{"1": {"fulltext": "if", "height": "2973", "width": "1861", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "If lew. .x-*^\\no X\\na -V c", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "xo\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2^A 1\\nxQ\u00c2\u00b0.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NOT\\nSHAKESPEARE\\nWILLIAM H. EDWARDS\\nAuthor of The Butterflies of North America,\\nA Voyage up the River Amazon, etc.\\nCttitb portraits and \u00e2\u0096\u00a0Fac-similes\\nIvKT EVERY TUB STAND ON ITS OWN BOTTOM\\nApt Proverb\\nCINCINNATI\\nTHE ROBERT CIvARKE COMPANY\\n1900\\ntjciruji 4.\\nn", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "TWO COPIES RECEIVED,\\nLibrary of Ceiigrei%\\nOffice of the\\nUegl\u00c2\u00bbt\u00c2\u00abr of Copyrlgbtf^\\nCopyright, 1900,\\nBY\\nTHE ROBERT CLARKE COMPANY,\\nEntered at Stationers Hall, London.\\nH:RaT COPY,\\n51", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "The life of Shakspere is a fine mystery, and I\\ntremble every day lest something should turn up.\\nChari^ks Dicke;ns.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "INTRODUCTORY.\\nIt is full time that reasonable men should re-exam-\\nine the evidences on which they have beheved that an\\nilliterate butcher, from an ignorant and bookless in-\\nland village, who flew to lyondon in disgrace before\\nthe constable, and became a servitor, and later, a plaj -er\\nat a public theater, the then most degraded place of\\namusement, and who spent the greater part of every\\nyear in strolling through England with his troupe of\\ncomedians, sat himself down, and without preparation\\nor knowledge, dashed off Hamlet, and not only Ham-\\nlet, but nearly two score of the world s greatest plays.\\nThis exploit is so discordant with the facts of the\\nman s life and environment, that his ablest and most\\nauthoritative biographer is obliged to suggest that\\nthese plays were written without effort that is,\\nwithout study or equipment, by inspiration, not by\\ndesign thus making of the Bard of his admiration,\\nas he never wearies of calling him, a species of literary\\nBlind Tom. He certainly did write by inspiration, if\\nhe wrote at all, for in his uninspired moments he pos-\\nsessed not one accomplishment or characteristic that\\nwould help him to the writing of a play of any sort,\\nCv)", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "vi INTRODUCTORY.\\nnot even tlie manual art of writing. Another biogra-\\npher, of high authority, tells us that this man wrote\\nthe plays simply to fill the theater and his own\\npockets not because, as a poet, he was compelled to\\nsing. In the pages to follow, I assert and prove that\\nthe Shakespeare plays were not written for William\\nShaksper s theater, and that no one of them was ever\\nplayed at his theater, except in special scenes, or in\\npantomime; and also that no man, during his lifetime,\\nattributed the plays to William Shaksper, or suspected\\nhim of any authorship whatever. I assert and prove\\nthat, until the issue of the First Folio of the Collected\\nPlays, in 1623, years after the death of William Shak-\\nsper, these plays, singly or collectively, had no repu-\\ntation whatever; that they were not comprehended by\\nthe people, learned or unlearned, of that age; and that\\nthey are but just now, after a lapse of three hundred\\nyears, beginning to be comprehended. The Shaksper\\nmyth originated in the verses of Ben Jonson prefixed\\nto the Folio, written as a paid advertisement, and in\\nthe bitterest ridicule of William Shaksper and the pre-\\ntensions set up for him by the syndicate of publishers:\\nalso in the lying testimony, in the same Folio, which\\nHeminge and Condell, Shaksper s ignorant fellow-\\nplayers, are made by some unknown writer to stand\\nsponsors for. I show that he died as devoid of ac-\\ncomplishments as when he entered I^ondon, ^unknown", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "INTRODUCTORY. vil\\nto any man of letters or of eminence, unnoticed and\\nunlamented. The English speaking world has been\\nhumbugged in this matter long enough, but the labors\\nof Halliwell-Phillipps, of Ingleby, and Furnivall, and\\nFleay, at length enable us to know exactly what Wil-\\nliam Shaksper did do, and what he did not do. He\\nmade, and stuck to, and left behind him, a great heap\\nof money, and that was the sole achievement of his\\nfifty-two years on this planet. Began poor, died\\nrich ^which a Harvard professor, another biographer,\\nthinks was as wonderful a feat as the writing of the\\nShakespeare plays. It is enough for me to prove that\\nWilliam Shaksper did not write these plays. Who\\ndid, I know not, and offer no suggestions; but when\\nthe venerable Shaksper image has tumbled, and the\\ncritics have a little ti,me to clear their eyes of dust and\\ncobwebs, the real authors may be discovered, authors,\\nfor I believe there were several associates who wrote\\nunder the assumed name of William Shakespeare.\\nWii,i iAM H, Kdwards.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS.\\nThe Proposition, i\\nThe; Demonstration, i\\nPART I.\\nI. The Family of William Shaksper,\\nII. As to the House in which John Shaksper Lived\\nIII. The School advantages of. the Boy William,\\nIV. The Youth of William Shaksper,\\nV. Whither?\\nVI. The Life of William on entering London,\\nVII. The Theaters in London,\\nVIII. William Shaksper s Thirst for Wealth,\\nIX. The Testimony of the Plays,\\n7\\ni6\\n20\\n33\\n40\\n49\\n94\\n177\\n193\\nPART II.\\nX. References to Shakespeare, Author or Works, or\\nto the Player, Shaksper, or Shakspere, 259\\nXI. The First Folio, 304\\nXII. Heminge and Condell, 350\\nXIII. The Sonnets, 365\\nXIV. Last years at Stratford, and death of Shaksper, 375\\nXV. That William Shaksper never learned to write, 385\\nXVI. Further evidence of the ignorance of contempo-\\nraries respecting William Shaksper, 413\\nXVII. Absence of allusions to Stratford-on-Avon, or to\\nWarwickshire, m the Plays; the Authors unob-\\nservant of Nature, 430\\nXVIII. Views of the Baynes School, 438\\n(ix)", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS.\\nXIX. Views of the Phillipps School; of Fleay and some\\nother commentators,\\nXX. The Smattering, Picking-tip School,\\nXXI. The Ivikenesses of William Shaksper,\\nXXII. A Suggestion,\\nXXIII. The Summing Up,\\n449\\n453\\n464\\n4S6\\n491", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "I.IST OF II.LUSTRATIONS.\\nPAGE\\nI. Fac-simile of John Shaksper s name, 8\\n2-4. Other styles of same, 8\\n5. Same, with terminal German r, .9\\n6. Another, with open German terminal r, 9\\n7. Same, with terminal e following the German r, 9, 10\\n8. The real boy Shaksper, 26\\n9. Rolfe s notion of boy Shaksper, .27\\n10. William Kemp, Shaksper s Instructor in Comedy, 60\\n11. Richard Tarleton, another clown of same Company, 61\\n12. Interior of the Swan Theater, 1596 .106\\n13. William Shaksper s pretended signature to deed,\\nfrom Malone, 387\\n14. The same, Boston Library version, 390\\n15. The pretended signature to a mortgage, Boston Li-\\nbrary version, 39^\\n16. The five pretended signatures. Deed, Mortgage, and\\nWill, after Drake, .392\\n17. Malone s copy of the three Will signatures, 394\\n18. Same, enlarged, 395\\n19. Second and third of the Will signatures, Boston Li-\\nbrary version, 396\\n20. The letters a, k, s, p, of the three Will signatures,\\nMalone, .398\\n21. The three Will signatures, from Lee, 400\\n22. Fac-simile of the name John Shaksper, 405\\n23. The counterfeit signature of William Shaksper in the\\nFlorio Montaigne, .411\\n24. The Droeshout likeness of William Shaksper, 465\\n25. The Flower Portrait of William Shaksper, 469\\n26. Macmonnies Statue of William Shaksper, 472\\n27. The Stratford Bust, .474\\n28. The Kasselstadt Death Mask of no one knows whom, 482\\n29. Lord Ronald Gower s composition likeness of Will-\\niam Shaksper, at Stratford, 484\\n(xi)", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE,\\nTHE PROPOSITION.\\nThat William Shaksper could not have written the\\nShakespeare poems and plays.\\nIt must either be shown that Bacon did actually\\nwrite them, in which case Shaksper was not their\\nauthor, or that Shakspere could not possibly have written\\nthem, in which case somebody else must have done so.\\nAlfred Russel Wallace, IvX.D., F.R.S., etc., etc., in\\nthe Arena, July, 1893.\\nThe whole case seems to lie in this: that the bur-\\nden of proving that Shakspere did not write the works\\nrests upon those who say he did not write them, and\\nas yet these persons have not submitted an item of\\nproof. Ivistener Boston Transcript, 6th No-\\nvember, 1897.\\nTHE DEMONSTRATION.\\nI propose to show that William Shaksper, often\\ncalled Shakspere, could not possibly have written the\\nworks attributed to him under the name of William\\nShakespeare or Shake-speare in which case, ac-\\ncording to Dr. Wallace, somebody else must have\\ndone so It matters not who that somebody was.\\nThe poems and plays are in evidence that, in the time\\nof Elizabeth and James, there lived one man or several\\nmen who wrote them; but that the man was the player\\nwhose family name was Shaksper and whose name\\nis appended to a deed and a mortgage Shaksper\\nand Shakspar and three times to a will Shaksper", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "5 shaksp:sr not shakb;sp:^ar:^.\\nthere is no evidence; there is nothing but inference,\\nconjecture, unwarranted assumption and baseless\\n(though general) reputation. During his life of fifty-\\ntwo years none of his relations, neighbors, or intimates,\\nand none of his contemporaries, testified that this man\\nwas the author of these works. The story originated\\nafter his death in mockery, and gathered strength as\\nthe years went by, for the simple reason that originally\\nnobody cared for the Shakespeare plays, or who wrote\\nthem. Towards the close of the seventeenth century,\\nwhen all who had known anything of the matter had\\npassed away, the legend received a fresh impetus from\\ncertain antiquarians and story-tellers; and when, two\\ngenerations ago, some one bethought him of looking\\ninto the matter, the whole world was attributing the\\nplays to illiterate William Shaksper. A great deal of\\ninvestigation has been going on during these last\\nyears, and as the result, I undertake to show that the\\npossibilities and facts are all against the Stratford\\nman. I propose also to satisfy the requirement of\\nthe lyistener of the Transcript.\\nI shall ground my arguments largely on citations\\nfrom the 9th (and last) edition of Mr. J. O. Halliwell-\\nPhillipps Outlines of the lyife of Shakespeare, I^on-\\ndon, 1890, and Dr. C. J. Ingleby s Centurie of\\nPrayse 2d edition, edited by Miss I^ucy Toulmin\\nSmith, 1879.\\nMr. F. G. Fleay, one of the most eminent of the\\nShakespearian scholars, says: The documents on\\nwhich the facts of his (William Shaksper s) private\\nlife are founded have been excellently well collected\\nand arranged in the Outlines, etc., by Mr. Phillipps.\\nThis book is a treasure house of documents, and it is", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "the; proposition. 3\\ngreatly to be regretted tliat they are not published by\\nthemselves\\nThe suggestion of Mr. Fleay seems to have been\\nacted on by Mr. Daniel W. Wilder, who in 1893, at\\nBoston, published The lyife of Shakespeare (Shak-\\nsper) compiled from the best sources without Com-\\nment He copies word for word all the facts given\\nby Mr. Phillipps, 8th edition. Mr. Wilder says in his\\npreface: Mr. Phillipps studies embraced the whole\\nfield of our earlier literature. Gradually he\\ncame to concentrate himself upon Shakespeare (Shak-\\nsper) alone, and more particularly upon the facts of\\nhis life The other work, The Centurie of Prayse\\nwith its supplement by Dr. F. J. Furnivall, 1886, is the\\nresult of a painstaking search through all English lit-\\nerature, poets, prose writers, records of every de-\\nscription, from diaries and note books to the records of\\nthe Master of the Revels, (as to the names of the\\nplays supposed to be Shakespeare s acted before the\\ncourt). Private correspondence has everywhere been\\nexamined for a mention of either player Shaksper, or\\nauthor Shakespeare, or allusions to the Shakespeare\\nworks; and all this for a period of one hundred years,\\nbeginning soon after the arrival at London of the\\nplayer, and soon after the first appearance of the\\nShakespeare Plays.\\nEvery mention of either player or author or allusion\\nor reference to works for one hundred years by any-\\nbody which has come down from that age, with two or\\nthree exceptions to be hereafter noted, is given in this\\nvaluable book.\\nI shall also cite Richard Grant White s Memoirs\\nprefixed to his edition of the Complete Works of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "4 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKKSPEJARE).\\nWilliam Shakespeare and the same author s Studies\\nin Shakespeare and Knglan(i Without and Within\\netc.; Drake s Shakespeare and His Times London,\\n1817; J. P. Collier s Life of Shakespeare, and His-\\ntory of the English Stage to the time of Shakespeare\\n1843, New York ed., 1853; Shakespeare s Prede-\\ncessors in the English Drama by J. Addington Sy-\\nmonds, London, 1884; F. G. Fleay s Chronicle His-\\ntory of the Life and Works of William Shakespeare\\nLondon, 1886*; and his Chronicle History of the\\nEnglish Stage 1890; Bishop Wordsworth s Shake-\\nspeare and The Bible 3d Ed., London, 1880; Pro-\\nfessor Barrett Wendell s William Shakspere Bos-\\nton, 1894; Mrs. Dall s, What we really know about\\nShakespeare New York, r895; Ruggles The Plays\\nof Shakespeare founded on Literary Forms Boston,\\n1895; Our English Homer, or Shakespeare His-\\ntorically Considered by Thomas W. White, London,\\n1892; Sidney Lee s Life of William Shakespeare\\nLondon and New York, i8g8; Do wd en s Introduction\\nto Shakespeare New York, 1895; Prof. G. L. Craik s\\nEnglish of Shakespeare, and English Literature and\\nLanguage and Edwin s Reed s Bacon vs. Shake-\\nspere Boston, 1897. Also somewhat from Dr.\\nDoran s Annals of the Stage and from the writings\\nof the Shakespearian editors, Drs. Rolfe and Furni-\\nvall; and rather by way of comment, I shall quote\\nfrom Smith s Bacon and Shakespeare London,\\n1857; Morgan s The Shakespearean Myth 3d ed.,\\nCincinnati, 1888; Donnelly s The Great Crypto-\\nThe first of these books will be referred to as Fleay or\\nFleay, Ufe the other as Fleay, Hist.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "THK PROPOSITION. 5\\ngram Chicago, 1888; and Mrs. Potts Did Francis\\nBacon write Shakespeare? lyondon, 1893.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps is the greatest authority on the\\nsubject of William Shaksper by consent of all Shak-\\nsperians. He was a most indefatigable worker, and\\ndevoted the greater part of his long life and a great\\npart of his fortune to collecting the facts relating to\\nhim of Stratford, under the belief that he was the\\nsame individual as the author Shakespeare, and in\\nsearching for documents to illustrate his life. Conse-\\nquently we know a vast deal about William Shaksper,\\nand about everybody related to him, his grandfather,\\nhis father, his brothers and sisters, his daughters and\\nsons-in-law, and his cousins and his aunts also about\\nStratford-on-Avon. We know of this William from\\nhis boyhood to his departure for I^ondon, and in\\nlyondon and Stratford again to the day of his death\\nand then to his burial. We know of him as a player,\\nas part proprietor of one or more theaters, as poor, and\\nas rich. We have in great detail his business transac-\\ntions, his purchase of lands and houses, his deeds and\\nmortgages, his business of loaning money, his suits at\\nlaw; his trading in various lines, but surprisingly 7ioth-\\ning whatever concerning any literary employment or pro-\\nclivities. A thousand times Mr. Phillipps speaks of\\nhim as the great dramatist or the bard of our ad-\\nmiration Kven in the index he itemizes about the\\ngreat dramatist His two large volumes comprise\\nnine hundred pages, and after all, striking out some\\nfew elegiac verses, or eulogies, from the beginning of\\nthe successive Folio editions of the Shakespeare Plays,\\nfor good and sufficient reasons, (which I shall give in\\ndue time) there is not one line in the whole work that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "6 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARB;.\\nidentifies William Shaksper as the author of the poems\\nand plays not one line. We are made to know about\\nhim in every aspect but that of author, and there his-\\ntory is silent. The biography, therefore, is of no more\\nvalue in the case than would have been that of Robert\\nArden, his grandfather. Mr. Phillipps has carved for\\nhimself an unbeautiful idol, out of a shaky p/ece of\\ntimber, and grovels before it as if he were a Polynesian\\nor a Hindoo. The waste of time and labor shown by\\nhis Outlines is pitiful. However, as most people\\nbelieve, without knowing why, just as Mr. Phillipps\\nbelieved, I have to follow his lead, but before I get\\nthrough I will substantiate my proposition.\\nThe name Shakespeare is quite another etymologi-\\ncally and orthographically from Shagsper, or Shak-\\nspere, or Shaksper, or Shaxpeyr, or Shackysper, or\\nShaxper. It is not in evidence that any author lived\\nin tbe age of Elizabeth whose family and baptismal\\nname was William Shakespeare, or Shake-speare.\\nThere is no such historical man no individual known\\nwho bore that name and the inference is fair that the\\nname as printed upon certain poems and plays was a\\npseudonym, like that of Mark Twain or of George\\nBliot Many conjectures have been ventured as to\\nthe real author, but there have never been proofs, and\\nthe right, even now, in 1900, remains an open ques-\\ntion. Nevertheless, without proof, the authorship has\\nbeen attributed to a player, later a manager in and\\na proprietor of a I^ondon theater, one William Shak-\\nsper, and books innumerable have been written on\\nthe cool assumption that he was the man. Now the\\nexposure of his claim is the object of this writing.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "PART I.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nCHAPTER I.\\nTHE FAMILY OF WILLIAM SHAKSPER.\\nThe family of the player were known to their neigh-\\nbors as Shaksper; that is, the first syllable had the\\nsound of back, the second of per, e short, making\\nShaksper. As no one of them in all their generations\\npreceding the pla5^er had known how to write, there is\\nno evidence from themselves as to the spelling or pro-\\nnunciation of the name. It was written by other\\npersons, however, in a variety of forms, but almost\\nalways expresses the sound Shak-sper. R, G. White\\nhas given thirty of these forms, and other authors\\nhave collected nearly as many more.\\nIn the records of the town council of Stratford, and\\nof the Court of Records, the name is written many\\ntimes. We know this because Halliwell-Phillipps has\\nprinted every mention of John Shaksper which has been\\nfound. In his pages are to be seen Shaksper, Shakys-\\n-per, Shaxper, Shaxpur, Shaxysper, Shexper, Shakis-\\nper, Shakspeyr, Shakgspeyr, Shacksper, Shaxpere,\\nShakspere, Shaksbere, Shakspear, Mr. PhilHpps gives\\nmany fac-similes of the name John Shaksper as writ-\\nten. Also of Mary Shaksper, John s wife, and one of\\n(7)", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "8 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARB.\\nhis uncle, Hary Shaksper. I find the name in these\\nfac-similes thirty-eight times. We have Shakpeyr or\\nShakkspeyr fifteen times. Cut i shows this style of\\nsignature:\\n1.\\nNineteen are Shaksper, Shakysper, some as shown\\nin Cut 2 (the last letter read r by Phillipps):\\n2.\\n4^^yyw i^f^Jf\\nOthers end in the ordinary modern r, as in Cut 3:\\nA variation of the r in 3 is shown in Cut 4, page\\n232. Phillipps reads the name Shakyspere, but it is\\nnothing otherwise than Shakysper:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "THK FAMII^Y of WILI.IAM SHAKSPKR. 9\\nOthers have the terminal r in the German form, as\\nseen in Cut 5, taken from H.-P., 11, 236:\\n5.\\nPhillipps reads this letter as r, but the same letter\\nwritten by a rapid or an inexpert penman, so as to\\nopen and become like a w, as in Cut 6 (11, 239), he\\nreads re:\\n6.\\nThere are a few signatures where the r (like that in\\nCut 3) and e, each distinct, are undoubtedly blended\\ninto one character, but in nearly all cases the final\\nletter is merely an expanded r. If the scrivener de-\\nsired to make re, with a German r, he wrote it as in\\nCut 7 (H.-P., II, 13), each letter distinct:\\n7.\\nAnother fine example of this distinct r and e is seen\\nin H.-P., II, 90. Wherever there is the slightest\\nflourish at the extremity of the r (as, for example.\\nCut 4), Phillipps reads the letter as re, for it would", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "lO SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPKARB.\\nbe painful if the name of the bard of our admira-\\ntion could not be made to end with the two magical\\nletters. But a German r, when made separately, nat-\\nurally carries a flourish at the extremity, as seen in\\nMalone s figure of that letter accompanying his fac-\\nsimile of Shaksper s signature to the deed of 1612,\\nand repeated herein. Chapter XV. Also as seen in\\nCut 8, an enlarged fac-simile of a script r from Wood-\\nberry s Method of Learning the German Lan-\\nguage:\\n8.\\nIt is plain that the German r carries a flourish that\\nhas sometimes been taken for an e.\\nThe use of the German r, we are told, was com-\\nmon among scriveners during the reigns of Elizabeth\\nand James but that it was also used half a century\\nlater can be seen in the fac-simile of John Milton s\\ncontract with Samuel Symons for the sale of the\\nmanuscript of Paradise Lost, given in Pickering s\\nedition of Milton s Works, Vol. i. In this the Ger-\\nman r repeatedly occurs in such words as whereby\\nwhereof and were followed by a distinct e of\\nthe same species as the one which precedes the r in\\nthese same words. Inasmuch as nearly, if not quite\\nall, the mentions of John Shaksper s name occur in\\nthe records, and were therefore written by scriveners,\\nthe larger part of them undoubtedly ending in r, as\\nseen in cuts 1-4, it is to be presumed that these\\nsprawling characters spoken of were intended for r\\nalso. Fifteen of the fac- similes have the first syllable", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "the; family of WIIvIvIAM shaksper. II\\nof the surname Shax. It is evident that John was\\nknown among his neighbors as Shaxper or Shaksper,\\nand nothing else. His son WilHam, therefore, began\\nlife as William Shaksper or Shaxper.\\nR. G. White says The name sometimes appears\\nas Chaksper or Shaksper. It is possible that Shakes-\\npeare is a corruption of some name of a more peaceful\\nmeaning, and therefore perhaps of humbler deriva-\\ntion. Dr. Morgan says The name is supposed to\\nhave been simply Jacques Pierre (John Peter). This\\nShak is the present mispronunciation of Jacques\\nprevalent in Warwickshire.\\nPhillipps, II, 59, prints a letter from Abraham\\nSturley, of Stratford, to Richard Quiney, a towns-\\nman, living in lyondon, 4th November, 1598, asking\\nhis aid in getting some money through our countri-\\nman Mr. Wm. Shak. Shak is not Shake, and the\\nmention shows what the pronunciation of the first\\nsyllable of the player s name was. This sort of ab-\\nbreviation of a surname is not uncommon in our\\nIn all the forms (of the Shaksper name) tabulated by Wise,\\nthe one printed on the title pages of the plays and poems\\nShakespeare does not appear. It is unique. So far as we\\nknow, no person in Stratford, or in any other part of the king-\\ndom, previous to the publication of the Venus and Adonis,\\nwrote it in that way. Iviteiature had an absolute monopoly\\nof it. Reed, 13. In Grecian mythology, Pallas Athene was the\\ngoddess of wisdom, philosophy, poetry and the fine arts. Her\\noriginal name was simply Pallas, a word derived from pellein,\\nsignif jdng to brandish or shake. She was generally represented\\nwith a spear. Athens, the home of the drama, was under the\\nprotection of this Spear-shaker. In our age such a signature\\nwould be understood at once as a pseudonym. Id. 14.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "12 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARK.\\ncountry among English emigrants. In a mining\\nvillage which I lived in, Billy Clatworthy went by the\\nname of Billy Clat Mrs. Cadwallader, Mrs. Cad\\nand Mrs. Shepherd, Mrs. Shep. So, to a Stratford\\nman, William Shaksper was Wm. Shak.\\nWilliam Shaksper was the son of John Shaksper,\\nwho in his younger daj^s had been a tenant of Robert\\nArden, farmer. After Arden s death, John married\\nMary, his daughter, and at an uncertain date removed\\nto Stratford-on-Avon, where he practiced the trade of\\na butcher. H.-P. tells us, I, 35, that for some years\\nsubsequently to this period (his removal) John Shak-\\nsper was a humble tradesman, holding no conspicuous\\nposition in the town Aubrey says that John was a\\nbutcher, and that young William, as he had been told\\nby some of the neighbors, exercised his father s\\ntrade\\nPhillipps, I, 178, says that both families the\\nShakspers and the Ardens ^were really descended\\nfrom obscure English country yeomen and on page\\n55, that nearly every one of the boys connections was\\na farmer Again, on page 38, that both parents\\nwere absolutely illiterate As it was then, so it had\\never been, always peasants or obscure country yeomen.\\nFor years the European world grew upon a single\\ntype, in which the forms of the fathers thought were\\nthe forms of the sons, and the last descendant was\\noccupied in treading into paths the foot-prints of his\\ndistant ancestors. Froude, Hist. Eng., I, i.\\nDr. Johnson asserts that in the time of Shakes-\\npeare, the lower classes were but just emerging from\\nbarbarity", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "Th:^ pamiIvY op wiIvIvIAm shakspeJr. 13\\nThe inventory of Robert Arden s (father to Mary)\\ngoods (H.-P. says he was a farmer and nothing more),\\nwhich was taken shortly after his death, in 1556,\\nenables us to realize the kind of life that was followed\\nby the poet s mother during her girlhood. In the\\ntotal absence of books or means of intellectual educa-\\ntion, her requirements must have been restricted to an\\nexperimental knowledge of matters connected with the\\nfarm.\\nThere can be no doubt that the maiden ^pent most\\nof her time in the homeliest of rustic employments;\\nand it is not impossible she occasionally as-\\nsisted in the more robust occupations of the\\nfield. Existence was passed in her father s\\nhouse in some respects, we should say, rather after\\nthe manner of pigs than of human beings.\\nThere were no table knives, no forks, no crockery.\\nThe food was manipulated on flat pieces of stout wood.\\nThe means of ablution were lamentably defective\\nwhat were called towels were merely for wiping the\\nhands after a meal, and there was not a single wash\\nbasin in the establishment. As for the inmates and\\nother laborers, it was very seldom indeed, if ever, that\\nthe3^ either washed their hands or combed their hair.\\nH.-P., 28.\\nIt is necessary to call attention to these particulars\\nthat the early familiarity of William Shaksper with\\nthe ways and manners of gentlewomen, not to speak\\nof ladies, countesses, duchesses, princesses and queens,\\nmay be estimated. His wife was just such another\\nrustic as his mother, yet a writer in the Atlantic\\nMonthly, for December, 1897, suggests that the wife", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "14 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAKKSPBJARB).\\nserved as raw material to be worked up into Imo-\\ngenes and Rosalinds enchanting creatures\\nA great deal of labor has been expended in an effort\\nto make the Ardens to have been of gentle birth, but so\\nhigh an authority as Dowden is compelled to say:\\nThat these Ardens wxre connected with an ancient\\nfamily of gentle folk of that name has been asserted,\\nand may be true, but the statement cannot be proved\\nStratford then contained about 1800 inhabitants,\\nwho dwelt chiefly in thatched cottages, which\\nstraggled over the ground, etc. The streets were\\nfoul with offal, mud, muck heaps and reeking stable\\nrefuse, the accumulation of which the town ordinances\\nand the infliction of which fines could not prevent,\\neven before the doors of the better sort of people.\\nR. G. White, 21. Cottages of that day in Stratford\\nconsisted of mud walls and a thatched roof. See H.-\\nP., 205.\\nAt this period, and for many generations after-\\nwards, the sanitary condition of the thoroughfares of\\nStratford-on-Avon was simply terrible Streamlets of\\na water power sufficient for the operation of corn mills\\nmeandered through the town. Here and\\nthere small middens were ever in the course of accu-\\nmulation, the receptacles of offal and every species of\\nnastiness. A regulation for the removal of these col-\\nlections to certain specified localities interspersed\\nthrough the borough, and known as common dung-\\nhills, appears to have been the extent of the interfer-\\nence that the authorities ventured or cared to exercise\\nin such matters. Sometimes when the nuisance was\\nthought to be sufficiently flagrant, they made a raid", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "THS FAMIIvY OP WII.I.IAM SHAKSPEJR. 1 5\\non those inhabitants who had suffered their refuse to\\naccumulate largely in the highways. On one of these\\noccasions, in April, 1552, John Shaksper was amerced\\nin the sum of twelve pence for having amassed what was\\nno doubt a conspicuous sterquinariuni before his house\\nin Henley street; and under these unsavory cir-\\ncumstances does the history of the poet s father com-\\nmence in the records of England H.-P., I, 24.\\nGarrick described Stratford-on-Avon a hundred years\\nlater (1769), as the most dirty, unseemly, ill-paved,\\nwretched-looking town in all Britain.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "1 6 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKE;SPB;ARE;.\\nCHAPTER II.\\nAS TO THE HOUSE IN WHICH JOHN SHAKSPER\\nIvIVED.\\nI quote White s England Without and Within,\\np. 526: Of all that I saw connected with his (William\\nShaksper) memory, his house was the most disappoint-\\ning; and more, it was sad, depressing. The house\\nhad recently been restored, and so destroyed. Its\\noutside has an air of newness that is positively of-\\nfensive. All expression of rural antiquity has been\\nscraped and painted, and roofed, and clap-boarded out\\nof it.\\nWithin, however, not much of this smoothing has\\nbeen done. My heart sank within me as I looked\\naround upon the rude, mean dwelling-place of him\\nwho had filled the world with the splendor of his im-\\naginings. It is called a house, and any building in-\\ntended for a dwelling-place is a house; but the interior\\nof this one is hardly that of a rustic cottage; it is\\nalmost that of a hovel, poverty-stricken, squalid, ken-\\nnel-like. A house so cheerless and comfortless I had\\nnot seen in rural England. The poorest, meanest\\nfarm-house that I had ever entered in New England or\\non lyong Island was a more cheerful habitation. And\\namid these sordid surroundings William Shakespeare\\ngrew to manhood. Then for the first time I\\nknew and felt from how low a condition of life Shake-\\npeare had arisen. For his family were not reduced to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "HOUSK IN WHICH JOHN SHAKSPEJR WVKD. 1 7\\nthis; they had risen to it. This was John Shaksper s\\nhome in the days of his brief prosperity.\\nThe upper part of the house, to which you climb by a\\nlittle rude stairway that is hardly good enough for a\\ndecent stable, has been turned into a museum of\\ndoubtful relics and gimcracks, and is made as unlike\\nas possible what it must have been when Shakespeare\\nlived there. There is very little of this museum that\\nis worth attention, but there is one object of some in-\\nterest. It is a letter written to Wm. Shackspere by\\nRichard Quiney, of Stratford, asking for a loan of\\nmoney. This scrap of paper has the distinction of\\nbeing the only existing thing, except his will, that we\\nknow must have been in Shakespeare s hands, for as\\nto the Florio Montaigne, others whose judgment on\\nsuch a point is worth mine ten times over, think, as I\\ndo, that it is a forgery.\\nFurther: To Anne Hathaway s cottage at Shottery\\nI went, taking the path through the fields which\\nShakespeare took too often for his happiness. There\\nis little to be said about this house, which is merely a\\nthatched cottage of the same grade as the house in\\nHenley street in its original condition a picturesque\\nobject in a landscape, but the lowliest sort of human\\nhabitation. I sat upon the settle by the great fire-\\nplace, where the wonderful boy of eighteen was en-\\nsnared by the woman of twenty-six. I could not help\\nbut think of the toil, the wretchedness, the perplexity,\\nand the shame that were born to him beneath that\\nroof. Thus ended my visit to Stratford-on-\\nAvon, where I advise no one to go who would preserve\\nany elevated idea connected with Shakespeare s per-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "1 8 SHASKPER NOT SHAKESPEJARE;.\\nsonality. It was with a sense of mingled\\ngloom and wrong of rightful expectation that I turned\\nmy back upon Stratford-on- Avon.\\n[Mrs. Dall assures her readers that Halliwell-Phil-\\nlipps is the highest authority in all that concerns the\\nlife of William Shakespeare meaning William Shak-\\nsper, of Stratford. Mr. Phillipps tells us that John\\nShaksper and Mary, his wife, were really descended\\nfrom obscure yeomen and that both were absolutely\\nilliterate. Further, that John began life in Stratford\\nas an humble tradesman either a butcher or a wool\\ndealer, or both. Yet Mrs. Dall can say: As to his\\n(William Shaksper s) social station, it was that to\\nwhich New England is indebted for her best citizens\\nfor the Winthrops, the Peabodys, the Rogerses, and\\nLawrences and the Appletons which certainly is\\nmighty hard on the Winthrops, etc. Undoubtedly\\nsome of the men and women who emigrated to New\\nEngland after 1620 were of the station to which John\\nShaksper belonged, absolutel}^ illiterate, obscure yeo-\\nmen, or humble tradesmen, but it was a far cry from\\nthem to the Winthrops and Appletons. One set was\\nat the bottom, the mud sills, the other was the top of\\nthe structure. Dr. lyconard Bacon says: The princi-\\npal planters of Massachusetts were English country\\ngentlemen of no inconsiderable fortune, of enlarged\\nunderstanding improved by liberal education\\nDr. Byington also adds his testimony: The Puri-\\ntans who came to Massachusetts Bay were, for the\\nmost part, in comfortable circumstances at home, with\\ngood education and with good social connections in", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "HOUSi; IN WHICH JOHN SHAKSPER IvIVED. 1 9\\nKngland; and an unusual proportion of them were\\ngraduates from English Universities.\\nMrs. Dall heads her list of authorities for the life of\\nWilliam Shaksper with Charles Knight s Life of\\nShakespeare a work of imagination strictly, built\\nup to suit the man who, he thinks, wrote the Shakes-\\npeare plays, but without one historical fact to sup-\\nport it.]", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "20 SHAKSPEJR NOT shak:^sp:^ars;.\\nCHAPTER III.\\nTHE SCHOOIv ADVANTAGES OF THE BOY WILLIAM.\\nIt must have been about this period, 1568, that\\nShakespeare (Shaksper) entered into the mysteries of\\nthe horn-book and the A, B, C. Although both his\\nparents were absolutely illiterate, they had the sagacity\\nto appreciate the importance of an education for their\\nson, and the poet, somehow or other, was taught to\\nread and write, the necessary preliminaries to admis-\\nsion into the Free Schools. There were few persons in\\nStratford capable of initiating him even into these pre-\\nparatory accomplishments etc. H.-P., I, 38. As a\\nmatter of fact, there is.no proof whatever that William\\never went to any sort of school, or ever learned to\\nread; and as to his illiterate parents having the sagacity\\nto appreciate the importance of his learning, the prob-\\nability is that as became such illiterate people, they\\ncared nothing about it. The Shakspers had got on\\nvery well so far without that accomplishment. Al-\\nthough there is no certain information on the sub-\\nject, it may perhaps be assumed that at this time\\nboys usually entered the free schools at the age of\\nseven. If so, unless its system of instruc-\\ntion differed essentially from that pursued in other\\nestablishments of a similar character, his earliest\\nknowledge of Latin was derived from two well-known\\nbooks of the time, the Accidence and the Senten-\\ntiae Pueriles The best authorities unite in telling us", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "SCHOOI, ADVAN TAGEiS O^ THE^ BOY WIlvWAM. 21\\nthat the poet (z. player Shaksper) imbibed a\\ncertain amount of Latin at school, but that his ac-\\nquaintance with that language was, throughout his\\nlife, of a very limited character. It is not probable\\nthat scholastic learning was ever congenial to his\\ntastes, and it should be recollected that books in most\\nparts of the country were then of very rare occur-\\nrence, lyily s Grammar and a few classical works,\\nchained to the desks of the free schools, were prob-\\nably the only volumes of the kind to be found at\\nStratford-on-Avon. Exclusive of Bibles, Church\\nServices, Psalters and education manuals, there were\\ncertainly not more than two or three dozen books, if\\nso many, in the whole town. The copy of the black-\\nletter English Histor}^, so often depicted as well\\nthumbed by Shakespeare in his father s parlor, never\\nexisted out of the imagination. H.-P., I, 53.\\nThis disposes of Charles Knight s figment: In the\\nhumble home of Shakespeare s boyhood, there was in\\nall probability to be found a thick, squat, folio volume,\\nthen some thirty years printed, in which might be\\nread, What misery, what murder! and what execrable\\nplagues this famous region hath suffered by the divi-\\nsion and dissensions of the renowned houses of I^an-\\ncaster and York This book was Hall s Chronicle.\\nR. G. White says of that school and of boy Shaksper:\\nHe could have learned I^atin, and some Greek; some\\nEnglish, too, but not much, for English was held in\\nscorn by the scholars of those days, and long after\\nDr. Morgan says: Children in those days were put at\\ntheir kic, hcec, hoc, at an age when we send them to the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "22 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPEIAR:^.\\nkindergarten. But no master ever dreamed of drilling\\nthem in their own vernacular.\\nA maximum of caning and a minimum of parrot-\\nwork in desultory Latin paradigms, which, whether\\nwrong or right, were of no consequence whatever\\nto anybody, was the village idea of a boy s edu-\\ncation in England for long centuries, easily inclusive\\nof the years within which William Shakspeare lived\\nand died. The greatest scholars of those centuries\\neither educated themselves, or by learned parents were\\nguided to the sources of human intelligence and ex-\\nperience. At any rate, they drew nothing out of the\\ncountry grammar schools.\\nThat William Shaksper attended the free school at\\nStratford, or any other school, is a conjecture on the\\npart of his biographers. The common people of En-\\ngland at that period, and all through the reign of\\nElizabeth, were illiterate, gross and dark in the\\nwords of Dr. Johnson. In his preface to Shake-\\nspeare, 1765, Dr. Johnson asserts that in the time of\\nShakespeare, to be able to read and write, outside\\nof professed scholars, or men and women of high rank,\\nwas an accomplishment still valued for its rarity.\\nWhat writing was necessary for such people, letters.\\nThe annual charge on the town of Stratford for support of\\nits grammar schools was, in 1568, ^20.13; ^20 of which was for\\nthe salary of the master and his assistants. The pay of the su-\\nperintendent was eight pence or at the rate of one-sixth of a\\npenny a week. These figures seem to suggest that the grammar\\nschool could not have been on the extensive scale which is predi-\\ncated for it on the intellectual output of one of its pupils.\\nMorgan, A Study, etc.. 4th Ed., p. 440.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "SCHOOI. ADVANTAGES OF THE BOY W1I.LIAM. 23\\naccounts or other, was done by a professional class,\\nthe scriveners. Mr. Phillipps, I, 33, tells us that in\\nMarch, 1565, John Shaksper, with the assistance of\\nhis former colleague in the same office, made up the\\naccounts of the Chamberlains of the borough for the\\nyear. Neither of these worthies could even write\\ntheir own names; but nearly all tradesmen reckoned\\nwith counters, the results on important occasions being\\nentered by professional scriveners. Of nineteen al-\\ndermen and burgesses of Stratford-on-Avon, only six\\ncould write their names. (See fac-simile in H.-P., I,\\n40.)\\nlyce asserts, 5, that when attesting documents he\\n(John Shaksper) occasionally made his mark, but there\\nis evidence in the Stratford archives that he could write\\nwith facility.\\nMr. Lee must claim for John the various copies of\\nhis name contained in H.-P., and of which I have be-\\nfore given several examples. If so, John had as won-\\nderful a handwriting as his son William, whose name\\nis never written twice in the same style. A man who\\ncan write does not use a mark in place of his name in\\nattesting documents, or at all.\\nHalli well- Phillipps personally investigated all the\\naccessible records of Stratford for the period of John\\nShaksper s residence in that town, and in his volumes\\nhas given fac-similes of every mention of John s\\nname, often with a good deal of the context. He de-\\nclares positively that John could not write, and that\\nhe made his signature with a mark.* Unless Mr. I^ee\\nThere is no reasonable pretense for assuming that, in the\\ntime of John Shakespeare, whatever may have been the case at", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "24 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAKBSPB)ARE.\\nproduces satisfactory evidence to the contrary some-\\nthing more than his own mere dictum John must be\\nheld to have been an iUiterate.\\nIn 1894, Dr. Rolfe ran a series of four papers through\\nthe pages of the Youth s Companion for the in-\\nstruction of American young people, entitled Shake-\\nspeare, the Boy handsomely illustrated. Of course,\\nas no particulars whatever have come down to this age\\nrespecting the boy William Shaksper, except the date\\nof his baptism, in the Stratford church register, every\\nword of Dr. Rolfe s account is spun from his own im-\\nagination, and it consists of what Mr. Fleay calls\\nfanciful might-have-beens\\nNo. I sets off with a cut of a finely dressed boy of\\neight or nine years, hands in jacket pocket, chin in air,\\napparently posing as one absorbed in contemplation of\\nnature. The adjacent text describes at some length\\nthe beautiful scenery of Warwickshire. Dr. Rolfe\\nthinks the boy s delight in out-door life (because the\\nplays show that the author of them delighted in that)\\nmay have been intensified by the experience of the\\nhouse in Henley street, with the reeking pile of filth\\nat the front door the sterquinarium we have before\\nheard of. His poetry is everywhere full of beauty\\nand fragrance of the flowers that bloom in and about\\nearlier periods, it was the practice for marks to be used by those\\nwho were capable of signing their names. No instance of the\\nkind has ever been discovered among the numerous records of\\nhis era that are preserved at Stratford-on-Avon, while even a\\nfew rare examples in other districts, if such are to be found,\\nwould be insufficient to countenance a theory that he was able\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2to write. All the known instances point in the opposite direc-\\ntion. H-P. II, 369.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "SCHOOI. ADVAN l AG:eS OI^ tHE) BOY WILWAM. 25\\nStratford; and the wonderful accuracy of his allusions\\nto them shows how thoroughly at home he\\nwas with them, how intensely he loved and studied\\nthem. I notice in passing that the worshipers of the\\nStratford man find it convenient to overlook the fact\\nthat the flowers which bloom in and around Strat-\\nford bloom as well in all the shires of Southern Eng-\\nland, These facts do not prove that he (Shaksper)\\nwas ever a botanist or a gardener. Neither are his\\nnumerous allusions to wild flowers and plants, not one\\nof which appears to be peculiar to Warwickshire, evi-\\ndences H.-P., I, 136.\\nNo. 2 describes a grammar school of that day any\\none and gives cuts of the ancient school room of\\nStratford, and a horn-book. Dr. Rolfe thinks this\\nboy went to school when he was seven years old and\\nleft at thirteen, but it is all conjecture, as I have\\nalready said. How William liked going to school\\nwe do not know, but if we are to judge from his refer-\\nences to school boys and school masters, he had little\\ntaste for it. As Jonson says, Shakespeare had little\\nLatin and less Greek (This little Latin does not\\napply very well to the boy who came in manhood to\\nbe the author of the Shakespeare plays, for he was a\\nprofound Latin scholar, as the plays themselves bear\\nwitness, but it will do as applied to the boy Shaksper.\\nNos. 3 and 4 describe the life of a well brought up\\nboy, son of a nobleman or gentleman, and the games\\nand pastimes of boys in general; and a cut is given of\\nan ideal Henley street, swept and garnished, with half\\na dozen nicely dressed boys at play, in spruce jackets\\nand turned down linen collars, their faces washed and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "26 SHAKSPE^R NO f SHAKB;SP:eAR:^.\\nnoses clean. Needless to say, boy William Shaksper\\ncould not have appeared in that garb, any more than\\nfilthy Henley street could have shone with cleanliness.\\nThe real boys in 1574, one and all, must have been\\ngutter-snipes, in smock frocks and fustian breeches.\\nI present a cut of the Stratford boy of that age, very\\nlikely William Shaksper himself. What makes me\\nthink it is the real William is that he seems to be an-\\nticipating his career as a jig dancer, under the instruc-\\ntion of Kempe, to be hereafter spoken of. He does\\nnot look as if he would develop into the bard of our\\nadmiration.\\nIn 1896, Dr. Rolfe published a volume of upwards\\nof 200 pages, with the same title, Shakespeare the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "SCHOOIv ADVANTAGES OP THK BOY WILI.IAM. 27\\nBoy made up from the Youth s Companion papers,\\nextended and padded immensely. On the cover\\nand also within are the bogus arms of John Shake-\\nspeare, which were applied for by player William on\\ntwo several occasions, under cover of his father s name,\\nwith a vast deal of lying, but which were never granted\\nto either John Shaksper or William. The meaning of\\nthese (bogus) arms of the father on and in this book,\\nis to make it evident that the boy William came of a\\nrace of gentlemen, and was brought up as the son of a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "28 SHAKSPi^R NOT SHAKiBSPBARE;.\\ngentleman. The frontispiece represents a beautiful\\nboy of eight or nine years, with a face that never could\\nhave grown into the vacuous one of the Droeshout por-\\ntrait, the only authentic likeness of William Shaksper,\\nand dressed like a young nobleman. I copy this re-\\nmarkable picture, w^hich apparently has been composed\\nfrom the likenesses of John Milton and Philip Sydney.\\n(See cut, preceding page.\\nDress in the sixteenth century, and the centuries\\nbefore that, was the symbol of rank and for the\\nson of a humble tradesman to be decked in the style\\nof Rolfe s boy was impossible, and no one knows this\\nbetter than the learned Doctor himself.\\nIn another picture this young person is portrayed as\\nstanding by the Avon, fishing-pole in hand, not as a\\nStratford fishing boy, breeches soiled and mouth full\\nof worms, but like a gentleman, in full dress, even to\\ntrunk hose ^in fact a i2mo edition of the great Earl\\nof Leicester.\\nThe text is as misleading as the plates. To quote\\nthe fancies of Charles Knight s mischievously fertile\\nimagination borrowing one of Mr. Fleay s phrases\\nagain, as fact, when Dr. Rolfe knows, none better,\\nthat there is not a particle of fact in them, any more\\nthan in the fancies of Sinbad the Sailor, how shall it\\nbe characterized? Hear him: He had says this\\ngenial biographer, a copy well-thumbed from his\\nfirst reading days of The Palace of Pleasure, by\\nWilliam Paynter. In this work was set forth the\\nWiien a boy, Milton was remarkable for beauty, delicate\\ncomplexion, clear blue eyes, and light-brown bair flowing down\\nhis shoulders. That is the little man Rolfe has captured.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "SCHOOI, ADVANTAGKS OF THJ^ BOY WIIvLIAM. 29\\ngreat valiance of noble gentlemen etc. Pleasant\\nlittle apothegms and short fables were there in the\\nbook which the brothers and sisters of William Shake-\\nspear (Shaksper) had heard him tell with marvelous\\nspirit. There was another collection too, which that\\nyouth had diligently read the Gesta Romanorum,\\nold legends, etc., etc. But beyond these our\\nMammilius had many a tale of spirits and gob-\\nlins, etc. But the youth had met with the his-\\ntory of the murder of Duncan, the King of Scot-\\nland, in a chronicle older than Holinshed, etc., ad\\nnauseam. All this in the face of the declarations of\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, whom Dr. Rolfe, p. 217, speaks of\\nas one of the most careful and conservative critics, and\\nwho is styled by nearly all of the modern commenta-\\ntors or biographers, the one great authority for the\\nfacts of William Shaksper s life. Wherein do such\\nmisrepresentations of the facts of William Shaksper s\\nboyhood differ from the Ireland forgeries, and the\\nCollier frauds!\\nJohn Shaksper, after his marriage, speculated in\\nwool, and dealt in corn and other articles. H.-P. I,\\n30. Notwithstanding his inability to read and write,\\nhe had more or less capacity for business, which, as\\nwe shall see, his son William inherited, manifesting it\\nin a greatly increased degree. John was expert at\\nreckoning with counters Mr. Phillipps says, I, 33,\\nand was able to make up the accounts of the Chamber-\\nlains of the borough He came in time to fill everj^\\nofl ce in his town from ale-taster and constable, to\\nchamberlain, alderman and bailiff, the last highest of\\nall, with limited magisterial powers. In a village of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "30 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKEJSPSARS.\\npoor cottagers, all alike illiterate, he doubtless sur-\\npassed his neighbors in business faculty. Among the\\nblind the one-eyed man is king. At any rate he\\nshowed a willingness to serve the public; but he some-\\nhow so managed his private affairs, that he soon ran\\nthrough what little property himself and his wife had.\\nHe seems also to have been a man fond of litigation,\\nanother trait his son William inherited. But John\\nhad his pain from this source as well as his pleasure.\\nHis name is very often on the court records, gaining\\nand losing suits H.-P., H, 217, et seq. This was\\nas early as 1558. But on June 19, 1576, the return\\nmade to a suit to distrain goods on his land was that\\nhe had nothing that could be distrained. On March\\n29, 1577, he produced a writ of habeas corpus in the\\nStratford court of record, which showed that he had\\nbeen in custody or prison, probably for debt. Furni-\\nvall, preface to the lycopold Shakespeare. In 1592,\\nhe was one of nine persons who came not to church\\nfor fear of prison for debt. H.-P,, II, 146.\\nAt the time of the habeas corpus matter, the boy\\nWilliam was thirteen years old. H.-P., 5, says: In\\nall probability, he (John) removed the future drama-\\ntist from school when the latter was about thirteen\\nand on p. 56, we are told that, the defective classical\\neducation of the poet (z. e. of player Shaksper) was\\nreally owing to his being removed from school before\\nthe usual age, his father requiring his assistance in one\\nof the branches of the Henley street business.\\nId, 32.\\nAt Stratford-on-Avon, the guide shows to the ad-\\nmiring stranger the very desk at which boy William", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "SCHOOIv ADVANTAGEJS OF THE) BOY WII.I.IAM. 3 1\\nStudied. I read in a recent paper: Of the few\\ngenuine relics of Sliakspere preserved in his native\\ntown, the most interesting are his signet ring and the\\ndesk at which he sat in the grammar school.\\nPer contra, Dr. Rolfe, in the Youth s Companion\\npapers before quoted, on describing the school-room,\\nsays: A desk, said with no authority whatever, to\\nhave been used by Shakspere, is preserved in the\\nHenley street house.\\nWilliam Winter, Shakespeare s England, ed.\\n1896, p. 137, says of this ring: Here likewise is\\nshown a gold seal ring found many years ago in a\\nfield near Stratford Church, on which delicately en-\\ngraved appear the letters W. S. It may have belonged\\nto Shakespeare. The conjecture is that it did.\\nThe question is pertinent, who had that ring made\\nand threw it into the field There are so many for-\\ngeries in the cause of William Shaksper, that authen-\\ntication is called for, as well in the case of rings as of\\nportraits, signatures, letters, etc. The rule is never\\nto trust an unauthenticated assertion concerning Wil-\\nliam Shaksper made by one of his devotees.\\nWhatever the boy may have learned at school, if he\\nreally went to school, he did not learn to write his own\\nname, as I shall hereinafter show (Chap. XVI).\\nThat William Shaksper, player, manager, proprietor\\nof a theater, and active business man, could at any\\nGerald Massey, The Secret Drama of the Shakespeare\\nSonnets, 1888, p. 86, has no doubt as to this ring. It is a\\nfact still more interesting that the seal-ring of Shakespeare, now\\npreserved at Stratford, the seal he used to seal his letters with,\\nehows the true lover s knot entwining about his initials, W. S,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "3? SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\ntime in his life use a pen at all, is more than doubtful.\\nWhatever writing was necessary must have been done\\nfor him bj- other hands. That need not be surprising.\\nWriting as we have seen was at that period a rare ac-\\ncomplishment, one rarely found among the class to\\nwhich William Shaksper belonged. John Shaksper\\nwas innocent of the art, and yet he filled successively\\nall the ofl ces of the town of Stratford, made up the\\ntown accounts, and performed the duties of a magis-\\ntrate. His writing was done by him by official clerks\\nscriveners.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "the; youth of wii,l,iam shakspkr. 33\\nCHAPTER IV.\\nTHE YOUTH OF WII.I.IAM SHAKSPER.\\nAll that can be prudently said is that the inclina-.\\ntion of the testimonies leans toward the belief that John\\nShakspere eventually apprenticed his eldest son to a\\nbutcher. H.-P., I, 57. The Stratford tradition,\\nfirst mentioned by Aubrey (about 1680), was, that\\nWilliam s father was a Butcher, and I have been told\\nheretofore by some of the neighbors, that when he was\\na boy he exercised his father s Trade, but when he\\nkill d a Calfe he would do it in a high style, and make\\na Speech. There was at that time another Butcher s\\nson in this towne that was held not at all inferior to\\nhim for a natural witt, his acquaintance and coetanean,\\nbut dyed young Ingleby, 383. On this and the\\nrest of Aubrey s account (relating to a later period),\\nH.-P. says, preface: Very meagre, indeed, are the\\nfragments of information to be safely collected from\\nAubrey, but every word in the next traditional narra-\\ntive is to be received with respect as a faithful record\\nof the local belief. That account is preserved in min-\\nutes respecting Shakespeare (Shaksper) which were\\ncompiled by a traveler who paid a visit to the Church\\nof Stratford-on-Avon in the year 1693. His inform-\\nant was one William Castle, then the parish clerk and\\nsexton, a person who could have had no motive for\\ndeception in such matters The account spoken of\\nis found in a letter from the Rev. Mr. Dowdall to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "34 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEARB.\\nEdw. Southwell, and the original was in Halliwell-\\nPhillipps possession. It is dated April lo, 1693, and\\nruns as follows Ingleby ,417): The first remarkable\\nplace in this County that I visited was Stratford super\\nAvon, where I saw the effigies of our English trage-\\ndian, Mr. Shakespeare. The clerk that showed\\nme this church is above 80 years old; he says that this\\nShakespear was formerly in this town bound appren-\\ntice to a butcher, but that he ran from his master to\\nLondon, and was there received into the playhouse as\\na servitour, and by this means had an opportunity to\\nbe what he afterwards proved. He was the best of\\nhis family, etc.\\nPhillipps says (I, 53): The tradition reported by\\nthe parish clerk in 1693 is the only known evidence of\\nShakespeare s having been an apprentice, but his as-\\nsertion that the poet commenced his practical life as a\\nbutcher is supported by the earlier testimony of\\nAubrey This clerk, above 80 years old in 1693,\\nwas a child when William Shaksper died, 161 6; and,\\nliving in the parish, of course he had known hundreds\\nof men and women who were personally acquainted\\nwith the player, boy and man. The phenomenal\\nShaksper, who ran away in poverty, and who returned\\nto Stratford the richest man of the town, would be the\\nsubject of wonder and gossip in Stratford, not only so\\nlong as he lived, but so long as any one lived there\\nwho had known him, or so long as any of his de-\\nscendants lived there. The clerk s testimony, there-\\nfore, is of the utmost importance, and exceeds in value-\\nthat of any other individual of whom the books speak\\nin connection with the history of young William", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "the; you Th op wii.i.iam shaksper. 35\\nSliaksper. He is an unimpeachable witness; his in-\\ntelligence and respectability are vouched for by his\\nofl cial position.\\nMr. Dowdall does not speak of Mr. Shakspere, the\\nauthor of certain famous poems and plays, but the\\ntragedian the player and plainly the clerk knew\\nShaksper simply as a player and rich man.\\nThere is no getting rid of the butcher business,\\nthough it is very distasteful to the Shaksperians.\\nBetterton, in the middle of the seventeenth century\\n(who posed as a natural son of player Shaksper, with-\\nout the least authority, the commentators agree), gave\\nout that the boy Shaksper was brought up in the wool\\nbusiness, a thing he personally knew nothing about.\\nBut the testimony of the parish clerk, taken together\\nwith that of Aubrey, settles the matter. Boy Shak-\\nsper was brought up as a butcher.\\nAlthough the information at present accessible does\\nnot enable us to determine the exact nature of Shakes-\\npeare s (Shaksper s) occupations from his fourteenth\\nyear to his eighteenth, that is to say, from 1577 to\\n1582, there can be no doubt that he was mercifully re-\\nleased from what, to a spirit like his, must have been\\nthe deleterious monotony of a school education.\\nWhether he passed those years as a butcher or a wool\\ndealer does not greatly matter H.-P., I, 58. And\\nthis author goes on to say that in either capacity he\\nwas acquiring a more perfect knowledge of the world\\nand human nature than could have been derived from\\na study of the classics. According to the traditions,\\nhe sowed wild oats extensively in those years, and no", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "36 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEARE).\\ndoubt did reap some knowledge of the Stratford world\\nand Stratford human nature.\\nMr. Phillipps proceeds (6i): It was the usual\\ncustom at Stratford for apprentices to be bound either\\nfor seven or ten years, so that if Shakespeare (Shak-\\nsper) were one of them, it is not likely that he was out\\nof his articles at the time of his marriage, which took\\nplace in 1582.\\nlyittle schooling, perhaps none; illiterate family, bo-\\nvine neighbors; bookless town; the five best years of\\nhis life devoted to getting a knowledge of the world\\nand of human nature as a butcher, a more perfect\\nknowledge, Phillipps thinks, than could have been de-\\nrived from a study of the classics, no wonder this\\nyouth speedily came to grief.\\nHis marriage took place 28th November, 1582, when\\nhe was 18 years old: married to Ann Whately, age 27.\\nThe day before, or on 27th November, in the Con-\\nsistory Court, at Worcester, in the Marriage Register,\\nthere is an entry in these terms: 1582, Nov. 27th,\\nWilliam Shaxper and Ann Whateley, of Temple\\nGrafton; and on the 28th, a bond is given to the\\nBishop of Worcester to hold him harmless for licens-\\ning, etc. the marriage of William Shagspere and Ann\\nHathaway. Donnelly, 829. Mr. Donnelly gives a\\nplausible explanation of the mystery: Ann had\\nbeen married to one Whately, and when the bride her-\\nself gave her name for the marriage license, 27th No-\\nvember, she gave it correctly, and she was married by\\nthat name; but the next day, when her farmer friends\\nwere called upon to furnish the bond, they gave the\\nlawyer who drew it the name by which, in the careless", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "the; youth Olf WII.LIAM SHAKSPKR. 37\\nfashion of such people, she was generally known\\nTheir first child was born within six months after, and\\ntwin children were baptized 1585, 2d July. Some\\nbiographers have taken the ground that the smart\\nyoung woman of twenty-six entrapped the boy of\\neighteen into this match, but I fancy that\\nthe boy himself would have disdained to urge any such\\nexcuse for his conduct. William Shaksper at eighteen\\nwas not the guileless and unsophisticated country\\nyouth that the theor}^ assumes; and I suspect that he\\nwas more to blame for the hurried match than was\\nAnn Hathaway. Dr. W. J. Rolfe, Ladies Home\\nJournal, XII, No. 4, p. 2, 1895 (paper on Mrs. Shak-\\nspere). The fact undoubtedly was that this lad of\\nspirit having, as Phillipps suggests, been engaged in\\nacquiring a knowledge of the world and of human na-\\nture, when he should have been at his books, had\\ndeveloped into a Stratford Lothario,\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a homespun Don\\nJuan.\\nThe general tradition among the rustics of the\\nneighborhood was that the poet was wild in his\\nyounger days H.-P., I, 71.\\nThree or four years after his union with Ann\\nHathaway (Whately), he had, obseryes Rowe, by a\\nmisfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen\\ninto ill company; and amongst them some that made\\na frequent practice of deer-stealing engaged him with\\nthem more than once in robbing a park that belonged to\\nSir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote, near Stratford. For\\nthis he was prosecuted by this gentleman, etc.\\nit redoubled the prosecution against him to that degree\\nthat he was obliged to leave his business and family", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "38 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPSARi;.\\nfor some time, and shelter himself in I^ondon H. -P.\\nI, 67. In plain English, he deserted his wife and\\nbabies, and it was many a long year before he came\\nback to them.\\nAnother version of the narrative has been recorded\\nby Archdeacon Davies, who was the vicar of Sapperton,\\nin the neighboring county of Gloucester, and who\\ndied there in the year 1708 or ninety- two years after\\nthe death of the player. According to this author-\\nity, the future great dramatist was much given to all\\nunluckiness in stealing venison and rabbits, particularly\\nfrom Sir William Lucy, who had him oft whipped, and\\nsometimes imprisoned, and at last made him fly his\\nnative country to his great advancement It\\nis evident therefore from the independent testimonies\\nof Rowe and Davies that the deer-stealing history\\nwas accepted in the poet s native town, and in the\\nneighborhood during the latter part of the seventeenth\\ncentury. That it has a solid basis of fact cannot admit\\nof a reasonable doubt. The impressive story\\nof the penniless fugitive who afterwards became a\\nleading inhabitant of Stratford, and the owner of New\\nPlace, was one likely to be handed down with passable\\nfidelity to the grandchildren of his contemporaries\\nH.-P. I, 69.\\nThat he was also nearly, if not quite moneyless, is\\nto be inferred from tradition, the latter supported by\\nthe ascertained facts of the adverse circumstances of\\nhis father at the time rendering it impossible for him\\nto have received effectual assistance from his parents;\\nnor is there any reason for believing that he was likely", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "^thb; youth of wiIvWAm shaksper. 39\\nto have obtained substantial aid from the relatives of\\nhis wife Id. I, 79.\\nHis father was bankrupt; his own family rapidly\\nincreasing; his home was dirty, bookless and miser-\\nable; his companions degraded; his pursuits low; he\\nhad been whipped and imprisoned, and he fled penni-\\nless to the great city. Donnelly, 40.\\nA bright young fellow, of scanty education and in-\\ndifferent morals. He has seen all he cares to of pov-\\nerty and its attendant miseries, and if he can find any-\\nthing to turn his hand to, he will strive for money.\\nThat is the goal he has set his heart on, and it will be\\nfound he reaches it money, heaps of it.\\nIt was natural that the poet (Shaksper), having\\nnot only himself bitterly felt the want of resources not\\nso many years previously, but seen so much incon-\\nvenience arising from a similar deficiency in his fa-\\nther s household, should now be determined to avoid\\nthe chance of a recurrence of the infliction. H.-P.\\nI, 163.\\nWendell says, 423: The son of a ruined country\\ntradesman, and saddled with a wife and three children,\\nhis business at twenty-three was to conduct his life\\nso that he might end it, not as a laborer, but as a gen-\\ntleman. After five and twenty years of steady work,\\nthis end had been accomplished. Accomplished, as\\nto the money getting, but as to the gentleman\\nthat is another matter.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "40 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARE).\\nCHAPTER V.\\nWHITHER?\\nIn view of the history of the boy and young man\\nto his twenty-second year, as gathered from the most\\npainstaking and trustworthy Shaksperean authorities,\\nlet us see if we can make out the sort of individual lie\\nnecessarily must have been.\\nWe have seen that the hereditary set of the brain\\nin the Shaksper family was in any direction but that\\nof mental cultivation; that they were a line of illite-\\nrate peasants, or at best inferior yeomen, the last mem-\\nber of it a humble tradesman; en masse, unable to\\nread and write, and therefore without book knowl-\\nedge.\\nWe are told by Phillipps that the population of\\nStratford was a conversational and stagnant one;\\nthat the large majority of the inhabitants had never\\nin their lives traveled beyond twenty or thirty miles\\nfrom their homes that outside bibles, and the few\\nelementary Latin books, there were not more than two\\nor three dozen books in the town We know that the\\nonly language spoken and heard was the limited patois\\nof Warwickshire, as unintelligible to a Londoner as\\nthat of Yorkshire or Dorsetshire; we have seen the\\nsqualid environment in which the boy was born and\\nreared; the narrow limits of his schooling, if there\\nwas any schooling at all; we have seen the butcher s\\napprentice and learned of his disorderly habits; of his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "whithe;r 41\\nearly and discreditable marriage, whicli insured his\\npoverty, and bound him to evil companions, and to\\nuntoward conditions of every sort; and, finally, of\\nhis flight before the constable to London. In the\\nnext chapter we shall discover that on reaching Lon-\\ndon, he was at once attracted towards the public the-\\nater, the vilest place of amusement, and soon after\\nassociated himself with the players, who, in that age,\\nwere regarded as disreputable, and by the law were\\nheld to be no better than rogues and vagabonds, and who\\nspent the greater part of every year in strolling through\\nEngland. What must be the future, intellectually\\nand morally, of a boy and youth so reared and at last\\nsunk into that sort of companionship?\\nDr. Holmes tells us that a child s training begins a\\nhundred years before he is born; Herbert Spencer,\\nthat the great man is a resultant of an enormous ag-\\ngregate of forces that have been co-operating for\\nages that we need not expect the child to be radi-\\ncally different from the parents, a mathematician from\\none who has no sense of numbers, or a poet from one\\nwho has no ideality in his composition.\\nGalton begins his volume on heredity with the\\nwords: I propose to show that a man s natural abili-\\nties are derived by inheritance. He tells us that\\nability in the long run does not start into existence\\nand disappear with equal abruptness, but rather it\\nrises on a gradual and regular curve out of the ordi-\\nnary level of family life\\nWhatever may be the natural capacity the future\\nof the child in youth will be determined by the influ-\\nences which surround him from the cradle onward.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "42 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nOr, as Carlyle puts it, early culture and nurture de-\\ncide whether there shall be a doddered, dwarf bush,\\nor a high towering, wide-spreading tree. And again,\\nThe history of a man s childhood is the description\\nof his parents and environment\\nDr. Weisman declares of musical genius, that with-\\nout early stimulus, and a constant opportunity of hear-\\ning and being instructed in the highest music, even\\nthe greatest genius must remain undeveloped This\\nis as true of literature as of music; no matter what\\nthe natural capacity may be, if there is no early stim-\\nulus, no reading of books, no training, no contact with\\nintellectual and cultivated people, the mind will and\\nmust necessarily remain undeveloped.\\nDoes it look as if the capitalized experience of the\\ntribe of Shaksper was of a character and volume to\\nmake this underling at the public theater become the\\nflower of the English race, a prodigy of learning ac-\\nquired from books, as well as knowledge from obser-\\nvation and wisdom by introspection; the best head in\\nthe Universe according to Emerson; the fullest\\nhead of which there is any record according to\\nLowell; the greatest of England s poets. The thing\\nis absolutely impossible. No child in the world s his-\\ntory, with such antecedents and with such conditions,\\nthe formative period of his life lost, intellectual facts\\nand habits not acquired before manhood, ever did\\nblossom forth as a great poet or prose writer, or liter-\\nary man of any mark whatever. Youth is the only\\nperiod in which intellectual habits can be formed; and\\nthat wasted, there is no remedy. Shakespeare tells\\nus:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "WHITHKR 43\\nThis Horning, like the spirit of a youth\\nThat means to be of note, begins betimes\\nWhoever heard of William Shaksper, in his irre-\\npressible ardor for learning, as out of bed at night\\nstudying by candle light, or by the kitchen fire, like\\nAbraham Lincoln; or up in the early morning, poring\\nover his books? There were no books, the town was\\nbookless. A bookless neighborhood! The future of\\nthe boy may be predicted from those two words. He\\nmay become a successful business man, a rich man, for\\nhe shares the faculty of accumulation with rats and\\nrodents, magpies and crows, and besides he has inher-\\nited what business capacity his father and grandfather\\nwere possessed of, but a literary man of mark, never!\\nNo matter how poor I am if the writers\\nwill enter and take up their abode under my roof\\nI shall not want for intellectual companion-\\nship, and I may become a cultivated man. But to\\nthe unlettered boy in a bookless neighborhood, there\\nis no such future. The converse of Dr. Channing s\\nproposition is true: If the writers do not enter, etc., I\\nmay not become a cultivated man. Burns had humble\\nbeginnings, and his case has been said to run on all\\nfours with William Shaksper s. But that is a mis-\\ntake. Burns was taught English well, and by the\\ntime he was ten or twelve years of age, he was a critic\\nin substantives, verbs, and particles. He had a few\\nbooks, among which were the Spectator, Pope s Works,\\nAllan Ramsay, and a collection of English songs.\\nAt about twenty-three, his reading enlarged.\\nWhat books he had, he read and studied", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "44 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARE.\\nthorougMy So Chambers tells us. Bums warbled\\nhis native wood notes wild in the simple language of\\nhis district, but not in I^atin and Greek, in French\\nand Italian; nor did he warble of all the sciences, and\\nof all the philosophies, as the author of the Shake-\\nspeare plays did.\\nI read in the Outlook for 25th July, 1896, called\\nforth by the recent Burns Centennial: Another erro-\\nneous impression about Burns, which has been set\\nright by time, is the once widely held belief that he\\nwas utterly without education. The inspired plough-\\nman untutored and untrained, was supposed to have\\nsung as the bird sings or the flower grows. Those\\nwho know anything about the conditions under which\\nstrong men come to the mastery of their strength, and\\nmen of genius to the possession of their power, know\\nthat nothing is achieved without preparation; that the\\nvery artlessness and simplicity through which the\\nheart speaks in entire unconsciousness is won at the\\nend of training, not at the beginning. Every great\\nartist became great by the development of the quality\\nwhich is in him; he does not become great by acci-\\ndent.\\nThis applies to Shakespeare, the writer of the\\nplays, as well as to Bums neither of them became\\ngreat by accident, and neither did anything great that\\nwas not achieved by preparation. Untutored and un-\\ntrained genuises accomplish nothing.\\nJohn Bunyan was the son of a tinker, but he\\nwas taught in childhood to read and write, and al-\\nthough he at one time led a vagrant life, yet we find\\nhim at the age of 27 spoken of as a zealous preacher,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "WHITHIJR 45\\nand for five years he pursued this calling before he\\nwas thrown into Bedford jail. There he wrote his im-\\nmortal work, not in Greek and I^atin, under immediate\\ninspiration, but in current English, the vernacular\\nof his age, the only language William Shaksper\\ncould have written in, had he written at all. Also\\nJohn Bunyan was thoroughly educated in the Bible, as\\nany one could see and such an education is second\\nonly to that in Homer.\\nMorse, in his lyife of I^incoln, II, 356, brackets\\nLincoln and Shakespeare (of course he means the\\nauthor of the Shakespeare plays, whoever he was)\\ntogether, in that both seem to run through the whole\\ngamut of human nature Lincoln was descended\\nfrom Massachusetts Puritans, though for two genera-\\ntions his family, as pioneers in the wilderness, were\\nsubject to enforced illiteracy. He did not come of a\\ntrifling, silly or stupid family Mr. Charles A. Dana\\nsaid, in his lecture on Lincoln, at New Haven. The\\nboy Abraham had a burning thirst for knowledge.\\nHe taught himself to read all the books he could get\\nthe Bible, Bunyan, and ^sop s Fables. Lincoln\\nlearned to read from the spelling book and the Bible\\nthen he borrowed Pilgrim s Progress, and ^sop s\\nFables and would sit up half the night reading them\\nby the blaze of the logs his own axe had split.\\nMontgomery s History U. S., 279. Later he got\\npossession of an English Grammar, and still later of\\nlaw books. He was always striving to improve him-\\nself, and his natural ability as a thinker with practice\\nmade him a clear-headed lawyer. Mr. Dana says\\nHe ro^e by hard work and by genius to become one", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "46 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKKSPBAR:^.\\nof the leading lawyers of tlie Illinois bar. It is\\nalways hard work that accomplishes anything,\\ngenius or no genius. But lyincpln did not talk and\\nthink in I^atin, as the unlettered, idle boy, William\\nShaksper, is imagined by some of his unreflecting\\nadmirers to have been inspired to do.\\nMrs. Dall (26) says: A great deal has been said\\nabout Shakespeare s deficient education but he had\\nmore education than many eminent men in America.\\nOne of the most widely read men I ever knew in many\\nlanguages had only one six weeks schooling in his life-\\ntime, The stories of the learned blacksmith\\n(Klihu Burritt) and of Robert Collier are familiar to\\nthis generation. But Burritt was far from being the\\nchild of unlettered parents and grandparents, in an\\nignorant and bookless neighborhood. He himself\\nsaid, in an autobiographical letter in the Worcester\\nSpy, of December i, 1841 My means of education\\nwere limited to the advantages of a district school,\\nwhich ended when he was fifteen years of age, on the\\ndeath of his father. He then had to go to work, and\\napprenticed himself to a blacksmith in his native\\nvillage (New Britain, Conn.). Thither I carried an\\nindomitable taste for reading, which I had previously ac-\\nquij^ed tht ough the medium of the social library\\nI suddenly conceived the idea of studying I^atin.\\nThrough the assistance of an elder brother, who had\\nhimself obtained a collegiate education, I completed\\nmy Virgil during the evenings of one winter etc.,\\netc. I fail to see anywhere resemblance between the\\nenvironment of Burritt and that of Shaksper. Bur-\\nritt s great lecture, delivered sixty times in the cities\\nI", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "WHITHER? 47\\nand towns of tlie northern U. S. during the winter of\\n1 84 1, was on Application and Genius and his\\nargument was that genius consists in the capacity for\\nhard work, and that nothing great is done without\\nlabor. The only man known to history who became\\ngreat without study, or preparation, is this William\\nShaksper, as his admirers love to picture him. The\\nsuggestion of Burritt is as infelicitous as was that of\\nBurns, or of Bunyan, or of lyincoln.\\nIt will be well to notice here the testimony of John\\nMilton respecting his own education, and surround-\\nings, and habits, and dispositions, as he came close\\nafter Shaksper. Could we read such testimony of the\\nplayer there would be no need of the immediate inspi-\\nration theory to account for his omniscience: For\\nafter I had from my first years, by the ceaseless dili-\\ngence and care of my father, been exercised to the\\ntongues and some sciences, as my age could suffer, by\\nsundry masters and teachers, it was found that\\nwhether aught was imposed upon me by them or be-\\ntaken to be of my own choice, the style, by certain\\nvital signs it had, was likely to live; but much latelier,\\nin the private academies of Italy, perceiving that some\\ntrifles which I had in memory, composed at under\\ntwenty or thereabouts, met with acceptance above\\nwhat was looked for; I began thus far to assent to\\nthem and divers of my friends here at home, and not\\nless to an inward prompting which now grew daily\\nupon me, that by labor and incessant study, johied with\\nthe strong propensity of nature, I might perhaps leave\\nsomething so written to aftertimes, as they should not\\nwillingly let it die. Whoever was the author of the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "48 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARE;.\\nShakespeare plays, he was uudoubtedly trained after\\nthe mauuer iu which Miltou was trained, even to the\\nschooHng in Italy.*\\nEarly training at home, masters and teachers, study\\nin Itah and labor and incessant study alwaj s!\\nMrhenever the real author of these plaj-s is found,\\nthat will have been his liistory.\\nItaly ill Elizabetli s age was tlie center of art and learning,\\nand students from all western Europe flocked to her schools.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "WILLIAM SHAKSPER ON ENTERING LONDON, 49\\nCHAPTER VI.\\nTHE LIFE OF WII^LIAM SHAKSPER ON ENTERING\\nLONDON.\\nIt is important to observe that all the early tradi-\\ntions to which any value can be attached concur in the\\nbelief that Shakespeare (Shaksper) did not leave\\nhis native town with histrionic intentions.\\nIt is extremely unlikely that, at the age of twenty-one,\\nhe would, voluntarily, have left a wife and three\\nchildren in Warwickshire, for the sake of obtaining a\\nmiserable position on the London boards. H.-P,,\\nI, 82.\\nR. G. White says, (Shakespeare Studies): When\\nat twenty-two years of age he fled from Stratford to\\nlyondon, we may be sure that he had never seen\\nhalf a dozen books other than his horn book, his\\nlyatin Accidence, and a Bible; probably there were not\\nhalf a dozen others in all Stratford.\\nAs is seen, Mr. Phillipps makes Shaksper leave\\nhome at 21 years of age, or in 1585; Mr. White at\\n22 years, in 1586. On the other hand, Mr. Fleay\\nbrings him to lyondon at 23 years, in 1587: Dr.\\nJohnson (in 1765) no doubt accurately reported the\\ntradition of his day, when he stated that Shakspere\\ncame to London a needy adventurer, and lived for a\\ntime by very mean employments. To the same effect\\nis the testimony given by the author of Ratsie s\\nGhost, 1605, where the strolling player, in a passage", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "5o Shakspkr not shAkkspkare;.\\nreasonably believed to refer to the great dramatist, ob-\\nserves in reference to actors: I have heard, indeed, of\\nsome that have gone to lyondon very meanly, and have\\ncome in time to be exceedingly wealthy The author\\nof the last named tract was evidently well acquainted\\nwith the theatrical gossip of his day, so that his nearly\\ncontemporary evidence on the subject may be fairly\\naccepted as a truthful record of the current belief.\\nH.-P., I, 79.\\nDr. Johnson says: When Shakspere fled to Lon-\\ndon from the terror of a criminal prosecution, his first\\nexpedient was to wait at the door of the play-house,\\nand hold the horses of those who had no servants,\\nthat they might be ready again after the performance;\\nin this office he became so conspicuous for his care and\\nreadiness, that in a short time every man, as he\\nalighted, called for Will Shakspere, and scarcely any\\nother waiter was trusted with a horse while Will\\nShakspere was to be had. This was the first dawn of\\nbetter fortune. Shakspere, finding more horses put\\ninto his hands than he could hold, hired boys to wait\\nunder his inspection, who, when Will Shakspere was\\nsummoned, were to immediately present themselves,\\nI am Shakspere s boy, sir in time Shakspere found\\nhigher employment Dr. Johnson received this anec-\\ndote from Pope, to whom it had been communicated\\nby Rowe; and it appears to have reached Rowe through\\nBetterton and Davenant (actors in the last half of the\\nseventeenth century). H.-P., I, 80.\\nNothing has been discovered respecting the history\\nof Shakspere s early theatrical life. H.-P., I, 89.\\nThe actors were as a rule individual wan-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "WIIylylAM SHAKSPEJR KNTi^RING I^ONDON. 5 1\\nderers, spending a large portion of their time at a dis-\\ntance from their families; and there is every reason for\\nbelieving that this was the case with Shakespeare from\\nthe period of his arrival in L,ondon till nearly the end\\nof his life. All the old theatrical companies were\\nmore or less of an itinerant character, and it is all but\\nimpossible that he should not have already (by 1587)\\ncommenced his provincial tours, H.-P.,I, 95. Pro-\\nvincial tours wandering from town to hamlet, from\\nhamlet to town, leading a blind jade and a hamper\\nor carrying his fardel on his back, towards every\\ncountry fair the length and breadth of the land; giving\\nshabby performances in inn-yards when in towns, or\\nin out-houses or the open air, in the country, mounted\\non boards and barrel-heads sleeping where night\\ncatches him, in the next hay-rick, or in the sky-parlor.\\nWe see the style in Dickens and Thackeray, two hun-\\ndred and more years later, and similar vagabonds may\\nbe seen to-day at every fair in England. Nothing\\nchanges in rural England, and one age there is the\\nsame as another. Any chance for acquiring the lan-\\nguage and manners of courts in that sort of compan-\\nionship, in that sort of dog-life? Any chance for the\\ndeveloping one s vocabulary? Any chance for ground-\\ning oneself in the classics, or in French and Italian?\\nOr of becoming expert in the law, or science, or\\nphilosophy? Any chance for anything but bread and\\nmeat, and coppers, and moral worsening? I should\\nsay, not much!\\nIt made little difference to Shakspere practically\\nwhether his family were in London or Stratford, so\\nlong as he led the life of a player. That was a wan-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "52 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEJARE;.\\ndering life, spent in travelling from province to\\nprovince Dall, 45.\\nIn 1587, in the spring, Shakspere gave his assent\\nto a proposed settlement of a mortgage on his mother s\\nAsbies estate. For ten years after there is no vestige\\nof any communication with his family Fleay, 8.\\nThe appearance of Shaksper in Stratford in 1587 is\\ncorroborated by H.-P.\\nOn 5th August, 1596, his son Hamnet died, and he\\nunquestionably visited Stratford and renewed relations\\nwith his family at this time. The natural\\ninterpretation of such records as have reached us is\\nthat it was not till touched by the hand of the great\\nreconciler, death that he ever visited his\\nfamily at all during the nine years since he left them\\nto carve his own way as a strolling player Fleay, 28.\\nlyce says, 187: It was probably in 1596 that\\nShakespeare returned, after nearly eleven years ab-\\nsence, to his native town. In the preceding para-\\ngraph, we read: There is a likelihood that the poet s\\nwife fared, in the poet s absence, no better than his\\nfather (who had gone to the bow-wows). The\\nonly contemporary mention made of her between her\\nmarriage in 1582 and her husband s death (1616) is\\nas the borrower at an unascertained date (evidently\\nbefore 1595) of forty shillings from Thomas Whit-\\ntington, who had formerly been her father s shepherd.\\nThe money was unpaid when Whittington died, in\\n1 60 1, and he directed his executor to recover the sum\\nfrom the poet (z. player Shaksper) and dis-\\ntribute it among the poor of Stratford.\\nThere is not a particle of evidence respecting his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "WILI^IAM SHAKSPBR ON ENTERING I.ONDON. 53\\ncareer during the next five years (that is to say, frora\\n1587), until he is discovered as a rising actor and\\ndramatist, in 1592. This interval must have been the\\nchief period of Shakespeare s literary education. Re-\\nmoved prematurely from school, residing with illiterate\\nrelations in a bookless neighborhood, thrown in the\\nmidst of occupations adverse to scholastic progress, it\\nis difficult to believe that, when he first left Stratford, he\\nwas not all but destitute of polished accomplishments\\nH.-P., I, 95-\\nAlthough Shakespeare had exhibited a taste for\\npoetic composition (he had written the well-known\\nlampoon of the Lucys, and the doggerel of John-a-\\nCombe, as Mr. Phillipps has previously told) before\\nhis first departure from Stratford, all traditions agree\\nin the statement that he was a recognized actor before\\nhe joined the ranks of the dramatists. This latter\\nevent appears to have occurred on March 3rd, 1592,\\nwhen a new drama, entitled Henry VI, was brought\\nout etc. Id., I, 97.\\nI remark here that when Mr. Phillipps says that\\nShaksper is discovered as a rising actor and drama-\\ntist or that he was a recognized actor before he joined\\nDr. Drake says, Pt. II, ch. 11: Of his inclination to this\\nelegant branch of literature (poetry) we have an early proof,\\nin the mode of retaliation which he adopted, in consequence of\\nhis prosecution by Sir Thomas L,ucy. This well-known ef-\\nfusion begins.\\nA parliamente member, a justice of peace,\\nAt home a poor scare crow, at London an asse,\\nIf Lowsie is Lucy, as some volk miscalle it.\\nThen Lucy is lowsie whatever befall it, etc,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "54 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKEJSPBJARB.\\nthe ranks of the dramatists (in 1592), we are to un-\\nderstand simply that, by 1592, the plays now attributed\\nto Shakespeare had begun to appear, that is all.\\nBy assuming that William Shaksper wrote these plays,\\nhe naturally makes him out a dramatist, but in his\\ntwo volumes there is no reason given why he should\\ndo this, not one word that connects William Shak-\\nsper with the authorship of the plays. Unless Mr.\\nPhillipps can justify his action by authority, he is\\nrobbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter naturally objects.\\nAs to Shaksper being then a recognized actor, the\\nonly proof of it adduced by Mr. Phillipps is to be\\nfound in Greene s complaint against an upstart-crow,\\nbeautified with our feathers, that with histyger s heart\\nwrapped in a Player s Hide supposes that he is as well\\nable to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you;\\nand being an absolute Johannes-fac-totum is in his\\nown conceit the only Shake-scene in a country Phil-\\nlipps says, 97: In this year (1592), as we learn\\non unquestionable authority (Greene s, as above),\\nShakespeare (Shaksper) was first rising into notice,\\nso that the history then produced, now known as the\\nI Henry VI, was, in all probability, his earliest, com-\\nplete dramatic work. Robert Greene had\\ntravestied a line from one of Shakspeare s then recent\\ncompositions, O tiger s heart, wrapp d in a woman s\\nhide This line is of extreme importance as includ-\\ning the earliest record of words composed by the great\\ndramatist. It forms part of a vigorous speech which\\nis as Shakesperean in its natural characterial fidelity\\nas it is Marlowean in its diction This line was from\\nthe play 3 Henry VI, and Phillipps argument, and his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPKR ON ENTERING LONDON. 55\\nonly argument, is that, because Shakespeare wrote\\nthat play, the Shake-scene of Greene must have\\nbeen intended for that bard of our admiration We\\nwill see about this a little further on. There is good\\nreason for the line quoted being Marlowean in its\\ndiction\\nTurning to Ingleby, 3, he says: That Shake-\\nspeare (Shaksper) was the upstart-crow, and one of\\nthe purloiners of Greene s plumes, is put beyond a\\ndoubt by the following considerations: i. That there\\nwas no such word as Shake-scene (z a tragedian).*\\nHow is that for a reason? 2. That the line in\\nitalics is a parody on one which is found in The\\nTrue Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, 1595, and\\nalso in Shakespeare s Henry VI, Part III, Act. I, sec.\\n4. 3. That Marlowe and Robert Greene were (prob-\\nably) the joint authors of the two parts of the Con-\\ntention, and of the True History, etc., which furnished\\nParts II and III of Henry VI with their prima stamina,\\nand a considerable number of lines. These are the\\nreasons given by two distinguished Shakespeare com-\\nmentators for holding the Shake-scene of Greene to\\nbe William Shaksper, an obscure, and up to 1592, un-\\nmentioned and unnoticed player. The principal rea-\\nson of Ingleby, which is identical with the only one of\\nPhillipps, is that this line quoted was from a Shake-\\nIngleby makes tragedian here synonymous with Shake-\\nscene and instances Jonson s lines To hear thy Buskin\\ntread, and shake a stage and also a passage in The Puritaine,\\nwhere Pye-boord says: Have you never seen a stalking-\\nstamping Player, that will raise a tempest with his toung,\\na.nd thunder with his heels", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "56 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nspeare play, meaning a play written by William Shak-\\nsper. But as distinguished commentators as Ingleby\\nor Phillipps attribute the play in question to Marlowe,\\nor to him in collaboration with other playwrights.\\nIt is nearly as certain as anything can be which\\ndepends upon cumulative and collateral evidence, that\\nthe better part of what is best in the serious scenes of\\nKing Henry VI is mainly the work of Marlowe. That\\nhe is at any rate the principal author of the second\\nand third play passing under that name among the\\nworks of Shakespeare, can hardly be now a matter of\\ndebate among competent judges Knc. Brit., Mar-\\nlowe (Swinburne).\\nFleay, ii8, says: Margaret is not Shakespeare s\\ncreation; she is Marlowe s. Shakespeare had no hand\\nin the plays on the Contention of York and Lancaster,\\n(2 Henry VI), and but a slight one in i Henry VI.\\nMarlowe had a chief hand in i Henry VI, and York\\nand I^ancaster; probably wrote the whole of Richard\\nDuke of York, 3 Henry VI. Marlowe was killed in\\na brawl i June, 1592, and Fleay says that his plays\\nThe Taming of the Shrew Edward III Ham-\\nlet and 3 Henry VI passed from Sussex s men\\nto Lord Strange s men, (of whom William Shaksper\\nwas one).\\nOn 279: The unhistorical but grandly classical con-\\nception of Margaret, the Cassandra prophetess, the\\nHelen- Ate of the house of Lancaster, which binds the\\nwhole tetralogy (The three Henry VI and the Richard\\nIII) into one work, is undoubtedly due to Marlowe,\\nand the consummate skill with which he has fused the\\nheterogeneous contributions of his coadjutors in the two", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "WILIylAM SHAKSPE^R ON KNTEJRING I^ONDON. 57\\nearlier Henry VI plays is no less worthy of admira-\\nion.\\nMr. Ivee, 59, et seq., while crediting Shakespeare\\nwith the best that is in the three Henry VI plays, can-\\nnot but admit that criticism has proved beyond doubt\\nthat in these plays Shakespeare did no more than add,\\nrevise, and correct other men s work. In the first,\\nthe scene in the Temple Garden, the dying speech of\\nMortimer, and perhaps the wooing of Margaret by\\nSuffolk, alone bear the impress of his style. In the\\nother two the revising hand can be traced. On 61\\nhe tells us that it was to Marlowe and Lyly that\\nShakespeare s indebtedness as a writer of comedy or\\ntragedy was material. His early tragedies\\noften reveal him in the character of a faithful disciple\\nof (Marlowe) that vehement delineator of tragic pas-\\nsion. His early comedies disclose a like relationship\\nbetween him and I^yly. Mr. I^ee tells us that lyove s\\nLabour s Lost is in the style of Lyly. Richard III\\nand Richard II, with the story of Shylock later, plainly\\ndisclose a conscious resolve to follow in Marlowe s foot-\\nsteps. Throughout Richard III the effort to\\nemulate Marlowe is undeniable. Richard II clearly\\nsuggests Marlowe s Edward II. Shakespeare s tragedy\\nclosely imitates Marlowe.\\nMarlowe s contribution to the Shakespeare part-\\nnership, following Meres list of the Shakespeare s plays\\nenumerated in 1598, was as four to twelve, and Rich-\\nard III was not included in this list. It is seen above\\nthat Edward III was one of Marlowe s plays as\\nwell as The Taming of the Shrew So also prob-\\nably was the Venus and Adonis and the Lucrece. It", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "58 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKi^SPEARS.\\nis interesting therefore to read in the Boston Tran-\\nscript of Aug. nth, 1897, these words: In comment-\\ning upon the recent performance in lyondon by the\\nElizabethan Stage Society, Mr. William Archer writes\\nin the London World: While Arden of Feversham\\nwas being recited, a still small voice in the background\\nof one s consciousness kept up a running protest\\nagainst the theory that this was the work of Shake-\\nspeare. Then came the scenes from Edward III. Be-\\nfore twenty lines had been spoken, the still small voice\\naforesaid was whispering Shakespeare and even as\\nthe recitation proceeded the whisper grew louder and\\nmore emphatic Shakespeare Manifestly Shakespeare\\nShakespeare all over! Shakespeare without the shadow\\nof a doubt! What other poet has at his com-\\nmand such unchastened wealth of imagery, such well-\\nnourished smoothness of style? If this be not Shake-\\nspeare s work, all I can say is that some nameless poet\\nhas out-Shakespeared Shakespeare Well, that is\\nright, for Marlowe was the strongest member of the\\nShakespeare syndicate up to 1598, and the most pro-\\nlific.\\nWendell says, 71: The weight of opinion seems\\nto favor the supposition that Greene, Peele, Kyd,\\nand Marlowe had a hand in them e. the 3 parts\\nof Henry VI), and so far as Shakespeare touched\\nthem, it was by way of collaboration, interpolation or\\nrevision. Curious idea, that an untaught country\\nboy, equipped with nothing at all but an unintelligible\\npatois, should have undertaken, or should have been\\nemployed, to revise plays written by past masters of\\nthe art of play writing, every one of them a graduate", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "WILIvIAM SHAKSPEJR ON EJNTEIRING LONDON. 59\\nof one of the great universities, and one of them\\nMarlowe? The proposition that Shake-scene was in-\\ntended by Greene for the player Shaksper ma}^ as well\\nbe dropped from consideration if the foregoing are the\\nonly grounds in its favor.\\nAs I have said, Phillipps brings young Shaksper to\\nLondon in 1585, or 1586, he is not certain which;\\nthinks he returned to Stratford on a visit in 1587, and\\nhe tells us there is not a particle of evidence respecting\\nhis career between 1587 and 1592. Fleay, 8, makes\\nShaksper leave Stratford (the first time) in or about\\n1587 in company with Lord Leicester s players, who\\nare known to have visited Stratford in 1587. There\\nis not one iota of proof of this, but Mr, Fleay guesses\\nit must have been so. Shaksper would then be about\\n23 years of age. He was, according to Phillipps, an\\nignorant young man, almost destitude of polished ac-\\ncomplishments who so far had sow d cockles,\\nreaped no corn and all the authorities who accept\\nthe traditions agtee that at first he got employment in\\nLondon under very humble terms. He held horses\\noutside the play house door, then was servitour in-\\nside, and so worked his way up. That is one view of\\nWilliam Shaksper. Fleay, on the other hand, starts\\nhim at once on reaching London, in 1587, studying,\\nacting and learning how to write plays. He gives no\\nauthority whatever for doing so, but the exigencies of\\nthe case make it necessary that Shaksper should begin\\nIt is worthy of remark, that all these founders and first\\nbuilders-up of the regular drama in England, were, nearly if\\nnot absolutely without an exception, classical scholars, and men\\nwho had received a university education Craik.,Eng. lyit.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "6o SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEJARK.\\nat once. Of course Mr. Fleay throws aside every\\ntradition and testimony. If William Shaksper wrote\\nthe Shakespeare plays, which began to appear at least\\nas early as 1589, or within two years after he got to\\nLondon, no time was to be lost. So we read in the\\nHist. lyond. Stage, 74, this During these seven\\nprentice years (1587 to 1594) while Shaksper was\\nlearning his business as a stage actor from Allen and\\nBurbage, and his business as a playwright from his\\ncoadjutors, Marlowe and Peele, etc.\\nIn the lyife, 9, Mr. Fleay makes Shaksper join\\nLeicester s players at Stratford in 1587, and (10)\\ncomes to London as a poor strolling player he was\\nassociated already with the most noted comedians of\\nthe time, Kempe and Pope and in Allen he had the\\nadvantage of studying the method of the greatest\\ntragic actor that had yet trod the English stage.*\\nI give cuts of two of Shaksper s player associates, William", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPKR ON KNTKRING LONDON. 6 1\\nBut he did not remain content with merely acting;\\nhe now commenced as author. An instance of what\\nMr. Fleay himself styles a mischievously fertile im-\\nagination as flagrant as anything in Baynes. By\\nKemp, or Kempe, and\\nRichard Tarleton; Kempe\\nis said by Shaksper s bi-\\nographers to have been\\nhis instructor in comedy.\\nThe cut of him is copied\\nfrom Rolfe s Shakes-\\npeare the Boy which is\\na fac-simile of a wood\\ncut prefixed to Kempe s\\nNine Daies Wonder\\nIt discovers the most\\nnoted comedian as a jig\\ndancer, cutting monkey\\nshines. (Cut, preceding\\npage).\\nThe cut of Tarleton I\\nhave taken from a paper\\nby Alexander Cargill, in\\nScribner s Magazine for\\nMay, 1891, from a draw-\\ning published in 1792, in\\nMr. (Henry) Irving s col-\\nlection.\\nOn page 166, Hist. Lon-\\ndon Stage, Mr. Fleay tells\\nus that the time for\\nTarleton and Kempe clowneries and jigs had passed, etc.\\nWhy not Shaksper clowneries as well If one of these pretty\\nfellows was his instructor, and the other his associate, it is\\naltogether probable that a true portrait of William Shaksper\\nwould be close to the pattern of Tarleton and Kempe.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "62 SHAESPKR NOT SHAKESPIJARK.\\n1592, Mr. Fleay represents him as a rising drama-\\ntist, that is a writer of plays. If that were so, of\\ncourse it would follow that years must already have\\npassed in essaying to write plays, and we are informed\\nof much that he did before he reached that elevation.\\nIn 1589 there was performed the first play which he is\\nknown to have written. The play of lyove s I^abour s\\nlyost (first performed in 1589) is undoubtedly m the main\\nthe earliest example left of Shakespeare s work,^^ p. 103.\\nThis implies that in Mr. Fleay s opinion there were\\nearlier plays or there was earlier work ^which has\\nnot come down to us. Most likely Mr. Fleay is\\ncorrect, if by Shakspere we are to understand the\\nauthor of the plaj^s. lyove s I^abour s L^ost may have\\nbeen his first dramatic essay left, but Mr. Fleay is\\ntalking of William Shaksper, the Stratford man, the\\nplayer, and that is altogether a different matter, a\\nhorse of another color, as Shakespeare says. As\\nMr. Fleay puts it, this ignorant Stratford clown,\\nwhom Phillipps has told us about, within two years\\nafter he enters London, at which entry he necessarily\\nspoke a dialect as unintelligible as that of a Yorkshire\\nfarmer of to-day, during the whole of which time he\\nwas employed about the theater, or in strolling up and\\ndown England, is discovered to have written a play of\\nhigh life, with kings, princesses, lords, ladies, em-\\nbassadors as almost the only characters full of I^atin\\nand French, quotations from Virgil, Horace, and Ovid,\\nbristling with classical allusions and with learned dis-\\nsertations of philology and orthography which were\\nridiculous, as Ben Jonson said* of an utterance of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0WIIvI,IAM SHAKSPER ON KNTE^RING I^ONDON. 63\\nthis player Shaksper. The modern phrase would be\\nTell that to the marines.\\nHorace Walpole asks: Why are there so few gen-\\nteel comedies, but because most of them are written by\\nmen not of that sphere Ktheredge, Congreve, Van-\\nbrugh, Cibber, wrote genteel comedy because they\\nlived in the best company; Wycherley and Dryden\\nwrote as if they had only lived in the Rose Tavern\\nThat is sensible. Shakespeare tells us: Thou wilt\\nnot utter what thou dost not know What could\\nWilliam Shaksper know of that sphere Had he\\nlived in the best company On the contrary, he\\nlived in the lowest, most debauched and vulgar com-\\npany. The comedies of William Shakespeare were\\ngenteel comedy and showed plainly that their au-\\nthor was of that sphere and had lived in the best\\ncompany a proof that ought to be convincing to\\nevery one that the player had no hand in them.\\nMr. lyce also believes that Love s Labour s Lost was\\nShakespeare s first play, and discourses of it thus, 50:\\nThe subject-matter suggests that its author had al-\\nready enjoyed extended opportunities of surveying Lon-\\ndon life and manners. Love s Labour s Lost embodies\\nkeen observation of contemporary life in many ranks\\nof society, both in town and country, while the\\nspeeches of Biron clothe much sound philosophy in\\nmasterly rhetoric. It (the plot) is not known\\nto have been borrowed, and stands quite alone in\\ntravestying known traits and incidents of current so-\\ncial and political life.\\nHazlitt, on L. L. L- says: The style savors more\\nof the .pedantic spirit of Shakespeare s time than of his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "64 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARK.\\nown genius; more of controversial divinity than of the\\ninspiration of the muse. It transports us quite as\\nmuch to the manners of the court and the quirks of\\ncourts at law, as to the scenes of nature.\\nShakespeare has set himself to indicate the tone of\\npolite conversation then prevailing among the fair, the\\nwitty and the learned. The observations on\\nthe use and abuse of study, and on the power of\\nbeauty to quicken the understanding as well as the\\nsenses, are excellent The husband of Ann Whately\\nwas a likely fellow to be writing on the power of\\nbeauty to quicken the understanding, and the igno-\\nramus to be writing on the use and abuse of study!