-rreermooa, 
 
 c 
 
 hakespere ' s handwriting. 

 
 Shakspere's Handwriting 
 By Sir George Greenwood 
 
 Price 2/- Net 
 
 M 
 
 LONDON : JOHN LANE, THE BODLEY HEAD, W. 
 NEW YORK: JOHN LANE COMPANY, MCMXX,
 
 
 TR-atcf). ta f 1 taflB 
 
 
 OttUitlke ^m'l^k
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 THE SHAKESPEARE PROBLEM 
 RESTATED. 
 
 IN RE SHAKESPEARE 
 BEECHING V. GREENWOOD 
 
 THE VINDICATORS OF SHAKE- 
 SPEARE 
 
 IS THERE A SHAKESPEARE 
 PROBLEM ? 
 
 SIR SIDNEY LEE'S NEW EDN. 
 OF A LIFE OF Wm. SHAKE- 
 SPEARE 
 
 THE BODLEY HEAD 
 
 Printed by Fox, Jones & Co., High. Street, Oxford.
 
 No. I. THE NAME SHAKSPERE AS PRINTED IN GERMAN 
 From the ^' Dresdmr Aiisiigir" o/ April 3, igio 
 
 NO. 2. THK ITKST WILL SICNATTRE 
 /■V-ow ■■ B,7s7i',//'s Mnlom:" I'ol. 2, f>. bar 
 
 ^9' 
 
 \tu^ 
 
 No. T.. Till-: •• WALLACK SI(;\ ATI' KI-: 
 
 ■^^^^Si^^?l^ ' WSSsmm^^S^^.' 
 
 
 No. 4. rilK nilKlJ WILL SIG.NATUUK
 
 Shakspere's Handwriting 
 By Sir George Greenwood 
 
 LONDON : JOHN LANE, THE BODLEY HEAD, W. 
 NEW YORK ; JOHN LANE COMPANY, MCMXX
 
 ' ^ SANTA BAliBAKA 
 
 & 11 
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING. 
 
 Everybody knows the saying, attributed to a certain judge of 
 the mid- Victorian period, to the effect that the unveracious might 
 be divided into " hars, damned liars, and expert witnesses." This 
 was, of course, a saying more jocular than judicial, but, like many 
 another exaggerated statement, it has, nevertheless, a substratum 
 of truth. To illustrate, for example, the untrustworthiness of 
 expert witnesses, I need only refer to a case which was tried at 
 the Law Courts while I was practising at the Bar. At that time the 
 two great " experts " whose services were constantly requisitioned 
 in cases of disputed handwriting, were Messrs. Inglis & Netherclift, 
 and, in the particular case referred to, one of these great men was 
 engaged on behalf of the plaintiff and the other on behalf of the 
 defendant. The trial took place before a Judge and Jury, when 
 the two handwriting experts went into the box in support of their 
 respective clients, and each, with equal positiveness, pledged his 
 reputation in support of diametrically opposite opinions ; where- 
 upon the Judge directed the Jury that they should leave the 
 " expert evidence " altogether out of consideration. 
 
 What are we to say then, when we find experts in high places — 
 none other than the " paleographers " and " graphonomists " of 
 the present day — differing widely among themselves .'' Are we 
 to follow the example of the Judge and put the " expert evidence " 
 altogether out of our consideration ? That can hardly be done 
 where the subject-matter for examination is one of such great 
 literary importance as that of " Shakespeare's handwriting," and 
 yet it is clear, when there is such difference of opinion among the 
 learned, that we cannot adopt the advice of the school boy who 
 translated " experto crede " by the words " trust the expert " ! 
 What, then, can the poor ordinary mortal do ? He can only 
 examine these different opinions, together with the subject-matter 
 of the inquiry, and, making use of such reason, and judgment, and 
 experience as he possesses, endeavour to arrive at a conclusion for 
 himself.
 
 6 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 Now at the present moment this absorbing question is agitating 
 the minds of all Shakespearian scholars and students : Have we 
 at last found one of Shakespeare's manuscripts, meaning thereby 
 certain sheets of paper bearing words written by the same hand 
 as that which wrote the six signatures which have hitherto been 
 believed to be the only examples of Shakespeare's writing ? That 
 is, of course, an intensely interesting question. One of 
 Shakespeare's manuscripts ! A thing which everybody has longed 
 for! What would not a lover of Shakespeare give to behold with 
 his own eyes a page of Shakespeare's own undoubted writing! 
 And if it can be p)roven that the sheets in question have been written 
 on by the same hand as that which penned the signatures, then 
 those poor deluded persons who doubt, nay, disbelieve, that Shak- 
 spere of Stratford was indeed the author of the plays and poems of 
 Shakespeare, are for ever put to silence. Obviously, therefore, 
 every good and orthodox Shakespearian must ardently desire to 
 believe, and to proclaim unto the world, that these pages are really 
 and truly, and beyond a doubt, the longed-for Shakespearian 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Now let me state the point at issue more definitely. There is, 
 among the Harleian MSS. at the British Museum, an old manuscript 
 play of " Sir Thomas More," the greater part of which is said to be 
 in the handwriting of Anthony Munday. This work is something 
 of an olla podrida. It is composed of twenty paper leaves, of which 
 thirteen, we are told, are in Anthony Munda\-'s autograph. " The 
 rest (seven leaves, together with two small sheets originally pasted 
 down to two pages of the original MS., but now lifted from them) 
 are contributions by five different hands." ^ Two of these leaves 
 contain an " addition " which certain experts, or " paleographers," 
 maintain to be in the same handwriting as that C'f the 
 " Shakespeare " signatures. That is the question which I propose 
 to examine, but before doing so I think it will be useful to consider 
 the evidence which the handwriting experts generally have placed 
 before the world concerning not only these and other signatures 
 
 • Shakespeare' s Handwriting. By Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, G.C.B. 
 (1916). p. 30.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 7 
 
 purporting to be by Shakspere of Stratford, but also concerning the 
 competence or otherwise of his father and mother in this matter of 
 handwriting. 
 
 [That John and Mary Shakspere, William's father and mother, 
 both made use of marks in lieu of signatures is indisputable, sup- 
 ported as it is by documentary evidence.^ \ It was, accordingly, 
 an accepted fact among reasonable men that, as Mr. Halliwell- 
 Phillipps wrote of William Shakspere, " Both his parents were 
 absolutely illiterate." That, however, did not satisfy some of 
 the orthodox, who perceived that this fact somewhat helped the 
 case of those who entertained doubts concerning the " Stratfordian " 
 authorship of the plays and poems of Shakespeare. Thus Sir 
 Sidney Lee wrote, in the illustrated Library Edition of his Life of 
 William Shakespeare, published in 1899 (Preface, p. xii.) : " The 
 sceptics base their destructive criticism on few grounds that merit 
 respect. The only position with the smallest pretensions to con- 
 sideration which they have hitherto held rests on the assumption 
 that Shakespeare's father and near kinsmen and kinswomen were 
 illiterate and brainless peasants." I pause here to remark that 
 this is an overstatement. " The sceptics " certainly made a point 
 of the facts that neither Shakspere's father nor mother could write, 
 and that some of their kinsmen and kinswomen, including their 
 grand-daughters, Judith and Susanna, Shakspere's children, were 
 similarly illiterate, but I am not aware that any " sceptic " has con- 
 tended that any of these persons could be properly described as 
 " brainless." In fact, this epithet seems to be gratuitously thrown 
 in by Sir Sidney Lee in order to prejudice the " sceptical " case. 
 Then Sir Sidney continues the passage I have quoted by the following 
 important statement :-\" Good ground is here offered for the belief 
 that the poet's father wielded a practised pen."^ And, further, at 
 p. 5 of the same edition, he wrote of Shakspere's father : i " When 
 attesting documents he occasionally made his mark, but there is 
 evidence in the Stratford archives that he could write with 
 facility."^ 
 
 ^ See facsimiles of the marks of John and Mary Sliakspere when they 
 executed a deed in 1579, and of John Shakspere in 1564, in HaUiwcU- 
 PhilHpp's Outlines. Vol. I., pp. 38 and 40 (6th Edn., 1886). See also Vol. II.. 
 p. 13, for another facsimile of John Shakspere's mark.
 
 8 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 iHere, then, it seemed, was a remarkable thing indeed. Here 
 was a man who " could write with facility," and yet who deliberately 
 preferred to make his mark, not only " when attesting documents," 
 but also when executing deeds! And that, too, in an age when to 
 be able to write one's name was something to be proud of in a Httle 
 provincial town, and in the class to which Shakspere's family 
 belonged. Moreover, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps had told us that 
 persons who could write their names were not in the habit of 
 appearing as " marksmen," which, indeed, seemed to be a statement 
 in full accordance with the probabilities of the case. " There is no 
 reasonable pretence," wrote this distinguished Shakespearian 
 authority, " for assuming that in the time of John Shakespeare, 
 whatever might have been the case at earlier periods, it was the 
 practice for marks to be used by those who were capable of signing 
 their names. No instance of the kind has been discovered among 
 the numerous records of his era that are preserved at Stratford- 
 upon-Avon, while even a few rare examples in other districts, if 
 such are to be found, would be insufficient to countenance a theory 
 that he was able to write. All the known evidences point in the 
 opposite direction, and it should be observed that in common with 
 many other of his illiterate contemporaries he did not always adhere 
 to the same kind of symbol, at one time contenting himself with a 
 rudely-shaped cross, and at another delineating a fairly good 
 representation of a pair of dividers." ^ In the face of all this'^ir 
 Sidney Lee told us of John Shakespeare that "when attesting 
 documents he occasionally made his mark," thereby implying that 
 generally he did not make his mark, but signed with his own 
 handwriting. 
 
