I'; 
 
 ^- 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 
 A STUDY 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD JAMES CASTLE, 
 
 One of Her Majesty's Counsel, 
 (late lieutenant royal engineers.) 
 
 Miracles are ceast : 
 And therefore we must needes admit the meanes, 
 How things are perfected. 
 
 Folio 162$.— Hen. V. Act I. Sc. I. 
 
 Eonton: 
 
 SAAIPSON LOW, MARSTOX, AND COMPANY, LTD., 
 ST. DUNSTAN'S HOUSE, 
 FETTER LANE. 
 
 1897 
 
 v
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED BY C. F. ROWORTII, OKHAT NEW STREET, FETTER LANE, E.C.
 
 ©I^EPAGE. 
 
 HAVE had some doubts whether I should 
 publish this book. 
 
 The world does not like to have its established 
 beliefs questioned ; but so much has already been 
 said and written on the " Bacon theor}%" and so 
 many attempts have been made to unseat Shake- 
 speare entirely, that I hope more good than 
 harm may be done if we can ascertain the exact 
 relations which existed between Shakespeare and 
 Bacon. ♦ 
 
 The only question which is necessary to be 
 decided in order to effect this purpose is, I think, 
 whether or not my distinction between the " non- 
 legal" and *' legal plays" is well founded? For 
 if Shakespeare personally had not the education 
 of a law}^er, then I think it must be admitted 
 he must have received assistance in some of his 
 plays from one who had. There are a number of
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 side issues which have been raised in the course 
 of the inquiry, but this is really the only one we 
 have to decide. 
 
 In these days of critical research, when from 
 hour to hour our fund of information is being 
 continually added to, it may be shown that I 
 have made mistakes in collateral matters. I 
 have discovered some such mistakes myself, 
 which have been altered ; others, no doubt, may 
 still be found out. I however hope that, though 
 the position I have taken up may not be accepted 
 by all, I have at least given some novel and 
 interesting facts concerning our great poet. 
 
 E. J. C. 
 
 Temple, 
 
 February, 1897.
 
 ©ONTENJIIS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE LAW IN Shakespeare's works (7). 
 Collier and Lord Campbell's Opinion (8). 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW (11). 
 
 Lord Campbell's Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements (13). 
 The Sonnets (14). Poems (16). Colour (19). 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 LEGAL plays (28). ^ 
 
 Measure for Measure (29). Pre-contract (29). Promos and 
 Cassandra (34). Escalus (42). First Trial Scene (43). 
 Observation thereon (52), Second Trial Scene (58). 
 Henry VI. (60). First Part (61). Second Part (73). 
 Hamlet (83). Lear (84). 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS (89). 
 
 Titus Andronicus (89). Macbeth (96). Cawdor (98). 
 Twelfth Night (108). Othello (110). Leets and 
 Lawdays (118). Misuse of Words — Naine (126). 
 Doom {111). Enfranchise {\Z\). Executor {\Z1).
 
 VI CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE — THE AUTHOR (136). 
 
 Reasons alleged that he was not (139). Shakespeare's 
 Early Life (140). Early Surroundings (142). His 
 Father (143). Traditions (144). Reason for believing 
 he joined the Stage as a Youth (149), 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAKESPEARE WAS A WRITER OF 
 PLAYS (155). 
 
 Of Robert Greene (155). Groatsworth of Wit (159). 
 Shakespeare's possible connection with Greene (162). 
 Chettle(163). The Poems (166). Francis Meres (169). 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 BEN JONSON'S evidence THAT SHAKESPEARE WROTE 
 
 PLAYS (171). 
 
 Jonson's Career (173). The Discoveries (175). Re- 
 marks to Drumond (177). Shakespeare's Plagiarism 
 (178). The Poet Ape (179). John Shakespeare's 
 Coat of Arms (182). Ever}- Man in his Humour (186). 
 Every Man out of his Humour (189). Poetaster (189). 
 Return from Parnassus (191). Hamlet in reference 
 to Jonson (192). 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 bacon and SHAKESPEARE (194). 
 
 Legal Friend not necessarily Bacon (194). Query, Coke 
 (195). Resemblance between Bacon and Shake- 
 speare's Writings (196). Identical Expressions, Meta- 
 phors, Opinions (196). Quotations and Errors (197). 
 Mr. Donnelly's Cr)'ptogram (198). Promus (199). 
 Silence of Bacon (203). His Friendship for Jonson 
 (204). The Position of the Stage in Elizabeth's 
 Time (205). The Puritans (207). Bacon's concealed 
 Authorship (208).
 
 CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE, COtlfimied {2\Q). 
 
 Gesta Grayorum (210). The Position of Gray's Inn (211). 
 The Prince ofPurpoole (212). The Entertainment at 
 Greenwich (213). Mr. Spedding's Views as to Bacon 
 assisting (214). Account of Gesta Grayorum (215). 
 The Comedy of Errors (217). The Indictment of the 
 Sorcerer (? Bacon) (219). The Speech of the First 
 Councillor (223). Reasons for believing Bacon was 
 the Prime Mover (225). 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 BACON AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623 (229). 
 
 Henry VIII. : Reason for believing Work of Bacon and 
 Jonson (230). A Legal Play (230). Distinction be- 
 tween Canon and Civil Law (234). Wolsey's Fall 
 distinguished from Bacon's (237). Campeggio's Let- 
 ters (238). Cavendish's Account of Wolsey (240). 
 Henry VIII.'s Friendship for Wolsey (242). Wolsey's 
 Arrest, Cause of (243). Wolsey in the Play (244). 
 Bacon's Position (246). The attention given to 
 Wolsey as Chancellor (248). The Eulogy on More 
 (254). The Coronation Procession (255). 
 
 Chapter X. 
 
 THE history OF THE PLAY OF HENRY VIII. (258). 
 
 Wolsey's Entertainment at York House (259). Burning of 
 the Globe Theatre, 1613(260). Dr. Johnson's View as 
 to the Authorship (261). Halliwell's Objection (261). 
 Knight's (262). The Poverty of the Language (263). 
 The Stage Directions (264). Jonson's INIasques (265). 
 The Prologue of Henry VIII. (266). Jonson's Lines 
 to Himself (269).
 
 Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter XL 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTING BACON WITH THE FOLIO 
 
 OF 1623 (272). 
 
 His Fall and Sentence (273). His Letter to the King 
 about Henry Vn. (274). Spedding's View (275). First 
 mention of Henry VHL (276). Bacon's Application 
 for the State Papers (276). His Excuse for not con- 
 tinuing Henry VHL (278). Conclusion (280). 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTERS (283). 
 
 Chapter L 
 the actor-author (284). 
 
 Knowledge of Stage Life (285). References to Acting (285). 
 Knowledge of Stage Business (286). Measure for 
 Measure (287). Lear (287). Hamlet (288). The Posi- 
 tion of the Stage (293). Female Characters played 
 by Boys (295). Malone's History of the Stage (297). 
 View of the Puritans (299). Hamlet (301). Two 
 Gentlemen of Verona (302). Merchant of Venice (304). 
 As You Like It (306). Twelfth Night (307). Devil 
 is an Ass (308). The New Inn (310). Shakespeare 
 and Greene (311). The Character of Adam (312). 
 The Three Parts of Henry VI. (314). Bacon's Secret 
 Compositions (318). The Northumberland Manu- 
 script (319). The Gra/s Inn Masque (323). Essex's 
 Device (327). The Masque of Mountebankes (329). 
 Entertainment of Bacon at Gray's Inn (336). 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 BACON & Shakespeare's respective contributions(304). 
 
 Collaboration, how effected (341). Henry VII., when 
 Written (341). Sejanus, did Bacon assist (340). The 
 Folio of 1623 (348). How Printed (349). The 
 Origin of the Manuscripts (351). Jonson's Con- 
 tributions (352).
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is perhaps necessary to offer some explanation 
 for giving this Study to the world. For though 
 what is called the Shakespeare-Bacon question 
 has attracted a considerable amount of attention 
 since it was hrst raised by Mrs. Delia Bacon in 
 January, 1856, yet the general opinion seems to 
 be that there is either nothing in the suggestion, 
 or there is not sufficient data to settle the matter 
 one way or the other. 
 
 But from Shakespeare, as out of Africa, there 
 is always something new, and as I think I ha^fe 
 arrived at evidence which, if true, gives a solution 
 of the problem, I have ventured to bring what I 
 have discovered before that jury which must 
 ultimately decide all questions — namely, educated 
 public opinion. I was led to take some trouble 
 about the matter through coming across Halli- 
 well's Life of Shakespeare, which embraces, it is 
 believed, all the documentary evidence known to 
 exist relating to Shakespeare's career. I thought 
 
 C. B
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I would Study it and see whether there was any 
 light to be discovered. It was the middle of a 
 rather dull Long Vacation, when " Time stands 
 still with the Law}'er," and the intellectual 
 exercise was some substitute for the out-door 
 amusements which the weather did not always 
 permit. The work grew more and more interest- 
 ing, and was at intervals followed up. I had by 
 no means a theory to support ; was not even an 
 advocate, but one desirous of ascertaining the 
 facts, and I think this is shown by my various 
 changes of opinion as I got more and more into 
 the subject. Originally I, no doubt, leaned to 
 the Bacon theory ; it is, as I believe Burke says, 
 more pleasing to exercise our ingenuity in proving 
 that which is not accepted than to merely support 
 what is. But, after some consideration, I came 
 to the conclusion that Shakespeare was the sole 
 author of the two Poems Venus and Adonis and 
 Lucrece, the Sonnets and the Plays, and that 
 there was no evidence that Bacon had anything 
 to do with them, nor any necessity for imagining 
 that he had. 
 
 This view was arrived at by a very simple 
 process of reasoning : the great peculiarity, as 
 so many lawyers — Malone, Lord Campbell, and 
 others — have noticed, is the extraordinary know- 
 ledge of law to be found in Shakespeare's works.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 This "law" is to be found equally in the two 
 Poems as it is in the Sonnets or Plays, and as by 
 common consent it has been admitted, even by the 
 Baconians, that these Poems were Shakespeare's ; 
 therefore it seemed clear if Shakespeare could hnd 
 the law for the Poems, why not for his other works? 
 There were, no doubt, many ways by which he 
 might have acquired a knowledge of law ; he 
 might have shared the rooms with a Templar, 
 and while the one studied the other might have 
 written and insensibly have worked in some of 
 his friend's knowledge; but however acquired, 
 if Shakespeare was the sole and undoubted author 
 of the Poems, then I could find no reason why he 
 should not be the author of the Plays. 
 
 This reasoning, however, depended upon the 
 fact that Shakespeare was the sole author of the 
 two Poems ; if the world had carelessly and 
 perhaps contemptuously allowed him to retain 
 these as his property, it did not prove that they 
 were entirely his work. However, I do not think 
 I should have changed my opinion if I had not 
 almost by accident, and in a way that will be 
 explained hereafter, made a discovery, which is, 
 that the law, the peculiar feature of Shakespeare's 
 works, is not universally to be found in his Plays 
 — there are many which contain no law ; and 
 this, I think, is my discovery (for the other fact 
 
 B 2
 
 4 IXTRODUCTIOX, 
 
 has been noticed by others, Lord Campbell 
 giving a list of fourteen plays which have no law) ; 
 there are some plays which show not only 
 absence of law, but ignorance of it. That is to 
 say, there are plays which it might be presumed 
 were written wholly or in part by one who had a 
 legal training, there are others which raise no 
 such presumption, and there is a third class 
 which, from the ignorance of law displayed and 
 the misuse of well-known legal terms and 
 phrases, raise a strong presumption that no one 
 with a legal education could have written them. 
 These plays I shall speak of as non -legal plays, 
 and the others as legal plays. I also discovered 
 that the non-legal plays are so mixed up in point 
 of time with the legal plays, that it cannot be 
 said the former were written before Shakespeare 
 acquired his law or after he had forgotten it. It 
 seems, if these data be true, that only one con- 
 clusion could be drawn, i. c, Shakespeare had a 
 legal friend who assisted him, whether this was 
 Bacon or not at present is immaterial. We have 
 in some plays a Poet and a Lawyer, and in others 
 a Poet working alone, who when he does use 
 legal phrases, makes mistakes in his law. 
 
 I do not think any one can quarrel with 
 this. Law is a comparatively dry subject, only 
 to be acquired by a large amount of experience
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 and trouble ; there is no Intuitive knowledge of 
 the forms of pleading and the use of technical 
 words and phrases, and therefore if these are to 
 be found in some of the Plays, we have a know- 
 ledge that must have been acquired ; and this is 
 inconsistent with ignorance of the use of these 
 phrases, &:c., which I think I shall show clearly 
 exists in some of the other Plays ; if so, the 
 argument is, as schoolmen say, irresistible, or, 
 as lawyers say, conclusive, — the Poet must have 
 been aided by a Lawyer. I did not rest here, but 
 I examined what evidence there was to show that 
 Shakespeare was the Poet and that Bacon was 
 probably the Lawyer. 
 
 In my investigation I found it was like an 
 explorer going up a river in a new country, 
 there were so many branches to be followed up 
 to see what they contained ; and for some time 
 past my work has been to separate the side 
 issues from the principal one. I have therefore 
 reserv^ed a great deal of what I think is in- 
 teresting and explanator}^ and kept this apart 
 from the main argument, which is this, — that a 
 person acquainted with law and the life of a 
 lawyer and the practice of our courts, who 
 examined the Poems, Sonnets and Plays which 
 we know as Shakespeare's, would, if the name of 
 the author had not come down to him, find a
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 remarkable acquaintance not only with law, but 
 with the habits and thoughts of a lawyer, in a 
 great number of these works ; but he would also 
 find in others a want, and more than that, a 
 positive ignorance, of this knowledge. And when 
 he came to examine contemporaneous history, he 
 would find evidence that Shakespeare was the 
 Poet and Bacon the person who probably assisted 
 him in some of the plays, &c. ; for I at once 
 admit, so carefully was the relationship between 
 Shakespeare and the lawyer who I believe 
 assisted him concealed, that it is by indirect 
 rather than direct evidence, inference rather than 
 proof, we can bring it home to Bacon. 
 
 I propose, first to show the nature of the 
 legal knowledge in the plays ; then to establish 
 that the Poet was himself ignorant of law, and 
 next to trace the evidence which proves Shake- 
 speare to be the Poet, and that which points to 
 Bacon as being his legal friend. And afterwards 
 I propose to deal with the matters which I have 
 discovered in the course of this investigation, 
 which I think may prove of interest to the 
 Shakesperian student, as throwing some light 
 upon the question.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 The Law in Shakespeare^ s Works. 
 
 If one reads the Prefaces which were written 
 by Johnson, Warburton and others, in the 
 early part of last centur}% the question which 
 seemed most discussed by those commentators was 
 whether Shakespeare was or was not a learned 
 man. Great difference of opinion arose, and the 
 disputants, in wrangling over their bone of con- 
 tention, often indulged in personal abuse. In 
 the present century, the learning of Shakespeare 
 is taken to be above suspicion. He is, especially 
 by the Germans, supposed to have known all 
 things, both in his present and past, and to have 
 foreseen what was likely to happen in the future ; 
 he is supposed to have been everywhere, seen 
 everything, and read all books ; but amidst this 
 general admiration there is the one subject of law 
 which has been a puzzle to his editors and ccfm- 
 mentators of this century who have not been able to 
 satisfy themselves as to how or where he acquired 
 that intimate knowledge of Law of which we find 
 evidence scattered through his works. He could 
 not know a science like Law by intuition ; he did 
 know it, therefore he must have acquired it : the 
 question was, how. This has been the problem 
 of this century. I do not know who first sug- 
 gested that he might have been as a boy in an
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 attorney's office at Stratford ; but it was a straw 
 to catch at ; it was a solution of the difficulty, 
 such as it was. Collier appeared, however, 
 determined to take an opinion on the subject, 
 and he wrote to Lord Campbell to ask him to 
 look into Shakespeare and see whether there was 
 any evidence that justified this belief. As Lord 
 Campbell puts it in his answer: "You demand 
 rather peremptorily my opinion on the question, 
 keenly agitated of late years, whether Shakespeare 
 was a clerk in an attorney's office before he joined 
 the players in London?" What the learned 
 judge's views on this question are I shall discuss 
 hereafter ; but in the course of his inquir}^ he 
 tells us that he has examined Shakespeare's 
 writings for " expressions and allusions that must 
 be supposed to come from one who has been a 
 p7^ofessional lawyer.'''' He says, that in fourteen 
 out of the thirty-seven plays generally attributed 
 to Shakespeare, he finds nothing that fairly 
 bears upon the controversy. These fourteen 
 plays are — 
 
 The Two Gentlemen of Richard II. 
 
 Verona. Henry V. 
 
 Twelfth Night. Henry VI., Part I. 
 
 Julius Cassar. Henry VI., Part III. 
 
 Cymbeline. Richard III. 
 
 Timon of Athens. Henry VIII. 
 
 The Tempest. Pericles. 
 Titus Andronicus.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 I do not agree with this list. I find in nearly 
 all the historical plays a large amount of law. I 
 think that there are severai plays that should be 
 added to the list, Macbeth, Othello, &c. ; but for 
 the present we have, in Lord Campbell's opinion, 
 fourteen plays which show no legal knowledge, 
 and twenty-three plays that do. 
 
 This in itself is a very remarkable fact. For 
 we have an author who in about three out of five 
 of his plays saturates them, if I may use the word, 
 with his legal knowledge, and in the other two 
 out of the five makes no use of it. It is curious 
 that this of itself has not attracted anybody's 
 attention to what I believe to be the real truth, 
 viz., that Shakespeare was himself ignorant of 
 law, and that he received help where the law is 
 to be found. But apparently this distinction 
 between the two descriptions of plays has hitherto 
 escaped notice. In order, however, that t^e 
 comparison may be properly understood, it is 
 necessary to examine what is the legal knowledge 
 shown in the legal plays, and how far, as Lord 
 Campbell puts it, it consists of expressions and 
 allusions that must be supposed to come from 
 one who has been a professional law}'er. If, 
 then, on examination of the other description of 
 plays we find not only this knowledge wanting.
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 but expressions and allusions which could not be 
 supposed to come from a professional or any 
 other kind of lawyer ;^ in other words, if we find 
 instead of knowledge ignorance, then I think 
 the conclusion that must be drawn is pretty 
 obvious.
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 KNOWTLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 
 
 I PROPOSE before considering those Plays of Shake- 
 speare which I term Legal Plays, to inquire shortly 
 into the general knowledge and use of legal terms 
 which are to be found in Shakespeare's works. I do 
 not lay so much stress upon their presence in the 
 Plays, &c., as other persons have done, because I 
 believe they are capable of being learned from books, 
 and are, therefore, not so valuable a test, to my mind, 
 as the familiarity with the habits and thoughts of 
 counsel learned in the law, which I think is the 
 peculiar characteristic of the legal plays. Still, they 
 no doubt are worth consideration, as showing the 
 vast range of legal subjects known to, or affected to 
 be known by, the writer of these works. 
 
 In making this investigation I must, to a certain 
 extent, go over the same ground as Lord Campbell 
 in his " Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements." But 
 there are many matters which I think he has over- 
 looked ; indeed, with all respect to his memory, I 
 think he has done his work in a somewhat perfunctory 
 manner. It seems that he, or someone for him, has 
 marked the legal phrases in Shakespeare's works, 
 which he has aftenvards explained, in many cases 
 only repeating what Malone had said before him. 
 The consequence of confining his attention to legal
 
 12 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 expressions is, that he has missed entirely the more 
 subtle evidence which points to the life and habits of 
 a lawyer which may not happen to be clothed in 
 legal language. I think this will be seen more 
 clearly hereafter ; at present I propose to adopt the 
 effect of what he has written, adding to it where I 
 consider it necessary, so that I may make this study 
 complete in itself, and at the same time I may not 
 repeat at too great length what is already before the 
 world. 
 
 The biographer of Malone tells us that he took 
 great pains in studying black letter law for the 
 purpose of explaining the legal allusions to be found 
 in Shakespeare's plays, and, as I have said. Lord 
 Campbell has, for the most part, taken IMalone's 
 information and worked it up into his agreeable, but 
 perfunctory, book. But both these authors, I think, 
 have taken too narrow a view of the subject, and 
 have therefore failed, as I have said, to recognize 
 the evidence of the social and professional life of an 
 English barrister, which is to be found by those who 
 look for it. 
 
 There are, no doubt, several ways in which a 
 person may work his professional knowledge into his 
 writings. Judge Halliburton, the author of Sam Slick, 
 has given us a series of letters supposed to be written 
 by different persons on board the Great Western} In 
 one that is supposed to be from a lawyer's clerk, he 
 has worked in a series of legal phrases, of which the 
 following is an extract : — 
 
 "There are several ladies on board 'femes soles,' and 
 * femes couvertes ;' but as I have no intention to be ' unques 
 
 1 The Letter Bag of the Great Western, p. 123.
 
 KNOAVLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 13 
 
 accoupl6 ' for at least ' infra sex annos,' my master will have 
 no occasion to be alarmed at it, as an act ' per quod servitium 
 amisit.' They are, however, a very agreeable 'set-off' of a 
 'dies non' on shipboard to the 'prolixity' of our proceedings. 
 My ' prochaine amie ' is a girl of eighteen years of age, beauti- 
 ful as an houri ; but alas, she has not only ' nulla bona ' of 
 which I could have an immediate 'habere facias possessionem,' 
 but unfortunately 'Nil habuit intenementis,'^ or I do not know 
 that I would not perpetrate marriage with her ' nunc pro 
 tunc.'" 
 
 This is a mere tour de force, an effort of ingenuity 
 to work in as many legal phrases as possible, and 
 is like sticking pins into a pin-cushion, and is quite 
 different from the way the law is introduced into 
 the Plays. Any lawyer no doubt could string 
 together these phrases, but when the judge tried 
 his hand at writing a letter from a cadet to his 
 mother, he seems not to have displayed the proper 
 professional learning ; for I find a note to this letter, 
 written by a midshipman I suppose, of H.M.S. Co7i- 
 queror, to the effect that it is *' Quite absurd, and written 
 by no cadet or midshipman, whether in the Royal 
 Navy or merchant nav^;" an opinion which I h^ve 
 no doubt is quite correct, notwithstanding the shaky 
 spelling. 
 
 No one can express an adverse opinion on the 
 legal part of the " legal plays." Lord Campbell 
 has passed the highest encomium upon the accurate 
 knowledge displayed. 
 
 In his letter to Mr. Collier, he says^ — 
 
 "Whilst Novelists and Dramatists are constantly making 
 mistakes in the law of marriage, of wills, and of inheritance, 
 
 ^ Queiy in futuro. 
 
 ' Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements, p. io8.
 
 1-4 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 to Shakespeare's law, lavishly as he propounds it, there can 
 be neither demurrer, nor bill of exception, nor writ of error. 
 
 " He is no doubt equally accurate in references to some 
 other professions, but these references are rare and com- 
 paratively slight." 
 
 Again, speaking- of Henry IV., Part 2 ^ — 
 
 "Therefore, if Lord Eldon" [one of the greatest lawyers 
 of his time] " could be supposed to have written the play, I 
 do not see how he could be chargeable with having forgotten 
 any of his law while writing it." 
 
 This is the opinion of one who was himself a great 
 lawyer, and with it no one would, I suppose, disagree, 
 so far as it refers to legal plays ; but in the non-legal 
 plays I shall, I think, show this language is inapplic- 
 able, for in them we have not the accurate law which 
 he so praises, but the laughable mistakes of the 
 novelist and dramatist he previously mentioned. 
 
 I have already said that Lord Campbell's inquiry 
 into the law in these plays is by no means an exhaustive 
 one ; but even the subjects which Lord Campbell has 
 collected cover a large area : the rights of a freeholder, 
 special pleading, the conduct of one judge to another, 
 fine and recovery, arrest on mesne process, action 
 on the case, deed polls, writ of extent, praemunire, legal 
 memory, criminal law, conveyancing. Crown Office 
 practice, the court leet, trial by battle, tenure in 
 chivalry, wardship, marriage of minors, and many 
 others, too long to enumerate. Still he has omitted 
 a great many. 
 
 So7inets. 
 
 I propose now to mention shortly some of the legal 
 allusions to be found in Shakespeare's works which I 
 
 > Page 73.
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW, 15 
 
 think Lord Campbell has either overlooked or not 
 treated fully. And first as to the Sonnets, where we 
 find a rule of law that is well established as very good 
 law now ; it is that payment of a debt by a surety 
 releases the debtor as far as the creditor is concerned, 
 though in one sense the debtor personally has paid 
 him nothing. The surety who has paid has his remedy 
 to compel the debtor to repay the debt ; but the 
 original creditor, being satisfied, can no longer claim 
 anything against him. 
 
 In the Sonnets we find this clearly alluded to. The 
 author is referring to some old love of his who has 
 attracted the affections of a common friend, whereby 
 he is deprived of his love and friend, and yet is not 
 himself set free. 
 
 In Sonnet CXXXIIL, the author complains the lady 
 has captured both himself and his friend, and con- 
 tinues in CXXXIV. thus : 
 
 " So now I have confessed that he is thine, 
 And I myself am mortgaged to thy will ; 
 Myself I'll forfeit, so that other mine 
 Thou wilt restore, to be my comfort still ; 
 But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free, 
 For thou art covetous, and he is kind ; 
 He learn'd but, surety-like, to write for me, 
 Under that bond that him as fast doth bind. 
 The statute^ of thy beauty thou wilt take, 
 Thou usurer, that putt'st forth all to use, 
 And sue a friend, came debtor for my sake ; 
 So him I lose through my unkind abuse. 
 
 Him have I lost ; thou hast both him and me ; 
 He pays the whole, and yet am I not free T 
 
 1 An old fonn of bond, whereby a man's body and lands were made 
 liable to be taken in satisfaction of a debt incurred either as a merchant 
 or in the staple market.
 
 16 SRfVKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The Sonnets are full of legal allusions, Lord Camp- 
 bell particularly notices No. XLVi., and says, — 
 
 " I need not go further than this Sonnet, which is so 
 intensely legal in its language and imagery, that without a 
 considerable knowledge of English forensic procedure, it 
 cannot be fully understood." 
 
 The eye and the heart being joint tenants of a lady, 
 have a contest as to how she is to be partitioned 
 between them ; there are regular pleadings, the heart 
 being represented as plaintiff, the eye as defendant, 
 and the jury decide for the eye in respect of the lady's 
 outward form, for the heart in respect of her inward 
 love. 
 
 I do not wish to weary the reader with too many 
 examples. I have only to show that here, as in the 
 other works of our author, there is that special legal 
 knowledge, and use and abuse of such knowledge, 
 which, as far as I know, we find in no other writer. 
 
 Poems. 
 
 In Venus and Adonis we have a subject which one 
 would think an unlikely one to lend itself to the use 
 of law terms. Yet there are two very distinct refer- 
 ences in it to legal ideas. The one of some poetical 
 beauty, the other grotesque and commonplace ; in the 
 first, speaking of concealed sorrow, we have — 
 
 But when the heart's attorney' once is mute, 
 The client breaks, as desperate in his suit. 
 
 The second refers to the terms of a common money 
 bond, as it is called, which was a contrivance by the 
 
 ' The tongue.
 
 KNOWLEDGE AXD USE OF LAW. 17 
 
 English lawyers to enforce payment of a debt, or the 
 fulfilment of some other obligation on a fixed day. 
 Time was not considered by the law an element of 
 the contract in many cases. Thus, if a debtor pro- 
 mised to repay a loan at a certain date, if he failed 
 to do so the creditor, though he might be put to great 
 inconvenience by the non-receipt of the money on the 
 day named, could not recover any damages for the 
 non-fulfilment of the promise beyond interest in certain 
 cases. This might be a very inadequate remedy for 
 the damage the creditor might suffer in being thus 
 disappointed in his money at the proper time. He 
 would have to proceed by action to recover, and 
 might be delayed by the different proceedings in law. 
 To remedy this the English lawyers contrived the 
 plan of making the debtor enter into a bond in which 
 he acknowledged that he was indebted to the creditor 
 in a sum generally twice the original loan. This bond 
 being under seal was binding though not true ; but 
 there was a condition attached to it, viz., that if the 
 debtor paid or otherwise fulfilled his obligation on 
 the day named the bond should become null and void. 
 So that the creditor had the sanction of the penalty 
 of a double payment to enforce the return of the sum 
 due on the day named. This penalty, as it was called, 
 being a penalty was very strictly construed by the 
 Courts, and was not always a money one. It may be 
 remembered in the " Merchant of Venice " it was a 
 pound of flesh, and Portia, well knowing the law, or 
 rather, having the author's knowledge, saved Antonio's 
 life by noticing the fact that flesh only was mentioned, 
 so that not one drop of blood was to be taken, and a 
 pound to a hair's weight, neither more nor less, was 
 to be cut off. In " Venus and Adonis " the author, with 
 c. c
 
 18 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 his fondness for law, brings this money bond into use. 
 He makes Venus, in the midst of her passion, being 
 an Italian goddess, play upon the terms and conditions 
 to be found in a bond, even to its sealing with wax : 
 
 Pure lips! sweet seals in my soft lips imprinted, 
 What bargains may I make, still to be sealing ? 
 To sell myself I can be well contented, 
 So w'ilt thou buy, and pay, and use good dealing ; 
 Which purchase, if thou make, for fear of slips 
 Set thy seal-manual on my wax-red lips. 
 
 A thousand kisses buys my heart from me ; 
 
 And pay them at thy leisure, one by one. 
 
 What is ten hundred touches unto thee ? 
 
 Are they not quickly told, and quickly gone ? 
 .S"^', for 71071-paj'ment that the debt should double, 
 Is twenty hundred kisses such a trouble ? 
 
 This allusion by Venus to an English common 
 money bond is so incongruous that it is almost 
 burlesque, and is one of the examples that seem to 
 me to point to dual authorship ; the JMaster not 
 taking the matter seriously, the pupil accepting what 
 is given to him, like the old story of, I believe, Sir 
 Joshua Reynolds persuading a citizen at a public 
 dinner to take fish sauce with his pudding. I believe 
 no one knowing the commonplace and sordid ideas 
 connected with a money bond could have made the 
 goddess of love, in the height of her baffled passion, 
 stoop to use such low imagery. 
 
 Some of the most remarkable references to law 
 are to be found in the " Rape of Lucrece," where the 
 author shows that he is familiar with a very technical 
 and intricate form of pleading, happily long obsolete, 
 which for some time has ceased to be any part of 
 modern practice. An ordinary writer migdit have
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 19 
 
 known the conditions of a money bond, though I 
 doubt if he would have thought of introducing it into 
 a passionate poem like " Venus and Adonis " ; but 
 I doubt if any one but a lawyer would have been 
 familiar with the example I am now about to refer to. 
 The word "colour" as used in legal pleadings has 
 a very specialized meaning. In ordinary language 
 besides its first meaning of hue or tint, it, like its 
 sister word complexion, has, no doubt, a secondary 
 meaning of appearance, as, " acting under the colour 
 or complexion of justice." But the old English 
 lawyer used it as something beyond an appearance, 
 viz., a pretended title, and it has been thus defined : — 
 
 " Colour in pleading is a feigned matter which the defen- 
 dant or tenant uses in his bar, when an action of trespass, or 
 an assize, or entry sur disseisin for rent or forcible entry is 
 brought against him in which he gives the plaintiff or de- 
 mandant some colourable pretence which seems at first sight 
 to intimate that he hath good cause of defence, the intent 
 whereof is to bring the action from the jury's giving their 
 verdict upon it to be determined by the judges, and, therefore, 
 it always consists of matter in law, and that v^liich may be 
 doubtful to the lay people." ^ 
 
 Now this put into ordinary comprehensible language, 
 as far as I can gather, appears to mean that a defen- 
 dant who had entered upon certain lands for which 
 act he was being siied, and wished to justify his 
 doing so, had not only to state his own title, but had 
 to give a false title to the plaintiff. And very difficult 
 questions arose, because if the defendant set out a 
 good title in the plaintiff he put himself out of court, 
 because he admitted the plaintiff was right ; and if he 
 
 ^ Viner's Abridgment. 
 C 2
 
 20 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 set out no title at all he was wrong, as his plea 
 simply meant a denial of the plaintiffs right alto- 
 gether. So that he had to steer his false allegation 
 between Scylla and Charybdis. An example given 
 in Reeve's " History of the English Law," illustrates 
 the defendant's difficulty. The defendant alleged 
 that a lease to a man and his wife had been granted 
 by a certain Abbot. One died, the other married the 
 plaintiff and then died, leaving the plaintiff in posses- 
 sion of the property, and the defendant alleged that 
 the original lease had been extended to the plaintiff; 
 the courts held this was bad colour because a lease 
 for lives could not be extended to a third person, and, 
 therefore, the plea simply alleged that the plaintiff 
 had no title. 
 
 In other words, it appears that the defendant could 
 not set out his own title under which he justified, 
 without, for some reason which now seems impossible 
 to understand, setting out a fictitious title for his 
 adversary. I do not propose to attempt to explain 
 why this was so, because I do not know, for luckily 
 these things have all passed away. But, apparently, 
 this doctrine of colour was one of the quagmires 
 into which the legal mind of the Norman — who had 
 for the first few centuries after the conquest been 
 trying to graft the law of Justinian upon the English 
 "common law" — had led or driven the judges. Philli- 
 more speaking of this period says ^ : — 
 
 " At the same time the language and decisions of our 
 judges, on (juestions of real property ami special i)lcadings 
 were more like the whimsical extravagance of a goblin 
 allowed by some mysterious dispensation to apply to human 
 
 ' Maxims of Jurisprudence, p. i .
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 21 
 
 affairs the morbid weakness of a perverted intellect, than the 
 errors and mistakes of beings possessing the usual faculties 
 and invested with the outward appearance of humanity." 
 
 Of this nature, in my opinion, was colour as 
 understood by the lawyers of old " very doubtful 
 to the lay gents," probably meaning jury. And it is 
 now still more doubtful and unknown to the modern 
 lawyer, and so might it rest were it not for the fact 
 that, whoever wrote the Plays and Poems, at least 
 that of Lucrece, was at home in this very abstruse 
 manner of pleading. It may, therefore, be necessary 
 to say one or two words more in explanation of the 
 use of this word, before giving the occasions on which 
 it is used. I think it will, however, be sufficient to 
 say that colour sets out a title which, though probable, 
 is really false, or as it is said — 
 
 " Colour ought to be such a thing which is good colour 
 of title and yet is no title, e.g., as a deed of lease for life 
 without livery, because the title, though apparently good, was 
 really bad because it had not the necessary formality of actual 
 putting in possession which was called ' livery.'" 
 
 In the Plays we find "colour" used in the strict 
 legal sense as I have explained it as well as in Its 
 more colloquial manner of pretence or appearance. 
 The latter I need not refer to, but I think the fol- 
 lowing examples show that the author knew the legal 
 meaning and use of the word as representing a title 
 or justification. Thus in " Cymbeline " that king 
 refuses to continue the tribute to Rome, and says : — 
 
 Cesar's ambition, 
 (Which swelled so much that it did almost stretch 
 The sides o'the world,) against all colour, here 
 Did put the yoke upon us ; which to shake off, 
 Becomes a warlike people, whom we reckon 
 Ourselves to be.
 
 22 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The only interpretation to give to the word colour 
 here seems to me to be that which the law attaches 
 to it, I. c, title or justification. 
 
 In a " Winter's Tale," where Florizel is persuaded 
 by Camillo to fly with his love to Leontes, who is, 
 unknown to all, her father, he says — 
 
 Worthy Camillo, 
 What colour for my visitation shall I 
 Hold up before him ? 
 
 Here the technical use of the word is perhaps not 
 quite so certain, but I think a stronger meaning is 
 given to the language if we use it in the legal 
 sense of title or justification. However, in the next 
 example, the word is used in its strict legal sense. 
 
 Henry IV., pointing out to his son the folly of his 
 conduct and the opportunity it gives the Percys to 
 attack the Crown as he formerly attacked Richard II., 
 says^ — 
 
 And even as I was then is Percy now. 
 Now by my sceptre, and my soul to boot, 
 He hath more worthy interest in the state, 
 Than thou, the shadow of succession : 
 For, of no right, nor colour like to right, 
 He doth fill fields with harness in the realm ; 
 Turns head against the lion's armed jaws. 
 
 In the Second Part, " Henry VL," where Gloster's 
 death is determined on, Beaufort says^ — 
 
 That he should die is worthy policy : 
 But yet wc want a colour for his death : 
 'Tis meet he be condemned by course of law. 
 
 The Cardinal does not here seek a pretext, but a 
 
 1 I Henry IV., Act. HI. Scene 2. 
 ■^ Act III. Scene r.
 
 ICNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 23 
 
 justification or title for the act as he is to be 
 condemned by law. 
 
 Other examples no doubt might be found, but there 
 is sufficient, I think, to show that the author was 
 fully alive to the use of the word in its technical 
 sense. I do not find in any of the examples given in 
 the dictionaries this technical use of the word, nor 
 do I think it will be found elsewhere except in purely 
 legal works. In the rape of Lucrece, this special use 
 of " colour " is very marked, we find the author using 
 this word in its strict legal sense on two occasions. 
 First, as we are told, when Tarquin is in his chamber 
 arguing with himself — 
 
 Thus, graceless, holds he disputation, 
 
 'Tween frozen conscience and hot burning will. 
 
 He forces himself to action, saying — 
 
 Why hunt I then for colour or excuses } 
 
 Again, when she is trembling at the sight of the 
 intruder, where she — 
 
 Who, o'er the white sheets, peers her whiter chin, 
 The reason of this rash alarm to know, ^ 
 
 Which he by dumb demeanour seeks to shew ; 
 
 But she with vehement prayers urgeth still, 
 
 Ujider what colour he commits this ill. 
 
 In other words, under what title or justification he 
 commits this trespass. If this intrusion were by a 
 husband, the answer would be by colour of a husband's 
 rights. If a favoured lover had to reply, his answer 
 would be by colour of leave and licence. Tarquin 
 has no colour — he is a trespasser pure and sim^jle. 
 He therefore plays upon the word as we so often 
 find in our author's works.
 
 24 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Thus he repHes : "The colour in thy face 
 (That even for anger makes the lily pale, 
 And the red rose blush at her own disgrace) 
 Shall plead for me, and tell my loving tale." 
 
 He immediately reverts to the legal sense of the 
 word, for he continues — 
 
 " Under that colour am I come to scale 
 Thy never-conquered fort." 
 
 It seems, therefore, that our author's works show 
 us familiarity with this abstruse and happily now 
 obsolete form of special pleading as they appear to 
 do of all other legal knowledge. 
 
 There are a good many more uses of legal phrase- 
 ology in this poem. Lord Campbell gives the follow- 
 ing :— 
 
 Dim register and nolary of shame ! 
 
 For me, I force not argument a straw, 
 Since that my case is past the help of law. 
 
 No rightful plea might plead for justice there. 
 
 Hath served a dumb arrest upon his tongue. 
 
 To these may be added — 
 
 I will not poison thee with my attaint, 
 
 alluding to the corruption of blood hereafter explained 
 which follows attaint. 
 
 Lucrece also sets out her will — 
 
 This brief abridgement of my will 1 make: 
 
 My soul and body to the skies and ground ; 
 
 My resolution, husband, do thou take ; 
 
 Mine honour be the knife's that makes my wound ; 
 
 My shame be his that did my fame confound ; 
 
 And all my fame that lives, disbursed be 
 
 To those that live, and think no sliamc of me. 
 •- * -A-. ■::. # 
 
 Thou Collatine shalt oversee this will.
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 25 
 
 An overseer was sometimes the executor, sometimes 
 a friend, appointed to see the provisions of the will 
 carried out by the executors. 
 
 I have thus far dealt with the mere legal expres- 
 sions as we find them in the Plays, Sonnets and Poems. 
 I have, as far as I may be allowed to say, tried to be 
 accurate in my law, but it must be remembered that I 
 am not writing a legal treatise, but endeavouring to 
 ascertain what law a lawyer would know some 300 
 years ago, say, between the years 1590 and 16 10. If 
 I had been writing a modern law book, I should have 
 confined myself in a great measure to decided cases, 
 which would have been so decided by a judge after 
 hearing what could be said on either side. But in 
 trying to ascertain how far some of the plays have 
 worked into them the law of Elizabeth and James, I 
 have had no such assistance, and therefore mistakes 
 may have crept in. If this should be proved, to be so, 
 of course I should regret it ; but I think in any case 
 there must be enough proved to show that the law in 
 Shakespeare's works is not the law of a country 
 solicitor's boy, as some suggest Shakespeare may 
 have been ; and when we come to the plays, I think 
 it will be seen it could not be gathered from books 
 as in Chaucer's time, French was learned atte le 
 Bozv, but is the knowledge of a person who must 
 have lived on terms of intimacy with barristers, 
 judges, &c. 
 
 I have already noticed, that the suggestion that 
 Shakespeare learned his law in an attorney's office 
 when a boy at Stratford is one that has been often 
 made, and on it Collier asked Lord Campbell's
 
 26 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 opinion, which gave him the opportunity of replying 
 in the letter which he afterwards published. If my 
 view of the facts be correct, that Shakespeare never 
 knew any law, there can be no reason for the supposi- 
 tion ; but, apart from this, I think any one who has 
 considered even the small part of the law in the plays, 
 which I shall refer to, must be satisfied that the 
 knowledge of law there shown is not that of an 
 attorney, still less of an attorney's clerk, and a great 
 deal less of an attorney's office boy, which is almost all 
 Shakespeare could have been. Shakespeare nowhere 
 displays the learning and knowledge to be picked up 
 in an attorney's office, but, on the contrary, it will be 
 seen his ideas are illustrated by expressions that 
 could only have been learned by an actual attend- 
 ance in the courts, at a pleader's chambers, going 
 circuit, or by associating in terms of the closest 
 intimacy with those who had lived the lives of the 
 Bench and Bar. 
 
 When lawyers are spoken of in the Plays the old 
 and correct meaning is given to the word, i.e.^ mem- 
 bers of the Bar, and though on a very few occasions 
 an attorney is spoken of, this word is used in its 
 original and historical meaning of " an agent." I 
 think there are but two or three references to an 
 attorney-at-law in all Shakespeare's works. In the 
 practice of that branch of the legal profession an 
 observer, such as vShakespeare must have been, would 
 have seen a great deal of life. Matters of strong 
 dramatic interest must have come under his notice, 
 causes won, causes lost, matters of practice, and 
 many other things must have attracted his attention. 
 Yet whilst we find innumerable references made to 
 judges, law courts, members of the Bar, ^x., in fact
 
 KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF LAW. 27 
 
 something from the lives of all manners and conditions 
 of men is found in his Plays ; there is nowhere the 
 slightest example of an illustration or expression 
 being taken from a working attorney's life. In those 
 days the distinction between the Bar and the attorney 
 was, perhaps, more clearly drawn than it is in these, 
 where one brother becomes a solicitor, and another 
 a member of the Bar ; and the former very often 
 becomes the more successful man. And if Shake- 
 speare was the lawyer of his Plays, and he acquired 
 his law at Stratford in his youth, he must have resolved 
 to forget the ladder up which he had climbed. If 
 Bacon supplied the law, from what we know of his 
 vanity and pretension, it is easy to understand how 
 he might be too big a man to remember anything 
 about attorneys-at-law.
 
 28 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 LEGAL PLAYS : MEASURE FOR MEASURE — HENRY VI. 
 (parts 1 AND 2)— KESTG LEAR — HAMLET, &C. 
 
 In examining' some of the plays, which for the sake 
 of distinction I have termed " Legal Pla3^s," I have 
 not attempted to make an exhaustive study. It is a 
 work of some labour to read a play so attentively as 
 is necessary in order to discriminate between legal 
 knowledge and legal ignorance. One has to read 
 and re-read to be sure that there has been no over- 
 looking of the indications of the one or the other. I 
 have, therefore, limited my inquiry to ascertaining 
 sufficient evidence to prove, on the one hand, the 
 knowledge, on the other, the ig^norance, of both law 
 and lawyers which we find in my opinion in Shake- 
 speare's works. 
 
 We must always remember that the law we find 
 is the law of England at the end of the Sixteenth 
 Century, regardless of the particular period or country 
 in which the scene is laid. And the play which, 
 perhaps, best of all shows an acquaintance with the 
 study and practice of our law in vShakespeare's time, 
 and of the manners, habits, and customs of the English 
 judge, is "Measure for Measure," where I think we 
 shall find the latter described by one who knew him 
 well, and was not afraid to draw him as he was.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 29 
 
 " Pleasure for Measured 
 
 This play which is, I think, the one that contains 
 most legal information, &c., has on many occasions 
 been associated with Bacon's name, because Toby 
 ]\Iatthew, writing to him in an undated letter, says, 
 " I will not promise to return you weight for weight, 
 but meastwe for measured This, of course, may refer 
 to other things besides this play ; but it is one of the 
 many curious matters which we shall come across 
 which are capable of more than one explanation, it 
 is true; but one of these explanations points to Bacon, 
 and it may be that Bacon did send this play to 
 Matthew to read; but this is only conjecture — not 
 evidence. 
 
 This play is not one which one would choose were 
 it not for the very strong evidence of legal knowledge 
 and training we find in it. It turns upon the legal 
 effect of a pre-contract, and it may not, therefore, be 
 out of place to give a short sketch of the changes 
 that had taken place in the law upon this subject. In 
 Shakespeare's time it was in a transitive state, at 
 least I think so, though in the absence of the recoi*&s 
 of the ecclesiastical court one can only hazard an 
 opinion. But as far as I have been able to trace the 
 changes in the law they appear to be as follows : 
 
 TJie Pre-contract. — Before the Reformation, the Pope 
 claimed the right to set aside marriages where either 
 of the parties had entered into a pre-contract, or 
 where the parties were related to one another within 
 certain degrees. From a recital in a statute of 
 Henry VIII. it appears all that was necessary to set 
 aside a marriage which had been regularly solemnized,
 
 30 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 and the parties had lived together perhaps for years, 
 children born, &c., was the evidence of two witnesses of 
 a pre-contract, or of relationship within the degrees 
 not allowed by Rome ; the marriage was dissolved, 
 the innocent party divorced, and the children made 
 bastards. Although the pre-contract had not been 
 followed by intimacy, the Pope held there was a 
 contract of marriage -which had to be enforced, and 
 that the question of intimacy did not arise. This 
 position taken up by the ecclesiastical courts at Rome 
 no doubt was a great difficulty in their way when the 
 divorce between Henry and Catherine had to be con- 
 sidered. Catherine claimed to have been but a wife 
 in name to Henry's brother Arthur, But this was 
 immaterial from the Catholic point of view. There 
 had been a binding marriage with Arthur, and that 
 being so, a subsequent marriage with his brother Henry- 
 was so impossible that it was contended no dispensing 
 power possessed by the Pope was able to make it pos- 
 sible. ]\Ir. Froude in his history seems to have missed 
 this point. I only refer to it here as showing the effect 
 of a contract of marriage before the Reformation. 
 Henry the VIII., in the Act already referred to,^ 
 enacted that, unless intimacy had followed the pre- 
 contract, no subsequent marriages were to be defeated 
 by it, and the pre-contract was not to be considered 
 binding. 
 
 The effect of this Act was twofold. It preserved 
 existing marriages from being defeated by a mere 
 pre-contract which no doubt was the primar}^ intention 
 of the statute, which by using the word pre-contract 
 seems to show what was under consideration was not 
 
 » 32 Hen. Vni. c. 38.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 31 
 
 the first or original contract, but the second one, which 
 was sought to be avoided on the ground of the first or 
 pre-contract. Secondly, it prevented the courts fi-om 
 enforcing the original contract unless intimacy had 
 taken place, even where there had been no subsequent 
 marriage. This was thought to be a great defect, and 
 when Henry died, one of the first Acts passed by his 
 successor s advisers was to re-create the power to 
 enforce, that is to compel specific performance of a 
 mere contract of marriage. The 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 23, 
 apparently contemplated only the evils arising from 
 the want of power to enforce a contract of marriage 
 and took no notice of the larger evils that might 
 arise by the dissolution of existing marriages in con- 
 sequence of the mere pre-contract being enforced. 
 For the Act only refers to the fact that persons who 
 had contracted marriage with others broke that con- 
 tract, "even at the very church-door or marriage 
 feast, the man to take another spouse, and the espouse 
 to take another husband, &c." For these reasons 
 the Act of Henry was from the ist May, 1549, so far 
 as regards the pre-contract, repealed, and "was 
 reduced to the estate and order of the king's eccfe- 
 siastical laws of the realm v/hich, immediately before 
 the making of the said statute, in this case were used 
 in this realm." This Act of Edward was extended 
 by one of Mary, but Elizabeth revived the statute as 
 passed by Edward. 
 
 By sect. 2 of the Act of Edward VI. "the King's 
 Ecclesiastical Judge, having the pre-contract suffi- 
 ciently and carefully proved before him, is to give 
 sentence for matrimony commanding solemnization, 
 cohabitation, consummation and tractation as be- 
 cometh man and wife to have." And that this might
 
 32 SHAICESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 affect subsequent marriage was clearly present to the 
 legislature for a proviso is inserted "that no marriage 
 contract before the first of May then next (1549) should 
 be dissolved for a mere pre-contract." Probably a 
 good many people got married in a hurry in that year. 
 This was apparently the effect of the law as it ap- 
 peared by statute. But one of the advantages of 
 having the tribunals of a country situated in the 
 country and not at the Court of a foreig"n Pope, or 
 Prince, is that their decisions are more liable to be 
 controlled by local views, public opinion, &c. And, 
 no doubt, this power of enforcing a mere first con- 
 tract at the expense of a second one and thus 
 destroying the status of an innocent wife and family 
 was felt to be the cause of great injustice to the 
 parties to second contracts, and to produce no great 
 happiness to those of the first. And now, since the 
 Marriage Act of George II., the Ecclesiastical Courts 
 are not allowed to compel specific performance of a 
 pre-contract, the injured party being left to recover 
 damages by an action at law for breach of a promise. 
 But before this Act, there can be little doubt that 
 the power of enforcing specific performance of a 
 mere contract to marry had gradually fallen into 
 disuse, the process by which this was accomplished 
 no doubt would be very interesting to trace, but it 
 does not lie within the scope of this study, and it 
 would be one of some difficulty, owing to the absence 
 of reports in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Tn the 
 Duchess of Kinostoii s Case} where the opinion of the 
 judges was, in 1776, given to the House of Lords, a 
 reference is made to suits having been brought in the 
 
 ' Smith's Leading Cases.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 33 
 
 Ecclesiastical Court upon a promise of marriage, 
 presumably to enforce it in facie ecclesics. But whether 
 the judges were referring to what was in their time 
 an existing practice or as seems more probable to 
 ancient law, it is difficult to say. But we have not 
 to trace what is the law now, but to show that there 
 has been a gradual transition, arising from the neces- 
 sity of protecting the second and existing marriage. 
 In Shakespeare's time, the ecclesiastical authorities 
 required a bond, in the case of licences, to be entered 
 into with sureties, that no pre-contract, &c., existed. 
 It was the difficulty of reconciling the date of Shake- 
 speare's own bond with the birth of his first child 
 that has given rise to some scandal ; and in the case 
 of ordinary marriages, they relied upon the almost 
 terrible exhortation to come forward and speak or for 
 ever after to hold the tongue as some protection for 
 parties marrying. But, however that may be, the 
 mere recovery of the penalty upon a bond was no 
 effectual recompense for the great injury that was 
 done by breaking up a home, dissolving a marriage, 
 &c., because some love-making with vows of eternftl 
 constancy could be twisted into a pre-contract. The 
 result, no doubt, was that the good sense of mankind 
 made the judges at first exercise their power of 
 enforcing the mere contract with great discretion, 
 then difficulties were no doubt thrown in the way. 
 The proof was made more difficult until the law died 
 by disuse. In, perhaps, the same way that in modern 
 days the action for breach of promise can only, with 
 effect, be brought by a woman, the juries being told 
 not to allow a male plaintiff to succeed. 
 
 I have taken some pains to show that there has 
 been this gradual change in the law, because, as I 
 
 C. D
 
 34 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 have pointed out, the law in the Plays is the English 
 law of Shakespeare's time, and if we apply this rule 
 to the view of the law of the pre-contract as given in 
 "Measure for Measure," we have, as it were, a photo- 
 graph of the law in a transition state, passing through 
 changes of which we have no accurate record. 
 
 If we can trust the law as Lord Campbell says we 
 can, it would seem that, at the end of the sixteenth 
 century, there had already been a re-action in favour 
 of the view taken by Henry VIII., that a mere pre- 
 contract was not enforceable where there had been 
 no intimacy ; but directly the parties had lived as 
 man and wife, the Court would compel them to 
 sanctify their contract by the ecclesiastical ceremony. 
 This seems to me the conclusion to be drawn from 
 the Duke sending Mariana to the man who had con- 
 tracted to marry her, and then, and not till then, 
 requiring him to do so, before the church. With 
 these preliminary observations on the pre-contract, 
 which I trust will not be considered out of place, 
 I will proceed to the examination of the Play. 
 
 Promos and Cassandra. — "Measure for Measure" is 
 founded upon a comedy written by George Whetstone 
 which was dedicated by him to his worshipful friend 
 and kinsman William Fleetwood, Recorder of London, 
 on the 29th July, 1578, so that it was a comparatively 
 old play when Shakespeare began to write, which we 
 may suppose to have been about 1592 — 4. The plot of 
 Whetstone's play turns upon the idea of a woman sacri- 
 ficing her honour, to save her lover's or relation's life, 
 but doing so in vain as her only reward is to receive 
 his dead body. The story is one of those root stories 
 that make their appearance in so many forms, and are
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 35 
 
 sometimes to be traced back into remote antiquity. 
 At times the woman surrenders herself without mar- 
 riage, and sometimes the exigencies of morality are 
 satisfied and she consents to become the wife, as in 
 " Trovatore," where the heroine marries the Count 
 to save her lover, and then takes poison. Whetstone 
 works up this idea by supposing the King (of Hun- 
 gary) to have sent one Promos to be in the commis- 
 sion to look after a place called Julio. The stage 
 directions for reading his letters patent show some 
 care (they must be fair written on parchment with 
 some great counterfeit seal). Promos finds one 
 Andrugio has been guilty of incontinence with Polina ; 
 he is condemned to death. His sister Cassandra 
 pleads with Promos, who offers to pardon her brother 
 if she will yield herself to him ; to this she consents, 
 and yet he orders the brother's head to be given to 
 her. Another prisoner dying, the gaoler cuts off the 
 latter's head as being Andrugio's. Cassandra, not 
 knowing the difference, tells the whole story to the 
 king, who makes Promos marry Cassandra, and then 
 is about to have him executed when he is moved ^to 
 forgive him by the appearance of Andrugio and all 
 ends happily. Promos, however, has a man called 
 Phallax, who is made a kind of inferior judge or 
 officer, before whom a certain lady called Lamia is 
 brought as one having a very doubtful character. 
 He dismisses the informers and falls in love with her, 
 and in the end loses his wealth and office, and the 
 lady gets whipped. There are some allusions to legal 
 practices in the play, but they are written in a hostile 
 spirit, not in the way references are made in Shake- 
 speare's Plays ; thus, when complaints are made of 
 the extortion of Phallax who holds a charge over a 
 
 D 2
 
 36 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 debtor's house, who has paid nearly all his debt and 
 is ready to pay the remainder, but Phallax says it is 
 forfeited. Ulrico, whom the king has commissioned 
 to see these things righted, says : — 
 
 Summtimjus, I see, is Summa i?ij'uria, 
 So these wrongs must be salved some other way. 
 
 Thus Phallax, when he seeks to gain over Lamia 
 whom he ought to punish, and she warns him of the 
 risk he runs, he says — 
 
 To 'scape such pain wise men without suspect can measure, 
 Furthermore, I have been (my girl) a lawyer to, too long 
 If, at a pinch, I cannot wrest the law from right to wrong. 
 
 And when the charges are brought home to Phallax 
 by the king, and he asks, what all prisoners or 
 accused persons have generally granted to them, time 
 to answer the accusation, — 
 
 I humbly crave 
 
 Of your grace, for answer, respite to have, 
 
 the king says, — 
 
 Why ! to devise a cloke to hide a knave. 
 Friend, " Veritas no7i qucxrit Angulos^^ 
 And if yourself, you on your truth repose. 
 You may be bold these faults for to deny. 
 Some little care upon their oaths to lie, 
 See if any on your behalf will swear. 
 
 Phallax can get none, so he confesses and is, there- 
 fore, only condemned to lose his office and effects 
 without bodily punishment. An English judge would, 
 I think, have granted him the time, but would not 
 have given much effect to the fact that he confessed 
 when he could do nothing else. 
 
 Now, when we see in the Play of " Measure for 
 Measure " how this is altered, I think it must be
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 37 
 
 admitted that the later play could only have been 
 written with the assistance of one learned in the law. 
 
 The Play of " Measure for Measure " is a good 
 example of the refinement and elevation of idea with 
 which the very difficult subject is treated. In fact, this 
 is overdone ; for, as I shall show, from a desire not to 
 dishonour the two guilty lovers, their liason is sanctified 
 by a pre-contract, which really takes all point out of 
 the story. In this the old play is better constructed, 
 for the sister there laments that her brother's fault 
 cannot be cured by marriage. 
 
 The law is so severe in scourging fleshly sin, 
 
 As marriage to work aftermends doth seldom favour win. 
 
 Polina, addressing herself (Act. V. Scene 3), says — 
 
 And he for to repair thy fame, to marry thee that vowed, 
 Is done to death for first offence. 
 
 Here there is no question of any pre-contract, but 
 in " Measure for Measure," Act I. Scene 3, Claudio 
 distinctly tells Lucio — 
 
 Thus stands it with me : — Upon a true contract, 
 
 I got possession of Julietta's bed ; * 
 
 You know the lady ; she is fast my wife, 
 
 Save that we do the denunciation lack 
 
 Of outward order : &c. 
 
 So that in reality there is no motive left for the 
 play. 
 
 It is not only^ however, on this point that " Measure 
 for Measure " is a refinement on " Promos and Cas- 
 sandra." The heroine is saved from even a temporary 
 degradation by having Mariana to take her place, and 
 though some of the low life of the old play is repro- 
 duced, it is toned down and put rather as low comedy
 
 38 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 than the mere villany it is in the original. But 
 particularly the rapacious and dishonest pettifogger 
 Phallax is replaced by a grave and learned judge, 
 Escalus. And it is to this character I shall have 
 more particularly to refer, as I think he is a sketch 
 from life of such a judge as Bacon himself might have 
 been, where his natural manners were not modified 
 by the private interest of himself or others. Before 
 discussing, however, the peculiar character of Escalus, 
 I propose to take the play as a whole, and show what 
 evidence there is of its having been written wholly or 
 in part by some one who was well acquainted with 
 English law. 
 
 I have already pointed out the changes that had 
 taken place in our marriage law. Now " Measure for 
 Measure " turns upon the view that where there had 
 been a contract to marry, the Church, or rather, the 
 Ecclesiastical Courts would, where intimacy had 
 followed, compel the parties to perform the contract. 
 There are many forms of plot where the husband 
 leaves the wife at the church door, and afterwards by 
 some trick she gains possession of her husband. This 
 is the plot of " All's Well that ends Well." But 
 this is the only story as far as I know, that turns 
 upon the effect of such a trick upon the pre-contract. 
 The play opens, as may be remembered, of a Duke, 
 whose city we learn incidentally is Vienna, leaving 
 his government to a man of austere piety, joining with 
 him in the commission the venerable judge, Escalus, 
 because he thinks he has not been severe enough in 
 the execution of the Laws. It appears that a certain 
 Claudio has entered into this pre-contract with a lady 
 and lived with her until she was almost about to become 
 a mother ; the contract has been concealed in order to
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 39 
 
 get settlements out of the lady's friends. And the 
 first thing that Angelo does is to seize this Claudio 
 and condemn him under an old law to be executed. 
 It seems, and this is the point upon which I think 
 the play has been too much refined, that Claudio 
 had only to confess the real facts, as he states 
 them to his friend Lucio, to be acquitted, but this 
 is ignored, and he is to be executed ; in the meantime 
 the Duke returns in the garb of a friar, and revisits 
 his city to see how Claudio is getting on. He rather 
 expects, and, I fancy, hopes he will show himself in 
 different colour; he is evidently too good to please 
 
 the Duke, 
 
 " Lord Angelo is precise : 
 Stands at guard with envy ; scarce confesses, 
 That his blood flows, or that his appetite 
 Is more to bread than stone : Hence shall we see 
 If power change purpose, what our seemers be." 
 
 Amongst other things, he goes to the prison and 
 there learns that Isabella, the prisoner Claudio's 
 sister, has been to see Angelo to ask for her brother's 
 life. Angelo has been struck with her beauty and 
 has promised his pardon if she will come to him |hat 
 night. The brother wishes it. But she refuses. The 
 Duke solves the difficulty by happily remembering 
 the English law, and the convenient fact that the 
 austere Angelo had promised one Mariana mar- 
 riage, and because she had lost her money had not 
 carried out his promise. And he thus states the facts 
 with due legal precision : — 
 
 "She should this Angelo have married; was afiianced 
 to her by oath, and the nuptial appointed : between which 
 time of the contract and the limit of the solemnity, her brother 
 Frederick was wrecked at sea, having in that perished vessel 
 the dowry of his sister."
 
 40 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 IMariana is persuaded by the Duke to take 
 Isabella's place and to go to Angelo, but she only 
 consents if the Duke, who is disguised as a friar, will 
 advise her to do it, which he does, saying, — 
 
 He is your husband on a pre-contract: 
 To bring you thus together, 'tis no sin ; 
 Sith that the justice of your title to him 
 Doth flourish the deceit. 
 
 The next day, before the Duke, Mariana is asked 
 to unveil, but she claims the position of a married 
 woman : — 
 
 Pardon me, my Lord ; I will not show my face, 
 Until my husband bid me. 
 
 Then follows one of those plays between question 
 and answer which we so often find in Shakespeare's 
 works : — 
 
 What ! are you married ? 
 
 No, my Lord : &c. 
 
 To return to our law. 
 
 Angelo pooh-poohs the pre-contract and denies the 
 intimacy and all goes well with him till the Duke is 
 discovered under his guise of a friar, when Angelo 
 acknowledges his guilt as a lawyer would. 
 
 Then, good prince, 
 No longer session hold upon my shame. 
 But let my trial be my own confession ; 
 Immediate sentence then, and sequent death, 
 Is all the grace I beg. 
 
 But the Duke has another duty to perform, to com- 
 plete the marriage of Mariana ; he takes no notice 
 of Angelo's confession, except to say, — 
 
 Come hither, Mariana : — 
 Say, wast thou e'er contracted to this woman ? 
 Angelo. I was, my lord.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 41 
 
 Upon this admission, the Duke then does what the 
 Ecclesiastical Courts always then could do, viz., 
 require the religious ceremony to be performed. 
 
 Go, take her hence, and marry her, instantly. 
 Do you the office, friar. 
 
 And when they return, the Duke speaks of him — 
 For this new married man, approaching here. 
 
 It is not necessary to speak of the curious effect of 
 that which was a sin legalising, or rather purifying, 
 itself, because apparently they were not man and 
 wife until they acted as such, though, as I have stated, 
 the letter of the statute was that the contract itself 
 was sufficient ; but this is not the way the law 
 apparently was understood then, for, as I think, the 
 reasons already given ; differing from the Scotch law, 
 which only required the subsequent act to give effect 
 to a contract in futuro. The Scotch case which went 
 to the House of Lords was that of a man who was 
 living with a person not his wife, and, under pressure 
 of her relations went in and said, addressing her by 
 name, " I marry you ; " upon this she rose and 
 bowed. He then went out and immediately shot 
 himself. The Lords held that the words being 
 present w^ords and not a promise in the future, there 
 was a binding marriage. 
 
 Throughout the whole play we find traces of its 
 being the work of one thoroughly acquainted with 
 legal proceedings. It is hard to explain how^ a man 
 recognizes certain facts, as, for instance, that a person 
 who is speaking is thoroughly acquainted with the 
 language he is using. If it be the language of 
 the hearer, he can at once recognize whether he is or 
 is not listening to a foreigner who is not at home
 
 42 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 in the language. So it is with the use of legal 
 phraseology in this play. 
 
 We have a scene in a court which seems drawn from 
 life. At first Escalus, who is the ordinary judge, 
 sits with Angelo, who has been joined in the com- 
 mission. 
 
 Now, Escalus is described in the first Act by the 
 Duke, who addresses him — 
 
 Since I am put to know, that your own science 
 Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice 
 My strength can give you . . . 
 
 The nature of our people, 
 Our city's institutions, and the tenns 
 For common justice, you are as pregnant in, 
 As art and practice hath enriched any 
 That we may remember. 
 
 This language is not at all well-expressed, but 
 there is sufficient to show that the Duke intended to 
 speak very highly of Escalus's legal attainments. I 
 was very much struck with the peculiar name of 
 Escalus which is given to this distinguished judge. 
 The meaning of the word esca is " food," but Escalus 
 itself has no meaning in Latin or Greek, and was not, 
 as far as I could see, an anagram on the name of any 
 well-known judge. In looking, however, through 
 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, I could 
 find no clue to the name at first. And yet it did not 
 seem to be one which was chosen without a reason. 
 But I found that, up to the close of the seventeenth 
 century, the two principal Chief Justices who were 
 likely to be taken as examples were, omitting Glan- 
 ville, Gascoigne who has been worked up into the 
 Plays of Henry the Fourth and Fifth, and Sir John 
 Fortescue, who had earned a world-wide reputation
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 43 
 
 for his judicial integrity and as the author of (as Lord 
 Campbell terms it) " the immortal treatise " " De 
 laudibus legum Angliae." Now, it seems to me, that 
 Escalus may have been derived from the second half 
 of this judge's names, *' Fort escue " being strong- 
 shield, " escue " put into a classical form of Esculus 
 or Escalus, so as to avoid any confusion with 
 " esculus," eatable. If so, I think we shall have a 
 clearer idea of the play if we suppose the part of 
 Escalus to be played by Sir John Fortescue. 
 
 With him, as the play tells us, we have Angelo 
 
 joined in the commission, the austere man of virtue, 
 
 who insists upon sending Claudio to execution, whilst 
 
 Escalus, the old judge who has learned to treat 
 
 human offences with some consideration, pleads 
 
 for him; but Angelo is a hanging judge. The late 
 
 Sir John Karslake, one of the best raconteurs at the 
 
 Bar, used to tell a tale of a judge such as Angelo, 
 
 who was getting old and weak, being terrified into 
 
 letting a prisoner be acquitted, by the counsel for the 
 
 defence saying: "And then, gentlemen of the jury, 
 
 we hear of a judge being a hanging judge : if such 
 
 monsters exist, I do not envy them their reputation in 
 
 this world, nor their punishment in the next." This 
 
 scene is such a remarkable picture of our law courts 
 
 that I have set it out in full, so that the reader may 
 
 appreciate more easily the various points that arise: — 
 
 Enter Angelo, Escalus, a Justice, a7id Servants. 
 
 Ang. We must not make a scare-crow of the law, 
 Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, 
 And let it keep one shape, till custom make it 
 Their perch, and not their terror. 
 
 Esc. Ay, but yet 
 
 Let us be keen, and rather cut a little,
 
 44 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Than fall, and bruise to death : alas ! this gentleman, 
 
 Whom I would save, had a most noble father. 
 
 Let but your honour know, 
 
 (Whom I believe to be most strait in virtue,) 
 
 That, in the working of your own afTections, 
 
 Had time cohered with place, or place with wishing, 
 
 Or that the resolute acting of your blood 
 
 Could have attained th' effect of your own purpose. 
 
 Whether you had not, sometime in your life, 
 
 Err'd in this point, which now you censure him. 
 
 And pull'd the law upon you. 
 
 Ang. 'Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, 
 Another thing to fall. I not deny, 
 The ]\iTy, passing on the prisoner's life, 
 May in the sworn twelve, have a thief or two 
 Guiltier than him they try : what's open made to justice, 
 That justice seizes. What knows the laws. 
 That thieves do pass on thieves ? 'Tis very pregnant, 
 The jewel that we find, we stoop and take 't 
 Because we see 't ; but what we do not see, 
 We tread upon, and never think of it. 
 You may not so extenuate his offence. 
 For I have had such faults ; but rather tell me, 
 When I, that censure him, do so offend. 
 Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, 
 And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die. 
 
 Enier Provost. 
 
 Use. Be it as your wisdom will. 
 
 Ang. Where is the provost ? 
 
 Prov. Here, if it like your honour. 
 
 Ang. See that Claudio 
 
 Be executed by nine to-morrow morning : 
 Bring him his confessor, let him be prepared ; 
 For that's the utmost of his pilgrimage. [ZTavV Provost. 
 
 Use. Well, heaven forgive him ! and forgive us all ! 
 Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall ; 
 Some run from brakes of vice, and answer none ; 
 And some condemned for a fault alone.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 45 
 
 Enter Elbow, Froth, Clown, Officers. 
 
 Elb. Come, bring them away ; if these be good people in 
 a commonweal, that do nothing but use their abuses in com- 
 mon houses, I know no law ; bring them away. 
 
 Ang. How now, sir ! what's your name ? and what's the 
 matter } 
 
 Elb. If it please your honour, I am the poor Duke's con- 
 stable, and my name is Elbow ; I do lean upon justice, sir, 
 and do bring in here before your good honour two notorious 
 benefactors. 
 
 Ang. Benefactors ? Well ; what benefactors are they "^ are 
 they not malefactors } 
 
 Elb. If it please your honour, I know not well what they 
 are : but precise villains they are, that I am sure of ; and void 
 of all profanation in the world, that good Christians ought to 
 have. 
 
 Esc. This comes off well ; here's a wise officer. 
 
 Ang. Go to: what quality are they of? Elbow is your 
 name ? Why dost thou not speak, Elbow .'' 
 
 Clo. He cannot, sir ; he's out at elbow. 
 
 Ang. What are you, sir ? 
 
