\\UUu 55 I'U.U. iU ' ' I J »" I'j '*"}il * J« ' « j 5 :::::i::::;!3 fllHH Hill:!' I Ul {M 'Jh 'li, liiliiUHiititllttHlHllilikHliHiiimHHiUltliiliiliMlillillilliiHhUiiitiin GIFT OF >e»\ PHRONTISTERY Reprint from the University of Caufornia Chronicle Volume 32, No. 4 October, 1930 JOHN WYCLIF'S FREUDIAN COMPLEX Because of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy, which has filled the land with ponderous volumes of invective, one hesitates to point out another case of cipher use, to exhibit an even more remarkable instance of hidden identity. One hesitates. In spite of the laborious efforts of Mrs. Gallup, Dr. Owen, and James Phinney Baxter, the world is scarcely convinced that the brilliant Bacon wrote plays attributed to a Stratford villager. And schools, always notoriously conservative, still teach the Shakespeare legend. How much less readily, then, will the world, ever slow to alter its opinion, accept the statement that John Wyclif, fourteenth- century divine, wrote many of the less sedate stories collected under the title Canterbury Tales and usually attributed to Geoffrey Chaucer? And yet such is the case. A cipher exists, a cipher clear, convincing, understandable, calling for no ever-turning wheel such as Dr. Owen employed in his Baconian discoveries. Whether all of Chaucer's work was done by Wyclif is still to be determined, but the cipher exists in at least two of his tales, that of the Wyf of Bath and of the Merchant. All that is necessary to enable one to discover this secret code is a Gallup-like patience, an uncut edition of the poems attributed to Chaucer, a willing eye, mathetical precision, and a key to the cipher — no more. Then, upon investigation, crops out a startling message written as clear as ever Bacon wrote his private history and that of the Virgin Queen throughout the pages of Shakespeare's plays. PHRONTISTERY 493 Before disclosing the cipher and its workings, however, it seems wise to discuss the nature of a cipher and the psychological attitude it is necessary to maintain when attempting cipher work. A cipher, a gentle, unobtrusive, retiring entity, must be met half- way by the eager scholar. Naturally, no cipher is going to obtrude itself, else would it be a sign-bpard. It is therefore necessary that the discoverer put himself into what — in spirit world par- lance — might be called a ''communicable frame of mind." But even after the student has acquired this frame of mind there are certain steps in the procedure of becoming cipher-conscious. First, the investigator must imaginatively enter the mind of his subject; then he must contemplate that individual's situation. Second, he must divine intuitively the subject's probable repres- sions and his, necessarily secretive, outbreaks. Such a sympa- thetic procedure is essential before scientific investigation can be begun. In the course of making the recent startling discovery of Wyclif's authorship of certain of the Canterbury Tales, the writer followed scrupulously the steps outlined above. A "commun- icable frame of mind" was first induced. Second, Wyclif became a subject for concentrated contemplation. Intricate as all thought is, yet it is possible to give the main outline of that contemplative period. First, it will be recalled, the investigator must enter the mind of his subject. Days were spent upon this first step. With what result? Wyclif emerges an austere and lonely man living in the masculine society of Oxford. There, preaching and de- nouncing the corruption of the church, he centers his mind upon the lax lives of the friars (named by him the ''children of Cain"). Such denunciation demands investigation of the evil lives about him. He discovers many an Eve corrupting the celibates, many a "celibate" unknown to chastity. The result of this fixation of mind naturally increases his consciousness of sex. At this point it is necessary to recall the next step in the procedure: a debate as to the probable repressions endured. It is a truism that complete repression is practically unknown. Sub- limation of the biologic urge is, however, not uncommon in liter- ature past and present. Could Wyclif have sublimated his re- pressed longings? His sermons were consulted. Those sermons show no struggling sex consciousness, no sublimation of desire. Then comes the third, perhaps the most important and most delicate step in the investigation: intuitive divination of the 494 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE person's necessarily secretive outbreak or outbreaks. Since his own life and signed writings are impeccable, it is evident that Wyclif must have reached for artistic sublimation. The obvious thing is to look to the literature of his period in order to discover what he must have written and how he must have concealed the fact. The fourth step is a simple one. In considering the literature of the fourteenth century, what figure does one find that stands triumphantly, predominantly, unashamedly for sex? At once one recalls the Wyf of Bath. Housbondes at chirche-dore she hadde fyve Withouten oother compaignye in youthe What an appealing figure to a celibate! What an unorthodox rebel to the churchman! What a relaxing holiday to the moralist! Naturally it is to her prologue and tale one would look if he suspected code possibilities connected with Wyclif's name. Before giving the code which reveals without question Wyclif's audacious portrayal of this sensual, worldly woman, it is necessary to remind the reader that no complicated code equal to that de- coded by Mrs. Gallup could be expected in the fourteenth cen- tury. Wyclif was a busy man. He had no time amid his more onerous duties to wrap his Freudian outbreak in all the alphabetic trappings and upper and lower case concealment used by Bacon. In Wyclif we find a straightforward code based upon (1) his own initial, fV^ (2) placement of capitals, (3) vowels surrounding the letter to be decoded, and (4) the number 27. Why 27? Nothing more natural when one comprehends the method that he uses. Aside from what I shall call the warning W there are 27 letters in the heading of the prologue: "Prologue of the Wywts Tale of Bath.'* fV indicates that a code exists. The 27 letters in the heading indicate that the 27th letter of the first line and some certain letter in every 27th line thereafter will contain a letter or letters to be de-coded unless several warning Ws occur. The number of ff^s in any 27th line will indicate the number of 27-line units to be omitted before further de-coding is to be done. Below is given in separate columns the line number, the letter number, the quoted line, the de-coded letter. From here on the writer will let John Wyclif speak for himself, though for the reader unaccustomed to fourteenth-century spelling it is necessary to add that J, Y, and I are used interchangeably. Line Letter No. No. 1 27 27 27 54 1 81 1 108 4 135 23 PHRONTISTERY 495 De-coded Quotation letter Experience, though noon author/te I But wel I woot expres withoute \Yq Y or J Oi shewed Lameth and of bigamye O /7e wolde that ever wight were such as he H (3 warning Ws indicate that 3 letters occur before the one to be de-coded.) But A''at at every wight he sholde go selle N But I seye noght that every W\g\vt is holde W (In 135 warning JV is set between vowels.) 162 27 At this sentence me lykith everY deel Y 187 20 But yet I pray to al this Companye C (In 187 demonstrative "this" and vowel after letter to be de-coded indicate C.) 216 28 That many a night they songen *weiZ,awey* L (Note here in 216 that L is the 27th letter minus the warning fV.) 243 4-5 And IF I have a gossib or a freend IF (In line 243 "if" before capital and the strengthening/ in "freend" indicating that F as well as / is to be de- coded shows the letters clearly.) 270 As selstow, that wo\ been with oute make (Line 270 three W's followed by vowels and one used in completion of word preceded by a vowel indicates a break to the next part, and predicts a fourth W.) The next section begins with the title: Here Beginnith the Tale of the ^yf of Bathe (There are 34 letters minus the warning W. Since 3 warning Ws occurred in the last used line in the Wyf's prologue and a fV occurrs in the title of the tale, it is evident not only that W is the next letter to be de- coded, but that it will occur after four letters. Note that 34 now replaces the 27 of the earlier portion.) 34 5 And s^ich pursuit un-to the king Arthour W 68 5, 10, Two c/^eatu/^es accoi^dinge in-fe/?e R 15, 25 (Repetition and number sequence made R obvious de- coding letter.) 496 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE Line Utter De-coded No. No. Quotation letter 102 9 He loved h/r most and trusted h/V also I (Line 102 presents a difficulty that as yet has not solved itself satisfactorily. Consultation upon this line has delayed the de-coding. It is thought that Wyclif, returning absentmindedly, as he does below to 27 has here taken 2 and 7 to make 9.) 136 27 Of ladies four and twenty and yeT mo T (Similar vowels beginning and ending line indicate that not one but two 34 line units should be omitted.) 204 32 For goddes love, as cheer a newe requesTe T (Line 204 again offers difficulties, but it seems evidtnt that the two d*s are counted twice; the line number being, then, the de-coding number 34.) 238 W//y fare ye tH\s wit// me t//is firste nig//t H (Repetition makes H the obvious letter.) 272 20 Ful selde up ryseth by h/s branches smale I (Five H's in the line above indicates that H is warning letter; hence the letter following it is the de-coded letter.) 306 12-13 Thy gentille^'se cometh fro god allone S (In line 306 the doubling of S and the use of vowels on either side indicates it as letter for de-coding.) 340 9 A ful greeT bringer out of bisinesse T (T is indicated by significant doubling of vowels before it.) 374 16 My Wdy /^nd my love /^nd wyf so dere A (In line 374 the writer has debated between A and Y as the proper de-coding letter, but the position of A (twice initial letters) gives A prior rights over Y.) 408 27-28 God s^nd^ h^m som^ v^ray pesteLEnce. LE (This, the last line in the story, shows again Wyclif's forgetfulness in the use of 27, the decoding letter in part one. The unusual repetition of E indicates that it, too, is to be dc-coded.) The reader who has followed thus far will find that the message left by Wyclif reads: I JOHN WYCLIF WRIT THIS TALE. To the writer this statement seemed conclusive, but at the end of the story occurs one of those seemingly needless repetitions, "Here endeth the Wyves Tale of Bathe," a repetition, however, fraught with meaning. When the letters are counted, 29 in PHRONTISTERY 497 number, their significance becomes apparent. Counting back- ward twenty-nine lines from the end is John Wyclif's boast — a boast that has waited until the year 1930 for fulfillment. In this boast we see Wyclif's certainty that some eye will discover his cipher, that a later age will reward his sublimation of the lusts of the flesh by a posthumous fame. In addition, then, to the de- coded statement discussed above he has placed in the 29th line from the end: "THANNE HAVE I GETE OF YOW MAISTRYE" It is true that he concludes the line with a misleading "quod she," but gives the boast itself the special significance of quotation marks. All honor to John Wyclif, sore beset with Freudian complexes, who, cloaked by the name of Chaucer, gave vent to his uncon- scious in tales lacking perhaps in clerical propriety but rich in that humanity that makes the whole world — even Shakespeare and Bacon-kin. May his boast find fulfillment in a tardy recog- nition of his artistic genius, and may his cipher, simple to the point of childishness, find general credence! LUCIA B. MIRRIELEES. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS ••• » •* • .•< I « r J " c • QUEEN ELIZABETH From an original crayon drawing by F. Zuccero, made in London in 1575 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE SHAKESPEARE WORKS AN EXPOSITION OF ALL POINTS AT ISSUE, FROM THEIR INCEPTION TO THE PRESENT MOMENT BY JAMES PHINNEY BAXTER WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY i^he 0itaer?itie ^vt0 Cambrib0e 1917 / ~7^ COPYRIGHT, I915, BY JAMES PHINNEY BAXTER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Published September iqij Second Edition Published February tqij o •* ^ ^* ', ,* *" • I DEDICATE THIS BOOK TO MY WIFE IN WHOSE PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN, YET WHO BEFORE IT CAME FROM THE PRESS LEFT ME ALONE The three important things Lord Palmerston was rejoiced to see, — "The reintegration of Italy, the unveiling of the mystery of China, and the explosion of the Shakespeare illusions." The Glory of God is to conceal a thing — as if the Divine Majesty took delight to hide his works. Bacon. Silence were the best celebration of that which I mean to commend. My praise shall be dedi- cated to the mind itself, — Mente Fidebor, by the mind I shall be seen. Ibid. Read not to contradict and to confute Nor to believe and take for granted; Nor to find talk and discourse But to weigh and consider. Ibid. For my name and memory, I leave it to men's charitable speeches, and to foreign nations, and the next ages. Ibid. I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but TIME and CHANCE happeneth to them all. TO THE READER Although much has been written upon the authorship of the "Shakespeare" Works, it has been impossible hitherto for readers to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the subject without an excursion into fields of controversy of for- bidding extent. It has seemed to me, therefore, a worthy task to present to them in a single volume a critical study of the entire subject, and, also, a review of the work of fellow students who have preceded me. To visualize my subject more vividly to them I have illustrated it pictorially, using much of my material as it was originally produced, though inar- tistic ; some of the portraits, for instance, being from photo- graphs of old and somewhat defaced canvases, which could not have been reengraved without impairing their character, and many of the minor illustrations from ancient books printed when wood engraving was a rude art. In my treatment of oppo- nents I hope that I have not held them in too light esteem, fully realizing that what we often believe to be principles and valorously battle for, not infrequently turn out to be but opinions, and that beyond them may be a wide field of debat- able ground. What I have written, however, is the result of conviction founded upon judgment. If this is deficient it should be apparent to the reader. James Phinney Baxter. Portland, Maine, 191 5. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION To my Critics: When I wrote The Greatest of Literary Problems, I was hoping to escape the charge of offensive dogmatism, inasmuch as, when expressing my own opinion upon a point at issue, I was careful to observe that I submitted it to the judgment of my reader, and acknowledged in my Preface that I realized that what we often believe to be principles for which we val- orously battle, not infrequently turn out to be but opinions beyond which may be a wide field of debatable ground. In- stead, however, of yielding me the credit of at least an at- tempt to be fair, some irreconcilable opponents of my thesis have bestowed upon me names unworthy to be applied, by any wayfarer in this world of doubt, to another. To those who have resorted to abuse and caviled at trivial points in my treatment of what I believe to be an important subject, I make no rejoinder, hoping that eventually they will give it due attention and show, if possible, wherein I have erred in my exposition of it. It is to those open-minded students who have really read my book and expressed approval of its "first three hundred and ninety pages or so," but disapproval of those treating of Bacon's authorship of works which have been accredited to others, and especially of ciphers, that I address myself. I doubt if they have sufficiently considered the fact that Francis Bacon was the inventor of a cipher for concealing messages in books, which he has described in his De Augmentis Scien- tiarum, and that there has been published a large body of literary matter, comprising historical and dramatic works, as well as an English version of the Iliad, which it is claimed were found concealed in cipher, not only in Bacon's acknowl- edged works, but also in the first "Shakespeare" Folio. This ix PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION claim is either true, a fake, or a delusion. Partisans for or against will not determine this, but scholars, who will find their most attractive field in the Iliad should it be published in full, with cipher illustrations, and a lucid exposition of the method of extracting the cipher from the works in which it is claimed to be concealed. In attempting to present to my readers an exhaustive study of my subject, it was necessary that I should devote due space to ciphers, and I am hoping that my unprejudiced readers will carefully reexamine this part of The Greatest of Literary Problems. It is interesting to note the constantly increas- ing attention which is being given to Bacon's authorship of the "Shakespeare" works. A department of The Riverbank Research Laboratories of Geneva, Illinois, among its other work has begun an investigation of Bacon's " Biliteral Cipher in his Philosophical Works," and those bearing the name "Shakespeare." The information gathered in this branch of research is being used for the instruction of students, and several of the principal educational institutions of the coun- try have been invited to send representatives to Chicago, free of expense to them, for the purpose of examining the work which has already been accomplished. A local school with several scholarships has been established for students, with a correspondence branch for those who desire to study at home, and a prize of five hundred dollars off^ered for the three best dissertations on one or more phases of the subject. Moreover, "The Academy of Baconian Literature" has been incorporated, and a course of illustrated lectures on " Ciphers •in Elizabethan Literature" is to be delivered in various cities in the United States. James Phinney Baxter Mackworth Island, 191 7 • CONTENTS Prologue xix Why and how the Shakspere-Bacon Controversy came about I i The Setting of the Stage i The Elizabethan Age and its Influence in shaping the Thoughts and Acts of the Men of the Time II The Theme 19 The Greatest Birth of Time — The " Shakespeare" Works and how they have been regarded by Commentators and Critics m The Ghost of Hamlet 32 William Shakspere of Stratford — In London — His Favorite Role IV The Greatest of Literary Problems .... 65 All that is known of him and supposed to be known of him — An Attempt to ascertain if the Author's Face shows in his Off- spring — As seen by Contemporaries — The Quartos — The Folios — Henslowe's Diary — Plays excluded from First Folio — Second, Third, and Fourth Folios — Blind Guides V A Study of other *' Shakespeare'' Plays . . . 163 Do they reflect the same Face? VI Mythical Relics 224 A Criticism of all the Relics in Existence accredited to the Actor with Comparative Illustrations xi CONTENTS VII A Crucial Question 269 An Essay in Graphology — Facsimiles from Will and other Documents — A Critic criticized, etc. VIII Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, Baron Verulam OF Verulam 297 A Review of his Life from the Various Angles of his Biogra- phers from Rawley to Spedding — His Role — The Promus — The Northumberland Manuscript IX The Sonnets 378 The Great Assizes holden in Parnassus X The Rose Cross 392 A Study of the Cult and its Bearing on the Secret of Bacon's Life XI Symbolism 405 What it was and the Use it anciently performed — Water- Marks — Cryptograms — Title-Pages — Anagrams — Acros- tics XII Anonymous and Pseudonymous Authorship . . .436 Edmund Spenser XIII A Literary Syncrisis 464 Peele — The Arraignment of Paris — David and Bethsabe XIV Masks 479 Robert Greene — Christopher Marlowe — Thomas Kyd — Burton xii CONTENTS XV Thumb Marks 489 Curious Proofs determining the Authorship of the "Shake- speare" Works XVI Ciphers 521 The Word-Cipher — Method of Applying — The Biliteral Cipher — The Ciphers in Bacon's Works — The"Argenis" — Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex — The Queen's Ring Epilogue . . . . • 615 A Summary showing where the Actor and the Courtier were, and what they were doing at Stated Periods of their Lives Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . 633 Index 665 ILLUSTRATIONS Elizabeth Tudor Frontispiece The Droeshout, The Felton, The Chandos, The Janssen Shakspere 229 The Ashbourne, The Grafton, The Zucchero, The Sanders Shakspere . 235 The Zoust, The Stratford, The Eli House, The Flower Shakspere 237 The Jennings, The Burn, The Winstanley, The Bel- mont Hall Shakspere 239 Shakspere Marriage Picture 241 The Becker and Stratford Death Masks . . . 243 Original Bust, Dugdale; Rowe; Present Bust . . 245 Overlaid Portraits of the Actor and Bacon . 249, 251 Inscription on the Tombstone ..... 252, 522 Stratford House, 1788; 1806; 1834; 1847; 1914 . 253, 255, 257 The Seal Ring 263 The Furness Gloves 264 Shakspere Signatures 269 Separate Letters in the Four Authentic Signatures 270 Alternate Lines from Bacon's Promus and Mon- taigne's Essays 273 Specimens of Bacon's Handwriting . . . . 274 Facsimile Signature of the Actor and Nicholas . 275 Facsimile Exhibits from the Will . . . 279-81-83 Facsimile of Signatures of Francis Collins . . 288 ILLUSTRATIONS Bacon's Italian Signature ...... 294 Francis Bacon at Twelve; at Eighteen; at Middle Age 297 Facsimile of Seal of Thomas Bushell . . .336 Title-Page of Northumberland MSS 372 Effigy on Bacon's Tomb 377 Title-Page Great Assizes 387 Dramatis Persons 389 Paper Marks, Cryptic Head-Pieces . . . 409,412 Time revealing Truth 415 Fortune casting down the Actor 416 Emblem of the Hand and Curtain 417 Title-Page Cryptomenytices 418 Cipher Key . . 419 Facsimile Title-Page in Bacon's Henry VII . . 420 Facsimile Title-Page in Montaigne's Essays . . 422 Facsimile Title-Page in Sermones Fideles, 1641 . 424 Facsimile Title-Page in De Augmentis, 1645 . . 425 Bacon's Notes to Plato, compared with his Notes in Montaigne's Essays, 1588 . ,. . . . . 423 Nemesis with Bridle 424 Title-Page to Spenser Folio of 1611 . . . . 427 Spenser's Tomb .... 442 Portraits of Spenser (the Kinnoull; the Wilson) . 460 Title-Page Bright's Melancholy 487 Map of Bohemia i6th Century 495 In Dies Meliora 517 Bacon's Alphabet in Two Letters .... 531-32 xvi ILLUSTRATIONS The "I.M." Poem, infolding Bacon's Message, Fac- simile 534 The Same with German Message infolded by Author 538 Enlarged Letters of the Two Fonts found in the Poem 539 Enlarged Alphabet of the Two Fonts found in the DiGGEs' Poem 540 Sonnets xxxii, xxxvi, xxxviii, with Poem in Cipher INFOLDED 54i~43 Mallock's Illustrations 576, 578 Robert Devereux 593 Robert Dudley 595 Inscription in Beauchamp Tower 611 The Warner and Queen's Rings 614 Colophon 631 Note to Bibliography in Bacon's Own Biformed Alpha- ' BET USED in HIS De AuGMENTIS, INFOLDING CiPHER Message 634 PROLOGUE It was a custom of old to introduce a play with a prologue, in which was struck the keynote of the theme, to attune the sympathies of the auditors to the scheme of the drama about to be unfolded to view; so I venture to follow the ancient fashion, since All the world 's a stage And all the men and women merely players. The action of our drama lies within the meager compass of a half-century, between the meridian splendor of the last Tudor reign and the waning of that of the first Stuart, a period crowded with events of more real import to the English race than any other in its annals. It was an era of feudal splendor — emblazoned banners — plumes — purple and cloth of gold — the glint and clangor of steel — ruthless emblems of auto- cratic rule. It was, too, one of cruelty and corruption; of an illiteracy hampered by a rude jargon of popular speech, the survival of a less civilized age. As the pageant in imagination sweeps on before our eyes amid the moil and murk of the streets, riding high on the tumultuous waves of applause from the mob, in whose shadowy minds it seemed a realization of the visions of old romance, of which they had glimpses in filthy inn-yards, and the low theaters in the purlieus of Shore- ditch and Moor-fields, we wonder if this tinsel can be trans- muted into gold, this rude speech transformed into the ex- pression of a divine ideal. Outside of these hopeless conditions, rumors of wars, of Jesuit plots, of Scotch intrigues, filled the public mind with apprehension of evil; for there was no time when the black shadow of Spain's mailed hand did not dim the glow of English firesides; no time in which the suspicion of French xix PROLOGUE dissimulation did not give edge to the fears of an entente with the ogre of the Escurial. Yet this epoch had its heroes — Drake, who through fire and blood encompassed the world ; Gilbert, who sang his swan song amid tempest and gloom, triumphant in the thought that heaven was as near him as in his beloved Devonshire; Fro- bisher, who drove his frail keel through the ice-locked portals of Boreal seas ; and scores of others, who, on sea and land, proved the invincible courage of the English heart. Those in power, however, paid them scant heed, and they played their great roles, and made their exits, leaving no deep impress upon the minds of their contemporaries, except, perhaps, Drake, who struck Spain such a staggering blow that it stirred the enthusiasm of his phlegmatic countrymen, though his stingy sovereign haggled over its cost. However imperfect and inadequate this outline of a remark- able epoch, it seems beyond credence that it held a capability of reformation ; yet it is true that during its existence a remark- able transformation took place in the thought and expression of the English mind. The language of Tudor England, defiled by the barbarisms of a rude age, began to purge itself of its crudities, and to enrich its vocabulary with new vehicles of thought, giving it flexibility, and enlarging its scope of expres- sion. To realize what was accomplished within the brief period we have named, it will be suggestive to compare the King James version of one of the psalms, or Bacon's "New Atlantis,'' with this excerpt from the dedication of a poem to Lord Wilton in 1576, by George Gascoigne, one of the fore- most literary men of his day: — I haue loytered (my lorde) I confesse, I haue lien streaking me (like a lubber) when the sunne did shine, and now striue al in vaine to loade the carte when it raineth. I regarded not my comelynes in the May-moone of my yvthe, and yet now I stand prinking me in the glasse when the crowes feete Is growen vnder mine eie. XX PROLOGUE Or this from a letter of Queen Elizabeth in 1594: — What danger it bredes a king to glorifie to hie and to soudanly a boy of yeres and counduict, whos untimely age for discretion bredes rasche consent to undesent actions. Suche speke or the way, and attempt or the considar. The waight of a kingly state is of more poix than the shalownis of a rasche yonge mans hed can waigh, therfor I trust that the causeles zele that you have borne the hed of this presumption shal rather cary you to extirpe so ingratius a roote, in finding so sowre fruite to springe of your many favors ivel-acquited, rather than to suffer your goodnis to be abused with his many skusis for coulors of his good men- ings.^ We may well inquire how this change was inaugurated and carried to a successful issue. It could not have sprung up and come to fruition by dissociated individual effort. A presiding genius was required to foster and direct its growth. Across the Channel it was Ronsard, who, designing to regenerate the language of France, and perpetuate it in his own literary pro- ductions, associated with himself others whom he encouraged to like effort. Who in England could have undertaken this great work .? What was its beginning ? If we attune our ear to distinguish amid the prevailing dissonance its primal note, we shall unmistakably trace it to the oaten pipe of the gentle Colin, whose haunting melody holds our attention, and, following these strains with awakening sense, we shall hear them reechoed until they culminate in that symphony of the greatest master of poetic numbers, the author of "Lucrece," of "Hamlet," and of the "Sonnets." When, however, we seek the inspired mortals, whom we are told caught the sweet strains of the artless Shepherd, and came singing down the shining steeps of Olympus with a di- vine message to ennoble their fellowmen, we find them in dens of infamy, the tippling-shop, the gambling-hell, the brothel, and are moved to exclaim, — Such a paradox is monstrous ; ^ Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI, p. 109. Bruce, London, 1849. xxi PROLOGUE God does not ordain the vilest among men to be his messen- gers of peace and enlightenment to mankind : — and, certainly, the men to whom our pretentious guides have introduced us were among the vilest of their kind. No wonder the world is awakening to the necessity of a higher criticism than that with which it has hitherto been cloyed, and turning to one incomparable genius, who, voicing the primal strains of the Renaissance in Tudor England, bore them on with ever- swelling majesty to the close of the grand symphony which ended with his life. This great genius I hope to show was Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Albans. Time was when I should have dismissed this thesis with impatience, but I am hoping that my readers will weigh the evidence I adduce before condemning me as a mere theorist. It will be objected at the outset that Bacon could not have written that great body of philosophy, the "Shakespeare" Works, and others to which we have alluded, and have had any time left to perform his political duties, to say nothing of the common affairs of life. To answer this I cite his habit of utilizing his time, even its moments. Those intimately associ- ated with him witness to this. Says Rawley: *'He would ever interlace a moderate relaxation of his mind with his studies, as walking or taking the air abroad in his coach, or some other befitting recreation." ^ Boener and Bushell, both his amanuenses, give like testi- mony. His great philosophical works were written in an incomparably short space of time, while he was in great mental distress. Says Rawley: "The last five years of his life — he employed wholly in contemplation and study — in which time he composed the greatest part of his books and writings, both in English and Latin." ^ His public duties, apparently uncongenial, occupied but a small portion of his time, so that the much longer time which this man of ceaseless activity had to devote to more congenial 1 Rawley's Life^ p. 48. ^ Ibid.^ p. 43. xxii I PROLOGUE pursuits becomes an argument in favor of his occupation in other than philosophical fields of labor. Any one who will carefully study his various Lives will be convinced that he had ample time to produce all the works which have been ascribed to him, not excepting the poems and plays known as the "Shakespeare" Works. If it were necessary I could cite many examples of voluminous authorship. For a single instance, Thomas Heywood, a contemporary, claimed to be the author of two hundred plays besides much other literary work. There are thirty-six in the Folio. That it was a common custom for authors to use the names or initials of others on their productions cannot be questioned. Books, too, were often falsely dated. The author of "The Arte of English Poesie," published in 1589, says: "I know very many notable Gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it agayne, or els sujffred it to be publisht without their owne names to it, as if it were a dis- credit for a Gentleman to seeme learned, and to shew himself amorous of any learned Art." Henry Cuffe, a scholar of distinction, not wishing to use his own name on a manuscript, sent it to a correspondent to ask Greville to permit him to publish it with his initials, and told his correspondent in case of refusal to print it with the initials R. B., which, he said, "some no doubt will interpret to be Beale." "The Historic of the Life and Death of Mary Stuart Queene of Scotland" was published in 1624, and the dedication bore the name of the supposed author, Wil Stranguage. In 1636, in a second edition, the same dedication bore the name W. Udall. Among the books which once masqueraded under assumed names, many still survive, and their ghostly authors grin at us behind their false masks so nicely adjusted to them by the editors of biographical dictionaries. Early in life I began reading the "Shakespeare" Works, very likely as the reader did, for amusement, and in time came xxiii PROLOGUE to realize, as no doubt the reader did, that they were written for instruction, the amusement serving as a lure to lead the mind by pleasant paths to loftier regions of philosophic thought. This revelation of a loftier motive than amusement in these remarkable works inevitably awakens in all a desire to become acquainted with their author. The result is disap- pointment. How, it is asked, is it possible that a strolling player to an ignorant rabble in inn-yards, or the London theater as it is described, could have been inspired with the ambition to promote an advancement of learning? This has been the question of reflective minds the world over, and they have recorded their opinions. Said the German critic, Schlegel, in 1808, "Generally speak- ing I consider all that has been said about him personally to be a mere fable, a blind extravagant error." And Samuel Taylor Coleridge, in 18 11, "What! are we to have miracles in sport? Does God choose idiots by whom to convey divine truths to man?" Benjamin Disraeli wrote, in 1837: "*And who is Shake- speare,' said Cadurcis. — Did he write half the plays attrib- uted to him ? Did he ever write a single whole play ? I doubt it." And Ralph Waldo Emerson declared in 1838, that he could not "marry" him "to his verse," characterizing his life as "obscure and profane." ^ Said Joseph Hart, in 1848: "He was not the mate of the literary characters of his day, and none knew it better than himself. It is a fraud upon the world to thrust his surreptitious fame upon us. The in- quiry will be. Who were the able literary men who wrote the dramas imputed to him ? " And William H. Furness,^ in 1866 : " I am one of the many who have never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare and the plays of Shake- speare within a planetary space of each other; are there any two things in the world more incongruous? Had the plays ^ Representative Men^ p. 215. Boston, 1866. 2 The father of the literary eheniste. xxiv I PROLOGUE come down to us anonymously, had the labor of discover- ing the author been imposed upon after generations, I think we could have found no one of that day but F. Bacon to whom to assign the crown. In this case it would have been resting now on his head by almost common consent?" Said Edwin P. Whipple, in 1869: "To this individuality we tack on a universal genius, which is about as reasonable as it would be to take the controlling power of gravity from the sun and attach it to one of the asteroids." And Cardinal Newman, in 1870: "What do we know of Shakespeare? Is he much more than a name, vox et prceterea nihil ? " The same year James Russell Lowell wrote: "Nobody believes any longer that immediate inspiration is possible in modern times; and yet everybody seems to take it for granted of this one man Shake- speare"; and so on; Gervinus, Hawthorne, Ruggles, Dickens, Holmes, Walt Whitman, Professor Winchell, Whittier, Park- man; it would require a large volume to record all the testi- mony of this nature, and I adduce the foregoing to show that more than a century ago, students of the "Shakespeare" Works, sjeeking an acquaintance with the Stratford actor, realized how impossible it was for him to have been their author. This feeling extended until the question was pressed, in 1848, "Who were the able literary men who wrote the dramas imputed to him?" It was evident to most critics that in spite of some differences of style they were the product of one mind. Who, then, was this great literary genius ? A new interest was awakened in Elizabethan literature. Naturally the search began with dramatists and poets; Marlowe for a time was discussed and dropped; so were others. Deeper students, realizing that the poetic gems in the works which charmed so many were strung on a precious thread of philosophy, sought a poet among the philosophers, having taken a hint from Sydney who said: "The philosophers of Greece durst not a long time appear to the world but under the mask of poets. So Thales, Empedocles, and Parmenides sang their national XXV PROLOGUE philosophy in verse. So did Pythagoras and PhocyHdes their moral counsels." At this juncture Spedding's work on Bacon was published, in which it was seen that the great philosopher applied to him- self the now famous phrase, "A concealed poet"; and from this time attention was focused upon him, and the sentiment of thousands outside the influence of the Stratford cult, that there was but one man in England to whom the authorship of the "Shakespeare" Works could be assigned, became convic- tion. Spedding's work was published in 1857, and it was in this year that Delia Bacon in America, and William Henry Smith in England, simultaneously published the two pioneer works which opened the case of Bacon vs, Shakspere.^ Doubtless many had long entertained the opinions then made public, but withheld them, unwilling to face the storm of ridicule and abuse which threatened their announcement. Smith says that he formed his opinions twenty years before publishing them, and no doubt Miss Bacon had matured her views long before giving them to the world. She was a woman of remarkable intellect, a profound scholar, and merits a high place among the literary women of America ; yet she and Smith, as well as Holmes, Mrs. Pott, Reed, and other faithful and conscien- tious students who have followed them, have been viciously assailed by those interested in Shaksperian books as authors, owners of copyright, their friends, and would-be friends ; in fact, they have suffered the usual martyrdom of advocates of new truth by our modern Ephesians. Said Lee, "Why should Baconian theorists have any follow- ing outside lunatic asylums ?" Dana, "The Mattoid flourishes in America because we have so large a proportion of half- * The spelling of the actor's name is^so variable that we give, in all quo- tations, the forms found in them. When referring to him we use the form adopted by Knight, " Shakspere," or the term " actor." When speaking of the "Works," we use the form " Shakespeare," as it appeared on the title-page of the First Folio. xxvi PROLOGUE educated minds/' Churton Collins, "And so this epidemic spreads till it has now assumed the proportions, and many of the characteristics of the Middle Ages/' A writer in the "Literary World" calls Mr. Reed's scholarly books, "A posi- tive disgrace to literature/' Brandes says, "A troop of less n than half-educated people have put forth the doctrine that Shakespeare did not write the plays and poems attributed to him. Here it has fallen into the hands of raw Americans and fanatical women." Elze, "The so-called Bacon Theory is a disease of the same species as table-turning." Townsend, "Dirty work requires its peculiar instruments." The "Athe- naeum," "Mr. Smith denies the appropriation of Miss Delia Bacon's theory. The question may be of slight importance which of two individuals first conceived a crazy notion." Fumivall wrote to Reed, "Providence is merciful, and the U.S. folk are tolerant; you'd have been strung up on the near- est lamp-post else"; and Stapfer sneeringly alluded to it as "The famous paradox brought forward from time to time by some lunatic." Engel stigmatized Baconians as "Orthodox- minded lunatics, distinguished from such as tenant asylums in that they are still at large. People of this brain-sick habit, maniacs, are as hard to convince of their error ^s they who imagine themselves God Almighty, or the Emperor of China, or the Pope"; and said White, "When symptoms of the v Bacon-Shakspere craze manifest themselves, the patient should be immediately carried off to an asylum, etc."; and Robertson, in this year of grace, is nearly as vitriolic, yet his book, "The Baconian Heresy," is but an apology for a defense of his thesis. I could quote a number as vulgar as the following from a writer in the New York "Herald," who signs his name, B.J .A. : "The idea of robbing the world of Shakespeare for such a stiff, legal-headed old jackass as Bacon, is a modern invention of fools." There is no hope for men who treat fellow students in any xxvii PROLOGUE field of literary labor in this manner. The charge they make against them is lunacy, and, especially, lack of scholarship; both words are favorites with them ; yet Disraeli, Gervinus, Hawthorne, Judge Nathaniel Holmes, Lowell, Dickens, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Massey, Gladstone, Winchell, Whittier, Professor Cantor, Judge Wilde, and many others who have expressed opinions adverse to these monopolists of scholar- ship, occupy quite as high rank in the world of letters as they ; indeed, when we examine the work of the Stratfordian revil- ers, we are astounded at its character and lack of accuracy. Probably in all literature there is no more faulty work to be found than in their treatment of the "Shakespeare" Works, from Rowe to Lee, as I expect to show. It is probable that having laid myself so fully open to query, I shall be asked whether I also am able to swallow what several of the gentle- men I have quoted denominate "The Cipher fraud.*' In reply, as my object is to present to the critical reader a view of the Bacon-Shakspere controversy in its varied aspects, I shall not fail to treat this branch of the subject in its proper place ; but were I to omit doing so, I am hoping that the reader will find the evidence produced to be far more than needed to sustain the thesis I advocate. Should I be right or wrong in harboring this hope, I shall be especially grateful to receive the reader's opinion frankly expressed. I was asked by a friend why I had devoted so much time and thought to this subject, and he frankly remarked that to him it seemed to be of questionable importance, since we had the "Shakespeare" Works, and need not care who wrote them. Lest others be of the same mind, I will say that I replied to him that we owe an immense debt to the author of these works which we cannot afford to ignore by shirking the question of their authorship ; that it is a question of the great- est literary importance, and simple justice demands that it be settled righteously, if possible. Whether I have contributed toward accomplishing this the reader must judge. In the xxviii PROLOGUE elucidation of my subject I have carefully studied and com- pared the work of the various authors and critics who have written upon it, — the earliest editions of pre-Stuart and Stuart works bearing upon it ; the letters and works of Bacon ; the annals and correspondence, as well as the literature of the period, — and assure my readers that they do not have sec- ond-hand quotations in any case. I have supplied footnotes for their ready verification. All quotations from the "Shake- speare" Works are taken from the Folio of 1623, or the Quartos preceding it. One of the studies to which I devoted much labor and research very early in my work, and prepared for the press, I recently found had been treated by an excellent writer, and several phrases used by him are so near my own that it might appear that I had been inspired by his more recent work. I have not thought it necessary to change these expressions inasmuch as I have presented the subject much more exhaus- tively, and students, in our day, realize that men pursuing the same course of thought may fall quite naturally into similar forms of expression. My endeavor has been to meet all worthy arguments which have been urged against Bacon's authorship of the *' Shakespeare" Works, that the reader may have a clear view of the greatest of Literary Problems. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS I THE SETTING OF THE STAGE THE ELIZABETHAN AGE The reign of Elizabeth is one of the strikingly picturesque pages of history. The last of the Tudors, that family of royal despots who had ruled England with a heavy hand for eight}^- three years, she came to the throne, we might well say by chance, if we regarded only the letter of history, and over- looked its Providential aspects, when the English people were yet striving to emerge from barbarity. This is instanced by the deplorable condition of society as disclosed by the annals oF the time. The reigns of Henry VIII and of his elder daughter, who by her harsh rule earned the title of " Bloody Mary," have been pictured grimly in English annals, while the reign of his younger daughter, Elizabeth, who had inherited the few better traits of her father, as well as most of his numerous bad ones, has been colored too brightly by writers who have been dazzled by its brilliancy. Her family had come to reign in England as conquerors, and their ideal of government was the mailed hand and the supple knee. All the conditions existing , at their advent favored despotic rule. With an ignorant and turbulent populace, no other seemed possible, and it soon became more oppressive than autocratic rule in Russia has been within the past century. The nobility monopolized the wealth and power of the realm, though the more numerous I THE GPEATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS middle class, in spite of the obstacles of caste and custom which opposed it, was slowly attaining vantage-ground. The common people had no rights which they dared assert, and for the most part quietly submitted to their superiors, while those in official life held their positions by tenures too weak to permit them much repose, for they were ever conscious that they might at any time be cast out in disgrace by a caprice of their royal master, or through the machinations of those who had gained his ear. To question the absolute power of the monarch was trea- son. Sir Thomas More, statesman, jurist, and Lord Chan- cellor, went to the block because his conscience would not permit him to acknowledge the King's supremacy where it involved illegal divorce from his Queen, and an arbitrary change in the succession, as well as the Chancellor's own renunciation of one of his deepest rooted religious tenets. Said James I, "The absolute prerogative of the Crown is no subject for the tongue of a lawyer. It is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a King can do, or say that a King cannot do this or that." ^ All men are the creatures of heredity and environment, and the fruit of their endeavors, if it escapes final blight, is colored and flavored by them ; hence, it was but natural that Eliza- beth, sired as she was, and reared to maturity in an atmos- phere of tyranny, should have had an invincible faith in the dogma of the divine right of monarchs to rule as they willed, and should have regarded official life as wholly dependent upon servile subservience to political necessity, that illusive but convenient phrase which has been thought to excuse the violation of human rights. In the Tudor family she was simply a dependent young woman without future prospects beyond those of other noble families, and she could have cherished no reasonable expecta- tion of ever reaching the throne. Her brother Edward suc- 1 His Majestie's Speach in the Starre Chamber. Robert Barker, London. 2 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE ceeded her father, and after a reign of six years gave place to her sister Mary, who, married to the Spanish Phihp, seemed certain to have heirs, even if she did not outhve her, for with a sister jealous of her every movement, and ready to suspect her of treason upon the slightest pretext, Elizabeth's chance of life was none too promising. She had given her family ample cause for distrusting her by a scandalous affair with Lord Seymour when in her sixteenth year. Says Lingard: "Seymour's attentions to the princess were remarked, and their familiarity was so undisguised that it awakened the jealousy of his wife by whom he was one day surprised with Elizabeth in his arms." Shortly after the wife conveniently died, her death being " attributed to poison," and we are told that he "redoubled his court to the princess; her governess was bribed, her own affections were won." From the testimony of Elizabeth's governess, "the reluc- tant Mrs. Ashley," as Lingard calls her, *St appears that the courtship was not conducted in the most delicate manner. The moment he was up, he would hasten to Elizabeth's chamber, * in his night gown and barelegged ' : if she were still in bed, *he would put open the curteyns and make as though he wold come at her, and she would go farther in the bed, so that he could not come at her.' " ^ The wife of the Spanish minister, Feria, an English lady, was one of Queen Mary's household, and on Elizabeth's acces- sion went to Spain, where she resided until her death in 1612. In her "Life" is the following relating to the Princess Eliza- beth: — A great lady who knew her very well, being a girl of twelve or thirteen, told me that she was proud and disdainful. ... In King Edward's time what passed between the Lord Admiral, Sir Thomas Seymour, and her, Dr. Latimer preached in a ser- mon, and was chief cause that the Parliament condemned the Admiral. There was a bruit of a child born and miserably 1 John Lingard, The History of England, vol. v, pp. 273, 274. Boston, 1883. 3 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS destroyed, but could not be discovered whose it was, only the report of the midwife who was brought from her house blindfold thither, and so returned, saw nothing in the house while she was there but a candle light, only she said it was the child of a very fair young lady.^ It seems that a clandestine marriage was planned, "her governess v^as bribed, her own affections were won," when it was realized that Elizabeth by such a marriage would forfeit her right to the succession. Parliament was therefore applied to. Elizabeth in a letter to the protector informed him of Seymour's proposal of marriage, and to a report that she was pregnant declared it to be " a shameful schandler." There is much more on this unsavory subject, but we have already quoted too much. In the summer of 1554, for supposed sympathy with the claims of Lady Jane Grey to the throne, she was thrown into the Tower, that gateway to the block, with Robert Dudley, whom she had known from childhood, and to whom she had shown marked favor at her brother's court. He was noted for his fascinating personality, and she would have been only too glad to marry him had he not been encumbered with a wife whom history affirms he subsequently disposed of in the hope of such a consummation; indeed, immediately following his wife's death, Elizabeth announced her intention of so doing, which prompted the Queen of Scots to declare that — "The Queen of England was about to marry her horse-keeper [he was master of horse], who had killed his wife to make a place for her." ^ After a life so disheartening as Elizabeth's had been, to be suddenly and unexpectedly elevated to almost unlimited power was an event which must have seemed to her miracu- lous, as it did to her friends. The kingdom at the time was menaced by dangers from all ^ The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, p. 83. London, 1887. ^ James Anthony Froude, M.A., History of England, vol. vii, p. 303. New York, 1867. THE SETTING OF THE STAGE sides: at home by civil strife embittered by religious differ- ences; on the Scotch border by plots and political disturb- ances; in Ireland by persistent rebellion; abroad by Rome, sullen and anxious for her humiliation; by France racially hostile and ever ready to do her an ill turn ; by Spain, proud of her power, and confident in her destiny to extend it ultimately over the world ; — these were the perils which Elizabeth faced when, dazzled by the pomp and glitter of her coronation, and intoxicated by the plaudits of the people, she ascended the throne. The effect may be imagined. Young, impulsive, with passions none too firmly held in check, she was gracious and imperious by turns, smiling on a handsome suitor, or dismiss- ing an offending courtier with, perhaps, a blow. Yet she per- mitted herself to be moulded to some extent by those about her who had chafed under the oppression of her predecessors ; men whose minds, perhaps, had felt the vivifying influence of the Renaissance of France and Italy, which England had been backward in receiving. There is no wonder that the knightly blood of England warmed to this attractive woman, who possessed a sparkling wit and an education above the average of her time, which enabled her to use it to the best advantage; nor that the adventurous and romantic spirits of the realm rallied about her, ready to dedicate their lives to her service. No man could have secured such whole-hearted devotion, as well she knew, and fickle and wise by turns, she was clever enough to keep the helm, and, with a skilful navigator like Burghley ever at her elbow to give her the proper instruction, she man- aged to guide the Ship of State safely through storm and calm, and win the title of "Good Queen Bess." Yet "good" is far from the proper title for a woman, selfish, vain, extravagant, cruel, and despotic, all of which she was. As in the heart of Henry VIII, so in that of his daughter, who delighted in her inheritance of kindred traits, the power of love always suc- cumbed in the end to the love of power. Quite naturally she THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PI^OBLEMS sympathized with the enthusiasts who gathered about her; even at times encouraged their progressive views, and looked kindly upon the Protestant cause which was affected by the mania, as it was regarded by those in power, of free thought ; but she had inherited the tyrannical disposition of her father, and readily turned a friendly ear to the ultra-conservative opinions of Burghley, and those to whom innovation of any kind bordered closely upon Ihe majeste. Yet she gave some encouragement to a progressive spirit, which exhibited itself in commercial and maritime enterprise, and made possible the hope of a humanistic awakening. But Tudor despotism was so deeply embedded in the laws, and its spirit so colored the opinions and shaped the customs of the people, that free thought could not find open expression safely; hence the dreamers of reform were unable to promulgate openly the views which they believed would emancipate the people finally from the stupefying influence of prejudice and custom which distorted their intellectual vision, for it seems beyond question that at no time during the reign of Eliza- beth, an open advocacy of reform which pointed to larger liberty of the subject in thought and action would not have been construed as touching the question of supremacy, which meant treason with its terrible penalties; indeed, the suspi- cion of treason, a word so elastic as to be stretched to almost any desired length, was ever in the air, and he whom it reached, though innocent, often had the bitter experience of rack, dungeon, and peine forte et dure, things which in process of time had become so familiar as not to disturb the social conscience. Even to express one's opinion upon questions of govern- mental policy, or to publish a history of a preceding reign which could be distorted into a reflection upon her govern- ment, was dangerous. For publishing a pamphlet opposing the French marriage, John Stubbs and Robert Page had their right hands severed at the wrist with a butcher knife and 6 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE mallet.^ Sydney was banished for the same offense, and Hay- ward, author of the "Annals," for pubHshing the first part of the history of Henry IV, was sent to the Tower, and would have gone to the block had not Bacon saved him from Eliza- beth's fury by his wit. "But," says Bruce, "although thus kindly sheltered from personal outrage, he suffered a long imprisonment." ^ Men were subjected to severe punishment on the slightest occasion. For so small a matter as kissing the Pope's toe. Sir John Danvers, returning from a journey from Italy, was subjected by Elizabeth to imprisonment. While torture was not recognized by law in the reign of Elizabeth, she seems to have regarded it as one of her prerogatives. Its worst result was the extortion of false evidence against the innocent by increasing the suffering of the poor victim until his testimony was satisfactory. About 1580 it was cruelly used against the Catholics to convict them of saying mass and exercising other religious rites. The cruelty of Elizabeth was especially exhib- ited in obtaining evidence against Norfolk. This was her order to Sir Thomas Smith, one of her councilors, respecting two witnesses, — "We warrant you to cause them both to be brought to the rack and first to move them with fear thereof to deal plainly in their answers ; and if that shall not move them, then you shall cause them to be put to the rack, and to find the taste thereof until they shall deal more plainly, or until you shall think meet." ^ Of Elizabeth's personality but little of a favorable character can be said. No woman could be more vacillating or more unreasonably stubborn than she, traits which often imperiled the realm, and put the patience of her ministers to the severest strain. Vain of her fancied beauty, — for, if her most flatter- ing portrait is true, she was but ordinarily fair, — she at all 1 William Camden, History of Elizabeth, p. 270. London, 1688. 2 Sir John Hayward, Kt., D.C.L., Annals of Queen Elizabeth, p. xiv. London, 1840. 3 The Trial of Norfolk, p. 27. 7 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS times, even when old and ugly, demanded the most fulsome adulation from those about her, seeming to enjoy the amorous sighs and suggestive sufferings ostentatiously displayed by her favorites, whom she petted and punished as the whim prompted ; in fact, it is doubtful if reflections upon her beauty would not have caused them to "hop round without their heads," to quote one of her cruel expressions. She seems to have inherited all the violence and vindictiveness of her father. Her cruelty to Mary, Queen of Scots ; to Arundel, a former suitor, and his wife ; as well as to the Roman Catholics who comprised more than half of her subjects, indicates this. That she was an expert in the tortuous diplomacy of the time appears by the manner in which she avoided trouble with Spain by dangling her heart before Philip, while Burghley, at suitable intervals, sprung upon him the French jack-in-the- box. Her private life was a continual scandal. Though we have so little respecting this phase of her character, it is almost strange that we have so much, since the corrupt back- ground of her court failed to give it distinction, and to have criticized it would have been perilous, indeed. The Spanish ambassador, Le Feria, wrote his sovereign, April i8, 1559: — They tell me that she is enamoured of Lord Robert Dudley and never leaves his side. He is in such favor that people say she visits him in his chamber day and night. ^ It was rumored — seemingly on Lord Robert's own authority — that some private but formal betrothal had passed between the Queen and himself.^ And Throgmorton wrote to Cecil from Paris: — The bruits be so brim, touching the marriage of the Lord Robert, and the death of his wife, that I know not where to turn me, nor what countenance to bear.^ 1 MSS. Simancas; Froude, vol. vii, p. 87. 2 Froude, vol. vii, p. 297. ^ Hardwicke Papers, vol. I, p. 121. 8 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE And Sir Henry Sydney told the Bishop of Aquila that The Queen and Lord Robert were lovers: but they intended honest marriage.^ On January 22, 1561, the Bishop wrote: — Some say she is a mother aheady but this I do not beHeve.^ Was she really married to Dudley? When certain letters of the Bishop of Aquila fell into the hands of Cecil, and he was charged with having written Philip, "That the Queen had previously married Lord Robert in the Earl of Pembroke's house," he replied : — I wrote what I said to the Queen herself, that it was reported all over London that the marriage had then taken place. She betrayed neither surprise nor displeasure at my words. Had I so pleased I might have written ail this to his Majesty; nor do I think I should have done wrong had I told him the World's belief that she was married already.^ If this were true it would account for her persistent fenc- ing with matrimonial adventurers, and her deep attachment to Dudley which dominated her during her life, and drove Burghley to the verge of distraction. In spite of her sordid parsimony, which on several occasions imperiled the safety of the nation, she was as lavish to him as she was in gratifying her personal extravagance which was carried to extremes. It is stated that she left at her death "more than 2000 gowns with all things answerable." ^ Nothing could excel the costliness of her wardrobe, many of her dresses being adorned with pearls and other gems. To her most loyal subjects, — and we may mention as conspicu- ous examples Burghley and Drake, — she showed little gen- erosity, and many of them, by their costly gifts to her, which * Froude, vol. vii, p. 316. ^ /h'J., p. 320. ^ MSS. Simancas ; Froude, vol. vii, p. 414. ^ Sir John Harrington, Kt., Nugcz Antiques^ vol. i, p. 119. London, 1804. 9 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS to hold her favor they felt obliged to bestow, and by their expenditures in her service which she never troubled herself to reimburse, were brought to poverty. Her parsimony, perhaps, may be accounted for partly by the fact that when she assumed rule the nation was in dire poverty, and only by the supreme efforts of Burghley was it saved from bankruptcy. Doubtless he deeply impressed upon the young Queen, who had lived a straitened life, the necessity of economy, a virtue which she had hitherto been obliged to practice herself, and now found it easy to practice upon others, while, prompted by inordinate selfishness, she indulged to the limit her passion for luxury and display. On Dudley, however, in spite of acts which bitterly angered her, she heaped favors until his death in 1588 when on his way from camp after the defeat of the Armada. Says Lingard, "Only the week before his death he prevailed on her to promise him a much larger share of the royal author- ity than had ever, in such circumstances, been conferred on a subject," and "If tears are a proof of affection, those shed by the Queen on this occasion showed that hers was seated deeply in the heart." ^ To recur to the belief in their sexual relations: In 1560, Anna Dowe, of Brentford, was the first of a long line of offenders to be sent to prison for asserting that Elizabeth was with child by Dudley; in 1563, Robert Brooke, of Devizes, was punished for a like offense; and in 1570, Marsham, a Norfolk gentleman, lost his ears for saying that "My Lord of Leicester had two children by the Queen." As only occasional cases got recorded, it is apparent that they continued for a period of at least ten years. In 1571, twelve years after her accession, Parliament was invoked to make it a penal offense to speak of any other successor to the Crown of England than the natural issue of the Queen. The popular feeling with regard to Elizabeth's connection with ^ Lingard, vol. vi, p. 516 et seq, 10 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE Leicester on that occasion is well expressed by Camden. He says, "I myself . . . have heard some oftentimes say, that the word was inserted into the Act of purpose by Leicester, that it might one day obtrude upon the English some Bastard son of his for the Queen's natural issue." ^ It was contended that the term "natural" distinctly meant a birth out of wedlock, and that "lawful" was the only proper term to have been used. There is much more upon this subject which shows beyond doubt the relations of Elizabeth and Dudley; indeed, they were quite fully set forth in a book by John Barclay, published in Latin in 1621, entitled the "Argenis," to which attention will be given hereafter, when our object in treating particu- larly of these relations will appear. Though the Queen was known to be a lover of letters, espe- dally of poetry and the drama, a large portion of her subjects were incapable of sympathizing with her in this regard. Opposition to the theater was especially active, and players were held in disrepute. This feeling became so strong that in 1575 they were banished from London proper and obliged to set up their stage in the suburbs. A fierce controversy respecting the dangerous influence of dramatic exhibitions upon public morals followed, and when Philip Stubbes's denunciation of "Stage Plays and their Evils" was published, it broke out afresh, and engaging the attention of Sergeant- at-Law Fleetwood, who was then active in ferreting out Popish plots, for which service he earned the honor he coveted of being made Sergeant to the Queen, he turned his attention to the players, and was soon able to write to Burghley as follows : — By searche I do perceive that there is no one thing of late more lyke to have renewed this contagion of treason then the prac- tice of an idle sorte of people which have been infamous in all good common-weales, I mean those histriones, common players, ^ William Camden, Elizabeth, p. 167. II THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS who now daylie but speciallye on holydayes, set up boothes whereunto the youthe resorteth excessively, and there taketh infection.^ In 1583, it was thought best still further to tighten the screws. Archbishop Grindal, who was supposed to have too tender a heart, and had been sequestered from his archi- episcopal functions, died, and his successor, who had already displayed his harsh spirit, was at once empowered by the Queen to send inquisitors throughout the country in imita- tion of her Spanish neighbors, "To visit and reform all errors, heresies, schisms, in a word, to regulate all opinion," and to use all "Means and ways which they could devise; that is, by the rack, by torture, by inquisition, by imprisonment." To achieve their purpose, they could go to any person and "Administer to him an oath called 'ex officio^ by which he was bound to answer all questions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself or his most intimate friend."^ Verily it was an age in which social vice and theological piety were bedfellows. This oath was intended to strike terror into the hearts of all whose opinions were not strictly in accord- ance with those of their rulers. Players, Roman Catholics, and supposed practicers of magic art, felt the first force of the storm. The following letter from the Bishop of London to Secretary Cecil shows the measures taken against the theaters : — Upon Sondaie, my Lord sent two aldermen to the court for the suppressing and pulling downe of the theartre and curten, for all the Lords agreed thereunto save my Lord Chamberlayn and Mr. Vice-Chamberlayn; but we obtayned a letter to suppress them all.^ To carry out the measures adopted against Papists and those suspected of witchcraft, oflficers, denominated "witch- ^ Thomas Wright, M.A., F.S.A., Queen Elizabeth and Her Times, vol. i, p. 166 et seq. London, 1838. 2 David Hume, The History of England, vol. vi, pp. 152-54. London, 1803. ' Thomas Wright, ihid., vol. 11, p. 228. 12 ■ THE SETTING OF THE STAGE finders/' were employed to go about the country to find sus- pects. Witnesses, either to ingratiate themselves with the officers or to pay off grudges against neighbors or for pecu- niary profit, were ever at hand to aid these villains, many of whom were of the vilest character, and hundreds of innocent people were cruelly tortured and executed upon the flimsiest pretext; many for only having moles and other blemishes upon their persons. The portrait of Matthew Hopkins, " Witchfinder General," is still preserved at Magdalen College. So prevalent was the belief in witchcraft that in a sermon before the Queen Bishop Jewel used these words: — It may please Your Grace to understand that witches, sorcer- ers, within these last few years are marvelously increased within Your Grace's realm. Your Grace's subjects pine away even unto death. Their colour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft. I pray God they never prac- tise further than upon the Subject.^ Nothing better could have been devised to inflame the public mind, and the fever continued throughout the reign of Elizabeth and her successor, the "English Solomon,'' who wrote a book in support of the belief in witchcraft. The Roman Catholics fared as hardly. Camden, writing of the distrust of their loyalty in 1584, gives us a description of the methods employed to ferret them out. He says : — Counterfeit letters were privily sent in the name of the Queen of Scots and the Fugitives, and left In Papists' Houses; spies were sent abroad up and down the Countrey to take notice of People's Discourse and lay hold of their words. Reporters of vain and idle stories were admitted and credited. Hereupon many were brought into Suspicion.^ We may well believe that these were among the common methods for the suppression of independent thought em- ployed during this reign. ^ John Strype, M.A., Annals of the Reformation, vol. i, p. ii. Oxford, 1824. ^ William Camden, Elizabeth, p. 294. London, 1688. 13 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS But the current of human progress, though often obstructed and turned aside, eventually washes away its barriers and pursues its predestined course. A religious faith could not be extirpated, nor could the drama be suppressed, for it was too deeply rooted in the affections of the people. It was, however, into the London already described that William Shakspere came after a disreputable life in Stratford and began his struggle for existence. At this time the popular interest in dramatic exhibitions was on the increase, and the writers of the time were attracted by the promise which the future offered them in the field of histrionic art. The plays then on the stage are fairly well described by Sydney: — All their plays be neither right tragedies nor right comedies, mingling kings and clowns, not because the matter so carrieth, but thrust in the clown by head and shoulders to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion; so* as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sport- fulness, is by their mongrel tragi-comedy obtained.^ Such plays as "King Darius," ** Promos and Cassandra," "Ferrex and Porrex," and, especially, "A pleasant comedie called Common Conditions," delighted the play-goers of the early reign of Elizabeth. English literature since Chaucer's time had produced no great name. Those who could read English or Italian de- pended principally upon the foreign romance for their literary delectation. Of course the Arthurian romances and many old legendary tales had come down from remote times, and were read by the few who were proficient in the gentle art ; but the masses were debarred from such recreation, being unable to read. London, with a population of hardly two hundred thou- sand, reeked with filth and disease, as faulty in sanitary con- ditions as the worst Oriental city of to-day. Carrion kites served to clean the streets ; floors were covered with rushes to ^ The Library of Old English Prose Writers, vol. ii, p. 75. Cambridge, 1812. 14 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE hide the dirt, but not the smell, so the people carried "cast- ing bottles" containing perfumes to make the air endurable. Its inhabitants were so vicious and degraded that they flocked to witness the brutal executions which were of daily occurrence, railing and jeering at the victims, and finding delight in sports too cruel for description. The Queen, says Goadby, "dispite her culture, used terrible oaths, round and full ; she stamped her feet, she thrust about her with a sword, she spat upon her attendants, and behaved as the French said, like 'a lioness.'" ^ The theaters were sinks of corruption to which gravitated, if we may credit the Mayor of London's report in 1597, "thieves, horse stealers, whoremongers, cozeners, coney catchers, contrivers of treason, and other idle and dangerous persons." ^ The actors were not much above the moral level of their patrons, "base and common fellows," according to the students of Gray's Inn ; and to escape the penalty of the law against unlicensed players, which, for the first offense, con- demned them to be "grievously whipped and burnte through the gristle of the right eare with an hot yron of the compasse of an ynch aboute," and for a third offense to suffer death, they were obliged to become servants to some one in power, under whose name and protection they plied their trade. Of course, no respectable woman could enter these "filthie haunts," as they were designated by Harvey, in which the customs of those frequenting them were unspeakably vulgar and obscene ; hence they were the resort of the vilest women of the town, which added to their degradation. The reign of Elizabeth had passed its meridian when two events happened which marked a new epoch in literature. The "Euphues," forerunner of the English novel, appeared, and a few months later, in 1579, "The Shepherd's Calendar," harbinger of an illustrious era of English poetry, dropped ^ Edwin Goadby, The England of Shakespeare^ p. 126. London, 1881. 2 J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 214. London, 1882. IS THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS anonymously into being, as it were from the clouds. These two events ushered in the glorious day of England's Renais- sance. From this date, despite social strife, war and rumors of war, the new day advanced in splendor; the gentle Colin retuned his oaten pipe, and sang the joy of home-coming; "The Faerie Queene," "Venus and Adonis," and "Lucrece" thrilled English hearts in hall and palace ; above all, dramatic art felt the quickening impulse, and works of a new order, many anonymous, and many under the names of hitherto unknown men, — Marlowe, dead at twenty-nine in a brawl ; Greene, at thirty-two from a debauch; Peele, before forty, from an unspeakable disease; and when these had finished their course, similar works, bearing the name ''Shakespeare," imparted new life to the theater. We say similar works, be- cause these men to-day lead the van in the history of the great literary revival of the sixteenth century, and the works accredited to them, some certainly without warrant, are marked by the same expressions, display a knowledge of the same literary sources, and publish to the world the same lofty sentiments; in fact, this has been so fully recognized that critics, almost without exception, have declared that they collaborated or duplicated the work of one another. That they should have done so unconsciously exceeds the limits of reason. We are confining our view to these men because they ap- pear so early in the movement. There were others who fell into line during the forty or more years of its especial activity, and got their names on the Roll of Remembrance — Dray- ton, Nash, Lodge, Dekker, He5rwood, Sidney, Massinger, Fletcher, Kyd, Webster, Ben Jonson, and others ; some with slight reason. This, however, is not a history of English literature ; that has been written more or less acceptably by Hallam, Sy- monds, Saintsbury, Lee; and we mention these writers only i6 THE SETTING OF THE STAGE in recognition of their place in the Hterary movement of which we have spoken. All must agree that it would be interesting to know who was really the moving spirit in this great movement. Across the Channel it was Ronsard who initiated and directed the French Renaissance. In England it has been accredited to Spenser, who was a poor exile in Ireland; it is quite evident that the men we have named were incapable of doing it. Who was the English Ronsard? Does he reveal himself in the " Shepherd's Calendar" or the "Shakespeare" Works.? These are questions which demand consideration, and they find sug- gestions to their solution in the criticisms, blind as many of them are, with which we have been surfeited. In studying the "Shakespeare" Works we cannot fail to be impressed with the persistent purpose which they reveal of enlarging the scope of human thought, and leading the mind to loftier heights of knowledge. Their author reasoned wisely in selecting the drama for this purpose, for by it he could appeal through ear and eye to the common understanding, and open the readiest path to the popular mind, leaving upon it impres- sions less easily effaced than those of the novel. The dramas and poems which comprise these works were unlike anything which had been known heretofore to the English people, being saturated with the loftiest sentiments and the acutest phi- losophy, as well as the profoundest learning. We may well ask. Were these works, which were so far above the intellectual capacity of the patrons of the theater, written for mere gain.? Halliwell-Phillipps, attributing their authorship to the Strat- ford actor, and having an intimate knowledge of his character, asserts that his "sole aim was to please an audience, most of whom were not only illiterate but unable either to read or write"; and Pope crystallizes the same opinion in a verse which everybody has read, that he I For gain, not glory, winged his roving flight And grew immortal in his own dispite. 17 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS But such an opinion of the author of the "Shakespeare" Works involves a paradox. We can conceive of him only as one who, conscious of being entrusted with an important mes- sage to man, makes its delivery his chief object. It is especially with these works that we have to do. II THE THEME THE GREATEST BIRTH OF TIME The "Shakespeare'' Works have been the admiration of lovers of Hterature for nearly three centuries. No other works have attracted to themselves so much conflicting criticism, and so much senseless exaggeration. So widely have commen- tators differed with regard to them that, if their countervailing opinions were eliminated, the residuum would be inconsider- able, and were the ravings of delirious devotees gathered into a single volume, it would be a curious addition to the library of the alienist. We are told that the works were " the Greatest Birth of Time"; ^ that their author was "the only Exemplar of his Species"; that "there is but one Christ, there has been but one Shakespeare"; that "Shakespeare service, if not wor- ship, is now acknowledged over the World"; and a quarto of Sulky proportions has been recently published echoing the praises of devotees during the first century of the world's knowledge of him, which, if continued to our time, would form a library by itself of forbidding magnitude.^ Moreover, an immense body of literature has grown up treating of every phase of the works in question, which, with numerous be-emendated editions, was estimated in 1885 to comprise at least ten thousand volumes. Since that time the 1 The title originated with Bacon, who, as early as 1586, "put together," as he says, "A youthful essay — which, with vast confidence, I called by the high- sounding title. The Greatest Birth of Time." Dean Church remarks upon this, — " In very truth the child was born, and, ... for forty years grew and developed." R. W. Church, Bacon, p. 170. New York, 1884. 2 C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse, London, 1879. Frederick J. Furnivall, M.A., Some Three Hundred Fresh Allusions to Shake- speare. London, 1886. C. M. Ingleby et al., The Shakespeare Allusion Book. New York and London, 1909. 19 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS number has largely increased. Some of these works possess elements of real value, but all are more or less misleading. Let us briefly quote from several. Their author's knowledge is said to have been incomparable, and a volume of nearly five hundred pages has been given to the world crowded with biblical excerpts which profess to find a parallel in his works. Referring to the Stratford actor this author asserts that Whatever else the poet had or lacked, he must have brought to his work a mind richly stored with the thoughts and words of the English Bible. The spontaneous flow of scriptural ideas and phrases which are to be found everywhere in the plays, reveals the fact most clearly that the mind of Shakespeare must have, indeed, been "saturated" with the word of God. And, if this knowledge of Scripture was acquired in man- hood — The presumption would be in favor of Shakespeare's personal piety ; if in youth, it would be a strong testimony in favor of the religious influences of his home and the training given by his parents and schoolmasters.^ Some writers carry adulation to much greater extremes. Says Downing: — I see no sign that the most enlightened religious views of the present were any secret to Shakespeare. The position of supreme enlightenment, amid the wars, murders, massacres, mutual per- secutions, barbarous controversies and jargonings, that then devastated the world, in the name of a generally misunderstood religion, must have been very moving to the heart of Shakespeare, since it was hopeless for him to attempt to breathe one syllable of the wisdom that would have redeemed the world from its mad- ness and unhappiness. To develope and reconstruct Christianity in the light of the Reformation and Renaissance, this about the year 1598, 1 infer from all the evidence, became the great purpose and life work of Shakespeare; to be achieved, first, by living the developed life himself for our example; secondly, by certain symbolical works, namely: — "The Sonnets," already largely 1 Thomas Carter, Dr. TheoL, Shakespeare and Holy Scripture , pp. 3, 4. London, 1905. 20 THE THEME composed and ready to his shaping hand, and those which subse- quently took form as "The Tempest," "Winter's Tale," and "Cymbeline." These were to veil, till the fulness of time, his pregnant ideas of the Development and Reconstruction, together with himself as the necessary central figure and Messianic Personality of the Scene. ^ And again : — I will show that the profane Actor was a Holy Prophet. "Nay, I say unto thee more than a Prophet," the Messiah. Heine, a Hebrew, first spoke of Stratford as the northern Bethlehem ; I will show that Heine spoke no more than he knew.^ Before leaving this branch of our subject, — his religious nature, — it may be well to remark that the author of "Shakespeare and Holy Scripture," in which hundreds of passages from the "Shakespeare" Works are paralleled by passages from the Bible, finds a rival in the author of " Shake- speare's Relation to Montaigne,"^ who parallels many of the same passages by others in the celebrated Frenchman's Essays. We had selected a number of examples of these parallels between Shakspere and Holy Scripture with cor- responding ones from Montaigne, in order to show to what extremes such efforts may be carried ; but, to avoid prolixity, omit them. The author of the "Shakespeare" Works, we are told, was a great lawyer. Says Lord Campbell: — Having concluded my examination of Shakespeare's juridical phrases and forensic allusions, on the retrospect, I am amazed not only by their number, but by the accuracy and propriety with which they are uniformly introduced. There is nothing so 1 Charles Downing, The Messiahship of Shakespeare, pp. ii, 104, 113. London, 1900. Cf. Rev. Dr. Scadding, Shakespeare the Seer — The Interpreter^ etc., p. 53 et seq. Toronto, 1864. 2 Clelia, God in Shakespeare, p. 15. London, 1890. 3 Charles H. Grandgent, The Relation of Shakespeare to Montaigne. Balti- more, 1902. Cf. The Long Disiderated Knowledge, etc., of Shakespeare, ibid. London, n. d. 21 A- THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS dangerous as for one not of the craft to tamper with our free- masonry.^ And Judge Wilde, one of the first of English jurists : — The writer of the Shakespeare plays possessed a perfect famil- iarity with not only the principles, axioms, and maxims, but the technicalities of English law, a knowledge so perfect and intimate that he was never incorrect and never at fault. ^ And Richard Grant White declares: — No dramatist of the time, not even Beaumont, who was the younger son of a judge of the Common Pleas, and who, after studying in the Inns of Court, abandoned law for the drama, used legal phrases with Shakespeare's readiness and exactness — legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his vocabulary, and parcel of his thought.^ So impressed was Malone with this, and with the impossi- bility of reconciling such knowledge with the known literary equipment of the actor, that he ventured upon the absurdity of guessing that before leaving Stratford he had studied law in company with Francis Collins who subsequently made his will.^ The knowledge of legal terms, and the apt way in which they are applied in the Works are, indeed, remarkable. The following are but few of the instances : — Double Vouchers, Fee, Entail, ^Edificium, Credit sole. Rever- sion, Enfeoffed, Fine and Recovery, In capite. Deed of Gift, Conveyance, Mortgage and Lease, Succession, Uses and Trusts, Covenants, Tripartite Indentures, Recognizances, Forfeiture, Statutes, Bonds, Absque hoc. Acquittance, Jointure, Indictment, Arraignment, Accessory, Bail, To Enlarge, The Form of Oath, * John Lord Campbell, Shakespeare^ s Legal Acquirements y etc., p. 127. Lon- don, 1859. 2 Rt. Hon. Sir James Plaisted Wilde, Baron Penzance, A Judicial Summing Up, p. 83. London, 1902. ^ Richard Grant White, The Works of William Shakespeare, pp. xlv, xlvii. Boston, 1865. * Edmund Malone, Esq., The Plays and Poems 0/ William Shakespeare, vol. II, p. 108. London, 1821. 22 THE THEME Appeal, Nonsuit, Defender, Libel, Precedent, Repeal, Impanelled Quest, Tenants, etc., etc. Reversion : — As were our England in reversion his. Richard II, i, 4. Enfeoffed: — Enfeoffed himselfe to Popularitle. Henry IV^ iii, 2, In capite : — Men shall hold of me in capite. Henry F, iv, 7. Extent: — Make an extent upon his house and land. Js You Like It, iii, i. Lease and Determination : — So should that beauty which you hold in lease Find no determination. Sonnet xiii. In Use, Trust: — The other half in use to render it Upon his death unto this gentleman. Merchant of Venice, iv, i. Succession — Intestate : — Airy succeeders to intestate joys. Richard III, iv, 4. Indentures tripartite : — Indentures tripartite — sealed interchangeably. Henry IV, iii, i. Specialties and Covenants : — Let specialties be therefore drawn between us That covenants may be kept on either hand. Taming of the Shrew, 11, i. Serving Precepts : — Those precepts cannot be served. Henry IV, v, I. 23 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Campbell quotes the following from "King Lear" to show in what a technical manner legal phraseology is employed in the plays : — And of my land Loyal and natural boy, I'll work the means To make thee capable. He also calls attention to an ancient custom, mentioned in "The Winter's Tale/' which he thinks was known only to members of the legal profession, of prisoners paying fees upon being discharged from custody.^ The quotation is as follows : — Force me to keep you as a prisoner so you shall pay your fees When you depart, etc. And to the technical expression of commitment to prison : — I'll lay ye all By the heels suddenly. Henry VIII, v, 4. These are but a few examples of the knowledge of legal procedure, and the technical phraseology employed by men learned in the practice of law, which are to be found in the plays. We are also told that the author of the plays, by whom is meant the actor, devoted himself to the study of medicines, that "his maladies are many, and the symptoms very well defined. Diseases of the nervous system seem to have been a favorite study, especially insanity";^ and "We confess, almost with shame, that although near two centuries and a half have passed since Shakespeare thus wrote, we have very little to add to his method of treating the insane" f moreover, he "paid more attention to the practice of medicine than to ^ Lord John Campbell, Legal Acquirements y etc., p. 127. 2 B. Rush Field, M.D., Medical Thoughts of Shakespeare^ pp. 10, 13, 49, 59, 86. Easton, Pa., 1885. ^ A. O. Kellogg, M.D., Shakespeare^ s Delineations oj Insanity^ Imbecility ^ and Suicide, p. 3. New York, 1856. Cf. D'Arcy Power, F.S.A., William Harvey y etc. New York, 1897. John Redman Coxe, M.D., An Inquiry into the Claims oj, etc. Philadelphia, 1834. 24 THE THEME surgery"; and the reason given for this is that in his time "surgery had not reached its present perfection," but that '' a more probable reason may have been that his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, from whom it is said he probably received his medical education, may not have been a surgeon." Perhaps it is well to note that Dr. Hall did not become the actor's son-in-law until 1607, after the plays noted were writ- ten, especially "Hamlet," in which this knowledge is conspicu- ously displayed, and that, as he was but thirty-one at this time, he could have been but eleven years old at most when his future father-in-law left Stratford for London, where his biographers claimed he lived until after his daughter's mar- riage. It is true that the author of the "Shakespeare" Works was versed surprisingly well in the science of disease ; indeed, he exhibits at times a knowledge of diseases and their treatment possessed only by the best medical students of his day. Nor is this knowledge comprised within narrow limits, but embraces the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and secretory systems; of fevers, of the action of medicine, of surgery, fecundation, pregnancy, and even of the circulation of the blood. He puts these words into the mouth of one of his charac- ters : — Tis knowne I ever have studied Physicke; ^ Through which secret Art, by turning ore Authorities, I have togeather with my practice, made famyliar, To me and to my ayde, the best infusions that dwels In Vegetives, in Mettals, Stones; and can speak of Disturbances that Nature works, and of her cures; Which doth give me more content in course of true delight Then to be thirsty after tottering honour, or Tie my pleasure up in silken Bagges To please the Foole and death. Pericles^ iii, 2. * This is suggestive of the same remark by Bacon, "I have been puddering with physic all my life." 25 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS An Opiate: — There is No clanger in what shew of death it makes, More than the locking up the Spirits a time, To be more fresh, reviving. Cymbeline, I, 6. Value of Sleep: — Our foster Nurse of Nature, is repose, The which he lacks; that to provoke in him Are many Simples operative, whose power Will close the eye of Anguish. Lear, iv, 4. I ago. My Lord is falne into an Epilepsie This is his second Fit; he had one yesterday. Cas. Rub him about the Temples. lago. The Lethargie must have his quyet course. Othello, IV, I. Sciatica: — Thou cold Sciatica Cripple our Senators, that their limbes may halt As lamely as their Manners. Timon of Athens, iv, i. Tremor Cordis : — I have Tremor Cordis on me; my heart daunces. The Winter^ s Tale, i, 2. Pleurisy : — For goodnes, growing to a plurisie. Dies in his owne too-much. Hamlet, iv, 7. Leprosy : — Gold! Yellow, glittering, precious Gold? This yellow Slave, Will knit and breake Religions, blesse th' accurst Make the hoare Leprosie ador'd. Timon 0} Athens, iv, 3. Ague : — Home without Bootes And in foule Weather too. How scapes he Agues ? Henry IF, iii, i. 26 THE THEME Rheumatism: — Rheumatick diseases doe abound And through this distemperature, we see The seasons alter. A Midsummer Nighfs Dream, ii, I. Insanity: — And he repulsed. A Short Tale to make Fell into a Sadnesse: then into a Fast Thence to a Watch, thence into a Weaknesse, Thence to a Lightnesse, and by this declension Into the Madnesse whereon now he raves. Hamlet, ii, 2. Apoplexy : — Peace is a very Apoplexy, Lethargie, mulled, deafe, sleepe, Insensible. Coriolanus, iv, 5. Consumption : — Consumptions sowe In hollow bones of man, strike their sharpe shinnes, And marre mens spurring. Timon 0} Athens, iv, 3. Drugs: — I have bought The Oyle, the Balsamum, and Aqua-vitae. Comedy of Errors, iv, I. It is a significant fact that several of the plays reflect Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood, which was not given to the world until 1628, twelve years after the death of the actor. The following excerpts support the theory that the author of the plays had a preexistent knowledge of Harvey's theory: — My heart The Fountaine from which my currant runnes Or else dries up. Othello, IV, 2. Your pulsidge beats as extraordinarily as heart would desire. Henry IF, Part II, 11, 4. 27 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS I send it through the Rivers of your Blood Even to the Court, the Heart, to th' seate o' th' Braine, And through the Crankes (windings) and Offices of man The strongest Nerves, and small inferiour Veines From me receive that naturall competencie Whereby they live. CoriolanuSy i, i. It is proper to remark that Bacon was a friend of Harvey, and often must have discussed with him his then novel theory. On one occasion the doctor paid the philosopher the witty compliment that he "wrote philosophy like a Lord Chan- cellor." The amusing old gossip, Aubrey, imagined that the remark was intended to be derisive, missing the better mean- ing that a Lord Chancellor stood for the highest authority. The scientific knowledge possessed by the author of the "Shakespeare" Works, especially of natural history, has been commented upon, and a large volume has been published with a reprint of portions of works on natural history of his time. We are informed in the preface that "The plan of the book is to give some illustration of each word mentioned by Shak- spere, when there is nothing remarkable to be noted about it. The term 'natural history' has been taken in its widest sense, as including not only fauna but flora, as well as some precious stones." ^ The perusal of this book shows us how intimate a knowledge of the natural history of his age was possessed by the author of the " Shakespeare" Works, but no more so than the works themselves, and adds too little to our knowledge to require extended comment. His knowledge of gardens and plants was wide, and a book of nearly four hundred pages embellished with a frontispiece of an ideal "New Place," and sumptuous garden, which in the actor's day would have set Stratford wild, has already passed through three editions. The author of this work, introduces his subject to us in his 1 H. W. Seager, M.B., Natural History in Shakespeare^ s Time, p. 5. London, 1886. 28 THE THEME preface, as "A soldier, a sailor, a lawyer, an astronomer, a physician, a divine, a printer, an actor, a courtier, a sports- man, an angler," and he adds, " I know not what else besides" ; and he tells us, too, that "He gathers flowers" for us from the "turfy mountains" and the "flat meads"; from the "bosky acres" and the "unshrubbed down"; from "rose banks" and "hedges even pleached." But he is equally at home in the gardens of the country gentlemen with their "pleached bow- ers and leafy orchards." Nor is he a stranger to gardens of much higher pretension, "for he will pick us famous Straw- berries from the garden of my Lord of Elgin in Holborn ; he will pick us White and Red roses from the garden of the Temple ; and he will pick us Apricoks from the Royal garden of Richard the Second's sad queen." ^ That he was a musical genius and "allied himself to the Divine Art," a musical critic declares. " Few of the readers of Shakespeare," he says, "are aware of how much of his musical material can be traced home; many are unable to fol- low some of the poet's most subtle metaphors because they are unfamiliar with the musical works to which he refers, or with the song or melody which enriches the scene." ^ These examples of the marvelous genius of the author of the "Shakespeare" Works, perhaps ought to be sufficient, but our patience is daily abused by writers perniciously active in making discoveries of new ones which they thrust upon us in tedious books. As, for instance, we are gravely informed by one author that he had a penchant for astronomy ; ^ by another that he was accomplished in the art piscatorical;^ and yet another presents him to us as an equestrian, "riding along the 1 Henry N. Ellacombe, M.A., The Plant Lore and Garden Craft of Shake- speare, pp. xi, xiv, XV. Cf. Leonard Holmesworthe, William Shakespeare's Botanical Knowledge, Leamington Spa, 1906. S. Beisley, Shakespeare's Garden, London, 1864. 2 Louis C. Elson, Shakespeare in Music, p. 354. Boston, 1901. 3 Thomas Lane, Shakespeare under the Stars, or his Genius and Works in the Light of Astronomy. London, 1887. * Henry Nicholson Ellacombe, Shakspere as an Angler. London, 1883. 29. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS narrow lanes," and having "from his mother (a gentlewoman be it remembered by birth and breeding) derived the instincts and feelings of a true gentleman, with a taste for art and lit- erature which tempered the bold and manly spirit inherited from his father."^ Really, we can but wonder that Zincke or Holder or some other of the numerous fakers of his "original" portraits did not exhibit him to us on horseback. There is no doubt that the author of the "Shakespeare" Works was a great poet and a great philosopher; that he possessed a mind stored with all the lore of his age, lingual, biblical, legal, scientific, historical, medical, and musical ; in- deed, that he was in power of expression the greatest literary genius that has yet adorned the world of letters ; nor is it an idle claim that there was living in London at the time the works were written, one man, and one man only, who in a large degree exemplified these requirements; a philosopher,^ a "concealed poet," to use his own words ; ^ a learned linguist,^ Biblical student,^ lawyer,^ scientist,^ historian,^ author of treatises on medicine,^ natural history, ^° gardens, ^^ music. ^^ This man was Francis Bacon, who took all knowledge for his province. Most of the sentiments, however, which we have quoted — and we have spared the reader by selecting as few as possible to illustrate our subject — would be the grossest exaggeration if applied to the greatest genius of any age. There is no knowing to what extremes devotees of the ^ C. E., Shakespeare on Horseback, pp. 3-4. 1887. ^ Novum Organum. Spedding, vol. i, pp. 129-93. ' Poesy-part of Learning. Spedding, vol. vi, pp. 202-06; vol. viii, pp. 440-44. * De Augmentis. Spedding, vol. ix, pp. 1 12-14; vol. xii, p. 137. 