p.772:0
SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM (1564–1616), English poet, player and playwright, was baptized in the parish church of Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire on the 26th of April 1564. The exact date of his birth is not known. Two 18th-century antiquaries, William Oldys and Joseph Greene, gave it as April 23, but without quoting authority for their statements, and the fact that April 23 was the day of Shakespeare's death in 1616 suggests a possible source of error. In any case his birthday cannot have been later than April 23, since the inscription upon his monument is evidence that on April 23, 1616, he had already begun his fifty-third year. His father, John Shakespeare, was a burgess of the recently constituted corporation of Stratford, and had already filled certain minor municipal offices. From 1561 to 1563 he had been one of the two chamberlains to whom the finance of the town was entrusted. By occupation he was a glover, but he also appears to have dealt from time to time in various kinds of agricultural produce, such as barley, timber and wool. Aubrey (Lives, 1680) spoke of him as a butcher, and it is quite possible that he bred and even killed the calves whose skins he manipulated. He is sometimes described in formal documents as a yeoman, and it is highly probable that he combined a certain amount of farming with the practice of his trade. He was living in Stratford as early as 1552, in which year he was fined for having a dunghill in Henley Street, but he does not appear to have been a native of the town, in whose records the name is not found before his time; and he may reasonably be identified with the John Shakespeare of Snitterfield, who administered the goods of his father, Richard Shakespeare, in 1561. Snitterheld is a village in the immediate neighbourhood of Stratford, and here Richard Shakespeare had been settled as a farmer since 1529. It is possible that John Shakespeare carried on the farm for some time after his father's death, and that by 1570 he had also acquired a small holding called Ingon in Hampton Lucy, the next village to Snitterfield. But both of these seem to have passed subsequently to his brother Henry, who was buried at Snitterfield in 1596. There was also at Snitterfield a Thomas Shakespeare and an Anthony Shakespeare, who afterwards moved to Hampton Corley; and these may have been of the same family. A John Shakespeare who dwelt at Clifford Chambers, another village close to Stratford, is clearly distinct. Strenuous efforts have been made to trace Shakespeare's genealogy beyond Richard of Snitterfield, but so far without success. Certain drafts of heraldic exemplifications of the Shakespeare arms speak, in one case of John Shakespeare's grandfather, in another of his great-grandfather, as having been rewarded with lands and tenements in Warwickshire for service to Henry VII. No such grants, however, have been traced, and even in the 16th-century statements as to "antiquity and service" in heraldic preambles were looked upon with suspicion.
The name Shakespeare is extremely widespread, and is spelt in an astonishing variety of ways. That of John Shakespeare occurs 166 times in the Council Book of the Stratford corporation, and appears to take 16 different forms. The verdict, not altogether unanimous, of competent palaeographers is to the effect that Shakespeare himself, in the extant examples of his signature, always wrote "Shakspere." In the printed signatures to the dedications of his poems, on the title-pages of nearly all the contemporary editions of his plays that bear his name, and in many formal documents it appears as Shakespeare.
p.772:1
This may be in part due to the martial derivation which the poet's literary contemporaries were fond of assigning to his name, and which is acknowledged in the arms that he bore. The forms in use at Stratford, however, such as Shaxpeare, by far the commonest, suggest a short pronunciation of the first syllable, and thus tend to support Dr Henry Bradley's derivation from the Anglo-Saxon personal name, Seaxberht. It is interesting, and even amusing, to record that in 1487 Hugh Shakspere of Merton College, Oxford, changed his name to Sawndare, because his former name vile reputatum est. The earliest record of a Shakespeare that has yet been traced is in 1248 at Clapton in Gloucestershire, about seven miles from Stratford. The name also occurs during the 13th century in Kent, Essex and Surrey, and during the 14th in Cumberland, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Essex, Warwickshire and as far away as Youghal in Ireland. Thereafter it is found in London and most of the English counties, particularly those of the midlands; and nowhere more freely than in Warwickshire. There were Shakespeares in Warwick and in Coventry, as well as around Stratford; and the clan appears to have been very numerous in a group of villages about twelve miles north of Stratford, which includes Baddesley Clinton, Wroxall, Rowington, Haseley, Hatton, Lapworth, Packwood, Balsall and Knowle. William was in common use as a personal name, and Williams from more than one other family have from time to time been confounded with the dramatist. Many Shakespeares are upon the register of the gild of St Anne at Knowle from about 1457 to about 1526. Amongst these were Isabella Shakespeare, prioress of the Benedictine convent of Wroxall, and Jane Shakespeare, a nun of the same convent. Shakespeares are also found as tenants on the manors belonging to the convent, and at the time of the Dissolution in 1534 one Richard Shakespeare was its bailiff and collector of rents. Conjectural attempts have been made on the one hand to connect the ancestors of this Richard Shakespeare with a family of the same name who held land by military tenure at Baddesley Clinton in the 14th and 15th centuries, and on me other to identify him with the poet's grandfather, Richard Shakespeare of Snitterfield. But Shakespeares are to be traced at Wroxall nearly as far back as at Baddesley Clinton, and there is no reason to suppose that Richard the bailiff, who was certainly still a tenant of Wroxall in 1556, had also since 1529 been farming land ten miles off at Snitterfield.
With the breaking of this link, the hope of giving Shakespeare anything more than a grandfather on the father's side must be laid aside for the present. On the mother's side he was connected with a family of some distinction. Part at least of Richard Shakespeare's land at Snitterfield was held from Robert Arden of Wilmcote in the adjoining parish of Aston Cantlow, a cadet of the Ardens of Parkhall, who counted amongst the leading gentry of Warwickshire. Robert Arden married his second wife, Agnes Hill, formerly Webbe, in 1548, and had then no less than eight daughters by his first wife. To the youngest of these, Mary Arden, he left in 1556 a freehold in Aston Cantlow consisting of a farm of about fifty or sixty acres in extent, known as Asbies. At some date later than November 1556, and probably before the end of 1557, Mary Arden became the wife of John Shakespeare. In October 1556 John Shakespeare had bought two freehold houses, one in Greenhill Street, the other in Henley Street. The latter, known as the wool shop, was the easternmost of the two tenements now combined in the so-called Shakespeare's birthplace. The western tenement, the birthplace proper, was probably already in John Shakespeare's hands, as he seems to have been living in Henley Street in 1552. It has sometimes been thought to have been one of two houses which formed a later purchase in 1575, but there is no evidence that these were in Henley Street at all.
William Shakespeare was not the first child. A Joan was baptized in 1558 and a Margaret in 1562. The latter was buried in 1563 and the former must also have died young, although her burial is not recorded, as a second Joan was baptized in 156o. A Gilbert was baptized in 1566, an Anne in 1571, a Richard in 1574 and an Edmund in 1580. Anne died in 1579; Edmund,
p.773:0
who like his brother became an actor, in 1607; Richard in 1613. Tradition has it that one of Shakespeare's brothers used to visit London in the 17th century as quite an old man. If so, this can only have been Gilbert.
During the years that followed his marriage, John Shakespeare became prominent in Stratford life. In 1565 he was chosen as an alderman, and in 1568 he held the chief municipal office, that of high bailiif. This carried with it the dignity of justice of the peace. John Shakespeare seems to have assumed arms, and thenceforward was always entered in corporation documents as "Mr" Shakespeare, whereby he may be distinguished from another John Shakespeare, a "corviser" or shoemaker, who dwelt in Stratford about 1584-1592. In 1571 as an ex-bailiff he began another year of office as chief alderman.
[Youth]
One may think, therefore, of Shakespeare in his boyhood as the son of one of the leading citizens of a not unimportant provincial market-town, with a vigorous life of its own, which in spite of the dunghills was probably not much unlike the life of a similar town to-day, and with constant reminders of its past in the shape of the stately buildings formerly belonging to its college and its gild, both of which had been suppressed at the Reformation. Stratford stands on the Avon, in the midst of an agricultural country, throughout which in those days enclosed orchards and meadows alternated with open fields for tillage, and not far from the wilder and wooded district known as the Forest of Arden. The middle ages had left it an heritage in the shape of a free grammar-school, and here it is natural to suppose that William Shakespeare obtained a sound enough education3 with a working knowledge of Mantuan"2 and Ovid in the original, even though to such a thorough scholar as Ben Jonson it might seem no more than "small Latin and less Greek." In 1577, when Shakespeare was about thirteen, his father's fortunes began to take a turn for the worse. He became irregular in his contributions to town levies, and had to give a mortgage on his wife's property of Asbies as security for a loan from her brother-in-law, Edmund Lambert. Money was raised to pay this off, partly by the sale of a small interest in land at Snitterfield which had come to Mary Shakespeare from her sisters, partly perhaps by that of the Greenhill Street house and other property in Stratford outside Henley Street, none of which seems to have ever come into William Shakespeare's hands. Lambert, however, refused to surrender the mortgage on the plea of older debts, and an attempt to recover Asbies by litigation proved ineffectual. John Shakespeare's difficulties increased. An action for debt was sustained against him in the local court, but no personal property could be found on which to distrain. He had long ceased to attend the meetings of the corporation, and as a consequence he was removed in 1586 from the list of aldermen. In this state of domestic affairs it is not likely that Shakespeare's school life was unduly prolonged. The chances are that he was apprenticed to some local trade. Aubrey says that he killed calves for his father, and "would do it in a high style, and make a speech."
fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, was master of the school in 1570-1572, so that its standard must have been good.
translated by Turberville in 1567.
[Marriage]
Whatever his circumstances, they did not deter him at the early age of eighteen from the adventure of marriage. Rowe recorded the name of Shakespeare's wife as Hathaway, and Joseph Greene succeeded in tracing her to a family of that name dwelling in Shottery, one of the hamlets of Stratford. Her monument gives her first name as Anne, and her age as sixty-seven in 1623. She must, therefore, have been about eight years older than Shakespeare. Various small trains of evidence point to her identification with the daughter Agnes mentioned in the will of a Richard Hathaway of Shottery, who died in 1581, being then in possession of the farm-house now known as "Anne Hathaway's Cottage." Agnes was legally distinct name from Anne, but there can be no doubt that ordinary custom treated them as identical. The principal record of the
p.773:1
marriage is a bond dated on November 28, 1582, and executed by Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, two yeomen of Stratford who also figure in Richard Hathaway's will, as a security to the bishop for the issue of a licence for the marriage of William Shakespeare and "Anne Hathwey of Stratford," upon the consent of her friends, with one asking of the banns. There is no reason to suppose, as has been suggested, that the procedure adopted was due to dislike of the marriage on the part of John Shakespeare, since, the bridegroom being a minor, it would not have been in accordance with the practice of the bishop's officials to issue the licence without evidence of the father's consent. The explanation probably lies in the fact that Anne was already with child, and in the near neighbourhood of Advent within which marriages were prohibited, so that the ordinary procedure by banns would have entailed a delay until after Christmas. A kindly sentiment has suggested that some form of civil marriage, or at least contract of espousals, had already taken place, so that a canonical marriage was really only required in order to enable Anne to secure the legacy left her by her father "at the day of her marriage." But such a theory is not rigidly required by the facts. It is singular that, upon the day before that on which the bond was executed, an entry was made in the bishop's register of the issue of a licence for a marriage between William Shakespeare and "Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton." Of this it can only be said that the bond, as an original document, is infinitely the better authority, and that a scribal error of "Whateley" for "Hathaway" is quite a possible solution. Temple Grafton may have been the nominal place of marriage indicated in the licence, which was not always the actual place of residence of either bride or bridegroom. There are no contemporary registers for Temple Grafton, and there is no entry of the marriage in those for Stratford-upon- Avon. There is a tradition that such a record was seen during the 19th century in the registers for Luddington, a chapelry within the parish, which are now destroyed. Shakespeare's first child, Susanna, was baptized on the 26th of May 1583, and was followed on the 2nd of February 1585 by twins, Hamnet and Judith.
[Obscure years, 1584-1592]
In or after 1584 Shakespeare's career in Stratford seems to have come to a tempestuous close. An 18th-century story of a drinking-bout in a neighbouring village is of no Obscure importance, except as indicating a local impression that a distinguished citizen had had a wildish youth. But there is a tradition which comes from a double source and which there is no reason to reject in substance, to the effect that Shakespeare got into trouble through poaching on the estates of a considerable Warwickshire magnate, Sir Thomas Lucy, and found it necessary to leave Stratford in order to escape the results of his misdemeanour. It is added that he afterwards took his revenge on Lucy by satirizing him as the Justice Shallow, with the dozen white louses in his old coat, of The Merry Wives of Windsor. From this event until he emerges as an actor and rising playwright in 1592 his history is a blank, and it is impossible to say what experience may not have helped to fill it. Much might indeed be done in eight years of crowded Elizabethan life. Conjecture has not been idle, and has assigned him in turns during this or some other period to the occupations of a scrivener, an apothecary, a dyer, a printer, a soldier, and the like. The suggestion that he saw military service rests largely on a confusion with another William Shakespeare of Rowington. Aubrey had heard that "he had been in his younger years a schoolmaster in the country." The mention in Henry IV. of certain obscure yeomen families, Visor of Woncote and Perkes of Stinchcombe Hill, near Dursley in Gloucestershire, has been thought to suggest a sojourn in that district, where indeed Shakespeares were to be found from ¤ an early date. Ultimately, of course, he drifted to London and the theatre, where, according to the stage tradition, he found employment in a menial capacity, perhaps even as a holder of horses at the doors, before he was admitted into a company as an actor and so found his way to his true vocation as a writer of plays. Malone thought that he might have left
p.774:0
Stratford with one of the travelling companies of players which from time to time visited the town. Later biographers have fixed upon Leicester's men, who were at Stratford in 1587, and have held that Shakespeare remained to the end in the same company, passing with it on Leicester's death in 1588 under the patronage of Ferdinando, Lord Strange and afterwards earl of Derby, and on Derby's death in 1594 under that of the lord chamberlain, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon. This theory perhaps hardly takes sufficient account of the shifting combinations and recombinations of actors, especially during the disastrous plague years of 1592 to 1594. The continuity of Strange's company with Leicester's is very disputable, and while the names of many members of Strange's company in and about 1593 are on record, Shakespeare's is not amongst them. It is at least possible, as will be seen later, that he had about this time relations with the earl of Pembroke's men, or with the earl of Sussex's men, or with both of these organizations.
[Playwright and poet]
What is clear is that by the summer of 1592, when he was twenty-eight, he had begun to emerge as a playwright, and had evoked the jealousy of one at least of the group of scholar poets who in recent years had claimed a monopoly of the stage. This was Robert Greene, who, in an invective on behalf of the play-makers against the play-actors which forms part of his Groats-worth of Wit, speaks of "an upstart Crow, beautiiied with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrap! in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac iotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie." The play upon Shakespeare's name and the parody of a line from Henry VI. make the reference unmistakable.3 The London theatres were closed, first through riots and then through plague, from June 1592 to April 1594, with the exception of about a month at each Christmas during that period; and the companies were dissolved or driven to the provinces. Even if Shakespeare had been connected with Strange's men during their London seasons of 1592 and 1593, it does not seem that he travelled with them. Other activities may have been sufficient to occupy the interval. The most important of these was probably an attempt to win a reputation in the world of non-dramatic poetry. Venus and Adonis was published about April 1593, and Lucrece about May 1594. The poems were printed by Richard Field, in whom Shakespeare would have found an old Stratford acquaintance; and each has a dedication to Henry Wriothesley, earl of South- ampton, a brilliant and accomplished favourite of the court, still in his nonage. A possibly super-subtle criticism discerns an increased warmth in the tone of the later dedication, which is supposed to argue a marked growth of intimacy. The fact of this intimacy is vouched for by the story handed down from Sir William Davenant to Rowe (who published in 1709 the first regular biography of Shakespeare) that Southampton gave Shakespeare a thousand pounds "to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to." The date of this generosity is not specified, and there is no known purchase by Shakespeare which can have cost anything like the sum named. The mention of Southampton leads naturally to the most difficult problem which a biographer has to handle, that of the Sonnets. But this will be more conveniently taken up at a later point, and it is only necessary here to put on record the probability that the earliest of the sonnets belong to the period now under discussion. There is a surmise, which is not in itself other than plausible, and which has certainly been supported with a good deal of ingenious argument, that Shakespeare's enforced leisure enabled him to make of 1593 a Wanderjahr, and in particular that the traces of a visit to northern Italy may clearly be seen in the local colouring of Lucrece as compared with Venus and Adonis, and in that of the group of plays which may be dated in or about 1594 and 1595 as compared with those that preceded. It must, however, be borne in mind that, while Shakespeare may perfectly well, at this or at some earlier time, have voyaged
Chettle's Kind-hart's Dream (December 1592) refers to Shakespeare.
p.774:1
to Italy, and possibly Denmark and even Germany as well, there is no direct evidence to rely upon, and that inference from internal evidence is a dangerous guide when a writer of so assimilative a temperament as that of Shakespeare is concerned.
[Connexion with the Chamberlain's company of actors]
From the reopening of the theatres in the summer of 1594 onwards Shakespeare's status is in many ways clearer. He had certainly become a leading member of the Chamberlain's company by the following winter, when his name appears for the first and only time in the treasurer of the chamber's accounts as one of the recipients of payment for their performances at court; and there is every reason to suppose that he continued to act with and write for the same associates to the close of his career. The history of the company may be briefly told. At the death of the lord chamberlain on the 22nd of July 1596, it passed under the protection of his successor, George, 2nd Lord Hunsdon, and once more became "the Lord Chamberlain's men" when he was appointed to that office on the 17th of March 1597. James I. on his accession took this company under his patronage as grooms of the chamber, and during the remainder of Shakespeare's connexion with the stage they were "the King's men." The records of performances at court show that they were by far the most favoured of the companies, their nearest rivals being the company known during the reign of Elizabeth as "the Admiral's," and afterwards as "Prince Henry's men." From the summer of 1594 to March I603 they appear to have played almost continuously in London, as the only provincial performances by them which are upon record were during the autumn of 1597, when the London theatres were for a short time closed owing to the interference of some of the players in politics. They travelled again during 1603 when the plague was in London, and during at any rate portions of the summers or autumns of most years thereafter. In 1594 they were playing at Newington Butts, and probably also at the Rose on Bankside, and at the Cross Keys in the city. It is natural to suppose that in later years they used the Theatre in Shoreditch, since this was the property of James Burbage, the father of their principal actor, Richard Burbage. The Theatre was pulled down in 1598, and, after a short interval during which the company may have played at the Curtain, also in Shoreditch, Richard Burbage and his brother Cuthbert rehoused them in the Globe on Bankside, built in part out of the materials of the Theatre. Here the profits of the enterprise were divided between the members of the company as such and the owners of the building as "housekeepers," and shares in the "house" were held in joint tenancy by Shake- speare and some of his leading "fellows." About 1608 another playhouse became available for the company in the "private " or winter house of the Black Friars. This was also the property of the Burbages, but had previously been leased to a company of boy players. A somewhat similar arrangement as to profits was made.
Shakespeare is reported by Aubrey to have been a good actor, but Adam in As You Like It, and the Ghost in Hamlet indicate the type of part which he played. As a dramatist, however, he was the mainstay of the company for at least some fifteen years, during which Ben Jonson, Dekker, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Tourneur also contributed to their repertory. On an average he must have written for them about two plays a year, although his rapidity of production seems to have been greatest during the opening years of the period. There was also no doubt a good deal of rewriting of his own earlier work, and also perhaps, at the beginning, of that of others. Occasionally he may have . entered into collaboration, as, for example, at the end of his career, with Fletcher.
[Stratford Affairs]
In a worldly sense he clearly flourished, and about 1596, if not earlier, he was able to resume relations as a moneyed man with Stratford-on-Avon. There is no evidence to show whether he had visited the town in the interval, or whether he had brought his wife and family to London. His son Hamnet died and was buried at Stratford in 1596. During the last ten years John Shakespeare's affairs had remained unprosperous. He incurred fresh debt, partly through becoming surety for
p.775:0
his brother Henry; and in 1592 his name was included in a list of recusants dwelling at or near Stratford-on-Avon, with a note by the commissioners that in his case the cause was believed to be the fear of process for debt. There is no reason to doubt this explanation, or to seek a religious motive in John Shakespeare's abstinence from church. William Shakespeare's purse must have made a considerable difference. The prosecutions for debt ceased, and in 1597 a fresh action was brought in Chancery for the recovery of Asbies from the Lamberts. Like the last, it seems to have been without result. Another step was taken to secure the dignity of the family by an application in the course of 1596 to the heralds for the confirmation of a coat of arms said to have been granted to John Shakespeare while he was bailiff of Stratford. The bearings were or on a bend sable a spear or steeled argent, the crest a falcon his wings displayed argent supporting a spear or steeled argent, and the motto Non sanz droict. The grant was duly made, and in 1599 there was a further application for leave to impale the arms of Arden, in right of Shakespeare's mother. No use, however, of the Arden arms by the Shakespeares can be traced. In 1597 Shakespeare made an important purchase for £60 of the house and gardens of New Place in Chapel Street. This was one of the largest houses in Stratford, and its acquisition an obvious triumph for the ex-poacher. Presumably John Shakespeare ended his days in peace. A visitor to his shop remembered him as "a merry-cheekt old man" always ready to crack a jest with his son. He died in 1601, and his wife in 1608, and the Henley Street houses passed to Shakespeare. Aubrey records that he paid annual visits to Stratford, and there is evidence that he kept in touch with the life of the place. The correspondence of his neighbours, the Quineys, in 1598 contains an application to him for a loan to Richard Quiney upon a visit to London, and a discussion of possible investments for him in the neighbourhood of Stratford. In 1602 he took, at a rent of 2s. 6d. a year, a copyhold cottage in Chapel Lane, perhaps for the use of his gardener. In the same year he invested £320 in the purchase of an estate consisting of 107 acres in the open fields of Old Stratford, together with a farm-house, garden and orchard, 20 acres of pasture and common rights; and in 1605 he spent another £440 in the outstanding term of a lease of certain great tithes in Stratford parish, which brought in an income of about £60 a year.
[London Associations]
Meanwhile London remained his headquarters. Here Malone thought that he had evidence, now lost, of his residence in South- Lmdon wark as early as 1596, and as late as 1608. It is known that payments of subsidy were due from him for 1597 and 1598 in the parish of St Helen's, Bishopsgate, and that an arrear was ultimately collected in the liberty of the Clink. He had no doubt migrated from Bishopsgate when the Globe upon Bankside was opened by the Chamberlain's men. There is evidence that in 1604 he "lay," temporarily or permanently, in the house of Christopher Mountjoy, a tire-maker of French extraction, at the corner of Silver Street and Monkwell Street in Cripplegate. A recently recovered note by Aubrey, if it really refers to Shakespeare (which is not quite certain), is of value as throwing light not only upon his abode, but upon his personality. Aubrey seems to have derived it from William Beeston the actor, and through him from John Lacy, an actor of the king's company. It is as follows: "The more to be admired q[uod] he was not a company-keeper, lived in Shoreditch, would not be debauched, & if invited to court, he was in paine." Against this testimony to the correctness of Shakespeare's morals are to be placed an anecdote of a green-room amour picked up by a Middle Temple student in 1602 and a Restoration scandal which made him the father by the hostess of the Crown Inn at Oxford, where he baited on his visits to Stratford, of Sir William Davenant, who was born in February 1606. His credit at court is implied by Ben Jonson's references to his flights "that so did take Eliza and our James," and by stories of the courtesies which passed between him and Elizabeth while he was playing a kingly part in her presence, of the origin of The Merry Wives of Windsor in
p.775:1
her desire to see Falstaff in love, and of an autograph letter written to honour him by King James. It was noticed with some surprise by Henry Chettle that his "honied muse" dropped no "sable tear" to celebrate the death of the queen. Southampton's patronage may have introduced him to the brilliant circle that gathered round the earl of Essex, but there is no reason to suppose that he or his company were held personally responsible for the performance of Richard II. at the command of some of the followers of Essex as a prelude to the disastrous rising of February 1601. The editors of the First Folio speak also of favours received by the author in his lifetime from William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, and his brother Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery.
[Friends]
He appears to have been on cordial terms with his fellows of the stage. One of them, Augustine Phillips, left him a small legacy in 1605, and in his own will he paid a similar compliment to Richard Burbage, and to John Heminge and Henry Condell, who afterwards edited his plays. His relations with Ben Jonson, whom he is said by Rowe to have introduced to the world as a playwright, have been much canvassed. Jests are preserved which, even if apocryphal, indicate considerable intimacy between the two. This is not inconsistent with occasional passages of arms. The anonymous author of The Return from Parnassus (2nd part; 1602), for example, makes Kempe, the actor, allude to a "purge "which Shakespeare gave Jonson, in return for his attack on some of his rivals in The Poetaster.3 It has been conjectured that this purge was the description of Ajax and his humours in Troilus and Cressida. Jonson, on the other hand, who was criticism incarnate, did not spare Shakespeare either in his prologues or in his private conversation. He told Drummond of Hawthornden that "Shakspeer wanted arte." But the verses which he contributed to the First Folio are generous enough to make all amends, and in his Discoveries (pub. 1641; written c. 1624 and later), while regretting Shakespeare's excessive facility and the fact that he often "fell into those things, could not escape laughter," he declares him to have been "honest and of an open and free nature," and says that, for his own part, "I lov'd the man and do honour his memory (on this side idolatry) as much as any." According to the memoranda-book (1661-1663) of the Rev. John Ward (who became vicar of Stratford in 1662), Jonson and Michael Drayton, himself a Warwickshire poet, had been drinking with Shakespeare when he caught the fever of which he died; and Thomas Fuller (1608-1661), whose Worthies was published in 1662, gives an imaginative description of the wit combats, of which many took place between the two mighty contemporaries.
[Contemporary Reputation]
Of Shakespeare's literary reputation during his lifetime there is ample evidence. He is probably neither the "Willy" of Spenser's Tears of the Muses, nor the "Aetion" of his Colin Clout's Came Home Again. But from the time of the publication of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece honorific allusions to his work both as poet and dramatist, and often to himself by name, come thick and fast from writers of every kind and degree. Perhaps the most interesting of these from the biographical point of view are those contained in the Palladis Tamia, a kind of literary handbook published by Francis Meres in 1598; for Meres not only extols him as "the most excellent in both kinds [i.e. comedy and tragedy] for the stage," and one of "the most passionate among us to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love," but also takes the trouble to give a list of twelve plays already written, which serves as a starting-point for all modern attempts at a chronological arrangement of his work. It is moreover from Meres that we first hear of "his sugred Sonnets among his private friends." Two of these sonnets were printed in 1599
well. They smell too much of that writer Ovid and that writer (sic) Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and jupiter. Why here`s our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down; aye, and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow. He brought up Horace giving the Poets a pill, but ourfellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him beray his credit."
p.776:0
in a volume of miscellaneous verse called The Passionate Pilgrim. This was ascribed upon the title-page to Shakespeare, but pro- ` bably, so far as most of its contents were concerned, without justification. The bulk of Shakespeare's sonnets remained unpublished until 1609.
[Last Years]
About 1610 Shakespeare seems to have left London, and entered upon the definite occupation of his house at New Place, Stratford. Here he lived the life of a retired gentleman, on friendly if satirical terms with the richest of his neighbours, the Combes, and interested in local affairs, such as a bill for the improvement of the highways in 1611, or a proposed enclosure of the open fields at Welcombe in 1614, which might affect his income or his comfort. He had his garden with its mulberry-tree, and his farm in the immediate neighbourhood. His brothers Gilbert and Richard were still alive; the latter died in 1613. His sister Joan had married William Hart, a batter, and in 1616 was dwelling in one of his houses in Henley Street. Of his daughters, the eldest, Susanna, had married in 1607 John Hall (d. 1635), a physician of some reputation. They dwelt in Stratford, and had one child, Elizabeth, afterwards Lady Barnard (1608-1670). The younger, Judith, married Thomas Quiney, a vintner, also of Stratford, two months before her father's death. At Stratford the last few of the plays may have been written, but it is reasonable to suppose that Shake- speare's connexion with the King's company ended when the Globe was burnt down during a performance of Henry VIII. on the 29th of June 1613. Certainly his retirement did not imply an absolute break with London life. In 1613 he devised an impresa, or emblem, to be painted by Richard Burbage, and worn in the tilt on Accession day by the earl of Rutland, who had been one of the old circle of Southampton and Essex. In the same year he purchased for £140 a freehold house in the Black- friars, near the Wardrobe. This was conveyed to trustees, apparently in order to bar the right which his widow would otherwise have had to dower. In 1615 this purchase involved Shakespeare in a lawsuit for the surrender of the title-deeds. Richard Davies, a Gloucestershire clergyman of the end of the 17th century, reports that the poet "died a papist," and the statement deserves more attention than it has received from biographers. There is indeed little to corroborate it; for an alleged "spiritual testament" of John Shakespeare is of suspected origin, and Davies's own words suggest a late conversion rather than an hereditary faith. On the other hand, there is little to refute it beyond an entry in the accounts of Stratford corporation for drink given in 1614 to "a preacher at the Newe Place."
[Will]
Shakespeare made his will on the 25th of March 1616, apparently in some haste, as the executed deed is a draft with many erasures and interlineations. There were legacies to his daughter Judith Quiney and his sister Joan Hart, and remembrances to friends both in Warwickshire and in London; but the real estate was left to his sister Susanna Hall under a strict entail which points to a desire on the part of the testator to found a family. Shakespeare's wife, for whom other provision must have been made, is only mentioned in an inter- lineation, by which the "second best bed with the furniture" was bequeathed to her. Much nonsense has been written about this, but it seems quite natural. The best bed was an important chattel, which would go with the house. The estate was after all not a large one. Aubrey's estimate of its annual value as £200 or £300 a year sounds reasonable enough, and John Ward's statement that Shakespeare spent £1000 a year must surely be an exaggeration. The sum-total of his known investments amounts to £960. Mr Sidney Lee calculates that his theatrical income must have reached £600 a year; but it may be doubted whether this also is not a considerable overestimate. It must be remembered that the purchasing value of money in the 17th century is generally regarded as having been about eight times its present value. Shakespeare's interest in the "houses "of the Globe and Blackfriars probably determined on his death.
A month after his will was signed, on the 23rd of April 1616, Shakespeare died, and as a tithe-owner was buried in the chance of the parish church. Some doggerel upon the stone that covers
p.776:1
the grave has been assigned by local tradition to his own pen. A more elaborate monument, with a bust by the sculptor Gerard Johnson, was in due course set up on the chancel wall.
[Death]
Anne Shakespeare followed her husband on the 6th of August 1623. The family was never founded. Shake- speare's grand-daughter, Elizabeth Hall, made two childless marriages, the first with Thomas Nash of Stratford, the second with John, afterwards Sir John, Barnard of Abington Manor, Northants. His daughter Judith Quiney had three sons, all of whom had died unmarried by 1639. There were, therefore, no direct descendants of Shakespeare in existence after Lady Barnard's death in 1670. Those of his sister, Joan Hart, could however still be traced in 1864. On Lady Barnard's death the Henley Street houses passed to the Harts, in whose family they remained until 1806. They were then sold, and in 1846 were bought for the public. They are now held with Anne Hathaway's Cottage at Shottery as the Birthplace Trust. Lady Barnard had disposed of the Blackfriars house. The rest of the property was sold under the terms of her will, and New Place passed, first to the Cloptons who rebuilt it, and then to the Rev. Francis Gastrell, who pulled it down in 1759. The site now forms a public recreation-ground, and hard by is a memorial building with a theatre in which performances of Shakespeare's plays are given annually in April. Both the Memorial and the Birthplace contain museums, in which books, documents and portraits of Shakespearian interest, together with relics of greater or less authenticity, are stored.
No letter or other writing in Shakespeare's hand can be proved to exist, with the exception of three signatures upon his will, one upon a deposition (May 11, 1612) in a lawsuit with which he was remotely concerned, and two upon deeds (March 10 and 11, 1613) in connexion with the purchase of his Blackfriars house. A copy of Florio's translation of Montaigne (1603) in the British Museum,a copy of the Aldine edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses (1502) in the Bodleian, and a copy of the 1612 edition of Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romaines in the Greenock Library, have all been put forward with some plausibility as bearing his autograph name or initials, and, in the third case, a marginal note by him. A passage in the manuscript of the play of Sir Thomas More has been ascribed to him (vide infra), and, if the play is his, might be in his handwriting. Aubrey records that he was "a handsome, well-shap't man," and the lameness attributed to him by some writers has its origin only in a too literal interpretation of certain references to spiritual disabilities in the Sonnets.
[Dramas]
A collection of Mr William Shakespeards Comedies, Histories and Tragedies was printed at the press of William and Isaac jaggard, and issued by a group of booksellers in 1623. This volume is known as the First Folio. It has dedications to the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, and to "the great Variety of Readers," both of which are signed by two of Shakespeare's "fellows "at the Globe, John Heminge and Henry Condell, and commendatory verses by Ben Jonson, Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges and an unidentified I. M. The Droeshout engraving forms part of the title-page. The contents include, with the exception of Pericles, all of the thirty-seven plays now ordinarily printed in editions of Shakespeare's works. Of these eighteen were here published for the first time. The other eighteen had already appeared in one or more separate editions, known as the Quartos.
