the notes of his conversation with Drummond in 1618. But this drinking-bout is, no doubt, imaginary. There is, as everybody knows, another story concern- ing Shakspere's hard-drinking habits, viz. that one fine morning he walked over to the village of Bidford to drink a match with a local club, and, like Roger the Monk, " got excessively drunk," with the result that he was fain to pass the night under a certain crab-tree, about a mile from Bidfoj-d, on his way home. This crab-tree used to be shown to visitors as the place where the immortal bard had slept off his heavy potations, and a picture of it may be seen in Halliwell's colossal edition of Shakespeare's works. Those who wish to believe the story may do so. For myself, I attach little or no im- portance to such tales. Shakspere, for aught I know, may have had a liking for "jolly good ale and old," and other strong drinks, but there is no real evidence for the truth of the stories, and, as Sir Sidney Lee says, they THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 275 "may be dismissed as unproven." It would, however, be a mistake to omit all reference to such traditions, for, as I have already said, they afford very good " evidence of reputation " as to the habits and character of Shakspere. They tell us (and there is nothing else to tell us) what sort of man he was according to early belief. Shakspere's will forms an important item in the real " Shakespeare Problem," but I will, nevertheless, reserve it for separate treatment,^ and will conclude this already overgrown chapter by the promised quotation from Emerson, and some remarks and reflections thereon. Mr. Edward Sothern writes in Munsey's Magazine for January, 1912:^ "When the Baconians assert that Ralph Waldo Emerson was a believer with them, one's patience is given a wrench. The excuse for their belief is based on a misleading quotation from Emerson's magnificent tribute to the bard — ' Shakespeare ; or the Poet ' : ' He was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this to his verse.' " The original user of these two brief sentences was guilty of gross misrepresentation. Had he given the entire paragraph, or the general purport of the essay, the reader would- have seen that Emerson was not a Baconian, and that he meant something far different from what they pretend." Now if anybody ever cited the above "two brief sentences" (and the second of the two is inaccurately quoted) in order to suggest that Emerson was a " Baconian," he certainly was, as Mr. Sothern says, guilty of " gross misrepresentation." But let us examine " the entire paragraph," as it is suggested we ought to do, and see what Emerson's opinion really was, and with what ^ Infra, chap. vii. ^ In an article bearing the title The Great Shakespeare - Bacon Con- troversy. 276 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? doubts and difficulties he was troubled. The essay in question, in his Representative Men, is headed, as Mr. Sothern mentions, "Shakespeare, or the Poet" I have emphasised the two last words of the title, because in this essay Emerson is dealing with Shakespeare the Poet, and not with Shakespeare the man. It is, as Mr. Sothern also says, a " magnificent tribute to the bard" But when, at the conclusion, he turns for a moment to biographical considerations and asks, "And now how stands the account of man with this bard and benefactor, when in solitude, shutting our ears to the reverberations of his fame, we seek to strike the balance?" he sings a very different strain. " As long as the question is of talent and mental power, the world of men has not his equal to show. But when the question is to life, and its materials, and its auxiliaries, how does he profit me ? What does it signify? It is but a Twelfth Night, or Midsummer Night's Dream, or a Winter Evening's Tale. What signifies another picture more or less? The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse. Other admirable men have led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast. Had he been less, had he reached only the common measure of great authors, of Bacon, Milton, Tasso, Cervantes, we might leave the fact in the twilight of human fate ; but that this man of men, he who gave to the science of mind a new and larger subject than had ever existed, and planted the standard of humanity some furlongs forward into chaos, that he should not be wise for himself, — it must even go into the world's history that the best poet led an obscure and profane life, using his genius for the public amusement." Such, then, is the passage which Mr. Sothern fain would have us quote in extenso. And what meaning does it convey to us. That Emerson was a "Baconian"? THE REAL '< SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM " 277 Certainly not ; but that the critic and essayist, having considered the main facts that are known in the life of Shakspere, as above set forth, finds it impossible to marry such a life to the immortal verse. His life is " in wide contrast" to his thought. How can it profit him this banale life ? How is it possible that this very common man, of whom not a single creditable act — still less a single generous or magnanimous act — has been handed down to us by tradition, or discovered by the indefatigable searchers of relics and records — how is it possible that this man can be " Shakespeare the Poet " ? Ralph Waldo Emerson obviously had a very clear conception of the real " Shakespeare Problem." But what has Mr. Lang to say to such considerations as these ? The following quotation will show the reader how lightly he would sweep them away : " Here,^ first, are moral objections on the ground of character as revealed in some legal documents concerning business. Now, I am very ready to confess that William's dealings with his debtors, and with one creditor, are wholly un- like what I should expect from the author of the plays. Moreover, the conduct of Shelley in regard to his wife was, in my opinion, very mean and cruel, and the last thing that we could have expected from one who, in verse, was such a tender philanthropist, and in life was — women apart — the best-hearted of men. The conduct of Robert Burns, alas, too often disappoints the lover of his Cottar's Saturday Night and other moral pieces. He was an inconsistent walker." ^ I can hardly imagine a more, absolute misconception of the problem, as I conceive it, and endeavoured to state it, than is revealed by this passage. In the first place I raised no " moral objections on the ground of character," if by those words Mr. Lang means that I contended that " William " could not be the true Shakespeare because ^ In my book, to wit. ^ Work cited, p. 169. 278 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? his conduct did not square with our conventional standards of morality. I should be the last to use an argument so futile and ridiculous. The question here is whether it is reasonable to suppose that a man who led such a life, from first to last, as was led by William Shakspere of Stratford (according to his biographers, and according to all the evidence that is accessible to us and keeping dates steadily in view), could have been the author of the immortal Plays and Poems. Viewing the matter thus broadly, after having carefully considered the details, we find, as Emerson found, that we cannot marry the man to his verse. His life is altogether out of harmony with his thought. Mr. Lang seeks analogies in the cases of Shelley and Burns. Never, surely, was a more disastrous instance of the danger of reasoning by analogy. To begin with, I dispute Mr. Lang's assertion that "the conduct of Shelley in regard to his wife [meaning Harriet, I presume] was very mean, and cruel," and I think if the reader will turn to that admirable little book, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Poet and Pioneer, by my friend Mr. Henry S. Salt, and especially to chapters IV and V, he will find that there are certainly two sides to that question, and that there is much to be said in justification of Shelley's conduct towards his first wife. But, after all, such considerations are ex abundanti. The question is — if the case of Shelley is to be put forward as possibly analogous with that of Shakspere — Is Shelley the man found to be " in harmony " with Shelley the poet ? Is the life of Shelley in harmony with the works of Shelley ? Now I cannot recall in the whole range of poetical biography a man whose works were so responsive to his life, or whose life was so well reflected in his works, as Percy Bysshe Shelley. He is the very instance I should have chosen. Will anybody out of a lunatic asylum suggest that we cannot marry Shelley's life to his verse, or that he led a life in wide contrast to his thought ? THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 279 So stated — and so it must be stated if the argument is to be in the slightest degree relevant — the supposed analogy hopelessly and ridiculously breaks down. Nor is the case of Burns in any way more relevant to the question at issue. If, indeed, I had put forward the preposterous argument that Shakspere of Stratford could not have been the author of noble poetry because he is said to have sinned against our conventional standards of sexual morality, then, indeed, the case of Robert Burns might have been adduced to show the absurdity of the contention. But, I need scarcely say, I have never said anything of the sort, and to raise such false issues appears to me to show a misunderstanding of the whole question which is really quite extraordinary. The question is, Is the life of Burns incongruous with the poetry of Burns ? Now the case of Burns is the very case that I selected as an illustration of my contention that genius, however great, is necessarily circumscribed by certain more or less definite limits ; that it is not independent of the law of causation, but is regulated by the conditions of its environment. It would be absurd to contend that the life of Burns is not in harmony with the poetry of Burns. On the contrary. Burns wrote just as we should have expected a man who lived the life that he led to write, — given, of course, his genius and poetic inspiration. And he wrote best when he wrote of those things which entered most closely into his life, whether it was of the sweet Scottish lassies, or the banks and braes of bonny Doon, or of the Brigs of Ayr, or of John Barleycorn, or of " Scotch drink." But I shall return to Robbie Burns when I come again to consider the question of genius. The real question — the real problem — was, as I have shown, apparent to Emerson. It was apparent also to Hallam, and to Coleridge. " The two greatest names in poetry," wrote Hallam, " are to us little more than names. If we are not yet come to question his [Shakespeare's] 28o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? unity, as we do that of ' the blind old man of Scio's rocky- isle,' an improvement in critical acuteness doubtless re- served for a distant posterity, we as little feel the power of identifying the young man who came up from Stratford, was afterwards an indifferent player in a London theatre, and returned to his native place in middle life, with the author of Macbeth and Lear, as we can give a distinct historic personality to Homer. All that insatiable curiosity and unwearied diligence have hitherto detected about Shakspere serves rather to disappoint and perplex us, than to furnish the slightest illustration of his character. It is not the register of his baptism, or the draft of his will, or the orthography of his name that we seek. No letter of his handwriting, no record of his conversation, no character of him drawn with any fulness by a contemporary, has been produced." So wrote Hallam many years ago in his History of Literature, and the words are as true now as when they were first written, although the " insatiable curiosity '' and " unwearied diligence " have been at work from that day to this. All that has been discovered does but serve " rather to disappoint and perplex us," than to furnish the slightest illustration of the character of Shakespeare, though it can hardly be said that it has failed to illustrate the character of Shakspere of Stratford. " As proof positive of his unrivalled excellence," writes Coleridge, " I should like to try Shakespeare by this criterion. Make out your amplest catalogue of all the human faculties, as reason or the moral law, the will, the feeling of the coincidence of the two . . . called the con- science, the understanding, or prudence, wit, fancy, imagination, judgment — and then of the objects on which these are to be employed, as the beauties, the terrors, and the seeming caprices of nature, the realities and the capabilities, that is, the actual and the ideal, of the human mind, conceived as an individual or as a social being, as THE REAL "SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM" 281 in innocence or in guilt, in a play-paradise, or in a war- field of temptation ; and then compare with Shakespeare under each of these heads all or any of the writers in prose and verse that have ever lived ! Who, that is competent to judge, doubts the result ? — And ask your own hearts, — ask your own common sense, — to conceive the possibility of this man being — I say not, the drunken savage of that wretched sciolist, whom Frenchmen, to their shame, have honoured before their elder and better worthies, — but the anomalous, the wild, the irregular genius of our daily criticism 1 What! , Are we to have miracles in sport? — Or, I speak reverently, does God choose idiots by whom to convey divine truths to man ? " Yes, of a truth, both Hallam and Coleridge — the latter especially — had perceived very clearly the true nature of the " Shakespeare Problem." It is not, as some appear to think, a question of to-day or yesterday, but one of long standing, and some of the wisest of men have fully recognised its reality and its difficulty. I will conclude this chapter as I concluded a lecture delivered at the Camera Club on January, 191 3, the subject being, " Is there a Shakespeare Problem ? " — " In conclusion I would only say this. Read some of the Shakespearean masterpieces once again. Read Venus and Adonis, and the Sonnets, and Lovds Labour's Lost ; read Twelfth Night, and As You Like It, and Cymbeline, and The Winter's Tale; read Othello and Macbeth; read Lear and Hamlet. Then meditate on what has been handed down to us concerning the life of William Shak- spere, the Stratford player, about whom we know so little, and yet so much, too much ! Search all the wide world over for analogies — for men of such birth, such breeding, such environment, such ignoble life-history, who have yet put forth — I do not say such works as Shakespeare's, for that would, indeed, be asking too much, but — a series of noble, priceless, and immortal poems, or plays, and I say 282 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? no such analogies can be found. The theologians tell us — some of them at least — that our belief is in our own power. I do not so hold. It may, no doubt, be easier to believe what one wishes to believe; but there are some things which, with all the good will in the world, I have found it impossible to believe, and one of those things is the assertion that the Stratford player was the author of the works of Shakespeare. That, of course, is only a fact for my own consciousness. Other minds may be differently formed ; others may find no difficulty where I find an impossibility. But for me, and for those who feel as I do, and reason as I do, — and their number is not small and is, undoubtedly, on the increase, — it is this fact which con- stitutes the real ' Shakespeare Problem.' " CHAPTER VI PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" I SOMETIMES think that those who taunt us with our supposed inability to understand the ways of "genius" are themselves somewhat deficient in imagination. I do not mean, of course, that kind of imagination which, in the dearth of evidence, evolves convenient facts from its own inner consciousness, — the sort of imagination which is responsible for by far the greater part of " The Life of Shakespeare " as commonly presented to us, — but, rather, that " scientific imagination," of which Professor Tyndall spoke,^ and which enables a man to put himself in the place of another, even after the lapse of many generations, and to realise the conditions and possibilities of the environment in which that other lived and moved and had his being. I sometimes think that some of these doctrinaire exponents of the orthodox Stratfordian creed are unable to appreciate all that is required to make a " Shakespeare." Mr. J. M. Robertson, for example, always seems to me to proceed on the assumption that any literary problem may be solved by a process analogous to that by which a mathematician pro- ceeds to solve an " Adfected Quadratic Equation." But with regard to the true authorship of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare he does not admit that there is any problem 1 " The Scientific Use of Imagination," Discourse delivered by Professor Tyndall before the British Association, September, 1870. 283 284 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? at all. The process here is a simple one. Take any young provincial, such as was William Shakspere, so born, so brought up, so educated — or, rather, so uneducated; bring him up to London at about the age of twenty-three ; give him some experience as a player in a sixteenth- century company, and just as much — and just as little — learning as Dr. Farmer allows him ; then add " genius " quantum, suff: — and there you are ! Now I am very far from wishing to underestimate the virtue of that mysterious intellectual power which we call genius, but I respectfully invite those who so glibly make use of the word to remember that we do not mean by it, in this connection, the Genius of the Arabian Nights, who by a mere word can bring into being an Aladdin's palace, nor do we mean an "Open Sesame" to unlock, by magic force, the closed door of all doubts and difficulties. By " genius," in this connection, we mean human genius; and human genius, wonderful though it be, is, nevertheless, not independent of the law of causation ; its possibilities do not transcend all natural laws, but are necessarily limited by the facts of education, know- ledge, and environment. Genius may give the power of acquiring knowledge with marvellous facility; but genius is not knowledge. Genius never taught a man to conjugate tvttu who had never had a lesson in Greek or seen a Greek Grammar. Genius never gave a man the knowledge of the legal doctrine of " Uses," or the old learning with regard to " Contingent Remainders." " II y a des choses de metier que le g^nie ne revile pas. II faut les apprendre," as Balzac well says.^ Many a " mute inglorious Milton " rests in many a country churchyard. And why? Because Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll. ^ Le Lys dans la ValUe, p. 193. PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "iGENIUS" 285 The genius was there, but the knowledge was never acquired ; and for want of that knowledge, although the Milton was there in posse, in esse he never could be. Genius is a gift of nature, but nature alone never yet gave knowledge and culture. The diamond is a natural product, but, however fine its quality, it will not sparkle like the Koh-i-nur unless it be subjected to the process of cutting at the hands of a skilled artificer. " I can agree with Mr. Greenwood," writes Mr. Lang (p. loi), "when he says that 'genius is a potentiality, and whether it will ever become an actuality, and what it will produce, depends upon the moral qualities with which it is associated, and the opportunities that are open to it — in a word, on the circumstances of its environment.' " ^ It is in the light of that proposition that we have to consider the question whether Shakspere of Stratford could, unless by a moral miracle, have produced the Works of Shakespeare. Mr. Robertson, of course, trots out again all the old examples which are supposed to be analogous to the case of Shakespeare. But unless the two things compared are found to be really similar, reasoning by analogy is worse than useless ; and it can, I think, be easily shown that none of these fancied analogies will "hold water" for a moment. In fact, although the history of the ' Quoted from The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 81, note i. Mr. Lang adds: "Of course by 'moral qualities,' a character without spot or stain is not intended, otherwise I agree." But how could " moral qualities," in the above sentence, be intended to mean "a character without spot or stain"? Obviously my words are intended to mean any moral qualities, good or bad. Mr. Lang goes on to say that he thinks " that Shakespeare of Stratford had genius, and that what it produced was in accordance with the opportunities open to it, and with 'the circumstances of its environment.'" My proposition, of course, is that in view of all the circumstances of his environment, and the opportunities open to him, Shakspere of Stratford, although endowed with genius, could not, unless by a moral miracle, have produced "The Works of Shakespeare." 286 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? whole world has been ransacked for a case analogous to that of Shakspere (assuming the truth of the received hypothesis) no real analogy has ever been found. The supposed parallels prove, upon examination, to be no analogies at all, I have said that Mr. Robertson trots out again all the old examples. He has also produced a brand-new one — quite new to me, at any rate. Referring to my contention that genius alone cannot make a Shakespeare — that, along with genius, culture and education are required to constitute the immortal poet — he asks: "What kind of education does Mr. Greenwood suppose is required to qualify a genius for writing plays and poems ? What kind or degree of culture, for instance, does he ascribe to Sappho, to Terence, to Catullus, to Hans Sachs, to Bunyan, to Burns, to Keats, to Jane Austen, to Balzac? " ^ " Sappho " ! Here is a new example indeed. What, I should like to know, does Mr. Robertson know about Sappho? What have we of her writings except some meagre though beautiful fragments ? What do we know of the history of her life ? It is simply childish to talk of the case of Sappho — nomen et umbra — as though in it we had an analogy to the case of Shakspere, the supposed player-poet. I wonder Mr. Robertson has not included Homer in his list ! As to Terence I shall have a word to say later on, but for the rest I will content myself with examining the cases of Bunyan, Burns, and Keats, for these are the examples most frequently cited as analogous to the case of Shakspere, according to the received hypothesis. Let us take the case of Keats first. " Keats," writes Mr. Robertson, "will rank with any poet of his age in respect of (i) 'rhythmical creation of beauty,' and (2) sympathetic seizure of the spirit of classical antiquity. Yet Keats, certainly, had small Greek; his sonnet On » Work cited, p. SSi- PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" 287 First Reading Chapman's Homer tells as much; and though he learned Latin enough to do in his teens (so, at least, we are told) a prose translation of the ^neid — with what accuracy or what crib help no one now can say — he ' was in childhood not attached to books. His penchant was for fighting. He would fight any one — morning, noon, and night, his brother among the rest. It was meat and drink to him.' So testifies an admiring schoolfellow.^ It was only in his last few terms at school, in his fburteenth and fifteenth years, that he took earnestly to books and studies, and at fifteen he was bound apprentice to a surgeon. At nineteen he became a medical student at Guy's ; and save for that he had no ' college ' education. At twentj'-one he produced Endymion, and at twenty- three the Ode to a Nightingale. His effective culture thus came substantially from the reading of English literature." ^ First, as to the fact adverted to by Mr. Robertson that John Keats had " no ' college ' education." He had previously written : " It is true that, on a general survey of literary history, what we term university culture counts for a great deal, the great majority of our great poets having had that or its equivalent. But the exceptions are sufficient to warn us to reject the notion that it is essential." All this leaves me untouched, since, although it is the fact that the majority of playwrights contemporary with Shakespeare were University men, I have never postulated a " college " or " University " education as necessary in order to make a Shakespeare. All I postulate is a high degree of education and culture, of knowledge of human life, and of the world, and of the great ones, as well as of the little ones, of the world, wheresoever and howsoever obtained. But let us look more specially at the case of John Keats. ' Mr. Robertson cites Colvin's ICeats, p. 8. " Work cited, p. 551. 288 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? His parents are known to have been, as they were described by one who knew them, " people of no every- day character." At the age of eight he was put to a school of excellent repute kept by John Clarke at Enfield, where he secured the friendship of his master's son, Charles Cowden Clarke, not unknown to fame, who was usher in the school. " In childhood" says Mr. Robertson, he was "not attached to books." Mr. Robertson is welcome to that important fact. We know, however, that, after three or four years at school, the boy Keats could hardly be torn from his books ; that he won all the literature prizes at the school, and that during play hours he devoured all he could lay hands on of literary criticism, and especially of classical mythology. He received good instruction in Latin, French, and general history, and the fact recorded by Mr. Robertson that he actually did a prose translation of the ^neid while still in his teens — whether with or without the aid of a " crib " — bears striking witness both to his industry and to his appreciation of the work. What fact of the kind has ever been put on record concerning Shakspere of Strat- ford? At twenty-three, says Mr. Robertson, Keats produced the Ode to a Nightingale. True ; and the very first lines of that exquisite Ode show his acquaintance with the Epodes of Horace. Compare the following passage, My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk. Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains, One moment past, and Lethe-wards had sunk, with these lines of Horace, Epod. 14, Mollis inertia cur tantam difFuderit imis Oblivionem sensibus, Pocula Letheos ut si ducentia somnos . Arente fauce traxerim. PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" 289 It is unquestionable that the English poet had these Latin lines in his mind when he wrote the Ode to a Nightingale, although, after the opening, he soars away far above Quintus Horatius Flaccus in this native lyric of surpassing and unsurpassed loveliness. Keats, too, studied English literature, and especially the Elizabethan dramatists and poets, under the excellent direction of John Cowden Clarke. He became intimate with many men of letters, he made the acquaintance of Shelley, he became the close friend of Leigh Hunt. The question, then, is. Is there anything incongruous and quasi- miraculous in the fact that Keats, a rare genius, but well furnished with this measure of culture and education, should have written the poetry which he has left us ? Is there anything here that strikes us as something which seems to transcend the possibilities of his opportunities and his environment? Is the case, in fact, in any way comparable with that of Shakspere, supposing that he wrote the works of Shakespeare? It appears to me that, upon consideration of the facts, the fancied analogy does but serve to deepen the contrast, and intensify the difference between the two cases submitted for comparison. Let us now take the case of John Bunyan, whom one of my critics speaks of as " the ill-taught tinker son of a tinker father." This description, of course, suggests a very low origin, and the reader at once imagines the Bunyans, father and son, roaming over the country with pans and kettles slung across their shoulders, the Autolyci of the tin-pot trade. Visions of Lavengro and "the flaming tinman" instantly arise before us. As a fact, however, neither the one nor the other belonged to the vagrant tribe. The Bunyans were steady handicraftsmen dwelling in their own freehold tenements. Both Thomas and his son John had a settled home at Elstow, where their forge and workshop were. Thomas in his will designates him- u 290 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? self a " brasier." John followed the same calling, and was what at the present day we should call a " whitesmith." i As everybody knows, he was noted in his youth for being a profane swearer, but was " converted " after his marriage, gave up swearing and " blaspheming," and took to preach- ing, which led to his arrest and imprisonment for some twelve years in Bedford County Gaol. During the earlier part of this incarceration, however, he was allowed much liberty. He was permitted to preach, and even went " to see Christians in London." He saturated himself with constant and copious draughts from that well of pure and undefiled English, the Bible, and together with the Bible we know that Foxe's Book of Martyrs was his constant companion. It is further known that he had ample opportunity for reading other books of a religious and controversial character. It is futile therefore to talk, as does the critic referred to, of " ' the bookless neighbour- hood ' " of Bedford Gaol. But the point is that Bunyan wrote exactly what we should have expected him to write, given his peculiar genius, his temperament, his life- story, his reading, and his environment. If instead of The Pilgrim's Progress he had written Euphues, then indeed would there have been some analogy between his case and that of the young man who, as we are told, threw off Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, The Comedy of Errors, Lovis Labour's Lost, and Romeo and Juliet, currente calamo, all within some five years of his arrival in London, a penniless wanderer from his provincial honie, with that exiguously small amount of learning which Farmer {plaudente Robertson) contends that he was possessed of The case of John Bunyan is the very case I should myself have selected to illustrate the very rational proposition that the output of genius is controlled by the circumstances of its environment, and is not, as some seem to think (contrary to all human experience), something in the nature of "a • See Canon Venables, in the Dictionary of National Biography. PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" 291 first cause," superior to and independent of all the influences by which it is surrounded. Sir James Barrie is undoubtedly a "genius," but he could not have written A Window in Thrums had he never been North of the Tweed. This proposition, or, I should rather say, this state- ment of verified fact, is equally well illustrated by the case of Robert Burns. And here let me pause in order to make manifest what the proposition is not. I have been accused of the wish to " try and prove that there never were really any geniuses who arose out of ignorance and poverty." 1 But, with submission, I have never tried to do anything so preposterously absurd. "The truth is," writes Sir Edward Sullivan, " for all that may be said to the contrary, that pre-eminence in the world of literature is not, and never will be, the monopoly of the educated or the high born." As to the " high born " I entirely agree with Sir Edward Sullivan, and if by " educated " he means "highly educated" (for it would be difficult to find the case of an entirely uneducated man who had won " pre- eminence in the world of literature ") I agree in this also, and I do not know when, or by whom, anything has been " said to the contrary." To assert, for instance, that " no man who is not either well educated or high born can possibly become a great poet" would be to make an assertion directly contrary to the evidence of human experience. That a man of humble birth and very imperfect educa- tion may rise to the highest ranks of literature is one of the notorious facts of history. The case of the " Ayrshire ploughman " is an excellent example. Here, if ever, we find an instructive illustration of what can be achieved in the realm of poetry by a man lowly born, and, although by no means left in ignorance, still with a very moderate ' Mr. G. K. Chesterton, in The Illustrated London News, March 13th, 1909. 292 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM.? educational equipment. From the days of boyhood the poetry of Burns, so graphic in description, so terrible in satire, so appreciative of Nature in all its beauty and all its wildness, so tender in the most exquisite of love-songs, has been to me a wonder and^a delight. But wherein is it that Burns so much excelled ? He gives us The Holy Fair, and The Jolly Beggars; he gives us The Cattails Saturday Night, and Tarn o' Shanter ; he gives us Auld Lang Syne, and Green grow the Rashes o', and all his immortal songs withal. The Ayrshire Ploughman sings of the scenes in which he has been bred, in which he has lived and breathed and had his being ; of the burn and the heather ; of the sweeping Nith, and the Brig of Ayr, and the banks and braes of bonny Doon. He sings of the Scotch peasantry, of their customs, as in " Halloween^' and, above all, of the sweet Scotch lassies, whom he loved not wisely but too well. And all this in his own homely dialect. The very genius of lyrical poetry speaks from his mouth, but speaks in that Scottish language for the interpretation of which the English reader requires a glossary. " He is only insipid when he tries to adopt the conventional English of his time," says a writer in the Dictionary of National Biography. " When he essayed to write in metropolitan English," says Principal Shairp, "he was seldom more than a third-rate — a common, clever versifier." And now, perhaps, the real point may dawn upon the minds of those critics who have hitherto so strangely missed it. The question is not whether a man of lowly birth and of imperfect education can, if naturally endowed with genius, write higii-class poetry. The question is, What kind of poetry will he be able to write? If, for instance. Burns had written such a poem as Venus and Adonis, if he had written such poems as Childe Harold, or Don Juan, we might have had a real parallel between his case and the hypothetical case of Shakspere the player- PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" 293 poet. Had Burns, say at the age of twenty-five, written highly poh'shed and cultured English, abounding with classical allusions, showing intimate knowledge of Court life and fashionable society, and dealing in such a lifelike manner with foreign countries as to lead readers to suppose that he must have paid a visit to their shores ; had he dis- cussed the philosophy of human existence for all the ages and for every phase of life ; had the Ayrshire Ploughman done all this and a great deal more, then, indeed, there might have been some analogy between his case and that of Shakespeare according to the received hypothesis. In the works of Burns we see reflected as in a mirror all the surrounding circumstances of the poet's life, and the poet's native land. But if one, having no knowledge of the life of Shakspere, first reads and appreciates and marvels at the " Works of Shakespeare," and then turns to that paralysing life, must not his first thought be (as it was in my own case), How can we bring these two things together ? How can we make harmony out of this discord ? How can we marry this man to this work ? Is it this life that is reflected in the " Works " — or " do we look for another " ? But Professor Dryasdust, of course, sees no difficulty. , He will ingeminate " genius, genius " to the end of time. What Shakspere's life was, what his bringing-up was, what his education was, are entirely immaterial. Give him " genius " and all the rest follows. Whereupon Professor Dryasdust proceeds to cite what he supposes to be analogous cases — Sappho, for instance! — in which therte is to be found as much analogy to the unexampled case of Shakspere (supposing Shakspere = Shakespeare) as there is causal connectiort between Tenterden Steeple and the Goodwin Sands — indeed not so much, if there be any truth in the old legend. Sir Edward Sullivan has produced a new supposed analogue to Shakspere the player-poet, in the case of 294 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Plautus, and he expresses surprise that none of the "Baconians" has made any allusion to "so singular a parallel, and so curious an anticipation in its main features, of the so-called mystery surrounding Shake- speare's career and works." In order to make this " singular parallel " as complete as possible, Sir Edward makes sundry statements con- cerning Plautus for which I can find no evidence at all. As, for instance, that he was born " in an extremely low grade of life " ; that he came to Rome " in a needy condi- tion " ; that, having, " like Shakespeare," found employment in a theatre, " he filled the humble office of a handy man for actors, or a stage carpenter " ; that by the sale of three plays " he was enabled to quit his drudgery, educate him- self, and start on a literary career." I have examined all these statements at length in The Vindicators of Shake- speare (p. 44 et seq) and claim to have demonstrated that this fancied analogue is a " fond thing vainly invented." The quotation that I have there given (p. 45 n.) from Aulus Gellius certainly does not show that Plautus ever was a "handy man for actors," and I think the words "pecunia omni, quam in operis artificum scenicorum pepereret," etc., are more suggestive of the scenic artist than the "stage carpenter." Neither have we any evidence that Plautus was born "in an extremely low grade of life," that he was " in a needy condition " when he came to Rome, although that is likely enough, or that he was uneducated, and had to " educate himself," as Sir Edward Sullivan assumes that Shakspere did at some unknown period of his life. As I wrote, in the work already referred to : " In Plautus we have a man of whom it is impossible to say that he had received no sufficient education in his youth, simply because we have no evidence to that effect. What resources he had when he came to Rome we do not know. We read, indeed, that he made money as a scenic artist or artificer, that he PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND "GENIUS" 295 embarked on mercantile speculations, failed, and returned to Rome, where he had to support life for a time in a humble manner. He is a man of genius, and he had acquired a mastery of idiomatic Latin. He turns dramatist, takes his plots from the new Attic comedy, but turns his own experience in mercantile adventure, and on the sea, to excellent account. He writes for the masses, and simply to amuse them and give them pleasure, without any serious purpose behind his scenes or in his characters. He shows no knowledge at all of the manners, tastes, or ideas of the aristocracy. He is familiar with the ways of cocottes, and women of easy virtue, but of Roman ladies he knows but little. He shows no feeling for nature. I can see no analogy here with the case of the ' Stratford rustic,' who became, fer saltum, as we are told, the world's poet, teacher, and philosopher, . . . the supposed parallel breaks down at every point." I have enlarged somewhat upon the case of Plautus, and quoted the above words, because I am here desirous of replying to a criticism of Mr. Lang's, which, as I think I can show, is founded on a misapprehension. Mr. Lang had seen, in The Vindicators of Shakespeare (p. 114), some comments upon the well-known epigram of John Davies of Hereford in which he describes " Mr Will Shake-speare " as " our English Terence," whereupon I say, amongst other things, " seeing that ' Shakespeare ' was in 161 1 at the height of his fame, it is rather curious that Davies should have likened him to the Latin comedian, as though he had never written such plays as Hamlet, Lear, and Othello. Moreover, if he was to be likened to a Latin comedian, surely Plautus is the writer with whom he should have been compared." Here Mr. Lang fancied he had found an absurd in- consistency on my part. What? Davies should have likened Shakespeare to Plautus rather than to Terence ! And this after Mr. Greenwood has shown us " that Plautus 296 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? would not do," and though " Plautus was the very man who cannot be used as a parallel to Shakespeare " ! ^ Well, I should' indeed be bite comme une oie if within the compass of the same small work I had first declared that the case of Plautus was no parallel at all to the (supposed) case of Shakespeare, and then proceeded to say exactly the reverse. But the truth is not so. Mr. Lang had overlooked the fact that Sir Edward Sullivan's comparison was a biographical one. He sought to show that the birth, the education (or want of education) of Plautus, and the general circumstances of his life, and of his literary success, formed a " singular parallel " to the cir- cumstances of Shakspere's life and (supposed) authorship, and a "curious anticipation, in its main features, of the so- called mystery surrounding Shakespeare's career and work." Both men, according to Sir Edward, had very similar diffi- culties to contend with, yet, in the case of both, their native genius enabled them to triumph over all obstacles. It was of this supposed biographical parallel that I wrote that, upon consideration, it was found to break down at every point. In the case of Davies's epigram, however, there was no question of a biographical comparison. It was rather a question of style, and general characteristics of the comic drama, but it was not confined to these considerations. Why was it that I wrote that if Shakespeare " was to be likened to a Latin comedian, surely Plautus is the writer with whom he should have been compared " ? Because, in the first place, one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, The Comedy of Errors, is directly founded on a play of Plautus, viz. the Menaechmi, and also borrows from another play of Plautus, viz. the Amphitnio? Because, further. Meres, in 1598, had compared Shakespeare, as a writer of Comedies, with ^ Introduction to work cited, pp. xxiv-xxvi. ' In The Taming of the Shrew, also, Shakespeare (or the author, at any rate) borrows the names of two of the characters, Tranio and Grumio, from the Mostellaria of Plautus. PROFESSOR DRYASDUST AND « GENIUS" 297 Plautus, who, says Meres, was "accounted the best for Comedy among the Latines." ^ Moreover, Thomas Fuller, in his Worthies of England, writes that in Shakespeare " three eminent poets may seem in some sort to be com- pounded," viz. Martial, Ovid, and " Plautus, who was an ex- act Comedian, yet never any scholar, as our Shake-speare. (if alive) would confesse himself"; showing that it was usual in those times to make comparison between Shakespeare and Plautus. And Shakespeare's plays show such familiarity with the plays of Plautus that Mr. Churton Collins writes : " It is probable almost to certainty that Shakespeare must have read Plautus in the original." These are the reasons which led me to write that I should have expected Davies to compare Shak'espeare to Plautus rather than to Terence, the dimidiatus Menander, while, at the same time, contending that Sir Edward Sullivan's attempted biographical parallel between Plautus and Shak- spere, the supposed player-poet, is found upon examination to break down. The reader will see, therefore, that, in truth, I was guilty of no inconsistency at all in this matter. So much then for " genius." By all means let us give due weight to its great potentialities, for it would be indeed foolish to underrate them. But let us not use the word as a magic wand or cabalistic sign, just to save us the trouble of thinking further. Let us remember that how- ever great may be a man's natural genius, yet its bent and its output will be limited, directed, and regulated, in accordance with that man's life-history, and the circum- stances in which he is placed. Let us remember, for example, that although a man without culture may be a poet, yet without culture he cannot write cultured poems. And remembering these things, let us turn from the con- sideration of Shakspere's life-story — all of it that is known ^ He further says : "As Epius Stolo said that the Muses would speak with Plautus' tongue if they would speak Latin, so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakespeare's fine filed phrase, if they would speak English." 298 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? to us — to the contemplation of the earliest poems and plays — to Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, and the Sonnets, and The Comedy of Errors, and Lov^s Labour's Lost, and Romeo aHd Juliet, and Hamlet itself — according to Professor Boas and others — and then ask ourselves, are there no difficulties in the way of the received Stratfordian faith ? ^ Professor Dryasdust, I repeat, can, of course, see none. For him all things are clear. For him all literary problems are capable of being solved by the formularies of logic, just as mathematical problems can be solved by the symbols and formulae of Algebra. But here, says Pro- fessor Dryasdust, is no problem at all. And it cannot be denied that many men and women whose intellectual qualities are neither " dry " nor " dusty " agree with him in seeing no difficulty in the received beliefs, or, at any rate, if they do recognise some measure of doubt and difficulty, in looking at those difficulties and doubts as very greatly exaggerated. But there are some, neverthe- less, — and I think their number is on the increase, — for whom Shakspere of Stratford cannot be reconciled with Shakespeare of the Works. They cannot marry the facts of his life to his immortal verse. " Other admirable men have lived lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast." Well, well. So we must be content to leave it. Quot homines tot sententiae. ' Mr. Lang writes (p. 289) ; " ' Ne me dites jamais cette \_sic\ bite de mot, impossible,^ said Napoleon : it is indeed a stupid word where genius is con- cerned." I will not dwell upon the grammatical slip. Mr. Lang surely knew that the word " bite " is here adjectival, and that the word "f/wt " is masculine, and would have made the necessary correction if his life had been prolonged. Nor will I lay stress on the fact that it was, as we are told, Mirabeau, and not Napoleon, who first used the words in question (see Carlyle's French Revolution, Vol. II, p. 140, ed. 1898, -where the words are correctly quoted from Dumont, Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, p. 311). All I am concerned to point out is that the words are merely rhetorical. Many things, as we all know, are impossible, even for genius, as they certainly were both for Mirabeau and Napoleon. CHAPTER VII SHAKSPERE'S WILL NO letter, no scrap of writing of any sort, from the pen of William Shakspere, has come down to us except three signatures to his will, (together with the words "by me"), two signatures to deeds, and the abbreviated signature " Willm Shaks " (if so it is to be read) which follows his answers to interrogatories in the case of Bellott v. Mountjoy already alluded to. I will assume that in all these we have specimens of the writing of Shakspere of Stratford, and, as I have elsewhere endeavoured to show, if we follow the guidance of the best and most trustworthy authorities, we must admit that he so spelled his surname. On this matter, however, and on the question of Shakspere's writing, I will say a few words later on. Let us now con- sider that curious and much criticised document, his will. Shakspere died on Tuesday, April 23rd, Old Style ( = May 3rd, New Style), 1616, and was buried on the following Thursday. Sir Sidney Lee says the first draft of his will "was drawn up before January 25, 1616," and " received many interlineations and erasures before it was signed in the ensuing March." The will as first written was headed " Vicesimo quinto die Januarii anno regni domini nostri Jacobi . . . decimo quarto . . . annoque Domini 161,6," but " Januarii" was subsequently scratched out, and " Mtii" (i.e. "Martii") was substituted for 300 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? it.^ After this heading come the formal words : " T. (i.e. Testamentum) Wm ; Shackspeare." The will opens thus : " In the name of God, Amen ! I Willim Shack- speare of Stratford upon Avon, in the countie of Warr. gent, in perfect health and memorie, God be praysed ! doe make and Ordayne this my last will and testam' in manii and forme foUoweing." We just note here that whoever drafted the will (probably Francis Collyns, the Warwick attorney, whose name stands as the first witness to the publishing thereof, or, possibly, his clerk) spells the testator's name "Shackspeare," so that those who contend, as e.g. Frau Thumm-Kintzel, that Shakspere wrote the will himself must suppose that in the body of his will he adopted yet another variant of his name, and wrote himself down " Shackspeare," although for his signatures he preferred a different form, which would be, indeed, remarkable, even allowing for the " fluidity " of spelling which then prevailed. The lawyer, by the way, or his clerk appears to have endorsed the document in two places, " Mr. Shackspere his Will." But now, leaving questions of writing and spelling (I beg pardon, I should say "graphonomy" and "ortho- graphy") for later consideration, let us briefly consider the contents of this celebrated will so far as they are material to our argument. Shakspere leaves New Place, and two houses in Henley Street, together with all his other lands, tenements, etc., in the county of Warwick, and also his house in Blackfriars, to his daughter Susanna Hall ' Mr. J. Hain Friswell, in his notes to the excellent photographic re- production of Shakespeare's will (Sampson Low, Son', & Marston, 1864), writes : " The first blunder on the very threshold of the Will is curious — the abbreviation Mtii, March, was originally written Januarii ; as the year then began in March, the 25th of January in the fourteenth year of James I would be in the year 1615, and not in 1616, the year of the poet's decease." But this criticism appears to be unsound, for the fourteenth regnal year of James I commenced on March 25th, 1616, so that January 25th of that fourteenth year would be January 25th, 1617, according to our reckoning. SHAKSPERE'S WILL 301 for life, and afterwards to her sons in tail mail, and in default of such issue to his niece Elizabeth Hall, and her heirs male, and in default of such issue to his daughter Judith and her heirs male, and " for defalt of such issue, to the right heirs of me the saied William Shackspeare [sic] for ever." The other gifts to his daughter Judith, and to his sister Joan Hart, need not now detain us. Of more interest is it to note the particularity with which he dis- poses of certain articles of personal property, and the gifts which he leaves to his fellow-players. Thus, to Joan Hart he leaves his " wearing apparrell," to his niece Elizabeth Hall, " all my plate except my brod silver and gilt bole " ; to Thomas Combe " my sword." To his daughter Judith his "broad, silver gilt bole." To his Stratford friends, " Hamlett Sadler " and " William Raynolds," he leaves 26s. 8d. apiece to buy them rings. To his godson, William Walker, he leaves 20s. in gold ; to " Anthonye Nashe gent " 26s. 8d;, and to " Mr. John Nashe " the same. Then follow the bequests to his fellow-players : " And to my fellowes, John Hemynges, Richard Burbage, and Henry Cundell xxvjs. viijd. a peece to buy them ringes." ^ And here we may note that another of his fellow-players, Augustine Phillips, had predeceased him, dying in 1605, and had left him a somewhat similar legacy, viz. " to my fellowe, William Shakespeare, a thirty shillinges peice in goold." Later on, as the last gift in the will, except the residuary bequest, and as an interlineation, as though it was an afterthought, comes the only, and much-discussed, bequest to his wife : " Item, I gyve unto my wiefe, my ' "Heminge's name," says Professor Masson (Shakespeare Personally, p. 48), "comes before Buirbage's in the will, as if Shakespeare held the elderly cashier and account-keeper of the Blackfriars and Globe, who used to personate his Falstaff, in somewhat nearer regard than even the splendid actor of his tragic parts." But what a thousand pities it is that no document has come down to us in which " Will " alludes to his fellow-players as the actors of his own dramas, nor in which they allude to him as a dramatist, or as anything except a fellow-player and a " deserving man " ! 302 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? second best bed with its furniture." He then makes his son-in-law John Hall, and his daughter Susanna Hall, his residuary legatees, leaving them " all the rest of my goodes, chattels, leases, plate, jewels, and household stuff whatso- ever " (apparently forgetting that he had already disposed of all his plate), and making them his executors. Now this is exactly the sort of will which we should have expected from player Shakspere. The gifts of his wearing apparel, his plate, his silver-gilt bowl, his sword, the small bequests to fellow-townsmen to buy them rings, the similar gifts to his three fellow-players, the second- best bed to his wife (of which more anon) ; all these are characteristic of the retired actor. Are they such as we should expect from the author of the immortal Works? The reader will have noticed, amid all this particularity of bequest, one most remarkable omission. No mention whatever is made of books. Now " Shakespeare," as Dr. Furness has remarked, and as his works amply testify, must have been "an omnivorous reader." That he possessed a large number of books nobody can doubt; nor can it be doubted that he regarded them as a most precious possession. He may not have owned all the hundreds of works which, according to Dr. Anders, he must have read, but it is absurd to suppose that he was entirely destitute of a library. Shakespeare without books ! Picture it, think of it, "Orthodox" man ! Believe it, make sense of it, Then, if you can ! Shakespeare, then, must surely have possessed such books as Holinshed, Hall's Chronicle, Florio's Montaigne Lodge's Rosalynde, Belleforest, Ser Giovanni, Bandello, Cinthio, and some translations, such as North's Plutarch and Golding's Ovid's Metamorphoses, Of some of these books, and of many others, he must, surely, have been the SHAKSPERE'S WILL 303 owner. Then, again, we may very reasonably suppose that he possessed copies of his own Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and the Sonnets, and of some, at least, of the Quarto Editions of his own published plays. May we not add at least some copies of the works of contemporary poets and dramatists? It is quite possible also that he possessed a Bible ! Would he not have valued these things at least as much as his plate, his sword, his jewels, and his silver- gilt bowl? Would he not have thought them at least equally worthy^ of some particular mention in his will ? Surely " Shakespeare " would have thought so ! Yet "Shakspere" is absolutely silent about such things, herein comparing very unfavourably with his own son- in-law, John Hall. Hall was only a provincial doctor, a man who believed in the curative properties of "frog- spawn water, juice of goose-excrements, powdered human skulls, and swallows' nests," yet he, at least, had some appreciation of the value of books and manuscripts. He made a nuncupative will, and the following is an extract from it, as reduced to writing by his witnesses : " Item, concerning my study of baokes, I leave them, sayd he, to you, my sonn Nash, to dispose of them as you see good. As for my manuscriptes [Hall actually thought of manu- scripts !] I would have given them to Mr. Boles, if hee had been here ; but forasmuch as hee is not heere present, you may, son Nash, burne them, or doe with them what you please." The will of the actor Alleyn, also, is in marked contrast with that of Shakspere. Alleyn had books, and had no doubt how to dispose of them. John Florio, too, made a special bequest of his books. But Shakspere, the great poet, thinker, teacher, and philosopher (as we are told), though so particular as to petty items of personal property, makes no provision whatever as to books or manuscripts ! They, it seems, were not worth troubling about. 304 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? To Mr. Robertson and Mr. Lang, however, there is, of course, no difficulty here — nothing strange; nothing to marvel at. They find salvation in " analogy " once more. Shakespeare says nothing about books ! Pooh ! Neither did Hooker or Samuel Daniel say anything about books. But did they not possess books? Is there any doubt whatever about their authorship? Well, I answer, in the first place, neither Hooker nor Daniel made small specific bequests of bowls, and swords, and plate, and things of that sort. Had they done so, I think they would, of a certainty, have been as particular about books also. But let us examine these cases and see whether the analogy holds good. Hooker's estate, as we know, chiefly consisted of books, and we have evidence that he set the highest possible value on them. " In his last sickness,'' we are told by his biographer, " not many days before his death, his house was robbed, of which he having notice, his question was, ' Are my books and written papers safe?' And being answered that they were, his reply was, ' Then it matters not ; for no other loss can trouble me.'" Compare this with the case of Shakspere of Stratford, as to whom there is no tittle of evidence that he ever had a book in his possession, seeing that not only does he make no mention of either books or "written papers," but no volumes that belonged to him have ever been found, nor is there any record of them — a loss which the forgers have vainly attempted to supply ! But, nevertheless, it will be said. Hooker, although we know that he was possessed of a large number of books, and set the greatest store by them, made no mention of them in his will. That, indeed, is true; but by that will, dated October 26th, 1600 (he died on November 2nd of that year), he made his wife, Joan, — " my well-beloved wife," as he calls her, — his sole executrix and residuary legatee, thus leaving her his library, as well as such other SHAKSPERE'S WILL 305 property as he died possessed of. His mind, therefore, was at rest as to the fate of his cherished books. Can it seriously be contended that there is any analogy what- ever between his case and Shakspere's in this respect? But let us take the case of Samuel Daniel. He died in October, 1619, leaving no children. By his will, dated September 4th of that year, he appointed his brother sole executor, and his " loving friend, Mr. Simon Waterson " [his publisher, be it observed], and his brother-in-law, John Phillipps, "overseers" thereof. That he had made an arrangement with his brother and his publisher, as to his works and " written papers," can hardly be doubted ; the result being that this brother, his sole fexecutor, brought out his "whole works" in 1623. If those of the orthodox Stratfordian faith imagine that this instance somehow turns aside the criticisms founded upon the absence of all mention of books in Shakspere's will, it seems to me that they must be very easily satisfied. In both cases cited the supposed analogy, upon examination, hopelessly breaks down. I must here take notice of a curious mistake into which Mr. Lang has somehow fallen with regard to my observations upon Shakspere's will in this connection. He was under the impression that I had made myself responsible for the statement that the word " goods " in the residuary bequest would not include " books." " It is," he writes (p. 175), "with Mr. Elton's opinion, not with my ignorance, that Mr. Greenwood must argue in proof of the view that ' goods ' are necessarily exclusive of books." I hold up my hands in amazement, and can only say that I have never been guilty of making the preposterous assertion that Mr. Lang, by some mis- conception, has attributed to me. On the contrary, I wrote: "Mr. and Mrs. Hall were, as we have seen, appointed by Shakspere his residuary legatees. To them, therefore, would have gone his books and his manuscripts, X 3o6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? if such he had."^ Again, in my reply to Canon Beaching, I say : " If we may trust Mr. Anders, he (Shakespeare) must have read hundreds of books, and of these hundreds he must surely have owned some. What became of them all? They passed, it may be said, to the Halls as his residuary legatees." ^ Again, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated, at p. 191, I quote, in a foot-note, the following passage from Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines : " In a nun- cupative will that was made by Mr. Hall a few hours before he died, he gave Thomas Nash, the husband of his only child, his ' study of books.' As the Halls were Shakespeare's [i.e. Shakspere's] residuary legatees, there can hardly be a doubt that any volumes that had been possessed by thelatter at Stratford-on-Avon were included in this bequest." How, therefore, Mr. Lang came to imagine I had asserted that "books" would not be in- cluded in " goods and chattels," I am at a loss to con- ceive. He must be a lawyer of a very remarkable sort who would make such a grotesque statement. But let us continue our quotation from Mr. Halliwell- Phillipps. The passage above cited continues : " It may also perhaps be assumed that there was a study at New Place in the time of the great dramatist. At all events there was clearly a sitting-room in the house that could have been used for the purposes of one, but, from the absence of all reference to books in the will of 1616, it may be safely inferred that the poet himself was not the owner of many such luxuries " ! * Such, then, is the orthodox and, presumably, reasonable opinion concerning " the great dramatist." Books ! No, no ; he was not " the owner of many such luxuries " ! Not of "many," and why, pray, of "^any," in view of "the absence of all reference " to such " luxuries " in the will ? • Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 193. ^ In re Shakespeare, p. 122. " Outlines, Vol. I, p. 251. SHAKSPERE'S WILL 307 It was with this passage in my mind that I wrote as follows : — "Is it possible that the immortal bard, the myriad- minded man, the wonder of all ages, the great teacher, the universal philosopher, he who tells us so truly that ignorance is the only darkness — is it possible that this man died without a book in his possession ? Ben Jonson, as we know, had a grand library. He loved books, and he constantly gave them away to his friends. . . . iEiut Shakespeare, if indeed Shakspere and Shakespeare are one, dies without a single volume in his possession ! " ^ It may, indeed, be said that the proposition is too strongly stated ; that it is only an inference. That is true, but I submit that the inference is a reasonable one. At any rate, we may surely affirm that if Shakspere possessed any books whatever when he made his will he set less store by them than he set by his sword, his plate, and his silver-gilt bowl. Those articles he was careful and anxious to dispose of by particular bequest. The books were not even worthy of mention ! And who, beside his children and relatives, were the objects of his care ? " Shakespeare " had lived among literary men, but of such in the will there is no mention. His legatees are some of his fellow-townsmen, and three of his fellow-players. Again, I say, just what we should have expected from Shakspere the actor. But from the Immortal ? When, therefore, the orthodox critics ask, "What bearing upon the question of authorship has the omission of the mention of books in Shakspere's will ? " I answer thus: I believe, and I think the belief is an entirely reasonable one, that "Shakespeare" was possessed of books. I believe that he must have set great value upon such books. I am convinced that they would have formed the subject of a specific bequest (or of specific ^ The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p, 191, 3o8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? bequests) far sooner than his plate, and his sword, and his bowl. That he died without such things as books, or that having such things he did not think it worth while to make mention of them in his will, is to me incredible. To me, therefore, for this and for other reasons, Shak- spere's will cannot be " Shakespeare's " will. Concerning the bequest of " my second-best bed " I will not waste much time. Mr. Robertson denies that this bequest, however construed, can have any bearing on the question of authorship. If it could be shown that player Shakspere, at the zenith of the "great dramatist's" fame, was in the habit of standing on his head in the mud for a penny, I am convinced the orthodox critics would still ask, " What bearing has that upon the question of authorship ? " "I see nothing at all out of the way," they would say, " that a man should be writing Hamlet and at the same time standing on his head in the niud for a penny " ! ^ Now I will freely admit that this particular bequest may have no bearing at all upon the question. If, indeed, it could be shown, by this and other evidence, that Shakspere acted meanly, vindictively, unkindly, and ungenerously towards his wife I should certainly say, " If so, the less Shakespeare he." I cannot myself believe that the author of these great and immortal works was a mean, paltry, small- minded, vindictive, and ungenerous snob, and I therefore think that considerations of character, as evidenced by actions, may have a considerable bearing upon the 1 " I do not," says Mr. Lang (p. 171), " like Mr. Greenwood, see any- thing 'at all out of the way' in the circumstance 'that a man should be writing Hamlet and at the same time bringing actions for petty sums lent on loan at some unspecified interest.'" "Neither a lender nor a borrower be," wrote Shakespeare, but "recks not his own rede," and becomes a money-lender. He writes Hamlet not for "glory" in his own time, but simply for "gain." It was something that would pay, and there would be so much the more for money-lending, tithe-buying, the enclosure of common fields, etc. Nothing out of the way in that ! SHAKSPERE'S WILL 309 question of authorship. But I admit that we have not sufficient evidence to prove that Shakspere was really- afflicted with these bad qualities, and therefore I do not lay much stress upon this curious bequest added by interlineation to the draft of Shakspere's will. It certainly does not seem to me to smack of " Shake- speare," but others see no objection in it at all. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps says it is quite natural, and presents us with some analogous instances. Thus, amongst the legacies given by Barthblomew Hathaway to his son Edmund, in 1 621, is "my second brass pott." There's an analogy for you ! But, quite to settle all controversy, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps tells us " there is another example that is conclusive in itself, without other testimony, of the position here advocated," viz. that there is nothing at all disparaging in Shakspere's bequest to his wife. " It is in the will, dated in April 1610, of one John Harris, a well-to-do notary of Lincoln, who, while leaving his wife a freehold Estate and other property, also bequeaths to her 'the standing bedstead in the little chamber, with the second-best feather bed I have, with a whole furniture therto belonging, and allso a trundle-bedstead with a feather bed, and the furniture therto belonging, and six payer of sheetes, three payer of the better sorte and three payer of the meaner sorte.' " 1 Mr. Phillipps thinks that this extremely inter- esting parallel "disposes of the only plausible reason that has ever been given for the notion that there was at one time some kind of estrangement between Shake- speare and his Anne." But unfortunately William Shakspere, while leaving his second-best bed to his wife, did not, like John Harris, leave her also " a freehold estate and other property." And that is just the difference between the two cases. Mrs. Harris at any rate was not slighted by the bequest of the "standing ' Outlines, Vol. I, p. 238. My italics. 3IO IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? bedstead with the second-best feather bed," for she had besides a freehold estate, and other property galore. But poor Anne gets only the second-best bed with its furniture, and that, apparently, by an afterthought. Here is yet another specimen of " reasoning by analogy " ! It is not of much use when the two things compared are fundamentally different. As Sir Sidney Lee well says : " Several wills of the period have been discovered in which a bedstead or other article of household furniture formed part of a wife's inheritance, but none except Shakespeare's is forthcoming in which a bed forms the sole bequest. At the same time the precision with which Shakespeare's will accounts for and assigns to other legatees every known item of his property refutes the conjecture that he had set aside any portion of it under a previous settlement or jointure with a view to making independent provision for his wife."^ And remember this also. Anne would have been, at Shakspere's death, entitled to her dower out of Shakspere's freehold house at Blackfriars had he not taken steps to "bar dower." That he had taken such action we know on the authority of Sir Sidney Lee, who quotes the late Mr. Charles Elton, Q.C., " I have looked to the authorities with my friend Mr. Herbert Mackay, and there is no doubt that Shakespeare barred the dower," and, having further quoted Mr. Mackay's opinion, he adds, " thus the bar was for practical purposes perpetual, and disposes of Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's assertion that Shakespeare's wife was entitled to dower in one form or another from all his real estate," and sums up the matter in these words : " Such procedure is pretty con- clusive proof that he had the intention of excluding her from the enjoyment of his possessions after his death." Poor Anne Hathaway ! No dower, and a second-best bed ! But some enthusiastic Stratfordian critics, less dis- ^ ' Life, p. 221. SHAKSPERE'S WILL 311 passionat:e, ,and, perhaps, less discreet, than Sir Sidney Lee, not only seek to defend the gift of the " second- best bed," but find in it actual evidence of the testator's kindness and consideration for his wife. Thus Mr. Henry Davey, in the Stratford Town Shakespeare, tells us that this "much-derided bequest . . . indicates that she was bed-ridden " ! There is not, so far as I know, one jot or tittle of evidence to prove that such was the fact. But even if it had been so, was that any reason for cutting her off with the " second-best bed " bnly ? ^ Mr. Robertson tells us that his "youthful surmise, on first reading the will, was that the second-best bed had been the marriage bed, and that Anne desired to have it secured to her, dwelling on her past as elderly women — and men — so often do." The supposition does no little credit to Mr. Robertson's poetical and sentimental imagination, but inasmuch as the youthful William and his Anne were, in all probability, first married by " Parson Green- fields," this charming hypothesis hardly seems to carry conviction. But he goes on to say : " The most probable solution seems to be that she was either physically or mentally in a condition which made it desirable that she should not be left a control of property." Poor creature ! Physically or mentally defective — perhaps both — left dowerless, with only a second-best bed, and no security that the bed and its owner should not be summarily evicted from New Place ! Really, those who invent these hypotheses of a physi- cally or mentally defective Anne should consider where- unto they lead. If such had been really the case, then all I can say is that ijt was cruel in the last degree on the part of Shakspere that he should not have given her the right to live on at New Place, and left some directions to ^ Anne Shakspere lived more than seven years after her husband's death. That she was " bed-ridden " is an entirely gratuitous, but very characteristic, assumption. 312 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? secure that the poor thing should be duly taken care of. As the will stood the Halls could, had they been so disposed, have ordered the unfortunate widow to " take up her bed and walk " ! But, asks Mr. Robertson, " on any conceivable view of the case, what has the bequest to do with the question of authorship?" And he then proceeds to give examples of other celebrated writers who were " infelicitous in their married lives." But the question here is not whether Shakspere was infelicitous in his married life. The question is whether he behaved meanly, spitefully, heart- lessly, ungenerously, or cruelly to his wife. But what has that to do with the question of authorship, even if it could be proved ? Well, taken alone, little or nothing, I admit. I have heard a counsel say, in defence of a man charged with crime on evidence wholly circumstantial, that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link ; to which it was replied by the prosecuting counsel that the true metaphor was not that of a chain but of a rope. One horsehair is easily broken. Many horsehairs may be woven together to form a rope which will bear a heavy weight. Similarly, it is not on each item taken separately, but on the whole argument formed by all the items taken connectively, that the sceptical case with regard to the Shaksperian authorship must be judged. There are some (fanatics, perhaps, they may be) who would think it in the highest degree unlikely that the author of the im- mortal works would have acted as Shakspere seems to have acted on various occasions. But inasmuch as the case of the " second-best bed " is by no means conclusive, and is, just possibly, susceptible of a more or less satis- factory explanation, could we only know the true facts, I will now take leave of it, just noting that it is only "the defamers of Shakespeare " — so called — who venture, or are concerned, to postulate for the true Shakespeare such a mortal as they can conceivably " marry " to the immortal SHAKSPERE'S WILL 313 works. To the " orthodox " it is, apparently, quite natural that the author of those works — ^those miracles of wit and wisdom, of music and morals, of poetry and philosophy — should have been a mean, paltry fellow, as ignorant as Farmer makes him out to have been, who wrote con- sciously for gain, and quite unconsciously for all time.^ But there is another point in Shakspere's will which demands our consideration. In the preface " to the great variety of Readers" prefixed to the Folio of 1623, and signed " John Heminge " and " Henrie Condell," those players say, or, rather, are made to say by the writer of the preface : " It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene wished, that the Author himselfe had liv'd to have set forth, and overseen his owne writings ; But since it hath bin ordain'd otherwise, and he by death departed from that right, we pray you do not; envie his Friends, the office of their care and paine, to have collected and publish'd them." It is in view of this preface that Heminge and Condell are, constantly, spoken of as Shakspere's literary executors. But they acted — if, indeed, they did act — in that capacity not upon Shak- A spere's nomination, but as volunteers only. Yet Shakspere had not forgotten them in his will, for, as we have seen, he left them each the sum of 26s. 8d. " to buy them ringes." It did not, apparently, occur to him that he might, at the same time, have committed to them the care, at any rate, of those " writings " which at that time had never seen the light of publication — that he might * Mr. Robertson says (p. 543) : ' ' Assuredly he wrote ' for gain, not glory ' in the first instance ; though genius irresistibly had the casting vote." What is the meaning of the words I have put in italics ? Did not Shakespeare then always (according to the orthodox) write "for gain, not glory"? If not, when did he cease to do so ? But perhaps Mr. Robertson only means that although Shakespeare did, as a fact, write for gain and not for glory (according to the extraordinary orthodox theory) nevertheless his genius was such that, ultimately, the glory was immeasurably greater than the gain ; in which case " in the first instance " really means nothing. 314 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? have delegated to them " that right " of setting forth and overseeing such writings, which, according to the players, he possessed at the time of his death. But, alas, there is no mention of manuscripts in Shakspere's will. His son-in-law, John Hall, as we have seen, was careful upon his death-bed to leave directions as to his manuscripts ; but to Shakspere their fate seems to have been a matter of no moment. The Tempest was of less importance than his sword, Macbeth than his silver gilt bowl ! Yet of the thirty-six plays which appeared in the First Folio, only fifteen had been printed at the time of Shakspere's death. " No less than twenty dramas, of which the greater number rank among the literary masterpieces of the world . . . were rescued by the First Folio from oblivion," writes Sir Sidney Lee, and seeing that among these were, besides the two I have already mentioned. Measure for Measure, As You Like It, All's Well, Twelfth Night, A Winter's Tale, Henry VIII, Coriolanus, Julius Ccesar, Antony and Cleopatra, and Cymbeline, Sir Sidney may well say that the pieces published for the first time in 1623 were " of supreme literary interest." "Rescued from oblivion"! Not by any care or fore-* thought of their author — if Shakspere is entitled to that name — but by those, whoever they were (perhaps we should say, by him, whoever he was), to whom we are indebted for the great gift of the First Folio. We must remember, too, that many of the plays were, as we shall see later on, revised over and over again. Where and by whom was this done ? By Shakespeare, according to the received faith. Did Shakspere then preserve his manu- scripts ? Had he any of the priceless '' writings " in his possession when he died ? If so, and if they were worth the trouble of revision, would he have made no mentioij of them in his will ? "I am not possessed of informa- tion," writes Mr. Lang (p. 216), " that he ' did not preserve his manuscript.' How can we know that ? " But if he SHAKSPERE'S WILL 315 preserved his manuscripts, what became of them ? Not being mentioned in the will, they would have passed to the Halls under the residuary bequest; and the Halls, being by no means indifferent to monetary considerations, might have made money out of them. Or were they, perchance, included in Hall's manuscripts which he left to his son-in-law Nash, telling him he might "burne them, or doe with them what you please"? All we know is that, like Shakspere's books, they have never been heard of, nor has a single one of them ever been found. In all the circumstances, therefore, I submit that the only reasonable conclusion is that Shakspere died without books or manuscripts in his possession. But suppose he did, say the orthodox, that raises no presumption that he did not write the Plays and Poems ! Well, quot homines tot sententiae, and I can only leave it at that. As for the manuscripts, indeed, the orthodox contention is, of course, that the players were wrong when they said, in their preface, that Shakespeare had the "right" to have published his own works, had he cared to do so, in his lifetime, inasmuch as he had disposed of all his manu- scripts, and all his rights in them, to the acting company to which he belonged, and had no further interest in them, either personal or proprietary. But if such was the case, who would know it better than Messrs. Heminge and Condell ? How came they then to make such a mis- statement in their Preface ? But the further consideration of such questions must be reserved till we come to discuss the publication of the Folio of 1623. The slab which covers, or is supposed to cover, Shak- spere's grave bears the following inscription : — Good frend for^Iesus sake forbeare. To DICX) "HE DUST ENCLOASED hEARE: BLESE BE "f'MAN^ SPARES TIES STONEIS. AND CVRST BE 1-E t MOVES MY BONES. 