 Elb. He, sir ? a tapster, sir ; parcel-bawd ; one that serves 
 a bad woman ; whose house, sir, %vas (as they say) plucked 
 down in the suburbs ; and now she professes a hot-house, 
 which, I think, is a very ill house too. ^ 
 
 Esc. How know you that } 
 
 Elb. I\Iy wife, sir, whom I detest before heaven and your 
 honour. 
 
 Esc. How, thy wife ? 
 
 Elb. Ay, sir, whom I thank heaven is an honest woman. 
 
 Esc. Dost thou detest her therefore ? 
 
 Elb. I say, sir, I will detest myself also, as well as she, that 
 this house, if it be not a bawd's house, it is a pity of her life, 
 for it is a naughty house. 
 
 Esc. How dost thou know that, constable ? 
 
 Elb. Marry, sir, by my wife, who, if she had been a 
 woman cardinally given, might have been accused in forni- 
 cation, adultery and all uncleanliness there. 
 
 Esc. By the woman's means .-^
 
 46 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Elb. Ay, sir, by Mistress Overdone's means : but as she 
 spit in his face, so she defied him. 
 
 Clo. Sir, if it please your honour, this is not so. 
 
 Elh. Prove it before these varlets here, thou honourable 
 man, prove it. 
 
 Esc. Do you hear how he misplaces ? 
 
 Clo. Sir, she came in great with child ; and longing (saving 
 your honour's reverence) for stewed prunes ; sir, we had but 
 two in the house, which at that very distant time stood, as it 
 were, in a fruit dish (a dish of some three-pence ; your 
 honours have seen such dishes) ; they are not china dishes ; 
 but very good dishes. 
 
 Esc. Go to, go to ; no matter for the dish, sir. 
 
 Clo. No, indeed, sir, not of a pin ; you are therein in the 
 right ; but, to the point : as I say, this mistress Elbow being 
 (as I say) with child, and being great bellied and longing, as 
 I say, for prunes ; and having but two in the dish (as I said), 
 master Froth here, this very man, having eaten the rest (as I 
 said), and (as I say) paying for them very honestly; for, as you 
 know, master Froth, I could not give you three-pence again. 
 
 Fro. No, indeed. 
 
 Clo. Very well ; you being then (if you be remembered) 
 cracking the stones of the foresaid prunes. 
 
 Fro. Ay, so I did, indeed. 
 
 Clo. Why, very well ; I telling you then (if you be 
 remembered) that such a one, and such a one, were past 
 cure of the thing you wot of, unless they kept very good 
 diet, as I told you. 
 
 F)-o. All this is true. 
 
 Clo. Why, very well then. 
 
 Esc. Come, you are a tedious fool ; to the purpose — what 
 was done to Elbow's wife that he hath cause to complain of.'' 
 Come me to what was done to her. 
 
 Clo. Sir, your honour cannot come to that yet. 
 
 Esc. No, sir, nor I mean it not. 
 
 Clo. Sir, but you shall come to it, l)y your honour's leave, 
 and I beseech you look into master Froth here, sir ; a man 
 of fourscore pound a year, whose father died at Hallowmas. 
 Was it not at Hallowmas, master Froth .''
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 47 
 
 Fro. All-hollond eve. 
 
 Clo. Why, very well ; I hope here be truths ; he, sir, 
 sitting (as I say) in a lower chair, sir ; 'twas in the Bunch of 
 Grapes, where, indeed, you have a delight to sit ; have you 
 not? 
 
 Fro. I have so ; because it is an open room, and good for 
 winter. 
 
 Clo. Why, very well then ; I hope here be truths. 
 
 A7tg. This will last out a night in Russia, 
 When nights are longest there ; I'll take my leave, 
 And leave you to the hearing of the cause ; 
 Hoping you'll find good cause to whip them all. 
 
 Fsc. I think no less ; good morrow to your lordship. 
 
 \_Ext't. 
 Now, sir, come on ; what was done to Elbow's wife, once 
 more ? 
 
 Clo. Once, sir ? there was nothing done to her once. 
 
 Elb. I beseech you, sir, ask him what this man did to my 
 wife ? 
 
 Clo. I beseech your honour, ask me. 
 
 Esc. Well, sir ; what did this gentleman to her ? 
 
 Clo. I beseech you, sir, look in this gentleman's face. 
 Good master Froth, look upon his honour; 'tis for a good 
 purpose ; does your honour mark his face ? 
 
 Esc. Ay, sir, very well. 
 
 Clo. Nay, I beseech you, mark it well. * 
 
 Esc. Well, I do so. 
 
 Clo. Does your honour see any harm in his face ? 
 
 Esc. Why, no. 
 
 Clo. I'll be supposed upon a book, his face is the worst 
 thing about him ; good then ; if his face be the worst thing 
 about him, how could master Froth do the constable's wife 
 any harm ? I would know that of your honour. 
 
 Esc. He is in the right (constable) ; what say you to it ? 
 
 Elb. First, an it like you, the house is a respected house ; 
 next, this is a respected fellow, and his mistress is a respected 
 woman. 
 
 Clo. By this hand, sir, his wife is a more respected person 
 than any of us all.
 
 48 SHAIvESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Elh. Varlet, thou liest ; thou liest, wicked varlet ; the time 
 is yet to come that she was ever respected with man, woman, 
 or child. 
 
 Clo. Sir, she was respected with him before he married 
 with her. 
 
 Esc. Which is the wiser here, Justice, or Iniquity } Is this 
 true ? 
 
 Elb. Oh thou caitiff! Oh thou varlet! Oh thou wicked 
 Hannibal ! I respected with her before I was married to her ? 
 If ever I was respected with her, or she with me, let not your 
 worship think me the poor duke's officer ; prove this, thou 
 wicked Hannibal, or I'll have mine action of battery on thee. 
 Esc. If he took you a box o' th' ear, you might have your 
 action of slander too. 
 
 Elh. IMarry, I thank your good worship for it ; what 
 is't your worship's pleasure I should do with this wicked 
 caitiff? 
 
 Esc. Truly officer, because he hath some offences in him 
 that thou wouldst discover if thou couldst, let him continue 
 in his courses, till thou knowest what they are. 
 
 Elb. Marry, I thank your worship for it. Thou seest, 
 thou wicked varlet now, what's come upon thee. Thou art to 
 continue, now, thou varlet, thou art to continue. 
 Esc. Where were you born, friend } 
 Fro. Here in Vienna, sir. 
 Esc. Are you of fourscore pounds a year } 
 Fro. Yes, an't please you, sir. 
 Esc. So ; what trade are you of, sir } 
 Clo. A tapster ; a poor widow's tapster. 
 Esc. Your mistress's name ? 
 Clo. Mistress Overdone. 
 
 Esc. Hath she had any more than one husband } 
 Clo. Nine, sir ; Overdone by the last. 
 Esc. Nine ? Come hither to me, master Froth. Master 
 Froth, I would not have you acquainted with tapsters ; they 
 will draw you, master Froth, and you will hang them ; get 
 you gone and let me hear no more of you. 
 
 Fro. I thank your worship ; for my own part I never come 
 into any room in a taphouse but I am drawn in.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 49 
 
 Esc. Well, no more of it, master Froth : farewell. Come you 
 hither to me, Mr. Tapster. What is your name, Mr. Tapster } 
 
 Clo. Pompey. 
 
 Esc. What else } 
 
 Clo. Bum, sir. 
 
 Esc. 'Troth, and your bum is the greatest thing about you; 
 so that, in the beastliest sense, you are Pompey the great ; 
 Pompey, you are partly a bawd, Pompey, howsoever you 
 colour it in being a tapster. Are you not .-^ Come, tell me 
 true ; it shall be the better for you. 
 
 Clo. Truly, sir, I am a poor fellow, that would live. 
 
 Esc. How would you live, Pompey, by being a bawd 1 What 
 do you think of the trade, Pompey } Is it a lawful trade } 
 
 Clo. If the law would allow it, sir. 
 
 Esc. But the law will not allow it ; nor it shall not be 
 allowed in Vienna. 
 
 Clo. Does your worship mean to geld and splay all the youth 
 of the city 1 
 
 Esc. No, Pompey. 
 
 Clo. Truly, sir, in my poor opinion, they will to't then. If 
 your worship will take order for the drabs and the knaves, you 
 need not fear the bawds. 
 
 Esc. There are pretty orders beginning, I can tell you. 
 It is but heading and hanging. 
 
 Clo. If you head and hang all that offend that way but for 
 ten year together, you'll be glad to give out a commission 
 for more heads. If this law hold in Vienna ten year, I'll 
 rent the fairest house in it after threepence a bay. If you 
 live to see this come to pass, say Pompey told you so. 
 
 Esc. Thank you, good Pompey ; and in requital of your 
 prophecy, hark you, — I advise you, let me not find you before 
 me again upon any complaint whatsoever ; no, not for dwelling 
 where you do. If I do, Pompey, I shall beat you to your tent, 
 and prove a shrewd Caesar to you; in plain dealing, Pompey, I 
 shall have you whipt ; so for this time, Pompey, fare you well. 
 
 Clo. I thank your worship for your good counsel ; but I 
 shall follow it, as the flesh and fortune shall better determine. 
 
 Whip me .? No, no ; let carman whip his jade ; 
 
 The valiant heart's not whipped out of his trade. \J£xit. 
 
 C. E
 
 50 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Esc. Come hither to me, master Elbow; come hither, 
 master Constable. How long have you been in this place of 
 constable ? 
 
 Elb. Seven year and a half, sir. 
 
 Esc. I thought by the readiness in the office you had 
 continued in it some time. You say seven years together } 
 
 Elb. And a half, sir. 
 
 Esc. Alas ! it hath been great pains to you. They do you 
 wrong to put you so oft upon't ; are there not men in your 
 ward sufficient to serve it ? 
 
 Elb. Faith, sir, few of any wit in such matters ; as they 
 are chosen, they are glad to choose me for them. I do it for 
 some piece of money, and go through with all. 
 
 Esc. Look you, bring me in the names of some six or seven, 
 the most sufficient of your parish. 
 
 Elb. To your worship's house, sir ? 
 
 Esc. To my house ; fare you well. 
 What's o'clock, think you ? 
 
 Just. Eleven, sir. 
 
 Esc. I pray you home to dinner with me. 
 
 Just. 1 humbly thank you. 
 
 Esc. It grieves me for the death of Claudio. But there's 
 no remedy. 
 
 Just. Lord Angelo is severe. 
 
 Esc. It is but needful ; 
 
 Mercy is not itself, that oft looks so ; 
 Pardon is still the nurse of second woe : 
 But yet, — poor Claudio ! — there's no remedy. 
 Come, sir. 
 
 If any lawyer reads this scene, every line of which 
 requires, I think, careful study, he must admit it has 
 been written either by one who has drawn the scene 
 from life, or has been assisted by one well versed in 
 the every-day life of the English law courts. And 
 when we come to consider the bye-play between 
 Angelo and Escalus, I think there is reason to adopt 
 the latter view. In the first place the court is con-
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 51 
 
 stituted not only, of the two judges Angelo and 
 Escalus with their servants, who in the modern 
 edition are termed officers, but a magistrate attends. 
 I believe this to be a purely English custom for the 
 magistrates to sit, as they sometimes do, upon the 
 bench with the judges, though taking no part in the 
 proceedings. The judges then begin discussing the 
 sentence to be passed on Claudio. 
 
 This discussion our author, however, gives us as 
 being in open court, in order that we may more fully 
 appreciate Angelo's fall hereafter. In the same way 
 that the unspoken thought of real life is given as an 
 aside on the stage. The discussion shows Angelo 
 determined to carry out an obsolete and cruel law, 
 and Escalus, as one more acquainted with the causes 
 of human infirmity, pleading for a lesser punishment 
 than death, and telling Angelo if he had been tempted 
 he might have fallen, &c., dramatically foreshadowing 
 what was to be. To which Angelo makes reference 
 to a jury, who might have a thief or two amongst 
 their number, '■'■passing on the prisoner's life " ; and 
 shortly after returns to his own conduct and s^ys 
 even if he had such faults it w^ould not extenuate 
 Claudio's offence, &c. And finally he gives his deci- 
 sion : — 
 
 "Sir, he must die." 
 
 Escalus acquiesces, and then follows the order for 
 his execution specifying the time and day. 
 
 The practice at the present day is for the judge to 
 pass sentence of death, leaving the day for the 
 execution to be fixed by the sheriffs. But formerly 
 it was not so and the course followed in *' Measure 
 for Measure " seems to have been the old practice. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Thus in the report of the case of Holloway^ who had 
 been outlawed for treason he refused to stand a trial, 
 and having confessed his crime being without any 
 defence, we find the following dialogue between the 
 too well known Chief Justice Jeffreys and the governor 
 of Newgate. 
 
 Z. C. J. Captain Richardson, I think Wednesday and 
 Friday are your usual execution days, are they not } 
 Richa?-dson. Yes, my Lord. Either of them. 
 L. C.J. Then Wednesday, seven night. 
 Richardson, Does your Lordship appoint Wednesday next. ^ 
 L. C.J. No, that will be too quick. Wednesday week. 
 
 So in the judicial murder of Sir Thomas Arm- 
 strong who was also outlawed ; but having within 
 one year claimed a trial which Jeffreys refused with 
 the acquiescence of the attorney-general. Sir Robert 
 Sawyer, for which he was afterwards expelled from 
 Parliament ; we have Jeffreys brutally answering 
 Armstrong, who said : — 
 
 I ought to have the benefit of the law, I demand no 
 more. 
 
 L. C. J. That you shall have by the grace of God. See 
 that the execution be done on Friday next according to law. 
 You shall have the full benefit of the law. 
 
 The serious business of the court being disposed of, 
 that is the issuing the order for Claudio's execution, 
 there is introduced to us by way of relief, one of those 
 incidents that so often come before our courts. The 
 subject-matter was no doubt suggested by the scenes 
 of debauched life to be found in the original play ; 
 but the incident is sketched in with the humour of a 
 Fielding ; I think our author has insensibly changed 
 
 ' State Trials, vol. lo, p. 6.
 
 LEGAi PLAYS. 53 
 
 the scene, and we are no longer in the high court of 
 Vienna if we ever were there, but on circuit in an 
 English assize town ; and into this court comes the 
 constable, one Elbow, who has some cause of sus- 
 picion that his wife has been introduced to a certain 
 Mr. Froth by a hanger on to loose women, called 
 throughout the play Clown, who, as we have seen, 
 admits under cross-examination that his name is 
 Pompey Bum. It appears that the lady has cleared 
 herself in her husband's eyes, but it is a significant 
 fact that she the principal witness, and person said to 
 be injured, is not called. 
 
 Now the bye-play of the scene is wonderfully well 
 treated ; we have Angelo, the bad-tempered judge, 
 treating the whole matter with impatience, asking a 
 question or two, and then relapsing into moody 
 silence until he can stand it no longer, and breaking 
 out into blank verse : — 
 
 This will last out a night in Russia, 
 When the nights are longest there ; I'll take my leave. 
 And leave you to the hearing of this cause ; 
 Hoping you'll find good cause to whip them all. 
 
 With this spiteful remark he leaves the court, 
 Escalus addressing him as a puisne judge would the 
 chief — 
 
 Good morrow to your lordship. 
 
 It may be noticed that Escalus, not being the chief, 
 is not addressed as my lord, but as "your worship." 
 
 Now comes a wonderful change over the scene : 
 "when the cat is away the mice will play," Hitherto 
 Escalus has been repressed by "the presence of 
 Angelo." He has listened to the parties squabbling 
 and avoiding the point, namely, what was supposed
 
 54 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 to be done to the wife, and only asked a question or 
 two ; but, as soon as Angelo leaves him alone, he 
 unbends. He soon gets to the real merits by saying- : 
 
 Now, sir, come on : what was done to Elbow's wife, once 
 more ? 
 
 The clown evades, as he always does, a direct 
 reply ; but a happy thought strikes him ; he asks the 
 judge to look at Froth and Froth to look at the judge ; 
 and then asks the judge if he sees any harm in Froth, 
 or if he thinks he was likely to do the constable's 
 wife any harm. On the view, Escalus readily acquits 
 him, and says clown is in the right. As the judge, 
 at once looking at Froth practically dismisses what 
 might be a serious charge, and as the audience to 
 appreciate the position must see why he does so, I 
 think we must assume that Froth is a young simple- 
 ton who, whatever his latent powers of vice may be, 
 was for the time one who was more likely to be 
 tempted that to attempt. He has told us before that 
 his father died at all Flollond eve, and probably having 
 come into his money, he had fallen into the clown's 
 hands. But to proceed. The charge being practically 
 dismissed, nothing follows but a cut and thrust dialogue 
 between all the parties in which the judge joins. 
 Finally, he dismisses Froth with a very professional 
 joke. 
 
 Come hither to me, master Froth. Master Froth, I would 
 not have you acquainted with tapsters. {Clown had called 
 himself a tapster r\ They will draw you, master //-t?/;^, and you 
 will hang them. Get you gone, and let me hear no more of 
 you. 
 
 To Clown his dismissal is not quite so friendly. 
 Hark you : I advise you, let me not find you before mc 
 again upon any complaint whatsoever, no, not for dwelling
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 55 
 
 where you do. If I do, Pompey, I shall beat you to your 
 tent, and prove a shrewd Caesar to you ; in plain dealirg, 
 Pompey, I shall have you whipt; so for this time, Pompey, 
 fare you well. 
 
 The learned judge, in dismissing the two prisoners, 
 has not done. We have a sketch of what no doubt 
 from time to time often occurred on circuit when 
 the judges attempted to restrain the practice of 
 one man being chosen year after year to fill the office 
 of constable. Now, nations make their customs as 
 they do their paths — by continually treading the way 
 they find most convenient ; they may be stopped or 
 restrained by individual authority for a time, but that 
 dies, and the nation perseveres. We have, in modern 
 days, long recognized that it is a good thing to have 
 a permanent filling of the position of constable, and 
 not to change the individual every year. Our 
 ancestors saw^ the expediency of this in Shakespeare's 
 time. But the law said no. The office of constable 
 like that of sheriff, churchwarden, overseer, See, was 
 one that each citizen was supposed to serve when 
 called upon, and however inconvenient the constant 
 change might be, the law desired to see its own views 
 carried out. 
 
 The office of parish constable was one that any 
 inhabitant had to serve if elected to it by the jury at 
 the court leet ; but these courts were not always held, 
 and the office was often filled year after year by the 
 same person who was paid by the parish generally 
 for undertaking the somewhat invidious duty. But 
 that there should be, as it were, a professional con- 
 stable was not the idea of the law, which rather looked 
 to each inhabitant taking it in turn, and no doubt the 
 practice led sometimes to abuse, especially where the
 
 56 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 person who from year to year acted was of the 
 Dogberry or Elbow type, and we find long after 
 Shakespeare's time, an Act was passed in the 13 &: 14 
 Car. II. giving two justices the power of electing a 
 constable when there was none, and of removing any 
 one who had been more than a year in office. Now 
 inferentially we see Escalus as it were the judge on 
 circuit claiming this power, for he says, as a mere 
 incident in the play, no subsequent action appa- 
 rently being taken — 
 
 Esc. Come hither to me, master Elbow ; come hither, 
 master Constable. How long have you been in this place of 
 constable } 
 
 Elb. Seven year and a half, sir. 
 
 Esc. Alas ! it has been great pains to you. They do you 
 wrong to put you so oft upon't. \llie playful chaff of the 
 Lord Chuf fustice.~\ Are there not men in your ward suffi- 
 cient to serve it ? 
 
 Elb. Faith, sir, few of any wit in such matters ; as they 
 are chosen, they are glad to choose me for them. I do it for 
 some piece of money, and go through with all. 
 
 To this Escalus, as one can well imagine many a 
 hard-headed judge has done, determines to use the 
 man for his own destruction. 
 
 Look you, bring me in the names of some six or seven, the 
 most sufficient of your parish. 
 
 To this Elbow obsequiously says (suspecting no- 
 thing, half or all, according to the wit of the man) — 
 
 To your worship's house,' sir } 
 To my house. Fare you well, 
 
 says Escalus, polite to the last, and there the incident 
 
 1 Probably referring to the judge's lodgings, which would be well 
 known to Elbow.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 57' 
 
 drops ; but all this savours of the judge on circuit, 
 where the judge's lodgings would be well known to 
 the constable, and does not, to my mind, tell of the 
 experience gained on the stool in a country attorney's 
 office, or behind the scenes of a London theatre. The 
 scene is brought to a conclusion by the interval 
 there is, at what is known as the rising of the court. 
 It often happens that the arrangement of the business 
 is done at the time when the judge rises from his seat 
 and remains standing. It is said that when the late 
 Mr. Pelligrini, the artist for " Vanity Fair," attended 
 the Tichborne trial to make a sketch of the late Chief 
 Justice Bovill, he could get no attitude that pleased 
 him until when the work was over, the judge rose 
 and remained standing for a few minutes arranging 
 some matter. A rapid sketch was made of the chief, 
 which was the origin of the well-known cartoon. 
 So Escalus, when his work was over, turns to the 
 justice who has been in attendance, but taking, 
 of course, no part in the business, and addresses 
 a few words to him, expressing regret for Claudio's 
 death, showing what has been weighing in his miijd 
 during all the fooling with the constable, and finally, 
 after asking what time it is, invites him, as judges so 
 often do the justices, or members of the Bar, to 
 dine with him. 
 
 When we look at the range of subjects connected 
 with English legal and judicial life which have been 
 introduced into this scene which is laid itself in 
 Vienna, I think we have a very good example of the 
 legal acquirements to be found in these plays. 
 
 It has been suggested to me that this scene shows 
 no higher legal training than the trial scene in
 
 58 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Pickwick. But Dickens had some legal learning in 
 Doctors' Commons. I believe he was properly quali- 
 fied to practise, and he may and probably had help 
 in arranging his scene. It is, however, more of a 
 burlesque, the incidents were introduced to amuse 
 not as here, mere matters of passing interest, i.e.^ the 
 appointment of constable, &c. Besides, Pickwick's 
 trial scene stands alone. This is only one amongst 
 many examples of legal training. And I think, that 
 if Shakespeare was assisted by some legal friend, 
 that this scene can hardly have been touched by 
 Shakespeare, except where blank verse is used. The 
 sharp dialogue between the judge, the prisoners, and 
 the constable seem to me to be the work of one mind, 
 and that a touch by another hand would have spoilt 
 it. I look upon it as Bacon's unassisted work. I say 
 Bacon's, because it so resembles his style of writing 
 when he was unbending. It was the kind of low 
 comedy wit he was so fond of when he could indulge 
 in it, at least, if the examples to which I shall here- 
 after have occasion to refer are his. At present, all 
 that I think can be said is that in this scene we have 
 a sketch of a day in court in the time of Elizabeth 
 drawn by a master's hand. 
 
 There is another trial scene in the play. In the 
 first one, after the sentence on Claudio which is not 
 meant by the author to be enforced ; the subject is, 
 as we have seen, treated lightly. But in the second 
 trial we have a more serious view. In this scene 
 we find the Duke has left Angelo and Escalus to 
 deal with the accusations against the former. He 
 has to retire for the purpose of appearing as the friar, 
 and, before going, he has thrown Angelo off his
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 69 
 
 guard by pretending to disbelieve the witnesses. 
 Angelo asks the Duke — 
 
 Now, good my lord, give me the scope of justice. 
 
 The Duke says — 
 
 Ay, with my heart ; 
 
 And punish tliem unto your height of pleasure. 
 i;. * * ■::• ■» 
 
 You, lord Escalus, 
 
 Sit with my cousin ; lend him your kind pains 
 
 To find out this abuse. 
 
 Having- thus formed the Court, he goes to re-appear 
 immediately as the Friar Lodowick. In the trial that 
 follows, Angelo, no doubt, knowing that he is guilty 
 as he believes with Isabella, takes little part. But 
 Escalus is shown acting as a judge does who is 
 moved by partizanship, and has lost his judicial 
 impartiality. It is as different a picture from the 
 judge playing the fool with Elbow, as a rough sea is 
 from a calm one. He starts with laying a trap for 
 the friar, and, let us hope, unconsciously stating an 
 untruth. Of course, he does not know that the friar is 
 the Duke who had been present. ^ 
 
 £sc. Come, sir 1 Did you set these women on to slander 
 lord Angelo ? T/iey have confessed you did. 
 Duke. 'Tis false. 
 
 Escalus is startled ; he does not venture to re-assert 
 it, but says — 
 
 How ! know you where you are } 
 
 The Duke, in his indignation, says — 
 
 Respect to your great place ! and let the devil 
 Be sometime honoured for his burning throne. 
 
 And then asks for himself — 
 
 Where's the Duke } 'tis he should hear me speak.
 
 60 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Then follows the scene which speaks for itself, 
 showing as it does how Escalus catches at everything" 
 to justify his preconceived opinion that there has 
 been a conspiracy between the friar and the women 
 against his friend Angelo. The latter, like the rabbit, 
 lies low. But when he sees that Escalus is losing 
 sight of the main question, and is generally losing his 
 head, Angelo calls up the talkative Lucio to say what 
 he can vouch against him. 
 
 Lucio with charming but Baconian or Shake- 
 sperian impudence, says that all the abuse of the 
 Duke, which he had before imputed to the Duke when 
 he was the friar, the friar had said, and ultimately 
 unmasks the Duke, who, being discovered, makes 
 Escalus resume his seat and then presides, and 
 Angelo becomes the prisoner. Escalus is silenced, 
 he has been led away, and at last, when everything 
 is confessed, gives a lame apology. 
 
 ]My Lord, I am more amazed at his dishonour, 
 Than at the strangeness of it. 
 
 No one takes any notice, and the poor old judge 
 steps into the back-ground and, except for a short 
 side-remark to Angelo, says no more. 
 
 First and Second Parts of Henry VI. 
 
 In " Measure for Measure " we have a sketch of 
 what one might almost call a day on the bench ; in the 
 first part of " Henry VI." we have a glimpse of the life 
 of a law student. It is true Part I. of " Henry VI." 
 was considered by Malone not to be Shakespeare, 
 principally because there were certain contradictions 
 about Henry's age, i. e., when his father died he was
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 6» 
 
 only nine months old, but he is made to say of 
 
 Talbot,!— 
 
 I do remember how my father said, 
 
 A stouter champion never handled sword. 
 
 An argument founded upon any such inaccuracies 
 does not now meet with approval. It may, however, 
 be because Malone threw this doubt upon " Henry VI.," 
 Part I., that Lord Campbell passed it over as a play 
 not containing any of the expressions or allusions of a 
 professional lawyer. Whereas, I think, it is full of 
 reference to legal life and manners. 
 
 Henry VI., Part I. 
 
 In this play the dates are all hopelessly confused 
 and the incidents piled together as it suited the author 
 to place them, irrespective of their true position in 
 history. The play, for instance, opens with the 
 funeral of Henry V. in AVestminster Abbey. Now 
 this king died in France on the 31st August, 1422, 
 and his brother Bedford continued his w^ars in th^ 
 country against the Dauphin, whose father, Charles 
 VI., died in Paris in October of the same year, when 
 the Dauphin became by right Charles VII., but was 
 not yet crowned. Bedford had great success for six 
 years or so, till the Maid of Orleans appeared on the 
 scene in 1429, when she raised the siege of Orleans, 
 carried Charles off to Rheims, where he was crowned 
 May, 1429. Henry V. had a magnificent funeral. 
 It commenced in Paris, and continued with great 
 ceremony through France. His funeral services were 
 
 1 Act III. Scene 4.
 
 62 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 performed in England at St. Paul's, and finally his 
 body was taken to Westminster Abbey for interment. 
 During the short time it remained there above ground, 
 we have the first scene of the play, in which enter 
 several messengers stating that all the French towns 
 are lost, the French king crowned at Rheims, &:c., 
 all of which were not true at that date, but are part 
 of the later action of the piece. This scene also 
 refers to the commencement of the quarrel between 
 Gloster, the young king's uncle, and Beaufort, his 
 great uncle. But we have not to deal with these 
 historical inaccuracies, but with the expressions and 
 allusions of a lawyer, which are so numerous that it 
 seems impossible to understand their being entirely 
 overlooked by Lord Campbell, 
 
 The first of these occurs when the partizans of 
 Gloster and Winchester (Beaufort) come to blows.^ 
 The Lord Mayor enters and reproves them in vain ; 
 they continue their quarrel and the stage direction 
 is {Here they skirmish again), upon which the Lord 
 Mayor says — 
 
 Nought rests for me, in this tumultuous strife, 
 But to make open proclamation : — 
 Come, officer, as loud as e'er thou canst cry. 
 Officer. All manner of men assembled here in arms this day, 
 against God's peace and the king's, we charge and command 
 you, in his highness's name, to repair to your several dwelling- 
 places ; and not to wear, handle, or use, any sword, weapon, 
 or dagger, henceforward, upon pain of death. 
 
 This quiets the combatants, for Gloster says, — 
 
 Cardinal, I'll be no breaker of the law : 
 
 But we shall meet, and break our minds at large. 
 
 ' Scene 3.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 63 
 
 In the use of this proclamation, I find that the law 
 of the author was, as is often to be found in the plays 
 correctly stated as regards the law, as it existed in 
 Shakespeare's time, and it is no doubt in the proper 
 form ; but the occasion was not one, in my opinion, 
 in which it would or should have been used. 
 
 In the early days of English history the law was 
 always ready to put down riotous assemblies ; and 
 by an Act of Henry the Fourth, the duty of the civil 
 magistrate was to suppress and disperse by force 
 persons unlawfully and riotously assembling ; and 
 such persons were liable at common law to be fined 
 and imprisoned. But this appeal to the strong arm 
 of the law did not make the remaining, after notice 
 to disperse, a special crime. It was the assembling 
 and the tumult which were punishable, not the being 
 on the ground after proclamation, though this was so 
 at the time when the play was written, i.e., towards 
 the close of Elizabeth's reign, but was not the law at 
 the period of the play, i.e., in Henry the Sixth's reign. 
 It is evident where a tumult is going on, the presence 
 of mere passive spectators is a danger ; and when 
 Edward the Sixth came to the throne, it was made 
 high treason for twelve persons or above being 
 assembled together to attempt to kill or imprison any 
 of the king's council or to alter any laws, and to con- 
 tinue together by the space of an hour after being com- 
 manded by the justices of the peace to retire. This 
 Act was altered by Mary making it felony. The 
 words of the Act are : " If any persons of the number 
 of twelve or more being assembled together shall 
 intend, go about, practise, or put in use with force 
 and arms unlawfully and of their own authority, to 
 change any laws made for religion by authority of
 
 64 SHAIvESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Parliament, the same number of tweh^e or above 
 being commanded by the sheriffs, Sec, by proclamation 
 in the Queen's name, to retire and repair to their 
 house or whence they came, shall be adjudged felons 
 and suffer death." But the same Act, where the 
 number was under twelve, made it a misdemeanor not 
 punishable by death, but by fine and imprisonment. 
 
 The proclamation of the Lord Mayor was, therefore, 
 wrong, historically speaking, because it was of no 
 effect in Henry VI. 's time, and was out of place and 
 irregular because ic was not clear that the rioters 
 were twelve in number, and it is clear that their 
 meeting by chance and fighting was not one of the 
 objects of meeting, against which the Act of Mary 
 was directed. This Act was continued by Elizabeth 
 for her life, and then dropped by the Stuarts and not 
 revived until the first of George the First, when it was 
 re-modelled, and made perpetual as the Riot Act. 
 The power of the justice to suppress the assembly was 
 the posse comitatus, which was held to be all persons, 
 noblemen and others, except, if need be, women, clergy- 
 men, persons decrepit, and infants under fifteen. 
 
 I think, therefore, that the proclamation as here 
 given was the work of a lawyer, but in this particular 
 case it was an anachronism and also inapplicable to 
 the particular form of riot. Although the proclamation 
 of the mayor arrested the combatants, and they fell to 
 words not blows, yet they do not show any disposition 
 to obey the order to retire until the mayor threatens to 
 call out the posse comitatiis — 
 
 I will call for clubs, if you will not away. 
 
 ]\Ialone says this refers to peace officers armed with 
 clubs, but it is rather the well-known call for the
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 65 
 
 assembling of the apprentices. It is not probable 
 there were sufficient peace officers in the city ; but the 
 apprentices were always ready to leave the work at 
 this call and suppress riots, if not make them. How- 
 ever, the disputants leave, and the mayor still ful- 
 filling his duty, says : — 
 
 See the coast cleared, and then we will depart. 
 
 It subsequently appears they obey the letter of the 
 law and disarm, but fill their pockets with stones and 
 commence again breaking each other's pates, and the 
 Mayor of London, as he was entitled to do, petitions 
 Parliament, or rather the Lords, where Henry is 
 sitting.^ 
 
 Oh, my good Lords, — and virtuous Henry, — 
 Pity the city of London, pity us ! 
 
 In this first part of " Henry VI." occur two scenes, 
 — one in the Temple Gardens, which shows that 
 the author was well acquainted with the habits 
 and life of the members of the Temple, and the other 
 in Parliament, where he shows an equally accurate 
 knowledge of the law and practice of Parliament. , 
 
 In the Temple Gardens, we have an adjournment 
 fi-om the hall, where the parties have been disputing, 
 and have adjourned to the gardens, where, as oft;en is 
 the case, the cool air may have helped them to keep 
 their tempers.^ 
 
 1 Act III. Scene r. 
 
 2 This reference to the Temple Gardens, not sajang whether the Inner 
 or the Middle Temple is meant, curiously enough points to the ^\■riter 
 being a member of Gray's Inn. Tliis wiR be seen better when we discuss 
 the Gesia Grayorum in 1594-5. -A-t present I shall only point out that 
 there was a strong alliance between Gray's Inn and the Inner Temple. 
 The former speaking of the latter as the Temple ; an Inner or a Middle 
 Temple man would have given his Inn its proper title. 
 
 C. F
 
 66 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 We have five noblemen and another la^vyer brought 
 on to the stage as if they had all been in the hall and 
 were all lawyers. Now a great number of noblemen 
 did join the Temple in those days, but as the records 
 only go to 1547, the accession of Edward VI., we have 
 no means of knowing whether these had so joined. 
 But as they had been in the hall, Avhere, except on 
 rare occasions, guests are not admitted, it seems to 
 me, the author is only referring to what might have 
 been the case. At all events, they enter the gardens, 
 Richard Plantagenet, heated and excited with an 
 argument he has had, evidently with Somerset, and 
 the rest apparently have no wish to keep up the 
 dispute. But Plantagenet will not be quiet, he insists 
 on having the opinion of his friends. 
 
 Plant. Great lords and gentlemen, what means this 
 silence ? 
 Dare no man answer in a case of truth "^ 
 Suffolk. Within the Temple hall we were too loud ; 
 
 The garden here is more convenient. 
 Plant. Then say at once, if I maintain'd the truth. 
 
 They attempt to put him off, but he insists and 
 plucks the white rose. Somerset plucks a red, and so 
 on each one siding with Plantagenet or Somerset 
 until the unnamed lawyer says — 
 
 Unless my study and my books be false, 
 The argument you held, was wrong in you; 
 
 [_To Somerset. 
 In sign whereof, I pluck a white rose too. 
 
 It seems to me, however, that in point of law 
 Somerset was right and the unnamed gentleman of 
 the long robe wrong, for when Somerset begins to 
 state his argument, it is, that as Plantagenet's father 
 had been executed for treason in the late king's days,
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. , 67 
 
 he, as his son, stood attainted, corrupted, and exempt 
 from ancient gentry, the father's trespass yet being 
 guilty in the son's blood. 
 
 And, till thou be restored, thou art a yeoman. 
 
 This seems to me unanswerable law. In vain 
 Plantagenet says — 
 
 My father was attached, not attainted ; 
 Condemn'd to die for treason, but no traitor. 
 
 His friend Warwick tells him of the only true means 
 
 of getting over the difficulty : — 
 
 This blot, that they object against your house, 
 Shall be wiped out in the next Parliament. 
 
 Now this is all correct law. A person executed for 
 treason had his blood attainted ; no one, upwards or 
 downwards, could inherit through him, and therefore 
 the title and estates of the Duke of York, which would 
 have been his as heir to his paternal grandfather, 
 Edward of Langley, Duke of York, were stopped by 
 the attainted blood of his father. This could only be 
 removed by the reversal of the attainder by an Act of 
 Parliament, or by a re-grant of the lands and titles by 
 the Crown, in other words a fresh creation. And we 
 see subsequently this done in both ways. For the 
 king in Parliament says,^ — 
 
 My loving lords, our pleasure is, 
 That Richard be restored to his blood. 
 
 Upon this apparently the Lords vote, — for Warwick 
 says, — 
 
 Let Richard be restored to his blood ; 
 So shall his father's wrongs be recompensed, 
 
 and Winchester, — 
 
 As will the rest, so willeth Winchester. 
 
 1 Act III. Scene i . 
 F 2
 
 68 SHAIvESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The king, upon his swearing fealty, gives him back 
 
 his inheritance and says, — 
 
 I girt thee with the valiant sword of York : 
 Rise, Richard, like a true Plantagenet : 
 And rise created princely Duke of York. 
 
 Previous to this being done, Plantagenet had him- 
 self recognized that Somerset's argument was right, 
 for he says, when the lords are disputing — 
 
 Plantagenet, I see, must hold his tongue ; 
 
 Lest it be said, Speak, sirrah, when you should ; 
 
 Must your bold verdict enter talk with lords 1 
 
 I may say, as far as I can discover, all this is pure 
 imagination of the author. For at the first Parliament 
 held in Henry VI. 's reign Plantagenet attended as the 
 Duke of York, and no questions were raised. Most 
 probably he had been restored to his father's estates 
 and titles by Henry V. It is evident in the play that 
 Richard Plantagenet is meant to be a member of the 
 Temple; for as we have seen not only is he described as 
 coming from the Hall, but in the second act, scene 5, 
 we have Edmund Mortimer as a prisoner in the Tower 
 dying of old age sending for Plantagenet, his nephew. 
 
 But tell me, keeper, will my nephew come } 
 Keeper. Richard Plantagenet, my lord, will come, 
 We sent unto the Temple, to his chamber ; 
 And answer was returned, that he will come. 
 
 (In fact Mortimer was a friend of Henry V., attended 
 his funeral, and died some two years afterwards quite a 
 young man.) The only reason I can conceive for this 
 scene is, that the author, having taken the trouble to 
 work out Plantagenet's title as Duke of York, and to 
 the Crown, did not like to waste his trouble, so brings 
 in ]\Iortimer to tell it all over to Plantagenet, who must 
 have known it before.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 69 
 
 The lawyers called their rooms chambers, and 
 
 always have ; but the matter, I think, is put at rest by 
 
 the closing lines of the scene in the Temple Gardens, 
 
 already referred to, where Plantagenet, Warwick, 
 
 Vernon and the other lawyer being left together, 
 
 Plantagenet, after thanking them for plucking a white 
 
 rose with him, says — 
 
 Thanks, gentle sir. 
 
 Come, let us four to dinner ; I daresay, 
 
 This quarrel will drink blood another day. 
 
 And thus makes up the set of four, which is the number 
 who dine in a mess together. 
 
 It may not be known generally, but it is assumed, 
 that the destruction of the records of the members of 
 the Bar by Jack Cade in this very reign has prevented 
 modern investigation from tracing very clearly in what 
 way they came into occupation of the Temple. It is 
 supposed that certain serving brethren affiliated them- 
 selves to the Templars, some of whom went into the 
 courts and acted as protectors to suitors, &c., whilst 
 others attended the sick. In some way the large 
 body of the Bar, the successors of the apprentices 
 or counters, became possessed of the Temple, whilst 
 the servientes ad legem or serjeants-at-law had their 
 own Inn or Inns ; but one practice survived which, 
 I suppose, came down from the old Knight-Tem- 
 plars, i.e., that the barristers and students dined to- 
 gether in sets of four, this number being chosen for a 
 general and mutual espionage. To those who care 
 for these matters the following extracts from the 
 Rules of the Knight-Templars ^ may not be without 
 interest as showing the origin of this custom, which 
 still prevails. 
 
 1 Addison's "Knight Templars," p. 19.
 
 70 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Rule VIII. In one common hall or refectory wc will that 
 you take your meat together, where, if your wants cannot be 
 made known by signs, ye are softly and privately to ask for 
 what you want. 
 
 No wonder that the disputants in the garden scene 
 found — 
 
 Within the Temple hall we were too loud. 
 
 Rule IX. At dinner and at supper let there be always some 
 sacred reading. If we love the Lord wc ought anxiously to 
 long for, and we ought to hear with most earnest attention, 
 his wholesome words and precepts. 
 
 The Templars, until recent times, preserved this 
 practice of reading but during dinner only. They 
 read some disputed law matter instead of religion. 
 And though the practice has now ceased, except 
 for a short revival a few years back, in the Inner 
 Temple a Bencher is still called lector the year before 
 he serves as treasurer. And it as lector that his arms 
 are placed in the Hall. 
 
 Rule XI. Two and two ought in general to eat together 
 that one may have an eye upon the other. 
 
 This rule is ambiguous : it might refer to messes of 
 two or of four. The latter is, as we have seen, the 
 practice of the Inns of Court which exists now, and the 
 passage from " Henry VI.," Part I., given above, to my 
 mind shows it so existed in the time of Shakespeare. 
 
 It is also to be remarked, that during the quarrel 
 between Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Somerset in 
 the Temple Gardens, the latter calls the former a 
 yeoman — 
 
 We grace the yeoman by conversing with him. 
 
 As we have seen, Warwick tries to explain and 
 misstates York's pedigree.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 71 
 
 Then Plantagenet says — 
 
 He bears him on the place's privilege, 
 
 Or durst not, for his craven heart, say thus. 
 
 Johnson, it appears, explains this by saying the 
 Temple was a religious house, and as such exempt 
 from violence, revenge, and bloodshed. It is, how- 
 ever, shown by others, as was the case, that the 
 Temple had long ceased to be such ; and Robson 
 suggests^ blows might have been prohibited by the 
 regulations of the Society. I have not been able to 
 find any such regulation ; but that the Templars wanted 
 keeping in order, the following description of a town 
 and gown row on rather an extravagant scale, which 
 I have found in Hollinshed, seems to prove. In this 
 year, 20 Hen. VI., the year in which the wife of 
 Gloster was accused of witchcraft and treason : — 
 
 There was a great fray in Fleet Street between gentlemen 
 of Courts and inhabitants of London, insomuch that much 
 blood was spilt, divers slain outright, and some mortally 
 wounded, besides great harm otherwise done and suffered. 
 
 In the scene between Gloster and Winchester ii^ 
 Parliament, we have another illustration of its prac- 
 tice, Gloster offers to follow the usual course to 
 exhibit a bill against Winchester, but the latter 
 snatches it and tears it, saying — 
 
 Comest thou with deep premeditated lines, 
 With written pamphlets studiously devised, 
 Humphrey of Gloster ? If thou canst accuse, 
 Or aught intend' st to lay unto my charge, 
 Do it without invention suddenly; 
 As I, with sudden and extemporal speech, 
 Purpose to answer what thou canst object. 
 
 1 Page 65.
 
 72 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 To which Gloster says — 
 
 Think not, although in writing I preferr'd 
 The manner of thy vile outrageous crimes, &c. 
 
 This, although hashed up into a dramatic squabble, 
 is based upon the usual way in which articles of 
 impeachment are preferred against a peer. Black- 
 stone says these are a kind of bill or indictment. 
 Had the dispute not been arranged for the time, 
 probably a Lord High Steward would have been 
 appointed and proceedings continued in the ordinary 
 way.^ 
 
 Again where Vernon strikes Bassett in pursuance of 
 the old dispute between York and Somerset, Bassett 
 refers to the law making it death to draw a sword 
 in the king's garden (Henry the Sixth was then in 
 his French Palace where he went to be crowned), 
 and says, — 
 
 Villain, thou know'st the law of arms. 
 
 There is a further reference to law made by La 
 Pucelle just as she is going to execution, which refers 
 to a cruel charge made against her in Hollinshed, to 
 which respect for her memory prevents me from 
 further alluding. 
 
 The principal action in this play is laid in France, 
 consequently the opportunities for the display of legal 
 phraseology is not of such frequent occurrence. 
 
 ^ Now this is all imagination, for Hollinshed gives the actual Bill 
 preferred by Gloster, accuser of Winchester, at a Parliament specially 
 held by Bedford, who came to England for this puipose. The Lords were 
 to arbitrate between the two ; their award was duly given, and is set out 
 in Hollinshed. A feast followed, at which the king was knighted by 
 Bedford ; but the peace was a hollow one, for the quarrel soon broke out 
 again.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 73 
 
 Henry VI., Part. II. 
 
 Lord Campbell tells us that, in the speeches of 
 Jack Cade and his coadjutors in the play, we find a 
 familiarity with the law and its proceedings which 
 thoroughly indicate that the author must have had 
 some professional practice and education as a lawyer, 
 and he takes as an example in " Henry VI.," Part II. 
 Act IV. Sc. 2. 
 
 Dick. Let's kill all the lawyers. 
 
 Cade. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable 
 thing, that of the skin of an innocent Iamb should be made 
 parchment? that parchment being scribbled o'er should undo 
 a man ? Some say the bee stings, but I say, 'tis the bees' wax, 
 for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own 
 man since. 
 
 In the Quarto it is only verbally different, Dick 
 says,— 
 
 I have a suit unto your lordship. 
 
 Cade. Be it a lordship, Dick, and thou shalt have it for 
 that word. 
 
 Dick. That we may go^ and burn all records, 
 
 And that all writing may be down, ^ 
 
 And nothing used but the sign and tally. 
 
 Cade. Dick, it shall be so, and henceforward all things 
 shall be in common. 
 
 And in Cheapside my palfrey shall go to grass. 
 
 Why is't not a miserable thing that of the skin of an inno- 
 cent lambe parchment should be made, and then with a little 
 blotting over with ink a man should undo himself? Some say 
 'tis the bees that sting, but I say, 'tis their wax, for I am sure I 
 never sealed to any thing but once, and I was never my own 
 man since. 
 
 So, as to the indictment on which Lord Saye was 
 ^ To the Inns of Court.
 
 74 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 arraigned,^ Lord Campbell says it is certain that the 
 drawer of the indictment must have had some ac- 
 quaintance with the Crown Circuit Companion and 
 must have had a full and accurate knowledge of that 
 rather obscure and intricate subject — Felony and 
 benefit of Clergy. As this indictment is found almost 
 in the same words, and identical as to the material 
 points in the quarto, the same remarks necessarily 
 apply to its author also. And in the same way the 
 clerk of Chatham is hanged with his pen and penhorn 
 about his neck for being able to read. 
 
 So in Jack Cade's proclamation which Lord Camp- 
 bell says deals with still more recondite heads of 
 jurisprudence. Where he refers to the Droits du 
 Seigneur y and concludes : — 
 
 Men shall hold of me in capiie, mid we charge and cojumand 
 that their wives be as free as heart can wish, or tongue can tell. 
 
 In the Quarto these last words are slightly altered. 
 
 And that their wives shall be as free as heart can think or 
 tongue can tell. 
 
 Now these words have, as Malone tells us, received 
 a judicial interpretation, and Campbell follows him. 
 See Year Book, Llil. Term, lo Hen. VIL, folio 13, 
 pt. 6. In Scotland a deed oftens runs " as long as 
 grass can grow or water flow." But it requires a 
 lawyer of some study to be able to quote from the 
 Year Books, and we find the author of both Ouarto 
 and Folio doing this. 
 
 These examples are by no means all the law- that 
 is to be found in both the quarto and folio plays. 
 We have an apprentice accusing his master of high 
 
 ' Act IV. Scene 7.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 75 
 
 treason. The master says he does it out of malice, 
 and that he has a witness to prove this malice. The 
 king thereupon asks the Protector Gloster — 
 In the Quarto : 
 
 Uncle Gloster, what do you think of this ? 
 
 In " Henry VI.," Part II.— 
 
 Uncle, what shall we say to this in law ? 
 
 In both Quarto and Folio Gloster gives the correct 
 judicial answer. 
 
 In the Ouarto : 
 
 My lord, the law is this, by case it rest suspicious, 
 That a day of combat be appointed. 
 
 The master accepts, the prentice declines, upon 
 which Suffolk says — 
 
 You must either fight, sirrah, or else be hanged. 
 
 In " Henry VI.," Part II., Gloster says- 
 Let these have a day appointed them 
 For single combat in convenient place ; 
 For he hath witness of his servant's malice. * 
 
 The master accepts, the prentice, as in the Quarto play, 
 declines, and is told he must fight or be hanged. All 
 this correctly states the appeal by combat, the essential 
 part of which is, there must be a doubt ; for if there 
 were anything like certain evidence, the plaintiff was 
 not called upon to prove in this extraordinary manner 
 what there was reason to suppose he could prove by 
 ordinary legal methods. Here it was evident it was 
 one man's word against another, and a witness of 
 malice was vouched to, on the part of the defendant,
 
 76 SPIAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 therefore the procedure was correctly laid down by 
 Gloster.^ 
 
 One more example. In the first part of" Henry VI.," 
 Gloster, as we have seen, charges the Bishop of Win- 
 chester. In these two plays the position is reversed. 
 A parliament is held at Bury to which Gloster is 
 summoned, and on his appearance there is charged 
 by the Bishop of Winchester, now cardinal in both 
 plays, in almost the same words : that in his Pro- 
 tectorship — 
 
 You did devise 
 
 Strange torments [iorttircs) for offenders by which means 
 
 England hath been defamed by tyranny ; 
 
 to which Gloster admits — 
 
 That murder he did torture. 
 
 In the Ouarto, he adds — 
 
 " above the rate of common law." 
 
 These words are altered in " Henry VI." — 
 " Murder, indeed, that bloody sin ; I tortured 
 Above the felon, or what trespass else; " 
 
 the meaning of which is not quite clear. Now this 
 omission of the reference to the common law in the 
 later play is very curious, because, although the 
 torture of suspected persons was often done, the 
 English lawyers were always opposed to it. As one 
 
 1 The result of the battle as told by Hollinshed is, that the Master was 
 so fortified with liquor by his friends that he proved an easy victim, but the 
 servant did not hve long unpunished, as he was convicted of theft and 
 executed shortly afterwards. I think it is clear that durinfj Henry VI. 
 reign there was going on one of those preliminary skirmishes against the 
 church which led the way to the Reformation, represented by Gloster who 
 opposed, and Winchester, who defended the church ; and the chronicler's 
 sympathies were with Gloster, the good Duke Humphrey.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 77 
 
 report says : " Trial by rack " is unknown to English 
 law ; finally, the judg'es w^ho met to consult before 
 the trial of Felton, the murderer of the Duke of Buck- 
 ingham in James I.'s reign, declared unanimously, as 
 Blackstone tells us, to their own honour and the 
 honour of English law, no that such proceedings were 
 allowable by the laws of England. Since then it has 
 never been used here. Now, if Bacon had anything to 
 do with these two plays he may, before he became 
 Lord Chancellor, have followed his old instincts as a 
 common law lawyer, and stated in the earlier play 
 that torture was above (or outside) the common law ; 
 but as he had been attorney-general and had to attend 
 examinations under torture, and lord chancellor, and 
 member of the king's council, before the second play, 
 he may have often had to be a consenting party to its 
 use, and so thought it advisable to omit the reference 
 to its being opposed to the common law.^ 
 
 I have read over this second part of " Henry VI." 
 several times to ascertain if I have omitted any traces 
 of legal knowledge, and each time it seems to me some- 
 thing fresh is discovered. Since writing the abo-\jp, 
 I have discovered two more traces of the author being 
 acquainted with a lawyer's training. In Act II. Scene i. 
 
 ^ Lord Campbell says, in his "Lives of the Chief Justices," speaking of 
 Coke, who, as attorney- general, often attended the examination of prisoners 
 under torture, although aftenvards in his old age making the rack 
 illegal. He laid do^\^l in the most peremptory manner that torture was 
 contrarj' to the law of England, and showed how the rack, or rake, in the 
 Tower was first introduced in this reign of Henry VI. by the Duke of 
 Exeter, and ever afterwards called the Duke of Exeter's daughter. Like 
 his predecessor Egerton, and his successor, Bacon, he thought that the 
 Crown was not bound by this law, and a wan-ant for administering torture 
 being granted by the council, he unscrapulously attended to see the 
 proper degree of pain inflicted.
 
 78 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 at Bury, there is the discovery of an impostor who 
 pretends to have been miraculously restored to sight. 
 Gloster who is described in Hall's Chronicle as being 
 well acquainted with the civil law, cross-examines 
 the man with the skill of a defender of prisoners at 
 the Old Bailey. The man is evidently prepared to 
 tell any amount of lies, and his wife is ready to 
 support him. After eliciting that though blind from 
 his birth, he has, as he says, become lame from a fall 
 from a plum-tree which he had climbed in his youth, 
 Gloster throws him off his guard by pretending to 
 disbelieve him when he is really speaking the truth, 
 when he says he can see now. 
 Gloster says : — 
 
 Let me see thy eyes ; — wink now: now open them : — 
 In my opinion yet thou see'st not well. 
 
 The man, knowing he can see well, is eager to 
 convince Gloster he is speaking the truth on this point, 
 and insists that he can see. Gloster, apparently to test 
 his sight, asks him the colour of the different cloaks 
 around, which he correctly gives as red, black, coal- 
 black, &:c. He then says he has never seen a cloak 
 before. Gloster then asks him the names of the 
 different persons, which, of course, he does not know, 
 upon which Gloster says : — 
 
 If thou hadst been born blind, 
 Thou mightst as well have known all our names, as thus 
 To name the several colours we do wear. 
 Sight may distinguish of colours ; but suddenly 
 To nominate them all it is impossible. 
 
 And so has him flogged through all the towns till 
 he returns to Berwick whence he came. We are not 
 here considering whether counsel are justified in
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 79 
 
 laying traps for a witness. This will depend on 
 whether he is a witness of truth or the reverse ; but 
 the example given shows an aptitude for, and apprecia- 
 tion of, cross-examination which, as I have said, 
 smacks of actual practice in the courts. This incident 
 is to be found in the Folio and the Ouarto. 
 
 One more example, and I hope it is the last I shall 
 discover of legal knowledge, with which the whole 
 part or play seems saturated. It arises on the trial of 
 Eleanor, wife of the Duke of Gloster for conjuring, 
 for which she was sentenced by the king to two or 
 three days' penance (the Folio and Quarto vary), and 
 then to banishment for life to the Isle of Man. This is 
 also historical, and taken from Hall and Hollinshed's 
 Chronicles ; but the details of the punishment of her 
 accomplices are, I believe, the work of the author. 
 It is suggested by the chronicler that Sir John Han 
 was employed to lead Eleanor, Gloster's wife, into a 
 trap, taking her to the witch, and then arranging for 
 her to be caught in the act. This idea is worked out 
 in the play. 
 
 Hall, in his Chronicles, commences the twentietl» 
 year of King Henry VI. with a description of the 
 articles preferred by Gloster against the Bishop of 
 Winchester, principally for accepting a Cardinal's 
 hat, &c. This was referred by the king to his council, 
 who. Hall says, were for the most part spiritual 
 persons. 
 
 So, what for fear and what for favour, the matter was 
 winked at, and backed out, and nothing said to it ; and fair 
 countenance was made to the duke as though no displeasure 
 had been taken, nor no malice borne either in heart or 
 remembrance against him. But venom will once break out 
 and inward grudge will soon appear, which was this year to
 
 80 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 all men apparent, for divers secret attempts were advanced 
 forward this season against the noble Duke, Humphrey of 
 Gloster, which, in conclusion, came so near that they bereft 
 him both of life and land as you shall hereafter more mani- 
 festly perceive. For first this year Dame Eleanor Cobham, 
 wife to the said Duke, was accused of treason, that she by 
 sorcery and enchantment intended to destroy the king to the 
 intent to advance and promote her husband to the Crown. 
 Upon this she was examined in Saint Stephen's Chappell 
 before the Bishop of Canterbury, and there by examination 
 convict and judged to do open penance in three open places 
 within the city of London, and after that adjudged to 
 perpetual prison on the Isle of ]\Ian." 
 
 ]\Iargaret Jourdain, surnamed the Witch of Eye, 
 was burnt in Smithfield. One of the servants was 
 hanged at Tyburn, protesting his innocence, another 
 died in the Tower, and the rascal, Sir John Han, 
 received a pardon, which supports the idea that it was 
 a got-up affair. But we have not to deal with history 
 but legal allusions. 
 
 In the Quarto the king only sentences Eleanor, but 
 in the later play the story, as told by Hall and 
 Hollinshed, is more closely followed, except that it is 
 stated that all of the four prisoners taken with 
 Eleanor were to be executed. This, as we know, was 
 not the case; in the Second Part of "Henry VI." before 
 sentencing Eleanor, the king, who, apparently, is sup- 
 posed to be in a Hall of Justice, turns to the others 
 and says — 
 
 You four, from hence to prison back again ; 
 From thence unto the place of execution : 
 The witch in Smithfield shall be burii'd to ashes, 
 And you three shall be strangled on the gallows. 
 
 \_He then senie7iccs Eleanor.'] 
 You, madam, for you are more nobly born.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 81 
 
 following Strictly the punishment as already stated, as 
 given in Hollinshed. 
 
 This incident is of some interest as it is to be 
 observed that the sentence of death follows the old 
 form. You shall be taken back to the place from 
 whence you came, and thence to the place of execu- 
 tion, &c. And these are the author of the play's 
 words and not Hollinshed's. 
 
 It is also of interest, apart from any question as 
 to who the author was, from the fact that at the 
 time this trial and judgment is supposed to have 
 taken place, there was no law, statute or otherwise, 
 against witchcraft in England. Coke, in his 3 Insti- 
 tutes, in his famous article on this subject, tells 
 us that before The Conquest the punishment was death 
 and exile, but the first statute was long after the 
 period of the play, viz., the ^^ Hen, VII. c. 8, who first 
 made it treason ; this was altered by subsequent 
 statutes, until, in Elizabeth's reign, it was only 
 punishable by death, if death had been procured by 
 the conjuring, or after conviction and a relapse, other- 
 wise the punishment was the pillory and one year's* 
 imprisonment : and curiously enough, Coke, who does 
 not appear to have studied Hall or Hollinshed, yet 
 found traces of this matter, for he says : — 
 
 " I have seen a report of a case in an ancient register that 
 in October, anno 20 Hen. VI., Margaret Gurdeman^ of Eye, 
 in Suffolk, was, for witchcraft and consultation with the devil, 
 after sentence and a relapse, burnt by the King's writ de 
 heretico comburerido.^'' 
 
 He can only justify this on the ground not of 
 positive law, but of scripture. It is to be noticed, 
 
 ^ Jourdain.
 
 82 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 he says, she was burnt after conviction and a re- 
 lapse, which is not mentioned by Hall or Hollinshed 
 and no mention is made of Eleanor or the others. 
 Now, this justification of acting outside or, rather, 
 without the power of the law, is incidentally referred 
 to in the play, for the king does not, although he 
 calls it the sentence of the law, attempt to support his 
 judgment by reference to the common or statute law, 
 but says^ — 
 
 Stand forth, Dame Eleanor Cobham, Gloster's wife : 
 In sight of God, and us, your guilt is great; 
 Receive the sentence of the law, for sins 
 Such as by God's book are adjudged to death. — 
 You four, &c. 
 
 There is no such reference in the Ouarto ; it is 
 
 there put — 
 
 Stand forth, Dame Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloster, and 
 hear the sentence pronounced against thee for these treasons 
 that thou hast committed against us, our State and peers. 
 
 Penance was not a punishment for treason, but for 
 an ecclesiastical offence. In this case. Coke evidently 
 thought that the so-called witch was burnt without 
 authority, or he would not have apologized for it. 
 And the main fact is, that the same idea must have 
 occurred to the author between the making of the 
 quarto and the folio plays, for he introduces 
 the Bible as the justification of the sentence as Coke 
 does. I think, therefore, there is sufficient to prove 
 that there is to be found in the first part of the con- 
 tention as well as in the Second Part of *' Henry VI.," 
 the same evidence of legal knowledge and a fondness 
 for using legal ideas and phrases which is so marked 
 a peculiarity of some of the plays. 
 
 ' Act II. Scene 3.
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 83 
 
 Hamlet, 
 
 " Hamlet" is one of the legal Plays. I will only cite 
 one example from it, the case of Dame Hales, reported 
 in Plovvden. It was decided before Shakespeare was 
 born, and was, I believe, not printed until after his 
 death, and was not therefore a matter of current in- 
 terest which would come under his notice. It has often 
 been explained, but to make my study complete, I will 
 refer to it shortly. The case really raised the issue 
 whether a person commits the crime of suicide when 
 he is alive or when he is dead. It was a good case 
 for the lawyers, for so much was to be said on both 
 sides. The husband of Dame Hales, Sir John, had 
 drowned himself, and a jury had found a verdict of 
 felo de se. He was a joint tenant with his wife of 
 some land. If his death had occurred naturally she 
 would have taken the whole by survivorship ; but as 
 a suicide his property was forfeited to the Crown. 
 This would have made the wife joint tenant with the 
 Crown, but by another rule of law, in such a case it 
 was not considered consistent with the dignity of thQ> 
 Crown that it should be a joint tenant with the sub- 
 ject, and, as the weakest must go to the wall, the 
 Crown would take the whole. The question, then, was 
 whether the crime was committed in Sir John's lifetime. 
 The sin undoubtedly was, but was Sir John guilty of 
 the crime of suicide when he sank in the water. One 
 side said '' no," for he might have been recovered ; 
 the other " yes," because, as soon as death occurs, it 
 relates back to the act that occasioned it. A man 
 shoots another : if he dies at once, the murder is 
 complete ; but if he lives some days, his subsequent 
 death makes that act murder which, until death, was 
 
 g2
 
 84 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 not SO. Even then it would be difficult to state whcfi 
 the crime occurred. The person who shot might not 
 have been near his victim when the latter died. A 
 good deal of discussion might take place, if it had to 
 be decided on what day and where the murder took 
 place. A similar difficulty, it appears, arose when 
 the judges had to decide before the trial of the 
 Regicides, in whose reign was Charles the First's 
 head cut off. And as they could not decide this 
 knotty problem, it was resolved at a council of the 
 judges that the reign in which otherwise it would 
 have been alleged the crime took place was not to be 
 mentioned in the indictment. 
 
 Now this case of Sir John Hales was argued at 
 great length. The counsel for Lady Hales alleged 
 that it was not enough to consider an act, to resolve 
 to put it into execution, and take all the steps necessary 
 to do so : the act must be complete before the crime 
 could be said to exist. Now the author of " Hamlet " 
 was not going to weary the audience by a technical 
 argument, but he played with the case and its nice 
 distinctions and turns it inside out, views it in its 
 comical aspect, and puts the jumble he makes of it in 
 the mouth of a Danish grave-digger, who stops his 
 work to explain in his way the puzzledom of English 
 law to his companion, who, open mouth and astonished, 
 wants to know if that be the law : 
 
 Ay, marry, it is : crowncr's-qucst law. 
 
 King Lear. 
 
 "King Lear" is the last of the legal plays to which 
 I shall at present refer ; not that the list is exhausted, 
 but my object is to prove my case, not to weary the
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 85 
 
 reader. In the play of " King Lear," this peculiarity 
 occurs : there are legal allusions which are to be found 
 in the quarto and not in the folio, though apparently 
 they have been introduced into modern editions. 
 And in this play we find, as in the others, the same 
 legal information introduced in and out of season ; 
 and the poor old king who lived in what may be fairly, 
 I think, called pre-historic times, as far as English 
 history is concerned, is made to know all about the 
 difference between the common law and equity ; and 
 notwithstanding this, the fact that Lear did live in 
 these remote times was clearly present to the author's 
 mind or minds, can be shown, for where the king's 
 fool gives his humorous prophecy in the third Act — 
 
 When priests are more in word than matter ; 
 When brewers mar their malt with water, 
 
 he says, with a deliciously confused acceptance of 
 " nunc pro tunc^^'' — 
 
 " This prophecy Merlin shall 
 Make ; for I live before his time." 
 
 Yet the legal author cannot be kept quiet ; his la-\jf, 
 like Charles' head, is bound to come in ; and the king in 
 his madness twice thinks himself in a court of justice. 
 In the first, he refers to the distinction between law 
 and equity, a distinction which, as lawyers say, did 
 not obtain in our courts till centuries after. 
 
 This scene is in the quarto, not in the folio, 1623. 
 
 Lear, when asked to rest, speaking of his ungrateful 
 daughters, says ^ — 
 
 I'll see their trial first. Bring in the evidence. Thou 
 
 1 Quarto, i6c8.
 
 86 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 robed man of justice, take thy place. And thou, his yoke 
 fellow of equity, bench by his side ; you are of the commis- 
 sion. Sit you two. 
 
 He aftenv^ards says — 
 
 Arraign her first, 'tis Goneril, &c. 
 
 This refers to the practice of putting up one of 
 several prisoners first before the jury. With regard 
 to the persons, who are addressed, there are three 
 present besides Lear and his fool, one to represent 
 law, one equity, and one in the commission. This 
 latter expression is doubtful. It may mean a justice 
 of the peace, who is in the commission as such, and 
 as we saw in " Measure for Measure " often sits on 
 the bench in criminal trials, or it may refer to the 
 practice of putting persons other than judges in the 
 commission of assize. To those who are curious on 
 the latter practice, it may be said that Henry the 
 Second, and after him his successors, sent down the 
 justices in eyre {th'nere) to travel through the country 
 and administer justice, and it appeared to be at the 
 option of the Crown who were sent. But by an Act 
 of Edward the Third one of the judges of the Common 
 Pleas or King's Bench or a King's Serjeant had to 
 sit, presumably to preside. But other people might 
 sit with him if named in the commission. By an Act 
 of the present reign, Queen's Counsel may also pre- 
 side. It is, or was, customary, till lately, to put many 
 names on the commission, archbishops, equity judges, 
 &c., who, I daresay, never knew that they were there. 
 It may therefore be, that Lear, in a true spirit of 
 prophecy, refers either to the commission of the peace, 
 or that of the assize. It is not very material which. 
 
 It is not my intention to do more than show the
 
 LEGAL PLAYS. 87 
 
 nature of the knowledge displayed in the plays. But 
 the reader who cares to inquire further will find that 
 many of the other plays display such knowledge as 
 Bacon or any other professional lawyer might possess. 
 I may mention more particularly two plays, "Richard 
 the Second," and " Henry VIII." In the one we 
 have the ceremony and manners of the tournament, a 
 knowledge of which. Bacon, who wrote, as we know, 
 speeches for Leicester and others at the tilt-yard, 
 might well have had. In " Henry VIII." we shall 
 see particular attention is paid to, and a knowledge is 
 shown of, the ceremony attaching to the position and 
 dignity of the Lord Chancellor. The audience are 
 shown the interior of the King's Council Chamber 
 and there is generally a knowledge shown of the 
 Ecclesiastical Law, both of that of Rome as well as 
 of this country. But as I shall have to refer to those 
 plays more at length hereafter, for the present I shall 
 only direct the reader's attention to them. 
 
 The result of the examination of the legal Plays is, 
 I think, to show that in Shakespeare's works we have 
 not only the mere legal acquirements as collected by 
 Lord Campbell, though they cover, as we know, a very 
 wide range of law ; but we have pictures drawn of 
 the different members of the legal profession. We 
 have, as a photographer would say, in " Measure for 
 Measure" the English judge taken in four positions: 
 the stern hanging judge, the kindly humane Escalus, 
 inclined to trifle a bit on the bench yet doing justice 
 after all. We have Escalus, prejudiced and misled,
 
 88 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 doing injustice on the bench, and we have him shamed 
 and repentant. We have the argumentative barrister 
 in the Temple, a sketch of life in Parliament, and a 
 knowledge of its procedure, and lastly, we shall see in 
 the play of " Henry VIII." a good deal about the 
 Chancellor, Archbishop, the Lords of the Council, &c. 
 This is what we find in the legal Plays. Let us see 
 what there is in the non-legal Plays.
 
 ( 89 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS : TITUS ANDRONICUS — 
 MACBETH — OTHELLO, ETC. 
 
 In the previous chapter many examples have been 
 brought forward which show the legal information to 
 be found in some of Shakespeare's plays. It is now 
 proposed to examine the other plays in order that we 
 may realise the absence of all that knowledge which 
 one would expect to find in a professional lawyer. 
 And, in considering these plays, it will be well to 
 remember Lord Campbell's words, already, I believe, 
 referred to. 
 
 " While novelists and dramatists are constantly making 
 mistakes as to the law of marriage, of wills, and of in- 
 heritance, to Shakespeare's law, lavishly as he propounds it, 
 there can be neither demurrer, nor bill of exceptions, nor 
 writ of error." ^ 
 
 TiYus Andronicus. 
 
 The play which is not often read is a very repulsive 
 one, for which reason it is, I believe, that some of 
 Shakespeare's admirers have tried to show it is not 
 his. It is founded on a ballad which, like many other 
 old ballads, has atrocity piled upon atrocity with an 
 
 1 Page 1 08.
 
 90 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 almost childish simplicity. To those who have not 
 the poem at hand, an example will show what I mean. 
 Titus describes his daughter's dishonour by the 
 Empress's sons, who cut her tongue out, &c. — 
 
 Then both her hands they basely cut off, quite, 
 Whereby their wickedness she could not write, 
 Nor with her needle on her sampler sew 
 The bloody workers of her direful woe. 
 
 His revenge on the sons, &c. is thus told — 
 
 I cut their throats, my daughter held the pan 
 Betwixt her stumps, wherein the blood it ran ; 
 And then I ground their bones to powder small. 
 And made a paste for pies straight therewithall. 
 
 Then w-ith their flesh I made two mighty pies, 
 And at a banquet served in stately wise 
 Before the Empress set this loathsome meat. 
 So of her sons' own flesh she well did eat. 
 
 Myself bereaved my daughter then of life, 
 The Empress then I slew with bloody knife, 
 And stabb'd the Emperor immediately, 
 And then myself, even so did Titus die. 
 
