Skip to main content

Full text of ""Shakespeare" identified in Edward De Vere, the seventeenth earl of Oxford"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 
oe 


DfCDO 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "     IDENTIFIED 


EDWARD    DF.    VERE.    SEVENTEENTH    EARI.   OF    OXFORD—  AGE   25 
FROM     THE    PORTRAIT    AT    WEI  BECK     ABBEY.      REPRODIXED     BY 
PERMISSION  OF   His  ('.RACE  THE   DIKE  OF   PORTLAND. 


"  Shakespeare "  Identified 


in  Edward  de  Vere 
the  Seventeenth 
Earl  of  Oxford 


BY 

J.    THOMAS    LOONEY 


"  What  a  wounded  name, 

"Things  standing  thus  unknown,  shall  live  behind  me." 

(Hamlet,  v.  2  ) 

'  Dear  son  of  memory,  great  heir  of  fame, 
What  need'st  thou  such  weak  witness  for  thy  name  ? 
Thou  in  our  wonder  and  astonishment 
Hast  built  thyself  a  livelong  monument." 

(MILTON,  on  Shakespeare.) 


CECIL  PALMER 

OAKLEY  HOUSE,  BLOOMSBURY  ST.,  LONDON,  W.C.i. 


FIRS  T 
EDITION 
1920 
COPY 
RIGHT 


PREFACE 

THE  solution  to  the  Shakespeare  problem,  which  it  is 
the  purpose  of  the  following  pages  to  unfold,  was 
worked  out  whilst  the  Great  European  War  was  in 
progress ;  and  my  wish  was  to  give  the  matter  full 
publicity  immediately  upon  the  cessation  of  hostilities. 
As  this  was  found  to  be  impracticable,  steps  had  to 
be  taken,  both  to  ensure  that  the  results  achieved 
should  not  be  lost,  and  also  to  safeguard  what  I  believed 
to  be  my  priority  of  discovery.  With  these  objects, 
an  announcement  of  the  mere  fact  of  the  discovery, 
omitting  all  details,  was  made  in  November  1918 
to  Sir  Frederick  Kenyon,  Librarian  of  the  British 
Museum,  and  he  very  readily  undertook  to  receive, 
unofficially,  a  sealed  envelope  containing  a  statement 
on  the  subject.  As  more  than  a  year  has  passed  since 
the  deposition  was  made,  and  as  no  one  else  has  come 
forward  with  the  same  solution,  the  question  of  priority 
is  not  likely  now  to  arise,  and  therefore,  with  the  publi- 
cation of  the  present  work,  the  purpose  of  the 
deposited  document  naturally  lapses.  My  first  duty, 
then,  must  be  to  express  my  deep  sense  of  indebtedness 
to  Sir  Frederick  Kenyon  for  the  freedom  from  anxiety 
that  I  have  enjoyed  whilst  further  developing  the 
argument  and  carrying  through  its  publication. 

It  was  to  my  brother-in-law,  Mr.  M.  Gompertz,  B.A., 
Head  Master  of  the  County  High  School,  Leytonstone, 
and  to  my  friend  Mr.  W.  T.  Thorn  that  I  first  sub- 
mitted a  statement  of  evidences ;  and  their  complete 
acceptance  of  my  solution  has  been  the  source  of 
much  confidence  and  encouragement.  To  them  I  am 
also  under  large  obligations  for  practical  assistance ; 
to  the  former  specially  for  the  revision  of  proofs,  and 
to  the  latter  for  valuable  work  on  the  Index. 

The  relationship  of  Mr.  Cecil  Palmer  to  the  under- 
taking has  been  much  more  than  that  of  publisher. 
When  the  case  was  laid  before  him  he  adopted  its  con- 


6  PREFACE 

elusions  with  enthusiasm  and  made  the  cause  his  own. 
My  personal  obligations  to  him  are  therefore  very 
considerable. 

One  of  the  greatest  debts  I  have  to  acknowledge  is 
more  impersonal :  namely,  to  the  Library  of  the  Literary 
and  Philosophical  Society,  Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  The 
unique  system  upon  which  this  institution  is  conducted 
has  rendered  possible  an  ease  and  rapidity  of  work  that 
would  probably  have  been  impossible  in  any  other 
institution  in  the  country. 

I  have  also  gratefully  to  acknowledge  indebtedness 
respecting  the  portraits  it  was  important  the  work 
should  contain  :  to  His  Majesty  the  King  for  permis- 
sion to  reproduce  the  miniature  of  Sir  Philip  Sidney 
in  \Yindsor  Castle  ;  to  His  Grace  the  Duke  of  Portland, 
not  only  for  permission  to  reproduce,  but  also  for 
facilities,  spontaneously  and  graciously  offered,  for 
securing  a  good  copy  of  his  portrait  of  Edward  de  Vere 
at  Welbeck  Abbey ;  to  the  Trustees  of  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery  for  similar  permission  respecting  the 
portraits  of  Lord  Burleigh  and  Sir  Horace  Vere ;  and 
to  Mr.  Emery  Walker,  F.S.A.,  for  kindly  granting  the 
use  of  several  photographs  and  blocks  of  these 
portraits. 

I  now  send  forth  the  results  of  my  investigations 
to  face  the  ordeal  of  a  public  examination.  Although 
I  have  tried  to  regard  all  schools  of  thought  as  so  many 
agencies  in  the  one  cause  of  truth,  it  is  too  much  to 
expect  that,  in  dealing  with  such  controversial  matters, 
I  have  avoided  hurting  susceptibilities.  For  any 
shortcomings  of  this  kind  I  throw  myself  on  the  gener- 
osity of  my  readers.  I  have  no  wish,  however,  to  be 
spared  fair  and  helpful  criticism ;  nor  can  I  hope  to 
escape  criticism  of  the  less  kindly  type  :  but  if  in  the 
end  I  can  see  the  truth  prevail  and  an  act  of  repara- 
tion done  to  a  great  Englishman,  I  shall  be  content. 

J.  THOMAS  LOONEV. 
December  i$th,  1919. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE . .          5 

PRELIMINARY  NOTE ..      12 

INTRODUCTION 13 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW         . .         . .         . .         . .      23 

Growing  scepticism ;  Ignatius  Donnelly ;  Anti- 
Stratfordian  authorities ;  "  Shakespeare  "  and  law  ; 
"Shakespeare's"  education;  Halliwell-Phillipps ;  William 
Shakspere's  early  life ;  Shakespeare  and  Burns ; 
William  Shakspere's  three  periods  ;  Closing  period  ;  The 
Will ;  Ben  Jonson  ;  Hemming  and  Cpndell ;  Penman- 
ship ;  The  "  Shakespeare "  manuscripts ;  The  First 
Folio ;  Obituary  silence  ;  William  Shakspere's  middle 
period ;  No  participation  in  publication ;  Uncertain 
duration ;  Uncertain  habitation  ;  The  great  alibi ; 
William  Shakspere's  silence  ;  Character  of  contemporary 
notices;  The  Stratfordian  impossibility;  Absence  of 
incidents ;  No  letters  ;  William  Shakspere  as  actor ; 
Municipal  records ;  As  London  actor ;  Accounts  of 
Treasurer  of  Chamber ;  Missing  Lord  Chamberlain's 
books ;  Notable  omissions  ;  Summary. 

CHAPTER  II 

CHARACTER   OF   THE   PROBLEM   AND   METHOD   OF      90 
SOLUTION        

Authorship  a  mystery  ;  A  solution  required ;  Literary 
authorities  ;  "  Shakespeare's  "  voluntary  self-effacement ; 
Genius  ;  Maturity  and  masterpieces  ;  A  modern  problem  ; 
The  method  of  solution  ;  Stages  outlined. 

CHAPTER  III 
THE  AUTHOR  :    GENERAL  FEATURES 109 

Recognized  genius  and  mysterious ;  Appearance  of 
eccentricity ;  A  man  apart ;  Apparent  inferiority  to 
requirements  of  the  work ;  An  Englishman  of  literary 
tastes  ;  Dramatic  interests  ;  A  lyric  poet ;  Classical 
education  ;  Summary. 


8  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IV 

PAGE 

THE  AUTHOR  :  SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  . .        . .     120 

His  feudal  partialities ;  Aristocratic  outlook ;  Lan- 
castrian leanings ;  Enthusiast  for  Italy ;  Sporting 
tastes  ;  Music  ;  Negligent  in  money  matters  ;  Mixed 
attitude  towards  woman  ;  Catholicism  and  Scepticism  ; 
Summary. 

CHAPTER  V 
THE  SEARCH  AND  DISCOVERY  134 

Choice  of  guide ;  Narrowing  the  operations ;  The 
point  of  contact ;  The  actual  quest ;  An  important  poem  ; 
Seeking  expert  support ;  First  indications  ;  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography  ;  Selection  justified  ;  Competing 
solutions. 

CHAPTER  VI 
CONDITIONS  FULFILLED  144 

Personal  traits  ;  Personal  circumstances  ;  Summary 
of  points  attested ;  Remaining  points :  Sport, 
Lancastrianism,  Woman,  Religion. 

CHAPTER  VII 
EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET 152 

Expert  testimony  j  Dr.  Grosart's  collection  j  Oxford's 
early  poetry  ;  Hidden  productions  ;  The  great  literary 
transition — embodied  in  De  Vere  ;  Oxford's  style  and 
Shakespeare's ;  His  character  in  his  writings. 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE     . .         . .     168 

Six-lined  stanza ;  Central  theme ;  Personality  ; 
Haggard  hawk ;  Lily  and  damask  rose ;  Leva's 
difficulties  ;  Love's  penalties ;  Mental  distraction ; 
Interrogate ves ;  Stanzas  formed  of  similar  lines  ;  A 
peculiar  literary  form  ;  Loss  of  good  name  ;  Fortune  and 
Nature ;  Desire  for  pity ;  Echo  poems ;  Romeo  and 
Juliet ;  The  Lark  ;  Tragedy  and  Comedy. 


CONTENTS  9 

CHAPTER  IX 

PAGE 

RECORDS  AND  EARLY  LIFE  OF  DE  VERE       . .        . .     209 

Reputation  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford ;  Reasons  for  con- 
cealment ;  The  shadow  lifting  ;  Need  for  reinterpreta- 
tion ;  False  stories  ;  Ancestry  of  Edward  de  Vere ; 
Shakespeare  and  Richard  II ;  Shakespeare  and  high 
birth ;  The  Earls  of  Oxford  in  the  Wars  of  the  Roses ; 
Shakespeare  and  the  Earls  of  Oxford ;  The  Great 
Chamberlain  ;  Father  of  Edward  de  Vere  ;  Shakespeare 
and  Father  worship  ;  A  royal  ward  ;  "  All's  well  "  :  a 
remarkable  parallel ;  Education ;  Arthur  Golding's 
Ovid  ;  De  Vere  and  law  ;  Life  and  book-learning  ;  The 
universities ;  Relationship  with  the  Cecils ;  General 
experiences  ;  Dancing  ;  Shooting  ;  Horsemanship  ; 
Early  poetry. 

CHAPTER  X 
EARLY  MANHOOD          253 

Marriage ;  Sordid  considerations ;  Oxford  and 
Burleigh ;  Burleigh  and  literary  men ;  Burleigh's 
espionage  ;  Hostility  ;  Raleigh  ;  Desire  for  travel ; 
Unauthorized  travel ;  Visit  to  Italy ;  Shakespeare  and 
travel ;  Oxford  in  Italy  ;  Domestic  rupture  ;  An  Othello 
argument;  A  sensational  discovery;  Kicking  over  the 
traces  ;  Burleigh's  methods  of  warfare. 

CHAPTER  XI 

MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE.   MIDDLE  PERIOD.  DRAMATIC 
FOREGROUND  290 

Gabriel  Harvey  ;  Holofernes  ;  Oxford  and  Berowne  ; 
Philip  Sidney  ;  Boyet  j  Eccentricity  ;  Vulgar  scandal ; 
Dramatic  activities  ;  Anthony  Munday  ;  Agamemnon 
and  Ulysses  ;  Troilus  and  Cressida  ;  Lyly  and  the  Oxford 
Boys  ;  Shakespeare  and  Lyly  ;  Apparent  inactivity  ; 
Spenser  and  De  Vere  ;  Spenser's  "  Willie  "  ;  Shakespeare 
and  "  Will." 

CHAPTER  XII 

MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE.    AN  INTERLUDE      . .         . .     350 

Execution  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  funeral  of 
Philip  Sidney  ;  Oxford  and  his  times  ;  Shakespeare  and 
politicians  ;  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  Portia ;  Spanish 
Armada  and  Shakespeare ;  Death  of  Lady  Oxford. 


io  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XIII 

PAGE 

MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE.    FINAL  PERIOD     . .         . .     363 

Material  difficulties  ;  Second  marriage  ;  An  important 
blank  ;  Shakespeare's  method  of  production  ;  Dating 
the  plays  ;  Rapid  issue  ;  Dramatic  reserves  ;  Habits 
of  revision ;  De  Vere  a  precisionist ;  Stage  plays  and 
literature ;  Plays  as  poems ;  Henry  Wriothesley  a 
personal  link ;  Contemporary  parties ;  Southampton, 
Bacon  and  De  Vere  ;  Death  of  Queen  Elizabeth  ;  The 
Boar's  Head  Tavern  and  Gadshill ;  Death  of  De  Vere. 

CHAPTER  XIV 
POSTHUMOUS  CONSIDERATIONS          407 

An  unfinished  task;  Death's  arrest;  "Lear"  and 
"  Macbeth "  ;  Three  periods  of  Shakespeare  publica- 
tion ;  Posthumous  publications  ;  "  Pericles  "  and  the 
Sonnets  ;  "  King  Lear  "  and  "  Troilus  "  ;  "  Hamlet  "  ; 
First  Folio ;  William  Shakspere's  purchases ;  William 
Shakspere's  supposed  retirement  and  Oxford's  death ; 
Loyal  helpers ;  Henry  Wriothesley ;  The  1602  gap ; 
Horatio  de  Vere ;  The  second  Lady  Oxford ;  The 
series  of  sonnets  closes ;  Summary ;  A  conclusive 
combination  ;  The  substitution. 

CHAPTER  XV 
POETIC  SELF-REVELATION.    THE  SONNETS  . .        . .    434 

Resume  of  points  already  treated ;  Southampton 
the  better  angel ;  W.H.  and  T.T.  ;  The  poet's  age ; 
Southampton  and  Oxford's  daughter  Elizabeth ;  a 
significant  marriage  proposal ;  Sentiment  of  the 
sonnets  ;  The  dark  lady  ;  Supplementary  details  ;  The 
inventor  of  the  Shakespearean  sonnet ;  An  early  sonnet 
by  Edward  de  Vere  ;  Romeo  and  Juliet. 

CHAPTER  XVI 
DRAMATIC  SELF-REVELATION — HAMLET    . .  . .     457 

Shakespeare's  contemporaries  in  his  plays ;  The 
dramatist  in  his  dramas  ;  Hamlet  and  destiny  ;  Hamlet 
a  Shakespeare  ;  De  Vere  as  Hamlet ;  Hamlet'*  father 
and  mother  ;  Hamlet  and  Polonius  ;  Ophelia  ;  Horatio  ; 
Patron  of  Drama  ;  Minor  points  ;  Hamlet  and  his  times  ; 
Hamlet's  dying  appeal. 


CONTENTS  ii 

CHAPTER  XVII 

PAGE 

CHRONOLOGICAL  SUMMARY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 
AND  SHAKESPEARE 487 

CHAPTER  XVIII 
CONCLUSION        493 

APPENDIX   I 
THE  TEMPEST 503 

A  check  ;  The  Tempest  and  other  comedies  ;  Shake- 
speare's philosophy ;  Quality  of  the  play  ;  Dumb  show  and 
noise ;  Un- Shakespearean  details  ;  Wit ;  A  play  apart ; 
Medievalism  ;  Woman  ;  Horsemanship  ;  Sport ;  Human 
nature  ;  General  Vocabulary  ;  Not  "  Shakespeare's  " 
work. 

APPENDIX    II 

SUPPLEMENTARY  MATTERS       . . 531 

The  "  Posthumous  "  argument ;  Oxford's  Crest ;  Martin 
Droeshout's  engraving;  The  Grafton  portrait. 

INDEX       ..  ..537 


PRELIMINARY    NOTE 

IN  discussing  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespeare 
plays  and  poems  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against  the 
ambiguity  attaching  to  the  name  "  Shakespeare." 

Following  the  example  of  the  Baconians  and 
Sir  George  Greenwood,  I  have  spelt  the  word  with 
an  "  e  "  in  the  first  syllable,  and  an  "  a  "  in  the  final 
syllable — "  Shakespeare  " — when  referring  to  the 
author,  whoever  he  may  have  been  ;  and  without 
these  two  letters — "  Shakspere  " — when  referring  to 
the  person  hitherto  credited  with  the  authorship. 
By  the  addition  of  the  Christian  name  in  the  latter 
case,  and  in  other  ways,  I  have  tried  to  accentuate 
the  distinction. 

In  immaterial  connections  the  former  is  usually 
employed,  and  in  quotations  the  spelling  of  the 
original  is  generally  followed. 


12 


INTRODUCTION 

As  a  much  graver  responsibility  attaches  to  the 
publication  of  the  following  pages  than  is  usual  in 
the  case  of  treatises  on  literary  subjects,  it  is  impossible 
to  deal  with  the  matter  as  impersonally  as  one  might 
wish.  The  transference  of  the  honour  of  writing 
the  immortal  Shakespeare  dramas  from  one  man  to 
another,  if  definitely  effected,  becomes  not  merely 
a  national  or  contemporary  event,  but  a  world  event 
of  permanent  importance,  destined  to  leave  a  mark 
as  enduring  as  human  literature  and  the  human  race 
itself.  No  one,  therefore,  who  has  a  due  sense  of 
these  things  is  likely  to  embark  upon  an  enterprise 
of  this  kind  in  a  spirit  of  levity  or  adventure ;  nor 
will  he  feel  entitled  to  urge  convictions  tending  to 
bring  about  so  momentous  a  change  as  if  he  were 
merely  proposing  some  interesting  thesis.  However 
much  the  writer  of  a  work  like  the  present  might 
wish  to  keep  himself  in  the  background  he  is  bound 
to  implicate  himself  so  deeply  as  to  stake  publicly  his 
reputation  for  sane  and  sober  judgment,  and  thus  to 
imperil  the  credit  of  his  opinion  on  every  other  subject. 
It  would  therefore  have  been  more  discreet  or 
diplomatic  to  have  put  forward  the  present  argument 
tentatively  at  first,  as  a  possible  or  probable,  rather 
than  an  actual  solution  of  the  Shakespeare  problem. 
The  temptation  to  do  this  was  strong,  but  the  weight 
of  the  evidence  collected  has  proved  much  too  great 
and  conclusive  to  permit  of  this  being  done  with  even 
a  fair  measure  of  justice  either  to  the  case  or  to  my 
own  honest  convictions.  Only  one  course  then  was 

13 


I4  INTRODUCTION 


.•-• 


open  to  me.     The  greater  responsibility  had  to  be 
incurred ;     and    therefore    some    remark    upon    the 
circumstances  under  which  the  investigations  came 
to  be  undertaken  is  not  only  justifiable  but  necessary. 
For  several  years  in  succession  I  had  been  called 
upon  to  go  through  repeated  courses  of  reading  in 
one  particular  play  of  Shakespeare's,  namely  "  The 
Merchant  of  Venice."     This  long  continued  familiarity 
with  the  contents  of  one  play  induced  a  peculiar  sense 
of  intimacy  with  the  mind  and  disposition  of  its 
author  and  his  outlook  upon  life.     The  personality 
which  seemed  to  run  through  the  pages  of  the  drama 
I  felt  to  be  altogether  out  of  relationship  with  what 
was  taught  of  the  reputed  author  and  the  ascertained 
facts    of    his    career.     For    example,    the    Stratford 
Shakspere  was  untravelled,  having  moved  from  his 
native  place  to  London  when  a  young  man,  and  then 
as  a  successful  middle-aged  man  of  business  he  had 
returned  to  Stratford  to  attend  to  his  lands  and  houses. 
This    particular    play    on    the    contrary  bespoke    a 
writer  who  knew  Italy  at  first  hand  and  was  touched 
with  the  life  and  spirit  of  the  country.     Again  the 
play  suggested  an  author  with  no  great  respect  for 
money  and  business  methods,  but  rather  one  to  whom 
material  possessions  would  be  in  the  nature  of  an 
encumbrance  to  be  easily  and  lightly  disposed  of  : 
at  any  rate  one  who  was  by  no  means  of  an  acquisitive 
disposition.    This  was  hardly  the  type  of  man  to  have 
risen  from  poverty  to  affluence  by  his  own  efforts 
when  but  little  more  than  thirty  years  of  age,  nor 
was  such  a  man  likely  to  have  been  responsible  for 
some  of  the  petty  money  transactions  recorded  of  the 
Stratford  man.     Other  anomalies  had  forced  them- 
selves upon  my  attention  and  had  done  much  to 
I 


INTRODUCTION  15 

undermine  my  faith  in  the  orthodox  view.  The 
call  of  other  interests,  however,  prevented  my  follow- 
ing up  the  question  with  any  seriousness. 

A  recurrence  of  the  old  doubts  under  new  circum- 
stances led  me  at  length  to  look  more  closely  into  the 
problem  and  to  consult  writers  who  had  dealt  with 
it.  These  convinced  me  that  the  opponents  of  the 
orthodox  view  had  made  good  their  case  to  this  extent, 
that  there  was  no  sufficient  evidence  that  the  man 
William  Shakspere  had  written  the  works  with  which 
he  was  credited,  whilst  there  was  a  very  strong  prima 
facie  presumption  that  he  had  not.  Everything 
seemed  to  point  to  his  being  but  a  mask,  behind 
which  some  great  genius,  for  inscrutable  reasons, 
had  elected  to  work  out  his  own  destiny.  I  do  not 
maintain  that  any  single  objection,  to  what  for  con- 
venience sake  we  must  call  the  Stratfordian  view, 
afforded  by  itself  sufficient  grounds  for  regarding  it 
as  untenable  ;  for  most  of  these  objections  have  been 
stoutly  combated  severally,  by  men  whose  opinions 
are  entitled  to  respect.  It  was  rather  the  cumulative 
effect  of  the  many  objections  which,  it  appeared  to 
me,  made  it  impossible  to  adhere  with  any  confidence 
to  the  old  view  of  things,  and  so  gave  to  the  whole 
situation  an  appearance  of  inexplicable  mystery. 

Here,  then,  were  the  greatest  literary  treasures  of 
England,  ranked  by  universal  consent  amongst  the 
highest  literary  achievements  of  mankind,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  of  unknown  origin.  The 
immediate  effect  of  such  a  conviction  was  the  sense 
of  a  painful  hiatus  in  the  general  outlook  upon  the 
supreme  accomplishments  of  humanity ;  a  want 
much  more  distressing  than  that  which  is  felt  about 
the  authorship  of  writings  like  the  Homeric  poems, 


16  INTRODUCTION 

because  the  matter  touches  us  more  directly  and 
intimately.  It  was  impossible,  I  felt,  to  leave  things 
thus,  if  by  any  means  the  problem  could  be  solved 
and  the  gap  filled  up.  I  resolved,  therefore,  not- 
withstanding the  extreme  boldness,  or  rather  presump- 
tion, of  the  undertaking  to  attempt  a  solution  of  the 
problem. 

At  the  beginning  it  was  mainly  the  fascination  of 
an  interesting  enquiry  that  held  me,  and  the  matter 
was  pursued  in  the  spirit  of  simple  research.  As  the 
case  has  developed,  however,  it  has  tended  increasingly 
to  assume  the  form  of  a  serious  purpose,  aiming  at 
a  long  overdue  act  of  justice  and  reparation  to  an 
unappreciated  genius  who,  we  believe,  ought  now 
to  be  put  in  possession  of  his  rightful  honours  ;  and 
to  whose  memory  should  be  accorded  a  gratitude 
proportionate  to  the  benefits  he  has  conferred  upon 
mankind  in  general,  and  the  lustre  he  has  shed  upon 
England  in  particular. 

That  one  who  is  not  a  recognized  authority  or  an 
expert  in  literature  should  attempt  the  solution  of 
a  problem  which  has  so  far  baffled  specialists  must 
doubtless  appear  to  many  as  a  glaring  act  of  over- 
boldness  ;  whilst  to  pretend  to  have  actually  solved 
this  most  momentous  of  literary  puzzles  will  seem 
to  some  like  sheer  hallucination.  A  little  reflection 
ought,  however,  to  convince  any  one  that  the  problem 
is  not,  at  bottom,  purely  literary.  That  is  to  say, 
its  solution  does  not  depend  wholly  upon  the  extent 
of  the  investigator's  knowledge  of  literature  nor  upon 
the  soundness  of  his  literary  judgment.  This  is 
probably  why  the  problem  has  not  been  solved  before 
now.  It  has  been  left  mainly  in  the  hands  of  literary 
men.  whereas  its  solution  required  the  application 


INTRODUCTION  17 

of  methods  of  research  which  are  not,  strictly  speaking, 
literary  methods.  The  imperfection  of  my  own 
literary  equipment,  of  which  I  was  only  too  conscious, 
was  therefore  no  reason  why  I  should  not  attempt 
the  task  ;  and  if  the  evidence  collected  in  support  of 
any  proposed  solution  should  of  itself  prove  satis- 
factory, its  validity  ought  not  to  be  in  any  way  affected 
by  considerations  purely  personal  to  the  investigator. 
I  proceeded  accordingly  to  form  plans  for  searching 
for  the  real  author  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  These 
plans  were  outlined  before  taking  any  step,  and  will 
be  fully  explained  in  due  course.  Personally,  I  have 
not  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  their  having  succeeded. 
Whether  I  shall  be  able  to  so  present  the  case  as  to 
establish  an  equally  strong  conviction  in  the  minds 
of  others,  is,  of  course,  a  vastly  different  matter. 
The  force  of  a  conviction  is  frequently  due  as  much 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  presents  itself, 
as  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  evidence.  For  example, 
when  a  theory,  that  we  have  formed  from  a  considera- 
tion of  certain  facts,  leads  us  to  suppose  that  certain 
other  facts  will  exist,  the  later  discovery  that  the 
facts  are  actually  in  accordance  with  our  inferences 
becomes  a  much  stronger  confirmation  of  our  theory 
than  if  we  had  known  these  additional  facts  at  the 
outset.  We  state  this  principle  in  matters  of  science 
when  we  affirm  that  the  supreme  test  and  evidence  of 
the  soundness  of  a  scientific  theory  is  its  power  of 
enabling  us  to  foresee  some  events  as  a  consequence 
of  others.  The  manner,  therefore,  in  which  facts 
and  ideas  have  been  arrived  at  becomes  itself  an 
important  element  in  the  evidence  ;  and  it  is  this 
consideration  which  has  decided  for  me  the  method 
most  suitable  for  presenting  the  case. 
2 


i8  INTRODUCTION 

Though  it  is  impossible  ever  to  carry  the  minds  of 
others  through  precisely  the  same  processes  as  those 
by  which  one's  own  settled  beliefs  have  been  reached, 
it  has  seemed  to  me  that  in  this  instance  some  attempt 
of  the  kind  should  be  made  in  order  that  the  reader, 
in  seeing  how  readily  newly  discovered  particulars 
have  arranged  themselves  in  a  clear  order  around  an 
original  hypothesis,  may  come  to  feel  something  of 
the  same  certainty  which  these  things  have  produced 
in  my  own  mind.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  some  of  the 
most  convincing  evidence  presented  itself  after  my 
theory  of  the  authorship  had  already  assumed  the 
form  of  a  settled  conviction,  and  indeed  after  this 
work  was  virtuaDy  completed  ;  thus  rendering  my 
receding  from  the  theory  practically  impossible. 
To  others  however,  who  might  only  see  it  in  the  general 
mass  of  accumulated  evidence,  it  could  not  appeal 
with  anything  like  the  same  compelling  force.  These 
considerations  have  decided  me  to  present  the  case 
as  far  as  possible  in  the  form  of  a  representation  of 
the  various  stages  through  which  the  enquiry  was 
pursued,  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  was 
collected,  and  the  process  by  which  an  accumulating 
corroboration  transformed  a  theory  into  an  irresistible 
conviction. 

What  at  first  blush  may  appear  a  pedantic  de- 
scription of  a  method  ought,  therefore,  to  be  viewed 
as  in  itself  a  distinctive  form  of  evidence.  I  would 
ask,  then,  that  it  be  regarded  as  such,  and  that 
what  would  otherwise  be  an  unseemly  obtrusion  of 
personality  be  excused  accordingly. 

The  reader's  indulgence  must  also  be  sought  on 
another  score.  The  first  steps  in  an  enquiry  pursued 
according  to  the  method  I  had  to  adopt  were  in- 


INTRODUCTION  19 

evitably  slow,  and  this  may  import  a  measure  of 
tediousness  into  the  introductory  stages  of  an  exposi- 
tion following  on  the  same  lines.  Yet  without  a 
patient  attention  to  the  various  steps  of  the  enquiry 
the  unity  and  conclusiveness  of  the  argument  as  a 
whole  might  be  missed.  Although  these  pages  are 
addressed  to  the  general  reader  rather  than  to  literary 
scholars,  I  am  obliged  to  assume  a  serious  desire  to 
discover  the  truth  and  a  willingness  to  take  some 
trouble  to  arrive  at  it.  Especially  must  I  ask  for 
that  concentrated  individual  reflection  by  which  alone 
the  various  parts  of  the  argument  may  be  seen  as  a 
whole  :  a  practice  which,  we  are  afraid,  is  somewhat 
alien  to  the  purely  literary  mind. 

In  one  or  two  instances  I  have  no  doubt  made 
use  of  books  that  are  somewhat  rare,  the  most  critical 
chapter  of  the  work,  in  fact,  depending  wholly  upon  a 
work,  copies  of  which  are  not  readily  accessible  to 
every  one  :  nevertheless  it  will  be  found  that  nothing 
important  in  the  argument  rests  upon  newly  un- 
earthed data.  Everything  has  been  accessible  for 
years  to  any  one  who  might  have  been  on  the  look- 
out for  the  facts,  and  was  prepared  to  take  trouble  to 
ascertain  them.  Even  where  personal  judgments 
constitute  important  elements  in  the  evidence,  as  is 
natural  in  enquiries  of  this  nature,  the  case  has  been 
made  to  rest  at  almost  every  critical  stage,  not  upon 
my  own  judgment  alone,  but  upon  the  statements 
of  writers  of  recognized  standing  and  authority  whose 
works  have  for  some  time  been  before  the  public. 
In  most  cases  it  will  be  found  that  the  authorities 
quoted  are  writers  of  the  Stratfordian  school.  Great 
as  are  my  obligations  specially  to  Sir  George 
Greenwood's  work,  I  have  purposely  refrained  from 


20  INTRODUCTION 

quoting  from  it  when  I  might  often  have  done  so  with 
advantage  to  my  own  argument,  and  preferred  resting 
upon  the  authority  of  writers  of  the  opposite  school. 
How  completely  these  writers  support  my  thesis, 
will  I  trust  be  apparent  in  the  sequel.  This  being  so, 
the  question  might  reasonably  be  asked :  how  comes 
it  that  the  discovery  which  is  claimed  has  not  been 
made  before  now  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  to 
be  found  in  the  history  of  almost  all  the  important 
advances  that  man  has  made.  The  basic  facts  of  his 
discoveries  have  usually  been  well  known  for  some 
time  before.  What  has  been  of  special  consequence 
has  been  the  perception,  sometimes  purely  accidental, 
of  a  relationship  amongst  these  facts  hitherto  not 
noticed.  Once  detected,  however,  other  facts  have 
become  grouped  and  co-ordinated  by  it,  and  the 
resultant  discovery,  for  which  mankind  had  probably 
waited  long,  appears  at  last  so  natural  and  obvious, 
that  men  wonder  that  it  had  not  been  thought  of 
before.  This  may  be  taken  as  a  compendium  of 
human  discovery  generally. 

In  almost  every  such  case  there  has  been  a 
preparatory  movement  towards  the  discovery ;  a 
movement  in  which  many  minds  have  participated ; 
and  the  one  who  has  been  fortunate  enough  to  make 
the  discovery  has  frequently  been,  in  important 
respects,  inferior  to  those  into  whose  labours  he  has 
entered.  Now,  I  have  no  doubt  that  Shakespearean 
study  has  of  late  years  been  making  surely  towards 
the  discovery  of  the  real  author  of  the  works.  I  can 
detect  two  distinct  currents  of  literary  interest,  which, 
it  seems  to  me,  were  bound  ultimately  to  converge,  and 
in  their  converging  disclose  the  authorship.  The 
first  of  these  has  been  the  tendency  to  put  aside  the 


21 

old  conception  of  a  writer  creating  everything  by  the 
vigour  of  his  imagination,  and  to  regard  the  writings 
as  reflecting  the  personality  and  experiences  of  their 
author.  The  result  has  been  the  gradual  rise  of  a 
conception  of  the  personality  of  "  Shakespeare," 
differing  very  widely  from  the  conventional  figure  : 
an  outstanding  expression  of  this  tendency  being 
Mr.  Frank  Harris's  work  on  "  The  Man  Shakespeare." 
The  second  current,  only  faintly  perceptible  as 
yet,  has  been  slowly  forcing  from  obscurity,  into  our 
knowledge  of  Elizabethan  literature  and  drama,  the 
name  and  figure  of  one  still  quite  unknown  to  the  vast 
mass  of  his  countrymen.  These  two  movements, 
if  continued,  had  in  them  the  possibility  of  the  dis- 
covery ;  though  how  long  that  discovery  might  have 
been  deferred,  no  one  can  say. 

What  I  have  to  propose,  however,  is  not  an  accidental 
discovery,  but  one  resulting  from  a  systematic  search. 
And  it  is  to  the  nature  of  the  method,  combined  with 
a  happy  inspiration  and  a  fortunate  chance,  that  the 
results  here  described  were  reached. 

In  presenting  a  thesis  the  strength  of  which  must 
depend  largely  upon  the  convergence  of  several 
separate  lines  of  argument,  a  certain  amount  of 
repetition  of  particular  facts  is  unavoidable,  and  in 
this  matter  I  have  preferred  to  risk  an  unnecessary 
reiteration  rather  than  an  incomplete  statement  of 
any  particular  argument.  The  reason  for  such 
repetition  it  is  hoped  will  not  be  overlooked.  My 
object  being  to  solve  an  important  problem  rather 
than  to  swell  the  supply  of  literature,  all  merely 
literary  considerations  have  been  kept  subordinate 
to  the  central  purpose. 

One  other  matter  affecting  the  general  presentation 


22  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  argument  remains  to  be  mentioned.  As 
originally  written  the  work  contained  no  special 
examination  of  Stratfordianism,  but  merely  incidental 
observations  scattered  throughout  the  various  chapters. 
My  feeling  was  that  sufficient  had  already  been  written 
by  others  upon  the  subject ;  that  short  of  absolute 
proof  of  the  negative,  the  anti-Stratfordians  had 
established  their  case,  and  that  what  was  wanted 
was  not  more  evidence  but  a  serious  attention  to  what 
had  already  been  written,  and  above  all  a  reasonable 
positive  hypothesis  to  put  in  the  place  of  the  old  one. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  seemed  possible  to  begin 
my  argument  at  the  point  where  others  had  left  off. 
I  was,  however,  advised  by  friends,  more  capable  than 
myself  of  judging  the  needs  of  readers,  to  make  my 
argument  complete  in  itself,  by  presenting  first  of 
all  the  case  for  the  negative  view,  and  thus  clearing  the 
way  for  my  own  special  investigations.  This  change 
of  plan  is  bound  to  involve  what  might  appear  like 
wanton  and  pointless  repetition  in  several  instances, 
and  may  interfere  with  the  unity  of  the  constructive 
scheme  of  exposition.  I  would,  however,  urge  the 
reader  not  to  linger  unduly  over  the  things  that  are 
destined  to  pass  away,  but  to  press  on  to  a  considera- 
tion of  those  matters  which,  if  there  be  truth  in  my 
thesis,  will  endure,  at  least  so  long  as  the  English 
language  is  understood. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW 

Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit 

I. 

IN  spite  of  the  efforts  of  orthodox  Stratfordians  to  Growing 
belittle  the  investigations  that  have  been  made  into  scePtlclsm 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespeare 
dramas ;  perhaps  indeed  because  of  the  very  manner 
they  have  chosen  to  adopt,  the  number  of  Britons 
and  Americans,  to  say  nothing  of  the  non-English 
speaking  nationalities,  who  do  not  believe  that 
William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  produced  the  literature 
with  which  he  is  credited  is  steadily  on  the  increase. 
Outside  the  ranks  of  those  who  have  deeply  committed 
themselves  in  print  it  is  indeed  difficult  nowadays 
to  find  any  one  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  full  and  assured 
faith.  At  the  same  time  the  resort  of  the  faithful  few 
to  contemptuous  expressions  in  speaking  of  opponents 
is  clearly  indicative  of  uneasiness  even  amongst  the 
most  orthodox  litterateurs. 

The  unfortunate  "  cryptogram "  of  Ignatius 
Donnelly,  whilst  tending  to  bring  the  enquiry  into 
disrepute  with  minds  disposed  to  serious  research, 
has  been  unable  altogether  to  nullify  the  effects  of 
the  negative  criticism  with  which  his  work  opens. 

23 


24          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

The  supplementing  of  this  by  writers  of  the  calibre 
of  Lord  Penzance,  Judge  Webb,  Sir  George  Greenwood, 
and  Professor  Lefranc  has  raised  the  problem  to  a 
level  which  will  not  permit  of  its  being  airily  dis- 
missed without  thereby  reflecting  adversely  on  the 
capacity  and  judgment  of  the  controversialists  who 
would  thus  persist  in  giving  artifice  instead  of 
argument.  That,  however,  is  their  concern.  The 
common  sense  of  the  rank  and  file  of  Shakespeare 
students,  when  unhampered  by  past  committals,  leads 
irresistibly  towards  the  rejection  of  the  old  idea  of 
authorship ;  and  only  the  doctors  of  the  ancient 
literary  cult  hang  in  the  rear. 

Nevertheless,  much  remains  to  be  done  before  the 
Stratfordian  hypothesis  will  be  sufficiently  moribund 
to  be  neglected.  And  although  this  work  is  addressed 
mainly  to  those  who  are  either  in  search  of  a  more 
reasonable  hypothesis,  or,  having  become  awakened 
to  a  sense  of  the  existence  of  the  "  Shakespeare 
Problem  "  are  willing  to  take  the  trouble  to  examine 
impartially  what  has  already  been  written  by  others 
on  the  subject,  the  present  argument  would  probably 
be  incomplete  without  a  more  explicit  treatment 
of  the  Stratfordian  point  of  view  than  has  been  given 
in  the  main  body  of  the  treatise.  At  the  same  time 
it  is  impossible  to  present  the  anti-Stratfordian 
argument  completely  without  adding  enormously 
to  the  bulk  of  the  work.  Moreover,  as  we  have  a 
very  definite  positive  argument  to  unfold  we  wish  to 
avoid  the  dangers  of  diverting  attention  from  it  by 
giving  an  unnecessary  prominence  to  the  negative 
argument  so  ably  treated  by  previous  writers.  That 
negative  argument,  like  its  present  constructive 
counterpart,  is  cumulative ;  and,  like  every  sound 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  25 

cumulative  argument,  each  of  these  is  receiving 
additional  corroboration  and  confirmation  with  almost 
every  new  fact  brought  to  light  in  respect  to  it.  How 
much  of  this  accumulated  material  it  is  necessary  to 
present  before  the  case  can  be  considered  amply  and 
adequately  stated  must  needs  depend  largely  upon 
the  preparedness  and  partialities  of  those  addressed. 

Although  the  thirty  years  which  have  passed  since  Ignatius 
Ignatius  Donnelly's  work  appeared  have  witnessed  Donnelly- 
marked  developments  of  the  critical  argument,  the 
full  force  of  the  first  hundred  pages  of  his  first  volume 
has  not  yet  been  fully  appreciated.  To  allow  a 
justifiable  repugnance  to  his  "  cryptogram "  work 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  serious  examination  of  the 
material  he  has  brought  together  from  untainted 
sources,  like  Halliwell-Phillipps  and  others  of 
recognized  capacity  and  integrity,  is  to  fall  behind 
the  times  in  the  spirit  of  dispassionate  scientific 
research.  A  few  hours  spent,  therefore,  in  leisurely 
weighing  the  material  contained  in  his  opening  chapters, 
notwithstanding  its  incompleteness,  will  probably 
convince  most  people  that  the  Stratfordian  hypothesis 
rests  upon  the  most  insecure  foundations  :  differen- 
tiating it  entirely  from  all  other  outstanding  cases  of 
English  authorship  in  historic  times,  as  for  example, 
Chaucer,  Spenser  and  Milton.  The  exceptional 
character  of  many  of  the  facts  he  has  collected,  the 
multiplicity  of  the  grounds  for  rejecting  the  hypothesis, 
and  the  general  consistency  of  the  various  arguments, 
all  combine  to  form  a  single  justification  for  a  negative 
attitude  towards  the  conventional  view.  A  mere 
repetition  in  these  pages  of  what  others  have  written 
will  not  add  much  to  its  force ;  to  spend  time  in 
expounding  its  unity  is  to  attempt  to  do  for  others 


26          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

what  any  reflecting  mind  pretending  to  judge  the 
case  ought  to  do  for  itself. 

What  is  true  of  the  case  as  presented  by  Ignatius 
stratfordian  Donnelly  has  probably  still  greater  force  as  applied 
to  the  work  of  men  who  have  treated  this  problem 
in  more  recent  years.  It  would  be  perfectly 
gratuitous  to  insist  upon  the  analytical  acumen  of 
Lord  Penzance,  and  therefore  scarcely  short  of  an 
impertinence  to  brush  aside  lightly  his  opinions 
in  matters  involving  the  weighing  of  evidence. 
Consequently,  when  such  new  arguments  as  he 
advances,  and  the  new  bearings  he  is  able  to  point 
out  in  former  arguments,  are  marked  by  the  same 
unity  and  lead  to  the  same  general  conclusions  as 
those  of  other  capable  writers  both  before  and  since 
his  time,  we  may  claim  that  a  measure  of  what  may 
be  called  authoritative  research  has  been  accomplished, 
liberating  subsequent  investigators  from  repeating 
all  the  particulars  by  means  of  which  these  general 
results  have  been  reached.  In  other  words,  a  certain 
basis  of  authority  has  been  established :  not,  of 
course,  an  absolute  and  infallible  authority,  but  a 
relative,  practical,  working  authority  such  as  we  are 
obliged  to  accept  in  the  theoretical  no  less  than  in 
the  active  affairs  of  life. 

11  Shake-  When,  for  example,  three  eminent  English  lawyers 

sp«are  "and  tell  us  that  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  display  an  expert 
knowledge  of  law  such  as  William  Shakspere  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  possess,  it  would  be  extreme 
folly  on  the  part  of  one  who  is  not  a  lawyer  to  spend 
himself  and  use  up  space  in  putting  together  evidence 
to  prove  the  same  point.  No  amount  of  evidence 
which  he  might  collect  would  have  the  same  value 
as  the  authoritative  statement  of  these  men.  He 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  27 

may,  if  he  cares  to,  claim  that  the  lawyers  have  not 
made  good  their  point,  or  he  may  agree  with  the 
general  conclusion,  and  dispute  the  theory  that  the 
author  was  an  active  member  of  the  legal  profession. 
But  if  he  agrees  with  them  on  the  main  issue  he  can- 
not serve  his  cause  in  any  way  by  traversing  again 
the  ground  that  these  experts  have  already  covered. 

Again,  when,  in  addition  to  these  writers  we  have  ••  shake- 
authorities  of  the  opposite  school  agreeing  that  the 
author  of  the  plays  possessed  a  first-hand  knowledge 
of  the  classics,  including  a  knowledge  of  passages 
which  would  not  come  into  a  schoolboy's  curriculum, 
it  would  be  affectation  upon  the  part  of  a  writer 
laying  no  claim  to  expert  knowledge  of  the  classics 
to  restate  the  particulars,  or  attempt  to  add  to  what 
has  already  been  said  some  little  fragment  from  his 
own  scanty  stores.  In  the  same  way  we  are  now 
entitled  to  affirm,  without  adducing  all  the  evidence 
upon  which  it  has  been  determined,  that  the  author 
of  "Shakespeare's"  plays  and  poems  possessed  a 
knowledge  of  idiomatic  French,  and  most  probably 
a  reading  familiarity  with  the  Italian  language,  such 
as  William  Shakspere  could  not  have  learnt  at 
Stratford  :  and,  what  is  perhaps  of  as  great  importance 
as  anything  else,  he  employed  as  the  habitual  vehicle 
of  his  mind  an  English  of  the  highest  educated  type 
completely  free  from  provincialism  of  any  kind. 

The  "  Shakespeare  Problem,"  we  maintain,  has  now 
reached  a  stage  at  which  such  summarized  results 
may  be  placed  before  readers  with  the  assurance 
that  these  conclusions  have  behind  them  the  sanction 
of  men  of  unquestioned  probity  and  capacity  :  thus 
relieving  the  modern  investigator  from  the  labour 
of  repeating  all  the  particulars  from  which  the 


28 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Halliwell- 
Phillipps. 


conclusions  are  drawn.  And  although  these  com- 
pendious dogmatic  statements  cannot  be  expected 
to  convince  the  man  who  claims  to  have  studied  the 
writers  we  have  named  and  yet  preserved  his  orthodoxy 
unshaken,  they  will  probably  suffice  for  the  average 
or  the  generality  of  mankind.  Orthodox  faiths, 
however,  are  usually  intrinsically  weakest  when  most 
vehemently  asserted ;  and  the  persistence  of  the 
Stratfordian  faith  has  probably  been  due  much  less 
to  its  own  inherent  strength  than  to  the  want  of  a 
better  to  put  in  its  place. 

Those  who  have  had  occasion  to  study  Shake- 
spearean problems  will,  we  believe,  agree  that  the 
most  trustworthy  work  for  particulars  respecting 
the  life  of  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  is  Halliwell- 
Phillipps's  "  Outlines."  Writing  in  1882,  six  years 
before  the  appearance  of  Donnelly's  work,  the  problem 
of  Shakespearean  authorship  seems  never  to  have 
touched  him  ;  and  therefore,  undoubting  Stratfordian 
though  he  was,  he  writes  with  perfect  freedom  and 
openness,  glozing  over  nothing,  and  not  shrinking 
from  making  admissions  which  some  later  Baconian 
or  sceptic  might  use  against  the  subject  of  his 
biography.  Without  wishing  to  imply  anything 
against  subsequent  biographies,  written  in  the  refract- 
ing atmosphere  of  controversy,  we  may  describe 
Halliwell-Phillipps's  "  Outlines  "  as  the  most  honest 
biography  of  William  Shakspere  yet  written. 


William 
Shaksper 


II. 


^s«  then»  the  main  root  of  the  Shakespeare  problem 
has  always  been  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the 
antecedents  of  William  Shakspere  (so  far  as  they  are 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  29 

known  or  can  be  reasonably  inferred)  with  the  special 
features  of  the  literary  work  attributed  to  him,  it 
ought  to  suffice  that  the  contention  from  which  most 
anti-Stratfordian  argument  starts  is  abundantly 
supported  by  Halliwell-Phillipps.  Dirt  and  ignorance, 
according  to  this  authority,  were  outstanding  features 
of  the  social  life  of  Stratford  in  those  days  and  had 
stamped  themselves  very  definitely  upon  the  family 
life  under  the  influence  of  which  William  Shakspere 
was  reared.  Father  and  mother  alike  were  illiterate, 
placing  their  marks  in  lieu  of  signatures  upon  important 
legal  documents  :  and  his  father's  first  appearance 
in  the  records  of  the  village  is  upon  the  occasion  of 
his  being  fined  for  having  amassed  a  quantity  of 
filth  in  front  of  his  house,  there  being  "  little  excuse 
for  his  negligence."  So  much  for  the  formative 
conditions  of  his  home  life.  On  the  other  hand,  so 
far  as  pedagogic  education  is  concerned  there  is  no 
vestige  of  evidence  that  William  Shakspere  was  ever 
inside  of  a  school  for  a  single  day  :  and,  considering 
the  illiteracy  of  his  parents  and  the  fact  that  ability 
to  read  and  write  was  a  condition  of  admission  to 
the  Free  School  at  Stratford,  it  is  obvious  that  there 
were  serious  obstacles  to  his  obtaining  even  such 
inferior  education  as  was  offered  by  schools  in  small 
provincial  places  in  those  days.  Respecting  this 
difficulty  of  meeting  the  minimum  requirements  for 
admission  to  the  school  Halliwell-Phillipps  remarks : 
"  There  were  few  persons  living  at  Stratford-on-Avon 
capable  of  initiating  him  into  these  preparatory 
accomplishments  .  .  .  but  it  is  as  likely  as  not  that 
the  poet  received  his  first  rudiments  of  education 
from  older  boys."  Later  generations  of  schoolboys 
have  preferred  more  exciting  pastimes. 


jo  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Sh»kspere          it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  general  educational 

and  Burns. 

advantages  of  Robert  Burns,  including,  as  we  must, 
the  intellectual  level  of  peasant  life  in  Scotland  in 
his  day,  family  circumstances  and  character  of 
parents,  were  altogether  superior  to  what  existed  at 
Stratford  and  in  the  home  of  William  Shakspere  two 
centuries  before.  The  following  remark  of  Ruskin's, 
whom  it  is  impossible  to  suspect  of  "  heterodoxy," 
will  therefore  not  be  out  of  place  at  this  point. 

"  There  are  attractive  qualities  in  Burns  and 
attractive  qualities  in  Dickens,  which  neither  of  those 
writers  would  have  possessed,  if  the  one  had  been 
educated  and  the  other  had  been  studying  higher 
nature  than  that  of  Cockney  London ;  but  those 
attractive  qualities  are  not  such  as  we  should  seek 
in  a  school  of  literature.  If  we  want  to  teach  young 
men  a  good  manner  of  writing  we  should  teach  it 
from  Shakespeare,  not  from  Burns ;  from  Walter  Scott 
and  not  from  Dickens."  ("The  Two  Paths.") 

This  statement  of  Ruskin's,  made  without  reference 
to  anything  controversial,  furnishes  a  special  testi- 
mony to  the  fact  that  the  distinctive  literary  qualities 
of  Shakespeare  are  the  direct  antithesis  of  those 
which  belong  to  a  great  poetic  genius,  such  as  Burns, 
whose  genius  enables  him  to  attain  eminence  in  spite 
of  homely  beginnings.  It  is  hardly  possible,  more- 
over, to  pick  up  the  slightest  biographical  sketch 
of  Scotland's  poet  without  meeting  testimony  to  the 
same  fact.  The  following,  for  example,  we  take 
from  the  first  such  sketch  which  comes  to  hand. 

"  Burns  was  essentially  '  one  of  the  people '  in 
birth,  breeding  and  instincts  ...  he  has  been  taken 
more  to  men's  bosoms  than  any  (other)  if  we  except, 
perhaps,  the  bard  of  Avon,  whose  admirers  belong 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  31 

more  exclusively  to  the  educated  classes."  Spontaneously 
this  comparison  between  the  two  poets  rises  in  the 
mind  of  almost  any  writer  who  deals  specially  with 
either  one  of  them,  and  leads  always  to  a  contrast 
upon  the  particular  point  with  which  we  are  dealing. 
Shakespeare's  work  if  viewed  without  reference  Shakspere 

.  .  ,  ,    ,  and  books. 

to  any  personality  would  never  have  been  taken  to 
be  the  work  of  a  genius  who  had  emerged  from  an 
uncultured  milieu.  The  only  conditions  which  could 
have  compensated  in  any  degree  for  such  initial 
disabilities  as  those  from  which  William  Shakspere 
suffered  would  have  been  a  plentiful  supply  of  books 
and  ample  facilities  for  a  thorough  study  of  them. 
It  is  generally  agreed,  however,  that  even  if  he 
attended  school  he  must  have  had  to  leave  at  an  early 
age  in  order  to  assist  his  father,  whose  circumstances 
had  become  straitened :  and  that  he  had  to  engage 
in  occupations  of  a  non-intellectual  and  most  probably 
of  a  coarsening  kind.  And,  so  far  from  being  able 
to  compensate  for  all  this  by  means  of  books  the 
place  is  spoken  of  as  "a  bookless  neighbourhood." 
"  The  copy  of  the  black-letter  English  History  .  .  . 
in  his  father's  parlour,  never  existed  out  of  the 
imagination."  Even  after  his  London  career  was 
over,  and  as  the  supposed  greatest  writer  in  England 
he  retired  to  Stratford,  the  situation  was  probably 
no  better.  "  Anything  like  a  private  library,  even 
of  the  smallest  dimensions,  was  then  of  the 
rarest  occurrence,  and  that  Shakespeare  (William 
Shakspere)  ever  owned  one,  at  any  time  of  his  life, 
is  exceedingly  improbable."  Dr.  Hall — Shakspere's 
son-in-law — however,  possessed  in  1635  what  he 
called  his  "  study  of  books,"  "  which  probably 
included  any  that  had  belonged  to  Shakespeare.  If 


32  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

the  latter  were  the  case,  the  learned  doctor  did 
not  consider  it  worth  while  to  mention  the  fact." 
(Halliwell-Phillipps's  "  Outlines.) 

Boms  and  In  contrast  with  all  this  take  the  following  passages 
from  the  short  biographical  sketch  already  quoted, 
of  the  poet  who,  in  purely  educational  matters,  is 
placed  so  much  below  "  Shakespeare." 

"  When  he  was  six  years  of  age  the  poet  (Burns) 
was  sent  to  a  school  at  Alloway  Mill.  .  .  .  (Later, 
his  father),  in  conjunction  with  several  neighbours, 
engaged  a  young  man,  John  Murdock,  agreeing  to 
pay  him  a  small  quarterly  salary,  and  to  lodge  him 
alternately  in  their  houses.  The  boys  were  taught 
by  him  reading,  writing,  arithmetic  and  grammar 
.  .  .  Mr.  Murdock  left  for  another  situation  (and) 
the  father  undertook  to  teach  his  sons  arithmetic 
by  candle  light  in  the  winter  evenings.  .  .  .  Burns 
went  (to  Murdock)  one  week  before  harvest  and  two 
after  it  to  brush  up  his  learning.  .  .  .  The  first  week 
was  devoted  to  English  grammar,  and  the  other  two 
to  a  flirtation  with  French.  .  .  Burns  laboured 
at  this  new  study  with  such  eagerness  and  success 
that  he  could,  according  to  his  brother,  translate 
any  ordinary  prose  author  ;  and  we  know  that  to 
the  last  he  loved  to  interlard  his  correspondence  with 
phrases  from  that  language.  And  when  he  bethought 
himself  of  attempting,  in  later  life,  a  dramatic  com- 
position, among  the  books  he  ordered  from  Edinburgh 
was  a  copy  of  Moliere.  .  .  .  Besides  he  had  read 
and  digested  at  an  early  age  many  valuable  and  some 
ponderous  books.  His  father  had  borrowed  for  his 
reading,  in  addition  to  his  own  scanty  stock  ;  and 
wealthy  families  in  Ayr,  as  well  as  humble  families 
nearer  home,  gave  him  free  access  to  what  books  of 


33 

theirs  he  wished  to  read.  (Amongst  the  books  he 
read  in  this  way  were)  .  .  .  '  The  Life  of  Hannibal,' 
'  Salmon's  Geographical  Grammar/  '  Derham's 
Physico-Theology/  '  The  Spectator,'  '  Pope's  Homer,' 
'  Hervey's  Meditations,'  '  Lock's  Essay  on  the  Human 
Understanding,'  and  several  plays  of  Shakespeare. 

"  In  his  nineteenth  summer  he  was  sent  to  Kirkoswald 
Parish  School  to  learn  mensuration,  surveying,  etc. 
...  In  these  he  made  good  progress.  .  .  .  The 
teacher  had  great  local  fame  as  a  mathematician  .  .  . 
(The  poet's)  sojourn  at  Kirkoswald  had  much  improved 
him.  He  had  considerably  extended  his  reading ; 
he  had  exercised  himself  in  debate,  and  laid  a  firm 
foundation  for  fluent  and  correct  utterance  .  .  .  For 
three  or  four  years  after  this  ...  at  Lochlea  .  .  . 
he  still  extended  his  reading  and  indulged  occasionally 
in  verse  making."  (William  Gunnyon  :  Biographical 
sketch  of  Robert  Burns.) 

Needless  to  say  the  particulars  given  in  this  sketch  The 
are  not  the  generous  inferences  of  modern  admirers, 
but  are  supplied  by  the  properly  authenticated 
utterances  of  Burns  himself,  his  brother,  his  teachers, 
and  other  contemporaries.  Yet,  with  such  a  prepara- 
tion at  a  time  when  books  had  become  so  accessible  ; 
with  his  quickness  of  apprehension,  his  genius,  and 
his  respect  for  the  good  things  that  books  alone  could 
give  him,  Robert  Burns  remains  the  type  of  un- 
cultured genius  ;  whilst  Shakspere,  whose  supposed 
work  has  become  the  fountain  head  of  cultured  English, 
fixing  and  moulding  the  language  more  than  any 
other  single  force,  emerges  from  squalor  and  ignorance 
without  leaving  a  trace  of  the  process  or  means  by 
which  he  accomplished  the  extraordinary  feat.  Burns 
dies  at  the  age  of  thirty-seven,  leaving  striking  evidence 
3 


34  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

of  his  genius,  but  no  masterpiece  of  the  kind  which 
comes  from  wide  experience  and  matured  powers. 
Shakspere,  before  reaching  the  age  of  thirty,  is  credited 
with  the  authorship  of  dramas  and  great  poetic 
classics  evincing  a  wide  and  prolonged  experience 
of  life.  Even  in  such  a  detail  as  mere  penmanship 
the  contrast  is  maintained.  Burns  leaves  us  specimens 
of  calligraphy  which  ought  to  have  satisfied  the 
exacting  demands  of  Hamlet,  and  won  the  praise 
which  the  first  editors  of  "  Shakespeare's "  works 
bestowed  upon  the  author  of  the  plays.  William 
Shakspere  leaves  specimens  of  penmanship  so 
malformed  that  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson  is  obliged 
to  suppose  that  before  the  writing  of  his  first  great 
works  and  during  the  whole  of  his  early  Stratford 
life  he  had  had  but  little  opportunity  for  exercising 
his  handwriting. 

The  exceptional  kind  of  life  necessary  to  have 
evolved  a  "  Shakespeare "  under  such  unhappy 
conditions  would  most  certainly  have  marked  him 
off  from  his  fellows.  No  single  record  or  even  tradition 
of  his  early  life  is,  however,  suggestive  of  the  student, 
or  of  a  youth  intellectually  distinguished  from  those 
about  him.  Traditions  of  the  oratorical  flourishes 
with  which  as  a  butcher  he  would  kill  a  sheep,  and 
of  his  poaching  exploits  and  misadventures,  survive ; 
definite  records  of  marriage  under  compulsion  at  the 
age  of  eighteen  to  a  woman  eight  years  his  senior, 
and  grave  suggestions  that  on  the  birth  of  twins  a 
few  years  later,  he  deserted  her :  these  things  sum 
up  the  record  of  the  formative  years  of  his  life. 
After  narrating  the  very  commonplace  traditions  and 
records  of  William  Shakspere's  early  life,  Sir  Walter 
Raleigh,  the  eminent  professor  of  literature  at  Oxford, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  35 

remarks  :  "  It  is  the  very  vanity  of  scepticism  to  set 
all  these  aside  in  favour  of  a  tissue  of  learned  fancies." 
("  Shakespeare  "  English  Men  of  Letters.) 


Ill 

The  contrast  between  the  coarse  and  illiterate  circum-  William 
stances  of  his  early  life,  and  the  highly  cultured 
character  of  the  work  he  is  supposed  to  have  produced, 
is  not,  however,  the  strongest  aspect  of  this  particular 
argument  :  although  quite  alone  it  is  enough  to  have 
created  serious  misgivings.  The  compelling  force 
of  this  argument  from  contrast  is  only  fully  felt  when 
it  is  clearly  realized  that  the  career  of  William 
Shakspere  divides  naturally  into  three  periods  :  not 
two.  We  have  the  opening  period  at  Stratford 
just  indicated ;  we  have  a  middle  period  during 
which  he  is  supposed  to  have  resided  mainly  in  London 
and  produced  the  remarkable  literature  to  which  he 
owes  his  fame  ;  and  we  have  a  closing  period  spent, 
like  the  first,  in  the  unwholesome  intellectual 
atmosphere  of  Stratford.  And  it  is  the  existence  of 
this  series  of  three  periods  which  furnishes  the  data 
for  a  sound  scientific  examination  of  the  problem. 

The  fact  which,  once  grasped,  will  carry  us  forward  The  closing 
most  quickly  to  a  final  settlement  of  this  question  Period- 
is  that  the  closing  period  of  his  life  at  Stratford  stands 
in  as  marked  contrast  to  the  supposed  middle  period 
in  London  as  does  the  first,  and  under  precisely  the 
same   aspect,   but   very  much    less   explicably.     The 
operation  of  hidden  forces  and  agencies  might  partly 
account  for  the  obscure  youth,  blossoming  out  as  the 
most  cultured  writer  of  his  day.     But  with  the  literary 
fame  he  is  supposed  to  have  won,  how  can  we  explain 


36  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

the  reversion  to  the  non-intellectual  record  of  his 
closing  Stratford  period  ?  For  it  is  as  destitute  of  an 
aftermath  of  literary  glory  as  the  first  period  was 
devoid  of  promise.  Having  it  is  supposed  by  virtue 
of  an  immeasurable  genius  forced  himself  out  of  an 
unrefined  and  illiterate  milieu  into  the  very  forefront 
of  the  literary  and  intellectual  world,  he  ret  urns  whilst 
still  in  his  prime,  and  probably  whilst  relatively  still 
a  young  man,  to  his  original  surroundings.  For  the 
last  eighteen  years  of  his  life  he  has  himself  described 
as  "  William  Shakspere,  of  Stratford-upon-Avon  "  ; 
yet,  with  so  prolonged  a  residence  there,  such 
intellectual  gifts  as  he  is  supposed  to  have  possessed, 
such  force  of  character  as  would  have  been  necessary 
to  raise  him  in  the  first  instance,  he  passes  his  life 
amongst  a  mere  handful  of  people  without  leaving 
the  slightest  impress  of  his  eminent  powers  or  the 
most  trifling  fruits  of  his  attainments  and  educational 
emancipation  upon  any  one  or  anything  in  Stratford. 
In  the  busy  crowded  life  of  London  it  is  possible  to 
conceal  both  the  defects  and  qualities  of  personality, 
and  men  may  easily  pass  there  for  what  they  are  not ; 
but  one  man  of  exceptional  intellectual  powers, 
improved  by  an  extraordinary  feat  of  self-culture, 
could  hardly  fail  to  leave  a  very  strong  impression 
of  himself  upon  a  small  community  of  people,  mostly 
uneducated,  such  as  then  formed  the  population  of 
Stratford.  When,  then,  we  are  told  that  that  man 
was  living  at  one  time  at  the  rate  of  £1,000  a  year 
(£8,000  of  to-day) — and  Sir  Sidney  Lee  sees  nothing 
improbable  in  the  tradition — the  idea  that  such  a 
man  could  live  in  such  a  place,  in  such  style,  and 
leave  no  trace  of  his  distinctive  powers  and  interests 
in  the  records  of  the  community  is  the  kind  of  story 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  37 

which,  we  are  convinced,  practical  men  will  refuse  to 
believe  once  they  are  fairly  confronted  with  it. 