3i6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps tells us that these lines, "ac- cording to an early tradition, were selected by the poet himself for his epitaph." He adds that " there is another early but less probable statement that they were the poet's own composition." The same editor presents us with a copy of "the following manuscript note, written towards the end of the seventeenth century, which is pre- served in a copy of the Third Folio : ' in the church of Stratford-uppon-Avon, uppon a stone in the chancell, these words were ordered to be cutt by Mr. Shackspeare, the town being the place of his birth and buriall.'" A further authority is one William Hall, an Oxford graduate, who, in a letter written in the year 1694 to his friend Edward Thwaites, "an eminent Anglo-Saxon scholar," preserved in the Bodleian Library, tells us that when he came to Stratford he " went to visit the ashes of the great Shakespeare which lye interr'd in that church," which certainly shows that Hall thought the grave was that of the great poet. He proceeds : " The verses which, in his lifetime, he ordered to be cut upon his tombstone, for his monument have others, are these which follow." He then sets them forth with sufficient, if not absolute, accuracy, and continues : " The little learning these verses contain would be a very strong argument of the want of it in the author, did not they carry something in them which stands in need of a comment. There is in this Church a place which they call the bone-house, a re- pository for all bones they dig up, which are so many that they would load a great number of waggons. The poet, being willing to preserve his bones unmoved, lays a curse upon him that moves them, and haveing to do with clarks and sextons, for the most part a very ignorant sort of people, he descends to the meanest of their capacitys, and disrobes himself of that art which none of his co- temporaries wore in greater perfection. Nor has the design mist of its effect, for, lest they should not onely SHAKSPERE'S WILL 317 draw this curse upon themselves, but also entail it upon their posterity, they have laid him full seventeen feet deep, deep enough to secure him." Now here we have a very early tradition, which Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps evidently considers a probable one, that Shakspere, if he did hot write these lines himself as his epitaph, at any rate ordered them to be cut upon his tombstone. The tradition rests upon as good authority as most of the accepted facts of Shakspere's life, and Sir Sidney Lee so far accepts it as to write (p. 221): "As it was the grave was made seventeen feet deep,^ and was never opened even to receive his wife, although she ex- pressed a desire to be buried with her husband." But, very naturally, Mr. Lang, and others of the orthodox faith, would fain cast aside this tradition al- together. That is one of the difficulties in reasoning with the orthodox. Not only do they diiifer among themselves even more than do the theologians, but, like the theo- logians, they cling to tradition when it suits them, and reject it when it is not palatable. I had written : " Are we, really, to believe that the bard of the world's adoration, the sublime teacher, the great-minded, tolerant, 'gentle' philosopher, died with a curse upon his lips — an impreca- tion against any man who might move his bones} A mean and vulgar curse indeed ! " ^ What says Mr. Lang to this ? "I confess to be passing weary of the Baconian hatred of Will, which pursues him beyond his death with sneers and fantastic suspicions about his monument and his grave, and asks if he ' died with a curse upon his lips,' etc. ... Of course there is no evidence that he wrote the mean and vulgar curse : that he did is only the pious hope of the Baconians and Anti- Willians." ^ 1 am surprised that Mr. Lang should have been ' I know of no evidence for this except William Hall's statement. 2 The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 199 note. « Work cited, pp. 188-9. 3i8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? betrayed into criticism so unfair. I speak not for the "Baconians," but to say that I am possessed with a stupid and insensate " hatred of Will," and that it is my "pious hope" that "he died with a mean and vulgar curse upon his lips," is to say that which is not true. I am conscious that I am entirely devoid of any such idiotic feeling of hatred for the rsTpdvuKui aroiiij. Nay more, I do not feel within me the shade or shadow of dislike, or anything approaching dislike, for the memory of William Shakspere of Stratford. The " orthodox " may believe me or not, as they like, but I only state the plain truth when I say that, for my part, I should look upon such a feeling as simply ridiculous, and, possibly, the first in- dication of approaching insanity. I merely comment upon the facts, or the alleged facts, of Shakspere's life, which the biographers have handed down to us, with such criticism as they seem to merit. William Hall, at the fend of the seventeenth century, gives us a circumstantial account of this tradition in connection with Shakspere's burial in a grave seventeen feet deep, and an old manuscript note, of about the same date, preserved in a copy of the Third Folio, is to the same effect. Ward clearly perceived that the doggerels are presumptive evidence that the author of them had " little learning," but he ingeniously gets out of the difficulty by assuming that the poet in this instance wrote down to the meanest capacities of clerks and sextons ! Well, I say the curse is a mean and vulgar one indeed. I say that if Shakspere ordered it to be cut upon his tombstone he was not the man who wrote : The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself. Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve. And, like this unsubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on ; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. SHAKSPERE'S WILL 319 He, I venture to think, would not have cared whether or not his bones were moved; he, I am quite certain, would not have imprecated this " mean and vulgar curse " upon the man who might move them. I repeat, if Shakspere did so, then I for one am absolutely convinced that " Shakspere " was not " Shakespeare." But, of course, it is not certain that Shakspere wished these lines to be cut on his tombstone ; it is not certain that they were not so cut by some entirely unauthorised person — though why anyone should desire, or be permitted, so to write on Shakspere's tombstone without his authority I am at a loss to conceive. All we know is that there the lines have been, apparently, ever since the stone was laid upon Shakspere's grave — if, indeed, it is Shakspere's grave upon which the stone rests, for this is quite as uncertain as the authorship of the lines. What is there certain about Shakspere's life ? All we can say is that the tradition in this matter has been generally accepted, and, if the tradition be true, my criticism is entirely justified. " Hatred of Will ! " cries Mr. Lang. " Pursuing him with sneers beyond his death ! " Alas, my kind and courteous critic — for such, indeed, he was — has himself passed to " where beyond these voices there is peace." Would he were still with us, and that I were able' to convince him, as I very easily could, that in this instance he has quite misjudged the mental attitude of at least one " Anti-Willian '' (if by such name I am to be called) with regard to William Shak- spere of Stratford. CHAPTER VIII "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING THE mystery which, unfortunately, surrounds everything in " Shakespeare's " life-story, makes itself very apparent when we come to consider his handwriting. The "orthodox" teaching, according to which William Shakspere of Stratford was the author of the works published under the name of " Shakespeare," tells us that there exist five signatures of Shakespeare (one greatly abbreviated), and that these, together with the words " by me," in his will, are the only specimens of his handwriting which have come down to us. One of these signatures is on the purchase deed of a house in Blackfriars, dated March loth, 1613 ; another is on the mortgage deed of the same house, dated March nth, 1613 ; three are signatures to the will, which is written on three separate sheets ; and the abbreviated signature is attached to a deposition in answer to interro- gatories administered in the action of Bellott v. Mountjoy, in the year 161 2, the proceedings wherein have recently been discovered by Professor Wallace at the Record Office.1 Now all these signatures are in the "Old English" character, and I think few impartial observers would deny that they are terrible scrawls, whatever reasons may be suggested to account for that fact. Let us go back for ' See anie, p. 260 et seq. 320 "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 321 a moment to consider how and where Shakspere learnt to write. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps says : " Although both his parents were absolutely illiterate, they had the sagacity to appreciate the importance of an education for their son, and the poet, somehow or other, was taught to read and write, the necessary preliminaries to admission into the Free School." ^ 5o, too, Mr. A. F. Leach, in his English Schools at the Reformation (p. 105), tells us that "boys were not admitted [to the Grammar School] until they had learnt their accidence." They learnt to write in the Song School or Writing School. We hear nothing of Shakspere's being at either Song School or Writing School, so we must be content with Mr. Halliwell- Phillipps's statement that he was taught to read and write " somehow or other " ! Sir Sidney Lee, however, tells us nothing as to the ability to read and write being a condition precedent to entry at the Free Grammar School. He says : " As was customary in provincial schools, he [Shakspere] was taught to write the 'old English' character, which resembles that in vogue in, Germany. He was never taught the Italian script, which at the time was rapidly winning its way in fashionable cultured society, and is now universal among Englishmen. Until his death Shakespeare's ' Old English ' handwriting testified to his provincial education." ^ And again : " In all the signatures Shakespeare used the old ' English ' mode of writing, which resembles that still in vogue in Germany. During the seventeenth century the old ' English ' character was finally displaced in England by the ' Italian ' character, which is now universal in England and in all English-speaking countries. In Shakespeare's day highly educated men, who were graduates of the Universities and had travelled abroad in youth, were capable of writing both the old ' English ' and the ' Italian ' character with equal facility. As a * Outlines, Vol. I, p. 37. My italics. ^ Life, p. 12. y 322 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? rule they employed the 'English' character in their ordinary correspondence, but signed their names in the ' Italian ' hand. Shakespeare's use of the ' English ' script exclusively was doubtless a result of his provincial education. He learnt only the ' English ' character at school at Stratford-on-Avon, and he never troubled to exchange it for the more fashionable ' Italian ' character in later life." * Further, Sir Sidney Lee, judging by the specimens of Shakspere's handwriting which have come down to us, has, not unnaturally, characterised it as "illegible," for, with reference to the copyist of Shakspere's supposed manu- script, he says that he " was not always happy in deciphering the original, especially when the dramatist wrote so illegibly as Shakespeare " ! ^ Nay more, erudite Shakespearean scholars have even spoken of Shakespeare's signatures as " illiterate." Thus in a pamphlet which was issued by the Librarian of the Boston (U.S.A.) Public Library in the year 1889, con- cerning an interesting edition of North's Plutarch, printed • Life, p. 231. It will be observed that, according to Sir Sidney Lee, those who could write the " English " and " Italian " hands with equal facility as a rule employed the " Epglish " character in their correspondence but signed their names in the " Italian " hand. An absurd suggestion, as it seems to me, has been made by Messrs. Garnett ^nd Gosse in their English Literature : An Illustrated Record, that Shakspere reversed the process, and that the fact that he signed his name in the " English" script "affords no proof that he could not write the Italian script if he thought fit " ! I have dealt with this remarkable suggestion in The Shakespeare Problem Restated, at p. 14. It is sufficient to say here that no example has been found, in the seventeenth century, of a man who, although he could write the Italian script with facility, nevertheless preferred to sign his name in the Old English hand. ^ Introduction to the Folio Facsimile, p. xviii. It certainly occasions us something in the nature of a shock when we compare the scrawls which are said to be Shakespeare's signatures with the beautiful writing (in " the sweet Roman hand") of (e.g.) Joshua Sylvester, Jonson, or Bacon. Dugdale also (1605-86) wrote a remarkably beautiful hand. Going back to earlier days, we find that Edmund Spenser (1552-99) wrote an eminently legible hsind, if we may judge from the document facsimiled by Messrs. Garnett and Gosse in their Illustrated English Literature at p. 120. "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 323 by Richard Field (1603), wherein is found a signature which sope have fondly maintained to be a genuine Shakespearean autograph, I read : "It may be observed that the field of comparison of the Library signature with the known originals is narrow, being limited to those written between 161 3 and 16 16, all of which show such a lack of facility in handwriting as would almost preclude the possibility of Shakespeare's having written the dramas attributed to him, so great is the apparent illiteracy of his signatures." So wrote Dr. Mellen Chamberlain, the Librarian in question, and a recognised authority upon matters of this kind. Yet the author of Twelfth Night must have known the value of that " Italian " script which was at that time " rapidly winning its way in fashionable cultured society " ; for does he not make Malvolio say, with reference to Olivia's supposed letter, " I think we do know the sweet Roman hand " ? Is it credible that he did not know it himself? I cannot think so. He certainly understood the advantage of good handwriting. For what says Hamlet? I sat me down ; Devised a new commission ; wrote it fair : I once did hold it, as our statists do, A baseness to write fair, and labour'd much How to forget that learning ; but, sir, now It did me yeoman's service. It is, indeed, hard to believe that the writer of those lines could not " write fair " himself, and had never got beyond the "Old English" script; and, with Dr. Mellen Chamberlain, one is fain to wonder if the plays could possibly have been written in such handwriting as Shakspere's. Was this the script of the " unblotted manuscripts " ? Now it has usually been assumed that the will was 324 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? prepared, in January 1616, by Francis Collins, the Warwick solicitor, and written by him or by one of his clerks, and that it was, as Halliwell-Phillipps says, "a corrected draft ready for an engrossment that was to have been signed by the testator on Thursday, the twenty- fifth of that month," but that, " for some unknown reason, but most probably owing to circumstances relating to Judith's matrimonial engagement, the appointment for that day was postponed, at Shakespeare's request, in anticipation of further instructions, and before Collins had ordered a fair copy to be made."^ But a German lady, Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel by name, has pro- pounded the theory that not only the signatures and the words " by me " were written by Shakspere, but that the whole of the will is in his handwriting ; ^ and an English barrister, Mr. John Pym-Yeatman, had already raised the same contention in a pamphlet headed " Is William Shakspere's Will Holographic?" (1901). Here is a wonderful discovery ! Here is a fact which ought to have been patent to all trained observers, but which, nevertheless, escaped the vigilant and microscopic eyes of Steevens, and Malone, and Ingleby, and all critics, and "paleographers," and " graphonomists," for 160 years or so, only to be revealed in the twentieth century to an English barrister and a German lady ! The body of the will and the signatures were written by the same hand; and that hand was Shakspere's ! Shakspere was, then, sufficiently versed in law to be able to draw a will in correct legal terminology. Nay, Mr. Pym-Yeatman points to the fact, as he assumes it to be, that Shakspere drafted his own will, as a proof of his legal knowledge, and refers to the Latin commencement of the document as evidence ^ Outlines, Vol. I, p. 232. The will as first drafted began, "vicesimo quinto dieya«»ar«V," but the last word has been deleted, and Martii sah- stituted. See ante, pp. 299, 300. " See her article in thp Leipzig magazine Der Menschen Renntr (January, 1909). "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 325 " that Shakspere retained to the last some knowledge of Latin," which, he says, " disposes of Dr. Farmer's ridiculous assertion that the Poet did not know Latin " ! I do not, certainly, demur to the epithet applied to Dr. Farmer's assertion, but I should indeed be reluctant to look for justification of it in the Latin words with which the will is headed, giving the date and the regnal year, as the custom then was. I apprehend that "Will Shakspere" had nothing whatever to do with this commencement which is no more than common form. Now we may just observe, in passing, that the will begins, " I, William Shackspeare," and that spelling of the name is again used towards the end thereof, so that, as already pointed out, if it were indeed written by Shakspere himself, he must have adopted for the body of the will a form of his name different from that which he used for his signatures, a form, moreover, which, so far as is known, he never employed on any other occasion. But not only does the theory that Shakspere himself drafted his own will appear to me in the highest degree improbable, but, in my judgment, though I profess not to be an " expert," the signatures and the body of the document are in different handwriting.^ But we are now confronted with yet another theory. The late Sir Edwin Durning - Lawrence, who was, I believe, a " paleographer," if not a " graphonomist " also, assured us that Mr. Pym-Yeatman and Frau Thumm- Kintzel are quite right in telling us that the will and the signatures were written by the same hand, but he main- tained — or rather, I should say, he stated ex cathedra, as was his wont — that neither the body of the will nor the signatures were written by Shakspere. The three signa- ^ Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps writes : "An unusual number of witnesses were called in to secure the validity of the informally written document, its draftsman, according to the almost invariable custom at that time, being the first to sign." It does not necessarily follow, however, that the will is in the handwriting of Francis Collins, though he probably was the " draftsman." 326 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? tures were " written by the law clerk who wrote the body of the will. This is confirmed in the clearest manner by Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel in an article which appeared in the Leipzig magazine, Der Menschen Renner, in January, 1909. In this publication photo-reproductions of certain letters in the body of the will and in the so-called signatures are placed side by side, and the evidence is irresistible that they are by the same hand. As a matter of fact, the will, and the supposed signatures of the witnesses other than himself, are all written in ' law script ' by Francis CoUyns, the Warwickshire solicitor, who added his own name as a witness in a neat, modern-looking hand." 1 It is delightful to know anything " as a matter of fact " in the life of Shakspere, but one cannot help remarking that, after calling Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel as a witness, whose "evidence is irresistible," Sir Edwin proceeds to throw her over without ceremony, for this lady says: " Francis Collins's handwriting is seen on the testament as one of the witnesses, and is so distinctly different from the testator's hand that an identity is altogether out of the question." So, too, Mr. Pym-Yeatman : " Nothing can be clearer than that Francis CoUyns did not write the draft, for we have the clearest evidence of his handwriting in his own signature which he appends first to the Will. His hand is a small, crabbed, tailless, lawyer-like hand, quite unlike that of the Poet, or whoever wrote the draft, which is in a large, bold, free hand, remarkably so for that period, and just such a hand as we should expect the Poet to employ " ! 1 I take this from a letter to the Fife Standard oi October 2nd, 1913 (italics mine). Sir Edwin draws attention to the fact that "the attestation clause is 'witness to the publication (not to the signing) hereof,' " but it must be remembered that at that date the law did not require a will to be signed. The publication was the important thing. The words are "witness to the publishing hereof." The will is endorsed in two places, presumably by Francis CoUyns, "Mr. Shakspere his Will." "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 327 However, Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence apparently attributes no importance to the " evidence " of Magdalene Thumm-Kintzel (he does not mention Mr. Pym-Yeatman) except in so far as it supports his own theory that the body of the will and the three signatures were all written " in ' law-script,' " by the same hand, i.e. by the lawyer who prepared the document. And he says the same was the case with the documents of March loth and March nth, 161 3, and the abbreviated signature in the Bellott-Mountjoy suit. " The six so-called signatures " were all " written in ' law-script ' by skilled law clerks." ^ Let us see how this affects the documents dated March lOth and March nth, 161 3, respectively. The first of these, it will be remembered, was the deed by which Henry Walker conveyed a house in Blackfriars to " William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon," and the second, dated a day later, was the mortgage deed by which Shak- spere reconveyed the house to Walker, the vendor, by way of mortgage, to secure the balance of the purchase money. Now with regard to this transaction Sir Edwin Durning- Lawrence writes : " When a part of the purchase money is left upon a mortgage, the mortgage is always signed a moment before the purchase deed, because the seller will not part with his property before he receives both the cash and the mortgage deed." With all respect, however, I venture to say that such is not the usual practice. As a rule, the vendor executes the purchase deed, and hands it to his solicitor as in the nature of an "escrow," not to ' Mr. Pym-Yeatman opines that " the Poet," i.e. Shakspere, wrote the will himself, and that he must have been " a skilled lawyer, for his phrase- ology and use of legal terms is accurate ; he has only muddled them together," but he thinks he had "received a great shock," probably in connection with Judith's marriage, that he was ' ' of unsound mind, memory, and understanding at the time," otherwise it would "follow that the person who gave the instructions and the draftsman were, if different persons, both of unsound mind," etc. ! A remarkable theory, truly, which I think has not found many followers. 328 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? come into effect until that part of the purchase money to be paid in cash has been handed over, and with it the mortgage deed duly executed by the purchaser, whereupon the purchase deed is dated as of a date one day prior to that of. the mortgage deed. However, this matter is not worth disputing about, for I take it that Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence is, at any rate, correct in his main point, viz. that, in Shakspere's case, the two documents, though dated as of two consecutive days, must have been, in fact, signed at the same time. Here, however, we are confronted with a remarkable fact. The two so-called " Shakespeare " signatures differ very much the one from the other. Sir Edwin Durning- Lawrence writes : " The writing put for Shakespeare's name differs as widely as possible in the two documents, one being in the handwriting of an old man, the other in the handwriting of a young man. It is not even remotely possible that both of the supposed signatures of William Shakespeare could have been written in the same place, at the same time, with the same pen, by the same hand." Now, not being a " paleographer," I have to confess that before my attention had been called to the fact by "experts," it had not struck me that the dissimilarity between these two signatures was so very great as Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence describes it to be; but Sir Edwin can call the most " orthodox " evidence in support of the fact, for Dean Beeching tells us not only that the signatures differ very widely, but that they are actually written " in two different scripts " ; but so far is he from concluding therefrom that the signatures were written by different hands that he even argues from this fact, with consummate ingenuity, that Shakespeare must have been a cultured person. "No illiterate person would write two hands, but playwrights did so habitually to distinguish the text from the stage directions — a fact that anyone may verify who will consult the manuscript plays in the "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 329 British Museum." Further, " the signatures are those of a man accustomed to much writing, for they avoid the least superfluity in the formation and connection of letters." And again: "I suggest the inference that the Stratford player who signed these documents was also the dramatist, because we know from manuscripts of plays still extant in the British Museum that dramatists employed two scripts, one for the text, and one for the stage directions." ^ I trust the reader follows this delightful argument. Player Shakspere was a playwright, therefore he, doubt- less, habitually employed two different styles of hand- writing, one for the text of his plays, and the other for the stage directions. What more natural, therefore, that when signing two legal documents he should employ his "text" hand for one and his "stage-directions" hand for the other? He would, of course, use the "text" hand for the purchase deed, and the "stage-directions" hand for the mortgage, though, to be sure, it might have been vice versa ! I am particularly taken by the argument that the signatures show "a man accustomed to much writing," because " they avoid the least superfluity in the formation and connection of letters." The reader will be able really to appreciate the force of this argument if he will examine the facsimile of the signature to the mortgage deed. Most certainly there is no " superfluity " here either in the " formation " or in the " connection " of the letters. On the contrary, there is an economy of such things which is almost startling in the cultured playwright who habitually wrote at least two different ' See IVilliam Shakespeare, Player^ Playmaker, and Poet, by H. C. Beeching, D.Litt. (1908), p. 20, and "A Last Word to Mr. Greenwood," The Nineteenth Century, August 1909, p. 284. I have not seen the "manu- script plays in the British Museum," but I fancy it is highly probable that, in most cases, if not all, the " text " has been written by one person and the "stage directions" added by another. Anyone who has had any experience of theatrical performances, even as an amateur only, will be able to recall " modern instances " of this practice. 330 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? scripts ! Let those interested look for themselves and judge.^ And now, having presented the reader with this specimen of decanal logic, for which I feel sure he will be grateful to me, I would return for a moment to Sir Edwin Burning- Lawrence's very different theory. " All the so-called signatures of Shakespeare," he says, " are written in law script by skilful law clerks ; not one of them is badly written." This is, indeed, a remarkable statement. I must again refer the reader to the facsimiles, and ask him whether it can seriously be contended that they are all written, and well written, "by skilful law clerks." In the case of the first of the will signatures, the ink, as Sir Sidney Lee truly says, "has now faded almost beyond recognition," but what is still visible, so far from resembling a signature written by an expert law clerk in law script, conveys to us the idea of an almost paralytic scrawl. In fact, the will signatures are such wretched performances that the usually received " ortho- dox " theory is that the testator was too ill at the time to write with a steady hand. Thus. Dean Beeching, referring to these signatures as having been written but a month before Shakspere's death, declares that they "are beyond criticism by any humane person."^ The will, indeed, states that the testator is " in perfect health and memorie, God be praysed " ; but it would not be fair, perhaps, to make any point of this, because the words were probably inserted by the solicitor who prepared the draft, and the will was not actually signed till some ' Professor Sir J. K. Laughton draws an entirely different inference from the difference of the signatures. " I have never," he writes, "had occasion to examine the reputed Shakespeare signatures ; but if, as I am told, and as Canon Beeching seems to admit, the spelling varies, I should consider it as grounds for a suspicion that they are not all genuine ; a suspicion which would be much strengthened if the signatures differ in other respects " ( The Times, November 27th, 1908. See his letter quoted at length, infra, p. 347). ^ VPork cited, p. 20. My italics. "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 331 time afterwards. But if the reader wishes to see how Shakespeare's signature was really written in law script by an expert legal clerk, or scrivener, let him refer to the document relating to the litigation in respect of the Globe Theatre, in 1619, a fragment of which is reproduced on page 505 of The Century Magazine for August, 1910. There he will see in two places the signature "Willm. Shakespeare" beautifully written by a law scrivener in the legal handwriting of the time, and he will do well to compare this with Shakspere's tottering signatures concerning which Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence makes the amazing assertion that none of them is "badly written." Or, if he likes, he can see these two signatures excellently reproduced in a little " Monograph on the Shakespeare Signatures," by William M'Conway of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. (191 2). Mr. M'Conway agrees with Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence in thinking that Shakspere had never learnt to write, but he is far from imagining that his " signatures " were written for him by law clerks. On the contrary, he sees in these two reproduced signatures in legal script, together with the reproduction of the name " Willm. Shakespeare," written by the scrivener in Shak- spere's deposition in the Bellott-Mountjoy suit (1612), "the ' missing link,' " showing that Shakspere's signatures were really "laborious imitations by a man who could not read them when written." ^ According to this theory, then, Shakespeare's signatures are bad and "laborious" copies from well-written models in legal script. These two " Anti-Willians," therefore, differ greatly in this matter, although they both agree in the conclusion that Shakspere was unable to write. To that opinion I am entirely unable to subscribe, and the " Baconian " or •The name "Willm. Shakespeare" as written by the scrivener in Shakspere's deposition in the Bellott-Mountjoy suit is also reproduced in Mr. M 'Conway's Monograph; and see Professor Wallace's article in Harper for March, 1910, p. 493, and p. 500. 332 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? " Anti-Willian " who advances it seems to me to be busily engaged in the suicidal operation of sawing off the bough upon which he sits. For the " Anti-Willian " hypothesis is that Shakspere's name, in the altered form of "Shakespeare" or " Shake-speare," was adopted as a pseudonym by the real author of the Plays and Poems (or some of them), whence it naturally followed that the authorship of these was subsequently attributed to the Stratford player. Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, there- fore, would have us believe that the real author (Bacon, according to him) deliberately selected as a pseudonym the name of an entirely uneducated and illiterate man, and that this Stratford "'clown," as he calls him, who could neither read nor write, thus came to be looked upon as the author of the works of Shakespeare ! That appears to me an altogether unreasonable proposition. For myself, I think it reasonable to believe that Shakspere of Stratford could write, and that he did write these five signatures which we have been considering. A word as to the abbreviated " Shakespeare " signature in the case of Bellott v. Mountjoy, the discovery of which by Dr. Wallace was heralded by such loud beating of drums and blowing of trumpets. The case in question was in the "Court of Requests." Now the Courts of Request were Courts for the collection of small debts, and they remained in existence in England till the establishment of County Courts, as readers of the late Sergeant Ballantyne's Reminiscences will remember.^ It seems that a set. of five interrogatories was administered to Shakspere as a witness in the suit, and he had to make answer on oath. His deposition is signed " Willm Shaks " according to Professor Wallace, but "Wilm Shaxp'" according to Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence. At any rate, it is a very much abbreviated signature, and it is a strange thing that such should be found attached to a ^ Ante, p. 262, note. "SHAKESPEARE'S" WRITING 333 deposition taken on oath before a Court of Justice. Sir E. Durning- Lawrence says that "anyone acquainted in any way with law procedure will knoiv that if William Shakespeare could have written anything, he certainly would have been obliged to sign in full, and would not have been permitted to shorten his name to 'Shaxp',' even if it were conceivable that any man who was able to write would have desired to abbreviate his name." Sir Edwin, therefore, argues that the abbreviated name must have been " written by the law clerk who wrote the body of the interrogatories." But we really do not know what might have been done in the Court of Requests in the early days of the seventeenth century, nor what the procedure there was; and as to Shakspere's ability to write, I remain entirely unconvinced. I think the strong probability is that, having given his evidence in answer to the interrogatories in this petty Court, he was allowed to authenticate his answers, as reduced to writing, by this abbreviated signature; at any rate, that nobody raised any objection to his so doing, although it might not have been in accordance with the strict requirements of legal procedure. That the law clerks should have attached this hieroglyphie to the deposition seems to me in the highest degree improbable.^ # I think, then, that some specimens of Shakspere's handwriting have come down to us in these six " signa- tures." It cannot, by any stretch of courtesy, be called "calligraphy." One has only to turn to the writing of Ben Jonson, and Joshua Sylvester, and Spenser, and ' In The Times Literary Supplement for April 21st, 1910, I read in an article on "Seekers after Shakespeare"; "We pry into watermarks, and are greatly cheered by ^ new autograph signature, illegible, it is true, to all except those few who are familiarly conversant with the apparently paralytic handwriting of the period. " I have written at some length on Dr. Wallace's ' ' New Shakespeare Discoveries" in The National Review for April, 1910. The article is reprinted in The Vindicators of Shahespeare {Svieeting & Co. , 19 1 1). 334 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Sidney, and Francis Bacon, and many others of that time whom one might name, to see a very complete contrast between their cultivated " Italian " style and Shakspere's " Gothic " scrawl — a comparison very much indeed to Shakspere's disadvantage, though it would be, of course, in the highest degree unreasonable to expect him, with his " provincial " bringing up, to write in the style which was " rapidly winning its way in fashionable cultured society." CHAPTER IX THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" IT is the recognised right of every critic of an "un- orthodox " work on the " Shakespearean " authorship to make use of the time-honoured joke that "Shake- speare," according to the " unorthodox," " was not written by Shakespeare but by another gentleman of the same name." Professor Dryasdust is always extremely tickled by this little quip — and it would, indeed, be ungenerous to desire to deprive him of the one minute spark of humour which glimmers amid the gloom of his dreary columns, however mouldy the jest, and however "soiled by all ignoble use." As a fact, however, and as the critic well knows, the "Anti- Willian" contends that it was a man not of the same but of quite different name who published under the pen-name of " Shake-speare." Now, according to all the best authority, as I shall presently show, the Stratford player wrote his name " Shakspere " in the five signatures which have come down to us (I leave Dr. Wallace's abbreviated hieroglyphic out of the account), and never " Shakespeare " ; but it would, of course, be very unwise to attach too much importance to this difference. It is, how- ever, a very convenient course, and one which I have always adopted, in order to avoid unnecessary circum- locution, to make use of the name "Shakespeare" when speaking of the author of the Plays 3.-ad Poems, whoever 336 IS THERE A SHAKSPEEARE PROBLEM? he may have been, and " Shakspere " when alluding to William Shakspere of Stratford, whether or not he was the author. Therefore in the "Notice to the Reader," prefixed to The Shakespeare Problem Restated, I wrote as follows: "In this work I have followed the convenient practice of writing ' Shakespeare ' where I am speaking of the author of the Plays and Poems, and ' Shakspere ' where I refer to William Shakspere of Stratford, whether he was or was not the author in question" Now I should have thought it sufficiently clear from this that I followed the practice referred to for the sake of convenience only, and that it involved no assumption whatever with regard to the question of authorship, yet certain critics, " Strat- fordians " enragh, have, very characteristically, based upon it the absurd charge that I rest my whole case upon this distinction of nomenclature. Thus Canon (now Dean) Beeching asserted that it is "the very keystone of Mr. Greenwood's elaborate piece of architecture,"^ and Sir Edward Sullivan wrote, in The Nineteenth Century, " Mr. Greenwood rests his case so strongly on the spelling of the name that he, tells us in his 'Notice to the Reader' that all through his book he writes ' Shakespeare ' when he is speaking of the author of the Plays and Poems, and ' Shakspere ' when he refers to the Stratford Player,"^ — thus carefully suppressing — as also did the Canon — those words of my " Notice to the Reader " which I have itali- cised above, and which, if quoted, would have at once shown that the allegation, so unblushingly made, was entirely without foundation. But now, leaving these characteristic instances of ultra- Stratfordian criticism, it may be worth while briefly to consider the facts with regard to the spelling of the name of Shakespeare. I assume that the five reputed signatures of William 1 William Shakespeare, Player, Playmaker, and Poet, p. 4. ^ Nineteenth Century for March, 1909, p. 432. THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 337 Shakspere — the three will signatures, and the two signa- tures of March, 1613-r-were really written by him, and in all these signatures, according to the best authority, the name appears as I have written it above — "Shakspere." Take the will signatures first. Malone, one of the ablest and acutest of Shakespearean critics, examined these with the greatest possible care, and he had the advantage of inspecting them when the ink was fresher by some 120 years than it is now. The conclusion to which he came was this : " In the signature of his (Shakspere's) name subscribed to his Will . . . certainly the letter ' a ' is not to be found in the second syllable." Of the same opinion was a later critic of very high standing, to whom orthodox Shakespeareans appeal with great confidence when it suits them to do so. I allude to James Spedding, who wrote, concerning the name as it appears in The Northumberland Manuscript : " The name of Shakespeare is spelt in every case as it was always printed in those days, and not as he himself in any known case ever wrote it." It is not, indeed, the fact that the name was always printed " Shakespeare " in those days, for there are many instances to the contrary, but the passage quoted from the preface to A Conference of Pleasure leaves no doubt as to what Mr. Spedding's opinion was with regard to Shak- spere's own usage. Dr. Furnivall, as is well known, invariably made use of the form " Shakspere." " This spelling of our great Poet's name," he writes, "is taken from the only unquestionably genuine signatures of his that we possess. . . . None of the signatures have an e after the k ; four have no a after the first e ; the fifth I read eere [which, says Dr. Ingleby, is a mistake]. The e and a had their French sounds, which explains the forms ' Shaxper,' etc. Though it has hitherto been too much to ask people to suppose that Shakspere knew how to spell his own name, I hope the demand may not prove too great for the imagination of the members of the New z 33^ IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Society." And what says Dr. Ingleby, from whose work Shakespeare : The Man and the Book, I have taken the above quotation ? " Unquestionably some, probably all, of the five signatures of Shakespeare are Shakspere : and certainly none of them has the e after the k!' And again : " We contend that the two last signatures to the Will are not Shakespeare but, like Malone's tracing of the first (now partly obliterated), Shakspere." What said Sir Frederic Madden, whom Dr. Ingleby cites as " the most accomplished palaeographic expert of his day"? "The first of these signatures (to the will), subscribed on the first sheet, at the right-hand corner of the paper, is decidedly William Shakspere, and no one has ventured to raise a doubt respecting the six last letters. The second signature is at the left-hand corner of the second sheet, and is also clearly Will'm Shakspere, although from the tail of the letter h of the line above intervening between the e and r Chalmers would fain raise an idle quibble as to the omission of a letter. The third signature has been the subject of greater controversy, and has usually been read, By Me William Shakspeare. Malone, however, was the first publicly to abjure this read- ing, and in his Inquiry, p. 117, owns the error to have been pointed out to him by an anonymous correspondent, who ' showed most clearly that the superfluous stroke in the letter r was only the tremor of his (Shakspere's) hand, and no a!'^ In this opinion, after the most scrupulous examination, I entirely concur" {Observations on an Auto- graph of Shakspere, and the Orthography of His Name, 1837, pp. 11-14). And what is Dr. Ingleby's conclusion? "With Sir F. Madden we adopt the view that all five signatures are alike SHAKSPER E." Sir Sidney Lee writes : " The ink of the first signature ^ But Malone subsequently came to the conclusion that this was a " mark of contraction." See Boswell's Malone, Vol. II, p. i, and The Shakespeart Problem, Restated, pp. 32, 33. THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 339 which Shakespeare appended to his will has now faded almost beyond recognition, but that it was 'Shakspere' may be inferred from the facsimile made by George Steevens in 1776." As to the second and third signatures, he tells us that they "have been variously read as 'Shakspere,' 'Shak- speare,' and ' Shakespeare,' " — truly a generous latitude of choice! He thinks himself that the third signature is " Shakspeare," but I opine the safer course is to trust to George Steevens (1776) and to Malone's extremely careful examination, made more than a hundred years ago, when the ink was not faded as it is to-day, and supported as it is by Sir Frederic Madden and the other high authorities whom I have mentioned. Moreover, though I am quite aware of the great latitude which prevailed in Shakspere's days with regard to spelling, 1 think it may be doubted if a man Signing his name three times on one occasion to the same document, and that document his wtU, would have indulged jn a capricious variety of signatures.^ Moreover, the signatures, both to the purchase deed and the mortgage deed of March, 161 3, are generally admitted to be "Shakspere," and so appear in the copies which Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps has set forth in his Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare.^ So far as we know, therefore, "Will'^ of Stratford wrote his name " Shakspere." There are, however, countless varieties of the name. Dr. Ingleby has furnished us with examples of some fifty variant forms. The will, for instance, commences, " I, Willim Shackspeare," and is endorsed in two places, presumably by the lawyer who prepared it, " Mr. Shackspere, his Will." Walter Roche, ' See further as to this Sir J. K. Laughton's letter cited infra, p. 347. ^ Vol. II, pp. 34 and 36. Mr. Joseph Hunter in his New Illustrations of Shakespeare (Vol. I, p. 9) tells us that " the earliest will of any person of the name which is now to be found at the Register office at Worcester is of the year 1539. The testator is Thomas Shakspere. This will was proved at Stratford-on- Avon. " 340 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? ex-master of the Stratford Free Grammar School, who ought to have known how to spell the name, writes "Shaxbere." Sir Sidney Lee tells us that John Shak- spere's name is entered sixty-six times in the Council books of Stratford-on-Avon, and is spelt in sixteen ways, the commonest form being " Shaxpeare." ^ In the docu- ments of the Stratford Court of Record, this same name (John's) appears as " Shakspeyre," " Shakysper," " Shak- speyr," " Shakesper," " Shakespere," " Shackspere," and otherwise.^ Richard Quiney, William Shakspere's fellow- townsman, writes " Shackspere," as in the endorsement on the will. Abraham Sturley, Shakspere's "fellow- countriman," writes " Shaxper." Thomas Whitting, who was shepherd to Shakspere's father-in-law, and of whom his wife borrowed 40s., knew him as " Shaxpere." In the marriage bond, of November, 1582, he is "Shagspere." The form "Shakspere" appears in the entries of the baptism of William Shakspere's children. " Shaxpur " is another well-known variant. The scribe who wrote the entries in the book of the Court Revels (if those entries are indeed authentic) knew the great poet (if Shakspere were he) as " Shaxberd " ! In legal documents the name is generally written " Shakespeare." This, however, is by no means invariably the case. Thus in the conveyance of January, 1596-7, from John Shakspere to George Badger, we have " Shakespere " in the body of the deed ; and William and John Combe convey land in 1602 to " William Shake- spere " of Stratford. The plays, as we know, except when published anonymously, were given to the world in the name of " Shakespeare," or " Shake-speare," except in the case of Love's Labour's Lost, the title-page of which bore the name " W. Shakespere." The dedications of Venus and 1 Life, p. 232. ^ Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, Vol. II, p. 215 et seq. THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 341 Adonis and Lucrece were signed " William Shakespeare," while the name " William Shake-speare " was subscribed to that strange poem The Phanix and the Turtle, and the name on the title-page of the Sonnets (1609) is in the same form. The form " Shaikespeare " was, certainly, used as the player's name by some of his contemporaries. Thus the clerk in the office of the Treasurer of the Chamber, in 1594-5, wrote " William Shakespeare" as the actor's name, and at a later date, when, in the year of Shakspere's death, Ben Jonson published a folio edition of his own works, he writes " Will Shake-speare " as the namd of one of the "tragedians" who performed in Sejanus, and " Shakespeare " as the name of one of the " comedians " who played in Every Man in his Humour. Thomas Greene, Shakspere's cousin, calls him " Mr. Shakspeare." So much for the spelling of the player's name. A word now as to the pronunciation. Malone wrote : " With respect to the last syllable of his name, the people of Stratford appear to have generally written the name Shakspere or Shackspere. ... In some of the writings of the borough I have found the name written at length Shaksper, which was probably the vulgar pronunciation." ^ On this matter an interesting letter appeared in The Westminster Gazette of March 17th, 19 10, signed Ernest Law, from which I extract the following : " All students of old English pronunciation are agreed that the a in such a syllable as the first of Shakespeare's name had not, in Elizabethan and Stuart times, the sound which we generally give it to-day, but rather that of the a in French — a sound which has now almost entirely died out of the English language as spoken by educated people, at least in the South of England. The first syllable of the dramatist's name was, in fact, pronounced in his own day like the French word chaque ; and the second syllable * See Boswell's Malone (1821), Vol. II, p. I note. 342 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? like the second syllable of the French word espere, or like the English word spare — and this is the pronunciation of the name that still obtains to this day among the peasantry of Warwickshire} " The evolution of the original pure vowel sound of a in old English into the modern diphthongal one, and the analogous degradation of the pure e, have been conclusively- traced by Ellis, Sweet, and Professor Daniel Jones. " Shakespeare himself retained to the end of his life the original spelling of his name, and, we may be sure, its original native pronunciation also. The spelling now pretty well universal — in spite of Dr. Furnivall's gallant efforts in favour of the original one — appears to have had its origin in literary London, owing to a desire to indicate the supposed etymology of the name; and in so far had the countenance of the poet — in view, perhaps, of his applica- tion for a grant of arms to the Herald's College — that he allowed it to be spelt in this way in his Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. Moreover, it was the form almost invariably used in the Quartos, and the numerous contemporary commendations of the dramatist, as well as in the few official documents in which his name occurs. The con- ventional spelling was thus fixed very soon. " Doubtless, however, the name was always pronounced during his lifetime and long after with the old uncorrupted values to the vowels — which the Mountjoys would have had no difficulty in articulating with the two French words, chaque espere." This is interesting, but I am by no means sure that Mr. George Hookham is not nearer the truth with reference to the pronunciation of the name when he writes as follows (National Review, January, 1909): " Our usual spelling of the name ' Shakespeare,' and that now commonly in use, though Shakspere himself, so far ' My italics. As to the " French sounds " of the e and a see Dr. Furnivall, quoted above, p. 337. THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 343 as we know, never spelt it that way, was apparently unknown to Stratford till late in Shakspere's life. More than this, the pronunciation implied by the spelling was equally unknown. The first syllable was pronounced ' Shack,' and constantly written so.^ Of this there seems to be no doubt whatever. It is also probable that the second syllable was pronounced ' spur.' The author of the plays first used the spelling Shakespeare, and, as it seems to me, intended, whoever he was, to indicate a different pronunciation. In order, again, as it seems to me, that there should be no mistake, no possible reversion to the Stratford pronunciation, he generally even took the precaution of having it printed with a hyphen, thus, Shake-speare ; which can by no possibility be miscalled. The instructed play-goer possibly drew the distinction, pro- nouncing the actor's and the author's name differently!' There may be some doubt, perhaps, whether "the author of the plays first used the spelling Shakespeare," but this does not invalidate Mr. Hookham's argument, which seems to me well worthy of consideration. Malone, as we have already seen, thought that " Shaksper " probably represented " the vulgar pronunciation " among the player's contemporaries, and thus appears to agree with the " Shackspur " of Mr. Hookham. Very different is the form " Shake-speare," which, with or without the hyphen, player Shakspere himself never employed, and very different must have been the pronunciation of the name thus spelt from that of " Shaksper," " Shaxpur," or " Shaxberd " ! This (Shake-speare) is the form which, as old Thomas Fuller remarks, suggests Martial in its war- like sound, " Hasti-vibrans " or " Shake-speare," and, as I have written elsewhere : " It is, of course, further suggestive of Pallas Minerva, the goddess of Wisdom, for Pallas also was a spear-shaker ; and all will remember Ben Jonson's 1 The pronunciation of the first syllable was " skfrt," says Mr, E. K. Chambers in the Encyc. Brit, 344 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? verses prefixed to the First Folio, in which he speaks of Shake-speare's ' well torn^d and true fil^d lines ' : In each of which he seems to shake a lance, As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance.'' Moreover, as Mr. GoUancz has told us : " The earliest allusion to Shakespeare by name occurs in connection with a reference to his Lucrece in the commencing verses of a laudatory address prefixed to ' WiUobie his Avisa,' 1 594." The lines are : Yet Tarquyne pluckt his glistering grape And Shake-speare paints poor Lucrece rape. So that Shakespeare is first introduced to us in his spear- shaking and hyphenated form. These lines, be it observed, are of the same date as the publication of Lucrece, which was in the year following that which saw " the first heir of my invention " ( Venus and Adonis) given to the public, under the name of " Shakespeare." " Shakespeare," then, and, more particularly, " Shake- speare," makes an excellent nom de plume ; ^ whereas Shakspere, or Shaksper, or Shaxpur, does not. And that is the only point which I desire to make with reference to the difference, both as regards spelling and as regards pro- nunciation of " Shakespeare " on the one hand, and " Shak- spere," and all its multitudinous variants, on the other. I must here briefly allude to an article on " The Great Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy," which appeared in an American magazine — " Munsefs" — for January, 191 2. The writer is Mr. Edward H. Sothern, who is, I believe, a Shakespearean actor of some distinction in the United States. I regret the more, therefore, that 1 should ' In order to anticipate the " captious critic" I would say that the expres- sion "nom deplume" has always seemed to me a very convenient one, and I think it quite immaterial whether the French ever made use of it or not. " Pseudonym " would seem to connote a false pretence, and nom de guerre is only applicable in a secondary sense to a literary " pen-name." Perhaps the latter, " pen-name," is as good as " nom de plume," though not so attractive ! THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 345 have to refer to his article as a specimen of the uninformed and unintelligent criticism to which ''unorthodox" writers on the Shakespearean authorship are so frequently subjected. I would call attention to the following passage : " Because Shakespeare sometimes spelled his name ' Shakespere,' and again as ' Shakespeare,' an English barrister, G. G. Greenwood, has contended that there were two men — Shakespeare the author, and Shakspere the player of Stratford. . . . This ignorant nonsense as to the spelling of the name, and the effort to make it appear that there were two Shakespeares, is quite on a par with the cipher absurdities." Mr. Sothern does not do me the honour to refer to my book, and it is quite clear that he had never read it, but had taken his idea of it at second-hand, perhaps from some reviewer who had, indeed, seen it, but who, after the manner of some of his clan, had not thought it necessary to peruse it.^ If Mr. Sothern had taken the trouble to read The Shakespeare Problem Restated he would hardly have attributed to me an absurd "contention" which I have never raised. It is absolutely untrue that I have "contended that there were two men — Shakespeare the author, and Shakespere the player." My suggestion was entirely different, viz. that when the author of Venus and Adonis, for example, signed the dedication to the Earl of Southampton with the name " Shakespeare," he adopted as a pseudonym that form of the player's name which he, the player, never made use of, and which, certainly, lent itself to literary purposes far better than " Shakspere " (the player never " spelled his name ' Shakespere,' " by the way, so far as we know), or " Shagspur," or " Shaxper," or " Shaxberd," ! But Mr. Sothern's statement is quite on a par with that of ' Possibly Mr. Sothern got his ideas of my book from Mark Twain, who lifted a chapter of it bodily into his book, Is Shakespeare Dead? without, however, mentioning my name or that of my publisher. " Munseys," I may add, flatly declined my request to be allowed to reply to Mr. Sothern's article ; but that is but the ordinary treatment of the Shakespearean heretic. 346 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the reviewer who told his readers that I postulated " two Shakespeares — two Dromios, as like as two pins ; one the player and the other the author " ! But things of this sort are among the commonplaces of Shakespearean controversy, when critics of a certain species are assailing the " unorthodox." ^ Let us listen once more to the words of this American critic. " Another argument tending to prove that Shakespeare was a ' barbarian ' is the fact that he spelled his name in several ways. This is one assertion that is not denied. It is also true that Sir Walter Raleigh, admittedly one of the most cultured men of the time, spelled his name ' Rauley,' ' Rawleigh,' ' Raleghe,' and ' Ralegh.' " I do not know who has attempted to prove Shakespeare " a barbarian," nor am 1 concerned to inquire. But what about the variants of Sir Walter Raleigh's name ? Mr. Sothern had, I imagine, been reading Dean Beeching's William Shakespeare, Player, Playmaker, and Poet, where we rea'd (p. 4) : " The spelling of surnames in the seventeenth century was even more inconsistent than that of ordinary words. Sir Walter Raleigh, for example, is known to have spelt his signature in five different ways — Rauley, Rawleghe, Rauleigh, Raleghe, Ralegh." But why do both the Dean and Mr. Sothern omit to tell us ' If any further proof were necessary that Mr. Sothern had not read my book, it would be sufficient to quote the following : " In reply to Mr. Greenwood's theory (i.e. my supposed theory of his own invention) it is only necessary to say that ' The Pilgrimage to and Return from Parnassus,' a play printed in 1606, introduced Kempe, the clown of Shakespeare's company, who is made to say that his fellow-actor, Shakespeare, ' puts down ' all the university playwrights," etc. etc. Mr. Sothern is evidently unaware that I had dealt with the Parnassus plays, and especially with the passage referred to, at great length in my book. Note also that he speaks of "The Pilgrimage to and Return from Parnassus" as "a play," whence I conclude that he writes of the Parnassus plays also at second-hand. He goes on to misquote the words put by the University playwright into the mouth of the actor who played the part of Kempe, omitting a very material passage. See infra, p. 360 et seq. THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 347 that from the age of thirty till his death Sir Walter used no other signature than Ralegh? Upon this point the following instructive letter appeared in The Times of November 27th, 1908, from Professor Sir J. K. Laughton, headed, "The Seventeenth-Century Spelling of Proper' Names " : " According to the report in The Times of this morning of his interesting paper on ' The Shakespeare Problem,'^ Canon Beeching made a statement which, I think, is inaccurate, and drew from it an inference which is certainly incorrect. The words reported are: 'The spelling of surnames in the seventeenth century was even more inconsistent than that of ordinary words. Sir \^alter Raleigh spelt his name in five diiferent ways.' But Ralegh — to use his own spelling — did nothing of the kind. From the death of his father in 1583, when he adopted his father's spelling of the name, to the time of his own death in 161 8, he never varied. As a boy he seems to have written Rauleygh : but from the time he was twenty -one till 1583 he consistently signed Rauley. He would probably have considered it impudent to adopt his father's spelling. In this connexion I would ask leave to repeat what I wrote several years ago in the Introduc- tion to my Defeat of the Spanish Armada : ' It is commonly supposed that the spelling of sixteenth and seventeenth century names is indeterminate ; a mistake due partly to the carelessness of pther people, but still more to what seems now the curious custom of brothers, or members of the same family, differencing their names by the spelling, in much the same way that they differenced their armorial bearings by marks of cadency. Humphrey Gylberte and John Gilberte, Thomas Cecill and (after his father's death) Robert Cecyll, Marmaduke Darell and his cousin William ^ On November 25th, 1908, Canon Beeching read a paper on my book before the Royal Society of Literature, which he afterwards published in the work above cited. I replied in /» re Shakespeare Beeching v. Greenwood, Rejoinder on behalf of the Defendant (John Lane). 348 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Darrell, are some amongst many belonging to this period. The point is really one of some importance, for attention to the spelling of signatures is frequently the only way of avoiding great confusion ; as, for instance, between George Cary of Cockington, afterwards Lord Deputy of Ireland, George Carey of the Isle of Wight, afterwards Lord Hunsdon, and George Carew, Master of the Ordnance in Ireland, afterwards Earl of Totness. Each of these men, and indeed every man who could write, had an established signature, which he no more thought of varying than does one at the present time.' " I have never had occasion to examine the reputed Shakespeare signatures, but if I am told, and as Canon Beeching seems to admit, the spelling varies, I should consider it as grounds for a suspicion that they are not all genuine ; a suspicion which would be much strengthened if the signatures differ in other respects." This letter, signed " J. K. Laughton," and dated "King's College, London, November 26th," is very interesting, and shows that those who think that educated men in the seventeenth century were accustomed to spell their sur- names in many varying forms, according to the caprice of the moment, are imperfectly informed as to the facts. Perhaps it may be found that if any "ignorant nonsense" has been written in this matter, some of it has flowed from the uninstructed pen of Mr. Edward H. Sothern himself! But, however this may be, I venture to suggest that if the spelling of Shakspere's name was in such a remarkably fluid and indeterminate state that he himself wrote his name impartially, in many different ways, accord- ing to no rule or method, but as the whim seized him, the inference is not, indeed, that he was a " barbarian," but— that he belonged to a very different class from that in which Raleigh and those others mentioned by Sir J. K. Laughton were included, and was, in fact, if not an ignorant, at any rate a very imperfectly educated man, for THE NAME "SHAKESPEARE" 349 " that sort of thing " would certainly be very suggestive of the "Stratford rustic." I trust I have at least made it clear that I do not rest my case "on the spelling of the name." We find that there was a Warwickshire provincial — a player from Stratford-on-Avon, who seems to have written his name Shakspere ; that that name was pronounced " Shackspur," or " Shaxpur," or, possibly, though not probably I think, like the French words chaque spere, a pronunciation which, we are told, " still obtains to this day among the peasantry of Warwickshire." We find that there was another form of the name which "appears to have had its origin in literary London, owing to a desire to indicate the supposed etymology of the name " — the " hasti-vibrans " or " Shake- speare " form — a form which must have been pronounced very differently from the more homely form with which the peasantry of Warwickshire were familiar. Assuming, then, just for the sake of argument, that it occurred to some writer, not the Stratford player, to publish poems or plays, or both, under the player's name, he would very naturally choose as a " mask-name " the literary, " spear-shaking " form, rather than the "spur-jingling" form, more suggestive of an origin among " the peasantry of Warwickshire." And that many works not written by Shaksper, or Shakspere, of Stratford, were published under this name of "Shakespeare" or " Shake-speare " is a mere matter of fact.^ 1 The name " Shakspere" or " Shaksper" had, it appears, by no means a good reputation in early days. Thus we read that in 1487 one Hugh Shakspere of Merton College, Oxford, changed his name to Sawndare, because his former name vile reputatum est. Dr. H. Bradley derives the name from the Anglo-Saxon personal name Seaxberht, which Mr. E. K. Chambers thinks is, probably, a correct derivation. Very different was the name " Shake-speare," and although in practice they might have become con- vertible, the two names were in fact distinct. When Shakspere induced the heralds to give him a coat-of-arms, naturally they assigned to him the " spear- shaking" name. " Shaksper" would hardly have commended itself to them for heraldic or pictorial purposes ! CHAPTER X SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE IN dealing with contemporary allusions to Shake- speare I have said more than once that mere praise of a writer's works, making reference to the author by the name in which those works are published, is, in a case of disputed authorship, no proof of the author's identity.^ This very obvious reflection, which seems to me little more than a truism, is treated with not a little contempt — though, I need not say, quite courteous con- tempt — by Mr. Lang, who, possibly, had not altogether grasped my meaning. Thus we read : " Makers of allusions to the plays must identify Shakespeare with the actor, explicitly; must tell us who Shakespeare was, though they need not, and usually do not, tell us who the other authors mentioned were, and though the world of letters and the Stage knew but one William Shakspere or Shakespeare who was far too familiar with them to require further identification." And again: "To myself this 'sad repeated air' — 'critics who praise Shakespeare do not say who Shakespeare was' — would appear to be, not an argument, but a subterfuge : though Mr. Greenwood honestly believes it to be an argument, — otherwise he would not use it: much less would he repeat it with frequent iteration. The more a man was notorious, as was Will Shakspere the actor, the less ' See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, chap. xi. 3SO SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 351 need for any critic to tell his public "who Shakespeare was.'"i Mr. Robertson, of course, follows suit : " It was really not customary to say ' who ' a man was when you praised him by his name for his known works." ^ I am somewhat surprised that critics of this calibre should have penned these observations. They do not seem to be addressed to the most intelligent section of their readers. The answer is so very obvious. Of course one does not expect a contemporary of Shakespeare, when praising his work, to add " By ' Shakespeare ' I mean Shakspere the actor," or words to that effect. I made no such fatuous suggestion. It is only natural that those of his contemporaries who wrote in praise of " Shakespeare " should "leave it there," as Mr. Lang writes. But none the less it is strictly and obviously true that if there be a doubt as to the authorship — as to the identity behind the name — mere eulogy of the works of the ostensible author, whether" Shakespeare" or anybody else,cannot possibly dis- pose of that doubt. If it were otherwise, if all contemporary praise of" Shakespeare " is proof that Shakspere the player wrote the Poems and Plays, then, of course, cadit quaestio — there is no longer any question to be argued. Solvuntur plausu tabulae. But it is obvious that in fact it is not so. Mr. Lang says of the contemporary writers : " In the same way, when they speak of other contemporaries, they name them, and leave it there, without telling us ' who ' (Frank) Beaumont, or (Kit) Marlowe, or (Robin) Greene, or (Jack) Fletcher, or any of the others ' were.' " Quite so, and it is very natural that they should " leave it there." But none the less if there were (or if there be) any doubt — any prima facie ca.se made — as to whether Marlowe (let us say) ^ Work cited, pp. 136, 156. The words "critics who praise Shakespeare do not say, who Shakespeare was," though marked by Mr. Lang as a quotation, do not occur in my book. ' Work cited, p. 562. 352 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? was really the author of the works ascribed to him, mere contemporary praise of Marlowe's works really could not settle the question in his favour. If I were so gifted as to be able to write poetry after the manner of the Poet Laureate, so as to deceive the very elect among the critics, and were to publish (in his absence from this country, let us say) a book of " poems by Dr. Bridges," all the praise in the world of the Poet Laureate's new book would not amount to an iota of proof that Dr. Bridges was the author thereof ! Or let pie give another, and, perhaps, a better illustration. Suppose the true identity of " George Eliot " had not been revealed, then it is obvious that praise of the works of " George Eliot " would tell us nothing as to their authorship. But let us go a step further. Suppose there had been living, at the time of the publication of Miss Evans's works, a clever young actor, with some literary pretensions, of the name of George Eliot. Suppose, further, that a question were raised as to the authorship of these works. It is quite obvious that any amount of con- temporaneous eulogy of the writer " George Eliot " would not afford a tittle of evidence in favour of the contention that the actor of that name was, in truth, the author, even although he might have been credited with the authorship during his lifetime. Similarly, mere praise of the works of " Fiona M'Leod " or " Mark Rutherford" throw no light whatever upon the true authorship of those works. But these, it will be said, are pseudonyms. True ; and I had written that contemporary praise of " Shakespeare " is no proof that that name was not used as a " pseudonym." Mr. Lang says " that it is an entirely different question," and that I am here "starting quite another hare." I respectfully disagree. It is the same identical hare, and the only hare that I have started in this connection. I have never denied that most, if not all, of the contemporary writers who wrote in praise of the works of Shakespeare in SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 353 all probability supposed Shakspere the player to be the author of those works, though I conceive it is quite possible that some, and perhaps many, of them simply lauded the works without knowing, or troubling at all about, the author of them. In the latter case their eulogies would be no more relevant to the question of authorship than is GuUio's exclamation — " O sweet Mr. Shakespeare, I'le have his portrait in my study at the courte!" — in The Return from Parnassus (Act III, Sc. i). Moreover, if there be any question as to the authorship of the works of Shakespeare, it is, surely, only reasonable in the case of those contemporary writers who do, to all outward seeming, identify the author with the player, to consider, so far as records enable us to do so, what oppor- tunities they had of knowing the true facts of the case, or, in other words, what weight must be justly accorded to their testimony ; for, to utter yet another truism, the value of witnesses varies according to many circumstances, as their character, qualifications, knowledge, opportunities, etc. etc. In further illustration of my meaning, if any such be required, I will now refer the reader to two allusions to Shakespeare, one of them contemporaneous, which do, to all outward seeming, identify the author with the player, and which, therefore, are entitled to rank as evidence in favour of the "Willians," which mere eulogy of Shake- speare's work is not, though in the case of the second of them a liberal discount must be made by reason of the fact that the writer lived and wrote many years after Shakspere's death. The first is the well-known epigram, addressed " To our English Terence, Mr. Will. Shake-speare," by John Davies of Hereford, and published in the Scourge of Folly aboMt i6\i. This epigram speaks of "Good Will" as having "played some kingly parts in sport"; and as Davies, at the same time, calls him " our English Terence," 2 A 354 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? it cannot be denied that he does, to all outward seeming, identify the author with the player. This is much more than mere praise of the works of Shakespeare, and must, certainly, be taken as evidence against the " Anti-Willians." I will not now discuss it further, though I shall have a word to say about it later on.^ The second allusion to which I refer is contained in Sir Richard Baker's chronicle concerning " The Raigne of Queen Elizabeth." Having made reference to the great statesmen writers and divines of that age, he writes: " After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speake of Stage-players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserves remembring, and Roscius the Comedian is recorded in History with such commendation, it may be allowed us to do the like with some of our nation." Then, having praised those " meanest things," Richard Burbage, Edward Allen, and Richard Tarlton, as unsurpassed in their respective lines, he adds : " For writers of Playes, and such as had been Players themselves, William Shakespeare and Benjamin Johnson [sic] have specially left their names recommended to posterity." Now here is pretty clear proof that Sir Richard Baker believed William Shakspere, the " Player," to have been " a writer of Playes," and this allusion also is, it must be freely admitted, weighty evidence against the " Anti-Willians." At the same time, we have to remember that Sir Richard Baker's chronicle was not published till 1643, twenty-seven years after Shakspere's death. The question, therefore, arises, What weight is to be ascribed to Sir Richard Baker's belief, in or about the year 1643, that " Will " wrote the Works of " Shakespeare " ? The " Anti-Willians," of course, contend that the belief of some of Shakspere's contem- poraries, though all due weight must, of course, be given to it, cannot be taken as conclusive of the question of authorship, and that "the Shakespeare Problem" ^ See Appendix A. SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 355 is still with us in spite of such belief, so far as it existed. Let us consider another kind of allusion to the Works of Shakespeare, I will take the best known of them all, that of Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia of 1598. Some persons seem to think that the fact that Meres, of whom personally we know little or nothing, except that he was Professor of Rhetoric at Oxford, and, what is more important, John Florio's brother-in-law, speaks of certain poems and plays as " Shakespeare's," amounts to indisput- able proof that player Shakspere must have been the author thereof.^ The " Anti-Willians " stoutly deny this. They point out that if plays and poems were published in the name of " Shakespeare " they would, naturally, be generally accepted as written by the player ; that many plays in which Shakespeare, admittedly, had no part were nevertheless ascribed to him, because published in his name; that contemporary belief that he was the author of such plays is certainly not conclusive proof that he wrote them. Nay, the fact that Titus Andronicus was in- cluded in the Folio as Shakespeare's, and was ascribed to him by Meres himself, is so far from being considered a conclusive proof of the true authorship of that drama, that the great (I might, I think, say the " overwhelming ") balance of " orthodox " opinion is to the effect that Shakespeare either had no hand in it at all, or only added, or " touched," a few lines here and there. Contemporary belief, then, although due weight must certainly be given to it, is not conclusive of the case. If, for example, I could produce the evidence of twenty writers and critics contemporary with Sir Philip Francis, showing that they believed him to be the author of the ' As to Meres, Puttenham, and Bodenham, I have no hesitation in refer- ring the reader to Bacon's " Nma Resuscitatio" by the late Rev. W. Begley His remarks will, I think, be found worth consideration even by non- Baconians. 