 The earlier part reminds us of Fe-fi-fo-fum, who 
 ground his guest's bones to make his bread ; and the 
 final catastrophe is told in almost as few words as 
 that of the lover of the Ratcatcher's daughter, "who 
 cut his throat with a pane of glass and stabbed his 
 donkey arter." 
 
 The play follows the Poem and gives all these 
 horrors with fidelity ; but before the audience are 
 introduced to them, there is a contest between the 
 two sons of the late Emperor for the imperial throne. 
 Titus has not yet returned with his victorious army ; 
 before his arrival the eldest son puts forward his
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 91 
 
 claim in the following lines, which are the ones that 
 first attracted my attention : — 
 
 Noble patricians, patrons of my right. 
 Defend the justice of my cause with arms ; 
 And countrj'men, my loving followers, 
 Plead my successive title with your swords ; 
 I am his first-born. . . . 
 
 It is very easy to understand the idea the author 
 wishes to convey, but this idea seems to me to be 
 clothed in the last words a lawyer would use. It was 
 the duty of a patron to defend his client in the forum, 
 but not with arms, but it is the fourth line that seems 
 to me to be so wanting in the proper use of legal 
 terms. Lord Campbell says,i " Having concluded 
 my examination of Shakespeare's juridical phrases 
 and forensic allusions, on the retrospect I am amazed 
 not only by their number biii by tJie accuracy and pro- 
 priety with which they are uniformly tntroducedP I do 
 not think he could say that of the line, — 
 
 " Plead my successive title with your sw'ords." 
 
 It is incongruous to speak of pleading with swords. 
 Grotius speaks of the antagonism between the law 
 and arms ; how, in time of peace the former, and in 
 war the latter, prevail r Cedant anna tugce, is the 
 maxim for the first ; Ijiter arnia silcant leges for the 
 second. 
 
 " Successive title " even shows more strongly want 
 of legal training. Malone, I see, interprets it as 
 meaning " my title to the succession " ; no doubt this is 
 its meaning, but successive title means one title 
 succeeding another as successive waves, &c., and 
 
 1 Page 107.
 
 92 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 might perhaps be used where independent titles 
 follow one another, a somewhat difficult thing to 
 conceive as a title is continuous. If we say the 
 Queen derives her title from Alfred, we speak as if 
 the various links in the succession make up one title. 
 But we might say at one time the successive titles of the 
 Roman emperors were created by the clamour of the 
 soldiers, &c., because here we mean there was no 
 succession of interest, but as it were a fresh creation, 
 every time a popular soldier was raised to the purple. 
 But the expression also seems to me to be improper 
 and inaccurate, even if we give the meaning to the 
 words that Malone does. The word title imports a 
 right to succeed, and, therefore, successive title, if it 
 were accurate, which it is not, would be improper as 
 being redundant. 
 
 I have dwelt somewhat at length upon this line, as 
 it was the one that first led me to the belief that 
 Shakespeare himself never mastered the intricacies 
 of our law, and that consequently he must have been 
 helped in those plays which show the accurate and 
 proper use of legal ideas and expressions, which 
 Lord Campbell refers to. 
 
 There was, as I have said, a desire to relieve 
 Shakespeare's memory of the stigma of having 
 written such a play as " Titus Andronicus." Be that 
 as it may be, and it is not advisable to enter into any 
 disputed questions that can be avoided, whatever 
 reason there is for thinking that it was not the work 
 of Shakespeare, there is still greater reason for think- 
 ing it could not be the work of any lawyer, especially 
 of one who has shown such accurate knowledge as we 
 find in Shakespeare's other plays. The whole play 
 is not only offensively written, but it outrages every
 
 NON- LEGAL PLAYS. ' 93 
 
 feeling and idea that a la^vyer would possess. It 
 tramples upon all his notions of right and wrong, 
 justice and injustice ; it seems not to have an idea 
 that no society could exist without some approach to 
 law and a legal procedure ; in fact, it seems to do 
 everything that a lawyer would not do, and leave 
 undone everything that he would. It does not read 
 like a serious play, but a sort of travestie that 
 seems more like the work of one who had studied 
 " Jack the Giant Killer " rather than the law books 
 of the time, such as they were, or had gained his 
 knowledge in the courts. As the whole question, to 
 my mind, turns upon whether this view be correct or 
 not, I propose, at some risk of wearying the reader, 
 to take for consideration the treatment of the two 
 sons of Titus as we find it recorded in the play, and 
 then each one must judge for himself whether the 
 story as there told is such a one as a lawyer would 
 tell. 
 
 Titus has three sons left out of a very large family. 
 Aaron, the villain of the Piece, has murdered the 
 Emperor's brother, and thrown his body into a pit;* 
 he then persuades two of the sons to look into the pit, 
 where, he says, there is a panther ; one son tumbles in 
 and the other follows trying to help his brother out. 
 Aaron fetches the Emperor. The fact that they are 
 in the pit with the dead body, with the help of a forged 
 letter, is supposed to fix the guilt upon the sons, and 
 the Emperor condemns them to death without further 
 trial. They are subsequently brought in bound, on 
 their way to execution, with Titus, according to the 
 stage direction, "going before pleading." Of course, 
 the officers of justice have no authority to pardon,
 
 94 ■ SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 and Titus is left grovelling on the ground bemoaning 
 their and his hard fate instead of going to the Emperor 
 who, as the Sovereign, alone had the power to interfere. 
 If we compare this play with " Measure for Measure," 
 we see the difference between a lawyer's treatment of 
 the trial and condemnation of a prisoner and the 
 way the appeal for mercy should be made to the 
 Sovereign, with that given in this play. In " Measure 
 for Measure " Claudio is properly condemned. I 
 think the pre-contract with Juliet would, if it had been 
 brought forward, have been a good defence ; but it is 
 not raised, and Claudio's sentence is properly dis- 
 cussed, and he is condemned to die as the law 
 requires. His sister, when she wishes to implore 
 mercy lor him, goes straight to the sovereign for the 
 time being, when she falters, her friend Lucio en- 
 courages her, and she is so far successful that Angelo 
 tells her to come again, &c. All this seems a correct 
 picture of what would be done in such a case. It is, 
 however, useless to labour the comparison between 
 the two plays. Any one has only to see how 
 differently the arrest and trial of a prisoner is treated 
 in " Measure for Measure " or in " Henry the Fifth," 
 where the three conspirators are arrested for treason 
 in due form, and then compare these plays with the 
 stuff given in " Titus Andronicus," to at once see that 
 the former plays show a knowledge of law and legal 
 procedure, whilst the latter is the work of one who is 
 remarkably ignorant of both. In " Henry the Fifth " 
 we have an illustration of how the matter should be 
 treated by any one who has any pretensions to being 
 a lawyer. There, it may be remembered. Scroop, 
 Cambridge, and Gray confess their treasons, and
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 95 
 
 though Henry at great length addresses them on the 
 enormity of their crimes, he does not sentence them 
 himself, but says — 
 
 Their faults are open, 
 Arrest them to the answer of the law; — 
 And God acquit them o( their practices ! 
 
 They are accordingly arrested for high treason in 
 proper form. 
 
 Again the king says — 
 
 Touching our person, seek we no revenge ? 
 But we our kingdom's safety must so tender, 
 Whose ruin you three sought, that to her laws 
 We do deliver you. 
 
 Though seeing that they have confessed he no 
 doubt adds, knowing it to be a proper conclusion, — 
 
 Get you, therefore, hence. 
 Poor miserable wretches, to your death, &c. 
 
 The prisoners were, in fact, properly tried, for 
 Hollinshed refers to their indictments. The fact that 
 Shakespeare was the author of " Titus Andronicus " 
 has, however, been so much doubted, that it is not* 
 perhaps advisable to waste further time upon it, 
 especially as the same ignorance of law almost upon 
 the same points is to be seen in " Macbeth." But 
 it may be remarked that if "Titus Andronicus" is 
 Shakespeare's w^ork, I think it effectually disposes 
 of the suggestion that Shakespeare learned his law 
 when a boy at Stratford, because this must be 
 his earliest play, and it is the one that most con- 
 spicuously displays his ignorance of law and want 
 of legal training.
 
 96 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Macbeth. 
 
 " Macbeth " is placed by Lord Campbell amongst 
 what I have called the legal plays on account of two 
 expressions, or rather two words, which it is true are 
 legal words, though they have, like many other such 
 words, come into general use. The only two legal 
 words that Lord Campbell refers to, are " bond " and 
 " lease." Now Shakespeare, it is true, does use the 
 words, but improperly and inaccurately in both cases. 
 
 The first he uses when he learns from the witch's 
 
 second apparition that — 
 
 None of women born 
 Shall harm Macbeth. 
 
 He replies — 
 
 Then live, Macduff, what need I fear of thee, 
 But yet I'll make assurance double sure, 
 And take a bond of fate : thou shalt not live. 
 
 It is impossible to see, even by way of metaphor, 
 how killing Macduff is taking a bond of fate. A 
 bond is, as I have said, a deed whereby the giver is 
 bound to pay a penalty unless something happens. 
 In what way can Fate be said to be so bound, if 
 Macduff were to die. It is mere sound, not sense, 
 and the word is wrongly used, though both in the 
 " Merchant of Venice " and in the Sonnets, as we have 
 seen, the use and nature of a bond is correctly 
 described. What was meant, I think, is, " I will bind 
 fate," or that '■'■fate shall be boiind''^ by his killing the 
 person who was to kill him. 
 
 If a person is enslaved he is said to become a 
 bondsman, or, if in prison, he may be put in bonds. 
 But no lawyer would call this taking a bond from 
 him.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 97 
 
 Lord Campbell seems to have noticed that the word 
 " bond " has not been used with the propriety he so 
 much admires in Shakespeare's works, though he 
 relies upon it as evidence of Shakespeare's legal 
 knowledge, for he says (citing the passage) — 
 
 " He, 7-athcr in a lawyer-like manner, resolves to provide 
 an indemnity if the worst should come to the worst — without 
 much considering what should be the penalty of the bond, 
 or how he was to enforce the remedy if the condition should 
 be broken." 
 
 A little reflection will show that Macbeth had no 
 idea of making fate liable to a penalty upon the 
 failure of any obligation, but, as suggested, simply 
 to forestall it, and so overcome or bind it ; and this 
 does not seem an accurate or proper use of the word 
 or one that " might be supposed to come from a 
 professional lawyer." 
 
 So with the word "lease." Macbeth, when he 
 learns, that he will not be vanquished till Byrnam 
 Wood comes to Dunsinane, says, with glee — 
 
 Our high-placed Macbeth 
 Shall live the lease of nature, pay his breath ^ 
 
 To time and mortal custom. 
 
 What mortal custom means it is difficult to say, 
 unless, perhaps, customary or common mortality. 
 But it should be the lesisefrom nature. A lessor A. 
 leases Blackacre to a lessee B. B., therefore, has a 
 lease of Blackacre />-(?;« A. In the old Latin form 
 A.'s lease would be ^the thing leased in the genitive 
 form, — by the lessor in the ablative. One can under- 
 stand a farmer, perhaps, saying he wanted a lease 
 "of his landlord," but, in saying so to any lawyer, he 
 would be guilty of a gross absurdity, and, probably, 
 he would only use the word "of" as meaning "off" 
 
 C. H
 
 98 SHAICESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 or " from." A man's life may be put, poetically, as 
 a lease from nature; but a lease of nature is nonsense. 
 It is, however, not on such small points as these that 
 I rely for my proof that " Macbeth" was not written 
 by a lawyer. Though the examples given by Lord 
 Campbell are, I consider, to refer to his own words, 
 introduced neither with accuracy nor propriety. 
 
 The particular part of " Macbeth " which seems to 
 me to most clearly prove the legal ignorance of the 
 author is the story of Cawdor, as it is told in the play, 
 which is founded on a short passage in Hollinshed's 
 history, which tells us Macbeth and Banquo were 
 sent against the rebels of the Western Isles, whom 
 they defeated ; but no sooner had IMacbeth restored 
 law and order, than Sweno, the King of Norway, 
 landed in Fife. Ultimately, he was defeated, and a 
 second landing took place, against which Macbeth 
 and Banquo were sent and the invaders dispersed. It 
 was on the return from this last victory Macbeth was 
 saluted by the three witches as Thane of Glamis (which 
 was his title, his father Sinell having lately died). 
 Thane of Cawdor and King of Scotland, the latter 
 being prophecies. For it was not till afterwards, 
 as HoUinshed says, that the Thane of Cawdor " was 
 condemned at Fores of treason against the king 
 committed," and " his lands, livings and offices were 
 given of the king's liberality to Macbeth ; " the king 
 Duncan was slain in battle, and buried at Elgin 
 about the year 1046. The murder of Duncan, as 
 described by Shakespeare, is taken from Flollinshed's 
 description of the murder of king Duffe by his vassal 
 Donnald, at the instigation of his wife, about the end 
 of the tenth century. 
 
 It is to be observed that Cawdor, we are told, was 
 condemned for treason at Fores, presumably in the
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 99 
 
 ordinary course of law, but we are not told what those 
 treasons were. Shakespeare has supposed them to 
 be in some way assisting the Norwegian king, but in 
 what way, whether in person or by sending assist- 
 ance, neither he nor any of his characters seem to 
 know. But, worst of all ; he supposes that the king 
 has the power to send a person to execution without 
 any form of trial, or of his having an opportunity 
 of defending himself. There is a very common form 
 of error, i.e., that of exaggerating the power of the 
 Crown, an error, as we shall see, James himself fell 
 into. Now, the story of Cawdor, as told in Macbeth, is 
 very confused. After a preliminary scene which intro- 
 duces the witches, in the second scene we are supposed 
 to be at Duncan's court, where the king is informed 
 by a wounded soldier that ]\Iacbeth has defeated the 
 rebels of the Western Isles and was about to resist 
 an attack of the King of Norway. He is unable to 
 continue, and Rosse and Angus then enter bringing 
 the news of Macbeth's victory. And Rosse thus 
 describes Cawdor's treason — 
 
 Norway himself, with terrible numbers, 
 
 Assisted by that most disloyal traitor, 
 
 The Thane of Cawdor, began a dismal conflict. 
 
 Apparently, this means that Cawdor was with the 
 Norwegians on the field of battle : if so, after the 
 battle he must have been either killed, Macbeth's 
 prisoner, or a fugitive. Shakespeare, however, does 
 not appear to have realised this, for he makes the 
 king say, as if Cawdor was at the court — 
 
 No more that Thane of Cawdor shall deceive 
 Our bosom interest : — Go pronounce his present death, 
 And with his former title greet Macbeth. 
 Rosse. I'll see it done. 
 
 h2
 
 100 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The story grows still more confused as it goes 
 on. ]\Iacbeth and Banquo, in the next scene, meet 
 the witches, who salute him as Glamis, Cawdor and 
 king, as already stated. Upon this, Macbeth says, in 
 reference to Cawdor — 
 
 But how of Cawdor ? The Thane of Cawdor lives, 
 A prosperous gentleman. 
 
 As if Macbeth had never heard of his being a 
 disloyal traitor under arms against his sovereign, 
 which fact Macbeth had himself sent Rosse and 
 Angus to tell the king. Otherwise, Macbeth might 
 reasonably have supposed that the result of his 
 message would have been that Cawdor had ceased to 
 be a prosperous gentleman, and probably had been 
 put to death. The confusion, however, is increased 
 when Rosse and Angus, in the same scene, meet 
 Macbeth, and Rosse tells him that the king — 
 
 Bade me, from him, call thee Thane of Cawdor, &c. 
 
 Macbeth again expresses his surprise — 
 
 The Thane of Cawdor lives. 
 
 Why do you dress me in borrow'd robes ? 
 
 Whereupon Angus, who was joint messenger to the 
 king from Macbeth and was present when Rosse 
 made his statement which led to Cawdor's death, 
 addresses Macbeth as if ignorant of the story, and at 
 the same time informs him and Rosse that he does 
 not know what was the exact crime that Cawdor had 
 been guilty of, but he had a vague impression that he 
 had been guilty of certain capital treasons co)ifcsscd 
 and proved (thereby proclaiming his ignorance of the 
 well-known rule of law that when crimes were con- 
 fessed they did not need to be proved).
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 101 
 
 In answer to Macbeth's remark that Cawdor was 
 yet living, Angus replies — 
 
 Who was the thane Hves yet ; 
 But under heavy judgment bears that Ufe 
 Which he deserves to lose. 
 
 Whether he was combined with those of Norway, 
 Or did line the rebel with hidden help 
 And vantage, or that with both he labour'd 
 In his country's wreck, I know 7iot; 
 But treasons capital, confessed and proved, 
 Have overthrown him. 
 
 I cannot think a lawyer, who is so accurate as the 
 author is in other plays, could so far forget the 
 necessity of there being soine evidence to support a 
 conviction, as to make one of the messengers, who 
 had been specially sent by Macbeth to inform the 
 king, amongst other things, of Cawdor's treason, 
 state to Macbeth and his brother messenger, both 
 of whom apparently now know nothing, that he was 
 equally ignorant of what crime Cawdor had been 
 guilty. And this want of legal accuracy is still 
 further shown in the fourth scene, where the king 
 says — 
 
 Is execution done on Cawdor ? 
 Or not those in commission yet return'd ? 
 
 This is an inaccurate and improper expression. I 
 have pointed out in " King Lear " the proper use of 
 the word " commission," meaning persons who were 
 appointed to try prisoners, but the execution was 
 left to the sheriff. Now, Cawdor had not been tried, 
 and no commission would have been sent to execute 
 him. 
 
 This condemnation of Cawdor to death without trial 
 is the most convincing proof to my mind, that Shake-
 
 102 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 speare had no legal assistance in writing this play. 
 As I have already stated, it is a very common form of 
 error to exaggerate the power of the Crown — ovme 
 tg7iotimi pro inagnifico. And we have this travestied 
 in " Alice in Wonderland," ^ where " the queen never 
 left off quarrelling with the other players and shouting, 
 'Off with his head,' or 'Off with her head'"; and I 
 believe in " Richard the Third," as it was played, 
 lines were introduced where Richard on being in- 
 formed that Buckingham is taken, says — ■ 
 
 Off with his head ! 
 So much for my cousin of Buckingham. 
 
 This is not to be found in the play. 
 
 I think it is evident that Shakespeare had the idea 
 that the king had this power of life and death without 
 the necessity of first trying a prisoner. For he 
 makes Macbeth, in his interview with the murderers, 
 expressly assert that this is so. 
 
 And though I could 
 With bare-fac'd power sweep him from my sight, 
 And bid my will avouch it ; yet I must not. 
 For certain friends that are both his and mine, &c. 
 
 Here Macbeth does not speak of assassination ; he 
 is choosing that mode of getting rid of Banquo when 
 he is instigating the murderers to waylay and kill him 
 as an alternative to doing what he says he might have 
 done openly in the exercise of his kingly power. 
 Now, however much the ignorant may magnify the 
 power of the Crown, it is evident that no society could 
 exist if its members only held their lives and property 
 
 1 Page 136.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 103 
 
 at the will of the sovereign. Something it is true like 
 it existed for a short time when the Roman emperors 
 used to send messages to those they wanted away 
 (that it was for the good of the state that they removed 
 themselves from this world). The times were very 
 troubled then, and the persons seemed to have taken 
 the hint ; but in England it was well recognized that 
 the king could only send a person for trial. This is 
 very well put in the " Duchess of Malfi." Webster, the 
 author, had been a parish clerk, and seems to have 
 had some legal knowledge. It may be remembered 
 that the Duke has had his sister killed, she having, 
 in his opinion, dishonoured herself. Afterwards he 
 attacks the instrument of his revenge. 
 
 Ferd. By what authority didst thou execute this bloody 
 sentence 'i 
 
 Bos. By yours. 
 
 Ferd. Mine } Was I the judge } 
 Did any ceremonial form of law 
 Doom her to nothing } Did a complete jury 
 Deliver her conviction up in the Court } 
 Where shalt thou find this judgment registered, 
 Unless in hell } So, like a bloody fool, 
 Thou forfeitest thv life, and thou shalt die for't. 
 
 If " Macbeth " was written after James' accession to 
 the throne, which there is every reason to believe was 
 the case — most authorities give the year 1605 as its 
 date — there was a very particular reason why a 
 common law lawyer, one who had some respect for 
 the sanctity of the English law, should not have 
 enunciated such opinions at this period, because 
 James, on the 21st May, 1603, at Newark during 
 his journey to London after Elizabeth's death, had 
 sent a cutpurse to be executed without trial. The
 
 104 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 incident is thus described in Nicholl's " Progresses of 
 James I," : — 
 
 " In this towne and in the Court was taken a cutpurse 
 doing the deed ; and being a base pilfering theefe, yet was 
 a gentleman-like in the outside. This fellow had a good 
 store of coyne found about him, and upon examination 
 confessed that he had from Barwick to that place plaied 
 the cutpurse in the Court. His fellow was ill mist, for no 
 doubt he had a walking mate ; they drew together like coach- 
 horses, and it is a pity they did not hang together ; for his 
 Majesty hearing of this winning gallant directed presently a 
 warrant to the recorder of New-warke to have him hanged, 
 which was accordingly executed." 
 
 It appears, however, that this act was greatly cen- 
 sured by various historians, Rapin's remarks being ^ : 
 
 " He must, at the time I am now speaking of, have con- 
 ceived a larger notion than had been hitherto formed of the 
 power of an English king ; since, when he came to Newark, 
 he ordered a cutpurse to be hanged by his sole warrant and 
 without trial. It cannot be denied that this was beyond the 
 lawful power of a king of England, and directly contrary to 
 the privileges of the English nation. Probably care was 
 taken to warn him of the ill effects such illegal acts might 
 produce among the people, since he refrained from them 
 afterwards." 
 
 This proceeding was clearly illegal by the English 
 law as provided for by the well-known 29th Chapter 
 of Magna. Charta. Nullus liber homo was to be taken, 
 &c., or in any way destroyed ; nor was the king to 
 pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful 
 judgment of his peers, nisi per legale judicium pariiim 
 suorum, or by the law of the land, vel per legem terrcSy 
 that is, by a jury of the man's peers, nor without 
 being brought in to answer by due .process of the 
 
 * See note, vol. 2, p. 159.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 105 
 
 common law.^ And so jealous was the law of the 
 liberty of the subject, that even a villein or serf had 
 the protection of this provision. Coke tells us that he 
 was entitled to be treated as a liber homo, as he was a 
 free man to all the world except only as regards his 
 master. And as the masculine includes the feminine, 
 women are equally entitled; but Coke tells us that 
 certain of the aristocracy — duchesses — had the Act 
 specially made to include them, perhaps thinking that 
 as Homo only included woman, a lady of title might 
 be left out in the cold ; unfortunately they only named 
 some of the aristocratic titles, and as special mention 
 of some is supposed to exclude those not so mentioned, 
 apparently countesses, &c., were not entitled to the 
 protection of the clause. But Coke thinks they 
 would, as a matter of fact, come under the general 
 word homo. 
 
 It is said that the king was warned, that he had 
 exceeded the law. Probably Bacon was one of those 
 who did so. He was not likely to miss an occasion 
 of giving the king advice if he had the opportunity ; 
 at all events, the matter created some scandal. Jesse 
 describes the act as — a sort of Orientalism, which was 
 afterwards canvassed in such a manner as to prevent 
 the probability of its recurrence. If this be so, I think 
 neither as a lawyer, nor as a courtier, nor in his usual 
 position of running with the hare and hunting with 
 the hounds, would Bacon have ventured to have 
 revived the scandal by allowing his character to 
 say, as Macbeth does, that he had a right to send a 
 man to execution without trial. 
 
 This being the view of the law as I think it would 
 
 1 Coke's Institutes, p. 51.
 
 106 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 then be understood by an English la\vyer, let us 
 turn to the way Duncan sentences Cawdor to 
 death : — 
 
 No more that Thane of Cawdor shall deceive 
 
 Our bosom interest : — Go pronounce his present 
 
 death, &c 
 
 Rosse. I'll see it done. 
 
 There is great reason for believing that in the 
 description of Cawdor's death a picture was drawn of 
 Essex's last moments. 
 
 Nothing in his life became him 
 Like the leaving it. 
 
 Let us carry this idea a little further and substitute 
 Elizabeth for Duncan, Raleigh for Macbeth. Let 
 Essex, in his jealousy against Raleigh, have invited 
 over the French, as, I believe, he once thought of 
 doing. Let Raleigh be sent by the Queen to resist 
 the invaders and let us suppose him to defeat them, 
 finding Essex with them, or believing he can prove 
 Essex had helped them, and he sends two of his 
 officers to inform the Queen of his victory and Essex's 
 treason, and the Queen thereupon says " no more 
 Essex shall deceive me," and directs, not a member 
 of her court or an officer of justice, but one of the 
 messengers, to pronounce Essex's death, and the 
 officer in a casual manner, as if he was ordering her 
 carriage, says, " I'll see it done." The idea is, of 
 course, absurd. He might arrest Essex, but he could 
 not hand him over to proper custody without a 
 warrant, nor would he be executed before trial. It 
 may, perhaps, be urged that Shakespeare departed 
 from his rule, and no longer gave us English law, as 
 he has done on all other occasions in whatever age or
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 107 
 
 place his play may be laid, as I and others have 
 already pointed out. But that in this case he is 
 referring to the unknown law of Scotland. 
 
 It may, of course, be said that this was the law or 
 supposed law of Scotland. But it appears that this 
 was not so, and, according to Jesse, the illustrious 
 Buchanan endeavoured by every means in his power 
 to instil very different ideas in the mind of his 
 sovereign-pupil, and, indeed, published his work " De 
 jure regni apud Scotos " with this object. 
 
 Hollinshed, copying Boethius, says Cawdor was con- 
 demned, which means, I think, by a proper tribunal ; 
 but even if there had been no information on the subject, 
 an English lawyer would, I conceive, draw the unknown 
 from the known, his learning and instinct would teach 
 him. Whatever the society was, an important noble 
 could not be sent to the scaffold without trial and 
 without evidence upon mere statements of those who 
 afterwards admit they know nothing about it. To 
 make it appear probable to his audience, as well as to 
 himself, he would make the process at least reasonable. 
 Even the griffin at Temple Bar, though it may havfe 
 an extra turn to its corkscrew tail, has its limbs 
 fashioned with some regard to the bones and muscles 
 of real animals, and I think the lawyer who so care- 
 fully painted the English judge presiding over a court 
 of justice in Vienna, and so solemnly and with dignity 
 made Henry the Fifth deal with his traitors, would not 
 have hurried poor Cawdor off the scene as he has been 
 in the play of " Macbeth." 
 
 When we compare the philosophical calm of 
 Hamlet who reasons everything out, and the wild 
 language of Macbeth, I think we have some measure 
 of the work done by Shakespeare writing alone, and
 
 108 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 the nature of the assistance he obtained from his 
 legal friend. 
 
 Tivelfth Night. 
 
 In comedy we have " Measure for Measure" full of 
 law and " Twelfth Night " without it, as this play con- 
 tains, I think, only two legal references and both 
 wrong. 
 
 One where Sir Toby and Fabian are persuading 
 Sir Andrew Aguecheek not to give up his pursuit of 
 Olivia, Sir Ague says, — 
 
 S'light ! will you make an ass o' me ? 
 
 Fah. I will prove it legitimate, sir, upon the oaths of 
 judgment and reason. 
 
 Sir Tob. And they have been grand jury-men, since before 
 Noah was a sailor. 
 
 Of course, this is wrong, witnesses prove matters 
 upon oath. Jurj'men find verdicts or bills. The 
 doubt I have in my mind is whether this mistake is in- 
 tentional as in " jNIeasure for Measure " where Elbow 
 considers an action for battery the proper remedy for 
 slander. The joke does not appear self-evident 
 enough to have been put in on purpose, apparently 
 there has been confusion between the duties of 
 a witness and those of a grand juryman. That 
 Shakespeare or his friend knew what a juryman was, 
 is to be seen in " Henry IV.," when Falstaff not only 
 assaults and robs the travellers but insults them. 
 
 On, bacons, on ! What, ye knaves ? young men must live. 
 You are grand-jurors, are ye ? We'll jure ye, i' faith. ^ 
 
 The other law reference also mis-states the law, 
 though, as in the former case, the mistake may have 
 
 * Act II. Scene 3.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 109 
 
 been intentionally introduced to show Aguecheek's 
 ignorance. The law then, as in the present time, was 
 that he who commences a fight by assaulting another 
 first, cannot maintain an action (unless excessive 
 force is used, though this was not laid down till 
 the reign of Anne). Now, Sir Aguecheek being 
 urged to assault Viola, apparently a boy, comes upon 
 Sebastian who gives him his blows back with interest, 
 whereupon Aguecheek, who has had enough, says : — 
 
 I'll go another way to work with him ; I'll have an action 
 of battery against him if there be any law in Illyria: though I 
 struck him first, yet it's no matter for that. 
 
 Here Aguecheek mistakes the law which is that a 
 person who assaults another first, cannot bring an 
 action for the beating he gets fi-om his provocation. 
 This was the law in Shakespeare's time though, as 
 I have said, in Anne's reign, the judges allowed an 
 action to be brought where excessive violence was 
 used. Thus, if a woman pushed a man, he was not 
 entitled to knock her down with a cudgel. But I do 
 not think these two allusions, both of which are doubt- 
 fully, if not -wrongfully, used, can put the play amongst 
 the legal class. If not, I think it would be sufficient 
 for Shakespeare's reputation if he had \vritten this 
 play alone, being, as it is, one of the most delightful 
 of comedies. 
 
 It is curious to my mind to consider how the 
 interest of the piece is made to depend on the three 
 boys who were required for the parts of Olivia, Viola, 
 her brother Sebastian, not to mention Maria. It 
 shows how well the stage must have been furnished 
 with clever boys, that such a play could be written or 
 played.
 
 110 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The Tempest. 
 
 This play is generally supposed to be the last 
 Shakespeare wrote : in it I find no legal allusions, 
 but some expressions which I consider a lawyer would 
 not use, particularly the misuse of the word executor, 
 which I shall refer to hereafter. 
 
 If this be so, we have Shakespeare's earliest play, 
 " Titus Andronicus," if it be his, and his last play 
 showing no legal knowledge, so that he could not 
 have acquired his law and then forgotten it, or have 
 started ignorant of it and afterwards acquired it. But 
 I shall have hereafter to speak of the time when the 
 majority of these non-legal plays were written as 
 coinciding, according to the best evidence we have of 
 the dates when they were written, with Bacon's 
 improved fortunes which commenced with the acces- 
 sion of James the First in 1603. 
 
 Othello. 
 
 This play occupies a very curious position in relation 
 to the legal test which I have applied to other plays. 
 In some, as we have seen, the law is clear and un- 
 mistakeably the correct English law of Shakespeare's 
 period, and in others there is no trace of law to be 
 found ; and in others we find a want of appreciation 
 of those principles and ideas which we should expect 
 a lawyer to possess. 
 
 In this play we find a somewhat lavish use of legal 
 expressions and allusions, which are uniformly (though 
 not wrong in themselves) expressed in a wrong way. 
 There seems throughout the play an attempt to use 
 legal phrases by one not trained in their use. In
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. Ill 
 
 nearly every instance I think it will be seen that 
 where legal expressions are used they are generally 
 inappropriate, and expressed in a manner which we 
 should not expect a lawyer to use. 
 
 It is as if one was examining a number of docu- 
 ments, in some of which we find idiomatic French 
 phrases properly introduced ; in others these are 
 absent ; in a third class we have the writer expressing 
 opinions which we should not expect from a French 
 scholar ; and in the last we have a copious display 
 of bad French. Thus, in " Measure for Measure " we 
 find an accurate knowledge of law ; in " Julius Caesar " 
 no reference to law ; in " Macbeth " ideas inconsistent 
 with a legal education ; and in " Othello " we find an 
 attempt to speak as a lawyer by one who does not 
 know how to do so. 
 
 This may appear strong language to use of what is 
 perhaps, one of Shakespeare's finest plays ; but I 
 think that, for some reason or other, the author has 
 in this play introduced legal expressions without a 
 very clear idea of what they mean and how they 
 should be used. Instead of being accurate of 
 appropriate, as Lord Campbell says Shakespeare's 
 law universally is, in " Othello " it will be seen to be 
 inaccurate and inappropriate. If a workman is well 
 skilled in the use of his tools, his work will show 
 evidence of his manual dexterity. We do not expect 
 him to turn out something which may serve the 
 purpose, though it is made in a rude and bungling 
 way, as the work of an untrained person would be. 
 
 It may be said that, as long as the author makes 
 his meaning clear, it is mere criticism to look too 
 closely to the language he uses, and that a great deal 
 is allowed to poetical licence. But this is not the
 
 112 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 object of this inquiry. We are considering' whether 
 the expressions used are those which a learned lawyer 
 like Bacon ivould use ; and as to this each reader 
 must judge for himself, after having his attention 
 directed to the particular expressions. 
 
 I do not propose to do more than point out what I 
 consider the most striking examples of the author's 
 " prentice hand." In fact the difficulty would be to 
 find anything in " Othello," notwithstanding the 
 lavish display of good law in other plays, as Lord 
 Campbell says, which would not justify the belief 
 that the author is pretending to knowledge which he 
 does not possess. I think this will be seen from the 
 following examples. 
 
 At the commencement of the play lago tells 
 Roderigo that, " though three great ones of the city 
 in personal suit asked Othello to choose lago as his 
 lieutenant, Othello had 'non-suited his mediators.' " 
 Now a non-suit, strictly speaking, is where a plaintiff 
 withdraws his case from the jury ; it is, according to 
 the dictionaries, a renunciation of a suit by the plaintiff 
 upon the discovery of some defect which prevented 
 the jury giving a verdict in his favour ; as where the 
 evidence is insufficient. Kjs, this is for the judge to 
 determine, popularly he is said to non-suit the plain- 
 tiff; but in reality it is the act of the plaintiff himself, 
 who elects to be non-suited, thereby escaping an 
 adverse verdict, so that upon paying costs he can 
 recommence, which he could not do if the verdict were 
 against him. The question is whether any lawyer 
 would apply the expression as lago does. Bacon, for 
 instance, often employed Essex to use his influence 
 with Elizabeth to obtain him some appointment, but 
 in vain ; Bacon was no favourite with that robust-
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 113 
 
 minded lady. One would hardly expect Bacon, when 
 writing to a friend of his disappointment, saying that 
 Essex had been non-suited again by the queen. It 
 is easy enough to understand what is meant, and 
 there might be no objection to a poet using the 
 expression, though that I hesitate to admit, its use 
 seems so artificial and inappropriate. 
 
 Brabantid's charges against Othello. — As soon as 
 Brabantio is satisfied that Desdemona has gone off 
 with Othello, after one of those Shakesperian double 
 speeches, made partly to himself and partly to others, 
 he asks Roderigo — 
 
 Are there not charms, 
 By which the property of youth and maidhood 
 May be abused ? 
 
 And thus prepares the audience for the charge of 
 witchcraft, &c., which he brings hereafter. There 
 has been a previous scene between Othello and lago, 
 when the latter, speaking of Brabantio, says — 
 
 He will divorce you ; 
 Or put upon you what restraint and grievance 
 The law (with all his might, to enforce it on,) # 
 
 Will give him cable. 
 
 When Brabantio meets Othello, he says — 
 
 thou foul thief, where hast thou stow'd my daughter } 
 Damn'd as thou art, thou hast enchanted her: 
 
 H- i:- it 'H- 
 
 I'll have it disputed on ; 
 'Tis probable, and palpable to thinking. 
 
 1 therefore apprehend and do attach thee, 
 For an abuser of the world, a practiser 
 
 Of arts inhibited and out of warrajit : — 
 Lay hold upon him, if he do resist, 
 Subdue him at his peril. 
 
 All these expressions sound to me like bad French 
 C. I
 
 114 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 would to a Frenchman. He may understand what is 
 meant, but the unaccustomed words jar upon his ear. 
 Brabantio might easily have used the English law as 
 so many other characters of Shakespeare have done, 
 and alleged that Othello had been guilty of the crime 
 of abduction. The 3 Hen. VII. c. 2 made it felony to 
 take away for the sake of lucre any heiress without 
 her consent even to marry her. Brabantio was 
 evidently rich, he had only to say that Othello took 
 Desdemona away from his custody for her wealth, and 
 that her apparent consent, being obtained by witch- 
 craft, was no consent at all, and the charge would 
 have been properly framed. But Brabantio is as 
 ignorant of this law as he is of the peculiar custom of 
 Shakespeare's characters of knowing English law, 
 and prefers to rely upon the charge of witchcraft. 
 
 Let us take the expressions used in their order. 
 In the first place lago tells Othello that Brabantio 
 will divorce him. If Desdemona's consent had been 
 obtained by witchcraft, as I have stated, this might 
 be held no consent, and the divorce might have been 
 obtained ; but lago knows nothing of this alleged 
 witchcraft, and, therefore, had no grounds for his sug- 
 gestion. On the other hand, Brabantio, who brought 
 forward the charge, does not, as he might have 
 done, ask for a divorce. It may be urged that 
 lago was a soldier and not a lawyer, with any other 
 author this might be a reason, but Shakespeare's 
 practice was to make all his characters know our law. 
 If Venus knew all about a common money bond, why 
 should not lago know about our marriage laws ? and 
 with regard to his alternative suggestion of putting 
 "restraint and grievance" upon the bridegroom, that 
 seems to be taken from the practice of the Chancellor 
 when one of his wards had been married without his
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 115 
 
 consent, of clapping the man into prison until he had 
 purged his contempt and made suitable settlements ; 
 but this was only applicable to an heiress who was a 
 ward of chancery, and the author has forgotten to 
 make Desdemona one. I suppose this must be the 
 explanation of what is meant by "restraint and 
 grievance," otherwise, there is no better-known rule 
 of English as well perhaps of all other civilized law 
 than that a daughter becoming a wife is freed from a 
 father's control. But as we have seen Brabantio does 
 not propose to invoke the aid of Chancery, nor rely 
 upon Desdemona being his heiress, but intends to 
 prefer a charge of the use of spells, &c. But he does 
 not do this in anything like a legal way, he begins to 
 argue that it must be so, and says, " I'll have it 
 disputed on," meaning, I suppose, he is going to bring 
 the matter before a court of law, for he says " I there- 
 fore apprehend and do attach thee." One cannot fancy 
 any lawyer using the phrase " I'll have it disputed on," 
 and " attach " as used here is inaccurate. Attach- 
 ment is distinguished from arrest ; the law dictionaries 
 say, that a person attaches another who has received 
 a warrant to keep the person in his own custody until 
 he brings him before the Court. But arrest means to 
 take a person into custody for the purpose of handing 
 him over to others ; this is what Brabantio proposes 
 to do, for he says he is to go to prison. Inhibit is 
 wrong. The word is known to Ecclesiastical and 
 Scotch law, but the common law equivalent is pro- 
 hibited ; " out of warrant " is nonsense, and subdue 
 is hardly the word which would be used to a resisting 
 prisoner. A lawyer, I think would have said — 
 
 If he do resist, 
 He does so at his peril. 
 I 2
 
 116 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 But the best way is to compare these lines with those 
 where the offence against Gloster's wife, Dame Eleanor, 
 is stated by Buckingham, " Henry VI." Pt. II. — 
 
 A sort of naughty persons, lewdly bent, — 
 Under the countenance and confederacy 
 Of Lady Eleanor, the protector's wife, 
 The ringleader and head of all this rout, — 
 Have practised dangerously against your state, 
 Dealing with witches, and with conjurers : 
 Whom we have apprehended in the fact ; 
 Raising up wicked spirits from under ground, 
 Demanding of King Henry's life and death. 
 And other of your highness' privy council. 
 
 I have already discussed this charge of witchcraft 
 and shown, though in Elizabeth's time it might be 
 properly made, it was not so in the time of Henry VI. 
 But I cite it here to show the difference between its 
 accurate and legal language and these inaccurate and 
 confused phrases of Brabantio's. To join a con- 
 spiracy and to practise against the state contain de- 
 finite ideas which a lawyer could understand, but it is 
 difficult to attach any legal meaning to " abuser of the 
 world, a practiser of arts inhibited," &c. 
 
 The same want of accuracy and definition per- 
 vades the play in all legal matters. Othello asks 
 where he is to go to answer Brabantio's charge. 
 Brabantio replies — 
 
 To prison : till fit time 
 Of law, and course of direct session, 
 Call thee to answer. 
 
 I can only guess that the author had only a con- 
 fused idea of the distinction between a trial in due 
 course of law as opposed to one by a special commis- 
 sion, and has, therefore, jumbled them together, and
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 117 
 
 means to say " to prison, where you shall be tried in 
 
 due course by the ordinary sessions," otherwise these 
 
 words are without meaning. 
 
 Compare this with the arrest in " Henry V." of the 
 
 conspirators. 
 
 Their faults are open, 
 Arrest them to the answer of the law ; — 
 And God acquit them of their practices ! 
 
 I do not wish to labour the subject, so I will refer 
 shortly to a few more instances that prove the author's 
 want of legal training. 
 
 Take, for example, the Duke's speech to Brabantio — 
 
 Who ere he be, that, in this foul proceeding, 
 Hath thus beguiled your daughter of herself, 
 And you of her, the bloody book of law 
 You shall yourself read in the bitter letter, 
 After your oivn sense. 
 
 What should we think of a judge who tells the 
 
 prosecutor that he shall interpret the law against the 
 
 prisoner after his own sense ? On the other hand, 
 
 the Duke speaks as a judge should when Brabantio 
 
 says — , 
 
 I therefore vouch again, 
 
 That with some mixtures powerful o'er the blood, 
 
 Or with some dram conjur'd to this effect, 
 
 He wrought upon her. 
 
 Duke. To vouch this, is no proof; 
 
 Without more certain and more overt test, 
 
 That these thin habits, and poor likelihoods 
 
 Of modern seeming, do prefer against him. 
 
 But though the sentiment is judicial, the language 
 is not what a lawyer would use. Vouch is in law 
 generally confined to a step in a common recovery, 
 when the crier of the Court is vouched by the defendant, 
 yet it is used here instead of some such word as assert
 
 118 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 or allege. Test is a poor substitute for the proper 
 word evidence. I do not understand what is meant 
 by thin habits. A la^vyer might express it thus : 
 Mere assertion is no proof without some better evi- 
 dence than surmises and poor suspicion. 
 Desdemona says to the Duke — 
 
 Let me find a charter in your voice, 
 To assist my simpleness. 
 
 Othello says — 
 
 Vouch with me, Heaven. 
 
 It should be, I think, " Vouch _/<?r me " ; &c. 
 
 Desdemona says to Cassio — 
 
 I give thee warrant of thy place, 
 
 which only Othello could give ; and she says — 
 
 For thy solicitor shall rather die, 
 Than give thy cause away. 
 
 A lawyer would say in those days attorney. A 
 solicitor was one who practised in the Equity Courts, 
 and had to look after Chancery suits, not common law 
 causes. 
 
 One of the most remarkable expressions is in a 
 speech of lago to Othello — 
 
 Who has that breast so pure, 
 Wherein uncleanly apprehensions 
 Keep leets, and law-days, and in sessions sit 
 With meditations lawful ? 
 
 At first I did not understand the words as used 
 here — leets and lawdays. I thought it must have 
 meant lent and law terms. I, however, looked the 
 matter up, and in Jacobs and other somewhat modern 
 law dictionaries I found lawdays were said to be the 
 days on which inferior courts, such as the Courts-Leet, 
 &c., were held, and that leet was the same as lawdays.
 
 NON-LEGAT- PLAYS. 119 
 
 " Keep leets/and law-days," therefore seemed to be 
 a correct expression. The word keep is properly 
 applied to the observance of certain periods or days, 
 as keeping lent, keeping holy the sabbath day, &c. 
 But further investigation showed me how necessary it 
 is to be very careful to get at the root of things. I 
 found those law dictionaries which I had consulted 
 were misleading, if not absolutely wrong, being them- 
 selves perhaps misled by this very line from Shake- 
 speare. I found that lawdays did not, as the word 
 seemed to mean, stand for the days on which the 
 Court-Leet was held, but meant the Court itself. And 
 I could find no evidence that the word ever had the 
 meaning modern dictionaries give it. I found that 
 Spelman had the true meaning of the word. And 
 whatever may have been its original meaning, by one 
 of the well-known changes in the use of words, it must 
 have very early come to mean not the days of the 
 court but the Court itself, and in that sense only is 
 leet or Court-Leet the same as lawdays. 
 
 It may not be uninteresting to the reader to have 
 the evidence that this is so. The Court-Leet was «, 
 Saxon meeting, generally in the open air, of all the 
 residents between the ages of twelve and sixty, except 
 peers, clerks, women, and aliens, whether master or 
 servant. These, Coke tells us, owed personal suit and 
 attendance to this court, where they would be sworn 
 to their fealty and allegiance.^ At this court the 
 view of frank-pledge was held [visits franci pledgii), 
 that is, the examination or survey of the nine sureties 
 for good behaviour every man not specially privileged 
 was required to have. In the early writers on law, 
 
 1 2 Inst. 120, 121.
 
 120 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Bracton and others, the word leet is not to be found ; 
 the Latin title, visus franci pledgu, is used instead. 
 But subsequently to these Avriters, and even before 
 them in charters, Acts of Parliament, and reported 
 cases, the proper word used was " lawdays," which is 
 given in either a French or barbarous Latin form 
 when the Court-Leet is referred to. 
 
 Thus, in a charter of the 39 Hen. HI., we have — 
 
 " Et quod eorum terras imperpetuum quietae sint de 
 sectis comitatum et hundredorum nostrorum de visu 
 franci pledgii et lawdayorum^'''^ &c. 
 
 In a charter of Glastonbury Abbey we have — 
 
 " Debeant facere sectam ad hundredum praedictum 
 ad duos Lagedaies per annum ; unum ad festum beati 
 Martini et alium ad le Hokedaie."^ 
 
 The first of these frees the particular lands from the 
 control of the divisions of counties, of that of the 
 hundreds, and of the frank-pledge and lawdays. 
 
 The latter, apparently (for I am not quite sure of the 
 meaning of facere sectam, secta in old law Latin being 
 in the nature of a witness), requires the abbot and 
 monks to attend with witnesses at the named hundred, 
 at two Courts-Leet during the year, one at the Feast of 
 St. Martin, the other on Hook Tuesday, which, Cowell 
 says, is the second Tuesday after Easter week. 
 
 Now Bracton tells us that the visus franci pledgii^ 
 that is, the Court-Leet or lawday might be granted 
 away by the Crown as its other possessions could be. 
 — " Sed ut per donum libertatis summondenses fiunt 
 et attachamenta et visus franci plegii et omnia quae 
 pertinent at coronam,"^ &c. 
 
 • Cowcll's Law Dictionary, Art. Lawdays 
 2 Bracton, f. 36 (b).
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. . 121 
 
 It is amusing to see how lawyers eked out their 
 Latin with latinised English words. 
 
 We see in later days the word still used as meaning 
 the Court-Leet itself. In the Act of i Ed. IV. c. 2, the 
 expression occurs more than once. 
 
 "A lour tourn" (the sheriffs court) " ou lawdaies," 
 and finally we have two cases reported, one in Benloe 
 and one in Dyer, which I give in their barbarous 
 Norman-French, with a translation, for the benefit of 
 those who have not studied that delightful language. 
 It will be observed that the marginal note, which 
 explains the report, uses leet, and the body of the 
 report, lawday. 
 
 " Grant de leet. — Trois co-parcen d'un manor sont et 
 le Roi grant a eux un lawday et ils font feffment del 
 manor non obstant ils averont ladway." ^ There are 
 three co-parceners, and the king grants them a lawday 
 (or Court-Leet), and they make a feoffment of the 
 manor notwithstanding they shall have the lawday, 
 t.e.y it did not pass with the manor. This case was 
 decided in the 25 Hen. VIIL, and a case is reported 
 to the same effect in the same year in Benloe, 1 1 . 
 
 ^^Leet ou lawday extmguishmcnt. — Nota per I'opinion 
 des justices del Common Bank que si iii coparcens, 
 sont seisies d'un manor en fee a qui un leete ou law- 
 day est appert et le roi purchase ii parts de meme le 
 manor oue les appertenants, que uncore cest leete 
 per tel purchase n'est extinct mes cest leete remaine 
 uncore appert a le tierce parte de meme le manor." 
 
 This is translated by the editor of Dyer. Three 
 
 1 Dyer, 30 (b).
 
 122 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 coparceners seised of a manor whereto a leet belongs 
 and the king purchases two parts, yet the leet by- 
 such purchase is not extinguished, but remains 
 appurtenant to the third part of such manor. 
 
 I have taken some pains to go into this matter. 
 Lord Campbell, in his introduction and in his notes 
 to " Othello," twice cites it as evidence of Shake- 
 speare's legal knowledge. But I think the author 
 of " Othello," where he speaks of keeping leete and 
 lawdays, does not seem to have realised that the law- 
 day meant the Court itself, and not the day on which 
 it was held. He might have made a mistake about 
 lawday, but he speaks of leete as he does of the 
 former. Now a la^Ayer would not say that a person 
 who attends a court keeps it. The judge held a 
 court, others attend it ; the person who keeps the 
 court is a servant who looks after it. 
 
 I think a lawyer of the time of Shakespeare would 
 not have been ignorant of the correct meaning of the 
 words as the author seems to have been. The 
 meaning of the sentence, I take it to be, that no one's 
 mind is so pure that unclean thoughts do not come to 
 it as well as lawful ones, as good and bad men 
 attend the Court-Leet and sit in sessions there. But, 
 as I have said, I think improper use has been made of 
 the word " lawdays," and even the expression, " sitting 
 in sessions," I do not think a lawyer would use when 
 speaking of the Court-Leet, where the residents pro- 
 bably stood. To a lawyer the expression would mean 
 rather the Court of General or Quarter Sessions, or 
 Parliament, than a Court-Leet. 
 
 Desdemona, when speaking of Othello, says : — 
 
 Beshrew me much, Emilia, 
 I was (unhandsome ivarn'or as I am)
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 123 
 
 Arraignhig his unkindness with my soul ; 
 But now I find I had suborned the witness, 
 And he's indicted falsely. 
 
 Now here we have a number of technical words used, 
 so that we can gather the author's meaning, though 
 they are all used so as to make a jumble of an 
 imaginary criminal proceeding. The ordinary barrister 
 who has had plenty of time to spare, which he has 
 passed with more or less profit to himself in the Crown 
 Court, has too clear a picture of what takes place to 
 have made the mistakes we have here. He has too 
 often seen a number of prisoners arraigned together, 
 which Coke tells us is done by bringing the prisoners 
 to the bar to hold up their hands to their names, that 
 the Court may be certain they are respectively the 
 proper persons and that they may plead, after which, if 
 they plead not guilty, they are given in charge to the 
 jury. He is also well acquainted with the part the 
 judge plays on the bench, and the witness in the 
 witness-box. I do not think he would, in the 
 first place, call the person who is instituting these 
 proceedings a 'warrior, he has a more familiar expres- • 
 sion with which to convey his meaning, prosecutor, or 
 in this case prosecutrix. Again, when he has got 
 Othello's unkindness in the dock, a shado-\vy personage, 
 but sufficiently tangible from a poetical point of view, 
 he would not put Desdemona's soul alongside so that 
 the two might be arraigned together. He would put 
 her or it on the bench and say, — 
 
 Arraigning his unkindness before my soul. 
 
 Then who is the witness who has been suborned, is 
 Desdemona's soul to play that part too r If the witness 
 is suborned, then the verdict might be wrong, but the
 
 124 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 indictment would not be false, and a lawyer would not 
 change the personality of the prisoner from Othello's 
 unkindness to Othello himself The whole speech 
 seems to be written with a confused idea of what 
 really takes place in a criminal court, which a barrister 
 of a very few years' experience knows only too well. 
 
 One more example, and I think I have pointed out suf- 
 ficient for my purpose, — lago misuses the word dowTy. 
 Speaking to Cassio who wishes to get Desdemona's 
 assistance to be reinstated by Othello, he says : — 
 
 Now if this suit lay in Bianca's dowre. 
 
 Meaning, I suppose, in her gift. The Quarto of 1 622 
 says " power," which makes better sense, but is not 
 so powerful as dowry if it were permissible to use it 
 in the sense of " gift." But to a lawyer dowry means 
 the wife's share to her deceased husband's property. 
 
 There can only be, I think, two explanations of 
 these mistakes, one is that they are due to carelessness 
 or poetical writing, the other is ignorance ; in either 
 case they do not rank with the correct law that is so 
 often found in Shakespeare's plays, and to me seems to 
 be the work of a different mind. If Bacon assisted 
 Shakespeare, as I think it is possible he did, in 
 " Measure for Measure " and the other legal plays, 
 I do not think either he or any other lawj^er of any 
 real experience prompted or assisted Shakespeare in 
 " Othello."
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 125 
 
 Misuse of Words. 
 
 Besides the plays of " Titus Andronicus," " Mac- 
 beth," and "Othello" which, from the reasons I have 
 given, appear to me to show by the way in which they 
 are written, that their author had no legal training, 
 there are, scattered throughout the plays and other 
 works, examples where words and phrases are used as 
 no lawyer would use them. I think the misuse of a 
 simple word would in many cases be sufficient to 
 show that the person using it was not a member of a 
 particular profession. Perhaps I may be permitted 
 to give an example from my own experience. When 
 in the army, I, at one time, had charge of the Verne, 
 a large work on the Island of Portland. It was said 
 to have been originated by the Prince Consort who 
 conceived the idea of taking out a great part of the 
 material required for the breakwater from an excava- 
 tion which should be the ditch of a large fortress. 
 The consequence is that this ditch is very wide and 
 deep. I was one day showing a party of friends 
 round the works and from the top of the parapet we* 
 looked into the ditch. An old clergyman surprised 
 me by saying, " I suppose this Fosse is the largest in 
 the world." I said, using the proper word, I thought 
 the ditch might be ; but he stuck to his own word 
 fosse. It is many years ago, and I have no doubt he 
 has long since joined the majority, but like many 
 other matters, small as they seem, his mistake is 
 useful ; it illustrates Shakespeare's legal mistakes. 
 In fortification, most of our terms are derived from 
 the Italian through the French ; thus parapet is 
 against the breast, para pcffo, but for some reason 
 English engineers have chosen the Saxon word
 
 126 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 ditch, and though fosse is not actually wrong, no 
 English military engineer would use it. If ever used 
 it has become obsolete. This, to my mind, illustrates 
 the use by the dramatists and poets of the Elizabethan 
 era of the words " executor," and " doom," and others, 
 which I propose to show have been used not illegally, 
 but as no lawyer would, I think, use them. 
 
 The following is a wrong use of a word which I 
 find, as far as I have searched, only in " Macbeth." 
 
 Name, — It is recognised by lawyers that the king is 
 the fountain of honour, and may create such titles as he 
 pleases. He can, it is said do this by summoning a 
 person by a title to the House of Lords. But the act 
 is always spoken of as a creation. He is said to 
 create or make him. HoUinshed tells us Duncan made 
 his eldest son Malcom, Prince of Cumberland, which 
 was the title given to the appointed successor to the 
 Crown, and that after Macbeth's death earls were first 
 viade in Scotland. Now Shakespeare goes out of his 
 way to use the word " name," thus, — 
 
 Dime. Our eldest son whom we name hereafter the Prince 
 
 of Cumberland. 
 Again — 
 
 Mai. My thanes and kinsmen, 
 
 Henceforth be earls, the first that ever Scotland 
 In such an honour named. 
 
 This is not a lawyer's speech. The king makes : 
 
 the country cannot name. A good deal may be said 
 
 for poetical licence, but it is to be noticed that in 
 
 other plays the proper word "create" is used where 
 
 a peer is made without any loss of poetry, as in 
 
 "John," Act II. Scene 2 — 
 
 We'll heal up all, 
 
 For we'll create young Arthur duke of Brctagnc 
 
 And earl of Richmond.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 127 
 
 Again in " Henry VI." Part I. Act III. Scene 4— 
 
 For these good deserts, 
 We here create you earl of Shrewsbury ; 
 And in our coronation take your place. 
 
 Here the proper word is used. To the ordinary 
 spectator it makes, I think, no difference whether 
 the word "create," "make," or "name," is used; 
 but I think a lawyer would not, without any reason, 
 go out of his way to use a word he was not accus- 
 tomed to, whereas Shakespeare persists in using the 
 word "named." Thus, where Rosse is discussing with 
 Macduff Duncan's death, he says — 
 
 'Tis most like, 
 The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth. 
 Macduff. He is already named ; and gone to Scone 
 To be i?ivested. 
 
 The word should, I think, have been " chosen " or 
 " elected." Macduff does not, I think, mean he " has 
 been spoken of," but actually created or made king ; 
 and it may also be remarked that kings are not 
 said to be invested. That is usually applied to the 
 case where some superior bestows an office or* 
 dignity upon another. The proper word is used by 
 Malcom in the two last lines of the play : — 
 
 So thanks to all at once, and to each one, 
 Whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone. 
 
 Doom. — This is one of the words that is used in the 
 plays in a way that it seems to me showed even in 
 Elizabeth's time that the person using it was not a 
 lawyer. The word is an old Saxon word connected, 
 so Richardson's Dictionary says, with deem and 
 damn. The latter, curiously enough, apart from that
 
 128 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 peculiar use that makes it familiar in some men's 
 mouths as household words, seems to be confined to 
 the theatre, where, I believe, it is still permissible to 
 talk of damning" a play without offending the pro- 
 prieties. Deem is still used in the sense of " consider- 
 ing," as " I deemed it not safe," and is preserved in its 
 original legal sense in Deemster, the office of justice 
 in the Isle of Man, with which Mr. Hall Caine's novel 
 has made us familiar. These words all originally had 
 the meaning of exercising the power of the judge; 
 and in Blunt's Law Dictionary of 1691, the nearest I 
 can get to the time in question, doom or dome (Saxon 
 Dom) is a judgment, sentence, ordinance, or decree. 
 And under the word oath it said, " Anciently, at the 
 end of a legal oath was added, ' So help me God at 
 his holy Dojne, i.e., judgment,' " 
 
 But long before Shakespeare's time the law had 
 changed its Saxon dress for a Latin one; the legal 
 terms that were fitted to the Leges Edivardi Confessoris 
 had for the most part dropped out of use in our courts. 
 The lawyer spoke of judgment, sentence, decree, &c., 
 but not of " doom " as a legal word. The very 
 explanation given by Blount in 1691 shows that the 
 ordinary lawyer required to be told that dome meant 
 judgment. Now, in the plays, we find the word used 
 in its original sense of a judgment in some places, 
 whilst almost side by side the ordinary legal words of 
 judgment, &c., are also used. It is not worth while 
 wearying the reader with too many quotations ; those 
 who wish to investigate the matter for themselves 
 have only to turn to Mrs. Clarke's Concordance, and 
 there will be found a number of instances in which 
 ^^ doom,'^ is used for '■'■ judgment." The modern idea is 
 rather that of fate, as " one doomed to be unhappy,"
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 129 
 
 " the doom of the great city." But in the plays it is 
 used as the decision of a tribunal or princely power. 
 Thus in " Two Gentlemen of Verona," where Valentine 
 gives his account to the outlaws why he had left 
 Milan, ix., that he had killed a man.i 
 
 Out. But were you banish'd for so small a fault } 
 Val. I was, and held me glad of such a doom. 
 
 The doom was not always against the person. 
 There might be a doom of mercy as of punishment, of 
 life as of death. 
 
 Thus, of Jack Cade's followers, Clifford says ^ — 
 
 Humbly thus, with halters on their necks, 
 Expect your highness' doo7n of life or death ; 
 
 and in the third part of " Henry VL"^ where Clifford 
 dies, Edward says — 
 
 See who it is ; and, now the battle's ended, 
 If friend, or foe, let him be gently used. 
 Rich. Revoke that doom of mercy, for 'tis Clifford. 
 
 It has already been suggested by some that Greene 
 may have been the author of the third part, an opinion 
 in which I concur ; and I read the plays we have of 
 his, including the doubtful one of " George-a-Green^' 
 and I found that Greene used the word in this sense.^ 
 
 The judge of truth, the patron of the just, 
 Who soon will lay presumption in the dust. 
 And give the humble poor their heart's desire, 
 And doovi the worldlings to eternal fire. 
 
 Prince Edward, stop not at the fatal doom^ 
 But stab it home.^ 
 
 Fond Ate ! doomer of bad boding fates. 
 
 1 Act rV. Scene i. 
 
 2 Henry VI. Part II. Act IV. Scene 9. 
 
 3 Act II. Scene 6. 
 
 * Looking Glass for London and England. 
 
 * Friar Bacon. 
 
 C. K
 
 130 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 He also uses the word " deem " in the sense of 
 considering.^ 
 
 Whereon deems Lord Douglas all the while. 
 
 This, Mr. Dyer in a note suggests, should be 
 " dreams," but deems is correct. 
 
 In " George-^-Greene," the Scotch king says — 
 
 I protest by the Highest Holy God, 
 That doometh just revenge for things amiss. 
 
 Webster also uses the word in the " Duchess of 
 Malfi " several times, but he may have followed our 
 author. 
 
 I think, therefore, we may fairly conclude that play- 
 writers preserved the old meaning of the word, as on 
 the stage the ancient meaning of the words " to 
 damn " has been kept. 
 
 It may be said that if this be so, why does this use 
 of doom show that the author was not a lawyer ? It 
 seems to me for this reason, a lawyer uses special 
 words for special purposes, and he would refrain from 
 using others that were not appropriated to the idea he 
 wished to convey. In the same way, I think a clergy- 
 man would refrain from speaking of a damned play. 
 And when we find the word judgment used in other 
 places instead of doom, it seems unreasonable to 
 suppose a lawyer would use one time the word to 
 which he was accustomed, at another a word that was 
 obsolete, as far as his profession was concerned. 
 Thus, in the trial scene in the " Merchant of Venice " 
 judgment is several times used, as — 
 
 " A second Daniel come to judgment !" 
 
 But doom is not once used in the play. 
 
 1 James IV. Act II. Scene 2.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 131 
 
 Enfranchise. — This is another word, which originally 
 meant to give the franchise or freedom of a city or 
 town to one who had it not. And afterwards it meant 
 to free a slave and thus make him a citizen. In modern 
 times it has been used for turning copyholds into 
 freeholds, the Act speaking of " the enfranchisement 
 of copyholds." In the present dictionary of Mr. Murray 
 it is pointed out that Shakespeare frequently uses the 
 word as meaning to set free. He, of course, ranks as 
 a classical writer of English, and, therefore, what he 
 has written is of authority. But I think no one would 
 expect a well-trained lawyer to say to his servant, 
 " take my horse to the field and there enfranchise him," 
 or " the prisoner is pardoned, enfranchise him," or to 
 a lady who is under lock and key " to-night I will 
 come and enfranchise you." Yet we find the word 
 used in these senses in the following examples : — 
 
 Thus, in "Venus and Adonis," we have Adonis' 
 horse thus described — 
 
 How like a jade he stood, tied to the tree, 
 
 Servilely master'd with a leathern rein ! 
 
 But when he saw his love, his youth's fair fee, 
 
 He held such petty bondage in disdain. 
 
 Throwing the base thong from his bending crest, 
 Enfranchising his mouth, his back, his breast. 
 
 In " Two Gentlemen of Verona," ^ Valentine speaks 
 
 of his friend to Silvia : — 
 
 This is the gentleman, I told your ladyship, 
 Had come along with me, but that his mistress 
 Did hold his eyes lock'd in her crystal toils. 
 
 Sil. Belike, that now she hath eifranchis'd them 
 Upon some other pawn for fealty. 
 
 Val. Nay, sure, I think she holds them prisoners still. 
 
 1 Act II. Scene 4. 
 K 2
 
 132 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 In the same play, when Silvia is locked up in a 
 tower, the Duke by a trick gets a letter Valentine has 
 WTitten to her, wherein he reads : — 
 
 " Silvia, this night I will enfranchise thee." 
 Duke. 'Tis so, and here's the ladder for the purpose ; 
 
 and Banquo speaks of keeping his conscience clear, 
 as having his " bosom franchised." 
 
 Of course it may be said that this is poetical 
 licence, and no doubt that is so. No one complains of 
 the word being used as it is. The question is whether 
 that legal mind which is so full of its own learning, 
 that it scatters it over the pages of the plays in and 
 out of season, as we have seen, would use the word 
 out of its strict legal sense. 
 
 Executor. — This word to a lawyer has only one 
 meaning, /.<?., the person entrusted with the duty of 
 carrying out the provisions of a will. It is so ex- 
 plained in all law dictionaries. In Richardson's 
 dictionary we have also the words executor and 
 execut;'^^^. But executor and executrix have only 
 one meaning to a lawyer. In Murray's new dictionary 
 an executor is described as one who executes, and a 
 quotation is given of an executor of charity. But the 
 word for centuries before Shakespeare's time had 
 been a specialized word for lawyers, and I doubt if 
 any lawyer would have used it as it is used in " The 
 Tempest." ^ 
 
 Fer. I must remove 
 
 Some thousands of these Logs, and pile them up, 
 Upon a sore injunction : my sweet Mistress 
 Weeps, when she sees me work ; and says, such baseness 
 Had never like executor. 
 
 1 Act III. Scene i.
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 133 
 
 This word is pronounced here as the lawyers say 
 it — exec-utor, and not as one would think the word 
 would be spoken, if meaning- one who simply executes. 
 Now, the lawyers have so carefully appropriated the 
 word executors to those who execute a will, that when 
 they speak of one who most of all really executes — 
 the headsman, he is called not exe-cutor, but exe- 
 cutioner ; yet our author, like my old friend the 
 clergyman, sticks to his own word. 
 
 I find that executor is also used for executioner in 
 " Henry V.," where there is a rather fanciful analogy 
 drawn between a state and a hive of bees. "Where the 
 author supposes there is a division of labour, certain 
 bees being told off to bring in the honey, others to 
 fetch the wax, whilst some guard the hive, others 
 build the cells, &c. I do not know whether this is so, 
 or whether the working bees do not all perform these 
 different duties in turn, but however this may be, 
 speaking of the slaughter of the drones, the author 
 says : — 
 
 The sad-ey'd justice, with his surly hum, 
 Delivering o'er to executors pale 
 The lazy yawning drone. 
 
 It seems to me that the verse requires the word 
 executor to be pronounced not as it usually is by 
 lawyers, but exe-cutor, not exec-u-tor, and there is 
 no necessity for the misuse of the word, for the proper 
 word executioner might have been used instead of 
 executors pale, and the line I think would have read 
 
 as well — 
 
 Delivering o'er to executioners. 
 
 Here, as in many other places, the author seems 
 to have gone out of his way to use the -uTong word,
 
 134 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 though when the author sought the assistance of his 
 legal friend we find the word used properly. 
 Thus in " Richard II." Act III. Scene 2— 
 
 Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs ; 
 Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes 
 Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth. 
 Let's choose executors^ and talk of wills. 
 
 I have not attempted to exhaust the subject. If I 
 have found sufficient to establish, to the satisfaction 
 of the reader, that there is evidence to prove that the 
 author of the non-legal plays had no legal training, 
 then I have gone as far as I consider necessary. I 
 have not relied on my own judgment alone, but have 
 submitted the facts to those whose opinion I value, 
 and their opinion is that there is evidence to show 
 that the author uses expressions no lawyer would ; 
 and as there is also evidence of legal knowledge in the 
 legal plays, the conclusion seems inevitable that the 
 poet-author had a legal fi-iend who helped him. 
 
 The majority of those plays which contain no law — 
 i. e., the non-legal plays — are, as far as I have exa- 
 mined, plays that are supposed to have been written 
 after Elizabeth's death. She would not advance 
 Bacon. She was a good judge of character ; and we 
 have her own opinion of him, which Essex gives, as 
 coming from her, in a letter he wrote to Bacon 
 {docketed le iS'"" de May, 1594). He reports the 
 result of an interview with the Queen, when he had 
 urged Bacon's " extraordinary sufficiency," proved 
 " by the opinion of all men." To the first she 
 answered : — 
 
 " That the greatness of your friends, as of my Lord Treasurer
 
 NON-LEGAL PLAYS. 135 
 
 and myself, did make men give a more favourable testimony 
 than else they would do, thinking thereby they pleased us. 
 And that she did acknowledge you had a great wit and an 
 excellent gift of speech, and much other good learning. But 
 in law she rather thought you could make show to the uttermost 
 of your knowledge than that you were deep^ 
 
 Besides this, she had Essex's death to forgive, in 
 which Bacon played too important a part. But when 
 James ascended tlie throne in May, 1603, Bacon found 
 an opportunity of pushing himself into favour, which 
 he was not slow to avail himself of And, I think, 
 now that his ambition had a chance of growing, he 
 would have neither the inclination nor the time for 
 play writing. I must, however, leave to others who 
 desire to pursue the matter farther the task of 
 seeing whether there is any legal play written after 
 1603. 
 
 I should be very much surprised if any play, 
 written after the latter date, may be fairly termed a 
 legal play in the sense with which I have used the 
 expression, always excepting " Henry VIII.," which, 
 for reasons I shall show hereafter, stands by itself. 
 If this be so, it may, of course, be only a coincidence : 
 in any case, any conclusion to be drawn from it must 
 depend upon our possessing accurate knowledge when 
 the different plays were written, which knowledge we 
 do not possess. Although, therefore, it may be of use 
 as confirmation of any proof we may possess that 
 Bacon did help Shakespeare, it does not, by itself, 
 amount to proof. 
 
 I propose now, therefore, to consider what evidence 
 there is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, and that 
 Bacon helped him.
 
 136 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE— THE AUTHOR. 
 
 If the distinction drawn between the two classes of 
 plays, the legal and non-legal, is accepted as being 
 proved, then it must also be admitted that the prin- 
 cipal author or poet must have received assistance 
 from some legal friend in writing the legal plays. 
 Here this inquiry might well be closed, for most 
 persons would agree that if this be so, Shakespeare 
 was the poet, and probably. Bacon assisted him. 
 
 In the course, however, of collecting the necessary 
 materials for this study, a great deal of evidence 
 has been gathered bearing on these last two facts, 
 which may prove of interest, and it is, therefore, pro- 
 posed to give the same as shortly as possible. 
 