\\nAnd the idea that a first effort of a youth of his caliber\\nand experiences would treat of the usages of polite\\nsociety, or should be filled with controversial di-\\nvinity or quirks of courts of law, is too nonsensical for\\nconsideration. If the play in question appeared in\\n1589, it was written before that date, and by another\\nhand than that of Stratford, ex necessitate, and the\\nquestion of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays is\\nsettled right here and once for all, so far as William\\nShaksper is concerned. Mr. Fleay continues (13):\\nlyove s I^abour s Won must have been written about\\nthe same time as I^ove s I^abour s I^ost, and before the\\nend of 1 590, the Comedy of Errors probably appeared\\nin its original form (On p. 33, Mr. Fleay tells us\\nthat Much Ado About Nothing which appeared in\\n1598, was probably a re-cast of lyove s lyabour s\\nWon In 1 59 1, the Two Gentlemen of Verona and\\nRomeo and Juliet, as originally written by Shake-\\nspeare and some coadjutor w ere most likely produced", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "WII^IvIAM SHAKSPER ON KNTERING LONDON. 65\\nThat is to say, five plays appeared between 1589 and\\n1591, anonymously, acknowledged by no author, treat-\\ning, as did lyove s I^abour s lyost, of high life, in Italy,\\nSicily and Asia, which commentators have chosen\\nwithout one spark of evidence, entirely unsupported\\nby contemporary testimony to attribute to a practical\\nbutcher who fled in disgrace from Stratford to I^on-\\ndon in 1587; who, in I^ondon, earned his bread as a\\nhorse boy, or as attached to one of the public theaters,\\nthe then lowest place of public entertainment, not so\\nelevated in tone or morals as is the average variety\\nshow at the close of the nineteenth century. And\\nthousands of books, big and little, have been written to\\nuphold this remarkable proposition, that learned writ-\\nings can issue from ignorance; that a man, who in\\n1585 to 1587, was all but destitute of polished ac-\\ncomplishments in 1859 was publishing, or putting\\non the stage, finished five-act plays, all of them de-\\nscribing ^what The life of the villagers at Stratford,\\nrustic life anywhere, the experiences of a boy born\\nand brought up as he had been? Not at all!\\nBut describing the lives of princes and princesses,\\nlords and ladies, gentlemen, courts, camps, for-\\neign cities, foreign manners, customs and surround-\\nings; in short, experiences of high life of every sort,\\nas well as all sorts of learning. All of which implies\\nyears of study, of travel, and of time spent in ac-\\nquiring the knowledge to be eventually made use of\\nin the plays. This is as true of 1587 as it would be of\\n1900. Mr. Phillipps interval of five years, during\\nwhich there is not a particle of evidence respecting\\nthe career of young Shaksper, and which therefore", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "66 shakspe;r Nor shakkspeiark.\\ncomes accidentally handy for the period of his educa-\\ntion because he either got it then, or he never got it\\nat all ^will not serve. Instead of getting his educa-\\ntion between 1587 and 1592, if this Stratford youth\\nwas the real William Shakespeare, by 1587, he had\\nalready been educated to the highest point, and was\\ncapable of writing, and actually did write, one play\\nafter another in swift succession, so that five had ap-\\npeared by 1 59 1.*\\nNow, unless we are prepared to cast aside all the\\ntraditions and testimonies, as Mr. Fleay does, and\\nstart with a blank page as regards William Shaksper,\\nwe have reached an obstacle which is insurmountable,\\nthat makes it absolutely impossible that William, the\\naforesaid, had anything to do with the production of\\nthese plays.\\nProfessor T. I^. Baynes, also, the editor of the last\\nedition of the Kncyclopedia Brittanica, and the author\\nof the wonderful life of Shakspere therein, seeing the\\ncatastrophe imminent, saves himself and his baggage\\nby throwing overboard the testimonies and traditions\\nand putting helm up. By this operation he escapes\\nembarrassing difficulties. I know nothing about\\nWilliam Shaksper, he is a name and nothing else. I\\nknow nothing of William Shakespeare. Go to; I\\nWendell says, p. 97: In the course of six years at least,\\nthe years from 23 to 29, he had certainly succeeded in establish-\\ning himself as an actor, in writing, wholly or in part, at least\\nseven noteworthy plays which have survived (Titus Andronicus,\\n3 of Henry VI, Love s Labour s Lost, The Comedy of Errors,\\nThe Two Gentlemen of Verona) and in composing at least one\\npoem of the highest contemporary fashion,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPKR ON KNTBRING LONDON, 67\\nwill create a half human, half superhuman man; the\\nkind of man the true Shakespeare must have been\\nas evidenced by his works, and pretend that he came\\nfrom Stratford, and will call him William Shakspere\\nMr. Fleay s books were not written to prove that\\nWilliam Shaksper wrote the Shakespeare plays, but to\\nshow from internal evidence of the plays, in what\\nchronological order they must have been written.\\nThe books evince prodigious labor, and Mr. Fleay is\\none of the wisest of the Shakespeare commentators.\\nHe is probably right as to the chronology, but if he\\nhad only told us what the connection was between the\\nplays and the player William Shaksper, he would have\\nadded a thousand fold to the value of his book. Like\\n^11 the rest of these commentators, he assumes the\\nConnection, but right there the Shaksper case breaks\\ndown. No man has ever proved or shown such a con-\\nnection, or the probability of one, and consequently\\nthere has been a vast deal of threshing of straw.\\nIn 1593, the Venus and Adonis was published by\\nRichard Field, in whose name it had been entered in\\nthe Stationer s Register, (equivalent to copyright of\\nlater ages). There was no name of author on the\\ntitle-page, but the Dedication was to the Earl of\\nSouthampton, and was signed William Shakespeare\\nThis is the first appearance of the name Shakespeare\\nin literature. It was the pseudonym of a true poet\\nand of a scholar, besides a man of the world. The\\nauthor was no unlettered boy brought up among the\\npeasants of the back counties. In the year 1594, the\\nlyucrece issued by the same publisher, also without", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "68 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAKESPEIARBJ.\\nname, and also dedicated to Southampton. As Dr.\\nMorgan says, almost everybody in those days dedi-\\ncated things to Southampton; the dedication of poems\\nto Southampton was rather the rule or the fashion of\\nthe time than otherwise. It did not imply acquaint-\\nance, much less intimacy, with his lordship.\\nThese poems are the composition of an educated\\nmind, and of an author who was imbued with the true\\npoetic spirit. The Venus and Adonis is suggested by\\nOvid s story in the Metamorphoses X, XII to XV;\\nbut there is no such servile following of its original as\\nwould have been adopted by a novice who was reading\\nit for the first time in a translation. On the contrary,\\nthe author strikes out from it with a boldness only to\\nbe expected from an intimate familiarity with the\\noriginal. T. W. White, 27.\\nMr. White gives reasons which prove to him that\\nboth poems were written by Marlowe, Marlowe had\\nthe education, temperament, and ability to write such\\na poem as Venus and Adonis. William Shaksper had\\nnot the education, vocabulary, ability, or experience to\\nwrite such a poem, even had he had the capacity.\\nThe place and value of Christopher Marlowe as a\\nleader among English poets, it would be almost impos-\\nsible for historical critics to overestimate. To none of\\nthem all perhaps have so many of the greatest among\\nthem been so deeply and so directly indebted. He\\nfirst, and he alone, guided Shakespeare into the right\\nway of work; his music, in which there is no echo of\\nany man s before him, finds its own echo in the more\\nprolonged but hardly more exalted harmony of Milton.\\nHe is the greatest discoverer, the most daring and in-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": ".WII^XIAM SHAKSPlgR ON EN CEIRING I^ONDON. 69\\nSpired pioneer in all our poetic literature. Before him,\\nthere was neither genuine blank verse, nor a genuine\\ntragedy in our language. After his arrival the way\\nwas prepared, the paths were made straight for Shake-\\nspeare. Swinburne, Bnc. Brit., Marlowe.\\nUp to the beginning of 1598, seventeen of the now\\nreceived Shakespeare plays had been performed, the\\ncommentators assure us, and seven of these had\\nbeen printed, all anonymously. When the first play\\npublished bearing the name of Shakespeare issued,\\nI^ove s I^abours I^ost, in 1598, the title page did not\\nclaim that it was written by Shakespeare, but that it\\nwas newly corrected and augmented by W. Shake-\\nspere So it was not till nine or ten years had\\npassed after the first of these plays had been performed\\nat the theater, (according to Mr. Fleay s chronology)\\nthat the name Shakespere, or Shakspere, or Shake-\\nspeare, was ever seen on the title page of a play.\\nI have not the least idea that I^ove s I^abours Lost\\nwas written by the man who wrote Hamlet; or that\\nthe Two Gentlemen of Verona was written by that\\nman, or that the first and last of these were written by\\nthe same man; or that the Comedy of Errors was\\nwritten by him; or that Troilus and Cressida was\\nwritten by the author of any one of the four. An\\nextended analysis of these plays shows that the\\nvocabulary of each is as distinct as if Jones and Smith\\nand Brown and Robinson had written them. Young\\nand inexperienced authors do not write books in differ-\\nent styles, with different vocabularies. When one has\\nread Diana of the Crossways, he has the life-style of\\nGeorge Meredith; Far from the Madding Crowd, of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "70 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKEISPKARE^,\\nHardy; Pride and Prejudice, of Jane Austen; Waver-\\nley, of Scott. It was thought a surprising thing when\\nBulwer was found to have written The Caxtons. He\\nchanged his style completely, but he was a writer of\\nlong experience, and deliberately set himself to the\\ntask. Bulwer died an elderly man, but he did not\\nlive long enough to enable him to discover a third\\nstyle. If the five plays above-named as attributed to\\nShakespeare are in five different styles, (and the\\ncritics declare them so to be) then five men wrote\\nthem. Meiklejohn says of Shakespeare: He has\\nwritten in a greater variety of styles than any other\\nauthor. Shakespeare, says Professor Craik, has in-\\nvented twenty styles.\\nPlayer Shaksper signed his name in a different style\\nevery time he wrote it, if we may judge by the five\\nextant specimens claimed by his admirers to have\\ncome from his pen, although two of them were written\\nin the same half hour, and the other three in the same\\nten minutes. That is proof positive that four of the\\nfive signatures, at least, were written for him by other\\npersons. If the Shakespeare plays exhibit twenty\\ndifferent styles, that is proof enough that no one man,\\nand no dozen men, wrote them. I agree with Mr.\\nReed, who says: It is evident that Shakespeare\\nwas a favorite nom de plume with the dramatic wits\\nof that age; in proof of which he calls to mind the\\nmany plays, not printed in the First Folio, which\\nissued for years under the name of William Shake-\\nspeare.*\\nJudge Stotsenborg saj^s: The facts justify the student in\\nbelieving that the plays produced in the Elizabethan era, gen-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPE^R ON SNl^ERlNG- I^ONDON. 7 1\\nThese anonymous plays were:\\n1. Henry VI, 2d Part, 1594.\\n2. Henry VI, 3d Part, 1595.\\n3. Richard II, i597-\\n4. Richard III, i597-\\n5. Romeo and Juliet, i597-\\n6. Henry VI, ist Part, 1596.\\nDuring the next years certain of the series of plays\\nafterwards called Shakespeare s were printed under\\nthe name either of Shakespeare or Shake-speare (with\\na hyphen); while others of the same series, and new\\neditions of the older, anonymous, plays were printed\\nwithout name. Other plays which were not included\\nin the Folio of the collected works of William Shake-\\nspeare in 1623, and which are not to-day attributed\\nto that author, bore the same imprinted name of\\nShakespeare.\\nerally speaking, were the work of collaborators. I get this from\\nthe best authority of that period, viz., the diary of Philip\\nHenslowe. This diary contains minute, truthful, and valuable\\ninformation respecting the history and condition of the English\\ndrama from 1591 to 1609. It contains the names of plays iden-\\ntical with or very similar to the titles of the Shakespeare plays.\\nIt nowhere mentions Shakspere s name; it shows that the En-\\nglish dramatists wrote plays and sold them for trifling sums to\\nHenslowe; it shows that these plays thereafter became the prop-\\nerty of Henslowe, or of his company of actors; it shows that\\ncertain dramatists were employed and paid by Henslowe to re-\\nvise and dress and adapt the popular plays so purchased, to suit\\nthe tastes of the frequenters of the theater; and it also shows\\nthat the principal plays were composed hurriedly by collabora-\\ntors, by two or three, and then again by four, five or six play-\\nwriters, who, after they received their pay, cared nothing more\\nfor their productions. ^Ind. News, 5th May, 1897.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "72\\nSHAKSPKR NOT SHAE:eSPE;ARi;.\\n1595.\\n1600.\\n1600.\\n1600.\\n1600.\\n1600.\\n1600.\\n1605.\\n1607,\\n1608.\\n1608.\\n1608.\\nThese were\\nlyocrine,\\nSir John Oldcastle,\\nThomas lyord Cromwell,\\nEdward III,\\nThe Birth of MerUn,\\nMucedorus,\\nMerry Devil of Edmonton,\\nThe lyondon Prodigal,\\nPuritan Widow of Watling St.\\nArthur of Feversham,\\nYorkshire Tragedy,\\nArraignment of Paris,\\nThe name Shakespeare was used for the work of\\na number of authors. But there is no evidence that\\nit was put on the title page of a play by any authority\\nother than that of the printers.* The Venus and lyU-\\ncrece had been popular, and had run through many\\neditions. Apparently, the printers, or some of them\\nfor there were several concerned thought that the\\npseudonym of the author of these poems was a good\\none to help sell plays, and clapped on their books the\\nname of William Shakespeare. In 1599, Jaggard\\nprinted as William Shakespeare s a volume of poems\\nunder the title of the Passionate Pilgrim. This con-\\ntained four sonnets (by Shakespeare) and one poem\\nfrom I^ove s I/abours Lost; the larger part of the vol-\\nume was made up of verses by Barnfeild and other\\nauthors. Fleay, Life, 137. Collier says, Life, 6, The\\n*Tlius, Lee, 301: The sixteen Quartos were publishers -ven-\\ntures, and were undertaken without the co-operation of the\\nauthor.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPE;r on entering l^ONDON, 73\\nmost noticeable proof of the advantage which a book-\\nseller conceived he should derive from the announce-\\nment that the work he published was by our poet, is\\nafforded by the title page of his dispersed sonnets,\\nwhich was ushered into the world as Shakespeare s\\nSonnets in very large capitals, as if that mere fact\\nwould be held sufficient recommendation.\\nNo objection, so far as now appears, was made by\\nanybody having an interest in the plays, and presently\\nit became to be the custom to print under the same\\nname, and the world accepted this sobriquet as the\\ntrue title of the unknown author or authors. As early\\nas 1595, it had apparently been suspected that the au-\\nthor of the Venus and Adonis had written a play, for\\nwe find John Weever, in that year, (Ing. 16), pub-\\nlishing some lines beginning\\nHonie-tong d Shakespeare, when I saw thine issue,\\nI swore Apollo got them and none other,\\nRose check t Adonis\\nChaste Lncretia\\nRomea-Richard, more whose name I know not, etc,\\nOwing perhaps to the apathy exhibited by Shakespeare\\n(Shaksper) on this occasion, i.e. the Jaggard publication a\\nfar more remarkable operation in the same kind of knavery was\\nperpetrated in the latter part of the following year by the pub-\\nlisher of the First Part of the lyife of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600, a\\nplay, c. Although this drama is not only known to have been\\ncomposed by other dramatists, but also to have belonged to a\\ntheatrical company with whom Shakespeare (Shaksper) had\\nthen no connection, it was unblushingly announced as his work\\nby the publisher, Thomas Pavier. Two editions were issued in\\nthe same year by Pavier, the one most largely distributed being\\nthat which was assigned to tlie pen of the great dramatist and\\nanother to which no name was attached. H.-P., I, 180.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "74 SHAKSPKE. NOT^ SHAKIESPEiARE;.\\nWhat the Romea was does not appear. It could not\\nhave been the Romeo and JuHet of Shakespeare, be-\\ncause that was first played in 1596, according to Phil-\\nlipps, and the first quarto of the play bears the date\\n1597. The Richard may have been Richard III, and-\\nif that and the poems were written by Marlowe, Meres\\nwould have guessed correctly.\\nNo other mention of the name (Shakespeare) occurs\\nuntil 1598, when, spelled Shakespere, it appeared for\\nthe first time on the title page of a play, lyove s Labour s\\nlyost. Then, that same year, w^e have Francis Meres\\nattributing by their names twelve plays to Shake-\\nspeare to-wit. Two Gentlemen of Verona, Comedy\\nof Errors, Love s lyabour s Won, Midsummer Night s\\nDream, Merchant of Venice, King John, Titus Andro-\\nnicus, seven, none of which had been published; and\\nLove s Labour s Lost, Richard II, Richard III, Henry\\nIV, and Romeo and Juliet, five, which had been pub-\\nlished anonymously, with the exception of Love s La-\\nbour s Lost, just out. In the same connection, Meres\\nattributes to Shakespeare the Venus, the Lucrece, and\\nhis sugred sonnets among his private friends.\\nTherefore, up to 1598, nine years after William\\nShaksper is credited by Mr. Fleay with bringing out\\nthe play of Love s Labour s Lost, Shakespeare had\\nbeen mentioned by contemporary writers, Ingleby being\\nwitness, but three times; once by an anonymous au-\\nthor, in 1594, who spoke of Lucrece only; once, in 1595,\\nby Weever, who spoke of the poems, and also of\\nRomea- Richard; once, 1595-6, by Carew, who com-\\npares Shakespeare with Catullus; Will you read\\nVirgil Take the Karl of Surrey. Catullus Shake-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "WII.1.IAM SHAKSPI^R ON E^N TE^RING LONDON. 75\\nspeare and Marlowe s fragments referring to the\\npoems). That is all to Meres. One man, namely,\\nWeever, in 1595, suspected that the hand which wrote\\nthe Venus^ also wrote Richard, but not another contem-\\nporary in the years up to 1598 spoke of the Shake-\\nspeare of the Venus and Adonis as the writer of plays;\\nand certainly no one hinted, and there is no evidence\\nextant that any one thought, for what his heart\\nthinks, his tongue speaks as Shakespeare says) or\\ndreamed, that it was a player at a public theater, one\\nShaksper or Shakspur or Shaksberd, who was turning\\nout these fine things. That is very curious, in the\\nlight of the modern theory of the authorship, and is\\nsuggestive. It shows for one thing, that by 1598, or\\nwithin eleven or twelve years after the player Shaksper\\nbecame connected with the theater, there was no\\nknowledge and no claim that the player William Shak-\\nsper was the author of the Shakespeare plays or poems.\\nAccording to Ben Jonson (Discoveries) this player was\\na rattle-headed man, often talking too much, and thus\\nmaking himself ridiculous the last man to hide his\\nlight under a bushel. Had he written any sort of a\\nplay, he would have cackled everlastingly; had he\\nbeen capable of writing a Shakespeare play, he would\\nnot have been rattle-headed, and would not have been\\nfound in the company of those players.\\nUp to 1598, then, the Shaksper myth had not got a\\nstart, and as I shall in due time show, it never did get\\na start till years after the player was dead, or in 1623,\\nand then a discreditable one.\\nAs to player Shaksper, or the manager of the Cur-\\ntain Theater, all he had to do with these matters was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "76 shakspe;r not SHAK:^sp:eARE;.\\nto take what the gods provided. Here were plays\\nrunning loose, and his public theater might find in one\\nor other of them special scenes to use as interludes, or\\nin pantomine, or travesty, that would amuse an igno-\\nrant and brutal audience, murders by wholesale, or\\nwholesale ribaldry. Had he been either writer or\\nowner of the plays, they never would have been\\nprinted. It was not to the interest of a theater that its\\nstock of plays, interludes, shows, should be given to\\nthe public. They formed the capital of the company\\nand were guarded with jealous care.* Drake, Part\\nII, chapter 7, says: The author either sold the copy-\\nright of his plays to the theater, or retained it in his\\nown hands. In the former instance the\\nproprietors of the theater took care to secure the per-\\nformance of the piece exclusively to their own com-\\npany, and it was their interest to defer its publi-\\ncation as long as possible Where a play was sold\\nto the theater, and the booksellers found ways to put\\nit on the market, the manager of the company, who-\\never he was, would have made a great outcry against\\nsuch a wrong, not merely a wrong but a robbery, and\\nalthough there was no copyright at that day, (Drake\\nwas in error in using the word copyright), he had his\\nremedy at common law. Where he had not sold the\\nplay, but retained it in his own hands had the\\nmanager been also the author, and that author Wil-\\nliam Shaksper, of the Curtain or the Globe he\\nThe play-house authorities deprecated the publishing of\\nplays in the belief that the dissemination in print was injurious\\nto the receipts of the theater. Lee.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "WIIvLIAM SHAKSPEIR ON EJNTE^RING LONDON. 77\\ncertainly would have protected himself against the\\npublishers.\\nThis man was very sensitive in his pocket-nerve.\\nAfter he had become rich, if a neighbor owed him two\\nand sixpence, he would hale him before a justice,\\nand for a little larger sum, would show him the inside\\nof the goal.\\nHad William Shaksper been, the writer or owner of\\none of these plays, it would never have been printed\\nwhile he was connected with a theater. The commen-\\ntators tell us that in several cases the published\\nQuartos are the best authorities. GoUancz says that\\nthe second Quarto of Romeo and Juliet is our best\\nauthority for the play though, as he tells us, the\\ntext of the First Folio was taken from the third\\nQuarto (1609). Knight says of the same play:\\nThere can be no doubt whatever that the corrections,\\naugmentations and emendations of the second edition\\n(second Quarto) of Romeo and Juliet (1599) were\\nthose of the author. We know of nothing in literary\\nhistory more curious or more instructive than the ex-\\nample of minute attention as well as consummate\\nskill, exhibited by Shakespeare in correcting, aug-\\nmenting and amending the first copy of this play\\nIf then, William Shaksper was the author of the play\\nin question, he was himself supplying the booksellers\\nwith a carefully revised and amended copy of the play\\n*Mr. Ivce says, 90: Except in the case of his two narrative\\npoems, Shakespeare (meaning Shaksper), made no effort to\\npubHsh any of his works, and uncomplainedly submitted to the\\nwholesale piracy of his plays. Such practices were en-\\ncouraged by his passive indifference,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "78 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKBSPi^AR:^.\\ninstead of preserving it for the theater, a proceeding\\nadverse to his own interest, or that of the Curtain or\\nGlobe supposing that the play was written for the\\nCurtain or Globe, or was ever performed at either of\\nthose theaters.\\nIn the same way, the second Quarto of Hamlet\\n(i6\u00c2\u00a94) is stated by Fleay to be superior to the Folio\\nversion, and to be in the best shape fitted for private\\nreading whilst the Folio version is inferior,\\nshortened for stage representation Plainly, Wm.\\nShaksper, as manager of the theater, could not have\\nconsented to such publication, yet if he was the au-\\nthor, no one but himself furnished the printers with\\nthe manuscript of his play in the best shape fitted for\\nfor private reading. Heminge and Condell, in the\\npreface to the First Folio, are made to say that the plays\\ngiven in that volume are as the author conceived them,\\nand they stigmatize the Quartos as stolen and surrep-\\ntitious, published by impostors. Evidently, the writer\\nof that preface held that Wm. Shaksper did not coun-\\ntenance them, and had no interest in them.\\nThe Venus and Adonis is prefaced with a quotation\\nof two lines from Ovid. Dr. Baynes, Professor in St.\\nAndrew s University, p. 107, Shakespeare Studies\\nsays that these lines are taken from a poem of which\\nthere existed at the time no English version and that\\nthe quotation is one from which the circumstances of\\nthe case could hardly have been chosen by any one who did\\nnot know the original welV. I agree to that certainly.\\nIt has been noted by the commentators that to dedicate\\na work at that day to a noble lord without special per-\\nmission would have been a great piece of impertinence,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "WILI.IAM SHAKSPKR ON BNTB^RING IvONDON. 79\\nand in fact an unheard of thing; hence it has been in-\\nferred that the player Shaksper (assumed to be the\\nsame with WilHam Shakespeare) must have been on\\nfriendly terms with Southampton. There is not the\\nleast evidence that one ever spoke to the other. Chet-\\ntle s line that divers of worship have taken him up\\nrefers to Marlowe, not Shaksper, as the-Shaksperians\\nhave been fond of claiming in evidence of the Strat-\\nford man s familiarity with Southampton, Essex and\\nothers of the nobility. Fleay, no.\\nIn the sixteenth century, in England, a great and\\nimpassable gulf lay between the quality, the gentry,\\nthe hereditary upper class, and the common herd who\\ntoiled for a living. Donnelly, 55. Of the common\\nherd, a player belonged to the bottom stratum, de-\\nspised, the impersonation of everything that was vile.\\nHence, it is not a matter of wonder that there is no\\nevidence that any man of worship ever had any\\nacquaintance, to say nothing of intimacy, with player\\nShaksper, notwithstanding current impressions to the\\ncontrary.\\nMalone, in his Inquiry, 1796, addressed to Lord\\nCharlemont, apropos of Ireland s forged familiar cor-\\nrespondence with Southampton (letters from Wm.\\nShakspere to the Lord, and vice versay^, says, p. 181\\nI will not take up your Lordship s time on this in-\\nAn Inquiry into the Authenticity of certain Miscellaneous\\nPapers and I,egal Instruments published December 24, 1795, and\\nattributed to Shakspere, Queen Elizabeth, and Henry, Earle of\\nSouthampton by Edmund Malone, Esq., London, 1796\\nThis book is an exposure of the Ireland forgeries, and served\\nthe purpose thoroughly.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "8o SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARi;.\\nauspicious commencement, which every one, at all\\nacquainted with the manner of that day, knows was\\nnot the language of a nobleman to a person at the im-\\nmeasurable distance at which Shakspeare stood from\\nlyord Southampton. Had he condescended to write to\\nour poet, he would without doubt have begun with\\nMr. Shakspeare, or Good Master Shakspeare or Good\\nWilliam, or some other similar form. The fact that\\nthe poems were dedicated to Southampton indicates no\\npersonal acquaintance with that nobleman on the part\\nof the poet, but the enterprise and impudence of the\\npublishers rather.\\nIt must not be forgotten that players were vagabonds\\nby law. As play acting was not recognized as a craft,\\nthey (the players) became in the eye of the law rogues\\nand vagabonds, men with no obvious means of liveli-\\nhood, and as such, liable to be taken up and punished\\nby whipping, fine or imprisonment. Finding them-\\nselves in this predicament, they applied to the Earl of\\nLeicester, who obtained for them a protecting license\\nfrom the Queen, contingent upon their good behavior,\\nand liable to be taken away at any time.*\\nThus the Queen s players became licensed Vaga-\\nbonds as the Queen s Bedesmen were Licensed Beg-\\nAn act of 1572 (14 EHz.) enacted that all fencers, bear-\\nwards, common players of interludes and minstrels (not be-\\nlonging to any baron of this realm, or to any honorable other\\nperson of greater degree) wandering abroad without the license\\nof two justices, at the least were subject to be grievously\\nwhipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a\\nhot iron of the compass of an inch about. Enc. Brit., 9th Ed.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "WILLIAM SHAKSPKR ON SNT^RING LONDON. 8 1\\ngars. It was in this class William Shaksper be-\\nlonged Smith, 59. The license was not so much\\na mark of approbation, but of toleration it was not\\nfeo much to secure them certain privileges, as to con-\\nfine them within due limits, and render them promptly\\namenable to the- law. Thus the last clause in the\\norder of the Privy Council openly states that for\\nbreaking any of these orders, their toleration cease\\nId., 68. Wm. Shakspere connected himself with a\\nclass that was held in the utmost contempt and the\\ntheater with which he was connected was the Public\\nTheater the lowest place at which dramatic entertain-\\nments were then represented. Id., 145.\\nDr. Ingleby says of the plaj^ers of that day Let\\ntheir lives be as cleanly and their dealings as upright\\nas they might, they were deemed to be sayis aveu, run-\\naways and vagabonds.\\nMore or less of this prejudice prevailed two hundred years\\nlater. In Mrs. Thrale s Memoirs, we read On the announce-\\nment of her marriage (with Piozzi, an Italian gentleman, but a\\nprofessional musician) people of our day can hardly form\\na notion of the storm of obloquy that broke upon her. To ap-\\npreciate the tone taken by her friends, we must bear in mind\\nthe social position of Italian singers and musical performers at\\nthe period. Amusing vagabonds are the epithets by which\\nLord Byron designated Catalini and Naldi in 1809, and such is\\nthe light in which they were undoubtedly regarded in 1784.\\nLord Macaulay says that she fled from the laughter\\nand hisses of her countrymen and countrywomen to a land\\nwhere she was unknown. Further: Johnson was\\nwriting to Hawkins that the woman he had once called his\\nmistress had become a subject for her enemies to exult over,\\nand for friends, if she had any left, to forget or pity\\nBoswell records this story in 1777 We walked over to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "82 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nThis opprobrium, it seems, attaclied. also to the writers\\nof plays: Of the contempt entertained for the actor s\\nprofession, some fell to the share of the dramatist;\\neven I^odge says Dr. Ingleby, who had indeed never\\ntrod the stage, but had written several plays, and had\\nno reason to be ashamed of his antecedents, speaks of\\nthe vocation of the play-maker as sharing the odium\\nattached to the actor Bnc. Brit., Drama.\\nFleay, Hist., 206, says: The statute of 39 Kliz.\\n(1587) had expressly included common players among\\nthe persons whom noblemen might license (z. e. to\\nstroll travel and so had the statute of 14 Kliz. (1572).\\nBut the statute of i James (1604) changed this. It\\nenacts that noble personages shall authorize none to\\ngo abroad {i. e, to stroll). From 1604 onward any\\nsuch strollers were ranked as vagabonds and sturdy\\nbeggars, along with gipsies, minstrels, and pedlars.\\nFroude, Hist. Kng., ch. i, says: It was the ex-\\npressed conviction (through the vagrant Acts of\\nHenry and Elizabeth) of the English nation, that it\\nwas better for a man not to live at all than to live a\\nprofitless and worthless life. The vagabond was a sore\\nRichardson s, and I wondered to find him displeased that I did\\nnot treat Cibber with more respect.\\nJohnson Now, sir, to talk of respect for a player. (Smil-\\ning disdainfully.\\nBoswell There, sir, you are always heretical; you never\\nwill allow merit to a player\\nJohnson Merit, sir, what merit Do j^ou respect a rope-\\ndancer or a ballad-singer What, sir, a fellow who claps\\na hump on his back, and a lump on his leg, and cries I am\\nRichard the Third Nay, sir, a ballad-singer is a higher man,\\netc., etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "WILWAM SHAKSPSR ON EjNTKRING IvONDON. 83\\nSpot upon the commonwealth, to be healed by a whole-\\nsome discipline if the gangrene was not incurable; to\\nbe cut away with the knife if the milder treatment of\\nthe cart whip failed to be of profit.\\nThe Venus and Adonis is the most carefully pol-\\nished production that WilUiam Shakespeare s name\\nwas ever signed to; and moreover, as polished, ele-\\ngant and sumptuous a piece of rhetoric as English let-\\nters have ever produced Morgan, 41.\\nIt is a strange thing, and the more so, inasmuch as\\nthe young Shaksper could have known no other lan-\\nguage than the Warwickshire patois when he went to\\nI,ondon, that in the Venus and Adonis there is not\\none word exclusively of Warwickshire. The people\\nof Warwickshire spoke a patois as different from the\\nEnglish of the London Court, as the Lowland Scotch\\nof Burns is to-day different from the English of West-\\nminster Donnelly, 43. If any dialect words at\\nall were used in the Venus and Adonis, they are com-\\nmon to many counties, or are classical English. It\\nfurther appears that there are in this entire poem\\nof 1 194 verses, scarcely a score of words, to compre-\\nhend which, even to the most ordinary English scholar\\nof to-day, would need a lexicon. But on examining\\nthese words, it will be found that they are early En-\\nglish, mostly classical, never in any sense local or\\nsectional. Morgan s Venus and Adonis, A study in\\nthe Warwickshire dialect 152: Could Venus and\\nAdonis have been written by one Warwickshire born\\nand bred, in the reign of Elizabeth who had not been\\nfirst qualified by drill in the courtly English in which\\nwe find that poem written? A man of education and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "84 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nculture, practised in KngHsli composition, may forge\\nthe style of a letterless rustic. Thackeray has done\\nthis, and I^owell, and Dickens, and hundreds of others.\\nBut could a letterless clown forge the style of a gen-\\ntleman of culture? Tennyson could write the North-\\nern Farmer in I^incolnshire dialect. But could a\\nlyincolnshire farmer, who knew nothing of any ver-\\nnacular except the lyincolnshire, have written the\\nPrincess or In Memoriam? Id. 139. A good deal\\nhas been said in Shakespeare Society gatherings, or in\\nlectures on Shakespeare, about the use of the War-\\nwickshire dialect in the plays, the inference being that\\nno one but a Warwickshire man could have written\\nthem. I have quoted Dr. Morgan s valuable book on\\nthe Warwickshire dialect in Venus and Adonis to\\nthe effect that there is not in the entire poem one\\nword exclusively Warwickshire. As to the plays,\\nDr. Morgan, 10, says: The Shakespeare plays con-\\ntain not only Warwickshire, but specimens of about\\nevery other known English dialect. The\\ncondition in life implied by a man s employment of\\none patois would seem to dispose of the probability of\\nhis possessing either the faculties or the inclination of\\nacquiring a dozen others. The philologist or archae-\\nologist may employ or amuse himself in collecting\\nspecimens of dialect and provincialisms. In\\nthe plays, where the Shakespearean character happens\\nto be a Warwickshirean, he will be found to speak\\nthat dialect, and not otherwise. In these\\nplays, however a Roman or a Bohemian may use an\\nEnglish idiom, there is no confusion in the dialects\\nwhen used as dialects, and not as vernacular. The", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "WII.I IAM SHAKSPEJR ON KNTE^RING LONDON. 85\\nNorfolk man does not talk Welsh, nor the Welshman\\nlyeicestershire; nor does the Warwickshire man use\\nWelsh-Bnglish.\\nOne of Dr. Morgan s conclusions (149) is this: That\\nthe Shakespeare Works are a storehouse of Eliza-\\nbethan English in all of its many varieties and varia-\\ntions, its dictions, vernaculars and dialects, from the\\nmost refined, splendid and courtly to the rudest and\\ncrudest And another conclusion is: That the poem\\nVenus and Adonis is apparently the monograph of a\\npoet able to confine himself to the most refined, most\\nsplendid, and courtliest of these dialects and to resist\\nany temptation of vicinage, heredity, or contemporary\\ncorruptions The question naturally arises, were not\\nthese works therefore beyond the possibility of Will-\\niam Shaksper\\nThe celebrated picture of the horse in Venus and\\nAdonis is borrowed word for word from Du Bartas.\\nHere are all Shakespeare s phrases as they occur in\\nthat description, and in brackets those of his original:\\nRound-hoofed [round-hoof] short -jointed [short-pas-\\nterns] broad breast [broad breast] full eye [full\\neye] small head [head but of middle size] nostrils\\nwide [nostrils wide] high crest [crested neck, bowed]\\nstraight legs [hart-like legs] and passing strong\\n[strong] thin mane [thin mane] thick tail [full\\ntail] broad buttock [fair fat buttocks] tender hide\\n[smooth hide]. Quarterly Review (lyondon), No.\\n356, April, 1-894, P- 348. Now Du Bartas was a\\nFrench poet, and his work (on Creation, embracing\\nsaid description) was first translated into English in\\n1598, after the publication of the Venus and Adonis.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "86 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARK.\\nWas it likely that Du Bartas, in the original, was to\\nbe found in Stratford, that bookless neighborhood\\nor that William Shaksper should have been able to\\nread it if it were\\nOf this remarkable poem, Venus and Adonis, Pro-\\nfessor Baynes said in Fraser s Magazine, 1879-80:\\nOn becoming firmly established in his new career as\\nplaywright and dramatic proprietor, he (Shaksper)\\nrecalled and prepared for the press his early poetical\\nstudies, Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece. They are\\nwonderful poems to have been produced by an English\\nyouth written in the country between the years 1580\\nand 1586-7 (that is, between the ages of 16 and 22 or\\n23 years, during which time the boy and young man\\nwas leading the practical life of a butcher). The\\nmarvel is, that they should have been produced by a\\nprentice hand in a small provincial town. It\\n(the Venus and Adonis) was founded upon no model,\\neither ancient or modern; nothing like it had ever\\nbeen attempted before, and nothing compared to it was\\nproduced afterwards. He quotes Mr. Collier as say-\\ning: We feel morally certain Venus and Adonis was\\nin being prior to Shakspere s quitting Stratford.\\nWe know that Shakspere was a diligent student of\\nOvid s methods of dealing with mythological fable.\\nThe full, sensuous, pictorial treatment of his\\ntheme in Venus and Adonis and the Lucrece is thor-\\noughly Ovidian. And Mr. Baynes gives several\\npages to quotations from these poems to show how\\nclose to Ovid they are. Of course, the nearer they\\nare to Ovid, the more certain it is that young Shak-\\nsper had nothing to do with them.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPE;R on i^NTKRING I^ONDON. 87\\nOn the Other hand, Halliwell-Phillipps says: It is\\nextremely improbable that an epic so highly finished,\\nand so completely devoid of patois, could have been\\nproduced under the circumstances of his then domestic\\nsurroundings, while, moreover, the notion is opposed\\nto the best and earliest traditional opinions. I. 104.\\nNo direct testimony has come to us from William\\nShaksper s contemporaries about his theatrical career.\\nThere are vague traditions, but no reliable or contem-\\nporary evidence. In a very few instances he is alluded\\nto as a player, but as to his playing no one said any-\\nthing. Now and then the bare mention of his name\\nas connected with a company or a theater occurs, but\\nno further information is given. There are extant\\nproofs that he was a shareholder in the Globe, and\\nthat he retired to Stratford about 16 10, a rich man.\\nAs to writing plays, as I shall in due time show, no\\none during his life, (to 16 16) or after his death, to the\\npublication of the First Folio of the collected plays of\\nWilliam Shakespeare, 1623, testified in any sort of lit-\\nerature that this man wrote plays of any kind. The\\nwhole course of his life, so far as it is known, was in-\\nconsistent with writing of plays. The myth that\\nWilliam Shaksper was the man who wrote the plays\\ncalled Shakespeare s, had its genesis in 1623, seven\\nyears after Shaksper s death, by what may be termed\\nan accident, and grew with exceeding slowness so\\nmuch so, indeed, that by the time it had fairly become\\nable to stand alone, it was too late to get at any facts\\not the reputed author s life, or anything whatever con-\\nnected with the plays. All that could be learned then\\nwas from the remembrances of some old persons of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "88 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPEARi;.\\nStratford, who had known the player before he went\\nto lyondon, or after he came back, or from traditions\\nwhich reached the next generations. Not a soul\\nwould appear to have been then alive in I^ondon who\\ncould give any personal testimony as to his life there,\\nor as to his authorship of the plays, or to the quality\\nof his playing. The first notes by any inquirer into\\nthe facts relating to Shaksper were made in 1662 by\\nWard, the next by Aubrey, at about 1680. Nothing\\nin the memoranda of either of these is of the slightest\\nbearing on the authorship of the Shakespeare plays.\\nThe next inquirer was Dowdall, in 1693, who talked\\nwith the old sexton, and soon after. Da vies added a\\nfew biographical notes relating to Shaksper in a manu-\\nscript biographical dictionary he owned. H.-P.. I, p.\\n1 1 That is all that was picked up and made of rec-\\nord during the rest of the seventeenth century after\\nShaksper s death, and what there is, not merely gives\\nno help towards the mystery of the authorship of the\\nplays, but is entirely of a character to forbid the sup-\\nposition that the Stratford man ever had anything to\\ndo with the plays.\\nNext came Nicholas Rowe (1709, ninety-three years\\nafter the player died), who was the first editor\\nof Shakespeare entitled to the name, and the first to at-\\ntempt the collection of a few biographical particulars\\nof the immortal dramatist. (That is to say of the\\nStratford man, William Shaksper.) Chambers Knc.\\nRowe has only narrated certain gossip on the authority\\nof Betterton player from 1661 to 1709 and D Ave-\\nnant, manager of one of the theaters before, and again\\nafter, the civil war. From these two men Rowe could", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "wiivWAM shakspe;r on knte;ring i^ondon. 89\\npick up. nothing of William Shaksper s lyondon\\ncareer, but this: He was received into the company-\\nthen in being at first in a very mean rank, but his ad-\\nmirable wit, and the natural turn of it to the stage\\nsoon distinguished him, if not as an extraordinary\\nactor, yet as an excellent writer. Though I\\nhave inquired I never could meet with any further ac-\\ncount of him this way than that the top of his per-\\nformance was the Ghost of his own Hamlet,\\nBetterton made a special journey into Warwick-\\nshire to gather up what remains he could and all\\nhe got was that the latter part of Shaksper s life was\\nspent in the retirement and conversation of his friends;\\nthat he had the good fortune to gather an estate equal\\nto his wish, and spent some years in his native Strat-\\nford and his wit and good nature entitled him to\\nthe friendship of the gentlemen of the neighborhood\\none of whom was Mr. Combe, noted for his wealth\\nand usury On this Combe, Rowe says that Shak-\\nsper made an impromptu epitaph: Ten-in-the-hun-\\ndred lies here ingraved etc., the doggerel we have\\nall heard of, and he adds, the sharpness of the satyr\\nis said to have stung the man so severely that he never\\nforgave it. He (Shaksper) dy d and was bury d, and\\nleft three daughters. This is what I could\\nlearn of any note relating to himself or family\\nR. G. White, Memoirs, says that Betterton visited Shak-\\nsper s native place probably between 1670 and 1675 for the ex-\\npress purpose of gathering materials for his biography. All\\nthat he learned was probably embodied by Rowe in the ac-\\nconnt of the poet s life which appeared in Rowe s edition, pub-\\nlished in 1709.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "go shakspb;r not shake;speare;.\\nPlainly, there was nothing to be gathered either in\\nI^ondon or in Stratford of the least moment. The\\nman was forgotten in lyondon before his bones had\\nmoldered, and in Stratford was remembered only as a\\nrich man, who had come from L^ondon and resided\\nthere the last years of his life.\\nThat is all that was discovered of William Shak-\\nsper or related of him till Edmund Malone at the close\\nof the eighteenth century began to investigate. Mor-\\ngan, 177, says: With the most painstaking care he\\nsifted every morsel of testimony, searching in his-\\ntories, chronicles, itineraries, local traditions, and re-\\nports but in vain. The nearer he came to the Strat-\\nford man, the further he got from a poet and\\nstudent Malone says: That almost a century\\nshould have elapsed from the time of Shakespeare s\\n(Shaksper s) death, without a single attempt to dis-\\ncover any circumstance which should throw a light on\\nthe history of his life or literary career are\\ncircumstances which cannot be contemplated without\\nastonishment. Sir William Dugdale, bom in\\n1605, and educated at the school of Coventry, 20\\nmiles from Stratford-on-Avon, and whose work The\\nAntiquities of Warwickshire appeared in 1646, only\\nthirty 3^ears after the death of our poet, we might\\nhave expected to give some curious memorials of his\\nillustrious countryman. But he has not given us a\\nsingle particular of his private life. The next bio-\\ngraphical printed notice that I have found is in Ful-\\nler s Worthies folio, 1662; in Warwickshire p.\\n116, where there is a short account of our poet, fur-\\nnishing very little information concerning him. And", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "wiivLiAM SHAKSPKR ON e;nt:sring i^ondon. 91\\nagain, neither Winstanley in his I^ives of the Poets\\n1687; Langbaine, in 1691; Blount, in 1694; Gibbon,\\nin 1699, add anything to the meagre accounts of Dug-\\ndale and Fuller. That Anthony Wood, who was him-\\nself a native of Oxford (in the same county), and who\\nwas born about fourteen years after the death of\\nShakspere, should not have collected any anecdotes of\\nShakspere has always appeared to be extraordinary.\\nThough vShakspere had no direct title to a place in the\\nAthenae Oxonienses, that diligent antiquary could\\neasily have found a niche for his life as he had done\\nfor many others not bred at Oxford. The life of\\nDavenant afforded him a very full opportunity for such\\nan insertion.\\nMr. Malone, in spite of the silence of the authori-\\nties to whose page he had recourse, not only assumed\\nall he could not find authority for, but undertook to\\ntell us the precise date at which his Stratford lad com-\\nposed his plays. From the time of Malone,\\nthe Shakespeare making, Shakespeare mending and\\ncobbling, have gone on without relaxation. From\\nMalone downward, the Shakspereans have rejected\\nevery shred of fact they found at hand, and weaved,\\ninstead, their warp and woof of fiction around a vision\\nof their own. Morgan, 85, et seq.\\nAnd now, nearly three hundred years after William\\nShaksper died, commentators have arisen who under-\\ntake to decide out of their own consciousness what he\\ndid or did not do, what he did or did not write, and\\nthey give minute details of his school life, of his career\\nin lyondon, how he gained the knowledge that enabled\\nhim to write the Shakespeare poems and plays, and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "92 shaksp:sr not shakkspKars.\\nthe circumstances under which each play was com-\\nposed, and the sequence in which they were written.\\nMr. Halliwell-PhilHpps is sufficiently inclined to give\\nfacts which are no facts, in his Outlines but he can-\\nnot stand the presumption of the recent biographers,\\nand relieves his soul as follows: But in like manner\\nas there have arisen in these days critics who, dispens-\\ning altogether with the old contemporary evidences\\n(that hits Baynes and Fleay and Lee) can enter so\\nperfectly into all the vicissitudes of Shakespeare s in-\\ntellectual temperament, that they can authoritatively\\nidentify at a glance every line that he did write, and\\nwith equal precision every sentence that he did not\\nwrite (that whacks the critics who give out silly\\ntwaddle about stop t lines, metrical tests, light end-\\nings and weak endings) even so there are others to\\nwhom a picture s history is not of the slightest mo-\\nment, their reflective instincts enabling them without ef-\\nfort or investigation to recognize in an old curiosity\\nshop the dramatist s visage (the Becker death\\nmask) that once belonged to the author of Hamlet.\\nI, 297. And the old gentleman sorrowfully adds:\\nlyowlier votaries can only bow their heads in si-\\nlence.\\nNo one during William Shaksper s life, or after his\\ndeath, 161 6, up to 1623, is known to have declared or\\nwritten in book, note-book, or letter, that he was the\\nauthor of the Shakespeare plays, or even of a single\\nplay of that series; and there is not the least evidence\\nthat any cultivated man of that day ever thought that\\nhe was the author. Yet, on so slight a foundation, as\\na distant resemblance in the sound of the two names,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "WIIvl^lAM SHAKSPElR ON I^NTE^RING IvONDON. 93\\nShaksper and Shakes-speare, by aid of surmises, as-\\nsumptions, lies and forgeries, and what Fleay calls\\nmischievously fertile imaginations a vast super-\\nstructure has been reared, and all the world is to-day\\nadmiring it. All the world is crediting a buffoon, a\\ndegraded strolling player, the disciple and associate of\\nKemp, whose portrait Dr. Rolfe has favored us with,\\nwith the authorship of the greatest works of imagina-\\ntion, learning and philosophy which the English lan-\\nguage can show.\\nThe Sultan looked over the way one morning to\\ndiscover only an open place where a wonderful palace\\nhad delighted him the day before and for many days,\\nand the Chronicle says that he rubbed his eyes, but\\nstill could see nothing; he stood some time endeav-\\noring to comprehend how so large a palace should so\\nsuddenly and so completely vanish. Some day, and\\nnot long hence, the Shaksper piece of architecture\\nwill dissolve as did that ancient palace, and a good\\nmany critics and commentators will rub their eyes in\\nvain, and wonder whether they have not been in a\\ndream.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "94 SHAKSPB^R NOT shak.:ssp:^ar:^.\\nCHAPTER VII.\\nTHE THEATERS IN IvONDON.\\nlyCt us look at the theater of 1 580-1610, during the\\nperiod while William Shaksper was in one way or an-\\nother connected with it, and see what sort of a place it\\nwas, what the plaj^ers were, the character and style of\\nthe playing, and what sort of audiences frequented it.\\nTaine, English I^iterature, ch. 2, says: The thea-\\nters were great and rude contrivances, awkward in\\ntheir construction, barbarous in their appointments,\\nopen to the sky as to the pit, admittance to which was\\none penny. If it rained, and it often rains in lyondon,\\nthe people in the pit, butchers, mercers, bakers, sailors,\\napprentices, received the streaming rain on their heads.\\nWhile waiting for the piece, they amuse\\nthemselves after their fashion, drink beer, crack nuts,\\neat fruit, howl, and now and then resort to their fists\\nthey have been known to fall upon the actors, and\\nturn the theater upside down. When the\\nbeer took effect, there was a great upturned barrel\\nin the pit, a peculiar receptacle for general use. The\\nsmell rises and then comes the cry Burn the juniper\\nThey bum some in a plate on the stage, and the\\nheavy smoke fills the air. Above them on\\nthe stage were the spectators able to pay a shilling,\\nand gentlefolk. If they chose to pay an extra shilling,\\nthey could have a stool if there were not stools\\nenough, then they lie down on the ground. They", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "^HB) I HE^ATKRS IN tONDON, ^5\\nplay cards, smoke, insult the pit, who give it back\\nwithout stinting, and throw apples at them into the\\nbargain. There were no preparations or per-\\nspectives, few or no movable scenes. A scroll, in big\\nletters announces to the public that they were in Rome\\nor Constantinople, etc., etc. The burden of eiitertain-\\ning the audience rested with the clow7t, and the female\\ncharacters were personated by boys and men.\\nSir Philip Sidney, describing the state of the drama,\\nand the stage in his time, about 1583, says: Now\\nyou shall have three ladies walk to gather flowers, and\\nthen you must believe the stage to be a garden. By\\nand by, we have news of the shipwreck in the same\\nplace; then we are to blame if we accept it not for a\\nrock. Upon the back of that comes out a hideous\\nmonster with fire and smoke, and the miserable be-\\nholders are bound to take it for a cave while in the\\nmeantime two armies fly in, represented b)^ four swords\\nand bucklers, and then what hard heart will not re-\\nceive it for a pitched field.\\nIn these primitive theaters no scenery was used\\nthat was first introduced by Davenant after the Res-\\ntoration. A curtain met the spectators on entering;\\nit was then slowly drawn up; and he saw a large stage\\nstrewn with rushes, the side walls hung with arras;\\na large board with a name printed on it, Westminster,\\nMessina, etc., informed him where the scenes of the\\npla} to be performed was laid. Enc. Brit., 9th Kd.,\\nVol. VIII, 420.\\nMr. Phillipps says, I, 372: The charge for admis-\\nsion to the Theater was a penny; but this sum merely\\nentitled the visitor to standing room in the lower part", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "96 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAK:^SPE;ARE;.\\nof the house; if he wanted to enter any of the gal-\\nleries, another penny was demanded. The\\nprobability is, that the penny alone was insufl cient\\nfor securing places which would be endured by any\\nbut the lowest and poorest class of auditors, those who\\nstood in the yard or pit, and were thus exposed to the\\nuncertainties of the weather. Also Vol. I, 184:\\nThere was no movable or other kind of scenery.\\nOn page 183, he describes the Globe theater, built in\\n1600, thus: The building was constructed of wood,\\nand was partially roofed with thatch, but the larger\\npart of the interior was open to the sky. In the ab-\\nsence of a roof, the pit and much of the other part of\\nthe building obliquely exposed to the rays of the sun,\\nboth visitors and actors must on occasions have found\\nthe Globe, even in the summer time, exceedingly un-\\ncomfortable. The extent of the inconvenience that\\nwas endured there in the month of February, and in\\nmuggy Southwark, almost defies conjecture.\\nIt is scarcely necessary to observe that the current of\\nair engendered by the open roof would have rendered a\\nperfonnajice by candle-light an impossibility. There\\nwas a building so diminutive that the remotest specta-\\ntor could hardly have been more than a dozen yards or\\nthereabouts from the front of the stage, etc.\\nAllowing the pit to have been twelve yards square\\nin area, and four persons to the yard, there would be\\na total of 576 spectators in the pit. When Mr.\\nPhillipps tells us, I, 98, that ten thousand spectators\\nwitnessed the performance of Henry VI, he means\\nthat on successive days of performance the number of\\nspectators was considerable. On page 177, the same", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "the; THi^ATeRS IN LONDON. 97\\nauthor speaks of the diminutive boards of the Cur-\\ntain theater.\\nDowden, 47, says: In all that is external and\\nmechanical, the theater was still comparatively rude.\\nDuring Shakspere s connection with the stage, the\\nbuildings used for dramatic entertainment were of two\\nclasses public theaters and those which were called\\nprivate. The public theaters (the sort with which\\nWilliam Shaksper was connected throughout his\\ncareer in London), except over the stage and boxes,\\nwere open to the sky. In private theaters, the per-\\nformances commonly took place by the light of candles\\nor cressets; in public theaters, by daylight. In both,\\nthe play began in the afternoon, often at 3 o clock and\\nended at 5, or between 5 and 6. The spectators who\\noccupied the pit or yard were obliged in public\\ntheaters to stand; in private theaters they were seated.\\nThe price of admittance to various houses varied from,\\none penny, or two pence, to two shillings or half a\\ncrown. In public theaters, young men of rank and\\nfashion were accommodated with stools on each side of\\nthe rush-strewn stage, where their attendants waited\\nupon them and supplied them with their pipes and\\ntobacco. I^adies visiting the theaters sometimes wore\\nmasks. Movable scenery had not then been de-\\nvised. In front of the stage ran curtains,\\nwhich could be drawn and withdrawn as was needed,\\nand at the back of the stage, similar curtains occupied\\nthe place of our scenery, and could be used for exits\\nand entrances of the actors. Toward the rear of the\\nstage rose an upper stage, from which, when it seemed\\nsuitable, part of the dialogue could be spoken.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "98 SHAKSPER NO^T SHAKESPEJARK.\\nThis Upper stage might be imagined the walls of a\\nbesieged city, as in King John; or a balcony, as in\\nRomeo and Juliet; or as a stage within a stage, as in\\nthe first scene of Hamlet.\\nFleay, 251, says: The prologue of the play of\\nHenry VIII shows that the extant play was performed\\nas a new one at Blackfriars, for the price of entrance,\\none shilling, (line 12), and the address to the first\\nand happiest hearers of the town (line 24) are only\\napplicable to the private house in Blackfriars;* the\\nentrance to the Globe was two-pence, and the audience\\nat this public house was of a much lower class.\\nCollier says, vol. I, 17: With regard to mechanical\\nfacilities for the representation of plays before, and\\nindeed long after the time of Shakespeare, it may be\\nsufficient to state that our theaters were merely round\\nwooden buildings, open to the sky in the audience\\npart of the house, although the stage was covered by\\nIt is not to be supposed that the private theaters were\\nnumerous. In fact they consisted of just two:\\n1. The Singing School of St. Pauls, opened early in 1600 or\\n1599. The Paul s boys ceased to act in 1607; but I think that\\nthe children of the King s Revels, who succeeded them, were\\nthe same company, under another name. They acted\\nfrom 1607 to 1609. Fleay, Hist. lyond. Stage, 163.\\n2. Blackfriars. The freehold of the house which was trans-\\nformed into this theater was purchased by James Burbage of Sir\\nW. Moore, 4th May, 1596. There is no trace of any\\nperformance there until Nov. 1598, when one of Jonson s plays\\nwas acted by the children of the Blackfriars It was leased\\nin 1600 to one Bvans, who first set up the Chapel Boys. In\\nAugust, 1608, the Burbages and associates bought the remaining\\nlease of Bvans, the master of the Chapel, and near the end of\\n1609, placed men players in their room. Id., I, c.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "THE THKATE^RS IN I^ONDON. 99\\na hanging roof; the spectators stood on the ground in\\nfront, or at the sides, or were accommodated in boxes,\\nor around the inner circumference of the edifice, or in\\ngalleries at a greater elevation. Our ancient stage was\\nunfurnished with movable scenery; and tables, chairs,\\na few boards for a battlemented wall, or a rude struc-\\nture for a tomb or an altar, seemed to have been\\nnearly all the properties it possessed. At this\\nperiod of our stage history (i594). the performances\\nusually began at three in the afternoon Collier\\nfurther says, I, ii: The Globe was a round wooden\\nbuilding open to the sky, while the stage was pro-\\ntected from the weather by an overhanging roof or\\nthatch. The number of persons it would contain, we\\nhave no means of ascertaining, but it certainly was of\\nlarger dimensions than the Rose theater, the Hope, or\\nthe Swan, three other edifices of the same kind, and\\nused for the same purpose in the immediate vicinity.\\nThe Blackfriars was a private theater, as it was called,\\nentirely covered in, and of smaller size. Fleay,\\nHist., says, p. 152: Blackfriars was a private theater,\\nbuilt after 1596. The private theaters were in en-\\nclosed buildings, had pits with seats instead of open\\nyards. The performances were by candle light and\\npart of the audience sat on the stage smoking. They\\n(these private theaters) grew out of the performances of\\nmarriages, etc. of the gentry, and the Inns of Cotirt\\nRevels, just as the public theaters grew otct of the inn-\\nyard play-houses and the open air scaffolds in the market\\nplace. On page 10, Mr. Fleay goes back to the ori-\\ngin of play houses and playing companies: At the\\naccession of Elizabeth (1558), the stages, that is to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "lOO SHAKSPE;R not SHAKKSPEjARli.\\nsay, the inn-yards, occupied as play places, were used\\nby the men players under the patronage of the princi-\\nple noblemen and gentry connected with the Court.\\nHad it not been for the Queen s liking of the\\ndrama, and for the courtiers imitating of her taste\\nshown by the adoption of dramatic entertainments at\\nchristenings, marriages, etc. it would have been long\\nbefore the stage would have emerged from its earlier\\ncondition as a mere vehicle for the production of mys-\\nteries, miracles, and moral interludes. The\\npoint which I endeavor to insist on as a necessary\\ncondition to the understanding of all subsequent stage\\nhistory, is the absolute subordination of public per-\\nformances to court representations. He says that\\nthe keeping up the play houses in inn-yards was in\\neifect allowing of rehearsals to be performed to and at\\nthe cost of the people, so saving court expenses; and\\nthat out of the plays exhibited in public every year,\\nsome half dozen of the best were selected for repre-\\nsentation before the Queen at Christmas and Shrove-\\ntide. These play-places were suppressed by the city\\nauthorities, and this led to the establishment of player\\ncompanies directly under the Queen s patronage.\\nScarcely any advance was made in the literary quality\\nof these plays or interludes between 1360 and i^Sy.\\nDitmb-shows and Inductions^ (an introductory scene,\\npreface, prologue to a play. Webster) became popular\\ntoward the close of the period that is, about the time\\nThe play of the Taming of a Shrew is prefaced by an\\nInduction consisting of two short farcical scenes; the foolery\\nwith a drunken tinker was just the sort of thing to please a\\npublic theater audience.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "th:^ the;ate;rs in london. ioi\\nthat young Sliaksper came to lyondon. In 1576 or\\n1577, the first two theaters, (the Theater, and the\\nCurtain) were built. Mr. Fleay gives a list of the\\nInterludes and plays that were represented at Court up\\nto 1587, and they are all of the simplest description.\\nHe says, Up to 1592, the court performances, (from\\n1586) had been Interludes, plays by the Paul s boys,\\nand Masks. An example of the last was The\\nMisfortunes of Arthur, by the gentlemen of Gray s\\nInn.\\nCollier makes Shaksper a player at the Blackfriars,\\nand a part owner of that theater; but Fleaj^, in his\\nlyife, 55, says: There is no proof that William Shak-\\nspere ever acted at Blackfriars which is equivalent\\nto saying that he never acted in a private theater. In\\nthe same book, he says also, (65) that the averment\\nthat Shakspere was part owner of the Blackfriars\\nrests on forged documents (64), that the King s men\\ntook possession of this theater for their own purposes\\nin 1 6 14, or 1615, but there is not a trace of them\\nuntil then in connection with this private theater,\\nexcept the ex parte statement of C. Burbage, made\\nfor a special purpose, in a plea which is studiously\\nambiguous.\\nIn the Hist. Lond. Stage, Mr. Fleay has somewhat\\nmodified this last statement. On page 153, he says:\\nIn August, 1608, the Burbages bought the then re-\\nmaining lease of Blackfriars, and near the end of 1609,\\n(on p. 201, Dec. 1609), placed men players, Heminge,\\nCondell, Shakspere, c., in their rooms. Again,\\non p. 190, he says: They (the King s men) con-\\ntinued from 1 6 10 to 1642 to use both the Globe", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "I02 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARB).\\nand the Blackfriars. The year 1610 was just at the\\nend of Shaksper s theatrical career, for he sold his in-\\nterest and retired to Stratford at that time, 16 10- 11.\\nThere is no testimony in PhilHpps or Fleay that Shak-\\nsper ever played at Blackfriars, or any private theater.\\nHis Company played occasionally at Court, about\\nChristmas time, at Whitehall, and at Greenwich; also\\nrarely at Somerset House, at Pembroke House, at\\nGrays Inn, being officially the I ord Chamberlain s\\nplayers, or the King s players; but at these perform-\\nances as elsewhere, there was no movable scenery used\\nand the plays were greatly abbreviated. Mr. Fleay\\nrepeatedly alludes to this fact.\\nThe covering being of thatch led to the destruction\\nof the Globe theater,in 1613. In playing All is True,\\ncertain chambers being shot off, some of the stuff\\nwherewith some of them was stopped (wadding) did\\nlight on the thatch, and kindled inwardly con-\\nsuming the whole house to the ground\\nSymonds, 287, says: Performances began at 3\\no clock in the afternoon and averaged about two\\nhours in duration. The piece of the da)^ was gen-\\nerally closed with an address to the sovereign, recited\\nby the actors on their knees. Then followed a kind of\\nfarce, technically called a jig, in which the clown per-\\nformed the solo. Jigs were written in rhyme, plenti-\\nfully interspersed with gag, and extempore action.*\\n(Webster defines jig obsolete as a light, humorous\\npiece of writing a farce in verse). Entrance prices\\nKemp s jigge was one of those diversions, of combined sing-\\ning and dancing, of which several were written and performed\\nhy him and Tarleton. Ing. 28,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "the; THE;A rE;RS IN I^ONDON. 103\\nvaried with the theater, the seat, and kind of exhibi-\\ntion. For the most ordinary shows three pennies were\\npaid, one at the gate, another at the entry of the scaf-\\nfold, and the third for quiet standing. In the larger\\ntheaters, there was a place called the two-penny room,\\nwhich answers to our gallery. Private boxes were\\nsold at a higher rate.\\nThe lowest frequenters of the public theaters con-\\ntemptuously alluded to as groundlings and stink-\\nards stood in the yard (pit) beneath the open sky.\\nSpectators of the more fashionable sort sat on\\nthree-legged stools upon the stage; they took their\\nplace by force in defiance of the hootings and hisses of\\nthe groundlings separated from them by the barriers\\nof the stage. The custom was a great annoyance both\\nto the actors and the audience; for the ^oung gallants\\nvShowed very little consideration for either. They ex-\\nchanged remarks, and chaffed the players, peeled\\noranges, and threw apples into the yard, puffed to-\\nbacco from pipes lighted by their pages, and flirted\\nwith the women in the neighboring boxes.\\nChaffed the players. We have an amusing de-\\nscription of this pastime in A .Midsummer- Night s\\nDream, where Theseus, Hippolyta, and the courtiers,\\nsitting on the stage witnessing the play given by Bot-\\ntom and his company of unlettered rustics are in-\\ncessantly and unmercifully interrupting and ridiculing\\nthem. The Queen exclaims: This is the silliest stuff\\ne er I heard. In comes the lion, who roars as gently\\nas a sucking dove. Well roared, lion, well run,\\nThisbe Py ramus dies; With the help of a surgeon\\nlie mi^ht yet recover, and prove an ass and so on,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "I04 shaksp:sr not shakespbare;.\\naudibly, at everj^ movement of the players. This prac-\\ntice of chaffing shows the contempt of the better class\\nof spectators for both players and play, and we are\\ntold it was habitual, also that the private theaters\\nwere subjected to the same nuisance. Fleay, from his\\npoint of view that Shakespeare was Shaksper, and\\nthe author of Hamlet, considers the attack on Bottom\\nand his base mechanicals as a satire against the\\nEarl of Sussex s men (company) all guess\\nwork; but from my point of view that Shakespeare\\nwas not Shaksper, and that the Shakespeare plays were\\nnot written for the public theater, or with any thought\\nof their being played therein, it is likely that the\\nscene spoken of was written in ridicule of all public\\ntheater players, and that of Shaksper s company as\\nmuch as any.]\\nMr. Symonds imagines a visit to the Fortune, 289:\\nIt is three o clock upon an afternoon of summer.\\nWe pass through the great door, ascend some steps,\\nand let ourselves into our private room (box) upon\\nthe first or lower tier. We find ourselves in a low\\nsquare building, open to the slanting sunlight, built of\\nshabby wood, not unlike a circus; smelling of saw-\\ndust and the breath of people. The yard before is\\ncrowded with six-penny mechanics and prentices in\\ngreasy leathern jerkins, servants, boys and grooms,\\nelbowing each other for bare standing room, and pass-\\ning coarse jests on their neighbors. A similar crowd\\nis in the two-penny room above our heads, except that\\nhere are a few flaunting girls. Not many women of\\nrespectability are visible, although two or three have\\ntaken a side box, from which they can lean forward to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "the; THeATDRS IN I^ONDON. 105\\nexchange remarks with the gallants on the stage.\\nThe first act begins. There is nothing but the rudest\\nscenery. A battlemented city- wall behind the stage,\\nwith a placard hung out upon it indicating that the\\nscene is Rome. As the play proceeds, the figure of a\\ntown makes way for some wooden rocks and a couple\\nof trees, to signify the Hyrcanian forest. A damsel\\nwith a close-shaven chin wanders alone in the wood,\\nlamenting her sad case. Suddenly a card-board dragon\\nis thrust from the sides upon the stage, and she takes\\nflight. The first act closes with a speech from an old\\ngentleman arrayed in antique robes. He is the Chorus,\\nand it is his business to explain what has happened to\\nthe damsel, and how in the next act, her son, a\\nsprightly youth of eighteen, will conquer the dragon.\\nDuring the course of the play, music is made for the\\nrecreation of the audience, with songs and ditties.\\nThe show concludes with a prayer for the Queen s\\nMajesty, uttered by the actors on their knees.\\nAgain: It is difiicult for us to realize the simplic-\\nity with which the stage was mounted in the London\\ntheaters. Scenery may be said to have been wholly\\nabsent. P. 297. Actresses were never seen upon\\nthe stage. Beardless youths boyed the greatness of\\nCleopatra and I^ady Macbeth, hobbledehoys squeaked\\nout the pathos of Desdemona and Juliet s passion\\nP. 60. How could such characters (the female char-\\nacters of the plays of Fletcher, Marston, Dekker and\\nothers) not to speak of Imogen or Cleopatra, Con-\\nstance or Katharine have been represented on the\\nEnglish stage? Here, indeed, is a mystery. How\\ncould Shakespeare have committed Desdemona to a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "io6\\nSHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPKARK.\\nboy? The simple answer is, Shakespeare did not\\ndo it.\\nDowden says, 50: A rude sketch of the interior of\\nthe Swan Theater, I^ondon, as it was about the 3^ear", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "THl^ THE;ATERS in LONDON. I07\\n1596, was not long since brought to light in the Uni-\\nversity Library, Utrecht. It is from the hand of a\\nlearned Dutchman, Johannes De Witt, who visited\\nEngland toward the close of the reign of Elizabeth.\\nNo other drawing of the interior of an Elizabethan\\ntheater is known to exist.\\nThe stage, strongly supported on timber bulks, is\\noccupied by three actors, and has for all its furniture\\na bench. Neither curtains nor traverses appear. At\\nthe back of the stage, which is open to the weather, is\\nthe tiring room, and above this rises a covered balcony,\\noccupied by spectators, but available at need for the\\nactors. The trumpeter is seen at the door of a covered\\nchamber near the gallery roof. Id. 50.\\nChamber s Enc, Theatre says of this drawing:\\nThe only existing contemporary drawing of the\\nElizabethan stage is here reproduced from Dr. Gae-\\ndertz book on the Old English Stage It represents\\nthe Swan Theater in 1596. The drawing was made\\nby one John De Witt, who visited lyOndon in 1596,\\nand whose manuscript diary was discovered by Dr.\\nGaedertz in the Royal Library at Berlin. As a pic-\\nture of the stage in the time of Shakespeare it is of\\ninfinite value.\\nThe authors I have quoted assert that the stage\\nwas protected from the weather by a roof, but no one\\nof them gives an authority for the fact. De Witt s\\npicture shows that there was no such shelter at the\\nSwan, and makes it probable that the other public\\ntheaters were constructed after the same fashion and\\nthat the players, as well as the crowd in the pit, stood\\nexposed to the weather. Fleay, Hist., 147, says of the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "I08 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPSARB;.\\nTheater: Being a public theater with daylight per-\\nformances, (it) was open to the sky in the centre\\n148: The Curtain was a similar building to the\\nTheater; and the Rose and Swan were similar to\\nsame Therefore, the fact must be that all these\\ntheaters were as in De Witt s cut of the Swan, the\\nstage as well as the pit open to the sky.* This cut\\nenables us to understand Mr. Symonds imaginary pic-\\nture of the Fortune, before given. The lowest floor\\nat the two sides of the stage is divided into rooms, or\\nboxes, few in number; the second floor is the two-\\npenny gallery, occupied by persons of the same order\\nas those in the pit. Plainly, nine-tenths of the audi-\\nence consisted of what Mr. Symonds says were con-\\ntemptuously called groundlings or stinkards.\\nNeither the Theater, nor the Curtain, was used\\nexclusively for dramatic entertainments. Both were\\nfrequently engaged for matches and exercises in the\\nart of fencing and not only fencers, but\\ntumblers and such like sometimes exhibited at these\\ntheaters H.-P., 273.\\nWilliam Shaksper, as a player, first belonged to\\nlyord Strange s Company; soon after the death of\\nLord Strange, Lord Hunsdon became its patron, and\\nwhen the second Lord Hunsdon became the Chamber-\\nlain, 1593, it was called the Chamberlain Company\\nafter 1603, and the accession of James, it became The\\nKing s Company In 1593, the Company opened in\\nDrake, chapter VII, says of tlie Globe Theater: It -was con-\\nstructed of wood, and only partly thatched, its centre being open\\nto the weather.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "The; the^aters in london. 109\\nthe old Theater Fleay, (25) says that before the\\nestablishment of the Chamberlain s Company, Shak-\\nsper had often been obliged to travel, and to act\\nabout town in inn-yards. According to Halliwell-\\nPhillips, I, 109, Shakespeare s first plays up to\\n1594, were all written for Henslowe, and were acted\\nunder the sanction of that manager, by the various\\ncompanies performing from 1592 to 1594 at the Rose\\nTheater and Newington-Butts Fleay states posi-\\ntively that player Shaksper had no connection with\\n.the Rose. The Rose was not opened until 1592, and\\nremained empty much of the ensuing twelve months.\\nMr. Fleay says (22): The Chamberlain s players,\\nhowever, did not act there, but under Shakespeare\\n(Shaksper) and Burbage, re-opened the old Theater\\nwhile Alleyn left them and acted with the Admirals at\\nthe Rose. In 1597, the old Theater having become\\nruinous, the Chamberlain s Company removed to the\\nCurtain Id. 31.\\nIn January, 1599, Burbage, the leader of this com-\\npany erected the Globe theater, and to this Shaksper\\nbelonged until he sold out and retired to Stratford in\\n1610-11. There is no proof that Shaksper ever\\nacted at Blackfriars;* there is strong presumption to\\nOn p; 233, Fleay, Hist., quotes the Athenaeum as follows:\\nIt is now for the first time ascertained that the King s Com-\\npany were performing at the Blackfriars Theater as early as\\n1608, and for the interesting fact that Shakespere was then one\\nof their leading actors, we have the unquestioned authority of\\nthe Burbages in the well-known I/ord Chamberlain s records\\nof 1635. On this Fleay remarks in foot-note: There is not\\na particle of evidence for this rash statement, which is in direct\\ncontradiction with the records of 1635 therein referred to.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "no shakspe;r not shake;spe)are;.\\nthe contrary as to his supposed shares in that theater;\\nit was the private inheritance of the Burbages, and\\nthat the King s men had shares in it at this time\\nrests on the evidence of forged documents and mis-\\nchievously fertile imaginations. Fleay, lyife, 65.\\nIn 1 60 1, a strolling detachment of the Chamber-\\nlain s Company (Shaksper being one of the strollers;\\nFleay, lyife, 43) wandered through England, and even\\ninto Scotland. Much of the playing of Shaksper s\\nassociates and company was done in inn-yards in I^on-\\ndon and other towns, and at fairs and markets as.\\nthey tramped. In I^ondon, there were three or four\\nsuch yards commonly used for that purpose, one of\\nwhich was at the Red Bull Inn. In the inn-yards,\\nthe performances were upon a temporary platform or\\nstage in the middle of the open court yard, to which\\nthe galleries all around the court formed boxes for the\\nchief spectators, while the poorest part of the audience\\nstood in the court on all sides of the central stage.\\nEnc. Brit., XXIII, 224. It is easy to see that the\\nperformance of a Shakespeare play, as written, in an\\ninn-yard, must have been an impossibility; a naked\\nextemporized stage, open to the weather overhead,\\neverything in full view of the audience, the pit com-\\npletely surrounding the stage, and no scenery or pri-\\nvacy.\\nTo Eondon fled all the adventurers, vagabonds and\\npaupers of the realm. They gathered around the\\nplay-houses. Here the ruffians, thieves, vagabonds,\\nthe apprentices, the pimps and prostitutes assembled\\na dirty, stormy, quarrelsome multitude. Donnelly.\\nBeyond doubt, says Wendell, 41, the Elizabethaji", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "THE) THBJATKRS IN LONDON. Ill\\ntheater of i^S was ?iot a socially respectable place and\\nElizabethan theatrical people were very low company.\\nThat this was especially the case with the two public\\ntheaters, the Theater and the Curtain the fol-\\nlowing extracts from Phillipps will show: The Thea-\\nter appears to have been a very favorite place of amuse-\\nment, especially with the more unruly section of the\\npopulace. I, 354. It is clear from these testi-\\nmonies that the Theater attracted a large number of\\npersons of questionable character to the locality.\\nI, 358. In 1597, the lyord Mayor of lyondon charac-\\nterized the theaters of the suburbs (the Theater\\nand Curtain) as ordinary places for vagrant persons,\\nmasterless men, thieves, horse-stealers, whoremongers,\\ncozeners, cony-catchers (z. e., sharpers), contrivers of\\ntreason, and other idle and dangerous persons to\\nmeet together. W., 57. The crowds of disorderly\\npeople frequenting the Theater are thus alluded to\\netc. H.-P., I, 355. Another allusion to the throngs\\nof the lower orders attracted by the entertainments at\\nthe Theater occurs in a letter from the Ivord Mayor to\\nthe Privy Council, 13th December, 1595: Among\\nother inconveniences it is not the least that the refuse\\nsort of evil disposed and ungodly people about this\\ncity have opportunity hereby to assemble together and\\nto make their matches for all their lewd and ungodly\\npractices, being also the ordinary places for all master-\\nless men and vagabond persons that haunt the high-\\nways to meet together. 1,355.\\nA letter from the lyord Mayor to the Council of April\\n12, 1580, says I have thought it my duty to inform\\nyour lyordship that the players of plays which are", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "112 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAK^SPBARi;.\\nused at the Theater and other such places, and\\ntumblers, and such like, are a very superfluous sort of\\nmen, etc. I, 355. On 193, Mr. Phillipps says that\\nplayers were regarded in the last years of the sixteenth\\ncentury in about the same light with jugglers and\\nbuffoons The puritanical writers of the time of\\nShakespeare were indignant at the erection of regular\\ntheatrical establishments, and the Theater and the\\nCurtain were the special objects of their invective.\\nThey are continually named together as sinks of all\\nwickedness and abomination, thus: I am persuaded\\nthat Satan hath not a more speedy way and fitter\\nschool to work and teach his desires to bring men and\\nwomen into his share of concupiscence and wicked\\nwhoredom than these places and plays and theaters\\nI, 365. Rankins, in his Mirrour for Monsters, 1587,\\nobserves that the Theater and Curtain may aptly be\\ntermed for their abomination, the Chapel adulteri-\\nnum 1,370. The independent testimony of the\\nauthor of the Newes from the North, 1579, is to a\\nsimilar effect: I have partly showed you what leave\\nand liberty the common people, namely youth, hath\\nto follow their own lust and desire in all wantonness\\nand dissolution of life; for further proof whereof I call\\nto witness the Theaters, Curtains etc. H.-P., id.\\nIn the play-houses of L^ondon observes Gosson,\\nin his Player Confuted, it is the fashion of youths\\nto go first into the yard (the pit) and to carry their eye\\nthrough every gallery; then, like unto ravens, where\\nthey spy the carrion thither they fly. he\\ntaketh himself for a jolly fellow, that is noted of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "the; theatb;rs in i,ondon. 113\\nmost to be busiest with women in all such places\\nH.-P., id.\\nSymonds says: The theaters of I^ondon were the\\nresort of profligate and noisy persons. On p. 277:\\nThree theaters at least were then (1576) estabHshed\\nin the purheus of the city. The first of these was\\nstyled The Theater the second was called the Cur-\\ntain. Both were in Shoreditch, and both soon ob-\\ntained a bad reputation for brawling, low company,\\nand disreputable entertainments.\\nOn p. 306: In the origin of the stage, theaters\\nwere closely connected with houses of public enter-\\ntainment, inns, hostelries, places of debauch and\\nbrothels. They formed a nucleus for what\\nwas vile, adventurous, and hazardous, in the floating\\npopulation. The actual habits of an audi-\\nence in a London theater may be imagined from more\\nor less graphic accounts given by contemporary satirists\\nas thus: In our assemblies at plays in London, you\\nshall see such heaving and shoving, such itching and\\nshouldering to sit by women such playing\\nat foot-saunt without cards; such ticking, such toying,\\nsuch smiling, such winking, and such manning them\\nhome when the sports are ended, etc., etc.\\nMr. Symonds, 307, quotes Stubbes in his Anatomy\\nof Abuses: But mark the flocking and running to\\nTheaters and Curtains, daily and hourly, night and\\nday, time and tide, to see Plays and Interludes, where\\nsuch wanton gestures, such bawdy speeches, such\\nlaughing and fleering, such kissing and bussing, such\\nclipping and culling, such winking and glancing of\\nwanton eyes and the like is used as is wonderful to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "114 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKKSP:^AR:e.\\nbehold. Then, these goodly pageants being ended,\\nevery male sorts out his mate, etc., etc. Many\\nplayers, if reports are true, are common panders.\\nOn p. 309: Women of loose life frequented them.\\nIn the Actor s Remonstrance, 1643, this abuse of the\\nplayer s vocation is ingenuously admitted: We have\\nleft off for our part that ancient custom which\\nformerly^ rendered men of our quality infamous: namely,\\nthe inveigling of young gentlemen, merchants, factors\\nand apprentices to spend their master s estates upon us\\nand our harlots in taverns. No woman might at-\\ntend a play house unless masked. Knc. Brit.,\\nDrama Girls of good character scarce dared to\\nenter a play house. From ballads of the period we\\nlearn what was the peril to their reputations. Sy-\\nmonds. On p. 315, the same writer says: In slums and\\nsuburbs, purlieus and base quarters of the town stood\\nthese wooden sheds which have echoed to the verses\\nof the greatest poet of the modern world. I deny\\nthat fact. The Shaksper commentators all assume\\nthat the Shakespeare plays were acted in these sheds,\\nbut history is silent on the matter, and the possibili-\\nties are the other way.\\nI have summoned these witnesses to show what sort\\nof places the public theaters were to which William\\nShaksper belonged during the whole of his life in Lon-\\ndon (for the Globe was just such a public theater as the\\nCurtain) and the kind of people he has been supposed\\nFormerly. It is highly probable that this custom pre-\\nvailed while Shaksper was connected with the public theaters.\\nJonson, in his Poetaster, to be quoted presently, intimates as\\nmuch.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "th:^ the;ate;rs in i^ondon. 115\\nto have written the plays for; and a pretty showing it\\nis! I doubt if in all I^ondon to-day, there is a place\\nof public entertainment more debased than were the\\npubHc theaters in the time of BHzabeth; the pit\\ncrowded with rowdies, ruffians and stinkards the\\nboxes and galleries occupied by prostitutes and their\\nparamours, (a decent girl could not set foot in the\\ntheater without peril to her reputation). What sort\\nof men therefore must the players have been, who,\\nyear in and year out, purveyed to such audiences?\\nTell me the company you keep, and I will tell you\\nwhat you are is a proverb in one form or other in\\nevery civilized language on earth. Evidently these\\nplayers were vile, debauched, such as no reputable\\nman would ask to his house, or be known to have ac-\\nquaintance with.\\nIt could not have been possible that any man of\\ncultivation between 1588 and 16 10 would go to that\\nplace of abomination the public theater to hear a\\nplay of any sort by Burbage, and Shaksper, and\\nHeminge, and Condell.* As to the Shakespeare plays,\\nThe writer of a paper in the Atlantic Monthly, March, 1898,\\nin the character of a Dutch traveler in London, 1599, inditing\\na letter to a countryman, imagines a First Performance of a\\nShakespeare play, to-wit, Henry V, at the Curtain Theater. He\\ndescribes his visit to that place of entertainment\u00e2\u0080\u0094 says that it is\\na disreputable place, and that the rabble fill the pit. An\\nempty box near the stage presently was entered by three masked\\nladies attended; whose elaborate head gear and extensive ruffs\\nbetray high degree. One of them wore at her girdle a gorgeous\\npendant of diamonds. At a compliment (in the chorus to fifth\\nact) to the gracious Empress the chief of the masked ladies\\nattracted notice; her mask suddenly dropped and revealed a\\ndamselof sixty-six, Elizabeth of England A precious place,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "Il6 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARE).\\nSO great an authority as Dr. Ingleby declares that we\\nare but even now slowly rounding fo a just estimate\\nof Shakespeare s works It is not to be believed that\\nin the period spoken of these works were appreciated\\nor understood, or that they were eyer performed at\\nlength, or except in a very much abbreviated form, at\\na public theater.\\nDuring the absence of the strolling detachment\\n(Shaksper being one of the strollers) Jonson s Poet-\\naster was produced, containing a vigorous attack on\\nthe Globe Company. Fleay, 43. From this I give\\nthe following:\\nWhat s he that stalks by thee, boy?\\nTis a player, sir.\\nA player! Call the lousy rascal hither. Do you\\nhear, you player, rogue, stalker, come back here.\\nYou are proud, you rascal, are you proud, ha You\\ngrow rich, do you, and purchase, you two-penny tear-\\nmouth. Come, we must have you turn fiddler again,\\nslave, get a bass viol at your back, and march in a\\ntawny coat with one sleeve to Goosefair! Dost thou\\nnot know that Pantalabus (Marston the plajn^vright)\\nthere; he is a gentleman you slave. Rascal, to him,\\ncherish his muse, go He shall write for thee, slave\\nIf he pen for thee once, thou shalt not need to travel\\nwith thy pumps full of gravel any more, after a blind\\njade and a hamper, and stalk upon boards and barrel\\nheads to an old cracked trumpet.\\nAnd what new matters have you now afoot, sir-\\nrah?\\ntruly, for a Oueen to be caught in, even in the imagination of a\\nromancer.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "YHB^ THBAl^KRS m LONDON. II7\\nWe have as mucli ribaldry in our plays as can be,\\nas you would wish, captain; all the sinners in the\\nsuburbs come and applaud our action daily.\\nWell, go thy ways; my Poetaster shall make thee\\na play, and thou shalt be a man of good parts in\\nit.\\nlyct s have good cheer to-morrow night at supper,\\nstalker, and then we ll talk. And do not bring your\\neating player with you there; I cannot away with him;\\nhe will eat a leg of mutton while I am in my porridge,\\nthe lean Poluphagus; nor the villainous out-of-tune\\nfiddler, ^nobarbus, bring not him. Do not bring\\nyour ^sop, your politician; the slave smells ranker\\nthan some sixteen dunghills. Marry, you may bring\\nFrisker, my zany; he s a good skipping swaggerer;\\nand your fat fool there, my mango, bring him too; but\\nlet him not roar out his barren bold jests with a tor-\\nmenting laughter, between drunk and dry.\\nI have stood up and defended you, I, to gentlemen,\\nwhen you have been said to prey upon puisnes (youths)\\nand honest citizens; or when they have called you\\nusurers or brokers, or said you were able to help to a\\npiece of flesh, I have sworn I did not think so, nor\\nthat you were the common retreats for punks decayed\\nin their practice, I cannot believe it of you (Inti-\\nmates that they were reported to be panders, and aux-\\niliary to the brothels).\\nA pretty vigorous attack truly What manner of\\nmen, in their walk and conversation, must these Globe\\nplayers have been, that Jonson should, in a published\\nplay, so represent them, or that he could do it with\\nimpunity. Which of these players satirized was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "Il8 SHAKSPllR NOT SHAKE;SPE;ARE;.\\nWilliam Shaksper, I cannot say. It may have been\\nFrisker, my zany or my mango but the words\\nusurers and brokers seem sufficiently to specialize\\nthe man. Malone said of this attack: Shakspere has\\nmarked his disregard of the calumniator of his fame\\nby not leaving him any memorial in his Will; by\\nwhich it appears that Malone understood Shaksper to\\nbe one of the persons attacked. As I have quoted\\nfrom Fleay elsewhere: All record of any real friend-\\nship between them (Jonson and Shaksper) ended in\\n1603.\\nI have described at some length the public theaters\\nof the Shakespearean age, because, by the way the\\nstage and the players are usually spoken of, one would\\nthink that an impression prevails that these play\\nhouses were something not much inferior to the best me-\\ntropolitan theaters of to-day; and that the players were\\nin their several ways, on a par with Garrick, or Kemble,\\nBurton, or Jefferson, or Irving. The theaters were\\nsheds, with accompaniments inexpressibly filthy; the\\naudiences were, as Hamlet tells us, groundlings, who\\nfor the most part, are capable of nothing but dumb-\\nshows and noise the players were low-lived black-\\nguards, ran-away apprentices, bankrupt tradesmen and\\nmechanics. Of this Globe Company, Burbage had\\nbeen a carpenter; Heminge a grocer; and Shaksper a\\nbutcher. In the same connection Hamlet says: O\\nthere be players that I have seen play that\\nhave neither the accent of Christians, Pagan, nor\\nman, have strutted so and bellowed words which\\napplied to every member of the Globe Company, but\\nespecially to Burbage, who was renowned for the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "I he; Thka Te^rs in i^oNDoisr. 119\\nstrength of his lungs. Drake, ch. VII, expressly\\nsays of this Company, that the exhibitions were\\nchiefly calculated for the lower class of peo-\\nple and that the upper ranks and the critics gener-\\nally preferred the private theaters, which were smaller\\nand more conveniently fitted up. The lower class\\nof people in lyondon is, and always was, very low\\ndown indeed.\\nThis is the point I make and insist on, that the\\nupper ranks and cultivated people, did not go to the\\npublic theater, and were never attracted thither by\\nShakespeare plays. In the Prologue to Henry VIII,\\nwhich Fleay says was evidently written for the audi-\\nence at Blackfriars, a private theater a shilling audi-\\nence instead of a two-penny one the speaker under-\\ntakes that the spectators will get their shilling s worth\\nin the two hours:\\nOnly they\\nThat come to hear a merry, bawdy play,\\nA noise of targets, and to see a fellow\\nIn a long motley coat, guarded with yellow,\\nWill be deceived; for, gentle hearers, know\\nTo rank our chosen truth with such a show\\nAs fool and fight is, besides forfeiting\\nOur own brains and the opinion that we bring.\\nWill leave us never an understanding friend.\\nThat is tolerably plain! And it is aimed at the\\naudiences of the public theaters, If we were to pre-\\nsent you such plays as you may see at the Globe, be-\\nsides forfeiting our own self-respect, we should lose\\nthe friendship of every cultivated and decent man in\\nthis town A merry, bawdy play If one wishes\\nto see that sort of play, read Jonson s Bartholomew", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "120 SHAESPE^R NOT shak:^sp:^ar:r.\\nFair, full of local allusions, satire, and personalities,\\nhorse-play, vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity. It\\nwould be impossible to perform this play, as written,\\nbefore even the lowest audiences of to-day, but we are\\ntold that it was popular when it appeared, time of\\nJames I (1611). Doubtless, so much of it as was\\nplayed at the Globe, pleased every class of frequent-\\ners, from the gallants on the stage to the groundlings\\nin the pit, and the prostitutes in the galleries.\\nHenslowe, in all the years during which Shaksper\\nwas in I^ondon, ran one or more theaters, especially\\nthe Rose and the Fortune, and he kept a diary which\\nhas been preserved, showing what plays were per-\\nformed at his theaters, what he paid his players, and\\nwhat he paid authors for plays, and what properties\\nhe furnished to the stage, etc. etc. The presumption\\nis that Henslowe was a typical manager. Fleay says\\nof him, 117, Hist.: Henslowe was an illiterate mon-\\neyed man, by trade a dyer (all these managers and\\nplayers seem to have been originally mechanics or\\nworkmen) in practice a pawnbroker. He\\nmanaged to keep his actors in subservience and his\\npoets in constant need by one simple method, viz. by\\nlending them money and never allowing their debts to\\nbe fully paid off This sounds very much like Rat-\\nsie s remarks on Shaksper; also the remarks from\\nCrosse, 1603, quoted by Phillipps and hereafter given,\\nbelieved by Phillipps to have been intended for Shak-\\nsper; as to these copper-laced gentlemen (who) grow\\nrich, purchase lands by adulterous plays, and not a\\nfew of them usurers and extortioners etc. So I\\nthink we may accept the description of Henslowe as", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "The; thejate^rs in london. 121\\ntypical of the managers of that day; and surely the\\ncriticisms of Hamlet upon the players and the audi-\\nences of 1 60 1 apply to the companies to which William\\nShaksper belonged, and to every theater with which\\nhe had any connection.\\nThere is no existing evidence that what we know as\\nthe Shakespeare plays were ever acted in any shape at\\na private I^ondon theater during the career of William\\nShaksper. There is not merely a lack of evidence\\nthat they we^^e ever acted at length at a public theater,\\nbut there is the strongest probability that they were\\n7iever acted at all in such a theater, save in a greatly ab-\\nbreviated and altered form, interpolated with the gag\\nof the day, or in dumb-show, burlesque and travesty.\\nAt this public theater, to which every one could\\nobtain access, and the lowest of the people resorted,\\nthe ordinary performances doubtless were of the\\ncoarsest description. Yet we are called upon to be-\\nlieve that it was here that the wonderful works which\\nwe all so greatly admire, and feel that we can only\\nproperly appreciate by careful private study, were per-\\nformed. Commentators say, We do not find that the\\nplays attributed to Shakespeare were ever performed\\nat any other theater They do not say, as they\\nmight: We do not find that they were ever performed\\nat this Smith, 77.\\nMorgan says, 261: From what knowledge we\\npossess of the tone and quality of the audiences of\\nthose days, it is not difficult to imagine the rudeness\\nand crudity of the plays actually performed. Be-\\nfore such an audience we are asked to believe that\\nHamlet and Wolsey delivered their soliloquies, Antony", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "122 SHAKSPE^R NO T SHAK^SPKARE;.\\nhis impassioned oratory, and Isabella her pious strains;\\nwhilst the clown and the pot-wrestlers discoursed\\namong themselves of Athens and Troy; and Hecuba\\nand Althea; of Galen and Paracelsus; of writ of de-\\ntainer and fine and recovery\\nIn Jonson s Bartholomew Fair, we get an inkling\\nof the way in which a classical story was brought to\\nthe comprehension of the English public. The pup-\\npet-player lycatherhead and his man I^ittlewit who, the\\nmanager says, is his Burbage (evidently ridiculing the\\nKing s company) are showing their. mystery to Cokes,\\nan Ksquire of Harrow the play being The Ancient\\nModern History of Hero and Leander.\\nCokes. But you do not play it according to the printed book\\nI have read that\\nLeath. By no means, sir.\\nCokes. No. How then?\\nLeath. A better way, sir; that is too learned and poetical for\\nour audiences; what do they ktiow what Hellespont is? Or\\nwhat Abdyos is? or the other, Sestos hight?\\nCokes. \u00e2\u0096\u00a0Thou art in the right; I do not know myself.\\nLeath. No. T have entreated Master Littlewit to take a\\nlittle pains to reduce it to a more familiar strain for our\\npeople.\\nCokes. How, I pray thee, good Master Littlewit?\\nLilt. I have only made it a little easy, and modern for the\\ntimes, that is all. As for the Hellespont, I imagine our\\nThames here; and the I^eander I make a dyer s son about\\npuddle-wharf; and Hero a wench o the Bank-side, who go-\\ning over one morning to old Fish street, lyeander spies her\\nland at Trig-stairs, and falls in love with her.\\nThe audience at one penny and two-pence per head,\\nare gathered in and the play begins:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "The; THEjATieRS IN LONDON. 1 23\\nLeath. Gentles, that no longer your expectations may wander,\\nBehold our chief actor, amorous I/Cander,\\nWith a great deal of cloth, lapp d about him like a scarf.\\nFor he yet serves his father, a dyer at Puddle- wharf\\nWhich place we ll make bold with, to call it our Abdyos,\\nAs the Bank-side is our Sestos; and let it not be denied us,\\nNow as he is beating to make the dye take the fuller,\\nWho chances to come by but fair Hero in a sculler;\\nAnd seeing L,eander s naked leg and goodly calf\\nCasts at him from a boat a sheep s eye and a half.\\nNow she is landed, and the sculler come back\\nBy and by you shall see what Leander doth lack.\\nLeath. Ivcander does ask, sir, what fairest of fairs,\\nWas the fare he landed but now at Trig-stairs.\\nIt is Hero of the Bank-side\\nLeander says no more, but as fast as he can\\nGets all his best clothes on, and will after to the Swan.\\nHero. O I^eander, lycander, my dear, dear lycander,\\nI ll forever be thy goose, so thou lt be my gander.\\nLean. And sweetest of geese, before I go to bed\\nI ll swim over the Thames\\nmy goose, my dear friend\\nLet thy window be provided of a candle end.\\nHero. Fear not, my gander, I protest I should handle\\nMy matters very ill, if I had not a whole candle.\\nThis is the way scenes from classically founded\\nplays would be travestied at the Globe and Curtain,\\nand we can see that the fun would suit the audience.\\nThe literary critic of the New York Tribune, of\\n30th of July, 1897, in some remarks upon C. D.\\nWarner s The People for whom Shakespeare wrote\\nsaj -s: Mr. Warner disappoints us by landing his\\nreader at a station far short of complete knowledge.\\nHe has Jiothing to say about the pyschology of Eliza-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "124 SHAKSPKR NOT shaki;spe;ari^.\\nbetlian audiences, and that, after all, we want most to\\nhear about. How far did contemporary sympathy for\\nShakespeare s Plays go? These historians\\n(Mr. Warner s predecessors) paint the audience vividly\\nenough, but they make no attempt to divine its point\\nof view, or to get at its spiritual side. No one thinks\\nof discussing the probable effect upon such an audi-\\nence of the purely poetic felicities in Shakespeare,\\netc. The quotation I have given above from Jonson,\\nshows clearly the point of view of the spectators, and\\nis as applicable to the unlettered audiences at the\\npublic theaters, as to the similar audiences at Bar-\\ntholomew Fair. Leatherhead explains that the story\\nof I^eander and Hero is too learned for our audi-\\nences What do they know what Hellespont is, or\\nAbdyos, or Sestos! and Cokes, the country squire,\\nsays, Thou art in the right; I do not know myself.\\nSo I/ittlewit, the Burbage of this play, is instructed to\\nmake it a little easy which, as we have seen, he\\ndoes.\\nThat is the way, in travesty or burlesque, and the\\nonly way, that scenes from classically founded plays\\ncould have been brought to the comprehension of the\\npublic theater audiences, and the exposition must\\nhave delighted the groundlings. I^eander and Hero,\\nor Troilus and Cressida, in this easy and modern style,\\nwas comprehensible and worth the penny for standing\\nroom.\\nFrom the nature of the public theater, an open shed,\\nexposed to all sorts of weather, rain, sleet, snow, fog\\nblack fog, yellow fog thick enough to be cut with a\\nknife, the performances limited to the last hours of a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "th:^ thkatkrs in LONDON. 125\\nshort afternoon (in L^ondon, in the winter months, the\\ngas is Hghted by half past three and four o clock\\nthroughout the month of December the sun sets be-\\nfore four o clock and many a day is so dark, and\\ndays together, that in all shops the burners are lighted)\\nnothing more than a few special scenes of a Shake-\\nspeare play could have been presented, had there been\\nthe will to present them. The audience must have a\\nfarce, a song and dance in other words, one of\\nKempe s jigges If they did not get this, they\\nwould have pelted the players, or hooted them off the\\nstage. Fleay says, p. 2, that, in 1586, when William\\nShaksper joined the players, they probably acted\\nmere interludes, not regular five-act plays. He also\\ntells us that up to 1587, dumb shows had become par-\\nticularly popular, and that the Court performances up\\nto 1592 consisted of interludes and masks.\\nWhat one of these theater audiences was accustomed\\nto, that it would have, and the probability is that\\nduring the whole of William Shaksper s career as\\nplayer or manager, mere interludes or special scenes\\nonly of plays were presented and that largely in pan-\\ntomime. Shakespeare makes Hamlet declare, in\\n1603, that the groundlings, by which we are to under-\\nstand the bulk of the audience at one of these theaters,\\nhad a capacity for 7iothiug but dumb -shows and noise.\\nThe dumb -show, the principal performance, being\\nended, there followed the jigs Symonds tells us of,\\nand the two hours entertainment came to an end.\\nThere is not a line of testimony opposed to the view\\nthat one of the principal attractions to the public the-\\nater was the dumb-show,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "126 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKE^SPEJARS;.\\nThe play of Titus Andronicus, put on the stage in\\n1594, and exceedingly popular, we are told, could only\\nhave been played in pantomime, and so Knight intimates.\\nIn a presentation at Court, or at Grays Inn, the au-\\ndience sheltered and the room lighted, doubtless a\\nShakespeare play might have been given in a some-\\nwhat more extended form. No evidence has come to\\nthis age that a Shakespeare play was ever performed\\nat one of the private city theaters. Hamlet occupies\\n109 pages in Knight s volumes, enough to fill six hours\\nat a New York theater; Troilus and Cressida 97 pages;\\nand lycar would fill five hours.\\nHamlet ridicules the style of playing in vogue thus:\\nCome, give us a taste of your quality, come, a passionate\\nspeech.