The following list gives the date of the First Quarto of each such play, and also that of any later Quarto which differs materially from the First.
[[ed: reformatted from the original]]
The Quarto Editions.
p.777:0 [[ed: TODO italicising]]
Entries in the Register of copyrights kept by the Company of Stationers indicate that editions of As You Like It and Anthony and Cleopatra were contemplated but not published in 1600 and 1608 respectively.
The Quartos differ very much in character. Some of them contain texts which are practically identical with those of the First Folio; others show variations so material as to suggest that some revision, either by rewriting or by shortening for stage purposes, took place. Amongst the latter are 2, 3 Henry VI., Richard III., Romeo and Juliet, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Hamlet and King Lear. Many scholars doubt whether the Quarto versions of 2, 3 Henry VI., which appeared under the titles of The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, are Shakespeare's work at all. It seems clear that the Quartos of The Troublesome Reign of John King of England (1591) and The Taming of A Shrew (1594), although treated for copyright purposes as identical with the plays of King John and The Taming of the Shrew, which he founded upon them, are not his. The First Quartos of Romeo and Juliet, Henry V., The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Hamlet seem to be mainly based, not upon written texts of the plays, but upon versions largely made up out of shorthand notes taken at the theatre by the agents of a piratical bookseller. A similar desire to exploit the commercial value of Shakespeare's reputation probably led to the appearance of his name or initials upon the title-pages of Locrine (1595), Sir John Oldcastle (1600), Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), The London Prodigal (1605), The Puritan (1607), A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608), and Pericles (1609). It is not likely that, with the exception of the last three acts of Pericles, he wrote any part of these plays, some of which were not even produced by his company. They were not included in the First Folio of 1623, nor in a reprint of it in 1632, known as the Second Folio; but all seven were appended to the second issue (1664) of the Third Folio (1663), and to the Fourth Folio of 1685. Shakespeare is named as joint author with John Fletcher on the title-page of The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634), and with William Rowley on that of The Birth of Merlin (1662); there is no reason for rejecting the former ascription or for accepting the latter. Late entries in the Stationers' Register assign to him Cardenio (with Fletcher), Henry I. and Henry II. (both with Robert Davenport), King Stephen, Duke Humphrey, and Iphis and Ianthe; but none of these plays is now extant. Modern conjecture has attempted to trace his hand in other plays, of which Arden of Feversham (1592), Edward III. (1596), Mucedorus (1598), and The Merry Devil of Edmonton (1608) are the most important; it is quite possible that he may have had a share in Edward III. A play on Sir Thomas More, which has been handed down in manuscript, contains a number of passages, interpolated in various handwritings, to meet requirements of the censor; and there are those who assign one of these (ii. 4, 1-172) to Shakespeare.
[Dates]
Unfortunately the First Folio does not give the dates at which the plays contained in it were written or produced; and the endeavour to supply this deficiency has been one of the main preoccupations of more than a century of Shakespearian scholarship, since the pioneer essay of Edmund Malone in his An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays of Shakespeare were Written (1778). The investigation is not a mere piece of barren antiquarianism, for on it depends the possibility of appreciating the work of the world's greatest poet, not as if it were an articulated whole like a philosophical system, but in its true aspect as the reflex of a vital and constantly developing personality. A starting-point is afforded by the dates of the Quartos and the entries in the Stationers' Register which refer to them, and by the list of plays already in existence in 1598 which is inserted by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia of that year, and which, while not necessarily exhaustive of Shakespeare's pre-1598 writing, includes The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, A Mid- summer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II., Richard III., Henry IV., King John, Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet, as well as a mysterious Love's Labour's Won,
p.777:1 [[ed: TODO italicising]]
which has been conjecturally identified with several plays, but most plausibly with The Taming of the Shrew. There is a mass of supplementary evidence, drawn partly from definite notices in other writings or in diaries, letters, account books, and similar records, partly from allusions to contemporary persons and events in the plays themselves, partly from parallels of thought and expression between each play and those near to it in point of time, and partly from considerations of style, includ- ing the so-called metrical tests, which depend upon an analysis of Shakespeare's varying feeling for rhythm at different stages of his career. The total result is certainly not a demonstration, but in the logical sense an hypothesis which serves to colligate the facts and is consistent with itself and with the known events of Shakespeare's external life.
The following table, which is an attempt to arrange the original dates of production of the plays without regard to possible revisions, may be taken as fairly representing the common results of recent scholarship. It is framed on the assumption that, as indeed John Ward tells us was the case, Shakespeare ordinarily wrote two plays a year; but it will be understood that neither the order in which the plays are given nor the distribution of them over the years lays claim to more than approximate accuracy.
[[ed: TODO reformat?]]
Chronology of the Plays
|| 1591 || (1, 2) The Contention of York and Lancaster (2, 3 Henry VI.) || ||
|| 1592 || (3) 1 Henry V1 || The theatres were closed for riot and plague from June to the end of December ||
|| 1593 || (4) Richard III, (5) Edward III (part only) (6) The Comedy of Errors || (The theatres were closed for plague during February and March ||
|| 1594 || (7) Titus Andronicus, (8) Taming of the Shrew, (9) Love's Labour's Lost, (10) Romeo and Juliet || The theatres were closed for plague during February and March ||
|| 1595 || (11) A Midsummer Night's Dream, (12) The Two Gentlemen of Verona, (13) King John ||
|| 1596 || (14) Richard II, (15) The Merchant of Venice ||
|| 1597 || (16) 1 Henry IV || The theatres were closed for misdemeanour from the end of July to October ||
|| 1598 || (17) 2 Henry IV, (18) Much Ado About Nothing ||
|| 1599 || (19) Henry V, (20) Julius Caesar ||
|| 1600 || (21) The Merry Wives of Windsor, (22) As You Like It ||
|| 1601 || (23) Hamlet, (24) Twelfth Night ||
|| 1602 || (25) Troilus and Cressida, (26) All's Well that End's Well ||
|| 1603 || - || The theatres were closed on Elizabeth's death in March, and remained closed for the plague throughout the year ||
|| 1604 || (27) Measure for Measure, (28) Othello ||
|| 1605 || (29) Macbeth, (30) King Lear ||
|| 1606 || (31) Antony and Cleopatra, (32) Coriolanus ||
|| 1607 || (33) Timon of Athens (unfinished) ||
|| 1608 || (34) Pericles (part only) ||
|| 1609 || (35) Cymbeline ||
|| 1610 || (36) The Winter's Tale ||
|| 1611 || (37) The Tempest ||
|| 1612 || - ||
|| 1613 || (38) The Two Noble Kinsmen (part only) ||
|| 1614 || (39) Henry VIII (part only) ||
A more detailed account of the individual plays may now be attempted. The figures here prefixed correspond to those in the table above.
[Composition]
1, 2. The relation of The Contention of York and Lancaster to 2, 3 Henry VI. and the extent of Shakespeare's responsibility for either or both works have long been subjects of controversy. The extremes of critical opinion are to be found in a theory which regards Shakespeare as the sole author of 2, 3 Henry VI. and The Contention as a shortened and piratical version of the original plays, and in a theory which regards The Contention as written in collaboration by Marlowe, Greene and possibly Peele, and 2, 3 Henry VI. as a revision of
p.778:0
The Contention written, also in collaboration, by Marlowe and Shakespeare. A comparison of the two texts leaves it hardly possible to doubt that the differences between them are to be explained by revision rather than by piracy; but the question of authorship is more difficult. Greene's parody, in the " Shake- scene" passage of his Groats-worth of Wit (1592), of a line which occurs both in The Contention and in 3 Henry VI., while it clearly suggests Shakespeare's connexion with the plays, is evidence neither for nor against the participation of other men, and no sufficient criterion exists for distinguishing between Shakespeare's earliest writing and that of possible collaborators on grounds of style. But there is nothing inconsistent between the reviser's work in 2, 3 Henry VI. and on the one hand Richard III. or on the other the original matter of The Contention, which the reviser follows and elaborates scene by scene. It is difficult to assign to any one except Shakespeare the humour of the Jack Cade scenes, the whole substance of which is in The Contention as well as in Henry VI. Views which exclude Shakespeare alto- gether may be left out of account. Henry VI. is not in Meres's list of his plays, but its inclusion in the First Folio is an almost certain ground for assigning to him some share, if only as reviser, in the completed work.
3. A very similar problem is afforded by 1 Henry VI., and here also it is natural, in the absence of tangible evidence to the contrary, to hold by Shakespeare's substantial responsibility for the play as it stands. It is quite possible that it also may be a revised version, although in this case no earlier version exists; and if so the Talbot scenes (iv. 2-7) and perhaps also the Temple Gardens scene (ii. 4), which are distinguished by certain qualities of style from the rest of the play, may date from the period of revision. Thomas Nash refers to the representation of Talbot on the stage in his Pierce Penilesse, his Supplicalion to the Divell (1592), and it is probable that 1 Henry VI. is to be identified with the "Harey the vj." recorded in Henslowe's Diary to have been acted as a new play by Lord Strange's men, probably at the Rose, on the grd of March 1592. If so, it is a reasonable conjecture that the two parts of The Contention were originally written at some date before the beginning of Henslowe's record in the previous February, and were revised so as to fall into a series with 1 Henry VI. in the latter end of 1592.
4. The series as revised can only be intended to lead directly up to Richard III ., and this relationship, together with its style as compared with that of the plays belonging to the autumn of 1594, suggest the short winter season of 1592-1593 as the most likely time for the production of Richard III. There is a difficulty in that it is not included in Henslowe's list of the plays acted by Lord Strange's men during that season. But it may quite well have been produced by the only other company which appeared at court during the Christmas festivities, Lord Pembroke's. The mere fact that Shakespeare wrote a play, or more than one play, for Lord Strange's men during 1592-1594 does not prove that he never wrote for any other company during the same period; and indeed there is plenty of room for guess-work as to the relations between Strange's and Pembroke's men. The latter are not known to have existed before 1592, and many difhculties would be solved by the assumption that they originated out of a division of Strange's, whose numbers, since their amalgamation with the Admiral's, may have been too much inflated to enable them to undertake as a whole the summer tour of that year. If so, Pembroke's probably took over the Henry VI. series of plays, since The Contention, or at least the True Tragedy, was published as performed by them, and completed it with Richard III. on their return to London at Christmas. It will be necessary to return to this theory in connexion with the discussion of Titus Andronicus and The Taming of the Shrew. The principal historical source for Henry VI. was Edward Hall's The Union of the Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (1542), and for Richard III., as for all Shakespeare's later historical plays, the second edition (1587) of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (1577). An earlier play, The True Tragedy of Richard the Third (1594), seems to have contributed little if anything to Richard III.
p.778:1
5. Many scholars think that at any rate the greater part of the first two acts of Edward III., containing the story of Edward's wooing of the countess of Salisbury, are by Shakespeare; and, if so, it is to about the time of Richard III. that the style of his contribution seems to belong. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register on December 1, 1595. The Shakespearian scenes are based on the 46th Novel in William Paynter's Palace of Pleasure (1566). The line, " Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds " (ii. 1. 451), is repeated verbatim in the 94th sonnet.
6. To the winter season of 1592-1593 may also be assigned with fair probability Shakespeare's first experimental comedy, The Comedy of Errors, and if his writing at one and the same time for Pembroke's and for another company is not regarded as beyond the bounds of conjecture, it becomes tempting to identify this with "the gelyous comodey" produced, probably by Strange's men, for Henslowe as a new play on January 5, 1593. The play contains a reference to the wars of succession in France which would fit any date from 1589 to 1594. The plot is taken from the Menaechmi, and to a smaller extent from the Amphitruo of Plautus. William Warner's translation of the Menaechmi was entered in the Stationers' Register on June 10, 1594. A performance of The Comedy of Errors by "a company of base and common fellows " (including Shakespeare?) is recorded in the Gesta Grayarum as taking place in Gray's Inn hall on December 28, 1594.
p.779:0
8. In the same way was probably also acquired an old play of The Taming of A Shrew. This, which can be traced back as far as 1589, was published as acted by Pembroke's men in 1594. In June of that year it was being acted by the Chamberlain's, but more probably in the revised version by Shakespeare, which bears the slightly altered title of The Taming of The Shrew. This is a much more free adaptation of its original than had been attempted in the case of Henry VI., and the Warwickshire allusions in the Induction are noteworthy. Some critics have doubted whether Shakespeare was the sole author of The Shrew, and others have assigned him a share in A Shrew, but neither theory has any very substantial foundation. The origins of the play, which is to be classed as a farce rather than a comedy, are to be found ultimately in widely distributed folk-tales, and more immediately in Ariosto's I Suppositi (1509) as translated in George Gascoigne's The Supposes (1566). It may have been Shakespeare's first task for the newly established Chamberlain's company of 1594 to furbish up the old farce. Thenceforward there is no reason to think that he ever wrote for any other company.
9. Love's Labour's Lost has often been regarded as the first of Shakespeare's plays, and has sometimes been placed as early as 1589. There is, however, no proof that Shakespeare was writing before 1592 or thereabouts. The characters of Love's Labour's Lost are evidently suggested by Henry of Navarre, his followers Biron and Longaville, and the Catholic League leader, the duc de Maine. These personages would have been familiar at any time from 1585 onwards. The absence of the play from the lists in Henslowe's Diary does not leave it impossible that it should have preceded the formation of the Chamberlain's company, but certainly renders this less likely; and its lyric character perhaps justifies its being grouped with the series of plays that began in the autumn of 1594. No entry of the play is found in the Stationers' Register, and it is quite possible that the present First Quarto of 1598 was not really the first edition. The title-page professes to give the play as it was "corrected and augmented" for the Christmas either of 1597 or of 1598. It was again revived for that of 1604. No literary source is known for its incidents.
10. Romeo and Juliet, which was published in 1597 as played by Lord Hunsdon's men, was probably produced somewhat before A Midsummer Night's Dream, as its incidents seem to have suggested the parody of the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude. An attempt to date it in 1591 is hardly justified by the Nurse's references to an earthquake eleven years before and the fact that there was a real earthquake in London in 1580. The text seems to have been partly revised before the issue of the Second Quarto in 1599. There had been an earlier play on the subject, but the immediate source used by Shakespeare was Arthur Brooke's narrative poem Romeus and Juliet (1562).
11. A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its masque-like scenes of fairydom and the epithalamium at its close, has all the air of having been written less for the public stage than for some courtly wedding; and the compliment paid by Oberon to the "fair vestal throned by the west" makes it probable that it was a wedding at which Elizabeth was present. Two fairly plausible occasions have been suggested. The wedding of Mary countess of Southampton with Sir Thomas Heneage on the 2nd of May 1594 would at the May-day setting of the plot; but a widowed countess hardly answers to the "little western flower" of the allegory, and there are allusions to events later in 1594 and in particular to the rainy weather of June and July, which indicate a somewhat later date. The wedding of William Stanley, earl of Derby, brother of the lord Strange for whose players Shakespeare had written, and Elizabeth Vere, daughter of the earl of Oxford, which took place at Greenwich on the 26th of January 1595, perhaps fits the conditions best. It has been fancied that Shakespeare was present when "certain stars shot madly from their spheres" in the Kenilworth fireworks of 1575, but if he had any such entertainment in mind it is more likely to have been the more recent one given to Elizabeth by the earl of Hertford at Elvetham in 1591. There appears to be no special
p.779:1
source for the play beyond Chaucer's Knight's Tale and the widespread fairy lore of western Europe.
12. No very definite evidence exists for the date of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, other than the mention of it in Palladis Tamia. It is evidently a more rudimentary essay in the genre of romantic comedy than The Merchant of Venice, with which it has other affinities in its Italian colouring and its use of the inter-relations of love and friendship as a theme; and it may therefore be roughly assigned to the neighbourhood of 1595. The plot is drawn from various examples of contemporary fiction, especially from the story of the shepherdess Filismena in Jorge de Montemayor's Diana (1559). A play of Felix and Philiomena had already been given at court in 1585.
13. King John is another play for which 1595 seems a likely date, partly on account of its style, and partly from the improbability of a play on an independent subject drawn from English history being interpolated in the middle either of the Yorkist or of the Lancastrian series. It would seem that Shakespeare had before him an old play of the Queen's men, called The Troublesome Reign of King John. This was published in 1591, and again, with "W. Sh." on the title-page, in 1611. For copyright purposes King John appears to have been regarded as a revision of The Troublesome Reign, and in fact the succession of incidents in the two plays is much the same. Shakespeare's dialogue, however, owes little or nothing to that of his predecessor.
14. Richard II. can be dated with some accuracy by a comparison of the two editions of Samuel Daniel's narrative poem on The Civil Wars Between the Two Houses of Lancaster and York, both of which bear the date of 1595 and were therefore issued between March 25, 1595 and March 24, 1596 of the modern reckoning. The second of these editions, but not the first, contains some close parallels to the play. From the first two quartos of Richard II., published in 1597 and 1598, the deposition scene was omitted, although it was clearly part of the original structure of the play, and its removal leaves an obvious mutilation in the text. There is some reason to suppose that this was due to a popular tendency to draw seditious parallels between Richard and Elizabeth; and it became one of the charges against the earl of Essex and his fellow-conspirators in the abortive emeute of February 1601, that they had procured a performance of a play on Richard's fate in order to stimulate their followers. As the actors were the Lord Chamberlain's men, this play can hardly have been any other than Shakespeare's. The deposition scene was not printed until after Elizabeth's death, in the Third Quarto of 1608.
15. The Merchant of Venice, certainly earlier than July 22, 1598, on which date it was entered in the Stationers' Register, and possibly inspired by the machinations of the Jew poisoner Roderigo Lopez, (who was executed in june 1594, shows a considerable advance in comic and melodramatic power over any of the earlier plays, and is assigned by a majority of scholars to about 1596. The various stories of which its plot is compounded are based upon common themes of folk-tales and Italian novelle. It is possible that Shakespeare may have had before him a play called The Jew, of which there are traces as early as 1579, and in which motives illustrating "the greedinesse of worldly chusers" and the "bloody mindes of usurers" appear to have been already combined. Something may also be owing to Marlowe's play of The Jew of Malta.
16, 17. The existence of Richard II. is assumed throughout in Henry IV., which probably therefore followed it after no long interval. The first part was published in 1598, the second not until 1600, but both parts must have been in existence before the entry of the first part in the Stationers' Register on February 25th 1598, since Falstaff is named in this entry, and a slip in a speech-prefix of the second part, which was not entered in the Register until August 23rd 1600, betrays that it was written when the character still bore the name of Sir John Oldcastle. Richard James, in his dedication to The Legend of Sir John Oldcastle about 1625, and Rowe in 1709 both bear witness to the substitution of the one personage for the other, which Rowe
p.780:0
ascribes to the intervention of Elizabeth, and James to that of some descendants of Oldcastle, one of whom was probably Lord Cobham. There is an allusion to the incident and an acknowledgment of the wrong done to the famous Lollard martyr in the epilogue to 2 Henry IV. itself. Probably Shakespeare found Oldcastle, with very little else that was of service to him, in an old play called The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, which had been acted by Tarlton and the Queen's men at least as far back as 1588, and of which an edition was printed in 1598. Falstaff himself is a somewhat libellous presentment of the 15th century leader, Sr John Fastolf, who had already figured in Henry VI.; but presumably Fastolf has no titled descendants alive in 1598.
18. An entry in the Stationers' Register during 1600 shows that Much Ado About Nothing was in existence, although its publication was then directed to be "stayed." It may plausibly be regarded as the earliest play not included in Meres's list. In 1613 it was revived before James I. under the alternative title of Benedick and Beatrice. Dogberry is said by Aubrey to have been taken from a constable at Grendon in Buckinghamshire. There is no very definite literary source for the play, although some of its incidents are to be found in Ariosto's Orlando Furioso and Bandello's novelle, and attempts have been made to establish relationships between it and two early German plays, Jacob Ayrer's Die Schone Phaenicia and the Vincentius Ladiszlau of Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick.
19. The completion of the Lancastrian series of histories by Henry V. can be safely placed in or about 1599, since there is an allusion in one of the choruses to the military operations in Ireland of the earl of Essex,who crossed on March 27 and returned on September 28, 1599. The First Quarto, which was first "stayed" with Much Ado About Nothing and then published in 1600, is a piratical text, and does not include the choruses A genuine and perhaps slightly revised version was first published in the First Folio.
20. That Julius Caesar also belongs to 1599 is shown, not only by its links with Henry V. but also by an allusion to it in Johr Weever's Mirror of Martyrs, a work written two years before its publication in 1601, and by a notice of a performance on September 21st, 1599 by Thomas Platter of Basel in an account of a visit to London. This was the first of Shakespeare's Roman plays, and, like those that followed, was based upon Plutarch's Lives as translated from the French of Jacques Amyot and published by Sir Thomas North in 1580. It was also Shakespeare's first tragedy since Romeo and Juliet.
21. It is reported by John Dennis, in the preface to The Comical Gallant (1702), that The Merry Wives of Windsor was written at the express desire of Elizabeth, who wished to see Falstaff in love, and was finished by Shakespeare in the space of a fortnight. A date at the end of 1599 or the beginning of 1600, shortly after the completion of the historical Falstaff plays would be the most natural one for this enterprise, and with such a date the evidence of style agrees. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register on January 18th, 1602. The First Quarto of the same year appears to contain an earlier version of the text than that of the First Folio. Among the passages omitted in the revision was an allusion to the adventures of the duke of Wurttemberg and count of Mompelgard, whose attempts to secure the Garter had brought him into notice. The Windsor setting makes it possible that The Merry Wives was produced at a Garter feast, and perhaps with the assistance of the children of Windsor Chapel in the fairy parts. The plot has its analogies to various incidents in Italian novelle and in English adaptations of these.
22. As You Like It was one of the plays "stayed" from publication in 1600, and cannot therefore be later than that year. Some trifling bits of evidence suggest that it is not earlier than 1599 The plot is based upon Thomas Lodge's romance of Rosalynde (1590), and this in part upon the pseudo-Chaucerian Tale of Gamelyn.
23. A play of Hamlet was performed, probably by the Chamberlain's men, for Henslowe at Newington Butts on the 9th of June
p.780:1
24. Twelfth Night may be fairly placed in 1601-1602, since it quotes part of a song included in Robert Jones's First Book of Songs and Airs (1600), and is recorded by John Manningham to have been seen by him at a feast in the Middle Temple hall on February 2nd, 1602. The principal source of the plot was Barnabe Riche's "History of Apolonius and Silla" in his Farewell well to Military Profession (1581).
25. Few of the plays present so many difficulties as Troilus and Cressida, and it cannot be said that its literary history has as yet been thoroughly worked out. A play of the name, "as yt is acted by my Lord Chamberlens men" was entered in the Stationers' Register on February 7th, 1603, with a note that "sufficient authority" must be got by the publisher, James Roberts, before he printed it. This can hardly be any other than Shakespeare's play; but it must have been "stayed," for the First Quarto did not appear until 1609, and on the 28th of January of that year a fresh entry had been made in the Register by another publisher. The text of the Quarto differs in certain respects from that of the Folio, but not to a greater extent than the use of different copies of the original manuscript might explain. Two alternative title-pages are found in copies of the Quarto. On one, probably the earliest, is a statement that the play was printed "as it was acted by the Kings Maiesties seruants at the Globe"; from the other these words are omitted, and a preface is appended which hints that the "grand possessors" of the play had made difficulties about its publication, and describing it as "never staled with the stage." Attempts have been made, mainly on grounds of style, to find another hand than Shakespeare's in the closing scenes and in the prologue, and even to assign widely different dates to various parts of what is ascribed to Shakespeare. But the evidence does not really bear out these theories, and the style of the whole must be regarded as quite consistent with a date in 1601 or 1602. The more probable year is 1602, if, as seems not unlikely, the description of Ajax and his humours in the second scene of the first act is Shakespeare's "purge" to Johnson in reply to the Poetaster (1601), alluded to, as already mentioned, in the Return from Parnassus, a Cambridge play acted probably at the Christmas of 1602-1603 (rather than, as is usually asserted, 1601-1602). It is tempting to conjecture that Troilus and Cressida may have been played, like Hamlet, by the Chamberlain's men at Cambridge, but may never have been taken to London, and in this sense "never staled with the stage." The only difficulty of a date in 1602 is that a parody of a play on Troilus and Cressida is introduced into Histriomastix (c. 1599), and that in this Troilus "shakes his furious speare." But Henslowe had produced another play on the subject, by Dekker and Chettle, in 1599, and probably, therefore,
SHAKE no allusion to Shakespeare is really intended. The material for T roilus and Cressida was taken by Shakespeare from Chaucer’s T railus and Criseyde, Caxton’s Recuyell of the H istoryes of Troye, and Chapman’s Homer. 26. It is almost wholly on grounds of style that All’s Well that Ends Well is placed by most critics in or about 1602, and, as in the case of T roilus and Cressida, it has been argued, though with little justification, that parts of the play are of considerably earlier date, and perhaps represent the Lo·ve’s Lab0ur’s Won referred to by Meres. The story is derived from Boccaccio’s Decarneron through the medium of William Paynte1·’s Palace of Pleasure (1566). 27. Measure for Measure is believed to have been played at court on the 26th of December 1604. The evidence for this is to be found, partly in an extract made for Malone from oiiicial records now lost, and partly in a forged document, which may, however, rest upon genuine information, placed amongst the account—books of the Office of the Revels. If this is correct the play was probably produced when the theatres were reopened after the plague in 1604. The plot is taken from a story already used by George Whetstone, both in his play of Promos and Cassandra (1578) and in his prose H eptameron 0f Civil Discourses (1582), and borrowed by him from Giraldi Cinthio’s H eeatornmithi (1 566). 28. A performance at court of Othello on November 1, 1604, is noted in the same records as those quoted with regard to Measure for Measure, and the play may be reasonably assigned to the same year. An alleged performance at Harefield in 1602 certainly rests upon a forgery. The play was revived in 1610 and seen by Prince Louisjof Wiirttemberg at the Globe on April 3c of that year. It was entered in the Stationers’ Register on October 6, 1621, and a First Quarto was published in 1622. The text of this is less satisfactory than that of the First Folio, and omits a good many lines found therein and almost certainly belonging to the play as first written. It also contains some profane expressions which have been modified in the Folio, and thereby points to a date for the original production earlier than the Act to Restrain Abuses of Players passed in the spring of 1606. The plot, like that of Measure for Measure, comes from the H ecatommithi (1566) of Giraldi Cinthio. 29. M acbeth cannot,`in view of its obvious allusions to ]ames I. be of earlier date than 1603. The style and some trifling allusion: point to about I60S or 1606, and a hint for the theme may have been given by Matthew Gwynne’s entertainment of the Tre: Sibyllae, with which james was welcomed to Oxford on August 27, 1605. The play was revived in 1610 and Simon Forman savs it at the Globe on April 20. The only extant text, that of th< First Folio, bears traces of shortening, and has been interpolatec with additional rhymed dialogues for the witches by a seconc . hand, probably that of Thomas Middleton. But the exten of Midd1eton’s contribution has been exaggerated; it is probably confined to act iii. sc. 5, and a few lines in act. iv. sc. 1. A ballac of M acdobeth was entered in the Stationers’ Register on Augus 27, 1596, but is not known. It is not likely that Shakespeare har consulted any Scottish history other than that included i1 Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicle; he may have gathered witchlon from Reginald Scot’s Diseooerie of Witchcraft (1584) or Kin; ]ames’s own Demonologie (1599). 30. The entry of King Lear in the Stationers’ Register 01 November 26, 1607, records the performance of the play at cour on December 26, 1606. This suggests 1605 or I606 as the datt of production, and this is confirmed by the publication in 160 of the older play, The True Chronicle History of King Leir, whicl Shakespeare used as his source. Two Quartos of King Lea were published in 1608, and contain a text rather longer, bu in other respects less accurate, than that of the First Folic The material of the play consists of fragments of Celtic mytl which found their way into history through Geoffrey of Mon mouth. It was accessible to Shakespeare in Holinshed and iz Spenser’s Faerie Queene, as well as in the old play. 31. It is not quite clear whether Antony and Cleopatra wa the play of that name entered in the Stationers’ Register on Ma 20, 1608, for no Quarto is extant, and a fresh entry was mad in the Register before the issue of the First Folio. Apart fror
SPE ARE 7 8 1 this entry, there is little external evidence to fix the date of the play, but it is in Shakespeare’s later, although not his last manner, and may very well belong to 1606. 32. In the case of Ccrivlanus the external evidence available is even scantier, and all that can be said is that its closest afhnities are to Antony and Cleopatra, which in all probability it directly followed or preceded in order of composition. Both plays, like Julius Caesar, are based upon the Lives of Plutarch, as Englished by Sir Thomas North. 33. There is no external evidence as to the date of Timcn of Athens, but it may safely be grouped on the strength of its internal characteristics with the plays just named, and there is ~ a clear gulf between it and those that follow. It may be placed , provisionally in 1607. The critical problems which it presents have never been thoroughly worked out. The extraordinary . incoherencies of its action and inequalities of its style have prevented modern scholars from accepting it as a finished pro- duction of Shakespeare, but there agreement ceases. It is some- = times regarded as an incomplete draft for an intended play; sometimes as a Shakespearian fragment worked over by a . second hand either for the stage or for printing in the First Folio; sometimes, but not very plausibly, as an old play by an inferior , writer which Shakespeare had partly remodelled. It does not » seem to have had any relations to an extant academic play of l Tirnon which remained in manuscript until.1842. The sources : are to be found, partly in Plutarch’s Life of Marcus Antonius, » partly in Lucian’s dialogue of T irnvn or M isanthrapvs, and partly » in William Paynter’s Palace of Pleasure (1566). n 34. Similar difficulties, equally unsolved, cling about Pericles. : It was entered in the Stationers’ Register on May 20, I60S, and l published in 1609 as " the late and much admired play " acted * by the King’s men at the Globe. The title-page bears Shake- : speare’s name, but the play was not includedin the First Folio, , and was only added to Shakespeards collected works in the ‘ Third Folio, in company. with others which, although they also ; had been printed under his name or initials in quarto form, s are certainly not his. In I60S was published a prose story, The Painful Adventures of Pericles Prince cf Tyre. This claims , to be the history of the play as it was presented by the King’s s players, and is described in a dedication by George Wilkins 2 as " a poore infant of my braine. " The production of the play s is therefore to be put in 1608 or a little earlier. It can hardly be t doubted on internal evidence that Shakespeare is the author of W the verse-scenes in the last three acts, with the exception of the e doggerel choruses. It is probable, although it has been doubted, l that he was also the author of the prose—scenes in those acts. l To the first two acts he can at most only have contributed a t touch or two. It seems reasonable to suppose that the non- r Shakespearian part of the play is by Wilkins, by whom other l dramatic work was produced about 1607. The prose story t quotes a line or two from Shakespeare’s contribution, and it l follows that this must have been made by 1608. The close 1 resemblances of the style to that of Shakespeare’s latest plays e make it impossible to place it much earlier. But whether Shake- g speare and Wilkins collaborated in the play, or Shakespeare partially rewrote Wilkins, or Wilkins completed Shakespeare, :1 must be regarded as yet undetermined. Unless there was an t earlier Shakespearian version now lost, Dryden’s statement e that " Shakespeare’s own Muse her Pericles first bore "· must 5 be held to be an error. The story is an ancient one which exists h in many versions. In all of these except the play, the name of r the hero is Apollonius of Tyre. The play is directly based upon t a version in Gower’s Ccnfessio Arnantis, and the use of Gower as a >. “ presenter " is thereby explained, But another version in Laur- 1, ence Twine’s Patterne cf Painefull Adventures (c. 1576), of which t- a new edition appeared in 1607, may also have been consulted. n 35. Cymbeline shows a further development than Pericles in the direction of Shakespeare’s final style, and can hardly have .s come earlier. A description of it is in a note-book of Simon y Forman, who died in September 1611, and describes in the same .e book other plays seen by him in 1610 and 1611. But these were n notnecessarily new plays, and Cymbeline may perhaps be assigned
7 8 2 - SHAKE1 conjecturally to 1609. The mask-like dream in act v. sc. 4 must be an interpolation by another hand. This play also is based upon a wide-spread story, probably known to Shakespeare in Boccaccio’s Decameron (day 2, novel 9), and possibly also in an English book of tales called Westward for Smells. The historical part is, as usual, from Holinshed. 36. The Winter’s Tale was seen by Forman on May 15, 1611, and as it clearly belongs to the latest group of plays it may well enough have been produced in the preceding year. A document amongst the Revels Accounts, which is forged, but may rest on some authentic basis, gives November 5, 1611 as the date of a performance at court. The play is recorded to have been licensed by Sir George Buck, who began to license plays in 1607. The plot is from Robert Greene’s Pandosto, the Triumph of Time, or Dorastus and F awnia (1588). 37. The wedding-mask in act iv. of The Tempest has suggested the possibility that it may have been composed to celebrate the marriage of the princess Elizabeth and Frederick V., the elector palatine, on February 14, 1613. But Malone appears to have had evidence, now lost, that the play was performed at court as early as 1611, and the forged document amongst the Revels Accounts gives the precise date of November 1, 1611. Sylvester ]ourdan’s A Discovery of the Bermudas, containing an account of the shipwreck of Sir George Somers in 1609, was pub- lished about October 1610, and this or some other contemporary narrative of Virginian colonization probably furnished the hint of the plot. 38. The tale of Shakespeare’s independent dramas is now complete, but an analysis of the Two Noble Kinsmen leaves no reason to doubt the accuracy of its ascription on the title-page of the First Quarto of 1634 to Shakespeare and ]0hn Fletcher. This appears to have been a case of ordinary collaboration. There is sufficient resemblance between the styles of the two writers to render the division of the play between them a matter of some difficulty; but the parts that may probably be assigned to Shakespeare are acts i. scc. 1-4; 1; 1, 2; v. 1, 3, 4. Fletcher’s morris-dance in act iii. sc. 5 is borrowed from that in Beaumont’s Mask of the Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn, given on February 20, 1613, and the play may perhaps be dated in 1613. It is based on Chaucer’s Knighfs Tale. 39. It may now be accepted as a settled result of scholarship that Henry VIII. is also the result of collaboration, and that one of the collaborators was Fletcher. There is no good reason to doubt that the other was Shakespeare, although attempts have been made to substitute Philip Massinger. The inclusion, how- ever, of the play in the First Folio must be regarded as conclusive against this theory. There is some ground for suspicion that the collaborators may have had an earlier work of Shakespeare before them, and thislwould explain the reversion to the “ history " type of play which Shakespeare had long abandoned. His share appears to consist of act i. scc. 1, 2; act scc. 3, 4; act iii. sc. 2, ll. 1-203; act v. sc. 1. The play was probably produced in 1613, and originally bore the alternative title of All is True. It was being performed in the Globe on June 29, 1613, when the thatch caught nre and the theatre was burnt. The principal source was Holinshed, but Hall’s Union of Lancaster and York, Foxe's Acts and Monuments of the Church, and perhaps Samuel Rowley’s play of When You See Me, You Know Me (1605), appear also to have contributed. Shakespeare’s non-dramatic writings are not numerous. The narrative poem of Venus and Adonis was entered in the Poems Stationers’ Register on April 18, 1593, and thirteen ' editions, dating from 1593 t_o 1636, are known. The Rape of Luerece was entered in the Register on May 9, 1594, and the six extant editions range from 1594 to 1624. Each poem is prefaced by a dedicatory epistle from the author to Henry Wriothesley, earl of Southampton. The subjects, taken respect- ively from the M etamorphoses and the Fasti of Ovid, were frequent in Renaissance literature. It was once supposed that Shakespeare came from Stratford-on-Avon with Venus and Adonis in his pocket; but it is more likely that both poems owe their origin to the comparative leisure afforded to playwrights and actors
SPEARE by the plague—period of 1592-1594. In 1599 the stationer William jaggard published a volume of miscellaneous verse which he called The Passionate Pilgrim, and placed Shakespeare’s name on the title-page. Only two of the pieces included herein are certainly Shakespeare’s, and although others may quite possibly be his, the authority of the volume is destroyed by the fact that some of its contents are without doubt the work of Marlowe, Sir Walter Raleigh, Richard Barnheld and Bartholomew Griffin. In 1601 Shakespeare contributed The Phoenix and I the Turtle, an elegy on an unknown pair- of wedded lovers, to a volume called Lo·ve’s Martyr, or Rosalin’s Complaint, which was collected and mainly written by Robert Chester. The interest of all these poems sinks into insignificance beside that of one remaining· volume. The Sonnets were entered in the Register on May 20, 1609, by the stationer Thomas Thorpe, and published by him under the title Shake- f;:::"" speares Sonnets, never before Imprinted, in the same Sunnis year. In addition to a hundred and nfty-four sonnets, the volume contains the elegiac poem, probably dating from the Venus and‘Adonis period, of A Lo·uer’s Complaint. In 1640 the Sonnets, together with other poems from The Passionate Pilgrim and elsewhere, many of them not Shakespeare’s, were republished by John Benson in Poems Written by Wil. Shake- speare, Gent. Here the sonnets are arranged in an altogether different order from that of 1609 and are declared by the publisher to “ appeare of the same purity, the Authour himselfe then living avouched. " No Shakespearian controversy has received so much attention, especially during recent years, as that which concerns itself with the date, character, and literary history of the Sonnets. This is intelligible enough, since upon the issues raised depends the question whether these poems do or do not give a glimpse into the intimate depths of a personality which otherwise is at the most only imperfectly revealed through the plays. On the whole, the balance of authority is now in favour of regarding them as in a very considerable measure autobio- graphical. This view has undergone the fires of much destructive argument. The authenticity of the order in which the sonnets were printed in 1609 has been doubted; and their subject—matter has been variously explained as being of the nature of a philo- sophical allegory, of an edort of the dramatic imagination, or of a heartless exercise in the forms of the Petrarchan convention. This last theory has been recently and strenuously maintained, and may be regarded as the only one which now holds the field in opposition to the autobiographical interpretation. But it rests upon the false psychological assumption, which is disproved by the whole history of poetry and in particular of Petrarchan poetry, that the use of conventions is inconsistent with the expression of unfeigned emotions; and it is hardly to be set against the direct conviction which the sonnets carry to the most finely critical minds of the strength and sincerity of the spiritual experience out of which they were wrought. This conviction makes due allowance for the inevitable heightening of emotion itself in the act of poetic composition; and it certainly does not carry with it a belief that all the external events which underlie the emotional development are capable at this distance of time of inferential reconstruction. But it does accept the sonnets as an actual record of a part of Shakespeare’s life during the years in which they were written, and as revealing at least the outlines of a drama which played itself out for once, not in his imagination but in his actual conduct in the world of men and women. There is no advantage to be gained by rearranging the order of the 1609 volume, even if there were any basis other than that of individual whim on which to do so. Many of the sonnets are obviously linked to those which follow or precede them; and altogether a few may conceivably be misplaced, the order as a whole does not jar against the sense of emotional continuity, which is the only possible test that can be applied. The last two sonnets, however, are merely alternative versions of a Greek ~ epigram, and the rest fall into two series, which are more probably l parallel than successive. The shorter of these two series (cxxvii.- . clii.) appears to be the record of the poet’s relations with a . mistress, a dark woman with raven brows and mourning eyes.