356 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? letters of Junius (and such belief, as we know, widely prevailed), that would hardly establish the identity of Junius with Sir Philip Francis ! Let us consider a typical allusion appealed to by Mr. Lang (p. 147) as strong evidence — indeed, I think he looked upon it almost as actual proof- — ^that " Will " was the author of The Works of Shakespeare. "Weaver (1599) alludes to him [Shakespeare] as author of Venus, Lucrece, Romeo, Richard, ' more whose names I know not.'" What are the facts here? John Weever (or Weaver), among his Epigrammes in the oldest cut and newest fashion, has one " Ad Gulielmum Shakespeare" in which he addresses Shakespeare as " honie-tong'd," and speaks in commendation oi"rose-checkt Adonis" "f aire fire- hot Venus" " chaste Ltccretia," " Romea- Richard" \sic\, and " more whose names I know not." Now before 1599, when this was printed, certain poems and plays had been published in the name of " William Shakespeare." It may be true, as Dr. Ingleby says, that " the bard of our admiration was unknown to the men of that age," and in a certain sense (not quite Dr. Ingleby's) I believe it is true ; but it would have been extraordinary indeed if some writers had not been found with sufficient appreciation to pay a tribute of praise to these contemporary plays and poems. Some such there were, and among them was John Weever. When he printed his epigrams, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece had been published with dedications signed " William Shakespeare," both Ricfiard II and Richard III had been published with " William Shake-speare " on their title-pages, and Romeo and Juliet had been published, though with no name on the title-page, and had been frequently acted by the Lord Chamberlain's Company. Well, John Weever praises these works in verses addressed to " William Shakespeare." Is it to be asserted that that very natural action on the part of John Weever is so con- clusive as to preclude the raising of the question of the SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 357 Shakespearean authorship for all time? The argument seems to be as follows: John Weever in 1599 praises poems and plays published by "William Shake-speare." Therefore it is certain that William Skakspere of Stratford was the author of those plays and poems ! But if this style of argument is sound, why trouble to refer to contemporary praise at all. The proof can be much simplified. As thus : " Poems and Plays were published in the name of 'William Shake-speare.' Therefore it is certain that William Shakspere the Player was the author of them"! Thomas Freeman is another witness of the same character appealed to by Mr. Lang. He too wrote an epigram "To Master W. Shakespeare," published in 16 14, wherein he speaks of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, and adds : " Besides in plays thy wit winds like Meander." Again, I say, if all contemporary mention, all con- temporary praise, of "William Shakespeare" is to be taken as putting all doubts as to the Shakespearean authorship beyond the pale of reason and argument, then this is, of course, conclusive. But as contemporary mention and praise of "William Shakespeare" were certain to occur if plays and poems were published in that name which achieved some measure of success, this is, indeed, an easy method of dealing with all doubters and heretics. The only objection to it (and probably the " Willians " do not think it an objection) is that the doubters and heretics are not greatly impressed by this style of argument. Let the reader observe, we do not expect John Weever or Thomas Freeman to add to their praises words intimating that by " William Shakespeare " they mean "Player Will." 1 have made no such imbecile suggestion. It has been put into my mouth (inadvert- ently, I should imagine) by Mr. Lang, and Mr. Robertson has given tongue in chorus on this false scent. The fact 358 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? is that we do not know what belief either Weever or Freeman had concerning the authorship of the works that they praised. Very probably, if they concerned themselves about the authorship at all, they ascribed it to " Will." Let it be granted that they did. How stands the case then? The worthy Weever and the worthy Freeman thought it was player Will who wrote that very remarkable poem of Venus and Adonis, and ventured to dedicate it to the Earl of Southampton. But, with great respect to the worthy Weever and the worthy Freeman, we think they were deceived, and we believe, for reasons which I have endeavoured to set forth, that, if the truth could be known, it would be found that player Will was not the author of that very remarkable poem. I trust I have now at least made clear what I meant when I wrote that mere contemporary praise of works published in the name of Shakespeare is really no proof of the author's identity. We do not feel inclined actually to " throw up the sponge " because contemporary writers took notice of plays and poems which had been published in the name of " Shakespeare," and actually made mention of that very name. It would have been remarkable, in- deed, if they had not done so. Mr. Lang cites another allusion to which by all means let due weight be given : " Thomas Heywood, author of that remarkable domestic play, A Woman Killed with Kindness, was, from the old days of Henslowe, in the fifteen-nineties, a playwright and an actor; he survived into the reign of Charles I. Writing on the familiar names of the poets ' Jack Fletcher,' ' Frank Beaumont,' ' Kit Marlowe,' ' Tom Nash,' he says : Mellifluous Shakespeare whose enchanting quill Commanded mirth and passion, was but 'Will.'" Whereupon Mr. Lang asks, " Does Heywood not identify SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 359 the actor with the author?" And adds, "No quibbles serve against the evidence." ^ With that last proposition I entirely agree. Quibbles will not serve. Quibbles are generally fatal to the case of him who makes use of them. But I hope it will not be thought a quibble to point out that " William Shake- speare" was the name in which the Plays and Poems were published; and that the author, whoever he may have been, frequently puns upon the name of " Will," as in the " ' Will ' Sonnets," for example, in two of which, says Sir Sidney Lee (viz. cxxxv and cxxxvi), " he quibbles " — alas, even Shakespeare "quibbles"! — "over the fact of the identity of his own name Will with a lady's ' will.' " ^ Now I believe a certain very distinguished actor of the present time has more than once appealed to the fact that Shakespeare speaks of himself in the Sonnets as " Will," and puns on the name, as proof that " Will " of Stratford must be the true author. So far as I know, he alone among the " Willians " has advanced this unique method of proof. It does not seem to have much impressed the other protagonists of the cause. Possibly the reason of that is to be found in the reflection that if a man, whatever his real name may be, elects to publish works in the name of " William Shakespeare," he really must allude to himself by that name if he alludes to himself at all ; and if it occurs to him to pun upon his "front-name," he can adopt for that purpose no other name than " William " or " Will." Puns upon " Bob," or " George," or " Frank," for example, would fall flat ! They would leave the reader in a state^^of bewilderment. Similarly, if Heywood wrote in a jocular and familiar manner concerning "William Shakespeare," he really had no option but to allude to him as " Will " for short. 1 Work cited, p. 14S. ' Lee's Life, p. 99. See also an elaborate dissertation on " the Eliza- bethan meanings of ' Will,' " at p. 340 et seq. 36o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? He could not call him " Tom," or " Dick," or " Harry." There would have been no point in it. Hey wood — who, by the way, in 1607 ridiculed Venus and Adonis in his Fayre Mayde of the Exchange — wrote as above in his Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels, published in 163s, and it may be just worth while to note that he does not write " Shakespeare " as quoted by Mr. Lang, but uses the literary form " Shake-speare." But, never- theless, had he not Will Shakspere the player in mind ? Very likely — nay probably, I should say. Is that to put an end to all doubt as to what " Shake-speare " may have really stood for ? I hardly think so. Here it is necessary to say another word upon the well-worn theme of the Parnassus Plays (1602).^ The references to Shakespeare in these plays have been absurdly misinterpreted i by Professor Dryasdust (I use the term as a "noun of multitude"), who, being, un- fortunately, lacking in the sense of humour, is constantly given to construe au pied de la lettre things obviously " writ sarcastic." What is certain about these plays is that they were written by a University pen for a University audience; that the author ridicules both Shakespeare and the players — the professional players. Men entendu; that his praise of Shakespeare, and his dispraise of Jonson, and of " University pens " generally, are alike ironical, and must be construed " the other way round." From want of appreciation of these patent facts, Professor Dryasdust, in one of his many incarnations, has written concerning the words put by the author into the mouth of the player who took the part of Kempe in the drama that they demonstrate the " confessed supremacy " of Shakespeare, at that date, " not only over all University ^ The first of these three plays, The Pilgrimage to Parnassus, appears to have been acted by the students of St. John's College, Cambridge, in December, 1 597 ; the third play, viz. The Return from Parnassus, Part 2, or The Scourge of Simony, seems to have been acted in January, 1602. SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 361 dramatists, but also over all the London Professional play- wrights, Ben Jpnson himself included."^ Whereas it is precisely the opposite inference that is to be drawn from the words — so far, at any rate, as the opinion of the Cambridge University writer and students is concerned. Yet he had Gifford's very sensible criticism staring him in the face : " I will just venture to inform these egregious critics, that the heroes of it {The Return from Parnassus, Part 2) are laughing both at Will Kempe and Shakespeare. Of Shakespeari s plays they neither know nor say anything ; when they have to mention him in their own character, they speak merely of his Lucrece and his Venus and Adonis. . . . We shall now, I suppose, hear little more of Will Kempe, who was probably brought on the stage in a fool's cap, to make mirth for the University wits, and who is dismissed, together with his associate (Burbage), in a most contemptuous manner, as ' a mere leaden spout,' " etc. And, further, " Kempe is brought forward as the type of ignorance in this old drama." Unfortunately, however, the "Willians," instead of taking a hint from Gifford, have, for the most part, con- tinued blindly to quote Will Kempe as a Serious witness to Shakespeare's " confessed supremacy " ! It is true that the Kempe of the play speaks of " our fellow Shake- speare," upon which Mr. Lang comments (p. 146) : " The point is that Kempe recognises Shakespeare both as actor and author." But "Kempe" does no such thing. The real truth is that the unknown University playwright has put into the mouth of the actor who was to represent player Kempe in his drama words which speak of Shakespeare both as an actor and an author. Mr. Lang recognises this, to some extent, later on, where he writes : " Of course the Cambridge author only proves, if you will, that he thought that Kempe thought that his fellow-player was the author." But the passage ^ So, alas, wrote the late Professor Arber. 362 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? does not even prove so much as this. What it does prove, however, and what the whole play proves, is the contempt in which players like Kempe and Burbage were held, in University circles at any rate. They are represented as so ignorant that they speak of " that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis!' They are termed " mimic apes " and . . . leaden spouts That nought do vent but what they do receive. Theirs is " the basest trade," although With mouthing words that better wits have framed They purchase lands, and now Esquires are made.* Will Kempe, the jigger extraordinary, is saluted thus : " Welcome, M. Kempe, from dancing the morrice over the Alpes," an allusion to that worthy's feat of dancing the morris from London to Norwich. As to Shakespeare, in the second of the three plays — The Return from Parnassus, Part i — we are shown what was the opinion of the University playwright concerning his poems by the fact that they are eulogised by " Gullio," the fool of the piece, " the arrant braggart, the empty pretender to knowledge, and the avowed libertine," as Mr. Macray aptly describes him in his edition of the plays. "O sweet Mr. Shakespeare ! " exclaims this " gull," " Tie have his picture in my study at the courte." To be praised by this oaf is, of course, the reverse of recommendation. Gullio, in fact, shows only that Venus and Adonis was, in the opinion of the Cambridge dramatist, just the sort of poem to appeal to that class which this fatuous character was intended to represent. This may show great want of appreciation on the part of the playwright, but it further illustrates the bitter sarcasm with which he 1 Shakspere, of course, "purchased lands" and arms as well, and so became " Mister" if not "Esquire." See ante, p. 213. SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 363 wrote the words so absurdly misinterpreted as a re- cognition of Shakespeare's " supremacy " — " Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too ! " That the University dramatist should write in this sarcastic style is natural enough, more especially when we remember that nearly all the best dramatists of the time — men like Marlowe, Greene, Nash, Lyly, Lodge, and Peele — were University men, and that Ben Jonson held an honorary degree at both Universities, whereas player Shakspere's education, except for what he is supposed to have "picked up" in the intervals of acting, managing, writing plays at a " record " rate, and touring in the provinces, was only that acquired in the course of those few years at the Stratford Free Grammar School which tradition allows the " Willians " to claim for him. Still it would, of course, be folly to deny that the words which the scholar-playwright puts into the mouth of the actor who represented Will Kempe in his play are evidence, for what it is worth, of the existence in certain quarters of the belief, at that date, that player Shakspere was the writer of plays theretofore published in the name of Shakespeare. Of this, therefore, as of the other allusions referred to, it may be said that it raises a prima facie presumption of the identity of player and poet; but the contention of the "Willians," or some of them, that such presumption is what the lawyers term an irrebuttable one, cannot for a moment be admitted. The arguments and probabilities on both sides must be im- partially considered. Let us consider yet another Shakespeare allusion of a different character, and an undoubted allusion to " Will." The First Folio was dedicated to the " Incom- parable Paire of Brethren," the Earl of Pembroke, then Lord Chamberlain, and the Earl of Montgomery ; and in the Epistle Dedicatory it is said that their lordships had 364 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? "been pleas'd to think these trifles (i.e. the plays of Shakespeare) some-thing, heretofore," and had " prose- quuted both them, and their Authour living with so much favour." Now twelve years after this was published, viz. in 1635, Cuthbert Burbage, and Winifred, the widow of Richard Burbage, and " William his sonne," presented a petition to the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, the survivor of the " Incomparable Pair," and Lord Chamberlain, praying that their rights and interests in the Globe Theatre, which they say they built at great expense, and the Blackfriars, which was their "inherit- ance " from their father, who had " purchased it at extreme rates, and made it- into a playhouse with great charge and trouble " — those theatres where " Shake- speare's" dramas had been presented — should be recog- nised and respected. The petitioners are naturally anxious to say all they possibly can for themselves, and the company of players with whom they were associated, and they seek to enforce their claim by a reference to the past history of these theatres, and those connected with them, both as players and profit-sharers. One of those players and one of " the partners in the profits of that they call the House " (viz. the Globe) was William Shakspere. And how do they speak of him ? Do they remind the Earl that one of their company had been that man of transcendent genius, Shakespeare, the great dramatist, the renowned poet, whom no less a man than Ben Jonson had eulogised but twelve years before, in that work containing his collected plays which was dedicated to the Earl himself and his brothfer, as the " Soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of the stage" — that man whom, and whose works, the two Earls had " prosecuted with so much favour " during his lifetime ? Surely they ought to have done this ! Surely, as shrewd men of business, wishing to recommend their case to the Lord Chamberlain, they could not fail to recite these SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 365 well-known facts, if facts they were ! Yet what do they actually say ? " To ourselves we joined those deserving men, Shakspere, Hemings, Condall, Philips, and others, partners in the profits," etc. ; and as to the Blackfriars, there they say they "placed men players, which were Hemings, Condall, Shakspeare, etc." The " Willians " make light of this, and affect to think it the most natural thing in the world. I do not think they have reason on their side. To me it seems incredible that the Burbages should have thus written about Shakespeare, calling him just a " man-player," and speaking of him in the same terms as of the other players, viz. as a " deserving man," and nothing more, if indeed both they and the Lord Chamberlain knew, and all the world knew, that he was the immortal poet who was "not of an age but for all time," whose collected works, dedicated to the two Earls, to their everlasting honour, had been for twelve years before the public, and whose poems, dedicated to another great Earl, were " familiar as household words " to every man of the time who had the slightest pretension to literary taste or knowledge. Here, indeed, we have an example of the " negative pregnant," and a much more remarkable one than that of Manningham's reference, to which I have already alluded. For why this extraordinary reticence^ — if Shakspere and Shakespeare are identical? To this question, so far, no reply has been given. I must not conclude this chapter without making reference to some newly discovered allusions to Shakspere brought forward by Dr. C. W. Wallace in his articles under title " New Light on Shakespeare " in The Times of April 30th and May ist, 19 14. We are told that these "throw light upon the eminence of Shakespeare during his lifetime," and I understand they are supposed to be further evidence in support of the orthodox theory of authorship. Let us see. It appears that, by a deed dated February 21st, 1599, 366 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Nicholas Brend, Esquire, granted a lease of the Globe Theatre to " Cuthbert Burbage and Richard Burbage, as half-lessees, and William Shakespeare, John Hemynges, Augustine Phillipps, Thomas Pope, and William Kempe, as lessees of the other half" Now in the same year, viz. on May i6th, 1599, we are told that "an inquisition /w/ mortem" was taken "on the estate of Thomas Brend," wherein " inter alia enumeration was made of all Brend's Southwark tenements, with the names of their respective occupants," and we are further told that " the estate of the deceased was further reported to be possessed " (I give the Latin as quoted by Dr. Wallace) : " Ac de et in una Domo de novo edificata cum gardino eidem pertinenti in parochia Sci Salvatoris praedicta in Comitatu Surria praedicta in occupacione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum." Upon this Dr. Wallace enthusiastically comments : " Of peculiar interest is the mention of ' William Shakespeare and others,' which may fairly be taken as an incidental recognition of Shakespeare's eminence among official residents of the immediate neighbourhood. The Com- missioners lived there, close to ' the glory of the bank,' as Jonson called the Globe, and knew the theatre and the genius that presided in it. They were men of standing, who, apparently, knew Shakespeare so well for his plays that his name obscured the names of his associates. It was to them, indeed, Shakespeare's theatre. Their source of information was not simply the deeds, none of which thus single out Shakespeare. It is as if they said, ' We, the undersigned, personally know William Shakespeare, the dramatist, as the most eminent man among the company ■who have recently built the Globe Playhouse in our midst. ' " ^ All this out of " in occupacione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"! But William Shakespeare's name stood first in the lease of the Globe, of February 21st, 1599, in * My italics. SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 367 the list of " half-lessees," the two Burbages being lessees of the other half.^ It appears to me, therefore, to be indicative of a surprising fertility of imagination to read all the above-mentioned hermeneutical significance into the very innocent words, " in the occupation of William Shakespeare and others " ! " It is as if they said, ' We . . . personally know William Shakespeare, the dramatist'" ! But this is exactly what they do not say, and what nobody ever did say on such occasions. These worthy "Commissioners," whoever they were, who took "an inquisition post mortem on the estate of Thomas Brend," find the names, " William Shakespeare, John Hemynges, Augustine Phillipps, Thomas Pope, and William Kempe " in the lease of February 21st, 1599, as half-lessees of the Globe, and they very naturally designate the premises as "in the occupation of William Shakespeare and others." What more cogent testimony could we have to the eminence of Shakspere of Stratford as the great dramatist ? cries the Professor from "the other side," who recently told us that Shakespeare created the French herald " Mountjoy " in honour of the " tire-maker " of Muggle Street with whom he had lodged — in blissful ignorance that Mountjoy is the official title of a French herald and was taken by Shakespeare from Holinshed ! ^ All this strikes me as really a very sad example of the futilities of modern Shakespearean biographical criticism, where the most commonplace entries in old deeds and other records are feverishly grasped at as • Dr. Wallace does not quote the actual words of the lease. ^ It should be noted that when, seven years later, s\z, on February 14th, z6o6, the Sewer Commissioners make orders directed to Shakspere's Company to execute certain works, such orders are in the following form : " It is ordered that Burbidge and Heminges and others, the owners of the Playhouse called the Globe, . . . shall," etc. Apparently these Com- missioners were not struck with Shakspere's " eminence." They did not personally know " the dramatist." Yet his fame, surely, was greater in 1606 than in 1599 ! 368 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? evidence of the "eminence" of "Will," as the great dramatist. But let us see what follows. We are told that on October 7th, 1601, "Nicholas Brend signed a deed of the Globe and other Southwark property to Sir Mathew Brown and John Collett to be held in trust in security for a debt of ;^25oo. The description mentions only ' Richard Burbadge and William Shackspeare gent ' as tenants of ' the playhouse,' the dramatist and the great actor of his plays thus both overshadowing the rest of the company, even the men who conducted the business affairs of the theatre." But, as I have already said, Richard Burbage, with Cuthbert Burbage, was "half- lessee" of the playhouse, and William Shakespeare's name stood first in the list of the " lessees of the other half"; so to mention these two as tenants of the premises (again Dr. Wallace does not supply us with the exact words of the deed) was, surely, the most natural thing to do, and to find in such mention the significance that Dr. Wallafce reads into it seems to me wholly absurd though eminently characteristic. We are further told that on February 21st, 1622, the Globe and other properties were transferred to Mathew Brend, and that by " a custom that sometimes carried the names of dead and gone occupants a century later than their time, " the indenture reciting the identification of the property from the old deeds of October 7th and loth, 1601, "names 'Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare gent' as tenants of the playhouse, word for word as in the deed of October loth, 1601." Again, on March 12th, 1624, this Mathew Brend executed a deed to increase the jointure of his wife " by assigning to her use for life the Globe theatre and its site." But on this occasion the premises are described as "now or late being in the possession or occupation of John Heminges, Cuthbert Burbage, Richard Burbage, William Shakespeare, or any of them." What has become of Shakespeare's pre-eminence now? But SOME ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE 369 Shakespeare was then dead, says Dr. Wallace. But so he was when the deed of February 21st, 1622, above referred to, was executed. And consider the date of this last-mentioned deed — March 12th, 1624! Why, but a few months before had been published that epoch- making volume, the First Folio edition of the Works of Shakespeare. Surely if at any time the name of Shake- speare should have had pride of place it was now ! Yet his name actually appears last on the list. And what is the moral? The moral is that this finding of " the eminence of Shakespeare," and testimony to the supposed fact that "Will" of Stratford was the "great dramatist," in these altogether ordinary and in- significant references to Shakespeare's name in the deeds brought to light by Dr. Wallace, is a fond thing vainly imagined. These allusions prove nothing what- ever beyond the fact already well known that Shakspere was associated with the Burbages and others in the tenancy of the Globe playhouse. They throw no " new light " whatever either upon his supposed " eminence " or upon the question of the authorship of the Works of Shakespeare. "As «y they said the dramatist" quotha! As if fiddlesticks ! Shakspere is mentioned as usual, and in the ordinary way, among other "deserving men." And this, be it remembered, was, according to the orthodox, Shakespeare the great poet, the intimate friend of brilliant nobles like Southampton and Pembroke, the man who was, or had been, carrying on an intrigue with one of the great Queen's maids of honour — Mary Fitton, to wit ! I would respectfully suggest that these much- paraded " new allusions " are, like so many others with which we are familiar, only further instances of "the negative pregnant." I would not, for a moment, be thought to undervalue Dr. Wallace's services rendered to Shakespearean research, and especially topographical research (as, for instance, with regard to the site of the 2 B 370 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Globe Theatre), but I venture to say that his discoveries have thrown no " new light " whatever upon the personality of the "dramatist," while the new allusions to William Shakspere of Stratford which his industry has unearthed are received with the greatest complacency by the " unorthodox," since, when considered in the light of reason and common sense, they are found to be not only consistent with the heretical case, but may actually be " prayed in aid " of it.^ 1 This is especially true of the facts revealed in the case of Bellott v. Mountjoy, which I have discussed in The National Review for April, 1910, and in The Vindicators of Shakespeare, at p. 172. See ante, p. 260 et seq. CHAPTER XI THE JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND THE FIRST FOLIO UNDOUBTEDLY the strength of the orthodox Shakespearean faith lies in certain well-known utterances of Ben Jonson, and it is useless to pretend that these utterances do not raise very formidable difficulties in the way of those unorthodox critics whom it has pleased Mr. Lang to term "Anti- Willians." At the same time, I cannot assent to the view that the whole sceptical case can be disposed of, in light and airy manner, by the "sort of" syllogism which some recent Stratfordian champions have pro- pounded for our edification. As thus : If Shakspere of Stratford was not the true author of the works of Shakespeare, then Jonson was a liar. Jonson could not have been a liar. Therefore, etc. Q.E.D. However, I will postpone the consideration of this method of ratiocination" till a later page. Let us, in the first place, examine some of the earlier Jonsonian re- ferences to player Shakspere. Jonson wrote a large number of short poems, which he called epigrams. These epigrams are very interesting for many reasons, and amongst others because they give the names of many distinguished persons, men and women of rank, well-known literary men, and others with whom Ben was on familiar terms. What a thousand 372 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? pities it is that Shakspere was never inspired to write just one or two of such poems, addressed, say, to Southampton, or Pembroke, or any others of the great personages of the day, the nobles and courtiers and men of genius who were, of course, intimate with the immortal Stratfordian, and eager for his society! But the master-mind, as we know, wrote for gain and not for glory, and still less for the sake of friendship, and there was but little hard cash to be got out of an epigram, so we must console ourselves with the thought that, notwithstanding this utter dearth of what we may call personal poetry, we know (for are we not told so by the high priests of the orthodox shrine ?) more concerning the personal life of William Shakspere than concerning the life of Benjamin Jonson or any other contemporary poet ! ^ But let us return to Jonson's epigrams. A licence for the publication of the first book of these (apparently a further issue was contemplated) was obtained in 1612, and the collection was published in the Folio edition of Jonson's poems which appeared in 1616, the year of Shakspere's death. I find upwards of 130 of these epigrams in Walley's edition of Jonson's Works. Epigram No. 56, " On Poet- Ape," is well known, and, as Mr. Lang dissents from the interpretation which I had put upon it, it may be well to set it out at length. Poor Poet-Ape, that would be thought our chief, Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit, From brokage is become so bold a thief. As we, the robb'd, leave rage, and pity it. At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean, Buy the reversion of old plays, now grown To a little wealth, and credit in the scene, He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own, 1 For the benefit of Professor Dryasdust, I had better, perhaps, explain that this is " writ sarcastic." JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 373 And told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes The sluggish, gaping auditor devours ; He marks not whose 'twas first, and aftertimes May judge it to be his, as well as ours. Fool ! as if half-eyes will not know a fleece Frbm locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece. That this is a reference to Shakspere, if not undoubted, as the late Sir Theodore Martin assumed it to be, is, at any rate, extremely probable, and it is now generally recognised as such by the " orthodox ' critics, including Mr. Lang. Now I had written, with regard to the hypothesis that " Shakespeare " was, in reality, a mask- name, or nom deplume: " Some, indeed, would see through it, and roundly accuse the player of putting forth the works of others as his own. To such he would be a ' Poet-Ape,' or ' an upstart crow ' (Shake-scene) ' beautified with the feathers of other writers.' "^ Upon this Mr. Lang comments : " But in this matter Mr. Greenwood se trompe. Neither Greene nor Jonson accused 'Shake-scene' or 'Poet-Ape' of 'putting forth the works of others as his own.' That is quite certain, as far as the scorns of Jonson and Greene have reached us." * With the matter of Greene and " Shake-scene," and the " stolen plumes," I have already dealt.* Let us now examine more closely the words of the " Poet- Ape " epigram. It is "certain," says Mr. Lang, that there is here no charge against Shakspere (assuming Shakspere to be referred to) of "putting forth the works of others as his own." This appears to me an extraordinary assertion. Jonson begins by saying that the works of " Poet- Ape " are the " frippery of wit." Now " frippery " means old clothes, cast-ofif garments, or, it may be, a place where cast-off garments are sold, an old-clothes * In re Shakespeare, p. 54. ^ Work cited, p. 21, with further reference to pp. 141-5. ' Ante, chap, v, p. 239 et seq. 374 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? shop. The word is derived from the old ¥xe.x\c)\ f ripper, to rub up and down, to wear to rags. Cotgrave gives, " Friperie, broker's shop, street of brokers, or of Fripiers " ; and " Fripier, a mender or trimmer up of old garments, and a seller of them so mended." The works of Poet- Ape, therefore, are well-worn second-hand things, old things taken from somebody else's back, the "old clo'" of the poetical rag-shop. He has acted as broker for others, and from " brokage " has become a " bold thief.' Now " brokage," according to Dr. Johnson, is " the trade of dealing in old things," or it is the gain derived from acting as agent, or middleman; and the result is that Poet- Ape has become a " thief" and a bold one. But is not a "thief" one who steals? Therefore Poet- Ape stole. And what did he steal ? Obviously the works of others, — I do not mean, of course, the entire works, but portions here and there ; he did not, perhaps, steal en bloc, but he had come to steal so boldly and openly that the writers from whose works he had stolen, Jonson included — " we, the robb'd" — who had at first seen these plagiarisms with " rage," had now come to " pity " the poor pilferer. For Poet- Ape " takes up all, makes each man's wit his own." He is Pantalabus of the Poetaster, obviously from icuina. Kufjijjiuvuv, one who takes — or "takes up" — all things. And the result is that the " auditor " (apparently the spectator among " the audience," rather than the reader, is intended), "gaping" at the performance, takes the work as genuine, oblivious of the original source ("he marks not whose 'twas first "), and thus it may well come to pass that it may go down to posterity as the work of Poet- Ape— or so, at least, he imagines, but this is folly ; the imposture is too transparent ; for even " half-eyes " can see the difference between " a fleece " and " locks of wool," and can distinguish " shreds from the whole piece." Now the meaning of all this is so very obvious that unless Mr. Lang was labouring under the idea that I had JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 375 interpreted the epigram as intending to convey that " Poet- Ape " (or Shakspere) had actually put forward the entire works of others as his own, I really cannot under- stand his criticism. The epigram is tolerably clear as to that. Poet-Ape takes " locks of wool " from a " fleece," and " shreds '' from a " whole piece," and passes -them off as his own.^ Here, therefore, as in the case of Greene and " Shake-scene," I claim that I have entirely vindicated the justice and propriety of my criticism. These passages show that, in the opinion of Jonson, and in the opinion of Greene (whether their opinion was right or wrong is not the question), Shakspere (if Shak- spere be intended by " Poet- Ape " and " Shake-scene ") was an egregious and audacious plagiarist. And what is a plagiarist but one who " puts forth the works of others as his own " ? It may be said that the " Poet- Ape " sonnet was written in Jonson's early days, and that his opinion with regard to the object of his satire subsequently underwent an entire change, as evidenced by his later utterances. But whatever may have been the date at which it was composed (it must have been after Shakspere had " grown to a little wealth and credit in the scene"), it was published, and apparently for the first time, in the Folio containing Jonson's collected works, which was given to the world in the very year of Shakspere's death. The " Epigrams " are dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, etc., the elder of the " Incomparable Pair " of the Shakespeare Folio, and Jonson writes : " I here offer to your Worship the ripest of my studies, my Epigrams," so that he appears to have been entirely un- repentant in the matter of " Poet- Ape." • On further consideration, however, I am bound to say I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the two last lines of the epigram. They may mean that "Poet-Ape" presents an entire "fleece" (a "whole piece") to the audience as his own, whereas only "locks of wool," or "shreds," are really his. But the argument, as above, is not affected by such interpretation. 376 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Those who list to read further concerning " Pantalabus " are referred to the dialogue between Tucca, the braggart captain, and Histrio, the player, in Jonson's Poetaster (Act III, Sc. i), where Pantalabus is described as "a gent'man parcel poet ... his father was a man of worship ... he pens high lofty in a new stalking strain," etc.^ It is possible that, besides the immediate Greek origin of the name, Ben may have had in mind Horace's Pantolabus [^Sat. I, viii. ii), of whom the commentators say: "Qui quia a multis pecuniam mutuam rogabat, Pantolabus est cognominatus " ; but if "Poet-Ape," who "takes up all," stands for Shakspere, there can hardly be a doubt that Jonson's " Pantalabus " does so too. In Every Man out of his Humour, also (Act III, Sc. i), Jonson, as it is now generally admitted, has a hit at Shakspere and his coat-of-arms. It occurs in the course of a conversation between Sogliardo, Sir Puntarvolo, and Carlo Buffone the Jester. Sogliardo is the younger brother of Sordido, a farmer, and described as " an essential clown, yet so enamoured of the name of gentleman that he will have it, though he buys it." Says this hero : " By this parchment, gentlemen, I have been so toiled among the harrots [i.e. heralds] yonder, you will not believe ; they do speak i' the strangest language and give a man the hardest terms for his money, that ever you knew." " But," asks the Jester, "ha' you arms? ha' you arms?" Whereupon Sogliardo replies, " I' faith, I thank God> I can write myself a gentleman now; here's my patent, it cost me thirty pound, by this breath." Then follows much talk concerning the arms — ^the " coat," the " crest," and the " tricking " — which are, of course, held up to ridicule. In conclusion, Puntarvolo says ; ' See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 457. "Stalkers'" were strolling players who, as Tucca explains, would "stalk upon boards and barrel heads to an old cracked trumpet." A " parcel-poet " is like a parcel-gilt goblet — he is a poet on the surface only, but inwardly base metal. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 377 " Let the word [i.e. the motto] be, ' Not without mustard^ Your crest is very rare, sir." Now Shakspere obtained his qoat-of-arms after much toil " among the harrots." On October 20th, 1596, a draft was prepared under the direction of William Dethick, Garter king-of-arms, granting the request made in the name of John Shakspere. "Garter stated," says Sir Sidney Lee (p. 149), " with characteristic vagueness, that he had been 'by credible report' informed that the ap- plicant's 'parents and late antecessors were for thejre valiant and faithfull service advanced and regarded by the most prudent prince Henry the Seventh of famous memorie, by thence whiche tyme they have continewed at those partes [i.e. Warwickshire] in good reputacion and credit,' and that 'the said John (had) marryed Mary, daughter and heiress of Robert Arden of Wilmcote, gent.' " After which bit of bunkum we read that, "In consideration of these titles to honour, Garter declared that he assigned to Shakespeare this shield, viz. ' Gold, on a bend'^able, a spear of the first the poynt steeled proper, and for his crest or cognizance a falcon, his wings displayed argent, standing on a wreath of his colours, supporting a speare gold steeled as aforesaid.'" And "in the margin of this draft-grant there is a pen sketch of the arms and crest (a tricking), and above them is written the words ' Non sans Droict!" So Jonson appears to have thought that as Shakspere's " word " was " Noii sans Droict," Sogliardo's might appropriately be " Non sans Moutarde " ! John Shakspere, acting no doubt on behalf of his son, had had long negotiations with " the harrots " before he finally obtained his coveted coat-of-arms, entitling both him and his son to say with Sogliardo, " I thank God, I can write myself gentleman now; here's my patent." According to their own statement, which, however, as Sir Sidney Lee says, may have been "a formal fiction 378 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? designed to recommend their claim to the notice of the heralds," those negotiations commenced as early as 1 568. In 1597 Jonson's old master, William Camden, becam^ Clarenceux king-of-arms, and not long afterwards, on the representation (not over-scrupulous) that the draft- grants of 1596 had been definitel)^ assigned to John Shakspere when he was bailiff of Stratford, the heralds seem to have granted him an exemplification of it. Every Man out of his Humour was entered on the Stationers' Register in April, 1600, and was published in 1 601. I will pass over with a mere reference the prologue to Every Man in his Humour (dedicated " to the most learned and my honoured Friend, Master Camden, Clarenceux"), and the Induction to Bartholomew Fair (16 14), both of which contain passages which are, apparently, con- temptuous allusions to Shakespeare; for, quite apart from these, there can be, I venture to say, very little doubt that Ben, at one period of his life at any rate, looked upon Shakspere as a " Poet- Ape," a " Panta- labus" a " parcel-poet," or, as Greene described him (if he be referred to in the passage in question), a Johannes Factotum, or "Jack of all trades," an "upstart crow," beautified with feathers appropriated by him from other writers. Let us now see how Jonson spoke of Shakespeare only three years after Shakspere's death. In January, 1619, Jonson was staying with Drummond of Hawthornden. Drummond, as everybody knows, made notes of his con- versation, and, under the title, or heading, " His Acquaint- ance and Behavior with poets living with him," we have recorded remarks made by Ben concerning Daniel, Drayton, Beaumont, Sir John Roe, Marston, Markam, Day, Middle- ton, Chapman, Fletcher, and others. What do we find concerning Shakspere? "That Shakspeer wanted arte . . . Shakspeer, in a play, brought in a number of men JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 379 saying they had suffered shipwrack in Bohemia, where there is no sea neer by some 100 miles." ^ Here, then, we have Jonson unbosoming himself in private conversation with his host and friend — a " chiel " who was "takin' notes" — and this, apparently, is all he has to say about the great bard who, only four years afterwards, he was to laud to the skies as the Soul of the age ! The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage ! One would have expected to find whole pages of eulogy, in Drummond's notes, of the poet who " was not of an age but for all time " ; instead of which we have only these two carping little bits of criticism : " That Shakspeer wanted (i.e. lacked) arte " — a curious remark to have pro- ceeded from the mouth of him who wrote, in the Folio lines, that a poet must be " made, as well as born " ; that Nature must be supplemented by art; and that in Shakespeare's case such art was not lacking, but, on the contrary, was conspiciious " in his well-turned and true- iil^d lines." 2 And then that niggling bit of criticism concerning the coast of Bohemia in the Winter's Tale (taken straight from Greene's novel, as we have already seen),^ which may be compared with the depreciatory allusion to Julius Casar in the passage in the Discoveries now to be considered. ' Mr. Robertson (p. 559) gives the old and discredited reading "wanted art and sometimes sense," the remark as to Shakespeare's wanting art having been, in the printed selections of 1 7 1 1 , very improperly connected with Jonson's subsequent observation in regard to The Winter's Tale. Mr. Robertson should have consulted the notes of Jonson's conversations with Drummond edited by David Laing for the Shakespeare Society. ' It is amusing, in view of this passage, to find Dryden writing : "Shakespear, who taught by none, did first impart To Fletcher wit, to lab'ring Jonson Art ! " But could Jonson really have had in his mind the author of Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, and the Sonnets when he wrote of "Shakespeare" that he " wanted art " ? It seems almost impossible to think so. ' Ante, p. 163. 38o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? "Ah, just like old Ben," say the "orthodox" Shake- spearean critics. And however much Jonson may con- tradict himself— though he call black to-day that which he called white yesterday — their refrain is always the same: "Just like old Ben!" He was always absolutely honest, say they; always sincere; but his thoughts and opinions had a way of varying from day to day, according to the mood in which he happened to find himself. Well, we will bear that in mind, then, when we come to compare his utterances concerning " Shakespeare " one with the other. But, before considering the testimony of the Folio of 1623, let us once more examine the celebrated passages in the work which bears title : Timber, or Discoveries, made upon men and m,atter, as they have flowed out of his daily Readings ; or had reflux to his peculiar Notion of the Times. Jonson, it may be remembered, died in August, 1637, having outlived Shakspere by twenty-one years, and among his papers was found this work, which was published in 1641. The passage in question must, apparently, have been written some time between 1630 and 1637.^ It has been quoted ad nauseam, huty there is no help for it, I must once more set it forth in extenso : " I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, 'Would he had blotted a thousand,' which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted ; and to justify mine own candour, for I loved the man, and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature ; had an excellent phantasy, brave notions and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that ' See T%e Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 478, and note 2 on the same page; also Ingleby's Centurie of Prayse, 2nd ed., 1879, p. 174. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 381 sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped. ' Suffiaminandus eratl as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power ; would the rule of it had been so too ! Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him, ' Caesar, thou dost me wrong.' He replied, ' Caesar did never wrong but with just cause ' ; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." Now I think every impartial reader will admit that this is an extraordinary and a most unsatisfactory utterance. Here is Ben Jonson, late in life, and some fifteen years after Shakspere's death, setting down his private thoughts concerning "Shakespeare" for " posterity," and this is all he can find to say concerning the great poet and dramatist upon'whom, some eight years before, he had written such a splendid panegyric. It is worth while to consider this psissage, " De Shakespeare nostrati " in some detail. And first let us fairly recognise the difficulties which it sets up in the path of the un- orthodox. It cannot be denied that player Shakspere is here identified with author Shakespeare, and thus we have it on Jonson's testimony that " the players " regarded William Shakspere the actor as the author of the plays. It would be childish to contend that this is not a very hard nut for the " Anti-Willians " to crack, and it is not unnatural that this evidence, coupled with Jonson's lines prefixed to the First Folio, should be very generally accepted as conclu- sive of the whole matter ; and so, indeed, they must be unless other considerations are found to raise even greater obstacles in the way of the acceptance of the received hypothesis. We cannot conceive of unlimited space, but still less (as Herbert Spencer says) can we conceive of limited space ; and so — to compare small things with great, 382 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the relative with the absolute — some heretics (and their number seems to be on the increase) find it more easy to believe that Jonson's cryptic and inconsistent utterances are, if only we could know the true facts, susceptible of an explanation consistent with the non-Stratfordian authorship, than to believe that player Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works of " Shakespeare." Certain genial critics, of course, apostrophise these sceptics as fools and fanatics, but, strangely enough, they do not appear to regard even this as absolutely conclusive of the question. Let us, however, consider the passage before us with more particularity. "The players," says Jonson, alluding presumably to Heminge, Condell, and Co., " have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatsoever he penn'd) he never blotted out a line." To this Jonson's answer was, " Would he had blotted a thousand " ! Such, then, was Jonson's deliberate opinion concerning the " Swan of Avon," the " Soul of the Age," the " Star of Poets." He wrote, says Ben, some thousands of lines (to be strictly accurate, at least " a thousand ") which he ought to have blotted out! And the players were so stupid, and so ignorant,^ that they did not perceive this, but, on the con- trary, actually praised " their friend " for that very thing which was, in truth, his greatest fault ! " See," said these ignorant players to Jonson, " what a fine fellow our Shakespeare was ! Whatsoever he penned he never blotted out a line ! " They " often mentioned " this, we are told, and on every such occasion, it would seem, crabbed old Ben gave them the same " malevolent " answer, as they thought it. One really wonders they continued to " mention " this matter to Jonson after the first un- pleasant experience ! And when, we may ask, did these conversations take place ? Presumably after Shakspere's death. But here we are brought face to face with the 1 " I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance," says Jonson. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 383 Preface " to the great variety of readers " prefixed to the Folio of 1623, and signed John Heminge and Henry Condell, in which occur the celebrated words concerning "the Author," viz. "His mind and hand went together; and what he thought he uttered with that easine'sse that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers." Here, then, is a similar statement alleged to have been made by " the players," to the effect that Shakespeare never — or " hardly ever " — blotted out a line. " Scarce a blot in his papers " ! But stay. Who wrote this preface ? Why, Ben Jonson himself. This was long ago proved alttiost to demonstration, in my opinion, by Malone, and it is now generally accepted that it was so. " Like Mr. Greenwood," says Mr. Lang, " I think that Ben was the penman." ^ As Malone well says, Heminge and Condell, ' Work cited, p. 207 npte. Mr. James Boaden had no doubt about the matter. " Ben," he says, "it is now ascertained, wrote for the Player- Editbrs the Dedication and Preface to his [Shakespeare^s] Works" (On the Portraits of Shakespeare, 1824, p. 13). Mr. Furness, also, commenting upon a remark of Pope's, writes that he " could hardly have been so unfamiliar with the Folios as not to have known that Jonson was the author of both the ' Address to the Reader ' and some commendatory lines in the First Folio " (Julius Cxsar, by Fumess, Act III, Sc. i, p. 137 n.). Mr. A. W. Pollard, it is true, thinks that in view of his (Jonson's) well-known comment on the alleged absence of blotted lines in Shakespeare's manuscript he can hardly have himself written the phrase which gave rise to it" (Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, 1909, p. IZ2). I venture very respectfully to disagree. Adopting the expression of some recent "orthodox" critics, and, I think, with great propriety in this connection, I should say it was "Just like Ben." I see no reason at all to doubt that he wrote this preface as well as the well- known pass^e in the Discoveries ; indeed, I think the statement in the latter as to what the players are said to have often mentioned confirms the hypothesis that he was the author of the preface. Mr. Pollard says there ds no shred of evidence that he ' ' had aught to do with the Folio beyond writing his two sets of verses " ; but Malone has provided us with abundance of internal evidence, and Mr. Pollard makes no attempt to answer Malone's masterly demonstration. He does not even mention it. Then,, having dismissed Jonson, he proceeds to suggest the "stationer" Blount as the writer of this "proem," for whose participation in the editorial work it is indeed true to say that there is "no shred of evidence." Yet on the strength of this mere guess, unsupported by any evidence whatever, after Blount's name in Mr. 384 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? "being themselves wholly unused to composition, and having been furnished by Jonson, whose reputation was then at its height, with a copy of verses in praise of Shakespeare, and with others ■ on the engraved portrait prefixed to his plays, would naturally apply to him for assistance in that part of the work in which they were, for the first time, to address the publick in their own names." ^ In fact, there cannot, I think, be any reasonable doubt that these worthy players, " themselves wholly unused to composition," did no more than lend their names as signatories to Jonson's preface. There is really nothing derogatory to their character in supposing that they did so. It was quite a customary thing to do. Thus when the Folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays was brought out in 1647, by the publisher Humphrey Moseley, there was a dedicatory epistle, similar to that of the Shakespeare Folio, prefixed to it, and addressed to the survivor of the " Incomparable Paire," viz. Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who was then Lord Chamberlain. This was signed by ten of the actors of the King's Company, but nobody, I imagine, supposes that they wrote it, or any one of them. " The actors who aided the scheme," writes Sir Sidney Lee, " played a very subordinate part in its execution. They did nothing beyond seconding Moseley's efforts in securing the ' copy,' and signing their names — to the number of ten — to the Pollard's index we read the words, " probably wrote the Address signed Heminge and Condell " ! I fear even Mr. Pollard, though perhaps quite un- conscious of the fact, has not escaped the prevalent prejudices of the "orthodox." The suggestion that Jonson wrote this preface, made, and in my opinion proved, by Malone (who the reader need scarcely be reminded was absolutely free of any " Anti-Willian " taint), is helpful to some extent to the unorthodox. Therefore it must be summarily dismissed without even so much as a superficial examination. But Blount ! What jot or tittle of evidence have we to support the hypothesis that he wrote this preface ? What possible reason have we to connect him with it ? • Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, Vol, 11, p. 663. JOtvISONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 385 dedicatory epistle." ^ But here we are confronted with a very remarkable and, I think, very instructive coincidence ; for Humphrey Moseley, in his introduction to this Beaumont and Fletcher folio, says, " Whatever I have seen of Mr. Fletcher's own hand is free from interlining, and his friends affirm that he never writ any one thing twice " ! So that really, as the editor of the 181 1 edition of these dramatists suggests, the statement as to unblotted manu- scripts seems to have been "a sort of commonplace compliment " — common form, in fact. As to this state- ment, so far as it concerns Shakespeare, I shall have something to say later on. At present I would call the reader's attention to the fact, as I think we are justified in assuming it to be, that the preface " to the great variety of readers " prefixed to the Shakespeare Folio was written by Jonson himself. When, therefore, Mr. Robertson says (p. 272) that the players " must have known that whereof they spoke," my reply is that it is Jonson who speaks in this preface, and not the players. But of this more anon. But not only are we justified in believing that Jonson wrote the preface "to the great variety of readers"; I am convinced that he wrote the dedication to the "Incomparable Pair " also ; and it was natural enough that if he wrote the one he should write the other as well. Take, for example, this sentence : " Country hands reach forth milk, cream, fruits, or what they have; and many nations (we have heard) that had not gums and incense obtained their requests with a leavened cake. It was no fault to approach their God by what means they could ; and the most, though meanest, of things are made more precious when they are dedicated to Temples." Is that the style of players such as they were in 1623 — such as the Return from Parnassus reveals them to us ? Why, it is taken direct from Pliny, -mola salsa litant qui non "hura ; and partly also from a well-known Ode ' Introduction to the Facsimile edition of the Shakespeare Folio, 20 386 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of Horace.! No, no, this does not smack of "those deserving men " Heminge and Condell, but of the same classical pen that composed the preface. But let us now resume our examination of Jonson's note, " De Shakespeare nostrati." After this brief allusion to Shakespeare's "writing," and the statement of " the players " with regard to it, Jonson passes on to the consideration of Shakespeare's personal qualities, and this is what he says of them : " He was (indeed) honest, and of an open and free nature : had an excellent Phantasie ; brave notions, and gentle expressions : wherein he flowed with that facility, that sometimes it was necessary he should be stop'd : Sufflaminandus erat : as Augustus said of Haterius." Let us pause here for a moment. I had written : " Surely it is of the player, not the poet, that Jonson speaks when he says that his volubility was such that, like Aterius, he had to be (or ought to have been) shut up ! " ^ Mr. Robertson speaks of this with unmeasured contempt. It is an " astonishing argument." . . . " I find myself at a loss to discuss it with gavity. Where will Mr. Greenwood stop ? " ' Well, if Mr. Robertson would relax for a moment his rather portentous " gravity," and treat us to a little light and graceful badinage, in that humorous vein which he is so careful to suppress, I feel sure neither I nor any of his readers would have any cause to complain. But with regard to the " argument " which he finds so " astonishing " that he is at a loss to treat it seriously, I will now proceed to demonstrate, as I think I can do to the satisfaction of ^ Cf. Immunis aram si tetigit manus, Non sumptuosS blandior hosti^, Mollivit aversos Penates Farre pio, et saliente micS. ' Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 481. ' Work cited, p. 562. Mr. Robertson couples with the above remark con- cerning the application of the phrase " Sufflaminandus erat," a su^estion which I made concerning the reference to " Ccesar," to be considered presently. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 387 all my readers (with the exception, of course, of Mr. Robertson himself, who is always " of the same opinion still "), that not only is it a perfectly legitimate one, but that my interpretation of Jonson's observations in this connection is the only possible one. But when I said that Jonson's allusion here was to "the player" rather than to "the poet," I did not, of course, mean that it was the player upon the stage who had to be checked in his too voluble utterances. What I suggested, and what, indeed, I assert, is that Jonson is here referring to " Shakespeare " not as a writer, but in his personal capacity. " He was honest, and of an open and free nature." Obviously this is a comment upon " Shakespeare " the man, not Shakespeare the writer. And what of " Sufflaminandus " ? Mr. Robertson appears to imagine the meaning to be that Shakespeare ought to have been pulled up in his writingX Well, that may be the meaning and use of the verb sufflaminare in Mr. Robertson's own little " Academi" somewhere among the "'A3»wSof x^toi," but outside that charmed circle sufflaminare is used in the sense of to check (strictly " to put the drag on ") in speaking. I invite Mr. Robertson to refer to any Latin dictionary of recognised authority, such as " Andrews " or " Lewis and Short." There he will find that the meaning of the word is given as "to stay, check, repress in speaking'' Let him turn also to the passage in Seneca to which Jonson makes reference. Was it in writing that Aterius had to be stopped? Certainly not. "Tanta illi erat velocitas orationis ut vitium fieret. Itaque D. Augustus optime dixit, Aterius noster sufflaminandus est." Aterius had to be checked in his too voluble; speech. Manage, who had great reputation as a scholar, knew the meaning of sufflaminare; but, indeed, it requires no scholarship to have such elementary knowledge. I invite Mr. Robertson's consideration of the following passage : 388 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? " Pour moi, quand j'entends un grand parleur, je dis ce que Ciceron disoit d'un certain Aterius qu'on ne pouvait faire taire, quand il avait une fois commence a parley : Aterius noster sufflaminandus est. II faut faire a cat homme ce qu'on fait aux roues de Carosses a la descente d'une montagne ; il faut I'enrayer." ^ I state, then, without fear of contradiction (except, of course, by Mr. Robertson), that sufflaminare means (according to the accepted use) to repress in speaking, and that Jonson must have been alluding to Shakspere's volubility in conversation, whether at " the Mermaid " (if Shakspere was ever there) or elsewhere. Mr. Robertson confuses it with Jonson's remark that he wished " Shake- speare " had blotted a thousand lines. " And the very sentence," he writes, " ending with the allusion to Haterius tells that Shakespeare ' had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that . . . etc' " Does Mr. Robertson imagine, then, that a man cannot display " an excellent phantasy, brave and gentle expressions," in his speechl And does he really think Jonson tells us that " Shakespeare " actually had to be stopped (for observe, Jonson states it as a fact that this was done, sufflaminandtis erat} ' I quote from the 1762 edition of Menagiana, Vol. II, p. 197. Menage makes a slip in attributing Seneca's words to Cicero. He gives very correctly the primary meaning oi sufflaminare, viz. "I'enrayer," to put the dragon. When I gave as an equivalent to Jonson's " sufflaminandus erat " the words " he had to be sAui tip " I used an English vernacular expression which is certainly not a'strictly accurate translation, but which expresses the sense very well. ^Augustus said of Aterius "Sufflaminandus est," i.e. he ought to be checked. Jonson says of " Shakespeare " " Sufflaminandus erat," i.e. he had to be checked, or, as Jonson puts it, "it was necessary he should be stop'd." " Stopped " is not a strictly accurate translation of the Latin word, which means, as I have already said, to put the drag (or brake) on. Jonson, however, has thus left it on record that "Shakespeare's" volubility in speaking was such that he had to be stopped. I do not, of course, mean to affirm that the verb sufflaminare could not have been used by Latin writers of putting the drag on a man in his writing, but only that, as a fact, we do not find it so used, and in the particular instance quoted by Jonson it is certainly used with reference to speaking. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 389 " it was necessary he should be stop'd ") in the course of his writing? Who, I should like to know, bearded " Shakespeare " in his den, and insisted in checking him in his composition ? How one would like to know when, and where, and by whom this was done ! But, obviously, it never was done. Jonson wished it had been done by Shakespeare himself. "Would he had blotted a thousand " ! But " Shakespeare " never blotted a single one ! But having said this, Jonson, I repeat, passes away from this little episode of "the players," and Shakespeare's unblotted writing, to speak of Shakespeare the man. The words are plain and conclusive as to this. " I lov'd the man, and do honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open, free nature." It is extraordinary that Mr. Robertson should have shut his eyes to these very obvious facts, even if he did not know the accepted use of the word " sufflaminare." He asks, " Has Mr. Green- wood found any Apella who can credit his theory here?" I do not grudge him his tu quoque to my " credatJudcBus" hut it might, perhaps, have been better for his own " credit " if he had not made use of it, inasmuch as I only ask here for a rational and critical examination of the passage, and the knowledge of the accepted meaning and use of a tolerably simple Latin word. It is not a matter of " theory," but of fact. But if he really wants to know what " Apella " I have found to credit my so-called "theory," I can very easily give him that information, and if he had read Mr. Lang's book with any care he would have been saved from the error into which he has fallen. For Mr. Lang, of course, knew well enough that " sufflaminandus erat" refers to speech and not to writing, and he very skilfully bases an "orthodox" argument upon the passage so rightly interpreted. " If Jonson here refers, as I suppose he does, to his (Shakespeare's) conversation, it had that 390 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? extraordinary affluence of thoughts, each mating itself with as remarkable originality of richly figured expressions, which is so characteristic of the style of Shakespeare's plays." This, indeed, appears to me to read considerably more into Jonson's observation than the words themselves warrant. In fact, Jonson says nothing of the kind. But the point is that Mr. Lang recognises that Ben is here speaking not of writing but of " conversation." ^ Having disposed of this nebulous mountain, let us again resume our consideration of Jonson's words. " His wit was in his owne power ; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times hee fell into those things could not escape laughter : as when hee said in the person of Ccesar, one speaking to him : Ccesar, thou dost me wrong. Hee ' Work cited, p. 286. My italics. Mr. Lang thinks that Augustus's remark concerning Aterius may actually be applied, not as Jonson applied it, to Shakespeare's (or Shakspere's) " conversation," but to the plays of Shakespeare ! After stating that the exuberance of the player's "conversa. tion," as noted by Jonson, is also " characteristic of the style of Shakespeare's plays," he adds : "In this prodigality he was remote indeed from the style of the Greeks ; ' panting time toils after him in vain,' and even the reader, much more the listener, might say, Sufflaminandus est : ' he needs to have the brake put on.' " Such viras Mr. Laic's opinion of Shakespeare's plays. It is not mine, nor do I think it can be accepted as sound criticism of any true Shakespearean drama, however much it may apply to the un-Shakespeaiean work which is included with " The Works 0/ Shakespeare." Since the above was written Mr. David Masson's posthumous work, Shakespeare Personally (1914), has been published, and at p. 35 I find the following: "'Suffla- minandus erat, ' as Augustus said of Haterius. Evidently here the reference is, through and past the mere writings, to Shakespeare himself. ' Suffla- minandus erat : sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped,' wrote Ben Jonson, recollecting Shakespeare's conversations. In fact, the drag had to be put on. And so, in Ben Jonson's recollection, Shakespeare was a talker who, when he got into full motion, would dash himself and all opposition into pieces, unless you could put on the drag." Here is yet another " Apella" for Mr. Robertson, but no doubt he will find himself "at a loss to discuss" such remarks "with gravity." "Where will Mr. [Masson] stop, I wonder ? " he will ask. But, in sober seriousness, Mr. Robertson's assertion that " sufflaminandus erat " is to be construed as having application to Shakespeare's writing speaks little for his qualifications to instruct us as to Shakespeare's scholarship. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 391 replyed : Cessar did never wrong, but with just cause : and such like ; which were ridiculous." Now upon this I had suggested that it may not be a criticism of anything in the play of Julius CcBsar, but that the meaning may be that Shakspere the player misquoted the passage on the stage. This, again, Mr. Robertson finds extremely ridiculous. He really canrtot discuss it with gravity. Where will Mr. Greenwood stop. ? Well, I will stop here for a moment, and ask the kind reader to stop with me for just so long as necessary to consider the passage. It is generally supposed, and Mr. Robertson evidently thinks it so certain that it quite upsets his gravity to suppose otherwise, that the allusion is to some line which was, or which Jonson supposed to have been, in the play of Julius Ccesar before it was altered for publication in the Folio of 1623. Now this play made its first appearance in print in that Folio, and the passage in question there stands : Know Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause Will he be satisfied. If Jonson, therefore, was alluding to the play, we must assume (if his testimony is worth anything at all) that the line originally stood Caesar did never wrong but with just cause, which brought ridicule upon the dramatist, who therefore, I presume, altered the passage to the form in which it now stands.^ Mr. Lang, indeed, adopting the usual "^ Mr. Fleay writes of the play Julius Cessar: "That alterations were made we have the positive testimony of Jonson, who in his Discoveries tells us that Shakespeare wrote, 'Caesar did never wrong but with just cause.' That this original reading stood in the acting copies not long before the 1623 Folio was printed is clear from the fact that Jonson, in the Induction to his Staple ^f News (1625), alludes to it as a well-known line requiring no explanation. ' Cry you mercy,' says Prologue, ' you never did wrong but with just cause.' " This, however, is no proof that Jonson's allusion is to words originally in the play. Fleay, however, thinks the implication is that Shakespeare "did not make the alterations himself" {lAfe, p. 215). 392 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? hypothesis that the words must apply to the play, asks " Of whom is Ben writing ? " and answers, " Of the author oi Julius CcBsar, certainly, from which, his memory failing, he misquotes a line!' i But if Ben here misquotes a line of Julius Ccesar, owing to failing memory, it follows that the whole story is a myth. The basis of the story, if Jonson is alluding to the play, is that Julius Ccesar originally contained the words quoted by him, "Csesar, thou dost me wrong," and Caesar's answer as above. On Mr. Lang's hypothesis, therefore, we must assume that Ben not only misquoted a line — or, rather, several lines— but also invented the story, — in fact, first misquoted the lines and then based a fabulous story upon them, — which I cannot think a reasonable supposition.^ But is it reasonable to suppose that Jonson does here make reference to the play ? Did he really, in these notes of his mature deliberation, dismiss the great dramatist with this niggling, carping, "twopenny-halfpenny" criticism of some lines in Julius Ccesar 7 For, except this allusion, there is in this passage absolutely nothing at all concerning Shakespeare's dramatic work. I submit there is a more reasonable alternative. Let us carefully consider the words. " Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter." Does this seem to bear reference to the work of the dramatist — that he "fell" into "things" which excited the laughter of his audience ? I submit that it does not. What is the example given? It is something "he said in the person of Caesar'' in answer to "one speaking to him." He said something in person& Ccssaris. Does not ' Work cited, p. 257. My italics. ^ Gifford says Jonson " undoubtedly heard the expression he has quoted" at the theatre. He points out that Jonson " wrote and spoke at a time when he might easily have been put to shame if unfaithful." See Gifford's note on the line in the Induction to The Staple of News. Halliwell remarks that the alternative is to accuse Jonson of wilfiil misrepresentation for the sake of a jest against a deceased friend. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 393 this suggest the actor? And "one speaking to him" — does not this suggest one speaking to him on the stage, rather than words put by him into the mouth of a character in one of his plays ? And in answer he " fell " into an error that made the audience laugh. Instead of the words as written, he said, " Caesar did never wrong but with just cause," which was ridiculous. Jonson is speaking of Shakespeare in his personal character. He has just said that he was so voluble in talk that "it was necessary he should be stop'd." If he were alluding to the tragedy of Julius Caesar, one would have expected him to have said that Shakespeare in the " play " of that name made Caesar speak the words in question, just as in his conversation with Drummond he said, " Shakespear, in a play, brought in a number of men saying they had suffered ship-wrack in Bohemia," etc. Mr. Robertson may find all this quite side-splitting, but that does not greatly move me. I still venture to think it a very reasonable explanation of the passage, and much more likely to be the true one than the usually received hypothesis.^ And now for the concluding words of this remarkable entry, which again strike a purely personal note. " But hee redeemed his vices with his vertues. There was ever more in him to be praysed, than to be pardoned." ^ Pope thought the lines quoted by Jonson might have been the blunder of an actor. I find, too, that I had been anticipated in my interpretation of Jonson's meaning both as to " sufflaminandus" and the reference to Csesar by Dr. Appleton Morgan, who writes as follows concerning the passage in the Disanieries : "That is every word which a man who 'loved him' could say of William Shakespear ! — that he was a skilled and careful penman, ' never blotting out a line ' ; that he talked too fast, sometimes, and had to be checked ; that in playing the part of Ccesar on the stage, sopiebody interpolated the speech, 'Caesar, thou dost me wrong,' and he made a bull in response" (The Shakespearean Myth, 1881, p. 137). It will be seen that Dr. Morgan writes as though there were no doubt as to the meaning of the passage. I fear Mr. Robertson will be unable to contain himself. There will be i<." JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 413 " And what, Mr. Speaker, would happen to me," asked the offender, "if you did name me?" "God only knows," replied Mr. Speaker. I presume I may say the same with regard to my own fate, supposing I should venture to " raise " the " hypothesis " in question, though, perhaps, for the name of the Deity I should substitute that of Mr. J. M. Robertson — a substitution of which I am sure he would not complain. However, it is not necessary to suggest that Shake- speare — or player Shakspere — "deliberately tricked his partners." I really do not know — nor does anybody know — ^what happened with regard to the Shakespearean manuscripts, or whether Messrs. Heminge and Condell had any manuscripts in their hands at all for the purposes of the First Folio ; nor do I know — nor does anybody know — anything about these worthies personally, nor how far they ought to be accepted as unimpeach- able witnesses of truth. Unfortunately, no spiritualistic medium has yet succeeded in " raising " them — still less " Shakespeare," or even " Shakspere " — for purposes of ' cross-examination. But when Mr. Robertson says " they must have known that whereof they spoke," I may remind him that Malone has proved, in the judgment of many competent critics, including Mr. Lang — not to mention Mr. James Boaden and many more — that the Preface to which they appended their signatures was, in truth, written for them by Ben Jonson — an opinion in which I entirely concur. But with regard to Mr. Robertson's pronounce- ment that " the suggestion of Stevenson " (it was not a " suggestion," by the way, it was an assertion) " that the uhblotted manuscripts, if such there were, must have been merely fair copies, is idle" I will venture to say a word. This is a free country — more or less — and I am at liberty to express my opinion, for what it is worth, so long as I keep within the law of libel. Mr. Robertson expresses his with great freedom and much vigour of 4t4 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? language. Well, then, my own opinion is that if any man really believes that Shakespeare, whoever he was, wrote off his plays without ever making any corrections, or deletions, or interlineations, — in fact, without " blotting a line," — that man's opinion, as a literary critic, or as a man of common sense, for the matter of that, is worthy of nothing better than the rubbish basket. Of all forms of literary composition the drama is the very form which most requires patient revision. How ridiculous — yes, Mr. Robertson, " ridiculous" \ — it is to suppose that Shakespeare wrote such plays as Hamlet, and Lear, and Otliello, for example (but, indeed, any of the plays may be taken as examples), currente calamo, without " blotting a line " ! " Of all the vulgar errors," writes Mr. Swinburne, "the most wanton, the most wilful, and the most resolutely tenacious of life, is that belief bequeathed from the days of Pope, in which it was pardonable, to the days of Carlyle, in which it was not excusable, to the effect that Shakespeare threw off Hamlet as an eagle may moult a feather or a fool may break a jest. . . . Scene by scene, line for line, stroke upon stroke, and touch after touch, he went over all the old laboured ground again." Yes, indeed; I do most "confidently" repeat and adopt Mr. Stevenson's assertion, based upon plain and obvious common sense, that " the unblotted manuscripts if such there were, must have been merely fair copies," and I think Mr. Robertson's pronouncement upon this matter is not only " idle," but worthy of a still more contemptuous epithet. It will be observed that Mr. Swinburne, in the passage quoted, refers to Pope. He had in his mind, as the context shows. Pope's famous line, to the effect that Shakespeare, For gain, not glory, winged his roving flight. And grew immortal in his own despite — JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 415 an amazing opinion, as it appears to me, but which is, nevertheless, actually quoted with approval by Sir Sidney Lee, though dismissed by Mr. Swinburne with terms of immeasurable scorn. But with regard to the revision of his plays by Shakespeare, Pope writes sensibly enough. Speaking of the Players' Preface, he says : " By these men it was thought a praise to Shakespear that he scarce ever blotted a line. This they industriously propagatedj as appears from what we are told by Ben Jonson in his Discoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the First Folio edition. But in reality (however it has prevailed) there never was a more groundless report, or to the contrary of which there are more undeniable evidences." "■ Mr. Robertson, we may remark in passing, says : " We do know that Shakespeare revised plays after they had been for some time played." It follows, therefore, that when these plays were again handed in manuscript to the players (if ever they were so handed), previously to the performance of the plays so revised, either the manuscripts must have shown many a " blotted line," or the players must have received " fair copies " ! If we adopt the first alternative, the statement of the players was untrue ; if we adopt the second, the hypothesis of the fair copies is vindicated ! We may further remark, in passing, that Mr. Robertson declines to accept Jonson as a witness of truth in his Folio lines — so far, at any rate, as those lines bear testimony that Shakespeare was wont to "strike the second heat upon the Muses' anvil," in order to fashion his " well- turndd and true-fil^d lines." His reasoning seems to be : " The statement of the players as to the unblotted papers must be upheld at any cost. But if Shakespeare 'Pope's Preface to Shakespeare, 1725, He adds, also very sensibly, as it appears to me : "I believe the common opinion of his want of learning pro- ceeded from no better ground. This too might be thought a praise by some.'" 4i6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? really revised his work as Jonson says, either that state- ment must be untrue, or the players saw fair copies. Neither of these suppositions can be admitted. Therefore what Jonson wrote in his eulogy of Shakespeare must be, to that extent, false " ! Jonson, in fact, is to be taken as an unimpeachable witness of truth when it suits the " orthodox " to so take him ; but to be summarily dis- missed as_ quite untrustworthy when his testimony does not square with — I do not say the " orthodox," but — the Robertsonian case. Mr. Robertson talks about Jonson's " consistency," but there is a great deal more than incon- sistency involved. If all this elaborate praise of the pains which Shakespeare took to perfect his work is untrue, and untrue to Jonson's knowledge (as it must have been if it be untrue), then Jonson's testimony is untrustworthy, and must be received with suspicion throughout. For myself, I feel no doubt whatever that he spoke with entire truth as to Shakespeare's revision of his work, and that the story of the unblotted papers is either to be accounted for by " fair copies," or is altogether mythical.^ But let us here further examine the Preface " To the Great Variety of Readers." After the first paragraph, which is Jonsonian to the core, as anyone who has studied old Ben could, I think, see even without Malone's elaborate proof, the players are made to speak as follows : " It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene wished, that the Author himselfe had liv'd to have set forth, and overseen his owne writings'; but since it hath bin ordain'd otherwise, and he by death departed from that right, we pray you do not envie his Friends, the office of their care, and paine, to have collected and publish'd them ; and so to have publish'd them, as where (before) you were abus'd with diverse stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes 'Mr. Lang, as we shall see, so far from rejecting the "&ir copies" hypothesis as " idle," admits it as quite probable. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 417 of injurious impostors, that expos'd them : even those, are now offer'd to your view cur'd, and perfect of their limbes ; and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as he conceived them. Who, as he was a happie imitator of Nature, was a most gentle expresser of it. His mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered, with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers." ^ Here we remark, in the first place, that the players speak of " the author " as having had the " right " in his lifetime " to have set forth and overseen his own writings." This is rather remarkable, because we are always told by orthodox authorities that Shakespeare had no such right, since his practice was to sell his plays to the Company, retaining no copyright in himself Accordingly, some Shakespearean critics have noted this as an inaccurate statement of the two players. Secondly, the impression conveyed is that the players have published the plays from " papers " (i.e. manuscripts) " received " from Shake- speare himself, and that, whereas, before, readers were "abused with diverse stolen and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by Mh& frauds andstealthes of injuri- ous impostors" they have now those works, theretofore so fraudulently published with so many imperfections and de- formities, " cured and perfect of theirjlimbs ; and all the rest, absolute in their numbers as he conceived them " ; where- upon follows the statement as to the unblotted " papers." Now as to the exact interpretation to be put upon these words, there is, as usual, a remarkable diversity of opinion among the "orthodox" commentors. That, in fact, is one of the great difficulties of " unorthodox " criticism. One does not know which of many incon- 'I hare followed the Folio punctuation, which certainly seems rather erratic. But on the matter of the punctuation of seventeenth-century books see Shakespearian Punctuation, by Percy Simpson. Oxford : The Clarendon Press, 1911. 