Had  he  walked  out  of  Stratford  an  ignorant  boor  Shakspcre 

.        .         ,  .    and  letters. 

in  1587  and  returned  ten  years  later  having  learnt 
nothing  more  during  his  absence  than  how  to  get 
hold  of  money  and  keep  it,  there  is  absolutely  nothing 
in  the  records  of  all  his  affairs  at  Stratford  that  need 
have  been  in  the  slightest  degree  different  from  what 
it  is.  There  was  at  least  one  man  in  Stratford  who 
could  write  in  a  good  style  of  penmanship,  and  he 
addressed  a  letter  to  Shakspere  while  in  London. 
This  is  the  only  letter  that  has  been  preserved  of  any 
that  may  have  been  addressed  to  Shakspere  in  the 
whole  course  of  his  life,  and  the  reader  may  see  a 
facsimile  of  it  in  the  book  "  Shakespeare's  England." 
Its  only  purpose,  however,  is  to  negotiate  a  loan  of 
£30  and  it  contains  no  suggestion  of  any  intellectual 
community  between  the  two  men.  This  letter  re- 
appears under  circumstances  which  would  quite 
justify  a  suspicion  that  Shakspere  himself  had  been 
unable  to  read  it.  No  suggestion  of  its  having  been 
answered  has  been  discovered,  nor  is  there  the 
faintest  trace  of  any  letter  from  his  pen  to  any  other 
person  in  Stratford.  We  do  not  mean  merely  that 
no  autograph  letter  has  been  preserved,  but  there 
is  no  mention  of  any  letter,  no  trace  of  a  single  phrase 
or  word  reported  as  having  been  addressed  to  any  one 
during  all  these  years,  as  a  personal  message  from 
what  we  are  asked  to  believe  was  the  most  facile  pen 
in  England.  According  to  every  Stratfordian 
authority  he  lived  and  worked  for  many  years  in 
London  whilst  directing  a  mass  of  important  business 
in  Stratford.  Then  he  lived  for  many  years  in 
retirement  in  Stratford  whilst  plays  from  his  pen 


38  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

were  making  their  appearance  in  London.  In  all, 
he  followed  this  divided  plan  of  life  for  nearly  twenty 
years  (1597-1616)  >  a  plan  which,  if  ever  in  this 
world  a  man's  affairs  called  for  letters,  must  have 
entailed  a  large  amount  of  correspondence,  had  he 
been  able  to  write ;  yet  not  the  faintest  suggestion 
of  his  ever  having  written  a  letter  exists  either  in 
authentic  record  or  in  the  most  imaginative  tradition. 
And  the  people  who  believe  this  still  stand  out  for  a 
monopoly  of  sane  judgment. 

Shakspere's  He  returns  to  this  "  bookless  neighbourhood  "  one 
of  the  most  enlightened  men  in  Christendom  it 
is  supposed,  yet  even  Rumour,  whose  generous 
invention  has  created  so  much  "  biography "  for 
him,  has  not  associated  his  years  of  retirement  with 
a  single  suggestion  of  a  book  or  bookish  occupations. 
Possessing,  it  is  presumed,  a  mind  teeming  with  ideas, 
and  coffers  overflowing,  there  is  no  suggestion  of  any 
enterprise  in  which  he  was  interested  for  dispelling 
the  intellectual  darkness  of  the  community  in  which 
he  lived.  Having,  it  is  supposed,  performed  a  great 
work  in  refining  and  elevating  the  drama  in  London, 
and  having  thus  ready  to  his  hands  a  powerful 
instrument  for  brightening  and  humanizing  the  social 
life  of  the  fifteen  hundred  souls  that  at  the  time 
formed  the  population  of  Stratford,  he  is  never  once 
reported  to  have  filled  up  his  own  leisure  with  so 
congenial  an  occupation  as  getting  up  a  play  for  the 
people  of  Stratford  or  in  any  way  interesting  himself 
in  the  dramatic  concerns  of  the  little  community: 
nor  even,  when  plays  were  banned,  raising  his  voice 
or  using  his  pen  in  protest. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  records  of  his  purchas- 
ing land,  houses  and  tithes  :  of  his  carrying  on  business 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  39 

as  a  maltster :  of  his  money-lending  transactions : 
of  his  prosecution  of  people  for  small  debts  at  a  time 
when  according  to  Sir  Sidney  Lee  his  yearly  income 
would  be  about  £600  (or  £4,800  in  money  of  to-day) . 
We  have  particulars  of  his  store  of  corn  ;  of  his  making 
an  orchard ;  "a  well-authenticated  tradition  that 
he  planted  a  mulberry  tree  with  his  own  hands  "  ; 
but  not  the  slightest  record  of  anything  suggestive 
of  what  are  supposed  to  have  been  his  dominating 
interests.  On  the  contrary  he  appears,  even  in  his 
choice  of  a  home,  quite  regardless  of  those  things  that 
press  upon  the  senses  and  sensibilities  of  esthetic 
natures.  For  in  picturing  his  last  moments  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  refers  to  "  the  wretched  sanitary  conditions 
surrounding  his  residence,"  and  adds,  "  If  truth  and 
not  romance  is  to  be  invoked,  were  the  woodbine  and 
sweet  honeysuckle  within  reach  of  the  poet's  death- 
bed, their  fragrance  would  have  been  neutralized  by 
their  vicinity  to  middens,  fetid  water-courses,  mud- 
walls  and  piggeries."  It  is  to  this  his  biographer 
attributes  the  last  illness  of  the  great  dramatist, 
rather  than  to  conviviality. 


IV 

No  relief  from  this  kind  of  record  is  met  with  through  The  will, 
all  the  years  of  his  final  residence  at  Stratford.  At 
last  the  end  approaches.  The  great  genius  is  facing 
death  and  making  arrangements  for  the  direction 
of  his  affairs  when  his  own  hand  shall  have  been 
removed.  He  is  evidently  looking  anxiously  into 
the  future,  making  the  most  careful  provision 
for  the  transmission  of  his  property  through  his 


40  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

daughter  "  Susanna  Hall  .  .  .  and  after  her  decease 
to  the  first  sonne  of  her  bodie  .  .  .  and  to  (his)  heires 
males,  .  .  .  and  for  defalt  ...  to  the  second  sonne 
and  (his)  heires  .  .  .  and  the  third  sonne  .  .  .  and 
the  fourth  sonne  .  .  .  and  the  fifth  sonne  .  .  .  and 
the  sixth  sonne  .  .  .  and  the  seaventh  sonne  .  .  . 
and  for  defalt  to  (his)  daughter  Judith,  and  the  heires 
males  of  her  bodie  .  .  .  and  for  defalt  to  the  right 
heires  of  the  saied  William  Shackspeare,  for  ever." 
Then  he  carefully  disposes  of  his  "  second  best  bed," 
his  "  broad  silver  gilt  bole,"  his  "  goodes  chattels, 
leases,  plate,  jewels  and  household  stuff." 
No  provision  Here,  then,  he  stands  dipping  "  into  the  future 

forunpub-  .,          ,  , 

Hshed  plays,  far  as  human  eye  can  see  (  for  ever  )  :  this 
supposed  author  of  England's  most  valuable  spiritual 
treasures.  The  greater  part  of  the  works,  to  the 
production  of  which  his  life  and  genius  had  been 
devoted,  had  never  yet  appeared  in  print.  According 
to  the  accepted  view  these  invaluable  works,  which 
were  to  secure  the  fame  of  "  William  Shackspeare, 
for  ever "  were  drifting  about,  scattered  amongst 
actors  and  theatre  managers ;  in  danger  therefore 
of  being  permanently  lost.  Whilst  then  he  was 
arranging  the  distribution  of  his  wealth,  it  was  the 
most  natural  thing  in  the  world  that  his  mind  should 
have  turned  to  these  important  productions  and  that 
some  part  of  his  wealth  should  have  been  set  aside 
to  ensure  the  publication  of  his  dramas.  With  his 
name  and  fame  there  was  little  fear  but  what  the 
publishing  venture  could  be  made  to  succeed,  and 
that  the  possible  grandchildren,  whose  interests  he 
was  considering  so  carefully,  would  have  gained  rather 
than  lost  by  his  providing  for  the  publication.  From 
the  first  word  of  this  will  to  the  last,  however,  there 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  41 

is  nothing  which  suggests  that  the  testator  ever  had 
an  interest  either  in  the  sixteen  plays  that  had  already 
appeared  in  print  or  in  the  twenty  that  had  yet  to 
be  published  or  in  anything  else  of  a  literary  nature  : 
a  perfectly  appropriate  end  to  the  whole  series  of 
the  Stratford  records  of  him,  from  the  day  of  his 
baptism  to  the  day  of  his  death,  but  in  flat  contradic- 
tion to  the  supposition  that  the  greatest  achievement 
of  his  life  had  been  the  production  of  those  immortal 
dramas  beside  which  his  lands  and  houses  become 
of  insignificant  value. 

Any  supposition  that  he  had  already  provided 
for  the  publication  of  the  dramas  is  contradicted  by 
the  manner  in  which  these  works  were  published  in 
the  First  Folio  edition  of  1623.  Hardly  any  terms 
of  reproof  could  be  too  severe  for  a  writer  who  with 
a  knowledge  of  the  introductory  pieces  of  the  First 
Folio  edition  should  maintain  that  that  work  appeared 
as  a  result  of  previous  arrangements  made  by  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford.  And  this  fact  taken  along 
with  the  total  absence  of  any  mention  in  his  will  of 
the  unpublished  documents  ought  many  years  ago 
to  have  disposed  of  the  idea  that  he  was  their  author. 
The  disappearance  of  the  manuscripts  themselves, 
combined  with  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  them 
in  the  will,  has  given  rise  to  an  almost  insistent  demand 
for  a  "  Shakespeare  "  manuscript,  and  of  this  Sir  E. 
Maunde  Thompson's  book  on  the  subject  is  but  the 
outward  and  visible  sign.  For  no  third  rate  writer 
passing  the  closing  years  of  his  life  in  destitution 
could  have  been  more  completely  dissociated  from 
his  own  literary  products  than  was  this  the  supposed 
greatest  writer  in  England  as  he  passed  the  last  years 
of  his  life  in  leisure  and  affluence. 


42  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Heminge  One  entry  alone  in  the  will  connects  the  testator 

and  Condell.       ...     ,.      T        , 

with  his  London  career — as  actor,  however,  not  as 
dramatist.  He  left  to  his  "  fellowes "  Heminge, 
Burbage,  and  Condell  £i  6s.  8d.  each,  to  buy  rings. 
Halliwell-Phillipps  in  reproducing  the  will  gives  in 
italics  the  parts  which  had  not  been  in  the  will  at  first, 
but  which  were  subsequently  interlined :  and  this 
bequest  to  his  "  fellowes  "  is  one  of  the  interlineations. 
Like  his  wife,  to  whom  he  left  his  "  second  best  bed," 
the  actors  with  whom  he  had  been  associated  only 
came  in  as  an  afterthought,  if  not  as  a  result  of  direct 
suggestion  from  other  quarters.  This  is  the  connection 
which  was  put  to  service  in  publishing  the  First  Folio 
edition  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  works,  resulting  in  what 
has  been  recognized  as  a  purely  fictitious  claim  for 
the  responsibility  for  the  publication  on  the  part  of 
the  two  survivors.  Albeit  no  one,  not  even  Ben 
Jonson,  whose  part  in  the  publication  has  been  made 
so  much  of,  ventured  to  suggest  that  he  had  been 
entrusted  by  the  reputed  author  with  the  publication 
of  the  works.  If  such  a  task  had  been  entrusted  to 
them  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have  omitted 
to  mention  the  fact.  They  assert,  however,  that  out 
of  regard  for  his  memory  they  had,  on  their  own 
initiative,  gathered  together  the  manuscripts  of  the 
plays  and  published  them.  They,  moreover,  so 
bungle  their  account  with  inconsistencies  that  Sir 
Sidney  Lee  admits  the  inaccuracy  of  their  story. 
"  John  Heming  and  Henry  Condell,"  he  says,  "  were 
nominally  responsible  for  the  venture,  but  it  seems 
to  have  been  suggested  by  (others)  .  .  .  the  two 
actors  made  pretensions  to  a  larger  responsibility 
than  they  really  incurred,  but  their  motives  .  .  . 
were  doubtless  irreproachable."  To  this  false 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  43 

pretension,  be  it  observed,  "  honest  Ben  Jonson " 
was  party.  The  camouflage  was,  of  course,  as 
legitimate  as  any  other  method  of  concealing  author- 
ship :  but  when  it  is  urged  that  Ben  was  too  honest 
deliberately  to  deceive  the  public,  we  can  only  answer 
that  the  fact  is  there  and  cannot  be  gainsaid.  We 
may  also  add,  what  cannot  be  said  of  all  those  who 
would  use  Ben's  name  to  prop  up  Stratfordianism, 
that  Ben  was  a  humorist.  His  motives  also,  like 
Heminge's  and  Condell's,  "  were  doubtless  irreproach- 
able." The  point  that  matters  here,  however,  is 
that  the  manner  of  the  publication  places  beyond 
doubt  the  fact  that  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford 
had  made  no  arrangement  for  it.  The  entire  absence 
of  any  mention  either  of  his  executors  or  a  single 
member  of  his  much-cared-for  family  amongst  the  ten 
names  appearing  in  connection  with  the  publication, 
reveals  the  same  completely  negative  relationship  of 
everything  Stratfordian  towards  the  Shakespearean 
literature. 

Seeing  that  mention  has  been  made  of  Ben  Jonson,  NO  memento 
the  forlorn  hope  of  the  Stratfordians,  it  is  remarkable,  ??r 

Ben  Jonson. 

or  rather  it  would  have  been  astounding,  if  there  had 
been  any  truth  in  Stratfordianism,  that  the  only 
literary  contemporary  of  Shakspere's  with  whom  the 
latter  is  supposed  to  have  been  on  intimate  terms, 
the  kindred  spirit  who,  accompanied  by  Drayton,  is 
supposed  to  have  paid  the  one  visit  that  relieved 
the  intellectual  isolation  of  his  self-imposed  exile — 
with  fatal  results,  however,  for  the  tradition  is  that 
Shakspere  drank  to  excess  and  died  in  consequence — 
this  boon  comrade  and  kindred  wit,  has  no  mention 
whatever  in  a  will  bequeathing  a  number  of  memorial 
rings  and  other  mementos  to  friends. 


44  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

In  addition  to  the  bequests  to  his  family  and  what 
is  probably  remuneration  to  the  two  overseers  of 
the  will,  he  leaves  his  sword  to  Mr.  Thomas  Combe, 
and  money  to  buy  memorial  rings  is  left  to  Hamlett 
Sadler,  William  Raynolds,  John  Hemynges,  Richard 
Burbage  and  Henry  Condell.  Every  one  of  these 
bequests  of  memorial  rings  appears,  however,  as  an 
interpolation  into  the  will :  as  an  afterthought  at 
best.  But  even  in  his  afterthoughts  dear  old  Ben 
has  no  place.  We  are  assured  that  these  interlinea- 
tions would  be  made  during  his  last  illness.  At  any 
rate  they  must  have  been  made  during  the  last  three 
months  of  his  life,  for  the  original  document  bears 
the  date  January  25th,  1616.  "  January  "  is  then 
struck  out  and  "  March  "  substituted,  so  that  altera- 
tions were  being  made  up  to  within  a  month  of  his 
death.  Surely,  then,  if  there  is  any  shred  of  truth 
in  these  traditions,  Ben  Jonson  would  be  in  his  mind 
at  the  time. 

shakspere  Another  tradition  has  it  that  Shakspere  was  god- 
reTmed  father  to  Ben's  son,  and  even  traditional  particulars 
godson.  of  friendly  repartee  on  the  subject  have  been  preserved. 
Amongst  the  bequests,  however,  is  one  of  twenty 
shillings  to  a  godson  named  William  Walker,  but 
no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  the  other  godson, 
Ben's  boy.  Obviously  Ben  Jonson  and  his  son,  the 
reputed  literary  comrade  and  godson,  respectively, 
of  the  great  poet  dramatist,  counted  for  nothing 
in  the  eyes  of  William  Shakspere  ;  and  the  St-rat- 
fordianism  that  rests  upon  a  belief  in  the  personal 
intimacy  of  the  two  men  is  quite  out  of  touch  with 
realities  :  precisely  the  same  absence  of  "  reality  " 
which  marks  Jonson's  facetious  tribute  to  "  Shakes- 
peare "  in  the  now  famous  lines  which  face  the  so- 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  45 

called  portrait  of  "  Shakespeare  "  in  the  First  Folio 
edition  of  the  plays. 

If,  then,  there  be  any  truth  in  the  tradition  of 
Jonson's  visit  to  William  Shakspere  just  before  the 
latter's  death,  it  quite  bears  the  appearance,  in  view 
of  the  respective  parts  which  Jonson,  Heminge,  and 
Condell  played  in  the  publication  of  the  First  Folio 
edition,  of  having  had  something  to  do  with  the 
projected  publication :  the  interlineation  of  the 
actor's  names  into  a  will  that  had  already  been  drawn 
up  being  possibly  one  of  the  results  of  the  visit.  The 
non-appearance  of  Jonson's  own  name  in  the  will 
was,  under  this  assumption,  a  serious  defect  in  the 
arrangement  :  the  principals  were  evidently  not 
experts  at  subterfuge.  It  was  the  loss  of  the  last 
chance  of  bringing  into  the  Stratford  records  of 
William  Shakspere  anything  or  any  one  connected 
with  contemporary  literature  :  a  loss  which  all  Jonson's 
efforts  years  after  Shakspere's  death  could  not  make 
good.  The  respective  roles  which  Ben  Jonson  and 
William  Shakspere  had  to  play  in  this  final  comedy 
had  evidently  been  badly  adjusted. 

The  actual  part  played  by  Jonson  in  this  business 
hardly  comes  within  the  province  of  the  present  stage 
of  our  argument.  The  important  fact  is  that  there 
was  subterfuge  in  the  manner  of  publishing  the  First 
Folio  edition,  and  to  this  subterfuge  Ben  Jonson  was 
a  party.  There  are  substantial  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  introduction  signed  by  the  actors  Heming  and 
Condell  was  Jonson's  own  composition.  The  general 
inconsequence  of  his  attitude  has  been  exposed  by 
Sir  George  Greenwood ;  and  any  argument  based 
upon  an  assumed  literal  historic  accuracy  and  un- 
ambiguity  of  Jonson's  statements  has  no  lows  standi; 


46 


SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


A  bookless 


Shakspere'g 


will. 


the  literal  applicability  to  William  Shakspere  of 
those  statements  being  refuted  by  Shakspere's  own 
will. 

The  significance  of  the  omission  from  the  will  of 
all  mention  of  books,  still  further  strengthened  by 
Dr.  Hall's  silence  respecting  any  books  of  Shakspere's 
that  had  passed  into  his  possession,  confirms  the 
impression  that  William  Shakspere  had  never  owned 
any  ;  notwithstanding  the  fact  already  pointed  out 
that  only  by  an  unusual  resort  to  books  could  he 
have  made  up  for  his  initial  disadvantages. 

Turning  finally  to  the  actual  text  of  the  will  as 
a  ^terarv  document,  the  question  naturally  arises 
as  to  traces  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  craftsmanship. 
"  Shakespeare's  "  knowledge  of  law  and  interest  in 
its  subtleties  and  technique  makes  it  impossible  to 
suppose  that  such  a  document  could  have  been 
executed  on  his  behalf  without  his  participation  in 
its  composition.  Yet  the  entire  document  is  just 
such  as  a  lawyer,  in  the  ordinary  way  of  business, 
would  have  drawn  up  for  any  other  man.  The  only 
part  in  which  the  personality  of  the  testator  might 
have  been  exposed  is  the  opening  passage,  which  is 
as  follows  :  — 

"  In  the  name  of  God,  amen  !  I,  William 
Shackspeare,  of  Stratford  upon  Avon,  in  the  county 
of  Warr.  gent,  in  perfect  health  and  memorie,  God 
be  praysed,  doe  make  and  ordayne  this  my  last  will 
and  testament  in  manner  and  forme  followeing,  that 
ys  to  saye,  First,  I  comend  my  soule  into  the  handes 
of  God  my  Creator,  hoping  and  assuredlie  beleeving, 
through  thonelie  merittes  of  Jesus  Christe  my  Saviour, 
to  be  made  partaker  of  lyfe  everlastinge,  and  my 
bodie  to  the  earth  whereof  yt  ys  made." 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  47 

The   remainder   is   purely  business. 

From  the  first  word  of  this  document  to  the  last 
there  is  not  the  faintest  trace  either  of  the  intellect 
or  of  the  literary  style  of  the  man  who  wrote  the 
great  dramas. 

Needless  to  say  the  penmanship  of  the  will  is  the  shakspere's 
work  of  the  professional  lawyers ;  but  at  the  end  PenmanshlP- 
we  meet  the  only  instance  on  record  of  his  ever  having 
put  his  pen  to  paper  in  Stratford.  For  all  these  years 
he  had  lived  in  Stratford,  buying  and  selling,  lending 
money,  prosecuting  debtors,  dealing  in  single  transac- 
tions involving  the  turnover  of  sums  of  money 
equivalent  to  thousands  of  pounds  in  modern  values, 
resulting  in  the  preservation  of  ,the  signatures  or 
"  marks  "  of  people  with  whom  he  dealt,  but  no 
single  signature  of  Shakspere  in  connection  with 
these  Stratford  dealings  has  ever  been  unearthed. 
Not  until  we  come  to  the  signing  of  his  will,  in  the 
last  year  of  his  life,  do  we  meet  with  an  example  of 
his  penmanship  in  his  Stratford  records.  He  signed 
his  will.  There  are  three  signatures,  each  on  a  separate 
page  of  the  document  ;  and,  with  the  exception  of 
part  of  one  of  them,  they  constitute  probably  as 
striking  a  freak  in  handwriting  as  can  be  found  any- 
where. Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson,  whose  work  on 
"  Shakespeare's  Penmanship "  testifies  abundantly 
to  his  faith  in  the  Stratford  man,  admits  that  if 
these  three  signatures  had  appeared  on  separate 
documents  we  should  have  been  justified  in  supposing 
that  they  were  written  by  three  different  hands. 
With  the  one  exception,  of  which  we  shall  presently 
treat,  the  whole  of  the  work  is  so  wretchedly  executed 
that  it  might  well  be  taken  for  the  work  of  a  child 
trying  to  copy  writing  of  which  he  had  only  an  im- 


48  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

perfect  appreciation.  It  is  most  like  the  effort  of 
an  illiterate  man  who  had  attempted  to  learn  how  to 
write  his  own  name,  and  had  not  wholly  succeeded, 
but  who  was  struggling  through  the  process,  probably 
with  a  copy  in  front  of  him. 

Writing  So  outrageous  is  it  to  suppose  that  this  is  the  normal 

experts.  handwriting  of  the  great  dramatist  that  recent 
apologists  have  suggested  the  explanation  that  in 
his  later  years  he  suffered  from  paralysis  :  ignoring 
the  fact  that  the  opening  words  of  his  will  are  an 
assertion  of  his  "  perfect  health  and  memory," 
and  the  further  fact  that  though  he  managed  to 
produce  some  kind  of  signature  whilst  afflicted  with 
paralysis,  he  seems  to  have  produced  none  at  all 
without  the  affliction.  Paralysis  had  evidently  been 
good  for  him.  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson  does  not, 
however,  propound  the  paralysis  theory ;  and  with 
very  good  reason  :  for  the  exceptional  part,  to  which 
reference  has  already  been  made,  could  not  possibly 
have  been  done  by  any  one  so  afflicted.  This  part 
consists  of  three  words,  "  By  me  William,"  which 
precede  the  name  "  Shakspeare "  in  the  principal 
signature  to  the  will.  Here  we  have  a  single  example 
of  expert  penmanship  standing  in  such  overwhelming 
contrast  to  all  the  other  Shakspere  writing  as  to  be 
most  perturbing  to  the  orthodox  Stratfordian. 

To  admit  frankly  that  the  words  "  By  me  William  " 
were  not  written  by  the  same  hand  that  wrote  the 
rest  of  the  signature  and  signatures  would  be  to  send 
the  whole  structure  of  Stratfordianism  toppling  into 
chaos.  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson's  theory  is  that 
the  testator  was  very  ill  at  the  time,  that  he  began 
the  writing  in  a  moment  of  temporary  revival  and 
fell  off  when  he  came  to  the  writing  of  "  Shakspeare." 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  49 

Not  only  is  the  contrast  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
one  signature  too  great  for  such  an  explanation,  but 
the  contrast  is  just  as  great  between  this  particular 
piece  of  expert  penmanship  and  the  whole  of  the 
remainder.  This  is  a  point,  however,  in  which  mere 
discussion  can  do  little.  Photograph'c  reproduc- 
tions of  these  signatures  may  be  seen  in  Sir  Sidney 
Lee's  "  Life  of  William  Shakespeare "  ;  in  Sir  E. 
Maunde  Thompson's  "  Shakespeare's  Penmanship  "  ; 
in  Sir  Edwin  Durning-Lawrence's  "  Bacon  is 
Shakespeare  "  ;  and  in  "  Shakespeare's  England  "  ; 
and  the  most  casual  examination  of  them  will  convince 
any  one,  we  believe,  that  the  contrast  agrees  more 
readily  with  the  theory  that  there  were  at  least  two 
hands  at  work  upon  these  signatures  than  with  any 
other  theory.  This  does  not,  of  course,  prove  that 
there  were  actually  two  hands  at  work;  for  the 
writers  just  named,  with  one  exception,  would 
naturally  refuse  their  assent  to  such  an  inference, 
notwithstanding  the  suspicious  a]  pearances. 

One  other  point  must  be  mentioned  in  connection  Missing 
with  these  will  signatures.  Halliwell-Phillipps  indicates  S1gnatures- 
that  in  the  first  draft  of  the  will,  arrangements  were 
made  only  for  Shakspere's  "  seal "  :  not  for  his 
signature  at  all.  The  word  "  seal  "  was  afterwards 
struck  out  and  "  hand  "  substituted.  By  itself  this 
might  not  have  counted  for  much  ;  but,  taken  in 
conjunction  with  the  fact  that  on  no  previous  Stratford 
document  had  a  signature  appeared,  considerable 
colour  is  given  to  the  supposition  that  the  lawyers 
who  prepared  his  documents  were  not  accustomed 
to  his  signing  them.  Considering,  too,  the  looseness 
of  the  times  with  respect  to  wills — a  looseness  to 
which  the  various  uninitialled  erasures  and  inter- 


50  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

lineations  of  this  will  bear  testimony — along  with 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  signatures  when  at  last 
they  appeared,  the  whole  of  this  "  signature  "  work 
might  easily  have  been  done  after  the  document  had 
passed  quite  out  of  the  lawyer's  hands  ;  there  being 
no  witnesses  to  the  signatures. 

"  With  rsgard  to  the  erasures  and  interlineations, 
a  few  may  have  been  the  work  of  the  scrivener  .  .  . 
but  some  are  obviously  the  result  of  the  testator's 
subsequent  personal  directions.  ...  In  those  days 
there  was  so  much  laxity  in  everything  connected 
with  testamentary  formalities  that  no  inconvenience 
would  have  arisen  from  such  expedients.  No  one, 
excepting  in  subsequent  litigation,  would  ever  have 
dreamt  of  asking  .  .  any  questions  at  all.  The 
officials  thought  nothing  of  admitting  to  probate  a  mere 
copy  of  a  will  that  was  destitute  of  the  signatures 
both  of  testator  and  witnesses."  (Halliwell-Phillipps). 
other  Although  not  actually  written  at  Stratford  there 

•ijnatures.  are  three  other  Shakspere  signatures  which  belong 
to  his  closing  Stratford  period.  The  first  of  these 
was  written  in  London  in  1612,  and  the  other  two 
in  connection  with  his  purchase  of  the  Blackfriars 
property  in  1613  :  so  that  no  stroke  from  his  pen  has 
been  unearthed  prior  to  the  close  of  his  supposed 
literary  period.  Of  the  first,  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson 
says  that  it  is  clearly  the  work  of  an  able  penman. 
Of  the  second  he  says  that  it  might  be  taken  for  the 
work  of  an  uncultivated  man  :  this  he  attributes  to 
nervousness.  The  third  is  done  in  a  style  so  entirely 
different  from  the  others  that  he  considers  it  useless 
for  the  purpose  of  expert  examination  of  hand- 
writing :  this  he  seems  disposed  to  attribute  to  "  wilful 
perversity."  Although,  then,  he  does  not  actually 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  51 

assert  that  they  might  be  taken  for  the  work  of  three 
different  writers,  his  remarks  are  tantamount  to  this. 
And  so  we  may  sum  up  the  whole  of  the  writing  that 
has  come  to  us  from  the  hand  of  one  who  is  supposed 
to  have  been  the  greatest  of  our  English  writers. 
All  we  have  are  six  signatures  in  no  way  connected 
with  any  literary  matter.  All  these  were  executed  in 
the  last  years  of  his  life,  after  his  great  literary  tasks 
were  finished ;  and  are  so  written  that,  when  examined 
by  our  leading  expert  on  the  subject,  who  is  quite 
orthodox  in  his  views  of  authorship,  they  look  as 
if  they  might  have  been  the  work  of  six  different 
men.  At  the  same  time  there  is  amongst  this  writing 
some  that  appears  like  the  effort  of  an  uneducated 
person,  and  only  one  signature  (1612)  of  any  real 
value  for  the  study  of  penmanship.  To  this  we  would 
add  as  an  unshakable  personal  conviction,  supported 
by  the  opinions  of  many  to  whose  judgement  we  have 
appealed,  that  the  signatures  bear  witness  to  his  having 
had  the  assistance  of  others  in  the  act  of  signing  his 
own  name.  The  general  conclusion  to  which  these 
signatures  point  is  that  William  Shakspere  was  not 
an  adept  at  handling  a  pen,  and  that  he  had  the 
help  of  others  in  trying  to  conceal  the  fact. 

As  a  last  remark  on  the  question  of  penmanship  An  important 
we  must   point   out    the   absence  of  an  important  om 
signature.     The  actual  deed  of  purchase  of  the  Black- 
friars   property :    a  document  which   was   formerly 
in  the  possession  of  Halliwell-Phillipps  but  is  now  in 
America,  although  the  most  important  of  the  three 
documents  concerned  in  the  transaction,   has   only 
Shakspere's  "  seal,"  not  his  "  hand."     In  other  words 
his   own  part   was   just   such   as  might   have  been 
performed  by  a  completely  illiterate  man  accustomed 


52  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

to  place  his  "  mark "  on  documents ;  just  as  his 
father  and  mother  had  done,  and  as  his  daughter 
Judith  continued  to  do.  It  is  upon  what  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  calls  a  duplicate  of  this  document,  now  in 
the  Guildhall  Library,  that  there  appears  the  signature 
which  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson  says  might  have 
been  the  work  of  an  uneducated  man  :  a  signature 
which  looks  to  the  ordinary  reader  as  if  it  had  been 
finished  by  another  hand.  The  "  wilful  perversity  " 
signature  is  on  the  mortgage  deed,  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  and  is  to  any  one  but  a  Stratfordian  quite 
evidently  a  connived  forgery. 

The  Stratford  Viewing  then  the  three  periods  of  William 
Shakspere's  career  in  their  relation  to  one  another 
we  have  an  opening  and  a  closing  period  which  are 
perfectly  homogeneous  in  the  completely  negative 
aspect  they  present  to  all  literary  considerations. 
Between  them  we  have  an  intermediate  period  by 
which  there  is  attributed  to  him  the  greatest  works 
in  English  literature.  The  two  extreme  and  homo- 
geneous periods  belong  to  his  residence  in  one  place, 
quite  in  keeping  with  his  own  non-literary  records 
whilst  residing  there.  The  intermediate  period,  with 
which  we  shall  presently  deal  specially,  stands  in 
marked  and  unprecedented  contrast  to  its  extremes, 
and  was  lived  in  quite  another  part  of  the  country. 
With  our  present-day  conveniences,  news  agencies 
and  means  of  communication,  it  is  perhaps  impossible 
for  us  to  realize  how  remote  Stratford  was  from 
London  in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  We  are 
quite  entitled  to  claim,  however,  that  their  separateness, 
so  far  as  intercourse  is  concerned,  was  in  keeping 
with  the  role  that  William  Shakspere  was  called  upon 
to  play. 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  53 

So  far  as  the  transition  from  stage  to  stage  is 
concerned,  few  would  deny  that  if  the  William 
Shakspere  who  had  been  brought  up  at  Stratford, 
who  was  forced  into  a  marriage  at  the  age  of  eighteen 
with  a  woman  eight  years  his  senior,  and  who  on  the 
birth  of  twins  deserted  his  wife,  produced  at  the  age 
of  twenty-nine  a  lengthy  and  elaborate  poem  in  the 
most  polished  English  of  the  period,  evincing  a  large 
and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  classics,  and  later  the 
superb  Shakespearean  dramas,  he  accomplished  one 
of  the  greatest  if  not  actually  the  greatest  work  of 
self-development  and  self-realization  that  genius  has 
ever  enabled  any  man  to  perform.  On  the  other 
hand,  if,  after  having  performed  so  miraculous  a  work, 
this  same  genius  retired  to  Stratford  to  devote  himself 
to  houses,  lands,  orchards,  money  and  malt,  leaving 
no  traces  of  a  single  intellectual  or  literary  interest, 
he  achieved  without  a  doubt  the  greatest  work  of 
self-stultification  in  the  annals  of  mankind.  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  with  such  a  beginning  he 
could  have  attained  to  such  heights  as  he  is  supposed 
to  have  done  ;  it  is  more  difficult  to  believe  that  with 
such  glorious  achievements  in  his  middle  period  he 
could  have  fallen  to  the  level  of  his  closing  period  ; 
and  in  time  it  will  be  fully  recognized  that  it  is 
impossible  to  believe  that  the  same  man  could  have 
accomplished  two  such  stupendous  and  mutually 
nullifying  feats.  Briefly,  the  first  and  last  periods 
at  Stratford  are  too  much  in  harmony  with  one  another, 
and  too  antagonistic  to  the  supposed  middle  period 
for  all  three  to  be  credible.  The  situation  represented 
by  the  whole  stands  altogether  outside  general  human 
experience.  The  perfect  unity  of  the  two  extremes 
justifies  the  conclusion  that  the  middle  period  is  an 


54  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

illusion  :  in  other  words  William  Shakspere  did  not 
write  the  plays  attributed  to  him.  To  parody  the 
dictum  of  Hume  in  another  connection,  it  is  contrary 
to  experience  that  such  things  should  happen,  but 
not  contrary  to  experience  that  testimony,  even  the 
testimony  of  rare  and  honest  Ben  Jonson,  should 
be  false.  The  question  of  culpability  we  leave  to 
ethical  absolutists. 

Obituary  The  circumstances  attending  the  death  of  Shakspere 

are  quite  in  keeping  with  all  that  is  known  and  un- 
known of  his  closing  period.  The  supposed  poet- 
actor,  the  greatest  of  his  race,  passed  away  in  affluence 
but  without  any  contemporary  notice.  Spenser,  his 
great  poet  contemporary,  "a  ruined  and  broken- 
hearted man,"  dying,  as  Jonson  said,  "  for  lack  of 
bread,"  was  nevertheless  "  buried  in  Westminster 
Abbey  near  the  grave  of  Chaucer,  and  his  funeral 
was  at  the  charge  of  the  Earl  of  Essex."  (Dean  Church.) 
Burbage,  his  great  actor  contemporary,  died  about 
the  same  time  as  the  Queen  (wife  of  James  I),  March 
1618-9,  and  "  sorrow  for  his  loss  seems  to  have  made 
men  forget  to  show  the  sorrow  due  to  a  Queen's  death. 
The  city  and  the  stage  were  clothed  in  gloom  .  .  . 
Men  poured  forth  their  mourning  .  .  .  (and)  a  touch- 
ing tribute  to  his  charm  came  from  the  pen  of 
the  great  Lord  Pembroke  himself."  (Mrs.  Stopes : 
Burbage).  The  death  of  William  Shakspere  passed 
quite  unnoticed  by  the  nation.  No  fellow  poet  poured 
forth  mourning.  The  Earl  of  Southampton  whom 
he  is  supposed  to  have  immortalized  showed  no  interest. 
For  seven  years,  except  for  his  mysterious  "  Stratford 
monument,"  he  remained  "  unwept,  unhonoured  and 
unsung."  Mrs.  Stopes  attributes  this  neglect  to  his 
retirement :  which  supports  the  view  we  are  now  urging, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  55 

that  his  retirement  involved  a  severance  of  such  literary 

and  dramatic  ties  as  he  might  have  had.     At  last  the 

silence  is  broken.    The  first  tribute  to  his  memory 

comes  from  the  pen  of  Ben  Jonson,  who  many  years  first  tnbut«- 

later  writes  of  having  "  loved  the  man,  on  this  side 

idolatry  as  much  as  any."    For  seven  years,  we  must 

suppose,  had  grief  for  the  loss  of  so  matchless  a  friend 

been    hidden    in    his    soul.     Then    a    great    occasion 

presents  itself.     The  collected  works  of  his  idol  are 

to  be  published  and  Ben  is  invited  to  furnish  the 

opening  words  of  the  historic  volume.     Now  must 

his  long  pent-up  grief  find  its  fitting  expression.     Yet 

these  are  his  words  : — 

"  This  figure  that  them  here  seest  put 
It  was  for  gentle  Shakespeare  cut ; 
Wherein  the  graver  had  a  strife 
With  Nature,  to  out-do  the  life  : 
O  could  he  but  have  drawn  his  wit 
As  well  in  brass,  as  he  hath  hit 
His  face  ;  the  print  would  then  surpass 
All,  that  was  ever  writ  in  brass. 
But,  since  he  cannot,  Reader  look 
Not  on  his  picture,  but  his  book." 

These  words  are  addressed  "  To  the  Reader "  ; 
and  the  reader  who  can  discover  a  trace  of  genuine 
affection,  grief,  or  "idolatry"  in  these  lines  possesses 
a  faculty  to  which  the  present  writer  lays  no  claim. 
From  such  obituary  idolatry  who  would  not  wish  to 
be  preserved.  Sir  George  Greenwood's  view  that 
Jonson  had  two  different  people  in  his  mind  when  he 
spoke  of  "  Shakespeare  "  seems  the  most  feasible.  We 
shall  not  plunge  into  the  discussion  of  what  Ben  may 
or  may  not  have  meant  by  the  above  lines  ;  but  as  the 
first  printed  reference  to  a  departed  genius  who  was 
also  the  object  of  intense  personal  affection  the  words 
are  a  palpable  mockery.  Yet  the  later  and  much 


56          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

belated  references  of  Jonson  to  "  Shakespeare  "  forms 
the  last  ditch  of  Stratfordianism. 


William 
Shakspere's 
middle 
period. 


Indefinite 
duration  of 
the  period. 


We  come  now  to  William  Shakspere's  middle  period. 
Sandwiched  in  between  two  inglorious  Stratford 
periods,  what  are  the  actual  facts  of  his  London  career 
in  reference  to  the  works  which  have  made  him 
famous  ?  It  is  not  as  an  actor,  nor  as  a  stage  or 
theatre  manager — the  latter  being  a  purely  hypo- 
thetical vocation — nor  even  as  a  writer  of  plays  for 
the  contemporary  stage,  but  as  the  author  of  literary 
works  that  he  has  won  renown.  As  such,  Sir  Sidney 
Lee  assures  us  that  he  had  no  hand  in  the  publication 
of  any  of  the  plays  attributed  to  him,  but  "  un- 
complainingly submitted  to  the  wholesale  piracy  of 
his  plays  and  the  ascription  to  him  of  books  by  other 
hands."  The  absence  of  all  participation  in  the 
publication  of  plays  which,  as  literature,  have  im- 
mortalized his  name,  is  certainly  a  huge  gap  in  his 
literary  records  to  begin  with. 

Again,  although  it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
ascribe  the  first  composition  of  plays  to  the  years 
1590-1592 — otherwise  time  could  not  have  been 
found  for  their  production — the  first  of  the  series  was 
not  published  until  1597,  nor  any  with  "  Shakespeare's  " 
name  attached  until  1598.  Before  that  time,  how- 
ever, New  Place,  Stratford,  had  become  William 
Shakspere's  established  residence. 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that  New  Place  (Stratford) 
was  henceforward  (from  1597)  to  be  accepted  as  his 
established  residence.  Early  in  the  following  year, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  57 

on  February  the  4th,  1598,  he  is  returned  as  the  holder 
of  ten  quarters  of  corn  in  the  Chapel  Street  ward,  that 
in  which  the  newly-acquired  property  was  situated, 
and  in  future  indentures  he  is  never  described  as  a 
Londoner,  but  always  as  William  Shakespeare  of 
Stratford-on-Avon."  (Halliwell-Phillipps.) 

Thenceforward  his  land,  property  and  tithes 
purchases,  along  with  the  fact  that  in  1604  he  takes 
legal  action  to  enforce  payment  of  a  debt  for  malt 
which  he  had  been  supplying  for  some  months  past, 
are  circumstances  much  more  suggestive  of  permanent 
residence  in  Stratford,  with  an  occasional  visit  maybe 
to  London,  than  of  permanent  residence  in  London, 
with  occasional  trips  to  Stratford.  The  duration  of 
this  middle  period  is  therefore  most  uncertain.  Even 
on  the  assumption  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  plays, 
authorities  differ  by  at  least  eight  years  respecting 
the  date  at  which  it  closed  (1604-1612)  ;  and  when 
the  date  furnished  by  that  assumption  is  rejected,  as 
it  must  be  in  an  enquiry  like  the  present,  the  margin 
of  uncertainty  becomes  considerably  enlarged.  The 
absence  of  definite  information  respecting  the  limits 
of  this  London  period  is  certainly  another  serious 
omission  from  the  records. 

"  Of  the  incidents  of  his  life  in  London,"  Professor  Absence  of 
Sir  Walter   Raleigh  tells  us,   "  nothing  is  known."  incidents. 
He  lodged  at  one  time  in  Bishopsgate  and,  later  on,  in 
Southwark.    We  know  this,  not  because  lords  and 
ladies  in  their  coaches  drove  up  to  the  door  of  the 
famous   man,   nor  because   of   anything   else   which 
could  be  called  a  personal  "  incident,"  but  because 
he  was  a  defaultant  taxpayer  (for  two  amounts  of 
55.  and  135.  4d.  respectively)  for  whom  the  authorities 
were  searching  in  1598,  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  he 


58          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

had  moved,  some  years  before,  from  Bishopsgate  to 
Southwark.  Evidently,  then,  he  was  not  at  that 
time  living  in  the  public  eye  and  mixing  freely  in 
dramatic  and  literary  circles.  Sir  Sidney  Lee  tells 
us  that  Shakspere  "  with  great  magnanimity,  ultimately 
paid  "  the  money.  If  the  claimant  had  been  a  private 
individual  there  might  have  been  generosity  in  paying 
an  account  which  could  not  legally  be  enforced ; 
but  it  is  not  easy  to  associate  "  magnanimity  "  with 
the  paying  of  taxes.  We  must  suppose  then  that 
either  the  money  was  due  or  was  paid  to  save  trouble. 
If  the  money  were  due  then  William  Shakspere  had 
been  trying  to  defraud :  if  the  money  were  not  due 
one  is  a  little  curious  to  know  what  special  in- 
conveniences could  have  arisen  from  his  contesting 
the  claim.  Every  record  we  have  of  him  proves  that 
he  was  not  the  kind  of  man  to  submit  to  an  illegal 
exaction  without  very  substantial  reasons.  The 
point  is  a  small  one  by  itself :  in  connection  with  the 
general  mysteriousness  of  his  London  movements, 
however,  it  has  its  proper  significance. 

The  absence  of  precise  information  respecting  the 
actual  location,  period  and  form  of  his  established 
residence  in  London  is  yet  another  of  the  great  gaps 
in  the  record. 

Chrono-  From  the  time  when  he  was  described  as  William 

ccSfusion  Shakspere  of  Stratford-upon-Avon  (1597)  there  is  no 
proof  that  he  was  anywhere  domiciled  in  London, 
whilst  the  proofs  of  his  domiciliation  in  Stratford 
from  this  time  forward  are  irrefutable  and  continuous. 
Clearly  our  conceptions  of  his  residency  in  London 
are  in  need  of  complete  revision.  It  would  appear 
that  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  construct  a  London 
career  for  him  out  of  materials  furnished  by  the 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  59 

meagre  particulars  known  of  his  actual  life  combined 
with  the  necessities  of  the  assumed  authorship,  and 
from  this  material  it  has  not  been  possible  to  form  a 
consistent  picture.  In  order  to  bring  out  this  fact 
more  clearly  we  shall  place  together  two  sentences 
from  Halliwell-Phillipps's  "  Outlines." 

"  It  was  not  till  the  year  1597  that  Shakespeare's 
public  reputation  as  a  dramatist  was  sufficiently 
established  for  the  booksellers  to  be  anxious  to  secure 
the  copyright  of  his  plays." 

"  In  the  spring  of  this  year  (1597)  the  poet  made 
his  first  investment  in  reality  by  the  purchase  of 
New  Place .  .  .  (which)  was  henceforward  to  be 
accepted  as  his  residence." 

We  are  consequently  faced  with  this  peculiar  uncertain 
situation  that  what  has  been  regarded  as  the  period  habitati°n 
of  his  highest  fame  in  London,  began  at  the  same 
time  as  his  formal  retirement  to  Stratford ;  and 
whilst  there  is  undoubted  mystery  connected  with 
his  place  or  places  of  abode  in  London-,  there  is  none 
connected  with  his  residence  in  Stratford.  A  curious 
fact  in  this  connection  is  that  the  only  letter  that  is 
known  to  have  been  addressed  to  him  in  the  whole 
course  of  his  life  was  one  from  a  native  of  Stratford 
addressed  to  him  in  London,  which  appears  amongst 
the  records  of  the  Stratford  Corporation,  and  which 
"  was  no  doubt  forwarded  by  hand  (to  Shakspere 
whilst  in  London)  otherwise  the  locality  of  resi- 
dence would  have  been  added "  (Halliwell-Phillipps). 
Evidently  his  fellow  townsmen  who  wished  to  com- 
municate with  him  in  London  were  unaware  of  his 
residence  there ;  and  the  fact  that  this  letter  was 
discovered  amongst  the  archives  of  the  Stratford 
Corporation  suggests  that  it  had  never  reached  the 


60  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

addressee.  It  also  permits  of  the  alternative 
supposition,  already  mentioned,  that  having  received 
it  he  was  nevertheless  unable  to  read  it  (notwith- 
standing the  superior  quality  of  its  penmanship)  and 
was  obliged  to  forward  it  to  his  lawyer  in  Stratford, 
who  resided  in  Shakspere's  house  there.  At  all  events 
the  only  letter  known  to  have  been  addressed  to  him 
in  the  whole  course  of  his  life  adds  to  the  mysteriousness 
of  his  lodging  in  London, 
shrinkage  Altogether  our  efforts  to  come  to  close  grips  with 
tne  Period  of  his  greatest  fame,  on  the  solid  ground 
of  authenticated  fact,  have  yielded  most  unsatis- 
factory results.  We  have  no  positive  knowledge  of 
his  being  in  London  before  1592:  the  year  of  Greene's 
attack,  in  which  he  is  accused  of  beautifying  himself 
in  the  feathers  of  others,  along  with  an  innuendo 
suggesting  that  he  was  an  uncultivated  man,  a  "  rude 
groome  "  and  a  "  usurer."  And  we  have  no  record 
of  actual  residence  in  London  after  1596,  when  "accord- 
ing to  a  memorandum  by  Alleyn  he  lodged  near  the 
Bear  Garden  in  Southwark."  Tfcis  is  precisely  the 
time  at  which  his  father,  who  resided  at  Stratford, 
acting,  it  is  generally  agreed,  upon  William  Shakspere's 
initiative,  made  his  first  attempt  to  obtain  a  coat  of 
arms  on  false  pretences.  The  following  year  saw  his 
purchase  of  New  Place,  Stratford,  and  as,  in  the  next 
year,  he  is  returned  as  one  of  the  largest  holders  of 
corn  in  Stratford,  everything  points  to  this  being 
the  actual  time  at  which  he  established  himself  in 
his  native  town — if  we  may  so  dignify  the  Stratford 
of  that  day.  The  definitely  assured  London  period 
appears  then  to  be  shrinking  from  twenty  to  a  mere 
matter  of  four  years  (1592-1596),  during  which  there 
is  not  a  single  record  of  his  personal  activities  beyond 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  61 

the  appearance  of  his  name  in  a  list  of  actors,  but 
evidently  much  mystery  as  to  his  actual  whereabouts. 
The  literary  references  to  the  poems  we  shall  treat 
separately.  It  was  in  this  period  that  "  Venus  "  and 
"Lucrece"  appeared  (1593  and  1594  respectively), 
and  it  was  in  this  period  that  the  great  man  who 
was  supposed  to  have  produced  these  famous  poems 
eluded  the  vigilance  of  the  tax  gatherer. 

"  The  Bishopsgate  levy  of  October  1596  as  well 
as  that  of  1598  is  now  shown  to  have  been  based  on 
an  assessment  made  as  early  as  1593  or  1594.  Pay- 
ment was  obviously  sought  at  the  later  dates  in 
ignorance  of  the  fact  that  Shakespeare  (i.e.  Shakspere) 
had  by  that  time  left  St.  Helens  (Bishopsgate)  long 
since  for  South  London  "  (Sir  Sidney  Lee).  Accord- 
ing to  modern  Stratfordians  he  lived  in  London  as  a 
famous  man  for  sixteen  years  after  this  (1596-1612) 
without  betraying  his  settled  place  of  residence. 

In  1597  ^^6  publication  of  the  plays  begins  in  William 
real  earnest.  In  1598  they  begin  to  appear  with 
"  Shakespeare's "  name  attached.  From  then  till 
1604  was  the  period  of  full  flood  of  publication  during 
William  Shakspere's  lifetime  :  and  this  great  period 
of  "  Shakespearean  "  publication  (1597-1604)  corre- 
sponds exactly  with  William  Shakspere's  busiest 
period  in  Stratford.  In  1597  he  began  the  business 
connected  with  the  purchase  of  New  Place.  Complica- 
tions ensued,  and  the  purchase  was  not  completed 
till  1602.  "  In  1598  he  procured  stone  for  the  repair 
of  the  house,  and  before  1602  had  planted  a  fruit 
orchard."  (S.  L.)  In  1597  his  father  and  mother, 
"doubtless  under  their  son's  guidance  "  began  a  law- 
suit "  for  the  recovery  of  the  mortgaged  estate  of 
Asbies  in  Wilmcote  .  .  .  (which)  dragged  on  for 


62  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

some  years."  (S.  L.)  "  Between  1597  and  1599 
(he  was)  rebuilding  the  house,  stocking  the  barns  with 
grain,  and  conducting  various  legal  proceedings." 
(S.  L.)  In  1601  his  father  died  and  he  took  over  his 
father's  property.  On  May  i,  1602,  he  purchased 
107  acres  of  arable  land.  On  September  1602  "  one 
Walter  Getley  transferred  to  the  poet  a  cottage  and 
garden  which  were  situated  at  Chapel  Lane  opposite 
the  lower  grounds  of  New  Place."  "  As  early  as 
1598  Abraham  Sturley  had  suggested  that  Shakespeare 
(William  Shakspere)  should  purchase  the  tithes  of 
Stratford."  In  1605  he  completed  the  purchase  of 
"  an  unexpired  term  of  these  tithes."  "  In  July 
1604  in  the  local  court  at  Stratford  he  sued  Philip 
Rogers  whom  he  had  supplied  since  the  preceding 
March  malt  to  the  value  of  £i  193.  lod.  and  on  June  25 
lent  2s.  in  cash." 

In  a  personal  record  from  which  so  much  is  missing 
we  may  justly  assume  that  what  we  know  of  his 
dealings  in  Stratford  forms  only  a  small  part  of  his 
activities  there.  Consequently,  to  the  contention 
that  this  man  was  the  author  and  directing  genius  of 
the  magnificent  stream  of  dramatic  literature  which 
in  those  very  years  was  bursting  upon  London,  the 
business  record  we  have  just  presented,  would  in 
almost  any  court  in  the  land  be  deemed  to  have  proved 
an  alibi.  The  general  character  of  these  business 
transactions,  even  to  such  touches  as  lending  the 
trifling  sum  of  2s.  to  a  person  to  whom  he  was  selling 
malt,  is  all  suggestive  of  his  own  continuous  day  to 
day  contact  with  the  details  of  his  Stratford  business 
affairs  :  whilst  the  single  money  transaction  which 
connects  him  with  London  during  these  years,  the 
recovery  of  a  debt  of  £7  from  John  Clayton  in  1600, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  63 

might  easily  be  the  result  of  a  short  visit  to  the  The  actors- 
metropolis,  or  merely  the  work  of  an  agent.  The 
licenses  granted  in  1603  to  the  company  of  actors  in 
which  "  Shakespeare's "  name  appears  would  not 
necessitate  his  presence  ;  and  the  fact  that  his  name 
as  it  appears  in  these  documents  is  spelt  "  S-h-a-k-e- 
s-p-e-a-r-e  "  (i.e.  the  same  as  in  the  printed  editions 
of  the  plays),  whilst  this  spelling  is  not  that  of  his  own 
signatures,  nor  of  some  of  the  important  Stratford 
documents,  bears  out  the  suggestion  that  these  matters 
were  arranged  by  the  same  person  as  was  responsible 
for  the  publication  of  the  plays ;  although,  as  we 
have  already  pointed  out,  William  Shakspere  had  no 
hand  in  that  publication.  Moreover,  these  licenses 
were  not  for  immediate  use,  but  for  "  when  the  plague 
shall  decrease."  As,  further,  his  name  occurs  second* 
it  is  clear  that  he  was  not  the  directing  head  of  the 
company  of  players. 

Whilst,  then,  everything  about  William  Shakspere's 
records  suggests  that  he  was  settled  permanently 
at  Stratford  during  the  important  years  of  the  publica- 
tion of  the  plays,  everything  about  the  plays  them- 
selves betokens  an  author  living  at  the  time  in  intimate 
touch  with  the  theatrical  and  literary  life  of  London. 
So  strong  is  the  presumption  in  favour  of  this  latter 
fact  that  no  writer  of  any  school  has  yet  ventured  to 
suggest  the  contrary.  In  attributing  the  authorship 
to  William  Shakspere  it  has  been  imperative  to 
assume  a  settled  residence  in  London  during  these 
fateful  years.  The  utmost  that  could  be  allowed 
was  an  occasional  journey  to  Stratford ;  and  this 
notwithstanding  the  mysteriousness  of  his  where- 
abouts and  doings  in  London,  the  fact  of  his  always 
being  described  as  "  of  Stratford,"  never  "  of  London," 


64          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

and  the  large  amount  and  special  character  of  his 
Stratford  business  affairs. 

If,  then,  William  Shakspere,  the  reputed  author 
of  the  works,  was  not  sent  oft  to  Stratford  to  be  out 
of  the  way  at  the  time  when  the  literary  public  was 
being  interested  in  the  plays,  he  has  certainly 
contrived  matters  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  such 
was  the  case,  and  thus  to  justify  the  strongest 
suspicion,  on  this  ground  alone,  that  the  famous 
dramas  were  not  of  his  composing. 

It  is  from  a  consideration  of  the  manner  of  publica- 
tion that  Sir  Sidney  Lee  concludes  that  William 
Shakspere  had  no  part  in  the  work.  On  the  other 
hand  we  arrive  at  precisely  the  same  conclusion  from 
a  consideration  of  the  circumstances  of  his  life  :  in 
the  present  instance  on  the  grounds  of  what  we  are 
entitled  to  claim  as  an  alibi.  It  is  certainly  interest- 
ing that  two  totally  different  sets  of  considerations 
should  lead  to  precisely  the  same  conclusion,  although 
approached  from  two  different  standpoints  and  with 
different  intentions;  leaving  but  little  room  for 
doubt  as  to  the  soundness  of  the  common  conclusion. 
Whilst  then  we  agree  that  William  Shakspere  had  no 
hand  in  the  publication  of  this  literature,  to  maintain 
that  its  actual  author,  if  living,  in  no  way  shared 
in  any  part  of  the  work,  is  the  kind  of  belief  which 
practical  men  in  touch  with  life  would  hardly  acknow- 
ledge without  serious  misgiving. 

VI 

Anti-  We  do  not  say  that  the  alternative  belief,  the  belief 

di'fficuhies*11    that  is  to  say  in  a  hidden  author,  is  without  difficulties, 
motives.          \\7e   may   justly   wonder    why   the    author   of   such 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  65 

works  should  prefer  to  remain  unknown,  just  as  we 
may  wonder  why  "  Ignoto,"  "Shepherd  Tony"  and 
"A.  W.",  the  writers  of  some  of  the  best  Elizabethan 
poetry  have  elected  to  remain  unknown.  The  facts 
are,  however,  incontestable  realities  of  literary  history. 
Moreover,  the  motives  for  mysterious  and  secret 
courses  are,  no  doubt,  frequently  as  mysterious  and 
secret  as  the  courses  themselves,  so  that  inability  to 
fathom  motives  cannot  be  put  in  as  an  argument 
against  the  evidence  of  a  fact  :  though  knowledge  of 
a  motive  may  be  accepted  as  corroborative  of  other 
evidence.  Difficult  as  it  is  to  penetrate  and  appreciate 
the  private  motives  even  of  people  circumstanced  like 
ourselves,  the  difficulty  is  immeasurably  increased 
when  the  entire  social  circumstances  are  different, 
as  in  the  case  before  us.  The  man  who  thinks  that 
any  one  living  in  the  reigns  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
James  I  would  be  as  proud  to  acknowledge  himself 
the  author  of  "Shakespeare's"  plays  as  any  one  living 
in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries  would  be, 
has  not  understood  the  Shakespeare  problem  in  its 
relationship  to  the  age  to  which  it  belongs.  He  is, 
moreover,  judging  the  question  largely  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  professional  litterateur  as  author,  and 
overlooking  the  numerous  considerations  which  may 
arise  when  an  author  of  a  vastly  different  type  is 
supposed. 

"  It  is  difficult  to  realize,"  says  Halliwell-Phillipps, 
"  a  period  when  .  .  .  the  great  poet,  notwithstanding 
the  immense  popularity  of  some  of  his  works,  was 
held  in  no  general  reverence.  It  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  actors  then  occupied  an  inferior  position 
in  society,  and  that  even  the  vocation  of  a  dramatic 
writer  was  considered  scarcely  respectable,  The  in- 
5 


66  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

telligent  appreciation  of  genius  by  individuals  was 
not  sufficient  to  neutralize  in  these  matters  the  effect 
of  public  opinion  and  the  animosity  of  the  religious 
world ;  all  circumstances  thus  uniting  to  banish 
general  interest  in  the  history  of  persons  connected  in 
any  way  with  the  stage." 

To  have  laid  claim  to  the  authorship  of  even 
"  Shakespeare's "  plays  would  therefore  have  been 
of  no  assistance  to  any  man  seeking  to  obtain,  preserve, 
or  recover  the  social  dignity  and  eminence  of  himself 
and  his  family. 

Preservation  \Ve  may  wonder  that  the  secret  should  have  been 
incognito.  so  well  kept,  and  be  quite  unable  to  offer  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  complete  success  of  the  "  blind," 
just  as  we  may  stand  puzzled  before  the  other 
mysteries  of  history.  This  again  is  a  difficulty  which 
is  greatly  magnified  by  giving  it  a  modern  setting. 
In  "  Shakespeare's "  day,  however,  according  to 
Halliwell-Phillipps  "  no  interest  was  taken  in  the 
events  of  the  lives  of  authors  .  .  .  non-political  corre- 
spondence was  rarely  preserved,  (and)  elaborate  diaries 
were  not  the  fashion." 

The  lack  of  interest  in  the  personality  of  authors 
is  borne  out  by  some  contemporary  records  of  the 
performance  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  plays  without  any 
suggestion  of  an  author's  name.  The  educated 
readers  of  the  printed  works,  interested  mainly  in 
these  works  as  literature,  might  well  be  content  to 
know  an  author  merely  by  name,  especially  when 
that  author  was  supposed  to  be  living  in  what  would 
then  be  a  remote  village.  The  contemporary  records 
of  the  "  Shakespeare  "  literature  are  moreover  just 
such  as  belong  to  an  author  whose  name  is  known 
but  whose  personality  is  not  ;  and  Shakspere  would 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  67 

escape  personal  attention  by  taking  up  permanent 
residence  in  Stratford  just  at  the  time  when  this 
literature  began  to  appear. 

Mystery  and  concerted  secrecy  were  moreover 
characteristic  not  only  of  the  literary  life  of  the  times, 
but  even  more  so  of  the  general  social  and  political 
life.  Plots  and  counterplots,  extreme  caution  and 
reservation  in  writing  letters — men  habitually  writing 
to  friends  as  if  suspicious  that  their  letters  would 
be  shown  to  their  enemies — every  here  and  there 
some  cryptic  remark  which  only  the  addressee  would 
be  able  to  understand,  such  are  the  things  that  stand 
out  from  the  mass  of  contemporary  documents 
preserved  in  the  State  Papers  and  the  various  private 
collections.  We  can  be  quite  sure  that  in  those  times 
no  important  secret  would  be  imparted  to  any  one 
without  first  of  all  receiving  the  most  solemn  assur- 
ances that  no  risk  of  disclosure  should  be  run. 
Certainly  the  writer  of  "  Hamlet  "  was  not  the  man 
to  neglect  any  precaution.  The  carefully  framed 
oaths  by  which  Hamlet  binds  Horatio  and  Marcellus 
to  secrecy,  and  the  final  caution  he  administers,  is 
clearly  the  work  of  a  man  who  knew  how  to  ensure 
secrecy  so  far  as  it  was  humanly  possible  to  do  so. 
And  we  do  know,  as  a  matter  of  actual  human 
experience,  that  when  a  superior  intelligence  is 
combined  with  what  may  be  called  a  faculty  for 
secrecy  and  a  sound  instinct  in  judging  and  choosing 
agents,  secret  purposes  are  carried  through  success- 
fully in  a  way  that  is  amazing  and  mystifying  to 
simpler  minds. 

These,   then,   are   certain   difficulties   of   the   anti-  Difficulties 
Stratfordian  position  which  it  would  be  folly  to  ignore.  JnoSii- 
Most  truths,  however,  have  had  to  win  their  way  in  bilities. 


68  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

spite  of  difficulties.  Whilst,  then,  difficulties  do  not 
kill  truth,  incredibilities  are  fatal  to  error ;  and  it 
is  the  incredible  that  Stratfordianism  has  to  face. 
The  same  general  human  experience  that  compels 
us  to  accept  facts  for  which  we  cannot  adequately 
account,  compels  us  also  to  reject,  on  pain  of 
irrationality,  what  is  inherently  self-contradictory, 
or  at  complete  variance  with  tne  otherwise  invariable 
course  of  events.  It  is  thus  that  the  commonsense 
of  mankind  instinctively  repudiates  a  moral  contradic- 
tion as  incredible.  Such  we  hold  is  the  belief  in  the 
Stratford  man  :  the  belief  that  the  author  of  the 
finest  literature  lets  others  do  just  as  they  please 
during  his  own  lifetime  in  the  matter  of  publishing 
his  works  but  does  nothing  himself.  "  It  is  question- 
able," says  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  "  whether  any  were 
published  under  his  supervision."  He  is  thus 
represented  as  creating  and  casting  forth  his  im- 
mortal works  with  all  the  indifference  of  a  mere 
spawning  process,  and  turning  his  attention  to  houses, 
land,  malt  and  money  at  the  very  moment  when  the 
printed  issue  of  these  great  triumphs  of  his  own 
creative  spirit  begins.  This  is  the  fundamental 
incredibility  which  along  with  the  incredible  reversion 
represented  by  Shakspere's  second  Stratford  period, 
and  a  succession  of  other  incredibilities  ought  to 
dissolve  completely  the  Stratfordian  hypothesis,  once 
it  has  become  possible  to  put  a  more  reasonable 
hypothesis  in  its  place. 

VII 

Contem-  The  only  thing  that  can  be  described   as   a   re- 

notices,          liable   personal   reference    to  William  Shakspere  in 
the  whole  course  of  his  life  was  made  in  1592  when 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  69 

Greene  attacked  him  as  an  "  upstart  crow,"  beautiful 
in  the  feathers  of  others.  Chettle  the  publisher's 
subsequent  apology  is  couched  in  terms  which  indicate 
the  intervention  of  highly-placed  and  powerful  patrons. 
Clearly  Shakspere  had  behind  him  some  friend  that 
writers  and  publishers  could  not  afford  to  ignore. 
At  that  time  nothing  had  been  published  under  his 
name,  his  London  career  was  just  opening,  and  this 
we  repeat,  is  the  only  thing  that  can  be  called  a 
personal  incident  in  the  whole  of  his  London  record, 
which  according  to  modern  Stratfordians  continued 
for  twenty  years  after  this  affair.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
his  own  attitude  in  this  so-called  incident  was  purely 
passive,  Chettle's  apology  making  no  reference  to 
any  protest  or  resentment  on  the  part  of  the  man 
attacked,  but  solely  to  the  "  divers  of  worship " 
who  had  made  representations  on  his  behalf.  After 
this  it  would  appear  that  no  one  ventured  upon 
personal  references,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent.  The 
experience  of  Chettle  was  evidently  a  warning  to  others. 
Subsequently,  "  Venus  "  and  "  Lucrece  "  were 
published  with  "  Shakespeare's "  name  as  author, 
and  we  then  get  a  few  references  to  the  poems,  such 
as  any  reader  of  the  works  might  have  penned. 