 ■.It was noticed, however, that Sir Sidney did not indulge us with 
 any examples from " the evidence in the Stratford archives " that 
 John Shakespeare " could write with facility," or, indeed, at all. 
 It was with great expectations, therefore, that we awaited the new 
 edition of his Life of William Shakespeare, published in 1915, 
 thinking to find there the desired proof of this interesting allegation. 
 But, alas, we were doomed to disappointment. The promised 
 proof has " melted into air, into thin air." We now read of John 
 
 » Outlines (6th Edn.), Vol. II., p. 369.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 9 
 
 Shakespeare, " when attesting documents he, like many of his 
 educated neighbours, made his mark, and there is no unquestioned 
 specimen of his handwriting in the Stratford archives " \(p. 6). 
 
 " Like many of his educated neighbours " ! What is the meaning 
 of this ? Obviously the words are inserted in order to suggest 
 that many " educated " persons of Stratford-upon-Avon, contem- 
 porary with John Shakspere, although they were able to write, 
 and, doubtless, " with facility," yet preferred to use their " marks " 
 in lieu of signatures, and, therefore, that it may be presumed that 
 John Shakespeare also was an " educated " person, who was wont 
 to " attest documents " by a rough cross, or by the representation 
 of a " pair of dividers," only because he preferred to do so ; albeit 
 there is "no unquestioned specimen of his handwriting in the 
 Stratford archives," or anywhere else! But where is the evidence 
 that any " educated " persons at Stratford or elsewhere at that time 
 chose to substitute " marks " for the signatures which they were 
 able to make ? There is, I trow, no such evidence. In fact, the 
 whole of this talk about John Shakspere's supposed ability to write 
 is vain and profitless, and it is a relief to turn from such allegations, 
 which seem to me not a little disingenuous, to Sir Edward Maunde 
 Thompson's direct statement, viz. ; "Neither of the poet's {i e., 
 Shakspere's) parents appears to have been able to write at all ; 
 they simply made their marks in execution of deeds." ^ Let us 
 hope, then, that we shall now hear no more about the suggestion 
 that John Shakespeare was both a " marksman " and an educated 
 man — save the mark] 
 
 Concerning William Shakspere's daughters there is no question 
 at all. He who, according to the orthodox faith, wrote " There is 
 no darkness but ignorance," left his second daughter entirely in 
 that darkness, and his elder daughter was in very much the same 
 case. ("Of Shakespeare's two surviving children," writes Sir E. 
 Maunde Thompson, " the eldest, Susanna Hall, wrote a painfully 
 formed signature, which was probably the most she was capable of 
 doing with the pen ; the second, Judith Quiney, \ye conclude, could 
 not write at all, for she signed with a mark." ^ ) 
 
 1 Shakespeare's England (1916), Vol. I., p. 294. 
 * Shakespeare's England, ubi supra.
 
 10 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 So much, then, for William Shakespeare's father, mother, and two 
 daughters. They were all illiterate.^ Let us now consider the 
 case of William Shakspere himself. 
 
 Now there are said to be six authentic signatures of William 
 Shak.spere — one of them very much abbreviated — which are known 
 to us. But not long ago there was yet another which was pro- 
 nounced undoubtedly genuine by the most eminent " paleographer " 
 of the time. 
 
 It may be well to say a word concerning it, for it shows, in a very 
 interesting manner, how these " paleographers " and " graphono- 
 mists " are apt to differ amongst themselves. There is in the 
 British Museum a copy of Florio's translation of Montaigne's 
 Essays (1603) bearing the alleged autograph, " Willm Shakspere." 
 This was purchased for the Museum in 1837 by Sir Frederick 
 Madden, then Keeper of the Manuscripts, for the sum of ;f 140. Sir 
 Frederick, who was the greatest authority of his day on ancient 
 handwriting, vouched for the authenticity of this autograph, and 
 Charles Knight, who gives a facsimile of it in his Pictorial 
 Shakspere, pronounces it the "undoubted signature" of William 
 Shakspere.^ Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, however, who was 
 Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum from 1888 
 to 1909, has pronounced it an " undoubted forgery " ! Here, then, 
 is an instructive controversy. Here is a case of Inglis v. Netherclift 
 once more. The most eminent paleographer of yesterday vouches 
 for the authenticity of an alleged " Shakspere " signature, which 
 he pronounces undoubtedly genuine, while the most eminent 
 paleographer of to-da}' tells us that the same signature is an un- 
 
 ^ His only son had died in his twelfth year. Whethei he had any education 
 or not is not known. 
 
 2 Knight's Pictorial Shakspere (Virtue & Co.), Comedies. Vol. I., p. 3 
 and p. 78. It is remarkable that Dr. Charles William Wallace speaks of 
 this copy of Florio's Montaigne's Essays as bearing on the flyleaf the name 
 "William Shakespeare" (sic)\ He says the authenticity of the signature 
 " is still an open question." See Harper's Magazine, March, 1910, p. 504. 
 Mr. Israel Gollancz also in his preface to The Tempest (" Temple Classics " 
 Edition), states that " Shakespeare's own copy of this work (Florio's 
 Montaigne), with his autograph, is among the treasures of the British 
 Museum."
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 11 
 
 doubted forgery ! Which of the two are we to believe ? We are 
 told to trust to " authority." But when " authority " is divided 
 against itself, what are we to do ? Have we any course open to us, 
 as reasonable men, but to decide for ourselves according to the best 
 of our judgment ? 
 
 But we have yet another little difference between " paleo- 
 graphers " and " graphonomists " to notice. The American 
 Professor, Charles William Wallace, Ph.D., who obtained such 
 notoriety by his I^ew Shakespeare Discoveries, writes as follows 
 concerning Shakespeare's signatures : " One other signature 
 deserves to be added to this list. It is the abbreviated 
 * Wm. Sh* ' in a copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses, now owned by the 
 Bodleian Library. On the cover page fronting the signature is the 
 statement, ' This little Booke of Ovid was given to me by W. Hall 
 who sayd it was once Will : Shaksperes TN 1682.' . . . The 
 recipient's memorandum of presentation in 1682 is unanimously 
 agreed to be genuine. It has been questioned whether some of the 
 numerous forgers, seeing that, had not forged Shakespeare's signa- 
 ture to fit the notice. But all paleographers icho have examined it 
 declare it gent tine." ^ 
 
 Alas, what says Sir E. Maunde Thompson ? After dismissing 
 the signature in Florio's Montaigne as a forgery, he proceeds, 
 " Nor is it possible to give a higher character to the signature 
 (' Wm. Sh".') in the Aldine Ovid's Metamorphoses, 1502, in the 
 Bodleian Library. This again is a forgery." ^ So much for Pro- 
 fessor Wallace's, " All paleographers who have examined it " ! 
 And Professor Wallace himself is, I believe, a " paleographer " or 
 " graphonomist " ! All this is perplexing to the poor anxious 
 inquirer who can aspire to neither of these high-sounding epithets. 
 
 ^ Harper's Magazine, ubi supra, pp. 504, 505. (My italics). 
 
 2 See Shakespeare's England, Vol. I., p. 308, note. Sir Sidney Lee says 
 of this very abbreviated signature that " experts have declared, on grounds 
 which deserve attention," that it is " a genuine autograph of the poet " 
 {Life of William Shakespeare. 1915, p. 21). How the " experts " could 
 undertake to say this, unless guided by divine inspiration, it is difficult to 
 guess, for, obviously, an " e.xpert " forger would have had little difficulty in 
 writing " Wm. Sh*." in such a way as to deceive the very elect, especially as 
 the strong inclination of all the faithful would be to believe in its authentiticy.
 
 12 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 And now let us come to William Shakspere's own signatures, 
 assuming that such indeed they be. Let us take them in order of 
 date, omitting, however, for the moment the very abbreviated 
 signature discovered by Professor Wallace. 
 
 (1) In the Guildhall Library is a deed by which one Henry 
 Walker conveyed a house in Blackfriars to " William Shakespeare " 
 and Trustees. This deed bears date March 10th, 1613. It is 
 signed, if we are to trust the paleographers, " William Shaksper," 
 though it requires a very strong microscope to find the " r ", which 
 Sir Edward Maunde Thompson tells us was added as "an after 
 thought." ^ 
 
 (2) In the British Museum is a mortgage-deed of the same pro- 
 perty, bearing date March 11th, 1613, and signed " Wm. Shakspe," 
 according to the same high authority. 
 