2 E 4i8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? sistent arguments are to be regarded as articles of the true faith. But let us consider the views of some of the recognised " authorities." First, then, here is the opinion of the Cambridge editors : ^ " The natural inference to be drawn from this statement is that all the separate editions of Shake- speare's plays were ' stolen,' ' surreptitious,' and ' imperfect,' and that all those published in the Folio were printed from the author's own manuscripts. But it can be proved to demonstration that several of the plays in the Folio were printed from earlier quarto editions, and that in other cases the quarto is more correctly printed, or from a better manuscript, than the Folio text, and therefore of higher authority. For example, in Midsummer Nights Dream, in Lovers Labours Lost, and in Richard II, the reading of the Quai^to is almost always preferable to that in the Folio ; and in Hamlet we have computed that the Folio, when it differs from the Quartos, differs for the worse in forty-seven places, while it differs for the better in twenty at most. As the ' setters forth ' are thus con- victed of a ' suggestio falsi' in one point, it is not improbahk that they may have been guilty of the like in another. Some of the plays may have been printed not from Shake- speare's own manuscripts but from transcripts made from them for the use of the theatre. And this hypothesis will account for strange errors found in some of the plays — — errors too gross to be accounted for by the negligence of a printer, especially if the original manuscript was as unblotted as Heminge and Condell described it to have been. Thus, too, we may explain the great differ- ence in the state of the text as found in different plays. It is probable that this deception arose not from deliberate ' The Cambridge editors were originally Messrs. W. G. Clark and John Glover; but when in 1863 Mr. Glover left Cambridge, that distinguished scholar, Mr. Aldis Wright, became associated with Mr. Clark in the editorship. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 419 design on the part of Heminge and Condell — whom, as having been Shakespearei's friends and fellows, we like to think of as honourable men — but partly, at least, from want of practice in composition, and from the wish rather to write a smart preface in praise of the book than to state facts clearly and simply. Or the Prefw:e may have been written by some literary men in the employment of the publishers, and merely signed by the two players^ ^ On this excellent statement I have only to remark that " want of practice in composition " would hardly account for the statement as a fact of what the writers must have known to be untrue ; but, no doubt, the solu- tion of the difficulty lies in the suggestion that the preface was written by a " literary man." Next let us appeal to Sir Sidney Lee. Now from Sir Sidney Lee's Introduction to the Facsimile edition of the Folio I gather that in his opinion the publishers had no original " Shakespeare " manuscripts in their hands ; for he tells us that "the First Folio text was derivable from three distinct sources : firstly, the finished playhouse transcripts, or "prompt-copies'; secondly, the less com- plete transcripts in private hands; and thirdly, the Quartos." In the case of sixteen of the plays the pub- lishers had previously printed Quarto editions at their command, and, as the Cambridge editors tell us, " It can be proved to demonstration that several of the plays in the Folio were printed from earlier Quarto editions." But since, in other cases, the Folio text so often differs from \ that of the Quartos (and by no means always for the better, as the same editors remind us), it seems that the publishers must have had manuscripts of some kind to work from. These, says Sir Sidney Lee, were, in the • Preface to the Cambridge Shakespeare (1863), p. 24. Italics mine. If j the remark concerning the " sitggestio falsi" of the " setters forth " had been made by an "unorthodox" writer, how he would have been assailed and denounced ! The Cambridge editors, happily, are above suspicion. 420 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? first place, the theatrical "prompt-copies." But these alone were not sufficient. "But even if it were the ultimate hope of the publishers of the' First Folio to print all Shakespeare's plays, in the inevitable absence of his autograph MSS., from the finished theatrical transcripts or official 'prompt-copies,' their purpose was again des- tined to defeat by accidents on which they had not reckoned. In 1623, the day was far distant when Shakespeare first delivered his dramatic MSS. to the playhouse manager. In some cases thirty years had elapsed,^ in none less than twelve, and during the long intervals many misadventures had befallen the Company's archives." There was, for instance, says Sir Sidney, the fire in 161 3 at the Globe, "where the Company and its archives had been housed for fourteen years." Therefore, according to this authority, the publishers had, in some cases, to fall back upon "the less complete and less authentic transcripts in private hands." And this is Sir Sidney Lee's conception of the sort of manuscripts which the publishers of the Folio had to work upon : " No genuine respect was paid to a dramatic author's original drafts after they reached the play- house. Scenes and passages were freely erased by the managers, who became the owners, and other alterations were made for stage purposes. Ultimately the dramatist's corrected autograph was copied by the playhouse scrivener; this transcript became the official 'prompt- copy,' and the original was set aside and i^estroyed, its uses being exhausted. The copyist was not always happy in deciphering his original, especially when the dramatist wrote so illegibly as Shakespeare ; and since no better authority than the ' prompt -copy ' survived for the author's words, the copyist's misreadings encouraged crude emendation on the actor's part. Whenever a piece was ' Note, therefore, that Sir Sidney Lee believes that Shakespeare had delivered dramatic MSS. to a playhouse manager at least as early as 1593. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 421 revived a new revision was undertaken by the dramatist in concert with the manager, or by an independent author, and in course of time the official playhouse copy of a popular piece might come to bear a long series of inter- lineationsj Thus stock pieces were preserved not in the author's autograph, but in the playhouse scrivener's interlineated transcript, which varied in authenticity according to the caligraphy of the author's original draft, the copyist's intelligence, and the extent of the recensions and successive occasions of the piece's revival." Sir Sidney Lee further tells us that " only eighteen (or with Pericles nineteen) of Shakespeare's thirty-seven dramas remained in 1623 in the repertory of the theatre." In other cases, therefore, the " promoters " of the work had to search for, and obtain permission to make use of, transcripts which private persons had obtained by some means or other. It will be seen that by this theory poor Heminge and Condell are thrown over altogether. The most rabid Baconian could not treat them with more contempt. They have put their signatures to a preface in which they tell us that they have "collected" Shakespeare's "writ- ings," and these are " cur'd and perfect in their limbs as he conceived them." They are the author's own manu- scripts, for " we have scarse received from him a blot in his papers," which alleged fact is put forward as proof of the " easinesse " with which he wrote ! And who would know the handwriting of their fellow-actor if not Heminge *nd Condell? Yet now we have the distinguished modern biographer and critic telling us that instead of clean, unblotted autograph MSS. the publishers had before them, besides the Quartos already printed, only " promptrcopies," and other " less complete and less authentic transcripts," collected from private persons ! Moreover, in the case of the " prompt-copies " not only had the poet's original manuscripts been treated with but little respect, but the copyist had not unfrequently made 422 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? errors in deciphering his original, "especially when the dramatist wrote so illegibly as Shakespeare " ! ^ Exeunt Heminge and Condell, and the " unblotted manuscript"! But now we have another erudite and scientific authority to deal with in Mr. A. W. Pollard, whose learned work, Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909), had not seen the light when, in June 1908, I published The Shakespeare Problem Restated. Let us make a few extracts. "Ben Jonson in his guilelessness deplored the absence of more blots; our own more sceptical generation doubts vehemently whether any single leaf in Shakespeare's autograph, blotted or unblotted, had been at the disposal of Messrs. Heminge and Condell, or of whoever else may have acted as editor, in preparing the Folio for the press. In any case it is certain that for several of the plays use was made of the extant printed quarto editions, sometimes considerably, sometimes only slightly, emended. Undoubted errors in the quartos are repeated in the Folio in a way which defies any explana- ' The theory that the promoters of the undertaking, in some cases at any rate, worked from theatrical copies, seems, at first sight, to be supported by the fact that in three plays, viz. The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado, and Henry VI, Part I, we find the names of subordinate actors inserted instead of those of the dramatic characters which they represented. Never- theless, it is by no means safe to make that assumption. Rnight, for example, wrote : " There is a remarkable peculiarity in the text of the Folio which indicates that it (Much Ado) was printed from a playhouse copy, because in Act IV of that play the name of the actor Kempe is substituted for that of Dogberry, and the name of Cowley for that of Verges." From this Knight concluded that Heminge and Condell had permitted the names of Kempe and Cowley to remain as they found them in the prompter's book, "as an historical tribute to the memory of their fellows." Yet the truth is that the peculiarity alluded to by Knight is common both to the Folio and the Quarto of 1600 — the Folio, in fact, was printed from the Quarto! Moreover, if prompt-copies were made use of, we should expect to find that both acts and scenes were indicated, but in few plays was this done. Julius Ccesar, for instance, is divided into acts, but not scenes ; Antony and C/eo/flfro into neither. Henry VI, Part i, commences with Actus primus, scaena prima, but the other scenes are not marked, so that we have nothing but the context to show that we have left the Tower of London for Orleans ! JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 423 tion save that a copy of the quarto (usually of the latest edition) was handed to the compositors of the Folio to work from. . . . Messrs. Heminge and Condell breathe no word of any use having been made of the quartos. Their only concern was to suggest that the Folio edition was the hook to buy, and so they launched the phrase as to the ^diverse stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed and de- formed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors' which has figured so prominently in every critical edition of Shakespeare that has since been issued." " It may have been observed that Heminge and Condell merely allude to ' diverse copies.' They give no indication as to which, or how many, are included in their condemnation. Modern critics and editors have imitated them in this respect, interpreting the attack {as with the sale of the First Folio in view it was doubtless intended to be interpreted) as involving all the quarto editions in a general atmosphere of fraud and surreptitiousness." ^ Mr. Pollard himself is of opinion that, although in view of the sale of the First Folio, the players, or the writer of the Preface, " intended " their remarks to be taken as a condemnation of all the quarto editions as "stolne and surreptitious," yet, if the words be closely examined, the statement made " was strictly and accur- ately true," because, " not all, but only some of the quartos ought to be treated as ' stolne and surreptitious,' and no use was made of these in printing the Folio, good texts being substituted for the bad ones." Thus, although the writer intended to deceive, and did deceive, the general body of his readers (including most modern critics, such as the Cambridge editors, e.g.), yet he must be acquitted of actual misstatement, because, on a strictly accurate interpretation of his words, they are found to be consistent with the truth. Only " divers copies " were " stolen and surreptitious " — not all ; and these " divers copies," which ' Work cited, pp. 1,2. My italics. 424 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? had been " maimed and deformed by the frauds of injurious impostors" the publishers now "offer'd . . . cured, and perfect of their limbes." So that on a close and critical examination we may cry, " How absolute the knave is ; he speaks by the card ! " He (or the players, if we persist in ascribing the Preface to them) had only the mens tea after all ! They steered clear of actual unveracity. Scien- tific and microscopic criticism proves them guiltless of it ! How then are we to construe the words that follow : " And all the rest, absolute in their numbers as he conceived them " ? Apparently thus, viz. that " all the rest," exclusive of the stolen aftd surreptitious copies, are " absolute in their numbers," etc. Mr. Lang agrees with Mr. Pollard in this interpretation. As the result, he says, of "the widest and most minute research," Mr. Pollard " backs his opinion (and mine) that some of the Quartos are surrepititious and bad, while others are good ' and were honestly obtained.' The Fi'eface never denies this ; never says that all the Quartos contain maimed and disfigured texts. The Preface draws a distinction to this effect, ' even those ' (even the stolen and deformed copies) ' are now cured and perfect in their limbs ' — that is, have been carefully edited, while 'all the rest' are ' absolute in their numbers as he conceived them.' This does not allege that all the rest are printed from Shakespeare's own holograph copies." As to the statement with regard to the unblotted papers, Mr. Lang writes : " This may be meant to suggest, but does not affirm, that the actors have ' all the rest ' of the plays in Shakespeare's handwriting. They may have, or may have had, some of his manuscripts, and believed that other manuscripts accessible to them, and used by them, contain his very words. Whether from cunning or design, or from the Elizabethan inability to tell a plain tale plainly, the authors or author of the Preface have everywhere left themselves loopholes and ways of evasion JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 425 and escape. It is not possible to pin them down to any plain statement of facts concerning the sources for the hitherto unpublished plays, ' the rest ' of the plays. These, at least, were from manuscript sources which the actors thought accurate, and some may have been 'fair copies ' in Shakespeare's own hand." ^ It was certainly very clever of the writer (or writers) of this Preface to contrive to create the desired impression (though not by any means a strictly true one) on the mind of the reading public, "in view of the sale of the First Folio," while, at the same time, as Mr. Lang says, every- where leaving himself (or " themselves ") " loopholes and ways of evasion and escape " ! But let us return to Mr. Pollard's erudite work. On a later page we find him writing as follows : " ' Wee have scarse received from him a blot on his papers,' Heminge and Condell remarked, or were made to remark, in the ' Address to the Great Variety of Readers,' to which their names were appended in the First Folio. It may be absurdly credulous to base upon this statement a belief that some ' papers ' of Shakespeare's may have been in existence after the fire at the Globe, and have served, directly or indirectly, to complete the copy for the First Folio ; but it is possible also to go to rather absurd lengths in substituting a very doubtful theory, based on the practice of a later generation, for the evidence of con- temporaries. We have no right whatever to assert that a single line of the Folio was set up from Shakespeare's auto- graph, but neither have we any right to exclude altogether the possibility of use having been made of his drafts." ^ Mr. Pollard, as the reader of his book will observe, differs very widely from Sir Sidney Lee as to the manner in which the material for the Folio was got together, and it is to Sir Sidney's account of this matter that he alludes when he speaks of " a very doubtful theory, based on the ' Work cited, pp. 211, 212. ^ Work cited, p. 120. Italics mine. 426 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? practice of a later generation." As to the merits of this little difference of opinion, however, I do not propose, and perhaps it would not be wise, to say anything. All that I am at this moment concerned to point out is that neither Mr. Pollard nor Mr. Lang, and certainly not Sir Sidney Lee or the Cambridge editors, give the slightest warrant for Mr. Robertson's pedagogic criticism of my remarks anent the supposed unblotted papers, and my adoption of Mr. Stevenson's observations concerning " fair copies." It appears to be merely an ex cathedra uncritical pro- nouncement, made without any adequate consideration. As I have shown, the statement that the author wrote with such easiness that he never blotted or revised was, appar- ently, a sort of clicht, and is applied by Moseley to Fletcher also, who is said to have "never writ any one thing twice" (which, no doubt, Mr. Robertson will believe also), and if there were no " blots " in any of the papers which came into the players' hands it is only reasonable to believe that such papers were " fair copies,'' by whomsoever made. Now assuming, as I do, on the strength of Malone's proof, that Jonson wrote this Preface, it follows that Jonson was guilty of the suggestio falsi to which the Cambridge editors allude. For, even if we accept Mr. Pollard's interpretation of this " obscure " Preface, as Mr. Lang calls it,^ Jonson is none the less guilty of deception, such as advertisers of goods for sale constantly make use of (and which, I imagine, were thought quite venial), because, as Mr. Pollard says, the words of the Preface were, "with the sale of the First Folio in view, . . . doubtless intended to be interpreted " as the Cambridge editors interpret them, and as, I think, everybody has interpreted them before Mr. Pollard examined them closely under his critical microscope.^ I am far from 1 Work cited, p. 208. '^ Thus, for example, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps writes, in his Preface to the reduced facsimile Folio (1-876), p. vi, concerning this passage in the Players' JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 427 wishing to controvert Mr. Pollard's opinion on this matter, which is also that of Mr. Lang. My argument is un- affected by it. But it is curious that it should only be propounded after all these long years of persistent and minute Shakespearean criticism. Jonson then, as the writer of the preface, to which Heminge and Condell appended their signatures, must have had all the knowledge that the players had; must have known that many of the plays were printed, not from unblotted manuscripts, nor, indeed, from any manu- scripts at all, but from quarto editions already in existence, about which, - however, he discreetly says nothing; must have known, as I confidently submit, that the attractive statement about the unblotted manu- scripts was just an auctioneer's puff, and nothing more. And as the writer of the preface is " thus convicted of a ' suggestio falsi ' in one point, it is not improbable that " he " may have been guilty of the like in another " ! Further, Jonson must surely have known, as the players must have known, that a very large part of the volume which was to be issued as " Mr. William Shake- speare's Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies "^ — a statement of somewhat doubtful veracity — was, in truth and in fact, not by " Shakespeare " at all. Will any " orthodox " critic deny that the Folio contains an abundance of non- Shakespearean work? I trow not. What said the late Dr. Garnett ? "It may surprise some of my hearers to be toH that so considerable a part of the work which Preface : " This evidently is meant to imply that the whole of the volume was carefully edited from the author's manuscripts, whereas it is certain that in several instances Heminge and Condell used printed copies of the old Quarto editions, in which were certain manuscript alterations, some of the latter being valuable, but others the reverse." The suggestion as to the manuscript alterations in the old Quartos is interesting. ' See Title-page of the Folio, where the word " ORIGINALL " is put in Very large type. 428 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? passes under Shakespeare's name is probably not from his hand." 1 For "probably" substitute "certainly," and I think few (if any) "orthodox" Shakespearean critics will raise any objection. What then of all this non- Shakespearean work ? Was that published from Shake- speare's manuscript, whether blotted or unblotted ? Was that part of the author's " own writings " which he had, in his lifetime, the "right" to publish? If the players published under the name of Shakespeare a "consider^ able" amount of work which was not Shakespeare's at all — which they did — and did so knowingly — as they must have done — and if Jonson wrote the preface in their name — as can hardly be doubted — and had their know- ledge — as he must have had — then Jonson was, at any rate, aiding and abetting the " setters forth " of the First Folio (whosoever they may have been) in palming off upon the public a "considerable" amount of non- Shakespearean work as the work of Shakespeare "pub- lished according to the true Originall Copies." And even if Jonson did not write the preface (though I think it proved that he did) he must surely have known, when he wrote his splendid panegyric on " The Swan of Avon," that many hundreds of the lines which he so commended as "well-turned and true-fil^d," and as reflecting "the race of Shakespeare's mind and manners," were not written by the " Star of Poets," but by some inferior dramatist, and were, in great part, not, in fact, "well-turndd and true-fil^d " at all ! " And now what is the conclusion of the whole matter ? Quern adfinem f I have admitted, fully and unreservedly, * P'rom a lecture by Dr. Gamett, printed as preface to At Skakespear^s Shrine, by Chas. F. Forshaw, LL. D. " Jonson, as writer of this Preface, must have had the knowledge of the Players, or " actor-partners " as Mr. Robertson calls them, of whom he writes that they " have it standing to their account that, with the literary heedlessness of their age, they published what they must have known to be a mass of largely composite work without a hint to help posterity to discriminate " (p. 568). JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 429 that the Jonsonian utterances raise very great difficulties in the way of the " unorthodox " contention. Many will consider them insuperable difficulties. Others, and their number is not small, think they are counter-balanced by the greater difficulties (as they conceive them to be) pre- sented by the received faith. I return, then, to the " sort of" syllogism made use of by certain "orthodox" critics, as mentioned at the commencement of this chapter. If Shakspere of Stratford was not the true author of the works, then Jonson was a liar. Jonson could not have been a liar. Therefore, etc., Q.E.D. Now, in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 295) I defined "a lie" as an "unjustifiable falsehood," and I venture to think that no better definition can be arrived at. Dr. Johnson defined it as " a criminal falsehood," but by " criminal " he did not, of course, mean to imply such a falsehood as would expose the guilty person to a criminal prosecution. He meant a morally unjustifiable falsehood. As I wrote before, "though truth must certainly be the general rule of conduct, there are, as everybody knows, many falsehoods that are justifiable, some that it is actually a duty to tell." Does anybody deny this? Will any man tell me that if by making a false statement as to a matter of fact he could save a woman from outrage and murder he would, nevertheless, consider it his duty to speak the truth ? If so, I can only reply that that man's ethics are more appropriate to Bedlam, or rather to Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, than to a civilised community. His fancied " morality " is to the last degree immoral.^ If then a " lie " is an " unjustifiable falsehood," as I have defined it, there can, of course, be no such thing ' Lecky has given us some examples of "justifiable falsehoods" in his History of Rationalism in Europe, Vol. I, p. 395. Unfortunately he omits to define the word " lie," which has led to the improper employment of that word 430 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? as a "justifiable lie." Just as if we define "cruelty" as " the unjustifiable infliction of pain " (as I do define it), it follows that cruelty can never be justifiable. The word "cruelty," in fact, carries its own condemnation with it, and denotes that Which cannot be justified. All this seems tolerably simple, and it does appear to me more than surprising that such a reasoner as Mr. Lang should, in the face of all this, speak of " justifiable lies," with the implication that I had contended that such things might be. I had instanced the case of Sir Walter Scott, who, in his general Preface to the Waverley Novels, tells us how, when some indiscreet person would ask him whether he was the author of any one of those works, at a time when he still desired to retain his anonymity, he considered himself justified in making a flat denial of the fact. " I, therefore, considered myself entitled, like an accused person put upon trial, to refuse giving my own evidence to my own conviction, and flatly to deny all that could not be proved against me." What says Mr. Lang as to this ? " Among justifiable lies I do not reckon that of Scott if ever he plumply denied that he wrote the Waverley novels." ^ One reads such a passage with a feeling of despair. There are no such things as "justi- fiable lies," and I had never suggested that such there were. I had said just the contrary. I should have to admit myself a muddle-headed oaf, incapable of elementary reasoning, if I made use of such an expression, which is, indeed, a contradiction in terms. Nor does it affect my argument one whit that Mr. Lang disagrees with the opinion of Sir Walter Scott in this matter. We are not arguing now whether or not Sir Walter was morally justified in "plumply" denying the authorship of the in one instance, but the passage, which I stumbled upon some time after writing the above, is worth consulting by those, if such there be, who doubt that falsehood is at times justifiable and even, it may be, laudable. ' Work cited, p. 266. JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 431 Waverley Novels, as he certainly did. The material thing is the fact that Sir Walter Scott, generally looked upon as a good man of high character, himself believed that he was, in the circumstances, justified in making this deliberate false statement. He may have been wrong, but such was his deliberate opinion. Similarly I have argued that Ben Jonson, as to whose ideas of strict veracity I really know nothing, may have thought himself quite justified in making himself party to many state- ments which were as untrue as Sir Walter's denial of the authorship of the Waverley Novels. I gather from my reading of Elizabethan times (I do not pretend that it is very extensive, but it may, perhaps, be adequate in this connection) that in " the spacious times " there was not the same high standard of veracity as obtains (or as, at any rate, is professed) in this "so-called twentieth century." I can quite imagine that even "honest Ben" might look upon a certain amount of deception of the public, in a literary matter, as quite venial, and would not trouble himself about it at all. I do not think many critics, of any recognised position, would speak of Sir Walter Scott as a "liar," and, to my mind, it does not appear right to fasten that reproach upon Jonson, even though we may believe it possible, and even probable, that he lent himself to deception in the matter in question. Messrs. Heminge and Condell — admitting for a moment, and for the sake of argument only, that they wrote the preface "To the Great Variety of Readers" — were certainly, as it appears to me, guilty of the " suggestio falsi " which the Cambridge Editors impute to them ; but I think it would be unjust to stigmatise them as " liars " on that account.^ The whole question, then, is. Is it conceivable that Jonson might have written as he did concerning plays ' Mr. Robertson presents the alternative thus : " Either Jonson was a deliberate and unscrupulous liar," or he was not. That, of course, suits Mr. 432 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? published in the name of " Shakespeare," although it was known to him that William Shakspere of Stratford was not, in truth and in fact, the author of that portion of those works which we recognise as the offspring of the Master- Mind ? If he did not know, as some contend, then, of course, the question of his veracity does not arise; but that hypothesis — viz. that he did not know — appears to me an extremely improbable one> Moreover, we may remark that the Jonsonian utterances apply to the Plays only. There are some, not few in number — and I think the number is on the increase — ^who find it impossible to believe that the player could have written Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, and the Sonnets. Even "genius," they conceive, in such an environment, and with such a life-history, could not have performed this miracle. Nor can they imagine that the " Shake-speare " of The Phoenix and the Turtle was "Will " of Stratford. And about these poems Jonson has left no statements, whether true or false. And as it is mere matter of fact that many things were published in the name of " Shakespeare " — and that without let or hindrance, protest or prohibition — which are, admittedly, not by the "Shakespeare" of Hamlet (let us say), whom the " Willians " identify with the player, it is not, perhaps, wildly inconceivable that these poems also are not by " Will," albeit we may look upon them as by " Shakespeare." But I must leave any further remarks concerning this heretical theory to a later chapter. Robertson very nicely, but to use one of his own favourite expressions, "the cavil" is "sheer absurdity." He might as well say, "Either Scott was a deliberate and unscrupulous liar, or he was not." Will Mr. Robertson so term the author of the Waverley Novels because he " plumply " denied their authorship? That I think is "a hypothesis ""which Mr. Robertson "bad better twt raise " ! 1 It will be noticed that the question as I have formulated it does not exclude the possibility of the player having contributed to " the works of Shakespeare." JONSONIAN UTTERANCES AND FIRST FOLIO 433 NOTE TO CHAPTER XI ON "THE JONSONIAN UTTERANCES" Mr. Robertson has not, I fear, done me the honour to read my rejoinder to Canon (now Dean) Beeching {In re Shakespeare. John Lane). Had he done so he would, I think, have written otherwise than he has done on p. 566 of his book, concerning my comments on Jonson's " Ode on Lord Bacon's Birthday." The difficulty in this poem is not as to what may be the meaning of the " mystery " which Bacon, according to Jonson, seems to be doing, or performing, but in the lines, 'Tis a brave cause of joy, let it be known. For 'twere a narrow gladness kept thine own. What was the "brave cause of joy," of which Jonson writes, "let it be known " ? Some have answered, " the fact that it was Bacon's sixtieth birthday." But that is ridiculous. It is absurd to suppose that Jonson, having come, doubtless with many others, expressly to celebrate Bacon's sixtieth birthday, solemnly invoked the genius of the place to let that " be known" which was known! to everybody present. Now in my rejoinder to Canon Beeching {In re Shakespeare, p. 85) I offer what seems to me a very reasonable explanation of the words, which, so far as I know, had not been suggested before. The lines conclude — Give me a deep-crown'd bowl that I may sing, In raising him, the wisdom of my King. This was on January 22nd, 162 1. On January 26th Bacon was created Viscount St. Alban. He probably knew of his coming promotion and had, perhaps, confided it to Jonson, whereupon the latter cries, ' Let it be known ... In raising him, the wisdom of my King '." I had already written {Ibid., p. 84) : " I may say at once that I quoted these lines (of Jonson's) incidentally, and perhaps, unnecessarily, for I base no argument upon them " ; and after mentioning the Baconian hypothesis with regard to the Ode in 2 F 434 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? question, I say : " I do not make the slightest suggestion that I share in this Baconian hypothesis ; but I do say it has not been explained what Jonson meant by ' let it be known.' " And to conclude the matter, I wrote : " So much for this passage. I repeat that I attach little or no importance to it, and the true criticism upon it, would, I think, be that it might well have been omitted from my book." Mr. Robertson is silent as to all this, which appears to me to make his "cavil" quite unnecessary. But, doubtless, he had not read the passage in question. I should, of course, have no cause to complain of this had he not assailed me in good set terms throughout the 59s pages of his book, but as he has done so, I think, perhaps, he might well have glanced at the little book referred to. That he had read Canon Beeching's reply, to which it is a rejoinder, he tells us in a note at p. xii of his Preface. And, here, I must express my ap- preciation of him as a " concealed humourist." Having alluded to " Canon Beeching's little book " and " Mr. Lang's volume," he remarks : " All this consensus of argument among independent writers, will, I think, impress the open-minded reader, as it has done me.'' Now supposing that it were to fall to my lot to argue against Mr. Robertson's denial of " the historicity of Jesus," and that I were to quote against him some two or three theologians (though I certainly need not confine myself to the theologians), all showing " a consensus of argument " in opposi- tion to his thesis (which possibly they might style " the most consummate paralogism " in all " literature "), and were then to ask the " open-minded reader " if he were not deeply impressed by such a " consensus," I think even Mr. Robertson would be inclined to " smile a sort of sickly smile." It is, of course, very easy to find a "consensus of argument" among the supporters of the received belief in the Shakespearean (i.e. Stratfordian) authorship. And why are these orthodox writers to be styled especially " independent writers " ? Are not those who combat accepted beliefs (whether it be " the historicity of Jesus," or the authenticity of " Will ") to be allowed to be " independent " also ? But let us rejoice to find Mr. Robertson's pages lighted up, for once, however unconsciously, with a touch of light comedy. " For this relief much thanks " ! CHAPTER XII MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO With Note on Mr. Pollard's Theory of the Arrangement thereof IN the preceding chapter, I have discussed at con- siderable length the statement concerning the unblotted manuscripts, which the writer of the Preface "To the Great Variety of Readers," pre- fixed to the First Folio, put into the mouth of the players, Heminge and Condell. I have also stated the grounds upon which I base my belief that the writer of that Preface was Ben Jonson. As to the Epistle dedicatory, addressed to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, with its learned classical allusions, I regard it as certain that that also, though, like the other, it is signed by the players, was not, in fact, written by them, and I think it only reasonable to conclude that the same "literary man " was the author of both prefaces. Now with reference to the Preface "To the Great Variety of Readers," I called attention to the fact that the players state (or are made to state) that Shakespeare had during his lifetime the " right " to publish his plays, had he chosen to do so. It is to be noticed that the Epistle dedicatory contains a somewhat similar expression. It refers to " the Author " in terms which imply that, had he not been removed by death, he might, and would have 436 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? been, " executor to his own writings." But how could he have done this if the " orthodox " theory be correct? Sir Sidney Lee has told us that Shakespeare had made over all right in his manuscripts to "the acting com- pany to which he attached himself." Probably then we have here merely another little inaccuracy, and a more venial one, on the part of the writer of the two Prefaces. Mr. Lang, however, is sceptical. Apparently he does not accept Sir Sidney Lee's authority in this matter. " I do not know," he says, " that he (Will) did sell his plays to his company."^ This opens up a wide field for speculation. If Shakespeare did not sell his plays to his company, he preserved his rights {some rights, at any rate) in them ; and if he preserved his rights, he probably preserved his manuscripts also. Sir Sidney Lee, indeed, says no. The manuscripts passed into the hands of "the Company," and "it was contrary to custom for dramatists to preserve their manuscripts." But here, Mr. Lang dissents again. " Nor am I possessed of information that 'he did not preserve his manuscript.'" And what says Mr. Pollard ? " Despite Mr. Lee's confident assertion," as above, "the idea that these trifles might one day ' come in useful ' is one which might surely have occurred to the thrifty nature of Shakespeare himself, quite apart from any question of parental pride." He then quotes the statement of the players concerning the " papers " with " scarce a blot." Oh dear! oh dear! How I do wish these high authorities could be found to agree in some one point of criticism ! It would make it so much easier for a humble student like myself. But we must take things as we find them. The " Shakespeareans " are really worse than the " theologians " in their internal dissensions. However, we note here that according to Mr. Lang, ' Work cited, p. 216. MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 437 and according to Mr. Pollard, Shakespeare may have preserved his manuscripts after all. Well, then, in that case, it is clear that he must have had copies made for the players ; and if he did so, I think it tolerably certain that he would have retained his drafts, and that the players would have " received " the " fair copies " ! I do not think even Mr. Robertson's epithets, "idle," "absurd," etc., will convert that into an unreasonable proposition. But yet another consideration arises. If Shakespeare retained his manuscripts ; if, thrifty man, he thought that they " might one day come in useful " ; if, possibly, he had even some " parental pride in them," where were these manuscripts when Shakspere died? They were of value, and he was " thrifty " ; he may actually have had, even he, " Will " (though it is almost " heretical " to say so), some pride of authorship; he had been, almost certainly, engaged in revising some of them with a view to publication ; he mentions these very players, Heminge and Condell, who signed these Prefaces, in his will ; he leaves them small bequests — and he makes no mention of these precious manuscripts ! But they go into the residuary bequest, it will be said. Granted; but if so, what became of them ? The Halls had an eye for what had a monetary value. John Hall, the physician, knew the worth of manuscripts, and remembers them in his will. Susanna, his widow, bargains concerning the sale of some of her husband's manuscripts. But these priceless manuscripts, preserved by Shakspere, as the supposition now is, disappear for ever, " into the night — into the night," and are no more seen ! Nay, in truth and in fact, according to all the evidence that we have, it would appear that the immortal poet (if " Will " were he) died without book or manuscript in his possession. ^ ' Mr. Pollard, as we have seen, after quoting "We have scarce received from him a blot in his papers," continues : " It may be absurdly credulous 438 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? However, as Sir Sidney Lee has told us, concerning the First Folio, " of the thirty-six plays which appeared in this volume only sixteen had been printed at earlier dates— fifteen in the author's lifetime, and one, Othello, posthumously. ... No less than twenty dramas, of which the greater number rank among the literary masterpieces of the world — nine of the fourteen comedies that were here brought together for the first time, five of the ten histories, and six of the twelve tragedies — were rescued by the First Folio from oblivion." Here were published for the first time the following eighteen plays : The Tempest, The Two Gentlemen, Measure for Measure, Comedy of Errors, As You Like It, All's Well, Twelfth Night, Wintet^s Tale, J Henry VI, Henry VIII, Coriolanus, Timon, Julius Ccesar, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, Cymbeline, King John, and The Taming of the Shrew. Had it not been for this priceless volume, these works of supreme literary interest and importance might have been lost to the world.^ And not only is it true that of the thirty-six plays published in the Folio only sixteen had been printed or published before, but — and this is still more remark- able — six of them, as it appears, had never been heard of before, to wit : The Taming of the Shrew, Timon, Julius to base upon this statement a belief that some ' papers ' of Shakespeare may have been in existence after the fire at the Globe, and have served, directly or indirectly, to complete the copy for the First Folio." But if such " papers " were manuscripts preserved by Shakespeare, as Mr. Pollard's con- text implies, they must have been (on the received hypothesis) at New Place when Shakspere died in 1616. It would be interesting to know what became of them between that date and 1623. ^ I and 2 Henry VI were also published for the first time in the Folio. A licence firom the Stationers' Company for the publication of the first sixteen plays named was obtained by Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard or November 8th, 1623. No licence was obtained for King John, The Taming of the Shrew, or i and ^ Henry VI, apparently because there were old plays bearing similar titles. MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 439 Ccesar, Coriolanus, AlFs Well that Ends Well, and Henry VIII?- Now the players, in their Epistle dedicatory, say of the plays : " We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead, to procure his orphans guardians." But for seven years after Shakspere's death, these poor orphans were left without "guardians." Where were the manu- scripts of these plays in 1616? What became of them between that date and 1623? Sir Sidney Lee tells us, and it is the usual answer, that they were in the possession of "the Company," to whom all rights in them had been sold. " He and his colleagues wrote for the stage, and not for the study. . . . They intended their plays to be spoken and not to be read. It was contrary to the custom of the day for dramatists to print their plays for themselves, or to encourage the printing of them by others, or to preserve their manu- scripts. Like all dramatists of his age, Shakespeare composed his plays for the acting company to which he attached himself ; like them he was paid by the company for his writings, and in return made over to the company all property and right in his manuscripts." After which, it seems, he thought no more about them and cared nothing at all. If poets and dramatists so acted in Shakespeare's time it would seem that they must have been very different from poets and dramatists of the present day, for they certainly are not without " the pride of authorship " ; they certainly would not part with their manuscripts and think no more about them so long as they duly received the contract price for them ! Moreover, Ben Jonson stands out as a conspicuous exception. He, as Mr. Lang says ' Henry VIII may possibly be the play which was being acted at the Globe Theatre when the fire took place in 1613 ; Alts Well that Ends Well may, perhaps, be identified with Love's Labour's Won, mentioned by Meres in 1598 ; and there was, of course, an old play of The Taming of a Shrew. 440 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? (p. 139), "managed to retain the control of his dramas, how, I do not know"\ Jonson, at any rate, was most particular as t? the publication of his dramatic works. He carefully revised them for the press, and wrote prefaces for the published editions. Ben, however, is, of course, the exception that proves the rule. Shakespeare, writing "for the stage and not for the study" — "for gain, not glory " — made over once and for all his rights in Hamlet (for example) to the Globe Company ; preserved no manuscript, and reserved no right, or thought, of publish- ing it. And so, also, with those marvellous masterworks which were only rescued by the Folio from oblivion, such as The Tempest, Macbeth, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, The Winter's Tale, Julius Ccesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Cymbeline — he had no interest in their publication, no anxieties for their preservation. " Good easy man " ! Mr. Pollard, as we have seen, does not see eye to eye with Sir Sidney Lee in all this.^ He thinks "it is greatly to be regretted that Mr. Lee has not indicated the evidence on which all " his " positive and detailed statements are based," etc. etc. Well, it is " a very pretty quarrel as it stands," and I have no wish to interfere with it. For, as Hudibras tells us. Those who in quarrels interpose Must often wipe a bloody nose. But I would like the reader to consider the following questions. Is it true that Shakespeare wrote " for the stage and not for the study " — that he " intended " his plays " to be spoken and not to be read " ? And is it true that in the First Folio we have, as the preface informs us, all the plays, "absolute in their numbers as he conceived them"? In this connection, let us examine the play of Hamlet, for example. The Folio edition of this play, according to 'See work cited, p. 117 et seq. MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 441 the Cambridge Editors, when it differs from the Quartos, •' differs for the worse in forty-seven places," and " differs for the better " in only twenty places at most. In particular, the Folio edition, as we know, omits that great speech in Act IV, Sc. 4, from which Shelley took his celebrated line, We look before and after, in which, says Mr. Swinburne, the genius of Shakespeare " soars up to the very highest of its height and strikes down to the very deepest of its depth," and which, in his judgment — and I think most readers will agree with him — eclipses the famous " monologue on suicide and doubt." Now this speech, as he tells us, magnificent as it is, was written not for " the stage," but for " the study," not for the hearer but for the reader ; the proof of which is that it is omitted in all acting editions, and was, I believe, never heard upon the stage until Mr. Benson took to performing " the Complete Hamlet," composed of the Quarto of 1604 and the Folio version put together, on rare occasions, in the course of Stratford-upon-Avon celebrations. But the excision of this speech, though it may be necessary for acting purposes, has greatly impaired the value of the play " for the study," for which reason the modern editors have always reinstated it. Similarly there are other passages found in the Quarto, but not in the Folio, which we could ill spare " for the study," but the omission of which really improves the play for the stage. We may take, for example, the passage in Act III, Scene 4, 1. 71 : Sense sure you have. Else could you not have motion, which, as I have already shown, is undoubtedly based on Aristotelian psychology, whencesoever derived. These and other lines are properly enough omitted from a play which must necessarily be greatly " cut " for acting purposes, but the author must surely have desired them to be 442 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? included, together with Hamlet's magnificent second soliloquy, in his great drama, in that form in which it was to be transmitted to posterity. Here some words of Humphrey Moseley's Preface to the first folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays may be profitably considered. "When these Comedies and Tragedies',' says he, " were presented on the Stage, the Actours omitted some Scenes and Passages (with the Authot's consent) as occasion led them ; and when pritate friends desir'd a copy, they then (and justly too) transcribed what they Acted. But now you have both All that was Acted, and all that was not; even the perfect full originalh without the least mutilation^ so that were the Autkours living (and sure they can never dye) they themselves would challenge neither more nor lesse then what is here published." Now, of Hamlet it could not have been said with truth that " the perfect full original without the least mutilation " was published in the Folio ; nor could it be said of many others of the plays. In fact, as Mr. Fleay says, if we have to choose between the Folio version of Hamlet, and the Quarto, we should say that "the 1604 Quarto is a very fair transcript of the author's complete copy, with a few omissions." ^ " We feel," says Dr. Garnett, " that Hamlet expresses more of Shakespeare's inner mind than any other of his works, and is the most likely of any to have been subjected to close revision." And revised, as we know, it was. " Scene by scene, line for line, stroke upon stroke, and touch after touch, he went over all the old laboured ground again," writes Mr. Swinburne ; and this, according to that distinguished critic, was " not to ensure success in his own day, and fill his pockets with contemporary pence, but merely and wholly with a purpose to make it worthy of himself and his future students." 'The italics here are mine. '^ Life of Shakespeare, p. 227. MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 443 Let us consider this question of the revision of plays by Shakespeare a little further. We will take as our first example the remarkable case of King Richard III. This play was first published anonymously in 1597. In the following year a second edition appeared, ascribed on the title-page to "William Shake-speare." Then followed a third edition in 1602, a fourth in 1605, a fifth in 161 2, and a sixth in 1622. The changes made in these succes- sive editions were not important ; but when the Folio appeared in 1623 some very marked improvements had been effected in the text. Mr. Richard Grant White says that these additions and corrections are " undeniable evidence that the copy in question had been subjected to carefullest revision at the h^^nds (it seems to me beyond a doubt) of Shakespeare himself, by which it gained much smoothness and correctness, and lost no strength. In minute beauties of rhythm, in choice of epithets, and in the avoidance of bald repetition, the play was greatly im- proved by this revision, and was evidently from the perfecting hand of the author in the maturity of his powers." ^ To the same effect write the Cambridge Editors : "Passages which in the Quarto are complete and con- secutive are amplified in the Folio, the expanded text being quite in the manner of Shakespeare. The Folio, too, contains passages not in the Quartos, which, though not necessary to the sense, yet harmonise so well, in sense and tone, with the context, that we can have na hesitation in attributing them to the author himself" Now we are told by those who have carefully collated the editions of 1622 and 1623 that in the latter version 193 new lines have been introduced, and that nearly 2000 lines have been retouched. The question then arises. When and where was all this revising done — when were ' I take this quotation from Mr. Edwin Reed's Francis Bacon our Shake- speare, p. 117. 444 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? these new lines, and these retouched and improved lines, supplied " by the author himself " ? The orthodox answer must be that all this work was done by Shakspere some time before the spring of 1616, and probably, I opine, before 161 1, when we are told by Sir Sidney Lee and others he "permanently settled at New Place." But if, after selling his play to the Company, he did not preserve his manuscript, what had he to work upon ? Are we to suppose that he was called in from time to time to revise his plays at the theatre ? But this would only be required, as Sir Sidney Lee suggests, in case of the " revival " of a piece, to say nothing of the fact that such revision obviously would not include additions and improvements made, as in the case of Hamlet, not " for the stage " but " for the study." In the case of Richard III all this new work must, if Shakspere was the author of it, have been in existence in 1622, when Mathew Lawe of Saint Paul's Churchyard issued the sixth edition of the plays, and probably in 161 2 also, when the same publisher issued the fifth edition, but, nevertheless, he had no access to it. The editors of the Folio, however, took the 1622 Quarto as the basis of their new edition, as plainly appears by the fact that there were twelve printer's errors peculiar to that Quarto which actually reappear in the Folio; but they must have had in their possession also a manuscript containing all this revised work. Was, then, this revised and corrected manuscript in Shakspere's possession when he died in 1616, but, like the other hypothetical MSS. retained by him, not considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned in his will ? In that case it passed to the Halls under the residuary bequest, and they must have sold it to the Folio editors, though of any such transactions history is un- fortunately silent. Or had he revised an old prompt-copy at the theatre, and had such revised manuscript been in the possession of the players for at least seven, and probably for some twelve or thirteen, years? Either MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 445 hypothesis seems to present a considerable amount of difficulty, but, at the present moment, I only lay stress upon the important fact that here again is conclusive evidence of the careful revision and rewriting of Shake- speare's plays, by whomsoever done. The case of Richard II equally deserves consideration. This play also, like Richard III, was first published anonymously in 1597, and reissued in 1598 as "by William Shakespeare." The third edition, with the famous " deposition scene " added, was published by Mathew Lawe in 1608 ; and a fourth edition was issued by the same publisher in 1615. The next appearance of the play was in the Folio of 1623. Now it is clear that the editors of the Folio based their version on the Fourth Quarto. As Dr. Furnivall writes : " There is no doubt on this point ; the Quarto errors which have crept into the Folio text, and which prove its connection with the Quarto version, are clearly traceable to Quarto four as their immediate source.'' But, nevertheless, the Folio version, though based on this Quarto text, and repeating these errors which were peculiar to it, does not simply follow it, but contains many additions and improvements. Now in this case, as in the case of Richard III, one asks why, if the editors of the Folio possessed a complete manuscript, revised and improved by Shakespeare, did they, nevertheless, base their new version for the Folio upon an old Quarto, actually allowing the old printer's errors to reappear in the collected edition of 1623 ? If, indeed, the new matter was written expressly for the new edition, this would not be an unnatural mode of procedure. But if they had in their hands a complete manuscript, revised and improved by Shakespeare, surely the natural thing would have been to make use of that as the printer's copy, as, indeed, in their Preface, they profess to have done! 446 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? The case of Othello is very remarkable. This great tragedy was not printed in any form during the lifetime of Shakspere, but six years after his death, viz. in 1622, it was published by Thomas Walkley. In 1623 a new version appeared in the Folio, not only with 160 new lines, but also with numerous and important emendations. The second and third parts of Henry VI were published in 1594 and 1595 under the titles, respectively, of " The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous houses of Yorke and Lancaster," etc., and " The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of York, and the death of Good King Henrie the Sixt," etc. Second editions of both appeared in 1600; and in 1619, three years after Shakspere's death, a third edition was published of the two plays together — "The Whole Contention betweene the two famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke, etc. . . . Divided into two Parts and newly corrected and enlarged, Written by William Shakespeare, Gent." In the Folio of 1623 these same plays appear under new titles, and the second part now contained 1578 new lines and is other- wise much altered. In the light of all this patient revision and rewriting, the absurdity of the manuscripts " without a blot " stands {pace Mr. Robertson) very clearly revealed. And now I will submit to the reader some propositions which I fear the orthodox will pronounce fanatical in the extreme. They are these. That "Shakespeare" did not write just " for gain " and not " for glory " ; that he was not in- different to the fate of his work ; that he revised his plays again and again, not merely for the stage, but for the student also ; that he wrote not only to be acted, but also to be read ; that he actually had some pride of authorship ; that he recognised to some extent, at any rate, the great- ness of his works, and laboured to make them " worthy of himself and of future students " — in a word, that he was not a stupendous exception to all the known rules of MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 447 human nature, but that, immortal genius as he was, he had also some conception that his works were worthy of immortality. But if this view should be accepted, then does it become ever increasingly difficult to identify this Shakespeare with the player who retired to Stratford in 161 1, abandon- ing dramatic composition, as Sir Sidney Lee tells us,i leaving some twenty plays, and among them some of his very finest, unpublished, and, apparently, taking no in- terest whatever in their fate. It is only fair, therefore, to set beside this fanatical, heretical view the sound and sane opinion, so consonant with human experience, of the orthodox Stratfordian faith. This, for example, is how a critic distinguished alike as a diplomatist and a Shake- spearean conceives of the immortal bard : " He is romantic in his plays, a conservative bourgeois in his life. . . . When an attack was made or any literary wrong inflicted on him, he said and did nothing. To Greene's slanders and Jonson's sneers he answered not a word. His pro- pensity to hold aloof was an ' all-round ' one, and led him to keep apart even on occasions when more would have been expected from his 'open and free nature.' At a time when all authors exchanged complimentary poems to preface each other's works, when burly Jonson wrote many even in favour of men he liked little enough, not once did Shakespeare do the same. He never troubled anyone for such verses, nor ever wrote any. Most poets paid their tribute to Elizabeth, to Prince Henry, when they died ; he wrote nothing. More or less silly, ridicu- lous, or insignificant works were published under his name — he never disclaimed them ; garbled texts of his own dramas, of the masterpieces of his peerless genius, were issued — he never protested, nor gave the real text. Such an attitude under su^h provocation is absolutely unique!' So writes Monsieur Jusserand in the Stratford Town ^ Life of Shakespeare, ^, 2C&, 448 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Shakespeare, and he goes on to say that Shakespeare did not seem to have " the slightest regard " for his plays, and " as for his sonnets, in spite of all he says in them of their assured immortality, he attached no more importance to them than to his plays ; he never printed any, and when a pirate printed them, he said nothing." And, like Brer Rabbit, it seems he " went on sayin' nuffin " ! This is '' absolutely unique " indeed. But let me give a further illustration from another authority, both learned and orthodox — to wit, Mr. Justice Madden. " It must not be forgotten," writes this learned Judge, " that not one of the copies in the possession of Heminge and Condell, true original though it may have been, had been either written or revised by its author with a view to publication." After which staggering remark he proceeds: "That the author of Othello and As You Like It should not have deemed those works worthy of the editorial care bestowed on Venus and Adonis and Lucrece; that he used them simply as a means of making money, and, when that purpose had been served, took no further heed of them ; that, notwithstanding the publication and rapid sale of pirated and inaccurate copies, he was never moved, during the years of his retirement at Stratford, to take even the initial step of collecting and revising for publication the manuscripts of his plays ; and that, so far as their author was concerned, they might be stolen, travestied, or perish altogether, are surely among the strangest facts in the history of literature." ^ Upon which another learned, but, alas, heretical. Judge is moved to comment as follows : Yes, indeed, " among the strangest facts in the history of literature most surely, if the retired Player was in reality the author of As You Like It and Othello — facts so strange, indeed, as to suggest a doubt whether he could by any possibility have been ' See The Diary of Master William Silence. This alone is surely sufficient to constitute a " Shakespeare Problem " ! MORE ABOUT THE FIRST FOLIO 449 the author. Nevertheless, the facts stated by the [other] learned judge are accepted as authentic by all the biographers of Shakspere. In the opinion of all, he showed utter insensibility as to the literary value of the Shakespearean Plays, and utter indifference as to their preservation." ^ Well, to speak in sad and sober seriousness, it seems to me that the orthodox creed, as stated by M. Jusserand, and Mr. Justice Madden, and others, is, to use a Robertsonian expression, no better than " sheer absurdity." It is opposed not only to the general facts of human experience, but, as I think we have seen in this chapter and elsewhere, to the known facts of this particular case. I will therefore ask the reader to consider whether, after all, it is not quite rational — quite in accordance with proba- bility and common sense — to conceive of Shakespeare as I have pictured him, as Mr. Swinburne conceived of him, and as the known facts appear to prove that he must have been ? If so, the " Willians " are altogether wrong in their estimate of him. If so, it may, just conceivably, be that " Will " did not do all this revising, all this writing and rewriting for posterity and " for the study," either at New Place, or at the theatre, or elsewhere. On the other hand, it must be frankly admitted that the facts with regard to the publication of the First Folio do not seem to square with the theory that the preparation of this volume was undertaken by some literary man, whether Jonson or somebody else, at the desire of some " Great Unknown," who wished to see his plays given to the public in collected form. The carelessness with which the work of editing was done, the many errors, — numbers of them repeated from the old Quartos, — the inclusion of non-Shakespearean work ; the manifest doubt felt as to \ ' From The Mystery of William Shakespeare, by Judge Webb. As we ;^ have seen, however, some orthodox critics, such as Swinburne (e.g.) dissent from the prevailing opinion of "the biographers." 2 G 450 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the inclusion of Troilus and Cressida, and its proper place if included, etc. etc. — all these things, it must be owned, make the acceptance of such a theory extremely difficult, if, indeed, they do not put it quite out of the question.^ NOTE ON MR. POLLARD'S THEORY OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE FIRST FOLIO I may here be allowed, although it does not affect my argument, to mention a remarkable theory of Mr. Pollard's with regard to the arrangement of the First Folio. The editors, he thinks, greatly preferred plays theretofore unprinted to plays which had already been printed. "The key to the inner arrangement of the plays in the Folio of 1623, which Mr. Sidney Lee seems to consider merely haphazard, is that, so far as history and the accidents of the press allowed them, the editors placed unprinted plays in all the important positions, and hid away those already printed in the middle of them. Of the five comedies with which the volume opens, four had never been printed before, and one. The Merry Wives of Windsor, which is placed between the two pairs of absolute novelties, only in a piratical version so bad that no use was made of it in setting up ^ Mr. Lang states (pp. 7 and 218) that I think "the Baconian hypo- thesis . . . an extremely reasonable one." This on the strength of a passage in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 293) quoted by him, in which I suggested that some author who had written under the nom de plume of " Shakespeare," being himself busy with other matters, might have entrusted the work of editorship to some " literary man," to some " good pen," who was at the time doing work for him. All I can say is that I did not intend this passage to be taken as the expression of my opinion that the "Baconian hypothesis " is an extremely reasonable one. I referred only to the hypothesis of some writer unknown who had reasons for concealing his identity — "a man of that transcendent genius, universal culture, world-wide philosophy, and unapproached dramatic powers, which Shakespeare's works prove to have been among the attributes of their creator. " I made no attempt to identify the man in question, and did not mention "the Baconian hypothesis." MR. POLLARD'S THEORY OF THE FIRST FOLIO 451 the Folio. At the opposite end of the section we find the four new and one nearly new comedies of the beginning neatly balanced by four new and one nearly new comedies at the end. Hidden away in the middle are four successive plays which had already been printed." Then, with regard to the tragedies : " Taking the sections as they stand, we find that each begins with one and ends with two unprinted plays, while plays already printed are, as in the case of the comedies, hidden away in the middle. There is so much appearance of deliberation in all this that the discovery that un- printed plays are placed at the beginnings and ends of sections emphasizes at once the importance placed on unprinted plays as compared with printed ones, and on plays at the beginnings and ends of sections as compared with those hidden away in the middle." 1 Thus we have the words "hidden (or "hid") away in the middle," as a description of the place of certain " printed plays," repeated four times in the space of thirty-two consecutive lines. But what I fail to see is why plays printed " in the middle," be- tween other plays, are supposed to be " hidden away " ! For instance, in the " Catalogue of the several Comedies, Histories, and Tr^edies contained in this Volume," prefixed to the plays in the First Folio, we find that the list of comedies begins with 7%« Tempest, The Two Gentlemen, The Merry Wives, and Measure for Measure, and ends with The Taming of the Shrew, AlPs Well, Twelfth Night, and Thx Winter's Tale. All these are new, except The Merry Wives and The Taming of the Shrew, which are said to be "nearly new." But why are the six plays printed between these eight to be looked upon as "hidden away " ? Why, for example, are Love's Labour's Lost, and the Midsummer Nights Dream, and The Merchant of Venice, and As You Like It supposed to be " hidden away " ? Number five on the list also, The Comedy of Errors, was itself a new (i.e. un- printed) play. Why are we to regard it as less " hidden away " than Much Ado About Nothing, which stands sixth on the list ? ^ I ' Work cited, pp. 123-4. ^^V italics. " An edition of Much Ado was published in 1600. According to Mr. Pollard's theory this play ought to be "hidden away." 452 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? In the histories, as Mr. Pollard, of course, admits, this supposed principle of arrangement cannot hold, for there the plays naturally stand in the chronological order of the kings whose names they bear. And when we come to the tragedies, how does the theory work ? Here, after putting on one side Troilus and Cressida, we are told to "note also that Romeo and Juliet interrupts what would otherwise be an unbroken succession of classical plays, and that Antony and Cleopatra, which should naturally have followed Julius CcBsar, in the same way interrupts what would otherwise be an unbroken succession of post-classical ones. Taking the sections as they stand, we find that each begins with one and ends with two unprinted plays, while plays already printed are, as in the case of the comedies, hidden away in the middle." Apparently, therefore, Mr. Pollard divides the list of tragedies, which, like the comedies, surely ought to be con- sidered as a " section " by itself, into two sections, viz. (i) five plays, beginning with Coriolanus (new) and ending with Timon and Julius Cmsar (both new), and (2) six plays, beginning with Macbeth (new) and ending with Antony and Cleopatra and Cymbeline (both new). But surely, to use a vulgar expression, "this won't wash" ! It appears to me that the new plays Julius Ceesar and Macbeth, coming, as they do, " in the middle " of the list of tragedies, are just as much (and just as httle) "hidden away " as the " printed " plays Hamlet, Lear, and Othello, which stand respectively third, fourth, and fifth from the bottom of the list. Nor, having regard to the manner in which the tragedies are mixed up (note, especially, the places assigned to Romeo and Juliet and Antony and Cleopatra respectively), does it seem reasonable to divide the list of tragedies into two separate " sections." In a word, I cannot for the life of me see why the plays printed " in the middle " of the lists of comedies and tragedies respectively can be properly said to be more "hidden away" than are the histories, taken en bloc, because they are printed " in the middle " between the comedies and the tragedies ! The supposed principle of arrangement would, doubtless, have been MR. POLLARD'S THEORY OF THE FIRST FOLIO 453 made applicable to the list of histories also, seeing that it begins with King John and ends with Henry VIII (the former of which had never been printed in Shakespeare's version, and the latter never previously printed at all), were it not for the fact thatybAw stands first and Henry VIII last in chronological order ! The supposed principle, in fact, appears to me to be an imaginary one. Mr. Pollard's hypothesis as to the division of the plays into acts and scenes, so far as they were so divided, also seems to me, upon close consideration, to be equally unconvincing. However, as I have already said, these theories do not affect my argument, and I will not, therefore, delay longer over them. CHAPTER XIII MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND (With a Word on Shakespeare's Vocabulary) WHEN a critic of reasonable mind, and not altogether permeated by prejudice, considers the large number of thinking men and women, many of them bearing distinguished names, who have found themselves unable to believe that William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon was the author of the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, he will not, I think, estimate very highly the wisdom of those who summarily dismiss all the doubters and disbelievers en bloc as " fools and fanatics." He will, at any rate, I opine, recognise the existence of the reasonable " Anti-Willian." The reasonable " Anti-Willian," it must be clearly understood, does not " defame " or revile Shakspere of Stratford, as he has been so absurdly charged with doing. He does not disparage him in any way. He has not the smallest reason to do so. He is only " Anti-Willian " in this, that he does not believe in the traditional authorship. Now there are some points in this controversy where both " Willians " — or, at any rate, the great majority of them — and " Anti- Willians '' are agreed. It is, for instance, simple matter of fact that many plays and poems were published in the name of " Shakespeare " which " Shake- speare," whoever he may have been, did not write. It is, MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 455 further, admitted that neither Shakspeue, nor anybody else claiming to be, or to act for, " Shakespeare," ever took any action whatever to suppress or restrain such publica- tions, or, so far as is known, uttered any protest with regard to them. I believe I should not be wrong in saying that this is absolutely unique in the history of literature. "Shakespeare," then, became a nom de plume, or pseudonym, in this sense, that it was found a mighty convenient name to publish in, a name likely " to sell " the works which bore it, and a name which might be used with impunity and without fear of molestation. Again, it is generally admitted by the highest authori- ties among the orthodox " Willians " that a large part of the work published in the Folio of 1623 as " Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, pub- lished according to the True Originall Copies," is not by "Shakespeare." The balance of authority is strongly against Titus Andronicus ; it is very difficult indeed to find anything " Shakespearean " in the first part of Henry VI; it is very doubtful indeed if The Taming of the Shrew is by Shakespeare, and at any rate a large portion of it is generally admitted not to be his ; there is much doubt about the second and third parts of Henry VI; the work of two hands has been seen in Troilus and Cressida, and it may surely be permitted to doubt whether that curious play is Shakespearean at all ; a large part of Henry VIII, including some of the finest passages, is generally assigned to Fletcher. Timon of Athens is, certainly, not wholly Shakespearean ; two hands have been found in Macbeth ; and 50 on. We may safely conclude, therefore, that the work of many pens is to be found in the First Folio. A large part of " Shakespeare " was not written by "Shakespeare" but by other gentlemen, who at least published under " the same name " ! But whatever theory we may hold concerning the 4S6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? authorship, and however numerous the pens that con- tributed to the various works contained in the Folio of 1623, no one will deny that there must have been one Master Mind, whence flowed all that glorious literature which has made the name of " Shakespeare " supreme among the poets for all time. Many writers, then, published work under the name of "Shakespeare," whether poems, or plays, or parts of plays; and among these, and pre-eminent among them, was one Master Mind. Insignis ingreditur, victorque viros supereminet onines. Now the hypothesis which I have ventured to put forward as at any rate possible, and not necessarily an indication of lunacy, is that this Master Mind was not Shakspere of Stratford, although his work was published under the player's name — not indeed in the form which the player himself made use of, but in the form which old Thomas Fuller spoke of as suggesting " Martial in warlike sound of his sur-name, Hasti-vibrans, or Shake-speare." At first the name was written in its unhyphenated form, " Shakespeare," signed to the dedica- tions of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece?- Now, as I have already shown, it is most probable that William Shakspere of Stratford came to London in the year 1587, at the age of twenty-three, as Mr. Fleay contends, and we "Anti- Willians," for reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, find it impossible to believe that this young provincial coming to London as a " Stratford rustic " — as he must have been — in three or four years from his advent was able to write poems of such a character as Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, and (although this is, by comparison, a minor point) was in a position to dedicate them to such a great and brilliant nobleman as the Earl of Southampton. I am aware, of course, that those who 1 But, as already mentioned, the earliest known allusion to Shakespeare by name occurs in the verses prefixed to Willobie his Avisa, 1594, where we find the hyphenated form : "And Shake-speare paints poor Lucrece rape." MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 457 find no difficulty whatever in entertaining this belief pride themselves on understanding the ways of " genius," which they think are altogether beyond bur comprehension ; but we, for our part, conceive that they themselves are, perhaps as the result of a not unnatural conservatism with regard to old teaching and tradition, unable to under- stand and appreciate the conditions of life and mind necessary for the conception and production of poems of this kind. We start, therefore, with the proposition that the "Shakespeare" of Venus and Adonis (1593) and Lttcrece (1594) was not William Shakspere of Stratford. But assuming that the author of these poems, and of all the best work in the Folio of 1623, Was, as surely he must have been, a representative of the highest culture of his day — a man of the world, familiar with the great men of the time, whether great in rank or great in intellect, and conversant with the ways of kings and courts, why, it has been asked, should he have been reluctant to put his name to a poem or a play? Those who ask such a question show that they have but little acquaintance with the ideas which obtained in the seventeenth century. For a man of high station in those days to publish a play was considered contemptible, and, indeed, little short of disgraceful. No one who aspired to high oifice in the State or at Court would have ventured to do such a thing. The following extract from a letter written by Ben Jonson to the Earl of Salisbury, in 1605, when he was in prison with George Chapman, as a consequence of his share in the composition of Eastward Ho, forcibly illustrates the low esteem in which play- writing was held in those days : " I am here, my most honoured lord, unexamined and unheard, committed to a vile prison, and with me a gentleman (whose name may, perhaps, have come to your lordship), one Mr. George Chapman, a learned and honest man. The cause (would I could name some worthier, though I wish we had 4S8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? known none worthy our imprisonment) is {the words irk me that our fortune hath necessitated us to so despised a course) a play, my lord." But the publication of a poem by a man of rank was but little better thought of Sidney, as Mr. Pollard reminds us, would not allow any of his works to be published during his lifetime.^ Even at a much later time the learned Selden, who lived both under Charles I and the Commonwealth, is found writing as follows : " 'Tis ridiculous for a Lord to print verses; 'tis well enough to make them to please himself, but to make them publick, is foolish. If a man in a private chamber twirls his Band-strings or plays with a Rush to please himself, 'tis well enough; but if he should go into Fleet-street, and sit upon a Stall, and twirl a Band-string, or play with a Rush, then all the Boys in the street would laugh at him."