\\nI Play. What speech, my lord?\\nHam. I heard thee speak a speech once, but it was never\\nacted; or if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember,\\npleased not the million, H was caviare to the general, but it was\\nan excellent play, well digested in the scenes; set down with as\\nmuch modesty as cunning. One speech in it I chiefly\\nloved; twas Eneas tale to Dido. If it live in your\\nmemory begin at this line, The rugged Pyrrhus\\nThe rugged Pyrrhus ^he, whose sable arms,\\nBlack as his purpose, did the night resemble\\nWhile he lay couched in the ominous horse,\\nHath now this dread and black complexion smeared\\nWith heraldry more dismal; head to foot\\nNow is he total gules; horridly tricked\\nWith blood of fathers, mothers, daughters, sons,\\nBak d and impasted with the parching streets.\\nThat lend a tyranous and damned light\\nTo their lord s murder; roasted in wrath and fire.\\nAnd thus o er-sized with coagulate gore,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "THE THE;ATERS in LONDON. I27\\nWith eyes like carbuncles, the hellish Pyrrhus\\nOld grandsire Priam seeks. So, proceed you.\\nI Play. But who, O who, had seen the mobled queen\\nRun barefoot up and down, threat ning the flames\\nWith bisson rheum, a clout upon that head\\nWhere late the diadem stood;\\nWhen she saw Pyrrhus make malicious sport\\nIn mincing with his sword her husband s limbs,\\nThe instant burst of clamor that she made\\nWould have made milch the burning eyes of\\nheaven\\nAnd passion in the gods.\\nPleay says, 228, that the play from which these\\nlines are borrowed belonged to the Chapel children,\\nbut it is not impossible that the gifted Burbage had\\nroared off this stuff at the Curtain or the Globe.\\nWhen we read of Richard III being played at these\\npublic theaters, we may understand that a dozen heads\\nwere lopped, two boys were smothered, concluding\\nwith a desperate battle, represented b}^ four swords\\nand bucklers, at least three dead men left on the field.\\nThis gave Burbage, before he became one of the dead\\nmen, the opportunity to utter his historic yell for a\\nhorse. When we read of Henry IV being played, it\\nmeans that fat Jack made the pit merry, and that\\nDame Quickly and Doll Tearsheet were among sym-\\npathizing friends. Doll Tearsheet was long in the\\npublic mind. Ingleby, note to p. 90.) They got off\\nall the obscene dialogue that is not spoken now-a-days,\\nand extemporized ten-fold more than was found in the\\ntext. Mr. Phillipps expressly tells us, I, 117, that\\nShakspef s sole aim was to please an audience most of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "128 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKI^SPEJARE;.\\nwhom, be it remembered, were not only illiterate, but un-\\nable to either read or write.\\nFurther, when we are told that Hamlet or Romeo,\\nor I^ear, or Richard III, were played at these same\\ntheaters, we have no assurance that they were the\\nShakespeare plays of those names, or scenes from\\nthem.. Many of the Shakespeare plays were based\\non earlier ones, or sketches of similar name. Fleay,\\nin a dozen instances, shows this. He speaks, page 13,\\nof a version of Romeo and Juliet, anterior to Shake-\\nspeare;* on page 16, of the re- fashioning of an old\\nplay of Henry VI; on page 23, of the old Hamlet\\nand the Taming of the Shrew on page 42, of the\\nold Hamlet of Kyd of playing, in 1601, All s well\\nthat Ends Well, a considerable portion of which is\\nof much earlier date of a version of Troilus and\\nCressida; page 53, of the tragedy of King I^ear being\\nfounded on an old comedy of that name. On page 149,\\nwe read that the second Quarto of Hamlet was pub-\\nlished 1604, newly reprinted and enlarged at almost\\nas much again as it was .t\\nIn February, 1 600, Sir Charles Percy and others spoke\\nto the players to have the play of the deposing and\\nkilling of King Richard II to be played, etc. Au-\\ngustine Phillipps, Ingleby, 36. In the note Ingleby\\nCraik speaks of a drama founded on the story of Romeo\\nand Juliet, as far back as 1562.\\nt An allusion by Nash, printed in 15S9, as a reprint of 1587,\\n(when William Shaksper was but 23 years old, and had been\\nout of Stratford but one or two years, or else had just come\\nfrom Stratford, according to Fleay), shows that Hamlet was al-\\nready familiar with the stage.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "the; THEIATSRS IN LONDON. 1 29\\nsays: That there is room for doubt whether the play-\\nordered was Shakespeare s Richard II, or another on\\nthe same subject, is seen by Professor Dowden s com-\\nment that this was Shakespeare s play is very un-\\nlikely.\\nGifford tells us that Malone says: There were two\\npreceding dramas (z. e. to Henry VI) one of which\\nwas called the Contention of York and I^ancaster.\\nWhy then, might not this be the drama meant (by\\nJonson s skit)? But were there not two score old\\nplays on this subject on the stage? Undoubtedly\\nthere were. Whence it appears that in many cases\\nthere were both ancient and recent plays bearing the\\nsame name, or treating of the same subject; and that\\nthere were various versions of a given play, abridged\\nor altered for one purpose or other. Collier, XI, says:\\nHenslowe s Diary shows that the I^ord Chamberlain s\\nand the Lord Admiral s servants had joint possession\\nof the Newington theater from 3rd June, 1594, to the\\n15th Nov., 1595; and during that period, various\\npieces were performed, which in their titles resembled\\nplays which unquestionably came from Shakespeare s\\npen. That none of them were produced by our great\\ndramatist, it is of course impossible to affirm; but the\\nstrong probability seems to be, that they were older\\ndramas, of which he subsequently more or less availed\\nhimself. Among these was a Hamlet acted on nth\\nJune, 1594; a Taming of a Shrew acted on nth\\nJune, 1594; an Andronicus acted on 12 June, 1594;\\na Venetian Comedy acted on 12th Aug., 1594; a\\nCaesar and Pompey acted 22nd June, 1596. Also,\\nI, VI: In both the latter cases (Pericles and Troilus", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "130 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPKARK.\\nand Cressida) it would likewise seem that there were\\nplays by older or rival dramatists upon the same inci-\\ndents. It is noticeable that in no instance is it said\\nthat a play by William Shakespeare was performed,\\nor a Shakespeare play. The mere title of the play\\nis given, as Richard III, Hamlet, etc., and that they\\nwere in all cases, or in any case where there were two\\nor more plays bearing the same name, the plays we\\nreceive as Shakespeare s, no man at this day can possi-\\nbly know. The whole matter was left as mysterious\\nas possible, Hepworth Dixon, in his Personal Me-\\nmoirs of Lord Bacon, speaking of the incident con-\\nnected with the conspiracy of Essex which I have\\nabove recited,. says: Lord Monteagle tells him (Au-\\ngustine Phillipps) that they want to have played\\nShakespeare s deposition of Richard Second. The\\nnaming of this play as Shakespeare s is Mr. Dixon s,\\nfor Phillipps, in his deposition, did not mention the\\nword Shakespeare. He said that they wanted to\\nhave the play of the deposing etc. See Ingleby, 36.\\nEleay, Hist., on pp. 121-125, gives a complete list of\\nthe Court Performances from 1594 to 1603. Nowhere\\nis it said that a Shakespeare play, or a play by\\nShakespeare was given. On pp. 169-178, he con-\\ntinues the list to 1 614. He copies and includes in this\\na forged list, which he expressly so designates 1 70)\\nbut undoubtedly based on a genuine document which\\nwas used by Malone, of the plays at Court, and pub-\\nlished in the Revels Accounts for the Shakespeare\\nSociety, b}^ Mr. P. Cunningham This was for the\\nseason 1604-5. Several plays with names similar to\\nthose of Shakespeare plays are named, and Mr. Fleay,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "the; thejaters in i^ondon. 131\\nwithout apparent authority, puts in brackets by\\nShakespeare Thus: 1604, Nov. i\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Kings Men,\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThe Moor of Venice (by Shakespeare) The forged\\nlist, verbatim et literatim, is given in PhilHpps, II, 162,\\nand the entry corresponding to the one just quoted\\nfrom Fleay reads: Hallamas Day being the first of\\nNovember A Play in the Banketing House att Whit-\\nhall called the Moor of Venice; and there is no name\\nof the author attached to it.\\nAnother entry is this: On Stivens Night in the\\nHall A Play called Mesur for Mesur. Another: On\\nShrovsunday a Play of the Merchant of Venice In\\nthe margin against the last two of these plays is the\\nname Shaxberd. On p. 161, Phillipps expressly\\nsays that this record is a modern forgery\\nNow the object of this forgery was to make it ap-\\npear that Shakespeare s Othello, first published in\\nquarto, in 1622, had been played years before, or in\\n1604; and Measure for Measure, first published in the\\nFolio of 1623, had been played in 1604, and the forger\\nattached the name Shaxberd to the latter one of\\nplayer Shakspers many designations as the author,\\nFleay translates Shaxberd into Shakespeare, quite an-\\nother individual.\\nIt is amusing to see how the Shakespeare editors\\nforthwith took the benefit of these forgeries. Knight,\\nin his edition of the Shakespeare Plays, New York\\nreprint, 1868, prefaces Measure for Measure thus:\\nThis comedy was first printed in the folio collection\\nof 1623. It has been recently ascertained that Measure\\nfor Measure was presented at Court by the King s", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "132 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKISSPBARB;.\\nPlayers (the company to wliicli Shaksper belonged) in\\n1604.\\n[So few and so unimportant liave been the testi-\\nmonies as to William Shaksper s theatrical career, so\\nlacking evidences of any connection between the man\\nand the Shakespeare plays, that there seems to have\\nbeen a constant temptation among his biographers, or\\nthe commentators on his supposed plays, to manufacture\\ntestimony and evidence. Hence all sorts of forgeries.\\nA singular instance is mentioned by Dowden, 104:\\nIn January, 1852, an eminent member of the\\n(Shakespeare) Society of England, J. Paine Collier,\\nannounced that three years previously he had obtained\\nfrom the bookseller Rodd a copy of the second Folio\\nShakespeare, containing many annotations in a hand\\nabout the middle of the 17th century. Collier sup-\\nposed, or pretended to suppose, that the numerous\\ncorrections of the text, stage directions, etc. were the\\nwork of an early owner of the volume, who through\\nhis connection with the theater and attendance at per-\\nformances of the plays, had sources of trustworthy in-\\nformation as to the genuine text. When, in 1859,\\nthis Folio was submitted to the scrutiny of experts, the\\nmanuscript notes were declared to have been modern\\nforgeries. Pencil tracing was found to have guided the\\npen in its simulation of a 17th century handwriting.\\nCompetent authorities could not be deluded, and un-\\nfortunately evidence had accumulated to confirm the\\nimpression that this really learned and ingenious\\nscholar, in not a few instances, had yielded to the\\ntemptation to win for himself by fraudulent documents", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "thb; thi;ai*e;rs in i^ondon. 133\\na spurious fame. It seemed to be the very wantonness\\nof literary dishonesty.\\nReturning to Fleay, following his list, we reach\\nthe dates 1611-12, and half a dozen entries of plays\\nperformed by the King s men in these years are given.\\nAmong these there is no mention of a play as Shakes-\\npeare s. I give one example: To J. Hemynge on 12\\nFeb y, 161 1, for 15 plays before the King, Queen, and\\nPrince, by the King s men.\\nThis 1611-12 list is another of Cunningham s for-\\ngeries, and Mr. Fleay says, 173: It is the most\\nglaringly impudent of the many forgeries published by\\nCunningham and Collier, etc. On p. 177, he speaks\\nagain of the forgeries of 1604-5, and now adds: So\\nthat the entries of the Moor of Venice, The Spanish\\nMay, etc., are as yet very dubious. Outside of the\\nforged lists, from 1603 to 1614, I find no play given as\\nShakespeare s (merely the title) till we come to\\n1 6 1 2- 1 3 Here the Revels Account represent Heminge\\nas paid for fourteen plays by the King s men, without\\nnames of the plays; but Fleay gives the names from\\nsome other manuscript source, Winter s Tale etc.;\\nand adds iu brackets, apparently without authority,\\nby Sh. All this goes to establish the point I make\\nthat between 1594 and 16 14, it is never said in the\\noriginal authorities that a Shakespeare play is\\nplayed, or one by Shakespeare; and consequently\\nwhere there were two or more plays of similar title\\nwe never can be sure that a Shakespeare play was per-\\nformed.\\nIsrael Gollancz, in the Othello of the Temple Shake-\\nspeare, 1895, traces the story that this play was acted", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "134 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKB;SP:eAR:e.\\nin 1604 to Malone (1821), who said: We know it\\nwas acted in 1604, and I have therefore placed it in\\nthat year. Gollancz goes on: For twenty years\\nscholars sought in vain to discover upon what evi-\\ndence he k7iew this important fact, until at last, about\\nthe year 1840, Peter Cunningham announced his dis-\\ncovery of certain accounts of the Revels at Court, con-\\ntaining the following item, viz.: the Hallamas Day\\nitem, which I have given. Gollancz continues: We\\nknow that this manuscript was a forgery, but strange\\nto say there is every reason to believe that though the\\nbook itself is spurious, the information which it gives\\nis genuine, etc. Surely this has an ancient and fish-\\nlike smell. It is plain that the Shaksperians were too\\nmuch delighted with having found these entries of the\\nearly performing of certain plays to give them up, and\\nthey would accept any pretext for not doing so.\\nOthello was first printed in 1622, and was entered on\\nthe Stationers Register in 1621. There was a play\\nstyled Venetian Comedy mentioned in Henslow s\\nDiary as performed 13 Aug., 1594. Also there was a\\nplay called the Moor of Venice which the Secretary\\nof the German Embassy wrote he had seen in lyondon,\\nat the Globe, in 16 10. Judge Holmes says on this, II,\\n716: It is quite possible, not to say highly probable,\\nthat this was an older play by some other author, and\\nnot the Othello of Shakespeare. And again There\\nis reason for the opinion that nothing was known of\\nthe Shakespeare Othello until it appeared in the Quarto\\nof 1622. The motive for Cunningham s forgery is\\napparent. It was the way to eliminate all doubt as to\\nthe earlier play being Shakespeare s (Shaksper s).", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "THE) THKATBRS IN LONDON. 1 35\\nWhatever the play at a public theater was, it was\\nnecessarily short, (both Symonds and Drake tell us\\nthat the whole show, the play and subsequent farce,\\noccupied about two hours) and boisterous, and suited\\nto an illiterate, brutal audience. Symonds gives an\\nimaginary visit to the Fortune in summer time, but as\\na rule, at that season of the year, the companies were\\nstrolling up and down the land. So we learn from\\nPhillipps: AH the old theatrical companies were more\\nor less of an itinerant character Again: The\\nactors of those days were, as a rule, individual wan-\\nderers Also: There was not a single company of\\nactors in Shakespeare s time, which did not make pro-\\nfessional visits throughout nearly all the Knglish\\ncounties. H.-P., II, 395.\\n[Fleay, L^ife, 41, says: In March, 1601, the\\nChamberlains Company visited the Universities of\\nOxford and Cambridge. Their travels however were\\nnot confined to England. In October, they had\\nreached Aberdeen.\\nElizabeth died 24th March, 1603, and Phillipps sug-\\ngests that the company to which Shaksper belonged\\nmight have been absent on a provincial tour. (Phillipps\\nis trying to account for the fact that his great dra-\\nmatist gave forth no lamentation on the death of the\\nQueen). They itinerated a good deal during the\\nnext few months (z. e., after May, 1603), records of\\ntheir performances being found at Bath, Coventry,\\nShrewsbury, and Ipswich. I, 211.\\nThe company are found playing at Oxford in the\\nearly part of the summer of 1604. Id. 214.\\nOn October 9th, 1605, Shakespeare s company,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "136 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPBARE).\\nhaving previously traveled as far as Barnstable, gave\\nanother performance before the Mayor and Corpora-\\ntion of Oxford. Id., 214.\\nA considerable portion of 1606 was spent by the\\nKing s company in provincial travel. They were\\nat Oxford in July, at lycicester in August. Before the\\nwinter had set in they had returned to lyondon\\nId., 219.\\nShakespeare s company were playing at Oxford on\\nSeptember 7th, 1607 Id., 219.\\nAt the time that the Sonnets issued from the press\\n(1609), the author s company was itinerating in Kent,\\nplaying at Hythe on the i6th of May, and at New\\nRomney on the following day. They were also at\\nShrewsbury at some unrecorded period in the same\\nyear. Id., 227.\\nPlainly these companies were absent from London a\\nlarger part of the year. In the spring and summer\\nand part of the autumn they strolled, and gathered to\\nLondon before the Christmas holidays.]*\\nLeonard Digges, Ing. 231; in some doggerel verses\\nprefixed to an edition of Shakespeare s poems, in 1640,\\nalluding to the Shakespeare plays as he remembered\\nthem, says that the audience at the Globe (this must\\nhave been as a boy, for Digges was born in 1588, or he\\nmay be telling what he has heard from other people)\\nwere ravished:\\nwhen Cesar would appeare.\\nAnd on[^tlie stage at halfe-sword parley were,\\nBrutus and Cassius\\nLee says, 40: Few companies remained in lyondon during\\nthe summer or early Autmnn", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "the; thkatkrs in i^ondon. 137\\nlet but Falstaffe come,\\nHall, Poins, the rest you scarce shall have a roome.\\nAll is so pestered; let but Beatrice\\nAnd Benedicke be seene, loe in a trice\\nThe Cockpit Galleries, Boxes, all are full\\nTo hear Malvolio,\u00c2\u00ae that crosse garter d Gull.\\nThe audiences of that day did not go to the Curtain\\nor the Globe that they might be worried with Wol-\\nsey s waihngs, or wearied with Macbeth s soHloquies;\\nthey did not go to moraHze and weep. They went for\\nfun and frolic, ribaldry and horse-play. The more\\nfarcical the play, the more indecent, the more bloody\\nand cruel, the better for Shaksper s hat. We are told\\nby Phillipps, I, 100, that the audiences of Elizabeth s\\nday revelled in the very crudity of the horrible, so much\\nso that nearly every kind of bodily torture and mutila-\\ntion, or even more revolting incidents, formed part of\\nthe stock business of the theater; murders were in\\nspecial request in all kinds of serious dramas.\\nMr. Phillipps tells us that the play of Titus Andron-\\nicus was very popular, that it was produced before a\\nlarge audience on Jan. 23, 1594, and that it was played\\nat several theaters in the year it appeared. (How\\ncould that have been if William Shaksper wrote\\nit for his theater, and owned the right to it?) Let us\\nDigges apparently has mixed the Twelfth Night with Much\\nAdo About Nothing, but I apprehend that scenes from the two\\nhad been~combined for the interlude or pantomime offered to\\nthe clients of the Globe. Fifty years after the death of William\\nShaksper, Davenant brought out a play called The Law against\\nLovers made out of Measure for Measure and Much Ado About\\nNothing.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "138 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPE^AR:\u00c2\u00a9.\\nlook at this play and see what pleased a public theater\\naudience in Shaksper s day.\\nThe first Act discovers the sons of the Roman gen-\\neral, Titus Andronicus, about to slay Alarbus, their\\nprisoner, son of the Gothic Queen Tamora, whom,\\nwith the queen, the Romans have captured in war.\\nAway with him, and make a fire straight;\\nAnd with our swords, upon a pile of wood,\\nLet s hew his limbs till they be clean consumed.\\nSoon we are informed that\\nAlarbus limbs are lopped.\\nAnd entrails feed the sacrificial fire.\\nNext, Titus, in a rage, kills one of his sons, Mutius.\\nThe sons of Tamora, whom the Roman king Satur-\\nninus marries, kill Bassianus, the king s brother, and\\nthrow his body into a hole or pit in the forest. Hav-\\ning enticed the beautiful I^avinia, the young wife of\\nBassianus, and daughter to Titus, into this forest, they\\nravish her and cut off both hands, cut out her tongue,\\nand turn her loose, thinking she will be unable to de-\\nnounce them. All this deviltry is done at the instiga-\\ntion of Tamora, who hounds the boys on, urging the\\nkilling I^avinia after the ravishment. The negro\\nAaron, a fiend incarnate, all the while the paramour of\\nTamora, entices two other sons of Titus into the same\\nforest, and gets both to descend to the bottom of the\\npit in which Bassianus had been thrown, under the\\npretense that it was a panther s den. Then he informs\\nthe king that they are there, and that they murdered\\nBassianus; on which the sons are brought forth and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "the; theaters in london. 139\\nput in prison. Presently word comes from the king to\\nTitus that if lie will cut off one of his own hands and\\nsend it to the king, his sons will be freed. Titus does\\nthis, getting Aaron to chop off the member; and the\\nnext we see is a messenger bringing back the same\\nhand, and the heads of the two boys on a platter. In\\nthe following Act, lyavinia takes the end of a staff in\\nher mouth, and guiding it with her stumps, writes in\\nthe sand the names of her ravishers, and so informs\\nher brothers.\\nMeantime Queen Tamora is delivered of a blacka-\\nmoor child, and the nurse appears with the child in her\\narms, seeking the sons of the queen, with directions to\\nthem to kill it. This they are about to do, when Aaron\\nappears and carries off the child as his own son and\\nproperty. But before he departs, he and the sons kill\\nthe nurse as the sole witness of the birth Aaron\\nmocking Weke, weke so cries a pig prepared for\\nthe spit\\nIn Act V, Titus enters with a knife and lyavinia\\nwith a basin, and the former cuts the throats of the\\nsons of Tamora, while Lavinia catches the blood.\\nOut of the bodies and blood Titus cooks a meal which\\nis set before Tamora, and of which she unwittingly\\neats. Thereupon Titus taunts her with the horror,\\nand ends by killing her; and in return her husband\\nSaturninus kills Titus, and one of Titus sons kills\\nSaturninus. (It reminds one of the piling up of\\nstiffs outside the saloon doors in the old days of\\nNevada).\\nThe play closes with Lucius, another son of Titus (he\\nhad a score) ordering Aaron to execution, See justice", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "140 shakspe;r not shakkspkare;,\\ndone to Aaron, the damn d Moor, who probably was\\ndrawn and quartered forthwith, on the stage, A de-\\nHghtful play, doubtless every act encored, and played\\noften (very popular we are assured) in several theaters.\\nOf the persons represented not more than four or five\\ncome out alive, and one of these has been ravished\\nand fearfully maimed. Titus Andronicus could only\\nhave been played in pantomime. Knight says that\\nthese theaters used blood as they would the paint of\\nthe property-man of the theater; and this was years\\nafter William Shaksper became one of the players.\\nKnight says of Romeo and Juliet: There is enough\\nfor the excitement of an uninstructed audience; the\\ncontest between the houses; Mercutio killed; Tybalt\\nkilled; the apparent death of Juliet; Paris killed;\\nRomeo swallowing poison; Juliet stabbing herself.\\nIn 1594, there was published The Tragical\\nReign of Selim, Emperour of the Turks a composi-\\ntion offering similar attractions (z. e., murders), but\\nthe writer was so afraid of his massacres being con-\\n.sidered too insipid, that he thus reveals his misgivings\\nto the audience:\\nIf this First Part, gentles, do like you well\\nThe Second Part shall greater murders tell H-P.\\nThe old Jeronimo perhaps the most popular\\nplay of the early stage, thus concludes with a sort of\\nchorus spoken by a ghost:\\nAh now my hopes have end in their effects.\\nWhen blood and sorrows finish my desires,\\nHoratio murdered in his father s bower;\\nVile Serberine by Pedringano slain;", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "YHB I^HEJATE^RS in tONDON. 14I\\nFair Isabella by herself misdone;\\nPrince Balthasar by Belimperia stabbed;\\nThe Duke of Castile, and his wicked son,\\nBoth done to death by old Hieronymo\\nThis slaughtering was accompanied with another\\npecuHarity of the unformed drama the dumb- show.\\nWords were sometimes necessary for the exposition of\\nthe story With a stage that presented attrac-\\ntions like these to the multitude, is it wonderful that\\nthe young Shakspere should have written a Tragedy\\nof Horrors? e., the Titus). Knight, Shakspere,\\nI, 675.\\nEverywhere we find that the Shakespeare plays were\\nshortened for performing, and nowhere do we find that\\none of these plays was performed at length. They were\\nshortened for Court representation Fleay expressly\\ntells us. In the lyife, 20, he speaks of the strollers\\ncutting down their plays. It was more profitable to\\nseparate into parties of half a dozen, and of course,\\nto cut down their plays As for the theaters, on p.\\n263, we read that the Quarto 2nd Henry VI, is\\ngreatly abbreviated for acting on 269. he says of\\nsame Quarto: The corruption and omission caused\\nby shortening for stage purposes has been so great\\netc. On 275: The 1597 Quarto of Richard 3rd is\\nevidently an abridged version made for the stage, and\\nno doubt was the version acted during nearly all of\\nElizabeth s reign. On 227: Hamlet, Folio, is\\nevidently a stage copy, considerably shortened for\\nstage representation. Plainly, no play was given as\\nShakespeare wrote it, but there were versions.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "142 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nmore or less shortened, for the actors on tramp, for\\nthe theaters, even for the representation at court.\\nI once saw at a great historical English fair in fact,\\nGreenwich Fair, since suppressed a perambulating\\ncompany of players, performing under a tent giving\\na tragedy after the pattern described by Sidney, a\\nfarce, a dance and song all within the period of forty\\nminutes. The audience was rung out, and the clown,\\nwith his trumpet, just as in De Witt s picture, notified\\nthe public that another performance of the same de-\\nscription was ready to begin. And so it was kept up\\nall day. That is the way the strolling company must\\nhave managed in Shaksper s day.* To pay expenses,\\nthe play must necessaril} have been short, and the\\nperformance repeated the day long. When in lyondon,\\nfrom the limited time at disposal, the performances\\ncould not have been given at much greater length.\\nIt is a mistake caused by a misapprehension of the\\nfacts to say, as R. G. White does, and as John Fiske\\ndoes, that William Shaksper wrote the Shakespeare\\nplays to fill the theater and his own pockets. Had\\nthe manager attempted a course of Shakespeare plays,\\nhe would have bankrupted the theater. According to\\nWhite, the raisoji d etre for the writing of these plays\\nwas that they might be acted at William Shaksper s\\ntheater. If they were not and they certainly were\\nnot, because in the nature of the case acting them\\nCraik I^ 598, speaking of Rowley, mentions the fact re-\\ncorded by L,angbaine. that certain of the scenes of one of his\\npieces, A Shoemaker s a Gentleman, was commonly performed\\nby the strolling actors at Bartholomew and Southward fairs.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "^HE) THE^ATKRS in LONDON. 143\\nthere was impossible then there was no reason why-\\nWilliam Shaksper should worry himself by writing\\nplays.\\nMrs. Pott says: These plays were intended for\\nthe most part, not for the play-house, but for perform-\\nance before Elizabeth and James, or by the servants\\nof, or at the houses of, the Barls of lyeicester, Essex,\\nSussex and Pembroke. Many of them first saw the\\nlight in the Middle Temple, and in the new hall of\\nGray s Inn. Another authority tells us that most of\\nthe plays first appeared on the occasion of some grand\\nfestivity, and many of them are not known to have\\nbeen acted on the public stage or by Shakespeare s\\n(Shaksper s) Company.\\nFleay insists on the point of the absolute subordina-\\ntion of public performances to court presentations.\\nThe Chamberlain s Company, later the King s Com-\\npany, might give a scene or a play in any manner\\nthey saw fit at their public theater; but at court they\\nwere expected to give the best the most entertain-\\ning performances of which they were capable, and\\nwe are expressly told that for these performances the\\nplays were shortened. No doubt, the play of Hamlet\\nperformed at court was cut down four- fifths, the larger\\npart of the dialogue, all the speeches, and all the\\nphilosophy being rejected; the action and enough of\\nthe text to explain it retained. It is to be supposed\\nthat some Shakespeare scenes must have been found en-\\ntertaining at court, else they would not have been given;\\nbut not a soul who ever witiiessed a presentatio7i has left\\na ivord concemzjig it. I suspect the fun of the exhibi-\\ntion consisted in AUeyn s and Burbage s rant and fus-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "144 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSP:eAR:e.\\ntian, and in the Jim Crow antics of Rolfe s Kempe,\\nand his pupil in comedy, William Shaksper. What\\nwere the rejected parts in the play of Hamlet for, if\\nShaksper was its author? Wendell says of another\\nplay, that even an Elizabethan audience could scarcely\\nhave stomached the prolonged philosophizing which\\nfills pages of Troilus and Cressida. What was it\\nthere for, if Shaksper was the author There was no\\nmoney in it quite the contrary and the one object\\nof this man s life was money. So R. G. White, and\\nPhillipps, and all the commentators, ending with Wen-\\ndell, tell us; so, also, John Fiske tells us. Why should\\na man intent on collecting pennies in hat at his own\\ntheater concern himself about other men s theaters, or\\nthe audiences at court, when all he wanted for the hat\\nwere the horrors of Titus Andronicus, or Macbeth, or\\nthe third Henry VI; or the murders of Richard and\\nthe fight of Bosworth Field Why should he waste\\nhis valuable time in elaborating plays for managers of\\nother theaters, or for the court? And, especially,\\nwhy should he a second time take these plays in hand,\\nrevise and amend, and further extend them by one-\\nfourth to fully twice their length, merely to please a\\nreading public that would, as to most of the plays,\\nnot see them till years after he was in his grave, and\\nwithout his estate or his family being benefited to the\\nextent of one copper!\\nSwinburne, Shakespeare speaks of the patience\\nand self-respect which induced Shakespeare to re-write\\nthe triumphantly popular parts of Romeo, of Falstaff,\\nand of Hamlet, with an eye to the literary perfection\\nand performance of work, which in its first outline had", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "The; THEJATEIRS IN I^ONDON. 1 45\\nwon the crowning suffrage of immediate and specu-\\nlative applause. Is Mr. Swinburne quizzing the man\\nof Stratford\\nThe theory that this revising and elaborate amend-\\ning (with consummate skill, etc.,) was done by the\\nman who wrote the plays, if Shaksper, does not run on\\nall fours with the other and usual theory that this man\\nhad tossed them off as pot-boilers, without study or\\npreparation, and cared nothing for them thereafter.\\nFleay, 227, says: Hamlet is extant in three forms,\\nthe Folio, which is evidently a stage copy considerably\\nshortened for stage purposes; the 1604 Quarto, which\\nis a very fair transcript of the author s complete copy\\nwith a few omissions; and the 1603 Quarto, imperfect\\nand inaccurate. On 230: This form of Hamlet (the\\n1603 Quarto) seems to have been an unfinished re-\\nfashioning of the old play by Kyd, that had so long been\\nperformed by the Chamberlain s men i. e. up to 1601\\nat least, the date at which Mr. Fleay supposes the 1603\\nQuarto to have been prepared. On 233: We have, in\\nthe forms of this play, an example of Shakespeare s\\nhurried revision of the works of an earlier writer; of\\nthe full working out of his own conception in the shape\\nfittest for private reading (the 1604 Quarto), and,\\nfinally, of his practical adaptation of it to the require-\\nments of the stage. (The Folio.) This substan-\\ntiates the view which I have taken that the Shakespeare\\nplays were written for private reading, and not for the\\npublic theaters. To fill the theater, which White and\\nFiske say was William Shaksper s great object in life\\n(adding, however, and his own pockets it seems\\nthat the imperfect and inaccurate Quarto of 1603", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "146 SHAKSPER NCT SHAKESPSARB;.\\nwas enougli for many years, the abridgment of the\\n1604 Quarto, according to Fleay, not having been\\nmade before 1609, or 1610, just as Shaksper was re-\\ntiring to Stratford.\\nAll that William Shaksper wanted in order to fill\\nthe theater and his own pockets was a rapid and bloody\\ninterlude, and plenty of extemporaneous and ribald\\ndialogue. Anything beyond that would be a violation\\nof the rights of the groundlings, to be vigorously re-\\nsented. There is no Shakespeare play in which the\\ndialogue or monologue, in excess of what was essential\\nfor such an audience, was not in the proportion of\\ntwenty to one. Was William Shaksper, as the ad-\\nmiring Phillipps depicts him, the sort of man to\\nlabor over what was worthless and unendurable from\\nthe theater and pocket point of view, to be making\\nfuture ages his first thought and his pocket the sec-\\nond; or carried away by the divine afflatus inspira-\\ntion as Phillipps calls it, to forget pocket entirely?\\nNot much! Dr. Ingleby thinks that the drift of his\\nplays must have been intelligible to the penny knaves\\nwho pestered the theaters, but his profound reach of\\nthought and his unrivaled knowledge of human nature\\nwas as far beyond the vulgar ken as were the higher\\ngraces of his poetry. It is to men of sensibility\\nthat Shakespeare (not Shaksper) appeals as a man\\nof genius; and it is to the literary class we must look\\nfor the impress of that genius Preface, XII. And\\nhe adds: We are at length slowly rounding to a just\\nestimate of his works. If this language of Dr.\\nIngleby means anything, it is that the plays of\\nShakespeare were written for the literate class not", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "\u00c2\u00a5he^ i*he;ate;rs in toNDON. 147\\nthe illiterate and that it is but now, at the close of\\nthe nineteenth century, fully three hundred years\\nafter they were written, that the literate class is slowly\\nrounding to a just estimate of them. (As we have be-\\nfore seen, Ingleby expressly says that for a full hun-\\ndred years from 1592 these plays were not much\\nthought of. Very slowly indeed it would seem, when a\\nlecturer in one of our foremost universities can teach his\\npupils that the writing of such plays as Shakespeare s is\\nwithin anybody s power; and that to have created\\nShakespeare s works involved no more wonderful an im-\\naginative feat than did the achievement of his material\\nfortune by showman Shaksper. Dr. Rolfe, who claims\\nto be an authority on these plays, affirms that the au-\\nthor of them had little Latin, perhaps none echo-\\ning the words of Ben Jonson on Stratford Shaksper;\\nand here comes Dr. P iske pulling tandem to the same\\nteam. Little Latin, perhaps none is another way\\nof saying that the man who wrote the Shakespeare\\nplays was an uneducated man.\\nIf the plays have not yet come to be understood and\\nappreciated by these learned and literate gentlemen,\\nwe may be sure that they were far above the best\\nheads of the i6th csntury, and quite out of sight of\\nthe vulgar. Therefore we are safe in asserting that\\nthey were not written for the stinkards and prostitutes\\nof William Shaksper s theaters, and to fill that man s\\npocket; and the inference is plain that quite another\\nhand than Shaksper s wrote them.\\nCharles Lamb, On the Tragedies of Shakespeare\\nsays: The truth is, the characters of Shakespeare are\\nso much the objects of meditation rather than of inter-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "148 SHAKSPE^R NO\u00c2\u00a5 SHAKEiSPElARE;.\\nest or curiosity as to their actions, that while we are\\nreading any of his great original characters Macbeth,\\nRichard, even lago we think not so much of the\\ncrimes they commit, as of the ambition, the aspiring\\nspirit, the intellectual activity, which prompt them to\\nleap over these moral fences. So little do the actions\\ncomparatively affect us, that while the impulses, the\\ninner mind in all its perverted greatness, solely seems\\nreal and is exclusively attended to, the crime is com-\\nparatively nothing. But when we see these things\\nrepresented, the acts which they do are compara-\\ntively everything, their impulses nothing.\\nThe too close pressing semblance of reality (in acting)\\ngives a pain and an uneasiness which totally destroys\\nall the delight which the words in the book convey,\\nwhere the deed doing never presses upon us with the\\npainful sense of presence; it seems rather to belong to\\nhistory to something past and inevitable, if it has\\nanything to do with time at all. The sublime images,\\nthe poetry alone, is that which is present to our\\nminds in the reading. The concluaion of all of\\nwhich is, that these plays were meant for the closet\\nrather than the stage, for reading rather than for\\nacting.\\nAgain, Lamb says: I cannot help being of opinion\\nthat the plays of Shakespeare are less calculated for\\nperformance on a stage than of almost any other\\ndramatist whatever. Their distinguishing excellence\\nis a reason that they should be so. There is so much\\nin them which comes not under the provision of act-\\ning, with which eye, and tone, and gesture have noth-\\ning to do. And; lycar is essentially impossible to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "the: THi^ATEIRS IN I^ONDON. 1 49\\nbe represented on a stage. Tlie I^ear of\\nShakespeare cannot be acted. The contemptible ma-\\nchinery by which they mimic the storm which he goes\\nout in is not more inadequate to represent the horrors\\nof the real elements, than any actor can be to repre-\\nsent I^ear. The play is beyond all art, as the\\ntamperings with it show it is too hard and stony; it\\nmust have love scenes and a happy ending. It is not\\nenough that Cordelia is a daughter, she must shine as\\na lover too. Tate has put his hook in the nostrils of\\nthis lycviathan, for Garrick and his followers, the\\nshowmen of scene, to draw the mighty beast about\\nmore easily.\\nTennyson has left us his opinion that lycar can-\\nnot possibly be acted; it is too titanic.\\nNo play not even the Agamemnon\u00e2\u0080\u0094 is so terrifically\\nhuman\\nGoUancz says: For more than a century and a\\nhalf, Tate s perversion of L^ear held the stage. It was\\nto this acting edition that L^amb referred in his\\nfamous criticism. Garrick, Kemble, Kean, and other\\ngreat actors were quite content with this travesty, but\\nthe lycar of Shakespeare cannot be acted. Charles\\nKnight says of another of these plays: The feeling\\nwhich the study of Shakespeare s Troilus and Cressida\\nslowly but certainly calls forth, is that of almost pros-\\ntration before the marvelous intellect which has pro-\\nduced it. But this is the result of study, as we have\\nsaid. The play cmmot be understood upon a superficial\\nreading: it is full of the most subtle art. We may set\\naside particular passages, and admire their eloquence\\ntheir profound wisdom but it is long before the play as", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "I50 shakspe;r not SHAKE;sp:^AR:e.\\na whole, obtains its proper mastery over the understand-\\ning y And yet, these plays, entirely over the heads\\nof the theater goers of any stage of the 1 6th century,\\nand nearly as much so to-day, are supposed to have\\nbeen expressly written for the entertainment of the\\nrabble of London, just emerging from barbarism, and\\nthrown off merely as pot-boilers by a tramp player.\\nThere is no evidence that William Shaksper ever\\nreceived one penny royalty on a Shakespeare play, or\\nany other play. There is no evidence that he ever\\npossessed a property in any Shakespeare or other\\nplay; and when he died, no Shakespeare, or other\\nplay, was found among his personal effects; nor was\\nthere mention of anything of the kind, or of any literary\\nmatter whatever in his last Will. These plays were\\nentered on the Stationers Register, not in the name\\nof one publisher, but of nearly as many publishers as\\nthere were different plays. Most of them in their\\nsuccessive editions appeared without an author s name,\\nor one edition of a given play would be anonymous,\\nand the next not. Ten years after William Shaksper\\nis supposed to have begun to write plays, a publisher\\nused the name of William Shakespeare on a title\\npage, prompted to do so, I believe, by the extraor-\\ndinary success of certain poems which had borne the\\nsobriquet of William Shake- speare and after that,\\nsome of this series of plays bore that name, while\\nothers did not, but issued anonymously. As I have\\nbefore said, the first appearance of a Shakespeare\\nplay was usually on the occasion of some grand fes-\\ntivity at Court or elsewhere, and then in a quite dif-\\nferent form from the same play when it came to be", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "THK THKATi^E-S IN I^ONDON. I51\\nprinted. No doubt the manager of the Curtain or the\\nGlobe was at liberty (purchased from the publishers\\nor not) to adopt such scenes from these or any other\\nprinted plays, as would suit the people who looked to\\nhim for entertainment. He was not the man to work\\nfor nothing, to write a play of ten thousand words for\\nprivate reading, when one thousand words were all he\\ncould use, or wanted for his public theater. This man\\nhad a mission to perform so Wendell tells us, and he\\nknows to make a fortune, and he accomplished it.\\nAll his life he worked to that end, and what did not\\ntend to that end was not done by him.\\nEven at the present day, no one of the Shakespeare\\nplays is put upon the stage as it left its author s hand,\\nbut all have been altered and abridged according to\\nthe whims of successive generations of actors and\\neditors. With the attractions of artistic scenery,\\ntrained and accomplished actors, beautiful and su-\\nperbly costumed actresses, and music, it is hard to\\nmake an abbreviated Shakespeare play attract the\\ntown for a week together; and most of the audience\\ngo, not to hear the words and wisdom of Shakespeare,\\nbut to see the beauty and fashion in the boxes, or the\\nsplendid pageant on the stage. That is what most\\npeople nowadays go to the representation of a Shake-\\nspeare play for.*\\n*After the above lines were written, I read in Munsey s Maga-\\nzine for May, 1S96: During one week in Marcli, there were\\nthree productions of Shakespeare plays at as many Broadway\\nhouses. By many this might be hailed as a happy antidote to\\nthe rage for vaudevilles. As a matter of fact, all three presenta-\\ntions were merely the realization of cherished personal ambitions", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "152 shakspe;r not shake;spe;ar:^.\\nA small minority, consisting of reading and culti-\\nvated persons, really go for better reasons. But how-\\nmany would go if there were no beauty and fashion,\\nno ladies unless masked, no scenery, and if the female\\ncharacters were personated (or travestied) by men and\\nboys? How many, if the performance took place be-\\nneath the open sky, and under the barbarous condi-\\ntions which prevailed in the time of Elizabeth Not\\none; and it is absurd to suppose that the public, whom\\nJohnson characterized as gross and dark, and especially\\nthe lower class of people, who, according to the same\\nauthority, were but just emerging from barbarism,\\non the part of star performers. By tradition Shakespeare is re-\\ngarded as the top round of the mummer s ladder. To be sure,\\nif the Bard of Avon should appear on Gotham s Rialto with the\\nmanuscript of Julius Caesar, or Romeo and Juliet, in his pocket,\\nhe would find just as hard a row to hoe, in securing a staging, as\\ndoes Skaggs of Skeneateles, with his Sixteen Wives to a Hus-\\nband of more modern make. The managers. know\\nthat Shakespeare does not pay unless he is well sugar-coated\\nwith unequaled scenic effect, and even then it is touch and go\\nif you ever get your money back. And in Book News, for\\nMay, 1896, I read this: It is that part of the theater-going\\npublic which is respectable and absolutely commonplace that\\nMr. Daly appeals to. This is what Mr. Daly applies to\\nShakespeare. He first cuts out every frank phrase in the play,\\nthen every scene that is not rapid and spicy, then he upholsters\\nit, and then he turns loose on it his troupe of society actors.\\nHe knows his world. Showman Shaksper knew his world\\nalso, and was not such a fool as to present a Shakespeare play\\nas written to the audiences of the Curtain.\\nFleay, Hist., 169, says: I am sure that no popular audience\\n(in our day) would be attracted by Shakespeare s poetry, or\\nIrving s acting, were it not for the siibsidiary aids of scenery,\\nupholstery, splendid dress and euphonious melody.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "TH:e TPIEATBRS IN I^ONDON. 1 53\\ncould have been attracted by these plays, in the shape\\nin which we have them, at the public theater, in 1590\\nor later.*\\nThere is scarcely any description extant of the per-\\nformance of a possible Shakespeare play at the theater\\nbetween 1587 and 1623 anything beyond the bare\\ntitle of a play, and then, as I have said, there is never\\ncoupled with it the name of Shakespeare. What\\nthere is, is chiefly contained in the note-book of\\nDr. Simon Forman, an astrologer of that period.\\nMr. Phillipps, II, 87, says: In the Ashmole col-\\nlection of manucripts is a little tract, in the autograph\\nof Dr. Simon Forman, giving his accounts of the rep-\\nresentation of three of the Shakespeare plays, namely,\\nThe Winter s Tale, at the Globe, 15 May, 161 1; Cym-\\nbeline (time and place not given), and Macbeth, at\\nthe Globe, 20 April, 1610. That these were Shake-\\nspeare s plays is Mr. Phillipps assertion, but Forman\\nnowhere says they were. Of Macbeth, H.-P. says, I,\\n230, that it is the only contemporary notice that has\\nbeen discovered. Besides the accounts of Forman,\\nthere is a brief outline of the plot of Twelfth Night,\\nperhaps the Shakespeare play of that name, perhaps\\n*Dr. Johnson, Preface to Shakespeare s Works, 1765, says:\\nThe English nation, in the time of Shakespeare, was yet strug-\\ngling to emerge from barbarity. I^iterature was yet\\nconfined to professed scholars or to men and women of high\\nrank. The public was gross and dark.\\nHe also tells us that if such plays as those of Shakespeare\\nwere written in 1765, the audience would not sit them out, thus:\\nHe has scenes of undoubted excellence, but perhaps not one\\nplay which, if it were now exhibited as the work of a contem-\\nporary writer, would be heard to the conclusion,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "154 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nnot, played at the Middle Temple, by John Mannings\\nham, occupying but four lines in Mr. Phillipps book;\\nand that is all that any of the writers during thirty\\nodd years gave of the representation of a play which\\nmight have been a Shakespeare play. This is a re-\\nmarkable state of things. Shakespeare plays per-\\nformed at William Shaksper s theaters for thirty years,\\nwritten expressly to fill his theaters and his pockets,\\nas Shakspereans say the talk of the town a new\\nplay the event of the season so Halli well- Phillipps\\nsays, and not the slightest testimony has reached this\\nage, that any educated man, any man of letters, any\\nman eminent in any department of knowledge, or even\\nany man belonging to the upper classes, ever went to\\nsee a Shakespeare play, not merely at a public theater,\\nbut at a private one, or at court. The quack char-\\nlatan Fleay calls him), Simon Forman, saw three\\nplays with names like those of certain Shakespeare\\nplays in some sort of presentation, and John Manning-\\nham records in his diary in the briefest manner that a\\nplay called Twelfth Night was had at our feast\\nHe does not say that it was a Shakespeare play; but it\\nwas near to that in Italian called Inganni and for\\naught that appears it may not have been a Shakespeare\\nplay. That is all, and there is no record of any other\\nman, high or low, having witnessed any of them, any-\\nwhere or at any time. If such plays were performed\\nwith the effect Halliwell-Phillipps asserts, they should\\nhave been mentioned in private correspondence, in\\ndiaries, in pamphlets or books. It was an age of\\ndiaries; and long letters filled with the gossip of the\\ntown, and the latest news, public and private, went", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "THS THKATEJRS OF LONDON. 1 55\\nfrom London to all quarters of the kingdom, serving\\ntlie purpose of newspapers, whicli were invented only\\nat the close of the 17th century. Later in that cen-\\ntury, these plays are repeatedly mentioned in diaries or\\nbooks, and criticisms of bo1;h play and actors are re-\\ncorded at length. This makes it the more remarkable,\\nthat the Shakespeare plays, having had the popularity\\nclaimed for them by modern Shakspereans, should not\\nhave been mentioned at all in either diary or corre-\\nspondence contemporary with the career of William\\nShaksper; Ingleby and Furnivall are witness to the\\nfact. One would suppose that a series of Shakespeare\\nplays anywhere would have attracted some one else\\nthan the rabble of London. As Ingleby says: The\\nabsence of sundry great names, with which no pains\\nof research could connect the most trivial allusions,\\nis tacitly significant.\\nThe significance consists in this, that it is evident\\nthat scholars and poets and philosophers, and, in gen-\\neral, literary men, did not go to see these plays in the\\npublic theaters,* (there is no existing evidence that a\\nMorgan, 147: At the same time that Bacon and Shake-\\nspeare are living, unknown to each other respectively, in Lon-\\ndon, there also dwelt three other gentlemen Sir Walter Raleigh,\\nEdmund Spenser, and Sir Tobie Matthew. We, therefore, actu-\\nally have four well-known gentlemen of the day in London,\\ngentlemen of elegant tastes, poets, men about town, critics,\\nwho, if the town were being convulsed by the production at a\\ntheater of by far the most brilliant miracles of genius that the\\nworld has ever seen, ought not in the nature of things, to have\\nbeen utterly misinformed as to the circumstances. The four\\nhave left precisely such memoranda of their time as are of as-\\nsistance to us here. Bacon, in his Apothegms. Spenser in his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "156 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARE).\\nShakespeare play was performed in a private theater\\nduring WilHam Shaksper s career), and if any such\\npersons saw one of them at Court, he did not deem it\\nof enough importance to speak of it in a letter, or to\\nnote it down in his diary. If the Shakespeare plays\\nwere seen at a theater at all, it was before an audience\\nilliterate, gross and dark and the presentation was\\nnecessarily of a character to suit and please that sort\\nof audience.\\nTo return to Forman s account of Macbeth There\\nwas to be observed, first, how Mackbeth and Bancko\\nridinge throwe a wood (that is, they appeared on\\nthe stage when the curtain was raised [if there was a\\ncurtain] mounted on wooden horses, for as Phillipps\\ntells us, II, 259, rude models of horses, the bodies\\ndilated with hoops and laths, were familiar objects on\\nthe early English stage), there stode before him\\nthree women feiries or nimphes (the weird sisters\\nwere personated by men whose heads were disfigured\\nby grotesque periwigs, H.-P., 1. c). And when\\npoems, and Raleigh and Matthew in their remains appear to\\nhave stumbled on no trace of such a character as Shake-\\nspeare in all their sauntering about London. Especially on\\none occasion does Sir Tobie devote himself to a subject matter,\\nwherein, if there had been any Shakespeare in ken, he would,\\nwe think, very naturally have mentioned him. In the Address\\nto the Reader, prefixed to one of his works, he says, speaking\\nof his own date: I doubt if it will go near to pass any other\\nnations of Europe to muster out in any age four men, who, in\\nso many respects should be able to excel four such as we are\\nable to show Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, Sir Philip\\nSidney, and Sir Francis Bacon. For they were all a kind of\\nmonsters in their various ways etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "Th:^ THKATSRS in LONDON. 1 57\\nMackbeth had murdred the kinge, the blod on his\\nhands could not be washed off by any means, nor\\nfrom his wifes hands which handled the bluddi dag-\\ngers. The murder being known Dunkins\\ntwo sons fled. Then Mackbeth, for fear of Bancko,\\ncaused him to be murdered on the way as he rode\\n(on the wooden horse). The ghoste of Banco came\\nand sat down in the chair behind him. And he,\\nturning about to sit down again, sawe the ghoste of\\nBanco, which fronted him so, that he fell into a great\\npassion of fear and fury, uttering many words about\\nhis murder. Then Mac Dove fled to Eng-\\nland. In the mean tyme Mackbeth slew\\nMc Doves wife and children, and after the battelle\\nMac Dove slew Mackbet. Mackbetes wife did rise\\nin the night in her slepe, and walked and talked and\\nconfessed all\\nThere is nothing in this account implying that the\\nperformance was more than a pantomime, with here\\nand there an explanatory word thrown in, what Fleay\\nstyles a dumb -show, and which was very popular.\\nWe hear of the action only, and rapid action, and it\\nall took place in the brief afternoon, on the bare stage,\\none thing succeeding another in plain view of the\\ncrowd. The wooden horse stood there at the begin-\\nning, and Macbeth and Banquo must have dismounted,\\nwhile the beast remained for Banquo to mount again,\\nin order that he might be cut down as he rode. We\\ncan see it all the three nimphes the arrival at Dun-\\ncan s court a placard on the wall to explain that this\\nwas the article; Duncan coming to Macbeth s castle\\n(another placard) the murder of Duncan and of the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "I5S SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEIARR.\\nguards; the bloody daggers, aud I^ady Macbeth, in\\nher sleep, walking and talking; the cutting down of\\nBanquo; the ghost in the chair; the flight of IMacdufF,\\nand the murder of his wife and babes; finalh^ the bat-\\ntle and death of Macbeth. Dr. Forman says nothing\\nof the speeches or dialogue of the play, the ven, part\\nand the only part, that to-day would be written of by\\nan eye-witness of the perfonnance as worth recol-\\nlecting.\\nThe raven himself is hoarse\\nThat croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan\\nUnder my battlements. Come yon spirits\\nThat tend on mortal thoiights, nnsex me here;\\nAnd fill me from the crown to the toe, top-full\\nOf direst cruelty\\nIs this a dagger that I see before me\\nThe handle toward my hand?\\nZNIethought I heard a voice say Sleep no more!\\nMacbeth hath murdered sleep!\\nInfirm of purpose\\nGive me the dagger\\nThon canst not say I did it, never shake\\nTh}- gorj- locks at me.\\nAvaiint and quit my sight!\\nThy bones a*re marrowless, tliy blood is cold,\\nThou hast no speculation in those eyes\\n^^^lich thou dost glare with\\nHere s tlie smell of blood still; all tlie perfimie of\\nArabia viill not sweeten this little hand.\\nNothing of all this. The action of the play was\\nevidently what struck Dr. Forman. There can be no", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "the; THKATi^RS IN I^ONDON. 1 59\\ncertainty that the play in question was the Macbeth\\nof the Folio. There are omissions in Forman s ac-\\ncount which are incomprehensible if he was seeing the\\nShakespeare play as the witch scenes and the incanta-\\ntions. He saw three women fairies or nimphes,\\nand nothing more is said of them. So of the appari-\\ntions and Birnam wood, there is not a word.\\nWe may be sure that if it was a Shakespeare play\\nthe speeches and soliloquies were not given; that the\\ndialogues were cut down to what was merely necessary\\nto explain the action; and that the action was reduced\\na full half. The audiences were like so many chil-\\ndren cruel children. They wanted no philosophy,\\nno metaphysics, no long-drawn speeches nothing but\\nblood.\\nMr. Phillipps has told us that they reveled in the\\nhorrible, and that murders were in special request.\\nThey were made up of the scourings of I^ondon, the\\nvile, the vicious, and the ignorant; the men and boys\\nwho used to flock to the hangings and drawings and\\nquarterings; and who regretted the good old times\\nwhen there were roastings at the stake. Blood they\\nwanted, and in the action of such plays as Macbeth,\\nand Titus Andronicus, and Henry VI, they got their\\nfill of it. How they yelled as Duncan and the guards\\nwere stabbed, and the imitation blood ran in quarts;\\nas Banquo tumbled from the wooden horse, at the\\nshrieks of I^ady Macduff and the children; at the\\nfinal battle!\\nIn the same way Dr. Forman gives the bare action\\nof Cymbeline and the Winter s Tale: Remember also\\nthe storri of Cymbelin, King of England in I^ucius", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "l6o SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARK.\\ntyme; how Lucius came from Octavus Cesar for\\ntribut, and being denied, after sent lyucius with a\\ngrate armi of soldiars, who landed at Milford Haven,\\nand affter wer vanquished by Cimbalin, and Lucius\\ntaken prisoner; and all by means of three outlawes; of\\nthe which two of them were the sonns of Cimbalin,\\nstolen from him when they were but two years old by\\nan old man whom Cimbalin banished, and he kept\\nthem as his own sonns twenty years with him in a\\ncave; and how one of them slew Cloten, that was the\\nquens sonn going to Milford Haven to sek the love\\nof Imogen, the Kinges daughter, whom he had ban-\\nished also for lovinge his daughter; and how the\\nItalian that cam from her love conveied himself into a\\ncheste, and said jt was a chest of plate sent from her love\\nand others to be presented to the Kinge; and in the deep-\\nest of the night, she being aslepe, he opened the cheste,\\nand came forth of yt, and viewed her in her bed, and\\nthe marks of her body, and toke away her braslet and\\nafter accusing her of adultery to her love, etc. and in\\ntil end how he came with the Romains into England;\\nand was taken prisoner, and after reveled to Imogen,\\nwho had turned herself into man s apparell, and fled\\nto mete her love at Milford Haven and chancsed to fall\\non the cave in the woods wher her two brothers were;\\nand how by eating a sleeping dram, they thought she\\nhad been deed, and laid her in the wodes, and body of\\nCloten by her in her loves apparell that he left be-\\nhind him; and how she was found by Lucius, etc.\\nHere is no hint of speeches or dialogue, nothing but\\naction, and suitable to a Dumb-Show. The story of\\nthe Winter s Tale is described in the same way. These", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "THE THEATKRS IN I^ONDON. l6l\\nnarratives sustain the view that the Shakespeare plays\\nwere not performed at the pubHc theaters, but skele-\\ntons, or special scenes from them only; and those, it\\nis highly probable, most often in pantomime.\\nBoth Fleay and Knight tell us that dumb-shows, a\\nnew style of playing introduced from Italy, were very\\npopular in the last years of the century. And Ham-\\nlet, in 1603, implies the same thing. The action of a\\ndumb-show or a spectacular scene, if there were blood\\nenough, would attract an audience to fill the diminu-\\ntive theater; but it is not to be believed, and cajinot be\\nproved, that the Shakespeare plays were ever performed\\nat length or were anywhere popular. Mr. Phillipps\\nwould have us believe that a new Shakespeare play\\nwas the event of the year (1592) and that the town\\nwas in a furore over it, but when we search for the\\nproofs of this, they are remarkable for their absence.\\nHe tells us that Henry VI (meaning Shakespeare s)\\nwas the success of the year visited by ten thousand\\npersons, and refers to Nash as his authority. Nash\\nsays (Ingleby, 5): How it would have joyed brave\\nTalbot to think that after he had lain two hundred\\nyears in his tomb, he should triumph again on the\\nstage, and have his bones new embalmed with the\\ntears of ten thousand spectators at least (at several\\ntimes), etc. On this, Ingleby says that the play\\nin question may or may not be identical with the first\\npart of Henry VI of the Folio of 1623 and anyhow\\nwhether Shakespeare had any hand in this latter\\nplay is to say the least problematical. According\\nto Ingleby, therefore, Phillipps was not justified in\\nciting- Nash as witness to the popularity of a Shake-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "l62 SHAKSPICR NOT SHAKKSPEARE.\\nspeare play, for the probabilities are that the play was\\nnot a Shakespeare play. As we have before seen,\\nlater commentators of distinction are agreed that ist\\nHenry VI was written in collaboration by Marlowe,\\nPeele, Lodge, and either Greene and Kyd. Fleay,\\n273, is of opinion that about 1588-9 Marlowe plotted,\\nand in conjunction with the playwrights named, wrote\\nist Henry VI for the Queen s men. In 1591-2, the\\nQueen s men sold the play with others to Lord\\nStrange s men (with whom was William Shaksper),\\nwho produced it in 1592, with the Talbot additions\\nmade by some other playwright. He thinks this other\\nwas Shakespeare but that is merely a name for an\\nauthor unknown. The point is that Phillipps claim\\nto the popularity of a new Shakespeare play, mean-\\ning a play written by his bard, William Shaksper, is\\nnot supported by his citation of Marlowe s play of ist\\nHenry VI.\\nMr. Phillipps uses nearly the same expressions as to\\nRomeo and Juliet, which was produced at the Curtain\\nTheater, 1596, and met with great success. Romeo\\nand Juliet may be said indeed to have taken the me-\\ntropolis by storm and to have become the play of the\\nseason. The long continued popularity of\\nRomeo and Juliet may be inferred from several earlier\\nallusions, as well as from the express testimony of\\nLeonard Digges. Vol. I, 128. As Digges was\\nborn in 1688, he was but eight years old when this\\nplay was first produced\\nOn turning to Ingleby, 154, to see what Digges really\\nsaid (in his verses prefixed to the Folio, 1623, twenty-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "THK THKATKRS IN I^ONDON. 1 63\\nseven years after Romeo and Juliet was first produced,\\nwe find simply these words:\\nNor shall I e er believe or think thee dead\\n(Though mist) until our bankrout stage be sped\\n(Impossible) with some new strain to out-do\\nPassions of Juliet and her Romeo\\nThere is not another line in Phillipps which shows\\nthat Romeo and Juliet was played after this first pro-\\nduction, and even that production seems a mere\\ninference from something quoted from Marston s\\nScourge of Villanie 1598. One of the characters\\nis made to say:\\nLuscus what s played to-day? faith now I know\\nI set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow\\nNaught but pure Juliet and Romeo.\\nMarston used the expression Curtaine plaudeties\\nin this connection, which as appears from Phillipps, I,\\n366, may have meant the play-house, or, on the other\\nhand, it may have been meant for theatrical. Then\\nPhillipps goes on: If the supposition that Marston\\nspeaks of the Curtain theater is correct, it is certain that\\nShakespeare s tragedy of Romeo a7td Juliet was there\\nplaid publiquely by the Right Honorable the L. of\\nHunsdon his servants, title page of edition 1597.\\nIt 7nay be then safely assumed that Shakespeare s Romeo\\nand Juliet was acted at the Curtain theater some time\\nbetween July 22, 1 596, the day on which Lord Hunsdon\\ndied, and April 17, 1597, when his son was appointed\\nto the office of Privy Council Register. During those\\nnine months the company was known as lyord Huns-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "164 shakspe;r Nor shakkspkare;.\\ndon s The above is an excellent example of Mr.\\nPhillipps logic.\\nThe first production spoken of, on p. 128, seems\\nto be the same as that on p. 366. Phillipps nowhere\\nelse speaks of any performance, though, I, 405, he\\nquotes the title page of the edition of 1597: An ex-\\ncellent conceited tragedie of Romeo and Juliet as it\\nhath been often (with great applause) plaid pub-\\nliquely etc., as I have before given it. The title\\npage of the 2d Quarto, 1599, says: Newly corrected,\\naugmented, and amended; as it hath bene sundry times\\npubliquely acted by the right H. the ly. Chamberlain s\\nservants. Nowhere is there direct evidence that\\nthis play was performed at one of the public theaters;\\nand, as I have elsewhere shown, it was impossible\\nthat a Shakespeare play could have been so performed,\\nexcept greatly abbreviated.\\nOn looking up the several early allusions spoken\\nof by Phillipps, they are limited to this one of Mars-\\nton s, and Weever s mention by name of the issue of\\nhonie-tongued Shakespeare in his Epigrams of\\n1595, where the compound word Romea-Richard\\nappears, and nothing else. There is no such play as\\nRomea-Richard, and what the first part of the name\\nmeans is not apparent. If, in 1595, there was a play\\nknown as Romea, meaning Romeo, then its first pro-\\nduction would not seem to have been in 1596, and\\nRomeo must have been the older play spoken of by\\nFleay. On the strength of these two trivial, and one\\nof them doubtful, allusions, away goes Phillipps, dis-\\ncoursing of the long continued popularity of Romeo\\nand Juliet and of its taking the metropolis by", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "I^HK THBlAT EiRS IN IvONDON. 1 65\\nstorm the success of the season an excellent\\nexample of his habit when he fires up on the subject\\nof the bard of our admiration or the great drama-\\ntist always meaning the strolling player, William\\nShakvSper. Every testimony to the popularity of a\\nShakespeare play wdll be found to peter out in like\\nfashion. One remark further from Phillipps on this\\nplay of Romeo and Juliet I must give (I, 128): But\\nit is rather singular that the author s name is not\\nmentioned in any of the old editions, until some time\\nafter the year 1609. On this I quote T. W. White,\\n127: Some time after 1609, a fourth quarto edition\\n(of Romeo and Juliet) was published without any\\ndate, but with the name of William Shakespeare as\\nauthor. But what happened? After a few copies\\nhad been sold, Shakespeare s name was withdrawn,\\nand the rest of the impression was issued anony-\\nmously. (New Shakespeare Soc. II. Daniel s Romeo\\nand Juliet, I^ondon, 1874, Intro., IV.)\\nThis play was never attributed to William Shake-\\nspeare, except on the few copies spoken of, until the\\nFolio appeared, 1623. Mr. White believes that the\\nwithdrawal of Shakespeare s name on the title page\\nof this fourth Quarto was caused by a legal proceeding\\nhad or threatened.*\\nT. W. White says There is direct evidence that Romeo\\nand Juliet was written by Samuel Daniel in the Pilgrimage to\\nParnassus. Gallic, having given a certain passage as his own,\\nIngenioso exclaims: Mark! I think he will run through a\\nwhole book of Samuel Daniel If the words mean anjrthing,\\nthey mean that Samuel Daniel was known as the author of\\nRomeo and Juliet.,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "i66 SHAKSiPER NOO* SHAKESPEAREI,\\nEven at Court, between 1589, when Fleay says the\\nfirst Shakespeare play was given (lyOve s Labour s\\nLost), and 16 10, when Shaksper retired from the com-\\npany of players, there were but 88 performances of\\nany sort by himself and associates 88 performances\\nin twenty years. Some of the plays may have been\\nShakespeare plays; others doubtless bore similar names\\nto the Shakespeare plays, but were written by earlier\\nauthors. Others of the eighty -eight, were by Jonson\\nand different playwrights. We know this because\\nMr. Fleay records several such by name, as played be-\\nfore the Court by the Chamberlain s Company, or the\\nKing s Company. In the Appendix to his book (Life)\\nis a list of all performances by the Shaksper companies\\nbefore the Court during the period named, year by\\nyear; and four or five at other places, as Gray s Inn,\\nSomerset House, etc., etc. Therefore, we are war-\\nranted in asserting that the Shakespeare plays between\\n1589 and 1 6 10 were not performed before the Court on\\nan average of more than twice a year.\\nAt these Court performances any Shakespeare play\\nmust have been cut down to an hour or so. As in\\nthe city theaters, there was no movable scenery, and\\nthere were no actresses. The fashionable set about\\nthe Queen, or James, would soon tire of the declama-\\ntions and rantings and questionable jokes of fellows\\nthat they held in the same consideration as jugglers\\nand buffoons, and whose very utterance and movement\\nthey spent their wit in audibly ridiculing. The\\nqueen patronized the players, but it was only as she\\npatronized the bulls, bears and apes, which were baited\\nfor her amusement T. W. White, 283. In the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "^un THE^Al^KRS IN LONDON. 1 67\\nsame way the players were baited for her amusement,\\nto the delight of the courtiers.\\nAnd here I would remark, that the Court seems to\\nhave appreciated five-act plays and Shakespeare plays\\nvastly less than did the rabble at the public theaters,\\nif we are to believe what the commentators tell us.\\nInterludes and dumb-shows were played in the theaters\\nup to 1589, and the shows had become popular. In\\nsteps an inspired butcher with his five-act play of\\nlyove s I^abour s Lost, a supreme effort in genteel com-\\nedy, and the groundlings are so enamored with the\\npoetry and pictures of high life (in southern France,\\nof all places in the world!) with the abundant Latin\\nand French, with the discourses on philology, divinity,\\nand law, that they cry aloud for five-act plays; they\\ncry for them as children cry for castoria, with the re-\\nsult that, up to 1592, they get four more plays to their\\nmind Much Ado About Nothing, The Comedy of\\nErrors, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Romeo and Juliet\\nthe scenes laid in Italy and Sicily and Asia; Dukes,\\nPrinces, Lords and Ladies galore. All this they got\\nbecause they cried (conclamabant) for it. Happy,\\nhappy groundlings! One distinguished member of the\\nAmerican Shakespeare Society has it in print that the\\nShakespeare plays are the direct outcome of the clamor\\nof the galleries, and but for this, there would have\\nbeen no Shakespeare plays. Now Sympnds tells us\\nthat the occupants of the gallery were the same sort\\nas the stinkards below, plus the prostitutes.\\nOn the other hand, while the intellectual and culti-\\nvated penny-knaves were clamoring for five-act plays,\\nthe unintellectual and uncultivated Court, from 1586", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "1 68 SHAKSPSR NOT shak:^sp:^are.\\nto 1592, was content with Interludes, Masks, and the\\nthe gambols of the Children of the Revels. Truly the\\ncontrast is surprising! I remember that Fleay charges\\ncertain Shakespeare commentators with having mis-\\nchievously fertile imaginations, and also that an em-\\ninent authority long ago left her opinion that this\\nworld was too much given to lying.\\nAfter 1623, when the reading community had the\\nopportunity to become acquainted with the whole body\\nof Shakespeare plays, through the Folio, these should\\nhave become popular. But it was not so. Dr. Ingle-\\nby, 157, quoting Malone says: The ofl ce book of\\nSir Henry Herbert contains an account of almost\\nevery piece exhibited in any of the theaters from\\nAugust, 1623, to the commencement of the rebellion,\\n1 65 1. By this it appears that the Winter s Tale was\\nacted at Whitehall, i8th of Jan., 1623; Sir John\\nFalstaff (Henry IV), at same place, 1624; Richard III,\\nat St. James, 1633; The Taming of A Shrew, St.\\nJames, 1633; Cymbeline (at Court), 1633; Win-\\nter s Tale, at Court, 1633; and Julius Caesar, at St.\\nJames, 1636. That is to say, from the publication of\\nthe Folio, in the next eighteen years, seven repre-\\nsentations of Shakespeare plays, or plays with titles\\nsimilar to those of the Shakespeare plays for the\\nrecord never says by Shakespeare ^were given be-\\nfore the rank and fashion of the land, or about one\\nevery three years.\\nAfter the Restoration, we hear of I^ear and Macbeth,\\nas altered by Davenant; Troilus and Cressida, as re-\\nwritten by Dryden; The Tempest, made into an\\nopera by Mr. Shadwell, having all new in it, as scenes,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "YHB^ 1 H:eA rE;RS IN I.ONDON. I69\\nmachines; particularly one scene painted with myriads\\nof Ariel spirits; and another flying away with a table\\nfurnished out with fruits, sweetmeats, and all sorts of\\nviands, just when Duke Trinculo and his companions\\nwere going to dinner\\nThe Fairy Queen: This is Shakespeare s Mid-\\nsummers Nights Dream with additions, songs and\\ndances, 24 Chinese, and Juno in a machine drawn by\\npeacocks. While a symphony plays, the machine\\nmoves forward, and the peacocks spread their tails,\\netc. I^ater six monkeys come from behind the trees\\nand dance, etc.\\nThere is no evidence that at any time the Shake-\\nspeare plays as William Shakespeare wrote them\\nwere popular, that is, capable of filling the theaters or\\nthe managers pockets; and yet, after the Restoration,\\nthe female parts were taken by women, several of\\nwhom seem to have been admirable actresses, and\\nstage scenery had been introduced. Other attractions\\nhad to be offered. Doran says that (about 1700) the\\ntheaters had not proved popular. The public greeted\\nacrobats with louder acclaim than any poet. Dancers,\\nstrong men, and quadrupeds were called in to attract\\nthe town. At a performance of Othello, between\\nthe acts, Dutch posture- masters kept the audience in\\ngood humor\\nIngleby goes on to say: But Sir Henry Herbert\\nleft several other papers, from which Malone gives us\\nthe following notices of Shakespeare plays. Out of\\nthe twenty stock plays of the Red Bull actors, after-\\nwards called the King s servants, from 1660 to 1663,\\nthree were Shakespeare s. Out of a list of 67 entered", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "lyo shaksper NOT shake;spe;are;.\\nby Sir Henry Herbert, from 5 March., 1660, to July\\n23d, 1662, only three were Shakespeare s. Downes,\\nthe prompter s, list of the stock plays of the King s\\nservants from 1660 to 1682, gives only four of Shake-\\nspeare s. Davenant s company acted some of Shake-\\nspeare s, part of which had been altered. The notes\\nfor the next thirty years show us ten of Shakespeare s\\nown, and ten altered by various writers, which were\\nperformed before 1692 The public quickly forgot\\nShakespeare and accepted Davenant, and Dry den,\\nTate, Durfey, Gibber, and John Philip Kemble, as\\nsomething better than the original, and even then, one\\nof these plays was seldom performed.\\nThe summing up of the matter is this: William\\nShaksper belonged to a company of players which was\\ncalled in successive periods by several names at\\nlength, after 1603, the King s players. It was their\\nduty to amuse the Court when ordered so to do. This\\nCompany, under one name or other, had occupied\\nthree public theaters, the then lowest place of public\\nentertainment; first, the Theater; next, the Curtain;\\nand, finally, the Globe; and they played in no other\\ntheaters. They were in the habit of giving perform-\\nances in the open air anywhere about town where a\\ncrowd could be collected, just as tumblers and jugglers\\nperform now in I^ondon streets. Sometimes they\\nplayed on an extemporized platform boards and\\nbarrel heads in the open court or yard of one of the\\nLondon Inns. The larger part of the year they\\nstrolled up and down Bngland and Scotland divided\\ninto small squads, and played at fairs or wherever they\\nhappened to be.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "YHE^ I HKAYEiRS IN tONDON. 17I\\nThere is no possibility that any Shakespeare play\\nwas ever acted at length while the detachments were\\nthus strolhng; a separate scene might have been, but\\nas to whether even that was given there is no informa-\\ntion. There is no evidence or probability that any\\nShakespeare play was ever acted at a public theater,\\nexcept in a very brief form, a mere skeleton, or inter-\\nlude, or in dumb-show. The nature of the public\\ntheater prohibited anything beyond this. There is no\\nevidence whatever that a Shakespeare play was ever\\nacted by William Shaksper s Company, or any other\\nCompany, at a private theater. There is a record of\\nfour or five performances of some sort of play at the\\nKarl of Pembroke s, Gray s Inn, or the like, in the\\nyears during which William Shaksper was a player or\\nmanager (Rowland White, in one of his letters given\\nin the Sydney Memoirs, II, 91, says that on 14 Febru-\\nary, 1898, there was a grand entertainment given at\\nthe Essex House. They had two plays, which kept\\nthem up till one o clock after midnight and of an\\naverage of about two and a half performances per\\nFleay, Life, 229, says: On the title-page of the ist Quarto\\n(Hamlet, 1603), it is said that the play has been acted in the\\nUniversities of Oxford and Cambridge, and elsewhere.\\nHamlet was entered by Roberts, 26 July, 1602, in S. R., as it\\nwas lately acted Plays thus produced during travels were\\nhurried and careless performances; indeed, this form of Hamlet\\nseems to have been an unfinished refashioning of the old play\\nby Kyd that had long been performed by the Chamberlain s\\nmen. On page 233, Fleay speaks of this ist Quarto as a hur-\\nried revision of the work of an earlier writer, but it must be\\nremembered, in a most mutilated form. This most mutilated\\nform would be as it was acted etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "172 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nyear at Court during the same period. There is no\\nreason for believing that even at Court any Shakespeare\\nplay was ever acted at length, or otherwise than in a\\nvery much abbreviated form; and, indeed, we are ex-\\npressly told this was the case.\\nThere is no evidence that these plays were any-\\nwhere popular, either among cultivated people or the\\nrabble, the groundlings of Hamlet, the penny-\\nknaves as Ingleby calls them, the stinkards of\\nSymonds, who flocked to the Globe, though certain\\nscenes of them were very probably popular, such as,\\nfrom their brutality, carnage or ribaldry, were on a\\nmoral level with that audience.\\nI shall in due time show (Chaps. XI, XII), that\\nduring the period from 1589 to 1623, these plays were\\nwholly unappreciated even by the better class of peo-\\nple, by the educated, and that they were regarded as\\nin no whit superior to the plays written by a score of\\nother authors.\\nFinally, the assertion that they were written to fill\\nthe public theaters and the pockets of William Shaksper,\\ntheir alleged author, through the money they brought\\nto the theater, is unwarranted. As I have said before,\\na course of Shakespeare plays would have bankrupted\\nany theater. No audience would have sat them out,\\nand the pit at the Curtain or the Globe would have\\npelted the players, or given them a hiding, had such,\\na thing been attempted by the managers.\\nNow that we have seen what the theater was, and\\nwhat the audience, and what sort of men those licensed\\nvagabonds must have been, we can judge of the proba-\\nbility of the most poetical head in England, the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "td\\no\\no\\np\\nw\\no\\n3\\ni-i\\nCA", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "THE) THBJATEJRS IN I^ONDON. 1 73\\ngreatest poet of tlie modern world as Professor\\nSymonds styles him, the fullest head of which we\\nhave any record according to James Russell I^owell,\\nthe myriad-minded author of the Shakespeare\\nplays, as Coleridge calls him, taking up his abode and\\nremaining for twenty-five years with that disgusting\\ncrowd. William Shaksper could and did do that\\nthing, but the author of the immortal plays could not\\nhave done it, and he did not do it. Can any one im-\\nagine a heaven-born poet deliberately taking up his\\nabode, and contentedly living the remainder of his\\ndays, with Snug the joiner. Bottom the weaver, and\\nSnout the tinker and those particular worthies were\\nnot tainted with every vice, we have reason to believe.\\nActing is not the word to describe the beggarly\\nperformances given by the Curtain company, or the\\nGlobe company, either at the Theater or on the tramp.\\nThey were players, not actors. Jonson intimates that\\ntheir proper place was at Goose Fair, and he hints\\nbroadly at the character of the prevalent vices among\\nthem. Wendell takes pains to tell us that the theater\\nwas not a socially respectable place, that it was the\\ncenter of organized vice. And the quotations I have\\ngiven from Phillipps and Symonds bear him out.\\nWilliam Shaksper, ex-butcher and poacher, escaped\\nto lyondon, under the law that birds of a feather flock\\ntogether, would naturally find his fellows at the public\\ntheater, and could lose no caste by it. But it is\\nutterly impossible that the author of the Shakespeare\\nplays, an educated and learned man, as well as a gen-\\ntleman, of which the plays themselves give evidence,\\ncould have sunk into that unclean nest, and volun-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "174 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPEAR:^.\\ntarily have spent his hfe among pimps and panders, or\\nstrolhng about the land with a blind jade and a\\nhamper cutting his Jim Crow antics, in inn-yards,\\non boards and barrel-heads.\\nEven as a player, William Shaksper was a failure.\\nBurbage, and Alleyn, and Kempe, his associates, left\\nsome sort of a reputation to the next age, but of\\nShaksper there is nothing. According to Ro we, the\\ntop of his performance was the Ghost in his own\\nHamlet. There is some ground for thinking (indefi-\\nnite knowledge is definite ignorance) that he played\\nthe part of Knowell in Jonson s Every Man in his\\nHumour and there is a confused tradition handed\\ndown by William Oldys (i 696-1761), antiquarian,\\nwhich makes it probable that he was the Adam of As\\nYou lyike It Dowden, 19. R. G. White says,\\nAppleton s Enc. Shakespeare We are tolerably\\nwell informed by contemporary writers of the per-\\nformances of the eminent actors of that time, but\\nof Shakespeare (Shaksper) we read nothing. A\\nstrange fact! No end of evidence of Shaksper s money\\ntransactions, but nothing of him as a player the occu-\\npation in which he spent the best half of his life, in\\ncontemporary annals. The truth unquestionably is\\nthat to his contemporaries he was known simply as\\nproprietor of a theater, and as a trader and money\\nlender.\\nOldys says that one of William s younger brothers,\\nwhom he calls Charles, and who lived to a great age,\\nwhen questioned in his later years, said that he could\\nremember nothing of William s performances, but see-\\ning him act a part in one of his own comedies, wherein,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "THK THEATERS IN LONDON. 1 75\\nto personate a decrepit old man, he wore a long beard,\\nand appeared so weak and drooping, and unable to\\nwalk that he was forced to be supported, and carried\\nto a table, at which he was seated among some com-\\npany and one of them sang a song. This is circum-\\nstantial enough, and indicates no loss of memory on\\nthe part of the venerable brother. The wonder is, if\\nhe could remember so much, and so minutely, that he\\ncould not have remembered more. Unfortunately,\\nWilliam did not have any such older brother, or any\\nbrother Charles, and that forgery goes with the many\\nothers. Fleay tells us, 170, (H.-P. I, 238), that on\\nthe 4th Feby., 161 3, the poet s only surviving brother,\\nRichard, was buried at Stratford. His memory as a\\nplayer then rests only on what Rowe tells us, but if there\\nis only some reason for thinking he played the part of\\nold Knowell, there is as much reason for believing he\\ndid not. Evidently, William Shaksper played inferior\\nparts, such as would not impress the spectators. He\\nwas not known to his contemporaries therefore as a\\nplayer, nor as a writer of plays, but he had a reputa-\\ntion which has reached our day as a jack-at-all-trades,\\na manager of a strolling company, and as proprietor\\nof a public theater the lowest, nastiest, place of\\nentertainment. But always he was known as a\\nman who had money to loan for a sufficient consid-\\neration.\\nAnd now we can understand why William Shaksper,\\nplayer, manager, and part proprietor of the Globe,\\nwas unknown to the men of that age; that there is no\\nmention of him in any letter, save in one instance\\nwhere a Stratford neighbor writes to him for a loan of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "176 shakspe;r not shakkspearb.\\nmoney; or diary of that age, save one entry in Man-\\nningham s diary, (which makes him party to a dis-\\ncreditable amour) that there is no testimony to con-\\nnect him with writing any sort of play; and there is\\nnot a tittle of evidence that any man or woman of\\nmark, or any gentleman or lady, ever spoke to him.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "wii ];iAM shaksp:^r s thirst for we;ai,th. 177\\nCHAPTER VIII.\\nWILI.IAM SHAKSPER S THIRST FOR WEAIvTH.\\nWhen I say there are few mentions of the man\\nShaksper, I mean as connected with the theater.\\nThere are many in other avocations, as buying and\\nselling, investing money at Stratford and elsewhere,\\nloaning money, and prosecuting debtors. In 1598,\\nAdrian Quiney writes to him in London about money,\\nand this is the only letter to-day extant addressed to\\nthe player. The fact is somewhat startling in the\\nlife of a great poet that the only letter addressed to\\nShakespeare (Shaksper), which is known to exist, is\\none which asks for a loan of money R. G. White,\\nlyife and Genius, 123. Very significant as well as\\nstartling, I should say!\\nHe appears not only as an advancer of money, but\\nalso one who negotiates loans through other capital-\\nists H.-P., I, 164. From the beginning of his\\ncareer in London money was the object of his heart,\\nand as Rowe tell us, by his incessant attention to\\nbusiness he attained it in an unusually large degree.\\nWendell, 433, says: The son of a ruined tradesman,\\nand saddled with a wife and three children, his busi-\\nness at 23 was to so conduct his life that he might end\\nit not as a laborer, but as a gentleman. After five-\\nand-twenty years of steady work, this end had been\\naccomplished. Incessant attention to business, and\\ntwenty-five years of steady work in a player s life,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "178 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARE.\\nwould seem to leave little time for anything outside of\\nbusiness. There are unreflecting persons who suppose\\nWilliam Shaksper was coining money by the Shake-\\nspeare plays, instead of by trading, buying and selling\\nreal estate in London, Stratford, and many other\\nplaces; loaning his money at usurious interest, as the\\nbooks plainly intimate; by farming and brewing beer.\\nR. G. White says, Shakespeare Studies, 209: The\\npoint to be constantly kept in mind in the critical con-\\nsideration of Shakespeare s dramas is, that they were\\nwritten by a second-rate actor (player Shaksper)\\nwhose first object was money, to get on in life. He\\nwrote what he wrote merely to fill the theater and his\\nown pockets I think I have made it clear that had\\nthis man written the Shakespeare plays in order to fill\\nthe Theater, or Curtain, or Globe, the only theaters\\nwith which he was connected, he would have emptied\\ninstead of filled his own pockets. That theory may as\\nwell be dismissed. He did not write the Shakespeare\\nplays, and his aim in life being what it was, he could\\nnot have written them, even if he had had the ability\\nto do it. The passion for money-making is antago-\\nnistic to the passion for study. The two cannot\\nexist in the same mind. A man may become\\nrich as a result of his passion for literature, but he\\ncannot become learned by study, or distinguished in\\nliterature, when money-making has been his first ob-\\nject. There is no pretense that Shaksper had a\\npassion for literature, or cared one stiver for it. He\\nwrote merely to fill his own pockets Then he never\\nwrote the Shakespeare plays. He had an enormous\\ncapacity for getting money, else he would not have", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "WIIvWAM SHAKSPKR S THIRS FOR WEJAI^TH. 1 79\\naccumulated a property that yielded an income equiva-\\nlent to twenty-five thousand dollars to-day. His one\\nfeat was getting money; there is nothing else. He\\nsaved his earnings from his first months in I^ondon;\\neven as a horse boy, he employed other boys to work for\\nhim, and so gained money. He invested in any good\\nthing that came to hand, executed commissions, ne-\\ngotiated loans with other capitalists, Phillips says.\\nBy and by he bought a share in a theater, which\\nproved a very profitable investment; bought houses\\nand lots in London, houses and lands in Stratford,\\nfarms here and there; was always trading, even to the\\nbuying and selling of agricultural products; was en-\\ngaged in the making and sale of malt; buys for ^440\\nthe unexpired term of the moiety of a valuable lease\\nof the tithes of four parishes, to wit: Stratford, Old\\nStratford, Bishop ton, and Welcombe. H.-P., I, 214.\\nAnd all the while he was loaning money at a high rate\\nof interest. Everything turned to money in this man s\\nhands. He had a wife and children at Stratford, but\\nhe left them to shift for themselves. His father all\\nthe last part of his life was in distress for money, but\\nthe son for years wasted nothing on him. A very\\nsaving man this! He showed himself an unusually\\ncapable business man. Some of his admirers have\\nbeen unable to see how he could have become rich\\nwithout the apochryphal aid from Lord Southampton,\\ntold about by Rowe,at the beginning of the 1 8th century.\\nAccording to Rowe, there is one instance so singular\\nin the magnificence of this patron of Shakespeare s\\nthat if I had not been assured that the story was\\nhanded down by Sir William D Avenant, who was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "l8o SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSP^ARK.\\nprobably very well acquainted with his affairs, I should\\nnot have ventured to have inserted; that my I^ord\\nSouthampton at one time gave him a thousand pounds\\nto enable him to go through with a purchase which he\\nheard he had a mind to and H.-P., I, 147, thinks\\nthis purchase must have been New Place, in 1597; and\\n5^et he tells us, p. 131, that this property cost Shak-\\nsper but ^60. As early as 1603, Crosse, in Phillipps\\nopinion, referred to Shaksper, when he spoke of\\nthese copper-laced gentlemen (who) grow rich, pur-\\nchase lands by adulterous plays, and not a few of\\nthem usurers and extortioners etc.\\nIn 1602, he had bought 107 acres of land near\\nStratford. Plainly, he commanded money early in his\\nLondon career, and there was no need of Southamp-\\nton s interposing as a deus ex machina. D Avenant\\ngave out that he was a natural son of Shaksper, and\\nwas a braggart as well as a blackguard, defiling\\nthe name as well as the fame of his own mother.\\n(Both Phillipps and Fleay assert that there was not\\nthe least ground for the scandalous story. Naturally\\nhe would make the most of the Southampton chest-\\nnut, testifying to the grand society the rich manager\\nmixed in. One thousand pounds in 1596 was equal to\\n$50,000 to-day. Blizabeth s dissipated nobles had no\\nGolconda behind them; nor Pennsylvania oil-wells,\\nnor Kaffir circles, nor Klon dikes, to fill their purses,\\nand did not play at chuck farthing with thousands of\\npounds. If William Shaksper had been the recipient\\nof so princely a gift, all the town would have rung\\nwith it. These things are not done in a corner.\\nThere would have been comments on it to suit In-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "WIIwIvIAM SHAKSPER S thirst FOR WEJAI^TH, l8l\\ngleby s book, record of it in the accounts or papers of\\nthe Karl of Southampton, mentions of it in the written\\ngossip of the day. There is not merely a total absence\\nof anything of the kind, but a notable lack of mention\\nof a connection of any sort between Shaksper and\\nSouthampton.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, who was obliged to make a case\\nto fit the personality of William Shaksper, says, I.\\n113: It should be remembered that his dramas were\\nnot written for posterity, but as a matter of business\\nhis task having been to construct out of\\ncertain given or selected materials successful dramas\\nfor the audiences of the day.\\nThe task of manager Shaksper, as well as of all\\nmanagers of that day, was not to construct successful\\ndramas but to find what would suit his or their au-\\ndiences from whatever sources they were able, and\\ndoubtless Shaksper catered to an approving audience.\\nBut the Shakespeare plays were written with no such\\naim as Mr. Phillipps lays claim to. They were written\\nfor posterity, and not for the audiences of Elizabeth\\nor James, and not merely to fill the authors pockets,\\nand the theaters, public or private. As Goethe said,\\nShakespeare never thought of the stage. Had money\\nbeen the aim the author of these plays would have\\ngained but a pittance either by their sale* to the\\ntheater, or a royalty on their performance. They\\nwere not popular, they were beyond the understand-\\ning of the people, and appreciation of them was very\\nslow even among the reading and educated classes. It\\nFrom Henslowe s Diary we learn that the price paid by the\\ntheater to the author for a play varied from ^2 to^7.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "i82 shaksp\u00c2\u00a3;r not shake;spe;arb;.\\nis one of the unexplained mysteries that no one seems\\nto have had or exercised any ownership of these plays.\\nApparently any printer was at liberty to use them as\\nhe pleased. There is no evidence that any one ever\\nreceived one penny of royalty on them or any of them.\\nThey were, so far as appears, cast on the waters, and\\ncertainly it was not till many days after that they bore\\nfruit.\\nThe constant thirst that he had for wealth is ex-\\nhibited by his early acquisition of houses and lands in\\nI^ondon and at Stratford; and the firmness of his grip\\non his accumulations is manifested by the paltry suits\\nhe brought to recover debts one being for thirty-five\\nshillings and tenpence after he had come to the en-\\njoyment of an income which would now be equal to\\ntwenty thousand dollars a year. Wilkes Shake-\\nspeare\\nHe carried on the business of money lending both\\nin lyondon and at Stratford. The records of the courts\\nin both places show that he sued his debtors, and got\\njudgment against them. It is to be noted that the\\nsuits are always for small sums. He prosecuted\\nPhilip Rogers, a Stratford neighbor, for y 1.15,6, due\\nfor malt sold, and two shillings money loaned; another,\\nJohn Addenbroke, for ^6. for malt. Follows this last\\nsuit for a couple of years until he gets the defendant\\ninto prison, whence he is bailed by Horneby. The\\nlegal proceedings are given in full by Phillipps in both\\nthese cases. Shaksper keeps a lawyer, one Thomas\\nGreene, in his house, {teste Phillipps), and his name\\nis appended to each of the processes in the Addenbroke\\nsuit.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "WII^IvIAM SHAKSPE;r S thirst FOR WKAI^TH. 1 83\\nIt is pleasant to know that Addenbroke ran away\\nand escaped his tormentor, who however then com-\\nmenced operations on Horneby. R. G. White says:\\nThese stories grate upon my f eehngs. The\\npursuit of an impoverished man for the sake of im-\\nprisoning him, and depriving him both of the power\\nof paying his debts, and supporting himself and his\\nfamily, is an instance in Shakspere s life which it\\nrequires the utmost allowance and consideration for\\nthe practice of the time and country to enable us to\\ncontemplate with equanimity satisfaction is impossi-\\nble\\nIs it probable that this man was the Shakespeare of\\nwhom Dr. Drake wrote: No person can study his\\nwritings without perceiving that throughout the vast\\nrange of being, whatever is lovely and harmonious,\\nwhatever is sweet in expression, or graceful in propor-\\ntion, was constantly present to his mind Could\\nthat have been the persecutor of poor debtors, the\\nman who kept a lawyer in his house, the rich player\\nand theater-proprietor who brought up his daughters\\nin ignorance, who neglected his distressed father, and\\nforgot his wife when he came to make his Will?\\nDrake had some other man in his mind, I think.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps says: Until this date (161 3), the\\npersonal notices of Shaksper which remain to us ex-\\nhibit him as being very attentive to matters of busi-\\nness, rapidly growing in estate, purchasing farms,\\nhouses, and tithes in Stratford, bringing suits for\\nsmall sums against various persons for malt delivered,\\nmoney loaned, and the like; carrying on agricultural\\npursuits and other kinds of traffic, and executing", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "1 84 SHAKSPIIR NOT SHAKESPKARK.\\ncommissions in I^ondon for his Stratford neighbors.\\nThe best evidence we can produce exhibits him pay-\\ning more regard to his solid affairs than to his pro-\\nfession.\\nThe four years and a half that intervened between\\nthe performance of the Tempest (at Blackfriars the-\\nater, with which William Shaksper had no concern),\\nin 1611, and the author s death (161 6), could not\\nhave been one of his periods of great literary activity.\\nSo many of his plays are known to have been in exist-\\nence at the former date, it follows that there are only\\nsix which could by any possibility have been written\\nafter that time, and it is not likely that the whole of\\nthose belong to so late an era. These facts lead irre-\\nsistibly to the conclusion that the poet (Shaksper)\\nabandoned literary occupation a considerable period\\nbefore his decease, and in all probability, when he\\ndisposed of his theatrical property. H.-P., I, 232.\\nFleay, 67, considers Shaksper s retirement from\\nthe stage in 16 10 nearly a certainty There is no\\ntradition in the twenty-five years of his life in lyondon\\nand the provinces, and the five or six in Stratford\\nafter his retirement, that he ever studied one hour,\\nand being the kind of man he was, leading the life he\\nled, he could by no possibility have studied anywhere\\nor at any time. The life of a strolling player, and\\naccording to Halliwell-Phillipps, he led that life from\\nthe start, and nearly to the end of his connection with\\nthe theater, was antagonistic to study, even were there\\nany inclination; while all the facts go to show there\\nwas no inclination.\\nIf the player acquired the learning necessary, as he", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "WII^IvlAM SHAKSPEIr S THIRST FOR WKAI^TH. 1 85\\nStrolled about the country, and wrote these plays on\\nthe tramp, (a proposition too absurd for consideration,\\none would think, but which nevertheless seems to be\\nconfidently entertained by many Shaksperolators)\\nspending the night in his cart, or the next bam, how\\nmany vans must have followed the much-studying\\nman, bearing the ponderous tomes the ponderous\\nfolios so dear to the XVI century Walter Scott), to\\nbe mastered and consulted. Nearly all of the learning\\nof that day had to be drawn from original sources, for\\nthere were no compendiums no encyclopedias, a?id almost\\nno translations. If the tomes were carried, and the\\nplayer sat up of nights exploring them, composing the\\nplays, and writing them out in his peculiar hiero-\\nglyphics, what became of the vast accumulations of\\nbooks and manuscript; who interpreted the scrawls\\nand transcribed them, and where are the interpreter s\\ntestimonies, and the traditions of him and them?\\nAfterwards, at Stratford, in his retirement, accord-\\ning to Knight, but not according to Phillipps, he wrote\\nplays that were the result of profound study of the\\nwhole range of Roman history including the nice\\ndetails of Roman manners The Greek plays show\\nexactly the same profound study of Greek history\\nand manners. Where were the books and proofs of\\nthis assertion? There was not a book in William\\nShaksper s house at his death. As I write, an item is\\nrunning through the newspapers to the effect that Dr.\\nA. Conan Doyle states, in one of his lectures, that it\\ntook one year and a half hard reading of i 500 books\\nbefore he was well enough posted in the subject to\\nwrite it out. And another writer of a popular romance", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "1 86 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\ntells US that before she wrote it, she read a hundred\\nand fifty books to get the necessary history. Yet as\\nmuch reading and as much study must have been re-\\nquired to enable the author of any one of twenty of\\nthe Shakespeare plays to write it, as it cost these recent\\nauthors to write their romances, and his dif culties\\nwere immeasurably greater than theirs. A trifle that\\nthe apologists of the Stratford man have failed to\\nnote.\\nThere is preserved in the College of Arms the draft\\nof a grant for coat-armour to John Shakespere, dated\\n1596. It may be safely inferred from the unprosperous\\ncircumstances of the grantee, that this attempt to con-\\nfer gentility on the family was made at the poet s ex-\\npense. H.-P. I, 130. The player s profession pre-\\nvented any hope of having a grant of this kind made\\ndirectly to himself. In former times, only the sover-\\neign could make a gentleman, but before Elizabeth s\\nday, the herald king-at-arms had obtained the right.\\nIn our days, says an old writer, all are accounted\\ngentlemen that have money, and if he has no coat-of-\\narms, the king-at-arms can sell him one. It ap-\\npears that Sir William Dethick, garter king-at-arms,\\nin 1596 and 1599, was subsequently called to account\\nfor having granted coats to persons whose station in\\nsociety and circumstances gave them no right to the\\ndistinction. The case of John Shakspere was one of\\nthose complained of Collier, I^ife.\\nHis (Shaksper s) most notable act was to obtain\\non two occasions by flagrant fraud with the complicity\\nof the Garter King-at-arms, a gross rascal named\\nJohn Dethick, a grant of armorial bearings, to which", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM shakspsr s Thirst for weai^th. 187\\nhe had no right whatever, a transaction which caused\\nbitter complaint against the management of the Her-\\nald s College, although it refused to confirm Dethick s\\naction in both instances, O Connor, Hamlet s Note-\\nbook, 74,\\nThe application of John Shakspere claimed that his\\nancestors had been advanced by Henry VII, and that\\nthey had received lands in Warwickshire, and that his\\nmother was the daughter of one of the heirs of Robert\\nArden, Gentleman. All which representations were\\nfalse, and the application was not granted. Toward\\nthe close of the year 1599, a renewed attempt was\\nmade by the poet to obtain a grant of coat-armour\\nfor his father. It was now proposed to impale the\\narms of Shakespere with those of Arden, and on each\\noccasion ridiculous statements (which means lying\\nstatements) were made respecting the claims of the\\nfamily. Both were really descended from obscure\\ncountry yeomen. But the heralds made out that the\\npredecessors of John Shakspere were rewarded by the\\ncrown for distinguished services, and that his wife s\\nancestors were entitled to armorial bearings. Although\\nthe poefs relations at a later date asstimed the right to\\nthe coat suggested for his father, in 1596, zV does not\\nappear that either of the proposed grants were ratified by\\nthe College, and certainly nothing more is heard of the\\nArden impalement H.-P., I, 178. The rolls of\\nthat reign (Henry VII) have been recently and care-\\nfully searched, and the name of Shakespeare, accord-\\ning to any mode of spelling it, does not occur in\\nthem. Collier, Life, 18.\\nIf the reader who is curious in such matters will", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "1 88 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nturn to the drafts of tlie applicant, that of 1596, on\\npage 56, vol. 2, H.-P., and that of 1599, on page 60,\\nand examine the interlineations that were made from\\ntime to time and which are indicated by italics, he will\\nsee how the applicant was drawn from falsehood to\\nfalsehood to meet the objections which were made\\nagainst his claims of gentility.\\nIn the first appHcation, it was stated that it was\\nJohn Shaksper s parents and late ancestors who ren-\\ndered valiant service to King Henry VII, and were\\nrewarded by him. This was not deemed sufiiciently\\nexplicit, and so it was interlined that the said John\\nhad married Mary, daughter and one of the heirs of\\nRobert Arden, of Wilmecote, in the said county, Gent.