 Now in each of these two deeds Shakspere has placed his signature 
 on the parchment label to which the seal is attached. "It is 
 evident," writes Sir E. Maunde Thompson, " that he imagined, as 
 a layman might imagine, that he was obliged, in each case, to confine 
 his signature within the bounds of the parchment label which is 
 inserted in the foot of the deed to carry the seal, and not to allow 
 it to run over on to the parchment of the deed itself." This may, 
 of course, be the true explanation, though it is not a little difficult 
 to conceive that " Shakespeare," who had so much knowledge of 
 law and legal procedure, should, in the year 1613, have laboured 
 
 ^ Shakespeare's Handwriting, p. G. Since this was in type I have, through 
 the courtesy of the Guildhall Librarian, examined the original signature very 
 closely, and I confidently assert there is no " r " in it, microscopic or otherwise. 
 There is, indeed, a tiny ini< mark just on the edge of the tab, after the " e," 
 and if anyone chooses to say that the signatory intended to add an " r," 
 whether as "an afterthought " or otherwise, he is of course at liberty to do 
 so, but there is no evidence of it. Some distance above the " e " there is a 
 very faint, wavy line, which Sir E. Maunde Thompson (p. 4), denotes by a 
 a straight line just above the " e," which it certainly is not, though it may 
 possibly be intended for a mark of abbreviation. The signature is not 
 " Shaksper," but " Shakspe." If any reader doubts this let him examine 
 the signature for himself in the Guildhall Library. But the matter does not 
 seem to me of much importance. It is clear an3'how that the signatory had 
 no thought of writing " Shakespeare."
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 13 
 
 under such a delusion ! ^ Moreover, the essentials to the validity 
 of a deed are sealing and delivery, so that ii was not really necessary 
 for Shakspere to sign at all, either the Purchase Deed or the 
 Mortgage, and, as a fact, the deeds themselves do not purport to 
 be signed, but only to have been " sealed and delivered," as the 
 practice was, and as the law required. 
 
 There is, however, a rather important fact to be borne in mind 
 with regard to the sealing of these deeds. Shakspere had, appar- 
 ently, no seal of his own, neither, indeed, had William Johnson, 
 who, as one of Shakspere's " nominal partners or trustees," as Sir 
 Sidney Lee calls them,^ also executed both the purchase-deed and 
 the mortgage ; wherefore the seal of Henry Lawrence, clerk to 
 Robert Andrews, the law scriviner, who drew the deeds and who 
 was one of the witnesses, was made use of to supply the deficiency 
 in both cases. But this seal bore the initials of Henry Lawrence. 
 " The great dramatist," writes Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, " to the 
 disappointment of posterity, impressed the wax of both his labels 
 with the initials H.L. instead of those of his own name." ^ What 
 was there, then, to identify this seal as Shakspere's seal pro hac 
 vice if he had not signed his name above it ? It is possible, therefore, 
 that he imagined the seal and the label to which it was attached to 
 be so much one that he ought to confine his signature to the latter, 
 though, I repeat, it seems passing strange that the signatory, if 
 he was indeed " the great dramatist," who had such wide know- 
 ledge of law and legal practice, should have such an idea in 
 his mind! 
 
 In the case of William Johnson, who als(j made use of Henry 
 Lawrence's seal, and who similarly confined his signature (which 
 identified this same seal as his also for the purposes of the deed) 
 
 1 Further, there was a lawyer present, or, at any rate, the scrivener 
 who drew up the deeds, and was there to attest them, and who would be able 
 to instruct Shakspere as to where his signature should be, as is done at the 
 present time. 
 
 2 " By a legal device Shakespeare made his ownership a joint tenancy, 
 associating with himself three merely nominal partners, or trustees, viz. : 
 William Johnson, citizen and vintner of London, John Jackson and John 
 H-^mnage of London, gentlemen." Lije (1915), p. 459. 
 
 ^Outlines, 6th Edn.. Vol. I., p. 221.
 
 14 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 within the limits of the label, it is not so strange, for he was but a 
 vintner. On the other hand, John Jackson, who signed the deed, 
 but did not seal it, wrote his name freely across the label, some 
 letters of his signature appearing on the parchment on each side 
 thereof. 
 
 But, after all, there seems to be very little point in all this dis- 
 cussion concerning the confinement of Shakspere's signature to 
 the tab above the seal. It appears to have been a very general 
 custom so to confine the signature, though it was not legally necessary 
 so to do, and nothing, I think, can be fairly argued from the fact 
 that Shakspere followed that custom. ^ 
 
 With regard to the mortgage signature, Sir E. Maunde Thompson 
 writes as follows : "No doubt, having in his mind the difficulty he 
 had had on the previous day in keeping strictly to the label 
 of the purchase deed, he [Shakspere] now made sure of not trans- 
 gressing by forming each of the letters of his surname deliberately 
 and separately (except the a and k, which are linked) and by 
 modifying their shapes from the usual cursive to a restrained and 
 formally set character." 
 
 Now that the real reason for the difference of the hand- 
 writing in the signature of the mortgage deed from that of the 
 signature to the purchase deed was due to the alleged fact that 
 Shakspere had in his mind the difficulty he had had in confining 
 his signature to the label of the purchase deed, appears to me an 
 altogether doubtful proposition, but, however that may be, it is, I 
 venture to say, extremely improbable that there was any "previous 
 day," as Sir E. Maunde Thompson assumes. In other words, I have 
 little or no doubt that the conveyance and the mortgage were 
 executed on the same day. 
 
 We must remember that Shakepere left nearly half the purchase 
 money of the house on mortgage. Now what is the practice when 
 the vendor of a house agrees to accept part of the purchase money 
 
 1 Possibly it might be in a witness's mind that if the seal were to be cut 
 away from the deed at any time, his name, if his signature were confined 
 to the label, would go with it.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 15 
 
 in cash and to leave the rest on mortgage ? Naturally, the vendor 
 is not content to execute the conveyance of his property and 
 to hand it to the purchaser's solicitor, until he has received not only 
 that part of the purchase money that is to be paid in cash, but also 
 the mortgage deed duly executed by the purchaser. The vendor 
 therefore executes the conveyance and hands it to his solicitor, 
 only to come into effect when the purchaser has fulfilled these 
 conditions. The purchaser then executes the mortgage, and it is 
 dated one day after the conveyance. It is then handed to the 
 vendor's solicitor, together with the cash due, and not till then does 
 the purchaser's solicitor receive the conveyance. The purchaser 
 must, of course, have had the house, or land, conve^'ed to him before 
 he is in a position to mortgage it, wherefore the conveyance is dated 
 one da}/ prior to the mortgage, but as a fact both conveyance and 
 mortgage are executed on the same day. That is the common 
 practice at the present time, and I apprehend it was the practice 
 in Shakespeare's time also. If so — and we can hardly doubt that 
 it was so — these two peculiar signatures were written on the same 
 day. 
 
 Moreover, even apart from the fact that the practice is as I have 
 described it, is it not a priori improbable that the parties should 
 have taken the trouble and incurred the expense of meeting on one 
 day to execute the conveyance, and on the next to execute a 
 mortgage of the same property, when both transactions might so 
 easily have been done at one sitting ? 
 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, I may add, was, of course, aM-are of the 
 practice in these cases. He writes, concerning the Blackfriars 
 house, " The conveyance deeds of this house bear the date of March 
 the 10th, 1613, but in all probability they were not executed until 
 the following day and at the same time that the mortgage was 
 effected." ^ 
 
 * Work cited, uhi supra. The original deed of conveyance prepared for the 
 purchaser, which was in the HaUiwcll-PhiUipps' collection, was sold in 1897 
 to a gentleman in America. This deed was sealed only by Shakspere. I'he 
 counterpart, signed and sealed by Shakspere, and prepared for the vendor, is 
 the document which is in the Guildhall Library.
 
 16 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 And now let the reader examine these two signatures more 
 closeh'. As Sir E. Maunde Thompson points out, there is a 
 great difference between them, so much so, indeed, that some 
 critics have found it difficult to beUeve that they could have 
 been written b\' the same man on two consecutive days, and still 
 more difficult to believe that they could have been written bj' the 
 same man on the same day. It is true that the name " Shakspere," 
 or, rather, the abbreviation of it, is commenced with the same 
 German or old English " S " which was in such common use at that 
 period, and which Shakspere, if we may judge from the signatures 
 which are said to be his, habitually made use of,^ and the small .<? is 
 very much the same in both, but here the resemblance between the 
 two may, I think, be said to cease. It is characteristic of the 
 " orthodox " methods of Shakespearian controversy that the late 
 Dean Beeching, who particularl}- called attention to " the differences 
 in the h, the a, and the p " in the two signatures, actually found an 
 argument in support of the " Stratfordian " authorship in this 
 curious difference. " I point out," he wrote, " that on two 
 consecutive days he [Shakspei'e] signed his name in two different 
 scripts, and I suggest the inference that the Stratford player who 
 signed these documents was also the dramatist, because we know 
 from manuscripts of plays still extant in the British Museum, that 
 dramatists employed two scripts, one for the text, and one for the 
 stage directions." '■^ This is, indeed, an argumentative gem of purest 
 ray serene. But would any reasoning man make use of such an 
 argumxcnt apart from Shakespearian controversy ? The idea that 
 Shakspere used his " text " script for his conveyance, and his 
 ' stage directions " text for his mortgage is really quite delightful 
 in its absurdit3^ But the learned Dean was altogether wrong. 
 The signatures do, indeed, differ widely, but they are not in different 
 scripts. They are both in the same old English or (so-called) Gothic 
 script. 
 