* In such low estimation was the publication of poetry held at that period. A man of rank might write it if he pleased, but it was altogether beneath his dignity to publish it. What wonder then that poets and dramatists of high position in society should have been anxious to mask their identity by pseudonyms ? Moreover, this idea that it was infra dig., and even ' Jonson has a rather remarkable passage on this subject in the Silent Woman (Act II, Sc. 2). Sir John Daw says : "Why, every man that writes in verse is not a poet ; you have of the wits that write verses, and yet are no poets : they are poets that live by it, the poor fellows that live by it." Whereupon Dauphine asks : " Why, would not you live by your verses. Sir John?" Upon which Chrimont: "No,. 'twere pity he should. A Knight live by his verses ! He did not make them to that end, I hope." Then says Dauphine : " And yet the noble Sidney lives by his, and the noble femily not ashamed." "Ay, he profest himself," says Clerimont. I confess I can- not understand this remark- about Sidney. The Silent Woman was not acted till 1609, long after Sir Philip Sidney's death at Zutphen in 1586. What did Jonson mean by making one of his characters say that Sidney lived by his poems, "and the noble family not ashamed " ? * Table-Talk, under title "Poetry." MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 459 contemptible, for a man of high position to publish plays or poems, would sufficiently account for the fact that "Shakespeare" never interfered, never even protested, when works in which he had no hand were published in his name — assuming, that is, that under that name was concealed the identity of a man of rank, or an aspirant for public office or advancement in the State. He would be bound by the maxim Noblesse oblige; i.e. he would be obliged to preserve silence. It is true that the English law of copyright was then in an unsatis- factory state, but no competent authority has ever told us that our Common Law was in such a barbarous condition that any writer might publish with impunity his own works in the name of another, without that other's permission, provided only he obtained a licence for publication from the Stationers' Company.^ If, for instance, somebody had ventured to put upon the public a work of his own, bearing the name of " Ben Jonson," it is not to be doubted that Ben would have intervened with vigour and success, and put a stop to such an iniquitous proceeding. In Shakspere's case, however, if we are to accept the orthodox hypothesis, we have to assume that the poet was so absolutely careless of his reputation, and even, in this one matter only, of his own interest, that he allowed the public to be imposed upon by any unscrupulous author who thought it might be advantageous to adopt the name, or initials, of William Shakespeare. We are compelled, like M. Jusserand, to postulate an extraordinary "propensity to hold aloof" on his part. " More or less silly, ridiculous, or in- significant works were published under his name, he never disclaimed them ; garbled texts of his own dramas, or the masterpieces of his peerless genius were issued, he never protested nor gave the real text. Such an ^ I have dealt with the law of copyright in Elizabethan times at some length in chap, x of The Shakespeare Problem Restated. 460 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? attitude under such provocation is absolutely unique ! " To such incredible assumptions are we driven by the "orthodox" faith. One is reminded of the answ^er of the undergraduate : " Faith is the faculty by which we are enabled to believe that which we know is not true " ! There is, however, just one instance where "Shake- speare" is said, not indeed to have taken any action under provocation, such as is above alluded to, but to have been '' much offended " by it ; and as a great deal has been made of it by the "Willians" it may be well to examine it once more. In 1 599 William Jaggard, " a well-known pirate publisher," as Sir Sidney Lee calls him,i published The Passionate Pilgrim with the name "W. Shakespeare" on the title-page as author. "The volume opened with two sonnets by Shakespeare which were not previously in print, and there followed three poems drawn from the already published Lov^s Labour's Lost, but the bulk of the volume was by Richard Barnfield and others."^ " Shakespeare," however, seems to have raised no protest; at any rate "Shakspere" made no sign. Whether he was "offended" or not we are not told, but for thirteen years this book was read as the work of " Shakespeare." Then in 161 2 the astute Jaggard issued another edition, still under the name of " Shake- speare" as sole author, in which he included two new poems by Thomas Heywood, viz. two love-epistles, one from Paris to Helen, and the other from Helen to Paris. These poems had been published by Heywood in his Troia Britannica (1609), and Heywood, unlike Shake- speare, was not inclined to "take it lying down." He, therefore, made an energetic protest, in deference to ' He was, it will be remembered, one of the Syndicate who were, nominally at any rate, responsible for the cost of the printing of the First Folio, the colophon whereto is : " Printed at the charges of W. Jaggard Ed. Blount, I. Smithweeke, and W. Aspley, 1623." ^ Lee's Life, p. 143. The two sonnets are those that appeared as Nos. 138 and 144 in the edition of 1609. MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 461 which the piratical publisher cancelled the first title- page, and substituted a second, omitting Shakespeare's name.^ This shows what could be effected by a little energy on the part of an injured author, but Shakspere, good easy man, was not to be roused from his lethargy — or shall we say his Olympian calm ? — by anything of this kind. Nevertheless we are told that " Shakespeare " was " much offended." Hey wood, however, on whose authority the statement is made, does not mention " Shakespeare " by name. This is what he wrote in the postscript to his Apology for Actors (161 2), addressed to " my approved good Friend, Mr. Nicholas Okes," the printer. "Here, likewise, I must necessarily insert a manifest injury done me in that work by taking the two epistles of Paris to Helen, and Helen to Pa;ris, and printing them in a less volume under the name of another, which may put the world in opinion I might steal from him, and he to do himself right, hath since published them in his own name ; but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his patronage under whom he hath published them, so the author, 1 know, was much offended with Mr. Jaggard that (altogether unknown to him) presumed to make so bold with his name." This is a characteristic specimen of Tudor prose, and therefore not altogether easy of interpretation. " A manifest injury done me in that work." In what work? It seemingly ought to mean in The Passionate Pilgrim, but the work previously named in this postscript is Hey wood's own work, his " booke of Britaines Troy I' so that Dr. Ingleby is obviously right in telling us that this is the work in which, or in respect of which, Heywood was 1 In the "Shakespeare Society" edition of Heywoodfs Apology for Actors -vie are told that "Malone had a copy of The Passionate Pilgrim" with two title-pages, in one of which a coirection was made, presumably in consequence of Heywood's remonstrance. 462 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? injured. " Which may put the world in opinion I might steal them from him." From whom ? From " the printer of Britaines Troy" says Dr. Ingleby,^ though one might have thought that "Shakespeare," in whose name The Passionate Pilgrim was published, had been intended. " And he, to do himself right, hath since published them in his own name." Who is " he " ? Mr. Lang writes : " That is, W. Shakespeare has since published under his own name such pieces of The Passionate Pilgrim as are his own."* But when, I should like to know, did " Shakespeare " do this? Shakespeare never published anything, so far as we know, except Venus and Adonis and Lticrece. It would be very interesting to see the work in which he "published under his own name" those pieces of The Passionate Pilgrim that were his own, but, unfortunately, Mr. Lang gives no reference to it* Then Mr. Lang asks, " Why was the author so slack when Jaggard, in 1599, published W. S's poems with others not by W. S. ? " Slack " indeed ! He was " slack " on each occasion. Neither in 1599 nor in 1612 did he take any action. But he — "the author" — was, we are told, "much offended in 161 2," though there it apparently stopped. He had remained quite passive and quiescent from 1599 to 161 2, but then, like the bus-driver of the immortal " Bab," of whom it is related that after seven years This Hebrew child got awful riled And busted into tears, he really became very much annoyed ! ' Cmturie of Prayse, 1879, p. 99. » Work cited, p. 37. ' If Dr. Ingleby is right, as I presume he is, in explaining the word "him" (" . . . I might steale them from him") as the printer of Britaines Troy, it is evident that he is the man who " to do himself right hath since published them [viz. Heywood's two poetical "epistlesi"] in his own name," and this I take it is the true interpretation. Mr. Lang seems to have misunderstood the passage. MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 463 But whom does Heywood, mean by " the author " ? Did Shakspere profess to be " much offended," as, being the nominal author of the work, he might very naturally be? Or had Heywood someone else in mind when he spoke of " the author " ? Mr. Lang thinks he must have meant " Will," because in A Women Killed by Kindness he says that " Melli^uous Shakespeare . . . was but 'Will'." But inasmuch as the Plays and Poems were published under the name of William Shakespeare, and as the abbreviation of " William " is " Will," I cannot, as I have already explained, see any cogency in this argu- ment. Whoever is meant Heywood speaks of him in very deferential terms. But " the author," though " much offended," does not appear to have taken any action as Heywood did, whereby Jaggard was constrained to cancel the first title-page, and substitute a second, omitting Shakespeare's name. Had not Heywood thus interfered, we may conclude that, as in the case of the spurious plays, and of the Sonnets, no action would have been taken, and The Passionate Pilgrim, of 161 2, would have continued to be issued with "W. Shake- speare" on the title-page, and would have so come down to us. Yet no reason can be suggested why the player, the "deserving man," if he were "the author," should not have interfered by protest or otherwise, both in 1599 and 1612. If, however, "Shakespeare" was some other personage in an altogether different walk of life — such as (e.g.) a courtier holding, or aspiring to, high office in the State — he might well have thought it expedient in this, as in other cases, to put up with the injury, and say nothing. There are times when silence is golden. And this is the only instance where any evidence has come down to us that Shakespeare was even " offended " by the very frequent liberties that were taken with his name. " Offended," indeed, he well might be, but in no 464 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? case does he appear to have moved a finger in order to right the wrong.^ And here we must recall to mind that Shakspere, so far as we know, never, from first to last, did or said anything whatever to show that he claimed to be the author of the Plays or Poems, or any of them ; yet what could be the cause of such apathy, or excess of modesty, it is impossible to conceive if the glory of the authorship was really his. It is, indeed, one of the most extra- ordinary things in this extraordinary and (on the common hypothesis) inexplicable life. Take the case of the two poems, for example, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. Each bore the name of " Shake- speare" subscribed to the dedication addressed to the great Earl of Southampton, and we are asked to believe that this " Shakespeare " was the " man-player," the "deserving man," as Cuthbert Burbage styled Shakspere twelve years after the publication of the First Folio ; yet we have not a tittle of evidence to show that Shakspere ever spoke of these poems as his, or did anything in the nature of an act of ownership with regard to them, or was even in possession of copies of them, or either of them, at the time of his death, or at any previous time. Ben Jonson was in the habit of presenting copies of his works to his friends. No single instance is recorded of Shakspere giving any book to anybody, or possessing such a thing, for the matter of that, nor do his fellow-players, when they make mention of him, ever speak of him as an author, But these reflections more properly belong to the general argument against the " Stratfordian '' authorship, and for the purposes of the present chapter I am assuming that " Shakespeare " was a pseudonym, or " mask-name." ' "Why Shakespeare was so indifferent to the use of his name,'' says Mr. Lang, "or, when he was moved, acted so mildly [as a, fact, he does not seem to have ' acted ' at all], it is not for me or anyone to explain " (Work citad, p. 38). Mr. Lang is certainly right in not trying to explain what, on the orthodox hypothesis, is unexplainable. MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 465 Now Mr. Lang has written that, "William Shake- speare," or " Shakespere," was, in his view, "the ideally- worst pseudonym which a poet who wished to be ' con- cealed ' could possibly have had the fatuity to select. His plays and poems would be, as they were, universally- attributed to the actor, who is represented as a person conspicuously incapable of writing them."^ Here Mr. Lang, since he makes special reference to the " concealed poet," which expression was applied by Bacon, in one of his letters, to himself, has, I presume, the " Baconians " more particularly in mind, and, certainly, if we are to take the view of Shakspere which some " Baconians " do, and regard him as a drunken clown who was not even able to write his own name, then we must admit that he was "conspicuously incapable of writing" the Plays and Poems. It will have been seen, however, that I do not take that view. I do not for a moment suppose that the "concealed poet," whoever he was, imagined that plays and poems published in the name of " Shakespeare " would not be " attributed to the actor," though I would qualify Mr, Lang's "universally" by- saying that it is quite possible that some few men in the inner, and upper, circle of literature knew that that name stood for something more than the "man-player" and "deserving man." In The Vindicators of Shakespeare, I wrote, in a passage which I think Mr. Lang must have overlooked : " If plays and poems were published under the name of ' Shakespeare,' by which name the man who wrote himself ' Shakspere ' was, it seems, not infrequently known to his contemporaries, no doubt they would be generally accepted as written by the player. That many- plays in which Shakespeare had no part were, nevertheless, ascribed to him, because published in that name, is a simple matter of fact. But contemporary belief that he ' Work cited, p. 15. The form "Shakespere" was only used once, viz. on the title-page of Love's LcUiour's Lost, 1598. 2 H 466 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? was the author of such plays would, of course, be no proof that he wrote them. It would only show that the witnesses . . . had been deceived. Nay, the fact that Titus Andronicus was included in the Folio as Shake- speare's, and was ascribed to him by such an unprejudiced witness as Meres, in 1598, is so far from being considered a conclusive proof of the true authorship that the over- whelming balance of ' orthodox ' opinion is to the effect that Shakespeare had no hand in it at all." ^ Now Shakspere, the player, though not, as I conceive, by any means well educated, had been for some years, probably, at a grammar school, where he had, at any rate, learnt some Latin ; moreover he was a " Johannes Factotum," or " jack-of-all-trades," and conceived himself well able to " bombast out a line," and his name, if written " Shakespeare " or, still better, " Shake-speare," made a very good pen-name. I am quite unable to understand why this should be " the ideally worst pseudonym " which a poet who wished to conceal his identity from the general public could have selected. Mr. Smithson, writing as a " Baconian," but as one who repudiates cyphers and cryptograms, has expressed the opinion " that there must have been some sort of understanding between the poet and the actor (resembling, perhaps, that between Aristophanes and the actor Callistratus)," and he "con- jectures that it may have covered proprietary rights or shares in the theatrical ventures." ^ I agree with Mr. ' Work cited, p. 64. ^ The Nineteenth Century, Nov. 1913, p. 965. The following remarks of a very shrewd man of the world, an experienced journalist, and one who was well endowed with common sense, are, I think, interesting. "There is nothing particularly improbable," wrote the late Mr. Henry Labouchere, "in Shakespeare, as the manager of a theatre, having given his name to plays that he produced, and the author of which had grounds not to wish to be known as their writer. In any case, it is not more improbable than that the imeducated son of a man who could not write, and whose daughter could not write, came up to London from a small country town, very shortly afterwards wrote a play like Hamlet and followed it up with plays which MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 467 Smithson, at any rate in thinking that there must, prob- ably, have been some arrangement between Shakspere the actor and those — or some of those, if not all — who published in the name of " Shakespeare." I imagine that not only one but several writers found it convenient to publish under that name, and came to an understanding with Shakspere in the matter. Who cared ? There were no " dramatic critics " at that time, and no newspapers to discuss the authorship, or reputed authorship, of each new play. Nobody except a select few cared "a twopenny button top " about such matters.'^ Why was it that so many plays were published as by " Shakespeare " which are admittedly not " Shake- spearean " ? The usual answer is, because " Shakespeare's " works were so successful that any play or poem in his -name would "sell." I do not think this answer is a sufficient or satisfactory one. Why were not plays, or poems, published in the name of Ben Jonson, or of other successful writers df the time, though not his work, or theirs ? Such writing, especially those in the name of the author of Every Man in His Humour, would, assuredly, have been likely to command a sale. The consideration of this question suggests the true answer to my first inter- rogatory. Plays and poems might safely be published in " Shakespeare's " name because it was known that nobody would interfere. If they were so published by arrangement with Shakspere there would, of course, be no interference. If without any such arrangement, it might not be thought involved a knowledge of ancient and modern literature, of several foreign languages, and of the niceties of forensic procedure, and then went back to his country town to consort with the clowns who had been the friends •of his youth." See Edwin Reed's Noteworthy Opinions, p. 17. '"If," writes Dr. Appleton Morgan, "certain noblemen of the court proposed an^using themselves at joint aiibnymous authorship, they were certainly right in concluding that the name of a living man, in their own pay, was a safer disguise than a psendon3mi which would challenge curiosity and speculation" {The Shakespearean Myth, p. 283). 468 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? worth while to interfere, or interference might lead to inconvenient disclosures. Heywood's action is instructive in this connection. To publish plays in the pseudonym of " Shakespeare " was one thing ; to " lift " two poems of a well-known author, and to publish them in a book with other poems in the name of "Shakespeare," was quite another thing. Heywood, very naturally, was not only " offended," but took steps to prevent the continuance of su-^h misrepresentation. In 1595 was published the Tragedy of Locrine, "newly set forth, overseen, and corrected by W. S. " ; in 1600 Sir John Oldcastle appeared with " William Shakespeare " on the title-page ; in 1602 Thomas Lord Cromwell was published, said to be written by " W. S. " ; in 1605 the London Prodigall was published with " Shakespeare's " name on the title-page; in 1607 The Puritan or The Widow of Watling Street was published purporting to be written by " W. S. " ; in 1698 A Yorkshire Tragedy ap- peared bearing the name of " Shakespeare." The first quarto of Pericles was published in 1609 with the words " by William Shakespeare '' on the title-page. And still Shakspere was content to play the part of " William the Silent"! All these seven plays were included by the Editors of the Third Folio (1664) as Shakespeare's works, and were retained by the Editors of the Fourth Folio, printed in 1685. And they were justified in so doing, at least to this extent that William Shakspere had never denied the authorship of these works. They were regarded as " Shakesperean " plays. In fact, as Dr. Appleton Morgan writes, Shakspere never either claimed or denied the authorship of any of the plays ; " he fathered them all ' and no questions asked.' " ^ This writer, more than thirty years ago, expressed himself as follows in The Shakespearean Myth: "We believe that . . . history and circumstantial evidence ' Work cited, p. 287. MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 469 oppose the possibility of William Shakespeare's author- ship of the works called his, and that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether any ONE MAN did write, or could have written, either with or without a Bodleian or an Astor Library at his elbow, the whole complete canon of the Shakesperean works. But is there not a refuge from all these more or less conflicting theories in the simple canon that human experience is a safer guide than con- jecture or miracle ? In our own day the astute manager draws from bushels of manuscript plays, submitted to him by ambitious amateurs or plodding playwrights, the few morsels he deems worthy of his stage, and restringing them on a thread of his own, or another's, presents the result to his audience. Can we imagine a reason why the same process should have been improbable in the days of Elizabeth and James? And if among these amateurs and plajMvrights there happened to be the same proportion of lawyers, courtiers, politicians, soldiers, musicians, physicians, naturalists, botanists, and the rest . . . that we would be likely to find among the corresponding class to-day, it would surely be a less violent explanation of ' the myriad-minded Shakespeare,' than to conjecture the ' Shakespeare ' springing, without an interval for prepara- tion, at once into the finished crown and acme of each and all of these. In fact is it not William Shakespeare the EDITOR, and not the author, to whom our veneration and gratitude is due ? " ^ ' In ViTilliam Winter's biographical sketch of that famous dramatist, actor, and manager, the late Dion Boucicault, we are told that he clung steadily to the belief in a proprietary, or composite, or editorial authorship of the plays, and Dr. Appleton Morgan informs me that Boucicault avowed this belief to him personally. He believed, says Winter, that Shakespeare's works " were written by several hands, amicably collaborating with the bard." {Other Days, by William Winter, New York, 1908, p. 134. Whether Boucicault would himself have referred to Shakspere of Stratford as "the bard" my information leads me to doubt.) With this I would compare the follow- ing written by a "Baconian," viz. the late Rev. Walter Begley : "The attempt to exclude Shakspere totally from the immortal plays is most absurd. 470 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Whatever may be thought of this, the fact remains that all these plays, now rejected as " spurious " (though Pericles is accepted as, at least in part, by Shakespeare)) as well as all the doubtful, and more than doubtful, plays, or parts of plays, published in the First Folio, were accepted as "Shakespearean" in Shakspere's lifetime, and for many years after his death. If he did not act as " Editor," as Dr. Morgan conceives, at any rate his name, in its literary, and " spear-shaking " form, was habitually used by authors, apparently with his consent, and certainly without let or hindrance, as a name under which they could safely publish their plays. And, in this view of the case, the Editors of the Third and Fourth Folios perhaps did rightly to include the seven additional plays in those works. They were " Shakespeare " plays as much as Titus Andronicus, or / Henry VI, or The Taming of a Shrew. The question, of course, remains, Who, then, was the Master Mind ? Who was the author of Hamlet, and Lear, and Othello and Macbeth! That is a question which I make no attempt to answer. " Concerning the gods," said an old Greek philosopher, " I cannot say whether they exist, or do not exist. There are many obstacles in the way, as the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life." In the quest of the true Shakespearean authorship also these same obstacles confront us. The subject is full of difficulty, and life is too short — in my case at any rate — to pursue it further. It is, of course, I exclude him totally from Lrurece and Venus and Adonis, as from the ' sugared sonnets,' which certainly would not have proved very tasty to /iss friends. . . . But to exclude Shakspere from working at and patching up the various old plays he had scraped together is to go against all good evidence and against all the inferences from contemporary allusions, and is almost as. great an error as the supposition that he wrote the last revision of Hamlet and Love's Labour's Lost, or conceived the wondrous imagery and romance of The Tempest or A Midsummer Nighfs Dream " [Baton's Novt Resuscitatio, Vol. 11, p. 288). MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 471 easy for the " orthodox " to make fun of " the Great Un- known," but until further evidence is forthcoming, I must be content to rest upon the negative case. "Very un- satisfactory," of course. The same is said of the Agnostic attitude in theological matters. But, after all, in matters of belief, it is not what is satisfactory that we seek, but what is true. It may here be appropriate to say a word on the Shakespearean vocabulary. Max Miiller has frequently been quoted to the effect that Shakespeare used about 15,000 words in his plays. Now upon this statement Mr. Robertson treats us to the following note : " Max Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language, 6th ed., 1, 309, citing — of all authorities — Renan's Histoire des langues simitiques ! I cannot find the passage in my copy (2nd ed.) of Renan. Mr. G. C. Bompas (Problem of the Shakespeare Plays, 1902, p. iv) characteristically asserts that the ' estimate ' is Max Miiller's own."^ According to Mr. Robertson, therefore, Max Miiller did not himself form the estimate that Shakespeare used about 15,000 words in his plays, but merely took it from Renan's Histoire des langues s^mi- tiques — " of all authorities " ! — and Mr. Bompas makes the "characteristically" false assertion that the estimate is Max Miiller's own. As a fact, however, as I shall pro- ceed to show, Mr. Bompas is quite right, and the " char- acteristic " assertion is Mr. Robertson's. Max Miiller writes : " We are told on good authority by a country clergyman that some of the labourers in his parish had not 300 words in their vocabulary ... a well-educated person in England who has been at a public school, and at the university, who reads his Bible, his Shakespeare, The Times, and all the books of Mudie's Library, seldom uses more than about 3000 or 4000 words in actual conversation. Accurate thinkers and close reasoners, who avoid vague and general expressions, and wait till they ^ Work cited, p. 517, note 3. 472 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? find the word that exactly fits their meaning, employ a larger stock, and eloquent speakers may rise to command of 10,000. The Hebrew Testament says all that it has to say with 5642 words; Milton's works are built up with 8000, and Shakespeare, who probably displayed a greater variety of expression than any writer in any language, produced all his plays with about 15,000 words." ^ Now here, it is true, we have the following curious note: "Renan, Histoire, p. 138," and upon this Mr. Robertson would have us believe that Max Miiller's estimate of the number of Shakespeare's words was not his own, but taken, without verification, from Renan. Then Mr. Robertson turns to Renan's Histoire des langues sdmi- tiques, at p. 138, and tells us he cannot find the passage in his copy. Of course he cannot, and if he had not been in such a hurry to score a point — a false point as it turns out — he would have veiy soon seen why. It might surely have struck him a priori that Max Miiller would not be likely to take his estimate of Shakespeare's vocabulary from Renan. The fact is that the note, " Renan, Histoire, p. 138," is, obviously, inserted in error on page 309 of the Science of Language. ^^ Histoire" — what " Histoire"? It might be the Histoire d\Israel. But if the reader will turn back to p. 307 of Max Miiller's work he will find there the reference to the same page (138) of the Histoire des langues s^mitiques, in its proper place, viz. as a note to the words " Hebrew has been reduced to about 500 roots." Let him then turn to Renan's work referred to, at p. 138, and he will find that Renan is here dealing with the Hebrew language. He will not find the authority for Max Miiller's statement that this language has been re- duced to about 500 roots on this particular page, but if he will read on to page 140 he will find " on evalue le nombre ' Science of Language, 1885, Vol. I, pp. 308-9. As to the labourer's vocabulary, given on the authority of a country clergyman, the reference is to The Study of the English Language, by A. D'Orsey, p. 15. MANY PENS AND ONE MASTER MIND 473 des racines hebraiques k cinq cents." He will see further that Max Muller's note, on p. 307, says Leusden counted 5642 Hebrew and Chaldee words in the Old Testament, and this also he will find is taken from Kenan's Histoire des langues s^mitiques (1863) at p. 140. It is quite plain, therefore, that the second reference to the " Histoire^ p. 138," has crept \nper incuriam, and that Max Miiller, as might be expected, makes no reference at all to Renan in support of his statement with regard to the Shake- spearean vocabulary. Thus it turns out, on examination, that Mr. Robertson's sneer at Max Miiller and his supposed " authority " and his suggestion that Mr. Bompas is "characteristically" untrustworthy, are based upon his own uncritical error, which a more careful examination of the works referred to would have enabled him to avoid. This is " characteristic " indeed ! Further, we have it on the authority of the late Mr. W. H. Edwards that "in the course of three lectures delivered at Oxford, and reprinted at Chicago, Professor Miiller said : ' Few of us use more than 3000 or 4000 words; Shakespeare used about 15,000.'"^ Other estimates have put the Shakespearean vocabulary even higher. Thus Craik estimated it at 21,000 words, without counting inflectional forms, while he estimated the vocabulary of Milton at but 7000. Clark, who quotes these estimates in his Elements of the English Language (p. 134), says: "The vocabulary of Shakespeare becomes more than double that of any other writer in the English language. . . . English speech, as well as literature, owes more to him than to any other man." But this, of course, does not suit Mr. Robertson's argument. How could Farmer's ignoramus (and I have shown that I am quite justified in using that term con- cerning Shakspere as portrayed by Farmer) — how could ' Shaksfer not Shakespeare, by William H. Edwards (Cincinnati ; The Robert Clarke Company, 1900), p. 195. 474 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the half-educated man who had such very " small " Latin that he could not translate quite common words in that language, and who having " less Greek " had none at all — how could he possess this huge vocabulary? Obviously the two theories are inconsistent. One of them must go by the board. So the "vocabulary" is thrown to the wolves, and we find Mr. Robertson suggesting (p. 521) " that the playwright was really not a man of supremely large vocabulary for his time ! " What is the meaning of "for his time" I wonder? Is it suggested that Elizabethan vocabularies were normally much larger than the voca- bularies of the present day, and that though Shakespeare's vocabulary may be " supremely large " for the twentieth century, it was not so for the seventeenth century? If this be not the meaning, I really cannot see what the effect of the words I have italicised is intended to be. This, however, in passing only. It has been generally believed that Shakespeare's vocabulary is "supremely large" whether for his own time or ours ; and until it is shown that Max Miiller and Clark and Craik and others are wrong, I think we may continue to believe that the fact is so. My own belief is that the explanation of the phenomenon (assuming its reality) is to be found in the further fact that it is the vocabulary not of one man but of several. Mr. Edwards writes : " This extraordinary vocabulary seems entirely too great for one individual, and hence it has been argued that this alone is enough to show that several hands took part in the Shakespeare plays." For myself, however, I should not cite the vocabulary as evidence of the " several hands " ; but knowing as we do that the work of " several hands " is to be found in " the Shakespeare plays," I should regard that fact as an explanation, in great part if not altogether, of the abound- ing Shakespearean vocabulary. CHAPTER XIV THE BOOK OF THE REVELS AT COURT " 'TT N the year 1842," writes Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps I (Vol. II, p. 161), "there appeared a collection of I extracts from the old manuscript accounts of .m. the Court Revels that were then preserved at the Audit Office, and included in the volume, in ' the Accompte of the Office of the Revelles of this whole yeres charge in anno 1604 untell the last of Octobar, 1605,' is a register mentioning by name some of the dramas that were acted before Royalty during that period. The whole of this last-mentioned record, a copy of which is given on the next page, is unquestionably a modern forgery, and if this had been all the evidence on the subject, there could obviously have been no alternative but to dismiss it entirely from consideration. There are, however, substantial reasons for believing that, although the manuscript itself is spurious, the information which it yields is genuine." The forgery was generally supposed to have been the work of Peter Cunningham, son of Allan Cunningham, who had been in unlawful possession of the documents in question (there is a play-list of 161 1-2 as well as that of 1604-5), and had tried to sell them to the British Museum as his own. Sir Sidney Lee writes : " Peter Cunningham professed to print the original document in his accounts of the revels at Court (Shakespeare 475 476 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Society, 1842, p. 203 et seq,), but there is no doubt that he forged his so-called transcript and that the additions which he made to Malone's Memorandum were the outcome of his fancy." ^ Malone, it may be mentioned, had made a memorandum of plays performed at Court in 1604 and 1605, which, says Sir Sidney Lee, "was obviously derived" by him "from authentic documents that were in his day preserved at the Audit Office in Somerset House," but which, he tells us, cannot now be traced.^ Now this opinion, as to the spuriousness of the entries in question, has been accepted by all Shakespearean scholars, critics, experts, and palaeographers for the last forty years down to the present day. Mr. Ernest Law, however, some three years since published a work on Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries (191 1), in which he claims to prove that the scholars, critics, experts, and palaeographers were all wrong, and that these two play-lists (viz. of 1604-5 and 161 1-2) are genuine contemporary references to the performances of some of Shakespeare's plays at Court in his lifetime. At this we need feel no surprise in view of the extreme un- certainty of all orthodox Shakespearean opinion, and the extraordinarily kaleidoscopic nature of all Shake- spearean criticism. Moreover, I am not concerned to dispute that Mr. Law makes out a good prima facie case in defence of the documents in question. Now in these play-lists, which, if all the old critics ' Illustrated Life, p. 192 note. ^ Mr. Ernest Law writes in his work on Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries (p. 61), to be referred to presently: "Mr. Lee has been almost the only recent writer on the topic who has, with both feirness and prudence, abstained from fastening the supposed forgeries on Cunningham, though, in common with everyone else, he could not but accept the universal condemna- tion passed on the play-lists by all those best qualified to judge." Mr. Law appears to have overlooked the note above quoted where Sir Sidney Lee says there is "no doubt " that Cunningham was the forger. THE BOOK OF THE REVELS AT COURT 477 were wrong and Mr. Ernest Law is right, were made 'by some scribe in the years referred to, there is a column headed, " The Poets which mayd the Plaies," and in this column, in the 1604-5 list, the name of "Shaxberd" occurs four times, viz. opposite the plays Mesur for Mesur, The Plate of Errors, and The Marchant of Vents (twice),^ respectively. This, on the aforesaid assumption, seems to be prima facie evidence that the scribe in question looked upon player Shakspere as the poet who made these plays. " Nothing," writes Mr. Law (P- S7)> "has contributed more to the immediate con- demnation of Cunningham's play-lists than the quaint version of the name 'Shaxberd,' in which the knowing ones had at once detected the mock-antique of the tyro in seventeenth-century forgery." But as against this view he appeals to contemporary records "exhibiting almost exactly similar peculiarities in the spelling of the immortal name — ' Shaxpere,' ' Shaxber,' ' Shaxbeer,' " which, he goes on to say, are " plain indications of the original universal pronunciation of the name, still preserved among the peasantry of Warwickshire round about Stratford, and best represented by the two French words, chaque espere — Shakespeare himself always having used a spelling which shows that he retained these orijginal native sounds to the end." So far so good. Mr. Law is, I believe, quite right in his remarks on the pronunciation of player Shakspere's name, though it is possible that " Shak-spur " more nearly represents the sound of the name as it was pronounced by himself and by his friends and relations among "the peasantry of Warwickshire round about Stratford." ^ ' It is rather curious that although the list makes mention of other Shakespearean plays, viz. The Moor of Venis, A Play of the Merry Wives of Winsor, Love's Labout's Lost, and Henry the Fift, the column headed " The Poets who mayd the Plaies " is left blank in all these instances. * See ante, chap. IX. 478 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? We have this fact, then (always assuming the genuine- ness of the incriminated entries), that Shakspere of Strat- ford, in the year 1604, was known by a name which might very well be represented by " Shaxper, or Shaxber, or Shag- spere." ^ The scribe of the Revels book, writing no doubt " by ear " (if it was really he who wrote), introduces yet another and, I think, unique form, and writes " Shaxberd." Yet this " Shaksper," or " Shaxberd," had, if the received hypothesis be true, eleven years previously, viz. in 1593, signed a courtier-like dedication to the great Earl of Southampton of his poem Venus and Adonis by the name " William Shakespeare," and had likewise so signed a similar dedication of his poem Lucrece in the following year, while six years previously to 1604 had appeared editions of Richard the Second and Richard the Third bearing the name " William Shake-speare " on their title- pages. Now this name certainly was not pronounced in a manner which could possibly lead a scribe to represent it by the word " Shaxberd," for this is the form which, as old Thomas Fuller remarks, suggests Martial in its war- like sound, " Hasti-vibrans," or " Shake-speare," and calls to mind those well-turndd and true-fildd lines referred to by Jonson : In each of which he seems to shake a lance. As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance. And this, the spear-shaking and hyphenated form, we find employed, as already mentioned, by the author of Willobie his Avisa, who wrote in 1594 (and this is, I believe, the earliest known allusion to Shakespeare ^ Walter Roche, ex-Master of the Stratford Grammar School, wrote "Shaxbere"; Richard Quiney, Shakspere 's fellow-townsman, wrote " Shackspere " ; Abraham Sturley, Shakspere's " fellow-countryman," wrote ' ' Shaxper " ; and in the marriage bond of November 1 582 it is " Shagspere." John Shakespeare in the records of the Stratford Court is styled " Shaiysper" or " Shakspeyre," and there are several other forms of his name, but I do not know that the form "Shaxberd " is to be found except in these play-lists. THE BOOK OF THE REVELS AT COURT 479 by name) : " And Shakespeare paints poor Lucrece rape."i It appears, therefore, that the scribe wrote the name of the player as pronounced, by himself and his fellows, and not the name of the author as it had appeared in the works cited, and many others before 1604 (as, for yet another instance, in the First Quarto of Hamlet, 1603, where we read " William Shake-speare "), from which it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the scribe in question either had never heard of these works, or some- how failed to recognise the identity of player " Shaxberd " with author " Shakespeare." It appears, further, that player Shaksper, or Shakspere (according to the received hypothesis), although he still called himself, and was called by his fellows, by the name " Shakspur," as known to " the peasantry round about Stratford," had at the outset — to wit, when he published " the first heir of his invention " — adopted the high-sounding form "Shakespeare" or " Shake-speare " as a nom de guerre. As player he was " Shakspur " or " Shaxberd," as author he was " Shake- speare." Such, of course, is the " orthodox " doctrine, so far as the "orthodox" ever agree upon anything. The unorthodox believe that the man who signed himself " Shakespeare " while dedicating the highly polished and cultured poem of Venus and Adonis to one of the greatest and most brilliant of the nobles of his time must be looked for elsewhere than in the ranks of the King's Players, and that the young man who came from Stratford to London, probably in the year 1587, being then, according to Messrs, Garnett and Gosse, "a Stratford rustic," did not really, either by a miracle of genius or writing by divine inspira- ' The names of the nine players who received their " red cloth " in March 1604 are written in full in the accourit of the Master of the Great Wardrobe (see facsimile in Mr. Law's Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber^ p. 8), and, says Mrs. Stopes, "Shakespeare's name is spelt in the way it always is at Court, the way he had it printed in his poems " {Athenaum, March 12, 1916). Yet here is a Court scribe so ignorant that he writes it " Shaxberd" ! 48o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? tion, produte that extraordinary and unique play Love's Labour's Lost only two or three years after his arrival.^ ' " The date of the original production cannot well be put later than 1589," writes Mr. Fleay. Dr. Furnivall thinks it was composed in 1588-9. Charles Knight puts it at 1589. Mr. E. K. Chambers, it is true, puts it as late as 1594, or thereabouts ; but there are strong reasons for supposing that the first version of the play made its appearance several years before that. Sir Sidney Lee considers it probably the poet's first dramatic production. CHAPTER XV SHAKSPERE AS A GROOM OF THE CHAMBER IN Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines (Vol. I, p. 195, 6th ed.) we read as follows concerning the state entry of King James I into the metropolis, which did not take place until nearly a year after the death of Elizabeth: "It was on the isth of March, 1604, that James undertook his formal march from the Tower to Westminster, amidst emphatic denionstrations of welcome and passing every now and then under the most elaborate triumphal arches London had ever seen. In the royal train were the nine actors to whom the special licence had been granted the previous year, including of course Shakespeare and his three friends, Burbage, Hemmings, and Condell. Each of them was presented with four yards arid a half of scarlet cloth, the usual dress allowance to players belonging to the household. The poet and his colleagues were termed King Servants, and took rank at Court amongst the Grooms of the Chamber." It appears that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps gave no authority either for saying that the players marched in the royal procession on this occasion, or that they were appointed grooms of the chamber; neither does Sir Sidney Lee, who repeats both statements.^ There has, however, recently been published a small work on Shake- speare as a Groom of the Chamber (19 10), in which the '^ Illustrated Life, pp. 188 and 191 note 3. 2 I 482 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? author, Mr. Ernest Law, presents us with the desired authority on the second point, viz. the copy of an " Entry in the accounts of the ' Treasurer of the Chamber ' of the payment made to His Majesty's Players for Waiting and Attending on the Constable of Castile in August 1604," which entry runs as follows : " To Augustine Phillipps and John Hemynges for th' allowance of them- selves and tenne of their fellowe^his Majesties' Groomes of the Chamber and Players, for waitinge and attendinge on his Majestys' service, by commandemente, upon the Spanish Embassador at Somersette House, for the space of XVni days, viz. from the IXth day of Auguste 1604 untill the XXVHth day of the same, as appeareth by a bill thereof signed by the Lord Chamberlayne — XXI li XIIs."i There appears to be no room for doubt, therefore, that "his Majesty's Players" were, at the time in question, grooms of the chamber, but that they marched in the royal procession from the Tower to Westminster is disputed by Mr. Law, and it appears to me that he makes out a strong case against that very generally accepted story. However, whether or not " those erst while rogues and vagabonds," as Mr. Law writes, really coruscated through the metropolis on that occasion, " in their suits of royal red," seems to me a matter of no great importance. Let us turn, then, to consider whether any greater importance is to be attached to the appointment of the players as grooms of the chamber. There were both " ordinary " and " extraordinary '' grooms of the chamber. Whether the players were "ordinary" grooms, or whether they were only so ap- pointed for special occasions, does not seem quite clear, but I am inclined to think that at the date in question, 1604, His Majesty's players held the position of ordinary grooms, for I believe the reason of their appointment was ' Mrs. Slopes also has discoursed on this entry in The Athenaum of March 12th, 1910. SHAKSPERE AS A GROOM OF THE CHAMBER 483 in reality this, that as grooms of the chamber they would enjoy freedom from arrest. It was, therefore, not so much as an honour for the players that they were so appointed, but in order that His Majesty might not be inconvenienced by finding that Will Shakspere, or Dick Burbage was under lock and key just when he was want jd to perform before the Court ! ^ But what sort of a position was it which was held by grooms of the chamber in the time of James I ? The King's players, we read, were summoned in this capacity to take part in the festivities in honour of the King of Spain's Ambassador Extraordinary during his stay at Somerset House in the summer of 1604, by which date we may remember some of the greatest of the " Shakespearean " plays had appeared. For was not the Second Quarto of Hamlet published in that memorable year, which also saw the performance of the grand tragedy of Othello ? Nevertheless, says Mr. Law, Shakspere " was not in the least perturbed at taking his place with Heminges, Condell, Phillipps, and the rest of them, when ranged as player grooms in the Presence Chamber of Somerset House." Perturbed! No, indeed ; why should he have been? He does not even seem to have been "humiliated," like some^ high-minded Members of Parlia- ment at the present day pn receipt of their salaries, by being asked to accept £1. i6s. for eighteen days' em- ployment, which sum, no doubt, he received as complacently as he accepted the 40s. from the Earl of Rutland for his work "about my Lorde's impreso."^ And, truly, the ' " They wore the Royal livery, and had all the privileges and perquisites of Grooms of the Chamber, safe from being arrested for debt or any minor offences, lest their withdrawal might hinder the King's service" (Mrs. Stopes in the Athtnaum, March 12, 1910). She adds that when the King "was short of service, at times of pressing concourse, he made them [the players] ' prdinary ' Grooms of the Chamber, instead of ' extraordinary ' as they in general were." ^ It appears from a document in the Record Office (with a duplicate among the Pipe Office papers) that to Augustine Phillipps and John Hemynges were 484 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? services required of the players on that occasion were not very heavy ones. They had, says Mr. Law, "to stand about and try to look pleasant." He compares the function of Shakespeare at Somerset House in 1604 to " that of the modern gentleman-usher at the Court of St. James's." It would be much more correct to compare it to that of the modern " beef-eater " at a lev^e, for it is clear that the players, as grooms of the chamber, on the occasion of the visit of the Spanish Ambassador Extra- ordinary, were merely required to dress up in red cloth and make a show, together with a crowd of other court officials and hangers-on, and that their status and position was altogether different from that of the four or five honourable gentlemen whose names are to be found in Whitaker's Almanack as " Grooms of the Great Chamber " at the present time. Neither is there, so far as I am aware, any evidence that the players were " in the Presence Chamber" at all. Mr. Law, indeed, paints a delightful fancy picture worthy of any court artist. He shows us the Constable of Castile entering " the splendid Presence Chamber," the rich decoration of which made him exclaim with admiration. But " still more was he pleased to see ranged around a retinue of court officials, specially ap- pointed to wait upon him during his stay in London. . . . Among them was a group of twelve gentlemen in red doublets and hose, with cloaks of the same, embroidered in gold with the King's cypher crowned ; and among these was one, more notable than the rest, who may well have been, then or later, pointed out to the Ambassador, a certain interesting individual, known to the King and all paid £z\. I2S. "for the allowance of themselves and tenn of theire ffellowes his Ma"'^ Groomes of the Chamber and Players for waytinge and attendinge on his Ma''^= Service by commandemente uppon the Spanishe Embassador at Somersette howse." A writer in The Times (Literary Supplement) of November loth, 1910, points out that "to make up the number of ten it is necessary to include Shakespeare, though neither he nor any of the other ' fellows ' besides Phillipps and Hemynges is mentioned by name." SHAKSPERE AS A GROOM OF THE CHAMBER 485 the Court, the intimate associate of several prominent nobles, one of His Majesty's Grooms of the Chamber, and the foremost poet and dramatist in England, no other, in fact, than William Shakespeare " ! How extremely provoking it is that there should be no record of all this, not a jot or tittle of evidence ! It is ever thus. The canvas is handed down to us absolutely blank, and the biographers fill it in with all the rich and rosy colours of imagination. Here is Will Shakspere of Stratford paraded with the other players in red doublet and hose, " trying to look pleasant " (let us hope he had not the " Droeshout " look !), and quite contentedly taking his 36s. for eighteen days' employment — as why should he not? — and, alas, no word is said to distinguish him from "those deserving men" his fellow-players; nothing whatever to mark him as " the foremost poet and dramatist in England " ! And this was in 1604, when, surely, he ought to have been at the zenith of his fame ; when he was not only "known to the King and all the Court" (which as an actor no doubt he was), but was "the in- timate associate " (for so Mr. Law tells us^and, of course, he knows) " of several prominent nobles " ! Yes, this silence about him is really quite exasperating. And here I have to take note of a singular error of Mr. Lang's in this connection. That distinguished scholar, before he published the work to which I have so often referred, did me the honour to criticise my book in the pages of The Cornhill Magazine for September, 191 1. Here, with reference to what I had written with regard to the contemporary allusions to Shakespeare, Mr. Lang wrote : " Mr. Greenwood does not seem to understand that an important actor in the greatest dramatic company of the age, one of the King's servants, a: ^roow of the Royal 0Adchamber} was a notable figure in the town," etc. Here, indeed, is a proof of distinction ! Shakspere had been , ' My italics. 486 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? selected, it would seem, for a post which brings him into intimate relations with the King himself! We imagine him as present at the lever and coucher of our British Solomon. A Player, too! One "i' the statute"! A rogue and vagabond, were it not for the King's or some nobleman's licence! But Mr. Lang has unfortunately made a little slip. A " groom of the chamber " was one thing ; a " groom of the beds " was another. Can even the most orthodox "WilHan" imagine "those deserving men," Burbage, Kempe, Hemings, Condell, and the rest, as " Grooms of the Royal Bedchamber " ? ^ I trow not. And when we remember that old Philip Henslowe was himself a groom of the chamber we shall have it very forcibly brought home to us that men of very inferior position, men of " no class " at all, might hold that appointment in those days. Yet some of the " orthodox " very quaintly appear to look upon the fact of the players having been " grooms of the chamber " as somehow adding dignity and lustre to the name of the immortal poet ! ^ Philip, Earl of Montgomery, one of the " Incomparable Pair," was, it may be remembered, not indeed a "groom," but a "Gentleman of his Majesty's Bedchamber," as recorded in the Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to the First Folio. CHAPTER XVI THE STRATFORD MONUMENT AND THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE i AS Mr. Spielmann truly writes in the latest edition of the EncyclopcBdia Britannica : " The mystery that surrounds much [? all] in the life and work of Shakespeare extends also to his portraiture." It extends, further, to his monument at Stratford-on-Avon. Who erected it, and when, and at whose cost? Nobody knows. All that we can say is that there was, at any rate, a monument of some sort at the date when the First Folio was published, for, in his lines to W. Shakespeare prefixed to that immortal work, Leonard Digges speaks of the poet's " Stratford Moni- ment." But the question has been asked. Is the monument, and especially the bust, as they are now to be seen at Stratford, identical with those that were originally placed there, or was the original altered, and if so, when ? These questions have arisen in this manner. The famous antiquary Sir William Dugdale, in his History of the Antiquities of Warwickshire, gives us a picture of the Stratford monument which is the earliest known present- ' Since this Chapter was in print information has come into my hands which seems tolerably conclusive in favour of the contention that the Stratford bust was originally very different from that which now does duty for "Shakespeare" in the church at Stratford-on-Avon. I would beg the reader to turn to Appendix B. 487 488 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? ment of that Mecca-stone of many adoring pilgrims. Dugdale, who was himself a Warwickshire man, and well acquainted with Stratford-on-Avon, appears to have prepared his work in the neighbourhood of that place about the year 1634, and it is well known that the majority of the drawings and engravings for the book in question were executed for him by Hollar, the celebrated Bohemian engraver and designer. According to Mr. Halliwell- Phillipps and others, the engraving of the Stratford monument was executed by this artist. Mr. Spielmann, however, tells us that in his opinion this particular en- graving is not by Hollar. " The prevailii'g opinion," he says (among experts, I presume), "is that it is by his assistant Haywood." But whoever may have been responsible for the drawing and engraving, this fact is indisputable, that it presents us with a bust of Shakespeare which is absolutely different from the effigy as it exists to- day. Dugdale's engraving shows the counterfeit present- ment of a melancholy-looking man, with hollow cheeks and drooping moustache, who holds in front of his body a curious oblong cushion, upon which both of his hands are laid. Either, then, Dugdale's picture is wildly and in- excusably inaccurate, or the original "Stratford bust" was altogether dissimilar to that which is to-day the object of adoration of all the votaries at the shrine. In other words, the question is whether the Dugdale engraving gives us an accurate, or, at any rate, fairly accurate, picture of Shakespeare's bust as seen by Dugdale himself, and by his artist, somewhere about 1634, or whether it is such a hopeless travesty of the original as to convict both the renowned antiquarian and his engraver of an amount of negligence and indifference to truth which puts their testimony altogether out of court ! Now another famous antiquary, Dr. Whitaker, has told us that Dugdale's " scrupulous accuracy, united with stubborn integrity," has elevated his Antiquities of THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 489 Warwickshire "to the rank of legal evidence," ^ and it was upon the faith of the engraving of the Stratford bust in this work that Mrs. Charlotte C. Stopes, the well- known and indefatigable investigator of Shakspearean records, and, I need scarcely add, an entirely orthodox " Stratfordian," published in The Monthly Review of 1904 an article setting forth what she conceived to be "The True Story of the Stratford Bust," ^ in which she argues that the bust was materially altered in the year 1748, when the sculptor employed to repair and improve the monument probably "reconstructed the face altogether." Mr. Spielmann, on the other hand, treats Dugdale's testimony with the utmost contempt. He speaks of the picture of the Stratford bust as a "traitor-engraving," and says that even if it was drawn by Hollar, yet " Hollar was no more accurate than his contemporaries," and that "there was no demand for pictorial accuracy in the seventeenth century," and, therefore, I suppose, no supply. Mrs. Stopes, by way of comparison, examined Dugdale's engraving of Sir Thomas Lucy's monument in Stratford Church, and found that it represented the original with substantial accuracy. Mr. Spielmann, however, retorts that the pictures of the Clopton and Carew monuments in The Antiquities of Warwickshire " depart ludicrously from the originals in respect of many details and entire configuration."* As to "details," we need not, I think, give ourselves much concern. I had myself pointed out, for example, that the little sitting figures in Dugdale's engraving, holding spade and hour-glass, " are placed as no monumental sculptor would be likely to place them."* But this is not a question of details, nor is it a question ' Wood, in his Fasii Oxonienses, writes : " What Dugdale hath done is prodigious. His memory ought to be venerated and had in everlastiiig remembrance." ^ Since republished in patnphlet form (John Murray). ' Letter published in The Pall Mall Gaeette, February 2rst, 1912. * Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 247 note. 490 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of mere carelessness on the part of Dugdale and his artist. The Shakespeare bust, as represented in the Dugdale engraving, is so absolutely different from that which we see at Stratford to-day that unless the monument has been materially altered and reconstructed since his time, he must be held guilty of what is really no better than a fraud upon the public of his day, and upon all readers of his book who put trust and confi- dence in him. It is, however, possible, of course, that such is the case, and Mr. Andrew Lang agrees with Mr. Spielmann that it is so. He writes, with reference to Dugdale's print: " That hideous design was not executed by an artist who ' had his eye on the object,' if the object were a Jacobean monument ; while the actual monument was fashioned in no period of art but the Jacobean . . . Dugdale's engraving is not a correct copy of any genuine Jacobean work of art." " The gloomy hypochondriac or lunatic, clasping a cushion to his abdomen," cannot, by any possibility, represent the original bust of " Shake- speare." Mr. Lang, further, presents us with a repro- duction of the Carew monument as represented in Dugdale's book, and a photograph of that monument in Stratford Church, in order that we may see how great are the discrepancies between the engraving and the original.^ It may be, then, that Dugdale, the renowned anti- quarian, though himself a Warwickshire man, and familiar with Stratford-on-Avon, and though publishing a book the value of which entirely depended upon its historical 1 Work cited, p. 178 et seq. Mr. Lang tells us that Sir George Trevelyan wrote to him that he "had made a sketch of the Carew Renaissance monument in Stratford Church, and found the discrepancies between the original tomb and the representation in Dugdale's Warwickshire are far and away greater than in the monument to William Shakespeare," But, with respect, this is the language of exaggeration, so far as the principal figures are concerned at any rate ; for, seeing that Dugdale's engraving of the Shakespeare bust is absolutely unlike that which now stands in Stratford THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 491 accuracy, was, nevertheless, so absolutely and wantonly negligent with regard to the illustrations of that book, which purported to present his readers with copies of the buildings, monuments, etc., described therein, that he was content to accept from his artist — who, whether Hollar or some other, was himself as scandalously negligent as his employer — an engraving which, if he had looked at it at all, he must at once have seen bore no resemblance whatever to the original. This, T repeat, is quite possible ; just as it is quite possible — nay, in this case I would say, most probable — that Jonson wrote his lines concerning the figure that "was for gentle Shakespeare cut " under a monstrous signboard which he knew perfectly well bore no resemblance whatever (unless it were the resemblance of a gross caricature) to the real "Shake- speare." Yes, this may be so; but the strange thing is that those who speak so contemptuously of " seventeenth- century ideas of accuracy " when the Dugdale print is concerned, are, nevertheless, such ardent defenders of the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Droeshout en- graving ! ^ This, however, by the way only. Let us now turn to the story of the "repairing and beautifying" of "Shakespeare's monument" in the year 1748 or 1749, Church in every particular, it is simply impossible that any other "dis- crepancies," wheresoever found, can be " far and away greater" than these ! The reader should go to Stratford-on-Avon and judge for himself. As to the Clopton monument it is well to remember that it has been "repaired and beautified " at least twice — once in 1630, as recorded by Dugdale, and again in 1714, as the present inscription records. Dugdale's engraving of it is correct in essentials. Many of these old monuments may have been greatly altered in the process of " repairing and beautifying " since Dugdale saw them. 'As I wrote in The National Heview {June, 191 2) : "I am prepared to go even further, and to believe that Ben Jonson himself was capable of handmg down to posterity statements as little consistent with strict veracity as Di^dale's engravings are now said to be. For I take it ' there was no demand ' for literary any more than for ' pictorial accuracy ' in those spacious times ! " 492 is tHERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? as unfolded by the documents brought to light by Mrs. Stopes. This lady found in the Whaler Collection, at Stratford- on-Avon, a manuscript of the Rev. Joseph Greene, Master of the Grammar School, written in September, 1746, in which he tells us that " as the curious original monument and bust" of the poet, "erected above the tomb that enshrines his dust [szc] in the Church of Stratford-upon- Avon, Warwickshire, is through length of years and other accidents become muck impaired and decayed" (the italics are mine), an offer had been made by Mr. John Ward, the grandfather of the celebrated Mrs. Siddons, and his company, to act Othello in the Town Hall, on September 9th, 1746, the receipts of which were "to be solely appropriated to the repairing of the original monument aforesaid"; and there is a "copy of an old play-bill at the time of repairing and beautifying Shake- speare's monument, with the Rev. Joseph Greene's remarks on the performers." Ultimately it was agreed that the execution of the work should be committed to "Mr. John Hall, Limner"; and Mr. Lang, who styles Hall "a local 'limner' or painter," contended that all he had to do was to repaint the monument and bust, and possibly, if Halliwell-Phillipps's testimony is to be accepted (although that writer gives no authority for the statement), to restore "the forefinger, part of the thumb of Shakespeare's writing hand, and the pen," which were missing.^ Similarly, Mr. Spielmann, in his reply to Mrs. Stopes {Pall Mall Gazette, December 6th, 1910), says: "If anything beyond surface restoration and painting of the bust were needed, the work would hardly have been committed, as it was, to John Hall, Limner . . . only the removal of discolouration on the monument, re-stopping and binding together of loose joints, and the ^ See Mr. Lang's article on ' ' The Mystery of Shalcespeare's Monument " in Morning Post of July Sth, 1912, and work cited, p. 181 et seq. THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 493 decay of the pigment in the bust, would constitute the necessary repairs, and this labour would well represent the expepditure of ;£'i2. los." As to the last point, viz. the expenditure of ;£'i2. los., I will only remark, first, that it seems by no means certain that this was the whole sum which John Hall received; for the contributors to the fund had previously agreed that "we will also use our endeavours that such further money shall be collected and given him as, with the former collections, may make up the whole sum of sixteen pounds " ; and, secondly, that money was, of course, worth much more in those days than it is at the present time.^ But was John Hall's work really as limited as Mr. Lang and Mr. Spielmann have assumed? In the first place it is to be noted that although John Ward's company gave their performance in September, 1746, and the receipts were duly handed over to the churchwardens, the work was not executed till more than two years after- wards, and in November, 1748, we find Mr. Joseph Greene, the headmaster of the Grammar School, writing to John Ward to apologise for the delay, and to ask for his advice in the matter ; to which letter Ward replies on December 3rd, 1748, saying that, as he intends paying a visit to Stratford "next summer," he hopes to have the pleasure of seeing the monument of the " immortal Bard " completely finished, and adding that he would " readily come into any proposal to make good the sum for the use intended, if what is already in the churchwardens' hands should prove deficient." ^ Now what was the reason of all this delay? I thinlc it is to be found in the disagreement which the documents show there was between the Rev. Joseph Greene, the ' See also John Ward's offer to make up any deficiency, quoted below. 'It would seem to follow from this letter that the "repairs" were not actually completed till 1749. | 494 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? master of the Grammar School, and the Rev. Mr. Kenwrick, the vicar of Stratford. Greene, so the docu- ments appear to indicate, was for giving John Hall a pretty free hand in the work of " repairing and beautify- ing," while the good vicar was for restricting his opera- tions. Thus we read of " a form proposed by Mr. Greene to the gentlemen at the Falcon, but rejected by Mr. Kenwrick (the vicar), who thought it did not sufficiently limit what was to be done by Mr. Hall, as [did] a form which he himself had drawn up" (November 30th, 1748). This prolonged controversy between the vicar and the schoolmaster was not, surely, as to the restoration of a damaged finger merely, and I think it may reasonably be concluded that when it was at last agreed " That Mr. John Hall, Limner, shall repair and beautify, or have the direction of repairing and beautifying, the original monu- ment of Shakespeare the poet," Greene had carried his point, and that John Hall was, as I have already sug- gested, given a considerably wider "limit" than what the good vicar had considered to be desirable. It is to be noted that, according to a form drawn up for signature by the contributors, but which appears never to have been signed, the money subscribed was to be paid to Hall " provided he takes care, according to his ability, that the monument shall become as like as possible to what it was when first erected." It seems clear that this was the pledge for which Mr. Kenwrick contended, and if, as I gather from the documents quoted by Mrs. Stopes, it was only proposed for signature, and not in fact signed, that circumstance appears to constitute pregnant evidence in favour of those who believe that the alterations of the monument in 1749 were not confined to such matters as repainting, and the " restopping and binding together of loose joints," etc.^ ' See Mrs. Stopes's article in The Pall Mall Gazette of November l8th, 1910. If it had been -a. mere question of recoloration there would have been THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 495 But is there any further evidence as to what was done at this time to the monument and the bust ? Mr. Lang, as I have already mentioned, cites Halliwell-Phillipps to the effect that Hall was to restore the thumb and a fore- finger " of Shakespeare's writing hand " ; and if that is to be accepted as a fact, then it is pretty clear that the bust in 1749 was not as it is represented in the "Dugdale" engraving. But Halliwell-Phillipps gives no authority, and cites no document in support of this statement. He may have been misled by the fact that the finger and thumb of the bust were, as we are told, restored in 1790 by William Roberts of Oxford. This may, very possibly, have been the first restoration of these missing pieces, and not the second, as Halliwell-Phillipps conceives.^ But what has this writer to tell us of the " Dugdale " engrav- ing? " In his Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (1886)," says Mr. Lang, in a letter to The Morning Post (July 5th, 191 2), "he does not, I think, even mention the print in Dugdale's book." This is true, but in the House of Commons' Library there is a copy of The Works of William Shakespeare by James O. Halliwell, 1853, a tponumental, but, I think, little known work, in sixteen ponderous volumes; and there, in Vol, I, 1 have found some interesting observations both on the engraving and on the monument. As to the engraving, Halliwell gives it the go-by with very few words. He rejects it as in- accurate and untrustworthy. At the same time he informs us that it was by Hollar, being thus in disagree- ment with Mr. Spielmann so far as this particular is concerned. As to the monument, he writes : " A person who visited Stratford a few years after the restoration by no need to stipulate that "the monument shall become \sic\ as like as possible to what it was when first erected." But, apparently, even that pledge was not given. ' In his book (p. 183) Mr. Lang says he lays no stress on Halliwell- Phillipps's story of " the repairing of the forefinger of the right hand, and the pen," seeing that no authority is cited. 496 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Hall (1749), after observing that he could not discover a single person of the name of Shakespeare in Stratford, says, ' his monument, the sexton's wife told me, had been very much neglected and had a lamentable appearance, till about four or five years since, when Ward's Company of comedians repaired and beautified it from the produce of a benefit play exhibited for that purpose'" (Vol. I, p. 232). He doubts whether the original monument was really by Gerard Johnson as generally asserted, and inclines to the belief that it was by one of his sons. His reasons for this belief are given in the following passage : " This interesting memorial, as appears from a memoran- dum made by Dugdale {Li/e, Diary, etc., 4to, 1 827, p. 99) in 1653, was the work either of a Dutch sculptor and ' tombe-maker,' one Gerard Johnson, a native of Amster- dam, who was settled in London, in St. Thomas Apostles', in the Ward of Vintry, or of one of his sons. My reason for suggesting the latter is that the elder Gerard having been an English resident twenty-six years in 1593, it is most probable he had at least relinquished the practice of his profession in 1616." To which I would add that, as we have no reason to suppose that the monument was execiited until some (perhaps five or six) years after 1616, the argument against " the elder Gerard " having been the sculptor employed upon it might have been more strongly stated.^ But the most interesting passage concerning the 1 Since this was written the indefatigable Mrs. Slopes has unearthed the record of a suit in the " Court of Requests," of date 15 James I, which makes it certain that " it was not the elder Garrett [or Gerard] Johnson who designed Shakespeare's tomb, but his son of the same name who survived him, followed his business, and signed his mother's deed, " as stated in the extract quoted from the record. See Notes and Queries, June 6th, 1914. It appears that Gerard Johnson the elder had gone to that bourn whence no traveller returns Jong before Shakspere took that journey. With regard to his son Mrs. Stopes suggests, " His inexperience might have caused the inartistic faults of the work as shown by Dugdale. " THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 4$^ monument upon which I have lighted in Halliwell's book has reference to the work which was executed when it was " repaired and beautified " in 1 749. " The material of the bust itself, and of the cushion on which it rests, is a limestone of blue tint ; the columns on either side are of black polished marble, and the capitals and bases belonging to them are composed of freestone. The whole of the entablatures were formerly of white alabaster, but when the monument was repaired in 1 749, the architraves being decayed, new ones of marble were substituted" (Vol. I, p. 227. My italics). Now Halliwell is a high authority, constantly appealed to by those of the orthodox faith, and I presume he had before him documentary evidence for the above statement. If it be accepted, as I presume it will be, it proves conclusively that the work executed on the monument in 1749 was by no means confined to repainting and stich petty repairs as Mr. Lang and Mr. Spielmann suppose to have been carried out lay Hall, or under his superintendence. " Hall," says Mr. Spielmann (Pall Mall Gazette, December 6th, 19 10), "was a painter pure and simple." If so, clearly he was not the man to remove the decayed architraves, and to substitute new entabla- tures of marble in lieu of the old ones of white alabaster 1 For this, obviously, a stone-mason and sculptor was required, and it seems that, after all, Mr-s. Stopes was in all probability right when she postulated a " sculptor who collaborated with Hall." It is clear also {pace Mr. Spiel- mann) that very considerable "structural restorations," and not " restorations " only, but alterations, were effected. It is true Halliwell tells us that "no other material alteration, if we except that of the old colours, seems to have been made to the original," but the word " seems " in itself implies a doubt, and in the mouth of a writer such as Halliwell, who, naturally, wished to believe that no substantial alteration in the original monument had 2 K 498 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? been made, the sentence certainly leaves a tolerably wide loophole for conjecture.^ Here, with regard to Mr. Halliwell's doubt whether the bust was really executed by Gerard Johnson, it may be worth while to quote the following from the letter of a friend who very recently paid a visit to Stratford-on-Avon : " As Gerard Johnson did John Combe's tomb, it is certain he did not do Shakespeare's bust [i.e. the bust as it exists at present], for John Combe's is a fine piece of sculpture of a man who evidently lived ; a face full of expression, and so distinctive of character as obviously was not invented, but portrayed from a real person. Shakespeare's is a mere conventional dummy." Mr. Spielmann, by the way, who pours contempt on poor old Dugdale upon every possible occasion, wrote, in The Pall Mall Gazette (December 6th, 1910): "When the chronicler avers that the bust, like the recumbent figure of John Combe, hard by Shakespeare's is of alabaster, whereas they are both of local sandstone, we may hesitate to accept unquestioned his authority on every other point." And in his article on the " Portraits of Shakespeare " in the Encyclopedia Britannica (nth ed.) he repeats this statement, saying that Dugdale — " the accurate Dugdale " as he sarcastically calls him — tells us that Shakespeare's bust is of alabaster, whereas it is of soft stone. But where, I would ask, has Dugdale stated that Shakespeare's bust was of alabaster? Upon this Mr. Lang wrote to me, shortly before his death : " Mr. Spielmann seems to have found Dugdale saying that the bust, like John Combe's is alabaster. I find J. C's alabaster, but not that of W. S. ! " ^ And upon ' In his Outlines Halliwell-Phillipps says that the alterations were " very considerable," and more than mere repair is, surely, implied by the instruc- tions given to Hall to " beautify " the monument. ^ i.e. He found Dugdale's statement that John Combe's statue was of alabaster, but could not find any similar statement with regard to Shake- speare's bust. Dugdale, in his notice of the monuments in the church at Stratford-on-Avon, says : "At the upper end of the Quire is a fair monument THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARfe 499 investigation, it turns out that Dugdale nowhere m^kes the statement ascribed to him by the critic. It is, alas, Mr. Spielmann who has himself been guilty of the inaccuracy which he imputes to the famous antiquarian. I may be forgiven if 1 smile, " for 'tis sport to have the enginer hoist with his own petar"! But it is a pity that the error should be perpetuated in the pages of the Encydopeedia Britannica?- It is possible that the mistake has arisen from the fact, recorded by Halliwell, that during the " restoration " of the monument in 1749 marble entablatures were substituted for the alabaster originals. In this connection it is noteworthy that, as appears by one of the documents cited by Mrs. Stopes {Pall Mall Gazette, November i8th, 1910), instructions were given to John Hall as to " what materials" he was to use "to repair the monument of Shakespeare " ; which of itself is fairly conclusive evidence that structural reparations were contemplated. It seems, therefore, that there 4s more evidence in support of the hypothesis that Shakespeare's bust was materially altered in 1748, or 1749, than either Mrs. Stopes, or Mr. Spielmann, or Mr. Lang were aware of, though whether the face was " reconstructed altogether," as the lady opines, must be a matter of conjecture only. With regard to Dugdale, Mrs. Stopes writes : " He was an admirer of Shakespeare, and knew the bust he having a statue thereon cut in alabaster, and in a gown, with the epitaph (in great Letters), Here lyeth interred the body of John Combe Esqr.," etc. etc. John Combe died in 1614, ' Since this was in print I have received a most courteous letter from Mr. Spielmann, who writes, inter alia, "I look to you to accompany any contadiction you may make [viz. to his statement above-mentioned] with the statement that Dugdale certainly did misapply the description of alabaster for 4one to the John Combe sepulchral monument close by the Shakespeare." My thanks are due to Mr. Spielmann for this and other letters which he has kindly sent me in reply to my request for a reference to the supposed, but, as it turns out, non-existent passage in Dugdale. 