\\nBut in the proposed grant of 1599, it is stated that it\\nwas John Shakspere s grandfather who had rendered\\nthese invaluable services to King Henry VII, and, be-\\ning driven to particulars, we are now told that this\\ngrandfather was advanced and rewarded with lands\\nand tenements given him in parts of Warwickshire\\nwhere they have continued by some descents in good\\nreputation and credit. This is wholesale lying. There\\nwere no such lands, and they had not descended by\\nsome descents in the family. But this is not all.\\nFinding the application opposed, the fertile Shaksper\\nfalls back on a new falsehood, and declares that a coat\\nof arms had already been given his father twenty years\\nbefore. And he also produces this, his ancient coat\\nof arms, heretofore assigned to him whilst he was her\\nMajesty s officer and bailiff at that time. And White\\ntells us that upon the margin of the draft of 1596,\\nJohn Shakspere sheweth a patent thereof under Clar-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "WII.I.IAM SHAKSPEJr s THIRST ?OR WEjAI^TH. 1 89\\neuce Cook s hands in paper, twenty years past (lyife\\nand Genius. But his patent can no more be found\\nthan the land which Henry VII granted, etc. The\\nwhole thing was a series of lies and forgeries, a tissue\\nof frauds from beginning to end. Donnelly, 53.\\nRichard Grant White says that when he saw the\\nmean house in which John Shaksper lived, I knew\\nthat Shakspere himself must have felt what a sham\\nwas the pretension of gentry set up for his father,\\nwhen the coat of arms was asked for and obtained by\\nthe actor s money from the Herald s College, that\\ncoat of arms which Shakspere prized because it made\\nhim a gentleman by birth. This it was more than the\\nsqualid appearance of the place which saddened me.\\nEngland Without and Within, 526.\\nNevertheless, there is a persistent effort on the part\\nof recent biographers of Shaksper, and of Shak-\\nsperean writers, to fix that coat of arms upon the\\nplayer. Rolfe (Shakespeare the Boy) is so enamored\\nof it that he presents it twice on the cover, on back\\nand side; and the Temple Shakespeare stamps it on\\nthe cover of each volume; Cargill s paper on Shake-\\nspeare as an Actor elsewhere referred to, is prefaced\\nby the same coat of arms; and even Sidney lyce s book,\\n1898, bears this bogus coat on the cover. Yet the\\nbiographers and writers, every one of them, knew and\\nknow that the thing is a lie. Look out for frauds\\nwherever William Shaksper is mentioned.\\nRatsie said that the player was penurious. As to\\nthis feature of his character there is some curious evi-\\ndence. In the Chamberlain s accounts of Stratford is\\nfound a charge, in 1614, for one quart of sack, and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "igo SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKElSPElARS.\\none quart of claret wine, given to a preacher at the\\nNew Place (Shaksper s own house). What manner\\nof man must he have been who would require the\\ntown to pay for the wine furnished to his guests?\\nDonnelly, 57. What would a Virginian think of a\\nman who charged a visiting preacher s whiskey to the\\ncounty\\nHe continued to buy and sell land, loan money,\\nprosecute his debtors, collect the tithes, manage his\\nfarm, brew beer, and sell malt; and was one of the\\nseveral parties who were engaged in a conspiracy to\\nforce the enclosure of the common land in the vicinity\\nof Stratford; in other words, to rob the poor of their\\nimmemorial rights of pasturage. An attempt is\\nmade by W. Combe, the squire of Welcombe, to en-\\nclose a large portion of the neighboring common fields;\\nthis attempt was opposed by the corporation but was\\nsupported by Mainwaring and Shakspere. The latter\\nclearly acted simply with a view to his own personal\\ninterest Fleay, 173.\\nIt is certain that the poet was in favor of the en-\\nclosures, for on Dec. 23rd, 16 14, the corporation ad-\\ndressed a letter of remonstrance to him on the subject,\\nand another on the same day to a Mr. Wainwaring.\\nThe latter, who had been practically bribed by some\\nland agreements at Welcombe, undertook to protect\\nthe interest of Shakspere. So there can be no doubt\\nthat the three parties (one Replingham acting with\\nthe other two named) were acting in unison. H.-P.,\\nI, 247. Three greedy cormorants combined to rob\\nthe people of their ancient rights. Donnelly, 60.\\nWilliam Shaksper, of Stratford-on-Avon, lived fifty-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "WIIvIvlAM SHAKSPE;R*S I^HIRST I^OR Wi^AI.I H. I9I\\ntwo years in Stratford and in I^ondon. He is the\\nreputed author of at least thirty-six world famous\\nplays, and half a dozen no less remarkable poems. As\\nhis knowledge, if we may judge by these productions,\\nwas all-embracing, and his wit and humor superlative,\\nit is to be supposed that his conversation was in keep-\\ning. It is also to be supposed that he, when in I^on-\\ndon, associated with other poets and literary men, who\\nwould often have taken notes of his wise and felicitous\\nsayings. It is therefore odd that there should have\\nbeen found in all the writings of that age in books,\\nletters, diaries, memoranda record of but two conver-\\nsations ever held by any persons with this William\\nShaksper, and that those should not relate to poetry,\\nthe dramatic art, or any kindred matter, even his the-\\nater, but simply to the enclosure of the common-land\\nabove spoken of The town clerk of Stratford made\\nthe following entry in his record book: 17 Nov.,\\n(1614), My cosen Shakespeare corny ng yesterday to\\ntown, I went to see how he did. He told me that they\\nassured him they ment to inclose noe further than to\\nGospell Bush and so upp straight (leaving out the part\\nof the Dyngles to the Field) to the Gate in Clopton\\nhedge, and take in Salisburyes peece; and that they\\nmean in April to survey the land, and then to give\\nsatisfaction and not before; and he and Mr. Hall say\\nthat they think ther will be nothyng done at all.\\nAnd the further entry, in Sept. 1615: Mr. Shake-\\nspeare telling J. Greene that I was not able to bear\\nthe enclosing of Welcombe Mr. Phillipps adds,\\nwhy the last observation should have been chronicled\\nat all is a mystery.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "192 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKE^SPKARB;.\\nIn the well-known anecdote found written in Man-\\nningliam s diary, player Shaksper is said to have\\nspoken eight words, to-wit: William the Conqueror\\nwas before Richard 3rd. Which words, with the\\nothers heard by the town clerk, are the sum total of\\nthe recorded utterances of the myriad-minded poet\\nand dramatist if William Shaksper was William\\nShakespeare!", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "the; i^:^stimony oi the; pi,ays. 193\\nCHAPTER IX.\\nTHE TESTIMONY OE THE PlyAYS.\\nI have shown the sort of people WiUiam Shaksper\\nsprang from, and the sort he associated with in his\\nyouth, the sordid environment, the lack of all oppor-\\ntunity for mental improvement, the character of the\\npeople he went to, and all the rest of his life associated\\nwith, in lyondon, the nature of the public theater and\\nthe audiences that frequented it. So far the possibil-\\nities of Shaksper having been capable of writing the\\nShakespeare plays are all against him. I now propose\\nto show by the evidence of the plays themselves that\\nthe question of his authorship is not worth one mo-\\nment s consideration.\\nWhat kind of language did young Shaksper use\\nwhen he reached lyondon, at the age of 22 or 23? It\\ncertainly was not English; that he had never learned.\\nHe must have spoken the language of his parents and\\ngrandparents, of his relations and neighbors, the only\\nlanguage he could have heard since he was born. Mr.\\nPhillipps tells us that nearly every one of the boy s\\nconnections was a farmer, and farmers, the world over,\\nuse no language other than the language of the soil.\\nThat, in the present case, was the Warwickshire dia-\\nlect, and it was in great degree unintelligible to the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "I94 SHAKSPKR not SHAKElSPKAREi.\\ninhabitants of other counties.* The members of\\nElizabeth s Parliament could not comprehend each\\nother. When the soldiers Elizabeth summoned were\\ngrouped about the camp, they could not understand a\\nword of command unless given by officers from their\\nown shire. Morgan.\\nMacaulay, Hist. Eng. I, 298, describing the English\\ncountry gentlemen of the time of the accession of\\nWilliam III, said: His language and pronunciation\\nwere such as we should now expect to have only from\\nthe most ignorant clowns. His oaths, coarse jests\\nand scurrilous terms of abuse were uttered with the\\nbroadest accent of his province. It was easy to dis-\\ncern, from the first words which he spoke, whether he\\ncame from Somersetshire or Yorkshire This was a\\nfull hundred years after William Shaksper carried his\\npatois to l/ondon.\\nAnd of this patois, what would be the extent of the\\nyoung man s vocabulary? Certainly not more than\\nMorgan gives some pages of eighteentii century Warwick-\\nsliire patois, in part as follows:\\nOld man: (meeting lad with fishing pole on his way to the\\nAvon) E waund thu bist agwain fishun\\nLad: Yus, gaffer, E be gwan pint umbit.\\nOld man: Oy Breckling, E ad gist spurt times. Thee\\nmindst Red-nob, doesn t? Ah, thee shoodst sin un, reklin,\\nwhen Ivard Coventry come age, when Brud Strit long o Pashaws\\nwuz a chock tables un foolks sittin down dinner at un and cad-\\ndie enow to phaze divil imself! etc., etc.\\nThe patois two hundred years earlier, in the days of Shak-\\nsper, must have been by many degrees more barbarous than the\\nsample here given. Truly, a fine equipment for a young man\\nambitious for literary honors, coming to I/ondon at the age\\nof 22!", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "TH:^ ^EJSl^IMONY OIC THE^ PlvAYS. 1 95\\nfour or five hundred words, at the outside. The first\\nthing he had to do was to divest himself of the patois\\nand begin to learn English. Max Muller in Science\\nof lyanguage says: We are told by a country cler-\\ngyman that some of the laborers in his parish had not\\nthree hundred words in their vocabulary. A well\\neducated person in Kngland,who has been at a public\\nschool, and at the university, who reads the Bible, the\\nTimes, and all the books of Mudie s I^ibrary, seldom\\nuses more than 3,000 words in actual conversation.\\nAccurate thinkers and close reasoners sel-\\ndom employ a larger stock, and eloquent speakers may\\nrise to the command of 10,000. Shakespeare, who\\ndisplayed a greater variety of expression than proba-\\nbly any writer in any and all languages, produced all\\nhis plays with about 15,000 words. Milton s works\\nwere built up with 8,000. In a course of three lec-\\ntures delivered at Oxford, and reprinted at Chicago,\\nProfessor Muller said: Few of us use more than\\n3,000 or 4,000 words; Shakespeare used about 15,000.\\nCraik estimates the Shakespeare vocabulary (poems\\nand plays) at 21,000 words, and Clark agrees with\\nCraik, as also does Meiklejohn.\\nThis extraordinary vocabulary seems entirely too\\ngreat for one individual, and hence it has been argued\\nthat this alone is enough to show that several hands\\ntook part in the Shakespeare plays. Thus Stotsen-\\nburg, Indianapolis News, 5th May, 1897, says: Such\\nvoluminous and learned writers as Thackeray or Dick-\\nens (or Fiske) do not use over 5,000 words. John\\nMilton surpassed all other writers as to word use by\\nstretching the number to seven thousand. Presump-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "196 shae:spb)r no T shake^sp^are;.\\nlively, therefore, if the writers of the plays were\\nas prolific in words as Milton, there were three of\\nthem at least. If judged by the Thackeray stand-\\nard there were not less than four Inasmuch as,\\nwith four writers as prolific in words as Thackeray,\\none-half the words in their respective vocabularies\\nwould be identical, there would be required eight such\\nwriters to make up one vocabulary as extensive as\\nShakespeare s This agrees with T. W. White s\\nestimate. He assigns certain of the plays to Greene,\\nMarlowe, Peele, Nash, Lodge, Chapman, Daniel and\\nBacon. Stotsenburg finds positive evidence that the\\nSonnets were written by Sidney, and the Venus and\\nlyucrece by Marlowe. The vocabulary of Shakespeare\\nfrom this point of view is not unreasonable.\\nMarsh, Lectures on the Kng. Language, 182, says:\\nIf a scholar were to be required to name without ex-\\namination, the authors whose English vocabulary was\\nthe largest, he probably would specify the all-embrac-\\ning Shakespeare, and the all-knowing Milton. And\\nyet, in all the works of the great dramatist there occur\\nnot more than 15,000 words, in the poems of Milton\\nnot more than 8,000.\\nThe English language of to-day is comparatively\\nsettled, but in the time of Elizabeth, the number of\\nwords was small the language was in process of mak-\\ning. The great writers. Bacon, Spenser, Hooker, the\\nauthor or authors of the Shakespeare poems and plays,\\nand others, were compelled to coin multitudes of new\\nwords from Latin and Greek; from French and other\\nmodern languages; but above all from Latin, to give\\nexpression to their thoughts; and thus, within a few", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "THK TESTIMONY OP THE PI,AYS. 1 97\\nyears, an enormous number of new words were\\nbrought into the language. Dr. Johnson says that\\nfrom the works of Bacon alone a dictionary of the\\nEnglish language could be compiled.\\n[Donnelly says: Even as this book is being printed,\\na writer in the Chicago Tribune calls attention to the\\nsurprising fact that the New English Dictionary now\\nbeing published in England, and in which is given the\\ntime and the place when and where each English\\nword made its first appearance, proves that in the first\\ntwo hundred pages of the work there are 146 words,\\nnow in common use, which were invented, or formed\\nout of the raw materials of his own and other lan-\\nguages, by the man who wrote the Shakespeare plays.\\nAnd the writer shows that at this rate our total in-\\ndebtedness to the man we call Shakespeare for addi-\\ntions to the vocabulary of the English tongue would\\nbe not less than 5,000 words. We owe to the poet the\\nfirst use of the word air in one of its senses as a noun,\\nand three as a verb or participle. He first said air-\\ndrawn, and airless. He added a new significance to\\nairy and aerial. Nobody before him had written\\naired. In no previous writer have Dr. Mur-\\nray s argus eyes detected accide?itly, nor any of the fol-\\nlowing: abjectly, acutely, admiringly, adoptedly, ad-\\nversely. To absolutely, accordingly, actively and affec-\\ntionately, Shakespeare added a new sense. It is not\\na little surprising that the word abreast was never\\nprinted before the couplet:\\nMy soul shall thine keep company in heaven;\\nTarry, sweet soul, for mine, then fly abreast,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "198 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPE;ARE;.\\nOf the words aud meanings first given by Shake-\\nspeare, at least two-thirds are of classic origin.\\nHow came the untaught William Shaksper by the\\nextraordinary and prodigious vocabulary exhibited in\\nthe Shakespeare plays?\\nMacaulay (Essay on Dryden) tells us that, Genius\\nwill not furnish the poet with a vocabulary; it will not\\nteach him what word exactly corresponds to his idea,\\nand will most fully convey it to others. Information\\nand experience are necessary; not for the purpose of\\nstrengthening the imagination, which is never so\\nstrong as in people incapable of reasoning savages,\\nchildren, etc.; but for the purpose of enabling the\\nartist to communicate his conceptions to others.\\nShould a man, gifted by nature with all the genius of\\nCanova, attempt to carve a statue without instruction\\nas to the management of his chisel, or attention to the\\nanatomy of the human body, he would produce some-\\nthing compared with which the Highlander at the\\ndoor of the snuff- shop would deserve admiration. If\\nan uninitiated Raphael were to attempt a painting, it\\nwould be a mere daub.\\nI asked a Professor of Rhetoric in one of our great\\nWestern universities what he considered the extent of\\nthe vocabulary of a laborer or small farmer in his\\nregion. He replied, Krom 250 to 400 words, accord-\\ning to his location.\\nI asked another Professor of Rhetoric, this time in\\none of the Eastern universities, who had for many\\nyears taught L^atin and Greek, what course he would\\nadvise a young man of limited opportunities in his\\nearly years to pursue in order to attain a fairly copi-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "THK TESTIMONY OF TH:^ PLAYS. 1 99\\nous vocabulary; not telling him however that the\\nyouth I had in mind was one William Shaksper. He\\nlaid me out a course that would require hard study for\\nyears, and practice; reading especially and always the\\nBible; the best prose authors and poets, above all\\nShakespeare; translating English into Latin, and re-\\ntranslating in English. Practice is the greatest thing,\\nversate majiu diu nocteque Above all (the best poets\\nand prose writers) Shakespeare! Study him, young\\nman, if you wish to enlarge your vocabulary, and\\nlearn what the English language is capable of!\\nHartley Coleridge, in his hfe of Massinger, says of\\nthat poet: His classical allusions are frequent, but\\nnot like those of Ben Jonson, recondite, nor like those\\nof Shakespeare and of Milton, amalgamated and con-\\nsubstantiated with his native thought.\\nThat is to say. Hartley Coleridge, a competent judge\\nof education and literary attainments, ranks the author\\nof the Shakespeare plays with Milton for profundity\\nof classical learning, and both above the learned Jon-\\nson. There is as clear evidence of classical learning\\nin Titus Andronicus, Love s Labour s Lost, Midsum-\\nmer Night s Dream, Troilus and Cressida, and many\\nother plays, as in Milton s Lycidas.\\nThe marvelous accuracy, the real substantial learn-\\ning, of the three Roman plays of Shakespeare present\\nthe most complete evidence to our mind that they\\nwere the results of profound study of the whole range\\nof Roman history, including the nice details of Roman\\nmanners, not in those days to be acquired in a compendious", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "200 shakspe;r not Shakespeare.\\nform, but to be brought out by diligent reading alone.\\nKnight, 528.\\nIn his Roman plays he appears co-existent with\\nhis wonderful characters, and to have read all the\\nobscure pages of Roman history with a clearer eye\\nthan philosopher or historian. When he emploj^ed\\nlyatinisms in the construction of his sentences and\\neven in the creation of new words, he does so with\\nsingular facility and unerring correctness Id. 1. c.\\nAny one who has studied an ancient language knows\\nthat years of hard work were passed before such\\nlanguage became amalgamated and consubstantiated\\nwith his native thought if it ever did (and in most\\ncases it did not); that is, became to him as his native\\ntongue. Every Professor and every educated man\\nwill agree to this in the case of John Robinson. The\\ncircumstances were far more adverse in the day of\\nWilliam Shaksper.\\nTrench, On the Study of Words Lecture IV,\\nsays: We must not omit him who is a maker (of\\nwords) by the very right of his name I mean the\\npoet. The passion of such times, the all-\\nf using imagination, will at once suggest and justify\\naudacities in speech upon which in calmer moods he\\nwould not venture, or if he ventured would fail to\\ncarry others with him; for only the fluent metal runs\\neasily into novel shapes and moulds. He\\nwill enrich his native tongue with words unknown\\nand non-existent before non-existent, that is, save in\\ntheir elements; for in the historic period of a language\\nit is not permitted to any rnan to bring new roots into it,\\nbut 07ily to work on already giveji materials; to evolve", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "THK TESTIMONY OF THE) PI AYS. 20I\\nwhat is latent therein, to combine what is apart, to\\nrecall what has fallen out of sight. The more deliberate\\ncoining of words will often find place for the supplying\\nof discovered deficiencies in a language. The manner\\nin which men become aware of such deficiencies w\\nthrough comparison of their own language with another\\nand a richer, a comparison which is forced upon them,\\nso that they cannot put it by, when it becomes neces-\\nsary for them to express in their own tongue that\\nwhich has already found utterance in another, and so\\nhas shown that it is utterable in human speech. With-\\nout such a comparison the existence of the want would\\nprobably have seldom dawned on the most thought-\\nful\\nOn the same matter, in I^ecture V, this writer says:\\nOne of the arts of a great poet or prose writer who\\nwishes to add emphasis to his style, to bring out all\\nthe latent forces of his native tongue, will very often be\\nto recomiect by his use of it a word with its original\\nderivation. How often Milton does this! Dr. Trench\\nmight have coupled Shakespeare with Milton here, for\\nthe allegation is as true of one as of the other. The\\nhabitual coining of words from the I^atin by an Eng-\\nlish writer, according to this author, is the evidence of\\na thorough knowledge of and familiarity with I^atin.\\nHe has to work on already given materials to evolve\\nwhat is latent therein, etc., etc. How could Shake-\\nspeare have compared his language with the other and\\nricher one had he not been profoundly acquainted with\\nthe latter through study of books\\nHallam, Lit. Eur., speaking of the phrases unin-\\ntelligible and improper except in the case of their", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "202 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKSSPBJAR:^.\\nprimitive roots which occur so copiously in the (Shake-\\nspeare) plays, says: In the Midsummer Night s\\nDream these are much less frequent than in his later\\ndramas, but here we find several instances, thus: things\\nbase and vile, holding no quantity, for value rivers\\nthat have overborne their continents, the continente\\nriva of Horace; compact of imagination something\\nof great constancy, for consistency; sweet Py ramus\\ntranslated there the laws of Athens, which by\\nno means we may exte?iuate\\\\ I have considerable\\ndoubt whether any of these expressions would be\\nfound in any of the contemporary prose of Elizabeth s\\nreign; but could authority be produced for Latinisms\\nso forced, it is still not very likely that one who did\\nnot understand their proper meaning would have in-\\ntroduced them into poetry.\\nCharles Knight, speaking of Shakespeare s use of\\nthe word expediefit, says: The word properly means\\nthat disengages itself from all entanglements To\\nset at liberty the foot which was held fast is exped-ire.\\nShakespeare always uses this word in strict accordaiice\\nwith its derivation, as in truth he does most words which\\nmay be called lear7ied.\\nJudge Holmes, 690, says: Upon the word /r(f?;2z.yd\\nTheobald made the observation that Shakespeare is\\nvery peculiar in his adjectives; and it is much in his\\nmanner to use the words borrowed from the I^atin\\ncloser to their original signification than they were\\nvulgarly used in; so here he uses premised in the sense\\nof the word from which it is derived, praemissus, that\\nis, sent before. This is the use of a writer whose\\nmind is so thoroughly imbued with the Latin Ian-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "the; TEJSTIMONY OF THE) PIvAYS. 203\\nguage that he unconsciously incorporates it into his\\nEnglish\\nDr. Baynes, Shakespeare Studies, 225, says of\\nTouchstone s words to Audrey, I am here with thee\\nand thy goats as the most capricio^is poet Ovid was\\namong the Goths Ovid was among the Goths\\n(Gotes, the Getae, a Thracian tribe among whom\\nOvid in his banishment, dwelt). That the epithet\\ncapricious {caper, a goat) in this speech is a good ex-\\nample of the subtle playing with words, the skillful\\nsuggestion of double meanings of which Shakespeare\\nin common with Ovid, is so fond.\\nDr. W. Theobald, Baconiana, 2, 453, says: When\\nthe author of the Shakespeare plays wrote\\nWhile that the coulter rusts\\nThat should deracinate such savagery\\nthe coining of the new word deracinate (to tear up by\\nthe roots) is evidence of his thorough familiarity with\\nthe I^atin tongue. And there are hundreds and hun-\\ndreds of words like that coined by him.\\nIn Act V, scene i, Henry VI, Part i, King Henry\\nsays:\\nFor I always thought\\nIt was both impious and unnatural\\nThat such immanity and bloody strife\\nShould reign among professors of one faith.\\nAnd in scene 3, Joan says:\\nThe Regent conquers and the Frenchman flies\\nNow help me charming spells, and periapts.\\nNow these words immanity and periapt if", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "204 shakspe;r not shakkspb;are;.\\nthey stood alone, instead of being examples of a nu-\\nmerous class of words in the plays, would prove that\\nthe author was perfectly famiUar with both Latin\\nand Greek. Immanitas is a lyatin word, used by\\nCicero (meaning barbarity, cruelty), but certainly\\none which no Bnglishman not a good lyatin scholar\\nwould dream of using; and the word periapt is\\nequally significant of a good knowledge of Greek, be-\\ning directly derived from the Greek word periapto, to\\ntie around some part of the body. Words of this\\nclass, or English words used in a classical sense, are\\nnumerous in the plays, and prove even more directly\\nthan classical references that the author was a pro-\\nfound classical scholar, as he never could have ac-\\nquired them by the use of translations, but only\\nthrough his own familiarity with the classical lan-\\nguage.\\nIn Baconiana, VI, are further illustrations by Dr.\\nTheobald:\\nWith cadent tears fret diannels in her cheeks\\nLear, i, 4, 307.\\nfrom cado, to fall.\\nA very curious piece of lyatinity occurs in Helen s\\nallusion to her hopeless love for Bertram:\\nI know I love in vain\\nYet in this captious and intenible sieve,\\nI still pour in the waters of my love.\\nAll s Well, I, 3, 207.\\nCaptious has the meaning of the word capio, I take or\\nreceive. Intenible represents the word tenio, I hold,\\nwith the privative participle in, i. e., I do not hold.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of the; pi.ays. 205\\n.The frozen regions of the Alps\\nOr any other ground inhabitable.\\nRichard II, i, i, 64.\\n/;^liabitable, z^whabitable. The word is used in the\\nIvatin sense, which is exactly the reverse of the cur-\\nrent sense.\\nOpptigna7icy pro-pugnation repugn, with the cog-\\nnate words repugnancy, and repugnant. These words\\nare all used by Shakespeare in their strictest classical\\nsense, and they show in a very striking way the dis-\\ncriminating accuracy of his classical diction.\\nWhat discord follows: each thing meets\\nIn mere oppugnancy, (active and offensive warfare).\\nTroilus and Cressida, i, 3, 119.\\nWhat propiignation is in one man s valor etc. 1. c.\\nII, 2, 136.\\n(defensive warfare) What possible defense can one\\nman, however brave, afford\\nSleep upon it\\nAnd let the foes quietly cut their throats\\nWithout repugnancy. Timon, III, 5, 42.\\nReptigno, passive resistance.\\nDouble is an English word used in a classic sense:\\nThe magnifico hath in his effect a voice potential,\\nAs double as the duke s. Othello, I, 3, 12,\\nThe lyatin word to double, duplex, may also mean\\nthick, stout, strong, and this is the meaning in the\\npassage quoted. In Coriolanus, II, 3, 121:\\nHis doubled spirit requickened what in flesh was/atigate,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "206 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKE;SPB;ARK.\\nz, e., his strong and invincible spirit, etc.\\nFatigue is tiie l^dXin fatigatus.\\nAnd bowed his eminent top to their low rank.\\nAll s Well, I, 2, 41.\\nThe I^atin word emineo, to jut out, to project. It\\nis a word of measurement, not simply an expression\\nof renown.\\nShe doth evitate and show a thousand irreligious, cursed horns.\\nMerry Wives, V. 5, 241.\\nThe lyatin word evitare, to avoid.\\nThe word stelled is used with two absolutely distinct\\nmeanings, neither of them English, one Latin, the\\nother Greek. The Latin sense is related to the word\\nStella, a star or constellation. Of Lear, in the Tem-\\npest, it is said:\\nThe Sea, with such a storm as his bare head\\nIn hell black night endured, would have buoyed up,\\nAnd quenched the stelled fires.\\nThe other sense is from the Greek word stello, mean-\\ning to fix, set in its place. It occurs twice, first in the\\n24th Sonnet:\\nMy eye hath played the painter and hath stelled\\nThy beauty s form in the table of my heart.,\\nThe other in Lucrece (1443):\\nTo this well painted piece is Lucrece come\\nTo find a face where all distress is stelled.\\nA very curious word is constringed, which occurs\\nonce only:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "THK TESTIMONY OF THE PI,AYS. 207\\nThe dreadful spirit wtiich shipmen do the hurricane call, con-\\nstringed in mass by the Almighty Sun.\\nTroilus and Cres., VII, 171.\\nThe word is lyatin. Co7istri7igo means bind to-\\ngether tie up like a bundle and so, metaphor-\\nically, give coherence or consistence\\nSimular is not English, but Shakespeare uses it:\\nThou perjured and thou simular man of virtue,\\nThou art incestuous. Lear, III, 2, 51.\\nSimula is I^atin, meaning to copy, or imitate, coun-\\nterfeit, feign. Simular man of virtue, therefore,\\nmeans a man whose virtue is sham or counterfeit.\\nThe word speculation in English refers to mental op-\\neration, not eyesight. Shakespeare always, and Bacon\\noften, uses it in the physical sense, outward light, not\\ninward vision:\\nThou hast no speculation in those eyes.\\nWhich thou dost glare with.\\nMacbeth, III, 4, 95.\\nSuch ex-sufflicate and blown surmises.\\nOthello, III, 3, 182.\\nThe Eatin words ex and sufflo, to blow out. It\\nmeans inflated, wind-bags, bubbles.\\nA good many instances of classic construction in\\nthe grammar of the sentences are to be found sen-\\ntences cast into grammatical form not strictly English,\\nwhich can not well be parsed without the help of the\\nEatin grammar. Dr. Abbot, in his learned and ex-\\nhaustive Shakespeare Grammar gives many illustra-\\ntions of this", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "2o8 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKi^SPE^ARiE.\\nMr. Theobald closes his paper thus: Here, then,\\nare some thirty words out of a collection of more than\\n250, showing that L^atin was a step-mother tongue to\\nthe poet; he had probably been accustomed to use it\\nas an instrument of expression, and the arts and frag-\\nments of it were perpetually scattered in his English\\ncomposition. If the writer was so familiar\\nwith the classic languages as to have all the literature\\nof Greece and Rome at his command if I^atin was so\\nfamiliar to him that it obtruded itself upon his En-\\nglish, and made him talk and write with a foreign\\n(classic) accent, he could not have been such a man as\\nWilliam Shakspere was.\\nOne thing is puzzling: William Shaksper is de-\\nclared by Fiske and others to have written the plays\\nto fill his theater; and we are told by all his biogra-\\nphers that the audiences were made up of illiterate\\npersons. How much then could this rabble have com-\\nprehended? What idea did they attach, for example,\\nto deracinating savagery to incarnadining the\\nmultitudinous seas to the apostrophizing of peri-\\napts to a captious and intenible sieve or ex-\\nsufflicate surmises How much of his fifteen to\\ntwenty-one thousand vocabulary was comprehended\\nby individuals whose requirements and attainments\\nwere restricted to three or four hundred words?\\nVery little indeed, I should say. Would not the un-\\nknown language of the plays have bewildered and\\ndisgusted the stinkards and prostitutes who made up\\nthe bulk of the audience; and would they not, at\\ntimes, in their fury, have given the players a hiding?\\nThe rustic Shaksper comes to I^ondon with what ac^", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "TH:e TESTIMONY OF THE) PI.AYS. 209\\ncomplisliments we have seen almost devoid of polished\\naccomplishments, Halliwell-Phillipps says speaking\\nthe patois of his neighborhood, quite uninstructed in\\nEnglish; (had he even gone to school, in Stratford, he\\nwould have been taught I^atin but not English),\\nfinds employment, at first outside the theater, then as\\na servitour inside; is in time admitted to the company\\nof players, and what sort of men they were morally\\nand intellectually, we have seen; works his way up,\\nand in a few years becomes part proprietor in the\\ntheater, and is on the road to secure a money compe-\\ntence. In the summer and autumn, he and the rest\\nof the company stroll all over England, even into Scot-\\nland; in the winter they gather at the Curtain or the\\nGlobe. Five or six years after this youth leaves\\nStratford, there come from the press two poems,\\nbearing on their title pages the name of William Shake-\\npeare a name this players family, in all its genera-\\ntions and branches, had never borne; which poems\\nwere and are to-day unsurpassed in the language for\\nchoice diction, and showed that the author was pos-\\nsessed of a thorough knowledge of English and\\nfamiliarity with I^atin. The poems were both pre-\\nceded and followed by a series of plays which dis-\\ncovered a vocabulary in extent exceeding that used\\nby any previous poet or prose writer; a large number\\nof words coined directly from the Latin or Greek\\nroots, or from French, Spanish, Italian. The plots\\nof these plays, many of them, were taken from Span-\\nish and Italian stories, then untranslated into English.\\nIs it probable, is it possible, that all this wealth of\\nliterature was created by the raw uneducated youth", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "2IO SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPBARB;.\\nwho began his literary Hfe at the theater door? The\\nwriter of the poems and plays, as they themselves\\ngive evidence, was most thoroughly educated, and\\nwas, from the issuing of the first play, a past-master\\nof the English language. Prof. George ly. Craik says:\\nIn whose handling was language ever such a flame\\nof fire as it is in his? His wonderful potency in the\\nuse of this instrument would alone set him above all\\nother writers.\\nThis is the testimony of scholars. Emerson tells\\nus that: He of all men, best understood the En-\\nglish language.\\nProf. N. G. Clark, (Elements of the English I^an-\\nguage) says: The great number of words which he\\nemploys are never used carelessly; they are always the\\nfit words, and can rarely be changed for others as ex-\\npressive in their place. His power lay\\nnot simply in the extent of his vocabulary, needful as\\nthis was to his purpose, but in the skillful combination\\nand power of the words he employed. It is\\nnot too much to say, that English speech as well as\\nliterature owes more to him than to any other man.\\nNot unwisely has the student been referred\\nto Shakespeare next to the authorized version of the\\nBible for the best studies in the use of his native\\ntongue.\\nMrs. Cowden Clark begins her Shakespeare Key:\\nNever was an author who combined so many dif-\\nferent words in his single writings, and not only used\\nso many different words, but so many varied forms of\\nwords as Shakespeare; never was author who com-\\nprised so many different phrases and sentences, etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "TH:e TESTIMONY OF THE) PI,AYS. 21 1\\nProfessor J. M. D. Meiklejohn, in his English lyit-\\nerature, p. 372, says: It is not sufl5.cent to say that\\nShakespeare s power of thought, of feehng, and of\\nexpression, required three times the number of words\\n(that Milton used) to express itself; we must also\\nsay that Shakespeare s power of expression shows infi-\\nnitely greater skill, subtility and cunning than is to be\\nfound in the works of Milton. Shakespeare had also\\na marvellous power of making new phrases, most\\nof which have become part and parcel of our lan-\\nguage, etc.\\nRuggles says: This poet was evidently a great\\nworker in words. He had dominion over every form\\nof expression, understood the dramatic effect and\\nmoral force of each different turn of phrase, and ran\\nhis thoughts into any mould he pleased, and that too\\nwithout loss of grace and felicity of expression.\\nProminent skill belongs to the writer of these plays,\\nwho, in addition to the poet s song, and the philoso-\\npher s insight, possessed an ingenuity in the use of\\nlanguage so extraordinary as to make every word con-\\ntribute to the main effect.\\nGeorge P. Marsh speaks of the Bible, Shakespeare,\\nand Milton, as the three lodestars that held the lan-\\nguage firm, without whom it would probably before\\nour time have become rather Romance than Gothic in\\nin its vocabulary.\\nCraig says of Shakespeare: He has exhausted\\nthe old world of our actual experience.\\nThe men and the manners of all countries and of all ages\\nare there; the lovers and warriors, the priests and\\npropli^etesses, of the old heroic and kingly times of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "212 SHAKSPRR NOT SHAKE;SPE;ARB.\\nGreece the Athenians of the days of Pericles and\\nAlcibiades, the proud patricians and turbulent com-\\nmonalty of the earliest period of Republican Rome,\\nCaesar, and Brutus, and Cassius, and Antony, and\\nCleopatra, and the other splendid figures of that later\\nRoman scene the kings, and queens, and princes, and\\ncourtiers of barbaric Denmark, and Roman Britain, and\\nBritain before the Romans, those of Scotland in the\\ntime of the English Heptarchy, those of England and\\nFrance at the era of Magna Charta, all ranks of the\\npeople in almost every reign of our subsequent history\\nfrom the end of the fourteenth to the middle of the\\nsixteenth century, not to speak of Venice, and\\nVerona, and Mantua, and Padua, and lUyria, and\\nNavarre, and the Forest of Arden, and all the other\\ntowns and lands which he has peopled for us with\\ntheir most real inhabitants. These quotations from\\neminent authors fully sustain my position.\\nNevertheless, Prof. John Fiske, in a paper in the\\nAtlantic Monthly, entitled Forty Years of the Bacon-\\nShakespeare Folly meets the proposition that the\\ndramas ascribed to Shakespeare abound in evidences\\nof extraordinary book learning with a flat denial\\nHe thinks Shakespeare possessed an extraordinary\\ninstinctive power of observation and assimilation;\\nthat he learned desirable things in the country town\\nquite outside of books and pedagogues; and picked\\nup knowledge and wisdom from the cultured, learned,\\ntraveled and wise people he met and associated with\\nin lyondon. It strikes me that the claim that he who\\nbest understood the language he to whom the En-\\nglish language was more than to other men was not", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "the; te;stimony op the; pi,ays. 213\\nbook learned, and that his proficiency was gained by\\nwhat he could pick up on the streets of I^ondon, or in\\nhis evenings at a tavern, or when on the tramp, is un-\\nreasonable. To say that a man who was a great\\nworker in words, and who had supreme dominion over\\nevery form of expression whose power of expression\\nshows infinitely greater skill, sublety and cunning\\nthan does Milton who has portrayed in his writings\\nthe men and manners of all countries and all ages,\\ngained his knowledge and accomplishments when\\nleading the life of a vagabond, is absurd. To say that\\nthe works written by this man, who was one of the\\nthree great lodestars that held the English language\\nfirm, the other two being Milton and the Bible, show\\nno evidence of extraordinary book learning, is pre-\\nposterous. Mr. Fiske s flat denial makes it evident\\nthat he has not studied his subject.\\nAny Professor of I^anguage or Rhetoric knows and\\nwill testify, that in the case of John Brown, such an\\namazing proficiency would argue ancestral predis-\\nposition, felicitous surroundings from babyhood, early\\nand the best instruction, constant association with cul-\\ntivated and learned persons, and unceasing study from\\nyouth to manhood, and to middle age. And there is\\nnot a Professor but will declare that illiterate or\\nsemi-educated John Jones, coming to the city at the\\nage of 22 or 23, could by no possibility attain full\\ncommand of English, to say nothing of any classic or\\nmodern language, within seven or seventeen years, if\\nhe gave every moment of his life to it. How many\\npersons have thought of the labor and practice that\\nwould be required to bring the vocabulary of even an", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "214 SHAKSPBJR NOl SHAESSPElAREi.\\neducated man to-day up by looo words, with all the\\nmodern aids of dictionaries, and other special works\\non language; and 2000 words would be as the square\\nof the distance. When it comes to 21000 words, as\\nCraik gives the Shakespeare total, it is frightful.\\nThe labors of Hercules were nothing to such a task.\\nThat vocabulary should be decisive, as to the claims\\nof William Shaksper.*\\nIt must be born in mind that there were no public\\nlibraries in those days. As to private ones: Any-\\nthing like a private library, even of the smallest\\ndimensions, was then of the rarest occurrence, and\\nthat Shakspere ever owned one, at any time in his\\nlife, is exceedingly improbable. Wilder, 91.\\nBooks were cumbrous and costly, and prices made\\nthem beyond the reach of any but the rich. There\\nwere no encyclopedias, no dictionaries, no magazines,\\nno newspapers, no English literature. All the valu-\\nWendell, 196, accounts for the Shakespeare vocabulary after\\nthis fashion: From the beginning of Elizabethan literature,\\nwhoever had written had been constantly playing on words and\\nwith them (as in the badinage between Benedick and Bea-\\ntrice). Fantastically extravagant as such verbal quibbles gen-\\nerally were, they resulted in tuisurpassed mastery of the vocabji-\\nlary. Combine such mastery of the vocabulary with an instinct-\\nive sense that words are only sjmibols of actual thoughts, and\\nthe quibbler or punster becomes a wit of the iirst quality.\\nWe have seen that such a sense of the identity of word and\\nthought characterizes Shakespeare from the beginning. It is\\nclear as crystal therefore where the butcher s boy got his\\n21,000 vocabulary; -first a punster, second a quibbler, third had\\nacquired during his apprenticeship an instinctive sense that\\nwords are only symbols of thought; and now we can compre-\\nhend how the milk came to be in the cocoa-nut.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "The^ r:^s i*iMONY of i h:^ pi,ays, 215\\nable books then extant in all the vernacular languages\\nof Europe would hardly have filled a single shelf,\\nIt was therefore absolutely necessary that a\\nman should be uneducated or classically educated.\\nThe Latin was in the i6th century all and\\nmore than the French was in the i8th. Macaulay s\\nEssay on Bacon.\\nI offer a third argument as decisive as the others.\\nHow much of an acquaintance with the Bible could\\nthe boy and youth up to his hegira have had The\\nBible most commonly used during that period was\\neither Parkers, called also the Bishop s Bible, of\\n1568, required to be used in the churches; or various\\nreprints of the German Bible of 1560, with short\\nmarginal notes, and much used in private families.\\nWordsworth s Shakespeare and The Bible, p. 9.\\nNeither of these Bibles was in his father s house, nor\\nhad he ever heard the Bible read there, for nobody\\nthere could read, and moreover none of his relations\\ncould read. Besides, according to Halliwell-Phillipps,\\nthere is no doubt that John Shakspere was one of\\nthe many who were secretly attached to\\nthe Catholic religion: and, again, there is no doubt\\nthat John Shakspere nourished all the while a latent\\nattachment for the old religion. I, 164. And the\\nlocal tradition in the latter part of the 17th century\\nwas, that William Shaksper, as asserted by Vicar\\nDavies, of Stratford-on-Avon, within fifty years after\\nShaksper s death, died a papist Mr. Phillipps\\nfully credits this last fact. Now, Catholic families\\nof that age could not abide the English Bible, as the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "2l6 SHAKSPi^R NOT SHAK:ESPE;ARE;.\\nworld knows. It is safe to conclude that the boy\\nWilliam never looked between the covers of any sort\\nof Bible, and never heard the reading from a Bible\\nunless he occasionally went to Stratford church, and\\nthat player Shaksper saw no more of the Bible than\\nthe boy had done. After reaching lyondon he had\\nhis work cut out for him, and his time was em-\\nployed in the service of the theatrical company,\\nhe striving with all his might to reach a good\\nposition, and to make money. This is evident be-\\ncause he became in due time part owner of the\\ntheater, and made a great fortune. That he had in\\nlyondon no more respect for the seventh commandment\\nthan he had in Stratford is plain from the story\\ntold by Manningham and hereinafter recited; and a\\nman who spends his life in catering to the scum of\\nlyondon is not to be supposed to be spending his nights\\nporing over the Bible, or over classical literature.\\nBishop Charles Wordsworth has written a book of\\n400 pages to show that of all the books which\\nShakespeare studied in his own language, there was\\nnone with which he was more familiar than the Eng-\\nlish Bible p. 349. Shakespeare has been in-\\ndebted to Holy Writ, not only for poetical diction and\\nsentiment, but for some of the most striking and sub-\\nlime images which are to be found in his works. p.\\n310. He devotes 45 pages to an examination of the\\nplays under the heading Shakespeare s Facts and\\nCharacters of the Bible and 209 pages to Shake-\\nspeare s Principles and Sentiments derived from the\\nBible. This last named chapter begins thus: lam", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "the; TES TIMONY OF THK PLAYS. 217\\nto show how scriptural, and consequently, how just\\nand true, are the conceptions which Shakespeare enter-\\ntained for the being and attributes of God, of his gen-\\neral and particular providence, of His revelation to men,\\nof our duty towards Him and towards each other, of\\nhuman life and of human death, of time and eternity\\nin a word, of every subject which it most concerns us\\nas rational and responsible beings to conceive aright;\\nand it is surprising how all these propositions are sub-\\nstantiated by an analysis of the plays. Thirty-three\\npages are given to the investigation Of the Poetry of\\nShakespeare as derived from the Bible On p. 345:\\nTake the entire range of English Literature, put to-\\ngether our best authors, who have written upon sub-\\njects not professedly religious or theological, and we\\nshall not find, I believe, so much evidence of the Bible\\nhaving been read and used, as we have found in\\nShakespeare alone. On p. 355: There is nothing\\nof a literary kind for which we have greater reason to\\nthank the Giver of all Good, than for a large propor-\\ntion of these works, excepting only the Book of Com-\\nmon Prayer, and that, which has imparted alike to it\\nand to them no small share of the surpassing excel-\\nlence, which, though in very different ways, they\\nboth possess His incomparable, most holy everlasting\\nWord.\\nOn p. 353, is quoted Mrs. Montague s remark, that\\nwe are apt to consider Shakespeare only as a poet;\\nbut he is certainly one of the greatest moral philoso-\\nphers that ever lived and, adds the Bishop: Whence\\ndid he become so I answer without hesitation", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "2i8 siiAKSPKR isroT SHAKi;sp:eAR:^.\\nhe drew his philosophy from the highest and purest\\nsource of Moral truth,\\nEvery clergyman knows what is implied by an inti-\\nmate knowledge of the Bible; a religious family, early\\ninstruction, a reverent disposition, and a fixed habit of\\nreading and study. A j ury of clergymen would certainly\\nfind against claimant William Shaksper. Indeed, this\\nmatter of knowledge of the Bible is a crucial test.\\nThe author of the Shakespeare plays, whoever he\\nwas, was brought .up by religious and Protestant pa-\\nrents, and studied the Bible both in youth and man-\\nhood. The language of the Bible was as truly amal-\\ngamated and consubstantiated with his native thought\\nas was the I^atin language. Surely he was at the\\nantipodes from pla3^er Shaksper.\\nWe have seen therefore that by no possibility could\\nthe player have given his time to money-making as a\\nresult of his devotion to his theatrical duties, vaga-\\nbondizing about -the country the greater part of the\\nyear, and at the same time labored day and night to\\nacquire a vast vocabulary, labored to amalgamate\\nclassical allusions with his native thought besides\\nDrake has said, in 1817, of the author of the Shakespeare\\nplays: That in a religious point of view, he had a claim to the\\nenjoyment (of peace and sunshine of the soul), the numerous\\npassages in his works, which breathe a spirit of pious gratitude\\nand devotional rapture, will sufficiently declare. In fact, upon\\nthe topic of religious as well as ethic wisdom, no profane poet\\ncan furnish us with a greater number of just and luminous\\naphorisms; passages which dwell upon the heart and reach the\\nsoul, for they have issued from lips of fire, from conceptions\\nworthy of a superior nature, from feelings solemn and un-\\nearthly.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "THS TElSflMONY OP THB; Pl,AYS. 219\\nthe acquisition of several modern languages, and on\\nthe top of all, pass the same day and night over the\\nBible.\\nWhat was the learning in the law of the author of\\nthese plays That he was a professional lawyer, all\\nlawyers are agreed. Richard Grant White, himself a\\nlawyer, in the Memoirs, says: To play- writing the\\nneedy and gifted young lawyer turned his hand at\\nthat day as he does now to journalism. To\\nwhat are we to attribute the fact that of all the plays\\nthat have survived of those written between 1580 and\\n1620, Shakespeare s are most noteworthy in this re-\\nspect For no dramatist of the time, not even Beau-\\nmont, who was a younger son of a judge of the Com-\\nmon Pleas, and who, after studying in the Inns of\\ncourt, abandoned law for the drama, used legal\\nphrases with Shakespeare s readiness and exactness.\\nAnd the significance of this fact is heightened by an-\\nother, that it is only to the language of the law that\\nhe exhibits this inclination. Legal phrases\\nflow from his pen as part of his vocabulary and parcel\\nof his thought. It has been suggested that\\nit was in attendance upon the courts in London* that\\nhe picked up his legal vocabulary. But this supposi-\\ntion not only fails to account for Shakespeare s pecu-\\nliar freedom and exactness in the use of that phrase-\\nology it does not even place him in the way of learn-\\ning those terms his use of which is most remarkable,\\nWorse than that! Mr. Sidney Lee, 32, thinks that Shak-\\nsper s accurate use of legal terms may be attributed in part to\\nhis observation of the many legal processes in which his father\\nwas involved!", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "220 SHAKSPllR NOT SHAK;ESPE;AR:e.\\nwhich are not such as he would have heard at ordi-\\nnary proceedings at 7iisi prhis, but such as refer to\\nthe tenure or transfer of real property, fine and re-\\ncovery statutes merchant purchase indenture\\ntenure double voucher fee simple fee farm\\nremainder reversion forfeiture etc. This con-\\nveyancer s jargon could not have been picked up by\\nhanging round the courts of law in I^ondon two hun-\\ndred and fifty years ago, when suits as to the title of\\nreal property were comparatively rare. And beside,\\nShakespeare uses his law just as freely in his first\\nplays, written in his first London years, as in those\\nproduced at a later period. Just as exactly, too; for\\nthe correctness and propriety with which these terms\\nare introduced have compelled the admiration of a\\nChief Justice and a Lord Chancellor.\\nOn the other hand, Dr. Wallace, who is distin-\\nguished as a scientist, but is not a lawyer, conceived\\nthat the law courts of Westminster would offer ample\\nopportunities for extending that knowledge of law\\nterms and legal processes which he had probably begun\\nto acquire by means of justices sessions and coroners\\ninquests in his native town Lord Campbell would\\nnot seem to have had so high an opinion of justices ses-\\nsions in, or in the vicinity of, Stratford, as has Dr.\\nWallace, inasmuch as he suggests that the characters\\nof Dogberry and Verges, though apparently meant to\\nsatirize the constables, were possibly aimed as high as\\nChairman at Quarter Sessions, and even Judges of As-\\nsize, with whose performances he (Shaksper) may\\nprobably have become acquainted at Warwick or else-\\nwhere.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "the; te;stimony of the; plays. 221\\nIn the same way, Dr. John Fiske, a literary man\\nsimply, claims that the legal knowledge exhibited in\\nthe plays is no more than might readily have been ac-\\nquired by a man of assimilative genius associating\\nwith lawyers. But a knowledge of law terms and\\nlegal processes is not thus to be picked up, parrot-like,\\nlyord Campbell, Shakespeare s I^egal Acquirements\\nNew York, 1859, tells us: There is nothing so dan-\\ngerous as for one not of the craft to tamper with our\\nfreemasonry. Also: L et a non-professional man,\\nhowever acute, presume to talk law, or to draw illus-\\ntrations from legal science in discussing other subjects,\\nand he will speedily fall into some laughable ab-\\nsurdity. A paragraph which I commend to Mr.\\nFiske s attention, if he is ever tempted to put to the test\\nhis theory of the readiness with which he could dis-\\ncourse on law, or write on law cases, if he had the\\nmind to. Lord Campbell proceeds: These jests\\n(Comedy of Errors) show the author to be very fa-\\nmiliar with some of the most abstruse proceedings in\\nEnglish Jurisdiction. We find in several of the his-\\ntories Shakspeare s fondness for law terms, and it is\\nstill more remarkable that whenever he indulges this\\nproperisity he ttniforinly lays down good law. The\\nindictment in which lyord Say was arraigned in Act\\nIV, scene 7, 2nd Henry VI, seems drawn by no inex-\\nperienced hand. It is quite certain that the\\ndrawer of this indictment must have had some ac-\\nquaintance with the Crown Circuit Companion and\\nmust have had a full and accurate knowledge of that\\nrather obscure and intricate subject, Felony and Bene-\\nfit of Clergy While novelists and dramatists are", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "222 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKESPBARK.\\nconstantly making mistakes as to the laws of marriage,\\nof wills and inheritance, to Shakespeare s law, lavishly\\nas he expounds it, there can neither be demurrer, nor\\nbill of exceptions, nor writ of error. p. 154.\\nAgain, he quotes in full the 46th Sonnet and says:\\nI need not go further than this sonnet, which is so\\nintensely legal in its language and imagery, that with-\\nout a considerable knowledge of English forensic pro-\\ncedure it cannot be fully understood. A lover being\\nsupposed to have made a conquest of (z. e., to have\\ngained \\\\iy purchase) his mistress, his eye; and his\\nHEART holding as joint tenants, have a contest as to\\nhow she is to be partitioned between them each\\nmoiety then to be held in severalty. There are reg-\\nular pleadings in the suit, the heart being repre-\\nsented as Plaintiff and the EYE as Defendant. At\\nlast, issue is joined on what the one affirms and the\\nother denies. Now a jury, (in the nature of an in-\\nquest) is to be empanelled to decide, and by their\\nverdict to apportion between the litigating parties the\\nsubject-matter to be decided. The jury fortunately\\nare unanimous, and after due deliberation, find for the\\nEYE in respect of the lady s outward form, and for the\\nHEART in respect of her inward love. Surely Sonnet\\n46 smells as potently of the attorney s office as any of\\nthe stanzas penned by Lord Kenyon while an attorney s\\nclerk in Wales\\nLord Campbell surmised that the young Shaksper\\nmight have been an attorney s clerk up to the time he\\nfled to London. Great as is the knowledge of law\\nwhich Shakespeare s writings display, and familiar as\\nhe appears to have been with all its forms and pro-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "TH:^ tEISTlMONY OF THE) PI^AYS. 223\\nceedings, the whole of this would be accounted for if\\nfor some years he had occupied a desk in the ofl ce of\\na country attorney in good business attending ses-\\nsions and assizes keeping leets and law days and\\nperhaps being sent up to the metropolis in term time\\nto conduct suits before the lyord Chancellor, or the\\nSuperior Courts at Westminster, But, he suggests,\\nif this were so, positive and irrefragable evidence in\\nShakespeare s own handwriting might have been forth-\\ncoming to establish it. Not having been actually en-\\nrolled as an attorney, neither the records of the local\\ncourt at Stratford nor of the superior courts at West-\\nminster would present his name as being concerned in\\nany suit as an attorney; but it might reasonably have\\nbeen expected that there would have been deeds or\\nwills witnessed by him still extant; and after a very\\ndiligent search none such can be discovered.\\nIn the forty years since lyOrd Campbell s book was\\npublished the diligent search has not abated. Every\\nold deed or will, to say nothing of other legal papers,\\ndated during the period of William Shaksper s youth,\\nhas been scrutinized over half a dozen shires, and not\\none signature of the young man has been found. By\\nall recent authors the attorney s clerk theory has been\\npassed in silence.\\nF. F. Heard, also a lawyer, in Shakespeare as a\\nLawyer says: The Comedy of Errors shows that\\nShakespeare was very familiar with some of the most\\nrefined of the principles of the science of special\\npleading, a science which contains the quintessence of\\nthe law 43. Mr. Heard mentions a species of\\ntraverse, used by special pleaders when the record was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "224 shaksp:ER not shakkspejare;.\\nin lyatin, and known as a special traverse referred\\nto in 2nd Henry IV, Act 5: The subtlety of its text-\\nure and the total dearth of explanation in all the re-\\nports and treatises extant in the time of Shakespeare\\nwith respect to its principle, seems to justify the con-\\nclusion that he must have attained a knowledge of it\\nfrom actual practice. 43. A jury of lawyers would\\ncertainly find that such familiarity with law indicates\\ndeep study and long practice, and that by no pos-\\nsibility could John Doe, coming as a half educated lad\\nto lyondon,* attain it in a score of years under the\\nmost favorable conditions.\\nAs to the medical knowledge of the author of these\\nplays. Dr. J. C. Bucknill, in Psychology of Shake-\\nspeare lyondon, 1859, says, that the author had\\npaid an amount of attention to subjects of medical\\ninterest scarcely, if at all, inferior to that which has\\nserved as the basis of the learned and ingenious argu-\\nment that this intellectual king of men had devoted\\nseven good 3^ears of his life to the practice of law.\\nHe is surprised and astonished at the extent and\\nexactness of the physiological knowledge displayed\\nin these plays, and concluded that abnormal conditions\\nAt a meeting of the Professional Woman s League, held in\\nNew York, May, 1894, the New York Tribune reported that the\\nquestion was debated: Who wrote the works ascribed to\\nShakespeare and able arguments in favor of Bacon and\\nof player Shaksper were made. The defender of the player\\ntheory took the ground that the author was not Bacon, because\\nBacon was a lawyer, whereas no more law is shown in the\\nplays than could have been acquired by superficial reading.\\nA good illustration of the smattering hanging around the\\ncourts and picking up theory.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of the; pl,ays. 225\\nof mind had attracted Shakespeare s dihgent observa-\\ntion, and had been his favorite study.\\nHe finds instances which amount not merely to\\nevidence but to proof, that Shakespeare had read\\nwidely in medical literature Dr. Field says Shake-\\nspeare paid considerable attention to medicine, and\\nhas furnished some of the finest specimens of the\\nmedical character, that have ever been drawn by any\\nwriter. His Cerimon, in Pericles, is a most noble one.\\nMacbeth supplies us with a wise member of\\nthe profession. In I^ear also appears a phy-\\nsician worthy of the name. The last scene of the\\n4th Act shows his excellent skill in treating I^ear s\\ncase. Shakespeare s maladies are many, and the\\nsymptoms very well defined. Diseases of\\nthe nervous system seem to have been a favorite study,\\nespecially insanity, I^ear, Timon, and Hamlet being\\nexcellent examples.* Medical Thoughts of Shake-\\npeare, 1885.\\nSir Charles Bell, in Principles of Surgery, II, 557,\\nsays: My readers will smile to see me quoting\\nShakespeare among the physicians and theologists;\\nbut not one of all their tribe, populous though it be,\\n*A letter in the New York Sun, of 13th Nov. 1898, quotes a\\nSt. Louis surgeon, who has made a special study of Brain\\nSurgery, thus: Of course, Shakespeare remains supreme in\\nhis portraiture of one form of insanity. He was far in advance\\nof the medical knowledge of his time. No modern alienist has\\never presented Hamlet s type of mental disorder so accurately.\\nSo exact and comprehensive is this product of the insight of\\ngenius, that Maudsley prefers it to any other as the basis of a\\nstudy prefers it to Bsquirol s record of actual cases of lunacy\\nin the Paris hospital for the insane", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "226 shakspe;r not shakespkar:^.\\ncould describe so exquisitely the marks of apoplexy,\\nconspiring with, the struggles for life, and the agonies\\nof suffocation to deform the countenance of the dead;\\nso curiously does our poet present to our conception\\nall the signs from which it might be inferred that the\\ngood Duke Humphrey had died a violent death.\\nAnd not only in the general knowledge of a lawyer\\nand a physician, but what we call in these days medi-\\ncal jurisprudence the man who wrote the play of\\nHenry VI seems to have been an expert according\\nto David Paul Brown, the highest of authorities.\\nMorgan, 215. The player Shaksper would fare no\\nbetter in the hands of a jury of physicians, than of\\nlawyers.\\nThe poet was not only a great poet, but myriad\\nminded and familiar with philosophy from Plato and\\nAristotle down, according to Samuel Taylor Coleridge.\\nDr. Furnivall says of Gervinus Studies of Shake-\\nspeare: He sets before us his view of the poet and\\nhis works as a whole, and rightly claims for him the\\nhighest honor as the greatest dramatic artist, the rarest\\njudge of men and human affairs, the noblest moral\\nteacher that literature has yet known.\\nSchlegel said of Shakespeare: He unites in his\\nsoul the utmost elevation and the utmost depth; the\\nworld of spirits and nature have laid all their treasures\\nat his feet; in strength a demi-god, in profundity of\\nview a prophet, in all-seeing wisdom a guardian spirit\\nof a higher order, he lowers himself to mortals as if", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "THE) TESTIMONY OF THE) PI,AYS. 22/\\nunconscious of his superiority, and is as open and un-\\nassuming as a child.\\nThere is no quality in the human mind, there is no\\nclass of topics, there is no realm of thought, in which\\nhe has not soared or descended, and none in which he\\nhas not said the commanding word. All men are im-\\npressed, in proportion to their own advancement in\\nthought, by the genius of Shakespeare; and the great-\\nest mind values him most. R. W. Emerson.\\nAccording to Mr. Ruggles, he was thoroughly fa-\\nmiliar with Bacon s Philosophy, and the aim of Mr.\\nRuggles valuable book is to prove this by an analysis\\nof eleven of the plays.\\nThe writer of these plays is generally thought of\\nfirst as a poet, and then as a philosopher; but perhaps\\nif he should be regarded as a philosopher first and\\nthen a poet, that is, a philosopher who used a creative\\nimagination, and transcendent power of fancy and\\nlanguage for the purpose of clothing in poetical form\\nthe abstract principles of his science of man, we might\\ngive a nearer guess at his meaning. Ruggles, 159.\\nHe was a man of bold and innovating genius in-\\ndeed who presumed to question the authority of\\nAristotle in either logic or art. But Bacon did the\\none and Shakespeare did the other Id., 1. c.\\nIt is observable that in the illustrations of differ-\\nent branches of learning, the poet for the most part\\nfollows the divisions of the sciences laid down by\\nBacon, but not always, for he sometimes takes his\\nrules from Aristotle, but this is apparently only\\nin cases where Bacon is silent in the points involved.\\nId., Preface, 4.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "228 SHAKSPER NOT SHAK:eSPB)AR:S.\\nIt SO happens that in the later plays, and particu-\\nlarly in those written toward the close of the drama-\\ntist s career, the apparent similitudes point not simply\\nto the theoretical views, but to the system and techni-\\ncalities of the Baconian PhilOvSophy; they seem to\\nreach the classification and subdivisions of the subject\\nof which they treat. Id., Intro., 4.\\nThe plan of Bacon s Natural History and its pecu-\\nliar classification and nomenclature as well as its use in\\nfurnishing materials for induction, were of course en-\\ntirely original with him; yet it is a singular fact that\\nin Cymbeline, the topics of the play and by topics is\\nhere meant those general heads under which the dif-\\nferent subjects of the dialogue can be classified\\ncoincide with the main heads and division of Bacon s\\nplan of a History. lb. 45,\\nBy the following analysis of the Winter s Tale it\\nis intended to show that of the three leading divisions\\nmade by Bacon of L^earning into History, Poetry and\\nPhilosophy, the play illustrates Poetry as an art, and\\nmore particularly dramatic art as practiced by Shake-\\nspeare This play is therefore the opposite\\nand counterpart of Cymbeline; in which is represented\\nthe Method of Induction according to Bacon. Id. 86.\\nThe foregoing summary is perhaps suf-\\nficient to show the similarity between Bacon s sug-\\ngestions and the poet s practice Id., 158.\\nOthello therefore apparently covers the whole ground\\nof Bacon s doctrine of the platform or essence of good\\nand is a living model which shows in its characters,\\ntheir actions, thoughts, opinions, and sentiments, the\\npractical application of abstract and scientific truths", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "THS TKSTIMONY OF THS PIvAYS. 229\\nthus clothing the dry bones of philosophy with the\\nflesh and blood of dramatic life. Id., 629.\\nShakespeare s genius seems always conscious of its\\nwork and its methods, and although by no effort can\\nwe go under his fundamental conceptions, even if we\\nhave the good fortune of reaching them, yet the struc-\\nture of his pieces shows that these conceptions were ob-\\ntained by study a7id meditation, a?id were the fruits of a\\nmind that had fathomed to the bottom every subject of\\nwhich it treats; consequently he could present such\\nsubjects with all their relations in plays which are the\\nproduct of both art and philosophy. His\\nplays are not nature, nor copies of nature, nor in-\\ntended to be such; but art, which makes its own\\nworld in imitation no doubt of nature, but with an\\nintentional difference, and under artificial forms and\\narbitrary conditons. Id., 434.\\nAnd Mr. Ruggles declares, p. 3, Introd., in effect\\nhis belief that there is some connection between the\\nplays and the Baconian Philosophy, and that between\\nBacon and Shakespeare there existed some personal\\nrelation, the nature of which, however, must be left\\nto conjecture, since neither histor}^ nor tradition\\nmakes any mention of them.\\n(The play of Julius Caesar) shows that Shake-\\nspeare possessed the gift of eloquence to a degree that\\nhas never been equalled. Besides all else that it is, it\\nis the play of poetic eloquence the consum-\\nmate power of oratory. There are no less than three\\ndeliberate orations in it, for besides those of Antony\\nand Brutus, there is the splendid speech addressed by\\nMarcellus to the rabble a piece of invective as fine as", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "230 shakspe;r not shakkspkar:\u00c2\u00a9,\\nanything of the kind in our literature. Antony s\\nspeech remains, of course, the greatest effort in per-\\nsuasive oratory ever penned. There is not a line in it\\nwhich even Erskine that angel- tongued persuader of\\njuries could have bettered. Spectator, (I,ondon)\\nJan. 29, 1898.\\nIs it conceivable that William Shaksper, if he was\\npossessed of the gift of eloquence, a gift which cannot\\nbe concealed, which is irrepressible, should not have\\nemployed it on many occasions, and that where there\\nwere ears to hear and eyes to see; that he should not\\nhave spoken one living word of any description; that\\nnot one contemporary should have discovered and re-\\nmarked upon his oratorical powers? Jonson enu-\\nmerated the eloquent men of his age, and specified one\\namong them as surpassing all that Greece or Rome\\ncould boast. That should have been William Shak-\\nsper, if he wrote the Shakespeare plaj^s, but Jonson\\nhad no such man in his view, and failed to mention\\nShaksper in the connection. On another day he did\\nreport this Shaksper as loquacious to a degree often\\nlaughable. Eloquence is one thing, and loquacity\\nquite another.\\nGoethe says: He (Shakespeare) is not a theatrical\\npoet; he never thought of the stage; it was too narrow\\nfor his great mind, nay, the whole visible world was\\ntoo narrow. He is a great psychologist, and\\nwe learn from his pieces the secrets of human\\nnature.\\n(On the other hand Halliwell-Phillipps, to suit the\\nfacts of the life and environment of player Shaksper,\\nsays, I, 114: There is no evidence that Shaksper", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of the; pi,ays. 231\\nwrote at any period of his life without a constant\\nreference to the immediate effect of his dramas upon\\nthe theatrical public of his own day; and it may\\nreasonably be suspected that there is not one of them\\nwhich is the result of an express or cherished literary\\ndesign. Phillipps claims that it was the opinion of\\ncontemporaries of William Shaksper that he wrote the\\nPlays without effort and without design and by in-\\nspiration and evidently is himself of the same way\\nof thinking. That would mean that when he took a\\npen in hand, the words flowed from the nibs without\\nintention or knowledge on his part; in other words he\\nwas a mere unconscious medium, through which some\\nexternal agency manifested itself after the manner of\\nthe rapping spirits we have all heard of\\nJohn Owens has written a book on The Five\\nGreat Skeptical X)ramas of History lyondon and\\nNew York, 1896; in which he treats of Hamlet; one\\nof the five, that wonderful tragedy (In Tenny-\\nson s opinion also, Hamlet is the greatest creation in\\nliterature. Owens finds no evidence of the play hav-\\ning been thrown off as a pot-boiler, or to fill William\\nShaksper s theaters and pockets. Shakespeare him-\\nself is Hamlet. Hamlet is a victim of in-\\nfinity, of thought and reflection so far enlarged that\\ntheir sphere has become illimitable. He falls a prey\\nfirst to his own genius for profound meditation, his\\nsubtilizing and refining instincts, his invincible prefer-\\nence for the ideal and abstract, as compared with the\\nreal and concrete Can this be the uneducated youth\\nof Halliwell-Phillipps, almost devoid of accomplish-\\nments when he entered London or the Shaksper of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "232 SHAKSPKR NOT shak:^spkare;.\\nRolfe and Fiske, who had little lyatin, perhaps none\\nwhen a lack of I^atin was a lack of all education\\nA man of his profound thought, and vivid imagi-\\nnation, must occasionally have made incursions, or at-\\ntempted surveys of that mysterious and fathomless\\nunknown by which our mundane existence is meta-\\nphysically as well as physically environed. He\\nundoubtedly paid repeated visits to the shore of the\\nocean of transcendental being, etc.\\nHe was a judicial, equilibrating, suspensive\\nthinker. He saw truth, reason, as well as\\nthe springs of human conduct. This was the\\nsecret of what Coleridge terms his myriad-minded-\\nness as well as of his intense humanity.\\nPhilosophy, theology, ethics, politics, science in\\nshort, all subject-matters of human concernment are\\ndiscussed by his characters. All conceivable\\ntypes of humanity Shakespeare has vivisected and de-\\nscribed, and has well nigh exhausted the attributes of\\neach. Can this be the man of whom Prof. Wendell\\nsays: Nothing more surprises such readers of Shake-\\nspeare as are not practical men of letters, than the\\nman s apparent learning? Also, can it be the same\\nShaksper who for twenty-five years went in and out\\nbefore all that was worthless and vile of I^ondon\\nThat Shakespeare was fully convinced of the gen-\\neral advantages of knowledge over ignorance, is a\\ntruth needing no demonstration; it is impressed on\\nevery page of his works. Ignorance is a\\nmonster, and barbarous dark barren unweigh-\\ning. Was this the Shaksper who for years left", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "the; ti;stimony of the; pi.ays. 233\\nwife and children to shift for themselves, and whose\\ndaughters grew up in illiteracy\\nHamlet is before all things a thinker, a profoundly\\nphilosophic reasoner. Shakespeare had evi-\\ndently studied profoundly the Hamletic type of in-\\ntellect. He had acquired his intimate knowledge of it\\njust as Goethe had learned Faust, from introspection.\\nMr. Owens also says that the best Shakesperian critics\\nseem now agreed that the earliest form of Hamlet, the\\n1603 Quarto, was indited by William Shakespeare,\\npossibly about 1585-7; which would be when Will-\\niam Shaksper was vending mutton from the tail of a\\ncart. Strange occupation for a Hamletic type of in-\\ntellect!\\nGoethe created Faust. but this creation\\nwith all its excellence is entirely inferior in uniformity\\nand artistic finish to all the highest products of the\\nShakespearean drama, e. g., Hamlet, Othello and\\nLear. True it is, as I have said before, the world is\\njust now coming to comprehend the plays of Shake-\\nspeare. Surely they were never written for the\\namusement of the penny knaves who pestered the the-\\naters, as Richard Grant White and John Fiske seem\\nto think, and as Charles Dudley Warner, The\\nPeople for Whom Shakespeare Wrote fancies.\\nAnd now comes Prof. B. B. Warner, of Tulane\\nUniversity, in his English Historj^ in Shakespeare\\nPlays New York, 1895, p. 321; written to show\\nthat the author of these plays understood English\\nHistory as no other man has ever understood it, and\\nhas pictured it so, that in the words of S. T. Coleridge", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "234 shakspe;r not shakkspkark.\\nthe people have taken their history from Shakespeare\\nas they have taken their theology from Milton.\\n%ord Bacon exactly defines in this spirit the value\\nof the historical drama, and hence the function of\\nShakespeare as a teacher of history. Dramatic poetry\\nis like history made visible, and is an image of action\\npast, as though they were present (Is it not re-\\nmarkable that so many of the scholars who are\\nwandering in the forest of Arden should fancy they\\nhear the footsteps of Francis Bacon!)\\nHeine fairly estimates and sums up the historical\\nvalue of these plays: The great Briton is not only a\\npoet but an historian; he wields not only the dagger\\nof Melpomene, but the still sharper stylus of Clio.\\nIn this respect he is like the earliest writers of history,\\nwho also knew no difference between poetry and his-\\ntory but who enlivened truth with song,\\nand in whose song was heard only the voice of\\ntruth.\\nSo writing, Shakespeare taught history as it has\\nnever been taught since not in tables, nor dates, nor\\nstatistics nor in records of revolts or details of battle-\\nfields; but history in its highest and purest form the\\nuncovering of those springs of action in which great\\nnatural movements take their rise. Strange that Mr.\\nWarner should not see how utterly impossible it is that\\nall this learning and philosophy should have come from\\nStratford. For myself, I believe that Mr. Warner s\\nhorse knows as much of history and philosophy as\\nWilliam Shaksper, player, theater-proprietor, and re-\\ntired millionaire, ever knew.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of the pi.ays. 235\\nHe was a physicist and natural philosopher. The\\ndiction of the play All s Well that Ends Well is largely\\ninfused with terms borrowed from mechanics, engineer-\\ning and military art. Ruggles, 322.\\nJudge Madden, of Dublin, has written A Study of\\nShakespeare and Elizabethan Sport 1897, of which\\nthe Spectator, November 6, 1897, said that it shows\\nthat Shakespeare was a past-master of the language\\nof falconry. Hardly less curious than the innu-\\nmerable proofs of Shakespeare s accuracy in this\\nmatter are the cases adduced of inaccuracy in modern\\nwriters; as, for example, Scott and Tennyson. Now,\\nfalconry was peculiarly the sport of gentlemen, and\\nwhat was a butcher boy and a tramp player to know\\nof that matter It is one more proof that William\\nShaksper, of Stratford, was not the William Shake-\\nspeare of these plaj^s.\\nThe writer of these plays was also an adept in the\\nscience of Heraldry. Greene, Shakespeare and the\\nEmblem Writers says: It is to be accepted as a fact\\nthat he was acquainted with the works of the emblem\\nwriters, and profited so much from them, as to be able,\\nwhenever the occasion demanded, to invent, and most\\nfittingly illustrate, devices of his own; as, for example,\\nthe sixth knight s device and the motto in Pericles;\\nand in the casket scene of the Merchant of Venice\\nReed, 261. Do we go to circus clowns for instruction\\nin Heraldry?", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "236 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nHe was an enthusiast in horticulture. In fact,\\nthere is nothing in history or politics, nothing in art\\nor science, nothing in physics or metaphysics, that is\\nnot sooner or later taxed for his illustration. What-\\never we have gathered of thought or knowledge and\\nof experience, confronted with his marvelous page,\\nshrinks to a mere foot-note. Lowell, 170. Yet John\\nFiske, for the life of him, cannot see that the Shake-\\nspeare plays abound with evidences of scholarship\\nor learning of the sort that is gathered from profound\\nand accurate study of books. He cannot indeed, and\\ntherein plainly differs from I^owell.\\nMr. Edward W. Naylor has written Shakespeare and\\nMusic (The Temple Shakespeare Manuals), 1896,\\nshowing that the writer of the plays was familiar with\\nthe popular music of his time, and an adept in the sci-\\nence of music. It is scarcely a matter of surprise that\\nthe musical student should look to Shakespeare for\\nmusic, and find it treated of from several points of\\nview, completely and accurately. In Elizabeth s\\ntime, music formed a part of every gentleman s educa-\\ntion. In the 1 6th and 17th centuries, a practical\\nacquaintance with music was a regular part of the ed-\\nucation of both sovereign, gentlemen of rank, and the\\nhigher middle class In Elizabeth s reign,\\nit was the custom of a lady s guests to sing unaccom-\\npanied music from parts after supper, and the inabil-\\nity to take a part was liable to remark from the rest\\nof the company; and, indeed, such inability cast doubt\\non the person s having any title to education at all.\\nIt is plain that Shakespeare s gentlemen\\nwere able to sing from the printed page prick song", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "Th:^ I^E^STIMONY OF I H]^ PI^AYS. 237\\nas well as to descant that is, to improvise a counter-\\npoint on a given melody; that he was famiHar with\\nthe construction and the manipulation of the musical\\ninstruments commonly used in his day, (the cornet,\\nthe tabor-pipe, the recorder, the viol and lute, the vir-\\nginal) and he knew the characteristics of the dances\\nwhich were then in vogue. Notice of Shakespeare\\nand Music in New York Tribune, June i6th, 1896.\\nBy all which, it appears that the writer of the plays\\nwas educated in music as became a gentleman of rank,\\nor one of the higher middle class.\\nHe had traveled extensively in France and Italy.\\nThe scene of his first play, lyove s I/abour s Lost, is\\nlaid in southern France. No one can explore Venice,\\nPadua, Verona, Milan, and other Italian cities, with\\nthe plays in hand, and not feel assured that the writer\\nor writers who were concealed under the name Will-\\niam Shakespeare had been in these cities, and knew\\nthem as only a resident could. So strange and so\\nstrong is the power of fiction over truth, in Venice,\\nas everywhere else, that Portia, Emilia, Cassio, An-\\ntonio, and lago, appear to have been more real here\\n(z. e., to the traveler in Venice) than of the men and\\nwomen of real life. It is a curious fact, reported by\\nF. K. Klze, and quoted by Mr. H. H. Furness, in his\\nAppendix to the Merchant of Venice, that at the\\ntime of the action of that drama, Shakespeare s own\\nday, there was living in Padua a Professor of the\\nUniversity, whose characteristics fully and entirely\\ncorresponded with all the qualities of old Bellario\\nwith all the requisites of the play Lawrence Hut-\\nton, in Harper s Magazine, July, 1896.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "238 shak:sp^r not shakkspeare;.\\nMrs. Dall says, p. 35: My own conviction is, that\\nlie spent the period between 1587 and 1592, after some\\napprenticeship at the theater, chiefly on the continent.\\nThis conviction is founded on the internal evidence of\\nthe plays.\\nGeorge A. Sala, in his I^ife and Adventures, writes:\\nWandering from Milan to Mantua, and from Padua\\nto Verona, and Vicenza, there grew up in me, day\\nafter day, a stronger and stronger impression an im-\\npression that has become unalterable conviction that\\nShakespeare knew every rood of ground, and every\\nbuilding in the cities in which he had laid the scenes\\nof the Merchant of Venice, The Two Gentlemen of\\nVerona, of Romeo and Juliet, and of the Taming of\\nthe Shrew. It was the constant study of\\nostensibly petty details in Shakespeare s Italian plays\\nthat led me to the full and fast belief that he was fa-\\nmiliar from actual experience and observation with the\\nnorthern Italy of his time.\\nGeorge Brandes Critical Study of Shakespeare,\\n1898, finds abundant evidence in the plays that the\\nauthor had traveled in Italy and elsewhere.\\nIn the Contemporary Review, Jan., 1896, is a paper\\nbyJanStefansson, entitled Shakespeare at Elsinore\\nin which the writer wishes to point out that the au-\\nthor of Hamlet shows in this drama a correct knowl-\\nedge of Danish names, words, and customs of his\\ntime nay, a local knowledge of the royal castle of\\nElsinore, which he could not have derived from books,\\nand which can only be satisfactorily accounted for by\\nassuming:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "the; TE^S TIMONY OI^ TH!^ PtAYS. 239\\n1. That Shakespeare himself saw what he de-\\nscribed, or\\n2. That he was told of it by others, who had been\\nat Klsinore, and seen the interior of the castle.\\nHe goes on: I shall now proceed to show that the\\nwriter of Act III, scene 4, of Hamlet, had, it seems,\\na local knowledge of a room in this famous castle\\nand he goes on to show ihe portraits of the kings upon\\nthe tapestry. Shakespeare shows a knowl-\\nedge of Danish customs, not generally possessed by\\nEnglishmen of his time. Shakespeare, all\\nthrough Hamlet, again and again recurs to the Danish\\ncustom of drinking cannon healths peculiarly a\\nDanish custom. Every time the king drinks, guns are\\nfired. The story of Hamlet was first told by Saxo\\nGrammaticus, in his history of Denmark, written A.\\nD. 1 180-1200. The story was translated into French\\nand reprinted in Paris, 1514, in Belleforest s Histories\\nTragiques 1570. We know of no other source from\\nwhich Shakespeare could have borrowed the story.\\nShakespeare changes the name in Belleforest s Ham-\\nlet, to make them Danish, introduces new Danish\\nnames. He introduces the names of two\\ncourtiers, Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, neither of\\nwhich is found in Belleforest ^names which belong\\nto the most powerful and respected families of the\\nDanish nobility. At the beginning of Act\\nII, scene i, Polonius asks Regnaldo: Inquire me first\\nwhat Danskers dre in Paris Dansker is a Danish\\nword and means a Dane. The word occurs nowhere\\nelse in the whole range of English literature, but in\\nthis passage. Teste, the New English Dictionary, D,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "240 shakspe;r not shakespbjar:^.\\nOxford, 1894.) But Dansk, and Danske, (Dan-\\nish) are wrongly and indiscriminately used by all\\nother writers for the people or the country, or\\nas adjectives, as far back as 1578. It is cer-\\ntainly striking that Shakespeare should use a Dan-\\nish word, not used by any one else, correctly,\\nboth as regards meaning and grammar, while all his\\ncontemporaries, in both respects, are floundering\\nhopelessly about the same word in its adjectival form.\\nWhence did Shakespeare derive his knowl-\\nedge of a room in Kronberg Castle, of Danish names\\nand customs, and other matters, a knowledge so accu-\\nrate that he uses correctly Danish names, which\\neveryone else in England used in a wrong form, and\\nmeaning? It is a sheer impossibility that\\nShakespeare could have got knowledge of the kind\\ndescribed from any books, at that time in England,\\nwhich have come down to us. The question at issue\\nwould then seem to be narrowed down to this did\\nhe or did he not, go with his fellow actors to Elsi-\\nnore?\\nIn 1585, some English actors appear to have been in\\nDenmark, and they went from Denmark to Germany,\\n1586, and left Dresden, 1587. In a passport issued\\nin Ivondon, 1591, only four members of Sackville s\\ncompanj^ are mentioned as going to Germany, though\\nwe find later there eighteen. By the pass-\\nport we see that English actors went abroad to per-\\nform music, feats of agility, and the games of comedies,\\ntragedies, histories Every actor consequently was\\nmore or less of a jesting -playeT, and we see from Stowe\\nthat Leicester had pantomimes, dancing, and vaulting,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "THE) TE^STIMONY OF THK PLAYS. 24I\\nat Utreclit, to the great delight of the Dutch. We\\nmay take it then that the EngHsh actors in Denmark,\\nin 1586, were some of I^eicester s players bent on seek-\\ning their fortunes abroad.\\nMr. Stefansson, finding that three or four players,\\nwho were afterwards connected with the Globe the-\\nater, (Kempe, etc. were with Leicester in Holland,\\nwe know that these men had been in Leicester s\\nservice and gone to Denmark in 1586 goes on to say\\nIt is a legitimate ijiference that Shakespeare probably\\njoined them under Leicester. In fact J. P. Collier proved\\nit by a document which he forged. I have elsewhere\\nhad occasion to remark on the forgeries which spring\\nup in all directons, in order to bolster up the claims of\\nthe strolling player Shaksper, and to the strange fact\\nthat half the Shakespeare commentators charge the\\nother half with frauds of every description. But why\\nStefansson should lug in Collier s forged document\\nhere, I fail to see. He closes thus: Bearing in\\nmind the striking knowledge of matters Danish shown\\nin Hamlet, and viewing it in the light of the fact\\ngiven above as to Shakespeare and his earliest fellow\\nactors and friends, in whose companj^ he seems to have\\nentered upon his theatrical course (all guesswork\\nand assumption); his visit with them to Blsinore\\nmay be safely located in the region that lies between\\nprobability and certainty. How near to either these\\nmust be individual opinion, but part of the Danish\\nknowledge in Hamlet can, it seems, only thus be ex-\\nplained.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps brings William Shaksper to Lon-\\ndon, either in 1585, or 15S6, (Fleay holds that it was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "242 SHAKSPEiR NOT SHAK:eSPE;ARBj.\\nin 1587), and lie tells us that his first employment was\\nvery mean, and that after awhile he got to be a serv-\\nitour in the theater. Also he tells us that the youth,\\nat that time, must have been all but destitute of\\npolished accomplishments. R. G. White says that\\nwe may be sure that up to his flight, he had\\nnever seen half a dozen books other than his horn\\nbook, his I^atin Accidence (a primary reader), and a\\nBible. Mr. Phillipps further tells us, that nothing had\\nbeen discovered respecting the history of Shaksper s\\ntheatrical life, and that it is all but impossible that he\\nshould not by 1587 have already commenced his provin-\\ncial tours; and that, for the next five years, 1587-1592,\\nthere is not a particle of evidence respecting his ca-\\nreer not one word said about him, in fact, which has\\ncome down to us. If therefore, William Shaksper got\\nto Klsinore in 1586, it was just after he reached I,on-\\ndon, according to Halli well- Phillipps, or while he was\\npurveying as a butcher at Stratford, according to\\nFleay and anyway while he was an illiterate clown.\\nThe Klsinore theory may then be dismissed. That the\\nwriter of Hamlet was at Klsinore, however, is not so\\nimprobable, but if so, as an ambassador, or in political\\nemployment. He showed the same knowledge of lan-\\nguage, customs, manners, and places of Italy, France,\\nScotland, as of Denmark, and was not merely a trav-\\neller, but a man of education, capable of appreciating\\nand making use of what he learned in his travels. He\\ncertainly was not an apprentice, fresh from the coun-\\ntry, among a rabble of buffoons, fiddlers, tumblers\\nand players. To hold that any man, unlearned, or\\nlearned, can have a correct knowledge of foreign Ian-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "tun TBJSI IMONY Olf TH:^ PI,AYS. 243\\nguages, manners, customs and places by intuition, is\\nnonsense. To suppose that such a man could sit down\\nand write Hamlet by inspiration and not by design\\nor by design either is also nonsense. And yet, if\\nShaksper did write Hamlet, that was the only way he\\ncould have written it. I myself prefer to look for a\\ncause adequate to the effect, and will not stand gap-\\ning in wonder at a phenomenon for which there was\\nnever a cause.\\nIt is manifest that the writer of these plays was in-\\ntimately acquainted with the French, Italian and Span-\\nish languages, able to speak as well as read them. A\\nlarge part of Henry Vis in French ^whole scenes; and\\nthe plots of many of the plays were borrowed from\\nthen untranslated Italian and Spanish novels.\\nProf. Meiklejohn, 372, says: The modern English-\\nmen not only speak Shakespeare, but think Shake-\\nspeare. His knowledge of human nature has enabled\\nhim to throw into English literature a larger number\\nof genuine characters, that will always live in the\\nthoughts of men, than any other author that ever\\nwrote. And he has not drawn his characters from\\nEngland alone, and from his own time ^but from\\nGreece and Rome, from other countries too, and also\\nfrom all ages. He has written in a greater variety of\\nstyles than any other writer. Shakespeare says\\nProfessor Craik, has invented twenty styles The\\nknowledge, too, that he shows on every kind of hu-\\nman endeavor is as accurate as it is varied. Lawyers\\nsay that he was a great lawyer; theologians, that he", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "244 SHAKSPER not SHAKKSPljARE^.\\nwas an able divine, and unequalled in his knowledge\\nof the Bible; printers, that he must have been a\\nprinter; and seamen, that he knew every branch of the\\nsailor s craft.\\nHe was familiar with courts and princes, as only a\\nman could be who had passed his life in such an at-\\nmosphere. Every one of these branches of knowl-\\nedge, or these experiences, declares the writer of the\\nplays to have been an altogether different man from\\nthe player Shaksper.\\nAs will be seen hereafter, there is a school of Shak-\\npereans who strive to lower the poems and plays to\\nthe level of the illiterate player William Shaksper, be-\\ning unable, professedly, to discover in these works\\ntraces of study or learning. The man they say was\\na natural wit, without cultivation; he sang as a bird\\nsings like Shelley s skylark, in profuse strains of\\nunpremeditated art To be sure, he had picked up a\\nlittle knowledge after he reached I^ondon. He had at\\nno time but a smattering, however, and by consorting\\nwith servants and retainers of great houses, he came\\nto have that acquaintance with the manners of princes\\nand nobles of which his works give evidence. That\\nsort of depreciation neither helps the player nor be-\\nclouds the author. As for the latter, Samuel Taylor\\nColedridge exclaims: Merciful, wonder-making\\nHeaven! What a man was this Shakespeare Myr-\\niad-minded, indeed, he was!\\nThe absurdity and impertinence of the assumption\\nthat the female characters of these plays, Katharine", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "THK TESTIMONY OF THE PI^AYS. 245\\nand Constance, Hermione and Perdita, Juliet and\\nRosalind, Imogene and Beatrice, Miranda and Desde-\\nmona, and the hundred others, could have sprung\\nfrom the consciousness of a Warwickshire clown, is\\ninconceivable.\\nLook at one of these characters, Miranda, in the\\nTempest, so perfect, so peerless; unsullied purity of\\nmind and tenderest compassion form this exquisite\\ncreation. Her every thought is innocent and pure,\\nunmixed with baser matter. There is no stain of\\nearth upon her. She is the rare consummate flower\\nof the highest culture, impossible to be found, no\\ndoubt, on this earth, but blooming in matchless beauty\\nin the ideal world of Shakspeare. Ruggles, 674.\\nThe exquisite Miranda belongs to the highest ideal\\nfrom her position and education, but her very noblest\\nattributes are those of womanhood. Charles Knight.\\nWill any man venture to say that this wonderful\\ncreation sprung from the brain of a rollicking, disso-\\nlute strolling player, a man who knew not what com-\\npassion was, as the records of the courts show, who\\ncould not have had the faintest conception of purity\\nof mind, any more than culture. A female character\\nfrom the hand of player Shaksper would have had a\\ngreat deal of the stain of earth upon her Doll\\nTear-sheet, or Wapping Sal, would have filled the bill\\nexactly. All experience teaches that water cannot\\nrise higher than its source. The player s mother and\\nwife being such persons as described by Phillipps, not\\none whit higher than milk maids, how was it possible\\nthat he could have known anything of female delicacy\\nand refinement, and of what constitutes a gentle-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "246 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nwoman, before he fled to lyondon And we may be\\nvery sure that the sort of women he consorted with\\nafter he came to lyondon were neither princesses nor\\nladies.\\nPlayers were vagabonds, social pariahs (deemed,\\nsays Dr. Ingleby, sans aveu, to be run-a-ways and\\nvagabonds), and the probability that any man of\\nstanding, gentleman or nobleman, would invite one\\nof them to dinner, or to introduce them to his wife\\nand daughters, is very small indeed. Hence, there\\nis not the slightest written evidence in the letters,\\ndiaries, or gossip of that day, that player or manager\\nShaksper was ever seen within any gentleman s house,\\nor was anywhere received as an equal or as a comrade,\\nby the better sort of people.\\nYet, Dr. Brandes, in his Critical Studies, can talk\\nof William Shaksper, of Stratford, in this way: The\\ngreat ladies of that day were extremely accomplished.\\nThey had been educated as highly as the men, spoke\\nItalian, French and Spanish fluently, and were not un-\\nfrequently acquainted with lyatin and Greek. Lady\\nPembroke, Sidney s sister, the mother of Shakespeare s\\n(Shaksper s) patron, was regarded as the most intel-\\nlectual woman of her time. So that we can\\neasily understand how a daring, highbred woman of\\nintelligence should have been for years the object\\nwhich it most delighted Shakespeare (Shaksper) to\\nportray. Dr. Brandes has found enough in the\\npoems and plays of Shakespeare to enable him to\\nwrite 600 pages to tell of it, and all that he finds he\\nlays at the feet of the player, regardless of fact or\\nhistory. In the two volumes not a single new fact", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of th:s pi.ays. 247\\nhas been added to the records of Shakespeare s life;\\nthe reader would be disappointed, but not surprised,\\nto discover that not a single new fact had been added\\nto the records of the poet s life; he would look eageirly\\nfor any addition to our knowledge of Shakespeare s\\npersonal character, of his relation to his contempo-\\nraries, of his attitude towards the events of his time,\\nof his studies, of the influence exercised on him by\\nthose studies and by his surroundings, and he would\\nbe indulgent if he found merely a recapitulation of\\nwhat has long been before the world. We laid\\nthe book down with more disappointment than we can\\nexpress. Literature, March 12, 1898.\\nThe book is another effort, like that of Dr. Baynes,\\nto construct a living Shakespeare from the Shake-\\nspeare poems and plays, and the more excellent the con-\\nstruction the more unlike it is to William Shaksper,\\nof Stratford, of whom Halliwell-Phillipps wrote the\\nbiography.\\nIt follows that some other head conceived, some\\nother hand delineated the female characters of these\\nplays. Whoever wrote them was a gentleman as\\nwell as of the highest culture. In Rosetti s Famous\\nPoets 41, we read: Shakespeare, it may be abun-\\ndantly inferred from his writings, always accounted\\nhimself a gentleman by birth and breeding, and the\\nassociates of his choice were gentlemen. Thus it is:\\nevery characteristic of the author of these plays, dis-\\ncovered in the plays, pushes the Stratford man farther\\ndown the horizon.\\nI should not omit to say here that it is Dr. Wallace\\nwho^ accounts for the poet s intimate knowledge of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "248 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPKARB;.\\nhigh Hfe in this way: The lordly castles of War-\\nwick and Kenilworth were within half a dozen miles\\nof Stratford, and at times of festivity such castles\\nwere open houses, and at all times would be easily\\naccessible through the friendship of servants and re-\\ntainers, and thus might have been acquired some\\nportion of that knowledge of the manners and speech\\nof nobles and kings which appear in the historical\\nplays.\\nUncaused phenomena have no play in the scheme of\\nnature; nothing comes to pass without a cause, and\\na cause proportionable and agreeable to the effect.\\nIf a man at twenty-five puts forth poems or plays\\nsteeped in classical learning; if the I atin language is\\namalgamated and consubstantiated with his native\\nthought; if his acquaintance with the English lan-\\nguage, and the skill with which he uses that language,\\nis phenomenal; the effect must have had a cause pro-\\nportionable, and that cause was early instruction by\\ncompetent masters, and labor and incessant study for\\nyears. If the works display an intimate knowledge\\nof the usages of polite society, the effect could have\\nbut one cause\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the author must have had good breed-\\ning in his youth. If the works display a minute\\nknowledge of the manners and customs of a foreign\\ncountry, with mention of persons and places, at a time\\nwhen there were no itineraries or guide-books, such\\nknowledge could have been gained only by residence\\nor travel in said country. If the works discover an\\nintimate knowledge of the science of law, and a fa-\\nmiliarity with the rules of pleading, the cause of this\\neffect was study and practice in law, and for a long", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of thk pi,ays. 249\\nperiod. If the works evince a profound acquaintance\\nwith philosophy, ancient and modern, the cause of\\nthis effect was not intuition or inspiration, but study\\nand meditation in seclusion. Where in the life of\\nWilliam Shaksper is to be found a cause proportion-\\nable to any one of these effects, much more causes\\nproportionable to them all combined\\nIt makes no difference who did write the plays, in\\nthe present argument; the point is, that William Shak-\\nsper, the Stratford butcher, later player, did not.\\nWhen so improbable a statement is made, as that he,\\nwhose antecedents we have given, wrote these poems\\nand plays, in the words of Prof. Huxley on statements\\nno more improbable, We not only have a right to de-\\nmand, but we are morally bound to require, strong\\nevidence in its favor before we even take it into con-\\nsideration.\\nWhat is the evidence Simply that during a period\\nof nine or ten years, certain plays a long series of\\nthem and successive editions of them were pub-\\nlished anonymously, and no one gave sign that he\\nknew the authors; that ten years after one of them\\n(ly. L. I/.) had first been performed, a new edition of\\nit appeared bearing the name of William Shakespere\\nas the reviser and augmenter; that new editions of\\nsome other plays subsequently appeared under the\\nname of William Shake-speare, or Shakespeare; that\\nat the same time new plays apparently by the same\\nauthors, and editions of the old ones, continued to\\nissue anonymously; that thirty-five 5^ears after the\\nfirst play of the series had been put on the stage, and\\ntwenty-five years after the name Shakespeare first ap-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "250 SHAKSPER NOT SHAK^SPKARE.\\npeared on a printed play, what is called the First Folio,\\ncomprising the collected plays of William Shake-\\nspeare was published by a syndicate of printers, not\\nimprobably with the cooperation of one or more of\\nthe authors, at the time living, because information\\nseems to have been furnished the printers which only\\nan author can be supposed to have given, as to which\\namong the many plays, genuine and spurious, were\\nreally those of Shakespeare also and more par-\\nticularly because revised and enlarged copies of the\\nold plays were then contributed toward making the\\ncollection a complete one; that a persistent effort was\\nmade by the printers, who had sole control of the\\nvolume, and the right as well as the power to do what\\nthey pleased respecting it, even to attributing it to\\nwhom they pleased, to impress upon the public that\\nthe unknown Shakespeare was but another name\\nfor one Shaksper, or Shahkspair, as Furnivall says\\nthe man s name was pronounced, recently a proprietor\\nof one of the I^ondon theaters, who had retired from\\nbusiness a very rich man; that the publication excited\\nlittle interest at the time, or for three-score years after-\\nwards, during which period the last surviving author\\nof these plays had passed away, and made no sign,\\nas also had the printers and everybody who had any\\nknowledge of the subject-matter; that no one in the\\nliterary world knew or had known this Shaksper,\\nwhere he came from, what were his antecedents, or\\nwhat his life in I^ondon had been, except that he was\\nsaid to have been a player and parj: owner of one of\\nthe public theaters; that whether he was the author of\\nthe Shakespeare plays was nobodys care and nobodys", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "the; testimony op thk pi.ays. 251\\nbusiness, for no one thought the plays worth talking\\nabout, or better than the work of other play-wrights.\\nThis is so, for Dr. Ingleby assures us that for a full\\nhundred years after the first of these plays appeared,\\nno one thought their author to be sui generis. He\\nis also obliged to confess that the suppositious author\\nwas unknown to the men of that age, because, after\\nthe most diligent search through all contemporary\\nbooks, and accessible letters, diaries, note-books, he\\nfinds the man mentioned but three or four times, while\\nhe lived, and then as a player merely, never as a\\nwriter or an author. This being the state of things,\\nit is not surprising that as the years went on, what was\\nat first a lie came to be accepted as the truth, until\\nfinally what was purely mythical in the beginning\\ncame to be a part of the religion of the Knglish race.\\nTo be sure the Doctor brings in all the mentions of the\\nworks, even the most distant allusions, and transfers\\nthem in bulk to his Shaksper. But an examination\\neasily shows which are references to the player man, and\\nwhich to the works he did not write. Some years\\nafter the death of Shaksper, two or three persons who\\nhad known him left some mention of him; and one of\\nthem is contained in certain elegiac verses prefixed to\\nthe First Folio, entitled To my Beloved, Mr. William\\nShakespeare, and what he hath left us, written as\\nShaksper s modern admirers hold, in glowing and ap-\\npreciative eulogy, but certainly in ridicule of the\\nplayer. All the reputation of William Shaksper as\\nthe author of the works of William Shakespeare rests\\non a string of verses that are mocking and malicious,\\nas I shall presently show. There is not a tittle be-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "252 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPKARK.\\nyond this in his favor. So long as nothing was known\\nof the Stratford man, there seemed no improbabihty\\nin the assumption that he was the author; but at\\nlength arose careful investigators, as Halliwell-Phil-\\nlipps and Dr. Ingleby, and all contemporary literature\\nand records were searched for items in the history of\\nWilHam Shaksper, with the unforeseen result that the\\npresent generation knows the man altogether too well.\\nThey know the kind of people he came from, his\\nbringing up, the sort of schooling he had, if he had\\nany, the sort of handwriting he acquired, if he ever\\nlearned to write at all, of his apprenticeship to a\\nbutcher; his habits and associates, his flight from\\nStratford, and the occupation he followed in I^ondon,\\nvaried with trading and money getting; all and every\\none of these conditions and pursuits fatal to any lit-\\nerary achievement whatever. The man made a heap\\nof money, and that was the sole outcome of his fifty-\\nodd years life-work. While he lived, he was known\\nto no one as a poet or playwright; indeed his hand-\\nwriting, as well as his illiteracy, forbade that, and\\nany reputation he has now in that direction is wholly\\nmythical. The labors of the two investigators named\\nhave stripped off his borrowed plumes, and left him\\nan obscure and uninteresting mortal. No one during\\nhis lifetime testified in verse or prose, or in any sort of\\nwriting that has come to us, Ingleby being witness,\\nthat William Shaksper, of Stratford-on-Avon, wrote\\npoems or plays. Allusions to his works will be found\\ncollected in Dr. Ingleby s Centurie of Prayse; but\\nthey consist almost entirely of slight references to his\\npublished works, and have no bearing of importance", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "the; tejstimony op thi; pi,ays. 253\\non his career. Neither as addressed to him by others,\\nnor by him to others, do any commendatory verses\\nexist in connection with his or other men s works pub-\\nlished in his lifetime Fleay, 73.\\nHe is represented fifty times as a man of business,\\nengaged in piling up his ducats by a great variety of\\noccupations, and is also known as a player, manager,\\nand part proprietor of a public theater; but no one\\nwhile he lived said that he wrote plays for that thea-\\nter, or wrote plays or poems at all. No one said he\\nhad ever seen him with a book or pen in his hand, or\\nheard him speak of writing plays. No one testified\\nthat he was engaged, or thought to be engaged, about\\nany literary matter whatever. He was running a\\ntheater, and getting, as he could, interludes, or shows,\\nor spectacles, wherewith to amuse an audience of illit-\\nerate and ignorant people. While he was so connected\\nwith the theater, certain plays issued from the press\\nfor years anonymously, but at length some of them\\nbore the name William Shakespeare a name when\\nspoken having but a distant resemblance to his own.\\nHe called himself in his youth Shagsper, and his\\nfather had gone by forty variations of the name\\nShaksper Shaxper, Shacksper, Shaxberd, etc., etc.\\nI^ater, in London, he signed his name (or it was\\nsigned for him, with his consent) to a deed and mort-\\ngage, Shakspar, and Shaksper; and finally, at Strat-\\nford, to his last Will, three times, Shaksper. The reg-\\nistry of his burial at Stratford made him Shakspere,\\naccording to Phillipps, but instead of the terminal\\nletters r it is probably the German r, and so Shak-\\nsper.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "254 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARE.\\nScenes from, or skeletons of, some of these plays\\nmay have been given at this man s theater, and it is\\nnot improbable that some outsiders, knowing nothing\\nof player Shaksper personally or historically for as\\nIngleby tells us he was unknown to the men of that\\nage and knowing nothing of William Shakespeare,\\nthe author of the plays, may have supposed player and\\nauthor the same individual. But no one said so. It\\nis a surmise at best. John Manningham, who told a\\nstory about player Shaksper, calls him Shakespeare\\n(Ingleby, 45), and John Davies (86) speaks of him as\\na player Hadst thou not played some kingly parts,\\netc.) under the name of Shakespeare. If either of\\nthese men thought he was the William Shakespeare\\nwho was writing the plays, he did not sa}^ so. Both\\nManningham and Davies spoke of him as a player.\\nThere is nothing, up to the player s death, that im-\\nplies that anyone thought player and author the same\\nindividual. After his death, two or three men who\\nhad known him assured the world that this man was\\nthe real author, but they gave their testimony under\\nvery suspicious circumstances.\\nIt would appear that the player applied for a grant\\nof coat-armour for his father under the name of\\nShakspere (his profession making it impossible\\nthat such right should be granted to himself) insinu-\\nating that his ancestors had been fierce in battle, and\\nhad shaken spears as well as other folk and Shaksper\\nor Shahkspair (John Peter) was a name to slough off\\nif coat-armour was in question, and William was to\\nbe metamorphosed into a gentleman.\\nWhen John Shaksper came to be buried, his name", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "the; testimony of the pi,ays. 255\\nwas written in the Stratford Churcli Register (where\\nit can be seen to-day) Shakspeare; and later, his wife,\\nas Mrs. Shakspeare, (not Shakespeare they all stick\\nto the Shak). William Shaksper was entered in the\\nsame book. It is conceivable that the name Shake-\\nspeare, in the last years of his player or manager life\\ncame to attach to him, first as a joke and then as a\\ncustom, and that he was known to his fellows in lyon-\\ndon as Shakespeare, as often as Shaksper. The player\\nmay have come to pose as the true and only Shake-\\nspeare. This, however, is all guess-work, for there is\\nno evidence one way or other.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "PART II", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "RKFEIREINCKS TO shak:esp:karej. 259\\nCHAPTER X.\\nRBI^ERBNCBS TO SHAKESPEARE, AUTHOR OR\\nWORKS, OR TO THE MAN FROM STRATFORD-ON-\\nAVON, THE PLAYER SHAKSPER OR SHAKSPERE.\\nThe references or allusions to, and mentions of,\\nShakespeare, author or works, or player Shaksper, di-\\nrect or indirect, between 1592 and 1616, the date of\\nthe pla^^er s death, and between 161 6 and 1692, in\\ncontemporary literature, were carefully collected by\\nDr. Ingleby, and published in the Centurie of\\nPrayse 1874. This contained 228 references. In\\n1879, Miss lyucy Toulmin Smith, by request, and with\\nthe approval, of Dr. Ingleby, edited the second edition,\\nin which the references were brought up to 356 for the\\none hundred years. Miss Smith, in the preface says,\\nhowever, that a re-examination renders 25 of Dr.\\nIngleby s 228 references doubtful, and to each of\\nthese she has aflEixed an asterisk of warning for the\\nreader s benefit. Rejecting the 25 spoken of because\\nif they are doubtful, they are valueless in this case\\nthat makes, according to Ingleby and Smith, about\\nthree mentions per year of Shakespeare, author or\\nworks, or references to works, for the one hundred\\nyears.\\nBetween 1592 and 16 16, the number of allusions is\\n121. On examining them carefully, I find the follow-\\ning state of things:\\nI. .There are but three concerning the player, viz;", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "26o SHAKSPJSR NOT SHAKi;SP:eARE;.\\n45, 67, 94, possibly two others, 58 and 89. None of\\nliim as an author.\\n2. To the individual who wrote the plays, William\\nShakespeare none that are personal.\\n3. To Shakespeare author of poems or plays, or\\nboth, nine: 6, 16, 26, 30, 48, 64, 71, 76, 106 not one\\nof them implying a personal acquaintance with this\\nauthor.\\n4. Shakespeare enumerated among other poets,\\nnine: 20, 21, 56, 59, 63, 91, 100, 108, iii.*\\n5. To one or other poem without mention of Shake-\\nspeare s name, seven: 13, 14, 17, 32, 33, 57, 75.\\n6. To one or other play without mention of name of\\nShakespeare thirty: 25, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 41, 47,\\n50, 52, 60, 62, 66, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 85, 90, 95, 97,\\nloi, 102, 103, 105, 114, 115, 117, 118.\\n7. I reject some of the so-called allusions because\\nthere is no evidence that they refer either to Shake-\\nspeare or the Shakespeare poems: i, 7, 44, 53, 55,\\n86, 98.\\n8. I also reject sixteen because it is not certain that\\na Shakespeare play is referred to at all: 5, 12, 19, 35,\\n36, 42, 57, 60, 69, 78, 82, 93, 107, 109, 112, 113.\\nOne of the allusions to Shakespeare which I have\\ncredited to him as author of the poems, viz: 30, speaks\\nof the Venus and Adonis and also of Hamlet: G.\\nHarvey, 1598, or after 1600 This was from a\\nmanuscript note in Speght s Chaucer, now lost; first\\nprinted in Johnson and Steevens Shakespeare, 1773\\nEvery mention of Shakespeare is included within the 18\\nreferences here specified in paragraphs 3 and 4.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "re^fe;re;nc:^s to shakeSpkarb;. 261\\nThe younger sort take much delight in Shakespeare s\\nVenus and Adonis; but his IvUcrece, and his tragedy\\nof Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, have it in them to\\nplease the wiser sort, 1598. Malone, who saw the\\nvolume, doubted whether the note was written by\\nHarvey before 1600, and consequently Ingleby has\\nadded the date 1600 with a query. Now the first\\nQuarto of Hamlet was printed in 1603; was entered\\nin the Stationer s Register, 26 July, 1602, and Fleay\\nthinks it was first played in 1601. He says of this\\nfirst Quarto: This form of Hamlet seems to have\\nbeen an unfinished refashioning of the old play of\\nKyd that had so long been performed by the Cham-\\nberlain s men p. 229. At best then, Harvey s refer-\\nence to Hamlet is based on the supposition that the\\nauthor of lyUcrece, whoever he might be, had edited\\nthe new edition of Kyd s Hamlet.\\nThere is but one reference to any author during the\\ntwenty-four years which shows that the writer thought\\nthat the author of the poems, to-wit, William Shake-\\nspeare, had also written plays. Francis Meres, 1598,\\nthe same year in which an edition of Love s lyabour s\\nLost first exhibited the name of William Shakespeare\\non the title page of a play, was apparently led to con-\\njecture that several plays, which for the last years\\nhad been performed or published anonymously were\\nby the same author. He was partly right, but in the\\ngreater part wrong.\\nDr. Frederick J. Fumivall, in 1886, published what\\nwas announced to be a work supplementary to Ingle-\\nby s, entitled Some 300 Fresh Allusions to Shakspere\\nfrom 1594 to 1694. From 1594 to 161 6, there are", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "262 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAElESPEARjg.\\n53 so-called allusions to Shakespeare, author or\\nworks none to the player (Shaksper) none of them\\nexpressing or implying an acquaintance with the au-\\nthor many of them doubtful, many indefinite; the\\nlarger part introduced as echoes of resemblances\\nto recollections of seems to be taken from\\nseem to be copying Shakspere may have had in\\nmind conjecturally an allusion to in all proba-\\nbility borrowed from quoted rather as illustrations\\nthan recollections of sounds like an expansion of\\na line in had an eye on the well-known passage\\na suggestion of the words of perhaps found on\\nSome mention or allude to Venus and Adonis, some\\nallude usually remotely to one play or other; none\\nhave anything to say of Shakespeare, author, except\\nthat the writer of the Returne from Parnassus, 1600,\\nwhom Ingleby had already quoted, p. 12, made one of\\nthe interlocutors exclaim, Sweete Mr. Shakspeare\\nand again, O, sweete Mr. Shakspere, I ll have his\\npicture at my study at the courte.\\nGai^l (id) lyct me heare Mr. Shakspear s veyne.\\nIngen (ioso) Faire Venus, queene of beautie and of love,\\nThy red doth stayne the blushings of the morn,\\nThy snowy neck, etc., etc.\\nGai,i Let this duncified world esteem of Spenser and\\nChaucer, I ll worship sweete Mr. Shakespeare, and to\\nhonor him will lay his Venus and Adonis under my\\npillow, etc.\\nIn but one other of these allusions, John Bodenham,\\n1600, p. 13, is the name of Shakespeare mentioned,\\nand then merely as one of the flowers of the Muses", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "RB^IfKRKNCSS TO SHAKBISPEJARE;. 263\\nGarden: Edmund Spenser, Henry Constable, Joiin\\nMarston, Christopher Marlowe, Benjamin Johnson,\\nWilliam Shakespeare.\\nIn the two volumes of Ingelby and Furnivall,\\nShakespeare, author (or works) is mentioned by\\nname, between 1591 and 161 6, or during 25 years,\\njust twenty times;\u00e2\u0080\u0094 less than once a year; between\\n1616 and 1623, the date of the issue of the First Foho,\\nthree times, or once in 2 years; between 1623 and 1632,\\nwhen the 2nd Folio issued, 35 times, or nearly four\\ntimes per year; between 1632 and 1660, 46 times, or\\nabout one and one-half times a year; between 1660\\nand 1693, 10 1 times, or about three times a year.\\nThe total number of mentions in the one hundred\\nyears contained in these authors is 206, or a trifle\\nover two per year. In 1659, the name Shakespeare\\nwas not mentioned at all. Think of it!*\\nWm. Shaksper, (assumed by Ingleby and Furni-\\nvall to have been William Shakespeare), died in 1616.\\nIn Ingleby s book there is no mention of Shakspere or\\nShakespeare in that year, except that the inscription\\nover his grave, Good friend for Jesus sake forbear,\\netc., is given. In Furnivall there is not a line respect-\\ning either of the two men between 1610 and 1620, and\\nindeed for a much longer period.\\nConsider what these compilations mean: During\\nnearly the whole of the 19th century numerous per-\\nsons have been searching all English literature con-\\nFuniivall s allusions are largely gathered by running\\nthrough the plays of a voluminous author, as Ford, Massinger,\\nBeaumont and Fletcher, and spotting everything that seemed\\nan echp of etc., etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "264 shakspe;r not shakejspsarb;.\\ntemporary with the life of William Shaksper of Strat-\\nford-on-Avon, or of William Shakespeare, author, and\\nhis works, during the same period, the two names be-\\ning generally supposed to belong to the same individ-\\nual. The compilers of the modern English dictionaries\\nsolicit the aid of cultivated men and women, wherever\\nthe English language is spoken, in search of words in\\nall books, and they find thousands of helpers. In this\\nway, in search of Shaksper, player, or Shakespeare,\\nauthor, or works, thousands of volunteer readers have\\ngone through every book published between the years\\nI have mentioned. Not only all books, but all ac-\\ncessible correspondence contemporary with the lyondon\\nlife of player Shaksper, and there remains to-day a\\nvast accumulation of it all diaries and it was an age\\nof diaries and note-books these and correspondence\\nfilling the place which newspapers came to occupy in\\nthe later centuries. And what is the outcome of all\\nthis search? Between 1587, when he went to I^ondon,\\nand 16 1 6, the year of his death, there are but three\\nmentions and two possible allusions in books, letters,\\nnote-books, or diaries, of or to the player. That is,\\nas a man connected in any way with a theater. There\\nis not one of him as an author.\\nWTiat Dr. Ingleby s reasons for making his com-\\npilation were is not apparent, but if he thought it to\\nthe honor of William Shaksper, of Stratford, he was\\na good deal astray. Charles Dickens wrote: The life\\nof Shakspere is a fine mystery, and I tremble every\\nday lest something should turn up. Bishop Words-\\nworth thoughtfully remarks on this, 396: It has been\\na frequent subject of complaint that so little has come", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "REFERKNCKS TO SHAKBSPEARB;. 265\\ndown to us respecting our poet s life. For my part, I\\nam inclined to doubt whether it would be desirable for\\nus to be more fully informed concerning it than we\\nactually are; and in a note, the good Bishop of St.\\nAndrews adds, that Charles Dickens in his letters,\\nthen just published (1879) expresses very strongly\\nthe same sentiment.\\nWell, something has turned up, and in an unex-\\npected quarter; something in the shape of Phillipps\\nlyife Ingleby s Centurie and Furnivall s Fresh\\nAllusions These three books have done the business\\nfor the claimant; these three authors have cooked\\nShaksper s goose, and there is no gainsaying their\\ntestimony. Ignorance is the mother of devotion;\\nwhy could not these busy-bodies have let sleeping\\ndogs lie, and suffered us to worship our numbo- jumbo\\nin peace!\\nA few mentions of the man Shaksper could have\\nbeen collected outside his theatrical life in the rec-\\nords of the Court of Stratford, or of the town itself;\\nin deeds or conveyances of one sort or other. Two\\nletters of Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney speak\\nof Mr. Shaksper, and Mr. Wm. Shak respectively;\\none referring to Shaksper s contemplated purchase of\\nland at Shottery (H.-P., II, 57); the other saying\\nthat the writer had received Ouiney s letter assuring\\nhim that our countriman would procure us monie\\nand nothing further. (H.-P., II, 59.) There is also\\nextant a letter from said Quiney to Wm. Shaksper\\ndirect, asking for a loan of money. But these men-\\ntions did not fall within the plan of Ingleby s book,\\nand are therefore not given in it.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "266 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKEJSPEJARB;,\\nThe total ^number of mentions given in Ingleby in\\nthe same years (159 1 to 161 6) of Shakespere or Shake-\\nspeare, referring solely to certain poems and plays, are\\nsixty -five, but I reject, as I have said, twenty-two of\\nthem for uncertainty. Many of them are so obscure\\nthat they should not have been included in the Cen-\\nturie of Prayse. I will speak of the three references\\nto the player. [Edmund Spenser should not have\\nbeen in this book, and bears the asterisk of warning.\\nA verse is quoted from Colin Clout, which alludes to\\nsome one under the name of Action:\\nAnd there, though last, not least is Aetion,\\nA gentler shepheard may nowhere be found;\\nWhose Muse, full of high thought s invention,\\nDoth like himself Heroically sound.\\nIn his I St Kd., Dr. Ingleby says that this verse must\\nhave been meant for Shakespeare, because no other\\npoet has a surname of heroic sound but he adds that\\nHalliwell-Phillipps remarks that the lines seem to\\napply with equal propriety to Warner.^ The 2d Ed.\\ngives the verse, but the editor has afl xed to it an\\nasterisk of warning that is, it is regarded as pre-\\nsumably a reference to some one else other than Shake-\\nspeare. Nobody now can tell whom it was meant\\nfor]\\nOn p. 45, John Manningham, 13th March, 1601,\\nmakes the player party to an amour, as follows:\\nWarner, author of Albion s England, a now forgotten poem.\\nBut Warner, according to Anthony Wood, was ranked by his\\ncontemporaries on a level with Spenser, and they were called\\nthe Homer and Virgil of their age. Craik.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "RE^I^E^Rl^NCE^S TO SHAKEJSPKARE;, 267\\nUponatyme Burbridge played Rich. 3, there was a\\ncitizen gaen so farr in liking with him, that before shee\\nwent from the play shee appointed him to come that\\nnight unto her by the name of Rich, the 3. Shake-\\nspeare overhearing their conclusion, went before, was\\nentertained and at his game ere Burbridge came.\\nThen Message being brought that Rich, the 3 was at\\ndore, Shakspere caused return to be made that William\\nthe Conquerour was before Rich, the 3. Stiakespere s\\nname William No light here on the authorship of\\nthe Shakespeare plays; or that William Shaksper was\\nknown to the writer of this note otherwise than as a\\nplayer. Indeed it is fair to assume that Manning-\\nham, who was of the Middle Temple, and a barrister-\\nat-law, an educated and reading man, as the Twelfth\\nNight entry in his diary shows, did not recognize this\\nman of the amour as the author of plays now pub-\\nlished for some years under the name of William\\nShakespeare. He had made an entry in his diary,\\n2 Feb., of the same year, 1601: At our feast we had\\na play called Twelve Night, much like the Menechmi\\nin Plautus, but most like and nearer to that in Italian\\ncalled Inganni and so on, giving a brief abstract of\\nthe play. When he recorded the story, six weeks\\nlater told on player Shaksper, or Shakespere, as he\\ncalls him, he very naturally would have added author\\nof the Twelfth Night play that so amused me a few\\nweeks ago, if he had known or ever heard that he\\nwas the author. Nothing of the sort no hint that\\nplayer and author were one individual. The Shake-\\nspere plays had been on the stage since 1589, or for\\ntwelve years before Manningham made his entry,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "268 SHAKSPEIR NOT SHAKESPEARB;.\\nmany of them of the greatest of the series, and ac-\\ncording to Phillipps, they were much talked of. Yet\\nthis lawyer evidently knew nothing of their connection\\nwith the player of whom he tells the story.\\n67. Anonymous, about 1605, Ratsie s Ghost. This\\nadvises a player to go to lyondon: There thou\\nshalt learn to be frugal, and to feed upon all men, but\\nlet none feed upon thee; to make thy hand a stranger\\nto thy pocket, thy heart slow to perform thy tongue s\\npromises; and when thou feelest th}^ purse well lined,\\nbuy thee some place of lordship in the country,\\nfor I have heard indeed of some thai have gone to Lo7ido7i\\nvery meanly, and have come in time to be exceedingly\\nwealthy. All commentators agree that this refers to\\nplayer and land-owner Shaksper. The note by the\\neditor to the second edition of Ingleby, says that\\nsome that have gone to lyondon, etc. unmistakably\\npoints to Shakespeare (Shaksper).\\n94. John Davies of Hereford, about 161 1, Ing., 94:\\nTo our English Terence, Mr. Will Shake-speare:\\nSome say (good Will).\\nWhich I, in sport, do sing\\nHadst thou not plaid some kingly part, in sport,\\nThou hadst bin a companion for a King\\nAnd beene a king among the meaner sott,\\nThou hast no rayling, but a raigning Wit.\\nThe editor says here: It seems likely that these\\nlines refer to the fact that Shakspere was a player, a\\nprofession that was then despised and accounted\\nmean. If you were not a player you would pass for\\na good fellow, yes, even a king among the meaner\\nsort.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "rsfe)re;nces to shakespkare. 269\\nJohn Davies of Hereford* (not to be confounded\\nwith another poet, Sir John Davies), was an actor dur-\\ning the greater part of his Hfe. He here speaks of\\nShakespeare as an actor, not as a poet or as a play-\\nwriter. It is true that he heads this line quoted,\\nTo our English Terence, but the lines that follow\\nspeak of the man as a player only. That cannot be\\nconstrued into a testimony that Davies regarded Shak-\\nsper as the author of the Shakespeare plays. Terence\\nwrote comedies only, and if Davies referred to comedies\\nattributed to William Shaksper, the player, he may\\nhave meant Fair Km, the Miller s Daughter, as prob-\\nably as anything else, or interludes and jigges.\\nThere are two possible allusions to player Shaksper\\nby the same John Davies. One of these is found in\\nIngleby, 58, 1603:\\nPlayers, I love yee, and your Qualitief,\\nAs ye are Men, that pass time not abus d:\\nAnd some I love for painting, poesie,\\nW. S. R. B. And say fell Fortune cannot be excus d,\\nThat hath for better uses you refus d:\\nWit, courage, good shape, good partes, and all good,\\nAs long as all these goods are no worse us d.\\nAnd though the stage doth staine pure gentle blood,\\nYet generous ye are in minde and moode.\\nIn the margin to the left are printed the capital let-\\nA contemporary author of a great quantity of verse. Gifted\\nwith extraordinary volubility and self-confidence, but with no\\ndelicacy or taste, the writings of this John Davies have survived\\nmore by reason of their bulk, and their accidental interest of ref-\\nerence or dedication than from any intrinsic merit Bnc. Brit.\\nt Quality in Elizabethan English was the technical term\\nfor th,e actor s profession, Lee, 43.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "270 SHAKSPiER NOT SHAKEJSPKARB).\\nters, W. S. R. B. as reproduced here, supposed by In-\\ngleby to mean William Shaksper and Richard Burbage.\\nThey may have stood for either William Smith or\\nWilliam Sly. William Shaksper would seem to have\\nbeen too insignificant as a player to be thus apos-\\ntrophized.\\nAgain, 84, Ing., 1609, Davies speaks thus:\\nSome followed her by acting all mens parts,\\nThese on a stage she raised (in scorne) to fall:\\nAnd made them Mirrors, by their acting Arts\\nWherein men saw their faults, thogh ne r so small:\\nW. S. R. B. Yet some she guerdoned not, to their desarts;\\nBut othersome, were but ill Action all:\\nWho while they acted ill, ill staid behind,\\n(By custome of their maners) in their minde.\\nAgain the letters W. S. R. B. stand in the margin.\\nThese three mentions and the two possible allusions\\nof and to player Shaksper are all that are to be found\\nin Ingleby and Kurnivall between 1597 and 161 6.\\nThere is a reference to Thos. Heywood, p. 99, 1612,\\nwhich has been claimed as testimony to the player s\\nauthorship, as follows:\\nHere likewise, I must necessarily insert a manifest\\ninjury done me in that work (the Passionate Pilgrim,\\nby W. Shakespeare, a collection made by the piratical\\npublisher, William Jaggard, in which two poems by\\nHeywood were printed as Shakespeare s), by taking\\nthe two epistles of Paris to Helen, and Helen to Paris,\\nand printing them under the name of another, which\\nmay put the world in opinion I might steal them from\\nhim. So the author (Ingleby says Shake-\\nspeare, but Heywood merely says the author) I know", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "refe;rknc:^ to shakejspbard. 271\\nmuch offended with Mr. Jaggard, that altogether un-\\nknown to him, presumed to be so bold with his name.\\nNot much light here. As Jaggard s book contains\\nsome genuine Shakespeare Sonnets, that is, Sonnets\\nby the author of the Shakespeare poems, it is to be\\nunderstood that Heywood had this author, whoever\\nhe was, in mind. Certainly there is nothing to con-\\nnect the authorship with player Shaksper.\\nRichard Barnfeild, 1598, Ing. 26, wrote A Remem-\\nbrance of some English Poets After a verse to Spen-\\nser, and others to Daniel and Drayton, he speaks thus:\\nAnd Siiakespeare thou, whose honey-flowing vaine\\n(Pleasing the World) thy Praises doth obtaine.\\nWhose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweete and chaste)\\nThy name in fame s immortall Booke have plac t.\\nLive ever you, at least in Fame live ever:\\nWell may the Bodye die, but Fame dies never.\\nThere is no intimation here that Barnfeild had a\\npersonal acquaintance with the author of Venus and\\nAdonis, and there is not a word respecting plays writ-\\nten by that author, nor anything to connect the verse\\nwith player Shaksper.\\nJohn Webster, 161 2, Ing. 100, is talking of sev-\\neral authors, the good opinion of whose labors he\\nhad ever truly cherished especially of that full\\nand heightened style of Master Chapman, the labored\\nand understanding works of Master Jonson; the no\\nless worthy composures of the both worthily excellent\\nMaster Beaumont and Master Fletcher; the right happy\\nand copious industry of Mr. Shake-speare, Mr. Decker\\nand Mr. Heywood, etc, Webster was one of the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "272 shakspe;r not shakespkar:^.\\ngreat poets and dramatists of that age, and he, in all\\nhis writings, had nothing to say of Shake-speare\\nother than that he exhibited remarkable industry.\\nThere is nothing personal in this mention, nothing\\nimplying that Webster had an acquaintance with this\\nShake-speare nothing to indicate that he had ever\\nread the Venus and Adonis, or one of the plays; cer-\\ntainly nothing that he had in mind a player at the\\nGlobe Theater.\\nShakspereans cite these words of John Webster as\\nif they were proof conclusive that the contemporaries\\nof William Shaksper held him to be the author of the\\nShakespeare poems and plays. Thus, the Spectator\\n(lyondon) 7th May, 1898, in a paper on Dr. Brandes\\nShakespeare thinks that Brandes should have em-\\nphasized the fact that so great a man as Webster\\nclasses Shakespeare (z. e. Shaksper) promiscuously\\nwith Hey wood and Decker Whereas it is plain that\\nWebster had no thought of anything but of the rapid-\\nity of production; and surely there is in his mention\\nno thought of the player. Dr. Ingleby is led by these\\nand other mentions of Shakespeare in the same style\\nto say that It is plain that the bard of our admira-\\ntion was unknown to the men of that age. No one\\nknew such a bard otherwise than by his writings.\\nThere is a reference, J. M., 1600-12, p. 98, which I\\nreject for uncertainty; and to which Miss Smith has\\nafl xed the asterisk.\\nIt seems tis true that W. S. said,\\nWhen once he heard one courting of a Mayde,\\nBeHeve not thou Mens fayned flatteryes,\\nlyovers will tell a bushell full of lies.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "RKFKR:eNCKS TO SHAKKSPEJARK, 273\\nMiss Smith thinks this must have been an impromptu\\non the part of player Shaksper. But Ingleby says\\nShaksper was unknown to the men of that age, and it\\nis very unlikely that impromptus of an unknown\\nplayer at a public theater would be repeated in society.\\nSome critics refer these W. S. verses to William Smith;\\nMr. Fleay says William Sly.\\nNearly all the Shakespearean commentators quote\\nGreene s words on the upstart crow which I have be-\\nfore given (chap. VIII) as proof that William Shak-\\nsper was, by 1592, a recognized author of plays. I\\nhave shown that there is no valid reason adduced by\\nPhillipps or Ingleby, why Shake-scene should be\\nidentified with player Shaksper, but something more\\nmaybe said on the matter. Fleay, no, says: Mr.\\nR. Simpson (School of Shakspere, 1878) showed that\\nbeautified with our feathers -meant acting plays writ-\\nten by us, and he approves of that interpretation, but\\nbombast out a blank verse undoubtedly refers to\\nShakspere as a writer also Even supposing Greene\\nhad player Shaksper in mind, the words bombast\\netc., do not necessarily or naturally, in the connection,\\nmean anything more than to spout a verse on the stage\\nin a noisy, ranting, uncouth manner. The meaning of\\nbombast, in Webster, is to swell, or fill out, to pad, to\\ninflate. The root meaning of the word, to sound, to\\nboom, is the same as of bomb, and of bombard, of\\nwhich last bombast is put down as a synonym. If we\\nmay assume that player Shaksper is meant, we are to\\nunderstand that this Jack-of- all-trades, his butcher s\\napron just sloughed off, and his language the patois of\\nWarwickshire, was making himself ridiculous in", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "274 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARE.\\nSpouting verses written by us and his turkey-gob-\\nbler strut and his delivery were the objects of Greene s\\nsarcasm. In the same connection he speaks of the\\nShake- scene as one of those puppets that speak from\\nour mouths those ahtics garnished in our colors those\\napes, peasants, painted moiisters, etc. On such a men-\\ntion as that of bombasting out a blank verse to as-\\nsert, first, that Jack Shaksper, the upstart crow, wrote\\nMarlowe s play of 3 Henry VI, and secondly, that\\nbombasting implies that he wrote the Shakespeare\\nplays, is nonsense. Fleay allows that the first half of\\nthe sentence merely refers to the antics of the crow, as\\na player, and certainly the last half of the sentence\\nserves to intensify the crow s description. This is a\\ngood sample of the crooked sticks by which the Shak-\\nspereans endeavor to shore up their theory that the\\ncrow was the great Shakespeare himself.\\nAnother thing: Greene s remarks date from 1592, by\\nwhich time the real Shake-speare had written sev-\\neral of his best plays, I^ove s Labour s Lost, Love s\\nLabour s Won, The Comedy of Errors, The Two\\nGentlemen of Verona, and Romeo and Juliet (I follow\\nFleay, I, 104-6). John Owens thinks that the first\\ndraft of Hamlet dates from 1585-7. Is there anything\\nin these plays to arouse the ire of Greene, and to incite\\nhim to charge the author of them with bombasting\\nin the sense of padding, turgidity, pompous phraseol-\\nogy Nothing at all. His words have no application\\nto such, or any Shakespeare plays. It was the crow,\\nplaj^er Shaksper, he was roasting, if by Shake-scene, he\\nmeant that man. Greene gives no hint that he\\nknew the player as man or author, but if Shake-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "R:fi;pE;RENCES to shakespkark. 275\\nscene could have meant that man, then Greene at-\\ntacked him simply as a jack-at-all- trades, a puppet,\\nantic, speaking our words, etc.\\nThis usual Shakesperean interpretation of Greene s\\nwords brings Chettle forward, and it is claimed that\\nwhat he says is of extreme importance as proving\\nthat William Shaksper was on terms of intimacy with\\nvery great people. Following Fleay, the case is this:\\nChettle was the editor of the posthumous pamphlet en-\\ntitled A Groatsworth of Wit by Robert Greene,\\nwhich begins thus: Base-minded men, all three of\\nyou, if by my misery ye be not warned; for unto none\\nof you (like me) sought those burrs to cleave; those\\npuppets, I mean, that speak from our mouths, those\\nantics garnished in our colors. Is it not strange that\\nI, to whom they all have been beholden; is it not like\\nthat you, to whom they all have been beholden,\\nshall (were ye in that case that I am now) be\\nboth at once of them forsaken Yes, trust them not;\\nfor there is an upstart crow, beautified with our\\nfeathers, that with his Tyger s heart wrapt in a\\nplayer s hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast\\nout a blank verse as the best of you; and being an\\nabsolute Johannes-fac-totum, is in his own conceit the\\nonly Shake-scene in a country. O that I might en-\\ntreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable\\ncourses; and let these apes imitate your past excel-\\nlence, and never more acquaint them with your ad-\\nmired inventions. In this I might insert two\\nmore, that both have writ against those buckram gen-\\ntlemen, but let their own works serve to witness\\nagainst their wickedness, if they persever to maintain", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "276 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKIJSPKARK.\\nany more such, peasants. For other new comers I\\nleave them to the mercy of these painted monsters,\\nwho I doubt will drive the best minded to despise\\nthem.\\nGreene was writing on his death-bed, and the base-\\nminded men he addressed, according to Fleay, are\\nMarlowe, Lodge and Peele, and the two more whom\\nhe might insert, he says, were Kyd and Wilson.\\nIngleby identifies the three as Marlowe, Nash and\\nPeele.\\nFleay says, 17: The aim of the oft-quoted but\\nsorely misunderstood address by Greene to his fellow\\ndramatists is directed against a cojnpany of players,\\nburs, puppets, antics, apes, grooms, painted monsters,\\npeasants, etc. among whom is an upstart crow etc.\\nThis is palpably directed against Shakespere and Lord\\nStranges players. Greene says that they had been\\nbeholden to him and his fellow writers whom he ad-\\ndresses. The Manuscript of Greene was put into\\nChettle s hand for publication, and he w^as blamed\\npersonally for not having omitted some offensive parts.\\nMr. Fleay again speaks of this matter, no, in: In\\nDecember following, Chettle issued his Kind Heart s\\nDream, in which he apologizes for the offense given to\\nMarlowe in the Groatsworth of Wit. He says, Ing.,\\n4: About three months since died Mr. Robert Greene,\\nleaving many papers in sundry bookseller s hands,\\namong others his Groatsworth of Wit, in which a lettef\\nwritten to divers playmakers, is offensively by one or\\ntwo of them taken. With neither of them that\\ntake offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I\\ncare not if I never be. The other, whom at that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "re;fsre;ncks to shakbspkark. 277\\ntime I did not so much spare, as since I wish I\\nhad because myself have seen his demeanor\\nno less civil than he excellent in the quality he pro-\\nfesses. Besides divers of worship have reported his\\nuprightness of dealing which argues his honesty, and\\nhis facetious grace in writing that approves his art.\\nFleay, on this, iii, says: To Peele, he makes no\\napology. Shakspere was not one of those who took\\noffence; they are expressly stated to have been two\\nof the three authors addressed by Greene, the third\\n(lyodge) not being in England. Why the Shakspe-\\nreans should ever have appropriated the complimentary\\nremarks of Chettle on Marlowe to Shaksper is not\\nclear, unless it can be explained on the general prin-\\nciple of grabbing everything in sight that can help the\\nStratford man the principle that makes capital out of\\nforged plays, forged signatures, forged dates of plays\\nperformed, forged statements as to the theaters Shak-\\nsper played, or owned a share, in, fraudulent letters of\\nintroduction, bogus death masks, spurious portraits\\n{vide Rolfe s Shakespeare, the Boy, for one), etc., etc.\\nThese words of Chettle referring to Marlowe, have\\nbeen time and again quoted triumphantly by the\\nShaksperolaters as evidence that William Shaksper\\nhad a facetious grace in writing; that he was reported\\non by divers of worship for his uprightness of dealing,\\nwhich argues his honesty.\\nMrs. Dall adduces it as showing that the player man\\nwas petted and courted by the nobility. Anybody\\ncould see, one would suppose, that Greene was talking\\nof his associate play-wrights. When he spoke of\\nShaksper, if Shake-scene is Shaksper, it was as a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "278 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKSSPSARE.\\nplayer, a burr, ape, crow, peasant, painted monster.\\nMr. Fleay stated more than ten years ago (1886) that\\nthere was an entire misconception as to Chettle s\\nlanguage, but the recent Shakesperean writers claim\\nChettle s testimony, as if Mr. Fleay had never existed,\\nand as if, moreover, the words of Greene and Chettle\\nwere not accessible to all inquirers. lyct the believers\\nthat Shaksper was reported on by divers of worship\\nproduce an invitation to dinner, or to house, from any\\none of worship, or not of worship, for that matter, any\\ngentleman or reputable citizen the briefest form would\\ndo; or any letter in which the writer says he has seen,\\nor met, or talked with, the accomplished player from\\nthe Curtain or the Globe, author of the wonderful\\nShakespeare plays now astonishing the public. Where\\nare these letters and reports of contemporaries Echo,\\nin her old fashion, answers where and there falls a\\ndead silence.\\nThere are thirty allusions to, or mentions of, plays,\\nsome of which cover several plays, as that of Francis\\nMeres, presently to be quoted, who gives the names of\\ntwelve in one paragraph, but without a word of com-\\nment; also that of William Drummond, who names\\nthree; of Simon For man, three (or plays with similar\\nnames); and Lord Treasurer Stanhope, five. Often\\nthe allusions are very obscure, and not one of the\\nthirty carries a thought of the author of the plays.\\nAs an example, Thomas Acherley, 1602, p. 52:\\nWhilst that tny glory midst the clouds was hid,\\nlyike to a jewel in an Bthiop s ear;\\nthe allusion being supposed to be to Romeo and Juliet", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "rkfkre;ncks to shakkspe;are;. 279\\nbut perhaps to an older play of that name than\\nShakspeare s. On p. 114, Anonymous: Sir John\\nFalstaff robbed with a bottle of sack\\nOf obscure reference, p. loi\\nThe Cross his stage was, and he played the part,\\nOf one that for his friend, did pawn his heart.\\nThe one being supposed to be Antonio in the Mer-\\nchant of Venice.\\nSo, p. 107:\\nAnd if it proves so happy as to please.\\nWe ll say tis fortunate, like Pericles;\\nthe reference being supposed to be to the Shakespeare\\nplay of Pericles, though there was another Pericles\\nplay. There is not in one of the allusions to plays or\\npoems, or both together, any more than the mention\\nby name of certain of the works or praises of them.\\nThere is nothing that speaks of the author as any one\\nknown to the writer, nor is there a word that con-\\nnects poems or plays with the player Shaksper. If\\nany one supposed, up to 1623, that player and author\\nwere the same person, he does not say so, and the fact\\nthat no one said so is warrant for believing that no one\\nthought so. The myth had not got a start. Thus,\\np. 16, John Weever, 1595: Honie-tong d Shake-\\nspeare, when I saw thine issue etc. Or Francis\\nMeres, p. 21, 1598: As the Greeke tongue is made\\nfamous and eloquent by Homer, Hesiod, etc. and the\\nI^atin language by Virgil, Ovid, etc. so the English\\nlanguage is mightily enriched by Sidney,\\nSpenser, Daniel, Shake-speare, Marlowe, Chapman,\\netc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "28o SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARE).\\nAs the soul of Buphorbus was thought to Hve in\\nPythagoras, so the sweete, wittie, soul of Ovid lives\\nin mellifluous and honey- tongued Shakespeare: wit-\\nness his Venus and Adonis, etc.\\nThis sort of eulogy does not give one shred of help\\nto settle the question of the authorship of the Shake-\\nspeare poems and plays.\\nSuppose that a writer of 1858 had thus expressed\\nhimself: As the Greek tongue is made famous and\\neloquent by Homer, etc., and the Latin tongue by\\nVirgil, Ovid, etc., so is the English tongue mightily\\nenriched by Dickens, Thackeray and George Kliot, the\\nlatter being the nom de plume of an author of that\\nperiod, whose personality was unknown. George\\nBliot was a name, nothing more, and William\\nShakespeare was a name and nothing more. To say\\nthat William Shakespeare and George Bliot had en-\\nriched the English tongue means simply that their\\nworks deserve the highest praise. In neither was\\nthere a thought of the author, the individual the\\nthought was of the works alone. To claim that such\\na mention of George Bliot connects or identifies that\\nname with a low comedian or minstrel of that period,\\nwhose name chanced to be George Bliot, or Blyot,\\nand is proof that the comedian was the author of the\\nMill on the Floss, and Adam Bede, would manifestly\\nbe absurd. Just so, to claim that the mention of\\nMeres, Barnfeild, Harvey and others all to the works\\nof William Shakespeare, with no thought of the in-\\ndividual, connects that author with William Shaksper\\nthe pla^^er, is no less absurd.\\nAnother is Bdmund Bolton, 1610, p. 91; For-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "RE;FE;R:eNCKS TO shakkspeare;. 281\\nasmucli as the people s judgments are uncertain, the\\nbooks out of which we gather the most warrantable\\nEnglish, are not many to my remembrance.\\nBut among the chief, or rather the chief, are in my\\nopinion, these: Sir Thomas More s works, George\\nChapman s first seven books of Iliades, Samuel Dan-\\nyel, Michael Drayton his Heroical Epistles of England,\\nMarlowe his excellent fragment of Hero and Leander,\\nShakespeare, Mr. Francis Beaumont and innumerable\\nother writers for the stage. Here is no intimation\\nthat the player is the writer of the plays. The name\\nShakespeare is cited as one of the authors out of\\nwhom we gather the most warrantable English and\\nthat is right, for from the Shakespeare plays are cer-\\ntainly to be gathered that thing.\\nAnother is Thomas Freeman, 1614, p. 106:\\nShakespeare, that nimble Mercury, thy brain,\\nLulls many hundred Argus-eyes asleep.\\nSo fit, for all thou fashionest thy vein.\\nAt the horse-foote fountain thou hast drunk full deep,\\nVirtues or vices, these to thee all one is;\\nWho loves chaste life, there is lyucrece for a teacher;\\nWho list read lust, there s Venus and Adonis.\\nBesides in plays thy wit winds like Meander;\\nWhence needy new-composers borrow more\\nThan Terence doth from Plautus or Meander.\\nBut to praise thee aright I want thy store;\\nThen let thine own works thine own worth upraise,\\nAnd help t adorne thee with deserved bays.\\nWhat this has to do with William Shaksper, I do\\nnot see. It is evident however, that Freeman held\\nthe author of Venus and Adonis to have written\\nplays, not specified, and he judged correctly. That", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "282 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARE.\\nauthor was Marlowe, and lie wrote Edward III, and\\nmany other plays.\\nIngleby well says: The absence of sundry great\\nnames with which no pains of research, scrutiny, or\\nstudy, could connect the most trivial allusion to the\\nbard or his works (such e. g., as Lord Brooke,\\nlyord Bacon, Selden, Sir John Beaumont, Henry\\nVaughan, and Lord Clarendon) is tacitly signij cant,\\nthe iteration of the same vapid and affected compli-\\nments, couched in conventional terms, from writers of\\nthe first two periods, (1598-1643) comparing Shake-\\nspeare s tongue pen or vein to silver, honey,\\nsugar, or nectar, while they ignore his greater and dis-\\ntinguishing qualities, is expressly significant It is\\nplain, for one thing, that the bard of our admiration\\nwas unknown to the men of that age Preface.\\nAnd again: ^Assuredly, no one during the Centurie\\nhad any suspicion that the genius of Shakespeare was\\nzc7iique, and that he was sui generis, i. e. the only ex-\\nemplar of his species. Those who ranked him very high\\ncompared him to Spenser, Sydney, Chapman, Jonson,\\nFletcher, and even lesser lights, and most of the judges\\nof the time assigned the first place to one of them\\nNote this remarkable admission by Dr. Ingleby, that\\nduring the hundred years from the appearance of the\\nShakespeare plays, no one had discovered that the\\ngenius of William Shakespeare was unique, or\\neven suspected it. The plays had achieved no special\\nreputation, and as the Dr. says, by most of the judges\\nthey were ranked below the productions of several\\nother authors. It seems impossible in the light of\\nto-day that this could have been so, but the Centurie", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "rkfkre;ncks to shakkspeare;. 283\\nof Prayse substantiates Ingleby s assertion, and there\\nis no gainsaying it.\\nWe do not need to be told, that the Venus and\\nAdonis is melHfluous, or that I^ove s I^abour s L^ost is\\nexcellent for the stage. Dr. Ingleby might as well\\nbring authorities to prove that Elizabeth was a well-\\nknown queen. We have the poems and plays, and\\ncan judge of their quality ourselves. But this is what\\na large part of the Doctor s references tell, and\\nnothing more. No one disputes the fact that these\\nworks appeared between 1587 and 1623, and there\\nwas no need of citing a multitude of witnesses to\\nthat matter. What we do want to know is, who was\\nWilliam Shakespeare, the author of these plays, for\\nthat the name concealed his personality is manifest.\\nWe know that he was the son of a gentleman, and\\nbrought up as a gentleman; that he had a thorough\\neducation; that he had studied and traveled abroad;\\nthat he owned or had access to all books, ancient or\\nmodern because, as Dr. Baynes says of the Venus\\nand Adonis, and its author s profound classical edu-\\ncation, the plays themselves give evidence of all these\\nthings. We should have liked to see him in his\\nprivacy, working at one of these plays, should have\\nliked to hear him talk, should have been delighted at\\nreading a letter from his hand. If Drs. Ingleby and\\nFurnivall, or Miss Smith, had given us something of\\nthis sort, there would have been sense in these refer-\\nences. Here were plays coming out rapidly for\\nthirty-six years, 1587-1623, master-pieces in litera-\\nture. During the first twenty-nine, or from 1587-\\nj6i6, tjiere are, according to Ingleby, 65 mentions of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "284 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKEISPEARS.\\nor allusions to the poems and plays (some so obscure\\nthat it takes a keen scented Shakespearean to discover\\nthem), and but thirty of these to the plays alone\\nin all contemporary literature, or in journals, note-\\nbooks an age of common place books H.-P. I,\\n275), records and correspondence. That makes, count-\\ning everything cited by Ingleby and Miss Smith, good,\\nbad, or indifferent, scarcely more than two mentions\\nper year to both poems and plays, or to author Shake-\\nspeare by name, and but one mention per year of the\\nplays. Counting the twenty- one Fresh Allusions\\ngiven by Furnivall for the same period, there are less\\nthan two mentions of the plays per year. As I have\\nbefore said, two or more plays are sometimes included\\nin one of Ingleby s mentions, and separating them, in\\nsuch cases, there are 88 mentions or references to\\nsingle plays. Thus;\\nRichard III, in tlie 29 years, is spoken of 9 times.\\nHamlet, and Romeo and Juliet, each, 8\\nThe Comedy of Errors, Henry IV, Part 2nd, IvOve s\\nLabour s Lost, Richard II, each, 5\\nHenry IV. Part I, Julius Caesar, Pericles, each,. 4\\nHenry VI, Merchant of Venice, Macbeth, Tem-\\npest, Titus Andronicus, Winter s Tale, each, 3\\nCjrmbeline, King John, Midsummer Night s Dream,\\neach, 2\\nHenry V Much Ado About Nothing, Taming of\\nthe Shrew, Troilus and Cressida, Twelfth Night,\\nAntony and Cleopatra, Love s Labour s Won,\\n(All s Well, etc.) each i\\nThat is, what is supposed to have been the most\\npopular Shakespeare play, Richard III, in 29 years\\nis spoken of but nine times, or once in three years;", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "Hamlet and Romeo, but eight times; Love s I^abour s\\nLost, the first play of the series, but four times, or\\nonce in seven years; Merchant of Venice and Macbeth,\\nonce in nearly ten j^ears; Henry V, supposed to have\\nbeen amazingly popular, but once in the whole period.\\nThis is a very singular state of things. Plays alleged\\nby Phillipps to have taken the town by storm, to\\nhave been the talk of the town as if every soul were\\nhurrying to the Curtain or the Globe, or discussing these\\nwonderful things, are found to have been spoken of\\nor alluded to in all contemporaneous literature on an\\naverage of the whole, about three times in twenty-\\nnine years. I have been astonished at the results of\\nan examination of the Centurie of Prayse. I had sup-\\nposed that William Shakespeare though writing\\nunder an assumed name, and personally unknown,\\nwas not without honor in his own age; that all literary\\nEngland had recognized the rising of a great drama-\\ntist, and that he soon took his place as the brightest\\nstar in the dramatic constellation. Far from. it. No\\none observed the rising, no one cared for the plays, or\\ngave a thought to their author. There is not a hint\\nin Ingleby or Furnivall that any one considered it\\nworth while to inquire who was writing under the\\nname. William Shakespeare. Apparently these\\nplays attracted no more attention in England than if\\nthey had appeared in a foreign country. Collectively,\\nthey were never spoken of. It is true that Francis\\nMeres, 1598, enumerated twelve plays by name, which\\nwere attributed to Shakespeare but two, if not\\nthree, of them were written by Marlowe, and able\\ncritics, assign others to different authors. To say that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "286 SHAKSPER NO I SHAKESPEJAREJ.\\na play was Shakespeare s in 1598, was equivalent\\nto saying that it was written by a club of play-wrights,\\nwho chose to be hidden under a sobriquet.\\nAll mentions are of the separate plays, and they\\nmight have been written by as many different authors,\\nfor all that has come down to us. No one ever wrote,\\nthe author of Romeo and Juliet has written a new\\nplay, called Midsummer Night s Dream etc., but\\neach play is spoken of as if it had no connection with\\nany other. This condition obtained till the plays\\nwere collected and published in the Folio of 1623.\\nUntil that year, there were no works of William\\nShakespeare.\\nIt is clear enough that separately or collectively, the\\nShakespeare plays, up to 1616, had no reputation at\\nall that they were unknown. So Dr. Ingleby says:\\nIt is plain that the bard of our admiration was un-\\nknown to the men of that age and this bard cer-\\ntainly did not set people talking about him or his.\\nplays. Fleay says: Allusions to his works will be\\nfound collected in Dr. Ingleby s Centurie of Prayse;\\nbut they consist almost entirely of slight references.\\nNeither as addressed to him by others, nor\\nby him to others, do any commendatory verses ex-\\nist in connection with any of his or any other men s\\nworks published in his life-time. That is to say, he\\nnever wrote a line in praise of the works of a con-\\ntemporary, and no contemporary wrote a line in\\npraise of his works, before 1623. Certainly, a sur-\\nprising fact! As I said before, Shakespeare, author\\nof the plays not the player was without honor in", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "S.EiP BREjNCE^S TO SHAKigSPE^AR:^. 287\\nhis own age; nobody cared for the plays, or thought\\nthem worth notice.\\nMany persons have wondered that Francis Bacon\\nshould not have spoken of, or seemed to know, a con-\\ntemporary whose writings were steeped in his own\\nphilosophy, particularly as every other literary man of\\nhis time in England is mentioned in his correspond-\\nence, or his published works. But Ingleby proves in-\\ncon trovertibly, that nobody observed or appreciated\\nthe plaj^s, and this being so, there was no reason why\\nBacon should speak of works or writer. If in a\\nfuture century, searching all literature between 1850\\nand 1890, the name and works of Alfred Tennyson\\nshould be discovered as spoken of but once or twice a\\nyear, it would argue himself and works unknown.\\nJust so with Shakespeare and his plays. It was only\\nafter many years, and after several generations of men\\nhad passed away, that they came to have the reputation\\nthey have to-day.\\nDr. Ingleby s book was undertaken solely to trj^- and\\nmake a case for the Stratford man, to father the poems\\nand plays on him. And what success has he met with\\nFor twenty-five years, this man was engaged at his\\ntrade in lyondon and the provinces (i 587-161 6), and\\nthree of his contemporaries in all these years are found\\nto have spoken of him, and no man ever spoke of him\\na second time. One said he was a hunks; one tells a\\ntale which shows him to have been an adulterer; a\\nthird says he would have been a decent fellow had he\\nnot been a player. That makes one mention of him\\nevery nine years and eight months. Nineteen years\\nafter his death, and twenty-five after his return to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "28g SHAKSP:eR NOl* shak:^sp:^ar:^.\\nStratford, one old man bethinks him that he used to\\ncall the plaj^er Will, and that he had an enchanting\\nquill that commanded mirth or passion, and was a mel-\\nlifluous fellow. Had Heywood testified that this was\\nthe man who wrote Twelfth Night or lycar, we should\\nknow a good deal more than we do now. To say that\\nhe had an enchanting quill, because the writer needed\\na word to rhj^me with Will, carries no meaning with\\nit, nor does it to say that he was mellifluous. Probably\\nHeywood meant that the player was a delightful and\\npersuasive fellovf when he had wet his whistle. And\\nyet this mention by Heywood is interpreted by the\\nwilling Shaksperolaters to mean that here at last is a\\ncertificate to Shaksper s authorship of the Shakespeare\\nplays. He was a mellifluous fellow, and I will say,\\nin order to get the proper rhyme, that he had an en-\\nchanting quill. That means, (it appears) that Shak-\\nsper wrote I^ear and Midsummer Night s Dream.\\nSuppose we grant that the player ever learned to\\nwrite, and got so far that he could use a quill, an ac-\\ncomplishment which I deny that he ever possessed, may\\nnot Heywood have had in mind the Hog in Armour, or\\nthe Comedy of George- a- Green Where does a Shake-\\nspeare play come in? The last of the plays just men-\\ntioned, was printed as done by William Shakespeare\\nand up to the issue of the Folio, there was as much\\nreason for attributing it to Shakespeare as Hamlet, or\\nLear.\\nThe three references given above are all that Dr.\\nIngleby has been able to find from 1587 to 16 16, re-\\nlating to the player. Halliwell-Phillipps believes, how-\\never, that there is another reference to the man, not", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "given by lugleby, thus: In May, 1602, the dramatist\\nbought from William and John Combe for ^320, one\\nhundred and seven acres of land near Stratford-on-\\nAvon. Halliwell-Phillipps says it may have been\\nthat this acquisition is referred to by Crosse in his\\nVertues Commonwealth, 1603, when he speaks thus\\nungenerously of the actors and dramatists of the pe-\\nriod; as these copper-laced gentlemen growe rich,\\npurchase lands by adulterous plays and not a few of\\nthem usurers and extortioners which they exhaust out\\nof the purses of their haunters, etc., etc.\\nWe can trust the judgment of Mr, Halliwell-Phil-\\nlipps, and doubtless here is another contemporary tes-\\ntimony, though not found in Ingleby nor Furnivall, to\\nthe character of the man Shaksper.\\nVenus and Adonis had appeared in 1593, and I^u-\\ncrece a year after. The authorities agree that in\\nElizabeth s day poets above all others honored a lan-\\nguage, while writers of plays were very low company.\\nFleay says: The writing of poems was fit work for a\\nprince, but of plays was only congruous with strolling\\nvagabondism and Phillipps tells us that the writers\\nof plays stood very close to the level of buffoons\\nand tumblers. The Shakespeare poems at once ex-\\ncited interest, and edition after edition poured from\\nthe press, always bearing the name of William\\nShakespeare How comes it then that John Man-\\nningham, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-law, re-\\ncording in his diary that naughty story of player\\nShakespere, should not have mentioned him as the\\nwriter of the splendid poems which all the world has\\nread or is reading, and should consider it necessary to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "290 SHAKSPE;R NOl* SHAKKSPE^ARlJ.\\nappend to the entry Shakespere s name William as\\nif one should enter in a note-book Scott s name\\nWalter Burns name Robert In penning the\\nname Shakespere, the writer s thought would turn\\nnaturally to the well-known poet; and player and\\npoet would have been associated in his mind. The\\nfact is, there exists no evidence that any man of that\\ngeneration thought player Shaksper, or Shakespere\\nas Manningham wrote it, was the individual whose\\nname, William Shakespeare stood on the title\\npages of the poems. Had the literarj^ public known\\nthat the great poet was a hireling at the Curtain,\\ncompelled to prance in Kempe s jigges before an\\nignorant public theater audience to earn his daily\\nbread (see charming cut of Kempe, before given),\\ncuriosity would have made cultivated persons eager to\\nget a sight of him, and many an offer of assistance\\nand place would have been urged on him. Great\\nnoblemen would have contended for him, E)lizabeth\\nwould have provided for him, and the records of the\\ntime would have repeatedly spoken of William Shake-\\nspeare. There is nothing of the kind; Manningham,\\nin effect, says: I heard a good storj^ the other day of\\na player- fellow named Shakespere; who he is I know\\nnot except that his christian name is William, and\\nhe hangs out at the Curtain.\\nWilliam Shakespeare, the poet and play-wright, was\\nunknown to the men of that age. Dr. Ingleby is at\\nthe pains to tell us so emphatically, although ten\\neditions of the poems, bearing his name on the title\\npage, were launched upon the country between 1593\\nand 1 61 6. Nobody knew who Shakespeare was; no-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0312.jp2"}, "313": {"fulltext": "RE^Ifl^RKNCSS TO SHAKESPEARE. 29 1\\nbody had seen liim or was reported as having talked\\nwith him. His personahty was as impenetrable as later\\nwas that of Junius.\\nBut, on the contrary, William Shaksper, the player,\\nwas well known to certain classes of the men of that\\nage, and Ingleby s remarks have no application to\\nhim. For a score of years, he had been as conspicuous\\nin connection with the theaters as were Kempe and\\nTarleton. He had repeatedly strolled with his com-\\npany through every shire in England. The only\\npossible conclusion is that this player Shaksper was\\nnot known as the author of the poems or plays. Had\\nhe been, there is no conceivable reason for making a\\nmystery of the matter. According to his admirers,\\nhe thought no more of the plays he wrote than the\\nturtle does of the eggs which it lays in the sand. He\\ntossed them off as the need of the theater demanded,\\nand left them to shift for themselves.\\nAfter player Shaksper s death, in 1616, there is\\nscarcely a mention of him extant by any one who had\\nknown him personally. No cultivated gentleman had\\ncared to make the acquaintance of a man whose de-\\nspised life profession put him on the level with jug-\\nglers, tumblers and buffoons, even were there no other\\nreason. What mentions there are, are almost ex-\\nclusively contained in the elegiac and eulogistic prose\\nor verse prefixed to the First Folio, by order of the\\nprinters, and again to the 2nd Folio, in 1632. The\\nwriters in the two cases were in part the same. They\\nall seemed to claim that player and author were one\\nindividual. For reasons, presently given (Ch. XI),", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0313.jp2"}, "314": {"fulltext": "292 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAEEJSPSARE;.\\nthis entire mass of testimony is worthless, and de-\\nserves no consideration.\\nIn 1622, William Basse, (Ingleby, 136) wrote the\\nfollowing lines: On Mr. William Shakespeare; he\\ndied in April, 161 6\\nAnother elegiac effusion:\\nSleep, rare Tragediau, Shakespeare, sleep alone,\\nThy unmolested peace, unshared cave\\nPossess as Lord, not tenant, of thy grave.\\nThat unto us and others it may be\\nHonor hereafter to be laid by thee.\\nCertainly there is no light here on the authorship of\\nthe plays. Tragedian is the appellation of a tragic\\nactor, as the tragedian Booth. Ingleby, 3, makes it\\nthe equivalent of Shake-scene of Greene s diatribe,\\nand for illustration he quotes Jonson s line from the\\npreface to the First Folio (as before stated in Chap. VI)\\nto hear thy Buskin tread\\nAnd shake a Stage.\\nAlso a passage from The Puritaine, 1607: Have\\nyou never seen a stalking-stamping Player, that will\\nraise a tempest with his toung and thimder with his\\nheels? There is no reason to suppose that Basse\\nmeant anything more than a compliment to the de-\\nparted player as a player.\\nIn Sir Richard Baker s Chronicle of the Kings of\\nEngland unto the Death of King James\\n1643, is a list of men of note in Elizabeth s time\\nthe ocean is not more boundless than the number\\nof men of note of her time the statesmen, soldiers,\\nnaval commanders and sailors, orators, men of learn-\\ning, writers, poets, theologians, etc., etc., but among", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0314.jp2"}, "315": {"fulltext": "rbfe;rsncss to shakkspkark. 293\\nthe poets is no such name as William Shakespeare.\\nThe chronicler appends to his list this sentence:\\nAfter such men it might be thought ridiculous to\\nspeak of stage-players; but seeing excellency in the\\nmeanest thing deserves remembering it may\\nbe allowed to etc. He then mentions Richard Bur-\\nbage, and Edward Allen as such actors as no age\\nmust ever look to see the like; and Richard Tarleton\\nfor the clown s part never had his match, never will\\nhave. For writers of plays, and such as have been\\nplayers themselves, William Shakespeare and Ben-\\njamin Jonson have especially left their names remem-\\nbered to posterity.\\nSpoken thirty-two years after William Shaksper\\nleft the Globe Theater, this is feeble and wholly in-\\nadequate testimony as to that man s authorship of the\\nShakespeare plays. Baker may have accepted the as-\\nsurances of the Folio that the player wrote these plays,\\nbut he knew nothing of him as the author of the\\nVenus and Adonis, or the Sonnets. He overlooks the\\npoet completely, and, apologizing for mentioning so\\nmean a thing as a stage-player, of whom it might be\\nthought ridiculous to speak introduces Shaksper\\nalong with Burbage and the clown, Tarleton. Of the\\nWilliam Shakespeare of the Venus and Adonis Baker\\nknew nothing at all.\\nThis is all that any one said after the player s death.\\nThere are, however, plenty of testimonies to Shaksper\\nin his business capacity, as the trader, money-lender,\\nthe litigant, the rich man, but in a literary capacity,\\nthere is nothing. And yet there have been multitudes\\nof m,en and women who have worked like beavers to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0315.jp2"}, "316": {"fulltext": "294 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nmake this ignorant strolling player to be the author of\\nthe greatest and the most learned works of imagina-\\ntion and philosophy in the language; men and women,\\nwho had they met the man on the lyondon streets, in\\n1597, or at any time, would have scorned to touch his\\nhand, or to be known as his acquaintance.\\nThe conclusion of the whole matter is, that not one\\nof player Shaksper s contemporaries testified in print\\nor in correspondence, that he, Shaksper, was the\\nauthor of these works. He was unknown to the\\nmen of that age a significant fact. According to\\nthe modern view, he spent more than twenty years in\\nwriting the most wonderful poems and plays poet\\never put his hand to, and not an allusion in contem-\\nporary literature tells the future generations that he\\nwas known as an author at all. Jonson was known\\nas an author, as were Beaumont, Greene, Marlowe,\\nand scores of others, and there is abundant contem-\\nporary testimony to every one of these; but no one\\nknew and testified that William Shaksper, one of the\\nmost prolific authors then living, if he really wrote the\\nShakespeare plays, was an author at all. The fact is,\\nthe theory that William Shaksper wrote the poems\\nand plays originated after his death, and developed in\\nthe following century, regardless of evidence and pos-\\nsibility.\\nMr. T. W. White believes that Dr. Ingleby has\\nomitted from his Centurie two of the most important\\nallusions to player Shaksper in contemporary authors,\\none of which is to be found in the Return from Par-\\nnassus, 1604. H.-P., I, 212, tells us that it was on\\nthe 15th of March, 1604, that James undertook his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0316.jp2"}, "317": {"fulltext": "REFKRENCES TO SHAKESPEARE. 295\\nformal march from the Tower to Westminster.\\nIn the royal train were the nine actors to whom the\\nspecial license had been granted the previous year, in-\\ncluding of course Shakespeare (Shaksper) and his\\nthree friends, Burbage, Heminge and Condell. Each\\nof them were presented with four 3^ards and a half of\\nscarlet cloth, the usual dress allowance to players be-\\nlonging to the household. It is believed that this\\naffair is referred to in the Return from Parnassus\\nhere given:\\nBetter it is among fiddlers to be chief,\\nThan at a player s trencher beg relief.\\nBut is t not strange those mimic apes should prize\\nUnhappy scholars at a hireling s rate?\\nVile world, that lifts them up to high degree,\\nBut treads us down in grovelling misery.\\nEngland affords those glorious vagabonds\\nThat carried erst their fardels on their backs.\\nCoursers to ride on through the gazing streets,\\nSooping it in their glaring satin suits,\\nAnd pages to attend their masterships.\\nWith mouthing words that better wits have framed\\nThey purchase lands, and now esquires are made.\\nReed says (43): No other actor (than Shaksper)\\nis known at that time to have possessed large landed\\nestates, or aspired to any mark of social distinction.\\nThe other allusion is found in Ben Jonson s Epigram\\non Poet- Ape, Moxon s Jonson, p. 669. Mr. White s\\ntheory is that manager Shaksper bought plays of poor\\nauthors exactly as his contemporary, manager Hens-\\nlowe, did, as is certainly known; also employed poor\\nplay-wrights to revise and re-write old plays, as Hens-\\nlowe did; and in both cases passed them off as his own,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0317.jp2"}, "318": {"fulltext": "296 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPBARB),\\nas Henslowe did not. Heuce the appropriateness of\\nthe Poet- Ape:\\nPoor Poet- Ape, that would be thought our chief,\\nWhose works are e en the frippery of wit,\\nFrom brokage is become so bold a thief\\nAs we, the robbed, leave rage, and pity it.\\nAt first he made low shifts, woiild pick and glean,\\nBuy the reversion of old plays; now grown\\nTo a little wealth, and credit in the scene.\\nHe takes up all, makes each man s wit his own;\\nAnd, told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes\\nThe sluggish gaping auditor devours;\\nHe marks not whose t was first: and after-thnes\\nMay judge it to be his, as well as ours.\\nFool As if half eyes will not know a fleece,\\nFrom locks of wool, or from the whole piece.\\nBoth Mr. T. W. White and Mr. Edwin Reed dis-\\ncover evidences of the existence of some great im-\\nposture on the stage, during Shaksper s career.\\nOur age doth produce many such, one of the greatest\\nbeing a stage-player, a man \\\\yith sufficient ingenuity\\nfor imposition. Confessio Fraternitalis; chap, xii;\\nanonymous, circa 1615. Jonson s Poet-Ape:\\nNow grown\\nTo a little wealth and credit in the scene.\\nHe takes up all, makes each man s wit his own, etc.\\nThe Return from Parnassus:\\nWith mouthing words that better wits have framed,\\nThey purchase lands, and now esquires are made.\\nRaTSie S Ghost. Thou shalt learn to be frugal to\\nfeed upon all men; and when thou feelest thy purse well-\\nlined, buy thee some place in the country.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0318.jp2"}, "319": {"fulltext": "REP EJRBJNCEIS TO SHAKEJSPEJARB;. 297\\nMr. Alexander B, Grosart, in Green Pastures, be-\\ning Choice Extracts from the works of Robert\\nGreene lyondon, 1894, says: We are so used to\\nidolatrize Shakespeare that we shirk in-\\nquiring into his relations with his precursors and con-\\ntemporaries. I, for one, feel satisfied that fuller\\nknowledge of these would prove that for years, when\\nfeeling his way upward, Shakespeare was a very buc-\\ncaneer in spoiling the Egyptians, or metaphorically in\\nturning to his own account the manuscript writings of\\nunfortunate contemporaries who were constrained to\\nwrite for the theaters. Mr. Grosart, by the way,\\nbelieves the Stratford man was the real William\\nShakespeare, and his opinion of him is scarcely better\\nthan Jonson s of the poet-ape.\\nJudge Stotsenburg, (Ind. News, 7th Apr., 1897)\\nmakes the point that as William- Shaksper could not\\nwrite, he could not have been the Ape referred to.\\nThere seems to me nothing in Jonson s lines that\\nnecessarily implies the ability in the Ape to personally\\nwrite anything. It is apparently enough that he\\ncould get his writing done by other men, who could\\npick and glean or that he could buy the reversion of\\nold plays In one way or another the Ape got plays\\nout of other men, and passed them off for his own;\\nthis was the gist of his offense.\\nGreene had written of Fair Em an anonymous\\nproduction attributed to Shakespeare: The ass is\\nmade proud by this underhand brokery. And he that\\ncannot write true English without the help of clerks\\nof parish churches, will needs. make himself the father\\nof interludes.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0319.jp2"}, "320": {"fulltext": "298 shakspe;r not shakkspeare.\\nAfter 1623, it would seem natural that the name\\nof William Shakespeare as the author of the\\nFolio, should be oftener in men s thoughts than it had\\nbefore been, but, on examining Ingleby for references\\nbetween 1623 and 1632, it is clear that it is not so.\\nIn the nine years there are but seventeen mentions of\\nman or works. During the same period, I find in\\nFurnivall no mention of the man, and but seven, all\\ntrivial, of the works.\\nIn illustration: Sir Herbert s Office Book, Ing., p.\\n157, mentions two of the plays as having been per-\\nformed at Whitehall in 1623 and 1624. In 1627, he\\nenters the sum of as having been received from\\nMr. Heminge in the company s name, for forbidding\\nthe playing of Shakespeare s plays, to the Red Bull\\nCompany. What plays they were is not stated, but\\nthe Globe Company appears to have had rights in\\nsome of the Shakespeare plays. As I have noted else-\\nwhere (Chap. XIII), it is a curious fact, that in all\\nthis literature, no single play is identified as Shake-\\nspeare s, as in this Office Book, we read of Shake-\\nspeare plays, but never of a play, as Shakespeare s\\nHamlet, Twelfth Night, etc.\\nP. 159, 1524, says of a certain sort of people that\\nthey are like Hamlet s Ghost.\\nP. 160, 1624, also speaks of Hamlet s Ghost, and,\\nby name only, of Pyramus and Thisbe.\\nP. 161, 1624, speaks of Venus and Adonis, and also\\nof Benedick and Beatrice.\\nP, 164, 1625, A young Gentle Lady, having read\\nthe works of Shakespeare (the Folio) made me this\\nquestion about Falstaff and Sir John Oldcastle.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0320.jp2"}, "321": {"fulltext": "re;fb;rences to shakespeare. 299\\nP. 186, Drayton, 1627:\\nShakespeare, thou hast as smooth a comic vein\\nFitting the sock and in thy natural brain\\nAs strong conception, and as clear a rage\\nAs any one that traflS.cked with the stage.\\nReferring to the author of the plays, whoever he\\nwas.\\nCowley, 1628: p. 170:\\nmay be\\nBy his Father in his study took\\nAt Shakespeare s plays etc.\\nOne of the few mentions of the Folio.\\nP. 172, B. Jonson, 1629, calls Pericles a mouldy\\ntale\\nand stale\\nAs the Shrieves crusts, and nasty as his fish-\\nScraps out of every dish\\nThrown forth and raked into the common tub,\\nMay keep up the Play-club:\\nThere, sweepings do as well\\nAs the best ordered meal, etc.\\nNot very complimentary to the author of that play.\\nP. 174, same, 1630-1637, as to Shakespeare s never\\nblotting a line which I speak of in the next chapter.\\nP. 181, 1630, Anon: in a jest book, tells of an odd\\nepitaph in the church- yard, at Stratford-on-Avon, a\\ntown most remarkable for the birth of famous William\\nShakespeare.\\nP. 176, John Milton, 1630: An Epitaph on the\\nadmirable Dramaticke Poet, W. Shakespeare.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0321.jp2"}, "322": {"fulltext": "300 SHAKSPEIR NOT shakespbjare;.\\nWhat need my Shakespeare for his honor d bones\\nThe labor of an Age, in piled stones,\\nOr that his hallowed Reliques should be hid\\nUnder a starre-y pointing Pyramid\\nDear Sonne of Memory, great Heire of Fame\\nWhat needst thou such dull witness to thy name\\nThou in our wonder and astonishment\\nHast built thyself a lasting monument:\\nFor whilst\\nThy easie numbers flow, and that each heart.\\nFrom the leaves of thy unvalued Booke\\nThose Delphicke lines with deep Impression tooke,\\nThen thou our fancy of herselfe bereaving\\nDost make us marble with too much conceiving.\\nAnd so Sepulchred in such pomp doth lie\\nThat Kings for such a Tombe would wish to die.\\nMilton s meaning is this: Every heart by the plas-\\ntic power of fancy takes deep impression of Shake-\\nspeare s lines. Then, by deprivation of fancy, we are\\nturned to marble, and we thus become an inscribed\\nmonument to Shakespeare. Ingleby. He is so im-\\npressed on reading the plays in the Folio, that he\\nthinks the dramatic poet W. Shakespeare needs no\\npiled stones, the labor of an age, and no star-pointing\\npyramid. It is the old thought Exegi mo7iumentum\\netc. All cultivated men to-day will agree with Milton\\nthat the man who wrote the Shakespeare plays needs\\nno other monument to keep his memory alive. Milton\\nknew nothing of player Shaksper. He was a baby\\nwhen that man left lyondon for Stratford, and but\\nseven when the player died. But he knew the poet\\nShakespeare from the Folio, and hence his Epitaph.\\nIn E Allegro (1632) Milton has these lines", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0322.jp2"}, "323": {"fulltext": "RiBFEjRSNCKS TO SHAKEJSPE^ARE. 30I\\nThen to the well-trod stage anon\\nIf Jonson s learned sock be on,\\nOr sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy s child\\nWarble his native wood-notes wild.\\nOn this Dr. Morgan says: We take this to mean\\nthat the poet, when in his L Allegro mood, will,\\namong other delights, go to the theater to hear a\\nlearned play of Jonson s, or some of Shakespeare s\\nsweet wood-notes. But to show how uncritical the\\nwhole passage is, we have only to ask where in Shake-\\nspeare are we to look for native wood-notes wild\\nsuch wood-notes as are sounded are not wild, but most\\nclassically^ timed and measured No poet was ever\\nless a warbler of wood-notes wild Walter Savage\\nI^andor.\\nMilton never saw a play acted in a London theater.\\nThe play-house was abhorred by the Puritans, and\\navoided by those who desired the character of serious-\\nness and decency. A grave lawyer would have de-\\nbased his dignity, and a young trader would have\\nimpaired his credit by appearing in these mansions of\\nlicentiousness. Dr. Johnson.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, I, 118, gives the Allegro\\nquotation as a proof that Shaksper was believed to\\nhave written the plays by inspiration: That Shake-\\nspeare wrote without effort, by inspiration, not by de-\\nsign, was, so far as it has been recorded, the unani-\\nmous belief of his contemporaries and immediate\\nsuccessors instancing Milton s line above given as\\nevidence that one of his immediate successors thought", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0323.jp2"}, "324": {"fulltext": "302 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKARK.\\nthe manager of the Globe inspired.* Whom else of\\nall Shaksper s contemporaries, Mr. Phillipps has in\\nview, he does not tell us, and there is no clue to their\\nnames in Ingleby or Furnivall. I fear the unanimous\\nbelief of both contemporaries and successors must be\\nrestricted to the single successor, John Milton, who was\\nno contemporary, and the man who could say so little,\\nwhile meaning so much, could have voiced the an-\\nswers of the Delphian Apollo.\\nThese, and four notices of plays, or of Venus and\\nAdonis, are all the mentions up to the issue of the 2nd\\nFolio, 1632. Of the seventeen, two are of plays\\nacted, by title; eight refer to single plays, without\\ntitle, or to Venus and Adonis; and only six mention\\nShakespeare s name. That William Shakespeare,\\nwhether the name be applied to the author or the\\nplayer, after the issue of the ist Folio, should be\\nspoken of but six times in nine years, shows that the\\nFolio had not gained much ground, and that there was\\nlittle interest in either plays or author. The Prefatory\\nAddress and eulogies of the Folio were probably be-\\nginning to take effect, but still, up to 1632, not a soul\\ntestified that the Shakespeare plays were one whit\\nsuperior to those of Beaumont, Jonson, Daniel, and a\\nscore of others.\\nIt must be constantly borne in mind that no edu-\\ncated or cultured man up to 1623 knew who player\\nEven Richard Grant White said: He had as much dehber-\\nate purpose in his breathing as in his play-writing Studies in\\nShakespeare, 209. We have before seen that Mr. White thinks\\nthe plays written simply to fill the theater and the man s\\npocket. Truly a worthy object of inspiration!", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0324.jp2"}, "325": {"fulltext": "RKI^ERKNCES TO SHAKESPKARE. 303\\nSliaksper was, any more than wlio author Shake-\\nspeare was; one was as much unknown to the read-\\ning world as the other. The FoHo claimed that the\\nauthor and player were one, and nobody seemed to\\ncare whether they were or not.\\nIngleby s third period runs from 1632 to 1642. I\\nmight go on and analyze his references for this ten\\nyears, but the result would be the same as before.\\nShakespeare, Beaumont and others continue to be\\nclassed together, and single plays, or Venus and\\nAdonis, are now and then mentioned. One author,\\nHey wood, p. 202, apostrophizes mellifluous Shake-\\nspeare etc., meaning player Shaksper, and of this I\\nhave spoken. On p. 209, Sir John Suckling says:\\nMy friend, Mr. William Shakespeare, makes Henry\\nHotspur quarrel etc., referring to the Folio. The\\nexpression my friend could have no reference to\\nthe player, for Suckling was but a child when the\\nPlayer died, and of course, had no acquaintance with\\nhim.\\nSo far as can be discovered, up to 1642, the reputa-\\ntion of the plays, twice published in Folio, had not\\nadvanced one particle. They were scarcely ever acted,\\nand people were forgetting all about them. Then\\ncame the Commonwealth, when play-acting was for-\\nbidden by law, and at the Restoration, in 1660, the\\nShakespeare Plays had become antiquated, and offended\\nthe taste of the new generation of play-goers.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0325.jp2"}, "326": {"fulltext": "304 shaksp:SR not shakb^spi^are).\\nCHAPTER XL\\nTHE FIRST FOIvIO.\\n1^0 return to the First Folio, and the elegiac verses\\nprefixed to it, signed B. J. and Ben Jonson, (Ing. 47).\\nJonson, later in life, in his published works, speaks of\\nplayer Shaksper, but what he said was entirely out of\\naccord with the expressions given in these verses. The\\nlatter are entitled:\\nTo the memory of my beloved, the author, Mr.\\nWilliam Shakespeare, and what he hath left us.\\nTo draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name\\nAm I thus ample to thy books and fame;\\nWhile I confess thy writings to be such\\nAs neither man nor Muse can praise too much.\\nTis true, and all men s suffrage.\\nEvidently this last clause means that the plays of\\nShakespeare are beyond praise, and this was the gen-\\neral opinion of them in 1623, all men s suffrage\\nI therefore will begin Soul of the Age\\nThe applause, delight and wonder of our stage:\\nMy Shakespeare rise: I will not lodge thee by\\nChaucer or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie\\nA little further to make thee a room.\\nThou art a monument without a tomb,\\nThou art alive still while thy books do live\\nAnd we have wits to read and praise to give.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0326.jp2"}, "327": {"fulltext": "THK FIRST FOI.IO. S^S\\nFor though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,\\nFrom thence to honor thee I would not seek\\nFor names; but call forth thundering ^schylus,\\nEuripides aud Sophocles to us,\\nPacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,\\nTo life again to hear thy buskin tread.\\nAnd shake a stage; or, when thy socks were on\\nLeave thee alone for the comparison\\nOf all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome\\nSent forth, or since did from their ashes come.\\nTriumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show\\nTo whom all scenes of Europe homage owe,\\nHe was not for an age, but for all time.\\nNature herself was proud of her designs,\\nAnd joyed to wear the dressing of his lines\\nWhich were so richly spun and woven so fit\\nAs, since she will vouchsafe no other wit,\\nThe merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,\\nNeat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please\\nBut antiquated and deserted lie\\nAs if they were not of Nature s family.\\nYet I must not give Nature all; thy art\\n3Ty gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part;\\nFor though the poet s matter nature be,\\nHis art doth give the fashion; and that he\\nWho casts to write a living life must sweat\\n(Such as thine are) and strike the second heat\\nUpon the Muse s anvil; turn the same\\n(And himself with it), that he thinks to frame\\nOr for the laurel he may gain a scorn.\\nFor a good poet s made, as well as born;\\nAnd such wert thou: Look how the father s face\\nLives in his issue, even so the race\\nOf Shakespeare s mind and manners brightly shines\\nIn his well-turned and true-filed lines\\nIn each of which he seems to shake a lance\\nAs brandished at the eyes of Ignorance,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0327.jp2"}, "328": {"fulltext": "3o6 SHAKSPER NOT shakkspkare;.\\nSweet Swan of Avon, what a sight it were\\nTo see thee on our waters yet appear!\\nShine forth thou Star of Poets, and with rage,\\nOr influence chide or cheer the drooping stage,\\nWhich, since thy flight from hence, hath mourned like night\\nAnd despairs day, but for thy volumes light\\nDr. Ingleby ponders over this glowing tribute, and\\nappropriating it to Shaksper, remarks: One could\\nwish that Ben had said all this in Shakespeare s\\n(Shaksper s) lifetime\\nIt is certain that William Shaksper was not one of\\nJonson s beloved, and more, that during a considerable\\npart of the careers of these men, and especially the\\nlast part, they were at variance. Fleay, 31, says:\\nNo intercourse can be shown between Shakespeare\\nand Jonson after 1603 p. 81: It is to be hoped\\nthat these two great dramatists were not at open en-\\nmity during the latter part of Shakespeare s life, but\\nall record of any real friendship between them ends in\\n1603, a7zd little value is to be attributed either to the\\nvague traditions of Jonson s visiting him at Stratford\\n(16 1 6) ox to the abicndant praises lavished on him by\\nJonsoii in contniendatory verses after his deaths Jonson\\nwas always impecunious, and always ready to under-\\ntake any literary job. The syndicate of printers who\\npublished the Folio (with no authority from the rep-\\nresentatives of the late William Shaksper, ex-proprie-\\ntor of the Globe theater) wanted an eulogistic prefa-\\ntory address in verse, and got it.\\nWho wrote the Shakespeare plays, the world knows\\nnot yet. Scarcely an earnest effort has been made to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0328.jp2"}, "329": {"fulltext": "th:^ first FOI.IO. 307\\nascertain the truth, and then mainly by those who at-\\ntribute the authorship to Francis Bacon. The vast\\nmajority of Hterary men have been content hitherto\\nto accept the traditional authorship of William Shak-\\nsper, who could not possibly have written one page of\\nmanuscript. But many distinguished Shakespearean\\nscholars have not hesitated to assign parts of several\\nof these plays, and whole plays, to another author\\nthan the one always in mind when the name Shake-\\nspeare is spoken, that is, the man who wrote Ham-\\nlet. Thus Fleay, 280, says: That the play of Titus\\nAndronicus is not by Shakespeare is pretty certain\\nfrom internal evidence. He thinks the opinion\\nthat Kyd wrote the play worth the examination, al-\\nthough with such evidence as has as yet been ad-\\nduced, Marlowe has certainly the better claim.\\nOn p. 257, he expresses the opinion that Henry\\nVIII is chiefly by Fletcher and Massinger; on 255,\\nthat I Henry VI was written by Peele, Marlowe and\\nothers; on 209, that 2d Henry VI was by Marlowe,\\nGreene, Kyd and Peele; and 3d Henry VI was by\\nMarlowe; on 278, that Richard III was by Marlowe,\\nbut left incomplete at his death; on 242, that Timon of\\nAthens unquestionably contains much matter by other\\nhands; on 233, that Macbeth contains one scene, 11,\\n5, which is not by Shakespeare; on 224, that very lit-\\ntle of the Shrew is Shakespeare s. Mr. Fleay consid-\\ners the name Shakespeare as that of an indi-\\nvidual, yet, as appears, holds that a considerable por-\\ntion of the plays attributed to him in the Folio, and\\nwarranted by Heminge and Condell to be the work of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0329.jp2"}, "330": {"fulltext": "308 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\ntheir fellow, William Shaksper, of Stratford, was the\\nwork of several other authors.\\nProfessor Wendell in these matters generally agrees\\nwith Fleay; on p. 345, he says: In both Timon and\\nPericles there is much matter believed not to be by\\nShakspere. Just what part he had in these\\nplays ^whether he planned, or retouched, or collabo-\\nrated nobody can determine.\\nJudge Stotsenburg, Ind. News, 26 May, 1897, ad-\\nvance sheets of his book, How I sought and found\\nShakespeare has discussed at length the play of\\nTitus Andronicus, and his conclusion is that, Upon\\na thorough and full examination of the play, tested by\\nthe index words and phrases, I am of the opinion that\\nMarlowe was the author. And he adds that Samuel\\nJohnson, Hallam, Verplanck, Malone, Steevens, Bos-\\nwell, Seymour and other critics and commentators\\nwere fully agreed that this play was not written by\\nShakespeare.\\nNow there are many Shakespearean students who\\nhold Shakespeare to have been a collective name,\\nstanding for the work of a band, or society, or club of\\nauthors of the later Elizabethan period, who wrote\\nsingly or in collaboration, every man of them from\\nthe Universities. This accounts for the unexplained\\n(on the single author theory) marked differences in\\nstyle, words, phrases; for the vast vocabulary, prepos-\\nterous, if attributed to one individual, to the pro-\\nficiency in every department of knowledge, law, med-\\nicine, philosophy, and the rest; to the amalgamation\\nand consubstantiation of the lyatin and Greek lan-\\nguages with the native thought of the writers, etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0330.jp2"}, "331": {"fulltext": "1*HK F IRST F-OIvlO. 309\\nFrom this point of view, the inclusion of Titus, the\\nthree Henry VI, Richard III, Henry VIII, Timon,\\nand Pericles, The Taming of a Shrew, is understand-\\nable; from the other point of view, it is not; from\\nthis point of view, the work of Marlowe had as much\\nright to be in the Folio, as the work of the author of\\nHamlet.\\nJudge Stotsenburg is on the path; for it is only by\\nminute analysis of the several plays, and by compari-\\nson with the recognized works of different play-wrights\\nof that period, that the real authors of any particular\\nShakespeare play can be discovered. Once eliminate\\nthe Stratford clown, and before long it will be known\\nwho did write these plays.*\\nIt is fair to presume that one of the authors, at\\nleast, was living in 1623, he who wrote Othello. Who\\nbut one of the band could have identified the true\\nplays, out of the many which during thirty years had\\ngone by the name of Shakespeare? And who else\\nMr. T. W. White, author of Our English Homer Lon-\\ndon, 1892, is a believer in the collective authorship, and places\\nthe plays as follows:\\nLove s Labour s Lost to Robert Greene.\\nComedy of Errors, same.\\nWinter s Tale, to Robert Greene, and Thomas Nash.\\nMidsummer Night s Dream, Geo. Peele, and Michael Drayton.\\nRichard III, to Christopher Marlowe.\\nHenry VI, 2 and 3, to Christopher Marlowe.\\nHamlet, to Erancis Bacon.\\nRomeo and Juliet, to Samuel Daniel.\\nAs You Like It, to Thomas Lodge.\\nTaming of the Shrew, Samuel Daniel, or Michael Drayton.\\nRichard II, to same.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0331.jp2"}, "332": {"fulltext": "310 SHAKSPE^R NOf ShAKEISPE^ARB^.\\ncould have pronounced on the spurious plays? A\\ngeneration had passed since these plays had begun to\\nappear, and no living man, except one of the authors,\\ncould have known what was written. Who but one of\\nthe band, could have handed to the publishers nine\\nplays which no one but himself or associates had ever\\nseen or heard of; or could have got ready for printing,\\nin 1623, as many other plays, re- written, revised, ex-\\ntended, which had been acted years before in some\\nabbreviated form, but never printed.\\nThe plays first printed in the Folio were: Two Gen-\\ntlemen of Verona, ist Henry VI, All s Well That\\nEnds Well, Comedy of Errors, As You I^ike It,\\nTwelfth Night, Measure for Measure, King John,\\nCymbeline, The Winter s Tale, Henry VIII, Macbeth,\\nThe Tempest, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, and Antony\\nand Cleopatra.\\nDowden says, p. 134: The Folio is the sole author-\\nity for seventeen plays Halliwell-Phillipps says, I,\\n290: Out of the thirty-six dramas which they\\n(Heminge and Condell) collected, one-half had never\\nbeen printed in any shape The play of Othello\\nhad been published in Quarto the year before (1622),\\nentered in the Stationer s Register, in 162 1; but when\\nthe Folio issued, behold Othello enlarged, revised and\\ndivided into acts and scenes (which had not been done\\nin the Quarto!) Knight says of this play: On the 6th\\nof Oct., 1 62 1, Thomas Walker entered at Stationer s\\nHall The Tragedie of Othello, the More of Venice\\nIn 1622, Walker published the edition for which he\\nhad thus claimed the copyright. It is a small Quarto.\\nThe Folio edition, 1623, is regularly divided", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0332.jp2"}, "333": {"fulltext": "^he; first folio. 311\\ninto acts and scenes; the Quarto edition has not a\\nsingle indication of anj^ subdivision in the acts, and\\nomits the division between Acts 2 and 3. The Folio\\nedition contains 163 lines, which are not found in the\\nQuarto, and these are some of the most striking in the\\npla5^ The number of lines found in the Quarto,\\nwhich are not in the Folio, do not amount to ten.\\nKnight s Shakespeare, Othello.\\nRuggles says, 579: The ground- work of Othello is\\nfound in Cinthio s novel of The Moorish Captain of\\nwhich no translation into English is known earlier\\nthan of Parr, in 1795. The poet, no doubt, took the\\nstory from the original Italian etc. Then that poet\\nwas not William Shaksper, and from the facts above\\nstated, it is plain that the poet was living in 1622-3!\\nFew of us dream how vast were the emendations\\nand revisions, enlargements and corrections, of the\\nold Shakespearean plays given to the world in this\\nFolio of 1623. Mr. R. G. White says, that in\\nI^ove s Labour s I^ost, there are inserted new lines in\\nalmost every speech. Another, the Merry Wives of\\nWindsor, according to Knight, has doubled the num-\\nber of lines it originally possessed in 1600. The\\nHenry V has 1900 new lines. The Titus Androni-\\ncus has an entire new scene; and Much Ado About\\nNothing, and lycar, are so alterated and elabo-\\nrated, with curtailments here and enlargements there\\nas to lead Mr. Knight to declare that none but the\\nhand of the master could have super-added them\\nMorgan, 234.\\nYet, in 1623, player Shaksper had been dead seven\\nyears,- and according to Phillipps, the facts lead ir-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0333.jp2"}, "334": {"fulltext": "312 SHAKSPEJR NOT shak:Ssp:^ar:^.\\nresistibly to the conclusion that the poet (Shaksper)\\nabandoned literary occupation a considerable period\\nbefore his decease, and in all probability when he dis-\\nposed of his theatrical property. This disposal took\\nplace in 1610-11. Therefore, if he wrote the plays,\\nin addition to the labor so involved, he was spending\\nthe busiest years of his life, when he was strolling\\nthrough the land, or living in London as player,\\nmanager, and theater proprietor, his whole soul ab-\\nsorbed in money-making, in the unremunerative work\\nof first writing the original plays, then enlarging and\\nrevising them with a view to their literary perfec-\\ntion as Swinburne says; and finally, in writing a\\nlong series of grand new plays, that were not to see\\nthe light for years to come, and which he did not in-\\ntend to have played in his own or any theater, but to\\nhave printed for a very different public than he had\\never catered to in his life-time. All this labor had to\\nbe done before the end of 16 10, and the plays deposited\\nsomewhere, so that when a posthumous edition of his\\nworks should come to be published, the printers would\\nknow where to find them in complete order for print-\\ning. The mere statement of the case is a demonstra-\\ntion of its impossibility. And where in the scheme\\ndoes the Othello come printed in Quarto in 1622,\\ntaken in hand by somebody, greatly enlarged and re-\\nvised, divided into Acts snd Scenes, and published in\\nthe Folio, 1623.\\nWho was living in 1622-23, who could do that\\nwork Whoever he was, he had it in him to write\\nthe best of the Shakespeare plays.\\nThe spurious plays are called by Symonds Doubt-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0334.jp2"}, "335": {"fulltext": "The; mrst folio. 313\\nful Plays and he devotes Chapter 10 to their con-\\nsideration. He starts with this bold assumption, We\\nknow that before Shakspere (meaning Stratford Shak-\\nsper) began his great series of authentic and undis-\\nputed dramas, he spent some years of strenuous ac-\\ntivity as a journej^men for the company of players he\\nhad joined. Which was just after he had put off\\nhis butcher s apron, and had fled with his patois to\\nLondon.\\nNow it happens that we do not know anything\\nof the sort alleged by Mr. Symonds; we assume it,\\nfor the reason that in order to father the Shakespeare\\nplays on this man, we have to get him at work\\nstrenuous work as soon as he reaches lyondon. As\\nto the proof of Mr. Symonds assertion, there is none\\nwhatever it comes from what Mr. Fleay calls a mis-\\nchievously fertile imagination. Mr. Symonds is puz-\\nzled with the Doubtful Plays. They are all in some\\nrespects after the style of the author of the received\\nShakespeare plays, and all in some respects are in the\\nstyle of various other authors. Mr. Symonds thinks\\nthat the author of the Shakespeare plays may have\\nhad a hand in them, either as a restorer, or as a col-\\nlaborator, or that they have been trial essays in some\\nother veins of work abandoned by him. In this last\\ncase they would be genuine Shakespeare plays. Had\\nno collection of the plays been made in 1623, it would\\nhave been impossible for the critics of the 19th cen-\\ntury to form a list of the Shakespeare plays. Some\\nof the now received plays would have been struck out,\\nand some of the doubtful plays have taken their places.\\nThe remarkable thing is that, in 1623, some one", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0335.jp2"}, "336": {"fulltext": "3l4 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKE;SPKAR1;.\\nshould have been at hand to point out unerringly what\\nwere the true Shakespeare plays several of them dating\\nback thirty years, and nearly all of them over twenty,\\nand should have rejected every one of the plays which\\npuzzled Mr. Symonds. It is not to be believed that the\\nfellow-players of William Shaksper, underlings at the\\nGlobe, butchers, and bakers, and candlestick-makers,\\nand ranking with buffoons and tumblers, would know\\nanything of the matter. The decision as to which\\nplays were genuine and which spurious was that of\\nsome man who knew all about it the same man who\\nhanded to the printers sixteen or seventeen plays, as\\nShakespeare s which had never before been pub-\\nlished, half the number entirely new. Taken in con-\\nnection with the fact of the Othello, this man could\\nonly have been the author of more or less of the\\nShakespeare plays, and he was living in 1623.\\nWhen the Folio volume, to embrace about two score\\nplays, old and new, the former of which had been\\nprinted in Quarto twenty to thirty years before, was\\nplanned, these old plays had been almost, and many\\nof them quite, forgotten. Between 16 16, when Shak-\\nsper died, and 1623, there is no mention of any of\\nthem in Ingleby; and between 1591, when Ingleby s\\nCenturie begins, and 16 16, half of them had been\\nmentioned but once or twice in all literature. Several\\nof the plays had been printed under names of William\\nShakespeare, or Shake-speare, or Shakespere, but who\\nthe man was who was thus concealed, no one knew.\\nA generation had passed since the name first appeared\\n(in 1593) upon the title page of a poem. Five years\\nlater it had been put tentatively upon the new edition", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0336.jp2"}, "337": {"fulltext": "The; f^irst f oi.io. 315\\nof an old play, and finally came to be used upon new\\nplays by different authors or on new editions of old\\nplays. Thus Love s I^abour s Lost (Greene?), 1598,\\nBy WilHam Shakspere Richard III (Marlowe),\\n1598, By William Shake-speare Sir John Oldcastle\\n(unknown) 1 600, Written by William Shakespeare\\nA Yorkshire Tragedy (unknown), 1608, Written by\\nWilliam Shakespeare Edward III, (Marlowe), 1600;\\nThe London Prodigal, (unknown) 1605 both by\\nWilliam Shakespeare etc., etc.\\nCertain of these plays it was now proposed to pub-\\nlish, together with others which had been obtained\\nfrom an unknown source, brand new plays, or elab-\\norate revisions of the old ones. The whole business\\nwas left unexplained in 1623, and the ensuing centu-\\nries have brought no light. We may suppose, then,\\nthat the printers wanted a figure-head, some one to\\nstand sponsor for the volume, and they found a man\\nwhose name came handy for the purpose, and who was\\nunknown to any of the literary men of that age, how-\\never well he had been known to the rabble, one Will-\\niam Shaksper, who had made a fortune by running\\nthe Globe theater, and years ago had retired to Strat-\\nford-on-Avon, whence he came. One thing was cer-\\ntain, that if no one could say that he had written\\nthem, on the other hand, no one could say that he\\nhad not. Thanks to Dr. Ingleby and Halliwell-Phil-\\nlipps, we, in 1900, know a hundred times more of this\\nShaksper than any reading man in England could\\nhave known in 1623. So he was adopted, and, by\\nevery means in their power, the printers aimed to im-\\npress upon the public that here was the original", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0337.jp2"}, "338": {"fulltext": "3l6 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPE^AR:^.\\nJacobs the Shakespeare of the Venus and Adonis,\\nand the Shakespeare of the plays, Ben Jonson s\\nfacile pen was employed to write a Dedication and Ad-\\ndress to the readers over the names of two players,\\nwho, years ago, had been fellows of this Shaksper,\\nand some eulogistic lines above his own initials. Sev-\\neral penny-a-liners were also invited to contribute their\\nrhyming encomiums. It is conceivable that survivors\\nof the band of authors who had written between 1593\\nand 1608 under the common soubriquet of William\\nShakespeare who were living in 1623, were not un-\\nwilling to assist in the publication, though still con-\\ncealing their authorship, for the odium attached to play-\\nwritiug was as great in 162J as it had been a score of\\nyears before. But if this were so, they overlooked\\nthe fact that\\nThe sluggish gaping auditor\\nMarks not whose t was first, and after times\\nMay judge it to be his.\\nOr perhaps they trusted to the assurance expressed\\nin the remainder of these lines\\nFool, as if half eyes will not know a fleece\\nFrom locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece.\\nDoubtless it was a matter of indifference to them\\nthat Jonson should be called on by the printers for\\nlines to introduce the cut of the supposititious author\\nwhich prefaces the Folio. Whether that was a like-\\nness of William Shaksper, or a caricature, no one can\\nnow tell. If the Stratford bust resembled the man,\\nthe Folio head did not. One or the other was a fraud.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0338.jp2"}, "339": {"fulltext": "THE) FIRST FOI IO. 317\\nThey represented two individuals, without one feature\\nin common. But as by general consent the Shak-\\nspereans have to-day fixed on the Folio head as a gen-\\nuine likeness, even going so far as to have a bust in\\nimitation of it carved for the Congressional Library,\\noutsiders may accept it for what it pretends to be.\\nIn a gallery of showmen this figure might hold its\\nown; in a gallery of poets it is painfull)^ out of place.\\nShaksper s ability as a manager of a public theater,\\nand as a money-maker, was considerable, but by a few\\nironical lines of a genuine poet he was transformed\\ninto the greatest of poets, and the showman and\\nmoney-making phases are quite forgotten. Jonson\\nhad known the man well, and it must have been with\\npeculiar delight that he undertook the job. So he\\nbegins:\\nThis figure tliat thou here seest put,\\nIt was for gentle Shakespeare cut,\\nWherein the graver had a strife\\nWith nature to outdo the life:\\nO, could he but have drawn his Wit\\nAs well in brass as he hath hit\\nHis face, the Print would then surpass\\nAll that was ever wrote in Brass.\\nThis play upon the word Brass can have but one\\nmeaning, namel)^, to intimate that the impudent as-\\nsumption that these plays were written by the man\\nwhose head is here given, is brazen, and Jonson ac-\\ncordingly appended these lines of advice to the Reader:\\nBut since he cannot, Reader look\\nNot at his Picture, but his Book,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0339.jp2"}, "340": {"fulltext": "3i8 shakspb;r not shakbspe;arb.\\nAs clear a hint as could be given, that all pretense\\nthat the writer of these plays was that sort of man\\nwas foolery. The word gentle we may understand\\nto be aimed at Shaksper s abortive attempt at coat-\\narmour, in order to make himself a titular gentleman.\\nMr. John Corbin says on these lines: They have\\nusually been taken as high praise of the print; but\\nthe fact that commendatory verses were one of the\\ncommonest literary customs of the time, distinctly\\nlessens their value. The phrasing of the second\\ncouplet, moreover, was hackneyed enough in the time\\nof Elizabeth, and far from being fulsome of praise, is\\nlittle more than a metrical rendering of This is a por-\\ntrait of Shakespeare The rest of the poem reduced to\\ncommon parlance, says, that since the graver has\\nfailed to express Shakespeare s (Shaksper s) soul as\\nwell as he has drawn his features, we must turn to the\\nplays to find the real author, Harper s Magazine,\\nApr., 1897. ^r. Corbin has hit it exactly. The en-\\ngraver has drawn Shaksper s features, but in them is\\nnothing of the soul of Shakespeare To find the\\nreal author, Mr. Corbin well says we must turn to\\nthe plays.