5 Bacon*s Creed and Essay on Unity. Spedding, vol. xiv, pp. 41-57; vol. xii, pp. 86-92. ® Professional Works. Spedding, vol. xv. ^ De Augmentis Scientiarum. Spedding, vol. 11, p. ill. ^ History of Henry VII. Spedding, vol. xi. ® Advancement of Learning. Spedding, vol. vi, pp. 236-54; vol. ix, pp. 23-47. ^° Natural History. Spedding, vol. viii, pp. 409-18; vol. x, pp. 405-18. ^^ Gardens. Spedding, vol. iv, pp. 354-460. 12 Experiments in consort touching music. Spedding, vol. iv, pp. 225-98. 30 THE THEME Stratfordian cult might have carried their efforts, had not a halt been called by Bacon's introduction to them as a claim- ant to the authorship of "The Greatest Birth of Time." Not only have their unwise panegyrics ceased, but since the light has been turned upon the object of their devotion, they have bent their efforts to the Sisyphean task of proving that he was deficient in the knowledge which they had hitherto ascribed to him; in fact, that it was not the result of study and intel- lectual training, but being the common possession of the time in which he lived he simply helped himself therefrom. It would seem that rightly to avail one's self of such a varied store would require not only a mind "saturated" with knowl- edge, according to Furnivall, but intellectual training of a high degree. Especially do they now disparage the classical and legal erudition displayed in the works which they for- merly extolled. Doubtless, unprejudiced minds will prefer the opinions of Upton, Collins, Baynes, Lord Campbell, Justice Wilde, Judge Holmes, and other eminent scholars and ju- rists, to those of partisans who have shown themselves to be so untrustworthy. Of these we have less hope than of those who deck the object of their devotion with meretricious gar- lands, though we agree with Tolstoy that their "effort to dis- cover in him non-existent merits, thereby destroying aesthetic and ethical understandings, is a great evil, as is every untruth."^ ^ Leo Tolstoy, Shakespeare, p. 6. New York and London, 1906. Ill THE GHOST OF HAMLET WILLIAM SHAKSPERE OF STRATFORD "This is a parlous world," says an old thinker, "because of its errors," and, unhappily, its errors outnumber its truths. Were it not for this, the above title would never have been penned, and the world would have been saved from much distracting controversy; yet an eminent philosopher tells us that there is "A law of compensation universal in its action"; and so even in controversy may we not expect it to serve a beneficent end, since many a precious truth has been picked out of the sludge of dissent ? Whatever the manner in which some have expressed their sentiments with regard to the subject we are now to consider, we can hardly exaggerate the influence which the works bear- ing the name "Shakespeare" have exerted on the English- speaking world. Had not the author of these works been born, Elizabethan literature would have been a failure; in- deed, what the immensity of the loss to the literary world of to-day would have been is beyond conjecture; certainly a greater loss than if Pisistratus had failed to give the Homeric poems to Hellas, important as that act was in quickening the national spirit and uniting the Hellenic peoples. No thought- ful mind can fail to appreciate the inestimable importance of the "Shakespeare" Works to mankind; no heart, which is attuned to the love of genius but desires to become acquainted with the immortal genius who was their author. Yet, strange as it may seem, the paternity of this "Greatest Birth of Time" is in question, and the world is about equally divided upon it ; many holding to the earlier faith that it belongs to the Strat- 32 THE GHOST OF HAMLET ford actor, and others to the later, that it should be ascribed to Francis Bacon. This is a question which demands careful scrutiny, a mind open to conviction, and, to reach a satis- factory conclusion, an intimate acquaintance with the two men, and with their works. We must compare their char- acters, satisfy ourselves whether both are competent to be the author of this prodigy, and whether it reflects the lineaments of both or either. To do this we must apply ourselves to the history of their lives, and, first, to that of the actor; in his case a narrow field which has been ably if unprofitably cul- tivated. Rowe, Steevens, Malone, Knight, Symmons, Halli- well-Phillipps, White, Lee, and many others whom we shall quote in the progress of our study, have labored persistently in it, and have produced results in certain respects worthy of admiration. For present purposes we will consider the bio- graphy by Knight, which forms an entire volume of his volu- minous edition of the "Shakespeare" Works, who, to lend importance to his subject, which he realizes we know little about, devotes ample space at the outset to prove that he was of heroic extraction. To do this it seems necessary to connect him with some important historic event, and so he selects the "22nd of August, 1485," when "There was a battle fought for the crown of England. The battlefield was Bosworth." He then asks this question : — Was there in that victorious army of the Earl of Richmond, which Richard denounced as a " company of traitors, thieves, outlaws, and runagates," an Englishman bearing the name of Chacksper, or Shakespeyre, or Schakespere, or Schakespeire, or Schakspere, or Shakespere, or Shaksper, a martial name, how- ever spelt .^ There certainly ought to have been, but old chronicles, ever so diligently searched, fail, alas! to show the name. But it ought to have been recorded, and though it was not, the name alone should be sufficient to convince the most skeptical of John Shakspere's heroic descent. Of course such a man must 33 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS have a coat of arms, and, referring to the statements made to obtain them, Knight exclaims : — Let it not be said that these statements were the rodomontades of heraldry — honours bestowed for mere mercenary considera- tions upon any pretenders to gentle blood. There was strict in- quiry if they were unworthily bestowed. Two centuries and a half ago such honours were of grave importance, and there is a solem- nity of tone in these very documents. Having satisfied himself that a coat of arms was really be- stowed, he again exclaims : — And so forever after he was no more goodman Shakspere, or John Shakspere, yeoman, but Master Shakspere.^ But we will spare the reader more of these rodomontades. Sufficient has been quoted to show with what facility a bio- grapher may dispose of important questions of genealogy, and confuse readers by a plethora of verbiage. The fact is, the first application for arms by John Shakspere in 1568-69 was fruitless. In 1596, aided by the actor, another application was made, coupled with a request for permission to impale the arms of Mary Arden, his wife. In this case a false statement of her ancestry was made, and so it was held up by the heralds for three years. In 1599, the actor having purchased New Place, another application was made request- ing the recognition of the coat of arms of 1596, and the right of the grantee to impale, and the other members of his family to quarter thereon, the coat of arms of the Ardens of Wilme- cote. At this the heralds again balked, realizing that this influential family would protest against it; and, finally, an Arden family residing in Cheshire was found bearing no rela- tion to the Wilmecote Ardens. The remoteness of this family rendered interference improbable, but it might prove trouble- some, and so the question of an Arden impalement was dropped. The request, however, for recognition was granted. * Charles Knight, William Shakspere. A Biography, pp. 3-8, New York, i860. 34 THE GHOST OF HAMLET This irregular procedure aroused criticism, and objections were raised against it on the ground of legalizing an infringement, but nothing was done, and it was subsequently used by the family. This is why it has been claimed that a coat of arms to John Shakspere was never legally granted. The proceed- ings connected with these transactions are discreditable to all concerned.^ It is fair to say that nearly every page of Knight's bio- graphy of the actor is pleasing fiction ; indeed. Knight himself is obliged to admit this, for he says : — The two mottoes in the title-page express the principle upon which this Biography has been written. That from Steevens shows, with a self-evident exaggeration of its author, how scanty are the materials for a life of Shakspere properly so called. In- deed, every Life of him must, to a certain extent, be conjectural and all the Lives that have been written are in great part con- jectural. My Biography is only so far more conjectural than any other as regards the form which it assumes; by which it has been endeavored to associate Shakspere with the circumstances around him, in a manner which may fix them in the mind of the reader by exciting his interest.^ The motto from Steevens is as follows : — All that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakspere is, — that he was born at Stratford-upon-Avon, married, and had children there, — went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays, — returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried. This, indeed, is more than is really known of him, yet bio- graphies like Knight's have been composed according to this formula: given a personality, when born and married, occu- pation, if possible, — death can be left out, as it happens to all, — fit this personality into the history of a period, and the result is, if the composer has artistic skill, a biography quite ^ Herald and Genealogist, vol. i, p. 510; Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, vol. I, p. 109, 1886. 2 Charles Knight, William Shakspere. A Biography. Preface. 35 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS satisfactory to the general reader, much more so than an attempt recently made to deduce from the works the veiled life story of their author. Judge Holmes must have had such writers as Knight in mind when he exclaimed : — Does not any man feel an unutterable indignation when he discovers (after long years of thought and study, perhaps) that he has been all the while misled by false instruction, and that, consequently, the primest sources of truth have been left lumber- ing his shelves In neglect while he has been put off and befooled by paltry child's fables.^ Let us, irrespective of the authors we have named, attempt a full exposition of everything of an authentic and even tradi- tional nature in the life of the Stratford actor, though every- thing relating to him has been so often raked over that we would be glad to leave this old straw undisturbed were it not necessary to the substance of this history. At the time of his baptism, April 26, 1564, which following the usual custom would be three days after his birth, the little town of Stratford had a population of about fourteen hundred. The houses, two or three hundred in number, were small, rudely built of mud or wood, and roofed with thatch ; even the few with a pretense to comfort and distinction would be poor enough in our time. These were scattered about with little regularity, as such towns were then built, and here and there were sluggish ditches and turbid pools, unsuspected allies of those mysterious diseases which too often afflicted the simple people. Little regard was paid to the condition of the streets if we may believe the unvarying annals of English towns of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,^ for John, the father of the actor, was indicted in 1552 for maintaining a manure heap in the public street. ^ Nathaniel Holmes, The Authorship of Shakespeare, p. x. New York, 1866. 2 Stuart A. Moore, Letters of John Shillingford, London, 1871. Cf. Mrs. J. R. Green, Town Life in the Fifteenth Century, New York, 1894. Goadby, The England of Shakespeare. 36 THE GHOST OF HAMLET There were in the town a court-leet, a guild and chapel of the Holy Cross, with a free school. The most important building was the church, and this must have added a note of distinction to the place ; besides, to give it a homely aspect, there were simple gardens about the better houses, and on the common land sheep browsed peacefully, and swine scurried about the ban-croft, while not far away were outlying fields and bosky river banks. It was the home of poor but industri- ous folk plying many useful trades, unlettered, of course, as but very few were able to read or write. Such was the actor's father who plied the petty trade of butcher and skinner, or glover, if selling skins made him one. The best thing he did was making a good marriage in 1557 with Mary Arden, who brought him a jointure of one hundred and ten pounds, thir- teen shillings, fourpence, which the poor butcher much needed. True, she was illiterate, unable even to write her name, but neither could her husband. Much has been written of her "gentle birth.'' Halliwell-Phillipps frankly refutes this view and gives a graphic description of the rude surroundings of her home deduced from the inventory of her father's estate.^ This marriage was of the greatest importance to John Shak- spere's future, and gave him distinction among his simple neighbors ; so that from a juror in the little court-leet,^ he was made the year following an ale-taster; in 1558, a burgess; in 1559) a constable; in 1560, an affeeror; ^ in 1561, a chamber- lain; * in 1565, an alderman; and in 1568, a bailiff; ^ but, alas! when his son William was thirteen years of age, John Shak- spere was in financial straits. For some time he was absent from nearly all the meetings of the aldermen, and finally be- came so careless of his public duties that he was deposed from ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 28>^London, 1882. 2 A recorder's court, held annually before the steward of the leet or district. ^ An affeeror determined fines arbitrarily imposed. * A chamberlain was the town treasurer. "^ 5 A bailiff in this case was the highest of the town officials. 37 h THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS office, as appears by the following entry on the Town Rec- ords : — 1586, September 6. At thys halle Wiir Smythe and Richard Cowrte are chosen to be Aldermen in the place of John Wheeler and John Shaxspere for that Mr. Wheeler dothe desyre to be put owt of the companye and Mr. Shaxspere dothe not come to the Halles wheji they be warne'^ nor hath not done of longe tyme.^ He had been distracted by suits for debt, and, according to a writ returned on the 19th of January of the previous year, "He had no goods upon which distraint could be made," and the issuance of a writ oi habeas corpus, March 29, 1584, reveals the fact that he was then in prison. Knight and others try to show that the reason for his son's withdrawal from school at so early an age was not due to his father's poverty, but it seems unnecessary to argue this point. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that what little educa- tion in the humble school of Stratford John Shakspere's son could have obtained, ended in or before 1578. That he at- tended school and assisted his father in slaughtering calves is supported by reasonable traditions which we cannot ignore, for a great deal of history rests upon no securer foundation. These traditions, mere hearsay babble if you please of garrulous greybeards, probably are true in considerable measure. Says John Aubrey, who is supposed to have visited Strat- ford in search of literary material about forty-six years after Shakspere's death : — Mr. WilHam Shakespear was born at Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick. His father was a butcher, and I have been told heretofore by some of the neighbours, that when he was a boy he exercised his father's trade, but when he kill'd a calfe he would do it in a high style, and make a speech. There was at that time another butcher's son in this towne that was held not at all inferior to him for a natural witt, his acquaintance and coetanean, but dyed young. This William being inclined natu- rally to poetry and acting, came to London, I guesse, about 18; ^ Joseph William Gray, Shakespeare^ s Marriage y etc. London, 1905. 38 THE GHOST OF HAMLET and was an actor at one of the playhouses, and did act exceed- ingly well. He was wont to goe to his native countrey once a yeare. I thinke I have been told that he left 2 or 300 /. per annum there and thereabout to a sister. Aubrey has been sharply criticized for looseness of state- ment, not always impartially. While he may have been care- less in his method of gathering traditions of the Stratford actor, he seems to have faithfully recorded them. A good deal that he relates was given him by William Castle, the eighty- year-old clerk, who showed him the bust of the actor and the curious inscription upon his tomb. He had shown them scores of times before with all the grave complacency of the local antiquary, and much that he told his fellow gossip pos- sesses a striking verisimilitude. The story that he and another butcher boy when they killed a calf would imitate the players who delighted the rustic boydom of Stratford with their mock heroics, and mouthed some familiar line, as boys ever have done under suggestive circumstances, has a touch of nature. How natural, as the knife was raised over the victim, for the stage-struck boys to repeat the line that had often thrilled fhem: "Die, wretch, down, down to hell and face thy doom!" Aubrey says he was told that the actor was " a handsome and well shap't man, very good company, and of a very readie and pleasant smooth wit,'' which he illustrates by quoting some doggerel said to have been perpetrated at a village tavern. He also declares that he had "little Latin and lesse Greek," to which others testify, and that he had been in his "younger yeares a schoolmaster in the countrey." ^ The statement that he had been a schoolmaster, as well as the amount of property said to have been left his sister, has been properly enough dis- credited. The Reverend John Ward, who was Vicar of Stratford-on- 1 Andrew Clark, M.A., LL.D., Brief Lives, etc., Set down by John Aubrey, i66q-i6q6, pp. 174, 180, 225-27. Oxford, 1898. 39 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Avon, in notes in a commonplace book written in 1661-62, says : — I have heard y* Mr. Shakespear was a natural wit, without any art at all; hee frequented y^ plays all his younger time, but in his elder days lived at Stratford. Shakespear, Drayton and Ben Johnson had a merrie meeting, and itt seems drank too hard, for Shakespear died of a feavour there contracted.^ The following, written by the Reverend Richard Davies at the beginning of the eighteenth century, presents to us the future actor as Much given to all unluckinesse in stealing venison and Rabbits, particularly from Sir Thomas Lucy who had him oft whip't and sometimes imprisoned and at last made him fly his native coun- try to his great advancem^, but his reveng was so great that he is his Justice Clodpate and calls him a great man, and y' in allusion to his name bore three lowses rampant for his arms . . . He dyed a papist.^ John Dowdall wrote in a letter to Mr. Edward Southwell, dated April 10, 1693 : — The first remarkable place in this country that I visitted, was Stratford-super-Avon, where I saw the effigies of our English tragedian, Mr. Shakspeare: The clarke that shewd me this church is above 80 y*"^ old ; he says that this Shakespear was for- merly in this Towne bound apprentice to a butcher; but that he Run from his master to London & there was Rec"^ into the play house as a serviture & by this meanes had an opportunity to be w^ he afterwards prov'd. He was the best of his family but the male Line is extinguish'd. Not one for feare of the Curse aboves*^ Dare Touch his Grave Stone tho his wife and Daughters Did earnestly Desire to be Layd in the same Grave w^^ him.^ Dowdall's visit to Stratford was very near the time of Aubrey's visit, and the clerk who told him about the dead actor was William Castle. 1 Charles Severn, M.D., Diary of Rev. John Ward, A.M. London, 1839. ^ In notes to the Journal of Rev. Wm. Fulmer, now in Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 3 Traditionary Annecdotes of Shakespeare : Collected in 1693, pp. 11, 12. London, 1838. 40 THE GHOST OF HAMLET Nicholas Rowe prefaces an edition of the "Shakespeare" Works with a Hfe of the Stratford actor; a portion is here given : — He was the Son of Mr. John Shakespear, and was born at Strat- ford-upon-Avon, in Warwickshire, in April, 1564. His father who was a considerable dealer in wool, had so large a family, ten children in all,^ that tho' he was the eldest son, he could give him no better education than his own employment. He had bred him, 't is true, for some time at a free-school, where 't is prob- able he acquir'd that little Latin he was master of: But the nar- rowness of his circumstances, and the want of his assistance at home, forc'd his father to withdraw him from thence, and un- happily prevented his further proficiency in that language. Let us consider the character of this school. Fortunately, so many have raked the field to discover relics, however minute, of the Stratford actor's life, that we have a pretty ac- curate knowledge of what it must have been. The few books which it possessed, according to Phillipps, were, "Lilly's Grammar and a few classical books," chained to the desks, and, like other English schools outside of college towns, it could give only the poorest sort of an education. Roger Ascham, who described such schools in 1571, says that the teaching in them was "mere babblement and motions." Phillipps says, however, that Shakspere "somehow or other was taught to read and write, the necessary preliminaries to admission into the free school"; but he continues: "There were few persons at that time at Stratford-on-Avon, capable of initiating him even into these preparatory accomplish- ments ; as likely as not, the poet received the first rudiments of an education from older boys, who were someway ad- vanced in their school career." ^ Churton Collins attempts by giving us a glimpse of important schools, of which there were a few, a very few, in England in the sixteenth century, to make it appear that the Stratford school was like these. This is wholly misleading as all the best authorities prove. 1 There were but eight. ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 38. 41 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The influence of a school estabUshed for a generation or two would naturally be reflected by the community about it, and judged by this rule, the Stratford school was such as Ascham described, for it has been estimated that not over fifty per- sons in the town in Shakspere's time could read or write, and when it became necessary for the aldermen and most influ- ential burgesses to complete an important public document, but six out of nineteen could sign their names to it ; the other thirteen aflSxed to it their rude marks. This ceases to be re- markable when we learn from Phillipps, whose authority in everything relating to Shaksperiana is acknowledged, that he places the number of books in the town, "exclusive of Bibles, church services, psalters, and educational manuals, at no more than two or three dozen, if so many/' ^ and Richard Grant White thinks this estimate excessive. CoUins's attempt to break the force of the testimony of his abler predecessors is a conspicuous failure. The actor himself did not own a single book when he died, if we may accept the evidence of his will in which everything of value seems to have been mentioned. As books were rare, and especially valuable, they were among the proudest pos- sessions of a testator, and the absence of reference to them in an itemized will sufficiently indicates that he did not own any. To continue Rowe's account : — Upon leaving school he seems to have given intirely into that way of living which his father propos'd to him; and in order to settle in the world after a family manner, he thought fit to marry while he was yet very young. His wife was the daughter of one Hathaway, said to have been a substantial yeoman in the neigh- borhood of Stratford. In this kind of settlement he continued for some time, 'till an extravagance that he was guilty of, forc'd him both out of this country and that way of living which he had taken up : — He had, by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill company ; and amongst them some that made a frequent practice of deer-stealing, engag'd him with them more than once in robbing a park that belong'd to Sir Thomas Lucy of ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 55- 42 k THE GHOST OF HAMLET Charlecot near Stratford. For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought somewhat too severely; and in order to revenge that ill usage he made a ballad upon him. And tho' this probably the first essay of his poetry be lost, yet it is said ^ to have been so very bitter, that it redoubled the prosecution against him to that degree, that he was obliged to leave his busi- ness and family in Warwickshire for some time, and shelter him- self in London. It is at that time and upon this accident that he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the playhouse. He was receiv'd into the company then in being, at first in a very mean rank; but his admirable wit, and the natural turn of it to the stage, soon distinguish'd him, if not as an extraordinary actor, yet as an excellent writer. His name is printed, as the custom was in those times, amongst those of the players, before some old plays, but without any particular account of what sort of parts he used to play; and though I have enquired, I could never meet with any further account of him this way, than that the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet.^ '^ This testimony to Shakspere's inferiority in histrionic ability is further illustrated by Oldys, who, curious as others have been to learn something of the ability of Shakspere as "< an actor, interviewed his aged brother to learn in what parts he had seen him perform. Though he had often attended the theater to which his prosperous relative belonged, the only part the old man remembered to have seen his brother im- personate was that of "a decrepit old man," who, he says, "wore a long beard and appeared so weak and drooping that he was forced to be supported and carried by another person to a table at which he was seated among some company and one of them sung a song." Malone says of this story that it "came originally from Mr. Thomas Jones, of Tarbeck, Worcestershire, who related it, not from one of Shakspere's brothers, but of a relative." ^ 1 "Nicholas Rowe's LijeT in Eighteenth Century Essays, etc., by D. Nichol Smith, M.A., pp. 1-23. Glasgow, 1903. Cf. Some Account of the Life of William Shakespeare, written by Mr. Rowe (Johnson and Steevens), vol. i, pp. 57-132. London, 1803. 2 Edmund Malone, The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, vol. 11, p. 286. London, 1821. Cf. Diary of Rev. John Ward. 43 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS These statements of Rowe and Oldys would seem to indi- cate the range of Shakspere's histrionic talents, and prob- ably account for such remarks as that of the Vicar of Stratford, that his townsman was possessed of " a natural wit without any art at all." Apologists have endeavored to prove that the deer-stealing episode was a tradition unworthy of credence, or, if true, was but an exuberance of youthful spirits ; yet the actor was a married man with a family, and cannot be excused, as Phil- lipps and others have done, by citing similar escapades by college students. If the story is true, the labored arguments to prove that to steal or kill deer on a private estate could not be legally punished are too weak for consideration. As so much has been said about the discovery and printing by Capell and Oldys of the scurrilous verse of the "Ballad," called by Rowe "very bitter," it may be proper to give it a passing glance, though it may not be genuine, for similar verses subsequently found in good Dame Tyler's chest of drawers are without doubt apocryphal. This wretched dog- gerel, if he composed it, reflects no credit upon the actor, and it seems questionable judgment for his admirers to quote it as an example of wit and ability to versify. It is claimed that the "Venus and Adonis" was written about the same time. A parliamente member, a justice of peace, At home a poor scare crow, at London an asse; If lowsie is Lucy, as some volke miscalle it, Then Lucy is lowsie, whatever befalle it; He thinkes himself greate, yet an asse is his state, If Lucy is lowsie, as some volke miscalle it, Sing lowsie is Lucy, whatever befalle it.^ So much has been said about the actor's wit that we may well quote Thomas Fuller, in whose "Worthies," published forty-six years after the actor's death, is this : — Many were the wit-comhates betwixt him and Ben Jonson, which two I behold like a Spanish great Gallion, and an English ^ Severn, Diary of Rev. John Ward. London, 1839. 44 THE GHOST OF HAMLET man-of-War, Master Jonson (like the former) was built far higher in Learning; Solid but slow of performances.^ Fuller long held a high seat in the Stratford biographical arena, but what he wrote was pure imagination, an elabora- tion of Castle's familiar prattle, which is the source of all the traditionary lore relating to the actor that we have quoted, and which, with much repetition, can hardly have suffered loss of pristine color. Fuller never saw the actor, having been born after he left London, and was but eight years old when he died. Writers have enlarged, however, upon this scene, as they have upon the tavern scene in which the actor is said to have helped his friends, Jonson and Combe, construct their epitaphs, thereby exalting traditional anecdotes of a coarse and commonplace nature into illustrations of that wit which irradiates the immortal dramas; such attempts can but indi- cate a faulty literary perspective. Before leaving these local traditions behind, it seems neces- sary to mention Shakspere's crab tree, which was formerly pointed out to Stratford pilgrims, who were told that in the actor's time there was a rivalry between his native town and the adjoining one of Bidford, in both of which were a number of loose livers, some of whom, known as the Bidford topers, challenged those of Stratford to a drinking-match to deter- mine which excelled in bibacious ability. Bidford won, and Shakspere, who was one of the Stratford topers, being unable to get farther on his way home than the famous crab tree, spent the night under its sheltering branches to sleep off the effect of his debauch. Victor Hugo, in an essay on the actor, thus comments upon this episode, "Shakespeare, the drunken savage! savage, yes, but the inhabitant of the virgin forest, drunken, indeed, but 1 Thomas Fuller, D.D., The History of the Worthies of England, p. 126. London, 1662. Editors of the Worthies have taken unwarranted liberties with the text. The above is from the original edition. It has been made to appear that Fuller said that he had beheld these wit-combats. 45 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS with the ideal." Even today a school of critics are asserting with Hugo, against the experience of mankind, that debauch- ery and genius are not incompatible yoke-fellows. A few words about Shakspere's marriage. Under date of November 27, 1582, appears a license of marriage between "William Shaxpere and Anne Wateley, of Temple Grafton," and on the next day, November 28, a similar license to "Wil- liam Shagspere and Anne Hathway, of Stratford-on-Avon." ^ Ithasbeen contended that the butcher's apprentice had taken out a license to marry Anne Whateley, and the fact being found out by the friends of Anne Hathaway, they forced him to take out another license to marry her. There are difficul- ties surrounding this mysterious affair which have never been, and probably never can be, cleared up. It has been contended that there were two William Shaksperes, for there were sev- eral in Warwickshire, and two marriages, but this theory is not borne out by the registers. The most plausible theory is, perhaps, that in the first instance an error was made in the name of "Wateley" and that "Hathway" was intended; yet the fact that here we are faced by the place of residence of "Wateley," namely, "Temple Grafton," ought to dispose of this theory. But to exonerate the actor it is unnecessary to impose upon our credulity the impossible coincidence that there were two persons of the same name, at practically the same time, seeking marriage under the authority of the same bishop, for the bond entered into by the friends of Anne Hathaway specifies that it is given to indemnify the bishop for liability "by reason of any precontract," evidently refer- ring to the Whateley episode. Even were this an error, which it is difficult to believe, however expert apologists may be in fashioning explanations, the marriage was a most irregular affair, and exhibits the future actor in a light far from agree- able. To conform to law he should have had the consent of his parents, especially as he was a minor, but such consent is ^ Joseph William Gray, Shakespeare^ s Marriage. London, 1905. 46 THE GHOST OF HAMLET wanting. Archbishop Whitgift, then Bishop of Worcester, in whose register the marriage hcense of Shakspere and Anne Hathaway appears, was a stickler for regularity in marriages, and two years before had favored the following clause in the Lower House of Convocation: — That there be no dispensation granted for marriage without bans, but under sufficient and large bonds. . . . And, thirdly, that they proceed not to the solemnization of the marriage with- out the consent of parents and governors. This clause did not then obtain the approval of Elizabeth, but, on the Archbishop's translation to Canterbury in 1583, he procured the Queen's sanction to it, which removed all question respecting its importance. The marriage bond bore the name of John Richardson and Fulk Sandells, friends of the bride. It seems strange that the name of neither John Shakspere, nor any of the friends of his son were placed upon the bond. Either he had no responsible friends, or, if he had, they declined the risk of backing him ; for any young man with a modicum of self-respect would have taken pride in securing responsible bondsmen among his relatives or friends. It has been argued that his father did not sign his bond because he had secreted property and feared inquiry, and also that he did not want to take the risk of a suit for damages which might have been brought against him for his son's breach of the law of apprenticeship, and even that he might have given verbal consent to the marriage; but these are mere conjec- tures. It was usual, though there were sometimes careless omissions, to put in the license the occupation of the groom, but this does not appear in this case ; in fact, everything shows haste and an inexcusable disregard of proprieties. We can afford to ignore the "troth plight" fiction, since even Lee has curtly dismissed it. This marriage could hardly be a happy one. Left by her husband for many years after her marriage, Anne Hathaway must have passed a none too happy life. Writers have bit- 47 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS terly criticized him for his treatment of her, and quoted from the plays in support of their contention, while others have un- reasonably blamed her for the necessity of the marriage, on the ground that being older she was more experienced. Her tombstone indicates that she died "The 6th day of August, 1623, being of the age of 67 yeares." This would make her the elder by nearly eight years. That he ignored her in his will, and repudiated a small debt of forty shillings which she had borrowed of a poor " Sheep- herd" of her father, indicates his feelings with regard to her. Says Lee : — ^ There is a likelihood that the poet's wife fared in the poet's absence no better than his father. The only contemporary men- tion of her between her marriage in 1582, and her husband's death in 1616, is as the borrower, at an unascertained date (evi- dently before 1595), of forty shillings from Thomas Whittington, who had formerly been her father's shepherd. The money was unpaid when Whittington died in 1601, and he directed his exe- cutor to recover the sum from the poet and distribute it among the poor of Stratford.^ What a refinement of irony was the bequest by the humble benefactor of this "poet's" neglected wife to the paupers of his native town, and what a quick response it must have aroused in that little community. Phillipps explains the episode of the second-best bed by declaring that she was entitled to dower in his estate, but Lee explodes this explanation as follows : — The name of Shakespeare's wife was omitted from the original draft of the will, but, by an interlineation in the final draft, she received his second-best bed with its furniture. No other be- quest was made her. Several wills of the period have been dis- covered in which a bedstead or other article of furniture formed part of a wife's inheritance, but none, except Shakespeare's, is forthcoming in which a bed forms the sole bequest. At the same time, the precision with which Shakespeare's will accounts for * Sidney Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 187. • 48 THE GHOST OF HAMLET and assigns to other legatees every known item of his property, refutes the conjecture that he had set aside any portion of it under a previous settlement of jointure with a view of making independent provision for his wife.^ In his preface to the "Diary of Rev. John Ward/' the editor, Severn, gives a fictitious account of the death of the actor which doubtless has misled many readers. He says that being ill and apprehending his end, he was visited in January by Jonson and Drayton ; and cheered by their presence he left his bed and joined his convivial friends, "his pale face flushed, his eyes flashed with the rays of genius, the terrors of death are past away, the festive banquet is spread, he is the life of the party, etc., etc." He drinks too much and the result is stated, — "Wine aided the ravages of this cruel fever — low ^^ typhoid." Though it is the immediate cause of death, "it brings no opprobrium on his venerated memory." He thus explains the bequest of the second-best bed to his wife: "The first was reserved for the use of Jonson, Southampton, and the aristocratic Drayton." ^ Says Lee, " Local tradition subse- quently credited her with a wish to be buried in his grave ; and her epitaph proves that she inspired her daughters with genu- ine affection." ^ White is quite as emphatic. In alluding to the disagreeable facts in the actor's life, he naively informs us why his bio- graphers have acknowledged them, and graphically states the case in this wise: "The biographer of Shakespeare must re- "^^ cord these facts, because the literary antiquaries have un- ; earthed, produced and pitilessly printed them as new partic- ulars in the life of Shakespeare. We hunger, and we receive ) these husks; we open our mouths for food, and we break our teeth against these stones." * ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 272. 2 Severn, Diary, etc., pp. 57, 59-69. ^ h^Q, A Life of Shakespeare, ^.27$. 'London, i?>()^. ^ 4 Richard Grant White, The Works of William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. cxxxviii. ^ Boston, 1865. 49 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS IN LONDON We would like to know the exact date of the future actor's flight from Stratford. Phillipps assumes it to have been in 1586-87, soon after the birth of the twins, and we will adopt it as an approximate date, and follow him to London, noting that Phillipps depicts him as "trudging thither on foot by way of Oxford and High Wycombe." His life thus far had been discreditable. Penniless and uneducated, the outlook would have been discouraging to one, the horizon of whose life had not been bounded by the most sordid experience ; but, knowing what we do of him at this time, we need not doubt that he turned his face toward the great city careless of future possibilities. There is a tradition that he found employment at the stables of the elder Burbage. Phillipps connects this employment with the later horse-holding episode thus related by Gibber : — When he came to London, he was without money and friends, and, being a stranger, he knew not to whom to apply, nor by what means to support himself. At that time, coaches not being in use, and as gentlemen were accustomed to ride to the play- house, Shakspear, driven to the last necessity, went to the play- house door, and pick'd up a little money by taking care of the gentlemen's horses who came to the door. And Malone, referring to him at a later period in his ex- periences : — There is a stage tradition that his first office lathe theatre was that of Callboy, or prompter's attendant; whose employment It is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter, as often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage. It was not until five years after reaching London that we hear of him. On the 3d of March, 1592, according to Phil- lipps, the first part of the drama of "Henry VI " was brought out by Lord Strange's servants, then acting either at Newing- ton or Southwark under an arrangement with Henslowe, a SO THE GHOST OF HAMLET wealthy stage manager, to whom no doubt the play was sold by its author. The actor's name was not associated with this play, nor was it printed until it appeared in the Folio of 1623. His biographers, however, assume the year 1592 as the begin- ning of his recognition as an author, and conveniently adopt the theory that previous to this date he had been acquiring a literary education. Among these. White, who, fully realizing that there is no royal road to knowledge, and the necessity of providing time for education, adopts the assumption, and declares that during this period, "When he was eating the bread of poverty, he must have found time to obtain some knowledge of books (of which except Bibles and the school- house grammar, there were not a dozen in all Stratford, and of which he could have learned nothing from his mother, for she, like his father, could not write her own name), and then to show effectively his powers as a writer." It really seems too much to ask us to believe that a man A past his majority, bred to the rudest of trades, and absolutely ^ ignorant of books, who was according to tradition a frequenter of taverns, and a participator in drinking-bouts, — far too much, indeed, to ask us to conceive that such a man, thrown upon his own resources in a city like sixteenth-century Lon- don, where he had to struggle for bread or die of starvation, would apply himself to the study of literature, law, medicine, science, philosophy, languages, even if he had the inclination and the time to do so, which this man could not have pos- sessed, for it cannot be refuted that during these five years j he was not only winning a living, but a foothold in the play- / house, and cultivating that hard business sense which stood him in good stead through life. Anders, the noted German critic, introduces his work on the erudition of the author of the "Shakespeare'' Works in these words : — The immense literature which centers around the name of Shakespeare renders a work of the present nature rather trying. SI THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS It means tough fighting to grapple with this sea of books which threatens to drown all independence of thought, for it has been my constant aim not to accept a statement without convincing myself of its truth. ^ Among the early playhouses the Blackfriars possessed an enviable popularity, having on its roll of actors some of the best in England, as James and Richard Burbage, John Lane- ham, Thomas Green, George Peele, Anthony Wadeson, and other public favorites ; several of these were writers and play- wrights. Shakspere appears as twelfth on this roll, which is indicative of his histrionic status in the company. To ac- count for this, age has been assumed to determine rank on the stage, but this is easily disproved by a comparison of the ages of his associates. Phillipps, Lee, and others speak continually of "Shake- speare's Company," or "The Poet's Company," by which they intend to convey the idea that he was its manager. This is quite unwarranted. The Burbages owned the Globe and Blackfriars' theaters, and the only allusion to the Stratford actor's theatrical interest is found in a petition of the Bur- bages to the Earl of Pembroke in the Public Records Office, dated August i, 1635. In this petition they state that their father was "the first builder of playhowses"; that "he built upon leased ground by which meanes the landlord and he had a great suite in law ; — and by his death the like troubles fell on us — his sonnes ; wee then bethought us of altering from this, and at like expence built the Globe ; and to ourselves we joyned those deserveing men, Shakspere, Hemings, Condall, Philips and others. Now for the Blackfriars — our father purchased it for extreame rates, and made it into a play- house — which after was leased to one Evans, that first set up boyes commonly called the Queenes Majesties Children of the Chappell." They growing up, "It was considered that ^ H. R. D. Anders, A Dissertation on Shakespeare^s Reading and the Im- mediate Sources of his Works. Bedin, 1904. 52 THE GHOST OF HAMLET house would bee as fitt for ourselves, and so purchased the lease remaining from Evans — and placed men players, which were Hemings, Condall, Shakspeare, &c." ^ This was in 1609, long after the actor returned to Stratford. Even Lee says that the actor's "interest in the Blackfriars was unimportant," and that the Globe "was not occupied by Shakespeare's com- pany until December, 1609, or January, 1610, when his acting days were nearing their end." Why not say " Burbage's Com- pany," which it was ? It was never " Shakespeare's Company " any more than Heminge's or Kemp's or Condell's, or of any one of a dozen others, who shared in the net receipts of the house for a limited period, a convenient and safe way of re- munerating them. Yet from materials too flimsy to bear the breath of criticism, Lee constructs a plethoric balance sheet to show the income of his protege from the theater and other sources, and ends by informing us that "it is probable" that he disposed of his share in 161 1, the year after "his company" occupied the theater. What a waste of effort to bolster up a baseless theory! It might have been as well to have consulted Ratsey, who dubbed the actor " Sir Simon Two Shares and a Halfe," which seems suggestive.^ Perhaps it should be added that the records, showing the financial profits of the Black- friars' and Globe theaters, yield no evidence of the Stratford actor's authorship of the plays. The nature of the actor's transactions has always been a subject of surprise to students, and none of his biographers, however much disposed to cover up his deficiencies, has been insensible to it. Mr. Appleton Morgan expresses this feeling mildly when he says, "At any ^ Phillipps, Outlines^ etc., vol. i, p. 317. Lee, J Life of Shakespeare^ pp. 38, 264. 2 In a list, long ago dismissed by his biographers as spurious, his name ap- pears as a holder of four shares in the Globe. Some of his devotees are now trying to show that it is genuine, as though this were a matter of consequence. Heretofore it was the Blackfriars in which he had a pecuniary interest; but even Lee has abandoned this, and says (J Life of Shakespeare, p. 196.), "It was not until 1 599, when the Globe Theater was built, that he acquired any share in the profits of a playhouse." S3 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS rate we do know that the great WiUiam Hved apart from his wife, and that such visits as he paid to Stratford may almost always be found indicated by an investment, a law suit, or an arbitration, whereby the thrifty poet did largely increase the body of wealth he left his children." ^ A brilliant American author, whose genius could never brook the sober pace of a Rosinante, gives rein to his wit in this wise : — Then, 1610-11, he returned to Stratford and settled down for good and all, and busied himself in lending money, trading in tithes, trading in land and houses; shirking a debt of forty-one shillings, borrowed by his wife during his long desertion of his family; suing debtors for shillings and coppers; being sued him- self for shillings and coppers; and acting as confederate to a neighbor who tried to rob the town of Its rights In a certain com- mon, and did not succeed. He lived five or six years till 1616 In the joy of these elevated pursuits. Then he made a will. It names in minute detail every Item of property he owned In the world, — houses, lands, sword, silver gilt bowl, and so on, — all the way down to his second-best bed and Its furniture. It was eminently and conspicuously a business man's will, not a poet's.^ Richard Grant White thus alludes to this subject: — The pursuit of an Impoverished man for the sake of impris- oning him and depriving him both of the power of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family. Is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity — satisfaction is impossi- ble.3 Of several episodes in his London life it was not intended to speak, but since his recent biographer, Sidney Lee, has done so, it seems necessary to quote him verbatim. The first is this : — ^ Appleton Morgan, A.M., LL.B., Shakespeare in Fact and in Criticism^ p. 277. New York, 1888. 2 Mark Twain, Is Shakespeare Dead? New York and London, 1909. ^ Richard Grant White, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. Ixxxviii. 54 THE GHOST OF HAMLET Burbage, when playing Richard III, made an assignation with a lady in the audience to visit her after the performances; Shakespeare, overhearing the conversation, anticipated Burbage, and met him on his arrival with the quip that "William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third." ^ . . . Another story in the same key, credits Shakespeare with the paternity of Sir William D'Avenant.^ He was baptized at Ox- ford on March 3, 1605, ^s the son of John Davenant, the land- lord of the Crown Inn, where Shakespeare lodged on his journies to and from Stratford. The story of Shakespeare's paternal re- lation to the boy was long current in Oxford, and was at times complacently accepted by the reputed son. It is safer to accept the less compromising version which makes Shakespeare the god- father of the boy William, instead of his father. But the anti- quity and persistence of the scandal belie the assumption that Shakespeare was known to his contemporaries as a man of scrupulous virtue.^ Yet another story, by Lee, represents him as transferring one of his mistresses to Southampton. We will, however, only quote Lee's reflection on the transaction: "Southampton's sportive and lascivious temperament might easily impel him to divert to himself the attentions of an attractive woman by whom he saw that his poet was fascinated, and he was unlikely to tolerate any outspoken protest on the part of his protege " : an admission which shows an intimate knowledge of the rela- tions existing in Tudor times between dissolute aristocrats and plebeians.^ Somewhat recently two discoveries relating to the actor have been claimed by Stratfordians, and adopted by his dis- ciples. The first, based upon a statement by Sir John Harring- ton, is to the effect that up to 1599 he carried on an extensive gambling business. The other story relates to one of the maids of honor of Elizabeth, who, banished from court on account of her shameful life, became the mistress of the actor and ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare^ p. 265. 2 Young Davenant became an actor; was knighted by Charles II, and changed the form of his name. ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 266. * Ibid., p. 154. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS dominated his life. We are obliged to refer to these unsavory- matters because they are the subjects of orthodox writers, and cannot properly be ignored in a work of this kind. We shall have further occasion to consider them. Phillipps calls our attention to the fact that "in the early part of the year 1598" the actor was in London; but he says, "It is certain, however, that his thoughts were not at this time absorbed by literature or the stage. So far from this being the case there are good reasons for concluding that they were largely occupied with matters relating to pecuniary affairs, and to the progress of his influence at Stratford-on- Avon." 1 This is a startling admission by the best of Shaksperian students. Only a few months before, the first and second parts of "Henry IV" had been produced, and that very year appeared "Love's Labours Lost," the first play bearing the name, "W. Shakespere. As it was presented before her Highnes this last Christmas." This was immediately fol- lowed by "The Merry Wives of Windsor," which is said to have been written in the brief space of a fortnight. If he were not "absorbed by literature or the stage," at this time, when these plays were in the first flush of success, when could he have been ? Phillipps is right, however ; he was no more ab- sorbed in literature, or even the stage, as he only took insig- nificant parts, than he was during the remainder of his life at Stratford, where he was engaged in petty trade until his death, making occasional visits to London in the way of business or pleasure. HIS FAVORITE ROLE When he turned his back upon London he seemed to forget the literary works which were ascribed to him ; in fact, never after displayed any personal interest in them, but gave his attention to trading and loaning money. Some of his transac- ^ Phillipps, Outlines^ etc., vol. i, p. i6i. S6 THE GHOST OF HAMLET tions have left traces in the records of the day, and, though proHx, are here produced, as an exhibit. These do not include legitimate real estate transactions, and, as but a small part of a man's business affairs except these get into public records, it would seem that his were extensive. Extract from a letter of Abraham Sturley to his brother-in-lazv, Richard Quiney, 24, January I^gy-g8 This is one speciall remembrance from ur father's motion. Itt semeth bi him that our countrlman, Mr. Shaksper, is willinge to disburse some monei upon some od yarde land or other att Shotterie or neare about us, he thinketh itt a veri fitt patterne to move him to deal in the matter of our tithes Bi the instruc- cions u can geve him theareof, and by the frendes he can make therefor we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoote att and not impossible to hitt. It obtained would advance him indeede and would do us muche good.^ . . . The noate of corne and make taken the iiij,th of Febrwarij, 1597. Wm. Shackespere X quarters. A Letter from Adrian Quiney^ i^gS To my lovynge sonne Rycharde Qwyney at the Belle In Carter Leyne deliver these in London. Iff you bargen with Wm. Sha ... or receve therfor brynge youre money homme that you maye and see howe knite stock- ynges be sold ther is gret bylnge of them at Aysshome. 1600. William Shakspere vs. John Clayton, London, In an action to recover £7. Judgment rendered for plaintiff. 1604. William Shakspere vs. Phillip Rogers, Stratford. Action to recover an account for malt, including a loan of money, the whole amounting to £1, i^s. lod. [The same man had been sued by him four years before for two shillings.] 1605. July 24, Mr. William Shakspere bought for 440 pounds, the moytie or one-half of — the tythes of corne, grayne, blade and heye — in the towns of Olde Stratforde, Wel- combe and BIshopton. 1608. William Shakspere vs. John Addenbrooke of Stratford and John Horneby surety, action for debt amounting to £6. [The precepts In these cases were made by his cousin, ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. 11, p. 57. 57 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Thomas Green, who seems to have been living with him at New Place.] Says Phillipps : — In the autumn of 1614, there was great excitement at Stratford- on-Avon respecting an attempted enclosure of a large portion of the neighboring common fields. The design was resisted by the Corporation. But Combe, he says, — spared no exertions to accomplish the object, and, in many in- stances, tormented the poor and coaxed the rich into an acquies- cence with his views. It appears most probable that Shakespeare was one of the latter, and that amongst perhaps other induce- ments he was allured to the unpopular side by Combe's agent, one Replingham, guaranteeing him from prospective loss. How- ever that may be, it is certain that the poet was in favor of the enclosures, for on December the 23 rd, the Corporation addressed a letter of remonstrance to him on the subject, and another on the same day to Mr. Mainwaring. The latter who had been prac- tically bribed by some land arrangements at Welcombe undertook to protect the interests of Shakespeare, so there can be no doubt that the three parties were acting in unison.^ The only letter known to have been written to William Shakspere Loveinge contreyman I am bolde of yow as of a frende crave- inge yowr helpe with xxx.ll,vppon Mr. Bushells and my securytee, or Mr. Myttons with me. Mr. Rosswell is nott come to London as yeate and I have especiall cawse. Yow shall ffrende me muche in helpeing me out of all the debettes I owe in London. I thancke God and muche quiet my mynde, which wolde nott be indebeted. I am nowe towardes the Cowrte, in hope of answer for the dis- patche of my buysenes. Yow shall nether loase creddytt now monney by me the Lorde wyllinge; and nowe butt perswade yowrselfe soe, as I hope, and yow shall nott need to feare butt, with all hartie thanckefullenes I wyll holde my tyme, and con- tent yowr ffrende and yf we bargaine farther, yow shal be the paie-master yowrselfe. My tyme biddes me hastene to an ende, ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 246. S8 THE GHOST OF HAMLET and soe I committ thys yowr case and hope of yowr helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe thys night ffrom the Cowrte. Haste. The Lorde be with yow and with vs all, Amen! ffrom the Bell in Carter Lane, the 25 October, 1598. To my loveinge good ffrend and contreyman, Yowrs in all kyndenes Rye Quyney. Mr. Wm. Shackespere deliver thees.^ A letter from Ahraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 4, November, I5g8, relating to a court affair Our countriman Mr. Wm. Shakspare would procure us monei which I will like of as I shall heare when and wheare and howe, and I prai let not go that occasion if it mai sorte to ani indifferent condicions. To his most lovinge brother Mr. Richard Quinei att the Bell in Carterlane att London, geve these. Paid 2d. The above are sufficient to show something of the variety and extent of the actor's business operations. While carrying on these -affairs, he appears to have been living in Stratford when Quyney, who was in London, addressed him. Sturley's letter, ten days later, indicates that he had seen the actor in the mean time and received encouragement of financial aid for Quyney, who was anxiously awaiting a response to his appeal, before returning home. He had purchased New Place in his native town for a permanent residence in 1597, and appearances indicate that he soon after took up his resi- dence there. Writers have assumed the dates of 1604 and 16 10 simply because of transactions which located him in London or Stratford at certain dates. "There is evidence," says Phillipps, "in the list of corn and malt owners, dated a few months after Shakespeare's pur- chase of New Place, that he was then the occupier of that ^ This letter found among Quiney's papers, Phillipps thinks " was never for- warded the poet," and cites proof in Sturley's letter of November. Outlines^ etc., vol. I, p. 165. 59 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS residence," but he tells us that "his retirement to Stratford did not exclude an occasional visit to the metropolis." ^ This view seems correct, and accounts for the tradition, carelessly related, that he was a frequent visitor to his native town instead of London, after the purchase of New Place. Phillipps also says of this period, "In the year now under consideration, 1598, he appears not only as an advancer of money, but also — one who negotiated loans through other capitalists." ^ His analysis of the actor's transactions should be noted by students interested in the subject. During the period that he resided in Stratford, if he had friends of any importance in London, or elsewhere, we might reasonably suppose that he would correspond with them, but not a letter or scrap of writing, or anything connecting him with the authorship of the works ascribed to him, is in existence. If the florid fancies of some of his biographers were true, that he was on intimate fraternal relations with Lord Southampton, something ought to be found among the lat- ter's records, if not elsewhere, to show it; but the, pleasant myth of this ardent friendship, fostered by a dishonest pic- ture faker, and Ireland, whose forged correspondence between Southampton and him afforded a promising field of profit, has come, alas! to a disastrous end. Not so, however, the sug- gestion left on the subconscious minds of disciples who still enjoy the • afterglow of this imaginary relation between an aristocratic lord and an humble commoner. No, the actor did not bother himself with correspondence or with books, but kept on in his pursuit of the phantom wealth heedless of all else. There is enough preserved concerning him to give us a fairly correct mental picture of the man setting out for the city on foot, rude and unpolished, speaking the uncouth dia- lect of the Warwickshire peasantry: — Phillipps says, "pa- tois"; close-fisted, shrewd, unscrupulous, and avaricious; yet, ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. ii. 2 JUd., vol. i, p. 164. 60 THE GHOST OF HAMLET among boon companions, replete with coarse wit and boister- ous good-fellowship. Such is the man as we see him delineated in record and tradition. A disciple of his gives us this picture of the social conditions which moulded him, which we add to those already given : — The common people of England in the sixteenth century were fierce, jovial, rude, hearty and pugnacious. They lived out of doors and had but few books. There favorite amusements were bear baitings, cock fights, dog fights, foot-ball, and rough and tumble fighting.^ After his advent in the metropolis his contact with men gradually wore off the acuter angles of demeanor, leaving him still an unpolished figure in the world of business ; such a man as one not infrequently meets, good-natured, friendly, and crude, who, having been bred amid sordid conditions, has made himself, figuratively, and naturally cherishes a grateful remembrance of his maker. It was about the time of the appearance of "Venus and Adonis," the close of that mythical period during which, ac- cording to his biographers, he had completed his marvelous education, that Robert Greene penned this, our only verbal portraiture of him : — A face like Thersites; his eyes broad and tawney; his hair harsh and curled like a horse's mane — his lips were of the larg- est size in folio — the only good part that he had to grace his visage was his nose, and that was conqueror-like, as beaked as an eagle. It is true that at the time Greene wrote he was unfriendly to the actor, but he was describing him to those familiar with his appearance, and had he pictured him so that he was un- recognizable, he would have missed his mark totally. De- lightful pictures have been painted of his "gentleness," "love of children," and, especially, of his literary friendships, but there is an entire absence of evidence to this effect. Jonson ^ Goadby, The England of Shakespeare. 6i THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS has been especially singled out as one of his very close friends, but of this friendship, Brandes, who, in spite of his Dalton- ism, gets a dash of true color into his portraiture, makes this bold but encouraging stroke, so expressive of the truth that it merits attention : — He might have been willing enough to drink in the company of Ben Jonson, but he had no more depth of affection for him than for any other of the dramatic and lyric poets among whom his lot had been cast.^ This might be regarded by "Bunglers in Criticism," as Brandes designates those who question the actor's authorship, as a very frank acknowledgment that he was not of them, and had no sympathy with their work, dramatic or poetic. Evi- dently, however, he is trying to break the force of the fact that the actor was unknown to contemporary authors. Their silence with regard to this "Midas of Poetry,'* this "Virgil in Poetic Art," has but a single interpretation; they knew that he was not of them, but sported the persona for some of their profession. Ingleby, who wrote the "Centurie of Prayse," remarks that "No man in 1590 ever saw Shake- speare as *the man whom Nature's self had made to mock herself and truth to imitate.'" This remark aptly applies to him through life. Works bearing his name were, of course, known, and deservedly popular. Even his biographers have failed to identify the illiterate peasant of Stratford, reared to the rudest of occupations, with the high-bred gentleman and scholar revealed in the author of the "Shakespeare" Works. Tolstoy recognized in him the aristocrat with whom he had no fellowship, while Bernard Shaw is outspoken in his criticism of his aristocratic attitude toward the common peo- ple, and a well-known writer recently wrote these pregnant words: — "Shakespeare was not of us," cries Browning — while lament- ing the defection of Wordsworth from the ranks of progress and ^ George Brandes, William Shakespeare, vol. 11, p. 410. 62 THE GHOST OF HAMLET liberalism — "Milton was for us, Burns, Shelley were with us — they watch from their graves — But Shakespeare? Shakespeare? Where is there a line in Shakespeare to entitle him to a place in the brotherhood? Bottom, the weaver with the ass's head, re- mains his type of the artisan, and the "mutable rank-scented many his type of the masses." ^ Dowden's self-revealment of the author of the "Shake- speare" Works reveals "a courtier, a lawyer, a man of learn- ing, an aristocrat." Says Bismarck : — I could not understand how it were possible that a man, how- ever gifted with the intuition of genius, could have written what was attributed to Shakespeare, unless he had been in touch with the great affairs of state, behind the scenes of political life, and also intimate with all the social courtesies, and refinements of thought, which in Shakespeare's time were only to be met with in the highest circles; And he declares it to be incredible that a man who had written the greatest dramas in the world's literature, could of his own free will, whilst still in the prime of life, have retired to such a place as Stratford-on-Avon, and lived for years cut oif from intellectual society and out of touch with the world. ^ We leave it to the reader to consider whether there is any- thing in the actor's birth, training, occupation, character, and conduct consistent with his portraiture as revealed in the works ascribed to him. Stratfordians are to be commiserated in their unsuccessful attempts to prop their falling cause. Even this is quoted ap- provingly as historic verity : — The actor at this time was acting, writing and managing — he lived among the fine London folks, honoured with the special notice of the Queen, and associating every day with the noblest ^ Cf. Ernest Crosby, Shakespeare^s Attitude toward the Working Classes, Leo Tolstoy, Shakespeare. New York and London, 1906. ^ Sidney Whitman, Latter Days of Bismarck. London, 1903. 63 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS and wealthiest Englishmen of that brilliant time, yet never snapping the link which bound him to the sweet banks of the Avon.^ We thought we would try to find where the subject of this insufferable adulation really was at this time. Thanks to Professor Wallace we are enabled to do so. He was lodging in a mean part of London, among people of his own class, petty shopmen, hucksters, and men of the lowest sort, and yet he was, says Collier, "Acting, writing and managing." There is not a genuine playbill in existence to show any part in which he ever acted ; there is nothing in existence except four abbreviated signatures, characterized by pitiable illit- eracy, to show that he was above a mark-man; absolutely nothing to show that he was ever a manager; no, "the top of his performance," as Rowe his first biographer says, was the ghost in Hamlet. His literary attainments and successes were chiefly valued as serving the prosaic end of providing perma- nently for himself and daughters. "His highest ambition was to restore among his fellow townsmen the family repute." The writer has endeavored faithfully to delineate Shakspere of Stratford, to "nought extenuate; nought set down in malice"; drawing his materials wholly from friendly sources, save in a single instance. This, however, is how his biogra- phers, strive as they may to render the ugly fact less repulsive, finally end his life story: "On his birthday, April 23, 1616, at the age of 52, he ' Itt seems drank too hard at a merrie meeting and dyed of a feavour there contracted.'" ^ Collier's History of English Literature. IV THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS In order to place our subject in right perspective, we have considered the conditions existing in England during the period in which the "Shakespeare" Works were produced; their character, as regarded by the literary world, and the personality of their titular author. As much of a fragmentary- nature has been written respecting the validity of this title, we should consider this branch of the subject. No biographer of the Stratford actor has escaped the painful dilemma in which he found himself, when he considered the wonderful erudition and poetic genius displayed in the works in ques- tion, and attempted to form an acquaintance with their pu- tative author. This feeling is not peculiar to the student of the twentieth century; it has often found expression in the past. Let us place ourselves in London at the time of the future actor's arrival in 1587, and keep him and his surround- ings in view amid the conditions we have described, during his life there. At first, it is conceded, he found temporary employment in the Burbage stables, and, later, held the horses of the patrons of "The Theater," which stood in the pleasant fields of the Liberty at Shoreditch, then a rural suburb of the metropolis. His diligence and readiness to make himself useful led to his employment as call boy, and here he was in a position to be- come acquainted with the business of the theater, to form friendly relations with the actors, and, through them, with some of the writers who supplied his employers with plays. Just how long it took him to reach this position we cannot determine, probably not long, nor, indeed, very long to be able to take minor parts in plays, for he had been from youth 65 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS familiar with the acting of strolUng players, some of whom he must have known when they visited Stratford and were en- tertained by his father. This rough but good-natured and resourceful rustic of twenty-three, speaking the rude but amusing dialect of Warwickshire, was in a position to make | himself useful to the Burbages, and to become in time, as Greene designates him, an "absolute Factotum" and man of affairs. Before his arrival in London, "Euphues," herald of the English novel, and the " Shepherd's Calendar," harbin- ger of a new era in poetry, had aroused a fresh interest in literature, and from this time works of a higher order of genius began to appear. Plays of a new type found their way to the stage, and supplanted those of the past. Though anonymous, they seem to have passed as the work of men who were known as petty actors and playwrights. If we allow a couple of years for this raw rustic to arrive at the position accorded him, — namely, 1589, — we easily recognize the men who composed the literary Bohemia of London, with several of whom he probably had some ac- quaintance. Robert Greene, who had received a degree from Cambridge, was about twenty-eight, a man of the vilest habits, who picked up a subsistence by acting minor parts on the stage, and by writing ; Thomas Lodge, thirty-two, who was then of some repute as a writer ; John Lyly, graduate of Oxford, thirty-four, regarded as a promising author; Christo- pher Marlowe, a Cambridge graduate, twenty-four, a repro- bate doomed by his violent nature to an untimely end; Thomas Middleton, Gray's Inn, twenty, soon to be a popular playwright; Thomas Nash, also a Cambridge man, twenty- one, and sometimes a co-worker with Greene ; John Webster, co-worker with the two former; George Peele, an Oxford graduate and reckless sot ; Anthony Munday, thirty-six. Poet Laureate of London; and Michael Drayton, twenty-five, since honored with a monument in Westminster Abbey; Ben Jonson, then unheard of, was in school, being but fourteen or 66 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS fifteen years old. These men, too many of them of dissolute habits, were professional workers who obtained a precarious living wholly or partly by their pens, several of thera eking out their incomes by taking minor parts on the stage. Be- sides these were young men connected with the Inns of Court who wrote anonymously or under pseudonyms ; indeed, it was a common practice for authors to use the names of others on their title-pages, and for publishers to issue their wares under well-known names or suggestive initials. No book, however, could be published without a registered license. Then, as now, the market was overstocked with literary material which never received sufficient encouragement to be honored with registration. Plays accepted for the stage were sent to a scrivenry, where copies in suflScient number for the use of the actors were made, and these became one of the "properties" of the theater. It was not necessary for the author's name to appear on the Stationers' Register, that of the owner of the manuscript who had purchased it for profit being suffi- cient. Leaving the future actor amid the conditions we have de- scribed, we will endeavor to get a glimpse of him as he ap- peared to his contemporaries while pursuing his life in the London of his time. AS SEEN BY CONTEMPORARIES We are not to regard it as strange that so little personal notice was taken of him, especially when we consider how the players' profession, of which he was an inferior member, was regarded during his life. It is stranger that what was said did not identify him with works which bear his name. Every attempt has been made, not always intentionally, to befog this issue. We know how writers have pressed into their service Lord Southampton, who, when the actor went to London, was a lad of fourteen, having been born in 1573. At a later age he was an intimate friend and imitator of the 67 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS unfortunate Essex, and when in 1592 the "Venus and Adonis" was dedicated to him by its author, was a hopelessly dissolute young blade of nineteen at court. Like other titled court favorites who were regarded as superior beings by the humble actors, whose greatest joy it was to sport their garb, and imi- tate their manners for a brief hour upon the stage, the gay young nobleman patronized the playhouses, and, being a somewhat conspicuous person, naturally attracted the atten- tion of the actors; hence it was but natural for writers to dedicate their effusions to this influential youth, and to couch their dedicatory epistles in the most respectful and amiable terms. Several did so, notably Barnes, who ad- dressed Southampton's eyes as "The heavenly lamps that gave the Muses light," and even the graver Florio, in his dedication to him of a dictionary, effervesces in this fashion: "As to me and many more the glorious and generous sun- shine of your honour, hath infused light and life." Dedications to wealthy noblemen by needy authors were plentiful, and do not indicate personal relations or even a speaking acquaintance between them. The volumes that have been written, based solely upon assumption, some of them offensively sentimental, to prove intimate personal re- lations between the actor and Southampton are pure fiction. Even poor young Ireland, who seems to have possessed a sense of research unusually keen, being unable to find satis- factory evidence of such a personal friendship, thought it would be well to fabricate it, and, to one who is willing to waste time on such a subject, it is curious to observe how Ireland's fictions have been reflected in much that has been written upon it since. Perhaps the gossip respecting the gift of a thousand pounds by Southampton to the actor, which seems to be now fast growing into an historical fact, should be alluded to in passing. Rowe first gave it currency a century and a half after the actor's death: — 68 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS There is one instance so singular in the magnificence of this patron of Shakespeare's, that if I had not been assured that the story was handed down by Sir WiUiam Davenant, who was probably very well acquainted with his affairs,.! should not have ventured to have inserted, that my lord Southampton at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to.^ Evidently Rowe was unacquainted with the character of Davenant, who he had been "assured" by some one was the source of the story, nor would he have suggested that he was "very well acquainted with his affairs" had he been aware that Davenant was but ten years old when the actor died, and unborn when he acquired New Place, which some commenta- tors have inferred was the purchase alluded to, and which cost but sixty pounds. Phillipps, who thinks the supposed gift was for the Asbies lawsuit, computes the relative value of money, when he wrote in 1886, at twelve times its value then; that is, twelve thousand pounds or sixty thousand dollars. Other writers have made equally unwarranted estimates. Lee au- thoritatively assures us that the purchasing power of money was then "eight times what it is now"; ^ and White, that it was six times ; ^ while Malone informs us that it was three and a half times greater.^ The difference in the comparative pur- chasing value of money at the time these authors wrote does not at all account for their widely varying estimates. The fact is, that to make an estimate of the relative purchasing power of money at widely separated periods would require precise knowledge of the value of all commodities at both periods, something in this case not obtainable, and writers on the very fruitful theme of the authorship of the "Shake- speare" Works have as usual regaled us with guesses. ^ Rowe's Life of Shakespeare ; George Steevens, Esq., The Plays of William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. ix. London, 1803. ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 3. 3 White, The Writings of Shakespeare, p. xli. * Johnson and Steevens, The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 73. London, 1803. 69 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS We may well dismiss Rowe as a disqualified witness in re- gard to the relations between Southampton and the actor. Rowe wrote the first life-sketch of the actor, constructing it of hearsay and gossip. To this flimsy structure theorists have added material of a similar character, until this "baseless fabric of a vision" fronts the world like an impregnable fortress. BEN JONSON Let us now examine Ben Jonson, whose testimony is al- ways appealed to by the actor's biographers as the most im- portant, as he and Marlowe are claimed to have been his two intimates. As a knowledge of the character of a witness is important, we will seek it from such friendly sources as Brandes and Malone. Says the former: — He was strong and massive in body, racy and coarse, full of self-esteem and combative instincts, — a true poet in so far as he was not only irregular in his life and quite incapable in saving any of the money he now and then earned, but was, moreover, subject to hallucinations. ... In September — "1598" — he killed in a duel another of Henslowe's actors — Gabriel Spencer — and was therefore branded on the thumb with the letter T (Tyburn).^ While Ben lay in durance on account of his duel, he was converted to Catholicism by a priest who attended him. After his reconciliation with Protestantism, in token of his sincere return to the doctrine which gave laymen as well as priests access to the chalice, he drained at one draught the whole of the consecrated wine. "Not without humor," moreover, to use Jonson's own favorite words, is the story of the way in which Raleigh's son, to whom he acted as governor during a tour in France, took a malicious pleasure in making his mentor dead drunk, having him wheeled in a wheelbarrow through the streets of Paris, and showing him off to the mob at every street corner. * George Brandes, William Shakespeare, vol. i, pp. 385-88. New York, 1898. 70 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Malone also refers to a similar incident : — One day when Ben had taken a plentiful dose, young Raleigh got a great blanket, and a couple of men, who layd Ben in it, and then with a pole carried him between their shoulders to Sir Walter, telling him their young master had sent home his tutor. ^ Gifford, his biographer, endeavored to discredit this, call- ing it "an absurd tale,'' but having his attention called to the evidence, acknowledged his error. Dyce corrects it in a note.^ In the summer of 1618, Jonson undertook a pedestrian journey to Edinburgh, where he became the guest of William Drummond, the poet. This is the record that Drummond made after his departure, which he evidently welcomed, though he admired Jonson's literary genius. January 19, 1619. He is a great lover and praiser of himself; a contemner and scorner of others; given rather to lose a friend than a jest; jealous of every word and action of those about him (especially after drink, which is one of the elements in which he liveth): a dissembler of ill parts which raigne in him; a bragger of some good he wanteth; thinketh nothing well but what either he himself or some of his friends and countrymen hath said or done, he is passionately kynde and angry; careless either to gain or keep; vindictive, but if he is well answered, at himself. For any religion, as being versed in both. Interpreteth best sayings and deeds often to the worst. Oppressed with fantasie, which hath ever mastered his reason, a general disease in many Poets.^ Barrett Wendell, his biographer, pronounces this, "in- comparably the most vivid portrait in existence of an Eliza- bethan man of letters." Jonson's style of invective is seen in this skit in behalf of Poesy aimed, it is believed, at the actor: "Nor is it any blem- ish to her fame, that such lean, ignorant and blasted wits, ^ Johnson and Steevens, The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, vol. ii, p. 388. 2 William Gifford, The Works of Ben Jonson, pp. 10, 43. Boston, 1853. 3 Dyce, Notes on Ben Jonson^s Conversations, p. 21. 71 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS such brainless gulls, should utter their Stolen wares with such appliances in our vulgar ears." This is perhaps enough to give us an approximately fair picture of the witness, and now we will consider his testimony. In his lines accompanying the Droeshout portrait in the Folio, he says this: — To the Reader This Figure, that thou here seest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut; Wherein the Grauer had a strife With Nature, to out-doo the life: O, could he but have drawne his wit As well in brasse, as he hath hit His face; the Print would then surpasse All, that was euer writt in brasse. But, since he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his Picture, but his Booke. It may be asked, how Jonson's address can be reconciled with the theory that neither the "Picture" nor the "Booke" are the actor's, and preserve the commonly accepted meaning of the address .? A fair answer may be given to this by showing how in- sincere such expressions were at the time this was written. There is ample evidence of their worthlessness, and Malone gives us his opinion in this case. Referring to Droeshout's portraits, he says : — By comparing any of these prints with the original pictures from whence the engravings were made, a better judgment might be formed of the fidelity of our author's portrait, as ex- hibited by this engraver, than from Jonson's assertion, that in "this figure" "the Grauer had a strife With Nature, to out-doo the life"; a compliment which in the books of that age was paid to so many engravers, that nothing decisive can be inferred from it.i * Johnson and Steevens, The Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 88. 72 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY' PROBLEMS As to the worthlessness of prefatory eulogies, we take this evidence of Lee : — Adulatory sonnets to patrons are met with in the preliminary or concluding pages of numerous sixteenth and seventeenth cen- tury books. Sonnets addressed to men are not only found in the preliminary pages, but are occasionally interpolated in sonnet- sequences of fictitious love.^ Scores of instances could be cited to show that the most exaggerated praise of worthless portraits, and the loftiest ex- pressions of friendship, purely fictitious, were, in Jonson's time, the fashion in prefatory addresses. In this case Jonson was following a well-beaten path, and it is extremely im- probable that he had seen Droeshout's caricature of the actor before writing. Is it doing violence to ethical canons to suggest that Jonson's effusion was purely professional, paid for in current coin of the realm, and was not prompted by a "loving interest," as Phillipps fancied, in Jaggard's so-called speculation ? If we are to believe some of the older writers who have given examples of Jonson's expressions with regard to the subject of his eulogy, he could not have taken a "loving inter- est" in the publication of writings attributed to him; in fact, in 1598, he said: "He degrades the stage"; in 1601, "He bar- barizes the English language, — He wags an ass's ears; He is an ape"; in 1614, "His tales are but drolleries"; in 1616, "He is a poet-ape and upstart; a hypocrit"; and in 1619, "He wanted art and sometime sense." This has been taken as implying that Jonson recognized him as an author; but what we have quoted above, namely, "He degrades the stage," is the keynote to his subsequent utterances, and is good evidence that Jonson in every case referred to the only art he laid claim to, namely, the histrionic art. Even the term "poet-ape" simply means one who aped or mimicked a poet. This was all changed, however, in 1623, and unless there was 1 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 138. 73 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS some unusual reason for this change, would it not seem more reasonable to conclude that he took his fee and served his client, and so must not be taken any more seriously than the editors, Heminge and Condell? The perfunctory character of the address is suggested by comparing it with other contemporary addresses containing similar sentiments. Under the portrait of Captain John Smith, 1616, is the following, for instance: — These are the Lines that shew thy Face; but these That shew thy Grace and Glory brighter bee. Thy Faire Discoveries and Fowle-Overthrowes Of Salvages, much Civiliz'd by thee Best shew thy spirit, and to it Glory Wyn: So thou art Brasse without, but Gold within. ^ The lines under the portrait of Du Bartas, 162 1, probably furnished Jonson with the closing sentiments of his eulogy: — Ces traits au front, marquez de Scavoir i^ d* Esprit Ne Sont que du Bartas un ombre exterieur Le Pinceau n'en pent plus; mais, de sa propre Plume II s'est peint le Dedans, dans son divin Volume.^ But, it may be objected, that there is one expression in the eulogy by Jonson which cannot be reconciled with the theory of the actor's non-authorship of the plays in the Folio: — Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were To see thee in our waters yet appeare. Of course this seems to identify the actor with the author, for such an expression as occurs in the following: — Or when thy Sockes were on Leave thee alone for the comparison Of all, that insolent Greece or haughtie Rome Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come, — might be claimed to be a mere figure of speech which an eulogist could apply to any actor or even author; but "Sweet Swan of Avon" seems to be an identification. Before meeting ^ A Description of New England. London, 1616. * Du Bartas, his Divine Weekes and JVorkes. 1621. 74 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS this objection it may be proper to call attention to the singular fact that Jonson used the sentiments in the latter quotation in eulogizing Bacon, whom, he declares: — Hath filled up all numbers, and performed that in our tongue, which may he compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome, in short, within his view, and about his time were all the wits born that could honour a language ^"^ That Jonson was an extravagant eulogist appears from the following, addressed to Edward AUeyn, an actor, who ac- cumulated property and left it to found the institution known as Dulwich College : — If Rome so great and in her wisest age, Fear'd not to boast the glories of her stage; As skilful Roscious, and grave iEsop, men Yet crown'd with honours, as with riches then; Who had no less a trumpet of their name Than Cicero, whose every breath was fame: How can so great example die in me? That, Allen, I should pause to publish thee; Who both their graces in thyself hast more Outstript, than they did all that went before, And present worth in all does so contract As others speak, but only thou dost act. Wear this renoun — 't is just that who did give So many poets life, by one should live.^ AUeyn acquired wealth as Henslowe did by dealing in dramatic material, and does not seem to have made much fame as an actor; yet Jonson says that he as far outstripped Roscious, the greatest figure of his time in Roman comedy, and iEsop Clodius, regarded by Horace as his equal in tragedy, both intimate friends of Cicero, and the former his instructor, as they did all their predecessors. What reliance can be placed upon a man who deals in such fiction as this? Perhaps this effusion may pass as one of the "hallucinations" of which his biographer speaks. Attention should also be called to ^ Ben Jonson, Timber or Discoveries^ p. 47. London, 1898. 2 William Gifford, The Works oj Ben Jonson, p. 792. Boston, 1853. 75 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS what he says regarding the actor's art. In the eulogy he ex- claims: "His Art doth give the fashion"; yet a short time before he told Drummond that "Shakspeer wanted arte." Ingleby's weak attempt to break the force of this remark by casting doubt on Drummond's accuracy is far from convinc- ing; and now as to the term "Sweet Swan of Avon." There is no doubt that it seems to reveal Jonson's intention to identify the author of the works with the actor. We are quite willing to admit that he knew whether he was or was not their author, but whether he has revealed to us this knowledge is another matter. What, however, has been quoted to show the character of "Honest Ben" and his disregard of the verities is sufficient to disqualify him as a reliable witness; but though his testimony is of little value, so many believe that he, if nobody else, knew who was the author of the works, that we venture to introduce the swan story of Ariosto related by Bacon, ^ which is to the effect, that to the thread of every man's life is attached a medal bearing his name. When this thread is severed by the fatal shears, it is seized by a swan which bears it away. The swans in their aimless flight drop many of the medals which fall into the river Lethe, and are lost; but some swans, having medals with worthy names, bear them to the Temple of Im- mortality. This story was familiar to Jonson, and it might be asked whether, if he knew that the actor was not the author, he might not have figured him in one of his "fits of fantasie" as the swan who bore the real author's name to the Temple? The question is perhaps of small moment, but it is certainly suggestive. There are allusions also in Jonson's eulogy which are quite as misleading as this ; but aside from the sufficient fact of his unreliability, we must not forget that he was exercising his talents professionally, and could not well have avoided allusion to the titular author of the book which he was introducing to his readers. * De Augmentisy Spedding, vol. 8, p. 428. 76 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Of course, since the inscription by an unknown hand was placed upon the actor's tomb, many, with only a hearsay knowledge of him, and perhaps with no knowledge at all of the history of the "Shakespeare" Works, have recorded their belief that he was their author, but this only proves the validity of the belief in the same degree that the record of a be- lief in predestination or any other dogma proves it to be true. But we must not lightly dismiss "Honest Ben," for he is to prove a most important witness, and is to reveal to us the "Sweet Swan of Avon" in a startling manner. In 1599, "Every Man out of his Humor" was placed upon the stage, which clearly discloses his knowledge of the secret he has con- cealed with so much bluster in the Eulogy, and why he later applied to the actor the term "poet-ape" and "hypocrit," meaning one who apes a poet, a hypocrite " on the Greek stage being" a mimic who accompanied the delivery of an actor by gestures. In this play, under the guise of Sogliardo, a clown, is presented in a ridiculous light, the man whom after his death, if he meant the actor, he professed to have loved "on this side idolatry." He also presents another friend, Puntavolo. The likenesses are so boldly drawn as to be un- mistakable. It will be remembered that shortly before the production of this play, the actor had secured the recognition by the Herald's College of a coat of arms, for which application had been made some years before by his father. The strenuous efforts, and the vulgar methods resorted to in obtaining this recogni- tion, naturally furnished the wits with a fruitful subject for ridicule, and supplied matter for several plays. Jonson, al- ways impecunious, seized upon it for capital, and used it with signal advantage. He even made his names picturesque: Sogliardo (sloven) who is said to have a brother, Sordido (miser) is a clown who has purchased a coat of arms, and Puntavolo (a swift point) in this case a skilled spearman, for he is called in the play a pheuterer (spear-bearer), a pheuter 11 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS being a rest attached to the saddle of a man at arms to sup- port the spear. We are told in the "Faerie Queene'': — A speare hefeutred and at him he bore.^ With these is Carlo Buffone (Buffoon) who enlivens the dialogue. More clearly to identify this spear-bearer he also bears Bacon's crest, a boar statant, while the clown's crest is the same boar diffait et rampant, or decapitated and up- right. When the spear-man inquires what his purchased crest represents, he replies: "Your Bore without a head." This is the scene : — Enter Sogliardoy Puntavolo, Carlo. Sog. (in his Warwickshire dialect). Nay, I will haue him, I am resolute for that, by this Parchment, Gentlemen, I haue ben so toil'd among the Harrots yonder, you will not beleeue; they doe speake i' the straungest language, and giue a man the hard- est termes for his money, that euer you knew. Car. But ha' you armes ? ha' you armes ? Sog. Yfaith, I thanke God I can write myselfe Gentleman now, here's my Pattent, it cost me thirtie pound by this breath. Punt. A very faire Coat, well charg'd and full of Armorie. Sog. Nay, it has as much varietie of colours in it, as you haue scene a Coat haue, how like you the Crest, Sir.f* Punt. I vnderstand it not well, what is't? Sog. Marry Sir, it is your Bore without a head. Rampant. Punt. A Bore without a head, that's very rare. Car. I, and Rampant too; troth I commend the Herald's wit, he has deciphered him well; A Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything indeed. Ramping to Gentilitie. You can blazon the rest signior.^ Can you not.^ Punt. Let the word be, "Not without mustard," your Crest is very rare, sir. Car. A frying-pan to the crest, had had no fellow. (Act III, Scene i.) This blazon, or motto, which Puntavolo suggests as appro- priate to the crest of Sogliardo, plainly identifies it with that ^ Faerie Queene^ i/, iv, 45. 78 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of the actor, which was "Not without Right." Its attach- ment to Bacon's coat of arms is significant, and especially so is Sogliardo's reply to Puntavolo when asked what arms he had acquired : " Your Bore without a head." Jonson is said to have made the actor's acquaintance in 1598, not long before this scene was written. He had been in London eleven years, but the picture that Jonson draws of him under the title of Sogliardo, though possibly exaggerated, must preserve in some degree the impression which he made upon his carica- turist years after many of the best plays were published. We are certainly justified in dismissing "Honest Ben" as a witness for the defendant. But how shall we dispose of Puntavolo, the feuterer, or spear-bearer, so analogous to the word Shake-spear, for it is to this word that it is related, and of his crest which as fully identifies him with Bacon as if Bacon's name had been used; or how dispose of the clown possessing Bacon's crest, but headless or brainless, which, with the motto, as plainly indi- cates the actor as if it, too, bore his name? We leave the question to the judgment of the reader, and whether Jonson knew that the ignorant actor was enjoying an honor not legit- imately his. Let us now place upon the stand another contemporary, Robert Greene. Greene was six years the senior of the actor, having taken a master's degree at Cambridge in 1583, and having since led a loose life like most of his associates. He was an erratic genius with a sensitive conscience, and an over- powering thirst for alcohol; hence, seasons of debauchery and want were followed by periods of passionate repentance. He died in 1592 at the early age of thirty-four, "after a de- bauch of pickled herrings and Rhenish." In his "Farewell to Folly," 1587, reflecting, no doubt, the feelings of others as well as his own, he expresses his views respecting the authorship of the plays popularly imputed to the actor, attributing them to some who, " For their calling 79 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS and gravity, being loth to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hands get some other to set his name to their verses"; and he significantly concludes that "He that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself the father of interludes"; and in his "Groatsworth of Wit," he says, "There is an upstart Crow beautified with our Feathers, that with his Tyger's heart wrapt in a Player's hyde, supposes he is as wel able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake- scene in the Country." ^ The expression, "Tyger's heart wrapt in a Player's hyde" is from the play of "Henry VL" Henry Chettle, who pub- lished Greene's book, apologized for this attack, but men- tioned no names. In the apology he used these words : — I am as sorry as if the originall fault had been my fault, be- cause my selfe have seene his desmeanor no less civil! than he is excelent in the qualitie he professes; besides, divers of wor- ship have reported his uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that aprooves his Art. 2 This is all, and, if it refers to the actor, as so many of his admirers claim, though some deny, furnishes very little for favorable comment. All that Chettle had himself personally noticed was the civil demeanor of the person alluded to, with whom he seems to have had the slightest acquaintance; the rest he had heard reported. Surely this is faint praise, and notably perfunctory; but had it rung with paeans of admira- tion from Chettle it should still have passed unnoticed, for Chettle could hardly have been much respected. Dekker thus introduces him to the poets in Elysium : — In comes Chettle sweating and blowing by reason of his fatnes; to welcome whom, because he was of olde acquaintance, all rose ^ Groatszvorth of Wit, n.p. London, 1629. 