500 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? engraved," i.e. which Hollar, or some other artist, engraved for him. " There was every reason to believe that he would be more careful in regard to representing Shake- speare's tomb (instead of less careful) than he was with others. The second edition of Dugdale's Warwickshire was revised, corrected, expanded, and the illustrations checked, and added to, by Dr. Thomas, who was also a Warwickshire man, residing very near Stratford-on-Avon, and it takes the representation of the original tomb from the same unaltered block which Dugdale used." This second edition was published in 1730, but more than twenty years before that date, viz. in 1709, Nicholas Rowe, the first biographer of Shakespeare, published his edition of Shakespeare's works, wherein we find a repre- sentation of the Stratford bust which agrees with Dugdale's engraving in showing a man with an all-round beard and moustache and with both his hands resting upon a cushion, in fact, as Mrs. Stopes puts it, " agrees with the early rendering in all points in which it differs from the modem one," although the face, in which " there is absolutely no expression," differs considerably from that of the Dugdale print. Rowe, of course, may have been content simply to copy from Dugdale, without taking the trouble to com- pare the engraving with the original bust. We might, indeed, have expected better things from one who came forward as a pioneer of Shakespearean biography, and who had been carefully collecting materials for the poet's Life, but perhaps " seventeenth - century ideas of accuracy" still prevailed in the early years of the eighteenth century. But when we come to Pope's edition of Shakespeare, published in 1725, we find an engraving of the monument by Vertue, which presents us with an entirely different figure. The effigy no longer clasps a cushion to his body, but, for the first time, we have an engraving representing a man who holds a pen in his right hand and rests his THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 501 left on a sheet of paper, both hands resting on a flat cushion. This attitude agrees with that of the bust as we now behold it, but, 16 and behold, there are ear-rings in the ears! The artist, in fact, has put the Chandos portrait head upon the body of his effigy! Now Mr. Spielmann finds in this engraving a conclusive proof that the monument at the date in question was in all respects the same as it is at the present time. " Vertue's engraving of the Stratford monument, published as early as 1723, shows the monument exactly as it is to-day (while impudently setting the Chandos head oh the efifigy's shoulders), thus proving that it was as it now is Just a quarter of a century before the date of the falsely alleged substitution." This reasoning seems somewhat remarkable. Vertue's engraving of 1723, we are told, " shows the monument exactly as it is to-day," with one trifling exception. And what is that? Why, instead of the plump, fatuous, sensuous head which is made to do duty for "Shake- speare " to-day at Stratford-on-Avon, the artist had substituted the very greatly superior head of the Chandos portrait (so-called) of the immortal poet. But that matters nothing. The position of the arms, and the hands, and the presence of a pen, '^ prove that the monu- ment was as it is now." And with regard to Mrs. Stopes, Mr. Spielmann writes : " That scholarly lady was betrayed into thinking that the coincidence of the traitor-engraving of Dugdale (in whom she believed) and the repairs to the monument in 1748, implied that a substitution had been made in that year ; but the existence of Vertue's engrav- ing a quarter of a century before shattered that con- tention." And then, adopting Lord Randolph Churchill's feiistorical saying, he adds, " She had ^forgotten Goschen ' ! " It is clear from this amazing statement that Mr. Spielmann had not, at the time when he so wrote, taken the trouble to read the " scholarly lady's article," for so 502 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? far is it from being the fact that she had "forgotten Goschen," i.e. the Vertue engraving of 1725, that she presents us with a reproduction of it, as of the other engravings referred to, and actually " prays it in aid " as supporting her contention. The " scholarly lady," in fact, argues as follows. In 1744 Sir Thomas Hanmer brought out his edition of Shakespeare, wherein there is an engraving of the monu- ment by Gravelot, who " copies from Vertue the monument and the figure, while he alters the face into what seems to be the original of The Birthplace Portrait" Now when the monument was repaired and " beautified " in 1748, or 1 749, those responsible for the alterations "probably worked with the new edition of Shakespeare before them as a guide, depending upon Gravelot and Hanmer of 1744. Alas for the result ! " What, then, of the Vertue engraving from which Gravelot copied — that engraving which Mr. Spielmann says Mrs. Stopes had " forgotten " ? This is the lady's theory with regard to it. " Vertue did not go to Stratford but to Rowe for his copy. Finding it so very inartistic, he improved the monument, making the little angels light-bearers rather than bearers of spade and hourglass, and instead of the bust he gives a composition from the Chandos portrait, altering the arms and hands, and adding a cloak, pen, paper and desk. It retains, however, the drooping moustache, and slashed sleeves." Mrs. Stopes, therefore, considers the Vertue engraving as "a purely imaginary version," as well she may, seeing that the artist has adorned the effigy with the "Chandos head" just a little altered ! Her theory, therefore, is that Gravelot having copied from Vertue for Hanmer's edition of 1744, and the "restorers" of the monument working with this edition before them, it thus came to pass that they altered the original figure by placing the hands in the position shown by Gravelot and copied by htm from THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 503 Vertue. According to this hypothesis, then, the position of the hands, and the presence of a pen in the right hand of the bust of to-day, owe their origin to Vej-tue's "purely imaginary version." And this, forsooth, is the lady who had " forgotten Goschen " ! I fear some of the " seventeenth-century ideas of accuracy" have descended to some of our art- critics of the present day ! I have endeavoured to set forth the arguments both for and against the substantial accuracy of the Dugdale engraving with impartiality. It is a question of great interest to Shakespearean students, and it is lamentable that the issue should be obscured by "Baconian" or " anti-Baconian " prejudices. Mr. Lang, in The National Review of August, 1912, and in «i letter previously com- municated by him to The Morning Post (July sth, 191 2), not only suggested that the " Baconians," for controversial purposes, are anxious to discredit the authenticity of the . present Stratfordian monument, but that they even " think that the gloomy parishioner [of the Dugdale engraving] is Bacon, hugging the woolsack of which he had been deprived." Now I am not a "Baconian," but I am tolerably familiar with the writings of that heretical sect, and I have never seen the suggestion made that Dugdale's " melancholy man " was intended for Bacon. It was the orthodox Mrs. Stopes who, in jocular vein, remarked that the cushion upon which the Dugdale figure rests his hands, " suspiciously resembles a woolsack" I myself have written : " If I should be told that Dugdale's effigy represented an elderly farmer deploring an exceptionally bad harvest, ' I should not feel it to be strange ' ! Neither should I feel it at all strange if I were told that it was the presentment of a philosopher and Lord Chancellor, who had fallen from high estate and had recognised that all things are but vanity I" ^ " Yah, Baconian ! " cried ^ The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 248. 504 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Professor Dryasdust at once. Well, I must not complain. I brought it upon my own head. I know by long ex- perience that if one ventures to stray, though for but a few seconds, from the tarred road of solemnity and " deadly earnest " — if, to drop metaphor, one hazards a few remarks in a jocular spirit, vainly thinking to enliven the monotony of a serious argument, £very dismal Professor Dryasdust will, of course, take them, more suo, au pied de la lettre and au grand s^rieux. I -repeat, therefore, that I cannot complain. But when it is intimated by such a writer as the late Mr. Lang that, in combating the trustworthi- ness of Dugdale, he is, at the same time, tilting against " Baconian " heresies, it becomes an article of faith with all true believers to range themselves on his side, and thus a question, which ought to be one of pure literary and antiquarian interest, seems likely to become a mere bone of contention between heated and acrimonious disputants. At the same time it is, of course, obvious that if it could be established that the graven image of " Shakespeare " as originally set up, differed essentially and fundamentally from the Stratford bust of to-day, "the mystery" which, as Mr. Spielmann truly says, " surrounds much," if not all, " in the life and work of Shakespeare" \^ pro tanto increased, and it is not difficult to see that the gain will lie upon the side of the " Anti- Willians." But, equally of course, it is quite possible that both Dugdale and Hollar (or whoever the engraver may have been) were as grossly negligent, and as entirely untrustworthy, as Mr. Spielmann tells us, and as Mr. Lang apparently believed. It is possible that that blessed expression " seventeenth-century ideas of accuracy " may explain everything. Nevertheless I cannot think, that the question has as yet been conclusively settled against the contention of "the scholarly Mrs. Stopes." Perhaps some more evidence may some day come to light. Vertue, as is well known, left a multitude of notes concerning THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 505 artists and their works, filling some thirty volumes, and among them it is quite probable that there may be some treating of Shakespeare and the Stratford monument. Further, there is at Welbeck Abbey, as Mr. Richard Goulding the librarian there has kindly informed me, a note made by Vertue in 1737 to the following effect: "Mr. Harbord, Statuary, lives there at Stratford, and I commissioned him to ma,ke me a cast from the Bust of Shakespeare's head on his monument." If this cast is still in existence and -could be traced it would, presumably, settle the question of Dugdale's accuracy so far as the engraving is concerned. Incidentally, the note shows that in the eighteenth century liberties were taken with the bust of "the immortal bard," which would not now be tolerated. It would be interesting to know more of " Mr. [ Harbord, Statuary." Whether he lived to 1749, and whether he was the sculptor who collaborated with John Hall, this deponent sayeth not ! It is, I suppose, possible. It is unnecessary to say that there is much diversity of opinion among learned critics and " experts " in this matter, as in the matter of the so-called "portraits" of Shakespeare generally. I may, for instance, refer to an article by Professor Wislicenus which appeared in The Westminster Gazette oi August I4thy 191 2, headed "The Face of Shakespeare." This learned professor contends that the true face of Shakespeare is to be found not in the Chandos portrait, as it now exists, but in a photograph of that portrait (alleged to have been taken by the Department of Science and Art, South Kensington) before it had been repainted, but after it had been "scrubbed" and cleaned. The following quotation is of interest in view of the controversy concerning the "Dugdale" engraving: "Credit is due to Mr. Spielmann for having stated that the head of Shake- speare on the engraving of his monument in Rowe's edition of his works (1709) was taken from the Chandos 5o6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? portrait; but I have to add that the same is true of the engraving in Dugdale's Warwickshire. The severe features, the drooping moustache, the beard given to the poet by the engraver, are not those of the bust in Stratford Church, but of the original Chandos portrait before its modern restoration. This is a weighty reason for recognising the original Chandos portrait as a genuine representation of the living man, for Dugdale's work appeared in 1656, only forty years after the poet's death. It is pleasant to be able to carry back the pedigree of the Chandos portrait till so near to Shakespeare's own time." I may add, in parenthesis, that, although Dugdale's work was not published till 1656, it is known to have been prepared some twenty years before that date. Professor Wislicenus further tells us that "the authenticity of the Chandos picture in its original state " is " proved by Dugdale's engraving of the Stratford bust"! So, then, according to this learned professor, the " Dugdale " engraving is not a mere wild and ridiculous inaccuracy, but was actually taken from the Chandos portrait, the true picture of the real Shakespeare, in its original state, and is vouched in proof of the authenticity of the portrait ! All this is very interesting, and not a little amusing. The reflection at once presents itself that if the Dugdale engraving really corresponds with the Chandos portrait " in its original state," it may, possibly, have corresponded also with the Stratford bust in its original state. How- ever, in the same journal of August 20th, 191 2, Mr. Spielmann, in an article headed " Trifling with ' The Face of Shakespeare '," comes down upon the German pro- fessor in characteristically sledge-hammer style. He denies in toto the accuracy of the professor's alleged facts with regard to the South Kensington photograph of the Chandos portrait, and with regard to the allegation of the " scouring " and extensive repainting of that portrait, and cites Sir George Scharf, in 1864, who "denied that THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 507 any such repainting or even important'^ retouching had taken place." But, says Mr. Spielmann, "it does not much matter, for the portrait departs so radically from the Droeshout print and the Stratford bust — the two authoritative likenesses — that to a healthily sceptical student its authenticity as a genuine life-portrait of Shakespeare is inadmissible " ; and he expresses not unnatural surprise that the professor should seek to identify "the robust and bucolic Stratford bust" with "the Italian Jewish- looking Chandos portrait." This was followed by a letter (August 23rd, 1912) from Mr. Randall Davies, F.S.A., who expresses the belief that the Chandos portrait is " far more authentic as a likeness than the Stratford bust (which could only have been executed when Shakespeare was in his grave) or the grotesque print prefixed to the folio seven years after his death." With these criticisms of the " Stratford bust " and the " grotesque print " I most cordially agree, but it is quite probable that the Chandos portrait also is as little " authen- tic " as those two ridiculous effigies. Now I do not pro- pose to repeat here what \ wrote in The Shakespeare Problem Restated (ch^.^. VIIl) on " The Portraits of Shake- speare'." On further consideration I see nothing to repent of in what is there written, but it is not necessary to go over all that old ground again. Let us see, however, what Mr. Spielmann, the " expert," has to say with regard to Shakespeare's "portraits." There are many of them, and all differ widely amongst themselves. One is almost tempted to say that Shakespeare must have been not only a " myriad-minded " but also a myriad-headed man. He really seems to have been as " many-headed " as Southey's demon. The fact is, as I wrote before, " that just as the utter dearth of information concerning Shake- speare tempted unprincipled men to deceive the public 'My italics. It appears, then, there was some "retouching" though not " important " ! 5o8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? by forgery of documents purporting to supply new facts — such as John Jordan's fabrications, Ireland's wholesale forgeries, and the numerous foi^eries promulgated by John Payne Collier — so the absence of any authentic portrait of Shakespeare prompted needy and unprincipled artists to supply the public demand, and their own necessities at the same time, by fabricating likenesses of ' the immortal bard ' — all of them, of course, of undoubtedly contemporaneous date ! " ^ Mr. John Corbin, in his little work on A New Portrait of Shakespeare, has told us how " for many decades the Director of the National Portrait Gallery was asked on an average of rather more than once a year to buy a presentment of the great dramatist, a counterfeit present- ment, usually at an exorbitant price, and to this day, the Director informs me, the supply continues." This writer gives us a very interesting account of how these " portraits " were manufactured with especial reference to the methods of Messrs. Zincke and Holder, as to whom, and as to this matter generally, further details will be found in the pages of Abraham Wivell on Shakespearis Portraits (1827) and James Boaden on the same subject (1824). There was thus no dearth of Shakespeare portraits, and they were so various as to suit the taste and ideas of every proposing purchaser. And what is the result? Mr. Spielmann, in the Stratford Town Shakespeare (Vol. X, p. 374), writes as follows : " I may say at once that a long and minute study of the portraits of Shakespeare in every medium and material has led me, otherwise hopeful as I was at the outset years ago, no distance at all towards the firm establishment of the reputation of any one of them as a true life-portrait" And in an article contributed to the Encyclopcedia Britannica (nth ed.) he writes: "Exhaustive study of the subject, extended over a series of years, has brought ' Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 238. THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 509 the present writer to the conclusion — identical with that entertained by leading Shakespearean. authorities--that two portraits only can be accepted without question as authentic likenesses." And what are these two portraits ? "The bust" in Stratford Church and the Droeshout engraving ! But the ordinary man in ordinary parlance, not being an "expert," makes a distinction between a statue and a " portrait," and does not apply that term to a bust. It comes to this, then, that Mr. Spielmann recognises one " portrait " of Shakespeare, and only one, and that is the portentous, idiotic, hydrocephalous Droeshout signboard ! But he also accepts " the bust " as an authentic likeness — the "bucolic" bust of which Mrs. Slopes truly says that " everyone who approaches it is more disappointed in it as a revelation of the poet than even in the crude lines of Droeshout"! But it is not a little difficult to conceive that these two are counterfeit presentments of the same man — unless, indeed, we look at them through Stratfordian glasses, purchased for the occasion, in which case anything is possible, and we shall see what we want to see. But let any impartial man look at the two side by side. He will probably be reminded of the saying concerning Caesar and Pompey, who were "very much like — both so like neither you couldn't tell t'other from which " ! Let us see what Sir Sidney Lee has to say concerning these " heavenly twins." He puts it very mildly. " Each is an inartistic attempt at posthumous likeness. There is considerable discrepancy between the two; their main ooints of re- semblance are the baldness on the top of the head, and the fulness of the hair about the ears." The baldness on the top of the head ! Yes, indeed, one bald man resembles another, so far as baldness is concerned, and in the crude and ridiculous Droeshout print "the fulness of the hair about the ears (only a piece of one ear is shown, and that is deformed ! ) is so exaggerated as to add greatly to the 5IO IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? absurdity of this quaint caricature. Then, again, each has a very high forehead, and in each face there is a notable absence of expression. But, in other respects, the resemblance between the two seems to melt 'into thin air '" ! ^ Well may Sir Sidney Lee say of the sensuous fatuous bust that " the workmanship is at all points clumsy. The round face and eyes present a heavy unintellectual expression." As to the maker thereof, whether Gerard Johnson (or Janssen), or one of his sons, as Halliwell thought probable, or some other, Mr. Corbin truly writes that : " Unfortunately he seems scarcely to have deserved his very modest title of ' tombe-maker.' The face of the bust is even cruder in modelling, if possible, than that of the print is in draughtsmanship." But in one particular " the face of the bust," as this writer also points out, resembles nothing that ever was on sea or land. " In the normal face the hair begins at the base of the nose, often in the very nostrils, and this is notably the case in the Droeshout engraving. In the bust there is a wide and very ugly interval." ^ Now, that " in the normal face the hair begins at the base of the nose " is an indis- putable fact. Let the reader examine any of his friends who wears a moustache, or look in the glass if he wears one himself. He will see that the hair begins immediately under the nose, and " the wide and ugly interval " is a feature for which we may seek natural humanity in vain. Mr. Spielmann thinks Shakespeare must have been " shaven " in this unnatural and quite unique manner. He thinks ' Mr. Elton, an unexceptional witness upon such a matter, says : ' ' The bust is so unlike the Droeshout print in the First Folio . . . that the presentments might well belong to different persons " ( William Shakespeare, His Family and Friends, p. 232). Further as to the print see ante, p. 395 et seq. ^ This is well shown in the engraving of the mask said to have been taken from the Stratford bust, facing p. 26 of Mr. Corbin 's book. It is not revealed in Mr. Lee's frontispiece of the Stratford monument in his Illustrated Life of Shakespeare. It is, however, very clearly shown in the frontispiece engraving to Vol. I. of the Comedies in Knight's Pictorial Shakespeare (Virtue & Co.). THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 511 that this " shaven space between the nose and moustache, and between moustache and lip," is merely a " long-pre- vailing fashion carried to an extreme." He says that certain portraits of other persons show the same thing. I have not been able to see these other portraits, and I venture to doubt if there ever was such a "fashion," viz. to shave the upper lip "between the nose and the moustache." It certainly would be a most unnatural and most uncomfortable operation. But, in any case, if Shakespeare had adopted this alleged " fashion " how is it that other supposed portraits of him do not exhibit it ? Why is it not seen in the " Chandos," or the " Ely Palace," or the " Flower," ^ or the " Jansen," or the " Soest," or any of the other " portraits " ? Are we to suppose that Shakespeare adopted it for this occasion only? Is not the supposed fashion, in fact, a " fond thing vainly invented " ? ^ These, then, are your gods, O Israel — the Stratford bust, and the Droeshout portrait ! And these, ^ays Mr. Spielmann, the "expert," are to be accepted "without question!' Well, if accepted they are to be, it is certainly best to accept them so, for if once we begin to " question," then " to a healthily sceptical student," to adopt Mr. Spielmann's words, cited above with regard to the Chandos portrait, the authenticity of the bust " as a genuine life- portrait of Shakespeare is inadmissible." But if these two terrible effigies are really to be received as likenesses of our great immortal, then I can only think that Byron 'As to the "Flower" portrait it maybe said, in passing, that it seems quite clear that it was painted from the Droeshout engraving (of which it is a much improved version) and that it was not, as some have supposed, the original upon which that engraving was founded. ' The bust, as is well known, shows what appears to be an abnormal upper lip with a thiij.moustache quaintly stretched across it. Mr. Spielmann says that the excessive length of the lip is appearance only, but Sir F. Chantrey, than whom we could not have a better authority, and who examined the bust carefully, spoke to the Rev. William Harness of " the extraordinary length of the upper lip." 512 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? must have had poor Shakespeare in his mind when, in answer to the question " What is the end of fame ? " he replied that it is To have, when the original is dust, A name, a "wretched picture, and worse bust ! Shakespeare has indeed " a name " that is not of an age, but for all time. He also has, alas, a truly "wretched picture," and, if that be possible, " a worse bust." In such depressing circumstances it is indeed best to take old Ben's advice and " look " " not on his picture but his book." For, as we began so we must conclude, in the words of Mr. Spielmann, omitting but two monosyllables. "The mystery that surrounds the life and work of Shakespeare extends also to his portraiture." It does indeed, and it extends to his monument no less.^ * As already mentioned, it is unknown when or by whom the monument was erected. Upon it are inscribed some Latin lines (containing a " howl- ing" false quantity which, I trow, would at the Grammar School have brought trouble to the perpetrator), comparing Shakespeire to Nestor in the matter of experienced judgment, to Socrates in the matter of philosophical genius, and to Virgil in the matter of poetic art. Truly not very happy comparisons ! Then follow some English Unes, which speak of Shakespeare as being " within this monument," which he certainly is not if he, the true Shakespeare, was buried under the stone which imprecates a curse on any that should move his bones. [As to the " Dngdale" engraving see further Appendix B and Appendix C] CHAPTER XVII SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" SOCRATES used to point out that the word "Nature" was used in such multifarious senses that those who employed it in argument would inevitably be at cross-purposes, and their discourse futile, unless they began by defining it. When, therefore, Shakespeare is spoken of as " the poet of nature " it is as well to consider what exactly we mean by the word in this connection. Now in The Nineteenth Century for April, 191 3, there was published an article by Sir Edward Sullivan under the title "What Shakespeare saw in Nature." In it I find the following passage : " An article was published a good many years ago in The Quarterly Review which niight well be passed by unnoticed but for its having recently been adopted, almost in its entirety, by the author of The Shakespeare Problem Restated, and followed to a very considerable extent by a distinguished literary professor ^ in his work on Shakespeare. Commencing with what seems to be a misreading of what Johnson says in his preface to his well-known edition of Shakespeare's works, the Reviewer proceeds to demonstrate by a series of dis- torted conclusions that Shakespeare had no real sympathy or knowledge of a personal sort in his treatment of the wild birds and wild animals which he has mentioned in ' The allusion is to Professor Sir Walter Kaleigh. 2 L 514 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? his works, and that — to put the matter shortly — his ac- quaintance with such subjects was the result of reading and not of observation." ^ Let us now see what the argument of this Reviewer really is,^ and then proceed to consider Sir Edward's criticism of it. And, first, has there been, either on the part of the Reviewer or of myself, any " misreading of what Johnson says " in his famous preface ? Johnson wrote : " Shake- speare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature." There the commentators usually stop, and the above words are quoted with accla- mation, as though Johnson's opinion was that Shakespeare is the great " Naturalist " poet. But let us see how the passage continues, and there shall be no " misreading " of it : " The poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of life. His characters are not modified by the customs of particular places, unpractised by the rest of the world ; by the peculiarities of studies or professions, which can operate but upon small numbers ; or by the accidents of transient fashions or temporary opinions : they are the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply and obser- * If by the words "adopted almost in its entirety by the author of The Shakespeare Problem Restated," Sir Edward Sullivan means that I subscribe to all that I have quoted from the Quarterly Reviewer, I must demur to the statement. I believe the Reviewer is on the whole quite right in the view he takes, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate, but I think he is wrong in some of his pronouncements. For instance, I think he is probably wrong concerning "the female dove when that her golden couplets are disclosed," for the Cambridge Editors long ago pointed to the words " the hatch and the disclose " in /Tamto, Act III, i, 174, as showing that "disclosed" means hatched, and as the turtle dove lays two eggs, and the young are at first covered with yellow down, and " the female sits on them, if the weather be cold, both night and day " (Morris), I tidnk the turtle dove and not the wood pigeon is alluded to, more especially as the former will readily breed in confinement, and could be observed with great facility even by a dweller in the town. * "Shakespeare's Birds and Beasts," Quarterly Review, April, 1894. , SHAKESPEARE AND " NATURE " 515 vation will always find. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is con- tinued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual ; in those of Shake- speare it is commonly a species. It is from this wide extension of design that so much instruction is derived. It is this which fills the plays of Shakespeare with practical axioms and domestick wisdom. It was said of Euripides, that every verse was a precept, and it may be said of Shakespeare, that from his works may be collected a system of civil and economical prudence." This is admirable; and it clearly shows us in what sense Shakespeare was, in Johnson's opinion, " the poet of nature." He was the poet of human nature ; a proposition which nobody, I imagine, has ever disputed or will dispute. It is very much akin to what Dryden said, viz. that Shakespeare " needed not the spectacles of books to read Nature, for he looked inwards and found her there." But Johnson does not stop here, for, further on, he says : " Nor was his attention confined to the actions of men ; he was an exact surveyor of the inanimate world ; his descrip- tions have always some peculiarities, gathered by contemplating things as they really exist." And now we have a complete statement of Johnson's meaning when he described Shakespeare as "the poet of nature," He is the poet of human nature and of inanimate nature. Where, I should like to know, is the " misreading " here ? To make use once more of one of Mr. J. M. Robertson's favourite expressions, " the cavil is absurd." But, as the Quarterly Reviewer truly comments, " This phrase of Johnson's has been passed on by pen to pen, and in time ' nature ' has become to be written ' Nature,' and his words to mean that Shakespeare was a born naturalist." Thus, to take an example, Charles Knight has expressed his opinion that " Shakspere was a naturalist in the very best sense of 5i6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? the word. He watched the great phenomena of nature, the economy of the animal creation, and the peculiarities of inanimate existence ; and he set these down with almost undeviating exactness, in the language of the highest poetry." ^ And those who will consult the works of this and other commentators will find that they speak of Shakespeare's marvellous accuracy of observation, in matters of natural history, with reference to passages that actually teem with errors, as, for instance, his well-known allusions to the supposed habits of bees and cuckoos. He is described as though he were a worthy precursor of White of Selborne ; a close observer of the life-habits of all the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.* Now, let it be clearly understood, this criticism is directed not against Shakespeare but against the Shak- speariolaters. The allegation is not that Shakespeare was not " in true sympathy with nature," animate as well as inanimate, or that the plays do not bear upon them " the hall-mark of the great-hearted lover of Nature."^ We have only to recall such exquisite and familiar passages, as (e.g.) Daffodils That come before the swallow dares, and take The winds of March with beauty, or I know a bank where the wild thyme blows, Where oxlips, and the nodding violet grows, to say nothing of some others of the lovely lyrics, to ap- ' Pictorial Shakspere.i Illustrations of / Henry IV, Act V. * Charles Rnight says : ' ' Before White and Jenner and Montagu had described the remarkable proceedings of the cuckoo, Shakspere described them" and "from what he saw." I may refer the reader to Worcester's allusions to "that ungentle gull the cuckoo's bird," and its treatment of the sparrow, in i Henry IV, Act V, Sc. I, to show the absurdity of this. And see The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 427. ' I quote from an article on " Shakespeare's Nature," by Mr. G. A. B. Dewar, in The New Liberal Review, Jan. 1904. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 517 predate how great was the delight that Shakespeare found in nature, othef than human, and more especially in flowers. But to represent him as one who had observed and studied the lives and the habits of birds and beasts, whether on the banks of the Avon, or elsewhere, and whose description of their ways is marked by unfailing accuracy, is to make a claim for him which, surely, cannot be sustained. This is stated as mere matter of fact — which can, I maintain, be demonstrated from " the works themselves " — not, certainly, as a matter of reproach. It would be absurd indeed to find fault with the great poet because he was not a " Naturalist," an observer of animate Nature such as was Gilbert White. It is against the commentators whose indiscriminate admiration has so characterised him that the criticism of the Quarterly Reviewer is directed, and as against them it is, surely, just, and well deserved. But now let us consider a passage from The Quarterly Review article which Sir Edward Sullivan particularly singles out for animadversion : — " " He (Shakespeare) has no butterflies in his sunshine, no moths in his twilight, no crickets in his meadows, no bees in his flowers. Living creatures do not slip naturally into his landscape. When he thought of being out in the field and garden and orchard, he did not think of the small life that goes to gladden the scene, and makes the country so blithe and beautiful for most of us." Sir Edward Sullivan calls this a "strange example of unpardonable nonsense," and says it "can best be answered by Shakespeare himself" But before we con- sider the " answer " let us think for a moment what the passage means, and what was, obviously, in the Reviewer's mind. It does not mean, of course, that Shakespeare never makes mention of " butterflies," or " moths," or " bees," or "small life" of that sort. It means that Shakespeare 5i8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? does not introduce such living objects into his dramas as part of the animated life which we might expect to find in such a play as As You Like It, for example. They may, indeed, be mentioned incidentally, but they form no part of the living picture. Such is the allegation. And now how does Sir Edward Sullivan undertake to answer it from " Shakespeare himself"? " Let us take it, " he says, " step by step." And this is how he does it. "No butterflies in his sunshine." Why, says Sir Edward, " when Cominius is speaking of Coriolanus and the Volscians he says : they follow him Against us brats, with no less confidence Than boys pursuing summer butterflies." Nay, more, " Valeria tells Volumnia how she had seen the young Coriolanus run ' after a gilded butterfly,' and ' mammock it.' " Again, Titania tells the fairies, who were to wait upon Bottom, to Pluck the wings from painted butterflies To fan the moonbeams from his sleeping eyes. And there is yet more to be^ obtained from Clarke's Concordance, for Lear cries to Cordelia, We two alone will sing like birds in the cage ; . . . And tell old tales and laugh At gilded butterflies, and, finally, " Troilus and Cressida supplies us with For men, like butterflies. Show not their mealy wings but to the summer." So these are Shakespeare's happy butterflies in the sunshine ! Butterflies pursued by boys, introduced meta- phorically. A butterfly torn to pieces by the brutal young Coriolanus. Butterflies that have their wings torn SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 519 away in order to provide fans for Bottom the weaver. " Gilded butterflies " laughed at by the crazy Lear ; and here again the word is used metaphorically, for these " gilded butterflies " stand for light and frivolous persons, courtiers who flutter around kings and courts. And yet again the word is used as a metaphor in Troilus and Cressida, just to provide a simile — "men, like butter- flies"! Does Sir Edward Sullivan really think that this is an answer to the Quarterly Reviewer? Can he not see that the writer was thinking not of mangled and mutilated and metaphorical butterflies, but of live butter- flies fluttering over the flowers in the summer sunshine ? Irrelevancy could, surely, go no further. " No -moths in his twilight!' " But the truth is," says Sir Edward Sullivan, " there are moths, only that Shake- speare's moths are — quite correctly — the little insects that lead a lazy life eating our clothes, and when they do come out in the twilight getting singed by the candle for their pains. Shakespeare's complete accuracy in this small matter is well illustrated by an observation of Bacon, who in his Natural History remarks : ' The moth breedeth upon cloth and other lanifices, especially if they be laid up dankish and wet. It delighteth to be about the flame of a candle' (Centy. VII, Spedding II, 558). So Shakespeare is shown to have known what a moth was in his own day better than the writer of the article in question " ! What are we to say to such an amazing pronounce- ment as this ? The Quarterly Reviewer says that Shake- speare has "no moths in his twilight." True, says Sir Edward Sullivan, but " there are moths," the moths that eat our clothes, and he actually quotes Bacon to show that they breed upon cloth, and "delight" to be about the flame of a candle ! See then the " complete accuracy" of Shakespeare! He knew "what a moth 520 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? was in his own day" (the moth of Shakespeare's day was, I presume, different from the moth of to-day I), and he knew much more about it than the writer of the article, who actually thought there were other moths that came out in the twilight! Sir Edward does not quote Shakespeare in this instance, — though probably he had in mind Portia's saying anent the Prince of Arragon in the Casket scene, "Thus hath the candle singed the moth." But, truly, it is not only the moth that " breedeth upon cloth," but many other moths also, that fly into the candle! Moreover, Sir Edward Sullivan appears to think it is " the moths " that eat our clothes, whereas, of course, it is the larvae or grubs ! I trust Shakespeare's Natural History was at least more accurate than this. But, really, this "answer" to the Reviewer's statement is so extraordinary — to put it mildly — that it seems to me almost cruel to have allowed it to appear in print. " No crickets in his meadows." " Here," says Sir Edward, " the Quarterly Reviewer speaks the exact truth," but "as a matter of fact, crickets were not to be found in the Stratford meadows in Elizabethan times, or in any other meadows of that day." This again is an extraordinary statement. Were there no "hedge-crickets," or " field-crickets," or " mole-crickets " in England in the seventeenth century? When, and whence, then, were they introduced? Are we to suppose that Sir Edward is ignorant of the fact that there are three British species of crickets besides the house-cricket; or that he is pre- suming upon the ignorance of his readers ? ^ ' I suspect the Reviewer included "grass-hoppers" among "crickets," but as that would not be "accurate " language I cannot give him the benefit of the assumption. How exquisitely a great poet of "Nature" can write about "the small life that goes to gladden the scene, and makes 'the country ' so blithe and beautiful " is well illustrated by Keats's well-known sonnet to "The Grasshopper and the Cricket," and I may add that Leigh Hunt's sonnet on the same subject is almost, if not quite, as beautiful. But the " cricket" here is, of course, "the cricket on the hearth," which Shake- SHAKESPEARE AND ^'NATURE" 521 "No bees in his flowers'.' Here Sir Edward has rather a better answer to give, for he can refer the Reviewer to Ariel's delightful song, " Where the bee sucks, there suck I," and Bottom's request to Cobweb, " Good Mounsieur, get you your weapons in your hand, and kill me a red-hipped humble bee on the top of a thistle"; but whether these citations refute the statement that Shake- speare has "no bees in his flowers," when the writer's true meaning is considered, I must leave it to the reader to say. Certainly the famous passage in Henry V (I, 2) concerning the " honey-bees " and their ways, which is full of errors concerning the life of the bee (a fact of which it would be absurd to complain), will not be accepted by many as rebutting evidence. The Reviewer, I apprehend, was thinking of "modern instances," such as those beautiful lines of Shelley (e.g.) r He would watch from dawn to gloom The lake-reflected sun illume The yellow bees in the ivy bloom, where we have the true note of a great poet who loved to watch the bees and the birds, as well as the Autumn evening, and the morn When the golden mists are born. I maintain, then, that the Reviewer's statement, properly considered, is a true one. But to find fault with the poet because he does not portray butterflies fluttering over sunlit blossoms, or moths gleaming in the twilight — because there are no crickets in his meadows, and because there is no living picture of "bees in his flowers," would, as it seems to me, be very unreasonable, speare has mentioned several times. He never alludes to the voice of the grasshopper "from hedge to hedge about the new-mown mead," or "among some grassy hills," nor mentions the creature at all except to tell us that the cover of Queen Mab's waggon is made ' ' of the wings of grasshoppers. " 522 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? and the Reviewer's contention, viz., as I understand it, that Shakespeare, profoundly though he had studied human nature, closely though he had observed, and deeply though he had contemplated the phenomena of the inanimate world, had really devoted no close or sympathetic observation to the wild birds, and the wild animals, or, for the matter of that, to the fishes or the insects, whether at Stratford or elsewhere — must, if it is to be sustained, rest upon a broader basis than this. Let us, therefore, consider another passage from the article in question, which Sir Edward Sullivan especially singles out for ridicule and utter condemnation. It relates to that most delightful play As You Like It. "^His [i.e. Shakespeare's] characters live in Arden Forest, and yet they never hear or see a single bird, or insect, or flower all the time they are there. As for animals, deer excepted (and these the poet was compelled to introduce, for food), there is only a lioness, and 'a green and gilded snake.' . . . The oak is the only forest tree in the play ; there is not a flower in it. Even the words 'flower' and 'leaf are never mentioned in the play nor the word ' bird ' except in an interpolated song." "A more preposterous sentence could hardly be penned," cries Sir Edward. Let us see, then, how he disposes of it. First, " even if literally true as to ' flower ' and ' leaf,' it would be meaningless — the whole indications as to the season of the year throughout the play pointing to winter-time." I am not much concerned to dispute this. There are, of course, many allusions to winter in the play, as where the exiled Duke says. Here feel we but the penalty of Adam, The seasons' difference ; as the icy fang And churlish chiding of the winter's wind, etc., though it does not follow from this that it is supposed to be winter at the time of the action of the play. SHAKESPfiARE AND "NATURE" 523 For example, Amiens's song in Act II, Sc. i, Under the greenwood tree Who loves to lie with me And tune his merry note Unto the sweet bird's throat, is not exactly suggestive of winter, though it does conclude : Here shall he see No enemy But winter and rough weather. But his " green holly " song is wintry, certainly. Nevertheless we find it difficult to conceive that the flight of Rosalind and Celia, and their roaming in the forest, was in the winter time, and when we read of Jacques as he lay along Under an oak whose antique root peeps out Upon the brook that brawls along this wood, or of the fool Who laid him down and basked him in the sun, we are not apt to think of the " winter wind " or a "bitter sky," that does "the waters warp"; and it is, I presume, for these, among other reasons, that when the play is staged, we always see the forest green with leaves. " We hear the wind rustling in the fragrant leaves of the fairyland of Arden," says the Ekiitor of the Henry Irving Shakespeare, who, giving rein to his poetic imagination, speaks of " leafy solitudes sweet with the song of birds " ! However, let that pass, for Sir Edward has much more to say. "As a matter of fact the whole extract is in the main untrue; for amongst the birds actually mentioned^ are 'a Barbary cock-pigeon' and 'his hen,' 'a parrot,' 'the falcon,' 'a wild-goose,' 'the ravens,' 'the ' My italics. 524 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? sparrow,' 'pigeons' and 'their young,' 'chanticleer, and ' Juno's swan.' " See there now ! This idiot of a Reviewer had told us that "we never hear or see a single bird," whereas all these birds are to be found disporting themselves in the forest of Arden ! It is " a populous solitude of birds and bees " ! But stay a moment. The Reviewer says nothing about actually mentioned; he is, of course, speaking of birds and beasts brought before us as denizens of the forest, and part of the country-life which is pictured before our mind's eye by the dramatist. Now, therefore, let us see how it is that "the characters" who "live in Arden Forest . . . hear or see" all these birds which Sir Edward Sullivan has catalogued in order to refute the " preposterous " Reviewer. " I will be more jealous of thee," says Rosalind, " than a Barbary cock-pigeon over his hen, more clamorous than a parrot against rain"! Here at once, then, are three birds. But are they in the forest of Arden and part of its life ? Are they heard or seen by the dwellers in the forest? Well, they are in Rosalind's mouth anyway! But, really, with every wish to be polite it is difficult to characterise such arguments in courteous terms. Let us, however, examine further the list of birds that populate the forest of Arden. " The falcon," " a wild goose," " the ravens," "the sparrow," "pigeons" and "their young." This sounds promising. All these, certainly, ought to be found among the boughs or the streams of Arden. Well, and what says Touchstone ? " As the ox hath his bow, sir, the horse his curb, and the falcon her bells, so man hath his desires; and as pigeons bill, so wedlock would be nibbling." Further, when Rosalind, speaking of Monsieur Le Beau, says, " With his mouth full of news," Celia answers, " which he will put on us as pigeons feed their young." So much for " the falcon " and " the pigeons and their SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 525 young"! What of the "wild-goose"? Can we not see him winging his way over the forest trees, a most appropriate part of the wintry scene ? Well, not exactly ; for this is how he is "actually mentioned." Listen to Jaques : Let me see wherein My tongue hath wronged him ; if it do him right Then he hath wronged himself ; if he be free, Why then my taxing like a wild-goose flies, Unclaimed of any man. There's for the wild-goose in the forest of Arden ! Ah, but what of the "ravens" and the "sparrow"? Just this — He that doth the ravens feed, Yea, providently caters for the sparrow. Be comfort to my age ! Do we not now hear the ravens croaking, and the sparrows chirping in the forest ? Who says Shakespeare was not a true " naturalist " now ? But "chanticleer" and "Juno's swans"! Listen to Jacques once more ; When I did hear The motley fool thus moral on the time, My lungs began to crow like chanticleer. Ah, those little forest-homesteads where The cock with lively din Scatters the rear of darkness thin, how wonderfully they are thus brought before us ! Then, too, Celia says, speaking of herself and Rosalind, And wheresoe'er we went, like Juno's swans. Still we went coupled and inseparable. Thus much, then, for the birds that Shakespeare brings before us as part of the life of the forest ! 526 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Comment is, surely, needless. But how about the " animals " ? Why, " of animals there are mentioned no less than twenty-two, as anyone may see who reads the play," and Sir Edward kindly supplies us with a list of them. " Animals to be found in the play are horse, hare, goats, sheep, lambs, rams, cows, ewes, hogs, horn-beasts, dog-apes, weasel, hyen, toad, ape, snail, monkey, dog, cony, rat, cat, as well as hart and hind, and other deer {without reference to food)." This, again, sounds promising indeed. There are hyenas, and apes, and monkeys, and conies, and many other animals to be found in Arden, giving life and animation to the scene. Alas, then, for this purblind Reviewer, and alas, that I should have been so deceived by him ! But let us again examine a little further. How are these animals " found in the play " ? Take the "horse" first. Well, certainly, there are four mentions of horses. His horses are bred better (Act I, Sc. i). As a puisny tilter that spurs his horse but on one side (Act III, Sc. 4). Both in tune, like two gipsies on a horse (Act V, Sc. 3). And "the horse (hath) his curb," says Touchstone as already quoted. Now, then, do we not see the wild horses bounding through the green glades of Arden ? But " the hare "— " the hare " ! Now we shall see the wild hare, yes and the " cony " too, amid the bracken and brambles of the woodland scene. As thus — it is Rosalind that speaks : 'Od's my will ! Her love is not the hare that I do hunt. And when Orlando asks, "Are you a native of this SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 527 place?" Rosalind replies, "As the cony that you see dwell where she is kindled." ^ As for "goats," well, certainly. Touchstone says, "I will fetch up your goats, Audrey," and " I am here with thee and thy goats, as the most capricious poet, honest Ovid, was among the Goths," thus introducing a double pun, and a rather learned one. Certainly, too, there is mention of "sheep" and "lambs" and "ewes/'^ but I apprehend the Reviewer had in mind "beasts of the forest," and other wild animals. Now then for " hogs." One thinks of " pannage," and the more or less wild hogs that one has seen in the New Forest, for example. What of the "hogs" in Arden? We hear nothing of them, but, in the first scene, in the orchard of Oliver's house, Orlando asks his elder brother, "Shall I keep your hogs, and eat husks with them?" So there are, actually, " hogs " in the play ! But "horn-beasts"! These are, certainly, in the forest, for the Fool says, " Here we have no temple but the wood, no assembly but horn-beasts," which gives him an opportunity to make some of the everlasting jokes about "horns." And as for "cows," which, I suppose, are included in " horn-beasts,'' the same jester says, concern- ing one Jane Smile, " I remember this kissing of her batlet and the cow's dugs that her pretty chapt hands had milked." But were there not " apes," " dog-apes," and " monkeys " in the forest? Aye, surely, we see them leaping from bough to bough, and chattering in true monkey fashion ! And why not, seeing that there were lions in the forest ? And here they are, in that same speech where Rosalind ' I.e. Littered. ''Thus we have "good pasture makes fat sheep" and "as clean as a sound sheep's heart," which are not much to the point. But Corin says, " My pride is to see my ewes graze and my lambs suck," and speaks of " the surgery of our sheep." All this is quite irrelevant to the Reviewer's argument. 528 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? had alluded to the " Barbary cock-pigeon " and " his hen." She says she will be "more new-fangled than an ape, more giddy in my desires than a monkey." But do not let us forget the " dog-ape." Listen to Jacques : " That they call compliment is like the encounter of two dog- apes." So much, then, for monkeys and apes. But certainly they are " actually mentioned " in the play ! But the weasel ? A weasel forms part of " the small life" of the forest. And we have him in the play. It is Jaques again. " I can suck melancholy out of a song, as a weasel sucks eggs ! " ^ Well, then, the " hyen." The hyena would, surely, be fit companion for the lions in the forest. Hearken unto Rosalind : " I will laugh like a hyen, and that when thou art inclined to sleep." Solvuntur risu tabulae ! But dogs are in the forest at any rate. Listen to Celia and Rosalind : "Why, cousin ! why, Rosalind ! Cupid have mercy ! Not a word?" " Not one to throw at a dog." The rat, too. Ah, the little wretch, he will be found in the woods, and among the corn-patches. Here he is : " I was never so be-rhymed since Pythagoras' time, that I was an Irish rat, which I can hardly remember." So says the gentle Rosalind. So there, sir, you have the rat "in the play"! I had almost forgotten the "cat," but she comes in, of course. " Civet," says Touchstone, " is of a baser birth than tar, the very uncleanly flux of a cat." And there is the cat " in the play " ! And now for the toad. Need I cite the familiar lines ? Sweet are the uses of adversity : Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head. * The idea that a weasel sucks eggs is, I believe, a vulgar error. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 529 So the toad is, undoubtedly, " in the play." Even the snail, too, is there, showing clearly the dramatist's thought of, and sympathy with, "the small life," even in its lower forms. For, says Rosalind, " I had as lief be wooed of a snail " ! But "hart and hind" are in the forest, and that too "without any reference to food." Hearken to the Fool once more : If a hart do lack a hind Let him seek out Rosalind. What better answer to the Reviewer could we require ? "As for animals," says he, "deer excepted . . . there is only a lioness, and 'a green and gilded snake.'" Sir Edward Sullivan says there are some twenty-two others — " in the play " ! I have shown how these others are there, and am really at a loss to know how to characterise within the bounds of politeness this amazingly futile reply. The Reviewer, taking us with Shakespeare to the forest of Arden, asks what is the wild life to be found there? What are the birds and beasts brought before us as part of the action of the play, not, of course, brought on to the stage, but part and parcel of the picture as denizens of the forest? Naturally he is not thinking of cows, and sheep, and goats, but the wild animals, i!s\'& ferae naturae. And he answers quite truly, that, except for the deer, there is only a lioness, and "a green and gilded snake." Whereupon Sir Edward Sullivan comes triumph- antly down upon him with a catalogue of every beast and bird mentioned by any of the characters ya. the play, and mentioned in the way that I have illustrated by quotation. This really seems to me to sink to the very nadir of inept criticism. But I have not quite done with Sir Edward Sullivan's astonishing reply. "The oak," says the Reviewer, " is the only forest tree in the play." What says Sir Edward here? "The oak -is not the only forest tree in the play, 2 M S30 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? for we find the medlar, the hawthorn, the palm tree, the green holly, the rank of oziers, and olive trees as well." This, again, seems very crushing. But Sir Edward overlooks the fact that the Reviewer spoke of a "forest tree." And what is a " forest tree " ? If he will turn to the New English Dictionary he will find that it is " any tree of large growth fitted to be a constituent part of a forest." We may, indeed, if we choose so to do, include shrubs and smaller trees among " trees of the forest," but the meaning of the words " forest tree " is constantly, and rightly, confined to the larger trees, and I can have little doubt that by " forest tree " here the Reviewer intended a "timber" tree, such as oak, ash, and elm, or beech (in Buckinghamshire) and birch (in Yorkshire). He, very naturally, would not include a " medlar," or a " hawthorn," or a " holly," or an " osier," or an " olive tree " among " forest " trees. But is there a " medlar " in the forest ? Rosalind having found Orlando's verses " on a tree," the Fool says, "Truly the tree yields bad fruit." Whereupon says Rosalind, " I'll graff it with you, and then I shall graff it with a medlar: then it will be the earliest fruit i' the country : for you'll be rotten ere you be half ripe, and that's the right virtue of a medlar." Thus there is a " medlar " in Arden, and it is a " forest tree " to boot ! All this is so silly, as to be really sad. But now what of the " palm tree " ? We know that Shakespeare founded his play As You Like It on Lodge's Rosalynde, and we know that the banished Duke sought refuge in the Ardennes, which in the play appears as the forest of Arden. But that does not better the position as to the "palm tree." Had Shakespeare been the naturalist that some Shakespeariolaters will have it that he was, he would, surely, not have planted a "palm tree" in the forest of the Ardennes. Some, indeed, in order to save the situation, have referred to the fact that for the SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 531 purposes of Palm Sunday a species of willow bears the name of " palm," and have supposed that Shakespeare's "palm tree" was intended for a willow tree, but few critics, I think, have adopted this solution of the difficulty. But, however that may be, it is clear that the Reviewer is quite right in saying that "the oak is the only forest tree in the play." ^ And, finally, with regard to the Reviewer's statement that the sojourners in Arden never see a flower all the time they are there, Sir Edward Sullivan denies its truth ; for, says, he, " ' flower,' ' blossom,' and • rose ' occur." Yes, truly, they do occur. And how? First let us take " flower." Who does not know that delightful song, " It was a lover and his lass " ? And here we find the •' pretty country folks " singing " how that a life was but a flower." So you see, gentle reader, that there was a " flower " in Arden, in spite of this " preposterous " Reviewer ! " Blossom " too. For does not Orlando say : But poor old man, thou prunest a rotten tree That cannot so much as a blossom yield? So evidently there were " blossoms " in Arden — or would have been, if it had not been winter ! But "rose"! This is indeed delightful. There was a ■' rose " in Arden. Listen, reader, I pray thee. Celia having vowed eternal friendship with Rosalind, cries : " Therefore, my sweet Rose, my dear Rose, be merry ! " ' Sir Edward Sullivan quotes Professor Sir Walter Raleigh, who has to some extent followed the Quarterly Reviewer concerning As You Like It, as saying, "The trees of the forest [in the play] are the oak, the hawthorn, the palm tree and the olive," thus using the word "tree of the forest" in a much wider significance than that of " forest tree " as defined by Murray's Dictionary. In my edition of Sir Walter Raleigh's Shakespeare, however, the passage runs differently. I read there (p. 126), "The oak is the only tree," which is obviously incorrect. Presumably Sir Edward Sullivan quotes from a later edition. Mine bears only the date of " Copyright by the Macmillan Company, 1907 " (English Men of Letters Series). 532 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? And it cannot be denied that this " Rose " was in Arden, and a most charming flower, albeit it was winter-time ! Thus does the sagacious Sir Edward Sullivan vindicate the ways of demigod to man, and make the desert of Arden blossom like the rose ! But, oh, the folly of it all ! And now what is the conclusion of all this? We are considering Shakespeare as the poet of Nature, other than human nature and inanimate nature. We . are asking what knowledge has he of, what thought has he for, what sympathy has he with, the life of wild nature, the life of field and meadow, of forest and woodland, of moor and mountain, of heath and hedgerow, of river, stream, and lake? And for the moment we are considering this question with particular reference to the play of As You Like It. We have seen what the Quarterly Reviewer of April, 1894, has to say on the subject, and we have seen how the absurd catalogues of birds and other animals " mentioned in the play," in which Sir Edward Sullivan so strangely imagines that he finds an answer, are so absolutely and ridiculously irrelevant to the question — except indeed as adding point to the Reviewer's criticism — that one can only marvel to see them solemnly set down and commended to intelligent human beings as a refutation of the statements quoted from the article under consideration. On close examination we find it is quite true that the Sojourners in Arden Forest never " see a single bird or insect or flower there," that is to say the dramatist has not pictured them to the reader as seeing any bird in the forest, or, indeed, listening to the song of bird, except for the one allusion in Amiens's song ; nor do they speak of flowers in the forest, nor is there any allusion to insect-life as part of the "small life" of the forest. It is true that "the oak is the only forest tree in the play." And as for the allegation that " as for animals, deer excepted . . . there is only a lioness, and ' a green and gilded snake,' " if by " animals " we under- SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 533 stand (as, of course, we must) wild animals, this statement also is true. The only wild animals, deer excepted, that are represented as having been seen in the forest are the lioness and the snake, and how well could we dispense with these ! I yield to none in my love of this delightful play, and, moreover, I know that — to quote Pope with a slight alteration — On Avon's bank, where flowers eternal blow, If I but ask if any weed can grow How will the " Willians" rise up in a rage, And swear all shame is lost in George's age ! Nevertheless I venture to pronounce the opinion that the introduction of the "green and gilded snake" and the " lioness with udders all drawn dry," ^ into the forest of Arden — not to mention the "palm tree" also — strikes a discordant note. But, be that as it may, these un- pleasant animals, and these alone, represent the wild life of the forest, with the exception of the deer, which are beasts of the chase as to which I shall have a word to say later on. Let me here give another quotation from the Reviewer in order that his meaning may be the better appreciated. Shakespeare's works,',he says, " while they abound with beauties of fancy and imagination, are most disappointing to lovers of Nature by (their errors apart) their extra- ordinary omissions. Stratford-on-Avon was, in his day, enmeshed in streams, yet he has not a single kingfisher. It is true he refers to that mythic old sea-bird of anti- quity, the halcyon, hung up by its beak as a kind of indoor weather-cock. But that is not the kingfisher. Nor on all his streams or pools is there an otter, a water- rat, a fish rising, a dragon-fly, a moor-hen, or a heron. . . . ' The lioness is from Lodge's Rosalynde, only there it is a lion I 534 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? His boyhood was passed among woods, and yet in all the woods in his Plays there is neither wood-pecker, nor wood- pigeon ; we never hear or see a squirrel in the trees, nor a night-jar hawking in the bracken." Now there is, face Sir Edward Sullivan, much truth in all this, and it has been recognised by, amongst others, Professor Sir Walter Raleigh, who has incurred Sir Edward's animadversion for restating, in his own words, some of the statements of the Quarterly Reviewer.^ It would, indeed, be absurd to expect to find in Shakespeare that " Nature worship " which was the product of a later age ; which so deeply entered into the life of Wordsworth, and which with Shelley became a positive pcission. Shake- speare, I repeat, was, above all, the poet of "human nature," and of " inanimate Nature " ; but it appears to me quite true to write, as I wrote some ten years ago : " If we want the poetry of country life — the life of the woods and fields and streams — it is not to Shakespeare that we must go. And it was, doubtless, for this reason that Harrison Weir when he brought out his charming Poetry of Nature (meaning thereby animated Nature), did not include therein one example from Shakespeare, though he quotes a long passage from Ben Jonson." ^ We must not expect to find in Shakespeare such lines, for example, as Keats's : Then in a wailful choir the small gnats mourn Among the river sallows, borne aloft Or sinking as the light wind lives or dies.' ' See Nineteenth Century, April, 1913, p. 784, and Shakespeare, by Sir Walter Raleigh, ubi supra. '^ Viz. the lines beginning " Mild breathing zephyr, father of the Spring," and ending "The yellow bees the air with music fill, The finches carol, and the turtles bill." ' " Hedge-crickets sing," of course, he could not write, because, as Sir Edward Sullivan tells us — and we are deeply indebted to him for the information — there were no "hedge-crickets" in Shakespeare's time ! SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 535 Or Collins's: Now air is hush'd, save where the weak-eyed bat, With short shrill shriek flits by on leathern wing. He will not tell us how ... in the juicy corn the hidden quail Cries "wet my foot," and hid, as thoughts unborn, The fairy-like and seldom-seen landrail Utters " Craik ! craik ! " like voices under ground, Right glad to meet the evening dewy veil, And see the light fade into gloom around.^ But these last lines speak of birds, I shall be told, and, surely, as a poet of bird-nature Shakespeare stands unrivalled ! Sir Edward Sullivan says that he "mentions" no less than seventy-six different birds in his Plays and Poems. Well, we have seen what "mentioning" some- times means ; but, continues Sir Edward, " not only does he mention them, but, so far at least as British birds are concerned, he has usually some original description, short or long, for each of them, plainly showing a knowledge of their habits, characteristics, and haunts, which can only have been acquired in nature's own book." Let us see how this is proved. " Taking a few examples at random, we have, ' The russet-pated chough ' ; ' The plain- song cuckoo grey ' ; ' strutting chanticleer ' ; ' The staring owl ' ; ' The owl, night's herald ' ; ' This guest of summer, the temple-haunting martlet ' ; ' The gentle lark ' ; ' The shrill-gorged lark'; and many other natural touches of this kind." What a demonstration of Shakespeare's " knowledge " of the " habits, characteristics, and haunts " of birds ! . I really think some of the " Willians," when perusing this amazing article, must have cried, " Save us from our friends ! " Let us take Sir Edward's instances in order. ^ Summer Mtods, by Clare, 536 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? "The russet-pated chough." The epithet is Shake- speare's, and that is enough for Sir Edward Sullivan. Being Shakespeare's it must be accurate, and therefore should be cited as a proof of his accurate knowledge, ! and observation. Well, if a chough had a russet head it would really show no wonderful powers of observation to call him russet-headed, but, as a fact, so far is it from being true that the description "russet-pated" is applicable to the chough that the late Professor Newton, one of our first authorities on birds, suggested that the true reading must be "russet-patted," because the bird has red legs and feet ! The beak of the chough is a brilliant red, but "russet-pated" it certainly is not. I would refer the reader to Lord Lilford's magnificent pictures of Birds of the British Islands (i 885-1897), Vol. II, p. 24. "The whole plumage" of the chough, says Morris, who also gives an excellent picture, "is black, glossed with blue." "The plain-song cuckoo grey." Now everybody is familiar with the delightful but monotonous cry of the cuckoo. Does it, then, show remarkable knowledge or observation of its habits, etc. etc., on the part of Shake- speare, to describe it as " plain-song " ? Why, the " plain- song " of the cuckoo had been referred to by poets long before Shakespeare; in fact "plain-song" had become recognised as an attribute of the bird. Skelton, for instance, has — But with a large and a long To kepe just playne song Our chanters shall be your cuckoue.* ^ In The Shakespeare Problem Restated (p. 436), I wrote of the cuckoo : " His monotonous though delightful call is the leading note of the oldest of plain-songs, ' Summer is icumen in Lhude sing cu-cu,'" A musical correspondent writes to point out that this is inaccurate, because plain-song has no "leading note" ; which shows that I am, unfortunately. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 537 Lyly in his exquisite lyric, Trico's song in Campaspe, describes the nightingale's song as " prick-song " : Jug, jug, jug, jug, terew 1 she cries, And still her woes at midnight rise, Brave prick-song ! This, I venture to say, shows much closer observation of the nightingale on the part of John Lyly, than the old epithet "plain-song" shows on Shakespeare's part with regard to the cuckoo. As a musical correspondent writes to me, " Lyly used this term for the nightingale because the upper parts of 'prick-song' were often of a florid type, a counterpoint against some plain-song melody sung by the tenor," whereas the cuckoo's song is of a plain or even type.^ The " strutting chanticleer." Here is, indeed, a proof no musician. I did not, however, use the expression with reference to music, but to the poem; as we speak of the "leading-note" of a speech, for example. But my correspondent fiirther says that "Summer is icumen in" is not plain-song, " but a canon in four parts with a double burden, and so is 'prick -song,' the term then used for harmonised and polyphonic music." Doubtless he is quite right, and I must own to having been misled. Never- theless this old song, or "round," is not, strictly speaking, "prick-song," because it was not sung from notes. See Burney on " Plain Counterpoint . . . before there was any such thing as written harmony," quoted with reference to this song in ChappelFs Old English Popular Mtisic. ' In Chaucer's poem, " The Cuckoo and the Nightingale," the Cuckoo says to the Nightingale — " It thinketh me I sing as well as thou. For my song is both true and plain. Although I cannot crakel [i.e. quaver] so in vain.'' Browning, by the way, seems to have listened to the cuckoo very attentively, with the ear of a musician, for he writes : " Here's the spring back or close, When the almond-blossom blows : We shall have the word In a minor third There is none but the cuckoo knows." That "minor third" \% alas, quite beyond my criticism. 538 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of knowledge and observation such as " can only have been acquired in nature's own book " ! It required a Shakespeare to notice that our old friend Mr. Rooster has a habit of strutting! Nobody had observed this fact before, and had it not been for Shakespeare, Milton could never have told us how the cock To the stack, or the bam door, Stoutly struts his dames before ! The wonder is that Sir Edward did not include " robin- redbreast" in his catalogue. For does not Shakespeare write, " You have learned ... to relish a love-song, like a robin-redbreast," and is it not a fact of natural history that the robin has a red breast ? After this I really do not think I need comment on " the staring owl," " the owl, night's herald," " the gentle lark," and "the shrill-gorged lark." To quote such commonplace^remarks as showing special knowledge and observation on Shakespeare's part appears to me little better than childish. But what of "this guest of summer, the temple- haunting martlet"? Well, here we have, certainly, a reference to one of the most charming passages in Shakespeare, but surely it cannot, with any reason, be adduced as proof that he was a poetical forerunner of Gilbert White! He had seen — as who has not? — that the house-marten, like the swallow, builds on houses, whether on " coigns of vantage " in the case of mansions or " temples," or under the eaves of smaller human habitations, and he knew that it was seen in summer time. What special fact of natural history have we to note here? Is it that Where they most breed and haunt, I have observ'd The air is delicate? That is a charming idea, but I fear there is no warrant SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 539 whatever to be found for it in experience. " The martin," as Morris observes, " is an attendant on civilisation, and endeavours to establish itself about the habitations of man," but the pleasant idea that it chooses its nesting- place with reference to the delicacy of the air is, I trow, merely poetical embellishment. In connection with this allusion to the " martlet " we are reminded of Shakespeare's reference to the swallow in those delightful lines already quoted : Daffodils, That come before the swallow dares, and take The winds of March with beauty. Here we have, indeed, a proof of Shakespeare's love and keen observation of flowers (of which more anon), but it is a mere mention of the swallow. We look in vain for any reminiscence of a swallow skimming over the fields, or over the Thames, or over the much-appealed-to Avon ; such a reminiscence, for example, as Tennyson's, when he speaks of Short swallow-flights of song, that dip Their wings in tears, and skim away. Here we have the swallow itself, painted for us to the life, by one magic touch. So, too, Ben Jonson has some lines accurately describing one of the habits of the swallow, although it must be owned that the knowledge which they disclose was but matter of common observation : Ay me, that virtue . . . Should like a swallow, preying towards storms. Fly close to earth, an allusion to the well-known fact that swallows, in pursuit of insects, fly low before rain and storms.* ' Poetaster, Act IV, Sc. 6. Messrs. Nicholson and Herford completely miss the point of this little piece of natural history. Their comment is : " Seem- ingly his way of saying that they (alone) prey flying " ! — which would, indeed, be a ridiculous remark. S40 IS THER^ A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? But with Shakespeare the swallow seems to be little more than an emblem of swiftness — as in such lines as " True hope is swift, and flies with swallow's wings," and others to the same effect. But the nightingale! Has not Shakespeare "some original description " of this bird also, " plainly showing a knowledge of its habits, characteristics, and haunts, which can only have been acquired in nature's own book " ? Think, for instance, of Romeo and Juliet. " Nightly she sings on yon pomegranate tree." Well, Shakespeare could hardly have observed a nightingale on a pomegranate tree. As to " she sings " — well, the nightingale is the mythical Philomela, and therefore feminine with the poets, and we could not expect Shakespeare, unless he really had been a " naturalist," to know that it is the male nightingale that sings while the hen-bird is sitting upon her eggs.^ Shake- speare, no doubt, loved the nightingale's song, as who does not ? He has written : Except I be with Silvia in the night There is no music in the nightingale. But "the music of the nightingale" is common to many poets, so common as to be a conventional ex- pression. What we are looking for is some personal note. "As with Shelley's skylark," writes our Reviewer, "(in which, though there is no direct natural history, there is a wonderful description of the actual song), a single stanza suffices to assure us that the poet really took a personal delight in the little bird that was singing overhead ; so in Keats's ' Ode to the Nightingale ' a single stanza is enough ' Coleridge laughs at the "youths and maidens most poetical" who ' ' Must heave their sighs O'er Philomela's pity-pleading strains." No, says he, '"Tis the merry Nightingale That crowds, and hurries, and precipitates With fast thick warble his delicious notes.'' SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 541 to convince us of the actual joy of the poet in listening to another little brown bird singing in its bower." Even " Ben Jonson's one line, ' Dear good angel of the Spring,' is enough to satisfy any lover of Nature." But this personal touch we do not find in Shakespeare, though his nightingale is for ever associated with those immortal lovers in a warm Italian night. But the lark ! Here, surely, we have Shakespeare the naturalist, the observer of birds ! What says the Reviewer ? " His treatment of the lark, the most important of his real birds, never fails to meet with spegial comment from his ' critics ' when they are insisting upon his observations of Nature ; but how is it they have never concerned them- selves to learn how much of Shakespeare's description was his own and how much borrowed ? We cannot find space to exhaust the subject, but may note here some of his most-quoted epithets, and distribute them among their sources. It is ' the morning lark ' (so in Lyly), ' the mourtting lark ' (Wm. Browne), ' the merry lark ' (Spenser), ' herald of the day ' (Chaucer), ' shrill lark ' (Spenser), ' summer's bird ' (Spenser), ' the busy day waked by the lark ' (' the busy lark, waker of the day,' Chester), ' Hark ! Hark ! the lark at Heaven's Gate sings, and Phoebus 'gins arise ' (' At Heaven's Gate she claps her wings. The morn not waking till she sings,' Lyly). These alone are enough to warn the critic that he should go very cautiously when he approaches the text of Shakespeare with the intention of proving the ' original ' observation of the poet." Again : " His contemporaries call the lark ' crested,' ' speckled,' ' long-heeled,' ' low-nested.' Shakespeare does not borrow these phrases; he cares apparently nothing about the real bird in Nature; he never refers to its appearance, its mate, its nest, or its young, which so delight some poets before him. This is distinctly worth noting, and extraordinary." When Shakespeare writes ( Wintet's Tale, IV, 2), " The 542 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? lark thlat tirra-lirra chants," we seem to have another echo of Du Bartas : La gentille allouette avec son fire-lire Tire-lire a lirl et tirl-lirant tire. Vers la voute du del, puis son vol vers ce lieu Vire et desire dire adieu Dieu, adieu Dieu.^ Mr. Dewar, in the article above alluded to, says, very truly, that it is absurd to "look to poets for the nice precision we must have in the man of science or the professional natural historian." No one " in his senses would demand it in supreme lyric such as Shelley's Ode to the West Wind or The Skylark, though it does happen, by some chance, that the skylark's song and soar were in that latter poem described in a way that may delight the heart of the man who wants nothing but precision." Omit the words " by some chance " (for there was no " chance " about Shelley's accurate description), and I entirely agree. We do not expect, or require, precision in the poets. We do not expect it, though we find it, in Shelley's Skylark, or in Keats's Ode to a Nightingale ; nor do we expect it in Browning, though when we read : That's the wise thrush, he sings each song twice over. Lest you should think he never could recapture His first fine careless rapture, we know that he must have listened attentively to, and been deeply penetrated with, the love of the thrush's vernal song, albeit he may, perhaps, have had a remi- niscence of Burns's lines : while falling, recalling. The amorous thrush concludes his song. Nay, we may recognise some measure of personal 'Du Bartas, Premiere Semaine, Liv. 5. The Quarterly Reviewer has omitted this reference to these very fenciful lines of Du Barias. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 543 observation even in Matthew Arnold, though he has so little of " nice precision " that he speaks of the nightingale as " tawny-throated " ! But it is just this note of personal observation which seems to be wanting in Shakespeare where animated wild Nature is concerned, but which, nevertheless, is persistently claimed for him by some of his undiscriminating worshippers.^ And again I say, we do not expect to find in Shake- speare that intense Nature-worship which is characteristic of a later age, and which may be said to have culminated in Shelley and in Wordsworth. It is not that we are seeking for, but for some evidence that he was in any real sense a " naturalist," as that term, which Knight so confidently claims for him, is usually understood ; and this evidence we have been unable to discover.^ ' The most lovely .allusions to birds and flowers are, of course, to be found in Shakespeare's lyrics. Everyone will remember, for instance, "the ouzel- cock so bright of hue, with orange-tawny bill." It is rather curious that " orange-tawny " was Sir Walter Raleigh's colour, and in his description of the birds seen by him on the Orinoco he speaks of some of them as "orange- tawny," viz. " Birds of all colours, some carnation, orange-tawny, purple, ' green, watchet, and of all other sorts both simple and mixed." Quoted by Sir Frederick Treves in The Cradle of the Deep (1912) at p. 76. " Orange- tawny," says Sir Frederick, "was Raleigh's own colour." ^ It has been suggested that the beautiful line in Venus and Adonis, "Like a dive-dapper, peering through a wave," shows personal observation on Shakespeare's part. He had, doubtless, watched a dabchick, or other diver, in one of the pools of his native Stratford. On this I may remark, first, that ' ' wave " is suggestive rather of the sea than a river, pool, or inland lake. Had, then, Shakespeare watched a diver in the sea, and is this his one solitary example of a sea-bird ? To this it may be answered that the up-and-down motions of the diver, or " dive-dapper," were used as a stock simile in Shakespeare's day, and as applied to illustrate the raising of Adonis's chin it does not seem very appropriate. But so common had this simile become that there was actually a verb to " dive-dop," used of anything that went up and down. Thus, too, Becon (1559), speaking slightingly of the Catholic Mass, says : " Then once again kneel ye down, and up again like dive-doppels." And here I must mention one other instance relied upon by Sir Edward Sullivan as showing Shakespeare's 544 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? When we come to one class of animals, however, the case is very different. I refer to the " beasts of the chase," namely the boar, the deer, and the hare. "Whether Shakespeare ever saw a boar-hunt is a matter for con- jecture," says our Reviewer, "but he gives a superb description of the animal and its chase in Venus and Adonis. Anyone who chooses to do so could resolve this description into its original elements, and refer them respectively to Spenser, and Drayton, Du Bartas, Chester, and others who wrote of the mighty boar before Shake- speare, and all of whom in turn borrowed from Ovid, Pliny, and Virgil. But the complete picture is Shakespeare's own, and it is very noteworthy as an illustration of the poet's treatment of a real animal in which he felt an actual personal interest." His frequent references to deer need only be mentioned. " Here he was perfectly at home and thoroughly familiar, from personal observation, with the haunts and habits of the animal he was describing. The result is a detailed and most beautifully accurate natural history of the deer, whether stag, hart, or hind, buck or doe." It is frequently said that Shakespeare writes as an accurate observation. " Mark the accuracy with which he introduces the Grebe, vulgarly called the Loon, with its white cheeks that show so strongly against its dark head : ' The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon ! ' " Now I take leave to say, with much confidence, that this supposed reference to the grebe is purely a flight of imagination. It is true that the Oxford Dictionary, after quoting the passage in question from Macbeth, under the first, and ordinary, sense of the word "loon," tells us that there was also a second sense, viz, "Any bird of the genus coly tubus, especially the Great Northern Diver," or " the great-crested Grebe," or " the little grebe or dabchick." But to the first and the last of these " cream-feced " will certainly not apply, nor is the term really applicable to the great-crested Grebe, or even to the red-necked Grebe (though that has white cheeks), which is not mentioned in Murray's Dictionary. But all this is really ex abundanii. The suggested allusion to the bird is quite obviously a fond thing vainly invented. " Loon" in its ordinary sense, as a worthless fellow, and "loon " the bird, were quite distinct. Moreover, Shakespeare tells us nothing of sea-birds. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 545 enthusiastic sportsman, but such does not seem to me to be the fact. That he was perfectly familiar with " sport " as then practised, in all its branches, can hardly be doubted, but he frequently writes more like a "humani- tarian " than a sportsman. Who does not remember the Duke in the forest of Arden ? And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools, , i Being native burghers of this desert city, Should in their own confines with forked heads Have their round haunches gored. Or Jaques and the poor sequester'd stag. That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt, and whose misery was such as to touch the other lords also. The wretched animal heaved forth such groans That their discharge did stretch his leathern coat Almost to bursting, and the big round tears Coursed one another down his innocent nose In piteous chase.^ But especially does this humanitarian spirit manifest itself in the exquisite lines in Venus and Adonis concern- ing the hunted hare. Here we have a minute description of the chase of the hare, and Sir Sidney Lee* finds "curious resemblances to the Ode de la Chasse (on a 'Jaques, it seems, had actually arrived at the conception that animals have rights. " Indeed, my lord, The melancholy Jaques grieves at that. And, in that kind, swears you do more usurp Than doth your brother that hath banish'd you." 'Page 66 n. 2 N 546 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? stag hunt) by the French dramatist Estienne Jodelle in his CEuvres et Meslanges Poetiques, 1574." But what we are here concerned with is the tender sympathy expressed for the "poor wretch" whose "grief may be compared well to one sore sick that hears the passing bell." ^ But Shakespeare, I imagine, had read Sir Thomas More's Utopia, where the hunter is told " thou shouldest rather be moved with pity to see a silly innocent hare murdered of a dog, the weak of the stronger, the fearful of the fierce, the innocent of the cruel and unmerciful." With hawks and hawking, too, Shakespeare is, of course, thoroughly familiar, though whether he would have agreed with Sidney when he said, " Next to hunting I like hawking worst," we cannot say. He is constantly employing the language of falconry in a metaphorical sense. But one remembers how it was said: "Why, you know, an a man have not skill in the hawking and hunting languages now-a-days, I'll not give a rush for him : they are more studied than the Latin or the Greek." 2 But even in this matter of " hawking " the argument can easily be carried too far. Thus in an article in The Westminster Gazette for August 19th, 191 1, under title " Notes from Old Sketch-Books," and subscribed by the well-known initials " F. C, G.,'' we read : " It is certain that whoever wrote The Taming of the Shrew must not only have been familiar with the conventional phraseology of hawking, but must have had a keen and intimate knowledge of technique of the science of hawking in the mews as well as in the field. . . . Petrucio ' mans ' the wild Kate by the means that a falconer uses with his ' haggard ' falcon. After he has brought her home, and ' See ante, pp. 209-10, where the stanzas alluded to are set forth. ' Every Man in his Humour, I, i. 43. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 547 has flung the supper on the floor, and Kate is hungry, Petrucio says : My falcon now is sharp and passing empty ; And till she stoop she must not be full gorg'd, For then she never looks upon her lure. Another way I have to man my haggard, To make her come, and know her keeper's call, That is, to watch her, as we watch these kites. That bate, and beat, and will not be obedient." Whereupon I would remark, first, that the "Shake- spearean" authorship of The Taming of the Shrew is admittedly extremely doubtful, and if it be non-Shake- spearean, the argument melts into thin air. And, secondly, that this play is founded on the old play of The Taming of a Shrew (1594), which no critic, so far as I am aware (with the exception of Professor Courthope), ascribes to Shakespeare ; and here also we find allusions to hawking, though, perhaps, they may not be quite so evidentiary of technical knowledge as those in the later play. Thus Ferando, who is the Petrucio of the old play, says of the Shrew : lie mew her up as men do mew their hawkes. And make her gentlie come unto the lure. Were she as stuborne or as full of strength As was the Thracian horse Alcides tamde Yet would I pull her downe and make her come As hungry hawkes do flie unto their lure. The author of the old play, therefore, must, it would seem, also have been tolerably familiar with " the science of hawking in the mews as well as in the field " ! But the fact is, as " F. C. G." truly says, that " the literature of the Elizabethan age is full of hawking allusions, the techni- 548 IS THERE A'iSHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? calities of the sport being widely used in the form of simik." ^ But whence is it that Shakspere of Stratford is sup- posed to have derived his wonderful knowledge of sport ? Hunting — more especially the chase of the deer — and hawking were the recreations of the great. Thus we find Bacon saying, with regard to "Forests, Parks, and Chases " : " It is a sport proper to the nobility and men of better rank ; and it is to keep a difference between the gentry and the common sort." ^ Sir Thomas More, in his Utopia, proposes to relegate hunting to the "bouchers" (i.e. butchers) among the Utopians. " Yet," he says, " this is nowe the exercise of most noble men." So the affected Amoretto, in The Return from Parnassus^ asks the scholar Academico : " Say, sweete Sir, do yee affect the most gentle-nian-like game of hunting ? " As to hawking, it was, as we know, the sport of "Lords and Ladies gay." We have no indication whatever that Shakspere had the opportunity of making himself familiar with these sports of the rich and noble. To account for the wonderful knowledge displayed in the Plays and Poems, he has been made lawyer, schoolmaster, gardener, printer, soldier, and a great many other things besides; but I am not aware that he has ever yet been turned into a gamekeeper. True it is that some of his admirers will have it that he was a poacher, and stole some of Lucy's " harts or does " (as Sir Sidney Lee so quaintly puts it) ; but really that is hardly sufficient to account for all this familiarity with ' Honest John Taylor, the Water Poet, in his work on " A Bawd " writes : " A Bawd is a Logician. ... So she by going further about comes the neerer home, and by casting out the Lure, makes the Tassell Gentle come to her fist." ' "Notes for a speech in a case of deer stealing." See Abbott's Life of Bacon, p. 223. A more undemocratic sentiment could not be found even in Shakespeare ! ' Part 2, Act II, Scene 5. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 549 the ways and terms of falconry and the chase. Yet Shakespeare displays as much knowledge in these matters as must have been possessed by Bacon himself, of whom Francis Osborn says : " I have heard him entertain a Country Lord in the proper terms relating to hawks and dogs."i Horses, too, notwithstanding the fact that he took the description of " the ideal horse " from Du Bartas, Shake- speare knew thoroughly and loved well. " He writes of them," says the Quarterly Reviewer, " as a Centaur might write, as participating in his own nature. He loved them, and the result is the noblest description ever written of the noblest of animals." Dogs also he thoroughly understood — that is, dogs as used for hunting and bear-baiting. His hounds are well known to everybody, but even here he was wont to go to the classics for his descriptions. He speaks of ' Osborn, speaking of universal knowledge, or what he calls " an univer- sall inspection," writes: "My memory neither doth, nor I believe possible ever can, direct me to an example more splendid in this kind than the Lord Bacon, Earle of St. Albanes Isic], who in all companies did appear a good Proficient, if not a Master in those Arts entertained for the subject of every- one's discourse. So as I dare maintaine, without the least affectation of Flattery or Hyperboly, that his most casuall talke deserved to be written. . . . So as I have heard him entertaine a Country Lord in the proper termes relating to Hawkes and Dogges, and at another time out-cant a London Chyrurgion. . , . The eares of the hearers receiving more gratification tl!an trouble ; and so no lesse sorry when he came to conclude than displeased with any did interrupt him " {Advice to a Son, 1658, Second Part, p. 70). "As a matter of fact," writes Judge Webb, " the works of Bacon are as full of allusions to sport as the plays of Shakespeare." But as the learned Judge further comments : " It would have been strange if the son of a Lord Keeper had never been taught to ride, stranger still if one who had resided for three years at the Court of France had never observed how French falconers flew at everything they saw, and how a French cavalier could grow into his seat." Bacon is particularly fond of metaphor from falconry (see The Mystery of William Shakespeare, Note B, p. 255). This, be it observed, is not " Baconian " argument, but is given in illustration of the fact that hunting and hawking were the sports of the great, not of " Stratford rustics," and that familiarity with their terms and technique is certainly not evidence of the " Stratfordian " authorship. 550 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? hounds " bred out of the Spartan kind," and a " hound of Crete," evidently having in mind the line of Ovid {Met. Ill, 208) : Gnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus. But for all his humanitarian pity for the hunted beasts of the chase, he does not seem to have understood the dog as the dear, loving, and faithful friend of man. " Dog " is a term of reproach, and cats are " creatures we count not worth the hanging." As for the fox, it had not yet been elevated into that position of dignity which man graciously assigns to the creatures whose sufferings in the chase are made to minister to his pleasures. True it is there was fox-hunting, "of a sort," at that time. Aca- demico, for instance, in The Return from Parnassus, says : " There is an excellent skill in blowing for the terriers ; it is a word that we hunters use when the Fox is earthed." But Vulpicide had not as yet become a recognised crime, nor was Renard held sacred to the sport of the rich. Deer-hunting and hawking were the aristocratic sports. " Fox," therefore, with Shakespeare, is a term symbdlical of stealth, and cunning, and theft. " His lion is the chivalrous lion of Pliny and romance, his tiger is Hyrcanian : and so on. In a word, his natural history is commonplace when it is correct, and ' Eliza- bethan ' when it is wrong ; but the manner of it is so beautiful, incomparably beautiful, that the matter borrows a beauty from it." ^ Turning now from the animate to the inanimate world, we are at once struck by Shakespeare's love and know- ledge of flowers. Here there can be no difference of opinion. Mr. Dewar, still fighting shadows, writes : " He had his share, an ample one we feel, as we read him, of ' the glorying life that sunshine gives, and the south wind calls to being. The endless grass, the endless leaves, the immense strength of the oak expanding, the unalloyed joy of finch and blackbird ' ; from each he received ' Quarterly Review. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 551 something that became interwoven in his being. It is im- possible that the man who had no share in these things could have written of that Bank where the wild thyme blows, Where oxlips, and the nodding violet grows." As though anyone had ever asserted that Shakespeare had no " share in these things " ! As to his love of flowers, quotation could, of course, be piled upon quotation. The lyrics (whoever wrote them) are full of them. It is true that in As You Like It, where we should most have expected to find them, there is not one ; but if we are content to imagine a leafless forest, save for the " green holly " swept by " the churlish chiding of the winter's wind," we may explain the deficiency by reference to "the season's difference." But let us turn to The Winter's Tale. It has been frequently said that the author of this play must have been familiar with country life. Well, I have no doubt that Shakefspeare was familiar with the country, whether he gained his knowledge at Stratford, or at Twickenham, or at Gorhambury, or elsewhere. But he nowhere writes as the simple country- man. Perdita, for instance, is the most delightful of shepherdesses, but it is highly characteristic of Shake- speare that he makes a young girl, brought up from infancy in a rustic cottage, exclaim, " O Proserpina, For the flowers now that frighted thou let'st fall from Dis's waggon ! " Her violets are " sweeter than the lids of Juno's eyes, or Cytherea's breath." It is as though he could not keep clear of classical allusions even when least appropriate. Comparison has frequently been made between Perdita's list of flowers and Bacon's in his Essay on Gardens. There is, for example, the extraordinarily close parallelism between, "lilies of all kinds, the flower-de-luce being one," and Bacon's " flower-de-luces (or flower-de- 552 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? lices) and lilies of all natures." ^ But the two lists are well worth comparing generally. They are both arranged according to the seasons. If Perdita speaks of " streak'd gillyvors," Bacon speaks of the "stock gillyflower." If Perdita says, "For you there's rosemary and rue, these keep seeming and savour all the winter long," Bacon says, " For December and January, and the latter part of November, you must take such things as are green all the winter, rosemary, lavender, sweet marjoram." In the Essay we have the cowslip substituted for " bold oxlips." Primroses, violets, daffodils, marigolds, marjoram, besides those already mentioned, are common to both lists. Bacon gives us another list very much the same, and in- cluding gillyflowers and flower-de-luce, in his Natural History, Cent. VI, 577.^ 1 Mr. EUacomb {Plant Lore of Shakespeare, p. 99), after noticing that Shakespeare calls the flower-de-luce one of the lilies, and that another way of spelling it is fleur-de-lys, says that Bacon separates the two, as though the flower-de-luce was not a lily. I demur to this. If I speak of " spaniels and dogs of all natures," I do not treat " spaniels " as though they do not belong to the genus " dog." I merely name one species first, and make general mention of the others. This, as it seems to me, is what 3acon does, in full agreement with what Shakespeare says ; but I pray it may not be thought that I am ad- vailcing a " Baconian " argument. I merely note a very curious coincidence. ^ I allude to these parallelisms once more not as " Baconian " arguments, but because Sir Edward Sullivan has referred to the Essay "Of Gardens," which he says " from start to finish . . . is no better than a nurseryman's bald catalogue of seasonable plants. " Yet this essay contains the following well- known very beautiful passage : ' ' And because the breath of flowers is far sweeter in the air (where it comes and goes like the warbling of music) than in the hand, therefore nothing is more fit for that delight, than to know what be the flowers and plants that do best perfume the air." Compare Shakespeare's : " That strain again ! it had a dying fall ; O, it came over me like the sweet South That breathes upon a bank of violets. Stealing and giving odour ! " Here the Folio reads " sound," and "South" is Pope's emendation, which editors generally accepted until it was perceived how much closer this reading made the Baconian parallel, when ' ' sound " was taken back again, and we were asked if we had never heard the sound of the summer breeze as it passed through the flowers and grass ! Yes, I have often heard that sound ; never- SHAKESPEARE AND " NATURE " 553 But now, it may be asked, what has all this to do with the question of authorship? Well, the " Anti-Williah " will, I conceive, shape his argument somewhat as follows. Romantic pictures have been painted of a young visionary Shakspere, who wandered by the "piondd and twilled" banks of Avon, and through the woods, and over the fields of Stratford, observing the beasts, and the birds, and the insects with the eye of the poet and the love of the naturalist. Such pictures are mere imagination. There is not a tittle of evidence, either external or internal, that they bear any resemblance to the real Shakspere either in youth or in manhood. A close examina- tion of " the works themselves " presents us with no such Shakespeare, and what is known of the life of Shakspere is very far from giving warrant to such suggestions. But was not Shakespeare an observer of Nature ? Yes, indeed. In the first place, he was a profound student of human nature — such a student and interpreter as, perhaps, the world has not seen before or since. In the second place, he was deeply contemplative of inanimate Nature. He watched and profoundly meditated upon natural phenomena: the winds, the tides, the clouds, the waves beating "upon the pebbled shore," the thunder, the lightning, and the rain. It may be said that he well knew the boundless store Of charms that Nature to her votary yields ; The warbling woodland, the resounding shore. The pomp of grove, and garniture of fields ; All that the genial ray of morning gilds. And all that echoes to the song of even, All that the mountain's sheltering bosom shields. And all the dread magnificence of heaven. theless, I have still to learn that a " sound " can steal or give odour ! Therefore I much prefer the reading " South." Cf. Byron : "Breathing all gently o'er his cheek and mouth As o'er a bed of roses the sweet South." Don Juan, II, clxviii. 554 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? And thus, and in that sense, it is that Johnson was amply justified in calling him " the poet of nature." Flowers and gardens particularly he loved. But flowers, it may be remembered, could in his day be well studied in London, for not only were there magnificent private gardens there (the City Companies, for example, had beautiful gardens in London), but there were fields within a short walk of the city, where wild flowers were to be found in infinite variety; and if one went as far as Twickenham, there one would have found a large and famous garden — though this is by no means to say that Shakespeare's study of flowers and gardening was con- fined to London and the suburbs. But the allegation that Shakespeare was a " naturalist," that he was a close observer of animated Nature, and wild Nature in particular, cannot, surely, be supported. He really gives no indication of having lived a country life observant of the habits of birds and beasts and fishes and insects. But horses and hounds and the beasts of the chase — these he had observed, and these and all their ways he well knew. Yet even his " ideal horse " is con- ventional. The famous description in Venus and Adonis is, as our Reviewer points out, " borrowed word for word from Du Bartas," or rather, as I think, from Joshua Sylvester's translation of Du Bartas, which Shakespeare appears to have had before him, whether in print or in manuscript.'^ The fact seems to be that Du Bartas derived his description of the horse from Virgil,^ and Shakespeare took his from Du Bartas through Sylvester, just as he took his description of a beehive, and the ways of bees, from Lyly probably, who again took his from Virgil's Georgics? ' See The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. S9 et seq. ' Georgics, m. 73 et seq. ' Virgil's celebrated description is to be found in the fourth book of the Georgics. For the passage in Lyly's Euphues see Arber's Reprint, pp. 262-4. SHAKESPEARE AND "NATURE" 555 With "sport," the amusement of the great, Shake- speare was perfectly familiar. Yet he does not seem to write of it as the sportsman, but rather as the thinker, with, sometimes, much sympathy for its victims ; and even of sport he cannot write without borrowing from classical authors, and more especially from Ovid, with whose writings — many of them, at any rate — he was evidently saturated. The " Anti-Willian " therefore maintains that a close examination of the " Works " (omitting such very doubtful plays as i Henry VI and Titus Andronicus, and, possibly, The Taming of the Shrew also) reveals Shakespeare " the poet of Nature," but certainly not Shakespeare the "naturalist" — a Shakespeare who was in a position to make himself practically familiar with horses, and hounds, and deer, and hawks ; with hunting, and with falconry ; a Shakespeare who loved flowers and studied them ; who loved the countryside also, but who had given no close study to its denizens, the wild birds and beasts, still less to the fishes, or the insects, and other " small-life " of woods and fields. Socrates said : " I am a lover of knowledge, and the men who dwell in the city are my teachers, and not the trees or the country." Socrates, then, cries the hasty reader, could not find " sermons in stones " or " books in the running brooks " ! But that may be a somewhat superficial criticism, for Socrates, if Plato has painted him aright, could fully appreciate the beauties of a rural scene. Just before giving utterance to the sentence above quoted, he has thus, in glowing language, described the spot to which Phaedrus had conducted him : " Yes, indeed ... a fair and shady resting-place, full of summer sounds and scents. Thfere is the lofty and spreading plane-tree, Mr. Gollancz thinks that " the ultimate source is probably Pliny's Natural History, Bk. XI," of which, as he notes, Holland's translation did not appear till 1601 (see Henry V, Act I, Sc. 2, 187-204). 556 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? and the agnus castus high and clustering, in the fullest blossom and the greatest fragrance ; and the stream which flows beneath the plane-tree is deliciously cold to the feet . . . moreover, there is a sweet breeze, and the grass- hoppers chirrup ; and the greatest charm of all is the grass like a pillow gently sloping to the head." ^ Perhaps, then, in their appreciation of " Nature," there was not so much difference as is generally imagined between the Greek philosopher and the English pofet-philosopher, both of whom were above all — though the Greek, of course, more exclusively — philosophers of " human nature." I have quoted from a Quarterly Reviewer. I do not subscribe to all he says, but I think in his main conclusions he is right, and justified by the evidence. Let me conclude by a quotation from an Edinburgh Re- viewer : " Shakespeare's vision of life is so wide, his moral insight so profound, his knowledge and sympathies so vitalised and universal, and his command of language so absolute, that every part in the wide circle of con- temporary learning and experience may throw some light on his pages. In particular, his birthright of pregnant speech is so imperial that he seems to appro- priate by a kind of royal prerogative the most expressive elements of diction, in every department of human attainment and activity. No section of life or thought is too humble for his regard, none too lofty for his sympathetic appreciation. The day-spring of his serene and glorious intellect illuminates and vivifies the whole." 2 A loftier eulogium could not be conceived. Well, let us subscribe to it. But to whom are the words applicable ? To " Shakespeare," whoever he was. But is it necessarily fanaticism if the " Anti-Willian " fails tp find the satis- * Plato's Phadrut, 230 (Jowett's translation). ^'Edinburgh Review, October, 1872. SHAKESPEARE AND " NATURE " 557 factory embodiment of this high panegyric in "that deserving man," Will Shakspere of Stratford ? ^ ' Sir Edward Sullivan- is very much annoyed with Sir Walter Raleigh because he has, to some extent, and very rightly as I conceive, adopted the view of the Quarterly Reviewer. "Strange as it may seem, Professor Sir Walter Raleigh cannot away with such a view. ' The wild creatures of the fields and the woods,' he tells us, ' are outside the circle of Shakespeare's sympathetic observation.' 'The social life of the humbler creatures did not engage his attention.' To Dr. Brandes, who had praised Shakespeare for his astonishing store of natural knowledge, and had adduced for proof, amongst other examples, the poet's acquaintance with the fact 'that trout are caught with tickling ; that the lapwing runs close to the ground ; that the cuckoo lays its eggs in the nests of other birds ; that the lark resembles the bunting ' ; he has no better answer than, ' Many a city-bred boy knows all this and more ' — an observation curiously reminiscent of the Quarterly Reviewer whose guidance has led him into other quagmires." Then says Sir Edward : " I have seen trout caught with tickling, and can assure the Professor that the art is not to be learnt in town, nor even what it means." Now the first of these statements (viz. that the art of tickling a trout cannot be learnt in town) is ludicrously irrelevant, and the second (" nor even what it means ") is ludicrously untrue. I must own my inferiority to Sir Edward in that I have never seen a "trout caught by tickling," but I have had the operation described to me, and have been familiar with the fact that it is done all my life ; and what possible difference can it make whether the informa- tion was given me in town or in country ? As for the other examples given by Dr. Brandes, if any readers can accept them as "proof" of Shakespeare's ' ' astonishing store of natural knowledge," they must indeed be ready to base their opinions upon the very slightest basis of evidence. And it often happens that the strength of such opinions is in inverse proportion to the weight of the evidence upon which they are based. APPENDIX A JOHN DAVIES OF HEREFORD, HIS EPIGRAM THE " Willians " naturally appeal to the well-known epigram of Davies of Hereford, addressed to "our English Terence, Mr. Will Shake-speare," as one of the strongest passages which can be cited in support , of the received doctrine of authorship. I am not so foolish as to shut my eyes to the fact that there are grave difficulties in the way of the negative case. On the other hand, as a very distinguished public man, eminent in law, literature, and politicsj writes to me: "The difficulties in the way of Shakspere are indeed enormous." I think it is a pity thg.t the champions of the orthodox faith refuse to recognise that patent fact, and that some of them, especially those who are not in the front rank of. literature or criticism, think it becomes them to speak of the unbeliever as necessarily a fool or a fanatic, or both, although they are aware that men far more distinguished than themselves, and, haply, more competent to judge, have been quite unable to accept the orthodox belief in this matter. As to Davies of Hereford, his epigram is a very curious one, and contains cryptic allusions which nobody has been able to explain. It was published in The Scourge of Folly (about 1611), which, the author informs us, was a work "consisting of Satyricall Epigrams, and others." At this date William Shak- spere, aged forty-seven, was seeking retirement in the apparently congenial society of the small tradesmen of " illiterate " Stratford. Davies, addressing " Good Will" informs him that, as " some say," if he — " Will" to wit— had not played some kingly parts in sport, he had been " a companion for a King, and been a King S6o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? among the meaner sort." The first " king " is thrown into italics, which is rather curious. Old writers sometimes put all their important nouns into italics, but this is not the explanation here, because, in the first six lines of the epigram, " WiVl" and the first " kifig " (but not the second) are alone italicised. It has been suggested that Davies is alluding to somebody of the name of King. If so, we may compare Bacon's remarks in the Advance- ment of Learning (Bk. I) on the Roman name of "Rex," where he says that " mean families were invested " with that name. " For Rex was a surname with the Romans as well as King is with us." 1 Or the allusion may possibly — but not probably, I think — be to King James the First. Probably, being a scholar, Davies had Horace's line in his mind, " at pueri ludentes Rex eris aiunt," where we have both the " king " apd the allusion to players, in this instance boys at play. But what is the meaning of " Hadst thou not played some kingly parts in sport " ? Is it possible that Davies had in mind the story told by Manningham how " Will " played the part of " William the Conqueror " in sport, thus stealing a march on Burbage, who was playiiig Richard III? That is only a guess', but perhaps not an un- reasonable one. In any case, even if " Mr. Will Shake-speare " had not, as Davies says he had, disqualified himself to be " a companion for a king," he would only have been "a King among the meaner sort," which does not seem to place him very high in Davies's estimation. Montaigne writes of the players : ^ You shal now see them on the stage play a king, an Emperor, or a Duke, but they are no sooner off the stage, but they are base rascals, vagabond objects and porterly hirelings which is their naturall and originall condition " (Florio's translation, Bk. I, chap. 42), and perhaps Davies had similar thoughts in his mind. In the last four lines, however, he praises " Will" for having "no rayling, but a raigning Wit," and concludes thus : And honesty thou sow'st, which they do reaps ; So to increase their Stocke, which they do keepe (sic). What the real meaning of all this is I do not know," and the 'Anothegms, No. 221. APPENDIX A 561 commentators shed no light on the matter. Of course, if this obscure epigram is to be taken literally (so far as it is intelligible) "at its face value," and if it bears no covert significance for the initiated, then, no doubt, it may be legitimately cited as prima facie evidence in support of the contention that Davies held the belief that William Shakspere was, as Terence was, a writer of comedies; though, seeing that " Shakespeare " was in 161 1 at the height of his fame (so far as he had contemporary fame), it is curious that Davies should have likened him to the Latin comedian, as though he had not written such plays as Hamlet, Lear, and Othello. Moreover, as I have already contended, if he was to be likened to a Latin comedian, we should have expected him to be compared to Plautus rather than to Terence. Here the further question arises. What is the value of Davies's belief in this matter, even assuming it to have really been in favour of the orthodox contention ? What knowledge of Shakspere had he, if any ? And what opportunities had he of knowing the facts as to the authorship of the Plays ? And on these matters we have, unfortunately, no evidence whatever to guide us. So much for this cryptic epigram, which seems to have been one of Davies's " Satyricall" epigrams, written " in sport" rather than in sober seriousness. I must leave it to the reader to say how much value ought to be attached to it on the question of authorship. With regard to the likening of Shakespeare to. Terence, however, a theory has been advanced which will probably appear fantastic to most readers, but which is, I think, sufficiently interesting to merit at least mention. Terence is the one Latin author whose name is alleged to have been used as a mask-name, or nom deplume, for the writings of great men who wished to keep the fact of their authorship concealed. It was under that name, as we are told, that Scipio and Lselius were wont to publish. Terence, we may remember, was a Carthaginian slave (185-159 B.C.) brought as a boy to Rome. He belonged to a senator, Terentius Lucanus, who educated him, freed him, and gave him his own name, as the custom was. It must further be remembered that this "Terentius Afer" died at the early age 2 o 562 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? of twenty-six. Now that the belief in question existed — viz. that certain great men wrote under the name of Terence — is proved by Terence himself, for in his prologue to the Adelphi he alludes to what " spiteful people say, that great personages help the author and continually compose along with him," the reference being, according to Donatus and others, to Scipio and Lselius, by one of whom the prologue itself was very possibly composed. Cicero, further, writes : " Secutusque sum . . . Terentium cujus fabellae propter elegantiam sermonis putabantur a C. Laelio scribi" (Ad. Atf. vii. 3), and Suetonius declares that this belief regarding the authorship ofthese plays strengthened with time. Moreover, we find tha following in Quintilian : " In Comoedia maxime claudicamus, licet . . . Terentii scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur " {Inst. Oraf. x. I, 99). Montaigne, the translation of whose Essays by Florio was well known to Davies, makes reference to this belief concerning Terence. The following is the passage referred to : " If the perfection of well-speaking, might bring any glorie suitable unto a great personage, Scipio and Lselius would never have resigned the honour of their comedies, and the elegancies and smooth- sportfull conceits of the Latine tongue, unto an African servant ; for, to prove this labour to be theirs, the exquisite eloquence and excellent invention thereof doth sufficiently declare it. And I could hardly be removed from this opinion. It is a kind of mockerie and injurie to raise a man to worth, by qualities mis-seeming his place, and un-fitting his calling, although for some other respects praise-worthy ; and also by qualities that ought not to be his principal object." It has been suggested that Davies of Hereford, with this knowledge in his mind, was led to address Shakespeare, who for many years previous to the publication of this epigram had been better known as a writer of tragedies than of comedies, as " our English Terence." This suggestion will, I repeat, doubt- less seem fantastic to many, and I cannot pretend to think it a very probable explanation, though, perhaps, a possible one. But it is interesting in that it brings home to us that great men wrote plays under a pseudonym even in the days of the Roman Republic. APPENDIX B THE ORIGINAL DRAWING OF THE STRATFORD BUST AS I have already intimated in the foot-note to page 487, since Chapter XVI, on "The Stratford Monument and the Portraits of Shakespeare," was in print, information has come into my hands which throws new light on the Dugdale engraving, and which, as I venture to think, raises a very strong presumption in favour of the contention that the "Stratford Bust " as we see it to-day is very different from that which was originally set up as the personification of " Shakespeare." For this valuable information I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. William F. S. Dugdale of Merevale Hall, Atherstone, the present representative of Sir William Dugdale, the celebrated antiquarian. '•' Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale, having become interested in the controversy concerning the Stratford Bust, made diligent search among the papers and manuscripts in his possession, and had the good fortune to discover a manuscript boOk of Sir William Dugdale's containing a number of his original notes and drawings, prepared for The Antiquities of Warwickshire. Here he lighted upon what few can doubt to be the original drawing made for the engraving of Shakespeare's Bust as it appears in the above- mentioned work. Further, it can hardly be doubted that this drawing was made by Sir William himself, being in his private manuscript book, and surrounded, as it is, by notes in his own handwriting. Moreover, although he did not profess to be an artist. Sir William Dugdale could, at any rate, sketch well 563 564 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? heraldically, as can be proved by many drawings in the possession of Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale. It must have been from this drawing that the artist, whether Hollar or some other, prepared the engraving, which is an exact copy of the sketch except that it corrects it where it is somewhat out of drawing. Over it is written, in Sir William's own handwriting, " In the north wall of the Quire is this monument for William Shakespeare the famous poet," and, in another place, the inscription is written out in full, together with the inscriptions on the tombs of John and Susanna Hall. Above these is written the date, namely, July 1634, showing that it was in this year that these notes were made. Dugdale, therefore, as it seems, himself made a drawing of the Stratford Bust, as it existed in his day, for his forthcoming work on The Antiquities of Warwickshire. That drawing shows a bust entirely different from the one which now stands in the church at Stratford. Either, then, the bust has been materially altered since that date, or Dugdale deliberately (but for no reason that can be suggested) presented his readers with a false picture of it No sneering hypothesis as to "seventeenth-century ideas of accuracy " can avail against this dilemma. Nor must we forget that many of those into whose hands Dugdale's book would come — Warwickshire men, especially, like himself — could not fail to remark the ridiculous and preposterous inaccuracy of the engraving, if the bust had really been at that time as it now is. Mr. Spielmann has said that Dugdale's accuracy may be judged of by the fact that he tells us Shakespeare's bust was of alabaster, whereas, in truth, it is of soft stone. It now turns out that Dugdale nowhere makes this alleged statement, and that the in- accuracy is Mr. Spielmann's. Is it not probable, and, in the light of Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale's discovery, almost certain, that Dugdale has been wrongly charged here also, and that he was accurate — substantially accurate, at any rate — in his presentment of the Stratford Bust ? In this connection it may be well to note that the old antiquarian has been charged with inaccuracy in his Latin also, because the inscription under the engraving of the bust in his book — pusporting to be a copy of that on Shakespeare's monument — commences with the words " Judycio [«V] Pylium.'' APPENDIX B 565 But the words, as written in his own handwriting in his manu- script book, are correctly given, namely, " Judicio Pylium," etc., showing that the inaccuracy was not his, but the engraver's. In conclusion, I have only to record my thanks to Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale for kindly inviting me to inspect his ancestor's very interesting book above mentioned, an invitation of which I was not slow to avail myself. I understand he proposes to publish an account of his discovery, with a facsimile of the drawing, and it is to be hoped he may shortly carry out this intention. APPENDIX C MRS. STOPES ON SHAKESPEARE SINCE the foregoing pages were in print yet another book on " Shakespeare " has been given to the world, viz. Shakespeare^ Environment, by Mrs. C. C. Slopes (G. Bell & Sons, 19 14). The book commences with an Introductory Chapter on " The Fortunes of Shakespeare," which we learn was an " Im- promptu speech at the dinner of the ' Shakespeare Commemoration League,' 23rd April, 1908 " (see p. 10). We must, certainly, congratulate the lady on her spontaneous eloquence, but even an impromptu after-dinner speech is, of course, subject to criticism if subsequently published as a considered contribution to Shakespearean biography. The chapter might more properly be headed " Fortunate Shakespeare," a title adopted by the Times Reviewer in his notice of the work. Well, if player Shakespeare was indeed the Shakespeare of literature he was unquestionably one of the most fortunate of men in that he was the author of the immortal plays and poems. But Mrs. Stopes directs our attention to the facts of player Shakespeare's life so far as they are known, or supposed to be known, to us, and finds him "fortunate " (the word is italicised throughout) in all their details. Critics and biographers have spoken of "his disabilities, disadvantages," etc. Nay, says the lady, I will show that, on the contrary, he was "fortunate''^ in everything — in the place of his birth, in the period in which he arrived, in his parents, in his school, in his seeming misfortunes, " even " in his marriage, in his family, in his friends, in his "fellows,"' in his theatres, in making money, and in the decline of his life. This is magnificent. 566 APPENDIX C 567 There is nothing like audacity. Be Vaudace, et encore de Faudace, et toujours de I'audace I But, although I must not add materially to this already overgrown work, I must perforce make a few comments on some of the points raised. Shakespeare, we are told, was "fortunate in his parents," and in this connection we are once more referred to " the Plume MS. at Maldon," where, we are informed, there is " the only definite notice we have " of his father, John Shakespeare, viz., " that he was a merry-cheeked old man who said ' Will was a good honest fellow, but he darest \sic\ have crakt a jesst with him at any time.'" Now, as so written, the sentence is inconsequential and, in fact, a non sequitur. It is absurd to represent John Shakespeare as saying : " Will was a good honest fellow, but I dared to crack a jest with him " ! If Will's father found that his son was a good fellow, raison de plus that he should not be afraid to crack a jest with him. It seems obvious that the correct reading is daren't, as given by the late Dr. Furnivall in the Westminster Gazette of October 31st, 1904, though he sub- sequently wrote (November 2nd) to say "daren't" was a mistake, and that " darest " (or " durst.") should be read. But " daren't " makes sense and justifies the use of the disjunctive conjunction "but," which "darest" (or " durst ") does not. It would be a trivial thing, indeed, for a father to say that he dared to jest with his son ! But we need not waste further time as to what word Plume (who was afterwards Archdeacon of Rochester and founder of the Plumean Professorship at Cambridge) actually used, for his note commences (though this part is not quoted by Mrs. Stopes) thus : " He [Shakespeare] was a glover's son. Sir John Mennes saw once his old father in his shop — a merry-cheekt old man," etc. So Sir John Mennes is responsible for this description of Will's father, in whom he was so "fortunate." But Sir John Mennes was born on March ist, 1599, and John Shakespeare died in September, 1601, so the infant Mennes was presumably taken from his cradle in Kent, in his nurse's arms, for the purpose of interviewing John Shakespeare, and subsequently recorded the result in the words aforesaid ! Such is " Shake- spearean" biography. (See The Shakespeare Problem Restated at p. 224 et seq.) 568 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Mrs. Stopes thinks that Shakespeare " yia.s fortunate evtn \n his marriage." It is not worth while to discuss that point, but under this heading I find the following : " There is good reason to believe that he took his family with him to London as soon as he found a home." The "reason" is not stated, and I venture to think there is no reason to believe any such thing. As to the "second-best bed," the following, surely, can hardly be improved upon : " there is nothing derogatory in the legacy of the second-best bed ; it was evidently her own last request [my italics]. She was sure of her widow's third; she was sure of her daughter's love and care, but she wanted the bed she had been accustomed to, before the grandeur at New Place came to her." There is not a shade or scintilla of evidence that Anne (or Agnes) asked for the second-best bed or wanted it, but just as the biographers say "doubtless" when there is much doubt, so it is natural that they should say "evidently" when there is no evidence, but rather a presumption to the contrary. As to the widow's third, of which Mrs. Stopes says Anne was " sure," Sir Sidney Lee has told us, on the authority of the late Mr. Elton, than whom no lawyer was better qualified to give an opinion on such a point, that " Will " had taken good care to bar his widow's dower, so it would rather appear that she was, unfortunately, sure of not getting her " third " ! Then as to the friends in whom Shakespeare was so fortunate. We are told that "through all he had one friend zi least, during his period of toil and preparation," and this was " his townsman, Richard Field (his senior by three years), who had been at Stratford Grammar School, and entered life on the solid fines of an apprentice to Thomas Vautrollier, the great French printer, and became his son-in-law and successor. Doubtless [my italics] Shakespeare went at first to reside with him ; certainly he was much with him. His shop was the poet's university, where he read for his degree by the inclusions and exclusions of the book- shelves [whatever that may mean]. . . . Field's publications account for the most of his learning. There he was inspired by 'Plutarch's Lives Englished by North,' trained by 'Puttenham's Art of English Poesie,' in the canons of literature and a taste for blank verse. There he found books on music, philosophy, APPENDIX C 569 science, travels, medicine, language, and literature, which we kntnv he read." All this is delightful for an impromptiT after-dinner speech, but it is mere imagination and assumption. What are the facts as far as they are known? Richard Field, says Mrs. Stopes, "had been at Stratford Grammar School." Where is the evidence of that ? If such there is, I should be glad to see it. He left Stratford for London in 1579, some eight years before Shakspere abandoned his home. " Doubtless Shakespeare went at first to reside with him"! Again there is not the slightest shade or scintilla of evidence to support this statement. It is really monstrous that a mere guess of this sort should be stated as an undoubted fact of Shakspere's life. VautroUier's " shop was the poet's university " ! This, again, is merely post- prandial eloquence. We do not know that Shakspere ever entered VautroUier's shop, and, really, biographies ought to be based on ascertained facts, not on " fanciful might-have-beens." ^ "There he found books on music, philosophy, science, etc. etc., which we know he read." Yes, we know, certainly, that "Shakespeare" must have read such books as these, but there is no evidence at all to show that player Shakspere did so, either at VautroUier's shop or anywhere else. There is nothing to show that he ever had a book in his possession, and, as I have already pointed out, he appears to have died without books, and without a thought of them. But "it was Richard Field who printed and published Shakespeare's two poems, the only works which we are sure he published and corrected himself." As to that, however, there is something more to be said. The Stationers' Register proves that Richard Field, on April i8th, 1593, acquired the copyright in Venus and Adonis, and that on June 25th, 1594, he assigned that copyright to John Harrison, Senior, and I apprehend I am absolutely correct in saying that, though Field printed the poem, at his printing office at Ludgate, the real publisher thereof was this John Harrison of the "White Greyhound" in St. Paul's 'Sir Sidney Lee rightly characterises as "fanciful" the theory "that Field found work in VautroIIier's printing office for Shakespeare on his arrival in London " (Life, p. 30), 570 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Churchyard, where, as the title-page of the 1593 Quarto informs us, the work was " to be sold." As Mr. H. R. Tedder puts it, in the Dictionary of National Biography, Field "printed three editions of Venus and Adonis and the first of Lucrece for John Harrison," the publisher. The quarto of Venus and Adonis was, as the title-page tells us, " imprinted by Richard Field, and are to be sold at the signe of the White Greyhound [Harrison's shop] in Paule's Churchyard." The first edition of Lucrece was " printed by Richard Field, for John Harrison, and are to be sold at the signe of the White Greyhound," etc. I think, too, it is fair to say that if Field and the author of Venus and Adonis had been close personal friends we should hardly have expected to find Field parting with his copyright in the poem ; rather, we should have expected to find him in possession of the copyright of Lucrece also. Moreover, not one of the Quarto plays came from Field's press. Actor Manager Shakespeare did not, apparently, care to employ his friend on behalf of his company. In short, when the known facts are examined, all that transpires is that Field was a Stratford man, and that he printed the two poems which were published by Harrison. Singularly little evidence, surely, for the " Stratfordian " authorship, unless imaginary and poetic details be added in the fervour of an impromptu oration ! ^ But now hearken unto this : " It is something to hear from his contemporary Webster the praise of Shakespeare's 'right happy and copious industry.' For he must have been hard at work, in his early days in the metropolis, to have been able to publish a poem by 1593, which put him at once among the highest group of contemporary poets over which Spenser reigned supreme." Nor is this statement as to "Will's "hard work confined to the impromptu speech, for in chap, xxix on " The Stratford Poet," at p. 289, we find the following : " When young Shakespeare went to London, there is proof \what proof?] that he renewed his acquaintanceship with his Stratford friend, Richard Field, the apprentice, son-in-law and successor of VautroUier, the great printer. . . . For some years, at least, it is evident that he took time to read Field's books. Webster, ' See my Vindicators of Shakespeare, p. 108 ef sej. APPENDIX C 571 his conteipporary dramatist, calls him 'industrious Shakespeare.' " And so impressed is the writer with the supposed importance of this saying of Webster's that she quotes it again at p. 141. What are we to say of this ? I can only say that it is a truly painful illustration of the manner in which a fair-minded lady of spotless integrity, who would not for the world knowingly mis- represent, is, like other writers in the sphere of so-called " Shakespearean " biography, and in that sphere only, led astray by the fervour of her imagination, and by her controversial instincts and sympathies, to distort (quite unconsciously, of course) the meaning of a very simple passage. For what is it that Webster really says ? The passage is to be found in the Dedication to The White Divel {\612y scaA is as follows : " For mine owne part I have ever truly dherisht my good opinion of other mens worthy Labours, especially of that full and haightned stile of maister Chapman : The labor'd and understanding workes of Maister Johnson : The no less worthy composures of the both worthily excellent maister Beamont and maister Fletcher : And lastly (without wrong last to be named) the right happy and copious industry of M. Shakespeare \sic\, M. Decker, and M. Heywood, wishing what I write may be read by their light: Protesting that, in the strength of mine owne judgement, I know them so worthy, that though I rest silent in my owne worke, yet to most of theirs I dare (without flattery) fix that of Martiall — non norunt Haec monumenta mori." There is no ambiguity about this. The meaning is as clear as daylight. Webster is alluding to the works of the various authors whom he names — the " monumenta " which " non norunt mori" — and the merits which he recognises in them. In the case of Shake-speare, Decker and Heywood, whom he couples together and to whom he awards the same measure of praise, he commends their " right happy and copious industry,'' manifestly alluding to their literary output. It was, indeed, a " copious " output, and that word alone should have preserved Mrs. Slopes from the error into which she has so unaccountably ' Referred to by Mrs. Stopes (p. 141) as " Vittoria Corambona," from the second part of the long title. 572 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? fallen. It is as though I should talk of the " copious industry " of Scott, Dickens, and George Eliot. That this should be represented as a testimony by Webster to the hard work done by Shakespeare as a young man when he first came to London, and as evidence, forsooth, that " for some years ... he took time to read Field's books," is really preposterous. Why is it that such perversions should so constantly occur when Shakespeare is the subject of discussion, and should be repeated by those who ought to, and surely must, know better, as though they were legitimate criticism ? ^ I will not follow Mrs. Stopes into the intricacies of her chapter on " Shakespeare's Aunts and the Snitterfield Property," ^ and will only remark upon it that the lady shows herself therein an apt pupil of Sir Sidney Lee in the unstinted use of the convenient word " doubtless " to support doubtful and unsub- stantiated propositions. Let this example suffice. "Though this Chancery case does not yield us much new matter, it makes real our somewhat hazy notions of the property settled on Shakespeare's aunts. But the whole series of documents, taken together, teach us a great many important points regarding the poet's family and surroundings. It lets us picture the house abutting on the High Street where John Shakespeare was doubtless born, the extent of the united properties, and the stretches of the common fields which the poet doubtless haimted in his youth to catch the conies, permitted to the freeholders. But above all it answers conclusively the question, so mockingly put by the Baconians [and by others also, I may add, many of them being of the "orthodox faith," as Lord Campbell, e.g.]: Where did the Stratford man learn his law ? There are more legal documents concerning this Snitterfield property than were 1 Webster, says Mrs. Stopes (p. 289), " calls him ' industrious Shakespeare.'" Webster never uses those words and the quotation marks are quite unwarranted. ^ Those who are not too prejudiced to look at a "Baconian" organ should refer to an article by Mr. Harold Hardy on " Shakespeare and Asbies " in Baconiana for July, 1914, and his reply to a letter from Mrs. Stopes in the same journal for October, 1914. Mr. Hardy contends that the lady's "inferences are unconvincing and misleading," and, me judice, makes good his contention. APPENDIX C 573 drawn 'up for any other family of the time in Warwickshire, as anyone may test who wades through the ' Feet of Fines,' ,and as few of his relatives could write, it is possible they could not read. WilUam "Shakespeare may have had but little Latin, but he was very likely esteemed as the scholar of the family, and doubtless had all these deeds by heart through reading them to his anxious and careful relatives " (p. 36. Italics mine). So here we have a conclusive answer to the question, where did Shakespeare learn his law? But Mr. J. M. Robertson, as we have seen, tells us that Shakespeare " didn't have no law," or, like Charlie's Aunt's children, "none to speak of"! However, Mrs. Slopes evidently is of a contrary opinion, and she thinks, nay asserts as a " conclusive " answer, that Shakespeare got it all from the multitudinous legal documents of this Chancery case — deeds which he doubtless had all by heart, especially as he was, " very likely," esteemed as the scholar of the family ! I commend the above quotation to the reader as a specimen of sound, sober, sane, and " orthodox " reasoning. No mere hypothesis here; no jumping to conclusions; no disregard of the teachings of human experience ! Yet with reference to Shakespeare's legal knowledge, I would just venture to hint that though from the Chancery suit concerning the Snitterfield property Will Shakspere might, certainly, get some smatterings of the practice and jargon of one branch of real property law, and " pick up " many conveyancing terms, just as any litigant in our day can, if he tries to do so, gather a few crumbs of legal learning so far as applicable to his own case, this is really all that Will could have ddtie, and I must leave it to the reader to say whether this hypothesis is adequate to account for Shakespeare's knowledge of law (by no means confined to Chancery and. Conveyancing), and of lawyers and their ways and customs, if such knowledge he really possessed, a question which I have already discussed at too great length. As to the suggestion that "Will" was esteemed as the scholar of the family, it is really no more than a piece of very gratuitous assumption. Judging by his handwriting, if the facsimile signature of " Gilbart Shakespere " presented by Halliwell in his monumental edition of the JVorks of Shakespeare (Vol. I, p. 25), 5t4 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? is to be trusted, one would imagine that this Gilbert was a much better " scholar " than " Will," if, indeed, the latter could lay any claim to that title at all and in any sense whatever. ^ Well, we are all grateful to Mrs. Stopes for her indefatigable industry in investigation, and her "copious" industry in publication, and there is one subject upon which I am glad to find myself in substantial agreement with her. I refer to her contention regarding the " True Story of the Stratford Bust " (see her chapter xiii, and postscript at p. 115, and Terminal Note XIII). Mrs. Stopes has, I find, through the courtesy of Mr. Dugdale of Merevale, shared with me the privilege of inspect- ing " the volume of Sir William Dugdale's Diary which contained his own special drawings for the tombs in Warwickshire Churches," with regard to which she writes (p. 123): "The greatest ^ proofs of Dugdale's inexactitude, so triumphantly brought forward by my opponents, is utterly extinguished by this volume. The drawing of the Carew Cloptoa Monument does not appear in The Diary, which means that the Clapton family, and not Dugdale, was responsible for its drawing and its inaccuracies. He only drew those which had not been sent on to him by the families whom he had invited to do so. He evidently thought Shakespeare's Monument, though not sent on, specially important, and did it carefully himself." 2 And now a word more as to the old Stratford Court of Record, as it existed in Shakespearean times, under the Charter of 1553. As I have already said, it seems impossible to believe that all the petty cases — especially small debt cases — which came before it, wfre tried not only by the Bailiff, who presided, but also by a jury of twelve citizens solemnly impannelled for that purpose, 'Mrs. Stopes's chapter on "Shakespeare's Aunts," etc., appeared in The Athenaum of August 14th, 1909, and I have dealt with it in The Vindicators of Shakespeare (^. 91 et seq.). "Doubtless" Shakespeare had these female relatives in mind when he wrote of the " Summer songs for me and my Aunts While we lie tumbling in the hay " ! ^ She had previously remarked, very wisely, as I think, that she " had definitely refused to accept as witness against Dugdale's trustworthiness the APPENDIX C S75 and I cannot help thinking that there has been no little confusion between juries summoned " on view of frank pledge " and juries summoned to try causes. It seems to me that even Halliwell- Philhpps himself was not always careful to note this distinctioni Nevertheless, that some cases, at any rate, were tried by jury in the Borough Court in those old times, is, we are told, proved by the records preserved at Stratford-on-Avon ! Mrs. Stopes, for instance, in chapters vi and ix of her book, cites two cases which appear to have been so tried in that Court, making reference to the " Miscellaneous Documents, Stratford-on-Avon," Vol. VI, Nos. i68 and 176, and Vol. VII, Nos. 245 and 246. I have not been able to make a personal inspection of these documents, but I have copies r^ore or less accurate (for the originals in some places are, I am told, very difficult to decipher), and they appear to relate to cases tried in the Borough Court, viz. Younge v. Perat, 20th July, 37 Elizabeth, and Reed »■ Sadler, an undated case, but, seemingly, tried not later than 1597. The former case, however, appears to me, in view of the Latin document. Vol. VII, No. 244 (not referred to by Mrs. Stopes but of which a copy has been supplied to me), to have been an appeal from, or rehearing of, a case tried in the Borough Court, a jury having been summoned to decide the issues. Mrs. Stopes quotes the commencement of Vol. VI, No. 168, as follows : " Jurie between Robert Reed, plaintiff, and John Sadler, defendant, in a pley of trespas committed." My copyist, how- ever, informs me that the last word is not " committed," but, as he reads it, "casuu" or " casum." Whatever the actual word is in the original no doubt what is meant is trespass "super casum" (generally " transgressio super easum," Anglice "trespass on the case "), a form of plea of which many examples are given evidence of any other tomb which had also been ' repaired and beautified,' " as was Shakespeare's. "Now the Clopton tomb had been 'repaired and beautified,' and, therefore, without some stironger support, ithas no convincing power at all." As to the Carew Monument, she had noticed, as others had, that, " for the reversing of the position of the recumbent figures from north to south we probably have to thank a printer's accidental reversal of the plate " (p. 1 16. This was written by Mrs. Stopes, as she tells us, before she had seen the volume above referred to, now in the possession of Mr. Dugdale of Merevale). 576 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? by Halliwell-Phillipps in his note on "John Shakespeare- Annals" {Outlines, Vol. II, p. 215).! Then in Mrs. Stopes's transcript appear the words " List of Jury." I am informed that these words are not in the original, but there follows a hst of 24 men, twelve of whom are marked by the word " Jur," and who, therefore, were, presumably, the jury by whom the case was to be tried. It is remarkable, how- ever, that, endorsed on the back of a later entry at the foot of the page, is the following : — Maria Shakspere, Jur. Jone Reade. Jane Baker, Jur. Whereupon Mrs. Stopes asks : " Can it be taken that these women were also on the jury, or were they only sworn witnesses ? " adding, "one of these they must have been." It is certainly a new idea that women were summoned to serve on juries in Elizabethan times, and one which, I think, unless undoubted evidence be available to support it, we may safely set aside. It also seems unlikely that the affix " Jur " should have been used indiscriminately for a juryman or a sworn witness. Possibly some clerk was indulging in a little joke when he so marked the names of these ladies ! This Maria Shaxpere, by the way, was, according to Mrs. Stopes, "Will's" mother. This, therefore, seems to have been \h& judicial spelling of her name. Mais que It diable allait-elle faire dans cette galere ? That is a point upon which we are not enlightened. She seems to have had nothing whatever to do with the case. As to the case of Margaret Younge V. Jone Perat, after another list of 24 men, twelve of whom are marked by the word " Jur," we find a note, quoted by Mrs. Stopes (p. 61) to this effect: "Mr. Shaxpere, one book; Mr. Barber, a coverlett, two daggers, the three bakes : Ursula Fylld, the apparell and the bedding clothes at Whitsontyde was twellmonth. Backe debts due to the partie defendant." ^ Who made this entry, and what its precise significance may 'That this is so clearly appears from Vol. VI, No 176, of the Stratford Miscellaneous Documents, referred to but not quoted by Mrs. Stopes. *My copyist agrees in this, except that he writes "enny backe debts.'" APPENDIX C 577 be, it is impossible to say. It certainly is not the finding of the jury who tried the case, for from document No. 245 in Vol. VII, which is not quoted by Mrs. Stopes, it appears that their issue was to inquire whether the articles in question, including two daggers, and three prayer books, as well as articles of female apparel and a coverlet, " dyd come to the hands and possession of Johane Parrett wydo (i.e. widow) or not"; whereupon they found for the plaintiff, Margaret Younge. The " three books," therefore, mentioned in the above entry following the name of " Mr. Barber," appear to have been three prayer books. No other book is mentioned; therefore Mrs. Stopes may well say that "imagination is left to play vainly round the nature of the book." Unfortunately, imagination does not stop here, for the lady proceeds to say : " it is clear from these rough notes that he [Mr. Shaxpere] had coveted one special book in Jone Perat's possession, that he had secured it, but that he had not yet paid for it." But, with respect, that is not clear at all, indeed very far from clear. As I have already said, only three books, and those " prayer books," are mentioned among the articles as to the possession or ownership of which the jury were directed to inquire. There is nothing whatever in the document cited to show that Mr. Shaxpere Coveted any book in the possession of the defendant Johane Parrett (or Jone Perat), or that he had secured it as the result of the jury's finding, or that he owed money for it. This " Mr. Shaxpere," by the way, is not " Will," but his father, John, according to Mrs. Stopes, and we may notice that the judicial records still call him, as they call his wife, by the name whereby he was known to Roche, the master of the Grammar School and others.^ The Court seems not to have taken cognisance of the literary form thereof. One would like to think that John Shaxpere came into the possession of at least "one book," and that that book ultimately passed to "Will," but I fear we are hardly justified in so assuming from " these rough notes." So much for trial by jury in the old Borough Court. It would be interesting to know more about the practice and pro- » But Roche wrote "Shaxbere." 2 P 578 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? cedure, and, in particular, in what cases the parties were entitled to demand a jury, for, surely, the summoning of some 24 or more citizens from whom to select the twelve jurymen cannot have been necessary for the trial of all the multitudinous petty cases that came before the Bailiff. ^ I will make no attempt to follow Mrs. Stopes in her new theory with regard to " The Friends in Shakespeare's Sonnets " (chap. xv). Suffice it to say that "Mr. W. H." now becomes "Mr. William Harvey," and poor " Mrs. Jacquinetta Field " has displaced Mary Fitton in the role of the "dark lady." There is not, of course, a tittle of evidence for these assumptions. But it " might have been" the case, and "might," as usual, very shortly blossoms into " was " ; as when Mrs. Stopes writes of her Jacquinetta that " she tuned her sweetest music to his tastes, and played remorselessly upon her poet's heart." All this is but another illustration of the impossibility of finding any rational solution of the problem of the Sonnets so long as the critics and biographers persist in trying to graft them on to the life of William Shakspere of Stratford, inventing imaginary incidents in that life in order to adapt them to the imaginary dramatis persoiKB of the poems. * There seems room for further investigation here, but the investigator should have a competent kno\¥ledge both of law and Latin — especially legal Latin — should be somewhat of an antiquarian, and an expert in the deciphering of old documents. ENVOY An old writer has said, " However sure thou mayest be of thy hypothesis, take heed that among the arguments by which thou goest about to uphold it there be none which are faulty and unsound, lest, should these be made manifest, the truth may be doubted of, as though it were only based upon such frail supports." I would respectfully commend this sage advice to some militant champions of the received hypothesis concerning the Shakespearean authorship, assuming, for the sake of argu- ment, that that hypothesis be true. POSTSCRIPT PROFESSOR WALLACE AGAIN THIS book was practically complete before August 19 14, and would have been published long ere this had it not been for the outbreak of the great war. But to ask the reading public to discuss the Shakespeare problem amid events of such tremendous and all-absorbing interest and import- ance as those which are now convulsing the whole world, seemed to be a somewhat futile proceeding, and publica- tion was, accordingly, postponed. At my time of life, however, I find the words of Omar continually ringing in my ears : The Stars are setting, and the Caravan Starts for the Dawn of Nothing — oh, make haste. Moreover, The Times considers the Shakespearean articles presently referred to sufficiently interesting to merit several columns of large type even amid the thunders of Armageddon, and the indefatigable Mrs. Stopes publishes yet another work on Shakespeare, in the serene confidence, I presume, of finding readers, though the guns boom never so loudly. I now venture to follow these examples, albeit with some reluctance, and much diffidence. I have now before me, writing in May 1915, yet another article by " Professor Charles William Wallace, Ph.D., Professor of English Dramatic Literature in the University of Nebraska," ^ headed " Other William Shake- speares. The Poet and the Brewers," which appeared in The Times of May 15th of this year, and upon this ' See ante, p. 260 et seq. 579 S8o IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? latest pronouncement of the learned Professor I propose to say a final word. If the reader will kindly turn back to p. 267 of this work, he will find it stated, concerning William Shakspere of Stratford, that " In July, 1604, in the local Court of Stratford, he sued one Philip Rogers to whom he had supplied since the preceding March malt to the value of £1. 19s. lod., and had on June 2Sth lent 2s. in cash. Rogers paid back 6s. and Shakespeare sought the balance of the account, ;^i. 155. rod." The quotation is from Sir Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare, p. 164, to which the reader is duly referred in a foot-note. This story of Will's dealings with Philip Rogers had been previously told by Halliwell-Phillipps. See Out- lines, 6th Edition, Vol. I, p. 195, and Vol. II, p. ij, where " A Declaration filed by Shakespeare's orders, in the year 1604, to recover the value of malt sold by him to a person of the name of Rogers," is set forth at length, and it may be worth while to note in passing that the plaintiffs name as it appears in the Declaration is William " Shexpere," so that we have here yet another variant of Will's name, which the biographers, of course, here as always, write in its literary form, "Shakespeare" to wit. Now Professor Wallace labours to prove that this Shexpere was not our " Will," as the biographers and critics have hitherto supposed, but one of the "other William Shakespeares," whose name appears to have been Legion in Stratford and the neighbourhood. " Was this maltster the poet?" he asks. Well "some support for the belief that he was may, at a casual glance, appear to be in an earlier record of February, 1598, when during a corn famine, the precaution was taken to make a census of all the corn and malt then in the hands of all the inhabitants. In that census of Stratford Shakespeare the poet was found to have on hand eighty byshels of corn." But, says the Professor, this must have been "mainly wheat," not "the malt of the census," which " could have been in the hands of only the licensed few," for the selling of malt had to be licensed, and we have- no positive evidence that "Will" was licensed to sell POSTSCRIPT 581 malt, though, of course, he might have been. So the document of 1598 is dismissed as of no importance in this connection. But how does Professor Wallace prove that William Shexpere of Stratford who; in the year 1604, supplied malt to Philip Rogers, was not player Will "the poet"? I must let him set forth the proof in his own words : "In 1603, Shakespeare's company at the Globe Theatre was made the King's Players, then and always thereafter the most important and the most honoured theatrical company of London. On March 15, 1604, having been given special liveries for the occasion, Shakespeare and his associates, with the rank of Grooms of the Chamber, are rightly or wrongly supposed to have marched in the gorgeous spectacular Coronation procession of King James, their admiring patron. Then a fortnight later, and for three months thereafter, we are asked to believe, Shakespeare, slipping out of this splendid and busy London activity, was in Stratford selling malt fortnightly to at least one customer. Then almost immediately after, from August 9 to 27, a period of 18 days, Shakespeare and his associates, as Grooms of the Chamber, were, by order of their patron the King, in attendance on the Spanish Ambassador at Somerset House.i Then shortly after- wards, in Michaelmas, shall we believe, the poet, having again slipped away from the splendour of the Court and the strenuous business of playwriting and theatre-managing, was in Stratford prosecuting Rogers for these picayunish debts for malt. " Meanwhile, Shakespeare and his company were preparing a great repertory of plays for performance at Court, one of the best they had ever given. And all the time the company was all but absolutely dependent on Shakespeare for new plays. At the very time of his supposed three months' absence in the capacity of maltster at Stratford, Shakespeare must have been writing one of his plays, probably Othello, which was acted at Court shortly after, on the night of November i, under the name of The Moor of Venice^ Three days later, on Sunday night, November 4, they acted before the King and the Court The Merry Wives of Windsor. Then came their great Shakespearian repertory of plays at Court during the Christmas season, on Dec. 26, Measure for Measure; Dec. 28, The Comedy of Errors; Jan. 6, Love's Labour's Lost; Jan. 7, Henry V. ; Jan. 8, Ben Jonson's £very Man out of his Humour. Next followed, on Candlemas ' As to all this, ?ee ante, chap. XV. 582 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM P Day, Feb. 2, Jonson's Every Man in his Humour; for Feb. 3 a play was prepared but withdrawn; Feb. 10, Shrove Sunday, The Merchant of Venice; Feb. 11, The Spanish Maz; Feb. 12, again The Merchant of Venice, by special command of the King. It was, withal, a varied and exacting repertory, such as no modem manager would like to undertake short of six months' to a year's preparation. " Yet, in the midst of all this stress of play-writing, daily act- ing at the Globe, and constant preparation for the festival season at Court, and with all this honour and splendour of the Court, Shakespeare the poet was also Shakespeare the petty maltster in Stratford ? He could not have been in both places at once, to say nothing of the mingling of the petty business of a small brewer or maltster with the production of the noblest dramas of human life ever written. " The absurdity and impossibility of the assumption that Shake- speare the poet was Shakespeare the maltster need not be emphasised beyond the mere presentation of the facts. The poet is at least thereby relieved of the stigma on his name. The document in the Stratford Court of Record does not apply to him. The William Shakespeare who was engaged in the business of selling malt must be sought among the brewers who shared his name but who have no claims upon his fame." (My italics.) Now this really shows a great advance in Shake- spearean criticism. Hitherto the orthodox critics and biographers have seen nothing whatever incongruous in the supposed fact that the " player-poet " was engaged in money-lending, and malt-selling, and huckstering, et hoc genus omne, and at the same time composing " the noblest dramas of human life ever written." Mr. Lang, for example, accurately expressed the generally received opinion among the orthodox when he wrote, " I do not, like Mr. Greenwood, see anything ' at all out of the way ' in the circumstance ' that a man should be writing Hamlet, and at the same time bringing actions for petty sums lent on loan at some unspecified interest.' " ^ Professor Wallace is of a different opinion. He can- not believe in "the mingling of the petty business of a small brewer or maltster with the production of the noblest dramas of human life ever written." He tells us that ' Op. cit. p. 171. POSTSCRIPT 583 " the absurdity and impossibility of the assumption that Shakespeare the poet was Shakespeare the maltster need not be emphasised beyond the mere presentation of the facts." It follows, therefore, that this William Shexpere could not possibly have been William Shakspere the player, because William Shakspere the player was also William Shakespeare the poet, and the supposition that William Shakespeare the poet was a maltster is absurd on the face of it. Evidently, therefore, the maltster was one of the " other William Shakespeares," and thus " the poet is . . . relieved of the stigma on his name " ! Now I find myself very largely in agreement with Professor Wallace. I conceive he is right in opining that the maltstering, money-lending, huckstering "William Shakespeare" (so-called) was not, in truth and in fact, " the poet." But I see no reason at all for thinking that this maltstering, money-lending, huckstering "William Shakespeare " was not, in truth and in fact, Will Shakspere the Stratford player. We only differ, therefore, as to the identity of " the poet " ! In conclusion, I would call attention to the tendency of the modern critic, when anything is recorded of "William Shakespeare" which he finds to be out of harmony with the orthodox hypothesis, to say, " Oh, this obviously does not refer to William Shakespeare the poet, but to ' another gentleman of the same name ' " ! I have already called attention to an illuminating example of this in the case of the "Mr. Shakspeare," who, in 1613, was, together with Richard Burbage, paid 44s. for work " about My Lorde's impreso," where Mrs. Stopes, eagerly followed by Mr. J. M. Robertson, rushes off on a wild goose chase after a certain "John Shackespeare, bit- maker"! (ante, p. 16 et seg.) And as there seem to have been a great many "William Shakespeares" (only they did not usually so spell their names) in and around Stratford, it is generally not at all difficult to father any action from " the stigma " of which we desire to relieve player Will, upon one of these other gentlemen of the same name. Biography becomes mighty easy under such conditions. Meantime we may note with some satisfaction 584 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? that, according to this latest and most orthodox pro- nouncement of Shakespearean criticism, the " petty- maltster in Stratford " could not conceivably have been the author of the immortal Plays and Poems. Well, some of us have been saying the same thing for some time past.