 It appears that the argument of the Baconians may 
 be stated as follows : — 
 
 1. The impossibility of a person educated as Shake- 
 
 speare was, being able to write plays. 
 
 2. The similarity which is to be found in many 
 
 respects between the ideas, language, &c., 
 
 which are found in vShakespeare's alleged 
 
 plays and those in Bacon's works. 
 
 The second may be dealt with first. AVhatever 
 
 similarity there may be would arise as well if Bacon 
 
 were only the legal friend, as if he were the sole
 
 SHAKESPEARE ; THE AUTHOR. 137 
 
 author ; and though there might be found points of re- 
 semblance between Bacon's writings and the non-legal 
 plays, with which it has been sought to show Bacon 
 could have had no connection, yet the close intimacy 
 which must have existed between the two, if Bacon 
 assisted Shakespeare in the legal plays, may well 
 account for some of Bacon's ideas finding their way 
 into those plays in which he had no part. 
 
 With regard to the first objection, it no doubt has 
 great weight if w^e take the commonly-accepted view 
 of Shakespeare's early career ; but one of the objects 
 of this inquiry, it will be seen, is to show that the idea 
 of Shakespeare's inability to be a great poet is based 
 upon a groundless assumption, which there is no 
 reason for believing to be true. 
 
 The position taken up by some, is, that Shakespeare 
 was no writer, but only a successful actor and share- 
 holder in Burbage's theatres, that he never wrote nor 
 was capable of writing any of the works attributed to 
 him, but allowed his name to be used as the no77i de 
 plume for some person in the background, who really 
 wrote the plays ; and they say that there is no evidence 
 he ever personally claimed to be the author of these 
 plays. They further say his name was put to some 
 of the Quartos, without his authority ; and the Folio 
 of 1623 was published after he had been dead seven 
 years, and though there is contemporary evidence of 
 his being an actor and even author of certain poems, 
 which they say are far inferior to the plays, he is 
 hardly ever spoken of as a dramatist, but even if he 
 were, it was only because the person doing so had 
 not discovered that he was not the real author. 
 
 This view is to many men strengthened by the 
 mystery of Shakespeare's life. In dealing with the
 
 138 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 history of b3''gone times, there are certain events with 
 which we come face to face as if we had been present : 
 we get hold of some contemporaneous account and 
 know as much and perhaps more about the facts than 
 those who were living at the time. There are others 
 which we can only see through the brains of those who 
 too often surround them with the halo of romance. We 
 have no doubt that Cicero wrote his speeches, or 
 Csesar his Commentaries, or that Bacon, Ben Jonson, 
 Beaumont and Fletcher, authors about Shakespeare's 
 time, wrote what the world imputes to them. But 
 with Shakespeare all is confusion, and from an 
 entirely different reason from that which might lead 
 us to doubt the authorship say of the Homeric poems, 
 namely the lapse of time and the difficulty of handing 
 down history unaltered. Homer may be a name ; 
 Shakespeare was a person who lived, whose life may 
 be traced, without much detail it is true, from his 
 birth-place to his grave. The plays exist as they 
 were given to the world, we have the actual books ; 
 there is no confusion about what they were, for as 
 they were so they are. There is no doubt of the 
 actual existence of the man and of the works. But 
 directly we attempt to connect the two the diflftculty 
 commences. As a rule writers are egotistical and 
 self-asserting. Shakespeare as an author is always 
 in the background. He is like Madame Be7ioiton^ 
 who is never at home, never appears on the stage. 
 Except in the sonnets he never seems to speak in the 
 first person. We never seem face to face with the 
 man as he was. Married, making a large income, 
 buying land, ambitious of local success, trying to 
 get a grant of arms for his father, living and dying in 
 his native place, all this we can gather from others,
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 139 
 
 but he tells us nothing of himself. We see a man and 
 an author in the Folio of 1623, but we are looking 
 across a grave that has been filled for seven years, 
 and see only a shade, who is not more silent about 
 himself, being dead, than he apf)ears to have been 
 in his fifty-three years of life. 
 
 To some it seems impossible that if he were the 
 voluminous writer he must have been if he were the 
 author, the fact is not brought home to us by evidence 
 which could not be disputed. But such people seem 
 to think that if he were only a name to hide the identity 
 of some other writer, that which appears mysterious 
 becomes natural. In such a case the man would be 
 in the back-ground, his individuality suppressed, and 
 when he retired to the country home busy with his 
 own affairs, he would be careless of what was being 
 done in London with his so-called plays. He would 
 possess no books with marginal notes in his hand- 
 writing. No manuscripts would exist of the old plays 
 he altered and adapted ; he would leave when he died 
 no pile of papers ; no desk at which he worked ; no 
 library which he consulted ; no correspondence with 
 his publishers ; in fact, no circumstances would be 
 found confirming him in an authorship which did not 
 belong to him. It has been suggested that the Fire 
 of London may have destroyed all the papers that 
 would have proved who and what he was. But there 
 has been no such fire at Stratford, where he died ; 
 having lived there for several years before ; and as 
 his house has been pulled down, there has been no for- 
 gotten cupboard with its door papered over which 
 contains his papers. All these facts, no doubt, have, 
 in a great measure, given the mystery to his life — a 
 mystery which has perplexed so many and has led
 
 140 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 more than one person to fabricate the evidence which 
 he has failed to find. But after all, this is merely- 
 negative ; it may justify suspicion but proves nothing ; 
 and I think the difficulties suggested will disappear 
 when we deal with the facts of his life, so far as they 
 are known, and leave the region of conjecture for that 
 of evidence, particularly that of Shakespeare's con- 
 temporaries. 
 
 Shakespeare's Early Life. 
 
 Generally where there is an inquiry into the past, 
 the belief and opinion of those who were cotemporary 
 with the matters under consideration are accepted as 
 evidence of repute, which, no doubt, is liable to be 
 rebutted by other evidence, as the discovery of secret 
 documents, which are permitted to come to light when 
 the necessity for their concealment has passed away. 
 But in the absence of such new matter being found, 
 it does seem that due weight must be given to the 
 views expressed by those who apparently knew more 
 of the subject than we do. The answer of the 
 Baconians is, that the true facts were carefully con- 
 cealed from Shakespeare's cotemporaries, who were 
 consequently deceived, and attributed to him powers 
 which he did not possess, and that therefore their 
 evidence was of no more value than that of any one 
 else who was deceived by a trick, as the audience is 
 by a conjurer. And the principal reason which seems 
 to have led persons not without intelligence to this 
 belief — for there are a large number of persons who 
 have a lurking idea that there is something in the 
 Baconian theory — is the generally-accepted view of 
 Shakespeare's training and early life, which renders it 
 almost impossible that he could be the author.
 
 SPIAIvESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 141 
 
 The story that has generally been received of 
 Shakespeare's youth is that he was born at Stratford, 
 where he remained and grew up in a small country 
 town, living his life away from cultivated society — a 
 mere rustic yokel, who married and had children. 
 Then took to a little poaching, became a fugitive from 
 justice, found his way to the metropolis, where he sank 
 to the low livelihood of holding horses for those who 
 came to the theatre. Thence made a start as an 
 employer of other boys to hold horses for him, found 
 his way in some humble capacity into the theatre, 
 and suddenly became the greatest dramatist the 
 world has ever known, his lines, though often exu- 
 berant, showing a great command of the English 
 language, and a power of description never equalled. 
 This sudden metamorphosis of the butterfly from 
 such a chrysalis is unknown in human nature ; we 
 have no example, as far as I know, of persons becoming 
 great artists late in life, their childhood having been 
 passed amidst uncongenial surroundings. The first 
 question we have therefore to consider is, what truth 
 there is in this story. Now, when we come to the 
 consideration of the actual documents which have 
 come down to us, as given by Halliwell, we shall 
 see there is no evidence in support of these views 
 of his early life ; and when we find that though 
 Jonson was never allowed to forget that when a boy 
 he was put by his step-father to the work of a 
 bricklayer, in all the reflections he and others 
 cast upon Shakespeare, there is not to be found a 
 single allusion to these deer-stealing, or horse-holding 
 stories, I think we are, at least, at liberty to search 
 for ourselves, and try, as far as possible, to distinguish 
 between actual facts and modern fiction.
 
 142 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Shakespeare' s early Surroundings. 
 
 The first step is to have some idea of Shakespeare's ' 
 early life. We have little direct evidence on the 
 subject, but we know his father was, when Shake- 
 speare was a boy, fairly well-to-do, and became bailiff 
 or mayor of Stratford ; during his year of office, we 
 find, I think, the first connecting link between his 
 son and the stage, for there is evidence that twice a 
 company of actors visited the town, and apparently 
 this had not occurred before. There is also evidence 
 to show that many of those who were actors with 
 Shakespeare belonged to the neighbourhood. Now 
 we know more about the father, John Shakespeare, 
 than we do about the son, William. We have 
 certain original documents collected by Halliwell, to 
 which I shall refer, which prove that the father was 
 either a bad man of business, or an unscrupulous one. 
 I do not think he was the latter, because there is 
 reason to believe that to the last he retained the 
 sympathy and affection of his son, whose object in 
 life, apparently, was not to have himself handed 
 down to posterity as the greatest dramatic author 
 the world has known, but to put his father back to 
 his original social position. I think I shall be able 
 to show that this was so, and that the son was much 
 ridiculed for so doing. It is said our great novelist, 
 Dickens, in drawing the character of Micawber, had 
 in view his own father, and he has painted the miseries 
 of his early days owing to the poverty of his family. 
 Shakespeare has left us no such picture, but he 
 probably felt the res angustce domi, and the endeavour 
 of his life was to put his father in that position he 
 thought he ought to occupy. And it may be the
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 143 
 
 same causes that spurred Dickens onwards in his own 
 successful career may have had their influence upon 
 WilHam Shakespeare. 
 
 John Shakespeare, in 1578, mortgaged his wife's 
 property to one Edmund Lambert for 40/. This sum 
 had to be repaid at Michaelmas, 1580. At this time, 
 Halliwell says, he was in prison for debt. Be that as 
 it may, the money was not repaid, and, from what 
 after appears, the mortgagee levied a fine of the pro- 
 perty so as to make his title good, and prevent John 
 Shakespeare from afterwards redeeming it. Never- 
 theless, we find, after Edmund Lambert's death, in 
 1589, John brought an action against the son, John 
 Lambert, for a further sum of 20/., w^hich he alleged 
 that John Lambert had promised to pay him on con- 
 sideration that Shakespeare and his wife Mary with 
 their son William would assure the premises to John 
 Lambert with their appurtenances, and would deliver 
 all writings and evidence concerning the said premises 
 to him, and then followed an allegation that they were 
 willing to do so, but that John Lambert w^ould not 
 pay the 20/. This claim Lambert meets with a denial 
 that he made any such promise. Nothing appeared 
 to have taken place further, and we shall see John 
 Shakespeare afterwards setting up another and entirely 
 different claim. 
 
 It is evident either that Lambert made no such 
 promise, or John Shakespeare had not acted in a 
 business-like way in having the bargain properly 
 witnessed. In 1598, when his son William was at 
 least a rich and successful actor and part-owner of 
 one, if not two theatres, John Shakespeare made an 
 attempt to recover the property itself, on the ground 
 that he had tendered the money when it was due,
 
 144 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 viz., Michaelmas, 1580, to Edmund Lambert, who 
 refused to receive it. The petition refers to the posi- 
 tion of the Shakespeares ; it alleges that — 
 
 " John Lambert is of great wealth and ability, and well 
 friended and allied amongst gentlemen," but that " Your 
 orateurs (petitioners) are of small wealth and very few friends 
 in the (said) county." 
 
 The defendant denied that the money was paid or 
 tendered as alleged, and said that not being so paid, 
 his father had levied a fine upon the premises, and so 
 had become absolute owner. 
 
 " That the value of the property was then generally raised, 
 for which reason only the complainants troubled and molested 
 the defendant by unjust suits at law, &c."^ 
 
 Nothing fiirther seems to have been done in this 
 suit, but, like the former action, it was allowed to 
 drop. As nothing was done, the only observation 
 that occurs is either that John Shakespeare must have 
 been reckless in his attempts to recover the property 
 after eighteen years had elapsed from the time when 
 the money was due in 1580; or the other alternative 
 is that John Shakespeare did tender the money — 
 though if he were in prison for debt this is hard to 
 believe — but did not take the proper steps to be able 
 to prove it. 
 
 Traditions. 
 
 The facts, so far as we can gather them, are in the 
 case of William Shakespeare very few ; we have, in 
 fact, to start and work back from his tombstone to get 
 even an idea of the date of his birth. He died, we are 
 told by that authority, on the 23rd April, i6i6, aged 
 
 1 Ilulliwcll, p. 589.
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 145 
 
 fifty-three years. Supposing the age to be correct, and 
 it is very often difficult to ascertain how old a person is 
 when he dies, this would take his birth back to 1563. 
 There is a reason why this age of fifty-three may not be 
 reliable, viz., it does not give the months and days of 
 his age, but only the round number of years ; whereas, 
 if the date of his birth were known these would have 
 been given, unless he died on the same day of the 
 month on which he was born, when the fact would 
 probably have been stated. Curiously enough he 
 was baptized on this day, and it is, therefore, often 
 supposed he was born on the 23rd April, 1563, the 
 23rd April, 1564, being the date of his baptism, the 
 23rd April, 1 616, being the date of his death; the 
 date on which he was married is not known, but the 
 bond given in anticipation of it is dated November, 
 1582, and he had children born subsequently, the last 
 of them, twins, being born 2nd February, 1585. 
 
 Now it is usually supposed by modern wnriters that it 
 is unlikely that Shakespeare left his rustic home till 
 after the birth of these twins, that is to say, when he 
 was about twenty-two years of age, when his ideas 
 and habits would be formed, and his dialect fixed. I 
 cannot see upon what grounds Malone and others 
 have made this assumption. As he was married at 
 Stratford and his children were born there, it is, of 
 course, to be presumed that he had his home there ; but, 
 so far as we know, this he always had, though he 
 might be frequently away in London acting and 
 writing, until he retired and settled down at Stratford. 
 If he did this after the children were born, why should 
 he not have done so before r He was undoubtedly 
 attached to his father, and if he had gone as a boy 
 to London and worked at his career, as I think there 
 
 C. L
 
 146 SHAIvESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 is far more reason for believing than that he wasted 
 his youth at Stratford ; he would, as he did in after 
 years, return from time to time to Stratford, and 
 then as he came back in all his pomp and pride 
 as a London gallant, or as he calls it, a " Strutting 
 Jack," he may have captivated the affections of 
 the fair Anne Hathaway, whom he afterwards 
 married. 
 
 It is very material to show that there is no neces- 
 sity for believing that Shakespeare stayed at Stratford 
 till he was grown up ; but that the necessity is rather 
 for the opposite belief, as this would account for that 
 absence of provincialisms which are found in his 
 earliest writings (except where they are introduced on 
 purpose) and would afford him an opportunity for 
 leading a life surrounded not only by men of learning 
 but by women of rank and fashion who were both 
 likely to foster and develop his talents. But before 
 we discuss this, let us see what grounds Malone and 
 others have for believing Shakespeare stayed at 
 Stratford till he was between twenty-two and twenty- 
 three years of age, instead of leaving much earlier, 
 other than his assumption that it was unlikely. Now 
 if we turn to his writings and to the traditions that 
 have come down to us regarding his early career, 
 untrustworthy as the latter are, we shall, I think, find 
 nothing to support Malone's view, but such evidence 
 as it is, is the other way. The traditional history so 
 far as it was reduced to writing has been collected by 
 Halliwell in his life of Shakespeare where the original 
 records will be found copied. 
 
 The first of these is from the note-book of a former 
 vicar of Stratford written 1662. This extract is, 
 perhaps, more likely to be accurate than the others ; it
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 147 
 
 mentions that he frequented the plays all his younger 
 time^ which by no means limits his acquaintance to 
 theatres until after his marriage, and the birth of his 
 younger children in 1585. This extract also mentions 
 that Shakespeare in his retirement supplied the stage 
 with two plays a year, and finally tells us the cause 
 of his death, all of which facts, if they be facts, we 
 learn for the first and only time. 
 
 The next extract is from Aubrey's Lives of Eminent 
 Men ^ and is as follows as given by Halliwell, dated 
 1680, sixty-four years after the poet's death. 
 
 "Mr. William Shakespeare was born at Stratford-upon- 
 Avon in the county of Warwick ; his father was a butcher, 
 and I have been told by some of the neighbours, that when 
 he was a boy he exercised his father's trade, but when he 
 killed a calf he would do it in high style and make a speech. 
 
 . . . This William being inclined naturally to poetry 
 and acting came to London, I guess about eighteen, and was 
 an actor at one of the playhouses, and did act extremely 
 well. 
 
 "... He began early to make essays at dramatic poetry, 
 which at that time was very low, and his plays took well. . . . 
 He was wont to go to his native county once a year. . .# . 
 Though, as Ben Jonson says of him that he had but little 
 Latin and less Greek, he understood Latin pretty well, 
 for he had been in his younger years a schoolmaster in the 
 county." 
 
 The value of a statement, which makes Shakespeare 
 a butcher (with the nonsense of his killing his calves 
 in a high style with a speech), and also a schoolmaster 
 in the county before the age of eighteen, when he is 
 supposed to have gone on the stage, cannot be of 
 
 1 Page 695. 
 L 2
 
 148 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 much value, especially as Shakespeare's father was 
 not a butcher, according to modern authorities ; but 
 what weight it has is in favour of Shakespeare having 
 left Stratford before and not after his marriage, for he 
 would have been eighteen years old before the 23rd 
 April, 1582, and he was not married until after the 
 28th November in that year. This evidence may be 
 of little value for the purpose of proving affirmatively 
 that he went to London before he married, but it 
 shows that there is no authority in these traditions 
 for the opposite statement, and this we shall see is the 
 case in the other traditions. 
 
 The next extract is not in the order as given by 
 Halliwell, but is from a manuscript written by a 
 person named Durdall about 1693.^ 
 
 Speaking of Shakespeare's tomb, he gives the 
 epitaph, which concludes — 
 
 Obiit. A. Dni. 161 6. 
 JEtaX. 53. Die. 23 Ap. 
 
 He then continues — 
 
 " The clerk that showed me this church is above eighty 
 years old. He says that Shakespeare was formerly in this 
 town bound apprentice to a butcher, but that he ran from his 
 master to London, and there was received into the playhouse 
 as a servitor, and by this means had an opportunity to be 
 what he afterwards proved." 
 
 The last extract is partly in date before the one just 
 given, but partly after ; and as it is this latter part 
 which is only material, I have given it last. It 
 purports to be an extract from certain notes pre- 
 served at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the original 
 
 ' Page 697.
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 149 
 
 being made by the Rev. William Fulman before 
 1688, seventy-two years after Shakespeare's death, in 
 which he says,^ — 
 
 "William Shakespeare was born at Stratford-on-Avon, in 
 Warwickshire, about 1563-4. From an actor of plays he 
 became a composer. He died April 23, 1616," &c. 
 
 To these notes another reverend gentleman, not 
 having before him the fear of sin, commits a literary 
 forgery by interpolating, according to Halliwell, 
 before 1708 (ninety-two years after death), the tradi- 
 tion about his stealing venison and rabbits, which we 
 hear of for the first time, and was utterly unknown to 
 Shakespeare's cotemporaries. 
 
 Nothing is said that Shakespeare's Hegira took 
 place after his marriage. Malone, who is the only 
 person who seems to have brought original research 
 to the inquiry into what evidence we have of Shake- 
 speare's early life, has disposed of these traditions, but 
 in vain. He has shown that Shakespeare could not 
 have stolen Sir W. Lucy's deer in his park, for the best 
 of all reasons — the gentleman had no deer and no 
 park. That is to say, unless in a properly constituted 
 place, deer w^ere fercE natures, z.e, wild animals, in 
 whom no one had property; and Sir W. Lucy's 
 property had lost its privilege before he came into it. 
 He also shows how the idea was first put into writing 
 by the reverend gentleman, who did not fear to commit 
 literary forgery, as I have already pointed out, and 
 that Rowe was the first person to put this story into 
 print — a story utterly unknown to Shakespeare's co- 
 temporaries. He also shows how the story of Shake- 
 speare's holding horses outside the theatre arose, and 
 
 1 Page 696.
 
 150 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 was the creation of later days, a century or so after 
 Shakespeare's death. But all without effect. We find 
 Knight, Collier, and even Halliwell all referring to 
 these idle tales, as if Malone had never written a line — 
 another example of how difficult it is to disabuse 
 people of anything they wish to believe in. However 
 worthless these traditions may be, they have the 
 negative value that they do not state Shakespeare 
 continued at Stratford up to the date of 1585, the 
 birth of his children, but suggest that he left as a 
 mere lad. 
 
 Shakespeare has travelled over so wide an area, 
 and has touched upon almost every subject ; but 
 other persons have made extracts from his works to 
 support their particular views, so that I am not un- 
 reasonable in citing the following lines to show that 
 he was well aware of the evil effects upon a young 
 man passing his youth at home, and I think these 
 lines confirm the view I take that Shakespeare got to 
 work early and did not waste his youth, but went on 
 the stage as a boy. 
 
 This morning, like the spirit of a youth 
 That means to be of note, begins betimes.^ 
 
 Giiideriiis. We, poor unfledged, 
 
 Have never wing'd from view o' the nest ; nor know not 
 
 What air's from home. Haply, this life is best, 
 
 If quiet life be best ; sweeter to you, 
 
 That have a sharper known ; well corresponding 
 
 With your stifi' age : but, unto us, it is, 
 
 A cell of ignorance ; travelling abed ; 
 
 A prison for a debtor, that not dares 
 
 To stride a limit. 
 
 * Antony and Cleopatra, Act IV. Scene 4.
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 151 
 
 Arviragus. What should we speak of, 
 
 When we are old as you ? . . . . 
 
 We have seen nothing : 
 
 We are beastly.^ 
 
 So, in the "Two Gentlemen of Verona" (Act I. 
 Scene i), Valentine says: — 
 
 Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits ; 
 Wer't not, affection chains thy tender days 
 To the sweet glances of thy honour'd love, 
 I rather would entreat thy company, 
 To see the wonders of the world abroad, 
 Than living dully sluggardiz'd at home, 
 Wear out thy youth with shapeless idleness. 
 
 So, in the same play, Panthino speaking to Antonio 
 about his brother ^ — 
 
 Pant. 'Twas of his nephew, Proteus, your son. 
 
 Ant. Why, what of him ? 
 
 Pant. He wonder'd that your lordship 
 
 Would suffer him to spend his youth at home ; 
 While other men, of slender reputation, 
 Put forth their sons to seek preferment out : 
 Some, to the wars, to try their fortune there ; 
 Some, to discover islands far away ; • 
 
 Some, to the studious universities. 
 For any, or for all these exercises, 
 He said, that Proteus, j-our son, was meet : 
 And did request me, to importune you, 
 To let him spend his time no more at home, 
 Which would be great impeachment to his age, 
 In having known no travel in his youth. 
 
 Ant. Nor need'st thou much importune me to that 
 Whereon this month I have been hammering. 
 I have consider'd well his loss of time ; 
 
 1 Cymbeline, Act III. Scene 3. 
 
 2 Act I. Scene 3.
 
 152 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 And how he cannot be a perfect man, 
 Not being tried and tutored in the world : 
 Experience is by industrj^ achieved, 
 And perfected by the swift course of time. 
 
 If, therefore, a youth who stays at home is of a 
 homely wit, knows nothing, has nothing to talk of, 
 cannot be a perfect man, nor mean to be of note, I 
 think we have a fair inference that, as Shakespeare 
 was not a homely wit, knew almost everything, and 
 had a great deal, if not to talk, to write about ; and as 
 our author was a " perfect man," and one who meant 
 to be of note : if all this is true, then the syllogism is 
 true that he did not pass his youth at home ; and that 
 his father, a man of slender reputation, " put forth his 
 son to seek preferment out." 
 
 I think, therefore, we may fairly come to these con- 
 clusions. It is very improbable that a person of 
 Shakespeare's abilities would have wasted his life at 
 home a burden upon his father, who was undoubtedly 
 getting poorer and poorer. It seems almost impos- 
 sible, if he had so wasted his youth, that he could 
 have got rid of his provincialism, and removed all 
 trace of rustic ignorance, and become the poet of all 
 time. That there is nothing in the traditions which 
 have come down to us, nor in his writings which sup- 
 poses that he stayed idly at Stratford until his children 
 were all born ; that what evidence there is, is the 
 other way ; and that all we have to support this view 
 is a hasty expression of Malone's, which every later 
 writer seems to have adopted. The suggestion that 
 he went in early life on the stage seems the more 
 reasonable one. 
 
 There was no doubt a very early connection between
 
 SHAKESPEARE : THE AUTHOR. 153 
 
 the actors of Shakespeare's time and the Shake- 
 speare family. A considerable number of them came 
 from the neighbourhood of Stratford, We find several 
 names amongst them who are believed to be Strat- 
 ford men, or, if not so, to have come from the 
 vicinity. And we have already seen that when John 
 Shakespeare was mayor two companies came to 
 Stratford for the first time. I see no improbability, 
 therefore, in the idea that Shakespeare, possessing, as 
 he undoubtedly did, gifts that fitted him for the stage, 
 when he desired to get his living found no difficulty 
 in getting on to the London boards. At this time 
 there were two companies in London, one belonging 
 to Henslowe, who has left us his diary, whose prin- 
 cipal actor was his son-in-law AUeyne, who made a 
 large fortune with which he founded and endowed 
 Dulwich College. The other was Burbage's of which 
 Shakespeare became a member and, ultimately, a 
 partner. 
 
 It is by no means impossible, therefore, that Shake- 
 speare went forth as a mere lad to improve his fortunes, 
 that he found an easy introduction to Burbage's con^ 
 pany, and when there either himself played women's 
 parts, or was an associate with lads of his own age 
 who did ; that he may soon have been in receipt of 
 a good income, and have mixed in good society. His 
 talents would have given him introductions every- 
 where. 
 
 All this is very speculative, not amounting to evi- 
 dence, but of that we have none. We can only 
 speculate, and my object is to show that the pos- 
 sibilities, if not the actualities, of his early life are 
 very different from those hitherto taken for granted. 
 
 But it may be said, what does it matter when
 
 154 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Shakespeare went to London ? In reality it is very- 
 important. In one case we have him bred up in a 
 rustic life, surrounded by poverty, with the cares of a 
 family on him and scanty means for its provision — 
 none of the graces and comfort of prosperity. In the 
 other, we have him in early youth rapidly growing 
 rich, for the actors, as is well known, were highly 
 paid, surrounded by all the amenities of fashionable 
 existence, introduced into the best society, a friend, 
 perhaps, of young men of good position, perhaps 
 taken in hand by some high-born and well-bred 
 ladies who taught him those high notions of the other 
 sex which he afterwards embodied in his heroines. 
 All is mystery about him. But this, I think, we may 
 say : there is nothing improbable in the suggestion 
 that he early lost his rustic manners and provincial- 
 isms of thought and speech in the cultured life of the 
 metropolis. 
 
 If this be so, and we have not evidence to say one 
 way or the other positively, it removes the principal 
 objection that has been raised, viz., his want of 
 opportunity for improvement and education. I pro- 
 pose now to examine into the evidence that shows as 
 a matter of fact that he was a dramatic writer.
 
 ( 155 ) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EVIDEXCE THAT SHAKESPEARE WAS A WRITER OF 
 
 PLAYS. 
 
 There are at least three writers who, having private 
 means of knowing the fact, have acknowledged 
 Shakespeare as a dramatic writer. In the case of 
 two, it is impossible to understand how they could 
 have been deceived by any secret arrangement, if such 
 existed, between Bacon and Shakespeare, as the one 
 Avrote before either of them, as far as we know, had 
 written or published any play, the other, with full 
 knowledge of who the real author of the plays was. 
 In addition, there is another piece of evidence, viz., 
 the publication of the two poems by Shakespeare 
 himself. I propose to deal with these in their order 
 in time. They are, therefore — 
 
 1 . The reference to Shakespeare by Robert Greene. 
 
 2. The publication of the poems. 
 
 3. The evidence of Meres. 
 
 4. The statements by Ben Jonson. 
 
 First, as to Robert Greene. 
 
 In order that this evidence may be properly appre- 
 ciated, let us for a while allow our imagination to go 
 back three hundred years. Let us suppose that it is 
 not the end of the nineteenth century, but that of the 
 sixteenth, when London was very different from what 
 it is now. But then, as now, a Queen was on the 
 throne, and as now, so then, the period was one of
 
 156 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 great literary activity. It is a curious thing, by the 
 way, that under our three queens we find the same 
 high position taken by literature — the Elizabethan 
 poets, Addison and his followers, the penny papers, 
 and the voluminous journals, novels, &c., charac- 
 terize the reigns of our three female sovereigns. 
 But to return to our supposition. It is the fin du 
 sihle, the last ten years of the century, and they are 
 slipping by as the years are slipping away fi"om us 
 now ; and during these years matters are occurring 
 which, I think, if rightly looked at, must establish to 
 all but the prejudiced the right of Shakespeare at 
 least to the title of poet. 
 
 At this period, 1590, he was about twenty-seven 
 years of age. His youth had passed and, as far as we 
 know, he had published nothing. The date of " Titus 
 Andronicus " is uncertain, but, with the exception of 
 that blood-curdling drama, there was nothing that 
 there is the slightest reason to suppose had been pro- 
 duced so early as 1590. The first mention of him 
 as a writer is, in fact, not made till 1592. Before 
 then we get no evidence that such a person as William 
 Shakespeare was in existence. If our records ended 
 with 1590, the William Shakespeare who was baptized, 
 married, &c. at Stratford might have died long before. 
 But in 1592, we do find evidence that he was in ex- 
 istence, and was at least attempting to write poetry. 
 The evidence is of the best kind, for it is evidence not 
 given by a friend and admirer, but of one who was 
 speaking bitterly of him, not seeking to hold him up 
 to admiration, but pointing at him as a person to be 
 feared, as one who was taking, or ready to take, the 
 bread out of the mouths of starving poets. I refer to 
 the evidence which has so often been stated, i. c, that
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAICESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 157 
 
 of the dying Robert Greene, who was one of the best, 
 I consider, of the poets of this period. He was the 
 only person, I think, of that period who had the power 
 of composing a story. Nearly all the writers of plays 
 of that time wrote upon old plots. Their subjects 
 were taken from the classics, history, or older plays. 
 It may be that the public preferred old favorites. But 
 any reader of the old writers knows how one author 
 copied from another. One may trace anecdotes from 
 Gil Bias back to Boccacio, and still further on to 
 Apuleius and his " Golden Ass," and his stories have 
 their foundation in old Greek myths taken from Egypt, 
 but who in time stole from that India, which seems to 
 be the cradle of our fiction as well as of our philosophy. 
 Nowadays, every young lady can create her plots 
 fast enough. The framework of the story can be put 
 together though it may not be skilfully worked out. 
 In past times plot making seems to have been 
 either an unknown art or one that had been for- 
 gotten. But Robert Greene could tell a new story, 
 and tell it well too. We have one of his novels^ 
 on which Shakespeare founded his "Winter's Tale."^ 
 Dyer, in his short account of Greene's life and works, 
 says it is unknown where he got the story from, never 
 apparently conceiving that he created it. Now, there 
 is strong reason for believing that Shakespeare and 
 Greene were at one time on terms of intimacy. It is 
 very likely that it was so, if the view here taken of 
 Shakespeare's early career was correct, that he was 
 an industrious lad wishing to make money and to 
 raise his family. Greene was one who had misspent 
 his life, but was of great talents, and he was one who 
 
 1 Pandosto, 1588.
 
 158 SHAICESPE.VRE : A STUDY. 
 
 might well offer an attraction to Shakespeare as likely 
 to assist him in his studies. On studying Greene's 
 history and writings, perhaps others may take the 
 same view, perhaps not. It is only indirectly connected 
 with the present inquir}^ ; but it is of interest if we 
 can see how Shakespeare may have learned to write 
 plays. 
 
 Mr. Dyce, in his account of Greene's life and 
 writings, says he was supposed to have been a 
 clergyman of the Church of England, and quotes 
 a statement supposed, curiously, to have been 
 made on the authority of Shakespeare himself. 
 He says,' — 
 
 " A copy of The Puvicr of Wakefield exists, on the title-page 
 of which are the following notes in handwriting of about the 
 
 time (1597) when the play was printed. 
 
 " Written by .... a minister, who acted the piners pt iu it himselfe. 
 
 Teste Wm. Shakespeare. 
 
 " Ed. Juby saith it was made by Ro. Greene." 
 
 For this reason Mr. Dyce includes this play amongst 
 Greene's works. Greene appears to have led a very 
 dissipated life, to have lost his preferment, if he had 
 one, to have lived apart from his wife, and rapidly to 
 have sunk lower and lower. He was born about 1550, 
 so that he was about forty-two when he died ; he was 
 a man of considerable education, for he took his degree 
 both at Oxford and Cambridge, and in some of his 
 works he describes himself as " Utruisque AcademicE 
 in Artibus Magtsicr." And he appears to have 
 studied physic, and, from his writings, he must have 
 made himself master of some of the rudiments of law, 
 as he uses many legal expressions correctly, though 
 
 1 Greene and Peele, by Dyer, 1861, p. 4.
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAKESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 159 
 
 they are only such as he might have learned at the 
 University. In no place does he show that sympathy 
 with the life and ideas of a lawyer which are to be 
 found in some of Shakespeare's plays — and in his 
 alone. After a life of debauch he was taken ill and 
 was sheltered and kept alive by the charity of some 
 humble people ; ill and deserted by his former friends, 
 particularly the actors, who left him in his poverty, 
 his mind became filled with self-reproach, and no 
 doubt he tried to sell some of his writings. He, 
 however, died (3rd September, 1592), leaving a bond 
 for ten pounds for those who sheltered him, with a 
 letter to his deserted wife, praying her to see it paid. 
 It is generally supposed he died from starv^ation, but 
 this does not appear to be the case ; he died in poverty 
 but not in actual want.^ 
 
 After his death another author, named Chettle, was 
 employed by some of those who had Greene's manu- 
 scripts to prepare them for publication. And as he 
 tells us — 
 
 " About three months since died Mr. Robert Greene, 
 leaving many papers in sundry booke-sellers' hands, among}* 
 others his ' Groatsivorth of Wtf,' in which a letter written to 
 divers play makers is offejisively by one or tivo of them takefi,''^ &c. 
 
 Of this " Groatsworth of Wit " Chettle goes on to 
 say — 
 
 " I had only in the copy this share ; it was ill written, as 
 sometimes Greene's hand was none of the best, licensed it 
 must be e'er it could be printed, which could never be if it 
 might not be read. To be brief, I writ it over, and as near as 
 I could followed the copy, only in that letter I put something 
 
 1 Halliwell, p. 449.
 
 160 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 out, but in the whole book not a word in, for I protest it was 
 all Greene's, not mine nor Master Nashe's, as some unjustly 
 have affirmed it." 
 
 This " Groatswortli of Wit " is remarkable as con- 
 taining the first reference, though an indirect one, to 
 Shakespeare as a dramatic writer ; but the reference is 
 the more valuable as it is made in a hostile spirit, and 
 was made before either Shakespeare or Bacon, if he 
 were the author, had published either of the Poems, 
 Sonnets, or Plays, so that he could not have been 
 misled by Bacon's writing in Shakespeare's name. 
 It is addressed by the writer: — 
 
 "To those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintances, that 
 spent their wits in making plaies, R. G. wisheth a better 
 exercise and wisdom to prevent his extremities." 
 
 The letter then proceeds to address three persons 
 in succession, generally supposed to be Marlowe, 
 Lodge, and Peele. It is not necessary to quote his 
 addresses to each of them, which are given in Halli- 
 welP and many other writers, though it may not be 
 out of place to remark that the words savoured of 
 impertinence, as we may see when he addresses all 
 three and warns them from the players, and in so 
 doing refers to Shakespeare as a would-be author. 
 
 " Base-minded men all three of you, if, by my misery ye be 
 not warned, for unto none of you (like me), sought those 
 burrs'^ to cleave ; those puppits I mean that speak from 
 our mouths, those antics garnished in our colours. Is it 
 not strange that I to whom they have all been beholding, is it 
 not like that you to whom they have all been beholding, 
 shall (were ye in that case that I am now) be both at once 
 
 1 Page 445. - The actors.
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAXESPEARE "S^TIOTE PLAYS. 161 
 
 of them forsaken. Yes, trust them not ; for there is an 
 upstart crow, beautified ivith our feathers, that, ivith his tjger's 
 heart wrapped in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to 
 bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being afi absolute 
 Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only shake scene 
 in a county. Oh, that I might entreat your rare wits to be 
 employed in more profitable courses ! And let those apes 
 imitate your past excellence and never more acquaint them 
 with your admired invention.^ I know the best husband of 
 you will never prove an usurer, and the kindest of them all 
 will never prove a kind nurse ; yet whilst you may seek you 
 better masters, for it is pity men of such rare wit should be 
 subject to the pleasure of such persons." 
 
 Now this seems to me very easy to understand. 
 There is a well-known picture of a poverty-stricken 
 author appearing at the banquet of the actors who 
 were flushed with wine and good living. And there 
 is no doubt at this period the literary work of the 
 author was poorly paid in comparison with the large 
 earnings of the actors. We have extracts from 
 Henslowe's diary of the small sums paid to the 
 authors, and we know from the papers of 1635, 
 discovered by Halliwell and set out in his book,- that 
 the players' share was £1^0 of money of that period, 
 being ten or twelve times the value of this sum at the 
 present time. It also appears that out of the actors' 
 share had to be defrayed " all wages to hired men, 
 apparel, poets, lights, and other charges of the house 
 whatsoever." It is easy, therefore, to understand 
 Greene's bitterness when he reflected on all the 
 money he had assisted the actors to make, and how 
 little of it came into his own hands. This irritation 
 
 1 New works. ^ Page 476. 
 
 C. M
 
 162 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 would, I think, have been greatly increased if he had 
 lived long enough to see Shakespeare doing double 
 work, taking not only the bread out of the poets' 
 mouths, but their ideas, and more particularly a good 
 deal from Greene himself. 
 
 In "Orlando Furioso " Sacripant, Orlando's rival, 
 hangs his slanders about Angelica on the trees ; 
 these Orlando reads, and for the time goes mad. In 
 " As You Like It " we have a similar incident, but 
 rather as comedy than tragedy. 
 
 There is in the same play the scene, with which it 
 opens, with the suitors, which reminds one of a similar 
 scene in the "Merchant of Venice." 
 
 In Greene's "James the Fourth," we have Oberon, 
 who disturbs a Scot named Bertram, who has taken 
 up his residence in a tomb. This Bertram has two 
 sons, and he causes a play to be acted before Oberon, 
 in which the two sons appear in their own persons, yet 
 as characters in the play. In " A Midsummer Night's 
 Dream," we have in the play Oberon, but also Titania 
 and Puck added. In Greene's play we have the incident 
 of a queen flying in the disguise of a man, being the 
 object of love by another woman, and of the jealousy of 
 her husband. But the subject is very differently treated 
 from the way it is in " As You Like It." But the prin- 
 cipal assistance Shakespeare derived from Greene was 
 from the prose novel "Pandosto," the story and inci- 
 dents of which are believed to be the invention of 
 Greene. On it was founded the " AVinter's Tale," almost 
 incident for incident, except the slandered wife actually 
 dies, after the oracle is read and her character cleared, 
 upon hearing of the sudden death of her son. So 
 much has the novel been copied, that whereas in the 
 novel the lost daughter and her lover on their voyage
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAIvESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 163 
 
 came to the coast of Bohemia, in the "Winter's Tale" 
 Bohemia is spoken of as being on the sea. I think 
 if Greene could have foreseen Shakespeare's future still 
 more would he have spoken of him as an upstart crow 
 beautified with our feathers. The reference can only 
 be to William Shakespeare. Now, we are not trying 
 whether all his ideas were original, or whether he did 
 not as all else have done, borrow from other authors ; 
 but the question is whether he wrote plays. 
 
 All those who have written on Shakespeare, at 
 least since Malone's time, have made a very curious 
 mistake about this incident of Greene's "Groatsworth 
 of Wit." It may be remembered it was published by 
 Chettle after Greene's death, and Chettle, in his 
 preface to "Kind Hearts Dream," explains the part 
 he took in writing it out legibly,^ and that it being a 
 "letter written to divers play makers, is offensively 
 taken by two or three of them." Speaking of these 
 who thus took offence, who are clearly the play-write? s 
 to whom the letter was addressed, Chettle goes on to 
 say— 
 
 " With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, 
 and with one of them I care not if I never be ; the other, 
 whom I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that 
 as I have moderated the heat of living writers, and might have 
 used my own discretion (especially in such a case), the author 
 being dead ; that I did not, I am as sorry as if the original 
 had been my fault, because myself have seen his demeanour 
 no less civil than \\&{sic) excellent in the quality he professes; 
 besides, divers of others have reported his uprightness of 
 dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in 
 writing that approves his art." 
 
 I HalliweU, p. 448. 
 M 2
 
 164 . SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Here Chettle's meaning is quite clear. The letter 
 of Greene was addressed to three play -writers, said to 
 be Marlowe, Lodge and Peele. Two of these com- 
 plain. One of those complaining he does not know 
 nor care to know ; the other he is sorry for, as he is of 
 very excellent demeanour, &:c. These two, I consider, 
 must be Lodge and Peele, for of the first, Marlowe, he 
 speaks separately. He continues : 
 
 " For the fiyst, whose learning I reverence, and at the 
 perusing of Greene's book, struck out what there in conscience 
 I thought he in some displeasure writ, or had it been true, 
 yet to publish it was intolerable, him I would wish to use me 
 no worse than I deserve." 
 
 This is also clear. Marlowe was the Nestor 
 of the rising literary world — the giant whom they 
 all respected. Chettle simply submits himself to 
 his judgment, but deals with the other as pointed 
 out. 
 
 Yet Malone twisted this apology of Chettle's to " one 
 of the two play-makers to whom the letter was written, 
 and who had taken offence," as an apology to Shakes- 
 peare. It is difficult to see how the language could 
 be so understood, even by one of his most ardent 
 admirers. The letter was not addressed to Shakes- 
 peare ; he was not one of the play-writers ; he was a 
 pretender in Greene's eyes, and as far as one can see 
 he was severely left alone by Chettle. Of course it is 
 immaterial whether Chettle apologized to him, or to 
 Peele or Lodge. But it is material to see whether 
 a whole succession of writers, Malone, Stevens, Dyce, 
 Collyer, Halliwell, Knight, and a host of minor 
 authors, are so blinded by their admiration for Shake- 
 speare, that they cannot read a simple document
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAKESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 165 
 
 correctly, or are simple followers of Malone, that they 
 have adopted his mistake and made no inquiry for 
 themselves. 
 
 One hesitates to express an opinion in the face of so 
 much, apparently, consensus of opinion, but I have 
 read the document very carefully, and can see no 
 construction to put upon it except the one given. If 
 this be so, whatever evidence we may find in Greene's 
 attack that Shakespeare was in 1592 pretending to 
 bombast blank verse, we have no right to turn Chettle's 
 apology to Lodge or Peele into a testimonial, as 
 Knight or so many others put it : " that Chettle recog- 
 nized Shakespeare's uprightness of dealing, which 
 argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing 
 that approves his art." Expressions that would 
 hardly have been used about one who, as far as 
 we know, had never published anything, whatever 
 he may have done privately. 
 
 Be this as it may, we have, if Greene's upstart crow 
 and shake scene refers to Shakespeare, the actor- 
 writer, contemporaneous evidence as early as Sep- 
 tember, 1592, that he, Shakespeare, supposed himself 
 able to bombast a blank verse as well as the best of 
 the writers. 
 
 It is no doubt impossible to decide positively upon 
 what, after all, is a matter of opinion. But, as I have 
 said, there is some ground for believing that Shake- 
 speare and Greene must have one time stood in the 
 relation of master and pupil to one another. It has 
 been pointed out that Shakespeare uses some words, 
 as doom, as Greene does, in the sense of judgment, 
 and that many of Shakespeare's plays and scenes are 
 taken from Greene's works.
 
 166 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Whatever may have been their relations, we have, 
 as I have said, this undoubted fact, that before 
 Shakespeare either published anything himself, 
 or any one else published an)rthing in his name, 
 Greene had written of him as one who fancied 
 he could bombast blank verse. And in saying this, 
 he could not possibly have been misled by any 
 arrangement between Bacon and Shakespeare that 
 the former should write plays which the latter should 
 adopt, for at the time Greene wrote, as far as we know 
 neither Bacon nor Shakespeare had written anything. 
 The whole tone of Greene's observations is not that of 
 a person speaking of one who was already before the 
 world as an author ; but he is, as it were, announcing 
 some one who was not yet known, as racing men put 
 it " speaking of a dark horse," one who might come 
 forward and be a competitor in the badly-paid work 
 of play-writing. And in this way it seems that 
 Greene's evidence is most valuable, as proving 
 that long before any arrangement could have taken 
 place between Shakespeare and Bacon, Shakespeare 
 had begun to write blank verse. 
 
 The next piece of evidence which, I think, con- 
 stitutes part of the proof that Shakespeare was the 
 poet-author of the plays, is the publication of the two 
 poems of " Venus " and " Lucrece." It has been 
 already shown that in these two poems, as well as in 
 the sonnets and those plays which I have termed 
 legal, there is that introduction of law in and out of 
 place, which is so marked a characteristic of these 
 writings. Besides this mixture of poetry and law, 
 there are many resemblances in ideas and expressions 
 to be found in the Poems, Sonnets, and Plays which I 
 will not stay to describe at length.
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAIvESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 167 
 
 We have, therefore, enough to show that the poet- 
 author of the poems ^Arrote the plays and sonnets, and 
 that Shakespeare was the author of the poems, 
 which, up to the present, no one has ever disputed, 
 as they have generally been considered of inferior 
 merit to the plays. The argument, in fact, generally 
 has been, that the poems are so inferior to the plays 
 that Shakespeare could not have written both. But 
 if the evidence adduced is sufficient to establish that 
 poems and plays are by one author, then those who 
 assert that Bacon was the author of the plays must 
 go so far as to say that he also wrote the poems. But 
 the poems stand on a very different footing to the 
 plays ; the latter, as far as we know, were never pub- 
 lished by Shakespeare as his own or claimed to be so 
 by him. But of the poems, the first, "Venus and 
 Adonis," was not only published by Shakespeare as 
 his own in his lifetime, but was printed by Richard 
 Field, a fellow-townsman of his. Halliwell tells us 
 that Shakespeare's father made an inventory of 
 Field's father's goods in 1592. And one author, 
 Mr. William Blades, has written a book^ showing tlj^e 
 intimate technical knowledge of printing that is to be 
 found in the plays, and, in fact, he suggests that Shake- 
 speare may have worked in Field's shop. 
 
 Richard Field, IVIr. Blades tells us, was not only 
 " Shakespeare's own townsman," but being about the 
 same age and social rank the boys probably grew up 
 together as play-fellows. We are also told that — 
 
 "Early in 1577 young Field came up to London, and at 
 Michaelmas was apprenticed for seven years to George 
 Bishop, printer and publisher; and in 1588 he married the 
 daughter of Thomas Vautrollier." 
 
 1 Trubner, 1872.
 
 168 SHAIvESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Field's father-in-law was a Frenchman, who had 
 settled in London as a printer and publisher. He 
 died the same year that Field married his daughter, 
 and Field succeeded to his premises and business. 
 Mr. Blades somewhat humorously supports his view 
 by showing that the illustrations given of Shakes- 
 peare's use of technical printing terms are very curious. 
 Such as when a book is finished, there are often found 
 vacant leaves of the last sheet where it is usual to put 
 the typographer's imprint. Mr. Blades quotes^ : — 
 
 The vacant leaves, thy mind's imprint will bear. — 
 
 Sonnet, Ixxvii. 
 
 Shakespeare also knew the use of " Quoins," of 
 " Locking-up," the " Register," &c. — 
 
 By the four opposing coigns 
 Which the world together joins,- &c. 
 
 We have therefore these facts: "Venus and Adonis" 
 published in Shakespeare's lifetime as his own work, 
 and printed by his friend and fellow townsman Richard 
 Field in 1593. It is dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, 
 Earl of Southampton, and William Shakespeare's 
 name is attached to the dedication, wherein he terms 
 it " the first-heir of my invention." This poem was 
 followed by that of " Lucrece," which is also dedicated 
 to Lord Southampton. This nobleman was at the 
 time a member of Gray's Inn, and there is a prob- 
 ability that Bacon was a party to these poems being 
 addressed to so distinguished a member of Bacon's 
 own inn. 
 
 It is also generally considered from the absence of 
 errors, &c., that Shakespeare himself passed the 
 poems through the press. In fact, that Shakespeare 
 
 1 Page 48. * "Pericles," Act III. Scene i.
 
 EVIDENCE THAT SHAKESPEARE WROTE PLAYS. 169 
 
 wrote and published these poems is proved by as 
 good evidence as any work of that date can be proved 
 to be written by its author. If so, the chain of reason- 
 ing seems complete. If there be unity of authorship 
 between the poems, sonnets, and plays, and Shake- 
 speare wrote the first, he must have written the other 
 two. 
 
 It may be noticed that the references made by 
 Shakespeare's cotemporaries are, with the one ex- 
 ception, I believe, of Francis Meres, made to these 
 poems and not to the plays. Halliwell has collected 
 these references, to w^hich the reader can refer. 
 
 The Testimony of Francis Meres. — 
 
 In September, 1598, INIeres published a compara- 
 tive discourse of our English poets (painters and 
 musicians), with the Greek, Latin, and Italian poets 
 (painters and musicians). In it he mentions Shake- 
 speare's name several times, first as the honey- 
 tongued Shakespeare : 
 
 " Witness his ' Venus and Adonis,' his ' Lucrece,' his 
 sugared sonnets among his private friends." 
 
 These sonnets were not published in 1598, in fact not 
 before 1 609, and it is to be noticed that Meres speaks 
 of them as if they were only privately circulated 
 amongst Shakespeare's friends, and thus professes to 
 have a knowledge of Shakespeare not only in his 
 public but private life. He further says, as Plautus 
 and Lucrecia are accounted the best for comedy and 
 tragedy among the ancients, so Shakespeare among 
 the English is the most excellent in both kinds for 
 the stage. 
 
 "For comedy witness his 'Two Gentlemen of Verona,' his
 
 170 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 'Comedy of Errors,' his 'Love's Labour Lost,' his 'Love's 
 Labour Won,' his 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' and his 
 ' Merchant of Venice.' For tragedy his ' Richard IL,' 
 ' Richard IIL,' ' Henry IV.,' 'King John,' 'Titus Andronicus,' 
 and his ' Romeo and Juhet.' 
 
 "As Epius Stilo said that the muses would speak with 
 Plautus' tongue, if they would speak Latin ; so I say that the 
 muses would speak with Shakespeare's fine filed phrase if 
 they would speak English." 
 
 He afterwards says there are eight descriptions of 
 poetry: (i) Heroic, (2) Lyric, (3) Tragic, (4) Comic, 
 (5) Satiric, (6) Iambic, (7) Elegiac, and (8) Pastoral, 
 and mentions Shakespeare's name amongst others 
 under 2, 3, 4, and 7. Now, it may be said that we 
 have no knowledge of the means of information pos- 
 sessed by Meres, he may have been deceived like 
 others if there had been a Bacon-Shakespeare con- 
 spiracy. No doubt to a certain extent this is so, but 
 it is to be noticed that in the case of the Sonnets I 
 have pointed out that he speaks as one having a 
 personal knowledge of Shakespeare and his private 
 friends, and therefore was not so likely to be de- 
 ceived as another might be. We have, therefore, the 
 evidence of Greene, that Shakespeare was a writer 
 of blank verse, though unknown as such to the world ; 
 of Meres, that Shakespeare was the writer par excellence 
 of all descriptions of dramatic verse, and, as we shall 
 see, we have that of Ben Jonson who says Shake- 
 speare was a very voluminous writer, one who wrote 
 "with that facility, that sometimes it was necessary 
 he should be stopped."
 
 ( 171 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ben Jonson's statement about Shakespeare's 
 
 Play-writing. 
 
 In considering the evidence of Jonson, who so often 
 expressed his opinion about Shakespeare and his 
 plays, it must be remembered that he was a great 
 friend and admirer of Bacon ; he wrote masques for 
 him. Bacon was so friendly with Jonson, that when 
 the latter was starting to walk to Scotland he met the 
 former, who said that he did not like to see poetry 
 going on other feet than dactyls and spondees. This 
 we have from Jonson's own account to Drummond. 
 And when Bacon fell Jonson visited him, and it is, 
 believed helped him in his literary work. The 
 Baconian idea is that at this time the folio of 1623 
 was being brought out. It is impossible to believe that, 
 if the plays were Bacon's, he could have done this 
 without letting Jonson into his secret. Jonson wrote 
 the verses to the portrait, the lines to Shakespeare, 
 and not only this, but he is supposed to have written 
 the addresses of the players ; and we know that 
 certain verses were written by Digges which Jonson 
 kept out, because he adopted some of the ideas but 
 did not use the lines, which, however, have come 
 4own to us and will be given hereafter. If this be so,
 
 172 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 then it follows that Jonson as soon as he knew Bacon 
 was the real author, must have known Shakespeare 
 was not, and would therefore have no reason to 
 criticise Shakespeare's writings, which he was always 
 doing long after Bacon and Shakespeare were both 
 dead ; nor would he have had any reason to leave 
 papers for posterity continuing this criticism. It 
 might be said that he did so for the purpose of 
 throwing the world off the scent. But if this were 
 his object, one would think he would have been very 
 careful when writing about Bacon not to say anything 
 which would lead posterity to attribute the author- 
 ship to Bacon ; if he wished to conceal the secret he 
 would not have alluded to Bacon filling up all numbers, 
 nor used the same expressions about Bacon as he has 
 about Shakespeare. It is these expressions of Jonson's 
 which are so often relied upon as evidence of Bacon 
 being the author. But if Shakespeare was the volu- 
 minous and sometimes careless writer and Bacon only 
 assisted him, then Jonson's conduct is easily under- 
 stood, he praised and alluded to his friend and patron 
 Bacon, he criticised and quarelled with his rival 
 Shakespeare. As an actor, Shakespeare was not in 
 Jonson's way ; if he had been no more, Jonson, so far 
 from quarrelling with him, would have looked to him 
 for employment. But as an author, Shakespeare was 
 an opponent to be fought. It is not necessary to go 
 into the quarrel between the two, except so far as it 
 relates to Shakespeare's position as a writer of plays. 
 And we shall see that Jonson objects to Shakespeare 
 putting battles on the stage, to his choice of plots, to 
 his dialogue, and careless writing ; and not content 
 with this, attacks him personally. And Shakespeare 
 answers him on more than one occasion : all of which
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAIvESPEARE'S PLAY^^RITING. 173 
 
 seems to be inconsistent with the fact that Bacon was 
 the real author ; if that had been so, it seems a fair 
 observation that Jonson would not have attacked 
 Shakespeare for Bacon's works, nor would he, looking 
 at the admiration he had for Bacon, have attacked the 
 works themselves ; nor would — and this seems im- 
 portant — Bacon have replied in his plays to these 
 attacks upon Shakespeare. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that the strongest and best 
 evidence that Shakespeare was a writer of plays is 
 to be found in the statements made by Ben Jonson. 
 The evidence is so strong that it is difficult to under- 
 stand how anyone could maintain that Bacon was 
 the real author of the plays, and Shakespeare only 
 allowed his name to be used. It seems that such a 
 theory could only be put forward by those who were 
 unacquainted with that which Jonson had written 
 about his great rival. About the end of the sixteenth 
 century Jonson, it appears, first began to try and earn 
 his living by the precarious profession of a playwriter. 
 He had had a somewhat unhappy and chequered 
 career. His mother was a widow who had married, 
 for a second time a master builder, who, perhaps, for 
 the better educating the boy in his trade, compelled 
 young Jonson to work as a bricklayer. And not 
 many years ago, some old houses were pulled down 
 in Chancery Lane on which, tradition said, young 
 Jonson had actually worked. However this may be, 
 there is no doubt that he actually did use the trowel, 
 a circumstance which was never forgotten. It has 
 already been referred to that, when people were not 
 pleased with his poetry, on more than one occasion 
 he was told with a sneer that he had better go back
 
 174 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 to his old trade of bricklaying. He appears, however, 
 like Dickens, to have escaped from his uncongenial 
 employment, and under the protection of the great 
 Camden, who was the head master of Westminster 
 School, he acquired a good education. He afterwards 
 ser^'^ed some time as a soldier, and finally returned to 
 England and wrote plays. At this time, as far as we 
 know, Shakespeare had the command of the stage. 
 Marlowe and Greene were both dead, and, though there 
 were others, Shakespeare, at all events of all those 
 who have come down to us, was the chief. There 
 were many causes which may have led Jonson to 
 attack his successfiil rival. He was himself a man of 
 considerable education ; master of classics, one who 
 had been present in actual battle, and he appears 
 to have somewhat sneered at Shakespeare's attempt 
 to put on his scene with the aid of a few serving-men 
 the pomp and circumstance of actual war. In these 
 days on our large stages we sometimes have actual 
 troops with real guns and horses, and a very fair 
 representation of what one might see in actual war- 
 fare ; but Shakespeare had none of these accessories, 
 and though Richard III. might call "A horse, a 
 horse," it is very doubtful if one could possibly have 
 been got on the stage in answer to his call. All this 
 seems to have irritated Jonson. Shakespeare, on the 
 other hand, considered that he had a right to leave a 
 good deal to the imagination of his audience, as we 
 find in the opening chorus of " Henry V." This play 
 must have been written some time in the middle of 
 1599, as it refers in the chorus to the fifth act to 
 Essex being in Ireland, This gives us, therefore, 
 the date when Shakespeare, no doubt in answer to
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 175 
 
 Jonson's objection, stated what he considered an 
 author had a right to expect from his audience. 
 
 After wishing he could play his piece with real 
 personages and a kingdom for the stage, he asks 
 pardon for his audacity in making his stage a battle- 
 field, but justifies it, that as figures may represent 
 millions, so with the " force of imagination " (which he, 
 with his usual reckless writing, calls " imaginary 
 forces ") imperfections can be pieced out with 
 thought, and one man supposed to be a thousand — 
 
 Think, when we talk of horses, that 3'ou see them 
 Printing their proud hoofs in the receiving earth ; 
 For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings, 
 Carry them here and there, jumping o'er times, 
 Turning the accompKshment of many years into an hour- 
 glass. 
 
 It must not be considered that in recalling what 
 Jonson has said about Shakespeare is for the purpose 
 of criticising the latter. Posterity has, for a long time, 
 settled the respective merits of the two authors. But 
 we have to consider what evidence there is that 
 Jonson, who as I have shown was in a position to « 
 know what part Bacon took, treated Shakespeare as 
 being a writer. 
 
 It appears that Jonson left behind him certain short 
 essays, which he called " Discoveries made upon 
 Men and Matter." These were published after his 
 death, in the folio of 1641, but are supposed to have 
 been mostly written after 1630. He refers therein to 
 both Shakespeare and Bacon. Though the paragraph 
 in which he refers to Shakespeare is well known, as 
 it is a direct and final testimony that Shakespeare 
 himself was a writer, it is given here. The folio of 
 1623 could not have been published without Jonson
 
 176 SHAIvESrEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 knowing how far Bacon was mixed up with the 
 authorship of the plays, and it is, therefore, very 
 material if we find Jonson, after Shakespeare and 
 Bacon are both dead, still repeating his complaint of 
 the reckless way in which Shakespeare wrote. For 
 unless Jonson was wilfully lying to posterity in 
 order to conceal the fact that Bacon was the real 
 author, his "Discovery," which relates to Shake- 
 speare, seems to be conclusive. And, as I have said, 
 we cannot suppose Jonson would have gone out of his 
 way to state what he knew to be false to hide Bacon, 
 'for it is what Jonson has himself written about Bacon 
 which has led persons to attribute the plays to him and 
 not to Shakespeare. However, it is upon a due study 
 of all the evidence that we must form our conclusions, 
 and, at present, we have to deal with the "Discovery," 
 referring to Shakespeare, which is as follows : — 
 
 " Dc Shakespeare Nostrat Augustus in Hat. I remember the 
 players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare 
 that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted 
 out a line. j\Iy answer hath been ivould he had blotted a 
 thousand, which they thought a malevolent speech. I had 
 not told posterity this, but for their ignorance. Who choose 
 that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he is most 
 faulted and to justify my own candour, for I loved the man 
 and do honour to his memory on this side idolatry as much as 
 any. He was (indeed) honest, and of an open and free 
 nature ; had an excellerit phantasie, brave notions and gentle ex- 
 pressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it 
 was necessary he should be stopped. Sufllajninatidus erat, as 
 Augustus said of Hatcrius. His wit was in his own 
 power : would the rule of it had been so, too ! Many 
 times he fell into those things " (? which) " could not 
 escape laughter. As when he said in the person of 
 Coesar one speaking to him, ' Cassar, thou dost me 
 wrong,' he replied ' Ccesar never did wrong but with
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYAVRITING. 177 
 
 just cause,' and such like, which were ridiculous. But he 
 redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in 
 him to be praised than pardoned." 
 
 We have also two remarks made by Jonson when 
 he was staying in Scotland with AVilliam Drumond 
 of Hawthornden. It appeared that Jonson's sayings 
 were noted by his host, and these notes have been 
 preserved. 
 
 We find under the heading — 
 
 " His censure of the English Poets was this" : — 
 That Shakespeare wanted arte. 
 Again, under 
 
 ^^Particulars of the actions of other Poets and 
 Apothegms," — 
 Shakespeare in a play brought in a number of men, saying 
 they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where there is no 
 sea near by some loo miles. 
 
 However much we, who are accustomed to consider 
 Shakespeare as an object for our unqualified admira- 
 tion, may admire Jonson's audacity in damning him 
 with faint praise and sneering at his errors, yet Jonson 
 speaks far more kindly of him here than he generally • 
 does. Of course he, like all men, w^as many minded, 
 thinking one thing at one time, at another, another. 
 And Jonson, when he wrote his " Discoveries," may 
 have persuaded himself that he dearly loved the man, 
 and honoured his memory " on this side idolatry [he 
 is careful to add] as much as any." But when Shake- 
 speare was alive there did not seem to be much love 
 on either side ; but at present we have to deal with 
 the statements which Jonson has left behind him. 
 And in these we have the evidence of a rival, one of 
 a very jealous nature, who must have known if it were 
 the fact that Shakespeare's work was all done for him 
 
 C. N
 
 178 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 by Bacon, who has left for the information of posterity, 
 " that Shakespeare not only wrote many a thousand 
 lines," but in his opinion wrote them very badly, and that 
 he sometimes wrote nonsense into his plays, and some- 
 times showed his ignorance, as in the examples given. 
 
 We do not care for Jonson's opinion whether 
 Shakespeare was a good or bad poet ; but the evi- 
 dence is of great value when one rival admits that 
 the other was a fertile writer of verses and plays, and 
 this is strengthened if he couples with the statement 
 that, in his opinion, the verses and plays were some- 
 times very bad. It shows, at least, that he does not 
 err on the side of undue partiality, 
 
 Jonson had other objections to Shakespeare. He 
 objected to him that he copied or stole his plots from 
 other authors, and that his dialogue was too often picked 
 up from actual conversations with the lower classes 
 of society. Jonson was not himself above mimicking 
 what he heard others say, as we find in "Bartholomew 
 Fair," and other plays. But he chose to consider 
 in Shakespeare's case that it was beneath the dignity 
 of the drama to give the conversations of the lower 
 orders, which Shakespeare was so fond of doing in 
 his "Dogberrys," "clowns," &c. 
 
 *■'■ Shakespeare's Plagiarism." — There is no doubt 
 that Shakespeare not only took his plots from others, 
 but also many of his scenes and situations ; whatever 
 he wanted he no doubt took, but he improved all that 
 he did take. Thus, for example, the celebrated 
 scene in the churchyard, where Hamlet takes up 
 Yorick's skull and moralises ; this seems to me to be 
 
 copied from a scene in Dekker's " Honest W ," 
 
 where a forlorn lover similarly moralises over a skull, 
 with very similar language, only in " Hamlet " we
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 179 
 
 have the incident made natural by the skull being 
 thrown up by a grave-digger at his work ; Dekker's 
 scene is affected and improbable, for it takes place in 
 a room where the disconsolate individual has retired 
 with the lady's portrait and a skull. The treatment 
 of the idea in "Hamlet" is such an improvement on 
 Dekker's that Dekker's must have been the original 
 one. It seems that, as far as the public are concerned, 
 it is immaterial where a poet gets his plot, &c., from ; 
 it is what effect he produces. We may find a com- 
 parison in painting ; there may be a photograph which 
 is correct, but idealises nothing; a sketch which is 
 effective ; a study which may be laboured and com- 
 monplace ; and a finished picture, the value of the 
 last depending on the skill of the artist. It contains 
 besides nature something of the artist's individuality, 
 which gives it great or little value, as the case may 
 be. Now Jonson objected to all this. He objected to 
 old plays being worked upon, or to an author making 
 studies from low life, forgetting that there is nothing 
 which can really be said to be original, least of all in 
 thought, which at its best only differs from mer^ 
 copying, so far as it is supported and strengthened by 
 independent research. 
 
 This question has been considered at some length, 
 because it is very material to realise exactly what Jon- 
 son thought of Shakespeare. Let us take Jonson' s own 
 words, so far as they refer to these plays. Amongst 
 Jonson' s minor pieces we find the following : — 
 
 '' Our Poet Ape r 
 
 " Poor poet ape ! that would be thought our chief, 
 Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit ; 
 From brokage, is become so bold a thief 
 As we, the robbed, leave rage and pity it. 
 
 N 2
 
 180 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean, 
 
 Buy the reversion of old plays ; now grown 
 T' a little wealth, and credit in the scene, 
 
 He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own ; 
 And told of this, he slights it. Tut ! such crimes 
 
 The sluggish, gaping auditor devours ; 
 He matters not, whose 'twas first, and after time 
 
 Way judge it to be his as well as ours. 
 Fool ! as if half eyes will not know a fleece 
 From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece." 
 
 These verses are generally considered as referring 
 to Shakespeare, though Gifford, Jonson's editor, tries 
 to throw doubt on this being so by a sneer ; but it 
 seems to me the allusions are too clear. When we 
 remember that Shakespeare's crime, in the eyes of 
 Greene and others, was that he adorned himself with 
 other people's feathers, and when we trace, as we do, 
 that he very often took old plays and re-wrote them, 
 there is very little doubt but that at this time, at all 
 events, Jonson referred to Shakespeare. He speaks 
 of one who has grown to a little wealth and credit in 
 the scene. It must not be forgotten we are not con- 
 sidering, as I have said more than once, whether 
 Jonson's attack was justifiable, but whether he did 
 not believe, at this time at all events, that Shake- 
 speare was the author of " The Plays." The matter, 
 however, does not rest here, for, in "Cynthia's Revels," 
 in the Introduction, Jonson expresses himself more 
 strongly. He makes one of his boys say,^ speaking 
 on behalf of the audience : — 
 
 " They could wish your poets would leave to be promoters 
 of other men's jests, and to waylay all the stale apothegms 
 or old books they can hear of, in print or otherwise, to farce 
 
 > Page 146.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 181 
 
 their scenes withal. That they would not so penuriously 
 glean wit from every laundress or hackney man, or derive 
 their best grace with servile imitations from common stages 
 or observation of the company they converse ivith, as if their 
 invention lived wholly upon another man's trencher." 
 
 Again — 
 
 " That feeding their friends with nothing of their own but 
 what they have twice or thrice cooked, they should not 
 wantonly give out how soon they had dressed it," &c. 
 
 The last passage refers to a statement made that 
 Jonson worked so slowly that he only produced a play 
 a year. This Jonson seemed to have particularly 
 resented, for he refers to it in the prologue to " The 
 Fox " : — 
 
 And when his plays come forth, think they can flout them, 
 
 With saying he was a year about them, 
 To this there needs no lie ; but this his creature, 
 
 Which was two months since no feature, 
 And though he dares give them five lives to mend it, 
 
 'Tis known five weeks fully penned it 
 From his own ha^id, vuithout a coadjutor, 
 
 Novice, Jotaiteyman, or tutor. 
 
 I do not wish to overburden the reader with refer- 
 ences. I shall, therefore, only show that Jonson 
 persevered in this view to the last. On the 19th 
 January, 1629, long after Shakespeare's death, Jonson 
 produced the "New Inn" with its absurd plot and 
 weak imitation of Shakespeare. The play was " com 
 pletely damned." The absurdity of the situations 
 and a great deal of the dialogue prevented its being 
 heard to the conclusion. There are, undoubtedly, 
 some fine lines in it, but the whole plot was ridiculous. 
 If this was the result of Jonson's originality, it is easy 
 to understand how Shakespeare's works were thought 
 otherwise. Jonson wrote an ode to himself, ap-
 
 182 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 parently to console himself for the adverse criticism ; 
 which harps on the same old complaint. 
 
 Come, leave the loathed stage 
 And the more loathsome age, 
 Where pride and impudence, in faction fit, 
 
 Usurp the chair of wit, 
 Indicting and arraigning every day- 
 Something they call a play. 
 * « n- i:- ■» * 
 
 If they love lees, and leave the lusty wine, 
 Envy them not their palates with the swine. 
 
 No doubt some mouldy tale 
 Like Pericles, and stale 
 As the Shireve's crust and nasty as his fish. 
 
 Scraps out of every dish. 
 Thrown forth and raked into the common tub, 
 May keep up the play club ; 
 These sweepings do as well 
 As the best ordered meal. 
 For who the relish of these guests will fit. 
 Needs set them but the almsbasket of wit. 
 