2 Henry Chettle, Kind Heart's Dream. London [1592], n.d. 80 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS up, and fell presentlie on their knees to drinck a health to all the lovers of Hellicon. And Brandes, from whom this is quoted, remarks: — Elze has conjectured, possibly with justice, that in this puffing and sweating old tun of flesh, who is so whimsically greeted with mock reverence by the whole gay company, we have the very model from whom Shakespeare drew his demigod, the immortal Sir John Falstaff.i Nash is even more bitter, calling the actor an " idiot-art- master," who obtained all his learning in a grammar school, and sneers at the possibility of his "translating two penny pamphlets from the Italian without any knowledge even of its articles." This refers to the Italian plays which had not long before been written. Such authors, he says, "condemn arts a« improbable, contenting themselves with a little country graiTii.ar knowledge, thanking God with that abscedarie priest in Lincolnshire, that he never knew what that Romish, popish Latin meant." ^ In 1601, Jonson's "Poetaster" was produced, in which the principal character of Crispinus is ridiculed as Sogliardo is for his folly in attempting to acquire gentility by the dis- play of a coat of arms. There can be no doubt that Jonson's satire in this production is aimed at the actor. It is too plainly drawn to be doubted. The father of Crispinus is described as "A man of worship," which John Shakspere's humble neigh- bors considered him. Crispinus is uneducated, and is ad- vised to employ a tutor as he has '' a canting coat of arms," which unmistakably identifies him with the actor, though Fleay refuses to recognize the caricature. We now come to the Ratsey episode, as it is denominated by Phillipps, who has printed it from the original entered for publication at Stationers' Hall, May 31, 1605. It seems to have been written solely as a vehicle for a lampoon upon 1 Brandes, William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 211. 2 Thomas Nash, The Anatomy of Absurdity. London, 1589. 81 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the Stratford actor, and gives an interesting view of the status of strolling players of that time. It begins in this wise: — Gamaliell Ratsey and his company travailing up and downe the countrey — came by chance into a inne where that night there harbored a company of players.^ Having sent for several of the principal ones, he had them perform for him and dismissed them with a liberal douceur. The next morning, Ratsey, seemingly a dissolute gentleman of wealth, sets out well mounted, and, overtaking them, was met with obsequious greetings which he received contempt- uously, bidding them "leave off their cringing and comple- ments," and compelling them to return the money he had given them. Having done this he complimented "The chief- est of them" upon his presence upon the stage, and begins his satire upon the Stratford actor in these words : — Get thee to London, for if one man [Burbage] were dead they will have much neede of such a one as thou art. There would be none in my opinion fitter than thyselfe to play his parts. My conceipt is such of thee, that I durst adventure all the mony in my purse on thy head to play Hamlet with him for a wager. There thou shalt learne to be frugall, — for players were never so thriftie as they are now about London — and to feede upon all men, to let none feede upon thee; to make thy hand a stranger to thy pocket, thy hart slow to performe thy tongues promise; and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee some place or lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation; then thou needest care for no man, nor not for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the stage. Sir, I thanke you, quoth the player, for this good counsell; I promise you I will make use of it, for I have heard, indeede, of some that have gone to London very meanly, and have come in time to be exceeding wealthy. And in this presage and propheticall humor of mine, says Ratsey, kneele downe — Rise up. Sir Simon Two Shares and a Halfe; thou art now one of my knights, and the first knight that ever was player in England. ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 325. 82 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS This appears to have been written not far from the close of the Stratford actor's theatrical activity, and, with the opinions of contemporaries already cited, shows us plainly how he was known to them at different periods, from a few years after his advent to near the close of his career in London. There is a verisimilitude about them which, though possibly exaggerated, stamps them as genuine, revealing to us the same figure that walked the streets of Stratford in early life, un- lettered, rude, immoral, selfish, — all of which was mellowed by a coarse natural wit, — a figure far from agreeable, and which in the later years of his life among his Stratford con- temporaries was unrelieved by the grace of generosity or solicitude for the welfare of others, but retained the same sordid features that pertained to the rude rustic who afore- time displayed his dramatic "wit" in the shambles. In 1606, there was printed in London, "The Return from Pernassus," a trilogy which had been formerly acted by Cambridge students. In the first scene of Act V, Studioso, a student, bewails England's neglect of her scholars, and her exaggerated esteem of actors, and ends by declaring that, — With mouthing words that better wits have framed, They purchase lands, and now Esquiers are made. To this, Philomusus, lover of the Muse, replies : — Whatere they seeme being even at the best, They are but sporting fortunes scornfull jest. Here we have again the familiar skit at the Stratford actor's unfortunate purchase of a coat of arms with "words that better wits have framed." As so many of the words he mouthed were from the "Shakespeare" plays, we cannot wonder if the insinuation they carry, like a similar one in the Ratsey episode, seems to some minds worthy of considera- tion. It may be replied that the trilogy is an unfortunate source from which to quote, and that it contains a commendation of 83 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the actor of a nature to show that the Cambridge students beUeved him to be the author of the works. It might be re- joined that beHefs are not admissible evidence; but what really is this commendation? Throughout the trilogy sounds an unmistakable note of contempt for actors; "Adonis" and "Lucrece" are mentioned approvingly. On their title-pages was the name, "William Shakespeare," but this was a matter of common knowledge, and in no wise identified them with the Stratford actor. In the last part of the trilogy, however, some of the students masquerade as Burbage and Kempe, two popular actors, who, to enliven the scene, boastingly declare that "few of the university pens play well," and that "our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye, and Ben Jonson, too." Certainly such a remark in a satirical play by rollicking students is of no weight in determining a question of authorship. Is it in any wise equivalent to the condem- natory quotation which the actor's biographers ignore, while flaunting the commendatory one ? Of this the reader is com- petent to judge. Possibly he may be interested to ascertain, if he has not already done so, what other contemporary and friendly authorities have said to identify him with the au- thorship of the works, and we will refer to "The Centurie of Prayse," from which we have already quoted. The "Allusions" and supposed "Allusions," beginning with Greene, Chettle, and Nash, number, between 1592 and 1624, one hundred and nineteen. The most important we have al- ready treated. While they refer to certain plays and poems which bear the name " Shake-speare " or ''Shakespeare" on their title-pages, a name, as we shall see, employed by several unknown authors on similar works, some of which alluded to are still in dispute, not one identifies the actor with the author of the plays or poems. That this statement of non-identity is not overstrained is acknowledged by no less an authority than Fleay, the author of a life of the actor, who, speaking of these allusions, declares that 84 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS They consist almost entirely of slight references to his pub- lished works, and have no bearing of importance on his career. Nor, indeed, have we any extensive material of any kind to aid us in this investigation; one source of information which is abundant for most of his contemporaries, being in his case en- tirely absent. This is a most important admission, made by a student eager to find facts relating to his subject. He continues: — Neither as addressed to him by others, nor by him to others, do any commendatory verses exist in connection with any of his or any other men's work published in his lifetime — a notable fact in whatever way it may be explained. Nor can he he traced in any personal contact beyond a very limited circle^ although the fanciful might-have-beens, so largely indulged in by his biographers might at first lead to an opposite conclusion.^ This is a precise and true statement, supported by all the evidence in existence respecting the actor, and just what and all that we should expect of the man as we know him. But Lee, one of the most dogmatic and unreliable writers on the subject that has yet appeared to confuse and mislead the casual reader, one who never hesitates to restate as positive fact what his predecessors have hesitatingly suggested as possible, declares that The scantiness of contemporary records of Shakespeare's career has been much exaggerated. An investigation extending over centuries has brought together a mass of detail which far exceeds that accessible in the case of any other contemporary professional writer. Nevertheless, some important links are missing, and at some critical points appeal to conjecture is in- evitable. But the fully ascertained facts are numerous enough to define sharply the general direction that Shakespeare's career followed. 2 Perhaps it is sufficient to say that "the mass of detail" which Lee speaks of, based upon authentic records, or even 1 Frederick Card Fleay, J Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, pp. 73, 74. New York, 1886. 2 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 361. 8s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS upon rational traditions, during the two centuries mentioned, shrink into insignificance when subjected to critical judg- ment. The reader is assured that this "mass of detail" is to be found fully set forth in this volume. Of the "Allusions" four have especially been made the theme of commentators. They have marshaled them before us with a display of learning intended to silence all cavil, and so often and persistently as to awaken in us a doubt of their motive, which ostensibly is to enlighten, but the result of which has been to blind us to the defects of a shaky thesis. Even that true scholar, Edwin Reed, was betrayed into ac- cepting one of them as referring to the author of the plays. So much stress has been laid upon these particular allusions, and they have been used so triumphantly to silence ques- tioners, though they really have no true bearing upon the question of authorship, that we feel warranted in noticing them. This is one : — And there, though last not least, is Action; A gentler shepheard may no where be found, Whose muse, full high of thought's invention, Doth, like himselfe, heroically sound. Says Lee : — It is hardly doubtful that Spenser described Shakespeare in "Colin Clout's come home againe (completed in 1594) under the name of 'Action,' a familiar Greek proper name derived from Aeros, an eagle." It no more seems to have occurred to Lee than to his predecessors that the name of the Muse as well as that of the person eulogized should "heroically sound." ^ Is there any one of the Muses, or any one in Greek mythology, — for the author of "Colin" might select any mythical deity to serve figuratively as an inspirational source, — whose name sounded "heroically" like that of the actor.? There is not a single one ^ It is interesting to note that the Shaksperian scholar White derives the name from Jacques Pierre, basing his opinion upon the ancient phonetic form. 86 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS that can be so associated with him. Even the name of Pallas Athene — who is the nearest, since she bore the spear — does not sound heroically. Who, then, was intended .? While Bacon was at the French Court it was mourning the loss of one of the most beloved of the Pleiade, Remy Belleau, a truly gentle shepherd, since he had written the " Bergeries,'' or Sheepfolds, a pastoral treating of the loves of the shepherds; moreover, he was not only a shining poet but a splendid warrior, and such men were spoken of as being inspired with valor by the goddess of war, Bellona, who might properly be called his Muse whose name Doth like himselfe heroically sound; — in fact, is pronounced precisely like it except that in her case the feminine terminal is necessarily added. That this allusion, which wholly fails to describe the author of the "Shakespeare" Works, should have been pressed so eagerly into the service of partisans as a prop to their cause, is conspicuous evidence of its weakness. The next two which have done yeoman service for a century, Lee himself has been forced to abandon, though they are still quoted approvingly by others, and no doubt will continue to be echoed by careless writers for a generation. This is the most familiar: — And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made To mock her selfe and Truth to imitate. With kindly counter under mimick shade, Our pleasant Willy, ah! is dead of late.-^ Says Lee: "There is no ground for assuming that Spenser referred figuratively to Shakespeare, when he made Thalia deplore the recent death of 'our pleasant Willy.' The name Willy was frequently used in contemporary literature as a term of familiarity without relation to the baptismal name of the person referred to. Sir Philip Sidney was addressed as 'Willy' by some of his elegists"; and he concludes that Richard Tarleton, "A comic actor 'dead of late' in a literal 1 Tears of the Muses. 1591. Spenser Folio, 161 1. 87 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS sense/' was the subject of this "allusion." He says "in a literal sense" because his predecessors, in order to account for the allusion which was written twenty-five years before the actor's death, had assumed that "dead of late" was used figuratively, as at that time the actor had "probably retired from literary work." The reason for this abandonment of a cherished bit of fiction is found in the fact that an annotated copy of the "Spenser" Folio of 1611 disclosed that the term "Willy" was familiarly applied to Tarleton, who was a popu- lar favorite, and to the additional fact that he was noted for a popular song entitled "Willy," the music of which is still preserved. The other allusion is this : — But that same gentle spirit, from whose pen Large streames of honnie and sweete nectar flows — Doth rather choose to sit in idle cell Than so himselfe to mockerie to sell. This, too, which furnishes that familiar adjective "gentle" to the object of the Stratfordian adoration, is reluctantly abandoned. Says Lee again: — Similarly the "gentle spirit," who is described by Spenser in a later stanza as sitting "in idle cell" rather than turn his pen to base uses, cannot be reasonably identified with Shakespeare.^ Of the fourth Lee jubilantly exclaims: — At any rate Shakespeare acknowledged acquaintance with Spenser's work in a plain reference to his "Teares of the Muses" (1591) in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (vi, 52-53): — "The thrice three Muses, mourning for the death Of learning, late deceased in beggary." This has even less to recommend it than the "pleasant Willy" allusion has. "Midsummer Night's Dream" was written as early as 1594, though it was not registered for pub- 1 A Life of Shakespeare^ p. 80 et seq. Cf. Dictionary of National Biography^ sub. Tarleton. 88 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS lication until October 8, 1600. Spenser died January 16, 1598 ; hence the only possible assumption is that it was interpolated fully four years after it was written. This is a wholly unwar- ranted assumption. But does it describe Spenser.? He was always a poor man, it is true, but is it fair to say that he "died in beggary" when he refused, just before he died, if Drummond in his " Conversations with Ben Jonson" is to be credited, "twenty pieces" sent him by Essex? But we offer this dilemma to our orthodox friends: suppose we adopt their assumption that the lines under discussion were interpolated late in the year 1600, when the last act was being printed, how are we to dispose of Richard Hooker, who died November 2 of that year? Who represented learning to a greater degree than he of whom it is said, "he stood apart"; that "later" ages have looked back to him as "emi- nent" even in "the period of Spenser, of Shake-speare and Bacon" ? Hooker was a man of indefectible humility, wholly indifferent to money or position. When visited on one occa- sion by Cranmer, he was found " reading Horace and tending sheep." He had begged a church living to enable him to pursue his benevolent work, and presumably died penniless just after his house was robbed. Fortunately, however, it turned out that a sum of money had been saved, "which was not got by his care, much less by the good housewifery of his wife, but saved by his trusty servant, Thomas Lane." ^ Hooker's death occurring while "Midsummer Night's Dream" was going through the press, would have been noted before that of any other contemporary; indeed, it is to "a public calamity much talked of" that the orthodox ascribe the date of composition of this very play. Certainly it is much more reasonable to give Hooker the credit of this al- lusion than Spenser, but we need do neither, for to our sur- prise we find that no less an orthodox authority than Ebs- worth abandons this last Spenser fiction in the following 1 Isaac Walton, The Lives of Dr. John Donne et als., p. 239. Boston, i860. 89 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS positive manner: "The 'Thrice three muses' cannot have been an allusion to Spenser's 'Tears of the Muses/" Upon such trivialities has a wholly fictitious personality been created for the Stratford actor. What will Clelia and Thorp and Lee, et id genus omne, do if they can no more apply to him the unctuous adjectives of "pleasant" and "gentle," and the pet name of "Willy"? They will have left only Greene's and Jonson's description of him, imperfect, if you please, but far truer than those they have imposed upon credulous readers. Mr. G. F. Bates finds two instances which he thinks suffi- cient to remove all doubt of the actor's authorship, and he makes this comment : — The Baconians have such an ingenious way of interpreting evidence to meet their views, that it would be both curious and interesting to know how they would deal with these two cases. ^ Let us gratify his curiosity. Both are from Thomas Heywood. He quotes first these familiar lines : — Millifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting Quill Commanded Mirth and Passion, was but Will; and then from the "Apology for Actors," published in 1612, in which Heywood refers to the " Passionate Pilgrim," first pubHshed in 1599 under the name "Shakespeare," by the "Incorrigible Jaggard," as Lee calls him. In this are two poems written by Heywood, and in the "Apology" he says: — I must necessarily insert a manifest injury done me in that worke by taking the two Epistles of Paris to Helen, and Helen to Paris, and printing them — under the name of another, which may put the world in opinion I might steale them from him — the author I know much offended with M. Jaggard, that (al- together unknown to him) presumed to make so bold with his name. ^ London Notes and Queries ^ vol. xi, p. 493. 1903. 90 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS With relation to these references Mr. Bates thinks they identify the Stratford actor as an author. In the first case we have no reason to suppose that Heywood knew anything at all about the actor's real connection with the works which bore his name. His carelessness is strongly emphasized by Phillipps in referring to this very book, the "Passionate Pilgrim/- in which he says: — He does not appear to have examined the volume with any degree of care. Had he done so, he would hardly have refrained from enhancing his complaint against Jaggard by observing that, independently of the two epistles, the latter had also appropriated five other poems from the [Heywood's] Troia Britanica.^ . He also expresses his opinion of the actor's part in the transaction in this wise : — Although Heywood thus ingeniously endeavours to make it appear that his chief objection to the piracy arose from a desire to shield himself against a charge of plagiarism, it is apparent that he was highly incensed at the liberty that had been taken; and a new title-page to the Passionate Pilgrim of 1612, from which Shakespeare's name was withdrawn was afterwards issued. There can be but little doubt that this step was taken mainly in consequence of the remonstrances of Heywood ad- dressed to Shakespeare, who may certainly have been displeased at Jaggard's proceedings, but as clearly required pressure to induce him to act in the matter. If the publisher would now so readily listen to Shakespeare's wishes, it is difficult to believe that he would not have been equally compliant had he been expostulated with either at the first appearance of the work in 1599, or at any period during the following twelve years of its circulation.^ No, as we have already intimated, he was not displeased, for if people wanted to exploit him as an author, he had no reason to object; he was benefited by the notoriety such ad- vertising gave him; nevertheless, like everything else known of him, this quiet acceptance for twelve years of the repute this literary piracy yielded, discloses his true character. 1 Outlines, etc., vol. 11, pp. 296-97. ^ Ihid., vol. i, pp. 237-38. 91 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS "But," says Mr. W. E. Wilson on Jonson's lines in 1623, "To the memory of my beloved, the author. Master William Shakespeare, and what he has left us": "As Bacon died in 1626, how could the last six lines refer to a man who was still alive? Here is one of the strongest bits of evidence against the whole Baconian theory." This is no stranger than what we have already quoted from Jonson, even if subject to the interpretation given to the lines by Wilson. Jonson wrote them in 1623 to be attached to what he knew to be but a part of the so-called "Shakespeare" plays; all, however, which their author, who had so tragically finished his public career, chose to leave, and had "left," to the world, to which he was figuratively regarded by himself and others as dead. But had this not been the case a suffi- cient answer would be that Jonson was only carrying out the futile task which had been set him of sustaining the pseudo- nymity of the plays, so important to Bacon, whose great philosophical works were then going through the press. If this view is acceptable, we are willing, in order to show how worthless such utterances are, to accept Mr. Wilson's own witness, Leonard Digges, who also wrote a eulogy for the Folio, too rankly false to pass even its complaisant censor. We have shown the character of Elizabethan eulogy perhaps enough already, but this one is worth noting, and should be sufficient to dispose of such effusions as evidence : — Next Nature onely helpt him, for looke thorow This whole booke, thou shalt find he doth not borrow One phrase from Greekes, nor Latines imitate, Nor once from vulgar languages translate, Nor plagiari-like from others gleane, Nor begges he from each witty friend a scene. We will not charge Digges with wittingly falsifying to this extent, choosing rather to let him off on the score of being ignorant of the works in question. Mr. Wilson argues that inasmuch as the eulogy of Digges, which he admits was wholly 92 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS false, was excluded from the Folio, it is good evidence that Jonson's eulogy was true. Such logic is unworthy of attention.^ After the actor's death a monument was erected to him at Stratford by some one unknown, and on it was placed an inscription pointing to him as an author. This for a long time seemed sufficient evidence, and when the lines on the portrait, and eulogy by Jonson were published in 1623, it was but reasonable for those who did not know otherwise to suppose that the author was reliable authority, and so by many he is regarded still as the one witness whose testimony should pass unchallenged, both as to the fidelity of the portrait to life, and the authorship of the works. We believe that the reader, after weighing the evidence here adduced, will not accept him as a reliable witness for the defendant. Of course, the monument, and every mention of the plays, Stratfordians cite as evidence of authorship by the Stratford actor. Mr. Andrew Lang pre- sents the typical argument advanced in this jaunty manner: — When contemporaries of Shakespeare wrote about Shake- speare's plays and poems, they had no reason to add, "We mean the plays and poems of Mr. William Shakespeare of My Lord of Leicester's servants or of the King's servants." There was no other William Shakespeare in the public eye. Everyone con- cerned with the stage and literature knew well who William Shak — any spelling you please — was. If to-day we wrote of our dramatic poets, Mr. Galsworthy and Mr. Shaw, we would not waste time on saying what Mr. Galsworthy and Mr. Shaw This sounds well, and is a plausible argument in the case, but it presupposes conditions which never existed. Up to 1598, not a single play had been printed which bore the actor's name. Says Lee: "The playhouse authorities deprecated the publishing of plays in the belief that their dissemination in print was injurious to the receipts of the theatre." ^ 1 London Notes and Queries, vol. xii, p. 35. 1903- 2 Cornhill Magazine, September, 1912. 3 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 48. 93 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The actor cannot be said to have been in the pubUc eye, and "every one concerned with the stage and literature" could not have known him to be a dramatic author. The citation of Galsworthy and Shaw, who are very much in the public eye, and well known as authors, seems unfortunate. Very few of his contemporaries seem to have known him. Of these, Jonson is far more important than all of them combined. The reader has witnessed the value of his evidence. It is certainly strange, as all his biographers lament, that the actor, if he were an author, did not in some way indicate his authorship. There was no reason why he should conceal it; on the contrary, every inducement why he should not. We cannot conceive of a needy young man coming to London eager for success, with poems and plays "in his pocket," as has been so ridiculously claimed, with no desire to be known, especially if his work found favor with theatrical managers and publishers. Other literary contemporaries, Heywood, Drayton, Nash, Beaumont, Fletcher, and others, who were in the public eye, were known and spoken of as authors of the works they wrote. No, William Shakspere, the actor, was but one of the "men players" and "deserving men," as Cuthbert Burbage called him in 1635 in his petition to the Earl of Pembroke and others. If he had known him as the author of the plays so important to the theater, and a poetic genius, it would seem that he would have thought to augment the weight of his petition by giving him a more imposing designa- tion. It is curious, also, to note that this very Earl of Pem- broke is the one whom the actor's biographers identify with the mysterious "Mr. W. H." of the "Sonnets," and an inti- mate friend of the actor. If this were true, can we imagine Burbage using such terms as one of the "men players" and "deserving men," if he had been the author of "Hamlet" and the "Sonnets" and my lord's familiar friend? But the most important bit of contemporary evidence of the insignificance of the actor is afforded by the diary of John 94 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Manningham. Manningham was a wealthy man of the Inns of Court, acquainted with the leading men of his time, and a conservator of the gossip afloat in the metropolis. Had the actor been patronized at court, or by the men about him, as his biographers would have the world believe, Manningham would have been the first to record it in his diary. In the scandalous story concerning the actor already quoted, Man- ningham speaks of Shakspere and Burbage, and, it will be remembered, closes his entry with the words, "Shakespeare's name, William." This was all he knew of this obscure actor; his name was "William." Can we conceive of a diarist ending an anecdote about the immortal Washington when he was at the height of his fame with the information that his name was George? This shows that he knew nothing about the actor, and gath- ered from his informant that his name was William. This lack of knowledge of the "man player," William, is empha- sized earlier in his diary when he writes : — Febr. 1601. At our feast wee had a play called "Twelve Night, or What you Will," much like the Commedy of Errores, or Menechme in Plautus, but most like and neere to that in Ital- ian called Inganni.^ He then describes it, but no mention is made of the actor, who we have been told by his biographers, "probably" took part in the performance. Had he made any impression upon Manningham, or had Manningham known that the actor was the author of the play, — and he was one of the best-in- formed men in London, — he would have been sure to have recorded it; it was just such an item as he wanted. But there were other enterprising diarists of that period, and not one has mentioned the actor, nor when he died was it noticed, nor was a single elegy written about him, although elegists were as plentiful and clamorous when occasion offered as rooks at even-song. The elegies came when Jaggard wanted them to 1 Diary of John Manningham, p. 18. Westminster, 1868. 95 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS sell his "Folio" seven years later, and have done more to associate the actor's name with the works than anything else ; yet it is about certain that those who wrote them knew little, if anything, about him. But what shall we think of this from the first Scene of Act V of "As You Like It," first printed in the Folio of 1623, though performed several years earlier? To Clowne and Audrie enter William. Clo. It is meat, and drinke to me to see a clowne by my troth, we that have good wits, have much to answer for; we shall be flouting; we cannot hold. Will. Good ev'n, Audrey. Aud. God ye good ev'n, William. Will. And good ev'n to you sir. {removing his hat.) Clo. Good ev'n gentle friend. Cover thy head; cover thy head; Nay prethee bee cover'd. How olde are you, Friend."* Will. Five and twentie. Sir. Clo. A ripe age; Is thy name William.? Will. William, Sir. Clo. A f aire name. Was't borne i' the Forrest here?^ Will. I Sir, I thanke God. Clo. Thanke God; A good answer; Art rich.? Will. 'Faith Sir, so, so. Clo. So, so, is very good, very good, very excellent good; and yet It is not, it is but so, so; Art thou wise? Will. I Sir, I have a prettie wit. Clo. Why, thou saist well. I do now remember a saying: The Foole doth thinke he is wise but the wise man knowes himselfe to be a Foole — You do love this maid ? Will. I do Sir. Clo. Give me vour hand: art thou learned.? Will. No Sir. Does this refer to the actor? Mr. Lawrence calls attention to the ejaculation "Thank God," the same used by Sogliardo in Ben Jonson's play, which he thinks was a characteristic expression of the Stratford actor; also to the questions, "Art thou rich?" and the reply, "So so," as he was not rich in any true sense, and, "Art thou learned?" as well as the phrase, 1 The Forest of Arden. 96 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS "Pretty wit," so often applied to the actor, and the term "gentle" addressed to him, as implying that he possessed the heraldic insignia of a gentleman. There might be a difficulty in identifying the actor with the character of William, did we reflect that he must have known that it referred to him if it were in the play, and he acted in it ; but this difficulty vanishes when we remember his biographers' portrayal of him; be- sides, there is no evidence that he ever acted in it. Of course it might be replied that Somers, Henry the Eighth's fool, was called Will, but this would be too far-fetched to serve as a reasonable objection. THE QUARTOS To acquire a fair knowledge of the status of Shaksperian criticism, one should study the Quartos in connection with the Folios. Facsimiles of these have been reproduced by photo- lithography. They were originally printed for popular use. These Quartos ^ have been the cause of endless controversy. But thirteen plays in the Folio bearing the actor's name were published in quarto during his life. These were: — 1598 1603-04 Love's Labours Lost Hamlet 1600 1608 Henry IV Richard II Midsummer Night's Dream Lear Much Ado about Nothing Merchant of Venice 1609 Troiius and Cressida 1602 Pericles Richard III Romeo and Juliet (Undated. Merry Wives of Windsor Most copies anonymous.) These had been preceded by the following anonymous Quartos : — ^ The Quartos were originally sold for a few pennies; a copy of the rarest of them was priced on a recent catalogue at five hundred pounds. 97 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS I59I The Troublesome Reign of King John 1597 Richard II Richard III 1594 Taming of a Shrew The Contention, ist part (2d part of Henry VI) 1598 Henry IV (ist part) Romeo and Juliet (2d Ed.) Famous Victories Henry V 1595 True Tragedy (3d part Henry VI) Romeo and Juliet 1600 Titus Andronicus Many of these plays, had they not been collected and pub- lished together at the right moment, would be masquerading to-day under the names of men who never knew them, for our modern oracles have taken high-handed liberties in ac- cording unclaimed literary property to whomsoever they would. How could they do otherwise? Working under limitations which restricted them to the narrowest fields of thought, they have done as well as we ought to expect. What different results would have been accomplished, could the one to whom they have devoted their energies been a man proficient in the learning of his day; wise in its use; noble in his life; a literary laborer; and, especially, known as such early enough to have been the author of "The Contention," the "old" "Henry VI," or the "old" "Hamlet," and other "old" plays which they have been forced, by the limitations which have constrained them, to assign to incapable men, who had a modicum of learning, and scribbled early enough to have them foisted upon them without raising the question of alibi. Does any one doubt, who has read these little Quartos, that had Ben Jonson, for instance, been the son of John Shakspere, your Stratfordian devotee would contend with much flourish of scholarship that they were the immature works of a young author, pieces of his dead self on which he climbed to higher things, who, later, revised and improved; 98 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS in other words, made them what they are to-day? Probably not; nor would it be necessary for Robertson, Lee, and other partisans, who have seen the fatal weakness of their prede- cessors, to contend that the wide knowledge displayed in the plays has been misunderstood hitherto, and that it is no more than what an unlearned but fairly bright man might have acquired from the common stock of learning of his time, a theory disproved by history and experience. THE FOLIOS Among the mass of plays which were in existence when Heminge and Condell are supposed to have collected those published in the First Folio of 1623, it is a pregnant question, still mooted, which of them were or were not written by the author of the "Shakespeare" Works. The first appearance of the name, Shakespeare, appears in the dedication to Southampton of the "Venus and Adonis," "The first heir of my invention," in 1593, which White assumes the actor had about him when he left Stratford. He says, "With * Venus and Adonis' written, if nothing else, — hut I think it not unlikely a play, — Shakespeare went to London and sought a patron." ^ How such an assumption can be reconciled with the personality of the man whom he is forced to describe, as all his biographers have been, must be left to the reader to decide. But he goes farther, and buttresses this assumption with another ; the " natural inclination to poetry ( .^) and act- ing which Aubrey tells us he possessed, had been stimulated by the frequent visits of companies of players to Stratford." It may seem to "literary antiquaries" difficult to identify the divine afflatus which inspired the "Venus and Adonis" with anything displayed before leaving Stratford, yet Collins and some others seem to find it easy. Is it possible that the play, which White and Collins assume he carried with "Venus and Adonis" to London, was "Hamlet," the greatest of the ^ White, The Works of William Shakespeare, p. xlix. 99 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS plays, or "Titus Andronicus," or "Pericles," or several others which commentators have assumed were his earliest works, because of their display of immaturity? The refuge of the earlier biographers was in the assumption of the exist- ence of two plays of the same name, the earlier one being by some unknown author; but our later critics, since this position has become untenable, think it wise to assume that the un- trained genius of the actor enabled him to produce great poems and plays " saturated with learning," as Furnivall says, while leading the life which his biographers ascribe to him. In any case the admission of the actor's early authorship is fatal. The next year after the appearance of "Venus and Adonis " ; that is, in 1594, "Lucrece" was published with a dedication also signed, "William Shakespeare." Up to the time of these poems nothing had been published which connected the name "Shakespeare" with its authorship, and the first allusion to the name as that of an author occurs in this year.^ A number of plays, however, had been acted upon the stage previous to this date, several being among those printed in the Folio of 1623, which since then has been the sole authority for their authorship. This authority has been accepted because the editors, Heminge and CondeU, were Shakspere's fellow actors, and supposed to have possessed as well as anybody, except perhaps Henslowe, theatrical manager and buyer of plays, a knowledge of the authorship of the works they claimed to have collected "to procure his orphanes guardians," and "to keepe the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive." The naivete with which they declare their unselfish de- votion to these ends is touching; at the same time they advise prospective purchasers of the book, "him that can but spell — to read and censure"; but to "buy it first." This is more businesslike, if less pathetic, and when we find that some of 1 Willohie His Avis a, London, 1594; reprint, Charies Hughes, p. 15, London, 1904. 100 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the most appealing gems of the preface upon which biogra- phers have so sympathetically animadverted were in the style of Jonson, who, Steevens advises us, wrote the entire preface, as well as the lines to the actor's memory, repeating in it some of his familiar expressions, the fervor of our emotion subsides, and we are disposed to read it more carefully. The play editors by their mouthpiece first say that they have be- stowed great "care and pains" in "collecting" the plays, and later they make this puzzling admission : " His mind and hand went together, and what he thought he uttered with that easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers," which implies that the manuscripts were in his own handwriting, and that they had received them from him. If this is true the plays were all printed from the original manu- scripts, and not from the Quartos published earlier, which the preface tells us were "maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious imposters," while the new Folio exposed them to view "perfect in their limbes," and "abso- lute in their numbers as he conceived them." ^ Yet Pope says that "the Folio, as well as the Quartos, was printed — at least partly — from no better copies than the Prompter s Book, or Piece-meal Parts, written out for the use of the actors; for in some places their very names are thro' carelessness set down instead of the PersoncB Dramatis, as enter Claudio and Jack Wilson instead of Balthasar." ^ These statements cannot be satisfactorily reconciled. The fact is that many of these plays were really printed from the , "maimed and deformed" Quartos. The truth of the "blot" story, which, by the way, is but a repetition of the gossip of players which Jonson had already related, is effectually dis- posed of by a glance at the actor's signatures. What the play- ers saw, if the story were true, must have been the scrivener's copies. Perhaps the best way to reconcile these statements 1 Folio, 1623. Address of Heminge and Condell. 2 Pope, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. xvii. London, 1725. lOI THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS is to regard them either as the verbose elements of an adver- tisement, written after the style of the professional show- man, careless of precise verities if they but serve to stimulate patronage, or more or less veiled statements of facts known to the writer of the preface. But how were Heminge and Condell sure of the authorship of the plays they had collected, or that their collection was complete? It is wholly improbable that the actor, with his keen eye to property rights, would have given them manu- scripts possessing a considerable money value to use as they pleased, and certainly his daughters, whom his biographers like to represent as having inherited their father's business shrewdness, would not have done so. There is nothing to show that they were sure of either, or solicitous about being so. Lee says that they "were nominally responsible for the venture, but it seems to have been suggested by a small syn- dicate of printers and publishers, who undertook all pecuni- ary responsibility. Chief of the syndicate was William Jag- gard — the piratical publisher. In 1613, he had extended his business by purchasing the stock and rights of a rival pirate, James Roberts." ^ If we adopt this statement, and we do not, as it is purely imaginative, except the purchase by Jaggard of Roberts, which exhibits him as a growing and enterprising publisher, we get no clearer view of the conditions surround- ing the production of the Folio, and still realize the perplexing character of the preface; but we should not hold Heminge and Condell responsible for this. Their part in the work was merely nominal. Had they initiated it and gathered the manu- scripts for the benefit of the actor's orphans, and to keep his name alive, as Phillipps and others have believed, too great praise could not be accorded them; but this, it is evident, they did not do. Even the "Epistle Dedicatorie" is a translation from the preface to Pliny's "Natural Historic"; strong evi- dence of their irresponsibility for the work. Certainly some ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 303. 102 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS one was responsible for it, and for the large additions to some of the plays, as well as those hitherto unknown. The financial responsibility, too, was great. The very limited demand for such a work would have deterred any publisher from under- taking it without an adequate subscription list, or guarantee against loss; besides, it was evidently hurried through the press at almost reckless cost, which no prudent publisher would have done. This is shown by the signatures which were the work of different publishing houses, and we can but be- lieve that some one was behind the undertaking pushing it forward with feverish haste, disregardful of the cost. Steevens states that the edition of the book was limited to two hundred and fifty copies, and Lee that the price of it was but one pound. It is now believed that five hundred copies were printed. We may well pause to inquire who was financially responsible for the Folio.? We cannot reasonably believe that Jaggard and Company were. It is more reasonable to suppose that it was the man who reveals so evidently to us his interest in the works by the additions made to them, whose style is unquestionably that of their original author, and who added to the last Quartos printed from 1619 to 1622, as follows: to the "Merry Wives of Windsor" 1081 lines, and rewrote por- tions of the text; to "Henry V/ (part 2), 1139 new lines, a new title, and emended 2000 lines ; to part 3 of the same pla}', 906 new lines, and a new title ; to " King John, " 1 100 new lines, and a new scene; to "Richard III," 193 new lines, and emended nearly 2000 more; to "Othello," 160 new lines, and alterations in the text. In any case, we cannot accept the terms applied to Heminge and Condell by the editor of the Cambridge edition of the "Shakespeare" Works, who accuses them not only of making false statements, but calls them "unscrupulous," "discredited," "knaves," and "imposters"; rather an unnecessary display of heat, even by the editor of the Canon, at loss of support for his unfortunate postulate. Though Lee says that "as a specimen of typography the 103 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS First Folio is not to be commended — the misprints are numerous, and are especially conspicuous in the pagination," Mr. Smedley as plainly asserts that it "will be found to be one of the most perfect examples of the printer's art extant, because no work has been produced under such difficult con- ditions for the printer. — The mispaginations are all inten- tional and have cryptic meanings"; and he calls attention especially to the second book of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning" as a conspicuous example of intentional mispagina- tion: "30 is numbered 33, from 31 to 70 the numbering is cor- rect, and then the leaves are numbered as follows : 70, 70, 72, 74, 73, 74, 75, 69, 11, 78, 79, 80, ^^, 74, 74, 69, 69, 82, 87, 79, 89, 91"; and so on to the end. It is impossible to attribute this mispagination to the printer's carelessness." ^ Up to the date of the Folio, but twenty of the plays it con- tained had been published. The plays contained in the Folio are as follows : — "Romeo and Juliet"; "Love's Labours Lost"; "I and II King Henry IV"; "Much Ado about Nothing"; "Merchant of Venice"; "Midsummer Night's Dream"; and "Troilus and Cressida." These had been printed in quarto form, and appear in the Folio with but few changes. "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" ; " III King Henry VI " ; "Comedy of Errors"; "All's Well that Ends Well"; "As You Like It"; "Twelfth Night"; "Measure for Measure"; "An- tony and Cleopatra"; "Macbeth"; "Cymbeline"; "Winter's Tale"; "Julius Caesar"; and "The Tempest." These had not been printed. "King John"; "I and II King Heniy VI"; "Taming of the Shrew"; "King Richard 11" and "King Richard III"; "King Henry V"; "Titus Andronicus"; "Merry Wives of Windsor"; "Hamlet"; "King Lear"; "Othello." These were printed except the last during the actor's life, but appear in the Folio much changed. "Coriolanus," first mentioned * William T. Smedley, The Mystery of Francis Bacon, p. 123. London, 191 2. 104 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS in an elegy to Burbage in 1619, "Timon of Athens," and "King Henry VHI" appeared first in the Folio. But there were other plays not in the Canon which bore the same evidence of having been written by the author of those which it included, and one at least was admitted to it ; namely, "Titus Andronicus," which has been rejected by many of the critics. Anent this, Phillipps remarks that if we do not ac- cept the authority of the editors of the Folio, "we shall be launched on a sea with a chart in which are unmarked perilous quicksands of intuitive opinions. Especially is the vessel it- self in danger if it touches the insidious bank raised up from doubts on the authenticity of 'Titus Andronicus ' " ; ^ and he makes an excellent plea in its favor; but others have made quite as good ones against it, and the matter is still unsettled. Later, Phillipps changed his mind and said, "I do not really believe that Shakespeare wrote a single line of it." ^ Enough has been said to give a fairly clear idea of the Folio. The actor, as far as known, was never identified with any of the plays it contains except by hearsay, and by the appear- ance of the name "William Shake-speare," or " Shakespeare" ; "W. Sh." or "W.S." on the title-pages of several Quartos, and subsequently of the name on that of the Folio. It is a striking fact that this name is not found in the Stationers' Register, but a more remarkable one that it is not found in a vitally interesting record, or diary, that still survives, in which, had he been an author or playwright, his name should cer- tainly have appeared. This diary is so important that it demands our especial attention. henslowe's diary Philip Henslowe, to whom allusion has been made, was a theatrical proprietor and patron of playwrights. During the most active period of the Stratford actor's career, from 1 Phillipps, Outlines y etc., vol. i, p. 293. 2 Phillipps, Memoranda^ p. 76. Brighton, 1879. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS 1 591 to 1609, he kept a record of his transactions with these playwrights. This "Diary," so-called, was found in 1790 by Malone at Dulwich College, founded by AUeyn, a partner of Henslowe, and has since been printed.^ It is of a most interesting character, since in it appears the name of nearly every dramatic writer of any note, with the signatures and handwriting of many, and, most important of all, the titles of the plays which were written for, or purchased by him. Among these are many of the plays printed in the Folio, but in the "Diary" we look in vain for the Stratford actor's name, which causes Furness sadly to remark, "Where the names of nearly all the dramatic poets of the age are to be frequently found, we might certainly count on finding that of Shake- speare, but the shadow in which Shakespeare's early life was spent envelopes him here too, and his name is not met with in any part of the manuscript"; ^ yet Phillipps remarks that for a considerable period the actor " had written all his dramas for Henslowe." ^ If so, why did not Henslowe mention the name of the author of these plays as he did in other cases? No wonder that the actor's biographers have been put to their wits' end to give some plausible reason, and have failed, though a reason is not far to seek. He enjoyed the notoriety which the association of his name with these works gave him. He neither denied nor affirmed that he was their author. Other writers palmed off their plays upon the public under his name, or one so like it in sound as to pass for it, but he made no complaint. They were played by the company of which he was a member, and he doubtless took minor parts in them. The more advertising in this way the better for his in- terest ; certainly, this is a fair deduction from the biographies of him which we possess. ^ Shakespeare Society, London, 1845. Cf. Peter Cunningham, Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court. London, 1842. 2 Horace Howard Furness, Ph.D., LL.D., A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 11, Appendix. Philadelphia, 1877. 3 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 109. 106 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS But there were plays in the FoHo which the "Diary" in- forms us were written by others, and here, perhaps, it is best to note the fact that Henslowe sometimes employed several writers to construct or arrange a play for the stage, perhaps in order to hasten its production, as appears by this entry in his "Diary": — Lent unto the companye the 22 of May 1602, to geve unto Antoney Monday, Mikell Drayton, Webester, Mydehon and the rest, in earnest of a Booke called Sesers Falle the some of five pounds. This raises a troublesome question. Was this the Folio play of "Julius Caesar"? Collier, the editor of the "Diary," says this play, written in 1602, was produced on the stage in 1603 ; but the "Mirror of Martyrs," by John Weever, published in 1601, has these lines: — The many headed multitude were drawne By Brutus Speech, that Ccesar was ambitious When eloquent Mark Antonie had showne His vertues.^ This allusion was seized upon to account for a perplexing dilemma. There must have been, it was said, two plays of "Julius Caesar," the play in the Folio, and the play written for Henslowe in 1602. The first, it was said, was based upon Plutarch's "Lives," which is devoid of a funeral oration by Mark Antony, therefore, the oration in that play was original with its author, and identified him with it; while Henslowe 's play, no doubt based upon the same authority, and now sup- posed to have been conveniently lost, was presumably without the oration. Unfortunately for this theory, a rare work, printed, in 1578, afforded Weever a ready source for his allu- sion, and discredits the assumption that he referred to the play. In this work is the funeral oration by Mark Antony which furnished the crude elements subsequently transformed 1 C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse, p. 42. London, 1879. 107 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS in the alembic of genius into a thing of beauty. In it Antony- reads the will and moves the multitude by the statement that Caesar had adopted Brutus, and made the people his heirs. As he read each clause, "Antony turned his face and his hand toward Caesar's corpse illustrating his discourse by action." He spoke "in a kind of divine frenzy and then lowered his voice to a sorrowful tone and mourned and wept.'' ^ Were there, then, two plays of "Julius Caesar," the earlier being the Folio play written previous to 1601, and the later one written for Henslowe for the purpose of competing with it, as is claimed, but which mysteriously disappeared .? If so, why was Henslowe's play the only one entered for license previous to the printing of the Folio twenty-one years later? The readiest explanation would seem to be that Henslowe's "Julius Caesar" was that of the Folio, created by the art of an unparalleled genius, and to meet an emergency hastily ar- ranged for the stage by expert playwrights, who may have in- troduced some minor lines in the least important parts of the dialogue. We can hardly go so far, however, as Sir Edward Clarke, who says : — Of the 350 lines of the 5 scenes of the last act of Julius Caesar no fewer than 336 are the clumsy work of another hand, at a dead level of dulness, without a single gleam of elevation of thought, or distinction of phrase. On the other hand, Justin McCarthy and Beerbohm Tree refute this. PLAYS EXCLUDED FROM FIRST FOLIO There is ample evidence that the actor became identified with plays of which he had the handling, and, as he had skill in placing them upon the stage, the public naturally came to speak of plays, the exhibition of which this able factotum supervised, as "Shakespeare" plays, and ran to see them in ^ Horace White, M.A., LL.D., The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria, voL II, pp. 198-200. London, 1899. 108 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS preference to others not so attractive. This accounts for the allusions to them by writers of the period, who knew noth- ing and cared nothing about their real authorship. Such a man would be a godsend to a writer who desired to preserve anonymity, and at the same time secure publicity for his productions, and what a ready solution he would offer for the fact over which the actor's biographers have wondered and lamented, that though inferior plays were published under his name by others he made no complaint. Why should he ? He knew the authors ; they were good fellows, or in a higher rank than he, influential and helpful to his accumulation of the wealth which he coveted in common with the world at large. This is quite in keeping with, and not derogatory to, the man as his biographers reveal him to us. Certainly no one will question the fact that writers used his name as the author of their works, not only with his knowledge, but with- out objection from him. As before remarked, not a single play or book of any kind was ever entered for license on the Stationers' Register in the name of the actor; but the "copy," so-called, was in all the cases we have named entered by others. The especial object of the license was to enable the censors to perform the duty assigned them, thus preventing the publication of writings in- jurious to the Government. The license gave the owner the right to publish, and this right could be assigned at any time. Had Jaggard and Blount possessed the privilege of printing more plays bearing the actor's name, they might have printed a larger number; or, if written by an author who desired to remain unknown, he might have controlled their selection. It should be noted that when the Folio was published, six- teen of the plays were entered by Jaggard and Blount as "soe manie of the said Copies as are not formerly entered to other men." This is a significant fact worthy of the reader's attention. Of the plays omitted called "doubtful," ^ "Peri- * William Hazlitt, The Doubtful Plays of William Shakespeare. London, n.d. 109 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS cles" has been admitted into the Canon, while "Titus An- dronicus/' vouched for by the editors of the FoHo, is still strenuously disputed by most critics. But what other plays existed during the actor's life, some if not all of which were performed by the company to which he belonged, and which, though not written by him, bore his name or initials, and were popularly known as "Shake- speare" plays? This inquiry will show that he permitted writers to use his name to promote his interest, and from what his biographers tell us, can we doubt that it was a pecuniary one ? SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH FOLIOS The First Folio of 1623 having become scarce, a Second Folio was printed in 1632, and was a duplicate of the First with a few unimportant corrections of the text. But the ques- tion of other plays which were also known as "Shakespeare" plays had been discussed, and Heminge and Condell's seem- ingly arbitrary selection was considered too narrow. Why, it was asked, were not more of the "Shakespeare" plays in- cluded in the First Folio? In 1663, a Third Folio, a duplicate of the Second, was printed, and reissued the following year with seven of the ignored plays. On the title-page the ques- tioning public is informed that Under this impression are added seven Plays never before printed in Folio, viz: — Pericles; London Prodigal; Thomas Lord Cromwell; Sir John Oldcastle; The Puritan Widow; A Yorkshire Tragedy, and Locrine. A large portion of this edition was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666, and it is now a rare book. In 1685 the Fourth Folio was printed. It was a duplication of the Third except that the spelling was modernized. Thus it is seen that the later Folios have seven plays selected from a larger number which, during the actor's life, were known as "Shakespeare" no THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS plays. Few modern readers of the works, however, are ac- quainted with them. There were other so-called "Shake- speare" plays, namely: "Arden of Feversham," published in 1584; "The Arraignment of Paris," 1584; "The Birth of Merlin," 1662; "The Two Noble Kinsmen," 1634; "Car- denio," acted as early as 1610, first printed in 1653; "The Double Falsehood," first published by Theobald in 1728, as "written originally by W. Shakespeare," and which, we are told, "according to tradition" was written by the actor for "a natural daughter of his — in the time of his retirement from the stage." ^ "Duke Humphrey," by "Will: Shak- speare," registered 1660; "Eurialus and Lucretia," registered as a work of " Shakespear," 1683; 'Tair Em," published in 163 1, found in a collection of plays belonging to Charles H, and lettered "Shakespear"; "George a Green," acted in 1593, published 1599; "Henry First and Second," by "Will Shake- spear and Rob. Davenport," registered, 1653. "Iphis and lantha," by "Will: Shakspeare," 1660: "The Merry Devil of Edmonton," mentioned in 1604, registered, 1607; "Muce- dorus," printed, 1598; and "Oldrastes and the Second Maid- en's Tragedy," registered, 161 1; "The History of King Stephen," by "Will: Shakespeare," registered, 1660: "King Edward Second, Third and Fourth," 1595. From this it will be seen that the editors of the First Folio, out of at least sixty-four plays popularly known as " Shake- speare" plays, published a little over half, or thirty-six. These plays were on the stage in the actor's lifetime, many bore his name on their title-pages, and their authorship was tacitly acknowledged by him. Certainly this presents a condition of affairs hardly consonant with modern methods, and throws a flood of light upon the actor's relations to a large number of the plays of his time which passed under his name, but in which his only interest was in getting them properly before the patrons of the theater. Phillipps, reflecting upon the 1 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., p. 194. Ed. 1882. Ill THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS strange fact that he made no objection to the use of his name by others, makes these remarks when treating of the " Pas- sionate Pilgrim," and "Sir John Oldcastle": — It Is extremely improbable that Shakespeare, in that age of small London and few publishers, could have been ignorant of the use made of his name in the first edition of the Passionate Pilgrim. — There was, it is true, no legal remedy, but there is reason for believing that, in this case, at least, a personal re- monstrance would have been effective. And — Owing, perhaps, to the apathy exhibited by Shakespeare on this occasion, a far more remarkable operation in the same kind of knavery was perpetrated in the latter part of the following year by the publisher of the First Part of the Life of Sir John 01dca«tle.i The real fact would seem to be that there was no knavery at all in the transaction. The actor's name was his capital, and his permission of its use was profitable to him. This is a much simpler explanation than is disclosed by tiresome pages of argument expended in idle wonder over a very simple trans- action. By placing the man whom his biographers describe in his true position, the untangling of an otherwise impossible snarl is easily accomplished. BLIND GUIDES But perhaps the most significant problem is presented to us in the early authorship of several of the plays in the First Folio. We have followed the actor to London, seen him a drudge in the stables and theater of the Burbages, where he became their factotum, or man of all work, by good humor and a ready hand ; useful in arranging the staging of the plays, and taking minor parts in them. Later we have seen him through the eyes of contemporaries, coarse, dissolute, and grasping, ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, pp. 179-80. 112 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS one whose position made him a convenient intermediary be- tween his employers and needy playwrights who were glad to let their productions pass under his name as the readiest means of reaching the public. Here we are brought face to face with the question of early authorship. It seems evident that some of the plays which were subsequently accredited to him were in existence when he arrived in London. Owing to indifference and uncritical judgment, the easy theory that he was the author of the plays with which his name had been associated, and later, those only which were gathered into the Folio of 1623, obtained a standing and final adoption as his by the uncritical Rowe, and the ambitious, active, and none too scrupulous Steevens and Malone, and when the breezy Garrick aroused the popular enthusiasm their crazy craft of theory was launched. Fortunately for the world, among the things with which it was freighted was Heminge and Condell's Folio, and the Quartos. These when examined by the critics caused trouble. The pseudo-editors of the Folio, who had no more to do with the book than the actor had with the plays it contained, were roundly rated for their misleading statements which unneces- sarily complicated a sufficiently troublesome matter. The evident earliness of some of the plays, the remarkable literary character and wide learning which they displayed, were disturbing. The first, they realized, it would be fatal to acknowledge, and so they flatly denied that they were the same plays, but plagiarized versions of earlier plays of the same name, furbished and improved by the actor's assumed genius ; an assumption of which they made excellent use in accounting for the other difficulties in their way— their literary character and display of learning. It was easy to assert that these old plays were lost. Two were triumphantly brought forth, the "Taming of a Shrew" and the "Hamlet" of 1603 ; but these proved to be boomerangs. They were impressions of such copies as Heminge and Condell denominated "maimed 113 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious im- posters," but which they, "pious fellowes/' pubhshed "per- fect in their Hmbes, and absolute in their numbers," as their author "conceived them." No, among the hundreds of old plays which survived, not one of these particular old plays existed. They were never "conceived," much less born. If asked when the actor became a great linguist, scientist, his- torian, lawyer, theological expert, courtier, not to mention poet and philosopher, they unblushingly replied, " During the five years in which he was not publicly mentioned." Why should this poor hostler and theatrical man of all work have sufficiently attracted the attention of those in power to be mentioned ^ Men struggling for an honest living in his class were not likely to attract such public recognition in Tudor times. Having called attention to the dilemma in which Strat- fordian critics found, and still find, themselves, we propose to bring their acknowledged experts before the High Court of Common Sense for examination, who — especially Lee with his jack-in-the-box, Kyd, and curiously autocratic voice, and the "monumental scholar," Furness, who for nearly forty years disturbed the black-lead market by his demand for pencils to write his multitudinous notes — will be sure to amuse the reader. Their testimony will well illustrate the remark made by a former Harvard president, that a fault in the premise always conspicuously reappears in the conclusion. We will suppose the court convened, our readers empan- eled as jurors, and the experts qualified as witnesses. We name as we proceed various plays, and in each case ask the witnesses to tell us what they know about it. We name first Titus Andronicus, which has occasioned so much dis- cussion, some vehemently attacking, and others, with equal vehemence, defending its claim to a place in the Canon. There is a record by Henslowe of a production of this play on Jan- uary 23, 1594, and later it was entered anonymously on the Register for publication with a ballad, included subsequently 114 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS in Percy's "Reliques." Its authorship, however, was much earUer. Ben Jonson, no later than 1613, wrote that it had "stood still" on the stage for twenty-five or thirty years. Taking 161 3 as the starting point, this would place its date between 1583-88. It was based, says Phillipps, by its author on the repulsive tale of . . . the Tamora and Andronici, and his earliest play ... it was not regarded as out of the pale of the legitimate drama by the most cultivated, otherwise, so able a scholar and critic as Meres would hardly have inserted its title amongst those of the noteworthy tragedies of Shakespeare.^ Says Upton : — The whole play of "Titus Andronicus" should be flung out of the list of Shakespeare's Works. Referring to Ben Jonson's statement, he continues: — Consequently, "Andronicus" must have been on the stage before Shakespeare left Warwickshire to come and reside in London, so that we have all the evidence, both internal and external, to vindicate our poet from this bastard issue.^ Had Upton foreseen the bearing of this admission he never would have ventured to make it. Lee says : — "Titus Andronicus " was in his own lifetime claimed for Shake- speare.^ And, basing his opinion upon Ravenscroft's statement that it was delivered to the theater by an unknown author, repudiates it, and, though not original in this, suggests Kyd as its author. We shall see what a convenient scapegoat has been made of the mythical Kyd. Lee has especially laid upon him the sins of anonymous authorship ; but this is not 1 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. no. 2 John Upton, Critical Observations on Shakespeare, pp. 288, 289. London, 1798. 3 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 65. London, 1898. IIS THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS enough; he must have an orthodox genealogy, and one has been furnished based upon identity of name, a method that Colonel Chester or Fitz Waters would regard with a smile, especially the latter whose amusing story of his troubles with the unusual name of Rose Raysing is one of the writer's un- fading memories. Says Collier: — We feel no hesitation in assigning "Titus Andronlcus" to Shakespeare. And he points out the remarkable indications of skill and power in an unpracticed dramatist; as a poetical production it has not hitherto had jus- tice done it on account partly of the revolting nature of the plot. It was undoubtedly one of his earliest, if not his very earliest dramatic production.^ An eminent German critic remarks that Almost all English commentators are agreed that Shakespeare for aesthetic reasons cannot have been the author of this drama. Referring to the early date of the play, in which he agrees with Hertzberg and Ulrici, he calls attention to the ballad before mentioned which, he says, — was undoubtedly written after Shakespeare's drama. The date of the origin of the play is supported not only by the most impor- tant internal characteristics, but also an allusion in the introduc- tion to Ben Jonson's "Bartholomew Fair," which Englishmen, for no reason, refer to a non-Shakespearean drama. And he presses his point in this wise : — It would be unreasonable forthwith to reject as absurd the supposition that "Titus Andronicus" was written before Shake- speare left Stratford. 2 1 J. Payne Collier, Esq., F.S.A., The Works of Shakespeare, vol. vi, pp. 205, 206. New York, 1853. 2 Karl Elze, Ph.D., Essays on Shakespeare, pp. 60, 66, 348-49. London, 1894. 116 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS And again, — Some commentators, with much less probability, assign the first beginning of the " Sonnets'' to the period before the poet quitted home.^ The author of the University edition, however, admits its early authorship and accredits it to Shakespeare: he says, — We may infer that in 1614, only one play currently known as "Andronicus" existed, and that this is dated from 1584-89. This favors the view that there never had substantially been more than one play on the story, whatever slight variations in detail it may have undergone.^ But, declares Furnivall, "to nie as to Hallam and many others, the play declares as plainly as play can speak, I am not Shake- speare." Nearly all the best critics from Theobald downwards are agreed that very little of the play was written by Shake- speare, and such is my own judgment now, though "in my salad days," I wrote and printed otherwise.^ Lloyd takes this view : — The internal evidence that has weighed against the authen- ticity of the play founds on the defect of its versification — on the absence of dramatic spirit and poetic imagery — and lastly on the savage details of the story. The monotonous and lame versification is — allowing a date, quite consistent with an early — perhaps the earliest essay of Shakespeare, and we may dis- agree but have no quarrel with those who adopt this view in preference to casting the blame on any supposed original, that he altered and did not entirely overwrite; and think that we may trace in the play the gradations by which this embarrassed style grew into the true Shakespearian vigour.^ 1 Karl Elze, Ph.D., Essays on Shakespeare, pp. 60, 66, 348-49- London, 1894. 2 C. H. Herford, Litt.D., Hon. Litt.D., The Works of Shakespeare, vol. vii, p. 286. London, 1904. 3 Fred'k J. Furnivall, M.A., The Succession of Shakespeare Works, p. xxii. London, 1874 (Leopold edition). Rev. Henry N. Hudson, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, vol. xiii, p. 4. Boston, 1899 (Hudson edition). * William Watkiss Lloyd, Critical Essays on the Plays of Shakespeare, pp. 349> 350- London, 1909. 117 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Perhaps before dismissing "Titus Andronicus" we would do well to quote Malone, who throws some suggestive lights upon the subject especially interesting to Bacon- ians : — To enter into a long disquisition to prove this piece not to have been written by Shakespeare, would be an idle waste of time, — I will, however, mention one mode by which it may be easily ascertained. He then presents a list of fourteen plays, "Selimus," "Lo- crine," "Arden of Feversham," "Edward I," "Spanish Trag- edy," "Solyman and Perseda," "King Leir," "the old King John," and others; plays which for the most part are claimed by Baconians to be early productions of the author of "Hamlet," and declares "'Titus Andronicus,' was coined in the same mint"; and he continues thus: — The testimony of Meres, mentioned in a preceding note, alone remains to be considered. His enumerating this among Shak- speare's plays may be accounted for in the same way in which we may account for its being printed by his fellow-comedians in the first folio edition of his works. Meres was in 1598, when his book appeared, intimately connected with Drayton, and probably acquainted with some of the dramatic poets of the time, from some or other of whom he might have heard that Shak- speare interested himself about this tragedy, or had written a few lines for the author. The internal evidence furnished by the piece itself, and proving it not to have been the production of Shakspeare, greatly outweighs any single testimony on the other side. Meres might have been misinformed, or inconsiderately have given credit to the rumour of the day. For six of the plays which he has mentioned, (exclusive of the evidence which the representation of the pieces themselves might have furnished,) he had perhaps no better authority than the whisper of the theater; for they were not then printed. He could not have been de- ceived by a title-page, as Dr. Johnson supposes; for Shakspeare's name is not in the title-page of the edition printed in quarto in 161 1, and therefore we may conclude, was not in the title- page of that in 1594, of which the other was undoubtedly a re- impression. 118 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Malone, entirely oblivious of the future effect of his words upon the question of the authorship of the plays, discloses with surprising clearness the careless conditions surrounding the authorship of such works, which easily permitted the ascription of a play to one who had nothing to do with it. It was legitimate then for a partisan of the actor to tell the truth in such a case, but now, if he did so, he would be smitten hip and thigh by our modern Philistines and cast out of the camp, the old truth having become heresy. Let us now consider the Two Gentlemen of Verona, a dramatic version of a Spanish romance of George de Monte- mayor, first translated into English in 1598. Some critics have traced unimportant resemblances to other sources. In 1585 a play was enacted before the Queen at Greenwich, under the title of "Felix and Philomena," the names of the hero and heroine of this romance. The first mention of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" was made in 1598, by Francis Meres, who, next to Henslowe, is our most important witness in dramatic matters of this period. As it is, according to the best authorities, a version of Montemayor's romance, would the authorship of the earlier play by the Stratford actor have been questioned, we may ask, had he been in London in 1SB5, -^ and accredited with the authorship of dramatic works? It seems doubtful, though now it is assumed that there were two plays on the same subject. Says Collier of this play: — It is unquestionably the work of a young and unpracticed dramatist. It may have been written very soon after he joined a theatrical company. The notion of some critics that the "Two Gentlemen of Verona" contains few or no marks of Shake- speare's hand is a strong proof of their incompetence to form a judgment.^ The last sentence is strangely familiar. It is the jawbone with which the orthodox Shaksperians like Lee, Collins, Rob- ertson, and others, smite all Philistine dissenters. 1 J. Payne Collier, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 69. 119 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Says White : — Among the unaccountable and incomprehensible blunders of the critics of the last century with regard to Shakespeare and his works, was the denial by two of them, Hanmer and Upton, — and the doubt by more, that he wrote the "Two Gentlemen of Verona." . . . The comparatively timid style and unskillful struc- ture . . . show that it was the work of Shakespeare. . . . May we not place the production of his first three or four plays, of which this is undoubtedly one, earlier than 1591 .? ^ And Phillipps: — The general opinion that the "Two Gentlemen of Verona" is one of the author's very earliest complete dramatic efforts may be followed without much risk of error. ^ Let us now consider Hamlet, concerning which there seems to be a consensus of opinion that it is the greatest of the "Shakespeare" Works. This play founded upon the history of Denmark by Saxo Grammaticus, published in Paris in 15 14, was on the stage about the time of the actor's arrival in London, in 1587, if not earlier. This date is fixed by Thomas Nash in 1589 as follows : — It is a common practice, now a dales, amongst a sorte of shift- ing companions, — to leave the trade of Nouerint, whereto they were borne, and busie themselves with the endeuors of art. Yet English Seneca read by candle light yeeldes manie good sentences — and if you entreate him faire in a frostie morning, he will aifoord you whole Hamletts, I should say handfuUs of tragical speeches.^ The meaning of the word "Noverint" is significant. Nash attributes the authorship of "Hamlet" to a lawyer, "Nove- rint universi," being a preliminary to legal instruments, and equivalent to " Know all men," etc. ^ White, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. 11, pp. 102, 103. Boston, 1865. * Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. 11, p. 284. 8 Greene's Menaphon. London, 1589, n.p. Cf. Sir E. Bridges, Bart., M.P., Archaica, vol. i, p. xiii. London, 1815. 120 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The next allusion to this play is made in 1591 by Thomas Nash, in a preface to a work of Sidney in which he says he cannot "sit taboring five years together nothing but 'to be, to be' on a paper drum," the words paper drum signifying dramatic poetry. In 1594 there is an entry in Henslowe's "Diary" as follows: "9 of June 1594, Rd at hamlet — VHP " ; which shows that Henslowe received eight shillings as his share, or part of it, from a performance of the play. The smallness of this sum, supposing it to represent his whole share, has caused the writing of many pages of trifling con- jecture, though a heavy storm, a neighboring conflagration, or what is more probable, the competition with Children's Plays, so-called, then very popular, might easily account for it. We next hear of it when Lodge refers to "The ghost which cried so miserably at the Theater like an oister wife, 'Hamlet revenge.' " ^ In 1598 Gabriel Harvey refers to it by name, and in 1602 Dekker in his "Satiromastix" uses these words, "No, fye'st my name's Hamlet, revenge; — Thou hast been at Parris Garden, hast not?" In 1603 "Hamlet" was pub- lished for the first time in quarto, though it had been entered some months before under the title of the " Revenge of Ham- let, Prince of Denmark," and on the title-page was the fol- lowing : — As it hath beene diverse times acted by his Highnesse servants in the Cittie of London; as also in the two Vniversities of Cam- bridge and Oxford, and else-where. We thus have continuous notices of this play from a date as early as the actor's arrival in London until 1603. The Quarto of "Hamlet" of this date was a godsend to a few en- thusiasts who at once shouted, "We have found one of the old plays that Shakspere rewrote." Well, what if it were so.? It would only make him "a rank plagiarist," as Knight saw, and warned them against ; but that they believed to be the ^ Lodge, Wit^s Miserie^ p. 56. London, 1596. 121 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS lesser of two evils, and some still fatuously adhere to it. To add to the confusion the very next year, 1604, another Quarto was printed for one of the same publishers, Nicholas Ling, with substantially the same title-page upon which was the following : — Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie. This Quarto practically gives us " Hamlet " as we now have it. Phillipps explains this by avoiding the dilemma of recog- nizing the 1603 Quarto as an early play which had conven- iently dropped out of existence, and supposes it to be a muti- lated copy of the true " Hamlet " fraudulently foisted upon the public. He says that Ling and his associate, Trundell, — Employed an inferior and clumsy writer to work up, in his own fashion, what scraps of the play had been furtively obtained from shorthand notes or other memoranda, into the semblance of a perfect drama, which they had the audacity to publish as Shakespeare's own work.^ Fumivall takes practically the same view. But what proof is there that there ever was an older play of "Hamlet" by an unknown author.^ None whatever. It is a pure assumption of Malone based upon the entry in Henslowe's "Diary" al- ready quoted. So small a sum as eight shillings he concludes is full confirmation that there was an older play of "Hamlet." He says : — It cannot be supposed that our poet's play should have been performed but once in the time of this account, and that Mr. Henslowe should have drawn from such a piece but the sum of eight shillings, when his share in several other plays came to three and sometimes four pounds. And he suggests that it might have been written by Kyd. From this Skottowe ventures to assert that there was an old play, and when Lowndes compiled his "Bibliographer's ^ Phillipps, Outlines^ etc., vol. i, p. 208. 122 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Manual/' he adopted the assertion, and unwarrantably listed " Kyd's old play of Hamlet," which was wholly mythical, as though it were a well-known work. This is an excellent illus- tration of how mere speculations in history become crystal- lized into fact in the encyclopaedia to mislead unwary students. Says Staunton: — What really concerns us is to know whether, making large allowance for omissions and corruptions due to the negligence of those through whose hands the manuscript passed, the edition of 1603 exhibits the play as Shakespeare first wrote it, and as it was "divers times acted." We believe it does.^ Says Knight : — Not a tittle of distinct evidence exists to show that there was any other play of "Hamlet" but that of Shakspere; and all of the collateral evidence upon which it is inferred that an earlier play of "Hamlet" than Shakspere's did exist, may, on the other hand, be taken to prove that Shakspere's original sketch of Ham- let was in repute at an earlier period than is commonly assigned as its date.^ Lee, however, adopting Malone's suggestion, or Lowndes* careless note, positively asserts : — The story of the Prince of Denmark had been popular on the stage as early as 1589 in a lost dramatic version by another writer, doubtless Thomas Kyd. To that lost version of "Hamlet," Shakespeare's tragedy certainly owed much. As there was no English translation of the story upon which the so-called later "Hamlet" was founded, he coolly informs us that "Shakespeare doubtless read it in French." ^ Timmins gives us this saner and safer opinion : — I record my own conviction that both texts now republished are most valuable, the first a rough-hewn draft of a noble drama (written probably 1587-89) "divers times acted by His Highness' 1 Howard Staunton, The Plays of Shakespeare, vol. in, p. 327. London, i860. 2 Knight, Tragedies, vol. i, p. 93. 3 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 221. London, 1898. 123 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS till 1602, when it was entered for publication and soon after "enlarged" and "shaped" as it appears in the Second quarto by the divine bard's maturer mind.^ Fumess gives us this fanciful opinion: — That there was an old play on the story of Hamlet, some por- tions of which are still preserved in Q i : that about the year 1602, Shakespeare took this and began to remodel it for the stage, as he had done with other plays; that Q i represents the play after it had been retouched by him to a certain extent, but before his alterations were complete; and that in Q 2 we have for the first time the "Hamlet" of Shakespeare. ^ This acute anxiety of Furness and others to get a single bit of evidence, however shadowy, to buttress their contention, discloses pitiable weakness ; but like everything that has been promulgated to serve their purpose this has failed, for it is evident that the same brain that conceived the ** Hamlet" of 1603, conceived that of 1604 which is virtually that of the Folio. It is quite likely that the former is a mutilated copy; that it has been liberally "cut," and passages "emended" by the players ; but there is enough left to prove its author- ship. It is somewhat curious that in the grave-digger scene, the jester is said to have been "i the earth a dozen years." If he died in 1579 this would make the date of the play 1591, which is near the supposed date of the "old play." A dozen years is a convenient term to designate an approximate time, but when revised and enlarged by its author in 1602-03,^ is it not significative that the time of Yorick's death is changed to "23 yeeres" in order to make it conform to the true date? From Rowe to the present time this has passed unobserved, but had the critics noticed it and thought it favorable to their ^ Samuel Timmins, The Devonshire Hamlets, p. viil, et seq. 2 Furness, A New Variorum Edition oj Shakespeare, vol. iv, p. 32. Philadel- phia, 1877. 3 The Quarto of 1603 was registered July 26, 1602, and the Quarto of 1604 about six months later; namely, February 7, 1602, old style; both to James Roberts. 124 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS contention, would it not have been heralded as a remarkable discovery? We shall allude to this later. To Knight we are indebted for a more reasonable analysis of the subject, and will briefly quote : — We can find nothing, he says, in Malone's argument to prove that it was not Shakspere's Hamlet which was acted by Shak- spere's company on the 9th of June, 1594. . . . Their occupation of it — Henslowe's theater — might have been very temporary; and during that occupation, Shakspere's Hamlet might have been once performed. . . . And now we must express our decided opin- ion grounded upon an attentive comparison of the original sketch (1603) with the perfect play (1604) that the original sketch was an early production of our poet. That the play which the commentators imagine to be lost is to be found in the Quarto of 1603, and much improved in that of 1604, seems too evident to require discussion. The appearance in it of the King's ghost, which is not found in the history from which it was taken but was the creation of the author, and of Hamlet's soliloquy, are enough to identify it, and we must conclude that it was a youth- ful work improved by its author in maturer years. ^ Says Gervinus : — According to Thomas Nash — there was a drama upon Ham- let as early as 1589, and perhaps even 1587. Several English critics believe this old play itself to be the work of Shakespeare's youthful hand. And it was certain that the poet was occupied with this subject, as with Romeo and Juliet, at an earlier stage of his dramatic career.^ This view should dispose of the question of the actor's authorship of the "Shakespeare" Works. But there are other works in the Folio to puzzle commentators. The Taming of the Shrew. This comedy has proved for critics a Pandora's box, for, as in the case of "Hamlet," they tell us there was a previous play entitled, "The Taming of a Shrew." We first hear of it in Greene's "Menaphon" in 1589. 1 Knight, Tragedies, vol. i, pp. 92, 93- * Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, p. 549. London, 1883. I2S THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS With respect to the play as we have it in the Folio, Malone says : — I had supposed the piece to have been written in the year 1606. On a more attentive perusal of it, and more experience of our author's style and manner, I am persuaded that it was one of his very early productions. And Collier : — / am satisfied that more than one hand (perhaps at distant dates) was concerned in it, and that Shakespeare had little to do with any of the scenes in which Katherine and Petrucio are not en- gaged . . . the underplot much resembles the dramatic style of William Haughton. While Steevens replies: — I know not to whom I could impute this comedy if Shake- speare was not its author. With these quotations Knight introduces his own opinion of the subject : — "The Taming of a Shrew" first appeared in 1594, — "as it was sundry times acted by . . . The Earle of Pembroke, his serv- ants." . . . The incidents are precisely the same as those of the play which we call Shakspere's. The scene of the old play is laid at Athens; that of Shakspere's at Padua. The Athens of the one and the Padua of the other are resorts of learning. This undoubted re- semblance involves some necessity for conjecture, with very little guide from evidence. The first and most obvious hypothesis is that the "Taming of a Shrew" was an older play than Shak- spere's and that he borrowed from that comedy. The question then arises, who was its author.^ He then proceeds to compare it with Greene's "Orlando Furioso" with very poor success. At a later period, having had his attention drawn by a correspondent to Marlowe he says : — We now propose a second theory altogether different from our previous notion, from that of our correspondent, and from that 126 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of any other writer. Was there not an older play than the " Tam- ing of a Shrew,'' which furnished the main plot, some of the characters, and a small part of the dialogue, both to the author of "The Taming of a Shrew," and the author of the "Taming of the Shrew." . . . But there is a third theory — that of Tieck — that the "Taming of a Shrew" was a youthful work of Shak- spere himself.^ This theory he finally accepts and calls attention to the entry in Henslowe's "Diary" of the 3d June, 1594, already alluded to with reference to "Hamlet," and continues: — This entry of "the taminge of a shrewe" immediately follows that of Hamlet: and we see nothing to shake our belief that both these were Shakspere's plays. ^ Says Gervinus : — No other undisputed [sic] play of Shakspeare's furnishes so much evidence of his learning and study as the "Taming of the Shrew." In the address of the Syracusan Antipholus to Luciana, — "Comedy of Errors," — in which he calls her a m,ermaid, and asks her, "Are you a god.^" there is a purely Homeric tone; the same passage bearing the same stamp is met with again in the "Taming of the Shrew" where Katherine, when she addresses Vincentio, uses a similar passage from Ovid, borrowed by him from Hom.er, the antique sound of which lingers even under the touch of a fourth hand. This prevailing mannerism of his youth- ful writings ought long ago to have determined the position of this play as belonging to the earliest period of the poet.^ In other words, when he was a hostler or call-boy for the BurbageSj and while he was speaking the "patois" of War- wickshire. Let us listen to Rolfe : — "The Taming of the Shrew" is evidently an adaptation of an earlier play published anonymously in 1594 — called "The Taming of a Shrew." Fleay believes that this old play was writ- ten by Marlowe and Shakespeare in conjunction in 1589, but ^ Knight, Comediesy vol. i, pp. 264-68. * Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, pp. 138, 139. London, 1883. 127 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the critics generally agree that the latter had no hand in it. They also agree that somebody besides Shakespeare had a hand in the revision of the play. Rolfe however agrees with Furnivall and Dowden — That "The Taming of the Shrew" is Shakespeare's adapta- tion not of the original "Taming of a Shrew" but of an enlarged version of that play made by some unknown writer. As Furni- vall puts it, "An adapter who used at least ten bits of Marlowe in it, first recast the old play, and then Shakspere put into the recast the scenes in which Katherina, Petruchio, and Grumio appear." ^ Yet Yardley, realizing the fact that the classical learning displayed by the author of the "Shakespeare" Works is fatal to the actor's claims to authorship, boldly asserts that "there are no signs of classical learning in his great plays"; that "he had neither read nor was capable of reading Latin, and had never read Greek" ; and labors to show that whatever classical learning there is in the works could have been ac- quired without a knowledge of Greek or Latin. It is curious, as showing the straits into which the devotees of the actor have been driven, that not far from the time that Yardley wrote, Churton Collins, in his "Had Shakespeare read the Greek Tragedies.^" contended in the "Fortnightly Review" that the author of the works was an accomplished Latin scholar. For this Collins was blamed by the "Daily News" for "strengthening the hands of the Baconians." Yardley discloses his animus by the following unwise admission, "All these attempts to give erudition to Shakespeare seem to lead to his being converted to Bacon. Otherwise I should not trouble myself much about it." This is the usual at- titude of the orthodox Stratfordian toward the "Baconian heretic." ^ ^ William J . Rolfe, A.M., Shakespeare's Comedy of the Taming of the Shrezv^ p. lo. New York, 1881. 2 Notes and Queries, vol. 12, p. 191. 