SHAKE In the earlier sonnets he undertakes the half—playful defence of black beauty against the blonde Elizabethan ideal; but the greater number are in a more serious vein, and are filled with a deep consciousness of the bitterness of lustful passion and of the slavery of the soul to the body. The woman is a wanton. She has broken her bed-vow for Shakespeare, who on his side is forsworn in loving her; and she is doubly forsworn in proving faithless to him with other men. His reason condemns her, but his heart has not the power to throw off her tyranny. Her particular offence is that she, " a woman coloured ill, " has cast her snares not only upon him, but upon his friend, " a man right fair," who is his " better angel," and that thus his loss is double, in love and friendship. The longer series (i.—cxxvi.) is written to a man, appears to extend over a considerable period of time, and covers a wide range of sentiment. The person addressed is younger than Shakespeare, and of higher rank. He is lovely, and the son of a lovely mother, and has hair like the auburn buds of marjoram. The series falls into a number of groups, which are rarely separated by any sharp lines of demarcation Perhaps the first group (i.-xvii.) is the most distinct of all. These sonnets are a prolonged exhortation by Shakespeare to his friend to marry and beget children. The friend is now on the top of happy hours, and should make haste, before the rose o: beauty dies, to secure himself in his descendants against devouring time. In the next group (xviii.-xxv.) a much more persona note is struck, and the writer assumes the attitudes, at once of the poet whose genius is to be devoted to eternizing tha beauty and the honour of his patron, and of the friend whos¤ absorbing affection is always on the point of assuming a1 emotional colour indistinguishable from that of love. The con sciousness of advancing years and that of a fortune which bar; the triumph of public honour alike find their consolation in thi; affection. A period of absence (xxvi.-xxxii.) follows, in whic] the thought of friendship comes to remedy the daily labour o travel and the sorrows of a life that is " in disgrace with fortun· and men’s eyes " and filled with melancholy broodings ove the past. Then (xxxiii.-xlii.) comes an estrangement. Th friend has committed a sensual fault, which is at the same tim a sin against friendship. He has been wooed by a woman lovex by the poet, who deeply resents the treachery, but in the en< forgives it, and bids the friend take all his loves, since all ar included in the love that has been freely given him. It is difficul to escape the suggestion that this episode of the conflict betwee; love and friendship is the same as that which inspired some c the " dark woman " sonnets. Another journey (xliii.-lii.)is agai filled with thoughts of the friend, and its record is followedb a group of sonnets (liii.-lv.) in which the friend’s beauty and th immortality which this will find in the poet’s verse are especiall dwelt upon. Once more there is a parting (lvi.-lxi.) and th poet waits as patiently as may be his friend’s return to hin Again (lxii.—lxv.) he looks to his verse to give the friend in mortality. He is tired of the world, but his friend redeerr it (lxvi.-lxviii.). Then rumours of some scandal against h friend (lxix.—lxx.) reach him, and he falls (lxxi.-lxxiv.) int gloomy thoughts of coming death. The friend, however, is sti (lxxv.-lxxvii.) his argument; and he is perturbed (lxxviii lxxxvi.) by the appearance of a rival poet, who claims to be taugl by spirits to write " above a mortal pitch," and with “ tl proud full sail of his great verse" has already won the countenam of Shakespeare’s patron. There is another estrangement (lxxxvii xc.), and the poet, already crossed with the spite of fortun is ready not only to acquiesce in the loss of friendship, but 1 find the fault in himself. The friend returns to him, but tl relation is still clouded by doubts of his fidelity (xci.-xciii and by public rumours of his wantonness (xciv.—xcvi.). For third time the poet is absent (xcvii.-xcix.) in summer and sprin Then comes an apparent interval, after which a love alreac three years old is renewed (c.·civ.), with even richer prais (cv.-cviii.). It is now the poet’s turn to offer apologies (ci; cxii.) for offences against friendship and for some brand upon h name apparently due to the conditions of his profession. I Ls again absent (cxiii.) and again renews his protestations of tl
ZSPEARE 7 8 3 imperishability of love (cxiv.—cxvi.) and of his own unworthiness (cxvii.-cxxi.), for which his only excuse is in the fact that the friend was once unkind. If the friend has suffered as Shakespeare suffered, he has " passed a hell of time." The series closes with a group (cxxii.—cxxv.) in which love is pitted against time; and an envoi, not in sonnet form, warns the " lovely boy " that in the end nature must render up her treasure. Such an analysis can give no adequate idea of the qualities ‘ in these sonnets, whereby the appeal of universal poetry is built up on a basis of intimate self—revelation. The human document , is so legible, and at the same time so incomplete, that it is easy , to understand the strenuous efforts which have been made to . throw further light upon it by tracing the identities of those , other personalities, the man and the woman, through his relations l to whom the poet was brought to so fiery an ordeal of soul, and , even to the borders of self-abasement. It must be added that 1 the search has, as a rule, been conducted with more ingenuity , than judgment. It has generally started from the terms of a . somewhat mysterious dedication prefixed by the publisher z Thomas Thorpe to the volume of 1609. This runs as follows :—— ; " To the onlie begetter of these insuing sonnets Mr W. H. all 2 happinesse and that eternitie promised by our ever-living poet E wisheth the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth T. T." g The natural interpretation of this is that the inspirer l or " begetter " of the sonnets bore the initials W. H.; (Ishii;? 2 and contemporary history has accordingly been ran- we u,~ 2 sacked to find a W. H. whose age and circumstances e might conceivably fit the conditions of the problem which the 1 sonnets present. It is perhaps a want of historical perspective - which has led to the centring of controversy around two names s belonging to the highest ranks of the Elizabethan nobility, s those of Henry Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, and William 1 Herbert, earl of Pembroke. There is some evidence to connect f Shakespeare with both of these. To Southampton he dedicated e Venus and Adonis in 1593 and The Rape of Lucrcce in 1594, r and the story that he received a gift of no less than {1000 from e the earl is recorded by Rowe. His acquaintance with Pembroke e can only be inferred from the statement of Heminge and Condell il in their preface to the First Folio of the plays, that Pembroke i and his brother Montgomery had " prosequuted both them and e their Authour living, with so much favour." The personal .t beauty of the rival claimants and of their mothers, their amours n and the attempts of their families to persuade them to marry, 1f their relations to poets and actors, and all other points in their n biographies which do or do not fit in with the indications of the y sonnets, have been canvassed with great spirit and some erudition, e but with no very conclusive result. It is in Pembroke’s favour y that his initials were in fact W. H., whereas Southampton’s e can only be turned into W. H. by a process of metathesis; and 1. his champions have certainly been more successful than South- 1- ampton’s in producing a dark woman, a certain Mary Fitton, 1s who was a mistress of Pembroke’s,. and was in consequence is dismissed in disgrace from her post of maid of honour to Elizabeth. ;o Unfortunately, the balance of evidence is in favour of her having Lll been blonde, and not " black." Moreover, a careful investiga- .- tion of the sonnets, as regards their style and their relation to the it plays, renders it almost impossible on chronological grounds that 1e Pembroke can have been their subject. He was born on the ze 9th of April 1 580, and was therefore much younger than South- i.- ampton, who was born on the 6th of October 1573. The earliest e, sonnets postulate a marriageable youth, certainly not younger to than eighteen, an age which Southampton reached in the autumn 1e of 1591 and Pembroke in the spring of 1598. The writing of the ..) sonnets may have extended over several years, but it is impossible a to doubt that as a whole it is to the years 1593–1598 rather than g. to the years 1598-1603 that they belong. There is not, indeed, ly much external evidence available. Francis _Meres in hisPalladis es Tamia of 1598 mentions Shakespeare’s " sugred sonnets among r.- his private friends," but this allusion might come as well at us 1 " The sweet witty soul of Ovid lives in melliiiuous and honey- le tongued Shakespeare, witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, he his sugred sonnets among his private friends."
7 84. SHAKE the beginning as at the end of the series; and the fact that two, not of the latest, sonnets are in The Passionate Pilgrim of 1599 is equally inconclusive. The only reference to an external event in the sonnets them- selves, which might at first sight seem useful, is in the following lines (cvii.):—- " The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured, And the sad augurs mock their own presage; Incertainties now crown themselves assured, And peace proclaims olives of endless age." This has been variously interpreted as referring to the death of Elizabeth and accession of james in 1603,, to the relief caused by the death of Philip II. of Spain in 1598, and to the illness of Elizabeth and threatened Spanish invasion in 1596. Obviously the " mortal moon " is Elizabeth, but although "eclipse" may well mean " death," it is not quite so clear that " endure an eclipse " can mean " die." Nor do the allusions to the rival poet help much. " The proud full sail of his great verse " would fit, on critical grounds, with Spenser, Marlowe, Chapman, and possibly Peele, Daniel or Drayton; and the " aifable familiar ghost," from whom the rival is said to obtain assistance by night, might conceivably be an echo of a passage in one of Chapman’s dedications. Daniel inscribed a poem to Southampton in 16og, but with this exception none of the poets named are known to have written either for Southampton or for Pembroke, or for any other W. H. or H. W., during any year which can possibly be covered by the sonnets. Two very minor poets, Barnabe Barnes and Gervase Markham, addressed sonnets to Southampton in 1593 and 1595 respectively, and Thomas Nash composed improper verses for his delectation. But even if external guidance fails, the internal evidence for 1593-1598 as approximately the sonnet period in Shakespeare’s life is very strong indeed. It has been worked out in detail by two German scholars, Hermann Isaac (now Conrad) in the Shakespeare-Jahrbuch for 1884, and Gregor Sarrazin in William Shakespeares Lehrjahre (1897) and Aus Shakespeares Meister- werkstatt (1906). Isaac’s work, in particular, has hardly received enough attention even from recent English scholars, probably because he makes the mistakes of taking the sonnets in Boden- stedt’s order instead of Shakespeare’s, and of beginning his whole chronology several years too early in order to gratify a fantastic identification of W. H. with the earl of Essex. This, however, does not affect the main force of an argument by which the affinities of the great bulk of the sonnets are shown, on the ground of stylistic similarities, parallelisms of expression, and parallel- isms of theme, to be far more close with the poems and with the range of plays from L0·ve’s Lab0ur’s Lost to Henry I V. than with any earlier or later section of Shakespeare’s work. This dating has the further advantage of putting Shakespeare’s sonnets in . the full tide of Elizabethan sonnet-production, which began with the publication of Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella in 1591 and Daniel’s Delia and Constable’s Diana in 1592, rather than during years for which this particular kind of poetry had already ceased to be modish. It is to the three volumes named that the in- fluence upon Shakespeare of his predecessors can most clearly be traced; while he seems in his turn to have served as a model for Drayton, whose sonnets to Idea were published in a series of volumes in 1594, 1599, 1602, 1605 and 1619. It does not of course follow that because the sonnets belong to 1593-1598 W. H. is to be identified with Southampton. On general grounds he is likely, even if above Shakespeare’s own rank, to have been somewhat nearer that rank than a great earl, some young gentleman, for example, of such a family as the Sidneys, or as the Walsinghams of Chislehurst. It is possible that there is an allusion to Shakespeare’s romance in a poem called " Willobie his Avisa," published in 1594 as from the pen of one Henry Willoughby, apparently of West Knoyle in Wiltshire. In this Willoughby is introduced as taking counsel when in love with " his familiar friend W. S. who not long before had tryed the curtesy of the like passion, and was now newly recovered of the like infection." But there is nothing outside
SPE ARE the poem to connect Shakespeare with a family of Willoughbys or with the neighbourhood of West Knoyle. Various other identifications of W. H. have been suggested, which rarely rest upon anything except a similarity of initials. There is little plausibility in a theory broached by Mr Sidney Lee, that W. H. was not the friend of the sonnets at all, but a certain William Hall, who was himself a printer, and might, it is conjectured, have obtained the " copy " of the sonnets for Thorpe. It is, of course, just possible that the "begetter" of the title~page might mean, not the “inspirer," but the "procurer for the press " of the sonnets; but the interpretation is shipwrecked on the obvious identity of the person to whom Thorpe " wishes " eternity with the person to whom the poet " promised " that eternity. The external history of the Samzets must still be regarded as an unsolved problem; the most that can be said is that their subject may just possibly be Southampton, and cannot possibly be Pembroke. In order to obtain a glimmering of the man that was Shake- speare, it is necessary to consult all the records and to read the evidence of his life-work in the plays, alike in the light of the simple facts of his external career and in T'" “"'“ that of the sudden vision of his passionate and dis- gftjsfe satisfied soul preserved in the sonnets. By exclusive attention to any one of these sources of information it is easy to build up a consistent and wholly false conception of aShake- speare; of a Shakespeare struggling between his senses and his conscience in the artistic Bohemianism of the London taverns; of a sleek, bourgeois Shakespeare to whom his art was no more than aready way to aposition of respected and influential competence in his native town; of a great objective artist whose personal life was passed in detached contemplation of the puppets of his imagination. Any one of these pictures has the advantage of being more vivid, and the disadvantage of being less real, than the somewhat elusive and enigmatic Shakespeare who glances at us for a perplexing moment, now behind this, now behind that, of his diverse masks. It is necessary also to lay aside Shakespeareolatry, the spirit that could wish with Hallam that Shakespeare had never written the Sonnets, or can refuse to accept Titus Andronicus on the ground that " the play declares as plainly as play can speak, ‘ I am not Shakespeare’s; my repulsive subject, my blood and horrors, are not, and never were his.’ " The literary historian has no greater enemy than the sentimentalist. In Shakespeare we have to do with one who is neither beyond criticism as a man nor impeccable as an artist. He was for all time, no doubt; but also very much of an age, · the age of the later Renaissance, with its instinct for impetuous life, and its vigorous rather than discriminating appetite for literature. When Ben jonson said that Shakespeare lacked " art," and when Milton wrote of his " native wood—notes wild," they judged truly. The Shakespearian drama is magnificent and incoherent; it belongs to the adolescence of literature, to a period before the instrument had been sharpened and polished, and made unerring in its touch upon the sources of laughter and of tears. Obviously nobody has such power over our laughter and our tears as Shakespeare. But it is the power of temperament rather than of art; or rather it is the power of a capricious and unsystematic artist, with a perfect dramatic instinct for the exposition of the ideas, the characters, the situations, which for the moment command his interest, and a perfect disregard for the laws of dramatic psychology which require the patient pruning and subordination of all material that does not make for the main exposition. This want of finish, this imperfect fusing of the literary ore, is essentially characteristic of the Renaissance, as compared with ages in which the creative impulse is weaker and leaves room for a hner concentration of the means upon the end. There is nearly always unity of purpose in a Shakespearian play, but it often requires an intellectual effort to grasp it and does not result in a unity of effect. The issues are obscured by a careless generosity which would extend to art the boundless freedom of life itself. Hence the intrusive and jarring elements which stand in such curious incongruity with the utmost reaches of
SHAKE which the dramatic spirit is capable; the conventional and melodramatic endings, the inconsistencies of action and even of character, the emotional confusions of tragicomedy, the com- plications of plot and subplot, the marring of the give-and-take of dialogue by superiluities of description and of argument, the jest and bombast lightly thrown in to suit the taste of the groundlings, all the flecks that to an instructed modern criticism are only too apparent upon the Shakespearian sun. It perhaps follows from this that the most fruitful way of approaching Shakespeare is by an analysis of his work rather as a process than as a completed whole. His outstanding positive quality is a vast comprehensiveness, a capacity for growth and assimila- tion, which leaves no aspect of life unexplored, and allows of no finality in the nature of his judgments upon life. It is the real and sufficient explanation and justification of the pains taken to determine the chronological order of his plays, that the secret of his genius lies in its power of development and that only by the study of its development can he be known. He was nearly thirty when, so far as we can tell, his career as a dramatist began; and already there lay behind him those six or seven unaccounted-for years since his marriage, passed no one knows where, and filled no one knows with what experience, but assuredly in that strenuous Elizabethan life with some experience kindling to his intellect and formative of his character. To the woodcraft and the familiarity with country sights and sounds which he brought with him from Stratford, and which mingle so oddly in his plays with a purely imaginary and euphuistic natural history, and to the book—learning of a provincial grammar-school boy, and perhaps, if Aubrey is right, also of a provincial school- master, he had somehow added, as he continued to add through- out his life, that curious store of acquaintance with the details of the most diverse occupations which has so often perplexed and so often misled his commentators. It was the same faculty of acquisition that gave him his enormous vocabulary, so far exceeding in range and variety that of any other English writer. His first group of plays is largely made up of adaptations and revisions of existing work, or at the best of essays in the con- ventions of stage—writing which had already achieved popularity. In the Yorkist trilogy he takes up the burden of the chronicle play, in The Comedy of Errors that of the classical school drama and of the page-humour of Lyly, in Titus Andronicus that of the crude revenge tragedy of Kyd, and in Richard I II . that of the Nemesis motive and the exaltation of the Machiavellian superman which properly belong to Marlowe. But in Richard III. be begins to come to his own with the subtle study of the actor’s temperament which betrays the working of a profound interest in the technique of his chosen profession. The style of the earliest plays is essentially rhetorical; the blank verse is stiff and little varied in rhythm; and the periods are built up of parallel and antithetic sentences, and punctuated with devices of iterations, plays upon words, and other methods ol securing emphasis, that derive from the bad tradition of a popular stage, upon which the players are bound to rant and force the note in order to hold the attention of a dull-witted audience. During the plague-vacations of 1592 to 1594, Shakespeare tried his hand at the ornate descriptive poetry of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece; and the influence of this exercise, and possibly also of Italian travel, is apparent in the next group of plays, with their lyric notes, their tendency to warm southern colouring, their wealth of decorative imagery, and their elaborate and not rarely frigid conceits. Rhymed couplets make their appearance, side by side with blank verse, as a medium of dramatic dialogue. It is a period of experiment, in farce with The Taming of the Shrew, in satirical comedy with Lo·ve’s Labour’s Lost, in lyrical comedy with ArMidsummer Nighfs Dream, in lyrical tragedy with Romeo and Juliet, in lyrical history with Richard II ., and finally in romantic tragicomedy with The Two Gentlemen of Verona and with the masterpiece of this singular genre, The Merchant of Venice. It is also the period of the sonnets, which have their echoes both in the phrasing and in the themes of thc plays; in the black-browed Rosaline of Love’s Labour’s Lost and in the issue between friendship and love which is variously
SPEARE 7 8 5
set in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and in The Merchant
of Venice. But in the latter play the sentiment is already one of
retrospection; the tempest of spirit has given way to the tender
melancholy of renunciation. The sonnets seemto bear witness,
not only to the personal upheaval of passion, but also to some
despondency at the spite of fate and the disgrace of the actor’s
calling. This mood too may have cleared away in the sunshine
of growing popularity, of financial success, and of the possibly
long-delayed return to Stratford. Certainly the series of plays
written next after the travels of 1597 are light—hearted plays,
less occupied with profound or vexatious searchings of spirit
than with the delightful externalities of things. The histories
from King John to Henry V. form a continuous study of the
conditions of kingship, carrying on the political speculations
begun in Richard II. and culminating in the brilliant picture
of triumphant efficiency, the Henry of Agincourt; Meanwhile
Shakespeare develops the astonishing faculty of humorous
delineation of which he had given foretastes in ]ack Cade, in
Bottom the weaver, and in ]uliet’s nurse; sets the creation of
Falstaii in front of his vivid pictures of contemporary England;
and passes through the half-comedy, half melodrama, of Much
Ado About Nothing to the joyous farce of The Merry Wives of
Windsor, and to his two perfectly sunny comedies the sylvan
comedy of As You Like It and the urban comedy of T wehth
Night.
Then there comes a change of mood, already heralded by
Julius Caesar, which stands beside Henry V. as a reminder that
efficiency has its seamy as well as its brilliant side. The tragedy
of political idealism in Brutus is followed by the tragedy of in-
tellectual idealism in Hamlet; and this in its turn by the three
bitter and cynical pseudo-comedies, All’s Well That Ends Well,
in which the creator of Portia, Beatrice, Rosalind and Viola
drags the honour of womanhood in the dust—— Troilus and Cressida,
‘ in which the ideals of heroism and of romance are confounded
in the portraits of a wanton and a poltroon—and Measure for
Measure, in which the searchlight of irony is thrown upon the
» paths of Providence itself. Upon the causes of this new perturba-
tion in the soul of Shakespeare it is perhaps idle to speculate.
~ The evidence of his profound disillusion and discouragement of
. spirit is plain enough; and for some years the tide of his pessi-
mistic thought advances, swelling through the pathetic tragedy of Othello to the cosmic tragedies of Macbeth and King Lear,
. with their Titan-like indictments not of man alone, but of the
Y heavens by whom man was made. Meanwhile Shakespeare’s
r style undergoes changes no less notable than those of his subject-
l matter. The ease and lucidity characteristic of the histories
c and comedies of his middle period give way to a more troubled
: beauty, and the phrasing and rhythm often tend to become
, elliptic and obscure, as if the thoughts were hurrying faster than
i speech can give them utterance. The period closes with Antony
F and Cleopatra and Coriolanus, in which the ideals of the love of
‘ woman and the honour of man are once more stripped bare to
: display the skeletons of lust and egoism, and in the latter of which
. signs of exhaustion are already perceptible; and with Timon
l of Athens, in which the dramatist whips himself to an almost
r incoherent expression of a general loathing and detestation of
humanity. Then the stretched cord suddenly snaps. T imon
, is apparently unfinished, and the next play, Pericles, is in an
, entirely different vein, and is apparently finished but not begun.
; At this point only in the whole course of Shakespeare’s develop-
, ment there is a complete breach of continuity. One can only
. conjecture the occurrence of some spiritual crisis, an illness
z perhaps, or some process akin to what in the language of religion
l is called conversion, which left him a new man, with the fever
of pessimism behind him, and at peace once more with Heaven
, and the world.