 Let us now consider the three Will signatures. The Will is in three 
 sheets oi paper, and each sheet bears a signature. On the first 
 the writing has now become so indistinct that even Solomon 
 
 ^ For facsimile of tlie name " Shakspere " as printed by a modern German 
 newspaper see frontispiece. 
 
 ^ Nmeteenth Century. August, 1909, p. 284.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 17 
 
 in all his glory could make nothing of it. As Sir Sidney Lee writes : 
 " The ink of the first signature . . . has now faded beyond recog- 
 nition, but that it was ' Shakspere ' ma\- be inferred from the fac- 
 simile made by George Steevens in 1776," and there seems to be 
 now no dispute that this first Will signature should be so read, viz., 
 as" William Shakspeie." ^ As to the second and third signatures, 
 Sir Sidne}^ Lee writes that these " which are easier to decipher, have 
 been variously read as ' Shakspere,' ' Shakspeare,' and ' Shakes- 
 peare,' " which shows that though " easier to decipher," they 
 nevertheless present no little difficult}', and, according to Sir Sidney, 
 leave the reader a very generous latitude of choice. Now that 
 eminent and very acute Shakespearian scholar, Eamund 
 Malone, who had the advantage of inspecting the signatures when 
 the ink was fresher by some 120 years than it is now, came to the 
 conclusion that in these Will signatures, " certainly the letter a is 
 not to be found in the second syllable " ; in fact, he read them all 
 as ■' Shakspere." ^ Sir Frederic Madden, whom Dr. Ingleb}- cites 
 as " the most accomplished paleographic expert of his day," came 
 to the same conclusion, as did also Dr. Ingleby himself.^ Mr. James 
 Spedding says that Shakspere never, in an}' known case, wrote his 
 name " Shakespeare," and Dr. Furnivall agreed that " Shakspere " 
 was the proper reading of the name. Yet, notwithstanding all tliis 
 consensus of paleographic opinion. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, 
 though he agrees in reading the second Will signature as " Willm 
 Shakspere," maintains that the third is " William Shakespeare," 
 thus affording us yet another illustration of the manner in which 
 handwriting experts are wont to differ among themselves, and yet 
 another warning of the risks we run if we blindly put our trust in 
 them. For why must Sir E. Maunde Thompson of this generation 
 
 1 So Sir E. Maunde Thompson, work cited, p. 5. Malone has reproduced 
 the Steevens facsimile. See Boswell's Malone, Vol. II., p. 601. The reader 
 will find a copy on the frontispiece. 
 
 2 See Boswell's Malone (1821). Vol. II., p. 1., note. Malone wrole : " I 
 suspect that what was formerly supposed to be the letter a over his autograph 
 was only a coarse and broad mark of contraction." 
 
 ^ " We contend," he writes, " that the two last signatures of tlie Will are 
 not ' Shakespeare,' but, like Malone's tracing of the first (now partly obliter- 
 ated), ' Shakspere.' "
 
 18 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 be necessarily a better or more trustworth}' paleographer than was 
 Sir F. Madden of the last ? ^ 
 
 Now it is certainly a remarkable thing, making all allowance ior 
 the fluidit}' of the spelling in the early days of the seventeenth 
 century, that a man should spell his name in two different 
 waj's on the same document, and that document his Will, the most 
 solemn document of all. Sir E. Maunde Thompson is constrained 
 to recognise this. " It is a fact," he writes, " that people in 
 Shakespeare's days were not alwa3-s consistent in si)elling their 
 own names ; but it is curious that two differently spelt subscriptions 
 should have been attached to one and the same document." And 
 how does he attempt to explain it ? " The lapse," he says, " may 
 be fairly ascribed to the testator's bodily condition, or it may even 
 be taken as evidence that he was so accustomed to sign his surname 
 in a shortened form that, when he had to expand it, he was in- 
 different to the manner of spelling the ending." 
 
 I will leave the second explanation to the consideration of any 
 intelligent reader. But what of " the testator's bodily condition " ? 
 Sir E. Maunde Thompson writes that " at the date of the execution 
 of the Will he [Shakspere] was sorelj? stricken ; of this the imper- 
 fections in the handwriting of the signatures afford ample evidence." 
 
 The argument seems to be this. If Shakespeare had not been 
 ver}^ ill he would never have written so badl}- as he did. But he did 
 write very badly. Therefore, he must have been ver}' ill. But 
 really it is quite possible that Shakspere 's handwriting may have 
 been very defective even when he was in good health. Certainly 
 the signatures to the conveyance and the mortgage do not negative 
 such a belief. And what evidence is there that Shakspere really 
 
 ^ Dr. Wallace also, in spite of the opinion of the other experts, reads the 
 third signature " Shakspeare." He agrees, however, in reading the first and 
 second as " Shakspere." Nevertheless. Dean Beeching characteristically 
 wrote, " On the Will the final signature is unmistakably ' speare,' " and adds, 
 " I have Dr. E. T. L. Scott's authority for saying that the second also has 
 the (/." So that here we have Dr. Wallace, who is nothing if not a " paleo- 
 grapher," brought into direct conflict with Dr. E. T. L. Scott, as well as with 
 Sir E. Maunde Thompson! Would it not be wise to adopt the advice of 
 the learned Judge and to dismiss the " expert evidence " from our minds 
 altogether ?
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 19 
 
 was " sorel}' stricken " when he signed his Will ? The Will was 
 originally dated the 2oth January, 1615-16. In it the testator is 
 stated to be " in perfect health," but we will make no point of that, 
 for it may be no more than common form, or Shakspere may, of 
 course, have become very ill before he signed it on the 25th of 
 March. But Shakspere lived for nearly a month after this, for he 
 did not die till April 23rd, and there is really no reason to suppose — 
 at any rate, there is no warrant for assuming as an undoubted 
 fact — that he was so ill on the 25th of March that he was unable to 
 write in his usual way. It appears to me that the assertion that he 
 was " sorel}' stricken " at the time is only a hypothesis, con\-enient 
 for those who assume that Shakspere must, at other times, have been 
 able to write much better than he did when he signed his will. 
 "It is not necessary," writes 'Sir. Halliwell-Phillipps, " to follow 
 the general opinion that the signatures betray the tremulous hand 
 of illness, although portions of them ma}' indicate that they were 
 written from an inconvenient position." ^ The illness hypothesis 
 is, indeed, mere assumption, as this critic perceived. 
 
 It is, however, sometimes urged as evidence that Shakspere was 
 in a critical state when he signed his Will, that the draft Will was 
 made use of, " without waiting for the fair engrossment," as Sir E^ 
 Maunde Thompson writes. There is very little force in this argu- 
 ment. In Shakspere 's time a Will was not a document for which 
 many solemn formalities were required by law. So far was this 
 from being the case that a Will in those days was not even required 
 to be signed at all. A Will of personalty might even have been 
 verbal (or " nuncupative," as it was called) if made by a testator 
 in extremis before witnesses and afterwards reduced to writing. 
 For written Wills of personalty no witnesses were required, and if 
 the Will was written in the testator's hand, though neither signed 
 nor sealed, and though there were no witnesses present, it was good 
 on proof of the handwriting. Even if the Will were in another man's 
 hand, and not signed by the testator, it was good on proof that the 
 writing was with the testator's privity and direction. Wills of land 
 were required to be in writing, but it was sufficient if the Will was 
 put in writing by the testator, or another with his privity and 
 
 ^Outlines (6th Edn.). Vol. I., p. 233.
 
 20 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 direction, without any other execution. So, too, if notes were 
 taken by the testator for his Will, and it was reduced into form 
 pursuant to such instructions in his life, though it was never read 
 or shown to him, it was sufficient. No particular form was required 
 for a Will. Thus notes or memoranda written from the testators' 
 mouth by a physician or scrivener were good if afterwards executed.^ 
 
 So little formalities, then, were required for a Will that there seems 
 to be no reason to suppose that Shaks])ere would have thought it 
 necessary to go to the expense of having a fair copy made of the 
 very carefully prepared and well-written draft which had been made 
 for him by Francis Collyns the solicitor. It was amply sufficient 
 for his purpose. ^ 
 
 There is yet another fact with regard to the Will signatures which 
 excites our astonishment. As the signature to the conveyance 
 differs from the signature to the mortgage, so also do the three Will 
 signatures differ among themselves. " TJie three subscriptions," 
 writes Sir E. Maunde Thompson, " present difficulties which are 
 almost beyond explanation. In the first place, they differ from one 
 another to such a degree that it is not going too far to declare that, were 
 they met it'ith on three independent documents, they might not unreason- 
 ably be taken, at first sight, for the signatures of three different persons. 
 And, besides their intrinsic dissimilarity , the methods of ivriting them 
 vary also." ^ 
 
 Let us now, before passing on to the " Wallace " signature, 
 consider Shakspere's handwriting as a whole. Tliis is how Sir 
 Sidney Lee speaks of it : "As was customary in provincial 
 schools, the poet learned to write the " Old English " character, 
 which resembles that still in vogue in Germany. He was never 
 taught the Italian script, which was winnmg its way in cultured 
 society, and is now universal among Englishmen. Until his 
 
 ^ See, amongst other authorities, Comyn's Digest, Estates by Devise, D. 1 
 and E. 1. 
 