128 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS We will not weary the reader further with the worthless and misleading speculations of other commentators on this play, but remark that the anonymous play printed in 1594, but which had been then known at least five years, was pub- lished by the Shakespeare Society in 1844, several years before Bacon's authorship was thought of, and a copy is now before the writer. It not only presents the same plot, but verbally agrees in more than two hundred instances, showing conclu- sively that its author was the same as the author of the Folio play. The Comedy of Errors also perplexes the commentators, who shy at so many evidently early works of their author. It was first printed in the Folio of 1623. Says Knight: — The "Comedy of Errors" was clearly one of Shakspere's very early plays. It was probably untouched by its author after its first production. For evidence of its early date we must depend, he con- tinues, — Upon the great prevalence of that measure which was known to our language as early as the time of Chaucer, by the name of "rime doggerel." This peculiarity is found only in three of our author's plays, — "Loves Labour's Lost," "The Taming of the Shrew," and in the "Comedy of Errors." But this measure was a distinguishing characteristic of the early English drama. . . . There cannot, we think, be a stronger proof that the "Comedy of Errors " was an early play of our author, than its agreement, in this particular, with the models which Shakspere found in his almost immediate predecessors. He then alludes to the difficulty experienced by commenta- tors in according to the actor so wide a knowledge of classical authors as the play discloses. He says: — The speech of ^geon in the first scene A heavier task could not have been Impos'd Than I to speak my griefs unspeakable is, they admit, an imitation of the "Infandum, Regina, jubes 129 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS renovare dolorem" of Virgil. "Thou art an elm, my husband, I a vine," is in Catullus, Ovid, and Horace. The "owls" that "suck the breath" are the "stringes" of Ovid. The apostrophe of Dromio to the virtues of beating — "when I am cold he heats me with beating," etc. The burning of the conjuror's beard is an incident copied from the twelfth book of Virgil's "-^neid." Lastly, in the original copy of the "Comedy of Errors," the An- tipholus of Ephesus is called Sereptus — a corruption of the epi- thet by which one of the twin brothers in Plautus is distinguished. "If the poet had not dipped into the original Plautus," says Capell, " Surreptus had never stood in his copy, the translation having no such agnomen." Steevens says: "Shakspere might have taken the general plan of the Comedy from a translation of the 'Menaechmi' of Plautus by W. W. in 1595." Ritson thinks he was under no obligation to this translation, but that the "Comedy of Errors" "was not originally his, but proceeded from some inferior playwright, who was capable of the *Men- sechmi' without the help of a translation." ^ The first record of a performance of this play was at Gray's Inn in 1594, Francis Bacon being master of ceremonies; but an allusion in it to France "making war against her heir," which Theobald suggests refers to the war begun in 1589 against Henry of Navarre, heir to the throne, might indicate an earlier date. This suggestion, however, is clearly without force. Boas thinks that " 1591 may be set down as the approxi- mate date of the play," and that its author "may have worked upon some earlier stage version, perhaps 'The Historie of Error,' acted at Hampton Court in 1576." While he says, — The comparison of the "Comedy of Errors" with the "Men- 3echmi" illustrates admirably the advantages of Shakspere's over Plautus' method, the poverty of its dialogue, and the thin- ness of its portraiture prove the hand of the immature artist, ^ — Says Gervinus : — In the "Comedy of Errors " that great feature of Shakespear- ian profoundness, that power of obtaining a deep inner signiii- ^ Knight, Comedies, vol. i, pp. 211-14. 2 Frederick S. Boas, M.A., Shakespeare and his Predecessors, pp. 168-172. New York, 1910. 130 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS cance from the most superficial material, seems to be before us in this one early example, in which the fine spiritual application, which the poet has extracted from the material, strikes us as all the more remarkable, the more coarse and bold the outwork of the poet.^ Lee assigns to this play a date next to the "Two Gentlemen of Verona'' ; he says, — Shakespeare next tried his hand in the " Comedy of Errors." ^ Love's Labours Lost,^ published in 1598, and said to be "newly corrected and augmented," is equally troublesome to commentators. Knight, less disposed to shirk the danger of accrediting his idol with early authorship, takes up this play as follows : — As no edition of the comedy, before it was corrected ajid aug- mented, is known to exist, we have no proof that the few allu- sions to temporary circumstances, which are supposed in some degree to fix the date of the play, may not apply to the augmented copy only. Thus, when Moth refers to "the dancing horse," the fact that Bank's horse first appeared in London in 1589, does not prove that the original play might not have been written before 1589. After citing several other vital objections to the theory of a later authorship of this play, he concludes : — Lastly, the mask in the fifth act, where the king and his lords appear in Russian habits, and the allusion to Muscovites which this mask produces, are supposed by Warburton to have been suggested by the public concern for the settlement of a treaty of commerce with Russia in 1591. But the learned commentator overlooks a passage in Hall's "Chronicle," which shows that a mask of Muscovites was a court recreation in the time of Henry VHL In the extrinsic evidence, therefore, which this comedy sup- plies, there is nothing whatever to disprove the theory which we entertain, that, before it had been "corrected and augmented," "Love's Labour's Lost" was one of the plays produced by Shak- ^ Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries , p. 138. 2 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 53. 3 We believe this form of the title to be correct, though unusual. 131 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS spere about 1589. The intrinsic evidence appears to us entirely to support this opinion.^ Says Gervinus : — The comedy of "Love's Labour's Lost" belongs indisputably to the earliest dramas of the poet, and will be almost of the same date as the "Two Gentlemen of Verona." The peculiarities of Shakespeare's youthful pieces are perhaps most accumulated in this play. The reiterated mention of mythological and historic personages, the air of learning, the Italian and Latin expressions, which here, it must be admitted, serve a comic end; the older English versification, the numerous doggerel verses, and the rhymes more frequent than anywhere else, and extending over almost half of the play; all this places this work among the earlier efforts of the poet.^ Furnivall contends that "Love's Labours Lost" was his earliest play, and "The Tempest" his last, basing his opinion upon the relative number of rhymed and blank verse lines in each.^ While we dissent from this method of proof as an im- perfect one, to say the least, there is little doubt that it was written at a very early period of its author's career, may we not premise soon after returning from France in 1579.^ And may it not be one of the comedies mentioned by Immerito to Harvey? The editors of the Folio Reprint say: — Internally the play bears evidence of being written in the first, or rhyming period, and revised in maturer years. It is probably the earliest of the comedies, as is shown by its poetic rather than its dramatic qualities, its balancing of characters, and its sketchy characterization.^ And the poet Coleridge: — The characters in this play are either impersonated out of Shakespeare's own multiformity by imaginative self-position, ^ Knight, Comedies, vol. i, p. 75, et seq. * Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, p. 1641. 3 Frank J. Furnivall, M.A., The Succession oj Shakspere's Worksy p. xxii. London, 1874. * Folio Reprint, Introduction, vol. 3. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS or out of such as a country town and school-boy's observation might supply — the frequency of the rhymes, the sweetness as well as the smoothness of the metre, and the number of acute and fancifully illustrated aphorisms are all they ought to be in a poet's youth. ^ Says Lee : — To "Love's Labour's Lost" may reasonably be assigned pri- ority in point of time of all Shakespeare's dramatic productions. ^ Phillipps's opinion of this play is thus expressed: — A complete appreciation of "Love's Labour's Lost" was re- served for the present century, several modern psychological critics of eminence having successfully vindicated its title to a position amongst the best productions of the great dramatist.^ Yet Collier says that in this play the Poet plays the fool egregiously, for the whole play is a very silly one.^ AndHerford: — The original version of "Love's Labour's Lost" was among the earliest of Shakespeare's original plays, if not, as is generally supposed the first of all.^ From the time of Rowe, who published the first life of the actor, having persistently gathered every item relating to him, recorded and traditional, and who, living nearer to his time than more modern writers, had a clearer view of the man and his antecedents than they, but was unable to account for the vast learning displayed in the earlier works ascribed to him, many critics have held the untenable theory that he attained the pinnacle of literary excellence by virtue of inborn genius, without that education, training, and experience hitherto 1 The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, vol. iv, p. 79. New York, 1864. * Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 50. » Phillipps, Memoranda, p. 17. London, 1879. * Collier, Short Views, etc., of the English Stage, p. 125. London, 1699. ^ Herford, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. i. New York, 1904. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS deemed so necessary to mankind in the accomplishment of great works of art. Respecting the drama of Pericles, Rowe was dubious. He says: — There is no good Reason to believe that the greatest part of that play was not written by him.^ This has been another bone of contention among devotees, some of whom have even had a fling at the painstaking Rowe for his too much meddling with things which better had been overlooked. The same differences of opinion, and the same indulgence in assumptions, are evident in their treatment of this play. Malone declares that "Pericles" was the entire work of Shakespeare, and one of his earliest compositions. AndRolfe: — It is now, however, generally agreed by critics that the first two acts of the play, together with the brothel scenes in the fourth act, were written by some other author than Shakespeare. Steevens says: — I must acquit even the irregular and lawless Shakespeare of having constructed the fabric of the drama, though he has cer- tainly bestowed some decoration on its parts. Hallam guesses that "Pericles" was by some inferior hand, perhaps, by a personal friend of Shakespeare's, and that he, without remodelling the plot, undertook to correct and improve it, beginning with slight additions, and his mind warming as he proceeded, breaking out towards the close of the drama with its accustomed vigour and abundance. And Collier: — We apprehend that Shakespeare founded a drama on the story in the possession of one of the companies performing in London, and that, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the time, 1 N. Rowe, Esq., The Works of William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. vii. London, 1709. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS he made additions to and improvements in it, and procured it to be represented at the Globe Theatre. In a note he continues his guesses in this futile manner: — By a list of the theatrical apparel, formerly belonging to Alleyn, and preserved at Dulwich College, it appears that he had prob- ably acted in a play called "Pericles." This might be the play which Shakespeare altered and improved.^ White, speaking of the origin of the drama, "The Romance of AppoUonius Tyrias," possibly written in the sixth century, and a version by Gower in the eighth book of "Confessio Amantis," as well as a version by Lawrence Twine (1576), concludes that : — By whom and when the play was written is not to be so easily discussed. The external evidence upon which it may be attrib- uted to Shakespeare is not strong. In fact, it resolves itself merely into the presence of his name upon the title page of two editions published during his life, and the absence of any known denial of the authorship by him, or on his part. Quoting Dryden's line — Shakespeare's own Muse his Pericles first bore — and discarding it, he continues : — There is really no other external evidence of Shakespeare's authorship of the play than the presence of his name on the old title-page; and that is of no weight. The same exists as to his hav- ing written "Sir John Oldcastle," "The London Prodigal," and "A Yorkshire Tragedy," plays in which no competent critic has been able to trace even his prentice hand. . . . Considering all the evidence, it therefore seems impossible to avoid the con- clusion that "Pericles" is a play, which, planned and mostly or wholly written by another dramatist, Shakespeare enriched throughout for the benefit of the theatre which owned it. . . . When "Pericles" was originally written we do not know; but it was quite surely sometime before Shakespeare became a play- wright. ^ 1 J. Payne Collier, The Works of Shakespeare, vol. viii, p. 203. New York, 1853. Cf. Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 21. Shakespeare Society, London. 2 Richard Grant White, The Works of Shakespeare, pp. 301-05. I3S THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The admission by White that the presence of a name on a title-page is of no weight is so true that it should be noted. Other so-called authorities have asserted this in their efforts to discredit the authorship of plays not in the Canon; but they now balk when this argument, eminently true, is made use of by Baconians. His admission of the early date of the play is noticeable. Lee, with his usual annoying confidence, asserts : — Although Shakespeare's powers showed no signs of exhaustion, he reverted in the year following the colossal effort of "Lear" (1607) to his earlier habit of collaboration, and with another's aid composed two dramas — "Timon of Athens" and "Pericles." There seems some ground for the belief that Shakespeare's co- adjutor in "TImon" was George Wilkes — at any rate, Wilkes may safely be credited with portions of "Pericles." . . . The pres- ence of a third hand, of inferior merit to Wilkes, has been sus- pected, and to this collaborator (perhaps William Rowley) are best assigned the three scenes of purposeless coarseness which take place in or before a brothel.^ The value of such criticism may be seen by this from Phillipps: — There can be but little doubt that Shakespeare, who was in early life, and perhaps to some extent afterwards, the Johannes Factotum of the theatre, contributed numerous fragments to the drama of others. There Is not, however, the slightest con- temporary hint that he ever entered into the joint authorship of a play with anyone else, and such a notion is directly opposed to the express testimony of Leonard Dlgges.^ In his "Memoir of Ben Jonson," Proctor accuses the crit- ics of "Pericles" from Pope to Gifford of condemning it un- read. He declares that From "Lear" down to "Pericles," there ought to be no mis- take between Shakespeare and other writers. ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, pp. 242, 243. 2 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. 11, p. 409. 136 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS TiMON OF Athens, based on Plutarch's "Lives," and first printed in the FoUo, which has already been alluded to, has also provoked speculation. The editors of the late reprint of the First Folio in their introduction to it remark that: — The play that has come down to us as Shakespeare's is itself of doubtful origin. That it is not all his is now the accepted be- lief, and traces of the lost earlier text may possibly be imbedded in the present one. The various theories of authorship contem- plate the following: (i) That Shakespeare rewrote the older drama. (2) That Shakespeare's play, left unfinished, was com- pleted by other hands. (3) That a combination of the two fore- going seems likely. (4) That Shakespeare and another author worked together. (5) That the Folio editors rewrought the play from the leading character's stage parts. . . . There is no record of its having been performed during Shakespeare's life- time, and no early Quarto printing. Evidence must rest inter- nally. Coleridge has characterized it as an "after-vibration of ^ Hamlet. '"1 Knight declares that the author was indebted more to Lu- cian than to Plutarch, and that his work was a remodeling of an older play which belonged to the period when our poet began to write for the stage — a period when the public ear was not familiarized to the flowing harmony of his own verse, or the regular cadences of Marlowe's and Greene's. Boas asserts that "Timon of Athens," as it stands, cannot represent a complete, genuine Shakespearian work. The contrast between the noble verse and imagery in the finer scenes, and the halting metre and insipid dialogue of other parts, is too striking to be entirely at- tributed to the dramatist in the maturity of his powers. Yet these inequalities have been exaggerated, and all attempts to rigidly separate the genuine from the spurious parts of the work, must be viewed with suspicion. ^ ^ Charlotte Porter, H. A. Clark, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, vol. X, Introduction. Tymon, London, n.d. 2 Boas, Shakespeare and his Predecessors, p. 495. New York, 1910. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS King John. This play, under the title of "The Troublesome Reign of King John," published anonymously in quarto in iSqi, and included by Meres in his list of "Shakespeare" plays in 1598, was republished in 161 1, this time bearing on its title-page "written by W. Sh.," and again in 1622, ''W. Shake- speare," leaves no room for us to question its identity with the play as we have it in the Folio, though comparison with the previous editions, even that of the year before, published six years after the actor's death, shows that it had been improved by revision, and considerably enlarged, unmistakably by its original author. We will see what the critics say of it. Phillipps, although he assumes that Meres "had been fa- voured with access to the unpublished writings of Drayton and Shakespeare,"^ ignores his evidence and says: — It is noticed by Meres in 1598, and that it continued to be popular until 161 1, may be inferred from the republication in that year of the foundation play, "The Troublesome Raigne of King John" as "written by W. Sh.," a clearly fraudulent at- tempt to palm off the latter in the place of the work of the great dramatist.^ Boas, calling attention to the editions of 1591 and 161 1 of the "Troublesome Raigne," and calling this an older work, says : — Shakespeare entirely followed this older work in the historical matter, and there is scarcely more than one passage to be pointed out with certainty in which it may be concluded that he con- sulted the Chronicles besides. Artistically considered, he took in the outward design of the piece, blended both parts into one, adhered to the leading features of the characters, and finished them with finer touches.^ Turning to Lee, we learn exactly how the case stands. He speaks in this ex-cathedra fashion : — To 1594 must also be assigned "King John." . . . The fraudu- lent practice of crediting Shakespeare with valueless plays from ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 172. ^ /^^"^.^ vol. 11, p. 285. ^ Boas, Shakespeare and his Predecessors, p. 353. 138 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the pens of comparatively dull-witted contemporaries was in vogue among enterprising traders in literature both early and late in the seventeenth century. The worthless old play of "King John" was attributed to Shakespeare in the reissues of 1611 and 1622.^ While referring, as also does Boas, to an old moral and al- legorical play, called " King Johan," by Bishop Bale, which one says probably, and the other positively, the author of " King John" could not have known, Lee takes the ground that the "Troublesome Raigne was by certain unknown authors," but speaks highly of it, pointing out that the characters are well copied from real life or taken from his- tory; and they appear upon the stage only in connection with the incidents upon which the interest of the play depends. It is in spirit and form absolutely dramatic, though not highly so, and is as purely an historical play as that which succeeded and eclipsed it. Further he says : — Numerous instances of parallel passages in which the thought , is similar, and the words sometimes the same, are cited in the Notes, and will show the reader that Shakespeare worked with the old play in his head if not in his hand — hence some English editors in the last century, and some German commentators in this, have thought that "The Troublesome Reign" was an early work of Shakespeare's. Not accepting this view he concludes that : — It was probably produced two or three years before the date of the first edition known, as at that date it was a new play, and in 1587-88, the English hatred of Rome and Spain was stimu- lated by the approach of the Spanish Armada. It has been con- jectured with great probability that Greene, Peele, and Marlowe were concerned in the composition of this old History, and it is barely possible that Shakespeare, who seems to have begun his career as their humble co-laborer contributed something to it, as like in style to what they wrote as he could make it.^ ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, pp. 69, 181. 2 Lee^ ji^g jforks of Shakespeare, vol. v, pp. 10-15. London, 1906. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS We have made this long quotation as illustrating the un- bridled assumptions of Shakespeare editors. There is not a particle of evidence that the Stratford actor ever was an "humble co-laborer" with any one, nor any foundation for even a guess that Greene, Peele, or Marlowe had anything to do with the play of " King John." When Meres, of whom all speak as the highest of contemporary authorities, placed "The Troublesome Reign" in his list of "Shakespeare" plays, he did so from knowledge, and his authority is preferable to that of those who insult our intelligence by obtruding their guesses upon us when we want facts, or, at least, something having the colorof evidence. Later we shall discuss the relation of Greene, Peele, and Marlowe to the plays. The constant reference to these three persons is significant. Henry V. This drama presents a problem respecting the date of its composition similar to those already mentioned. Says Rolfe : — Shakespeare took the leading incidents of his "Henry IV," and "Henry V," from an anonymous play entitled "The Famous Victories cf Henry Fift" which was written as early as 1588. He drew his historical materials from Holinshed's "Chronicles." ^ It was entered May 14, 1594. It is a circumstance deserving of remark that not one of the title-pages of the quarto editions of "Henry V" attributes the authorship of the play to Shakespeare. It was printed several times during the life of the poet, but in no instance with his name. The inference seems to be that "Henry V " was originally pro- duced by Shakespeare in a comparatively incomplete state, and that large portions contained in the folio, and of which no trace can be pointed out in the quartos were added at a subsequent date.2 1 William J. Rolfe, A.M., Shakespeare's History of King Henry the Fifth, pp. 10, II. New York, n. d. * George Long Duyckinck, The Works of William Shakespeare, vol. iv, p. 341. Philadelphia, n. d. 140 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS This is an interesting admission but militates against the authorship by the actor. Any one who studies these additions, made long after his death, must admit that they were the work of the original author of the play. As half the Quartos were printed anonymously it is not " deserving of remark " that this one was. Nash in his "Pierce Penniless," 1592^ has the follow- ing:— What a glorious thing it is to have "Henry the Fift" repre- sented on the stage, leading the French King prisoner, and forc- ing both him and the Dolphin to sweare fealtie. Says Lee in his usual dogmatic fashion: — In 1597, Shakespeare turned once more to English history. From Holinshed's "Chronicle" and from a valueless but very popular piece, "The Famous Victories of Henry V," which was repeatedly acted between 1588 and 1595, he worked up with splendid energy two plays on the reign of Henry IV. ^ Dr. Johnson's opinion is no doubt correct that the author of this play Designed a regular connexion of the dramatic histories from Richard the Second to Henry the Fifth. Says Knight, quoting this remark: — Shakspere, indeed, found the stage in possession of a rude drama "The famous Victories of Henry V," upon the founda- tion of which he constructed not only his two parts of "Henry IV " but his "Henry V." That old play was acted prior to 1588. It was entered on the Stationer's books in 1594, and was per- formed by Henslowe's company in 1595. Mr. Collier thinks it was written soon after 1580. It was printed in 1598 and in 1600 appeared as "The Chron- icle History of Henry the Fift." Both these plays were from the same press, the latter preserving much of the form and substance of the former largely rewritten. But Knight finally * Lee, A Life of Shakespearef p. 167. 141 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS found how untenable was the position he had adopted and gives us his maturer opinion, that the old plays were the work of the author of the later ones. These are his words : — The "Richard II" and the "Henry IV" were not separated from the "Henry V" by any long interval in their performance — they required no Prologue for this reason to hold them all together. The "Henry V" was the triumphal completion of the story which these had begun. But if the disastrous continuation of the story had been the work of another man, we doubt whether Shakspere would have desired thus emphatically to carry for- ward the connexion. . . . Malone holds that, to a certain extent, they were connected in their authorship, and that this connexion is implied in the address to the favour of the audience "for the sake of these old and popular dramas which are so closely con- nected with it; and in the composition of which, as they had for many years been exhibited, he had so considerable a shareJ^ This is the point we desire to examine. We hold that Shakspere asso- ciates these dramas with his own undoubted work, because he was their sole author.^ A second edition followed in 1602, and a third in 1608, all anonymous. It did not appear again in print until it was published in the Folio, again rewritten and enlarged to nearly double its former length. Says Knight : — Not only is the play thus augmented by the additions of the choruses and new scenes, but there is scarcely a speech, from the first scene to the last, which is not elaborated. In this elaboration the old materials are very carefully used up; but they are so thoroughly refitted and dovetailed with what is new, that the operation can only be compared with the work of a skilful archi- tect, who, having an ancient mansion to enlarge and beautify, with a strict regard to its original character, preserves every feature of the structure, under other combinations, with such marvelous skill, that no unity of principle is violated, and the whole has the effect of a restoration in which the new and the old are indistinguishable. Unless we were to reprint the original copy, page by page, with the present text, it would be impossible to convey a satisfactory notion of the exceeding care with which this play has been recast.^ ^ Knight, Histories, vol. 11, p. 403. * Ibid.y vol. i, p. 309. 142 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS That "The Famous Victories" does not bear the same rela- tion to "The Qironicle History" as the latter does to "Henry V" of the Folio, is simply an opinion as fanciful and unreliable as the many we have quoted, and that in the flush of the author's maturer powers he rewrote his youthful works seems the more reasonable view. Henry VI is perhaps the best example of the futile manner in which Stratfordian critics test the patience of their readers. This drama in three parts, or really three separate dramas, was first printed in the Folio. Let us first listen to Malone, the pioneer in this sort of criticism : — My hypothesis ... is that "the first part of King Henry VI," as it now appears . . . was the entire or nearly the entire produc- tion of some ancient dramatist; that "The Whole Contention of the two Houses of York and Lancaster," etc., written prob- ably before the year 1590, and printed in quarto, in 1600, was also the composition of some writer who preceded Shakspear; and that from this piece, which is in two parts — our poet formed the two plays entitled, "The Second and Third Parts of King Henry," as they appear in the first folio edition of his works. The first notice of this play that we have is in Henslowe's "Diary "which records its production on the 3dof March, 1591- 92.^ In the same year Thomas Nash makes a quotation from the first part of the play which clearly identifies it. From the third part, Robert Greene makes a quotation in the same year, 1592, which shows that this part was then in existence. Of the second part we have no contemporary notice, but it is reason- able to assume that the composition of the different parts was synchronous. The editors of the Folio Reprint conclude that the first part belongs to the year 1589 or 1590. The first part was unknown in print until it appeared in the 1 The Diary of Philip Henslowe, p. 22. London, 1845. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Folio seven years after the actor's death. The second part was published anonymously in 1594, and twice in 1600, and the third part in 1595. In 1 619, three years after the actor's death, the second and third parts were published as "written by William Shakespeare Gent." The publisher, Pavier, however, had published works by other writers under the same title, which renders this evidence of authorship valueless, and so we are left wholly to rely upon the fact that Heminge and Con- dell thought it proper to admit them into the Folio. Let us see how the commentators handle this problem, and, first, Malone : — *^The First Part of King Henry VI " may be referred to the year 1589, or to an earlier period. Yes, probably a considerably earlier period, sufficiently earlier to bar the actor's authorship of it, but not the author- ship of the man who later enlarged and improved it. He speaks thus of the second and third parts : — In a Dissertation annexed to these plays, I have endeavoured to prove that they were not written originally by Shakespeare, but formed by him on two preceding dramas. . . . My principal object in that Dissertation was, to show that these two old plays which were printed in 1600, were written by some writer or writers who preceded Shakespeare, and moulded by him, with many alterations and additions, into the shape in which they at present appear, — and if I have proved that point, I have ob- tained my end. . . . Towards the end of the Essay I have pro- duced a passage from the old "King John" 1591, from which it appeared to me probable that the two elder dramas which com- prehend the greater part of the reign of King Henry VI, were written by the author of " King John," whoever he was ; and some circumstances which have lately struck me, confirm an opinion which I formerly hazarded, that Christopher Marlowe was the author of that play. A passage in his historical drama of "King Edward II," which Dr. Farmer has pointed out to me since the Dissertation was printed, also inclines me to believe with him, that Marlowe was the author of one, if not both, of the old dramas on which Shakespeare formed the two plays, which in the first 144 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS folio edition of his works are distinguished by the titles of "The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VL" ^ Malone then wrote his dissertation without knowing any- thing about the drama of "Edward H/' yet to pose as an authority on the plays he was criticizing, he should have fa- miliarized himself with this work. Anent this we will listen to Phillipps: — Although Shakespeare had exhibited a taste for poetic com- position before his first departure from Stratford-on-Avon, (?) all traditions agree in the statement that he was a recognized actor before he joined the ranks of the dramatists. (?) This latter event appears to have occurred on the third of March, I592,(?) when a new drama, entitled "Henry the Sixth," was brought out — under an arrangement with Henslowe — to whom no doubt the author had sold the play.(?) ^ In this year, — Shake- speare was first rising into prominent notice, so that the history then produced, now known as the "First Part of Henry the Sixth," was, in all probability, his earliest complete dramatic work. . . . The "Second Part of Henry the Sixth," must have appeared soon afterwards, but no record of its production on the stage has been preserved. . . . The "Third Part of Henry the Sixth" was written previously to September, 1592, and hence it may be concluded that all Shakespeare's plays on the subject of that reign, although perhaps subsequently revised in a few places by the author, were originally produced in that year. ( ?) And he concludes that the theory which best agrees with the positive evidences is that which con- cedes the authorship of the three plays to Shakespeare. ^ While we take issue with Phillipps on several points, es- pecially that he was a recognized actor before he joined the ranks of the dramatists, his conclusion that it sprung from the brain which conceived Hamlet will stand the final test. ^ Johnson and Steevens, The Plays of William Shakespeare, vol. 11, pp. 243- 45. London, 1803. ' We have marked some statements with a query in above quotation simply to show how so conscientious a writer as Phillipps is forced to regale us with mere assumptions. ' Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, pp. 97-99- 14s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Knight, repudiating Malone's ''verbal subtleties/' in- forms us that Mr. Collier says "that they (that is all the early parts of 'Henry VP) were all three in being before Shakspere begun to write for the stage.^^ Mr. Hallam, not quite so strongly observes: "It seems probable that the old plays — and the 'True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York,' which Shakspere remodelled in the Second and Third Parts of 'Henry V were in great part by Marlowe. ... In default of a more probable claimant I have sometimes been inclined to assign the 'First Part of Henry VP to Greene." Such opinions render it impossible that we should dissent from Malone's theory rashly and lightly. But still we must dissent wholly and uncompromisingly. The opinion which we have not incautiously adopted is, in brief, this, — that the three disputed plays are, in the strictest sense of the word, Shak- spere's own plays; that in connexion with "Richard III" they form one complete whole, — the first great Shaksperian series of Chronicle Histories ; — that although in connection with all the Histories, they might each have been in some degree formed upon such rude productions of the early stage as the "Famous Victories" and "The True Tragedy of Richard III," the theory of the remodelling of the Second and Third Parts upon two other plays of a higher character, of which we possess copies, is alto- gether fallacious, the "First Part of the Contention," and the "Richard Duke of York" (more commonly called the "Second Part of the Contention") being, in fact, Shakspere's own work, in an imperfect state; — and that their supposed inferiority to Shakspere's other works, are referable to other circumstances than that of being the productions of an author or authors who preceded him. "It is plausibly conjectured," says Mr. Collier, "that Shakespeare never touched the 'First Part of Henry Vr as it stands in his works, and it is merely the old play on the early events of that reign, which was most likely written about 1589." Dr. Drake, in the fulness of his confidence in this plausible conjecture, proposes entirely to exclude the play from any future editions of Shakspere's works, as a production which "offers no trace of any finishing strokes from the master- bard." Knight then enters into a lengthy and minute comparison of the different parts of his subject to prove his contention, 146 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS and with relation to the remodeUng of the works of other authors, observes : — That the argument upon which Shakspere has been held, in England, during the last fifty years, to be one of the most unblushing plagiarists that ever put pen to paper, has been conducted throughout in a spirit of disingenuousness almost unequalled in literary history.^ But what would Knight have thought of this ? — Criticism has proved beyond doubt that in these plays Shake- speare did no more than add, revise and correct other men's work. The theory that Greene and Peele produced the original draft of the three parts of "Henry VL" which Shakespeare recast, may help to account for Greene's indignant denunciation of Shakespeare. . . . Much can be said too in behalf of the sugges- tion that Shakespeare joined Marlowe, ... in the first revision of which "The Contention," and the "True Tragedie" were the outcome. Most of the new passages in the second recension seem assignable to Shakespeare alone, but a few suggest a part- nership resembling that of the first revision. It is probable that Marlowe began his final revision, but his task was interrupted by his death, and the lion's share of the work fell to his younger coadjutor. Shakespeare shared with other men of genius that receptivity of mind which impels them to assimilate much of the intellectual effort of their contemporaries^ and to transmute it in the process from unvalued ore into pure gold.^ Courthope, one of our best later critics, unhesitatingly con- cedes the early authorship question in these words : — A long controversy has raged round the question of the au- thorship of these various early plays. By the older Germans, and some of the earlier EngHsh commentators, they were assigned without much investigation, to Shakespeare; by almost all the English and American critics since Malone (whose opinions have been adopted by many of the modern Germans) Shakespeare has been regarded either as a partner in the plays with other dramatists, or as the unblushing plagiarist of other men's work, — I need only here repeat — my conviction that the elder Ger- 1 Knight, Supplement to vol. ii, pp. 403. 404» 4I4- Collier, Annals of the Stage, vol. Ill, p. 145. Drake, Shakspere and his Times, vol. 11, p. 297. 2 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, pp. 59-61. London, 1898. Italics ours. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS man critics were right, and the later English wrong, and that Shakespeare alone was the author not only of "The Contention" and "The True Tragedy" but of "Titus Andronicus." "The Taming of a Shrew," and "The Troublesome Raigne of King John." 1 This opinion is bravely expressed and will inevitably be adopted in the future, though it prove fatal to Stratfordian interests represented by Lee who delights in telling us just how the case stands. Readers who have not made a critical study of the futile opinions of Stratfordian commentators — That like a shifted wind upon a sail Startles and frights consideration — no doubt will be surprised to find that authors, whom they have heretofore regarded with respectful attention, have been regaling them with merely glittering speculations, all because of a faulty premise ; for no one should doubt that if the actor had been born four years earlier than he was, and had dis- tinguished himself early by learning and genius, there would have existed no reason for the idle and conflicting theories with which they have struggled so long and so laboriously. Perhaps here it may not be out of place to quote Phillipps again: — There have arisen in these days critics who, dispensing alto- gether with the older contemporary evidences, can enter so per- fectly into all the vicissitudes of Shakespeare's intellectual tem- perament, that they can authoritatively identify at a glance every line that he did write, and with equal precision every sen- tence that he did not. . . . Lowlier votaries can only bow their heads in silence. Perhaps these words apply as directly to the wild specula- tions of those who have wasted so much time on the mystery of Mr. W. H., and the hidden meaning of the Sonnets. Vol- 1 Courthope, W. J., C.B., M.A., D.Litt., LL.D., A History of English Poetry, vol. iv, p. 55. London, 1903. 148 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS umes have been written to identify numerous individuals with these initials. Phillipps briefly dismisses these many futile conjectures in this manner, first explaining that Thorpe, the publisher, obtained a copy of the "Sonnets" surreptitiously of a friend of the author : — Thorpe — the well-wishing adventurer — was so elated with the opportunity of entering into the speculation that he dedi- cated the work to the factor in the acquisition, one Mr. W. H., in language of hyperbolical gratitude, designating him as the "only begetter," that is, to the one person who obtained the en- tire contents of the work for the use of the publisher, the verb, heget^ having been occasionally used in the sense of get. And he quotes from Dekker's " Satiromastix," 1602, and re- fers to "Hamlet," HI, ii, to show this, continuing: — The notion that begetter stands for inspirer could only be re- ceived were one individual alone the subject of all the poems; and, moreover, unless we adopt the wholly gratuitous conjecture that the Sonnets of 1609 were not those which were in existence in 1598, had not the time somewhat gone by for a publisher's dedication to that object.^ ^ The most interesting, if futile, article on the subject has been written by Oscar Wilde ; but the wildest of all the specu- lations upon the "Sonnets" have been expended upon their hidden meaning, especially, by the advocates of the "dark lady" fiction, who show to what the efforts of the speculative commentators we have quoted lead. Excited by their example, some neurotic genius enters their alluring field, and startles us by his dexterity. Thus we have a well-written book devoted to the exploitation of the impossible theory that the play of "Henry V" is an autobiography en detail of the Stratford actor, written, we are told, after the writer had "shed tears of regret" over the "untimely fate" of Huth who wrote a life of Buckle. This book is a striking example of what an ingenious specu- 1 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 226; vol. 11, p. 305. 149 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS lator can accomplish with the mass of biographical material which is at hand to parallel almost any life; nor does he travel far to find a suggestion for such work, for the pulpit often uses the story of the forty years' wandering in the wilderness to justly parallel the experiences of a human life. Of course, the early roystering of the actor is used with ef- fect ; the young king, when a prince, was a roysterer like most others of his ilk, but the actor, "had got beyond roystering; he had sounded the depths of folly, and, having discovered its un- profitableness, had now become an earnest thinker and hard worker." But is this quite true.^' What about that last royster- ing from which he contracted a "feavour" which caused his death .? ^ But this, perhaps, is enough, and we will refer to a still wilder flight. Mary Fitton was a maid of honor to Elizabeth. She was a brunette, not especially handsome, but fascinating. Gay and vivacious, utterly devoid of moral sense, she scandalized the far from sanctified court of the Virgin Queen by having a child by William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke, and, in 1601, was banished from court, and her lover imprisoned. How many times she was married is not clear, but several times, while in the genealogy of her family she is put down as having " had one bastard by Wm., E. of Pembroke, and two bastards by Sir Richard Leveson, Kt." This brings her before us with suffi- cient distinctness. In 1597, "Love's Labours Lost" had been enacted at the Court Festivities, and from this fact alone volumes have been written to show that "probably" she then became acquainted with the actor, and that the dark lady frequently mentioned in the "Sonnets" was Mary Fitton. Brandes concludes from the words, "but being both from one," in Sonnet cxliv, "That the Dark Lady did not live with Shakespeare " ; and he confidently assures us that * Robert Waters, William Shakespeare Portrayed by Himself, pp. 6-8. New York, 1888. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS It may be gathered from Sonnet cli with the expressions "triumphant prize," "proud of this pride," that she was greatly his superior in rank and station, so that her conquest for some time filled him with a sense of triumph. But have not lovers from time immemorial in the same, and in every station of life, expressed themselves in " a sense of triumph" ? From this shaky platform our new author, Harris, takes his daring flight, and asseverates as he rises: "We can tell in his works the very moment he saw her"; and he ac- credits to her influence the actor's triumph in dramatic art. Thus we have for the first time the secret of the actor's su- premacy in art; — the illicit love of a depraved woman! It is rather startling, to say the least, but no more so than the chorus of approval from many throats, for his biographers have painted him in such a manner that whatever such writers as Rolfe, or Brandes, or Harris, and others may rake up of a disreputable nature does not seem in the least disturbing, but something quite accordant with his accepted character. Let us quote farther: — This woman dominated all Shakespeare's maturity from 1597 to 1608, and changed him from a light-hearted writer of comedies, histories, and songs, into the greatest man who has left record of himself in literature, the author of half a dozen masterpieces, whose names have become tragic symbols in the consciousness of humanity. How about "Hamlet," called by critics the greatest of his works, and which some biographers claim was a youthful pro- duction carried on his flight to London in his pocket? But she, though a common strumpet, was a fine lady, and he a poor peasant, and so they put upon him a servant's livery by way of making him respectable. Never since the Crown of Thorns was there such mindless mockery. The reader's patience is requested a moment longer: — Two groups of qualities in Mary Fitton seem to have struck Shakespeare almost from the beginning: her cunning pretence of THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS restraint gilding utter wantonness, and her dominant personality- armed with quick wit and quicker temper, — this magic of per- sonality and high-spirited witty boldness were clearly the quali- ties Shakespeare most admired in his mistress, just as the cunning wiles and wantonness were the "foul faults" he raved against in both sonnets and plays. And so he modeled all his heroines from her, — Beatrice, Cleopatra, Juliet, Portia, Rosalind, Viola, — idealistic but truthful in depicting her "infinite variety: the figures cast no shadow and are, therefore, in so far unreal." The actor's passion culminates in spite of the fact that she is a "fine lady" and he a "poor player"; and "he finally loses faith in his gypsy mistress, and, his love purged of trust and affection, hardens to lust and rages with jealousy in 'Hamlet' and 'Othello.'" And so the author raves through "Lear" and "Timon": — Written at a time when the author tasted the very bitterness of despair and death — after "Timon" there is no more to be said: we can follow his descent to the alternate suffering by the stains of his bleeding feet on the flints and thorns of the rough way. ... A little later, when he wrote "Troilus and Cr^essida" and "Antony and Cleopatra," the sky had grown lighter again, and the sun shone through the clouds. It is the St. Martin's summer, so to speak, of his passion; the warmth and sunshine and ecstacy of joy are in it.^ But she left him for another of many paramours, and in 1608, — Mr. Harris gives us the precise time, — the poor actor left London forever, betaking himself to Stratford a sick and broken man. His biographers have all represented him heretofore as enjoying himself in trade, the loaning of money, litigation, tavern bouts, and accumulation of real estate; in- deed, we are told that he passed the happy and dignified life of a rich country gentleman. Our author tells us that hence- forth his daughter Judith was his model for the heroines of * Frank Harris, The Man Shakespeare and His Tragic Life Story. New York, 1909. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS his last plays. We see her as Marina in "Pericles," as Perdita in "Winter's Tale," Miranda in "The Tempest," and finally, his own wife as the shrew, Adriana, in " Comedy of Errors." There seems to be no end of this new type of paranoia. Should it invade history what havoc would it create ! It is positively alarming. But why are such books written ? Perhaps this may be an- swered by a reply made some time since to a similar question put by the late Edward Weeks. We were in the Paris Salon looking at three large canvases sufficiently well painted to en- title them to the honor of a place on the line. One represented a large hog stretched on a platform with his throat cut, the blood oozing from the gaping gash, and the butcher with a dis- agreeable smirk of professional pride standing near with the bloody knife. To accentuate the ghastliness of the scene there was a >vreath of crimson roses twined about the cadaver. The second canvas represented an old apple tree, on a gnarled limb of which sat a naked woman, shrinking from her thorny seat which was lacerating her tender flesh. The other picture was a Mary Fitton in flaming scarlet, every detail of which was fascinatingly repulsive. Why were these pictures painted ? we asked; and Weeks replied: "The painters want to create a sensation, and draw public attention to their work, which, otherwise, might pass unnoticed, while all Paris now is talking about them." When it was objected that no one would buy them he replied: "They will sell readily enough to proprietors of evil resorts; there are enough to buy such monstrosities": in other words, people of good taste are in a minority, and it may be less profitable to cater to them than to those of bad taste. The writing of such books as this from which we have quoted is prompted by the same corrupt taste as that which prompted the production of the paintings described; they are not works of art but of delirium. One of the most sensational exhibitions of futile speculation which has been indulged in by an erratic writer who seems IS3 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS to be deficient of moral sense, is by W. G. Thorpe, a Strat- fordian, who has made a remarkable discovery which is going, as he claims, to cause a rewriting of the actor's life. If this discovery is to be believed, the actor was much more dis- reputable than his greatest "detractors" have ever supposed. Some of his biographers have expressed surprise that so little is known of him during the five years between his advent in London and the date of the appearance of the "Venus and Adonis"; namely, between 1587 and 1592. Why there should be anything strange in the fact that a poor country lad in a city like London in this stirring period of Elizabeth's reign should not get mentioned in the annals of the age, we do not know ; there were thousands who were not ; but here are five years of mystery which must be cleared up and a new field for the right man to exploit. Thorpe's discovery is a certain historical excerpt familiar to any student of the period, and to make his subject as startling as possible, he prints the following statements in red ink : — (i) That Shakespeare, at all events up to 1597, kept a gold, silver, and "copper" hell, carrying on this last in the open streets with yokels, and putting on workman's dress in order to appear to be on their level and thus more easily gain their confidence. (2) That by this means he supplied the wants of his "hungry famylee." (One of Mr. Halliweirs standing puzzles.) (3) That he purchased New Place out of the money got by rooking an infant young gentleman : these circumstances being matter of notoriety among his townsmen and neighbors, gentle and simple. Now take another tack: (A) That deer stealing was felony punishable at the Star Chamber, for which Bacon (practically the Public Prosecutor until he became Chancellor) prosecuted two men separately as late as 1614. (B) That hence, if an information was laid, it was in Bacon's power to have dealt similarly with Shakespeare any time be- tween the date of the offence in 1587 and the 16 14 aforesaid. (C) That if Bacon did not so prosecute, but rather protected him there must have been good (Baconian) reason for it. Now 154 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Bacon blackmailed everybody, and hunted his patron Essex to the death for money. (D) Thirteen years after his Hegira from Stratford, Shake- speare's offence was remembered and cast up against him. He had fled for very fear. Can this be the reason why he did not revisit his native town for ten years, and then only for his son's funeral, when pity might stay the hand of the avenger? Can this, too, be the cause why he "lay low" and kept out of sight in London, lived in a Bankside lodging, and did not ruffle it bravely as did Henslowe, Alleyne, and Burbage, actor managers like himself.? Here are two more of the conundrums Mr. Halliwell despaired of solving. (E) Shakespeare was completely in Bacon's power by the double ties of profitable employment flowing inwards, and the fear of the terror of the law which stood ready at Bacon's hand. We know that Bacon cadged for the smallest item of "copy" for the Twickenham Scrivenery, so that Shakespeare's theatre writing would not pass overlooked. Now comes this in black ink : — And yet, as often happens, the victim had (perhaps from some hold springing out of Bacon's private life) a back pull which enabled him to constrain his master to put off another pressing creditor (as we know he did) and pay him out of Catesby's fine, really the blood money for which he had sold Essex, the amount which paid for the Combe estate; yet one more point which puzzled Mr. Halliwell as he plaintively confesses. And now this rare touch of modesty and philanthropy: — It may be, gentle reader, — I trust, indeed, it is, — that this investigation which I have had the happy chance to open, may, if followed up by abler hands, throw more light still on this hitherto unworked inquiry. I do but ask you to be not shocked by the announcement, but courageously compare, side by side, the baseless theory of a glorified superhuman Shakespeare with the hard facts which I endeavour in this book to oppose to it. I make Shakespeare neither better nor worse than any other man. I bow before and acknowledge his marvellous talents and gifts. I in no way impeach the authorship of his works — I but show the man as he was, hardly tried, with all possible means of 155 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS earning a living denied him, yet doing his best, and a desperate best, too, to keep the wolf from the door of those whom he loved, and whose daily bread he must, at all hazards, provide.^ And this astounding piece of impertinence, to intensify its dramatic flavor, is dated on "New Year's Eve." It is a New Year's present to the world, too precious to be announced save upon that day of universal good will and generosity. The discovery upon which this is all based is the following from Harrington, which may well refer to the actor, but where Bacon comes in is a mystery beyond the art of Harris, Clelia, Mrs. Kintzel, or Lee, et id genus omne, to divine : — There is a great show of popularyte in playing small game — as we have heard of one that shall be nameless (because he was not blameless) that with shootynge seaven up groates among yeomen, and goinge in plain apparell, had stolen so many hartes (for I do not say he came trewly by them) that he was accused of more than fellony. . . . Pyrates by sea, robbers by land, have become honest substanciall men as we call them, and purchasers of more lawfull purchase. With the ruine of infant young gentle- men, the dyeing box maintains a hungry famylee.^ That Stratfordians accept Thorpe is evinced by his own statements, and by the fact that the present writer possesses the presentation copy of his work to the late Samuel Timmins with the following: — Dear Mr. Timmins: — To you to whom this book owes so much, the first copy (saving that used for copyright) With grateful thanks W. G. T. And on the title-page is Mr. Timmins's autograph, — With the compliments of Sam: Timmins. Arley, Coventry. * Thorpe, The Hidden Lives of Shakespeare^ etc. * Nugcs Antiques f vol. i, p. 219. 156 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The quotations we have given from many of the best- known commentators and critics glaringly reveal the unrelia- bility of their opinions, and the impossibility of reconciling the personality and life of the Stratford actor with the author- ship of the works they so facilely concede to him ; especially is this true when we consider those of them, all anonymous, which were in existence at or near the time when he reached London. These have proved to be a stumbling-block of an- noying immobility to those interested in the case of their fa- vorite client, and have caused a division among them. On the one hand, the crass and ready method has been adopted of assuming that there were old works, some lost, which their client appropriated and altered, at a period, of course, as late as possible, to allow a certain margin of time for him to acquire a modicum of education. It is edifying to note how some of these critics endeavor to stretch this period as much as possible, and others to minimize the significance of the erudition displayed in the works they ascribe to him, so as to give some color of reasonableness to their assumptions. ,Had none of these anonymous works survived to vex them, this procedure would have possessed plausibility ; but several of them are still extant, showing, as a rule, more or less imma- turity, but possessing internal evidence which identifies them beyond question with the admittedly orthodox works. On the other hand, a bolder and more difficult position has been chosen by some who set out by admitting that the author of the works as they now exist was the author of the early anon- ymous ones, and, ignoring the necessity of education to account for the almost pedantic display of learning in them, — much of it so marked as to excite the admiration of the greatest scholars, — they go so far as to assert that they were the product of pure genius, free from those trammels imposed by the necessity of education upon mankind. The enthusiasts who adopt this method of explaining how the actor could have written poems and dramas while leading a life so disgraceful ^S7 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS that it subjected him to the degradation of being driven out of his native town, though a married man, and father of children, are not in the least fazed by the fact that the works they ascribe to him exhibit a knowledge of several languages ; of the rarest books of the age — though Stratford was bare of books, and there was not a public or even private circulating library in London ; of the rules of poetic composition ; of etymology ; of law; philosophy; medicine; botany; the natural history of his time, and much more; but jauntily assert that genius, as in the case of Burns, accounts for it all, though the simple and homely lyrics of Burns display nothing of the kind. Certainly the position of these visionaries is so pathetically untenable as to quite reconcile us with their more cautious brethren, the old play advocates, who make their client a plagiarist of the first water; a logical position, at least, considering the char- acter they unblushingly accord him. To these old play-ad- vocates Knight refers when he declares, referring to Malone, that if the actor had done all he represented him to have done, namely: "New versify, new model, transpose, amplify, im- prove, and polish, he would have been essentially a dishonest plagiarist." Of course, this applies equally to Lee, Collins, Robertson, those German critics who have followed the Eng- lish lead, and other Stratfordians who have adopted the opin- ions of earlier commentators, without any effort at originality. Such commentators will doubtless continue to thrash out the same musty straw to the edification of those who are con- tented with such results, for there is no literary work which brings to orthodox writers such a satisfying reputation for "scholarship" as a rehash of the speculations of the old Shak- sperian commentators however stale they may be. The most remarkable achievement of this kind has been performed by Furness, whose work^ has been declared to be " a monument of Shakespearean scholarship," which will im- ^ Horace Howard Furness, Ph.D., LL.D., A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Philadelphia and London. 158 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS mortalize its author. This may be true, for folly as well as wisdom has immortalized men, and if any man has ever blindly devoted his life to futile work it is Furness. Take his "Hamlet'' as an example. This play comprises an equivalent of eighty-six pages of one of the two sumptuous volumes, comprising nine hundred pages of notes and similar literary material. As this matter is in finer print than the play, it would make, if printed in type of the same size, over fourteen pages of notes to every page of text. Such a monumental ex- ample of annotation gone mad, exhibiting the most offensive pedantry, should indeed immortalize its author, whose chau- vinism is so baldly exhibited at the outset in his absurdly mean- ingless dedication to the German Shakespeare Society, which he designates as being "representative of a people whose re- cent history has proved once for all that Germany is not HAMLET." In his preface he informs us that the plan of the preceding volumes of his work has been modified only by the necessity of making the impossible attempt to condense within a certain number of pages a whole literature. And so he declares, agreeing with another enthusiast, — We are glad to listen to every one who has travelled through the kingdom of Shakespeare. Som.ething interesting there must be even in the humblest journal; and we turn with equal pleas- ure from the converse of those who have climbed over the mag- nificence of the highest mountains there, to the lowlier tales of less ambitious pilgrims, who have sat on the green and sunny knoll, beneath the whispering tree, and by the music of the gentle rivulet. This reminds us of Clelia, Harris, Thorpe, and others, and gives us a foretaste of what we may expect. Let us take but two or three examples at random: — Scene I. Elsinore. A -platform before the castle. Francisco at his post. Enter to him Bernardo. Ber. Who's there? Fran. Nay, answer me; stand, and unfold yourself. IS9 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Notes on above : — Act I.] Actus Primus. Ff. Scene L] Scoena Prima. Fi. Scsena Prima. F2. F4. Scena Prima F3. Elsinore.] Cap. A platform . . .] Mai. An open Place before the Palace. Rowe, Pope. A Platform before the Palace. Theob. + Platform of the Castle. Cap. Francisco . . .] Dyce. Francisco upon . . . Cap. Enter Bernardo and Francisco, two Centinels. QqFf (Bernardo Q4) Rowe + Francisco on guard. Sta. 1-5. Who's. . . . He] Two lines, the first ending unfold. Cap. Steev. Var. Cald. Knt, Coll. White, El. I. Who's] Whose Qq. 1. W^ho's there] Coleridge (p. 148): That Shakespeare meant to put an effect in the actor's power in these very first words is evident from the impatience expressed by the startled Francisco in the line that follows. A brave man is never so peremptory as when he fears that he is afraid. Tschischwitz finds a "psychological motive" in thus representing Bernardo as so forgetful of all military use and wont as to challenge Francisco who is on guard. Evidently Bernardo is afraid to meet the Ghost all alone, and it is because he feels so unmanned that his last words to Francisco are to bid Horatio and Marcellus make haste. (For other instances of irregularities in metre, which may be explained by the custom of placing ejaculations, appellations, &c., out of the regular verse, see Abbott, § 512. Ed.) 2. me] Jennens: This is the emphatic word. [Hanmer printed it in italics. Ed.] Francisco, as the sentinel on guard, has the right of insist- ing on the watch-word, which is given in Bernardo's answer. Hor. It would have much amazed you. Ham. Very like, very like. Stay'd it long.^ Notes on above lines : — 235, 236. It . . . like.] One line. Cap. Steev. Var. Cald. Knt i, Coll. White. 236, 237. very . . . haste.] One line. Cap. Mai. 236. Very like, very like.] Very like Qq, Pope +, Jen. El. 236. Hke] Claredon: Seen, ii, 336. This use of "Hke" instead of "likely" has become provincial. Congreve (Way of the World, iv, iv) puts it into the mouth of the rustic. Sir Wilfull. There is more on these perfectly simple words, but this is perhaps sufficient. Ham. (aside). A little more than kin, and less than kind. 160 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS These lines plainly indicating that the king was kin to him, having slain his father, incite Furness to oppress us with the equivalent of a page and a third of the text of the play, a fair example of the foggy and mischievous nature of the criticism in which Stratfordian critics love to indulge : — 65. kin. . . kind] Hanmer: Probably a proverbial expression for a relationship so confused and blended that it was hard to define it. Johnson supposes *'kind" to be here the German word for child. That is, "I am more than cousin and less than son." This conjecture Steevens properly disposes of by requiring some proof that "kind" was ever used by any English writer for child. He adds: A jingle of the same sort is found in Mother Bombie, 1594, " — the nearer we are in blood, the further we must be from love, the greater the kindred is, the less the kindness must be." Again, in Gorboduc, 1561, "In kinde a father, but not kindelynesse." As "kind," however, signifies nature, Hamlet may mean that his relationship had become an unnatural one, as it was partly founded on incest. Be wary then; best safety lies in fear; Youth to itself rebels, though none else near. Notes on the word "best" and "safety": — 43. best] The not uncommon omission of the article before super- latives is perhaps to be explained, according to Abbott, § 82, by the double meaning of the superlative, which means not only "the best of the class," but also "very good." 43. safety] Francke: See Macb. iii, v, 32. Also Velleius Paterculus, ii, 218: frequentissimum initium esse calamitatis securitatem. Elze: See Tro. & Cress. 11, ii, 14: "the wound of peace is surety, Surety This should be enough to weary the reader. The most in- significant words, "the," "and," "though," "near," are ex- ploited in the same dreary manner ; yet, when we think of poor Furness sitting long years engaged in his literary carpentry, patiently copying or directing an apprentice to copy such stuff as we have quoted from the mass of books surrounding him, — those of the "lowlier pilgrims" as well as of the more daring "Who have climbed over the magnificence of the highest mountains," — we can have for him nothing but pity, and are ready to forgive his harsh treatment of a young friend, who 161 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS excited his wrath and "tears'' by venturing upon such an act of sacrilege as putting his hand into an old glove, which Fur- ness had deluded himself into believing once belonged to the subject of his lifelong idolatry. At the present time seventeen volumes of his work have been printed comprising over eight thousand pages, a large part of which is of the precise char- acter of what we have here quoted ; and though Furness has ended his labors, his work is being carried on in the same manner by his worthy son, who has admirably learned his trade, and can dovetail with the same nicety as his honored forbear. The world, therefore, is to be endowed with many more volumes, probably no more flawed with erroneous opin- ions and positive errors than those already published, a trifling matter, as a volume of corrigenda would take care of these if not annotated; if they were, it would, of course, require several more volumes, and this might be thought desirable in order to maintain the "monumental" feature of the work. It was estimated many years ago that ten thousand vol- umes, large and small, had been written on the "Shakespeare'' Works. This number should have about doubled by this time, and it is but true to say that they constitute such a confusing mass of irreconcilable opinions as to be useless to students, except as a warning against juggling with glittering theories in literary criticism. This, however, can hardly compensate for the dissemination of so much fiction, and the imposition of useless toil to overworked librarians and callow students. A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Among plays bearing the authorial name of William Shakespeare, or its initials, we cannot afford to shirk the responsibility imposed upon us by our title-page of examining, briefly at least, those admitted to the Third Folio, as well as several others having quite as good a claim to canonization, if we accept contemporary evidence, or the claims of the so-called "Cipher Story," to be treated later. Sir John Oldcastle, bearing the full name, "William Shakespeare," on the title-page, was never disowned by the actor, nor disputed by critics until, in 1790, Mai one, who then almost monopolized the field of speculative criticism, passed upon it an unfavorable opinion; indeed, he goes so far as to say that he cannot "perceive the least trace of our great poet in any part of the play." No less a critic, however, than Schlegei declares that this play, "Thomas Lord Cromwell," and "Locrine" "are not only unquestionably Shakspere's, but, in my opinion, they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works." "Thomas Lord Cromwell" and "Sir John Oldcastle" he classes together as biographical dramas, and models of their kind, the first in the nature of its subject linked to "Henry VIII," and the second to "Henry V." Tieck also has no hesitation in assigning these plays to the author of "Hamlet. " On the other hand, Phillipps, realizing the danger of questioning the infallibility of the Canon, rejects, in accord with the prevailing policy, the play of "Oldcastle," suggesting an old play of that name, while Ulrici ascribes it to an im- itator "who tried to model himself upon Shakespeare's style." The personalities of Oldcastle and Falstaff have been con- 163 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS fused unnecessarily by critics. There were real personages of both names, but there is nothing in the drama we are consider- ing to lead one to suppose that the worthy Sir John was the prototype of the selfish and lascivious Falstaff . In the "Famous Victories" there is a Sir John Oldcastle, a disreputable fellow associated with Prince Henry in his mad- cap adventures, whom the public later recognized in Falstaff, seemingly to the annoyance of the Cobhams who were allied to the Oldcastle family. The following quotations from the Prologue to "Sir John Oldcastle," and the Epilogue to the second part of "Henry IV," should settle the matter: — It is no pamper'd glutton we present, Nor aged Councellor to youthfull sinne, But one whose virtue shown above the rest, A valiant Martyr, and a vertuous Peer. For anything I know Falstaff e shall dye of a sweat unless already he he kilFd with your hard Opinions: For Old-Castle dyed a Martyr^ and this is not the man. The First Quarto was printed anonymously in 1600, and the Second followed, with ''William Shakespeare" on the title- page. The play opens with a street quarrel between the fol- lowers of Lords Powis and Herbert, which is suppressed by the appearance of the judges upon the scene. In the Second, the Bishop of Rochester denounces Lord Cobham, or Oldcastle, as a heretic. This is followed by a gathering of rebels in Lon- don who proclaim Oldcastle their general, and then we have a scene between him and the king : — K. Henry. 'T is not enough, lord Cobham, to submit; You must forsake your gross opinion. The bishops find themselves much injured; And though, for some good service you have done, We for our part are pleas'd to pardon you. Yet they will not so soon be satisfied. Coh. My gracious lord, unto your majesty, Next unto my God, I do owe my life; And what is mine, either by nature's gift, Or fortune's bounty, all is at your service. 164 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS But for obedience to the pope of Rome, I owe him none; nor shall his shaveling priests, That are in England, alter my belief. If out of Holy Scripture they can prove That I am in an error, I will yield. And gladly take instruction at their hands: But otherwise, I do beseech your grace My conscience may not be encroached upon. K. Henry. We would be loth to press our subjects' bodies. Much less their souls, the dear redeemed part Of Him that is the ruler of us all: Yet let me counsel you, that might command. Do not presume to tempt them with ill words, Nor suffer any meeting to be had Within your house; but to the uttermost Disperse the flocks of this new gathering sect. Coh. My liege, if any breathe, that dares come forth, And say, my life in any of these points Deserves the attainder of ignoble thoughts. Here stand I, craving no remorse at all, But even the utmost rigour may be shown. The enemies of Oldcastle finally succeed in poisoning the King's mind, and he charges him with treason. Oldcastle, who has possessed himself of the proofs of his enemies' traitorous designs, presents them to the King who, perceiving his error, exclaims : — Oh never heard of, base ingratitude! Even those I hugge within my bosome most Are readiest evermore to sting my heart. Pardon me, Cobham, I have done thee wrong; Hereafter I will live to make amends. But the Bishop seizes the opportunity when the King is absent to arrest him and commit him to the Tower, intending his execution; but he escapes with his wife in disguise, and in Act V. they appear in "A wood near St. Albans." Oldcastle. Come, Madam, happily escapt; here let us sit. This place is farre remote from any path. And here awhile our weary limbs may rest. To take refreshing, free from the pursuite Of envious Rochester. i6s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Lady. But where, my Lord, Shall we find rest for our disquiet minds? There dwell untamed thoughts that hardly stoupe, To such abasement of disdained rags. We were not wont to travell thus by night, Especially on foote. Oldcastle. No matter, love; Extremities admit no better choice. And were it not for thee, say froward time Imposde a greater taske, I would esteeme it As lightly as the wind that blows upon us; But in thy sufi'erance I am doubly taskt, Thou wast not wont to have the earth thy stoole, Nor the moist dewy grasse thy pillow, nor Thy chamber to be the wide horrizon. Lady. How can it seeme a trouble, having you A partner with me in the worst I feele? No, gentle Lord, your presence would give ease To death it selfe, should he now seaze upon me. Behold what my foresight hath undertane, (heres bread and cheese & a bottle) For feare we faint; they are but homeely cates. Yet saucde with hunger, they may seeme as sweete As greater dainties we were wont to taste. Oldcastle. Praise be to Him whose plentie sends both this And all things else our mortall bodies need; Nor scorne we this poore feeding, nor the state We now are in, for what is it on earth. Nay, under heaven, continues at a stay.? Ebbes not the sea, when it hath overthrowne? FoUowes not darknes when the day is gone? And see we not sometime the eie of heaven Dimmd with o'erflying clowdes : theres not that worke Of carefull nature, or of cunning art, (How strong, how beauteous, or how rich it be) But falls in time to ruine. Here, gentle Madame, In this one draught I wash my sorrow downe. Sir Richard Lee, finding the body of his son who has been murdered near the place where Oldcastle has taken refuge, discovers the fugitives and arrests them as the murderers. The last scene is in "A Hall of Justice" where Oldcastle is charged by Lee with the murder. The evidence is against him, as blood is found on his clothes and a knife with which he cut his bread i66 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS in the former scene ; but when all hope of proving his innocence is gone, the Constable appears with the murderer, and Old- castle is declared innocent, and offered asylum in Wales where he will be safe from the malice of his enemies. Concerning this play a curious question is disclosed by this entry in Henslowe's "Diary": — This 1 6th of October '99, received by me Thomas Downton of Phillipp Henchlow, to pay Mr. Munday, Mr. Drayton and Mr. Wilson, and Hathway for the first parts of the Lyfe of Sir John Ouldcasstell, and in earnest of the second parts, for the use of the companye ten pownd. This is another case precisely like that of "Julius Caesar," and, as in that case, the easiest explanation has been resorted to by some commentators ; namely, that there were two plays of the same title. A better explanation is — that the author composed this play, and that it was arranged for the stage by professional playwrights who probably cut and changed it in many instances, which would account for some of the incon- gruities in other plays which have troubled critics. Thomas Lord Cromwell. This play, political in its na- ture, appeared in 1602, shortly after the Essex Rebellion, and Cromwell, having been also Earl of Essex, seems to have at- tracted notice to that event. It was first published anony- mously, and continued to be played by the company to which the Stratford actor was nominally attached, until 1613, when it was republished with his initials on the title-page. Farmer ascribes its authorship to Heywood, and others to Wentworth Smith, but there is nothing whatever, not even its style, to give color to such allotment. That it was regarded as a gen- uine work of the author of plays in the Canon is evidenced by its indorsement by Rowe, Pope, and Walker, who published it as "A Tragedy By Shakespear," as late as 1734, and its ac- ceptance by the German critics, Ulrici, Tieck, and Schlegel. Knight, while condemning it, remarks, "We are acquainted 167 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS with no dramatic writer of mark or likelihood, who was a con- temporary of Shakspere, to whom it may be assigned," yet Fleay has expressed a positive belief that the initials signified William Sly, an actor unknown as an author. With equal rea- son he might have used any other name with the same initials. The play begins at Putney in old Cromwell's smithery, the din of which disturbs the studies of the hero, his son, who complains of it and is reproved by the old man. The proud youth indulges in this monologue : — Crom. Why should my birth keepe downe my mounting spirit? Are not all creatures subject unto time: To time, who doth abuse the cheated world, And filles it full of hodge-podge bastardie? Theres legions now of beggars on the earth, That their originall did spring from Kings: And manie Monarkes now whose fathers were The riffe-raffe of their age: for Time and Fortune Weares out a noble traine to beggerie, And from the dunghill minions doe advance To state and marke in this admiring world. This is but course, which in the name of Fate Is scene as often as it whirles about: The River Thames, that by our doore doth passe, His first beginning is but small and shallow. Yet keeping on his course, growes to a sea. And likewise Wolsey, the wonder of our age, His birth as meane as mine, a Butchers sonne, Now who within this land a greater man? Then, Cromwell, cheere thee up, and tell thy soule. That thou maist live to florish and controule. The ambitious youth leaves home and enters the employ of Antwerp merchants. After various experiences he finds him- self in Bononia, and is fortunate enough to rescue the Earl of Bedford from captivity. After extensive wanderings he finally returns to England and becomes the friend of Wolsey; but after the death of the powerful Cardinal, Gardiner, whom he has offended, plots for his destruction. This scene follows : — Crom. Good morrow to my Lord of Winchester I know you beare me hard about the Abbie landes. i68 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Gar, Have I not reason when religion is wronged? You had no colour for what you have done. Crom. Yes; the abolishing of Antichrist, And of this Popish order from our Realme. I am no enemy to religion, But what is done, it is for Englands good. What did they serve for but to feede a sort Of lazie Abbotes and of full fed Fryers ? They neither plow, nor sowe, and yet they reape The fat of all the Land, and sucke the poore: Looke, what was theirs, is in King Henries handes; His wealth before lay in the Abbie lands. Gar. Indeede these things you have aledged, my Lord, When God doth know the infant yet unborne Will curse the time the Abbies were puld downe. I pray, now where is hospitality.^ Where now may poore distressed people go. For to releeve their neede, or rest their bones, When weary travell doth oppresse their limmes? And where religious men should take them in, Shall now be kept backe with a Mastive dogge. Gardiner succeeds in his design, and Cromwell is thrown into the Tower for treason, where his son is brought to take his leave of him. Lieu. Here is your sonne, come to take his leave. Crom. To take his leave! Come hether, Harry Cromwell. Marke, boye, the last words that I speake to thee. Flatter not Fortune, neither fawne upon her; Gape not for state, yet loose no sparke of honor; Ambition, like the plague see thou eschew it; I die for treason, boy, and never knew it. Yet let thy faith as spotlesse be as mine. And Cromwels vertues in thy face shall shine. Come, goe along and see me leave my breath, And He leave thee upon the floure of death. These are the last words before his execution: — Hang. I am your deaths man; pray, my Lord, forgive me. Crom. Even with my soule. Why, man, thou art my Doctor, And bringest me precious Phisicke for my soule. — My Lord of Bedford, I desire of you. Before my death, a corporall Imbrace. (Bedford comes to him, Cromwell imhraces him.) 169 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Farewell, great Lord, my love I do commend, My hart to you; my soule to heaven I send. Some of these lines certainly have a Shaksperian ring, if not over-distinct. LocRiNE. This story was a favorite with the poets. Milton introduces it in his "Comus" with these words : — There is a gentle nymph not far from hence That with moist curb sways the smooth Severn stream, Sabrina is her name, a virgin pure; Whilome she was the daughter of Locrine. The Tragedy was entered for license in 1594, and printed in Quarto in 1595 under the initials "W. S." Steevens accredits the authorship to Marlowe, who died a year before it was entered on the Register. Knight says that the initials "W. S." "might, without any attempt to convey the notion that 'Locrine' was written by Shakspere, have fairly stood for William Smith, and in the same way the W. S. of 'Thomas Lord Cromweir might have represented Wentworth Smith, a well-known dramatic author at the date of the publication of those plays." ^ If we refer to Fleay, however, we find that Wentworth Smith was "A hackwriter, not one scrap of whose work was ever thought worth publishing." ^ Schlegel we have seen says of "Oldcastle," "Cromwell," and "Locrine," that they "are not only unquestionably Shak- speare's, but deserve to be classed among his best and ma- turest works"; and Tieck pronounces "Locrine" to be "The earliest of Shakspere's dramas." The scene opens with Ate entering in black, amid thunder and lightning, illuminating her way with a torch in one hand and a sword in the other. A lion pursuing a bear appears, then an archer who slays him: — ^ Knight, The Works of Shakspere, supplemental volume, p. 196. 2 Fleay, A Chronicle History of the English Stage, p. 299. 170 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Ate. So valiant Brute, the terror of the world, Whose only lookes did scarre his enemies. The Archer death brought to his latest end. Oh what may long abide above this ground. In state of blisse and healthful! happinesse. Each act is introduced by Ate in an equally startling man- ner. In the first scene Brutus enters borne in a chair, with his three sons, Locrine, Camber, and Albanact, his brothers and others. Brutus speaks of approaching death, and his brothers encourage him with praises of his renown. Brutus, however, proceeds to divide his kingdom among his sons, and then puts the crown upon the head of Locrine with these words : — Locrine, stand up, and weare the regall Crowne, And thinke upon the stage of Maiestie, That thou with honor well maist weare the crown. And if thou tendrest these my latest words. As thou requirst my soule to be at rest, As thou desirest thine owne securitie. Cherish and love thy new betrothed wife. Locrine. No longer let me wel enjoy the crowne, Then I do (honour) peerlesse Guendoline. Brutus. Camber. Cam. My lord. Brutus. The glorie of mine age, And darling of thy mother Imogen, Take thou the South for thy dominion. From thee there shall proseed a royall race. That shall maintaine the honor of this land, And sway the regall scepter with their hands. {turning to Albanact) And Albanact, thy fathers onely joy, Youngst in yeares, but not the youngst in mind, A perfect patterne of all chivalrie. Take thou the North for thy dominion, A country full of hills and ragged rockes, Replenished with fearce untamed beasts. As correspondent to thy martiall thoughts. Live long, my sonnes, with endlesse happinesse. And beare firme concordance amongst yourselves. Obey the counsels of these fathers grave, That you may better beare out violence. 171 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Brutus dies amid the lamentations of his friends. In the second act, Humber, King of Scythians, enters with his followers to dispossess Albanact of his kingdom. Hum. At length the snaile doth clime the highest tops, Ascending up the stately castle walls; At length the water with continuall drops, Doth penetrate the hardest marble stone; At length we are arrived in Albion, In the battle which follows Albanact is defeated and slays himself with his own sword. Alarme, Alba. Nay, let them flie that feare to die the death, That tremble at the name of fatall mors. Nev'r shall proud Humber boast or brag himselfe That he hath put young Albanact to flight; And least he should triumph at my decay, This sword shall reave his maister of his life, That oft hath sav'd his maisters doubtfuU strife. But, oh, my brethren, if you care for me, Revenge my death upon his traiterous head. Locrine, hearing of the death of his brother, resolves to avenge him, and proceeds to follow Humber to Albania. Act III, Scene ii, opens on the banks of the river Humber: — Hum. Thus are we come, victorious conquerors. Unto the flowing currents silver streames, Which, in memoriall of our victorie. Shall be agnominated by our name. And talked of by our posteritie: For sure I hope before the golden sunne Posteth his horses to faire Thetis plaines, To see the water turned into blood, And chaunge his blewish hue to rufull red. A battle follows and Humber is defeated. Hum. Where may I finde some desart wildernesse, Where I may breathe out curses as I would, And scare the earth with my condemning voice; While he is bemoaning his fate the ghost of Albanact ap- pears to him, crying vindicta. 172 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Act IV, Scene i, is the Camp of Locrine. Soldiers enter lead- ing Estrild, Humber's Queen, whose beauty bewitches Locrine. Loc. If she have cause to weepe for Humber's death, And shead sault teares for her overthrow, Locrine may well bewaile his proper griefe, Locrine may moue his owne peculiar woe. He, being conquered, died a speedie death, And felt not long his lamentable smart; I, being conqueror, live a lingring life. And feele the force of Cupid's suddaine stroke. I gave him cause to die a speedie death, He left me cause to wish a speedie death. Oh that sweete face painted with natures dye. Those roseall cheeks mixt with a snowy white, That decent necke surpassing yvorie. Those comely brests which Venus well might spite. Are like to snares which wylie fowlers wrought. Wherein my yeelding heart is prisoner cought. The golden tresses of her daintie haire, Which shine like rubies glittering with the sunne, Have so entrapt poore Locrines lovesick heart. That from the same no way it can be wonne. Guendoline maddened with jealousy raises with her brother an army against her husband, Locrine, who in a battle is de- feated. In the scene Locrine enters with Estrilda: — Loc. faire Estrilda, we have lost the field; Thrasimachus hath wonne the victorie. Farewell, faire Estrild, beauties paragon, Fram'd in the front of forlorne miseries! Nor shall mine eies behold thy sunshine eies, But when we meet in the Elysian fields; Thither I go before with hastened pace. (Slays himself.) Est. Break, hart, with sobs and greevous suspirs! Streame forth, you teares, from forth my watery eies; Helpe me to mourne for warlike Locrines death! Shall Estrild live, then, after Locrines death ? Shall love of life barre her from Locrines sword .? Locrine, I come; Locrine, I follow thee. (Kills herself.) THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Guendoline, finding their bodies, closes the final scene with these words : — And as for Locrlne, our deceased spouse, Because he was the sonne of mightle Brute, To whom we owe our country, lives and goods, He shall be buried in a stately tombe. Close by his aged father Brutus' bones, With such great pomp and great solemnitie. As well beseemes so brave a prince as he. Let Estrild lie without the shallow vaults, Without the honour due unto the dead. Because she was the author of this warre. Retire, brave followers, unto Troynovant, Where we will celebrate these exequies. And place young Locrine in his father's tombe. We trust that the reader has been able from these extracts, necessarily brief, to get a somewhat intelligent idea of the char- acter of this play. We shall show later that many parts of it are copied verbatim, or nearly so, from works accredited to Edmund Spenser. This, of course, raises several questions. Was Spen- ser the author of "Locrine" ? or. Was the author of "Locrine" a shameless plagiarist ^ or. Did he avail himself of some of his old material to serve a new purpose, as authors sometimes do ? The Puritan Widow. No play among those admitted to the two later Folios has been discredited so generally as this. Winstanley ascribed it to Shakspere, and likewise Schlegel, who advances the theory that for some reason of his own he wished to adopt the style of Jonson. Knight dismisses it con- temptuously; Fleay ascribes its authorship to Middleton. It was first published in 1607, and contains an allusion to "Rich- ard III" and "Macbeth." It can hardly be thought worthy of the great dramatist, unless it is regarded as a very youthful work which it shows evidence of being. The play opens with the widow, surrounded by her brother, son, and two daughters weeping over the death of her hus- band in which the unfeeling son refuses to join, and is reproved 174 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS by the mother. One of the daughters declares that she will never be married, and the mother takes a like vow. These vows play their part in the comedy as the widow and her daughter on one occasion are rescued from unworthy suitors and finally marry. The chief character is Pyeboard, a dissolute charlatan pos- ing as a scholar, whom Dyce, the editor of Peek's Works, rec- ognizes as a caricature of Peele, the word, Peel, signifying a board with a handle employed by bakers; in other words, a pie-board. Pyeboard in describing himself draws a faithful portrait of Peele : — As touching my profession; the multiplicity of scholars, hatched and nourished in the idle calms of peace, makes them, like fishes, one devour another; and the community of learning has so played upon affections, that thereby almost religion is come about to phantasy, and discredited by being too much spoken of, in so many and mean mouths. I myself, being a scholar and a graduate, have no other comfort by my learning, but the affection of my words, to know how, scholar-like, to name what I want; and can call myself a beggar both in Greek and Latin. And therefore, not to cog with peace, I '11 not be afraid to say, 't is a great breeder, but a barren nourisher; a great getter of children, which must either be thieves or rich men, knaves or beggars. The tricks and quips of Pyeboard furnish most of the amusement of the play. A Yorkshire Tragedy. This play was founded upon a tragedy which occurred in 1604, and was published in 1608, with "W. Shake-speare," on the title-page. Knight pro- nounces it a " Play of sterling merit in its limited range," and is inclined to ascribe it to Heywood.^ Fleay, however, admits that "The authorship of this play has not yet been ascer- tained. "^ Malone would give no decided opinion upon it, nor does Phillipps venture to guess at its author, though he 1 Knight, The Works of Shakspere, supplemental volume, p. 254. 2 Fleay, A Chronicle History ^ etc., p. 158. 17s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS condemns it, and accounts for the actor's remaining silent about the use of his name by assuming that he was probably attend- ing to some of his many lawsuits. Hazlitt ascribes its author- ship to Heywood, and Dr. Farmer asserts that "Most certainly it was not written by our poet at all." The husband, a cruel brute, maddened by excesses and jealousy, heaps abuses upon his wife, a woman of angelic character. She thus states her desperate situation : — Wife. What will become of us? All will away: My husband never ceases in expense, Both to consume his credit and his house; And 'tis set down by heaven's just decree That riot's child must needs be beggary. Are these the virtues that his youth did promise? Dice and voluptuous meetings, midnight revels, Taking his bed with surfeits; ill beseeming The ancient honour of his house and name? Carried away by passion he wounds his wife, kills his two children, and leaves their nurse wounded. Not contented with this, he takes a horse to seek his third child with murderous intent, but is overtaken and arrested. On his way to prison he reaches his home, Calverly Hall, where the final scene is enacted. Hus. I am right against my house, — seat of my ancestors: I hear my wife's alive, but much endanger'd. {His wife is brought in.) Wife. O my sweet husband, my dear distress'd husband, Now in the hands of unrelenting lawe, My greatest sorrow, my extremest bleeding: — Now my soul bleeds. This breaks down his stubborn nature, and declaring that the evil spirit has at last left him, he exclaims : — Bind him one thousand more, you blessed angels In that pit bottomless! Let him not rise To make men act unnatural tragedies; To spread into a father, and in fury Make him his children's executioner; Murther his wife, his servants, and who not? For that man 's dark, where heaven is quite forgot. 176 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS His wife's forgiveness and the sight of his dead children, cause him to cry out in agony of spirit : — Here's weight enough to make a heart-string crack. O, were it lawful that your pretty souls, Might look from heaven into your father's eyes. Then should you see the penitent glasses melt, And both your murthers shoot upon my cheeks! But you are playing in the angels' laps. And will not look on me, who, void of grace, Kill'd you in beggary. As he is borne away to prison, we hear his wife in her grief: — Dearer than all is my poor husband's life. Heaven give my body strength, which is yet faint With much expense of blood, and I will kneel. Sue for his life, number up all my friends To plead for pardon for my dear husband's life. The London Prodigal. This play was first pubHshed in 1605, and the title-page bore the name "William Shake- speare." Tieck ascribes its authorship to Shakspere. Knight rejects it. Fleay says: "This play is certainly by the same hand as the 'Cromwell.'" ^ The following is a brief outline of the play. Flowerdale, a merchant, who has left his reckless son, Mathew, with his uncle in London, returning from Venice, seeks an account of his son's doings, and is told of his vile life. The son, returning during the interview, does not recognize his father who is disguised, and is informed that his father has died, and disinherited him; a piece of news which he receives nonchalantly enough. The father loans money to the penni- less reprobate, and enters his service under the name of Kester. Young Flowerdale desiring to wed Luce, the daughter of Sir Lancelot Spurcock, her father compels her to marry the miserable spendthrift. To try the temper of the bride the father and uncle cause the arrest of the bridegroom after the ceremony. . Mathew in vain begs his uncle to bail him, and ^ Fleay, A Chronicle History , etc., p. 300. 177 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS her miserly father turning against her, he makes her a present of a hundred angels which her dastardly husband despoils her of and wastes at the gaming-table. The young bride takes service as a Dutch wench, and so disappears from public view. Mathew Flowerdale goes from bad to worse, and is finally ar- rested on a charge of robbery and the murder of his wife, who goes to him as he is about to be taken to prison, and throwing off her disguise appeals to him : — Luce. O master Flowerdale, if too much grief Have not stopp'd up the organs of your voice, Then speak to her that. is thy faithful wife; Or doth contempt of me thus tie thy tongue? Turn not away; I am no ^Ethiop, No wanton Cressid, nor a changing Helen; But rather one made wretched by thy loss. What! turn'st thou still from me? O then I guess thee wofull'st among hapless men. M. Flow. I am indeed, wife, wonder among wives! Thy chastity and virtue hath infus'd Another soul in me, red with defame, For in my blushing cheeks is seen my shame. The father now declares himself to his repentant son, whose promises of reformation are so convincing that he is restored to the confidence of his friends. Even his hard father-in-law concludes the scene in these words : — Sir Launc. Well, being in hope you'll prove an honest man, I take you to my favour. The foregoing, with " Pericles," comprise the seven plays ad- mitted to the Third Folio. Knight, however, realizing the claims of their titular author to other plays, adds to these in the supple- mental volume of his works, " Arden of Feversham " ; " Edward Third"; "George a Greene"; "Fair Em"; "Mucedorus"; "The Birth of Merlin"; and "Merry Devil of Edmonton." Arden of Feversham should especially gain our attention. It was published as early as 1592. How long before this date it was written, we have no means of knowing; but there can 178 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS be no doubt that it was the work of a young writer. Like the "Yorkshire Tragedy," it is founded upon a local homicide, and like that event greatly excited the public mind. Its first publication was in Holinshed's "Chronicle" of 1577. As it oc- curred, however, in 155 1, it was then an old case with the legal fraternity, and served them for reference in similar cases. The author, however, had a clearer legal conception of the case than the chronicler, and discards certain speculative evidence to advantage. Tieck thought well enough of the drama to translate it into German, declaring it beyond question a Shakspere work. Knight, while hesitating to pronounce posi- tive judgment, says : — We should be at a loss to assign it to any writer whose, name is associated with that early period of the drama, except Shak- spere.