"  Yet  Tarquyne  pluckt  his  glistering  grape, 
And   Shake-speare   paints   poore   Lucrece   rape."  Only  as 

(1594.  The  year  of  the  publication  of  "  Lucrece.")      P°et  tiu 

1598. 

"  All  praise  worthy  Lucrecia :    Sweet  Shak-speare." 
(I595-) 

"  And  Shakespeare,  thou  whose  hony  flowing  vaine 

Whose  Venus,  and  whose  Lucrece  sweet  and  chaste, 
Thy  name  in  fames  immortall  booke  have  plac't." 
(1598.) 


70  'SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

This  is  all  that  we  have  in  the  period  prior  to  the 
actual  publication  of  the  dramas.  They  are  self- 
evidently  inspired  by  the  poems,  make  no  reference 
to  the  plays,  and  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the 
man  than  could  be  learnt  from  the  works :  a  fact 
to  which  the  spelling  and  splitting  up  of  the  name 
"  Shake-speare  "  bears  witness.  Nor  have  they  any- 
As  thing  to  do  with  him  as  an  actor, 

oni^after"         Not  till  we  reach  the  year  1598,  the  year  in  which 
*598.  the  first  of  the  dramas  with  "  Shakespeare's"   name 

were  published,  do  we  meet  with  any  contemporary 
reference  to  ''  Shakespeare  "  as  a  writer  of  plays  ; 
by  this  time  we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  William 
Shakspere  was  duly  established  at  Stratford.  Here, 
again,  there  is  no  personal  reference  :  the  name  merely 
appearing  in  long  lists  of  ancient  and  contemporary 
writers  with  an  occasional  remark  upon  the  quality 
or  contents  of  the  work  published  under  their  names. 
This  work  of  Francis  Meres — his  "  Palladis  Tamia  " — 
at  the  same  time  bears  testimony  to  what  may  be 
called  the  high  classic  quality  of  "  Shakespeare's  " 
English  in  the  eyes  of  contemporary  scholars,  and  also 
to  "  Shakespeare's  "  familiarity  with  the  ancient  classics. 

In  1599  we  meet  with  another  literary  reference 
in  which,  in  addition  to  "  Venus  "  and  "  Lucrece," 
the  plays  of  "  Romeo  "  and  "  Richard  "  (II  or  III) 
are  referred  to.  These  plays  had  already  been 
published. 

In  1600  the  name  again  occurs  in  a  list  of  over 
twenty  poets  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 

In  1604  his  name  appears  along  with  Jonson's  and 
Green's  in  couplets  calling  for  verses  in  honour  of 
Elizabeth. 

Again  in  1604,  the  year  of  the  revised  edition  of 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  71 

Hamlet,  the  name  occurs  in  a  literary  reference  to  this 
play  :  and  in  1603  or  5  in  another  list  of  contemporary 
poets.  In  the  "  Returne  from  Pernassus"  (written 
1602,  printed  1606)  he  is  first  and  most  particularly 
mentioned  as  the  author  of  "  Venus  "  and  "  Lucrece," 
and  afterwards  as  one  of  those  that  "  pen  plaies." 

Such  is  the  character  of  all  the  contemporary 
references  which  the  industry  of  Halliwell-Phillipps 
has  brought  together  :  references,  that  is  to  say,  of 
people  who  knew  "  Shakespeare  "  in  print,  but  who 
have  nothing  to  tell  us  about  William  Shakspere  in 
the  flesh.  The  single  instance  of  a  contemporary 
reference  to  the  man,  after  the  1592  affair  ("  The 
sole  anecdote  of  Shakespeare  that  is  positively  known 
to  have  been  recorded  in  his  lifetime,"  S.  L.),  is  a 
wretched  immoral  story ;  evidently  the  invention 
of  some  would-be  wit  :  a  story  which  is  rightly  dis- 
carded, as  apocryphal,  by  most  authorities  on  both 
sides  of  the  question.  The  magnitude  of  this  omission 
of  real  contemporary  reference  to  the  personality  of 
the  man  can  only  be  appreciated  by  those  who,  for 
any  special  purpose,  have  had  to  search  into  the 
collections  of  Elizabethan  documents  that  have  been 
published,  or  who  know  anything  of  the  immense 
amount  of  personal  details,  concerning  the  most 
unimportant  of  people,  preserved  in  our  various 
local  histories.  Such  a  silence  seems  only  explicable 
on  the  assumption  that  the  utmost  care  was  taken 
to  keep  the  man  out  of  sight. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  none  of  his  The  silence 
activities  in  Stratford  has  left  the  slightest  trace  of  Shakspere! 
a  letter  from  his  pen.     The  same  strange  feature  marks 
his  middle  period  in  London.     Again,  it  is  not  merely 
preserved  autograph  letters  which  are  conspicuously 


72  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

absent,  but  there  is  a  total  absence  of  evidence,  or 
even  rumour,  that  he  ever  corresponded  with  a  single 
soul.  At  the  same  time  literary  men  of  recognized 
inferiority  to  "  Shakespeare  "  were  the  regular  corre- 
spondents of  the  aristocratic  patrons  of  literature; 
and  even  when  the  actual  letters  are  missing  traces 
of  such  correspondence  can  be  found  in  the  literary 
history  of  the  times.  In  William  Shakspere's  case 
there  is  not  the  faintest  trace.  Even  Ben  Jonson, 
separated  by  many  miles  and  for  many  years  from 
his  idol,  makes  no  suggestion  of  letters  having  passed 
between  them  at  any  time.  Nor  during  these  years 
is  there  the  slightest  record  of  any  of  those  things 
by  which  a  genius  impresses  his  personality  upon 
his  contemporaries.  Outside  the  printed  works 
nothing  but  blank  negation  meets  us  whenever  we 
seek  to  connect  this  man  with  any  of  those  things 
by  which  eminent  literary  men  have  left  incidental 
impressions  of  themselves  upon  contemporary  life. 
As  then  we  have  the  best  authority  for  saying  that 
he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  publication  of  the 
dramas — and  even  the  poems  which  contained"  Shake- 
speare's "  dedication  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
had  no  author's  name  on  their  title-pages — if  William 
Shakspere  were  not  a  mere  mask  for  another  writer, 
perhaps  some  Stratfordian  will  tell  us  what  else  he 
could  have  done,  or  left  undone,  to  make  it  appear 
that  such  was  the  part  he  was  playing. 

Spenser'*  in   addition   to   William   Shakspere's  own   silence 

we  must  not  overlook  the  complete  silence  of  "  Shake- 
speare's "  great  contemporary  Edmund  Spenser  in 
respect  to  everything  Shakespearean.  His  reference 
to  "  Willie"  in  his  poem,  the  "  Teares  of  the  Muses," 
it  is  very  commonly  agreed  nowadays,  could  not, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  73 

on  account  of  its  date,  have  any  reference  to  William 
Shakspere.  The  only  possible  allusion  to  Shakespeare 
which  he  makes  is  in  1595,  in  his  poem  "  Colin  Clout's 
Come  Home  Again."  That  his  "  Action  "  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  Shakespeare  is  pure  conjecture,  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  only  "Shakespeare  "  could 
deserve  the  high  praise  which  Spenser  bestows  upon 
the  poet  so  designated.  When,  however,  in  the 
following  lines  he  places  Sir  Philip  Sidney  first  amongst 
the  poets  to  whom  he  is  alluding,  we  cannot  accept 
"  Action  "  as  Shakespeare — that  is  to  say,  as  a  poet 
inferior,  in  Spenser's  judgment,  to  Sidney — without 
discrediting  Spenser's  judgment.  In  other  words,  we 
destroy  the  very  grounds  upon  which  we  originally 
suppose  that  "  Action "  is  Shakespeare.  In  any 
case,  the  allusion  is  only  to  "  Shakespeare  "  the  poet, 
whose  poems  might  have  reached  Spenser  ("  Colin 
Clout  ")  in  Ireland  prior  to  his  coming  home.  If, 
however,  we  accept  the  date  which  Spenser  himself 
attaches  to  the  dedication  of  the  poem  to  Sir  Walter 
Raleigh,  namely  1591,  it  is  evident  that  "  Action  " 
could  not  be  "William  Shakspere,"  and  could  have 
no  connection  with  the  great  "  Shakespeare  "  poems, 
which  were  not  published  until  1593  and  1594. 


VIII 

So  much  for  William  Shakspere  the  business  man  William 
and  the  reputed  author  :  we  come  now  to  the  question 
of  William  Shakspere  the  famous  actor  and  theatre 
shareholder,  whose  wealth  has  been  partly  accounted 
for  by  reference  to  the  revenues  of  prominent  con- 
temporary actors  and  actor-shareholders.  In  this 


74  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

connection  we  shall  place  together  passages  from 
his  two  leading  biographers. 

Sir  Sidney  Lee  : 

"  It  was  as  an  actor  that  at  an  early  date  he 
acquired  a  genuinely  substantial  and  secure  income." 
Meanwhile  he  "  was  gaining  great  personal  esteem 
outside  the  circles  of  actors  and  men  of  letters.  His 
genius  and  '  civil  demeanour  '  of  which  Chettle  wrote 
arrested  the  notice  not  only  of  Southampton,  but 
of  other  noble  patrons  of  literature  and  the  drama. 
His  summons  to  act  at  Court  with  the  most  famous 
actors  of  the  day  at  the  Christmas  of  1594  was  possibly 
due  in  part  to  personal  interest  in  himself.  Elizabeth 
quickly  showed  him  special  favour,  etc." 

Here,  then,  was  fame  of  a  most  exceptional 
character,  hardly  to  be  excelled  by  those  who  endure 
the  "  fierce  light  that  beats  upon  a  throne."  The 
tax  gatherers  who  could  not  lay  their  hands  readily 
upon  this  man  were  guilty,  at  best,  of  culpable  in- 
capacity ;  and  should  have  been  summarily  dismissed 
for  deliberate  connivance.  Nevertheless,  we  shall 
see  what  Halliwell-Phillipps  says  : 

"  There  was  not  a  single  company  of  actors  in 
Shakespeare's  time  which  did  not  make  professional 
visits  through  nearly  all  the  English  counties,  and 
in  the  hope  of  discovering  traces  of  his  footsteps 
during  his  provincial  tours  I  have  personally  examined 
the  records  of  the  following  cities  and  towns — Warwick, 
Bewdley,  Dover,  Shrewsbury,  Oxford,  Worcester, 
Hereford,  Gloucester,  etc."  And  so  he  proceeds  to 
enumerate  no  less  than  forty-six  important  towns 
and  cities  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  as  far  north 
as  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  and  including,  in  addition 
to  both  the  great  university  cities,  Stratford-upon- 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  75 

Avon  itself,  whose  fame  throughout  the  world  it  owes 
to  the  lustre  which  "  Shakespeare's  "  name  has  given 
it,  and  he  concludes  : 

"In  no  single  instance  have  I  at  present  found  in  The  Lord 
any  municipal  record  a  notice  of  the  poet  himself  ;   but  j^*™**1" 
curious  material  of  an  unsuspected  nature  respecting  company  in 
his  company  and  theatrical  surroundings  has  been  provinces, 
discovered." 

Thus  do  the  generous  surmises  of  one  biographer 
suffer  at  the  hands  of  the  unkindly  facts  presented 
by  another.  In  the  interval  between  the  writing  of 
the  two  biographies  the  number  of  "  extant  archives  " 
examined  is  increased  to  "  some  seventy,"  and  al-- 
though  Sir  Sidney  Lee  passes  over  the  salient 
fact  that  the  later  investigations  were  equally  with- 
out result,  so  far  as  discovering  traces  of  Shakespere's 
footsteps  are  concerned,  his  faith  in  the  Stratford 
man  gives  rise  to  the  poetic  supposition  that  "  Shake- 
speare may  be  credited  with  faithfully  fulfilling  all 
his  professional  functions,  and  some  of  the  references 
to  travel  in  his  sonnets  were  doubtless  reminiscences 
of  early  acting  tours."  The  workers  who  have 
continued  the  enquiries  begun  by  Halliwell-Phillipps, 
in  their  anxiety  to  find  such  traces  of  Shakspere  as 
must  exist  if  he  were  in  reality  what  is  claimed  for 
him,  have  pushed  their  investigations  as  far  north 
as  Edinburgh,  where  the  names  of  Lawrence  Fletcher 
and  one  Martin  are  found  hi  the  records  for  1599. 
Fletcher's  name  appears  first,  evidently  as  manager* 
of  a  company  of  actors  who  were  "  welcomed  with 
enthusiasm  by  the  King,"  and  this  Fletcher  also 
heads  the  list  of  the  company  of  actors  licensed  in 
London  as  the  King's  Players  by  James  on  his  accession 
to  the  English  throne — the  list  in  which  the  name 


76  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Shakespeare  is  inserted  second.  But  there  is  no 
Shakspere  in  the  Edinburgh  records,  nor  in  any  of 
the  other  municipal  archives  that  have  been  examined. 
The  name  Martin  seems  otherwise  quite  unknown. 

The  point  that  concerns  us  at  present,  however, 
is  the  fact  that  whilst  the  names  of  other  actors  of  no 
great  repute  occur  in  these  municipal  records,  the 
name  of  the  man  who  is  represented  as  enjoying  almost 
unparalleled  fame  in  his  vocation — poet,  dramatic 
author,  actor  and  actor-shareholder — never  appears 
once,  although  a  most  painstaking  and  laborious 
search  has  been  made.  The  inevitable  conclusion  to 
which  we  are  forced  is  that  either  he  was  not  there 
or  he  was  not  a  famous  actor.  In  short,  he  was  not  a 
prominent  active  member  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Company,  but  rather  a  kind  of  "  sleeping  partner  " 
whose  functions  were  quite  consistent  with  his  settled 
residence  at  Stratford  :  a  situation  much  more  in 
accord  with  the  idea  of  a  man  whose  name  was  being 
used  as  a  cloak,  but  whose  personality  was  being 
carefully  kept  in  the  background,  than  of  one  enjoying 
in  his  own  person  the  attentions  and  social  inter- 
course which  come  to  a  distinguished  man  whom 
even  royalty  delighted  to  honour. 


IX 

Shakspere  It  remains  now  only  to  examine  the  data  upon 
which  rests  the  theory  of  William  Shakspere  being  an 
eminent  London  actor.  Neither  as  a  writer  of  plays 
for  the  stage  nor  as  an  author  of  works  for  the  press 
is  it  possible  to  account  for  his  wealth.  In  the  former 
capacity  his  income  would  not  be  a  handsome  one  ; 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  77 

and  in  the  latter  capacity,  seeing  that  he  took  no  part 
and  held  no  rights,  he  would  depend  upon  good-will 
gratuities  from  publishers.  As  an  actor,  we  have 
seen,  no  single  record  of  his  appearance  in  the 
provinces  has  been  discovered.  It  is  as  a  London 
actor,  therefore,  that  he  must  have  made  his  wealth, 
if  that  wealth  had  nothing  mysterious  about  it.  Here, 
then,  are  the  records  of  his  career. 

Halliwell-Phillipps  "  had  the  pleasure  of  discover-  Treasurer's 
ing  some  years  ago  in  the  accounts  of  the  Treasurer  accounts- 
of  the  Chamber  "  the  following  entry  : — "  To  William 
Kempe,  William  Shakespeare  and  Richard  Burbage, 
servants  to  the  Lord  Chamberlaine,  upon  the  councelles 
warrant  dated  at  Whitehall  xv.to  Marcij,  1594,  for 
twoe  several  comedies  or  enterludes  showed  by  them 
before  her  Majestic  in  Christmas  tyme  laste  paste 
viz.  upon  St.  Stephens  daye  and  innocentes  daye  .  .  . 
in  all  £20."  Mrs.  Stopes,  however,  in  her  work  on 
"  Burbage  and  Shakespeare,"  furnishes  the  interesting 
information  that  this  "  account  (was)  drawn  up  after 
date  by  Mary  Countess  of  Southampton,  after  the 
decease  of  her  second  husband  Sir  Thomas  Henneage, 
who  had  left  his  accounts  rather  in  a  muddle."  And 
Sir  Sidney  Lee  points  out  that  "  neither  plays  nor 
parts  are  named."  We  may  also  point  out  that 
whereas  according  to  the  last  named  authority  Kemp 
was  "  the  chief  comedian  of  the  day  and  Richard 
Burbage  the  greatest  tragic  actor,"  no  record  exists 
to  tell  us  and  no  one  has  yet  ventured  to  guess  what 
William  Shakspere  was  as  an  actor.  Since,  then,  no 
part  is  assigned  to  him  in  this  record,  it  is  possible, 
even  accepting  it  as  being  in  proper  order  as  an 
official  document,  that  he  received  the  money  as  the 
supposed  author  of  the  "  comedies  or  enterludes." 


78  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

And  this,  although  occurring  three  years  before  the 
opening  of  the  period  of  his  fame  (1597)  is  the  only 
thing  that  can  be  called  an  official  record  of  active 
participation  in  the  performances  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  Company,  afterwards  called  the  King's 
Players,  and  erroneously  spoken  of  as  Shakespeare's 
company  :  the  company  of  which  he  is  supposed  to 
have  been  one  of  the  leading  lights. 

The   "orthodoxy"   of   Mrs.    Stopes,   like  that   of 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  is  beyond  suspicion,  and  she  has 

performed  in  respect  to  William  Shakspere's  London 

career  something  analogous  to  what  Halliwell-Phillipps 

has  done  for  his  work  in  the  provinces,  and  with  a  not 

altogether  dissimilar  result.     In  note  xxviii.   of  the 

book  just  mentioned  she  records  "  The  performances 

of  the  Burbage  Company  at  Court  for  80  years  " ;  the 

record  consisting  mainly  of  a  catalogue  of  brief  items 

of  payments  made  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber 

for    actual    performances    of    plays,    and    occupying 

seventeen  pages  of  her  work.     Over  four  pages  are 

taken  up  with  entries  referring  to  performances  of 

the   company   from   1597   to   the   death   of   William 

Shakspere  in   1616.     Separate  entries  occur  for  the 

years  1597,  1598,  1599,  1600,  1601,  1603,  1604,  1605, 

1606,  1607,  1608,  1609,  1610,    1611,  1612,  1613,  1614, 

1615,  and  1616.     It  will  thus  be  seen  that  only  the 

year  1602  is  missing  from  these  records.     The  names 

of    the    actors    mentioned    are    Heminge,    Burbage, 

Cowley,   Bryan   and   Pope ;    elsewhere   these   official 

accounts    mention    the    actor    Augustine    Phillipps, 

but  not  once  does  the  name  of  William  Shakspere  occur 

in  all  these  accounts. 

There  is  a  danger  that   in  multiplying  evidences 
and  opening  up  discussions  on  side  issues   the   full 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  79 

force  of  some  particular  facts  may  be  lost.  We  would 
urge,  therefore,  that  the  reader  allow  his  mind  to  dwell 
at  length  on  one  fact,  namely,  that  the  whole  of  the 
municipal  records  of  the  acting  companies  are  silent 
with  regard  to  William  Shakspere,  and  the  whole 
of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber's  records,  with  the 
one  irregular  exception  of  an  account  made  up  by 
a  strange  hand  after  date,  are  equally  silent  respecting 
him  :  even  the  irregular  entry  referring  to  a  date 
(1594)  several  years  before  the  period  of  his  fame ; 
so  that  both  are  absolutely  silent  respecting  him 
during  his  great  period.  If  the  reader  still  persists 
in  believing  that  William  Shakspere  was  a  well-known 
figure  on  the  stage,  or  a  prominent  member  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  company  of  actors,  or  in  any 
way  much  in  evidence  in  connection  with  the  doings 
of  that  company,  we  would  respectfully  suggest  that 
his  time  could  be  more  profitably  spent  than  in  reading 
the  remainder  of  these  pages. 

Following  up  the  investigations  by  means  of  the  The  Lord 

same   work,   we   find   that   the   Lord   Chamberlain's  Chamber- 
lains books. 

books  "  supply  much  information  concerning  plays 
and  players.  Unfortunately  they  are  missing  for  the 
most  important  years  of  Shakespearean  history." 
Twice  in  the  course  of  her  work  does  Mrs.  Stopes 
refer  to  the  unfortunate  disappearance  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  books.  In  the  light  of  all  the  other 
mysterious  silences  regarding  William  Shakspere, 
and  the  total  disappearance  of  the  "  Shakespeare  " 
manuscripts,  so  carefully  guarded  during  the  years 
preceding  the  publication  of  the  First  Folio,  the 
disappearance  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  books, 
recording  the  transactions  of  his  department  for  the 
greatest  period  in  its  history,  hardly  looks  like  pure 


8o  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

accident.  More  than  one  contemporary  forgery  in 
respect  to  Shakespeare  records  is  admitted  by  most 
authorities,  a  well-known  one  being  the  1611  reference 
to  "  The  Tempest,"  so  that  suspicion  is  quite  justifiable. 
The  one  volume  of  these  records  that  has  been 
preserved  records  nothing  of  any  acting  engagement 
of  William  Shakspere's,  but  merely  his  receiving, 
along  with  others,  a  grant  of  cloth  in  preparation 
for  the  coronation  procession.  Whilst  stating  that 
"many  believe  .  .  .  that  the  players  did  not  go  on 
that  procession,"  Mrs.  Stopes  argues  in  favour  of 
their  being  there  ;  but  adds  :  "it  is  true  the  grant 
of  cloth  was  not  in  itself  an  invitation  to  the  corona- 
tion." It  is  therefore  no  evidence  that  he  was  present. 
Similarly  the  appearance  of  his  name  in  the  list  of 
members  of  the  company  licensed  in  1603  for 
prospective  activity  as  the  King's  players  furnishes 
no  proof  of  his  recognition  as  a  prominent  actor, 
and  leaves  us  ignorant  of  the  plays  in  which  he  may 
have  participated,  the  roles  which  he  performed,  or 
the  manner  of  his  acting.  All  that  we  have  of  an 
official  nature  during  this  period  are  therefore  two 
appearances  of  his  name  in  general  non-informative 
lists  quite  consistent  with  the  theory  that  during  the 
most  important  years  of  what  is  supposed  to  have 
been  his  great  London  period  he  was  not  in  constant 
personal  touch  with  the  business  of  the  company. 
Shakspere  Of  non-official  acting  records — we  again  give  the 

plays  *  ^cts  in  the  words  of  Sir  Sidney  Lee — "  Shakespeare's 
name  stands  first  on  the  list  of  those  who  took  part 
in  the  original  performance  of  Ben  Jonson's  '  Every 
Man  in  his  Humour '  (1598 — the  year  in  which 
Jonson,  having  been  imprisoned  for  killing  Gabriel 
Spenser,  was  liberated,  apparently  as  a  result  of 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  81 

influential  intervention).  "  In  the  original  edition  of 
Jonson's  'Sejanus'  (1605)  the  actors'  names  are 
arranged  in  two  columns,  and  Shakespeare's  name 
heads  the  second  column.  .  .  .  But  here  again  the 
part  allotted  to  each  actor  is  not  stated."  Nor  is 
it  mentioned  that  this  list  was  only  published  two 
years  after  the  performance  (1603). 

These  two  appearances  of  his  name  are  the  only 
things  that  might  be  called  records  of  his  acting  during 
the  whole  period  of  his  fame  ;  the  first  at  its  beginning, 
and  the  second,  according  to  several  authorities,  at 
its  close.  ("  There  is  no  doubt  he  never  meant  to 
return  to  London  except  for  business  visits  after  1604": 
National  Encyclopedia).  We  know  neither  what 
parts  he  played  nor  how  he  played  them ;  but  the  one 
thing  we  do  know  is  that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
great  "  Shakespeare "  plays.  There  is  not"  a  single 
record  during  the  whole  of  his  life  of  his  ever  appearing 
in  a  play  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  ;  whilst  the  writer 
responsible  for  the  appearance  of  his  name  in  these 
instances  is  the  same  as  lent  the  sanction  of  his  name 
to  the  deliberate  inaccuracies  of  the  First  Folio.  It 
is  worth  while  noticing  that  although  Jonson  gives 
a  foremost  place  to  the  name  of  "  Shakespeare  "  in 
these  lists,  when  Jonson's  "  Every  Man  out  of  his 
Humour "  was  played  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company,  the  whole  of  the  company,  with  one  notable 
exception,  had  parts  assigned  to  them.  That  one 
exception  was  Shakspere,  who  does  not  appear  at  all 
in  the  cast.  (See  the  collected  works  of  Jonson.) 

Other   striking    absences   of   William    Shakspere's  Missing 
name   in   connection   with   this   particular   company  re  crence: 
remain     to     be     noticed.      The     company     became 
implicated  in  the  "Essex  Rebellion,"  and  Augustine 
6 


82          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Phillipps,  one  of  the  members,  had  to  present  himself 
for  examination  in  connection  with  it.  His  statement, 
made  on  oath  and  formally  attested  with  his  signature, 
involves  a  play  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  (Richard  II). 
William  Shakspere  himself  was,  however,  quite  out 
of  the  business.  He  was  not  called  upon,  and  his 
name  was  not  even  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  play,  which  is  spoken  of  as  "  so  old  and  so  long 
out  of  use." 

Again  in  August  1604  the  company  was  appointed 
to  attend  on  the  Spanish  Ambassador  at  Somerset 
House  and  were  paid  for  their  services  ;  "  Augustine 
Phillipps  and  John  Hemynges  for  th'  allowance  of 
themselves  and  tenne  of  their  fellows  .  .  .  for  the 
space  of  18  dayes  (receiving)  £21  125."  We  again 
notice  the  absence  of  the  name  of  one  whom  we  have 
been  taught  to  regard  as  the  chief  personality  in  the 
company. 

The  modern  Stratfordian  postpones  Shakspere's 
retirement  to  Stratford  to  the  year  1612  or  1613. 
In  1612  the  company  was  engaged  in  litigation,  and 
the  names  of  "  John  Hemings,  Richard  Burbage  and 
Henry  Condall "  appear  in  connection  with  it,  but 
there  is  no  mention  of  Shakspere. 

On  the  installation  of  Prince  Henry  as  Prince  of 
Wales  the  services  of  the  company  were  enlisted 
and  the  names  of  Antony  Munday,  Richard  Burbage, 
and  John  Rice  occur  in  the  official  records,  the  first  as 
writer  and  the  last  two  as  actors  ;  but  no  mention 
is  made  of  the  great  writer-actor  William  Shakspere. 

In  1613  the  Globe  Theatre,  the  supposed  scene  of 
William  Shakspere's  great  triumphs,  was  burnt  to 
the  ground,  and  a  contemporary  poet  sang  of  the 
event  in  verses  that  commemorate  Anthony  Munday, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  83 

Richard  Burbage,  Henry  Condell,  and  the  father  of 
John  Heminge,  but  without  ever  a  backward  glance 
at  the  retiring  or  retired  William  Shakspere  whose 
name  has  immortalized  the  name  of  the  building. 

After  such  a  contemporary  record  the  appearance  Doubtful 
of  his  name,  in  the  1623  folio  edition,  seven  years 
after  his  death,  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  "  theprincipall 
actors  in  all  these  plays,"  confirms  the  bogus  character 
of  the  whole  of  the  editorial  pretensions  of  that  work. 
With  such  a  send-off,  it  is  remarkable  that  subsequent 
tradition  has  done  so  little  for  him.  More  than 
eighty  years  later  Rowe  in  his  Life  of  Shakspere  (1709) 
assigns  but  one  role  to  the  "  principall  actor  in  all 
these  plays  "  :  namely  the  Ghost  in  Hamlet.  This 
tradition,  though  quite  unreliable — seeing  that  the 
whole  body  of  Shakespearean  tradition  is  mixed  with 
much  that  is  now  known  to  be  untrue — is  nevertheless 
interesting  :  for  the  role  of  the  Ghost  in  Hamlet  is 
just  such  as  a  third  rate  man  about  the  theatre  might 
have  been  trained  to  perform  upon  occasion.  The 
discussion  of  the  shifting  sands  of  Shakespearean 
tradition  hardly  comes  within  the  province  of  this 
work.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  Mrs 
Stopes  flatly  refuses  to  believe  the  body  of  Shakespeare 
traditions,  for  the  very  substantial  reason  that  they 
arose  at  too  late  a  period  after  the  events.  How 
little  of  solid  biographical  fact  remains  when  mere 
tradition  is  discounted,  the  general  reader,  who  simply 
interests  himself  in  the  plays,  is  seldom  aware. 

It  is  possible  that  we  may  have  omitted  the  dis- 
cussion of  some  contemporary  reference  which  others 
might  consider  important.  Enough,  however,  has 
been  said  to  show  that  William  Shakspere's  connection 
with  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  was  of  a 


84          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

distinctly  anomalous  character.  On  the  one  hand 
there  are  distinct  traces  of  an  effort  to  give  him  a 
marked  prominence  in  respect  to  the  constitution 
and  operations  of  the  company,  and  on  the  other 
hand  a  total  absence  of  the  inevitable  concomitants 
of  such  a  prominence.  What  others,  using  him  as 
an  instrument  of  their  purposes,  were  able  to  do  with 
his  name,  is  done  ;  what  could  only  be  brought  about 
by  the  force  of  his  own  genius  is  lacking.  Outside 
the  formal  lists  of  names  no  single  contemporary 
that  we  know  of  records  an  event  or  impression  of 
him  as  an  actor  during  all  the  years  of  his  literary 
fame.  It  may  safely  be  said,  therefore,  that  neither 
in  the  provinces  nor  in  London  did  the  public  who 
were  buying  and  reading  "  Shakespeare's "  plays 
know  much  about  William  Shakspere  the  actor. 
Even  the  objectionable  anecdote  which  represents 
Burbage  in  the  dramatic  role  of  Richard  the  Third 
does  not  imply  dramatic  functions  of  any  kind  for 
Shakspere,  but  represents  him  as  a  silent  listener,  not 
necessarily  one  living  in  the  public  eye  :  a  person 
whom  some  one  in  the  outside  public  might  have 
thought  of  as  implicated  in  the  inner  workings  of  the 
company.  In  the  face  of  so  pronounced  a  silence 
in  respect  to  him,  why  should  there  have  been  these 
two  efforts  of  Jonson's  to  thrust  his  name  forward 
as  an  actor  in  a  way  which  neither  the  records  of  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  company  nor  the  constitution 
of  the  cast  for  his  own  play  "  Every  Man  out  of  his 
Humour "  warranted  ?  And  how  does  it  happen, 
in  view  of  the  total  silence  of  the  records  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  company  during  all  the  years,  both 
before  and  after,  that  his  name  was  inserted  twice  in 
one  year  (1603)  in  the  business  formalities  of  the 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  85 

company  ?  In  a  word,  how  does  it  happen  that  we 
have  the  name  occupying  an  artificial  eminence  in  two 
connections  and  nothing  else  to  correspond  ?  The 
most  natural  answer  is,  of  course,  that  false  claims 
were  being  made  for  him  fitting  in  exactly  with  the 
admitted  false  pretensions  of  the  First  Folio  in  which 
the  same  party,  Ben  Jonson,  was  implicated.  In 
the  matter  of  motives,  however,  we  again  put  in  a 
plea  for  Jonson  that  he  is  entitled  to  the  same  indulgence 
as  has  been  freely  accorded  to  Heminge  and  Condell, 
although  he  probably  was  deeper  in  the  secret  than 
they  were. 


We  may  now  summarize  the  results  of  our  examina- 
tion of  the  middle  or  London  period  of  William 
Shakspere's  career. 

1.  He  was  purely  passive  in  respect  to  all  the 

publication  which  took  place  under  his  name. 

2.  There   is   the   greatest   uncertainty   respecting 

the  duration  of  his  sojourn  in  London  and  the 
strongest  probability  that  he  was  actually 
resident  at  Stratford  whilst  the  plays  were 
being  published. 

3.  Nothing  is  known  of  his  doings  in  London,  and 

there  is  much  mystery  concerning  his  place 
of  residence  there. 

4.  After  Greene's  attack  and  Chettle's  apology  the 

"  man  "  and  the  "  actor  "  was  ignored  by 
contemporaries. 

5.  Before  the  printing  of  the  dramas  began  in 

1598  contemporary  references  were  always 
to  the  poet — the  author  of  "  Venus  "  and 
"  Lucrece  " — never  to  the  dramatist, 


86          "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

6.  Only  after   1598,  the  date  when   plays  were 

first  printed  with  "  Shakespeare  V  name, 
are  there  any  contemporary  references  to  him 
as  a  dramatist. 

7.  The  public  knew  "  Shakespeare  "  in  print,  but 

knew  nothing  of  the  personality  of  William 
Shakspere. 

8.  The  sole  anecdote  recorded  of  him  is  rejected 

by  the  general  consensus  of  authorities,  and 
even  the  contemporary  currency  of  this 
anecdote  is  consistent  with  the  idea  of  his 
being  personally  unknown. 

9.  He  has  left  no  letter  or  trace  of  personal  inter- 

course with  any  London  contemporary  or 
public  man.  He  received  no  letter  from  any 
patron  or  literary  man.  The  only  letter  known 
to  have  been  sent  to  him  was  concerned  solely 
with  the  borrowing  of  money. 

10.  Edmund  Spenser  quite  ignores  him. 

11.  Although  the  company  with  which  his  name  is 

associated  toured  frequently  and  widely  in 
the  provinces,  and  much  has  been  recorded 
of  their  doings,  no  municipal  archive,  so  far 
as  is  known,  contains  a  single  reference  to  him. 

12.  There  is  no  contemporary  record  of  his  ever 

appearing  in  a  "  Shakespeare  "  play. 

13.  The  only  plays  with  which  as  an  actor  his  name 

was  associated  during  his  lifetime  are  two 
of  Ben  Jonson's  plays. 

14.  The  accounts  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber 

show  only  one  irregular  reference  to  him 
three  years  before  the  period  of  his  greatest 
fame,  and  none  at  all  during  or  after  that 
period. 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  87 

15.  The  Lord  Chamberlain's  Books,  which  would 

have  furnished  the  fullest  records  of  his  doings 
during  these  years,  are,  like  the  "  Shakespeare  " 
manuscripts,  missing. 

16.  His  name  is  missing  from  the  following  records 

of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  in  which 
other  actors'  names  appear : 

(1)  The  cast  of  Jonson's  "  Every  Man  out  of 

his    Humour "    in   which   all  the   other 
members  of  the  company  appear. 

(2)  The  record  of  proceedings  respecting  the 

Essex  Rebellion  and  the  company. 

(3)  The  company's  attendance  on  the  Spanish 

Ambassador  in  1604. 

(4)  The  company's  litigation  in  1612. 

(5)  The    company's    participation    in  the  in- 

stallation of  the  Prince  of  Wales. 

(6)  References  to  the  burning   of  the  Globe 

Theatre. 

17.  Even  rumour  assigns  him  only  an  insignificant 

role  as  an  actor. 
We  must  now  ask  the  reader  to  bring  all  these  shakspere 

various  considerations  carefully  into  focus,  and  see  and  <:ontem" 

J  poranes. 

them  in  their  natural  relationship  to  one  another. 
He  ought  to  have  no  difficulty  in  realizing  that  so 
completely  negative  a  record  is  altogether  inconsistent 
with  the  career  William  Shakspere  is  supposed  to  have 
enjoyed.  We  place  him  above  Edmund  Spenser  as 
a  poet,  yet  Spenser's  biography  is  no  mere  tissue  of 
learned  fancies  and  generous  conjectures.  We  place 
him  above  Jonson  as  a  writer  of  plays,  yet  Jonson's 
literary  life  and  social  relationships  make  up  a  very 
real  and  tangible  biography.  We  attempt  to  class 
him  with  Burbage  as  an  actor,  yet  Burbage  is  a  very 


88  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

living  and  substantial  figure  in  the  history  of  the 
English  stage.  But  he,  the  one  man  who  is  supposed 
to  have  combined  in  a  remarkable  way  the  powers 
and  vocations  of  all  three ;  the  contemporary  of 
Spenser  :  the  prot£g6  of  the  Burbages — for  we  are 
now  told  it  was  they  who  discovered  and  brought 
out  Shakspere — the  idol  of  Jonson,  and  the  greatest 
genius  that  has  appeared  in  English  literature,  leaves 
behind  in  all  literary  and  dramatic  concerns  but 
the  elusive  and  impalpable  record  we  have  been 
considering. 

The  genial  spirit  of  Spenser  kept  pouring  itself 
out  in  verse  until  crushing  disaster  came  upon  him, 
and  death  approached  :  his  last  verses  indeed  seem 
to  have  been  written  with  death  before  his  eyes.  To 
the  end  Ben  Jonson  kept  writing  and  publishing  : 
his  last  and  posthumous  work  being  the  expression 
of  his  latest  thoughts.  The  central  figure  on  the 
English  stage  at  the  time  when  Richard  Burbage 
died  was  Burbage  himself.  But  William  Shakspere, 
possessed  of  a  genius  so  compelling  as  to  have  raised 
him  from  a  level  quite  below  his  literary  con- 
temporaries to  a  height  far  above  them,  abandons  his 
vocation  at  the  age  of  forty,  retires  to  the  uncultured 
atmosphere  of  Stratford,  devotes  his  powers  to  land, 
houses,  malt  and  money,  leaving  unfinished  literary 
masterpieces  in  the  hands  of  actors  and  theatre 
managers  to  be  finished  by  the  pens  of  strangers  ; 
ultimately  dying  in  affluence  but  in  total  dissociation 
from  everything  that  has  made  his  name  famous. 

Had  the  work  attributed  to  him  been  merely  average 
literature,  his  record,  once  grasped  in  its  ensemble, 
would  have  justified  the  strongest  doubts  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  his  claims.  Being  what  it  is,  however, 


THE  STRATFORDIAN  VIEW  89 

the  unique  character  of  the  work,  and  the  record, 
equally  unique   but   opposite  in   character,   justifies 
the  complete  rejection  of  his  pretensions.    To  borrow 
Emerson's   metaphor   on   the   subject,   we   "  cannot 
marry  "  the  life  record  to  the  literature.     We  are 
compelled,  therefore,  to  make  a  very  clear  separation 
between   the  writer   "  Shakespeare "   and   the   man 
William  Shakspere.     As  soon  as  this  is  done  we  are 
able  to  co-ordinate  this  middle  period  of  the  life  of 
William  Shakspere  with  the  two  extremes  we  have 
previously  considered.    We  thus  arrive  at  the  con- 
ception of  a  man  of  very  ordinary  powers  and  humble 
purposes,  the  three  parts  of  whose  career  become 
perfectly     homogeneous.      In     the     place     of     the 
tremendous  mass  of  Stratfordian  incongruities  and 
impossibilities  we  get  a  sane  and  consistent  idea  of 
a  man  in  natural  relationship  with  human  experience 
and  normal  probabilities.     A  man  who  played  a  part 
and  had  his  reward.    His  motives  were  no  doubt  like 
those  of  the  average  amongst  us,  a  mixture  of  high 
and  low ;    and,  seeing  that  no  one  else  was  being 
injured  by  the  subterfuge,  he  might  if  he  were  capable 
of  apprizing  the  work  justly,  have  felt  honoured  in 
being  trusted  by  "  Shakespeare  "  in  furthering  his 
literary  purposes.     But  that  he  was  himself  the  author 
of  the  great  poems  and  dramas  stands  altogether 
outside  the  region  of  natural  probabilities,  and  he 
must  now  yield  for  the  adornment  of  a  worthier  brow 
the  laurels  he  has  worn  so  long. 


CHAPTER  II* 

I 
CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM 

Recognized  THE  three  greatest  names  in  the  world's  literature 
mystery.  are  tnose  of  Homer,  Dante  and  Shakespeare.  The 
first  belongs  to  the  ancient  world  and  the  personality 
behind  the  name  is  lost  beyond  recall  in  the  perished 
records  of  a  remote  antiquity.  The  two  last  belong 
to  the  modern  world.  The  former  of  these  belongs 
to  Italy  ;  and  Italy  is  quite  certain  of  the  personality 
and  cherishes  every  ascertained  detail  in  the  records 
of  her  most  illustrious  son.  The  last  of  the  three — 
and  who  will  venture  to  say  it  is  not  the  greatest  of 
all  ? — belongs  to  England,  and  although  nearer  to 
us  than  Dante  by  three  hundred  years,  the  personality 
behind  the  name  is  to-day  as  problematic  as  that  of 
Homer  ;  his  identity  being  a  matter  of  dispute  amongst 
men  whose  capacity  and  calmness  of  judgment  are 
unquestionable. 

The  inquiry  into  the  authorship  of  the  Shakespeare 
plays  has  therefore  long  since  earned  a  clear  title  to 
be  regarded  as  something  more  than  a  crank  problem 
to  be  classed  with  such  vagaries  as  the  "  flat-earth 
theory "  or  surmises  respecting  the  "  inhabitants 
of  Mars."  It  is  common  in  serious  works  on 
Elizabethan  literature  to  take  cognisance  of  the 

*  A'o.'e. — The  work  as  originally  written  begins  here.  Only  a  few 
slight  verbal  adjustments  to  the  preceding  pages  have  been  possible. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM          91 

problem,  thus  making  the  authorship  an  open  question 
still  awaiting  a  decisive  answer ;  and  every  theory 
advanced  in  regard  to  it  either  implies  or  affirms  the 
mysteriousness  of  the  whole  business.  Those  who 
maintain  the  orthodox  view,  that  the  plays  and  poems 
were  written  by  the  Stratford  citizen,  William 
Shakspere,  are  obliged  to  recognize  the  fact  that  a 
writer,  the  whole  of  whose  circumstances  and  antece- 
dents rendered  the  production  of  such  a  work  as 
the  Shakespeare  plays  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
feats  recorded  in  history,  and  who  with  the  intelligence 
attributed  to  him  must  have  seen  that  this  would 
eventually  raise  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  his 
claims,  deliberately  reduced  to  a  minimum  all  that 
kind  of  evidence  which  might  have  placed  his  title 
beyond  question.  For  as  we  have  seen,  neither  that 
part  of  his  life  prior  to  his  appearance  in  the  London 
theatre,  nor  that  subsequent  to  his  retirement  from 
the  stage,  nor  a  single  word  in  his  will,  shows  any 
mark  of  those  dominating  literary  interests  to  which 
the  writings  bear  witness.  In  a  word,  though  willing 
to  enjoy  the  honour,  and,  maybe,  the  pecuniary 
advantages  of  authorship,  he  must  have  actually 
gone  out  of  his  way  to  remove  the  normal  traces  of 
his  literary  pursuits  ;  in  this  way  casting  about  the 
production  of  his  plays  that  kind  of  obscurity  which 
belongs  to  anonymous  rather  than  to  acknowledged 
authorship. 

Probably  one  of  the  most  significant  facts  connected 
with  this  paucity  of  personal  literary  details,  upon 
which  we  have  so  much  insisted,  has  been  the.  issue 
in  modern  times  of  literary  series  without  volumes 
on  Shakespeare.  The  original  issue  of  "  English 
Men  of  Letters,"  including  Elizabethan  writen,  like 


92  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Spenser  and  Sidney,  appeared  without  a  volume 
on  the  greatest  of  all.  The  omission  continued  through 
later  editions,  and  was  only  made  good  at  the  extreme 
end  of  the  series  with  the  apparent  purpose  of  removing 
an  anomaly  ;  adding  to  the  series  thereby,  however,  a 
most  valuable  work  upon  the  Shakespeare  literature, 
which  yet  admits  frankly  the  meagreness  of  the 
material  available  for  a  real  literary  biography.  In 
addition  to  this  the  long  list  of  the  "  Great  Writer  " 
series  is  still  without  its  volume  on  England's  greatest 
writer.  The  explanation  of  all  this  seems  to  lie  in 
the  uncertainty  of  everything  connecting  the  Shake- 
speare literature  with  the  personality  behind  it ; 
thus  exposing  such  scholarly  works  as  Sir  Sidney  Lee's 
"  Life  of  William  Shakespeare  "  to  criticism  on  the 
grounds  of  the  supposititious  character  of  much  of 
the  biographical  details. 

Whilst  then  the  view  of  authorship  hitherto  current 
implies  its  mysteriousness,  those  who  oppose  that  view 
postulate  thereby  an  uncertain  authorship.  All  there- 
fore must  agree  that  the  whole  business  is  a  profound 
mystery.  Only  the  Shakespeare  tyro  believes  now- 
adays that  William  Shakspere's  credentials  stand  on 
the  same  plane  with  those  of  Dante  and  Milton  ;  and 
only  the  too  old  or  too  young  are  disposed  to  represent 
the  sceptics  as  cranks  and  fanatics.  Our  last  chapter 
has  but  outlined  the  arguments  by  which  we  claim 
the  incredibility  of  the  old  belief  has  been  established  ; 
other  points  will  arise  in  the  course  of  our  discussion. 
What  we  do  now  is  to  assume  an  undecided  author- 
ship and  attempt  to  lift  the  veil  from  this,  the  most 
stupendous  mystery  in  the  history  of  the  world's 
literature. 

The  objection,  though  not  so  frequently  raised  as 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM    93 

formerly,  is  still  occasionally  met  with,  that  the  A  solution 
enquiry  is  unnecessary ;  that  the  great  dramatic  requu 
masterpieces  stand  there,  that  we  cannot  be  deprived 
of  them,  and  that  such  being  the  case  all  we  need  to 
do  is  to  say  that  the  name  "  Shakespeare  "  stands 
for  their  writer,  whoever  he  may  have  been,  and 
that  there  the  matter  may  be  allowed  to  rest.  Such 
indifference  to  the  personality  of  the  author  is  usually, 
however,  but  the  counterpart  to  an  indifference  to 
the  writings  themselves.  Those  who  appreciate  some 
great  good  that  they  have  received  cannot  remain 
indifferent  to  the  personality  of  the  one  to  whose 
labours  they  owe  it.  Such  an  attitude,  moreover, 
would  be  unjust  and  ungrateful  to  the  memory  of  our 
benefactors.  And  if  it  be  urged  that  "  Shakespeare  " 
in  leaving  things  as  he  did,  showed  that  he  wished 
to  remain  unknown,  there  is  still  the  possibility  that 
arrangements  were  made  for  ultimately  disclosing 
his  identity  to  posterity,  and  that  these  arrangements 
have  miscarried.  Again,  it  is  one  thing  for  a  benefactor 
of  mankind  to  wish  to  remain  unknown,  it  is  quite 
another  matter  for  others  to  acquiesce  in  this  self- 
effacement.  Then  there  is  the  possibility  that  the 
writer's  effort  to  obliterate  the  memory  of  himself 
may  not  have  succeeded,  and  that  there  may  be 
current  an  incomplete,  distorted  and  unjust  con- 
ception of  him,  which  can  only  be  rectified  by 
establishing  his  position  as  the  author  of  the  world's 
greatest  dramas. 

The  discovery  of  the  author  and  the  establishing 
of  his  just  claims  to  honour  is  therefore  a  duty  which 
mankind  owes  to  one  of  the  most  illustrious  of  men ; 
a  duty  from  which  Englishmen,  at  any  rate,  can  never 
be  absolved,  if  by  any  means  the  task  can  be 


94  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

accomplished.  He  is  the  one  Englishman  of  whom 
it  can  be  most  truly  said  that  he  belongs  to  the  world  ; 
and  in  any  Pantheon  of  Humanity  that  may  one 
day  be  set  up  he  is  the  one  of  our  countrymen  who  is 
already  assured  of  an  eternal  place.  England's 
negligence  to  put  his  identity  beyond  question  would 
therefore  be  a  grave  dereliction  of  national  duty  if 
by  any  means  his  identity  could  be  fully  established. 
Problem  Accepting  the  duty  thus  laid  upon  us,  our  first 

task  must  be  to  define  precisely  the  character  of  the 
problem  that  confronts  us.  Briefly  it  is  this.  We 
have  before  us  a  piece  of  human  work  of  the  most 
exceptional  character,  and  the  problem  is  to  find 
the  man  who  did  it.  Thus  defined,  it  is  not,  as  we 
have  already  remarked,  strictly  speaking  a  literary 
problem.  Those  who  enter  upon  the  search  must 
obtain  much  of  their  data  from  literary  men;  they 
must  rest  a  substantial  part  of  their  case  upon  the 
authority  of  literary  men  ;  and  they  must,  in  the  long 
run,  submit  the  result  of  their  labours  very  largely 
to  the  judgment  of  literary  men.  But  the  most 
expert  in  literature  may  be  unfitted  for  prosecuting 
such  an  investigation,  whilst  a  mind  constituted  for 
this  kind  of  enquiry  may  have  had  only  an  inferior 
preparation  so  far  as  purely  literary  matters  are 
concerned. 

It  is  the  kind  of  enquiry  with  which  lawyers  and 
juries  are  faced  every  day.  They  are  called  upon  to 
examine  questions  involving  highly  technical  matters 
with  which  they  are  not  themselves  conversant. 
Their  method  is  natnrally  to  separate  what  belongs 
to  the  specialist  from  what  is  matter  of  common  sense 
and  simple  judgment ;  to  rely  upon  the  expert  in 
purely  technical  matters,  and  to  use  their  own  dis- 


95 

crimination  in  the  sifting  of  evidence,  at  the  same 
time  allowing  its  full  weight  to  any  particular  know- 
ledge they  may  chance  to  possess  in  those  things 
that  pertain  specially  to  the  expert's  domain.  This 
is  the  course  proper  to  the  investigation  before  us. 
The  question,  for  example,  of  what  is,  or  is  not 
Shakespearean ;  what  are  the  distinguishing 
characteristics  of  Shakespeare's  work ;  what  were 
its  relationships  to  contemporary  literature  ;  between 
what  dates  the  plays  appeared ;  when  the  various 
editions  were  published,  are  matters  which  may  be 
left,  in  a  general  way,  to  the  experts.  As,  however, 
there  is  a  considerable  amount  of  disagreement  amongst 
the  specialists  (and  even  a  consensus  of  expert  opinion 
may  sometimes  be  at  fault)  :  where  it  is  necessary 
to  differ  from  the  experts — a  thing  which  is  more 
or  less  inevitable  in  the  breaking  of  entirely  new 
ground,  and  especially  in  presenting  a  new  and  potent 
factor — such  differences  ought  to  be  clearly  indicated 
and  adequately  discussed.  Nevertheless  the  cumu- 
lative effect  of  all  the  evidence  gathered  together 
ought  to  be  of  such  convincing  weight  as  to  be  in  a 
measure  independent  of  such  personal  differences, 
and  indeed  strong  enough  to  sustain  an  unavoidable 
admixture  of  errors  and  slips  in  matters  of  detail. 

Our  task  being  to  discover  the  author  of  what  is  "  Shake- 
acknowledged  generally  to   be   Shakespeare's  work, 
the  exceptional  character  of  that  work  ought,  under  ment 
normal    conditions,  to  facilitate   the    enquiry.    The 
more  commonplace  a  piece  of  work  may  be  the  greater 
must  be  the  proportion  of  men  capable  of  doing  it, 
and  the  greater  the  difficulty  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances of  placing  one's  hand  on  the  man  who  did  it. 
The   more   distinctive   the   work   the   more   limited 


96  "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

becomes  the  number  of  men  capable  of  performing 
it,  and  the  easier  ought  it,  therefore,  to  be  to  discover 
its  author.  In  this  case,  however,  the  work  is  of  so 
unusual  a  character  that  every  competent  judge 
would  say  that  the  man  who  actually  did  it  was 
the  only  man  living  at  the  time  who  was  capable  of 
doing  it. 

Notwithstanding  this  fact,  after  three  hundred 
years  the  authorship  seems  more  uncertain  to-day 
than  at  any  previous  time.  The  natural  inference  is 
that  special  obstacles  have  intentionally  and  most 
carefully  been  laid  in  the  way  of  the  discovery.  There 
is  no  mere  accident  in  the  obscurity  which  hangs 
round  the  authorship,  and  the  very  greatness  of  the 
work  itself  is  a  testimony  to  the  thoroughness  of  the 
steps  taken  to  avoid  disclosure.  This  fact  must  be 
borne  in  mind  throughout  the  enquiry.  It  is  not 
merely  a  question  of  finding  out  the  man  who  did  a 
piece  of  work,  but  of  circumventing  a  scheme  of  self- 
concealment  devised  by  one  of  the  most  capable 
of  intellects.  We  must  not  expect,  therefore,  to  find 
that  such  a  man,  taking  such  a  course,  has  somewhere 
or  other  gone  back  childishly  upon  his  intentions, 
and  purposely  placed  in  his  works  some  indications 
of  his  identity,  in  the  form  of  a  cryptogram  or  other 
device.  If  the  concealment  were  intended  to  be 
temporary  it  would  hardly  be  within  the  works  them- 
selves or  in  any  document  published  at  the  same 
time  that  the  disclosure  would  be  made. 

Gcnius  As  it  is  not  from  intentional    self-disclosure  that 

and  the         we  should  expect  to  discover  the  author,  but  from 

problem.  ,  .  .     ,.        .  ,       .         .,    . 

more  or  less  unconscious  indications  of  himself  in 
the  writings,  it  is  necessary  to  guard  at  the  outset 
against  certain  theories  as  to  the  possibilities  of  genius 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM    97 

which  tend  to  vitiate  all  reasoning  upon  the  subject. 
Upon  hardly  any  other  literary  topic  has  so  much 
that  is  misleading  been  written.     There  is  a  frequent 
assumption  that  the  possession  of  what  we  call  genius 
renders  its  owner  capable  of  doing  almost  anything. 
Now  William  Shakspere  is  the  one  stock  illustration  of 
this  contention.     In  all  other  cases,  where  the  whole 
of  the  circumstances  are  well  known,  we  may  connect 
the  achievements  of  a  genius  with  what  may  be  called 
the   external   accidents   of   his   life.     Though   social 
environment  is  not  the  source  of  genius,  it  certainly 
has  always  determined  the  forms  in  which  the  faculty 
has  clothed  itself,  and  even  the  particular  direction 
which  its  energies  have  taken  :   and  in  no  other  class 
of  work  are  the  products  of  genius  so  moulded   by 
social   pressure,    and    even   by   class   relationships, 
as  in  works  involving  the  artistic  use  of  the  mother 
tongue.     To  what  extent  the  possession  of  abnormal 
powers  may  enable  a  man  to  triumph  over  circum- 
stances no  one  can  say  ;  and  if  a  given  mind  working 
under  specified  conditions  is  actually  proved  to  have 
produced    something    totally    unexpected     and    at 
variance  with  the  conditions,  we  can  only  accept  the 
phenomenon,   however  inexplicable  it   may  appear. 
It  is  not  thus,  however,  that  genius  usually  manifests 
itself;  and,  failing  conclusive  proof,  a  vast  disparity 
or  incompatibility  between  the  man  and  the  work 
must  always  justify  a  measure  of  doubt  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  his    pretensions    and    make    us    cast 
about  for  a  more  likely  agent. 

Now  no  one  is  likely  ever  to  question  the  reality 
or  the  vastness  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  genius.     If  he 
had  enjoyed  every  advantage  of  education,  travel, 
leisure,  social  position  and  wealth,  his  plays  would 
7 


98  "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

still  remain  for  all  time  the  testimony  to  his  marvellous 
powers :  though  naturally  not  such  stupendous 
powers  as  would  have  been  required  to  produce  the 
same  results  without  the  advantages.  Consequently, 
if  we  regard  the  authorship  as  an  open  question  we 
shall  be  much  more  disposed  to  look  for  the  author 
amongst  those  who  possessed  some  or  all  of  those 
advantages  than  amongst  those  who  possessed  none 
of  them.  That  is  to  say,  we  must  go  about  the  task 
of  searching  for  the  author  in  precisely  the  same  way 
as  we  should  seek  for  a  man  who  had  done  some 
ordinary  piece  of  work,  and  not  complicate  the  problem 
by  the  introduction  of  such  incommens  arables  as  are 
implied  in  current  theories  of  genius. 

^  we  ^nc^  *nat  a  man  ^nows  a  thing  we  must  assume 
pieces.  that  he  had  it  to  learn.     If  he  handles  his  knowledge 

readily  and  appropriately  we  must  assume  an  intimacy 
born  of  an  habitual  interest,  woven  into  the  texture 
of  his  mind.  If  he  shows  himself  skilful  in  doing 
something  we  must  assume  that  he  attained  his  skill 
by  practice.  And  therefore,  if  he  first  comes  before 
the  world  with  a  masterpiece  in  any  art,  exhibiting 
an  easy  familiarity  with  the  technique  of  the  craft 
and  a  large  fund  of  precise  information  in  any  depart- 
ment, we  may  conclude  that  preceding  all  this  there 
must  have  lain  years  of  secret  preparation,  during 
which  he  was  accumulating  knowledge,  and  by  practice 
in  his  art,  gaining  skill  and  strength  for  the  decisive 
plunge  ;  storing  up,  elaborating  and  perfecting  his 
productions  so  as  to  make  them  in  some  degree  worthy 
of  that  ideal  which  ever  haunts  the  imagination  of 
the  supreme  artist. 

Most  of  the  other  poets  differ  from  Shakespeare  in 
that  they  furnish  us  with  collections  of  their  juvenile 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM    99 

productions  in  which,  though  often  enough  poor 
stuff,  we  may  trace  the  promise  of  their  maturer 
genius.  Apart  from  this  value,  much  of  it  is  hardly 
entitled  to  immortality.  Amongst  the  work  of 
Shakespeare  the  authorities,  however,  ascribe  priority 
in  time  to  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost ;  "  and  what  English- 
man that  knows  his  Shakespeare  would  care  to  part 
with  this  work  ?  We  could  easily  mention  quite 
a  number  of  Shakespearean  plays  of  even  high  rank 
that  would  more  willingly  be  parted  with  than  this 
one.  It  would,  however,  be  perfectly  gratuitous  to 
argue  that  this  work  is  a  masterpiece. 

Masterpieces,  however,  are  the  fruits  of  matured 
powers.  Dante  was  over  fifty  years  of  age  before 
he  finished  his  immortal  work  ;  Milton  about  fifty- 
five  when  he  completed  "  Paradise  Lost."  Quite  a 
long  list  might  be  made  out  illustrating  this  principle 
in  works  of  even  the  second  order  ;  Cervantes  at 
sixty  producing  "  Don  Quixote,"  Scott  at  forty-three 
giving  us  the  first  of  the  Waverley  Novels,  Defoe  at 
fifty-eight  publishing  "  Robinson  Crusoe  "  ;  Fielding 
at  forty-two  giving  "  Tom  Jones,"  and  Manzoni  at 
forty  "  I  Promessi  Sposi."  Or,  if  we  turn  to  Shake- 
speare's own  domain,  the  drama,  we  find  that  Moliere, 
after  a  lifetime  of  dramatic  enthusiasm  and  production, 
gave  forth  his  masterpieces  between  the  ages  of  forty 
and  fifty,  his  greatest  work  "Tartuffe"  appearing  just 
at  the  middle  of  that  period  (age  forty-five),  whilst 
Goethe's  "  Faust  "  was  the  outcome  of  a  long 
literary  lifetime,  its  final  touches  being  given  only 
a  few  months  before  his  death  at  the  age  of  eighty-two. 

Drama,  in  its  supreme  manifestation,  that  is  to 
say  as  a  capable  and  artistic  expcsition  of  our  many- 
sided  human  nature  and  not  mere  "  inexplicable 


ioo        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

dumb-shows  and  noise,"  is  an  art  in  which,  more 
than  in  others,  mere  precocity  of  talent  will  not  suffice 
for  the  creation  of  masterpieces.  In  this  case 
genius  must  be  supplemented  by  a  wide  and  intense 
experience  of  life  and  much  practice  in  the  technical 
work  of  staging  plays.  Poetic  geniuses  who  have  not 
had  this  experience,  and  have  cast  their  work  in 
dramatic  form,  may  have  produced  great  literature, 
but  not  great  dramas.  Yet,  with  such  a  general 
experience  as  these  few  facts  illustrate,  we  are  asked 
to  believe  that  a  young  man — William  Shakspere 
was  but  twenty-six  in  the  year  1590,  which  marks 
roughly  the  beginning  of  the  Shakespearean  period — 
began  his  career  with  the  composition  of  masterpieces 
without  any  apparent  preparation,  and  kept  pouring 
out  plays  spontaneously  at  a  most  amazing  rate. 
He  appears  before  us  at  the  age  of  twenty-nine  as 
the  author  of  a  superb  poem  of  no  less  than  twelve 
hundred  lines,  and  leaves  no  trace  of  those  slight  youth- 
ful effusions  by  means  of  which  a  poet  learns  his  art 
and  develops  his  powers.  If,  however,  we  can  dis- 
abuse our  minds  of  fantastic  notions  of  genius,  regard 
the  Shakespearean  dramas  as  anonymous,  and  look 
at  them  with  the  eyes  of  common  sense,  we  shall  be 
inclined  rather  to  view  the  outpouring  of  dramas 
from  the  year  1590  onwards  as  the  work  of  a  more 
matured  man,  who  had  had  the  requisite  intellectual 
and  dramatic  preparation,  and  who  was  elaborating, 
finishing  off  and  letting  loose  a  flood  of  dramas  that 
he  had  been  accumulating  and  working  at  during 
many  preceding  years. 

When  in  1855  Walt  Whitman  gave  to  the  world 
his  "Leaves  of  Grass,"  Emerson  greeted  the  work  and 
its  writer  in  these  words;  "  I  find  it  the  most  extra- 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROBLEM        101 

ordinary  piece  of  wit  and  wisdom  that  America  has 
yet  contributed  ...  I  greet  you  at  the  beginning 
of  a  great  career,  which  yet  must  have  had  a  long  fore- 
ground somewhere."  This  concluding  surmise  was 
merely  common  sense,  and,  as  the  world  now  knows, 
perfectly  true.  What  is  wanted  is  to  apply  the  same 
principle  and  the  same  common  sense  to  work  of  a 
higher  order,  and  to  recognize  that  if  by  the  year 
1592,  by  which  time  we  are  assured  that  the  stream  of 
Shakespearean  drama  was  in  full  flood,  Shakespeare 
was  manifesting  an  exceptional  facility  in  the 
production  of  works  that  were  at  once  great  literature 
and  great  stage  plays,  there  had  been  "  a  long  fore- 
ground somewhere." 

The  considerations  we  have  been  urging  in  this  A  modern 
chapter  are  necessary  for  getting  the  problem  into  pro 
its  right  perspective  and  on  the  same  plane  of  vision 
as  the  other  problems  and  interests  of  life.  We  must 
free  the  problem  from  illogical  entanglements  and 
miraculous  assumptions,  and  look  for  scientific  relation- 
ship between  cause  and  effect.  This  must  be  the 
first  step  towards  its  solution.  It  may  appear,  how- 
ever, that  if  it  is  simply  a  question  of  searching  for 
a  particular  man,  according  to  the  same  methods 
which  we  would  employ  in  any  other  case,  that  the 
man  should  have  been  discovered  long  before  now, 
if  the  material  for  his  discovery  were  really  available  ; 
and  that  as  he  has  not  been  discovered  after  three 
hundred  years  the  necessary  data  do  not  exist,  and 
his  identity  must  remain  for  ever  a  mystery.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  "  Shakespeare  " 
had  to  wait  until  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  his  full 
literary  appreciation ;  and  this  was  essential  to  the 
mere  raising  of  the  problem.  "  Not  until  two 


102         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

centuries  had  passed  after  his  death,"  says  Emerson, 
"  did  any  criticism  which  we  think  adequate  begin 
to  appear."  Recognition  he  had,  no  doubt,  in 
abundance  before  that  time.  But  that  exact  and 
critical  appreciation  which  made  it  possible  to  dis- 
tinguish the  characteristics  of  his  work  ;  and  begin  to 
separate  true  Shakespearean  work  from  spurious ; 
that  enabled  a  Shakespearean  authority  to  condemn 
"  Titus  Andronicus  "  as  "  repulsive  balderdash  "  ; 
which  has  enabled  us  to  say  of  "  Timon  of  Athens" 
that  it  contains  but  "  a  fragment  from  the  master 
hand  "  ;  that  "  Pericles  "  is  ''  mainly  from  other 
hands  "  than  Shakespeare's  ;  that  "  Henry  VIII  " 
was  completed  by  Fletcher ;  all  this  belongs  to  the 
last  hundred  years,  and  has  only  been  preparing  the 
way  for  raising  the  question  of  Shakespeare's  identity. 
Even  up  to  the  present  day  the  problem  has  hardly 
passed  definitely  beyond  the  negative  or  sceptical 
stage  of  doubting  what  is  called  the  Stratfordian  view, 
the  work  of  Sir  George  Greenwood  being  the  first 
milestone  in  the  process  of  scientific  research.  The 
Baconian  view,  though  it  has  helped  to  popularize 
the  negative  side,  and  to  bring  into  prominence  certain 
contents  of  Shakespeare's  works,  has  done  little  for 
the  positive  aspect  except  to  institute  a  misleading 
method  of  enquiry :  a  kind  of  pick-and-try  process, 
leading  to  quite  a  number  of  rival  candidates  for 
Shakespeare  honours,  and  setting  up  an  inferior  form 
of  Shakespearean  investigation,  the  "  cryptogram." 
Amongst  all  the  literature  on  the  subject,  we  have 
so  far  been  able  to  discover  no  attempt,  starting  from 
an  assumed  anonymity  of  the  plays,  to  institute  a 
systematic  search  for  the  author.  Yet  surely  this 
is  the  point  towards  which  the  modern  movement 


METHOD  OF  SOLUTION  103 

of  Shakespearean  study  has  been  tending  ;  and  once 
instituted  it  must  continue  until  either  the  author  is 
discovered  or  the  attempt  abandoned  as  hopeless. 