 This was Jonson's view of Shakespeare's works, 
 but he went further and attacked Shakespeare not as 
 an author only, but personally, making fun of his 
 desire to be thought a gentleman, and even of his 
 father, who, it may be remembered, made, no doubt at 
 his son's instigation, at least two attempts to obtain 
 a grant of arms. 
 
 John Shakespeare' s Coat of Arms. — Now, this attempt 
 of William Shakespeare to improve his father's social 
 position turned out unfortunately. It so happened 
 that between the two first drafts, which, as we 
 shall see, were in 1596 and 1597, Camden, who
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAY^VRITING. 183 
 
 had been Jonson's friend and schoolmaster at West- 
 minster, was made Clarencieux King of Arms. We 
 generally find out, even in these days, that the 
 world is very small : it must have been smaller in 
 1599. Jonson probably learned from Camden of 
 Shakespeare's application ; at all events, I think there 
 is reason to believe that in the first three or four of 
 Jonson's plays, he ridiculed not only Shakespeare 
 but his father. It may not, however, be out of place 
 to recount shortly what is known of these so-called 
 grants of arms, so far as they can be ascertained from 
 the records of the Heralds' College. And for this 
 purpose, I propose to quote from ]\Ir. Hunter's work 
 on Shakespeare, as he seems to be the best authority 
 on the subject. 
 
 Amongst the other documents that refer to Shake- 
 speare and his family, Mr. Halliwell has given us the 
 two drafts, one of a grant proposed to be given in 
 1596 and the other in the year 1599. I\Ir. Hunter, in 
 his new illustrations of Shakespeare,^ says, p. 19, 
 from 1596 to 1599, there were communications be- 
 tween Shakespeare's "family and the College of Arms 
 touching a grant of coat armour." The application, 
 it appears, was made on behalf of the father, and 
 Mr. Hunter supposes a grant was actually made, 
 though no formal copy exists, and only three drafts 
 are to be found, or, rather, as Mr. Hunter calls them, 
 " studies for the grant, confusedly written, being full 
 of corrections and interlineal matter." 
 
 It appears that the second of these three is practi- 
 cally the same as the first, being of the same date, &c. 
 which may account for Halliwell taking them as being 
 
 1 Nichols & Sons, 1845,
 
 184 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 two only. The subject of these proposed grants is 
 very fully examined by Mr. Hunter, who, from his 
 position as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries 
 and an assistant-keeper of the public records, knew 
 as well as any one how to collect and deal with the 
 evidence. I propose, therefore, only to refer to those 
 facts which are material to the present inquiry. The 
 grants are supposed to be justified by the fact that John 
 Shakespeare's ancestors and parents had been rewarded 
 by Henry VII. for their services to him, with a grant of 
 land, &c., and had since lived in good reputation and 
 credit. But Mr. Hunter says this rested on a vague 
 tradition, and that the most material fact to which 
 Mr. Hunter calls our attention is that in 1599, when 
 the celebrated Camden was Clarencieux, he was 
 joined with Dethick, Garter King of Arms, in the 
 proposed grant (see Halliwell, p. 458). Complaints 
 were made by one Brook, a member of the College, 
 against Camden and Dethick,^ " that they had not 
 exercised a sound discretion in the grant which they 
 had made." It appears that Mr. Hunter could not 
 find any copy of Brook's complaint, but that several 
 copies are in existence of the answer given by Camden 
 and Dethick, showing that the complaint was serious 
 enough to be fully answered. This defence seems to 
 have been directed to two points, i.e., that the coat 
 was too like that of the old Baron Mauley, and the 
 person was not of sufficient quality to have a grant 
 made. The answer to the latter was that John 
 Shakespeare had been a magistrate (as mayor), his 
 estate was worth ;^5oo, and he had married a daughter 
 of Arden, " a gentleman of worship." There seems 
 
 - 1 Hunter, p. 26.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 185 
 
 to be sufficient evidence to show that at this period, 
 so far from John Shakespeare possessing an estate 
 worth ;^5oo — equal, Mr. Hunter says, to ;^4,ooo of our 
 money — he was in pecuniary difficulties, Mr. Hunter 
 mildly puts it that " John Shakespeare had carried to 
 the utmost extent consistent with truth his claim to 
 hereditary gentility." But whether that be so or 
 not, I think it was the position of his son as an actor 
 which was the real objection to the grant of arms 
 to his father, which objection was pressed, not by 
 Brook only, but by Jonson, with all the ridicule he 
 could bring to bear. 
 
 Now, when we come to consider the plays of Jonson 
 and Shakespeare, so far as they relate to this matter 
 of a grant of arms, we shall find Jonson making a 
 number of allusions to the matter and ridiculing the 
 presumption of those seeking to be made gentle- 
 men, particularly when they were actors ; and Shake- 
 speare seems to have been a little sore upon the 
 subject, and to have shown his mortification that his 
 family were not considered of sufficient gentility to 
 bear arms. 
 
 If this be so, then I think Bacon, had he been the 
 author, would have taken no interest in the matter, or, 
 if he did, would, one would think, have supported 
 Jonson' s view that it was presumption for an actor, 
 who was either a vagabond by law or a nobleman's 
 servant, to try and get a grant of arms. So that 
 though not of great weight, yet I think the conflict 
 between Jonson and Shakespeare on this subject is 
 of some value, as evidence that Shakespeare was the 
 author of the plays. 
 
 To take first the evidence that we find in Shake- 
 speare's plays. There we find traces of some bitter-
 
 186 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 ness in the author because oxAy gentlemen were allowed 
 to bear arms. Thus, the grave-digger in "Hamlet" 
 says : — 
 
 1 Clo. Come, my spade. There is no ancient gentlemen 
 but gardeners, ditchers, and grave-makers ; they hold up 
 Adam's profession. 
 
 2 Clo. Was he a gentleman ? 
 
 1 Clo. He was the first that ever bore arms. 
 
 2 Clo. Why, he had none. 
 
 I Clo. What, ar't a heathen ? How dost thou understand 
 the scripture ? The scripture says Adam digged : Could he 
 dig without arms ? 
 
 The last two speeches are not to be found in the 
 Quarto of 1604, and the subject is not mentioned in 
 that of 1603, though the jest about who builds stronger 
 than either the mason, the shipwright, or the car- 
 penter, is to be found in both. 
 
 In the " Taming of the Shrew," Katharine strikes 
 Petruchio, he says •} — 
 
 I swear I'll cuff you, if you strike again. 
 
 She replies — 
 
 So may you lose your arms : 
 
 If you strike me, you are no gentleman ; 
 
 And if no gentleman, why, then no arms. 
 
 Pet. A herald, Kate ? Oh, put me in thy books. 
 
 Kath. What is your crest ? a coxcomb ? &c. 
 
 This reference in the second Quarto may have been 
 put in by Shakespeare to show that he could afford to 
 make a jest of the matter ; but I think Jonson's allu- 
 sions must have been made to annoy him, or why 
 should Jonson have inserted them in all of his first 
 three plays ? 
 
 Now, in his first play, " Every Man in his Humour," 
 
 1 Act II. Scene i.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 187 
 
 supposed to be first acted about 1596 (the first appli- 
 cation of Shakespeare's fatherwas in 1596, the second 
 in 1599), we have Jonson making the following allu- 
 sion : There is a character, one Master Matthews, 
 whose verses, however, are said to be stolen, and 
 whose pockets are turned out at the end of the play 
 and found to be full of stolen stuff, which is burned to 
 purify the air. Justice Clement says : — 
 
 Is all the rest of this batch ? Bring me a torch ; lay it 
 together and give fire. Cleanse the air [_se/s the papers on 
 fire'] ; there was enough to have infected the whole city, if 
 it had not been taken in time. See how our poet's glory 
 shines brighter and brighter ! still it increases. Oh, now it 
 is at its highest, and now it declines as fast ! Sic tra7uit 
 gloria mundi. 
 
 Knovonall. There's an emblem for you, son, and your studies. 
 
 Shakespeare's works show traces that the author 
 made use of the Italian writers on " Emblems," and I 
 think, from the opinion Jonson always had of Shake- 
 speare, that Matthews was intended for him. When 
 he is introduced on the stage, he meets Cob, the water- 
 carrier, who boasts of his lineage as being descended^ 
 fi-om the first red herring that was broiled in Adam 
 and Eve's kitchen, whence he fetched his pedigree 
 from the Herald's Book, Cob being, as I understand, 
 another name for a herring. That Matthews is meant 
 to represent Shakespeare seems pretty clear ; he com- 
 poses verses which are a parody after the manner of 
 Shakespeare's sonnets. 
 
 To thee, the purest object of my sense, 
 The most refined essence Heaven covers, 
 
 Send I these lines, wherein I do commence 
 The happy state of turtle billing lovers, 
 
 If they prove rough, unpolished, harsh, and rude, 
 
 Haste made the waste, thus mildly I conclude.
 
 188 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 This, Matthews calls a toy of his ; later on he is 
 introduced to us as reading some of his verses to 
 Mistress Bridget, which are described as being 
 nothing but stolen remnants. And the lady is told 
 she cannot in conscience give him less than a shilling, 
 for the book he had his muse out of must have cost 
 him sixpence^ at least. If Jonson intended INIatthews 
 for Shakespeare, his summing up by Cob^ must have 
 been very galling to Shakespeare. 
 
 Cob. "You should have. Some now would take this 
 Master Matthews to be a gentleman at the least. His father's 
 an honest man, a worshipful fishmonger and so forth, and now 
 he does creep and wriggle into acquaintance with all the brave 
 gallants about the town, such as my guest is (Bobadil) . . . 
 And they flout him invariably." 
 
 Now posterity has been good enough to bestow 
 several trades on Shakespeare's father, such as 
 making him a butcher, glover, wool merchant, &c. ; 
 but there is no reason to suppose he was a fishmonger. 
 This, if Matthews was meant for Shakespeare, could 
 only have been said to annoy him, the so forth being 
 particularly contemptuous. But Shakespeare appears 
 to have to put a bold front on the matter, as in 
 " Hamlet " we find the well-known lines :^ — 
 
 Pol. Do you know mc, my lord ? 
 
 Ham. Excellent well : you are z. fishmonger. 
 
 Pol. Not I, my lord. 
 
 Ham. Then I would you were so honest a man ; 
 
 For to be honest, as this age goes, is to be one man 
 picked out often thousand. 
 
 Polonius afterwards said : — 
 
 He called me a fishmonger. 
 
 1 A tester. 
 
 ^ Act I. Scene 2. 
 
 3 In the Quartos of 1603 and 1604.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 189 
 
 These are the only times the word is found in 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 In the second of Jonson's plays, " Every Man out 
 of his Humour," 1599 — 60, we find reference made to 
 the purchase of a grant of arms ; Sogliardo, wishing 
 to become a gentleman, is advised by Carlo ^ to get 
 arms, which he does. 
 
 In the third of Jonson's plays, "The Poetaster," 
 there is the same allusion. Shakespeare's name 
 consisting of the verb, shake, and a substantive, 
 spear e, it was easy to make a joke on it by changing 
 the substantive ; thus he is alluded to by Greene as 
 " Shake-^c^;z^,"2 and by Jonson in the dedication to 
 the Folio, 1623, as " Shake-^/i?^^." This is carried 
 out in "The Poetaster," speaking to one Crispinus 
 Chloe says, — 
 
 Chloe. Are you a gentleman born ? 
 
 Cris. That I am, lady. You shall see mine arms, if it 
 please you. 
 
 Chloe. No, your legs do sufficiently show you are a gentle- 
 man born, sir ; for a man borne upon little legs is always a 
 gentleman born.^ , 
 
 Cris. Yet I pray you, vouchsafe the sight of my arms, 
 mistress ; for I bear them about me to have them seen. My 
 name is Crispinus or Cri spinas indeed, which is well ex- 
 pressed in my arms — a face crying in chief, and beneath it a 
 bloody toe between three thorns pungent. 
 
 Chloe. Then you are welcome, sir ; now you are a 
 gentleman born, &c. 
 
 It is clear that Jonson in these allusions intended to 
 
 1 Page 100. 
 
 2 Ante. 
 
 3 This appears to have been an old joke.
 
 190 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 refer to some actor, for in " The Poetaster," Lupus 
 says, — 
 
 Indeed, master Ovid, these players are an idle generation. 
 
 Tucca adds :^ — 
 
 They are grown licentious, the rogues, libertines, flat 
 libertines. They forget they are in the statute {which made 
 them rogues and vagabonds, unless eyirolled as some nohlcmaiis 
 servants), the rascals, they are blazoned there, there they are 
 tricked, they and their pedigrees, they need no other heralds, 
 I wiss, 
 
 " Blazoning" meaning setting forth a coat of arms in 
 its proper colours; "tricking" to draw it with a pen only. 
 Now we have no evidence that any other actor, besides 
 Shakespeare, was ambitious of g-etting a grant of 
 arms, so that it can hardly be said that these allusions 
 to arms are accidental. I do not find them in other 
 plays, and, as far as I have read, Jonson does not 
 make any reference to the subject, except in these 
 three plays, so that it is a fair conclusion that they 
 were made there for the purpose of throwing ridicule 
 on Shakespeare and his pretensions to gentility ; for 
 at the time these three plays were written, Jonson was, 
 I believe, not friends with Shakespeare. 
 
 It must not be supposed that Shakespeare sub- 
 mitted meekly to these attacks of Jonson. We know 
 from a play, "The Return from Parnassus" (which was 
 registered the 1 6 October, 1 605, but printed in 1 606), that 
 Shakespeare could hit back in his turn. The lines 
 have often been quoted. In the 4th Act, Scene 5, Bur- 
 bage and Kempe, the two well-known actors, come to 
 Cambridge looking for possible actors whom Burbage 
 
 ' Act I. Scene I.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYWRITING. 191 
 
 hopes to get cheap ; but Kempe says the slaves are 
 somewhat proud and complains of their stage business, 
 to which Burbage replies — 
 
 "A little teaching ^vill mend these faults, and it may be 
 beside they will be able to pen a part." 
 
 But Kempe objects — 
 
 " Few of the university pen plays well ; they smell too much 
 of that writer Ovid and that w'riter's Metamorphosis, and talk 
 too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow 
 Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson, too. 
 Oh ! that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up 
 Horace giving the poets a pilP ; but our fellow Shakespeare 
 hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit." 
 
 It has been generally supposed that this purge, 
 which Shakespeare administered to Jonson, has not 
 come down to us. It may be so, but I have already 
 pointed out that the allusion to a fishmonger being an 
 honest man, may have been Shakespeare's answer to 
 Jonson's impertinence. It may not be admitted, how- 
 ever, that this is so ; if not, we have in " jMacbeth " an 
 allusion to one of Jonson's characters which I do not 
 think can be disputed. # 
 
 In Jonson's second play " Every Man out of his 
 Humour," each character has his particular failing, 
 which Jonson calls his humour, which is cured at 
 the end of the piece, and so each man is out of his 
 humour. One of these characters, a farmer, has 
 hoarded up corn in hopes that there will be a bad 
 harvest, so that he may get a good price for what 
 he has put away. The harvest is likely to be a good 
 one, so he hangs himself. He is, however, cut down 
 in time, and repents with the others. 
 
 1 The Poetaster, published 1601.
 
 192 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 In " Macbeth," we find, after the murder, when there 
 comes that terrible knocking at the gate which must 
 have struck such terror to ISIacbeth and his wife, 
 the sleepy porter soliloquizes so as to let the 
 knocking go on — 
 
 Porter. Here's a knocking, indeed ; if a man were porter 
 of hell-gate, he should have old turning the key. {Knock.) 
 Knock, knock, knock. Who's there i' the name of Belzebub } 
 Here's a farmer that hanged himself on the expectation of 
 plenty. Come in time, have napkins enough about you : here 
 you'll sweat for it, &c.' 
 
 If this refers to Sogliardo, the name of Jonson's 
 farmer in "Every Man out of his Humour," as it 
 seems pretty clear it does, it shows that "]\Iacbeth" 
 must have been written some time after the publication 
 of Jonson's play which was 1603. 
 
 In " Hamlet," we have another hit at Jonson in 
 the well-known lines about the "ayre" of children, 
 which refers to the Blackfriars Theatre, then leased 
 to Evans. I shall have occasion to refer to this at 
 more length hereafter. For the present, it is sufficient 
 to say that this theatre, being built by Burbage, 
 helped by Shakespeare and others, was not allowed 
 to be opened as a theatre, and was taken by Evans 
 to bring up boys as choristers. But, gradually, these 
 boys took to acting plays, and Jonson took his plays 
 there, and no doubt, for a time, these boy-actors 
 became the fashion. We find allusions made to this 
 by Hamlet, who points out that these boys will 
 probably become actors, and that they are injuring 
 their future professions when they attack grown-up 
 actors. 
 
 1 Act II. Scene 3.
 
 BEN JONSON ON SHAKESPEARE'S PLAY^VRITING. 193 
 
 Ham. What, are they children ? who maintains 'em ? how 
 are they escorted ? Will they pursue the quality no longer 
 than they can sing ? will they not say afterwards, if they 
 should grow themselves to common players (as it is like most, 
 if their means are not better) their writers do them wrong to 
 viakc them exclaim against their own succession. 
 
 Rosen. 'Faith, there ha's been much to do on both sides ; 
 and the nation holds it no sin, to tarre them to controversie. 
 There was, for a while, no money bid for argument, unless the 
 poet and the player went to cuffs in the question. 
 
 Ham. Is't possible ? 
 
 Guild. Oh, there has been much throwing about of 
 brains. 
 
 This, no doubt refers to the plays of Jonson and 
 perhaps others, which were acted at Evans' theatre by 
 the children of the Queen's Chappel, and it may be 
 this is the "purge " alluded to in "The Return from 
 Parnassus ; " for it must be remembered Ben Jonson 
 had a great deal to do with the publication of the 
 Folio in 1623, and he may have softened this passage 
 down. 
 
 We have, therefore, not only Jonson's attacks upon 
 Shakespeare, but the latter's defending himself and 
 his brother actors. Of course, Bacon might have 
 taken up the cudgels on Shakespeare's behalf, but, 
 looking at the friendship that existed between Jonson 
 and Bacon, it is difficult to conceive the former 
 keeping up his complaint against Shakespeare for 
 hasty and bad writing, long after he must have known 
 the fact, if it were so, that it was not Shakespeare's 
 works he was abusing, but that of his friend and 
 patron. 
 
 C, O
 
 194 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Bacon and Shakespeare. 
 
 The question now for consideration is, what evidence 
 have we of who it was that assisted Shakespeare. 
 It is not likely we shall find any direct proof. If 
 such assistance was given it was kept a secret, 
 jealously guarded from the world. But still, a careful 
 investigation of the circumstances, so far as we know 
 them, may help us to determine the identity of this 
 unknown legal friend with some degree of certainty. 
 
 Although the precise knowledge and training dis- 
 played in the legal plays are very remarkable, there 
 is no reason why they should be Bacon's more than 
 any other trained lawyer's. In the present day, many 
 members of the Bar could supply a dramatic author 
 with this information. The law, the sketches of the 
 courts, &c. taken from life, may be very accurate, but 
 there are many persons who could draw upon their 
 everyday experience and reading to supply all the 
 law we find in Shakespeare's writings. In Shake- 
 speare's time, though, the number of men at the Bar 
 were much fewer than at present. But I think Shake- 
 speare would have had no difiiculty in getting assist- 
 ance from several sources. There is therefore no frimd 
 facie reason why we should suppose the information 
 was supplied by Bacon. In fact, there are some 
 reasons why one bhould attribute the legal assistance,
 
 BACON AKD SHAKESPEARE. 195 
 
 say, to Coke, rather than Bacon. Many circumstances 
 might be suggested as pointing to the former. In 
 the first place we have no reason to believe that 
 Bacon was particularly well read in the technicalities 
 of our law ; he never seems to have seriously followed 
 his profession. He was, no doubt, able to get together 
 sufficient to write his speeches out, but when suddenly 
 called upon he had not that fund of legal knowledge 
 that only deep and extensive reading can give. 
 Mr. Spedding states that, when he went in state to 
 take his seat for the first time as Lord Chancellor, he 
 invited his friends to witness his dignity. He had 
 carefully prepared his speech, and all went very well 
 until some real business took place for which he was 
 not prepared, and he lamentably broke down. And 
 we have Elizabeth's opinion of him, that he was no 
 great lawyer, though he was able to make a display 
 of what law he possessed. 
 
 Again, in the second part of " Henry VI.," we have 
 the trial of the so-called witch. Now Coke speaks of 
 this trial as something he had discovered, as I have 
 already stated. So the study of Escalus as an 
 English judge upon the bench dealing with criminal 
 matters is a description of an office which Coke had 
 filled and Bacon had not. So the description of the 
 Temple Gardens ; and the manners and customs of 
 the Templars already referred to, might with more 
 propriety be attributed to Coke, who was a Templar, 
 rather than to Bacon, who was a member of Gray's 
 Inn ; though, as I shall have to point out, in Bacon's 
 time there was a strong alliance between Gray's Inn 
 and the Inner Temple. I think, therefore, that we 
 must not presume because we find traces of legal 
 learning in the plays that Bacon was the only man 
 
 O 2
 
 196 SHAKESPEARE ; A STUDY. 
 
 who could have furnished it. I think, though I may- 
 be able to adduce historical evidence that Bacon was 
 Shakespeare's friend and assistant, the mere legal 
 knowledge by no means proves it. 
 
 But if Shakespeare was assisted, some one must 
 have done so. And there has been for many reasons 
 a suspicion that Bacon was the person ; we have to 
 see whether there is any foundation for this view 
 which seems to be founded upon the many parallel 
 passages to be found in Bacon's writings and Shake- 
 speare's works. Mr. Donnelly in his first volume has 
 taken great pains to collect these various passages, 
 which do go a great way to establish that Bacon had 
 some part in Shakespeare's works, the coincidences 
 are so numerous. He classifies them as follows : — 
 
 (a) Identical expressions. 
 Bacon says : 
 
 Custom ! an ape of nature. 
 And Shakespeare : 
 
 Oh, sleep, thou ape of death ; (Sic. 
 
 Bacon : (t>) Identical metaphors. 
 
 In the third place I set down reputation because of the 
 peremptory tides and currents it hath, vohich^ if they be not 
 taken in due time, are seldom recovered. 
 
 Shakespeare : 
 
 There is a tide in the aflfairs of men, which, taken at the 
 flood . . . &c. And we must take the current whett it serves, 
 or lose our venture. 
 
 (c) Identical opinions. 
 Bacon speaks of: 
 
 States corrupted through wealth, 
 Or too great length of peace. 
 
 And Shakespeare oft 
 
 The cankers of a (jalm world and a long peace.
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 197 
 
 Bacon : (d) Identical quotations. 
 
 The wisdom of crocodiles that shed tears when they would 
 devour. 
 
 onakespeare : ^^ ^i^g mournful crocodile 
 
 With sorrow snares relenting passengers. 
 
 (e) Identical studies. 
 
 Both study gardens, flowers and plants ; both give 
 the same explanation of a knot being found in a tree, 
 by the sap being gathered at the spot, and thus 
 branches are caused there. 
 
 Bacon : 
 
 The cause whereof is that the sap ascendeth unequally, and 
 doth, as it were, tire and stop by the way. And it seemeth 
 they have some closeness and hardness on their stalk, which 
 hindereth the sap from going up, until it hath gathered into a 
 knot and so is more urged to put forth. 
 
 Shakespeare : Checks and disasters 
 
 Grow in the veins of actions highest reared. 
 As knots by the conflux of meeting sap 
 Infects the sound pine and diverts his grain, 
 Tortive and errant from his course of growth. 
 
 Both apparently had studied physic, and were not 
 unacquainted with the names of Galen and Paracelsus. 
 
 (f) Identical errors. 
 
 Both misquote Aristotle ; both believe in spirits 
 pervading nature, even when inanimate ; both believe 
 in spontaneous generation. But these seem to me to be 
 errors common to all men of that period, at least, if not 
 of all periods, witness table turning, &c., of our days. 
 
 Mr. Donnelly gives us further examples of identity 
 in the use of unusual words, such as hurly burly, &c., 
 of character and of style. But I must refer my readers 
 to the first volume of Mr. Donnelly's work for further
 
 198 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 illustrations of these alleged similarities. On the 
 other hand, it is alleged that we have only to refer to 
 another author or set of authors to have a great 
 number of examples given where Bacon's writing is 
 supposed to be dissimilar to that of Shakespeare. 
 
 Some point out that Shakespeare's poetical descrip- 
 tion, say of a horse, is entirely different from the 
 non-poetic treatment by Bacon of the same subject. 
 Others refer to some very mediocre paraphrases of the 
 Psalms, which Bacon has left, as showing that he had 
 not the gift of poetry. 
 
 The presence of parallelisms and of discrepancies 
 between the acknowledged works of Bacon and those 
 of Shakespeare, though a good argument against 
 those who insist that either Bacon or Shakespeare 
 was the sole author of the plays, is evidence in favour 
 of the view that they worked together. 
 
 With regard to Mr. Donnelly's second volume, in 
 which he attempts to prove that there was a story 
 running through the plays, concealed in his so-called 
 cryptogram, which has provoked so much ridicule, 
 one author having gone to the trouble to compose 
 and publish a travestie of his explanation. I can say 
 that I have honestly tried to understand the explana- 
 tion, and I have come to the conclusion that instead 
 of mastering his subject Mr. Donnelly has been mas- 
 tered by it. Of course, it is very easy to go through 
 any large page of printed matter and pick out a word 
 required to make sense, and, having obtained such 
 a word, to formulate some arithmetical reason for 
 choosing it. By counting from the top or the bottom, 
 adding or subtracting the number of the page, &c., 
 you can arrive at any particular word you choose. 
 But this is not the way the person who created the
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 199 
 
 cryptogram would proceed. He would, it is assumed, 
 have the power of so arranging his composition that, 
 when in print, the particular word would occupy a 
 definite place. If this was in his power (which seems 
 impossible to believe) he would not require to change 
 the position of the concealed word, so that on no two 
 pages it occupied the same place as is the case with 
 Mr. Donnelly's so-called cryptogram. If the first, 
 twentieth, or say, the last word, on each page, when 
 read together, made a consecutive story, we might 
 believe that this was not accidental. But why should 
 a person who can put the word where he likes, put it 
 the nineteenth on one page, the thirty-seventh on 
 another, and so on. It is easy to understand where 
 the cryptogram is a delusion, a person picking out 
 the nineteenth word on one page and the thirty- 
 seventh on another and then trying to find reasons 
 for his selection. But there seems to be no reason 
 why the contriver of such a system should alter his 
 formula for each word. The final cause of a crypto- 
 gram is, I suppose, that someone should discover its 
 meaning-, or why take the trouble to write it. And 
 this is not to be done where the words are plit 
 anyhow and anywhere. Whatever opinion we may, 
 however, have of this theory of a cryptogram, there 
 can be but one opinion as to Mr. Donnelly's first volume 
 showing considerable learning and care, and being a 
 valuable help to the student of Shakespeare. 
 
 In addition to these parallel passages, we shall see, 
 I think, that Bacon took steps to qualify himself to 
 assist Shakespeare. 
 
 Promus. — Amongst the works left by Bacon was a 
 MS. written, Mr. Spedding tells us, in Bacon's own
 
 200 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 hand entitled " Promus of Formularies and Ele- 
 gancies." This collection, he also tells us, fills more 
 than forty quarto pages, and is of the most miscel- 
 laneous character, and seems, by various marks on 
 the MS., to have been afterwards digested into other 
 collections which are lost.^ I have not seen this MS. 
 but I have the work published by ]\Irs. Potts, where she 
 tries to prove that the selected sentences have, for the 
 most part, been used in the Shakespeare's plays, &c. 
 But the examples in the " Promus " do not seem con- 
 nected with the extracts from the plays sufficiently to 
 show that the one sprang from or was created by the 
 other. 
 
 In the "Promus" we find noted a number of short sen- 
 tences taken from many sources. The Bible is often 
 laid under contribution for short texts, as John x., ^2. 
 For which of the good works do ye stone me .'' 
 
 ]\Irs. Potts has found some sentences that seem to 
 be connected with the " Promus," as in the above 
 case she cites from "Winter's Tale," IV. 2. 
 
 I cannot tell, good sir, for which of his virtues it was, but 
 he was certainly whipped out of court. 
 
 The difficulty is to feel certain that the one sen- 
 tence sprang from the other. It may have been so, 
 but it may not. A text, as we understand the 
 word in modern days, is a sentence from the Bible 
 which, as it were, takes root in a preacher's mind and 
 springs up and opens out in the sermon, but it would 
 be impossible to show the connection between the 
 text and the ideas and sentences it leads the preacher's 
 mind to. The text need not be a religious one, to take 
 
 1 Query Shakespeare's plays.
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 201 
 
 a homely proverb "That a bird in the hand is worth two 
 in the bush." One can conceive a person thinking 
 on this as a text, saying, "A reality outweighs a 
 chance, the first is to be depended on, the latter is 
 not," "Therefore live on what you have and not on 
 what you expect, for with great expectations you may 
 starve," " And paupers ere now have been found to be 
 heirs to large fortunes " ; or he might dispute the pro- 
 verb and say, " Without risk there is no gain," " No 
 seed is sown or cargoes sent across the sea except for 
 the greater wealth they may produce," "No one has a 
 right to bury his talent in a napkin, but must part 
 with it that it may return with interest," &c. 
 
 We may be able to trace the connection between 
 the text and the sermon when we know it exists, but 
 I think no one would be justified in working back- 
 wards, and saying, where we find an author writing 
 "That Avith great expectations you may starve," his 
 idea sprang fi-om the proverb " a bird in the hand," 
 as a matter of fact it did spring from it ; but it 
 seems as impossible to trace back such an expres- 
 sion to the text that gave it birth as it would l^e 
 to trace back a stream to its underground sources. 
 However this may be, Mrs. Potts has failed to con- 
 vince the world that Bacon wrote the plays, because 
 he formed the collection called the " Promus ; " the 
 references she gives do not seem to belong naturally 
 to the sentences from which they are supposed to 
 spring ; the connection may have existed, but it is by 
 no means self-evident now. This has led, I think, to 
 the real fact, which is of interest with regard to the 
 " Promus " being overlooked, and that is not that 
 any substantial connection can be shown between the 
 " Promus " and the plays to establish that they were
 
 202 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 the work of the same author ; but that the " Promus " 
 is undoubtedly a collection made by Bacon, and is 
 such a one as he might have been expected to make 
 if he were preparing to write or assist others in writing 
 works like those we know as Shakespeare's ; standing 
 by itself, the " Promus," I think, proves nothing. But 
 if we lay a foundation for believing Bacon had 
 some hand in Shakespeare's works, then the " Pro- 
 mus " is just such a commonplace book as he might 
 have made to assist him in his work. 
 
 There are other scraps of evidence which I may have 
 to refer to ; in some cases I have already done so, 
 such as statements made by Bacon as to being a 
 concealed poet, or of Jonson's statement that Bacon 
 had filled all numbers, meaning, apparently, had 
 written all kinds of verse, and Toby Matthew's 
 letter in which he speaks of returning " Measure for 
 Measure." " Measure for Measure " is the most legal 
 of the legal plays in my opinion, and the one I have 
 principally relied upon as showing the legal know- 
 ledge displayed in some of Shakespeare's plays. It 
 seems to me the true position of this class of evidence 
 — ^viz., the similarity of ideas and expressions Mr. 
 Donnelly gives us ; the " Promus " ; and these scraps ; 
 to which I have referred — is this, they are matters 
 which are capable of being explained in many ways ; 
 but one of these explanations undoubtedly is that Bacon 
 either wrote or assisted the author of the plays. They 
 are like the circumstances that often weigh with a jury 
 when considering their verdict. A prisoner charged 
 with murder tnay have been near the spot, he may 
 have quarrelled with the murdered man, &c. ; all this 
 class of evidence is consistent with the prisoner's 
 guilt, would freely give rise to suspicion, but is clearly
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 203 
 
 capable of being explained away, as if at the actual 
 time of the crime an alibi could be proved, &c, ; and in 
 any case few juries would convict on mere matters 
 of suspicion, matters which it is easy to see are 
 capable of an explanation inconsistent with guilt. But 
 if there are good grounds for believing the prisoner was 
 the man who committed the crime, then this evidence 
 comes as strong confirmation. I think, therefore, we 
 have to inquire whether there is any real evidence, 
 that is, evidence which is capable of only one explana- 
 tion which connects Bacon with Shakespeare, and this 
 evidence, I think, exists, only for some reason it has 
 hitherto escaped notice. 
 
 Before proceeding to state what this evidence is, 
 I wish to clear the ground and deal with one or two 
 objections which have been suggested as showing 
 that Bacon could not have had anything to do with 
 the plays. 
 
 One is that there is no evidence that Bacon or 
 Shakespeare ever knew one another. 
 
 Another is that Bacon never acknowledged the 
 authorship, or claimed to have any part in the plays^ 
 
 With regard to the first, I shall, I think, be able to 
 show that there is evidence that Bacon and Shake- 
 speare were acquainted with one another. But even 
 if this were not so, nothing is to be presumed from 
 the fact that Bacon and Shakespeare do not mention 
 one another. Shakespeare, as we know, has left no 
 record of his private life. But his rival, Ben Jonson, 
 has left us a considerable number of personal recol- 
 lections. And from his writings we know that he 
 and Bacon were well acquainted. In fact, Jonson is 
 supposed to have helped him with his Latin trans- 
 lations at or about the time when the folio of 1623 was
 
 204: SHAICESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 being prepared for the press. And there was such 
 intimacy between them that, as I have mentioned, 
 when Jonson met Bacon and told him he was going 
 to walk to Scotland, Bacon said, " He loved not to 
 see poesy go on other feet than poetical dactylus 
 and spondaeus." And in the "Discoveries," Jonson 
 speaks of Bacon in these words : — 
 
 " My conceit of his person was never increased towards 
 him by his place of honours, but I have and do reverence 
 him for the greatness that was only proper to himself in that 
 he seemed to me ever by his work one of the greatest of 
 men and most worthy of admiration that had been in many 
 ages. In his adversity, I ever prayed that God would give 
 him strength, for greatness he could not want. Neither 
 could I condole in a word or syllable for him, as knowing no 
 accident could do harm to virtue, but rather help to make it 
 manifest." 
 
 Besides this, we have evidence that Bacon on one 
 occasion, at least, had a masque written by Jonson, 
 which was produced at Gray's Inn, of which I may 
 have occasion to speak hereafter. 
 
 Yet Bacon, as far as I have discovered, never 
 mentions Jonson's name nor makes any allusion to 
 him in either his works or correspondence, so that 
 if posterity depended only on what Bacon has left 
 behind, it would have no evidence that such a person 
 as Jonson ever existed. 
 
 I do not therefore think that the conclusion is to be 
 drawn from Bacon not mentioning Shakespeare, that 
 they were not acquainted. If he did not mention 
 Jonson, it was perhaps because he considered his 
 connection with him did not add to his dignity or 
 increase his chance of that promotion, which he so 
 sedulously sought for all his life, and could not keep
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 205 
 
 when he got it, and therefore he ignored him ; and 
 the same influence may have operated against his 
 mentioning any intimacy with Shakespeare, if it 
 existed. If, however, Shakespeare had left his papers 
 carefully preserved as Jonson did (those at all events 
 which were not destroyed by the fire at his house), we 
 might have found references to the intimacy which, I 
 think, I shall be able to show from other sources, did 
 exist between him and Bacon. 
 
 With regard to the second objection, that Bacon 
 never made any claim to being the author of the 
 plays, I think those who try to draw any inference 
 that Bacon had nothing to do with the plays, because 
 he made no claim to them, do not sufficiently consider 
 the history of the period. Bacon's mother, as Mr. 
 Spedding tells us, belonged to the Puritan party, and 
 was therefore opposed to the court and theatrical life 
 of her times. 
 
 At the close of Elizabeth's reign and during that of 
 her successor, there had been growing up a strong 
 feeling in the minds of the Puritans against the Crown 
 and against the theatre. Elizabeth was a woman ar|^ 
 a wise one, and for a time the feeling was kept back, 
 but James had no hold on the affections of the 
 English people, and his son Charles had not the 
 cunning of his father, and, as we know, his conduct 
 led to civil war and his own death. It is not my 
 province to consider who was right or who was wrong ; 
 I have only to call attention to the fact that this 
 opposition during Shakespeare's time was growing. 
 We find traces of it in our law books, where we find 
 the power of the Crown was often questioned in a 
 way, I think, Henry VIII. would never have permitted. 
 It may be remembered that Charles himself, in one of
 
 206 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 his speeches to Parliament, comments upon this fact. 
 Now one of the most important matters of dispute 
 between the Court and Puritan parties was the exist- 
 ence of the stage, to which, for some reason or other, 
 the puritanical party were strongly opposed. At 
 this time the city authorities refused to allow a 
 theatre to be erected within the city, and attempted, 
 with more or less success, to close Burbage's Theatre 
 in the Blackfriars, and Elizabeth's Parliament made 
 travelling actors by statute rogues and vagabonds, 
 unless they were the servants of some nobleman, 
 and this was only permitted by the intercession of 
 Leicester. Elizabeth, too wise to run counter to 
 public opinion in matters such as this, only recognized 
 players as such servants. But James by patent con- 
 stituted them "the King's servants," and a second 
 company became "the Queen's," and afterwards a 
 third was known as " the Prince's." This recognition 
 of the players by the sovereign no doubt was a 
 mistake, and I have little doubt that in the struggles 
 that were to come, the Puritans gained many an 
 adherent who might have fought on the king's side, 
 were it not for the prejudice they had against plays 
 and actors. As in chess the game is often concen- 
 trated about one piece, and as in actual warfare the 
 objective point of attack at first may be an outlying 
 province or a distant fortified place, so I think the 
 theatre was the seat of war in the commencement of 
 the struggle between the Court and the Puritans. 
 The ultimate contest was, as we know, between 
 personal and parliamentary government, but the 
 initial sore, the one that produced bad blood and 
 prejudice, was, in the early years of the seventeenth 
 century, the stage ; and this bitterness was not les-
 
 BACON AND SHAICESPEARE. 207 
 
 sened by the writings of the dramatic poets. We 
 find Dekker having the bad taste to bring puritan 
 women on to the stage and making them drunk, and 
 Ben Jonson holding them up to ridicule in many of 
 his plays, as the discomforture of Bussey by the 
 puppets in Bartholomew fair. In fact I think we 
 find the earliest references to the puritan party in 
 the impertinences of the playwriters of Shakespeare's 
 time. Now, when we come to his plays we find refer- 
 ences to the Puritans, it is true, but none which seem 
 to be written in a hostile spirit, with the exception 
 of the porter's speech in " Henry VIII.," to be re- 
 ferred to hereafter. It is true that we find some 
 sly hits at their foibles, but written in a friendly 
 spirit. 
 
 As in "All's Well that Ends Well," Act I. 
 Scene 3 — 
 
 Though honesty be no Puritan, yet it will do no hurt ; it 
 will wear the surplice of humanity over the black gown of a 
 big heart, &c., 
 
 a very different style from the sneering abuse of 
 Jonson ; but he was allied to the Court party, was 
 the first Poet Laureate and wrote the masques which 
 Charles and the ladies of his Court acted, and by so 
 doing created the scandal which found a voice in the 
 malevolent tongue of Prynne. But Bacon was no par- 
 ticular favourite of Elizabeth's court, and his mother 
 was a Puritan. If any one could run with the hare 
 and hunt with the hounds he was that man, and I 
 think, if he did assist Shakespeare, he would not care 
 to raise up enemies gratuitously. His object was self 
 — a luxurious life, personal distinction, and above all 
 money — not scandal. I think the last thing he would 
 wish would be to be known as a playwriter — an object
 
 208 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 of contempt and hatred to thousands. Policy, it 
 seems to me, would have kept him silent, if he had 
 anything- to do with plays and actors, as being a 
 connection not likely to add to but detract from his 
 dignity. 
 
 Bacon^s concealed authorship. — I think that there is 
 one fact that should be noticed before I proceed to the 
 historical evidence which, I think, shows a probability 
 that Bacon may have helped Shakespeare, and that is 
 Bacon's habit of writing secretly for other people, not 
 only letters, but proclamations for his sovereign, 
 observations on passing events, &c., all of which he 
 has carefully left behind him. Mr. Spedding has 
 given us an edition of his works properly so called ; 
 he has also given us seven volumes of what he terms 
 " His occasional works, namely, letters, speeches, 
 tracts, state papers, memorial devises, &c. And in 
 these seven volumes we find a large number of writings 
 far too numerous even to mention wherein he seems 
 to have written out his ideas at great length upon 
 passing events, which he very often intended other 
 people to use as their own. There is no evidence that 
 these were always used ; some were, as when he wrote 
 a letter for Essex to his brother Anthony to be shown 
 to the queen. But many may have never left his 
 desk ; but whether they did or not is immaterial. 
 That he was a most voluminous writer, and that he 
 was always willing to compose matter for others to 
 use seems undoubted. Thus, in the commencement 
 of the second volume, Mr, Spedding, speaking of 
 certain " Letters of Advice from the Earl of Essex to 
 the Earl of Rutland," and a '\ Letter of Advice from 
 the Earl of Essex to Sir Foulke Greville ors. his
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 209 
 
 Studies," says of the first letters, ix., those to Earl 
 Rutland, that — 
 
 " These letters^ (or at least two of them) were sent and 
 received as from Essex himself, circulated in his name, and 
 meant to be received as his composition — there is, I presume, 
 no doubt. But we know as a fact that both before and after 
 he did occasionally accept Bacon's help, and there was no 
 occasion on which he was more likely to avail himself of it 
 than this." 
 
 Again, he says — 
 
 "We have direct evidence that a few years after Essex 
 would sometimes employ Bacon to draw up letters for him 
 about his own most personal affairs, letters which he was 
 himself to sign." 
 
 Of the second he says — 
 
 "It is a letter of advice addressed to Fulke Greville (date 
 unfortunately not known) all about books and studies, such a 
 letter as Bacon would undoubtedly have wished Essex to 
 write, and the queen to know he had written." 
 
 Mr. Spedding has included these among Bacon's 
 works as being " very Baconian in matter and 
 manner," though, it is true, he leaves it to the reader 
 to decide for himself whether they be Bacon's or not. 
 But we have some of which he was undoubtedly the 
 author, which he intended to be put forward by others. 
 Thus, when James entered England, he drew up more 
 than one proclamation ^ for the king, some of which 
 were " prepared but not used,"^ and one Mr, Spedding 
 cannot find was ever used, though, apparently, one — 
 Proclamation for Jurors — was adopted and printed.* 
 
 I do not propose to give further examples, they may 
 be found scattered through the volumes of Occasional 
 Works. 
 
 ^ Spedding, vol. 2, p. 5. 8 ij^id. p. 385. 
 
 2 Ihid. vol. 3, p. b;. * Ilia. p. 389. 
 
 C. P
 
 210 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 BACON AND SHAICESPEARE — continued. 
 
 It has been often noticed that there is no evidence 
 that Shakespeare and Bacon were ever acquainted 
 with one another, and that neither mentions the 
 other's name. But it has been already pointed out 
 that Shakespeare has left no writings beyond his 
 works, and that Bacon, who undoubtedly was on 
 terms of intimacy with Ben Jonson, does not mention 
 the latter any more than he does Shakespeare. 
 
 There is, however, one account which has come 
 down to us, which does bring Bacon and Shakespeare 
 together under circumstances which render it very 
 probable that Bacon was actively assisting Shake- 
 speare, if not in the authorship, at least in the pro- 
 duction of one of his plays ; and even if the person 
 who did so assist Shakespeare is not absolutely shown 
 to be Bacon, yet there is proof that Bacon must have 
 known of Shakespeare's existence, for we find him 
 substituting something of his own when Shakespeare's 
 play proved a fiasco. I refer to the revels at Gray's 
 Inn, usually known as the "Gesta Grayorum." These 
 consisted of a series of entertainments lasting about 
 three months from Christmas, 1594, to Lent in the 
 following year. 
 
 In Nicol's "Progresses of Queen Elizabeth," we
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 211 
 
 have the account of these revels printed, as we shall 
 see, from a pamphlet which, in its turn, was printed 
 from a MS. discovered by accident. Unfortunately the 
 original MS. is not known to exist and there are very 
 few copies of the pamphlet — one is in the Gray's Inn 
 Library; and Nicol's "Progresses" is itself not a very 
 common book, so that there may be some reason why, 
 in the numerous inquiries that have been made as to 
 both Bacon and Shakespeare, the evidence of this 
 account, so far as it shows them to be, if not friends 
 and allies, at least present together, should have been 
 overlooked. These revels are, it is true, occasionally 
 mentioned as giving the elate of the first production 
 of the " Comedy of Errors," the first of Shakespeare's 
 plays, it is believed, to be produced. But no notice 
 seems to have been taken of the special part played 
 by Bacon, not in the play itself, but in getting up and 
 carrying through these revels. 
 
 In Elizabeth's time Gray's Inn was the leading Inn 
 of Court ; its numbers were nearly double that of the 
 Inner Temple, and it numbered amongst its members 
 the leading men of the day. The Burghleys or Cecfls, 
 the Bacons, Lord Southampton, to whom Shakespeare 
 dedicated his two poems, and many other well-known 
 names, to describe whom would be too long. And 
 amongst other peculiar customs, was the friendship 
 which existed between Gray's Inn and the Inner 
 Temple, the coat of arms of the one being on the 
 gate of the other. This being so, we may more 
 fully understand the proceedings that took place in 
 the years 1594-5, an account of which, apparently 
 written at the time, was preserved, and was printed 
 for W. Canning at his shop in the Temple cloisters 
 
 p 2
 
 212 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 in the year 1688. Who the author of this account 
 was ? how it came to be preserved r how it came into 
 the hands of the publisher? we have no direct evi- 
 dence, but I think there is enough to show that it was 
 either written by Bacon himself — and thus is an illus- 
 tration of his concealed authorship — or it was written 
 by someone who had some reason for not mentioning 
 Bacon by name. For while we shall be able to show 
 that Bacon was taking a very, if not the most, active 
 part in getting up the plays, devices, &c., his name 
 alone seems to be conspicuous by its absence. Nearly 
 every other name is carefully given, his equally care- 
 fully omitted. 
 
 The account on the face of it bears the impress of 
 being written with authority, and we are fully justified 
 in accepting it as evidence, though the original MS. 
 appears to be lost. 
 
 The person who was selected to preside was one 
 Mr. Henry Holmes or Helmes, who must have been 
 a person of some enterprise as he was one of the 
 youngest members of the Inn having only been called 
 in the middle of the year 1594. Yet he kept the whole 
 entertainment going for some three months. Amongst 
 other things, he went to court and performed a masque 
 before Elizabeth at Greenwich, who apparently was 
 so pleased with it, that when the courtiers wished to 
 dance after it was over she said, " What, shall we have 
 bread and cheese after a banquet ? " and she had the 
 Gray's Inn men presented to her next day and gave 
 them her hand to kiss,^ — 
 
 "With most gracious words of commendation to them 
 particularly, and in general of Gray's Inn as an house she 
 
 * Nicols, vol. 3, p. 319.
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 213 
 
 was much beholden unto, for that it did always study for 
 some sports to present unto her. The same night there was 
 fighting at Barriers : the Earl of Essex and others challengers, 
 the Earl of Cumberland and his company defendants, into 
 which number our Prince was taken and behaved himself so 
 valiantly and skilfully therein, that he had the prize adjudged 
 due unto him, which it pleased her Majesty to deliver him 
 with her own hands, telling him, ' That it was not her gift, 
 for if it had it should have been better ; but she gave it him 
 as that prize which was due to his desert and good behaviour 
 in those exercises, and that hereafter he should be remem- 
 bered with a better reward from herself.' " 
 
 The account, after giving the value of the prize as 
 being lOo marks, concludes with so much that is 
 Baconian in manner, that I give it here : — 
 
 Thus, on Shrove Tuesday, at the Court were our sports 
 and revels ended, so that our Christmas would not leave us 
 till such tim.e as Lent was ready to entertain us, which hath 
 always been accounted a time most apt and wholly dedicated 
 to repentance. But now our Principality is determined, 
 which although it shined very bright in ours and others' 
 darkness, yet at the Royal Presence of her Majesty, it 
 appeared as an obscured shadow ; in this, not unlike unto 
 the Morning star which looketh very cheerfully in the W»rld 
 so long as the Sun looketh not on it ; or, as the Great Rivers 
 that triumph in the Multitude of their Waters until they come 
 unto the Sea. Sic vind, sic viori pulchrum. 
 
 To return to the proceedings which appear to 
 have consisted, as I have said, of the installation of 
 Mr. Henry Helmes as the Prince. A very consider- 
 able retinue was assigned to him, amongst whom, 
 however, we do not find Mr. Bacon mentioned, 
 although, from the circumstances, on the authority 
 of Mr. Spedding, his biographer, he must have taken 
 an active part.
 
 214 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Mr. Spedding says, Vol. I. p. 325 : — 
 
 "But as INIr. Bacon's name docs not appear upon the face 
 of the narrative, and as his connection -with it, though sufli- 
 ciently obvious, has never, so far as I know, been pointed out 
 or suspected, I assume that the little story I am going to tell, 
 presenting as it does a very curious and picturesque illustra- 
 tion of the manners of the time and the licences of the people 
 among whom all his early and middle life was spent, is not 
 so familiar to the students of his works, but they will be glad 
 to see it here." 
 
 Again, he says (p. 342) — 
 
 "That Bacon had a hand in the general design is merely a 
 conjecture. We know that he had a taste in such things, and 
 did sometimes take part in arranging them : and the proba- 
 bility seemed strong enough to justify a more detailed work 
 than I could otherwise have thought fit. But that the 
 * Speeches of the Six Councillors ' were Avritten by him, 
 and hjy hint alone, no one who is at all familiar with his 
 style, either of thought or expression, will for a moment 
 doubt." 
 
 The "Speeches of the Six Councillors," to which 
 reference will be made, is therefore directly attri- 
 buted by Mr. Spedding to Bacon alone ; but he says 
 it is a matter of conjecture whether he had a hand in 
 the general design. From this I feel inclined to differ. 
 I think that when we come to examine the account 
 already referred to, as published in 1688, and after- 
 wards given in Nicol's " Progresses of Queen Eliza- 
 beth," there is a strong presumption that Bacon took 
 the active and principal part in getting up the plays 
 of the " Comedy of Errors " and " Masque," and the 
 account itself was written by himself. I do not mean 
 to say that there is that kind of evidence which would 
 entitle a jury to convict a prisoner; but there is, I
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 215 
 
 think, sufficient to convince an unbiassed mind that 
 it is probable that Bacon arranged, and was re- 
 ponsible for, the " Masque," though he may have been 
 assisted by others. To show this is so, I propose 
 to refer shortly to the account as given by Nicol's 
 "Queen Elizabeth," Vol. III. p. 262. 
 The title of the masque is thus given : — 
 
 G^sta Grayopiin^; 
 
 OK. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE HIGH AND MIGHTY 
 PRINCE HENRY; 
 
 Prince of Purpoole, Arch-Duke of Stapulia and Ber- 
 NARDiA, Duke of High and Nether Holborn, Marquis of 
 St. Giles and Tottenham, Count Palatine of Bloomsbury 
 and Clerkenwell, Great Lord of the Cantons of Islington, 
 Kentish Town, Paddington and Knightsbridge, Knight 
 of the IMost Heroical Order of the Helmet,^ and Sovereign 
 of the same, who reigned, and died a.d. 1594. Together 
 with a Masque as it was presented (by his Highness's com- 
 mand) for the Entertainment of Queen Elizabeth, who, 
 with the Nobles of both Courts, was present thereat. 
 
 There was a very large list of names of thftse 
 forming the court of the pseudo prince, and, as I have 
 said. Bacon's name was conspicuous by its absence. 
 The proceedings seem to have been of a very elaborate 
 character — too much so modern persons might think, 
 for what was after all but mere fooling. The hall was 
 fitted with staging, and a theatre erected on the 20th 
 December, St. Thomas's Eve. The account tells us 
 the Prince went to the great hall and took his seat 
 upon a throne under a rich cloth of state, the coun- 
 cillors and great lords placed about and before him. 
 
 1 It appears that Mr. Helraes' crest was three hehnets.
 
 216 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. . 
 
 At a lower table sat his counsel and lawyers. His 
 ridiculous titles were proclaimed by the king of arms, 
 and his champion, in complete armour on horseback, 
 rode into the hall about the fire and made his chal- 
 lenge, offering to fight anyone who, as a false 
 traitor, said his sovereign was not rightly Prince of 
 Purpoole, &c. 
 
 It appeared that a letter had been addressed — 
 
 "To THE Most Honourable and Prudent the 
 Governors, Assistants, and Society of the Inner 
 Temple " 
 
 asking that an ambassador might be sent to the State 
 of Purpoole, &c. — 
 
 " Your most loving friend and ally, 
 
 " GRAY'S INN. 
 "Dated at our Court of Graya, &c. 
 this 14th December, 1594." 
 
 To this there was a reply sent — 
 
 " To THE Most Honourable State of Grayans " 
 
 accepting the invitation as being — 
 
 " a great honour intended towards ourselves, in respect 
 whereof we yield with all good will to that which your 
 honourable letters import, as your kindness and the bond of 
 our ancient amity and league, requireth and deserveth. 
 
 " Your assured friend, 
 
 " THE STATE OF TEMPLARIA. 
 " From Templaria, the i8th 
 of December, 1594." 
 
 Everything passed off successfully on the first 
 night. It is not necessary to follow the proceedings, 
 which are set out at considerable length, but speeches 
 were prepared by the Prince's attorney and solicitor,
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 217 
 
 and these gave the Prince a list of his territories 
 which have to do homage. A few examples must 
 suffice. Alfonsio de Stapulia and Davillo de Ber- 
 nardia (Staple and Barnard's Inns) had to render 
 a coronet of gold yearly, and five hundred millions 
 sterling. Then followed Morotto Maraquillo de Hol- 
 born, one Lucy Negro, Abbess of Clerkenwell, &c., with 
 here and there a somewhat stilted joke not always 
 of the choicest description. Then followed a general 
 pardon, except crimes intended to be omitted, followed 
 by an exception of every crime that could be thought 
 of set out in great detail, with a final and general 
 exception of all manner of offences, &c. whatsoever. 
 The final exception from the pardon being "except 
 all and all manner of offences, pains, penalties, mulcts, 
 fines, amercements, and punishment, corporal and 
 pecuniary whatsoever." The pardon being read, there 
 was a short speech, and the night ended with dancing. 
 I think it is very possible that a good deal of this 
 elaborate nonsense was Bacon's. There is the same 
 doubtful wit and low comedy ideas which, I think, we 
 see in the passages between Escalus and the clown, 
 already referred to. But one hesitates to express any 
 strong opinion on it. 
 
 It is not necessary to follow further all these some- 
 what stilted jokes, the blazoning of the Prince's arms, 
 the speech of the attorney-general, the homages and 
 tributaries of the prince, with fanciful names for Staple 
 and Barnard's Inns, High Holborn, &c. 
 
 On the second night, however, 2i fiasco took place. 
 The ambassador from the Temple^ with his train 
 
 1 Inner Temple.
 
 218 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 came, but also came many others. For the account 
 tells us that after the ambassador had been duly re- 
 ceived and placed in a chair beside his highness — 
 
 " That there was something to be performed for the dehght 
 of the beholders, there arose such a disordered tumult and 
 crowd upon the stage, that there was no opportunity to effect 
 that which was intended : there came so great a number of 
 worshipful personages upon the stage that might not be dis- 
 placed, and gentlewomen whose sex did privilege them from 
 violence, that when the prince and his officers had in vain, a 
 good while, expected and endeavoured a reformation, at 
 length there was no hope of redress for that present. The 
 lord ambassador and his train thought that they were not so 
 kindly entertained as was before expected, and thereupon 
 would not stay any longer at that time, but, in a sort, dis- 
 contented and displeased. After their departure the throngs 
 and tumults did somewhat cease, although so much of them 
 continued as was able to disorder and confound any good 
 inventions whatsoever. In regard whereof, as also for that 
 the sports intended were especially for the gracing of the 
 Templarians, it was thought good not to offer anything of 
 account, saving dancing and revelling with gentlewomen ; 
 and after such sports, a Comedy of Errors (like to Plautus 
 his Menechmus) was played by the players. So that night 
 war begun and continued to the end in nothing but confusion 
 and errors ; whereupon, it was ever afterwards called ' The 
 Night of Errors.' " 
 
 This departure of the Inner Temple ambassador 
 with his following, for we are told he "came very 
 gallantly appointed and attended by a great number 
 of brave gentlemen," was no doubt felt by the Prince 
 and whoever were the real mover or movers in getting 
 up the entertainment, to be a real misfortune ; and as 
 some one had to be made liable, a prosecution was 
 instituted upon some one whose name is not disclosed, 
 but to whose identity we have certain clues, which
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 219 
 
 make it not improbable that the person who was 
 sought to be made liable for all the confusion was 
 Bacon. The account, which must speak for itself, is 
 as follows : — 
 
 This mischanceful accident sorting so ill to the great 
 prejudice of the rest of our proceedings was a great dis- 
 couragement and disparagement to our whole state ; yet it 
 gave occasion to the lawyers of the Prince's Council, the 
 next night after revels, to read a Commission of Oyer and 
 Terminer, directed to certain noblemen and lords of His 
 Highness's Council, and others, that they should enquire, or 
 cause enquiry to be made, of some great disorders and abuses 
 lately done and committed within His Highness's dominions 
 of Purpoole, especially by sorceries and inchantments, and 
 namely, of a great witchcraft used the night before, whereby 
 there were great disorders and misdemeanours, by hurly- 
 burlies crowds, errors, confusions, vain representations and 
 shows, to the utter discredit of our state and policy. 
 
 The next night, upon this occasion, we preferred judgments 
 thick and threefold, which were read publickly by the Clerk of 
 the Crown, being all against a sorcerer or conjurer that was 
 supposed to be the cause of that confused inconvenience 
 Therein was contained : How he had caused the stage to he built ^ 
 and scaffolds to be reared at the top of the house, to increase expecta- 
 tion. Also how he had caused divers ladies and gentlemen, and 
 others of good condition to be invited to our sports, also our dearest 
 friend, the State of Tcmplaria, to he disgraced and disappointed 
 of their hind entertainment deserved and ijitended. Also that he 
 caused throngs and tumults, crowds and outrages, to disturb our 
 whole proceedings. And lastly, that he had foisted a company of 
 base and common felloivs to make up our disorders with a play of 
 Errors and Confusions ; and that that night had gained to us 
 discredit, and itself a nickname of errors. All which were 
 against the Crown, and dignity of our Sovereign Lord and 
 Prince of Purpoole. 
 
 Under colour of these proceedings were laid open to the 
 view all the causes of note that were committed by our 
 chiefest statesman in the government of our principality, and
 
 220 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 every officer in any great place that"had not performed his 
 duty in that servdce was taxed hereby, from the highest to the 
 lowest, not sparing the guard and porters, that suffered so 
 many disordered persons to enter in at the court gates ; upon 
 whose aforesaid indictments the prisoner was arraigned at the 
 bar, being brought thither by the Lieutenant of the Tower (for 
 at that time the stocks were graced with that name) ; and the 
 sheriif impannelled a jury of twenty-four gentlemen, that were 
 to give their verdict upon the evidence given. The prisoner 
 appealed to the Prince, his Excellency, for justice, and 
 humbly desired that it would please his Highness to under- 
 stand the truth of the matter by his supplication, which he 
 had ready to be offered to the Master of the Requests. The 
 Prince gave leave to the INIaster of the Requests that he 
 should read the petition, wherein was a disclosure of all the 
 knavery and juggling of the attorney and solicitor, which had 
 brought all this law stuff on purpose to bind the eyes of his 
 Excellency and all the honourable Court there, going about 
 to make them think that those things which they all 
 saw and perceived sensibly to be in very deed done, and 
 actually performed, were nothing else but vain illusions, 
 fancies, dreams, and inchantments, and to be wrought and 
 compassed hy the means of a poor harmless wretch that never had 
 heard of such great matters in all his life : whereas the very 
 fault was in the negligence of the Prince's Council, Lords and 
 Officers of his State, that had the rule of the roast, and by 
 whose advice the Commonwealth was so soundly misgoverned. 
 To prove these things to be true, he brought divers instances 
 of great absurdities committed by the greatest ; and made 
 such allegations as could not be denied. These were done 
 by some that were touched by the Attorney and Solicitor in 
 their former proceedings, and they used the prisoner's narjies for 
 means of quittance with them in that behalf. But the Prince 
 and Statesmen (being pinched on both sides by both the 
 parties) were not a little offended at the great liberty that 
 they had taken in censuring so far of his Plighncss's govern- 
 ment ; and thereupon the prisoner was freed and pardoned, the 
 Attorney, Solicitor, Master of the Requests, and those that were 
 acquainted with the draft of the petition, were all of them
 
 BACON AND SHAIvESPEARE. 221 
 
 commanded to the Tower, so the Lieutenant took charge of 
 them. And this was the end of our law-sports concerning the 
 " Night of Errors." 
 
 When we were wearied with mocking thus at our own follies, 
 at length there was a great consultation had for the recovery 
 of our lost honour. It was then concluded, that first the 
 Prince's Council should be reformed, and some graver con- 
 ceipts should have their places to advise upon those things 
 that were propounded to be done afterward. Therefore, 
 upon better consideration there were divers plots and devices 
 intended against the Friday after New Year's Day being 
 the 3rd of January, and to prevent all unruly tumults, and 
 former inconveniences, there was provided a watch of armed 
 men to ward at the four ports ; and whifflers to make good 
 order under the four Barons, and the Lord Warden to over-see 
 them all ; that none but those that were of good condition 
 might be suffered to be let into the Court. And the like 
 officers were everywhere appointed. 
 
 The result of this new arrangement for preventing 
 the overcrowding was that the Temple guests came 
 back again, and the Prince held an investiture of the 
 knights of Helmet (his crest it may be remembered), 
 and afterwards made a set speech to his councillors, 
 six of whom replied to him. • 
 
 The second entertainment took place on the 3rd 
 January night, before a considerable number of noble- 
 men, "knights, ladies, and very worshipful personages." 
 Graius and Templarius came in lovingly arm in arm, 
 and offered incense at an altar to the goddess of 
 Amity, but the smoke was troubled, &c. Finally, the 
 goddess was appeased, and the pair declared perfect 
 fi-iends, as the account says, — 
 
 " as ever were Theseus and Perithous, Achilles and Patroclus, 
 
 Pylades and Orestes, or Scipio and Lselius, and therewithal did 
 
 further divine that this love should be perpetual. 
 
 ******
 
 222 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 " Thus was this show ended which was devised to that end, 
 that those that were present might understand that the 
 unkindness which was growing betwixt the Tcmplarians and 
 us, by reason of that former * Night of Errors,' and the 
 uncivil behaviour wherewith they were entertained, as before 
 I have partly touched, was now clean-rooted out and for- 
 gotten," &c. 
 
 The Prince then proceeded to invest the Templarians 
 and several others with the Knighthood of the Helmet, 
 an order of his own institution. 
 
 After being duly invested, Helmet, his highness's 
 king-at-arms, stood before the Prince in his surcoat 
 of arms, &c., and made his speech, and the king- 
 at-arms read the articles of the order, which are of a 
 quaint and humorous turn, such as — 
 
 "Item. — No knight of this Order shall be inquisitive towards 
 any lady or gentlewoman, whether her beauty be English 
 or Italian,^ or whether with care taking she have added 
 half-a-foot to her stature ; but shall take all to the best. 
 Neither shall any knight of the aforesaid Order presume to 
 affirm that faces were better twenty years ago than they are at 
 this present time, except such knight have passed three 
 climacterical years," &c. 
 
 Then followed concert music and a banquet, and 
 afterwards the Prince addressed his six councillors in 
 a speech, which is set out at length, to which they 
 replied in six long speeches, the first advising war, 
 the second philosophy, Sec. 
 
 These speeches, which are too long to give here, 
 are, no doubt, couched in a more serious vein than 
 the various matters which are set out before. We no 
 
 1 Because cosmctiqucs were supposed to come from Italy.
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 223 
 
 longer have the somewhat bold allusions to the virtue 
 of the fair maids of Islington, &c., to the habits of 
 Lucy Negro, Abbess of Clerkenwell, but we have the 
 didactic epistles which Bacon so much delighted in. 
 From the speech of the first councillor, an extract may 
 give the reader an idea of their style. 
 
 The first councillor advising the exercise of war — 
 
 Most Excellent Prince, 
 
 Except there be such amongst us, as I am fully persuaded 
 there is none, that regardeth more his own greatness under 
 you, than your greatness over others, I think there will be little 
 difference in the chusing for you a goal worthy your vertue 
 and power. For he that shall set before him your magnan- 
 imity and valour, supported by the youth and disposition of 
 your body; your flourishing Court, like the horse of Troy, 
 full of brave commanders and leaders ; your populous and 
 man-rife provinces, overflowing with warlike people ; your 
 coffers, like the Indian mines, when that they are first opened ; 
 your store-houses are as sea-walls, like to Vulcan's cave ; your 
 navy like to an huge floating city ; the devotion of your 
 subjects to your crown and person, their good agreement 
 amongst themselves, their wealth and provision ; and then 
 your strength and unrevocable confederation with the noble 
 and honourable personages, and the fame and reputation 
 without of so rare a concurrence, whereof all the former 
 regards do grow ; how can he think any exercise worthy of 
 your means, but that of conquest ? for, in few words, What 
 is your strength, if you find it not ? Your fortune, if you try 
 it not ? Your virtue, if you shew it not ? Think, excellent 
 Prince, what sense of content you found in yourself when you 
 were first invested in our state ; for though I know your 
 Excellency is far from vanity and lightness, yet it is the 
 nature of all things to find rest when they come to due and 
 proper places. But be assured of this, that this delight will 
 languish and vanish ; for power will quench appetite, and satiety 
 will endure tediousness. But if you embrace the wars, your 
 trophies and triumphs will be as continual coronations that
 
 224 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 ■will not suffer your glory and contentment to fade and wither. 
 Then, when you have enlarged your territories, ennobled your 
 country, distributed fortunes good or bad, at your pleasure, 
 not only to particulars, but to cities and nations, marked the 
 computations of times with your expeditions and voyages, and 
 the memory of places by your exploits and victories in your 
 later years, you shall find a sweet respect into the adventures 
 of your youth, you shall enjoy your reputation, you shall 
 record your travels, and after your own time you shall eternize 
 your name, and leave deep footsteps of your power in the 
 world. 
 
 Such were the proceedings that took place, but the 
 benchers and ancients evidently thought they had 
 lasted long enough. Term was coming on, and the 
 hall was wanted, and it was ordered to be cleared, 
 much to the disgust of the would-be revellers, who did 
 not seem to recognise the truth of the adage that 
 
 Enough is as good as a feast." 
 
 a 
 
 "The purpose of the gentlemen was much disappointed 
 by the readers and ancients of the house by reason of the 
 term ; so that very good inventions which were to be per- 
 formed in public at his entertainment into the house again, 
 and two grand nights which were intended at his triumphal 
 return, wherewith his reign had been conceitedly determined, 
 were by the aforesaid readers and governors made frustrate, for 
 the want of room in the hall, the scafiblds being taken away 
 and forbidden to be built up again (as would have been 
 necessary for the good discharge of such matter), thought 
 convenient ; but it showed rather what was performed than 
 intended." 
 
 The result was, that though the sports were carried 
 on till Shrove Tuesday, they were outside the hall at 
 Greenwich and elsewhere as already stated. 
 
 It is, I think, to be noticed in this account of the 
 proceedings, that the officers are named as well as the
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 225 
 
 guests who came on the 5th of January, among whom 
 were the Lord Keeper, the Earls of Shrewsbury, Cum- 
 berland, Northumberland, Southampton and Essex, 
 so that there was no general desire to conceal the 
 identity of the different persons. Yet when we come 
 to the mock trial,^ the defendant's name is not given, 
 but he is spoken of as a sorcerer or conjurer who had 
 caused the stage to be built and the scaffolds to be 
 reared to the top of the house to increase expectation, 
 and had caused divers ladies and gentlemen to be 
 invited to our sports, &c. ; and lastly, that he had 
 foisted a company of base and common fellows to 
 make up our disorders with a play of errors and con- 
 fusions, &c., being careful to mention it was like to 
 Plautus his Maenechmus, " all of which were against 
 the crown and dignity of our Sovereign Lord the 
 Prince of Purpoole " — probably a quotation from the 
 indictment. Now these trials between members of 
 the Bar have been carried down to our own day. The 
 old Home Circuit had an attorney specially appointed 
 for prosecuting so-called delinquents, and considerable 
 wit was often shown in the proceedings. Looking at 
 the various other documents set out at full length in 
 the account, the pardon, &c., it is curious that the 
 indictment, which no doubt was facetiously drawn, 
 and the defendant's reply, are not given. I think it 
 may be that the defendant did not wish his identity 
 disclosed, which the setting out of these documents in 
 exfenso might have done. But whoever he was, he 
 was the introducer of the players and Shakespeare's 
 play ; he had the stage put up, for which he would 
 require the permission of the benchers. Bacon was an 
 ancient of the Inn, and therefore a person of some 
 
 1 Page 279. 
 C. Q
 
 226 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 authority. If another than the person who introduced 
 the players wrote the account we are considering, 
 he probably would have given us the defendant's 
 name, and set out the indictment and the defence, 
 especially as the result of the trial was that the 
 defendant alone was acquitted, and the prosecuting 
 counsel and others concerned were sent to the Tower 
 (the stocks). If this defendant was the author of the 
 account, then the compliment to Elizabeth points to 
 Bacon. And this, I think, is confirmed by the de- 
 scription given of the defendant as being a sorcerer 
 or conjurer, which is the character Bacon's name- 
 sake, Friar Bacon, bore, which might well have led to 
 his being so described ; so that there seems to be a 
 chain connecting the writer of the account with the 
 defendant, who was termed a sorcerer, and both with 
 Bacon ; and that it was to the latter the introduction of 
 the play and the building of the stage, &c., were due. 
 It is almost impossible to see how this could have 
 been done without bringing him into direct communi- 
 cation with Shakespeare as author of the play. 
 