 2 Through the kindness of Messrs. Sampson Low & Marston, I possess 
 an excellent photographic reproduction of Shakspere's Will, taken by per- 
 mission of the Judge of the Probate Court in 1864. It shows very clearly 
 how carefully the draft was prepared, notwithstanding the interlineations. 
 
 ^ Shakespeare's England. Vol. I., p. 304. (Italics mine.)
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 21 
 
 death, Shakespeare's ' Old English ' handwriting testified to 
 his provincial education." ^ 
 
 And again, " In all the authentic signatures Shakespeare used 
 the old ' English ' mode of writing, which resembles that still in 
 vogue in Germany. During the seventeenth century the old 
 ' Enghsh ' character was finally displaced in England by the 
 ' Italian ' character, which is now universal in England and in all 
 English-speaking countries. In Shakespeare's day highly-educated 
 men, who were graduates of the Universities and had travelled 
 abroad in youth, were capable of writing both the old 
 ' English ' and the ' Italian ' character with equal facility. 
 As a rule, they employed the ' English ' character in their 
 ordinary correspondence, but signed their names in the 
 ' Italian ' hand. Shakespeare's exclusive use of the ' English ' 
 script was doubtless a result of his provincial education. He learnt 
 only the ' English ' character at school at Stratford-on-Avon, and 
 he never troubled to exchange it for the more fashionable ' Italian ' 
 character in later life." ^ 
 
 According to Sir Sidney Lee, therefore, " Shakespeare " was 
 not " highly educated," had not travelled abroad, and took no 
 trouble about his handwriting. It will be observed also that, 
 according to Sir Sidney, those who could write the " English " 
 and " Italian " hands with equal facihty as a rule employed the 
 " English " character in their correspondence but signed their 
 names in the " Italian " hand. Messrs. Garnett & Gosse, however, 
 in their Illustrated English Literature, make a suggestion eminently 
 characteristic of the methods of Shakespearian biography. They 
 
 1 A Life of William Shakespeare (1915), p. 16. Sir Sidney assumes, of course, 
 that Shakspere was for some few years at the Stratford Free School. Mr. 
 Halliwell-Phillipps thought it necessary that a boy should learn to write 
 before admission to the school. He says : " Although his parents were 
 absolutely iUiterate, they had the sagacity to appreciate the importance of an 
 education for their son, and the poet, somehow or other, was taught to read 
 and write, the necessary preliminaries to admission into the Free School." 
 {Outlines, 6th Edn., Vol. I.) He, too, assumes that Shak.spere went to the 
 Free School. See also English Schools at the Reformation. By A. F. Leach, 
 p. 105. 
 
 ^Ibid. p. 521.
 
 22 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 are not satisfied to believe that " Shakespeare " could only write 
 the old German hand, so they put forward a novel and ingenious 
 hypothesis. " All the undoubted autographs of Shakespeare," 
 they write, " appear on legal documents and are written in the hand 
 appropriate to business matters. This affords no proof that he could 
 not write the Italian script if he thought fit." ^ While, therefore, 
 according to Sir Sidney Lee, those persons who could write both 
 scripts were accustomed to sign their names in the " Italian " 
 hand, according to Messrs. Garnett & Gosse, Shakspere, although 
 he could write the " Italian " hand " if he thought fit," chose to 
 use the Old English for his signatures ! At any rate, they put this 
 forward as a not unreasonable hypothesis, but as no instance can 
 be found of a man of the time who could write both scripts making 
 a choice such as suggested, and as there is not a scintilla of evidence 
 that Shakspere could write the " Italian " hand, and, indeed, 
 nothing whatever to make us think that he could do so, but every- 
 thing to make us think the contrary, this ridiculous suggestion may 
 be said to have perished still-born. 
 
 But what an extraordinary thing that the author of the plays 
 and poems of Shakespeare should not have learnt to write the 
 " Italian " script! That, as Sir Sidney Lee tells us, he should not 
 have " taken the trouble " to do so! Yet Shakespeare well knew 
 the value of the art of good handwriting. For what says Hamlet ? : 
 
 I sat me down ; 
 Devised a new commission ; wrote it fair : 
 I once did hold it, as our statists do, 
 A baseness to write fair, and labour'd much 
 How to forget that learning : But, sir, now 
 It did me yeoman's service. 
 
 Aye, and the author of Tuelfth Night nmst have knov/n the value 
 of that " Italian " hand, which was at that time rapidly " winning 
 its way in cultured society " ; for does he not make Malvolio say, 
 with reference to Olivia's supposed letter, " I think we do know 
 the sweet Roman hand " ? Yet we are told that he, the dramatist, 
 did not know it ? Is that credible ? It is indeed hard to think 
 so. 
 
 * English Literature: An Illustrated Record. Vol. 11., p. 195.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 23 
 
 " If Shakespeare," says a reviewer in the Times Literary Supple- 
 ment of August 17th, 1 91 6, " had only signed his name six times 
 less often than he did, we might have been able to speculate happily 
 on the part he should have taken in spreading the new accomplish- 
 ment. Passages, headed by the phrase of Malvolio's just quoted, 
 would have been collected from his works to prove his mastery of 
 the art ; Hamlet's account of the forgery which he substituted for 
 his own death-warrant, would have been easily conclusive. More- 
 over, there is evidence in the script both of Pembroke and of 
 Southampton ; both signed in the italic style, so that either of the 
 two might have picked it up from the manuscript of the Sonnets. 
 But it happened that on six of the occasions when Shakespeare 
 wrote his name he gave away the fact once for all that he did not 
 use the Roman hand himself. Six of his signatures still confront us ; 
 strange, uncomely scrawls, as of a man who had never known the 
 air of the awakening world, never felt the influences which had 
 breathed so freely upon Portia and Olivia, upon Biron and Benedick. 
 We, his countrymen, with difhculty identify the separate letters of 
 his name. The thought goes far to reconcile one to the annihilation 
 ot all the rest of his manuscript. ... As for these six tracings 
 of Shakespeare's pen. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson treats them 
 with royal ceremony, analyses them down to the last turn of the 
 quill, and bends a divining eye upon the firmness of one stroke 
 and shakiness of another. His inferences are ingenious ; yet the 
 quill, one feels, was not the key with which Shakespeare unlocked 
 his heart." 
 
 The last sentence is indeed true, if by " Shakespeare " we are to 
 understand William Shakspere of Stratford. 
 
 I now come to examine the sixth " Shakespeare " signature 
 (so called), viz. : the very much abbreviated signature attached to 
 the deposition of May 11th, 1612, made by Shakspere in the case of 
 " Bellott V. Montjoy," heard in the Court of Requests and discovered 
 by Dr. C. W. Wallace in the Public Record Office.^ Sir E. Maunde 
 Thompson attaches great importance to this signature. " By means 
 of this signature," he says, " written with a free hand, we now know 
 
 * See frontispiece for facsimile.
 
 24 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 that Shakespeare was capable of writing in fluent style, and we 
 recover the key of this leading factor of the problem." ^ And 
 again, " Written carelessly but with remarkable freedom and 
 facility the letters are WILLM SHARP — with a long hori- 
 zontal stroke passing through the stem of the p, indicating abbrevia- 
 tion. It is notable that the medial s of the surname is omitted, as 
 though the writer thought the letter negligible, provided he gave 
 the emphatic p ; unless, indeed, in his hurry he accidentally left 
 it out. We might almost imagine that, having dropped the un- 
 fortunate blot of ink on the k, in his confusion he hastened to finish 
 the signature without giving a thought to the necessary s. The 
 p with the crossed stem would, according to the usual laws of 
 abbreviated symbols, be interpreted as equivalent to per, and of 
 course Shakespeare knew the literal value of this common symbol ; 
 but it is quite possible that he used the stem-cross merely as a general 
 sign of abbreviation of the ending of his name without intending it 
 to represent any particular spelling, whether per, pore, or peare."^ 
 
 Now here again is perplexity for the i)oor ordinary mortal. Sir 
 E. Maunde Thompson, the great paleographer, reads this signature, 
 written with such " remarkable freedom and facility," as " Willm 
 Shakp ", and he tells us that there is much virtue in " the p with 
 the crossed stem." But Dr. Wallace, who discovered the signa- 
 ture, and who is nothing if not a paleographer, has told us that 
 the " signature " does not contain a ^ at all. It is " Willm Shaks."^ 
 In which of these great men, then, ought we to put our trust ? 
 A priori it would seem very improbable that Shakspere would omit 
 " the medial s " of his name. " SHAKP " is certainly a very 
 curious and not at all euphonious abbreviation for " Shakspere "! 
 But Sir E. Maunde Thompson tells us that this is what the so-called 
 
 1 Work cited, p. 1. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 8. I would ask the reader to examine the facsimile of this signa- 
 ture carefully and ask himself how much of all this is justified. Is the last 
 letter really a. p " with a long horizontal stroke passing through the stem, 
 indicating abbreviation " ? Are the letters a and k written with " facility," 
 or, rather, with such " freedom " that they are difficult for anyone but a 
 paleographer to find ? 
 