\\nNot merely were commendatory verses prefixed to\\na book, in that age, but figure-heads, pseudo-like-\\nnesses, or caricatures of the author were customary\\nalso.\\nDeceptive and vaunting title-pages were practiced\\nto such excess that Tom Nash, an Author by Pro-\\nfession never fastidiously modest, blushed at the title\\nof his Pierce Pennilesse which the publishers had\\nflourished in the first edition, like a tedious mounte-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0340.jp2"}, "341": {"fulltext": "the; first foi io. 319\\nbank The booksellers forged great names to recom-\\nmend their works. It was an usual thing in those\\ndays, says honest Anthony Wood, to set a great\\nname to a book, by the sharking booksellers or\\nsnivelling writers, to get bread Disraeli, Calamities\\nof Authors.\\n(I cut from N. Y. Tribune of 10 Feby., 1899, this\\nslip: Among the Hard wicke papers, to be sold within\\na few daj^s, is a letter in which Dean Percy writes in\\n1781 (150 years after the First Folio of the Shake-\\nspeare plays appeared) In the book-making art the\\ncelebrity of name is of so much consequence that it\\nis not unusual for the Trade to hire a popular name to\\nbe prefixed to a work which the owner of that name\\nnever saw. Poor Goldsmith picked up many a\\nGuinea by this kind of Trafl c, and we have accord-\\ningly a Grecian History, a version of Scarron, and\\nmany other things, which, to the best of my belief, he\\nwas utterly unconcerned in.\\nBurton s Anatomy of Melancholy, published shortly\\nbefore this Folio, (1621), has in its front a pseudo-\\nlikeness of Democritus Junior, the pretended author.\\nThe Preface begins thus:\\nGentle reader, I presume you will be inquisitive to\\nknow what antic or personate actor this is, that so in-\\nsolently intrudes upon this common theater, to the\\nworld s view, arrogating another man s name; whence\\nhe is, why he doth it, and what he hath to say\\nI would not willingly be known. T is for\\nno such respect I shroud myself under his name; but\\nin an unknown habit to assume a little more Hberty\\nand freedom of speech,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0341.jp2"}, "342": {"fulltext": "320 shakspe;r not shakespbark.\\nAs to the figure-head, he says: It is a kind of pol-\\nicy in these days, to prefix a fantastical title (cut) to\\na book which is to be sold; for, as larks come down to\\na day-net, many vain readers will tarry and stand gaz-\\ning like silly passengers at an antic picture in a paint-\\ner s shop, that will not look at a judicious piece.\\nAccompanying the figure-head are these lines:\\nNow last of all, to fill a space\\nPresented is the author s face.\\nHis mind no one can well express,\\nThat by his writing you may guess.\\nIt is not pride\\nMade him do this, if you must know\\nThe Printer would need have it so.\\nThe writers of the Shakespeare plays concealed\\ntheir personality in order to assume a little more lib-\\nerty and freedom of speech When it came to pub-\\nlishing the collected plays in the Folio, the printers\\nwould need have some sort of figure-head to represent\\nthe author Shakespeare and, as we have seen,\\nJonson was emplo3 -ed to write lines introducing it.\\nAlso he was employed to write a rhyming Preface.\\nNever in the history of literature was such another\\npreface written. Consider that up to 1616, and while\\nthe player Shaksper was alive, and the plays were\\nissuing, and from 1616 to 1623, when the Folio was\\npublished, not one single contemporary showed by his\\nmention of the plays of William Shakespeare, that\\nhe held them to be anything out of the common, or\\nbetter than the works of half a dozen other play-\\nwrights nearly always enumerated in connection with", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0342.jp2"}, "343": {"fulltext": "the; p irst FOI.IO. 321\\nShakespeare. Therefore, Jouson s rhyming preface be-\\ngins with what was so manifestly a lie, if intended to be\\nunderstood literally, that it is evident the writer meant\\nexactly the reverse of what his words say. Your\\nplays are beyond praise, everybody is talking of them,\\nand the sicffrage of all }ne7i is that never was there any-\\nthing like it in literature. Whereas the fact was that\\nnobody talked of them, not a soul had held them to\\nbe superior to the works of other men, up to 1623.\\nIf, in 1 61 6, they had dropped out of existence, no\\none would have known it, or missed them. Strange\\nas this may seem to the nineteenth century worshipers\\nof Shakespeare, the fact is as I give it, and the Ingleby\\nreferences bear me out. The plays were not written\\nfor the 1 6th century, but for future ages, they were\\nover the heads of nearly all people then living, and it\\nis only in the 19 th century that they have come to be\\nappreciated. As Dr. Ingleby declares in his Preface:\\nWe are at length slowly rounding to a just estimate\\nof his works.\\n(I have before quoted Ingleby s remark that for a\\nfull hundred years from the first appearance of a\\nShakespeare play, no one held Shakespeare to be sui\\ngenei is)\\nThus Richard Carew, 1595-6, Ing. 20: The Mira-\\ncle of our age, Sir Philip Sidney.\\nFrancis Meres, 1598, Ing. 21, puts together Spenser,\\nDaniel, Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlowe, and\\nChapman.\\nAs a series of sonnets, the Astrophel and Stella are second\\nonly to Shakespeare; as a series of love-poems, they are perhaps\\nunsurpassed., Craik, Eng. I^it.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0343.jp2"}, "344": {"fulltext": "322 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARS.\\nEdmund Bolton, 1610, Ing. 91: But among the\\nchief, or rather the chief are in my opinion, these,\\nShakespeare, Beaumont, and innumerable other writers\\nfor the stage.\\nJohn Webster, 1612, Ing. 100: For mine owne\\npart, I have ever truly cherished my good opinion of\\nother men s worthy I^abours, especially of that full\\nand haightened stile of maister Chapman; the labor d\\nand understanding works of maister Johnson; The\\nno less worthy composure of the both worthily ex-\\ncellent Maister Beaumont and Maister Fletcher; And,\\nlastly (without wrong last to be named), the right\\nhappy and copious industry of M. Shake-speare, M.\\nDecker and M. Heywood.\\nJohn Webster, according to Swinburne, Enc. Brit.\\nwas the greatest of Shakespeare s contemporaries\\na tragic poet and dramatist of the very fore-\\nmost rank in the very highest class. The\\nDuchess of Malfy stands out among its compeers as\\none of the imperishable and ineradicable landmarks of\\nliterature. The transcendent imagination and the im-\\npassioned sympathy which inspire this most tragic\\nof all tragedies save King Lear, are fused together in\\nthe fourth act into a creation which has hardly been\\nexcelled for unflagging energy of expression and of\\npathos in all the dramatic or poetic literature of the\\nworld. Webster s plays date from 1601 to 1624.\\nWill it be believed that in all the writings of this great\\ncontemporary of Shakespeare a resident of lyondon\\nalso, the mention of Shakespeare above given is the\\nonly one, and that there is nowhere a mention or an\\nallusion to the works of Shakespeare! As to the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0344.jp2"}, "345": {"fulltext": "the; first foivIO. 323\\nplayer, there is absolute silence, as was to be expected.\\nAll that John Webster had to say of the poet was that\\nhe had ever cherished a good opinion of his right\\nhappy and copious industry, and lumps him with two\\nsecond rate and voluminous writers, Decker and\\nHey wood.\\nWilliam Camden, 1608, Ing. 59: If I should come\\nto our time, what a world could I present you out of\\nSir Philip Sidney, Kd. Spenser, Samuel Daniel, Hugh\\nHolland, Ben Jonson, Th. Campion, Mich. Drayton,\\nGeorge Chapman, John Marston, William Shakespeare,\\nand other tnore pregnant wits of these our times whom\\nsucceeding ages may justly admire. Here Shake-\\nspeare is classed with several poets, the names of some\\nof whom are now known only to the antiquary, and\\nall are spoken of as if they were on the same level;\\nand moreover there were other poets more preg-\\nnant than those enumerated.\\nIn 1620, John Taylor wrote thus (133):\\nSir Philip Sidney, who the laurel wore,^\\nSpenser and Shakespeare did in art excel,\\nSir Edward Dyer, Greene, Nash, Daniel,\\nSilvester, Beaumont, Sir John Harrington,\\nForgetfulness their works would overrun\\nBut that in paper they immortally\\nDo live, in spite of death, and cannot die.\\nWe do not look for Shakespeare s name in books\\nand poetry which were issued before 1593, when his\\nIvee says, 429: Sidney enjoyed in the decade that followed\\nhis death the reputation of a demi-god, and the wide dissemina-\\ntion in print of his numerous sonnets in 1591 spurred nearly\\nevery living poet in Bngland to emulate his achievements.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0345.jp2"}, "346": {"fulltext": "324 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nVenus and Adonis, the first heir of my invention\\nwas issued; so that we are not surprised at the silence\\nof Sir WilHam Webb (1586), George Puttenham\\n(1589), Sir John Harrington (1591), Sir PhiHp Sid-\\nney (1595), and Lodge (1596). Shakespeare could\\nhardly have been known to any of them. But the\\ncase is otherwise with works of the same character\\nissued as late as 1596, the year in which were pub-\\nlished Thomas Lodge s Wits Miserie, and the World s\\nMadness, where among the divine wits, we do not find\\nthe name of Shakespeare. Similarly, in 1598, was\\npublished Edward Guilpin s collection of satires called\\nSkialethea the sixth of which contains the names\\nof Chaucer, Gower, Daniel, Markham, Drayton and\\nSidney, but not that of Shakespeare. Ben Jonson,\\nwriting some forty years later, makes the same re-\\nmarkable omission in one part of his Discoveries he\\nremarks that as it is fit to read the best authors to\\nyouth first, so let them be of the openest and clearest;\\nand he distinguishes how Sidney, Donne, Chaucer and\\nSpenser should be read but does not mention Shake-\\nspeare. Richard Carew assigns the first place to Sid-\\nney; Davidson and a host of others set an extravagant\\nvalue on Daniel. The elder Basse, Taylor, and Ed-\\nward Phillipps seem to put Spenser and Shakespeare\\non an equality. Ingleby, Preface.\\nIt is singular, if we rely upon several coeval au-\\nthorities, how little our great dramatist was, about\\nthis period, known and admired for his plays. Rich-\\nard Barnfeild published his Encomion of Lady\\nPecunia in 1598, (the year in which the list of twelve", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0346.jp2"}, "347": {"fulltext": "THS FIRST FOIvIO. 325\\nof Shakespeare s plays were printed by Meres)\\nand we quote the following notice of Shakespeare:\\nAnd Shakespeare thou, whose honey-flowing vein,\\nPleasing the world, thy praises doth contain.\\nWhose Venus and whose Lucrece, sweet and chaste.\\nThy name in Fame s immortal book hath placed.\\nHere Shakespeare s popularity as pleasing the world\\nis noticed, but the proofs of it are not derived from\\nthe stage, etc.\\nPrecisely to the same effect, but a still stronger in-\\nstance, we may refer to a play in which both Burbage\\nand Kempe are introduced as characters, the one of\\nwhom had obtained such celebrity in the tragic, and\\nthe other in the comic parts of Shakespeare s dramas;\\nwe allude to the Return from Parnassus, which was in-\\ndisputably acted before the death of Queen Elizabeth.\\nIn a scene where two young students are discussing\\nthe merits of particular poets, one of them thus speaks\\nof Shakespeare:\\nWho loves Adonis love or Lucrece rape\\nHis sweeter verse contains heart-robbing life, etc.\\nNot the most distant allusion is made to any of his\\ndramatic productions. Hence we might be\\nled to imagine, that, even down to as late a period as\\nthe commencement of the 17th century, the reputa-\\ntion of Shakespeare depended rather upon his poems\\nthan upon his plays; almost as if productions for the\\nstage were not looked upon, at that date, as part of\\nthe recognized literature of the country. Collier,\\nLife, XLVII.\\nIt is plain that up to the date of the Folio, 1623,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0347.jp2"}, "348": {"fulltext": "326 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKiESPEARK.\\nthe poems and plays of Shakespeare were regarded by\\nno one as being superior to the poems and plays of a\\ndozen other authors.* Between 1592, when the first\\nShakespeare play is said to have been performed, and\\n1623, they are not spoken of in all English I^iterature\\nmore than twice a year, and as I have before said,\\nShakespeare by name, under any kind of spelling, was\\nmentioned in the twenty-four years (1592 to 1616) but\\ntwenty times, or less than once a year. Think of it;\\nan age prolific of poets and prose writers, and diaries\\nand note- books; an age devoted to epistolary corre-\\nspondence; and the great Shakespeare was spoken\\nof {teste Ingleby), but twenty times in the twenty-\\nfour years during which William Shaksper is supposed\\nby his followers to have been writing and publishing\\nthe plays afterwards gathered into the Folio. Plainly,\\nas an individual he was unknown, and as a poet or\\nplay- writer he was almost unknown, and wholly un-\\nappreciated, as Ingleby declares was the fact.\\nIf any poet of that day was held in special venera-\\ntion, it was Sidney, the author of Astrophel and\\nStella, and not improbably, the author of the Sonnets\\nascribed to Shakespeare Twice is he mentioned\\nin the references of Ingleby as apart from and above\\nall other poets of that age; whereas Shakespeare is\\nnever so spoken of, but is always ranked with the\\ncommon herd. Moreover the poems the V. and A.\\nYet Dr. A. H. Strong, in his very interesting book, The\\nGreat Poets and their Theology, Phila., 1897, can say of Shake-\\nspeare: His pre-eminence as a dramatist and poet was uni-\\nversally acknowledged, when he retired from the theater,\\n161 1, to his death, 1616.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0348.jp2"}, "349": {"fulltext": "the; first folio. 327\\nand lyucrece ^were considered to be on a much higher\\nplane than the plays. On this, H.-P., I, 119, says:\\nThe contemporaries of Shakespeare allude more than\\nonce to the poems as being his most important works,\\nand as those on which his literary reputation chiefly\\nrested\\nJonson had a high appreciation of his own plays, and\\nwould have scorned the suggestion that those of\\nShakespeare stood on a level with them much more\\non a higher level. In one of Du Manner s cuts, a\\nyoung woman asks an author if he ever reads novels.\\nThe emphatic reply is, No, I write them As a\\nrule authors do not read the works of each other, in\\nthe same line, and it is safe to say that Jonson never\\nread, or even looked at, the proof or text of the Folio\\nto which he was about to act as sponser. He was a\\nbusy man, and besides had a way of spending his\\nspare hours at the Mermaid. That he had no great\\nopinion of the Shakespeare Plays is evident from the\\nfact that in his own plays he repeatedly sneered at one\\nor other of them. As to praise of them, or approval\\nof them, there is not a syllable in Jonson s works. In\\nthe Prologue to Every Man in His Humour, he ridi-\\ncules Henry VI and the Winter s Tale. In the Intro-\\nduction to Bartholomew Fair, he does the same to the\\nTempest. In his Ode, appended to the New Inn, he\\nstyles Pericles a mouldy tale, and nasty as the fish-\\nscraps out of every dish thrown forth and raked into\\nthe common tub. In the Poetaster he scolds at\\nthe new-coined words with which the Shakespeare\\nworks were sprinkled. In 1 619, he told Drummond\\nthat Shakespeare wanted art.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0349.jp2"}, "350": {"fulltext": "328 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKBJSPlJARK.\\nAfter tlie issue of the Folio, notwithstanding what\\nhe had said in the vel-ses thereto prefixed, in the\\nenumeration of all the wits he had known (or of his\\ntime) who could honor a language or help study\\nleft behind him at his death (1637), he makes no\\nmention of Shakespeare or his works actually forgot\\nhim and them\\nIt shows that Shakespeare was not appreciated in\\nhis own age; nor was he thought anything superior\\nduring the rest of the 17th century, and indeed, dur-\\ning most of the i8th century.\\nIn 1 66 1, Evelyn noted in his diary that he saw\\nHamlet played; but the old plays begin to disgust\\nthis refined age Pepys, 30 Sept., 1662, records:\\nTo the King s Theater, where we saw Midsummer\\nNight s Dream, which I had never seen before, nor\\never shall again, for it is the most insipid, ridiculous\\nplay that ever I saw in my life 166 1-2: March i:\\nTo the Opera and there saw Romeo and Juliet.\\nIt is a play of itself the worst that ever I heard in my\\nhfe. 1662-3, Jan 6: There saw Twelfth-Night\\nacted well, though it be but a sillj^ play. 1667,\\nNov. i: My wife and myself to the King s Play-\\nhouse, and there saw a silly play and an old one,\\nThe Taming of a Shrew.\\n*Jonson could scarcely have had a very high opinion of\\nShakespeare s genius, since a quarter of a century passed\\n(1598-1623) before he pens a single line in his praise. And\\nwhen at last the laudatory verses do appear, we are sure he was\\npaid for writing them. His testimony is not, therefore, a\\nspontaneous expression of his own sentiments, but a business\\nadvertisement. T. W. White, 162,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0350.jp2"}, "351": {"fulltext": "the; first foIvIO. 329\\nJohn Dryden, 1679, (Ing., 369), wrote thus: It\\nmust be allowed to the present Age, that the tongue in\\ngeneral is so much refined since Shakespeare s time,\\nthat many of his words and more of his Phrases, are\\nscarce intelligible. And of those which we under-\\nstand, some are ungrammatical, others coarse, and his\\nwhole style is so pestered with Figurative expressions,\\nthat it is affected as it is obscure, How de-\\nfective Shakespear and Fletcher have been In all their\\nplots, Mr. Rymer has discovered in his Criticisms.\\nIn the mechanic beauties of the Plot, which\\nare the Observation of the three Unities, Time, Place,\\nand Action, they are both deficient; but Shakespeare\\nmost. And so Dryden undertook to re-write Troilus\\nand Cressida from the Preface to which play the re-\\nmarks above are taken. In his own words, because\\nthere appeared in some places of it the admirable\\ngenius of the Author, I undertook to remove the heap\\nof Rubbish under which many excellent thoughts lay\\nwholly bury d.\\nOn p. 350, 1672, Dryden says: *%et any man who\\nunderstands English, read diligently the works of\\nShakespeare and Fletcher; and I dare undertake he\\nwill find in every page, either some solecism of speech,\\nor some notorious flaw in sense. That their\\nwit is great and many times their expressions noble,\\nenvy itself cannot deny; but the times were ignorant\\nin which they lived. Poetry was then, if not in its\\ninfancy among us, at least not arrived to its vigor and\\nmaturity; witness the lameness of their plots, etc.\\nMany of the rest, as The Winter s Tale,\\nlyove s I^abour s lyost, Measure for Measure, which", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0351.jp2"}, "352": {"fulltext": "330 SHAESPRR NOT SHAK:ESPKARK.\\nwere either grounded on impossibilities, or at least so\\nmea7ily written that the Comedy neither caused your\\nmirth, nor the serious part your concernment.\\nIn reading some bombast speeches of Macbeth, which are\\n7iot to be tmderstood, he (Ben Jonson) used to say that\\nit was horrour, and I am much afraid that this is so.\\nThe wit of the last age was still more incor-\\nrect than their language. Shakespeare, who many\\ntimes has written better than any poet, in any lan-\\nguage, is yet so far from writing wit always, or ex-\\npressing that wit according to the dignity of the sub-\\nject, that he writes in many places below the dullest\\nwriter of ours, or of any precedent age. L et\\nus therefore admire the beauties and the heights of\\nShakespeare, without falling after him in a careless-\\nness, and, as I may call it, a lethargy of thought, for\\nwhole scenes together. And yet these criticisms\\nwere penned but fifty years after the publication of the\\nFolio, and, twenty years earlier, the bombast speeches\\nof Macbeth, which are not to be understood in\\nDryden s day, are imagined to have been spouted in\\nShaksper s public theaters, and comprehended by the\\nrabble which frequented them!\\nThomas Rymer (i 661-17 13), published a Short\\nView of Tragedy He was an eminent man of let-\\nters and a voluminous author both in verse and prose;\\nin 1692, he was appointed by William and Mary his-\\ntoriographer royal. What Rymer says of Shake-\\nspeare in his Short View taken in connection with\\nDryden s criticism in the same century, and that of\\nJohnson and Hume in the next century, may be con-\\nsidered as expressing the opinion of most of the cul-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0352.jp2"}, "353": {"fulltext": "tHB FIRSI FOI,IO. 331\\ntivated people of those times. Of Othello, Rymer\\nsays: There is in this play some burlesque, some\\nhumor and ramble of comical wit, some show; and\\nsome mimicry to divert the spectators; but the tragical\\npart is plainly none other than a bloody farce without\\nsalt or savor. Of Julius Csesar: In the former\\nplay, our poet might be the bolder, the persons being\\nall his own creatures and mere fiction. He\\nmight be familiar with Othello and lago, as his own\\nnatural acquaintances; but Ccssar a7id Brutus were above\\nhis conversation. To put them in fools coats, and\\nmake them Jack-puddings in the Shakespeare dress,\\nis a sacrilege beyond anything in Spelman. The truth\\nis, this author s head was full of villanous, unnatural\\nimages, and history has only furnished him with great\\nnames, thereby to recommend them to the world.\\nIng. 367.\\nDr. Johnson (1765) comments on the Shakespeare\\nplays thus:\\nOf Hamlet: The pretended madness of Hamlet\\ncaused mirth. The catastrophe is not very\\nhappily introduced. A scheme might easily be formed\\nto kill Hamlet with the dagger and Laertes with the\\nbowl. Johnson severely criticizes others of these\\nplays; says of Antony and Cleopatra, that it is low,\\nand without any art of connection or care of disposi-\\ntion. Of Cymbeline, he does not care to waste\\ncriticism upon unresisting imbecility etc. And\\nthe great Doctor tells us that if any of his contempo-\\nraries were to write plays like those of Shakespeare,\\nthe audiences would not sit them out.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0353.jp2"}, "354": {"fulltext": "332 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPEIARK.\\nDavid Hume, Hist. Eng., App. to James I, 1764,\\nsaid:\\nIf Shakespeare be considered as a man, born in a\\nrude age, and educated in the lowest manner, without\\nany instruction either from the world or from books,\\nhe may be regarded as a prodigy; if represented as a\\npoet, capable of furnishing a proper entertainment to a\\nrefined or intelligent audience, we must abate much of\\nthe eulogy. A striking peculiarity of senti-\\nment, adapted to a single character, he frequently hits,\\nas it were, by inspiration, but a reasonable propriety\\nof thought he cannot for any time uphold. It\\nis in vain we look either for purity or simplicity of diction.\\nHis total ignorance of all theatrical art and conduct, etc.\\nA great and fertile genius he certainly possessed,\\nand one enriched equally with a tragic and comic view;\\nbut he ought to be cited as a proof, how dangerous it\\nis to rely on these advantages alone for attaining an\\nexcellence in the fine arts. And there may even re-\\nmain a suspicion that we overrate, if possible, the great-\\nness of his genius; in the same manner as bodies often\\nappear more gigantic, on account of their being dis-\\nproportioned and misshapen. Both of them,\\n(Shakespeare and Jonson) were equally deficient in taste\\nand elegance, in harmony and character; and thence\\nit has proceeded that the nation has undergone, from\\nall its neighbors, the reproach of barbarism, from\\nwhich its valuable productions in some other parts of\\nlearning would otherwise have exempted it.\\nThere was no time between 1592 and 1800 when the\\ncommon run of people understood or appreciated the\\nShakespeare plays. Most of them were beyond the ca-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0354.jp2"}, "355": {"fulltext": "The; p irsi folio. 333\\npacity of the play-goers, and they might in large part\\nas well have been written in Greek. The public could\\nunderstand the spectacle, or special scenes and parts\\nof a play, but the metaphysical and philosophical\\nlanguage, which forms a large part of nearly all the\\nplays, was incomprehensible, and doubtless was omitted\\nin the performance. After the Restoration, nearly ev-\\nery playwright took in hand one or more Shakespeare\\nplays to re-write, re-model, and improve it. In some\\ncases two of the plays were made into one. Dr. Doran\\nsays that it seemed to be the idea of these men that it\\nwas necessary to reduce Shakespeare to the mental level\\nof the play-goers. If that were the case in the last\\npart of the 17th century, how unappreciated must\\nthese plays have been in the last half of the i6th cen-\\ntury when the people were gross and dark,\\nbut just emerging from barbarism as Dr. Johnson\\ndeclares how little understood. Therefore, the as-\\nsertion is thoughtless that the plays were written for\\nthe entertainment of the audiences at the theaters of\\nElizabeth s day. The author of these plays had in\\nmind the public of a future, and much more enlight-\\nened, age.\\nWhat does Jonson when ordered to compose verses\\nlaudatory of player Shaksper, and at the same time\\nof plays which for years he had been sneering at and\\nridiculing? At last he has a chance to pay off old\\nscores with the usurer- player, the rich charlatan, the\\npoet-ape, who was now to masquerade as the author\\nof these plays. So he begins:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0355.jp2"}, "356": {"fulltext": "334 SHAESPB^R NO T shakkspejar:^.\\nSoul of the Age\\nThe applause, delight and wonder of our stage,\\nMy Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by\\nChaucer or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie\\nA little further to make thee a room.\\nOf this Ingleby says: I will not lodge thee etc.,\\nmeans that he will not class Shakespeare with Chaucer,\\nand the rest because he is out of all proportio7i greater\\nthan theyy This was a monstrous exaggeration, and\\ncould only have been spoken in irony, considering the\\nestimation in which the Shakespeare plays had been\\nheld up to that time and the general ignorance among\\ncultivated men respecting them. We know positively,\\nthrough the labors of Phillipps and Ingleb)^, that this\\nignorance was general. If no one wrote of the plays,\\nit was because nobody spoke of them. So far they\\nhad acquired no reputation at all.\\nEven after the publication of the Folio, they were\\nnot popular, and found few readers. Dr. Johnson\\n(Irife of Milton) says: To prove the paucity of\\nreaders, it may be sufl cient to remark that the nation\\nhad been satisfied from 1623 to 1664, that is, forty-\\none years, with only two editions of Shakespeare,\\nwhich probably did not together make one thousand\\ncopies. Probably not more than one-half of a thou-\\nsand, for George Steevens estimates that the (first)\\nedition numbered 250 copies Lee, 305.\\nIt is a surprising fact, Ingleby being witness, that\\nthere is not one word of praise of the works of Shake-\\nspeare, plays or poems, between 1592 and 1623, by any\\ndramatist or poet of the first or second rank. Noth-\\ning from such men but an occasional allusion to a play", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0356.jp2"}, "357": {"fulltext": "^HE FIRST FOI.IO. 335\\nor poem, often distant. Not one word in commenda-\\ntion of author or works. Whatever in Ingleby s\\nCenturie of Prayse is really praise was written by men\\nof no mark whatever, usually of the Weever and\\nDigges stamp. Such men were not qualified to judge\\nof the works of Shakespeare, or of appreciating them\\nin the slightest degree, and the}^ were as likely to at-\\ntribute their production to a player at the Curtain as\\nto anyone else. As Mr. T.W.White says: Why\\nhave we nothing from Thomas Kyd, George Peele,\\nThomas I^odge, George Chapman, Samuel Daniel, Ben\\nJonson, Michael Drayton, Christopher Marlowe,\\nThomas Dekker, John Marston, John Fletcher, Fran-\\ncis Beaumont. John Middleton, or Philip Massinger?\\nThey were all contemporaries, poets and dramatists\\n148.\\nKven Burton s Anatomy of Melancholy, published\\n1 62 1, while it quotes Spenser, Sidney and other poets\\nof that age, never mentions Shakespeare. Evidently,\\nHalliwell-Phillipps bard of our admiration or\\ngreat dramatist had not revealed himself to the\\nother great writers of that generation. Dr. Ingleby\\nexpresses surprise that not only among the poets and\\ndramatists above named, but such writers, or great\\nnames as I^ord Brooke, lyord Bacon, Selden, Sir\\nJohn Beaumont, Henry Vaughan, and Lord Claren-\\ndon, no pains of research could connect the most\\ntrivial allusion to the Bard or his works; and he\\nquotes approvingly Gerald Massey s remarks that\\nShakespeare s contemporaries had no adequate con-\\nception of what manner of man or majesty of mind", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0357.jp2"}, "358": {"fulltext": "336 shaksp:^r not shakkspeare;.\\nwere amongst them. We know him better than they\\ndid.\\nIt was this very Folio which Jonson was so care-\\nlessly prefacing that was to create and maintain a\\nreputation for the Shakespeare plays that should fill\\nthe whole earth but not in Jonson s day, or for two\\nhundred years after. Up to 1623, no man could have\\nknown there were Shakespeare plays except through\\nthe Quarto copies of single plays stigmatized in a\\nlump by the ostensible editors of the Folio, as stolen\\nand surreptitious, and but twelve of the great plays\\nhad borne the name of William Shakespeare. Several\\nof the greatest plays of the series were to appear in\\nthis Folio for the first time.\\nTherefore Jonson s praises of the plays were pur-\\nposely beyond all reason, ironical. The next lines\\ntouch up the player:\\nFor though thou hast small I,atin and less Greek\\nFrom thence to honor thee I would not seek\\nFor names; but call forth thundering Aeschylus,\\nEuripides and Sophocles to us,\\nPacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,\\nTo life again to hear thy buskin tread\\nAnd shake a stage; or when thy socks were on,\\nLeave thee alone for the comparison\\nOf all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome\\nSent forth or since did from their ashes come.\\nTriumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show\\nTo whom all scenes of Furope homage owe.\\nWe have before seen that small Latin at that day\\nmeant a lack of any education at all, and this was\\ndoubtless what Jonson intended to signify. As to his\\nrank as a player, we have also seen that William", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0358.jp2"}, "359": {"fulltext": "Th:^ first FOI.IO. 337\\nShaksper was a very inferior one. He was scarcely\\nmentioned by contemporaries at all, and when he was,\\nit was in connection with no histrionic power. He\\nwas one of the clowns, a pupil of Kempe, and what\\nsort of man Kempe was, Dr. Rolfe s picture shows us.\\nTherefore, to talk about bringing Pacuvius, Accius,\\nand Seneca to life again, to hear this player s buskin\\ntread, and shake a stage, or when thy socks are on\\nthat is, when you are jigging it on boards and\\nbarrel-heads, or playing at the Curtain or the Globe\\nnothing that Greece or Rome, or later ages, have pro-\\nduced can hold a candle to you; that Britain may\\ntriumph, for now she has an actor to whom all Europe\\nconfesses homage to talk in this way is not laudatory,\\nor friendly, but abusive, defamatory, scurrilous.\\nRemember Jonson was apostrophizing a man who\\nhad got rich and gave himself airs (coat-armour, etc.)\\nby running a public theater, the lowest place of enter-\\ntainment, a center of organized vice, who belonged to\\na despised occupation, whom no one confessed to hav-\\ning known, but who was set up as the writer of these\\nplays.\\nSuppose that Jones, of Allegheny, had just delivered\\na speech in the New York Assembly, when up jumps\\nRogers, of Cattaraugus, and apostrophizes Jones as the\\nSoul of the Age, the applause, delight and wonder of\\nall creation, far ahead of Clay, Webster, Everett, not\\nto say Demosthenes or Cicero, and calls on America to\\ntriumph, for she has one now to show to whom all\\nChristendom owes homage. I am inclined to think\\nthere would be a fight in two minutes, and that Jones", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0359.jp2"}, "360": {"fulltext": "33^ shakspe;r not shaki^speIar:^.\\nwould be justified in tackling Rogers for deriding and\\nlampooning him.\\nThen Jonson turns to the surviving author, and\\nhints that this sweet Swan may show itself again:\\nWhat a sight it were,\\nTo see thee in our waters yet appear,\\nAnd make those flights upon the bank of Thames,\\nThat did so take Eliza and our James.\\nHe closes, by calling on him, if he means to do it at\\nall, to be quick, for since thy flight (thy disappear-\\nance, thy seclusion, the cessation of the plays) the\\ndrooping stage has mourned like night because it\\ncannot get a new supply of plays. So Shine forth,\\nthou Star of Poets, give us some more new plays,\\npray.\\nAnd see the man chuckle as he writes at the tail of\\nhis verse under the cut, the notice to the reader, that\\nsince he cannot expect him to discover the wit of\\nwhich he has been talking in that stolid figure-head,\\nWhy reader, look not at the Picture, but his Book\\nIt has been suggested that Jonson had recently,\\n(since his conversation with Drummond, 1619,)\\nlearned the secret of these plays, but was loyal to the\\ninterest of the author, or one of them, still living in\\n1623, and he entreats him to cheer again the drooping\\nstage. What a sight it were to see thee in our waters\\nyet appear. Donnelly well says, p. 96 How comes it\\nthat Jonson expresses the hope that the author would\\nreappear, and write new plays, and cheer the drooping\\nstage, and shine forth again, if he referred to the man", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0360.jp2"}, "361": {"fulltext": "The; i^irsi foIvIO. 339\\nwhose moldering relics had been lying in the Strat-\\nford church for seven years\\nWe have seen that the Shakespeare plays were not\\nwritten for the rabble who crowded the narrow limits\\nof the Curtain and Globe, illiterate, who could not\\nfor the most part read and write but also that they\\nwere not understood even by the better class of\\npeople. The earliest real appreciation came in the\\nfirst third of the 19th century. For Jonson to pretend\\nto go into exstacies over the plays, and over player\\nShaksper, lauding him as one of whom Britain was\\nproud, was all of a piece, and can only be explained by\\nhis intention to deride the man and the pretensions set\\nup for him.\\nAll the early commentators took the ground that Jon-\\nfeon was envious of the player, whom they, the com-\\nmentators, held to have been Shakespeare, the author,\\nand embraced every opportunity to sneer at and de-\\npreciate him. Thus Steevens says: The whole of\\nJonson s Prologue to Every Man in his Humour is a\\nmalicious sneer at Shakspere Malone talks about\\nthe baseness and malignity of Jonson s conduct towards\\nShakspere. Gifford, I^ife of Jonson, says: Mr.\\nMalone quotes the passage in more than one place to\\nevince the malignity of Jonson,\\nReed says: Jonson s insincerity was for two hun-\\ndred years a matter of universal comment among\\nscholars; Dryden, Malone, Steevens, Chalmers, and\\nothers, had no doubt on the subject. And scholars\\nwould be of the same mind to-day, had not the recent\\nappreciation of these plays reduced Jonson s panegyric\\nwithin bounds. Two things happened which Jonson", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0361.jp2"}, "362": {"fulltext": "340 shaksp:^r noi shaki^spbare;.\\ndid not foresee. The first, that the genesis of the\\nmyth that Shaksper was the author of the Poems and\\nPlays was right there, in those verses; the second,\\nthat and it would have astonished Jonson not a\\nlittle in the lapse of the centuries, his praises, which\\nin 1623, if understood literally, were extravagant and\\nridiculous, would come to be regarded as within the\\ntruth that the reputation of these plays should have\\nfar outgrown that of any and all the works of other\\npoets and dramatists of Elizabeth s day. The verses\\nthat in 1623, if soberly written, were lies, to-day are\\ntruths. Jonson had said in his epigram on Poet- Ape,\\nby whom some authors understand manager Shaksper:\\nThe sluggish gaping auditor\\nmarks not whose twas first; and aftertimes\\nMay judge it to be his.\\nFool! as if half eyes will not know a fleece\\nFrom locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece.\\nThe half eyes for three hundred years have taken\\nthe locks of wool for the whole fleece, led uninten-\\ntionally to do so by Jonson himself.\\nAs we have seen, Mr. Fleay, while not denouncing\\nJonson s affectations as malicious, tells us, that in his\\nopinion, no value is to be attributed to them, that is,\\nthat Jonson was insincere.\\nIn 1 6 19, three years after Shaksper s death, and four\\nyears before the eulogistic verses appeared in the Folio,\\nJonson visited William Drummond of Hawthornden,\\nanother poet, and Drummond entered in his note-book\\nJonson s remarks on the poets and play-wrights of his\\ntime. So much as relates to Shakespeare is given by", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0362.jp2"}, "363": {"fulltext": "THE FIRST FOLIO. 34I\\nIngleby, p. 129:) His censure (opinion) of the Eng-\\nlish Poets was this that Shakespeer wanted\\nart. Sheakspear in a play brought in a number of\\nmen saying they had suffered ship-wreck in Bohemia,\\nwher yr is no sea neer by some 100 miles\\nIn the verses of the FoHo, Jonson says:\\nYet must I not give nature all; thy Art,\\nMy gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part;\\nFor though the Poet s matter Nature be\\nHis Art doth give the fashion and that he\\nWho casts to write a living line must sweat\\n(Such as thine are) and strike the second beat\\nUpon the Muse s anvil; turn the same\\nAnd himself with it, that he thinks to frame.\\nOr for the laurel he may gain a scorn.\\nFor a good poet s made, as well as born.\\nAnd such wert thou! Look how the father s face\\nLives in his issue, even so the race\\nOf Shakespeare s mind and manners brightly shines\\nIn his well-turned and true-filed lines.\\nIn 16 19, Jonson told Drummond that Shakespeare\\nwanted art; in 1623, he says Shakespeare has art\\nplenty of it;* he is a poet and made so by labor; he had\\nhad to sweat for it, to write and re- write, strike the\\nsecond heat upon the anvil You are by nature a\\npoet, but a good poet is made as well as born (And\\nsuch wert thou; witness thy well-turned and true-\\nfiled lines).\\nThere is every reason to believe that Jonson ex-\\npressed to Drummond, in 1619, his then candid opin-\\nion of the plays of Shakespeare. By 1623, he had\\n*I have before quoted John Taylor s line: Spenser and\\nShakespeare did in art excel.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0363.jp2"}, "364": {"fulltext": "342 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKE^SPEARiE.\\napparently experienced an entire change of heart, and\\nin the prefatory verses gave a directly opposite opinion.\\nBut, as addressed to Shaksper, the player, on the the-\\nory that he was the Shakespeare, every line is not\\nmerely inapplicable, but absurd. Not one of the\\nShaksperolaters believes that the bard of his admi-\\nration labored over the plays; on the contrary, most\\nof them hold with Phillipps that this man alone of all\\nmortals since the days of the Hebrew prophets wrote\\nunder immediate inspiration, not by design that in\\nthe odd half-hours snatched from his theatrical duties,\\nwithout study, and without books, he dashed off com-\\npleted plays, Macbeth, Lear, Hamlet, etc., moved by\\nsome beneficent and divine influence that was thus\\nkindly helping him to fill the pit and galleries of his\\ntheater with the stinkards and prostitutes of London.\\nThe remaining fraction will say that Shaksper had\\npicked up somewhere a little smattering of knowl-\\nedge, and of languages, and that all shortcomings,\\nsuch as the sea-coast of Bohemia, were owing\\nto his defective early advantages. One individual,\\nLecturer Wendell, of Harvard, has put it on rec-\\nord that these plays are not so extraordinary as\\npeople have thought, and intimates that he knows of\\na man, who, given a few Elizabethan books, and Coke\\nupon Littleton, could compose plays after the manner\\nof Shakespeare that would surprise himself, a fact\\nwhich I doubt not at all.* But plainly these words of\\nProfessor Wendell, testing his theory, has published a\\nShaksperesque play, called Ralegh in Guiana, in Scribner s\\nMagazine, June, 97, from which I cull a few gems. And I\\ntake the opportunity to say that his mentions of Mary Fitton", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0364.jp2"}, "365": {"fulltext": "the; first FOI.IO. 343\\nJonson are totally unsuited to the Stratford man, on\\nany theory whatever. The laudatory contribution is\\nindivisible, and the votaries of the man Shakespeare\\ncannot be allowed to appropriate what they like, and\\nignore the rest; cannot toss up their caps at the men-\\nare execrable, baseless, and libelous. If that lady has any de-\\nscendants in Harvard, they should take it out with Professor\\nWendell on the campus:\\nThen beware sir, how you loose\\nYour tongue. My hair in youth was red;\\nAnd though sea-salt encrust it now with gray\\nThe head beneath stays hot.\\nThe cloudy monster, circumstance,\\nAffrighting common folk, doth melt to air\\nRound them that, plunging in her maw, dare vex\\nHer misty bowels.\\nLusty Ben\\nYou know him?\\nHe that makes the plays,\\nI^aid bricks once, slew a player, and drinks deep?\\nThe same, he was my tutor. Once I plied him\\nTill he was e en past snoring. Then, his heels\\nTogether, I bade them lay him in a cart\\nAnd carry him abroad through Paris streets,\\nA livelier image of a crucifix\\nThan any carved in France.\\nKeep the peace\\nTill then; and send me for a challenger\\nSome stale companion of thy lady wife\\nHer that the player wrote his sonnets for\\nAnd Pembroke fooled with.\\nThis is worse than what in other yeare\\nI thought my worst when Mary Fitton, sir.\\nWho was my wife at last played me false\\nWith one Will Shakspere a common player\\nThat made plays, otherwise noteless,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0365.jp2"}, "366": {"fulltext": "344 SHAKSPKR NOT shakeispeiar:^.\\ntion of the Sweet Swan of Avon, and smother the\\ntestimony of Jonson that the Shakespeare he has in\\nmind, and is talking of, took infinite pains in shaping\\nand polishing his verses. Further, that Shakespeare s\\nmind and manners live in his verses as the face of a\\nfather in his sons face; that is, the verses show them-\\nselves to be the work of an educated man and gentle-\\nman, which Jonson could not possibly have said of any\\nwork of William Shaksper, for the sufl cient reason\\nthat he was neither an educated man, nor a gentle-\\nman.\\nIt is certain that Jonson did not regard Shakespeare\\nas a great poet, or as exceling or equaling Chaucer,\\nSpenser, and others, although he pronounced him to\\nbe a good poet; and we know this from Jonson him-\\nself. He died in 1637, fifteen years after the issue of\\nthe Folio. In 1641, there was published his work\\nentitled Timber, or Discoveries made upon Men and\\nMatter as they have flowed out of his daily Readings,\\nor had their reflex to his peculiar Notion of the\\nTimes. The subject-matter is in paragraphs, each\\nunder its own heading, and was jotted down from\\ntime to time during the last years of his life. It fills\\ntwenty-five large, fine-printed pages in Moxon s edi-\\ntion of Jonson s Works. On the fifth page, under the\\nhead of Memoria, the author speaks of himself as hav-\\ning passed forty, when his memory began to fail him,\\nand as now being shaken with age so that his\\nmemory cannot promise much As Jonson was bom\\nin 1574, past forty would be 16 14, and to be shaken\\nwith age, past another ten years at least. On the\\neighth page, he speaks of Francis Bacon, Dominus", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0366.jp2"}, "367": {"fulltext": "THS MRST FOI.IO. 345\\nVerulamius, as one who had Hved. Bacon died in\\n1626. From these dates, it is evident that nearly, if\\nnot quite, all of these Discoveries were written after\\nthe death of Shaksper, and after the issue of the\\nFolio.\\nOn page 8, just after the paragraph on Bacon in the\\nScriptorum Catalogus, in which he enumerates by name\\nmany wits of that and the preceding age that could\\nhonor a language or help study and among them\\nBacon, who had filled all numbers, and performed\\nthat in our tongue which may be compared or pre-\\nferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome\\n(thus repeating the words he had used respecting\\nShakespeare in the Folio), he closes the section\\nby saying that Bacon may be named, and stand as the\\nmark and the acme of our language. As acme means\\nthe highest point, the pinnacle, he here puts Bacon,\\nwho had filled all numbers, above every other author\\nin the language. He has now no thought of Shakes-\\npeare whom he had, in 1623, apostrophized as the\\nSoul of the Age, the Star of Poets, the man not for\\nan age, but for all time; whose writings could not be\\npraised too much; a monument without a tomb; as\\nout of all proportion greater than the hitherto greatest\\nof English poets. And now, in the Catalogue of\\nWriters, he has forgotten that such a name existed in\\nEnglish lyiterature.\\nAgain, some years later, under the head of Prae-\\ncipiendi modi (17th page), on the instruction of youth,\\nwe find this: Therefore youth ought to be instructed\\nbetimes and in the best things. And as it is\\nfit to read the best authors to youth first, so let them", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0367.jp2"}, "368": {"fulltext": "346 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEJAR^.\\nbe of the openest and clearest; and lie goes on to\\nmention sucli authors as would serve this purpose,\\nSidney and Donne, Gower and Chaucer, but again for-\\ngets all about Shakespeare.\\nPlainly enough, notwithstanding the praises heaped\\nupon the author of the Shakespeare plays in the Folio\\nverses, as well as upon the plays themselves, Jonson\\ndid not really hold Shakespeare to be one of the fore-\\nmost poets, and the praises were simply ironical. As\\nwe have seen. Dr. Ingleby, in his Preface, speaks of\\nJonson s omitting to mention Shakespeare, as above, as\\nsomething remarkable. There is but one explanation\\nof the fact possible.\\nAt an early date in the Discoveries, 7th page, or two\\npages after the Memoria, which as we have seen, must\\nhave been written after 1623, we have De Shakespeare\\nNostrat, which undoubtedly means player Shaksper.\\nHe says he had heard from the players, (all illiterate\\nmen, be it remembered) that Shakespeare had written\\nsomething, he knows not what, whatsoever he\\npenned with such facility that he never blotted out\\na line; meaning there were no erasures, or alterations\\nin the manuscript. His answer was that from what he\\nknew of the man, he ought to have blotted out a\\nthousand lines, for he was naturallj^ so garrulous and\\nblunderheaded, that it could not have been otherwise.\\nFollowing the text, the words are these:\\nI remember the players have often mentioned it as\\nan honor to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatso-\\never he penned) he never blotted out a line. My\\nanswer hath been, would he had blotted a thousand.\\nWhich they thought a malevolent speech. I had not", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0368.jp2"}, "369": {"fulltext": "the; first folio. 347\\ntold posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose\\nthat circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein\\nhe most faulted; and to justify mine own candor; for I\\nloved the man and do honor his memory, on this side\\nidolatry, as much as any. He was indeed honest, and\\nof an open and free nature, had an excellent phantasy;\\nwherein he flowed with that facility, that sometimes it\\nwas necessary he should be stopped. Sufflami7iandus erat,\\nas Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his\\nown power, would the rule of it had been so too.\\nMany times he fell into those things could not escape\\nlaughter; as when he said in the person of Caesar,\\none speaking to him: Caesar thou dost me wrong he\\nreplied, Caesar did never wrong but with just cause\\nand such like; which were ridiculous.\\nThis play was first published in the Folio, and Act III, 1., 7,\\nreads:\\nKnow Caesar doth not wrong, faor without cause,\\nWill he be satisfied?\\nProbably player Shaksper, in spouting his part in a Caesar\\nplay, had made the blunder Jonson speaks of. H.-P. II, 257,\\ntells us that Caesar was a favorite subject for dramatic repre-\\nsentation from 1579 onward. There were ntunerous Caesar\\nplays by as many authors, and, as in so many other cases, these\\nwould be utilized in the preparation of the Shakespeare Julius\\nCaesar. Several of them were based on North s translation of\\nPlutarch s L,ife of Caesar, and naturally they would have had\\nresemblances indeed identical expressions. Whether the Shake-\\nspeare play had ever been seen on the stage before its publica-\\ntion in 1623 or not, is altogether uncertain. There is no direct\\nevidence in its favor. Some commentators guess from the\\npaucity of light-endings and weak endings all twaddle that\\nit was composed about 1601. But so far as Ingleby s references\\nshow, any Caesar performed before the issue of the Folio must\\nhave been one of the old plays mentioned.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0369.jp2"}, "370": {"fulltext": "348 SHAKSPKR NOT shak:^spe;ar:s.\\n(Could Jonson have used such language respecting\\nthe real Shakespeare, the author of Hamlet\\nIn other words, Shaksper talked too much, and by\\nhis blunders and chattering made himself a laughing-\\nstock. Why Johnson, while depreciating player\\nShaksper in one sentence, should have said in the\\nnext that nevertheless he almost idolized the man, and\\nloved him, and honored his memorj^, is not apparent,\\nunless it is to be explained on the ground that Jonson\\ndearly loved to satirize his quondam friend, but recent\\nenemy, and took care that his praise should be balanced\\nby his criticisms.\\nDrummond, in his note-book, entered this character\\nof Ben Jonson: He is a great lover and praiser of\\nhimself; a contemner and scorner of others; given\\nrather to lose a friend than a jest; jealous of every\\nword and action of those about him, especially after\\ndrink, which is one of the elements in which he\\nliveth, etc. Chamber s Knc, Kng. lyit., Jonson.\\nIf Jonson goes, who remains, and what becomes of\\nthe Shaksper myth? It had its beginning with\\nJonson, and for nearly three hundred years has had\\nno support whatever outside Jonson s verses. The\\napex of the inverted Shaksper pyramid rests on that\\nlittle bit of contradictory testimony.\\nThe suggestion that the Shaksper story may be\\nmythical, that the well-known facts of Shaksper s life\\nmade it out of the question that he could have written\\nthe Shakespeare plays the one answer has been that\\nJonson expressly said that Shakespeare, by whom of\\ncourse he meant our beloved Swan of Avon, was the\\nSoul of the Age, the Star of Poets. Point out that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0370.jp2"}, "371": {"fulltext": "i*he; first foIvIO. 349\\nJonson, at other times and places, expressed himself\\nin terms incompatible with the sentiment of the\\nverses, and by omitting the author of these plays\\nfrom a list of good poets, or by refusing to recommend\\nhis works as worth study, showed that he had but\\na slight opinion of plays or works; and hence it is\\nclear that his praises in the Folio were not honest;\\nthe reply is: But he said that Shakespeare s writings\\nwere such that neither man nor Muse could praise too\\nmuch, and that he soared far above Chaucer or Spenser,\\nand that all the world was saymg so. Which very\\nwords, in view of the fact that up to 1623 nobody\\nwhatever had said so, and that the world neither knew\\nnor cared about these plays, are enough to make it im-\\npossible that the verses could have been written other-\\nwise than in joke. Jonson never dreamed that such\\nhyperbolical language could be taken seriously.\\nA clipping from a recent newspaper is instructive in\\nthis matter. It is headed Mar5 s letter from Cali-\\nfornia\\nWhy, she says the red-wood trees are so tall that\\nit requires two people to see the top. It does not\\nseem possible and strawberries as big as pineapples.\\nWho ever heard the like\\nDon t you see, grandma, that Mary is only chaff-\\ning She purposely makes stories so big that no one\\nwill believe them. It is just a satire on the boastful\\nclaims made for that country.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0371.jp2"}, "372": {"fulltext": "350 shakspe;r not shak:^spe;arb;.\\nCHAPTER XII.\\nHBMINGB AND CONDBlvL.\\nHeminge and Condell (Ing. 143-45), fellow-players\\nof Shaksper, are the ostensible editors of the First\\nFolio of the collected plays, 1623, and the apparent\\nauthors of the Dedication and Prefatory Address.\\nThe Dedication is to the Barls of Pembroke and Mont-\\ngomery, and in part runs thus:\\nWhen we value the places your H.H. sustain, we\\ncannot but know their dignity greater than to descend\\nto the readings of these trifles. But since your I^.L.\\nhave been pleased to think these trifles something,\\nheretofore etc., etc. in short, we venture to pub-\\nlish them.\\nIn the Address: It had been a thing, we confess,\\nworthy to have been wished, that the Author himself\\nhad lived to set forth, and overseen his own writings;\\nbut since it hath been ordained, a7id he by death de-\\nparted from that right, we pray you do not envy his\\nFriends the ofiice of their care and pain to have col-\\nlected them; and so to have published them, as wher^e\\n{before you were abused with divers stolen and surrep-\\ntitious copies, and deformed by the frauds and stealths of\\ninjurious impostors that exposed thejn (that is, ex\\nposed them for sale, or published them Craik);\\neven those are now offered to your view cured and per-\\nfect of their limbs, as he conceived them. His\\nmind and hand went together; and what he thought,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0372.jp2"}, "373": {"fulltext": "HEMINGK AND CONDKl.Iv. 351\\nhe Uttered with, that easiness that we have scarce re-\\nceived from him a blot in his papers, etc., etc.\\nThis statement, if Heminge and Condell really made\\nit, would show that they were totally ignorant of the\\nways of authors. No manuscript of any length was\\never written wdthout corrections, excisions, additions,\\nerasures, and emendations, and to claim that here was\\na man who wrote a vast mass of manuscript with\\nscarce a blot, is so contrary to what the fact must\\nhave been, that evidently it was not expected to be\\nbelieved. It is ridicule of Shaksper s claim of author-\\nship of the same nature as that which runs through\\nJonson s mocking verses. Indeed it is probable that\\nJonson wrote both Dedication and Address, as Malone\\nsuggests, and as many Shakespeare critics have be-\\nlieved.\\nThe Address distinctly states that Shaksper, at his\\ndeath, still owned these plays; that his friends, Hem-\\ninge and Condell, were at the pains to have collected\\nthe plays and published them (implying oversight);\\nthat the previous copies (the Quartos) were stolen and\\nsurreptitious, deformed by the frauds of the impostors\\nwho had published them; and that the Folio copies\\nnow offered were received from Shaksper himself, and\\nwere cured and perfect of limb, just as the author con-\\nceived them.\\nCraik says, English of Shakespeare Here we\\nhave, along with an emphatic and undiscriminating\\ncondemnation of all the preceding impressions, a dis-\\ntinct declaration by the publishers of the present vol-\\nume (H. C.) that they had the use of the author s\\nmanuscripts", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0373.jp2"}, "374": {"fulltext": "352 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPBJAR:^.\\nReed says: The ostensible editors were two play-\\nwrights, formerly connected with the company of\\nwhich William Shakspere was a member. Heminge\\nappears also to have been a grocer. In the dedication,\\nthey characterize the Plays, with singular infelicity, as\\ntrifles They astonish us still more by the use they\\nmake of Pliny s Epistle to Vespasian, prefixed to his\\nNatural History, and not translated into English till\\n1635. Not only are the thoughts of the I^atin author\\nmost happily introduced, but they are amplified and\\nfitted to the purpose with consummate literary skill.\\nDr. Ingleby, note, 144, says: The first part of the\\nperoration of this address is so good as to evoke the\\nsuspicion that it is not original. In truth\\nthe beginning of the peroration is literally translated\\nfrom Pliny s dedicatory epistle to Vespasian, prefixed\\nto his Natural History, which ran thus: Country\\npeople and many nations offer milk to their gods; and\\n-they who have not incense obtain their requests with\\nonly meal and salt; nor was it imputed to any as a\\nfault to worship the gods in whatever way they\\ncould\\nThe Address says: Country hands reach forth\\nmilk, cream, fruits, or what they have; and many\\nNations (we have heard) that had not gums and in-\\ncense obtained their requests with a leavened cake.\\nIt was no fault to approach their gods by what means\\nthey could; and the most, though meanest of things,\\nare made more precious when they are dedicated to\\nTemples. In that name, therefore, we most humbly\\nconsecrate to your highnesses these remains of your\\nservant Shakespeare, etc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0374.jp2"}, "375": {"fulltext": "HEJMINGH AND CONDEII,!,. 353\\nIngleby further says: The writer of the Address\\nof 1623 added cream and fruits in one place and\\ngums in another; and for mola salsa appears to\\nhave, not unskillfully, caught up Horace s farj^e\\npio\\\\ (Odes, III, 23, 11, 17-20.) He adds, too, very\\ngracefully, that the meanest things are made more\\nprecious when they are dedicated to temples As\\nI have quoted from Mr. Reed, the thoughts of Pliny\\nare not only happily introduced, but they are amplified\\nand fitted to the purpose with consummate skill.\\nMalone suggests that both Dedication and Address\\nwere written by Ben Jonson. Craik thinks that either\\nJonson or another some regular author of the day\\n^were got to write them. Bishop Wordsworth speaks\\nof the Address as supposed to have been written by\\nBen Jonson Why Ben Jonson Because it is not\\nto be believed that men of the occupation and sur-\\nroundings of Heminge and Condell could have written\\nthis learned and ingenious Dedication and Preface.\\nYet it is not one thousandth part so wonderful that\\nthe two strolling players should have composed these\\npapers as that their fellow, William Shaksper, should\\nhave written any one of the Shakespeare plays. If\\noccupation and surroundings are against Heminge\\nand Condell, much more are the same against Shak-\\nsper.\\nAs to these plays in the Folio being perfect, and as\\nthe author conceived them, whereas the Quarto copies\\nwere deformed by frauds, and imperfect, published by\\nimpostors B. Disraeli, in the Amenities of Authors,\\nsays: Heminge and Condell profess that they have\\ndone this oflB.ce to the dead only to keep the memory", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0375.jp2"}, "376": {"fulltext": "354 SHAKSPKR NOT shakksp:^are;.\\nof so worthy a friend alive as was our Shakespeare.\\nYet their utter negligence shown in their fellow s\\nvolume is no evidence of their pious friendship, nor\\nperhaps of their care or their intelligence.\\nNone of the family of Shaksper had any connection\\nwith the publishing of the First Folio, of 1623, (or any\\nsubsequent Folio), nor had his executors. On the\\ntitle page it is said: Printed by Isaac Jaggard and\\nBd. Blount, 1623. At the back of the book\\nPrinted at the charges of W. Jaggard, Bd.\\nBlount, I. Smithweeke and W. Aspley, 1623 This\\nJaggard is the man who, in 1599, had published a work\\ncalled the Passionate Pilgrim, made up of two sonnets\\nof Shakespeare and a few verses from lyove s la-\\nbour s lyost, with a good deal more from other authors,\\nthe whole attributed to William Shakespeare.*\\nH.-P., I, 179, says of this book: The entire pub-\\nlication bears evident marks of an attempted fraud.\\nOther editors speak of Jaggard as the piratical pub-\\nlisher. Well, he was the proper man to be connected\\nwith the fraud now about to be perpetrated in this\\nFolio. The volume was got out by an association of\\nprinters, Jaggard being a specimen brick, and they\\nemployed some other than the illiterate fellow-players\\nof Shaksper to write Dedication and Preface.\\nii^g ^jjg publisher of The Passionate Pilgrim Jaggard\\nseems to have learnt for the first time that Shakespeare was\\nwhat he would doubtless have called a selling name. He was\\nconsequently quite ready to embark substantial capital in a\\nvery large venture of a complete collection of his plays. These\\nfive traders all of whom ignored and defied on principle the\\ninterests of contemporary authors were readily responsible for\\nthe great First Folio, Sidney I^ee, Cornhill, April, 1S99, p. 450.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0376.jp2"}, "377": {"fulltext": "HKMINGE) AND CONDKLI.. 355\\nDr. Morgan, 107-9: Whatever literary property-\\nthen existed at common law was in the shape of a\\nlicense to reprint a work under the permission of the\\nStationer s Company.^ Once in their hands, printers\\ndid what they pleased with a manuscript; abridged it,\\nlengthened it, altered it. They assigned the authorship\\nto any name they thoitght would help sell the book, and\\ndedicated it to whom they pleased. Thus it happened,\\nthat a name on a title page was not evidence that the\\nindividual so named was the author of the printed\\nbook.\\nIn the present case, the name of William Shake-\\nspeare, our fellow on the title page, goes in no way\\nas proof that our fellow (whose name was not Shake-\\nspeare) wrote these plays, or had any connection with\\nthem; and the names of Heminge and Condell are no\\nevidence that they were the real editors, or the authors\\nof the Dedication or Address. Between 1595 and 1609,\\nanybody was free to use the name of William Shake-\\nspeare. No play is entered at the Stationer s Register\\nunder this name, or of Shaksper, or Shakspere. In\\nevery case the entry is for the printer. (See Fleay,\\nAppendix, I^ife, where all the plays entered at the\\nIn 1556, Philip and Mary had erected 97 booksellers into a\\nbody called The Stationer s Company who were to monopo-\\nlize the printing of books, if they chose. They had given them\\npower and authority to print such books as they obtained, either\\nfrom author s manuscript or translations, and to see very care-\\nfully that nobody else printed them. Their power was absolute,\\nand they were empowered to suppress any printed\\nmatter they did not choose to license, wherever they pleased\\netc.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0377.jp2"}, "378": {"fulltext": "356 shakspi;r not shakespejare.\\nStationer s Register between 1584 and 1640 are\\ngiven.\\nThe note in Ingleby upon the assertion that the\\neditors printed from the author s manuscript, reads:\\nIf by this they intended to convey to the reader the\\nnotion that the text of the Foho of 1623 was printed\\nfrom the author s own manuscript, they must stand\\nconvicted of a suggestio falsi; for five at least of the\\nplays included in that volume are little more than the\\nreprint of the previous quarto editions, characterized\\nby them as surreptitious copies, etc.\\nIn his Essays, 1888, Dr. Ingleby again saj -s: I\\nsuppose I must cite the ostensible editors of the first\\ncollection of Shakespeare s work but un-\\nfortunately for their credit and our own satisfaction,\\ntheir prefatory statement contains, or at least suggests,\\nwhat they must have known to be false.\\nDowden says, 233: In their address to the readers,\\nthey profess to give for the first time the true text,\\nand it is implied that they printed from Shakespeare s\\nmanuscripts. As a fact, the text abounds with er-\\nrors, and in many instances they evidently print from\\nthe Quartos.\\nThe address distinctly states that William Shak-\\nsper, at his death, still owned these plays; that his\\nfriends, Heminge and Condell, were at the care and\\npains to have collected and published them (implying\\noversight, supervision) that the previous copies the\\nQuartos, newly corrected, augmented and amended\\nthe second quarto of Romeo and Juliet; or the 2nd\\nquarto of Hamlet, which Fleay says is much superior\\nto the Hamlet of the First Folio, and is in the shape", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0378.jp2"}, "379": {"fulltext": "HKMlNGBi AND dONDEjtt. ^S7\\nfittest for private reading as well as all the rest,\\nwere stolen and surreptitious, deformed by tlie frauds\\nof tlie impostors who had published them a declara-\\ntion that Shaksper had no interest in, or connection\\nwith, the Quartos; and that the Folio copies now of-\\nfered were received from William Shaksper himself,\\nand are cured and perfect in all respects, just as he\\nconceived them.\\nThe commentators, one and all, either make light of\\nthese statements, or say in effect that no one is ex-\\npected to believe them. Craik says: What they\\nsay is nothing more than the sort of recommendation\\nwith which it was customary for enlarged and improved\\neditions to be introduced to the world. Of\\ncorrection for the press, there is not one word. He\\nfurther says: It is not likely that the two players,\\nwho, with the exception of this Dedication and\\nPreface, to which their names are attached, are quite\\nunknown in connection with literature, were at all\\nqualified for such a function. There is prob-\\nably not a page in it (the Folio) which is not dis-\\nfigured by many minute inaccuracies and irregularities.\\nThe most elementary proprieties of the metrical ar-\\nrangement are violated in innumerable passages. In\\nsome places the verse is printed as plain prose; else-\\nwhere, prose is ignorantly and ludicrously exhibited\\nin the guise of verse. Everything betokens\\nthat editor or editing of the volume, in any proper or\\ndistinctive sense, there could have been none. In one\\ninstance (Much Ado), we have actually the names of\\nthe actors by whom the play was performed prefixed", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0379.jp2"}, "380": {"fulltext": "35^ SHAKSPi^R NOl SHAltESPE^AR:^.\\nto their portions of the dialogue instead of those of\\nthe dramatis personae, etc.\\nMr. Knight observes that it shows very clearly the\\ntext of the play (Much Ado) to have been taken from\\nthe prompter s book. But the fact is, the scene in ques-\\ntion is given in the same way in the previous Quarto\\nedition of the play, published in 1600, so that here the\\nprinters had evidently no manuscript of any kind in\\ntheir hands, any more than had anyone over them to\\nprevent them from blindly following their printed copy\\ninto the most transparent absurdities. In ad-\\ndition to a large number of doubtful or disputed pas-\\nsages, there are many readings in it (Folio) which are\\neither absolutely unintelligible and therefore corrupt,\\nor, although not purely nonsensical, yet clearly wrong,\\nand at the same time such as are hardly to be suffi-\\nciently accounted for as to natural mistakes of the\\ncompositor. Such errors and deficiencies can\\nonly be explained on the supposition that the com-\\npositor had been left to depend upon a manuscript\\nwhich was imperfect, or which could not be read.\\nSome of the finest thoughts and expressions are\\nfound in the quarto editions, and not in the Folio.\\nFor instance, in the play of Hamlet, nearly all of Sc.\\nIV, Act 4, is found in the Quarto and not in the\\nFolio. Hundreds of other admirable sen-\\ntences can be quoted which appear in the Quarto, but\\nnot in the Folio. In some respects the stolen\\nand surreptitious copies of the Quarto are more correct\\nthan the Folio, and but for the Quarto we would have\\nlost some of the finest gems of thought and expres-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0380.jp2"}, "381": {"fulltext": "HKMINGK AND CONDB^Ll,. 359\\nsion whicli go by the name of Shakespeare. Don-\\nnelly, 90.\\nKnight saj^s of lyear: lyarge passages which are\\nfound in the Quarto are omitted in the Folio.\\nThese amount to as many as two hundred and twenty-\\nfive lines; and they comprise one entire scene, and one\\nor two of the most striking connected passages in the\\ndrama.\\nAs I have shown elsewhere, many of these plays\\nexist in several forms, brief, or more or less enlarged.\\nHenry V, ist Ed., 1603, contains 1,800 lines; enlarged\\n(Eolio, 1623), contains 3,500 lines. In this elabora-\\ntion the old materials are very carefully used up; but\\nthey are so thoroughly refitted and dovetailed with\\nwhat is new, that the operation can only be compared\\nto the work of a skillful architect, who, having an an-\\ncient mansion to enlarge and beautify, with a strict\\nregard to its original character, preserves every feature\\nof the structure, under other combinations, with such\\nmarvelous skill, that no unity or principle is violated,\\nand the whole has the effect of a restoration in which\\nthe new and old are undistinguishable Charles\\nKnight; Pictorial Shakespeare, Histories, I, 310.\\nHeminge and Condell are made to declare that the\\nplay of Henry V and the rest, were printed from the\\ntrue and original manuscript, that they were absolute\\nin their numbers as he conceived them; that what he\\nthought, he uttered with that easiness, that they have\\nscarce received from him a blot in his papers. From all\\nwhich it appears that these ignorant players set up as the\\nostensible editors of the Folio, were made by the writer\\nof the Dedication and Address, to lie repeatedly and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0381.jp2"}, "382": {"fulltext": "360 shaksp:^r not shake;spi;are;.\\nflagrantly, and their, or his, evidence as to the connec-\\ntion of William Shaksper with these plays, is of no\\nvalue whatever. And yet, notwithstanding the patent\\nfact that these men s names were put forth by a men-\\ndacious writer of paid advertisements, and that there\\nis not an iota of truth in any one of the statements\\nthey are made to utter, their testimony is regarded by\\nthe Shaksperolaters as second in value only to that of\\nJonson, in his verses prefixed to the same Folio. The\\nworld is called on to believe that player Shaksper wrote\\nthe plays on the sole testimony of Jonson, and of\\nHeminge and Condell. What Jonson s verses are worth,\\nI have shown, and here are the others, self convicted\\nliars. The whole squad of writers who introduced\\nthis Folio were of a class, apparently under a contract\\nwith the syndicate of publishers to chant the praises\\nof the rich ex-manager. It suggests the paid effusions\\non the virtues of Pears soap or Payne s Celery Com-\\npound.\\nOne of these writers was Leonard Digges, said by\\nFarmer to have been a wit of the town, and he dis-\\ncourses thus:\\nShakespeare at lengtli thy pious fellowes give\\nThe world thy Works; thy works by which outlive\\nThy Tombe, thy name must; when that stone is rent,\\nAnd Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,\\nHere we alive shall view thee still.\\nThe same Digges wrote later, in 1640, also as a prefix\\nto another Shakespeare volume, this time the poems:\\nNext nature only helped him, for look through\\nThis whole book, thou shalt find he doth not borrow", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0382.jp2"}, "383": {"fulltext": "hi^minge; and conde;i.i:,. 361\\nOne phrase from Greeks, nor Ivatins imitate,\\nNor from the vulgar languages translate,\\nNor plagiari-like from others glean, etc.\\nIt is manifest that he had got beyond his depth, and\\nwas talking of a matter about which he knew noth-\\ning. The fact is, that the author or authors of the\\nShakespeare poems and plays laid all literature, an-\\ncient and modern, under contribution, and borrowed\\nand translated without end. Digges must have had\\nbut a superficial acquaintance with the plays, not ac-\\nquired from reading them, or he would not have mixed\\nup Twelfth Night and As You lyike It, as he did in\\nthese same verses. As he was born in 1588, he was\\nin his youth when Shaksper left lyondon for Stratford.\\nForty years after Heminge and Condell s Preface\\nappeared these words, cited by Shakspereans in favor\\nof their William:\\nMany were the wit-combats betwixt him and Ben\\nJohnson, which two I behold like a Spanish great gal-\\nleon and an English man-of-war; Master Johnson, (like\\nthe former) was built far higher in learning, solid, but\\nslow in his performances. Shakespear, with the Eng-\\nlish man-of-war, lesser in bulk, but lighter in sailing,\\ncould turn with all tides, tack about, and take advan-\\ntage of all winds, by the quickness of his wit and\\ninvention. Fuller, Hist, of the Worthies of Eng-\\nland, II, 114. This is often made to read, I beheld\\nas something Fuller was a personal witness to. Fuller\\nwas but eight years old when Shaksper died, and but\\ntwo, when the player-manager quitted I^ondon. But\\nthe word in Fuller is behold which Knight says\\nmeans with his mind s eye. Morgan says, a fancy", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0383.jp2"}, "384": {"fulltext": "362 SHAKSP:eR NO^I^ SHAKKSPEJAREl.\\nsketch of what Fuller thought likely to have oc-\\ncurred.\\nAs to the Mermaid, Raleigh founded that Club,\\nand he and other gentlemen wits were in the habit of\\nmeeting there. We read of Beaumont, Fletcher, Jon-\\nson, Selden, Donne, Carew and others, but not of\\nShakespeare, nor Shaksper; nor is there any evidence\\nof, or probability of, William Shaksper having had\\nentrance to the Mermaid. His despised profession\\nwould have cut him off from that companionship. As\\nwell might a tumbler, or Savoyard bear-ward, seek ad-\\nmission to the Manhattan Club. No matter how\\ncleanly the lives of players might be says Dr. In-\\ngleby, they were regarded sa7is aveu as runaways\\nand vagrants and Phillipps says (I, 193) that they\\nwere then regarded in about the same light with\\njugglers and buffoons.\\nBeyond this there is nothing from that age to con-\\nnect William Shaksper the player with Shakespeare\\nthe poet. The Shakespeare critics quote Milton as\\na witness for Shaksper. I have spoken of this in\\nChapter X.\\nMilton was but seven years old when player Shak-\\nsper died. His mention of the poet Shakespeare in\\nconnection with the tomb of the player merely shows\\nthat in his time, or after the publication of the Folio,\\nthe plays were beginning to be attributed to the\\nStratford man; not at all that they were written by\\nhim. Milton never saw one of these plays acted, or\\nthe inside of a I^ondon theater; all his knowledge of\\nShakespeare came from reading the Folio. Milton s", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0384.jp2"}, "385": {"fulltext": "H:^MINGE^ and CONDi^Lt. 363\\npretty verses, therefore, are evidence of nothing but\\nhis own imaginative faculty.\\nI^ee, 327, makes much of the Hues by I. M. S., an\\nunknown writer, contributed to the Second Folio of\\n1632, and calls it a splendid eulogy. Ingleby con-\\njectures that the initial letters stand for In Memoriam\\nScriptoris. The opening lines declare Shakespeare s\\nfreehold to have been (Ing. 191):\\nA mind reflecting ages past, whose clear\\nAnd equal surface can make things appear\\nDistant a thousand years, and represent\\nThem in their lively colours just extent.\\nIt was his faculty,\\nTo outrun hasty time, retrieve the fates,\\nRoll back the heavens, blow ope the iron gates\\nOf death and I^ethe, where (confused) lie\\nGreat Heaps of ruinous mortality (etc., through two\\npages).\\nThis is to the author of the Shakespeare plaj -s; not\\na hint in the lines of the player Shaksper, or that I,\\nM.S. personally knew either the author or the player.\\nWhoever wrote this effusion got his ideas of Shake-\\nspeare by reading the Folio.\\nThe secret of the authorship has been well kept, and\\nto this day there is no direct proof as to who the real\\nauthor was. The Plays exist to demonstrate that there\\ndid live one man or several, who, singly, or unitedly,\\nwere equal to their composition; but that man could\\nnot have been William Shaksper, to whom under the\\nstolen name of Shakespeare they have been credited\\nfor centuries. Undisputed possession during any length", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0385.jp2"}, "386": {"fulltext": "364 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAK:eSPKARK.\\nof time is not entitled to respect, if the conditions in-\\nvolve impossibilities. To the time of Galileo, the whole\\ncivilized world believed that the earth circled around\\nthe sun every twenty-four hours, and it is only in our\\nday that the story of William Tell and the apple has\\nbeen relegated to the limbo of myths. Our fore-\\nfathers were quite confident about the existence of\\nRomulus and Remus, of King Arthur, and of Hengist\\nand Horsa.\\nWilliam Shaksper, the player, is never reported to\\nhave been seen with a book in his hand, or as having\\nowned or read one, nor as seen writing poems, or\\nplays; or as having talked about such works; or as\\nengaged in literary occupation of any description. As\\nI show in Chapter XV, the probability that he could\\nwrite with his own hand is exceedingly small. He\\nsimply kept his mouth shut, and by a fine irony, the\\nworld has for three hundred years accepted him as its\\ngreatest poet. Twenty-five hundred years ago, one\\nsaid: Even a fool when he holdeth his peace, is\\ncounted wise; and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed\\na man of understanding.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0386.jp2"}, "387": {"fulltext": "the; sonnets. 365\\nCHAPTER XIII.\\nTHB SONNETS.\\nIn 1609, a book appeared bearing tbe title Shake-\\nspeare s Sonnets. Never before imprinted. At Lon-\\ndon, by G. Eld for T. T. and are to be sold by Jolm\\nWright dwelling at Christ Church Gate, 1609. T.\\nT. stood for one Thomas Thorpe, whom Mr. I ee\\nmakes out to have been a publisher s jackall. Thorpe\\ndedicated the book To the only Begetter of these is-\\nsuing Sonnets, Mr. W. H., all Happiness and that\\nEternity promised by our ever-living poet, wisheth\\nthe well-wishing Adventure in setting forth. T. T.\\nWho wrote the Sonnets no one knew in 1 609 for to say\\nthey were Shake-speare s Sonnets was equivalent to\\nsaying that they were by an unknown writer. It is\\nnot known to this day who wrote them, nor to whom\\nthey were dedicated. They have been attributed to\\nSidney, to I^eicester, to Raleigh, to Francis and Anthony\\nBacon, to the unknown Shakespeare of the plays,\\nand to the Stratford William Shaksper. It was an age\\nof sonnetteering. In 1591, Sidney s sonnets entitled\\nAstrophel and Stella were published, and for the\\nhalf dozen years following, the writing of sonnets en-\\ngaged more literary activity in this country than at\\nany period here or elsewhere. Between 1591 and 1597\\nno aspirant to poetic fame failed to seek a patron s ears\\nby a trial of skill on the popular poetic instrument.\\nI^ee, 83^ It was not till the spring of 1593 that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0387.jp2"}, "388": {"fulltext": "366 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKKSPEARBJ.\\nShakespeare (meaning Shaksper) became a sonnetteer\\non an extended scale. Of the 154 Sonnets, the greater\\nnumber were, in all likelihood, composed between 1593\\nand the autumn of 1594, during his thirtieth and\\nthirty- first year. Id. 85. (Shaksper was born in\\n1564.) Of course, there is not a particle of evidence\\nshowing that this Shaksper ever held a pen in hand,\\nin fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary, but\\nthe conditions are such as to require that all the\\nwork done by William Shake-speare whoever he\\nwas, should be transferred to player Shaksper, and so\\nwe build up the bard of our admiration.\\nIt is of importance to fix the date at which the Son-\\nnets were written, 1593-4.\\nJudge Jesse Johnson, Testimony of the Sonnets\\nas to the Authorship, etc. Putnams, 1899, also\\nholding that the Sonnets were composed when William\\nShaksper would have been about thirty years old,\\ncalls attention to the fact that by their own showing\\nthey were written by a man well past middle age\\nperhaps fifty or sixty years old, certainly not under\\nforty and therefore could not have been written by\\nthe Stratford man.\\nIn Sonnet 73, he speaks of his period of life thus:\\nThat time of year, thou mayst in me behold,\\nWhen yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang\\nUpon the boughs which shake against the cold.\\nIn me thou seest the twilight of each day\\nAs after sunset fadeth in the west.\\nIn me thou seest the glowing of such fire\\nThat on the ashes of his youth doth lie.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0388.jp2"}, "389": {"fulltext": "the; sonnsts. 367\\nSonnet 62\\nBut when my glass shows me myself indeed\\nSeated and chopped with tann d antiquity.\\nSonnet 63:\\nAgainst my love shall be as I am now\\nWith time s injurious hand crushed and o erworn;\\nWhen hours have drained his blood andfilVd his brow,\\nWith lines and wrinkles; when his youthful morn\\nHath traveled on to age s sleepy night, etc.\\nAs clearly as words can say, the poet states that\\nhe is on the sunset side of life, and indicates that he\\nis well advanced toward its close.\\nSonnet 38:\\nThus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,\\nAlthough she knows m,y days are past the best.\\nAnd wherefore say not I that I am old\\nO, love s best habit is in seeming trust,\\nAnd age in love loves not to have years told.\\nJohnson adds: These Sonnets seem to be based on\\nactual occurrences. If so, certainly we may construe\\nthem literally; and read literally they appear to be\\nan old man s lament at having been superseded by a\\nyounger though much loved rival.\\nAs to whom the Sonnets were dedicated, Mr. W.\\nH. there has been great diversity of opinion among\\nthe commentators, some holding William, lyord Her-\\nbert, to be the man; others, Walter Raleigh, taking\\nthe first and last letters of his name. But Mr. Lee\\nknows by intuition that Shaksper was never on term\u00c2\u00a7", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0389.jp2"}, "390": {"fulltext": "368 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nof intimacy with L,ord. Herbert, although the con-\\ntrary has often been recklessly assumed. 94.\\nThen he himself recklessly assumes an intimacy be-\\ntween Shaksper and the Karl of Southampton. There\\nis not merely no evidence of such an intimacy, but no\\nprobability and no possibility of it. Lee goes to the\\nlength of devoting twenty-five pages to this Earl, and\\ngives a full-page cut of him, that we may know what\\na brave friend Shaksper had.\\nMr. Lee was preceded in the Southampton view by\\nGerald Massey, The Secret Drama of Shakspeare s\\nSonnets 1888, who wrote a thick quarto volume in\\nan effort to prove that these sonnets were written by\\nWilliam Shaksper in part, to Southampton, as his\\nintimate friend; in part, for Southampton to his mis-\\ntress, Elizabeth Vernon; in part, for Elizabeth Ver-\\nnon to Lady Rich; in part, for Southampton, in lament\\nfor his imprisonment in the Tower; and twenty-seven\\nof them were composed by Shakspeare at the sug-\\ngestion of young Will Herbert upon his infatuation\\nfor the siren, Lady Rich In fact Mr. Massey would\\nmake the Sonnets to be as much of a drama as was\\nany one of the Shakespeare plays.\\nIt is not a diflScult matter to dispose of this South-\\nampton myth. Here in Massey s pages are letters\\nrunning from 1595 to 1605 by the kindly old gossip\\nRowland White, (published in full in the Sydney Me-\\nmoirs), recounting everything that would interest\\nSouthampton, or Essex, or Herbert and their friends,\\nand nowhere is there a mention of Shaksper or Shake-\\nspeare. Herbert was one of the Essex group of\\nShakspeare s private friends 230. Bacon as a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0390.jp2"}, "391": {"fulltext": "THE SONNiETS. 369\\nfrequenter of the theater with Essex and Southampton,\\nand other of the private friends (of Shaksper) etc.,\\n393. Not only does Rowland White fail to speak of\\nShaksper, but in all the letters of that age detailing\\nthe gossip of the town as to the movements and occu-\\npations of these nobles, or of anybody else, there is\\nno mention of Shaksper s name as connected with\\nSouthampton indeed, no mention at all. So great\\nan authority as Richard Grant White assures us that\\nthere is no proof whatever that Shaksper was per-\\nsonally known to Raleigh, Sidney, Spenser, Bacon, (and\\na dozen other distinguished contemporaries named)\\nor to any of less note among the statesmen, scholars\\nand artists of his day, except the few of his fellow-\\ncraftsmen.\\nThe myths as to Southampton originated in the two\\ndedications prefixed by a bookseller to the Venus and\\nAdonis, and the Lucrece; and to the apocryphal story\\nof gossip Rowe, a hundred years after the alleged\\nevent, as to Southampton having presented Shaksper\\nwith a thousand pounds because without such an in-\\nterposition, it was not easy for the quid-nuncs to ac-\\ncount for Shaksper s purchase of houses and lands in\\nand about Stratford. Shaksper may have seen South-\\nampton through a telescope, but as to a near ap-\\nproach to such a luminary, the customs of that age\\nmake the idea preposterous.\\nMr. W. D. O Connor, Hamlet s Note-Book Bos-\\nton, 1886, sees Raileigh as the author of these Son-\\nnets The allusions of the writer to his overweening\\npride in himself, to his inordinate love of personal\\nadornrnent, (Sou. 125); his costly apparel, (126); at", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0391.jp2"}, "392": {"fulltext": "370 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARK.\\nanother stage, to his poverty, (37); to his physical\\nlameness, (37, 69); to his advanced age (63, 73, 138);\\nto his drained blood (63); to his brow, trenched and\\nwrinkled by time, to his deeply tanned complexion, the\\ningrained sunburn of the field and the voyage, (62);\\nthe references to the guilt imputed to himself (m);\\nthe public scandal, the disgrace (29); the brand upon\\nhis name (iii, 112); the reference to his expectation\\nof a bloody death at the hands of the public execu-\\ntioner (174); the Lion-roar of the 125th Sonnet at the\\nsuborned informer all this and much more confirm\\nthe assertion of Raleigh as the author of these strange\\nand splendid poems.\\nOne of the most strenuous defenders of the Sidney\\nauthorship is Judge John H. Stotsenburg, and in\\nBaconiana for May, 1893, gives reasons for his\\nfaith: The first is, that love is the chief word and\\nargument of the Sonnets. It is found in them more\\nthan 200 times. It is the word which tells the poet s\\nname. It is so stated in Sonnet 76. Sidney arranged\\nhis name in the form of an anagram. Having\\nabridged the name into Phil. Sid. he anagrammatized\\nit into Philisides\u00e2\u0080\u0094 translated Sid (the abridgment of\\nSid-us) into astra, and retaining the Phil as derived\\nfrom Philidos, loved, he constructed another pseudonym\\nand adopted the poetical name of Astrophel, star of\\nlove, or love-star. He distinguishes the Lady Rich,\\nthe bright particular star of his affections, as Stella.\\nIn the Sonnet 76, he could truthfully say that every\\nword doth almost tell my name.\\nA second reason is based on the proper interpreta-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0392.jp2"}, "393": {"fulltext": "the; sonnets. 371\\ntion of the 7th line of Son. 20, which has been a\\nstumbling block to all the commentators.\\nA man in hue, all hues in his controlling.\\nSidney had two friends, Sir Edward Dyer and\\nFulke Greville, and his love for them was passing the\\nlove of women. The Sonnets are addressed to Dyer.\\nThe three friends in their poems, were fond of punning\\nupon their own names. So, in Sonnet 20, Sidney puns\\nupon Dyer s name, likening him to a dyer, who in his\\nbusiness controls and fixes all hues and colors.\\nSonnets 37, 66, no and 125 fairly describe Sidney.\\nHe was poor and proud; his parents were always dis-\\ntressed by poverty. He bore the canopy (125) as a\\ngen tleman-in- waiting, for the Queen in the summer of\\n1578, and he learned enough from personal intercourse\\nwith courtiers, male and female, to utter the mournful\\ncry which is contained in Son. 66. He could well\\nsay that he was made lame by fortune s dearest\\nspite (38). He was not suffered to marry Anne\\nCecil. Penelope Devereux, whom he dearly loved,\\nwas given to a man whom she hated and despised.\\nHe was fond of spending money, and withal liberal\\nand aristocratic, and yet he could not get money;\\nwas greatly in debt, was in disgrace at court, was\\na dependent upon lycicester; he had made himself\\na motley to the view (no).\\nSon. 127 to 132 clearly refers to Sidney s mistress,\\nlyady Rich, and he intimates that Dyer had supplanted\\nhim in her affections.\\nEven Mr. Massey tells us that Shakespeare s Son-\\nnets were modeled on those of Sidney: Twenty", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0393.jp2"}, "394": {"fulltext": "372 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPKARE.\\nyears ago I did not do justice to Sidney nor see how\\ngreat a fostering influence he had been to Shakspeare;\\nnor know how far their sonnets are bound up to-\\ngether. The distilled sweetness, the anti-\\nthetic thoughts as well as expression, the serious kind\\nof wit are at times pre-eminently Shakspearean.\\nIn this way I^ove s I^abour s I^ost is alive\\nwith Sidney. There are many who hold with Judge\\nStotsenburg that Sidney wrote the Shakespeare\\nSonnets. The proposition of Shaksper s authorship\\nis based on some word of Meres, in 1598, in which he\\nattributes by name certain plays to Shakespeare,\\ntogether with the Venus and Adonis, and I^ucrece, and\\ncertain sugred sonnets among his private friends,\\nmade so much of by Massey. He and all the Shak-\\nspereans assume, without the slightest evidence of it,\\nthat the sugred sonnets spoken of were the sonnets\\nafterwards published by Thorpe as Shakespeare s.\\nJudge Holmes holds that the Sonnets were the work\\nof Francis Bacon, and finds plenty of corroborating\\nevidence in the language, and in the allusions. The\\nfact is, that these sonnets can be made to attach to\\nmany sorts and conditions of men, and to every one\\nof them more clearly than to William Shaksper. They\\nhave nothing whatever in common with what we know\\nof or about him.\\nMassey argues that the dedication to the Venus and\\nAdonis (published 1593) is a fulfillment of the in-\\ntentions expressed in Sonnet 26; and hence that the\\nfirst twenty- six sonnets must have been written in\\n1592 or 1 591; or perhaps earlier, as Nash offers good", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0394.jp2"}, "395": {"fulltext": "the; sonnets. 373\\nground for thinking that Shakespeare had been heard\\nof as a sonnetteer as early as 1590. I^et us look at\\nthis.\\nAccording to Phillipps, William Shaksper came to\\nlyondon in 1585, when twenty -one years old; accord-\\ning to R. G. White, in 1586, when twenty-two.\\nPhillipps tells us that removed prematurely from\\nschool, residing with illiterate relations in a bookless\\nneighborhood, it is difficult to believe that when he\\nleft Stratford he was not all but destitute of polished\\naccomplishments. Also that as soon as he found em-\\nployment with the actors he must have gone with\\nthem on their provincial tours, and thinks that this\\nwandering life began by 1587. Mr. White tells us\\nthat when young Shaksper left Stratford, we may be\\nsure he had never seen half a dozen books other than\\nhis horn-book, his lyatin Accidence, and a Bible; that\\nprobably there were not half a dozen other books\\nin all Stratford.\\nWhether the year was 1585 or 1586, Shaksper was\\nplainly an unlicked and unlettered country boy when\\nhe entered I^ondon, of course with a very limited\\nvocabulary, and that of the barbarous jargon he had\\nlearned in his native village.\\nBut, according to Massey, three or four years have\\nscarcely passed, when this young fellow, who all the\\ntime has lived amid low surroundings, with associates\\nclassed as vagabonds, is found to be writing sonnets\\nto one of the nobles of the realm, in terms that imply\\nextreme intimacy between the two, and discovers an\\nacquaintance with great ladies, and with the forms and\\nusages of their class; and this in the choicest Ian-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0395.jp2"}, "396": {"fulltext": "374 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKEISPKARE.\\nguage, employing a very extended vocabulary. Fur-\\nthermore, the sonnets were modeled on those of Sidney,\\nshowing careful and continued study of the latter.\\nThe very statement of the facts is enough to disprove\\nShaksper s authorship of the twenty-six sonnets, and\\nthese are the key to the remainder.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0396.jp2"}, "397": {"fulltext": "lyAST YSJARS AND D^JATH OF SHAKSPEJR. 375\\nCHAPTER XIV.\\nIvAST YEARS AT STRATFORD, AND DEATH OF SHAK^)\\nSPER.\\nGreen, Short History of England, 427, says:\\nHis last dramas (Othello, etc.) were written in the\\nmidst of ease and competence, in the house in which\\nhe lived as a country gentleman with his wife and\\ndaughter speaking, of course, of Shaksper, the ex-\\ntheater proprietor. Mr. Phillips, on the contrary,\\ngives facts which, he says, lead irresistibly to the con-\\nclusion that the poet abandoned literary occupations a\\nconsiderable period before his decease. So he was not\\nwriting his dramas in the house at Stratford, in which\\nhe lived as a country gentleman. He lived there, at\\nany rate, as a most unfortunate country gentleman.\\nIf truth and not romance is to be invoked, were the\\nwoodbine and honeysuckle within reach of the poet s\\ndeath-bed, their fragrance would have been neutralized\\nby their vicinity to middens, fetid water-courses, mud-\\nwalls and piggeries. H.-P., I, 267. He went back\\nto Stratford, the dirtiest village in all Britain, be-\\ncause he liked the sort of people who lived there, and\\nthe life they led. He would have been utterly out of\\nplace in a genteel or cultivated community. What his\\nneighbors thought of his 15,000 or 21,000 vocabulary,\\nwe are not told. Imagine his addressing them in the\\nlanguage of Hamlet or lyove s Labour s Lost. It could\\nnot have astonished them more had he set up a Krupp", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0397.jp2"}, "398": {"fulltext": "376 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKE;SP:eARB.\\ngun in the dooryard. Traditions of the vocabulary,\\nand the unknown tongue he had brought to Stratford,\\nwould certainly have lasted one hundred years. That,\\nand his amazing erudition, did not discover itself in\\nany effort to educate his daughters, for, at the age of\\ntwenty-seven, Judith could not sign her name. The\\nauthor of the plays wrote: Ignorance is the curse of\\nGod. Knowledge the wings wherewith we fly to\\nheaven. But the player Shaksper allowed his chil-\\ndren to grow up in ignorance. His oldest daughter\\nwas the wife of a physician, himself an author of\\nmedical works, and after the death of her husband she\\nwas unable to distinguish between manuscripts in his\\nhandwriting and those of other men.*\\nThe immediate descendants of the player stood on\\nthe same level of illiteracy with his ancestors. As to\\nwriting plays in his retirement, the books the author\\nwould have had to consult to write simply the five\\nplays mentioned by Green would have filled any\\nroom in his house. If Green is correct, at the\\nplayer s death, some of the greatest of the immortal\\nplays must have been lying about the house in\\nmanuscript, running the risk of illiterate Judith tear-\\ning them up to make curl-papers of But Phillipps\\nassures us that the facts which he has been con-\\nThe conversation here recorded would appear to show that\\nMrs. Hall s education had not been of an enlarged character;\\nthat books and manuscripts, even when they were the produc-\\ntion of her own husband, were not of much interest to her.\\nWere it otherwise, it would be difficult to account for the per-\\ntinacity with which she insisted upon the book of cases not be-\\ning in the doctor s handwriting. H.-P., I, 277.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0398.jp2"}, "399": {"fulltext": "LAST YBARS AND D^ATH OF SHAKSPKR. 377\\nsidering lead to the irresistible conclusion that William\\nShaksper was engaged in no literary work for a con-\\nsiderable period before his decease. That he was not\\nis also evident from the fact that at his death there\\nwas no manuscript of a play, or anything else, in his\\nhouse not even a printed book; and that he had no\\nownership in manuscripts or in printed plays.\\nIt was the general opinion in the convivial days of\\nShaksper that a quart of ale is a dish for a king.\\nSo impressed were nearly all classes of society by its\\nattractions, it was imbibed wherever it was found.\\nIt would appear from this tradition that the\\npoet, one summer s morning, set out from his native\\ntown for a walk over Bardon hill to the village of\\nBidford, six miles distant, a place said to have been\\nnoted for its revelry. When he had nearly reached\\nhis destinatipn, he happened to meet with a shepherd,\\nand jocosely inquired of him if the Bidford Drinkers\\nwere at home. The rustic, perfectly equal to the\\noccasion, replied that the Drinkers were absent, but\\nthat he would easily find the Sippers, and that the\\nlatter might perhaps be sufficiently jolly to meet his\\nexpectations. The anticipations of the shepherd were\\nfully realized, and Shaksper, in bending his way\\nhomeward, late in the evening, found an acceptable\\ninterval of rest under the branches of a crab tree\\nwhich was situated about a mile from Bidford.\\nIt is added that he was overtaken with drowsiness,\\nand that he did not renew the course of his journey\\nuntil the following morning. That there is at\\nleast some foundation for the tale may be gathered\\nfrom ,the fact that, as early as the year 1762, the tree", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0399.jp2"}, "400": {"fulltext": "378 shakspe;r not shakbspejar:]^.\\nthen known as Shaksper s Canopy, was regarded at\\nStratford-on-Avon as an object of great interest H.\\nP., I, 236.\\nAn amplification of it (the traditional account) is\\nnarrated by Jordan in a manuscript written about the\\nyear 1770: I shall not hesitate relating it as it was\\nverbally delivered to me. Our poet was extremely\\nfond of drinking hearty draughts of English ale, and\\ngloried in being thought a person of superior eminence\\nin that profession, if I may be allowed the phrase.\\nOur bard and his companions got so in-\\ntolerably intoxicated that they were not able to con-\\ntend any longer, and accordingly set out on their re-\\nturn to Stratford, but had not got above half a mile\\non the road ere they found themselves unable to pro-\\nceed any farther, and were obliged to lie down under\\na crab-tree, where they took up their repose until\\nmorning, etc., etc. Id., II, 325.\\nSome of the ramifications of the tale are sufiiciently\\nludicrous. Thus we are told in Brewer s Description\\nof the Count}^ of Warwick that those who repeat the\\ntradition in the neighborhood of Stratford invariably\\nassert that the whole party slept undisturbed from the\\nSaturday night till the following Monday morning,\\nwhen they were aroused by workmen going to their\\nlabor. Id., 328. It is evident that the Stratfordians\\nbelieved the rich owner of New Place to have been\\na confirmed toper.\\nWe have seen the boy, the youth, the man in Lon-\\ndon, and have come to understand pretty well what\\nmanner of individual he was; this man who, after\\nsuch thaumaturgy, could go down to Stratford and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0400.jp2"}, "401": {"fulltext": "i,AST ye;ars and dbath of shakspkr. 379\\nlive there for years, only collecting his dividends from\\nthe Globe theater, lending money on mortgage, and\\nleaning over his gate to chat and bandy quips with his\\nneighbors lyowell, 172.\\nIn his retirement at Stratford, Rowe says, (on his\\nown surmise) writing in 1709, nearly one hundred\\nyears after the player s death, that the concluding\\nperiod of Shakspere s life was spent as all men of\\ngood sense will wish theirs may be, in ease, retirement,\\nand conversation of friends that he retained his lit-\\nerary intimacies to the end, and occasionally visited\\nI^ondon; and was content with the fortune his inces-\\nsant labors had secured. That is it He had worked\\nincessantly to make a fortune, and at the same time is\\nsupposed to have worked incessantly to gain a vocab-\\nulary, a knowledge of the Bible, and all sorts of learn-\\ning. Two bodies cannot be in the same place at the\\nsame time. Rowe says nothing of any tradition that\\nhe was engaged in writing or amending plays, or that\\nhe was the possessor of an astounding vocabulary.\\nFinally the ex-player dies of a fever contracted by\\nspending a night under a tree, or on the road, after a\\nbig spree. H.-P., I, 261, puts the case euphemistic-\\nally thus: It is recorded that the party was a jovial\\none; and according to a late, but apparently genuine,\\ntradition, when the great dramatist was returning to\\nNew Place in the evening, he had taken more than\\nwas conducive to pedestrian accuracy. Shortly after-\\nwards, he was seized by the lamentable fever which\\nterminated fatally, April 23rd, 16 16. The cause of\\nthe malady, then attributed to undue festivity, would", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0401.jp2"}, "402": {"fulltext": "380 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKIISPDAR:^.\\nnow be readily discernible in the wretched sanitary-\\nconditions surrounding his residence.\\nShaksper s Will bears date the 25th March, 1616,\\nand he died the following April. The preamble of the\\nWill stated that the testator was in perfect health\\nPhillipps, I, 203, says: It is satisfactory to know\\nthat the invalid s mind was as yet unclouded, several\\nof the interlineations that were added on the occasion\\nhaving obviously emanated from himself. And it is\\nnot necessary to follow the general opinion that the\\nsignatures betray the tremulous hand of illness. It\\nmay be observed that the words by me which, the\\nautographs excepted, are the only ones in the poet s\\nhandwriting known to exist, appear to have been\\npenned with ordinary firmness.\\nPer contra, William Winter, Shakespeare s Eng-\\nland Bd. 1896, 171, says: His handwriting in\\nthe three signatures to that paper conspicuously ex-\\nhibit the uncertainty and lassitude of his shattered\\nnerves. The fact is, that the first signature was\\nwritten in a sturdy hand, indicating neither feebleness\\nnor nervousness. The same is true of the Willin\\nof the second signature, and of the By me William\\nof the third. Perhaps the uncertainty discovered con-\\nsists in the fact that the three signatures exhibit three\\nstyles of writing. Possibly that was the result of\\nshattered nerves.\\nIn the Will, Shaksper disposes of a great amount\\nof real property, houses, lands, orchards, lying in half\\na dozen towns, and in I^ondon; of personal property,\\nmoney, gold to buy rings for several individuals, his\\nsilver gilt bole to Judith, his plate and jewels and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0402.jp2"}, "403": {"fulltext": "ivAsT ye;ars and de^a^h o^ shakspkr. 381\\nhousehold stuff, to Dr. Hall and Susanna, his daughter,\\nand in an interlineation gives unto my wife my sec-\\nond best bed with the furniture, there being no fur-\\nther mention of her in the instrument. It is strange\\nthat she does not appear as executrix, that she had no\\nlife interest left her in house or furniture, and that in\\nthe draft of the Will, as made in January, her name\\ndoes not appear to have been mentioned at all. It is\\nonly in the subsequent interlineations that the bequest\\nappears. Fleay, 72.\\nShakspere s will was one of great particularity,\\nmaking little legacies to nephews and nieces, and\\nleaving swords and rings to friends and acquaintances;\\nand yet his wife s name is omitted from the docu-\\nment in its original form, and only appears by an\\nafterthought, in an interlineation, as if his attention\\nhad been called to the omission. The lack of any\\nother bequest than the furniture of her chamber is of\\nsmall moment in comparison with the slight shown by\\nthat interlineation. R. G. White.