 Be this as it may, if Mr. Spedding is correct in 
 saying that the speeches made on the 3rd of January 
 were Bacon's, we have an entertainment begun, as it 
 were, by Shakespeare and his play, and continued by 
 Bacon and his speeches ; and, therefore, I think it is 
 not unreasonable to suppose that the two, at least, 
 knew of each other's existence at this time. 
 
 I have set out at some length the extracts from the 
 account we have of the " Gesta Grayorum " of 1594, and 
 pointed out the inference which, I think, may be drawn,
 
 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. 227 
 
 i.e.^ that Bacon was the prime mover, the one who 
 caused the stage to be built, and introduced the 
 players into Gray's Inn Hall, as showing the prob- 
 ability of his being in direct connection with Shake- 
 speare and the company of players to which he 
 belonged. And I think if there was some one who was 
 assisting Shakespeare in the authorship of the plays, 
 as well as in their production when written, that it was 
 not unreasonable to suppose that he who did the one 
 may have done the other. The "Comedy of Errors," 
 though full of many absurdities, has also very many 
 legal expressions and ideas, which, if my view of Shake- 
 speare's ignorance of the law be correct, must have 
 been furnished to him by some one. That this person 
 was Bacon, is to my mind somewhat confirmed by the 
 fact that the "Promus," to which reference has already 
 been made, was commenced at about this time, for it 
 is dated on the top of the page, 5th December, 1594. 
 At this time Gray's Inn Hall was probably being 
 prepared for the " Comedy of Errors." And whatever 
 may be said of Mrs. Potts' attempts to connect the 
 various sentences with passages in Shakespeare s 
 works, this collection of " wise savv^s " is just such 
 a work as Bacon may have commenced if he had 
 made up his mind to assist Shakespeare with his play- 
 writing. If, on the other hand, Bacon was a perfect 
 stranger to Shakespeare and his works, then we have 
 this remarkable coincidence, that Bacon at the time 
 Shakespeare, who had been assisted by some legal 
 friend, found his way with his play upon a stage in 
 Gray's Inn Hall, Bacon commenced a work which, to 
 some at least there seems almost conclusive evidence, 
 was in many cases used for the subsequent writings of 
 Shakespeare and his unknown friend. 
 
 Q2
 
 228 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Evidence must not be treated piecemeal. At 
 present I have only shown one matter that cannot 
 well be questioned, and that is, Bacon was in some 
 way or other, in 1594, mixed up with the earliest 
 known production of any play said to be by Shake- 
 speare. I now propose to pass over about twenty- 
 nine years and show what evidence there is which 
 connects Bacon with the production of the Folio in 
 1623. I think if I can show that there is strong 
 ground for believing that he was connected with that, 
 we shall then have some connection shown between 
 the first and last production of Shakespeare's plays, 
 the Alpha and Omega of our inquiry. There are 
 certain small matters already referred to in the interval 
 which are nothing if they stood alone, but I think are 
 of value as connecting links. I illustrate this to my 
 own mind by the example of a traveller exploring the 
 site of an ancient city. If he can discover traces of a 
 gate at one place, and traces of another gate some 
 distance off, then small objects, such as occasional 
 wrought stones, &c., which would prove nothing 
 of themselves, would, if they lay between the two 
 supposed gates, be strong evidence of the city that 
 was supposed to exist between them. So, if I have 
 established that some one must have assisted Shake- 
 speare, and show that when his first play was produced 
 Bacon was on the spot, apparently taking an active 
 part in its production, and that there is g'ood 
 reason for believing that Bacon took an active part 
 in the production of the Folio of 1623, then I 
 think the small incidents that took place in this 
 interval of time may prove of weight as showing 
 that there was a more or less continuous connection 
 between the two during the period of 1594 to 1623.
 
 ( 229 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 BACON AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 
 
 There are many circumstances that connect Bacon 
 with the publication, in 1623, of the first folio of 
 vShakespeare's plays. At this period Bacon had been 
 sentenced by the House of Lords, and deprived of his 
 offices, including the Lord Chancellorship. He was 
 not only in want of money, but of employment, as his 
 letters to the king tell us. And if he had assisted 
 Shakespeare some years before, but had set aside his 
 play-\\Titing on the accession of James in 1603, and 
 turned his attention to politics, and ambition, he 
 might be well expected to return to his literary labours 
 when he found his professional life closed. This i^, 
 of course, arguing in a circle, as it assumes that he 
 did assist Shakespeare in order to prove that he did 
 so. But, as I have said before more than once, there 
 are many circumstances connected with Shakespeare 
 and his works which may lead to several conclusions, 
 one of which is that Bacon assisted him, and the 
 publication of the Folio collection of his plays, many 
 of which had never before been published — some 
 fourteen, I think — at this period may be accounted for 
 by the fact that at this time Bacon was out of employ- 
 ment. This might be a mere coincidence. But it is 
 considerably strengthened by the presence in the
 
 230 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Folio of the play of " Henry VIII./' which seems to 
 point to Bacon as being its part author. 
 
 The reasons for this conclusion may be thus stated — 
 
 1. It is a legal play. 
 
 2. It contains the special knowledge that Bacon 
 
 alone would possess. 
 
 3. It has been altered, from a merry licentious play 
 
 to a sad and serious one. 
 
 4. This alteration appears to have been made by 
 
 Jonson, who was assisting Bacon. 
 
 5. There appears to be no reason why Jonson should 
 
 have touched this particular play, except to 
 give Bacon an opportunity of calling atten- 
 tion to his own sorrows. 
 
 6. This view is confirmed by Bacon's own letters. 
 
 "■Henry VIII r a legal Play. 
 
 The play of " Henry VIII." is classed by Lord 
 Campbell among those which show no legal know- 
 ledge, but I think wrongly so. I think there will be 
 found in the play many more traces of legal know- 
 ledge than are in some of the plays he has given 
 extracts from. Thus, the Queen, when she is con- 
 fronted with Wolsey, makes her challenge that he, 
 being her enemy, shall not be her judge, and says : — 
 
 I utterly abhor, yea, from my soul, 
 Refuse you for my judge. 
 
 This she repeats — 
 
 I do refuse you for my judge ; and here, 
 Before you all, appeal unto the Pope, 
 To bring my whole cause before his Holiness, 
 And to be judged by him. 
 
 Of course, all this is history ; but it has been pointed
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 231 
 
 out by Sir William Blackstone, that abhor and refuse 
 are technical terms of the canon law, Ddestor and 
 Recuso. These words are given in Hollinshed, but 
 not as words of art, but rather the redundant expres- 
 sions of an angry woman. And I think it required as 
 much technical knowledge to have selected the proper 
 words to use as it would be for a dealer to pick out real 
 stones from imitations. 
 
 The sentence from Hollinshed is as follows — 
 
 Here is to be noted that the queen, in the presence 
 of the whole Court, most grievously accused the Cardinal 
 of ^untruth, deceit, wickedness, and malice, which had sown 
 dissension between her and the king, her husband ; and 
 therefore openly protested that she did utterly abhor, refuse, 
 and forsake such a judge, as was not only a most malicious 
 enemy to her, but also a manifest adversary to all right and 
 justice, and therewith did appeal to the Pope, committing her 
 whole cause to be judged by him. 
 
 I do not think anyone, not being a lawyer acquainted 
 with the canon law, reading this passage would 
 have known the words "abhor" and "refuse" to be 
 proper legal expressions. It may be that they were 
 copied into the play in ignorance of this fact, but they 
 follow the word " challenge," which had just been used 
 in its proper technical sense, and is not found in the 
 extract from Hollinshed. There are numerous other 
 expressions and ideas which savour of the law. Thus, 
 Buckingham is properly arrested by a sergeant- 
 at-arms by Brandon's orders — 
 
 Brandon. Your office, sergeant, execute it. 
 
 Serg. Sir, 
 
 My lord the Duke of Buckingham, and Earl 
 Of Hereford, Stafford, and Northampton, I 
 Arrest thee of high treason, in the name 
 Of our most sovereign king.
 
 232 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Buckingham says — 
 
 It will help me nothing, 
 To plead mine innocence. 
 
 In the next scene the king, when he has heard the 
 witnesses, says — 
 
 He is attach' d ; 
 Call him to present trial : if he may 
 Find mercy in the law, 'tis his ; if none, 
 Let him not seek 't of us. 
 
 This is very similar to the arrest of Scroop and the 
 others in " Henry V.," ^ when they are arrested to the 
 answer of the law. 
 
 We find Wolsey, when he is accused of issuing 
 illegal commissions, says — 
 
 I have no further gone in this, than by 
 
 A single voice ; and that not passed me, but 
 
 By learned approbation of the judges. 
 
 Referring to the practice of taking the advice of 
 the judges by Parliament, &c. And the king asks — 
 
 Have you a precedent 
 Of this commission ? 
 
 When he gets no answer, says — 
 
 To every county, 
 Where this is questioned, send our letters, with 
 Free pardon to each man that hath denied 
 The force of this commission. 
 
 Lovel, describing the dismissal of the young nobles 
 from court, their French manners having offended the 
 king, says — 
 
 They may, cu?n privilcgio, wear away 
 
 The lag end of their lewdness and be laughed at. 
 
 1 Act II. Scene II., ante.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 233 
 
 The scene where Buckingham comes back from his 
 trial is correctly described. 
 
 Wolsey defends his conduct to the queen — 
 How far I have proceeded, 
 Or how far further shall, is warranted 
 By a commission from the consistory, 
 Yea, the whole consistory of Rome. 
 
 Campeggio states the difficulty the Court are in by 
 the queen's refusal to attend, having appealed to 
 Rome — 
 
 The queen being absent, 'tis a needful fitness 
 That we adjourn this court till further day : 
 Meanwhile must be an earnest motion 
 Made to the queen, to call back her appeal 
 She intends unto his holiness. 
 
 The queen says — 
 
 That comfort comes too late; 
 'Tis like a pardon after execution. 
 
 Perhaps one of the most interesting scenes to be 
 found in this play, as showing the familiarity of the 
 legal friend with one branch of the law, is where 
 Wolsey introduces Campeggio to the king. In the 
 play he is called Campeius, the name given both in 
 Hall and Hollinshed, Cavendish uses the Italian 
 form. Wolsey explains that the king has given a 
 precedent of wisdom by committing his scruples 
 about the marriage to Christendom, so that all must, 
 even the Spaniard, confess the trial just and noble. 
 
 All the clerks, 
 I mean the learned ones, in christian kingdoms 
 Have their free voices ; Rome, the nurse of judgment, 
 Invited by your noble self, hath sent 
 One general tongue' unto us, this good man, &c. 
 
 1 I suppose as the mouthpiece of Christendom.
 
 234 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Campeggio says : — 
 
 To your highness' hand 
 I tender my commission ; by whose virtue 
 (The court of Rome commanding), you, my lord, 
 Cardinal of York, are joined with me, their servant, 
 In the impartial judging of this business. 
 
 All this is in due form and might perhaps have been 
 
 learned from history, but I think it requires a legal 
 
 training to express so shortly what is necessary and. 
 
 no more. The next expression is very curious, Wolsey 
 
 tells the King that the Queen is entitled to legal 
 
 assistance. 
 
 I know your Majesty has always loved her 
 So dear in heart ; not to deny her that 
 A woman of less place might ask by law. 
 Scholars, allowed freely to argue for her. 
 
 The word " scholars " is a word that requires some 
 explanation, which I think to be this. In England 
 we have the common law, which is paramount ; but in 
 addition there were the civil law and the canon law. 
 These two have often been confused, but they are 
 quite distinct. ]\Ir. Lewis Dibden, in his work on 
 Church Courts,^ says : — 
 
 I gather that the distinction between Canon and Civil Law 
 was as marked at Oxford as at Cambridge, so that there does 
 not seem to be the slightest ground for confounding civilians 
 with canonists. 
 
 Perhaps the strongest proof of this marked distinction 
 between the two systems is to be found in the very different 
 manner in which they were treated in our Universities at the 
 Reformation. While canon law was interdicted, civil law was 
 not interfered with. The material support which the former 
 lent to the papal usurpation is a sufficient reason for its dis- 
 favour. On the other hand, the freedom of the civil law from 
 
 » Page 57.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 235 
 
 any special connection with the Romish Church seems not 
 only to account for its toleration, but to be the necessary 
 explanation of an otherwise meaningless inconsistency. When 
 the Church of England was liberated from the bondage of 
 Rome, it no longer required to be preserved within it a know- 
 ledge of the Decretals and Bulls of pontifical and canon law; 
 but for matters of probate and administration, as well as those 
 dealt with in the Admiralty Court, Roman civil law, which 
 had always regulated them, was yet required and was therefore 
 still maintained. It would be difficult to illustrate the diver- 
 gence between canon and civil law more forcibly than by a 
 simple statement of well-known historical facts. 
 
 Henry VIII., in 153S, by one of the celebrated royal injunc- 
 tions of that year, commanded the Universities to cease 
 teaching, examining, or granting decrees in canon law (the 
 greater part of which was swept away by the removal of the 
 papal authority). The order which was sent to Cambridge is 
 still extant, and it is supposed that a similar one went to 
 Oxford. 
 
 If, therefore, persons could not get a degree given 
 to them in canon law, they must have remained 
 scholars, and I think this may have been the reason 
 the word is used in the play, the trial before the two 
 Cardinals being under the canon law. If this be sp, 
 it affords us another example of the law in Shake- 
 speare's plays being the law as it was in his time, for 
 the trial took place in 1529, and, as we see, Henry's 
 injunction was not till 1535, so that Wolsey used the 
 word in that curious spirit of prophecy which I have 
 before noticed in the legal knowledge displayed in 
 the plays ; afterwards Wolsey describes the scholars 
 thus : — 
 
 You have here, lady, 
 
 (And of your choice) these reverend fathers ; men 
 
 Of singular integrity and learning ; 
 
 Yea, the elect of the land, who are assembled 
 
 To plead your cause.
 
 236 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Wolsey then points out that, being represented by 
 counsel, she must act through them. 
 
 It shall therefore be bootless 
 That longer you desire the Court : &c. 
 
 Campeggio supports Wolsey's ruling — 
 
 His grace 
 Hath spoken well and justly. Therefore, madam, 
 It's fit this royal session do proceed, 
 And that without delay, their^ arguments 
 Be now produced and heard. 
 
 But the queen is not to be silenced, and insists on 
 speaking for herself, notwithstanding she has counsel, 
 and, as we have seen, challenges Wolsey as judge, 
 uses the proper expressions, herself gives notice that 
 she appeals to Rome, and sweeps out of Court, 
 leaving the Court to a certain extent powerless, so 
 that it has to be adjourned. 
 
 All this is, as I have said, history, but it is told as 
 a lawyer would tell it, and not, I think, as a layman 
 inexperienced in the practice of the Courts would. 
 The more one reads this play the more one is struck 
 with the evidence of legal training it displays wherever 
 such legal knowledge is required, but not otheruase. 
 As I have said before, in some of the plays the law is 
 often dragged in for the purpose of display ; but all 
 that is connected with the law is told in this play 
 in a lawyer-like manner. There are no doubt other 
 examples, but I think enough has been adduced to 
 show that " Henry VIII." is one of the legal plays, 
 and it is difficult to understand how Lord Campbell 
 could have found no traces of legal knowledge in it. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that this play shows the 
 
 ^ Her counsel's.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 237 
 
 progress of Shakespeare's legal friend. In the earlier 
 plays written some thirty years before, the law is made 
 the vehicle for jesting ; the student airs his know- 
 ledge ; he is often grotesque, he makes Venus in her 
 baffled passion talk of English common money bonds. 
 There is nothing of this in " Henry VIII." ; the law 
 is used in a grave and solemn manner, and more 
 particularly we find not the mere lawyer, but one who 
 has, as we shall see, an intimate and familiar know- 
 ledge of the manners and customs belonging to the 
 Chancellorship, in fact just that information which 
 Bacon could best have supplied if he were assisting 
 Jonson to ^\Tite up this play for the press about 
 1622-3. As this is to my mind the peculiar feature 
 of this play, it may not be out of place to call attention 
 to both Bacon and Wolsey's position with regard to the 
 Lord Chancellorship. Both had been deprived of it ; 
 but while Wolsey was to the Protestants an enemy to 
 be humbled, Bacon was to all a criminal to be punished. 
 Wolsey had lost it because he could not get 
 Campeggio to give a decision. We now know that 
 the latter had pledged himself in a letter to the Pope 
 not to do so ; this was before he ever came to England, 
 and Wolsey had remonstrated with him upon this 
 matter without success, and had pointed out to him 
 what would be the consequences if the king did not 
 get the divorce. The following extracts from 
 Campeggio's letters may be interesting, as showing 
 the real position taken up by Wolsey. Before coming 
 to England, Campeggio explains his position to the 
 Pope's secretary Salviati — 
 
 As to not binding myself or giving any promise, His 
 Holiness may trust to my fidelity. Neither with all his 
 kingdom, nor with all his treasure, ^yiIl he [the king] be able
 
 238 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 to cause me to deviate from my duty. I will be careful, when 
 speaking with him, not to promise any sentence. If you mean 
 to say that I am to do nothing whatever without informing 
 the Pope, I do not see how, in case it should be impossible to 
 shake the king's opinion, the trial can be avoided without 
 scandal. They would think I had come to hoodwink them 
 and might resent it. You know how much that would 
 involve. But so far as the sentence itself is concerned, I will 
 observe all your instructions ; and they shall never learn my 
 opinion until I am about to give judgment — that is to say, if 
 the cause should proceed so far. 
 
 Campeggio in a letter states how he tried to convince 
 Wolsey and the result which followed. 
 
 But though I spoke with my utmost power, I could not 
 
 the least move his Lordship [Wolsey] from his opinion. He 
 
 alleged that if the king's desire were not complied with, 
 
 fortified and justified as it was by the reasons, writings, and 
 
 counsels of many learned men who feared God, the speedy 
 
 and total ruin would follow of the kingdo?n, of his lordship, and 
 
 of the Churches influence in this kingdom. 
 
 * i¥ * * * 
 
 I have no more moved him [Wolsey] than if I had spoken 
 to a rock. His objections were always founded upon the 
 invalidity of the marriage and upon the instability of the realm 
 and the succession. 
 
 In my last conversation with his lordship, he said, and 
 repeated many times, in Latin : Most Reverend Lord, beware 
 lest, in like manner as the greater part of Germany, owing to 
 the harshness and severity of a certain Cardinal, has become 
 estranged from the Apostolic See and from the Faith, it may 
 be said that another Cardinal has given the same occasion to 
 England, with the same result. He [Wolsey] often impresses 
 upon me that if this divorce is not granted, the authority of 
 the Sec Apostolic in this kingdom will be annihilated. And 
 he certainly proves himself very zealous for its preservation, 
 having done, and still doing, for it very great services, because 
 all his grandeur is connected with it."
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 239 
 
 This letter was signed 28th October, 1528 ; we shall 
 see by that day twelvemonth Campeggio had refused 
 to give sentence, andWolsey's fall was imminent. 
 
 It appears that Campeggio put off the matter as 
 long as he could, but finally the king and queen were 
 summoned to appear before the Cardinals on the 
 1 8th June, 1529, between the hours of 9 and 10. The 
 Queen, however, as stated in the play, appealed to 
 Rome, and after that, we are told, appeared no 
 more. 
 
 In his letters, Campeggio incidentally mentions that 
 on the 4th June " we are still wearing our winter 
 clothing and using fires as if it were January." 
 Generally, he seems to have objected to the country 
 and the people as well as the climate. He was 
 hustled, as it were, into proceeding with the trial. 
 Unfortunately the story as told by him is not complete, 
 as his letters appear to have been intercepted by the 
 king, and we have only copies of those which got 
 through to Rome. We learn, however, that by the 
 7th October, he had said farewell to the king, and he 
 was going to More "where Wolsey had a very fine 
 palace"; and he left England on the 26th October, 
 and on the 5th November he writes from Paris to 
 Salviati, the Pope's secretary — 
 
 Immediately after my departure from London the designs 
 against the Cardinal of York commenced to develop with 
 great violence, so that before I crossed the sea^ I learned 
 they had deprived him of the seal and of the management of 
 
 1 This was not so, for we learn from Cavendish that "Wolsey sat in 
 Westminster Hall on the first day of Michaelmas term (2nd November), 
 and was deprived of his seal on the 4th. Cavendish says he waited at 
 home the next day after Satmday {i.e., the 3rd), and the dukes came to 
 ask for the seal on the 4th, but having no written authority from the king, 
 had to come back again.
 
 240 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 all affairs and of a great part of his servants, and an inquiry 
 was being made respecting his money and other possessions, 
 with very evident signs of his tending to ruin. He has done 
 nothing in the past, so far as ecclesiastical matters are con- 
 cerned, to merit such disgrace. And, therefore, it may be 
 thought his majesty will not go to extremes, but act con- 
 siderately in this matter, as he is accustomed to do in all 
 his actions. 
 
 We learn further from the State Papers that Wolsey 
 was indicted on the 9th October, 1529, for obtaining 
 bulls to be made legate, contrary to 16 Rich. II.; and 
 on the 27th October he appeared by two attorneys, who 
 stated that he was not aware that he had committed 
 any offence, but threw himself on the king's mercy ; 
 and the judgment was that he was to be out of the 
 king's mercy, and forfeit all lands and goods. 
 
 It is to be noticed that even Campeggio expects 
 that the king would act considerately, and we shall 
 see that Wolsey shared this opinion, and that although 
 he allowed him to be deprived of his possessions, the 
 seal, &c., the king did not desert him, but tried to help 
 him as far as Anne would let him. 
 
 If any one takes the trouble to read Cavendish's 
 " Life of Wolsey," he will find that though Wolsey 
 lost the seal, he did not until quite the last lose the 
 friendship of the king. Anne Boleyn was his enemy : 
 the king was in love with her, and Wolsey was sacri- 
 ficed to her enmity. But his plate, &c., was for the most 
 part returned to him. Lord Campbell says he received 
 a general pardon on giving up some of his preferments. 
 He had a large retinue of servants ; the king sent his 
 own physicians to him when he was ill, and ordered 
 them not to take any fees, and found him money to 
 set out for his archbishopric in York ; and it was
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 241 
 
 not until he made preparations for his installation 
 as Archbishop of York that the king ordered his arrest. 
 He went so far, Lord Campbell says, as to ask the 
 king to lend him some special robes, seized by the 
 Crown officers with the rest of his goods, which he 
 was accustomed to wear on great occasions. But 
 even then every consideration was shown him ; he 
 stayed eighteen days with Lord Shrewsbury, who, it 
 appears, was commanded by the king by letters 
 received daily, to entertain him " as one that he [the 
 king] loveth and highly favoureth." But when the 
 Constable of the Tower appeared to bring him up to 
 London, Wolsey lost heart. In vain Cavendish tried 
 to re-assure him. " Well, well then," quoth he, " I per- 
 ceive more than ye can imagine or do know ; experi- 
 ence of old hath taught me." The common report 
 was that he took poison, but whether that be so he 
 died shortly after, not having got far on his journey, 
 and so escaped the Tower and, it may be, the block. 
 It is true that just before he died, he, according to 
 Cavendish, made use of the memorable words we find 
 in the play, addressing the Constable of the Tower : — 
 
 "Well, well, Master Kingston," quoth he, " I see the matter 
 against me, how it is framed ; but if I had served God as 
 diligently as I have done the king, he would not have given 
 me over in my grey hairs. Howbeit, this is the just reward 
 that I must receive for my worldly diligence and pains that I 
 have had to do him service, only to satisfy his vain pleasure, 
 not regarding my godly duty."^ 
 
 I think this is the first and last complaint he 
 made against the king, if he did make it, for I think 
 
 * Page 250. 
 C' R
 
 242 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Cavendish \vTote up some of his speeches, and it may- 
 have been the latter's embellishment. But up to the 
 hour of his death he always seemed to recognize that 
 the king was forced to treat him as he did ; for instance, 
 when he was leaving York House his treasurer, Sir 
 William Gascoigne, said :^ — 
 
 " Sir, I am sorry for your Grace, for I understand ye shall 
 go straightway to the Tower." 
 
 "Is this the good comfort and counsel," quoth my lord, "that 
 ye can give your master in adversity 7 It hath been always your 
 natural inclination to be very light of credit, and much more 
 lighter in reporting of false news. I would ye should know. Sir 
 William, and all other such blasphemers, that it is nothing 
 more false than that, for I never (thanks be to God) deserved 
 by no ways to come there under any arrest, although it has 
 pleased the king to take my house ready furnished for his 
 pleasure at this time," &c. 
 
 And when he was asked by Cavendish why he con- 
 fessed himself guilty on the praemunire, 
 
 " Wherein ye might full well have stood in the trial of your 
 case;" 
 
 (the king's learned counsel, it appeared, had ex- 
 pressed an opinion that, his case well considered, he 
 had great wrong), Wolsey explained his reasons, 
 which were that his enemies, having made the king 
 take up their quarrel, it was no use opposing him, 
 and by his submission, he said — 
 
 "The king, I doubt not, had a great remorse of conscience, 
 wherein he would rather pity than malign me." 
 
 He then referred to Anne as the "night crow" 
 who would, if he had been stiff-necked, have " called 
 continually upon the king in his car," that with the 
 
 ^ Page 142.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 243 
 
 help of her assistance, he would have obtained sooner 
 the king's indignation than his favour ; 
 
 "And his favour once lost (which, I trust, at this present I 
 have) would never have been by me recovered," 
 
 and therefore he thought it better to lose his goods 
 and dignities and keep his favour, and concluded by 
 saying — 
 
 *' I understand the king hath received a certain prick of con- 
 science, who took to himself the matter more grievous in his 
 secret stomach than all men knew. For he knew whether I 
 did offend him therein so grievously as it was made or no, to 
 whose conscience I do commit my cause, truth, and equity." 
 
 This, I think, shows the trust Wolsey had in the 
 king's personal friendship. And if Chapuy's account, 
 which he sent to his sovereign Charles V., is to be 
 accepted, it was this very friendship of Henry's that 
 ultimately led to Wolsey's arrest — 
 
 "Eight days ago the king gave orders for the Cardinal to 
 
 be brought here ; on which the Cardinal remained for some 
 
 days without food, hoping rather to finish his life in this way 
 
 than in a more shameful one, of which he had some fears. 
 
 He has been taken ill on the road, and has not arrived. It 
 
 is said he is to be lodged in the same chamber in the Tower 
 
 where the Duke of Buckingham was detained. The cause of 
 
 his arrest is a mere conjecture. A gentleman told me that a 
 
 short time ago the king was complaining to his council of 
 
 something that was not done according to his liking, and 
 
 said in a rage that the Cardinal was a better man than any of 
 
 them for managing matters ; and repeating this twice, he left 
 
 them. The duke, the lady, and the father have not ceased 
 
 since then to plot against the Cardinal ; especially the lady, 
 
 who does not cease to weep and regret her lost time and her 
 
 honor, threatening the king that she would leave him, — in 
 
 such sort that the king has had much trouble to appease her ; 
 
 and though the king prayed her most affectionately, even 
 
 with tears in his eyes, that she would not speak of leaving him, 
 
 K 2
 
 244 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 nothing would satisfy her except the arrest of the Cardinal. 
 It was pretended that he had written to Rome to be 
 reinstated in his possessions, and to France for its favor, 
 and was returning to his ancient pomp, and corrupting the 
 people." 
 
 Of course, Wolsey did not know that it was 
 the jealousy of Anne Boleyn and the Duke of 
 Norfolk, that was the immediate cause of his being 
 arrested. The world and, perhaps, he himself attri- 
 buted it to his ostentatious preparations for his in- 
 stallation as Archbishop of York. But whatever the 
 cause was, the appearance of the Constable of the 
 Tower was a stern reality, which caused Wolsey for 
 the first time to give way to despair. 
 
 Although Cavendish and others tell us this, we 
 find in the play the king is made as much Wolsey's 
 enemy as Anne herself was. We have this fact, then, 
 that up to a certain point the author follows Caven- 
 dish, and then departs from him : the question is, 
 why ? That " Henry VIII.," as far as Wolsey is 
 concerned, is, for the most part, based on Cavendish, 
 the following examples will show. Let us take, 
 for instance, the scene where the two cardinals 
 visit Catherine to persuade her — 
 
 " To leave her case entirely in the king's hands, which 
 would be much better to her honour than to stand the trial 
 of law and to be condemned, which would seem much to her 
 slander and defamation." 
 
 The scene between the queen and the cardinals very 
 closely follows Cavendish's account, where she says — 
 
 Alack, my lord, I am very sorry to cause you to attend upon 
 me. What is your pleasure with me ? — Cavendish. 
 
 What are your pleasures with me, reverend lords ? — Shake- 
 speare.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 245 
 
 If it please you, quoth the cardinal, to go into your privy 
 chamber, we will show you the cause of our coming. — 
 Cavendish. 
 
 May it please you, noble madam, to withdraw into your 
 private chamber, we shall give you the full cause of our 
 coming. — Shakespeare. 
 
 The Queen, both in the play and according to 
 Cavendish, asks them to speak openly before her folk, 
 upon which Wolsey commences to speak in Latin, 
 when she beseeches him to speak in English ; Wolsey 
 then explains his errand, which is to know how she 
 may be disposed to do, in the matter between the king 
 and herself. For which she thanks them for their 
 good wills, and then follows her complaint that she 
 has been at work among her maids and is not pre- 
 pared to answer so weighty a matter, &c., and finally 
 she takes them to her private chamber, when the scene 
 ends in the play, and Cavendish says : — 
 
 "We, in the other chamber, might sometimes hear the 
 queen speak very loud, but what it was we could not hear." 
 
 So with the scene when the two dukes ask Wolsey 
 to give up the seals and to depart unto Asher, a house 
 belonging to the See of Winchester, Wolsey asks what 
 commission they had to give him such a command- 
 ment. They replied : — 
 
 "That they were sufficient commissioners in that behalf, 
 having the king's commandment by his mouth so to do." 
 
 These expressions are to be found in the play, and 
 so is Wolsey's statement that the seal was delivered 
 to him by the king himself to enjoy during his life, 
 for which he had the king's letters patent to show, 
 Cavendish said, which matter was greatly debated 
 between the dukes and him, with many stout words 
 between them. In the play we have the quarrel gone
 
 246 SHAKESPEARE : A STIIDY. 
 
 into fully. But no one can, I think, doubt that the 
 author of the play worked up some of his scenes, and 
 took some of his dialogue, directly from Cavendish. 
 Reference is made in the scene to the articles which 
 had been preferred in Parliament against Wolsey, and 
 also to the prosecution in the praemunire matters, which 
 did not take place till afterwards, but are all referred 
 to in Cavendish. So far the author of the play has 
 followed Cavendish, but when we come to his "farewell 
 to greatness," we find he is no longer followed; but we 
 seem to have not Wolsey but Bacon on the stage. 
 
 With Bacon all was different ; he had been sentenced 
 by his peers, as we shall see ; deprived of his chan- 
 cellorship, all he had ; declared incapable of holding 
 office again, and banished from the court. He may 
 have thought the king ought to have shielded him, 
 but Wol sey knew Henry was doing all that Anne and 
 her party would allow him to do. Is it a coincidence 
 then, that in the play the king is made as much 
 Wolsey's enemy as Anne was, and Wolsey is made to 
 utter his farewell to greatness, &c. ? It may have been 
 done for dramatic effect. It may have been that Bacon 
 desired to excite sympathy for himself. It is like so 
 much of what we find in Shakespeare, capable of two 
 explanations, one of which is Bacon. And if the 
 Athenians were right in choosing Themistocles, because 
 each general put himself first and Themistocles second, 
 so it is not unreasonable to give some weight to the 
 fact that there is so much which may be explainable 
 by Bacon being the person who assisted in the legal 
 play, though each incident may be explained some 
 other way. It is the accumulation of these coinci- 
 dences which constitute circumstantial evidence, and 
 we shall see there are a great many extraneous facts
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 247 
 
 besides the internal evidence which points possibly 
 to Bacon. 
 
 There are several incidents in the play of " Henry 
 VIII." which, I think, derive a new interest if we are 
 of opinion that the play is partly Bacon's ; though 
 they do not amount to evidence that it was so, they 
 illustrate what, perhaps, passed through his mind. 
 We learn from Cavendish that an inventory was made 
 ofWolsey's goods when he left York Place to go to 
 Asher. This inventory is to be found in the State 
 Papers, and includes not only his plate, linen, silks, &c., 
 but also his robes and vestments, and even two dresses, 
 one with false pearls for the Virgin, and a coat for her 
 son. Cavendish gives a general account of a number 
 of rich stuffs, "of silk in whole pieces of all colours," 
 and "velvet, satin, damask, cuffa, taffeta, grograine, 
 sarcanet, and of others not in my remembrance, and a 
 thousand pieces of fine hoUand cloth ; the walls of the 
 gallery were hanged with cloth of gold, and in one 
 room was set nothing but gilt and gold plate, in 
 another silver, &c." Now, in the play this inventory 
 is supposed to be leftby Wolsey amongst some papers 
 he had given to the king, together with a letter from 
 Wolsey to the Pope, &c. These two documents were 
 supposed to have turned the king against Wolsey. 
 This is all the author's imagination, as it was not till 
 after his fall that the inventory was made ; in fact, 
 almost the last words of AVolsey in the play are : — 
 
 Prithee, lead me in : 
 There take an inventory of all I have, 
 To the last penny ; 'tis the king's, &c. 
 
 The author, as I have said, makes the inventory
 
 248 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 one of the causes of Wolsey's fall, and Henry is made 
 to enter reading the schedule, saying : — 
 
 What piles of wealth hath he accumulated 
 To his own portion ! and what expense by the hour 
 Seems to flow from him ? How, i' the name of thrift, 
 Does he rake this together ? 
 
 The king must have known all about Wolsey's plate 
 and linen, he had too often enjoyed his hospitality 
 not to do so. But Bacon, who spent as much as he 
 got, lawfully and unlawfully, who gave usually il. to a 
 servant who brought him a present of a stag, about 
 1 6/. of our money, as his own accounts show, may 
 well have been surprised how Wolsey could have got 
 together all this wealth, and it may have been his own 
 expression when he makes the king ask " How in the 
 name of thrift does he rake this together ? ". 
 
 The Mace. — I do not know whether the author was 
 right when he had the sword and mace carried before 
 Wolsey when he went with Campeggio to open the 
 Legatine Court at the Blackfriars. Cavendish is 
 silent as to the ceremony of the opening of this Court, 
 and unless there is some account preserved amongst 
 the State Papers which I have not seen, the long 
 stage direction at the commencement of Act II. scene 4, 
 in which the procession to the Court is given, must 
 have been written by someone who knew something 
 about this kind of ceremony, and what was likely to 
 be done. We know the mace is carried into the 
 ordinary courts when the Lord Chancellor sits, but 
 then he sits there as Lord Chancellor. But in the 
 play he sits as Legate from the Pope, and I should 
 have thought the mace would not have been there. 
 But, no doubt, Wolsey would do as he pleased, and
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 249 
 
 whatever he did would, if known, be a precedent if 
 ever a similar court were held. So the Lords, when 
 they considered how Bacon was to be tried, passed a 
 resolution that the mace was to be shown to him, but 
 not carried before him, which terrible insult Bacon 
 escaped by going to bed and saying he was sick. 
 But, I suppose, if ever a Lord Chancellor should have 
 to be tried by his peers, this old resolution would be 
 considered a precedent. Bacon was, therefore, well 
 acquainted with the circumstances under which the 
 mace should accompany the Chancellor, and if it is by 
 his authority that the play says it is to be carried even 
 into a Legatine ecclesiastical court, probably it was so. 
 But I do not think Shakespeare or Jonson could have 
 known anything about the subject, and finding that 
 Cavendish was silent on the point, I find difficulty 
 in believing that they would have had the audacity to 
 evolve all the procession as it is given us, from their 
 own self-consciousness. 
 
 The second matter which, to my mind, seems to 
 point to Bacon, is the attention the author gives to 
 the details of Wolsey's position as C/iancellor, at the 
 same time other details are treated carelessly. It 
 must be remembered that though Wolsey was Chan- 
 cellor, this was only an incident of his position. 
 Many other ecclesiastics had been Chancellor, and 
 had to resign the seals, and then received them again, 
 and again had lost them. Campbell in some cases 
 says as many as four or five times, and he also 
 says,^ speaking of "Wolsey, — 
 
 Not only historians, but his own biographers, in describing 
 the politician and the churchman, almost forget that he ever 
 was Lord Chancellor, 
 
 1 " Lives of the Chancellors," vol. i, p. 499.
 
 250 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Campeggio says : — 
 
 "All Wolsey's grandeur was connected with the church." 
 
 Cavendish says Wolsey asked the Duke of Norfolk 
 to wash with him ; but the latter desired to have him 
 excused, and said :^ — 
 
 "That it became him not to presume to wash with him any 
 more now than it did before in his glory." 
 
 "Yes, forsooth," quoth my Lord Cardinal, "for my authority 
 and dignity legatine is gone, wherein consisted all my high 
 honor." 
 
 "A straw," quoth my Lord of Norfolk, " for your legacy, I 
 never esteemed your honor the more or higher for that, but I 
 regarded your honor, for that ye were Archbishop of York and 
 a Cardinal, whose estate of honor surmounteth any duke now 
 being within this realm, and so will I honor you and acknow- 
 ledge the same, and bear you reverence accordingly." 
 
 Not a word about the chancellorship. 
 
 With Bacon all this was different. He was Lord 
 Chancellor and nothing more, when he lost that by the 
 sentence of his peers, and was deprived of the right of 
 holding any other office, and banished from the Court, 
 he had lost everything. It was indeed with him — 
 Farewell, a long farewell, to all my greatness ! 
 
 To him the chancellorship was the paradise from 
 which he was banished ; and I now propose to point 
 out, if it be true, as Campbell puts it, that people 
 seem to forget Wolsey was a Chancellor ; it is not so 
 in the play of " Henry VIII.," where his office and all 
 its attendant accessories are well thought out, whilst 
 his cardinalship is comparatively neglected, as well as 
 the ceremony and state of other personages. 
 Cavendish tells us that Wolsey — 
 
 " Had two great crosses of silver, whereof one of them was 
 
 ' Page 164.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 251 
 
 for his archbishopric, and the other for his legacy, borne 
 always before him whithersoever he went or rode, by two of 
 the tallest and comeliest priests that he could get within all 
 this realm " ; 
 
 and when he went to Westminster, 
 
 " there was always borne before him first, the Great Seal of 
 England, and then his Cardinal's hat, by a nobleman or some 
 worthy gentleman right solemnly bareheaded, and also the 
 two crosses of silver and two great pillars of silver, and his 
 pursuivant-at-arms with a great mace of silver gilt." 
 
 Now Cavendish was a servant of Wolsey as Cardinal 
 rather than Lord Chancellor, and he does not seem to 
 have considered who carried the seal. But Lord 
 Campbell says : ^ — 
 
 When he [the Chancellor] appears in his official capacity 
 in the presence of the sovereign, or receives messengers 
 from the Commons at the bar of the House of Lords, he 
 carries the purse himself; on other occasions it is carried by 
 his purse-bearer, and lies before him as an emblem of his 
 authority. 
 
 As we have seen, when he attended the Chan- 
 cery Court he had his mace. But Wolsey also 
 had his crosses and pillars and his Cardinal's hat, 
 and also, we have from Cavendish, men carrying 
 battle-axes. Let us see how the stage directions are 
 with regard to Wolsey. He first appears on his road 
 to attend the king in the council chamber, and he 
 crosses the stage. 
 
 [^«/^r Cardinal Wolsey {the purse home before him), certain 
 of the Guard, and ttvo Secretaries with papers r\ 
 
 Not one word about the crosses which Cavendish 
 
 1 "Lives of the Chancellors," vol. i, p. 27.
 
 252 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 tells him were borne before him wherever he went, 
 and the Cardinal's hat is, apparently, left at home. 
 No doubt this is a small matter ; but it is only 
 small matters that we can expect to reveal the secret, 
 if there be one. We do not find on other occasions 
 Shakespeare takes special notice of the fact that one 
 of his characters is Lord Chancellor. In the first 
 part of " Henry VI." we have the quarrel in Parlia- 
 ment between Beaufort, the Bishop of Winchester, 
 and the Duke of Gloster. Beaufort was at the time 
 Lord Chancellor, and when the peace was patched up 
 between them. Lord Campbell said it was one of the 
 conditions that Beaufort should resign the seals. 
 Yet the fact is not mentioned, and, as far as I can 
 see, there is nothing to show that Beaufort was the 
 Chancellor ; it was not material to the play ; nor more 
 was Wolsey's chancellorship to the play of " Henry 
 VIII.," except so far as the incident of demanding 
 the seals made it so. His part was played as 
 Cardinal and Legate, not as Chancellor, and, there- 
 fore, it seems to me that an ordinary historian or 
 dramatist would not have laid this stress on what was 
 only an incident of his career, and ignored what was 
 essential. But it has been said that this play is more 
 of a pageant than an ordinary drama, if so, still 
 more it seems that an ordinary author would have 
 omitted the purse but mentioned the hat, " solemnly 
 carried by a nobleman, bareheaded," though Bacon 
 may have been biased by the memory of what he 
 had been. We shall see this attention to the one side 
 of Wolsey's position, and the neglect of, or indiffer- 
 ence to, the more important rank still further shown 
 in the subsequent scenes. I do not know whether a 
 cardinal, who was also a chancellor, would or would
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 253 
 
 not have his crosses and hat, &c., when he went to 
 attend the king, but I think that an ordinary writer 
 if he mentioned the one would have done so with the 
 other. Scene 2 is the council chamber, but no direc- 
 tions are given, one way or the other, as to any of the 
 accessories of either the king, queen, or cardinal. In the 
 banquet scene we find only " Enter Wolsey attended," 
 and the same when Wolsey introduces Campeggio to 
 the king. But in the trial scene we shall see attention 
 is paid .to Wolsey and his purse, mace, &c., but the 
 insignia of the rest is ignored. We have trumpets, 
 &c., vergers, scribes,' Archbishop of Canterbury, sundry- 
 bishops, next them, with some, small distance, a gentle- 
 man bearing the Purse, with the Great Seal, and a 
 Cardinal's Hat. Apparently one person has to carry 
 both. The modern custom is that the Purse is carried 
 on a cushion, and requires both hands, so it is difficult 
 to see how the gentleman carried the hat, unless he 
 wore it, which would not satisfy Cavendish's description 
 of carrying it solemnly, bareheaded. Then came the 
 two priests with the two crosses and the silver mace, 
 then the two Cardinals, and two noblemen with the 
 Sword and Mace ; all this is for Wolsey ; we have 
 his crosses and his hat. But the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury had a cross, for. Cavendish tells us, it 
 was because the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Primate 
 of All England, insisted upon Wolsey " abating the 
 advancing of his cross in the presence of the cross of 
 Canterbury," and, as Wolsey's pride could not stand 
 this ; he got himself made Cardinal and Legate, 
 " to be superior in dignity to Canterbury rather than 
 to be either obedient or equal to him." So Campeggio, 
 as a Cardinal and Legate, was entitled to a cross ; 
 and even if he left that at Rome he must have had a
 
 254 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 cardinal's hat. So that whilst we have the purse, 
 mace, &c., accurately given, we have only two crosses 
 instead of four, and one hat between the two Cardinals. 
 When we come to the king and queen we have no 
 details given, only we are told they " came with their 
 trains." We have no more details given about 
 Wolsey, except that when Cromwell sees him after 
 his fall, he says — 
 
 Sir Thomas More is chosen 
 Lord Chancellor in your place. • 
 
 Now Bishop Williams was made chancellor when 
 Bacon was dismissed, and he had not shown himself 
 very complaisant to Bacon. He had, I believe, 
 stopped the publication of his " Henry the VII." for a 
 while, and delayed his pardon. Now if there was one 
 thing Bacon liked, it was giving flattery; and if it 
 ever were whispered that he had anything to do with 
 the play, he may have thought the following speech 
 by Wolsey would not do any harm if Williams might 
 chance to take it to himself. 
 
 Wolsey replies to Cromwell's information about Sir 
 Thomas More — 
 
 That's somewhat sudden : 
 But he's a learned man. May he continue 
 Long in his highness' favour, and do justice 
 For truth's sake, and his conscience ; that his bones, 
 When he has run his course, and sleeps in blessings, 
 May have a tomb of orphans' tears wept on 'em ! 
 What more ? 
 
 Cromwell tells him — 
 
 That Cranmer is rcturn'd with welcome, 
 Install'd Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Wolsey only answers — 
 
 That's news indeed.
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 255 
 
 One would have thought the fact that the Protestant 
 Cranmer was to succeed him would not have been 
 treated in such a cavalier fashion by Wolsey, who, if 
 anything, was a staunch Romanist ; but through- 
 out the play it is the chancellorship that is principally 
 considered, and not the churchman. 
 
 In the coronation scene, when More was chancellor, 
 we have the same attention to the purse and mace, 
 and indifference to other persons, this time it is the 
 Lord Mayor. 
 
 The Order of the Procession. — This is taken with 
 some alteration from Hall. The monks of the abbey 
 are turned into choristers. The Duke of Norfolk was 
 in France, and his brother represented him, &c. 
 
 A lively flourish of trumpets ; then enter — 
 
 1 . Two judges ; 
 
 2. Lord Chancellor with the purse and mace before 
 
 him ; 
 
 3. Choristers singing ; 
 
 4. Mayor of London bearing the mace, &c. 
 
 Now the chancellor had, as we have seen, on certain 
 occasions to carry the purse himself. But it is hard 
 to make the Lord Mayor carry his own mace. Sir 
 Steven Peacock, who was mayor when Anne Boleyn 
 was crowned, had worked very hard and been of great 
 service in collecting funds, &c., for the coronation. 
 This was Cromwell's great device, for he hoped by 
 the magnificence of the ceremony to reconcile England 
 to the change in religion, and he had forced con- 
 tributions from all parts and a good deal from the 
 City with the help of the Lord Mayor, and the latter, 
 no doubt, attended in great state, and if he or some 
 ex-lord mayor had written or assisted to write this
 
 256 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 play, he might as well have described his own part 
 
 as — 
 
 Enter — 
 
 1. The Common Serjeant. 
 
 2. The Recorder. 
 
 3. The City Remembrancer. 
 
 4. The City Marshal. 
 
 5. The Mace and Sword borne by the proper Officers. 
 
 THE LORD MAYOR. 
 ***** 
 
 The Lord Chancellor with the Seals in his Pocket, 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 The last time the Lord Chancellor is referred to, 
 we have the inside of the council chamber, with the 
 chancellor in the second chair, the archbishop outside. 
 This follows the story told in "Fox's Book of jMartyrs." 
 There is a dispute between Cromwell and Gardiner 
 which the chancellor stops, and then in due form he 
 puts the question to the council as to Cranmer's being 
 sent to the Tower, as Bacon no doubt often had put 
 the question from his seat. It is difficult for one 
 who is not a privy councillor, to know whether this 
 scene is correctly drawn or not, but apparently it is 
 described by one who knew, as the speech of the 
 chancellor shows ; addressing Cranmer, he says : — 
 Then thus for you my lord. It stands agreed, 
 I take it, by all voices, that forthwith 
 You be conveyed to the Tower a prisoner ; 
 There to remain, till the king's further pleasure 
 Be known unto us : Are you all agreed, lords ? 
 All. We are. 
 
 It is no doubt a matter of opinion only, but it 
 seems to me that not only are there traces of that 
 legal knowledge and acquaintance with our law 
 courts and their proceedings which we find in so 
 many of the other plays, but that this knowledge
 
 BACON, AND THE FOLIO OF 1 623. 257 
 
 extends more particularly in the play to the chan- 
 cellorship and its surroundings, which are dealt with 
 and brought into the play to the neglect of other and 
 equally important details ; and that it would not be an 
 unfair inference, if the authorship of this play had to be 
 discovered, if we attributed it in part to some one who 
 joined with legal training an intimate acquaintance 
 with the habits and customs of the chancellor. And I 
 think that as Bacon was the only living lawyer who, at 
 the time the Folio was published in 1623, was or had 
 been Lord Chancellor, if we are looking for some one 
 who might have assisted the author, we might fairly 
 select him ; and I think this view will be in some 
 measure supported if we see what are the surrounding 
 circumstances connected with this play.
 
 258 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 
 
 In the previous Chapter, I have collected the passages 
 in " Henry VIII.," which, in my opinion, show that the 
 author was assisted by some legal friend, who was not 
 only a lawyer, but one who showed a special and 
 intimate knowledge of the chancellorship ; and as the 
 person who would best fulfil these conditions was 
 Bacon, it seemed not unreasonable to suppose that 
 he might have assisted in the authorship of this play. 
 There are, in addition, several circumstances con- 
 nected with its history, so far as we can ascertain it, 
 which, I think, support this view. 
 
 The play of " Henry the Eighth " occupies a very 
 peculiar position, it is the only one attributed to an 
 author other than Shakespeare. Doubts have been 
 suggested whether Shakespeare wrote "Titus An- 
 dronicus," the first part of "Henry VI.," &c., the 
 first of these plays not being considered to be in 
 Shakespeare's style. But " Henry VIII." would be 
 gladly admitted to be Shakespeare's were it not that 
 the commentators have nearly all agreed that it has 
 been altered, or some say tampered with, by Jonson. 
 The reasons for which opinion I will refer to in their 
 place. 
 
 As far as we can ascertain the facts connected with 
 this play, they appear to be these, Cavendish gives us
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 259 
 
 a description of how the king visited Wolsey at York 
 House, in the midst of an entertainment he was 
 giving. 
 
 " I have seen the king suddenly come in thither in a mask, 
 with a dozen of other maskers, all in garments like shepherds, 
 made of fine cloth of gold and fine crimson satin paned, and 
 caps of the same, with visors of good proportion of visnomy ; 
 their hair, and beards, either of fine gold wire, or else of silver, 
 and some being of black silk, having sixteen torch hearers 
 besides their drums, and other persons attending upon them, 
 with visors, and clothed all in satin, of the same colours. And 
 at his coming, and before he came into the hall, ye shall under- 
 stand, that he came by water to the water-gate, without any 
 noise ; where agaiiist his coming, were laid charged many 
 chambers, and at his landing they were all shot off, which 
 made such a rumble in the air that it was like thunder. 
 
 The ladies are alarmed, but Wolsey reassures them, 
 and sends the chamberlain and controller to see 
 who they are, and he reports the arrival of some 
 noblemen and strangers at his (Wolsey' s) bridge, as 
 ambassadors from some foreign prince. The Cardinal 
 says, " I shall desire you, because ye can speak 
 French, to encounter and receive them,'' &c. Now, ftll 
 this is closely followed in the play. The only differ- 
 ence is that, perhaps by design, Wolsey picks out 
 Sir Edward Neville for the king. In the play, in 
 one of the voluminous stage directions, we find not 
 only the king and his twelve maskers, but also the 
 sixteen torch-bearers, so closely does the author 
 follow Cavendish. I think Shakespeare, the actor 
 and stage-manager, would not have crowded his 
 already very full scene with so many supernumer- 
 aries. For it must be remembered that there was the 
 Cardinal attended^ the guests, the banqueting table; 
 then the king and his companions, who had to march 
 
 s 2
 
 260 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 before Wolsey and salute him ; and the sixteen torch- 
 bearers one would have thought would be rather in 
 the way on a small stage. But to return to the his- 
 tory. It appears from Cavendish that Wolsey knew 
 of the visit, as he had the chambers ready loaded. 
 The word chamber is no longer used for the name of 
 a piece. But every gun has, as we know, its chamber 
 where the powder goes, besides the body of the gun 
 and the muzzle. These chambers, therefore, I sup- 
 pose, were what a gun would be if all the rest were 
 cut away : something like small mortars. 
 
 Now, we learn from outside sources, that on the 
 29th June, 1 6 13, the Globe Theatre was burned 
 down, the cause of the fire being attributed to 
 the discharge of the pieces (chambers) that were 
 used to give effect to the coming of the king to 
 Wolsey's house.^ Sir H. Wotton, in his letter of 
 2nd July, 1 613, speaks of a new play acted by the 
 king's players at the Bankside, called " All is true," 
 and of " certain cannons shot off at the king's entry 
 to a masque at the Cardinal Wolsey's house." And 
 in an MS. letter of Thomas Larkin to Sir Thomas 
 Pickering, dated "London, this last day of June," 
 1613, the fact is thus related — 
 
 " No longer since than yesterday, while Burbage and his 
 companic were acting at the Globe the play of Henry VIII., 
 and there shooting of certain chambers in way of triumph, 
 the fire catched," &c. 
 
 Now, as we have seen, this incident is in the present 
 play (Act I. Scene 4), where we find that when the 
 king is approaching York House, the stage direction 
 is — 
 
 Drum and trumpets within ; chambers discharged. 
 
 ^ Variorum Edition, vol. xix. p. 307.
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 261 
 
 If these chambers were like mortars, fired upwards, 
 it is easy to understand how the burning wads might 
 fly upwards into the thatched roof. The presence 
 of this incident in both plays for a long time led the 
 commentators to suppose that the two plays were 
 identical. But Dr. Johnson was the first, I believe, to 
 point : — 
 
 That neither the Prologue nor Epilogue to this play is the 
 work of Shakespeare, '■' 7ion vultus 7ion color.'''' It appears to 
 me very likely that they were supplied by the friendship or 
 officiousness of Jonson, whose manner they will be perhaps 
 found exactly to resemble.^ 
 
 This suggestion once made appears to have been 
 universally adopted, Malone and Farmer both express- 
 ing the same opinion. In fact, Farmer goes further, 
 and said,^ " I think I now and then perceive his hand 
 in the dialogue." Subsequent writers have carried 
 this idea of Jonson's interference still further. It has 
 been shown, the versification is not Shakespeare's, but 
 of a later style. I\Ir. Halliwell, speaking " of the im- 
 moderate use of lines with the hyper-metrical syllable," 
 says,^ in an illustrative note — 
 
 "There are several critics who take another view," {i.e., 
 that Shakespeare "had suffered himself to be influenced by 
 this disagreeable innovation,"^) "and, relying in a great 
 measure on metrical percentages, would have us redolent 
 with this peculiarity, it must have been written by one or the 
 other of those later cotemporaries of Shakespeare who were 
 specially addicted to its use." 
 
 Though, as if to show the absurdity of this view, he 
 points out that, by this process of reasoning, Wolsey's 
 
 1 Variorum Edition, vol. xix. p. 499. 
 '^ Second Edition, p. 164. 
 3 Page 304.
 
 262 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 farewell to greatness, the last speeches of Buckingham, 
 the death scene of Katherine, the speech between 
 Wolsey and Cromwell, and Cranmer's prophecy must 
 be eliminated. In fact, he shows if this test be true, 
 that it is not right to say that Jonson or some one 
 besides Shakespeare tampered with the text, but he 
 actually wrote or re-wrote it. And this is the view 
 taken by Mr. Knight, who says, speaking of this 
 play : — 
 
 A theory has been set up that Jonson tampered with the 
 versification. We hold this notion to be utterly untenable, 
 for there is no play of Shakespeare's which has a more 
 decided character of unity, nor one from which any passage 
 could be less easily struck out. 
 
 Now this "character of unity" which Mr. Knight 
 attributes, and I think correctly, to this play, may be 
 evidence that there has been no partial alteration of 
 the text. And this is confirmed by what Mr. Halli- 
 well says if the test be correct, that nearly all the 
 principal speeches must be considered not Shake- 
 speare's. But this by no means proves that Jonson did 
 not write it as a whole. 
 
 I think whatever view is taken upon the further 
 evidence I propose to bring forward to show that 
 Jonson did in fact write or re-write this play, that it 
 must be admitted that the idea is not a new one, nor 
 one that has arisen from a desire to show Bacon 
 assisted Jonson ; but that the opinion of many critics 
 has been to show that Jonson did work on the play, 
 founded upon reasons which, if true and are carried 
 to a logical conclusion, establish that practically 
 Jonson was the author of it. 
 
 There are, in addition to the authorship of the 
 Prologue and Epilogue and the versification, other
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 263 
 
 reasons which have been brought forward as showing 
 that this play is not Shakespeare's. Thus Steevens 
 says of the line,^ 
 
 Nor. One, certes, that promises no element. 
 
 " It is remarkable that, in the present instance, the adverb 
 certes must be sounded as a monosyllable. It is well under- 
 stood that old Ben had no skill in the pronunciation of the 
 French language, and the scene before us seems to have had 
 some touches from his pen. By genuine Shakespeare, certes 
 is constantly employed as a dissyllable." 
 
 There are also the Latinisms, which are a peculiarity 
 of Jonson's, and the elliptical expressions, " with 
 which," Mr. Knight says, "the play abounds." But 
 it seems to me two especial points have been over- 
 looked, (a) The general poverty of the language ; and 
 (b) the numerous stage directions. The former show- 
 ing in my view that the work is not by Shakespeare, 
 the latter that it is by Jonson. 
 
 (a) The Poverty of the Language. — Mr. Knight says^ 
 " The elliptical construction and the licence of versi- 
 fication brought the dialogue, whenever the speaker 
 was not necessarily rhetorical, closer to the language 
 of common life." I think this is a very favourable 
 way of stating it ; there are no doubt fine passages 
 in the play, but the bulk of the text is very common- 
 place. Take Norfolk's description of the Field of 
 Cloth of Gold. 
 
 Buck. I was my chamber's prisoner. 
 Nor. Then you lost 
 
 The view of earthly glory. Men might say, 
 
 ^ Variorum Edition, vol. xix. p. 315. * Page 431.
 
 264 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Till this time, pomp was single ; but now married 
 To one above itself. Each following day 
 Became the next day's master, till the last 
 Made former wonders /V'j.^ To-day, the French, 
 All clinquant, all in gold, like heathen Gods, 
 Shone down the English, &c. 
 
 Compare this very bad prose, for it has no pretence 
 to be called poetry, with Shakespeare's description of 
 Cleopatra : — 
 
 The barge she sat in, like a burnished throne, 
 
 Burned on the water : the poop was beaten gold ; 
 
 Purple the sails, and so perfumed, that 
 
 The winds were love-sick with them; the oars were silver ; 
 
 Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made 
 
 The water, which they beat, to follow faster, 
 
 As amorous of their strokes, &c. 
 
 I think hardly anyone could suppose these two 
 descriptions were the work of the same person. No 
 doubt Jon son could write very beautiful poetry, and 
 some of his verses are all that could be wished. It 
 may, therefore, be asked why he wrote such wretched 
 prose here ; the answer I give is, because he was 
 doing what he was not accustomed to do, i.e.y putting 
 English history into blank verse. 
 
 (b) The Stage Directions in " Henry VIII." — I think 
 it is universally admitted that the stage directions in 
 " Henry VIII." are most elaborately set out. Now 
 any one who turns to Jonson's "Masques" must 
 recognize, I think, where these stage directions come 
 from. We have most of Jonson's " JNIasques," written 
 by himself, and in them we find he has carefully set 
 out a kind of note of the dances and pantomime which 
 
 1 This is simply atrocious.
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 265 
 
 took place, e.g., the following is taken from the 
 " Golden Age Restored " ^ : — 
 
 The Evils enter for the Antemasque ajid Dance to two 
 drums, trumpets, and a confusion of martial music. At 
 the end of which Pallas re-appears showing her shield. 
 The Evils are turned to statues. 
 
 In "Henry VIII." we find similar descriptions of 
 the movements the author required. To take a short 
 example, when Katherine is called before the Court, 
 the stage direction is — 
 
 The Queen makes no answer, rises out of her chair, goes about 
 the Court, comes to the King, kneels at his feet, then 
 speaks. 
 
 There are many others, one of the best known is the 
 description of the vision. It is well known ^ that it was 
 not Shakespeare's custom to write these directions, he 
 sometimes gave the cue for them in the text, but 
 working with his fellow players, he could arrange 
 what is technically called "business" on the stage 
 itself. But Jonson's " Masques " were written for 
 amateurs, the Queen and her ladies, and he appears 
 to have acquired the habit of writing out these stage 
 directions at great length. But in the Folio of 1623, 1 
 think we shall find that " Henry VIII." is the only 
 play that has these copious instructions. There are 
 the ordinary exits and entrances, and sometimes a 
 short note, as " Witches dance and vanish." Jonson 
 in his plays, as we have them in the Folio and Quarto, 
 did not write out these directions at length, any more 
 than Shakespeare did. But he had for a long time 
 devoted himself to writing masques, and there, as I 
 have said, we have ample proof of his practice. 
 
 1 Vol. 3, p. 102. » P. 289, post.
 
 266 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The special knmvledgc, &c., contained in the Play. — ^It 
 is not advisable to enter into more subjects which 
 are likely to be disputed than are necessary. I think, 
 therefore, the play of " Henry VIII." may be, at least, 
 taken as a play that it is supposed Jonson in some 
 way interfered with ; that by many he is supposed 
 to have written the Prologue and Epilogue, and in 
 some places to have tampered with or written the 
 text ; whether he did so in 1 6 1 3 or 1 6 1 4, when the 
 new Globe was opened, as some suppose, or not, is 
 immaterial, because if the play was one for which he 
 was in any way responsible, it is not unreasonable to 
 suppose that he may have revised it when he was pre- 
 paring it for the press. And when we come to the play 
 itself, I think we shall see that there is evidence that 
 some revision must have taken place after Bacon's 
 fall, and I also think there can be but little doubt that 
 Bacon helped him. And the reasons I have for saying 
 this, is, the knowledge displayed in this play, not only 
 of law, but of all the ceremony that surrounds a Lord 
 Chancellor, whether in Court or in the Council Chamber, 
 and because we have not Wolsey as he truly was, but 
 altered to resemble Bacon. 
 
 The Prologue. — The Prologue, if read in one way, 
 supports in a very remarkable manner the view that 
 Jonson altered or tampered with the text of the play. 
 It commences with — 
 
 I come no more to make you laugh ; tilings now, 
 That bear a weighty and a serious brow, 
 Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe, 
 Such noble scenes as draw the eye to How, 
 
 We now present 
 
 Only they, 
 That come to hear a merry, bawdy play,
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 267 
 
 A noise of targets ; or to see a fellow 
 
 In a long motley coat, guarded with yellow, 
 
 Will be deceived. 
 
 If we refer to the account in verse of the burning" of 
 the Globe in 1613, these latter words apparently refer 
 to the play as it was in those days. We see that it 
 had the same scene, with the discharge of the chambers 
 when the king came to Wolsey's house ; but we also 
 learn that there was an important part played by the 
 Fool. 
 
 Wolsey had a fool in his house (whom he gave 
 to the king), who was so attached to Wolsey that it 
 was necessary to send six yeomen to conduct him to 
 the king. Campbell says of this incident : ^ " A fool 
 was so necessary to the establishment of a Lord 
 Chancellor, that we shall find one in the household of 
 Sir Thomas More" ; adding, with playful sarcasm, 
 " It is very doubtful when lord chancellors ceased to 
 have about them any such character." Now, that 
 this or some other fool played a principal part in the 
 play of 1613, is shown by the following lines : — 
 
 Out runne the knightes, out runne the lordes, 
 
 And there was great adoe ; 
 Some lost their hats, and some their swords, 
 
 Then out runne Burbage too ; 
 The reprobates, though drunk on Monday, 
 Prayed for the fool and Henry Cundye. 
 Refram. Oh, sorrow, pittiful sorrow ! and yett all this is 
 true ! 
 
 The commentators seem to think that the last line 
 means that Cundye played the part of the fool. I do 
 not see why. But it is evident that whoever played 
 
 1 "Lives of Chancellors," vol. i, p. 489.
 
 268 smvKESPEARE : a study. 
 
 this part, it was of sufficient importance to be men- 
 tioned with the name of Burbage, &c. Now in the 
 1623 play, this part is wanting, and the author of the 
 Prologue says in words that those who came there to 
 see him would be deceived. Why should they come 
 there to see him if they did not think they were about 
 to see the play of 1 613, in which he appeared ? And it 
 was in consequence, so it seems to me, of the old play 
 being altered and having lost its character of a merry 
 licentious play, and being now sad, high, and 
 working, full of state and woe, that the Prologue was 
 written to prevent the audience being disappointed 
 and perhaps noisy. It seems, therefore, in one view, 
 at all events, of the Prologue, that it states in effect 
 that the old play has been altered, and as we find 
 evidence of Jonson's handiwork in the text, and the 
 Prologue is generally admitted to be written by him, 
 the natural conclusion is that he altered the play, and 
 takes care in his Prologue to warn the audience that 
 he has done so. 
 
 If this be so, it is immaterial to inquire whether the 
 1 6 1 3 play, which is described as a new play, was Shake- 
 speare's or not. Shakespeare had by 1613 retired, as 
 far as we know, and was living at Stratford. He is not 
 mentioned as being at the representation ; but however 
 this may be, if we have the fact that Jonson altered 
 the play of 1613, we have these questions to consider : 
 Why did he do it r how did he do it ? and when ? 
 
 The answer to the first question, if he did it, is, I 
 think, because of his friendship with Bacon. I can 
 think of no other reason why he should alter Shake- 
 speare's work, or introduce his own as Shakespeare's. 
 He has told us that he loved Shakespeare this side of 
 idolatry, but in reality he was to the last intensely
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 269 
 
 jealous of him. Years after Shakespeare was dead, and 
 Bacon too, in 1629 Jonson produced his "New Inn" 
 — a play deservedly damned on its first night. It 
 was not allowed to be finished. In many ways he 
 attempted to copy Shakespeare's method; we have 
 a girl masquerading as a boy, and then appearing as 
 a girl, &c. Jonson thereupon wrote an ode to himself, 
 in which he tries to derive comfort from the fact that 
 the critics were all wrong. 
 
 Come, leave the loathed stage, 
 
 And the more loathsome age, 
 Where pride and impudence in faction knit, 
 
 Usurp the chair of wit ; 
 Indicting and arranging every day, 
 
 Something they call a play} 
 
 If they love lees, and leave the lusty wine, 
 Envy them not their palates with the swine. 
 
 No doubt some mouldy tale, 
 
 Like Pericles, and stale 
 As the shrieve's crusts, and nasty as his fish, 
 
 Scraps out of every dish, 
 Thrown forth and raked into the common tub, , 
 
 May keep up the pay club : 
 These sweepings do as well 
 
 As the best ordered meal, 
 For who the relish of these guests will fit, 
 Needs set them but the other's basket of wit. 
 
 I think these lines, which clearly point to Shake- 
 speare, show that his old feeling of jealousy was still 
 there, and though Dr. Johnson speaks of friendship 
 or officiousness, I think it is difficult to realise that 
 
 ' BetheU's "What you are pleased to call your Mind," is not so 
 original as one supposes.
 
 270 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Jonson would re-write a play like " Henry VIII." 
 and give Shakespeare the merit of it, either from offi- 
 ciousness or friendship, as far as Shakespeare was con- 
 cerned. But with Bacon it was different ; Bacon had 
 often got Jonson to write masques for him, and we 
 know that down to the last Jonson had the highest 
 admiration for the great man, who no doubt had won 
 his heart by what in those days would be called his 
 gracious condescension. 
 
 Now, with regard to the friendship existing between 
 Bacon and Jonson, I have already shown that this 
 was so,^ when Bacon was Chancellor, and even then 
 was of old date, and Jonson tells us it was renewed 
 after Bacon's fall. His well-known words are : — 
 
 My conceit to his person was never increased towards him 
 by his place or honours, but I have and do reverence him for 
 his greatness that was only proper to himself, in that he 
 seemed to me ever by his work, one of the greatest of men 
 and most worthy of admiration that had been in many ages. 
 In his adversity I ever prayed that God would give him 
 strength ; for greatness he could not want. Neither could I 
 condole in a word or syllable for him as knowing no accident 
 could do harm to vitiate, but rather help to make it manifest. 
 
 The next question is, How did Jonson do it unless 
 with the assistance of some legal friend as Shake- 
 speare had in some of his plays r Where did Jonson 
 get that intimate knowledge of trial for treason, the 
 constitution of the papal courts and their procedure, 
 the inner mystery of the council chamber and all its 
 ceremony, unless he also had a legal friend ? If so, 
 who was his legal friend ? The only one we know of 
 is Bacon. This maybe another coincidence. Besides, 
 
 * Ante, p. 171.
 
 HISTORY OF THE PLAY OF HENRY THE EIGHTH. 271 
 
 there is nothing in Jonson's writings that shows he 
 was capable of constructing a play like " Henry VIII." 
 Compare the arrangement of the scenes in the play 
 and the general plot, if we may use the word, for an 
 historical drama, with that of the " New Inn." I do 
 not think there is any reason to suppose Jonson 
 capable of re-writing the play, as it must have been, 
 changing it from a merry to a serious drama without 
 aid. 
 
 The last question is. When did he do this ? It must 
 have been after 1613 if he altered the play of that 
 date : we have no other information. If the earlier 
 play was Shakespeare's, Jonson would hardly have 
 tampered with it during Shakespeare's lifetime, 
 e". ^., before the 23rd April, 1616. And Bacon would 
 not have had the great experience of having filled the 
 highest position his profession offered him and of 
 having lost it. In fact, I do not believe Bacon him- 
 self was able to write, or help to write, such a play 
 before he had had and lost all. He was, to mention 
 only one thing, too busy, too full of the pride and 
 pomp of place, I think, to take to the serious work of 
 writing such a work. And to conclude what I have 
 to say about this play, when we come to Spedding's 
 history of Bacon's career after his fall, we shall find 
 evidence of his being at work upon what was, I think, 
 this very play.
 
 272 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONNECT BACON WITH THE 
 PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST FOLIO IN 1 623. 
 
 I THINK I have collected a considerable number of 
 circumstances connected with the publication of the 
 first folio which warrant the belief that the legal 
 friend who assisted Shakespeare was no other than 
 Bacon, and I think this belief will be considerably 
 strengthened when we consider the story of Bacon's 
 life after his fall as told by ]\Ir. Spedding in his 
 seventh volume of " Bacon's Letters and Life." 
 