II 
METHOD  OF  SOLUTION 

Failing  the  discovery  of  some  new  and  sensational 
documentary  evidence,  if  any  headway  is  to  be  made 
towards  the  solution  of  the  problem  it  must  result 
very  largely  from  the  inauguration  of  new  methods 
of  investigation.  Even  when  these  lead  to  conclusions 
which  have  ultimately  to  be  abandoned  they  give 
cohesion  and  definite  direction  to  the  efforts  that  are 
made,  and  thus  assist  in  clearing  up  the  situation, 
suggesting  new  methods,  and  preparing  the  way  for 
more  reliable  conclusions. 

The  writings  in  question  not  having  been  produced 
in  some  distant  country  or  in  a  remote  age,  but  here, 
in  England,  in  an  age  so  near  as  to  have  transmitted 
to  us  masses  of  details  relating  to  most  unimportant 
individuals,  and  yet  so  little  advance  having,  as  yet, 
been  made  in  the  direction  of  either  solving  the  Shake- 
speare problem  or  of  pronouncing  it  insoluble,  confirms 
the  impression  that ,  in  addition  to  the  mystery  purposely 
thrown  over  the  authorship,  the  investigation  has 
not  yet  been  prosecuted  on  right  lines.  Prepossessions 
of  one  kind  or  another  have  stood  in  the  way  of 
sounder  methods ;  for  people  who  spend  themselves 
in  glorifying  every  new  detail  discovered  about  the 
Stratford  man,  or  who  lose  themselves  in  the 
labyrinths  of  Baconian  cryptograms,  can  hardly  be 
expected  to  assume  the  impartiality  necessary  for 
the  invention  of  new  and  reliable  instruments  of 


104        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

enquiry.  The  clearing  out  of  all  this  impedimenta 
is  therefore  the  first  essential  condition  of  any  real 
progress. 

Ridding  the  mind  of  all  such  personal  pre- 
possessions, we  must  now  make  a  beginning  from  some 
hitherto  untried  standpoint.  The  standpoint  adopted 
at  the  outset  of  these  researches,  and  already  indicated, 
was  to  assume  the  complete  anonymity  of  the  writings, 
and  to  apply  to  the  search  for  the  author  just  those 
ordinary  methods  which  we  should  have  had  to  apply 
if  it  had  been  some  practical  question  involving 
important  issues  of  life  and  conduct. 

What  then  is  the  usual  common-sense  method 
of  searching  for  an  unknown  man  who  has  performed 
some  particular  piece  of  work  ?  It  is  simply  to 
examine  closely  the  work  itself,  to  draw  from  the 
examination  as  definite  a  conception  as  possible  of  the 
man  who  did  it,  to  form  some  idea  of  where  he  would 
be  likely  to  be  found,  and  then  to  go  and  look  for  a 
man  who  answers  to  the  supposed  description.  When 
some  such  man  has  been  found  we  next  proceed  to 
gather  together  all  the  particulars  that  might  in  any 
way  connect  him  with  the  work  in  question.  We 
rely,  in  such  cases,  very  largely  upon  what  is  called 
circumstantial  evidence ;  mistakenly  supposed  by 
some  to  be  evidence  of  an  inferior  order,  but  in  practice 
the  most  reliable  form  of  proof  we  have.  Such 
evidence  may  at  first  be  of  the  most  shadowy  de- 
scription ;  but  as  we  proceed  in  the  work  of  gathering 
together  facts  and  reducing  them  to  order,  as  we 
hazard  our  guesses  and  weigh  probabilities,  as  we 
subject  our  theories  to  all  available  tests,  we  find  that 
the  case  at  last  either  breaks  down  or  becomes 
confirmed  by  such  an  accumulation  of  support  that 


METHOD  OF  SOLUTION  105 

doubt  is  no  longer  possible.  The  predominating 
element  in  what  we  call  circumstantial  evidence  is 
that  of  coincidences.  A  few  coincidences  we  may 
treat  as  simply  interesting  ;  a  number  of  coincidences 
we  regard  as  remarkable ;  a  vast  accumulation  of 
extraordinary  coincidences  we  accept  as  conclusive 
proof.  And  when  the  case  has  reached  this  stage 
we  look  upon  the  matter  as  finally  settled,  until,  as 
may  happen,  something  of  a  most  unusual  character 
appears  to  upset  all  our  reasoning.  If  nothing  of 
this  kind  ever  appears,  whilst  every  newly  dis- 
covered fact  adds  but  confirmation  to  the  conclusion, 
that  conclusion  is  accepted  as  a  permanently  estab- 
lished truth. 

The  above  is  an  epitome  of  the  method  of  research 
and  the  line  of  argument  we  have  followed.  In 
reviewing  the  work  done  the  critic  may  disagree  with 
one  or  other  of  the  points  on  which  we  have  insisted  ; 
he  may  regard  this  or  that  argument  as  trifling  or 
insufficient  in  itself,  and  it  is  possible  we  should  agree 
with  many  of  the  several  objections  he  might  raise. 
It  may  even  transpire  that,  notwithstanding  all  our 
efforts  to  ensure  accuracy,  we  have  fallen  into  serious 
mistakes  not  only  in  minor  details  but  even  upon 
important  points  :  a  danger  to  which  the  wanderer 
into  unwonted  fields  in  specially  liable.  It  is  not, 
however,  upon  any  point  separately,  but  upon  the 
manner  in  which  all  fit  in  with  one  another,  and 
form  a  coherent  whole,  that  the  case  rests  ;  and  it  is 
this  that  we  desire  should  be  kept  in  mind.  We 
proceed,  therefore,  to  present  a  short  statement  of 
the  details  of  the  method  of  enquiry,  outlining  its 
several  stages  as  determined  prior  to  entering  on  the 
search. 


io6        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

1.  As  a  first  step  it  would  be  necessary  to  examine 
the  works  of    Shakespeare,  almost  as  though  they 
had  appeared  for  the  first  time,  unassociated  with 
the  name  or  personality  of  any  writer  ;    and  from 
such  an  examination  draw  what  inferences  we  could 
as  to  his  character  and  circumstances.    The  various 
features  of  these  would  have  to  be  duly  tabulated, 
the  statement  so  arrived  at  forming  the  groundwork 
of  all  subsequent  investigation. 

2.  The  second  step  would  be  to  select  from  amongst 
the    various    characteristics    some    one    outstanding 
feature  which  might  serve  best  as  a  guide  in  proceed- 
ing to  search  for  the  author,  by  furnishing  some  para- 
mount criterion,  and  at  the  same  time  indicating  in 
some  measure  where  the  author  was  to  be  looked  for. 

3.  With  this  instrument  in  our  hands  the  third  step 
would  be  to  proceed  to  the  great  task  of  searching 
for  the  man. 

4.  In  the  event  of  discovering  any  man  who  should 
adequately  fulfil  the  prime  condition,  the  fourth  step 
would  be  to  test  the  selection  by  reference  to    the 
various    features    in    the    original    characterization; 
and,  in  the  event  of  his  failing  in  a  marked  degree 
to  meet  essential  conditions,  it  would   be   necessary 
to  reject  this  first  selection  and  resume  the  search. 

5.  Supposing    the    discovery    of    some    man     who 
should  in   a  general  way  have  passed    successfully 
through   this   crucial  test,  the  next   step  would  be 
to  reverse  the  whole  process.     Having  worked  from 
Shakespeare's  writings  to  the  man,  we  should  then 
begin  with  the  man  ;    taking  new  and  outstanding 
facts    about    his   performances    and    personality,  we 
should  have  to  enquire  to  what  extent  these  were 
reflected  in  Shakespeare's  works. 


METHOD  OF  SOLUTION  107 

6.  Then,  in  the  event  of  the  enquiry  yielding  satis- 
factory results  up  to  this  point  we  should  next  have 
to  accumulate  corroborative  evidence  and  apply 
tests  arising  out  of  the  course  of  the  investigation. 

.7.  The  final  step  would  be  to  develop  as  far  as 
possible  any  traces  of  a  personal  connection  between 
the  newly  accredited  and  the  formerly  reputed  authors 
of  the  works. 

This,  then,  was  the  method  outlined  at  the  start, 
and,  in  the  main,  adhered  to  throughout  the  investiga- 
tions we  are  about  to  describe  :  one  which  might  be 
justly  styled  a  coldly  analytical  process,  quite  at 
variance  with  literary  traditions  and  the  synthetic 
soul  of  poetry  but  which,  it  appeared,  was  the  method 
proper  to  the  case.  The  danger  of  the  plan  was, 
not  that  we  might  have  too  many  claimants  for  the 
honour,  but  that  its  severity  might  cause  us  to  pass 
over  the  very  man  for  whom  we  were  looking,  suppos- 
ing his  name  and  personality  were  really  accessible 
to  us.  At  any  rate,  it  avoided  the  random  picking 
first  of  one  man  and  then  of  another  in  the  hope  of 
alighting  eventually  on  the  right  one :  after  the 
manner  of  certain  other  investigations. 

Supposing,  and  it  is  a  perfectly  reasonable 
possibility,  that  every  other  trace  of  the  writer  has 
been  effectually  destroyed  beyond  what  we  have  in 
Shakespeare's  work,  then,  of  course,  the  enquiry 
must  in  the  end  prove  futile ;  for  any  false  selection 
would  almost  certainly  break  down  under  the  various 
tests,  leaving  an  altogether  negative  result  for  our 
efforts.  In  the  event  of  anything  like  a  really  good 
case  being  made  out  for  any  man  there  seemed  a 
chance  that  other  investigators  with  more  leisure, 
greater  resources,  and  a  readier  access  to  necessary 


io8        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

documents  than  the  present  writer  possesses,  might 
be  led  to  more  important  discoveries. 

Opinions  may  differ  as  to  the  soundness  or 
appropriateness  of  the  course  outlined  ;  but,  as  it  is 
the  result  of  researches  pursued  in  accordance  with 
it  that  we  are  about  to  describe,  it  was  necessary  to 
lay  bare  the  method  at  the  outset,  however  crude 
or  commonplace  it  may  appear  for  so  lofty  a  theme. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  AUTHOR — SOME  GENERAL  FEATURES 

THE  first  task — following  the  course  just  outlined — 
must  be  to  form,  from  a  general  survey  of  the  position 
as  a  whole,  and  from  a  review  of  the  contents  of  the 
writings,  some  conception  of  the  outstanding  charac- 
teristics of  the  author.  This  should  include  some 
legitimate  surmises  as  to  what  we  might  expect  to  be 
the  conditions  of  his  life,  and  the  relationship  of  his 
contemporaries  towards  him. 
Although  we  are  obliged,  from  the  nature  of  our  Of 

•LI  j.i         u-  •  11       nized  genius, 

problem,  to  assume  that  his  contemporanes  generally  and 
were  not  aware  of  his  producing  the  great  works,  it 
is  hardly  probable  that  one  endowed  with  so  com- 
manding a  genius  should  have  been  able  to  conceal 
the  greatness  of  his  powers  wholly  from  those  with 
whom  he  habitually  associated  ;  and  therefore  we  may 
reasonably  expect  to  find  him  a  man  of  recognized  and 
recorded  genius.  At  the  same  time  the  mysteriousness 
in  which  he  has  chosen  to  involve  the  production  of 
his  works  ought  not  to  have  escaped  the  observation 
of  others .  Consequently  we  may  suppose  that  he  would 
appear  to  many  of  the  people  about  him  something 
of  the  enigma  he  has  proved  to  posterity.  We  must  not 
look,  however,  for  an  exact  representation  of  actual 
facts  in  any  recorded  impressions  of  the  personality 
and  actions  of  the  man.  Between  what  contemporary 
records  represent  him  as  being,  and  what  he  really 
was,  we  ought,  indeed,  to  be  prepared  to  find  some 

109 


no        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

striking  discrepancies  :  the  important  thing  is  that 
there  must  be  some  notable  agreement  in  essentials. 
Certain  discordances  may,  however,  become  important 
evidence  in  his  favour.  For  example,  a  man  who  has 
produced  so  large  an  amount  of  work  of  the  highest 
quality,  and  was  not  seen  doing  it,  must  have  passed 
a  considerable  part  of  his  life  in  what  would  appear 
to  others  like  doing  nothing  of  any  consequence.  The 
record  of  a  wasted  genius  is,  therefore,  what  we  might 
reasonably  look  for  in  any  contemporary  account  of 
him. 

Apparent  Again,  unless  some  special  reasons  should  appear 

eccentricity.  ^o  account  for  his  self-effacement  we  are  bound  to 
recognize  that  the  whole  manner  of  his  anonymity 
marks  the  writer  as  being,  in  a  manner,  something  of 
an  eccentric  :  his  nature,  or  his  circumstances,  or 
probably  both,  were  not  normal.  And,  when  the  indi- 
cations of  his  intense  impressionability  are  considered, 
along  with  his  peculiar  power  of  entering  into  and 
reflecting  vividly  the  varied  moods,  fierce  passions 
and  subtle  movements  of  man's  mind  and  heart,  when 
the  magnitude  of  his  creative  efforts  is  weighed,  and 
account  taken  of  the  mental  exhaustion  which  fre- 
quently follows  from  such  efforts,  we  may  even  suppose 
that  he  was  not  altogether  immune  from  the  penalties 
that  have  sometimes  accompanied  such  powers  and 
performances.  Altogether  we  may  say  his  poetic 
temperament  and  the  exuberance  of  his  poetic  fancy 
mark  him  as  a  man  much  more  akin  mentally  to 
Byron  or  Shelley  than  to  the  placid  Shakespeare 
suggested  by  the  Stratford  tradition.  Add  to  this  his 
marvellous  insight  into  human  nature,  revealing  to 
him,  as  it  must  have  done,  such  springs  and  motives 
of  human  actions  as  would  be  hidden  from  his  asso- 


THE  AUTHOR—  GENERAL  FEATURES  in 

elates,  and  we  may  naturally  expect  to  find  him  giving 
vent  to  himself  in  acts  and  words  which  must  have 
seemed  extraordinary  and  inexplicable  to  other  men  : 
for  the  man  who  sees  most  deeply  into  the  inner 
workings  of  the  human  mind  must  often  act  upon 
knowledge  of  which  he  may  not  speak.  It  ought  not, 
therefore,  to  surprise  us  if  his  contemporaries  found 
him,  not  merely  eccentric  in  his  bearing,  as  they  have 
frequently  found  the  genius  whom  they  could  not 
understand,  but  even  on  occasion,  guilty  of  what 
seemed  to  them  vagaries  of  a  pronounced  type. 

The  possession  of  abnormal  powers,  and  a  highly  A  man 
strung  temperament  like  that  of  Byron  or  of  Shelley, 


interposes  a  barrier  between  a  man  and  his  social  tlonal- 
environment.  The  mediocrity,  and  what  seems  like 
the  insensibility  of  the  average  people  about  him, 
place  him  in  an  irritating  milieu,  against  which  he 
tends  to  protect  himself  by  a  mannerism,  sometimes 
merely  cold  and  aloof,  at  times  even  repellent  or 
defiant.  To  be  a  general  social  favourite  a  man  needs 
to  combine  with  personal  graces  a  certain  average  of 
intellect  and  sensibility,  which  assimilates  him  to 
the  generality  of  the  people  about  him.  The  poetic 
genius  has  always,  therefore,  been  more  or  less  a 
man  apart,  whose  very  aloofness  is  provocative  of  hos- 
tility in  smaller  men.  Towards  these  he  tries  to  assume 
a  mask,  often  most  difficult  to  penetrate  but  which, 
once  pierced,  may  necessitate  a  complete  reversal  of 
former  judgments  —  one  of  the  most  difficult  things 
to  accomplish  once  such  judgment  has  passed  beyond 
mere  individual  opinion,  and  has  taken  firm  root  in 
the  social  mind. 
We  venture  to  say  that,  whatever  course  the  dis-  Apparent 

.,,  .  ,.  ,       L   e    .  inferiority. 

cussion  may  take,  either  now  or  m  a  distant  future, 


H2         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

one  of  the  most  serious  hindrances  to  the  formation 
of  correct  views  will  be  the  necessity  of  reversing 
judgments  that  have  had  a  longstanding  social  sanction. 
We  shall  first  have  to  dissociate  from  the  writings  the 
conception  of  such  an  author  as  the  steady,  com- 
placent, business-like  man-of-t he-world,  suggested  by 
the  Stratford  Shakspere.  Then  there  will  be  the  more 
arduous  task  of  raising  to  a  most  exalted  position  the 
name  and  personality  possibly  of  some  obscure  man 
hitherto  regarded  as  quite  unequal  to  the  work  with 
which  he  is  at  last  to  be  credited.  And  this  will  further 
compel  us  to  re-read  our  greatest  national  classics  from 
a  totally  new  personal  standpoint .  The  work  in  question 
being  the  highest  literary  product  of  the  age,  it  cannot 
be  otherwise  than  that  the  author,  whoever  he  may 
have  been,  when  he  is  discovered  must  seem  in  some 
measure  below  the  requirements  of  the  situation ; 
unequal,  that  is,  to  the  production  of  such  work.  We 
shall  therefore  be  called  upon  in  his  case  radically  to 
modify  and  correct  a  judgment  of  three  hundred 
years'  standing. 

An  English-  Although  apparently  unequal  to  the  full  measure 
literary  °f  Shakespeare's  capacity,  there  is  a  natural  limit  to 
tastes-  such  allowable  inferiority  in  appearance.  It  might, 

in  a  given  instance,  be  so  great  as  to  make  it  absurd 
to  entertain  the  thought  of  connecting  the  man  with 
the  work.  His  writings  being  masterpieces  of  English 
literature,  and  all  the  world's  literary  masterpieces 
having  been  produced  by  men  who  wrote  in  their 
mother-tongue  of  matters  in  which  they  were  keenly 
interested,  and  to  whom  writing,  or  more  properly 
speaking  the  mental  occupation  of  composing,  has 
been  a  master  passion,  we  are  entitled  to  require  in 
the  person  put  forward  as  the  author  a  body  of 


THE  AUTHOR— GENERAL  FEATURES  113 

credentials  corresponding  to  the  character  of  the  work. 
That  is  to  say,  we  are  bound  to  assume  that  the  writer 
was  an  Englishman  with  dominating  literary  tastes, 
to  whom  the  classical  literature  of  the  world,  the  history 
of  England  during  the  period  of  the  Lancastrians  and 
Yorkists,  and  Italian  literature,  which  form  the  staple 
materials  of  his  work,  were  matters  of  absorbing 
interest,  furnishing  the  milieu  in  which  his  mind 
habitually  worked.  To  think  of  him  as  one  who 
made  an  excursion  into  literature  in  order  to  win  a 
competency  for  himself,  and  who  retired  from  literary 
pursuits  when  that  purpose  had  been  served,  is  to 
contradict  everything  that  is  known  of  the  production 
of  such  masterpieces.  Other  interests  he  may  have 
had,  just  as  men  who  were  chiefly  occupied  with  social 
and  political  affairs,  dabbled  also  in  literature,  poetry, 
or  the  drama  ;  but  what  to  them  was  a  mere  hobby 
or  pastime  would  be  to  him  a  central  and  consuming 
purpose.  Unless,  then,  we  are  to  recast  all  our  ideas 
of  how  the  great  things  of  literature  have  been 
achieved,  we  cannot  think  of  him  otherwise  than  as 
one  who  had  been  swept  by  the  irresistible  force  of 
his  own  genius  into  the  strong  literary  current  of  his 
times.  The  fact  that  he  was  himself  busy  producing 
such  works,  he  may  have  hidden  from  the  men  of  his 
day,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  hidden 
from  them  where  his  chief  interest  lay. 

Again,  the  great  mass  of  the  literature  he  has  given  Enthusiasm 
to  the  world  being  in  the  form  of  dramas,  we  may  for  drama- 
repeat  in  relation  to  this  particular  class  of  work  what 
has  already  been  said  of  literature  generally  :  namely, 
that  an  intense,  even  passionate  devotion  to  the  special 
form  of  art  in  which  his  masterpieces  are  produced  is 
invariably  characteristic  of  a  genius.    And  although, 
8 


H4         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

again,  this  writer's  absorption  may  have  been  partially 
concealed,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  it  could  have  been 
wholly  so.  We  are  entitled,  therefore,  to  expect  that 
"  Shakespeare  "  appeared  to  his  contemporaries  as  a 
man  over  whom  the  theatre  and  all  that  pertained  to 
play-acting  exercised  an  irresistible  fascination. 

Carlyle  treats  of  this  matter  as  though  play-writing 
were  but  an  incidental  element  in  "  Shakespeare's  " 
work  :  almost  an  accident  of  circumstances,  arising 
out  of  the  material  necessities  of  life.  He  "  had  to 
write  for  the  Globe  Playhouse  :  his  great  soul  had  to 
crush  itself,  as  it  could,  into  that  and  no  other  mould  " 
— the  particular  mould  in  which  he  worked  having 
evidently  no  necessary  connection  with  his  distinctive 
genius.  For  what  perversions  of  fundamental  truths 
has  not  the  orthodox  view  of  the  authorship  been 
responsible  !  The  world's  greatest  productions  in  a 
given  art  coming  from  a  man  to  whom  the  art  and  its 
essential  accessories  furnished  but  an  uncongenial 
medium  of  expression  !  His  special  domain  chosen 
for  him,  not  by  the  force  of  his  peculiar  genius,  but 
by  the  need  for  money  !  If  this  proved  true,  the  plays 
of  Shakespeare  would,  from  that  point  of  view  alone, 
probably  remain  for  all  time  unique  amongst  the 
masterpieces  of  art.  It  is  much  more  reasonable, 
however,  to  suppose  that  the  dramatist  was  one  who 
was  prepared  to  give  both  himself  and  his  substance 
to  the  drama,  rather  than  one  who  was  engaged  in 
extorting  a  subsistence  from  it. 

That  he  was  one  over  whom  the  theatre  exercised  a 
strong  attraction  is,  moreover,  borne  out  by  the 
contents  of  the  plays  themselves.  There  is  no  better 
key  to  the  interests  that  stir  the  enthusiasm  of  poets 
than,  on  the  one  hand  the  imagery  they  employ,  and 


THE  AUTHOR— GENERAL  FEATURES    115 

on  the  other  the  passages  in  their  works  which  arrest 
the  attention  of  their  readers  and  fix  themselves  in 
the  popular  memory.  It  hardly  needs  pointing  out 
how  frequently  in  Shakespeare's  works,  the  simile 
of  the  "  stage  "  recurs,  and  how  commonly  the  passages 
are  quoted.  We  must  expect,  therefore,  to  find  the 
author  of  the  writings  well  known  as  a  literary  and 
dramatic  enthusiast. 

To  represent  him  as  a  man  who,  having  made  a  Contrast  to 
snug  competency  for  himself,  left  dramatic  pursuits  Shakespeare! 
behind  him  voluntarily  whilst  still  in  the  full  enjoy- 
ment of  his  marvellous  powers,  abandoning  some  of 
his  unfinished  manuscripts  to  be  finished  by  strangers 
and  given  to  the  world  as  his,  in  order  that  he  might 
be  at  liberty  to  devote  himself  more  exclusively  to 
houses,  lands  and  business  generally,  is  to  suggest  a 
miracle  of  self-stultification  in  himself  and  an  equal 
miracle  of  credulity  in  us.  Yet  this  is  the  exact  position 
into  which  the  orthodox  view  forces  so  eminent  a 
scholar  and  literary  authority  as  Sir  Sidney  Lee. 
"  Shakespeare,"  he  says,  "  in  middle  life  brought  to 
practical  affairs  a  singularly  sane  and  sober  tempera- 
ment," acting  on  the  following  advice,  "  '  when  thou 
feelest  thy  purse  well  lined  buy  thou  some  piece  of 
lordship  in  the  country,  that  growing  weary  of  playing, 
thy  money  may  bring  thee  to  dignity  and  reputation.' 
It  was  this  prosaic  course  that  Shakespeare  followed. 
...  If  in  1611  Shakespeare  finally  abandoned  dra- 
matic composition,  there  seems  little  doubt  that  he 
left  with  the  manager  of  the  company  more  than  one 
play  that  others  were  summoned  at  a  later  date  to 
complete."  Thus  must  incongruities  be  piled  in- 
creasingly upon  one  another  if  we  are  to  make  the  man 
who  has  got  himself  credited  with  the  authorship 


Ii6       "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

adjusted  to  the  role  that  Fate  has  called  upon  him 
to  play.    Once,  however,  the  old  theory  is  repudiated 
we  are  bound  to  look  for  an  author  who  believed  with 
his  whole  soul  in  the  greatness  of  drama  and  the  high 
humanizing  possibilities  of  the  actor's  vocation. 
Known  as          Whether  attention  be  directed  to  the  contents  of 
poet™  t*16  dramas  or  to  his  other  writings,  no  one  will  question 

his  title  to  a  foremost  place  amongst  the  lyric  poets 
of  his  time.  It  is  questionable  whether  any  other 
dramatist  has  enriched  his  plays  with  an  equal  quantity 
— to  say  nothing  of  the  superior  quality — of  lyrical 
verse  ;  whilst  his  sonnets,  "  Venus  and  Adonis,"  and 
other  lyric  poems,  place  him  easily  amongst  the  best 
of  the  craftsmen  in  that  art.  Now,  although  his 
contemporaries  may  not  have  known  that  he  was 
producing  masterpieces  of  drama,  it  is  extremely 
improbable  that  his  production  of  lyric  verse  was  as 
completely  concealed.  He  may  have  hidden  lengthy 
poems  like  "  Venus  and  Adonis  "  or  "  Lucrece,"  or 
brought  them  out  under  a  nom-de-plume.  But  that  no 
fugitive  pieces  of  lyric  verse  should  ever  have  gained 
currency  under  his  own  name  is  hardly  possible.  The 
writer  with  the  facile  pen  for  lyrics  is  only  too  prone 
to  throw  out  his  spontaneous  products  lavishly,  some- 
times in  a  cruder  form  than  his  better  judgment  would 
approve.  Whilst,  therefore,  he  may  have  concealed 
the  actual  authorship  in  the  case  of  works  involving 
prolonged  and  arduous  application,  we  may  be  sure 
that  some  of  those  short  lyrics,  which  are  the  spon- 
taneous expression  of  passing  moods,  would  be  known 
and  appreciated.  We  may  expect,  therefore,  that  he 
was  actually  known  as  a  writer  of  lyric  verse. 

At  the  same  time  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  look  for 
anything  like  a  large  volume  of  such  poems  in  addition 


THE  AUTHOR— GENERAL  FEATURES  117 

to  the  Shakespearean  writings.  This  would  have 
necessitated  his  living  an  additional  lifetime.  A  few 
scattered  fragments  of  lyric  verse,  under  his  own 
name,  is  all  that  we  should  expect  to  find.  Elizabethan 
poetry  is,  however,  characterized  by  the  mass  of  its 
lyric  pieces  of  unknown  or  doubtful  authorship.  The 
mere  fact  that  a  person's  name  or  initials  are  attached 
to  a  fragment  is  never  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  he 
actually  wrote  it.  Tradition  alone,  or  the  mere  fact 
that  it  was  found  among  his  papers,  may  be  the  only 
ground  upon  which  he  is  credited  with  the  authorship. 
Nevertheless,  after  full  allowance  has  been  made  for 
the  peculiar  conditions  under  which  the  writing  and 
issuing  of  poetry  was  at  that  time  conducted,  it  remains 
highly  probable  that  the  writer  of  Shakespeare's 
works  has  left  something  authentic  published  under 
his  own  name  amongst  the  lyric  poetry  of  the  days  of 
Queen  Elizabeth. 

In  no  matter  has  the  hitherto  accepted  view  of  the  classical 
authorship  of  the  Shakespearean  writings  played  such 
sad  havoc  with  common  sense  as  in  the  matter  of  the 
relationship  of  genius  to  learning.  Place  the  documents 
before  any  mixed  jury  of  educated,  semi-educated,  and 
ignorant  men,  men  of  practical  common  sense,  and 
stupid  men,  and,  unless  for  some  prepossession,  they 
would  unanimously  declare,  without  hesitation,  that 
the  writer  was  one  whose  education  had  been  of  the 
very  best  that  the  times  could  offer.  And  even  a 
moderately  educated  set  of  men  would  assure  us  that 
it  was  not  the  mere  bookish  learning  of  the  poor, 
plodding  student  who  in  loneliness  had  wrested  from 
an  adverse  fate  an  education  beyond  what  was  enjoyed 
by  his  class.  There  is  nothing  in  Shakespeare  suggestive 
of  the  close  poring  over  books  by  which  a  man  of 


n8        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

scanty  educational  advantages  might  have^embellished 
his  pages  with  learned  allusions.  Everything  indicates 
a  man  in  contact  at  every  point  with  life  itself,  and  to 
whom  books  were  but  the  adjunct  to  an  habitual 
intercourse  with  men  of  intellectual  interests  similar 
to  his  own.  His  is  the  learning  which  belonged  to 
a  man  who  added  to  the  advantages  of  a  first  class 
education  at  the  start,  a  continued  association  with 
the  best  educated  people  of  his  day.  No  ordinary 
theory  of  genius  would  account  for  the  production  of 
the  plays  otherwise  ;  the  intervention  of  some  preter- 
natural agency  would  be  required. 

In  respect  of  the  leading  feature  of  his  learning 
one  would  judge  it  to  have  lain  in  the  direction  of 
classic  poetry.  There  is  "  law  "  in  his  works,  but  it 
is  open  to  question  whether  it  is  the  law  of  a  pro- 
fessional lawyer,  or  that  of  an  intelligent  man  who  had 
had  a  fair  amount  of  important  business  to  transact 
with  lawyers,  and  was  himself  interested  in  the  study 
of  law  as  many  laymen  have  been.  It  may  be  claimed 
that  there  is  "  medicine  "  in  his  writings,  but  it  is 
more  suggestive  of  the  man  accustomed  to  treat  his 
own  common  ailments,  than  that  of  a  medical  man 
accustomed  to  handle  patients.  There  are  indications 
of  the  dawning  movement  of  modern  science  in  his 
works,  but  they  are  such  as  suggest  a  man  alive  to  the 
intellectual  currents  of  his  time,  but  no  enthusiast  for 
a  merely  materialistic  science.  But  over  all  these  there 
presides^constantly  a  dominant  interest  in  classic  poetry. 

Summing  up  the  general  inferences  treated  in  this 
chapter,  supplemented  by  conclusions  drawn  from  the 
preceding  one,  we  may  say  of  Shakespeare  that  he 
was : — 

i.  A  matured  man  of  recognized  genius. 


THE  AUTHOR— GENERAL  FEATURES  119 

2.  Apparently  eccentric  and  mysterious. 

3.  Of  intense  sensibility — a  man  apart. 

4.  Unconventional. 

5.  Not  adequately  appreciated. 

6.  Of  pronounced  and  known  literary  tastes. 

7.  An  enthusiast  in  the  world  of  drama. 

8.  A  lyric  poet  of  recognized  talent. 

9.  Of  superior  education — classical — the  habitual 

associate  of  educated  people. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  AUTHOR — SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS 

OUR  object  in  the  last  chapter  being  to  form  a  con- 
ception of  some  of  the  broader  features  of  the  life  and 
character  of  Shakespeare,  our  present  object  must  be 
to  view  the  writings  at  closer  quarters  and  with  greater 
attention  to  details  so  as  to  deduce,  if  possible,  some 
of  his  more  distinctive  characteristics. 

Feudalism.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  insist  at  the  present  day 
that  Shakespeare  has  preserved  for  all  time,  in  living 
human  characters,  much  of  what  was  best  worth 
remembering  and  retaining  in  the  social  relationship 
of  the  Feudal  order  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Whatever 
conclusion  we  may  have  to  come  to  about  his  religion, 
it  is  undeniable  that,  from  the  social  and  political  point 
of  view,  Shakespeare  is  essentially  a  medievalist.  The 
following  sentence  from  Carlyle  may  be  taken  as  re- 
presentative of  much  that  might  be  quoted  from 
several  writers  bearing  in  the  same  direction:  "As 
Dante  the  Italian  man  was  sent  into  our  world  to 
embody  musically  the  Religion  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
the  Religion  of  our  Modern  Europe,  its  Inner  Life ; 
so  Shakespeare  we  may  say  embodies  for  us  the 
Outer  Life  of  our  Europe  as  developed  then,  its 
chivalries,  courtesies,  humours,  ambitions,  what  prac- 
tical way  of  thinking,  acting,  looking  at  the  world, 
men  then  had." 
When,  therefore,  we  find  that  the  great  Shake- 

120 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  121 

spearean  plays  were  written  at  a  time  when  men  were 
revelling  in  what  they  considered  to  be  a  newly-found 
liberation  from  Medievalism,  it  is  evident  that 
Shakespeare  was  one  whose  sympathies,  and  probably 
his  antecedents,  linked  him  on  more  closely  to  the 
old  order  than  to  the  new  :  not  the  kind  of  man  we 
should  expect  to  rise  from  the  lower  middle-class 
population  of  the  towns.  Whether  as  a  lord  or  a 
dependent  we  should  expect  to  find  him  one  who  saw 
life  habitually  from  the  standpoint  of  Feudal  relation- 
ships in  which  he  had  been  born  and  bred :  and  in  view 
of  what  has  been  said  of  his  education  it  would,  of 
course,  be  as  lord  rather  than  as  a  dependent  that  we 
should  expect  to  meet  him. 
It  might  be,  however,  that  he  was  only  linked  to  shakesPeare 

an 

Feudalism  by  cherished  family  traditions  ;  a  surviving  Aristocrat, 
representative,  maybe,  of  some  decayed  family.  A 
close  inspection  of  his  work,  however,  reveals  a  more 
intimate  personal  connection  with  aristocracy  than 
would  be  furnished  by  mere  family  tradition.  Kings 
and  queens,  earls  and  countesses,  knights  and  ladies 
move  on  and  off  his  stage  "  as  to  the  manner  born." 
They  are  no  mere  tinselled  models  representing  me- 
chanically the  class  to  which  they  belong,  but  living 
men  and  women.  It  is  rather  his  ordinary  "  citizens  " 
that  are  the  automata  walking  woodenly  on  to  the 
stage  to  speak  for  their  class.  His  "  lower-orders  " 
never  display  that  virile  dignity  and  largeness  of 
character  which  poets  like  Burns,  who  know  the  class 
from  within,  portray  in  their  writings.  Even  Scott 
comes  much  nearer  to  truth  in  this  matter  than  does 
Shakespeare.  It  is,  therefore,  not  merely  his  power 
of  representing  royalty  and  the  nobility  in  vital, 
passionate  characters,  but  his  failure  to  do  the  same 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

in  respect  to  other  classes  that  marks  Shakespeare  as 
a  member  of  the  higher  aristocracy.  The  defects  of 
the  playwriter  become  in  this  instance  more  illuminating 
and  instructive  than  do  his  qualities.  Genius  may 
undoubtedly  enable  a  man  to  represent  with  some 
fidelity  classes  to  which  he  does  not  belong ;  it  will 
hardly  at  the  same  time  weaken  his  power  of  repre- 
senting truly  his  own  class.  In  a  great  dramatic  artist 
we  demand  universality  of  power  within  his  province  ; 
but  he  shows  that  catholicity,  not  by  representing 
human  society  in  all  its  forms  and  phases,  but  by 
depicting  our  common  human  nature  in  the  entire 
range  of  its  multiple  and  complex  forces  ;  and  he  does 
this  best  when  he  shows  us  that  human  nature  at  work 
in  the  classes  with  which  he  is  most  intimate.  The 
suggestion  of  an  aristocratic  author  for  the  plays  is, 
therefore,  the  simple  common  sense  of  the  situation, 
and  is  no  more  in  opposition  to  modern  democratic 
tendencies,  as  one  writer  loosely  hints,  than  the  belief 
that  William  Shakspere  was  indebted  to  aristocratic 
patrons  and  participated  in  the  enclosure  of  common 
lands. 

An  aristocratic  outlook  upon  life  marks  the  plays 
of  other  dramatists  of  the  time  besides  Shakespeare. 
These  were  known,  however,  in  most  cases  to  have 
been  university  men,  with  a  pronounced  contempt 
for  the  particular  class  to  which  William  Shakspere 
of  Stratford  belonged.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  however, 
that  a  writer  like  Creizenach,  who  seems  never  to 
doubt  the  Stratfordian  view,  nevertheless  recognizes 
that  "  Shakespeare "  was  more  purely  and  truly 
aristocratic  in  his  outlook  than  were  the  others.  In 
a  word,  the  plays  which  are  recognized  as  having  the 
most  distinct  marks  of  aristocracy  about  them,  are 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  123 

supposed  to  have  been  produced  by  the  playwright 
furthest  removed  from  aristocracy  in  his  origin  and 
antecedents. 

We  feel  entitled,  therefore,  to  claim  for  Shakespeare 
high  social  rank,  and  even  a  close  proximity  to  royalty 
itself. 

Assuming  him  to  have  been  an  Englishman  of  the  Lancastrian 
higher  aristocracy,  we  turn  now  to  these  parts  of  his  symPathies- 
writings  that  may  be  said  to  deal  with  his  own  phase 
of  life,  namely,  his  English  historical  plays,  to  seek  for 
distinctive  traces  of  position  and  personality.  Putting 
aside  the  greater  part  of  the  plays  "  Henry  VI,"  parts 
i  and  2,  as  not  being  from  Shakespeare's  pen,  and  also 
the  first  acts  of  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3,  for  the  same 
reason,  we  may  say  that  he  deals  mainly  with  the 
troubled  period  between  the  upheaval  in  the  reign  of 
Richard  II  and  the  ending  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses 
by  the  downfall  of  Richard  III  at  the  Battle  of  Bos- 
worth.  The  outstanding  feature  of  this  work  is  his 
pronounced  sympathy  with  the  Lancastrian  cause. 
Even  the  play  of  "  Richard  II,"  which  shows  a  measure 
of  sympathy  with  the  king  whom  the  Lancastrians 
ousted,  is  full  of  Lancastrian  partialities.  "  Shake- 
speare "  had  no  sympathy  with  revolutionary 
movements  and  the  overturning  of  established  govern- 
ments. Usurpation  of  sovereignty  would,  therefore, 
be  repugnant  to  him,  and  his  aversion  is  forcibly 
expressed  in  the  play  ;  but  Henry  of  Lancaster  is 
represented  as  merely  concerned  with  claiming  his 
rights,  desiring  to  uphold  the  authority  of  the  crown, 
but  driven  by  the  injustice  and  perversity  of  Richard 
into  an  antagonism  he  strove  to  avoid.  Finally,  it  is 
the  erratic  wilfulness  of  the  king,  coupled  with  Henry's 
belief  that  the  king  had  voluntarily  abdicated,  that 


124         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

induces  Bolingbroke  to  accept  the  throne.  In  a  word, 
the  play  of  "  Richard  II  "  is  a  kind  of  dramatic 
apologia  for  the  Lancastrians.  Then  comes  the  glori- 
fication of  Prince  Hal,  "  Shakespeare's  "  historic  hero. 
Henry  VI  is  the  victim  of  misfortunes  and  machinations, 
and  is  handled  with  great  tenderness  and  respect. 
The  play  of  "  Richard  III  "  lays  bare  the  internal 
discord  of  the  Yorkist  faction,  the  downfall  and  de- 
struction of  the  Yorkist  arch-villain,  and  the  triumph 
of  Henry  of  Richmond,  the  representative  of  the 
House  of  Lancaster,  who  had  received  the  nomination 
and  benediction  of  Henry  VI.  We  might  naturally 
expect,  therefore,  to  find  Shakespeare  a  member  of 
some  family  with  distinct  Lancastrian  leanings. 
Italian  Having  turned  our  attention  to  the  different  classes 

enthusiasm.  oj  pjays  we  are  again  faced  with  the  question  of  his 
Italianism.  Not  only  are  we  impressed  by  the  large 
number  of  plays  with  an  Italian  setting  or  derived 
from  Italian  sources,  but  we  feel  that  these  plays  carry 
us  to  Italy  in  a  way  that  "  Hamlet  "  never  succeeds 
in  carrying  us  to  Denmark,  nor  his  French  plays  in 
carrying  us  to  France.  Even  in  "  Hamlet  "  he  seems 
almost  to  go  out  of  his  way  to  drag  in  a  reference  to 
Italy.  Those  who  know  Italy  and  are  familiar  with 
the  "  Merchant  of  Venice "  tell  us  that  there  are 
clear  indications  that  Shakespeare  knew  Venice  and 
Milan  personally.  However  that  may  be,  it  is  impos- 
sible for  those  who  have  had,  at  any  time,  an  interest 
in  nothing  more  than  the  language  and  literature  of 
Italy,  to  resist  the  feeling  that  there  is  thrown  about 
these  plays  an  Italian  atmosphere  suggestive  of  one 
who  knew  and  felt  attracted  towards  the  country. 
Everything  bespeaks  an  Italian  enthusiast. 
Sport.  Going  still  more  closely  into  detail,  it  has  often  been 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  123 

observed  that  Shakespeare's  interest  in  animals  is 
seldom  that  of  the  naturalist,  almost  invariably  that 
of  the  sportsman ;  and  some  of  the  supporters  of  the 
Stratfordian  tradition  have  sought  to  establish  a 
connection  between  this  fact  and  the  poaching  of 
William  Shakspere.  When,  however,  we  look  closely 
into  the  references  we  are  struck  with  his  easy  famili- 
arity with  all  the  terms  relating  to  the  chase.  Take 
Shakespeare's  entire  sportsman's  vocabulary,  find  out 
the  precise  significance  of  each  unusual  term,  and  the 
reader  will  probably  get  a  more  distinct  vision  of  the 
sporting  pastimes  of  the  aristocracy  of  that  day  than 
he  would  get  in  any  other  way.  Add  to  this  all  the 
varied  vocabulary  relating  to  hawks  and  falconry, 
observe  the  insistence  with  which  similes,  metaphors 
and  illustrations  drawn  from  the  chase  and  hawking 
appear  throughout  his  work,  and  it  becomes  impossible 
to  resist  the  belief  that  he  was  a  man  who  had  at  one 
time  found  his  recreation  and  delight  in  these  aristo- 
cratic pastimes. 

His  keen  susceptibility  to  the  influence  of  music  Music, 
is  another  characteristic  that  frequently  meets  us  ; 
and  most  people  will  agree  that  the  whole  range  of 
English  literature  may  be  searched  in  vain  for  passages 
that  more  accurately  or  more  fittingly  describe  the 
charm  and  power  of  music  than  do  certain  lines  in 
the  pages  of  Shakespeare.  The  entire  passage  on  music 
in  the  final  act  of  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  be- 
ginning "  Look  how  the  floor  of  heaven,"  right  on  to 
the  closing  words  "  Let  no  such  man  be  trusted,"  is 
itself  music,  and  is  probably  as  grand  a  paeon  in  honour 
of  music  as  can  be  found  in  any  language. 

Nothing  could  well  be  clearer  in  itself,  nor  more  at  Money 
variance  with  what  is  known  of  the  man  William  matters- 


126         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Shakspere  than  the  dramatist's  attitude  towards 
money.  It  is  the  man  who  lends  money  gratis,  and  so 
"  pulls  down  the  rate  of  usuance"  in  Venice,  that  is 
the  hero  of  the  play  just  mentioned.  His  friend  is  the 
incorrigible  spendthrift  and  borrower  Bassanio,  who 
has  "  disabled  his  estate  by  showing  a  more  swelling 
port  than  his  faint  means  would  grant  continuance," 
and  who  at  last  repairs  his  broken  fortunes  by  marriage. 
Almost  every  reference  to  money  and  purses  is  of  the 
loosest  description,  and,  by  implication,  teach  an 
improvidence  that  would  soon  involve  any  man's 
financial  affairs  in  complete  chaos.  It  is  the  arch- 
villain,  lago,  who  urges  "  put  money  in  thy  purse," 
and  the  contemptible  politician,  Polonius,  who  gives 
the  careful  advice  "  neither  a  borrower  nor  a  lender 
be  ";  whilst  the  money-grubbing  Shylock,  hoist  with 
his  own  petard,  is  the  villain  whose  circumvention 
seems  to  fill  the  writer  with  an  absolute  joy. 

It  ought  not  to  surprise  us  if  the  author  himself 
turned  out  to  be  one  who  had  felt  the  grip  of  the 
money-lender,  rather  than  a  man  like  the  Stratford 
Shakspere,  who,  after  he  had  himself  become  pros- 
perous, prosecuted  others  for  the  recovery  of  petty  sums. 

Of  the  Stratford  man,  Pope  asserts  that  "  Gain  not 
glory  winged  his  roving  flight."  And  Sir  Sidney  Lee 
amplifies  this  by  saying  that  "  his  literary  attainments 
and  successes  were  chiefly  valued  as  serving  the  prosaic 
end  of  providing  permanently  for  himself  and  his 
daughters."  Yet  in  one  of  his  early  plays  ("Henry  IV," 
part  2)  "  Shakespeare  "  expresses  himself  thus  : — 

"  How  quickly  nature  falls  into  revolt 
When  gold  becomes  her  object. 
For  this  the  foolish  over-careful  fathers 
Have  broke  their  sleep  with  thoughts,  their  brains  with  care, 
Their  bones  with  industry  ; 
For  this  they  have  engrossed  and  piled  up 
The  canker 'd  heaps  of  strange  achieved  gold." 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  127 

From  its  setting  the  passage  is  evidently  the  ex- 
pression of  the  writer's  own  thought  rather  than  an 
element  of  the  dramatization. 

Finally  we  have,  again  in  an  early  play,  his  great 
hero  of  tragic  love,  Romeo,  exclaiming  : — 

"  There  is  thy  gold,  worse  poison  to  men's  souls, 
Doing  more  murders  in  this  loathsome  world 
Than  these  poor  compounds." 

In  a  word,  the  Stratfordian  view  requires  us  to  write 
our  great  dramatist  down  as  a  hypocrite.  The  attitude 
of  William  Shakspere  to  money  matters  may  have 
had  about  it  all  the  "  sobriety  of  personal  aims  and 
sanity  of  mental  attitude  "  claimed  for  it.  In  which 
case,  the  more  clearly  he  had  represented  his  own 
attitude  in  his  works  the  greater  would  have  been 
their  fidelity  to  objective  fact.  Money  is  a  social 
institution,  created  by  the  genius  of  the  human  race 
to  facilitate  the  conduct  of  life ;  and,  under  normal 
conditions,  it  is  entitled  to  proper  attention  and  respect. 
Under  given  conditions,  however,  it  may  so  imperil 
the  highest  human  interests,  as  to  justify  an  intense 
reaction  against  it,  and  even  to  call  for  repudiation 
and  contempt  from  those  moral  guides,  amongst  whom 
we  include  the  great  poets,  who  are  concerned  with 
the  higher  creations  of  man's  intellectual  and  moral 
nature.  Such,  we  judge,  was  the  dramatist's  attitude 
to  money. 

The  points  treated  so  far  have  been  somewhat  on  woman, 
the  surface  ;  and  most,  if  not  all,  might  be  found 
adequately  supported  by  other  writers.  There  are, 
however,  two  other  matters  on  which  it  would  be  well 
to  have  Shakespeare's  attitude  defined,  if  such  were 
possible,  before  proceeding  to  the  next  stage  of  the 


128         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

enquiry.  These  are  his  mental  attitude  towards 
Woman,  and  his  relation  to  Catholicism. 

Ruskin's  treatment  of  the  former  point  in  "  Sesame 
and  Lilies  "  is  well  known,  but  not  altogether  con- 
vincing. He,  and  others  who  adopt  the  same  line  of 
thought,  seem  not  sufficiently  to  discriminate  between 
what  comes  as  a  kind  of  aura  from  the  medieval 
chivalries  and  what  is  distinctly  personal.  Moreover, 
the  business  of  a  dramatist  being  to  represent  every 
variety  of  human  character,  it  must  be  doubtful 
whether  any  characterization  represents  his  views  as 
a  whole,  or  whether,  indeed,  it  may  not  only  represent 
a  kind  of  Utopian  idealism.  Some  deference,  too, 
must  be  paid  by  a  playwriter  to  the  mind  and  require- 
ments of  his  contemporary  public  ;  and  the  literature 
of  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth  does  certainly  attest 
a  respectful  treatment  of  Woman  at  that  period.  In 
quotations  from  Shakespeare  on  this  theme,  however, 
one  is  more  frequently  met  with  suggestions  of  Woman's 
frailty  and  changeableness.  In  his  greatest  play, 
"  Hamlet,"  there  are  but  two  women  ;  one  weak  in 
character,  the  other  weak  in  intellect,  and  Hamlet 
trusts  neither. 

Shakespeare,  however,  is  a  writer  of  other  things 
besides  dramas.  He  has  left  us  a  large  number  of 
sonnets,  and  the  sonnet,  possibly  more  than  any  other 
form  of  composition,  has  been  the  vehicle  for  the 
expression  of  the  most  intimate  thoughts  and  feelings 
of  poets.  Almost  infallibly,  one  might  say,  do  a  man's 
sonnets  directly  reveal  his  soul.  The  sonnets  of 
"  Shakespeare,"  especially,  have  a  ring  of  reality  about 
them  quite  inconsistent  with  the  fanciful  non-bio- 
graphical interpretation  which  Stratfordiankm  would 
attach  to  them.  Examining,  then,  these  sonnets  we 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  129 

find  that  there  are,  in  fact,  two  sets  of  them.  By 
far  the  larger  and  more  important  set  embracing  no 
less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  out  of  a  total 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty-four,  is  addressed  to  a  young 
man,  and  express  a  tenderness,  which  is  probably 
without  parallel  in  the  recorded  expressions  of  emotional 
attachment  of  one  man  to  another.  At  the  same  time 
there  occurs  in  this  very  set  the  following  reference  to 
woman  : — 

"  A  woman's  face  with  Nature's  own  hand  painted,  Mistrust 

Hast  thou,  the  master  mistress  of  my  passion  ;  and 

A  woman's  gentle  heart,  but  not  acquainted  affection. 

With  shifting  change,  as  is  false  woman's  fashion  ; 
An  eye  more  bright  than  theirs,  less  falseUnJ rolling." 

The  second  set  of  sonnets,  comprising  only  twenty- 
eight,  as  against  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  in  the 
first  set,  is  probably  the  most  painful  for  Shakespeare 
admirers  to  read,  of  all  that  "  Shakespeare "  has 
written.  It  is  the  expression  of  an  intensely  passionate 
love  for  some  woman  ;  but  love  of  a  kind  which  cannot 
be  accurately  described  otherwise  than  as  morbid 
emotion  ;  a  combination  of  affection  and  bitteiness  ; 
tenderness,  without  a  touch  of  faith  or  of  true  ad- 
miration. 

"  Two  loves  I  have  of  comfort  and  despair, 
Which,  like  two  spirits,  do  suggest  me  still. 
The  better  angel  is  a  man  right  fair. 
The  worser  spirit,  a  woman,  coloured  ill." 

"  In  loving  thee  (the  woman)  thou  knowest  I  am 

forsworn, 

***** 
And  all  my  honest  faith  in  thee  is  lost." 

"  I  have  sworn  thee  fair  and  thought  thee  bright, 
Who  art  as  black  as  bell  and  dark  as  night," 


130         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Whether  this  mistrust  was  constitutional  or  the 
outcome  of  unfortunate  experiences  is  irrelevant  to 
our  present  purpose.  The  fact  of  its  existence  is  what 
matters.  Whilst,  then,  we  have  comparatively  so  little 
bearing  on  the  subject,  and  that  little  of  such  a 
nature,  we  shall  not  be  guilty  of  over-statement  if  we 
say  that  though  he  was  capable  of  great  affection,  and 
had  a  high  sense  of  the  ideal  in  womanhood,  his  faith 
in  the  women  with  whom  he  was  directly  associated 
was  weak,  and  his  relationship  towards  them  far  from 
perfect. 

Catholicism.  To  deduce  the  dramatist's  religious  point  of  view 
from  his  plays  is  perhaps  the  most  difficult  task  of  all. 
Taking  the  general  religious  conditions  of  his  time  into 
consideration  there  are  only  two  broad  currents  to  be 
reckoned  with.  Puritanism  had  no  doubt  already 
assumed  appreciable  proportions  as  a  further  develop- 
ment of  the  Protestant  idea  ;  but,  for  our  present 
purpose,  the  broader  currents  of  Catholicism  and 
Protestantism  are  all  that  need  be  considered.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  Protestantism  was  at  that  time 
in  the  ascendant,  whilst  Catholicism  was  under  a  cloud, 
a  writer  of  plays  intended  for  immediate  represen- 
tation whose  leanings  were  Protestant  would  be  quite 
at  liberty  to  expose  his  personal  leanings,  whilst  a 
pronounced  Roman  Catholic  would  need  to  exercise 
greater  personal  restraint.  Now  it  is  impossible  to 
detect  in  "  Shakespeare  "  any  Protestant  bias  or  any 
support  of  those  principles  of  individualism  in  which 
Protestantism  has  its  roots.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
seems  as  catholic  as  the  circumstances  of  his  times 
and  the  conditions  under  which  he  worked  would 
allow  him  to  be.  Macaulay  has  the  following  interesting 
passage  on  the  point  : — 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  131 

"  The  partiality  of  Shakespeare  for  Friars  is  well 
known.  In  '  Hamlet '  the  ghost  complains  that  he 
died  without  extreme  unction,  and,  in  defiance  of  the 
article  which  condemns  the  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
declares  that  he  is 

"  Confined  to  fast  in  fires, 
Till  the  foul  crimes,  done  in  his  days  of  nature, 
Are  burnt  and  purged  away." 

These  lines,  we  suspect,  would  have  raised  a  tre- 
mendous storm  in  the  theatre  at  any  time  during  the 
reign  of  Charles  the  Second.  They  were  clearly  not 
written  by  a  zealous  Protestant  for  zealous  Pro- 
testants." 

We  may  leave  his  attitude  towards  Catholicism  at 
that ;  except  to  add  that,  if  he  was  really  a  Catholic, 
the  higher  calls  of  his  religion  to  devotion  and  to  dis- 
cipline probably  met  with  only  an  indifferent  response. 
It  is  necessary,  moreover,  to  point  out  that  Auguste 
Comte  in  his  "  Positive  Polity  "  refers  to  "  Shake- 
speare "  as  a  sceptic. 

To  the  nine  points  enumerated  at  the  end  of  the  last  Summary, 
chapter  we  may  therefore  add  the  following  : — 

1.  A  man  with  Feudal  connections. 

2.  A  member  of  the  higher  aristocracy. 

3.  Connected  with  Lancastrian  supporters. 

4.  An  enthusiast  for  Italy. 

5.  A  follower  of  sport  (including  falconry). 

6.  A  lover  of  music. 

7.  Loose  and  improvident  in  money  matters. 

8.  Doubtful    and    somewhat    conflicting    in    his 

attitude  to  woman. 

9.  Of  probable   Catholic  leanings,   but   touched 

with  scepticism. 


132         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Such  a  characterization  of  Shakespeare  as  we  have 
here  presented  was,  of  course,  impossible  so  long  as 
the  Stratford  tradition  dominated  the  question  ;  for 
there  is  scarcely  a  single  point  that  is  not  more  or  less 
in  contradiction  to  that  tradition.  Since,  however, 
people  have  begun  to  throw  off  the  dominance  of  the 
old  theory  in  respect  to  the  authorship  of  the  plays, 
the  most,  if  not  all  of  the  points  we  have  been  urging 
have  been  pointed  out  at  one  time  or  other  by  different 
writers  ;  as  well,  no  doubt,  as  other  important  points 
of  difference  which  we  have  overlooked.  If,  then, 
it  be  urged  that  there  is  not  a  single  original  observation 
in  the  whole  of  these  two  chapters,  then  so  much  the 
better  for  the  argument ;  for  such  a  criticism  would 
but  add  authority  to  the  delineation  and  we  should, 
moreover,  feel  that  the  statement  had  been  kept 
freer  from  the  influence  of  subsequent  discoveries  than 
we  can  hope  to  be  the  case. 

Although  these  subsequent  discoveries  have  doubt- 
less affected  in  some  degree  the  manner  in  which  the 
present  statement  is  made,  the  several  points,  along 
with  other  minor  and  more  hypothetical  matters, 
were  roughly  outlined  before  the  search  was  begun  ; 
whilst  the  statement  as  here  presented  was  written, 
substantially  as  it  stands  now,  in  the  first  days  of  the 
investigations  :  as  soon,  that  is  to  say,  as  it  seemed 
that  the  researches  were  going  to  prove  fruitful.  There 
are  some  of  the  above  points  which  we  should  now 
be  disposed  to  modify  and  others  which  we  should  like 
to  develop.  The  appearance  of  others  of  them  in  the 
interpolated  anti-Stratfordian  chapter  would  under 
ordinary  conditions  have  required  their  omission  here. 
As,  however,  one  of  our  objects  is  to  represent  some- 
thing of  the  way  in  which  the  argument  has  developed 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  133 

almost  spontaneously — in  some  respects  one  of  the 
strongest  evidences  of  its  truth — we  leave  the  state- 
ment, with  what  vulnerable  points  it  contains,  to 
remain  as  it  is. 

The  various  points  are,  indeed,  the  outcome  of  the 
labours  and  criticisms  of  many  minds  spread  over  a 
number  of  years,  and  it  may  be  that  the  only  thing 
original  about  the  statement  is  the  gathering  together 
and  tabulating  of  the  various  old  points.  So  collected, 
these  seem  to  demand  such  an  aggregate  and  unusual 
combination  of  conditions  that  it  is  hardly  probable 
that  any  man  other  than  the  actual  author  of  the  plays 
himself  could  possibly  fulfil  them  all.  When  to  this 
we  add  the  further  condition  that  the  man  answering 
to  the  description  must  also  be  situated,  both  in  time 
and  external  circumstances,  as  to  be  consistent  with 
the  production  of  the  work,  we  get  the  feeling  that  if 
such  a  man  can  be  discovered  it  must  be  none  other 
than  the  author  himself. 

With  this  we  complete  the  first  stage  of  our  task 
which  was  to  characterize  the  author  from  a  con- 
sideration of  the  work. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  SEARCH  AND  DISCOVERY 

"  Time's  glory  is  to  calm  contending  Kings, 
To  unmask  falsehood  and  bring  truth  to  light." 

(Lucrece  135) 

AT  this  point  I  must  ask  for  the  reader's  indulgence 
for  a  change  in  the  method  of  exposition.  What  must 
be  now  stated  is  so  purely  a  personal  experience,  that 
it  will  facilitate  matters  if,  even  at  the  risk  of  apparent 
egotism,  I  adopt  frankly  the  First  Person  Singular. 
Perhaps,  in  view  of  certain  admissions  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  make,  it  may  become  evident  that  there  could 
be  little  ground  for  any  egotism.  At  all  events,  the 
mode  of  presentation  seems  essential  to  the  argument, 
and  that,  it  appears  to  me,  is  all  the  justification  it 
requires. 

Choice  of  a         In  accordance  with  the  plan  upon  which  the  in- 
guide.  vestigation  had  been  instituted,  the  author  had  been 

characterized  from  an  examination  of  his  works.  The 
next  step  was  to  proceed  to  search  for  him.  The 
method  of  search  was  to  select  from  the  various 
features  some  one  which,  by  furnishing  a  crucial  test 
and  standard  of  measurement,  would  afford  the  surest 
guidance.  Now,  if  there  had  been  any  likelihood  of 
his  having  left  other  dramas  under  his  own  name,  this 
would  certainly  have  been  the  best  line  to  follow.  A 
little  reflection,  however,  soon  convinced  me  that  not 
much  was  to  be  hoped  for  in  this  direction  ;  for  already 
the  experts  have  been  able  to  discriminate  to  a  very 

134 


THE  SEARCH  AND   DISCOVERY        135 

large  extent  between  what  is  really  his  and  what  is 
not  his,  in  writings  that,  for  centuries,  had  been 
regarded  as  pure  Shakespearean  work ;  and  this  process 
is  going  on  progressively  as  the  distinctive  qualities  of 
his  work  are  being  more  clearly  perceived.  Con- 
sequently, had  whole  plays  of  his  existed  elsewhere  it 
is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  would  have  been 
recognized  before  now. 

The  point  which  promised  to  be  most  fruitful  in 
results,  supposing  he  had  left  other  traces  of  himself, 
was  his  lyric  poetry.  The  reasons  for  this  choice  have 
already  been  indicated  in  the  chapter  in  which  the 
lyric  powers  of  Shakespeare  are  discussed.  It  was, 
therefore,  to  the  Elizabethan  lyric  poets  that  I  must 

go- 

This  decision  marked  the  second  stage  in  the  enquiry  ; 
I  must  now  proceed  to  the  third  and  most  important, 
namely  the  actual  work  of  searching  for  the  author. 

Whether  the  scantiness  of  my  own  knowledge  of  Narrowing 
this  department  of  literature  at  the  time  was  a  operations, 
hindrance  or  a  help  it  is  impossible  now  to  say  positively. 
Certainly,  it  was  the  very  imperfection  of  my  know- 
ledge that  decided  the  method  of  search,  and  this, 
along  with  a  fortunate  chance,  was  the  immediate 
cause  of  whatever  success  has  been  achieved.  In 
addition  to  "  Shakespeare's  "  works,  parts  of  Edmund 
Spenser's  and  Philip  Sidney's  poems  were  all  that  I 
could  claim  to  know  of  Elizabethan  poetry  at  the 
time.  Beyond  this  I  had  only  a  dim  sense  of  a  vast, 
rich  literary  region  that  I  had  not  explored,  but  in 
which  a  number  of  names  were  indiscriminately 
scattered. 

To  plunge  headlong  into  this  unexplored  domain  in 
search  of  a  man,  who,  on  poetic  grounds  alone — for 


136        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

that  I  deemed  to  be  essential — might  be  selected  as 
the  possible  author  of  the  world's  greatest  dramas, 
seemed,  at  first,  a  well-nigh  hopeless  task.  The  only 
way  was  to  compensate,  if  possible,  my  lack  of  know- 
ledge by  the  adoption  of  some  definite  system.  What 
was  possibly  a  faulty  piece  of  reasoning  served  at  this 
point  in  good  stead.  I  argued  that  when  he  entered 
upon  the  path  of  anonymity,  wherein  he  had  done  his 
real  life's  work,  he  had  probably  ceased  altogether  to 
publish  in  his  own  name  ;  and  that,  dividing  his  work 
into  two  parts,  we  should  find  the  natural  point  of 
contact  between  the  two,  the  point,  therefore,  at  which 
discovery  was  most  likely  to  take  place,  just  where  his 
anonymous  work  begins.  Now  the  poet  himself  comes 
to  our  aid  at  this  juncture.  He  calls  his  "  Venus  and 
Adonis,"  published  in  1593,  under  the  name  of  William 
Shakespeare,  "  the  first  heir  of  my  invention"  (see  the 
dedication  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton) .  I  must,  there- 
fore, try  to  work  from  this  poem,  to  the  work  of  some 
lyric  writer  of  the  same  period. 

The  point  Turning  to  this  "  first  heir  "  I  read  a  number  of 
stanzas  with  a  vague  idea  that  the  reading  might 
suggest  some  line  of  action.  As  I  read,  with  the 
thought  uppermost  in  my  mind  of  it  being  an  early 
work,  kept  in  manuscript  for  some  years  and  now 
published  for  the  first  time,  I  soon  came  to  feel  that 
the  expression  "  first  heir "  was  to  be  interpreted 
somewhat  relatively  ;  being  possibly  the  first  work  of 
any  considerable  size:  whereas  the  writer  had  as  a 
matter  of  fact  already  become  a  practised  hand  in  the 
particular  form  of  stanza  he  employed.  Except  for 
the  fact  that  "  Shakespeare  "  has  proved  too  blinding 
a  light  for  most  men's  eyes  we  should  long  ago  have 
rejected  the  idea  that  he  actually  "  led  off  "  on  his 


THE  SEARCH  AND   DISCOVERY        137 

literary  career  with  so  lengthy  and  finished  a  work  as 
"  Venus  and  Adonis."  At  any  rate  the  facility  with 
which  he  uses  the  particular  form  of  stanza  employed 
in  this  poem  pointed  to  his  having  probably  used  it 
freely  in  shorter  lyrics.  I  decided,  therefore,  to  work, 
first  of  all,  on  the  mere  form  of  the  stanza.  This  may 
appear  a  crude  and  mechanical  way  of  setting  about 
an  enquiry  of  this  kind.  It  was,  at  any  rate,  a  simple 
instrument  and  needed  little  skill  in  handling.  All 
that  was  necessary  was  to  observe  the  number  and 
length  of  the  lines — six  lines,  each  of  ten  syllables — 
and  the  order  of  the  rhymes  :  alternate  rhymes  for 
the  first  four  lines,  the  whole  finishing  with  a  rhymed 
couplet. 