^ ' I am not much concerned to argue the question whether William the Maltster was, or was not, our "Will," but we may note further that the other William Shakespeares referred to by Professor Wallace lived at Rowington, "two or three hours' walk to the north of Stratford," while the " brewer " of that name lived at Knowle, "an hour's walk north-west of Rowington. " These William Shakespeares appear as defendants in the records of the "Court Leet of the Manor of Rowington," or the "Court Leet of the Manor of Knowle," whereas William the Maltster appears in the Borough Court of Stratford ! (I would take this opportunity of explaining the concluding words of the foot-note at p. 393. When these words were printed Mr. J. M. Robertson was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.) INDEX INDEX Abbott, Dr., his Life of Baeon quoted, 37, 548 note — on Shakespeare's use of "decima- tion," 173 "Academe," 11 5-16 Academy, The, Mr. Radford's sonnet in, vii Actors, social position of, 198-207, 212-17, 4S6 Adams, Thomas, his legal knowledge, 14-16, 49, 78 Addenbroke, John, Shakspere's suit against, 37, 267 Adler, E. N., on Hamlet, 179 Adonis, gardens of, 114, 115 note yEschylus, 401, 402 yEsofs Fables, Greene's quotation from, 243, 244 Agrippa, Cornelius, 169 Alen9on, Due d', 230 Alfred, King, 103 Alleyn, Edward, actor, 25, 27, 180 note, 199 — Baker's allusion to, 354 — his will, 303 AlPs Well that Ends Well, author- ship of, 32 note, 232, 439 note — publication of, 314, 438, 439, 451 Ally super's Half-Holiday, 397 Amster(&m, 496 Anacreon, 144 Anders, Dr., Shakespeare's Books, 134 note, 166, 188, 302, 306 Anhalt, Ludwig, Prince of, on London, 237 Anne, Queen, 163 Anti-WUlians, evidence against, 353, 3S4. 381 , , — on Meres's allusion to Shakespeare, 3SS — their supposed hatred of Will, 317-19. 4S4 Antony and Cleopatra, 165, 314 — evidence of learning in, 120 — Folio text of, 422 note — legal knowledge in, 72, 73 — publication of, 438, 440, 452 Arabian Nights, The, 284 Arber, Professor, on The Return from Parnassus, 361 note Archer, William, 217 note Arden, family of, 255 Arden, Forest of, 269, 530 Arden, Mary, Shakspere's mother, i8S> 377 Arden, Robert, 377 Arden of Feversham, authorship of, 241 Aristophanes, his arrangement with Callistratus, 466 Aristotle, 441 — De Anima, 1 55-57 — Shakespeare's allusion to, 161, 162 Arnold, Matthew, quoted, 184, 543 Arscott, Thomas Sirhe of, 104 Artagnan, d', 259 Asbies, John Shakspere's Attempt to recover, 105, 187, 247, 572 note Aspley, W. , 460 note Astor Library, the, 469 As You Like It, allusions to nature in, 135, 210, 518, 522-34, 545, 551 — authorship of, 181, 264, 281 — evidence of learning in, 120, 153, 165, 172 — publication of, 314, 438, 440, 448, 451 Athenaum, The, Mrs. Stopes on Shakespeare in, 18, 19, 574 note, 479 note, 482 note — "Shakespeare Himself Again," xv — the author on Shakespeare in, 155 Athens, 164 Atlas, 9 587 588 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? At Shakespear^s Shrine, Forshaw's, 428 note Aubrey, John, on Shakspere, 185, 187 Audit Office, the, 475, 476 Austen, Jane, genius of, 286 Bacon, Sir Francis, abuse of, xiv — Advancement of Learning, 560 — " concealed poet," 465 — De Augmeniis, xiii — Emerson on, 276 — Essay on Gardens, 551, 552 — Hilliard's miniature of, 397 — his handwriting, 322 note, 333 — his introduction of new words, 171-74 — his learning, 115 note — his title of Lord, xv note — History of Henry VII, xiii note — Jonson's tribute to, xvi, 404-7 note, 433 — Lang on, 242 — Natural History, 519, 552 — on hunting, 548, 549 — on "purchase," 71 — Protnus, 115 note Bacon's Nova Resuscitatio, 220 pote, 221 note, 246 note, 355 note, 470 note Bacon Cryptograms in Shdke-Speare, Piatt's, xiii Bacon is Shakespeare, Durning- Lawrence's, xiii Baconian Heresy — a Confutation, The, J. M. Robertson's, x, 2, 11, 87 note, 126, 148 note, 157, 158 Baconian Mint, The, Willis's, 152, 171-74 Baconiana, on Shakespeare's learning, 173. 174. 176 — " Shakespeare and Asbies," 105, 572 note Baconians, the, 202, 221 note, 294, 331 -^ author's position as to, ix, xiv, xvi, 2, 450 note, 503 — on Jonson's allusions to Shake- speare, 405, 433 — on the Stratford bust, 503 — Stratfordians on, II, 126 — their claim on Emerson, 182 note, 27S779 — their cryptograms, xii, xiii, 9 Baconians, their supposed hatred of Will, xiv, 317-19, 46s. 469 note Badger, George, 340 Baker, Jane, 576 Baker, Sir Richard, his allusion to Shakespeare, 354 Ballantyne, Sergeant, on Courts of Request, 262 note, 332 Balzac, Honore de, genius of, 286 — quoted, 284 Bandello, 176, 177, 302 Barber, Mr., 576 Barnes, Barnabe, his Sonnets, 44, 45 Bamfield, Richard, The Passionate Pilgrim, 460 Barrie, Sir James, genius of, 291 Basque country pronunciation, 122 note Basse, William, his lines on Shake- speare, 399, 400 Bath, 151 note, 216 Baynes, Professor Spencer, on Shake- speare's learning, 112, 188 — on the sonnet to Florio, 14 note Beane, John, 108 Beaumont, Francis, early allusions to, 351. 358, 378, 399, 400, 571 — Folio edition of his and Fletcher s Plays, 384, 38s, 442 — his l^al knowledge, 5, 73 note Becon, on the Mass, 543 note Bedford Gaol, 290 Beeching, Dean, on Shakespeare and Southampton, 204, 205, 207 — on Shakspere's signatures, 328-30, 346-48 — the author's controversy with, i, 306, 329 note, 336, 347 note, 433 — William Shakespeare, Player, Play-maker and Poet, I, 329 note, 336, 346, 434 Begley, Rev. Walter, Bacoris Nova Resuscitatio, 220 note, 221 note, 246 note, 355 note, 470 note — on Lucrece, 220 note, 221 note — on Shake-speare, 245 note — on Shakspere's authorship, 469 note Bell & Sons, G., publishers, 566 Belleforest, Fran9ois, Histoires Tragiques, 121, 175-77, 302 Bellott, Stephen, Shakspere's rela- lations with, xix, 261-65, 299, 320, 327. 331. 332, 370 note Belvoir, Shakspere at, xix, 16-20, 273 Bennett, Arnold, on stagecraft, 217 note Benson, F. R., his Shakespearean productions, 155, 441 Bentley, " pedantry " of, 163 Bernstein, Henri, 217 note Bethell, Ridiard, 96 note Betterton, actor, 197 Bible, vocabulary of the, 471-73 Bidford, Shakspere at, 274 Billingsley, A. G., xxi note Biron, Lord, 229 Birthplace Portrait of Shakespeare, the, 502 Bishopton, 201, 269 ' Blackfriars, Shakspere's house in, 300, 310, 320, 327 Blackfriars Theatre, Shakspere's share in, 301 note, 364, 365 Blount, Edward, obtains publishing licence, 383 note, 438 note, 460 note Boaden, James, on the First Folio, 383 note, 413 — on Shakespeare's portraits, 508 Board of Trade, the, 393 note Boas, Professor, on Hamlet, 178-80, 223 note, 298 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 48 Bodenham, mystery of, 221 note, 3SS note Bodleian Library, the, 265, 316, 469 Bohemia, sea-coast of, 163, 164, 379, 393 Boles, Mr., 303 Bolton, his Academe Royal, 1 16 note Bompas, G. C, Problem of the Shake- speare Plays, 47 1-73 Bond, a single, 94, 95 note Book of Good Manners , The, 172 Bordeaux, 234 Borrow, George, Lavengro, 116 note, 289 Boston, U.S.A., xiii, 322 Boswell, James, Malone's Shake- speare, 338 note, 341, 384 note Bothwell, James, 4th Earl of, 249 Boucicault, Dion, 217 note — on Shakespeare's authorship, 469 note Boulogne, 71 Boyle, on Bentley, 163 INDEX 589 Bradley, Dr. H., on Shakespeare's name, 349 note Bradocke, Richard, 175 Brandes, Dr., on Shakespeare's ob- servation of nature, 557 note Brend, Matthew, 368 Brend, Nicholas, lessor of the Globe Theatre, 366-68 Brend, Thomas, estate of, 366, 367 Bridges, Dr., 352 Brinsley quoted, 188 British Association, the, 283 note British Museum, the, 137 note, 211 note, 26s, 272, 329, 475 Broadmoor Asylum, 429 Brown, Sir Matthew, 368 Browne, George, 108, no Browne, John, 76 Browne, William, on the lark, 541 Browning, Robert, his love of nature, 537 note, 542 Buddha, 9 Bullen, A. H., on Hamlet, 17S Bulwer quoted, 245 note Bunyan, John, genius of, 286, 289-91 Bunyan, Thomas, 289 Burbage, Cuthbert, his petition rt the Globe Theatre, 364-69, 464 Burbage, James, 237 Burbage, Richard, actor, 274, 400 note — as Richard III, forestalled by Shakspere, 257-60, 560 — at Belvoir, xix, 16-21, 273 — early allusions to, 354, 361 — his share in the Globe Theatre, 364-69 „ „ — in the royal train, 481-86 — Shakspere's bequest to, 301 — social position of, 212, 213, 221 Burbage, Winifred, 364 Bumey, on Plain Counterpoint, 537 note Bums, Robert, genius and character of, 277-79, 286, 291-93 — on the thrush, 542 Butler, Samuel, Hudibras, 440 Byron, Childe Harold, 116 note, 292 — quoted, 512, 553 note C, W., Polimanteia, 225 note Cade, Jack, 186 Cesar's Fall, authorship of, 26 note 590 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? Callistratus, actor, 466 Calvin's works, 173 Cambridge, University of, 159, 164, 181, 22s — Plumean Professorship, 567 Cambridge Classical Xeview, The, the author on Shakespeare in, 155 Cambridge History of English Litera- Hire quoted, 4, 10, 182, 185 note, 202 note Cambridge Shakespeare, The, 418-26, 431. 441. 443. S14 note Camden, William, Clarenceux King- of-Arms, 169, 225, 254, 378 — Reges Reginae, 399 Camera Club, the, 281 Campbell, Lord, on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, xii, 5, 6, IJ, 37, 39-42, 51-58, 62-70 note, 82, 90, io5, 107, 572 Canterbury, Archbishop of, 218 note Capell, his Hystorie of Hamblet, 175, 177 Captive, The, 142 Cardinal Wolsey, authorship of, 26 note Carew, George, afterwards Earl of Totness, 348 Carew, Richard, his translation of Tasso, 178, 179 Carew monument, the, 489, 490, 574. 575 note Carey, George, afterwards Lord Hunsdon, g.v., 348 Carlyle, Thomas, 414 — French Revolution, 298 note Carter, Rev. T., on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 76, 77 — Shakespeare : Puritan and Re- cusant, 74 note, 76, 187 Cary of Cockington, George, 348 Case and Comment, 55 note Castile, Constable of, 482, 484 Castle, K.C., Mr., on Chettle, 246 — on Measure for Measure, 68 note — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 6, 40, 41 Castle, William, clerk, 197 Catullus, genius of, 286 Caxton, William, 144 Cecil, spelling of, 347 Centurie of Pray se, 403, 462 note Century Magazine, The, 331 Cervantes, Emerson on, 276 Chalmers, on Shakspere's signature, 338 Chamberlain, Dr. Mellen, on Shak- spere's handwriting, 322, 323 Chamberlain, the Lord. See Huns- don Chambers, E. K., on "Anne'' and " Agnes," 191 note — on Chettle's supposed allusion to Shakespeare, 246 — on Henry VI, 25, 234 — on Lavis Labour's Lost, 222 note, 227, 480 note — on the name Shakespeare, 343 note, 349 note — on Shakespeare and Drayton, 49 note — on Shakespeare's " writing up " plays, ?47 note — on Shakspere at Belvoir, 21 note Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, the, 501, 502, 505-7, 511 Chantrey, Sir Francis, on the Stratford bust, 511 note Chapman, George, dramatist, 26 note — his May Day, 56 — his translation of Homer, 132, 287 — Jonson on, 378, 457 — Webster on, 571 Chapman, W. A., William Shakspere and Robert Greene, 241 note ChappeWs Old English Popular Music, 537 note Charlecote, 195 Charles I, King, 273, 358, 458 — Wardrobe Accounts of, 18, 19 Charles II, King, 103 Charles, King of Navarre, 228 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 117, 169, 178 — birds of, 537 note, 541 — early allusions to, 399, 400, 405, 406 — Legende of Goode Women, 148, 149 Cherburg, 228 Chester, his observation of nature, 541. 544 Chesterton, G. K., quoted, 291 Chettle, his alleged allusion to Shake- speare, 29, 31, 240, 246 — pla}rs by, 26 note Chicago, 473 Chisholm, Hugh, on The Shakespeare Problem Restated, xiv note INDEX 591 Churchill, Lord Randolph, 501 Churchyard, Farmer on, 144 Cicero, 135 note, 388 and note — on Terence, 562 Cincinnati, 473 note Cinthio, 302 — Hecaiommithi, 121 Clare, Summer Moods, 535 Clarendon Press, the, 417 note Clark, Elements of the English Language, 473, 474 Clark, W. G., Cambridge editor of Shakespeare, 418 note Clark, William, PoUmanteia, 225 note Clarke, Charles Cowden, Keats's friendship with, 288 Clarke, Charles and Mary Cowden, on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, S. 42 Clarke, John Cowden, schoolmaster, 288, 289 Clarke Company, Robert, 473 note Clayton, John, 267 Clopton, Mr., 104 Clopton monument, the, 489, 491 note> 574, S7S note Cockington, Carey of, 348 Coke, on Littleton, 87 note Coleridge, S. T., on Lucrece, 218, 219 — on Shakespeare's learning, 224 — on the nightingale, S40 note — on the Shakespeare problem, 279- 81 — on Venus and Adonis, 208 CoUett, John, 368 Collier, John Payne, forgeries pro- mulgated by, 508 — Lord Campbell's letter to, 5, 53 — on ^ Warning for Faire Women, 108 — on Hamlet, 180 — on Henslowe's silence, 26, 27 Collins, Professor Churton, 33 — Ephemera Critica, 240 note — on Shakespeare's collaboration, 30 — on Shakespeare's learning, 7, 34, 112, 113, 119 note, 136, 142-45, 148, 151, 188, 208, 219, 297, 401 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 40-42 — on The Comedy of Errors, 225 — on Venus and Adonis, 29 Collins, Professor Churton, Studies in Shakespeare, 7, 40, 113, 136, 142 Collins, William, his love of nature, S3S CoUyns, Francis, attorney, 300, 324- 26 Colvin, Sir Sidney, Keats, 287 note Combe, John, of Stratford, 268, 340 — tomb of, 498 Combe, Thomas, Shakspere's bequest to, 274, 301 Combe, William, 268, 340 Comedy of Errors, The, authorship of, 29-32. 139-42. 226, 252, 290, 298 — date of, 222, 224, 225 — evidence of learning in, 136-42, 226, 296 — legal knowledge in, 60, 61 — Manningham's allusion to, 256, 257 — publication of, 438, 451, 477 Comic Cuts, 397 Condell, Henry, actor, 221, 252, 274 — at the Globe, 365 — editor of the Folio, ix, 313, 315, 382-86, 411-IS. 418, 421-31. 43S. 437, 439 — in the royal train, 481-86 — Shakspere's bequest to, 301, 313 Conference of Pleasure, A, 337 Conservator, The, an^ram in, xiii Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster, The, 241, 446 Conybeare, Dr. F. C, on J. M. Robertson, 8, 9 Copyright, English law of, 459 Corbin, John, A New Portrait of Shakespeare, 398, 508, 510 Cordova, 401 Coriolanus, allusions to nature in, 518 — evidence of learning in, 120 note, 165 — publication of, 314, 438, 439,' 452 Comhill Magazine, The, Mr. Lang on Shakspere as a Groom of the Bedchamber, 485 Cotgrave cited, 374 Courthope, Professor, on The Taming of a Shrew, 547 — on Titus Andronicus, 233 Court Revels, 475-77, 481 Courts of Request, 262, 332, 333, 496 note 592 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Cowley, actor, in Much Ado, 422 note Craik, on Shakespeare's vocabulary, 473. 474 Cryptograms, Baconian, xiii, 9 Culture, 112 note Cunningham, Allan, 475 Cunningham, Peter, his supposed Shakespearean forgeries, 475-78 Curio's Defence of Christ s Church, 173 Cymbeline, authorship of, 161, 281 — ■ evidence of learning in, 159, 165 ■ — humanitarian aspect of'^ Shake- speare in, 210 — publication of, 314, 438, 440, 452 Daily News quoted, viii note Daniel, Samuel, 130, 169 — early allusions to, 378, 405 — his will, 304, 305 Darrell, spelling of, 347 D'Avenant, on Shakspere, 197 Davey, Henry, on Judith Shakspere's illiteracy, 249 — on Shakspere's will, 311 Davies, Archdeacon, 196 Davies, Randall, on Shakespeare's portrait, 507 Davies, Rev. Richard, on Shake- speare's religion, 78 note Davies, John, of Hereford, his allu- sion to Shakespeare, 295-97, 353, 559-62 — on Bacon, xv note Davies, Sir John, 44, 45 Davis, Senator, on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 84-86 Day, Jonson on, 378 "Decimation," 173 Defeat of the Spanish Armada, Laughton's, 347 Dekker, plays of, 26 note — early allusion to, 571 — GuVs tfom-Booke, 51, 52 — Honest Whore, 60-62 — quoted by Mr. Robertson, xi, xii — Shoemaker's Holiday, 56 Delos, 162 Delphos, . error of Mr. Lang as to, 162, 163 Demblon, M., on Shakespeare as the Earl of Rutland, 17, 18 Derby, Ferdinando Stanley, Earl of, his theatrical company, 26 note Der Menschen Renner, 324 note, 326 Dethick, William, Garter King-of- Arms, 377 Devecmon, William C, on Shake- speare's legal knowledge, 75 note, 78-88, 94-96, 98 note Dewar, G. A. B., "Shakespeare's Nature," 516 note, 542, 550 Dialect, Shakspere's, 202 Diary of Master William Silence, The, 448 note Dickens, Charles, 572 Dictionary of National Biography, 249, 250, 290 note, 292, 570 Digges, Leonard, on the Stratford monument, 238, 400, 487 Dircks, Rudolf, on Sheridan, 215, 216 Dodsley, Hazlitt's, 172 Donatus, 562 Donne, John, early allusion to, 406 Dorastus and Fawnia, 164 D'Orsey, A., The Study of the English Language, 472 note Douglas's Virgil, 143, 144 Dowdall on Shakspere, 189 Dowden, Professor, on Shakespeare's learning, 187 Drake, Dr., Shakespeare and hit Times, 397 note Drayton, Michael, dramatist, 26 note, 130 — early allusion to, 405 — his observation of nature, 544 — his presence at Stratford denied, 274 — his sonnets compared with Shake- speare's, 45-48, 49 note — Jonson on, 378 Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare, 395-98, 485, 491, 507, 509-11 Drummond of Hawthomden, his conversation with Jonson, 274, 378, 379, 393. 406, 409 Drury, Mistress Anne, 108, no Dryden, John, on Shakespeare, 372 note, 515 Du Bartas, Divine Weeks and Works, 169, 209 — his observation of nature, 542, 544. 549. 554 Dublin Theatre, 215 Dugdale, Sir William, his hand- writing, 322 note INDEX S93 Dugdale, Sir William, Stratford bust in his History of the Antiquities of Warwickshire, 487-91, 495- 506, S12 note, 563-65, 574, 575 note Dugdale, W. F. S., 563-65, 574, 575 note Dulwich College, 199 Dumain, Lord, 229 Dumont, Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, 298 note Dunkeld, Douglas, Bishop of, 144 note Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin, xix — his anagram, xii, xiii — on ShaSespeare's learning, 123 — on Shakspere's handwriting, 325- 33 — on the Droeshout portrait, 396 note Eastward Ho, 457 Eaton, William, 263 Edinburgh Review, The, on Shake- speare, 556 Edward VI, King, 99, 103, 173 Edwards, W. H., Shaksper not Shakespeare, 473, 474 Elements of the English Language, Clark's, 473 Eliot, George, 352, 572 Elizabeth, Queen, court and reign of, 138, 140, 198, 204, 231 note, 447, 469, 474 — death of, 13, 481 — Injunctions of, 218 note Elizabethan Playhouse, the, 66, 67, 237 Elizabethan Playhouse, The, Lawrence's, 199 note EUacomb, Plant Lore of Shakespeare, 552 note Ellis, on pronunciation of Shakspere's name, 342 Elstow, 289 Elton, Charles, Q.C., on Shakespeare's portraits, 510 note — on Shakspere's will, 305, 310, 568 Ely Palace portrait of Shakespeare, the, SI I Elze, Dr., on Hamlet, 176, 177 — on Giulio Romano, 165 Emerson, R. W., wrongly claimed as a Baconian, 182, 275-79 Encyclopadia Britannica, on Shake- speare, xiv note, 21 note, 25, 49 note, 191 note, 222 note, 227, 246, 247 note, 343 note, 487, 508 — on John Combe's monument, 498, 499 Encyclopadia of the Laws of England, 43 Enfield, 288 England! s Helicon, 222 note England's Heroical Epistles, 48 English Literature : an Illustrated Record, 202 note, 322 note English Review, The, Arnold Bennett on stagecraft in, 217 note — G. W. Foote on Shakespeare in, 184 English Schools at the Reformation, Leach's, 321 Enquiry into the Learning of Shake- speare, Whalley's, 175 Erasmus, Tyndale's translation of, 174 Essex, Earl of, as Earl Marshal, 254 — his Device, 115 note — Polimanteia dedicated to, 225 note Eton College, i8l Euphuism, 49, 231 Euripides, 401, 515 Evans, Miss (George Eliot), 352 Evening Standard quoted, xx note Everyman edition of Lavengro, Ii6 note Evreux, 228 -Facciolati's Dictionary, 135 note Fairfax's Tasso, 169, 178 Falstaff, Lord Campbell on, 69 Farmer, Dr. , on Shakespeare's learn- ing, 34. "2, 113, 117-24, 131 note, 132, 142-50, 157, 158, 166, 169, 175-77. 187. 203, 217, 284, 299. 325, 401, 473 Ferdinand, King of Navarre, 228-30 Field, Mrs. Jacquinetta, 578 Field, Richard, printer and publisher, 201, 323, 568-70, 572 Fife Standard, The, 326 note First Frutes, authorship of alleged Sonnet in, 12, 14 note Fisher, bit-maker in Belvoir accounts, 20 Fitton, Mary, maid of honour, 369, 578 2 Q 594 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM ? Fleay, F. S., on A Warning for Faire Women, 109 — on Chettle, 246 — on Hamlet, 442 — on Henry VI, 25-27, 234 — aa Julius Casar, 391 note — on Lov^s Labour's Lost, 222 note, 227, 480 note — on Shaksperfe's life, 19S, 247 note Fleming, 144 Fletcher, John, early allusions to, 351. 358. 378, 379 note, 426, 571 — Henry VIII, part of, ascribed to, 87, 455 — his legal knowledge,* 73 note. See also Beaumont Florio, John, brother-in-law of Meres, 222 note, 355 — his will, 303 — Montaigne's Essays, xi, 127 note, 163, 211, 26s, 302, 560, 562 — sonnet to, authorship of, 12, 14 note "Flower" portrait of Shakespeare, Folio, First, arrangement of, 449-53 — facsimile edition of, 419 — frontispiece of, 395-98, 487 — non-Shakespearean work in, 454, 455. 467, 470 — preface to, ix, 383-86, 406, 409, 411-32, 435 — publication of, 313-15, 363, 369, 383. 39li 427, 449j 460 note, 464 — text of, 154, 418-32, 436-50 — punctuation of, 417 note — Third, 468, 470 — Fourth, 468, 470 Foote, G. W. , on Shakespeare's life, 184 Forbes-Robertson, Sir J., 198 Forshaw, Chas. F., At Shakespearis Shrine, 428 note Fortnightly Review, The, Churton CoUins's articles in, 6, 7 — Professor Boas on Hamlet in, 179 — "Shakespeare and the Law of Marriage," 98-100 Fox, Monumental, 169 Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 290 France, civil war in, 226 Francis, Sir Philip, as Junius, 355, 356 Francis Bacon our Shakespeare, Reed's, 443 note Fraunce's Lawier's Logike, 43 Fredericksburg, Virginia, xx Freeman, Thomas, his epigram to Shakespeare, 357, 358 Priswell, J. Hain, on Shakspere's will, 300 note Fulbroke, 195 Fuller, Thomas, on Shakespeare's learning, iii, H2 note, 297 — on Shake-speare, 343, 456, 478 — quoted, 398 note Furness, Dr., on the First Folio, 383 — on Hamlet, 176 — on Henslowe's silence, 26, 27 — on Shakespeare and Euphuism, 231 — on Shakespeare's learning, 116 note, 121 note, 302 Furnivall, Dr., in the Westminster Gazette, 567 — on the Folio, 445 — on Love's Labour's Lost, 227, 480 note — on the spelling of Shakspere, 337, 342 Fylld, Ursula, 576 Gardens of Adonis, 114, 115 note Garnett, Dr., on Shakspere's life, 189, 202, 214, 217, 223, 239, 322 note, 479 — on Hamlet, 442 — on the Folio, 427 Garnier's Cornelia, no Garrick, David, on Stratford, 268 Gascoigne, Lord Chief Justice, 43 Gay & Bird, publishers, 246 note Geilius, Aulus, quoted, 294 Genius, 220 note, 236, 283-98, 313 note, 457, 479 Gentleman's Magazine, The, Sir S. Lee on Shakespeare in, 227 note, 229 note, 230 note Gesta Graiorum, 136, 226 Gesta Somanorum, 98 note J Gifford, William, on allusions to Shakespeare, 361, 392 note — on Kempe, 213 Gilbert, spelling of, 347 Gildon, on Shakespeare's learning, 144 Giovanni, Ser, 302 INDEX 595 Glasgow, University of, xv note Globe Theatre, the, 301 note — fire at, 420, 425, 439 note — Shakspere's share in, xix, 20 note, 331. 364-70 — site of, 370 Glover, of Stratford, 104 Glover, John, editor of Shakespeare, 418 note Godfrey of Boulogne, 169 Golding's translation of Ovid, 144, 150, 208, 302 Goldsmith, Oliver, on Dr. Johnson, 207 GoUancz, Israel, on allusions to Shakespeare, 344, 407 — on the dates of Shakespeare's plays, 232. 233 — on The Lover's Complaint, 14 note — on Vtnus and Adonis, 555 note Gordon, Lady Jane, 249 Gorhambury, 551 Goschen, Lord, "forgotten," 501-3 Gosse, Edmund, on Shakspere's life, 189, 202, 214, 217, 223, 239, 322 note, 479 Gosson, Stephen, School of Abuse, 98 note Goths or Gotes, the, 153 Gould, Sir F. Carruthers, on The Taming of the Shrew, 546^48 Gofiex, Confessio Amantis, 148 ■ — early allusions to, 405, 406 Gravelot, engraver, 502 Gray's Inn, xv note, 136, 226, 257 Greene's Funeralls, by R. B. Gent, 244 Greene, J., of Stratford, 270-72 Greene, Rev. Joseph, his MS., 492- 94 Greene, Robert, allusions to, 351 — education of, 225, 363 — learning of, 164 — I Henry VI attributed to, 25 — his Shake-scene allusion, 29, 31, 239-46, 373. 375. 378, 447 — Menaphon, 245 note — on players, 199 — Pandosto, 163, 164, 379 — The Card of Fancy, $% 63 Greene, Thomas, town clerk of Stratford, 269-72, 341 Greenwich, palace at, 66 Greenwood, John, Solicitor to the Treasury, 96 note Greg, W., on Henry VI, 25, 234 Grimstone, 169 Groatsworth of Wit, Greene's, 29, 31, 239, 246 Grosart, Dr., editor of Greene, 59 — on Prince Henry's death, 13 — on Thomas Adams, 15 Guenara, 169 Guilpin, Edward, Skialethia, 405 Guy S Hospital, Keats at, 287 Hall, Elizabeth, Shakspere's bequests to, 301 Hall, John, his will, 303, 306, 314, 315 — Shakspere's bequest to, 302, 305, 312, 515, 437, 444 — tomb of, 564 Hall, John, limner, 492-500, 505 Hall, Mr., 104 Hall, Susanna, 251 — Sliakspere's bequests to, 300, 302, 305, 312, 315, 437 — tomb of, 564 Hall, William, on Shakspere's tomb, 316-18 Hall's Chronicle, 302 Hallam, Henry, on the Shakespeare problem, 151-54, 279-81 Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., The Works of William Shakespeare quoted, 495-99. 573 — Outlines, sixth edition, v — on allusions to Shakespeare, 392 note — on the Court Revels, 475, 481 — on the Folio, 426 note — on John Shakspere, 104, 575, 576 — ■ on players, 199 — on Shakespeare's learning, 112 note, 123, 187, 189 note, 321 — on Shakespeare's portraits, 488, 492. 495. 498 note — on Shakespeare's relations with Henslowe, 21-24, 28 note — on Shakspere's epitaph, 316, 317 ^- on Shakspere's life, 189, 190, 200, 248 note, 253 note, 255, 269, 272, 274 — on Shakspere's will, 306, 309, 3?4, 325 note, 339 — on Venus and Adonis, 208 — o-a A Winter's Tale, 164 596 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Hamlet, 7, 216, 249, 259, 264, 268, 295) 298, 308 and note — allusion to handwriting in, 323 — authorship of, ix, 26 note, 394, 432, 440, 470, 561 — date of, 178-80, 223 — evidence of learning in, 118, 120, IS4-S7. 165, 175 — nature study in, 514 note — production of, 67 — revisions of, J54, 411, 414, 418, 440-42, 444, 452, 479, 483 — Shakspere as the Ghost in, 200, 221 — source of, 175-77 — stagecraft of, 217 note Handel, Saul, 162 Hanmer, Sir Thomas, his edition of Shakespeare, 502 Harbord, Mr,, statuary, 505 Hardy, Harold, "Shakespeare and Asbies," 105, 572 note Hamed, Thomas, xx note — on Walt Whitman, 1 1 Harness, Rev. William, 511 note Harper's Magatine, "New Shake- speare Discoveries," 261, 263 note, 331 note Harris, Frank, The Man Shakespeare, 184, 260 Harris, John, his will, 309 Harrison, John, publisher, 569, 57" Harrow School, 215 Hart, Joan, Shakspere's bequests to, 301 Harvey, Gabriel, Marginalia, 178, 179 Harvey, William, 578 Harwich, 202 note Hathaway, Anne or Agnes, 190-94, 253 Hathaway, Bartholomew, his will, 309 Hawkins, Mr., 122 Haywood, engraver, 488 Hazlitt, William, on The School for Scandal, 216 Hazlitt's Dodsley, 172 Heard, Franklin Fiske, his Shake- speare as a Lawyer, 6,"^ note, 62 note, 71, 72 Heldon, Edward, pall-bearer, xx note Heminge, John, actor, friend of Shakspere, 221, 252, 274 Heminge, John, editor of the Folio, ix, 313. 315. 382-86, 411-15. 418, 421-31, 435, 437, 439 — in the royal train, 481-86 — lessee of the Globe, 365-68 — Shakspere's bequest to, 301, 313 Henry of Navarre, King, 226-29 Heniy, Prince, death of, 13, 447 Henry III of France, 226, 227 Henry IV, authorship of, 29, 32 — date of, 222, 232 — evidence of learning in, 165 1 Henry IV, nature study in, 516 note 2 Henry IV, Gascoigne, c.j., 43 Henry V, authorship of, 26 note, 477 note — Dr. Wallace on, 264, 265 — evidence of learning in, 119, 203, 555 note — "honey-bee'' pass^e from, 521 — legal terms in, 87 note Henry VI, authorship of, 23, 25-28, 30, 223, 234, 235 I Henry VI, authorship of, 455, 470, 555 — evidence of learning in, 115 note — Folio text of, 422 note, 438 note — production of, 234 z Henry VI, authorship of, 455 — publication of, 438 note, 446 3 Henry VI, auUiorship of, 241, 455 — Greene's allusion to, 240, 241 — publication of, 438, 446 Henry VH, King, 377 Henry VIH, King, 71, 173, 210 Henry VIII, authorship of, 87, 455 — legal terms in, 87-89 — publication of, 314, 438, 439, 453 Henry Irving Shakespeare, The, quoted, 523 Henslowe, Philip, 358 — Groom of the Chamber, 486 — hissilence concerning Shakespeare, 21-28, 234 — on Hamlet, 1 79 Heralds' College, 254 Herbage, Francis, 74, 104 Hermes, 9 Heywood, Thomas, Apology for Actors, 461 — education of, 225 — his allusion to Shakespeare, 358- 60 INDEX 597 Heywood, Thomas, his A Woman Killed by Kindness, 358, 463 . — his English Traveller, 56 — his legal knowledge, 73 note — his poems, 196 note, 571 — his Troia Britannica, 460, 461 — his protest at Js^gard's piracy, 460- 63, 468 High Wycombe, 194 Hillyard, Nicholas, his portrait of Francis Bacon, 397 Historical Christ, The, Dr. Cony- beare's, 9 note Historic of Error, The, 138, 140, 142. See Comedy of Errors Hisiorie of Hamblet, The, 175-77, 180 History of Literature, Hallam's,. 280 Holder, artist, 508 Holinshed, Shakespeare's indebted- ness to, 119, 265, 302, 367 — John Taylor's allusion to, 169 Holland, translation of Pliny, 555 note Hollar, Wenceslas, supposed engraver of the Stratford bust, 488-91, 495, 500, 504, 564 Homer, Chapman's translation of, 132 — problem of, 3, 182, 286 — Taylor's allusion to, 169 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, 174 — his will, 304 — quoted, 15 Hookham, George, on the pronuncia- tion of Shakespeare, 342, 343 Hoole, 188 Hooper, Bishop, Declaration of Christ, 174 — legal knowledge of, 14 HopMnson, A. F., editor of A Warning for Faire Women, 108, no Horace, 188, 408 note, 409 — Epodes, 288 — Odes, 127-30, 152, 161, 386 — quoted, xiv, 560 — Satires, 376 Horneby, Thomas, 267 House of Commons, Library of, 495 — a story of the, 412 Hughes, E. R., 91 note Hunsdon, George Carey, Lord, 348 Hunsdon, Henry Carey, ist Lord, his theatrical company, 26 note Hunt, Leigh, his sonnet on a cricket, 520 note — Keats's friendship with, 289 Hunter, Joseph, New Illustrations of Shakespeare, 339 note — on Ltyv^s Labour's Lost, 228 — on Shakespeare's learning, 116 note, 134 note — on Shakspere's life, 191, 192 Huntly, George Gordon, 4th Earl of, 249 Hutchinson, John, on the Shakespeare problem, ix note Hutchinson, The Image of God, 174 Idea, the Shepheards Garland, 49 note Idea's Mirror, 49 note Illustrated Life of Shakespeare, Lee's, V, 510 note Illustrated London News, The, 291 note Imperial Dictionary, The, 400 note Ingleby, Dr., on allusions to Shake- speare, 356, 394, 403, 40s — on Hey wood's work, 461, 462 — on players, 199, 205 — on Shakspere's handwriting, 324, 337-39 — on "small Latin and less Greek," 403 — on Thomas Greene, 271, 272 Inns of Court, the, 66 In re Shakespeare. Beechingv, Green- iBOod. Sejoinder on behalf of the Defendant, publication of, 2 — quoted, 240 note, 246 note, 258 note, 306, 347 note, 433 In re Shakespeare's " Legal Acquire- ments," Devecmon's, 78 Ipswich Grammar School, 189 Ireland, Samuel, his Shakespeare forgeries, 508 Irving, Sir Henry, in the Merchant of Venice, 97 Isle of Wight, Carey of the, 348 Italian script, 321, 334 Jackson, Dr. Henry, o.M., 156 note Jackson, Richard C., "Shakespeare Himself Again," xiv Jaggard, Isaac, publisher, 438 note Jaggard, William, publisher, 196 note — The Passionate Pilgrim, 460-63 598 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? James I, King, 13, 407 note, 469, 560 — Bacon's letter to, xv note — Shakspere as a Groom of the Chamber to, 481-86 Jannsen, Gerard. &« Johnson Jenkins, Herbert, publisher, 2 note Jenner, naturalist, 516 note Jesus Christ, "historicity" of, 8, 434 Jews, Shakespeare's representation of, 97, 98 note Jodelle, Etienne, Ouvres and Mes- langes Poetiques, 209, 545 Johnson, Gerard, alleged sculptor of the Stratford bust, 496-98, 510, S" Johnson, John, 262 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, defines a lie, 429 — Goldsmith on, 207 — his edition of Shakespeare, 122 — on the Comedy of Errors, 136 — on Shakespeare's learning, 200 — on Shakespeare's love of nature, 513-15. 554 — quoted, 374 Jones, Professor Daniel, on pronuncia- tion, 342 Jonson, Ben, author of the preface to the First Folio, 383-86, 406, 409, 411-13, 416-28, 43S — Bartholomew Fair, 378 — Discoveries, 379, 380, 383 note, 391 note, 393 note, 395, 396, 404-9, 415 — early allusions to, 354, 360-63 — education of, 225, 363 — Every Man in His Humour, viii, S7> 378, 467, 546 — Every Man out of His Humour, 25s note, 376, 378 — Folio edition of his works, 372, 375. 395 — ■ his allusions to Shakespeare, vii- ix, XV, 242, 245, 255 note, 341, 343. 364. 371-432. 447, 478, 491. 512 — his books, 307 — his handwriting, 322 note, 333 — his legal ^knowledge, 57, 63, 67, 102 note, 106 — his love of nature, 534, 539, 541 — his MSS, 412, 439, 440, 459, 464 — his poverty, 266 Jonson, Ben, his presence at Stratford denied, 274 — his sonnet "To Poet Ape," 242, 245. 372-76, 378, 410 — his translation of Ovid, 203 — his tribute to Bacon, 404-7 note — his use of " confer," 153 note — on Bacon, xvi, 433 — on the Globe Theatre, 366 — on play-writing, 457 — on Shakespeare's learning, in, 120 — personal element of his works, 13 — Poetaster, 102 note, 106, 198, 237, 2SS note, 374, 376, 408 note, 539 note — Sejanus, 341, 400 note — Staple of News, 391 note, 392 note — The Hue and Cry after Cupid, 407 note — The Silent Woman, 458 note — Webster on, 571 — Works, edited by Gifford, 213 Jordan, John, fabrications of, 508 Josephus, 169 Jowett's translation of Phadrus, 556 note Julius Casar, 264, 383 note, 391 — evidence of learning in, 120, 162 note, 165 — Folio text of, 422 note — Jonson on, 379, 391-93 — legal knowledge in, 84 — publication of, 314, 438, 440, 452 Junius, Letters of, 356 Jusserand, M., on Shakespeare's MSS, 447, 449. 459 Justinian's Institutes, 55 Juvenal, 188 Juvenal, Mayor's, 135 Keats, John, genius of, 286-89 — his love of nature, 520 note, 534, 540. 542 Kempe, William, actor, his Nine Days' Wonder, 240, 241 and note — in Much Ado, 422 note — in the Parnassus plays, 212-14, 221, 346 note, 360-63 — in the royal train, 486 — lessee of the Globe, 366, 367 Kenwick, Rev. Mr., vicar of Strat- ford, 494 INDEX 599 King John, authorship of, 29-32 — date of, 222, 232, 233 — publication of, 438 and note, 453 King Lear, anachronism in, 162 — authorship of, 7, 26 note, 216, 249. 259, 280, 281, 29s, 414, 470, — evidence of learning in, 120, 165 — legal knowledge in, 70 note — observation of nature in, 210, S18 — production of, 67 — publication of, 452 King Richard II, authorship of, 29- 32 — date of, 222, 232, 356, 478 — various editions of, 418, 445 King Richard III, authorship of, 29- 32, 139 — date of, 222, 232 — Manningham on, 257-60 — publication of, 356, 478 — text of, 443-45 King's Bench, Westminster, 108 King's College, London, 348 Kingsley, Rose G., on Shakespeare in Warwickshire, 269-71 Knight, Charles, on Dr. Farmer, 146 note — on the Folio, 422 note — on Lmiis Labour's Lost, 227, 480 note — on Shakespeare's love of nature, SiS> S43 — Pictorial Shakespeare, 5 10 note, 515 note Knight, Thomas, 74, 105 Knowles, 169 Kyd, Thomas, A Warning for Faire Women ascribed to, 1 10 — Hamlet, 177 — Spanish Tragedy, 67 Labouchere, Henry, on Shakespeare's authorship, 466 note Laelius, authorship of, 561, 562 Laing, David, 379 note Lambert, Edmund, 247 Lambert, John, 105, 247 La Mothe, Ambassador, 230 Lane, John, publisher, vii note, ix note, I, 2, 38, 347 note, 433 Lane, Nicholas, sues John Shak- spere, 75 note Lang, Andrew, x, 9 — accuses the author of hatred of Will, xvi, 317-19 — his " Bungay," 140 — his error as to " Delphos," 162, 163 — his Shakespeare, Bacon, and the Great Unknown, 2, 28 note, 116 note, 193 note — his term "Anti-WiUians," 202, 3«7. 371. — on allusions to Shakespeare, 242- 45, 258, 350-52. 356-58, 360, 361, 372-74, 389-92 — on the dates of Shakespeare's plays, 223, 224 — on genius, 285 — on Jonson's sonnet, 245 — on Judith Shakspere's illiteracy, 248, 249 — on justifiable lies, 430 — on Lov^s Labour's Lost, 227-31 — on the parallels between Shake- speare, Plautus, and Terence, 295 — on The Passionate Pilgrim, 462, 463 — on the preface to the First Folio, 383, 413, 416 note, 424-27, 436 — on Shakespeare and Southampton, 205, 206 — on Shakespeare's learning, 158, 161-64 — on Shakspere as a " Groom of the Bedchamber," 485, 486 — on Shakspere's epitaph, 317-19 — on Shakspere's marriage, 192, 193 — on Shakspere's will, 304-6, 314 — on the Shakespeare problem, 277- 79, 450 note, 464 note, 465 — on the Stratford Bust, 490, 492- 99, 503. 504 — • quotes Napoleon in error for Mira- beau, 298 note Laughton, Sir J. K. , on Shakespeare's signatures, 330 note, 339 note, 347, 34« Law, Ernest, on the pronunciation of Shakspere, 341 — Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber quoted, 479 note, 481-86 — Same Supposed Shakespeare For- geries quoted, 476, 477 Lain Magazine and Review quoted, 43 note Lawe, Matthew, publisher, 444, 445 6oo IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Lawrence, W. T., The Elizabethan Playhouse, 199 note, 237, 238 Leach, A. F. , English Schools at the Reformation, 321 Learning of Shakespeare, Farmer's, 34, 112 note, 120 Lecky, W. E., History of Rationalism in Europe, 429 note Lectures on the Science of Langitage, MuUer's, 471-73 Lee, Sir Sidney, his use of "doubt- less," 194 note, 272 — on Anne Shakspere, 253 — on Chettle's supposed allusion to Shakespeare, 247 note — on the Court Revels, 475, 476, 481 — on the First Folio, 314, 419-21, 425, 436-40, 450 — on Hamlet, 176 note, 177 note — on Jaggard, 460 — on John Shakspere, 77, 185 — on Love's Labour's Lost, 227, 229- 31, 480 note — on Pope's allusion to Shakespeare, 266, 415 — on the preface to Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays, 384 — on Shakespeare's lack of travel, 169 — on Shakespeare's learning, 120, 187, 209, 217 note, 321 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 5, 37. 43. 44. 53 — on Shakespeare's portraits, 397, 509, 510 — on Shakespeare's relations with Henslowe, 21-25 — on Shakspere at Belvoir, 18-20 — on Shakspere's coat of arms, 377 — on Shakspere's handwriting, 321, 322, 330, 338 — on Shakspere in London, 195, 197, 201, 257, 267, 569 note — on Shakspere's marriage, 194 — on Shakspere in Stratford, 247, 248, 266-69, 27< 274. 444, 447. 548 — on Shakspere's tomb, 317 — on Shakspere's will, 299, 310, 568 — on the Sonnets, 359 — on the spelling of Shakspere, 340 — on The Lover's Complaint, 14 note — on Venus and Adonis, 545 Legate, John, printer, 225 Leicester, Earl of, his expedition, 202 note, 214 Leu, de, his engraving of Montaigne, 396 Leusden, 473 Leyden, xiii Lie, definition of a, 429-31 Life of Shakespeare, Lee's, quoted, 37.43 Light, Hon. John H., on Shake- speare's legal knowledge, 55 note Lilford, Lord, Birds of the British Islands, 536 Lilly, Grammar, 189 note — Mother Bombie, 63, 64 Linley, Miss, 215 Literary Guide, The, quoted, 8, 61 note Littleton, Coke on, 87 note Lloyd, 169 Lodge, Thomas, allusion to, 240 note — education of, 225, 363 — on Hamlet, 180 note — Rosalynde, 302, 530, 533 note — Scillaes Metamorphosis, 217 note — Warning for Faire Women as- cribed to, 109 — Wits Miserie, 405 London, entry of James I into, 481 — National Memorial to Shakespeare, xiv — Shakspere in, 197-203 — theatres and inns of, 237 London Prodigall, The, authorship of, 468 Longaville, Lord, 229 Lord Chamberlain's Company, the, 199, 204, 214, 356 Lord Chief Justice, title of, 43 Lorimers' Company, the, 19 Love's Labour's Lost, anagram in, xiii — authorship of, 29-32, 149 note, 252, 281, 290, 298, 465, 470 note, 477 note, 480 — date of, 222, 224, 225, 232 — evidence of learning in, 115, 116, 121 note, 171 — legal knowledge in, 86 note — publication of, 340 — quoted, 398 note — various editions of, 418, 451, 460 Love's Labour's Won, authorship of, 29, 32, 222 — date of, 232 — Meres's allusion to, 439 note INDEX 60 1 Lover's Complaint, The, authorship of, 12, 14 note Low, Son, & Marston, publishers, 300 note Lucanus, Terentius, 561 Lucy, Sir Thomas, his deer, 195, 196, 548 — his monument, 489 Lydgate, Falls of Princes, 148 Lyle, Alice, trial of, 70 note Lyly, education of, 225, 363 — Euphues, 231, 290 — Campaspe, 537, 541, 554 — Midas, 163 — Warning for Faire Women as- cribed to, 1 10 Macaulay, Lord, History of England, 70 note — on Bacon, xv Macbeth, 181, 264, 280, 281 — authorship of, 455, 470 — observation of nature in, 544 note — publication of, 438, 440, 452 M'Conway, William, his "Mono- graph on the Shakespeare Signa- tures," 331 Mackay, Herbert, 310 M'Leod, Fiona, 352 Macmillan, H., his Arden Shake- speare, 162 note Macmillan Company, the, 531 note Macray, Mr., 213 note — on Gallio, 362 Madden, Sir Frederic, on Shake- speare's MSS, 448, 449 — on Shakspere's signatures, 338, 339 Maginn, Dr., on Shakespeare's learn- ing, 112, 122 Maia, 9 Mainwaring, Mr., 269, 272 Maldon, Plume MS. at, 567 Malherbe, on Montaigne, 396 Malone, Edmund, his copy of The Passionate Pilgrim, 461 note ^ his memorandum of Court revels, 476 — on the date oi Hamlet, 178 — on the First Folio, 383 and note, 413, 416, 426 — on Henry VI, 241 — on Shakespeare's learning, 186 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 4. 6. 42. 65. 102 Malone, Edmund, on Shakespeare's name, 324, 337-4S, 343 — on Shakspere's life, 197 Manningham, John, his allusions to Shakespeare, 256-60, 365, 560 Mantua, 165 Marcus Aurelius, 169 Maria, forms of, 8 Marianus, epigram of, 151 Markham, early allusion to, 378, 405 Marlowe, Christopher, early allusions to, 240, 351, 358, 405 — education of, 225, 363 — / Henry VI attributed to, 25 Marston, 378 Martial, Shakespeare compared with, 297 Martin, Sir Theodore, on allusions to Shakespeare, 373 Mary, Queen, 74 Maryland Bar, the, 78, ^4 Masson, Professor David, his Shake- speare Personally quoted, 13 note, 141 note, 301 note, 390 note — on metrical tests, 141 note — on Milton's daughters, 250, 251 — on Shakespeare's "reticence," 13 note Mayenne, Due de, 230 Mayor's ^««ie«o/, 135 Meade, Miss, 178 Measure for Measure, authorship of, 264, 477 — compared with Montaigne, 125 — legal terms in, 99 — Mr. Robertson on, 68 note — publication of, 314, 438, 451 Medici, Catherine de', 229 Meier, Dr. Konrad, on Jonson's allusion to Shakespeare, 402, 403 Manage, on sufflaminare, 387, 388 Mennes, Sir John, on John Shak- spere, 567 Merchant of Venice, The, allusions to nature in, 520 — authorship of, 29-32, 477 — date of, 222, 232, 451 — evidence of learning in, 130, 146, 151, 160, 165 — founded on Ser Giovanni's Pecorone, 9.1-95 — legal terms in, 64, 90, 91, 94-97 Meres, Francis, brother-in-law of Florio, 222 note, 355 6o2 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Meres, Francis^ compares Shake- speare and Ppllfus, 296, 297 — his classical learning, 129 — his Palladis Tamia, 10, 14 note, 29-32. 179. 221-25, 233, 23s, 355, 439 note, 466 Meri, 9 Merivale Hall, Atherstone, 563, 574, 575 note Merlin, 162 Mermaid Tavern, the, Shakespeare at, 388 Merris, 9 Merry Wives of Windsor, The, authorship of, 477 note — legal knowledge in, 54-59, 65 — publication of, 450, 451 Merton College, Oxford, 349 note Middle Temple, the, ix note, 96 note, 256, 258 Middleton, Jonson on, 378 Midsummer Nighfs Dream, A, allusions to nature in, 518, 521 — authorship of, 29-32, 470 note — date of, 222, 224, 232 — evidence of learning in, 120, 151, 152, 174 — various editions of, 418, 451 Milton, John, Emerson on, 276 — his daughters' education, 249-52 — his observation of nature, 538 — his vocabulary, 472, 473 — "mute, inglorious," 284 — Ode to the Nativity, 163, 473 — Paradise Regained, 116 note Minto, Professor, on the sonnet to Florio, 14 note Mirabeau, 298 note Monstrelet, Chronicles of, 228 Montagu, naturalist, 516 note Montague, Sir Henry, Lord Chief Justice, 16 Montaigne, engraving of, 396 • — on players, 560 — on Terence, 562 — Shakespeare's indebtedness to, xi, 125-27, 157, 158, 210, 211, 265 — Taylor's allusion to, 169 Montaigne and Shakespeare, Robert- son's, quoted, 13, 34 Montgomery, Phihp, Earl of. First Folio dedicated to, 363-65, 435, 486 note Monthly Review, The, Mrs, Stopes on the Stratford bust in, 489 Moor of Venice, The, authorship of, 477 note More, Sir Thomas, Utopia, 210, 546, 548 Morgan, Dr. Appleton, on Jonson s allusion to Shakespeare, 393 note, 410,411 — on Shakespeare's authorship, 467 note, 468-70 — on Venus and Adonis, 207, 208 — The Shakespearian Myth, 207 note, 393 note, 410, 468 Morning Post, The, Lang on Shake- speare's bust in, 492 note, 495, 503 Morris, on birds, 514 note, 536, 539 Moseley, Humphrey, publisher, 384, 385 — on Beaumont and Fletcher, 426, 442 Moses, 9 Mothe, La, 230 Mountjoy, herald, 265, 367 Mountjoy, wig-maker. Dr. Wallace on, xix, 260-66, 299, 320, 327, 331, 332, 370 note Much Ado About Nothing, 264 — evidence of learning in, 165 — Folio text of, 422 note, 451 Mudie's Library, 471 Muggle Street, Shakspere in, xix, 260-66, 367 Miiller, Max, on Shakespeare's vocabulary, 471-74 Munsey's Magazine, "The Great Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy," 182 note, 275, 344, 345 note Murray, Professor Gilbert, his Rise of the Greek Epic, 3 Murray, John, publisher, 489 note Murray, Sir J. H., his Dictionary, 531 note, 544 note Myrrha, 9 Mystery of William Shcdiesfeart, The, Webb's, 449 note Myth, Magic and Morals, Dr. Conybeare's, 8 Napoleon I quoted in error, 298 note Nash, Thomas, early allusions to, 169, 240, 358 — education of, 225, 363 — Hall's bequests to, 303, 306, 314, 31s INDEX 603 Nash, Thomas, quoted, 245 — Strange News of the Intercepting Certain Letters, 63, 64 Nashe, John, Shakspere's bequest to, 301 National Portrait Gallery, the, 508 National Review, The, Hookham on Shakespeare in, 342 — Lang on Shakespeare in, 503 — the author on Dr. Wallace's dis- coveries in, 261, 333 note, 491 note Navarre, kings of, 227-31 Nebraska, University of, 260 Nemours, Duchy of, 228 Nestor, 512 note New English Dictionary, The, 245 note, S30, 531 note, S44 note New Illustrations of Shakespeare, Hunter's, 134 note, 191 note Newington Butts, 22, 180 New Liberal Review, The, " Shake- speare's Nature," 516 note New Place, Stratford, 254-56, 261 note, 265, 269, 274, 300, 311, 444, 449. 568 New Portrait of Shakespeare, Cor- bin's, 508 Newton, Professor, on the chough, S36 "New Variorum" Shakespeare quoted, 26, 231 Nichol, John, Francis Bacon: His Life and Philosophy, xv Nicholas, Daniel, 263 Nicholson and Herford, Messrs., 539 note Nine Days' Wonder, 213 Nineteenth Century, The, author's articles in, 2 — Boas on Hamlet in, 180 note — Dean Eeeching's "A Last Word to Mr. Greenwood," 329 note — Miss Kingsley on Shakespeare in, 270 note — Mr. W. E. Smithson on Shake- speare in, 403, 466 — Sir Edward Sullivan in, 336 — : "The Defamers of ■Shakespeare," I, 2 — "What Shakespeare saw in Nature," 134, 513. 534 North's Plutarch quoted, 84, 152, 302, 568 Northumberland House, fire at, 178 Northumberland Manuscript, The, 337 Norwich, Borrow at, 1 16 note — Kempe at, 213, 240, 362 Notes and Queries, 135, 496 note Okes, Nicholas, printer, 461 On the Portraits of Shakespeare, Boaden's, 508 Orelli, on Horace, xiv note Oriel College, Oxford, 55 Origen, 125, 126 Orinoco, the, 543 note Orleans, 422 note Osbom, Francis, on Bacon, 549 Othello, authorship of, 249, 264, 281, 29S. 414. 470. 561 — evidence of learning in, 116, 120, — production of, 483, 492 — publication of, 438, 446, 448, 452 Ottocar I, King, 164 note Outlines, Halliwell-Phillipps's, 104, 112 note, 123 note, 186, 192 note, 253 note, 269 note, 299 note, 306 note, 309 note, 321 note, 324 note, 339. 475. 481, 495. 498 note, 576 Ovid, 403, 544 — Amores, 203, 208 — Fasti, 33-36, 143, 144, 148, 149, 167, 209, 219 — Metamorphoses, 127, 129, 150, 151, 208, 265, 302, 362, 550 — Shakespeare's allusion to, 153, 527, — Shakespeare compared with, 297 — Taylor's allusion to, 169 Oxford, 194, 495 — Muller lectures at, 473 — Shakespeare's plays performed in, 179, 180 note — University of, 225, 355 Oxford Dictionary, the, 153, 544 note Painter, Palace of Pleasure, 148 Palatine Anthology, The, 151 Pall Mall Gazette, correspondence on Shakespeare's bust in, 43 note, 489 note, 492, 494 note, 497-99 Palsgrave quoted, 172 Pandosto, 163 6o4 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Parnassus plays, the, 360 — Mr. Sothern on, 346 note Passionate Pilgrim, The, 196 note — publication of, 48, 460-63 Pavier, Thomas, 175 Pecorane, Ser Giovanni's, 91-94, 97, 98 note, 121 Peele, 149 note — education of, 225, 363 — Greene's allusion to, 240 — I Henry VI attributed to, 2$ Peile, Introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology, 159 Pembroke, Earls of, 369, 372 — Beaumont and Fletcher's Works dedicated to, 384 — First Folio dedicated to, 363-65, 435-37 — Jonson's dedication to, 375 Pembroke College, Cambridge, 222 note Penzance, Lord, 39 Perat, Jone, 576-77 Percy, Bishop, 178 Pericles, authorship of, 265 note, 421, 468, 470 Persius, 188 Peterhouse College, Cambridge, 225 Phaer, Farmer on, 144 Phaethon identified with Shake- speare, 14 note Philadelphia, xx note, 11 Phillipps, Augustine, his bequest to Shakspere, 301 — in the royal suite, 482-84 note — lessee of the Globe, 366, 367 Phillipps, John, 305 Phillips, Edward, on Milton's daughters, 250 — Theatrum Poetarum, no Philpot's translation, 173 Phcenix and the Turtle, The, author- ship of, 184, 341, 432 — Mr. Robertson on, 1 1 Pictorial Shakspere, The, 510 note, j5i6 note Pilgrimage to Parnassus, The, allu- sions to Shakespeare in, 360 note Pipe Office, the, 483 note Pittsburgh, U.S.A., 331 Pius X, Pope, 9 note Plaie of Errors, The, 477 Plato, on Socrates, 555 — Shakespeare's allusion to, 161 Piatt, Dr. Isaac Hull, his anagram, xiii Plautus, III, 188 — Amphitruo, 138, .226, 296 — Meruechmi, 136-38, 142, 226, 256-58, 296 — Mostellaria, 296 note — Shakespeare compared with, 294- 97, 403. 56' Players, social position of, 198-207, 212-17, 362, 457 Playhouses, Elizabethan, 66, 235, 237 Play-writers, social position of, 457 Pliny, Natural History, 555 note — quoted, 135 note, 386, 544, 550 Plume MS. at Maldon, 567 Plutarch, North's, quoted, 84, 152, 568 — Taylor's allusion to, 169 Polimanteia, 225 note Pollard, A. W., on the Folio, 422- 27, 436, 437, 440, 450-53. 451 note — on Jonson's allusions to Shake- speare, 383 note, 396 note — on Sidney, 458 Pollock and Maitland quoted, 103 Pope, Alexander, his edition of Shakespeare, 500, 552 note — on Bacon, xv — on John "Taylor, 146 — on Jonson's allusion to Shake- -speare, 383 note, 393 note — on Shakespeare, 266, 414, 415, 533 Pope, Thomas, lessee of the Globe, 366, 367 Porson, Dr., on Malone's criticism, 241 — quoted, 402 Porter, his Two Angry Women of Abington, 60 — quoted by Mr. Robertson, xi Potsdam, 1 12 note Powles, children of, 138, 140 Problem of the Shakespeare Plays, Bompas's, 471 Promos and Cassandra, 68 note Pulton's Statutes, 43 Punctuation, Shakespearian, 417 note ' Purchas, 169 "Purchase," 70-73 Puritaine, The, 241 note Puritan, Shakespeare as a, 74 note, 76, 187 INDEX 60S Puritan, or The Widow of Wealing Strut, The, authorship of, 468 Puttenham, Arte of English Poitry, 163, 221 note, 3S5 note, 568 — Second Book of Proportion Poetical, 17 Pym-Yeatman, John, " Is Shakspere's Will Holographic?" 324-27 Pythagoras, 125, 528 Quarterly Review, "Shakespeare's Birds and Beasts," 513-34, S40, S4I, 544-5°. 556. SS7 note Quarto Editions of Shakespeare, the, 154. 179. 303. 342, 418-24. 427. 441-49. 479. 570 Quiney, Adrian, 74, 104, 105 Quiney, Judith, Shakspere's bequest to, 301 Quiney, Richard, 266, 340, 478 note Quiney, Thomas and, Judith, 253, 266 Quintilian, 148 — on Terence, 562 Radford,, G. H., M.P., sonnet by, vii, viii Rainhold, John, Obadiah, 174 Raleigh, Professor Sir Walter, on ShScespeare and Nature, 513, 531 note, 534, 557 note Raleigh, Sir Walter, his " orange - tawny" birds, 543 note — spelUng of his name, 346-48 Ramses II, 9 Rape of Lucrece, The, 184 — authorship of, xviii, 220, 246 note, 252, 259, 290, 298, 303.356.379 note, 432, 448, 456, 462, 464, 470 — date of, 178, 179, 218, 224, 225 — dedication of, 341, 342, 356, 478 — early allusions to, 344, 356, 357, 361, 478 — evidence of learning m, 33-30, 135, 148, 158, 165, 219 — first edition of, 570 — Mr. Robertson on, 1 1 Reade, Joan, 576 Reading, Lord, 43 Record Office, the, 261, 320, 483 note Reed, Edwin, Francis Bacon our Shakespeare, 443 note — Noteworthy Opinions, 467 note Reed, Robert, 575 Renan, Ernest, Histoire des Langues simitiques, 471-73 Replingham, agent, 269 Representative Men, Emerson's, 276 Return from Parnassus, The, 212, 256, 38s — allusions to Shakespeare in, 353, 360-62 — on hunting, 548, 550 Reynolds, Humphrey, 104 Reynolds, William, Shakspere's be- quest to, 301 Richardson, 191 Rise of the Greek Epic, Professor Murray's, 3 Roberts, William, restores the Strat- ford bust, 495 Robertson, J. M., charges the author with dispar^ement of Shakspere, 195, 196, 210 note — his attitude to the Shakespeare problem, 283 — his Baconian Heresy — a Confuta- tion, X, 2, 87 note, 157 note, 207 — his classical learning, 1 14-17, 386-89 — his comparison of Drayton's sonnet with Shakespeare's, 45-48 — his controversial methods, x, xix, 1-36, 195. 218, 230, 405, 407, 412, 434. 515 — his Did Shakespeare write Titus Andronicus I 29, 38, 78, 149 note — his legal knowledge, 38, 54, 88 — his Montaigne and Shakespeare, I3,_ 34, 115 note, 118 note, 125, 128,' 129, 157, 162 note, 2H note — on dramatic authorship, 214-17 — on early allusions to Shakespeare, 244 note, 351, 357, 379 note, 386, 393. 402-8, 433, 434 — on the First Folio, 386, 412-16, 426, 431 note, 437 — on. Keats, 286-89 — on legal knowledge displayed by other dramatists, xi, 59-61, 80, 83, 106-10 — on Measure for Measure, 68 note — on Milton's daughters, 250-53 — on Shakespeare and Southampton, 205-7 — on Shakespeare's genius, 283-85 6o6 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Robertson, J. M., on Shakespeare's learning, xi, 7, 110-74, 187, 197, 203, 212, 214, 217 note, 219, 226, 290, 401 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, xi, 6, 7, 14-16, 38-45, 49-102, 109, S73 — on Shakespeare's relations with Henslowe, 21-28 — on Shakespeare's reticence, 13 — on Shakespeare's use of transla- tions, 33-36 — on Shakespeare's vocabulary, 471- 74 — on Shakspere at Belvoir, 17-21,273 — on Shakspere's will, 304, 308, 311-13 — on the gardens of Adonis, 1 14 and note — on the " Historicity of Jesus," 8, 9 — on Venus and Adonis, 29-33 Roche, Walter, schoolmaster, 339, 478 note, 577 Rochester, 167 note Rochester, Archdeacon of, 567 Roe, Sir John, Jonson's allusion to, 378 Roger, Trusty, 108, 109 Rogers, Philip, 267, 580 Romano, Giulio, 164, 165 Rome, Plautus in, 294 Romeo and Juliet, authorship of, 29- 32, 290, 298 — date of, 222, 224, 232, 452 — early allusions to, 356 — evidence of learning in, 165 — observation of nature in, 540 Ronsard, Shakespeare's knowledge of, 143, 144 Rose Theatre, Shakspere's connection with, 21-28, 234 Routledge's "New Universal Lib- rary," 243 Rowe, Nicholas, his edition of Shake- speare's works, 500, 502, 505 — on Shakespeare's learning, 136 — on Shakspere, 77, 195, 197, 199,273 Royal Society of Literature, the, i, 347 note Roye, Rede Me and be not Wrothe, 63,64 Rushton, W. L., on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, S note, 6, 42, 53 note, 8s, 87 note Russell, Thomas, 274 Rutherford, Mark, 352 Rutland, Roger Manners, 5th Earl of, M. Demblon on, 1 7 Rutland, Francb, 6th Earl of, his "device," 16-21, 483 Sachs, Hans, genius of, 286 Sadler, Hamnet, 274 — Shakspere's bequest to, 301 Sadler, John, 575 Sadler, Roger, 74 Saint-Hilaire, Barthelemy, his trans- lation of Aristotle, 156 Saintsbury, Professor, on biographies of Shakespeare, 194 note — on Shakespeare's learning, 182 — on Shakspere's life, 4, 185, 191-93 — on Titus Andronicus, 10, n Salisbury, Earl of, Jonson's letter to, 457 Salt, Henry S., Percy Bysshe Shelley, Poet and Pioneer, 278 Sandars, T. C, editor of the Institutes, 55 Sandells, of Stratford, 191 Sanders, George, 108, 110 Sandys, 1610, quoted, 171 Sappho, Mr. Robertson's allusion to, 286, 293 Sardou, plays of, 217 note Sawndare, Hugh, 349 note Saxo Grammaticus, 175-77 Scharf, Sir George, on Shakespeare's bust, 506 Schmidt's Shakespearean Lexicon, 400 note Scipio, authorship of, 561, 562 Scott, Edward, 272 Scott, Sir Walter, 572 — denies his authorship, 430, 431 Scourge of Polly, The, Davies's, 353, 559 Scourge of Simony, The, 360 note. See Return from Parnassus Screvin, Thomas, 16, 20 Seccombe, Thomas, on The Shake- speare Problem Restated, vii, 116 note — his Introduction to Lavengro, 116 note Second Frutes, sonnet to Florio, 14 note Selborne, White of, 516 INDEX 607 Selden, TabU-Talk, i,l% Sellengers Round, 213 Seneca, 169, 188, 402 — Dc dementia, 151 — Jonson's allusion to, 387, 388 Sewer Commissioners, the, 367 note Shackespeare, John, at Belvoir, 18- 21, 273 Shairp, Principal, on Burns, 292 Shakers, the, 241 note Shake-scene, allusions to, 202, 239- 46, 252. 373, 375 Shake-speare, Davies's allusion to, 29s . — earliest allusion to, in Wilhbie, 220 — Fuller's allusion, 456, 4.78 — Greene's allusion to, 240 — on the title-page of plays, 340, 349, 432. 443 , — pen-name of, xviii note, 335, 349, 352, 360, 373, 432, 450 note, 465- 71 — Rev. W. Begley on, 245 note Shakespeare, Henry, 75 note Shakespeare, William, allusions to, 344. 350-70, 559-62, 571 — as a humanitarian, 209-11, 545- 50, 555 — as a master-mind controlling many pens, 454-74 — as a traveller, 169 — biographies of, vii, viii note, ix note, 4, 181, 567 — cannot be identified with Shak- spere, 181-282, 298, 432, 447, 454 — date of his commencing author, 29-33 — extent of his authorship, 1 1-13 — Greene's allusion to, 239-45. See Greene — his Biblical knowledge, 74 — his classical learning, xi, 6, 11 1-67, 209, 211, 219, 390 note, 401-3, 474, 551 — his legal knowledge, xi, xu, 4-6, 14-16, 37-110, 154 note, 572 — his love of flowers, 517, 539, 543 note, 550-52, 554 — his MSB carefully revised, 382-89, 411-17, 426, 442 — his observation of nature, 134, 135, 513-57 Shakespeare, William, his personality revealed in his work, 259, 260, 398 — his relations with Henslowe, 21-28 — his sonnet compared with Dray- ton's, 45-49 note — his use of translations, 33-36, 91, 121, 124, 151, 208, 209 — his vocabulary, 471-74 — Jonson's allusions to, 245, 341, 343. 371-432 — metrical tests of, 139-41, 160 — National Memorial to, xv — portraits of, 487-512, 574 — problem of his MSS discussed, 411-53 — spelling and pronunciation of name, 335-49, 477-79 — works attributed to, 220, 233, 454. 455, 460-63, 467-70 Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown, Lang's, publication of, 2 Shakespeare's Books, Dr. Anders's, 134 note, 166 Shakespeare Commemoration League, dinner of the, 566 Shakespeare's Environment, Mrs. Stopes's, 566 Shakespeare Polios and Quartos, Pollard's, 383 note, 422 Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber, Law's, 479 note, 481-86 Shakespeare Head Press, 178 note Shakespeare a Lawyer, W. L. Rush- ton's, 5 note Shakespeare as a Lawyer, F. Fiske Heard, 43 note, 62 note, 71, 72 Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements, Lord Campbell's, 5, 53 Shakespeare's Legal Maxims, Rush- ton's, S3 note Shakespeare's Library, 180 note Shakespeare Personally, Masson's, 13 note Shakespeare, Player, Play-maker and Poet, William, Dean Beeching's, i Shakespearis Portraits, Wivell's, 508 Shakespeare: Puritan and Recusant, 74 note Shakespeare Problem Restated, The, aim, reception, and reviews of, vii, ix, xiv note, xvii, 1-4 — no disparagement of Shakspere in, 195, 196 6o8 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Shakespeare Problem Restated, The, on genius, 285 — on Greene's allusion to Shake- speare, 241 — on Hamlet, 178, 179, 223 note — on Henslowe's silence, 21-28 — on Jonson's allusions to Shake- speare, 376 note, 380, 386, 398 note, 402, 404, 429 — on Shakespeare and nature, 513, 536 note — on Shakespeare's learning, 115 note, 127, 151 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 14, 37-45. 49. 78, 82-102 — on Shakespeare's portraits, 489, S03. S07 — on Shakspere's arms, 25S note — on Shakspere at Belvoir, 17 — on Shakspere's daughter's illiteracy, 251 — on Shakspere's handwriting, 322 note, 338 note — on Shakspere's life, 202 note, 207, 214 — on Shakspere's will, 306-8 — on the worth of allusions to Shake- speare, 350 — on Venus and Adonis, 30 — use of Shakspere and Shakespeare in, 336, 34S Shakespeare Society, the, 379 note Shakespeare Studies in a Baconian Light, Theobald's, 171 Shakespeare's Testamentary Language, Rushton's, 53 note, 86, 87 note Shakespearean Myth, The^ Morgan's, 393 note, 410, 468 Shakespeareans, 4. See Stratfordians Shakespearian Punctuation, Simp- son's, 417 note Shakespere, Gilbart, signature of, 573 Shaksper not Shakespeare, Edwards's, 473 note Shakspere, Anne, borrows 40s., 253 — Shakspere's bequest to, 301, 302, 308-12 Shakspere, Hamnet, birth and death of, 193. '94, 248 Shakspere, Hugh, 349 note Shakspere, John, father of William Shakspere, 185-89, 478 note — his coat of arms, 20, 78, 254-56, 377> 378 Shakspere, John, his legal experi- ences, 74-78, loi note, 104, 105, 247. 253. 577 — on his son, 567 — spelling of his name, 340 Shakspere, Judith, her birth, 193, 194 — her lack of education, 248-52 — her marriage, 253, 327 note Shakspere, Mary, 185, 247, 377, 576 — her title to the Arden arms, 255 Shakspere, Susanna, 193 Shakspere, Thomas, 339 note Shakspere, William, acts in Every Man in His Humour, viii — alleged championship of popular rights, 270-72 — "a Stratford rustic," 202 — as Groom of the Chamber, 481-86 — at Belvoir, xix, 17-21, 273, 483 — authorship as Shakespeare con- cluded to be impossible, 2, 14 note, 181-282, 298, 432, 447, 454 — authorship never claimed by, 464, 468 — "fortunate" man, 566-68 — his aunts, 572, 574 note — his case against Addenbroke, 37 — his coat of arms, 20, 78, 254-56, 342, 349 note, 362 note, 377 — his epitaph, 315-19, 400 — his handwriting, 299, 320-34, 337, 420, 422, 573 — his learning, iii, 121-24, 161, 166, 174, 179, 187, 574 — his legal knowledge, 40, 51, 74, 100, 103, 573 — his marriage, 190-94, 200, 311, 31.2. 568 — his personality, 259, 260, 267, 270, 273. 275^3. 372 — his portraits, 384, 395-98, 487- 512, 56376s, 574 — his relations with Henslowe, 22-2S — his supposed ' ' writing up " of plays, 247 note, 252 — his will, 275, 299-319, 324-31, 437. 568, 569 — in London, 185, 197-203, 214, 217, 224, 239, 247, 256-66, 280, 284, 327, 456, 479, 568, 569 — in Stratford, 247, 248, 253-56, 261 note, 265-75, 280, 363, 448, 466, 479, 568, 580 INDEX 609 Shakspere, William, Jonson's allu- sions to. See Shakespeare, William — lessee of the Globe Theatre, 364- 70 — outwits Burbage, 257-60, 560 — possibility of an arrangement with Shakespeare, 466-470 — spelling and pronunciation of his name, xviii, 335-49. 477-79. 573 — story of his deer-stealing, 195, 196 — unreliability of some statements concerning, xx note Shelley, P. B., his indebtedness to Shakespeare, 154, 441 — his love of nature, 521, 534, 540, 542, 543 — Keats's acquaintance with, 289 — Lang on, 27,7, 278 — scholarship of, 161 Sheridan, R. B., 215-17 Shooters Hill, 108 Shoreditch, 238 Shottery, 191, 266 Siddons, Mrs., 492 Sidney, Sir Philip, 130, 169 — Apology for Poetry, 204 — death of, 13 — early allusion to, 405, 406 — his handwriting, 333 — his works published after his death, 458 — humanitarianism of, 546 Simpson, Percy, Shakespearian Pttrutuation, 417 note Sir John Oldcastle, authorship of, 468 Skelton, on the cuckoo, 536 Smith, Nicol, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, 119 note, 176 Smith, Professor G. C. Moorcj editor of Harvey's Marginalia, 178 Smithfield, 108 Smithson, W. E., on Bacon, 466 — on Shakespeare's learning, 403 Smithweeke, I., 460 note Snitterfield, Shakspere's property at, 185. 187, 572 Socrates, 512 note — on nature, 513, SS5 Soest portrait of Shakespeare, the, 5" Somerset House, 476, 482, 483 Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries, Law's, 476, 477 Sonnenschein, E. A., on Shake- speare's learning, 151 Sonnets, The, authorship of, 184, 222 note, 223, 252, 259, 281, 298, 303, 432, 470 note — date of, 222, 224, 23s — Dean Beeching on, 204, 207 — evidence of learning in, 120, 127- 29. 151. 158, 165 — legal terms in, 95 note — Mr. Robertson on, 1 1 — Mrs. Stopes on, 578 — piracy of, 448, 463 — publication of, 341 — quibbles on " Will " in, 359 Sophocles, 401 Sothern, Edward, on Emerson and Shakespeare, 182 note, 275, 276 — on the spelling of Shakespeare, 344-46, 348 Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, Earl of, 369, 372 — Shakespeare's dedications to, 204- 7. 218, 345, 358, 456, 464, 478 Southey, Robert, his demon, 507 South Kensington Museum, the, 505, 506 Spain, war against, 202 note Spanish Ambassador, at Somerset House, 482-84 Speaker, The, 399 note Spectator, The, quoted, 397 note Spedding, James, editor of Bacon, XV note, 519 — on the spelling of Shakespeare, 337 Speedi 169 Speght's Chaucer, 178, 179 Spencer, Herbert, 381 Spenser, Edmund, 130, 169 — early allusions to, 399,: 400, 405, 406 — his handwriting, 322 note, 333 — his observation of nature, 541, ■ 544 Spielmann, Mr., on portraits of Shakespeare, 396, 487-512, 564 — error of, with regard to Dugdale, 498-99 St. Alban, Viscount, creation of, XV note, 115 note, 433. See Bacon StanyhuTst's Virgil, 144 2 R 6io IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? Stationers' Company, Hall and Register, 218, 234, 239, 378, 438 note, 459 Staunton, Howard, on Chettle, 246 Steevens, George, on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 5, 6 — on Shakespeare's portrait, 397 note — on Shakspere's handwriting, 324, 339 — on The Comedy of Errors, 142 Stephen, Sir Leslie, on Milton's (^ughters, 250 Stephen's Commentaries, 72 Stevenson, R. L., on Shakespeare's MSS, 411-14, 426 St. John's College, Cambridge, 360 note Stopes, Mrs., 201 — erroneous citation of Webster, 570-72 — on Grooms of the Chamber, 482 note, 483 note — on Shakespeare's bust, 489, 492- 504, 509. 574 — on Shakespeare's Sonnets, 578 — onShakspereatBelvoir,i7-2l,273 — on Shakspere's name, 479 note — on the Stratford Court of Record, 574-78 — Shakespeare's Environment, 566- 78 Stotsenburg, Judge, on Henslowe's silence, 26 Stow quoted, 108 St. Paul's Cross, 14 Strange, Ferdinando Stanley, Lord, his theatrical company, 25-27, i8o note, 234. See also Earl of Derby Stratford Town Shakespeare, The, 249. 3". 508 Stratford-on-Avon, affords oppor- tunity for nature-study, 533, 543 note, 549 note, 551, 553 — Court of Record, 75, 95, lOl note, 103-S. 574-78 — Free Grammar School, 159, 161, 186-89, 200, 23s, 321, 322, 340, 363, 466, 478 note, 492, 512 note, 568. 577 , ^ . — Shakespeare celebrations m, 441 — Shakspere in, 40, 51, 75, loi, 185, 247, 251-56, 265-75, 448, 568, 569 Stratford-on-Avon, Shakspere's pro- perty in, 254-56, 261 note, 265, 269, 274, 300, 311 — Shakspere's tomb and monument in, 315-19, 400, 487-512; 563-65, 574 — Shaksperes of, 339 note, 340, 478 note "Stratfordians," 182, 218 note, 224 — accuse the author of defaming Shakespeare, xiv, xvi - — author's use of the name, v — dissensions of, 11, 102, 417, 434, 436, 476, 479, 505 — on Jonson's allusions to Shake- speare, 371, 410, 417 — on Shakespeare's learning, iii, 120, 121, 124, 134 — their assertions concluded, by the author, 4 Studies in Shakespeare, Professor Churton Collins's, 7 Sturley, Abraham, of Stratford, 266, 340, 478 Suetonius, 169 — on Terence, 562 Sufflaminandus, meaning of, 386-88 Sullivan, Sir Edward, accuses the author of resting his case on spelling of Shakespeare's name, 336 — his parallel between Shakespeare and Plautus, 294-97 ^ on pre-eminence in literature, 291 — on what Shakespeare saw in nature, 134-36. 513, 514. 517-38, 543 note, 552 note, 557 note — "The Defemers of Shakespeare," I, 2, 196 Surrey, Earl of, 144 Sweet, on pronunciation, 342 Sweeting & Co., publishers, 2 note, 333 note Swinbum, Brief Treatise of Testa- ments and Last Wills, 87 note Swinburne, Algernon, on Hamlet, 154, 155, 157, 441, 442 — on / Henry VI, 26 — on Shakespeare's method of work, 203, 414, 415, 442, 449 Sylvester, Joshua, his handwriting, 322 note, 333 — his translation of Du Bartas, 153 note, 209, 554 INDEX 6ii Ta.ine,\En^lisA Literature, 66, 237 Taming of a Shrew, The, authorship of, z6 note, 439 note Tamingofthe Shrew, The, authorship of.. 4S5. 470, S47. 5SS — evidence of learning in, 296 note — felconry in, 546 — Folio text of, 422 note, 438 and note, 451 Tarlton, Richard, actor, Baker's allusion to, 354 Tasso, Emerson on, 276 —r translations of, 169, 178, 179 Taylor, John, the Water-Poet, his allusion to falconry, 548 note — his classical learning, 145-48, 151, 168-70 Tedder, H. R., on Field, 570 Tempest, The, authorship of, 259, 470 note — evidence of learning in, 120, 127 note, 130-34, 145, 150, 160, i6s — publication of, 438, 440, 451 Temple Gardens, the, 234 Temple Grafton, 192, 193 Tennyson, Lord, his love of nature, 539 — on Bacon, xvi Terence, 188 — supposed parallel between Shake- speare and, 286, 295, 297, 353, 403, 559-62 Terentius Lucanus, 561 Termes de la Ley, 87 note Thackeray, W. M., lo Theoba:ld, Dr., on A Winter's Tale, 164 — Shakespeare Studies in a Baconian Light, 171-74 — The Classical Element in the Shakespeare Plays, xii note Thomas, Dr. , editor of Dugdale, 500 Thomas Lord Cromwell, authorship of, 468 Thompson, Sir Edward Maunde, 265 Three Ladies of London, 172 Thumm - Kintzel, Frau, on Shak- spere's will, 300, 324-27 Thwaites, Edward, 316 Times, The, 471 — Dr. Wallace on Shakespeare, 20 note, 365 — letters on Hamlet in, 178, 179 Times, The, on "Fortunate Shake- speare," 566 — pn Mr. Robertson, ix-xi, 118 — on Shakespeare in the royal train, 484 note — on the Sonnets, 127 — " Seekers after Shakespeare," 33.3 note — Sir J, K. Laughton on Shake- speare's signatures in, 330 note, 347. 348 — Sir S. Lee on Shakespeare in, 1 6 — the author on Shakespeare in, 28 note Timon of Athens, authorship of, 455 — evidence of learning in, 144 — publication of, 438, 452 Titus Andronicus, authorship of, 11, 23, 26 note, 28-32, 233, 355, 455, 466, 470, 555 — date of, 222, 232 — Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps on, 22 — Mr. Lang on, 159 — Mr. Robertson on, 10, II, 28, 149 note, 233 — Professor Collins on, 42, 143 — Professor Saintsbury on, 10 Totness, George Carew, Earl of, 348 Tottell's Precedents, 43 Tournay, 71 Tragedian, significance of the term, 400 note Tragedy of Ccesar, The, authorship of, 26 note Tragedy of Locrine, The, authorship of, 468 Tree, Sir Herbert, 217 note Trevelyan, Sir George, on Stratford monuments, 490 note Treves, Sir Frederick, The Cradle of the Deep, 543 note Trinity College, Cambridge, 175 Troia Britannica, Hey wood's, 460 Trmlus and Cressida, allusions to nature in, 518, 519 — authorship of, 26 note, 162, 450, 452, 455 — evidence of learning in, 161, 162, 165 — quoted, 264,, 396 note Troublesome Raigne of King John, The, date and authorship of, 232, 233 . Troy, siege of, 161 6i2 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM? True Tragedit of Richard Duke of Yorke and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, The, 241, 446 Tubeiville, 144 Twain, Mark, Is Shakespeare Dead?, 345 note Twelfth Night, allusion to handwrit- ing in, 323 — authorship of, 33, 264, 281 — evidence of learning in, 165 — production of, 256-58 — publication of, 314, 438, 440, 451 Twickenham, 551, 554 Two Gentlemen of Verona, The, authorship of, 29-32 — date of, 222, 232 — publication of, 438, 451 Twyne, 144 Tyndale's Erasmus, 174 Tyndall, Professor, 283 Upton, John, Critical Observations on Shakespeare, 167 note Varro, 125 Vasari, Lives of the Painters, 165 VautroUier, Thomas, printer, 201, 568-70 Vegius, M., 144 note Venables, Canon, on Bunyan, 290 note Venus and Adonis, authorship of, xviii, 246 note, 252, 259, 281, 290, 292, 298, 303, 356, 379 note, 432, 448, 456, 462, 464, 470 — date of, 29-33, 141, 168, 178, 179, 202-4, 211, 217, 222, 224, 227 note, 232, 344, 457 — dedication of, 204-7, 218, 341, 342, 345. 356, 358, 456, 478, 479 — early allusions to, 356-58, 360-62 — evidence of learning in, 120, 165, 208-12, 218 — l^al terms in, 95 note, 211 — licensed by Whitgift, 218 note — Mr. Robertson on, 11, 29, 205-7, 212, 223 — observation of nature in, 543 note, 544, 545. 554 — personal element in, 184, 220 — publication of, 569, 570 — quotation re painting from, 396 Vertue, George, his engraving of the bust, 500-3, 505 Verulam. See Bacon, Sir Francis Villiers, Sir John, 18 Vindicators of Shakespeare, The, publication of, 2 — quoted, xvii, 35, 39. 4°. i". 128, 246 note, 261 note, 265 note, 294, 295, 333 note. 465, 570, 574 note — sonnet on, vii Virgil, ^neid, 130-34, 143-46, 209, 287, 288 — Georgics, 554 — his observation of nature, 512 note, 544, 554 — Taylor's allusion to, 169 Virtue & Co. , publishers, 510 note Vocabulary, Shakespeare's, 471-74 Walker, Henry, his house in Black- friars, 327 Walker, William, Shakspere's be- quest to, 301 Walkley, Thomas, publisher, 446 Wallace, Dr. Charles William, his Shakspere discoveries, xix, 20 note, 260-66, 320, 331 note, 333 note, 335, 365-70, 579 Walley, his edition of Jonson's Works, 372 Wallingford, Pennsylvania, xiii Warburton, Dr., on Hamlet, 155 — on Shakespeare's learning, 119, 146 Ward, John, his Company at Strat- ford, 492, 493, 496 Ward, Rev, John, on Shakespeare and Drayton, 48 — on Shakespeare's learning, III, 112 note — on Shakspere's death, 274 — on Shakspere's epitaph, 318 Warner, 130 — his translation of the Menachmi, 137, 138, 142 Warning for Faire Women, A, legal terms in, 102 note, 107-9 Was Shakespeare a Lawyer?, by H. T., 89 Waters, W. G. , his translation of the Pecorone, 91 Waterson, Simon, publisher, 305 Watson, 225 Webb, Judge, on Bacon's observation of nature, 549 note — on Lov^s L^beut's Lost, 227, 232 INDEX 613 Webb, Judge, The Mystery of William Shakespeare, 211 note, 449 note Webster, Daniel, Appius and Virginia, 83, 84 — on Shakespeare, 571, 572 — The Devil's Lam Case, 78-83, 89 Weever, John, his alhision to Shake- speare, 356-58 Weir, Harrison, Poetry of Nature, 534 Welbeck Abbey, 505 Welcombe, Shakspere's land at, 268-71 Westbury, Lord, 96 note Westminster Abbey, 399, 400 Westminster Gazette, F. C. G. on The Taming of the Shrew, 546 — quoted, 341, 505, 567 Westminster School, 225 Whalley, on Shakespeare's learning, 131 note, 145, 146, 17s. 177 Wharton's Law Lexicon, 60, 105 note Whateley, Anna, 192, 193 Wheler Collection, the, 492 Whitaker's Almanac, 484 Whitaker, Dr., on Dugdale, 488 White, Gilbert, Shakespeare compared with, 516, 517, 538 White, Richard Grant, on Richard III, 443 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 5-, 6, 42. 5°. 70, 73 note — on Venus and Adonis, 204 Whitechapel County Court, 75 White Divel, Webster's, 571 Whitehome, Arte of Warrs, 174 Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, 218 note Whitman, Walt, advice of, 11 Whitting, Thomas, 340 Whittingham, editor of Roye, 63 Whittington, Thomas, 253, 254 Wilkins, George, victualler, 262, 265 note William Shakespeare, His Family and Friends, Elton's, 510 note Williams's Real Property, 72 Willis, Judge, his Baconian Mint, 152, 171-74 — Mr. Robertson on, 39 note, 78, 143 note, 171 — on Shakespeare's legal knowledge, 14-16 Willobie his Avisa, allusion to Shakespeare in, 220, 246 note, 344. 456 note, 478 Wilmcote, 185, 377 Wilton, Shakespeare's plays produced at, 66 Wing, Rutland, 222 note Winter, William, Other Days, 469 note Winter's Tale, A, authorship of, 281 — evidence of learning in, 162-65 — Jonson on, 379 and note — legal terms in, 68, 106 — observation of nature in, 541, 551, 552 — publication of, 314, 438, 440, 451 Wislicenus, Professor, on Shake- speare's portrait, 505, 5°6 Wivell, Abraham, Shakespeare's Portraits, 508 Wolsey, Cardinal, 189 Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, 489 note Woolwich, 108 Worcester, Register of, 191-93, 339 note Wordsworth, William, his love of nature, 534, 543 Wright, Aldis, Cambridge editor of Shakespeare, 418 note Wyndham, George, on Shakespeare's learning, 220 note York, Archbishop of, 218 note Yorkshire Tragedy, A, authorship of, 468 Younge, Margaret, 575, 576 Zepheria, legal knowledge in, 44, 45 Zincke, artist, 508 Zutphen, 458 note BY THE SAME AUTHOR. THE SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM RESTATED With a Photogravure Frontispiece Demy 9n)o. 21/- net PRESS OPINIONS. The Observer: "It is purely destructive — the name of Bacon is hardly so much as mentioned — but it sets forth very clearly on how hypothetical a basis a large proportion of our notions about Shakespeare rest. . , . Pestilent heresies or no, his contentions are well worth studyingf, if only because they help to strip the Shakespeare cult of a deal of artificial, and in some cases nonsensical stuff with which it has become en- cumbered." Sunday Times : " I would not deny the almost inconceivable hypotheses which adhesion to the traditional story involves, any more than I would deny that Mr. Greenwood has exposed the weaknesses of the ' Stratfordian ' position with splendid lucidity and cogency." Manchester Guardian: "On the destructive side his book is so strong, that merely to call it the ablest extant argument against the identity of the Stratford-born actor with the author of the poems and plays does not give the full measure of its strength.'' Bristol Times : " Mr. Greenwood does not attempt to solve the problem ; he simply sets out the evidence for and against the claims of William Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, and his verdict, as that of all unprejudiced persons must be, is that the claimant was not, and could not possibly have been, the poet whose works are so justly admired and reverenced by the whole civilised world." JOHN LANE, THE BODLEY HEAD, VIGO STREET, LONDON, W. JOHN LANE COMPANY, NEW YORK. THE SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM RESTATED Wiih a Photogravure Frontispiece Demy 8vo. zij- net PRESS OPINIONS {continued). Star : " It is a tempting and tantalising book, but it is not light reading for the hot weather. It makes you think too hard. It stirs up all sorts of doubts in your mind. It rouses your scepticism and stimulates your incredulity. It spurs you into rebellion against authority. It breeds in you irreverence for literary mandarins." The Academy : " What he means to do, and what he does very well ... is to set out the case against Shakespeare. It is a pretty strong case of course ; it always was." The Bookman : " It is a. book which cannot by any possi- bility be ignored. It is not based upon assertion, but upon argument. It hits hard at accredited ' Stratfordian pundits,' as Mr. Greenwood calls the orthodox, all round. . . . The point is, however, that having entered this book in a spirit of sanctimonious orthodoxy, we have emerged from it sick and sore at heart, our deepest convictions bleeding and battered, for the time being, at any rate, in a hardened, unrepentant, agnostic frame of mind." Athen^um : " He has a difficult task, and he has done it as acutely and as gracefully as he could." Bristol Daily News: "He has performed his task with a minuteness which is beyond praise, especially as it is a task which, from its very nature, must be rather a thankless one." Outlook : " Mr. Greenwood is a lawyer and a scholar ; he has mastered his brief thoroughly and marshalled his evidence cleverly ; and it calls for a tougher article of orthodoxy than we have at command to deny that he makes out a case, even stronger than the cases made out before, for a Shakespeare not at all like the Shakespeare of whom the biographers tell us, " JOHN LANE, THE BODLEY HEAD, VIGO STREET, LONDON, W. JOHN LANE COMPANY, NEW YORK. «? ^ 8* CONSERVATION 19M