 As soon as Bacon found that he was to be prose- 
 cuted in earnest, and neither the king nor Bucking- 
 ham could prevent his trial, he appears for a short 
 time to have thought of death, and Mr. Spedding 
 gives us his will drawn up in haste dated the 
 loth April, 1621,^ and also a psalm, which our author 
 says was composed certainly before the 1 8th April and, 
 probably, at the date of the will.- But this seems to 
 have passed away, and he made notes of the judgment 
 that had been passed upon persons who had received 
 bribes like he had. These notes, which have come 
 down to us, were probably copied and handed to 
 
 ^ Spedding, p. 228. 
 2 Page 227.
 
 BACON AND THE FIRST FOLIO IN 1 623. 273 
 
 Lord Hunsdon as a kind of brief, for we find, in the 
 notes of the proceedings in the Lords, the following — 
 " Hunsdon delivered some notes of judgments against Poole, 
 Thorpe, &c., read, and he received the notes back again." 
 
 This agrees with Bacon's notes which commence 
 with notes upon Michal de la Pole's case and then 
 observations upon Thorpe's case. But it was of no 
 avail, and sentence was duly passed upon him — 
 
 1. A fine of 40,000/. 
 
 2. Imprisonment in the Tower during the king's pleasure. 
 
 3. To be for ever incapable of any office, place, or employ- 
 
 ment in the state or commonwealth. 
 
 4. Never to sit in Parliament, nor come within the verge 
 
 of the Court. 
 
 This judgment was delivered on the 3rd May, 1621, 
 and no doubt was a very severe one. We have 
 nothing to do with the merits of the case, but only 
 to trace what was Bacon's life subsequent to this 
 date. His political and professional careers were 
 brought to an abrupt termination ; but after a short — 
 very short — detention in the Tower, not more than a 
 few days, we find him writing in Latin to the Spanish 
 ambassador, that — 
 
 Age, fortune and even my genius call me, that, leaving the 
 theatre of civil affairs, I may give myself to letters and in- 
 struct the actors themselves and serve posterity.-' 
 
 Mr. Spedding tells us the true information of 
 Mr. Bacon's years is to be looked for in his books. 
 But all that I can learn from Mr. Spedding that he 
 actually produced after this date was the " History of 
 Henry the VII." and two volumes or parts of his 
 " Natural History," not very much work for a man of 
 his active powers of composition, especially when we 
 
 1 Page 285.
 
 274 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 find, as I think we shall, that the " Henry VII.," the 
 more important of the two, was an old manuscript 
 that had been lying about Bacon's chambers for 
 perhaps many years. ^ I pass over his correspondence 
 with Buckingham and others with regard to his being 
 allowed to live in London, from which he was pre- 
 cluded by the fourth article of his sentence, viz., his 
 exclusion from the verge of the court ; and how he 
 managed to turn the fine of ^40,000 into a blessing 
 in disguise by having it assigned by the king to 
 persons nominated by himself. Thus the king not 
 only forbore to enforce it, but it served as a protection 
 to Bacon against his own creditors, as the outstanding 
 fine being unsatisfied was in the nature of a judgment 
 over his property. But I propose to come to the 8th 
 October, 162 1, when he states in the draft of a letter 
 which he has left us in his own handwriting addressed 
 to the king : — 
 
 To the King, 
 
 It may please your most excellent Majesty, 
 
 I do very humbly thank your Majesty for your generous 
 remission of my fme. I can now (I thank God and you) die 
 and make a will. 
 
 I desire to do, for the little time God shall send me life, 
 like the merchants of London, which, when they give over 
 trade, lay out their money upon land. So, being freed from 
 civil business, I lay forth my poor talent upon those things 
 which may be perpetual, still having relation to do you honour 
 with those powers I have left. 
 
 I have therefore chosen to write the reign of King Henry 
 the Seventh who was, in a sort, your forerunner, and whose 
 spirit as well as whose blood is dualled upon your Majesty. 
 
 I durst not have presumed to entreat your Majesty to look 
 
 1 Post.
 
 BACON AND THE FIRST FOLIO IN 1 623. 275 
 
 over the book and correct it, or at least to signify what you 
 would have amended. But since you are pleased to send for 
 the book, I will hope for it. 
 
 There is no evidence that this letter was ever sent. 
 We have many drafts of letters, some of which I may- 
 have to refer to, which there is reason to believe 
 represent only what Bacon would have said or 
 written, not what he did, rather notes of what he 
 intended upon certain contingencies happening. But 
 however this may be, whether the king had desired 
 to see the work, or we only have what Bacon would 
 have written if he had so desired, I think there is 
 sufficient evidence that the work was in existence as 
 early as 8th October, 1621. 
 
 Now this work Mr. Spedding^ describes as — 
 
 " A work which, done under every advantage, would have 
 been a rare specimen of skill, diligence, and spirit in the 
 workman ; but for which — begun as it was immediately after 
 so tremendous an overthrow, and carried on in the middle of 
 so many difficulties in the present and anxieties for the future 
 — it would be hard to find a parallel." 
 
 Again he speaks of it as " A work of this order 
 being the first-fruit of a single long vacation," Sec. 
 And I think Bacon's own words would suggest that 
 he had at least recently written the work; but I 
 do not think this was the case. I quite agree with 
 all that Mr. Spedding has said of it, and the high 
 eulogium he has put upon it, z.^., 
 
 " As a study of character in action, and a specimen of the 
 art of historical narrative, it comes nearer to the merit of 
 Thucydides than any English history that I know." 
 
 ^ Page 302. 
 T 2
 
 276 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 But I do not think it was written as a new work at 
 this time for reasons I shall give hereafter. 
 
 Whenever the "History of Henry VII." was written, 
 it is to be noticed that the play of " Henry VIII.," 
 taken in connection with it, completes the plays which 
 otherwise end with " Richard III.," so that, taking 
 the two former with the others, we have a continuous 
 covering of English history from Richard II. to 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 Now we find from the documents, which have come 
 down to us, and are to be found in Vol. VII. of Sped- 
 ding's "Bacon," that early in 1622 (March, 1621-22) 
 Bacon had written^ in Greek characters notes for an 
 interview that he hoped might take place with the king. 
 Amongst them we find that he intended to propose 
 to the king that his pen should be employed actively 
 in recompiling the laws, &c., or contemplatively 
 going on with the story of Henry VIII. This, I 
 believe, is the earliest notice we have that Bacon 
 contemplated writing or telling the story of this 
 king. It appears that at this time the manuscript of 
 " Henry VII." had been returned by the king, and 
 had been printed, and was ready, and was out before 
 the end of March, and might be bought for six 
 shillings ; and in due course copies were sent to the 
 king and Duke of Buckingham, and afterwards to the 
 Queen of Bohemia. But we hear nothing of " Henry 
 VIII." except incidentally. 
 
 Thus, Mr. Spedding tells us that on the loth 
 January, 1622-23, Sir T. Wilson reported to the king 
 that Bacon had applied to him for such papers as he 
 had in his custody relating to Henry VIII.'s time. 
 
 1 Page 352.
 
 BACON AND THE FIRST FOLIO IN 1 623. 277 
 
 And that on the loth February Sir T. Wilson had 
 been directed by the king to supply him [Bacon] with 
 any papers he might require. And that it was generally 
 believed that Bacon was writing the life of Henry VIII. 
 appears by an extract Mr. Spedding gives us from a 
 letter written by Chamberlain on the loth February, 
 1622-23 : — 
 
 That Lord [Bacon] busies himself about books, and hath set 
 cut two lately, " Historia Ventorum" and "De Vita at Morte," 
 with promises of more. I have not seen either of them 
 because I have not leisure; hid if the life of Henry VIIT., 
 which they say he is aiout, might come out after his own 
 manner, I should find time and means enough to read it. 
 
 Bacon in a letter to Buckingham, then in Spain, 
 of the 2ist February, 1622-23, asks to be remem- 
 bered to the Prince (Charles I.), "who, I hope ere 
 long, will make me leave King Henry VIII. and set 
 me on work in relation of his Highness's heroical 
 adventures." 
 
 Now it should be remembered that about this date 
 the first folio of Shakespeare's works must have been 
 going through the press, or being prepared for it,. 
 And I think I shall be able to show strong reasons 
 for believing that Bacon was not at this time writing 
 the life of Henry VIIL, as he led the world to believe, 
 but was assisting Jonson to write the play of that 
 name, as we find it in the folio. It is with this in view 
 that it becomes necessary to watch such evidence as 
 we have very closely. It appears that the Prince 
 (Charles) took an interest in this life of Henry VIIL ; 
 but we shall find, notwithstanding Bacon's desire to 
 please him, that he makes excuses for not going on 
 with the work, for in a letter to INIr. Toby ]\Iatthew, 
 (26th June, 1623), he says —
 
 278 shak:espeare : a study. 
 
 Since you say the Prince hath not forgot his commandment 
 touching my history of Henry VIIL, I may not forget my 
 duty. But I find Sir Collier who poured forth what he had 
 in my other work somewhat dainty of his materials in this. 
 
 With this excuse he proceeds to say that — 
 
 " My labours are now most set to have those works which 
 I had formerly published, as that of ' Advancement of Learn- 
 ing,' that of 'Henry YH.,' that of 'The Essays' being 
 retractate and made more perfect, well translated into Latin 
 by the help of some good pens which forsake me not." 
 
 This we know was done, and some consider that 
 Ben Jonson's was one of the good pens that helped 
 him. 
 
 And he afterwards writes to the Prince himself — 
 
 For Henry VHL, to deal truly with your Highness, I did 
 so despair of my health this summer, I was glad to choose 
 some such work as I might compass within days, so far was I 
 from entering into a work of length. 
 
 That the Prince was undoubtedly interested in the 
 proposed life of Henry VIII. is confirmed by Dr. 
 Rawley's dedication of Bacon's " Sylva Sylvarum," 
 after Bacon's death, to the Prince, now Charles I., 
 wherein he says, if Bacon had lived — 
 
 "Your Majesty e'er long had been invoked to the pro- 
 tection of another History', whereof not nature's kingdom as 
 in this, but those of your Majesty's (during the Time and 
 Raigne of King Henry the Eighth), which since it died under 
 the designation meerely, there is nothing left ; but your 
 Majesty's Princely goodnesse graciously to accept of the 
 Undertaker's Heart and Intentions, who was willing to have 
 parted for a while with his darling Philosophii that he might 
 have attended your royal commandment in that other worke." 
 
 The facts, therefore, that stand upon record, are 
 that Bacon gave out, as early as March, 1622, that
 
 BACON AND THE FIRST FOLIO IN 1 623. 279 
 
 he was about to write the life of Henry the Eighth, 
 that some months afterwards, in July, 1623, he asked 
 permission to have the documents in possession of 
 Sir T. Wilson to use for this purpose. That notwith- 
 standing Sir T. Wilson was authorized by James to 
 give him these papers, and Charles had asked him to 
 go on with this work, he only excuses himself; and 
 after his death we have only a short commencement 
 of the life which, Rawley says, was only one morning's 
 work, which consists only of mere introductory matter 
 which would hardly occupy a page of this book, and 
 shows no sign of requiring any State papers. 
 
 Except this short note there is no reason to suppose 
 that he ever put pen to paper on the subject of The 
 Life of Henry the Eighth. In fact Dr. Rawley says 
 so; he tells us on the one hand, that he "was trusted 
 with his lordship's writings, even to the last," and on 
 the other, that the life that Bacon was to write " died 
 under the designation meerely." Whereas Bacon, 
 writing to Buckingham 21 February, 1622-23, j^st 
 when the Folio would be going through the press, 
 speaks of being made to leave King Henry Viy., 
 though when, apparently, the Folio was published he 
 tells the Prince that the work was too long for him to 
 attempt. There is one solution of these inconsistencies 
 which I venture to suggest, and that is. Bacon may 
 have originally contemplated writing the life of 
 Henry VIII. But that he very early changed the 
 idea, and only kept up the pretence that he was 
 engaged on it, because he wanted a pretext for 
 getting the State Documents from Sir T. Wilson, 
 that he might help Jonson to re-write the old play of 
 " Henry VIIL," so as to create sympathy for his own 
 case.
 
 280 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 To sum up the facts which seem to point to 
 Bacon as Shakespeare's assistant, I have already 
 said that though there may not be that direct 
 proof, which a jury requires to convict a prisoner 
 of a crime, yet it does seem that, when the facts 
 are ascertained, they do constitute a very strong- 
 chain of circumstantial evidence, which we may 
 give effect to, as we are not seeking to convict 
 Bacon of a crime, but bringing home to him an 
 honour which he was foolish enough not to 
 appreciate when alive. But, supposing it were 
 a crime, say a murder, that was proved not to 
 be a suicide ; that suspicion pointed to a parti- 
 cular individual ; that this individual was found 
 preparing a poison or acquiring a weapon, which 
 might have caused the death ; that he was giving 
 a false account of his movements, and that he 
 was found loitering about the spot where and at 
 the time there was reason to believe the crime 
 was committed, no one would dispute that, even
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 281 
 
 if the jury did not convict, there could be but 
 little real doubt. Now, these circumstances are 
 to be found in Bacon's case. 
 
 Somebody assisted Shake- It was not suicide, i.e., some- 
 speare, as he did not find body else did it. 
 the law himself. 
 
 The parallel passages and 
 expressions which have 
 been collected by Mr. 
 Donnelly and others point 
 to Bacon. 
 
 Suspicion is directed to a 
 particular person, A. B. 
 
 Bacon is found to have pre- A. B. is found to have pos- 
 
 pared the "Promus," and sessed the poison or wea- 
 
 to have asked for and ob- pons with which the crime 
 
 tained the papers relating may have been committed, 
 to Henry VIII. 
 
 Bacon obtained the latter by A. B. gave a reason for pro- 
 pretending he wanted them curing these, which upon 
 for a history of Henry VIII. investigation appears to be 
 
 untrue. 
 
 As far as can be gathered, On more than one occasion 
 
 Bacon assisted in the pro- 
 duction of the "Comedy of 
 Errors" at Gray's Inn in 
 1594, and in the writing of 
 "Henry VIIL," in 1623. 
 
 the said A. B. was found 
 at the place and time where 
 the crime or crimes might 
 have been committed. 
 
 It is, after all, a question of evidence. As I 
 stated originally, I had no theory to support, but 
 my object was to see If, amidst all the mystery 
 that surrounded Shakespeare and his works,
 
 282 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 there was any real foundation for the Baconian 
 theory. I have tried to ascertain the facts, and 
 what I have ascertained, or thought I had, I have 
 given to the reader. It is for him to challenge 
 my facts if they are wrong, and my conclusions 
 if he will not accept them. 
 
 In the supplementary chapter, I have inserted 
 certain matters of interest connected with Shake- 
 speare, Bacon, and Jonson, which I thought 
 might interfere with the main argument if not 
 kept apart from it.
 
 ( 283 ) 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTERS. 
 
 I PROPOSE in these Chapters to deal with certain 
 matters which illustrate and confirm, in my opinion, 
 the view taken in the previous pages, i.e., that whilst 
 legal knowledge is found in some plays, legal ignor- 
 ance is shown in others, so that the Poet must have 
 been assisted in his law. In working out the evidence, 
 it seemed better not to overload the body of the 
 argument with extraneous matter, but to confine the 
 reader's attention to the real issue ; but, that being 
 dealt with, a few words on what one might term 
 matters of corroboration do not seem out of place.
 
 284 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Actor-Author. 
 
 I HAVE dealt with the legal author and have shown there is 
 good evidence that Shakespeare was the principal author. 
 
 This is, I think, confirmed by another discovery that an 
 inquirer might make, from an examination of the plays of 
 Shakespeare, which is that the legal knowledge including the 
 familiarity with the habits and thoughts of lawyers, which I 
 have so often referred to in the previous pages, is balanced, 
 as it were, by a similar knowledge of the stage and the 
 manners and customs of actors ; that is to say, acquaintance 
 with forensic life and with life behind the scenes seems to 
 be equally present, or rather whilst the legal knowledge is 
 wanting, as I have shown in some of the plays, knowledge of 
 the theatre seems to be present in some form or other in all 
 the plays I have read for the purposes of this study. 
 
 It has often been suggested that Shakespeare was a 
 physician, a soldier, &c., and one ingenious writer has 
 shown that he uses the technical language of a printer, which 
 he suggests he must have acquired by himself being a printer. 
 Be that as it may, we have neither in the passages that refer 
 to the law, nor in those that refer to acting, mere solitary 
 examples, but something that seems to be worked into the 
 very fabric, and to be part of the material itself. 
 
 In dealing with this evidence which to my mind shows 
 knowledge of stage life, I feel some diffidence, as I have not 
 had the training of an actor, dramatist, or manager, nor have 
 I ever experienced the difficulties of placing a play upon the 
 stage ; and as I do feel qualified to speak of the evidence of
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 285 
 
 legal training, having some experience as a lawyer, so I hesi- 
 tate to express an opinion on matters with which I have had 
 no special knowledge. It is for this reason that I have left 
 this part of the inquiry to be dealt with apart from the main 
 argument. 
 
 This evidence may be considered under three heads. 
 
 First, the continual references made to acting and the 
 illustration drawn from it, which in many ways resemble the 
 legal allusions already referred to. 
 
 Secondly, the workmanlike way in which the movement 
 and action of the actors on the stage is worked up with and 
 into the dialogue. 
 
 Thirdly, the continual references to the women's parts 
 being played by boys, and the difficulties arising therefrom, 
 such as the boys growing too tall, their voices changing, 
 &c., &c. 
 
 With regard to the first heading. Many of these references 
 are so well known, such as the " Seven Ages of Man," it 
 seems almost idle to refer to "All the world's a stage." 
 
 We have continual references to players and playing parts, 
 and the stage, but our author does more — he describes par- 
 ticular actors and the effect they produce : as in Hamlet's 
 advice to the players, wherein he speaks of the robustious 
 periwig-pated fellow who tears his passion to rags, and me 
 clown who delays the action of the piece to make barren 
 spectators laugh ; again he tells us — 
 
 In a theatre, the eyes of men. 
 After a well graced' actor leaves the stage, 
 Are idly bent on him that enters next. 
 
 Other references are perhaps not so well known, thus in 
 " Troilus and Cressida " we have — 
 
 And, like a strutting player, — whose conceit 
 Lies in his hamstring, and doth think it rich 
 
 1 Shakespeare was very fond of this word grace, by it he generally refers, 
 I think, to the iinspoken part of acting, sometimes called "business" or 
 "action."
 
 286 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 To hear the wooden dialogue and sound 
 'Twixt his stretched footing and scaffoldage.^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^ Vr 
 
 Now play him- me, Patroclus, 
 Arming to answer in a night alarm, 
 And then, forsooth, the faint defects of age 
 Must be the scene of mirth ; to cough and spit, 
 And with a palsey-fumbling on his gorget, 
 To shake in and out the rivet. 
 
 So in " Richard III." we have Gloster and Buckingham in 
 the Tower — 
 
 Glo. Come, cousin, cans't thou quake, and change thy 
 
 IMurder thy breath in the middle of a word, — [colour.? 
 And then again begin, and stop again. 
 As if thou wert distraught, and mad with terror.? 
 Buck. Tut, I can counterfeit the deep tragedian ; 
 
 Speak, and look back, and pry on every side, 
 Tremble and start at wagging of a straw, 
 Intending^ deep suspicion : ghastly looks 
 Are at my service, like enforced smiles; 
 And both are ready in their office, 
 At any time, to grace my stratagems. 
 
 There are other allusions to life on the stage and references 
 to play-acting, to which I need not make more reference ; but 
 I think there can be no doubt that there is sufficient evidence 
 to show that our author was a close observer of the actors of 
 his day. 
 
 Secondly, wc have the intimate connection between the 
 dialogue and the action or business, which runs on with 
 the spoken words. I think the mere poet, at least in 
 those days, wrote principally for the effect he might produce 
 by his verses, and in many cases the dialogue might almost 
 be carried on by actors sitting in chairs. But in these 
 
 I This reference to the stamp and clatter of not the stage-struck but 
 stage-striking tragedian is very happy. I suppose the strut upon the liigh 
 wooden heels is the origin of our expression "stilted performance." 
 ^ Nestor. ^ Pretending.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 287 
 
 plaj'^s, although we have occasional set speeches, yet in 
 general, a great deal of movement is going on. I think the 
 peculiarity of Shakespeare's plays is that the action is often 
 not only described but prescribed by the dialogue itself. 
 We find the action suited to the word and the word to the 
 action, as Hamlet says, not as the actor has to do when the 
 words are written down for him, but during the composition 
 of the plays themselves, which, I think, must have been in 
 many places written or arranged upon the stage itself, when 
 the author had the actual business of the play before his eyes. 
 
 It is astonishing what amount of incident is sometimes 
 crowded into a scene, and how much is suggested in a few 
 lines. This I believe to be a striking peculiarity of Shake- 
 speare. 
 
 The example taken from " Measure for Measure," to which 
 I have already referred, shows what I mean. The judge 
 Escalus, being invited by Clown to look at Froth, at once 
 acquits him of the charge of soliciting the constable's wife. 
 As I have stated, there could be no wit or reason in this if the 
 audience did not see why the judge so acquitted the man, and 
 therefore I have ventured to suggest that the necessities of 
 the piece require that Froth should be made up as a simpleton, 
 and as good-looking as possible. I now propose to refer to 
 some other examples to show how the actor's business is So 
 necessary to give effect to the dialogue, that it becomes 
 "unwritten law." And as some documents are partly printed 
 • and partly tvritten, so many scenes lie partly in spoken word and 
 partly in action. In nearly all plays the ability of the actor 
 enables him to add to the piece and interpret it better to the 
 audience by the " business " he adds. But in the plays there 
 are situations and acting that are the author's and not the 
 actor's, though they are not given as stage directions, but are 
 to be gathered from the dialogue. 
 
 A very good example of this is the scene where Edgar leads 
 his blind father, as the latter thinks, to the top of the high 
 cliff near Dover. When there, Edgar, who has appeared in
 
 288 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 the character of a madman, is supposed to leave him. 
 Gloster throws himself down, as he thinks, over the cliff. 
 Edgar comes up to him as a sane person and persuades him 
 he has fallen down the cliff without injury, and then ridicules 
 the appearance he was supposed to have had when Gloster's 
 companion on the top of the cliff; in reality Gloster has 
 only fallen to the ground. This is a little difficult to convey 
 to the audience, except for the dialogue that explains it. In 
 the folio, there are no stage directions given; the extract is 
 too long for insertion here. The same suggestive dialogue is 
 to be found in " Hamlet." In the first scene, two sentinels 
 appear — the one to relieve the other; though as an old 
 soldier, I may point out a slip, inasmuch as a sentry can only 
 be relieved by the officer or non-commissioned officer of the 
 guard. So we should have had a third person introduced. 
 But the challenge and the pass-word are given, and then 
 Francisco, the one relieved, is dismissed by Barnardo, who 
 remains and asks him if he meets 
 
 Horatio and Marcellus, 
 The rivals of my watch, bid them make haste. 
 
 {Enter Horatio and Marcellus) 
 
 is the only stage direction, yet Barnardo must have left the 
 stage upon his beat, for Francisco is alone when he says to 
 himself — 
 
 I think I hear them. Stand ! who's there ? 
 
 a challenge he is hardly entitled to make being relieved. 
 The newcomers answer — " Friends to this ground," &c., ask 
 him who has relieved him, and then Francisco says, " Good 
 night," and exit, probably to re-appear in some other part. 
 Meanwhile, Barnardo has returned, for Marcellus says — 
 
 "//«//a/ Barnardo!" 
 
 as if speaking to someone at a distance. Barnardo asks for 
 Horatio, &c., and the conversation continues till the ghost 
 enters. Now, it would make no sense of the dialogue unless
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 289 
 
 Barnardo was away on his beat when Francisco first greets 
 Horatio and Marcellus. 
 
 In the ghost scene, we find the same absence of stage 
 directions, though without the proper action being taken by 
 the actor who plays the ghost, it would be difficult for the 
 audience to appreciate the dialogue. The necessary informa- 
 tion as to what that action should be is given in the play 
 itself. On the re-entry of the ghost, Horatio addresses it. 
 In the second quarto there is a stage direction, that during 
 this speech it spreads his arms. This is, however, omitted 
 in the folio ; but we learn from the words of Barnardo, who 
 says — 
 
 It was about to speake, when the cock crew. 
 
 Horatio, when he describes the scene to Hamlet, tells us 
 more explicitly what the ghost has to do — 
 
 Ham. Did you not speake to it } 
 
 Hor. My lord, I did ; 
 
 But answer made it none ; yet once, methought, 
 It lifted up its head, and did addresse 
 Itselfe to motion, like as it would speake ; 
 But, even then, the morning cock crew loud, 
 And at the sound it shrunk in haste away, 
 And vanish't from our sight. 
 
 Here we have clear directions how the ghost is to act ?n 
 dumb show. The scene of the ghost's vanishing is thus 
 told— 
 
 Hor. Stop it, Marcellus. 
 
 Mar. Shall I strike at it with my partizan } 
 
 Hor. Do, if it will not stand. 
 
 Mar. 'Tis here. 
 
 Hor. 'Tis here. 
 
 Mar. 'Tis gone. {Exit Ghost. 
 
 This requires the ghost to appear in different parts of the 
 stage almost simultaneously. And as the conjurorwith his three 
 thimbles and one little pea has more peas than one, when he 
 is apparently making it appear and disappear, so there should 
 be behind the scenes more than one ghost, so that as he 
 
 C. U
 
 290 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 apparently disappears from one part of the stage, he may 
 almost immediately reappear at another. 
 
 It is to be noticed that our author with a great knowledge 
 of human nature, when he makes Horatio describe this scene 
 to Hamlet, carefully causes him to omit all reference to the 
 threats and blows bestowed on the ghost. Hamlet would 
 probably have been offended at the indignity offered to his 
 father's spirit : people like their relations to be respected 
 even when dead. 
 
 Now, in this matter of the ghost there are one or two slips 
 which we so constantly find in our author. For instance, 
 Horatio is a fellow-student of Hamlet. He has come to 
 Elsinore to attend the king's funeral. This has taken place 
 some two months before the marriage with the uncle, and 
 this was over and Horatio was such a friend that the sentries 
 communicated to him the fact of the ghost appearing. Yet 
 Hamlet does not know he is in Elsinore, nay, is not quite 
 certain it is Horatio — 
 
 For at first Hamlet does not give him his name. 
 
 Enter Horatio, Barnardo, and Marcellus. 
 Hor. Hail to your lordship ! 
 Ham. I am glad to see you well, 
 
 Horatio, — or I do forget myself. 
 Hor. The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever. 
 Ham. Sir, my good friend. 
 
 Then the first scene opens as we have seen with Barnardo 
 on duty as a sentry, challenges, countersigns, &c., all of 
 which is dwelt upon as being necessary in consequence of 
 the meditated attack of young Fontinbras ; and in the scene 
 with Hamlet, he asks — 
 
 Hold you the watch to-night ? 
 
 Barnardo and Marcellus answer — 
 We do, my lord. 
 
 In the second scene with the ghost there is no mention 
 of watch or sentry; all this is forgotten, even Barnardo, the 
 sentry, is absent. For Horatio, Hamlet, and Marcellus walk
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 291 
 
 on together, and when Hamlet follows the ghost to a distant 
 part of the castle Marcellus and Horatio follow him, and, in 
 fact, desert their post, or rather Marcellus does. 
 
 There are many other examples in the plays showing how 
 the business of the actors has been sometimes well and some- 
 times carelessly thought out, and directions given not by 
 marginal notes, but in the dialogue itself, as, for example, the 
 scene where the king is conscience-stricken by the mimic 
 play. See how the action is told by the actors themselves : — 
 
 Oph. The king rises ! 
 
 Hain. What ! frightened with false fire } 
 
 Queen. How fares my lord ? 
 
 Pol. Give o'er the play ! 
 
 King. Give me some light ; — away ! 
 
 Now Ben Jonson, who was, as we shall have occasion to 
 point out, careful to give full directions to his actors, who were 
 mostly amateurs — I mean in his Masques — would probably 
 have given a long note, something like this : — 
 
 \The King hecoines agitated — is unable to keep his seat. This 
 attracts the notice of Ophelia, ivho calls the attention of the 
 compajiy to it. The Qiieett becomes anxious, and addresses 
 the King. Hajnlet is satirical, and Polonius, as chamber- 
 lain, orders the play to stop. The Kiiig staggers off the stage, 
 &c.] 
 
 So, in the fencing scene, we have a number of actors each 
 carrying on their different business separately from the others ; 
 yet all is necessary to make the dialogue comprehensible. 
 The full stage direction, apparently, would be whilst Hamlet 
 and Laertes are fencing, the king drinks from the cup and 
 then puts the poison in ; he then directs an attendant to offer 
 it to Hamlet, who, in the excitement of the contest, puts it 
 on one side ; the attendant returns with it to the king, and 
 as he passes the queen she takes the cup and drinks from it ; 
 the king tries to warn her but is too late. Meanwhile Hamlet 
 grows hot with his exertion (Burbage, who played the part of 
 Hamlet, is said to have been fat) ; the queen sends him the cup 
 also, which he again refuses, and then she calls him to her 
 
 U 2
 
 292 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 that she may wipe his face. Laertes takes advantage of this 
 interruption to approach the king and tell him that he intends 
 to hit Hamlet in the forthcoming bout. All this is contained 
 in the following dialogue : — 
 
 King. Give him the cup. 
 
 {Trumpet sounds and shot goes off.~\ 
 Ham. I'll play this bout first ; set by awhile. 
 
 Come ! another hit ; what say you ? 
 Laer. A touch, a touch, I do confess. 
 King. Our son shall win. 
 Queen. He's fat and scant of breath. — 
 
 Here's a napkin, rub thy pores. 
 
 The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet. 
 King. Gertrude, do not drink. 
 Queen, I will, my lord ; — 
 
 I pray you, pardon me. 
 King. It is the poisoned cup ! It is too late. 
 Ham. I dare not drink yet, madam ; 
 
 By and by. 
 Queen. Come, let me wipe thy face. 
 Laer. My lord, I'll hit him now. 
 Kifig. I do not think it. 
 
 Laer. And yet, 'tis almost against my conscience. 
 Ham. Come, for the third. 
 
 Laertes, you but dally, &c. 
 
 Now, some musicians, it is said, compose at the desk, and 
 others at their instrument. So I think a great part of the 
 dialogue we find in the plays was not written by the author in 
 his study, but was arranged and considered on the stage 
 itself. Some modern play-writers have a small stage made to 
 scale, and representations of the actors, so as to arrange the 
 action of the scene ; but it seems, from the ease and smooth- 
 ness with which some of the dialogues are written, the author 
 must have been in direct communication with the actors 
 themselves, and have seen how the play required to be worked 
 out by the dialogue, and in that way suited the dialogue to 
 the business. Now, if we turn to the other writers of the 
 period, we find little or no traces of this speciality. For the 
 most part we have long speeches that require no action, and 
 might almost be spoken by actors, as I have said, sitting in 
 chairs ; and I have come across nothing which strikes me,
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 293 
 
 as the plays do — that some parts were written on the stage 
 itself; no examples of the fitting of the dialogue to the 
 movements of the actors. This view may be wrong. One 
 would like the opinion of some stage manager or leading 
 actor. 
 
 There is, however, other evidence of the connection 
 between the author and life in the theatre, both behind and 
 in front of the curtain, which is even stronger. It is Shake- 
 speare's treatment of and references to the boys, who played 
 the women's parts. I have had already to refer to the position 
 of the stage at this period. At the risk of some repetition, I 
 propose to show how the feeling against the stage was 
 increased by the practice of having the female characters 
 played by boys. In doing this, I have little to say that may 
 not be gathered from the pages of Malone and other writers 
 on the subject. But the facts should be brought here before 
 the reader's notice in order that he may understand the point 
 at issue. 
 
 The position of the stage in Queen Elizabeth's time was 
 a very peculiar one, owing, perhaps, to the stormy times 
 through which the nation had recently passed. On the one 
 hand, the revival of letters by the dispersing over Europe of 
 the stored-up education of Constantinople by the taking of 
 that city by the Turks had attracted men's attention to thfe 
 old plays of insolent Greece and haughty Rome, and the 
 Reformation had, by taking away the sanctity of the old 
 Passion Plays, given the intelligence of England a field for 
 display. The world was at peace. Science was only 
 struggling in the womb. Politics were a dangerous pursuit. 
 The higher a man climbed the nearer he seemed to get to the 
 scaffold. And it almost seemed as if the only intellectual 
 pursuit was that of writing verses. On the other hand, the 
 plays were the outcome of the hated Catholic Church, and 
 the Puritans had a strong feeling against the stage and all 
 connected with it. Both feelings seem to have survived to
 
 294 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 our times. There are those who look upon the stage as 
 the home of immorality, &c. Such persons would allow 
 their children to go to a village circus, but not to a play. 
 There are others who have a tendency to elevate abnormally 
 what after all is only one of the ways men and women choose 
 for getting their living, and throw a glamour upon what, in 
 the majority of cases, is a very hard, over-worked, and over- 
 stocked profession. But in the time of good Queen Bess, 
 feelings ran higher than this. On the one side the puritan 
 party had interest enough to have all strolling players — and 
 the law knew no others — made rogues and vagabonds, except 
 that Leicester, I believe, said if they were the servants of a 
 nobleman, who chose to keep them for his amusement, they 
 should be exempt from the law, and it was so enacted. It 
 followed from this that the two companies of actors who 
 played in London put themselves under the protection of 
 noblemen. Burbage's company, to which Shakespeare 
 belonged, called theirs the Lord Chamberlain's servants. 
 Henslowe's company, whose principal actor was Alleyne, his 
 son-in-law, who left his wealth for founding Dulwich College, 
 called themselves the servants of the Lord High Admiral. 
 Elizabeth was too astute to take any active part and identify 
 herself with the actors openly, though she no doubt attended 
 plays and listened to fulsome compliments as in " The Judg- 
 ment of Paris," by Peele. But James boldly identified himself 
 with the stage. One company was called the King's Com- 
 pany, another the Queen's, and a third the Prince's (Charles). 
 Every student of history knows that the dispute, which in 
 Charles's reign broke out into open war and lost the king his 
 head, had commenced in Elizabeth's reign by disputes about 
 money, was simmering up all through James's, and over- 
 boiled in Charles's time. If there had not been a strong 
 republican clement at work, a viodus vivcndi would have been 
 found. But it was not to be, and bad blood was brewing, and 
 one of the ostensible causes of this was the stage ; the Puri-
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 295 
 
 tans would have none of it ; the Court party fostered it ; and 
 the actors grew rich and spoke of themselves, like army 
 officers do in the present day, as being in the king's service, 
 and perhaps founded the expression of " Her Majesty's Ser- 
 vice," that is so commonly seen on the outside of official 
 letters. Down to the present generation I believe, certain 
 companies had the right to call themselves her Majesty's 
 servants. Now, this bitter difference of opinion that existed 
 led, I think, to political results that historians have recounted 
 without, perhaps, knowing their cause. 
 
 One of the principal points of attack by the anti- theatrical 
 party were the female characters. Public opinion would not 
 allow them to be played by women, and many persons, no 
 doubt with good cause, objected to their being played by 
 boys, as was the custom in England. As this custom and its 
 results are often mentioned in the plays, I think it is very 
 material for the purposes of this [inquiry to put on record 
 such information as can be found as to these boys, their 
 training, &c. 
 
 We have some information about these boys in certain 
 papers which were discovered by Halliwell in the Lord 
 Chamberlain's office. These papers related to a dispute 
 between the actors and those who held shares in the theatre. 
 The householders, as those owning these shares were called, 
 took a considerable part of the profits, and the actors the 
 remainder, out of which, as they allege, they had to find the 
 expenses of the theatre, lights, clothes, &c., including authors, 
 and they claimed, I suppose by custom, a right to purchase 
 some of the shares, and at an established price. Now these 
 shares were very valuable, producing a considerable income, 
 and the householders, who had ceased to be actors, did not 
 wish to part with them ; they put in an answer to the petition 
 justifying their position. A decree, however, was made that 
 certain of the shares should be sold to the actors. These 
 papers of 1635, as I shall term them, are interesting for the 
 light they throw upon many subjects connected with the
 
 296 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 theatre in those days. For instance, John Shankes in his 
 answer, says^ that he — 
 
 " Hath still of his own purse supplied the company for 
 the service of his Majesty, with boys, as Thos. Pollard, John 
 Thompson, deceased (for whom he paid 40^.)" — 
 
 a large sum in those days, computed to be about 200/. to 400/. 
 at the present value of money. 
 
 " Your suppliant having paid his part of 200/. (2,000/.) for 
 other boys since his coming to the company, John Heniman, 
 Thomas Holcombe, and divers others, and at this time main- 
 tains three more for the same service." 
 
 So that the boys, it appears, were educated and maintained 
 at the expense of the players, probably in the nature of 
 apprentices. 
 
 Another source from which these boys were obtained, or at 
 least the ranks of the players were filled up, was the Queen's 
 Chappell's boys, who were trained by one Evans at the 
 Blackfriars Theatre. This theatre, which was built by 
 Burbage, the father, in 1596, though Payne Collier insisted 
 that "it was built long before and only enlarged in that 
 year," and as it is now suggested, did not hesitate to bring 
 evidence of a most suspicious character to enforce his opinion, 
 was not allowed to be opened for stage plays by Burbage when 
 it was built. A strong opposition was got up on the part of 
 the inhabitants, and in the end it was let to Evans on lease, 
 who had a training school for boys, to which reference will 
 have to be made hereafter. Cuthbert Burbage in his answer, 
 one of the papers of 1635, already referred to, says of this 
 theatre — 
 
 Our father (the elder Burbage) purchased it at extreme 
 rates, and made it into a playhouse with great charge and 
 trouble, which after was leased out to one Evans that first set 
 up the boys, commonly called the Queen Majesty's children 
 of the Chappell, in process of time the boys growing up to 
 be men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler (mentioned 
 
 » Page 482.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 297 
 
 among the actors in the First Folio), and were taken to 
 strengthen the king's service (that is, became actors). 
 
 A good deal of reference will have to be made to this 
 incident of Evans taking the theatre, for, as we shall see, 
 these boys soon took to acting plays, and for some time 
 became the fashion, much to the disgust of the old actors. 
 Ben Jonson, we shall find in particular, when he had either 
 quarrelled or re-quarrelled with Shakespeare's company, had 
 his plays acted by Evans' boys. 
 
 It is, no doubt, not a very wholesome custom, as I have 
 said, to dress and paint up a young lad to represent a 
 beautiful woman, especially as there is some reason to 
 believe that they wore their assumed garb in private life ; at 
 least Ben Jonson, as we shall see, gives us one example of 
 this being done. And, as I have stated, one of the principal 
 objections of the Puritan party to the stage was that women's 
 parts were played by boys — not that they liked women to do so. 
 It must, however, be remembered that the boys could only 
 take these parts when comparatively young, and their voices 
 remained unchanged. In the plays we shall see so many 
 references to this fact of the boys growing too tall, their voices 
 breaking — matters which would hardly concern a poet writing 
 in his study — that I consider the plays must have been in some 
 measure at least the work of an actor, or one intimately con- 
 nected with the stage. To return, however, to the facts we 
 know about these boys. 
 
 IMalone, in his " Histor}' of the Stage," has given us some 
 very curious information about these boy actors. He tells 
 us that in 1591 Nashe, speaking in defence of the English 
 stage, that as players in his time — 
 
 " Were not as the players beyond sea .... that have 
 common courtezans to play women's parts " ; 
 
 he continues. What Nashe considered as an high eulogy on 
 his country, Prynne has made one of his principal charges 
 against the English stage, and quoted many hundred autho- 
 rities to prove that —
 
 298 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 " Those plays wherein any men act women's parts or wear 
 woman's apparell must needs be sinful, yea, abominable unto 
 Christians." 
 
 The grand base of his argument is a text from Scripture, 
 viz., Deut. xxii. 5 : — 
 
 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto man, 
 neither shall a man put on a woman's garment. 
 
 In a note Llalone gives the opinion not only of Martin 
 Luther, but of the learned Jesuit Louvre on this text, the 
 former saying : — 
 
 This did not prohibit a woman from carrying the weapons 
 of a man, or a man wearing the clothes of a female to escape 
 danger, to play a trick, or to deceive the enemy, but such 
 things are not to be done seriously and as an accustomed 
 habit, so that the dignity proper for either sex be preserved ; 
 
 and the latter : — 
 
 The gay disguise of dress can be made without sin for 
 the representation of a character in comedy or tragedy, or 
 in a similar case. 
 
 Still, no one can say that the objection to boys playing 
 women's parts was altogether without foundation. Ben Jonson, 
 with his rough coarseness, discomfits the puritan Busey, when 
 he objects to the custom. He makes his puppet say :^ — 
 
 Busey. Yes, and my main argument against you is that 
 you are an abomination ; for the male among you putteth on 
 the apparel of the female, and the female of the male.'^ 
 
 Do7}i. You lie ; you lie ; you lie abominably ! 
 
 Copes. Good, by my troth ; he has given him the lie there. 
 
 Dor)i. It is your old stale argument against the players ; 
 but it will not hold against the puppets, for we have neither 
 male nor female amongst us, &c. 
 
 This attack on the puppets may remind some of us of an 
 attack that was made of recent years upon a puppet show at 
 the Aquarium. 
 
 Gilford tells us, in his note to Ben Jonson's plays, that this 
 old stale argument had been urged with great bitterness by 
 
 1 Bartholomew Fair, Act V. Sc. 3. 2 jjug i^st was not true.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 299 
 
 Stubbs and other Puritans of Elizabeth's days, and it 
 appeared from Hawkins that many difficulties were en- 
 countered at Cambridge, which then abounded in Puritans, 
 in procuring proper persons to act the parts of Sinda, Rosa- 
 bella, &c., solely from the unwillingness of the students to 
 put on a female dress which they affirmed it was unlawful for 
 a man to wear. 
 
 The Puritans had an equal objection to women acting 
 at all, a practice which did not obtain at all in Shakespeare's 
 time. It is out of the scope of this inquiry to do more than 
 refer to the action of Charles's Queen in allowing herself and 
 ladies to appear on the stage, as they often did in Jonson's 
 *' Masques." Malone tells us in a note, Prynne, in con- 
 formity with notions which have been stated in the text, 
 inserted in his index these words — 
 
 Women actors — notorious w s ; 
 
 by which he so highly offended the King and Queen that he 
 was tried in the Star Chamber, and sentenced to be imprisoned 
 for life, expelled Lincoln's Inn, disbarred and disqualified 
 to practise the law, degraded of his degree in the university, 
 to be set in the pillory, his ears cut off, and his book burnt 
 by the common hangman, which rigorous sentence, says 
 Whitelocke, was as rigorously executed. • 
 
 Prynne' s time came, and the stage players, the Court and 
 the courtiers fell together. There was, therefore, a good deal of 
 ill-feeling existing about the stage, even in Shakespeare's 
 time — and as I have said a good deal of bad blood brewing. 
 
 To those who are interested in the matter it may not be 
 out of place to say that women did not appear in English 
 theatres till after the Restoration, when some actress, according 
 to tradition, Mrs. Sanderson, in 1663, played Desdemona, 
 though apologies had to be made for the indecorum of women 
 so playing in terms which are given by Mr. Malone, but are 
 not worth repeating here. Men, it appears, also continued to 
 act after the Restoration. Malone says Mr. Kynaston, even
 
 300 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 after women had assumed their proper rank on the stage, 
 was not only endured but admired — 
 
 That, being then very young, he made a complete stage 
 beauty, performing his parts so well (particularly Arthrope 
 and Aglaura) that it has since been disputable among the 
 profession whether any women that succeeded him touched 
 the audience so sensibly as he. 
 
 Hitherto we have only considered the facts connected 
 with these boys so far as the same have been preserved. We 
 now have to take ourselves back in imagination to the days 
 of Queen Elizabeth and realize, so far as we are able, the 
 practical effects of boys playing women's parts. 
 
 It has already been pointed out that there was only a short 
 period during which this could be done. As a boy grew to 
 manhood his stature increased, his voice changed, and his 
 beard began to grow. We must, for a moment, imagine a 
 company with a skilled youth whose personation of female 
 characters was, as INIalone states was sometimes the case, far 
 beyond what a woman could do. We can realize this best 
 perhaps, if we consider a cathedral choir with a boy whose 
 voice has a sweetness that is renowned. He is clever, good 
 looking, and a master of his profession. But the time is 
 coming when he must sing no more as a boy at least. He 
 may in a short time find he has his voice back, but it is that 
 of a man ; or he may never again have a voice worth hearing, 
 and he may become a singing master, or may write music, or 
 may turn to something else. This is the story of nearly all 
 the clever singing boys. The few either appear again as 
 great singers, the majority become choir masters or write 
 music, or turn their hand to something else. I think the 
 same story might be told about the boys. It was the story 
 of Field, of Underwood, and Ostler, who are already referred 
 to as commencing their career as the Queen's Chappell 
 boys, and became men actors and arc so named in the Folio 
 of 1623. With the rank and file of these boys there might be 
 little interest shown ; but at times some boy of exceptional
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 301 
 
 character and aptitude for portraying female characters 
 would be found in the ranks of the company, a boy hard to 
 replace, one who helped to fill the house and could command 
 applause by Juliette or his Viola. We can conceive how 
 anxious the company would feel when the time approached 
 and it became more and more difficult to keep up the 
 illusion ; he was growing tall, his voice was reedy, running 
 from one octave to the other at its own sweet will. Now we 
 can, I think, understand the actor appreciating all this, but 
 I do not see why the poet should. The duty of the latter is 
 to write his play, create his characters, the embodiment of his 
 ideas and the carrying it out is not his province unless he 
 were so intimate with the stage as to take an interest in these 
 matters. But even then I do not think he would invite the 
 attention of the audience to the fact that the women's parts 
 were played by men, as we find continually was done in the 
 plays. 
 
 Perhaps the best known of these references is made in 
 Hamlet's welcome to the players. In this scene, it may be 
 remembered, Hamlet addresses the head of the company 
 first, but greets the boy who plays the woman's part second, 
 putting him before all the other actors. Good-humouredly he 
 calls attention to his growing height, necessarily a sore point, 
 and hopes his voice is not cracked within the ring, &c. 
 Mr. Knight says that in those days a cracked coin was not 
 passable if the defect went beyond the outside ring or margin ; 
 but as a coin loses its ring if cracked, it is evident another 
 interpretation may be put upon what was probably an old 
 theatrical joke, like the old circuit jokes that are told to every 
 newcomer. The scene is as follows : — 
 
 In Act II. scene 2, in the stage direction in the folio is — 
 "Enter four or five players." 
 
 This occurs in the middle of a speech in which Hamlet is 
 talking mad nonsense to Polonius which he breaks off and 
 gives the players welcome. 
 
 You are welcome, masters : welcome all : — I am glad to see
 
 302 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 thee well : — welcome, good friends. — O, my old friend ! Thy 
 face is valiant^ since I saw thee last. Comest thou to beard 
 me in Denmark ? 
 
 The next person he addresses is the boy who plays the 
 female parts, passing over the other and older actors — 
 
 What ! my young lady and mistress ! By-'r-lady (but), your 
 lady is (grown) nearer to heaven by the altitude of a chopine,^ 
 higher than (you were) than when I saw you last. Pray God 
 (sir), your voice, like a piece of uncurrent gold, be not 
 cracked within the ring. 
 
 He then addresses the rest. In the first quarto, the words 
 are — 
 
 " Come on, masters, we'll to't like French falconers, fly at 
 anything we see : come, a taste of your quality ; a speech, 
 a passionate speech." 
 
 This differs very little from the folio. The sly hit at the 
 French sportsman, which might be written to-day, is pre- 
 served. It is to be noticed that the word "vallanced" (in 
 the second quarto ■' vallanct ") is altered wrongly to " valiant" 
 in the folio. But the material point is that the boy is brought 
 forward as the second person, and though one time addressed 
 as " lady," is in the first quarto called " Sir." 
 
 In this speech we have a direct reference to the fact that 
 the women's parts were played by boys. We have many 
 others, both directly and indirectly, referring to this secret of 
 the craft. 
 
 Thus, in "Midsummer Night's Dream," Mve have Flute 
 objecting to playing a woman's part, as he has a beard 
 growing, but Quince replies — 
 
 " That's all one. You shall play it in a mask : and you 
 may speak as small as you will." 
 
 Julia, in the " Two Gentlemen of Verona," when, as 
 Sebastian, she wins back her lover, makes allusion to this 
 
 1 "Vallanced" ia the first Quarto, this, Malone explains, is fringed 
 with a beard, and tlius gives the cue to the next sentence. 
 
 * A liigh heel. ' Act I. Scene 2.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 303 
 
 practice ; she is explaining to Silvia what she, as Julia, is 
 like— 
 
 Silvia. How tall was she ? 
 
 Julia. About my stature ; for, at Pentecost, 
 
 When all our pageants of delight were played, 
 Our youth got me to play the woman's part, 
 And I was trimmed in Madame Julia's gown : 
 Which served me as a fit, in all men's judgment. 
 As if the garment had been made for me. 
 
 Here, it must be remembered, she is representing that it 
 was as the boy Sebastian she played a woman's part, for as 
 stated before, as Julia, she could not have done so with 
 propriety. 
 
 Our author is not content with referring to this custom 
 and calling the audience's attention to it, and thereby run- 
 ning the risk of destroying the illusion with regard to the 
 very female characters in the piece being played. But he 
 delights in grappling with a very complicated position, 
 namely, that of making these boys, acting as women, put on 
 boys' clothes. It would almost seem as if he took a delight 
 in relieving them from their female disguise, and bringing 
 them before the world in their true characters, though, as we 
 shall see, he took some pains to still keep up the belief that 
 the apparent boys were women disguised. 
 
 This peculiarity of Shakespeare's of making his female 
 characters masquerade as boys must, as the characters werj 
 played by boys, have led to some curious complications. "'Ye 
 are accustomed in the present day to see boys' parts r layed 
 by actresses, and we have little difficulty in knowing ihat they 
 are women, and as long as the boys in Elizabeth's time were 
 disguised in women's clothes, their sex might be well con- 
 cealed ; but when on the stage they qui^>,ed female dresses 
 and appeared as boys, it must have been difficult to keep up 
 illusion. The growing stature, tne man-like walk, not to 
 speak of the difference of firj^ine, must have rendered it almost 
 impossible to prevent che audience seeing that it was no 
 woman in a boy'o garb, but a lean loined, lanky lout, appear-
 
 304 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 ing as he was. I think one result of the absence of women 
 from the stage was the coarseness which we find in the old 
 plays. There are some expressions which are permitted at 
 one time and not at another, and sometimes more licence is 
 given, especially where the idea is to be amusing. The 
 broad joke is to be found in Fielding and even in INIarriott — 
 writers, if allosved in other times, who would not be permitted 
 now. But I believe the difference between an indecent 
 joke and one that was not, was always well understood, 
 and I believe there is a good deal in even the plays which 
 would not be there had there been women on the stage. 
 I remember seeing INIrs. Kean play the last act of the 
 *' Merchant of Venice," and she toned down the words without 
 destroying the fun, at least so the audience seemed to think. 
 The fun lay in the jealousy excited in the husband, and this 
 could be made as extravagant as was wanted without the 
 equivoque. So when in the "Merchant of Venice," we have 
 Gratiano explaining that he gave his wife's ring to a little 
 scrubby boy. A modern audience, who sees a beautiful 
 woman playing the double part, laughs at him, Gratiano, giving 
 himself away ; but Shakespeare's audience, no doubt, saw 
 only a true description of the youth who played Nerissa, who, 
 however fascinating a female he made, was in real life a 
 little scrubby boy. This very difficulty Shakespeare appeared 
 to delight in. He, as I have said, seeks many occasions of 
 making the change, though he is artist enough to prepare the 
 audience for the different appearance of the boy in proprid 
 persond from the woman he is playing, and forewarn them of 
 the saucy strut, the swinging stride, and even descends to 
 details of dress, that cannot well be referred to here, so that 
 the audience may be led to believe that these details are not 
 because the boy was a boy, but because the female character 
 had adopted them to carry out the illusion more completely. 
 All this, to my mind, points to a familiarity with the life 
 behind the scenes, and the desire of the growing boy to 
 emancipate himself from a woman's part, which a manly boy
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 305 
 
 may have despised. All this seems to support the possibility 
 of Shakespeare having gone through the mill himself. 
 
 One of the principal uses of dress is to conceal as well as 
 clothe. But at one period the male costume hardly fulfilled 
 this purpose. And we find in the plays reference to this fact, 
 not, as I conceive, Rabelais and writers of that class would 
 refer to it as a basis for some rude joke, but because there was 
 a serious difficulty in supporting the illusion, that the boys 
 were not what they were in fact, but women masquerading. 
 
 It is for this reason I conceive the details of such costumes 
 were discussed, as in other cases the manly stride was spoken 
 of. So that when the audience had the boys before them 
 they might still believe them females. 
 
 The more one studies the plays the more one is surprised 
 how often we find in the comedies a female character, played 
 as we know by a boy, putting on male attire. We see how 
 skilfully the author works up the situation so that the illusion 
 that it is a woman representing a boy may not be destroyed, 
 and how he, as it were, forestalls any observations that 
 might arise by making the apparent woman discuss, and 
 apparently assume, beforehand those traits and appearances 
 which would betray the true sex of the performer. Thus, 
 we shall see Portia says what she is going to do wljpn 
 she represents a boy. When, in the present day, we have 
 some graceful actress making the speech, the audience is 
 amused at her attempted mimicry. In Shakespeare's time the 
 audience had to be persuaded that what was natural to the boy 
 was going to be assumed. 
 
 Portia, in the " Merchant of Venice," thus describes to 
 Nerissa what they will do as boys.^ 
 
 I'll hold thee any wager, 
 When we are both accoutred like young men, 
 I'll prove the prettier fellow of the two, 
 And wear my dagger with the braver grace. 
 And speak, between the change of man and boy 
 
 1 Act III. Scene 4. 
 C. X
 
 306 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 With a reed voice ; and turn two mincing steps 
 
 Into a manly stride ; and speak of frays, 
 
 Like a fine bragging youth ; and tell quaint lies 
 
 How honourable ladies sought my love, 
 
 Which I denying, they fell sick and died ; 
 
 I could not do with all ; — then I'll repent, 
 
 And wish for all that, that I had not killed them. 
 
 And twenty of these puny lies I'll tell, 
 
 That men shall swear I have discontinued school 
 
 Above a twelvemonth. I have within my mind 
 
 A thousand raw tricks of these bragging Jacks, 
 
 Which I will practise. 
 
 When the dispute arises between Gratiano and Nerissa 
 about the ring, Nerissa says : — 
 
 Gave it to a judge's clerk ! — but well I know 
 The clerk will ne'er wear hair on's face that had it. 
 Gratiano. He will, and if he live to be a man. 
 N^erissa. If a woman live to be a man. 
 Gratiano. Now, by this hand, I gave it to a youth, — 
 A kind of boy ; a little scrubbed boy. 
 No higher than thyself, the judge's clerk ; 
 A prating boy, that begged it as a fee. 
 
 In " As You Like It," there is the same double play ; in 
 fact, here it is threefold, for we have a boy playing Rosalind, 
 who dresses up as a boy to deceive her lover — 
 
 " I will speak to him like a saucy lacquey, and under that 
 habit play the knave with him ; " 
 
 and then tries to induce her lover to make love to her as if 
 she were a woman, and says if he does she will cure him of 
 his love. 
 
 Or I. Did you ever cure any so ? 
 
 Ros. Yes, one ; and in this manner. He was to imagine 
 me his love, his mistress ; and I set him everyday to woo me : 
 At which time would I, being but a moonish youth, grieve, be 
 effeminate, changeable, longing, and liking; proud, fantastical, 
 apish, shallow, inconstant, full of tears, full of smiles ; for 
 every passion something, and for no passion truly any thing, 
 as boys and women are for the most part cattle of this colour ; 
 would now like him, now loathe him; then entertain him, then 
 forswear him ; now weep for him, then spit at him ; that I 
 drave my suitor from his mad humour of love, to a living 
 humour of madness.
 
 THE ACTOR- AUTHOR. 307 
 
 Now this is very complicated ; there is the actual boy who 
 plays the part, Rosalind, as a woman, and Master Gany- 
 mede, the boy she pretends to be. And the fictitious 
 description she gives of herself is, an effeminate youth, 
 neither boy nor woman. The first of these, the actual boy, 
 is supposed not to be before the audience, his personality is 
 suppressed ; but we shall see Shakespeare also makes refer- 
 ence to the fact that boys had to play the women's parts. 
 
 In " Twelfth Night " we have a description of the boy 
 
 playing a woman's part, in which she or he masquerades as a 
 
 boy. Viola, as a boy, insists upon seeing Olivia, and she 
 
 inquires : — 
 
 Of what personage, and years is he ? 
 Malvolio. Not yet old enough for a man, nor young enough 
 for a boy ; as a squash is before 'tis a peas-cod, or a codling 
 when 'tis almost an apple; 'tis with him in standing water, 
 between boy and man. He is very well favoured, and he 
 speaks very shrewishly ; one would think his mother's milk 
 were scarce out of him. 
 
 These are the principal references that I have noticed. 
 In "Richard II.," ^ I find the expression, "And boys with 
 women's voices " ; but I think there is sufficient to show that 
 our author alone of all his contemporaries, as far as I know, 
 except Ben Jonson, has drawn the characters of young bo)^^ : 
 has noticed their bragging propensities, their change of voice, 
 their increasing stature, and made frequent reference directly 
 and indirectly to their playing women's parts. 
 
 Ben Jonson, it is true, makes reference to this custom in an 
 amusing way, at least, no doubt it was so, when it was more of 
 a novelty than it is now to make reference on the stage to the 
 private individuality of the actor. But it must be remembered 
 that Jonson had the example of Shakespeare before him. 
 And, as I have shown, there is reason to believe that the 
 introduction of the players on the stage in " Hamlet" was an 
 incident that was very likely to have been brought very 
 prominently to Jonson's notice. 
 
 1 Act HI. Scene 2. 
 X 2
 
 308 SHAICESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 " The Devil is an Ass," a play which is said not to have 
 been acted till 1616, the year of Shakespeare's death, contains 
 some amusing references. One Meerecraft is introduced and 
 made fun of as the author of absurd and ridiculous projects, 
 all of which were to make enormous fortunes, the curious 
 part being that the examples, given as utterly foolish and 
 impracticable, have all become successes, and have no doubt 
 made large fortunes. The first is "the recovery of drowned 
 lands," referring to the draining of the fens, " making gloves 
 out of dog skins," " bottling ale," and "making wine out of 
 raisins." But the play bears upon the present inquiry in the 
 fact that reference is made to a lad, Dick Robinson, who 
 generally played women's parts, but then was, it appears, 
 growing too tall, and was in the piece playing the part of 
 one Wittipol, a man's part. In the course of the play, it was 
 proposed to dress up some man as a woman to carry on an 
 intrigue. One character proposes that Wittipol should do this, 
 but another, separating the actor from his part, wants to have 
 Dick Robinson, and reference is made to Wittipol's being too 
 tall. There is a description given of Dick Robinson, which 
 no doubt is drawn from life ; but if Shakespeare's descrip- 
 tions as given by Portia and others might be compared to a 
 picture by Watteau, Jonson's description resembles one 
 of Hogarth's engravings. Meerecraft, after discussing the 
 scheme, says — 
 
 Why, this 
 Is well, the clothes we have now ; but where's this 
 If we could get a witty boy, now, Engine, [lady .'* 
 That were an excellent crack, I could instruct him 
 To the true height, for anytliing takes this Dottrel. 
 
 Eng. Why, sir, your best will be one of the players. 
 
 Meer. No, there's no trusting them ; they will talk of it 
 And tell their poets. 
 
 Eng. What if they do ; the jest 
 
 Will brook the stage. But there be some of them 
 
 Are very honest lads. There is Dick Robinson, 
 
 A very pretty fellow, and comes often 
 
 To a gentleman's chamber, a friend of mine. We had 
 
 The merriest supper of it there one night. 
 
 The gentleman's landlady invited him [Robinson, 
 
 To a gossips' feast. Now, he, sir, brought Dick
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 309 
 
 Drest like a lawyer's wife, amongst them all. 
 I lent him clothes : but to see him behave it 
 And lay the law, and carve and drink unto them, 
 
 And then talk and send frolics.^ O, 
 
 It would have burst your buttons or not left you a 
 
 Meer. They say he is an ingenious youth. [seam. 
 
 Eng. O ! sir, and dresses himself the best 
 
 Beyond forty of your ladies. Did you never see him 1 
 
 Meer. No, I do seldom see those toys. 
 
 But think you that we may have him ? 
 
 Eng. Sir, the young gentleman - 
 
 I tell you of can command him. Shall I attempt it.'' 
 
 Meer. Yes, do it. 
 
 But Engine, instead of bringing on Dick Robinson iyi 
 propria persond, gets Wittipol to dress up as the woman, and 
 the scene runs as follows : — 
 
 [Enter 'Engine followed by Wittipol.] 
 
 3feer. Engine, welcome. 
 
 How goes the cry } 
 
 Eng. Excellent well. 
 
 Meer. Will it do ? 
 
 Where's Robinson ? 
 
 Eng. Here is the gentleman, sir, 
 
 Will undertake it himself. I have acquainted him. 
 
 Meer. Why did you so ? 
 
 Eng. Why, Robinson would have told him, you know. 
 And he's a pleasant wit, will hurt 
 Nothing you purpose. Then he's of opinion # 
 That Robinson might want audacity, 
 She being such a gallant. Now, he has been 
 In Spain, and knows the fashions there, and can 
 Discourse, and being but mirth, he says, leave much 
 To his care. 
 
 Meer. But he's too tall. 
 
 Eng. For that 
 
 He has the bravest device (you'll love him for it) 
 To say he wears cioppinos,^ and they do so 
 In Spain ; and Robinson as tall as he. 
 
 1 Doubtful mottoes wrapped round sweetmeats, apparently like Christmas 
 crackers. 
 
 - Apparently Wittipol in the play. 
 
 ' The reader may remember Hamlet's reference to the "altitude of a 
 chopine."
 
 310 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Meer. Is he so ? , 
 
 Eng. 'Every jot. 
 
 Meer. Na}-, I had rather 
 
 To trust a gentleman with it of the two. 
 
 I have given the principal contemporaneous references I 
 have come across outside Shakespeare to this custom, and, 
 as stated, Jonson followed Shakespeare, and the extracts 
 given, I think, show a very considerable difference. The 
 drawing by Jonson is from nature in all its crudeness, but 
 the wit is poor, and there is an entire absence of that poetical 
 fancy, which lightly and delicately touches what it describes, 
 which is the great charm of Shakespeare. 
 
 There is in Ben Jonson's work another allusion. 
 
 In the "New Inn" which is a lamentable piece of stuff, 
 Ben Jonson has taken Shakespeare's notion of making a boy 
 represent a woman, who assumes to be a boy, &c. The " New 
 Inn " was played, or partly played, on 19th January, 1629. 
 But the audience would not allow it to finish. There was 
 a girl's part, one Lastitia, brought up and educated by 
 her father, thinking that she is a boy. He calls her 
 Frank. The absurdity that a child could be brought up and 
 its sex not discovered is self-evident. When Shakespeare 
 makes the masquerade, the young ladies wear boys' attire for 
 a short time only. But Loetitia is supposed to have been 
 educated as Frank for years. Then comes further compli- 
 cations. The host thinks it a good jest to dress up the 
 supposed boy, Frank, as a girl, and allow her to be married 
 to a certain Lord Beaufort, with the result that when her sex 
 is discovered, she is really married. Here we have rather 
 more complications than in the case of Rosalind. A boy 
 acts a girl's part, who dresses as a boy, and then intrigues as 
 a woman. But what a difference there is ! Rosalind is the 
 centre of the play, Frank or Lcetitia a mere by-character. It 
 is not my intention to make comparisons between Jonson and 
 Shakespeare, but to show that the former copied the latter 
 in this particular incident.
 
 THE ACTOR- AUTHOR. 311 
 
 Shakespeare and Greene. — I have at page 165 stated that in 
 my opinion there seems strong reasons for believing that 
 Shakespeare and Greene may have stood in the relation of 
 pupil and tutor to one another. We have not sufficient data 
 to determine this as a fact ; but I have pointed out how 
 Shakespeare used Greene's works for his plays, and that many 
 of Greene's words, such as " Doom," were adopted by Shake- 
 speare. I think this suggestion acquires some confirmation 
 when we consider the peculiar way Greene refers to Shake- 
 speare in his " Groat's Worth of Wit." He speaks of him as 
 having a special knowledge of his ambition, &c., he calls 
 him "upstart crow," &c., " beautified with our feathers," &c. ; 
 but Avhile he speaks thus bitterly of him he does not mention 
 his name, to which he only refers by the veiled allusion of 
 Shake-Scene. Now we who know the great reputation of 
 Shakespeare's name, have no doubt but that it was to him 
 that Greene alluded ; but unless Shakespeare's efforts were an 
 open secret in 1592,1 think we have no reason to believe 
 that Greene intended the world to know whom it was he 
 meant. He wished the upstart crow to feel the sting of his 
 words, but not to expose him. We find, curiously enough, 
 Shakespeare treating Greene in a somewhat similar manner.^ 
 I have shown that the play of " George-a-Greene," the 
 Pinner of Wakefield, is attributed to Greene because^cf 
 a note, which says that Shakespeare said the play was 
 written by a minister, who played the part of the Pinner 
 himself. This has been explained as meaning Robert Greene. 
 This reference to Shakespeare is one of the few occasions 
 when we find contemporaneous persons speaking of him 
 personally, that is, apart from his works or his acting. There 
 are, I think, only two or three events in all which show that 
 Shakespeare was, apart from his writings, a real individual 
 and not a myth. Here we find Shakespeare referring to 
 Greene as a minister, and not giving his name. So that we 
 have both Shakespeare and Greene showing an intimate know- 
 
 1 Page 158.
 
 312 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 ledge of the life of the other, a knowledge which is unknown 
 to the world in general. 
 
 Besides this, we have in one of Greene's plays, a character 
 introduced which seems very Shakcsperian. In the " Looking 
 Glass for London and England " we have an almost religious 
 play where the prophet Oseas is brought to Nineveh by an 
 angel to note all the sins of that rich and pampered city — 
 
 And see the wrath of God that pays revenge. 
 
 As soon as the solemn scene is finished and Oseas accepts 
 the duty, we have a crew of " ruffians " bursting on the stage, 
 very much as Elbow and his party come on to the stage after 
 the solemn scene where Claudio is condemned to death in 
 " Measure for Measure." Amidst this noisy band is Adam, 
 an English smith fresh from his master's forge, with all the 
 impudence of the clown, Jack Cade, and other well-known 
 Shakespearian characters. It is not *' impertinence " nor 
 " insolence " which is the peculiar trait of these clowns, but 
 impudence, that is, without shame. The clown in the trial 
 scene I have already given at p. 43, shows this quality in its 
 fullest sense, but even he can be moved. It may be remem- 
 bered that Escalus, with a masterly touch, is made to speak 
 kindly to him, and says — 
 
 Come, tell me true ; it shall be better for you. 
 
 For a moment we can see him ashamed, and he replies — 
 Truly, sir, I am a poor fellow, that would live. 
 
 The effect is only temporary; his effrontery soon comes 
 back. Adam is one of the same sort. There has been a 
 solemn fast ordered by the repentant king of Nineveh to 
 propitiate the wrath of Heaven ; and to see that the fast is 
 properly kept, searchers are appointed. The following 
 extract shows how Adam's impudence equals that of the 
 clown before Escalus : — 
 
 The two searchers interrupt Adam, who is enjoying a piece 
 of beef and a bottle of beer, which he hides in his slops — 
 
 27id Scar. Here sits one, mcthinks, at his prayers ; let us 
 sec who it is.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 313 
 
 ist Sear. 'Tis Adam, the smith's man ; how now, Adam ? 
 Adam. Trouble me not. " Thou shal't take no manner of 
 
 food, but fast and pray." 
 \st Scar. How devoutly he sits at his orisons ; but stay, 
 methinks I feel a smell of some meat or bread 
 about him. 
 ^nd Sear. So thinks me too. You, sirrah, what victuals 
 
 have you about you ? 
 Adam. Victuals ! Oh, horrible blasphemy ! Hinder me not 
 
 of my prayer, nor drive me not into a choler. 
 
 Victuals ! why, heardest thou not the sentence, 
 
 " Thou shal't take no food, but fast and pray." 
 2nd Sear. Truth, so it should be ; but methinks I smell 
 
 meat about thee. 
 Adam. About me, my friends } These tvords are actions 
 
 in the case. About me ? no, no ; hang those 
 
 gluttons that cannot fast and pray. 
 ist. Sear. Well, for all your words, we must search you. 
 Adam. Search me .^ take heed what you do. i\Iy hose^ 
 
 are my castles. 'Tis burglar}-, if you break open a 
 
 slop. No officer must lift up an iron hatch ; take 
 
 heed, my slops are iron. \_They search Adam.'] 
 
 2nd Sear. Oh, villain ! see how he hath gotten victuals, 
 
 bread, beef and beer, where the king commanded, 
 
 upon pain of death, none should eat for so many 
 
 days, no, not the sucking infant. 
 
 Adam. Alas, sir, this is nothing but a modicum nan nocet tit 
 
 medicus daret;"^ why, sir, a bit to comfort my 
 
 stomach. 
 ist Sear. Villain, thou shalt be hanged for it ! 
 Adam. These are your words, " I shall be hanged for IP'; 
 
 but first answer me to this question, how many 
 
 days have we to fast still ? 
 2nd Sear. Five days. 
 
 Adam. Five days, a long time ; then I must be hanged. 
 \st Sear. Ay, marry, must thou. 
 Adam. I am your man. I am for you, sir ; for I had rather 
 
 be hanged than abide so long a fast. What, five 
 
 days } Come, I'll untruss. Is your halter and the 
 
 gallows, the ladder and all such furniture, in 
 
 readiness.^ 
 \st Sear. I warrant thee shalt want none of these. 
 