With  this  in  mind  I  turned  to  an  anthology  of 
sixteenth-century  poetry,  and  went  through  it,  marking  quest, 
off  each  piece  written  in  the  form  of  stanza  identical 
with  that  employed  by  Shakespeare  in  his  "  Venus 
and  Adonis."  They  turned  out  to  be  much  fewer  than 
I  had  anticipated.  These  I  read  through  several  times, 
familiarizing  myself  with  their  style  and  matter, 
rejecting  first  one  and  then  another  as  being  unsuitable, 
until  at  last  only  two  remained.  One  of  these  was 
anonymous  ;  consequently  I  was  left  ultimately  with 
only  one:  the  following  poem  on  "Women,"  by 
Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of  Oxford — the  only  poem  by 
this  author  given  in  the  anthology  and  also  the  only 
poem  of  his,  as  I  afterwards  noticed,  that  Palgrave 
gives  in  his  "  Golden  Treasury." 

"  If  women  could  be  fair  and  yet  not  fond,  AB  impor- 

Or  that  their  love  were  firm  not  fickle,  still,  ^tit  poem. 

I  would  not  marvel  that  they  make  men  bond. 
By  service  long  to  purchase  their  good  will, 

But  when  I  see  how  frail  those  creatures  are, 

I  muse  that  men  forget  themselves  so  far. 


138         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  To  mark  the  choice  they  make,  and  how  they  change, 

How  oft  from  Phoebus  do  they  flee  to  Pan, 
Unsettled  still  like  haggards  wild  they  range, 

These  gentle  birds  that  fly  from  man  to  man, 
Who  would  not  scorn  and  shake  them  from  the  fist 
And  let  them  fly,  fair  fools,  which  way  they  list  ? 

"  Yet  for  disport  we  fawn  and  flatter  both, 

To  pass  the  time  when  nothing  else  can  please, 
And  train  them  to  our  lure  with  subtle  oath, 

Till,  weary  of  their  wiles,  ourselves  we  ease  ; 
And  then  we  say,  when  we  their  fancy  try, 
To  play  with  fools.  Oh  what  a  fool  was  I." 

I  give  this  poem  in  full  because  of  its  importance 
to  the  history  of  English  literature  if  the  chief  conten- 
tion of  this  treatise  can  be  established.  Had  I  read  it 
singly  or  with  no  such  special  aim  as  I  then  had,  its 
distinctive  qualities  might  not  have  impressed  me  as 
they  did.  But,  reading  it  in  conjunction  with  a  large 
amount  of  contemporary  verse  whilst  the  cadences  of 
the  "  Venus  "  stanzas  were  still  running  in  my  mind, 
its  distinctive  qualities  were,  on  the  one  hand,  enhanced 
by  the  force  of  contrast  with  other  work  of  the  same 
period,  and  on  the  other  hand  emphasized  by  a  sense 
of  its  harmony  with  Shakespeare's  work.  Having, 
therefore,  fixed  provisionally  on  this  poem  I  must 
first  of  all  follow  up  the  enquiry  along  the  line  it  in- 
dicated until  that  line  should  prove  untenable. 
Seeking  Although  the  selection  had  been  in  a  measure  a 

eXPport  personal  exercise  of  literary  judgment,  it  was  part  of 
the  original  plan  that  I  should  not,  at  any  critical 
part  of  the  investigation,  rest  upon  my  own  private 
judgment  where  the  issue  was  purely  literary  ;  and  as 
this  was  a  matter  for  the  expert  I  must  first  of  all 
seek  for  some  kind  of  an  endorsement  of  my  selection 
from  literary  authorities.  Meanwhile  the  choice  must 
be  considered  tentative.  To  those  who  are  specialists 
in  the  literature  of  that  age  it  may  appear  like  the 


THE  SEARCH   AND   DISCOVERY       139 

confession  of  colossal  ignorance  when  I  say  that,  far 
from  having  prepossessions  in  favour  of  Edward  de 
Vere,  although  I  must  have  come  across  his  name 
before,  it  had  never  arrested  my  attention  ;  and,  so 
far  as  any  knowledge  of  his  personality  and  history 
is  concerned,  I  had  either  never  possessed  it,  or  had 
quite  forgotten  everything  1  had  ever  known.  Nor 
was  I  wishful  to  know  more  until  the  choice  had  been 
duly  tested  on  purely  poetic  grounds.  The  name  De 
Vere  I  knew  to  be  that  of  an  ancient  house  ;  the  Earls 
of  Oxford  I  remembered  had  appeared  in  English 
history  in  certain  secondary  connections  ;  and  the 
dates  of  the  poet's  birth  and  death  (1550  and  1604),  the 
only  piece  of  information  vouchsafed  in  the  anthology, 
accorded  sufficiently  well,  for  the  time  being,  with  the 
general  theory  I  had  formed  of  the  production  and  the 
issuing  of  the  plays.  He  would  be  about  forty  years 
of  age  at  the  time  when  the  plays  began  to  appear, 
and,  according  to  the  generally  accepted  dating  of  them, 
the  most  and  best  of  the  work  would  be  given  to  the 
world  before  his  death.  Still  these  considerations  might 
apply  with  equal  force  to  others  whose  poems  appeared 
in  the  collection,  and  therefore  must  not  be  allowed  to 
exercise  undue  weight  at  this  stage. 

Turning  to  the  literary  section  of  several  text  books, 
and  standard  works  of  English  history  with  varying 
amounts  of  reference  to  literature,  I  found  all  as  silent 
as  the  grave  in  reference  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 
Creighton's  "Age  of  Elizabeth"  has  a  special  chapter 
on  Elizabethan  literature,  but  not  a  single  word  on 
this  particular  poet.  Beesly's  "  Queen  Elizabeth  " 
barely  mentions  his  name  in  a  footnote  of  quite  insig- 
nificant import  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  poetry  or 
literature.  Altogether,  I  got  the  impression  at  first 


140         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

that  he  was  almost  an  unknown  man.  So  far  the  result 
was  discouraging  and  I  turned  again  to  the  anthology 
to  try  some  of  the  other  poems.  None  of  them  seemed 
to  have  the  same  Shakespearean  grip  as  this  one.  In 
addition  to  the  identity  in  the  form  of  the  stanza  with 
that  of  "  Venus  and  Adonis,"  there  was  the  same 
succinctness  of  expression,  the  same  compactness  and 
cohesion  of  ideas,  the  same  smoothness  of  diction,  the 
same  idiomatic  wording  which  we  associate  with 
"  Shakespeare  "  ;  there  was  the  characteristic  simile 
of  the  hawks,  and  finally  that  peculiar  touch  in  relation 
to  women  that  I  had  noted  in  the  sonnets. 

First  Again  I  consulted  my  books.     Although  Green,  in 

the  part  of  the  "  Short  History  "  dealing  with  Eliza- 
bethan literature,  makes  no  mention  of  the  poet,  I 
found  in  another  part  of  his  work  the  following 
sentence.  Speaking  of  the  Jesuit  mission  to  England 
under  Campion  and  Parsons,  he  says,  "  The  list  of 
nobles  reconciled  to  the  old  faith,  by  these  wandering 
apostles  was  headed  by  Lord  Oxford,  Cecil's  own 
son-in-law  and  the  proudest  among  English  peers." 
It  was  impossible  to  avoid  a  touch  of  excitement  in 
reading  these  words  ;  for  the  first  indications  of  the 
man  justified  the  selection  on  two  of  the  points  of  my 
characterization.  Still  it  was  not  what  I  was  imme- 
diately in  search  of  ;  and  until  the  vital  question  of 
his  acknowledged  lyrical  eminence  was  settled  it  was 
important  not  to  be  led  away  by  what  might  turn  out 
to  be  only  a  specious  coincidence.  All  the  other  points 
were  to  be  so  many  tests  held  in  reserve  as  it  were,  to 
be  applied  only  when  his  lyric  credentials  had  been  duly 
presented.  For  the  time  being  then  all  available 
resources  had  been  exhausted.  The  next  step  must 
be  to  consult  such  larger  works  as  might  be  found  in 
a  reference  library. 


On  consulting  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  Dictionary 
and  turning  to  the  Veres,  or  more  properly  the  De  Biography. 
Veres,  I  found  myself  confronted  with  quite  a  for- 
midable number  of  them.  By  means  of  the  Christian 
name  and  the  dates,  the  one  for  whom  I  was  seeking 
was  speedily  recognized  :  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth 
Earl  of  Oxford  ;  the  article  being  contributed  by  the 
Editor  of  the  work,  Sir  Sidney  Lee.  This  is  perhaps 
as  fitting  a  point  as  any  at  which  to  remark  that,  both 
by  his  biography  of  Edward  de  Vere  in  the  article  from 
which  I  am  about  to  quote,  as  well  as  by  his  invaluable 
work,  "A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,"  Sir  Sidney 
Lee,  convinced  Stratfordian  though  he  is,  has  furnished 
more  material  in  support  of  my  constructive  argument 
than  any  other  single  modern  writer.  Although 
differing  widely  from  his  general  conclusions  I  do  not 
wish  therefore  in  any  way  to  stint  my  acknowledgment 
of  indebtedness  to  his  researches  and  opinions  upon 
important  questions  of  Shakespearean  literature. 

Skimming  lightly  over  the  article  at  first,  with  the 
attention  directed  towards  the  one  thing  for  which  I 
was  searching,  I  nevertheless  felt  some  elation  as  I  ran 
up  against  new  facts  bearing  upon  other  aspects  of 
the  enquiry.  Then  came  the  following  sentences,  every 
word  of  which,  in  view  of  the  conception  I  had  formed 
of  "  Shakespeare,"  read  like  a  complete  justification 
of  the  selection  I  had  made. 

"  Oxford,  despite  his  violent  and  perverse  temper, 

Selection 
his  eccentric  taste  in  dress,  and  his  reckless  waste  of  justified 

substance,  evinced  a  genuine  taste  in  music  and  wrote 
verses  of  much  lyric  beauty.     .     .     . 

"  Puttenham  and  Meres  reckon  him  among  the  best 
for  comedy  in  his  day  ;  but  though  he  was  a  patron 
of  players  no  specimens  of  his  dramatic  productions 
survive, 


I42        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  A  sufficient  number  of  his  poems  is  extant  to  cor- 
roborate Webbe's  comment,  that  he  was  the  best  of  the 
courtier  poets  of  the  early  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
that  'in  the  rare  devices  of  poetry  he  may  challenge  to 
himself  the  title  of  the  most  excellent  amongst  the 
rest.'  " 

I  venture  to  say  that  if  only  such  of  those  terms  as 
are  here  used  to  describe  the  character  and  quality  of 
his  work  were  submitted  without  name  or  leading 
epithet  to  people,  who  only  understood  them  to  apply 
to  some  Elizabethan  poet,  it  would  be  assumed  imme- 
diately that  Shakespeare  was  meant.  We  have  in 
these  words  a  contemporary  opinion  that  he  was  the 
best  of  these  poets,  and  we  have  a  modern  authority 
of  no  less  weight  than  Sir  Sidney  Lee  corroborating 
this  judgment  from  a  consideration  of  the  poems 
themselves. 

All  that  I  wanted,  for  the  time  being,  on  the  first 
issue,  I  had  found  ;  and  so  I  was  at  liberty  to  go  over 
the  whole  of  the  article,  to  see  to  what  extent  the  Earl 
of  Oxford  fulfilled  the  other  conditions  belonging,  as 
I  had  judged,  to  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  works. 
In  making  the  selection  the  enquiry  had  passed  its 
third  stage.  The  fourth  was  the  testing  of  the  selection 
by  reference  to  the  characterization  outlined  in  the 
first  stage. 

Competing  Although,  in  the  course  of  subsequent  enquiries, 
ins*  difficulties  have  presented  themselves,  as  was  inevi- 
table, none  of  these  has  ever  raised  any  insurmountable 
objections  to  the  theory  of  Edward  de  Vere  being  the 
author  of  Shakespeare's  works  ;  whilst  as  we  shall  see, 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  theory  has  steadily 
accumulated.  Other  names,  too,  have  presented  them- 
selves or  have  been  suggested  by  other  writers  as 


THE  SEARCH  AND  DISCOVERY        143 

possible  alternatives,  and  I  have  not  hesitated  to 
consider  such  cases  most  carefully.  These,  however, 
have  always  in  my  own  view  broken  down  readily  and 
completely,  and  their  very  failure  has  only  served  to 
add  weight  to  the  claims  of  De  Vere.  Such  cases  I 
do  not,  as  a  rule,  discuss  in  full,  and  thus  an  important 
element  of  negative  evidence  will  be  missed  so  far  as 
the  reader  is  concerned.  It  is  of  first  importance, 
however,  that  he  should  realize  the  precise  extent  of 
the  evidence  upon  which  the  choice  was  made  ;  the 
great  mass  of  the  evidence  we  shall  have  presently  to 
submit,  coming  as  it  did  subsequently  to  the  selection, 
forms  such  a  sequence  and  accumulation  of  coinci- 
dences, that  if  the  manner  of  its  discovery  is  clearly 
apprehended,  only  one  conclusion  seems  possible. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  CONDITIONS  FULFILLED 

As  it  will  be  necessary  to  discuss  the  life  and  character 
of  Edward  de  Vere  from  a  totally  different  standpoint 
from  that  of  Sir  Sidney  Lee's  article  in  the  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography,  and  also  to  add  particulars 
derived  from  other  sources,  we  shall,  at  present,  in 
order  to  avoid  as  much  unnecessary  repetition  as 
possible,  merely  point  out  the  numerous  instances  in 
which  the  portraiture  answers  to  the  description  of 
the  man  for  whom  we  have  been  seeking. 

Personal  Although  we  are  not  given  much  information  as  to 

traits  what   his   "  eccentricity "   consisted  in,   beyond    the 

squandering  of  his  patrimony,  the  distinctiveness  of 
his  dress,  and  his  preference  for  his  Bohemian  literary 
and  play-acting  associates,  rather  than  the  artificial 
and  hypocritical  atmosphere  of  a  court  frequented  by 
ambitious  self-seekers,  it  is  clear  that  in  those  latter 
circles  he  had  made  for  himself  a  reputation  as  an 
eccentric,  and  as  a  man  apart.  When,  therefore,  we 
are  told  that  his  eccentricities  grew  with  his  years, 
we  may  take  it  to  imply  that  this  preference  became 
accentuated  as  he  grew  older,  that  he  became  less  in 
touch  with  social  conventionality,  more  deeply  im- 
mersed in  his  special  interests  and  in  the  companionship 
of  those  who  were  similarly  occupied. 

His  impressionability  is  testified  by  his  quickness  to 
detect  a  slight  and  his  readiness  to  resent  it,  whilst 
his  evident  susceptibility  to  perfumes  and  the  elegancies 

M4 


THE  CONDITIONS  FULFILLED          145 

of  dress,  involving,  no  doubt,  colour  sensitiveness, 
bespeak  that  keenness  of  the  senses  which  contributes 
so  largely  to  extreme  general  sensibility. 

Connected  with  these  traits  is  his  undoubted  fondness 
for,  and  a  superior  taste  in  music.  The  matter  is  twice 
referred  to.  The  first  instance  is  in  connection  with 
his  education,  and  from  this  reference  it  appears  as  if 
music  had  not  formed  part  of  the  scheme  of  education 
which  others  had  mapped  out  for  him,  and  that  his 
musical  training  was  therefore  the  outcome  of  his  own 
natural  bent  and  choice.  The  second  reference  is  the 
passage  quoted  in  the  last  chapter,  from  which  it 
appears  that  his  musical  taste  was  of  so  pronounced 
a  character  as  to  secure  special  mention  in  the  records 
of  him  that  have  been  handed  down,  notwithstanding 
their  extreme  meagreness. 

His  looseness  in  money  matters,  and  what  appears 
like  a  complete  indifference  to  material  possessions,  is 
undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  marked  features  of  his 
character.  So  long  as  he  had  money  to  spend  or  give 
away,  or  lands  which  he  could  sell  to  raise  money,  he 
seems  to  have  squandered  lavishly ;  much  of  it, 
evidently,  on  literary  men  and  on  dramatic  enterprises. 
Consequently,  from  being  one  of  the  foremost  and 
wealthiest  of  English  noblemen  he  found  himself 
ultimately  in  straitened  circumstances. 

His  connection  with  play-actors  and  the  drama  was  Personal 

not  the  superficial  and  evanescent  interest  of  a  wealthy  circum- 

.  .  stances* 

patron.     It  was  a  matter  in  which  he  was  actively 

engaged  for  many  years.  He  had  his  own  company, 
with  which  he  both  toured  in  the  provinces,  and  es- 
tablished himself  for  some  years  in  London.  It  was 
quite  understood  that  his  company  was  performing 
plays  which  he  was  himself  producing.  It  is  evident, 
10 


146         V  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

too,  that  he  made  a  name  for  himself  in  the  production 
of  comedies  and  that  the  celebrity  he  enjoyed  in  this 
respect  came  not  merely  from  the  masses,  but  from 
the  literary  men  of  the  time.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
are  informed  in  the  article  that  "  no  specimens  of  his 
dramatic  productions  survive " — a  most  mysterious 
circumstance  in  view  of  the  vast  mass  of  drama  of  all 
kinds  and  qualities  that  the  Elizabethan  age  has 
bequeathed  to  us. 

Of  his  family,  we  learn  from  the  first  series  of  articles 
on  the  De  Veres,  that  it  traced  its  descent  in  a  direct 
line  from  the  Norman  Conquest  and  that  for  five  and 
a  half  centuries  the  direct  line  of  male  descent  had 
never  once  been  broken.  As  a  boy,  not  only  had  he 
been  a  prominent  figure  about  Elizabeth's  court,  but 
from  the  age  of  twelve  he  was  a  royal  ward,  and  may 
be  said  to  have  been  actually  brought  up  at  court  near 
the  person  of  the  Queen  herself.  The  irksomeness  to 
him  of  court  life  seems  to  have  manifested  itself  quite 
early  in  manhood  and  he  made  several  efforts  to  escape 
from  it. 

His  education  was  conducted  first  of  all  by  private 
tutors  among  whom  were  celebrated  classical  scholars. 
He  was  a  resident  at  Cambridge  University  and  ulti- 
mately held  degrees  in  both  universities.  We  may  add 
here,  what  is  not  mentioned  in  the  article,  that  his 
poems  are  replete  with  classical  allusions,  which  come 
to  him  as  spontaneously  as  the  figure  of  a  field  mouse, 
a  daisy,  or  a  haggis,  comes  to  Burns. 

So  keen  was  his  desire  for  travel  that  when  per- 
mission was  refused  him  he  set  the  authorities  at 
defiance  and  ran  away  ;  only  to  be  intercepted  and 
brought  back.  When  at  last  he  obtained  permission 
to  go  abroad  he  speedily  made  nis  way  to  Italy  ;  and 


so  permanent  upon  him  was  the  effect  of  his  stay 
there,  that  he  was  lampooned  afterwards  as  an 
"  Italionated  Englishman." 

The  article  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  Summary 
testifies  therefore  to  the  following  points  : —  attStS? 

1.  His  high  standing  as  a  lyric  poet. 

2.  His  reputation  for  eccentricity. 

3.  His  highly  strung  sensibility. 

4.  His  being  out  of  sympathetic  relationship  with 

conventional  life. 

5.  His  maturity  (1590)  and  genius. 

6.  His  literary  tastes. 

7.  His  practical  enthusiasm  for  drama. 

8.  His  classic  education  and  association  with  the 

best  educated  men  of  his  time. 

9.  His  belonging  to  the  higher  aristocracy. 

10.  His  feudal  ancestry. 

11.  His  interest  in  and  direct  personal  knowledge 

of  Italy. 

12.  His  musical  tastes. 

13.  His  looseness  in  money  matters. 

Four  points  insufficiently  supported  in  the  article  Re 
are :—  points. 

1.  His  interest  in  sport. 

2.  His  Lancastrian  sympathies. 

3.  His  distinctive  bearing  towards  woman. 

4.  His  attitude  towards  Catholicism. 

The  eighteenth  point — inadequate  appreciation — 
needs  no  special  treatment,  being  involved  in  the 
problem  itself  and  in  any  proposed  solution  to  it. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  next  step  in  the  investigation 
we  shall  finish  this  section  by  adducing  other  evidence 
and  authority  for  the  four  points  mentioned  above. 

i.  In  relation  to  sport  we  notice — and  this  is  really 


148         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Sport  the  point  that  matters — that  his  poems,  few  as  they 

are,  bear  decided  witness  to  the  same  interest.  The 
haggard  hawk,  the  stricken  deer,  the  hare,  the  grey- 
hound, the  mastiff,  the  fowling  nets  and  bush-beating 
are  all  figures  that  appear  in  his  lyric  verses.  In  ad- 
dition to  this  we  notice  that  his  father,  John  de  Vere, 
i6th  Earl  of  Oxford,  who  died  when  Edward  was 
twelve  years  of  age,  had  quite  a  reputation  as  a  sports- 
man, and  until  his  death  Edward  was,  of  course,  living 
with  him.  The  article  from  whicn  we  first  quoted 
mentions  nis  interest  in  learning  to  shoot  and  to  ride, 
so  that  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  his  familiarity 
with  those  sporting  pastimes  which  Shakespeare's 
works  so  amply  illustrate. 

Lancastrian-  2.  Though  no  statement  of  his  actual  sympathies 
with  the  Lancastrian  cause  has  been  found,  we  are 
assured  by  several  writers  that  he  was  proud  of  his 
ancient  lineage,  which,  taken  along  with  the  following 
passage  on  the  relationship  of  the  De  Veres  to  the 
Lancastrian  cause,  may  be  accepted  as  conclusive  on 
the  subject : — 

"  John  the  I2th  Earl  (of  Oxford)  was  attainted  and 
beheaded  in  1461,  suffering  for  his  loyalty  to  the 
Lancastrian  line.  His  son  John  was  restored  to  the 
dignity  in  1464,  but  was  himself  attainted  in  1474  in 
consequence  of  the  active  part  he  had  taken  on  the 
Lancastrian  side  during  the  temporary  restoration  of 
Henry  VI  in  1470.  .  .  .  (He)  distinguished  himself 
as  the  last  of  the  supporters  of  the  cause  of  the  red 
rose,  which  he  maintained  in  the  castle  of  St.  Michael's 
Mount  in  Cornwall  for  many  months  after  the  rest  of 
the  kingdom  had  submitted  to  Edward  IV.  .  .  . 
Having  been  mainly  instrumental  in  bringing  Henry 
(VII)  to  the  throne  he  was  immediately  restored  to  the 


149 

Earldom  of  Oxford,  and  also  to  the  office  of  Lord 
Chamberlain  which  he  enjoyed  until  his  death  in  1513." 
("Archaeological  Journal,"  vol.  9, 1852,  p.  24.) 

3.  So  far  as  his  attitude  towards  woman  is  con-  Woman, 
cerned,  the  poem  already  quoted  in  full  is  sufficient 
evidence  of  that  deficiency  of  faith  which  we  have 
pointed  out  as  marking  the  Shakespeare  sonnets  ;  the 
very  terms  employed  being  as  nearly  identical  as 
Shakespeare  ever  allowed  himself  in  two  separate 
utterances  on  one  topic.  Then  that  capacity  for  intense 
affection  combined  with  weakness  of  faith  which  is 
one  of  the  peculiarities  of  Shakespeare's  mind,  has  not, 
so  far  as  we  are  aware,  so  close  a  parallel  anywhere  in 
literature  as  in  the  poems  of  Edward  de  Vere.  It  is 
not  merely  in  an  occasional  line,  but  is  the  keynote 
of  much  of  his  poetry.  Indeed  we  may  say  that  it 
probably  lies  at  the  root  of  a  great  part  of  the  mis- 
fortune and  mystery  in  which  his  life  was  involved, 
and  may  indeed  afford  an  explanation  for  the  very 
existence  of  the  Shakespeare  mystery. 

Only  when  these  poems  shall  have  become  as 
accessible  as  Shakespeare's  sonnets  will  this  mental 
correspondence  be  fully  appreciated.  Meanwhile  we 
give  a  few  lines  each  from  a  separate  poem  : — 

"  For  she  thou  (himself)  lovest  is  sure  thy  mortal  foe." 

11 0  cruel  hap  and  hard  estate  that  forceth  me  to  love 
my  foe." 

"  The  more  I  sought  the  less  I  found 
Yet  mine  she  meant  to  be." 

"That  I  do  waste,  with  others,  love 
That  hath  myself  in  hate." 

"Love  is  worse  than  hate  and  eke  more  harm  hath 
done." 


150         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

With  these  lines  in  mind  all  that  is  necessary  is  to 
read  the  last  dozen  of  Shakespeare's  sonnets,  in  order 
to  appreciate  the  spiritual  identity  of  the  author  or 
authors  in  this  particular  connection. 

Religion.  4.  So  far  as  the  last  point ,  his  attitude  to  Catholicism, 

is  concerned,  the  quotation  we  have  already  given  from 
Green's  "  Short  History  "  is  all  that  is  really  necessary. 
The  fact  that  his  name  appears  at  the  head  of  a  list 
of  noblemen  who  professed  to  be  reconciled  to  the 
old  faith  shows  his  leanings  sufficiently  well  for  us  to 
say  of  him,  as  Macaulay  says  of  Shakespeare,  that  he 
was  not  a  zealous  Protestant  writing  for  zealous 
Protestants.  When,  further,  we  find  that  his  father 
had  professed  Catholicism,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  on 
certain  sentimental  grounds  his  leaning  was  that  way. 
Roman  Catholicism  would,  moreover,  be  the  openly 
professed  religion  of  his  home  life  during  his  first  eight 
years.  There  is  also  evidence  in  the  State  Papers  of 
the  time  that  the  English  Catholics  abroad  were  at 
one  crisis  looking  to  him  and  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
for  support.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  improbable 
that  intellectually  he  was  touched  with  the  scepticism 
which  appears  to  have  been  current  in  dramatic  circles 
at  that  time,  for  amongst  the  charges  made  against 
him  by  one  adversary  was  that  of  irreligion  :  the  name 
"  atheist  "  being  given  him  by  another  (State  Papers). 
Classic  paganism,  medievalism  and  scepticism,  in  spite 
of  the  contradiction  the  combination  seems  to  imply, 
can  certainly  all  be  more  easily  traced  in  him  than 
can  Protestantism ;  and  in  this  there  is  a  general 
correspondence  between  his  mind  and  that  of 
"  Shakespeare." 

On  all  the  points  then  which  we  set  before  ourselves 
in  entering  upon  the  search,  we  find  that  Edward  dc 


THE  CONDITIONS  FULFILLED          151 

Vere  fulfils  the  conditions,  and  the  general  feeling  with 
which  we  finish  this  stage  of  our  enquiry  is  this,  that 
if  we  have  not  actually  discovered  the  author  of 
Shakespeare's  works  we  have  at  any  rate  alighted  upon 
a  most  exceptional  set  of  resemblances. 

We  have  thus,  in  a  general  way,  carried  the  enquiry 
successfully  through  four  of  its  stages,  and  completed 
the  a  posteriori  section  of  our  argument. 


Note. 

In  the  contemporary  State  Papers  of  Rome  there 
is  a  list  of  English  nobility,  classified  as  (i)  Catholics, 
(ii)  of  Catholic  leanings,  (iii)  Protestants.  Oxford's 
name  appears  in  the  second  group. 


CHAPTER  VII 
EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET 

IN  proceeding  from  an  examination  of  Shakespeare's 
work  to  search  for  the  man  himself  we  made  lyric 
poetry  the  starting  point,  and  the  crucial  consideration 
in  attempting  to  establish  his  identity.  Similarly,  in 
reversing  the  process,  that  is  to  say  in  proceeding 
a  priori  from  Edward  de  Vere  to  the  work  of  Shake- 
speare, which  must  be  the  longest  and  most  decisive 
section  of  the  argument,  we  again  begin  with  lyric 
poetry.  We  take  the  lyric  poetry  of  Edward  de  Vere 
and  see  how  far  it  justifies  the  theory  of  his  being  the 
real  "Shakespeare." 

Expert  Up  to  the  present  we  have  had  before  us  the  single 

poem  and  a  few  odd  lines  of  Oxford's  supported  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 
It  becomes  necessary  first  of  all  to  obtain  further 
testimony  as  to  his  poetic  powers  and  characteristics, 
and  then  to  see  to  what  extent  others  of  his  poems 
warrant  his  being  chosen  as  the  writer  of  Shakespeare's 
work. 

In  the  "  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature  " 
(vol.  iv,  p.  116) — the  section  being  written  by  Harold 
H.  Child,  sometime  scholar  of  Brasenose,  Oxford — 
there  occurs  the  following  reference  to  a  collection  of 
poems  called  "  The  Phoenix'  Nest."  "  The  Earl  of 
Oxford  has  a  charming  lyric."  Most  of  the  other 
contributors  are  simply  enumerated.  Oxford,  however, 
it  will  be  noticed,  is  singled  out  for  a  special  compliment. 

153 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    153 

Again,  we  would  draw  special  attention  to  the  Professor 
following   excerpts   from   the   "  History   of   English  ope 

Poetry  "  (vol.  ii,  pp.  312-313)  by  W.  J.  Courthope, 
C.B.,  M.A.,  D.Litt.  (Professor  of  Poetry  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford)  : — 

"  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth  Earl  of  Oxford, 
.  .  .  a  great  patron  of  literature  .  .  .  His  own 
verses  are  distinguished  for  their  wit  .  .  .  and 
terse  ingenuity.  .  .  .  His  studied  concinnity  of 
style  is  remarkable.  .  .  .  He  was  not  only  witty 
himself  but  the  cause  of  wit  in  others.  .  .  Doubtless 
he  was  proud  of  his  illustrious  ancestry.  ,  .  He 
was  careful  in  verse  at  any  rate  to  conform  to  the 
external  requirements  of  chivalry,  but  in  later  years 
his  turn  for  epigram  seems  to  have  prevailed  over  his 
chivalrous  sentiments."  It  is  interesting  to  notice  in 
passing  that  he  is  described  in  words  that  Shakespeare 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Falstaff,  "  I  am  not  only  witty 
in  myself  but  the  cause  that  wit  is  in  others " 
(n  Henry  IV,  i,  2). 

In  another  passage  in  the  same  work  we  are  told 
that  the  court  litterateurs  were  divided  into  two  parties, 
one  headed  by  Philip  Sidney,  and  the  other  by  the 
Earl  of  Oxford,  "  a  great  favourer  of  theEuphuists  and 
himself  a  poet  of  some  merit  in  the  courtly  Italian 
vein."  This  rivalry  between  Philip  Sidney  and  the 
Earl  of  Oxford  touches  our  problem  somewhat  closely 
and  will  have  to  be  referred  to  later.  It  is  important 
at  present  as  affording  testimony  to  Oxford's  recog- 
nized poetic  eminence  and  to  his  Italian  affinities.  It 
also  comes  as  a  reminder  that  it  was  to  Oxford  that 
Lyly  dedicated  his  "  Euphues  and  his  England,"  and 
affords  a  sufficient  explanation  of  that  familiarity  with 
Euphuism  which  is  noticed  in  Shakespeare,  if  we 


154         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

credit  Oxford  with  being  Shakespeare,  but  is  very 
difficult  to  account  for  in  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford. 

There  remains  one  other  striking  fact  connected  with 
these  references  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford  in  Professor 
Courthope's  work.  It  will  be  remembered  that  we 
took  the  form  of  the  stanza  in  "  Venus  and  Adonis  " 
as  our  first  guide  in  the  search.  Now  Professor 
Courthope  quotes  three  separate  stanzas  of  Oxford's 
work  and  all  these  are  identical  with  that  of  Shake- 
speare's "  Venus  "  and  Oxford's  on  "  Women,"  which 
gave  us  our  first  point  of  contact.  The  poem  on  which 
we  had  alighted  was  therefore  no  isolated  effort  in  that 
particular  form  of  versification.  It  was  a  familiar  and 
practised  form  in  which  he  evidently  excelled,  just  as 
had  been  noticed  in  the  case  of  Shakespeare. 
Edmund  In  collecting  corroboration  of  De  Vere's  poetic 

Spenser.  eminence  it  is  specially  fitting  that  the  testimony  of 
so  eminent  a  poet  as  Edmund  Spenser,  second  only  to 
Shakespeare  in  that  poetic  age,  should  be  added.  In 
the  series  of  sonnets  with  which  he  prefaces  the 
"Fairie  Queen,"  there  is  one  addressed  to  the  Earl 
of  Oxford,  wherein  occurs  the  following  passage  : — 

"  The  antique  glory  of  thine  ancestry. 

*  *  *  * 

And  eke  thine  own  long  living  memory 
Succeeding  them  in  true  nobility, 
And  also  for  the  love  which  thou  dost  bear, 
To  the  '  Heliconian  imps  ',*  and  they  to  thee. 
They  unto  thee,  and  thou  to  them  most  dear." 

Dr.  Grosart's      Valuable  as  is  the  testimony  which  we  have  adduced 

collection.      it  cannot  absolve  us  from  tne  necessity  of  knowing  the 

poems  themselves  and  of  subjecting  them  to  a  very 

•The  Muse«. 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    155 

careful  examination,  for  this  must  form  the  crux  of 
a  very  great  deal  of  future  investigation.  It  is  greatly 
to  be  regretted,  therefore,  that  these  poems  have  not 
been  readily  accessible  to  every  one.  For  the  most 
part  they  have  been  scattered  amongst  various 
anthologies  ;  a  mode  of  publishing  poetry  characteristic 
of  the  Elizabethan  age.  Dr.  Grosart,  however,  in  1872 
gathered  together  all  the  extant  recognized  poems  of 
the  Earl  of  Oxford  and  published  them  in  the  "  Fuller 
Worthies'  Library. ' '  Some  of  these  poems  had  appeared 
in  old  anthologies,  others  had  only  existed  in  manu- 
script, and  were  published  for  the  first  time  by 
Dr.  Grosart.  It  is  desirable,  therefore,  that  all  who 
are  interested  in  English  literature  may  before  long 
be  in  possession  of  the  entire  collection. 

There  are,  in  all,  only  twenty-two  short  poems 
(Dr.  Grosart  numbers  them  up  to  twenty-three,  but 
number  eight  is  omitted)  and  the  biographical  intro- 
duction is  possibly  the  shortest  with  which  any  similar 
collection  was  ever  presented  to  the  world.  It  explains 
its  own  brevity  however,  and  is  of  great  significance 
from  the  point  of  view  of  this  enquiry.  "An  unlifted 
shadow,"  he  remarks,  "  lies  across  his  memory.  Park 
in  his  edition  of  '  Royal  and  Noble  Authors '  has  done 
his  utmost,  but  that  utmost  is  meagre."  "  Our  col- 
lection of  his  poems,"  he  concludes,  "  will  prove  a 
pleasant  surprise,  it  is  believed,  to  most  of  our  readers. 
They  are  not  without  touches  of  the  true  Singer  and 
there  is  an  atmosphere  of  graciousness  and  culture 
about  them  that  is  grateful." 

We  have  already,  in  the  chapter  in  which  we  de- 
scribed the  search,  had  to  mention  the  contemporary 
testimonies  of  Meres,  Puttenham,  and  Webbe,  and 
also  a  modern  authority — Sir  Sidney  Lee.  Meres  and 


156         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Puttenham  deal  specially  with  his  dramatic  pre- 
eminence, mentioning  him  as  amongst  the  "  best  for 
comedy."  Therefore,  leaving  this  on  one  side  and 
confining  ourselves  to  his  lyric  credentials,  we  may 
sum  up  the  matter  thus  : 
Summary.  Contemporary : 

1.  Edmund  Spenser. 

One  most  dear  to  the  Muses. 

2.  Webbe. 

Best  of  the  courtier  poets.     In  the  rare 
devices    of    poetry    the    most    excellent 
amongst  the  rest. 
Modern  : 

1.  Sir  Sidney  Lee. 

Corroborates    Webbe's    statement — much 
lyric  beauty. 

2.  Professor  W.  J.  Courthope,  C.B.,  M.A.,  D.Litt. 

Concinnous,    terse,    ingenious,    epigram- 
matic— leader  of  a  party  of  poets. 

3.  "  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature  " 

(Harold  H.  Child). 
Charming. 

4.  Dr.  Grosart. 

Gracious,  cultured,  true  singer. 

Oxford's  Looking  over  the  notes  appended  to  the  separate 

early  poetry,  poems  of  Dr  Grosart's  collection  we  find  that  these 
poems  fulfil  one  very  important  condition  which,  at  the 
outset,  we  imagined  would  belong  to  the  lyric  work 
which  Shakespeare  might  have  published  in  his  own 
name.  Notwithstanding  the  rare  ability  they  show, 
and  several  true  Shakespearean  characteristics,  they 
are  for  the  most  part  early  poems.  Many  of  them  are 
proved  to  have  been  in  existence  when  the  writer 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    157 

was  about  twenty-six  years  of  age.  How  long  before 
that  time  they  were  in  existence,  or  how  many  others 
which  are  not  so  attested  may  also  have  existed  then, 
we  cannot  say.  The  most  of  these  others,  and  it  is  only 
a  small  collection  to  begin  with,  bear  unmistakable 
internal  evidence  of  belonging  to  the  same  early  period. 
Moreover,  De  Vere  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  best  of  the 
courtier  poets  of  the  early  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth's 
reign."  As,  however,  he  lived  right  on  to  the  end  of 
the  reign,  and  into  the  reign  of  James  I,  it  is  evident 
that  the  poetry  for  which  he  is  celebrated  is  regarded 
as  belonging  to  his  early  life.  Direct  corroboration 
of  this  theory  is  found  in  the  following  passage  from 
Arthur  Collins's  "  Historical  Collections  of  Noble 
Families,"  published  in  1752.  "  He  (Edward  de  Vere) 
was  in  his  younger  days  an  excellent  poet  and  comedian, 
as  several  of  his  compositions,  which  were  made  public 
showed  ;  which  I  presume  are  now  lost  or  worn  out." 

Now  the  assumption  with  which  we  set  out  was  that  Hidden 
if  we  found  writings  under  the  true  name  of  the  author  Productions- 
of  Shakespeare's  works,  it  would  be  mainly  his  early 
works,  issued  prior  to  his  assuming  a  disguise.  As  we 
examine  this  early  poetry  of  De  Vere  it  becomes 
impossible  to  believe  that  a  writer  possessed  of  the 
genius  that  these  verses  manifest  could  possibly  have 
stopped  producing  early  in  his  manhood,  unless,  of 
course,  he  had  suddenly  dropped  his  literary  interests 
and  directed  his  energies  into  another  channel.  With 
De  Vere,  however,  the  continuance,  or  rather  the  % 

intensification  of  his  literary  interests  in  later  years 
is  amply  proved.  He  was  sharing  the  Bohemian  life 
of  literary  men,  he  was  running  his  own  company  of 
play-actors,  some  of  the  plays  which  they  were  staging 
were  quite  understood  to  be  from  his  own  pen  ;  and 


158         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

although  he  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  best  in  comedy  "  we 
are  also  told  that  "  none  of  his  plays  have  survived  "  : 
that  they  have  become  "  lost  or  worn  out." 

The  actual  amount  of  poetry  which  is  recognized 
as  his  is  such  as  one  with  such  a  faculty  might  have 
written  within  a  single  twelvemonth,  although  his 
contemporary  says  that  "  in  the  rare  devices  of  poetry 
he  may  be  considered  the  most  excellent  amongst  the 
rest."  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  Edward  de 
Vere  we  have  a  writer  of  both  drama  and  lyric  poetry 
who  published  under  his  own  name  only  a  small  part 
of  what  he  produced,  however  he  may  have  disposed 
of  the  remainder.  This  point  will  receive  further 
corroboration  when  we  come  to  deal  with  the  relation- 
ship of  the  poet  Spenser  to  our  problem.  Everything 
points  to  his  having,  after  the  first  period  of  poetic 
output,  deliberately  thrown  a  veil  over  his  subsequent 
work,  whilst  in  "  Shakespeare  "  we  have  a  writer  who, 
we  are  justified  in  supposing,  assumed  anonymity  in 
his  maturity,  leading  off  with  an  elaborate  and  highly 
Two  finished  poem  of  about  two  hundred  stanzas.  These 

oTone1^1118  two  ^acts  al°ne»  m  work  of  such  exceptional  character, 
career.  if  not  simply  the  counterparts  one  of  the  other,  con- 

stitutes alone  one  of  the  most  remarkable  coincidences 
in  the  history  of  literature.  When  to  this  we  add  the 
fact  that  the  dates  in  the  respective  cases  are  such  as 
to  fit  in  exactly  with  the  theory  of  one  work  being  but 
the  continuation  of  the  other,  Oxford  being,  as  has 
been  remarked,  about  forty  when  the  Shakespearean 
dramas  began  to  appear,  and  having  filled  in  the 
interim  with  just  the  kind  of  experiences  necessary  to 
enable  him  to  produce  the  dramas,  it  is  difficult  to 
resist  the  conviction,  on  this  ground  alone,  that  it  is 
indeed  but  one  writer  with  whom  we  are  dealing. 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    159 

And,  so  far  as  that  mysteriousness  is  concerned  which 
we  attributed  to  Shakespeare,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  sudden  non-appearance  of  work  from  such  a  pen 
as  that  of  De  Vere's  is  as  mysterious  as  the  subsequent 
appearance  of  the  "  Shakespeare  "  poems  and  dramas. 

Now  although  the  authority  we  have  quoted  for  Literary 
Edward  de  Vere's  poetic  eminence  may  appear  ample 
there  is  nevertheless  a  special  caution  to  be  observed 
in  regard  to  it.  Assuming  that  he  is  the  author  of 
Shakespeare's  plays  it  will  still  be  necessary  to  dis- 
tinguish between  his  work  as  Edward  de  Vere  and  his 
work  as  "  Shakespeare."  The  former  belonging 
mainly  to  his  early  manhood,  and  the  latter  to  his 
maturity,  we  must  expect  to  find  a  corresponding 
difference  in  the  work.  How  vast  may  be  the  difference 
between  a  man's  early  and  his  later  literary  style  can 
be  seen  by  contrasting  Carlyle's  first  literary  essays 
with  "  Sartor  "  or  his  "  French  Revolution."  We 
must  not,  therefore,  expect  to  find  Oxford  ranked 
spontaneously  with  Shakespeare  ;  especially  as  the 
Shakespearean  work  is  primarily  dramatic,  whereas 
we  have  not  a  scrap  of  dramatic  work  published 
under  the  name  of  Oxford.  All  that  we  are  entitled 
to  expect  is  some  marked  correspondence  in  the  domain 
of  lyric  poetry,  and  a  reasonable  promise  of  the 
Shakespearean  work  in  general.  Of  these  we  have  at 
least  some  evidence,  in  the  verses  already  quoted,  and 
in  the  testimony  that  experts  have  offered  as  to  the 
distinctive  qualities  of  his  poetry. 

There  is,  however,  another  very  important  fact  to  Great 

be  taken  into  consideration.    Between  the  time  when  literarx 
,_, ,         .    .     _,  ,  ,  .  ,.  transition. 

Edward  de  Vere  produced  his  earliest  poems  and  the 

period  of  the  production  of  the  Shakespearean  dramas 
(roughly  the  interval  between  1580  and  1590),  a  very 


160         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

marked  change  had  come  over  the  character  of  English 
literature  as  a  whole.  The  nature  of  this  change  can 
best  be  gathered  from  the  following  passage  from 
Dean  Church's  "  Life  of  Spenser  "  : — "  The  ten  years 
from  1580  to  1590  present  ...  a  picture  of 
English  poetry  of  which,  though  there  are  gleams  of  a 
better  hope  .  .  .  the  general  character  is  feeble- 
ness, fantastic  absurdity,  affectation  and  bad  taste. 
Who  could  suppose  what  was  preparing  under  it  all  ? 
But  the  dawn  was  at  hand."  During  the  next  ten 
years,  1590-1600,  "  there  burst  forth  suddenly  a  new 
poetry,  which  with  its  reality,  depth,  sweetness,  and 
nobleness  took  the  world  captive.  The  poetical 
aspirations  of  the  Englishmen  of  the  time  had  found 
at  last  adequate  interpreters,  and  their  own  national 
and  unrivalled  expression." 

This  vital  change,  then,  was  preparing  in  England 
between  the  time  when  Edward  de  Vere  produced  his 
early  poetry  and  the  time  when  the  Shakespearean 
dramas  appeared.  Such  a  change  in  the  national 
literature  we  must  naturally  expect  to  find  reflected 
in  some  degree  in  his  writings.  The  roots  of  the  matter 
may,  however,  be  even  deeper  than  this.  In  making 
the  contrast  between  the  two  periods  Dean  Church 
cites  Philip  Sidney's  "  Defense  of  Poesie  "  as  repre- 
senting the  earlier  and  feebler  period,  and  the  "  rude 
play  houses  with  their  troops  of  actors,  most  of  them 
profligate  and  disreputable  "  as  being  the  source  of 
the  later  and  more  virile  movement. 

Transition          Now  the  ten   years  mentioned   by  Dean   Church 

embodied       corresponds  generally  to  what  we  shall  speak  of  as  the 

middle  period  of  the  life  of  Edward  de  Vere  as  a 

writer.     It  is  the  period  immediately  following  upon 

his  first  poetic  output,  and  it  was  during  these  years 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    161 

that  he  was  in  active  and  habitual  association  with 
these  very  troupes  of  play-actors,  whilst  the  third 
period  of  his  life  synchronizes  exactly  with  the  sudden 
outburst  of  the  great  Shakespearean  dramas.  In  his 
first  literary  period  he  is  the  recognized  chief  of  a  party 
of  court  poets,  and  the  rival  of  Philip  Sidney.  As  to 
who  his  fellows  were,  there  is  very  little  information  to 
be  had.  If,  however,  we  compare  his  poetry  with  the 
work  of  Sidney  we  can  only  account  for  Sidney's  being 
considered  in  any  sense  a  rival  by  the  fact  that  the 
feeble  affected  style  of  Sidney  was  in  vogue  at  the  time. 
What  distinguishes  Oxford's  work  from  contemporary 
verse  is  its  strength,  reality,  and  true  refinement. 
When  Philip  Sidney  learnt  to  "  look  into  his  heart 
and  write,"  he  only  showed  that  he  had  at  last  learnt 
a  lesson  that  his  rival  had  been  teaching  him.  The 
reader  may  or  may  not  be  able  to  agree  with  the  ideas 
and  sentiments  expressed  by  Oxford,  but  he  will  be 
unable  to  deny  that  every  line  written  by  the  poet  is  a 
direct  and  real  expression  of  himself  in  terms  at  once 
forceful  and  choice  and  no  mere  reflection  of  some 
fashionable  pose.  Even  in  these  early  years  he  was 
the  pioneer  of  realism  in  English  poetry.  In  his  middle 
period  he  was  a  leading  force  in  those  dramatic  circles 
from  which  was  to  emerge  that  realist  literature  so 
aptly  characterized  by  Dean  Church  ;  so  that,  whoever 
the  real  author  of  Shakespeare's  work  may  have  been, 
that  work  represents  the  triumph  of  the  De  Vere  spirit 
in  poetry  over  the  movement  which  claimed  Sidney 
as  its  head.  It  will  also  be  the  triumph  of  his  matured 
conceptions  over  his  youthful  compliance  with  con- 
ventional standards,  in  so  far  as  he  may  have  complied 
with  them ;  some  measure  of  such  compliance  being 
almost  inevitable  in  youth, 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Oxford's 
style  and 
Shake- 
speare's. 


We  have  already  had  to  remark  his  restiveness  under 
all  kinds  of  restraints  imposed  by  the  artificiality  of 
court  life  and  his  strong  bent  towards  that  Bohemian 
society  within  which  were  stirring  the  energetic  forces 
making  for  reality,  mingled  with  much  evil  in  life  and 
literature.  Having  been  pre-eminent  amongst  the 
lyric  poets  in  his  early  years,  and  prominent  in  the 
dramatic  movement  of  his  middle  period,  he  is  the 
natural  representative  and  probably  even  the  personal 
embodiment  and  original  source  of  the  transition  by 
which  the  lyric  poetry  of  the  early  days  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  was  merged  in  the  drama  of  Elizabeth's, 
and  his  own  later  years ;  and  before  he  died  he  witnessed 
the  beginning  of  the  decline  of  that  great  dramatic 
and  literary  efflorescence.  These  matters  we  believe 
to  have  a  profound  significance  in  relation  to  the 
problem  before  us. 

When  the  necessary  matter  is  readily  accessible  to 
the  public  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  read  these  verses 
of  De  Vere's  alongside  such  contemporary  poems  as 
appear  in  Dr.  Grosart's  volumes.  Then  their  distinctive 
qualities  will  be  more  than  ever  apparent.  Poems  by 
Sir  Edward  Dyer,  Lord  Vaux,  The  Earl  of  Essex  and 
others,  such  as  may  be  found  in  the  "  Fuller  Worthies' 
Library,"  though  by  no  means  mediocre  or  negligible, 
lack  the  distinctiveness  of  De  Vere's  poetry  and  fail 
to  grip  and  hold  the  mind  in  the  same  way  as  do  these 
early  productions  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  That  terse 
epigrammatic  style,  on  which  all  readers  comment,  is 
the  index  of  a  mind  that  sees  things  in  sharply  defined 
outline  and  fastens  itself  firmly  on  to  realities,  this 
being  further  assisted  by  a  complete  mastery  over  the 
resources  of  the  language  employed,  so  that  ideas  do 
not  have  to  force  themselves  through  clouds  of  words. 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    163 

If  to  these  qualities  we  add  an  intense  sensibility  to 
all  kinds  of  external  impressions,  and  a  faculty  of 
passionate  response,  brought  to  the  service  of  clear, 
intellectual  perceptions,  we  shall  have  seized  hold  of 
the  outstanding  features  of  De  Vere's  mentality.  The 
result  is  the  production  of  poems  which  impress  the 
mind  with  a  sense  of  their  unity.  The  ideas  cohere, 
following  one  another  in  a  natural  sequence,  and  leave 
in  the  reader's  mind  a  sense  of  completeness  and 
artistic  finish. 

That  this  concinnity  is  characteristic  of  Shake- 
speare's mind  and  work  needs  no  insisting  on  at 
the  present  day.  It  is  one  of  the  distinctive  marks  of 
the  individual  sonnets  of  Shakespeare  and  we  fear 
a  much  rarer  feature  of  reflective  poems  than  it  ought 
to  be  ;  the  lack  of  it  being  responsible  for  that  dis- 
tressing feeling  of  "  jumpiness "  so  frequently  ex- 
perienced in  reading  works  of  this  order.  In  this 
matter  of  cohesion  and  unity  we  have  certainly  met 
with  no  similar  correspondence  between  Shakespeare 
and  any  other  of  the  many  Elizabethan  poets  whose 
work  we  have  been  constrained  to  read  in  the  course 
of  this  enquiry,  nor  any  other  poet  with  the  same  vast 
range  of  sentiment  between  charming  love  lyric  and 
violently  passionate  verses. 

Again,  as  there  are  no  hazy  atmospheres  about  the  Richness  of 
images  which  such  a  mind  employs  and  no  words  are  imagery, 
wasted  in  struggling  to  define,  we  get  quite  a  wealth 
of  images  presented  to  the  mind  in  rapid  succession 
In  reading  the  poems  of  De  Vere,  as  in  reading  the 
works  of  Shakespeare,  one  lives  in  a  world  of  similes 
and  metaphors.    In  both  cases  there  is  a  wealth  of 
appropriate  classical  allusions ;    but  this  is  mingled 
harmoniously  with   an  equal  wealth  of  illustration 


164         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

drawn  from  the  common  experiences  and  what  appear 
like  the  personal  pursuits  of  life. 

Allied  possibly  to  these  mental  qualities  is  the  colour 
consciousness  which  is  observable  in  both  groups  of 
writings.  There  is  also  the  attendant  sensibility  to 
flowers,  the  favourite  flowers  in  both  cases  being  the 
lily,  the  rose,  and  the  violet. 

Oxford's  Turning  from  these  mental  indications  to  the  matter 

character  in  °  .  . 

his  writings,  of  moral  dispositions,  we  find  in  the  poems  the  impress 

of  a  character  quite  above  what  one  would  gather 
either  from  the  biography  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography,  or  from  the  scattered  references  to  him  in 
other  works.  There  is,  moreover,  in  addition  to  the 
poems  in  Dr.  Grosart's  collection,  a  letter  written  by 
the  Earl  of  Oxford  and  attached  to  one  of  the  poems, 
which  gives  us  a  glimpse  into  the  nature  of  the  man 
himself  as  he  was  in  these  early  years.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  pose  he  thought  fit  to  adopt  in  dealing 
with  some  of  the  men  about  Elizabeth's  court,  this 
letter  bears  ample  testimony  to  the  generosity  and 
largeness  of  his  disposition,  the  clearness  and  sobriety 
of  his  judgment,  and  the  essential  manliness  of  his 
actions  and  bearing  towards  literary  men  whom  he 
considered  worthy  of  encouragement.  His  poems  may 
in  a  measure  reflect  the  mannerisms  of  his  day,  but  in 
the  letter  we  get  a  glimpse  of  the  man  himself ;  and  if 
he  comes  to  be  acclaimed  as  Shakespeare  this  letter 
will  be  an  invaluable  treasure  as  the  first,  and  it  may 
prove  the  only,  Shakespearean  letter  bearing  upon 
literary  matters  and  cast  in  literary  form,  if  we  except 
the  dedications  of  his  poems  to  Southampton.  The 
fragments  we  get  of  Oxford's  letters  in  the  Calendered 
State  Papers  and  other  contemporary  manuscripts  are 
generally  in  a  formal  business  cast  with  only  occasional 
poetic  or  literary  flashes. 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    165 

As  a  letter  it  is,  of  course,  prose  ;  but  it  is  the  prose  Oxford's 
of   a  genuine  poet :   its    "  terse  ingenuity,"    wealth  prose 
of  figurative  speech,  and  even  its  musical  quality  being 
almost  as  marked  as  they  are  in  his  verse.    We  subjoin 
a  few  passages,  asking  the  reader  to  consider  that  the 
writer  was  but  twenty-six  years  old  when  the  letter 
was  published.    It  has  reference  to  a  translation  that 
had  been  submitted  to  him,  though  apparently  not 
intended  for  publication,  but  which  was  published  by 
his  orders — presumably,  therefore,  at  his  expense. 

"  After  I  had  perused  your  letters,  good  Master  The 
Bedingfield,  finding  in  them  your  request  far  differing  ietter. 
from  the  desert  of  your  labour,  I  could  not  choose  but 
greatly  doubt,  whether  it  were  better  for  me  to  yield 
to  your  desire  or  execute  mine  own  intention  towards 
the  publishing  of  your  book.     .     .     . 

"  At  length  I  determined  it  were  better  to  deny  your 
unlawful  request,  than  to  grant  or  condescend  to  the 
concealment  of  so  worthy  a  work.  Whereby,  as  you 
have  been  profitted  in  the  translating,  so  many  may 
reap  knowledge  by  the  reading  of  the  same.  .  .  . 
What  doth  it  avail  a  mass  of  gold  to  be  continually 
imprisoned  in  your  bags  and  never  to  be  employed  to 
your  use  :  I  do  not  doubt  even  you  so  think  of  your 
studies  and  delightful  Muses.  What  do  they  avail  if 
you  do  not  participate  them  to  others  ?  .  .  .  What 
doth  avail  the  vine  unless  another  delighteth  in  the 
grape  ?  What  doth  avail  the  rose  unless  another  took 
pleasure  in  the  smell  ?  .  .  .  . 

"Why  should  this  man  be  esteemed  more  than 
another  but  for  his  virtue,  through  which  every  man 
desireth  to  be  accounted  of  ?  .  .  . 

"  And  in  mine  opinion  as  it  beautifyeth  a  fair  woman 
to  be  decked  with  pearls  and  precious  stones,  so  much 


166         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

more  it  ornifyeth  a  gentleman  to  be  furnished  in  mind 
with  glittering  virtues. 

"  Wherefore  considering  the  small  harm  I  do  to  you, 
the  great  good  I  do  to  others  I  prefer  mine  own  intention 
to  discover  your  volume  before  your  request  to  secret 
the  same.  Wherein  I  may  seem  to  you  to  play  the 
part  of  the  cunning  and  expert  mediciner.  .  .  . 
.  .  .  So  you  being  sick  of  so  much  doubt  in  your 
own  proceedings,  through  which  infirmity  you  are 
desirous  to  bury  your  work  in  the  grave  of  oblivion, 
yet  I  am  nothing  dainty  to  deny  your  request. 
.  .  .  I  shall  erect  you  such  a  monument  that  in 
your  lifetime  you  shall  see  how  noble  a  shadow  of  your 
virtuous  life  shall  remain  when  you  are  dead  and  gone. 
.  .  .  Thus  earnestly  desiring  you  not  to  repugn 
the  setting  forth  of  your  own  proper  studies. 

"  From  your  loving  and  assured  friend, 

"E.   OXENFORDE." 

We  ask  our  readers  to  familiarize  themselves  thoroughly 
with  the  diction  of  this  letter,  and  then  to  read  the 
dedication  of  "  Venus  and  Adonis."  So  similar  is 
the  style  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  make  any 
allowance  for  the  seventeen  intervening  years. 

Wliilst,  then,  we  find  him  paying  high  compliments 
to  a  literary  man,  from  whom  he  could  expect  no  return, 
at  the  time  when  others  were  penning  extravagant 
eulogies  to  the  Queen,  we  have  not  a  single  line  of 
poetry  from  the  pen  of  Oxford,  ministering  to  the  royal 
vanity,  and  this  notwithstanding  the  high  place  he 
undoubtedly  held  in  the  queen's  regards  and  her 
indulgence  of  what  seemed  to  others  like  a  provocative 
wilfulness  in  him.  This  absence  of  compliments  to 
royalty  is  also  characteristic  of  the  Shakespeare  work, 
and  has  been  the  occasion  for  much  surprised  comment. 


EDWARD  DE  VERE  AS  LYRIC  POET    167 
Reviewing  the  present  chapter  as  a  whole  it  will  be  General 

'' 

recognized  that  to  the  remarkable  set  of  resemblances 
with  which  we  dealt  in  the  last  chapter,  must  now 
be  added  an  equally  remarkable  set  of  correspondences 
in  the  general  literary  situation  and  in  the  leading 
characteristics  of  Shakespeare's  and  De  Vere's  writings. 
And  when  the  value  of  the  authorities  cited  is  duly 
weighed  it  will  be  readily  conceded  that,  whatever 
may  be  said  for  the  rest  of  the  argument,  it  cannot 
be  urged  that  in  dealing  with  the  question  of  Shake- 
spearean honours,  we  are  inviting  the  public  to  consider 
the  claims  of  one  who  can  be  lightly  brushed  aside,  as 
in  any  way  "  out  of  the  running." 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 

UP  to  this  point  we  have  sought  to  rest  our  case  upon 
the  judgment  of  men  of  some  authority  in  Elizabethan 
literature.  Another  step,  however,  requires  to  be 
taken  in  which  there  is  distinctly  new  ground  to  be 
broken,  and  where,  therefore,  such  external  support 
can  hardly  be  looked  for.  This  decisive  step  is  to  bring 
the  writings  of  Edward  de  Vere  alongside  the  Shake- 
spearean writings,  in  order  to  judge  whether  or  not 
the  former  contain  the  natural  seeds  and  clear  promise 
of  the  latter.  As  this  has  never  been  done  before,  being 
indeed  the  special  outcome  of  the  particular  researches 
upon  which  we  are  at  present  engaged,  no  outside 
authority  is  available  ;  and,  therefore,  all  we  can  hope 
to  do  is  to  submit  such  points  for  consideration  as 
may  give  a  lead  in  this  new  line  of  investigation,  by 
which  eventually,  we  believe,  our  case  will  either 
stand  or  fall. 

Six-lined  So  far  as  forms  of  versification  are  concerned  De 

Vere  presents  just  that  rich  variety  which  is  so  notice- 
able in  Shakespeare  ;  and  almost  all  the  forms  he 
employs  we  find  reproduced  in  the  Shakespeare  work. 
When  his  contemporary  spoke  of  his  excellence  in 
"  the  rare  devices  of  poetry  "  we  recognize  at  once 
his  affinity  with  the  master  poet,  and  the  distinction 
between  him  and  his  rival  Sidney,  who  headed  a  party 
that  brought  ridicule  upon  themselves  by  attempts 
to  set  up  artificial  rules  that  would  have  fettered  the 

1 63 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    169 

development  of  our  national  poetry.  Towards  such 
tongue-tying  of  art  by  authority  Oxford  was  instinc- 
tively antagonistic,  and  the  rich  variety  of  poetic 
forms,  even  in  this  small  collection,  is  the  natural 
result  of  the  free  play  he  allowed  to  his  genius.  At 
the  same  time  Oxford  had  his  partialities,  and  the  six- 
lined  pentameter  stanza,  with  rhymes  as  in  "  Venus 
and  Adonis,"  was  undoubtedly  a  favourite  with  him ; 
since  it  appears  in  seven  out  of  the  twenty-two  pieces 
that  have  been  preserved.  How  great  a  favourite  it 
was  with  "  Shakespeare,"  has  perhaps  not  been  pointed 
out  before.  In  addition  to  its  employment  for  the 
first  of  the  two  long  poems  we  find  it  frequently  used 
in  his  plays.  "  Romeo  and  Juliet  "  has  two  such 
stanzas  :  the  play,  in  fact,  ending  with  one  of  them. 
We  find  it  also  in  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  "  A  Mid- 
summer Night's  Dream,"  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew," 
and  "  The  Comedy  of  Errors."  In  "  Richard  II  "  it 
occurs  worked  into  the  text  in  such  a  way  as  easily 
to  escape  detection  ;  the  six  lines  beginning  : 

"  But  now  the  blood  of  twenty  thousand  men." 

(Act  III,  s.  2.) 

As  it  is  not  the  only  case  of  this  kind  it  is  probable  that 
it  may  be  found  in  other  plays  not  mentioned  above. 
These  plays,  it  will  be  observed,  belong  mainly  to  what 
is  regarded  as  Shakespeare's  early  work. 