^ Brandes regards it as certainly one of the most admirable plays of that rich period whose merit impresses one even when one reads it for the first time in uncritical youth. ^ Says Swinburne : — The tragic action can hardly seem to any competent reader the creature of any then engaged in creation but Shakespeare's. Assuredly there is none other known to whom it could be plau- sibly or even possibly assigned.^ The plot of the play involves the destruction of a husband by his wife, he "of a tall and comely presence," she "well favored of shape and countenance," and much of its interest centers in the providential escapes of the doomed man. The scene is opened by Arden, who thus addresses his friend, Franklin: — Franklin, thy love prolongs my weary life; And but for thee, how odious were this life, 1 Knight, The Works of Shakspere, supplemental volume, p. 263. 2 Brandes, William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 204. 3 Algernon Charles Swinburne, Shakespeare, p. 15. London, 1909. 179 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS That shows me nothing, but torments my soul; And those foul objects, that offend mine eyes, Which make me wish that, for this veil of heaven, The earth hung over my head and cover'd me! Love-letters post 'twixt Mosbie and my wife. And they have privy meetings in the town: Franklin. Be patient, gentle friend, and learn of me To ease thy grief and save her chastity: Entreat her fair; sweet words are fittest engines To raze the flint walls of a woman's breast. Alice, the wife, enters and Arden reproves her gently, and tells her that in her sleep she uttered the name of Mosbie, her suspected lover, but she succeeds in quieting his jealousy for the moment. Arden, having departed, Mosbie, "a tailor by occupation, a black swart man," meets the deluded woman: — Mosbie. Where is your husband? Alice. 'T is now high water, and he is at the quay. Mosbie. There let him: henceforward, know me not. Alice. Is this the end of all thy solemn oaths ? Arden to me was dearer than my soul, — And shall be still. Base peasant, get thee gone. This is but a lover's quarrel and soon ends. Mosbie, finding an artist reputed as skilful in poison, who can paint a picture which will cause the death of one looking upon it, introduces him to Alice Arden. The Charlatan demands for his work the hand of Mosbie' s sister, her waiting maid, and thus elegantly extols his art: — For, as sharp-witted poets, whose sweet verse Make heavenly gods break off their nectar-draughts, And lay their ears down to the lowly earth. Use humble promise to their sacred muse; So we, that are the poets' favourites. Must have a love. Ay, love is the painter's muse, That makes him frame a speaking countenance, A weeping eye that witnesseth heart's grief. During this interview Arden returns, and, after an unpleas- ant clash, the gentle Arden accepts Mosbie's protestations of 1 80 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS innocence, and the domestic sky is again blue ; but not for long. Plot after plot is laid for his life by the infatuated wife, all of which Arden escapes. Here is a description of a London ruf- fian and thief who had sold stolen plate : — Brad. A lean-faced writhen knave, Hawk-nos'd and very hollow-eyed; With mighty furrows in stormy brows; Long hair down to his shoulders curl'd; His chin was bare, but on his upper lip A mutchado, which he wound about his ear. Will. What apparel had he? Brad. A watchet satin doublet all to-torn, The inner side did bear the greater show; A pair of threadbare velvet hose seam-rent; A worsted stocking rent above the shoe; A livery cloak, but all the lace was off; 'Twas bad, but yet it serv'd to hide the plate. Black Will and Shakebag are engaged to murder Arden, but the former while watching for his victim, has his head broken by a window which a careless apprentice lets fall while closing his master's shop. Providence having again intervened, the two ruffians, balked of their prey, discourse in this highly poetic strain : — Black Will. I tell thee, Greene, the forlorn traveller, Whose lips are glued with summer-scorching heat. Ne'er long'd so much to see a running brook As I to finish Arden's tragedy. Shakebag. I cannot paint my valour out with words: But give me place and opportunity. Such mercy as the starven lioness. When she is dry suck'd of her eager young. Shows to the prey that next encounters her. On Arden so much pity would I take. Michael, Arden's serving man, is tampered with by Greene the tool of Mosbie, to leave the doors of Arden's room in the parsonage where he lodged in London unfastened, so that Black Will can reach him. This, however, fails through Michael's terror of the crime. This soliloquy, says Knight, i8i THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS "in a young poet would not only be promise of future great- ness, but it would be the greatness itself. The conception is wholly original." Michael. Conflicting thoughts, encamped in my breast, Awake me with the echo of their strokes; And I, a judge who censure either side, Can give to neither wished victory. My master's kindness pleads to me for life, With just demand, and I must grant it him. My mistress she hath forc'd me with an oath. For Susan's sake, the which I may not break, For that is nearer than a master's love: That grim-fac'd fellow, pitiless Black Will, And Shakebag stern, in bloody stratagem — (Two rougher rufiians never liv'd in Kent) Have sworn my death if I infringe my vow — A dreadful thing to be consider'd of. Methinks I see them with their bolster'd hair. Staring and grinning in thy gentle face, And, in their ruthless hands their daggers drawn, Insulting o'er thee with a pack of oaths. Whilst thou, submissive, pleading for relief Art mangled by their ireful instruments! Methinks. I hear them ask where Michael is. And pitiless Black Will cries, **Stab the slave, The peasant will detect the tragedy." The wrinkles of his foul death-threatening face Gape open wide like graves to swallow men: My death to him is but a merriment; And he will murder me to make him sport, — He comes! he comes! Master Franklin, help; Call up the neighbours, or we are but dead. Mosbie, who is at Feversham, is also tormented with the poignancy of his guilt. Mosbie. Disturbed thoughts drive me from company. And dry my marrow with their watchfulness : Continual trouble of my moody brain Feebles my body by excess of drink, And nips me as the bitter north-east wind Doth check the tender blossoms in the spring. Well fares the man, howe'er his cates do taste. That tables not with foul suspicion; 182 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS And he but pines among his delicates Whose troubled mind is stuff'd with discontent. My golden time was when I had no gold; Though then I wanted, yet I slept secure; My daily toil begat me night's repose, My night's repose made daylight fresh to me: But since I climb'd the top-bough of the tree, And sought to build my nest among the clouds, Each gentle stirring gale doth shake my bed. And makes me dread my downfall to the earth. While thus morahzing, AHce enters, and this scene Knight says, is "unmatched by any other writer than Shakspere," and that, too, "in a play published as early as 1592, perhaps written several years earlier." Mosbie. Ungentle Alice, thy sorrow is my sore; Thou know'st it well, and 't is thy policy To forge distressful looks to wound a breast Where lies a heart that dies when thou art sad; It is not love that loves to anger love. Alice. It is not love that loves to murder love. Mosbie. How mean you that.? Alice. Thou know'st how dearly Arden loved me. Mosbie. And then — Alice. And then conceal the rest, for 't is too bad. Lest that my words be carried with the wind. And publish'd in the world to both our shames! I pray thee, Mosbie, let our spring-time wither; Our harvest else will yield but loathsome weeds: Forget, I pray thee, what has pass'd betwixt us, For now I blush, and tremble at the thoughts. Arden, accompanied by Franklin and his unworthy servant, now journeys to Rochester where on Rainhamdown, Black Will and his accomplices are lying in wait for him. Michael, who suspects that he will also be slain with his master, pricks his horse so that he halts and is left behind. On the way Franklin entertains his friend with a tale. In the nick of time Arden is joined by friends, and again the conspirators are balked of their prey, but finally, reaching home where Mos- bie had concealed the assassin, he is slain. Franklin thus 183 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS announces to Alice the death of her husband in presence of the Mayor and watch who are in pursuit of Black Will: — Frank. Arden, thy husband, and my friend, is slain I fear he was murder'd in this house. And carried to the fields; for from that place, Backwards and forwards, may you see The print of many feet within the snow. The play concludes thus : — Gentlemen, we hope you'll pardon this naked tragedy, Wherein no filed points are foisted in To make it gracious to the ear or eye; For simple truth is gracious enough, And needs no other points of glozing stuff. In other words, the author relates "a plain unvarnished tale" without attempt at rhetorical display. The Two Noble Kinsmen is among the plays not printed in the First Folio, and one which has received the highest com- mendation from readers of critical taste. It was first published in quarto in 1634, and bears on the title-page, — Written by the memorable Worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher, Gent., and Mr. William Shakspeare, Gent. Phillipps refutes this on the ground that the actor never collaborated with any writer, and quotes Pope's assertion "that there was a tradition to the effect that the whole of the 'Two Noble Kinsmen' was written by Shakespeare." ^ SaysBrandes: — "Timon of Athens" and "Pericles," which are plainly only partially his work, and "Henry VIII" and "The Two Noble Kinsmen," of which we may confidently assert that Shakespeare had nothing to do with them beyond the insertion of single im- portant speeches and the addition of a few valuable touches. ^ 1 Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. ii, p. 410. 2 Brandes, William Shakespeare, vol. 11, p. 275. 184 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS And again : — Did Shakespeare leave the play unfinished, and was it com- pleted by Fletcher after his death? or did he help Fletcher by writing or rewriting certain scenes of his play? The first supposi- tion is an utter impossibility, as far as I am concerned.^ Brandes then falls back upon Heminge and Condell, extoll- ing their authority; but, curiously enough, traverses himself and discredits them by discarding "Henry VHI." Coleridge gives us this opinion of it : — 1 can scarcely retain a doubt as to the first act's having been written by Shakespeare. ^ Says Lamb : — That Fletcher should have copied Shakespeare's manner in so many entire scenes is not very probable; that he could have done it with such facility is to me not certain. Fleay attempts to prove that the play was written after the actor's death, but fails to show why Fletcher never claimed an interest in it; instead he leaves us in this quagmire: — There is nothing in it above the reach of Massinger and Fletcher, but that some things in it are unworthy either, and more likely to be by some inferior hand, W. Rowley, for instance.^ A score of other contradictory opinions could be given, but they would be unprofitable. It may be worth while, however, to give a brief synopsis of the play. The story of Palamon and Arcite furnishes the material out of which is wrought "The Two Noble Kinsmen,'' and opens with the entry of Hymen with flaming torch, conducting to the temple Theseus, Hippolyta, her sister Emilia and nymphs, singing a nuptial song as they strew the way with flowers. ^ Brandes, William Shakespeare^ vol. ii, p. 316. 2 "Notes and Lectures on Shakespeare," Literary Remains of S. T. Coleridge , vol. I, p. 321. London, 1849. • Fleay, A Chronicle History, etc., p. 254. i8s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The bridal procession is suddenly arrested by three Queens in mourning, who call upon Theseus, the bridegroom, to avenge the murder of their lords by Creon, King of Thebes : — I Queen. Oh, pity, duke! Thou purger of the earth, draw thy fear'd sword, That does good turns to the world; give us the bones Of our dead kings, that we may chapel them! The second Queen appeals to the bride : — Honour'd Hippolyta, that hast slain The scythe-tusk'd boar; that, with thy arm as strong As it is white, wast near to make the male To thy sex captive; but that this thy lord (Born to uphold creation in that honour First nature styl'd it in) shrunk thee into The bound thou wast o'erflowing, at once subduing Thy force, and thy affection; soldieress, Bid him that we, whom flaming war doth scorch. Under the shadow of his sword may cool us! Require him he advance it o'er our heads; Speak 't in a woman's key, like such a woman As any of us three; weep ere you fail; Lend us a knee; But touch the ground for us no longer time Than a dove's motion, when the head's pluck'd off! To this Hippolyta responds: — Poor lady say no more! I had as lief trace this good action with you As that whereto I 'm going, and never yet Went I so willing way. My lord is taken Heart-deep with your distress; let him consider; I'll speak anon. The third Queen appeals to Hippolyta's sister, and so per- sistent and eloquent are the distressed suitors that all are deeply moved by them. Theseus, however, orders the pro- cession to move on : — I Queen. Oh, this celebration Will longer last, and be more costly, than Your suppliants' war! i86 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS The others, too, raise their voices in grief at the prospective delay, which moves Theseus to exclaim : — I will give you comfort To give your dead lords graves. He then orders to forth and levy Our worthiest instruments; whilst we despatch This grand act of our life, this daring deed Of fate in wedlock! Impatient of any delay the suitors turn away, the first Queen exclaiming: — Let us be widows to our woes! Delay Commends us to a famishing hope. To this Theseus replies : — Why, good ladies. This is a service, whereto I am going, Greater than any war; it more imports me Than all the actions that I have foregone Or futurely can cope. I Queen. The more proclaiming Our suit shall be neglected. This attitude so affects Hippolyta that she yields. Hip. Though much unlike You should be so transported, as much sorry I should be such a suitor; yet I think Did I not, by the abstaining of my joy. Which breeds a deeper longing, cure their surfeit, That craves a present medicine, I should pluck All ladies' scandal on me; therefore, sir. As I shall here make trial of my prayers. Either presuming them to have some force, Or sentencing for aye their vigour dumb, Prorogue this business we are going about, and hang Your shield afore your heart, about that neck Which is my fee, and which I freely lend To do these poor queens service! Emilia also appeals to Theseus who yields to the wishes of his bride and sister: — 187 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The. Pray stand up! I am entreating of myself to do That which you kneel to have me. Perithous, Lead on the bride! Get you and pray the gods For success and return; omit not anything In the pretended celebration. Theseus, taking leave of his bride and sister, orders the procession to move on without him, and that the ceremonies shall be observed as though he were present. As he turns away he utters these noble words to his followers : — As we are men Thus should we do; being sensually subdued, We lose our humane title. Good cheer, ladies! In the next scene Palamon and Arcite, the noble kinsmen, are introduced to us: — Arcite is gently visag'd: yet his eye Is like an engine bent, or a sharp weapon In a soft sheath; mercy, and manly courage, Are bedfellows in his visage. Palamon Has a most menacing aspect; his brow Is grav'd, and seems to bury what it frowns on; Yet sometimes 't is not so, but alters to The quality of his thoughts; long time his eye Will dwell upon his object; melancholy Becomes him nobly; so does Arcite's mirth; But Palamon's sadness is a kind of mirth. So mingled, as if mirth did make him sad. And sadness, merry; those darker humours that Stick misbecomingly on others, on him Live in fair dwelling. Though they regard Creon, their uncle, as "A most un- bounded tyrant," when they are informed that war is declared against him by Theseus, they decide "That to be neutral to him were dishonor," and so they join him in the battle which is to decide his fate. In this battle Theseus is victor, and is met by the three queens. J Queen. All the good that may Be wish'd upon thy head, I cry " amen" to ' tl Thes. Th' impartial gods, who from the mounted heavens i88 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS View us their mortal herd, behold who err, And in their time chastise. Go, and find out The bones of your dead lords, and honour them With treble ceremony! The Queens having departed to find the bodies of their husbands, Theseus, seeing the bodies of Palamon and Arcite, inquires of a herald who they are : — Herald. Men of great quality, as may be judg'd By their appointment; some of Thebes have told us They are sisters' children, nephews to the king. Thes. By th' helm of Mars, I saw them in the war. Like to a pair of lions, smear'd with prey. Make lanes in troops aghast: I fix'd my note Constantly on them; for they were a mark Worth a god's view! What prisoner was't that told me When I inquired their names.** Herald. With leave, they're call'd Arcite and Palamon. Thes. Then like men use 'em! The very lees of such, millions of rates Exceed the wine of others; all our surgeons Convent in their behoof; our richest balms, Rather than niggard, waste! their lives concern us Much more than Thebes is worth. While Theseus is sweating on the battlefield, Hippolyta and Emilia reminiscently discourse of the love between Theseus and his friend, Perithous, which Emilia illustrates by mention of her love for her playfellow, Flavina, declaring That the true love, 'tween maid and maid may be More than in sex dividual. In Act II we have the kinsmen in prison. Their nobility is shown in these words : — Yet, cousin. Even from the bottom of these miseries. From all that fortune can inflict upon us, I see two comforts rising, two mere blessings, If the gods please to hold here, — a brave patience And the enjoying of our griefs together. Whilst Palamon is with me, let me perish If I think this our prison! 189 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS From a window they see Emilia enter the adjacent garden with her servant. Emi. This garden has a world of pleasure in 't. What flower is this ? Serv. 'T is calFd Narcissus, madam. Emi. That was a fair boy certain, but a fool To love himself: were there not maids enough? J re. Pray, forward. Pal. Yes. Emi. Or were they all hard-hearted? Serv. They could not be to one so fair. Emi. Thou wouldst not? Serv. I think I should not, madam. Emi. That's a good wench! But take heed to your kindness though! Serv. Why, madam? Emi. Men are mad things. Arc. Will you go forward, cousin? Emi. Canst not thou work such flowers in silk, wench ? Serv. Yes. Emi. I'll have a gown full of them; and of these; This is a pretty colour; will't not do Rarely upon a skirt, wench? The kinsmen, infatuated with love of EmiHa, become jeal- ous of each other, and, while disputing, the jailer appears and summons Arcite to proceed with him to Theseus. Later he returns without Arcite, and Palamon asks in surprise: — Pal. Where's Arcite? Gaoler. Banished. Prince Perithous Obtain'd his liberty; but never more. Upon his oath and life, must he set foot Upon this kingdom. The jailer informs Palamon that he is to be conveyed to a dungeon, and despite pleading and resistance forces him away. As he leaves the window from which he has beheld Emilia, he exclaims : — Pal. Farewell, kind window! May rude wind never hurt thee! Oh, my lady, If ever thou hast felt what sorrow was. Dream how I suffer! Come, now bury me. 190 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Arcite, before being banished, is permitted to take part in the athletic games in honor of EmiHa's birthday, and win- ning, is brought wearing the garland of victory before Theseus. Thes. You have done worthily; I have not seen Since Hercules, a man of tougher sinews: Whate'er you are, you run the best and wrestle. That these times can allow. Arc. I am proud to please you. Thes. What country bred you "i Thes. This; but far off, prince. Thes. Are you a gentleman.^ Arc. My father said so; And to those gentle uses gave me life. Thes. Are you his heir.^ Arc. His youngest, sir. Thes. Your father Sure is a happy sire then. What prove you.^ Arc. A little of all noble qualities: I could have kept a hawk, and well have halloa'd To a deep cry of dogs; I dare not praise My feat in horsemanship, yet they that knew me Would say it was my best piece; last, and greatest, I would be thought a soldier. Thes. You are perfect. Per. Upon my soul, a proper man! Emi. He is so. Per. How do you like him, lady.? Hip. I admire him: I have not seen so young a man so noble (If he say true) of his sort. Emi. I believe. His mother was a wondrous handsome woman! His face, methinks, goes that way. Hip. But his body, And fiery mind, illustrate a brave father. Per. Mark how his virtue, like a hidden sun. Breaks through his baser garments. Received into favor by Theseus, EmiHa giving him the choice of her horses for the continuance of the fete, Theseus pleasantly remarks : — Sister, beshrew my heart, you have a servant, That, if I were a woman, would be master; But you are wise. IQI THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS In Act III, while the merrymaking is proceeding in "Diana's Wood/' Arcite, as his charger enters a thicket, encounters Palamon in shackles, having escaped from prison. Pal. Traitor kinsman! Thou shouldst perceive my passion, if these signs Of prisonment were off me, and this hand But owner of a sword. By all oaths in one, I, and the justice of my love, would make thee A confess'd traitor! Oh, thou most perfidious That ever gently look'd! the void'st of honour That e'er bore gentle token! falsest cousin That ever blood made kin! call'st thou her thine? Arcite in vain endeavors to appease him, and urges him to remain in hiding till he returns. Palamon consents, and when night falls Arcite brings him food, wine, and files to remove his fetters. Palamon, mad with jealousy, persists in insulting him, and Arcite finally promises to return and meet him in combat. In Act III, Scene vi, Palamon enters "from the Bush," then Arcite "with armours and swords " : — Arc. Good morrow, noble kinsman! Pal. I have put you To too much pains, sir. Arc. That too much, fair cousin, Is but a debt to honour, and my duty. Pal. Would you were so in all, sir! I could wish you As kind a kinsman, as you force me -find A beneficial foe, that my embraces Might thank you, not my blows. Arc. I shall think either, Well done, a noble recompense. Palamon asks Arcite where he got so fine a suit of armor for him, and Arcite replies that he had to steal it from the duke. They buckle each other's armor. Pal. Thank you, Arcite! How do I look.? am I fall'n much away? Arc. Faith, very little; Love has us'd you kindly. Pal. I'll warrant thee I'll strike home. 192 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Arc. Do, and spare not! I '11 give you cause, sweet cousin. Pal. Now to you, sir! Methinks this armour 's very like that, Arcite, Thou wor'st that day the three kings fell, but lighter. Arc. That was a very good one; and that day I well remember, you outdid me, cousin; I never saw such valour; when you charged Upon the left wing of the enemy, I spurred hard to come up, and under me I had a right good horse. Pal. You had indeed; A bright-bay, I remember. While fighting they are surprised by Theseus, Hippolyta, and Emiha, with train. Theseus, furious at this infraction of his laws, condemns both to death, but yields to the pleading of Hippolyta and Emilia to spare them, and offers Emilia her choice of them. Thes. Say, Emilia If one of them were dead, as one must be, are you Content to take the other to your husband."* They cannot both enjoy you; they are princes As goodly as your own eyes, and as noble As ever Fame yet spoke of; look upon them, And if you can love, end this difference! I give consent! are you content, too, princes? Emilia refuses to make choice which will condemn one to death, and Theseus orders them to go to their own country, and return within a month, during which time he will plant a pyramid, and if either Can force his cousin By fair and knightly strength to touch the pillar, he shall wed Emilia, and the other shall be slain. In Act IV, Scene ii, Emilia appears with the pictures of the two kinsmen : — Emi. Yet I may bind those wounds up, that must open And bleed to death for my sake else; I *11 choose, And end their strife; two such young handsome men 193 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Shall never fall for me: their weeping mothers, Following the dead-cold ashes of their sons, Shall never curse my cruelty. Good Heav'n, What a sweet face has Arcite! If wise Nature, With all her best endowments, all those beauties She sows into the births of noble bodies. Were here a mortal woman, and had in her The coy denials of young maids, yet doubtless She would run mad for this man: what an eye! Of what a fiery sparkle, and quick sweetness, Has this young prince! here Love himself sits smiling; Just such another wanton Ganymede Set Jove afire, and enforc'd the god Snatch up the goodly boy, and set him by him A shining constellation! what a brow, Of what a spacious majesty, he carries, Arch'd like the great-ey'd Juno's, but far sweeter. Smoother than Pelops' shoulder! Fame and Honour, Methinks, from hence, as from a promontory Pointed in heav'n, should clap their wings, and sing To all the under-world, the loves and fights Of gods and such men near 'em. Palamon Is but his foil; to him, a mere dull shadow; He 's swarth and meagre, of an eye as heavy As if he M lost his mother; a still temper. No stirring in him, no alacrity; Of all this sprightly sharpness, not a smile. Yet these that we count errors, may become him; Narcissus was a sad boy, but a heavenly. Oh, who can find the bent of woman's fancy? I am a fool, my reason is lost to me! I have no choice, and I have lied so lewdly. That women ought to beat me. On my knees I ask thy pardon, Palamon! Thou art alone. And only beautiful; and these thy eyes, These the bright lamps of beauty, that command And threaten love, and what young maid dare cross 'em.^ What a bold gravity, and yet inviting. Has this brown manly face! Oh, Love, this only From this hour is complexion; lie there, Arcite! A messenger announces the return of Palamon and Arcite. In the battle that ensues Arcite wins. In Scene vi, the execu- tion of Palamon is about to take place when Perithous arrests it with the tidings that Arcite has been thrown from the 194 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS black horse formerly given him by Emilia, and desires to see Palamon. Arcite is brought in: — Pal. Oh, miserable end of our alliance! The gods are mighty! Arcite, if thy heart, Thy worthy manly heart, be yet unbroken, Give me thy last words! I am Palamon, One that yet loves thee dying. Arc. Take Emilia, And with her all the world's joy. Reach thy hand; Farewell! I've told my last hour. I was false. Yet never treacherous: forgive me, cousin! One kiss from fair Emilia; 'T is done: Take her, I die. {Dies.) Pal. Thy brave soul seek Elysium! Emi. I'll close thine eyes, prince; blessed souls be with thee! Thou art a right good man; and while I live This day I give to tears. Pal. And I to honour. Phillipps speaks of "Edward H," "Edward HI/' and "Edward IV," as having been called "Shakespeare" plays. He might have added "Edward I." With two exceptions we then have a complete series of dramatic histories, "Henry I," 1 100-35, to "Henry VHI," 1509-47. Does this indicate a design to produce a dramatic history of this period .^ One of the exceptions named is the omission of the successor of King John, namely, Henry HI. If any play of this reign was writ- ten it has disappeared. In Fleay's transcript of the Stationers' Registers we find an entry, under date of 1653,^ which would indicate that "Henry II" was thought to be a work of collab- oration and "Henry I" of Shakespeare, but this cannot be considered valid evidence. The manuscripts of "Henry I" and "Henry II " were in a large collection of manuscript plays owned by John Warburton, Somerset herald of arms, most of which were unfortunately destroyed by his cook in 1730. The other exception is "Henry VII," which was never dramatized. We have in its place, not a dramatic but a prose history of this reign, written by Francis Bacon. Concerning "Henry ^ Fleay, A Chronicle History ^ etc., p. 359. 19s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS VIII/' the last of the series, is this singular fact, that Bacon was supposed to be writing a history of this reign, which would have completed the series, yet but a fragment of this history ever came to light. ^ A dramatic version, however, of "Henry VHI" appeared, and was printed in the "Shake- speare" Folio. All the dramatic histories in this long series of kings, covering nearly four hundred and fifty years, were once thought to be the work of the author of the Folio plays. It is a notable fact that Bacon begins his history of Henry VII at the close of the battle of Bosworth Field, taking it up at the point where the drama of " Richard III " leaves it. Henry was then twenty-eight years old, and had completed more than half his life. One would suppose that Bacon would begin his history with an account of his birth and continue to the great battle which gave him the throne, and we may well ask, why did he make his history a continuation, as it were, of "Rich- ard III"? Is there not here a clear evidence of design? At the present time we find the four "Edwards" arbitrarily assigned to others: the first to Peele, the second and third to Marlowe, and the fourth to Heywood. As the second and third have been so far accepted as to be now found among "Shakespeare" plays as "doubtful," which means that ortho- dox critics diff^er respecting them, as they still do respecting several in the Canon, we will briefly consider them. Edward II begins with the entrance upon the scene of Gaveston, the favorite of the King, who has been exiled to France by the King's father. He is reading a letter from the King recalling him to England, beginning: — My father is deceased! Come, Gaveston, And share the kingdom with thy dearest friend. The character of Gaveston for whom the Prince, now Edward II, had conceived one of those strange passions of * This is in additional MSS. 5503 f, 12O b, Brit. Mu8. 196 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS which there are several historic examples, is shown by his ex- pressions upon reading the letter. The infatuation of the King for Gaveston proves his ruin. Gav. Ah! words that make me surfeit with delight! What greater bliss can hap to Gaveston, Than live and be the favorite of a king! Farewell base stooping to the lordly peers! My knee shall bow to none but to the king. As for the multitude, they are but sparks, Raked up in embers of their poverty: — Tanti; I'll fawn first on the wind That glanceth at my lips, and flieth away. Gaveston arrives in England and hears, without being observed, an altercation of the nobles, comprising the two Mortimers, Lancaster, Kent and Warwick, with the King on account of his recall. Edw. Will you not grant me this? In spite of them I'll have my will; and these two Mortimers, That cross me thus, shall know I am displeased. Y. Mor. If you love us, my lord, hate Gaveston. Gav. That villain Mortimer, I'll be his death! {Aside. Y. Mot. Mine uncle here, this earl, and I myself. Were sworn unto your father at his death, That he should ne'er return into the realm: And know, my lord, ere I will break my oath, This sword of mine, that should offend your foes, Shall sleep within the scabbard at thy need. And underneath thy banners march who will, For Mortimer will hang his armour up. Gav. Mort dieu ! {Aside. Edw. Well, Mortimer, I '11 make thee rue these words. Beseems it thee to contradict thy king? Frown'st thou thereat, aspiring Lancaster? Thy sword shall plane the furrows of thy brows, And hew these knees that now are grown so stiff. I will have Gaveston; and you shall know What danger 't is to stand against your king. The King's unnatural love for Gaveston causes him to throw his Bishop into the Tower and bestow his wealth upon his favorite. He even neglects his Queen. 197 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Enter Queen Isabella, Y. Mot. Madam, whither walks your majesty so fast? Queen. Unto the forest, gentle Mortimer, To live in grief and baleful discontent; For now, my lord, the king regards me not, But doats upon the love of Gaveston. He claps his cheek, and hangs about his neck. Smiles in his face, and whispers in his ears; And when I come he frowns, as who should say, "Go whither thou wilt, seeing I have Gaveston." The nobles force the King to banish his favorite. Edw. {mourning). He's gone, and for his absence thus I mourn. Did never sorrow go so near my heart, As doth the want of my sweet Gaveston! And could my crown's revenue bring him back, I would freely give it to his enemies. And think I gained, having bought so dear a friend. Young Mortimer, influenced by the Queen who desires to regain the King's love, persuades his fellow nobles to consent to have Gaveston recalled, intending finally to work his ruin. Edw. My heart is as an anvil unto sorrow, Which beats upon it like the Cyclops' hammers. And with the noise turns up my giddy brain, And makes me frantic for my Gaveston. Ah! had some bloodless fury rose from hell. And with my kingly sceptre struck me dead, When I was forced to leave my Gaveston! Lan. Diablo! what passions call you these? Queen. My gracious lord, I come to bring you news, Edw. That you have parled with your Mortimer? Queen. That Gaveston, my lord, shall be repealed. Edw. Repealed! the news is too sweet to be true! Queen. But will you love me, if you find it so? Edw. If it be so, what will not Edward do? Queen. For Gaveston, but not for Isabel. Edw. For thee, fair queen, if thou lov'st Gaveston. I '11 hang a golden tongue about thy neck. Seeing thou hast pleaded with so good success. Queen. No other jewels hang about my neck Than these, my lord; nor let me have more wealth Than I may fetch from this rich treasury — O how a kiss revives poor Isabel! 198 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Edw. Once more receive my hand; and let this be A second marriage 'twixt thyself and me. Queen. And may it prove more happy than the first! My gentle lord, bespeak these nobles fair, That wait attendance for a gracious look, And on their knees salute your majesty. In his joy the weak King heaps favors upon his nobles, and the skies are again blue. The senior Mortimer pleads with Young Mortimer to keep peace with Edward. Y. Mor. Nephew, I must to Scotland; thou stayest here. Leave now t' oppose thyself against the king. Thou seest by nature he is mild and calm. And, seeing his mind so doats on Gaveston, Let him without controlment have his will. The mightiest kings have had their minions: Great Alexander loved Hephestion; The conquering Hercules for his Hylas wept; And for Patroclus stern Achilles drooped. And not kings only, but the wisest men; The Roman Tully loved Octavius; Grave Socrates wild Alcibiades. Then let his grace, whose youth is flexible, And promiseth as much as we can wish. Freely enjoy that vain, light-headed earl; For riper years will wean him from such toys. y. Mor. Uncle, his wanton humour grieves not me; But this I scorn, that one so basely born Should by his sovereign's favour grow so pert, . ■ And riot it with the treasure of the realm. While soldiers mutiny for want of pay, He wears a lord's revenue on his back. And Midas-like, he jets it in the court. With base outlandish cullions at his heels. Whose proud fantastic liveries make such show, As if that Proteus, god of shapes, appeared. I have not seen a dapper Jack so brisk; He wears a short Italian hooded cloak. Larded with pearl, and, in his Tuscan cap, A jewel of more value than the crown. While others walk below, the king and he From out a window laugh at such as we. And flout our train, and jest at our attire. Uncle, 't is this makes me impatient. 199 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Scene ii in Act ii opens with the King impatient for the return of Gaveston : — Edzv. How now! what news? is Gaveston arrived? Y. Mor. Nothing but Gaveston! what means your grace? You have matters of more weight to think upon; The King of France sets foot in Normandy. Edw. A trifle! we'll expell him when we please But tell me, Mortimer, what 's thy device Against the stately triumph we decreed ? Y. Mor, A homely one, my lord, not worth the telling. Edw. Pray thee let me know it. Y. Mor. But, seeing you are so desirous, thus it is; A lofty cedar-tree, fair flourishing. On whose top-branches kingly eagles perch, And by the bark a canker creeps me up. And gets into the highest bough of all; The motto, JEque tandem. Edzv. And what is yours, my lord of Lancaster? Lan. My lord, mine 's more obscure than Mortimer's. Pliny reports there is a flying fish Which all the other fishes deadly hate. And therefore, being pursued, it takes the air; No sooner is it up, but there's a fowl That seizeth it: this fish, my lord, I bear, The motto this; Undique mors est. Kent. Proud Mortimer! ungentle Lancaster! Is this the love you bear your sovereign? Is this the fruit your reconcilement bears? Can you in words make show of amity. And in your shields display your rancorous minds! What call you this but private libelling Against the Earl of Cornwall and my brother? Queen. Sweet husband, be content, they all love you. Edw. They love me not that hate my Gaveston. I am that cedar, shake me not too much; And you the eagles; soar ye ne'er so high, I have the jesses that will pull you down; And jEque tandem shall that canker cry ' Unto the proudest peer of Britainy. ^ Though thou compar'st him to a flying fish, And threatenest death whether he rise or fall, 'T is not the hugest monster of the sea, [ Nor foulest harpy that shall swallow him. 200 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Gaveston appears : — Edw. My Gaveston! welcome to Tynemouth! welcome to thy friend ! Gav. Sweet lord and king, your speech preventeth mine, Yet have I words left to express my joy: The shepherd nipt with biting winter's rage Frolics not more to see the painted spring, Than I do to behold your majesty. The King orders his nobles to welcome his favorite who resents their somewhat exaggerated salutes. Gav. My lord, I cannot brook these injuries. Queen. Ah me! poor soul, when these begin to jar. {Aside. Edw. Return it to their throats, I'll be thy warrant. Gav. Base, leaden earls, that glory in your birth. Go sit at home and eat your tenants' beef; And come not here to scoff at Gaveston, Whose mounting thoughts did never creep so low As to bestow a look on such as you. A quarrel follows; bad news arrives from Scotland and France. Incensed at the King's neglect of the realm and his infatuation for Gaveston the nobles revolt. Y. Mor. Nay, now you 're here alone, I '11 speak my mind, Lan. And so will I, and then, my lord, farewell. Y. Mor. The idle triumphs, masks, lascivious shows, And prodigal gifts bestowed on Gaveston, Have drawn thy treasury dry, and made thee weak; The murmuring commons, overstretched, break. Lan. Look for rebellion, look to be deposed; Thy garrisons are beaten out of France, And, lame and poor, lie groaning at the gates. The wild Oneyl, with swarms of Irish kerns. Lives uncontrolled within the English pale. Unto the walls of York the Scots make road, And unresisted drive away rich spoils. Y. Mor. The haughty Dane commands the narrow seas, While in the harbour ride thy ships unrigged. Lan. What foreign prince sends thee ambassadors.? Y, Mor. Who loves thee, but a sort of flatterers ? Lan. Thy gentle queen, sole sister to Valois, Complains that thou hast left her all forlorn. Y. Mor. Thy court is naked, being bereft of those That make a king seem glorious to the world; 20I THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS I mean the peers, whom thou should'st dearly love: Libels are cast against thee in the street: Ballads and rhymes made of thy overthrow. Lan, The Northern borderers seeing their houses burnt, Their wives and children slain, run up and down. Cursing the name of thee and Gaveston. Y. Mor. When wert thou in the field with banners spread? But once; and then thy soldiers marched like players, With garish robes, not armour; and thyself, Bedaubed with gold, rode laughing at the rest. Nodding and shaking of thy spangled crest. Where women's favours hung like labels down. The King drives his nobles and even his brother Kent, who has hitherto stood by him, from his presence, and they revolt and storm the castle. Enter the Barons. Alarums. Lan. I wonder how he scaped! Y. Mor. Who 's this, the queen.? Queen. Aye, Mortimer, the miserable queen Whose pining heart her inward sighs have blasted, And body with continual mourning wasted; These hands are tired with haling of my lord From Gaveston, from wicked Gaveston, And all in vain; for, when I speak him fair. He turns away, and smiles upon his minion. Y. Mor. Cease to lament, and tell us where *s the king.? Queen. What would you with the king? is 't him you seek? Lan. No, madam, but that cursed Gaveston. Far be it from the thought of Lancaster, To offer violence to his sovereign. We would but rid the realm of Gaveston; Tell us where he remains, and he shall die. Gaveston is finally captured and executed. Edward, en- raged against his barons, is encouraged by young Spencer, one of his adherents, to revenge himself upon them. While he is discoursing with him his father arrives upon the scene. 0. Spen. Long live my sovereign, the noble Edward — In peace triumphant, fortunate in wars! Edw. Welcome, old man, com'st thou in Edward's aid? Then tell thy prince of whence, and what thou art. 202 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS 0. Spen. Lo, with a band of bowmen and of pikes, Brown bills and targeteers, four hundred strong, Sworn to defend King Edward's royal right, I come in person to your majesty. Spencer, the father of Hugh Spencer there. Bound to your highness everlastingly, For favour done, in him, unto us all. Edzv. Thy father, Spencer.^ Y. Spen. True, an it like your grace, That pours, in lieu of all your goodness shown, His life, my lord, before your princely feet. Edzv. Welcome ten thousand times, old man, again. Spencer, this love, this kindness to thy king. Argues thy noble mind and disposition. Spencer, I here create thee Earl of Wiltshire, And daily will enrich thee with our favour. That, as the sunshine, shall reflect o'er thee. Besides, the more to manifest our love Because we hear Lord Bruce doth sell his land, And that the Mortimers are in hand withal. Thou shalt have crowns of us t' outbid the barons; And, Spencer, spare them not, (but) lay it on. Soldiers, a largess, and thrice welcome all! The barons, having rid themselves of the pernicious Gaves- ton who has pandered to the King's folly to the great injury of the realm, now come with their herald to offer the King their allegiance and support. Her. Long live King Edward, England's lawful lord! Edzv. So wish not they I wis that sent thee hither, Thou com'st from Mortimer and his complices, A ranker rout of rebels never was. Well, say thy message. Her. The barons up in arms, by me salute Your highness with long life and happiness; And bid me say, as plainer to your grace. That if without effusion of blood. You will this grief have ease and remedy. That from your princely person you remove This Spencer, as a putrefying branch. That deads the royal vine, whose golden leaves Empale your princely head, your diadem. Whose brightness such pernicious upstarts dim, Say they; and lovingly advise your grace, 203 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS To cherish virtue and nobility, And have old servitors in high esteem, And shake off smooth dissembling flatterers: This granted, they, their honours, and their lives, Are to your highness vowed and consecrate. Y. Spen. Ah, traitors! will they still display their pride? Edzv. Away, tarry no answer, but be gone! Rebels, will they appoint their sovereign His sports, his pleasures, and his company? Yet, ere thou go, see how I do divorce (Embraces Spencer. Spencer from me. — Now get thee to thy lords, And tell them I will come to chastise them For murthering Gaveston; hie thee, get thee gone! Edward with fire and sword follows at thy heels. Edward captures the barons, Lancaster, young Mortimer, and Warwick, and sends them to execution. Mortimer escapes to Flanders, and raising a force returns to England to drive out Edward's new favorites, the Spencers. They are welcomed by the Queen : — Queen. Now, lords, our loving friends and countrymen. Welcome to England all, with prosperous winds; Our kindest friends in Belgia have we left. To cope with friends at home; a heavy case When force to force is knit, and sword and glaive In civil broils make kin and countrymen Slaughter themselves in others, and their sides With their own weapons gore! But what's the help? Misgoverned kings are cause of all this wreck; And, Edward, thou art one among them all. Whose looseness hath betrayed thy land to spoil, Who made the channel overflow with blood Of thine own people; patron shouldst thou be. But thou — Y. Mor. Nay, madam, if you be a warrior. Ye must not grow so passionate in speeches. Lords, sith we are by sufferance of heaven, Arrived, and armed in this prince's right. Here for our country's cause swear we to him All homage, fealty, and forwardness; And for the open wrongs and injuries Edward hath done to us, his queen and land, We come in arms to wreak it with the sword; 204 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS That England's queen in peace may repossess Her dignities and honours; and withal We may remove those flatterers from the king. In the battle that ensues the Queen's friends are victorious. Mortimer, aspiring to be Lord Protector, plots the death of Edward. Y. Mor. The king must die, or Mortimer goes down. The commons now begin to pity him. Yet he that is the cause of Edward's death, Is sure to pay for it when his son's of age; And therefore will I do it cunningly. This letter, written by a friend of ours, Contains his death, yet bids them save his life. The prince I rule, the queen do I command, And with a lowly conge to the ground, The proudest lords salute me as I pass: I seal, I cancel, I do what I will; Feared am I more than loved — let me be feared; And when I frown, make all the court look pale. I view the prince with Aristarchus' eyes. Whose looks were as a breeching to a boy. They thrust upon me the protectorship. And sue to me for that that I desire. While at the council-table, grave enough. And not unlike a bashful puritan, First I complain of imbecility. Saying it is onus quam gravissimum; Till being interrupted by my friends, Suscepi that provinciam as they term it; And to conclude, I am Protector now. Now is all sure, the queen and Mortimer Shall rule the realm, the king; and none rule us. Mine enemies will I plague, my friends advance; And what I list command, who dare control? Major sum qudm cui possit fortuna nocere. And that this be the coronation-day. It pleaseth me, and Isabel the queen. (Trumpets within. The trumpets sound, I must go take my place. The Prince is proclaimed King, while his father is in the Tower dying of poison. 205 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Enter the Young King, Archbishop, Champion, Nobles, Queen. Archbishop. Long live King Edward, by the grace of God. King of England, and Lord of Ireland! Cham. If any Christian, Heathen, Turk or Jew, Dare but affirm, that Edward 's not true king. And will avouch his saying with the sword, I am the champion that will combat him. Y. Mor. None comes, sound trumpets. King. Champion, here 's to thee. {Gives a purse. Queen. Lord Mortimer, now take him to your charge. Mortimer infatuated with power orders Kent beheaded. The young king pleads in vain for the Hfe of his uncle. Hav- ing more spirit than his father he calls his lords together to punish Mortimer. The Queen in fear seeks Mortimer. Queen. Ah, Mortimer, the king, my son, hath news His father 's dead, and we have murdered him. Y. Mor. What if he have? the king is yet a child. Queen. Aye, but he tears his hair, and wrings his hands, And vows to be revenged upon us both. Into the council-chamber he is gone. To crave the aid and succour of his peers. Ah me! see where he comes, and they with him; Now, Mortimer, begins our tragedy. Enter the King, with the Lords. First Lord. Fear not, my lord, know that you are king. King. Villain! Y. Mor. How now, my lord ? King. Think not that I am frighted with thy words! My father's murdered through thy treachery; And thou shalt die, and on his mournful hearse Thy hateful and accursed head shall lie. To witness to the world, that by thy means His kingly body was too soon interred. Queen. Weep not, sweet son. King. Forbid not me to weep, he was my father; And, had you loved him half so well as I, You could not bear his death thus patiently. But you, I fear, conspired with Mortimer. Lords. Why speak you not unto my lord the king? Y, Mor. Because I think scorn to be accused. Who is the man dare say I murdered him? 206 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS King. Traitor! in me my loving father speaks, And plainly saith, 't was thou that murder'dst him. Y. Mor. But hath your grace no other proof than this? King. Yes, if this be the hand of Mortimer. Y. Mor. False Gurney hath betrayed me and himself. {Aside. The young king convinced of the participation of his mother in his father's death sends her to the Tower. King. Away with her, her words enforce these tears. And I shall pity her if she speaks again. This closes the drama: — Reenter a Lord, with the Head of Mortimer. Lord. My lord, here is the head of Mortimer. King. Go fetch my father's hearse, where it shall lie; And bring my funeral robes. Accursed head. Could I have ruled thee then, as I do now. Thou had'st not hatched this monstrous treachery. Here comes the hearse; help me to mourn, my lords. Sweet father, here unto thy murdered ghost I offer up this wicked traitor's head; And let these tears, distilling from mine eyes. Be witness of my grief and innocency. {Exeunt, Mr. Robert M. Theobald has given us a most interesting study of "Edward II." He says: — The internal evidence v^hich I have to produce consists of such identity of expression or idea as is distinctively demonstrative of identical authorship, if it can be shown to be so extended, so subtle, so spontaneous, as to exclude the alternative explanation of accidental coincidence, or conscious plagiarism, or appropria- tion.^ He gives us a hundred and thirteen parallels of thought and expression in "Edward II," the "Shakespeare" Works, and Bacon. Space permits a quotation of but two: — A lofty cedar-tree, fair flourishing On whose top branches kingly eagles perch. Ed. Ily II, ii. * Robert M. Theobald, M.A., Shakespeare Studies in Baconian Lights p. 430. London, 1901. 207 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Thus yields the Cedar to the axe's edge Whose arms gave shelter to the princely eagle. Henry FI, v, ii. The wild O'Neil with swarms of Irish kernes, Lives uncontroll'd within the English pale. Ed. II, II, ii. The wild O'Neil, my lords, is up in arms. With troops of Irish kernes, that uncontroll'd Doth plant themselves within the English pale. Contention, etc., iii, i. later altered in "Henry VI" to The haughty Dane commands the narrow seas. Henry VI, ii, ii. Mr. Theobald also calls attention to a large number of words, now quite common, to show the closeness of verbal expression between "Edward II" and the author of the "Shakespeare" Works. Edward III was printed in quarto in 1596 anonymously, as the early "Shakespeare" quartos were, and was regarded as being the work of the same author by Collier. Capell in 1760 republished it as "A Play thought to be writ by Shakespeare," and that when it appeared "there was no known writer equal to such a play."^ Ulrici accounts for its neglect, and its omis- sion from the Folio, by the fact that it contains reflections upon the Scots, which made it popular in Elizabeth's time but would have given offense to James, and therefore its paternity was not recognized by its author in his reign. He concludes that it is "a complete and beautiful composition, which is throughout worthy of the great poet," having already given his opinion " that the piece probably belongs to Shakespeare's earlier labours." Collier declares it to be undoubtedly Shake- speare's.2 Says Phillipps: — Produced in or before 1595 there are occasional passages which, by most judgments, will be accepted as having been written * Edward Capell, Prolusions or Select Pieces of Ancient Poetry. London, 1760. 2 J. Payne Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. in, p. 311. 208 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS either by Shakespeare, or by an exceedingly dexterous and suc- cessful imitator of one of his then favorite styles of composition. For who but one or the other could have endowed a kind and gentle lady with the ability of replying to the impertinent ad- dresses of a foolish sovereign in words such as these. And he quotes the remarkable passage which we shall later reproduce, beginning with the line, "As easy may my intel- lectual soul," etc. Referring to Capell's "Exact and Perfect Catalogue of all Playes that are Printed," he calls attention to the fact that "not only Edward the Third but also Edward the Second and Edward the Fourth, are ascribed to the great dramatist."^ Furnivall calls those who ascribe the play to the author of the Folio collection, "A few wild untrustworthy folk," abusing those who differ with him as usual. In the first scene of the drama we have the Count of Artois presenting to Edward his claim to the French crown. Follow- ing upon this the Duke of Lorraine comes upon the scene with the insulting summons that Edward shall render homage to the King of France for the dukedom of Guyenne. To this Edward responds: — Edw. See, how occasion laughs me in the face! No sooner minded to prepare for France, But, straight, I am invited; nay, with threats, Upon a penalty, enjoin'd to come: 'T were but a foolish part, to say him nay, — Lorrain, return this answer to thy lord: I mean to visit him, as he requests; But how? not servilely dispos'd to bend; But like a conqueror, to make him bow: His lame unpolish'd shifts are come to light; And truth hath puU'd the visard from his face; That set a gloss upon his arrogance. Dare he command a fealty in me? Tell him, the crown, that he usurps, is mine; And where he sets his foot, he ought to kneel; 'T is not a petty dukedom that I claim, But all the whole dominions of the realm; ^ Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, p. 125; vol. 11, p. 345. 209 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Which if with grudging he refuse to yield, I '11 take away those borrow'd plumes of his, And send him naked to the wilderness. Lorraine departs after an angry encounter with Artois and Edward turns to his friends : — Edw. Now, lords, our fleeting bark is under sail: Our gage is thrown; and war is soon begun. But not so quickly brought unto an end. — Troubles follow on the heels of one another, and, at this juncture, enter Sir William Mountague: — Edw. But wherefore comes Sir William Mountague? How stands the league between the Scot and us? Moun. Crack'd and dissever'd, my renowned lord, The treacherous king no sooner was inform'd Of your withdrawing of our army back. But straight, forgetting of his former oath, He made invasion on the bordering towns. The next scene opens on the walls of Roxburgh Castle which has fallen into the hands of the Scots. The Countess of Salisbury appears looking for succor from the English king. Count. Alas, how much in vain my poor eyes gaze For succour that my sovereign should send ! As David, the Scotch King, with his followers, enters, she withdraws with the words : — I must withdraw; the everlasting foe Comes to the wall: I'll closely step aside. While the Scottish King is on the walls, a messenger enters hastily with news of the coming of Edward : — Mess. My liege, as we were pricking on the hills, To fetch in booty, marching hitherward We might descry a mighty host of men: The sun, reflecting on the armour, showM A field of plate, a wood of pikes advanced. Dav. Dislodge, dislodge, it is the King of England, 2IO A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Another messenger enters crying, "We are all surpris'd." The Scots fly, and Edward enters with his attendants, and is welcomed by the Countess : — Count. In duty lower than the ground I kneel, And for my dull knees bow my feeling heart, To witness my obedience to your highness: With many millions of a subject's thanks For this your royal presence, whose approach Hath driven war and danger from my gate. Edward is infatuated with the beauty of the Countess of Salisbury: — Edw. She is grown more fairer far since I came hither: Her voice more silver every word than other. Her wit more fluent: what a strange discourse Unfolded she, of David, and his Scots .^ "Even thus," quoth she, — "he spake," — and then spoke broad, With epithets and accents of the Scots; But somewhat better than the Scot could speak: "And thus," quoth she, — and answered then herself; For who could speak like her? but she herself Breathes from the wall an angel's note from heaven Of sweet defiance to her barbarous foes. When she would talk of peace, methinks, her tongue Commanded war to prison; when of war It waken'd Csesar from his Roman grave, To hear war beautified by her discourse. Wisdom is foolishness, but in her tongue; Beauty a slander, but in her fair face; There is no summer, but in her cheerful looks; Nor frosty winter, but in her disdain. Hast thou pen, ink, and paper ready, Lodowick.? Lod. Ready, my liege. Edw. Then, in the summer arbour sit by me. Make it our council-house, or cabinet; Since green our thoughts, green be the conventicle. Where we will ease us by disburdening them Now, Lodowick, invocate some golden muse, To bring thee hither an enchanted pen. While Lodowick is writing for the King a love letter to the Countess, she enters : — 211 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Count. Pardon my boldness, my thrice-gracious lord; Let my intrusion here be call'd my duty, That comes to see my sovereign how he fares. The King dismisses Lodowick, and declares to the Countess that since coming to the castle he has been wronged, and is unhappy. The gentle Countess promises to do all in her power to render his visit a happy one. Taking advantage of this he more plainly declares his passion: — Edzv. Thou hear'st me say, that I do dote on thee. Count. If on my beauty, take it if thou canst; Though little, I do prize it ten times less: If on my virtue, take it if thou canst: For virtue's store by giving doth augment; Be it on what it will, that I can give, And thou canst take away, inherit it. Edzv. It is thy beauty that I would enjoy. Count. O, were it painted, I would wipe it off. And dispossess myself, to give it thee. But, sovereign, it is solder'd to my life; Take one, and both; for, like an humble shadow, It haunts the sunshine of my summer's life. Edzv. But thou may'st lend it me, to sport withal. Count. As easy may my intellectual soul Be lent away, and yet my body live. As lend my body, palace to my soul. Away from her, and yet retain my soul, My body is her bower, her court, her abbey, And she an angel, pure, divine, unspotted: If I should lend her house, my lord, to thee, I kill my poor soul, and my poor soul me. Edzv. Didst thou not swear, to give me what I would ^ Count. I did, my liege; so, what you would, I could. Edzv. I wish no more of thee, than thou may'st give; Nor beg I do not, but I rather buy. That is, thy love; and, for that love of thine. In rich exchange, I tender to thee mine. Count. But that your lips were sacred, O my lord, You would profane the holy name of love: That love, you offer me, you cannot give; For Csesar owes that tribute to his queen: That love, you beg of me, I cannot give; For Sarah owes that duty to her lord. He, that doth clip, or counterfeit, your stamp, 212 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Shall die, my lord; and will your sacred self Commit high treason against the King of heaven, To stamp his image in forbidden metal, Forgetting your allegiance, and your oath? In violating marriage' sacred law, You break a greater honour than yourself: To be a King, is of a younger house, Than to be married; your progenitor, Sole-reigning Adam on the universe. By God was honoured for a married man. But not by him anointed for a king. It is a penalty, to break your statutes, Though not enacted by your highness' hand: How much more, to infringe the holy act Made by the mouth of God, seal'd with his hand? I know, my sovereign — in my husband's love, Who now doth loyal service in his wars — Doth but to try the wife of Salisbury, Whether she will hear a wanton's tale, or no; Lest being therein guilty by my stay. From that, not from my liege, I turn away. The King, knowing the moral weakness of Warwick, her father, appeals to him to use his influence with his daughter, and he consents. The Countess, anxious to escape the atten- tion of her sovereign, and at the same time exercise her hos- pitality towards him, seeks her father, who is condemning himself for his weakness. War. O doting king! detestable office! Well may I tempt myself to wrong myself. When he hath sworn me by the name of God To break a vow made by the name of God. Enter Countess. See, where she comes : was never father, had. Against his child, an embassage so bad. Count. My lord and father, I have sought for you; My mother and the peers importune you, To keep in presence of his majesty. And do your best to make his highness merry. War. How shall I enter on this graceless errand ? I must not call her child: for where 's the father That will, in such a suit, seduce his child ? 213 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS He then proceeds to disclose to her the King's suit : — Count. Unnatural besiege! Woe me unhappy, To have escap'd the danger of my foes, And to be ten times worse inwir'd by friends! Hath he no means to stain my honest blood. But to corrupt the author of my blood. To be his scandalous and vile solicitor? fFar. Why, now thou speak'st as I would have thee speak; And mark how I unsay my words again. An evil deed, done by authority, Is sin and subornation; deck an ape In tissue, and the beauty of the robe Adds but the greater scorn unto the beast, A spacious field of reasons could I urge. Between his glory, daughter, and thy shame: That poison shows worst in a golden cup; Dark night seems darker by the lightning flash; Lilies, that fester, smell far worse than weeds; And every glory that inclines to sin. The same is treble by the opposite. So leave I, with my blessing in thy bosom; Which then convert to a most heavy curse. When thou convert'st from honour's golden name To the black faction of bed-blotting shame! Count. I'll follow thee; and, when my mind turns so. My body sink my soul in endless woe! It should be noted that the line uttered by Warwick, "Lilies, that fester, smell far worse than weeds," occurs in Sonnet xciv. In Scene ii the lovesick King is brooding over his passion when Lodowick enters and is anxiously asked by him : — Edw. What says the more than Cleopatra's match To Caesar now? Lod. That yet, my liege, ere night She will resolve your majesty. {Drums within. Lodowick who has retired to ascertain the cause, re- enters : — Lod. My liege, the drum, that struck the lusty march, Stands with Prince Edward, your thrice-valiant son. 214 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Now occurs a most remarkable scene. The King looking upon his son, who resembles his mother, as he enters, has a sudden pang of contrition, and thus muses inwardly : — Edw. I see the boy. O, how his mother's face, Moulded in his, corrects my stray'd desire. And rates my heart, and chides my thievish eye: Who being rich enough in seeing her. Yet seeks elsewhere: and basest theft is that. Which cannot cloke itself on poverty. — Now boy, what news ? Prince. I have assembled, my dear lord and father. The choicest buds of all our English blood, For our affairs to France; and here we come, To take direction from your majesty. Ediv. Still do I see in him delineate His mother's visage; those his eyes are hers, Who, looking wistly on me, make me blush; For faults against themselves give evidence: Lust is a fire; and men, like lanthorns, show Light lust within themselves, even through themselves. Away, loose silks of wavering vanity! Shall the large limit of fair Britany By me be overthrown.'' and shall I not Master this little mansion of myself? Give me an armour of eternal steel; I go to conquer kings; and shall I then Subdue myself, and be my enemy's friend? It must not be. — Come, boy, forward, advance! Let's with our colours beat the air of France. Lod. My liege, the countess, with a smiling cheer Desires access unto your majesty. Edw. Why, there it goes! that very smile of hers Hath ransom'd captive France; and set the king. The Dauphin, and the peers, at liberty, — Go, leave me, Ned, and revel with thy friends. {Exit prince. Thy mother is but black; and thou, like her. Dost put into my mind how foul she is, — Go, fetch the countess hither in thy hand. And let her chase away those winter clouds; For she gives beauty both to heaven and earth. {Exit Lodowick. The sin is more, to hack and hew poor men. Than to embrace, in an unlawful bed, The register of all varieties Since leathern Adam 'till this youngest hour. 215 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Reenter Lodowick with the Countess. Go, Lodowick, put thy hand into my purse, Play, spend, give, riot, waste; do what thou wilt, So thou wilt hence a while, and leave me here. {Exit Lodowick. Now, my soul's playfellow! and art thou come, To speak the more than heavenly word, of yea, To my subjection in thy beauteous love? Count. My father on his blessing hath commanded — Edw. That thou shalt yield to me. Count. Ay, dear my liege, your due. Edw. And that, my dearest love, can be no less Than right for right, and tender love for love. Count. Than wrong for wrong, and endless hate for hate. — But, — sith I see your majesty so bent, That my unwillingness, my husband's love, Your high estate, nor no respect respected Can be my help, but that your mightiness Will overbear and awe these dear regards, — I bind my discontent to my content. And, what I would not, I'll compel I will; Provided, that yourself remove those lets, That stand between your highness' love and mine. Edw. Name them, fair countess, and, by Heaven, I will. Count. It is their lives, that stand between our love, That I would have chok'd up, my sovereign. Edw. Whose lives, my lady? Count. My thrice-loving liege, Your queen, and Salisbury my wadded husband: Who living have that title in our love. That we cannot bestow but by their death. Edw. Thy opposition is beyond our law. Count. And so is your desire; if the law Can hinder you to execute the one. Let it forbid you to attempt the other; I cannot think you love me as you say, Unless you do make good what you have sworn. Edw. No more; thy husband and the queen shall die. Fairer thou art by far than Hero was; Beardless Leander not so strong as I: He swum an easy current for his love; But I will through a helly spout of blood, To arrive at Sestos where my Hero lies. Count. Nay, you'll do more; you'll make the river too, With their heart-bloods that keep our love asunder, Of which, my husband, and your wife, are twain. 2l6 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Edw. Thy beauty makes them guilty of their death, And gives in evidence, that they shall die; Upon which verdict, I, their judge, condemn them. Count. O perjur'd beauty! more corrupted judge; When, to the great star-chamber o'er our heads, The universal sessions calls to count This packing evil, we both shall tremble for it. Edw. What says my fair love.^ is she resolute? Count. Resolv'd to be dissolved; and, therefore, this, — Keep but thy word, great king, and I am thine. Stand where thou dost, I '11 part a little from thee. And see how I will yield me to thy hands. {Turning suddenly upon him, and showing two daggers. Here by my side do hang my wedding knives; Take thou the one, and with it kill thy queen, And learn by me to find her where she lies; And with this other I'll dispatch my love. Which now lies fast asleep within my heart; When they are gone, then I '11 consent to love. Stir not, lascivious king, to hinder me; My resolution is more nimbler far. Than thy prevention can be in my rescue. And, if thou stir, I strike; therefore stand still, And hear the choice that I will put thee to: Either swear to leave thy most unholy suit. And never henceforth to solicit me; Or else, by Heaven {kneeling) this sharp-pointed knife Shall stain thy earth with that which thou wouldst stain, My poor chaste blood. Swear, Edward, swear. Or I will strike, and die, before thee here. Utterly overcome by the impeccable virtue of the Countess, Edward's nobler nature reawakens, and he exclaims : — Edw. Even by that Power I swear, that gives me now The power to be ashamed of myself, I never mean to part my lips again In any word that tends to such a suit. Arise, true English lady: whom our isle May better boast of, than e'er Roman might Of her, whose ransack'd treasury hath task'd The vain endeavour of so many pens; Arise: and be my fault thy honour's fame, Which after-ages shall enrich thee with. I am awaked from this idle dream: — 217 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Warwick, my son, Derby, Artois, and Audley, Brave warriors all, where are you all this while? Enter Prince and Lords. Warwick, I make thee warden of the north: — You, Prince of Wales, and Audley, straight to sea; Scour to Newhaven; some, there stay for me: — Myself, Artois, and Derby, will through Flanders, To greet our friends there, and to crave their aid: This night will scarce suffice me, to discover My folly's siege against a faithful lover; For, ere the sun shall gild the eastern sky. We'll wake him with our martial harmony. {Exeunt. The rest of the play is taken up with the campaign in France. Before the battle of Cr6cy the King arms his son: — And, Ned, because this battle is the first That ever yet thou fought'st in pitched field, As ancient custom is of martialists. To dub thee with the type of chivalry. In solemn manner we will give thee arms. We will quote, in closing, from the last act which ends with the battle of Poitiers: — Edw. Welcome, Lord Salisbury; what news from Bretagne.^ Sal. This, mighty king: the country we have won; And John de Montfort, regent of that place. Presents your highness with this coronet. Protesting true allegiance to your grace. Edw. We thank thee for thy service, valiant earl; Challenge our favour, for we owe it thee. Sal. But now, my lord, as this is joyful news, So must my voice be tragical again. And I must sing of doleful accidents. Edw. What, have our men the overthrow at Poitiers Or is my son beset with too much odds .? Sal. He was, my lord; and as my worthless self. With forty other serviceable knights. Under safe-conduct of the Dauphin's seal Did travel that way, finding him distress'd, A troop of lances met us on the way, Surpris'd, and brought us prisoners to the king; Who, proud of this, and eager of revenge, Commanded straight to cut off all our heads: And surely we had died, but that the duke, 2l8 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS More full of honour than his angry sire, Procur'd our quick deliverance from thence: But, ere we went, "Salute your king," quoth he, "Bid him provide a funeral for his son. To-day our sword shall cut his thread of life; And, sooner than he thinks, we'll be with him, To quittance those displeasures he hath done": This said, we pass'd, not daring to reply; Our hearts were dead, our looks diffus'd and wan. Wand'ring, at last we climb'd unto a hill; From whence, although our grief were much before, Yet now to see the occasion with our eyes Did thrice so much increase our heaviness: For there, my lord, O, there we did descry Down in a valley how both armies lay. The French had cast their trenches like a ring; And every barricado's open front Was thick emboss'd with brazen ordinance: Here stood a battle of ten thousand horse; There twice as many pikes, in quadrantwise; Here cross-bows, arm'd with deadly-wounding darts: And in the midst, like to a slender point Within the compass of the horizon, — As 't were a rising bubble in the sea, A hazel-wand amidst a wood of pines, — Or as a bear fast chain'd unto a stake. Stood famous Edward, still expecting when Those dogs of France would fasten on his flesh. Anon, the death-procuring knell begins: Off go the cannons, that, with trembling noise, Did shake the very mountain where we stood; Then sound the trumpets' clangours in the air, The battles join: and, when we could no more Discern the difference 'twixt the friend and foe, (So intricate the dark confusion was) Away we turn'd our wat'ry eyes, with sighs As black as powder fuming into smoke. And thus, I fear, unhappy have I told The most untimely tale of Edward's fall. Queen. Ah me! is this my welcome into France? Is this the comfort, that I look'd to have. When I should meet with my beloved son.^ , Sweet Ned, I would, thy mother in the sea Had been prevented of this mortal grief! Edw, Content thee, Philippa: 'tis not tears will serve To call him back, if he be taken hence: 219 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Comfort thyself, as I do, gentle queen, With hope of sharp, unheard-of, dire revenge. — He bids me to provide his funeral; And so I will: but all the peers in France Shall mourners be, and weep out bloody tears, Until their empty veins be dry and sere: The pillars of his hearse shall be their bones: The mould that covers him, their cities' ashes; His knell, the groaning cries of dying men; And, in the stead of tapers on his tomb. An hundred fifty towers shall burning blaze, While we bewail our valiant son's decease. But grief is soon turned to joy. Although so outnumbered by his foes, the vahant Prince is victorious, and the play thus ends : — Flourish of trumpets within. Enter a Herald. Her. Rejoice, my lord; ascend the imperial throne! The mighty and redoubted Prince of Wales, Great servitor to bloody Mars in arms, The Frenchman's terror, and his country's fame, Triumphant rideth like a Roman peer; And, lowly at his stirrup, comes afoot King John of France, together with his son, In captive bonds; whose diadem he brings, To crown thee with, and to proclaim thee king. Edw. Away with mourning, Philippa, wipe thine eyes; — Sound, trumpets, welcome in Plantagenet! A loud flourish. Enter Prince^ Audley, Artois, with King John^ and Philip. As things, long lost, when they are found again. So doth my son rejoice his father's heart. For whom, even now, my soul was much perplex'd! {Running to the Prince^ and embracing him. Queen. Be this a token to express my joy. {Kissing him. For inward passions will not let me speak. Prince. My gracious father, here receive the gift. {Presenting him with King JohrCs crown. This wreath of conquest, and reward of war, Got with as mickle peril of our lives. As e'er was thing of price before this day; Install your highness in your proper right: And, herewithal, I render to your hands These prisoners, chief occasion of our strife. 220 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS Edzv, So, John of France, I see, you keep your word. You promis'd to be sooner with ourself Than we did think for, and 't is so indeed: But, had you done at first as now you do. How many civil towns had stood untouched. That now are turn'd to ragged heaps of stones? How many people's lives might you have sav'd, That are untimely sunk into their graves? John. Edward, recount not things irrevocable; Tell me what ransom thou requir'st to have? Edw. Thy ransom, John, hereafter shall be known; But first to England thou must cross the seas. To see what entertainment it affords; Howe'er it falls, it cannot be so bad As ours hath been since we arriv'd in France. John. Accursed man! of this I was foretold. But did misconster what the prophet told. Prince. Now, father, this petition Edward makes, — To Thee, {kneels) whose grace hath been his strongest shield That, as Thy pleasure chose me for the man To be the instrument to show Thy power. So Thou wilt grant, that many princes more, Bred and brought up within that little isle. May still be famous for like victories! — And, for my part, the bloody scars I bear. The weary nights that I have watch'd in field, The dangerous conflicts I have often had, The fearful menaces were proffer'd me. The heat, and cold, and what else might displease I wish were now redoubled twenty-fold; So that hereafter ages, when they read The painful traffic of my tender youth, Might thereby be inflamed with such resolve, As not the territories of France alone, But likewise Spain, Turkey, and what countries else That justly would provoke fair England's ire, Might, at their presence, tremble and retire! Edw. Here, English lords, we do proclaim a rest. And interceasing of our painful arms: Sheathe up your swords, refresh your weary limbs. Peruse your spoils; and, after we have breath'd A day or two within this haven town, God willing, then for England, we'll be shipped; Where, in a happy hour, I trust, we shall Arrive, three kings, two princes, and a queen. {Flourish. Exeunt omnes, 221 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS To get an adequate conception of the greatness of this drama, one should read it uninfluenced by those critics who realize, as Phillipps did, how fatal to their cause it is to cut loose from the so-called Canon of Heminge and Condell. Had it been included in that collection, we should have had another volume or more added to Furness's "Monument of Scholar- ship," and Phillipps would have been far less chary in praising it. As it was, he was obliged to treat it indifferently in order to sustain the futile theory which his predecessors had im- posed upon him. To question the infallibility of Heminge and Condell, he believed that we "should be launched on a sea with a chart in which are unmarked perilous quicksands of in- tuitive opinions. Especially is the vessel itself in danger if it touches the insidious bank raised up from doubts." As in the case of "Edward H," so with that of "Edward HL" Parallels of thought and expression with the "Shake- speare" Works and those of Francis Bacon are numerous, which link it with them in a manner which to an unbiased mind is convincing of a common authorship. Both "Edward H" and " Edward HI " exhibit defects similar to those in the plays comprised in the Canon; defects for which the pla5rwrights who had a hand in adapting them to the stage, and the actors who altered words and lines, or omitted them in acting, were responsible. It was this that justified the nominal but well- informed editors of the First Folio in their use of the words "mutilated" and "deformed" when speaking of "surrepti- tious copies," which they professed were not made use of in the work, but which, in a number of instances at least, cer- tainly were, owing most likely to haste and oversight while it was going through the press. We would examine several other dramas once known as "Shakespeare" plays, but have thought it better to confine ourselves to the seven included in the Third Folio, the two in the Leopold Shakespeare, and "Edward 11" and "Edward III," which reveal the hand of the master. In treating this 222 A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS branch of our subject we have had in mind the single object of presenting to the reader an accurate view of the condition to-day of Shaksperian criticism. To do this we have feh it necessary to place the critics on the witness stand, that the reader might understand the conflicting and unreliable char- acter of their testimony, and to devote more time than we wished to the "doubtful" plays, that they might better un- derstand the scope of this greatest of literary problems. VI MYTHICAL RELICS THE PORTRAITS Let us devote ourselves to a critical study of the portraits of the Stratford actor, that the reader may be able to form an independent judgment respecting them. THE DROESHOUT PORTRAIT The first is the most important, as it is the earliest, being found in the Folio of 1623, seven years after the death of the actor. It is known as the Droeshout portrait, and has been considered by his biographers as authentic. Portraits, how- ever, of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were as un- reliable as royal favors. When the bewigged and bespectacled publisher wanted a portrait to embellish a book to make it more salable, he applied to the poor engraver who was usually plying his trade in an attic, and procured one. If a portrait of the subject had been painted, and a copy of it was obtainable, well and good ; but painted portraits were comparatively few, even of the great, so the engraver improvised one as well as circumstances permitted. The writer, while spending a year in the British Archives collecting historical material, spent some of his spare mo- ments gathering portraits of prominent men of the Tudor and Stuart reigns, and, on one occasion, was referred by a Mu- seum ofl[icial to an expert on the portraiture of these reigns. He was an aged man, and had a large collection of rare por- traits. In discussing portraits difficult of acquisition he proved interesting. A portrait of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the father of American colonization, was particularly wanted. All his ancient haunts had been visited, correspondence opened with 224 MYTHICAL RELICS remote relatives, and the unknown portraits at Hampton Court, some of them said to have belonged to the Gorges family, carefully studied without result. Telling the old gentleman of this tedious search, he remarked, "Sir Ferdi- nando's portrait was never painted, but I can furnish you with one for a guinea." But a few years ago the writer studied the portraits of Jacques Cartier, and made up his mind that in any case only one had an element of authenticity. At the time he was col- lecting sixteenth-century French portraits, and called on a large collector to look over his treasures. While so engaged the question was asked if he had a Cartier. "A very fine one," he replied, and passed it out. A glance only was needed, and it was handed back. "Don't you like it.?" he asked. "Yes," was replied, "only it isn't Cartier." He looked somewhat surprised, and asked, "Why?" Fortunately its origin being known, he was told. "Am I right .?" was asked, and the reply grudgingly made, "Yes." The writer has sometimes wondered, when comparing portraits of past greatness, whether they at all resembled their presumptive subjects. Engravers were wont to use old plates, altering or substituting faces as they thought best. A well-known example is the equestrian portrait of Charles I. After Cromwell assumed rule a portrait of that King of the Democracy was required, and a fine equestrian engraving was produced. The portraits of the first Charles had been put out of sight, and it was some time before it was discovered that Cromwell's head had been substituted for that of his de- capitated victim. No other change was made in the picture. With a subject of less importance a few alterations in lines would have served the purpose. Of course it is hardly to be believed that the Stratford actor's portrait was ever painted during his life. But com- paratively few of England's great men were wise enough to bequeath their faces to posterity, and though it might have 225 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS been possible for a strolling actor to have his portrait painted, or a rude sketch of his face made, the Stratford actor, as we know him, was too careless, and especially too thrifty, to im- poverish himself in this manner. He preferred to invest his earnings in tithes, loans and real estate, which seemed much wiser. How then could Droeshout have managed to pro- duce a portrait for the publishers of the Folio of 1623 ? He was then a young man not quite twenty-two, and but fifteen when the man whose portrait was required died. The portrait wanted was of a man at that time obscure, a play actor whose name had been associated with plays in minor roles, and his face forgotten except by a few persons. What could the en- graver do.f* Why, just as all honest engravers then did, go to some one who had known the man, and ask for a descrip- tion of him ; whether his face was long or short, full or thin ; nose aquiline or bulbous ; eyes large or small, near or far apart, and so on. With such particulars a face could be made to pass muster though it might not look at all like the man. This is what Droeshout would have done if he intended making the actor's portrait. Martin Droeshout, says Strutt, was one of the indifferent en- gravers of the last century. His portraits have nothing but their scarcity to recommend them.^ Steevens, the biographer of the actor, says: — The plate of Droeshout . . . has . . . established his claim to the title of a most abominable imitator of humanity.^ Boaden, an excellent early authority on Shaksperian por- traiture, says of this portrait : — It has been supposed that he engraved after a very coarse, original, if indeed he did not work from personal recollection, ^ Joseph Strutt, A Biographical Dictionary of Engravers, vol. i, p. 264. London, 1785. 2 Samuel Johnson and George Steevens, The Plays of William Shakespeare, p. 2. 226 MYTHICAL RELICS assisted by such hints as might be given by those who desired this embellishment for their book.^ These are criticisms none too caustic for any fair judge of portraiture to endorse, and it became evident to the dev- otees of the actor that a portrait more in accord with pubUc taste must be found. A Shakspere original would be valuable, and it was forthcoming. This was followed by others, and the market became overstocked with portraits resembling, in some degree, of course, the Droeshout caricature. These were usually painted over the portraits of forgotten worthies, or, if the form of a head permitted, it was made to serve its purpose by a few skilful changes in outline and expression. One of the most active of these painters of spurious por- traits of the actor was, says Boaden, "The grandson of an artist of indisputable excellence," to whom "misfortune sug- gested this sad remedy for indigence." ^ So numerous were these spurious portraits that Sidney Lee, whose orthodoxy cannot be questioned, informs us that It would be futile to attempt to make the record of the pretended portraits complete. Upwards of sixty have been offered for sale to the National Portrait Gallery since its foundation in 1856, and not one of these has proved to possess the remotest claim to authenticity. 2 This is certainly discouraging. But it has seemed necessary that the world should have a portrait of the Stratford actor, and several quite as unauthentic still hold the stage, and, as the whims or fancies of authors determine, are reproduced in the various publications relating to the "Shakespeare" Works which are appearing constantly. Among these the most popular, perhaps, are the Felton and Chandos portraits, so called, and we shall treat them somewhat fully. ^ James Boaden, Esq., An Inquiry into Various Pictures and Portraits of Shakespeare, p. 144. London, 1 824. ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare^ p. 29. 227 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS THE FELTON PORTRAIT Says Steevens: — On Friday, August 9, (1794) Mr. Richardson, printeseller of Castle Street, Leicester Square, assured Mr. Steevens, that in the course of business, having recently waited on Mr. Felton, of Curzon Street, May Fair, this gentleman showed him an ancient head resembling the portrait of Shakspeare, as engraved by Martin Droeshout in 1623. This portrait was purchased at a public sale in 1792 by S. Felton of Drayton, Shropshire, for five guineas, and was catalogued as, "A curious portrait of Shak- speare painted in 1597." After the sale the purchaser, seeking its history from the auctioneer, was told that it was formerly in the Boar's Head Tavern, an unfortunate story, it seems, for Steevens declares that so many spurious portraits had been sold as coming from the Boar's Head that it was "high time that picture dealers should avail themselves of another story, this being completely worn out and no longer fit for service." Felton then tried to trace its origin. He sought Sloman, the landlord, and his wife, who kept the tavern when the picture was said to have been in the house; but both had died, and later he found their successor, who ought to have known if it had been there, as he was the former landlord's assistant before assuming charge of the premises ; but he also declared his utter ignorance of the portrait. The price it was sold at is sufficient to show how it was regarded by connoisseurs of the time; but the Chandos portrait, the reputation of which had been bolstered up by its aristocratic ownership, was losing ground, and here was a financial opportunity for a sharp picture dealer. The result was the exploitation of the Felton Shakspere. Of course the rival dealer who was publishing the Chandos "'original" came to the rescue of his favorite, and truths of an amusing character were told. We read that "The few remain- ing advocates of the Chandosan Canvas," declared that the Felton "original" "exhibited not a single trait of Shakspeare's 228 THE DROESHOUT THE FELTON THE CHANDOS THE JANSSEN THE BEST KNOWN OF THE "SHAKESPEARE" PORTRAITS MYTHICAL RELICS countenance/' not even of that "deformed by Droeshout/' but resembled "The sign of Sir Roger de Coverly when it had been changed to a Saracen's head, on which occasion the Spec- tator observes that the features of the gentle Knight were still apparent through the lineaments of the ferocious Mussul- man." Even the stiff collar was held up for disapproval, and its "pointed corners, resembling the wings of a bat," were said to be "constant indications of a mischievous agency." But in spite of these fierce onslaughts, the new aspirant for public favor prospered, and when its promoters succeeded in inducing Boydell and Nicol to make it the frontispiece of their new edition of the works, and publicly announced that these incomparable experts were "thoroughly convinced of the genuineness of Mr.Felton's Shakspeare,"^ and should use it "instead of having recourse to the exploded Picture in- herited by the Chandos Family," its rival was quite eclipsed. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT This portrait had the honor of being copied by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and also for Malone by Humphrey, as well as for Capell by an unknown hand. On the back of his copy Malone has inscribed the following: — The original having been painted by a very ordinary hand, having been at some subsequent period painted over, and being now in a state of decay, this copy, which is a very faithful one, is, in my opinion, invaluable. Yet of these copies Boaden notes this important difference, that Sir Joshua's copy is characterized by smartness and pleasantry; that of Mr. Humphrey by thoughtful gravity; and of Capell's he remarks : — Whether Sir Joshua used the freedom to mix something of the expression of the bust with his copy of the picture, I know not, but certainly he has given to his work a brisk pertness, which is ^ Steevens, The Plays of William Shakespeare, pp. 4-18. 229 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS clearly not in the copy made for Mr. Capell, and which I certainly do not believe to have ever been visible on the original.^ It would be interesting to know how the "original" which had been "at some subsequent period painted over," origi- nally looked. Boaden gives the pedigree of the Chandos portrait. Start- ing with Joseph Taylor, an actor, in 1653, he traces it to William Davenant, the son of the innkeeper whose tavern the Stratford actor is said to have patronized when on his infre- quent journeys to and from London after the purchase of New Place ; then through Betterton to Mrs. Barry, the actress, by whom it was sold to Robert Keck; and finally into the possession of the Marquis of Caernarvon. Of its authenticity Boaden cites a tradition that it was originally painted for Sir Thomas Charges "from a young man who had the good fortune to resemble the actor." William Davenant was a boy ten years old when the actor died, and, says Boaden, "There is a high probability that he remembered his person, and was sure of the verisimilitude of Taylor's picture." Davenant, who, by the way, was Charles ILs poet laureate and was knighted, Sidney Lee describes as "morally a poor creature." Referring to the statements made in the pedigree of the Chandos portrait he says : — There is not a particle even of presumptive evidence in favor of either one of these assertions. And were the portraits clearly traceable to Davenant, some better testimony than his bare word, or even his actual belief, is necessary to establish the authenticity of such a picture. In my judgment, the Chandos head has no claim whatever to be regarded as a contemporary portrait of Shakespeare. 2 It is amusing to note that Kneller made a copy of the Chandos head and presented it to Dryden, whom, Boaden with a quaint humor remarks, distinguished himself by ^ Boaden, An Inquiry, etc., p. 42. ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. cxxiii. 230 MYTHICAL RELICS cramming upon Kneller the very drug with which Ben Jonson had so long before choked the Dutchman Droeshout. Even the rhymes are the same. Jonson: Wherein the Graver had a strife With Nature to out do the Hfe. Dryden: Such are thy pieces imitating Hfe So near they almost conquer in the strife. Of the Felton portrait Lee says : — The very period at which this head first came into public notice casts suspicion upon it; for Shakespeare forgery and fabrication then were rife. And referring to the inscription on the back of the por- trait : — This inscription was, by those who first brought the picture into notice, and by the publisher of the first engraving from it, supposed to be "Guil Shakspeare, 1597, R.N."; and it was not until some years after that Mr. Abraham Wivell, a painter, hav- ing rubbed some oil upon the back of the picture to nourish the decayed wood, brought out the writing more clearly, and dis- covered that it was "Guil Shakespeare, 1597, R.B." This seems easy of explanation. The forger of the portrait had to put initials of some sort on his picture, and having no knowledge of the tradition that Shakspere's fellow actor, Burbage, was said to have been an amateur painter, he took the first which came to mind ; later, when the owner became aware of the tradition, he realized that changing the N to B would identify the portrait as an original, and greatly en- hance its pecuniary value. It was an easy thing to put some oil upon it to "nourish the wood," and by so doing, and the stroke of a brush, cause a very plausible transformation of the offending letter. But was Burbage a portrait painter .f* Referring to Granger, who has been mentioned as having given currency to the tradition, it is found that Granger ac- quired his information from the "Critical Review" (London) for December, 1770, but the article in question states that it 231 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS was " Painted by either Richard Burbage or John Taylor^ the player, the latter of whom left it by will to Sir William Dav- enant."^ After a persistent search to verify the tradition re- specting Burbage's use of the brush in portraiture, we ven- ture the opinion that it originates in an abominable elegy written on his death, March 13, 1618. It is entitled, "On Mr. Richard Burbidg our excellent both player and painter," and begins, "Some skillful limner aid me." So far as we have been able to ascertain, Burbage never painted a portrait in his life, though we have a portrait said not only to have been painted by him, but of himself. Cer- tainly there is no portrait known to have been painted by him, and no contemporaneous evidence to support the tradi- tion mentioned by Granger but the word "painter," used by an unknown and verbose scribbler, and a head of a woman in the Dulwich Collection. There is, however, an entry in an account book found at Belvoir Castle that on March 31, 1613, Shakspere and Bur- bage were paid forty-four shillings each about my Lorde's "impresso"; that is, a representation of his arms or other in- signia. Burbage probably painted his rude stage scenery, as actors often have done, and this may have been what his elegist meant. This kind of coarse painting was what the steward of Belvoir required for the pageant. But how did the actor come into the transaction.? He had been the factotum in arranging scenery for the plays he put upon the stage for Burbage, who, on his way through Strat- ford to Belvoir in the adjacent county of Leicester, bethought him of his old assistant, and engaged him to lend a hand for similar work in the coming pageant. The actor's employment for this service throws a clear light upon the character of his employment when in the service of Burbage during his Lon- don career. ^ Rev. J. Granger, A Biographical History of England, vol. i, p. 259. London, 1804. 