 3 See Harper's Magazine, March, 1910, p. 500.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 25 
 
 signature amounts to, and, as we have seen, he thinks Shakspere 
 thought the s was of no consequence " provided he gave the 
 emphatic p." But it is, indeed, a sad thing to find that this very 
 important though very much curtailed signature, " this specimen 
 of Shakespeare's calHgraphy as a signature," as Sir E. Maunde 
 Thompson calls it, and which, according to him, gives us " the key 
 of this leading factor of the problem " (whatever that ma}- mean), 
 and whose " value for gauging his capacity for dexterity with his 
 pen can hardly be placed too high," is, nevertheless, so written 
 (I must not, of course, say " badly written ") that it is read in one 
 way by one eminent paleographer, and in a different way by another 
 eminent paleographer. For how can it be a " key " for us, and a 
 certain guide, if these highly-distinguished experts differ as to the 
 way in which it is to be read ? 
 
 As to the letters a and k in this much lauded " specimen of 
 Shakespeare's caligraphy," their demonstration must be left to 
 the graphonomists. To the ordinary mortal they seem to be indeed 
 fearfully and wonderfully made. 
 
 " It is said by Shakespeare's enemies," writes Dr. Wallace, 
 " that he was an ignoramus who could not write his name legibly. 
 The fault, however, lies not in him, but in themselves. Familiarity 
 with contemporary script would reverse the conclusion." 
 
 By " Shakespeare's enemies " Dr. Wallace, of course, means 
 those lovers of Shakespeare who are convinced, on what appears 
 to them quite sufficient grounds, that the works which they so 
 greatly love and admire were not written by the Stratford player. 
 But let that pass. I may note, however, in passing, that the 
 assumption that those who take this heretical view necessaril}'' 
 believe that Shakspere of Stratford was an " ignoramus " is an 
 unfounded one. In all probabihty he spent a few years at the 
 Free School, as Rowe informs us. Let that pass also. But what 
 of the " legibility " of his signatures ? We have seen how the 
 experts have disputed, and are at variance, with regard to the Will 
 signatures. And here we have the same difference in 
 
 regard to his newly-discovered, and, we are told, all-important 
 signature. How, then, can it be said that Shakspere wrote his 
 name legibly if even the paleographers read it in different wavs ? ^
 
 26 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 A writer of an article on " Seekers after Shakespeare," in 
 The Times Literary Supplement, writes as follows upon this 
 matter : — " We pr}' into watermarks, and are greatly cheered 
 by a new autograph signature, illegible, it is true, to all exce-fji 
 those jew who are familiarly conversa^it luith the apparently paralytic 
 hafuhi-riting of the period." — (April 21st, 1910). This, I trow, 
 was not written by one of " Shakespeare's enemies " ! The 
 writer, however, is wrong in speaking of the " paralytic handwriting 
 of the period." There was no lack of beautiful handwriting at 
 that time, whether of the Old English or the new Italian script. 
 As to the latter, one has only to turn to the writing of Ben Johnson, 
 and Joshua Sylvester, and Spenser, and Sidney, andFrancis Bacon, and 
 many others whom one might name, to find excellent examples, nor 
 would one have an}'^ difficulty to find such among writers in the old 
 Gothic script. But if the writer had spoken of Shakspere's 
 " paralytic handwriting " he would, I think ha\-e found few, except 
 Dr. Wallace, and certain other paleographers, to disagree with him. 
 
 But Dr. Wallace is, certainly, very far from being a trustworthy 
 guide. We have seen how he has pronounced that the so-called 
 signature " Wm. Sh®." in the Bodleian copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses 
 (1502) which Sir E. Maunde Thompson has pronounced to be an 
 undoubted forgery, is undoubtedly a genuine " Shakespeare " 
 signature. Let us now consider the reasoning by which he considers 
 that the case for this " signature " is established beyond all doubt. 
 
 ^ One of Dr. Wallace's own counirymen, Dr. Mellen Chamberlain, once a 
 recognized authority, 1 beheve, as a " paleographer," and for some time 
 Librarian of the Boston (U.S.A ) Public Library, wrote concerning an alleged 
 "Shakespeare" signature that "the field of comparison ... is narrow, 
 being hmited to those written between 1613 and 1616, all of which show such 
 a lack of facility in handwriting as would almost preclude the possibility 
 of Shakespeare's having written the dramas attributed to him, 
 so great is the apparent ilHteracy of the signatures." (See my In re 
 Shakespeare, John Lane, 1919, p. 22). Moreover, referring to the copyist of 
 the great dramatist's suppo.sed manuscript. Sir Sidney Lee, in his Introduction 
 to the Folio facsimile (p. xviii.), says that " he was not always happy in 
 deciphering the original, especially when the dramatist wrote so illegibly as 
 Shakespeare." It seems, then, that some of the " paleographist " authorities 
 do not agree with Dr. Wallace as to the " legibility " of " Shakespeare's " 
 handwriting.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 27 
 
 " The only difficulty that remained," he writes, " was the fact that 
 no known authentic signature by Shakespeare was abbreviated. 
 The present documents [to wit, the docum.ents in the case of "Bellott 
 V. Mountjoy," which have brought to light the " signature " which 
 Dr. Wallace reads " Willm Shaks " and Sir E, Maunde Thompson 
 reads " Willm Shakp "] furnish one. This, added to previous 
 evidence, makes the proof of genuineness conclusive. Shakespeare 
 undoubtedly used this well-worn copy of the Metamorphoses and 
 wrote his name in it . . . some time near the close of his life." ^ 
 
 This is, indeed a magnificent example of expert " Stratfordian " 
 ratiocination, and furnishes us with an illuminating illustration 
 of what an " orthodox " Professor considers to be evidence. There 
 is a book with " Wm. Sh^" inscribed in it, nobody knows when or 
 by whom. This xery abbreviated signature might, possibly, have 
 been written by Shakespeare, or it might have been written by 
 somebody else. But no other abbreviated signature by 
 " Shakespeare " could be produced. At length one is discovered 
 written " Willm Shaks " or " Willm Shakp." (You pay your money 
 and you take your choice). Eureka! cries Professor Wallace ; the 
 matter is settled. " Willm Shaks " is conclusive evidence in favour 
 of " Wm. Sh*.", How could it be possible for a forger to have 
 written "Wm. Sh®. seeing that Shakspere, on one occasion at 
 least, wrote " Willm Shaks " ? 
 
 I reall}^ think that if my old friend. Judge Pitt-Taylor, had been 
 alive he would have found himself constrained to bring out a new 
 edition of his Law of Evidence ! 
 
 So much for the " Wm. Sh^." signature. We have already seen 
 that Dr. Wallace not only pins his faith to the " Florio's Montaigne " 
 signature also, but was under the impression that that signature 
 was " William Shakespeare," whereas, in truth and in fact, it is 
 " Willm Shakspere! " 
 
 But the crowning absurdity of all remains to be mentioned. 
 Shakspere, it seems, at one time lodged with one Mountjoy, or 
 Montjoy, a wig-maker in Mugwell (or Monkwell) Street. And what 
 resulted from that important fact ? Why Shakespere, according to 
 the imaginative Professor Wallace, " honours his host by raising 
 
 ^ Harper's Magazine, ubi supra, p. 504.
 
 28 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 him in the play [Henry V.] to the dignity oi a French Herald under 
 his own name of Montjoy! "^ What clearer proof could be re- 
 quired that William Shakspere of Stratford was the author of 
 Henry V. ? Where else could he have found the name of Montjoy ? 
 
 Alas, it appears that this learned Professor, and expert paleo- 
 grapher, had never read Holinshed's account of the Battle of 
 Agincourt ! For had he done so he must have known that 
 " Montjoy, King at Arms," was the official name of a French 
 Herald, just as " Clarenceux King at Arms " is the official name of 
 one of our English Heralds, and that Shakespeare, very naturally, 
 took Montjoy, the French Herald, direct from the pages of Holin- 
 shed! Solveniur risu tabulae. 
 
 Let us now consider what appears to me a very remarkable piece 
 of ratiocination on the part of Sir E. Maunde Thompson himself. 
 With reference to the " addition " to the play of " Sir Thomas 
 More," which it is sought to prove is in the handwriting of Shakspere 
 of Stratford, he writes as follows : — " There is little room lor doubt 
 that the names of the characters of the play were written in the 
 margins of the pages after the text had been composed. The per- 
 functory manner in which they are scribbled, and the abbreviation 
 of many of them, increasing in brevity as they i)roceed, seem to 
 prove this. On the first page ' Lincolne ' diminishes successively 
 to ' Lines,' ' Line,' ' Lin.' ' Other,' meaning anyone whose name 
 the reviser may choose to insert, runs down to ' oth,' and at last 
 dwindles to solitary ' o.' Even in the case of the leading character. 
 More, although he gets his full name ' Moor,' in most instances, 
 yet it is omitted altogether from the speech at the end of the second 
 page and has to be supplied by the reviser. And what can be more 
 ludicrous than the reduction of the name to bovine ' Moo,' attached 
 to the long speech on the third page, for lack of a scratch of the pen 
 to add the harmless necessary ;' } In the face of these indications 
 of carelessness, we might almost say boredom, on the part of Shake- 
 speare in the matter of vain repetitions, we begin to experience an 
 abatement in our wonder that he shirked signing his name in full if 
 he could invent any excuse for cutting it short." ^ 
 
 * Harper's Magazine, uhi supra, p. 507. 
 