This  particular  form  of  stanza  we  were  tempted  at  The  poems 
one  time  to  call  the  De  Vere  stanza  ;    for  although  L*or(j  vaux. 
Chaucer  has  a  six-lined  stanza  it  is  quite  different  from 
this.  •  Spenser  uses  it  in  the  first  part  of  the  "  Shepherd's 
Calendar  "  ;    but  De  Vere's  work  in  this  form  had 
been  before   the   public  for  some   years  before  the 
"  Shepherd's  Calendar  "  appeared.    There  is,  however, 
one  possible  competitor  for  the  honour ;    and  the 


170         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

mention  of  his  name  will  introduce  an  interesting  little 
point  which  may  have  a  bearing  upon  our  argument. 
In  Dr.  Grosart's  collection,  the  poet  whose  work  im- 
mediately precedes  that  of  De  Vere  is  Thomas  Lord 
Vaux,  the  representative  of  another  old  family  whose 
ancestor,  like  De  Vere's,  had  "  come  over  with  the 
Conqueror  "  ;  a  family  interesting  to  people  in  the 
North  of  England  as  having  been  lords  of  Gilsland. 
Some  doubt  seems  to  exist  as  to  whether  the  poet 
was  really  Thomas  Lord  Vaux,  who  was  a  generation 
older  than  Edward  De  Vere  and  who  died  in  1562,  or 
his  son  William,  who  was  De  Vere's  contemporary. 
It  is  possible  that  both  father's  and  son's  work  appear 
mingled  together  in  Dr.  Grosart's  collection,  but  the 
collector  himself  pronounces  emphatically  and  ex- 
clusively in  favour  of  the  elder  man.  In  this  case  the 
honour  of  inventing  this  particular  stanza  must  belong 
to  Thomas  Lord  Vaux  unless  an  earlier  poet  should 
subsequently  be  found  using  it.  What  is  of  special 
interest  is  that  this  particular  form  of  verse  is  not  the 
only  thing  that  De  Vere  appropriates  from  Lord 
Vaux.  Although  his  own  poetry  is  of  quite  a  superior 
order  to  that  of  his  aristocratic  forerunner  in  verse 
making,  a  close  comparison  of  the  two  sets  of  verses 
as  they  stand  together  in  this  important  collection 
leaves  little  room  for  doubt  that,  when  as  a  young  man 
De  Vere  began  to  write  poetry  he  was  strongly  under 
Shakespeare  the  influence  of  Lord  Vaux'  work,  if  he  did  not  actually, 
Lord  Vaux.  as  is  natural  to  youth,  take  Lord  Vaux  as  his  model. 
Now,  by  a  curious  chance,  the  last  poem  in  the  "  Vaux  " 
collection,  the  poem  therefore  that  immediately  precedes 
the  De  Vere  collection,  is  the  identical  song  of  Lord 
Vaux'  which  "  Shakespeare  "  adapts  for  the  use  of 
the  gravedigger  in  "  Hamlet."  This  may  not  have 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    171 

much  weight  as  evidence.  Nevertheless,  if  it  can  be 
maintained,  as  it  reasonably  may,  that  Edward  de 
Vere  in  his  earliest  poetic  efforts  built  upon  foundations 
that  Lord  Vaux  had  laid,  then  the  reappearance  of  an 
old  song  of  Lord  Vaux',  in  Shakespeare's  supreme 
masterpiece,  forty  years  after  the  death  of  the  writer 
of  the  song,  is  certainly  not  without  significance  as 
part  of  our  general  argument. 

Before  leaving  this  question  of  the  six-lined  stanza 
we  would  point  out  that  one  feature  common  to  the 
De  Vere  and  the  Shakespeare  work  is  the  appearance 
of  single  isolated  stanzas.  For  example,  the  only 
stanza  in  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  "  is  in  this  form  ; 
and  no  less  than  three  of  the  poems  in  De  Vere's 
small  collection  are  single  stanzas  of  this  kind.  A 
fondness  for  other  six-lined  stanzas  differing  in  small 
details  from  this  one  is  also  characteristic  of  both  sets 
of  work.  It  is  curious,  too,  how  often  "  Shakespeare," 
even  in  his  blank  verse,  casts  a  speech  or  a  thought 
into  a  set  of  six  lines. 

Turning  now  to  the  question  of  the  theme  or  subject  Central 
matter  of  De  Vere's  poetry,  we  find  that  whatever  its 
surface  appearance,  its  underlying  interest  is  always, 
as  in  Shakespeare,  human  nature.  In  handling  this 
theme  figures  of  speech  borrowed  from  the  classics  and 
taken  for  the  most  part  from  Ovid  are  as  copious  and 
are  introduced  as  naturally  as  the  ordinary  words  of 
his  mother-tongue,  illuminating  his  thought  as  aptly 
as  any  homely  simile.  At  the  same  time  we  find  the 
same  Shakespearean  wealth  of  illustration  drawn  from 
the  common  objects  about  him  :  ordinary  flowers ; 
common  materials  like  glass,  crystal,  amber,  wax, 
sugar,  gall  and  wine,  and  a  host  of  other  things ;  the 
deer,  hawks,  hounds,  the  mastiff,  birds,  worms,  the 


i;2  MIAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

bee,  drone,  honey,  the  stars,  streams,  hill,  tower, 
cannon,  and  so  on.  All  these  images  crowd  his  lines, 
not  as  themes  in  themselves,  but  as  similes  and  meta- 
phors for  handling  his  central  theme  of  human  life  and 
human  nature. 

Personality.  go  far  as  fhe  natural  disposition  of  the  writer  is 
concerned,  it  is  fortunate  for  the  name  of  Edward  de 
Vere  that  we  have  these  poems  collected  by  Dr.  Grosart 
and  the  letter  included  in  the  collection.  The  per- 
sonality they  reflect  is  perfectly  in  harmony  with  that 
which  seems  to  peer  through  the  writings  of  Shake- 
speare, though  in  many  ways  out  of  agreement  with 
what  Oxford  is  represented  as  being  in  several  of  the 
references  to  him  with  which  we  have  met.  There 
are  traces  undoubtedly  of  those  defects  which  the 
sonnets  disclose  in  "  Shakespeare,"  but  through  it  all 
there  shines  the  spirit  of  an  intensely  affectionate 
nature,  highly  sensitive,  and  craving  for  tenderness 
and  sympathy.  He  is  a  man  with  faults,  but  stamped 
with  reality  and  truth  ;  honest  even  in  his  errors, 
making  no  pretence  of  being  better  than  he  was,  and 
recalling  frequently  to  our  minds  the  lines  in  one  of 
Shakespeare's  sonnets  : 

1 '  I  am  that  I  am,  and  they  that  level 
At  my  abuses  reckon  up  their  own." 

As  one  reads  the  poems  and  then  recalls  particular 
references  to  him  one  feels  that  injustice  has  somehow 
been  done,  and  that  a  great  work  of  rectification  is 
urgently  needed,  quite  apart  from  the  question  of 
Shakespearean  authorship. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  place  side  by  side  some 
passages  from  Edward  de  Vere's  poetry  and  others 
from  "  Shakespeare's  "  writings  which  illustrate  their 
correspondence  either  in  mentality  or  literary  style. 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  173 

Beginning  with  the  poem  on  "  Women  "  already  Haggard 
given  in  full,  we  note  first  of  all  its  similarity  to  hawk- 
Shakespeare's  work  in  the  general  characteristics  of 
diction,  succinctness,  cohesion  and  unity  ;  and  also 
in  the  similes  employed.  The  word  "  haggard,"  a 
wild  or  imperfectly  trained  hawk,  is  the  word  which 
naturally  arrests  the  attention  of  the  modern  reader. 
Now  "  Shakespeare  "  uses  it  five  times,  and  out  of 
these  no  less  than  four  are  when  he  uses  the  word  as 
a  figure  of  speech  in  referring  to  fickleness  or  indiscipline 
in  women.  In  "  Othello  "  it  is  used  identically  as  in  the 
poem  by  De  Vere.  meaning  a  woman  who  "  flies  from 
man  to  man." 

"If  I  do  find  her  haggard, 

Though  that  her  jesses  were  my  dear  heart  strings, 
I'd  whistle  her  off,  and  let  her  down  the  wind 
To  play  at  fortune  "  (III,  3). 

Even  the  sentiment  and  idea  is  exactly  the  same  as 
in  De  Vere's  poem  : 

"  Like  haggards  wild  they  range, 
These  gentle  birds  that  fly  from  man  to  man. 
Who  would  not  scorn  and  shake  them   from  the   fist 
And  let  them  fly,  fair  fools,  which  way  they  list  ?  " 

In  the  same  poem  he  speaks  of  making  a  "  disport  " 
of  "  training  them  to  our  lure,"  which  is  quite  sugges- 
tive of  this  from  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew " 
(IV.  i)  : 

"  For  then  she  never  looks  upon  her  lure. 
Another  way  I  have  to  man  my  haggard, 
To  make  her  come  and  know  her  keeper's  call." 

Again  De  Vere  speaks  of  the  subtle  oaths,  the 
fawning  and  flattering  by  which  men  "  train  them  to 


174         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

their  lure  "  in  exactly  the  same  vein  as  that  in  which 
Hero  in  "  Much  Ado  "  says  (III.  i.) : 

"  Then  go  we  near  her,  that  her  ear  lose  nothing 
Of  the  false  sweet  bait  that  we  lay  for  it. 
I  know  her  spirits  are  as  coy  and  wild 
As  haggards  of  the  rock." 

In  making  this  comparison  we  have  not  had  before 
us  a  large  number  of  instances  out  of  which  it  was 
possible  to  select  a  few  that  happened  to  be  similar. 
What  we  have  in  this  instance  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
a  complete  accordance  at  all  points  in  the  use  of  an 
unusual  word  and  figure  of  speech.  Indeed  if  we  make 
a  piece  of  patchwork  of  all  the  passages  in  Shakespeare 
in  which  the  word  "  haggard  "  occurs  we  can  virtually 
reconstruct  De  Vere's  single  poem  on  "  Women." 
Such  an  agreement  not  only  supports  us  in  seeking 
to  establish  the  general  harmony  of  De  Vere's  work 
with  Shakespeare's,  but  carries  us  beyond  the  imme- 
diate needs  of  our  argument ;  for  it  constrains  us  to 
claim  that  either  both  sets  of  expressions  are  actually 
from  the  same  pen,  or  "  Shakespeare  "  pressed  that 
licence  to  borrow,  which  was  prevalent  in  his  day,  far 
beyond  its  legitimate  limits.  In  our  days  we  should 
not  hesitate  to  describe  such  passages  as  glaring 
plagiarism,  unless  they  happened  to  come  from  the 
same  pen. 

Lily  and  We  shall  take  next  some  verses  from  a  poem  already 

referred  to  in  a  passage  quoted  from  the  "  Cambridge 
History  of  Literature."  This  is  the  "  charming 
lyric  "  there  mentioned,  entitled  "  What  Cunning  can 
express  ?  "  and  which  appeared  in  "  England's 
Helicon  "  in  1600  as  "  What  Shepherd  can  express  ?  " 
How  these  and  others  of  Oxford's  verses  have  escaped 


for  so  long  the  attention  of  the  compilers  of  anthologies 
is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  literature. 

"The  Lily  in  the  field 

That  glories  in  his  white, 
For  pureness  now  must  yield 

And  render  up  his  right. 
Heaven  pictured  in  her  face 
Doth  promise  joy  and  grace. 

Fair  Cynthia's  silver  light, 

That  beats  on  running  streams, 

Compares  not  with  her  white, 
Whose  hairs  are  all  sun  beams. 

So  bright  my  Nymph  doth  shine, 

As  day  unto  my  eyne. 

With  this  there  is  a  red 

Exceeds  the  Damaske-Rose, 
Which  in  her  cheeks  is  spread  ; 

Whence  every  favour  grows. 
In  sky  there  is  no  star 
But  she  surmounts  it  far. 

When  Phoebus  from  his  bed 

Of  Thetis  doth  arise, 
The  morning  blushing  red 

In  fair  Carnation  wise, 
He  shows  in  my  Nymph's  face 
As  Queen  of  every  grace. 

This  pleasant  Lily  white, 

This  taint  of  roseate  red, 
This  Cynthia's  silver  light, 

This  sweet  fair  Dea  spred, 
These  sunbeams  in  mine  eye, 
These  beauties  make  me  die." 

This  is  the  only  poem  in  the  De  Vere  collection  in 
which  the  writer  lingers  tenderly  and  seriously  on  the 
beauty  of  a  woman's  face  ;  and  in  it,  it  will  be  ob- 
served, his  whole  treatment  turns  upon  the  contrast 
of  white  and  red,  the  lily  and  the  damask  rose. 


176         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

The  beauty        It  is  a  striking  fact  then  that  the  only  poem  of 
Lucrece.    .,  Snakespeare's  ••  in  which  he  dwells  at  iength  in  the 

same  spirit  upon  the  same  theme  is  dominated  by  the 
identical  contrast.  This  is  the  set  of  stanzas  in  which 
he  deals  with  the  beauty  of  Lucrece  (Stanzas  2,  4,  8, 
9,  10,  n).  Indeed,  there  is  hardly  a  term  used  by 
De  Vere  in  the  poem  quoted  above,  which  is  not 
reproduced  in  these  stanzas.  Whilst  drawing  special 
attention  to  the  red  and  white  contrast,  and  to  the 
general  similarity  in  tone  and  delicacy  of  touch,  we 
also  put  in  italics  a  number  of  the  subordinate  out- 
standing words  that  appear  in  both  poems. 

Stanza  2. 

"  To  praise  the  clear  unmatched  red  and  white 
Which  triumph'd  in  the  sky  of  his  delight, 
Where  mortal  stars  as  bright  as  heaven's  beauties, 
With  pure  aspects  did  him  peculiar  duties." 

Stanza  4. 

"The  morning's  silver  melting  dew 
Against  the  golden  splendour  of  the  sun." 

Stanza  6. 

"So  rich  a  thing  braving  compare." 

Stanza  8. 

' '  When  beauty  boasted  blushes,  in  despite 
Virtue  would  stain  that  o'er  with  silver  white." 

Stanza  10. 

"This  heraldry  in  Lucrece 's  face  was  seen, 
Argued  by  beauty's  red  and  virtue's  white 
Of  either  colour  was  the  other  queen." 

Stanza  u. 

"  This  silent  war  of  lilies  and  of  roses, 
Which  Tarquin  view'd  in  her  fair  face's  field." 

Stanza  11  brings  to  a  close  this  pcem  on  the  beauty 
of  Lucrece ;    but  the  conception  which  dcrninatjes  it 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    177 

is  maintained  throughout  the  work  to  which  it  belongs. 
It  occurs  in  stanza  37  : — 

"First  red  as  roses  that  on  lawn  we  lay, 
Then  white  as  lawn  the  roses  took  away." 

Stanza  56. 

"  Her  lily  hand  her  rosy  cheek  lies  under." 

Stanza  69. 

"The  colour  of  thy  face, 
That  even  for  anger  makes  the  lily  pale, 
And  the  red  rose  blush  at  her  own  disgrace." 

That  all  this  belongs  to  the  personality  of  "  Shake- 
speare "  himself  will  be  seen  from  the  following 
quotations  from  the  sonnets  : — 

"Nor  did  I  wonder  at  the  lily's  white,  Shakespeare 

Nor  praise  the  deep  vermilion  of  the  rose."  on  the  lily 

(Sonnet  98.)       and  the  rose. 
"The  lily  I  condemned  for  thy  hand, 
And  buds  of  marjoram  had  stol'n  thy  hair. 
The  roses  fearfully  on  thorns  did  stand, 
One  blushing  shame,   another  white  despair, 
A  third,  nor  red  nor  white  had  stol'n  of  both." 

(Sonnet  99.) 
"I  have  seen  roses  damask'd  red  and  white. 

(Sonnet  130.) 

It  also  appears  in  the  play  of  "  Coriolanus  "  (II.  i)  : 

' '  Our  veiled  dames   commit  the  war   of  white  and 
damask." 

And  in  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost  "  (I.  2)  : 

1 '  If  she  be  made  of  white  and  red 
Her  faults  will  ne'er  be  known,  etc." 

' '  A  dangerous  rhyme,  my  masters,  against  the  reason 
of  white  and  red." 

In  "  Venus  "  this  red  and  white  contrast  is  men- 
tioned no  less  than  three  times  in  the  first  thirteen 
stanzas. 

13 


178         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  The  Finally  we  have  this  from  the  "  Passionate  Pilgrim," 

which  bears  more  than  one  mark  of  Shakespearean  or 
De  Vere  influence,  if  not  of  actual  origin  : 

"Fair  is  my  love  but  not  so  fair  as  fickle, 
Mild  as  a  dove,  but  neither  true  nor  trusty, 
Bright  as  a  glass  and  yet  as  glass  is,  brittle. 
Softer  than  wax,  and  yet  as  iron  rusty  ; 
A  lily  pale  with  damask  dye  to  grace  her, 
None  fairer  nor  none  falser  to  deface  her." 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  mystery  of 
Jaggard's  piratical  publication.  We  insert  this  parti- 
cular stanza  because,  if  it  was  not  "  Shakespeare's," 
it  at  any  rate  shows  what  was  considered  at  that  time 
to  be  characteristic  of  Shakespeare's  work.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  it  is  in  the  familiar  "  Venus  "  stanza  ; 
it  turns  upon  the  idea  of  feminine  fickleness  ;  it  brings 
in  the  lily  and  damask  contrast ;  at  the  same  time  the 
similes  of  glass  and  wax  are  distinctive  of  De  Vere's 
work.  Though  the  stanza  contains  figures  and  phrases 
suggestive  of  De  Vere  or  Shakespeare,  as  a  piece  of 
versification  it  is  quite  inferior  in  several  points.  It 
looks  rather  like  a  piece  of  patchwork  from  De  Vere's 
poems  ;  and  if  this  is  what  it  really  is,  to  have  it  put 
forward  as  Shakespeare's  work  suggests  that  Jaggard 
either  knew  or  suspected  that  De  Vere  was  "  Shake- 
speare." In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  folio  edition  of  Shakespeare,  which  was 
published  just  a  generation  later,  was  printed  by 
some  one  with  a  different  Christian  name  but  with 
the  same  unusual  surname  of  Jaggard.  Sir  Sidney  Lee 
ascribes  the  printing  to  the  same  man,  who  had 
associated  his  son  with  the  issue  of  the  later  work. 

Returning  to  De  Vere's  verses  the  outstanding  word 
is  "  damask,"  associated  with  the  "  damask  rose." 


179 

In  the  small  collection  of  his  poems  this  word  occurs  The  damask 

twice,  and  in  Shakespeare  the  word  occurs  six  times,  r 

one  of  which  is  of  doubtful  Shakespearean  origin.    On 

both  of  the  occasions  on  which  De  Vere  uses  the  word 

it  has  reference  to  a  woman's  complexion,  and  in  four 

out  of  the  five  times  when  "  Shakespeare  "  uses  the 

word  it  is  used  in  precisely  the  same  connection. 

Before  leaving  this  matter  it  will  be  well  at  this  Poetic  unity, 
point  to  emphasize  a  principle  which  is  vital  to  the 
argument  contained  in  this  chapter  :  namely,  that 
we  are  not  here  primarily  concerned  with  the  mere 
piling  up  of  parallel  passages.  What  matters  most  of 
all  is  mental  correspondence  and  the  general  unity  of 
treatment  which  follows  from  it.  Of  this,  the  poem  by 
De  Vere,  and  the  set  of  stanzas  from  "  Lucrece,"  form 
an  excellent  example  to  begin  with.  Here  we  have 
what  are  virtually  two  complete  poems  upon  one 
theme,  dominated  by  an  identical  conception,  per- 
meated by  precisely  the  same  spirit,  illustrated  by  the 
same  imagery  and  clothed  in  a  remarkably  similar 
vocabulary.  Such  a  comparison,  it  hardly  needs 
pointing  out,  stands  on  a  totally  different  plane  from 
the  Baconian  collations  of  words  and  phrases.  The 
kind  of  criticicms  which  have  quite  justly  been  levelled 
at  these  mere  text-gathering  labours  do  not,  we  believe, 
apply  to  the  main  body  of  the  comparisons  treated  in 
this  chapter. 

Turning  now  from  such  details  oi  workmanship  as  Love's 
have  governed  the  above  comparison  we  may  now 
consider  a  more  general  matter  :  his  treatment  of  the 
subject  of  Love.  We  find  first  of  all  in  these  early 
poems  of  De  Vere's  something  very  far  removed  from 
the  conventional  or  weakly  sentimental  expressions  of 
affection  then  in  vogue.  In  some  of  Philip  Sidney's 


180         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

early  poetry  this  kind  of  thing  becomes  positively 
silly.  In  De  Vere's  work  on  the  other  hand  we  have 
a  firmly  knit  personified  treatment  of  Love  in  the 
abstract,  the  dominant  notes  of  which  are  as  unaffected 
as  they  are  Shakespearean.  There  is,  in  particular,  a 
set  of  lyrics  highly  praised  by  more  than  one  writer, 
which  are  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  with  "  Desire." 
The  prominence  of  this  word  and  idea  in  the  work  of 
"  Shakespeare  "  and  of  De  Vere  will  receive  special 
attention  later :  for  the  present  we  shall  simply  take 
a  few  lines  from  the  latter  as  bearing  upon  the  theme 
of  Love : 

"Is  he  god  of  peace  or  war  ? 
What  be  his  arms  ?     What  is  his  might  ? 
His  war  is  peace,  his  peace  is  war, 
Each  grief  of  his  is  but  delight  ; 
His  bitter  ball  is  sugared  bliss. 
What  be  his  gifts  ?     How  doth  he  pay  ? 
Sweet  dreams  in  sleep,  new  thoughts  in  day. 
Beholding  eyes,  in  mind  received. 

*  *  * 

What  labours  doth  this  god  allow  ? 
Sit  still  and  muse  to  make  a  vow. 
Their  ladies  if  they  true  remain. 

*  *  * 

Why  is  he  naked  painted  ?     Blind  ? 

*  *  * 

Though  living  long  he  is  yet  a  child, 
A  god  begot  beguiled. 

*  .    *  * 

When   wert   thou   born,    Desire  ? 
In   pride  and  pomp  of  May. 

*  *  * 

What  was  thy  meat  and  daily  food  ? 
Sad  sighs  and  great  annoy. 

*  *  * 

What  hadst  thou  then  to  drink  ? 
Unfeigned  lovers'    tears. 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    181 

As  part  of  our  work  is  to  represent  the  process  of 
investigation,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  indicate  its 
operation  in  this  instance.  When  the  contents  of  De 
Vere's  poem  had  become  quite  familiar  as  a  result  of 
repeated  reading,  the  next  step  was  to  select  the  plays 
of  "  Shakespeare  "  in  which  we  were  most  likely  to 
find  the  substance  of  this  poem  deposited.  Amongst 
these,  "A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream"  naturally  .. A 
occupied  a  foremost  place.  After  then,  the  reader  has,  Midsummer 

Niuht's 

in  his  turn,  thoroughly  familiarized  himself  with  these  Dream." 
lines  let  him  refer  to  "  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  " 
(I.  i)  and  begin  reading  from,  "  The  course  of  true  love 
never  did  run  smooth,"  continuing  to  the  end  of  the 
scene  and  noticing  specially  such  expressions  as  the 
following : — 

"True  lovers  have  been  ever  cross'd." 

*  *  * 
"It  is  a  customary  cross 

As  due  to  love  as  thoughts  and  dreams  and  sighs, 
Wishes  and  tears." 

*  *  * 

1 '  By  all  the  vows  that  ever  men  have  broke 
In  number  more  than  women  ever  spoke." 

*  *  * 

"  We  must  starve  our  sight  from  lover's  food." 

*  *  * 

"  Love  looks  not  with  the  eyes  but  with  the  mind." 

*  *  * 

"Therefore  is  winged  Cupid  painted  blind." 
"  Therefore  is  Love  said  to  be  a  child 
Because  in  choice  he  is  so  oft  beguiled." 

As  De  Vere's  lines  are  from  lyrics  on  Desire  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  word  "  desire  "  occurs  no 
less  than  three  times  in  the  part  of  the  scene  that 
precedes  the  lines  we  quote  from  "  Shakespeare," 


i8a         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

whilst  the  idea  of  Desire  presides  over  the  whole  scene. 
In  both  cases  we  have  passing  allusions  to  the  skylark 
and  the  month  of  May,  revealing  not  only  a  similar 
concatenation  of  ideas,  but  also  of  their  associated 
words  and  figures  of  speech.  Had  the  lines  been 
culled  from  different  parts  of  De  Vere's  work  on  the 
one  hand,  or  from  different  parts  of  Shakespeare's 
on  the  other,  their  force  would  not  have  been  the  same. 
It  is  the  unity  of  treatment  in  each  case  and  a  simi- 
larity extending  to  identical  words  and  even  rhymes 
("  child  "  with  "  beguiled  ")  which  is  so  suggestive 
of  a  single  mind  at  work  in  both  cases  :  a  theory 
strengthened  by  the  absence  of  anything  analogous 
in  the  work  of  contemporary  poets. 

Love's  This  is  further  supported  by  the  appearance  of 

iss'  similar  rhetorical  forms  in  dealing  with  the  same 
theme.  In  "  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  "  we  have 
the  following  : — 

Hernia.     The  more  I  hate  the  more  he  follows  me. 
Helena.     The  more  I  love  the  more  he  hateth  me. 

In  another  poem  of  De  Vere's  we  have  the  following  : — 

"  The  more  I  followed  one  the  more  she  fled  away 
As  Daphne  did,  full  long  ago,  Apollo's  wishful  prey. 
The  more  my  plaints  I  do  resound  the  less  she 

pities  me." 

This  idea  of  Love's  contrariness  runs  right  through 
the  poem  of  De  Vere's  from  which  the  last  lines  are 
quoted  ;  and  we  might  almost  describe  "A  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream  "  as  a  burlesque  on  the  same  idea.  With 
the  two  passages  just  quoted  in  mind  turn  to  Act  II, 
scene  i  in  the  play,  and  read  the  encounter  between 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  183 

Demetrius  and  Helena,  where  the  former  enters  with 
the  latter  following  him. 

D.  "  Get  thee  gone  and  follow  me  no  more.  Do  I  not 
in  plainest  truth  tell  you  I  do  not  nor  I  cannot  love 
you." 

H.  "  And  even  for  that  do  I  love  you  the  more.  The 
more  you  beat  me,  I  will  fawn  on  you  :  only  give  me 
leave,  unworthy  as  I  am  to  follow  you.  Run  when 
you  will,  the  story  shall  be  changed  ;  Apollo  runs 
and  Daphne  holds  the  chase." 

Here  again  it  will  be  noticed  we  have  an  exact 
correspondence  in  conception,  heightened  by  the 
introduction  of  Apollo  and  Daphne  in  both  cases ; 
and  Demetrius's  treatment  of  Helena's  "  plaints  "  is 
exactly  described  in  De  Vere's  line  : 

' '  The  more  my  plaints  I  do  resound  the  less  she  pities  me. ' ' 

A  most  signal  instance  of  the  essential  unity  of  the 
two  sets  of  work  we  are  now  comparing,  is  presented 
in  connection  with  this  idea  of  "  Desire."  By  far  the 
longest  of  De  Vere's  poems,  containing  no  less  than 
nineteen  stanzas,  and  representing  nearly  a  quarter 
of  the  entire  collection  of  his  poetry,  is  on  this  theme  : 
a  theme  which  frequently  reappears  in  the  other  three 
quarters. 

As  to  its  position  in  Shakespeare's  works  it  will 
suffice  to  quote  the  following  passage  from  Mr.  Frank 
Harris's  work  on  "  The  Man  Shakespeare  "  : — 

"  Shakespeare  gave  immortal  expression  to  desire 
and  its  offspring,  love,  jealousy,  etc.  .  .  .  Desire, 
in  especial,  has  inspired  him  with  phrases  more 
magically  expressive  even  than  those  gasped  out  by 
panting  Sappho." 

In  De  Vere's  work,  again,  Desire  is  personified  just 


184         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

as  we  find  it  in  stanzas  101  and  102  of  Shakespeare's 
"  Lucrece  "  ;  and  the  word  "  desire  "  ranks,  for 
importance,  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  great  dramas, 
with  the  word  "  will,"  to  which,  as  Sir  Sidney  Lee 
points  out,  it  was  closely  allied  in  Shakespeare's  day. 
This  single  word,  then,  forms  an  important  bridge 
between  the  two  sets  of  writings  ;  and,  by  itself,  makes 
quite  a  significant  addition  to  the  evidence  in  support 
of  a  common  authorship. 

Love's  In  a  somewhat  different  strain  is  "  Shakespeare's  " 

treatment  of  Love  in  the  dialogue  between  Valentine 
and  Proteus  in  "  The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona  " 
(I.  i)  : 

"To  be  in  love  where  scorn  is  bought  with  groans, 
Coy  looks  with  heart-sore  sighs,  one  fading  moment's 

mirth 

With  twenty  watchful  weary  tedious  nights. 
If  haply  won  perhaps  a  hapless  gain  ; 
If  lost  why  then  a  grievous  labour  won  : 
However,  but  a  folly  bought  with  wit 
Of  else  a  wit  by  folly  vanquished. 

As  in  the  sweetest  bud 
The  eating  canker  dwells,  so  eating  love 
Inhabits  in  the  finest  wits  of  all. 

By  love  the  young  and  tender  wit 
Is  turn'd  to   folly 
Losing  all  the  fair  effects  of  future  hopes. 

*  *  *  * 

But  wherefore  waste  I  time  to  counsel  thee 
That  art  a  votary  to  Fond  Desire? 

*  *  *  * 

Made  me  neglect  my  studies,  lose  my  time, 
War  with  good  counsel,  set  the  world  at  nought; 
Made  wit  with  musing  weak,  heart  sick  with  thought. 

Again  we  must  ask  the  reader  first  of  all  to  make 
himself  thoroughly  familiar  with  these  lines,  noticing 
the  wit  and  folly  paradoxes,  wasted  time,  defeated 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  185 

hopes,  and,  though  last  not  least,  the  concluding 
rhyme.  Now  compare  this  with  the  following  from 
two  of  De  Vere's  poems  : — 

"  My  meaning  is  to  work 
What  wonders  love  hath  wrought  ; 
Wherewith  I  muse  why  men  of  wit 
Have  love  so  dearly  bought." 

"  It's  now  a  peace  and  then  a  sudden  war, 
A  hope  consumed  before  it  is  conceived. 
At  hand  it  fears  ;    it  menaceth  afar  ; 
And  he  that  gains  is  most  of  all  deceived. 
Love  whets  the  dullest  wits,  his  plagues  be  such, 
But  makes  the  wise  by  pleasing  dote  as  much. 

"  Love's  a  desire,  which,  for  to  wait  a  time, 
Doth  lose  an  age  of  years,  and  so  doth  pass 
As  doth  a  shadow  sever 'd  from  his  prime, 
Seeming  as  though  it  were,  yet  never  was. 
Leaving  behind  nought  but  repentent  thought 
Of  days  ill  spent  on  that  which  profits  nought." 

Here  again  we  have  an  exact  correspondence  short 
of  mere  transcription,  even  to  the  extent  of  an  identical 
rhyme  ;  whilst  Valentine's  raillery  of  his  friend,  that 
he  had  become  "  a  votary  to  Fond  Desire,"  is  redolent 
of  De  Vere's  verses  on  this  theme,  which  finish  with  the 
words : 

"  Then  Fond  Desire  farewell, 
Thou  art  no  mate  for  me, 
I  should  be  loath,  methinks,  to  dwell, 
With  such  a  one  as  thee." 

As  a  final  remark  on  the  question  of  love,  we  shall 
merely  point  out,  that,  if  the  reader  wishes  to  have  a 
summary  of  Edward  de  Vere's  treatment  of  the 
subject,  let  him  turn  to  Shakespeare's  "  Venus  and 
Adonis "  and  read  the  first  five  of  the  last  ten 
stanzas  of  the  poem,  in  which  Venus  is  prophesying 
the  fate  of  love. 


186 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Love  poems 
reviewed. 


Oxford's 

mental 

distraction. 


When  the  passages  we  have  quoted  are  weighed 
carefully  side  by  side,  phrase  by  phrase  and  word  by 
word,  hardly  any  one  will  question  the  similarity  of 
mind  behind  them,  and  most  people,  we  believe,  will 
agree  that  there  are  striking  resemblances  of  expression. 
Exact  repetition,  of  course,  is  not  to  be  looked  for  ; 
for  one  of  the  astonishing  features  of  "  Shakespeare's  " 
work  is  the  freshness  and  constant  variety  maintained 
throughout  so  great  a  mass  of  writing.  But,  to  the 
modest  contention  that  one  contains  the  possible 
germs  of  the  other,  few  readers  will  have  any  difficulty 
in  acceding.  An  intensified  interest  in  De  Vere's  work 
will  doubtless  cause  everything  he  has  written  to 
be  subjected  to  a  most  careful  scrutiny,  and  its  com- 
parison specially  with  the  lyric  work  of  Shakespeare 
with  appropriate  allowances  for  the  differences  between 
early  and  matured  work  will  probably  settle  con- 
clusively the  claims  we  are  now  making  on  his  behalf. 

As  reflecting  the  correspondence,  alike  in  mental 
constitution  and  general  literary  style  in  another 
vein,  take  first  of  all  the  following  three  verses,  each  of 
which  forms  the  opening  stanza  of  a  separate  poem  of 
De  Vere's  : — 

"  Fain  would  I  sing  but  fury  makes  me  mad, 
And  rage  hath  sworn  to  seek  revenge  on  wrong. 
My  mazed  mind  in  malice  is  so  set 
As  death  shall  daunt  my  deadly  dolours  long. 
Patience  perforce  is  such  a  pinching  pain, 
As  die  I  will  or  suffer  wrong  again." 

"  If  care  or  skill  could  conquer  vain  desire, 
Or  reason's  reins  my  strong  affections  stay, 
There  should  my  sighs  to  quiet  breast  retire, 
And  shun  such  sights  as  secret  thoughts  betray  ; 
Uncomely  love,  which  now  lurks  in  my  breast 
Should  cease,  my  grief  by  wisdom's  power  oppress'd." 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  187 

"  Love  is  a  discord  and  a  strange  divorce 
Betwixt  our  sense  and  rest  ;    by  whose  power, 
As  mad  with  reason  we  admit  that  force 
Which  wit  or  reason  never  may "  (word  lost 

through  an   obvious  misprint  in   Dr.  Grosart's 

collection). 

We  would  draw  attention  first  to  the  "  double- 
barrelled  alliterations "  contained  especially  in  the 
first  of  these  stanzas — an  artifice  of  Shakespeare's  upon 
which  writers  have  commented. 

We  have  quoted  stanzas  from  three  separate  poems  ••  shake- 
in  order  to  show  that  the  frame  of  mind  they  express —  spea£fjs  " 
a  restlessness  of  the  emotional  nature — was  charac-  distraction, 
teristic   of  the  poet.     Now  take  the  sentiment  and 
manner  of  expression  represented  by  the  three  stanzas 
as  a  whole  and  compare  them  with  the  following 
passages  from  two  of  Shakespeare's  sonnets  (140  and 

147)  I- 

1.  "  For  if  I  should  despair  I  should  grow  mad, 

And  in  my  madness  might  speak  ill  of  thee, 
Now  this  ill-wresting  world  is  grown  so  bad 
Mad  slanderers  by  mad  ears  believed  be." 

2.  "  My  reason,  the  physician  to  my  love, 

Hath  left  me,  and  I  desperate  now  approve  ; 
Desire  is  death,  which,  physic  did  except. 
Past  cure  I  am  now  reason  is  past  care, 
And  frantic  mad  with  evermore  unrest. 
My  thoughts  and  my  discourse  as  madmen's  are 
At  random  from  the  truth,  vainly  expressed  ; 
For  I  have  sworn  thee  fair  and  thought  thee  bright 
Who  art  as  black  as  hell  and  dark  as  night." 

We  might  safely  challenge  any  one  to  find  in  the  whole 
range  of  Elizabethan  literature  another  instance  of  a 
poet  expressing  the  same  kind  of  thought  and  feeling 
in  lines  of  the  same  distinctive  quality  as  is  represented 


i88         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

by  the  two  sets  here  presented  for  comparison.  Un- 
supported by  any  other  evidence  they  would  justify 
a  very  strong  ground  of  suspicion  that  Edward  de  Vere 
and  "  Shakespeare  "  were  one  and  the  same  man.  It 
is  of  first  importance  to  keep  in  mind  that  the  lines  here 
quoted  from  "  Shakespeare  "  are  not  extracted  from 
a  drama,  but  are  from  the  most  realistic  of  personal 
poetry.  Even  those  who  would  deny  an  autobio- 
graphical significance  to  many  of  the  sonnets  admit 
the  intensely  realistic  character  of  the  particular  group 
from  which  the  above  are  taken.  We  have  therefore, 
in  each  case,  the  simple  and  direct  expression  of  the 
private  mind  of  the  poet  in  a  vein  so  distinctive  as  to 
leave  hardly  any  room  for  doubt  that  both  are  from 
one  pen. 

interroga-  Of  rhetorical  forms  common  to  the  two  sets  of 
writings,  a  minor  point  is  a  fondness  for  stanzas  formed 
of  a  succession  of  interrogatives  for  the  expression  of 
strong  emotion.  Indeed,  in  the  De  Vere  work,  we  have 
an  entire  sonnet  formed  of  a  series  of  questions.  It 
is  the  only  sonnet  in  the  collection ;  and  the  most 
important  point  about  it  is  that  it  is  in  the  form  which 
we  now  call  the  Shakespearean  sonnet.  This  is  an 
important  matter  and  must  receive  attention  in  another 
connection.  We  shall,  therefore,  give  a  stanza  in  the 
interrogative  form  from  another  poem. 

"  And  shall  I  live  on  earth  to  be  her  thrall  ? 
And  shall  I  live  and  serve  her  all  in  vain  ? 
And  shall  I  kiss  the  steps  that  she  lets  fall  ? 
And  shall  I  pray  the  gods  to  keep  the  pain 
From  her  that  is  so  cruel  still  ? 
No,  no,  on  her  work  all  your  will." 

Similar  series  of  interrogations  occur  here  and  there 
throughout  the  most  impassioned  parts  of "  Lucrece  "  ; 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF.EDWARD  DE  VERE  189 

and  in  the  Shakespearean  part  of  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3 
(III.  3),  we  have  the  following  : — 

"  Did  I  forget  that  by  the  house  of  York 
My  father  came  untimely  to  his  death  ? 
Did  I  let  pass  the  abuse  done  to  my  niece  ? 
Did  I  impale  him  with  the  regal  crown  ? 
Did  I  put  Henry  from  his  native  right  ? 
And  am  I  guerdon 'd  at  the  last  with  shame  ?  " 
(A  six-lined  fragment  of  blank  verse.) 

It  is  difficult  to  read  these  two  sets  of  lines  side  by 
side  without  a  feeling  that  both  are  from  the  same 
pen,  and  when,  in  the  same  play,  we  find  Queen 
Margaret  answering  her  own  question  with  a  repeated 
negative,  resembling  the  last  line  of  Oxford's  stanza, 
the  resemblance  is  most  striking. 

"  What's  worse  than  murderer  that  I  may  name  it  ? 
No,  no,  my  heart  will  burst  an  if  I  speak." 
(3  Henry  VI,  v.  5.) 

Continuing  these  comparisons  of  style  we  would  stanzas 
ask  the  reader  to  turn  to  "  Lucrece,"  and  commence 
reading  from  stanza  122,  which  begins  : — 

' '  Why  should  the  worm  intrude  the  maiden  bud  ?  ' ' 
and  read  on  to  stanza  141,  which  begins  : — 

"  Let  him  have  time  to  tear  his  curled  hair." 

In  addition  to  the  two  stanzas  which  illustrate  the 
succession  of  questions  just  dealt  with,  he  will  notice 
quite  a  number  of  stanzas  in  which  each  line,  in  its 
opening  phrase,  is  but  the  repetition  of  a  single  form. 
Stanza  127,  for  example,  has  lines  beginning  : — 
"Thou  makest,"  "Thou  blow'st,"  "Thou 

smother'st,"     "Thou     foul     abettor,"     "Thou 

plantest,"  "  Thou  ravisher." 


190         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Stanza  128  : — 

"  Thy  secret  pleasure,"  "  Thy  private  feasting,"  etc. 
Stanza  135  :— 

'  To  unmask  falsehood,"  '  To  stamp  the  seal,"  etc 
Similar  stanzas  are  also  found  in  other  parts  of  the  poem. 
Stanza  82  : — 

"  By  knighthood,"  "  By  her  untimely  fears,"  etc. 
Stanza  95  : — 

"  Thou  nobly  base,"  "  Thou  their  fair  life,"  etc. 
Or,  in  stanzas  106  and  107,  where  it  takes  the  form  of 
alternate  lines  : 

"  He  like   a  thievish  dog,"   "  She  like   a  wearied 
lamb,"  etc. 

Now  De  Vere's  poem  from  which  we  last  quoted  is 
composed  of  six  six-lined  stanzas  almost  entirely  built 
up  in  this  way  :   the  stanza  already  given  and  also  : 
Stanza  i :— 

"  The  trickling  tears,"  "  The  secret  sighs,"  etc. 
Stanza  3  :— 

"  The  stricken  deer,"  "  The  haggard  hawk,"  etc. 
Stanza  4  :— 

"  She  is  my  joy,"  "  She  is  my  pain,"  etc. 
A  dosing          Then,  as  a  final  comparison  of  verses  so  constructed, 

malediction.  .  ,     ,        .  ,     , ,      ,  , , 

we  shall  place  side  by  side  the  last  stanza  m  the  series 
from  "  Lucrece  "  (114),  with  the  last  stanza  in  this 
poem  of  De  Vere's  :  the  stanza  in  which  the  poet, 
or  respective  poets,  wind  up  with  a  closing  malediction  : 

Shakespeare's  "  Lucrece  "  ;  stanza  141  : 

"  Let  him  have  time  to  tear  his  curled  hair, 
Let  him  have  time  against  himself  to  rave, 
Let  him  have  time  of  Time's  help  to    despair, 
Let  him  have  time  to  live  a  loathed  slave, 
Let  him  have  time  a  beggar's  orts  to    crave, 
And  time  to  see  one  that  by  alms  doth  live, 
Disdain  to  him,  disdained  scraps  to  give." 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  191 

De  Vere's  "  Rejected  Lover  "  : 

"  And  let  her  feel  the  power  of  all  your  might, 
And  let  her  have  her  most  desire  with  speed, 
And  let  her  pine  away  both  day  and  night, 
And  let  her  moan  and  none  lament  her  need, 
And  let  all  those  that  shall  her  see 
Despise  her  state  and  pity  me." 

Again  we  repeat,  if  these  are  not  both  from  the  same 
pen,  never  were  there  two  poets  living  at  the  same 
time  whose  mentality  and  workmanship  bore  so 
striking  a  resemblance.  Traces  of  this  kind  of  work 
may,  no  doubt,  be  found  in  Chaucer,  and  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  De  Vere  was  under  the  influence 
of  Chaucer's  poetry ;  it  is  also  one  of  the  literary  forms 
he  seems  to  have  learnt  from  Lord  Vaux,  to  which 
reference  has  already  been  made,  but  in  De  Vere,  and 
in  Shakespeare's  "  Lucrece,"  it  assumes  a  marked 
development,  and  in  the  verses  just  cited,  produces  a 
startling  correspondence  quite  unparalleled,  so  far  as 
we  know,  in  the  poetry  of  the  time. 

So  striking  is  the  similarity  of  the  two  stanzas 
quoted  above  tharit  hardly  seems  possible  to  further 
strengthen  the  case  they  represent ;  and  yet,  in  the 
stanza  immediately  preceding  that  quoted  from 
"  Lucrece  "  the  following  line  occurs  : 

"To  make  him  moan,  but  pity  not  his  moans." 

This  is  almost  identical  with  De  Vere's  line  : 
"And  let  her  moan  and  none  lament  her  need." 

The  former  is  hardly  entitled  to  be  called  even  a 
paraphrase  of  the  latter,  so  nearly  a  copy  is  it.  Again 
we  point  out  that  we  have  not  had  to  search  the  pages 
of  "  Shakespeare  "  to  find  the  selected  line,  but  that 


192         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

it  stands  in  immediate  juxtaposition  to  the  particular 
stanza  under  consideration.  A  comparison  of  these 
two  verses,  taken  along  with  the  particular  line,  en- 
titles us  to  say  that  "  Shakespeare  "  was  either  a  kind 
of  literary  understudy  of  De  Vere's,  guilty  of  a  most 
unseemly  plagiarism  from  his  chief,  or  he  was  none 
other  than  the  Earl  of  Oxford  himself. 
A  peculiar  As  an  example  of  a  very  unusual  literary  form  of 
De  Vere's,  reproduced  in  Shakespeare,  we  give  the 
following  : — 

De  Vert: 

1 '  What  plague  is  greater  than  the  grief  of  mind  ? 
The  grief  of  mind  that  eats  in  every  vein, 
In  every  vein  that  leaves  such  clots  behind, 
Such  clots  behind  as  breed  such  bitter  pain. 
So  bitter  pain  that  none  shall  ever  find 
What  plague  is  greater  than  the  grief  of  mind?  " 

This  repetition  of  the  last  phrase  of  each  line  in  the 
succeeding  line  occurs  in  "  The  Comedy  of  Errors  " 
(I.  2)  :- 

Shakespeare  : 

11  She  is  so  hot  because  the  meat  is  cold  ; 
The  meat  is  cold  because  you  come  not  home  ; 
You  come  not  home  because  you  have  no  stomach  ; 
You  have  no  stomach  having  broke  your  fast  ; 
But  we  that  know  what  'tis  to  watch  and  pray 
Are  penitent  for  your  default  to-day." 

(The  reader  will  notice  that  this  is  again  one  of  the 
six-lined  passages  in  which  Shakespeare  frequently 
indulges,  even  when  he  does  not  work  them  into  finished 
stanzas.) 

No  one  will  deny  that  each  line  in  the  above  stanza 
of  De  Vere's  is  eminently  Shakespearean  in  diction, 
whilst  the  idea  and  sentiment  are  quite  familiar  to 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  193 

Shakespeare  readers.    "  The  grief  of  mind,"  or  as  we  "  Grief  of 
would  say,  the  distress  that  has  its  roots  in  mental  mmd- 
constitution,  temperament,  or  mood,  rather  than  in 
external  misfortune,  is  a  thoroughly  Shakespearean 
idea.    We  have  it  in  the  opening  words  of  the  "  Mer- 
chant of  Venice  "  : 

1 '  In  sooth  I  know  not  why  I  am  so  sad, 
It  wearies  me,  you  say  it  wearies  you, 
But  how  I  caught  it,  found  it,  or  came  by  it, 
What  stuff  'tis  made  of,  whereof  it  is  born 
I  am  to  learn. 

And  such  a  want-wit  sadness  makes  of  me 
That  I  have  much  ado  to  know  myself." 

We  have  it  again  in  "  Richard  II  "  in  the  dialogue 
between  the  Queen  and  Bushy  (Act  II.  2)  : 

"  I  know  no  cause 

Why  I  should  welcome  such  a  guest  as  grief. 
My  inward  soul  with  nothing  trembles. 
Each  substance  of  a  grief  hath  twenty  shadows 
Which  shows  like  grief  itself  but  is  not  so. 

Howe'er  it  be 

I  cannot  be  but  sad  ;    so  heavy  sad 
As,  though  on  thinking  on  no  thought  I  think, 
Makes  me  with  heavy  nothing  faint  and  shrink. 
For  nothing  hath  begot  my  something  grief, 
Or  something  hath  the  nothing  that  I  grieve." 

All  this  is  eminently  suggestive  of  that  undercurrent 
of  constitutional  melancholy  which  has  been  remarked 
in  "  Shakespeare,"  and  is  quite  a  noticeable  feature 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford's  poetry. 

In  Shakespeare's  sonnets  there  occur  several  references  Loss  of  good 
to  the  disrepute  into  which  the  writer  had  fallen,  along  name- 
with  an  expressed  desire  that  his  name  should  be  buried 
with  his  body — a  fact  quite  inconsistent  with  either 
the  Stratfordian  or  the  Baconian  theory  of  authorship, 


194         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

but  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  theory  that  William 
Shakspere  was  but  a  mask  for  some  one  who  desired 
personal  effacement.  From  those  expressions  we  need 
only  quote  one  : 

"  When  in  disgrace  with  Fortune  and  men's  eyes, 
I,  all  alone,  beweep  my  outcast  state, 
And  trouble  deaf  heaven  with  my  bootless  cries, 
And  look  upon  myself  and  curse  my  fate,     .     .     ." 

(Sonnet  29) 

When  the  reader  has  made  himself  familiar  with  the 
numerous  passages  in  the  sonnets  dealing  with  the 
same  theme  (sonnets  71,  72,  81,  no,  in,  112,  121), 
let  him  compare  them,  and  especially  the  words 
italicized  above,  with  the  following  from  De  Vere's  poem 
on  the  loss  of  his  good  name,  published  between  1576 
and  1578 : 

"  Fram'd  in  the  front  of  forlorn  hope  past  all  recovery, 
/  stayless  stand  to  abide  the  shock  of  shame  and  infamy. 

*  *  * 

My  spirtes,  my  heart,  my  wit  and  force  in  deep  distress 

are  drown 'd, 
The  only  loss  of  my  good  name  is  of  those  griefs  the 

ground. 

*  *  * 

Help  crave  I  must,  and  crave  I  will,  with  tears  upon  my 

face, 

Of  all  that  may  in  heaven  or  hell,  in  earth  or  air  be  found, 
To  wail  with  me  this  loss  of  mine,  as  of  those  griefs  the 

ground." 

Personally  I  find  it  utterly  impossible  to  read  this 
poem  of  Edward  De  Vere's  and  the  sonnets  in  which 
"  Shakespeare  "  harps  upon  the  same  theme,  without 
an  overwhelming  sense  of  there  being  but  one  mind 
behind  the  two  utterances.  Indeed  this  fact  of 
"  Shakespeare  "  being  a  man  who  had  lost  his  good 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  195 

name  ought  to  have  appeared  in  our  original  charac- 
terization. Inattention,  and  some  remnants  of  the 
influence  of  the  Stratfordian  tradition,  which  has 
treated  this  insistent  idea  as  a  mere  poetic  pose, 
probably  accounts  for  its  not  appearing  there. 

Edward  de  Vere's  poem  on  the  loss  of  his  good  name, 
and  Shakespeare's  sonnets  on  the  same  theme,  are  the 
only  poems  of  their  kind  with  which  we  have  met 
in  our  reading  of  Elizabethan  poetry — the  only  poems 
of  their  kind,  we  believe,  to  be  found  in  English 
literature.  The  former,  written  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
six,  and  whilst  still  smarting  under  the  sense  of  im- 
mediate loss,  is  more  intense  and  passionate  in  its 
expression,  and  is  full  of  the  unrestrained  impetuosity 
of  early  manhood.  The  latter  is  more  the  restrained 
expression  of  a  matured  man  who  had  in  some  measure 
become  accustomed  to  the  loss ;  and  would  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  whoever  the  writer,  be  written  when 
Oxford  was  forty  years  of  age  or  over.  Even  then 
Oxford's  words,  "  I  stayless  stand "  are  almost  re- 
peated in  Shakespeare's  "I  all  alone "  ;  Oxford's 
"  Tears  upon  my  face  "  seems  referred  to  in  Shake- 
speare's "  Beweep  my  outcast  state  "  ;  and  Shake- 
speare's "  Troubling  deaf  heaven  with  bootless  cries," 
is  exactly  descriptive  of  what  Oxford  did  in  his  early 
poem.  Is  this  all  mere  chance  coincidence  ? 

A  significant  detail  in  the  two  poems  under  review  "Othello 
is  the  proneness  to  floods  of  tears  which  both  illustrate.  and  . 

•  weeping. 

This  involuntary  manifestation  of  a  supersensitive 
nature  and  a  highly  strung  temperament  is  quite  a 
marked  feature  of  De  Vere's  poetry  and  is  repeated 
more  than  once  in  the  "Shakespeare"  sonnets.  It  is 
curious,  also,  that  "  Shakespeare's "  two  heroes  of 
tragic  love,  Romeo  and  Othello,  though  differing  in 


196         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

many  particulars,  are  both  subject  to  the  same  weak- 
ness. The  play  of  "  Othello,"  we  shall  have  to  show 
later,  deals  with  events  which,  as  we  believe,  occurred 
about  the  time  when  Oxford's  poem  was  written ; 
and  it  is  a  remarkable  circumstance  that  it  is  this  play 
which  contains  Shakespeare's  well-worn  lines  on  the 
loss  of  good  name  : 

"  Good  name  in  man  or  woman,  dear  my  lord, 
Is  the  immediate  jewel  of  their  souls. 
Who  steals  my  purse  steals  trash,  .... 
But  he  who  niches  from  me  my  good  name, 
Robs  me  of  that  which  not  enriches  him, 
And  makes  me  poor  indeed." 

And  so,  first  one  thing  and  then  another  fits  into  its 
place  with  all  the  unity  of  an  elaborate  mosaic  the 
moment  we  introduce  Edward  de  Vere  as  the  author 
of  the  Shakespeare  writings.  Is  this  too  the  merest 
coincidence  ? 
Fortune  and  Qf  works  in  a  totally  different  vein  take  now  this 

Nature. 

from  a  poem  of  De  Vere's  : — 

"  Faction  that  ever  dwells 
In  court  where  wit  excels 

Hath  set  defiance. 
Fortune  and  love  have  sworn 
That  they  were  never  born 

Of  one  alliance. 


Nature  thought  good, 
Fortune  should  ever  dwell 
In  court  where  wits  excel, 

Love  keep  the  wood. 


So  to  the  wood  went  I, 
With  Love  to  live  and  die, 
Fortune's  forlorn." 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  197 

Shakespeare's  play,  "As  You  Like  It,"  it  will  be  recog- 
nized, is  but  a  dramatic  expansion  of  this  idea,  and 
contains  such  significant  touches  as  the  following  : — 

This  from  the  dialogue  between  Rosalind  and  Celia 
(Act  I.  s.  2)  :— 

"  Let  us  mock  the  good  housewife  Fortune." 

*  *  * 

"  Nay  now  thou  goest  from  Fortune's  office  to  Nature's  : 
Fortune  reigns  in  gifts  of  the  world,  not  in  the  lineaments 

of  Nature." 

*  *  * 

"  Nature  hath  given  us  wit  to  flout  at  Fortune." 

*  *  * 

"  Peradventure  this  is  not  Fortune's  work  but  Nature's, 
who  perceiveth  our  natural  wits  too  dull." 

Later  we  have  the  Duke's  remark  and  the  reply  of 
Amiens  (Act  II,  s.  i)  : — 

"  Are  not  these  woods  more  free  from  peril  than  the 
envious  court  ?  " 

*  *  * 

"  Happy  is  your  grace 

That  can  translate  the  stubborness  of  Fortune 
Into  so  quiet  and  so  sweet  a  style  ?  " 

It  is  not  merely  that  there  appear  together  the  ideas 
of  Nature,  Fortune,  Love,  court-life  and  life  in  the 
woods,  in  the  two  sets  of  writings  under  review — ideas 
which  may  possibly  be  as  recurrent  in  other  writings 
of  the  times  as  they  are  in  Shakespeare's.  It  is  rather 
the  similiarity  in  the  peculiar  colligation  of  ideas,  and 
also  the  correspondence  of  such  chance  expressions  as 
De  Vere's  "  Fortune's  Forlorn"  and  Shakespeare's 
"  Out  of  suits  with  Fortune,"  which  give  a  stamp  of 
fundamental  unity  to  the  two  works. 

There  are  minor  points  of  similarity,  which  -though 
insignificant  in  themselves,  help  to  make  up  that 


198         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Desire  for  general  impression  of  common  authorship  which  comes 
only  with  a  close  familiarity  with  the  poems  as  a  whole. 
Of  these  we  may  specify  the  recurrence  of  what  seems 
to  us  a  curious  appeal  for  pity.  From  two  separate 
poems  of  De  Vere's  we  have  the  following  : — 

"  And  let  all  those  that  shall  her  see 
Despise  her  state  and  pity  me." 

"  The  more  my  plaints  I  do  resound 
The  less  she  pities  me." 

And  from  Shakespeare's  sonnets  we  take  these  : — 

"  Pity  me  and  wish  I  were  renewed  "  (in). 
"The  manner  of  my  pity — wanting  pain  "  (140). 
"  Thine  eyes  I  love  and  they  as  pitying  me  "  (132). 

"  But  if  thou  catch  my  hope,  turn  back  to  me, 
And  play  the  mother's  part,  kiss  me,  be  kind."  (143) 

Shake-  In  making  this  parallel  between  the  work  of  Edward 

.  de  Vere  and  Shakespeare  we  shall  turn  now  to  an 
example  which  carries  us  back  to  the  beginning  of  our 
enquiry.  Starting  with  Shakespeare's  lyric  poetry, 
we  fastened  upon  "  Venus  and  Adonis  "  as  furnishing 
the  connecting  link  between  the  two  sections  of  work. 
Reverting  now  to  this  poem  we  find,  in  the  first  place, 
it  contains  all  the  imagery  of  these  early  works  of  De 
Vere's  and  then  one  of  the  most  striking  parallels  we 
have  noticed  so  far. 

In  "  Venus  and  Adonis  "  we  have  the  following 
verses  on  the  "  Echo."  Venus  is  bemoaning  her  troubles 
and  the  echo  is  answering  her  (Stanzas  139-142)  : — 

"  And  now  she  beats  her  heart  whereat  it  groan*, 
That  all  the  neighbour  caves,  as  seeming  troubled, 
Make  verbal  repetition  of  her  moans  ; 
Passion  on  passion  deeply  is  redoubled  : 
'  Ay  me  !  '  she  cries,  and  twenty  times  '  Woe,  woe  I  ' 
And  twenty  echoes  twenty  times  cry  so. 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  199 

"  She  marking  them  begins  a  wailing  note, 
And  sings  extemporally  a  woeful  ditty; 
How  love  makes  young  men  thrall  and  old  men  dote, 
How  love  is  wise  in  folly,  foolish  witty  : 
Her  heavy  anthem  still  concludes  in  'Woe.' 
And  still  the  choir  of  echoes  answers  '  So.' 
*  *  * 

"  For  who  hath  she  to  spend  the  night  withal, 
But  idle  sounds  resembling  parasites, 
Like  shrill-tongued  tapsters  answering  every  call, 
Soothing  the  humour  of  fantastic  wights  ? 
She  says  '  'Tis  so  '  ;  they  answer  all,  '  'Tis  so  '  ; 
And  would  say  after  her  if  she  said  '  No  !  '  " 

(We  observe  in  passing  in  the  second  stanza  a  repetition 
of  the  wit  and  folly  paradox.) 

We  shall  now  give  Edward  de  Vere's  echo  poem  in  oxford's 
full.    It  is  one  of  the  most  quaintly  conceived  and  most  Echo  P06™- 
skilfully  executed  pieces  of  versification,  and  hardly 
admits  of  curtailment.    To  enjoy  it  fully  the  reader 
must  remember  that   "  Vere,"  retaining  its  French 
sound,  is  pronounced  somewhat  like  the  word  "  bare," 
and  the   last   syllable   in  words   like   "  ieuer "   and 
"  quiver  "  must,  in  this  instance,  be  given  the  same 
full  sound.    Oxford's  name,  we  may  remark,  frequently 
appears  in  old  records  as  "  Ver." 

VISION  OF  A  FAIR  MAID,  WITH  ECHO  VERSES. 

Sitting  alone  upon  my  thoughts  in  melancholy  mood, 
In  sight  of  sea,  and  at  my  back  an  ancient  hoary  wood, 
I  saw  a  fair  young  lady  come  her  secret  fears  to  wail, 
Clad  all  in  colour  of  a  nun,  and  covered  with  a  veil. 
Yet  (for  the  day  was  calm  and  clear)  I  might  discern  her  face, 
As  one  might  see  a  damask  rose  hid  under  crystal  glass. 
Three  times  with  her  soft  hand  full  hard  on  her  left  side  she 

knocks, 

And  sighed  so  sore  as  might  have  made  some  pity  in  the  rocks. 
From  sighs  and  shedding  amber  tears  into  sweet  song  she 

brake, 
When  thus  the  Echo  answer 'd  her  to  every  word  she  spake. 


200         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Oh  heavens,  who  was  the  first  that  bred  in  me  this  fever  ? — 

Vere. 
Who  was  the  first  that  gave  the  wound,  whose  fear  I  wear 

for  ever  ? — Vere. 
What   tyrant,    Cupid,    to    my    harm,    usurps    thy   golden 

quiver  ? — Vere. 
What  wight  first  caught  this  heart,  and  can  from  bondage 

it  deliver  ? — Vere. 

Yet  who  doth  most  adore  this  wight,  oh  hollow  caves  tell 

true  ? — You. 
What  nymph  deserves  his  liking  best  yet  doth  in  sorrow 

rue  ? — You. 
What  makes  him  not  reward  good  will  with  some  reward 

or  ruth  ? — Youth. 
What  makes  him  show  besides  his  birth  such    pride  and 

such  untruth  ? — Youth. 

May  I  his  favour  match  with  love  if  he  my  love  will  try  ? — Ay. 
May   I    requite  his  birth   with  faith  ?    Then  faithful  will 
I  die  ?— Ay. 

And  I  that  knew  this  lady  well,  said,  Lord,  how  great  a 

miracle, 
To  her  how  Echo  told  the  truth  as  true  as  Phoebus  oracle. 

Romeo  and        After  studying  these  two  poems  carefully  and  com- 
iet'  paring  specially  the  words  in  italics,  then  recalling 

De  Vere's  poem  on  "  Women  "  turning  upon  the  simile 
of  the  haggard  hawk  and  keeping  in  mind  that  in 
De  Vere's  Echo  poem  we  have  a  young  woman  making 
the  caves  re-echo  with  her  lover's  name,  consider  now 
the  speech  that  "  Shakespeare  "  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  Juliet : — 

"  Hist  !  Romeo  hist  1  Oh  for  a  falconer's   voice 
To  lure  this  tassel-gentle  back  again. 
Bondage  is  hoarse  and  may  not  speak  aloud, 
Else  would  I  tear  the  cave  where  Echo  lies 
And  make  her  airy  tongue  more  hoarse  than  mine 
With  repetition  of  my  Romeo's  name."     (II,  2.) 
(A  six-lined  fragment  of  blank  verse.) 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  201 

In  presence  of  such  a  correspondence  in  the  work  as 
these  verses  present,  it  seems  almost  like  a  waste  of 
effort  to  add  further  comparisons  ;  and  yet,  so  redolent 
of  De  Vere's  work  is  this  particular  play  of  Shake- 
speare's that  we  feel  compelled  to  draw  attention  to 
parallel  passages  like  the  following  : — 

De  Vere : 

(I)   "  that  with  the  careful  culver,  climbs  the  worn  and 

withered  tree, 
To  entertain  my  thoughts,  and  there  my  hap  to  moan, 

That  never  am  less  idle,  lol  than  when  I  am  alone." 

Shakespeare  ("  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  I.  i)  : 

"  He  stole  into  the  covert  of  the  wood 
I,  measuring  his  affections  by  my  own, 

That  most  are  busied  when  they're  most  alone." 

De  Vere : 

"  Patience  perforce  is  such  a  pinching  pain." 

Shakespeare  ("  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  I.  5)  : 

"  Patience  perforce     .     .     .     makes  my  flesh  tremble." 

De  Vere  : 

"  His  bitter  ball  is  sugared  bliss." 

Shakespeare  ("  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  I.  i)  : 

"  A  choking  gall  and  a  preserving  sweet 
Now  seeming  sweet  convert  to  bitter  gall."  (I,  5.) 

De  Vere  : 

' '  O  cruel  hap  and  hard  estate, 
That  forceth  me  to  love  my  foe." 

Shakespeare  ("  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  I.  2)  : 

"  Prodigious  birth  of  love  it  is  to  me 
That  I  must  love  a  loathed  enemy." 


202         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

The  morning      Returning  now  to  the  "  Venus  "  echo  verses  we  find 
that  they  are  immediately  followed  by  this  :— 

"  Lo  !  here  the  lark,  weary  of  nest, 
From  his  moist  cabinet  mounts  up  on  high, 
And  wakes  the  morning  from  whose  silver  breast 
The  sun  ariseth  in  his  majesty  ; 
Who  doth  the  world  so  gloriously  behold, 
That  cedar  tops  and  hills  seem  burnished  gold  "  (s.  143). 

To  this  add  the  following  line  from  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet  "  :- 

"  It  was  the  lark  the  herald  of  the  morn."     (III.  5). 

Now   compare   this    Shakespearean   work   with   the 
following  from  De  Vere  : — 

"  The  lively  lark  stretched  forth  her  wings 
The  messenger  of  morning  bright ; 
And  with  her  cheerful  voice  did  sing 
The  Day's  approach  discharging  Night. 
When  that  Aurora  blushing  red 
Descried  the  guilt  of  Thetis'  bed." 

This  again  suggests  the  following  from  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet  "  :— 

"  Many  a  morning  hath  he  there  been  seen 
*  *  *  * 

But  all  too  soon  as  the  all-cheering  sun 

Should  in  the  furthest  east  begin  to  draw 

The  shady  curtains  from  Aurora's  bed,  etc."  (I.  i.) 

"  Romeo  and  Juliet  "  also  contains  two  separate 
six-lined  stanzas  (on  the  Lord  Vaux  model),  and  also 
what  are  probably  the  first  of  the  Shakespearean 
sonnets — which  are,  as  already  mentioned,  identical 
in  form  with  the  only  sonnet  that  appears  in  De  Vere's 
early  poems. 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  203 

Another  matter,  which  is  not  poetical,  deserves  to  Oxford's 
be  mentioned  here.    It  must  have  struck  many  people  c  l 
as  strange  that  Juliet  at  the  time  of  her  marriage  should 
be  represented  as  a  mere  child  of  fourteen.    There  is 
no  special  point  in  the  play  to  necessitate  having  one 
so  young  for  the  tragical  part  she  had  to  play.    Extra- 
ordinarily young  as  she  was,  however,  she  was  the 
actual  age  of  De  Vere's  wife  at  the  time  of  their  mar- 
riage :   the  ceremony  being  merely  postponed  until  her 
fifteenth  birthday  was  reached. 