i The final group of plays, the Shakespearian part of Pericles,
2 Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale, The Tempest, all belong to the class
1 of what may be called idyllic romances. They are happy dreams,
: in which all troubles and sorrows are ultimately resolved into
, fortunate endings, and which stand therefore as so many symbols
i of an optimistic faith in the beneficent dispositions of an ordering
spmsmart snftware - http://www.spnnsm¤n.r¤m t 7 8 6 SHAKE‘ Providence. In harmony with this change of temper the style has likewise undergone another change, and the tense structure and marmoreal phrasing of Antony and Cleopatra have given way to relaxed cadences and easy and unaccentuated rhythms. It is possible that these plays, Shakespeare’s last plays, with the unimportant exceptions of his contributions to Fletcher’s Henry VI I I . and The Two Noble Kinsmen, were written in retirement at Stratford. At any rate the call of the country is sounding through them; and it is with no regret that in the last pages of The Tempest the weary magician drowns his book, and buries his staff certain fathoms deep in the earth. (E. K. C.) The Shakespeare-Bacon Theory. In view of the continued promulgation of the sensational theory that the plays, and presumably the poems also, so long associated with the name of Shakespeare, were not written by the man whose biography is sketched above, but by somebody else who used this pseudonym——and especially that the writer was Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, Viscount St Albans (1561-1626)-it appears de- sirable to deal here briefly with this question. No such idea seems to have occurred to anybody till the middle of the 19th century (see Bibliography below), but having once been started it has been elabor- ated in certain quarters by a variety of appeals, both to internal evidence as disclosed by the knowledge displayed in Shakespeare’s works and by their vocabulary and style, and to external evidence as represented by the problems connected with the facts of Shal<espeare’s known life and of the publication of the plays. To what may be called ingenious inferences from data of this sort have even been added attempts to show that a secret confession exists which may be detected in a cipher or c ptogram in the printing of the plays. It must suffice here to say xtliat the contentions of the Americans, Mr Donnelly and Mrs Gallup, on this score are not only opposed to the opinion of authoritative bibliographers, who deny the existence of any such cipher, but have carried their supporters to lengths which are obviously absurd and impossible. Lord Penzance, a great lawyer whose support of the Baconian theory may be found in his " judicial summing-up," published in 1902, expressly admits that " the attempts to establish a cipher totally failed; there was not indeed the semblance of a cipher." Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, in his Bacon is Shakespeare (1910), goes still farther in an attempt to prove the point by cryptographic evidence. According to him the classical " long word" cited in Lo·ve’s Lab0ur's Lost, " honorifica- bilitudinitatibus," is an anagram for " hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi " (these plays F. Bacon’s offspring preserved for the world); and he juggles very curiously with the numbers of the words and lines in the page of the First Folio containing this alleged anagram. He also cites the evidence of (more or less) contemporary illustra- tions to books, which he explains as cryptographic, in confirmation. These interpretations are in the highest egree speculative. But perhaps his argument is exposed in its full depth of incredibility when he counts up the letters in Ben ]0nson’s verses “ To the Reader," describing the Droeshout portrait in the First Folio, and, fmding them to be 287 (taking each " w " as two " v’s "), concludes (by adding 287 to 1623, i.e. the date of the First Folio) that Bacon intended to reveal himself as the author in the year 19 ro! This sort of argument makes the plain man’s head reel. On similar principles anything might prove anything. What may be considered the more reasonable way of approaching the question is shown in Mr G. Greenwood’s Shakespeare Problem Restated (1908), in which the alleged difficulties of the Shakespearian authorship are competently presented without recourse to any such extravagances. The plausibility of many of the arguments used by Mr Greenwood and those whom he follows depends a good deal upon the real obscurity which, for lack of positive evidence, shrouds the biography of Shakespeare and our knowledge of the precise facts as to the publi- cation of the works associated with his name; and it has been assisted by the dogmatism of some modern biographers, or the differences of opinion between them, when they attempt to interpret the known facts of Shakespeare's life so as to account for his authorship. But it must be remembered that, if Shakespeare (or Shakspere) wrote Shakespeare’s works, it is only possible to reconcile our view of his biography with our knowledge of the works by giving some interpre- tation to the known facts or accepting some explanation of what may have occurred in the obscure arts of his life which will be consistent with such an identification. That different hypotheses are favoured by different orthodox critics is therefore no real objection, nor that some may a pear exceedingly speculative, for the very reason that positive evidience is irrecoverable and that speculation—consistent with what is possible——is the only resource. In so far as evidence is to be twisted and strained at all, it is right, in view of the long tradition and the prima facie presumptive evidence, to strain it in any possible direction which can reasonably make the Shakespearian authorship intelligible. As a matter of fact the evidence is strained alike by one side and the other; but as between the two it has to be remembered that the onus lies on the opponent of the Shakespearian authorship to show, first that there is no possible explanation which
"I . >PEARE would justify the tradition, and secondly that there is positive evidence which can upset it and which will saddle the authorship of Shakespeare’s works on Bacon or some one else. The contempt indiscriminately thrown on supporters of the Baconian theory by orthodox critics is apt to be expressed in terms which are occasionally unwarranted. But even if we leave out of account the lunatics and fabricators who have been so prominently connected with it, the adventurous amateur~—however eminent as a lawyer or however acute as a critic of everyday affairs-may easily be too ingenious in his endeavours to solve a literary problem in which judgment largely depends on a highly trained and subtle sense of literary style and a s ecial knowledge of the conditions of Elizabethan England and of the early drama. In such an exposition of what may be called the " anti-Shaksperian " case as Mr Greenwood’s, many points appear to make for his conclusion which are really not more than doubtful interpretations of evidence; though these interpretations may be derived from orthodox Shakespearians—orthodox, that is to say, so far at all events as their view of Shakespearian authorship is concerned—there have been a good many such interpreters whose zeal has outrun their knowledge. The fact remains that the most competent special students of Shakespeare, however they may differ as to details, and also the most authoritative special students of Bacon, are unanimous in upholding the traditional view. The Baconian theory simply stands as a curious illustration of the dangers which, even in the hands of fair judges of ordinary evidence, attend certain methods of literary investigation. There is one simple reason for this: in order to establish even a prima facie case against the identification of the man Shakespeare (however the name be spelt) with the author of Shakespeare’s works, the Baconian must clearly account for the positive contemporary evidence in its favour, and this cannot well be done; it is highly significant that it was not attempted or thought of for centuries. It is comparatively easy to oint to certain difficulties, which are due to the gaps in our knowledge. As already explained, the orthodox biographer, armed with the results of accurate scholarship and pro- longed historical research, attempts to reconstruct the life of the period so as to offer possible or probable explanations of these diffi- culties. But he does so backed by the unshaken tradition and the , positive contemporary evidence that the Stratford boy and man, the ondon actor, the author of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, and the dramatist (so far at least as criticism u holds the canon of the plays ascribed to Shakespeare), were one and) the same. It may be useful here to add to what has been written in the pre- ceding article some of the positive contemporary allusions to Shake- speare which establish this presumption. The evidence of Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia (1598) has already been referred to. It is incredible that Ben jonson, who knew both Shakespeare and Bacon intimately, who himself dubbed Shakespeare the " swan of Avon," and who survived Bacon for eleven years, could have died without revealing the alleged secret, at a time when there was no reason for concealing it. Much has been made of jonson’s varying references to Shakespeare, and of certain inconsistencies in his references to both Shakespeare and Bacon; but these can be twisted in more than one direction and their explanation is purely speculative. His positive allusions to Shakespeare are inexplicable except as the most authori- tative evidence of his identification of the man and his works. Richard Barnfield (1598) speaks of Shakespeare as " honey-iiowing," and says that his Venus and Lucrece have placed his name " in Fame’s immortal book." john Weever (1599) speaks of " honey- tongued Shakespeare," admired for " rose—cheeked Adonis," and " Romeo, Richard, more whose names I know not." john Davies of Hereford (1610) calls him “ our English Terence, Mr Will Shake- speare." Thomas Freeman (1614) writes " to Master W. Shake- speare: "—" Who loves chaste life, there’s Lucrece for a teacher [ Who list read lust there’s Venus and Adonis | . . . | Besides in plays thy wit winds like Meander." Other contemporary allusions, all trceating Shakespeare as a great poet and tragedian, are also on recor . Finally, it may be remarked that although many problems in connexion with Shakespeare’s authorship can only be solved by the answer that he was a " genius," the Baconian view that " genius " by itself could not confer on Shakespeare, the supposed Stratford " rustic," the positive knowledge of law, &c., which is revealed in his works, depends on a theory of his upbringing. and career which strains the evidence quite as much as anything put forward by orthodox biographers, if not more. As shown in the preceding article, it is by no means improbable that the Stratford “ rustic " was quite well educated, and that his rusticity is a gross exaggeration. We know very little about his early years, and, in so far as we are ignorant, it is legitimate to draw inferences in favour of what makes the re- mainder of his career and achievements intelligible. The Baconian theory entirely depends on straining every assumption in favour of Shakespeare’s nm having had any opportunity to acquire knowledge which in any case it would require " genius ". to absorb and utilize; and this method of argument is directly opposed to the legitimate procedure in approaching the undoubted difficulties. _Isolated phrases, such as Ben jonson’s dictum as to his small knowledge of atin and Greek, which may well be purely comparative, the con- temptuous expression of a university scholar for one who had no academic training, can easily be made too much of. The extreme
svmsmart snfzwars — http://www.sv¤nsm¤n.r¤m i SHAKE‘ inferences as to his illiteracy, drawn from his handwriting, depend 0n the most meagre data. The preface to the First Folio says that " what he thought he uttered with that easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers "; whereas Ben Jonson, in his Discoveries, says, " I remember the players often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted a line. My answer had been, would he had blotted a thousand!—xx·hich they thought a malevolent speech." Reams have been written about these two sayings, but we do not know the real circumstances which prompted either, and the non-existence of any of the Shakespeare manuscripts leaves us open, unfortunately, to the wildest conjectures. That there were such manuscripts (unless Ben jonson and the editors of the First Folio were liars) is certain; but there is nothing peculiar in their not having survived, though persons unacquainted with the history of the manuscripts of printed works of the period sometimes seem to think so. We know so little of the composition of Shakespeare's works, and the stages they went through, or the influence o other persons on him, that, so far as technical knowledge is concerned (especially the legal knowledge, which has given so much colour to the Baconian theory), various speculations are possible concerning the means which a dramatic genius may have had to inform his mind or acquire his vocabulary. The theatrical and social milieu of those days was small and close; the influence of culture was immediate and mainly oral. We have no positive knowledge indeed of any relations between Shakespeare and Bacon; but, after all, Bacon was a great con- temporary, personally interested in the drama, and one would expect the contents of his mind and the same sort of literary expression that we find in his writings to be reflected in the mirror of the stage; the same phenomenon would be detected in the drama of to-day were any critic to take the trouble to inquire. Assuming the genius of Shakespeare, such a poet and playwright would naturally be full of just the sort of matter that'would represent the culture of the day and the interests of his patrons. In the purlieus of the Temple and in literary circles so closely connected with the lawyers and the court, it is just the dramatic " genius" who would be familiar with any- thing that could be turned to account, and whose works, especially plays, the vocabulary of which was open to embody countless sources, in the different stages of composition, rehearsal, production and revision, would show the imagination of a poet wor ing upon ideas culled from the brains of others. Resemblances between phrases used by Shakespeare and by Bacon, therefore, carry one no farther than the fact that they were contemporaries. We cannot even say which, if either, originated the echo. S0 far as vocabulary is con- cerned, in every age it is the writer whose ‘record remains and who by degrees becomes its representative; the truth as to the extent to which the intellectual milieu contributed to the education of the writer, or his genius was assisted by association with others, is hard to recover in after years, and only possible in proportion to our knowledge of the period and of the individual factors in operation. ‘ ., (H. Cn.) Tm: Pokrnkrrs or SHAKESPEARE The mystery that surrounds much in the life and work of Shakespeare extends also to his portraiture. The fact that the only two likenesses of the poet that can be regarded as carrying the authority of his co-workers, his friends, and relations— yet neither of them a life-portrait—difler in certain essential points, has opened the door to controversy and encouraged the advance and acceptance of numerous wholly different types. The result has been a swarm of portraits which may be classed as follows: (1) the genuine portraits of persons not Shakespeare but not unlike the various conceptions of him; (2) memorial portraits often based on one or other of accepted originals, whether those originals are worthy of acceptance or not; (3) portraits of persons known or unknown, which have been fraudulently " faked " into a resemblance of Shakespeare; and (4) spurious fabrications especially manufactured for imposition upon the public, whether with or without mercenary motive. It is curious that some of the crudest and most easily demonstrable frauds have been among those which have from time to time been, and still are, most eagerly accepted and most ardently championed. There are few subjects which have so imposed upon the credulous, especially those whose intelligence might be supposed proof against the chicanery practised upon them. Thus, in the past, a president of the Royal Academy in England, and many of the leading artists and Shakespearian students of the time, were found to support the genuineness, as a contemporary portrait of the poet, of a picture which, in its faked Shakespeare state, a few months before was not even in existence. This, atleast, proves the intense interest taken by the world in the personality of Shakespeare, and the almost passionate desire to know his features. It is
’\ >PEARE 7 8 7 desirable, therefore, to describe those portraits which have chief claim to recollection by reason either of their inherent interest or of the notoriety which they have at some time enjoyed; it is to be remarked that such notoriety once achieved never entirely dies away, if only because the art of the engraver, which has usually perpetuated them either as large plates, or as illustra- tions to reputable editions of the works, or to commentaries or biographies, sustains their undeserved credit as likenesses more or less authentic. Exhaustive study of the subject, extended over a series of years, has brought the present writer to the conclusion—identical with that entertained by leading Shakespearian authorities- that two portraits only can be accepted without question as authentic likenesses: the bust (really a half-length statue) with its structural wall—monument in the choir of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, and the copper-plate engraved by Martin Droeshout as frontispiece to the First Folio of Shake- speare’s works (and used for three subsequent issues) published in 162 3 , although first printed in the previous year. The Stratford bust and monument must have been erected on the N. wall of the chance] or choir within six years after Shake- speare’s death in 16 16, as it is mentioned in the prefatory memorial lines by Leonard Digges in the First Folio. The design in its general aspect was one often adopted by the " tombe-makers " of the period, though not originated by them, and according to Dugdale was executed by a Fleming resident in London since 1567, Garratt johnson (Gerard janssen), a denizen, who was occasionally a collaborator with Nicholas Stone. The bust is believed to have been commissioned by the poet’s son-in—law, Dr ]ohn Hall, and, like the Droeshout print, must have been seen by and likely enough had the approval of Mrs Shake- speare, who did not die until August 162 3. It is thought to have been modelled from either a life or death mask, and inartistic as it is has the marks of facial individuality; that is to say, it is a portrait and not a generalization such as was common in funereal sculpture. According to the practice of the day, especially at the hands of Flemish sculptors of memorial figures, the bust was coloured; this is suihcient to account for the technical summariness of the modelling and of the forms. Thus the eyebrows are scarcely more than indicated by the chisel, and a solid surface represents the teeth of the open mouth; the brush was evoked to supply effect and detail. To the colour, as reapplied after the removal of the white paint with which Malone had the bust covered in 1793, must be attributed a good deal of the wooden appearance which is now a shock to many. The bust is of soft stone (not alabaster, as incorrectly stated by " the accurate Dugdale "), but a careful examination of the work reveals no sign of the alleged breakage and restora- tion or reparation to which some writers have attributed the apparently inordinate length of the upper lip. As a matter of fact the lip is not long; it is less than seven-eighths of an inch: the appearance is to a great extent an optical illusion, the result partly of the smallness of the nose and, especially, of the thinness of the moustache that shows the fiesh above and below. Some repair was made to the monument in I649, and again in 1748, but there is no mention in the church records of any meddling with the bust itself. Owing, however, to the characteristic inaccuracy of the print by one of Hollars’ assistants in the illustration of Dugdale’s Antiquities of Warwickshire (p. 688), the first edition of which was published in 16 $6, certain writers have been misled into the belief that the whole monument and bust were not merely restored but replaced by those which we see to-day. As other prints in the volume depart grossly from the objects represented, and as Dugdale, like Vertue (whose punctilious accuracy has also beenbaselessly extolled by Walpole), was at times demonstrably loose in his descrip- tions and presentments, there is no reason to believe that the bust and the figures above it are other than those originally placed in position. Other engravers, following the Dugdale print, have further stultified the original, but as they (Vertue, Grignion, Foudrinier, and others) differ among themselves, little importance need be attached to the circumstance. A
7 8 8 SHAKE
waming should be uttered against many of the so-called " casts "
of the busts. George Bullock took a cast in 1814 and Signor A.
Michele another about forty years after, but those attributed to
W. R. Kite, W. Scoular, and others, are really copies, departing
from the original in important details as well as in general effect.
It is from these that many persons derive incorrect impressions
of the bust itself.
Mention should here be made of the " Kesselstadt Death
Mask, " now at Darmstadt, as that has been claimed as the true
death-mask of Shakespeare, and by it the authenticity of other
portraits has been gauged. It is not in fact a death-mask at
all, but a cast from one and probably not even a direct cast.
In three places on the back of it is the inscription-——|-AEDB 1616:
and this is the sole actual link with Shakespeare. Among the
many rapturous adherents of the theory was William Page, the
American painter, who made many measurements of the mask
and found that nearly half of them agreed with those of the
Stratford bust; the greater number which do not he conveniently
attributed to error in the sculptor. The cast first came to light
in 1849, having been searched for by Dr. Ludwig Becker, the
owner of a miniature in oil or parchment representing a corpse
crowned with a wreath, lying in bed, while on the background,
next to a burning candle, is the date -—A6 1637. This little
picture was by tradition asserted to be Shakespeare, although
the likeness, the death-date, and the wreath all point unmistak-
ably to the poet-laureate Ben jonson. Dr Becker had purchased
it at the death-sale at Mainz of Count Kesselstadt in 1847,
in which also " a plaster of Paris cast " (with no suggestion of
Shakespeare then attached to it) had appeared. This he found
in a broker’s rag-shop, assumed it to be the same, recognized
in it a resemblance to the picture (which most persons cannot
see) and so came to attribute to it the enormous historical value
which it would, were his hypothesis correct, unquestionably
possess. In searching for the link of evidence necessary to be
established, through the Kesselstadt line to England and Shake-
speare, a theory has been elaborated, but nothing has been proved
or carried beyond the point of bare conjecture. The arguments
against the authenticity of the cast are strong and cogent·—
the chief of which is the fact that the skull reproduced is funda-
mentally of a different form and type from that shown in the
Droeshout print—the forehead is receding instead of upright.
Other important divergencies occur. The handsome, refined,
and pleasing aspect of the mask accounts for much of the favour
in which it has been held. It was believed in by Sir Richard
Owen and was long on view in the British Museum, and
was shown in the Stratford Centenary Exhibition in 1864.
The " Droeshout print " derives its importance from its
having been executed at the order of Heminge and Condell to
represent, as a frontispiece to the Plays, and put forth as his
portrait, the man and friend to whose memory they paid the
homage of their risky enterprise. The volume was to be his real
monument, and the work was regarded by them as a memorial
erected in a spirit of love, piety, and veneration. Mrs Shake-
speare must have seen the print; Ben jonson extolled it. His
dedicatory verses, however, must be regarded in the light of
conventional approval as commonly expressed in that age of
the performances of portrait-engravers and habitually inscribed
beneath them. It is obvious, therefore, that in the circumstances
an authentic portrait must necessarily have been the basis of
the engraving; and Sir George Scharf, judging from the contra-
dictory lights and shadows i11 the head, concluded that the
original must have been a limning——more or less an outline
drawing—~which the youthful engraver was required to put into
chiaroscuro, achievingrhis task with but very partial success.
That this is the case is proved by the so-called " unique proof ”
discovered by Halliwell-Phillips, and now in America. Another
copy of it, also an early proof but not in quite the same " state, "
is in the Bodleian Library. No other example is known. In
this plate the head is far more human. The nose is here longer
than in the bust, but the bony structure corresponds. In the
proof, moreover, there is a thin, wiry moustache, much widened
in the print as used; and in several other details there are
SPEARE important divergencies. In this engraving by Droeshout the head is far too large for the body, and the dress—the costume of well-to-do persons of the time-is absurdly out of perspective: an additional argument that the unpractised engraver had only a drawing of a head to work from, for while the head shows the individuality of portraiture the body is as clearly done l de chic. The first proof is conclusive evidence against the con- ‘ tention that the " Flower Portrait " at the Shakespeare Memorial Museum, Stratford—on-Avon—the gift of Mrs Charles Flower (1895) and boldly entitled the “ Droeshout original "— is the original painting from which the engraving was made, and is therefore the actual life-portrait for which Shakespeare sat. This view was entertained by many connoisseurs of repute until it was pointed out that had that been the case the first proof, if it had been engraved from it, would have resembled it in all particulars, for the engraver would have merely copied the picture before him. Instead of that, we find that several details in the proof—the incorrect illumination, the small moustache, the shape of the eyebrow and of the deformed ear, &c.·—have been corrected in the painting, in which further improvements are also imported. The conclusion is therefore irresistible. At the same time the picture may possibly be the earliest painted portrait in existence of the poet, for so far as we can judge of it in its present condition -—(it was to some extent injured by fire at the Alexandra Palace) ——it was probably executed in the earlier half of the 17th century. The ii1scription—Will¢i Shakespeare, 1609- is suspect on account of being written in cursive script, the only known example at the date to which it professes to belong. If it were authentic it might be taken as showing us Shakespeare’s appearance seven years before his death, and fourteen years before the publica- tion of the Droeshout print. The former attribution of it to Cornelis ]anssen’s brush has been abandoned——it is the work of a comparatively unskilful craftsman. The picture’s pedigree cannot definitely be traced far back, but that is of little import- ance, as plausible pedigrees have often been manufactured to bolster up the most obvious impostures. The most interesting of the copies or adaptations of this portrait is perhaps that by William Blake now in the Manchester Corporation Art Gallery. One of the cleverest imitations, if such it be, of an old picture is the " Buttery " or “ Ellis portrait, " acquired by an American collector in IQ02. This small picture, on panel, is very poor judged as a work of art, but it has all the appearance of age. Inthis case the perspective of the dress has been corrected, and Shakespeare’s shield is shown on the background. The head is that of a middle-aged man; the moustache, contrary to the usual type, is drooping. It is curious that the" Thurston miniature"done from the Droeshout print gives the moustache of the " proof. " Two other portraits of the same character of head and arrange- ment are the " Ely Palace portrait " and the “ Felton portrait," both of which in their time have had, and still have, convinced believers. The " Ely Palace portrait " was discovered in 1845. in a broker’s shop, and was bought by Thomas Turton, bishop of Ely, who died in 1864, when it was bought by Henry Graves and by him was presented to the Birthplace. An unsatisfactory statement of its history, similar to that of many other portraits, was put forth; the picture must be judged on its merits. It bears the inscription "E 3Q —|— 1603,,, and it shows a moustache and a right eyebrow identical with those in the Droeshout ” proof ." It was therefore hailed by many competent judges as the original of the print; by others it was dismissed as a "make-up ”; at the same time it is very far from being a proved fraud. Supposing both it and the " Flower portrait " to be genuine, this picture, which came to light long before the latter, antedates it by six years. judged by the test of the Droeshout " proof" it must have preceded and not followed it. The " Felton portrait, " which made its first appearance in 1792, had the valiant championship of the astute and cynical Steevens, of Britton, Drake, and other authorities, as the original of the Droeshout print, while a. few-—·those who believed in the i" Chandos portrait "—denounced it as " a rank forgery. " On the back of the panel was boldly traced in a florid hand " Gul. Shakespear 1597 R.B." (by others read " R.N."). If
PO RT RAITS OF
*‘‘
2 ; ;; · ‘
f I
I
I
zmml Ilamld mn, zmmmwm.
THE STRA'Il•ORI) BUST AND MONIQMENT
IN IIOLY TRINITY CHURCH, STRAT-
FORD·ON-AVON. lireered before 1623.
I I ` 1 I I I
I I I L- ... Photo, Emery Walkn. THIS CIIANDOS PORTRAIT`. In the National Pornrait Gallery. XXIV. ¤88.
l PLATE I.
S I-I A KESPEA RE
*7 W i "
»:·
2 l
PLE, Emery wumi >4 l i
Tm; ENGRAVING BY MARTIN u1<01zsHOUT.
In the First; Folio Edition. 1623.
%_%'
, 5*’
F
i liliHii§i1;[0wER P0RTRA1T. ( The " Droeshout Original " ). In thc Shakespeare Memorial Gallery. ...i....._é........+ AJ
Puma II.
i
[ P0RTRA1Ts 0
‘ —‘J—»`; w
I ,A,I I A I IIIAI A LIIITLTQIT '41’J“‘’'»A”%` “ '`”“ i 'ii7iiI -
Q 1. THB JANSSEN 2. THE FELTON.
k
= I { ’=—= . ;?I¢v
t ` I Y I
s A N {
{
1 1 ·
L___II:L, r%%r AIT
5. THE LUMLEY. 6. THE ASHBOURNE. g
‘ ¢ ¢·
’ % ¥— ..i; A¢,;=··
’
·v,' S
I m" t' "‘ i
¢¢%¢»· ·
»A»j¤»/, I I y%%, A‘»;% /Jl;Ie¢;II ,,A, I A4$$.Y I
9. THE IIILLIARD IO. THE AURIOL
l MINIATURE. MINIATURE.
1 »‘» A‘‘A‘‘‘A ‘‘ ‘ "‘q ""'
5 I g _,.
I ; · T
J
Z { I I ` I
I ,,_ ,,,, - _ ,._. · ?——~
13. TUE DEATH-MASK. I4. THE ROUBILIAC
STATUE.
ESPEARE
F SHAKESPEARE T
T *
T T *»`
T T IT
T .» · T T T ‘
_ A‘'‘* A VAJ T Ip
. » S * . · T‘Ti¥é§ T Q T
T T
L ...7. 7 ).;_.-E_T T_4_ T
3. THE ELY PALACE. 4. THE HUNT OR
ST RATFORD.
U Siré ET €·A YQT . A
T = . .
wr
‘ .€A T g T
· I . T
¤ ‘-_, T T T
» I
. ..—‘ T T »»»V.·
n pr comm. A s. THE s012s . VSQS
VET?
_ %;,.;· · Tiv; T
T ..,.. |
T :’ ~ T
T .......A ‘ » ‘ c T
. ·.... . 1 I T
1
.,,. ,.,-7.-,., A .,,. .-
Pm", W. A. mumzz. Pham, w. .4. .T1.m.~11.
11. THE DUNFORD. I2. THE STACE.
A R.A » T T
- »<. T aw »». T
T '{;’ “ ·... _
A ‘ T . T
..... TT
“ °'‘''‘ ;fi.,»f»
T i ·~. °“ T A TTT
'T¤‘ 4 T A T
.»» ....» . T
..... T » A
15. THE SCHEEMAKERS :6. THE DAVENANT
STATUE. BUST. 24
SI-lAKEf
R.B. is correct, it is contended the initials indicate Richard
Burbage, Shakespeare’s fellow—actor. Traces of the writing i
may still be detected. Boaden’s copy, made in 1792, repeating
the inscription on the back, has " Guil. Shakspeare 1587 R.N." i
The spelling of Shakespeare’s name·—which in succeeding ages ,
has been governed by contemporary fasliion—has a distinct
bearing on the authenticity of the panel. At the first appearance .
of the " Felton portrait " in a London sale—room it was bought by
Samuel Felton of Drayton, Shropshire, for five pounds, along
with a pedigree which carried its refutation along with it.
Nevertheless, it bears evidence of being an honest painting
done from life, and is probably not a make-up in the sense that
most of the others are. It fell into the hands of Richardson
the printseller, who issued fraudulent engravings of it by '1`rotter
and others (by which it is best known), causing the character-
istic lines of the shoulders to be altered, so that it is set upon
a body attired in the Droeshout costume, which does not appear
in the picture; and then, arguing from this falsely—introduced
costume, the publisher maintained that the work was the original
of the Droeshout print and therefore a life-portrait of Shakespeare.
Thus foisted on the public it enjoyed for years a great reputation,
and no one seems to have recognized that with its down—turned
moustache it agrees with the inaccurate print after the Droeshout
engraving which was published as frontispiece to Ayscougl1’s
edition of Shakespeare in 1790, i.e. two years before the dis-
covery of the Felton portrait! The " Napier portrait, " as the
excellent copy by ]ohn Boaden is known, has recently been
presented to the Shakespeare Memorial. josiah Boydell also
made a copy of the picture for George Steevens in 1797. Quite
a number of capital miniatures from it are in existence. With
these should be mentioned a picture of a similar type discovered
by Mr M. H. Spielmann in 1905. Finding a wretched copy of
the Chandos portrait executed on a panel about three hundred
years old, he had the century-old paint cleaned off in order to
ascertain the method of the forger. On the disappearance of
the Chandos likeness under the action of the spirit another por-
trait of Shakespeare was found beneath, irretrievably damaged
but obviously painted in the 17th century. At the time of the
" fake " only portraits of the Chandos type were saleable, and
this would account for the wanton destruction of an interesting
work which was probably executed for a publisher—likely
enough for jacob Tonson—but not used. Early as it is in date
it can make no claim to be a life-portrait.
The " ]anssen " or " Somerset portrait " is in many respects
the most interesting painted likeness of Shakespeare, and
undoubtedly the finest of all the paintings in the series. It is
certainly a genuine as well as a very beautiful picture of the
period, and bears the insc1·iption—‘Z$‘g,“l)6-but doubt has been
expressed whether the 6 of 46 has not been tampered with,
and whether it was not originally an 0 and altered to fit Shake-
speare’s age. It was made known through Earlom’s rare
rnezzotint of it, but the public knowledge of it has been mainly
founded on Cooper’s and Turner’s beautiful but misleading
mezzotint plates until a photograph of the original was published
for the first time in 1909 (in The Connoisseur) by permission
of the owner, the Lady Guendolen Ramsden, daughter of the
duke of Somerset, the former owner of the picture. The resem-
blance to the main forms of the death-mask is undoubted; but
that is of little consequence as confirmation unless the mask
itself is supported by something beyond vague conjectures.
Charles jennens, the wealthy and eccentric amateur editor of
the poor edition of King Lear issued in 1770, was the first
known owner, but vouchsafed no information of its source and
shrank from the challenge to produce the picture. Of the beauty,
excellence, and originality of this portrait there is no question;
it is more than likely that Janssen was the author of it; but
that it was intended to represent Shakespeare is still to be proved.
A number of good copies of it exist, all but one (which enjoys
a longer pedigree) made in the 18th century: the " Croker
]anssen" now lost, unless it be that of Lord Darnley’s; the
" Staunton ]anssen," the " Buckston ]anssen," the “ Marsden
SPEARE 7 8 g Janssen, " and the copy in the possession of the duke of Anhalt. These are all above the average merit of such work. The portrait which has made the most popular appeal is that called the " Chandos, " formerly known as the " d’Avenant, " the " Stowe, " and the " Ellesmere, " according as it passed from hand to hand; it is now in the National Portrait Gallery. Tradition, tainted at the`outset, attributes the authorship of it to Richard Burbage, although it is impossible that the painter of the head in the Dulwich Gallery could have produced a work so good in technique; and Burbage is alleged to have given it to his fellow-actor joseph Taylor, who bequeathed it to Sir William d’Avenant, Shakespeare’s godson. As a matter of fact, Taylor died intestate. Thenceforward, whether or not it be- longed to d’Avenant, its history is clear. At the great Stowe sale of the effects of the duke of Buckingham and Chandos (who had inherited it) the earl of Ellesmere bought it and then presented it to the nation. Many serious inquirers have refused to accept this romantic, swarthy, Italian—looking head here depicted as a likeness of Shakespeare of the Midlands, if only because in every important physiognomical particular, and in face~measurement, it is contradicted by the Stratford bust and the Droeshout print. It is to be noted, however, that judged by the earlier copies of it-which agree in the main points— some of the swarthiness complained of may be due to the restorer. Oldys, indifferent to tradition, attributed it to Janssen, an un- allowable ascription. This, except the " Lumley portrait/’, the “ Burdett Coutts portrait," and the admitted fraud, the “ Dunford portrait," is the only picture of Shakespeare executed before the end of the 18th century which represents the poet with earrings—the wearing of which, it should be noted, either simple gold circles or decorated with jewel-drops, was a fashion that extended over two centuries, in England mainly, if not entirely, affected by nobles and exquisites. Contrary to the general belief, the picture has not been subjected to very extensive repair. That it was not radically altered by the restorer is proved by the fine copy painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and by him presented to john Dryden. The poet acknowledged the gift in his celebrated Fourteenth Epistle, written after 1691 and published in 1694, and containing the passage beginning, " Shakespeare, thy gift, I place beforemy sight; With awe I ask his blessing ere I write." D’Avenant had died in 1668, and so could not, as tradition contends was the case, have been the donor. In Malone’s time the picture was already in the possession of the earl Fitzwilliam. This at least proves the esteem in which the Chandos portrait was held so far back as the end of the I7tl’1 century, only three—quarters of a century after Shakespeare’s death. From among the innumerable copies and adaptations of the Chandos portrait a few emerge as having a certain importance of their own. That which Sir ]oshua Reynolds is traditionally said to have made for the use of Roubiliac, then engaged in his statue of Shakespeare for David Garrick (now in the British Museum), and another alleged to have been done for Bishop Newton, are now lost. That by Ranelagh Barret was presented in 1779 to Trinity College Library, Cambridge, by the Shake- spearian commentator Edward Capel]. Dr Matthew Maty, principal librarian of the British Museum, presented his copy to the museum in 1760. There are also the smooth but rather original copy (with drapery added) belonging to_the earl of Bath . at Longleat; the Warwick Castle copy; the fair copy known as the Lord St Leonards portrait; the large copy in “ coloured crayons, formerly in the Jennens collection and now I belonging to Lord Howe, by van der Gucht, which seems to . be by the same hand as that which executed the pastel portrait of Chaucer in the Bodleian Library; the " Clopton miniature " ; attributed to ]ohn Michael Wright, which formed the basis of the drawing by Arlaud, by whose name the engravings of this modified type are usually known; the Shakespeare Hirst picture, 1 based on Houbra.ken’s engraving; the full—size chalk drawing ‘ by Ozias Humphry, R.A., at the Birthplace, which Malone ~ guaranteed to be a perfect transcript, but which more resembles l the late W. P. Frith, R.A., than Shakespeare. Humphry also,
700 SHA KES adhering to his modified type, executed three beautiful but inaccurate miniatures from the picture, one of which is in the Garrick Club, and the others in private hands. The " Lumley portrait " is in type a curious blend of the faces in the Chandos portrait and the Droeshout print, with I a dash of the " Auriol miniature " (see later). It represents a heavy·j0wled man with pursed-up Iips, and with something of the expression but little of the vitality of the Chandos. Although it is thought to be indicated though not actually mentioned , in the Lumley sale catalogues of 1785 and 1807, it was only when it came into the possession of George Rippon, presumably about the year 1848, that it was brought to the notice of the world, and additional attention was secured by the owner’s contention that it was the original of the Chandos. It is claimed that the picture originally belonged to the portrait collector john, Lord Lumley, of Lumley castle, Durham, who died in 1609, and descended to Richard, the 4th earl of Scarborough, and George Augustus, the 5th earl, at whose respective sales at the dates mentioned it was put up to auction. On the first occasion it was bought in, and on the second it was acquired by George Walters. It is to be observed, however, that it does not appear by name inthe early inventory, and it is unconvincingly claimed that it was mistakenly entered as Chaucer, a portrait of whom is mentioned. When in the possession of George Rippon the picture was so superbly chromo—lithographed by Vincent Brooks that copies of it, mounted on old panel or canvas, and varnished, have often changed hands as original paintings. It is clear that if the picture was indeed in possession of ]ohn, Lord Lumley, we have here a contemporary portrait of Shakespeare, and the fact that it is an amateur performance would in no way in- validate the claim. It is thinly painted and scarcely looks the age that is claimed for it; but it is an interesting work, which, in 1875, entered the collection of the late Baroness Burdett-Coutts. To Frederigo Zuccaro are attributed three of the more important portraits now to be mentioned; upon him also have been foisted several of the more impudent fabrications herein named. The " Bath " or " Archer portrait "~—it having been in the possession of the Bath Librarian, Archer, when attention was first drawn to it in 1859*IS worthy of Zuccaro’s brush. It is Italian in feeling, with an inscription (" W. Shakespear") in an Italian but apparently more modern hand. The type of head, too, is Italian, and it is curious that in certain respects it bears some resemblance not only to the Chandos, and to the Droeshout and janssen portraits, but also to the " death-mask"; yet it differs in essentials from all. Certain writers have affirmed that Reynolds in one of his Discourses expressed his faith in the picture; but the alleged passage cannot be identified. This eloquent, refined, and well-bred head suggests an Italian noble, or, if an English poet, a man of the type of Edmund Spenser; a lady—1ove shoe-string, or “ twist " (often used to tie on a jewel), threads the ear and a fine lace ruff frames the head. - The whole picture is beautifully painted by a highly accomplished artist. If this portrait represents Shakespeare at about the age of 30, that is to say in 1594, the actor-dramatist had made astonishing progress in the world, and become well-t0- do, and had adopted the attire of a dandy. But Zuccaro came to England in 1574, and as his biographers state " did not stay long, " and returned to Florence to complete the work at the Duomo there begun by Vasari. The conclusion appears to be definite. The picture was acquired for the Baroness Burdett- Coutts by W. H. Wills. Stronger objection applies to the " Boston Zuccaro " or " joy portrait, " now in Boston, U.S.A. A Mr Benjamin ]oy, who emigrated from London to Boston, owned a picture with a doubt- ful pedigree—transparently a manufactured tradition. R. S. Greenough, the American sculptor, used it along with " other authentic portraits " to produce his bust. In parts it has been viciously restored, but it is in very fair condition and appears to be a good picture of the Flemish school. In the vague assertion that it was found in the Globe Tavern which was frequented by Shakespeare and his associates, no credence can be placed, if only because no such tavern is known to have existed.