 ^ Shakespeare's Handwriting, p. 56. (Italics mine.)
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 29 
 
 Here we first note that " Shakespeare " (meaning thereby William 
 Shakspere of Stratford) is quietly assumed to have been the writer 
 of this " addition," which is the very point at issue. Then the 
 fact that the playwright (assumed to be Shakespeare) dashed in 
 on the margin " the names of the characters of the play " (viz. : 
 of this additional part thereof) in very abbreviated forms, is held 
 to be an indication of " carelessness," if not " boredom," in view 
 of which we need no longer wonder that " Shakespeare " was in 
 the habit of cutting short his own signature! 
 
 Well, I must speak with all respect of an octogenarian scholar^ 
 who was once the Director of the British Museum, but really 
 reasoning of this sort seems hardly worthy of this learned paleo- 
 grapher. Does not everybody know that a playwright is not so 
 foolish as to waste his time by writing the names of his characters 
 in full on the margin of his manuscript ? Are they not always greatly 
 abbreviated even in print ? I have now before me a copy of 
 Henry V. in the " Temple Classics " Edition. There I find, in the 
 margin, " Bur " for " Burgundy," " Exe " for " Exeter," and so 
 on. It is no proof whatever of " carelessness," still less of " bore- 
 dom," that a dramatist should so abbreviate the names of his 
 characters. On the contrary, it is a p)root that he is too sensible 
 a man to waste his time in such a wholly unnecessary way as to 
 write out these names in full whenever they occur. In the present 
 case the wonder is not that the playwright so much abbreviated 
 the names, as that he took so much trouble with them as he did. 
 For if the reader will glance at the facsimiles published by Sir 
 E. Maunde Thompson, he will find that the dramatist was at 
 the pains of writing the name " Lincolne " {e.g.) several times in 
 full on the margin, and what is more, writing it well and legil)]y. 
 What, then, as to the " bovine ' Moo ' " ? The reader will see the 
 word " Moor," in all cases but one, I think, beautifully written in 
 the margin. In the second sheet it is so written no less than six 
 times. It is true that at the top of the third sheet it is dashed in 
 as " Moo," though at the bottom of the same sheet it appears again 
 beautifully written as " Moor." 
 
 I repeat. I wish to speak with all respect of the venerable author 
 of Shakespeare's Handwriting, but I really cannot understand how 
 any reasonable man can seriously argue from this most ordinary.
 
 30 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 usual, and natural abbreviation of names of characters in the maz-gin 
 of a manuscript play that the dramatist was such a careless man, 
 and so " bored " with things in general, that we should quite expect 
 him to cut short his own signature, whether to his Will or his Deeds, 
 or his answers to interrogatories in a Court of Justice! If this is 
 the sort of reasoning upon which we are to be asked to believe that 
 the handwriting of this " addition " is identical with the hand- 
 writing of the Shakspere signatures, the case must be weak indeed. 
 
 There is \-et another imp)ortant point to be considered with refer- 
 ence to this " addition " to the play of " Sir Thomas More." If 
 it is really in Shakspere 's handwriting, " it must," writes Sir E. 
 Maunde Thompson, " be placed in the earlier period of his career, 
 when he was employed in such work as adapting and supplementing 
 the plays of other authors." ^ Now Mr. Richard Simpson, who first 
 started this Jiare, suggested 1580 or 1587 as the date of the play, 
 but inasmuch as Shakspere of Stratford, in all probability, did not 
 come to London before 1587, this, as Sir E. Maunde Thompson 
 writes, " appears to be too early "I Dr. Greg, in his edition of the 
 play for the Malone Society suggested " some such year as 1592 or 
 1593," which would do very nicely indeed if only it could be 
 established, but subsequently Dr. Greg, on farther consideration 
 of the matter, has felt inclined, as we are told, to bring down the 
 date to the end of the sixteenth century, "which he thinks would be 
 fatal to the attribution of the addition to Shakespeare." ^ Never- 
 theless, critics are now wrangling as to whether or not the 
 " Harleian Addition " shows certain peculiar spellings, which are 
 supposed to be evidential of " Shakespearian " authorship ; but 
 as no Shakespearian manuscripts have come down to us (unless, of 
 course, this " Harleian Addition " be one) and we reall}' do not 
 know whether any one of the quartos was actually printed from 
 " Shakespeare's " manuscript, or, if so, whether any peculiarity 
 
 1 Woyk cited, p. G2. Yet Sir E. Maunde Ihompson had already expressed 
 the opinion that the hberties which he took with the MS. " would suggest that 
 the writer was one who held a high place among his fellow contributors to the 
 piecing-out of the play, and that they recognised his superior talent." Ibid, 
 p. 37. 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 62. Note; where we are referred to The Modern Language Review, 
 Vol. VIII. (1913), 89.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 31 
 
 to be found therein is to be attributed to him or to the printer, or 
 whether, in fact, it was a " pecuharity " at all and not shared by 
 manj^ other writers, these disputants merely involve themselves in 
 a quagmire of uncertainties, though they, of course, carry on the 
 controversy with a great show of learning and entirely to their own 
 satisfaction.^ 
 
 And now let us come back lor a moment to the Will signatures, 
 and let us again examine the third signature, whicht is preceded by 
 the words " By me," concerning which Sir E. Maunde Thompson 
 writes as follows : — " The firmness and legibility of the first three 
 words, ' By me William,' as compared with the weakness and mal- 
 formation of the surname, and of both the other signatures, are 
 very striking. W^e can attribute that weakness and malfomiation 
 ccytainly to the condition of the dying man. The firmness of the 
 first three words indicate, we believe, an effort on the part of the 
 invalid, which, however, he was incapable of maintaining to the 
 end." ^ 
 
 " Ceytainlyl " Well, it is, of course, very convenient to assume 
 certainty for that of which your argument stands in need, but, as 
 I have alread}' said, there is really no certainty whatever that 
 William Shakspere was a "dying man" at the time when these words 
 were written ; there is, indeed, no evidence at all that he was ill 
 at that time, or so weak that it was an effort to him to write his 
 name. But let us look closely at the words in question as they 
 appear in the facsimile provided by vSir E. ]\Iaundc Thompson. 
 
 In the first place, we notice not only " the weakness and malfor- 
 mation of the surname," which are, certainly, very striking, but also 
 that the surname is not even in the same alignment as the other 
 three words. We notice further that those other three words, 
 " By me William," are, in marked contrast with the surname, 
 written in a fine, strong, legible hand, much better written, indeed, 
 than is the " Wallace " signature for which so much is claimed. 
 Is it reasonable to be content with Sir E. Maunde Thompson's ex- 
 planation, viz. : that the signatory made a great effort and managed 
 
 * There is, however, a sensible letter on the matter, signed " M. A. Bayfield," 
 in The Times Literary Supplement of May 15th, 1919. 
 
 ^ Work cited, "p. 13. (Italics mine.) See frontispiece for facsimile of this 
 sit'nature.
 
 32 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 to write these three words in such excellent style, and then found 
 himself unable to do more for his surname than make such a miser- 
 able scrawl ? I think not. I think, if we can only dismiss our 
 prejudices and examine the words w'th an entirch^ impartial mind, 
 another explanation will suggest itself as at least highly probable. 
 What should we say of this " signature " if it were the signature of 
 an ordinar}' man, and involved no Shakespearian controversy ? 
 For myself I should say that some other man other than the testator 
 — a law-scrivener, may be — wrote the words " By me William," 
 and left it to the testator to add his surname. And that, as I venture 
 to think, is what was done in this case. It is not the writing of a 
 man in mortal illness who made a great effort, wrote three words 
 beautifully, and then collapsed. It is the writing of a good penman 
 in ordinary health, followed by that of a man who possibly was ill, 
 but who, probabl}^ was always a very poor penman.^ 
 
 But I think I hear some indignant critic exclaim, " That is an 
 absurd suggestion. Only look at the dot under the final curve of 
 the ' W.' That is evidential of the fact that the signature is 
 Shakespeare's autograph, for you will find it also in the " Wallace " 
 signature, and in the signature to the conveyance of the house at 
 Blackfriars. It was evidently a peculiarity of Shakespeare's"! 
 
 But, to use a vulgar expression, " that cock won't fight," for 
 this " ornamental dot," as Sir E. Maunde Thomi)son calls it, was 
 a common feature in this and other capital letters of the English 
 alphabet at this time, " particularly in the scrivener's hand." ^ 
 It was, in fact, a well-known mark of the scrivener's hand. I do 
 not mean to say, of course, that he always made use of it, but where 
 it is found it is in the great majority of cases, if not always, the 
 
 ^ Since this was in type the learned Mrs. Stopes has expressed her opinion, 
 for which she gives detailed reasons, that the " B " in the words " By me " 
 differs verj' materially in its formation from the " B " in the manuscript of 
 the " Harleian Addition." She even suggests that the words " By me " 
 may have been written by " the lawyer." My own suggestion goes a little 
 further, viz. : that the " lawyer," or law-scrivener, wrote " B\' me William." 
 See Mrs. Stopes' letters in the Times Literary Supplement, May 29th and 
 June 19th, 1919. 
 