\\nlyce says, 274: Several wills of the period have\\nbeen discovered in which a bed-stead or other article\\nof household furniture formed part of a wife s in-\\nheritance, but none, except Shakspere s, is forth-\\ncoming in which a bed forms the sole bequest. At\\nthe same time, the precision with which Shakspere s\\nwill accounts for and assigns to other legatees every\\nknown item of his property, refutes the conjecture\\nthat he had set aside any of it under a previous\\nsettlement or jointure with a view to making inde-\\npendent provision for his wife. Her right to a\\nwidow s dower z. e., to a third share in freehold", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0403.jp2"}, "404": {"fulltext": "382 shakspe^r not shakb^speiare;.\\nestate^ was not subject to testamentary disposition,\\nbut Shakspere bad taken steps to prevent ber from\\nbenefiting at any rate to tbe full extent by tbat\\nlegal arrangement. He had barred her dower in case\\nof his latest purchase, viz., the house at Blackfriars.\\nSuch procedure is pretty conclusive proof that he had\\nthe intention of excluding her from the enjoyment of\\nhis possessions after his death. An agreeable man\\nto live with and be bound to, truly. I have before\\nquoted the writer in the Atlantic Monthly, December,\\n1897, that Mrs. Anne Shakespeare served as raw\\nmaterial to be worked up into Imogenes and Rosa-\\nlinds enchanting creatures!\\nMalone says: His wife had not wholly escaped his\\nmemory; he had forgot her he had recollected her\\nbut so recollected her as more strongly to mark how\\nlittle he esteemed her; he had already cut her off, not\\nindeed with a shilling, but with an old bed. He had\\nmarried the widow Whately in haste, and had re-\\npented at leisure. He ran away from wife and babies,\\nand for nine years had deserted them; and when he\\ncame to make his Will, he forgot that he had a wife.\\nFor myself, I see nothing to be surprised at in this\\nbehavior of William Shaksper it was thoroughly char-\\nacteristic of him.\\nThere is no mention of library, or books, or poems,\\nor plays, or manuscripts, or any literary effects what-\\never.\\nIf William Shaksper was the author of the plays, he\\nwas, by the evidence of the plays themselves, a man\\nof vast and varied learning, owner of verj^ many\\nbooks, in both ancient and modern languages; and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0404.jp2"}, "405": {"fulltext": "tAS T YiEARS AND D:^A1 H OI^ SHAKSPBJRi 3S3\\nhe left beldnd him, unpublished at his death, such\\nmarvelous and mighty works as the Tempest, Mac-\\nbeth, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Timon of Athens,\\nand many more; and while he carefully bequeathed\\nhis old clothes, and disposed of his second best bed, he\\nnot only made no provision for the publication of his\\nworks, but no mention of either books or manuscripts,\\nor book-cases, or writing table, or anything at all sug-\\ngestive of literary labor. What man capable of writing\\nMacbeth and Julius Caesar, and knowing their value\\nto mankind, knowing that they lay in his house in\\nsome cabinet, box, or press, probably in but one manu-\\nscript copy each, and that they might perish in the\\nhands of his illiterate family and bookless neighbors\\nwould, while carefully remembering so much of the\\nlitter and refuse of the world, have died and made no\\nprovision for their pubUcation Donnelly, loo.\\nNot only is there no mention of his literary friends,\\nbut an entire absence of reference to his own composi-\\ntions. The editors of the First Folio speak,\\nindeed, in a tone of regret at his death having ren-\\ndered a personal edition an impossibility; but they\\nmerely allude to this as a matter of fact and as a devo-\\nlution of the task upon themselves. They nowhere\\nsay, as they might naturally have done had it been\\nthe case, that the poet himself had meditated such an\\nundertaking, or even that the slightest preparations\\nfor it had been made during the years of his retire-\\nment. .It may be safely averred that the lead-\\ning facts in the case, especially the apathy exhibited\\nby the poet in his days of leisure, all tend to the per-\\nsuasion that the composition of the immortal dramas", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0405.jp2"}, "406": {"fulltext": "384 SHAKSP:eR NOT SHAKKSPE^ARK.\\nwas mainly stimulated by pecuniary results that were\\ndesired for the realization of social and domestic ad-\\nvantages. It has been frequently observed that, if\\nthis view is accepted, it is at the expense of invest-\\ning him with a mean and sordid disposition H.-P.\\nI, 262. Certainly, this man was not the author of the\\nplays, and had no interest in them, pecuniary or other.\\nHis life had been devoted to a single object and by his\\nincessant labors he had reached it. Where your treas-\\nure is, there will your heart be also, and Shaksper s\\ntreasure was not in literature, but in nuggets.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0406.jp2"}, "407": {"fulltext": "sriAiisPE^R ne;ve;r i,e;arni;d to write. 385\\nCHAPTER XV.\\nTHAT WIIvLIAM SHAKSPER NEVER IvEARNED TO\\nWRITE.\\nI liere propose to show that the best possible reason\\nfor the absence, not only of book manuscripts among\\nWilliam Shaksper s effects, but of letters, memoranda,\\nor any scrap of his writing whatever, was, that this\\nman never learned the manual art of writing.\\nThe author of the Shakespeare plaj^s must have cov-\\nered scores of reams of paper with his written lines,\\nand have accumulated memoranda innumerable. Of\\nthe other man, player, and rich citizen of Stratford,\\nthere are extant just five specimens of his handwrit-\\ning, if we are to accept all that his devotees claim for\\nhim. Five times he is alleged to have signed his\\nname, as is evidenced by the existing signatures, and\\none of them is prefixed by the two words By me.\\nThat is all there is to show of the literary work of\\nWilliam Shaksper. Following Malone s Inquiry,\\n119: On the loth of March, 161 2-1 3, Shaksper\\npurchased from one Henry Walker a small estate in\\nBlackfriars, for one hundred and forty pounds, eighty\\nof which he appears to have paid down; and he\\nmortgaged the premises for the remainder. In the\\nyear 1768, the mortgage-deed, which was dated the\\nnth of March, but without doubt executed on the\\nsame day as the deed of bargain and sale, (like our", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0407.jp2"}, "408": {"fulltext": "386 SHAIiSPER NOT SHAkkSpEAre;.\\nmodern coneyances of I,ease and Release), was found\\nby Mr. Albany Wallis among the title deeds of the\\nRev. Mr. Featherstonaugh, of Oxford, Surrey, and\\nwas presented by him to the late Mr. Garrick. From\\nthat deed the f ac-simile above mentioned was made.\\nThe f ac-simile was published by Malone, in 1790, and\\nall the copies of this signature in books of later date\\nfollow Malone, because the original deed, shortly after\\n1790, or before 1796, disappeared.\\nMalone continues: As I have not the pleasure of\\nbeing acquainted with Mrs. Garrick, to whom I was in-\\ndebted on that occasion, L,ord Orford very obligingly\\nrequested her to furnish me once more with the deed\\nto which our poet s autograph is affixed; but that\\nlady, after a careful search, was not able to find it, it\\nhaving by some means or other been either mislaid or\\nstolen from her. (I see that Mr. lyce, 284, says that\\nthis mortgage-deed has been in the British Museum\\nsince 1858. When and where it was found he does not,\\ntell us.)\\nMalone further: On the same day on which I\\nreceived this account, I called upon Mr. Wallis, to\\nwhom the deeds of Mr. Featherstonaugh, after having\\nbeen a long time out of his hands, have been lately\\nrestored; among them he luckily met with the coun-\\nterpart of the original deed of bargain and sale, made\\non the loth of March, 1612-13, which furnished me\\nwith our poet s name. Mr. Wallis having\\nobligingly permitted me to make use of this new\\nautograph of our poet, a f ac-simile of it will be found\\nin Plate II, No. X.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0408.jp2"}, "409": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPKR NKVKR I.E;ARNE;D TO WRITS. 387\\nI here give a photographic copj^ of this No. X,\\ntaken from Malone s Plate II; and also an enlarge-\\nment of it, that each letter and stroke may be seen\\ndistinctly. (The letter in the lower left hand corner\\nof this cut, Malone gives as the German r, much\\nused by scriveners in the time of Elizabeth and\\nn^x\\nN9X\\n/jnvO^^i^^\\nJames p. 122.) Knight, p. 164, says of this coun-\\nterpart of the original deed; that it was sold in 1841,\\nat auction, and was purchased by the corporation of\\nLondon; in whose possession it remains to this day.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps says, I, 239: The conveyance deeds\\nof this house bear the date of March the loth, 161 3, but\\nin all probability they were not executed until the fol-\\nlowing day, and at the same time that the mortgage was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0409.jp2"}, "410": {"fulltext": "388 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPKARE).\\neffected. The latter transaction was completed in Shake-\\nspeare s presence on the eleventh. The inde-\\npendent witnesses present on the occasion consisted of\\nAtkinson and a person by the name of\\nOvery. To these were joined the then usual\\nofficial attestors, the scriveners who drew up the deeds\\nand his assistant,* the latter, one Henry I^awrence,\\nhaving the honor of lending his seal to the great drama-\\ntist, who thus, to the great disappointment of posterity,\\nimpressed the wax of both his labels with the initials\\nH. ly. instead of those of his own name.\\nOn this recital, I would observe that Mr. Phillipps\\ntakes pains to tell us that the mortgage was completed\\nin Shaksper s presence, which apparently is a very\\nodd statement, implying, as it does, that mortgages\\nwere sometimes completed w^hen the mortgagors were\\nnot present. But at that day, sealing alone was suf-\\nficient to authenticate a deed and so it was until the\\nreign of Charles II. Writing was a rare accomplish-\\nment. Also, as Mr. Phillipps fac-similes show, signa-\\ntures were sometimes signed by proxy,, by one of the\\nbystanders who was able to write. Thus, Vol. II, p.\\n233, Sept. 20, 1575, William Wedgewood sells to Ed-\\nward Willis two tenements in Stratford, one of which\\nwas in the possession of John Shakesper (sic) yeoman.\\nOn this Mr. Phillipps says: This indenture was wit-\\nnessed by John Shakesper, but it is scarcely necessary\\nto observe that the name is not an autograph, be-\\nMalone, p. 235, tells us that those who are conversant with\\ndeeds of that period know that the Scrivener who drew them,\\nand his servant or apprentice, were almost always witnesses to\\nthem.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0410.jp2"}, "411": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NEVKR I^EARN^D TO WRITE. 389\\ncause, as before said, John could not write, and made\\nhis mark. Phillipps gives \u00c2\u00a3ac-similes of the name and\\nthe accompanying words in each case, the tenement\\nof John Shakesper yeoman and Wytnesse John\\nShakesper (Wyth my hand). Here John witnesses\\na deed, but another man writes his name. I have\\ncopied this signature in Chap, i (cut 2).\\nAgain, on page 231, we read: On 12 Feby., 1569,\\nThomas Stringer granted a lease (of a certain estate\\nmentioned) to Alexr. Webbe, and the indenture, as well\\nas a bond of even date for the performance of the cove-\\nnants, was witnessed amongst others by John Shaxspere,\\nthe name in each instance being in the handwriting of\\nthe scrivener, and without a mark. Not only deeds\\nand mortgages, but bonds attested by a witness whose\\nname was signed not by his own hand, but by that of\\nanother man!\\nOn p. 238, we read: At a meeting of the corpora-\\ntion held on 5 September, 1582, Johannes Shaxper\\n(sic) was present, and voted for John Sadler, the suc-\\ncessful candidate for office of bailiff etc. and a fac-\\nsimile of John s name, as written by the clerk, is given,\\np. 236, beautifully done, each letter distinct, the ter-\\nminal one being the German r, undoubtedly making\\nthe name Shaxper, as Phillipps here renders it. This\\nfac-simile was also, before given. Chap. I, cut 4.\\nPhillipps does not speak of the peculiar r, which in\\nthis instance he calls r, though usually he interprets\\nit re, and we would know nothing of it except for\\nMalone, who not only says it is the German r, much\\nin vogue among the scriveners of that age, but gives\\na cut of it, in the corner of his copy of the Deed sig-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0411.jp2"}, "412": {"fulltext": "390\\nSHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPE^ARK.\\nnature No. X, reproduced here on page 387, that there\\nmay be no mistake as to which he means. It is the\\nsame letter, as appears by the presentation given by\\nMalone, as that which distinctly ends the first of the Will\\n^f^i-QUc.^^\\n^^l^v U ^_\\n^.-J\\n/y^ C:. I i\\nf..r\\nsignatures, and the second signature, following Lee.\\nIt is the habit of the Shakspereans to call it re, so as\\nto get the name Shakspere, for it would never do to\\nallow the Stratford man s name to end in J er, when\\nthe poet s name ended in peare.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0412.jp2"}, "413": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPI5R ne;ver i.karne;d to write;.\\n391\\nI now give cuts of the counterpart deed and the\\nmortgage signatures, issued by the Boston Public Li-\\nbrary, under the supervision of the then librarian,\\nHon. Mellen Chamberlain.\\nNo. I (p. 390) is a copy of Malone s 1790 figure, the\\ni^(Sf ^^rV^\\nmortgage; the other was taken from the counterpart of\\nthe deed, now owned by the corporation of London.\\nNo. 2 shows the wax on the label, stamped with the\\ninitials of Henry Lawrence. Yet W. Shaksper, ex-\\nshowman, is alleged to have owned a signet ring, and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0413.jp2"}, "414": {"fulltext": "392 SHAKSPEJR NOT shake;spe;arb;.\\nsuch an article forms part of the museum of doubt-\\nful relics and gim-cracks that R. G.White saw at the\\nhouse in Henley Street.\\nThe cut next given is a copy of all the five signa-\\ntures, taken for me by Merritt, photographer, Wash-\\nington, July, 1896, from Drake s Shakespeare and\\ni^ /t l\\nHis Times London, 1817, at the Congressional Li-\\nbrary. The signatures as given by Drake, have been\\nre-copied in manj^ works of recent years, as Burr s\\nProof, Donnelly s Crj^ptogram, Reed s Bacon v. Shake-\\nspeare and others.\\nDrake s page is headed, Five Genuine Autographs", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0414.jp2"}, "415": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NEVER LEARNED TO WRITE. 393\\nof Shakespeare. Then follow the signatures, and\\nbeneath, this explanation. No. i is from Shake-\\nspeare s Mortgage, 1612-13. No. 2 is from the Deed\\nMalone s Plate II, No. X. No. 3 is from the first brief\\nof Shakespeare s Will; No. 4 is from the second; No.\\n5 from the third brief of the Will. Dr. Drake says\\nthat the second Will signature is written Shakspe re,\\nwith a hiatus. On his fac-simile of this signature\\nover and above the hiatus appears what has been\\ntaken for a capital E, and on the tail of it, elevated to\\nthe top, a small r. Drake explains these super-\\nimposed characters thus: The hiatus is unaccounted\\nfor in the fac-simile given by Malone; but in the plate\\nof Chalmers Apology (1797), it is found to have been\\noccasioned by the intrusion of the word the of the pre-\\nceding line. Drake has followed Chalmers in his\\nfac-simile, rather than Malone, and what appears to\\nbe r turns out to be h e, part of the word the of the\\nline next over the signature. (In I^ee s copy of these\\nsignatures, presently to be given, it will be seen that\\nthe writer of this signature jumped over the loop of\\nthe h of upper line, so that there is no letter between\\nthe e and the r.\\nThere is no important discrepancy between the Deed\\nand Mortgage signatures as given by Malone, Drake,\\nand Harris. I have copied the several versions of\\nthem, in order that there may be no mistake as to\\nwhat Shaksper s name was, when he had retired from\\nbusiness, and lived at his ease, the rich man of Strat-\\nford.\\nIn the autumn of his life he was known as Shak-\\nspar, or Shaksper, if these deeds are worth anything", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0415.jp2"}, "416": {"fulltext": "394 shakspe;r not shakespe;are;.\\nas evidence. Both may or may not have been signed\\nin the absence of Shaksper, for\\nPhillipps assertion that he was\\npresent at the completion of the\\nmortgage is merely his own con-\\njecture, but certainly the other\\nparty to them accepted the names\\nas written as correct. If these\\nsignatures are genuine, the Shak-\\nspereans may explain how it was\\nthat a man, on twice signing his\\nname within the period of a few\\nminutes, or even a day, should\\nwrite it in two entirely different\\nhands, and spell both given\\nnames and surnames differently.\\nOne surname is spelled Shak-\\nspar. When first written it\\nwas Shakspr, and the a was an\\n^*r afterthought to make a proper\\nH syllable. The other is spelled\\nI Shaksper. The W and in of\\nj^ ^the first signature are not like\\nthe corresponding letters of\\nWilliam of the second, and no\\none letter of one surname is like\\nthe corresponding letter of the\\nother. Clearly, the two signa-\\ntures are not by the same hand,\\nhowever it may be explained.\\nNevertheless, suppose the signa-\\ntures genuine, as all Shakspe-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0416.jp2"}, "417": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER ne;ve;r IvKarnkd to write. 395\\nreans seem to believe, or wish to believe, then what\\nwas this man s name? In 1612, it certainly was\\nShaksper, and by no means Shakspere. If there is\\nan occasion in life when exactness is called for, it is\\nin signing deeds and mortgages, and beyond all ques-\\n~1\\n#^vf4?v*...-\\ntion, the parties with whom the player was dealing, in\\n1612, when the Blackfriars lot was bought, understood\\nhis name to be as he then wrote it, or had it written,\\nShakspar, or Shaksper in pronunciation there would\\nbe no difference.\\nThe other three signatures are written on the three\\nsheets of Shaksper s Will, which document is pre-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0417.jp2"}, "418": {"fulltext": "396 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARE.\\nserved in the Prerogative Office, Doctor s Commons,\\nLondon.\\nMalone, An Inquiry 1796, says: In the year\\n1776, Mr. Steevens, in my presence, traced with the\\nutmost accuracy the three signatures affixed by the\\npoet to his Will and he gives copies of them in Plate\\nII, Nos. XI, XII, XIII. I have had a photographic\\ncopy, natural size, and another set enlarged, made\\nfrom this Plate II, and give them on pages 394\\nand 395.\\nI present also a cut of the second and third Will\\nsignatures, put forth by the Boston Public Library:\\nOn asking for the history of the Boston copy of the\\nfive signatures, Mr. Putnam, the Librarian, kindly\\nwrote me, June, 1896, as follows: The Shakespeare\\nautographs mentioned by you (the two of the deeds\\nand the three of the Will), are heliot5^pe reproduc-\\ntions of a lithograph published at London, in 1843, by\\nT. Todd, with a title as follows: Shakespeare s auto-\\ngraphs just published, price 2s. The most correct\\ncopies of all the authentic autographs of William\\nShakespeare; consisting of the autographs attached to\\nthe Will in the Prerogative Office; that written upon\\nthe fly leaf of Montaigne s Essays in the British Mu-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0418.jp2"}, "419": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPER NKVER IvEARNED TO WRITE. 397\\nseum; the signature attached to the original [deed]\\npurchased for the city of lyondon I^ibrary); and the\\none to the mortgage deed (dated) the following day.\\nAll most accurately copied and also enlarged.\\nBy J. Harris.\\nThis means that the three Will signatures, and the\\none from the counterpart deed were copied from the\\noriginals by J. Harris. The signature of the mort-\\ngage deed must, however, have been copied from\\nSteevens or Malone. Harris copy of the first Will\\nsignature shows the effect of time after 1776, when\\nSteevens made his tracing, the letters being abraded\\nand broken up, the surname quite unrecognizable.\\nTherefore I do not give a copy of it. These signatures\\nare not only entirely, (in every letter), unlike the two\\nsignatures of the deeds, but are unlike each other.\\nThe first one is not badly written. The a is the Ger-\\nman a, the terminal r is also given in the German\\nform.\\n(I gave a cut, (4) on p. 12, showing the name of\\nJohn Shaksper ending with the German r, and so read\\nby Phillipps; also another, cut 5, of the same letter\\nwritten hastily.\\nThe Christian name over the other in the first of\\nthese signatures, indicates that the writer was not ac-\\ncustomed to sign his name, or to write other persons\\nnames, as a business man invariably did and does, the\\ngiven name in line with the surname.\\nThe second signature in both names is poorly\\nwritten; as Malone saw it, the letters are S h a k sp e,\\nfollowed by a wide break and the German r.\\nThe original hand that made the third signature", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0419.jp2"}, "420": {"fulltext": "398\\nSHAKSPKR NOT SHAK:eSP]eARK.\\nsafely reached but what follows has been a per-\\nplexity to the editors. Malone says that he concluded\\nat first that the letters were eare but later, that what\\nhe had taken for an a was a superfluous stroke when\\nthe poet came to write the letter r. In his copy, all\\nthe lines here are light, and the superfluous stroke he\\nspeaks of is distinct and is nothing like the letter a.\\nCanceling this stroke, the name is left Shaksper, for\\nthe final letter is only a bungling attempt at an r. In\\nI^ee, the lines after p are heavier than in Malone, but\\nthe superfluous stroke is just as in Malone. In the\\nversion of this signature on Knight s, page i68, I^ife of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0420.jp2"}, "421": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPKR NBVER I^l^ARNBjD TO WRIT:^. 399\\nW. S. (1843), all the lines of the last syllable are\\nheavy, and he gets a very fair a out of the z mark\\na case of fraud.\\nI offer a much enlarged copy of the letters a ksp of\\nMalone s three Will signatures in order to show how-\\ndifferent they are, and how impossible it is that one\\nand the same hand wrote them (see p. 398):\\nOn the following page I give a copy of the three\\nWill signatures from Lee s lyife of William Shake-\\nspeare, lyondon and New York, 1898.\\nBy this it appears that the first signature is worn\\nDut, It is in much worse condition than when Harris\\nsaw it. For a copy of this signature we have, there-\\nfore, to go to Malone. As Mr. I^ee has photographed\\nthe lower line of the second sheet of the Will, it is\\nseen how the hiatus in the surname of the second\\nsignature came to be. The loop was jumped, and\\nthere is no character between the e and the final r.\\nThis last letter is the German r, identical with the r\\nshown in Malone s Fig. X, and also in the r copied\\nfrom Woodberry, before given in Chap. I., c^\\nThis is the letter that ends the first and second Will\\nsignatures, and in all three of them the name is Shak-\\nsper nothing else.\\nThere is no discrepancy between the letters of the\\nthird signature in Malone and lyce, except that the\\nflourish to the r ends in a fork in Lee (so in Harris),\\nbut not in Malone.\\nThe three signatures to the Will were no doubt\\nmade almost simultaneously, say within a period of\\nten or fifteen minutes. The second and third a are\\nleast unlike, but they were made by different hands;", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0421.jp2"}, "422": {"fulltext": "400\\nshaksp:^r not shakkspejarb.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0422.jp2"}, "423": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPKR NEVKR I.EARNE;d TO WRITE). 40I\\nand they are both, of different species from the German\\na of the first signature. There are three sorts of k,\\nif the first letter so called be not an x, three of s,\\nthree of p, and the second p is unlike that letter in\\nany known alphabet. (I might have shown the final\\nletter of these three signatures which also discovers\\nthree different forms).\\nThe third signature is preceded by the words By\\nvie, and these, and the William, are well written, and\\nby a different hand from the one that wrote the sur-\\nmame following, and the one that wrote the second\\nsignature, and, again, from the hand that wrote the\\nfirst.\\nOf the five signatures, no one is Shakspere; the two\\non the deeds are Shakspar and Shaksper; the first on\\nthe Will is Shaksper, the second Shaksper, and, dis-\\nmissing Malone s superfluous stroke, the third is\\nShaksper. Nowhere is there any Shakespeare, the\\nname under which the plays were written.\\nSupposing for a moment that one hand could have\\nwritten the five signatures, what does it prove?\\nIn the first on the mortgage he writes Wm. for\\nWilliam; in the next, made at the same time, he\\nwrites William at length, but on top of the surname.\\nAgain, in the first of the Will signatures, he writes\\nWilliam above the surname. The next time, he at-\\ntempts to get the names in line, but misses it con-\\nsiderably, the given name^ now spelled Willin ^be-\\ning raised to the level of the top of the surname, and,\\nmoreover, it is separated from the latter by a notice-\\nably wide space. The third time he writes William,\\ngets it at the proper distance from the surname, but", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0423.jp2"}, "424": {"fulltext": "402 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPEJARK.\\nthe latter has tumbled, and is almost wholly below the\\nlevel of the given name. These little things show\\nthat the writer was not in the habit of signing his\\nown name, or accustomed to the use of a pen. William\\nShaksper accumulated a large property by all sorts of\\ntrading, and, if he could handle a pen at all, must\\nhave been in the daily habit of signing his name to\\none piece of paper or other, bills, notes, receipts,\\nmoney orders, contracts, deeds, etc. Is it to be be-\\nlieved that a man who, for fully twenty years, had\\nbeen in active business, if he could write, never at-\\ntained a fixed and recognizable signature; that he\\nnever wrote his name in a straight line; that in the\\nsame hour, and on the same document, he would\\nsign his name William and Willin, and his surname\\nin as many different styles of letters as he made\\nsignatures\\nThos. Greene, lawyer, for years resided (H.-P.\\nunder some unknown conditions at New Place. He\\nand other clerks did what signing of Shaksper s name\\nwas necessary in the line of his business. The\\nwriter Shakespeare, who penned thousands of verses,\\nwould have run them in straight lines, and would not\\nhave signed his given name above, or out of line with\\nhis surname. He would have written and signed his\\nname as became a gentleman and a scholar, and not\\nlike a Hodge, fresh from the plough. So the man\\nShaksper, as a business man, and he certainly was\\nthat would have written as became a business man,\\nin one uniform style, if he knew how to write at all.\\nHis signature at the end of his life would have been\\nas in his middle age, or in his youth, It is so with", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0424.jp2"}, "425": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPBR NKVEIR LEARNED TO WRITE. 403\\nevery man, and is a matter of course. Men do not\\nput on a new handwriting once a week, as a caterpil-\\nlar puts on a new skin, much less change it three\\ntimes in one day. In Proof that Shaksper could not\\nwrite by W. H. Burr, Washington, 1886, the au-\\nthor is of the opinion that William Shaksper was\\nunable to spell or write his name, and that he simply\\ntraced a copy set him at different times by different\\npersons. But in that case, the three signatures\\nof the Will, made one after the other, should have\\nbeen essentially alike, following the same copy.\\nEvery school boy follows copy, and could not\\nwrite the lines unlike. I believe that the scrivener\\nand a bystander wrote the two deed and mort-\\ngage signatures. Very likely the vendee and mort-\\ngagor was not present at the execution of these\\ninstruments. When it came to signing the three\\nsheets of the Will; this is about what happened; the\\nscrivener s apprentice, or servant, began the signing\\nfor the testator, and in a bold hand wrote William\\nShaksper Drake said, in 1817, It has. been sup-\\nposed that, according to the practice in Shakspere s\\ntime the name in the first sheet was written by the\\nscrivener who drew the Will. This accounts for the\\npeculiar a, the German a, which both Drake and\\nSkottowe read as ac; (Shack) the German p, the Ger-\\nman r, and the peculiar k.\\nIn the age of which we are treating, very great lati-\\ntude was allowed in executing legal papers. Cruise,\\nDigest of the I,aw of Real Property, Title XXXII,\\nChap. II, s. 63, says: Sealing alone was sufl cient to\\nauthenticate a deed till the reign of King Charles", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0425.jp2"}, "426": {"fulltext": "404 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKiESPKAR^.\\nII. He goes on to saj^ that it was of no consequence\\nwho sealed the deed, or what it was sealed with even\\na stick: If I take it up after it is sealed, and deliver\\nit as my deed, it is an agreement to the sealing, and\\nso a good deed Phillipps implies, as we have seen,\\nthat a mortgage could be executed in the absence of\\nthe mortgagor. There was no reason at all why Will-\\niam Shaksper should have been present at the execu-\\ntion of either mortgage or deed if he did not care to\\nbe. His signature was not essential, and anybody\\ncould aflSx the seals, as it seems the scrivener s clerk,\\nHenry I^awrence, did. We have seen that John\\nShaksper appears as a witness to a Deed, also to a\\nLease and Bond, his name written in full in each case,\\nthough it is stated positively that he was never able to\\nwrite, and that his sign-manual was a two-pronged\\nmark. We are told by Halli well- Phillipps, II, 392,\\nthat in those days there was so much laxity in every-\\nthing connected with testamentary formalities that in-\\nconvenience would seldom have arisen from any kind\\nof carelessness. No one, except in subsequent litiga-\\ntion, would ever have dreamt of asking if erasures pre-\\nceded signatures, how, or when interlineations were\\nadded, if the witnesses were present at the execution,\\nor, in fact, any questions at all. The officials thought\\nnothing of admitting to probate a mere copy of a Will\\nthat was destitute of the signatures both of testator\\nand witnesses.\\nAlso Drake assures us that on signing a Will, the\\nfirst sheet was usually subscribed in the name of the\\ntestator by the scrivener who wrote the Will. We may\\nunderstand, therefore, that it made no difference to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0426.jp2"}, "427": {"fulltext": "SHAKSP:eR ne;vb;r i,i;arnkd to write. 405\\nanybody concerned whether the testator put his hand\\nto the Will or not.\\nThe given name of the second signature begins with\\na German capital W, and is written in a firm, strong\\nhand, very different from the tremulous hand which\\ntraced the letters Shak sp oi the surname. I think\\nthe hand that wrote the Willin, wrote the final letter\\nof the surname. Willin was then a familiar form of\\nWilliam, just as Bill or Billy is now. A man signing\\nhis Will would not make one of the three signatures a\\nnickname. One of the neighbors certainly wrote the\\nWillin, and probably the hand of the testator was\\nguided into Shaksp, and then stopped, the friend add-\\ning the e7\\\\ If the whole name had been written by\\nthe same man, the surname would have been written\\nin a strong hand, and would not have been at an un-\\nreasonable distance from the other, and below it.\\nFinally, some one who wrote a comparatively neat\\nhand wrote the By me William of the third signa-\\nture, and then helped the testator s fingers to develop\\nthe Shaksper, making a break after the p in fact, the\\npen escaped control, as appears by the long tail to the\\nunformed e. When recovered, it made the superflu-\\nous stroke spoken of by Malone to start the pen and\\nadded er. This final er is of the same sort that ends\\nJohn Shaksper s name in the cut here given, repro-\\nduced from p. 12. The marks in the third signature\\nbetween the p and the er mean nothing.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0427.jp2"}, "428": {"fulltext": "4o6 SHAKSPEiR NOT SHAKBSPBARE.\\nSkottowe said, in 1826: In regard to the signatures\\nof the Will, a sort of doubt has been cast on the first\\nand second by the suggestion that they might be the\\nhandwriting of the notary employed on the occasion.\\nWhich, together with what I have quoted from Drake,\\nshows that generations ago the editors and com-\\nmentators were puzzled by the remarkable discrepan-\\ncies in these signatures.\\nDrake says: The autographs present us with five\\nsignatures, which, singular as it may appear, all vary,\\neither in the mode of writing or mode of spelling.\\nThe first appears Wfu. Shakspea, the second William\\nShaksper. The three Will signatures, it is remark-\\nable, differ considerably, especially in the surnames, for\\nin the first we have Shackspere; in the second Shake-\\nspe re; in the third Shakspeare. Drake mistook the\\nGerman a of the first Will signature for a c.\\nMy own opinion is that William Shaksper never\\nlearned to write, and that he at no time signed his\\nname. In his walk of life, the art of writing was rarely\\nattained. His ancestors, in all their generations, got\\nalong without writing, as well as without reading.\\nThe Shakspers, with the rest of the nation at that time,\\nwere yet struggling to escape from barbarity as\\nDr. Johnson asserts, and during this same period, to\\nbe able to read and write (outside of professed schol-\\nars, or men and women of high rank) was an accom-\\nplishment still valued for its rarity. As we have\\nseen, Mr. Phillipps tells us that learning to read, in\\nStratford, was a difficult matter, for the reason that\\nthere were few persons in that village capable of teach-\\ning a boy his letters. Had William as a boy learned", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0428.jp2"}, "429": {"fulltext": "gHAKSPSS. ]Sf:^VER t^ARNKD 0*0 WRITER. 407\\nto write, as a man he would have employed but one\\nalphabet, and not as many alphabets as he made sig-\\nnatures. Any business man will witness that a cor-\\nrespondent of his who sends a different signature with\\nevery communication, is not doing his own writing,\\nbut Tom, Dick, and Harry are doing it for him.\\nSo it was with this Shaksper.\\nNow, a curious thing has happened: the nom- de-\\nplume of the author of the plays was William Shake-\\nspeare, and no other, and he often hyphenated it Shake-\\nspeare, as if to emphasize the fact that Shak was no\\npart of his title. The name of the player was Shak-\\nsper and no other. But under an agreement entered\\ninto between the New Shakspere Society and the afl li-\\nated Societies in England and America, the names\\nShakspar and Shaksper are ignored, while the name\\nShakespeare is banished from literature and history;\\nand recent books talk of the poet Shakspere.* The\\neffects, assets, and the name of the great Shake-\\nspeare have been seized feloniously, and made over to\\nthe strolling vagabond Shaksper, rechristened Shak-\\npere a man unable to write his own name! There is\\nno more a Shakespeare the stroller has possession of\\nboth name and plunder.\\nWho steals my purse steals trash.\\nBut he that filches from me my good name\\nRobs me of that which not enriches him\\nBut makes me poor indeed.\\nI think the great Shakespeare must have had a\\n*I am -glad to see that Mr. Lee s book is an exception.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0429.jp2"}, "430": {"fulltext": "4o8 shakspe;r Nol shakespe^ar:^.\\nprescience of the New Shakspere Society of freeboot-\\ners, when he wrote that line.\\nThese five signatures are the sum total of the life\\nlabors of William Shaksper which have come down to\\nus. In these rude illiterate scrawls we stand face to\\nface with the Stratford man. What an abyss sepa-\\nrates them from the god-like plays! Donnelly, 76.\\nWe have seen what William Shaksper s neighbors\\ncalled him, and it would be desirable to know what he\\ncalled himself, as his wealth increased. Apparently\\nhe was disposed to be known as Shakespeare about\\nthe time he became a land owner, and made the pur-\\nchase of New Place, or in 1597, though just before\\nthat, in the application for coat-armour of 1596, the\\nfather s name is spelled Shakespeare. That is the first\\nthat is known of Shakespeare in the family. In the\\nfac-simile of The exemplification of the Fine that\\nwas levied when he purchased New Place, H.-P.,\\nII, 106, the name is spelled Shakespeare several times.\\nIn the second application for coat-armour, 1699, John s\\nname is always spelled Shakespere. In the Stratford\\nsuits William is called Shexpere, in 1604; and both\\nShakespere and Shackspere in 1608. In 1606, in the\\nconveyance of a moiety of a lease, he is Shakspear. In\\n16 1 2,^ in a Bill of Complaint, he is Shackspear; in the\\nbody of the Walker Deed and the mortgage of 1612-13,\\nhe is called Shakespeare; in 16 14, in the Articles of\\nAgreement with Replingham, he is Shackspeare. Al-\\nthough Shakespeare is in the bod)^ of the Walker\\nDeed and Mortgage, when some of his neighbors\\nsigned these instruments for him, the}^ got the name\\nShaksper and Shakspar; and when his friends gathered", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0430.jp2"}, "431": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPEiR ne;vb;r i.e;arned to writk. 409\\nabout him to help execute his last Will, they signed\\nthe name three times Shaksper. F inally, the Clerk\\nof Stratford Church entered his name, at his burial,\\nWilliam Shakspere, as Phillipps gives it, but probably\\nthe name on the record really ends with a German r\\nand is therefore Shaksper. At all events to this clerk\\nhe died Shak.\\nThe ex-player seems to have sought, when he began\\nto feel his oats, to slough off John Peter, but was not\\npersistent in his effort. The old habits, however, were\\ntoo strong for his neighbors, and to them he was born\\na Shaksper, lived a Shaksper, and died a Shaksper.\\nAmong the many forgeries relating to player Shak-\\nsper is a signature in an old copy of Montaigne. Ber-\\nnard Quarritch, in his Rough lyist No. 160, 1896, ad-\\nvertises thus a copy of the first edition of Montaigne:\\nThis is a literary monument of high value, and the\\nonly book of which we can say with certainty that it\\nformed a part of Shakespeare s library. His copy,\\nwith his autograph, is in the British Museum. That\\nhe studied and made use of it, we have sufficient tes-\\ntimony, etc., etc.\\nIn Harper s Magazine, October, 1894, is a story by\\nThomas Nelson Page, in which we are told: When\\nI read Montaigne, I feel as if I was reading myself.\\nIt is a pleasure to me to know that here is the one\\nbook which we know absolutely Shakspere read, and\\nin which he wrote his name. This statement has\\nbeen seen by half a million persons.\\nIn Baynes, we should naturally look to see this story,\\nand on page 94, Shakespeare Studies, he says: The\\nonly known volume that certainly belonged to Shak-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0431.jp2"}, "432": {"fulltext": "4lO SHAKlSPl^R NOT SHAKESPEARE;.\\nspere and contains his autograph is Florio s version\\nof Montaigne s Essays, in the British Museum. And\\nup he goes, telling us who that Florio was, and that\\nboth he and the player were intimate friends of the\\nKarl of Southampton; and that it is evident from the\\nplays that William Shakspere was intimately ac-\\nquainted with. Italian; that he must have made Florio s\\nacquaintance soon after he came to lyondon, and prob-\\nably owes to him his knowledge of French as well as\\nItalian that W. S., on reaching I^ondon, and be-\\nginning to breathe a literary atmosphere (in the\\nsweet air of the theater Taine tells us of), would\\nnaturally betake himself to the study of Italian, and\\nso on, ad astra.\\nOf this signature, Richard Grant White says: The\\nsignature appears upon the title-page of a copy of the\\nfirst edition of Montaigne s Essays, published in 1603.\\nNothing is known of the whereabouts of the volume\\nprevious to the year 1778, a time when the interest in\\nShakspere was so great, and the investigations of his\\npersonal history so recent and so imperfect that it was\\nboth tempting and propitious to the fabrication.\\nIts claims to authenticity have no support but mere\\nopinion, based upon its style and general appearance,\\nand its resemblance to originals of undoubted genuine-\\nness, a position which it occupies with the Felton Por-\\ntrait. Vol. I, cxxvii. The Felton Portrait is con-\\nceded on all sides not to have been authentic.\\nAgain, in England Without and Within, page 528,\\nMr. White says of this signature: Others whose\\njudgment is worth mine ten times over, think, as I do,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0432.jp2"}, "433": {"fulltext": "SHAKSPEJR NKVB^R lv:eARNED TO WRITE. 41I\\nthat it is a forgery. Dowden, 39, says of this sig-\\nnature: Its genuineness has been disputed,\\nKnight, in his I^ife of W. S., gives a fac-simile of\\nthis signature, and I have had a photographic copy of\\nit made, and give it herewith:\\nIt needs but a glance to show the difference be-\\ntween it and the five Deed and Will signatures. The\\nhand that wrote this name could never have brought\\nitself to write the two Deed signatures, or the second\\nWill signature, or the surname of the third Will sig-\\nnature. Skill in the art of writing once attained can-\\nnot be lost. It was the hand of an expert penman,\\nno writing master more so. Note the beautiful illin,\\nas perfect as copper-plate; and the easy grace with\\nwhich each letter of the surname is dashed off. The\\nis a work of art, and so is the and the e r e _ are\\nperfect, as well as separated. The forger took his W\\nfrom the fifth signature, but got a very imperfect like-\\nness of it; the illin from the fourth. The large is\\nunlike any of the five, of a different species altogether;\\nthe h k e r e unlike any of the five; the p something\\nlike the letter in the second and fifth, differing as the\\nwork of an expert would differ from a man unaccus-\\ntomed to write. It is so palpable a forgery that the\\nwonder, is how any one gave the least heed to it.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0433.jp2"}, "434": {"fulltext": "41^ SHAKSPE^R not SHAKKSPliARE;.\\nThe Ireland forgeries, perpetrated near the close\\nof the 1 8th century, embraced not only plays, as Vor-\\ntigem and Rowena, William the Conqueror, and\\nHenry II, but deeds purporting to have been made\\nby William Shakespeare (Shaksper), the forger im-\\nitating the poet s signature from a fac-simile of a gen-\\nuine deed of 1612. Renewed success encouraged him\\nto a perfect hailstorm of Shakespeare relics. Verses\\nand letters of the poet inscribed on fly-leaves, old\\nprinted books with Shakespeare s name on the title-page,\\nand notes and verses in the same hand- writing on the\\nmargin, followed in bewildering succession. Pall\\nMall Gazette, May, 1896. As the signature in the\\nMontaigne first came to light in 1778, Ireland was not\\nthe forger. It was by a few years too early for him;\\nbut his forgeries were merely a sample of what had\\nbeen done for years in this line. All the last half of\\nthat century or after the Shakespeare Jubilee, 1769\\nShakespeare forgery was in the air. I find a curious\\nitem in Ingleby bearing on this point. He intimates,\\np. 410, that Oldys amused himself in composing verses\\nas written by Shakespeare, and says: Can it be pos-\\nsible that these two verses were dished up by George\\nSteevens (1778), and assigned by him to Jonson\\nand Shakespeare, as a hoax on his too credulous\\npublic?", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0434.jp2"}, "435": {"fulltext": "ignorance; of contbjmporaries. 413\\nCHAPTER XVI.\\nFURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE IGNORANCE OF CON-\\nTEMPORARIES RESPECTING WILIvIAM SHAKSPER.\\nAnd so this man, the reputed author of some of the\\ngreatest works of intellect the world has produced,\\nprofoundly learned in all branches of knowledge, as\\nthe works themselves give evidence, disappeared, and\\nno one spoke of it, or missed him. He passed away-\\nlike a cloud, and it was unknown or forgotten what\\nmanner of man he was. There is no mention of his\\nretirement from London to Stratford in prose or verse\\nby any writer of the time; and no one of the refer-\\nences in Ingleby or Furnivall alludes to William Shak-\\nsper s death. Is it credible that a great poet could\\nthus die, and no other poet lament him? Spenser\\nwrote a dozen elegies and epitaphs on the death of his\\nbeloved Astrophel; Milton bewails his friend in the\\nmagnificent monody of Lycidas; but no one lifted up\\nhis voice on the departure of William Shaksper.\\nThis man s admirers claim that Jonson was his\\nfriend, and that Drayton was his friend, and appeal to\\nthe traditions that Shaksper s death was caused by a\\nmerrie meeting of the three. If two such poets\\nwere his friends, assuredly there must have been others\\nof the guild who felt kindly to him, and knew him in-\\ntimately; yet no poet, or even prose writer, uttered a\\nlament for William Shaksper. Jonson was a great\\ncomposer of elegies, epigrams, epitaphs, and sonnets,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0435.jp2"}, "436": {"fulltext": "414 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPE^ARE.\\nand a vast collection of them form part of his pub-\\nlished works. Apparently he wrote verses on or about\\nevery man or woman he knew. But when William\\nShaksper died, and indeed during the man s life, Jon-\\nson was significantly silent.\\nWhere were ye, Po ts, when the remorseless deep\\nClosed o er the head of your loved Shackysper?\\nPlainly, this man was known as a player and theater-\\nproprietor, and the writers of the day never thought\\nof attributing the plays and poems which had been\\npublished in the name of William Shakespeare to\\nhim.\\nNot a single fact bearing on his literary character\\nhas come down to us. Kmerson says he examined\\nwith great care the entire correspondence of Sir Henry\\nWotton, in which almost every one of note in that\\nday was mentioned, and Shakespeare s name is con-\\nspicuously absent. Halliwell-Phillipps says that in a\\nlong series of letters from John Chamberlain to Dudley\\nCarleton, scattered over the whole period from 1598 to\\n1623, letters full of the news of the month, of the court,\\nthe caty, the pulpit, the booksellers shops, in which\\ncourt masques are described in minute detail, authors,\\nactors, plot, performance, reception and all, we look in\\nvain for the name of Shakespeare or any of his plays.\\nV. R. in Boston Transcript, 6th November, 1897.\\nOf his eminent countrymen, Raleigh, Sidney, Spen-\\nser, Bacon, Cecil, Walsingham, Coke, Camden, Hooker,\\nDrake, Hobbes, Inigo Jones, Herbert of Cherbury,\\nLaud, Pym, Hampden, Wotton and Donne, may be\\nproperly reckoned as his contemporaries, and yet there", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0436.jp2"}, "437": {"fulltext": "ignorance; op contemporaries. 415\\nis no proof whatever that he was personally known to\\neither of these men, or to any of less note among the\\nstatesmen, scholars, and artists of his day, except the\\nfew of his fellow-craftsmen, whose acquaintance with\\nhim has been heretofore mentioned. R. G. White,\\n185, Since the constellation of great men who ap-\\npeared in Greece in the time of Pericles, there never\\nwas any such society, yet their genius failed them to\\nfind out the best head in the universe. Kmerson,\\nRep. Men.\\nAs to Beaumont, Fletcher, Webster, etc. who after\\n1 6 10 wrote for the King s men, and the numerous con-\\ntemporaries who wrote for other companies, no trace\\nof any intercourse with Shakespeare, personal or oth-\\nerwise, remains to us, though abundant guesses and\\nhypotheses utterly foundationless will be found in the\\nvoluminous Shakespeare literature already existing.\\nFleay, Life, 81.\\nAllusions to his works will be found\\ncollected in Dr. Ingleby s Centurie of Prayse; but\\nthey consist almost entirely of slight references to his\\npublished works, and have no bearing or importance\\non his career. Neither as addressed to him\\nby others, nor to others by him, do any commendatory\\nverses exist in connection with any of his or other\\nmen s works published in his lifetime a notable fact,\\nin whatever way it may be explained. Nor can he be\\ntraced beyond a very limited circle, although the fan-\\nciful might-have-beens so largely indulged in by his\\nbiographers might at first lead us to an opposite con-\\nclusion. Id. 73.\\nF-rom early manhood to maturity, he lived and la-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0437.jp2"}, "438": {"fulltext": "4l6 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKKSPEJARBJ.\\nboured and throve, in the chief city of a prosperous and\\npeaceful country (a city of 160,000 population, which\\nis that of Denver, in 1900), at a period of high in-\\ntellectual and moral development. His life was passed\\nbefore the public in the days when the pen recorded\\nscandal in the diary, and when the press, though the\\ndaily newspaper did not exist, teemed with personal-\\nity. Yet hardly a word that he spoke has reached us,\\nand not a familiar line from his hand, or the record of\\none interview at which he was present. R. G. White,\\nlyife, 4. Whatever word has reached us has to do\\nwith business affairs, not literature.\\nThere are few periods, at which intellectual activ-\\nity was as great as it is now, with its written records\\nsurviving, in which the passions, the opinions, the am-\\nbitions of the age are all before us. Such\\na period was that which embraced the years of William\\nShaksper s life in London, and yet there is not one\\nword of him or from him or about him, in the written\\nrecords of that time. It is as if the man had never\\nlived.\\nThere has been no scrap of writing from or to him\\n(except one letter, before spoken of, asking him for a\\nloan of money), no record of any dinner or festival at\\nwhich he met any of his associates. No report of a\\nword spoken by him on any occasion or any subject,\\nexcept the two conversations held with the town clerk\\nof Stratford on the enclosure of the common land,\\nwhich I have given in Chapter VIII. The letters\\nwhich have come down to us from that period would\\nfill a large library, but in no one of them is there any\\nreference to the actor Shakspere. In the greatest age", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0438.jp2"}, "439": {"fulltext": "ignorance: of contsmporariks. 417\\nof English literature, the greatest man of his species\\nlived in London for nearly thirty years, and no one\\ntakes any notice of his presence. The proposition is\\nincredible that a man should be able to produce the\\ngreatest, profoundest, broadest of composition works\\noverflowing with evidence of vast industry and uni-\\nversal scholarship and yet leave behind him, apart\\nfrom the writings in controversy, not a thought, a\\nword, a scrap of writing, a letter, a fragment of the\\nmanuscript of a play, or anything else, except three\\nsignatures to his Will, and two to legal conveyances.\\nDonnelly.\\nYet, Mrs. Dall tells us, p. 182: It is certain that\\nhe was idolized by the people, sought by the nobility,\\npetted by the court, and admired by both Elizabeth\\nand James. Pembroke, Rutland, and Mont-\\ngomery, as well as Southampton, were his friends.\\nShakspere shows in his plays that he sprang from the\\npeople; he cared for the people, their liberties, their\\nrights, and their interests. Perhaps he had at first\\nsome desire to take a practical part in politics, but the\\ndeath of Essex (assumed to be a friend of W. S.\\nalso) made this impossible, and never after Essex\\ndied, could a man of his upright dealing and tender\\nheart have clasped hands with Lord Bacon.\\nAfter this (desertion of Essex by Bacon) any in-\\ntimacy with Shakspere would have been impossible\\nThis is an astounding string of unwarranted asser-\\ntions. There is not the least authentic evidence that\\nhe was known otherwise than as a player or pro-\\nprietor of a theater to any person of distinction what-\\never; and Grant White expressly assures of that fact.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0439.jp2"}, "440": {"fulltext": "41 8 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAKBJSPEAR:^.\\nNor is there the least evidence that any man of dis-\\ntinction ever spoke to him. The idea of player Shak-\\nsper having some desire to take a practical part in\\npolitics, and being deterred by the death of that arch\\ntraitor, Essex, is rich. Also, p. i6i: Many things\\nunited to destroy the respect of such a man as Shak-\\nspere for the Queen Elizabeth, whose life made the\\nEngland of to-day possible the object of veneration\\nto every right thinking Englishman or Anglo-Ameri-\\ncan; that Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, as\\nOliver Cromwell styled her, and that great Queen\\nAnd this Shaksper, whom Mrs. Dall so belauds, is he\\nof the Droeshout likeness!\\n[Per contra, R. G. White says, in the Genius of\\nShakespeare: It has been objected to the assertion\\nof the amplitude of Shakespeare s mind, and to the\\ngenerosity of his character, that he always represents\\nthe laborer and the artisan in a degraded position, and\\noften makes his ignorance and uncouthness the butt of\\nridicule. There is not a line in the plays which in-\\ndicates that their author sprang from the people or\\ncared for the people, their rights or their interests.\\nAs Morgan says: The author of the plays was a\\nconstitutional aristocrat, who believed in the estab-\\nlished order of things, and wasted not one word of\\neulogy upon any human right in his day not absolutely\\nguaranteed by charters or by thrones. Coriolanus\\nseems to have been written to create a wall and barrier\\nof public opinion against the movement toward popu-\\nlar government which not long after his death plunged\\nEngland into a long and bloody civil war. The whole", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0440.jp2"}, "441": {"fulltext": "ignorance; of cont:smporarie;s. 419\\nargument of the play is the unfitness of a mob to\\ngovern a state. Donnelly.\\nSwinburne says: With him the people risen in re-\\nvolt, for any just or unjust cause, is always the mob,\\nthe unwashed rabble, the swinish multitude. Study\\nof Shakespeare, 54.\\nNor have we found in going through these four-\\nteen comedies, one generous aspiration in favor of\\npopular liberty; nor one expression of sympathy with\\nthe sufferings of the poor; nay, hardly one worthy\\nsentiment accorded to a character in humble life.\\nWilkes, 171.]\\nThere is not even a line or word to show the con-\\nnection of William Shaksper with any printer or pub-\\nlisher. No entry of any description shows him as\\neither paying or receiving any sum of money on ac-\\ncount of works printed Mrs. Potts, 54.\\nIt is now many years since the Diary of Manager\\nHenslowe (i 592-1603) was found. Fleay, Hist.,\\ncopies a large part of it, and says: The extreme\\nimportance of this well-known work will,\\nI think, justify the space allotted to this abstract\\nof all that is of general utility in the old pawn-\\nbroking, stage-managing, bear-baiting usurer s MSS\\nand he devotes twenty pages to it. The name of\\nnearly every play-wright of the period occurs, most\\noften repeatedly, in these leaves, with the sums of\\nmoney paid them for plays or altering plays. We\\nhave Jonson, Haughton, Monday, Drayton, Dekker,\\nChettle, Wilson, Hathaway, Chapman, Porter, Day,\\nRankins, Marston, Boyle, Wadeson, Smith, Rowley,\\nMiddleton, Bird, Heywood, Webster. But there is", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0441.jp2"}, "442": {"fulltext": "420 SHAKSPKR NOT shak:^spb;are;.\\nno mention of Shaksper, or Shakespeare, under any-\\nspelling. To this day it remains a matter for wonder\\nwhy Henslowe never mentioned Shaksper, the greatest\\nplay-wright of that age, if he wrote the Shakespeare\\nplays, while he spoke of all other men who wrote\\nplays. Phillipps says that, up to 1594, all his (Shake-\\nspeare s) dramas were written for Henslowe. He\\nattributes the selection of such a subject as Titus\\nAndronicus for a play to Henslowe, influenced by the\\ncurrent taste of the public for the horrible. Other\\ncommentators, influenced perhaps by the absence of\\nmention of Shakespeare in the Diary, doubt or deny\\nthat there was any connection between the parties.\\nWe are asked to believe that the greatest man that\\never walked this planet profound, immense in all his\\nattributes lived in this town of I^ondon, and in the\\nvillage of Stratford, until he was 52 years of age, and\\nyet not a man comes forward and says: Here is a\\nletter from William Shakespere! Here is where he\\nwrote Spenser and discussed poetry! Here is where\\nhe wrote Bacon and discussed philosophy! Here is an\\naccount of a public meeting in which he took part!\\nWhat was he doing Can you put such a light as\\nthat under a bushel No Its effulgence would fill\\nthe world, and the activities, the mental power, of\\nsuch a man would have expanded and radiated in a\\nthousand directions. Donnelly.\\nIn after years, and during that century, antiquarians\\nsearched Stratford and the neighborhood for memories\\nof the man. All that they could find I have related;\\nthat he was a wild youth, a butcher s apprentice, got\\ninto trouble with the lyucys, and fled to lyondon; be-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0442.jp2"}, "443": {"fulltext": "ignorance; of conte;mporarie;s. 421\\ncame a player, and that of no note whatever; rose to\\nbe part- proprietor of the theater, returned to Stratford\\na rich man; and died of a fever, the consequence of a\\ndrunken spree. That was all. There was abundant\\ninformation as to his money transactions, but not a\\nshred as to any literary work, or as to his authorship\\nof poems and plays. Dowden says that the facts\\nwhich we possess are enough to assures us that the\\ngreatest of poets conducted his material life wisely\\nand to a prosperous issue. They are enough to prove\\nhis good sense and discreet dealings in worldly affairs.\\nPlenty of proof indeed as to material prosperity, but\\nnone to connect him with the Shakespeare plays.\\nWhat we do learn, and that from his biographer\\nand admirer, Halliwell-Phillipps, is that he was a\\nmoney-lender, who would have his pound of flesh at\\nall hazards, and a keen man of business, who kept the\\nmain chance always before him. T. W. White, 190.\\nMalone expressed his astonishment that almost a\\ncentury should have elapsed from the death of William\\nShakspere without a single attempt having been made\\nto discover any circumstance which should throw\\na light on the history of his life or literary career.\\nEx nihilo nihil fit is a very old proverb; the fact was\\nthere was nothing respecting the literary career of\\nplayer Shaksper to be discovered. His great achieve-\\nment had been making money, and there was no limit\\nto the gossip and tradition as to that. But when it\\ncame to literary work, nothing was found because\\nthere was nothing to find. The earliest recorded\\ntraditions at present known are those imbedded in a\\nclosely written memorandum book compiled in the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0443.jp2"}, "444": {"fulltext": "422 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAKKSPEARE.\\nyear 1662, by Rev. John A. Ward, M.A., of Oxford,\\nand Vicar of Stratford-on- Avon.* There can\\nbe no doubt that he has accurately repeated the preva-\\nlent local gossip in the few entries respecting the great\\ndramatist. H.-P., Preface, X. At the time of Mr.\\nWard s writing, some of the then residents of Strat-\\nford must have known the player personally. Prob-\\nably some were living who remembered the boy, and\\ncertainly there were many who knew the man after he\\ncame back to Stratford to spend the remainder of his\\ndays there. Mr. Ward recorded that he had heard\\nthat Mr. Shakspere was a natural wit without any art\\nat all That is, without learning or cultivation,\\nuneducated a natural genius and nothing more, and\\nthis suits William Shaksper exactly. That he fre-\\nquented the plays in all his younger time, but in his\\nolder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage\\n*[From New York Tribune, (semi-weekly) nth Nov., 1898.\\n(From the lyondon Telegraph).] The work of the 126th\\nsession of the Medical Society of Ivondon was begun, at the\\nrooms of the Society, in Chandos St., by a short introductory\\naddress from the president, Bdmund Owen, Surgeon to St.\\nMary s Hospital, who remarked that among the many treasures\\nof their library were fifteen volumes of manuscript, which\\nformed the diary or common-place book of the Rev. John Ward,\\nM.A., Oxon, who was Vicar of Stratford-on-Avon from 1662 to\\n16S1. He had worked diligently to acquire a knowl-\\nedge of the medical profession, etc. On taking up his\\nwork at Stratford-on-Avon, in the forty-sixth year after Shak-\\nsper s death, Ward must, both as Vicar and Doctor, have\\nbeen told of many facts concerning the bard by those who had\\nbeen intimately acquainted with him. Unfortunately, he did\\nnot record much about him in these memorandum-books; what\\nhe did say, etc. (is what I have quoted from H.-P. above).", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0444.jp2"}, "445": {"fulltext": "ignorance; of cont:hmporari:^S. 423\\nwith two plays every year. He tells the\\nstory of Shaksper s merrie meeting, and it seems\\ndrank too hard for he died of a fever there con-\\ntracted Very little surely to have been gleaned by\\na clergyman in the dead man s own parish, if there\\nhad been anything to glean. It is noticeable that Mr.\\nWard s entry was made in 1662, the year he came to\\nStratford. He lived there eighteen years after 1662,\\nbut never found more of Shaksper worth recording.\\nAs to Shaksper s supplying the stage with two plays\\nevery year, we have seen that Mr. Phillipps asserts\\nthat all the facts point to the conclusion that William\\nShaksper engaged in no literary work after he retired\\nfrom the stage, which was in 1610-11. Nevertheless\\nGreen, in his History of England, tells this story of\\ntwo plays per year as if it were a fact which he had\\nverified.\\nIn 1693, the Rev. Mr. Dowdall questioned the clerk\\nof the parish (of whom I have before spoken), a man\\nover eighty years of age, born before the death of the\\nplayer. Of course this clerk, a man of intelligence\\nand respectability, had known and grown up with men\\nand women by hundreds who had personally known\\nthe player, and who knew and could recite all the cur-\\nrent gossip about him; and there would be a great\\nstore of this, for the rich man who went to lyondon a\\npenniless fugitive was the I^ord Mayor Whittington over\\nagain. But all he could tell Mr. Dowdall was, that\\nthis Shakspere was formerly of this town, bound ap-\\nprentice to a butcher. But he ran away from his\\nmaster to I^ondon, and was there received into the\\nplay house as a servitour, and by this means had an", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0445.jp2"}, "446": {"fulltext": "424 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAK:SSPB;ARK.\\nopportunity to be what he afterwards proved. Here\\nwas a clergyman anxiously questioning the parish clerk\\nof Stratford, as to the knowledge and traditions respect-\\ning William Shaksper, formerly of that parish, reputed\\nto have written certain wonderful poems and plays, and\\nnot one item does he extract as to literary labors, or\\ntraditions of authorship. Simply that the runaway\\nboy came back a rich man Nothing more impresses\\nthe illiterate than the reputation of authorship. To\\nhave written a book sets all agape. But neither\\nclerk nor neighbors had ever heard of his writing\\nplays.\\nNot one of the player s family, it appears, had any-\\nthing to say of poems or plays. His son-in-law, John\\nHall, was a Master of Arts, and an eminent physician.\\nHis advice was solicited in every direction, and he\\nwas summoned more than once to attend the Barl and\\nCountess of Northampton, at Ludlow Castle, a dis-\\ntance of over forty miles, no trifling journey over the\\nbridle paths of those days; and even in such times of\\nfierce religious animosities the desire to secure his\\nadvice outweighed them all, etc, (H.-P., II, 274.)\\nDr. Hall left a manuscript entitled Select observa-\\ntions on English bodies and the only line relating to\\nWilliam Shaksper is this: My father-in-law, W.\\nShakspeare died last Thursday. Of this the Boston\\nTranscript, 13th Oct. 1897, said: Dr. Hall feelingly\\nput down the treatment of Goodman Brown, and Gos-\\nsip Wickerley, and the elderly I^ady Butler, the herbs\\nand simples used, etc, and on one line, as if an after-\\nthought, he adds, the words given above.\\nDr. Nathan Drake, himself a physician, says, Pt,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0446.jp2"}, "447": {"fulltext": "IGNORANCK OF CONTFMPORARIKS. 425\\nIII, Ch. 2: That not the smallest account of the dis-\\nease which terminated so valuable a life, should have\\nbeen transmitted to posterity is singular;\\nand the more so, as our poet was, no doubt, attended\\nby his son-in-law, Dr. Hall, who should have recol-\\nlected that the circumstances which led to the dissolu-\\ntion of such a man had a claim to preservation and\\npublicity. Hall, who left for publication a manu-\\nscript collection of cases, selected from not less than\\na thousand diseases, has omitted the only one which\\ncould have secured to his work any permanent interest\\nof value. The fact no doubt was that Dr. Hall was\\nashamed of the tippling old showman whom the fates\\nhad assigned to him for a father-in-law. He would\\nhave been a happier man, could he have taken Susanna\\nwithout the incumbrance. It is inconceivable, had\\nShaksper been known to the learned and eminent\\nphysician as the author of meritorious poems and\\nplays as anything beyond a mere theater man that\\namong his many memoranda, there should not be the\\nslighest allusion to his so near relative. He evidently\\ndid not consider Shaksper s life so valuable as Dr.\\nDrake held it to have been. lyittle could Dr. Hall\\nhave foreseen that in the 19th century, this old man\\nwould be held up as a model of all that is good and\\ngreat; that there should come to be a Shaksper cult,\\nwith its millions of followers, and with balloon-topped\\nantiquarians like Phillipps and Kurnivall, for hiero-\\nphants.\\nShaksper s daughters knew no more than the neigh-\\nbors. They had not a manuscript or a letter from\\nhim, or a scrap of paper on which he had written,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0447.jp2"}, "448": {"fulltext": "426 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKKSPKAR:^.\\nnor had they a book containing a Shakespeare play.\\nThese daughters Hved nearly forty years after\\ntheir father s death his grand-daughter, I^ady Bar-\\nnard, till 1670, and there is not the slightest evi-\\ndence that they ever claimed literary distinction for\\nWilliam Shaksper. I^ady Barnard may be assumed to\\nhave been intelligent as well as educated, and she\\nwould have been proud of her ancestor, if he was\\nreally the great poet Shakespeare.\\nNow, is it probable, is it possible, that the greatest\\nintellect, and one of the most prolific writers of that\\nage, lived and died in that way; leaving at the time\\nof his death, in his own house at Stratford, nothing\\nto connect him with any literary work, any author-\\nship of books or plays; his own children ignorant of\\nthe existence of either books or plays, they as well as\\nthe neighbors, knowing him simply as a player who\\nhad run a theater and made money? There is but\\none explanation of the matter, and that is that the\\nman Shaksper, if he claimed to have written the\\nShakespeare plays, was an impostor. He had no\\nmore to do with their composition than had Burbage\\nor Heminge, his fellows. He was proprietor of a\\ntheater, and like the late Barnum, he made it pay.\\nHe gave his mind, and all of it, to it. It could not\\nhave been otherwise. Shaksper must have done as\\nall managers do, worked early and late at his profes-\\nsion! All the extra time he had was devoted to in-\\ncreasing his heap of money. Certainly this was so,\\nfor from mean beginnings, by small accretions, and by\\nlending money and fortunate speculations, he became\\na very rich man. Not one moment had he for writ-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0448.jp2"}, "449": {"fulltext": "ignorance; op contkhporariks. 427\\ning plays, and every presumption is against his hav-\\ning the incHnatiou, any more than the ability, to write\\nplays; certainly not the Shakespeare plays. Acting\\nand managing was one trade, writing of plays an-\\nother.\\nAnd yet, we are asked to believe that this busy,\\nand thriving and far-traveling man, also undertook,\\nand for twenty years carried on the trade of, writing\\nthe plays acted at his theater, and very many plays\\nnever acted there or elsewhere thrown off in mere\\nsport, because he had not enough to do, we may say;\\nwonderful plays, the like of which, for solid learning,\\nbook-lore, philosophy only to be got by 3^ears of\\ncontinual brain work the world has not seen. And\\nmore than that, after many of these plays had been\\nwritten and published, this busy man re- wrote them,\\naltered, enlarged and polished them, with an eye to\\ntheir literary perfection Swinburne says. Our ad-\\nmirable Barnum, who belonged to the same genus as\\nWilliam Shaksper, could ride one horse, possibly two,\\nbut he hardly could have ridden half a dozen without\\ncoming to grief. No more could manager Shaksper,\\nwe may be sure. Nevertheless, there are people so\\nconstructed that anything superhuman, miraculous,\\nseizes upon their imagination and enforces their belief\\nat once. They say with TertuUian: It is incredible\\nand therefore I believe it. Professor Francis W. New-\\nman, Echo, Dec. 31st, 1887, says: Are the devotees\\nof Shakspere resolved to make him a miracle That\\nis exactly what they do.\\nThe writer of a paper on Shaksper in the Review\\nof Reviews, July, 1894, says: Any suggestion that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0449.jp2"}, "450": {"fulltext": "428 SHAKSP^R NOT SHAKKSPEJAR:^.\\nShakspere was fallible seems to many of us akin to\\nblasphemy.\\nNobody believes tkat immediate inspiration is pos-\\nsible in modern times and yet everybody seems to\\ntake it for granted of this one man Shakspere, I^owell.\\nSurely, because everybody realizes that on the theory\\nof immediate inspiration only, can this Stratford man\\nbe brought into line with the Shakespeare plays. We\\nhave seen that Halliwell-Phillipps intimates his be-\\nlief that they were written by inspiration, not by\\ndesign\\nVery few intelligent men and women know the facts\\nin this case, and many who do know, refuse to consider\\nthem. It titillates the individual and the national\\nvanity that the superhuman, semi-divine being, the\\naccepted Shakespeare, as constructed from the plays the\\nlike of whom never was on sea or land, should have\\nbeen providentially permitted to the English race. It\\nseems a sacrilege to pull down one s idol. For myself,\\nI am of the opinion that when the author or authors\\nof these works are discovered, they will be found, not\\ndivine, but very human, with varied experiences, with\\nparentage, and education, and capacity, and training,\\nto make such works possible.\\nThe only real argument in favor of Shaksper is\\nfounded on what may be called the universality of\\nbelief in Great Britain and America; as if universality\\nof belief will consecrate a lie. The world believes that\\nWilliam Shaksper wrote the plays and poems, and it\\nis fashionable and customary so to believe. Com-\\nmentators and essayists by the hundreds have kept\\nthe gilded idol in a state of preservation for nearly", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0450.jp2"}, "451": {"fulltext": "icJNORANc:^ or conte;mj orAri:^S. 4^9\\nthree centuries by ingenious suppositions, possibilities\\nand probabilities;* and when doubters grumbled on\\naccount of the paucity of facts, bold forgeries like\\nthose of Ireland and Cunningham have been put upon\\nthe market to minister to a popular mind diseased.\\nJudge Stotsenburg, Baconiana, n. s., p. 47.\\nTossibilities and probabilities I find a pretty example\\nin Dr. Furnesses Variorum edition of the Tempest: is\\nhighly probable that Shakespeare derived his material from\\nWilliam Strachey, the Secretary to the Colony of Virginia,\\nThis Strachey printed a pamphlet in 1612 giving an account of\\nthe wracks and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates Knight upon\\nand from the islands of the Bermudas. In recent\\ntimes a closer possible connection has been discovered between\\nthis Strachey and Shakespeare than was known to M alone.\\nPrefaced to one of Strachey s pamphlets on the Colony of Vir-\\nginia Britanica, dated London, 1612, in a sonnet addressed to\\nthe Council of Virginea followed by a Preface which is signed\\nFrom my lodging in the black .Friers, Wm. Strachey. To\\nthese facts we can apply the universal solvent which subdues\\neverything connected with Shakespeare s biography, and say\\nthat it is not iinprobable that Shakespeare and Strachey were\\nintimate friends and it is not improbable that of all tnen it was\\nStrachey whom, full of adventure, of shipwrecks, of tempests,\\nof travellers stories, Shakespeare got quietly in the corner\\nand milked.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0451.jp2"}, "452": {"fulltext": "430 SHAKSPI^R NOT SHAKi^SPl^ARB.\\nCHAPTER XVII.\\nABSENCE OF AlylyUSIONS TO STRATFORD-ON-AVON\\nIN THE SHAKESPEARE PlyAYS: THE AUTHOR OR\\nAUTHORS STRANGEI/Y UNOBSERVANT OF NATURE.\\nDr. Wallace, in the Arena thus discourses: In\\nthe midst of the calm and beautiful scenery of War-\\nwickshire, he acquired that extensive knowledge and\\nlove of nature which is manifest throughout\\nhis works, etc.\\nWilliam Winter says: The minute knowledge that\\nShakespeare has of plants and flowers, and the loving\\nappreciation with which he describes pastoral scenery,\\nare explained to the rambler in Stratford by all he\\nsees and hears. And again: The man who wrote\\nthe Shakespeare plays knew Warwickshire as it could\\nonly be known to a native of it. I have before\\nquoted Halliwell-Phillipps on the flower mentions,\\nthat they do not prove that he was ever a botanist or\\na gardener. Neither are his numerous allusions to\\nwild flowers and plants, not one of which appears to\\nbe peculiar to Warwickshire, evidences. Which\\nwould seem to settle that matter. But it is a fact that\\nthe works of William Shakespeare, supposed to have\\nbeen written by one William Shaksper, born in the\\nvillage of Stratford, on the river Avon, Warwickshire,\\nare not only remarkable for the very opposite of an\\nextensive knowledge of nature obtained in the\\nmid^ of that calm and beautiful scenery but for", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0452.jp2"}, "453": {"fulltext": "NO AtlvUSIONS fO SYRATP^ORD-ON-AVON. 43 1\\nthe absence of mentions of or allusions to Stratford,\\nor the Avon, or the county of Warwick, to whose\\nbeauties he is supposed to have owed his inspiration.\\nIn all the poems and plays attributed to Shake-\\nspeare there is not a mention of Stratford, or of the\\nAvon. Of the county of Warwick there are just three\\nmentions: What a devil dost thou in Warwick-\\nshire? I Henry IV, v,\u00c2\u00bb2. In 2 Henry VI, iii, 2,\\nSuffolk, addressing Warwick, says: Proud lord of\\nWarwickshire and in 3 Henry VI, iv, 8, Barl War-\\nwick says: In Warwickshire I have true-hearted\\nfriends. The action of the three Henry VI plays\\nand of Richard III takes place largely in Warwick-\\nshire, and Karl Warwick is one of the prominent\\ncharacters, mentioned by name a hundred times, yet\\nthese three mentions of the county are all that are to\\nbe found in the thirty-six plays, and not one of them\\nimplies a personal knowledge of the county.\\nNor are other localities named. It is possible that\\nWincot, in the Introduction to Marlowe s Taming of\\nthe Shrew, may have been meant for Wilmecote, a\\nvillage three miles from Stratford-on-Avon, but there\\nis nothing by which to identify it, and what Wincot\\nwas, no man can now tell.\\nThere is a Woncot mentioned in 2 Henry VI,\\nWilliam Visor of Woncot and so eager have the\\nShakspereans been to sustain the Warwickshire\\norigin of the plays, that they have converted this into\\nWincot. As, however. Master Robert Shallow Esquire\\ndwelt in Gloucestershire, I ll through Gloucester-\\nshire, and there will I visit Robert Shallow Esquire\\nand William Visor was one of his tenants or under-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0453.jp2"}, "454": {"fulltext": "43^ ShAKSPI^R NO^ SHAKKSPEiAR]^.\\nlings, this Woncot could not have been Wincot.\\nDonnelly.\\nThe town of Coventry is mentioned nine times, but\\nnowhere is there discovered a personal acquaintance\\nwith it: Towards Coventry we bend our course\\nI 11 not march through Coventry March amain\\ntowards Co ventrj and so on. The name Coventry\\ncarries no more meaning than does Xanadu in the line\\nof Coleridge. Any other name would have done as\\nwell.\\nThe forest of Arden is spoken of three times in As\\nYou lyike It; This is the forest of Arden In the\\nforest of Arden My uncle in the forest of Arden\\nbut it is not an English forest. It is a piece of the\\nland of Nowhere, a wilderness furnished with lions\\nand green pythons; where the ruler is a Duke and the\\ncourtiers are Frenchmen. This forest has no more lo-\\ncality or reality than the Wonderland of Alice.\\nWilliam Winter says that the man who wrote the\\nShakespeare plays knew Warwickshire as it could\\nonly have been known to a native of it. From what\\nI have said above, it is clear that this man did not\\nmanifest in his plays any knowledge of Warwickshire\\nat all.\\nDrake, Ch. Ill, after speaking of Wincot, dis-\\ncourses thus: It may indeed excite some surprise\\nthat we have not more allusions of this nature to com-\\nmemorate; that the scenery which occurred to him\\nearly in life, and especially at the period when the\\nimagery drawn from nature must have been impressed\\non his mind in a manner peculiarly vivid and defined;\\nwhen he was free from care, unshackled by a family,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0454.jp2"}, "455": {"fulltext": "NO ALLUSIONS TO STRATPORD-ON-AVON. 433\\nand at liberty to roam where fancy led him, has not\\nbeen delineated in some portion of his works, with\\nsuch accuracy as immediately to designate its origin.\\nFor, if we consider the excursive powers of his\\nimagination, and the desultory and unsettled habits\\nwhich tradition has ascribed to him during his youth-\\nful residence at Stratford, we may assert, without fear\\nof contradiction, and as an undoubted truth, that his\\nrambles into the country, and for a poet s purpose,\\nwere both frequent and extensive, and that not a\\nstream, or wood, or hamlet, within many miles of his\\nnative town, were un visited by him at various times\\nand under various circumstances. Yet, if we can\\nseldom point out in his works any distinct reference to\\nthe actual scenery of Stratford and its neighborhood,\\nwe may observe that few of the remarkable events of\\nhis own time appear to have escaped his notice, etc.\\nTo illustrate this, Dr. Drake prattles about an earth-\\nquake which happened in 1580, alluded to, he thinks,\\nby the nurse in Romeo and Juliet. It is probable that\\nthe earthquake was not confined to Henley street.\\nSurely, it is strange, if the author of the Plays\\nspent his first twenty-two years at Stratford-on-Avon,\\nthat no mention of that neighborhood is to be found\\nin all his writings, not merely of the neighborhood,\\nbut of the objects that a boy and youth with eyes in\\nhis head must have seen, and with brains must have\\nreflected on. I will quote on this matter the writer in\\nthe lyondou Quarterly Review before cited. His name\\nis not attached to the paper, but the presence of the\\nlatter in the Quarterly is a voucher for his accuracy\\nand authority. He tells us that Shakespeare was", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0455.jp2"}, "456": {"fulltext": "434 SHAKSPKR NOT shakkspbjare;.\\ncuriously unobservant of animated nature. He\\nseems to have seen very little. Our authority for this\\nis his own works, which are most disap-\\npointing to lovers of Nature by their extraordi-\\nnary omissions. Stratford-on-Avon was enmeshed in\\nstreams, yet he has not got a single king-fisher. It is\\ntrue he refers to that mythic old sea-bird of antiquity,\\nthe halcyon, but that is not a king-fisher. Nor in all\\nhis streams or pool is there an otter, a water-rat, a fish\\nrising, a dragon-fly, a moor hen or a heron. His boy-\\nhood was passed among woods, and yet in all the\\nwoods in his plays there is neither wood-pecker nor\\nwood-pigeon; we never see or hear a squirrel in the\\ntrees, nor a night- jar hawking over the bracken. How\\nis it that in all his sunshine there is not a single bee\\nhumming about the flowers? That with all his even-\\nings, there is not a single moth on the wing? Shake-\\nspeare makes use of no fewer than twenty species of\\nBritish wild animals. Of these, the badger, the otter\\nand the water-rat are once each employed by name\\nmerely as terms of abuse; the pole-cat and hedge hog\\nare also terms of abuse, but are so far described, as to\\nbe called respectively stinking and thorny the\\ndormouse and ferret are each used once as adjectives\\nfor sleepy and fierce the shrew gives its name to a\\nplay, but is never mentioned as an animal. The\\nonly references to the weasel are blunders.\\nThere is not even a single epithet in all his references\\nto the fox that assures us that Shakespeare ever noticed\\none at large. He gives a superb description of\\na boar-hunt in Venus and Adonis. Any one who\\nchooses to do so could resolve this description into", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0456.jp2"}, "457": {"fulltext": "NO AI,I.USIONS YO SI RA l li^ORD-ON-AVON. 435\\nits original elements, and refer them respectively to\\nSpenser and Drayton, Du Bartas, Cliester and others,\\nwho wrote of the mighty boar before Shakespeare,\\nand all of whom borrowed from Ovid, Pliny and\\nVirgil. Id., 334. Another passage of which much\\nhas been made is the description in Henry V of a\\nbee-hive and its inmates. As poetry it is a\\nmost beautiful passage; as a description of a hive, it\\nis utter nonsense, with an error of fact in every other\\nline, and instinct throughout with a total misconcep-\\ntion of the great bee-parable. Obviously, therefore,\\nthere could have been no personal observation. How\\nthen did the poet arrive at the beautiful conception\\nFrom the Euphues of Lyly. Was it original in I^yly\\nNo; for any one who will turn to the fourth book of\\nthe Georgics will find there Virgil s matchless de-\\nscription of a bee-hive; and if Shakespeare had, in\\nhis own matchless language, directly paraphrased the\\nLatin poet s beautiful version, his description would\\nhave gained greatly in accuracy, and lost but little in\\noriginality. Id. 348.\\nHis nightingale, again, is a beautiful poem, but\\nits theme is Philomela not a bird; and when he does\\nspeak of the bird, he shows that he went to con-\\ntemporary error or antiquated fancy for his facts, not\\nNature. Did Shakespeare ever listen to\\neither lark or nightingale The man Shake-\\nspeare never speaks to us from the poet s lines to say\\nthat the bird nightingale delighted him Id. 358.\\nHis vocabulary of dog abuse is positively terrific. It\\nis a most surprising fact that Shakespeare should\\nnever have a loving word to throw at a dog. If he", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0457.jp2"}, "458": {"fulltext": "436 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKEJSPEJAREJ.\\nwas ungenerous to a dog, he must be called sometliing\\nworse to cats. It is surely astonishing that\\nhe should so persistently revile the little animal.\\nCritics cannot say of Shakspeare that he was\\na lover of animals. To the living objects\\nabout him he seems to have been obstinately and de-\\nliberately purblind and half deaf.\\nAs real trees that he knows of, he actually uses in\\nhis forests only the oak, pine and (very doubtfully)\\nthe sycamore. There are no elms or beech-trees, no\\nbirch, chestnut, walnut, poplar, alder, plane, fir, larch,\\nlime or horn -beam. Is this not extraordinary\\nHe has no butterflies in his sunshine, no moths in his\\ntwilight, no crickets in his meadows, no bees in his\\nflowers, His characters live in Arden Forest,\\nand yet they never hear or see a single bird, or insect,\\nall the time they are there. As for animals, deer ex-\\ncepted, there is only a lioness and a green and gilded\\nsnake. The oak is the only forest tree in the play.\\nThere is not a flower in it. Id. 360.\\nNow what is the natural inference from all this\\nPlainly, that the author of the poems and plays had\\nnot spent his first twenty years in the midst of the\\ncalm and beautiful scenery of Warwickshire, but was\\ntown bred, and got his natural history from books.\\nAnd of course it follows that boy Shakespeare and boy\\nShaksper were different boys.\\nMrs. Pott says: It might naturally be expected\\nthat a man born and bred in the country (such a man\\nas William Shakspere, if he were the author of the\\npoems and plays,) would have given some kind of\\ndescription of, or scene in, a country town or village.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0458.jp2"}, "459": {"fulltext": "NO AlvI^USIONS TO STRATFORD-ON-AVON. 437\\na village green with rustic dancing, may-\\npole, etc. or a smithy, a country inn, fair, or market;\\nbut there are none of these. Neither is there a\\nharvest home, a haymaking, or Christmas merry-\\nmaking, nor any of the small pleasures of country\\nhfe. There is no brewing, cider-making, nor baking,\\nno fruit or hop-picking, no reaping, gleaning or\\nthreshing; no scene in a farm or country gentleman s\\nhouse, no description of homely occupations, nor of\\nany kind of trade. It might naturally be expected\\nthat the father of a family, as was William Shakspere,\\nwould have much to say of children; but these are\\nconspicuously absent.\\nBut if the man who wrote these plays was a phi-\\nlosopher first and then a poet, and if the plays are\\nnot nature, nor copies of nature, nor intended to be\\nsuch, but art, which makes its own world, in imitation\\nno doubt of nature, but with an intentional difference\\nand under artificial forms and arbitrary conditions,\\nas Mr. Ruggles asserts, then it matters nothing\\nwhether lionesses and green and gilded snakes were\\nin the forest of Arden, or a sea-coast to Bohemia. It\\nis a fair inference that the artist never spent his boy-\\nhood at Stratford.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0459.jp2"}, "460": {"fulltext": "438 shakspe;r not shake;spEARK.\\nCHAPTER XVIIL\\nVIEWS OF THE BAYNES SCHOOL.\\nDr. Baynes is obliged to cast aside all the traditions\\nrespecting the youth of Shaksper, because he finds\\nhim in I,ondon, when but lately arrived from Strat-\\nford, learned and accomplished. Hence he must have\\nhad superior advantages when young. But as the\\nlife of boy and man is a blank, all the traditions are\\nworthless, and the Doctor sets himself down to com-\\npose from the poems and plays the sort of man their\\nauthor must have been, by the evidence of the works\\nthemselves. In the first place, there must have been\\ngood birth and breeding, for undoubtedly the author\\nwas a gentleman. Therefore we will give him a dis-\\ntinguished ancestry. The Doctor deems it more than\\nprobable, almost certain, that the name Shakespeare\\n(Dr. Baynes will not have Shakspere which sounds\\ntoo much like Jacques- Pierre) was the result of\\nprowess in the wars of the 13th century, (time of\\nKdward I; as well have said the nth century, and\\nbring in the imaginary ancestor with the battle of\\nHastings one is as easily imagined as the other).\\nOn the mother s side, he goes back of Edward the\\nConfessor; a gentlewoman in the truest sense of the\\nterm the sweetest of influences in the boy s child-\\nhood. Now, this is a descent something like\\nworthy, in fact, of the poems and plays. True, the\\nfacts are that the father was an obscure yeoman, and", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0460.jp2"}, "461": {"fulltext": "vib;ws of THE) bayne;s schooi.. 439\\nLis mother of the rank of milkmaid but we will\\nhave none of them. And he imagines a school at\\nStratford scarcely second to Oxford, a school that\\nturned out young gentlemen with a greater knowledge\\nof lyatin than any graduate of any college or uni-\\nversity in America to-day possesses; a boy Shaks-\\nper passionately devoted to Ovid, (the Venus and\\nAdonis proves that); able to read for his own instruc-\\ntion and delight, Virgil, Terence, Plautus, Catullus,\\nand Cicero; but of the lot, Ovid was a special favor-\\nite with Shaksper at the outset of his career; able\\nto talk and write Latin; composes the Venus and\\nAdonis in his youth, and takes the manuscript in his\\ngrip when he goes to London. A pretty ideal to con-\\nstruct from the poems and plays, but not the man who\\nplayed at the Curtain theater, an indifferent actor,\\nboth Hallam and White say, who had little Latin, per-\\nhaps none, as Dr. Rolfe ingenuously says, equivalent\\nto saying he had no education at all and who died\\nat Stratford as devoid of literary accomplishments\\nas when he entered London, and what they were\\nthen, both Halliwell-Phillipps and Grant White have\\nshown.\\nIt is worth while to follow Dr. Baynes a little way\\nin his construction of the personality of the author\\nby citations from his works, mixed with a liberal\\namount of spinning from his own consciousness. He\\ndiscourses first on the probable curriculum of Strat-\\nford school during the years Shaksper was a pupil\\nthere. P. 149, Shakespeare Studies, Longmans, 1894,\\n(a reprint of Baynes various essays on Shakespeare).\\nI would repeat here that as to the boy ever having", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0461.jp2"}, "462": {"fulltext": "440 shaksp:er not shakespbare.\\nbeen at Stratford grammar school at all there is no\\ntestimony whatever. It is a supposition at best.\\nThere can be no doubt that he had a very fair educa-\\ntion (That is all very well a fair education when\\ntalking of Shaksper, but sounds like a joke when ap-\\nplied to the author of the Shakespeare plays). And\\nit is almost equally certain that he must have obtained\\nit at the grammar school of his native town.\\nDr. Baynes then takes Brinsley and Hoole s account\\nof Grammar school teaching of the time, which, he\\nsays, is of the nature of contemporary evidence as\\nto what the boy learned. Hoole s book, written about\\n1625, fifty years after Shaksper s boyhood, abounds\\nwith references to the course of instruction in the\\nWakefield grammar school, and as they agree\\nwith Brinsley, we may accept them as a guide to\\nthe course of instruction at Stratford. (In same\\nway, we might as sensibly be called on to accept as the\\ncourse of instruction in the backwoods of one of our\\nstates the course prescribed in the principal towns and\\ncities. Stratford, as we have seen, was one of the\\nlowest class of villages of its period; in its stagnation,\\nand ignorance, and booklessness, one to compare un-\\nfavorably with anj^thing that can be found in our back-\\nwoods, and to suppose that amongst the sort of people\\nwho lived there, there was growing up a generation of\\nchildren who were receiving the advanced education\\nDr. Baynes outlines, is ridiculous. Kven the man\\nShaksper, player, manager, money lender, thriving and\\nrich, did not send his own daughters to school, and in\\nthe absence of all direct testimony on the matter, it is\\nhighly improbable that John Shaksper ever sent Will-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0462.jp2"}, "463": {"fulltext": "VIKWS OF THBJ BAYNES SCHOOL. 44 1\\niam to school. It would be contrary to the traditions\\nand habits, to the hereditary set of the brain of the\\ntribe. In all their generations and connections the\\nShakspers had been and were illiterate. Ignorant\\npeople have no appreciation of any book knowledge\\nfor their children beyond enough to help them along\\nin the world, and they hold the three fs suflBcient for\\nthat purpose. As to anxiety to have their cubs\\ngrounded in the classics, it is nonsense.) In his\\nfirst year, therefore, Shaksper would be occupied\\nwith the accidence and grammar. In the second year,\\nwith the elements of grammar, he would read some\\nmanual of phrases and dialogues. In his third, he\\nwould take up Cato s Maxims and Ksop s Fables. In\\nhis fourth, he would read the Eclogues of Mantuanus,\\nparts of Ovid, some of Cicero s Epistles and probably\\none of his shorter treatises. In his fifth year, he\\nwould continue the reading of Ovid s Metamorphoses,\\nwith parts of Virgil and Terence; and in the sixth\\nyear, Horace, Plautus, and probably parts of Juvenal\\nand Perseus, with some of Cicero s Orations, and\\nSeneca s Tragedies. In going through such a course,\\nunless the teaching at Stratford was exceptionally in-\\nefficient, the boy must have made some progress in\\nseveral of these authors and acquired sufiicient knowl-\\nedge of the language to read fairly well at sight the\\nmore popular verse and prose writers, such as Ovid\\nand Cicero. 175.\\nHaving now gained a general idea of Shaksper s\\ncourse of school instruction (is not the logic delicious?),\\nwe have next to inquire whether his writings supply\\nany, evidence of his having passed through such a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0463.jp2"}, "464": {"fulltext": "442 shakspe;r not SHAK:eSP:eAR:^.\\ncourse. 178. And so Dr. Baynes goes on to search\\nthe plays, and sure enough, he finds all the evidence\\nhe wanted, and unexpectedly conies on evidence of\\ngreater proficiency than he had any idea of, a regular\\nbonanza. He finds that Shaksper must have had\\nsome experience of the special exercises belonging to\\nthe higher forms, amongst others those of making\\nI^atin, or writing I atin epistles, themes and theses.\\n188. Good boy! All tradition agrees that he must\\nhave left school at the age of thirteen (if he went at\\nall), because of his father s poverty, the period of\\nwhich is well fixed by the records of suits and judg-\\nments at Stratford against the unlucky man. But this\\nexcellent son not only learned all that could be learned\\nin the regular course of each year he attended school,\\nbut managed to gain on the upper forms to a surprising\\ndegree, especially remarkable when we consider that\\nall school books were chained to the desk, write I^atin,\\ntalk lyatin, and revel in Latin generally. Why, then,\\nwith this vast learning, was he bound apprentice to a\\nbutcher, and why did he have to consort with vaga-\\nbonds and ostracised players in order to make a living\\nBut the marvel does not stop here. In addition to\\nLatin composition, another distinctive branch of study\\nin the upper school was rhetoric. 190. The good\\nDoctor has as much certainty that there was such a\\nschool as if he had seen it and run it. We may\\nfairly assume that Shaksper remained long enough\\nat school to reach the fifth form, and Love s Labour s\\nLost supplies a curious piece of evidence tending to\\nshow that he had gone through a technical training in\\nthe elements of rhetoric a discovery on which the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0464.jp2"}, "465": {"fulltext": "VIE;WS of the; BAYNBS SCHOOIv. 443\\nDoctor plumes himself as having been hitherto over-\\nlooked by the critics and commentators, etc.\\nThe higher qualities of Ovid s genius and work\\nwere indeed precisely of the kind to attract and fasci-\\nnate the youthful author of Venus and Adonis. 201.\\nI agree to that myself.*\\nThe earlier quotations (from Ovid) show that\\nShaksper had extended his studies in Ovid, not\\nonly beyond the books usually read in the schools, the\\nDe Tristibus, and the Metamorphoses, but beyond\\nthe utmost limits where the help of a translation was\\navailable. 209. This testimony of the learned Dr.\\nBaynes seems to be at variance with the smattering,\\npicking up, theory of Phillipps, Wallace, Fiske and\\nothers. Apparently the author of the plays cannot be\\nthe man of whom Ben Jonson said, that he had small\\nLatin That was the bard of Stratford.\\nIt is well known that Shaksper derived several\\nof the names occurring in his dramas, such as Autoly-\\ncus, directly from Ovid. Also Titania is clearly de-\\nrived from the study of Ovid in the original. 212.\\nOn p. 209, he quotes from the Taming of the Shrew,\\nLet s be no stoics, nor no stocks, I pray;\\nOr so devote to Aristotle s checks\\nAs Ovid be an outcast quite abjured.\\nThe enthusiastic Doctor tells us that this last line\\nEven Wendell, 89, talks of Shaksper s altering and\\nadapting Ovid with excessive verbal care, and altering Plautus;\\nbut Wendell s co-professor, Rolfe, and the other one, John\\nFiske, are unable to find evidence that the writer of the poems\\nand plays had much Latin, little, perhaps none Rolfe says.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0465.jp2"}, "466": {"fulltext": "444 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKEISPEARK.\\nsuggests that Shaksper had found Ovid s refresh-\\ning tales a welcome relief from his professional labors,\\na stimulating relaxation for leisure hours. On which\\nI would remark, that it is not impossible that this may-\\nhave been true of the author of the plays, but as to\\nWilliam Shaksper, player and manager, he was ac-\\ncustomed to seek a welcome relief and stimulating\\nrelaxation from certain fluids not far from hand in\\nlyondon then as now.\\nWe have no evidence to show whether Shaksper\\nwas well acquainted with Catullus or not, but we know\\nthat he was a diligent student of Ovid. 329. Truly,\\nhe who seeks shall find.\\nDr. Baynes view is that Stratford was a lovely\\ntown (swept by contract every night), with fine\\nhouses and cultivated people; a grammar school that\\nwas auxiliary to Oxford, and free to all comers. The\\nShakspers were of the gentry, of distinguished an-\\ncestry on both sides. Young William was nourished\\non the Bible, Holinshed and Plutarch; later on Ovid\\nand TuUy always slept with a volume of Ovid beneath\\nhis pillow. Hence, etc. Alas, we remember that Don\\nQuixote s battlemented castle resolved itself into a\\nhumble inn, and the knights and ladies into sow-\\ngelders and cobbler s daughters.\\n*0f course Shaksper s well-thumbed copy of Ovid had to\\nbe found, and we read in I^ee, 15: In the Bodleian Library is a\\ncopy of the Aldine edition of Ovid s Metamorphoses (1502) and\\non the title is the signature Wm. Sh. which experts have\\ndeclared not quite conclusively to be a genuine autograph of\\nthe poet. Inasmuch as this Shaksper never wrote his name\\ntwice alike, of course this autograph is as genuine as the rest.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0466.jp2"}, "467": {"fulltext": "VIEWS OF THK BAYNES SCHOOIv. 445\\nThe trouble with Dr. Baynes piece of sculpture is\\nthat we happen to know what the historical Shaksper\\nwas, and the sculptured creature does not in any one\\npoint resemble the real individual That Shaksper\\nwas himself a poet, after a fashion, no one denies.\\nHis effusions are well known. Thus:\\nTen in the hundred the Devil allows,\\nBut Combe will have twelve, he swears and vows,\\nIf any one asks who lives in this tombe,\\nHo quoth the Devil, t is my John a Combe.\\nThis, and two or three morceaux of like character,\\nincluding the lyUcy lampoon, and the doggerel verse on\\nhis tomb-stone, are all that are authentically recorded\\nof the works of William Shaksper, player and man-\\nager.\\nTime has spared two specimens of Shaksper s mode\\nof attack. It so happens that one of them is a ballad,\\nand the other an epigram; the first written on a per-\\nson whose park he had robbed, and the second on a\\nfriend who had left him a legacy. Gifford, Memoirs\\nof Ben Jonson, Moxon s Ed. i8.\\nAs to the probability of any such thorough and ad-\\nvanced school having existed at such a place as Strat-\\nford: The common people were densely ignorant.\\nThey had to pick up their mother tongue as best\\nthey could. The first English grammar was not pub-\\nlished until 1586 (after Shaksper had left school). It\\nwas evident that much schooling was impossible, for\\nthe necessary books did not exist. The horn-book\\nfor teaching the alphabet would almost exhaust the\\nresources of the common day-schools that might ex-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0467.jp2"}, "468": {"fulltext": "446 SHAKSPER NOT shaki;spe;ar:^.\\nist in the towns and villages. I^ittle, if any, English\\nwas taught even in the lower classes of the grammar\\nschools. Goadby, England of Shakespeare, quoted\\nfrom Donnelly, 30.\\nAs a rule, since the event (the Reformation),\\nthere was no educated person in the parish beyond\\nthe parson. Prof. Thorold Rogers, Donnelly, 30.\\nWhat Halliwell-Phillipps says of the educational\\npossibilities of the boy Shaksper, I have before re-\\ncorded: that, if he went to school at all, his earliest\\nknowledge of I^atin was derived from the elementary\\nbooks mentioned, that all the authorities unite in\\ntelling us that his acquaintance with I^atin through-\\nout his life was of a limited character; that books\\nwere very scarce; and that the Latin grammar and a\\nfew classical works, chained to the desk of the free\\nschool, were probably the only volumes of the kind to\\nbe found in Stratford. Now, Mr. Halliwell-PhilHpps\\nis stated by Wilder to have been a great Shaksperean\\nscholar and antiquary. Gradually he came\\nto concentrate upon Shaksper alone, and more par-\\nticularly on the facts of his life. He dealt in facts,\\nas Dr. Baynes dealt in fiction, and therefore, of the\\ntwo, when facts are in question, his book alone is trust-\\nworthy.\\nWhat became of the other learned youths who grad-\\nuated at the same school? Is there any known man\\nof that generation who has been traced to the Strat-\\nford school? Not one, and for the best of reasons:\\nthere was no such boy or man, and no such school.\\nEven had there been books, it seems that there\\nwere no schoolmasters in the days when young William", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0468.jp2"}, "469": {"fulltext": "viEiws OF the; bayne;s schooi.. 447\\nwent to school, who could have taught him what was\\nnecessary. Ascham, who came a little earlier than\\nShaksper, said that such masters as were to be had\\namounted to nothing, and for the most part, so be-\\nhaved themselves that their very name is hateful to\\nthe scholar, etc. Milton, who came a little later, said\\nthat their teaching was mere babblement and notions.\\nMorgan, V. and A., 143.\\nCraik says: It maybe doubted if popular education\\nwas farther extended at the close of the reign of\\nElizabeth than it was at the commencement of that of\\nher father or her grandfather. Kven the length of\\ntime that printing had been at work, and the multi-\\nplication of books that must have taken place, had\\nprobably but very little, if at all, extended the knowl-\\nedge and the habit of reading among the mass of the\\npeople. I think we may dismiss the subject of the\\nStratford Grammar School and the learning Baynes\\nimagines was acquired there, as not deserving a second\\nthought.\\nNothing new concerning the boy, or the man Shak-\\nsper, has been discovered since the end of the century\\nof his death.\\nMrs. Dall, 160, says: On the 24th of March, 1603,\\nthe Queen died. In spite of many marks of her favor\\nhe wrote no verse of eulogy or lamentation. His\\nsilence was remarked, for more than one of the\\nsmaller poets called on him by name to bewail the dead\\nQueen. He never forgave the Queen, who put Essex\\nto death, etc., etc.\\nAccording to Ingleby, p. 56, an anonymous versi-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0469.jp2"}, "470": {"fulltext": "448 SHAKSPER NOT shake;spe;are;.\\nfier, 1603, wrote A mourneful Dittie entitled Eliza-\\nbeth s Losse etc., in which are these lines:\\nYou poets all, brave Shakspeare, Jonson, Greene,\\nBestow your time to write for England s Oueene,\\nLament, lament, lament you English Peeres,\\nLament your losse possest so many years.\\nReturne your songs and sonnets and yotir lavs:\\nTo set forth sweet Elizabetha s praise.\\nTo be sure Shakespeare, the poet, is here called on,\\nbut the summons has no application to Shaksper the\\nplayer. Beyond this Ingleby gives nothing, and evi-\\ndently this anonymous smaller poet was the only one\\nwho called on Shakespeare to bewail, etc. Player\\nShaksper did not lament in verse; he would have at\\nonce exposed himself. There is a story of a jackdaw\\nin a dovecote, who opened his mouth with disastrous\\nresults to his standing.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0470.jp2"}, "471": {"fulltext": "vib;ws of th:^ phii^upps schooIv, e;tc. 449\\nCHAPTER XIX.\\nVIEWS OF THE PHIIvIvIPPS SCHOOL OF MR. FivEAY,\\nAND SOME OTHER COMMENTATORS.\\nAs I have said, there are various schools of Shak-\\nspereans. One, including such writers as Halliwell-\\nPhillipps and Richard Grant White, give faith to the\\ntraditions and testimonies, and allow the boy William\\na very humble beginning, scanty instruction, followed\\nby apprenticeship to a butcher, the practical life of\\na butcher, H.