SPEARE The “ Cosway Zuccaro portrait " is now in America; but the reproduction of it exists in England in the miniature of it by Cosway’s pupil, Charlotte jones, as well as in the rare mezzotint by Hanna Greene. The picture is alleged to have disappeared from the possession of Richard Cosway; it was sold in his sale, however, and passed through the hands of Lionel Booth and of Augustin Daly. No one would imagine that it is intended for a portrait of the poet. It is far more like Shelley (some- what caricatured, especially as to the cat-like eyes and the Mephistophelian eyebrows) or Torquato Tasso. The attribution to Zuccaro is absurd, yet Cosway and Sir Charles Eastlake believed in it. The inscription on the back, " Guglielm: Shakespear," with its mixture of Italian and English, resembles in wording and spelling that adopted in the case of several admitted " fakes." No attempt at discovering the history of the picture was ever made, but there is no doubt that at the beginning of the roth century it was widely credited; Wivell and others attributed it to Lucas Franchois. It is said to be well painted, but the copies show that it is ill drawn. The miniature by Charlotte ]ones, a fashionable artist in her day, is pretty and weak, but well executed g it was painted in 1823,. Of the "Burdett-Coutts portrait " (the fourth interesting portrait of Shakespeare in the possession of Mr Burdett-Coutts) there is no history whatever to record. No name has been suggested for the artist, but the hands and accessories of dress strongly resemble those in the portrait of Elizabeth Hardwick, countess of Shrewsbury, in the National Portrait Gallery. The ruff, painted with extreme care, reveals a pentimentv. The picture is admirably executed, but the face is weak and is the least satisfactory part of it; especially feeble is the ear with the ring. Shakespeare’s shield, crest, with red mantling, which appear co-temporary with the rest, and the ngures " 37 " beneath it, appear on the background, in the manner adopted in 17th- century portraits. From this picture the " Craven portrait " seems to have been “ faked." A Equally striking is the " Ashbourne portrait," well known through G. F. Storm’s engraving of it. It is sometimes called the " Kingston portrait " as the first known owner ·of it was the Rev. Clement U. Kingston, who issued the engraving in 1847. It is an important three-quarter length, representing a figure in black standing beside a table at the corner of which is a skull whereon the figure rests his right forearm. It is an acceptable likeness of Shakespeare, in the manner of Paul van Somer, apparently pure except in the ruff. The inscription " }ETATIS SVAE. 47. A° 16r1," and the decoration of cross spears on a book held by the right hand, are also raised from the ground, so that it would be injudicious to decide that these are not of a later date yet at the same time ancient additions. It is the only pictur&if we disregard the inadmissible " Hampton Court portrait "———in which Shakespeare is shown wearing a sword- belt and a thumb—ring, and holding a gauntleted glove. The type is that of a refined, fresh—coloured, fair-haired English gentleman. There isno record of the picture before Mr Kingston bought it from a London dealer. More famous, but less reputable, is the " Stratford " or " Hunt portrait," amusingly exhibited in an iron safe in the Birthplace at Stratford, to which it was presented by W. O. Hunt, town clerk, in 1867. It had been in the Hunt family for many years and represented a black-bearded man. Simon Collins, the picture cleaner and restorer who had cleansed the Stratford bust of Malone’s white paint and restored its colours, declaring that another picture was beneath it, was engaged to exercise himself upon it. He removed the top figure from the dilapidated canvas with spirit and found beneath it the painted version of the Stratford bust. At that time Mr Rabone’s copy, now at Birmingham, was made; it is valuable as evidence. Then Collins, always a suspect in this matter, proceeded with the restoration, and by treatment of the hair made the portrait more than ever like the bust; and the owner, and not a few others, proclaimed the picture to be the original from which the bust was made. No judge of painting, however, accepts the picture as dating further back than the latter half of the 18th
SHAKE1 century-~when it was probably executed, among a score of others, about the time of the bicentenary of Shakespeare’s birth, an event which gave rise to much celebration. The ingenious but entirely unconvincing explanations offered to account for the state in which the picture was found need not be recounted here. The “ Duke of Leeds’ portrait," now at Hornby castle, has been for many years in the family, but the circumstances of its provenance are unknown. It has been thought possible that this is the lost portrait of which ]ohn Evelyn speaks as having been in the collection of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the companion picture to that of Chaucer; but no evidence has been adduced to support the conjecture. It represents a handsome, fair man, with auburn beard, with an expression recalling the ]anssen portrait; the nose, however, is quite different. He wears a standing " wired band," as in the Droe- shout print. It is a workmanlike piece of painting, but there is nothing in the picture to connect it with Shakespeare. The same may be said of the “ Welcombe portrait/’ which was bought by Mark Philips of Welcombe and descended to Sir George Trevelyan. It is a fairly good picture, having some resemblance to the " Boston Zuccaro " with something of the Chandos. The figure, a half-length, wears a falling spiked collar edged with lace, and from the ear a love-lace, the traces of which only are left. Two other portraits at the Shakespeare Memorial should be named. The " Venice portrait," which was bought in Paris and is said to have come from Venice, bears an Italian unde- cipherable inscription on the back ; it seems to have no obvious connexion with Shakespeare apart from its exaggeration of the general aspect of the Chandos portrait; it is a weak thing. The " Tonson portrait," inscribed on the frame " The ]acob Tonson Picture, 173 5," asmall oval, with the attributes of comedy and tragedy, is believed to have been executed for Tonson’s 4th edition of Shakespeare, but not used. The " Soest portrait " (often called Zoust or Zoest), formerly known as “ the Douglas," the " Lister Kaye " or the " Clarges portrait," according to the owner of the moment, was for many years a public favourite, mainly through ]. Simon’s excellent mezzotint. The picture, a short half—length within an oval, is manifestly meant for Shakespeare, but the head as nearly resembles the head of Christ at Lille by Charles Delafosse (1636— I7I6) who also painted pictures in England. Gerard Soest was not born until 1637, and according to Granger the picture was painted in Charles II.’s reign. It is a pleasing but weak head, possibly based on the Chandos. The whereabouts of the picture is unknown, unless it is that in the possession of the earl of Craven. A number`of copies exist, two of which are at the Shakespeare Memorial. Simon’s print was the first announce- ment of the existence of the picture, which at that time belonged to an obscure painter, F. Wright of Covent Garden. The " Charlecote portrait," which was exhibited publicly at Stratford in 1896, represents a burly, bull-necked man, whose chief resemblance to Shakespeare lies in his baldness and hair, and in the wired band he wears. The former possession of the picture by the Rev. john Lucy has lent it a sort of reputation; but that gentleman bought it as recently as 1853. Similarly, the " Hampton Court portrait " derives such authority as it possesses from the dignity of its owner and its habitat. William IV. bought it as a portrait of Shakespeare, but without evidence, it is suggested, from the de Lisles. This gorgoously attired officer in an elaborate tunic of green and gold, with red bombasted trunks, with fine worked sword and dagger pendent from the embroidered belt, and with a falling ruff and laces from his ear, bears some distant resemblance to the Chandos portrait. Above is inscribed, " Etat. suae. 34." [t appears to be the likeness of a blue-eyed soldier; but it has been suggested that the portrait represents Shakespeare in stage dress-—a frequent explanation for the strange attire of quaintly alleged portraits of the poet. A copy of this picture was made by H. Duke about 1860. Similarly unacceptable is the"H. Danby Seymour portrait" which has disappeared since it was lent to the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866. This is a fine three-quarter length in the Miervelt manner. The dignified
SPEARE 7 o 1 bald—headed man has a light beard, brown hair, and blue eyes, and wears white lace-edged falling collars and cuffs over a. doublet gold-embroidered with points; and in the left hand holds a black hat. The " Lytton portrait," a royal gift made to Lord Lytton from Windsor Castle, is mainly interesting as having been copied by Miller in his original profile engraving of Shake- speare. The “ Rendelsham " and “ Crooks ” portraits also belong to the category of capital paintings representing some one other than Shakespeare; and the same may be hazarded of the " Grafton " or " Winston " portrait, the " Sanders portrait," the " Gilliland portrait " (an old man’s head impudently advanced), the striking " Thorne Court portrait," the " Aston Cantlow portrait," the " Burn portrait/’ the " Gwennet portrait," the " Wilson portrait " and others of the class. _ Miniatuiepainting has assumed a certain importance in relation to the subject. The " Welbeck Abbey " or " Harleian miniature," is that which Walpole caused to be engraved by Vertue for Pope`s edition of Shakespeare (1723-1725)» but which Oldys declared, in- correctly, to be a juvenile portrait of james I. According to Scharf, it belonged to Robert Harley, 1st earl of Oxford, but it is more likely that it was bought by his son Edward Harley in the father’s lifetime. It already was in his collection in 1719, but whence it came is not known. It has been denounced as a piece of arrant sycophancy that Pope consented to adopt this very beautiful but entirely unauthenti- cated portrait, which bears little resemblance to any other accepted likeness (more, however, to the Chandos than to the rest) simply in order to please the aristocratic patron of his literary circle. It measures 2 in. high; Vertue's exquisite engraving, executed in 1721, enlarged it to 5i, and became the " authority " for numerous copies, British and foreign. The " Somerville " or “ Hilliard miniature," belonging to Lord and Lady Northcote, is claimed to have descended from Shakespeare's friend, Somerville of Edstone, grandfather of the poet William Somerville. It was first publicly spoken of in 1818 when it was in the possession of Sirjames Bland Burges. It is certainly by Hilliard, but although Sir Thomas Lawrence and many distinguished painters and others agreed that it was an original life- portrait of the poet, few will be disposed to give adherence to the theory, in view of its complete departure from other portraits. It represents a ale man with flaxen hair and beady e es; yet in it Burges found) " a general resemblance to the best busts (sic) of Shakespeare," and an attempt was made to prove a relationship between the Ardens and the Somervilles——an untenable theory. The miniature has frequently been exhibited and has figured in important collections on its own merits. The well-known " Auriol miniature," now in America, is one of the least sympathetic and the least acceptable of the Shakespeare miniatures, excellent though it is in technique. It has the forehead and hair)of the Chandos, but it is utterly devoid of the Shakespeare expression. In the background appearsl " ./E* 3g,." The costume is that worn by the highest in the land. It first appeared in its present character in 1826, but it had been known for a few years before, as being in the collection of " Dog " jennings, and ultimately it came into the hands of the collector, Charles Auriol. Its early history is unknown. The other principal miniatures of interest, but lacking authority, are the " Waring miniature," the “ Tomkinson miniature " (which, like the " Hilliard " and the " Auriol," was formerly in the Lumsden Propert collection), the doubtful " Isaac Oliver miniature " (alleged to have been in the jaffé collection at Hamburg), the " Mackey " and " Glen " miniatures, and those presented to the Shakespeare Memorial b Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower, T. Kite, and Henry Graves. These are all contemporary or early works. Miniature copies of recognized portraits are numerous and many of them of high excellence, but they do not call for special enumeration. That, however, by Mary Anne Nichols, " an imitative cameo after Roubiliac," exhibited in the Royal Academy, 1848, claims notice. In this category are a number of enamels by accomplished artists, the chief of them Henry Bone, R.A., H. P. Bone, and W. Essex. Several recorded painted portraits have disappeared, other than those already mentioned; these include the " Earl of Oxford portrait " and the " Challis portrait." The “ Countess of Zetland's portrait," which had its adherents, was destroyed by nre. Not a few of the existent representations of Shakespeare, un· authoritative as they are, were honestly produced as memorial pictures. There is another class, the earnest attempts made to reconstitute the face and form of the poet, combining within' them the bestiand most characteristic features of the earliest portraits. The most successful, perhaps, is that by Ford Madox Brown. in the Manchester Corporation Art Gallery. Those by ]._F. Rigaud, R.A., and Henry Howard, R.A., take a lower rank. It is to be regretted that Gainsborough did not execute the portrait for Garrick, for which he made serious preparations. The " Booker portrait," which gained wide publicity in Stratford, might be included here; it has _d1gn1ty, but the pigment forbids us to allow the age claimed for it. The portraits by P. Kramer and Rumpf are among the best recently executed in Germany. The remarkable pen-and-ink drawings by Minanesi and Philip H. Newman deserve to be remembered.
792 SHAKE
The " faked " portraits have been at times as ardently accepted as
those with some solid claim to consideration. The " Shakespeare
Marriage picture," with its rhyming confirmatory “ tag " intended
as an inscription, was discovered in 1872. It is a genuine Dutch
picture of man and wife weighing out money in the foreground·~a
frequent sul>ject—\vhile through the open door Shakespeare and,
presumably, Ann Hathaway are seen going through the ceremony of
handfasting. The inscription and the Shakespeare head (probably
the whole group)_are fakes. The " Rawson portrait," inscribed with
the poets name, is faked; it is really a beautiful little portrait of
Lord Keeper Coventry by janssen. The " Matthias Alexander
portrait " shows a modern head on an old body. The " Belmount
Hall portrait " with its pseudo-Garrick MS. inscription on the back,
is in the present writer’s opinion not the genuine thing which it
claims to be. It represents the poet looking up from his literary
work. In the early part of the 19th century two clever " restorers,"
Holder and Zincke, made a fairly lucrative trade of fabricating
spurious portraits of Shakespeare (as well as of Oliver Cromwell and
Nell Gwynn) and the clumsiness of most of them did not impede a
ready sale. The way in which they imposed upon scholars as well as
on the public is marvellous. Many of these impudent impostures
won wide acceptance, sometimes by the help of the fine engravings
which were made of them. Such are the " Stace " andthe " Dunford
portraits "—so named after the unscrupulous dealers who put them
forward and promulgated them. They have both disappeared, but
of the latter a copy is still in existence known as the " Dr Clay
portrait." The former is based upon the portrait of Robert Carr,
earl of Somerset. These are the two " \\Vinstanley portraits," the
" Bishop Newton," the " Cygnus Avoni2," the " Norwich " or
" Boardman," the " Bellows " or " Talma " portraits—most of them,
as well as others, traceable to one or other or both of the enterprising
fakers already named. At least a dozen are reinforced, as corrobo-
rative evidence, with verses supposed to issue from the pen of
Ben jonson. These are all to be attributed to one ready pseudo-
Elizabethan writer whose identity is known. VVith these pic-
tures, apparently, should be ranged the composition, now in
America, purporting to represent Shakespeare and Ben jonsor
playing chess.
The " fancy-portraits " are not less numerous. The 18th-eentur
small full—length " \\Villett portrait " is at the Shakespeare Memoriai
It is a charmingly touched-in little figure. There are many represen-
tations of the poet in his study in the act of composition—the include
those by Benjamin \\Vilson (Stratford Town Hall), john Boacien, johr
Faed, R.A., Sir George Harvey, R.S.A., C. Bestland, B. j. N. Geiger
and the painter of the \\Varwick Castle picture, &c.; others have foi
subject Shakespeare reading, either to the Court or to his family
by johnWood, E. Ender, R. \Nestall, R.A., &c.; or the infancy ant
childhood of Shakespeare, by George Romney (three pictures)
T. Stothard, R.A., john Wood, james Sant, R.A.; Shakespeare
before Sir Thomas Lucy, by Sir G. Harvey, R.S.A., Thomas Brooks
A. Chisholme, &c. These, and kindred subjects such as “ Shake
speare’s Courtship," have provided infinite material for the industry
and ingenuity of Shakespeare-loving painters.
The engraved portraits on copper, steel, and wood are so numerous
—amounting to many hundreds—that it is impossible to deal wit}
them here; but one or two must be referred to, as they have genuine
importance and interest. Vertue and VValpole speak of an engraver
portrait by john Payne (fl. 1620, the pupil of Simon Pass and one o
the first English engravers who achieved distinction); but no sucl
print has even been found and its existence is doubted. Walpol·
probably confounded it with that by W. Marshall, a reversed ani
reduced version of the Droeshout, which was published as frontis
piece to the spurious edition of Shakespeare’s poems (I64G). It i
good but hard. An admirable engraving, to all but expert eyes un
recognizable as a copy, was made from it in 1815, and another later
\Villiam Faithorne (d. 1691) is credited with the frontispiece t~
Quarles’s edition of " The Rape of Lucrece, by William Shakespeare
gent." (1655). It was copied for‘Rodd by R. Sawyer and republishe¤
in 1 819. It represents the tragic scene between Tarquin and Lucrecc
and above is inset an oval medallion, being a rendering of the Droe
shout portrait reversed. The earliest engravings from the Chando
portrait are of interest. The first by L. du Guernier (Arlaud type
and that by M. (father of G.) van der Gucht are introduced into
pleasing composition. The same elaborate design was adopted b
L. van der Gucht. These, like Vertue’s earlier prints, look to th
left; subsequent versions are reversed. Perhaps the most celc
brated, partly because it was the most important and technically th
finest, up to that time, is the large engraving (to the right) b
Houbrakeu, a Dutchman, done for Birch’s " Heads of Illustriou
Persons of Great Britain " published by T. and P. Knapton (1747
1752). This free rendering of the Chandos portrait is the parent c
the numerous engravings of " the Houbraken type." Since that dat
many plates of a high order, from all the principal portraits, hav
been issued, many of them extremely inaccurate.
Numerous portraits in stained glass have been inserted in th
windows of public institutions. Typical of them are the Germa
Chandos windows by Franz Mayer (Mayer & Co.) at Stationers’ Hal
and in St Helens, Bishopsgate (Professor Blaim); and that of th
Droeshout type in the great hall of the City of London school. F or
Madox Brown’s design is one of the best ever executed.
VVe now come to the sculptured memorials. After Gerrard ]ohns0n’s bust no statuary portrait was executed until 1740, when the statue in Poets' Corner, Westminster Abbey, was set up by public subscription, mainly through the enthusiastic activity of the earl of Burlington, Dr Richard Mead, and the poet Pope. It was designed or " invented " by William Kent and modelled and carried out by Peter Scheemakers; what is, as Walpole said, " preposterous " about it—n1ainly the pedestal with its incongruous heads—may be credited to the former, and what is excellent to the latter. It is good sculpture, and is interesting as being the first sculptured portrait of the poet based upon the Chandos picture. Lord Pembroke possesses a replica of it. A free repetition, reversed and with many changes of detail, is erected in a niche on the exterior wall of the town-hall of Stratford-on—Avon. A copy of it in lead by Schee- makers’ pupil, Sir Henry Cheere, used to stand in Drury Lane theatre. Wedgwood copied this work, omitting the absurdities of the pedestal, 1 with much spirit in black basalt. The marble copy, much simplified, in Leicester Square, is by Fontana, a gift to London by Baron Albert Grant. Busts were executed by Scheemakers, founded on the same , portrait. One is still at Stowe in the " Temple of British WOTtlll€S,l, i and in Lord Cobham's possession is that presented by Pope to Lord 1 Lyttelton. Some very fine engravings of the monument have been , produced, the most important that in Boydell’s Shakespeare (larger . edition). By L. F. Roubiliac, Cheere’s protégé, is the statue which , in 1758 David Garrick commissioned him to carve and which he be- · queathed to the British Museum. It is also based upon the Chandos , portrait. The terra-cotta model for the statue is in the Victoria and e Albert Museum; and a marble reproduction of it is in private hands. · To Roubiliac also must be credited the celebrated “ D’Avenant , Bust " of blackened terra-cotta in the possession of the Garrick Club. ; This line work of art derives its name from having been found - bricked up in the old Duke’s theatre in Portugal Row, Lincoln’s Inn Y Fields, which 180 years before was d'Avenant's, but which after- · wards passed through various vicissitudes. It was again adapted - for theatrical purposes by Giffard, for whom this bust, together with 1 one of Ben jonson which was smashed at the moment of discovery, 1 must have been modelled by the sculptor, who at the same time was engaged on Garrick's commission. The model for the British v Museum statue is seen in the portrait of Roubiliac by Carpentiers, . now in the National Portrait Gallery. Another portrait of Shake- - speare is in Westminster Abbey——a medallion based on the Chandos z picture, introduced into Webber’s rather fantastic monument to 1 David Garrick. An important alto-relievo representation of Shake- , speare, by ]. Banks, R.A., between the Geniuses of Painting and r the Drama, is now in the garden of New Place, Stratford-on-Avon. , It was executed for Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery in Pall Mall, l and was presented to the British Institution which afterwards , occupied the premises; on the dissolution of that body it was 2 given to Stratford by Mr Holte Bracebridge. It is a fine thing, , but the likeness adheres to no clearly specified type. It has been - excellently engraved in line by james Stow, B. Smith, and others, r and was re roduced on the admirable medal by Ktichler, presented by Boydellpto every subscriber to his great illustrated edition of s Shal<espeare’s works. It is remarkable that Banks’s was the first 1 British hand to model a portrait of the poet. e In more recent times numerous attempts have been made to re- l constitute the figure of Shakespeare in sculpture. The most ambitious f of these is the elaborate memorial group modelled and presented 1 by Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower to Stratford and set up outside e the Memorial Theatre in 1888. The large seated figureof Shakespeare 1 is mounted on a great circular base around which are arranged the .- figures of Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Prince Henry, and Falstaff. In s 1864 ]. E. Thomas modelled the colossal group of Shakespeare with .- attendant figures of Comedy and Tragedy that was erected in the ·. grounds of the Crystal Palace, and in the same year Charles Bacon o produced his colossal Centenary Bust, a reproduction of which forms e, the frontispiece to john H. Heraud's Shakspere: His Inner Life :1 (1865). The chief statues, single or in a group, in London still to be z, mentioned are the following: that by H. H. Armstead, R.A., in a- marble, on the southern podium of the Albert Memorial; by Hamo 1s Thornycroft, R.A. (1871), on the Poets' Fountain in Park Lane; by a) Messrs Daymond on the upper storey of the City of London School, a on the Victoria Embankment; and by F. E. Schenck, a seated figure, y on the facade of the Hammersmith Public Library. The Droeshout e portrait is the basis of the head in the bronze memorial by Professor 2- Lanteri set into the wall on the conjectural site of the Globe Theatre e (1909) and of the excellent bust by Mr C. ]. Allen in the churchyard y of St Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, in memory of Heminge and 1s Condell (1896). A recumbent statue, with head of the Chandos type, - was in preparation in 1910 for erection in the south aisle of Southwark 1f Cathedral. Among statues erected in the provinces are those by e Mr H. Pe ram, A.R.A., in the building of Birmingham University ’e (1908) ant? by M. Guillemin for Messrs Farmer and Brindley for the Nottingham University buildings. 1e Several statues of importance have been erected in other countries. n The bronze by M. Paul Fournier in Paris (presented by an English l, resident) marks the junction of the Boulevard Haussmann and the 1e Avenue de Messine (1888). The seated marble statue by Professor ·d O. Lessing was set up in Weimar by the German Shakespeare Society; the sculptor has also modelled a couple Of busts of 6. very personal
I SHAKE. and, it may be said, un-English type. A seated statue in stone roughly hewn with characteristic breadth by the Danish sculptor, Louis Hasselriis, has for some years been placed in the apartment of the Castle of Kronborg, in which, according to the Danish tradition, Shakespeare and his company acted for the king of Denmark. America possesses some well-known statues. That by j. Q. A. Ward` is in Central Park, New York (1872). In 1886 William Ordway Partridge modelled and carved the seated marble figure for Lincoln Park, Chicago; and later, Frederick MacMonnies produced his very original statue for the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. This is in some measure based on the Droeshout engraving. William R. O'Donovan also sculptured a portrait of Shakespeare in 1874. Great consideration is given by some to the bust made by William Page of New York in preparation for a picture of the poet he was about to paint. He founded it with pathetic faith and care and amazing punctiliousness on the so-called “ Death Mask," which it little resembles; as he was no sculptor the bust is no more successful than the picture. The bust by R. S. Greenough, already mentioned as based in part on the " Boston Zuccaro " portrait, must be included here, as well as the romantic, dreamy, marble bust by Augusto Possaglio of Florence (presented to the Garrick Club by Salvini in 1876); the imaginative work by Altini (Duke of Northumberland, Alnwick Castle); and the busts by F. M. Miller, E. G. Zimmermann, Albert Toft, j. E. Carew (Mr Muspratt, Liverpool) and P. j. Char- digny of Paris. The last named was a study made in 1850, for a proposed statue, 100 ft. high, which the sculptor hoped to be com- missioned to produce. A multitude of small bronze and silver busts and statuettes have also been produced. Some attention has been accorded for several years past to the great pottery bust attributed to john Dwight’s Fulham Pottery (o. 1675). The present writer, however, has ascertained that it is by Lipscombe, in the latter portion of the 19th century. The wood carvings are numerous. The most interesting among them is the medallion traditionally believed to have been carved by Hogarth, and inset in the back of the " Shakespeare chair " pre- sented by the artist to David Garrick (in the possession of Mr W. Burdett-Coutts). The statuettes alleged to be carved from the wood of Shakespeares mulberry-tree are numerous; among the most attractive are the archaic carvings by Salsbee (1761). One statu- ette of a primitive order of art was sold in 1909 in London for a fantastic sum; it was absurdly claimed to be the original of Scheemakers’ statue, but without the slightest attempt at proof or justification. The Medals and Coins of Shakes eare offer material for a separate numismatic study. Those of the Chandos type are by far the most numerous. The best of them are as follows: jean Dassier (Swiss; in the " Series of Famous Men," c. 1730); j. j. Barre (French; in the " Series numismatica universalis," 1818); Westwood (Garrick jubilee, 1769); j. G. Hancock—the young short-lived genius who engraved the die when only seven years old; j. Kirk (for the Hon. Order of Shakespeareians, 1777); W. Barnett (for the Stratford Commemoration, 18:6); j. Moore (to celebrate the Birthplace, 1864)§ and L. C. Wyon (the gift of Mr C. Fox-Russell to Harrow School, 1870). The latest, and one of the most skilful, is the plaquette (no reverse) in the series of " Beruhmter Manner " by Wilhelm Mayer and Franz Wilhelm of Stuttgart, the leading medal—partnership of Germany (1908). After the " Droeshout " engraving: Westwood (1821); T. A. Vaughton (1908-1909). After the "Stratford bust": W. F. Taylor (celebrating the Birthplace, 1842); and T. j. Minton; T. VV. Ingram (for Shakespearean Club, Stratford, 1824); j. Moore, Birmingham; and, head only, Antoine Desboeufs (French, exhibited in the Salon, 1822——obverse only); B. Wyon (for the City of London School, Beaufoy Shakespearean prize, 1851); j. S. and A. B. Wyon (for the M‘Gill University, Montreal, 1864); john Bell and L. C. \Vyon (for the Tercentenary Anniversary, 1864); Allen and Moore (with incorrect birthdate, " I574," 1864). From the " janssen " type: joseph Moore (a medal imitating a Cast medal, 1908). There is an Italian medal, cast, of recent date; with the exception of this all the medals are struck. The 18th—century tradesmen’s Tokens, which passed current as money when the copper coinage was inadequate for the public needs, constitute another branch for collectors. About thirty- four of these, including variations, bear the head of Shakespeare. \Vith one exception (a farthing, 1815, issued much later than the bulk of the tokens) all represented half-pence. They comprise the " local " and " not local." There are the " \Narwickshire " series, the " London and Middlesex," and the "Stratford Promissory" series. Many are stamped round the edge with the names of the special places in {which they are payable. In addition to these may be mentioned the 24 "imitation regal " tokens which bear Shakespeare's name, around (except in one or two cases) the efhgy of the king. They belong to the last quarter of the 18th century. Many of the more important kilns have produced portraits of Shakespeare in porcelain and pottery, in statuettes, busts, in " cameos " and in painted pieces. VVe have them in Chelsea; old Derby; Chelsea·Derby; old Staffordshire (salt-glaze), frequently reproducing, as often as not with fantastic archaism, Scheemakers} statue; and on fiat surfaces by transfer of printed designs——both
18th- and 19th-century productions; also French-Dresden and Wedg- wood. In the last-named ware is the line bust, half—l1fe size, 1n black basalt, as well as several " cameos" in various s1zes,1n blue and white jasper, or yellow ground, and 1n black basalt. The busts were also produced in different sizes. Worcester produced the well—known “ Benjamin Webster " service, with the portrait,_ Chandos type, en camaicu, as well as the mug IH " jet enamel," which was the hfth of the set of thirteen. Several of the portraits have also been pro- duced commercially in biscuit china. »·] Gems with intaglio portraits of Shakespeare have been copiously produced since the middle of the 19th century, nearly all of them based upon earlier works by men who were masters of their still- living craft. The principal of these latter are as follows: Edward Burch, A.R.A., exhibited in 1765; Nathaniel Marchant, R.A., ex- hibited 1773 (Garrick turning to a bust of Shakespeare); Thomas Pownall (c. 1750); William Barnett; J. Wicksted the Elder (Shake- speare and Garrick); W. B. Wray (a beautiful drawing for this is 1n the Print Room of the British Museum) ; and Yeo. In the same class may be reckoned the Cameos, variously sardonyx, chalcedony, and shell, some excellent examples of which have been executed, and the lvories, both in the round and in relief. The VVaxes form a class by themselves; in the latter portion of the 18th century a few small busts and reliefs were put forth, very good of their kind. These have been imitated within recent years and attempts made to pass them off as originals, but only the novice is deceived by them. Similarly the old Shakespeare brass p1pe-stoppers have latterly been widely reproduced, and the familiar little brass bust 1S w1dely reproduced from the bronze original. So voracious is the public appetite for por- traits of the poet that the old embroideries 1H hair and more recently ’ in woven silk found a ready market; reliefs 1n silver, bronze, iron, and lead are eagerly snapped up, and postage stamps with Shake- speare's head have been issued with success. The acquisitiveness of the collector paralyses his powers of select1on._ The vast number of other objects for daily use bearing the portra1t of Shakespeare call for no notice here. A (M. H. S.) BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘ _ The following is an attempt to supply the want of a select classified bibliography of the literature connected with Shakespeare (here abbreviated S.), The titles are arranged chronologically under each heading in order to give the literary history of the special subject. Articles in periodicals not issued separately, and modern critical editions of single plays, are not included; and only those of the plays usually contained 1n the collective editions are noticed. I. PRINCIPAL COLLECTIVE Enmous Plays Date. or Editors, Publishers, &c. · Works. 1623 P. ISL folio, J. Heminge and H. Condell (Jaggard & Blount) [reprinted by J. Wright (1807, folio) and by L. Booth (1862-4, 3 vols. 4to); photo-lithographic facsimile by H, Staunton (1866, folio); re- duced by J. O. Halliwell—Phillipps, 1876, 8vo; re rod. from (éhptsworth copy, introd. by S. Lee, IQO2, folio; Methuen, 1910, 10]. ` 1632 P. 2d iiolio (Cotes) [fasc. 1909 (Methuen) folio). 1663, 64 P. 3d folio (Chetwinde) {fasc. 1905 (Methuen) folio]. 1685 P. 4th folio lfasc. 1904 (Methuen) folio]. V 1700 W. ISt 8vo, Rowe (Tonson), 7 vols., plates. I123·25 W. A. Pope (Tonson), 7 vols. 4to. 1733 W. L. Theobald (Tonson), 7 vols. 8vo, plates. 1743. 44 P. Sir T. Hanmer (Oxford). 6 vols. 4to, plates. I747 P. Bp. Warburton, 8 vols. 8vo. 1765 P. Dr S. Johnson (Tonson), 8 vols. 8vo. 1767 P. E. Capell (Tonson), IO vols. sm. 8vo. 1773 P. Johnson and G. Steevens, IO vols. 8vo. 177375 P. "Stage ed." (Bell), 8 vols. I2 mo, plates. 1790 W. E. Malone (Baldwin), first " Variorum ed." IO vols. sm. 8vo. 1793 P. Johnson and Steevens’s 4th ed., by I. Reed, I5 vols. Svo. 1795-96 W. 1st American cd,. S. Johnson (Philadelphia), 8 vols. I2 mo. 1799-1801 W. 1st Continental ed. (Brunswick), 8 vols. 8vo; repr. of 1793 ed. at Basle, 1799-1802, 23 vols. 8vo. 1802 P. Boydel1’s illus. ed. (Bulmer), 9 vols. fol., plates, and 2 additional vc s. 1805 P. A. Chalmers, 9 vols. 8vo, Fuseli’s plates. ‘ 1807 P. l{eath’s engravings, 6 vols. imp. 4to. 1818 P. T. Bowdler’s “Family ed.," complete, IO vols. 18mo. 1821 W. E. Malone, by J. Boswell, "Variorum ed.," 2I vols. 8vo. 1825 P. Rev. W. Harness, 8 vols. 8vo. 1826 P. S. W. Singer (Pickering), IO vols. 18mo, woodcuts. 1829 P. ISI French ed. (Baudry), 8vo. 1830 W. L. Tieck (Leipzig), roy. 8vo. 1832-34 W. J. Valpy, "Cabinet Pictorial ed.," I5 vols. sm. 8vo. 1838-43 W, C. Knight, "Pictorial ed.," 8 vols. imp. 8vo. 1839-43 W. B. Cornwall, 3 vols. imp. 8vo, woodcuts by Kenny Meadows. 1841-44 W. J. P. Collier, 8 vols. 8vo. 1842-44 W C. Knight, "Library ed.," I2 vols. 8vo, woodcuts. 1844 P. O. W. Peabody (Boston, U.S.), 7 vols. 8vo. 1847 P. Dr G. C. Verplanck (N.Y.), 3 vols. roy. 8vo, woodcuts. 1851 W. W. Hazlitt, 4 vols. ‘ X211'20. 1852 P. "Lzmsdowne ed." (White), 8vo. · 1852-57 W. Rev, H. N. Hudson (Boston. U.S.), II vols. 12mo. 1853 P. P. Collier (see Payne Collier Conlnwerxy, xix.), 8vo. 1853-65 W. . O. Halliwell, 16 vols. folio, plates. 1854-65 W. N. Delius (Elberfeld), 8 vols. 8vo.