 1 A play upon the proverb, I suppose, "An Englishman's house is his 
 castle." 
 
 2 Referring to the relief from fasting allowed in case of sickness by the 
 Romish Church.
 
 314 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Adam. But hear you, must I be hanged ? 
 
 1st Sear. Ay, marry. 
 
 Adam. And for eating of meat. Then, friends, know ye 
 by these presents, I will eat up all my meat, and 
 drink up all my drink, for it shall never be said I 
 was hanged with an empty stomach. 
 
 Which he at once proceeds to do. 
 
 In my view, these Shakespearian clowns are Bacon's work 
 rather than Shakespeare's. As I have said, Bacon was fond 
 of these studies of low life, perhaps as a contrast to his more 
 serious works. I do not remember to have found these "im- 
 pudent varlets" in the non-legal plays. And if I am right in 
 giving the trial scene in " Measure for Measure," that is, the 
 part not in blank verse, to Bacon, and "Macbeth" to Shake- 
 speare, then, I think, we have some test of their respective 
 styles. If this be so, the creation of Adam may be Bacon's 
 and not Shakespeare's, especially as he quotes English law' in 
 Nineveh, and thus follows the peculiarity of the law in the 
 legal plays. It is possible that it was through Greene that 
 Bacon and Shakespeare met. This is, no doubt, only con- 
 jecture. But I do not remember in Greene's other plays an 
 impudent character like Adam, yet he is clearly one of the 
 type we find so commonly in Shakespeare's plays. 
 
 The Three Parts of ''Henry F/." 
 There is, I think, another connection between Shakespeare 
 and Greene to be found when we come to consider the three 
 parts of "Henry VI." A great deal has been written as to 
 whether Shakespeare was or was not the author of all or any 
 of these parts. But it seems to me there is no difficulty in 
 getting at the truth if we take the simple facts as they have 
 come down to us. 
 
 I think all the confusion has arisen because the three parts 
 are written in " reverse order." Usually, if a work appears 
 in three parts the presumption, as lawyers say, is that Part I. 
 was written first, then Part II., and then Part III. But, in 
 
 1 And drinks English beer.
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 315 
 
 this case, exactly the opposite took place, and we shall find 
 that Part III. was the first of the plays and is not the work of 
 Shakespeare : that Shakespeare produced Part II. as a sepa- 
 rate play to rival the existing play Part III. ; and some time 
 after Part I. was written by Shakespeare. It is the discoveries 
 made by Halliwell in modern times which enable us to 
 trace this out. But with Malone and writers of his time 
 there is considerable excuse for the confusion they got into 
 over these three parts of " Henry VI.," because they had 
 not the advantage of seeing the earlier copies of the second 
 and third parts pubUshed by Millington in 1594 and 1595 
 respectively, which Mr. Halliwell reproduced in the Shake- 
 speare Society's papers in 1843. All Malone knew was that 
 there was published in London (no date), but supposed to be 
 in 1 61 9, what purported to be — 
 
 THE WHOLE CONTENTION 
 
 BETWEEN THE TWO FAMOUS HOUSES 
 
 LANCASTER AND YORKE. 
 
 WITH THE TRAGICALL ENDS OF THE 
 
 GOOD DUKE HUMFRY, RICHARD DUKE OF YORKE, 
 
 AND KING HENRY THE SIXT. 
 
 Divided into Two Parts and newly corrected and 
 
 enlarged. 
 
 Written by William Shakespeare, Gent. 
 
 Printed at London for T. P.^ 
 
 Now this, undoubtedly, attributes these two parts of the 
 Contention to William Shakespeare, and as in the second 
 part we find the line — 
 
 Oh, tiger's heart, wrapped in a woman's hyde. 
 
 1 Thomas Prince.
 
 316 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 And as Greene used the line in his " Groat's Worth of Wit," 
 
 in 1592— 
 
 O tiger's heart, wrapped in a player's hide, 
 
 it is generally supposed he was quoting from Shakespeare's 
 
 play, and therefore Shakespeare must have written it by that 
 
 date. But Greene was complaining of the upstart crow 
 
 (Shakespeare), who thought himself able to bombast blank 
 
 verse as well as any, and would hardly have quoted from 
 
 his rival's lines ; and I think we shall see this is so, when we 
 
 come to Halliwell's reproduction, and that the whole order 
 
 and history of these plays is very clear. Halliwell seems to 
 
 have been near the fact, but he does not seem to be so 
 
 skilful in using what he discovers as in discovering it. By 
 
 his reprints we find the two plays were published originally 
 
 as follows : — 
 
 The original play on which Part II. of " Henry VI." was 
 
 founded was printed — 
 
 THE 
 
 FIRST PART OF THE CONTENTION 
 
 BETWIXT THE TWO FAMOUS HOUSES 
 
 OF YORKE AND LANCASTER, WITH 
 
 THE DEATH OF THE GOOD 
 
 DUKE HUMPHREY, 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 1594. 
 
 The play on which Part III. of " Henry VI." was founded 
 was published as — 
 
 THE 
 
 TRUE TRAGEDIE OF RICFIARD 
 
 DUKE OF YORKE, AND THE DEATH OF 
 
 GOOD KING HENRY THE SIXT. 
 
 with the ivliolc contention hetweene 
 &c., &c. 
 
 1595-
 
 THE ACTOR-AUTHOR. 317 
 
 Now, if we compare these two titles we are, I think, at 
 once reminded of a new shop being opened next to an 
 old-established one in the same line of business, when the 
 older shopkeeper, disgusted at the presence of the new comer, 
 puts up a notice that "there is no connection with next 
 door." 
 
 It i§ evident if the play of 1594 is the First Part of the Con- 
 tention play No. 2 cannot be the IV/ioIe of the Contention. 
 Now, when we find play No. 2 was performed by Lord Pem- 
 broke's servants, who, Halliwell tells us, never performed 
 Shakespeare's plays, it seems to me clear the "Tragedy of 
 Richard, Duke of York," was the original play, probably 
 written by Greene, who uses one of his own lines when he 
 speaks of the tiger's heart, &c., and this play, as a second 
 title, was known as the Contention between the famous Houses 
 of Yorke and Lancaster, which is a fair description of it, as the 
 contention or actual struggle begins and ends in the play. Then 
 it seems that Shakespeare's company, needing a play to rival the 
 other, commissioned Shakespeare to write one like it, and he, 
 with the assistance of his legal friend, wrote his play, which deals 
 with the causes that led to Yorke raising the banner of rebel- 
 lion, the murder of the Duke Humphrey, Jack Cade's out- 
 break, which is supposed to have been the work of Richard 
 of Yorke, &c., and called it the First Part of the Contention, 
 by which, I think, it was intended to say not the first part of 
 one play, but the co7nmencement of the struggle. This, I think, 
 led to the pubUcation of Greene's play, "The Whole Con- 
 tention," meaning that the other play had no right to call 
 itself the First Part of the Contention. The word whole would 
 not be used unless there was another Richmond in the field. 
 Now Millington in some way became possessed of the right 
 to publish Shakespeare's play, and did so in 1594; ^"d 
 Greene being dead in 1595, he published his work ; not attri- 
 buting either to Shakespeare. Then comes the undated 
 publication, when the two are attributed to William Shake- 
 speare. In addition to these plays, it appears that Shakespeare
 
 318 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 and his legal friend, finding there was a large part of Henry 
 VI. 's reign not dramatized, viz., the period of the king's 
 infancy, when France was lost to England and Talbot killed, 
 wrote a third play, of which we have no copy earlier than the 
 Folio, wherein it appears as " Part No. i of Henry VI.," 
 (There is evidence that this first part was written and played 
 before the play of " Henry V.," as it is referred to in one of 
 the choruses of that play.) Part No. 2 was the First Part of the 
 Contention, and the work of Shakespeare and his legal friend, 
 and Part No. 3, the oldest and original play, the work of 
 Greene or some other author, not Shakespeare, as it contains 
 no legalisms, and is altogether written in a different style, 
 without interest or incident, with long speeches, &c. 
 
 Bacon's Secret Compositions. 
 
 Bacon somewhere says he is " a concealed poet," and Jonson 
 said that he had " filled up all numbers." A great deal has 
 been made of this by the Baconians, but Jonson does not say 
 that he wrote numbers or verses, but that he " filled them," 
 whatever that may mean. We have no evidence that Bacon 
 ever wrote poetry that was worthy of that name. We have, 
 however, the strongest evidence that Bacon was very fond of 
 the theatre, he was continually getting up masques and 
 similar entertainments which he, for the most part, wrote 
 himself in prose though there is reason, in one case at least, 
 to believe that his prose was 'put into blank verse, so that, 
 although we cannot bring home to him by direct evidence 
 that he ever wrote or arranged the matter for any of Shake- 
 speare's plays, yet I think there is very good reason to believe 
 that on more than one occasion he wrote or helped to write 
 masques which were afterwards i)ut into blank verse. 
 
 In November of the year 1595 Essex produced a device or 
 masque, which was admittedly written by Bacon. Spcdding
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 319 
 
 gives an extract from a contemporary report to which I shall 
 refer directly ; of it he says,' — 
 
 " It is not much that one can gather from this report (which 
 appears, moreover, to have suffered from the errors of the 
 transcriber) as to the character of the entertainment, but it 
 serves to identify, as belonging to it, a paper without heading, 
 docket, or date, found in the Lambeth collection ; Avhich 
 paper- is further proved by some notes and portions of the 
 rough draft still extant in Bacon's handwriting to be of his 
 own composition." 
 
 Now it appears that the papers in the bundle, which is in 
 Bacon's handwriting, consist of certain speeches, as that of the 
 hermit or philosopher, the squire's speech in the tiltyard, the 
 hermit's speech in the presence, the soldier's speech, the 
 statesman's speech, and the reply of the squire. 
 
 Of these Mr. Spedding says — "there can be no reasonable 
 doubt that the foregoing speeches were written by Bacon,"" 
 though he points out that it is only by accident that they pass 
 for his, for by contemporary writers they were thought to be 
 Essex's writings. But Mr. Spedding has no doubt, for he 
 says,^ — 
 
 " If it could be quite certain that it" (the masque) " was 
 the earl's own composition, his style in things of this kind 
 must have been so like Bacon's that I, for my part, should 
 despair of distinguishing their several works by examination 
 of the workmanship." 
 
 The view taken by Mr. Spedding receives a remarkable 
 confirmation, if it were necessary, from a document that was 
 discovered after Mr. Spedding had written his book. It is 
 usually known as the " Northumberland Manuscript." Its 
 peculiarity is that the outside leaf, which forms its QOv 
 contains a list of the pieces which were to be founds insidt^se 
 Mr. Spedding has, by leave of the Duke, published a shoi° 
 
 1 Vol. I, p. 375. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 386. 
 s Page 391.
 
 320 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 account of it, in which a fac simile is given of this front or 
 title page. Originally it was as follows : — 
 
 Mr. Frauncis Bacon 
 on tribute or giuing what is dew. 
 The praise of the worthiest vertue. 
 The praise of the worthiest afcction. 
 The praise of the worthiest power. 
 The praise of the zvorthiest person. 
 
 Some one subsequently has added the following titles, 
 which I do not quite read as Mr. Spedding does. As I read 
 them, they run as follows : — 
 
 Earle of Aricndcll' s letter to the Quce?t. 
 Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tilt. 
 A speacJifor my lord of Sussex tilt. 
 Leycestef s commo7iwealth. Incerto auth\ore\. 
 Oratio7is at Graie^s Lmie revells. 
 By Mr. Frauncis Bacon. 
 Essaies by the same author. 
 Richard the second. 
 Richard the third. 
 
 I think this closes the second list. There are, in addition, 
 a considerable amount of scribblings over the whole sheet, 
 which are not material to the present inquiry. 
 
 Amongst these scribblings are to be found repetitions of 
 cihe titles given. Thus, " Earl of Leicester's Letter to the 
 t^ueen " is to be found, and curiously enough, William 
 Shakespeare's name is written, both in full and partly, very 
 many times. Mr. Spedding thinks this shows no connection 
 between Bacon and Shakespeare, but it is the idle caprice of 
 the penman, who spoils paper by writing down the name 
 several times of a favourite actor. As if a copyist of Tennyson's
 
 BACON'S SECRET COMPOSITIONS. 321 
 
 Poems were to write Mr. Irving's name several times on tlie 
 front sheet. This explanation does not seem very satisfactory. 
 It is impossible to say at this date under what circumstances 
 William Shakespeare's name was written over the covering 
 page of a bundle of Bacon's works. But it is an interesting 
 fact that some one at the end of the sixteenth century found 
 some reason for bringing the two names together. 
 
 Speaking of these titles, so far as they are material to the 
 present inquiry, Mr. Spedding says in his Introduction/ " The 
 Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tilt are evidently the 
 speeches of the hermit, the soldier, the secretary, and the 
 squire." And " The Orations at Graie's Line Revells,''^ he says, 
 " are the speeches of the six councillors to the Prince of 
 Purpoole at the Gray's Inn revels in 1594." To these I have 
 already referred.^ 
 
 The peculiarity of the Essex Device (and as I think of the 
 Gray's Inn Masque) is that Bacon did not give his speeches 
 to his principal personages, but employed either professional 
 actors or some friend, like Toby Matthew, the reason being, I 
 suppose, that people like my Lord Essex and others did not 
 care to undertake the task of uttering Bacon's didactic and 
 somewhat pompous essays, for they are no more. And we 
 learn that this was so from the contemporary account quqjed 
 by Spedding already referred to. In it we are told ^ — 
 
 " The old man " (the hermit) " was he that in Cambridge 
 played Giraldy, IMorley played the Secretary, and he that 
 played Pedantiq was the soldier, and Toby Matthew acted 
 the Squire's part." 
 
 We are also told that this was not known generally, for the 
 account continues — 
 
 "The world makes many untrue constructions of these 
 speeches, comparing the Hermit and the Secretary to two of 
 the lords, and the Soldier to Sir Roger Williams." 
 
 1 "A Conference of Pleasure," xxi. 
 
 2 Ante, p. 223. 
 
 3 Spedding, Vol. i, p. 375. 
 C.
 
 322 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The reporter also adds, showing that the Queen was still 
 angry with Essex, or that Bacon's fulsome flattery bored 
 her — 
 
 "The Queen said that if she had thought there had been 
 so much said of her, she would not have been there that night 
 — a7id so we7tt to hedy 
 
 Now when we come to the masque that was given by the 
 Prince of Purpoole, we shall see that her Majesty was in 
 better humour, but we shall also find exactly the same con- 
 struction and arrangement of the speeches as we have in 
 Essex's Device. In the former, we have Mr. Helmes, who 
 was the Prince of Purpoole, confining himself to dancing, 
 whilst the principal speeches are made by the squire, who 
 may have been Toby Matthew, or " He that in Cambridge 
 played Giraldy." And though the speeches are put into 
 blank verse, they are in Bacon's too well-known style of 
 didactic sententiousness ; and in each case the squire lauds 
 his master and flatters and compliments the Queen. I do 
 not propose to give any lengthened extracts from this Device ; 
 it is to be found in Nicol's " Progresses of Queen Elizabeth" ; 
 but I think if the one masque was Bacon's, the other was ; 
 although one was in prose, the other in blank verse. 
 
 A few short extracts from the Gray's Inn Masque will serve 
 to show that it is really Bacon's prose put into blank verse. 
 But before doing so, it may be pointed out that amongst 
 other titles mentioned on the outside of the Northumberland 
 MS. is a speech, " For the Earl of Sussex at ye tilt an 96," 
 and is one of the many examples of the cacoelhes scrihcndi of 
 Bacon and his desire to write speeches, &c. (and if so, why 
 not plays), for others to use and get the credit for. 
 
 Mr. Spedding unfortunately docs not give this speech, but 
 he thus describes it : — 
 
 " 'I'liis is a speech made to be spoken at one of these court 
 triumphs, and is written in the artificial style which it was the 
 fashion to affect in them, which makes it the more difficult to 
 supply the lost words ; but it is addressed to the Queen, and 
 meant apparently to convey an apology for the absence of the
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 323 
 
 Earl of Essex, who was very likely keeping aloof in one of 
 his fits of discontent." ' 
 
 We have no means of knowing whether this was ever used 
 or even left in Bacon's desk, and thus shared the fate, as I 
 beheve, of many of his compositions. For I cannot help look- 
 ing at Bacon as resembling that character in Dickens who 
 was always writing notes to himself and then destroying them, 
 only Bacon wrote for others ; but I by no means think that 
 all that he wrote saw the light of day, except those documents 
 that remained after his death. 
 
 The Gray's Inn 3fasqice commences with a hymn in the 
 praise of Neptune, which is attributed in Davidson's " Rhap- 
 sody"- to Thomas Ca?jipion. And Mr. Nicolas, in Mr. Picker- 
 ing's edition, attributes the rest of the masque to Davidson 
 himself, because he sent a copy of it to a lady. The sonnet 
 which accompanied it is given at p. no; it concludes as 
 follows : — 
 
 Or who of Proteus' sundry transformations 
 ]\Iay better send you the new feigned story 
 Than I, whose love Unfeigned felt no mutations. 
 Since to be yours I first received the glory, 
 Accept then of these lines, though mcafily pe7i7ied, 
 So fit f 07- you to take a7id me to se7id. 
 
 It is to be observed that Davidson does not say that he was 
 the author, but only that he penned them : that is, he may 
 have made a copy for the lady if she wanted one ; and, as 
 Mr. Nicolas says, there is " a transcript very beautifully written 
 in the author's [that is, Davidson's] own hand in Harl. MS. 
 54.1, f. 138," this may be the copy Davidson sent, and there- 
 fore, with a lover's desire to be complimented, he calls it 
 "meanly penned." It may be Davidson who put the matter 
 into blank verse, though he does not appear to have written 
 anything else in this form, nor to have inserted this masque 
 
 1 " A Conference of Pleasure," xvii. 
 
 2 Vol. I, p. 106. 
 
 Y 2
 
 324 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY, 
 
 amongst his collection. But whoever did the versification, 
 
 I think the reader will be convinced that Bacon composed 
 
 the substance of the masque. 
 
 The first verse of the opening hymn, said to be Campion's, 
 
 is — 
 
 Of Neptune's empire let us sing, 
 At whose commands the waves obey, 
 To whom rivers tribute pay, 
 Down the high mountains sliding ; 
 To whom the scaly nation yields 
 Homage for their chrj-stal fields. 
 Wherein they dwell. 
 
 And every sea-god praise again. 
 Yearly out of his watery cell. 
 
 To deck great Neptune's diadem. 
 
 After two verses had been sung of this not over-poetical 
 poetry, a character called "Esquire" comes on to the scene 
 and commences a dialogue with Proteus in blank verse. 
 
 The following are the first two speeches — 
 
 Esquire Proteus, it seems you lead a merry life ; 
 
 Your music follows you where-e'er you go. 
 I thought you sea-gods, as in your abode, 
 So in your nature, had not been unlike 
 To fishes ; the which, as say philosophers, 
 Have so small sense of nmsic's delight, 
 As 'lis a doubt not fully yet resolv'd^ 
 Whether of hearing they have sense or no. 
 
 Proteus 'Twas great discourse of reason, to regard 
 The dreaming guess of a philosopher. 
 That never held his idle buzzing head 
 Under the water half an hour's space, 
 ]\Iorc than that famous old received history 
 Of good Arion, by a dolphin saved. 
 
 As soon, however, as we have had this preliminary inquiry 
 in natural history, i. e., whether fish can hear, the Esquire 
 turns to the subject of the masque, saying, — 
 
 Well, let that pass; and to the purpose now, 
 I thought, &c. 
 
 The purpose is to describe a very affected wager between 
 the Prince and Proteus. It appeared that Proteus possessed
 
 BACON'S SECRET COMPOSITIONS. 325 
 
 an adamantine rock that attracted all iron, but the Prince, 
 Esquire's master, said he possessed something — 
 
 Which in attractive power should surpass 
 
 The woundrous virtue of his iron-drawing rocks. 
 
 This is, of course, poor old Queen Elizabeth, whom 
 Esquire thus addresses, — 
 
 Excellent Queen, true adamant of hearts ; 
 Out of that sacred garland ever grew 
 Garlands of virtues, beauties, and perfections. 
 That crowns your crown, and dims your fortune's beams, 
 Vouchsafe some branch, some precious flower, or leaf, 
 Which, though it wither in my barren verse. 
 May yet suffice to over-shade and drown 
 The rocks admired of this demy-god. 
 Proteus, stout iron-homager to your rock, 
 In praise of force, and instruments of wars. 
 Hath praise ended ; yet place your praises right ; 
 For force to will, and wars to peace do yield. 
 But that I'll give you. This I would fain know, 
 What can your iron do without arms of men ? 
 And arms of men from hearts of men do move : 
 That hearts of men hath it, their motion springs. 
 Lo, Proteus, then, the attractive rock of hearts : 
 Hearts, which once truly touched with her beams. 
 Inspiring purest zeal and reverence 
 As well unto the person, as the power, 
 Do streight put off all temper that is false, 
 All hollow fear, and schooled flattery, 
 Turn fortune's wheel, they ever keep their point, 
 And stand direct upon the loyal line. 
 Your rock claims kindred of the polar star, 
 Because it draws the needle to the north ; 
 Yet even that star gives place to Cynthia's rays. 
 Whose drawing virtues govern and direct 
 The flots and re-flots of the ocean, 
 &c., &c. 
 
 But previous to this lengthy compliment, we have a dis- 
 sertation by Proteus upon the respective qualities of iron and 
 gold in the following lines : — 
 
 Proteus. What needeth words, when great eff'ects proclaim 
 Th' attractive virtue of th' adamantine rocks, 
 Which forceth iron, which all things else com- 
 Iron, of metals prince by ancient right ; [mands.
 
 826 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Though factious men in vain conspire to seat 
 Rebellious gold in his usurped throne. 
 This, sundry metals, of such strength and use 
 (Disjoin'd by distance o' th' whole hemisphere) 
 Continually, with trembling aspect, 
 True subject-like, eyes his dread sovereign. 
 Thus hath this load-stone, by his powerful touch, 
 Made the iron needle, load-star of the world, 
 A jMercury, to paint the gainest way 
 In water}^ wilderness, and desert sands ; 
 In confidence whereof, the assured mariner 
 Doth not importune Jove, sun, or star. 
 By his attractive force, was drawn to light, 
 From depth of ignorance, that new found world, 
 Whose golden mines iron found out and conquer'd, 
 These be the virtues, and extend so far. 
 Which you do undertake to counterpraise. 
 
 After the delivery of these speeches Proteus strikes the rock, 
 and the Prince of Purpoole (W. Helmes) and seven knights — 
 
 " issued forth the rock, in a very stately march, very richly 
 attired, and gallantly provided of all things meet for the 
 performance of so great an enterprize. They came forth of 
 the rock in couples, and before every couple came two pigmies 
 with torches. At their first coming on the stage they danced 
 a new devised measure, &c., after which they took unto them 
 ladies, and with them they danced their galliards, courants, 
 &c.,"i 
 
 and finally, they all went back into the rock and sang another 
 new hymn within the rock. 
 
 I have already, on page 213, given the extravagant compli- 
 ment with which the report of these revels concludes. 
 
 The peculiarity of these lines seems to be extravagant 
 compliments to Elizabeth, and a somewhat childish and 
 pedantic display of commonplace knowledge ; and the fact 
 that the principals only act in pantomime, the esquire deliver- 
 ing the greater part of the speeches : these are all pecu- 
 liarities of Bacon, and we shall, I think, admit this to be so, 
 when we read the following extracts from Essex's Device, 
 which is undoubtedly Bacon's. 
 
 1 Nicol's " Progresses of Queen Elizabeth," p. 48.
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 327 
 
 ^'Essex's Device^ — This is the name it is known by, and it 
 is useful to keep to it, as it distinguishes it from the Gray's 
 Inn Masque, though, as I have said, it is really Bacon's. It 
 is to be found in Spedding's " Letters of Bacon," Vol. I., 
 p. 376. That author tells us that there is a page in Bacon's 
 most careless hand which seems to be a discarded beginning 
 (but) explains the design ; from this we find the character of 
 the esquire playing the principal part, as in the Gray's Inn 
 Masque. 
 
 "The persons to be three— one dressed like an hereinite 
 or philosopher, representing contemplation ; the second like a 
 caplain, representing fame ; and the third like a counsellor of 
 state, representing experience ; the third to be given to the 
 squire as being the master of the best behaviour or compli- 
 ment, though he speak last." 
 
 In the speeches, which are prosy and pedantic, we have 
 the same commonplace references to natural phenomena, 
 thus : — 
 
 " Remember, what time your opposition against the force of 
 her arguments was like the opposition of the rainbow against 
 the sun, pretty colours but easily scattered." 
 
 The squire says '} — 
 
 ** Give ear now to the comparison of my master's condition, 
 
 and acknowledge such a difference as is betwixt the melHing 
 
 hail-stone and the solid pearl. Indeed, it seemeth to depend, 
 
 as the globe of the earth seemeth to hang in the air ; but yet 
 
 it is firm and stable in itself. It is like a cube or die form, 
 
 which toss it or throw it any way, it ever lighteth upon a 
 
 square."" 
 
 * * « * * *- 
 
 " His clouds are like the clouds of harvest, which make the 
 sun break forth with greater force ; his wanes and changes are 
 like the moon, whose globe is all light towards the sun when 
 it is all dark towards the world." 
 
 1 Spedding's "Letters of Bacon," p. 384. 
 
 2 This is, as many of Bacon's statements are, not true ; a die or cube 
 may fall upon an edge or a point, and there it would remain if the centre 
 of gravity were over the part in contact.
 
 328 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 if, therefore, we come to the conclusion that the Gray's Inn 
 l\Iasque is the composition of the same author as Essex's 
 Device, viz., Bacon, — and I think no one could read the two 
 together without coming to this conclusion, — we have Bacon's 
 ideas put into blank verse either by himself or by someone 
 else. And even if this be not admitted, we have this fact, 
 which cannot be disputed, that in Essex's Device we have 
 an example of Bacon's habit of writing out matter for others 
 to represent as their own, which proves him to be a concealed 
 author if not a poet. 
 
 There are other masques in the production of which Bacon 
 took the principal part. Mr. Douthwaite, in his '* History of 
 Gray's Inn," tells us — 
 
 " On the occasion of the marriage of the Count Palatine 
 with the Princess Elizabeth, Francis Beaumont prepared a 
 masque which was performed before the King and the royal 
 family in the Banqueting House, Whitehall, on the 20th 
 February, 161 2-1 3. The cost was considerable, and to 
 meet this charge the Readers of Gray's Inn were assessed 
 each man at £\, the Ancients,^ and such as at that time were 
 to be called Ancients, at £z \os. a-piece, the barristers at/^2 a 
 man, and the Students at 20^. {^Orig. fund. 286). The Solicitor- 
 general (Sir Francis Bacon) is said to have ' spared no time in 
 the setting forth, ordering, and furnishing' of it. " 
 
 This was a heavy contribution, as money was then about 
 eight times its present value. 
 
 Again, the same author tells us that on the occasion of the 
 marriage of the Earl of Somerset — 
 
 "In 1 61 3- 14, The Maske of Flotvers was presented by the 
 gentlemen of Graies Inn, at the Court of Whitehall, in the 
 Banquctting House, upon Twelfe Night." 
 
 It was dedicated to Bacon, then Attorney-General, by three 
 persons, I. G., W. D., T. B. It appears^ from a " letter from 
 Chamberlain, 23 Dec, 161 3," that — 
 
 " Sir Francis Bacon prepares a masque to honour this mar- 
 riage which will stand him in above /'2, 000 [/^i6,ooo,] and 
 
 1 Bacon was an Ancient. * History of Gray's Inn, p. 234.
 
 BACON'S SECRET COMPOSITIONS. 329 
 
 although he have been offered some help by the House, and 
 specially by Mr. Solicitor Sir Henry Yelverton, who would 
 have sent him /^5oo, yet he would not accept it, but offers 
 them the whole charge with the honour." 
 
 Mr. Spedding tells us^ that Jonson produced a masque for 
 Bacon in 1618. 
 
 "On Thursday night," says Chamberlain, "the gentlemen 
 of Gray's Inn came to the court with their show, for I cannot 
 call it a masque, seeing they were not disguised, nor had 
 vizards. For the rest, their fashion and device were well 
 approved, though it were thought to be somewhat out of 
 season to revel in Lent." 
 
 It appears from a letter, an extract from which Mr. Sped- 
 ding gives us in a note, that this masque had been previously 
 acted with little applause : — 
 
 " The masque on Twelfth Night is not commended of any. 
 The poet is grown so dull that his device is not worth the 
 relating much less the copying out. Divers think fit he 
 should I'eturn to his old trade of bricklaying again. Nathaniel 
 Brent to Sir D. Carleton, loth Jan., 1617 (161 8)." 
 
 I do not think at this time Jonson had shown any symptoms 
 of want of power. We have other masques of his written at 
 and after 1618, which show no signs of falling off. And we are 
 told that he was generally employed at this time writing 
 masques for the court and the nobility. Perhaps the solution 
 of his dullness was that Bacon had written out one of his 
 wearisome devices, which poor Jonson had to dramatize and 
 the gentlemen of Gray's Inn had to perform, and that was the 
 reason his work was not up to the standard of the " Masque 
 of Lethe," and many other masques which we find in his 
 pages. 
 
 The Masque of Mountehankes. 
 
 In the Gray's Inn Library there is a manuscript of a 
 masque which, at first, I believed to be in Bacon's hand- 
 writing or in that of his servant Meauty's, which, though 
 
 1 Vol. 6, p. 298.
 
 330 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 distinguishable, very much resembles Bacon's. It is very 
 often found that where two people see a great deal of 
 each other's writing, they unconsciously copy one another. 
 But after having the MS. submitted to an expert, he was 
 satisfied that it is not the handwriting of either, but of 
 some one whose writing has many of the peculiarities of 
 both Bacon and Meauty, though it has, at the same time, 
 peculiarities of its own. It may be one of the " other pens" 
 which assisted Bacon. It appears from the manuscript, this 
 masque was given by the members of Gray's Inn, apparently to 
 Bacon, at the Hall of the Inn, as there is a song sung on the 
 entrance of Bacon and other lords, and he might have had a 
 copy made for himself. It also appears it was afterwards played 
 before James. I think there is some reason to suppose that 
 Bacon himself was the author of the Antemasque ; if so, we 
 have a curious illustration of Bacon's love of secret com- 
 position, for we have him composing something to be 
 presented to himself, like one who subscribes to his own 
 testimonial. 
 
 My reasons for thinking that Bacon composed part of this 
 masque are these — 
 
 First, the strong similarity between the writing of Bacon's 
 and Meauty's, which it resembles as Meauty's does 
 Bacon's. And this becomes more important, if I am 
 right in the view I take, that the MS. in Gray's Inn is 
 the original and not a copy. 
 Secondly, because the part I attribute to Bacon is a collection 
 of sentences, written very much in Bacon's style, as we find 
 it in the Apothegms, &c., which are admittedly his. 
 Thirdly, there are at the end of the MS. two songs, which 
 were sung the one at the entrance of Bacon and his 
 friends and the other to Bacon alone during dinner, 
 which are so wanting in the customary adulation of 
 those times which one would expect a Lord Chancellor 
 to receive from Members of his Inn, that I fancy Bacon 
 must have written them himself.
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 331 
 
 The Grays Inn Manuscript. — The " Masque of Mounte- 
 bankes" is printed in Nicol's "Progresses of Queen Eliza- 
 beth," as part of the proceedings of the Gesla Grayorum on 
 the second occasion, the date of which is not fixed. In a 
 note we are told that Henry the Second, Prince of Graya 
 and Purpulia, occurs in the list of subscribers to Minshew's 
 Dictionary, 1617. 
 
 It appears from Mr. Douthwaite's " History of Gray's Inn," 
 that this masque attracted considerable attention. Brent, 
 writing to Carleton, says — 
 
 "On Thursday night, the maske of Grayes Inne pleased 
 tolerably wel, for divers of the 1 8 maskers danced grace- 
 fully enough, and there was in it som wittie ribalderie that 
 made the companie merrie. 
 
 " London Feb. 21, 161 7. 
 stilo vet." 
 
 Sir Gerrard Herbert, writing to Carleton, says — 
 
 " Grayes Inn maske was the thursday night after, which was 
 well liked, and the dances well performed of the gentle- 
 men: the ayres and dances well devised. Some of the dances 
 danct by the voices of boyes (insteed of musick) which songe 
 excellent well, and which gave more content then musickes. 
 The speeches weare acted by some of there owne gentlemen : 
 one, called Paradox, who spake most, and pleasinge in many 
 thinges, was much comended, &c. 
 
 " London 22 of • 
 
 Febr : 1618 veteri." 
 
 This date should be 161 7 or the other 161 8, as they evi- 
 dently both refer to the same occasion. But whether this 
 masque was performed in 161 7 or 161 8 is not very material. 
 Bacon was in both years filling the chancellorship, and the 
 only question we have to consider is whether he wrote at least 
 part of it. 
 
 First. — Bacon^s Writing. — Bacon wrote in very many different 
 styles. The usual writing of the period was very much like 
 modern German writing. Shakespeare's well-known signature
 
 332 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 begins with a German capital @. Besides this there was the 
 Court hand, stiff and formal, and the Italian hand, which is 
 our modern form of writing small round hand. Bacon could 
 write all these, and could write them very well and very badly, 
 so that his writing was capable of many variations. 
 The reader may remember how Hamlet says, he — 
 
 Devised a new commission ; wrote it fair ; 
 I once did hold it, as our statists do, 
 A baseness to write fair, and laboured much 
 How to forget that learning ; but, sir, now 
 It did me yeoman service. 
 
 We do not know whether Shakespeare had many modes of 
 writing. But Bacon had — some of them are neat as copper 
 plate ; others almost as bad as mine. Spedding often speaks 
 of Bacon's "most careless style." But, however he wrote, 
 he had, as far as I have seen his writing, this peculiarity : he 
 had more than one form for the same letter, particularly the 
 letter e, which he wrote in four different ways in as viany 
 words. Most of us have the small Italian e, and Ave use 
 the ^ as a capital. But Bacon had four small e's : the 
 ordinary Italian one ^, and a small Greek s, an e written 
 backwards like a S-, and a modification of the last, i.e. written 
 backwards, but with the tail brought up to the loop, so that it 
 looks like a small 0. Another peculiarity of his was in the 
 way he made his numbers : i he often wrote like a 2, so that 
 in many of his letters dated 1616, the figures look like 2626. 
 Now all these peculiarities are to be found in Wvq facsimile 
 of a page of the manuscript of the " Masque of Mounte- 
 banks," which is in the Gray's Inn Library, which shows 
 how the author has started writing his so-called Masculine 
 Paradoxes in the same semi-Italian hand that the rest 
 of the Antemasque is written in. This continues to and 
 includes No. 11. After that the writing is in different ink, 
 and in many ways resembles Bacon's or Meauty's writing. 
 We see the peculiar shape of i which makes it look like 2. 
 This is more particularly seen in 19, wliich I think anyone
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 333 
 
 would take for 29 ; but when we look at No. 12 we see the 
 careful way the 2 is made. The other figures are very like those 
 to be seen on Bacon's and Meauty's admitted letters at 
 Lambeth Palace. 
 
 We have also the examples of Bacon's four different e's. 
 In No. 12 we see it has had A C put to it in different ink, 
 but it reads : — 
 
 A Caniball is the lovingest man to his enymy, for willingly 
 no man eates that he loves not. 
 
 Compare the e's in — the, enymy, eates. 
 
 In No. 3 we have the ordinary Italian e used ; and so it is 
 in No. 4, except in the last word, where we find the Greek e ; 
 in No. 5 we have the Italian e, except in the word constable, 
 where we find the e made backwards like a 9-; but in the 
 next line, in the words the stokes (stocks), we have the e 
 made round like a 0. There is not much difference between 
 the last two e's, except the one like a ^ is done with a 
 small loop, which, in the one like e, is half the whole letter. 
 
 The Gray's Inn Manuscript differs very materially from the 
 masque as it is printed by Nicol, and apparently the former 
 is the original document, and the latter is taken fron^ an 
 altered copy. My reason for saying this is, that the Gray's 
 Inn MS. shows the corrections that have been made, and 
 more particularly shows that the author had arranged certain 
 "paradoxes" into masculine, feminine and neuter, and com- 
 menced the three descriptions in different places in the 
 manuscript ; and then having written more than he originally 
 thought of doing, found in some cases difficulty in getting 
 the matter into the space reserved for it, and in others 
 there is more room than is required. This crowding of 
 the matter into a small space would not have occurred, it is 
 needless to say, if the MS. had been a copy, which, going 
 on from sentence to sentence, would have given sufficient 
 space to each line.
 
 334 
 
 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Reduced Facsimile. 
 
 ^ I ■ ■ ■ • — — >^=."rr J'^-T--^ - -J... — I pii»i|i ^ ■M W ii c ■■■ j ^ v ■■^■11 m mt J ' L » ^ i p ^ |^ U ■1|l> ■ ■ Jl 
 
 
 
 <Q 
 
 
 lOr-lA, '. 
 
 '^/e a, ^-»«*^'^/;ir/2 Cjif4a'n£^'^.j^/j 
 
 6^- 
 
 "' ^y^e< ^^^Mf^tLl^cjLl4^ejj^^^ 
 
 
 

 
 BACON'S SECRET COMPOSITIONS. 335 
 
 Translation. 
 
 3. A drunkard is a good philosopher for he thinks 
 
 aright that the world goes round. 
 
 4. The devil cannot take tobacco through his nose 
 
 for St. Dunstan seared up that with his tongs. - 
 
 5. A shoemaker is the fittest man for a Constable 
 
 for he viriuie officii may put any man in the stocks [stokes] 
 and inlarge him at the last. 
 
 6. A prisoner is the best fencer for he ever lies at 
 
 a close ward. 
 
 7. An elder Brother may be a wise man for he hath 
 
 wherewithal to buy wisdom at any rate. 
 
 8. A nimble page is more useful for a lady than a long 
 
 gentleman usher for a sparrow is more active than 
 a bauld Buzzard. 
 
 9. Burgomasters ought not to wear their fur gowns 
 
 at midsummer for so they may bring on the sweating 
 sickness again. 
 
 10. It is better to be a coward than a captain for a goos[e 
 
 lives longer than a cock of the game. 
 
 11. A cutpurse is the surest trade for his work is no soone[r 
 
 done but he hath his money in his hand. 
 
 1 2. A cannibal is the lovingest man to his enemy for willingly no m[an 
 
 eats that he loves not. 
 
 1 3 . A musician will never make a good vintner for he deals too mu[ch 
 
 with flats and sharps. 
 
 14. A man should do in the choice of a wife as he does in the choi[ce 
 
 of a piece of satin feel and see and turn up both ends 
 for he may find a breach in the fagge end. 
 
 1 5 . A bankrupt is a good house-keeper for he seldom flits from [home. 
 
 16. He cannot be a brave gentleman that is not in debt for he 
 
 must follow the fashion though it grew to a disease. 
 
 17. A city heir cannot be a prodigal for: est injuvencispa\jrum 
 
 virtus. 
 
 18. Of all men a scholar makes the nimblest warrior for : pru[dentia 
 
 est magister virtus. 
 
 19. A fool is the happiest of men for he hath often entrance wh[ile 
 
 his betters are kept out.
 
 336 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 As an example of the corrections that have taken place, I 
 may mention we find the opening as follows : — 
 
 of 
 
 The Ante Maske Mountebankes of 
 
 A 
 
 English Italian Ducth Russian 
 Frenche Spanish Egiptian Jewe. 
 
 The mountebankes speech. 
 
 The greate m : Medecine Esculapius preserve and prolong the 
 sanity of these royall and princely spectators. 
 
 As printed in Nicol, it is : — 
 
 The first antemask of mountebanks. 
 
 Mountebank's speech. 
 
 The greatest master of medicine Esculapius preserve and 
 prolonge the saivty of the royall and princely spectators. 
 
 There are other corrections to be found in the Gray's Inn MS. 
 
 Secondly. — The MS. contains an antemasque besides the 
 masque itself, called in the MS. the Maine Masque. The 
 antemasque, which I believe to be principally Bacon's com- ■ 
 position, consists chiefly of a number of Paradoxes, really 
 very silly jests, more worthy of a schoolboy than a Lord 
 Chancellor approaching sixty. That Bacon was fond of this 
 kind of wit anyone may see who chooses to read his collec- 
 tion of Apothegms which is to be found in his published 
 works. Besides the Apothegms, many of which have the same 
 broad wit that we find in these Paradoxes, Bacon has left us 
 a collection of antithetical ideas relating to religion which 
 he terms " The Characters of a Believing Christian, or Para- 
 doxes and seeming Contradictions," of which I give an 
 example or two : — 
 
 I. A Christian is one that believes things his reason can- 
 not comprehend ; he hopes for things which neither he nor 
 any man alive ever saw, &c.
 
 bacon's secret compositions. 337 
 
 2. He believes three to be one, and one to be three; a 
 
 father not to be elder than his. son ; a son to be equal with 
 his father, &c. 
 
 In Nicol's "Progresses of Queen Elizabeth," the Para- 
 doxes in the "Ante-Masque of Mountebanks" show signs of 
 having been altered from those in the Gray's Inn copy. Some 
 are to be found in one and not the other, and the order has 
 been altered. Whether these Paradoxes are, or are not. Bacon's 
 composition, or rather collected by him, must, of course, with- 
 out further evidence, be a matter of conjecture. But the reader 
 must judge for himself by comparing the extract here given 
 with Bacon's admitted works, the Apothegms, &c. 
 
 Something must be allowed for the manners of the time, 
 and that this sort of low wit — I was going to say low comedy 
 wit, but it seems lower than that — pleased some people is to 
 be gathered from the letters already given. ^ 
 
 The difference between the antemasque and the masque is 
 very marked. The antemasque is, as I have pointed out, full 
 of small and not always decent wit. The masque has nothing 
 to offend, and is in verse of some poetical merit. Take the 
 following in praise of music and dancing : — 
 
 Musicke is the soule of measure 
 
 Mixing both in equall grace. 
 
 Twins are the [they] begot of pleasure, • 
 
 When she wisely numbred space. 
 
 Nothing is more ould or newer 
 
 Then number all advancing. 
 
 And noe number can be truer 
 
 Then mnsicke Jqynd with dauncing. 
 
 "Mixing" is altered to "speeding," and "music joined" 
 in the last line is printed in Nicol as " musick-wynd," which 
 seems to be a misprint. 
 
 Thirdly, — There is an addition to this masque on the last 
 leaf of the MS. This does not appear to have been published. 
 
 1 Ante, p. 331- 
 C. Z
 
 338 
 
 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 The welcome which a Lord Chancellor would receive from the 
 members of his Inn in those days of elaborate flattery, one 
 would expect to be a warm one. But this seems so cold that 
 I believe Bacon wrote it himself — 
 
 Eeduced Facsimile. 
 
 C^tozn<4> 'Netcom t a^oM^e-^ '2royotc> a^ 
 et^ out ^e^i'V^t'ii.e iM^ ■ 
 
 ^3- 
 
 "^ 
 
 carnmy^ 
 
 ) 
 
 
 !»• 
 
 
 W^ 
 
 
 '^^t^ 
 
 ,G/i:i^. 
 

 
 bacon's secret compositions. 339 
 
 Teanslation.] 
 
 The Songe for entertainement of the 
 
 Lord Chancellor at Grais Ine on 
 
 Candlemas Day and of other Lords. 
 
 Chorus. — Welcome grandees to you all 
 All our best of wishes fall 
 On you now as still they shall. 
 
 This song was Would we knew great lords the way 
 songe by fives gest to welcome you this day 
 voices to SIX You deserve our best who thus 
 flutes at the ^ j i ^ u 
 
 lords first Come and seeke to honour us. 
 
 comming. But as men with too much light 
 Dazzled if not blinded quite 
 Or as men haste past theire hope 
 Joynde beyonde theire wish we grope 
 And at somwhat cacthe [catch] and say 
 What we wot not that you may. 
 
 See by that our hearts be filled 
 
 That as if we were distilled 
 
 Into wonder we give ore 
 
 Criing welcom and no more. 
 
 *o 
 
 of Dji^gj. rpj^jg gQj^g ^Q ^^ Lord Chancellor. 
 
 You are the first in this great commonwe^ | al 
 Whose selfe and sire weere kepers of the scale 
 Sprunge from that goulden home of worthe^ [ iest 
 Who for his wisdome lives admired yet • 
 
 And whereas other families decline 
 In honnor you your ancestors outshine f us 
 Hence springe your roote and you till cald fro ^ | m 
 Both grcwe the goodliest trees in Libanus. 
 
 O that your fate might with our wish ag^ [ ree 
 
 You should be then as fertile as was he 
 
 And put forth branches ere you lefte this^ | 
 
 Opinions no doubt will differ also as to whether this masque, 
 or rather the antemasque, was or was not the work of Bacon. 
 But looking at the whole circumstances, and the nature of 
 these semi-legal jests, which are called Paradoxes, and the 
 unusually modest song of welcome, I look upon this as 
 another example of Bacon's love for secret composition, 
 though I hesitate to express any strong opinion.'' 
 
 ^ The rest has been cut off. 
 
 2 See also p. 208, for examples of Bacon's love of secret prose composition. 
 
 Z 2
 
 340 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 COLLABORATION. 
 
 There are several other matters that are, to a certain extent, 
 confirmatory of the suggestion that Bacon helped Shake- 
 speare. These I propose to refer to, but very shortly, as the 
 view taken of them must depend on the view one takes of the 
 main question. If what has been set out in these pages docs 
 not prove that Bacon acted with Shakespeare, the circum- 
 stances, to which I am about to refer, will not prove it. 
 But if this fact be considered as proved, they will confirm and 
 strengthen it. 
 
 The first matter is, supposing Bacon helped Shakespeare, 
 can we distinguish their work ? If we suppose ** Hamlet" and 
 " Measure for Measure " to be specimens of the joint work, 
 and "Macbeth" and "Othello," not to mention "Titus 
 Andronicus," to be Shakespeare's unaided work, then if we 
 subtract what we find common to both sets of plays, we have 
 some idea of Shakespeare's and Bacon's respective produc- 
 tions. Bacon's, by this process, seems " law," " learning," 
 and "low comedy," Shakespeare's "great poetical beauty," 
 " magnificent language," sometimes becoming exaggerated in 
 the sentiment, as we see in Lady Macbeth's soliloquy, — 
 
 Come, come, you spirits 
 That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, &c., &c. 
 
 This view of their respective labours is, I think, confirmed 
 when we come to consider Bacon and Shakespeare as far as we 
 know them. Bacon was fond of collecting stories, sometimes 
 doubtful, as his "Apothegms " show. He was beloved by his
 
 COLLABORATION. 341 
 
 servants, with whom he associated rather than with his equals. 
 We have only to turn to the accounts published by Spedding 
 to see how extravagantly he tipped those who brought him 
 presents, &c., and his wasteful way of living and the enormous 
 household he kept. Besides this he dabbled in science, and 
 though he had no real knowledge, he thought a good deal, and 
 in his " Sylva Sylvarum : or a Natural History," we find him 
 hazarding the wildest explanations of natural phenomena. 
 Shakespeare on the other hand was, as far as we know, a 
 person who was ambitious of social distinction, seeking a 
 grant of arms for his father, one who, I think, would rather 
 affect gentility. 
 
 I think we may next consider if Bacon assisted Shake- 
 speare ; how was it done ? Collaboration was known to the 
 ancients, and was a common practice in Shakespeare's time. 
 It might be carried out, by one writing one part, the other the 
 rest, as I conceive was the case in the " Antemasque and 
 Main Masque of the Mountebanks,"^ or Bacon may have 
 written out the prose story which Shakespeare may have 
 dramatized. I have given an example where I think this was 
 done in the masque given during the Gesta Grayorum. It is 
 possible that the "History of Henry VII." was originally written 
 by Bacon for this purpose ; but Shakespeare refused to, or md 
 not dramatize it. It is clearly not a work of a single vaca- 
 tion, as Spedding describes it, nor written currente calamo 
 by Bacon after his fall. The body of the work is written 
 consecutively and without unnecessary repetition ; but this 
 part had evidently been lying for a long period in Bacon's 
 desk, and he had from time to time written commencements 
 to it, which were all put together by some one else, as anyone 
 can see by referring to the work, where in the first pages 
 numerous repetitions will be found clumsily put together, and 
 where facts are told more than once. We have them on each 
 
 1 Ante, p. 331.
 
 342 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY, 
 
 occasion given as if not mentioned before, as if from time to 
 
 time additions had been made covering ground already written 
 
 about, whilst the person who undertook to prepare the work 
 
 for publication seems to have hesitated about striking out 
 
 an}i;hing, but has put in a few words to make the narrative 
 
 appear to run consecutively. 
 
 It is difficult to show this patchwork without having the 
 
 work before the reader; but it may be mentioned that the 
 
 history, as we now have it, commences with, that on the death 
 
 of Richard, the Earl of Richmond succeeded to the kingdom, 
 
 and in a kind of military election, in the presence of the whole 
 
 army, was saluted king. It is with this incident, it may be 
 
 remembered, that the play of "Richard III," ends. The story 
 
 then goes back to the character of Richard III., &c., and then 
 
 the narrative returns to Henry — "^«/ king Henry, at the 
 
 very entrance of his reign," &c., as if there was some antithesis 
 
 between the difficulty Henry felt in determining whether he 
 
 should rely on the title of his wife that was to be, his own title 
 
 as of the house of Lancaster, or his title as Conqueror ; and 
 
 in dealing with the latter, the fact is repeated as given in 
 
 "Richard III.," that he was crowned on the field of battle, 
 
 which was already mentioned on the first page. 
 
 On page 20 is commenced the story of Lambert Simnell in 
 these words : — 
 
 "There was a subtile Priest called Richard Simon, that lived 
 in Oxford, and had to his pupill a baker's sonne named 
 Lambert Simnell, of the age of some fifteene yeares ; a comely 
 youth, and well favoured, not without some extraordinarie 
 dignitie, and grace of aspect," &c, ;' 
 
 and the story goes on that this priest first fancied to make his 
 pupil personate the second of the young princes, who were 
 supposed to be, as we now know they were, murdered in 
 the Tower, but who changed his intention and substituted 
 Edward Plantagenet, the son of Clarence, whom Henry had 
 confined in the Tower ; and Bacon suggests that the instigator 
 
 ' Page 20.
 
 COLLABORATION. 343 
 
 of the plot was the Dowager Queen, Edward the Fourth's 
 widow, as it is put — 
 
 " Thinking her daughter (as the king handled the matter) 
 not advanced, but depressed : and 7i07ie could hold the booke so 
 well to proinpt and instruct this stage play, as she could." ^ 
 
 And then the story goes on to tell for the first time: — 
 
 " It was one of the king's first acts to cloister the Queene 
 Dowager in the Nunnery of Bermondsey, and to take away 
 all her lands and estate ; and this by a close counsell without 
 any legall proceeding, upon farre-fetcht pretences : That shee 
 had delivet-ed her two daughters out of sauctua?'ie to king Richard, 
 contrarie to promise^'' ^ 
 
 Now, this fact, which is told once as other facts are in 
 both Hall and Hollinshed as one of the events of this reign, 
 seems to have excited Bacon's interest, and he seems to have 
 considered whether the real reason for her treatment was 
 that she was mixed up in Simon's conspiracy, and the taking 
 her daughters out of sanctuary at Richard's request was only 
 an excuse. He tells the story four times, and sometimes 
 makes this suggestion, and sometimes does not mention it ; but 
 in each of the four times he tells it, he tells it each time as 
 something not told before. The paragraph on p. 22 closes 
 with further reflections upon the secret connected with this 
 conspiracy. But the next paragraph commences with .the 
 words : 
 
 " But to returne to the narration itselfe," 
 
 and we are then informed for the second time that — 
 
 Simon did first instruct his scholler for the part of Richard, 
 Duke of Yorke, second sonne to King Edward the Fourth ; 
 
 but that on a rumour that Plantagenet had escaped — 
 
 The cunning priest changed his copie and chose now 
 Plantagenet to be the subject his pupill should personate, &c., 
 
 of which fact we have been informed before. 
 
 ^ Page 2 r . This and other theatrical allusions make me think it possible 
 that Jonson helped Bacon to put this work through the press. 
 2 Page 22.
 
 344 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 We are then told for the second time, by a decree of the 
 
 Coufictl — 
 
 That the Qiieene Dowager, for that shee, contrarie to her 
 pact, and agreement with those that had concluded with her 
 concerning the mariage of her daughter Elizabeth with King 
 Henrj^ had neverthelesse delivered her daughters out of 
 sanctuarie into King Richard's hands ; should be cloistered 
 in the Nunnerie of Bermondsey, and forfeit all her lands and 
 goods.^ 
 
 We are then told on the next page that the decrees of 
 the Council were put into execution. 
 
 And first, the Queene Dowager was put into the Monasterie 
 of Bermondsey, and all her estate seized into the King's 
 hands, whereat there was much wondering ; That a weake 
 woman, for the yeelding to the menaces and promises of a 
 Tyrant, after such a distance of time (wherein the King had 
 shewed no displeasure nor alteration), but much more after 
 so happie a mariage, betweene the King and her daughter, 
 blessed with issue male, should upon a sodaine mutabilitie 
 or disclosure of the King's mind, be so severely handled.^ 
 
 Bacon then goes on to describe her chequered career, 
 having, after being Edward's Queen, " lived to see her brother 
 beheaded, her two sons deposed from the Crown, bastarded 
 in their blood," and cruelly murdered, and "through all this 
 while " she enjoyed her liberty, state, and fortune. 
 
 But afterwards againc, upon the rise of the wheele, when 
 she had a king to her sonne-in-law, and was made grandmother 
 to a grandchild of the best sexe ; yet was she (upon darke and 
 unknownc reasons, and no lesse strange pretences) precipitated 
 and banished the world, into a nunnerie.^ 
 
 It seems to me that if Bacon had written his story con- 
 secutively from day to day, as he would have had to write it 
 if he had begun and produced it, as Mr. Spedding supposes, 
 in a single vacation, he would hardly have told this story of 
 the Queen-Dowager being sent to a monastery four times, 
 and would not have forgotten, when he speaks of this on the 
 third occasion, as being due to a sudden mutability or dis- 
 
 J Page 25. 2 Page 26. « p^gg 27.
 
 COLLABORATION. 345 
 
 closure of the King's mind ; on the last as caused by the 
 dark and unknown reasons, that he had carefully suggested 
 on the first and second occasion that it was due to her being 
 suspected of complicity in Simon's plot to bring forward 
 Lambert Simnel as Edward Plantagenet, and that he would 
 have so arranged his facts as to make the statement once. 
 It seems, therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that 
 this incident of the widow of Edward, who was the principal 
 instrument of Henry VII. 's success in England, being sent by 
 him to a nunnery was one of those illustrations of the change of 
 human fortunes, which would strike a mind like Bacon's, and 
 he might have, from time to time, put this fact down upon 
 paper and made his reflection upon it, which is the reason 
 why the person who assisted him put the different incidents 
 together as best he could ; whereas, if Bacon had himself 
 revised the manuscript before it went to press he would have 
 told the story once and only once. 
 
 If it was the fact that the " History of Henry the Seventh " 
 was originally Avritten for Shakespeare to dramatize, it may 
 be that the Northumberland MS. which, according to the list 
 given before^ as containing "Richard the Second" and 
 " Richard the Third," may not be the plays of Shakespeare 
 as Spedding supposes, but the essays or histories of those 
 kings written by Bacon. It may be noticed that if we consider 
 the order in which, as far as we know, the historical plays 
 were written, first the third part of " Henry VI.," perhaps by 
 Greene,^ then the second part by Shakespeare followed by the 
 first part ; then " Henry V." and next the two parts of 
 " Henry IV."; the plays of " Richard II." and " Richard III." 
 would be the two next plays to be added to the series, so that 
 they might be written about the same time ; then would 
 come " Henry VII." after " Richard III.," and finally, 
 " Henry VIII.," a play which I have given reasons for 
 believing was written in its present form by Bacon and 
 Jonson for the Folio of 1623.^ 
 
 1 Ante, p. 320. ^ Ante, p. 314. '^ Ante, p. 230.
 
 346 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Another matter to be considered is \vhether there is not 
 evidence that Bacon, finding that Jonson had discovered he 
 was helping Shakespeare, did not patch up a peace between 
 the two, and whether both Bacon and Shakespeare did not 
 help Jonson with his " Sejanus." It may be remembered 
 that in "Cynthia's Revels " Jonson objects* — 
 
 That they (your poets) would not so penuriously glean 
 wit from every laundress or hackney man, or derive their best 
 grace with servile imitations from common stages or ohserva- 
 tion of the company they converse with, as if their invention 
 lived wholly upon another man's trencher. 
 
 If I am right in considering that it was Bacon and not 
 Shakespeare who delighted in this low life, it is evident, I 
 think, that Jonson did not at the time know of the collabora- 
 tion between the two. But in his next play, the " Poetaster," 
 there are allusions which I think show that Jonson had 
 discovered the secret. In this play we have the character 
 of young Ovid, who neglects his business as a lawyer 
 and writes plays. His father attacks him for doing this, 
 he defends himself upon the ground that he does not do 
 so publicly. 
 
 They wrong me, sir, and do abuse you more, 
 
 That blow your ears with these untrue reports ; 
 
 I am not known unto the open stage. 
 
 Nor do I traffic in their theatres. 
 
 Indeed I do acknowledge, at request 
 
 Of some near friends, and honorable Romans, 
 
 I have begun a poem of that nature, &c. 
 
 This may refer to Bacon, and probably did, if, as I have so 
 often said, Bacon did assist Shakespeare ; at all events, 
 shortly after, a truce was proclaimed between Shakespeare 
 and Jonson, and the former admittedly helped Jonson to 
 produce " Sejanus." This play is written in a very different 
 style from anything that Jonson had produced before. It is 
 true it is taken from history, but it is written with a dignity 
 
 ^ AnU, p. i8i.
 
 COLLABORATION. 347 
 
 and refinement we do not find in any of Jonson's prc\'ious 
 plays. But the quarrel broke out again and Jonson took out, 
 or believed he took out, all Shakespeare had written. He 
 says, — 
 
 This book in all its numbers is not the same which was 
 acted on the public stage, wherein a second pen had a great 
 share, in place of which I have chosen to put weaker, and no 
 doubt less pleasing lines of my own than to defraud so happy 
 a genius of his right by my loathed usurpation. 
 
 Now it is to be observed if Bacon were the sole author of 
 Shakespeare's plays, then the presumption is that it was 
 Bacon and not Shakespeare who assisted Jonson ; now Jonson 
 looked up to Bacon as Virgil did to Maecenas, and Jonson 
 would never have written thus of him. But in the trial scene 
 of Silius, I think we find the same legal mind which is so 
 prominent a factor in some of Shakespeare's plays. If in 
 " Measure for Measure " we have a picture of the judge on 
 circuit, in " Henry VHI." a sketch from life of an English 
 Lord Chancellor, in " Sejanus " we have a picture of an 
 English state trial as it was conducted under the Tudors. 
 The scene is closely taken from Tacitus, but it is drawn by 
 one who was at home in Westminster Hall. The peculiarity 
 of the state trials under the Tudors was that they were not the 
 real trials. A prisoner had been examined by the coujicil 
 and generally had been condemned by that tribunal before 
 he was sent into court. And the government having satisfied 
 themselves that he was guilty, sent him not so much to be 
 tried as to be convicted. There are both advantages and 
 objections to this form of proceeding, the principal objection 
 being, that the escape of a prisoner was a reflection on the 
 government. This might strike the reflective mind of Bacon, 
 and, though he would hesitate to express his view about his 
 own Courts, he might have used the scene when Silius is 
 brought before the senate, to give expression to his thoughts, 
 when such things could be said without giving offence to 'Che 
 powers that be.
 
 348 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 Sejanus having interfered in favour of the accusers, who 
 had received their briefs, before Sihus enters unwarned and 
 unprepared, Silius says : 
 
 Ay, take part. Reveal yourselves ; 
 Alas ! I scent not your confederacies. 
 Your plots and combinations, I not know. 
 Minion Sejanus hates me ; and that all 
 This boast of law arid law is but a form — 
 A net of Vulcan^ s filing — a 7nere engine 
 To take that life by a pretext of justice 
 Which you pursue in malice. I want brain 
 Or nostril to persuade me, that your ends 
 And purposes are made to what they arc 
 Before my answer, &c. 
 
 Afterwards he says — 
 
 Come, do not hunt 
 And labour so about for circumstance 
 To make him guilty whom you have fore-doomed, &c. 
 
 Finally he kills himself. Of course it is impossible to 
 speak with anything like absolute certainty, but all this 
 savours, to my mind, of the ideas of a learned lawyer who 
 alone would appreciate the evils of the then existing systems. 
 
 This three-sided arrangement, if it ever existed, did not 
 long continue. James was on the throne ; Bacon had his 
 professional career opened up ; Jonson took to writing 
 masques, and Shakespeare, I believe, ceased to act with 
 Bacon. 
 
 The Folio of 1623. — The last and closing scene of any 
 relationship which may have existed between Bacon and 
 Shakespeare was the publication of the Folio of 1623. If we 
 are satisfied that Bacon assisted Shakespeare, then, I think, 
 there are a great number of circumstances connected with 
 the publication of the folio to show that it was brought about 
 by Bacon and Jonson — that probably Jonson assisted Bacon 
 in the production of " Henry VIII.," and that, lying with the 
 manuscript of that history, were some of the manuscripts of 
 W'hich Bacon had been the part author ; and from this and
 
 COLLABORATION. 349 
 
 other sources Jonson gathered together the plays as we find 
 them in the folio. I now propose to state very shortly my 
 reasons for these suggestions. It has often been pointed out 
 that in 1623 Shakespeare had been dead seven years, and 
 that no attempt to collect and gather his works together had 
 been made till the time of Bacon's fall, when he was greatly 
 in want of money. This folio we only know was published in 
 1623 — no month is mentioned, so that we cannot exactly 
 determine when it was published. It purports to have been 
 published by Hemming and Condell. 
 
 These men were now growing old, and one of them. 
 Hemming, was, as we know from the papers of 1632 published 
 by Halliwell, in serious pecuniary difficulties. Shakespeare 
 had been dead seven years, and no attempt, as far as we 
 know, had been made to collect his plays, though many of 
 them had been published in quartos. There is a dedication 
 by Hemming and Condell of the work to the Earl of Pembroke 
 and the Earl of Montgomery, which concludes with the 
 remarkable words, speaking of the plays : — 
 
 " That what delights in them may ever be, your lordships, 
 the reputation his and the faults our own, if any be committed 
 by a pair so careful to show their gratitude both to the Iwmg 
 and the dead." 
 
 This dedication is believed by many, as well as the addi^ss 
 to the readers, to have been written by Jonson. Be that as it 
 may, Jonson wrote the lines facing the portrait and those 
 addressed to Shakespeare's memory, and, I think we may 
 assume, took an active part in the publication of the work. 
 Hemming and Condell also say they have only collected the 
 plays, and the title page says they were published according to 
 the true original copies. I propose to consider presently 
 the question where those original copies were found. 
 
 The work seems to have been put through the press in 
 some haste ; this, I think, is shown by two facts : the first 
 is, that the copy seems to have been first divided into three 
 general heads of Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and each
 
 350 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 commences with page i, &c., as if they were being set up 
 simultaneously. More than this, we find that in the last two 
 of the three divisions, the Comedies being properly paged, 
 the copy has been again sub-divided, and the number of the 
 page for the second sub-division guessed at, so that the pages 
 do not follow on ; but there is either an overlapping of the 
 numbers or a gap. This seems to be a reasonable explanation 
 of this want of consecutiveness in the paging. Thus, in the 
 Histories, we commence with page i, and the pages run on 
 continuously to i oo, which brings us to the end of ' ' Henry IV." 
 But " Henry V." commences with page 69, and the numbers 
 there go on, 70, 71, up to 232 (the end of "Henry VHI." ), 
 showing, in my view, that up to " Henry IV." the type was 
 set up in one place, and at the same time the rest of the 
 Histories, which were estimated to commence at 69, were 
 being set up at another. 
 
 When we come to the Tragedies, there is another curious 
 fact which shows that the first, viz. " Troilus and Cressida," 
 was interpolated, after the others, beginning with "Coriolanus," 
 had been put in type. For the play of " Troilus and Cressida " 
 commences at page 78 ; we then have 79 and 80 properly 
 printed, 81 is put in as 18, 82 is correct, 83 is printed £S at 
 the wrong corner, and so is 84 put 48, and after that the play 
 is not paged ; and when we come to the Table of Contents 
 we find this play is not there, the Tragedies commencing 
 with " Coriolanus," page i. The paging goes on to 98, the 
 end of " Timon of Athens." But "Julius Caesar," the next 
 play, commences at 109, showing this time the printers over- 
 estimated the space required. From thence the paging is 
 correct, except printer's errors, of which there is a very 
 curious one in the middle of " Hamlet," where page 156 is 
 succeeded by page 257, and thence to the end this error of 
 100 is continued, the last page but one being 398 instead of 
 298, and the last page of all is put as 993, a misprint for 399, 
 that being an error for 299. This error of 100 is copied in 
 the Table of Contents. Thus, "Hamlet" is put at 152, and
 
 COLLABORATION. 351 
 
 "Lear," the next play, at 283. Some of the plays are not 
 divided into acts and scenes ; some of which, as, for example, 
 *' Hamlet," are supposed to be printed from the acting or 
 play-house copies, to which, it is presumed. Hemming and 
 Condell would readily have access. But it seems that this 
 can hardly be the case, for one would expect the acting copy 
 would show the beginning and ending of the different scenes. 
 In the Quartos these divisions are not given ; but in the Folio 
 some are and some are not. The most curious example, 
 perhaps, is that of " Hamlet," where at starting the play is 
 properly divided, as we have — 
 
 Actus primus. Scceria prima^ scena secunda follows, then 
 scena tertia, as we have them in the modern editions. But the 
 rest of the act is not divided, scene four, on the platform, 
 and the second scene with the ghost, where he imparts his 
 story to Hamlet, not being separated from the scene between 
 Laertes and his father. We then have actus secundus, when 
 Polonius and Reynaldo enter, but no mention is made of the 
 scene, and then follows scena secunda, but there are no sub- 
 divisions either of acts or scenes afterwards for the remainder 
 of the play. Most of the plays are headed at the beginning 
 Actus primus^ Sccena prima — scoena being spelt with a diph- 
 thong, but subsequently with the e only — scena. " Julius 
 Caesar" is divided in acts, but not scenes. "Anthony tnd 
 Cleopatra" into neither. Some, as " Macbeth," are divided 
 into both acts and scenes. 
 
 The next important thing to be considered is, where do the 
 manuscripts come from } Various accounts have been given 
 by different authors as to this ; but it seems to me they have 
 all overlooked this difficulty, that if, as they suppose in many 
 cases, the publishers obtained an acting copy from the play- 
 houses, that we should at least find such acting-copy properly 
 divided into acts and scenes, and that the text would be free 
 from such topical allusions as the quarrel between Shake- 
 speare and Jonson and other incidents connected with the 
 Blackfriars Theatre, as we find in " Hamlet"; and more parti-
 
 352 SHAKESPEARE : A STUDY. 
 
 cularly, I think, we must ask ourselves how it is that, in the 
 play of *' Henry V.," we have the choruses given to us, which 
 are not to be found in the Quartos. Now, the chorus to the 
 5th Act contains one of those compUments I think so charac- 
 teristic of Bacon addressed to Essex, when he was in Ireland, 
 in these terms : — 
 
 How London doth powre out her Citizens, 
 
 The Maior and all his Brethren in best sort. 
 
 Like to the Senatours of th' antique Rome, 
 
 With the Plebeians swarming at their heeles, 
 
 Goe forth and fetch their conqu'ring Caesar in : 
 
 As by a lower, but by loving likelyhood, 
 
 Were noiu the Generall of our gracious Empresse, 
 
 As in good time he may,fro?n h'^land comming, 
 
 Bringing Rebellion broached on his sword ; 
 
 Hoiv inany would the pcaccfull Ciiic quit. 
 
 To welcome him ? much more, and much more cause, 
 
 Did they this, Harry. 
 
 Essex was in Ireland between the months of March and 
 September, 1599, when he suddenly returned and surprised 
 the Queen in her palace of Nonsuch. He was executed 
 shortly afterwards under circumstances which would prevent 
 any reference to him being made upon the stage. The 
 choruses, as stated, are not in the Quartos. I think, there- 
 fore, we may fairly conclude that the play, as we have it in 
 the Folio of 1623, was printed from a manuscript which had 
 not seen the light or been subject to revision for about twenty- 
 four years. No one supposes that Bacon, after his treatment 
 of Essex, would have willingly allowed this allusion to be 
 published. My view is, that he was too engaged with the 
 play of " Henry VIII." to trouble about the matter. 
 
 One more thing to be pointed out is, that Jonson, both in 
 his lines to the portrait and those on Shakespeare himself, 
 has written words which, like the Delphic Oracles, can be 
 read either way. This, again, may be a coincidence — one 
 of the very many which we come across in considering the 
 facts, which have come down to us concerning Shakespeare, 
 Bacon, and Jonson. 
 
 THE END. 
 /
 
 ifi«g£. 
 
 ^ 
 
 DISCHAI 
 NOVl 
 
 IPEC 
 
 Qc: 
 
 r-i 
 
 SOUTHERN REG'°NA^„'-^^,:,'^''cA 90024-1388 
 405 Hilgatd *«""»'J;|,eS^^ to the library 
 
 \ 
 
 Form L9-20W , ._ , -^^^ . ot^i^*
 
 \p- 
 
 3 1158 00643 
 
 ^^^^^% DO 
 
 ^OOK CARD 
 
 ■^"^ DO NOT Rru^ 
 
 ■^^■UBHAHYa 
 
 '"''^'^y Research Li