-P. says, with, from the nature of the\\ncase, in that ignorant and bookless neighborhood, no\\nopportunities for mental improvement, and take him\\nto lyondon about twenty-one or twenty-two years of\\nage. The next few years, concerning which they say\\nthere is not a particle of evidence as to his occupations,\\nare held by this school as having been the educational\\nperiod of Shaksper s life, and necessarily. He put\\nout, they say, the Venus and Adonis seven years after\\nhe entered I^ondon, and as this proved his education,\\nhe must, somehow, have educated himself within\\nthese seven years; because, as Halliwell-Phillipps ex-\\npresses it, it is difficult to believe that when he first\\nleft Stratford he was not all but destitute of polished\\naccomplishments. After he had once, however, gained a\\nfooting in London, he would have been in different\\nconditions. Books of many kinds would have been\\naccessible to him and he would have been within daily\\nhearing of the dramatic poetry of the age. There", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0471.jp2"}, "472": {"fulltext": "450 shakspe;r not SHAEB;SP:eARE;.\\nwould also no doubt have been occasional facilities\\nfor picking up a little smattering of tlie continental\\nlanguages, and it is also beyond a doubt that lie added\\nsomewhat to his classical knowledge during his resi-\\ndence in the metropolis. Can Mr. Phillipps be talk-\\ning of the same man Professor Baynes has in mind,\\nthe accomplished student, who in his teens was fa-\\nmiliar with Ovid and Catullus\\nIt is, for instance, hardly possible, that the Amores\\nof Ovid, whence he derived his earliest motto, pre-\\nfixed to the Venus and Adonis, could have been one of\\nhis school-books. H.-P.\\nMr. Fleay, as we have seen, takes a very different\\nview from that of Mr. Phillipps, In the first place,\\nhe brings young Shaksper to I^ondon from one to two\\nyears later than Phillipps does; in the next place, he\\nhas him writing plays splays of high life almost at\\nonce, and keeps him writing play after play in rapid\\nsuccession. Apparently he would allow no other oc-\\ncupation to interfere with writing that was the young\\nman s special business. On page 25, however, we are\\ntold that up to 1593 (from 1587 to 1593) he had been\\nan actor, gradually rising in the estimation of his fel-\\nlows, (this must be pure intuition on Mr. Fleay s\\npart, for there is no testimony to that effect) but had\\noften been obliged to travel, and to act about town in\\ninn-yards, and his play writing had been confined to\\nvamping old plays by other men, ar at best, to assist-\\ning such writers as Wilson and Peele in producing new\\nones. Yet it would seem clear to the average mind,\\nthat if, in 1589, two years after he entered I^ondon, he\\nproduced lyove s I^abour s lyost, followed almost im-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0472.jp2"}, "473": {"fulltext": "VIKWS OF THK PHII,L,IPPS SCHOOI,, ETC. 45 1\\nmediately by lyove s lyabour s Won (Much Ado About\\nNothing), and by 1591, the three other plays before\\nenumerated, he must have obtained somewhere a very\\nadvanced education, and that, of course, could only\\nhave been gained at Stratford.\\nOn page 7, we read: Nothing whatever is known\\nof his early life, and the only two reliable facts are,\\nthe date of his baptism, and that of his marriage, all\\nbetween being a blank. Doubtless, if this were so,\\nWilliam Shaksper might have had an education as\\nthorough as John Milton s, for aught that could be\\nknown, and have come naturally, without violence, to\\nbe a writer of poems and plays, though it would still\\nbe a matter of astonishment that so accomplished a\\nyouth could have sunk so low, at the age of twenty-\\nthree, as to be compelled to consort with strolling\\nplayers.\\nMr. Fleay reasons back from the plays this young\\nman wrote them; therefore he had an education and\\ntraining that enabled him to write them. As this is\\nunsupported by any testimony, and contrary to all the\\ntraditions, Mr. Fleay s view cannot be the correct one,\\nalthough he is probably right when he fixes the dates\\nat which the several Shakespeare plays first appeared.\\nThou canst not utter what thou dost not know\\nthe author of the plays tells us. It is none of Mr.\\nFleay s business where young Shaksper got his learn-\\ning and accomplishments, and he gives no hint as to\\nwhat he thinks of that matter. His book is written\\nfor discussion of the evidence on which the chrono-\\nlogical succession of Shakespeare s plays is based\\nand Phillipps facts may take care of themselves.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0473.jp2"}, "474": {"fulltext": "452 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKKSPEARK.\\nHere is a Shakespeare play acted in 1589, and, of\\ncourse, written earlier, and before that, preparation\\nmade for it by study, meditation, and travel. This is\\nfollowed by three others, in 1590 and 1591.* One set\\nof facts refuses to make a tight joint with the other set\\nof facts, and like the memorable ass between the two\\nbundles of hay, William Shaksper is left hungry\\nand is also out in the cold. Some other man wrote\\nthose plays. William is not to be blamed apparently;\\nhis greatness was thrust upon him, long after he was\\nmoldering in the ground. During his lifetime, and he\\nlived twenty-four years after the first appearance of a\\nShakespeare play, not a soul attributed the authorship\\nto him or thought of him as an author of any kind.\\nMore than that, there is no evidence that he ever\\nclaimed to be the author of the Shakespeare plays, or\\nany one play of the thirty-six; or that he ever opened\\nhis mouth on the subject of authorship.\\nWendell s book is one of the latest on this subject, and the\\nauthor says, p. 82: The weight of opinion makes this, Ivove s\\nLabour s Lost, the earliest play unquestionably assigned to\\nShakspere. It is conjectured from internal evidence to have\\nbeen written as early as 1589, or 1590. Of the Comedy of\\nErrors, he says, p. 88: Modern critics generally agree in plac-\\ning it, on internal evidence, before 1591, with a slight prefer-\\nence for 1589, or 1590. Of the Two Gentlemen of Verona, he\\nsays, 92: On internal evidence modern critics generally agree\\nin placing it early from 1591 to 1593 or so. Of Romeo and\\nJuliet, he says, 116: Conjectures as to date range from 1591.\\nSo it is apparent that the best modern critics are agreed that\\nseveral of the Shakespeare plays were written during the years\\nPhillipps assigns to the educational period of William Shaksper s\\nlife, and that the series was begun shortly after that young fel-\\nlow came to London,", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0474.jp2"}, "475": {"fulltext": "The; smattejring, picking-up schooi.. 453\\nCHAPTER XX.\\nTHE SMATTERING, PICKING-UP SCHOOIy.\\nDr. Wallace makes the young man gather knowl-\\nedge of law terms by attending inquests and Justices\\nCourts at Stratford, and by occasional attendance upon\\nthe Courts at Westminster, after he came to lyondon.\\nHe continues: Through his foreign acquaintances\\nhe might have obtained translations of some of those\\nItalian or Spanish tales which furnish a portion of his\\nplots, and which have been supposed to indicate an\\namount of learning he could not have possessed.\\nThis school regards Shaksper as a phenomenal hu-\\nman sponge which imbibed knowledge by capillary at-\\ntraction, and not by hard labor, as ordinary mortals\\ndo. The author of these works, Dr. Wallace says,\\nwas a transcendent genius, and it is the special\\nquality of genius to be able to acquire and assimilate\\nknowledge under conditions that to ordinary\\nmen would be impossible. Admitting, as we must ad-\\nmit, the genius, there is no difficulty, no impossibility.\\nAnd Dr. Wallace goes on to say, as I have mentioned\\nbefore, that Shaksper got his exquisite knowledge of\\nNature, which the plays show to be extraordinary and\\nprofound, (but which the writer in the Quarterly above\\nquoted proves to have been gained from books and\\ntraditions and not from nature) from living twenty\\nyears in the midst of the calm and beautiful scenery\\nof Warwickshire (Though what connection there", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0475.jp2"}, "476": {"fulltext": "454 SHAKSPEiR Nol shaee^spe^ar:^,\\nis between scenery and a knowledge of nature, does\\nnot appear. He acquired some portion of the knowl-\\nedge of manners and speech of nobles and kings\\nwhich appear in the historical plays from resorting at\\ntimes of festivity to the lordly castles of Warwick and\\nKenilworth aided by the instruction of the servants\\nand retainers. He would have studied human na-\\nture under every possible aspect in I^ondon, then as\\nnow, crowded with adventurers of all nations.\\n(London was, in 1603, a city of 150,000 inhabitants\\nthe size of Jersey City or Minneapolis in 1900). How\\nhe gained his classical learning, so extensive that the\\nLatin language became amalgamated and consub-\\nstantiated with his native thought, and how he be-\\ncame the possessor of the 15,000 to 21,000 vocabulary,\\nDr. Wallace, and none of that school explain. They\\nspeak of a smattering of picking-up somewhat.\\nMrs. Dall says: He wrote as a bird sings A\\nwriter in the Boston Transcript, March 30th, 1894,\\nsays of him: He had but a smattering of book-\\nlearning. Nature was his only book which is to\\nsay that he had no learning at all. Was this man,\\nso extraordinary from whatever side we look at\\nhim an inspired idiot, a vast irregular genius,\\na simple rustic, warbling his native wood-notes wild;\\nin other words insensible to the benefits of culture?\\nLowell. Even to Halliwell-Phillipps the Shakespeare\\nplays seem to have been written by inspiration, not by\\ndesign, and it is the only way to account for them, if\\nplayer Shaksper wrote the plays.\\nAnother writer in the Transcript, hailing from Ber-\\nlin, July 3rd, 1894, tells the public that Kdwin Bor-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0476.jp2"}, "477": {"fulltext": "^nn smai^te;ring, picking-up schooi.. 455\\nman, poet, etc. has shown, in a book of many pages,\\nthat Bacon was the author of the Shakespeare Plays.\\nIn a few da3^s he is followed by a long letter from one\\nJohn Michels, taking the ground that Bacon could\\nnot have been the author, because the plays show the\\nauthor to have been illiterate and are everywhere de-\\nfective full of all sorts of blunders. This sort of\\ntalk intentionally belittles the acquirements of the\\nreal author, in order to make him come into agreement\\nwith the historic man aud player William Shaksper.\\nlyCt us see what a Professor of English at Harvard\\nCollege teaches his classes; quoting Barrett- Wendell s\\nWilliam Shakspere published 1894, P- 400:\\nNothing more surprises such readers of Shakespeare\\nas are not practical men of letters (such as Hartley\\nColeridge, S. T. Coleridge, J. R. I^owell, Henry J.\\nRuggles, and that ilk, I suppose) than the man s ap-\\nparent learning. To one used to writing, the phe-\\nnomenon is less surprising. Whoever will take a few\\nElizabethan books. North s Plutarch, for example,\\nPaj^nter s Palace of Pleasure, Fox s Martyrs, Holins-\\nhed, and Coke on I^ittleton, (Hear that, ye shades of\\ngreat lawyers from Elizabeth to Victoria!) and with\\nthe help of stray passages from all, translate some\\nnarrative from one of these into blank- verse dialogue,\\nwill produce an effect of erudition which shall pro-\\nfoundly impress not only his readers but himself.\\nWhoever has a few compendious works on hand, and\\nknows how to use them, can make himself seem a\\nmiracle of learning to whoever does not know his\\nsecret. Given these facts, and given the ex-\\nceptionally concrete habit of thought and phrase", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0477.jp2"}, "478": {"fulltext": "456 SHAKSPE^R NOT SHAKBjSPElARlJ.\\nnative to Shakspere, and Shakspere s learning is no\\nlonger a marvel, except to those who insist upon\\nfinding it so.\\nThe lectures of Wendell may be the source of so\\nmany letters in the Transcript, the past few years, be-\\nlittling the author of these plays. I should like to\\nhear this lecturer of Harvard, who thinks that any-\\nbody could have written these immortal works a mere\\nmatter of trick to one who knows the secret explain\\nhow it came to pass that the author attained the\\nenormous vocabulary we have heard of; how it was\\nthat he coined new words by hundreds, currente calamo,\\nwhenever he needed to do so to express his thought,\\ncoined directly from the Latin or Greek root; whose\\nmind was so imbued with the lyatin language that he\\nunconsciously incorporated it into his English; whose\\nclassical allusions are amalgamated and consubstan-\\ntiated with his native thought, according to one used\\nto writing, if anybody ever was, how it happened that\\nHallam, and Coleridge, and Lowell, and hundreds of\\nother men used to writing, have recorded their verdict\\nthat the man s learning was real and prodigious, and\\nnot apparent and fraudulent; how it is that Prin-\\ncipal Baynes extols the solid learning, which he says\\nthe writings supply clear evidence of; how it was that\\nhe could have written works that are classed by Mr.\\nMarsh with the Bible and Milton; how it was that,\\naccording to Mr. Ruggles, a diligent student of both\\nBacon s works and the Shakespeare plays, the author\\nof the latter was everywhere in touch with the Bacon-\\nian philosophy, and the whole scope and tenor of the\\nplays exemplifies the system of that philosophy; how", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0478.jp2"}, "479": {"fulltext": "I^HE; smattering, PICKING-UP SCHOOIv. 457\\nit was that lawyer White declared that legal phrases\\nflow from his pen as a part of his vocabulary and\\nparcel of his thought; and Chief- Justice Campbell,\\nthat the works show the author to be very familiar\\nwith some of the most abstruse proceedings in Eng-\\nlish jurisprudence, and that Shakespeare s law is al-\\nways good law.\\n(Is it possible that any literary man to-day, to say\\nnothing of a professional lecturer on English literature,\\ncan know so little of law as to suppose that a play-\\nwright, educated or uneducated, could pick up good\\nlaw and apply it correctly, and make himself familiar\\nwith the abstruse proceedings of English jurisprudence,\\nby glancing at and running through Coke on lyittleton\\nCertainly the language used assumes that such a thing\\nis possible. Is there not a law school at Cambridge,\\nwhere a literary, non-legal man, could be told what a\\nridiculous claim that is?) I rather think lecturer\\nWendell would do well to study his Shakespeare anew,\\nand see if he has not overlooked something.\\nOn p. 423-4, of same book, I find this: The son of\\na ruined country tradesman, and saddled with a wife\\nand three children, his business at twenty-three was\\nto conduct himself so that he might end it not as a\\nlaborer, but as a gentleman. After five-and-twenty\\nyears of steady work, this end had been accomplished.\\nSuch a material achievement as Shakspere s\\ninvolves an imaginative feat quite as wonderful, if\\nnot so rare, as the imaginative feat involved in the\\ncreati on of Shakspere s works. Which looks very\\nmuch like an assertion that the making one s pile is\\nquite as wonderful an achievement as the writing of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0479.jp2"}, "480": {"fulltext": "458 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPKAR:^.\\ngreat poems and plays; and the implication is tiiat if\\na man could accomplish the one, he had in him the\\npossibility of the other.\\nIt is a strange thing that this Shaksper, who had\\nbut a smattering of learning, and that consisting of\\nsuch bits as he had picked up after he came to Lon-\\ndon, should, as the author Shakespeare be cited on\\nevery page of the great dictionaries for current and\\ncorrect usage of English. According to some advo-\\ncates of the smattering view, he was so ignorant that\\nhe did not know that Bohemia was an inland coun-\\ntry, or that Ajax and Ulysses were not modern Ital-\\nians made endless exhibitions of himself in history,\\narchaeology, geography; yet when it came to the words\\nused, there was no ignorance, no blundering. He\\nblundered in all directions save in the use of the Eng-\\nlish language. It is enough to find a word in the\\nShakespeare plays to give it authority and currency.\\nThis man was a great worker in words, says Ruggles,\\nHe had supreme dominion over every form of ex-\\npression We have seen that Marsh asserts that\\nShakespeare and Milton and the Bible were the three\\nlode-stars that held the language firm, the attraction\\nof the Shakespeare star as powerful as either of the\\nothers. Curious enough that nine-tenths of the peo-\\nple in the English-speaking countries should have got\\nit in their heads that one of the three who helped to\\nhold the language firm, was an uneducated butcher,\\nwho spent the first twenty-two years of his life in a\\nbookless neighborhood, and the last thirty years as a\\ntramp player, or as a purveyor of nasty fish-scraps\\nto the stinkards and prostitutes who frequented the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0480.jp2"}, "481": {"fulltext": "The; sma i^tejring, piCEiNa-up sCHoot. 459\\npublic theater. There was a Shakespeare as well as a\\nShaksper, and a little mixing has been done.\\nFleay, 82, tells us that these plays could never have\\nbeen conceived without much solitude, much suffer-\\ning and much concentration.* But this is neither\\nmore nor less than an assertion that manager Shaksper\\nhad no hand in them. The authorities are agreed that\\nhe led the life of a strolling player from the beginning\\nto the end of his career. At no time, then, had he\\nsolitude. He could not have had it as he tramped,\\nand when in lyondon, he was one of those who kept\\nhigh jinks at the taverns. There is no record of, and\\nno probability of, his ever suffering a pang, being the\\nman he was, beyond what he felt at the escape of\\nsome poor devil of a debtor whom he had got into his\\nclutches. When, in 1609, one Addenbroke, whom he\\nhad tormented for six pounds, skipped, and our\\nusurer-player had to proceed against his bail, one\\nHornby, (Fleay, 161), his anguish must have been\\npowerful; and when his nice scheme of getting pos-\\nsession of the common fields came to naught, doubt-\\nless he beat his breast. I agree with Mr, Fleay, how-\\never, that the author of the plays, whoever he was,\\nhad worked in solitude, suffered much, and had an\\namazing power of concentration. But he was of an-\\nother species from this player. It is truly a remark-\\nable thing that every characteristic of the author as\\nWhoever wrote King Lear must have been intellectually-\\nalert to the verge of madness, passionately sensitive to all the mis-\\nery he perceived, ironical yet pitiful; kept within the bounds of\\nsanity mostly by the blessed accident that he had mastered and\\ncontrolled a great art of expression. Wendell, 301.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0481.jp2"}, "482": {"fulltext": "460 SHAKSPi^R NOT SHAKEJSPKARB.\\ndeduced from the plays, renders it the more impossible\\nthat player Shaksper had any hand in them.\\nAs to acquiring knowledge without study, it cannot\\nbe done. One man will learn more easily than an-\\nother, but the one has to work as well as the other.\\nGenius will do wonders with material once gathered,\\nbut genius does not provide or originate facts on which\\nto work. No man ever became learned out of his own\\n.consciousness. The verdict of mankind, based on all\\nexperience, is that knowledge comes neither by in-\\nspiration nor accident, and that there is no royal, or\\nother than the common, road to learning. Daniel\\nWebster said to one who asked him if his reply to\\nHayne had not been extemporaneous, Young man,\\nthere is no such thing as extemporaneous acquisi-\\ntion. Lodge, lyife of Webster, tells us (p. 190) that\\nhe is reported to have said that his whole life had\\nbeen a preparation for the reply to Hayne. Whether\\nhe said it or not, the statement is true. The thoughts\\nhad been garnered for years, and this in a\\ngreater or less degree was true of all his finest efforts.\\nThe preparation on paper was trifling, but the mental\\npreparation, extending over weeks, sometimes per-\\nhaps over years, was elaborate to the last point.\\nMen give me credit for genius, said Alexander\\nHamilton. All the genius I have lies in just this:\\nwhen I have a subject in hand, I study it profoundly\\nday and night. It is part of me; I explore it in all its\\nbearings; my mind becomes pervaded with it. Then\\nthe effort which I make people are pleased to call the\\nfruit of genius; it is the fruit of labor and thought.\\nA distinguished writer, commenting on this, said:", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0482.jp2"}, "483": {"fulltext": "the; smatte;ring, picking-up schooi.. 461\\nHamilton was a genius in spite of his disavowal;\\nbut genius cannot supply the place of information,\\nnor render unnecessary the thorough work which must\\nprecede mastery of any subject, etc. And yet there\\nare people scholars too who argue and pretend to\\nbelieve that one man of all the sons of men was so\\nconstructed that he was able to toss off learned works\\nwith no preparation, no studj^ and no information,\\nand that all he did this for was to fill his theater and\\nhis own pockets. They appear to be rational on other\\nsubjects. They would scout the idea of something\\ncoming out of nothing; of effects without sufficient\\ncauses; of water rising higher than its source, or\\nrunning up hill; of the barber s basin being the\\ngolden helmet of Mambrino. Sane on all subjects\\nsave one, Shaksper; and there as lunatic as ever was\\nDon Quixote.\\nOn the other hand, Dr. Baynes, finding profound\\nlearning, knowledge and accomplishments, in the\\npoems and plays, and feeling confident that after\\nyoung Shaksper came to lyondon and began his life\\nwith the strolling players, there was no chance for\\nacquisition, gives him an ample equipment at the\\nStratford school, and all the advantages of birth and\\nbreeding of which I have spoken. No matter what the\\ntraditions and testimonies are, they come in contact\\nwith the plain fact that this man, even while very\\nyoung, had vast learning acquired from books, as the\\npoems and plays show, and also that their author\\nwas a gentleman born and bred. From Dr. Bajmes\\npoint of view, this theory is undoubtedly correct. If\\nWilliam Shaksper, of Stratford, really wrote these", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0483.jp2"}, "484": {"fulltext": "462 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPEIARK.\\nplays, the traditions must be swept away as absurd\\nand false, and the author must be built up from his\\nworks. And Baynes does build very skillfully a\\nstructure, which, if we knew nothing whatever of the\\nhistory of Shaksper, might be accepted as a faithful\\nlikeness of the boy and man. Neither school, there-\\nfore, presents us with the historical man; he is ig-\\nnored altogether.\\nIt is just as credible that an unlettered country lad,\\ncoming up to London, should presently put out the\\ncounterparts of Wallace s Island Life, or Darwin s\\nOrigin, under immediate inspiration, or spontaneous\\nacquisition, works that cost either of those authors\\nfully thirty years of laborious preparation, as that the\\nyouth William Shaksper, and the man Shaksper, de-\\npicted on the pages of Halliwell-Phillipps, could have\\nwritten the poems and plays attributed to William\\nShakespeare If one were told that John Thomas\\ntook a running leap and vaulted over an umbrageous\\noak, no evidence of alleged eye-witnesses could make\\na reasonable man believe it. He would say there must\\nhave been some trick, some illusion, something he\\ncould not understand, and refuse his faith. So with\\nthe Shaksper case; no testimony, however direct,\\nshould make a reasonable man believe that this un-\\nlearned youth and man was or could be the author of\\nthe learned works in question. It happens that there\\nis no direct testimony whatever. Absolutely, beyond\\nBen Jonson s gibing elegiac verses, (as we have seen,\\neven Mr. Fleay tel!s us that little value is to be at-\\ntributed to them), there is no testimony of any kind", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0484.jp2"}, "485": {"fulltext": "the; smattering, picking-up schooi.. 463\\nnothing but imputation and general reputation. These\\nthings occurred three hundred years ago, and there\\nwas some secret, some deception, some illusion. That\\nfrom an unlearned man proceeded learned writings\\nis an impossible thing, and reversing Tertulliau s\\nmaxim, being impossible, it is therefore incredible.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0485.jp2"}, "486": {"fulltext": "464 SHAKSPiER NOT shake;spe;ar:^.\\nCHAPTER XXL\\nTHE IvIKENESSES OF WIIvIvIAM SHAKSPER.\\nMen of intellect have intellectual heads, and learn-\\ning leaves its impress on the face. The only authen-\\ntic likeness of Shaksper, the only one certified to by\\nany man who had personally known him, is that pre-\\nfixed to the Folio of 1623,. distinguished as the Droes-\\nhout\\nIn 1624, James Boaden published An Enquiry into\\nthe authenticity of various Pictures and Prints which\\nfrom the decease of the Poet to our own times, have\\nbeen offered to the public as Portraits of Shakespeare.\\nNo. I is the Droeshout likeness, and I give a copy of\\nit from Boaden, on the following page.\\nUnder it, in the Folio, stand Jonson s lines:\\nThis figure, that thou seest put\\nIt was for gentle Shakespeare cut;\\nWherein the graver had a strife\\nWith nature, to out-do the life; etc.\\nIngleby, 141, on this verse, says: Jonson here\\ncontrives to pay both Engraver and Poet the highest\\ncompliment; if the former could have drawn the wit\\nof the latter as well as he has drawn his face, the\\nprint from his drawing would be the finest thing ever\\ndone.\\nMr. R. G. White says: This print is a hard,\\nwooden, staring thing and Mr. Donnelly, that no", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0486.jp2"}, "487": {"fulltext": "the; likenkssks op wii.i,iam shakspkr. 465\\nShaksperean has yet been found to admit it as the\\nidol of his dreams.\\nNorris, Portraits of Shakspere, says: It is not\\nknown from what it was copied, and many think it\\nunlike any human being.\\nMorgan says: The hair is straight, combed down\\nthe sides of the face, and bunched over the ears; the\\nforehead is disproportionately high; the face has the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0487.jp2"}, "488": {"fulltext": "466 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEJSPEARE).\\nwooden expression familiar in the Indians used as\\nsigns for tobacconists shops, accompanied by an idiotic\\nstare.\\nHalHwell-Phinipps, I, 297: The Stratford effigy\\nand this engraving are the only unquestionably au-\\nthentic representations of the living Shakespeare\\n(Shaksper) that are known to exist; not one of the\\nnumerous others, for which claims to the distinction\\nhave been advanced, having an evidential pedigree of\\na satisfactory character. He considers the Droeshout\\nan authentic likeness, because of Jonson s verses un-\\nder it; which verses, it is clear to me, testify to this\\nportrait having been a caricature.\\nIn the long line of illustrious English poets, William\\nShaksper, held by most people to have written the\\nShakespeare poems and plays, and to tower above all\\nthat Britain has produced in the way of poets, is the\\nonly man who looks in the Droeshout likeness of him\\nto be an interloper in that company./ Chaucer and\\nSpenser, Milton and Wordsworth, Byron, Scott, Ten-\\nn3^son, in their portraits, look the great men they were;\\nwhereas Shaksper is vulgar by comparison with any\\none of them, and has the presentation of little better\\nthan a fool. (Among variety-show or circus people,\\nperhaps he would look as intellectual as the next man).\\nHence the pathetic eagerness with which his disap-\\npointed votaries turn to the bogus Flower portrait, the\\nbogus Chandos portrait, to the bogus death-mask,\\ngiven in the Hamlet volume of the Temple Shake-\\nspeare as an undoubted relic the bogus best like-\\nness composed and set up in Stratford-on-Avon by\\nlyord Ronald Gower; ready to accept anything so that", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0488.jp2"}, "489": {"fulltext": "TH:S IvIKBNi^SSElS OF WIIvLIAM SHAKSPEJR. 467\\nit looks entirely unlike that Droeshout or unlike the\\nman himself.\\nSkottowe, App. 23, says: Without the reader has-\\nhad the misfortune to behold this much eulogized\\nspecimen of the graphic art, he will be surprised to\\nlearn that the plate is not only at variance with the\\ntradition of Shakspere s appearance having been pre-\\npossessing; but irreconcilable with a belief of its ever\\nhaving borne a striking resemblance to any human\\nbeing. Its defects, indeed, are so obvious, that it has\\nbeen thought necessary to apologize for Jonson by the\\nproduction of similar instances of prostitution of com-\\npliment; and also by the supposition that he never saw\\nthe engraving, etc.\\nDrake speaks of the wretched engraving, thus un-\\ndeservedly eulogized (by Jonson), and says: As\\nMr. Steevens has well remarked, Shakspere s coun-\\ntenance, deformed by Droeshout, resembles the sign\\nof Sir Roger de Coverley, when it had been changed\\ninto a Saracen s head; on which occasion the Spectator\\nobserves that the features of the gentle Knight were\\nstill apparent through the lineaments of the ferocious\\nMussulman.\\nReed, 35, says of this Droeshout: It is, without\\ndoubt, a caricature, and he quotes Ingleby, I, for\\none, do not believe that it had any trustworthy ex-\\nemplar and Norris, It is not known from what it\\nit was copied, and many think it unlike any human\\nbeing.\\nMr. I^ee^ has prefaced his book with a cut of what\\nis called the Flower likeness, and on page 288, says:\\nThere is little doubt that young Droeshout in fashion-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0489.jp2"}, "490": {"fulltext": "468 SHAKSPEIR NOT shakksp:eare;.\\ning his engraving worked from a painting, and there is\\na likelihood that the original picture from which he\\nworked has lately come to light. As recently as 1892,\\nMr. Edgar Flower, of Stratford-on-Avon, discovered\\nin the possession of Mr. H. C. Clements, residing at\\nPeckham Rye, a portrait alleged to represent Shake-\\nspeare. The picture, which was faded, and somewhat\\nworm-eaten, dated beyond all doubt from the early\\nyears of the seventeeth century. It was paintsd on a\\npanel formed of two planks of old elm, and in the\\nupper left hand corner was the inscription, Willm\\nShakespeare, 1609. Mr. Clement purchased the por-\\ntrait of an obscure dealer about 1840, and knew noth-\\ning of its history beyond what he set down on a slip\\nof paper when he acquired it: The original portrait\\nof Shakespeare, from which the now famous Droeshout\\nengraving was taken, etc. Mr. Lee goes on: Con-\\nnoisseurs have almost unreservedly pronounced the\\npicture to be anterior in date to the engraving, and\\nthey have reached the conclusion that, in all probabil-\\nity, Martin Droeshout directly based his work upon the\\npainting, Although the history of the portrait\\nrests on critical conjecture, and on no external con-\\ntemporary evidence, there seems good ground* for re-\\ngarding it as a portrait of Shakespeare painted in his\\nBehold a fine example of the genesis and growth of a Shak-\\nsperean tnjth.. Mr. Lee thinks there seems good ground, etc.\\nthe next man assumes that the ground is good; and prefaces the\\nnew edition of the Temple Shakespeare with the Flower portrait\\nas a genuine likeness of the bard. First the demand, then the\\nfind and a suggestion, and presently the assertion, and the myth\\nis on its way!", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0490.jp2"}, "491": {"fulltext": "THB IvIKKNESSKS Olf WII^WAM SHAKSP^R. 469\\nlife time\u00e2\u0080\u0094 in the forty-fifth year of his age. I give a\\ncopy of this hkeness.\\nIt is another case of demand and supply. When\\nanything in the Shaksper line is needed, the gods have\\na way of producing it. I should say that the face of\\nthis picture represents a man of not over thirty-\\nfive years of age, which is about that of the Droes-\\nhout. It has a conspicuous moustache of which there\\nis no trace in the Droeshout. But without criticising", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0491.jp2"}, "492": {"fulltext": "470 SHAKSPEJR NOT SHAK:eSPE;ARE.\\nthe portrait myself, I have only to refer to a paper\\npublished in Harper s Magazine, May, 1897: On two\\nundescribed Portraits of Shakespeare byJohnCorbin.\\nAfter relating all the arguments used to authenticate\\nthe Flower Portrait, and the opinions of experts\\nartists and antiquaries in its favor, he goes on to say:\\nIn the discussion that followed, (at a meeting of the\\nAntiquarian Society) Sir Charles Robinson, Her Ma-\\njesty s Surveyor of Pictures, pointed out that the in-\\nscription is in cursive characters. The custom of that\\nperiod was to use capitals. Mr. Sidney Colvin, Keeper\\nof Prints in the British Museum, told me later that\\nthis cursive inscription was unique in his experience.\\nAbandoning therefore the inscription and date. Sir\\nCharles guardedly attributed the picture to the early\\nhalf of the seventeenth century.\\nOn the other hand. Dr. Furnivall assailed the pict-\\nure with his customary vigor, on the ground that it\\nhas no pedigree, and declared that it was a make-up\\nof the late seventeenth century from the print and the\\nbust, both of which the artist had seen. Since\\nthe meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, Sir Charles\\nRobinson has shifted his ground. In spite of the ex-\\npert testimony that the panel is antique English elm,\\nSir Charles still declares (October, 1896) that it is\\nforeign, and pronounces the portrait a very careful\\nforgery. In September, 1896, Mr. Sidney Colvin told\\nme that, though he should assign the portrait to a\\nvery late date, perhaps the first half of the seven-\\nteenth century, he regarded it as a very careful copy\\nof the print. Sir K. J. Poynter observed that there\\nare traces of an earlier portrait on the surface, notably", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0492.jp2"}, "493": {"fulltext": "mn I.IKE)NB;SS:eS OF WII.I.IAM SHAKSP^R. 47 1\\nthe edge of a ruff in the right-hand corner, and a line\\nfrom the right eye down the cheek. Mr. Corbin was\\ndesirous of getting a scientific description of the por-\\ntrait, and so wrought upon the enthusiasm of a con-\\nnoisseur of the school of Morelli and Berenson, that he\\nwent with me to Stratford. Although he insists that\\nhis judgment is merely that of an amateur, he has\\nkindly permitted me to copy his notes: %ife-size\\npainted on a thin coating of gesso. The\\npanel is English elm, worm-holed, and of undoubted\\nantiquity. Red appears in the ground where the over-\\npainting has cracked off. Hair apparently painted in\\nbitumen. All the drawing precisely like that on the\\nprint, including costume. Technique, an illogical com-\\nbination of broad, scratchy, and of smooth. Clearly,\\na late copy of the print\\nMr. Corbin speaks of the worm holes in the panel,\\nand certain appearances of same: Some of them are\\nclear-cut; others seem painted round the edges; and at\\nleast one, in the line of the right cheek-bone, has\\nplainly been painted over; it is discernible now only\\nbecause the paint has sagged into it. If these ap-\\npearances are to be relied on, the painter sought to\\ngive an appearance of antiquity by using a panel al-\\nready worm-holed. In coloring, the portrait resem-\\nbles the bust with a single exception. I failed to find\\nthe least trace of hazel in the eyes; they are simply\\nmuddy blue.\\nSo much for this Flower portrait We shall have to\\nfall back on I^ord Ronald Gower s best likeness.\\nThe cut next given is taken from a photogravure of\\nMacnionnie s statue of player Shaksper, made for the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0493.jp2"}, "494": {"fulltext": "472 shaksp:Sr not shakkspe;ars.\\nCongressional lyibrary, at Washington, and is meant\\nto follow the Droeshout portrait, which it does pretty-\\nwell. But the sculptor has thought best to give a\\nbulging upper forehead to his creation, which is not\\nin the Droeshout, and doubtless this is meant to intro-\\nduce a modicum of brains. It would seem rather\\nrickets than brains. As in the Droeshout, the brow is\\ndepressed, showing a very weak development of the\\nperceptive organs. The figure is hardly what might\\nbe expected as that of a man equal to writing the\\nShakespeare plays. He seems to be lecturing to one\\nof Professor Wendell s classes on English belles-lettres.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0494.jp2"}, "495": {"fulltext": "THE) like;nkssks op wii.i,iam shaksper. 473\\nOne thing is noticeable, that there is not the least re-\\nsemblance between this face, made from the Droeshout,\\nand the face of the Stratford bust.\\nNo. 2, of Boaden, is a portrait prefixed to the edi-\\ntion of the plays of 1 630, supposed by that author to\\nbe a copy of the other, or the unknown picture from\\nwhich it was taken.\\nNo. 3, the Kelton Head, is dismissed as spurious.\\nNext in order comes the Stratford bust, No. 4, and\\ncopied here from Boaden (see on following page)\\nThis bust represents a man fully fifty years of age,\\nbuilt after the model of a bullet-headed general, one\\nof Elizabeth s warriors, perhaps. It has a short,\\nthick, nearly straight nose; a long and thick upper\\nlip; a full lower lip; a wide, flat face; a stout jaw and\\nsquare chin; eyes projecting; mustache midway be-\\ntween the nose and edge of lip, tightly curling up-\\nward; a pointed beard; and the lightly curling hair\\nends above the ears. (This arrangement of hair and\\nbeard was in the latest fashion of the period.\\nDowden says, 41: It (the bust) presents a face\\npowerful and full-blooded, rather than refined or\\nsubtle; and adds, 42: Besides the bust there is only\\none authenticated portrait of the great poet, that upon\\nthe title page of the First Folio. That is, in Mr.\\nMr. Corbin, in the paper before quoted, says of the nose of\\nthe bust: It is so short that the end is generally supposed\\nto have been chipped off accidentally early in the carving,\\nand the present apology for a nose carved out of what re-\\nmained. Which is an ingenious way of accounting for one\\ndiscrepancy between bust and print. What about the others,\\nthe hair, for example", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0495.jp2"}, "496": {"fulltext": "474\\nSHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nDowden s opinion, the Droeshout portrait is one like-\\nness of Shaksper, and this bust is another. There is\\nnot one feature in common between the Droeshout\\nand the bust. If one is a likeness the other can-\\nnot be.\\nThis bust was carved by nobody knows whom,\\nfrom nobody knows what, and nobody knows when;\\nfor the accepted statement that it was cut by Gerald", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0496.jp2"}, "497": {"fulltext": "THK IvIKKNE;SSB;S op WIIvWAM SHAKSPiER. 475\\nJohnson, an Amsterdam Tombe-maker can be traced\\nto no historical source. Morgan. If Ben Jonson,\\nknowing his friend William Shakspere to have been\\nthe martial and elegant looking gentleman the Strat-\\nford bust represents him, authorized the verses under\\nthe Droeshout engraving, it was a deliberate libel on\\nhis part, only perhaps to be explained by his secret\\nenmity to William Shakspere. Id.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, 281, says: The precise history\\nof the bust is unknown but he supposes it may\\nhave been made by a tomb-maker in London. It\\nwas originally painted in imitation of life, the face and\\nhands of the usual flesh color, the eyes a light hazel,\\nand the hair and beard auburn. The realization of\\nthe costume was similarly attempted by the use of\\nscarlet for the doublet, black for the loose gown, and\\nwhite for the collar and wristbands. But colors on\\nstone are only of temporary endurance, and not only\\nhad so large a portion of them disappeared in the lapse\\nof a hundred and thirty years, but so much decay was\\nobservable in some parts of the efl gy, that it was con-\\nsidered advisable, in 1748, to have it entirely renovated.\\nIt is, of course, impossible at this day to assess the ex-\\ntent of the mischief that may have been perpetrated on\\nthat occasion, but that it was very considerable may be\\ninferred from a contemporary account of the directions\\ngiven to the artist, who was instructed to beautify as\\nwell as repair and to make the whole as like as pos-\\nsible to what it was when first created. In 1793,\\nMalone persuaded the vicar to allow the whole of the\\nbust to be painted in white. On this matter, it is well\\nto hear Charles lyamb: The wretched Malone could", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0497.jp2"}, "498": {"fulltext": "476 shakspe;r not shakespeiare;.\\nnot do worse, when he bribed the sexton of the Strat-\\nford Church to let him white- wash the painted effigy\\nof old Shakespeare, which stood there, in rude but\\nlively fashion, depicted to the very color of the cheek,\\nthe eye, the eye-brow, the very dress he used to wear\\nthe only authentic testimony we had, however im-\\nperfect, of those curious parts and parcels of him.\\nThey covered him over with a coat of white paint.\\nBy if I had been a justice of the peace for Warwick-\\nshire, I would have clapt both commentator and sex-\\nton fast in the stocks, for a pair of meddling, sacri-\\nlegious varlets.\\nBoaden s copy, of course, gives the bust in its white\\nphase. Mr. Phillipps adds: It remained in this last\\nmentioned (white) state for many years; but, in 1861,\\nthere was a second imitation of the original coloring.\\nThis step was induced by the seriously adverse criti-\\ncism to which the operation of 1793 had been sub-\\njected; but although the action then taken has been\\nso frequently condemned, it did not altogether oblite-\\nrate the semblance of an intellectual human being, and\\nthis is more than can be said of the miserable travesty\\nwhich now distresses the eye of the pilgrim.\\nDrake, after telling us how the bust had been orig-\\ninally colored, goes on: After remaining in this\\nstate above 120 years, Mr. John Ward, grandfather of\\nMrs. Siddons and Mr. Kemble, caused it to be re-\\npaired, and the original colors preserved, in 1784, from\\nthe profits of the representation of Othello. This was\\na generous, and apparently judicious act, and there-\\nfore very unlike the next alteration it was subjected\\nto, in 1793. In that year, Mr. Malone caused the", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0498.jp2"}, "499": {"fulltext": "Th:^ LIKEjNE^SSElS OP* WlIvIvIAM SHAKSPE;r. 477\\nbust to be covered with one or more coats of white\\npaint, and thus at once destroyed its original char-\\nacter, and greatly injured the expression of the face.\\nHaving absurdly characterized this expression for\\npertness, and therefore differing from that placid\\ncomposure and thoughtful gravity so perceptible in\\nhis original portrait (the Droeshout), and his best\\nprints Mr. Malone could have few scruples about in-\\njuring or destroying it.\\nMr. Phillipps says: The exact time at which the\\nmonument was erected in the church is unknown, but\\nit is alluded to by I^eonard Digges as being there in\\nthe year 1623. This allusion is found in Digges\\ndoggerel verses partly quoted before.\\nShake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give\\nThe world thy Workes; thy Workes, by which, out-live\\nThy Tombe, thy name must; when that stone is rent.\\nAnd Time dissolves thy Stratford moniment.\\nHere we alive shall view thee still.\\nMr. Phillipps proceeds: Upon a rectangular tablet,\\nplaced below the bust, are engraved the following lines:\\nJudicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem\\nTerra tegit, poptilus moeret, Olympus habet.\\nStay passenger, why goest thou so fast?\\nRead, if thou canst, whom envious death hath plast\\nWithin this monument, Shakspeare, with whome\\nQuick nature dide; whose name doth deck ys tombe\\nFar more then cost; sith all yt he hath writt\\nI/eaves living art but page to serve his witt.\\nIt is not likely that these verses were composed\\neither by a Stratfordian, or by any one acquainted with\\ntheir destined position, for otherwise the writer could", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0499.jp2"}, "500": {"fulltext": "478 shakSpkR not shaksSpeJar:^.\\nhardly have spoken of Death having placed Shak-\\nspeare within this monument\\nShaksper was buried under the floor of the church\\nseveral feet away from the bust set in the wall. The\\ntablet for aught that appears, may have been put up fifty\\nyears or more after the bust, and the verses were writ-\\nten by some one who got all his notions of William\\nShakespeare from reading the Folio. No contempo-\\nrary of William Shakespeare or William Shaksper,\\nwould have eulogized the author of the plays as hav-\\ning had the wisdom of Nestor, the wit of Socrates,\\nand the art of Virgil, or would have said that when\\nthat poet died nature died with him; that sort of ap-\\npreciation came generations after 1623. Nor would\\nany one in that age have said that the world mourned\\nfor either Shakespeare or Shaksper. I have before\\nshown that the world neither mourned for the player\\nnor poet, nor cared anything about the latter, until a\\nlong period after 1623.\\nAs to the bust, this is doubtless how it came to be.\\nMortuary sculptors, time out of mind, have kept in\\nstock an assortment of their wares, f You pay your\\nThe first mention of this tablet inscription was by Mr. Dow-\\ndall (Ingleby, 417) whose visit to Stratford church, and whose\\ntalk with the old sexton, I have elsewhere spoken of. This oc-\\ncurred on loth April, 1693, seventy years therefore later than\\nthe date of Digges verses. Mr. Dowdall s words are: Just\\nunder his effigies in the wall of the chancell is this written;\\nand he gives in full the inscription on the tablet.\\nfWe read in Maspero s Dawn of Civilization respecting\\nthe tomb-makers of ancient Egypt: The sculptors\\nlike our modern tombstone makers, kept by them a tolerable\\nassortment of half-finished statues, from which the purchaser", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0500.jp2"}, "501": {"fulltext": "rnn tiK:BNE;ss op wiicivIam shAksper. 479\\nmoney and get your choice, be it statue, or shaft, or\\nsimple slab. This bust was ready to serve for any-\\nthing or anybody, a hero of the wars, a I^ord Mayor,\\nor an honest country gentleman; and the player s\\npeople caught at it. Sold to Mistress Hall by a\\ndrummer (Anglice, a bagman) probably.\\nNo. 5, the Chandos Portrait the best known of\\nall, entirely unauthenticated, and unlike any other\\nShaksper portrait. This is the one that figures in\\nthe Hudson Shakespeare.\\nI^ee says of this Chandos portrait, 292: Its pedi-\\ngree suggests that it was intended to represent the\\npoet, but numerous and conspicuous divergences from\\nthe authenticated likenesses show that it was painted\\nfrom fanciful descriptions of him some years after his\\ndeath.\\nNo. 6, The Zucharo Portrait dismissed by Boaden\\nas not painted from life; and not improbably did not\\ncould choose according to his taste. When the family had\\nmade their choice, a few hotors work was sufficient to transform\\nthe rough sketch into a portrait, such as it was, of the deceased\\nthey desired to commemorate, a7td to arrange his garmeftt ac-\\ncording to the latest fashion. By which it appears that this\\ncustom, of the tomib-makers is a venerable one say 6,000 years\\nold. And so it happens that the Stratford bust resembles the\\nman depicted in the Droeshout in about the same degree as the\\nbust of the Sheik el-Beled (Maspero, 408) resembles the bust\\nof Cheops. Indeed there is a strong family resemblance be-\\ntween the bust of Stratford and that of the military Sheik.\\nFor my part, I regard the bust as a fraud, and the Droeshout as\\na caricature, and do not believe there exists a likeness of player\\nShaksper. Men in his walk of life were not in the habit of\\nhaving their portraits painted.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0501.jp2"}, "502": {"fulltext": "480 SHAESPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\noriginally claim to have been intended for Shaksper\\nat all\\nNo. 7, The Jansen Portrait unauthenticated.*\\nThus it has taken an army of novelists, painters, en-\\ngravers, and essayists, to erect simple William Shak-\\nsper, of Stratford, into the god he ought to have\\nbeen; and according to the Shakspereans themselves,\\nthere is only one portrait of him extant, which has\\neven the assumed advantage of having been pro-\\nnounced a likeness by any one who ever saw him in\\nhis Hfetime, the Droeshout picture. Morgan.\\nNow comes the death-mask, so much written\\nof in late years. A plaster cast of an unnamed face is\\nfound in a rubbish shop in Germany, in 1849 233\\nyears after the player s death. It bears neither the\\nname of the subject, nor of the maker, nor is\\nthere any clue to the nationality of either; but\\nthere is cut upon it the date 16 16, the year Shak-\\nsper died. Who put that date there, or when it\\nwas put there, no one can tell. It may have been\\ndone fifty years ago or one hundred no one can say.\\nBut obviously the temptation to manufacture a death-\\nmask of William Shaksper, who was supposed to have\\nwritten the Shakespeare plays, was immense; as was\\nShaksper is not the only Englishman, it seems, who has\\nsuffered from a surplusage of likenesses. Froude says of Fran-\\ncis Drake: The portraits of him vary much, as indeed it is\\nnatural they should, for most of those which pass for Drake\\nwere not meant for Drake at all. It is the fashion in this\\ncountry, and a very bad fashion, when we find a remarkable\\nportrait with no man s name attached to it, to christen it at\\nrandom after some eminent man, and there it remains to per-\\nplex and mislead. Eng. Seamen, 77.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0502.jp2"}, "503": {"fulltext": "yhb^ i.iki:ne;sse;s op wii IvIAm shakspbr. 481\\nthe temptation to find a book whicli the great man had\\npersonally handled the Florio Montaigne. The\\nShakspereans at once adopt this anonymous mask\\nas taken from the face of the defunct William Shak-\\nsper. Either he, at his death, was known to be an\\nimmortal bard, or he was not. If he was, how could\\nthe sole likeness moulded of departed greatness be\\nsmuggled away from the land that was pious to claim\\nhim as its most distinguished son, and nobody miss\\nit, or raise the hue and cry? If it was not, to whose in-\\nterest was it to steal the mask from the family who\\ncared enough about the dead man s memory to go to\\nthe expense of it? Morgan.\\nThe figure of this mask, given on the following\\npage, is copied from Norris.\\nThe upholders of the genuineness of the mask pro-\\npound the theory that it- was made by the tomb-\\nmaker supposed, but without an iota of evidence,\\nto have been Gerard Johnson, a man who, it seems,\\nwas living in London in 16 16; and that it was used\\nby him in modeling the Stratford bust. It needs but\\na glance at bust and mask to show that they represent\\ntwo individuals. For example, the long, thin, promi-\\nnent and curved nose of the ma.sk would not have\\nbeen represented in the bust by a short, thick, straight\\nnose; the beetling brow of the mask would not have\\nbeen represented in the bust by a brow entirely with-\\nout prominence (in the Droeshout likeness there is\\nactually an incurving there) the lofty and capacious\\nforehead of the mask would not have been replaced in\\nthe bust by a forehead but moderately high, round and\\nbullet .shaped. In fact, these three supposed like-", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0503.jp2"}, "504": {"fulltext": "482\\nSHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPKARK.\\nnesses represent three distinct individuals, with three\\ndistinct types of faces. No wonder that Mrs. Dall says\\nof this mask: It is so much nobler and sweeter than\\nany existing likeness of him, it looks so much more\\nas we would have liked Shakspere to have looked, that\\nwe long to have it proved. Alas! it cannot be\\nproved, and the admirers of player Shaksper will", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0504.jp2"}, "505": {"fulltext": "J^nn LIK^N^SS^S 01^ WlttlAM SHAKSP^R. 483\\nhave to content their souls with the Droeshout like-\\nness.\\nMr. Dowden says, 42: The authenticity of the\\ncelebrated Kesselstadt death-mask is very doubtful,\\nbut we could wish that his noble and refined face was\\nindeed that of Shakspere. The player was neither\\na noble man, nor a sweet and refined character, and\\nwhy it should be expected that a genuine portrait of\\nhim should surpass the reality, I fail to see.\\nOf this mask, Mr. Philhpps, I, 297, thus speaks:\\nBut in like manner as there have arisen in these\\ndays critics, who, dispensing altogether with the old\\ncontemporary evidences, can enter so perfectly into\\nall the vicissitudes of Shakespeare s intellectual tem-\\nperament that they can authoritatively identify at a\\nglance every line that he did write, and with equal\\nprecision, every sentence that he did not; even so\\nthere are others to whom a picture s history is not of\\nthe slightest moment, their reflective instinct enabling\\nthem, without effort or investigation, to recognize in\\nan old curiosity shop the dramatic visage that belonged\\nto the author of Hamlet. I^owlier votaries can only\\nbow their heads in silence.\\nIn an illustrated paper in The Strand lyondon,\\n1894, hy Mr. Alexander Cargill, entitled The Like-\\nnesses of Shakespere is a figure of what the author\\ncalls the best likeness (so called on the /ucus a non\\nlucendo principle, because it is no likeness at all); a\\ncopy of which is shown on the following page.\\nThis face looks like that of a junior partner in a\\ndry goods store, bent on selling a bill of sundries. It", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0505.jp2"}, "506": {"fulltext": "484\\nshae:spe;r not shake;spe;are;.\\npurports to have been gotten up by I^ord Ronald\\nGower for the Stratford Memorial which he pre-\\nsented to the town of Stratford-on-Avon and is com-\\nposed from the bust and the death-mask spoken of.\\nIn the dapper salesman of thirty-five of this Me-\\nmorial, there is a very short upper lip (like neither\\nthe Droeshout, the bust, nor the mask), in the shape\\nof Cupid s bow, a small pointed chin embedded in a", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0506.jp2"}, "507": {"fulltext": "THS LIKEN:eSSE;S OF WIHIAM SHAKSPEJR. 485\\nclipped and pointed goatee, (in the Droeshout, the\\nchin is broad and rounded like the big end of an egg)\\na long, thin, arched nose, arched throughout, (and\\nnot merely with a curve in the middle, followed by a\\ndepression, as in the mask), and deep set eyes (as in\\nthe mask, but not in the Droeshout or bust). The\\norgans of perception are copied from the mask; and\\nthe top of the head has a great development of what\\nphrenologists call the organ of firmness and self-\\nesteem, not discoverable in the only authentic like-\\nness. Being the historical man we know, the bump\\nof acquisitiveness should have been as big as a walnut.\\nThis best likeness simply adds one more to the\\nmany counterfeit presentments of William Shaksper,\\nplayer, manager, and money-lender.\\nSomehow, forgeries and counterfeits spring up in\\nall directions about this individual; forged signatures\\non fly-leaves, to make him out to have been a reading\\nman; forged letters from persons of quality, to make\\nit appear that he was intimate with divers of\\nworship (see a choice example in Dall,i43); counter-\\nfeit portraits, from the Chandos and Flower, to Rolf e s\\nnoble boy; bogus death-masks; and all with the pur-\\npose of making it appear that he was not the simpleton\\nthe Droeshout portrait depicts him to have been.\\nWherever we strike him, we strike imposture and\\nfraud.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0507.jp2"}, "508": {"fulltext": "486 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKEJSPEAR^.\\nCHAPTER XXII.\\nA SUGGESTION.\\nWould it not be well for the followers of the Shak-\\nsper cult to hold a congress in order to settle upon a\\nuniform appraisement of the object of their venera-\\ntion? One (Baynes) tells us that he (the author)\\nwas profoundly learned, by the evidence of the works\\nthemselves, and became so by the remarkable advan-\\ntages of school, and good breeding, and cultivated\\nsociety, he received in his youth, at Stratford. The\\nnext man (Halliwell-Phinipps, the highest authority\\non the facts of William Shaksper s life declares\\nall this to be a mistake, and that the player really was\\nunlearned, had no school advantages, nor access to\\npolite society in his youth; indeed, that all his asso-\\nciations at Stratford were low and vulgar; but that he\\nmust have gained a smattering of knowledge some-\\nhow, after he came to London, and there developed\\ninto the bard of our admiration\\nMr. Fleay tells us these plays could never have been\\nwritten without much solitude, much suffering, and\\nmuch concentration. Halliwell-Phillipps intimates\\nthat in his opinion they were written without effort,\\nby inspiration, not by design and, what would seem\\nincompatible with a divine origin, that they were\\nwritten, first for a living, and then for affluence,\\nwith the sole aim of pleasing an audience, most of\\nwhom were not only illiterate, but unable to either", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0508.jp2"}, "509": {"fulltext": "A SUGGESTION. 487\\nread or write. Dr. Ingleby says that the drift of\\nhis plays was apparently intelligible to the penny-\\nknaves of the theater, else they would not have been\\nplayed, but that his profound reach of thought and\\nhis unrivaled knowledge of human nature were as far\\nbeyond the vulgar ken as the higher graces of his\\npoetry; and that we are at length slowly rounding\\nto a just estimate of his works. On the other hand,\\nRichard Grant White, and John Fiske, assert that the\\nplays were dashed off merely to fill the theater and\\nthe player s pockets.\\nThe lamented Lowell says: Whatever we have\\ngathered of thought, of knowledge, and of experience,\\ncompared with his (Shakespeare s) marvelous page,\\nshrinks to a mere foot-note. His successor in the\\nlecturer s chair, Wendell, on the contrary, tells us\\nthat nothing more surprises such readers of Shake-\\nspeare as are not practical men of letters than the\\nman s apparent learning; and that his learning is\\nno longer a marvel, except to those who insist on\\nfinding it so.\\nPoint out that Mr. Ruggles has demonstrated that\\nthe author was in close touch with Bacon, whose phi-\\nlosophy underlies each and all of the plays; and one\\nof the self-constituted custodians of player Shaksper s\\nliterary reputation replies that he allows both the\\nlearning and philosophy, but if there were any in-\\ndebtedness it was not on the side of Shakespeare; that\\nBacon must have had time to be a spectator of the\\nplays and have drawn from them many of\\nthe thoughts w^hich helped to perfect his system;\\nand, anyhow, Shakespeare (author and player) knew", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0509.jp2"}, "510": {"fulltext": "488 SHAKSPSR NOT SHAKKSPKAR:^.\\nmore than Bacon of the actual objects of scientific\\ninvestigation, of men, of animals, and plants, and of\\nthe universe as a whole. Verily, the book reviewer\\nof the New York Tribune said this in the issue of\\nApril 26, 1895.\\nVery probable indeed, that Francis Bacon, the\\nhigh-priest of Nature the man whose claim to un-\\ndisputed empire over men s thoughts has been ratified\\nby the concurrent testimony of ages and nations\\nthe man who wrote at thirty-one, I have taken all\\nknowledge to be my province of whom Macaulay\\nsays, He, without effort, takes in at once all the do-\\nmains of science all the past, the present and the\\nfuture; moreover, one of the most eloquent speakers,\\nand most learned lawyers of his age, and, later, lyord\\nChancellor of England was in the habit of passing\\nhis afternoons at a public theater, in order to draw\\nfrom the interludes played there the thoughts which\\nhelped to perfect his system Was he one of the\\npenny groundlings, or was he permitted to enjoy a\\nstool on the stage: the ample and luxurious stage, as\\nit appears in De Witt s picture among the men of\\nrank and fashion, whose lackeys supply them with\\npipes of tobacco who play cards and insult the pit\\nand whose nostrils are offended with the pervading\\nstenches that ascend from the rabble, till the cry\\narises, burn the juniper or had he a share of a bench\\nin the galleries among the pimps and prostitutes, and\\nthe masked ladies\\nI imagine the grave and dignified Francis Bacon, as\\nI can imagine William Gladstone, watching for the\\ngobbets of wisdom as they tumbled from the mouths", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0510.jp2"}, "511": {"fulltext": "A SUGGESTION. 489\\nof carpenter Burbage, butcher Shaksper, and grocer\\nHeminge. Anyhow, Shakespeare (supposed to be\\nthat butcher) knew more than Bacon of the actual\\nobjects of scientific investigation, of men, of animals\\nand plants, and of the universe as a whole. What\\nan amazing man Shaksper must have been in the view\\nof our critic! What was he a hireling at that theater\\nfor that theater, the centre of organized vice, the\\nantechamber to the neighboring brothels, making\\nmouths at, and prancing to, the groundlings of the\\npit? Why was he not in his proper place, enthroned,\\nsurrounded by the poets, .scholars, and philosophers of\\nEngland? That won t do; like to like; learned men\\nseek learned men, triflers seek triflers.*\\nThis remarkable charge that Bacon borrowed from Shake-\\nspeare is not original with the Tribune critic. Massey, in his\\nbook on the Sonnets, runs through several pages in this fashion:\\nPersonally, I have sometimes thought there was something\\nconscious, not to say sinister, in the silence of Bacon respecting\\nShakespeare, whom he must have known as Ca^ friend of South-\\nampton, the friend of Essex, the friend of Bacon. As\\nSpedding points out. Bacon had a regular system of taking\\nnotes, and of intentionally altering the things that he quoted.\\nThis opens a vast vista of responsibility in his covert\\nmode of assimilating the thoughts, purloining the gold, and\\nclipping the coinage of Shakespeare. Bacon, as a fre-\\nquenter of the theater with Essex and Southampton and other\\nof the private friends who are described as spending their time\\nin seeing plays, must have appreciated the presence of that\\ngenius which had arisen to enrich the stage with I^ove s I/abour s\\nLost. It has often been a matter of surprise that\\nBacon should not have recognized Shakespeare or his work.\\nBtd now we know that he did. As we have seen it was\\nhis practice to make notes at the theater, or to jot down from", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0511.jp2"}, "512": {"fulltext": "490 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKElSPB^ARE.\\nHe (author) was learned; he (player) was un-\\nlearned; he (author) had the most original mind in\\nthe universe; he (player) was a mere smatterer, a\\npicker-up of other men s good things. He (author)\\nwas of transcendent genius, inspired; he (player) had\\nthe misfortune to live outside of Harvard, and his\\nlearning is no longer a marvel to some of us who\\nknow what s what, It used to be a marvel in lyowell s\\ntime, but we now are wiser than he was, by many\\ndegrees.\\nmemory the remarkable things that arrested his attention there.\\nHis Promus is the record of much that he took directly from\\nShakespeare. For eight or ten years he had free play and full\\npasturage in Shakespeare s field before he published his first ten\\nessays. It is this borrowing from Shakespeare by Bacon\\nthat has given so much trouble and labor in vain to the Bacon-\\nians. The simple solution is that. Bacon was the un-\\nsuspected thief, who has been accredited with the original own-\\nership of the property purloined by Shakespeare. A\\nvast deal of Shakespeare s thought must have gone into Bacon s\\nsweating-bag or melting-pot, which is not to be recovered or\\nrecognized by any familiar features or quotation marks.\\nI hope Mr. Massey rested more comfortably after having dis-\\ncharged all this bilious vaaAXsx\u00e2\u0080\u0094foedissima ventris proluvies.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0512.jp2"}, "513": {"fulltext": "the; summing up. 491\\nCHAPTER XXIII.\\nTHE SUMMING UP.\\nI undertook to show that the player, William Shak-\\nsper, could not possibly have been the author of the\\npoems and plays which issued under the name of Will-\\niam Shakespeare, and, if the facts I have cited here are\\ntrue, and the highest Shaksperean authorities assert\\nthem to be true, I have proved my case.\\nIt was impossible that such a man as the author of\\nthese works must have been, by the evidence of the\\nworks themselves, could have sprung from a race who,\\nin all their generations, had been ignorant and illit-\\nerate, or could have lived in a bookless neighborhood\\ntill his majority, without one elevating influence, and\\nafterwards attained even respectability as an author or\\nman of learning.\\nIt was impossible that a youth so born and bred\\nshould, in two to five j^ears, or any number of years,\\nin the low and vagabond profession he drifted into,\\nhave acquired the learning, or the language, or the\\nexperience, necessary for writing such poems as Venus\\nand Adonis, or any one of the Shakespeare plays; that,\\nunder these disadvantages, he should have written two\\nscore plays in rapid succession of the entire series,\\nthe first discovering as much learning, familiarity with\\nancient and modern languages, acquaintance with the\\nworld, as the last. Plainly, he was a thoroughly\\nequipped man when he wrote his first play.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0513.jp2"}, "514": {"fulltext": "492 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKEjaPKAR:^.\\nIt was impossible that such a youth, in two to seven,\\nor any number of years, leading the kind of life he\\ndid, and coming to London equipped with nothing but\\nthe patois of Warwickshire, should have acquired a\\nvocabulary estimated at from 15,000 to 21,000 words;\\nor that, under the same conditions, he should have\\namalgamated and consubstantiated the Latin lan-\\nguage with his native thought.\\nIt was impossible that, under the same conditions,\\nhe should have acquired Italian, Spanish and French;\\nthat he should have become learned in all the known\\nsciences, in all philosophy, in law and in medicine.\\nIt was impossible, being the son of John Shaksper,\\nand reared as he was, that he could have grown up\\nwith any knowledge of the English Bible; or that,\\nbeing the man he was, he should have gained a knowl-\\nedge of it after he came to London and, in fact,\\namalgamated the language of the Bible with his native\\nthought.\\nIt was impossible that a youth so bom and nurtured\\ncould have conceived the female characters of these\\nplays; that he could have had any knowledge of courts,\\nthe language and behavior of kings and queens, of\\nladies, or of cultivated people.\\nIt was impossible that the author of these works, if\\nhe lived, and studied, and wrote, and at the same time\\nwas a player at, and manager of, a theater in London,\\na city of scarcely more than half the population that\\nWashington has to-day, could have been unknown to\\nother literary men of the time; that in an age of dia-\\nries, and correspondence, and pamphlets, vast stores\\nof which have been preserv^ed, and are accessible to", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0514.jp2"}, "515": {"fulltext": "THB SUMMING UP. 493\\nStudents, and which abound in the gossip of the day,\\nin anecdotes and allusions to every man of eminence in\\nevery department; that in the papers and letters of the\\ngreat families where the player was petted and\\ncourted, according to his modern worshipers, South-\\nampton, Rutland, Essex, Montgomery, or of Raleigh,\\nCecil, Coke, Tobie Mathew, and multitudes of other let-\\nter writers then living, there should not be one men-\\ntion of him. He was unknown to the men of that age,\\nnot merely to those enumerated, but to any other of\\nless note among the statesmen, scholars and artists,\\nexcept the few of his fellow-craftsmen. So Ingleby\\nand Richard Grant White declare, and they state the\\nfact.\\nIt was impossible that the author of these works\\nshould have returned to his native place, lived there\\nand died there, and left no tradition or testimony as\\nto his literary labors; that he should have left no\\nlibrary not even a book-case or a writing desk no\\nbooks, no manuscripts, no writings of any description;\\nthat his last Will, a Will of great particularity, the\\nWill of a man who valued property, should have no\\nmention of what possessed a large money value, namely,\\nbooks, and the manuscripts of the plays in question,\\nif he really possessed them.\\nIt was impossible that a man of such amazing eru-\\ndition should not have valued knowledge and learning,\\nand should have been wholly indifferent to the educa-\\ntion of his children.\\nIt is impossible that such learning, such vast accom-\\nplishments, should have been domiciled at Stratford,\\nand no memory of it reach the next generation. His", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0515.jp2"}, "516": {"fulltext": "494 SHAKSPER NOT SHAKESPEARE.\\nsister, Joan Hart, lived for thirty years after his death,\\nor to 1646; his daughters Susanna and Judith until\\n1649 and 1662; his grand-daughter, I^ady Barnard,\\nuntil 1670; hundreds of persons who had known him\\npersonally, or whose fathers had known him, were liv-\\ning in the last part of the century, when literary Eng-\\nland had become alive to the importance of preserving\\nevery item respecting so illustrious a man; and yet the\\nresult of all investigation was, we never knew or\\nheard anything of William Shaksper except as a poor\\nboy who lived in this town, ran away, came back a\\nrich man, and bought New Place. Concerning plays\\nor writings of any sort, we know nothing.\\nAs to the kind of man the player was, I look upon\\nhim as a hard, griping, conscienceless, remorseless\\nman, piling up his ducats, devoted to that alone A\\ntyger s heart wrapped in a player s hyde. Certainly\\nI would as lief have had Shylock for my creditor as\\nWilliam Shaksper. Ratsie s Ghost, published in 1605,\\ngives some parting advice to a young player, telling\\nhim to go to London, where he would learn to be fru-\\ngal and thrifty; to feed upon all men, but let none\\nfeed on him; make his hand a stranger to his pocket;\\nhis heart slow to perform his tongue s promise; and\\nwhen he felt his purse well lined, to buy some piece of\\nlordship in the country; that, growing weary of play\\ning, his money may bring him to dignity and reputation;\\nthat he need not care for no man no, not for them\\nthat before made him proud with speaking their words", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0516.jp2"}, "517": {"fulltext": "the; summing up. 495\\non the stage. (Their words, not his own, be it\\nnoted,\\nThis is one of the few mentions, before spoken of,\\nby the player s contemporaries, testifying to him as a\\nman, and accepted by all the commentators as unques-\\ntionably referring to Shaksper.\\nOn the player s retirement to Stratford, he continued\\nhis business of loaning money, prosecuting his debtors\\neven unto prison, (his neighbors, always poor men).\\nRichard Grant White, though his ardent worshiper, is\\ncompelled to cry out: The pursuit of an impoverished\\nman for the sake of imprisoning him, and depriving\\nhim both of the power of paying his debts and sup-\\nporting himself and family, is an incident in Shak-\\nspere s life which it requires the utmost allowance and\\nconsideration for the practice of the time and country\\nto enable us to contemplate with equanimity satis-\\nfaction is impossible.\\nEvidently, some of the player s acquaintances did\\nnot regard him as the gentle Shakespeare as Ben\\nJonson satirically characterized him.\\nThe failure to educate his children is evidence of\\npenuriousness as well as of paternal negligence; his\\nfailure to assist his father, and his utter neglect of his\\nwife is further evidence of penuriousness; so also is his\\ncharging the corporation of Stratford with the cost of\\ntwo quarts of wine furnished to a preacher at his own\\nhouse.\\nThe Shaksperean biographers tell us that these\\nplays were not written for the love of singing, but for\\nmoney, to fill his pockets and to get on in the world.\\nMrs. Dall says he sang like a bird, because he could", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0517.jp2"}, "518": {"fulltext": "496 SHAKSPKR NOT SHAKESPKARH.\\nnot help singing. He lisped in numbers, for the num-\\nbers came. Not at all: At the expense of investing\\nhim with a sordid disposition as Dr. Ingleby puts\\nit, he sang for pelf alone; that is, of course, if he were\\nthe author of the plays, which I deny.\\nTo sum up, in the words of one who has weighed\\nhis character well, William Shaksper was a drunkard,\\na poacher, a liar, litigious, an oppressor of the poor,\\nan unfaithful husband, an adulterer, and a negligent\\nfather. There is not recorded of him one noble ac-\\ntion.\\nThe pen-picture of one of Sir Walter Besant s charac-\\nters agrees exactly with my idea of player and manager\\nShaksper: He looked the kind of man who feels\\nreally happy when he sits in a bar parlor with a glass\\nof something hot, and a few congenial companions;\\none of those who laugh like ten men over the choice\\nquips and delicate stories and deftly turned epigrams\\nwith which the evening would be enlivened; one who\\nwould be popular with these tavern friends; and whose\\npopularity would be in no way lessened by the knowl-\\nedge that he spent his business hours in overreaching\\nhis clients, besting his friends, grinding the noses of\\nthe poor, and exacting the letter of his bond. Be-\\nhold the man!\\nThis man came to London with no polished accom-\\nplishments almost destitute of them according to\\nHalliwell-Phillipps. He never learned to write, and\\nno one can say with knowiedge that he ever learned to\\nread, for there is not the least evidence that he ever\\nwent to school or received instruction; and no one has\\nrecorded having ever seen him with a book in his", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0518.jp2"}, "519": {"fulltext": "TH:e SUMMING UP. 497\\nhand. He died with as few polished accomplishments\\nas he had when he entered lyondon, without a book or\\na paper, with plenty of money and nothing else, un-\\nlamented by any one and known to nobody.\\nThat is the sort of man William Shaksper, player\\nand money-lender, was.\\nKnew you ever a scholar whose soul had utterly\\nescaped the softening influence of thought and study\\nWho, then, did write the Shakespeare plays?\\nIt has been the habit of the Shakspereans to scout,\\nand rage at, the suggestion that Francis Bacon, or his\\nbrother Anthony, had a hand in them, on the ground\\nthat these men had not the poetical faculty, nor the\\ntechnical skill to compose plays; though, without one\\nscrap of evidence, they assure us that William Shak-\\nsper had an excess of both technical skill and poetical\\nfaculty. Knowing nothing about him, they claim\\neverything for him.\\nAnd yet the critical Dr. Brandes tells us that the\\ncharacteristic of the period was the immense rush of\\nproductivity in the direction of dramatic art. Every\\nBnglishman of Elizabeth s time could write a tolerably\\ngood play, just as every second Greek in the age of\\nPericles could model a tolerably good statue, or, as\\nevery European of to-day can write a passable news-\\npaper article.\\nThen, as if to give poor Erancis Bacon a chance,\\nProfessor Wendell discovers that the world has all\\nalong been under a mistake as to the power and sig-\\nnificance of these plays; that, given the habit of", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0519.jp2"}, "520": {"fulltext": "498 SHAKSPBR NOT SHAKKSPEJARB).\\nwriting, and a certain trick of expression, and a few\\ncompendiums and Elizabethan histories, and Coke\\nupon Ivittleton, the plays are not so remarkable as the\\nuninitiated have thought. Moreover, to show how\\nvery easy it must have been in Elizabeth s time to\\ncompose a Shakespeare play, the Professor has tried\\nhis own hand, and enriched the language with\\nRaleigh in Guiana. It would seem then to\\nhumbler individuals that possibly either one of the\\nwriters named, and some score others, might have\\nworked on the Shakespeare plays without violence to\\nprobability. I would suggest that searchlights be\\nturned on the judicious Hooker, or the worthy Donne,\\nor the learned Coke, or Tobie Matthew, or I^ord\\nBurleigh himself. One and all apparently had the\\nhabit of writing and the trick of expression.\\nOr, if these names are not satisfactory, give a\\nthought to the many acknowledged play-writers of\\nthat age, university men, who wrote singly, or in\\ncollaboration Daniel, Marlowe, Greene, and the rest.\\nLook for peculiarities in the vocabularies of the recog-\\nnized works of these authors words, lines, or sen-\\ntences, identical with anything in the Shakespeare\\nplays; traces of thought akin to what is found in\\nthese plays. For Hamlet, and some of the greatest,\\nI would suggest that a writer possessing the require-\\nments of Professor Wendell be looked for; one who\\nhad access to a library of compendiums and his-\\ntories one who had some knowledge of Coke on\\nLittleton; but above all, one with a concrete habit of\\nthought and phrase, whatever that may mean. Or,\\na writer possessing the requirements of Ruggles, one", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0520.jp2"}, "521": {"fulltext": "the; summing up. 499\\nthoroughly familiar with the Baconian Philosophy\\none who was a philosopher first and then a poet;\\none of bold innovating genius; one who obtained\\nhis conceptions by study and meditation. When\\nfound, make a note of. Or a writer possessing the re-\\nquirements of Mr. Fleay; one accustomed to soli-\\ntude; one who had suffered much; one capable\\nof great concentration sure signs of the real au-\\nthor, Mr. Fleay asserts. It is possible that such\\nwriters may be found, if sought for; and when found,\\nit will be seen that they are natural and sensible men,\\nnot inspired dunces. For myself, I prefer the myriad-\\nminded Shakespeare of Coleridge and John Owens to\\nthe Shaksper of Halliwell-Phillipps, and Ingleby,\\nand Wendell; the profound, original thinker and\\nreasoner; the man who had acquired his intimate\\nknowledge of the Hamletic type of intellect from in-\\nintrospection to anything in the line of money-\\ngrubber, beer-guzzler, variety-show clown and man-\\nager, who spent twenty-five years of his life in cater-\\ning to the rabble of I^ondon.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0521.jp2"}, "522": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0522.jp2"}, "523": {"fulltext": "INDKX.\\nAcherly, Thomas, allusion, 278.\\nActors were individual wanderers, 50,\\n51-\\nArcher,William, on the play of Edward\\nIII, 58.\\nArden, Robert, inventory of goods, 13.\\nArden, Mary, her life in girlhood, 13.\\nAuthors, life style of, 69.\\nBacon, Dr. Leonard, on the social sta-\\ntion of the planters of New England,\\n18.\\nBacon, Francis, ignorance of Shake-\\nspeare, 287.\\nBaker, Sir Richard, mention of player\\nShaksper, 292,\\nBarnfeild, Richard, mention of Shake-\\nspeare, 271.\\nBarnfeild, Richard, speaks of Shake-\\nspeare as poet, but not as play-writer,\\n325-\\nBasse, William, lines on William Shake-\\nspeare, 292.\\nBaynes, Dr., on Shakespeare s use of\\ncertain words, 203.\\nBaynes, Dr., on the imagined curricu-\\nlum at Stratford school, 429.\\nBaynes, Dr., on Venus and Adonis and\\nits motto from Ovid, 78.\\nBaynes, Dr., on Venus and Adonis\\nand Lucrece, all thoroughly Ovid-\\nian, 86.\\nBaynes, Dr., on William Shakespeare s\\nproficiency in the classics, 441.\\nBell, Sir Charles, on the medical knowl-\\nedge of the Shakespeare plays, 225.\\nBlackfriars Theater, loi.\\nBlackfriars Theater, no proof that W.\\nShaksper ever acted at, loi.\\nBodenham, John, mention of Shake-\\nspeare, 262.\\nBolton, Edmund, cites Shakespeare, 280\\nBolton, Edmund, enumerates poets, 322.\\nBooks, absence of, at Stratford, 21.\\nBooks, cumbrous and costly in Shake-\\nspeare s day, 214.\\nBoston Public Library version of the\\nthree will signatures, 396.\\nBoy of Stratford, cut, 26.\\nBrandes, Dr. George, evidence that\\nthe author of the Shakespeare plays\\nhad traveled on the continent, 238.\\nBrandes, Dr. George, on the rush of\\nproductivity in the direction of dra-\\nmatic art in Elizabeth s time, 497.\\nBrandes, Dr. George, on William Shake-\\nspeare s familiarity with high life, 246.\\nBrown, David Paul, on the knowledge\\nof medical jurisprudence shown in the\\nplays, 226.\\nBucknill, J. C, M.D., on the medical\\nknowledge of the Shakespeare plays,\\n224.\\nBunyan, John, his early education, 44.\\nBurns, Robert, his early education, 43,\\n44-\\nBurr, Wm. H., proof that Shaksper\\ncould not write, 408.\\nBurritt, Elihu, his early education, 46.\\nBurton, Robert, introducing his pseudo\\nlikeness, 319.\\nEyington, Dr., on the Puritans who\\ncame to Massachusetts, i8.\\nCamden, William, enumerates poets,\\n323-\\nCampbell, Lord Chief Justice, on the\\nlegal language used in the plays, 221.\\nCampbell, Lord Chief J.istice, opinion\\nof the justices courts at Stratford,\\n220.\\nCarew, Richard, mentions Shakespeare,\\n74-\\nCarew, Richard, praise of Sidney, 321.\\nCarlyle, Thomas, on early culture, 42.\\nCenturie of Prayse, The, 3, 259.\\nChaffed the Players, an example,\\n103.\\nChamberlain s Company, travels\\nthrough England, 135, 136.\\nChamberlain, John, absence of men-\\ntion of Shaksper in correspondence,\\n414.\\nChettle, Henry, author of Kind\\nHeart s Dream, 276; his apology for\\nRobert Green, 276.\\nClark, Mrs. Cowden, on the language\\nof Shakespeare, 210.\\nClark, Prof. N. G., on the language of\\nShakespeare, 210.\\nColeridge, Hartley, on the classical\\nallusions of Shakespeare, 199.\\nColeridge, Samuel T., Shakespeare as a\\nphilosopher, 226.\\n(Soi)", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0523.jp2"}, "524": {"fulltext": "502\\nINDEIX.\\nCollier, J. P., his dishonesty exposed,\\n132.\\nCollier, J. P., on the Elizabethan thea-\\nters, 98.\\nCollier, on the publication of the Pas-\\nsionate Pilgrim, 73.\\nCorbin, John, on Jonson s lines, intro-\\nducing the Droeshout likeness, 318.\\nCorbin, John, on the Flower portrait,\\n470.\\nCraik, Prof. George L., on the language\\nof Shakespeare, 210.\\nCraik, G. L., on popular education in\\nthe reign of Elizabeth, 447.\\nCraik, on the Prefatory Address to the\\nFolio, 351, 357.\\nCraik, on the universality of Shake-\\nspeare, 211.\\nCrosse, probable reference to William\\nShaksper, 289.\\nCunningham, P., his forgeries, 130, 133,\\n134.\\nDall, Mrs., conviction that Shaksper\\nspent some years on the continent,\\n238.\\nDall, Mrs. Caroline, on Chettle s words,\\n277.\\nDall, Mrs., on Shaksper s distinguished\\nfriends, 417.\\nDall, Mrs., on William Shaksper s social\\nstation, 18.\\nDavies, John, of Hereford, allusions to\\nplayer Shaksper, 268.\\nDavies, John, possible allusions to same,\\n269, 270.\\nDemonstration, the, i.\\nDescription of the horse in Venus and\\nAdonis borrowed from Du Bartas, 85.\\nDesk, at Stratford, shown as William\\nShaksper s, 30.\\nDickens, Charles, on the life of Shak-\\nsper, 264.\\nDigges, Leonard, on plays at the Globe\\nTheater, 136.\\nDigges, Leonard, prefatory lines, 360.\\nDigges, Leonard, on Romeo and Juliet,\\n162.\\nDisraeli, Benj., on certain practises of\\nthe booksellers, 318.\\nDisraeli, Benj., on the Prefatory Ad-\\ndress to the Folio, 353.\\nDonnelly, L, on Shaksper s Will, 382.\\nDonnelly, Ignatius, on the gulf between\\nthe quality and the common people in\\nShaksper s time, 70.\\nDonnelly, L, on the Shakespeare vo-\\ncabulary, 197.\\nDoran, Dr., on the versions of the\\nShakespeare plays after the Resto-\\nration, 333.\\nDowdall, Rev. Mr., result of his in-\\nquiries at Stratford, 423.\\nDowden, Edward, LL.D., on the Eliza^\\nbethan theater, 07.\\nDowden, Dr., on the Prefatory Address\\nto the Folio, 356.\\nDrake, Dr. Nathan, on paucity of al-\\nlusions to vicinity of Stratford in the\\nplays, 432.\\nDrake, on the rights of author and\\nowner of a play, 76.\\nDrake, on the exhibitions at the thea-\\nters, 119.\\nDrake, on the\\ne scrivener signing the first\\nsheet of a will, 404.\\nDrummond, William, his character of\\nBen Jonson, 348.\\nDrummond, William, notes on Jonson s\\nremarks on Shakespeare, 340.\\nDryden, John, on the Shakespeare\\nplays, 329.\\nDumb-shows popular towards 1587, 100,\\n161.\\nEmerson, R.W., on the genius of Shake-\\nspeare, 227.\\nEmerson, R. W., on the language of\\nShakespeare, 210.\\nEvelyn, John, on certain Shakespeare\\nplays, 328.\\nField, Dr., on the medical knowledge\\nof the Shakespeare plays, 225.\\nFiske, John, denies the book learning\\nof Shakespeare, 212.\\nFiske, John, estimation of the legal\\nknowledge of the Shakespeare plays,\\n221.\\nFleay, F. G., on Jonson s lines prefixed\\nto the First Folio, 306.\\nFleay, Shaksper unmentioned by con-\\ntemporaries, 415.\\nFleay, on Shaksper s will, 381.\\nFleay, on the absence of allusions to\\nShakespeare, 286.\\nFleay, on the Elizabethan theaters, 98,\\n99-\\nFleay, on the superiority of the second\\nquarto of Hamlet to the Folio copy, 78.\\nFleay, the origin of the play houses and\\nplaying companies, gg.\\nForged signature in Florio Montaigne,\\n411.\\nForman, Dr. Simon, account of per-\\nformance of Cymbeline, 159.\\nForman, account of performance of\\nMacbeth, 156.\\nForman, account of performance of The\\nWinter s Tale, 159.\\nForman, his account of the performing\\nof three Shakespeare plays, 153.\\nFreeman, Thomas, lines on Shake-\\nspeare. 281.\\nFree school, at Stratford, supposed sys-\\ntem of instruction, 20.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0524.jp2"}, "525": {"fulltext": "iNDKX.\\n503\\nFree school at Stratford, the annual\\ncharge for, 22.\\nFuller, on the imaginary wit-combats,\\netc., 361.\\nFuruivall, Dr. J. C, Fresh allusions to\\nShakespeare, 261.\\nFurnivall, on Gervinus studies of\\nShakespeare, 226.\\nGalton, Dr. Francis, on heredity, 41.\\nGlobe Theater, built in 1599, 107.\\nGoadby, Dr., on the instruction of the\\ncommon people in Shaksper s day,\\n445-\\nGoethe, on Shakespeare as a writer and\\npsychologist, 230.\\nGoUancz, Israel, on Othello, 134.\\nGoUancz, Israel, on the Lear of Shake-\\nspeare, 149.\\nGollancz, on the Quarto of Romeo and\\nJuliet, 77.\\nGosson, on the London theaters, 112.\\nGreen, J. R., on the last dramas of\\nShakespeare, 375.\\nGreene, on Shakespeare s proficiency\\nin the science of Heraldry, 235.\\nGreene, Robert, complaint against an\\nupstart-crow, etc. Phillipps and In-\\ngleby thereon, 54, 55.\\nGreene, Robert, lines believed to have\\nbeen aimed at player Shaksper, 297.\\nGreene, Robert, on the upstart-crow,\\n273-\\nGreene, Robert, his Groatsworth of\\nWit, 275.\\nGreenwich Fair, play at, 142.\\nGrosart, Alexander B., his opinion of\\nShaksper, 297.\\nGuilpin, Edward, among poets omits\\nto name Shakespeare, 324.\\nHall, Dr., mentions death of Shaksper\\nin his note-book, 424.\\nHallam, on Shakespeare phrases, 201.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, as to how the\\nShakespeare plays came to be writ-\\nten, 231.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, on Shaksper s con-\\ndition when he made his will, 380.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, on Shaksper s will,\\n383-\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, on the popularity\\nof ist Henry VI, 161; of Romeo and\\nJuliet, 162.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, the Elizabethan\\ntheater, 96.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, on the theaters, iii,\\n112.\\nHalliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 2.\\nHall s Chronicle not in John Shaksper s\\nhouse, 21.\\nHamilton, Alexander, on genius, 460.\\nHamlet, on the capacity of the ground-\\nlings; 125.\\nHamlet, ridicule of the style of playing\\nin vogue, 126.\\nHamlet, the play of, exists in three\\nforms, 145.\\nHathaway, Ann, her cottage; Richard\\nGrant White on same, 17.\\nHazlitt, William, on Love s Labour s\\nLost, 63.\\nHeard, F. F., on Shakespeare as a law-\\nyer, 223\\nHeine, on the historical value of the\\nShakespeare plays, 234.\\nHeminge and Condell, 350.\\nHenslowe s Diary; the prices paid for\\nnew plays, i8i.\\nHenslowe, Philip, description of, 120.\\nHenslowe, diary of, 71.\\nHaywood, Thomas, mention of Shak-\\nsper, 288.\\nHeywood, Thomas reference to the\\nauthor of the Shakespeare plays,\\n270.\\nHolmes, Judge, on the Sonnets, 372.\\nHolmes, Judge, on Shakespeare s use\\nof certain words, 202.\\nHolmes, Dr. O. W., on a child s train-\\ning, 41-\\nHume, David, on William Shake-\\nspeare, 332.\\nIngleby, Dr. C. J., on absence of allu-\\nsions to Shakespeare, ignorance of\\ncontemporaries as to Shakespeare, 282.\\nIngleby, on the estimation of the plays\\nof Shakespeare. 146.\\nIngleby, on the prefatory address to\\nthe Folio, 352, 353, 356.\\nIngleby, on the social standing of play-\\ners, 81.\\nImpertinence, on the, of the assump-\\ntion that William Shaksper conceived\\nthe female characters of the plays,\\n244.\\nJaggard, William, publishes The Pas-\\nstonate Pilgrim as Shakespeare s, 72.\\nJohnson, Judge Jesse, on the Sonnets,\\n366.\\nJohnson, Dr. Samuel, criticism on the\\nShakespeare plays, 331.\\nJohnson, Dr. Samuel, on the condition\\nof the lower classes, 12, 22.\\nJohnson, Dr. Samuel, on the condition\\nof the common people in Shake-\\nspeare s day, 153.\\nJohnson, Dr. Samuel, on the number of\\ncopies of the first two Folio editions\\nof the plays, 334.\\nJohnson, Dr. Samuel, on William Shak-\\nsper s first employments in Lon-\\ndon, 50.\\nJonson s Bartholomew Fair; how class-\\nical plays were travestied, 122.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0525.jp2"}, "526": {"fulltext": "504\\nIND^X.\\nJonson, Ben, apostrophe to player\\nShaksper, 336.\\nJonson, Ben, does not speak of Shake-\\nspeare in his Discoveries, 346.\\nJonson, Ben, his insincerity, 339.\\nJonson, Ben, his lines eulogizing the art\\nof Shakespeare, 341.\\nJonson, Ben, his praises of Francis\\nBacon, 345.\\nJonson, Ben, his ridicule of plays of\\nShakespeare, 327.\\nJonson, Ben, his Timber, or Discov-\\neries, 344.\\nJonson, Ben, lines introducing the por-\\ntrait in the First Folio, 317.\\nJonson, Ben, lines on Poet-Ape believed\\nto be aimed at Player Shaksper,\\n295.\\nJonson, Ben, lines prefixed to the First\\nFolio, 304.\\nJonson, Ben, mention of player Shak-\\nsper, 346.\\nJonson s Poetaster, attack on the\\nKing s Company. 116.\\nKempe, or Kemp, William, cut of, 60.\\nKing Henry VI, the work of Marlowe;\\nalso the Richard IH and other\\nplays, 56, 57.\\nKnight, Charles, his life of Shake-\\nspeare, ig.\\nKnight, Charles, on Shakespeare s use\\nof certain words, 202.\\nKnight, Charles, on the corrections,\\netc., of the Second Quarto of Romeo\\nand Juliet, 77.\\nKnight, Charles, on Romeo and\\nJuliet, 140.\\nKnight, Charles, on the Roman plays\\nof Shakespeare, 120, 199.\\nKnight, Charles, on the Quartos, 358.\\nKnight, Charles, on Troilus and Cres-\\nsida, 149.\\nLamb, Charles, on the Tragedies of\\nShakespeare, 147.\\nLee, Sidney, accounts for the learning\\nin the law of the Shakespeare\\nplays, 219. 1\\nLee, Sidney, his copy of the three Will\\nsignatures, 400.\\nLee, Sidney, on Love s Labour s\\nLost, 63.\\nLee, Sidney, on Shaksper s Will, 381\\nLee, Sidney, on the publication of the\\n16 Quartos, 72.\\nLee, Sidney, on William Shaksper s in-\\ndifference to piracy of the Shake-\\nspeare plays, 77.\\nLegal papers, latitude allowed in ex-\\necuting, 403.\\nLibraries, no public libraries in Shake-\\nspeare s day; private, very rare, 214.\\nLincoln, Abraham, his early educa-\\ntion, 45.\\nLodge, Thomas, among poets omits to\\nname Shakespeare, 324.\\nLord Mayor to Privy Council, on the\\nLondon theaters, iii.\\nLord Strange s Company, 108.\\nLove s Labour s Lost, the first of the\\nShakespeare plays performed, 62.\\nMacaulay, Thomas B., on books in\\nShakespeare s day, on the use of\\nLatin in the i6th century, 215.\\nMadden, Judge, on Shakespeare s ac-\\ncuracy in the use of the language of\\nFalconry, 235.\\nMalone, Edmund, his fac-simile of the\\nthree Will signatures, 394.\\nThe same, enlarged, 395.\\nLetters of, much enlarged, 398.\\nMalone, Edmund, investigations as to\\nWilliam Shaksper, 90.\\nMalone, Edmund, on Shaksper s\\nWill, 382.\\nMalone, Edmund, on the forged Ireland\\nletters, 79.\\nMalone, Edmund, on the Walker deed\\nand mortgage, 386.\\nManningham, John, account of the per-\\nformance of Twelfth Night, 153, 154.\\nManningham, John, relates gossip con-\\ncerning Shaksper, 266.\\nMarlowe, Christopher, his contribu-\\ntions to the Shakespeare plays, 59.\\nMarsh, George P., on the language of\\nShakespeare, 211.\\nMarsh. George P., on the vocabulary\\nof the Shakespeare works, 196.\\nMary s letter from California, 349.\\nMassey, Gerald, on Francis Bacons\\nobligation to Shakespeare, 489.\\nMassey, Gerald, on the Sonnets, 368.\\nMeiklejohn, Prof J. M. D., on the\\nlanguage of Shakespeare, 211.\\nMeiklejohn, Prof., on the varied knowl-\\nedge of the author of the Shakes-\\npeare plays, 243.\\nMeres, Francis, attributes twelve plays\\nto Shakespeare, 74.\\nMeres, Francis, enumerates poets, 321.\\nMeres, Francis, mentions of Shake-\\nspeare, 279, 280.\\nMermaid, The, Shaksper not a mem-\\nber of that club, 362.\\nMilton, John, an Epitaph, 299.\\nMilton, John, lines on L AUegro, 300.\\nMilton, John, his early education, 41.\\nMontague, Mrs., on Shakespeare as a\\nmoral philosopher, 217.\\nMorgan, Dr. A., on instruction of chil-\\ndren in Wm. Shaksper s time, 23.\\nMorgan, Dr., on the Stationer s Com-\\npany, and the rights of printers, 353.\\nMorgan, Dr., on Venus and Adonis;\\nabsence of Warwickshire patois in\\nsame, 83.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0526.jp2"}, "527": {"fulltext": "INDBX.\\n505\\nNaylor, Edward W., on Shakespeare s\\nacquaintance with music, 235.\\nO Connor, W. D., on the Sonnets, 369.\\nOthello, based on Cinthio s novel, 311.\\nOwens, John, on Hamlet, 231-233.\\nPepys, Samuel, on Shakespeare plays,\\n328.\\nPercy, Dean, on certain practices of the\\nbooksellers 319.\\nPerformances at Court, 166, 168.\\nPlayers, status of in reign of Eliza-\\nbeth, 80.\\nPlays first printed in the Folio, 310.\\nPlays bearing the same name as certain\\nShakespeare plays, 128-130.\\nPlays, in the last half of the sixteenth\\ncentury, were generally written in\\ncollaboration, 70.\\nPlays not now attributed to Shake-\\nspeare, 72.\\nPott, Mrs. Constance, on Shakespeare s\\nlack of description of country\\nscenes, 436.\\nProposition, The, i.\\nQuiney, Adrian, letter to Shaksper, 177.\\nQuiney, Richard, letter to William\\nShaksper, 11, 17.\\nRankins on the Theatre and the Cur-\\ntain, 112.\\nRatsies Ghost; advice to a player, 50,\\n268.\\nReed, Edwin, on the Prefatory Ad-\\ndress of the Folio, 352.\\nReferences or allusions to William Shak-\\nsper, 259.\\nReturne from Parnassus, lines believed\\nto refer to player Shaksper, 295.\\nReturne from Parnassus, mentions Mr.\\nShakespeare, 262.\\nReturne from Parnassus, speaks of\\nShakespeare as poet, but not as play-\\nwriter, 325.\\nRogers, Prof. Thorold, on the lack of\\neducation in Shaksper s day, 446.\\nRolfe, Dr. W. J. Shakespere, the boy,\\nin Youth s Companion, 24.\\nRolfe, Book of same name, 26.\\nRowe, Nicholas, 1709, notes on William\\nShaksper, 88.\\nRuggles, Henry J., on the familiarity of\\nthe author of the Shakespeare Plays\\nwith Bacon s philosophy, 227-229.\\nRuggles, Henry J., on the language of\\nShakespeare, 211.\\nRymer, Thomas, on the Shakespeare\\nPlays, 330.\\nSala, Geo. A., Conviction that the wri-\\nter of the Shakespeare Plays had\\ntraveled in Italy, 238.\\nSchlegel on Shakespeare, 226.\\nSchoolmasters of Shaksper s day, 447.\\nSidney, Sir Philip, held in special ven-\\neration as a poet, 326.\\nSidney, Sir Philip, on the state of the\\ndrama in his time, 95.\\nSignet ring marked W. S. shown at\\nStratford, 31.\\nShakespeare as a physicist and natural\\nphilosopher, 235.\\nShakespeare Plays, enlarged, etc., for\\nthe Folio, 311,\\nShakespeare Plays after the Restora-\\ntion, 168, 169.\\nShakespeare Plays, few mentions of\\nthem in contemporary literature, 284.\\nShakespeare Plays, seventeen had been\\nperformed and seven printed anon-\\nymously up to 1598 list of the latter,\\n69.\\nShakespeare Plays, shortened for per-\\nforming, 141.\\nShakespeare s Legal Acquirements, by\\nLord Campbell, 221.\\nShakespeare the name of a band or\\nclub of authors, 72.\\nShakespeare, William, evidences that\\nhe had traveled extensively, 237.\\nShakespeare, William, his familiarity\\nwith courts, etc., 244.\\nShakespeare, William, his knowledge of\\nFrench, Italian, Spanish, 243.\\nShakespeare, William, ignorance of con-\\ntemporaries respecting, 335.\\nShakespeare, William, the name used\\non plays by many authors, 115,\\nShaksper, John, application for coat-\\narmour, 186-188.\\nShaksper, John and Mary, absolutely\\nilliterate, 12.\\nShaksper, John, butcher, after his mar-\\nriage, I2,r33.\\nShaksper, John, fills several offices, 29.\\nShaksper, John, litigious, 30.\\nShaksper has no goods that could be dis-\\ntrained, 30.\\nShaksper, John, in prison for debt, 30.\\nShaksper, John, fined for having\\namassed a sterquinarium before his\\nhouse, 15.\\nShaksper s, John, house at Strat-\\nford, 16.\\nShaksper, John, secretly attached to\\nthe Catholic religion, 115.\\nShaksper, John, tenant of Robert Ar-\\nden, 62.\\nShaksper, John, marries Mary, Rob-\\nert s daughter, 62.\\nShaksper, John, though unable to write,\\nmade up the accounts of the bor-\\nough, 23.\\nShaksper, John, made his signature\\nwith a mark, 23.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0527.jp2"}, "528": {"fulltext": "5o6\\nINDEX.\\nShaksper, variations of the name, 7-11.\\nShaksper, William, as a business man,\\n177-179.\\nShaksper, William, attempts at enclos-\\nure of the common land, 190.\\nShaksper, William, as a player, 174.\\nShaksper, William, buys a lot from\\nHenry Walker, 385.\\nShaksper, William, executes a mortgage\\ndeed on same, 385.\\nShaksper, William, apprenticed to a\\nbutcher; account of the old Stratford\\nparish clerk, 34.\\nShaksper, William, died a papist, ac-\\ncording to Vicar Davis, 115.\\nShaksper, William, did not go to Lon\\ndon with histrionic intentions, 49.\\nShaksper, William, discovered as a ris-\\ning actor and dramatist, according to\\nPhillipps, in 1592, 53.\\nShaksper, William, doggerel verses on\\nJohn-a-Combe, 53.\\nShaksper, William, Drake s version of\\nhis five signatures, 392.\\nShaksper, William, Dr. Rolfe on mar-\\nriage of, 37.\\nShaksper, William, evidence of penu-\\nriousness, 189.\\nShaksper, William, exercised his fa-\\nther s trade of butcher, according to\\nAubrey, 33.\\nShaksper, William, gaining a knowl-\\nedge of the world at Stratford, 35.\\nShaksper, William, flies to Lendon, 39.\\nShaksper, William, his death, 379.\\nShaksper, William, his prosecution of\\ndebtors, 182.\\nShaksper, William, his signature to the\\ncounterpart of the Walker deed, 387,\\n391.\\nShaksper, William, his signature to the\\nWalker mortgage, 390.\\nShaksper, William, his visit to Bidford,\\n3777 378-\\nShaksper, William, his Will, 380.\\nShaksper, ,William, his vocabulary when\\nhe came to London, 195.\\nShaksper, William, language spoken\\non arrival at London, 193.\\nShaksper, William, married to Ann\\nWhately, 36.\\nShaksper, William, no evidenee extant\\nrespecting his career from 1589 to\\n1592, 53.\\nShaksper, William, no proof that he\\nwent to school in boyhood, 20.\\nShaksper, William, supposed to have\\nleft school at 13 years of age, 30.\\nShaksper, William, went to London at\\n21 years of age, according to Halli-\\nwell-Phillipps at 22, according to\\nR. G. White; at 23, according to\\nFleay, 49.\\nShaksper, William, wild in his younger\\ndays, according to Rowe, 37.\\nShaksper, William, words spoken to the\\ntown clerk of Stratford, 191.\\nShaksper, William, visits Stratford in\\n1587, and not again till 1596, 52.\\nSouthampton, Lord, apochryphal story\\nof a loan to Shaksper, 179.\\nSpencer, Herbert, on heredity, 41.\\nSpencer, Edmund, does not refer to\\nShaksper in Colin Clout, 266.\\nStatue of William Shaksper in Cong.\\nLibrary, 471.\\nStatute of 39 Elizabeth and i James on\\nplayers, 82.\\nSteevens, George, on the number of\\ncopies of the first Folio edition of the\\nPlays, 334.\\nStefansson, Jan, belief that the writer\\nof Hamlet had visited Denmark, 238-\\n241-\\nStotsenburg, Judge John H., on the\\nSonnets, 370.\\nStotsenburg, Judge John H., on the\\nvocabulary of the Shakespeare Plays\\nStratford Free School, R. G. White on\\nsame, 21.\\nStratford-on-Avon, condition in 1564 and\\nyears following, 14.\\nStratford-on-Avon, no mention of in the\\nplays, 431\\nStubbs, on the London theaters, 107.\\nSwan Theater, De Witt s sketch of and\\ndescription, 106.\\nSwinburne, A. G., on] Marlowe s place\\nand value among English poets, 68.\\nSymonds, Prof. J. A., on the Doubtful\\nPlays, 313.\\nSymonds, Prof. J. A., on the London\\ntheaters, 113, 114.\\nSymonds, Prof. J. A., Performances at\\nElizabethan Theater; a visit to the\\nFortune, 102, 114.\\nTaine, on the English theaters, time of\\nElizabeth, 94.\\nTarleton, Richard, cut of, 61.\\nTaylor, John, enumerates the poets,\\n323-\\nTheaters, Private, two only, 98, 99.\\nTheobald, Dr. W., on Shakespeare s use\\nof certain words, 203-207.\\nTitus Andronicus, play of, 138, ei seq.\\nThe Chamberlain s company, 108.\\nThe Chandos portrait, 479.\\nThe Droeshout likeness of William\\nShaksper, 464-467.\\nThe dumb-show, 141.\\nThe Felton portrait, 473.\\nThe Flower portrait, 467-471.\\nThe Gower best likeness, 484.\\nThe Jansen portrait, 480.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0528.jp2"}, "529": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n507\\nThe Kesselstadt death-mask, 480-483.\\nThe King s Company, 108.\\nThe Old Geronimo, The play of, 140.\\nThe Othello, Quarto and Folio, 310.\\nThe Passionate Pilgrim, published as\\nby Shakespeare, 72.\\nThe Shakespeare plays at court, 143.\\nThe Shakespeare plays not acted at any\\nprivate theater, 121.\\nThe Shakespeare plays not acted at\\nlength at any public theater, 121.\\nThe Shakespeare plays not written for\\nShaksper s theater, 142, 143.\\nThe Sonnets, 363.\\nThe Stratford bust, 473-479.\\nThe theaters in London, 94 et seg.\\nThe Tragical Reign of Selim, The play\\nof, 140.\\nThe Quarterly Review, on Shake-\\nspeare s unobservance of animated\\nnature, 434-436.\\nThrale, Mrs., obloquy caused by her\\nmarriage with Piozzi, 87.\\nTrench, on the maker of words, 200.\\nThe Zucharo portrait, 479.\\nVenus and Adonis, publication of, in\\n1593. 67-\\nVocabulary of the Shakespeare plays,\\n195-\\nVocabulary of Milton s Works, 195.\\nWallace, Dr. A. R., accounts for the\\nlearning in the law of the Shakes-\\npeare plays, 220.\\nWallace, Dr. A. R., as to how William\\nShaksper acquired a knowledge of\\nhigh life, 248.\\nWallace, Dr. A. R., how Shaksper ac-\\nquired knowledge, 453.\\nWalpole, Horace, on genteel comedies,\\n63-\\nWard, Rev. John A., result of his in-\\nvestigations at Stratford, 422.\\nWarner, Prof. B. E., on Shakespeare as\\na writer of History, 233.\\nWarner, William, rank as a poet, 266.\\nWarwickshire dialect, example of, 194.\\nWarwickshire, few mentions of, in the\\nplays, 431.\\nWebster, Daniel, on acquisition of\\nknowledge, 460.\\nWebster, John, enumerates Shake-\\nspeare with other poets, 291.\\nWebster, John, mention of several po-\\nets, 322.\\nWeever, John, apostrophe to Shake-\\nspeare, 279.\\nWeever, John, lines by, 73.\\nWeismann, Dr. Aug., on uninstructed\\nmusical genius, 42.\\nWendell, Prof. Barrett, accounts for the\\nShakespeare vocabulary, 214.\\nWendell s characterization of the\\nElizabethan theaters, no.\\nWendell, Barrett, his play of Raleigh in\\nGuiana, 342.\\nWendell, Barrett, on the apparent\\nlearning of the plays, 455.\\nWendell, Prof. Barrett, on the collabo-\\nration of Greene, Peele, Kyd and\\nMarlowe in the Henry VI plays, 58.\\nWhately, Ann, marries Shaksper, 36.\\nWhite, R. G., on Shaksper s Will, 381.\\nWhite, Richard Grant, on the learning\\nin the law of the Shakespeare plays,\\n219.\\nWhite, R. G., Shaksper unknown to\\nany one of note, 415.\\nWhite, Rowland, letters, 361.\\nWhite, Thos. W., on the authorship of\\nthe Shakespeare plays, 309.\\nWhite, Thomas W., on the Venus and\\nAdonis, that Marlowe wrote it, 68.\\nWhite and Reed discover evidence of\\nsome great imposture on the stage\\nin Shaksper s time, 296.\\nWhittington, Thomas, loan of 40 shil-\\nlings to Ann Shaksper, 52.\\nWinter, William, on Shaksper s condi-\\ntion when he made his Will, 380.\\nWoncot, mention of, in the plays, 431.\\nWordsworth, Bishop Charles, on the\\nlife of Shakspere, 264.\\nWordsworth, Bishop, on Shakespeare\\nand the Bible, 216, 217.\\nWotton, Sir Henry, absence of mention\\nof Shaksper in correspondence, 414.", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0529.jp2"}, "530": {"fulltext": "X272", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0530.jp2"}, "531": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0531.jp2"}, "532": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0532.jp2"}, "533": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0533.jp2"}, "534": {"fulltext": "^(j^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\\nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\n,_ Treatment Date: Feb. 2009\\nPreservationTechnologies\\nAvv V- Q^ -^xx7jL# a world leaoer in collections preservation\\n^-C^^. ,N ^y^^iX^^ Ill Thomson Park Drive\\no.,V Cranberry Township, PA 16066\\nV 0^ (724)779-2111", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0534.jp2"}, "535": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2771", "width": "1633", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0535.jp2"}, "536": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n014 156 719 6", "height": "2944", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "shakspernotshake00edwa_0536.jp2"}}