Plays _
Dag; or Editors, Publishers, &c.
\Vo1ks.
1856 P. Singer and W. W. Lloyd (Bell), IO vols. 12mo.
1857 W. Rev. A. Dyce (Moxon), 6 vols. 8vo, 2d ed., 1864-67.
18S7·60 W. R. G. White (Boston, U.S.), I2 vols. cr. 8vo. _
1858-60 W. H. Staunton, 3 vols. roy. 8vo, illustrated by S11 J. Gilbert:
1860 W. Mrs. Cowden Clarke (N.Y.), 2 vols. roy. 8vo. _
1863~66 W. W. G.l Clark, J. Glover and W. A. Wright, "Camb11dge ed.,"
9 vo s. 8vo.
1864 P. J. B. Marsh, "Reference ed.," large 8vo.
[865-69 P. C.1and M. C. Clarke (Cassell), illustrated by H. C. Selous, 3 vols.
a. 8vo.
1871 &c. P. H. H. Furness, "Variorum ed." (Phil.), vols. 1-16, 8vo in progress.
1872-74 P. C. Knight, "Im<peria1," 4 vols. imp. 4[O, plates.
1874 W. W. G. Clark an W. A. Wright, "Globe," sm. 8vo. _
1875 W. S. Neil, "Library Shakespeare" (Mackenzie), 3 vols. 480, illus.
1876 W. G. L. Duyckinck (Phil.), large 8vo, illus. _ _
1877 &c. P. A. A. Paton, "Hamnet ed.," 8vo, 1st folio text, spelling modernized.
[877 W. N. Delius (F. J. Fumivall), "Le0pold" Shakespeare, 4tO.
1878 W. J. S. Hart, “Avon ed." (Phil.), large 8vo, portraits,
1881 W. Rev. H. N. Hudson, "Harva1d ed." (Boston, U.S.), 20 vols. 12mo.
1885 P. C. Wordsworth, " Historical Plays," 3 vols. sm. 8vo.
1883 \V. R. G. White, " Riverside ed." (Camb., Mass.), 3~vols. 8vo.
1884 \V. Rolfe’s "Friendly ed.," 20 vols. 16mo (N.Y.).
1887-90 W. Sir H. Irving and F. A. Marshall, "H. Irving ed.," 8 vols. 4to.
1888*92 P. J. A. lviorgan, "Bankside ed.," orig. players' text (N.Y. S. Soc.),
20 vo s.
1889 W. “Bedford ed.," N.Y., I2 vols. 8vo."
1891-93 W. W. A. Wright, " Cambridge ed.," 9 vols. 8vo; also 1893-95, 40
vols. sm. 8vo.
1894-96 W. I. Gollancz, "Temple ed.," 40 vols. srn. 8vo.
1899-1903 W. C. H. Herford, "Eversley ed.," IO vols. 8vo.
1899-1902 W. J. Dennis, " Chiswick ed.," ill. by Byam Shaw, 39 vols. sm. 8vo.
1899 &c. P. W. J. Craig, "Arden ed.," each play separate editor.
1901-4 \V. W. E. Henley (and W. Raleigh), "Edinbu1gh folio ed.," IO vols.
1906-9 W. S. Lee, " Univ. Press S. Renaissance ed.," 40 vols.
1907 &c. W. F. J. Fumivall, "Old Spelling S" (I. Gollancz. S. Lib.).
1907 8;:. P. J. A. Morgan, "Bankside—Restoration S." (N.Y. S. Soc.). _
[G. Steevens, Twenty of the Plays, 1766, 4 vols. 8vo, contains
reprints of the early editions. 48 vols. of the quartos were
facsimiled by E. W. Ashbee (1866-71), under the supe1intend·
l ence of Halliwell; photo-lithographic reproductions of early
editions by Griggs and Praetorius, with introductions by
I Furnivhll, &c., 1883-9, 43 vols. 4to.]
II. SELECTIONS Ann Rmonzos .
J, R. Pitman, The School S., 1822, Svo; B. H. Smart, S. Readings, 1839, 121uo;
Howell, Select Plays, 1848, 12mo, Roman Catholic; C. Kean, Selections, as at the
Princess' Theatre, 1860, 2 vols. sm. 8vo; T. and Rev. S. G. Bulfinch, S. adapted,/or
Reading Classes and the Family, Boston, 1865, 12mo; W. A. Wright, Select Plays,
1869-86, I4 vols. sm. 8vo; J. W. S. Hows, Historical S.ian Reader, N.Y., 1870, 8vo;
R. J. Lane (editor), C. Kemble’s S. Readings, 1870, sm. 8vo; R. Baughan, Plays,
Abridged and Revised for Girls, 1871, 8vo; H. N. Hudson, Plays, Selected, Boston,
1872, 3 vols. sm. 8vo; H. Cundell, Tho Boudoir S., 1876, 77, 3 vols. 8vo, eight plays
for reading aloud; H. C. Bowen, S. Reading Book, 1881, 3 pts. 8vo. seventeen plays for
schools and reading aloud; S. Brandram, Selected Plays, abridged for the Young,
1882, sm. 8vo; C. M. Yonge, S.’s Plays for Schools, 1883-85, tive plays abridged and
annotated; M. A. Woods, Scenes from S. for use in Schools, 1898, &c., 8vo; Lamb, S.
for the Young (I. Gollancz, S. Lib.) 1908, &c., based on Lamb’s Tales from S.
III. Pnmcirmx. Truusmrroxs or Woxxs
Germon.—C. M. Wieland, 1762-66, 8 vols. 8vo; J. Eschenburg, 1775-82, 13 vols.
8vo; A. W. v. Schlegel, 1797-1810, 9 vols. 8vo; Sch egel-Eschenburg, 1810-12, 20 vols.
8vo; J. H. and H. and A. Voss, 1818-29, 9 vols. 8vo; J. W. O. Benda, 1825-26, IQ vols.
16mo; J. Meyer and H. Doring, I824'$4, 52 ts. 18mo; Schlegel-Tieck, 1825-33, 9 vols.
12mO; P. Kaufmann, 1830-36, 4 vols. 12mo; Ortlepp, 1838-39,8vols. 12mo; Schlegel-
Tieck-Ulrici, 1867-71, I2 vols. 8vo; Dingelstedt, W. Jordan and others, 1865-70, 9 vols.
8vo; F. Bodenstedt and others, 1867-71, 5th ed. 1890,9vols. 8vo; Schlegel—Tieck—Berna.ys,
1871-73, I2 vols. sm. 8vo; Schlegel—Gundolf, 1908, Src. French.—Letourneur, 1776-82,
zo vols. 8vo; Letourneur-Guizot, 1821, I3 vols. 8vo; B. Laroche, 1838-39, 2 vols. ro .
8vo; Francisque-Michel, 1839-40, 3 vols. roy. 8vo; F. Victor Hugo Els, 1859-66, 18 vol;.
8vo; Guizot, 1860-62, 8 vols. 8vo; E. Montégut, 1868-73. I0 vols. 12mo; G. Duval.
1908-9, 8 vols. 8vo; J. H. Rosny, 1909, &c. Italian.-M. Leoni, 1814-15, 8 vols. 8vo;
C. Rusconi, 1838, 8vo; C. Pasqualigo, 1870, &c.; G. Carcano, 1875-82, I2 vols. 8vo.
Spanish.—Marqués de Dos Hermanos, 1872-77, 3 vols. 8vo; J. Clark, 1870-74, 5 vols.
(only IO plays); G. Macpherson, ISSX. Dutch.—B. Brunius, &c., 1778-82, 5 vols. 8vo:
A. S. Kok, 1872-80, 7 vols. 8vo; L. . J. Burgersdijk, 1886-88, I2 vols. 8vo. Danish.
—Foersom and E. Lembcke, 1861-73, 18 vols. 8vo. Swedis}t.—C. A. Hagberg, 1847-
51, I2 vols. 8vo. Bohernian.—J. Cejka, F. Doucha, &c., 1856-73, 9 vols. 8vo. Hun-
gorian.—Dobrentei, 1824, 8vo; Lemouton, I84$, &c. Polish.——I. Kefalinski and J. v
Placyd, 1839-47, 3 vols. 8vo; S. Kozmiana. 1866, &c.; H. C. Selousa, 1875-77, 3 vols.
Russian.-N.Ketschera, 1841-50, 5vols. (18 plays); P.A.Kanshin, I8Q3,I2V0lS. (com-
plete works).
IV. CRITICISM, I1.1.us111A·r1ou Ann Coummr
A.——General Works.
T. Rymer, The Tragedies of the Last Age, 1678, 8vo, and A Short View of Tragedy
1693, 8vo; C. Gildon, "Some Reflections on Mr Rymer" (in Miscellaneous Lectures
ICQ4, 8vo); J. Dennis, The Intpartial Critic, 1692, 4to, and Essay on the Genius ana
Writings of S., 1712, 8vo; Z. Grey, Word or Two of Advice to W. Warburton, 1746
8vo, Free and Familiar Letter to W. Warburton, 1750, 8vo, Remarks on [Warburton’sQ
Edition, 1751, 8vo, and'Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes, 1754, 3rd ed. 1755
2 vols. 8vo; S. Johnson, Proposagfor a New Edition (1746), folio, 1765, 8vo; E. Capell
Notes and Various Readings to ., 1759, 4(0 (1779-80), 3 vols. 4to; P. Nichols, The
Castrated Letter of Sir T. Hanrner, 1763, 8vo; Prefaces by Dr Johnson, Pope.
Theobald, (rc., 1765. 8vo; W. Kenrick, Review of Dr Johnson': New Edition, 1765.
8vo, and Defence, 1766; G. Steevens, Proposals for Printing a New Edition, 1766, 8vo;
Mrs Eliz. Montagu,Essayon Writings and Genius ofS., 1769,8vo,frequently reprinted:
W. Kenrick, Introduction to the School of S., 1773, 8vo; Mrs Eliz. Grifiiths, Morality
of S.’s Drama, 1775, 8vo; Voltaire, Lettre a l’Acad<‘mie, 1776, 8vo, on Letourneur’:
translation; J. Baretti, Discours sur S. et Voltaire,1777, 8vo; E. Malone, Supplemen.
to the Edition of 1778, 1780, 2 vols. 8vo, Second Appendix, 1783, 8vo; J. Ritson
Remarks on the Text and Notes of [Steevens’s 1778] edition, 1783, 8vo; T. Davies
L
ISP
{ D A
Egan: R
edjq at. E
I it. 4;,1/16
a78;0n, IM_
caN£:>y7S¤5[
%§i‘»». ’}?e§%··,..
_ B?i;§nf¢,dij.RP;°;l!i§
l”sha",L0zD1tsh »! _
Stecp, e" Z so °p‘ V;8
N·’.."dg {Me, df ‘§ T‘v M8
RMU WM, 7*, . hh;. 4
8 I EC 8 U Cy 3 t 81
Aem; gm d?, vOR y 1 Qc! Y 3%
lhiici rk n ¢LtH{0Or_; ;_”b78'uiZ,’ V0
gee; ’enz elf!- K8:]
V Cn, 0.:0 C .g; .1%, ,"gSM sm s
”~¤g; Om Mn m,"}" " 0 J". 6 · ’-W."'}; 8V
Of C_ ,,, auth 6a20j1Ow_·,2 ex 12; 0_
sf (v nc bc: thu uuipl m0·
gc .·°p {in";!; e,PlsC61 vale € 79 x7o.” I
Dy xg i L}; ;XL18°7”_fga7_ Y. EfkP.ccvc.¢1,; E"fMa
0f gm K9?} _ 8,l_!lO7* 2 $$018 qyasfug, JI 0 . é§ChlhcSc
lh Ig'.; gx7Beb’8V ’ gel] v a aj Rf C'Fen Cu
ve I;;-': 2 J I{id.8ck· Tv°lsI8 F, » gifs a gtVZq Bib h' C
E0" i'shL.O [ I5 vogtalo; · gs I V09g I H sonies touyayaomm
Sdilqélslg CU3:s.(1yS0f: ’ §SfJ_ V6 fO5’ y’ f7Q3EdP CBJ gv lfle
Ifujy g7;i6'it,a,12. SUE . rUM, V. °p;¥lg. H} Q 1 lélme/SGM
n azumr wh·m n 3 0.80 7
‘1~}¢ ‘ sl 6 8 08 ·· Um s1vFw°1 V‘¤· ”O¤‘?r92’M>‘u' ¤‘
io ’J‘s· #12 ~,·· 19 X8 da s a S- ° ’OW¢ '»‘<> ·M"/‘h’8"»
age} Gy 23 tgukgzgtijljh 1850edi D fs' RE [ry Solangct LZ 5 gh
andtur, _, , 88.3. s , 8 6 HV03 Z1], lag 07n, tioofivép .UL7C,5Y 5 BV:
,s€,f; a·sg¤‘84;¤§.}’;{ g.,f_§jsdrV ;§7§i..· ¤$.;,;.§.a¥;T;.t;,g¤¤Q.'f,§ $gj»;;L‘_;. {1..,,
ééj §,5;2’;’ 5V5e5g3V hu; Sgfgf g?t'i$ké0N‘8$s'"¢;¤, 0. p,¤?;¤°· @3 f·. "j~.L°=?w
5V0I. lay <1y‘r; v,‘dé‘»c°; ilu4x 4OHd lih gu"?; Dsfgzlg Svge ’¤t°c; E r, van ‘¤g,,“w§
0 _r 8.8ni» s (Wig: E so .PI?}4t’ jffabchl v g h ; H[fd,; Exapzf [M Of"":
S°»"¤ ¤·‘8§h‘ 3 N" si’1x?‘ vm-wl. m5.°1.·¤#»· ’~· E~.www.· E
B"‘¤¥=¤* §'F °-ak! sS°‘¤.·°°k é¤R€°1?Si· ."’s”·>. as ‘ Sari ¥J·S'¤»· d c"; }· :°"
C“i1’¤86 QF A Svsp ·;’ b QN * ply'. · °¤ $2 edawil} ¤;o.5 °% PVWOH h s,,”r tos
Llal €yL[S2 0pru'T0, Cas J y lu Asms; O {Jan.? d v wrfalg 7L' m a;
Nehrk , .s8va;.€e .kvre r_ li, ams, . T’ 810 _; _] },. éq Bw0e n
$»‘\\;‘:’ gh.; €·‘§$ g 1.'¤‘ ES$"}·As‘¤}84'€Z"’f v€V2»P“°·"; {{Zf’;j. rH $°¤d¢Z’;f gm.??
¤g'·»··.·%· C~"»· ew»»*i"5s=1>°iJ¤"¤"¤.'»=¢"··.°.’ ké R M w’mZ¤·‘*yi··,§”»· ¤.·
$(35); $$6; A%f;V'Tc$"l;$';5;£é€,1/.éK§f§41§8:pvmh¢véIgM°§;t?%i;cE;‘,tti g;;:;
G°lsght?§;Jss;”:f’e, dii‘;”I8?'l251;8g* r3» gpsés ld)- ?'1¥br°aVd11iH ¤Fm81h¤f"a°7”
H¢7v _8v€y 8 hh!, Zxis fg;} O,/_I Ku S m V0·Ic'84S 0a·n f ®y 1 L acfcd
I8all¢,,u0_, T ,];rOg;'¢h_ ara { Sgvné ts; 8;,5;. &; C, 25, n Ci J L ect.; ina, er
M7; S5] F hg Le TA, ffjzf su 2°·°¤ ?‘d°; 1€Yo.¤. · Ig Q V J; V'",,$'¢e”7 10} °ls$
Stgcgyghakyjcjas · Rzaé Mei; tk_Q1g1k, {dig?. S S évg I ,8nié1_<>1slie€{h;,,; V? Oygoé
Eg A gs IpCp Ej:u t 0 QZ_?; gg 6 6 €dC( ·, ur _ htI8• 8 S ngri EH Dj
[,74 °¤ tspeqg * sph! §:rg· e S'a866 ‘ U':8 W '“ ‘t’ 2* sig V¤ an €z·‘s dal}'.
“ ZW'; “¥’$· ffié r$¥¢$¤ ·»°s·’§‘¤"»"*i · Zv$6.°‘?1”-a €;?;€¤ véuiigcd }E‘¤“2>"’·
‘ S30 iS 3*;; ¢{Tcd¤_6,'; §69i¤e;,'I$Ig6. é,"'.;?: $la;__8(,N°, 3, *j§éljqE;S_'¢§ g· vF;;’=g(Q”
¤8-LS. 7,;;,; j:g·m’y* gmsé ms. ‘é6,1'.·»» A " 3;* V0 ·»,¤ ‘mf,¢=§¤¤f §1s‘~..#*§
B u°.;,w. V . vn; 8L.w¤’» ##r.,~.¤f’· ‘¤é ¤. V, Eh *é M rk ·»· 8 . ·s¤
gigrggff ? g;rtt;'g°,a?J. $‘;’;‘f’g;QdX} efggfsw céfglajéég.-‘g!;'a§ :n’;Yj,I8;"E
L ';$§$¤{gfY°*§§&f?J;$°; {9%,iF j §§£g§f$Z.;“Ié?g;?=$;’;3éZ*’{?»?€$
' °;,d ”r€llfd2’ 1 cElZ’h87wi TR 3 olnx gg8h2V qld ·3i¢·°‘g lfé YQ I v —,87l ,;"¢l”;t
X G SS$“"dP1§*,88;m;, ii; g- ge *3_0‘}‘§0HV0;?1SSc};€u¢ <£•gett Mzvisgghggg. {sia}
¥i8Ki J5; [$l‘$"J8S,£‘.¤ "Z°$*h‘SuéR ¤a¤?1Ki€A8$s¤${'¤.“S£rgN‘rV¤{i£8vF3· §<;1”·
éigoij fil}, P ;$6 g’3?;'§f; ]p?¤?S {IQ ?rt?;°’§§r;kg75°S 0g7g5I
é’J¢§h;°-V8. °; gl ai 3<>.‘ gn 7.§8;,"» .I‘i1·¤i·P's -5. gcnégv am; "o’.8V» g§
_ ;.1$’F ,Pl a es J H. ge I 7 Ig af ‘€t‘u'q74_. ,7—’S°; W Co.
mMS; ,,°»· Bucyjysy ao; . S/” z· g as 74 §bl= S @15 FFF és · H C,,· S *s·
, drag OEIPQS $1:;;; gw Féllglds. g·I?¢4i1;Sp;’0_, 8.»A_e1.C_ as gg15S;,;;: eyxwmmj C·
‘ €<>1"*;.B*6 P“*¥.i °k€”a88‘dJVM“¤Y." ··s·'4°Y°·W"uWS**r’l* "· l;"”¢."»°‘¤J~“'é
~ Z1_ aosn 61. _ EH; ke? r gem- Fu']; 18tOMEarfs. , liuvo ang . mslly
L s·cg4,S·¢1c;§0hsf'¤,,g ,·;;L,p;[$el;V 7¤,a_ ggailak , ar; gg; <gzI;I_ e?,;; g g»’8V0,,v<;V:
. Czsgnésy §gC}_6i;餧·aH?1.S'i:;$ikrg;"I{empt';da. Fjgnsvg ézyggqd ubG_°h:ge;0¥,;§g8{.
· war}, 4tC;, 8Q,·€nZ$, DM fl Sp .¤<1,QG?f';Jon¤a‘w’ 18 {6.,1* ?¤'hg$_". t » ’LHS·j
T ·8?.;¤{°{»$;“g¤;3288*; $;Q‘%»»§,,f‘;{,*i. ;;$§5,·g°bA4’V§¤Zg?i%6,;{ ,§,...”.;¤§€§uGns, é’·
EV?.?- ‘*ra“¤{‘~aR*3é¥ E8?]!? {W4 *8%3;.5"»Z·¥m°lyMi"§’~T¤€P“'¥7·6 0} °‘?.‘3i$g;
7 V0 e8C·’8' {ina 'I Rsm' 7 gs 4 am G d S sl ans p‘ aP ‘n’it· MB·
T ¥?; { §: $33 ?,Z;T§MaFjiVhEyff¤¢,·,“}.’j{f‘,é,§$01jy§Ag§g?"¢‘$;; g°gf,~Zf¤; ié,§·¤,,·
; §_(gnévF_"6E vyoj g0;ni$l,°g€;8§8;’0E NQ1in颧l¤,“rl§Lg87§1‘;‘,‘é?rs‘, {#2
’ Auf .·sQ; rdng egln ry,h0. ¤1, . -113;,5. éJ_¤¤ e,; Gs8N.;, , 1<v(,¤,;· .7 v
S' 56 M ° G isla de' D“k”’e" I ’ML‘ "§’g° F SF i' H1??; _§1 %"f"71’ 1g6s8S'
Z 8 A'? %¥ThB1P’ s W °wur; SPS ”glé dg': 421; is d 4 H s€ .(u3°s 8 °’· 695*
, A"¤_. {1 to e ?.·.d.’»NWdc· ‘8"d·8v¤/4; wk; -' AS;" g· BSS 0A . V0?"/gte ·
Hd, HBad9On n eslly. n 189314:5 O_n ur I $18 . La] V .S 0f8V. Js ’e
C Mi5g».,V_}°¤f€·’s{;£¤i;1$~.;;,S·25333 gv;} R?-;a3ss8(.é%g, g¤”¢$];; §§E;¤b§.j’» A5!
SVEH 1),10- Sg"S 0. MC ., tD"g43. Od V; s,Bn 7 · 5 J S Dig Suda Ig, Isné
gf: j’f’L¤'§’ $,jpffI%T ”n,°f¤.i ¤’8¤gqI.i[{.Y$ j.°}>;g*?,8b NSF} gN,f‘¢§4 G “n2mN£°
'Fi .Ke 06 Sen?. Tse} SB S]. g w y$ I E lrsdipo; gc . 8 tc télg- C. If; e;
3 ?;$° 1.°?{’€s8.}· §°$” '}.;6j,¤éZJ,§ €9;gi1-,i¥ ‘8F:lg‘»°;é'” Gfe})§°Q· 5V€é $¢ }¤?’£·
°¤wZ'if‘¢5,)· °¢ §5i S fa y b;" .."»§‘· ·§¤.El#» ‘¤"¤§8;. 688 ME- ha 5.8% Q.?
’ lettenC'{esV;9O . JE-,‘ s5g’ 3,9 ag sa; VVOP, gqimaup, ;,’v,d8_WS:aeR‘:e SV. S ·
“’· £¤"jée2’ZZ; s;.,E§’.;¥?d‘§‘»‘§1· F ‘£¥. g.“—>%‘€; gx?.v§~?V<»'¥· g§§€‘»“°§?·if1“€:
i 13 °F°; 108 ‘r · Hg) ” ’ rv<$ V$°sA"¤"¤MvF MW Hérw "%h’“§’>:
uu _ S..5> ¤;,8.·r8v¤é I; I my ;· ,48% ; LRF n· mV. . ~.,·T"¢ sti.
’ A0'; s 3 ' F Id 8°9yP°¥’C$°69° 5» diver o · §?$]ae’a' B drlev-° T°¢;jr
9 §g{§'_{yFu"¤.i E°?Qg?l;'g¢,§;§n飤3S§.v.;_E‘},·;}J1 s¤HQ§j;ZI{Z9n_;{";»,§Zg.§°§.*7
; §’Wg(;,i;, ih.? Wo °1{§h gg ;i_(§;§15“;?g0€Vg_‘g.@é };’vxf;;“S]é$}§4§‘+LQQ.?§§>v;I
E C S · veils; Iu5tE rk ¤ 0j W!, 7 · »¥.&kT F #l c lE · ’ gn! tu, 8S; M93
y ADMWIO gpnd S g Clnvam ·R,\\V , (li vudyr
’ Cu wwe s’ }‘s *1* V;" S E»“r1*’¤‘*o°J°‘€.‘¤ · L r‘g§¤.S W-§°¤%‘~°¢ ’¤§·
’ ;,}’7F¤’ {ss, 3 fct 5* e ep gl ylJ“;“),B°i°7 <> .,K·* Qi r s>’ Sv <¤;,¤sW*
I8· £ (I ala! 1S;O;;§ g
i §·€°."¤z“!°?'~.¤.” "<iuU“.E¤,st ° p %“r§¤¤‘“ gx"4’ “’y'¤Z;e‘6§ W- $@1+
QW *58:% S;Qh ,;£dl?{ ;Z?1°a II;} · h‘y U"? Pla·?°73hXj’1{},,:[ 0}. gl;" ,:02
%: R37 · Itt ‘l2<>’ 18¢ 7é lg? gvzm F > 63. Lq¤dysI9cQ 8 r ale {6, sm: 8V":;
e)·H88 ,79 D.96 8 ’f a8V¤e· ang.,
0,,,,,-14 ga.,-8;: ,, 5 V. c ·ct.Gf o.m1¢,,t,, V-
Ha, .*‘¤5 t hx vg. gijolz gW¤ I · u, 'mocg 8.} (ga gh t00n1g 0}
uk;Th§8'1§! · v‘¤ *¤.v h‘ ith ¤ -*1;* 0-· 1;$r’ sjé °s’
mlegncogQa.93 Bccocgn OWU; ger tes) D vf Ego.; C fignsi (Brig
t· aHaeqg_I1€ QI1D01C0n1MB; gszu; H use .,” g QF ga-. I ng;
nd", 00,*,, aah.;,,.. ’ ¥.m]’d<;,
4f7S_ ;gJx{lcé86‘;s°?;'»ni°¥g1fm;¤dVCI;fE °I°‘D‘E83b§';;,
p‘;}3§’?0? Qg°}f.gVS:; Hf? Ojleoagc My . &’(}“2{;.";
ix; Igzfd s Ufuuf Ori
70.*} ry (·v pf 7 l11I8m . ’
%‘;e;q?°T) 'P“ ;§t?e§6;77 m§;st iie
79*'1n4t Qnfd V : d . f_;d8v’a L./dal
’· ie?} de i i$5E· ,§¤8°» ==3; %= ; Hm
pt‘s€g’L, }6¤J°hO· ’ 4·· - gg Fnza
s· as t;(1°§”é‘>}zK·;¤‘>£;?%.j€ghé;;'
wmv nf = .I _. 0:
’ F? §v‘??.;f'Ez€?.§?.$5i$?