232 MYTHICAL RELICS With regard to the Dulwich portrait, which has been pointed to as proof that Burbage was an artist, finding nothing satis- factory in print upon the subject, the writer thought best to investigate it, and found that a portrait of a young woman in a dark green bodice with red sleeves, the head turned to the left, painted on a canvas twenty by sixteen and a half inches, and numbered 103, was described on Cartwright's Catalogue, as *^ A woman s head on a bord, dun hy Mr. Burbige, ye Actor." Mr. Bicknell, clerk to the Governors of Dulwich, in a letter to the writer respecting it, says : "The identification, however, can hardly be correct. It will be observed that this picture is on canvas, while the head, painted by Burbage, was on panel." To identify No. 103 with the portrait described in the cata- logue, Mr. Bicknell kindly calls attention to the fact that Lysons, in his "Environs of London," 1792, describes this picture as in chiaro obscuro "a description," he says, "which so far would apply to this picture." It would be of some inter- est to know how the name of Burbage got into Cartwright's Catalogue, though, if it substantiated the claim that he was an artist, it would add nothing to the authenticity of the Fel- ton portrait, which is too palpable a fraud to be rehabilitated, though it might give us a new crop of "R.B." originals of the Stratford actor. THE JANSSEN PORTRAIT Let us now consider the Janssen portrait which has been claimed to have been painted for Southampton of his "favor- ite poet," for the only reason that Janssen painted his lord- ship. This is another "original" with a descriptive pedigree. Janssen was a Dutch painter, the date of whose birth has been disputed, but which is now ascertained to have been in 1593, and as this picture is dated 16 10, he would have been but seventeen, which, in itself, is sufficient proof that he could not have painted the portrait in question, as the character of the 233 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS work shows that it was the work of an artist of experience ; in fact, it is evident that it was never intended as a portrait of the actor. That it has been tampered with since it was ex- ploited as an original Shakspere is proved by an engraving made by Earldom for Jennens, a former owner, upon which appears above the head a scroll bearing the words, "UT MAGUS " = Like a Magician. Experts, too, who have studied it, are of the opinion that the figure "6" in "46" has been changed from a cipher. This portrait was first brought to public notice in 1761, and the most ingenious attempts have been made to carry it back to the time it purports to have been painted ; hence, three different pedigrees have been pro- vided for it, neither of which can be regarded as of the least value by any one who has not been infected by the Stratford bacillus. Steevens was the first to assail its authenticity, and since his time it has been a storm center of profitless dispute. That it was intended for a portrait of some old worthy, who would be surprised if he could return and see what a fuss has been made over his once admired portrait, is not open to doubt. The portrait has, however, served a purpose, as other "originals" show its influence blended with that of Droes- hout, which, to some minds, is even made to establish its own authenticity. THE ASHBOURNE PORTRAIT This picture has no pedigree. It came before the public when pedigrees of original Shaksperes were in such bad odor that it was thought prudent to have it appear like a bolt from the blue. In this case, "A friend in London wrote to the second master of the Free Grammar School at Ashbourne, Derbyshire," that he had seen a portrait of Shakspere that he was positive was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it himself, he advised the schoolmaster "by all means to have it." The reply went back, "Secure the prize," much, doubt- 234 THE ASHBOURNE THE GRAFTON THE ZUCCHERO THE SANDERS 1 'Though Holder's opinion was that this was the work of Zincke, his partner in fraud, with whose style he was familiar, this has been held in high esteem by many of the actor's devotees. MYTHICAL RELICS less, to the satisfaction of " the friend," who, if the story of the find be true, had a good opportunity to gather in a legitimate commission. We should remember, however, that the poor schoolmaster was a painter himself in his leisure hours, and sold his original for four hundred pounds. The Ashbourne purports to have been painted a year later than the Janssen, and bears all the familiar ear-marks of a faked antique, yet believers in the Messianic actor regard it as an example of genuine portraiture. That it has borrowed an influence from both the Droeshout and Janssen is evident. THE GRAFTON PORTRAIT This portrait but recently came to public notice, creating quite a sensation. It claims to have been painted in 1588, when the actor was twenty-four years of age, about the time when he was working about the Burbage stables, and picking up a living as best he could. The story is that it was origi- nally given by the Duke of Grafton to one of his servants, and descended from him for several generations to the present owntr. The letters "W. S." are on the stretcher, and ''JESYM 24," and the date "1588,'* on the upper corners respectively. Although it has been regarded by many as a vivid representation of the actor in early manhood, no one with cool judgment can regard it otherwise than as a glaring fraud. It is one of those portraits of which O. Halliwell- Phillipps sorrowfully says, speaking of those who require rational evidence of the authenticity of portraits of the actor : — There are others to whom a picture's history Is not of the slightest moment, their reflective Instinct enabling them, with- out effort or Investigation, to recognize In an old curiosity shop the dramatic visage that belonged to the author of. "Ham- let." 1 ^ J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, F.R.S., Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare^ vol. i, p. 297. London, 1889. 23s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS THE ZUCCHERO PORTRAIT This portrait represents a writer, his head resting upon his right hand. He appears to be in deep meditation upon a subject which he is composing. The age of the man is perhaps twenty-five, certainly not over thirty. On the back of the panel upon which it is painted are the words "Guglielm Shakspere." The artist, whose work this portrait purports to be, was a Roman Catholic, who, having caused offense at the Papal Court, fled and sought a domicile in England in 1574, and had the honor of painting the Queen of Scots, and subsequently, Elizabeth. One of Bacon's portraits is said to be from his brush. The so-called Shakspere is in every respect Italian, and bears not the slightest resemblance to the Droeshout, which has been supposed to represent the traditional features of the actor, and has served in a greater or less degree as a study for other painters ; in fact, it bears a resemblance to the head of Tasso. Zucchero left England, says Boaden, in 1584.^ This is before the actor left Stratford ; at that time he was wholly unknown and in dire poverty. Boaden suggests that it is a portrait of the artist's brother, Taddio, possibly his own, and he calls attention to the coincidences of Zucchero's death with that of the actor, 161 6. THE SANDERS PORTRAIT The Sanders portrait is a veritable antique, and no doubt belongs to the period of the Centenary, or the Garrick Jubilee of 1769, when spurious Shaksperes were numerous and ne- gotiable. It has all the hall-marks of Zincke and Holder, though, of course, these were not the only sinners who faked the pictures of the great, and had them discovered as coming from the Boar's Head, or behind wainscotting, or in other out- of-the-way places ; there were many others. This picture is on ^ Boaden, An Inquiry^ etc., p. 62. 236 THE ZOUST THE STRATFORD THE ELI HOUS3 THE FLOWER Note the direct influence of the " Felton " which reflects a modified influence from the " Droeshout. The anatomical structure of all these heads show marked differences. THE BEST KNOWN OF THE "SHAKESPEARE" PORTRAITS MYTHICAL RELICS a panel sixteen and a half by thirteen inches, and hardly has a feature in common with any other representation of the actor. If it were painted for a spurious portrait, the painter made some very unnecessary blunders, especially in his treat- ment of the hair, which he might better have made to con- form in some degree to other portraits. It may have been a genuine portrait of some one to which the application of the written slip of paper on the back was all that the dealer who sold it deemed necessary to give it currency. Another blunder was made in the inscription, the paper and handwriting being unquestionably modern, possibly forty or fifty years old. The portrait is unworthy of the space we have given it. The fol- lowing is the inscription : — Shakspere Born April 23-1564 Died April 23-1616 Aged 52 This Likeness taken 1603, Age at that time 39 yrs. THE ZOUST PORTRAIT The Zoust portrait first came to light in the possession of a London painter in 1725, and for some time was exploited as a discovery of importance ; in fact, it was considered one of the many originals of the actor, whose time was supposed to have been so largely occupied from youth in sitting for his portrait that one of his biographers expresses wonder that, amid all his exacting occupations, he found so much time to devote to portrait painters. But the Zoust portrait finally came to grief when it was discovered that the pseudo-painter was not born until 1637, twenty-one years after the actor's death; and yet, this portrait has been thought to be of sufficient in- terest to receive the honor of being exhibited in the Memo- rial Gallery at Stratford, and of having served as a guide to the artist who modeled the bust in Westminster Abbey. 237 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS THE STRATFORD, THE ELY HOUSE, AND THE FLOWER PORTRAITS There are three portraits in the possession of the Birth- place Trustees at Stratford, all exhibited as originals to the twenty-five or thirty thousand tourists who annually visit their town greatly to its enrichment. The Stratford is a painting wholly without value as a genu- ine relic or as a work of art, and no critic of judgment has yet ventured to imperil his reputation by indorsing it. Yet it is old, probably a century old, and resembles the bust from which it is thought to have been painted. The Town Clerk Mr. Hunt, having purchased it for a song at a second-hand shop, presented it in 1867 to the Trustees, and the obsequious guide will exhibit it to you with an approving air, but, should you raise the question of originality, will regard you with an air of severity. The Ely House portrait is inscribed "Ae. 39 x 1603." It exhibits evidence of having been copied from the Droeshout engraving by an artist of considerable ability, though, owing to the absence of details conspicuous in the Droeshout, doubts have been expressed whether this evidence is sufficient to iden- tify it ; but there are so many faulty points in this famous en- graving which a skilled artist would dislike to reproduce that we are warranted in entertaining the inference that the painter of the Ely picture judiciously ignored the more glaring faults of the engraving, and gave rein to his fancy as others have done in painting pictures of the actor. This picture possesses no claim whatever to authenticity. The Flower portrait which all Stratfordians now loyally asseverate is the only original, the very one from which Droeshout made his engraving, was discovered by a Strat- ford gentleman in 1892 at Peckham Rye, in the possession of "A private gentleman with artistic tastes," who purchased it of "An obscure dealer about 1840." As before remarked, pedigrees had once been supposed to be requisite, but in every 238 §t I. .^0'^ r .'.'.A^Wli THE JENNINGS THE BURN THE WINSTANLEY THE BELMONT HALL MYTHICAL RELICS case they had proved to be inconvenient as so many keen critics offensively applied themselves to ferreting out their validity; hence this aspirant for favor must have no pedigree whatever. The bare assertion that one gentleman purchased it from another gentleman "of taste," who was fortunate enough to have purchased it of an "obscure" dealer who knew nothing about it, should be quite sufficient; in fact, should disarm all meddlesome critics. Such people have nothing to assail in this case, not even a prevaricating dealer to entangle with perplexing questions. All they can do is to study the new "original" itself. It is described as "Painted on a panel formed of two planks of old elm." The use of the word "old," of course, intensifies the antique flavor of the picture. In the upper left-hand corner is the inscription " Will"^ Shakespeare, 1609." That it is a copy of the Droeshout instead of being its prototype, no one can doubt who has not been hypnotized by yielding his reason to the New Messianic cult. It can hardly be urged by our Stratford friends that Droeshout would have added the objectionable dark lines about the back of the face, which so strongly suggest the edges of a mask, if it had not been in a model from which they assume he copied ; while it can be convincingly urged that a copyist of the ability dis- played in the painting would not reproduce them in so marked a manner. But there must be an authentic portrait of the new Messiah, and this is certainly more interesting than the en- graving ; but what can be said of it when the latter is proved to be unauthentic, as we hope to show .^ THE JENNINGS PORTRAIT The Jennings portrait is among the more absurd of the two hundred or more "original" portraits of the actor. It was first known as the property of H. C. Jennings, of Batter- sea. In the upper left corner, the inscription, "iE 33," is conspicuous, and conveniently synchronizes the date of paint- ing with the dedication of "Venus and Adonis" to the Earl 239 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of Southampton, to whose family Jennings claimed to have traced it. It should be compared with THE BURN PORTRAIT Which has had the honor of being exhibited at Burlington House, and the South Kensington "Shakespeare Show/' These portraits are of quite different people, yet the owners imagine when they behold them that they are looking upon a likeness of the author of "Hamlet." Self-deception could hardly go farther. THE WINSTANLEY PORTRAIT There has been much acrimonious discussion over this por- trait, which first came to light in the hands of Mr.Winstanley, an auctioneer of Liverpool, in 1819. The owner, though spoken of as a reputable man, became mixed up later with other fraudulent portraits, which awakened unpleasant sus- picion of his integrity; in fact, he was publicly charged with being on good terms with picture fakers. He certainly knew Holder according to an anecdote related by himself. This por- trait bears the following inscription : — As Hollie, Ivie, Misseltoe Defie the wintrle blaste Despite of chillings Envie so thy well earn'd fame shall laste Then let ye ever livinge laurel beare thy much beloved name O Will. Shakspere. B. J. The initials are supposed to stand for those of Ben Jonson, who would probably disown them in vigorous terms were he alive. Holder, who seems to have regarded picture-faking as a legitimate mhier, recognized it as the work of Zincke, his old-time associate in the business. This ought sufficiently to determine its status; but it will be possible at any time for some adventurous spirit to discover in it, as in the case of the Cunningham, or Revel's document, a genuine original, and to have his discovery hailed by enthusiasts as genuine beyond all possibility of doubt. 240 'T>> '' > f'* ' >' SHAKSPERE MARRIAGE PICTURE MYTHICAL RELICS THE MARRIAGE PICTURE The height of absurdity has been reached by this painting, which was discovered by Holder, the one-time associate of Zincke, the unscrupulous manufacturer of spurious portraits of the Stratford actor. In spite of the obscurity and poverty of the unfortunate actor, and his hasty marriage, it professes to be a contemporary painting of the event. Holder claimed to have bought it in 1872 with several other dilapidated pictures, this being so bad that he at first thought it to be worthless, but upon cleaning it, found the following inscription : — Rare Lymnynge Marriage of Anne Hathaway With vs doth make appere William Shakespere. He soon sold it at a good price to a Mr. John Mandan, who described it, in the London "Notes and Queries" of 1872, as representing Richard Hathaway and his wife, Jone, weighing out a marriage portion for their daughter, Anne. In the ad- joining room is to be seen through the open doorway the mar- riage service in progress. Of course, it was necessary to pre- serve Droeshout's bald head, even if the bridegroom was but eighteen. This, and the inscription, should be sufficient to condemn it, to say nothing of the oversight of representing a poor farmer weighing out a liberal marriage portion for his daughter with all the paraphernalia of a rich banker. Neither space nor patience will permit a reproduction of the ridiculous arguments adduced to prove its authenticity as a veritable representation of the marriage in 1582. Yet enough has been written about it to make a volume, and, eventually, it may find its way to Stratford, and be placed with other "original" relics. Perhaps some readers may not be aware that there are thousands of portraits of the forgotten dead flitting about as if vainly seeking recognition, or stored away in antique shops the world over, those dim haunts so redolent of the storied past, which fascinate beyond reason the wandering 241 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS antiquarian. Some of these portraits, revealing high artistic abihty, are of men and women who evidently enjoyed distin- guished positions, social, and even official, in this whirligig world, and are subjects of study to determine, if possible, to whom they belonged, as the writer knows, his opinion having been sought on such occasions. Very few, however, are res- cued from the forgotten, and restored to their true place among the remembered. These forgotten portraits have ex- periences which would astonish their former owners ; some, by inconsiderable changes, being transformed into the por- traits of historical personages of the more or less remote past. A few initials, a date, an insignia, if needed, are worked in so as to be difficult to decipher, and the work becomes a rare old original, and, of course, valuable to somebody. Others of these esprits perdus find themselves on tapestried walls amidst costly surroundings, playing, perhaps, the part of ancestors in a modern family drama. This is probably less uncommon than may be imagined. The writer, some years ago, visited the suburbs of a neighboring city to examine a library adver- tised as "rare," as it was, indeed, too rare for his taste. The owner of the place, which was beautiful for situation, had suddenly acquired fortune by inheritance, and had proceeded to expend it "artistically." The buildings, surrounded by splendid trees, real antiques, represented a feudal castle with its appendages, surmounted by battlements of wood, and the approach was guarded by a portcullis, also of wood. There was a chapel, and in the dim light was a tomb upon which reposed a recumbent figure ingeniously painted to simulate marble, and about the walls were glittering suits of armor, such reproductions as one finds in Florence or Milan, costing, perhaps, three or four guineas. But a greater surprise awaited one, when painfully stooping to pass under a low arch at the end of a passage, which had probably been copied from some mediaeval castle, he came upon a hall with the family por- traits. These were of all kinds and of varied facial expression. 242 BECKER DEATH MASK STRATFORD DEATH MASK MYTHICAL RELICS They had been summoned by the magic wand of wealth from the uncongenial limbo of an antique shop to this no less uncongenial habitation, and looked painfully aware of their degradation. Suffice it to say that they passed under the auc- tioneer's hammer, and were scattered to the four winds. Per- haps these wandering spirits are now playing their sorry old role of ancestral celebrities in the families of other nouveaux riches. What a pity that their proud owners could not have taken them with them. THE BECKER DEATH MASK This death mask bears the name of its discoverer, Dr. Becker, "who found it in a rag shop in Mayence" some time in 1849. The subject being unknown, and having a bald head with a long and somewhat full face, suggested the head of the Stratford actor as disclosed by some of his many "original" portraits; besides, the date, 1616, was scratched on its back. This date, however, if originally placed upon it, would not be any proof of its authenticity, for many men with similar heads 4ied in that year. The owner, of course, took his precious find to London, where it was hailed as the very model used by the sculptor of the bust. It was also noted as settling any question of authenticity, that it had a "few reddish hairs" sticking to the plaster on the apex of the forehead. So well is the Becker mask regarded, that it forms the fron- tispiece of the twelfth volume of the recent edition of the "Shakespeare" Works printed from the Folio of 1623, and is regarded by readers, generally, as a genuine presentment of the face of their author. THE STRATFORD DEATH MASK Strange to say another death mask has come to light very recently. It is true that it is unlike the Becker mask, but it also has "near the ear a small tuft of reddish hair." Besides, it has a point better than the Becker, for in addition to the 243 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS date, 1616, this mask has the initials, "W. S.," scratched upon it. The "reddish hair" seems a bit unfortunate, as it is Hkely to remind one of coincidences of a kindred nature in the Boar's Head Tavern portraits, but this is a minor detail per- haps unworthy of notice, as is also the fact that the faces are unlike. It is, perhaps, needless to remark that this last dis- covery is now declared to be very like the bust, though the modeling of the nose and cheeks was exceedingly clumsy ; hence it is suggested, — That the sculptor of the monument, wishful to render the fea- tures of Shakespeare as they were in life and not in death, modeled up the squeeze from the death mask, filling up the sunken cheeks, smoothing away the wrinkles and roughnesses and pores which generally appear on a death mask, and remodeling the nose, the tip of which invariably takes a different shape after death. ^ This death mask was found "in the shop of a curio dealer in the Midlands," and, naturally, has no pedigree; yet in the next edition of the "Shakespeare" Works we may expect to see it reproduced as another genuine likeness of the actor, though its rival, which has so long held the stage, does not represent the face of the same man. Let us now take up the bust, and, in conclusion, continue our remarks on the Droeshout engraving, which the best critics fall back upon as unassailable. Says Phillips : — The Stratford efhgy and this engraving are the only unques- tionably authentic representations of the living Shakespeare that are known to exist, not one of the numerous others, for which claims to the distinction have been advanced, having an eviden- tial pedigree of a satisfactory character. ^ Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Trustees, and Guardians of Shakspere's Birthplace, writing later, says: — ^ P. C. Konodes, in The London Illustrated News, June 17, 191 1. ^ PhillippSj Outlines, etc., vol. i, pp. 286, 297. 244 MYTHICAL RELICS Aubrey reported that Shakespeare was "a handsome well- shaped man," but no portrait exists which can be said with ab- solute certainty to have been executed during his lifetime, al- though one has been recently discovered with a good claim to that distinction, the Flower. Only two of the extant portraits are positively known to have been produced within a short period after his death. These are the bust in Stratford Church, and the frontispiece to the Folio of 1623, the Droeshout. Each is an inartistic attempt at a posthumous likeness.^ THE BUST The twelfth volume of the late Reprint of the Folio of 1623 has for a frontispiece this bust, accompanied by the following statement : — This, the oldest representation of Shakespeare in existence, is placed on the north side of the chancel of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, over the poet's grave. It was sculptured by either Gerard Johnson or one of his sons, shortly after Shakespeare's death, and was originally in colour. In 1793, these colours were obscured by white paint, which in turn was removed in 1861, and the colouring restored. The carving is of no artistic merit, but its authenticity has been so long established, as to render its place secure at the head of Shakespearian likenesses. This statement is almost wholly erroneous. It is not the oldest representation of the actor in existence; it was not sculptured by Gerard Johnson, — more correctly, Gerald Janssen, — nor one of his sons shortly after his death ; nor does it stand at the head of his likenesses, if the Droeshout is what Stratfordians claim it to be, "An original, but inartistic portrait." If it looks at all like him, the Droeshout, which Stratfordians are obliged to cling to because of Jonson's expression regarding it, would be discredited. Steevens took a Droeshout engraving nearly a century ago, and climbing up to it, measured and compared the two, and declared that they were quite unlike. Another biographer, after a critical study ^ Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 286. 24s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of it, not only freely expressed his doubts regarding it, but of all other pseudo likenesses of the actor. He says : — It would be gratifying if we could give any faith to the tradi- tion which asserts that the bust of this monument was sculptured from a cast moulded on the face of the departed poet. But the cast, if taken, must have been taken immediately after death, and we know neither at whose expense the monument was con- structed, nor by whose hand it was executed, nor at what precise time it was erected. But if we cannot rely upon the Stratford bust for a resemblance of our immortal dramatist, where are we to look with any hope of finding a trace of his features.^ It is highly probable that no portrait of him was painted during his life, and it is certain that no portrait of him with an incontesta- ble claim to genuineness is at present in existence.^ Yet, strange to say, he gives "the fairest title to authen- ticity" to the Chandos which White denominates "an ear- ringed, full bearded, heavy-eyed thing, unsupported by a particle of evidence that reaches to within three-quarters of a century of the time at which it must have been painted, if it were really authentic." ^ But what shall we think when we find that the original bust has disappeared, and been forgot- ten, and another one, wholly unlike the first, is the one with which the actor's biographers, whom we have quoted, have been deceiving themselves ? And yet this is a fact. In 1656, a history of Warwickshire was published in which appeared an engraving of the bust as it then was. This shows quite a different face from the present one, and in place of the flat cushion with the person represented holding a pen in his right hand, and the left resting upon a piece of paper as though engaged in the act of composition, is a woolsack pressed to the body. The figures and accessories are similar but unlike. Were it not for these changes, it might be contended with some plausibility that Dugdale's sketch was imperfect, but, fortu- 1 Charles Symmons, D.D., The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, p. 11. Hartford, 1841. 2 Richard Grant White, The Works of William Shakespeare, vol. i, p. 125. Boston, 1865. 246 MYTHICAL RELICS nately, we have a record of the time the changes in the bust were made. It having become dilapidated, John Ward, aheady mentioned in connection with the Fumess gloves, an actor, and grandfather of Mrs. Siddons, who was in Stratford in 1746, conceived the idea of "restoring" it. He therefore gave a representation of Othello for the purpose of raising funds to carry out his laudable design. A sufficient sum having been obtained the work was commenced, the restorer having orders not only to repair but to beautify it. The result we now see. Some one may raise the question of the picture by Virtue made for Pope's edition of the works of 1725, but they might as well raise the question regarding Gravelot's engraving in Hanmer's edition of 1774 or Grignion's of 1786, twenty-six and thirty- eight years after the restoration. Both are largely fanciful creations of the engravers, who did not take the trouble to go to Stratford for their material. In the case of Grignion, he copied from Dugdale, but Virtue and Gravelot indulged their fancies to the extent of introducing an entirely new bust, and changing the position of the cherubs and skull. In the restoration it is plain to see that the " restorers," who appear to have been given a free hand, took hints from Virtue's design. We may regard Dugdale's, then, as the original sketch of the bust, drawn only twenty years after the actor's death. And yet Sidney Lee, in his so-called "Life" of Shake- speare, says : — Before 1623 an elaborate monument by a London sculptor of Dutch birth, was erected to Shakespeare's memory in the chan- cel of the parish church. It includes a half-length bust depicting the dramatist on the point of writing. The fingers of the right hand are disposed as if holding a pen, and under the left hand is a quarto sheet of paper. This is sufficient to show Lee's inexcusably careless method of working. Had he given a student's study to his subject, he would have discovered the fact that the bust with the pen 247 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS in one hand, and the other on a sheet of paper, was erected a hundred and thirty years after the actor's death. Of course it may be objected that Dugdale was careless, "probably," for this is the favorite word used by Stratford- ians for or against every thesis; but Dugdale, on the con- trary, was a bom antiquary, and the care which he exhibited in his treatment of the architectural details surrounding the bust, and of other similar work of his, disposes of such a charge. The attitude of the cherubs, the shield, the hour- glass and spade, the woolsack, were never invented by him we may be sure. But how dispose of Rowe, who was familiar with the bust as late as 1709, and in his work gives a repre- sentation of it with but a slight difference in facial expression, no more so than is usually found in the work of artists of the period ? The woolsack is especially suggestive. The actor was a trader in wool, an occupation of which his family was much prouder than of that of a player ; hence their choice of a sack of wool which was their most appropriate and, no doubt, most highly prized family emblem. The old bust was possibly the work of Gerald Janssen, and while it was not a work of art, we may reasonably believe that it is the only likeness which we have of the actor, made for his family by an artist who probably knew him, and approved by them : besides, we hope to show by and by, from an entirely independent source, fairly reasonable evidence that Dugdale's portrait resembles one of the actor which appeared on a title-page of a work in 1624. The monument in Westminster Abbey requires no exami- nation. The artist, perplexed by the various portraits of his subject, quite properly created an almost ideal effigy which is wholly unlike the Droeshout portrait or Stratford bust. The same may be said of the Roubillac bust and the Gower bronze statue at Stratford. Although enough has already been adduced to show its spurious character, we have again to refer to the Droeshout 248 THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with the face, hair, and beard of Passe's Bacon THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with the nose, eyes, and temple of Passe's Bacon reversed THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with the face and beard of Worthington's Bacon THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with Passe's Bacon. Note alignment of eyebrows, nose, and cheek MYTHICAL RELICS portrait, the "really authentic likeness," the one sacred icon in the sanctuary of the actor's biographers. Lawrence has called attention to the remarkable black line extending "from ear to chin" on this mysterious portrait, and the peculiarity of the coat which the artist has depicted. ^ That the face strongly resembles a mask all must admit. A clear impression from an unworn copy of the original folio of 1623 shows this peculiarity more plainly than in later edi- tions after the plate became worn. Such is the engraving here shown, taken from a photograph made for the writer. The resemblance to a mask is enhanced by turning it upside down. The figure, it will be observed, is much too small for the head. This has been observed by the biographers, the latest, Sidney Lee, who says, "The dimensions of the head and face are dis- proportionately large as compared with those of the body." 2 Attention is also attracted by the coat, which presents the back of the right arm on the left arm of the figure, which sig- nifies that the person represented is masquerading in a false coat. That this is such a garment we have the testimony of some of the best-known London tailors. It plainly tells its story. Mr. William Stone Booth, however, gives us the most remarkable evidence of an intention to hide an author's face behind one purporting to be that of another that has ever been attempted. Strangely enough, more than fifty years ago, WiUiam Henry Smith,^ a student of the "Shakespeare" Works, saw in the portrait of the philosopher resemblances to that of the actor as exhibited by Droeshout, and Mr. Booth, applying to them the Bertillon system of measurement, found them to be exact counterparts of each other. He says : — Even if no doubt of the actor's authorship had arisen, it would have been an extraordinary phenomenon that the two greatest ^ Sir Edwin Durning Lawrence, Bart., LL.B., Bacon is Shakespearey pp. 23 et seq. New York, 19 10. 2 Lee, A Life of Shakespeare^ p. 287. * William Henry Smith, Esq., Bacon and Shakespeare, p. 39. London, 1857. 249 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS men of letters of Elizabethan times should be found to have portraits anatomically identical.^ He then proceeds to demonstrate the accuracy of his meas- urements by patiently overlaying no less than twenty-seven sections of the two faces, and showing that they perfectly co- incide with the parts covered without materially affecting their expression. The same methods have been employed by Professor Hol- brook in his treatment of the portraits of Dante with un- questionable results.^ That the methods of measurement employed by Mr. Booth are scientific, any one can convince himself by studying them as the writer has done; it would be better, though, to resort to his book, and follow his ingenious exposition of his subject. We reproduce by the kindness of his publisher, Mr. W. A. Butterfield, eight of Mr. Booth's examples: It may be ob- jected that faces strikingly similar are sometimes seen. This is quite true. The writer in his studies of portraits recalls several such instances, perhaps the most interesting one de- picted by Morton of an antique, upon which he remarks : — After twenty-five hundred years, so,indelible is the type, every resident of Mobile will recognize in this Chaldean ef^gy the fac^ simile portrait of one of their city's most prominent citizens.^ This reference is to Senator Judah P. Benjamin. But such an objection cannot be sustained by the actor's friends in this case. The subjects were at social antipodes, living at the same time, known to one another and to one another's friends, and believed by numberless partisans to be authors of the same works. Surely the many writers with whom they asso- ciated would have noted a resemblance if such existed. The ^ William Stone Booth, The Droeshout Portrait^ p. 3. Boston, 191 1. 2 R. T. Holbrook, The Portraits of Dante from Giotto to Rafael London, 1911. ® Samuel George Morton, M.D., Types of Mankind^ p. 1 16. Philadelphia, i860. 250 c- c c c C C c J THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with the upper half of Passe 's Bacon. Compare with No. 6 for line from lobe of nose THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with upper two thirds of Passe's Bacon. Compare with No. 5 for shadow of cheek bone and lobe of nose THE DROESHOUT SHAKSPERE Overlaid with the eye, cheek, and hair of Passe's Bacon. Note cheek line and shadows PASSE'S BACON Overlaid with oblique sagittal section of the face of Droeshout's Shakspere. Note alignment of eye, nose, and mouth MYTHICAL RELICS question, of course, arises why Droeshout created such an effigy of the actor. The only answer seems to be that the man who was responsible for the Folio furnished him with the ma- terial for this tell-tale portrait which the artist used as well as his meager talents permitted, and that it is a witty experiment in the "deficiency of knowledge" in which Bacon took so deep an interest. Reminded that a portrait was needed for the Folio, how apt the reply: Take my Simon Passe and give it to Droes- hout ; tell him to leave off the hat, put on it a left-hand coat, and mark a black line in front of the ear to show it to be a mask. His deficiency in his art will do the rest. It has done more than hide the truth ; it has shown the deficiency in criti- cal judgment, for many posing as critics have neither noticed the coat nor the mask, and have written books to prove that it was the only original portrait of the actor in spite of these revealing designs. We may well close this branch of our subject by quoting a recent German critic, — "Der Shakespeare-Dichter; Wer War's? und Wle sah er Aus?'' THE INSCRIPTION ON THE TOMBSTONE The well-known inscription on the slab covering the tomb has also been changed, and the changes made in it are here given. These changes should excite our interest. It should be noted, to avoid suggestion of inaccuracy, that slight differences exist between the old copyists, perhaps the fault of printers, though similar instances may be called to mind of the difficulty experienced by experts in describing or delineating what they have seen and carefully studied. Visiting the Great Pyramid, and interesting himself in its his- tory, the writer was astonished at the revelation that no less than seven archaeologists, who had measured and described with painstaking particularity the plain stone coffer in its mysterious chamber, differed from one another in one or more particulars, though nothing could be plainer. 251 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The original inscription on the tombstone was doubtless copied by Dugdale in 1636,^ the year his book was written, though not published till twenty years later, and subsequently at different periods, by Steevens, Malone, and Knight. It is not remarkable that these copyists slightly differ, but their differences are such as might occur in transcribing or printing. In this case they are perhaps important. The following is the inscription as it appeared to Samuel Ireland, composed as it was described "of an uncouth mixture of large and small letters": — Good Frend for lefus SAKE forbeare To dlGG T-E Duft EncloAfed HERe Blefe be TE Man J fpares TEs Stones And curft be He f moves my Bones. The inscription now on the stone is quite different, and is as follows : — Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare, to digg "he dvst encloased heare: BlES-E be Y MAN Y SPARES "RES STONES, T AND CVRST BE HE Y MOVES MY BONES. The question naturally arises. When did the change take place .f^ Besides those we have named, it was printed as here shown by Samuel Ireland in 1795. He differs from Knight only in using "small and capital letters,'' Knight using only capitals, large and small, and placing a period in the middle and at the end of the last word in the second line; namely, HE.Re. As Knight would hardly have used these periods ^ Cf. George Steevens, The Works of Shakespeare^ vol. i, p. xix. London, 181 1. Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, p. 542. Sir William Dugdale, Anti- quities of Warwickshire. 1656. 252 IN 1788 IX 1806 THE ^'BIRTHPLACE MYTHICAL RELICS arbitrarily, we must conclude that they were originally in the word. As it is claimed that this epitaph contains a cipher, we shall refer to it later. ^ THE HOUSE AND CHAMBER IN WHICH THE STRATFORD ACTOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN O. Halliwell-Phillipps was a born antiquary, and devoted his life to his favorite profession. He went to Stratford and remained there studying, in situ, the houses connected with the actor. He even procured sketches of the foundation stones of the house in which he lived ; penetrated the dim and cob- webbed cellar of the so-called "birthplace" in Henley Street, and obtained sketches of its rude walls, determined that pos- terity should lose nothing connected with the man he adored. He ransacked records and conveyances of property owned by John Shakspere, tracing minutely the various conveyances of portions of the property, and such changes in it as he could find recorded, and observes : — It is certain that at this late day there is no apartment in either the Birth-Place or Wool-Shop which presents exactly the same appearance under which it was viewed in the boyhood of the great dramatist, but, unquestionably, the nearest approach to the realization of such a memorial is to be found in the cellar. And he proceeded to procure sketches of every portion of this, which he reproduced in his painstaking work. Moreover, he says : — Throughout the seventeenth century, however, the grave stone and effigy appear to have been the only memorials of the poet that were indicated to visitors, and no evidence has been dis- covered which represents either the Birth-Place or the birth-room as an object of commercial exhibition until after the traditions re- specting them are known to have been current. ^ ^ Ignatius Donnelly, The Cipher in the Plays and on the Tombstone. Minne- apolis, Minn., 1899. Picturesque Views on the Upper, or Warwickshire Avo7i, p. 212. London, 1795. * Phillipps, Outlines, etc., vol. i, pp. 386 et seq. The italics are ours. 253 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The writer is not at all in sympathy with those who have a penchant for historic doubts. On the contrary, he has an affectionate regard even for tradition, which often" enshrines a truth, as a fragment of amber does a fly, but he can but conclude, and to this conclusion Phillipps almost unwittingly points the way, that there is no evidence whatever that the Stratford actor ever saw the so-called "birthroom," and that there can be but little doubt that the house now standing is wholly unlike the one which John Shakspere knew ; most cer- tainly it is if it underwent as great changes in the two centuries previous to 1769 as in the seventy years after that date, which the accompanying exhibits reveal to us. But conflagrations are to be considered, and they were frequent in Stratford, as they were in other English towns in the past, owing, espe- cially, to inflammable roofs of thatch as well as other causes. In support of this it seems well to quote from a record as far back as 161 8, but two years after the actor's death, a report of the Privy Council to the Corporation of Stratford with regard to a late "lamentable loss," which they complained had happened by casualty of fire which of late years hath been very frequently occasioned by means of thatched cottages, stacks of straw, and such like combustible stuff, which are suffered to be erected and make confusedly in most of the principal parts of the town without restraint.^ But one of the strongest proofs against this house having been the birthplace is furnished by Knight, who says : — The Parish of Stratford, then, was unquestionably the birth- place of William Shakspere. But in what part of Stratford dwelt his parents in the year 1564 ? It was ten years after this that his father became the purchaser of two freehold houses in Henley Street, — houses which still exist — houses which the people of Eng- land have agreed to preserve as a precious relic of their great ^ George Chalmers, An Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeares' Papers, pp. 618 et seq. London, 1797. It is proper to remark that some years ago, when the third house to the east of the wool shop, in the same row, was under repair, charred timbers were re- vealed, evidence of some former conflagration. 254 IN 1847 THE "BIRTHPLACE" IN 1834 MYTHICAL RELICS brother. Nine years before William Shakspere was born, his fa- ther had also purchased two copyhold tenements in Stratford — one in Greenhill Street, one in Henley Street. The copyhold house in Henley Street purchased in 1555 was unquestionably not one of the freehold houses in the same street purchased in 1574. As he purchased two houses in 1555 in different parts of the town, it is not likely that he occupied both; he might not have occupied either. Before he purchased the two houses in Henley Street in 1574,^ he occupied fourteen acres of meadow- land, with appurtenances, at a very high rent; the property is called "Ingon" meadow in "The Close Rolls," — -it is about a mile and a quarter from the town of Stratford. William Shak- spere, then, might have been born at either of his father's copy- hold houses in Greenhill Street, or in Henley Street ; he might have been born at Ingon. And then Knight, as usual, loses his head, yielding judgment to sentiment, and rhapsodizes in this manner : — Was William Shakspere, then, born in the house in Henley Street which has been purchased by the nation .f* For ourselves, we frankly confess that the want of absolute certainty that Shak- spere was there born, produces a state of mind that is something higher and pleasanter than the conviction that depends upon positive evidence. We are content to follow the popular faith undoubtedly. The traditionary belief is sanctioned by long usage and universal acceptation. The merely curious look in reverent silence upon that mean room, with its massive joists and plas- tered walls, firm with ribs of oak, where they are told the poet of the human race was born. Eyes now closed on the world, but have left that behind that the world "will not willingly let die," have gUstened under this humble roof, and there have been thoughts unutterable — solemn, confiding, grateful, humble, — clustering round their hearts in that hour. — Disturb not the belief that William Shakspere firstsaw the light in this venerated room.^ This is delirium, and strikingly illustrates the frenzy which actuates the disciples of the new Messianic cult. If proofs as strong as Holy Writ were produced they would fall on * The dates used by Knight are New Style. 2 Charles Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, p. 3 1 et seq. New York, i860. 2SS THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS deaf ears. One hundred and fifty-three years had passed when the Garrick Jubilee was celebrated, and it was but natural that a few years in the date of purchase of the Henley Street houses should be overlooked until Malone dug it out of the musty old records. This is the conclusion he reached after discovering the fact : — Consequently the precise place of our poet's birth, like that of Homer, must remain undecided. He also remarks that his father held — "Ingon," alias "Ington meadows," situated at a short distance fi:om that estate which his son afterwards purchased. It is proper to remark that Phillipps, basing his opinion upon the burial of a John (Malone says Jeames) Shakspere at Ingon, September 25, 1589, infers that it was not the father of the actor who held this estate. These opinions are mentioned though of no special importance, as they do not militate against the fact that the "precise place" of the ac- tor's birth must "remain undecided." Of course, as between Phillipps and his predecessors, Ma- lone and Knight, on a question of precise accuracy in tracing a conveyance or tradition, we should be obliged to accept Phillipps ; but when we consider the grounds upon which he yielded to the persuasion that to doubt the locality of the birthroom "would be the merest foppery of scepticism," we are again unpleasantly reminded of the infectious atmosphere of Stratford. Let us examine the evidence he presents. He sets out as follows : — Upon the north side of Henley Street is a detached building, consisting of two houses annexed to each other, the one on the West having been known from time immemorial as Shakespeare's Birth-PIace, and that on the east, a somewhat larger one which was purchased by his father in the year 1556. Why say from time immemorial when the earliest date of the tradition he himself says was 1759, the date of Winter's 256 AT PRESENT THE "BIRTHPLACE" MYTHICAL RELICS plan ? The western house, he continues, it may be " assumed " was the birthplace, and the eastern, the wool shop, the "house purchased by him in 1556." In support of this statement he presents a supposititious plan of the property. Let us grant this assumption that the eastern house was the wool shop, and ask when the western house, or " Birth-Place," was purchased ? The reply is as follows : — John Shakespeare bought two houses at Stratford in this year, 1575; but it is not known in what part of the town they were situated, nor whether they were or were not contiguous to each other — all that is certain in the matter is that neither, on any supposition, could have been the Wool Shop, but it is possible that one of them was the Birth Place. Here he finds himself in a dilemma, and in this helpless manner struggles to escape from it: — The true solution of a biographical question is to be found in a natural hypothesis which completely reconciles the tradi- tional and positive evidence. It is known that John Shakespeare became the owner of the Birth-Place at some unascertained period before 1590. Why not say 1575 which he knew to be the date? And if we assume that he resided there from the time of his arrival at Stratford, either occupying the Wool Shop, as well as annex- ing the latter in 1556, all known difficulties of every kind imme- diately vanish. Of course, such a method of reasoning will settle any ques- tion of any nature, but calling attention to a fine of twelve- pence being levied on the actor's father in 1552, as "one of the residents of Henley Street," or Hell Lane as it was popularly called, he continues : — Then in January, 1597, we have his own authority for the fact that the land on the west of the Birth-Place was at that time in his own occupation. Of course it was, if he purchased it in 1575, and had not sold it meanwhile ; but here follows this extraordinary admission: — 257 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS This is the only evidence of the kind that has come down to us, but it is hardly possible to exaggerate its importance in de- ciding the question now under consideration, the value of a tradi- tion being immeasurably enhanced by its agreement with a record that could not have been known to any of its narrators.^ He then offers "the local Tradition of the western House being the Birth-Place," but, evidently realizing the weakness of his traditional evidence, he fortifies himself by saying that it "is on the whole of a satisfactory character," and antici- pating a smile at the use of the words "on the whole," which so often implies doubt, he turns crossly upon doubters, and declares that his evidence effectually disposes of the attempts, some of them dishonest ones, to circulate the unfounded opinion that the original local tradition indicated neither of the houses on the present Henley Street estate. After this we have 'Uhe original local tradition,^' and be- come aware that the reason of so much fuss is the smallness of the egg. This is it : — The two buildings are, however, collectively mentioned as the "house where Shakespeare was born" in Winter's plan of the town of 1759 — and in Greene's view which was engraved in 1769. And this is all. The only tradition "on the whole of a satis- factory character," has a pedigree beginning one hundred and ninety-five years after the birth of the actor, and to carry it back, and attach it to a house of which the date of purchase is "assumed," and present it to us as evidence, is an insult to our intelligence. To sum up this evidence, John Shakspere, a butcher and wool dealer whose father lived in the adjoining parish of Snit- terfield, was fined twelvepence for a nuisance in Henley Street in 1552. There is no evidence that he was living there at that time; in 1555 his name was not on the roll of the Corporation, ^ 1 PhilHpps, Outlines^ etc., vol. i, pp. 25, 380, 383. Cf. Letter to Elze, 1888. * Ihid. vol. II, p. 215. 258 MYTHICAL RELICS but it is a fair assumption that he had a shop there. He was not married until 1557, but he had purchased the year before two houses, one on Greenhill, the other on Henley Street. In 1575 he purchased two other houses; location, says Phil- lipps, is undetermined, but "it is possible that one of them was the Birthplace": Knight says "unquestionably not." Phillipps's opinion rests wholly upon tradition, dating from 1759, about the time when a "Birthplace" became pecuni- arily valuable. Any one who examines this evidence, if he desires to get at a fact and not bolster up a fiction, must cer- tainly decide that Phillipps in this case ignominiously fails. Like Knight he seems to have concluded " that want of abso- lute certainty" was "pleasanter than the conviction that de- pends on positive evidence." While the record evidence forever disposes of the birth- place hoax, we will venture to remark that it seems strange that no one has approached the subject from the simple vantage-ground of reason ; in other words, is it reasonable that John Shakspere, a rapidly rising citizen of Stratford, should take his bride, a rich heiress in the eyes of his humble towns- folk, to the close and confined quarters over the shop where he plied his trade, malodorous from the spoil of the shambles, especially from wool pelts, the effluvium of which would have been unendurable .^^ Imagine John Shakspere, a prosperous and ambitious young man, ignorant and pushing, proudly standing on that autumnal day of 1557 before the altar with Mary Arden, a particularly good matrimonial catch, and, after receiving the congratulations of his friends, taking her to such a vile place as we have described, the old building on Henley Street, where he had been fined some time before for maintaining a nuisance by accumulating on his premises the filthy offal of his trade. It is unthinkable ; but this is what Stratfordians have tried to make us believe, though a few months before, October 2, 1556, he had purchased a house on Greenhill Street ^^unum tenementum cum gardino et croftOy 259 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS cum pertinencies,'' a tenement with garden and croft with ap- purtenances, a most suitable place for their abode. When, however, the tradition was started, according to Phillipps, in I759> or between that date and the Garrick Jubilee ten years later, owing to a demand for a birthplace for "commercial exhibition,'' the Greenhill house had disappeared, and the two tenements on Henley Street, purchased in 1575 by John Shakspere, were seized upon, and to their joy in one was found a chamber which was just what they wanted for a birth- room. But Providence, as usual, seems to have intervened, and the schemers made the fatal blunder of selecting the very house which by no possibility could have been the birthplace. Malone, Knight, and Phillipps knew this, but even Phillipps shrank from antagonizing Stratford public opinion by oppos- ing it, and let it pass, faithfully recording the facts, many enshrined in old Latin which only a spendthrift of time would meddle with. And Lee, too, knows the truth of the matter, and this is how he gracefully handles it : — Some doubt is justifiable as to the ordinarily accepted scene of his birth. Of two adjoining houses forming a detached build- ing on the north side of Henley Street, that to the east was pur- chased by John Shakespeare in 1556, but there is no evidence that he owned or occupied the house to the west before 1575. Yet this western house has been known since 1759 as the poet's birthplace, and a room on the first floor is claimed as that in which he was born. . . . Much of the Elizabethan timber and stonework survives,but a cellar under the " birthplace " is the only portion which remains as it was at the date of the poet's birth. ^ We cannot even indorse the overconfident statement by Lee that some of the "Elizabethan timber" and "stone work'' of the buildings used by John Shakspere in 1575 survive. It is much more reasonable to believe that their walls were of mud, and roofs of thatch, such as Phillipps says was the common type of Stratford houses. The buildings purchased by the authori- ties in 1848 had been used during a considerable period for an * Lee, A Life of Shakespeare, p. 9. 260 MYTHICAL RELICS inn, and it is much more probable that eariier structures had yielded to the changes of time, or one of the many fires from which the Httle town had suffered, than that they were the original houses purchased in 1575. Wheeler tells us of one of these fires, two years before the actor's death, which swept away fifty-four dwelling-houses and other buildings, and threatened the destruction of the town.^ The belated acknowledgment by Lee, forced by the trouble- some publication of abstracts of titles of conveyance by Phillipps, that the so-called "Birth-Place" is not that of the actor, though the fact had been known to "literary anti- quaries" for a long time, will surprise visitors to Stratford, who have not been aware of the truth. But should it continue to be called so? Is it right to continue harrowing the sensibili- ties of sentimental people who, as Knight says, "with thoughts unutterable stand with glistening eyes beneath this humble roof" ? Verily the presidency of any society which sanctions such a fiction for "commercial exhibition" is no sinecure. It is probable that had Phillipps lived to see the proofs adduced since his death of the unworthiness of the actor's authorial claims, he would have accepted them. Even with all his loyalty to the Stratford superstition, he did not die in the odor of sanctity. Obsessed by a delusion, he had wasted many of the best forty years of his life in the hope of wresting from obscure scraps of writing something to give substance to the phantom of his pursuit, and his years of labor had resulted in rescuing from decay a mass of musty records relating to the town, worthless to any real biographer of its mythical saint. Of him, he was obliged to declare that " The Corporation rec^ ords include only twelve documents in which the great dramatist himself is mentioned'' ^ We have enumerated these, and have seen that they reveal nothing more than that he was engaged in petty trade in his native town begun not long after the * Wheeler's History of Stratford, p. 15. * The Stratford Records and the Shakespeare Autotypes^ p. 53. London, 1887, 261 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS purchase of his house there. PhiUipps's researches, however, re- vealing that by no possibility could he have been born in the so-called "Birthplace," was a blow at Stratford's financial industry, and he was regarded as a meddler. The result was mutual recriminations, and Phillipps closed his part of it in 1887 in a book prefaced with an apt Oriental story. In it he tells us that ^Hhe proceedings of the oligarchy in all literary mat-- ters connected with the town have been of the most ludicrous de- scription^^ and that ^^ Stratford-on-Avon^ under the management of its oligarchy, instead of being, as it ought to be, the center of Shakespeare biographical research, has become the seat of Shake- spearian charlatanry y ^ This is as strong language as ours, and how far he might have gone in his disclosures we do not know, for this best of the Stratfordian devotees died a few months later, and the Baconian cause lost the chance of secur- ing a valuable convert. Before closing this branch of our subject, attention should be called to the fraudulent attempt to exploit New Place, the "poet's'' residence. It became known that no picture of it had been preserved, and another Stratford "poet," as Knight designates Jordan, produced one and sent it to Malone, who replied that "Mr. Malone would be glad to have Shakespeare's house on the same scale as Sir Hugh Clopton's," and ap- proved having the Shakspere arms over the door. "And yet," remarks Knight, " this man was the most bitter denouncer of the Ireland forgeries ; and shows up, as he had a just right to do, the imposition of *Masterre Irelande's House' with two coats-of-arms beneath it." ^ Malone published the picture as genuine, with the arms, and "poet" Jordan in his pride showed Malone's correspond- ence to "a gentleman." Questioned upon the source of the picture, Jordan mentioned an old plan. At this point the literary antiquary came in, found the plan, discovered that ^ The Stratford Records and the Shakespeare Autotypes, p. 53. London, 1887. 2 Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, p. 498. 262 MYTHICAL RELICS the house which Jordan used as the model for his picture was on the other side of the street from New Place, and had been liberally adorned with imposing gables and other attractions. Exposure followed and Jordan confessed his part in the fraud. THE SEAL RING This ring is said to have been found in 1810 in a field near Stratford Churchyard by a laborer's wife, who, before selling it, immersed it in a bath of aquafortis "to remove the stains of age." It is of gold, and bears the initials, " W. S." It was shown to Malone, who suggested that it might have belonged to Mr. William Smith, an ancient resident of Stratford, and he was told that a device of Smith had been seen which was a skull and crossbones. To this Malone, who had had a wide experience in spurious relics of the actor, judiciously replied that it was unlikely that Smith had two devices, and that "it evidently belonged to a person in a very respectable class of society." This , - I'll THE SEAL RING rmg, however, has no device, the letters being united by lines in a way quite common at the time the ring was found, as well as before and since. It has been adduced, as proof of the genuineness of this relic, that the words, "and seal," in the actor's will, were stricken out of the formula, " I have hereunto set my hand and seal,' which would not have been done if he had possessed one at the time ; ergo, it had been lost. Various other speculations have been advanced to connect this ring with the actor, all of which are ridiculously fallacious. Strangely enough, the discovery was made that a man by the name of William Shakespeare, a name, as we know, not uncommon in the vicinity, was in the field on the day it was found. No attempt, however, seems to have been made to connect him with the find. Of course many people entitled to the use of the initials "W. S." have visited Stratford annually for a long time, and it would not 263 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS be strange if one lost a seal ring; but the whole story is strik- ingly like tales of other "discoveries" known to be spurious, and is entitled to the same measure of credence. To show how little reliance can be placed upon such evidence, a deed of a house on "HenlyStrete,'' near the house of John Shakspere, dated in 1573, when the actor was seven years old, has been unearthed by some "literary antiquary," bearing upon it a seal with the same initials, " W. S. entwined with a true lover's knot." Had this deed borne a date about the time of the actor's marriage, books would have been written not only to prove that the seal was his, kindly loaned to a friend on the occasion, but as unassailable proof that his marriage was an ideal one, even though some of his biographers have inexcus- ably painted poor Anne Hathaway as having blighted his life. THE FURNESS GLOVES Of the same character are the gloves given by John Ward to his brother actor, David Garrick, "On the closing day of May, 1769," with the statement that he received them when at Stratford in 1746 from a person, "William Shakespeare by name, — a glazier by trade." Ward, in a letter to Garrick, said that " the father of him and our Poet were brothers' children." It would be interesting to know the birth date of the father, who by the state- ment of the glazier was the actor's THE FURNESS GLOVES r ^ • i 11 nrst cousm, and supposably a con- temporary. As the actor was born in 1564, a hundred and eighty-two years lay between that event and the date of this transaction. It is also noticeable that a William Shakespeare — not this one, for Ward said that he died about 1749 — turned up in the ring episode, a strange coincidence cer- 264 MYTHICAL RELICS tainly ; besides, these gloves were given Garrick on the eve of his Stratford Jubilee, which gave a stimulus to the ingenu- ity of relic fabricators unexampled in the history of the art, causing everything in the nature of a relic for many years after to be discredited. The very association of these gloves with Garrick should have been sufficient to discredit them; yet Furness prized them so highly that once, when a gentleman ventured to slip his hand into one of them, he could not refrain from an expres- sion of horror at the profanation of so sacred a relic. Such an exhibition of faith in an old pair of gloves, the history of which begins with an enthusiastic and volatile actor who had nothing in the nature of proof to substantiate their origin, is a psychological marvel. To conclude, there is but one authentic relic of the Stratford actor in existence, namely, his will. Even the "silver gilt bowl," no doubt the most cherished heirloom of the family, passed from sight centuries ago. If the premises in Henley Street were the site of John Shakspere's dwelling after pur- chase in 1574-75, we have shown the improbability of the buildings being the same. They are certainly old, and have massive oak timbers, as houses built long after had; but how old ^ If built a century or more after the actor's death, they would appear as they now do, battered and weather- stained. But if we admit that they are these houses, does this help the matter? We have seen that PhiUipps was forced to ad- mit that "neither on any supposition could have been the Wool Shop," though yielding to a tradition originating nearly two centuries after the purchase by John Shakespeare, he quahfied his assertion by saying, "it is possible that one of them was the Birth-Place." This is a surprising admission by one realizing his respon- sibility as an author, and was made only to avoid a vital blow at the most important of Stratford myths. 26s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS All historical students agree that to establish an historical fact documentary evidence is requisite, though they always give respectful attention to well-authenticated tradition; but no evidence or tradition to establish the authenticity of the Stratford relics exists, with the sole exception of the will, so potential are the agencies which Time employs to destroy the works of man. Perhaps, after all, the " Shakespeare Library" is the most shameless display of impertinence in this museum of fraudu- lent relics. True it is composed of such books as the real author of the dramas must have known, but they have been picked up at second-hand as occasion offered, and not one of them is associated with the Stratford actor; yet nine tenths of the pilgrims who visit this strange shrine look upon this puerile exhibit as genuine. How can we regard this flagrant deception but as out- Barnuming our great showman, aptly expressed in the graphic vernacular," the people like to be humbugged and there's dollars in it." Verily, rideret Heraclitus. It is not pleasant to say, but nevertheless true, that the twenty-five or thirty thousand people who annually visit Stratford have exhibited to them relics as mythical as the bones of the ten thousand virgins of Cologne, and the pots in which the water was turned to wine at the Galilean marriage feast. THE IRELAND FORGERIES Let us take leave of this remarkable exhibition of deception and credulity by a final glance at these forgeries. Samuel Ireland, an engraver and author, was in 1794 living prosperously in London with his two daughters and son, Wil- liam Henry, and, being an enthusiastic devotee of the Stratford actor, made with his son, then seventeen years of age, a pil- grimage to Stratford. After the Garrick Jubilee of 1769, the literary world began to awaken to the strange fact that no 266 MYTHICAL RELICS relics of the actor existed. People went there expecting to see the manuscripts of the famous works in his own handwriting with the traditionary absence of blots ; the family portrait, and other relics ; and were disappointed. It soon became impressed upon the minds of the covetous that here was a demand with- out supply. One or two interesting documents conveniently turned up, and gossip had it that other valuable documents had been carelessly destroyed, which suggested that there might be others which ought to be rescued from a similar fate. Ireland, like many another, made his pilgrimage a hunting affair, but bagged no game. The son's imagination, for he was a genius quite the peer of Chatterton, was impressed by what he saw and heard, and, to the surprise of competitors and the admiration of his father, he found a whole copy of ** Lear,*' a fragment of "Hamlet," and some other scraps of interest. He was an artist of the first water, and understood the proper point of pause. The delighted father called in some of the noted experts of the day, who pronounced them priceless. Ex- citement ran high, and when the young man, who was in a law office, took his vacation, visiting a castle in the country, and returning with two whole plays and a variety of docu- ments of which he made a Christmas present to his father, his fame was equal to his father's pride in him. There was in the collection even Southampton correspondence^ the gla- mour of which still affects biographers, and a letter from the actor to "Anna Hatherrewaye, with a lock of the poet's reddish hair fastened thereto with a strip of parchment" — and these lines written by her loving husband : — Is there inne heavenne aught more rare Thanne thou sweete Nymphe of Avon fayre? Is there onne Earthe a Manne more trewe Thanne Willy Shaksperare is toe you ? In fact, a collection could not have been better devised to convince even skeptics than this created by a mere youth. 267 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS One of the plays, "Vortigerne," was put upon the stage April 2, 1796. So eager were people for tickets that many remained in line all night, and the next day, rather than miss its first representation. Young Ireland was behind the scenes, "buzzing like a bee," apparently near a nervous breakdown with excitement; Kemble and Mrs. Jordan had principal parts, and all progressed well until Kemble, con- vinced that he was being deceived, probably by what the lad said or did, repeated a line in the play, "When this solemn mockery is over," with such an intonation of voice that the audience took fire, and by one of those sudden changes of sentiment howled their approbation. In the uproar that fol- lowed, young Ireland lost his head, and the mischief was done. As a result of these remarkable forgeries he lost his position, was disowned by his father, and after a life of forty years subjected to want and hardship, came to his sad end. Yet Ireland's role is still being enacted on a stage with the mod- ern advantages of effective scenery, electric illumination, and stirring clamor of accomplished claqueurs. No. I, from a deed in the British ^^^^^H^V^ {^l Museum. 'fff//t^tf No. 2, from a mortgage in the Guildhall. ^ ^ % Pl^j No. 3, from the will. 3 !^i^^p-nj^ tion in the office of the fW^vfi*^^ (^^M^*^^ Public Records. ^/ ^ ^:::^ No. 5, from a ^ /v^ / ^ X volume of Mon- /f // , / rn ^ / /x- / ^ v- taigne's Essays // / /^ '' "> ^^^-ff^^ i ^ in the British ' / Museum. / r No. 6, from an acknow- ledged forgery of Ireland. l/t^ Nos. 7 and 8, the two last signatures from the will which we believe to have been written with a guided hand. VII A CRUCIAL QUESTION THE SIGNATURES We have mentioned the strange fact that no writing of the actor is known to be in existence unless we accept the signa- tures to his will, three in number, two on a deed and mortgage, and one recently brought to light by Professor Wallace affixed to a deposition in the office of the Public Records in Lon- don, which has awakened a lively interest amongst students because his ability to write his name has been challenged. Perhaps we ought to say that Phillipps has suggested that the words, "By me," preceding the name attached to the will are those of the testator, and to mention a signature in a copy of Montaigne's "Essays" undoubtedly spurious, but accepted by some devotees because, perhaps, it is more presentable than others. Any one unacquainted with late sixteenth and early seven- teenth century script, and especially with the professional court hand, should avoid discussing the subject, and unless the present writer had had a long experience in the study of manuscripts of this period, he would leave the question of the actor's chirography undisturbed. Feeling it possible, how- ever, to contribute toward the elucidation of the subject he ventures to discuss it. There are four signatures of the actor which we claim to be valid, and but four. These are Nos. i, 2, 3, 4, as shown on opposite page. The documents themselves are in the handwriting of law clerks or scriveners. To these we add his spurious signatures, Nos. S, 6, 7, and 8, the two last being signatures from the will which we believe to have been written with a guided hand. 269 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS It is noticeable that in documents Nos. i and 2 the word signed" is omitted and only the word "sealed" used, a fact which has raised in some minds the har- rowing doubt as to the ^ ^ % ability of the grantee ^ w^ ^' and mortgagor to write his name. The fact, 1 CU t^^j ^hat the name in both documents is ab- JTS >fip ^T' breviated is suggestive. 41k, A, C^ (^ ^p. 8j. Sz. ^? J J ^ 1? Solicitors were so accus- tomed to have clients who could not sign their names A jS • to papers that they were * • ^ constantlywriting their sig- natures for them, usually with a mark as is done now ; but a genuine signature, hough abbreviated, would pass muster. The differ- ences in the signatures of SEPARATE LETTERS IN THE FOUR ^.Up c\cfnr h;i<5 XYiTiAe SOTTIP AUTHENTIC SIGNATURES ^nc actor nas maae some X, as Malone saw the preceding S. . beUeVC that thcy WCrC UOt y. as Steevens traced the S in first signature to will. -^-.'^^.p^ U^ ^Up camP h;inH 2. a suggestion of its original form. Note the last S Wniten Dy tllC bdlllC liailU. in the line, from Sadler's signature as a witness to will. Tr-.r£»n \/[ r (^PrviliQ ^ In the third a the stroke which makes it resemble the i->VCll iVll. VJClVdia, d letter A was caused by a slip of the clumsy hand, as was StratfordiaU, makcS this the fourth. ' Startling admission: — Looking at them from the point of view of character, nobody would say that they were from the same pen, and written within a short time of one another. Gervais, however, suggests no solution for this disparity, and without explanation concludes them to be genuine signatures 270 A CRUCIAL QUESTION of the actor. Mr. Lawrence informs us that the signatures to the deed and mortgage have been discredited by officials of the institutions where they are lodged. The writer, however, must agree with Mr. Gervais, that they are genuine, and can see no reason why he should pronounce them radically unlike. Let us first consider the signature (No. 5) in the volume of Florio's translation of Montaigne's "Essays" of 1603, and that in the office of the Public Records. The name in the "Essays" is written on one of the blank leaves of the volume among a number of quotations from Latin authors which are in a handwriting quite unlike that of the signature. Mr. Gervais, who has already been quoted, battles valorously for the genuineness of this signature, but, unfortunately, like everything connected with the Stratford actor, it is a fraud too glaring to receive credence. In the first place, it differs radically from the four genuine signatures, and has all the ear-marks of a none too ingenious forgery of a like character to the Ireland forgery (No. 6) ; besides, it is imposing too great a strain upon our credulity to ask us to believe that for two centuries this book could have remained in the hands of bookmen, — for else it had perished, — and a signature, so very important and valuable as this purported to be, pass unnoticed. Phillipps is the best authority we can quote, for while an ardent lover of the "Shakespeare" Works, and a thorough believer that the Stratford actor was their author, he always acts on the presumption that it is better for his client to have even unpleasant facts affecting him fairly stated by a friend, than to have them concealed to be exposed by an enemy. Respecting this signature he says : — It is unnecessary to say that many alleged autographs of Shakespeare have been exhibited; but forgeries of them are so numerous, and the continuity of design, which a fabricator can- not readily produce in a long document, is so easy to obtain in a mere signature, that the only safe course is to adopt none as genuine on internal evidence. 271 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS This signature did not come to light until 1780, which was after the publication by Steevens of a facsimile of the actor's autograph. Soon after its appearance Shakspere autographs began to appear, often on the fly leaves of old books, one turning up on a copy of Bacon's "Essays" forged by the Stratford rhymester Jordan, who died in 1789. Whether this is his handiwork, it is impossible, of course, to determine, but that it is a forgery there should be no doubt. Phillipps sor- rowfully gives it up "with great reluctance, for it would be well to know that there exists one work, at least, which the great poet handled." Of course forgeries of the actor's name were varied to avoid the suspicion of being copies, and the facsimile of the forged signature by Ireland is no more unlike it than the two last so-called genuine ones to the will. Mr. Gerv^ais has carefully transcribed the quotations which appear on the blank pages of the old volume of Montaigne, and parallelled them with passages in the "Shakespeare" Works. The present writer has already done the same, for there can be no doubt that the author of these works was a close student of Montaigne. Gervais also gives a facsimile page from Bacon's " Promus," in order, it would almost seem, to intimidate partisans of Bacon from claiming that the hand- writing is his, for jotting down such quotations for future use is wonderfully suggestive of that great author. In this con- nection Mr. Gervais says, — Having . . . established a prima facie case, and shifted the burden of proof on to my opponents, who, I hope, will not spare me, I shall show, by a comparison of the various specimens of handwriting, that there is no reason to doubt and, in fact, every reason to believe, that the writings in the Montaigne came from the same hand that penned the five legal signatures, and, in any case, not from that of Bacon. ^ Mr. Gervais permits his enthusiasm to urge him beyond the pale of safety ; indeed, it is surprising that with the quota- ^ Francis P. Gervais, Shakespeare not Bacon, p. 4. London, 1901. 272 A CRUCIAL QUESTION tions on the blank leaves of the Montaigne, and a page of the "Promus'' before him, he could so positively declare that they were unlike, and that the quotations were in the same handwriting as the Shakspere signature which they are so ^^'fHi O-ryfiO oclaCv^ VOn.cL 6o*i^i Qlc^U^ Jet. AA^caJu •rrteci Lj /^fHi ^iffm €, i \/h' 9H4f ^'s^ c^ j^di'€,9^*'^' CeiLf^MiM 4^ A«vfW<«f J^iunl *i^>/«4f - ^^ ^/j^'^nK «; ir^t^u^ A^^^ ^/T^ '^ ''^ ALTERNATE LINES FROM BACON'S PROMUS AND MONTAIGNE'S ESSAYS. 1603. wholly unlike. We will dismiss this signature with the simple remark that its presence greatly enhanced the pecuniary value of the book. It sold for one hundred and thirty-five pounds, and is to be classed among other forgeries of a like nature. It is noticeable, amusingly so, that since it is more like a re- spectable signature than others it is being frequently used by partisans of the Stratford myth in their books, and a plausible 273 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS article has been written to prove that the intrinsic value of the book without the signature would equal its cost, a wholly- gratuitous assumption. The quotations, Mr. Gervais says, are not in Bacon's handwriting. Why should he have thought of Bacon in con- nection with the book unless they were strongly suggestive of him ? To show that they were not only of the same nature as the " Promus," but that the chirography is Bacon's, we have reproduced them in alternate lines. (See p. 273.) In doing this it should be remarked that few men write always pre- cisely the same. We should also remember that Bacon wrote two distinctly different hands ; one the flowing court hand, the other the so-called Italian hand which looks like copper- plate, and which at times exerted an influence upon the former. His correspondence, too, at different periods of life shows the most marked differences, as the exhibits here given prove. Certainly this comparison will raise in every mind the pregnant question, Was not this volume of Montaigne bearing apothegms for future use, for which Gervais has found parallels in the "Shakespeare" Works, really the property of Bacon? The consensus of opinion is likely to be that Mr. Gervais's argument spoils the defendant's case. Let us now consider the genuine signature (No. 4), dis- covered by Professor Wallace, of the University of Nebraska, who says, with the familiar abandon of Knight, Gervais, and other devotees of the Stratford actor: — I have the honor to present Shakespeare as a man among men. He is here as unmythical as the face that speaks living language to you across the table or up out of the jostling street. He is as real and as human as you and I who answer with word, or touch, or look.'^ ^ Wallace, "New Shakespeare Discoveries," Harper's Magazine^ March, 1910. 274 ^ I ^cx-^-^^ J^*<^ SPECIMENS OF BACON'S HANDWRITING {showing variations) A CRUCIAL QUESTION FACSIMILE OF THE ACTOR'S SIGNATURE IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE. LONDON FACSIMILE OF DEPOSITION OF NICHOLAS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE. LONDON THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS When we read this, in spite of the fact that we had read so many unintentional fictions of enthusiastic Stratfordians, how our blood pleasurably tingled. We were now to look upon an undoubted signature of this hitherto Elizabethan sphinx, and to see him face to face. He was no more to elude us. We would forget our past doubts, — yes, all of them, — for we want our faith back again, the faith of our childhood and youth and early manhood, when we looked upon the signa- tures to the will at Stratford-on-Avon with awe, and discussed the queer fads of our forefathers, who were wont to sign the several pages of their wills with their names all spelled differ- ently and in different handwriting. How eagerly, too, we regarded the expressionless face in the church, and the por- traits so unlike it in the Folio which was shown us, though both were familiar in volumes of the beloved dramas. Ah! how hard is this loss of early faiths ; but now, let Bacon go hang, we are to have this one, at least, restored. We turn eagerly to the facsimile of the signature, and, lo ! it is another abbreviated affair of the same nature as the Guildhall and Museum scrawls, and sure to be claimed by some as having been written by the solicitor who wrote the depositions ; indeed we find that Sir Edwin Durning Lawrence has come to this conclusion, namely, that "Shackp," for this is the signature, is in the same handwriting as the de- position. This, however, is doubtful, for comparison with the other abbreviated signatures discloses resemblances too marked to be ignored. The production, however, of this sig- nature by Professor Wallace and the disclosure of its writer's place of abode, in one of the obscurest parts of London, among associates so unlike those with whom his speculative biographers have hitherto attempted to surround him, is not calculated to strengthen the Stratfordian cause ; in fact, a few more such discoveries would place it in a weaker position, if possible, than it now occupies. 276 A CRUCIAL QUESTION THE WILL AT DOCTORS* COMMONS, LONDON, PROBATED JUNE 22, 1616 It has been claimed that the absence of the word "hand,'' from documents bearing the actor's name, was proof that he could not write it; but on the will the word "seale" was erased and "hand" written above it, which objectors do not seem to have noticed. This erasure and substitution are il- luminating, and raise the query. Did not the law clerk who wrote the Will, knowing the illiteracy of the testator's entire family, father, mother, wife and children, suppose that a mark instead of a signature would be used, and so wrote "scale" only? And is it not as fair an inference that Francis Collins, old and experienced lawyer that he was, knowing the testator as a wealthy citizen of the town, realized the impor- tance, not only of having his signature to the will, no matter how imperfect it might be, but of saving him from the shame of revealing his illiteracy to the world, which testators were loath to do, and so placed the first page of the instrument before him to sign, which he most imperfectly did, and then guided his hand to sign the other pages ? This sanctioned the use of the word "hand" and this view of the question clears it of all difficulties. Let us consider these signatures critically. Phillipps and others, as in the case of the Droeshout portrait, fall back upon them and pronounce them all genuine ; in fact, beyond question. The first they pass by as too obscure to merit consideration. To the writer this signature is pregnant with meaning. True it is impaired by age, but studied with a glass it partially shows its real character. It will be seen that it has a faint resemblance, in spite of its disfigurement, to the abbreviated signatures already con- sidered. These signatures, namely, the two on the convey- ances now in the Museum and in the Guildhall, and the one in the Public Records Office, which are all that are worthy to be considered outside the will, show illiteracy too marked to be 277 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS ignored. As far as known the actor never wrote his name in full. Our opinion is that he could laboriously write this form of his name, as we have often seen illiterate men do, but, of course, not twice quite alike. This runs counter to the judgment of some Baconians who have studied the signatures and pro- nounced them, without exception, written by the law clerks who wrote the documents ; but we desire to call attention to this point; namely, that the educated and skilful man may, and the illiterate and unskilful man — the limit of whose ac- complishments in chirography is a bungled attempt to escape the odium of being a mark-man — will always leave a spoor which identifies his signatures; in fact, chirographic experts proceed upon the theory, that certain individual character- istics will inevitably appear in a signature to guide them to conclusions, just as experts do when an unknown criminal leaves his thumb-mark behind. The particular thumb-marks in this case are in the letter ( ^ and the dot in the loop of the /IjJ^ — a striking- point which the forger would ^ be almost certain to imitate. In the Museum, Guildhall, and Records Office signatures, the letter "S" is evidently made with the intention of continuing the lower limb up and over the top, but with the chance of hitting it by a clumsy attempt, which would, of course, much change its appearance. It will be observed that in the two signa- tures, which we assume were written by a guided hand, the letter " S " is quite unlike those we call genuine. The autograph on the Guildhall document has been tam- pered with. Steevens acknowledged that he placed the "a" over the signature which has appeared in most reproductions since. It was the introduction of this spurious "a" which caused him to triumphantly declare that it was the trap which caught Ireland in his forgeries, he having used it in the same way in connection with one of his spurious productions.^ ^ Cf. Edmond Malone, Esq., An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers^ etc., p. 121. London, 1796. 278 A CRUCIAL QUESTION Before proceeding further let us consider the conditions surrounding the signing of the will. The date when it was drawn, probably under the direction of the solicitor, Francis Collins, who was not a resident of Stratford, was January 25. The testator was then " in perfect health and memorie," which .i.f^ /,.^^^ ^>^h r^y- S)ic^ ^^ FACSIMILE EXHIBIT FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF WILL is unquestionably true, or the solicitor would have stated that he was weak in body, though of sound memory. After the making of the will, which was left unsigned for further consid- eration, the actor contracted the "feavour.*' Just when this occurred we are not informed, but as March drew to a close he was in a critical condition, and Collins was called to have the will executed. There was no necessity for recopying the will, which had been in existence for two months, and it was brought forth to be signed, the date changed, the interlin- eations made, if they had not been made before, which is not improbable, and the actor, holding the pen, began on the 279 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS lower left margin of the first sheet, and painfully scrawled his name in the usual abbreviated manner. The second was placed before him, and he laboriously began to form the letter "W" (please observe the V-form carefully), but bungled so badly that the solicitor, or scribe who accompanied him, took his hand, and, directing it, produced the letter in a form often used by scriveners, ^1/^ ^^^ reaching the final sheet, which required the words "By me," he continued to guide the blundering hand to write these words as well as the final signature. This accounts for the strong resemblance of these signatures to the handwriting of the will which has been observed by experts but never explained; in fact, to prove that the handwriting of the will and signatures are the same, an enthusiastic devotee at the Stratford shrine has written a volume, and, after assuring us that "many love Shakespeare and hate his detractors," who, by the way, are his own disciples, he declares, with the confidence of the book agent, that "happily it would appear that the will itself is his"; ^ that is, wholly written by him. It seems a pity that such experts as this writer. Professor Wallace and Mrs. Kint- zel, cannot unite their psycho-chirographic knowledge for the instruction of the world. Being so largely the work of the scribe the two last signa- tures show that they were dominated by him, yet, at the same time, reveal the uncertain touch of the actor. The "S" should be especially noticed, and the dot in the loop of the "W," which, while not unique with the actor, was a favorite fad mechanically learned, and not forgotten when his solici- tor helped him out with his last signature which he had never before written in full. As has been said, an illiterate man, who can write his name is almost sure to have some particular point the use of which he clings to as the essential token of his cal- ligraphic skill. Whoever taught the future actor to write, per- 1 John Pyne Yeatman, F.R.H.S., Is William Shakespeare's Will Holo- graphic ? London. 280 A CRUCIAL QUESTION haps one of the older boys in the Grammar School, as Phil- Hpps suggests, had a fancy for this dot in the loop, and used it to the admiration of his pupil. Thenceforward, this dot, if nothing else, must be conscientiously enshrined within the sheltering loop to give to his signature the orthodox character ' fSy"^^^"-^ /^^/^^£^ FACSIMILE EXHIBIT FROM THE SECOND PAGE OF WILL which belonged to so important an accomplishment, and if our view of the subject is correct, its final use under the cir- cumstances is somewhat pathetic. This view of the case explains all difficulties which have so puzzled the biographers, and have elicited so many theories. Malone, who examined the will with Steevens, says : — Referring to the first signature, we doubted whether if it were his handwriting, and I suspect he signed his name at the end of the Will first, and so went backwards, which will account for that in the first page being worse written than the rest. 281 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS And Steevens, influenced by overmastering zeal to have a readable signature of his paragon, gives this equally unten- able opinion : — The last two sheets are undoubtedly subscribed with Shake- speare's own hand. The first, indeed, has his name in the mar- gin, hut it differs somewhat in spellings as well as manner, from the two signatures that follow. It is significant that Steevens doubted the authenticity of this signature. He examined it a century or more ago, when it was no doubt clearer than now, and made what purports to be a facsimile of it. We must, however, remember that both Malone and Steevens were wont to take unwarrantable liber- ties on occasion ; Steevens, as before remarked, having added an " a '' to the Guildhall signature,^ and Malone having painted the colored bust of the actor white. Perhaps no one who has impartially studied Steevens's facsimile has had implicit con- fidence in it, though the other signatures we can see to-day were traced with care. Possibly some lines may have been prolonged and additions may have been made to fill gaps. It is unfortunate that we do not have this signature as plain as it might have been at the time it was written, yet nobody should doubt, who studies what we reproduce from the first page of the will, that it was written by the actor. We there- fore feel justified in regarding it as important in our view of the case. It will be observed that in the two reproductions here given, one from the photo-lithograph of the first page of the will made fifty years ago, and the other from Steevens (No. 3), the top of the "S" shows, like the three genuine signatures we have considered, that it was made with the flat of the pen slightly turned to the right, making the ending of the line heavier. Had Steevens carried the top of his "S" as far to the right as it is shown in the facsimile fragment in the will, it would have coalesced with the " h," unless the paper has shrunken since he traced it. This seems to show that he erro- * Malone, An Inquiry ^ etc., p. 18. 282 A CRUCIAL QUESTION neously curved the letter (y), making it a rude figure "8." Let us substitute the fragment shown in the will, and add to it the remainder of Steevens's tracing. This gives us the letter similar to the form in which it now appears in the Guildhall signature, the top of which, however, has been defaced prob- FACSIMILE EXHIBIT FROM THE THIRD PAGE OF WILL ably by age. Malone's example (x) of this letter we believe to be correct, and that the "S" in the first signature (z) was originally similar in character. We have thought it worth while to call the attention of the curious to these points, so that the character of Steevens's tracing may be better understood, for no one studying the subject can ignore it. Phillipps says : — My impression, not lightly formed, is, that the Will was origi- nally executed in January; — that Shakespeare on this occasion signed only the last sheet; that at some time between January and March, owing to the marriage of his daughter, Judith, and 283 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS other circumstances, the whole of Sheet i was rewritten, and two lines of Sheet 2 were cancelled. Upon this hypothesis, and upon no other, can I account for the error in the regnal year, and for the remarkable diversity in the signatures. The signa- ture on the final Sheet I conceive to have been the ordinary au- tograph of the Poet when in health, the other signatures, mere formal attestations of the changes in the early portion of the Will, I conceive to have been written not long before his death. ^ In reply, the common custom of signing each page of a will may be cited, and the question may be asked, if this last sig- nature was the actor's "ordinary autograph when in health," how can we dispose of the Museum, Guildhall, and Public Records signatures ^ Are these his "ordinary autographs when in health".? Other equally untenable theories have been propounded, and all are ingenious beggings of the question. Of the various theories advanced by critics, pro and con, it is not strange that so many adhere to the belief that the actor could not sign his own name, and that they are the work of the solicitors, or lawyer's clerks who wrote the documents. To this, however, the writer cannot subscribe. They were signed at different times and places, and are sufficiently alike to show that they were written by the same hand, and not by different law clerks. Among the many puzzles connected with the actor, the signatures are not the least, and when Wallace so positively announced that at last we were to have a fine autograph of the actor of undoubted authenticity, the disappointment was genuine when the "find" proved to be a very small egg pre- ceded by a very exaggerated cackle. Not that a passably good signature would add an iota to the claim of the actor's devotees that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" Works, but be- cause everybody would be glad to concede to him the ability to write his name, even imperfectly, which so many of the best thinkers now deny him. The mere possibility of such a denial in such a case by men of unquestioned character and ^ H. Staunton, Memorials of Shakespeare. London. 