We  must  now  recall  the  fact  that  when  we  selected  The  poems 
De  Vere  as  the  possible  author  of  Shakespeare's  plays  enquiry, 
and  poems,  and  found  that  he  satisfied  the  essential 
conditions  of  our  original  characterization,  we  had  no 
knowledge  whatever  of  these  poems  of  his,  almost 
every  line  of  which  we  now  find  paralleled  in  Shake- 
speare. To  discover  such  a  correspondence  in  the 
poems  under  such  circumstances  furnishes,  to  the 
discoverer  at  any  rate,  a  much  greater  weight  of 
evidence  than  if  he  had  been  acquainted  with  the 
writings  at  the  outset.  It  will  be  observed  that,  in 
making  these  comparisons,  the  passages  quoted  from 
Shakespeare  which  are  suggestive  of  Oxford's  early 
poetry  belong  mainly  to  what  is  accepted  as  Shake- 
speare's early  work,  such  as  "  Venus,"  "  Lucrece," 
"  The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,"  and  "  Romeo  and 
Juliet."  On  the  other  hand  the  traces  of  the  De  Vere 
poetry  in  the  later  Shakespearean  work  are  very  slight. 
This,  it  will  also  be  remembered,  is  in  precise  accordance 
with  the  principle  which  guided  us  in  the  first  stages 
of  our  search,  namely,  that  it  would  be  the  poet's  early 
work  which  would  appear  under  his  own  name,  and 
that  it  would  be  found  to  link  itself  on  to  the  earliest 
Shakespearean  work.  Again,  as  the  De  Vere  collection 


204         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

is  only  a  small  one,  it  will  be  seen,  from  the  number 
of  poems  quoted,  that  practically  the  whole  of  the  De 
Vere  work  is  deposited,  as  it  were,  in  Shakespeare. 
The  evidence  furnished  by  such  parallelism  must  not 
however  be  viewed  alone ;  it  must  be  connected 
specially  with  the  testimony  which  literary  authorities 
have  given  us  as  to  the  specific  qualities  of  De  Vere's 
poetry  adduced  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  must 
also  be  connected  with  these  important  considerations 
of  chronology  which  allow  the  early  career  of  Oxford 
to  fit  in  exactly  with  later  production  of  the  "  Shake- 
speare "  dramas,  and  to  all  this  must  also  be  added 
the  fact  of  his  presenting  in  his  person  so  many  of  the 
conditions  and  attributes  which  recent  Shakespearean 
study  has  assigned  to  the  great  dramatist.  The  reader 
should  then  ask  himself  whether  it  would  be  common 
sense  to  keep  on  believing  that  all  this  is  mere  accident. 
Tragedy  and  If  from  reading  the  echo  poem  of  De  Vere  with  its 
quaint  and  delicate  humour,  the  reader  will  turn  to 
such  verses  as  those  beginning, 

"  Fain  would  I  sing,  but  fury  makes  me  mad," 
or, 

"  Fram'd  in  the  front  of  forlorn  hope," 
and  then  again  recall  the  fact  that  Edward  de  Vere,  in 
his  work  for  the  stage,  is  reported  as  being  "the  best 
in  comedy  "  in  his  day,  he  will  get  an  idea  of  the 
striking  combination  of  humour  and  tragedy  in  the 
nature  and  work  of  this  remarkable  man.  All  the 
startling  contrast  of  high  comedy  and  profound  tragedy 
which  stands  out  from  the  pages  of  Shakespeare  finds 
its  counterpart  in  the  work  of  De  Vere,  as  we  shall 
also  find  it  does  in  his  actual  life.  With  this  in  mind, 
let  it  be  recalled  that,  at  the  very  moment  when 
Shakespeare  was  writing  the  sonnets,  with  all  their 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  205 

tragic  depth,  and  with  hardly  a  trace  of  lightheartedness, 
revealing  a  soul  darkened  by  disappointment,  dis- 
illusionment and  self-condemnation,  he  was  also 
preparing  for  the  stage  plays  which,  for  three  hundred 
years  have,  by  their  exquisite  fun,  supplied  the  world 
with  inexhaustible  laughter.  We  read  some  of  the 
sonnets  and  we  feel  that  the  writer  musr  have  been 
the  most  despairing  of  pessimists. 

"  Give  notice  to  the  world  that  I  am  gone 
From  this  vile  world  with  vilest  worms  to  dwell." 

We  turn  to  the  comedies  he  wrote  for  the  stage,  and 
we  think  of  him  as  the  merriest  of  men.  Which  was 
the  real  Shakespeare  ?  The  Shakespeare  revealed  in 
the  sonnets  or  the  Shakespeare  revealed  in  the 
comedies  ?  Probably  neither  by  itself.  The  sonnets 
are,  however,  direct  personal  poetry  ;  the  comedies  are 
literature  and  stage  plays.  The  natural  assumption, 
therefore,  is  that  in  his  inmost  life  he  was  more  the 
Shakespeare  of  the  sonnets  than  of  the  comedies.  If, 
therefore,  we  suppose  that  "  Shakespeare  "  is  Edward  de 
Vere,  we  find  him  expressing  himself  directly  on  the 
point  in  the  following  lines  : — 

"  I  am  not  as  I  seem  to  be, 
For  when  I  smile  I  am  not  glad, 
A  thrall,  although  you  count  me  free, 
I,  most  in  mirth,  most  pensive  sad. 
I  smile  to  hide  my  bitter  spite, 
As  Hannibal  that  saw  in  sight, 
His  country's  soil  with  Carthage  town, 
By  Roman  force  defaced  down." 

We  give  the  entire  stanza  in  order  that,  in  passing,  A  possible 
its  structure  may  be  noted.     It  will  be  seen  that  it  pun> 
is  identical  in  metre  and  rhyme  with  Shakespeare's 
poem  "  When  daisies  pied  and  violets  blue,"  with  which 


206         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  Lore's  Labour's  Lost  "  finishes  (leaving  out,  of  course, 
the  interjected  word  "  cuckoo ").  The  observant 
reader  may  notice,  too,  that  the  latter  poem  is  pre- 
ceded by  the  words,  "  Ver,  begin  ";  and  remembering 
that  Oxford's  name  was  very  frequently  spelt  "  Ver," 
he  will  be  able  to  imagine  the  elation  which  would  have 
appeared  in  certain  quarters,  if,  in  this  the  first  Shake- 
spearean play,  for  such  it  is  considered,  there  had 
occurred  the  words,  "  Bacon,  begin." 
Hidden  Another  stanza  in  the  same  poem  of  De  Vere's  runs 

suffering 

thus : — 

"  I  Hannibal  that  smile  for  grief 
And  let  you  Ceasar's  tears  suffice, 
The  one  that  laughs  at  his  mischief 
The  other  all  for  joy  that  cries. 
I  smile  to  see  me  scorned  so, 
You  weep  for  joy  to  see  me  woe." 

This  is  at  once  suggestive  of  the  lines  in  "Lear  "  (1. 4) : — 

"  Then  they  for  sudden  joy  did  weep 
And  I  for  sorrow  sung." 

Returning  to  our  theme,  one  of  the  most  penetrating 
of  observers  amongst  writers  on  Shakespeare,  Richard 
Bagehot,  although  believing  in  the  essential  gaiety 
of  the  poet's  nature,  remarks  that  "all  through  his 
works  there  is  a  certain  tinge  of  musing  sadness  per- 
vading, and  as  it  were  softening  their  gaiety,"  exactly 
as  Edward  de  Vere  described  himself  in  the  former  of 
the  above  stanzas.  This  is  just  what  we  might  expect 
to  find  in  a  writer  whose  life  had  been  saddened,  but 
who  preserved  by  a  deliberate  effort  his  appreciation 
of  fun ;  whose  self-command  enabled  him  to  throw 
aside  the  burden  of  melancholy  and  revel  for  a  while 
in  the  enjoyment  of  his  own  lighter  faculties,  but  who, 
throughout  it  all,  never  quite  forgot  the  sadness  that 


LYRIC  POETRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  207 

lay  at  the  bottom  of  his  soul,  and  who,  when  the 
special  effort  was  over,  would  swing  back  upon  himself 
with  an  intensified  sense  of  his  own  inner  sufferings. 
These  are  just  the  conditions  to  yield  that  remarkable 
combination  of  tragedy  and  comedy  which  distin- 
guishes Shakespeare,  and  they  are  the  conditions,  too, 
most  likely  to  be  furnished  by  the  nature  and  cir- 
cumstances of  Edward  de  Vere. 

Viewing  the  lyric  work  of  Edward  de  Vere  as  a  whole 
we  feel  justified  in  claiming  that  it  contains  much  more 
than  a  possible  promise  of  the  work  of  Shakespeare. 
What  is  wanting  to  it  is  the  vast  and  varied  knowledge 
of  human  nature  depicted  in  the  Shakespearean  dramas. 
This  demands  a  wide  and  intense  experience  of  life  ; 
a  life  involving  loss  as  well  as  gain  ;  and  the  years 
intervening  between  the  two  sets  of  works,  years  in 
which  he  was  busy  with  his  troupes  of  play-actors, 
the  "  Oxford  Boys,"  would  certainly  be  full  of  such 
experience  to  him.  And  if  we  assume  the  identity  of 
Oxford  with  "  Shakespeare  "  it  must  be  conceded  that 
one  misses  from  the  personal  poems  of  Shakespeare,  the 
sonnets,  certain  sweet  and  "  gracious  "  touches  con- 
tained in  the  early  personal  poems  of  De  Vere,  whilst 
one  meets  also  with  some  harsher  and  more  defiant 
notes.  The  iron  had  evidently  entered  more  deeply 
into  his  soul,  his  nature  had  become  in  a  measure 
"  subdued  to  what  it  worked  in,  like  the  dyer's  hand," 
but  out  of  the  tragedy  of  his  own  life  were  born  the 
imperishable  masterpieces  in  tragic  drama  that  will 
probably  remain  for  all  time  the  supreme  glory  of 
English  literature. 

In  working  out  our  investigations  we  found,  first  of 
all,  a  remarkable  set  of  coincidences  between  the 


208         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

General  circumstances  of  Edward  de  Vere  and  the  conditions 
which  we  supposed  to  pertain  to  the  writer  of  Shake- 
speare's dramas.  Our  last  chapter  showed  us  an 
equally  remarkable  set  of  coincidences  connected  with 
the  general  literary  position  and  the  dominant  qualities 
of  Oxford's  poetry.  The  chapter  we  are  now  finishing, 
the  most  critical  in  the  piecing  together  of  the  case, 
reveals  what  we  claim  to  be  a  most  extraordinary 
correspondence  in  the  details  of  the  work. 

When,  therefore,  the  poems  of  De  Vere  shall  have 
become  familiar  to  English  readers,  it  will    not  be 
surprising  if  those  who  are  thoroughly  intimate  with 
Shakespeare's  work  are  able  to  detect  much   more 
striking  points  of  similarity  than  any  that  are  here 
indicated.    It  must,  however,  be  kept  in  mind  that  the 
value  of  these  correspondences  depends  not  so  much 
upon  the  striking  character  of  a  few  of  them,  which 
might  conceivably  be  matched  elsewhere,  but  upon 
the  cumulative  effect  of  them  all.     Taken  in  their 
mass  then,  we  believe  that  sufficient  has  already  been 
made  out,  which,  supported  as  it  is  by  the  other  lines 
of  our  argument,  leaves  little  room  for  doubt  that  the 
problem  of  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  works  has 
at  last  been  solved.    Valuable  as  is  the  other  evidence 
which  we  have  been  able  to  collect,  we  might  have 
hesitated  for  a  very  long  while  before  venturing,  on 
the  strength  of  that  alone,  to  assume  the  responsibility 
of  claiming  publicly  that  we  had  succeeded  in  identi- 
fying Shakespeare.    Now,  however,  that  we  have  been 
able  to  examine  the  early  poetry  of  De  Vere,  and  subject 
it  to  a  careful  comparison  with  the  early  Shakespearean 
work,  it  has  become  impossible  to  hesitate  any  longer 
in  proclaiming  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth  Earl  of 
Oxford,  as  the  real  author  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  works. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  RECORDS  AND  EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 

"  Horatio,  I  am  dead  ; 

Thou  livest ;    report  me  and  my  cause  aright 
To  the  unsatisfied. 

*  *  * 

If  ever  thou  didst  hold  me  in  thy  heart 
Absent  thee  from  felicity  awhile, 
And  in  this  harsh  world  draw  thy  breath  in  pain 
To  tell  my  story." 

Hamlet  (V.  2). 

' '  An  unlifted  shadow  somehow  lies  across  his 
memory." 

Dr.  Grosart. 

Authorities.  The  biographical  records  in  the  suc- 
ceeding chapters  are  taken  chiefly  from  the  "  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography  "  ;  "  Historical  Recollections 
of  Noble  Families,"  by  Arthur  Collins ;  "  The  Great 
Lord  Burleigh,"  by  Martin  Hume ;  "  The  House  of 
Cecil,"  by  G.  Ravenscroft  Dennis ;  "  Histories  of 
Essex,"  by  Morant  and  Wright ;  "  The  Hatfield 
Manuscripts  "  ;  and  "  Calendars  of  State  Papers." 

I 

THE  REPUTATION  OF  THE  [EARL  OF  OXFORD 

Following  the  general  scheme  of  the  investigation 
as  outlined  at  the  beginning  of  this  work,  it  will  be 
14  209 


"  210         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

well  to  recall  at  this  point  the  nature  of  the  phase 
with  which  we  are  at  present  occupied,  and  the  exact 
stage  of  it  now  reached.  The  fifth  step  being  to  proceed 
from  the  man  chosen  to  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  in 
order  to  see  to  what  extent  the  man  is  reflected  in  the 
works,  the  comparison  of  the  two  sets  of  writings  just 
concluded  forms  the  natural  introduction  to  this  phase 
of  the  enquiry.  Continuing  this  step  our  next  business 
must  be  to  examine,  in  whatever  detail  possible,  the 
life  and  circumstances  of  the  man  in  order  to  ascertain 
how  far  they,  too,  relate  themselves  to  the  contents  of, 
and  the  task  of  producing,  the  Shakespearean  plays 
and  poems. 

In  entering  upon  this  series  of  biographical  chapters 
we  must  remind  the  reader  that  the  object  of  this  work 
is  twofold :  to  prove  our  case,  and  to  help  towards 
a  fuller  and  more  accurate  view  of  the  life  and  per- 
sonality of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  Here  our  task  is  one  of 
special  difficulty,  for  our  theory  presupposes  a  man 
who  had  deliberately  planned  his  self -concealment.  Our 
material  is  bound,  therefore,  to  be  as  scanty  as  he  could 
make  it,  and,  at  the  outset,  probably  misleading.  We 
shall,  therefore,  be  under  the  necessity  of  reconstructing 
a  personality  from  the  most  meagre  of  data,  with  the 
added  disadvantage  of  a  large  amount  of  contemporary 
misrepresentation,  which  it  will  be  necessary  to  correct 
Motives  for  One  naturally  asks  why  the  author  of  the  great 
nt'  dramas  should  have  wished  to  throw  a  veil  over  his 
identity  as  he  did ;  and  the  strange  thing  about  the 
matter  is  this,  that,  with  the  Shakespeare  sonnets 
before  us,  we  should  have  been  so  slow  in  framing  this 
question  and  answering  it  satisfactorily.  For,  not 
merely  in  an  odd  sentence,  but  as  the  burden  of  some 
of  his  most  powerful  sonnets,  he  tells  us  in  the  plainest 


RECORDS  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      211 

of  terms,  that  he  was  one  whose  name  had  fallen  into 
disrepute  and  who  wished  that  it  should  perish  with 
him. 

"  No  longer  mourn  for  me  when  I  am  dead, 
Than  you  shall  hear  the  surly  sullen  bell  ; 
Give  warning  to  the  world  that  I  am  fled 
From  this  vile  world,  with  vilest  worms  to  dwell  ; 
Nay,  if  you  read  this  line,  remember  not 
The  hand  that  writ  it." 

"  My  name  be  buried  where  my  body  is, 
And  live  no  more  to  shame  nor  me  nor  you." 

"  Or  I  shall  live  your  epitaph  to  make, 
Or  you  survive  when  I  in  earth  am  rotten, 
From  hence  your  memory  death  cannot  take, 
Although  in  me  each  part  will  be  forgotten. 
Your  name  from  hence  immortal  life  shall  have, 
Though  I,  once  gone,  to  all  the  world  must  die." 

"  Alas,  'tis  true,  I  have  gone  here  and  there, 
And  made  myself  a  motley  to  the  view." 

"  Thence  conies  it  that  my  name  receives  a  brand." 

"  Your  love  and  pity  doth  the  impression  fill, 
Which  vulgar  scandal  stamp'd  upon  my  brow." 

When  to  all  this  we  find  him  adding  the  fear 
"  That  every  word  doth  almost  tell  my  name," 

it  is  made  as  clear  as  anything  can  be  that  he  was 
one  who  had  elected  his  own  self-effacement,  and  that 
disrepute  was  one,  if  not  the  principal  motive.  We  may,  Disrepute, 
if  we  wish,  question  the  sufficiency  or  reasonableness 
of  the  motive.  That,  however,  is  his  business,  not  ours. 
The  important  point  for  us  is  that  he  has  by  his  sonnets 
disclosed  the  fact  that  he,  "  Shakespeare,"  was  one 
who  was  concealing  his  real  name,  and  that  the  motive 


212         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

he  gives,  adequate  or  not,  is  one  which  unmistakably 
would  apply  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford ;  and  would  not 
apply  in  the  same  literal  manner  to  any  one  else  to 
whom  it  has  been  sought  to  attribute  the  Shakespeare 
dramas.  If  the  Earl  of  Oxford  had  filled  an  exalted 
place  in  general  estimation,  it  ought  to  have  worked 
against  the  theory  of  authorship  we  are  advancing. 
That  he  was  one  "  in  disgrace  with  Fortune  and  men's 
eyes  "  is  what  we  should  have  expected,  and  is  there- 
fore an  element  of  evidence  in  confirmation  of  our 
theory. 

Under  the  Stratfordian  and  Baconian  views  mysti- 
fying interpretations  have  had  to  be  read  into  the 
utterances  just  quoted.  In  spite  of  their  intense 
reality  and  genuine  autobiographical  ring,  they  have 
been  treated  as  cryptic  poetry  or  mere  dramatic  pose  ; 
and  one  of  our  greatest  difficulties  will  be  to  combat 
the  non-literal  constructions  forced  upon  these  poems. 
In  the  proper  place  we  shall  have  to  show  that  their 
contents  are  as  real  and  literal  as  the  spirit  and  temper 
of  the  works  suggest.  Puzzling,  Shakespeare  could 
undoubtedly  be,  as  in  the  "  Will  "  sonnets  (135  and 
136)  where  he  is  obviously  dealing  in  enigmas.  The 
curious  thing  is  that  he  has  been  read  seriously  and 
literally  when  in  a  playful  mood,  by  the  same  people 
who  have  treated  passionate,  heart-wrung  utterances 
as  mere  freaks  of  fancy.  When  moving  on  the  plane 
Auto-  of  experience  his  conceptions  attain  a  definiteness 

unequa^d  in  poetry,  whilst  there  has  probably  never 
been  a  writer  capable  of  securing  a  more  precise 
correspondence  between  a  thought  and  its  expression. 
When,  therefore,  he  tells  us,  in  so  many  words,  that 
"  vulgar  scandal  "  had  robbed  him  of  his  good  name, 
and  that  although  he  believed  his  work  would  be 


RECORDS  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE       213 

immortal  he  wished  his  name  to  be  forgotten,  we  are 
quite  entitled  to  take  his  own  ;word  for  it,  and  to 
demand  no  further  motive  for  the  adoption  of  a 
disguise.  No  mere  nom  de  plume  could  have  been  so 
successful  as  his  adoption  of  a  mask :  its  success  for 
over  three  hundred  years  will  probably  be  a  matter 
of  astonishment  for  many  generations  to  come. 

Had  these  sonnets  been  published  by  their  author 
during  his  own  lifetime  they  would  have  been  absurd 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  particular  contents  we 
have  just  been  considering.  Imagine  any  man  pub- 
lishing, or  allowing  the  publication  under  his  own 
name,  of  documents  in  which  he  specifically  states  that 
he  wished  his  name  to  be  buried  with  his  body  !  It  is 
equally  absurd  to  suppose  that  their  author  permitted 
the  issue  of  documents  implying  that  William  Shak- 
spere  was  but  a  mask.  They  were,  however,  published 
during  the  lifetime  of  all  the  men  to  whom  it  has  been 
sought  to  attribute  their  authorship  :  William  Shak- 
spere,  Francis  Bacon,  William  Stanley  and  Roger 
Manners :  but  after  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere. 
The  particular  sonnets  seem  to  belong  to  a  date  at 
which  Oxford's  fortunes  were  at  about  their  lowest  and 
when  the  motive  assigned  for  hiding  his  name  would 
be  most  applicable  ;  the  works  being  published  under 
the  mask  would  then  be  the  two  long  poems  published 
in  1593  and  1594. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  the  motive  assigned  in  the  social  con- 
sonnets  was  the  only  one  that  operated.    By  the  time  siderations. 
that  the  mask  was  employed  again,  after  an  interval 
of  four  years  during  which  some  of  the  plays  had 
appeared    anonymously,    there    are    evidences    that 
Oxford  was  making  efforts  to  retrieve  his  position 
socially  as  well  as  financially.    When  plays  were  being 


214        "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

published  under  Shakespeare's  name,  Oxford  was 
seeking  to  regain  favour  with  the  Queen  and  setting 
family  influences  to  work  to  obtain  for  himself  the 
position  of  governor  of  Wales.  Needless  to  say  to  have 
appeared  at  the  time  in  the  role  of  dramatic  author 
would  have  been  completely  fatal  to  any  chances  he 
may  have  had  :  for  in  those  days  "  dramatic  authorship 
was  considered  hardly  respectable."  And  Oxford 
especially,  having  incurred  his  disgrace  in  the  first 
instance  by  deserting  the  court  for  a  Bohemian  asso- 
ciation with  actors  and  play-writers,  could  only  hope 
to  recover  his  social  position  and  secure  an  appropriate 
official  appointment,  by  being  seen  as  little  as  possible 
in  such  connections. 

Fanuly  After  Oxford's  death  his  widow,  a  lady  of  private 

means,  assisted  by  her  brother,  continued  the  struggle 
to  recover  for  her  son  Henry,  the  eigtheenth  Earl  of 
Oxford,  the  prestige  which  had  been  lost  to  the  family 
by  the  extraordinary  career  of  his  father.  A  legal 
case  that  arose  out  of  this  is  a  recognized  landmark  in 
the  history  of  the  law,  and  shows  clearly  that  the 
recovery  of  what  had  been  lost  had  become  a  settled 
object  of  family  policy.  Even  supposing,  then,  that 
they  may  not  have  considered  themselves  under  a 
moral  or  contracted  obligation  to  continue  the  secrecy, 
it  would  hardly  have  been  in  harmony  with  their 
general  policy  to  have  discontinued  it. 

Although  we  have  put  forward  these  considerations 
with  regard  to  motives,  we  must  make  it  clear  that  no 
obligation  to  furnish  motives  rests  upon  an  investi- 
gator in  such  a  case  as  this.  Motives  are  sometimes 
altogether  impenetrable.  Objective  facts,  and  the 
evidence  for  the  truth  of  such  facts,  form  the  proper 
material  for  enquiries  like  the  present. 


RECORDS  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE       215 

From  the  biographer's  point  of  view,  however,  all  Th?  shadow 
these  considerations  constitute  a  double  difficulty.  We 
have  first  to  surmount  the  obstacles  which  an  able 
intellect,  bent  on  secrecy,  would  himself  interpose 
between  himself  and  the  public ;  and  then  we  must 
penetrate  the  mists  of  disrepute  which  he  assures  us 
had  gathered  round  his  name.  Before  this  can  be 
properly  done  many  years  must  elapse,  and  many 
minds  must  be  interested  in  it :  the  correction  of  an 
erroneous  estimate  of  an  historic  personality  being  one 
of  the  slowest  of  human  processes.  We  make  here  only 
a  first  simple  effort  in  that  direction. 

No  one,  who  is  able  to  appreciate  humanity's  debt 
to  "  Shakespeare "  can,  under  any  circumstances, 
regard  him  as  a  man  who  has  merited  abiding  dis- 
honour. The  world  has  taken  to  its  heart  men  like 
Robert  Burns  and  Moliere,  whose  lives  have  fallen  far 
short  of  the  pattern  we  could  have  wished  for  them. 
And  if  Edward  de  Vere  is,  as  we  have  every  reason  to 
believe,  the  real  "  Shakespeare,"  the  world  will  not  be 
slow  to  allow  the  great  benefits  he  has  conferred  upon 
mankind  to  atone  for  any  shortcomings  that  may  be 
found  in  him.  Our  task  at  the  present,  however,  is  to 
see  him  as  he  was,  in  so  far  as  his  character  and  the 
events  of  his  life  have  a  bearing  upon  our  problem. 
Everything  that  comes  before  us  in  the  form  of  mere 
traditional  view,  inference,  or  impression  must  be 
rigidly  separated  from  ascertained  facts ;  and  even 
these  will  need  to  be  accepted  cautiously  and  re- 
interpreted from  the  point  of  view  of  one  great 
dominating  possibility — that  of  his  being  endowed  with 
the  heart  and  genius  of  Shakespeare  and  of  having 
produced  the  Shakespeare  literature. 

If,  for  example,  the  Earl  of  Oxford  was  only  a 


216         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

Need  for  re-  son-in-law  of  Lord  Burleigh's,  who  had  achieved 
nothing  more  noteworthy  than  the  writing  of  a  few 
short  lyrics,  and  had  spent  the  best  years  of  his  life  in 
fruitless  amusement  with  a  company  of  play-actors, 
then  we  must  judge  him  mainly  by  the  part  he  played 
in  the  life  of  Burleigh.  If,  however,  the  Earl  of  Oxford 
was  Shakespeare,  then  he  towers  high  above  Lord 
Burleigh,  and  we  shall  have  to  judge  Burleigh  very 
largely  by  the  part  he  played  in  the  life  of  Oxford. 
Or  if,  in  the  domain  of  poetry,  he  is  chiefly  to  be  re- 
membered as  the  man  who  called  his  rival,  Philip 
Sidney,  a  "  puppy,"  we  shall  have  to  judge  him  by 
his  bearing  towards  Sidney.  If,  however,  Oxford  was 
"  Shakespeare,"  gifted  with  all  Shakespeare's  pene- 
tration into  human  nature,  our  interest  will  lie  in 
discovering  how  far  Sidney  may  have  merited  the 
epithet. 

Unjust  Again,  if,  as  we  shall  see  was  the  case,  we  find  that, 

nt'  as  a  young  man,  he  begged  to  join  the  army ;  when  that 
was  refused  him  he  begged  to  be  allowed  to  join  the 
navy ;  when  that  in  turn  was  refused  he  begged  to 
travel  abroad ;  and  when,  though  by  this  time  he  was 
twenty-four  years  of  age  and  married,  that  was  also 
refused,  so  that  he  seemed  condemned  to  spend  his 
life  hanging  about  the  court,  and  finding  the  court  life 
irksome,  ran  away  to  the  continent,  only  to  be  brought 
back  before  he  had  had  a  chance  of  seeing  anything  of 
life,  we  may  be  able  to  agree  with  those  who  speak  of 
him  as  being  wayward,  if  we  suppose  him  to  have  been 
incapable  and  an  intellectual  mediocrity.  But  if  we 
suppose  him  possessed  of  the  genius  of  Shakespeare, 
with  Shakespeare's  capacity  for  experiencing  life,  and 
all  that  capacity  as  so  much  driving  force  within  him, 
urging  him  to  seek  experience  of  life ;  indeed,  if  we 


RECORDS  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE       217 

take  into  account  nothing  more  than  what  is  positively 
known  of  his  powers  as  revealed  in  his  poems  and 
dramatic  record,  we  shall  be  much  more  inclined  to 
consider  him  a  badly  used  man,  the  victim  of  most 
unfavourable  circumstances  and  manifest  injustice, 
with  a  very  genuine  grievance  against  the  guardian 
and  father-in-law,  Burleigh,  who  had  so  persistently 
thwarted  him. 

Finally,  if,  remembering  the  character  borne  by  the  secret 
play-actors  of  the  time,  as  described  in  the  passage  we  occuPations- 
have  quoted  from  Dean  Church,  we  believe  him  to 
have  wasted  the  best  years  of  his  life  in  ultimate, 
useless  association  with  them,  we  shall  be  inclined  to 
see  in  his  conduct  a  manifestation  of  dissoluteness  and 
to  acquiesce  in  Burleigh's  statement  that  he  had  been 
"  enticed  away  by  lewd  persons."  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  believe  that  Oxford  was  Shakespeare,  and 
that  during  these  years  he  was  hard  at  work,  seriously, 
but  in  a  measure  secretly,  engaged  in  the  activities 
that  have  produced  at  once  the  greatest  dramas  and 
the  finest  literature  that  England  boasts,  then  the 
facts  have  a  totally  new  light  thrown  upon  them,  and 
admit  of  a  vastly  different  interpretation.  For,  the 
secrecy  in  which  his  work  as  a  whole  is  involved  would 
surely  be  maintained  towards  those  who  were  out  of 
sympathy  with  him,  amongst  whom  we  can  certainly 
place  his  father-in-law  and  probably  his  wife ;  all  of 
which  seems  clearly  alluded  to  in  sonnet  48  : 

"  How  careful  was  I,  when  I  took  my  way, 
Each  trifle  under  truest  bars  to  thrust, 
That  to  my  use  it  might  unused  stay, 
From  hands  of  falsehood,  in  sure  wards  of  trust." 

We  shall  avoid,  therefore,  all  unauthenticated  stories 
which  seem   to  have   had  their   roots   in   personal 


2i8         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

False  stories,  animosity.  Such  particulars  as  are  narrated  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  that  a  certain 
man's  "  story  that  the  Earl "  did  so-and-so,  but  that 
it  "  is  not  confirmed,  and  was  warmly  denied  by  " 
the  very  man  whom  he  was  reported  to  have  injured, 
is  not  biography.  It  serves  to  show,  however,  that  he 
was  the  victim  of  false  and  unscrupulous  calumny. 
When,  therefore,  we  find  great  admirers  of  Philip 
Sidney,  like  Fulke  Greville,  Sidney's  biographer,  pro- 
mulgating impossible  stories  about  projected  assas- 
sinations, and  another  antagonist  making,  almost 
in  so  many  words,  the  same  false  charges  that  Oliver 
makes  against  Orlando  in  "As  You  Like  It,"  we  begin 
to  realize  the  type  of  men  with  whom  we  are  dealing  ; 
what  freedoms  the  group  of  court  adventurers,  to  whom 
Oxford  was  clearly  hostile,  had  taken  with  his  name 
and  reputation  ;  and  how  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed 
generally  upon  their  records  either  of  their  friends  or 
of  their  enemies. 

It  is  unfortunate,  then,  that  the  names  which  pre- 
dominate in  the  article  upon  which  we  are  dependent 
for  so  many  of  the  facts  of  Oxford's  life  are  those  of 
people  antagonistic  to  him,  and  most  of  the  facts 
bear  evidence  of  having  come  to  us  through  these 
unfriendly  channels.  Anything  which  bears  the  mark 
of  Burleigh,  Fulke  Greville,  or  Raleigh,  the  true  type 
of  the  picturesque  but  unscrupulous  adventurer  of 
those  days,  must  be  suspect  in  so  far  as  it  touches 
Edward  de  Vere ;  and  anything  which  research  may 
be  able  to  recover,  that  shall  furnish  us  with  the  names 
and  the  opinions  of  his  friends  about  the  court,  and, 
more  important  still,  his  dealings  with  men  of  letters, 
and  with  playwrights  and  actors,  will  be  invaluable 
as  tending  to  furnish  us  with  a  truer  view  of  the  man. 


RECORDS  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE        219 

So  far  as  we  can  make  out  up  to  the  present,  however, 
his  friends  seem  to  have  respected  loyally  his  desire 
for  personal  oblivion,  and  have  remained  silent  about 
him ;  thus,  of  course,  allowing  free  currency  to  all 
that  his  enemies  have  been  able  to  circulate  to  his 
discredit. 

As  this  is  not  intended  to  be  a  complete  biography, 
facts  which  do  not  appear  relevant  to  the  argument, 
either  for  or  against  it,  and  which,  from  some  other 
consideration,  might  necessitate  lengthy  discussion, 
will,  for  the  most  part,  be  omitted. 


Note. 

To  illustrate  again  the  curious  way  in  which  evidence 
has  fallen  into  our  hands,  we  would  draw  attention  to 
the  above  reference  to  Oliver  in  "As  You  Like  It." 
When  we  came  across  the  murderous  charges  made 
against  Oxford  by  Charles  Arundel,  the  first  thing  that 
seemed  to  stand  out  was  the  name  "  Charles,"  and  an 
evident  vulgarity  in  the  man,  which  brought  Charles 
the  wrestler,  of  "As  You  Like  It,"  to  the  mind.  Being 
somewhat  "  rusty "  at  the  moment  in  reference  to 
subordinate  details  in  the  play,  the  next  thing  was  to 
look  up  the  parts  dealing  with  Charles  the  wrestler ; 
only,  of  course,  to  find  the  same  charges  that  Charles 
Arundel  made  against  Oxford  being  insinuated  by 
Oliver  into  the  mind  of  Charles  the  wrestler.  And  so 
the  parts  of  the  mosaic  keep  fitting  in.  The  jesting 
threats  of  Touchstone  in  the  same  play  may  therefore 
furnish  the  explanation  of  the  charges  made  against 
Oxford :  for  practical  joking  could  hardly  be  above 
the  dignity  of  the  writer  of  some  of  "  Shakespeare's  " 
comedies,  who,  according  to  his  own  confession,  had 
made  himself  "a  motley  to  the  view." 


220         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

II 

THE  ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 

It  is  waste  labour  usually  to  trace  the  ancestral 
connections  of  literary  men.  It  is  themselves  and  what 
they  accomplished  that  really  matter,  and  literary 
biographies  which  go  beyond  this  generally  succeed  in 
being  tedious.  In  the  case  before  us,  however,  these 
ancestral  connections  and  the  writer's  attitude  towards 
them,  are  vital ;  so  that  some  brief  notice  of  the  family 
of  the  De  Veres  is  essential  to  the  argument. 
FamUy  The  founder  of  the  family  was  one  Aubrey  de  Vere 

(derived,  it  is  supposed,  from  Ver  near  Bayeux)  who 
came  to  England  with  the  Conqueror,  and  was  re- 
warded for  his  support,  with  extensive  estates  in  Essex, 
Suffolk,  Cambridge,  Huntingdonshire  and  Middlesex ; 
and  "  the  continuance  of  his  family  in  the  male  line, 
and  its  possession  of  an  earldom  for  more  than  five  and 
a  half  centuries  have  made  its  name  a  household  word." 
During  these  centuries  the  vast  estates  of  the  family, 
as  well  as  its  titles  and  dignities,  were  further  aug- 
mented by  marriage  or  by  royal  favour. 

In  the  time  of  the  anarchy  which  marked  the  reign 
of  the  Conqueror's  grandson  Stephen,  the  title  of  Earl 
of  Oxford  was  bestowed  by  Matilda  upon  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  family,  another  Aubrey  (1142),  whilst 
nine  years  prior  to  this  a  son  or  grandson  of  the 
founder,  also  of  the  same  name,  had  been  created 
Great  Chamberlain.  On  the  accession  of  Henry  II 
the  title  conferred  by  Matilda  was  confirmed  by  the 
new  monarch.  Amongst  the  hereditary  dignities 
obtained  through  marriage  was  that  of  Chamberlain 
to  the  Queen,  and  the  titles  of  Viscount  Bolebec,  Lord 


ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE       221 

Sandford,  and  Lord  Badlemere.     Lyly  in  dedicating 
his  "  Euphues  and  his  England  "  to  Oxford,  whom  he 
addresses  as  his  master,  takes  occasion  to  string  all 
these  various  titles  together. 
All  through   the   long   period   of  the   Plantagenet  "  Shake- 


kings,  the  lands,  titles  and  dignities  of  the  family  were  Rard  II. 


transmitted  through  a  succession  of  Aubreys,  Johns, 
and  Roberts,  like  so  many  representatives  of  a  royal 
dynasty  ;  and,  in  the  reign  of  the  last  of  the  Plan- 
tagenets,  Richard  II,  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  who  was  the 
royal  favourite,  was  created  a  Marquis,  being  thus 
raised  above  all  the  rest  of  the  nobility  and  ranked 
next  to  the  King  himself.  This  is  the  Robert,  Earl 
of  Oxford,  mentioned  in  ordinary  history  text  books 
as  the  favourite  responsible  partly  for  the  troubles 
that  befell  the  King,  and  who  earned  for  himself  a 
reputation  of  extreme  dissoluteness. 

The  personal  relationship  of  Richard  II  to  the  Earl  Earl  Robert. 
of  Oxford  of  his  day,  and  the  honour  he  conferred  upon 
the  family,  might  account  for  "Shakespeare's"  slight 
partiality  to  Richard,  if  we  suppose  the  former  to  have 
been  a  later  earl  of  the  same  family  ;  whilst  the 
unfortunate  character  borne  by  Richard's  favourite 
would  explain  the  curious  fact  of  his  non-appearance  in 
a  play  written  by  a  member  of  the  same  house,  one 
in  whom  family  pride  was  a  pronounced  trait.  For  the 
character  of  this  Robert,  Earl  of  Oxford,  of  Richard  II's 
reign,  made  it  impossible  to  introduce  him  without 
either  immortalizing  his  infamy  or  of  so  altering  the 
facts  as  to  have  betrayed  the  authorship.  The  silence 
of  the  author  at  this  point  is  therefore  even  more 
significant  than  his  utterances  in  the  case  with  which 
we  shall  presently  deal.  For  be  it  observed  that 
Shakespeare  deals  with  this  very  question  of  the  per- 


222         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

nicious  influence  of  evil  associates  upon  Richard  and 
leaves  out  all  mention  in  this  connection  of  the  one 
particular  evil  counsellor  that  history  has  clearly 
recorded  for  us.  Shakespeare,  whoever  he  was,  had 
evidently  some  special  reason  for  screening  the  Earl 
of  Oxford.  He  had  not  overlooked  him,  for  at  the  end 
of  the  play  the  Earl  is  mentioned  as  having  been 
executed  for  supporting  the  King*  ;  possibly  the  only 
thing  in  his  favour  that  could  be  recorded. 

Edward  de  Vere's  pride  in  his  ancient  ancestry  is 
birth.  commented  on  by  more  than  one  writer ;    and  so 

marked  a  feature  of  Shakespeare's  is  this  regard  for 
high  and  honoured  birth,  that  one  writer,  believing  it 
to  be  written  by  the  Stratford  man,  does  not  hesitate 
to  speak  of  it  as  "  snobbery."  By  whatever  name  we 
may  choose  to  call  it,  it  is  at  any  rate  an  outstanding 
mental  trait  which  Edward  de  Vere  and  "  Shakespeare" 
have  in  common.  To  have  found  it  in  one  situated 
like  the  Stratford  man  would,  however,  have  bespoken 
a  measure  of  "  snobbery "  inconsistent  with  the 
intellectual  largeness  of  "  Shakespeare."  In  the  case 
of  Edward  de  Vere  it  is  merely  the  spontaneous  fruit 
of  centuries  of  family  tradition  and  the  social  atmo- 
sphere into  which  he  was  born,  and  shows  us  that  even 
the  broadest  minds  remain  more  or  less  at  the  mercy 
of  their  social  milieu. 

We  have  had  occasion  already  to  point  out  that 
Shakespeare  did  not  understand  the  "lower  orders." 
What  is  even  more  striking  is  the  fact  that  he  did  not 
understand  the  middle  classes.  Mr.  Frank  Harris, 
who,  if  our  own  theory  of  authorship  be  accepted,  has, 
in  many  particulars,  shown  great  sureness  of  psycho- 

*  Nott  :  In  the  First  Folio  edition  "Spencer"  is  substituted  for 
"Oxford."  Such  a  substitution  (not  noticed  until  the 
above  was  in  print)  is  very  striking. 


ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      223 

logical  analysis,  but  who  never  expresses  a  single  doubt 
as  to  the  truth  of  the  Stratfordian  position,  asserts, 
in  his  work  on  "  The  Man  Shakespeare,"  that  Shake- 
speare did  not  even  know  the  middle  classes.  "  He 
utterly  missed,"  he  says,  "  what  a  knowledge  of  the 
middle  classes  would  have  given  him,"  whilst  "in  all 
his  writings  he  praises  lords  and  gentlemen."  And 
again,  "  Shakespeare,  one  fancies,  was  a  gentleman  by 
nature,  and  a  good  deal  more."  That  one,  like  Shake- 
speare, whose  studies  of  human  nature  rest  so  obviously 
upon  observation,  could  both  remain  ignorant  of  his 
own  class  and  also  assimilate  rapidly  the  characteristics 
and  courtesies  of  another  class  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The  logical  conclusion 
is  that  "  Shakespeare  "  was  himself  an  aristocrat :  a 
point  on  which  anti-Stratfordians  of  all  schools  agree, 
and  on  which  some  Stratfordians,  in  return,  most 
weakly  try  to  make  merry. 

It  would  unnecessarily  overload  these  pages  with 
quotations  to  give  all  that  Shakespeare  says  on  the 
question  of  high  birth,  whilst  a  few  selected  passages 
would  not  accurately  represent  the  position.  Some 
measure  of  its  importance  to  him  may,  however,  be 
gathered  from  the  fact  that  he  does  honour  to  the 
idea  in  more  than  twenty  separate  plays.  Now,  a 
person  may  happen  to  be  of  high  birth  and  yet  be  able 
to  take  a  true  measure  of  its  value.  In  the  case  of 
Edward  de  Vere,  however,  it  would  seem  that  he  had 
the  same  exaggerated  idea  of  its  importance  that  we 
meet  with  in  Shakespeare.  And  as  we  have  chosen 
the  play  of  "  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well "  to  preside 
in  great  measure  over  the  first  part  of  our  biographical 
argument,  we  would  ask  the  reader  to  notice  as  an  illus- 
tration of  Shakespeare's  attitude  to  this  question  how 
the  idea  of  high  birth  dominates  the  whole  of  the  play. 


224         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

III 

THE  EARLS  OF  OXFORD  IN  THE  WARS  OF  THE  ROSES 

When  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  broke  out,  John  de 
Vere,  Twelfth  Earl  of  Oxford,  became,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  Lancastrian 
cause.  In  the  early  part  of  Edward  IV's  reign,  whilst 
matters  were  still  unsettled  between  the  two  parties, 
he  was  executed  along  with  his  eldest  son,  Aubrey  de 
Vere,  for  corresponding  with  the  defeated  Queen 
Margaret.  The  title  then  passed  to  his  second  son, 
John,  the  Thirteenth  Earl,  who  took  part  in  the  tem- 
porary restoration  of  Henry  VI.  For  this  he  was  at- 
tainted in  1474,  but  restored  to  his  family  honours  on  the 
defeat  of  the  Yorkists  and  the  accession  of  Henry  Tudor. 

In  relating  these  particulars  to  the  plays  of  Shake- 
speare a  strictly  chronological  parallel  between  the 
historical  events  and  the  plays  is  not  possible.  If, 
however,  we  take  the  four  plays  which  deal  specially 
with  these  wars,  the  three  parts  of  "  Henry  VI,"  and 
the  play  of  "  Richard  III,"  we  may  say  that 
"  Henry  VI,"  part  i,  deals  mainly  with  the  years 
prior  to  the  outbreak  of  civil  war,  during  which  England 
was  losing  power  in  France  through  the  heroism 
of  Joan  d'Arc,  whilst  the  first  rumblings  of  the 
coming  storm  in  England  were  distinctly  heard.  In 
"  Henry  VI,"  part  2,  the  tension  becomes  acute,  and 
the  opening  phase  of  the  conflict,  that  in  which  the 
Twelfth  Earl  of  Oxford  was  prominent,  forms  the 
subject  matter  of  part  of  the  play.  "  Henry  VI," 
part  3,  is  concerned  mainly  with  the  short  period  of 
Henry's  temporary  restoration  during  the  reign  of 
Edward  IV,  ending  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Lancas- 


ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      225 

trians  and  the  murder  of  Henry  VI.  The  play  of 
"  Richard  III "  is  presented  as  the  final  triumph  of 
the  red  rose  over  the  white. 

Now  of  these  plays,  "  Henry  VI,"  part  I,  we  are  Shakespeare 
assured,  is  probably  not  from  Shakespeare's  hand  at  0°  Oxford^ 
all.  The  same  remark  applies  to  "  Henry  VI,"  part  2, 
and  to  a  considerable  portion  even  of  "  Henry  VI," 
part  3.  The  most  Shakespearean  work  in  this  trilogy 
is  to  be  found,  however,  in  the  latter  half  of 
"Henry  VI,"  part  3.  "Richard  III"  is  wholly 
Shakespearean.  Turning  then  to  "  Henry  VI,"  parts 
i  and  2,  the  non-Shakespearean  plays,  we  find  there 
is  no  mention  made  whatever  of  the  I2th  Earl  of 
Oxford ;  whilst,  on  coming  to  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3, 
we  find  a  very  prominent  and  honoured  place  given 
to  John,  the  I3th  Earl  of  Oxford,  along  with  the  striking 
fact  that  he  does  not  make  his  appearance  on  the 
stage  until  Act  III,  Scene  3.  That  is  to  say,  he  is  not 
brought  into  these  plays  at  all  until  he  is  brought  in 
by  "  Shakespeare  "  ;  and  then,  which  makes  it  still 
more  striking,  we  have  very  particular  mention  made 
of  the  father  and  brother  who  had  laid  down  their 
lives  in  the  Lancastrian  cause,  but  who  are  completely 
ignored  in  the  other  two  plays.  In  a  word,  the  non- 
Shakespearean  work  ignores  the  Earls  of  Oxford, 
whilst  the  Shakespearean  work  gives  them  a  leading 
and  distinguished  position. 

Oxford  speaks  : — 

"  Call  him  my  King,  by  whose  injurious  doom 
My  elder  brother,  the  Lord  Aubrey  de  Vere, 
Was  done  to  death  ?     And  more  than  so,  my  father, 
Even  in  the  downfall  of  his  mellow'd  years, 
When  nature  brought  him  to  the  door  of  death  ? 
No,  Warwick,  no,  while  life  upholds  this  arm, 
This  arm  upholds  the  house  of  Lancaster." 

15 


226         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

Having  been  thus  introduced  into  the  play  he  is 
hardly  mentioned  except  to  be  praised  : 

"  And  thou,  brave  Oxford,  wondrous  well  beloved." 

"Sweet  Oxford." 

1 1  Where  is  the  post  that  came  from  valiant  Oxford  ?  ' ' 

"  O  cheerful  colours  !  see  where  Oxford  comes." 

"Oxford,  Oxford,  for  Lancaster." 

"Ol  welcome  Oxford,  for  we  want  thy  help." 

' '  Why,  is  not  Oxford  here  another  anchor  ?  ' ' 

Then  towards  the  close  of  the  play,  when  King 
Henry  VI  blesses  Henry  of  Richmond  and  names  him 
as  successor  to  the  throne,  it  is  Oxford  who,  along 
with  Somerset,  arranges  to  send  him  to  Brittany  for 
safety,  until  "  the  storms  be  passed  of  civil  enmity." 
And,  in  the  last  act,  even  such  a  detail  as  his  place  of 
imprisonment  is  remembered  and  named : 

"  Away  with  Oxford  to  Hames  Castle  straight." 

Richard  in."  Finally,  we  have  the  concentration  of  Shakespeare's 
matured  powers  in  the  great  tragic  drama  of 
"  Richard  III,"  which  sets  forth  the  overthrow  of  the 
house  of  York,  and  the  triumph  of  Henry  of  Richmond, 
as  representative  of  the  house  of  Lancaster.  In  this 
play  King  Edward  remembers,  in  his  distress  over  the 
death  of  Clarence,  that  it  was  he  who  saved  him  "  in 
the  field  of  Tewkesbury,  when  Oxford  had  me  down." 
In  the  last  act  of  all,  when  the  Yorkists  are 
overthrown  and  Henry  Tudor  appears,  it  is  with 
Oxford  by  his  side  ;  and  it  is  Oxford  who,  as  premier 
nobleman,  replies  first  to  the  king's  address  to  his 
followers.  Whether,  therefore,  Shakespeare  was  an 
actual  representative  of  the  family  of  the  De  Veres  or 


ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      227 

not,  we  are  quite  entitled  to  claim  that  he  shows  a 
marked  partiality  for  the  family,  a  careful  regard  for 
its  honour,  and  a  precise  acquaintance  with  details 
pertaining  to  its  several  members. 

Such  a  fact  would  not  have  given  a  justification  for  A  significant 
the  selection  of  Edward  de  Vere  in  the  first  instance  ;  silence- 
for  the  family  might  have  had  intense  admirers  outside 
the  circle  of  its  own  members.  When,  however,  the 
selection  has  been  made  on  quite  other  grounds,  and 
supported  by  other  lines  of  argument,  the  discovery 
that  "  Shakespeare  "  displays  this  special  partiality 
has  immense  value,  and  hardly  leaves  room  for  doubt 
as  to  the  soundness  of  the  choice.  The  poet  and 
dramatist  who  wrote  the  passages  we  have  quoted 
from  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3,  could  hardly  fail  to  have 
been  interested  also  in  the  particular  representative 
of  the  family  who  at  that  time  bore  the  title,  and 
who  happened,  moreover,  to  be  a  poet  and  dramatist 
quite  in  "  Shakespeare's  "  line.  Yet  this  particular 
nobleman's  name  is  never  once  met  with  in  connection 
with  the  "  Shakespeare  "  dramas,  although  he  was 
living  at  the  time  in  Hackney,  then  a  London  suburb 
immediately  adjacent  to  Shoreditch,  where  Burbage 
had  his  theatre,  and  the  Shakespeare  dramas  were 
being  staged.  All  this  is  more  than  suggestive  of  a 
wish  not  to  be  seen  in  it. 

It  is  worth  remarking,  too,  that  Shakespeare's  expres- 
sion of  partiality  is  more  guarded  in  "  Richard  III  " 
than  in  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3.  The  former  play  is 
a  later  and  more  matured  work,  belonging  to  the 
time  when  the  Shakespeare  mask  had  been  adopted. 
Great  publicity  was  given  to  it,  and  it  passed  through 
several  editions  in  the  lifetime  of  Edward  de  Vere. 
The  play  of  "  Henry  VI,"  part  3,  evidently  an  earlier 


228       "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

work,  in  which  he  betrays  his  Oxford  partialities  more 
freely,  was  not  printed  in  its  present  form  until  it 
appeared  in  the  Folio  edition  of  1623.  That  is  to  say, 
it  is  really  a  posthumous  publication  of  a  youthful 
production,  never  having  been  published  with  Shake- 
speare's imprimatur,  and  may,  indeed,  never  have  been 
staged  during  the  later  years  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  fame. 
Of  the  earls  who  succeeded  to  the  domains  and  titles 
between  John  the  I3th  Earl,  who  stood  by  the  side 
of  Henry  VII,  and  Edward  the  iyth  Earl,  little  need 
be  said.  After  the  death  of  the  I4th  Earl  the  direct 
male  line  came  to  an  end,  and  the  i5th  Earl,  the 
grandfather  of  the  poet,  succeeded  by  right  of  descent 
from  Richard  de  Vere,  the  nth  Earl  of  Oxford. 
The  Great  Before  leaving  the  matter  of  Edward  de  Vere's 

Chamberlain  •.   •  «•  r          *  .  • 

ancestry,  it  is  necessary  to  oner  a  few  observations  on 
the  office  of  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  which  had  been 
hereditary  in  his  family  for  centuries,  and  to  which 
he  succeeded,  along  with  the  other  dignities,  on  the 
death  of  his  father.  This  office  must  not  be  confused 
with  that  of  Lord  Chamberlain,  rendered  familiar  to 
Shakespeare  students  by  its  association  with  the 
performance  and  publication  of  many  of  Shakespeare's 
plays.  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  for  example,  was 
published  "as  it  hath  beene  diverse  times  acted  by  the 
Lord  Chamberlain,  his  servants."  Amongst  the 
functions  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  are  the  arrange- 
ments relating  to  royal  patronage  of  the  drama  and 
the  licensing  of  plays  and  theatres.  It  was  the  company 
of  actors  under  the  special  patronage  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  which  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  day  per- 
formed many  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  plays,  and  has  in 
consequence  been  erroneously  styled  "  Shakespeare's 
Company."  The  disappearance  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 


ANCESTRY  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      220, 

Iain's  books  for  the  "  Shakespeare  "  period  is  dealt 
with  in  another  chapter. 

The  position  of  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  though 
of  higher  social  dignity,  appears  to  have  been  less 
onerous  and  its  functions  more  intermittent.  These 
had  more  to  do  with  state  functions  and  the  royal 
person,  near  whom  this  official  was  placed  on  such 
great  occasions  as  coronations  and  royal  funerals. 

It  is  necessary  to  point  out  the  distinction,  otherwise 
the  unwary  might  be  misled  into  supposing  that 
Edward  de  Vere,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  had  something 
to  do  with  the  direct  management  of  the  company  with 
which  William  Shakspere  was  connected.  The  Lord 
Chamberlain  during  part  of  the  "  Shakespeare " 
period  was  Lord  Hunsdon ;  and  though  Edward  de 
Vere  might  possibly  have  something  to  do  with  the 
matter  indirectly,  through  his  fellow  official,  directly 
as  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  it  would  not  come  within 
his  province. 

As  Lord  Great  Chamberlain  he  officiated  near  the 
person  of  James  I  at  his  coronation,  just  as,  doubtless, 
When  a  boy,  he  had  witnessed  his  father  officiating  at 
the  coronation  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  Although  his 
officiating  at  Elizabeth's  funeral  is  not  mentioned 
so  explicitly  as  the  part  he  took  at  the  coronation  of 
James,  it  is  natural  to  assume  that  he  would  be  there. 
It  is  just  possible  that  this  ceremony  is  directly  referred  Queen 
to  in  sonnet  125  :  Elizabeth's 

funeral. 

"  Were't  aught  to  me  I  bore  the  canopy, 
With  my  extern  the  outward  honouring, 
Or  laid  great  bases  for  eternity, 
Which  prove  more  short  than  waste  or  ruining  ? 
*  *  *  * 

No,  let  me  be  obsequious  in  thy  heart, 

And  take  thou  my  oblation,  poor  but  free." 


230         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

If  this  can  be  shown  to  have  any  direct  connection 
with  the  functions  of  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  it 
will  be  a  very  valuable  direct  proof  of  our  thesis. 
The  particular  sonnet  from  which  we  have  quoted 
comes  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  series  to  which  it 
belongs  ;  and,  as  we  are  assured  that  the  whole  series 
was  brought  to  a  close  shortly  after  the  death  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  sonnet  125  must  have  been  written 
about  the  time  of  that  event.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
in  what  impressive  ceremony  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford  could  have  participated  about  the  same 
time,  necessitating  his  bearing  the  canopy  and  laying 
great  bases  for  eternity.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
reference  to  "  dwellers  on  form  and  favour  losing  all 
by  paying  too  much  rent  "  is  strongly  suggestive  of  an 
allusion  to  royalty,  and  is  exactly  descriptive  of  what 
Oxford  represents  Elizabeth's  treatment  of  himself  to 
have  been  :  that  she  had  encouraged  his  lavish  expen- 
diture with  promises  of  favour  that  had  not  been 
fulfilled.  His  application,  in  her  later  years,  for  the 
presidency  of  Wales  had  met  with  fair  words  and 
disappointment.  Altogether  the  suggestion  of  an 
allusion  in  the  sonnet  to  the  hereditary  office  of  the 
Lord  Great  Chamberlain  seems  very  strong. 

IV 

FATHER  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 

Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth  Earl  of  Oxford,  was 
born  at  Earl's  Colne  in  Essex,  in  the  year  1550,  being 
the  only  son  of  John  de  Vere,  Sixteenth  Earl  of  Oxford. 
His  mother  was  Margaret,  daughter  of  John  Golding 
and  sister  of  Arthur  Golding,  the  translator  of  Ovid. 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    231 

His  father  died  at  Earl's  Colne  in  the  year  1562  and 
was  buried  at  Castle  Hedingham,  in  Essex,  and  the 
future  poet  became  a  royal  ward  at  the  age  of  twelve. 
As  this  fact  of  his  being  a  royal  ward  furnished  the 
starting  point  of  an  argument  with  a  remarkable 
culmination,  we  ask  for  the  reader's  special  attention 
to  it  now.  Earl's  Colne  and  Castle  Hedingham  in 
Essex  we  may  suppose  are  probably  destined  to  attain 
an  unexpected  notoriety  when  the  purpose  of  this  work 
has  been  achieved. 

As  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  influence  Father- 
and  memory  of  De  Vere's  father  were  important  factors  worshiP- 
in  the  poet's  life,  and  add  an  element  to  our  evidences 
of  identification,  it  is  necessary  to  point  out  certain 
facts  concerning  him.  The  article  in  the  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography  dealing  with  John  de  Vere, 
Sixteenth  Earl  of  Oxford,  mentions  him  as  a  man 
greatly  honoured  in  his  county  and  highly  respected, 
especially  by  his  tenantry  ;  from  which  we  may  infer 
a  habit  of  direct  personal  intercourse  with  them  and 
a  kindly  attention  to  their  interests.  He  was  also  a 
keen  sportsman,  being  evidently  noted  as  such.  To  a 
lad  of  twelve  a  father  of  this  kind  is  an  ideal.  His 
qualities  appeal  much  more  powerfully  to  the  lad's 
admiration  than  more  distinguished  or  exceptional 
powers  would  do  ;  and,  especially  in  the  case  of  an 
intensely  affectionate  nature  like  that  of  Edward  de 
Vere's,  to  which  his  poetry  bears  unquestionable 
testimony,  one  can  easily  conceive  of  them  forming  the 
basis  of  a  genuine  comradeship  between  the  two. 
When,  therefore,  we  find  that  the  father,  who  left  large 
estates,  nominated  the  boy  in  his  will  as  one  of  his 
executors,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  relationship 
between  them  was  warm  and  intimate.  The  loss  of 


232         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

such  a  father,  with  the  complete  upsetting  of  his 
young  life  that  it  immediately  involved,  must  have 
been  a  great  grief  to  one  so  sensitively  constituted. 
We  may  naturally  suppose,  then,  that  the  figure  of 
a  hero-father  would  live  in  his  imagination  ;  and  the 
reader  of  "  Shakespeare  "  who  has  missed  this  note 
of  father-worship  in  the  great  dramas  has  been 
found  wanting  in  serious  attention  to  their  finer 
contents. 

The  greatest  play  of  Shakespeare's,  "  Hamlet,"  has 
father-worship  as  its  prime  motive : 

"  He  was  a  man,  take  him  for  all  in  all, 
I  shall  not  look  upon  his  like  again." 

The  Or,  what  could  be  more  striking  than  the  opening 

passages  of  "  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well "  : 

Countess  :  In  delivering  my  son  from  me  I  bury  a  second 
husband. 

Bertram  :  And  I  in  going,  madam,  weep  o'er  my  father's 
death  anew  ;  but  I  must  attend  his  majesty's  command, 
to  whom  I  am  now  in  ward  evermore  in  subjection. 

*  *  *  * 

Countess :  Be  thou  blest,  Bertram,  and  succeed  thy 
father 

In  manners  as  in  shape  !    Thy  blood  and  virtue 
Contend  for  empire  in  thee  ;    and  thy  goodness 
Share  with  thy  birthright. 

Then  in  the  second  scene  when  Bertram  is  brought 
before  the  king,  he  is  addressed  thus  : 

King  : 

Thy  father     ....     did  look  far 
Into  the  service  of  the  time  and  was 
Discipled  of  the  bravest. 

It  much  repairs  me 
To  talk  of  your  good  father. 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    233 

So  like  a  courtier,  contempt  nor  bitterness 

Were  in  his  pride,  or,  if  they  were, 

His  equal  had  awaked  them  :  who  were  below  him 

He  used  as  creatures  of  another  place, 

And  bowed  his  eminent  top  to  their  low  ranks, 

Making  them  proud  of  his  humility. 

In  their  poor  praise  he  humbled.    Such  a  man 

Might  be  a  copy  to  these  younger  times." 

In  addition  to  the  special  point  we  are  now  em- 
phasizing, and  the  startling  correspondence  in  so  many 
details,  to  the  actual  circumstances  of  Edward  de 
Vere,  especially  that  of  the  royal  wardship,  is  it  possible 
to  conceive  of  these  lines  being  penned  by  any  one  but 
an  aristocrat,  in  close  connection  with  royalty,  and 
dominated  by  the  feudal  ideals  of  noblesse  oblige  P 
The  latter  part  of  the  quotation,  so  suggestive  of  the 
reputation  borne  by  Edward  de  Vere's  father,  following 
upon  a  passage  descriptive  of  the  actual  position  of  the 
son,  affords  a  strong  presumption  that  if  the  writer 
was  not  Edward  de  Vere  he,  at  any  rate,  had  that 
nobleman  in  his  mind  as  the  prototype  of  Bertram. 
The  last  sentence  bespeaks  not  only  the  aristocrat  but 
also  a  man  who  felt  out  of  touch  with  the  new  and 
less  chivalrous  order  then  emerging  from  the  protestant 
middle  classes,  where  individualism  and  personal 
ambition  were  less  under  the  discipline  of  social  prin- 
ciples than  in  the  best  manifestations  of  the  departing 
feudal  ideals. 

As  in  dealing  with  the  early  life  of  Oxford  we  shall  "  Shake- 
have  to  notice  throughout  the  remarkable  parallelism 
between  him  and  Bertram  in  "  All's  Well,"  it  is  im- 
portant to  bear  in  mind  that  very  many  of  the 
personal  details  are  original  to  "  Shakespeare's  "  play, 
and  do  not  form  part  of  Boccacio'S  story  upon  which 
the  central  episode  is  based.  "  All's  Well "  might 


234         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

indeed    be   compendiously     described    as    Boccacio's 
story  plus  the  early  life  of  Edward  de  Vere. 


A  ROYAL  WARD 

Owing  to  his  being  in  his  minority  at  the  time  of  his 
father's  death,  the  latter's  nomination  of  him  as  one 
of  the  executors  of  his  will  was  inoperative,  and  he 
became,  as  we  have  seen,  a  royal  ward.  Just  at  this 
point  the  records  are  not  so  precise  as  we  could  wish. 
We  learn  that,  as  royal  ward,  he  was  brought  from  his 
home  to  the  court,  and  as  Cecil  (not  yet  Lord  Burleigh) 
was  master  of  the  court  of  royal  wards,  he  became  an 
inmate  of  Cecil's  house  in  the  Strand. 


Oxford's  jjis  mother,  we  also  learn,  remarried.    We  have  tried 

mother. 

in  vam  to  discover  the  exact  dates  at  which  he  was 
brought  to  court,  and  when  his  mother  remarried, 
not  as  matters  of  mere  curiosity,  but  because  we  believe 
these  points  may  have  their  bearing  both  on  our 
problem  and  upon  questions  of  Shakespearean  inter- 
pretation. The  date  of  his  mother's  second  marriage 
might  prove  of  especial  interest.  It  is  to  be  regretted, 
therefore,  that  although  references  to  the  event  appear 
in  histories  of  Essex,  no  date  is  given  ;  thus  strength- 
ening our  suspicion  that  not  much  prominence  was 
given  to  the  marriage  at  the  time  :  the  date  especially 
being  kept  in  the  background.  It  is  a  curious  fact, 
too,  that  with  the  exception  of  her  once  interesting 
herself  in  his  financial  affairs,  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  the  State  Papers,  we  have  not  been  able  to 
discover  a  single  reference  to  his  mother  in  connection 
with  any  act  in  his  life. 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    235 

In  this  connection  his  circumstances  contrast  in  a  countess  of 
marked  way  with  those  of  Henry  Wriothesley,  Third  Southamp- 
Earl  of  Southampton,  to  whom  "  Shakespeare " 
dedicated  his  great  poems  and  probably  addressed 
many  of  his  sonnets.  He,  too,  just  a  generation  later, 
became  a  royal  ward  at  an  early  age  and  passed  under 
the  guardianship  of  Burleigh.  In  his  case,  however, 
his  mother  remained  near  him,  looking  after  his  interests 
and  not  remarrying  until  he  had  reached  his  majority  : 
when  she  married  Sir  Thomas  Henneage,  Treasurer  of 
the  Chamber,  and  was  herself  responsible,  as  we  have 
seen,  for  the  single  "official"  mention  of  "Shake- 
speare "  in  the  records  of  her  husband's  department. 
We  thus  get  glimpses  of  her  in  everything  relating  to 
her  son,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  those  early 
years.  We  may  remark  here  that  as  Oxford's  own 
mother  was  dead  at  the  time  of  his  later  domestic 
troubles,  in  dealing  with  the  domestic  troubles  of 
Bertram  in  "  All's  Well "  he  may  have  taken  the 
Dowager  Countess  of  Southampton  as  the  prototype 
of  Bertram's  mother :  and  certainly  the  represen- 
tation seems  to  fit. 