' é»{.· °6°."¤;.L§’="f¥y$.5
Pi SL Jtgn sch;
II! 07 S
tm TQ .,5% .»5
·5~. .2 wc
am, Oannéf
ml bxm
unc,:;
zdaj
bf
svmsmart snfzware — http://www.sv¤nsm¤n.¤¤m besten Urtheile uber Hamlet, Quedl., 18o8, 8vo; A. G. Barante, Sur Hamlet, 1824, 8vo; P. Macdonuell, Essay an Hamlet, 1843, Svc; Sir E. Strachey, S.’s Hamlet, IBAS, 8vo; H. K. S. Causton, Essay on Mr Singe/s Wvrmwaad, 1851, 8vo; L. Noiré, Hamlet, zwci Vurtnige, Mainz, 1856, 16mo; M. W. Rooney, Hamlet, First Edition (1603,), 1856, 8vo; S.’s Hamlet, 1603 and 1604, with Bibliographical Preéacc, by S. Timmins, 1860, 8vo; A. Gerth, Der Hamlet v. S., Leip., 1861, 8vo; ]. onolly, A Study af Hamlet, 1863, sm. 8vo; H. v. Friesen, Brie/e itb. S.’s Hamlet, L?f)Zlg, 1865, 8vo; A. Flir, Briefe ub. S.’s Hamlet, Innsbruck, 1865, 8vo; D. Wood, amletfram a Psychological Paint uf View, 1870, 8vo; R. H. Home (editor), Was Hamlet Madéf a Series of Critiques, 1871, 8vo; G. F. Stcdefeld, Hamlet ein Tendenzdrama Berlin, 1871, 8vo; A. Meadows, Hamlet: an Essay, 1871, Svo; R. G. Latham, The Hamlet af Saxo Grammaticus and S., 1872, 8vo; F. A. Marshall, Study bf Hamlet, 1875, 8vo; H. v. Struve, Hamlet eine Charakterstudie, Weimar, 1876,_8v0; H. Baumgurt, Die Hamlet Tragbdie u. ihre Kritik, Kénigsb., 1877, 8vo; A. Zmzcw, Die Hamlet Sage, Halle, 1877, 8vo; A. Bilchner, Hamlet le Danais, 1878, 8vo; M. Moltke, S.’s Hamlet Quellen, 1881, 8vo; E. P. Vining, The Mystery of Hamlet, Philad., 1881, sm. 8vo [Hamlet a woman]; H. Besser, Zur Hamlet Frage, 1882, 8vo; E. Stenger, Der Hamlet Charakler, 1883, 8vo; A. Breretou, Same Famous Hamlets, 1884, Svc; N. R. d’Alfonso, La Persanalitb di Amleta, 1894, 8vo; H. Conrad, S.’s Selbstbekenntnisse, 1897, 8vo; E. Hcuse, Zur Ltisung des Hamlet-Problems, 1897, Svo; G. S. Preston, The Secret uf Hamlet, 1897, 8vo; A. Doesing, Hamlet, ein neuer Versuch, 1898, 8vo; H. Traut, Die Hamlet-Cuntrmrerse, 1898, 8vo; F. Gregori, Das Schajen des Schau- ifielers, 1899, 8vo; C. W. Scott, Same Notable Hamlets af the Present Day, 1900, 8vo; . Ford, S.’s Hamlet, IQOO, 8vo; M. E. Evans, The Ghost in Hamlet, 19¤2, 8vo; A. H Tulmau, The Views about Hamlet, 1906, 8vo; C. M. Lewis, The Genesis of Hamlet 1907, 8vo; R. Limberger, Palonius, 19c8,·8v0; A. Wurm, S.’s Hamlet, 1908, 8vo; Pfleiderer, Hamlet u. Ophelia, 1908, 8vo; A. V. Wcilen, Hamlet auf der deutschen Buhne, 1908, 8vo; S. M. Perlmann, Eine neue Hamlet-Aujassung, 1909, Svc. Henry IV. (Pt. i.. Q.1, 1598; Q.2, 1599; Q.3, 1604; Q.4, 1608; 3.5, 1613; gsi, 1622; Q7 1632; Q.8, 1639. Pt. ii.: Q. 1 and Q.2, 1600): E. A. Struve, tudim zu .’s Henry IV., Kiel, 1851, 4to. Henry V. (Q.1, 1600; Q.2, 1602; Q.3, 1608 [1619]): G. A. Schmediug, Essays an S.’s Henry V., 1874, 8vo; P. Kabel, Die Sage van Heinrich V., 1908, 8vo. Henry VI. (Pt. i. 1st ed. in F.1. Pt. ii. rst ed. in F.1. Contentivn, &c.: 8.1, 1594; gz, 1600; Q.5 [1619]. Pt. iii. 15t cd. in F. 1. Richard nf Yorke: Q.1, 1595; .2, 16oo; .3, [1619]): E. Malone, Dissertation an Henry VI., 1792, 8vo; G. L. Rivcs, Authorship of Henry VI., 1874, 8vo; C. Schmidt, M. 11. Anjou var und bei S., 1906, 8vo. Henry VIII. (1st ed. in F.1): T. E. Pemberton, Henry VIII. onthe Stage, 1902, 8vo. Julius Caesar (rst ed. in F.1): G. L. Craik, The English af S. Illustrated, 3rd cd. 1864, sm. 8vo; H. Gomont, Le César de S., 1874, 8vo; M. G. Moberly, Hints for S. Study exemplihed in Julius Caesar, 1881, 8vo; P. Trabaud, Etude sur le Jules César de S. etde Voltaire, 1889, 8vo; P. Kreutzberg, Brutus in S.’s Julius Caesar, 1894, 4to; F. von Westcnholz, Idee u. Charahtere in S.’s Julius Caesar, 1897, 8vo. King John (1st authentic ed. in F.1. Troublesame Raigne, spurious_: Q.1, 1591; Q.2, 1611; Q.3,16zz). King Lear (Q.1, 16o8;Q.2,_16o8 [K61Q]] Q.3, 1655): {C._]’ennens],King Lear vindicated, 1772, Svc; H. Neumann, Uber Lear u. Ophelia, Breslau, 1866, 8vo; J. R. Seeley; W. Young and E. A. Hart, Three Essays an Lear, ISSI, 8vo, Beaufoy Prize Essays; Dr Hirschfeld, K. Lear im Lichte drztlicher Wiss., 1882 8vo; F. G. F. Verdi, Re Lear, lettere, 1902, 8vo· E. Bode, Die Lear-Sage, IQO4, 8vo. T.ovc's Lub0ur’s Lost (Q.1, 1598; Q.2, :631). ilacbeth (rst ed. in F.1):jlDr S. Johnson] Miscellaneous Observations on Macbeth, I74§, 12mo; J. P. Kemble, acbeth and Richard III., ISI7, 8vo; C. W. Opmomer, Aanleekeningen up Macbeth, Amst., 1854, 8vo· G. Sexton, Psychology of Macbeth, 1869, 8vo; J. G. Ritter, Beitrdge zur Erkl. des Macbeth, Leer, 1871, zpts. 4to; V. Kaiser, Macbeth und Lady Macbeth, Basel, 1875, 8vo; E. R. Russell, The True Macbeth, 1875, 8vo; T. Hall Caine, Richard III. and Macbeth, 1877, 8vo; A. Horst, Kiinig Macbeth, eine schattische Sage, Bremen, 1876, 16me; M. Zcrbst. Die dramat. Technik dex Macbeth, 1888, 8vo; F. Kaim, S.’s Macbeth, eine Studie. 1888, 8vo; J. C. Carr, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, 1889, 8vo; G. Fletcher, Character Studies in Macbeth, :889,_8vo; E. Kroeger, Die Sage von Macbeth, 1904, 8vo. Measure for Measure (rst ed. m F.1): O. 1-Ia1liwell—Phillipps, Memoranda an Measure far Measure, 1880, 1zmo· A. E. Thiseltou, Same Textual Notes, 1901, 8vo. Merchant of Venice (Q.1, 1600; Qjz, 1600 [1619]; Q.3, 1637; Q.4, 1652): G. Farren, Essay an S/zylvck, 1833, 8vo; F. . Hugo, Commentary an the Merchant of Venice, translated 1865, 8vo; H. Graetz, Shylack in d. Sage, 1880, Svo; A. Pietscher, Versuch einer Studie ub. S.’s Kaufmann ·n. V., 1881, 8vo; C. H. C. Plath, S.': Kaufmann v. V., 1882, 8vo; H. Heinemann, Shylqck und Nathan, 1886, 8vo; A. Manzi, L’Ebre0 e la libbra di came, 1896, Svc; O. Burmeistcr, Nachdichtungen, IQQ2, 8vo. Merry Wives of Windsor (Q.1, 1602; Q.2, 1619; Q.3, 1630): J. O. Halliwell-Philhpps, Account af the only known M5. ufS`.s Ptays,1843,8v0. Midsummer Night'; Dream (Q.1, 1600; Q.2, 1600 [1619]):N. J. Halpin, Oberon': Vision and Lylie’sEndymian (Shakespeare Society), 1843, 8vo; J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Introduction I0 S.’s Midsummer lVight’s Dream, 1841, 8vo, and Illustrations ofthe Fairy Mythology nf Midsummer Night': Dream (Shakesp. Soc.), 1845, 8vo; the same with J. Ritson, Fairy Tales, Legends, and Romances, ed. Hazlitt, 1875, 8vo; E. Hermann, Drei S. Studien, Erlangen, I877·Q, 4 pts. sm. 8vo; L. E. A. Pmescholdt, On the Sources of S.’s Midsummer Nighfs Dream, 1878, Svc; A. E. Tbisclton, Same Textual Notes, IQO3, 8vo; F. Sidgwick, Sources and Analagues, 1908, 8vo. Much Ado About Nothing (Q.1, 1600): . W. Lloyd, Much Ada, &•c., with essay, 1884, Svc, to prove reputed prose to be metrical; F. Holleck-Weithmann, Zur Quellenfrage von Much ada, érc., 1902, 8vo. Othello (Q.1, 16zz;1$.2, 1630; 8.3, 1655): W. Parr, The Story of the Mmrr of Venice, 1795, 8vo; R. G. acgregor, thell0’s Character, 1852, 8vo; J. E. Taylor, The Mnar of Venice, Cinthiu’s Tale and S.’s Tragedy, 1855, 8vo; G. Piccini, L'Otell0 di G. S., 1888, 8vo; W. Given, Further Study of Othello, N.Y. 1899, 8vo; W. R. Turnbull, Othello, 1892, 8vo; S. Bobsin, S.’s Othello in englischer Buhnenbearbeitung, IQO4 8vo. Pericles (Q.1, 2, 1609; Q.3, 161 1; Q.4, 1619; Q.5, Q.6, 1630; Q.7, 1635): R. Boyle, On Wilkins’s Shure in Pericles, 1882, 8vo; A. H. Smyth, Pericles aud Apullvnius uf Tyre, 1898, 8vo. Rich- ard H. (Q.1, Q.2, 1597; Q.3, 1598; Q.4, Q.5, 1608; Q.6, 1615; Q.7, 1654): Riechel- mann, Zu Richard II. S. u. Holinshed, Plauen, I860, 8vo; B Tschischwitz, S.': Staat und Kiinigihum, 1866, 8vo; T. D. Barnett, Notes on Richard II., 1890, 8vo; E. W. Sievcrs, S.’s zweiter mittelalterlicher Dramen-Cyklus, 1896, 8vo. Richard IH. (Q.1, rsa1; Q.2, rs<>8; Q-s. ¤6¤=:_Q·4. ¤6¤s: Q.s. ¤6r¤; Q6. 1622: Q.7, ¤6z¤; 0.8. r6s4>= M. Beale, Lecture an the Times and Play of Richard lll., 1844, 8vo; I. F, Schoene, Uber den Charakter Richard III., bei S., 1856, 8vo; L. Moser, Observations an S.’s Richard III., Hertford, 1869, 8vo; H. Mueller, Grundlegung und Entwiclzelung des Charakters Richards III. bei S., 1889, 8vo; G. B. Churchill, Richard III. up ta S., Berlin, 1900, 8vo; J. Petersen, Richard III., ein Vvrtrag, 1901, 8vo; A. Lcschtsch, Richard III., eine Charakterstudie, 1908, 8vo. Romeo and Juliet (Q.1, 1597; Q.2, ISQQ; Q.3, 1609; Q4. 11.:1.; Q.5, 1637): J. C. Walker, Historical Memoir on Italian Tragedy, 1799, 4to; G. Pace Sanfelice, The Original Story of Romeo and Juliet, by L. da Parts, 1868, 8vo; T. Straetcr, Die Kompasition S.’s Romeo u. Julia, Bonn, 1861, 8vo; C. R. E. Hartmann, Romeo u. Julia, Leipzig, 1874, 8vo, a critical essay; M. F. Guenther, Defence of S.’s Romeo and Juliet, 1876, 8vo; R. .Gericke, Romeo u. Julia nach S.’s MS., 1880, 8vo; J. L. Fraenkel, Stef- u. Quellenkunde van Romeo u. Juliet, 1889, 8vo. Taming of the Shrew (rst ed. in F.1): A. H. Tclman, S.’s part in the Taming ofthe Shrew (Modem Lang. Ass. of Am.), 1890, 8vo; H. Jacobson, W. S. und Kdthchen Minnla, 1903, 8vo; E. H. Schomberg, Eine Studie (Stud. zur engl. Phil.). 1904. 8vo. Tempest (lS[ ed. in F.1): J. Holt, Remarks an The Tempest, 1750, 8vo; E. Malone, Incidents from which S.’s Tempest was derived, 1808-9, 2 pts. 8vo; G. Chalmers, Another Account, 5:*c., 1815, 8vo; Rev. _]. Hunter, Disquisitivn on The Tempest, 1859, 8vo; P. Macdonnell, Essay an the Tempest, I840, 8vo; Notes of Studies an The Taming uf the Shrew, S. Society of Philadelphia, 1866, 4to, with bibliography of The Tempest; J. Meissner. Untersuchungen ub. S.’s Sturm, Dessau, 1872, 8vo; D. Wilson, Caliban, the Missing Link, 1873, 8vo; C. C. Hense, Das Antike in S.’s Dramen: D. Sturm, 1879, 8vo; F. Boas, Der Sturm und das Winter- mdrchen, 1882, 8vo; R. Boyle, S.': Wintermiirchen u. Sturm, 1885, Svc; P- Rodin, S.’s Sturm, 1893. 8vo. Timon 0fAtheus(1st. ed. in F.1): A. Mueller, Uber die
T LSPEA RE 795 Quellen aus denen S. den Timon o. Athen enlnommen hat, Jena, 1873, 8vo; A. E. Thiselton, Two Passages, 1904, 8vo. Titus Andronicus (Q.1, 1594; Q.2, 1600; %_;, 1611): M. M. A. Schroeder, Uber Titus Andronicus, 1891, 8vo; J. M. Robertson, id S. write T. A.? 1905, 8vo. Troilus and Cressida (Q.r, Q.2, 1609): Annotations by S. Johnson, G. Steevensffrc., upon Troilus and Cressida, 1787 12mo; L. Boening, De S. fabula quae Troilus et Cressida inscribitur, 1870, 8vo; O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Memoranda, 1880, 12mO. Twelfth Night, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and The Winter sTale (all three irst printed in F.1): C. H. Coote, On S.’s new map in Twelfth Night, 1878, 8vo. Sonnets (Q.1, 1609): J. Boaden, On the Sonnets of S., 1837, 8vo; C. A. Brown, S.’s Autobiographical Poems, 1838, 8vo; I. Donnelly, The Sonnets of S., 1859, 8vo; Dr Barnstorl}, Key to S.’s Sonnets, translated, 1862, 8vo; B. Corney, The Sonnets of S., 1862, 8vo; [E. A. Hitchcock], Remarks on the Sonnets of S., N.Y., 1865, 12mo; R. Simpson, Introduction to the Philosophy of S.’s Sonnets, 1868, 8vo; H. Brown, The Sonnets of S. solved, 1870, 8vo; C. M. Ingleby The Soule arrayed, Sonnet cxlvi., 1872, 8vo; G. Massey, The Secret Drama of S.’s Sonnets unfolded, 2nd cd. 1872, riv. pr. 1888, 8vo; Baron E. von Dunckelmann, S. in seinen Sonetlen, 1897, 8v9· F. ]l?Furnivall, S. and Mary Fitton, 1897, 8vo; S. Butler, S.’s Sonnets, XSQQ, 8vo; O. Wilde, The Portrait of Mr. W. H., 1901, 8vo; J. L. O'F1anagan, S's Self- Revelation, 1902, 8vo; E. A. Jackson, Consideration ot S.’s Sonnets, 1904, 8vo; A. B. MacMahan, S.’s Love Story, 1909, 8vo. Venus Adonis (Q.1, 1595; Q.2, 1594; sm.8vo, 1596,1599,1600(?), 1602, 1617, 1620,1627, 1630, 1636; 8vo, 1675):A. Morgan, Venus and Adonis, Study in Warwickshire Dialect, N.Y., ISSS, 4th ed. 1900, 8vo. Lucrece (Q.1, 1594;sm.8vo,1598,160o,1607,1616,1624, 1632,1655):A.Wuerzner, Die Orthographie der ersten Quarto-Ausgabe von Venus u. Adonis und Lucrece,1887, 8vo. Passionate Pilg1·im(16mo, 1599; 2nd ed. not known; 3rd cd. 16mo, 1612): A. Hoehnen, S.’s Passionate Pilgrim, 1867, 8vo, dissertation. Falstaifz C. Morris, True Standard of Wit, with Character of Sir J. Falstaj, 1744, 8vo; W. Richardson, Essays on Character of Sir J. Falstaj, 1788, 8vo; M. Morgan, Essay on Sir J. Falstaj, 1777, new edition 1825, 8vo, vindicates his coura e; J. H, Hackett, Falstajf, 1840, 8vo; J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, On the Characker of Falstajf in Henry IV., 1841, 8vo; E. Schneller, Don Quixote und Falstajf, Ber n, 1858, 8vo; G. W. Rusden, Character of Falstaj, Melbourne, 1870, 8vo; G. Barone, D’un antenalo italiano di Falstaj, 189 , 8vo; C. E. Phelps, Falstaf and Equity, 1901, 8vo; W. Baeske, Oldcastle-Falsta} in der engl. Literatur bis zu S., 1905, 8vo. Female Char- acters: W. Richardson, On S.’s Female Characters, fsrc., 1788, Svo; A. M. Jameson, Characteristics of Women, 1832, 2 vols., 12mo, illustrated; S': Heroines, 1879, sm. 8vo, same book; C. Heath, The Heroines of S., 1848, large 4tO, illustrated, and The S. Gallery, containing the Princzal Female Characters, 1836, large 8vo, plates reproduced in H. L. Palmer’s Stranord allery, N.Y., 1859, large 8vo; M. C. Clarke, Gtrlhood of S.’s Heroines, 1850-2, 3 vols. 8vo; H. Heine, Englische Fragmente und S.’s Madehen und Frauen, Hamburg 1861, sm. 8vo, S.’s Maidens and Women, transl. by C. G. Leland, 1891, 8vo; F. Leo, S.’s Frauenideale, Halle, 1868, 8vo; F. M. von Boden- stedt, S.’s Frauencharaktere, and ed., Berlin, 1876, 8vo; M. Summer, Les Héroines de Kalidasa et les Héroines de S., 1879, sm. 8vo; R. Genée,Klassische Franenbilder, 1884, 8vo; Lady Martin, On Some of S.’s Female Characters, 1885, 8vo; Mrs M. L. Elliott, S.’s Gardenof Girls, 1885, 8vo; L. Lewes, The Women of S., érc., 1894, 8vo; G. Cosentino, Le donne di S., 1906, 8vo; Baron A. von Gleichen—Russwurm, S. ’s Frauen· gestalten, 1909, 8vo. Humour: J. Weiss, Wit, Humour and S., Boston, 1876, 161:10; J. R. Ehrlich, Der Humor S.’s, Vienna, 1878, 8vo; L. Wurth, Das Wortspiel bei S., 1894, 8vo; E. Dowden, S. as a Comic Dramatist, 1903, 8vo. . V. LANGUAGE, INCLUDING GRAMMARS AND GLOSSARIES T. Edwards, Supplement to Mr Warburton’s Edition, being the Canon: of Criticism and Glossary. 1748, 8vo, 7th ed. 1765; R. Warner, Letter on a Glossary to S., 1768, 8vo; R. Nares,Glossary,1822,4to,by Halliwell and Wright, 1888, 8vo; J. M. J0st,Erkl. Wiirterbuch, Berlin, 1830, sm. 8vo; C. L. W. Francke Bemerkungen uber d. S rachge- brauch des S., Berlin, 1837, 8vo; J. O. Halliwell—Philiip}>s, Dictionary of Arcliaic and Provincial Words, 1846-47, 2 vols. 8vo, and Hand·Book ndex to the Works, 1866, 8vo, phrases, manners, &c.; J. L. Hilgers, Sind nicht in S. noch manche Verse wiederher- zustellen in Prosa? Aix-la·Chapelle, 1852, 4to; N. Delius, S. Lexikon, Bonn, 1852, 8vo; W. S. Walker, S.’s Versijication, 1854, 8vo, and Examination of the Textof S., with Remarks on his Language, 1860, 3 vols. 8vo; C. Bathurst, S.’s Versijication at dijferent Periods, 1857, sm. 8vo; S. Jervis, Dictionary of the Language of S., 1868, 4to; G. Helmes, The English Adjective in S., Bremen, 1868, 8vo; A. J. Ellis, On Early English Pronunciation, 1869-75, 4 vols. 8vo; W. L. Rushton, S.’s Eughuism, 1871, 8vo; D. Rohde, Das Hnlfszeitwort "To do" bei S., Gottingen, 1872, 8vo; . A. Abbott, Shakespearian Grammar, 1873, 1901, sm. 8vo; A. Schmidt, S. Lexikon, 1874, third ed. by G. Sarrazin, Berlin, 1902, 2 vols., large 8vo, in English, includes all words, phrases and constructions; K. Seitz, Die Alliteratiorr im Engl. vor u. bei S., 1875, 4to; F. PfeHer, Die Anredepronomina bei S., 1877, 8vo; P. A. Bronisch, Das neulrole Possessivpronom bei S., 1878, 8vo; O. W. F. Lohmann, Die Auslossung des Relativ- gronomens, Erc., 1879, 8vo; A. Dyce, Glossary, revised by H. Littledale, 1902, 8vo; C. eutschbein, S. Grammatik f. Deutsche, 1882, 8vo; A. Lummert, Dre Orthographie der erslen Folioausgabe, 1883, 8vo; C. Mackay, Obscure Words and Phrases in S., 1884, 8vo; G. H. Browne, S.’s Versification, Boston, 1884, 12mo, includes bibliography; L. Kellner, Zur Syntax des engl. erbums, Vienna, 1885, 8vo; J. H. Siddons, Shake- apearian Referee, Washington, 1886, 8vo, encyclopaedic glossary; H. M. Selby, The S. lassical Dict., 1888, 8vo; S. F. Surtees, S.’s Provincialisms, Words used m Sussex, 1889, sm. 8vo; H. Conrad, M etrische Untersuch. zur Feststellung der Abfassungszeil von S.’s Dramen, Berlin, 1895, 8vo; E. Hermann, Urheberschaft u. Urquell o. S.’s Dichtungen, 1886, 8vo; G. Koenig, Der Vers in S.’s Dramen, 1888, 8vo; J. Marx, Der dichlerische Entwickelungsgang S., 1895, 8vo; W. Franz, S. Grammalik, Halle, 1900, 2nd ed. 1909, 8vo; B. A. P. van Dam, S. : Prosody and Text, 1900, 8vo; J. Phin, S. Encyclopaedia, 1902, sm. 8vo; S. Lanier, S. and his Forerunners, 1902, 2 vols. 8vo (Elizabethan poet!')'); W. Vietor, S.’s Pronunciation, Marburg, 1906, 2 vols. sm. 8vo; J. Foster, A S. Word~book, 1908, 8vo; R. J. Cunlide, New S.ean Dict. IQIO, 8vo. VI. QUOTATIONS C. Gildon, Shakespeariana, in his Complete Art of Poetry, I7I8, I2mO, the 6fSt ofthe class;DrW.Dodd, The Beauties of $.,1752, zvols. 12mo, reprinted (in various forms) more frequently than any similar work; The Beauties of S. (G. Kearsley), 1784, 12mo, not the same as D0dd's Beauties; C. Lodt, Aphorismsfrom S., 1812, 12mo; T. Dolby, The Shakespearian Dictionary, 1832, 8vo, and A Thousand Shakespearian Mottoes, 1856, 32mo; T. Price, The Wisdom and Genius of S., 1838, 12mo; Mrs M. C. Clarke, S. Proverbs, 1847, sm. 8vo, reprinted; J. B. Marsh,_Familiar, Prouerbial, and Select Sayings from S., 1864, 8vo; E. Routledge, Quotations from S., 1867, 8vo; C. W. · Stearns, The S. Treasury, N.Y., 1869, 12mo; Capt. A: F. P. Harcourt, The S. Argosy, 1874, sm. 8vo; G. S. Bellamy, New Shakespearian Dictionary, 1877, 8vo; A. A. Morgan, The Mind of S., 1880, 8vo, quotations in alphabetical order; C. Arnold, Index to Shake- spearian Thought, 1880, 8vo. VII. CONCOEANCES Am: INDEXES A. Becket, Concordance, 1787, 8vo, the earliest; S. Ayscough, Index, 1790, large 8vo. 2nd ed. enlarged, 1827, useful; F. Twiss; Complete Verbal Index, 1805 2 vols. 8vo; M. Cowden Clarke, Complete Concordance, 1844, new ed. 1889, 8vo, deals only with the
spmsmart software — http://www.sv¤nsm¤n.r¤m plays; Mrs H. H. Furness, Concordance to Poems, Philadelphia, 1874, 8vo, completinl M rs C. Clarke’s; C. and M. C. Clarke, The S. Key, 1879, Svc, companion to the Con cordance; J. Bartlett, The S. Phrase Book, 1881, 8vo; W. H. D. Adams, Concordanr to Plays. 1886, 8vo; E. M. O‘Connor, An Index to the Work oj S., N.Y., 1887, 8vo J. Bartlett, New and Complete Concordance, 1894, 4lO, the best; M. Edwardes Pocket Lexicon and Concordance to Temple S., 1909, 12mo. VIII P1z01zAB1.1·: Souxcns " Mrs C. Lennox, S. Illustrated, 1 753-54, 3 vols. 12mo, dedication by Johnson, many 0 thc observations also said to be by him; T Hawkins, The Origin af the English Drama 1773, 3 vols. 8vo; J. Nichols, The Six Old Plays on which S. founded Measure fol Measure, érc., 1779, 2 vols, 12mo; S. W. Singer, S.’s ./est Book, 1814-15, 2 pts. 8vo T. Echtermeyer, L. Hcnschel, and K. Simrock, Quellen des S., Berlin, 1831, 3 vols 16mo; L. Tieck, S.’s Vorschule, Leipzig, 182329, 2 vols. 8vo; J. P, Collier, S.’s Library [1843), 2 vols, 8vo. 2nd ed. [by W. C. Hazlitt] 1875, 6 vols. 8vo; W. C. Hazlitt, S.’s Jes Books, 1864, 3 vols. 8vo; W. W. Skeat, S.’s Plutarch, 1875, 8vo; F. A. Leo, Foul Chap/ers of Nor!/1’s Ptutarch, 1878, folio; R. Simpson, The School of S, 1878, 2 vols 8vo; P. Stapfer, S. et t'antiquité, 1879-1882, 2 pts. 8vo, transl. 1880; E. Viles and F. J Furnivull, The Rogues and Vagabonds of S.’s Youth, 1880, 8vo; J. J. Jusserand, Ll Roman du temps de S., 1887, sm. 8vo, transl. 1890, 8vo; B. Graefe, D. Commedia al: Quellen f. S. u. Gothe, 1896, 8vo; J. W. White, Our English Homer, 1892, 8vo; W. G Bo~well Stone, S.’s Holinshed, 1896, 4to; R. K. Root, Classical Mythology in S. N.Y., 1903, 8vo; H. R. D. Anders, S.’s Books, on S.’s Reading and Immediate Sources Berlin, IQOA, 8vo; C. F. Tucker Brooke, S.’s Plutarch, 1909, 2 vols. sm. 8vo; W Thcohald, Classical Element in S.’s Plays, 1909, 8vo; W. M. MacCullum, S.’s Roman Plays. 1910, 8vo; The S. Classics, 1908, &c. and S.’s England, 1908, &c. (I. Gollancz S. Library). . IX. Spccrlu. Kuowrraocn Angling: H. N. Ellacombe, S. as an Angler, 1883, 8vo. Bible: T. R. Eaton, -S. and the Bible, 1858, 8vo; J. Brown, Bible Truths with Shakespearian Parallels, 3rd ed. 1372, 8vo; J. Recs, S. and the Bible, Phil., 1876, sm. 8vo; Bp. C. Wordsworth, S.’s Knowledge and Use of the Bible, 1864, 8vo; C. Bullock, S.’s Debt to the Bible, 1879, 8vo; W. H. Malcolm, S, and Holy Writ, 1881, 8vo; G. Q. Colton, S. and the Bible, N.Y., 1888,8vo; C. Ellis, S. and the Bible, 1897, sm. 8vo, 3rd ed. with title, The Christ in S., 1902, sm. 8vo; W. Burgess, The Bible in S., 1903, 8vo. Botany: J. E. Giraud, Flowers of S., 1847, 4tO, plates; S. Beisly, S.’s Garden, 1864, 8vo; H. N. Ellacombe, Plant—lore and Garden-craft of S., 2d ed. 1884, sm. 8vo; L. H. Grindon, S.’s Flora, 1883. 4to; L. Holmesworth, S.’s Garden, 1903, 8vo; J. H. Bloom, S.’s Garden, 1903. 8vo. Emblems: H. Green, S. and the Emblem Writers, 1870, 4[O. Folk—lore and Use of Supernatural: W. Bell, S.’s Puck and his Folksglore, 1852-64, 3 vols. sin. 8vo; W. J. Thoms, "The Folk—lore of Shakespeare," in Three Notelets. 1865, 8vo, reprinted from Athenaeum, 1847; B. Tschischwitz, Nachklillige Germanischer Mythe in S., Halle, 1868, 8vo; [W. C. Hazlitt, editor], Fairy Tales, Legends, and Romances illustrating S., érc., 1875, 8vo; T. F. T. Dyer, Folk»lore of S., 1884, 8vo; T. A. Spalding, Elizabethan Demonology, 1880, 8vo; A, Nutt, Fairy Mythology of S., 1900, 8vo; J. P. S. R. Gibson, S.’s Use of the Supernatural, 1907, 8vo; M. Lucy, S. and the Supernatural, 1906, 8vo; H. H. Stewart, The Supernatural in S., 1908, 8vo; J. E. Poritzky, S.’s Hexen, 1909, 8vo. Leaming: P. Whalley, Enquiry into the Learning of S., 1748, 8vo; R. Farmer. Essay on the Learning of S., 1767, 8vo, reprinted in the variorum (1821) and other editions, criticized by W. Maginn, see S. Papers, annotated by S. Mackenzie, N.Y.. 1856, sm. 8vo; [K. Prescotl, Essay on the Learning of S., 1774, 4to; E. Capell, The School of S., 1780, 4tO (vol. iii. of his Notes and Various Readings to S., 1779-83, 3 vols. 4to); sce also PROBABLE Somzcns (above). Legal: W. L. Rushton, S. a Lawyer, 1858, 8vo, S.’s Legal Maxims, 1859, 8vo, new ed. 1907, S.’s Testamentary Language, 1869, 8vo, and S. illustrated by the Lex Scripta, 1870, 8vo; Lord Campbell, S.’s Legal Acquirements, 1859, 8vo; H. T., Was S. a Lawyer? 1871, 8vo; J. Kohler, S. vor dem Forum der Jurisprudenz, und Nachwort, 1883-8.1, 2 pts. 8vo; F. F. Heard, S. as a Lawyer. Boston, 1884, 16mo; C. K. Davis, The Law in S., St Paul, U.S., 1884, 8vo; W. C. Devecmon, In re S.’s Legal Acquirements, N.Y., 1890. sm. 8vo. Medicine: G. Farren, Essays on Mania exhibited in Hamlet, Ophelia, érc., 1833, 8vo; J. C. Bucknill, The Medical Knowledge of S., I86_O, 8vo, and The Mad Folk of S., 1867, sm. 8vo; C. W. Stearns, S.’s Medical Knowledge, N.Y., 1865, sm. 8vo; G. Cless, Medicinische Btumeulese aus S., Stuttgart, 1865. 8vo; A. O, Kellogg, S.’s Delineations of Insanity, Erc., N.Y., 1866, 16mo; H. R. Aubcrt, S. als Mediciner, Rostock, 1873, 8vo, J. P. Chesney, S. as a Physician, St Louis, 1884, 8vo; B. R. Field, Medical Thoughts of S., 2nd ed., Easton, U.S., 1885, 8vo; J. Moyes, Medicine and Kindred Arts in the Plays of S , 1896, 8vo; H. Lahr, Die Darstellung Krankhajter Geisteszustande in S.’s Dramen, Stuttgart, 1898, 8vo. Military: W. J. Thoms, "Was S. ever a Soldier?" in his Three Notelets, 1865, 8vo. Natural History: R. Patterson, Insects mentioned in S.’s Plays, 1838, 8vo; J. H. Fenncll, S. Cyclopoedia, 1862, 8vo, pt. i. Zoology, Man (all published); J. E. Harting, Ornithology of S., 1871, 8vo; C. R. Smith, The Rural Li/e of S., 1874, 8vo; J. Walter, S.’s Home and Rural Life, 1874, 4tO, illustrated; B. Mayou, Natural History of S., 1877, 8vo, quotations; E. Phipson, Animal Lore of S.’s Time. 1883, srn. 8vo; W. H. Seager, Natural History in S.’s Time, 1896, 8vo; E. O. von Lippmann, Naturwiss. aus S., 1902, 8vo. Philosoplgyz W. J. Birch, Philosophy and Religion of S., 1848, sm. 8vo; V. Knauer, W. ., der Philosoph, Innsbruck. 1879, 8vo. Printing: W. Blades, S. and Typography, 1872, 8vo. Psychology: J. C. Bucknill, The Psychology of S., 1859, 8vo; E. Onimus, .La Psychologie dans les Drames de S., 1876, 8vo; Biauté, Etude m/dico-psychologique sur S. et ses oeuvres, 1889, 8vo. Sea: J. Schuemann, See u. Seefahrt in S.’s Dramen, 1876. 4to; W. B. Whall, S.’s Sea Terms explained, 1910, 8vo. Sports: D. H. Madden, Diary of Master William Silence, 1897, new ed. 1907, 8vo; W. L, Rushton, S. an Archer, 1897, 8vo. X. PERIODICALS S. Museum, edited by M. L. Moltke, Leipzig, 23fd April 1870 to 23rd February 1874, 20 Nos. (all published); Shakespeariana, 1883, &c., sm. 8vo; New Shakespeareana (NM. Shakespeare Soc.), 1902, &c. From the commencement of Notes and Queries in 1856, a special Shakespeare department (see Indexes) has been carried on. XI. SHAKESPEARE SOCIETIES Arm THEIR PUBLICATIONS Proceedings of the Shefeld S. Club (1819-29), 1829,8vo; Shakespeare Society (I84I) various publications, 1841-53, 48 vols. 8vo; New Shakspere Society, Transactions and other publications, reprints of quartos, Sac., 1874, &c.,8vo; Deutsche S. Gesellschaft . (1864), Jahrbuch, Weimar, 1865, Src., in progress. The S. Society of New York (1885) has published the Bankside S. (1888-92), 2O vols., and Bankside Restoration S. (1907. Src.), underthe editorship of]. A. Morgan, its first President, and hasissued other publications. The S. Societies of Philadelphia, Birmingham and Clifton may also be mentioned. XII. Music W. Linley, S.’s Dramatic Songs, n.d., 2 vols. folio; The S. Album, or Warwick- shire Garland (C. Lonsdale), 1862, folio; G. G. Gervinus, Handel u. S., Leipzig, 1868, 8vo; H. Lavoix, Les Traducteurs de S. en musique, 1869, 8vo; A. Rode, Handbook of S. Music, 1878, 4tOZ List of Songs and Passages set to Music (N.S. Soc.), 1884, 8vo; E.
LSPEARE
g W. Naylor, S. and Music, 1896; W. K. White, Index to the Songs, &°c., in S. whizi
- have been set to Music, 1900. 8vo; L. C. Elson, S. in Music, 1901, 8vo; H. J. Conrat,
e La Musica in S., 1903, 8vo. See also the musical works of J. Addison, T. A. Arne. C.
; H. Berlioz, Sir H. R. Bishop, C. Dibdin, W. Linley, M. Locke, G. A. Macfarren, F.
i, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, H, Purcell, Sir A. Sullivan, G. Verdi, &c.
XIII. Prcrorzmr. I1.1usr1<A.r1oNs
C. Taylor, Picturesque Beauties of S., after Smirke, Stothard, &c., 1783-87, 2_ vols.
f 4to; W. H. Bunbury, Series of Prints illustrative of S., 179296, oblong folio; S.
, Harding, S. illustrated, 1793, 4to; S. Ireland, Picturesque Scenes upon the Avon, 1795,
r 8vo; J. and J. Boydell, Collection of Prints from Pictures illustrating the Dramatic
; Works of S., 1802-3, 2 vols. atlas folio, roc plates, forms supplement to Boydell’s
. edition; reproduced by photography, 1864, 4tO, reduced, and edited by J. P. Norris,
v Philadelphia, 1874, 4to; S. Portfolio, I82I·2§), roy. 8vo; Stotlward, Illustrations of S.,
t 1826, 8vo; F. A. M. Retzsch, Gallerie zu S.’s dramat. Werken in Umrissen, Leipzig,
r 1828-46, 8 vols. obl. 4to; J. Thurston, Illustrations of S., 1830, 8vo; F. Howard, The
. Spirit of the Plays of S., 1833, 5 vols. 8vo; L. S. Ruhl, Skizzen zu S.'s dram. Werken,
. Frankfort, 1827-31, Cassel, 1838-40, 6 vols. oblong folio; G. F. Sargent, S. illustrated
e in a Series of Landscape and Architectural Designs. 1842, 8vo, reproduced as The
s Book of S. Gems, 1846, 8vo; A. Pichot, Galerie dev personnages de S, 1844, 4to; J.