 2 Work cited, p. 25.
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 33 
 
 sign of the professional writer — scrivener or law clerk, ^ Let the 
 reader examine the originals or facsimiles of the deeds relating to 
 the Blackfriars property, written, of course, by tJie law-scrivener, 
 and he will find that both in the purchase-deed and in the mortgage 
 all the capital W's show this " ornamental dot " under the right 
 hand curl of this letter. 
 
 Now let the reader examine the two other Will signatures. In 
 the first the writing has become so indistinct, as shown in the 
 facsimile (No. 4) provided for us by Sir E. Maunde Thompson, that 
 even a paleographer might hesitate to decipher it. But, 
 as already mentioned, many years ago, when the ink had 
 not so suffered from the effects of time, a facsimile was 
 made by Steevens which appears in his edition of Shake- 
 speare, and v.'hich was reproduced in Boswell's Malone (Vol. 
 ii., p. 601). 2 By this we learn that in this signature to his Will 
 Shakspere made use ol a W of very different shape from that of 
 the third signature, and, further, that it has no " ornamental dot." 
 In the second signature also the " dot " is " conspicuous by its 
 absence." In fact, it is very remarkable how the " William " of 
 the two first signatures differs from the very well-written 
 " William " of the third signature. 
 
 Now let us assume, with Sir E. Maunde Thompson, that Shakspere 
 at the time of the signing of his will was a sick man — which is a not 
 unreasonable assumption, although there is no direct evidence in 
 support of it. What more natural than that the scrivener, or law 
 clerk, should have written the words, " By me Wilham " at the end 
 of the document before presenting it to the testator for his final 
 signature, which he wrote as a bad penman, and, probably, a sick 
 penman, might be expected to write, and, as already mentioned, 
 not in the same alignment as the three preceding words ? 
 
 ^ A gentleman employed at the Guildhall Library, who has had a very large 
 experience in the reading of old manuscripts, writes to me that " the dot 
 was seldom, if ever, used by lay-writers." Besides the supposed instance of 
 Shakspere, I do not know where it is to be found in a lay-writer's hand, but 
 I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters. At any rate it is ex- 
 tremely improbable that a "dying man," making a great effort to write his 
 signature, would have been at the pains to add the "ornamental dot"! 
 
 2 See copy at p. 38.
 
 34 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 
 
 At the present day, of course, when the law as to Wills is far 
 stricter than it was in Shaks])ere's day, and when a testator's 
 signature has to be witnessed by an attestation clause in due 
 form, such a course of procedure would be most irregular, but in 
 the year 1616 things were very different, and, I may again remind 
 the reader, that at that time there was no actual legal necessity that 
 a Will should be signed at all. But here I shall, of course, be met 
 by the objection that the " ornamental dot " is to be found also 
 in the signatures of the Blackfriars purchase deed and of the 
 " W^allace " answers to interrogatories, though it is not seen in the 
 Blackfriars mortgage signature. 
 
 Well, as already pointed out, the " dot " appears in all the capital 
 W's of both the deeds in question, and my suggestion is that, in 
 the case of the purchase deed, the law scrivener, Robert Andrews, 
 or his clerk, Henry Lav/rence, wrote the signature which was to 
 identify the seal bearing the initials " H.L." as Shakespere's seal 
 for the purposes of the deed, and in this connection it may be 
 remembered that, as Halliwell-Phillipps tells us, " the scrivener 
 who drew up the deeds, and his assistant," were at that time " the 
 usual official attestors." If it be asked why the scrivener should 
 have confined the name to the tab above the seal it can onl}- be 
 answered that it was a very general }>ractice so to do, although, 
 certainly, not legally necessary. We must bear in mind here also 
 that there was no legal necessity for Shakspere's signature to be 
 attached to the deed at all, the law requiring " sealing and delivery " 
 only. The above hypothesis would also account for the extra- 
 ordinary difference between the signatures of the purchase deed 
 and of the mortgage. 
 
 With regard to the " Wallace " signature, it is impossible not to 
 notice the large ink-spot under the letter s, and it has been already 
 suggested by some that the witness held his pen there to acknowledge 
 the abbreviated signature written for him by another — the Court 
 official or law-scrivener — as one is apt, at the present time, to hold 
 one's pen when acknowledging one's " act and deed." The practice 
 of the old Court of Requests, about which we know nothing, must 
 have been very loose in allowing an abbreviated signature at all, 
 and there seems no insurmountable difficulty in conceiving that
 
 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING 35 
 
 Shakspere's deposition, in answer to interrogatories was authenti- 
 cated in tliis way. Certainly I should have expected that the official 
 or scrivener, would have written a better hand, but this objection 
 IS removed if we subscribe to Sir E. M. Thompson's pronouncement 
 that the signature, though " written carelessly," shows " remarkable 
 freedom and facility." 
 
 It may, of course, be argued that Shakspere sometimes employed 
 the scrivener's " ornamental dot " and sometimes omitted it. Sii 
 E. M. Thompson writes that the style of Shakspere's hand, " as 
 shown by his signatures, was that of the ordinary scri\'ener or copyist 
 of the time " (p. 38j, and Mr. Richard Simpson had previously 
 said the same. No doubt these critics had remarked the " orna- 
 mental dot " in some of the alleged Shakspere signatures, but 
 they omit to refer us to otlier lay-writings, or signatures, in which 
 this mark of the scrivener (besides the character of the writing) 
 may be found. ^ At any rate, whatever may be thought of my 
 suggestion with regard to the Blackfriars purchase deed signature, 
 and the " Wallace " signature, I remain fully convinced that 
 the words " By me William " of the third Will signature were 
 not written by the same hand as penned the following scrawl which 
 stands for the surname. 
 
 Shakspere, it may be here added, must have had a large number 
 of business transactions at Stratford, but not one of his signatures 
 has come down to us except those already mentioned — an unfor- 
 tunate, and, surely, a rather remarkable fact! 
 
 And now, what is the conclusion of the whole matter ? We 
 have seen how little faith is to be placed in the paleographers. The 
 paleographer of to-day disagrees with the paleographer of yesterday, 
 and the paleographers of to-day disagree amongst themselves. 
 They are unable even to agree as to how a recently-discovered 
 signature of Shakspere, which is supposed to show that he was 
 " capable of writing in fluent style," and which is alleged to be 
 " the key of this leading factor of the problem," is to be read. 
 
 Now, as I have already said, I am not a " paleographer," and I 
 certainly do not propose to make any attempt to follow Sir E. 
 Maunde Thompson's minute examination of the forms and con- 
 
 ^ "Shakespeare" does not appear to have used it in the Harleian MS.!
 
 36 SHAKSPERE'S HANDWRITING. 
 
 struction of the letters of those depressing hieroglyphics known as 
 " Shakespeare's signatures," or his comparison thereof with the 
 letters found in the " Harleian Addition." He "who undertakes 
 to explain to others the identity of this hand with that hand," 
 writes this paleographer, " may be qualified, riot to force his opinion 
 upon them, but to guide them how to look at things in a way 
 which he has found by study to be the right way to reveal to im- 
 trained eyes points of evidence in tlie documents under examination, 
 which, without such guidance, might escape them. When he has 
 done this his task is accomplished, and he leaves it to them to decide 
 whether his conclusions are just." 
 
 Good. I have read Sii' E. Maunde Thompson's work, and done 
 my best to follow his arguments, and I have arrived at the convic- 
 tion that his " conclusions," so far from being " just," are but the 
 baseless fabric of a dream. I am convinced that if this were an 
 ordinary case of the comparison of handwriting, no reasonable 
 man would think of asserting that the " Harleian Addition " was 
 written b}' the same hand as that which wrote the " Shakespeare 
 signatures." It was only the passionate longing to find some 
 " Shakespearian " manuscript which could have suggested such an 
 idea, an idea as fantastic as any that the " Baconians " have ever 
 promulgated. It is only the eyes of those who ardently desire to 
 believe that will see — or imagine that they see — an}' characteristic, 
 common to the two handwritings affording a scintilla of evidence 
 of their identity. The wish has been once more father to the 
 thought. That which has been seen by the believers has been seen 
 by the eyes of faith and not of reason. It is a fond thing vainly 
 invented. But those who wish to believe, will, of course, believe.* 
 
 ^ I would refer the reader to the facsimile of Richard Ouiney's letter to 
 Shakspere, set forth in Shakespeare's England, Vol. I., after p. 294. I verilj' 
 believe that if writing of that character were to be found in an anonymous 
 play of the period, and of fairly good quality as a drama, not only would it be 
 ascribed to Shakspere, but that a better case might be made out for it than for 
 the " Harleian Addition." It is, of course, possible that this addition may 
 have been written by " Shakespeare," but if so the less " Shakspere "he! 
 
 UNIVERf^TTY OF CAUFORNIA 
 SANTA BARBARA
 
 SHELF BINDER 
 
 Z^ Syracuse, N. Y. 
 ^ Stockton, Calif. 
 
 3 1205 03058 6745 
 
 A A 001 403 064 7