284 A CRUCIAL QUESTION ability is certainly astounding, and hitherto unheard of in the world of literature. When the foregoing was written we had not read Mrs. Kintzel's article in the "Menschenkenner" ^ on the sub- ject, and it seems necessary to consider the theory advanced by this author, which, in our opinion, has been pressed alto- gether too far, namely, that the handwriting of a person, though he he not known as the author,^ expresses his character so fully that he can be identified by it. It is no doubt true that mental characteristics and physical expressions are cor- relative, but when one attempts to trace a psychological per- sonality in the field of calligraphy, he is in danger of becoming the sport of illusions. If a man could write a natural hand, certain superficial traits of character might be suggestively disclosed, but by the writing-master and the copy-book, the natural hand is greatly influenced: Mrs. Kintzel says, "wholly obliterated"; and here it is that the theoretical ex- pert in calligraphy finds his limitation. It is often amusing to see the curt way in which experienced judges treat such ex- perts when an attempt is made to apply fine-spun theories to cases involving identification of handwriting; in fact, jus- tice would not halt if the calligraphic expert was altogether eliminated in trials. To illustrate: Not long ago a person was convicted of murder almost solely on the testimony of profes- sional experts in calligraphy, who declared that a letter accus- ing an unknown person of being the guilty party was in the handwriting of the one charged with the crime. But for this letter there is little doubt that the case would have broken down. The result of the "expert" testimony was conviction, and some time afterwards the real writer confessed to its authorship, having written it in behalf, but without the knowledge of, the condemned. The expert follows in his exposition of a signature what ^ Otto Wigand, Der Menschenkenner. Leipzig, Jahrg, 1909, no. 10. 2 The italics are ours. 28s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS seems a fairly well-defined path. He calls attention to the up- stroke, the loop, its round, flat, or angular form, the uniform- ity or variation of a certain letter, the strength of the hair- line, the use of the dot ; common features in all handwritings, but just such features as most readily appeal to the inexpert juryman, and would be convincing if the judge did not now and then intervene with a searching question calculated to expose the theoretical character of the evidence. We have already remarked that the illiterate man affords to the expert agreeable opportunities, for he is prone to have one or more favorite forms to which he clings as a drowning man to a life- line. He has laboriously learned to write his name under the tutelage of one who has a fad which he loves to display ostentatiously to his admiring pupil, like dotting an "i," adding a flourish, or giving some capital letter a distinguish- ing quirk. An expert writer is less apt to do this, as he has learned, perhaps, from different masters or copy-books, a variety of letters which he uses almost unconsciously. We are led to this repetition perhaps unnecessarily prolix, because of the article mentioned, which is a curious exhibi- tion of futile theorizing on the signatures to the Stratford actor's will. The writer, Mrs. Thumm-Kintzel, in a German magazine attempts by purely speculative methods an elucida- tion of certain obscure matters relating to that much-discussed instrument. Had not several English Baconians applauded Mrs. Kint- zeFs effort, though strangely enough leaving it untranslated, and seemingly missing its point, we should have regarded much of it as hardly worthy of consideration. Setting forth a fairly accurate story of the position of the contestants in the Bacon-Shakspere discussion, Mrs. Kintzel says that "a comparison of the characteristics of the writing of the will," and A study of the handwriting of the age of Elizabeth lead to the following surprising conclusions: — 286 A CRUCIAL QUESTION 1. A "scribe" as writer of the will is not to be considered; {kommt nicht in Frage). 2. The collected signatures, especially the "By me, William Shakespeare," as well as the others, as far as they are re- cognizable, show a clear identity with the characteristics of the writing in the will. 3. The handwriting of the will is of so intellectual and artistic a type, that a Shakespeare may well be considered its au- thor: {das sehr wohl ein Shakespeare fur sie in Frage kommt). To the first point it is to be said that it is characteristic of a scribe's writing; that it reproduces exactly, correctly, clearly, legibly, and uniformly the normal types, and the prescribed calligraphic forms of his age; that it almost wholly obliterates that which gives an individual stamp to the handwriting. Ex- amples of such handwriting between 1523 and 1680 are given which, it is claimed, conform to a uniform scribe type {schreiher Typus) . The handwriting of the will stands in the sharpest contrast to all these types. It is incorrect, often careless, hardly legible, and shows a freedom, extravagance, yes, exuberance of form, such as a scribe would never permit himself. This statement any one by a comparison of manuscripts of this period can satisfy himself is erroneous, for such exuberance of form is common with scribes, as it is with others. Farther, this will was not written at one draught, and in one day, but at wholly different times, and in contrary moods {gegensatzlichen Stimmungen) ; yes, even under bodily conditions, as the sharp change in the size and form of the letters proves. The author then goes into the origin of the opinion that a lawyer's scribe wrote the will ; a quite unnecessary point as the origin of the opinion could be of no weight in determining the fact. The evidence that there were interlineations and changes after the will was draughted appears plainly on its face. There is no mystery whatever about this, and it re- quires no oracle to tautologically assure us that it was not "written at one draught, and in one day, but at wholly dif- ferent times" (in einem Zuge und an einem Tage, sondern 287 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS zuganz verschiedenen Zeiten), as it must have been if not writ- ten in one day. Of Francis Collins, whom some have believed to have writ- ten the will, she informs us that it "shows a fundamentally different type, so as to exclude wholly the possibility of iden- tity with the handwriting of the will.'* Byrde, whom nobody for a moment supposes wrote it, is unnecessarily disposed of, and the origin of the notion that it ^ ■fi^ FACSIMILES OF THE SIGNATURE OF FRANCIS COLLINS was written by a scribe easily run down to a letter by the Reverend Joseph Greene, who made the stupid remark that it was "absolutely void of the least particle of that spirit which animated our great poet," and the disappointment of West, to whom he gave it, that it was not holographic. With respect to the signature of Collins we here produce the only three examples we have been able to procure, one of which is from the will and the other two from documents at Stratford, which show, what every collector and student of autographs is aware of, that some facile writers at times write their names in very different ways. It is certain, however, that Collins did not write the will. We shall show that it was written by a scribe. 288 A CRUCIAL QUESTION Of Malone's conviction that the will was written in the clerical hand of that age, Mrs. Kintzel says that it is hardly to be accepted, however, that Malone, who began his studies one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, and who certainly possessed no knowledge of graphiology, could be so accurately informed as to the characteristics of that age. With hand on heart {Hand aufs Herz) what layman would dare to pronounce with assurance upon a handwriting of the year 1760 as coming from a scribe? and not one graphologist has stud- ied these documents because no one suspected their significance. We must take issue with Mrs. Kintzel in several foregoing particulars. We claim that it is exaggeration to say that "a scribe's writing reproduces exactly and uniformly the normal types, and the prescribed calligraphic forms of his age." The same differences, perhaps in not so marked a degree, exist in the handwriting of scribes, as exist in the handwriting of other facile penmen. Nor is it true that "the handwriting of the will stands in the sharpest contrast to these types''; that is, the "normal types" of the actor's age. The present writer has examined, in English and French archives, many manuscripts of the period from the middle of the sixteenth to the close of the eighteenth century, and asserts his belief that there are no defined limits of life to any large group of letters in existence at a certain period. Some individual letter-forms may not, figuratively speaking, sur- vive, while other associated letter-forms may continue in existence ; hence, the use of the term " prescribed calligraphic forms of an age" is unwarranted. Certain so-called systems of penmanship may come into fashion, and influence preva- lent letter-forms, but not in a sufficient degree to validate the term quoted, and when specimens of the writing of a period, say of a century, are compared, all attempts to apply hard- and-fast rules to define the limits of a so-called " calligraphic age" result in failure. We do, however, admit that the in- fluence of the schoolmaster and the copy-book, not wholly, 289 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS but in large measure, "obliterates that which gives an individ- ual stamp to the handwriting," but for Mrs. Kintzel's theory this seems a dangerous admission. Of course, the layman, however studious, never expects to be recognized in any field by the professional expert who is fain to assume the purple, be his experience ever so limited. Mrs. Kintzel continues : — We now come to Point 2, — the identity of the signature with the main body of the will. Referring to the last signature we see, on the right, certain letters from the Shakespeare signature, "By me, William Shakespeare," and on the left, the identical let- ters from the will. The similarity of form is highly surprising (hochst uherraschend) . Not at all, for while letter-forms change there are tempo- rary fashions in some letters. Anticipating this reply Mrs. Kintzel proceeds to fortify her position : — One can perhaps suggest that it would not be difficult in the case of so small a row of letters to find parallel characteristics with any English handwriting of that time. Let one attempt it and he will be convinced of the difficulty, even of the impossibility of his undertaking. Reference is made to letters in the will as examples: — So any one who has a knowledge of the science of handwriting will agree with me when I say that it is endlessly difficult in the case of the handwriting of an intellectual genius to establish firmly identical forms of any one letter, since the genius {Geniali- tdt) of handwriting consists exactly in creating continually new letter-forms, and new combinations in the joining of the stroke. So the signatures of Shakespeare are remarkably different, and show always another portrait, at least, outwardly. Yes, the actor's signatures are "remarkably different," as we show by placing all the letters in them before the reader, instead of a few selected ones (see p. 270), and if anybody can discover genius in them, he must possess the vision of an archangel. 290 A CRUCIAL QUESTION Mrs. Kintzel continues : — To that come clear similarities in the complete likeness of the signatures (especially of the first of the final signatures) with the will. Here we see : 1. Great distance between the words — noble dignity {Edle Wurde) . 2. Clear concave lines — Brilnetter Type, 3. Stronge change in the direction of the letter-strokes, violence, excitability {Heftigkeit, Erregbarkeit). 4. Uneven placing of letters, now too far apart, now too close together; lack of love of order (Ordnungsliebe) . 5. Horizontal position of the final strokes. A will that knows how to command, and endless other similar traits in hand- writing and character. Mrs. Kintzel calls attention to several specimens of hand- writing in the actor's time for comparison and continues : — The handwriting of the will holds the character, the soul of the artistic creative genius of a Titan, and so I have held it worthy to place it, as of equal birth with the artistic writing of a Beethoven and of a Goethe. — I must for the present renounce going into a discussion of the character of the handwriting, as now only the establishment of the identity is important. The next issue will probably describe the author of the will as to genius, character, temperament, yes, appearance and weakness. If, however, the result of a search for the writer of the will should establish even with irrefutable certainty that it was not from the hand of Shakespeare, no one can force me from the rock-bound conclusion that "Whoever wrote the will, he was a genius!" Had the author of this astounding bit of hyperbole given the ordinary attention of a student to her subject, she would have found that her artistic Titan was no more than an ob- scure scrivener who has left enough examples of his chirog- raphy in Stratford to prove beyond question his identity with the writer of the will. To settle this fact beyond cavil, instead of leaving the reader to depend alone upon our certi- fication of it, we wrote to the secretary of the " Birthplace " at 291 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Stratford, calling his attention to certain documents there, and requesting him to compare them with the will, and to inform us if they were in the same handwriting. This is his reply : — Shakespeare's Birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon, Jan. i8, 1915. Dear Sir: — I have made a careful comparison of the handwritings of the will and the draft of the tithe-conveyance of 1605, and, without doubt, both are written by the same hand. Furthermore both the actual conveyance and the bond from Huband to Shakespeare for the due performance of the contract in the assignment are in the same handwriting. After studying the signatures of Francis Collins, I feel convinced that these documents were not written by him, but that they were the work of some clerk in his employ- ment whose name is at present unknown. I remain Yours very faithfully, Fred C. Wellstood. (Used by permission.) This should settle forever the question of who wrote the will. On the theory that it was written by the man who penned the abominable signatures which remain as evidence of his illiteracy, and the equally untenable one that the artificial Italian signature which Bacon sometimes affected was his natural hand, — both theories the result of inexcusable igno- rance of her subject, — Mrs. Kintzel has won the admiration of some of our all too fervid disciples of German speculative thought. After this display of Mrs. Kintzel's Icarian daring, one can but be reminded of Clelia's discovery of the New Messiah, and, especially, of the studious Stratfordian, who also pos- sessed "a rock-bound conclusion," and proclaimed to the world that he had finally settled the authorship of the plays by finding so many Warwickshire names in them ; but an- other student having produced a longer list of the same 292 A CRUCIAL QUESTION names abounding in other English shires, the rock crumbled. At this point Mrs. Kintzel expresses the hope which all have expressed : — That one page of MS. may be discovered that bears upon the high problems of the dramas; the profound reflections; the being and life of men and the animal world; the circulation of the blood, sickness and insanity; the course of the stars, clouds, and wind; the influence of the moon on the sea, and upon all the thousand things that are brought out with such wisdom in Shakespearian Works. Who can find them? To this a Baconian would reply that all these subjects have been treated in the works of a contemporary in a manner which should be satisfying to an unprejudiced inquirer. It seems evident from Mrs. Kintzel's article, and from others in the same number of the " Menschenkenner," that in the psychology of graphiology the German has outdistanced the Anglo-Saxon, though we have, it is true, indulged in similar pleasing fictions, such as the belief that our revered Agassiz from a single bone could reconstruct a hitherto unknown fish ; but our Teutonic necromancers can, by a deft psychological bit of legerdemain, with a few letters of a dead man's hand- writing resurrect and present him to us in all his pristine beauty or ugliness. Shade of Judge Walton ! who loved not handwriting experts, what would he have said to this .? With respect to the challenge of Mrs. Kintzel we assert as positively that scores of letters of the same character can be found in contemporary or near contemporary documents. What we consider of greater importance is to prove our con- tention that in the two last signatures the hand of the actor was guided. If it were, and it was not uncommon in certain cases, it explains at once how these signatures have lured care- less observers into the fallacious theory that the will was written by the testator. With the two final signatures of the will disposed of, we have, as already said, four of the actor's signatures left, including the first from Steevens's tracing on 293 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the will, which is now almost obliterated, and three others, fortunately, quite legible. Again we want to call especial at- tention to the "S" in each of these, because of the great im- portance which this letter plays in the discussion of this sub- ject. We have reproduced them to show that the actor knew but one way of making the most important of all the letters of his name. He always began by attempting a sort of rude "S" similar in form to the one familiar to him in print, and ended by carrying the final stroke up over it, but in a bungling manner, a form, however, not original with him for it is often met with. That this was the way he made every one of these letters is not only shown by their form, but by the lighter and heavier parts of the stroke. That the formation of the letter ended at the top is shown by the heavier stroke. Compare again these two letters on the Museum and Guildhall docu- ments. At first sight they look so unlike that Gervais and others exclaim that they can hardly have been written by the same hand. Malone, who saw them over a century ago, gives us a facsimile of the one which departs most from the others. Doubtless if the writer had had a pen which flowed equally well in both cases the letters would have looked much more alike. Of course Mrs. Kintzel must have her fling at Bacon, and she produces his signature, the Italian one, which, if it en- shrines any psychological secrets, they are those of the per- son who taught him this beautiful but quite artificial hand. Specimens of this hand, written by others while it was in vogue, could be produced so exactly similar that even Mrs. Kintzel would be puzzled to see a difference. Evidently the lady was not aware of the versatility of Bacon, and that the signature under discussion was not his natural hand, so she babbles like this, in conformity with Liebig's spiteful portraiture of him: — 294 A CRUCIAL QUESTION We come now to the handwriting of Francis Bacon. It is in essence other than that of the will. The letters are of a pe- dantic uniformity, the pressure weak and colorless, the uncon- trolled traits of an impetuous temperament are lacking, and we miss almost entirely the curves and rhythms of poet and artist. It shows all the traits of vanity, self-deception, self-seeking, con- ceit, and self-love. We see clearly here an earnest, and for the Shakespeare dramas, a too earnest, witless, and humorless crea- tor, a busy collector of political and legal matters, but a glow of fancy never and nowhere. We see further a noticeable leaning to lack of uprightness, nobility, and untruthfulness. We see the smooth, courtly flatterer, and so much more which we can here only casually point to, and so we ask our graphiological colleagues to pass judgment. And this dreamer soberly declares her belief that by such futile efforts the Greatest of Literary Problems may be solved, and she thus concludes : — Perhaps with united efl'orts, in this way a solution of the riddle, which has till now been in vain, may be found. We have devoted, perhaps, too much space to this fanciful German theorist who has based a defamation of character upon a single signature, and that an artificial one; but in view of the favor with which such work has been received in some quarters, we hope to be justified. Since the foregoing was written " scare " headlines in news- papers and periodicals announce another "Great Discovery of Dr. Wallace" ; "the lively certainty of the exact site of the famous playhouse, the Globe Theater." Yet we are told "That to many the principal feature of the documents now first re- vealed by Dr. Wallace is the proof they give of the eminence of Shakespeare." "Shakespeare was by no means," says Dr. Wallace, "the largest shareholder in the property" under consideration, a fact, by the way, which has always been known. His "eminence," however, is proved by the fact that "in one document he is mentioned alone *Williehni Shake- speare et aliorum'"; and farther, "The date of the building 29s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of the Globe is now for the first time settled within a month or two." Hereafter the eminence of a man should be undoubted if he is fortunate enough to get **et al." attached to his name in a document. It is quite important, too, for the world to know how many inches, or even feet, to the east or north of the supposed site of the Globe the real site was, and the date of its erection "within a month or two." Of course to orthodox Stratfordians like Lee, Clelia, Thorpe, Mrs. Kintzel, Robert- son, this is proof positive that the actor wrote "Hamlet," and we may expect Baconians to be more hotly abused than ever. The fact is, we want as many true discoveries made concern- ing the actor as possible, and will join our Stratford friends in hailing them with unstinted enthusiasm. Thus far, however, such discoveries have materially strengthened the Baconian cause, as we believe all future ones will if that cause is based upon truth; if it is not, it will inevitably and justly fail, for truth is invincible and opinion a passing breath. FRANCIS BACON (By Passe) \ :li AT TWELVE AT EIGHTEEN VIII FRANCIS BACON, VISCOUNT ST. ALBANS, BARON VERULAM OF VERULAM In sketching the life and character of a man, especially if he has been fortunate enough to be both praised and blamed, one cannot be too vigilant in avoiding bias, an infection from which biographers rarely escape. Several biographies and sketches, more or less complete, of the life of Francis Bacon, have been written: the first by Rawley, his private chaplain; then, by Boener, his physician; Campbell, Montagu, Fowler, Abbott, Garnett, and notably by Spedding, who has also given us many of his letters. The best test of a man's character and worth should be found in the testimony of contemporaries, and of these we have a cloud of unimpeachable witnesses to Francis Bacon's transcendent genius, righteousness, and altruism, — Rawley, Boener, Matthew, Fuller, Aubrey, and many others, — Aubrey making the sweeping declaration that "All who were good and great loved him." Some modern writers, however, have seen in him nothing, and others everything, to commend. To un- derstand this we must recognize the fact that the human mind, with rare exceptions, is subconsciously or by transmission from some other mind that has adventured into the same field which it is exploring, sensitively alive to suggestion which is readily transformed into theory unless restrained. Such a mind when it undertakes to delineate a dead man's character, with little beside his correspondence with various people, with some of whom he can be familiar, while with others he must be reserved or evasive, complaisant or aggressive, is sure to pro- duce a portrait which would be unrecognizable to a contempo- rary. Especially is this true if his subject has figured in the 297 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS political life of his time, no matter how righteous he may have been; indeed, the righteous often furnish a better target to the defamer than the unrighteous. A fair example of this is furnished by two among Bacon's biographers, one of whom, Dixon, ^ has grossly overpraised, and the other, an anony- mous but able writer, has as grossly abused, him.^ Two German writers have especially made Bacon the sub- ject of animadversion, Liebig and Diihring.^ Says Fowler of the former, " Baron Liebig, whose diatribe affords an example of literary animosity which is fortunately rare in recent times, condemns almost all his logical precepts as antiquated or worthless." * These writers have largely influenced German opinion upon the subject, and added a keener edge to German contempt of English thought. Yet may we not ask how far they have advanced in the field of metaphysical knowledge ; how much more have they achieved than the creation of an ingenious scheme of terminology; and if egoism is the fruit of their claim to superiority, is the world a gainer by their efforts ? While Bacon's system may be justly open to criticism as im- perfect, as all systems are, it has certainly the merit of being Christian. We are aware that it has been denominated Machi- avellian, and will quote his own words in disproof: — Wisdom for a man's self Is, in many branches thereof, a de- praved thing. It is the wisdom of rats, that will be sure to leave a house somewhat before it falls. It is the wisdom of the fox, that thrusts out the badger, who digged and made room for him. Men that are great lovers of themselves waste the public. Di- vide with reason between self-love and society; and be so true to thyself as thou be not false to others, especially to thy king and country. ^ W. Hepworth Dixon, Personal History of Lord Bacon. London, 1861. Cf. Story of Lord Bacon's Life, ibid., 1862. 2 The Life and Correspondence of Francis Bacon, etc. Anon. London, 1861. Cf. Diihring, Kritische Geschichte, etc. ^ Justus von Liebig. Cf . Ueber Francis Bacon von Verulam, und die Methode der N aturforschung. Translation in Macmillan^s Magazine, July, 1883. * Thomas Fowler, M.A., F.S.A., Bacon, p. 133. New York, 1881. 298 FRANCIS BACON And this: — If a man's mind be truly inflamed with charity, it raises him to greater perfection than all the doctrines of morality can do; which is but a sophist in comparison with the other. Nay, further, as Xenophon truly observed, "that all other affections though they raise the mind, yet they distort and disorder it by their ec- stasies and excesses, but only love at the same time exalts and composes it"; so all the other qualities which we admire in man, though they advance nature, are yet subject to excess; whereas charity alone admits of no excess.^ Happily there are Germans appreciative of English genius, and we will quote Gervinus, a better authority than those of whom we have spoken. He says, advising his countrymen to cultivate a more intimate knowledge of the "Shakespeare" Works: — A similar benefit would it be to our intellectual life if his famed contemporary. Bacon, were revived in a suitable manner, in order to counterbalance the idealistic philosophy of Germany. For both these, the poet as well as the philosopher, having looked deeply into the history and politics of their people, stand upon the level ground of reality, notwithstanding the high art of the one and the speculative notions of the other. . . . Both in philosophy and poetry everything conspired, as it were, throughout this prosperous period, in favour of two great minds, Shakespeare and Bacon; all competitors vanished from their side, and they could give forth laws for art and science which it is incumbent even upon present ages to fulfil. As the revived philosophy, which in the former century In Germany was divided among many, but in England at that time was the possession of a single man, so poetry also found one exclusive heir, compared with whom those later born could claim but little. That Shakespeare's appearance upon a soil so admirably pre- pared was neither marvellous nor accidental is evidenced even by the corresponding appearance of such a contemporary as Bacon. Scarcely can anything be said of Shakespeare's position generally with regard to mediaeval poetry which does not also ^ James Spedding, The Works of Francis Bacon^ vol. xii, p. 159. Boston, 1861. Cf. vol. IX, pp. 262-97. 299 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS bear upon the position of the renovator Bacon with regard to mediaeval philosophy. Neither knew nor mentioned the other, although Bacon was almost called upon to have done so in his remarks upon the theatre of his day. As Shakespeare balanced the one-sided errors of the imagina- tion by reason, reality, and nature, so Bacon led philosophy away from the one-sided errors of reason to experience; both, with one stroke, renovated the two branches of science and poetry by this renewed bond with nature; both, disregarding all by- ways staked everything upon this "victory in the race between art and nature." Just as Bacon with his new philosophy is linked with the natural science of Greece and Rome, and then with the latter period of philosophy in western Europe, so Shakespeare's drama stands in relation to the comedies of Plautus, and to the stage of his own day.^ The manner in which Gervinus associates the author of the *' Novum Organum" and the author of " Hamlet" is notice- able. It seems hardly credible that Englishmen should adopt Liebig's violent criticism of the greatest thinker of his age, yet several pro-German in sentiment, have accepted and ad- vocated his views. 2 To two men. Bacon and Descartes, has been awarded the distinction of being pioneers in the inauguration of modern philosophy. If Bacon's philosophy is fallacious, as his detrac- tors claim, it devolves upon them to show by what jugglery of logic so many thinkers, unquestionably their peers, have been led to regard him as a leader in the reformation of modern science. Certainly the spirit of his philosophy is admirable ; the construction of his system skilful, and the eloquence with which he interprets it unequalled. An intimate acquaintance with his biographers, and with his works, will alone give the reader an adequate conception of the genius of this remarkable Englishman, whose literary tri- umphs in the world of thought outshine those of Drake on the ^ Dr. G. G. Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries ^ pp. 884, 885. London, 1883. 2 Sir David Brewster. Vide Life of Newton^ London, 1855, for an example of misguided zeal. 300 FRANCIS BACON sea in augmenting the glory of Elizabeth's reign. Our present purpose is not to attempt an extended biography of Bacon, but to present to the reader a sketch of the salient features of his life, sufficient for a proper illustration of our subject, avoid- ing, if possible, exaggeration. We have been surfeited with laudation of the Stratford actor, and realize that should Bacon finally be accredited with the authorship of the "Shakespeare" Works, as seems likely, one may hardly expect a more sober treatment of him. That even now much unwarranted exaggeration is being used in praise of his genius is painfully evident. Bacon without doubt was the greatest genius of his time, and all the merit to which he is entitled should be accorded him, but it is unwise to go beyond reasonable bounds. The human mind from immemo- rial time has been busy thinking, and has had the same prob- lems of life to deal with that we have. One thought has been added to another until some scheme of philosophy, a steam engine, an anaesthetic, a phonograph, has been perfected, or nearly perfected, and the latest mind to which is due the finishing stroke receives the certificate of the Patent Office, accrediting it with originality of invention ; nevertheless, the patentee may not be the original inventor, since, were it not for some one mind in a series reaching far back into the past; we might not possess to-day the perfected thing which has received the stamp of the Patent Office. Bacon has had the credit of being the originator of the in- ductive method of philosophy ; but the nature of this method is so lucidly disclosed by Aristotle as to be unmistakable. Bacon, however, with a wider vision than Aristotle's, per- ceived how it could be fashioned into an instnmient for guid- ing the mind through doubt and confusion to wider realms of knowledge ; in fact, he likened it to the mariner's compass, and, though he called it new, he meant that it was new in the man- ner in which he used it as a universal and infallible guide to truer thought. 301 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS A recent writer, Kropotkin/ discussing mediaeval science says that "Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Copernicus were the direct descendants of a Roger Bacon, and a Michael Scot, as the steam engine was a direct product of the researches carried on in the Italian universities on the weight of the atmosphere, and of the mathematical and technical learning which charac- terized Nuremberg"; and that mediaeval science had done something more than " the actual discovery of new principles which we know at the present time in mechanical sciences ; it had accustomed the explorer to observe facts and to reason from them. It had inductive science even though it had not yet fully grasped the importance and the powers of induction ; and it had laid the foundations of both mechanical and natural philosophy." Bacon was an apostle and ardent worker in experimental science, but not the "father" of it as some aver. It had been practiced in Europe for at least three centuries before his time. There was another scientist, Roger Bacon, whose study of ex- plosives and his anticipations in physical science prove him to have been a master of experimental science in his day. Think of this from his Opus Magnum: He is discussing explosive force to be applied to navigation. Is it not prophetic of the gas motor ? Art can construct instruments of navigation such that the largest vessels, governed by a single man, will traverse rivers and seas more rapidly than if they were filled with oarsmen. One may also make carriages which, without the aid of any animal, will run with remarkable swiftness. His studies in astronomy, optics, and chemistry, we have not space to discuss, though in an extended biography of Francis Bacon it would be interesting as showing his indebt- edness to Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and other scientists of the Middle Ages. But none of these was 1 Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution^ p. 215. New York, 1902. Cf. Brother Potamian, F.S.C., The Makers of Electricity. London, 1909. 302 FRANCIS BACON the "father" of experimental science. This is what Roger Bacon says of his great predecessor, Petrus Peregrinus, who wrote on the magnet in 1269: — I know of only one person who deserves praise for his work in experimental philosophy, for he does not care for the discourses of men and their wordy warfare, but quietly and diligently pur- sues the work of wisdom. Therefore, what others grope after blindly, as bats In the evening twilight, this man contemplates in all their brilliancy because he is a master of experiment. Hence, he knows all of natural science, whether pertaining to medicine and alchemy, or to matters celestial or terrestrial. He has worked diligently In the smelting of ores, as also In the working of min- erals; he is thoroughly acquainted with all sorts of arms and Im- plements used In military service and In hunting, besides which he Is skilled In agriculture and in the measurement of lands. It Is impossible to write a useful or correct treatise In experimental philosophy without mentioning this man's name. Moreover, he pursues knowledge for its own sake; for if he wished to obtain royal favor, he could easily find sovereigns who would honor and enrich him.^ Experimental science, however, was not original even with Petrus, as could be shown if space permitted, and it were pro- per to tax the reader's patience further. Suffice it to say that it is unwise to claim too much for Francis Bacon, and though his genius surpassed that of his day, we are sure to be criticized before we finish for according him more than his due. Let us now glance briefly at the outlines of his career before taking up the consideration of his works. If WiUiam Shakspere of Stratford has been misrepresented and abused, as some aver, Francis Bacon of St. Albans has suffered tenfold more from misconception and slander. Both, too, have been extolled beyond measure by fervid admirers. Bacon was nearly four years the senior of the actor, having been born in London, January 22, 1560-61. The home of Sir Nicholas Bacon and his wife was a model ^ James J. Walsh, LL.D., The Popes and Science, p. 288. New York, 1911. 303 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS English home of the period. Both were devoted Puritans, and their household was ruled in accordance with the strict princi- ples of that faith. The official position held by Sir Nicholas, that of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, his high reputation for probity and learning, and the literary accomplishments of his wife, who was noted for her linguistic attainments, drew about them the best men and women of the time. It was in such a home, pervaded by an atmosphere well suited to their social, intellectual, and religious development, that Anthony Bacon and the subject of this sketch were reared. Lady Bacon was the governess to Prince Edward, the brother of Mary and Elizabeth, and Sir Anthony Cooke, her father, was his tutor, so that during her life she was associated intimately with the family of Henry VIII. Bacon's remark- able wit was recognized in an age when wit was practiced as a fine art. In him it was spontaneous, and from the evidence of contemporaries must have been phenomenal. In early youth he was under influences which fostered the development of this inherent talent. It was in the family of Henry VIII that John Heywood occupied the position of Court Jester. Being of good family, and a great wit, he was a favorite with those who frequented the court. With him Lady Bacon was associated in the King's family, and later in the service of Mary and Elizabeth, so that her children must have been familiar with his witty sayings. We shall speak of Heywood later. Of the more intimate life of Francis Bacon during his early youth we can say little, though we might adopt the plan of Knight, and associate him with the life of the metropolis, as well as with that of Warwickshire where Lady Bacon had relatives among the county families, which made him and Anthony familiar with that interesting county. The letters of Lady Bacon reveal to us that her motherly care of them continued as long as she was able to exercise it. Such notes as this accompanied little presents of game or fruit; "I trust you, 304 FRANCIS BACON with your servants, use prayer twice in a day"; and "The Lord direct you both with his holy spirit." ^ Bacon was a precocious genius from his earliest years. At the age of ten Rawley tells us, "That he delivered himself with that gravity and maturity above his years, that Her Majesty would often term him *The young Lord Keeper.'" It is a suggestive fact that his bust was made before he was twelve years of age and his portrait painted before the age of eighteen. Anthony Bacon, a most promising youth, and older than Francis, was never honored by bust or por- trait. Under the rigid tuition of Lady Bacon he was able to enter Trinity College, Cambridge, at the age of twelve years and three months, where he studied under the stern Whitgift; three years later he was admitted with Anthony "de societate Magistorum" at Gray's Inn. Rawley tells us that about this time he had discarded the philosophy of Aristotle, because of its "unfruitfulness," though he had a high regard for the in- tellectual ability of its author.^ At sixteen he was sent by the Queen to France, where, under the diplomatic tutelage of Sir Amias Paulet, he spent several years in the splendid but cor- rupt court of Henry III, having ample opportunity, of which he availed himself, to study the political craft of Catholic and Huguenot, visiting their camps, and acquainting himself with their leaders and their motives, all the while subject to the wiles of the beautiful and frail women of Henry's licentious court, who took delight in striving to make conquest of the witty and virile young Englishman, who, living in the pure atmosphere of Lady Paulet's English home, which she had transplanted into that rank soil, was, like another Adonis, proof against the glamour of illicit love, though it would not be strange, if it were true, that he lost his heart to Margaret of * James Spedding, The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon, vol. i, pp. 113, 119. London, 1861. 2 Spedding, The Works, etc., vol. i, pp. 37 ^f seq. 30s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Valois, the young queen of this court of beauty, for it has been said that no man could resist her fascinations. Paulet arrived at Calais, September 25, 1576, proceeding with his entourage directly to the French Court, and Bacon, then in his seventeenth year, with an intellect of abnormal activity, a mind stored with the learning of the age, confident in himself, and fearless in expressing his opinions though they failed to coincide with scholastic precedents, came at once into an atmosphere wholly novel to him except in dreams. He had come from a court where the vehicles of thought were cumber- some and unwieldy, in which the best educated and most polished courtiers surrounding royalty held poetry and art in light esteem. In a work which has been ascribed to Bacon we find this : — It is hard to find in these days of noblemen or gentlemen any good mathematician, or excellent musician, or notable philoso- pher, or else a cunning poet. I know very many notable gentle- men in the Court that have written commendably and suppressed it again, or suffered it to be published without their own names to it, as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned, and to show himself amorous of any good art. The scorn and ordi- nary disgrace offered unto poets in these days is cause why few gentlemen do delight in the art.^ Sidney about the same time speaks of " Idle England which now can scarce endure the pain of a pen," and "poetry is fallen to be the laughing-stock of children." ^ This may seem exag- gerated, but it is certainly significant of the intellectual con- dition of England in the sixteenth century, especially in its application to belles-lettres. In the Court of France Bacon found a life vibrant with the spirit imparted to it by Ronsard, chief of that tuneful fellow- ship, the Pleiade, whose ambition it was to rival Homer and Virgil, but whose seat of honor in public esteem was then be- ing shared by Du Bartas, then in the zenith of his fame; in ^ George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, p. 4 et seq. London, 1869. 2 Sir Philip Sidney, Defense of Poesie, pp. no, 62. London. FRANCIS BACON fact, the soul of this English youth, upon whom Rawley says, "there was a beam of knowledge derived from God," re- sponded to the music of the sonnets and hymns, and odes of the "Immortals" who dominated France, and inspired him to bear to his own countrymen that torch, which, first lighted in Italy, was now irradiating France. In Du Bartas, Baif, D'Aubigne, and others of that type, he found congenial spirits. Ronsard was still living, but his rival, Du Bellay, was no more. His works, however, survived, and it is a suggestive fact that in 1591 appeared the "Ruines of Rome" ascribed to Spenser. This was a translation of Du Bellay's "Antiquites de Rome," and it is said had been circu- lating anonymously in manuscript according to a common custom of the time.^ Bacon has shared with others the honor of being a leader in the literary awakening of England in the later years of the sixteenth, and the early years of the seventeenth centuries. Says Ben Jonson, "About his time were all the wits born that could honour a language." It is true that already some beams of the quickening light of the Renaissance had found their way across the Channel, but of late, as his life has been more closely studied, it is coming to be acknowledged that Bacon was the Ariosto who bore aloft the torch which ushered its fuller glories into England. It is this which we must bear in mind whenever we undertake to study the so-called secret of his life. It is instructive to note how closely the enthusiastic youth followed the rules of the Pleiade: "They are to accustom themselves to long and weary studies, to imitate good authors, not merely in Greek and Latin, but in Italian, Spanish, or any other tongue where they may be found " ; nor did he fail to remember that striking phrase in the rules, ''Car ces sont les ^ We are aware of the claim, often repeated, that the translator of the Ruins of Rome was identical with the translator from the Antiquites^ of The Theatre for Worldlings in 1569, but there is no evidence of this. 307 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS ailes dont les escripts des hommes volent aux ciels^' which later appeared in the drama of Henry VI , " For knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven/' So closely did he follow the rules we have quoted that he was obliged to deny himself to friends who called upon him at Gray's Inn because of his close application to study. We know how he appeared at this time, for it was on his return from France that his portrait was painted by Hilliard bearing the inscription, "Sz tabula dignat animum mallem'' ("If we could but paint his mind"), a sentiment which long after Ben Jonson used in his lines on the Droeshout portrait of the Stratford actor. Was it not natural for this splendid youth, who saw in progress with his own eyes what Saintsbury saw completed later, that "The whole literature of the French nation, at a time when it was wonderfully abundant and vigorous," was being "Ronsard- ised," to ask. Why should not the literature of the English nation be Baconized.^ Here is the secret of Bacon's life, and we shall see how by methods, often indirect, he accomplished his purpose, though insurmountable obstacles lay across his path. That he was the moving and directing spirit in that ad- vancement of learning in England in the sixteenth century which has been entitled the Renaissance, there is constantly accumulating evidence. It is strikingly significant that this movement was spanned by his life, and, unlike the Renaissance elsewhere in Europe, was confined to literature, his favorite field of activity. Neither in architecture, painting, nor sculp- ture did it find expression by native genius in any degree con- mensurate with that which it found in literature. Where is there a single great name to prove the contrary ? When genius was wanted in these arts it was imported. Each of them needed a Bacon of whom Garnett has said: "Even more than Milton's 'his soul was like a star and dwelt apart.'" ^ ^ Richard Garnettj C.B., LL.D., ei al., English Literature, vol. ii, p. 7. New York, 191 2. 308 FRANCIS BACON It may be well here to speak of the significant fact that North, the pioneer translator into English of "Plutarch's Lives," was with Bacon when attached to Paulet's embassy at the Court of France, and was then about to publish his work. With this undertaking Bacon must have been familiar. It is from Plutarch that so much material was drawn for the "Shakespeare" Works. His sojourn abroad was terminated by the death of Sir Nicholas Bacon, whose principal estate passed to children of a former marriage, and Anthony who received a considerable inheritance. So small was the amount received by Francis that he was straitened for means of subsistence. Equipped as he was,^and possessing a facile knowledge of French, Italian, and Spanish, one might well wonder why the all-powerful Burgh- ley did not avail himself of his talents, but preferred to leave him to his own resources, thereby, to use his own words, driv- ing him against the "bent of his genius" to the humdrimi of the law for a livelihood. The reason for this is not far to seek. In the reign of Eliza- beth ambition and jealousy of a virulent type flourished with- out let; indeed, they seem to have been esteemed virtues by the mass of men. Never was the political game played for higher stakes, too often involving life and death. The "Great Burghley," Elizabeth's Bismarck, directed all the movements with relentless persistence. Even the Queen, wilful, fickle, re- vengeful, and jealous of her royal prerogatives, was guided by him in all her moves, and though on several occasions she at- tempted to act independently, she was ever brought to see that the wiser part was to follow the lead of a better player than herself. Never were the gates to political preferment more strongly barred. Burghley and his sickly, crafty son held the keys, and only those whom they favored could hope to pass ; thus it happened that some of the honorably ambitious and able young men, whom the Queen perhaps smiled upon, failed to obtain preferment, being for various reasons, known only 309 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS to her and her astute minister, undesirable. Such was Francis Bacon, and he must have experienced painful disappointment, when, leaving the stimulating activities of foreign courts, where he had held honored place, not only among princes but in the regard of some of the leaders of European thought, he suddenly found himself hampered by the restraining influence of those holding political power. From what we know of this brilliant, enthusiastic, and aspiring youth, we can but think that they would regard him as one the wings of whose ambi- tion it would be safer to keep properly clipped. From his return to England until the i6th of September, 1580, we know practically nothing of him, except from the "Immerito" letters to his friend, Gabriel Harvey, which we claim to have been attributed erroneously to Edmund Spenser. On that date he wrote Lady Burghley requesting her to speak favorably of a suit he had preferred to her husband. He also addressed Lord Burghley the same day on the subject. We should be glad to know what was the subject of this suit, which we learn from the letter he had verbally preferred to Burghley. That it was "rare and unaccustomed'' and might appear altogether "indiscreet and unadvised," we also learn, as well as that his hope of attaining it rested upon Burghley's "grace with Her Majesty, who needeth never to call for the experience of the thing, when she hath so great and so good experience of the person which recommendeth it." Was this a suit for office, as some of Bacon's critics have offensively claimed.? — though why he should not sue for employment as everybody else was obliged to, we fail to understand. The object of this suit, however, has never been explained by any of his biographers, though curiosity with regard to it has been expressed. Spedding says that "It seems to have been so far out of the common way as to require an apology." That it was for something in the nature of an experiment is implied by the language; if for office would it have been called "rare"? 310 FRANCIS BACON The next letter is dated October i8, thanking him for pre- senting his suit to the Queen. Spedding suggests that this suit may have been "for some employment as a lawyer/' but this seems doubtful, for when he wrote this letter to Burghley, he was but twenty years of age. Spedding says that "From this time we have no further news of Francis Bacon till the 9th of April, 1582." This date he gets from a letter to Anthony Bacon in which his correspondent speaks of having seen Francis;^ hence he infers that during this period he was at Gray's Inn pursuing his legal studies. There is evidence, how- ever, that he was permitted to go abroad ; ^ if so, having made many acquaintances in the countries he had visited only a short time before, he would naturally associate himself with the men who were devoting their lives to the great object which was nearest his heart. The evidence that he did so becomes clearer as contemporary documents are studied. There is an undated letter to him from Sir Thomas Bodley, the founder of the Bodleian Library, in response to one dated at Orleans, "October 19th," the year unnamed, which has hitherto been supposed to have been written him in December, 1577, while he was with Paulet at the French Court. In it Bodley advises him that he has forwarded him thirty pounds sterling, which he tells him is for his "present supply." It would seem that other remittances were intended, for he de- sires him to observe carefully the countries through which he traveled, and to learn their customs, laws, religion, commerce; in fact, everything concerning them, and, he adds, if "You will give me any advertisement of your commodities in these kinds, I will make you as liberal a return from myself and your friends there as I shall be able." It would appear from this that Bacon was being supplied with funds by friends for a special purpose. That this letter could not have been written from the Court in 1577 is seen from this extract from Bodley's ^ Birch, Memorials, etc., vol. i, p. 22. Cf. Spedding, Life and Letters. 2 Histoire Naturelle de M. Frangois Bacon. Paris, 1631. 3" THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS autobiography: "I departed out of England anno 1576, and continued very neare foure yeares abroad." There seems no good reason why friends should have been supplying young Francis with funds when attached to Paulet's embassy. Sir Nicholas, who was wealthy, greatly attached to him, and influential with Elizabeth, hardly would have per- mitted this. It seems more reasonable to suppose that this letter was written later, rather than in 1577. There is a paper once belonging to Bacon containing notes on the state of Europe which are just what Bodley desired Bacon to gather for him, and Spedding places its date in 1582. It seems, therefore, not unreasonable to suppose that Bacon was abroad between 1580 and 1582, and, if so, there can be no doubt that it was to advance the cause which he had under- taken soon after returning from his earlier journey. Was this cause the "rare and unaccustomed" subject of his suit to the Queen through Burghley? Was he so "indiscreet and unad- vised" as to solicit Burghley's support in a scheme for the advancement of learning in England, with all that such a pro- ject implied .f* Burghley was interested in letters; so was the Queen, who was proud of her literary attainments, and even Leicester, who was then smarting from his experiences in the French marriage fiasco, and coquetting with the Puritans, was in a frame of mind which for the moment might have disposed him favorably to almost any diversion. All London was in a turmoil; the French were feared because of the insult that Elizabeth had given them; in fact, England's foreign relations were in a parlous condition, which would have made it con- venient for the Queen to have a man like Bacon, conversant with the languages of her neighbors, in a position to take ob- servations of them at short range. As for him he would be en- abled to renew his acquaintances with old friends, and cement more firmly his relations with the Rosicrucian brotherhood of which we hope to show he was a member. Of such a jour- ney, however, our evidence is circumstantial, though a recent 312 FRANCIS BACON writer, adopting a diary accredited to Montaigne, has given an itinerary of his travels incognito in France and Italy with the supposed author.^ If he made this journey it adds an ad- ditional interest to the "Immerito" letters of which we shall speak later. If Bacon was abroad at any time between 1580 and 1582, he was at home on June 27th of the latter year, for upon that date he was made an Utter Barrister at Gray's Inn. The in- timate relations existing between him and the Queen are dis- closed by a letter of advice written to her two years later. That the imperious Elizabeth should have received it gra- ciously is evidence of her high regard for his talents. In ac- cordance with her habit of applying nicknames to those about her she called Bacon her "watch-candle." At twenty-four he was in Parliament. Seven years had passed since he returned from the French Court, and we know little of him during this period. That this indefatigable worker, who counted the moments of life as precious, was not idle we may be sure, and, as the love of letters was ever a pas- sion with him, we may not doubt that he found solace, as well as pecuniary profit which he sorely needed, in literary pur- suits. That he was disappointed in not receiving recognition from the Queen cannot be doubted. He had been reared with the expectation of filling high places in public life, of which he had had a taste during his residence abroad with Paulet, who had written the Queen unstinted praises of his merits, telling her that he was "of great hope, endued with many good and singular parts," who, "if God gave him life, would prove a very able and sufficient subject to do her Highness good and acceptable service." This was certainly high praise from the prudent ambassador, and should have had effect; but it fell upon irresponsive ears. He had seen tricky and malicious men like Cecil, or coarse and vulgar ones like his rival. Coke, both ^ Bacon in France and Italy, Baconiana, vol. ix, pp. 50, 177. Cf. Preface, Histoire Naturelle^ etc. 313 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS his life-long enemies, advanced to important positions, who, forgetting public duty, prostituted them to ignoble ends, and he could but have felt the injustice done him. Yet from the point of view of Burghley, Leicester, and Cecil, that grim triumvirate behind the throne, they must have had reason to distrust him. They had seen him in youth a student, dreamer, poet, and philosopher in embryo, which betokened in maturity a man of ideas, of independent thought, who might not always conform to the political order in which they, secure in the luxury of power, wanted no suggestion of change. This he understood, and if in later life he wrote an appreciation of Burghley in which he recognized his statesmanship, so con- spicuous to all, and commended him for advancing many who showed ability in maintaining the government to which he himself was loyal, and which Burghley so adorned, it is not strange ; he was great enough for that, and also for extolling the Queen, who, though destructive of popular liberty, was successful in political power. It was the attitude of those in power that justifies Anthony Bacon's sarcastic criticism of the closing days of this reign: — Cog, lie, flatter and face Four ways in Court to win you grace; If you be thrall to none of these, Away, good Piers! Home, John Cheese! The writer is aware that the view here advanced of the Queen and those who guided her is not in accord with some authors, and that instances can be cited to show that Burgh- ley, and even Cecil, extended a friendly hand to him on occa- sions, for it was, and still is, a political maxim, that it is wiser to toss a scrap of meat to a barking dog than to kick him. That Burghley was on friendly and familiar relations with Bacon, admired his brilliant talents, and even possessed his respect and admiration, seems evident; yet it is equally ap- parent that he was instrumental in barring his way to pre- ferment. These seeming contradictions lead to conflicting 314 FRANCIS BACON opinions. Burghley's attitude, and others about Elizabeth whose opinions she shared, may most readily be accounted for by reflecting upon Bacon's own attitude toward the repressive and unjust policies which they fostered. He was a Progressive in an age of hide-bound Conservatism, and favored views which though moderate were more startling to Burghley and his colleagues than the most radical theories of to-day are to the "stand-patter'' and pick-thanks of" predatory interests." They could but distrust him, and though they might maintain those amicable relations not uncommon among politicians of widely different views, they were bound to limit his opportuni- ties for mischief; besides, he must have been suspected of be- ing an anonymous writer of a type of literature distasteful to staid pragmatists and complacent courtiers. He himself de- nominates his assumed disguise a "despised weed," using the word in its then common acceptation of garb or vestment. But even if he had not been radical, or a writer of masques and other trashy literature, — for he had not then gone afield in philosophy, — he possessed traits of character which did not commend him to the exalted positions to which he aspired. Were not all these sufficient to account for the attitude of those in power? It would seem, however, from a letter to Burghley in 1591, that Burghley had aided him in some de- gree, for we find him addressing him as " the second founder of my poor estate." In it he says, "I have vast contemplative ends, and moderate civil ends ; for I have taken all knowledge to be my province"; and "philanthropia is so far fixed in my mind that it cannot be removed." He playfully threatens that "if your Lordship will not carry me on," I will "become some sorry bookmaker." This is remarkable language to a man like Burghley, unless there was some common interest between them, and knowing now what we know of Bacon's literary activities, it is presumable that Burghley had some interest in them. Authors found difficulty in getting their books pub- lished, and relied upon the liberality of those to whom they 31S THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS were dedicated. Many books circulated in manuscript, some of which, finding a patron, finally reached the printing-press. This was the case with the "Shakespeare" Sonnets. "The Arte of English Poesie," which was published by Vantrollier in 1589, now attributed to Bacon, was dedicated to Burghley, who, if he followed the usual custom, contributed to the cost of publishing. This would make the meaning of the letter more apparent; make it, indeed, quite clear if his suit had been for royal countenance, perhaps assistance, in some literary un- dertaking. There can be but little doubt that the Queen and Burghley knew of part of Bacon's literary work. He would keep, of course, his work for the theaters from them, though, at times, they might have had their suspicions aroused; in fact, there is evidence of this as we shall see. Having reached the House of Commons, Bacon no doubt expected to find his way to higher position. He believed in the right of the Commons, and this cause he espoused, thereby justifying the course of those in power toward him. How Burghley and Cecil must have chafed when they heard this eloquent speaker oppose legislation which they proposed ; ad- vert to corruptions in the State, advocate free Parliaments, and many other things commonplace enough now, but shock- ing to the conservatism of his age. This was bad enough, but when he went so far as to declare publicly in the House to the Queen's counsel, sergeants, and barristers, that laws were made to guard the rights of the Commons, and not to feed the lawyers, and should be made so as to be read and understood by all, that they should be reformed by curtailment and vital- ized by equity, he brought a storm upon his head. A few days later he was censured by Burghley and Puckering. But he was not to be intimidated, and when Burghley pro- posed an extraordinary tax to be levied annually for three years, and, supported by the peers, demanded concurrent ac- tion of the Commons, Bacon alone demurred, though Coke had been instructed by Burleigh, in the name of the Queen, to 316 FRANCIS BACON quell all opposition. What! oppose a tax! They stared at one another in dismay ! Yet money must be raised for the public needs. Bacon calmly called the attention of the House to the fact that the Peers had transcended their powers ; that to give was the prerogative of the Commons, to dictate the amount was not within the province of the Lords, and advised against conference upon the bill they had framed. He presented a carefully written answer to the Lords which, after reference to a committee who could not agree, and violent debates in the Commons, was adopted in spite of all the efforts of Burgh- ley. Threatened with the consequences, he maintained the legality of his position, and the result was a reduction of the tax. We must not suppose by his action as a legislator that Bacon was a radical in the modern acceptation of the term. He fully believed in the divine right of the monarch to rule, and could never have questioned the royal prerogative. If we keep this in mind we shall better understand the conservative attitude which he observ^ed on all questions relating to govern- ment. His espousal of the popular cause touched only legisla- tion which ran counter to principles of law. Bacon's service in the House of Commons, to which he was returned by different constituencies for several sessions, cov- ered tho^e stirring times when the great seamen of England were making their discoveries in the New World; the war which ended the sea power of Spain by the destruction of her ** invincible Armada"; the agitation over the Queen of Scots, and other matters of the greatest importance to his country. In this service he won distinction as an orator and statesman, but lost all hope of advancement by the Crown. Myths are known to every student who enters the shadowy precincts of history as having charmed lives. Though laid for a time they are sure to reappear to vex the unwary, and, as Bacon was a man so great and many-sided, we shall meet with them in pursuing his life story, especially where it be- 317 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS comes involved in the mazes of the Essex Rebellion and the unfortunate chancellorship. Just when Francis Bacon became intimate with Essex is conjectural. In 1586 he became a bencher at Gray's Inn, which gave him the right to practice before the courts at Westminster, and probably before this, though some writers fix the date several years later, he became a friend of Essex, who, as early as 1585, was General-of-the-Horse under Leicester, and soon after became conspicuous at the Court. The friend- ship between the two was close, and for several years before the fall of the brave and brilliant Essex, he and Anthony Bacon were closely attached to his interests. The latter had been for many years in the foreign diplomatic service ; in Paris in 1580, and later in Geneva, Bordeaux, Montauban, and else- where until 1589-90. He was therefore well fitted to conduct the political affairs of the ambitious young nobleman. With Francis he carried on a Scriptorium, or Literary Bureau, in which a number of copyists and translators found employ- ment, among them, at different times, being John Davies, Ben Jonson, Hobbes, Thomas Bushell, Peter Boener, probably Peele, Marlowe, and other "good pens," as Francis was wont to designate them. The true story of Essex has not yet been related, but we shall attempt to tell it later. Bacon was not a party to his schemes, and did what he could to dissuade him from his dangerous course, which caused a coolness between them. In his anger Essex ungenerously charged him with having written letters in his name to help him with the Queen, to which he replied that "he had spent more, however, to make him a great servant to her Majesty than ever he deserved, for anything contained in these letters, they would not blush in the clearest light." When the unfortunate Earl was finally arrested and put on his trial, the Queen craftily compelled Bacon to act as coun- sel for the Crown, greatly to his distaste; in fact, he wrote her that, "If she would be pleased to spare me, in my Lord of 318 FRANCIS BACON Essex cause, out of a consideration she took of my obliga- tion towards him, I should reckon it for one of her greatest favors." ^ It was a trying position for him, for the treason with which Essex was charged was a matter of public knowledge. His management of the case is above reproach when studied in connection with the law and evidence. Campbell, whose preju- dice, or carelessness, is too often apparent, perhaps unwit- tingly misrepresents him. He says : — To deprive him of all chance of acquittal or of mercy . . . Bacon most artfully and inhumanly compared him to the Duke de Guise. . . . The Queen wished a pamphlet to be written to prove that Essex was properly put to death ... as In the case of the Queen of Scots she was suffering from a too late repentance . . . and she selected Francis Bacon to write it. He without hesitation undertook the task, pleased "that her majesty had taken a liking of his pen," and with his usual Industry and ability, soon produced "A Declaration of the Practices and Treasons of Robert, late Earl of Essex." No honourable man would purchase Bacon's subsequent elevation at the price of being the author of this publication. . . . The base ingratitude and the slavish meanness manifested by Bacon on this occasion, called forth the general Indignation of his contemporaries. . . . For some time after Essex's execution, Bacon was looked upon with great aver- sion. ^ It seems impossible that Campbell could have known that the Queen altered this "Declaration" to suit her own views and those of her advisers, and that we do not know what portions were Bacon's. Campbell's assertion, too, that "the multitude loudly condemned him," is quite contrary to the facts. The Essex RebelHon can hardly be said to have been popular though he himself was. This must be acknowledged; in fact, one of the controUing motives of the rash and unfortu- nate young Earl in inciting the rebellion seems to have been ^ Spedding, Evenings with a Reviewer, vol. i, p. I So. London, 1881. 2 John Campbell, LL.D., F.R.S.A., Lives of the Lords Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England, pp. 39-43. London, 1857. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS to increase his popularity as well as defeat his enemies. Camp- bell's statement is further disproved by the fact that Bacon was given the honor of a second return to the House of Com- mons shortly after the death of the Queen's former favorite, which hardly would have been done had he been unpopular. Of course the partisans of Essex condemned him as they did Sir Ferdinando Gorges and some of his other friends who could not support him in his rash undertaking; indeed, the "Defense of Gorges" to the same charge of ingratitude to Essex which Campbell makes against Bacon has many points in common.^ The slavish meanness with which Campbell charges him has been repeated many times. Says Fowler, his biographer, "He was generous, open-hearted, affectionate, peculiarly sensitive to kindness, and equally forgetful of in- juries";^ and Spedding, "All that he is charged with is for appearing as counsel for the prosecution. In ordinary proceed- ings in Courts of Justice, appearing as counsel is not consid- ered as fatal to the character of Attorney-General." ^ Pages could be filled with testimony to the same effect ; in fact, a careful reading of Campbell's "Life" fails to sustain the charge of meanness. Tobie Matthew, who knew Bacon intimately, wrote a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1618 describing him. After extolling his great intellectual ability, he says : — He possesses also those qualities which are rather of the heart, the will and the moral virtue; being a man most sweet in his con- versation and ways, grave in his judgments, invariable in his fortunes, splendid In his expenses, a friend unalterable to his friends, an enemy to no man, a most hearty and Indefatigable servant to the king, and a most earnest lover of the public, hav- ing all the thoughts of that large heart of his set upon adorning the age In which he lives, and benefitting as far as possible the whole human race. And I can truly say, having had the honor to ^ James Phinney Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and His Province oj Maine. Boston, 1890. 2 Thomas Fowler, M.A., F.S.A., Bacon, p. 28. New York. ^ Spedding, Evenings with a Reviewer, vol. 11, pp. 64, 65. 320 FRANCIS BACON know him for many years, as well when he was in his lesser for- tunes as now that he stands at the top and in the full flower of his greatness, that I never yet saw any trace in him of a vindic- tive spirit whatever injury were done him, nor never heard him utter a word to any man's disadvantage which seemed to proceed from personal feeling against the man, but only (and that too very seldom) from judgment made of him in cold blood — if he were of an inferior condition I could not honor him the less, and if he were mine enemy I should not the less love and endeavour to serve him.^ After the accession of James he wrote Cecil : — My ambitions now I shall only put upon my pen, whereby I shall be able to maintain memory and merit of the time succeed- ing. ^ Says Gardiner, concerning State papers drawn up by him in 1613 for the King: — To carry out this programme would have been to avert the evils of the next half century. ... It was Bacon's fate through life to give good advice only to be rejected. The failure of Parliament to adopt Bacon's recommenda- tions prompts Gardiner to declare that, Had the management of Parliament rested with Bacon, it might not have been necessary to dissolve it shortly afterwards. ... If James had been other than he was, the name of Bacon might have come down to us as great in politics, as it is in sci- ence. The defects in his character would hardly have been known; they would have been lost in the greatness of his achievements.^ Its sittings were suspended for seven years, and when it met it was to hurl Bacon from office. While Elizabeth had be- stowed upon him some emoluments, she did not, as already said, advance him to the position which his character and 1 A Collection of Letters made by Sr. Tohie Matthew, Kt., 1660. Cf. Life of Sir Tohie Matthew. London, 1907. 2 Spedding, Life and Letters. 3 Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of England, etc., 1603-1616, vol. I, p. 181. London, 1863. 321 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS talents merited. Essex urged her to make him her solicitor, but she refused. This refusal may have been due, however, to Essex himself, whose manner of asking royal favors was sometimes offensive. In 1606, Bacon was married to Alice Burnham. The next year his commanding talents were so fully appreciated by the King that he was made Solicitor-General of the Crown, and, subsequently, Attorney-General and Privy Councillor, be- sides being Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall. In 161 7 he achieved his highest dignity, the position of Lord Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal, and at the same time was made Baron Verulam of Verulam with the title of Lord Verulam. For this position it has been understood that he was indebted to Buckingham, that corrupt idol of a fickle king, upon whom no man could rely when self-interest had his ear. This indebt- edness to Buckingham, however, may have been merely a po- litical fiction fostered by the King to augment the prestige of his favorite, although it is not impossible that Buckingham thought that he might be helpful to his interest. In a short time, it is said, the Chancellor was in disfavor for reproving Secretary Winwood, an intimate of Buckingham, for cruelty to his dog, but principally for opposing the marriage of Buck- ingham's brother with the daughter of Coke. Though the rent in their flimsy friendship was patched up. Bacon, from the many changes he had witnessed, must have felt none too secure in his place. For some time there had been a growing discontent against monopolies which culminated in 162 1 in a popular clamor for a reform of abuses. A Bill of Grievances was drawn up and presented to Parliament. Among those who were enjoying op- pressive monopolies were Buckingham, his relatives and de- pendants. The timid King and his favorite were alarmed, and every effort was made to shift the responsibility; not that the King, who was the chief sinner, was accused of wrong; this would have been treason ; but any harm to " Steenie " would 322 FRANCIS BACON have grieved him sore. Attempts were made to place the blame upon the referees, and those accountable for the form and substance of the King's patents. Bacon was one of the referees, who, seeing that he was in danger, appealed to Buck- ingham, complaining that "Job himself, or whoever was the justest judge, by such hunting for matters against him, may for a time seem foul, specially in a time when greatness is the mark, and accusation is the game." The proceedings of Par- liament are interesting. The conspirators realized that the more interests involved, and the stronger the influences aroused, the better it would be for them. Even Sir Ferdinando Gorges was haled before Parliament and forced to defend his New England patent.^ So the comedy went on, and Bucking- ham became only an amused spectator. Not so the Lord Chancellor. His office was wanted for one of Buckingham's friends. His bitter enemy, Coke, had been disgraced, and was plotting night and day to secure his downfall ; besides, he had Lady Buckingham and other relatives of the King's favorite against him. Coke was considered especially dangerous, as Bacon knew how easily charges of malfeasance could be brought against one in his position. Offices were bought and sold, and Bacon's office, which had a large money value, was needed by Buckingham whose extravagance ever gave edge to his avidity for gold. The result was that charges of accepting bribes were preferred against him. Any one who to-day reads Campbell's account of his fall will find it almost impossible to believe Bacon when he de- clares that For the briberies and gifts wherewith I am charged, when the book of hearts shall be opened, I hope I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart in a depraved habit of taking rewards to pervert justice; howsoever I may be frail, and partake of the abuses of the times. ^ * Sir Ferdinando Gorges, etc., vol. i, p. 50. 2 Lives of the Lord Chancellors, etc., vol. in, p. 107. London, 1857. 323 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS His confession is calculated to give emphasis to one's doubt of the truth of this declaration. To reconcile it with Camp- bell's and Macaulay's statements it is necessary to consider the custom of the time as well as Bacon's character. The office of Lord Chancellor was a lucrative one, being estimated by Bacon's successor, Egerton, as worth annually from ten to fifteen thousand pounds, while the salary paid by the Crown was but enough, theoretically, to supply the incumbent with his official robes. To maintain the dignity of the office was very costly ; hence the incumbent relied upon fees to pay for his liv- ing, his state dinners, and the costly entertainments which he was bound to provide. Bacon had argued for reform of this ancient custom, but it still prevailed when he assumed office. People having business with offices maintained by the fee system were expected to bestow gifts upon their incumbents somewhat in proportion to the importance of their business. It was the custom, too, for the most important offices of the realm to be bought and sold, and it should be understood that Lord Chancellors, Chief Justices, Lord Treasurers, Judges, Bishops and other Church functionaries, received fees, really gifts from those having business with their offices. Campbell says of Chief Justice Popham: — He left behind him the greatest estate that ever had been amassed by any lawyer — some said he earned as much as 10,000 pounds a year, but as it was not supposed to be all hon- estly come by, there was a prophecy that it would not prosper, and that "What was got over the Devil's back would be spent under his belly." And of Coke: — The salary of Attorney-General was only £81, 6s, 6d, but his official emoluments amounted to £7000 a year. . . . When the utter barrister is advanced "ad gradum servientis ad legem," he gives, as the reporters of all the courts never omit to record, a ring. . . . These rings are presented to persons high in station (that for the Sovereign is received by the hands of the Lord Chancellor) and to all the dignitaries of the law, by a barrister 324 FRANCIS BACON whom the Sergeant selects for that honorable service, and who is called his "Pony." ^ Dr. Heylin says of the University of Orleans : — In the bestowing of their degrees here they are very liberal and deny no man who is able to pay his fees. Legem fonere is with them more powerful than legem dicere; and he that has but his gold ready, shall have a sooner dispatch than the best scholar upon the ticket.^ From this it will be seen that the pernicious custom of making gifts to officials in high positions, as well as for schol- arships in universities, was customary. With respect to Bacon, the vital question is, did he receive gifts to purchase decisions in favor of the giver } He himself says : — There be three degrees or cases, as I conceive, of gifts or re- wards given to a judge. The first is, of bargain, contract, or promise of reward, pendente lite. The second is, a neglect in the judge to inform himself whether the cause be fully at an end or no, what time he receives the gift, but takes it upon the credit of the party that all is done, or otherwise omits to inquire. And the third is, when it is received, sine fraude, after the cause is ended. For the first, "The only one implying moral guilt," I take my- self to be as innocent as any babe born on St. Innocent's day, in my heart. For the second, I doubt in some particulars I may be faulty; and for the last, I conceive it to be no fault. Campbell does not show that Bacon received gifts to pur- chase his decisions, the substance of Bacon's first degree, and the only one really criminal according to the custom of the time. He contents himself with quoting Bacon's condemna- tory remarks of himself, and his faith in the "House of Com- mons who prosecuted ; the House of Lords who tried him, and the public who ratified the sentence." It hardly can be conceived that Campbell was not ac- quainted with the history of the last years of James, of the ^ Lives of the Chief Justices, etc., vol. i, pp. 271, 314-15. London, 1874. 2 Peter Heylin, Voyage of France, p. 292; quoted by Campbell. 32s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS mad doings of the corrupt crew headed by Buckingham who pulled down officials, and sold their offices to enable them to live in luxurious corruption ; yet he adds as an additional con- firmation of his faith in the members of Parliament, many of whom were putty in the hands of the Cabal, " But it is absurd to suppose that James and Buckingham would not cordially have supported him if he could have been successfully de- fended." We shall better understand Bacon's state of mind with re- gard to himself if we read what Campbell himself gives us: he says : — He certainly received a most pious education; and if his early religious impressions were for a time weakened or effaced by his intercourse with French philosophers, or his own first rash exam- inations of the reasons of his belief, I am fully convinced that they were restored and deepened by subsequent study and re- flection. I rely not merely on his "Confession of Faith," or the other direct declarations of his belief in the great truths of our religion (although I know not what right we have to question his sincerity), but I am swayed more by the devotional feelings which from time to time, without premeditation or design, break out in his writings, and the incidental indications he gives of his full conviction of the being and providence of God, and of the Divine mission of our blessed Saviour. His lapses from the path of honour afford no argument against the genuineness of his spec- ulative belief. Upon the whole we may be well assured that the difficulties which at one time perplexed him had been completely dissipated; his keen perception saw as clearly as it is ever given to man in this state to discover — the hand of the Creator, Pre- server and Governor of the universe; — and his gigantic intellect must have been satisfied with the consideration, that assuming the truth of natural and of revealed religion, it is utterly incon- sistent with the system of human affairs, and with the condition of man in this world, that they should have been more clearly disclosed to us. Campbell's opinion that Bacon was unduly influenced for a time by French philosophers, meaning infidel speculators, is hardly borne out by records. He had a wide correspondence 326 FRANCIS BACON with men of many faiths ; was a friend of the free-thinking Bruno who visited him in England ; of the Roman Catholic Matthew, and of the French philosopher Montaigne, which somewhat disturbed Lady Bacon who was a Puritan. The fact is, that he was a lover of men, and tolerant of all their faiths, realizing the fact that no human mind embraces all the truth of man's relation to God ; but we fail to find anything which shows that he was unfaithful at any period of life to the car- dinal principles of Christianity. He, of course, studied French philosophers, for we find that he lays it down as highly wise to study the bad as well as the good, that the bad may be under- stood and shunned, but his mind was too stable to be easily moved by mere opinions. This is what he says himself: — A little philosophy maketh men apt to forget God, as attribut- ing too much to secondary causes; but depth of philosophy bring- eth a man back to God again. Campbell, however, amply allows for his seeming slips by this: — Among his good qualities it ought to be mentioned, that he had no mean jealousy of others, and he was always disposed to patron- ize merit. Feeling how long he himself had been unjustly depressed from unworthy motives, he never would inflict similar injustice on others, and he repeatedly cautions statesmen to guard against this propensity, — "He that plots to be a figure among ciphers is the decay of a whole age." ^ And he might have quoted this saying of his : — Power to do good is the true and lawful end of aspiring; for good thoughts though God accepts them, yet toward men are little better than dreams except they be put in act, and that can- not be without power and place as the vantage and commanding ground. Bacon's sudden fall from a brilliant position, where he had received the adulation of the greatest men of his time, which must in the nature of things have appealed to all the passions ^ Lives of the Lord Chancellors^ vol. in, p. 143. 327 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of frail humanity, made him suddenly see mirrored in his heart the faults he had committed. He had been reared in the strict Puritan faith which utterly condemned worldliness and pride of heart, and insisted that its followers who yielded to these sins should humble themselves and confess them. His state of mind is revealed in his reply to the question why he did not attend the coronation festivities after the King had restored him to the peerage, — "I have done with such vanities." Sick and weary of bending the supple hinges of the knee to a ridiculous king and an infamous favorite, as men were obliged to do who ventured into the field of politics, he condemned himself for his folly, saying, "The talents which God has given me I have misspent." True he begged to have his disabilities removed which made men point to him as a disgraced man, and, as Campbell says, he no doubt would have been glad to return to Parliament, where there were so many reforms awaiting a champion. In view of the opinions of Macaulay and Campbell this may seem to objectors a sen- timental attempt to whiten a smirched penitent, but all the opinions of these eminent historians are not of equal validity, as criticism has revealed, and such objectors are advised to seek farther. He has placed his faults under the second head of his table of wrongdoings by judges; namely, "Neglect to ascertain if the cause be at an end where gifts are made." Bacon was notoriously careless of his pecuniary affairs, as so many men of genius have been. An officer of the court received these fees, and out of the seven thousand causes upon which Bacon had rendered decisions, there was but one in which it was claimed that he received the fee himself, and this was in the presence of Churchill, whom he had discharged for malfeas- ance, and Gardner, both tools of the arch-conspirators. The value of this testimony the reader must estimate. It must have been clear to Coke that if this were done by Bacon in the presence of these men, he could not have thought it wrong, 328 FRANCIS BACON for it would have been a greater act of folly for him to have put himself in their power than even Coke would have deemed him guilty of. The attempt to prove that the Lord Chancellor had been influenced in his decisions of gifts miserably failed when two of the star witnesses had to acknowledge that their cases had been decided against them. It may be safely af- firmed that but for Bacon's "confession/' nobody, from a study of the case and a knowledge of the motives behind it, would for a moment sustain Campbell's opinion. Neglect is the substance of his confession ; otherwise how could he say: — I have not hid my sin as did Adam, nor concealed my faults in my bosom. This is the only justification which I will use. And writing to Buckingham he tells him that he had been The jus test Chancellor that hath been in the five changes since Sir Nicholas Bacon's time. And again, — I praise God for it. I never took penny for my beneficent or ecclesiastical living; I never took penny for any commission or things of that nature; I never shared with any reward for any second or inferior profit. This was explicit enough. Bacon was Lord Chancellor a little over three years. His enemies found the few irregularities against him in the first part of his tenure of office, when he was new to its methods, and overwhelmed with work. Not a case was found during his last two years of service. To his diligence in office this letter to Buckingham of June 8, 1617, a year after he assumed office, testifies: — My Very Good Lord, — This day I have made even with the business of the kingdom for common justice. Not one cause un- heard. The lawyers drawn dry of all the motions they were to make. Not one petition unanswered. And this, I think, could not be said in our age before. This I speak not out of ostentation, but out of gladness when I have done my duty. I know men think 329 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS I cannot continue if I should thus oppress myself of business. But that account is made. The duties of life are more than life. And if I die now I shall die before the world be weary of me, which in our times is somewhat rare. It would seem that to make no active defense was thought by him to be wise; indeed, it would have been useless, and possibly dangerous. His office was wanted by men too power- ful to struggle against, and the best policy was to submit. This he did, and, accepting his loss of position, resumed his literary industries, and devoted himself to them with unre- mitting diligence. Bacon has so many eulogists that, in estimating his intellect- ual attainment, it may be wise to listen first to the opinions of Campbell, rather than to those of one having greater admira- tion for his genius. Historical writers always appeal to Camp- bell's estimate of his character, but rarely to his opinion of his genius. While the learned jurist failed to set proper limits to Bacon's frank acknowledgment of profiting by a custom sanctioned by those in power, which he did not approve, he was generous in awarding him the highest praise for intellect- ual ability. He says : — I find no impeachment of his morals deserving of attention, and he certainly must have been a man of very great temperance, for the business and studies through which he went would be enough to fill up the lives of ten men, who spend their evenings over their wine, and awake crapulous in the morning — knowing that if he took good care of sections of an hour, entire days would take care of themselves. All accounts represent him as a most delightful companion, adapting himself to company of every degree, calling, and hu- mour, not engrossing the conversation, but trying to get all to talk in turn on the subject they best understood, and "not dis- daining to light his candle at the lamp of any other." He also quotes from Macaulay, who, censuring him for wasting his talents on "paltry intrigues," renders him the unique tribute of possessing " the most exquisitely constructed 330 FRANCIS BACON intellect that has ever been bestowed on any of the children of men." Garnett calls him "the greatest intellect of his age"; and observes that It is characteristic of the duality of his nature, that his intel- lectual conscience did not mislead him, and even gave him strength to rejoice at the purification of justice, though to his own shame and detriment.^ Macaulay says : — In his magnificent grounds he erected, at a cost of ten thou- sand pounds, a retreat to which he repaired when he wished to avoid all visitors, and to devote himself wholly to study. On such occasions, a few young men of distinguished talents were some- times the companions of his retirement, and among them his quick eye soon discerned the superior abilities of Thomas Hobbes. It is not probable, however, that he fully appreciated the powers of his disciple, or foresaw the vast influence, both for good and for evil, which that most vigorous and acute of human intellects was destined to exercise on the two succeeding generations. ^ Who were these young men but those being fitted for the fraternity, which with unselfish devotion was to spread learn- ing abroad ? Every scrap of the large bulk of manuscript material which the Bacons have left ought to be printed. Various hints can be gathered from them which will throw light on their ac- tivities. Note these: — Layeing for a place to command wytts and pennes, Westmin- ster, Eton, Wynchester, spec(ially) Trinity Coll., Cam., St. John's, Cam. : Maudlin Coll., Oxford. Qu. Of young schollars in ye universities. It must be the post nati. Giving pensions to four, to compile the two histories, ut supra. Foundac: Of a college for inventors. Library, Inginary. Qu. Of the order and discipline, the rules and prsescripts of their studyes and inquyries, allowances for travelling, intelli- gence, and correspondence with ye universities abroad. Qu. Of the maner and praescripts touching secresy, traditions and publication, * English Literature J p. i6. ^ Essays, p. 303 et seq. THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Here we get a glimpse of his work. Says Spedding: — In him the gift of seeing in prophetic vision what might be and ought to be, was united with the practical talent of devising means and handling minute details. He could at once imagine, like a poet, and execute like a clerk of the works. Upon the conviction, "This may be done," followed at once the question *'How may it be done.^" Upon that question answered, followed the resolution to try and do it.^ Bearing this in mind, we invite the reader to note carefully the following passage from "The New Atlantis": — The end of our Foundation is the Knowledge of Causes and secret motions of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of hu- man empire, to the effecting of all things possible. . . . That Bacon was a pioneer in the assertion of popular rights is shown by his record. It is said that after his insistence upon the rights of the Commons, the Queen sent an angry message to him to the effect that he might never expect from her fur- ther favor or promotion. Macaulay comments upon this as follows : — The young patriot condescended to make the most abject apologies: — the lesson was not thrown away. Bacon never offended in the same manner again. "And yet," says Spedding, "this letter is a justification and no apology, " ^ and Abbott, " It is worthy of note that among the many expressions of regret at the royal displeasure, there is no record of any apology tendered by Bacon for his speech." ^ There can be no doubt that Macaulay has misinterpreted Bacon's letter. That no man could be advanced to office in the reign of Elizabeth without being subservient to the Crown cannot be denied. Campbell says of Coke that though he "was known to be an incarnation of the common law of England," * The Works, etc. 2 Life and Letters, vol. i, p. 233. ' Introduction to Bacon's Essays^ vol. i, p. xxix. 332 FRANCIS BACON he could not have attained a high office "without . . . hav- ing given any sure earnest of sound political principles"; and he calls attention to the fact that when new Speakers of the House of Commons made the usual request for liberty of speech and ancient privileges, she sharply admonished them " to see that they did not deal or intermeddle with any matters ^^ touching her person or estate, or church or government." ^ ^ This was demanding the exercise of "sound political princi- ples" with a vengeance, for it might be stretched to apply to almost any subject. Macaulay declared before his death that he regretted hav- ing so severely censured Bacon. It would appear that he be- gan to realize the theoretical nature of his writing which had been sharply criticized. Though a fascinating writer, he was apt to permit his fancy for rhetoric to beguile him, hence he is not always a safe guide. His pride of opinion and intolerance of views differing from his own are exemplified in his over- sharp criticism of Montagu's work. Had Macaulay read Fuller, who, after speaking of Bacon's education and talents, pays him the compliment of reducing " Notional to Real and Scientifical Philosophy " ? Says Fuller : He was afterwards bred in Gray^s Inn, in the Study of our Municipal Law, attaining to great Eminency, but no Preferment thereon, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth; Imputable to the envy of a great Person, who hindered his rising, for fear to be hindered by him if risen and Eclipsed in his own profession. Thus the strongest zuing of merit cannot mount, if a stronger weight of malice doth depress it. Yet was he even then Favorite to a Favorite, I mean, the Earl of Essex, and more true to him than the Earl was to himself. For finding him to prefer destructive before dis- pleasing Counsel, Sir Francis fairly forsook, not his person, (whom his pity attended to the grave) but practices, and herein was not the worse friend, for being the better subject. — Such as con- demn him for pride, if in his place, with the fift part of his parts, had been ten times prouder themselves; he had been a better ^ John Campbell, The Lives of the Lord Justices, etc., vol. i, pp. 218, 224. New York, 1874. 333 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Master if he had been a worse, being too bountiful to his servants, and either too confident of their honesty, or too conniving ^ at their falsehood. The story is told to his disadvantage, that he had two Servants, one in all causes Patron to the Plaintiffe, (whom his charity pre- sumed always injured) the other to the Defendant, pitying him as compelled to Law) but taking bribes of both, with this condition, to restore the money received if the Cause went against them. Their Lord ignorant hereof, always did impartial Justice, whilst his men (making people pay for what was given them) by compact shared the money betwixt them, which cost their master the loss of his office. 