. Tyrrel, Cat. of an Extensive Collection of Prints illustrative of W. S., 1850, 8vo; W.
, v. Kaulbach, S. Gallerie, Berlin, 1857-58, 3 pts. folio; P. Konewka, Ein Sommernachts-
, traum, Heidelb., 1868, 4tO, and Falstaf u. seine Gesellen, Strasburg, 1872, 8vo; E.
. Dowden,S. Scenes andCharacters, 1876, 4tO, illustrations from A.F. Pecht’s S. Gallerie,
t Leipzig, 1876, 4to; J. O. Halliwell Phillipps, Hand List of Drawings and Engravings
, illustrative of the Life of S., [884, 8vo; W. E. Henley, The Graphic Gallery of S.’s
Heroines, 1888, folio; R. L. Boocke, S.ian Costumes, 1889, 8vo; R. Dudley and others,
S. Pictures. 1896, 8vo; M. Miller, S.ean Costumes (characters of each play).
XIV. BIOGRAPHY
l A.—General Works.
N. Rowe, The Life of Mr WS.,I743, 8vo, the first separate life; N. Drake,
S. and his Times, 1817, 2 vols. 4to; J. Britton, Remarks on the Life and
I Writings of S., revised edition, 1818, sm. 8vo; A. Skottowe, Life of S.,
1824, 2 vols. 8vo; J. P. Collier, New Facts, 1835, 8vo [see XIX. Payne-Collier Controv.]
' and Traditionary Anecdotes of S. collected in 1673, 1838, 8vo; T. Campbell,Life and
' Writings of W. S., 1838, 8vo; C. Knight, S., a Biography, 1843, 8vo, reprinted in
Studies, 1850, 2 vols. 8vo; J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, The Life of W S., 1848, 8vo, S.
' Facsimiles, 1863, folio, Illustrations of the Life of S., 1874, folio, and Outlines of the Life of S., 1881, 8vo, 6th ed. 1886, 2 vols. 8vo; F. P. G. Guizot, S. et son temps, 1852,
8vo, translated into English, 1852, 8vo; G. M. Tweddell, S., his Times and Contem-
. poraries, 1852, 12mo, 2nd ed. 1861-63, unfinished: W. W. Lloyd, Essays on Life and
Plays of S., 1858, 8vo; S. Neil, S., a Critical Biography, 1861, 8vo; T. De Quincey,
· S., a Biography, 1864, 8vo; T. Kenny, Life and Genius of S., 1864, 8vo; W. Bekk,
W. S., eine biogr. Studie, Munich, 1864, sm. 8vo; S. W. Fullom, The History of W.
, S., 2nd ed. 1864, 8vo; Victor M. Hugo, WS., 1364, 8vo, translated into Dutch, German
and English; H. G. Bohn, Biography and Bibliograph of S. (Philobiblon Soc., 1863),
8vo, illustrations; J. Jordan, Original Collections on and Stratford, 1780, edited by
J. O. Halliwell Phillipps, 1864, 4to: J. A. Heraud, S.’s Inner Life as intimated in his
Works, 1865, 8vo; R. G. White, Memoirs of the Life of W. S., Boston, 1865, 8vo;
S. A. Allibone, Biography of S. (in Dictionary, vol. 2, 1870); H. N. Hudson, S.:_his
Life, Art, and Characters, Boston, 1872, 4th ed. 1883, 2 vols. rzmo; R. Genée, S., sein
Leben u. s. Werke, Hildburghausen, 1872, 8vo; F. K. Elze, W. S. Halle, 1876, large
8vo, transl. 1888; G. H. Calvert, S.: A Biographic, Aesthetic Study, Boston, 1879,
16mo; W. Tegg, S. and his Contemporaries, 1879, 8vo; W. Henty, S., with some
Notes on his early Biography, 1882, sm. 8vo; E. Hermann, Ergdnzungen u. Berichti—
gungen der hergebrachten S. Biograph., Erl., 1884, 2 vols. 8vo;F. G. Fleay, Chronicle
History of the Life and Work of W. S., 1886, 8vo; R. Waters, W. S. portrayed by
himself, 1888, 8vo (as in character of Prince Henry); W. J. Rolfe, S. the Boy, 1897,
sm. 8vo; Sidney Lee, Life of W. S., 1898,6th ed. 1908, 8vo, illustrated ed. 1899, large
8vo; Goldwin Smith, S. the Man, Toronto, 1899. 8vo; G. Duval, La Vie veridique de
S, znded. 1900, sm. 8vo; D.H. Lambert, Cartae S.ianae, S. documents, 1904, sm.8vo;
W. J. Rolfe, Life of W. S., 1904, 8vo, illustrated; W. C. Hazlitt, S., the Man and
his Work, 3rd ed., 1908, 8vo; Frank Harris, The Man S. and his Tragic Life Story,
1909, 8vo; E. Law, S. as Groom of the Chamber, 1910, sm. 8vo. ·
B.—Special Works.
Autograph: Sir F. Madden, Autograph and Orthography of S., 1837, 4to; S.’s
Autograph, copied and enlarged by J. Harris, &c. (Rodd), 1843; J. O. Halliwell
Phillip s, S.’s Will, 1851, 4to; H. Staunton, Memorials of S. Photographed, 1864,
folio; H. Friswell, Photogr. Reprod. of S.’s Will, 1864, 4to;]. Toulmin Sn1ith,S.
Autographs, 1864, 4to; F. J. Furnivall, On S.’s Signatures, 1895, 8vo; A. Hall, S.’s
Handwriting further illustrated, 1899, 8vo; Birthday: B. Corney, Argument on the
Assumed Birthday, 1864, 8vo. Bones: C. M. Ingleby, S.’s Bones, 1883, sm. 4to; W.
Hall, S.’s Grave, Notes of Traditions, 1884, 8vo. Crab Tree: C. F. Green, Legend of
S.’s Crab Tree, 1857, 4lO, illustrated. Deer Stealing: C. H. Bracobridge, S. no Deer
Stealer, 1862, 8vo, illustrated. Genealogy and Family: J. Jordan, Pedigree of the
Family of S., 1796, in vol. iii. of R. Ryan’s Dramatic Table Talk, 1825-30, 3vols. 8vo;
Memoirs of the Families of S. and Hart, 1790, ed. Halliwell, 1865, 4to; G. R. French,
Shakspeareana Genealogica, 1869, 8vo; J. O. Halliwell Phillipps, Entries respecting S.,
his Family and Connexions, 1864, 4to; C. C. Stopes, Sfs Warwickshire Contemporaries,
1897, new ed. 1907, 8vo, and Family, with an Account of the Ardens, 1901, 8vo; C. I.
Elton, W. S., His Family and Friends, 1904, 8vo; J. W. Gray, S.’s Marriage, etc.,
1905, 8vo. Ghost-Belief: A. Roffe, The Ghost Belief of S., 1851, 8vo. For S.’s use of
the supernatural see IX. Seacmr. Kwowtcpoiz (Folk-lore, etc.). Name: J. O. Halliwell
Phillipps, New Lamps or Old? ISSO, 8vo, advocates "Shakespeare"; J. Winsor, Was
S. Shapleigh? Boston, U.S., 1981, 8vo; W. H. Edwards, Shaksper not S., 1900, 8vo;
].L.Haney,TheNameof W. S., 1906, 8vo. Occupation: See IX. SPECIAL Kuowtrznoa,
above. Religion: F. Fritzart, War S. ein Christ? Heidelberg, 1832, 8vo; W. J.
Birch, Philosophy and Religion of S., 1848, sm. 8vo, thinks himasceptic; E. Vehse,S.
als Protestant, Politiker, Psycholog, u. Dichter, Hamburg, 1851, 2 vols. sm. 8vo; J. J.
Reitmann, Uber S.’s religiose u. ethische Bedeutung, St Gall, 1853, 12mo; A. F.
Rio, S. 1864, 8vo (5. Roman Catholic); W. Koenig, S. als Dichter, Weltweissr, u.
· Christ. Leipzig, 1873, 8vo; A. Gilman, S.’s Morals, N.Y., I880, 8vo; J. M. Raich,
S.’s Stellung zur Kathol. Religion, 1884, 8vo; J. M. Robertson, The Religion of S.,
1887, 8vo; W. Kloeti, S. als religioser Dichter, Berlin, 1890, 8vo; G. W.Baynham,
Swedenborg and S., 1894, 8vo; J. Carter, S., Puriten and Recusant, 1897, sm. 8vo;
S. Boswin, The Religion of S., 1899, 8vo; H. S. Bowden, The Religion of S., chiefly
from the Writings of R. Simpson, 1899, sm. 8vo; J. Countermine, The Religious Belief
gf S., 1906, 8vo. Stratford-upon—Avo11: R. B. Whelcr, History and Antiquitiesoj
tratford, 1806, 8vo, Account of the Birthplace, new edition, 1863, 8vo, and Collectanea,
1865, 4to; F. W. Fairholt, The Home of S., 1847, 8vo, engravings reproduce-] in S.
Neil’s Home of S., 1871, 8vo; J. O. Halliwell Phillipps, New Boke about S. and
Stratford, 1850, 4tO, Brief Hand List of the Borough Records, 1862, 8vo, Descriptive
Calendar, 1863, folio, Brief Guide to the Gardens, 1863, 8vo, Historical Account of the
New Place, 1864, folio illustrated, and Stratford in the Times ofthe S.’s, 1864, folio;
E. Lees, Stratford as connected with S., 1854, 8vo; J. R. Wise, S., his Birthplace and
its Neighbourhood, 1861, 8v,o; J. C. M. Bellew, S.’s Home at New Place, 1863, sm.
8vo, illustrated, with pedigrees; R. E. Hunter, S. and Stradord, 1864, 8vo; J. M.
spmsmart software — http://www.sv¤nsm¤n.r¤m Jephson, S., his Birthplace, Home, and Grave, 1864, 4to, illustrated; J. Walter, S.' Home and Rural Life, 1874, 4to, illustrative of localities; C. M. Ingleby, S. and th Welcombe Enclosures, 1883, folio· S. Lee, Stratford-on-Avon, 1884, folio, illustrate: 1907, 8vo; T. Greene, S. and Enclosure of Common Fields at Weleombe, 1885, 4to; J. I Williams, The Home and Paunts of S., 1892, folio; C. J. Ribton Turner, S.’s Lani 1893, sm. 8vo; R. C. A. Windle, S.'s Country, 1899, 8vo; W. S. Brassington, S: Homeland, 1903, 8vo; Marie Corelli, The Plain Truth of the Stratford—on·Avo Controversy, 1903, 8vo, birthplace; S. Lee, The Alleged Vandalism, 1903, 8vo; (E Morley, Sweet Avon, 1906, 8vo. XV. Pokrrmrrs ‘ G. Steevens, Proposals for Publishing the Felton Portrait, 1794, 8vo; J. Britton On the Monumental Bust, 1816, 8vo; J. Boaden, Authenticity of Various Picture ond Prints ojered as Portraits of S., 1824, 4to; A. Wivell, The Monumental Bust 1827, 8vo, and Inquiry into the S. Portraits, 1840, 8vo; H. Rodd, The Chanda Portrait (1849}, 8vo; R. H. Forster, Remarks on the Chandos Portrait, 1849, 8vo; J P. Collier, Dissertation upon the Imputed Portraits, 1851, 8vo; C. Wright, Th Stratford Portrait of S., 1861, 8vo; J. H. Friswell, Life Portraits of W. S., 1864, 8vo Sir G. Scharf, On the Principal Portraits of S., 1864, 12mo; E. T. Craig, S. and hi Portraits, Bust, and Monument, 2nd ed. 1864 and 1886, 8vo, and S.’s Portraits phreno logically considered, Philadelphia, 1875, 8vo; G. Harrison, The Stratford Bust Brooklyn. 1865, 4to; W. Page, Study of S.’s Portraits, 1876, sm. 4to; J. P. Norris Bibliography of Works on the Portraits of S., Philadelphia, 1879, 8vo, 44 titles, Th Death Mask of S., 1884, and The Portraits of S., Phil., 1885, 4CO, with bibliography of 1 1 1 references and illustrations; Anzédée Pichot, " S., avec lesgsortraits authentiques,’ Revue Britannique, Paris, 1888; Edwin Bormann, Der . Dichter: wer war', und wie sah er aus, Leipzig, 1902 (Baconian); A. A. Bekk. Des Dichters Bild Berlin, 1902, 8vo; John Corbin, A New Portrait of S. (the "Ely Palace"), 1903, 8vo C. C. Stopes, True Story ofthe Stratford Bust, 1904, 8vo; M. H. Spielmann,_ Th Portraits of S.. 1907, 8vo. An elaborate account by A. M. Knapp of the portraits 11 the Barton collection, Boston Public Library, may be found in the S. Catalogue, 1880 largc 8vo. For medals and tokens, see E. Hawkins (ed. A. W. Franks and H. A Grueber), Medallic Hist. oj Great Britain, Brit. Mus., 1885; for tokens, James Atkin'1 Tradesmerfs Tokens af the 18th Century, 1892. XVI. Lrremny AND Dmmrrc Hrsromv E. Malone, Historical Account of the English Stage, 1790, enlarged in Boswell': edition, 1821; J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, 1831, new ed. 1879 3 vols. 8vo, Memoirs of Edw. Alleyne (Shakespeare Society), 1841, 8vo, Tho Alleynr Papers (Shakespeare Society), 1843, 8vo [see G. F. Warner‘s catalogue ofthe Dulwicl MSS., 1881, 8vo], and Memoirs ofthe Principal Actors in the Plays of S. (Shakespearr Society), 1846, 8vo; N. J. Halpin, The Dramatic Unities of S., 1849, 8vo, ed. by C. M Ingleby (N.S. Soc., series i., 1875-76); N. Delius, Uber das englische Theaterweser zu S.’s Zeit, Bremen, 1853, 8vo, A. J. F. Mezieres, Prédecesseurs et contemporains de S., 1863, new ed. 1905, sm. 8vo, and Contemporains et successeurs de S., 3rd ed. 1881, Rev. W. R. Arrowsmith, S.'s Editors and Commentators, 1865, 8vo; W. Kelly, Notice: of the Drama and Popular Amusements of the 16th and 17th Centuries, 1865, 8vo; C. M. Ingleby, Traces of the Authorship of the Works attributed to S.; 1868, 8vo, S.’s Centurie of Prayse, culled from Writers of the First Century after his Rise, 1874, 4to (enlarged by Miss Toulrnin Smith for NS. Soc., 1879), and S. Allusion Book, 1874, re-ed. by J. Munro, 1909, 2 vols. 8vo; H. I. Ruggles, The Method of S. as an Artist, N.Y., 1870, 8vo; A. H. Paget, S.’s Plays, a Chapter of Stage History, 1875, 8vo; H. Ulrici, S.'s Dramatic Art, translated by L. D. Schmitz, 1876, 2vols. Svc; H. P. Stokes, The Chronological Order of S.’s Plays, 1878, 8vo; K. Knortz, S. in Amerika, Berlin, 1882, Svc; C. Muerer, Synchronist. Zusammenstellung der wichtigsten Notizen ub. S.’s Leben u. Werlze, 1882, 4to; J. A. Symonds, S.’s Predecessors in the English Drama, 1884, new ed. 1900, 8vo; A. R. Frey, S. and the alleged Spanish Prototypes, N.Y., 1886, sm. 4to; F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History ofthe London Stage 1559-164.2, 1890, 8vo, and Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1891, 2 vols. 8vo; F. J. Furnivall, Some 300 Fresh Allusions to S. 1594-1694, 1886, la. 8vo; C. T. Gaedertz, Zur Kentniss d. altengl. Buhne, Bremen, 1888, 8vo; E. Walden, S.ian Criticism, from Dryden to end of 18th Century. 1895, 8vo; C. E. L. Wingate, S.’s Heroine: on the Stage, 1805. Svo; F. S. Boas, S. and his Predeccssors, 1896, sm. 8vo; H. Schwab, Das Sc/iauspiet im Schauspiel zur Zeit S.’s,Vienna, 1896, 8vo; A. Brandl, Quellen des weltlic/ren Dramas in England var S., Strassburg, 1898, 8vo; T. R. Lounsbury, S.ean Wars, N.Y., 1902, 8vo, and The First Editors of S., 1906,8vo, P0 e and Thcobald; F. E. Schelling, The English Chronicle Play, 1902, 8vo; G. Schiavello, La Fama dello S. nel 18 sec., 1003, 8vo; D. N. Smith, Eighteenth-Century Essays on S., 1903, 8vo; C. Brodmeir, Die S.-Biihne, Weimar, 1904, 8vo; C. Gaehde, D. Garrick als S. Dar- stcl/er. 1004, 8vo; C. E. Hughes, The Praise of S., 1904, 8vo; A. H. Woolf, S. and the Old Southwark Playhouscs, 1903, 8vo; P. Henslowe, Diary (1593-1608), ed. W. W. Greg, 1904-8, 2 vols. la. 8vo; Henslowe Papers (1546-1662), ed. W. W. Greg, 1907, la. 8vo; S. Lee, S. and the Modern Stage, 1906, 8vo; L. L. Schnecking, S. in lit. Urteil seiner Zeit, 1908, 8vo; W. Raleigh, Johnson on S., 1908, sm. 8vo; W. L. Rushton, S. and the Arte of English Poesie, 1909, sm. 8vo. Germany: S.’s Schauspiele erlautert von F. Horn, Leipzig, 1823-31, 5 vols. 8vo; E. A. Hagen, S.’s erstes Erscheinen auf den Buhnen Deutschlands, Konigs., 1832,8vo; K. Assman, S. und seine deutschen Ubersetzer, Liegnitz, 1843, 4to; N. Delius, Die Sc/ilegel—Tiecksche S. Ubersetz., Bonn., 1846, 12mo; C. Fize, Die englische Sprache in Deutschland, Dresden, 1864, 12mO; F. A. T. Kreyssig, S. Cultus, Elbing, 1864, 8vo; L. G. Lemcke, S. in seinern Verhaltnisse zu Deutschland, Leipzig, 1864, 8vo; W. J. Thoms,_"S. in Germany," in Three Notelets, 1865, 8vo; A.·C0hn; S. in Germany in the 16th ond_ 17th Centuries, 1865, 4to; C. Humbert, Moliére, S., und d. deutsche Kritik, Leipzig, 1869, 8vo; W. Gchclhauser, Die Wiirdigung S.’s in Engl. u. Deutsch- land, 1869, 8vo; R. Gcnée, Geschichte d. S.'schen Dramen in Deutschland, Leipzig, 1870, 8vo; M. Bernays, Zur Entstehungwgeschichte des schlegelschen S., Leipzig, 1872, 8vo; R. J. Benedir, Die S.omanie, Stuttgart, 1873, 8vo; W. Wagner, S. und die ncueste Kritik, Hamburg, 1874, 8vo; J. Meissner, Die englischen Comodianrcn in Ostcrreich. Vienna, 1884, 8vo; E. Rossi, Studien uber S. u. das moderne Theater, Berlin, 1885, 8vo; Merschberger, Die Anfdnge S. auf d.· Hamburger Buhne, 1890, 4to; R. Wegener, S.'s Einhuss auf Goethe, 1890, Svo, and Die Buhneneinrichtung des S. Theaters, Halle, 1907, 8vo; H. Rauch, Lenz u. S., Berlin, I8Q2, 8vo; E. Koeppel, Studien uber S.`s Wirkung auf zeitgenoss. Dramatiker, 1905, 8vo; A. Boetlingk, S. und unsore Klassiker, IUQ, 8vo. France: H. Beyle, Racine et S. 1823-25, 2 pts. 8vo; J. B. M. A. Lacroix, Histoire de l‘in_/luence de S. sur le thedtrefrancais, Brussels, 1856, 8vo; W. Reymond, Corneille, S., ct Goethe, Berlin, 1864, 8vo; A. Schmidt, Voltaire': Verdienste urn die Einfuhrung S., 1864, 4to; C. Adolph, Voltaire et le theatre de S., 1883, 4to; P. Stapfer, Moliere et S., 1887, 4th ed. 1899, sm. 8vo; J. J. Jusserand, S. en France sous l'ancien regime, 1889, 1898, 8vo; T. R. Lounsbury, S. and Voltaire, 1902, sm. 8vo. XVI I. Snaxaspmxe Jrmrrees Essay an the Jubilee at Stratford, 1769, 8vo; S.’s Garland, 1769, 8vo, second edition 1826, 8vo; Concise Account of Garrick’s Jubilee, 1769, and the Festivals of I827 and 18:30, {S30, 8vo; Descriptive Account of the Second Gala, 1830, 8vo; K. F. Gutckow, Eine Feier an der Ilm, Leipzig, 1864, 8vo; P. H. A. Mobius, Die deutsche S. honor, Leipzig, 1864, 8vo; Tercentenary Celebration by the New England Historic- Genealogical Society at_Boston, 1864, 8vo; Ojicial Programme at the Tercentenary Festival at Stratford, with Life, Guide, &'c., 1864, 8vo; Proceedings of S.ian Enter- tainment at New Orleans, 1894, 4{O.
'\
LSPEARE 797
's XVIII. IRELAND Coumovnxsy V
ze
i, M ixczllzmcaus Papers and Legal I mlrumenls under the Hand and Seal nf W S.,
,. 1195, imp. folio, 2nd ed. 1796, 8vo (W. H. Irelzmd’s forgcrics); Vartigem, an Hislmied
l, Tragedy, 1796, sm. 8vo, 2nd ed. 1832, 8vo (forgery); E. Malone, Inquiry into the A when-
’s ticity nf Certain Papers and Legal Instruments, 17g6, 8vo; W. H. Ireland, Authentic
n Accuunl af the Sian MS.$., 1796, 8vo; S. Ireland, Investigation qf Mr Malone, 17g7,
P. Svc; J. J', Eschcnburg, Uber den vargzblichen Fund S.scher Handschriften, Leipzig,
1797, sm. 8vo; G. Chalmers, Apulngyfart/1c Believers in the S. Papers, Erm., 1797-18oo,
3 pts. Svc; [G. Hardinge], Chalmeriana, 1800, 8vo; W. H. Ireland, Confessions, 18::5,
sm. 8vo, new edition, with introduction by R. G. White, I874, xzmo.
¤, · XIX. PAYNE Conmm Coumcvmsv
*:
t, ]. P. Collier, New Facts regarding the Life of S., 1835, Svc, New Particulars', 1836,
s 8vo, Further Particulars, 1839, 8vo, Reasons fnr a new Edition of S.’s Works, I84I,
. 2nd ed. 1842, 8vo, and Notes and Emzndalizms tothe Text (S. Soc.), 1852, 2nd ed.
e 135 , 8vo, translated into German by DrLe0, 1853, alsoin J. Frcsc’s Ergdnzungxbaml
; zu gfx Dramen, :853, Svc; S. W. Singer, The Text uf S. vindicated, 1853, Svc
s (ant*—C0llicr); ]. O. Halliwell Phillipps, Curiosities uf Modern Sian Criticism, 1853,
- Svc (anti-Collier), Observations an the MS. Emendalivns, x853, Svc (zmti»Collier), and
5, Observations an the Sian Forgcries at Bridgewater House, 1853, 4tO (anti—Col1ier);, C. Knight, Old Lamps or New? 1853, 12m0 (pr0—COI1ier); Rev. A. Dycc, A Few Nate;
e on S., 1853, 8vo; N. Dclius, Collier'; alle hamlschr. Emcndatianen, Bonn, 1853, 8vq
y (anti-Collier); F. A. Leo, Die DeIiu:’xche Kritik, Berlin, 1853, Svc (pro-Collier); R.
' G. White, S.’s Scholar, x854, 8vo (anti-Collier); J. T. Mommscu, Der Perkins S,
y Berlin, 1854, 8vo (unti—C0llicr); A.E. Brae, Literary Cookery, 1855, 8vo (anti-Collier),
, and Collier, Coleridge, and S., 1860, 8vo, disputes authenticity of following lectures; S.
; T. Colcridgc, Seven Lecturcrnn S. and Milton, edited by J. P. Collier, 1856; Rev, A.
z Dycc, Stricturzs on Mr Culliefs New Edition [1858), 1859, 8vo (anti·Col1ier); C. M.
1 Ingleby, The S. Fabrications, x8;:). sm. 8vo, and Complete View of the S. Controversy,
», 186I, with bibliography (anti-Collier); N. E. S, A. Hamilton, Inquiry ima the Genuinc·
. ness ofthe MS. Corrections, 1860, 4[O (anti-Collier); COIlicr’s Reply to Hamilton, 1860,
s 8vo; Sir T. D. Hardy, Review nf the Present Stale uf the S. Controversy, 1860, 8vo;
]. P. Collier, Trilogy: Conversations, 1874, 3 pts. 4to; H. B. Wheatley, Account of
Life af J. P. Collier, 1884, 8vo.
XX. S¤Ax1:s1>mAxs—BAc0N C0N·r1wv1a1zs1
-
, ]. C. Hart, The Romance of Yachting, N.Y., 1848, 12mc, first work containing
z doubt of S}: authorship; W. H. Smith, Was Bacon the Author of S.’s Plays? 1856,
1 8vo,- extended as Bacon and S., 1857, rzmo (anti-S.); D. Bacon, The Philosophy of
z the Plays of S. unfolded, 1857, 8vo (a.nti—S.); N. Holmes, Authorship af S., 1866, new
. ed. 1886, 2 vols. 12mo (anti-S.); Ba.co¤’s Pramux, edited by Mrs H. Pctt, 1883, 8vo
z (anti-S.); W. H. Wyman, Bibliography of the Bacon-S. Controversy, Cincinnati, 1884,
z 8vo, zggentrics {cf which 117 pr0—S., 73 anti-,and6; unclassifncd), continued in S.iana,
; x886, &c.; I. Donnelly, The Great Cryplugram, 1888, 2 vols. la,. Svc (a.nti»S.); Sir T.
: Mm-tin,S. or Bacon 7 1888, sm. 8vo (pro-S,); J. A. Morgan, S. in Fact and Criticism,
. N.Y., 1888, sm. 8vo; C. C. Stopcs, The Bacon-S. Question, 1888, 8vo; C. A. Lentzer,
r Zur S.-Bacon Thearie,HaIlc, 1890, Svc; E, Bormann, The S. Secret, transl. 1895, 8vo;
» L. Schipper, S. und dessen Gegnzr, Miinstcr, 1895, 8vo; C. Alten, Notes an ihe Bacon-
, S. Question, Boston, 1900, Svc (pr0—S.); Lord Penzance (ed. M. H. Kinnear), The
, Bacon-S. Controversy, 1902, 8vo; W. Willis, The S.-Baum Controversy, 1902, 8vo;
, and The Banmian Mint, 1903, 8vo; G. G. Greenwood, The S. Problem Restated,
, 1908, 8vo, and In rc S., Beeching 12. Greenwood, 1909, 8vo (anti-S.); H. C. Beechfng,
, W. S., a Reply to Greenwood, 1908, 8vo (pro-S.); Sir E. Dumiug-Lawrence, Bacon is S.,
IQIO, 8vo. . —
, XXI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
F. Meres, Palladis Tamia: Witts Treasury, 15gS, umu, contains the earliest list of
, S.’s works; E. Capel}, Cat. of S.iana, 1799, 8vo; J. Wilson, Shakespeari:ma,—-
Catalogue 0/ all the Books, érc. relating to S., 1827, sm. 8vo; W. T. Lowndes, S. and
I his Commentators, 183,1, 8vo, reprinted from thc Manual; J. O. Halliwell Phillipps,
Shakespeariana: Catalogue of Early Edition:, Commentaries, Src., 1841, 8vo, Same
Account njAntiq. Books, MSS., érc., illus!. af S., in his possession, x852, 4to, illustrated,
Garland af S,iana, 1854, 4to, Early Editions 0f·S., 1857, Svc (notices of I4 carly
quartos), Brief Hand List of Books, Era., illustrative af S., 1859, Svc, Skelelbn Hand
List of the Early Quartos, I860, 8vo, Hand List of Sluzkespeariana, 1862, 8vo, Brief
Hand List of Collections formed by R. B. Whaler, 1863, 4to, List of Works illustrative
af S., 1867, 8vo, Catalogue of the S. Library and Museum at Stratford-on-Avon, 1868,
8vo, Hand List af Early Editions, I867, 8vo, Catalogue of Warehouse Library, 1876,
8vd, Brief Hand List of Selected Parcels, 1876, Catalogue of S. Study Books, 1876,
8vo, Brief List af S. Rarities at Hollingbury Capse, 1886, 8vo; J. Moulin, Omlrek/em
eener algemecnc Lileratuur over W. S., Kampen, 1g4S, 8vo (only part 2 published); S.
Literalur in Deutschland, 1762·I85I, by P. H. Cassel, 1852, sm. 8vo; P. H. Sillig, Die
S. Literatur bis Mitts 1854, vingefuhrt v. H. Ulrici, Leipzig, 1854, 8vo; L[cn¤x], S.’:
Plays in Folin, 1861, 4[O, bibliographical notice; H. G. Bohn, Biography and Biblio-
graphy afS.,PhiI0biblon Soc., 1863,sm. 8vo, bibliography with soma additions from his
edition of Lowndes; ]'. R. Smith, S.iana, a Catalogue, 1864, Svc; Shakcspcareana:
Verzeiclmiss, Vienna, 1864, 8vo; F. Thimm, Siam; from 1564. 2nd edition containing
the literature to 1871, 187 2, Svc, continued in Transactions of N. S. Soc.; bibliographies
of each play may bc found in H. H. Furness/s New Variorum edition, Philadelphia,
18Z3, &c.; Catalogue of the S. Memorial Library at the Cambridge Free Public
Li vary, 1881, nearly all presented by H. T. Hall; S. A. Allibonc, Shakespeare
Bibliography (sec hisDicti0nary,v. 2, rS70),bz1scd0n Bohn with additional Americana;
A. Cohn, S. Bibliographic, 1871, &c., contributed to S. Jahrbuch; H. T. Hall,
Shakzspcurizm Statistics, new edition 1874, 8vo; J. D. Mullins, Catalogue nf the S.
Memnnal Library, Birmingham Free Libraries, 1872*76, 3 pts. 8vo, a. magniiicent
collection of 7c>cc> vols. destroyed by hre in 1879, now fully replaced; A. C. Shaw, Index
to the S. Memorial Library, Birmingham, 1903, 8vo; Katalog d. Bibtiothek der
doulschen S. Gcs., Weimar, 1876, 8vo; K. Knortz, An American S. Bibringmphy,
1876, rzmo; J. Winsor, Bibliography of lhe Original Quarlas and Folios, Cambridge,
U.S.,I876, 4tO (with facsimiles), and S.': Poems, a Bibliography uf the Early Editions,
1879, Svc; Catalogue of Works of, and relating to, W. S., Barton Coll., Boston Pub.
Lib., by J. M. Hubbard, 1878-80, 2 vols. la. 8vo, the largest collection in U.S.; H. H.
Morgan, Topical S.iana, arranged under Headings, St. Louis, 1879, 8vo; Topical Index
in.Shakespeariana, 1885—86,pts.xv.—xxii.,1·epr. as Diges¢a,pI:.1gA—F), N.Y., 1886,8vu;
T. J. I, Arnold, S. Bibliography in the Netherlands, The Hague, 1879, sm. Svc; L. Un-
Had, Die S. Literalur in Deutschland, 1880, 8vo; H. T. Hall, The Separate Editions
uf S}: Plays, with the Alterations by various Hands, 1880, 8vo; J. Jeremiah, Aid tn
Sean SIMdy,I880, 8vo; S. Timmins, Books an S., 1885, sm, Svc; F. Thimm, S. inthe
British Museum (Lib. Chr.), 1887; H. R. Teddcr, The Claxsijcation 0f Shakcspeareana
(Lib. Chr.), I887, 8vo; E. E. Baker, Calendar of S. Rarities, 1891, 8vo, ccllcpted by
J. O. HalIiwe|l-Phillipps; Cal. nf British Museum: W S., 1807, folio; W. S.
Brassington, Hand List of Collective Editions of S. before 1800, 1898, 8vo; S. Lec,
Catalogue af Shakexpeareana, 13gg, 4to, very complete; and Notes and Additions ta
Census of Copies uf First Folin, 1906, 8vo, Four Quarto Editions of Plays by S., 1908,
8vo, and A S. Reference Library, IQIO, Svc; L. Haas, Verleger u. Drucker der Werke
S.’s bei 1640, 1904, 8vo; F. Madam, 8::., The Original Badleian Copy of the First Folio,
1905, folio; R. Pmelss, Van d. dltesl. Drunken d. Dramen S.’s, Leipzig, 19::5, Svc; A.-
W. Pollard. S. Folios and Quartnx, 1{94-1685. 1909, folic; Ca!. af Early Editions of S
at Emu. Call., 1909, 8vo; G. W. C0 a, First Folio of S., N.Y., IQOQ, Svc; Cat, ofthe
Books, Antiquities, @0., exhibited at Shakespcards Birthplace, 1910, 8vo. (H. R. T.)