2 The "great Person" who. Fuller says, hindered his rising was, of course, Cecil, who Greene tells us was the "mortal enemy of Essex," as he always was of Bacon. As an instance of unfair criticism. Bacon is accused in Sir James Mackintosh's "History of England" of having written the "History of Henry Vn," to flatter James L This notion had found currency among his enemies, and perhaps incited the truculent Pope to throw this at him, "The wisest, brightest, meanest of man- kind." To this Macaulay delightedly called attention. Sped- dinghas completely disposed of the charge, but we must content ourselves by calling attention to the principal points in Bacon's behalf: namely, he had contemplated this history for fifteen years, and had furnished for Speed's "History of England" a sketch of it twelve years before the later publication ; besides, the character created by Bacon is also wholly unlike that of James except in two particulars, love of peace and conjugal constancy. Henry's shortcomings were conspicuously due to deficiencies in himself, and not to want of opportunity or un- towardness of fortune, which was far from flattering to James. We are compelled to give this wholly inadequate reference to Spedding's defense for lack of space, and refer the reader to ^ In the sense of "to pass unnoticed, uncensured, or unpunished." Imp. Diet, in loco. 2 Thomas Fuller, D.D., The History of the Worthies of England, pp. 242, 243. London, 1662. 334 FRANCIS BACON the original.^ "But," says Campbell, "it is absurd to suppose that James and Buckingham would not cordially have sup- ported him if he could have been successfully defended." ^ "Jaco" and "Steenie"! — those two unworthy mortals whose lives were spent in placing obstacles across the path of English liberty, but which, providentially, gave it the oppor- tunity of accumulating force; how could Campbell have made such a slip as this ? A study of the case discloses the reason. He gave undue weight to a note of dissent appended by Buck- ingham to the judgment of the court. Bacon had said to the King, whose cowardice was proverbial, "Those who strike at % your Chancellor will strike at your Crown." He also made a bold demand of Buckingham for release from the Tower, which was granted promptly, for Buckingham was not free V^ from political cowardice, and must have felt the insecurity of his position which later resulted in his assassination. Histori- cal portraits of him are so common that they seem almost as much out of place here as would Velasquez's ubiquitous por- trait of Philip IV of Spain ; yet it may be proper to give this from Green : — No veil hid the degrading grossness of the Court of James and of Buckingham. . . . The payment of bribes to him, or marriage to his greedy relatives, became the one road to political prefer- ment. Resistance to his will was inevitably followed by dismissal from office. Even the highest and most powerful of the nobles were made to tremble at the note of this young upstart.^ His note of dissent was insincere. The Chancellor was done with, and to assume the role of a magnanimous and kindly patron appeared well to his friends. Had Campbell studied his case more carefully he would have refrained from making this careless remark. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy bits of testimony to ^ The Works, etc., vol. ii, pp. 13-40. 2 Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. 11, p. 116. 3 Green, Short History, p. 487. 335 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Bacon's beauty of character is furnished by the voluntary confession of Thomas Bushell. The following is an ex- tract : — A Letter to his approved beloved Mr, John Eliot, Esq. The ample testimony of your true affection towards my Lord Verulam, Viscount St. Albans, hath obliged me your serv- ant. Yet, lest the calumnious tongues of men might extenuate the good opinion you had of his worth and merit, I must ingenu- ously confess that myself and others of his servants were the occasions of exhaling his vertues into a dark eclipse; which God knowes would have long endured both for the honour of his King and the good of the Commonaltie; had not we whom his bountie nursed, laid on his guiltlesse shoulders our base and execrable deeds to be scand and censured by the whole Senate of a State, where no sooner sentence was given, but most of us forsoke him, which makes us bear the badge of Jewes to this day.^ Bushell's repentance was so sincere that he retired to a desolate island, the Calf of Man, where for three years he led the life of a hermit, sheltered by a hut built with his own hands FACSIMILE OF THE SEAL OF THOMAS BUSHELL and subsisting upon herbs, oil, mustard, and honey, "with water sufficient." His lifelong attachment to Bacon, who took him into his service as a youth, "principally" educated him and paid his debts when in financial trouble, is further re- ^ Rev. A. de la Peyme, Memoirs of Thomas Bushell. 1878. 336 FRANCIS BACON vealed by a large and finely executed gold medal, bearing the head of his benefactor crowned with the familiar hat, with BushelFs name on the obverse.^ The knowledge acquired by assisting Bacon in his scientific experiments led to his con- nection with the royal mines in Wales, and fortune. Bushell's service to the state finally won for him burial in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey. ^ Said Matthew of Bacon : — A friend unalterable to his friends — it is not his greatness that I admire, but his virtue.^ And Rawley, his chaplain: — I have been induced to think that if ever there were a beam of knowledge derived from God upon any man in these modern times, it was upon Francis Bacon."* Aubrey and others are equally emphatic in their expressions of his character. His abiHty for accomplishing work was astounding. During the first four terms of his oflSce the number of orders and de- crees made by him were eight thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, and the number of suitors whose cases were settled, thirty-five thousand. Nothing like this had been ac- complished before. That Bacon was a sincere Christian cannot reasonably be doubted. The great Puritan movement drew to itself, as all great reforms do, many fanatical and half-crazed men who had suffered by oppression, and were intolerant of all who could not go to the extremes to which they went. Bacon, who was reared in this form of faith, could not adopt many of its narrow views, and was as sincerely friendly with the Catholic Matthew as with the Episcopal Rawley, or the Puritan Cecil. ^ Horace Walpole, Anecdotes of Paintings etc., vol. i, p. 254. London, 1862. The author inappropriately denominates him a medalist. 2 Cf. Diet. Nat. Biog. in loco. ' Spedding, Italian Letter, Worksy etc., vol. i, p. 52. * Rawley's Life, p. 47. 337 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS None but a clear-sighted and sincere Christian, however, could have made this prayer: — Remember, O Lord! how thy servant has walked before Thee; remember what I have first thought, and what hath been prin- cipal in my intentions. I have loved thy assemblys. I have mourned for the diversions of Thy Church. I have delighted in the brightness of Thy Sanctuary. This Vine which Thy right hand hath planted in this nation, I have ever prayed with Thee that it might have the first and the latter rain; and that it might stretch its branches to the seas and to the floods. The state and bread of the poor have been precious in mine eyes; I have hated all cruelty and hardness of heart. I have, though in a despised weed, procured the good of all men. With respect to the charge that he had forsaken Essex, one made against other friends of the Earl who would not go his length in committing acts savoring of treason, he said : — Any honest man that hath his heart well planted will forsake his King rather than forsake his God, and forsake his Friend rather than forsake his King; and yet will forsake any earthly commodity, yea, his own life in some cases, rather than forsake his Friend. In this frame of mind he went back to his books with a joy which finds its echo in "Henry VIII": — Grif. His Overthrow, heap'd Happinesse upon him For then, and not till then, he felt himselfe, And found the Blessednesse of being little. And to adde greater Honors to his Age Than man could give him; he dy'de fearing God. IV, 2. That he was free from the vice of arrogance in an age when it was almost fostered as a virtue, is proved by ample testi- mony, and also that he was generous to a fault. His sanguine temperament, says Boener, caused him to will to charity so much that his estate failed to satisfy his creditors, and his property was sold at a sacrifice. He was a prophet without honor in his own country, and it was left to future ages to 338 FRANCIS BACON honor his memory. After the triumph of his enemies, some of whom he saw without any sign of satisfaction come to their well-merited deserts, Bacon labored with restless energy to complete and publish his literary works, realizing that his end was not distant. It was during this period that he printed his "Novum Organum," the "History of Henry VII," "Historia Vitae et Mortis," and reprinted and enlarged his " Essays." Bacon's scientific attainments have been criticized by his defamers, who especially quote against him some of the puer- ilities and misconceptions, especially in medicine and natural history, peculiar to the age in which he lived, and by which he was somewhat influenced. In reading some of these criticisms the caustic saying of Ben Jonson naturally comes to mind: "The writer must lie, and the gentle reader rests happy to have the worthiest works misinterpreted." Such criticisms are unjust, for there was no man living in his day who might not be criticized in the same manner. The vision of Dr. Har- vey, whose fame as the discoverer of the circulation of the blood has been blown ad astra, though he was anticipated by Servetus ^ in the same degree that Bacon was by Aristotle in the inductive process, was limited in many directions by the boundaries which the schools of his day had fixed. It is the same to-day. The wisest student in science refuses immediate acceptance of a novel discovery until he has had ample time for verification by the most exacting tests. Everybody now knows that a railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific was a feasible project, but when it was proposed some of the best thinkers demurred. One of these declared that it was chimerical; no railway train could possibly pass the Rocky Mountains in winter. When the road was opened he re- ceived a free pass for the journey. No human intellect has compassed, or ever will compass, all learning. While Bacon may have been as Hallam declares, "The wisest, greatest of ^ Christianismi Restitutio, in which the circulation of the blood is quite clearly explained. 339 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS mankind," his knowledge was relative to that of his generation. The world was distracted with speculations upon many sub- jects. Though the baleful flames of Marian martyrdom had subsided, theological controversy had not. Novel scientific theories were abundant, and philosophy was throwing apples of discord into the arena. At any other time Bacon might have welcomed Galileo's disclosures, but the great discov- erer's instruments were but toys compared with those of to- day, and he doubted their efficiency. The same may be said of Gilbert's magnetic researches ; he was interested in them, but Gilbert was experimenting with a subject of such magni- tude that it is still a mystery. Walsh utterly condemns him for not adopting his theories at once: in fact, like the German Duhring, he goes out of his way to obscure his fame, as though it were to bring into brighter light the accomplishments of Peregrinus, Roger Ba- con, Albertus Magnus, and other ancient students. Of course, every modern scholar should know, and will acknowledge the debt the world owes these men, who labored in a dismal age of ignorance which regarded even the good Friar Bacon as a wizard, and threw him into prison for dealing with " certain suspicious novelties," compelling him to hide in an anagram his formula for gunpowder, derived, by the way, from an Arabian source. Dr. Walsh condemns Francis Bacon as a charlatan for making use of the knowledge of his predecessors. We are sure, however, that he will not claim that the knowl- edge of Roger Bacon and other ancient scholars had its origin in their own minds: indeed, we would be glad to know the origin of a single modern invention, or so-called discovery. When Francis Bacon began to study the phenomena and laws of nature and of mind. Englishmen neither knew nor cared to know aught beyond the limits circumscribing the system of Aristotle. Francis Bacon did what Roger Bacon and others of an earlier age did, availed himself of the common stock of knowledge gathered by teachers of the past, and en- 340 FRANCIS BACON larged and adapted what he found best suited to his purposes to the conditions of the age in which he lived. If Dr. Walsh had confined himself to a relation of what the ancient scholars accomplished for science, we should be more greatly indebted to him. As it is, his readable and somewhat useful book savors of religious prejudice which should find no place in modern discussion. This remark of the doctor's shows clearly his animus : — Personally I have always felt that he [Francis Bacon] has almost less right to all the praise that has been bestowed on him for what he is supposed to have done for science, than he has for any addition to his reputation because of the attribution to him by so many fanatics of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. Strangely enough, he also says that Macaulay is much more responsible for his reputation than is usually thought; — his favorite geese were nearly all swans, in his eyes.^ We accept the last clause of the statement, but repudiate the preceding one. Francis Bacon's reputation rests upon more permanent foundations that Macaulay's unstable opinions. The source of Walsh's diatribe is found in De Maistre's lurid work in which he declares Bacon to have been a charlatan and impostor, and he "preached science, but like his church with- out a mission"; derides his "De Augmentis" and avers that the "Novum Organum" is worthy of Bedlam.^ Says Spedding : — He could follow Gilbert in his enquiries concerning the load- stone, and he was not silent about him, but refers to him fre- quently, with praise both of his Industry and his method; censur- ing him only for endeavoring to build a universal philosophy upon so narrow a basis. So again with regard to Galileo. The direct revelations of the telescope were palpable, and he was not silent about them; but hailed the Invention as " of memorable consider^ * James J. Walsh, M.D., LL.D., Popes and Science, pp. 283-84. New York, 1911. * Joseph de Malstre, Examen de la Philosophie de Bacon. Paris, 1836. 341 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS ation,^^ — a thing '' worthy of mankind.^' There was no doubt that it brought within the range of vision things invisible before, but when it came to the inference deducible from the phenomena thus revealed, he could no longer speak with confidence. It was then ^'from this point it seems to he shozvn^^ and " how far hy dem- onstration belief in this method may he safely held,^' the language of a man who did not feel certain in his own mind whether the demonstration was conclusive or not, — which is the natural con- dition of a man who does not thoroughly understand it.^ Had it not occupied too much space we would have quoted Bacon's own expressions in full, but Spedding has briefly and simply summed them up. Bacon, too, it is objected, was not a lover of mathematics, and it is concluded, somewhat hastily, could not have been a great scientist. We are quite willing to accept the statement that he did not possess the true mathematical mind. Had he been so endowed, it is certain that we should not be writing this book. Mathematical poetry would hardly be worth dis- puting about. He has been assailed with ridicule for failing to accept the Copernican system of astronomy, the truth of which is now so firmly estabUshed; but how was it then? Many of the best thinkers did not adopt it. What, too, was the exact situation of affairs ^ Bruno, who afterwards suffered martyrdom at Rome for his opinions, visited England in 1583.^ Oxford and Cambridge were then utterly neglecting the teach- ing of natural philosophy. To Oxford, Bruno, whose fame had preceded him, repaired, and, being versed in the system of Copernicus, hoped to introduce its study into that university. He has been represented as a perfervid enthusiast, and he doubted not to interest the faculty of the institution in his plans ; but the learned and ultra-conservative doctors of Ox- ford did not yield readily to the views of the brilliant and elo- quent Italian, and they stoutly maintained the old faith which * The Works, etc., vol. vi, p. 444. Italicized words our translation. * Green, Giordano Bruno , his Life, etc. Buffalo, 1889. Cf. Moritz Carriere, Life, etc. London, 1887. 342 FRANCIS BACON they had inherited, that the sun revolved about the earth, which was ocularly evident, and though Bruno argued much better in favor of the new but less evident faith, that the re- verse was true, he was disappointed in the result of his mission. Bacon was then twenty-three, and most of the men with whom he associated, Catholic and Protestant, were opposed to the new theory. He was then busy in another field of literary activity, and it is not strange that he spoke of Copernicus as " a man who thinks nothing of introducing fictions of any kind into nature, provided his calculations turn out well " ; a fault too often found in the polemical contentions of the time when men sought only to support preconceived theories, giving little heed to facts. It was many years after Bacon's death, before the mists of Aristotelian philosophy vanished before the advancing light of a new age of scientific empiricism, and yet from immemorial time the beaming scroll of the universe had hung outspread before the eyes of men in all its splendor, revealing to their vision a region of boundless wonders which had invited ex- ploration in vain. The achievements of Copernicus, who with the eyes of a seer had explored the infinite regions of space, were slow of acceptance; yet of all men Bacon should have welcomed them, for he as fully recognized the importance of the study of phenomena as Bruno, both of whom regarded the universe as a perfection of mechanism, designed by its Creator among other beneficent purposes for the study of men, and their consequent advancement toward a larger knowledge of Him. We know that Rawley says that Before he left Cambridge, when but sixteen, he first fell into the dislike of the philosophy of Aristotle; not for the worthless- ness of the author, to whom he would always ascribe higher at- tributes, but for the unfruitfulness of the way; being a philoso- phy (as his lordship used to say) only strong for disputations and contentions, but barren of the production of works for the bene- fit of the life of man, in which mind he continued to his dying day. ^ ^ Rawley, Life, etc., p. 37. 343 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Let us quote a few of numerous authorities upon his scien- tific attainments whose opinions are of value. Says Professor Fowler: — The resuh of Bacon's "First Vintage" is remarkable in the history of science. Anticipating the theory of heat now gener- ally accepted, he defines it as "a motion, expansive, restrained, and striving amongst the smaller particles of bodies." Even the modern theory as to the undulatory character of this motion seems to be anticipated in the following passage, which is quoted with approbation by Professor Tyndall, "The third specific differ- ence is this, that heat is a motion of expansion, not uniformly of the whole body together, but in its ultimate particles; and at the same time checked, repelled, and beaten back, so that the parti- cles acquire a motion," — it is surely a striking testimony to his genius that, in his main conception of heat as an expansion and oscillatory motion amongst the minute particles of matter, he should have anticipated the precise conclusion at which, after the predominance, for a long time, of a different theory, the most eminent physicists have at length arrived. Fowler also says that He ought to have the credit of having detached the conception of attraction from that of magnetism.^ Says Professor Nichol: — Bacon's anticipations in physical science are like those of the " Faerie Queene," about the star's flight of an imagination almost as unique in prose as Shakespeare's in verse. He was the first philosophic spokesman, in being the first to fully recognize the increasing purpose of the time. And quoting his remarks upon the circumnavigation of the orlnhp Vip rnnfimipQ* — globe, he continues: In this and similar passages we have the air of the same breezes that blow through "The Tempest" — and much of the "Faerie Queene" — the Queen of England, Ireland, and Virginia. » Thomas Fowler, M. A., F.S.A.,-5afow, p. 120. New York, iSSi.Cf. Tyndall, Heat as a Mode of Motion, Appendix to chap. 11, ihid.^ 339, 3d ed.; and Fowler's Novum Organum. Oxford, 1 878. 344 FRANCIS BACON This wholly independent association of Bacon with the author of the "Shakespeare" and "Spenser" works is striking, but is by no means an isolated case. Many acute thinkers, uncon- scious of its bearing upon the question of a common author- ship of these works, have done the same. Nichol further says: — The fact that Bacon, during his life, took the unpopular side of several questions, that he was disgraced for an offence now se- verely judged, and died when there was no one adequate and will- ing to defend him, is enough to explain the character condensed in Pope's memorable line, expanded in Macaulay's Essay, re- iterated in Lord Campbell's summary, and assumed by Kuno Fischer as, in some measure, a basis for his view of the Baconian philosophy.^ Says a German thinker: — Francis Bacon is still regarded by his countrymen as the great- est philosopher of England, and in this opinion they are perfectly right. He is the founder of that philosophy, which is called the realistic, which exercised so powerful an influence upon even Leibnitz and Kant, to which Kant especially was indebted for the last impulses to his epoch-making works, and to which France paid homage in the eighteenth century. ^ Playfair, quoting his remarks on color, concludes that He may be considered as very fortunate in fixing on these ex- amples: for it was by means of them that Newton afterwards found out the composition of light. And he further says: — The power and compass of a mind which could form such a plan beforehand, and trace not merely the outline, but many of the most minute ramifications of science which did not yet exist, must be an object of admiration to all succeeding ages. . . . Bacon has classified facts and explained their peculiar advan- tages as instruments of investigation.^ ^ John Nichol, Francis Bacon: his Life and Philosophy, pp. 5, vii. Edinburgh, 1888. 2 Kuno Fischer, Francis Bacon of Ferulam, p. xii. London, 1857. 3 John Playfair, Outlines of Natural Philosophy, p. 3. Edinburgh, 1819. 34.5 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Says John Morley : — The French Encyclopedia was the direct fruit of Bacon's mag- nificent conceptions. Professor Adamson has well put it in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "The great leader in the reformation of modern science." ^ And Dean Church: — The world has agreed to date from Bacon the systematic re- form of natural philosophy, the beginning of an intelligent at- tempt, which has been crowned by such signal success, to place the investigation of nature on a solid foundation." ^ Says Macaulay: — He moved the intellects that moved the world. All this is said of the philosophical and scientific works which he published over his own name. What other works did he write which would authorize a contemporary to liken him to a great Roman playwriter .? Stratfordians deny that he ever wrote any such works, yet John Davies, one of Bacon's "good pens" who is said to have scribbled the names of Bacon and Shakespeare in the Northumberland Manuscript, called Bacon "Our EngUsh Terence." Why did he apply the title to Bacon .f* Terentius Publiuswas the slave of Terentius Lucanus, by whose name he was called. Cicero tells us that plays bear- ing his name, the admiration of the Romans, were believed to have been written by C. Laelius, and Montaigne observes that Could the perfection of eloquence have added any lustre propor- tionable to the merit of a great person, certainly Scipio and Lae- lius had never resigned the honor of their comedies to an African slave, for that the work was theirs, the beauty and excellency of it do sufficiently declare; besides Terence himself confesses as much. If any man knew the connection of Bacon with the " Shake- speare" Works it was John Davies; hence the term he used ^ John Morley, Diderot and the Encyclopedists, vol. i, p. 120. London, 1881. * R. W. Church, Dean of St. Paul's, Bacon, p. 213. New York, 1884. FRANCIS BACON was peculiarly felicitous, for the "Terence" Works, upon which were expended "all the luxuriancies and delicacies of the Latin tongue" will always bear the name of the African slave. Bacon's name has been associated often with that of the actor by writers unquestionably of independent judg- ment. Said Dr. Kuno Fischer, in a work on the philosophy of Bacon sixty-eight years ago: — The same affinity for the Roman mind, and the same want of sympathy with the Greek, we again find in Bacon's greatest con- temporary, whose imagination took as broad and as comprehen- sive a view as Bacon's intellect. . . . Here Bacon and Shake- speare met, brought together by a common interest in those objects and the attempt to depict and copy them. And he remarks upon what he regards as an astonishing fact but one easily explained, that Bacon does not even mention Shakespeare when he discourses upon dramatic poetry, but passes over this department of poetry with a general and superficial remark that relates less to the sub- ject Itself than to the stage and Its uses. As far as his own age is concerned, he sets down the moral value of the stage as ex- ceedingly trifling. But the affinity of Bacon to Shakespeare is to be sought in his moral and psychological, not in his aesthetlcal views . . . however, even in these there is nothing to prevent Bacon's manner of judging mankind, and apprehending charac- ters from agreeing perfectly with that of Shakespeare; so that human life, the subject-matter of all dramatic art, appeared to him much as it appeared to the great artist himself. ... Is not the Inexhaustible theme of Shakespeare's poetry the history and course of human passions.^ And it is this very theme that is pro- posed hy Bacon as the chief problem of moral philosophy. Says Gervinus: — That Shakespeare's appearance upon a soil so admirably pre- pared was neither marvelous nor accidental, is evidenced even by the corresponding appearance of such a contemporary as Bacon. 347 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS And Emerson: — Shakespeare was the father of German literature: it was on the introduction of Shakespeare into German by Lessing, and the translation of his works by Wieland and Schlegel, that the rapid burst of German literature was most intimately connected.^ Why do Stratfordians now severely avoid coupling these names together? Perhaps Yardley, whom we have heretofore quoted, has given us the reason. Of the facility and rapidity with which he wrote and spoke we have the testimony of Rawley and Jonson. Says the for- mer: — With what sufficiency he wrote let the world judge, and with what celerity he wrote them, I can best testify. Jonson, who is worth listening to, and trustworthy when not inditing a eulogy to help the sale of a book, gives us this graphic description of Bacon's eloquence : — Yet there happened in my time one noble speaker, who was full of gravity in his speaking. His language (where he could spare or pass by a jest) was nobly censorious. No man ever spake more neatly, more pressly, more weightily, suffered less empti- ness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, nor look aside from him, without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their affections more in his power. The fear of every man that heard him was, lest he should make an end.^ Tobie Matthew, who knew him perhaps more intimately than any one of his friends, describes him as A creature of incomparable abilities of mind, of sharp and catching apprehension, large and faithful memory, plentiful and sprouting invention, deep and solid judgment, a man so rare in knowledge of so many several kinds, indowed with the facility of expressing it in so elegant, significant, so abundant, and yet so choice and ravishing array of words, of metaphors, and allusions, ^ Representative Men, p. 201. Boston, 1865. 2 Ben Jonson, Discoveries ^ p. 46. London, 1841. 348 FRANCIS BACON as perhaps the world has not seen since it was a world. I know that this may seem a great hyperbole, and strange kind of riotous excess of speech; but the best means of putting me to shame will be for you to place any man of yours by this of mine.^ Pierre Amboise, Boener, and many other contemporaries speak of him in equally laudatory terms. We have endeavored by a careful study of Bacon's char- acter and genius, as reflected in his literary remains, recorded in history, and depicted by his critics, friendly and otherwise, to give the reader a fair portraiture of him. That he partook of the abuses of the times in which he lived we do not deny ; Bacon condemned himself for this. The mistake which he made was in seeking public office, which resulted, as it com- monly did, in disaster. His highest aspiration impelled him to a student's life, and this life offered him the greatest happi- ness. He was not alone in being tempted to seek the gHttering trappings of power. The greatest and best men of England, before and since, have done the same, and come to grievous ends. He has been charged with being present with the law officers of the Crown at the examination under torture of the Puritan clerg3^man, Peacham, who was condemned for high treason, having written, though not preached a sermon containing severe reflections upon authority; and has been blamed for obsequious deference to James and Buckingham. With regard to the first of these criticisms, Campbell himself in another connection furnishes an answer in these words : — It would be very unjust to blame persons who were engaged in sixteenth century burning witches or heretics, as if these acts of faith had occurred in the reign of Queen Victoria.^ To the charge of truckling to those in authority, while we to-day may regard as unmanly the ceremonious approach and adulatory address to those occupying the seats of power, they ^ Collection of Letters, etc. 2 Lives of Lord Chancellors, etc., vol. in, p. 114. 349 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS were simply forms of etiquette in Bacon's day, and necessary to secure notice. His bitterest mortification was exclusion from Parliament, where he had achieved his most brilliant successes. His final appeal to the King, not long before his death, is manly, and gives us a glimpse of the suffering he endured when he con- templated the blot upon his fame which would descend to posterity. To prostrate myself at Your Majesty's feet, I, your ancient serv^ant, now sixty-four years old in age, and three years four months old in misery, I desire not from Your Majesty means, nor place, nor employment, but only, after so long a time of expia- tion, a complete and total remission of the sentence of the Upper House, to the end that blot of ignominy may be removed from me, and from my memory with posterity; that I die not a condemned man, but may be to Your Majesty, as I am to God nova creatura. This my most humble request granted, may make me live a year or two happily, and denied will kill me quickly.^ James, who well knew the methods employed to inflame public opinion, did not relieve him of his disabiUties. Doubt- less his enemies were too insistent upon prolonging his dis- grace. Fowler says that A limited pardon, the exception being that of the Parliamentary sentence, appears to have been sealed by the King in Novem- ber, 1621. But the history of this pardon is attended with some obscurity.^ This date does not agree with the date of his appeal. Bacon, however, continued his work. Taking a severe cold while pur- suing an experiment in refrigeration, he died on Easter morn- ing, Sunday, April 9, 1626. He was buried in St. Michael's Church in St. Albans accord- ing to his wish, and this epitaph, here translated from the original Latin, placed upon his monument, which bears his effigy seated in an attitude of contemplation : — ^ Life and Letters ^ vol. v, p. 583. ^ Bacon, p. 23. 3SO FRANCIS BACON Francis Bacon Baron of Verulam Viscount St. Albans Or By More Conspicuous titles Of Science the Light, of Eloquence the Law, Sat thus, Who after all Natural Wisdom And Secrets of Civil Life he had unfolded Nature's Law fulfilled. Let compounds be Dissolved. In the year of our Lord, MDCXXVI. Of his Age LXVL Of such a Man That the Memory might remain, Thomas Meautys Living his Attendant Dead his Admirer Placed this Monument. It may be objected that as this is but a brief sketch of Ba- (^on's life, too much time has been expended upon the charges against him of malfeasance in office, and that they have little relation to his literary genius, and are not therefore pertinent to the purpose of this book. To this the author pleads in justi- fication, that with many this episode in his life tends to close the door against any consideration of his great merits. Sic eunt fata hominum, HIS ROLE The works published by Francis Bacon and his executors under his own name are numerous, and cover a wide field of literary activity. Their perusal reveals him as a great law- yer, philosopher, and classical scholar; a scientist, theologian, statesman, poet, linguist ; his knowledge was remarkable ; in- deed, as sober a writer as Spedding denominates him "the glory of his age and nation, the adorner and ornament of learning"; and even Campbell announces his death in these words : — Thus died, in the 66th year of his age, Francis Bacon, not merely the most distinguished man who ever held the Great Seal 3SI THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS of England, but, notwithstanding all his faults, one of the great- est ornaments and benefactors of the human race.^ It is to Francis Bacon that English literature owes the essay as an intellectual force. Its introduction occurred at a time in English history distinguished for its intellectual activity, its romantic spirit, its adventurous achievement and the gross ignorance of its masses. Its intellectual supremacy was lim- ited to the few, the chief of whom was Bacon, a friend and admirer of Montaigne ; some have thought an imitator, but he differs from the Frenchman as the gun of Napoleon from that of the ancien regime. It is true that there is a resemblance, for both deal with the mysteries of life and death, but the former touches his subject with a grave directness rarely ex- emplified by the latter. The few poems which bear his name have never become popular. While Campbell says : — His English Essays and Treatises will be read and admired by the Anglo-Saxon race aU over the world to the most distant generations — he concludes that His ear had not been formed nor his fancy fed, by a perusal of the divine productions of Surrey, Wyat, Spenser, and Shakespeare, or he could not have produced rhymes so rugged, and terms of expression so mean. Few poets deal In finer imagery than is to be found in the writings of Bacon, but if his prose Is sometimes poetical, his poetry is always prosaic. ^ This is the most formidable argument that has been ad- duced against the claim that Bacon was the author of the " Shakespeare " Works, yet it is not unanswerable. The poet and philosopher belong to different zones ; the one, a land of enchantment, so alluring that he who adventures in it, forgetting material bonds for a while, becomes a seer; the other, a land of mountain peaks and misty vales which compel ^ Lives of Lord Chancellors of England j vol. in, p. 33. * Ibid. J p. 130. 352 FRANCIS BACON the soul to contemplation, and a consciousness of the mystery of being. The greatest genius is he who enjoys an inheritance in both these realms of delight whose fruits are as unlike as the zones to which they belong. In later life he may think to transplant from one to the other the fruits which in more youthful days he loved, but they inevitably lose in generous flavor. This may, in a measure, account for some criticism of Bacon, who was both poet and philosopher, as was Milton. Both have given to the world poetic renderings of David's Psalms, and both have left works of philosophy which may well be compared. Milton's rendering of the eighty-eighth Psalm is as follows: Thou in the lowest pit profound Hast set me all forlorn, Where thickest darkness hovers round In horrid deeps to mourn, Thy wrath from which no shelter saves Full sore doth press on me; Thou breaks't upon me all thy waves, And all thy waves break me.^ Yet the hand which penned the foregoing lines penned the "Comus" from which we extract the following: — Can any mortal mixture of Earth's mould Breathe such divine enchanting ravishment? Sure something holy lodges in that breast, And with these raptures moves the vocal air To testify his hidden residence: How sweetly did they float upon the wings Of silence, through the empty-vaulted night, At every fall smoothing the raven down Of darkness till it smiled! I oft have heard My mother Circe with the Sirens three Amidst the flow'ry-kirtled Naiades Culling their potent herbs, and baleful drugs, Who as they sung, would take the prison'd soul And lap it in Elysium. There is no question that Milton was a great poet, yet here we have two specimens of his verse. Who would suppose that ^ The italics are in the original. 353 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS the version of the eighty-eighth Psalm and the extract from "Comus" were fruit of the same tree? This is from Bacon's version of the one hundred and thirty- seventh Psalm: — When as we sat all sad and desolate, By Babylon upon the river's side, Eas'd from the tasks which in our captive state We were enforced daily to abide, Our harps we had brought with us to the field, Some solace to our heavy souls to yield. But soon we found we fail'd of our account, For when our minds some freedom did obtain, Straightways the memory of Sion Mount Did cause afresh our wounds to bleed again; So that with present griefs, and future fears. Our eyes burst forth into a stream of tears. Hierusalem, where God his throne hath set. Shall any hour absent thee from my mind? Then let my right hand quite her skill forget, Then let my voice and words no passage find; Nay, if I do not thee prefer in all That in the compass of my thoughts can fall. And thou, O Babylon, shalt have thy turn By just revenge, and happy shall he be. That thy proud walls and tow'rs shall waste and burn. And as thou didst by us, so do by thee. Yea, happy he, that takes thy children's bones. And dasheth them against the pavement stones. Says Spedding: — Of these verses of Bacon's it has been usual to speak not only as a failure, but as a ridiculous failure, a censure in M^hich I cannot concur. I should myself infer from this sample that Bacon had all the natural faculties which a poet wants ;^ a fine ear for metre, a fine feeling for imaginative effect in words, and a vein of poetic passion. The psalms which Bacon paraphrased, seven in number, were dedicated to George Herbert, a friend and author of such * That is, requires. 354 FRANCIS BACON verse, and were written late in life during his confinement by illness, which is not a condition especially conducive to poetic expression. In the dedicatory note he calls them the "poor ex- ercise of my sickness." The following is a verse from the ninetieth Psalm : — Thou earnest man away as with a tide; Then down swim all his thoughts that mounted high; Much like a mocking dream that will not hide But flies before the sight of waking eye; Or as the grass, that cannot term obtain To see the Summer come about again. "The thought in the second line," says Spedding, " could not well be fitted with imagery, words, and rhythm more apt and imaginative, and there is a tenderness of expression in the con- cluding couplet which comes manifestly out of a heart in sen- sitive sympathy with nature." The following is a verse from the one hundred and fourth Psalm : — Father and King of Powers, both high and low, Whose sounding fame all creatures serve to blow; My voice shall with the rest strike up thy praise And carol of thy works and wondrous ways. But who can blaze thy beauties, Lord, aright? They turn the brittle beams of mortal sight: Upon thy head thou wear'st a glorious crown All set with virtues, polish'd with renown; Thence round about a silver veil doth fall Of crystal light, mother of colours all.^ Of these lines Spedding says : — The heroic couplet could hardly do its work better in the hands of Dryden. Why, then, may we not ask, if Milton wrote the eighty- eighth Psalm, and also some of the finest poetry in the English language, — some have thought superior to that published under the name, "Shakespeare,'* — why should it be impos- sible for the versifier of the one hundred and thirty-seventh ^ Spedding, /iTor^j-, etc., vol. XIV, p. 113. 3SS THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Psalm to do the same ? Though he has been spoken of as being ignorant of poetry, he extolled its influence and possessed a deep knowledge of poetic metre. That he wrote more than one volume of poetry we know from his legacy to his friend, the French ambassador, of his books " curiously rhymed." If such an item had been found in the will of the Stratford actor, would it not be considered ample proof of his authorship of the plays .? We do not base upon this, however, such a claim for Bacon, but speak of it only as one of those many straws which help us in forming a better understanding of him. We feel warranted in giving specimens of the prose of both writers, first one from Milton's Treatise on Education The end, then, of Learning is to repair the sins of our first parents by regaining to know God aright, and out of that knowl- edge to love him, to imitate to be like him as we may the nearest by possessing our souls of true virtue, which being united to the heavenly grace of faith, makes up the highest perfection. But because our understanding cannot in the body found itself but on sensible things, nor strive so clearly to the knowledge of God and things invisible, as by orderly covering over the visible and infe- rior creature, the same method is necessarily to be followed in all discreet teaching. From Bacon^s ^^Advancement of Learning'' Neither is the imagination simply and only a messenger; but it is either invested with, or usurps no small authority in itself, besides the simple duty of the messenger. For it is as well said by Aristotle, "That the mind has over the body that commandment which the lord has over the bondsman, but that reason has over the imagination that commandment which a magistrate has over a free citizen who may come also to rule in his turn." Men differ on all subjects, but perhaps there is none upon which they differ more than poetry, for to recognize it, the ear must be attuned to divine harmonies ; hence a good critic of poetry must be a poet. By this it is not meant that he must have written poetry, for he may not possess the rare art of 3S6 FRANCIS BACON expression, but his soul must be like a sensitive harp whose chords are in concord with poetic harmonies. This explains the diversity of opinion respecting poets great and small ; otherwise, why should the critic of the immortal Keats have lashed him with ridicule to his death, or Pepys say that "Twelfth Night" and "The Taming of the Shrew" were silly; "Othello" mean; "Romeo and Juliet" the worst play he ever heard in his life; and "Midsummer Night's Dream" the most insipid and ridiculous; or Horace Walpole call Dante "Extravagant, absurd, disgusting; in short, a Methodist parson in Bedlam"; or Hacket entitle Milton, "A petty school-boy scribbler" ; or, on the other hand, why should the poet Shelley declare that "Lord Bacon was a poet"; and Lytton praise him so highly as to say that " Poetry pervaded the thought, it inspired the similes, it hymned in the majestic sentences of the wisest of mankind"? We know how the critics sent Foe into obscurity, and how recently they have raised him to what seems to be a pedestal of immortal fame ; how Tupper had his admirers, and Walt Whitman his devo- tees. But it is needless to multiply instances of this com- plexion ; they are to be found on every hand, and applicable to every subject of human experience. For three centuries Bacon has stood among the foremost of the world's great thinkers. His life was passed in unremitting activity, for to his great intellect was added a capacity and love of literary work rarely possessed by man. At his death he bequeathed his unpublished manuscripts to two of his friends with a view to future publication. One of these. Sir William Boswell, then Minister to Holland, carried them with him to that country, and placed them in the hands of Isaac Gruter, a learned friend of their author, who, in 1633, published at Leyden the "Sapientia Veterum." This was followed five years later by the "Historia Ventorum," and during the next fifteen years ten more of his most important works were given to the world by the faithful Gruter. But there were other 3S7 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS works which were never published, and, unfortunately, have disappeared from public ken. What were these works ? Sped- ding, Bacon's biographer, after years of labor devoted to the study of them, has to conclude that it is a subject involving a great secret. Gruter, who was in frequent conference with Boswell while he was engaged in publishing the works now familiar to us, was anxious to publish the others, but for some unknown reason was held back. He says in the last book published by him that "they ought not to be long suppressed"; and in a letter from Maestricht, March 20, 1655, he wrote Rawley, Bacon's old chaplain, secretary and closest friend : — If my Fate would permit me to live according to my Wishes, I would flie over into England, that I might behold of the Feru- lamian Workmanship, and at least make my Eyes witnesses to it, if the Merchandize be yet denied to the Publick. At present, I will support the wishes of my impatient desire, with hope of see- ing one Day those which being committed to faithful Privacie, wait the time "till they may safely see the Light, and not be stifled in their Birth." This was twenty-nine years after Bacon's death, and Rawley was advanced in years. No wonder his friend Gruter was getting impatient to have this "Merchandize," which Rawley kept from the printer, disclosed. It may be objected that these could not have been the "Shakespeare" Works, as these were then known, but the First and Second Folios gave only a portion of the dramatic works, as we have attempted to show, and we claim that it is reasonable to infer that there were others, and that it might have been a subject of discussion whether it were wise to disclose the secret, and give all the "Verulamian Workmanship" to the world. What were Rawley's motives for keeping.them in the dark, we can only hope to learn. All that he tells us is that Bacon hid his works for another age. Mente Fidebor, by the mind I shall be seen. . 3S8 FRANCIS BACON And again: — Silence were the best celebration of that which I mean to com- mend. My praise shall be dedicated to the mind itself. The mind is the man, and the knowledge of the mind. A man is but what he knoweth. A study of Bacon's works reveals his clear outlook upon the world. He saw it divided, though by no arbitrary line of demarcation, into two classes, the wise and the unwise, or, more accurately, the ignorant and the less ignorant. The dominant purpose of his life was to convey to mankind, as best he could, the light of knowledge, and he adopted a system for accomplishing this purpose which he tells us was suggested by an ancient usage, though he should apply it differently. This was to "deliver" his philosophy by two different meth- ods to mankind, so that it might be received by all in the course of time, for, he says : — It may truly be objected to me that my philosophy will require an age, a whole age to commend it, and very many ages to es- tablish it. And in another place he forbears to explain it chiefly because it would open that, which in this work I determine to reserve.^ One part of this system has been " delivered " to the world, and it does not seem strange that the other is sought. Was it explained or comprised in the manuscripts which Gruter was so desirous of having published .f* This may be doubted. Spedding laboriously puzzles over the "great secret" of Bacon's dual system, vainly striving to find a satisfactory solution. He says : — Bacon professes that it is not his intention to destroy the re- ceived philosophy, but rather that from henceforth there should be two coexisting and allied systems — the one sufficient for the ordinary purposes of life, and such as would satisfy those who are ^ Spedding, The Works, etc., vol. i, p. 182. 3S9 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS content with probable opinions and commonly received notions — the other for the sons of science who desire to attain to cer- tainty and to an insight into the hidden things of nature.^ In other words, he, Bacon, would "deliver" to mankind in two ways, one in a popular form, which all could receive, and the other, to use Bacon's own words, — To selected auditors or wits of such sharpness as can pierce the veil, one more open; the other, a way of delivery more secret. The latter method is plainly disclosed in his philosophical works, but where are we to seek for the former which he dechnes to disclose ? " Because," he says, " it would open that, which in this work I determine to reserve. ^^ ^ To get a view, as nearly unbiased as possible, of Bacon's true place in the realm of thought, one should not fail to read the dialogue preceding the " Parasceve," which embodies the opinions of two acute thinkers, who, of all who have hitherto devoted themselves to the subject, were best fitted by training and experience to discuss it dispassionately. Says Spedding: — If the great secret which he had, or thought he had, in his keep- ing, lay only or even chiefly in the perfection of the logical ma- chinery — in the method of induction; if this method was a kind of mechanical process — an organum or engine — at once "wholly new," "universally applicable," "in all cases infallible," and such as anybody might manage; if his explanation of this method in the second book of the "Novum Organum" is so incomplete that it leaves all the principal practical difficulties unexplained; and if it were a thing which nobody but himself had any notion of, or any belief in; how is it that during the remaining five years of his life — years of eager and unremitting labour, devoted almost exclusively to the exposition of his philosophy — he made no attempt to complete the explanation of it? Why did he leave the "Novum Organum" as it was. ^ . . . It was not that he had changed his opinion as to the value of it; his sense of the diffi- culties may have increased, his views as to details may have al- * Spedding, The Works y etc., vol. i, pp. 155-56. ^ Ibid.^ vol. 11, pp. 9-39* 360 FRANCIS BACON tered; but there is no reason to think that he ever lost any part of his faith either in the importance or the practicability of it. . . . Two years after the publication of the first part of the "Novum Organum,'' and three years before his death, he speaks of the second part as a thing yet to be done, but adds, '^ which, however, I have in my mind considered and set in order J^ It was not that he thought the description he had already given sufficient: in the winter of 1622, he tells us that there are ^'not a few and those of prime importance " still wanting. It was not that he wanted either time or industry; for during the five succeeding years he completed the "De Augmentis," and composed his histories of the "Winds," of "Life and Death," of "Dense and Rare"; his lost treatise on "Heavy and Light," his lost "Abecedarium Naturae," his "New Atlantis," his "Sylva Sylvarum." Why did he employ no part of that time in completing the description of the new machine?^ Though Spedding fails to enlighten us in this regard, we are at liberty to ask if any literature of Bacon's time, philosophy in a popular form, such as he proposes, can be found .? Doubt- less there would be a consensus of opinion, that only the "Shakespeare" Works present to the world philosophy in its most popular form, and, were Bacon their author, would satis- factorily complete the system which he planned. Thus the great secret would find a happy solution. Says the German critic, Bormann: — Whoever places the " Novum Organum" (1620) and the "Ency- clopedy De Augmentis Scientiarum" (1623) of Francis Bacon side by side with Mr. William Shakespeare's "Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies" (1623) must certainly regard them as kindred works inasmuch as all three appeared in the same stately form.^ The acute mind of Carlyle with ahnost the clear discern- ment of a seer, reflecting upon the philosophy of his favorite author, Shakspere, remarks that there is an understanding manifested in the construction of Shakespeare's Plays, equal in profoundness to the great Lord Bacon's "Novum Organum," ^ The Works, etc., vol. 11, pp. 27-29. Italicized words our translation. 2 Edwin Bormann, The Shakespeare Secret, p. 2. London and Leipzig, 1895. 361 .^ THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS But, he concludes, as any one inevitably does when he com- pares them, that the "Novum Organum" and all the intellect you will find in Bacon is of quite a secondary order; earthy, material, poor in compari- son with this. Surely Philosophy, in the severe garb of Logic, presents an aspect far more earthy and material than Philosophy in the ethereal robes of Poetry. Has not Carlyle unintentionally qualified himself as an expert witness in behalf of the propo- sition, that the works so long accredited to the Stratford actor supplement those of Bacon, and together complete the great philosopher's dual system? But do the "Shakespeare" Works really supplement the works of Bacon? It will be admitted at the outset by all that they "deliver" themselves to the minds of even the unlettered in a pictorial manner, calculated to attract and instruct, and only a casual examination of them reveals the fact that they treat of kindred subjects. The Essays of Bacon deal with human qualities, as Love, Truth, Envy, Revenge, Ambition, Friendship, Anger, and the like, and their author "delivers" them to minds capable of the profoundest thought. The "Shakespeare" Works treat of Ambition ("Macbeth") ; Love ("Romeo and Juliet") ; Avarice ("The Merchant of Venice") ; Jealousy ("Othello"); Envy ("Julius Caesar"); Hypocrisy ("Measure for Measure"); and so on, and the author "deliv- ers" through them instruction to minds of even ordinary capacity. It would seem, therefore, that it is not unreason- able to assume that together they fairly fulfil the require- ments of the philosophical system outlined by Bacon. That this was his intention appears from his own words, which we must accept, or conclude that he left his plan uncompleted. The contention that hewas the author of the "Shakespeare" Works still remains invincible, and finds support in the works themselves, as well as those known to the world as his. To two of these supports so long unnoticed we will now give attention. 362 ^O cj?^-*^ FRANCIS BACON The Promus. This book particularly illustrates Bacon's habits of thought, his keen interest in shaping new words for the expression of ideas, and his care in garnering every sheaf of knowledge which he found. It is evidently one of the hand- books of his literary workshop, or "scriptorium" as he called it, to which Jonson, Bushell, Hobbes, Davies, and others, whom he called "his good pens," were attached. That it was in active existence up to the publication of the Shaksperian Folio and "De Augmentis Scientiarum," we know from his correspondence with Matthew. Bacon's liberality to those about him, leaving his money, when he was in funds, accessi- ble to all without question of its use, leads us to believe that he exercised the same liberality in other things; in fact, his relations to those he employed Spedding shows to have been truly affectionate, many of his manuscripts being endorsed to his sons, "ad filios." That no English author has ever employed so large a vocab- ulary as the author of the "Shakespeare" Works is unques- tioned, and the same may be said of the number of new words added to the language. This already is indicated by Murray's New English Dictionary, the first volume of which was pub- lished in 1883. This embodied the results of twenty-six years of research. Seven volumes only have been published in the thirty years which have passed, and it is likely to take fifty years from the publication of the first volume to complete it. Its most valuable service to the world will be found in what we may well call its genealogy of the English tongue. Not only does it aim to give every word in the language, but the date of its birth, and the name of its progenitor. Of course it is impos- sible at the present time to determine accurately the number of words originated by different authors, but the seven voir umes already published reveal to us with vitascopical distinct- ness hundreds of words originated by the author of the plays. This accords with Macaulay's well-known declaration that he "carried the idiomatic powers of the English tongue to the 363 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS highest perfection, and to whose style every ancient and every modern language contributed something of grace, of energy, and of music/' Robertson, in a futile display of numerous words used in common by other writers, especially by Greene, Marlowe, Peele, and Kyd, a fact familiar to every student of Tudor and Stuart literature, eager to discredit his heretical opponents, seems to have been unaware of Bacon's lingual accomplish- ments. The futility of his argument that the actor, whose ignorance he labors to show, used an immense number of words in common use, becomes evident when we consider the esti- mate, heretofore regarded as valid, that the vocabulary of an English peasant of the actor's time comprised less than four hundred words, and that the author of the "Shakespeare" Works employed a vocabulary of twenty-one thousand words, or three times the number used by Milton, a large number of which never had been used by any previous English writer. To quote against the actor Robertson's own words applied to Bacon's cipher, this presents " a critical chimera which stag- gers judgment and beggars comment." In the " Promus," which was not intended for publication, Bacon recorded proverbs, phrases, apt thoughts, and even expressive and hitherto unused words to serve him in his writ- ings when occasion offered, a custom not uncommon among writers and public speakers. The extent of his lingual ac- complishments is indicated by the languages from which he culled them, — Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and English, in all of which he appears to have been an adept. His Latin has been questioned, but it is doubtful if an author of note in his time has escaped similar criticism. On many points of Latin construction authorities often differ. This manuscript, consisting of fifty folio sheets numbered from 82 to 132, he dignified by the title of the "Promus of Formularies and Elegancies"; in other words, a storehouse 364 FRANCIS BACON of forms and graceful expressions,^ and it is of considerable moment in our study of his philosophical system. The first question which naturally occurs to us is, What use did he make of it in his published writings ? Our curiosity is soon gratified, for the deeper we examine it, the clearer we see the use he made of its contents, not always verbally, but some- times suggestively as clues to thoughts of larger scope. Having satisfied ourselves on this point, another question still more insistent presses itself upon us; namely, if Bacon had anything to do with the " Shakespeare" Works, ought we not to find evidence that he made the same use of the " Pro- mus" in them that he did in his other works.? With increased curiosity we apply ourselves to their critical examination, and are rewarded far beyond our expectations ; in fact, we not only find in them hundreds of the same thoughts which are found in the " Promus," but many in precisely the same verbal form. "All's well that ends well,'' " Believe me," are among favorite expressions often repeated in the plays ; the latter more than fifty times. Such expressions disclose individuality quite as much as elaborate thoughts. The following excerpts from the "Promus" indicated by numbers of the folios, are culled from the 655 entries in them: — Folio Qui prete a Tami perd au double = Who lends to a friend 130 loses double. For love oft loses both itself and friend. Hamlet^ i, 3. 99 To stumble at the threshold. Men that stumble at the threshold. S K. Henry VI, iv, 7. 84B Galen's compositions, not Paracelsus' separations. So I say both of Galen and Paracelsus. J ir s fFdly etc. f iiy s^ ^ Harleian Collection, no. 701 7, British Museum. •36s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS 95 El buen suena el mal vuela = Good dreams, ill waking. Dreame as I have done, Wake and finde nothing. Cymheline, v, 4. 93 Good wine needs no bush. Good wine needs no bush. As You Like It, Epilogue. 85 A fools bolt is soon shot. A Fools Bolt is soon shot. K, Henry F, iii, 7, and Js You like It, v, 4. I will shoot my fools bolt. Letter to Essex. 92B An yll wind that bloweth no man to good. The yll wind which blows no man to good. 2 Henry IF, v, 3. 10 1 Clavum clavo pellere = With one nail to drive out a nail. One fire drives out one fire, One Naile, one Naile. Coriolanus, iv, 6. As one naile by strength drives out another, So the remembrance of my former love, etc. Two Gentlemen of Ferona, 11, 4. 96B A man must tell you tales to find your ears. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Julius Ccesar, iii, 2. Fasten your eare on my advisings. Measure for Measure, iii, I. We doe request your kindest eares. Coriolanus, 11, 2. 131 Innocence parle avec joie sa defence = Innocence speaks with joy her defence. The Trust I have is in mine innocence. 2 K. Henry FI, iv, 4. 366 FRANCIS BACON 92 Seldom cometh the better. Seldom cometh the better. Richard III, 11, 3. Ill Diluculo surgere salubrium. Diluculo surgere — thou knowest. Twelfth Night, 11, 3. 96B Thought is free. Thought is free. Tempest, iii, 2, and Twelfth Night, 11, 3. Thoughts are no subjects. Measure for Measure, v, 2. The above are perhaps sufficient to show how much the "Shakespeare" Works are indebted to the "Promus," and with it alone for a brief the case for the plaintiff might be successfully prosecuted. There is, however, in Bacon's other works quite as convincing evidence of identity of expression and thought to safeguard his case, and it may be well to examine it. Opinion That the rate of a thing chosen for Opinion, and not for truth, is this, that if a man thought that what he doth should never come to light, he would never have done it. Bacon's Colors of Good and Evil, A plague of opinion, a man may weare it on both sides like a leather Jerkin. m Troilus and Cressida, iii, 3. Slippery Stairs to Honors The Stairs to honores are steep, the standing slippery, the re- gresse a downfall. Advancement of Learning, The Art o' th' Court As hard to leave as keepe; whose top to climbe Is certaine falling, or so slipp'ry, that The feare 's as bad as falling. CymbelinCy iii, 3. 367 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS The passions of the mind work upon the body, the impressions following. Feare causeth paleness, trembling, the standing of the hair upright; starting. Sylva Syharum. Thy knotty and combined locks to part, And each particular haire to stand on end, Like Quilles upon the fretfull Porcupine. Hamlet, i, 5. Your bedded haire like life in excrements. Start up and stand on end. Ibid, III, 4. Adversity Adversity is not without comforts and hopes. It was a high speech of Seneca, "that . . . the good things that belong to ad- versity are to be admired." Sweet are the uses of adversitie Which like the toad, ugly and venemous, Weares yet a precious Jewell in his head. As You like It, 11, i . Rats quitting ti fallen house It is the wisdom of rats that will be sure to leave a house be- fore it fall. Essay on Wisdom Instinctively the very rats have quit it. Tempest, i, 2. Revealing Day Revealing day through every crannie peeps. From manuscript of Bacon, Revealing day through every crannie spies. Lucrece, Money Breeding It is against Nature for money to beget money. Essay on Usury, Antonio. Or is your gold and silver Eues and Rams? Shylock. I cannot tell, I make it breede as fast. Merchant of Venice, i, 3. 368 FRANCIS BACON Music of the Spheres If we place any belief in the opinion of Plato and Cardan, a divine harmony is generated from the intercourse of the Spheres which we cannot hear on account of the greatness of the distance. De Natures Arcanis, etc. How aptly this thought finds expression in the "Merchant of Venice": — Looke how the floore of heaven Is Thicke inlayed with patines of bright gold There 's not the smallest orbe which thou beholdst But in his motion like an Angell sings Still quiring to the young eyed Cherubins. V, I. This thought of a sympathy existing between the senses, explainable by the theory that all the senses are modifications of the sense of feeling, is further illustrated by Bacon in his "Advancement of Learning," in the following striking man- ner: — The quavering upon a stop in music gives the same delight to the ear that the playing of light upon the water, or the sparkling of a diamond gives to the eye — splendit tremulo sub lumine pontus. In "Twelfth Night" this thought is strikingly repeated: — That straine agen; it had a dying fall; O it came ore my eare like the sweet sound That breathes upon a banke of Violets: Stealing and giving Odour. 1,1. The last two lines find a still closer expression in Bacon's "Essay on Gardens": — And because the breath of flowers is far sweeter in the air (when it comes and goes like the warbling of music). Doves The following has been noticed by several writers : — Bacon was extremely fond of doves, which Lady Bacon was wont to send him on occasions. The following letters written 369 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS by her from Gorhambury to her son Anthony, the first in April, and the second in October, 1595, reveal a notable coin- cidence : — I send between your brother and you the first flight of my dove house, II dozen and IV pigeons; XII. to you and XVI. to your brother, because he was wont to love them better than you from a boy. I send you XII. pigeons, my last flight, and one ring dove be- sides. I have here a dish of Doves that I would bestow upon your worship. Merchant of Venice, 11, 2. I have brought you a Letter and a couple of Pigeons here. Titus Jndronicus, iv, 4. To hear with the eyes It seemeth both in ear and eye the Instrument of sense hath a sympathy or similitude with that which giveth the reflection. This remarkable thought is from Bacon's "Natural His- tory," in which he treats of the Consent and Dissent of Visibles and Audibles, yet it finds expression in Shakspere as follows: O, learn to read what silent love hath writ, To hear with eies belongs to love's fine wit. Sonnet xxiii. The World a Stage I have given the rule when a man cannot fitly play his own part; if he have not a friend he may quit the stage. Essay on Friendship, But men must know that in this Theatre of man's life, it is re- served only for God and Angels to be lookers on. Advancement of Learning, All the world 's a stage, And all the men and women merely players. As You Like It, 11, 7. Antonio. I hold the world but as the world, Gratlano; A stage where every man must play a part. Merchant of Venice, i, i. FRANCIS BACON Tides and Currents In third place I set down reputation because of the peremp- tory tides and currents it hath, which if they be not taken in their due time are seldom recovered. > Proficiency and AdvancemenU^y^ There is a Tide in the affayres of men Which taken at the Flood leades on to Fortune. Julius Coesar, iv, 3. Parallels like the foregoing could be multiplied indefinitely, but so many have been pointed out by different writers that we think best to limit ourselves to a few examples. That similar coincidences of thought and expression can be found in other writers of Elizabeth's reign we well know. Many may be found in all periods among the authors of antiquity and of recent times. Contemporary authors living under similar conditions are likely to think and express them- selves in similar ways, but it is safe to affirm — ruling out Spenser, Marlowe, Greene, and Peele, as we hope to show valid reasons for doing — that no two authors of Elizabeth's time can be found, who at all compare in this regard with those to whom the works under discussion are attributed, without being open to the charge of plagiarism. The coincidences are too numerous to dispose of satisfactorily to dispassionate minds. The late Mr. Reed, one of the profoundest of Shak- sperian scholars, has said that "The argument from parallel- isms in general may be stated thus: one parallelism has no significance; five parallelisms attract attention; ten suggest inquiry; twenty raise a presumption; fifty establish a prob- abiHty; one hundred dissolve every doubt." He gives in his book, "Bacon and Shakespeare Parallel- isms," eight hundred and eighty-five, all most striking. Others have added to these, and we believe the number can be doubled. The puerile attempts to break the force of Mr. Reed's evidence are pitiable indeed. We would give Mr. Charles Crawford's curious attack upon the " Promus " were it 371 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS worthy of sufficient space, but its display of egotism, false as- sumptions and immaturity of thought, forbid it. THE NORTHUMBERLAND MANUSCRIPT In the large mass of Francis and Anthony Bacon's corre- spondence preserved in English archives, the name of the Stratford actor has not been found. So far as written evidence goes, both Francis and Anthony were unaware of his existence and of the " Shakespeare" Works. We know that Francis was deeply interested in dramatic art, and that Anthony at one time changed his city abode in order to be near the playhouse ; yet not a word appears even in their most familiar correspond- ence to indicate that the man whose birthplace is now the Mecca of deluded pilgrims, and whose name was then on some of the best poetry of the time, was known to them ; though he was living in the then small city of London, and had appeared — in a minor capacity it is true — at Court performances. This silence is too significant to be ignored ; it was intentional. Serving as a mask, it was prudent, in case of inquiry, for Bacon not to be in any way identified with him. His intimate acquaintance with "Richard II" is evinced by his statement to the Queen that the author had purloined "most of the sen- tences of Cornelius Tacitus"; but we have another similarly significant piece of evidence in a volume of his manuscripts, probably not written later than 1598, and only discovered in 1867. This is the Northumberland Manuscript, or "Confer- ence of Pleasure," according to its title. Its table of contents reveals many items, as speeches written for Essex in 1595, and one for the Earl of Sussex, 1596; a letter written for Arundell to the Queen. These represent a kind of service which his pregnant pen often rendered to his friends. Besides there are orations at Gray's Inn, and, most interesting of all, the plays of "Richard 11" and "Richard III." We can imagine the cruel disappointment of the discoverer of this precious volume, when he eagerly turned its leaves in 372 TITLE-PAGE OF BACON'S VOLUME OF MANUSCRIPTS FOUND AT NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE ONCE CONTAINING COPIES OF RICHARD II AND RICHARD Iin 1 In modern script with portion of scribblings expurgated. FRANCIS BACON search of these manuscript plays, and found that they had been removed. We can but confess to a lively sympathy for him, having had similar experiences ourselves. There are other interesting items in the volume; its title- page has been scribbled upon, and among the scribblings we find a Latin verse; the line, *' Revealing day through every cranny peeps," which is better than the same line in "Lucrece," which ends with the word "spies," a forced change to com- plete a rhyme; the strange word " honorificabilitudino " found extended in "Love's Labours Lost," published in 1598; "Anthony — Baco — Bacon — By Mr. Francis Bacon — Sh-Shak — Will-William Shakespeare — " etc., many times repeated. We give this title-page in modern script, eliminating a portion of the names scribbled upon it, but leaving several to show its character more clearly, and, especially the line "By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare," and the inverted word "ffrauncis" over them. The curious scrolls at the top of the page seem to have been a fad of Bacon. The same scrolls are found on the title-page of "Les Tenures de Monsieur Littleton," annotated in the handwriting of Bacon. The first thought is that the juxtaposition of the names Francis Bacon — William Shakespeare is startlingly sugges- tive, and the inquiry naturally occurs. Why was the book despoiled of the plays .f* The answer seems evident. The author's lodgings were liable to be visited at any time by the pursuivants in search of evidence against Bacon's friend and employer, Essex, and these plays would have proved danger- ous evidence against him as a participant in the Earl's treason. This will find confirmation from a consideration of the play of "Richard IL" Richard II, when it first appeared on the stage, contained a scene relating to the dethronement of the reigning monarch, which was so suggestive that it excited the anger of the Queen. Seemingly to mend matters it was printed anonymously with- 373 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS out the objectionable scene. This was in 1597 in which year two editions were published, and the next year, the actor having become a householder and nominal, if not de facto citi- zen of Stratford, it was again printed, this time with the name "William Shakespeare" on its title-page. The Queen, always realizing her perilous position, did not forget the transgression of the author in the first instance, for being some time after in the Tower with the Keeper of the Records examining his digest of the Rolls, and coming to the reign of Richard, she impulsively exclaimed, to the confusion of the obsequious official, "I am Richard II; know ye not that?" The play proved unfortunate for all concerned except the putative author, who seems to have been fortunately out of the way, which might have saved him an ear or a hand. As it was, it placed Bacon, whom the Queen seems to have sus- pected of its authorship, in a perilous position ; added weight to the trial which delivered Essex to the headsman ; and aided in consigning John Hayward, one of Bacon's fellowship at Gray's Inn, to the Tower, where he wore out many months of precious life. Hayward had written a sketch of the reign of Henry IV which he dedicated to the unfortunate Essex, and had it not been for this play, it is doubtful if the Queen would have displayed so much violence toward him. This was shortly before the open rebellion of Essex, and when the plot- ters of treason desired to inflame the ever-smouldering pas- sions of the multitude, they bethought themselves of the old play as a promising method of doing so, and, says the record of the Council prepared by Bacon: — The afternoon before the Rebellion, Merricke, with a great company of others that were all in the action, had procured to be played before them the play of deposing King Richard 11. Neither was it casual, but a play bespoken by Merricke, and not so only, but when it was told him by one of the players that the play was old, and that they should have loss in playing it, because few would come to it; there were forty shillings extraordinary given to play it, and so thereupon played it was. 374 FRANCIS BACON Against Hayward, Elizabeth was especially furious, as she saw in his dedication of his " Henry IV " to Essex evidence of a sinister meaning, and she dispatched him summarily to the Tower, that near step to the block. Bacon was ordered by her to proceed in the case against Essex, and though he begged to be excused, was compelled to do so. This enabled him to limit inquiry into the authorship of the play as well as to shield Hay- ward. In doing this he furnishes us with an interesting glimpse of his embarrassing position. His reply to his associates when he was assigned the part of investigating the matters relating to Hayward, we should particularly note. It was allotted to me that I should set forth some undutiful carriage of my Lord, in giving occasion and countenance to a seditious pamphlet as it was termed, which was dedicated unto him, which was the book before mentioned of King Henry the Fourth. Whereupon I said that it was an old matter, and had no manner of coherence with the rest of the charge, being matters of Ireland, and, therefore, that / having been wronged by bruits be- fore, this would expose me to them more; and it would be said I gave in evidence my own tales. It should be noted that Ha3rward's sketch of Henry IV touched upon the point of hereditary succession. The play of "Richard II " was more offensive, and more perilous to Bacon, who was constantly fencing to ward off inquiry in that direc- tion, for if Hayward's sketch was found to be treasonable, how much more the play. This thought appears to have been uppermost in his mind when the Queen sought him to discuss the subjects of his investigation, Hayward's "Henry IV," and "Richard II." Evidently the latter is what he had in mind when he rather ambiguously alludes to the subject of discussion as being "^ matter which, though it grew from me, went after about on other s names'' Is not this a plain acknowl- edgment of his authorship of the play ? "The Queen," says Bacon, "thinking it a seditious prelude to put into the people's heads boldness and faction, said she had good opinion that there was treason in it, and asked if I 37S THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS could not find any places in it that might be drawn within case of treason ; whereunto I answered, for treason truly found I none, but for felony very many. And when her Majesty hastily asked me wherein? I told her 'the author had taken most of the sentences of Cornelius Tacitus and translated them into English, and put them into his text';"^ alluding to "Richard IL" Hayward, however, was her bird in the hand, and she vindic- tively urged Bacon to find something upon which to convict him. The influence that he possessed over her is exhibited strikingly in this episode. Evidently suspecting that he knew more about the subject than he disclosed to her, she attacked his most sensitive point, by declaring that the pamphlet, the subject which Bacon tenaciously held her to, as the least dangerous, "had some more mischievous author, and said, with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce his author." To this Bacon says he replied: "Nay, madame, he is a doctor, never rack his person, rack his stile ; let him have pens, ink and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the story where it leaves off, and I will undertake, by collecting the stiles, to judge whether he were the author or no." Never was more adroit reply made, and in spite of her bad qualities, Elizabeth was quite capable of appreciating the fact; indeed, it is quite possible that Bacon's witty treatment of the subject prevented her from seeking some more pliant instrument of her vengeance. As it was she contented herself with keeping Hayward in his cage while she lived. During this season of inquiry it may be asked, Where was the nominal author of the play? The mystery has been ex- plained by the statement that he was "probably" in hiding, and that the mysterious thousand pounds of Southampton, who was involved in the rebellion, was what kept him out of sight; and, indeed, this may be true, for Southampton was ^ Spedding. Cf. Works ^ etc., vol. xiii, p. 341. 376 EFFIGY SURMOUNTING MONUMENT From photograph loaned by William Stone Booth, Esq. FRANCIS BACON then in danger of his head, and would have paid many thou- sand pounds to save it. In this account of the play and pamphlet we have endeav- ored to avoid the confusion into which those who have treated them seem to have fallen, caused, perhaps, by Bacon's ambig- uous language. A critical examination, we feel sure, warrants our treatment of them. The fact that these plays in manuscript were in a book made up of Bacon's writings, coupled with what he says relative to the play, is a piece of evidence of their authorship by him so strong that ridicule of Baconian logic will not avail with reasonable minds. The trivial objection that the incriminat- ing table of contents was left in the book will doubtless be urged against us, but it has passed into a proverb that culprits are forgetful. The contemporary character of the scribblings are unques- tionable. Whether Bacon wrote them, or Davies, one of his scribes, does not particularly affect our interest in them. The word "Honorificabilitudino" is interesting, and most sugges- tive, as it is found in "Love's Labours Lost," as we have before said, with four syllables added. We believe that the unprejudiced reader will conclude that the Northumberland Manuscript is a strong link in the chain of evidence in favor of Bacon's authorship of the "Shake- speare" Works. Had we one as strong in favor of the actor's authorship it would be considered unbreakable by his friends. Consider for a moment what it would be to the Stratfordian cause, if a manuscript volume of pieces known to have been his were found with a table of contents comprising the titles of "Richard 11" and "Richard III," with the evidence that they had been removed from it. What meetings would be convened, what rejoicings we should hear. It would be a proud day for Lee and Robertson, and everybody interested in Shaksperian copyrights. IX THE SONNETS The Sonnets have proved to be a treasure trove to lit- erary faddists, and one who is lavish of time and patience to follow them in their wanderings can but realize how limited is human endeavor in speculative fields. Books galore have been written to discover the identity of "W. H." to whom the Sonnets were dedicated, as though this were matter of grave importance. One writer discerns behind the mysteri- ous letters, which he reverses, Henry Wriothesley; others, William Harvey, William Hart, William Herbert, William Hathaway, and William Hughes. Mary Fitton, one of the actor's supposed mistresses, has also played an unsavory role in the discussion. The writer, therefore, has not the temerity, if he has the disposition, to advance any startling theory respecting these poetic gems, but we now have Bacon's life before us more fully than ever before, and we will venture to ask the reader, after a careful perusal of the Sonnets, — and they are amply worthy of very many readings, — to reread them in the light of Bacon's life, with this one suggestion, that it is quite natural for one whose mind is self-centered and intro- spective, to address himself in the third person: "Why art thou cast down, O my soul.'^" asks the psahnist; "And why art thou disquieted in me?" That they reflect the changing moods of the author and reflect his experiences is evident and admitted by all. That Bacon's experiences were peculiar is equally evident. Brought up in the atmosphere of a godless court, surpassing his contemporaries in learning, in brilliancy of mind, and in 378 THE SONNETS keenness of wit ; with small means, but, for a considerable por- tion of his life, in expectancy of high official honors ; constantly disappointed, owing to the Queen's distrust of him fostered by enemies enjoying official power, yet inspired by the highest ideals, and secretly devoting his life to the mental enfranchise- ment of his fellow men in an age when a knowledge of his work would have brought him to the block, it would be im- possible for the work of such a man not to be colored by his life. Realizing this himself he expresses fear of discovery thus: — LXXVI Why write I still all one, ever the same, And keep invention in a noted weed, That every word doth almost tell my name, Showing their birth and where they did proceed? Let us for a moment consider, if a poet were to write certain sonnet sequences embodying the experiences of his life, — and in the Sonnets we are reviewing all critics have recognized that their author was doing this, — how he would naturally proceed. Without doubt he would begin with springtime and youth, when both are brimming with life and the youthful heart is dominated by the Muse of Poetry. To her it joyously and wholly devotes its love, and pours out all the passion which inspires its song: — I Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament And only herald to the gaudy spring, Within thine own bud buriest thy content And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding. The singer's thought now becomes more self-centered, for he makes little distinction between his music and himself, and with the happy insouciance of the dreamer vibrates between them. To follow him in his varying moods this clue must not be dropped. The "gaudy spring" inevitably suggests the 379 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS somber winter of Age, as imagination turned selfward mirrors his own lineaments : — II When forty winters shall besiege thy brow And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field, Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now. Will be a tatter'd weed, of small worth held: It follows, in harmony with the creative impulses of nature, that he must preserve in another the beauty of his youth: — III Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest Now is the time that face should form another; Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest, Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother. VI Then let not winter's ragged hand deface In thee thy summer, ere thou be distiU'd: Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place With beauty's treasure, ere it be self-klU'd. That use is not forbidden usury. Which happies those that pay the willing loan; That's for thyself to breed another thee, Or ten times happier, be it ten for one; Ten times thyself were happier than thou art. If ten of thine ten times refigured thee: Then what could death do, if thou shouldst depart, Leaving thee living in posterity? Be not self-wIU'd, for thou art much too fair To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir. VII Lo, in the orient when the gracious light Lifts up his burning head, each under eye Doth homage to his new-appearing sight, Serving with looks his sacred majesty: And having climb'd the steep-up heavenly hill, Resembling strong youth in his middle age, Yet mortal looks adore his beauty still, Attending on his golden pilgrimage; 380 THE SONNETS But when from highmost pitch, with weary car, Like feeble age, he reeleth from the day. The eyes, 'fore duteous, now converted are From his low tract, and look another way: So thou, thyself out-going in thy noon, Unlook'd on diest, unless thou get a son. What does the future forecast for him? He has had his human love to whom as Rosalind he once sang, the embodi- ment of all the graces of his muse. In all his songs they and his own soul are triune. To him these are not divided by lines of time and space. XVII Who will believe my verse in time to come, If it were fill'd with your most high deserts? Though yet, heaven knows, it is but as a tomb Which hides your life and shows not half your parts. If I could write the beauty of your eyes And in fresh numbers number all your graces. The age to come would say **This poet lies; Such heavenly touches ne'er touch'd earthly faces." So should my papers, yellowed with their age. Be scorn'd, like old men of less truth than tongue, And your true rights be term'd a poet's rage And stretched metre of an antique song: But were some child of yours alive that time. You should live twice, in it and in my rhyme. Having reflected upon the vicissitudes of life, he turns his glance to the more material conditions by which his life is hampered which estrange him from his poetic muse compel- ling him to toil "still farther off from thee." Dr. Rawley, Bacon's chaplain, who was his most intimate companion, wondered greatly at the extent of his knowledge, ascribing it not so much to books, though he was a great reader, as to some faculty akin to inspiration. The night-time is most favorable to clear thinking, and happy indeed is the man who can retain a clear recollection of his night thoughts. Bacon could do this and we are told by Boener that he 381 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS Seldom saw him take up a book. He only ordered his chaplain and me to look in such and such an author for a certain place, and then dictated to us early in the morning what he had com- posed during the night. Lady Anne, knowing his devotion to study, in her solicitude for his health which had become impaired, in a letter to An- thony, wrote : — Verily I think that your brother's weak stomach to digest hath been much caused and confirmed by untimely going to bed, and then musing, I know not what, when he should sleep. This habit is here disclosed: — XXVIII How can I then return in happy plight, That am debarred the benefit of rest? When day's oppression is not eased by night, But day by night, and night by day, oppress'd? And each, though enemies to cither's reign. Do In consent shake hands to torture me; The one by toil, the other to complain How far I toil, still farther off from thee. I tell the day, to please him thou art bright. And dost him grace when clouds do blot the heaven: So flatter I the swart-complexlon'd night; When sparkling stars twire not thou glld'st the even. But day doth daily draw my sorrows longer. And night doth nightly make grief's strength seem stronger. But he thinks of the muse to whom he is devoted, and though disappointed, cramped, and hindered in his aspirations, he exclaims: "Haply I think on thee," and becomes greater than a king: — XXIX When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries. And look upon myself, and curse my fate. Wishing me like to one more rich In hope. Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, Desiring this man's art and that man's scope. With what I most enjoy contented least; 382 THE SONNETS Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Like to the lark at break of day arising From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate; For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings That then I scorn to change my state with kings. His muse will, of course, have other lovers, and his "poor rude lines" will be "Exceeded by the height of happier men," and he asks, — XXXII If thou survive my well contented day. When that churl death my bones with dust shall cover And shalt by fortune once more re-survey: These poor rude lines of thy deceased Lover: Compare them with the bettering of the time, And though they be out-stript by every pen. Reserve them for my love, not for their rhyme. Exceeded by the height of happier men. Oh then vouchsafe me but this loving thought, Had my friends Muse grown with this growing age, A dearer birth than this his love had brought To march in ranks of better equipage: But since he died and Poets better prove. Theirs for their style I '11 read, his for his love. He must be separated from the embodiment of his genius : — XXXVI Let me confess that we two must be twain. Although our undivided loves are one: So shall those blots that do with me remain. Without thy help, by me be borne alone. In our two loves there is but one respect. Though in our lives a separable spite, Which though it alter not love's sole effect. Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight. I may not evermore acknowledge thee. Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame, Nor thou with public kindness honour me, Unless thou take that honour from thy name: But do not so; I love thee in such sort. As thou being mine, mine is thy good report. 383 THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS But he asks : — XXXVIII How can my Muse want subject to invent, While thou dost breathe, that pour'st into my verse Thine own sweet argument, too excellent For every vulgar paper to rehearse? O, give thyself the thanks, if aught in me Worthy perusal stand against thy sight; For who's so dumb that cannot write to thee, When thou thyself dost give invention light? Be thou the tenth Muse, ten times more in worth Than those old nine which rhymers invocate; And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth Eternal numbers to outlive long date. If my slight Muse do please these curious days, The pain be mine, but thine shall be the praise. Yet he seems to set the greatest store by his work: — XXXIX O, how thy worth with manners may I sing, When thou art all the better part of me? What can mine own praise to mine own self bring? And what is't but mine own when I praise thee? It has been a subject of wonder with his biographers why the Stratford actor took no interest in the works ascribed to him, and the reply seems evident; namely, that he was not their author. The following, however, shows that the author of the Sonnets fully appreciated the value of his literary work which his keen critical sense told him excelled that of his con- temporaries : — • LV Not marble, nor the gilded monuments Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme? But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn. And broils root out the work of masonry. Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. 384 THE SONNETS 'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room Even in the eyes of all posterity That wear this world out to the ending doom. So, till the judgment that yourself arise, You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes. We come now to perhaps the most striking self-revelation we have thus far met. The alluring but illusive sin of self- love flits across the path of his thought, and he recognizes himself in the specter. Hitherto his confidence in the crea- tions of his brain has charmed him into the belief that he was gifted with genius above his fellows, but now his real self is revealed to him — his age and condition — an inevitable ex- perience of an introspective soul at some point in life. LXII Sin of self-love possesses all mine eye, And all my soul, and all my every part; And for this sin there Is no remedy, It is so grounded inward, in my heart. Methinks no face so gracious is as mine. No shape so true, no truth of such account; And for myself mine owne worth to define, As I all other In all worths surmount. But when my glass shows me myself Indeed, Beated and chopp'd with tann'd antiquity Mine own self-loving quite contrary I read; Self so self-loving were iniquity. 'Tis thee, myself, that for myself I praise, Painting my age with beauty of thy days. Is It possible that the Stratford actor, then especially ab- sorbed in petty trade and overreaching his neighbors, could have indulged such reflections as these? The author of the "Arte of English Poesie'" might have scanned these lines without sulking. The fame of his work, however, must be enjoyed by another whose epitaph even he must make if he survives him: — 38s THE GREATEST OF LITERARY PROBLEMS LXXXI Or I shall live your epitaph to make, Or you survive when I in earth am rotten; From hence your memory death cannot take, Although in me each part will be forgotten. Your name from hence immortal life shall have. Though I, once gone, to all the world must die: The earth can yield me but a common grave, When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie. Your monument shall be my gentle verse, Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read; And tongues to be your being shall rehearse. When all the breathers of this world are dead; You still shall live — such virtue hath my pen — Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men. An unprejudiced mind, acquainted with the character and life of the Stratford actor, and the social prejudices of his day which consigned a strolling player to the limbo of contempt, refusing him the right to practice his calling unless under the responsible protection of some one in power, must admit that what has been quoted cannot possibly reflect his experiences. We give but a few of the one hundred and fifty-four of these Sonnets which require a volume to do them justice. That there are obscurities in them is evident from the perplexing theo- ries which have been formed respecting them. Some, indeed, probably refer to different subjects. Space, however, will not permit us to discuss this question at present. Whether the glosses we have attached to those we have quoted are more reasonable than those heretofore given, the reader must judge. That Bacon was known as a poet by his contemporaries is proved by abundant evidence. Perhaps the most impor- tant proof of the esteem in which he was held is exhibited in the "Great Assizes holden in Parnassus." The two parts of the Pilgrimage to, and the Return from, Parnassus were produced respectively in 1597, 1598, and 1601. "The Great Assizes" was printed in 1645. Raphael had depicted in the Vatican the triumph of antique art under the poetic influ- 386 THE "^l GREAT assises! Boldcn in PARN AS SVS J BY I AP AND HIS ASSESSOVRS: LL O At which Seffions are Arraigned & Mercurius Aulkus. '0 Merciiru^s Civicus. ^1^ The writer of Vhrmlls, ^^ The Intelliorencer. The t^riter of Occurrences. The miter ofPajfages. The Pojl. The Spy e. The writer of weekly Accotmts. The Sconip Dove^c^c. c>Tra^c^jm Ll I r$ % n 1(\^\