In  Oxford's  own  case  everything  is  different  from  Oxford  at 
Southampton's.  His  mother  does  not  appear,  and  one  Court- 
gets  a  sense  of  there  being  a  complete  severance 
between  his  early  childhood  with  its  home  associations 
and  father's  influence,  and  the  remainder  of  his  boyhood 
and  youth.  Henceforth  it  is  "  by  public  means  which 
public  manners  breeds,"  that  his  bringing-up  is  pro- 
vided for.  From  the  age  of  twelve  true  domestic 
influences  were  lost  to  him  ;  he  becomes  a  prominent 
figure  about  Elizabeth's  court,  subjected  to  corrupting 
influences,  in  which  it  must  be  admitted  the  Queen 
herself  was  a  potent  factor.  At  the  same  time  it  is 


236         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

quite  evident  that  he  was  only  uncomfortably  domiciled 
in  Cecil's  house.  Between  the  Earl  of  Oxford  and  the 
Earl  of  Southampton  there  was  therefore  a  striking 
parallel  with  an  important  difference. 

Arthur  f  The  only  family  connection  of  which  there  are  any 

Ovid!"8  S  traces  is  that  of  his  uncle,  Arthur  Golding,  the  trans- 
lator of  Ovid,  who  entered  Cecil's  house  as  Oxford's 
tutor  and  as  receiver  of  his  property.  The  vital 
significance  of  the  relationship  of  Arthur  Golding  to 
the  man  we  are  putting  forward  as  the  author  of 
Shakespeare's  plays  will  be  fully  appreciated  by  those 
Shakespearean  students  who  are  also  students  of  the 
Latin  classics,  and  who  are  able  to  trace  in  Shake- 
speare passages  borrowed  from  Ovid,  which  follow 
the  original  more  closely  that  do  the  standard  trans- 
lations. 

We  shall  again  quote  from  Sir  Sidney  Lee's  "  Life 
of  Shakespeare"  on  this  point:  "Although  Ovid's 
Latin  text  was  certainly  familiar  to  him  (Shakespeare) 
his  closest  adaptations  of  Ovid's  '  Metamorphoses  ' 
often  reflect  the  phraseology  of  the  popular  English 
version  by  Arthur  Golding  of  which  some  seven  editions 
were  issued  between  1565  and  1597."  That  is  to  say, 
these  editions  of  Ovid  were  being  issued  by  Arthur 
Golding  in  the  very  years  in  which  he  was  Latin  tutor 
to  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  so  that  special  point  is  given  by 
the  theory  we  are  now  putting  forward  to  the  bio- 
grapher's later  remark  that  "  Golding's  rendering  of 
Ovid  had  been  one  of  Shakespeare's  best-loved  books 
in  youth." 

To  this  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  Professor 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh  that :  "He  certainly  knew  Ovid, 
for  he  quotes  him  in  the  original  more  than  once,  and 
chooses  a  motto  for  "Venus  and  Adonis"  from  the 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    237 

Elegies.  But  his  more  elaborate  borrowings  from 
Ovid  came,  for  the  most  part,  by  way  of  Arthur 
Golding's  translations." 

To  find  "  Shakespeare  "  more  exact  in  some  instances  "  Shake- 
than  the  translator  raises  an  acknowledged  difficulty  in  QvW  6 
connection  with  the  Stratfordian  view.  It  has  for  a 
long  while  been  one  of  the  vexed  questions  of  Shake- 
spearean authorship,  and  is  discussed  at  some  length 
in  Sir  George  Greenwood's  work  on  the  "Shakespearean 
Problem."  What  is  a  difficulty  with  the  accepted 
authorship  becomes  transformed  into  a  substantial 
corroboration  of  the  theory  of  authorship  we  are  now 
advancing  ;  and  all  mystery  immediately  vanishes 
when  we  assume  that  Arthur  Golding,  the  Ovid 
enthusiast  and  translator,  was  himself  a  relative  as 
well  as  a  private  tutor  and  Latin  teacher  to  "  Shake- 
speare," engaged  in  the  latter  capacity  in  the  very 
years  in  which  he  was  translating  and  publishing  the 
works  of  this  particular  poet. 

The  importance  of  this  little  piece  of  evidence  can 
hardly  be  over-estimated.  By  itself  it  proves  nothing, 
but  in  view  of  the  prominent  position  which  the  Ovid 
controversy  has  taken  in  the  question  of  Shakespearean 
authorship,  and  in  conjunction  with  the  other  lines 
of  evidence  we  are  now  offering,  its  value  is  un- 
questionable. Ovid  is  the  one  Latin  poet  who  has 
been  specially  singled  out  as  having  directly  left  deep 
traces  in  Shakespeare's  work,  at  the  same  time  that  the 
dramatist  shows  an  equal  intimacy  with  the  trans- 
lation. This  is  precisely  the  result  we  should  expect 
from  the  Earl  of  Oxford's  relationship  to  Arthur 
Golding.  An  intimate  acquaintance  with  one  particular 
translation  of  a  classic,  and  also  such  an  acquaintance 
with  the  original  as  to  make  his  own  rendering  more 


238 


"SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 


DC  Vere  and 

Golding. 


Oxford  and 
Law. 


complete  and  exact  in  some  respects  is  not  a  usual 
combination  in  a  student  of  the  classics,  and  needs 
some  such  relationship  as  existed  between  Edward  de 
Vere  and  Arthur  Golding  to  explain  it.  The  connection 
of  Edward  de  Vere,  Arthur  Golding,  and  "  Shake- 
speare "  with  Ovid  thus  constitutes  an  important  link 
in  our  chain  of  evidence. 

In  this  connection  we  would,  in  conclusion,  offer  a 
suggestion.  Arthur  Golding  was  the  author  of  other 
works  besides  the  translation  of  Ovid.  From  references 
to  these  we  gather  that  all  are  quite  inferior  to  the 
Ovid  work  :  itself  only  of  second  rate  order.  If,  then, 
the  translation  of  Ovid  formed  part  of  Oxford's  latin 
studies — as  it  most  assuredly  would  do  under  the 
circumstances — it  may  be  that  what  is  taken  to  be  the 
influence  of  Golding 's  work  in  "  Shakespeare  "  is  in 
reality  due  to  the  influence  of  the  young  Earl  of  Oxford 
upon  the  work  of  Arthur  Golding. 

Considering  the  place  occupied  by  the  translator  of 
Ovid  in  the  early  life  and  education  of  the  Earl  of 
Oxford,  we  would  draw  particular  attention  to  the  fact 
that,  in  the  Inner  Temple  Records,  there  appears  an 
entry  indicating  that  after  finishing  his  work  as  tutor 
to  his  nephew,  Arthur  Golding  was  admitted  to  the 
Bar.  Evidently  then,  pari  passu  with  the  work  of 
translating  classics  and  instructing  the  Earl  of  Oxford, 
there  had  been  proceeding  the  study  of  law.  Oxford's 
course  of  reading  had  been  mapped  out  for  him  by 
Cecil,  and  it  goes  without  saying  that  a  plan  of  studies 
drawn  up  by  Cecil  would  most  certainly  embrace  legal 
procedure.  Oxford's  letters  of  a  much  later  date, 
preserved  in  the  Hatfield  Manuscripts,  certainly  appeal 
to  a  layman  as  the  work  of  a  man  conversant  with 
legal  forms  and  terminology,  and  one'  passage  of 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    239 

special  interest  we  shall  presently  submit .  The  question 
of  whether  his  legal  knowledge  was  on  the  same  plane 
with  that  of  "  Shakespeare  "  the  experts  must  decide  : 
meanwhile  we  shall  give  one  or  two  examples  : — 

Earl  of  Oxford  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil: 

"It  is  now  a  year  since  Her  Majesty  granted  her 
interest  in  Danver's  escheat.  I  find  that  the  lands 
will  be  carried  without  deed.  I  have  twice  moved  Her 
Majesty  to  grant  me  that  ordinary  course,  whereof 
there  are  more  than  one  hundred  examples.  Mine 
answer  was  that  I  should  receive  her  pleasure  from 
you.  But  I  understand  by  Cauley  that  she  hath 
never  spoken  thereof.  The  matter  hath  been  heard 
twice  before  the  judges  but  their  report  hath  never 
been  made.  I  challenge  that  something  be  done 
whereby  I  may,  upon  ground,  seek  and  try  Her  Majesty's 
right,  which  cannot  be  done  without  this  deed  afore- 
said. I  desire  to  know  Her  Majesty's  pleasure  touching 
her  patent  (de  bene  esse)  whether  she  will  perform  it 
or  no." 

Hackney,  22nd  March,  1601. 

(Hatfield  MSS.,  Vol.  XII.) 

"  If  Her  Majesty's  affections  be  forfeits  of  men's 
estates  we  must  endure  it."  (Hatfield  MSS.,  Vol.  V.) 

What  the  lawyers  tell  us  of  Shakespeare's  use  of  the 
word  "  forfeit,"  coupled  with  the  reference  to  en- 
durance, makes  this  sentence  eminently  Shakespearean. 

More  than  once  we  get  evidence  of  his  chafing  under 
"  the  law's  delays,"  and  of  royal  promises  unsupported 
by  performance. 

"  I  was  promised  favour  that  I  should  have  assis- 
tance of  Her  Majesty's  counsel  in  law,  that  I  should 


240         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

have  expedition.  Her  Majesty's  counsel  hath  been 
against  me.  Her  Majesty  used  me  very  graciously  .  .  . 
I  have  written  Her  Majesty  and  received  a  most 
gracious  answer  to  do  me  good  in  all  that  she  can." 

December,  1601. 
(Hatfield  MSS.,  XL) 

Her  Majesty's  promises  and  gracious  answers, 
however,  came  to  nothing  in  these  cases. 

The  significance  of  the  following  passage  (in  one  of 
Oxford's  letters)  either  from  the  legal  or  Shakespearean 
point  of  view  we  do  not  profess  to  understand.  Its 
chief  interest  lies  in  the  two  names  it  introduces 
together.  We  shall  therefore  preface  it  with  two 
passages  from  Mrs.  Stopes's  "  Burbage  and  Shake- 
speare's Stage" : 

Sergeant  "  Qn  I3th  November,  1590,  Mr.  Sergeant  Harrys 

Bacon.  for  Burbage  prayed  consideration  of  a  former  order 
made  in  his  behalf  in  the  suit  of  Burbage  v.  Braynes  " 
(p.  50).  Sergeant  Harris  was  evidently  then  engaged 
in  legal  business  connected  with  Burbage's  theatre. 
On  iyth  June,  '44,  Eliz.  (1602)  "  The  Court  referred 
(another  legal  case  involving  theatrical  connections) 
to  the  consideration  of  the  right  worshipful  Francis 

Bacon,  Esq Here  at  last  I  have  found  a  real 

association  of  Francis  Bacon  with  the  Theatre  .... 
in  his  legal  capacity,  not  a  poetic  one  at  all.  ... 
This  case  was  running  concurrently  with  (another 
theatrical  legal  case  brought  in  in  1601)." 

The  Earl  of  Oxford  to  Sir  Robert  Cecil  (1601)  : 

"  I  am  advised  that  I  may  pass  my  book  from  Her 
Majesty  to  my  cousin  Bacon  and  to  Sergeant  Harris 
to  perfect  it."  From  Hackney. 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    241 

Bacon  was  a  cousin  of  Robert  Cecil's  and  therefore 
a  cousin  of  Oxford's  by  marriage ;  and  the  evidence 
here  presented  of  the  co-operation  of  the  two  men  in 
legal  matters  may  go  far  to  explain  the  many  interesting 
similarities  of  expression  brought  together  by  the 
Baconians.  These  matters  take  us  far  beyond  the  period 
of  his  history  with  which  we  are  immediately  con- 
cerned :  the  object  of  introducing  them  now  is  to 
show  that  both  in  the  education  of  Oxford,  and  in  his 
subsequent  career,  there  is  much  to  account  for  the 
prominence  of  legal  terms  in  any  writing  which  might 
be  attributed  to  him. 

Resuming  now  the  account  of  his  education  generally, 
we  are  told  that  Cecil  had  drawn  up  some  scheme  of  learning  and 

life 

instruction ;  that  he  was  "  thoroughly  grounded  in 
French  and  Latin  "  ;  that  he  "  learnt  to  dance,  ride 
and  shoot  "  ;  and  that  he  manifested  a  natural  taste 
for  music  and  a  marked  interest  in  literature.  On  the 
other  hand,  every  word  of  the  records  we  have  of  him, 
taken  along  with  what  he  has  himself  written,  represents 
him  as  one  combining  with  his  interest  in  books  a 
more  intense  interest  in  life  itself.  Or,  rather,  we 
should  say  he  was  one  in  whom  life  and  literature, 
especially  classic  poetry,  seem  to  have  worked  them- 
selves into  some  kind  of  unity :  one  who  interpreted  life 
in  terms  of  classic  poetry,  carrying  into  life  the  con- 
ceptions of  classic  poetry,  and  reading  classic  poetry 
as  but  the  reflection  of  ordinary  practical  life.  To 
say  that  all  this  is  characteristic  of  Shakespeare  is  as 
banal  a  remark  as  could  well  be  made  ;  and  the  words 
which  the  dramatist  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Berowne  in 
"  Love's  Labour's  Lost  "  might  quite  easily  be  taken 
as  Edward  de  Vere's  expression  of  personal  opinions  : 

"Learning  is  but  an  adjunct  to  ourself." 
16 


342         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

And  this : 

Berowne : 

"  That  (delight  is)  most  vain 
Which  with  pain  purchased  doth  inherit  pain  : 
As  painfully  to  pore  upon  a  book, 
To  seek  the  light  of  truth  ;    while  truth  the  while 
Doth  falsely  blind  the  eyesight  of  his  look  : 
Small  have  continual  plodders  ever  won 
Save  base  authority  from  others'  books. 
These  earthly  godfathers  of  heaven's  light 
That  give  a  name  to  every  fixed  star, 
Have  no  more  profit  of  their  shining  nights 
Than  those  that  walk  and  wot  not  what  they  are. 
Too  much  to  know  is  to  know  nought  but  fame, 
And  every  godfather  can  give  a  name. 

King  : 

How  well  he's  read  to  reason  against  reading." 

The  Shakespeare  revealed  in  the  dramas  was  no 
mere  book-worm  "  falsely  blinding  the  eyesight  "  of 
his  mind  in  close  plodding  at  academic  studies.  On 
the  other  hand  it  is  almost  impossible  to  conceive  of 
a  man  in  the  position  of  the  Stratford  Shakspere  rising 
to  such  a  literary  level  otherwise  than  by  the  most 
assiduous  and  constant  application  of  his  mind  to 
books.  The  man  "  self-educated "  in  this  way  has 
invariably  to  pay  a  penalty  in  those  sides  of  his  nature 
which  relate  him  to  practical  life:  a  penalty  which 
"  Shakespeare  "  had  not  paid,  and  need  not  be  paid 
by  a  man  living  in  contact  with  educated  people  to 
whom  "  book-learning "  is  an  "  adjunct  "  to  life 
rather  than  its  chief  concern. 

Latin  and  it  is  interesting  to  notice,  however,  that  the  out- 
standing subjects  of  De  Vere's  book-learning  are 
French  and  Latin  ;  and  in  this  connection  we  are 
again  able  to  adduce  the  testimony  of  Shakespeare's 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    343 

leading   modern   biographer   as   to   the   dramatist's 
linguistic  attainments : 

"  With  the  Latin  and  French  languages  indeed,  and 
with  many  Latin  poets  of  the  school  curriculum, 
Shakespeare  in  his  writings  openly  acknowledged  his 
acquaintance.  In  "  Henry  V  "  the  dialogue  in  many 
scenes  is  carried  on  hi  French,  which  is  grammatically 
accurate  if  not  idiomatic "  (Sir  Sidney  Lee,  "  Life 
of  Shakespeare  "). 

In  other  words,  Shakespeare's  French  was  not  mere 
school-book  French,  but  the  living  speech  of  a  man 
acquainted  with  the  language  in  direct  relationship 
with  thought  processes :  and  this  nearly  three  hundred 
years  before  the  oral  method  of  teaching  languages 
was  introduced  into  school  curricula.  Similarly 
Edward  de  Vere's  facility  hi  the  use  of  French  was 
such  that  one  of  the  few  duties  with  which  he  was 
officially  entrusted  was  to  meet  and  conduct  an  im- 
portant emissary  from  France.  Again,  by  itself,  the 
point  might  seem  unimportant.  The  reason,  however, 
why  we  dwell  upon  it,  and  why  we  quote  Shakespearean 
authorities  in  the  matter,  is  to  show  that  there  is 
probably  not  a  single  outstanding  fact  recorded  of 
Edward  de  Vere,  but  we  have  some  Shakespearean 
scholar  who  has  asserted  it  to  be  also  true  of  the  writer 
of  the  plays. 

In  addition  to  the  advantages  of  the  best  private  The 
tuition  he  had  also  a  university  education ;    first  at  Umversities. 
Queens'  College,  Cambridge,  then  at  St.  John's  College. 
Subsequently  he  received  degrees  from  both  universities. 
The  references  to  this  matter  are,  however,  peculiarly 
slight,  and  leave  the  impression  of  his  having  been  one 
who  had  merely  trifled^for^short  time  with  university 
life,  and  to  whom  it  did  not  count  for  muchT^Everi 


244         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

.  the  dates  of  his  residence  are  not  given,  and  the 
degrees  we  judge  to  have  been  honorary  degrees  in 
both  cases,  given  in  after  years.  It  is  claimed  by  some 
writers  that  Shakespeare  shows  a  knowledge  of  the 
universities.  Such  contact  as  Edward  de  Vere  had 
with  them  would  be  sufficient  to  account  for  that 
knowledge,  whilst  the  apparently  small  part  it  played 
in  his  life  would  quite  agree  with  the  almost  negligible 
part  that  college  and  university  matters  occupy  in  the 
plays.  There  are  only  two  occasions  on  which  Shake- 
speare mentions  the  word  "  university."  Hamlet,  in 
poking  fun  at  Polonius,  draws  him  out  by  exciting  his 
vanity  about  what  he  had  done  "at  the  university." 
The  other  occasion  is  when  another  old  man,  with  a 
slight  suggestion  of  Polonius  about  him,  Vincentio, 
in  the  "  Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  bewails  "  I  am  undone  ! 
While  I  play  the  good  husband  at  home  my  son  and 
my  servant  spend  all  at  the  university."  It  may  be 
that  the  dramatist  had  the  same  personality  in  his 
mind's  eye  in  both  cases. 
Relationship  Oxford's  life  in  the  Cecil  household  seems  to  have 
been  far  from  happy.  For  it  was  during  these  years, 
between  the  death  of  his  father  and  his  coming  of 
age,  that  he  first  of  all  sought  relief  from  it  by  begging 
for  some  military  occupation.  There  was  probably 
in  him,  too,  some  idea  of  winning  military  glory  quite 
in  keeping  with  the  family  traditions  and  the  later 
achievements  of  his  cousins  the  "  Fighting  Veres."  It 
is  clear,  however,  that  his  relationships  with  the  Cecil 
family  were  not  harmonious.  At  any  rate,  the  record 
of  him,  which  is  evidently  originally  from  Cecilian 
sources,  is  to  the  effect  that  he  quarrelled  with  the 
other  members  of  the  household.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  when  Oxford  entered  the  house  Anne  Cecil  was 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    245 

a  child  five  years  old,  Robert  Cecil  was  still  unborn 
and  Thomas  Cecil  had  already  left  home,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  who  there  would  be  to  quarrel  with  except 
the  irascible  Lady  Burleigh .  The  quarrels  are  mentioned 
with  the  evident  object  of  proving  him  quarrelsome. 
What  is  not  mentioned,  probably  because  the  modern 
recorder  had  not  observed  it,  is  that  three  of  the 
noblemen  most  hostile  to  the  Cecils  and  the  Cecil 
faction  in  Elizabeth's  court,  had  all  been  royal  wards, 
having  had  the  great  Lord  Burleigh  as  their  guardian 
— Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of  Oxford  ;  Henry  Wriothes- 
ley,  Earl  of  Southampton  ;  and  Robert  Devereux,  Earl 
of  Essex.  These  noblemen  apparently  considered  it 
no  great  blessing  to  have  had  the  paternal  attentions 
of  the  great  minister,  and  cherished  no  particular 
affection  for  the  family.  So  far  as  the  Earl  of  Oxford 
is  concerned,  whatever  disaster  may  have  come  into 
his  life,  we  are  confident,  had  its  beginning  in  the 
death  of  his  father,  the  severance  of  his  home  ties,  and 
the  combined  influences  of  Elizabeth's  court  and 
Burleigh's  household,  from  which  he  was  anxious  to 
escape.  The  expression  of  it  all  is  heard  in  sonnet  in  : 

"  O  !  for  my  sake  do  you  with  Fortune  chide 
The  guilty  goddess  of  my  harmful  deeds  ; 
That  did  not  better  for  my  life  provide 
Than  public  means  that  public  manners  breeds. 
Thence  comes  it  that  my  name  receives  a  brand, 
And  almost  thence  my  nature  is  subdued 
To  what  it  works  in,  like  the  dyer's  hand." 

The  attempt  to  explain  this  passage  as  William 
Shakspere's  lament  over  a  public  career  that  was  raising 
him,  in  early  manhood,  from  poverty  and  obscurity 
to  wealth  and  fame,  after  he  had  left — on  the  Strat- 
fordian  theory — a  wholesome  home-life  enlightened  by 


246         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

a  superiorjTeducation,  is  as  grotesque  a  piece  of  ex- 
planatory comment  as  that  theory  has  been  responsible 
for. 
Oxford  and        The  part  which  Burleigh  took  actively  in  Oxford's 

yUCCIl  1111  1  f  y-v 

Elizabeth,      troubles  belongs  to  a  later  stage  of  our  story.     Our 
present  concern  is  with  the  nine  years  during  which 
he  was  a  royal  ward  (age  12  to  21),  the  period  of  bis 
education  proper.    In  these  years  we  find  him  having 
just  those  experiences  which,  taken  along  with  his  own 
and  his  family's  antecedents,  and  the  evident  bent  of 
his  genius,  were  supplying  the  precise  kind  of  training 
needed  for  the  production  of  the  plays  of  Shakespeare, 
in  several  of  their  prime  essentials.     Without  being 
actually  a  prince  of  royal  blood  he  was  so  near  to  it, 
in  all  the  points  material  to  our  argument,  as  to  be 
regarded  in  that  light.    He  enjoyed  an  easy  familiarity 
with  the  Queen  ;  he  accompanied  her  on  her  journeys  ; 
he  seems  in  his  early  life  to  have  had  a  real  affection 
for  her  and  she  for  him  ;  and,  later  on,  as  he  developed 
into  manhood,  received  attentions  of  such  a  nature 
from  the  Queen,  now  middle-aged,  as  to  cause  his 
irate  mother-in-law  to  take  her  royal  mistress  to  task 
about  it.    An  entry  appears  in  the  Calendered  State 
Papers  stating  that  it  was  affirmed  by  one  party  that 
"  the  Queen  wooed  the  Earl  of  Oxford  but  he  would  not 
fall   in."      (Domestic  Papers   for   1601-3,   page   56.) 
Elizabeth  indeed  showed  a  marked  indulgence  to  what 
seemed  like  waywardness  in  him ;    and  when,  again 
at  a  later  time,  the  quarrel  between  him  and  Sidney 
occurred  she  took  his  side  and  demanded  an  apology 
from  Sidney — basing  her  demand,  it  is  asserted,  on 
the  grounds  of  Oxford's  superior  rank.     We  have 
already  had  to  draw  attention  to  the  startling  character 
of  the  analogy  between  Oxford  and  the  central  character 


247 

in  "  All's  Well,"  the  royal  ward,  Bertram  Count  of 
Roussilon,  to  which  must  now  be  added  this  proximity 
in  social  rank  and  intimate  intercourse  with  royalty, 
to  which  Helena  refers  in  her  conversation  with  the 
King.  It  will  be  interesting  to  notice,  too,  the  em- 
phasis given  both  in  this  play  and  in  "  Hamlet  "  to 
the  idea  that  by  virtue  of  their  birth  the  chief  characters 
had  no  personal  liberty  of  choice  in  the  matter  of 
marriage. 

Before  leaving  the  consideration  of  these  formative  Dancing, 
influences  in  the  early  life  of  Oxford,  we  return  to  its 
being  specially  recorded  of  him  that  he  learnt  to 
"  dance,  ride  and  shoot."  Oxford's  skill  in  dancing 
and  its  influence  over  the  Queen  is  emphasized  by  one 
contemporary  English  writer,  whilst  an  interesting 
illustration  of  it  appears  in  the  Spanish  Calendered 
State  Papers.  When  the  Duke  of  Anjou  visited 
England,  Elizabeth  sent  for  Oxford  to  come  and  dance 
before  the  Duke :  but  this  he  refused  to  do  though 
repeatedly  sent  for.  So  far  as  dancing  is  concerned, 
"  Shakespeare  "  was  evidently  well  acquainted  with  it, 
as  shown  by  the  number  of  references  to  it  and  his 
knowledge  of  the  names  of  different  kinds  of  dances 
and  steps.  These  references  do  not,  however,  seem  to 
express  any  enthusiasm  for  it,  or  suggest  that  it 
occupied  at  all  a  prominent  position  amongst  Shake- 
speare's interests.  Indeed  Bertram,  in  "  All's  Well," 
seems  rather  to  be  expressing  the  author's  own 
attitude  when  he  complains  about  having  to 

' '  Stay  here, 

Creaking  my  shoes  on  the  plain  masonry, 
Till  honour  be  bought  up,  and  no  sword  worn 
But  one  to  dance  with." 

It  is  the  attitude  of  a  man  who  danced  because  he 


248 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Shooting. 


Horseman- 
ship. 


was  denied  a  more  manly  outlet  for  his  energies : 
secretly  ashamed  possibly  of  his  own  accomplishment 
and  unwilling  to  put  himself  on  exhioition. 

Again,  in  the  matter  of  shooting,  if  it  is  shooting 
with  firearms  that  is  meant,  this  is  less  than  anything 
in  Shakespeare's  line ;  but  if  it  be  archery  to  which 
allusion  is  made,  then  it  is  in  every  way  typical  of 
"  Shakespeare."  Shakespeare  has,  of  course,  references 
to  firearms ;  in  one  or  two  instances  he  even  uses 
out-of-the-way  terms ;  but,  in  the  matter  of  archery  his 
vocabulary  is  almost  as  rich,  and  his  illustrations 
drawn  from  it  almost  as  copious,  as  in  the  case  of 
falconry ;  so  that,  in  examining  the  matter  now  one 
wonders  how  it  chanced  to  be  overlooked  at  the 
beginning  of  our  enquiry,  when  specifying  his  leading 
characteristics. 

Most  important  of  all,  however,  is  this  point  of  De 
Vere's  horsemanship.  Not  only  did  Oxford  learn  to 
ride,  but,  in  those  days  when  horsemanship  was  much 
more  in  vogue  than  it  will  probably  ever  be  again,  and 
when  great  skill  was  attained  in  horse-management,  he 
was  amongst  those  who  excelled,  particularly  in  tilts 
and  tourneys,  receiving  special  marks  of  royal  appre- 
ciation of  his  skill.  Horsemanship  was,  therefore,  a 
very  pronounced  interest  of  his.  His  father,  too, 
had  been  the  owner  of  valuable  horses,  special  mention 
of  them  being  made  in  his  will,  which  Arthur  Collins 
quotes  in  his  "  Historical  Recollections  of  Noble 
Families." 

Turning  now  to  Shakespeare's  works  we  feel  again 
that  it  was  another  grave  omission  from  our  original 
statement  of  Shakespearean  interests  not  to  have 
mentioned  horses.  We  find  there  is  more  in  Shake- 
speare about  horses  than  upon  almost  any  subject 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    249 

outside  human  nature.  Indeed  we  feel  tempted  to 
say  that  Shakespeare  brings  them  within  the  sphere 
of  human  nature.  There  is,  of  course,  his  intimate 
knowledge  of  different  kinds  of  horses,  their  physical 
peculiarities,  all  the  details  which  go  to  form  a  good  or 
a  bad  specimen  of  a  given  variety,  almost  a  veterinary's 
knowledge  of  their  diseases  and  their  treatment.  But 
over  and  above  all  this  there  is  a  peculiar  handling  of 
the  theme  which  raises  a  horse  almost  to  the  level  of 
a  being  with  a  moral  nature. 

In  "  Venus  and  Adonis,"  for  example,  we  have  what 
is  in  reality  a  poem  within  the  poem,  amounting  to 
over  seventy  lines,  in  which  a  mere  animal  instinct  is 
raised  in  horses  to  the  dignity  of  a  complex  and  exalted 
human  passion. 

Or,  take  the  following  dialogue  from  "  Richard  II  ": 

Groom  : 

0  !  how  it  yearn 'd  my  heart  when  I  beheld 
In  London  streets  that  coronation  day, 
When  Bolingbroke  rode  on  roan  Barbary. 
That  horse  that  thou  so  oft  hast  bestrid, 
That  horse  that  I  so  carefully  have  dress 'd. 

King  Richard : 

Rode  he  on  Barbary  ?    Tell  me,  gentle  friend, 
How  went  he  under  him  ? 

Groom : 

So  proudly  as  if  he  disdain'd  the  ground. 

King  Richard : 

So  proud  that  Bolingbroke  was  on  his  back  ! 
That  jade  hath  eat  bread  from  my  royal  hand, 
This  hand  hath  made  him  proud  with  clapping  him. 
Would  he  not  stumble  ?    Would  he  not  fall  down, 
Since  pride  must  have  a  fall,  and  break  the  neck 
Of  that  proud  man  that  did  usurp  his  back  ? 
Forgiveness,  horse  !     Why  do  I  rail  on  thee  ?  " 


250         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

It  reads  like  a  real  personal  experience ;  as  if  the 
man  who  wrote  it  knew  what  it  was  to  own  valuable 
horses  and  to  suffer  the  mortification  of  seeing  the 
animals  he  loved,  passing,  as  a  result  of  his  mis- 
fortunes, into  the  possession  of  others  :  an  experience 
which,  without  any  surmising,  must  have  been  endured 
by  Edward  de  Vere. 

Early  poetry      In  thus  working  from  the  early  life  of  De  Vere  to 
the  works  of  Shakespeare  little  remains  to  be  said. 
With  the  scanty  materials  before  us  it  is  impossible  to 
visualise  the  poet's  life  during  those  very  early  years. 
Whether  or  not  he  had  begun  to  write  poetry  we  cannot 
say.    The  poems  before  us  seem  from  their  contents 
to  belong  mainly  to  the  early  part  of  the  next  ten 
years,  when  he  was  between  the  ages  of  twenty  and 
thirty.    We  wish  to  throw  out  a  suggestion,  however, 
which  it  may  be  worth  while  for  literary  men  to 
examine.     In  "  England's  Helicon  "  there  is  a  set  of 
poems  of  superior  merit,  which,  nevertheless,  seem  to 
us  inferior  to  the  poetry  of  Edward  de  Vere  already 
examined.   They  appear  over  the  signature  of  Shepherd 
Tony   and   constitute   another   of   the   mysteries   of 
Elizabethan  literature.     They  do,  however,   contain 
certain  marks  of  Edward  de  Vere's  work,  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  they  may  include  his  earliest  juvenile 
efforts.     For  notwithstanding  the  evidence  that  his 
known  work  belongs  mainly  to  his  early  years,  it 
seems  much  too  skilfully  done  to  have  been  his  first 
production.    Even  it  seems  to  demand  a  "  foreground 
somewhere  "  ;  and  Shepherd  Tony  may  represent  that 
foreground.    These  particular  poems  seem  to  contain 
rather  more  of  the  affectation  of  the  early  Elizabethan 
poetry  than  do  De  Vere's  recognized  work,  and  have 
not  always  the  same  smoothness  of  diction.    At  the 


EARLY  LIFE  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    251 

same  time  they  mark  a  distinct  advance  in  the  direction 
of  realism  ;  and  one  poem  of  Shepherd  Tony's, "  Beauty 
sat  bathing  by  a  spring,"  which  has  been  erroneously 
attributed  to  Anthony  Munday,  is  a  very  decided 
break  from  the  weaker  work  of  earlier  Elizabethan 
times. 

Before  leaving  this  early  stage  of  his  career  we  may  Oxford  and 
add  a  somewhat  inexplicable  memorandum  of  Cecil's     ay* 
which  concerns  his  affairs,  dated  July  loth,  1570,  and 
preserved  in  the  Hatfield  manuscripts.    Rumour  was 
evidently   rife    that    Cecil    was    managing    Oxford's 
affairs  in  the  matter  of  lands,  to  his  own  advantage 
and  to  Oxford's  detriment :    a  matter  on  which  the 
latter  attacked  him  some  six  or  seven  years  later. 
Cecil   emphatically   contradicts   the   allegation,    and 
continues : — 

"  Whosoever  saith  that  I  did  stay  my  Lord  of  Oxford's 
money  here  so  as  he  had  no  money  in  Italy  by  the  space 
of  six  months  they  say  also  untruly." 

We  cannot  find  any  other  indication  of  Oxford's 
visiting  Italy  before  his  tour  in  1575  and  1576. 

This  chapter  as  a  whole  may  be  said  to  be  concerned  Summary, 
with  biographical  foundations ;  all  the  particulars  of 
which  relate  themselves  directly  to  the  "  Shakespeare  " 
literature.  The  reputation  which  "  vulgar  scandal " 
had  fixed  upon  him  is  represented  in  the  sonnets.  His 
pride  of  birth  displays  itself  throughout  the  dramas, 
and  is  reflected  specially  in  Shakespeare's  partiality  to 
the  Earls  of  Oxford.  The  hereditary  office  of  his 
family  is  possibly  alluded  to  in  the  sonnets.  His 
orphanhood,  royal  wardship,  and  particulars  of  his 
early  life  are  represented  in  "  All's  Well."  Details 
of  his  education,  particularly  the  part  taken  by  his 


252         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

uncle,  Arthur  Golding  reproduce  themselves  in  the 
outstanding  features  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  education, 
as  given  by  eminent  Stratfordians.  The  prominence 
of  law  in  "  Shakespeare  "  for  the  first  time  finds  an 
explanation  consistent  with  all  the  other  requirements 
of  the  work.  We  therefore  ask  again,  is  all  this  mere 
accidental  coincidence  ? 


Wi i  n AM  CECIL,  FIRST  LORD   BURCIHLEY,  K.G.,  FROM  THE    PORTRAIT   IN   THE 

NATIONAL    PORTRAIT    GALLERY,  ATTRIBUTED   TO    M.    GHEERAEDTS,    FROM    A 

PHOTOGRAPH   nv  F.MF.RY  WAI  KER.   LIMITED. 


CHAPTER  X 
EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE 

As  Burleigh's  papers  are  the  chief  original  source  of 
biographical  matter  relating  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford's 
private  life,  and  the  writers  upon  whom  we  depend 
for  most  of  our  details  are  marked  by  Cecilian  partiali- 
ties, it  is  necessary  to  point  out  that,  though  we  accept 
many  of  the  facts  upon  their  authority,  they  share  in 
no  degree  the  responsibility  for  the  interpretation  of 
them.  This  is  entirely  our  own. 

On  coming  of  age,  in  April  1571,  Oxford  took  his  Marriage, 
seat  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  in  the  same  year 
distinguished  himself  at  a  solemn  joust  which  took 
place  in  the  Queen's  presence  at  Westminster.  In 
December  of  the  same  year  he  married,  with  the 
Queen's  consent,  Anne,  daughter  of  Lord  Burleigh. 
The  Queen  "  attended  the  ceremony  which  was 
celebrated  with  great  pomp." 

As  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  point  out  the 
remarkable  parallelism  between  the  case  of  the  Earl 
of  Oxford  and  Bertram  in  "  All's  Well,"  we  must  now 
add  to  it  this  fact  of  his  marriage  with  a  young  woman 
with  whom  he  had  been  brought  up.  In  Bertram's 
case,  however,  they  had  lived  together  at  his  own 
home,  whereas  in  Oxford's  case  they  had  lived  together 
in  the  home  of  the  lady.  If  we  are  to  believe  con- 
temporary report  on  the  matter  the  resemblance 
between  the  two  cases  extends  to  even  more  interesting 
particulars.  Helena  was  socially  inferior  to  Bertram. 

253 


254         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

In  the  early  part  of  the  play  he  shows  no  inclination 
towards  this  young  woman  who  is  in  love  with  him, 
and  it  is  she  who  pursues  the  young  man  until  she 
succeeds  in  winning  him  as  her  husband. 

Helena : 

"  1  am  from  humble,  he  from  honour 'd  name  ; 
No  note  upon  my  parents,  his  all  noble  ; 
My  master,  my  dear  lord  he  is  ;    and  I 
His  servant  live,  and  will  his  vassal  die." 

We  may  remark  in  passing  that  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  these  words  could  have  been  written  by 
any  one  but  an  aristocrat  in  whom  pride  of  birth  was 
a  pronounced  feeling.  We  may  also  compare  the  last 
lines  of  this  passage  with  the  concluding  part  of  De 
Vere's  Echo  poem : 

"  May  I  his  favour  match  with  love  if  he  my  love  will 

try? 

May  I  requite  his  birth  with  faith  then  faithful  will  I 
die  ?  " 

Most  people  will  agree  that  the  similarity  of  these 
two  passages  is  startling. 

Now,  not  only  did  Anne  Cecil  belong  to  the  newly 

emerging  middle  class,  so  much  held  in  contempt  by 

the   few   remaining   representatives    of   the    ancient 

aristocracy,  but  we  have  it  reported  by  a  contemporary, 

Lady  Lord  St.  John,  that,  "  the  Erie  of  Oxenforde  hath 

Oxford 

gotten  himself  a  wyffe,  or,  at  leste  a  wyffe  hath  caught 
him.  This  is  the  mistress  Anne  Cycille,  whereunto  the 
Queen  hath  given  her  consent."  One  may  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  Earl  of  Oxford  was  not  supposed 
to  have  been  very  active  himself  in  bringing'about  the 
marriage.  Rightly  or  wrongly  others  ^regarded  Oxford's 
marriage  with  Burleigh's  daughter  in  much  the  same 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE   255 

light  as  is  represented  by  the  marriage  of  Bertram  with 
Helena.  All  this  reads  very  strangely  in  view  of  the 
age  of  the  bride  :  for  Anne  was  born  on  December  5th, 
1556.  Like  Juliet  she  was,  therefore,  but  fourteen  juiiet. 
years  of  age  at  the  time  when  the  courting  alluded  to 
took  place,  and  when  all  the  wedding  arrangements 
were  made.  The  marriage  itself  seems  merely  to  have 
been  delayed  until  the  moment  when  she  could  be 
spoken  of  as  being  fifteen. 

This  combination  of  extreme  youthfulness  and  the 
bearing  and  conduct  of  a  matured  woman,  common  to 
Juliet  and  Anne  Cecil,  we  shall  find  in  a  later  dramatic 
representation  of  Lady  Oxford.  The  resemblance  to 
Juliet,  however,  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
remarkable  correspondence  in  literary  particulars 
between  the  work  of  De  Vere  and  Shakespeare's  play 
of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet."  This  play  is  recognized  as 
one  of  the  early  productions  of  Shakespeare,  and  it 
is  also  interesting  to  notice  that  Mr.  Frank  Harris 
selects  Romeo  as  a  personal  self-representation  of 
Shakespeare  in  his  early  years. 

The  resemblance  between  Lady  Oxford  and  Helena  Helena, 
with  which  we  are  particularly  concerned  at  this  stage 
is  further  supported  by  letters  in  the  Hatfield  manu- 
scripts, in  which  her  smallness  of  stature  and  sweetness 
of  manner  are  indicated.  She  is  spoken  of,  on  two 
occasions,  by  different  writers,  as  the  "  sweet  little 
Countess  of  Oxford,"  precisely  as  Helena,  in  "  All's 
Well,"  is  spoken  of  as  "little  Helena"  (I,  i)  and 
"  sweet  Helena "  (V,  3)  :  the  latter  epithet  being 
specially  emphasized  by  repetition. 

What  the  actual  inward  relationships  of  Oxford  and 
his  wife  may  have  been,  is  one  of  the  secrets  over 
which  the  grave  has  closed  for  ever.  We  have  im- 


256 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Sordid 
considera- 
tions. 


A  broken 
engagement. 


pressions  recorded,  however,  which  are  derived 
evidently  from  hostile  Cecil  sources.  Oxford  himself, 
on  the  other  hand,  preserves  an  almost  complete 
silence,  proof  against  all  provocation  ;  his  enemies 
call  it  sulkiness.  The  one  thing  clear  about  it  is  that 
the  union  was  unhappy,  and  had  a  marked  influence 
upon  his  career.  This  being  so,  the  matter  concerns 
our  present  enquiry. 

The  antagonism  between  Oxford  and  Philip  Sidney 
has  already  been  referred  to.  Now  we  find  that  Sidney 
had  first  of  all  been  proposed  as  a  husband  for  Anne 
Cecil,  and  her  father's  conduct  of  the  negotiations, 
however  it  may  strike  an  aristocrat,  appears  to  an 
ordinary  Englishman  as  sordid  a  piece  of  bargaining 
over  the  disposal  of  a  daughter  as  could  well  be. 
Sidney,  notwithstanding  his  family  connections  and 
personal  prospects,  which  had  evidently  been  quite 
enough  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  a  prospective 
aristocratic  father-in-law  like  Lord  Devereux,  was 
nevertheless  too  poor  a  man  to  satisfy  the  cupidity 
of  Sir  William  Cecil,  as  he  then  was.  He  must  needs 
procure  for  his  daughter,  he  says,  a  richer  husband 
than  Master  Philip  Sidney.  The  difficulty  was  over- 
come, however,  and  arrangements  were  made  for  the 
marriage  of  Anne  Cecil  to  Sidney,  though  both  were 
hardly  more  than  children  at  the  time  ;  for  Sidney 
was  Oxford's  junior  by  four  and  a  half  years,  whilst 
Anne  was  only  12  years  old  in  1569  when  the 
marriage  arrangement  was  made. 

At  the  time  when  the  marriage  between  Anne  and 
Sidney  was  arranged  the  Earl  of  Oxford  was,  socially, 
"  out  of  Anne's  star."  Now  Cecil's  care  for  the  social 
and  material  advancement  of  his  own  family  is  one  of 
the  outstanding  features  of  his  policy.  From  this 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    257 

point  of  view  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  to  one  of 
the  foremost  of  the  ancient  nobility,  and  a  man  of 
vast  possessions,  would  be  a  great  acquisition  and 
the  gratification  of  a  high  personal  ambition.  These 
social  connections  evidently  meant  much  to  him,  for 
he  had  tried  to  make  out  an  aristocratic  ancestry  for 
himself  and  had  failed.  Whether  or  not  Elizabeth 
would  sanction  such  an  alliance  might,  however, 
be  considered  extremely  doubtful ;  and  if  she  were 
to  consent,  such  consent  would  be  almost  as  great  a 
concession  to  Cecil  as  was  that  of  Denmark's  King 
and  Queen  to  the  marriage  of  Hamlet  with  the  daughter 
of  Polonius. 

What  may  have  transpired  "  behind  the  scenes  " 
we  shall  probably  never  know  ;  but  we  find  that  early 
in  1571  Cecil  was  raised  to  the  peerage  with  the  title 
of  Lord  Burleigh,  the  marriage  arrangement  with 
Sidney  was  cancelled,  the  Queen  gave  her  consent  to 
Oxford's  marriage  with  Burleigh's  daughter  Anne, 
and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  year  the  marriage 
took  place  in  the  Queen's  presence,  being  "  celebrated 
with  great  pomp ! "  It  is  not  improbable,  then,  that 
Burleigh  owed  his  own  peerage  to  the  proposed 
marriage. 

A  most  curious  circumstance,  suggestive  of  more  Castle 
sordid  bargaining,  is  what  is  recorded  of  Burleigh  and  Hedmgham- 
Oxford's  estates.     Amongst  the  extensive  estates  of 
the  De  Veres,  the  two  most  directly  associated  with 
the  family  appear  to  have  been  those  of  Earls  Colne 
and  Hedingham  in  Essex.    Now  we  find  that,  shortly 
after  his  marriage,  the  Earl  of  Oxford  made  over  the 
important  ancestral  domain  of  Castle  Hedingham  to 
his  father-in-law.     What  influences  may  have  been  at 
work  to  get  him  to  part  with  Castle  Hedingham  to 


258         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Burleigh  it  is  impossible  to  surmise ;  but  when  we 
find  that  his  father-in-law  had  been  complaining  of 
his  poverty  only  a  few  years  before,  that  he  had 
managed  to  get  himself  made  master  of  the  court  of 
royal  wards,  and  that  when  he  died  he  left  three 
hundred  landed  estates,  it  needs  no  stretch  of  imagina- 
tion to  suppose  that  he  had  been  able  to  exercise  over 
the  affairs  of  other  royal  wards  something  of  the  same 
kind  of  undue  influence  which  he  had  evidently  been 
able  to  exert  over  his  youthful  son-in-law. 

Burleigh  If,  therefore,  there  is  any  character  in  Shakespeare's 

works  whom  we  may  be  able  to  identify  with  Burleigh, 
to  have  had  him  likened  to  Jephtha,  as  Hamlet  does 
Polonius,  would  have  been  something  of  a  slander  upon 
Jephtha.  For  the  conduct  of  this  Old  Testament 
character  towards  his  daughter  seems  quite  respectable 
compared  with  the  sordid  dealings  of  the  great  Lord 
Burleigh ;  and  the  tears  which  the  latter  seems  osten- 
tatiously to  have  shed  at  the  death  of  her  whom  he 
called  his  "  filia  carissima  "  ought  to  have  sprung 
from  the  grief  of  shame  and  repentance  rather  than 
the  grief  of  bereavement.  In  the  subsequent  troubles 
Burleigh  made  much  of  the  fault iness  of  Oxford's 
bearing  whilst  an  inmate  of  the  former's  house,  and 
if  his  accusations  were  found  to  be  well  grounded  they 
would  only  render  more  contemptible  the  sacrifice  he 
made  of  his  "  filia  carissima  "  for  personal  and  family 
ambition.  He  cannot  have  it  both  ways. 

Domestic  Notwithstanding,  therefore,  the  royal  consent,  the 

pomp  of  the  ceremony,  and  the  elaborate  festivities,  it 
is  evident  that  the  marriage  had  not  taken  place  under 
the  happiest  of  auspices  for  those  most  immediately 
concerned.  To  all  these  initial  drawbacks  must  be 
added  the  fact  that  the  young  couple  seem  to  have 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE  259 

remained  under  the  eye  and  direction  of  the  lady's 
father  who,  we  shall  presently  show,  was  about  as 
incompatible  with  her  husband  in  disposition,  interests 
and  circumstances  as  one  man  could  possibly  be  with 
another.  Oxford's  mother-in-law  was  also  an  im- 
portant factor  to  be  reckoned  with.  The  stern  and 
vigilant  Lady  Burleigh  apparently  considered  it 
part  of  her  duty  to  keep  a  strict  watch  upon  her  young 
son-in-law,  and  was  not  afraid  of  rebuking  the  great 
Queen  Elizabeth  herself,  then  forty  years  of  age,  for 
attempting  to  flirt  with  the  young  man.  The  Queen's 
angry  retort  that  "  his  lordship  (Burleigh)  winketh  at 
these  love  affairs,"  is  illuminating  on  more  points  than 
one,  and  helps  us  to  envisage  the  whole  moral  situation. 
Finally,  whatever  the  actual  facts  behind  Burleigh's 
general  accusations  against  Oxford  whilst  he  was  an 
inmate  of  the  Cecil  home,  it  is  quite  evident  that 
Oxford's  relationships  with  the  family  had  not  been 
harmonious,  and  only  the  best  of  luck  and  the  utmost 
circumspection  all  round  could  have  averted  disaster. 

As  the  personality  of  Elizabeth's  great  minister  oxford  and 
looms  large  in  the  life  of  the  poet  during  the  years  Burleigh- 
immediately  following  the  marriage,  and  probably 
exercised  an  influence  over  the  whole  of  his  career,  it 
is  necessary  that  the  character  of  their  relationship 
should  be  duly  weighed.  It  is  no  part  of  our  business 
to  estimate  Burleigh's  value  as  a  statesman  or  politician, 
nor  even  to  take  his  moral  measure  as  a  whole.  It  is 
his  dealings  with  one  man  that  concern  us,  and  how 
these  dealings  would  be  likely  to  impress  the  man  in 
question.  In  brief,  we  are  concerned  principally  with 
Burleigh's  dealings  with  Oxford,  from  Oxford's  point 
of  view. 

On  the  one  hand  we  kave  a  man  wh©  for  many 


260         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

years  had  maintained  a  supreme  position  in  the 
political  world  at  a  time  when  such  eminence  could 
only  be  secured  and  retained  by  the  most  shifty  oppor- 
tunism. On  the  other  hand  we  have  a  very  young 
man,  hardly  more  than  a  boy,  with  the  sensitive  and 
idealist  temperament  of  the  poet,  keenly  alive  to  the 
literary  and  intellectual  movements  of  his  time,  and 
with  a  fervent  attachment  to  the  departing  feudal 
order,  the  social  and  moral  principles  of  which  were  at 
direct  variance  with  the  political  opportunism  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived.  To  the  young  man,  politics, 
in  their  contemporary  sense,  would  be  as  great  an 
abomination,  as  they  would  be  a  ruling  interest  in  the 
mind  of  the  elder  man.  It  is  difficult,  therefore,  to 
conceive  of  two  men  more  thoroughly  antipathetical 
or  less  likely  to  understand  each  other.  If,  then,  we 
recollect  that  the  younger  one  had  been  subjected  to 
the  elder  one's  dominance  from  childhood,  it  speaks 
well  for  the  former's  strength  of  character  and  the 
decided  bent  of  his  genius,  that  his  literary  and  poetic 
inclinations  were  not  crushed  by  the  weight  of  the 
influences  working  against  them 

Barlwgh  and  As  some  of  the  admirers  of  Burleigh  have  tried  to 
htwarymen.  make  out  that  his  influence  was  favourable  to  the 
literary  movement  of  the  times,  we  can,  perhaps,  best 
judge  him  in  this  respect  by  indicating  his  relationship  to 
the  second  genius  of  that  age,  the  poet  Spenser.  One  or 
two  expressions  fromChurch's  life  of  the  poet  will  suffice : 

"  Burleigh's  dislike  to  Spenser  "  (p.  47). 

"  Burleigh  hated  him  and  his  verses  "  (p.  87). 

"  Under  what  was  popularly  thought  the  crabbed  and 
parsimonious  administration  of  Burleigh  ....  it 
seemed  as  if  the  poetry  of  the  time  was  passing  away  in 
chill  discouragement  "  (p.  107). 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE   261 

No  treatment  of  the  question  of  Burleigh's  dealings  Burieigh's 
with  other  men  would  be  adequate  which  omitted  to  espl° 
mention  the  system  of  espionage  which  he  practised. 
Even  his  eulogists  are  compelled  to  admit  the  far- 
reaching  and  intricate  ramifications  of  the  system  he 
set  up,  the  application  of  it  to  even  those  servants  of 
the  state  who  had  every  reason  to  believe  themselves 
most  trusted,  and  the  low,  unscrupulous  character 
of  the  agents  he  employed  to  watch  men  of  high  station 
and  approved  honour.  The  article  on  Burleigh  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  which  is  very 
partial  towards  its  subject,  nevertheless  admits  all  this, 
and  jit  appears  occasionally  in  the  "Life  of  Spenser," 
of  which  we  have  made  frequent  use.  Of  course  his 
admirers  find  a  justification  for  this  in  the  dangers  to 
which  his  life  was  exposed.  Other  men  in  exalted 
positions  have,  however,  been  exposed  to  similar 
dangers  and  some  of  them  have  had  to  protect  them- 
selves by  similar  means,  but  have  been  able  to  do  it 
without  outraging  the  sense  of  decency  to  the  same 
extent  as  was  done  by  Burleigh.  It  is  quite  evident, 
moreover,  from  G.  Ravenscroft  Dennis's  work  on 
"  The  House  of  Cecil,"  that  when  his  eldest  son, 
Thomas,  afterwards  Earl  of  Exeter,  was  in  Paris, 
Burleigh  had  him  watched  and  secretly  reported  on, 
quite  in  the  manner  of  Polonius's  employment  of  the 
spy  Reynaldo.  In  this  case  no  such  excuse  as  that 
proffered  would  apply.  It  seems  more  like  the  in- 
sensibility of  a  vulgar  nature  to  the  requirements  of 
ordinary  decency.  The  man  who,  having  risen  to 
eminence  through  his  patron,  the  Duke  of  Somerset, 
saved  himself  when  his  patron  fell  by  drawing  up  the 
articles  of  impeachment  against  his  benefactor,  was 
perhaps  unable  to  believe  that  others  could  act  from 


262 


SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


An  early 
tragedy. 


Hostility. 


higher  motives  than  his  own,  and  was  prepared  to 
trust  nobody.  Certainly,  no  one  could  feel  himself 
free  from  the  attentions  of  Burleigh's  spies,  and  least 
of  all  the  son-in-law  who  knew  that,  beneath  any 
external  show  of  amicability,  there  lay  between  them 
a  natural  and  rooted  antipathy. 

In  these  spying  methods  of  Burleigh's  we  may 
possibly  find  an  explanation  of  a  mysterious  incident 
recorded  as  happening  prior  to  Oxford's  marriage, 
especially  if  we  suppose  Oxford  to  be  "  Shakespeare." 
Oxford  had  inflicted  a  wound  on  an  under-cook  in 
Burleigh's  employ,  and  this  wound  unfortunately 
proved  fatal.  None  of  the  circumstances  are  told, 
possibly  because  they  are  unknown,  but,  like  every- 
thing else,  the  event  must  needs  be  set  down  to  Oxford's 
discredit .  Now,  remembering  Burleigh's  spying  methods 
and  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  Polonius 
received  his  death  wound  at  the  hands  of  Hamlet,  we 
may  possibly  find  in  the  drama  a  suggestion  of  some- 
thing that  had  actually  happened  in  the  experience 
of  its  author  ;  especially  in  view  of  Hamlet's  exclama- 
tion : 

'  Thou  wretched,  rash,  intruding  fool,  farewell ! 
/  took  thee  for  thy  better." 

If,  then,  in  Shakespeare  there  is  any  character  whom 
we  might  identify  with  Burleigh  we  should  expect  to 
find  a  spying  craftiness  amongst  his  characteristics. 
This,  of  course,  is  the  case  with  Polonius: 

In  the  thinly-veiled  conflict  between  the  two  men 
it  is  evident  that  Burleigh  had  not  all  his  own  way. 
Accustomed  as  he  had  been  to  the  thought  of  others 
yielding  to  his  domination — a  domination  possibly 
less  real  than  he  imagined,  as  he  appears  to  have  been 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    263 

more  of  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  his  capable 
mistress  and  less  a  ruling  power  than  he  supposed — 
treated  as  he  undoubtedly  had  been  with  extreme 
deference  by  one  of  the  most  autocratic  of  a  despotic 
dynasty,  he  nevertheless  found  himself  contradicted, 
remonstrated  with,  and  embarrassed  by  a  son-in-law 
who  was  little  more  than  a  boy,  and  who  undoubtedly 
regarded  the  great  minister  as  belonging  to  an  inferior 
order. 

It  is  difficult  to  appreciate  the  point  of  view  of  Burieigh's 
writers    who    speak    of    Oxford's    "  ingratitude "    to 
Burleigh,  and  of  his  having  added  to  his  own  eminence 
by  marriage.    The  fact  is  they  merely  repeat  Burieigh's 
own  account  as  it  appears  in  the  documents  he  has 
left.    As  master  of  the  court  of  royal  wards,  Burleigh 
had  had  charge  of  Oxford  and  had  used  his  position 
both  to  elevate  the  social  prestige  of  his  own  family 
and  to  add  to  his  own  estates.    So  far  as  De  Vere  is 
concerned  it  is  difficult  to  see  that  he  owed  any  sub- 
stantial advantage  to  his  connection  with  Burleigh; 
whilst  the  latter  was  undoubtedly  the  source  of  a  very- 
great  deal  that  acted  as  a  drag  upon  the  life  of  his 
son-in-law,  interfering  with  the  natural  expansion  of 
his    powers,    intensifying    the    chagrins    of    domestic 
trouble,   and  fastening  a  stigma  on  his  reputation. 
We    have    already    referred    to    Burieigh's    repeated 
thwarting  of  Oxford's  desire  for  a  more  useful  career 
and  a  more  extended  experience  of  life ;  and  whatever 
reason  he  may  have  offered,  it  is  quite  clear  that 
behind  it  all  there  was  no  real  friendliness  towards  the 
younger  man.    The  pretence  of  a  good  motive  behind 
the  repeated  refusal — that  he  hoped  the  Queen  might 
find  something  better  for  him — is  so  evidently  a  subter- 
fuge as  to  make  the  real  hostility  all  the  more  evident. 


'SHAKESPEARE"  IDHNMHI  J> 

Rai«gh  and  Nor  is  it  the  only  instance  in  which  we  find  Burleigh 
trying  to  give  a  gloss  of  friendliness  to  his  attempts 
to  injure  his  son-in-law.  Some  years  later,  when 
Oxford  was  in  trouble  with  the  authorities,  we  find 
Burleigh  appealing  to  Raleigh  and  Hatton  to  use  their 
influence  with  Queen  Elizabeth  on  Oxford's  behalf. 
This  reads  at  first  like  a  friendly  act.  When,  however, 
we  remember  that  Raleigh  was  possibly  the  one  man 
about  court  whom  his  royal  mistress  most  delighted 
in  teasing ;  whose  real  influence  with  the  Queen  was 
practically  negligible  ;  and  between  whom  and  Oxford 
there  was  a  long-standing  antagonism  ;  if  to  all  this 
we  add  the  fact  that  Burleigh,  in  making  the  appeal 
to  Hatton,  uses  the  occasion  to  gather  together  all  the 
charges  he  can  formulate  against  the  very  man  for 
whom  he  is  supposed  to  be  interceding,  and  pours 
them  into  unfriendly  ears — for  Hatton  also  was  of 
the  hostile  party  and  wrote  a  letter  of  complaint  to 
Queen  Elizabeth  speaking  of  himself  as  the  "  sheep  " 
and  Oxford  as  the  "  boar  " — we  can  only  wonder  at  the 
clumsiness  of  a  manoeuvre,  hardly  entitled  to  rank 
even  as  low  cunning. 

As  we  have  had  occasion  thus  to  mention  the  un- 
friendly relationship  of  Oxford  to  Raleigh  we  may  see 
a  reflection  of  it  in  Shakespeare's  allusion  to  "  the 
sanctimonious  pirate  that  went  to  sea  with  the  Ten 
Commandments,  but  scraped  one  out  of  the  table, 
'  Thou  shalt  not  steal.' '  ("  Measure  for  Measure.") 
For  it  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  the  religious  pietism  of 
Raleigh's  poetry  with  certain  of  his  well-known  sea- 
faring episodes.  The  moral  standards  of  the  time  are 
sometimes  urged  in  extenuation  of  Raleigh's  doings  ; 
but  Burleigh  himself,  to  his  credit,  disapproved  of  the 
great  sailor's  buccaneering,  although  on  the  other 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE      265 

hand  he  saw  that  the  Queen  secured  some  share  of  the 
spoil. 

We  cannot  yet  piece  together  with  a  sense  of  true  Desire  for 
sequence  the  recorded  details  of  the  early  life  of  travel- 
Oxford.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  such  efforts  to 
obtain  a  relief  from  court  life  in  a  life  of  wider  ex- 
perience and  greater  usefulness  as  he  had  made  before 
his  marriage,  were  repeated  after  his  marriage,  and 
still  without  success  :  presenting  a  shameful  contrast 
to  the  treatment  extended  to  his  rival  Sidney.  Oxford 
was  one  of  the  foremost  and  wealthiest  of  the  nobility  ; 
Sidney  at  the  time  was  simply  Master  Philip  Sidney : 
for  he  only  rose  to  the  inferior  honour  of  knighthood 
three  years  before  his  death.  He  was  considered  too 
poor  to  marry  a  daughter  of  Burleigh's,  and  he  was 
more  than  four  and  a  half  years  younger  than  Oxford. 
Yet,  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  Sidney  began  his  travels 
on  the  Continent,  visiting  Paris,  Frankfort,  Vienna 
Hungary  and  Venice,  and  having  every  facility 
afforded  him  for  meeting  prominent  men.  On  the  other 
hand,  Oxford  with  his  superior  social  position,  wealth, 
culture  and  genius,  at  the  age  of  twenty-four  was  still 
to  be  kept  at  home  in  the  leading  strings  of  an  un- 
congenial father-in-law.  It  is  difficult,  even  for  those 
who  are  in  no  way  involved,  and  after  a  lapse  of  nearly 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years,  to  contemplate  such 
treatment  without  a  feeling  of  indignation.  Certainly 
the  man  who  was  responsible  for  it  was  no  friend  to 
the  Earl  of  Oxford. 

At  length,  finding  his  entreaties  useless,  he  resolved  Bertram's 

,,,,       ,          •    .  "    «•  i_j  j     •  unauthorized 

to  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands,  and,  in  1574,  travel, 
without  the  consent  of  the  authorities,  left  the  country 
in  order  to  fulfil  his  purpose  of  travelling  on  the 
continent.     He  had  got  no  further  than  the  Low 


266         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Countries  when  he  was  overtaken  by  Burleigh's 
emissaries  and  brought  back.  Again  we  find  the 
extraordinary  parallel  between  the  Earl  of  Oxford  and 
Bertram,  in  "  All's  Well,"  maintained.  Bertram  had 
begged  in  vain  to  be  allowed  to  undertake  military 
service  just  as  Oxford  had  done.  He  had  begged  to 
travel  only  to  be  put  off  with  specious  excuses,  "  '  too 
young  '  and  '  the  next  year  '  and  '  'tis  too  early,'  ' 
until,  yielding  to  the  suggestion  of  some  friend  (Act  II, 
i)  he  exclaims,  in  a  passage  already  quoted  : 

"  I  shall  stay  here  the  forehorse  to  a  smock, 
Creaking  my  shoes  on  the  plain  masonry, 
Till  honour  be  bought  up  and  no  sword  worn 
But  one  to  dance  with.    By  heavens  !  I'll  steal  away." 

This  he  did  forthwith. 

We  venture  to  say  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  in  English  literature  a  closer  analogy  anywhere 
between  the  particulars  narrated  of  a  fictitious  per- 
sonage and  the  detailed  records  of  a  living  contemporary 
than  we  have  here  between  Bertram  and  the  Earl  of 
Oxford.  Shakespeare's  partiality  for  the  Earls  of 
Oxford  has  already  been  pointed  out  ("  Henry  VI," 
part  3).  His  interest  in  the  particular  Earl  who  was 
then  living,  and  who  was  a  poet  and  dramatist,  is  the 
most  natural  assumption.  Whether,  therefore,  the 
Earl  of  Oxford-was  the  writer  of  the  play,  "  All's  Well," 
or  not,  one  cannot  doubt,  in  the  face  of  such  a  continued 
parallelism,  that  the  man  who  wrote  the  play  had  the 
Earl  of  Oxford  in  his  mind  as  the  prototype  of  Bertram. 
Amongst  the  records  of  royal  wards  of  the  time  we 
can  find  no  other  instance  which  touches  Bertram  at 
so  many  points.  Reiterating  a  principle,  therefore, 
upon  which  we  have  insisted  from  the  first,  we  would 
urge  that  to  discover  such  a  parallelism  in  Shake- 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    267 

speare's  works  at  an  advanced  stage  of  the  investigation 
strengthens  our  convictions  immeasurably  more  than 
if  the  case  of  Bertram  and  its  analogy  with  Oxford  had 
been  known  before  the  selection  was  made. 

The  special  point  with  which  we  are  now  dealing —  Shakespeare 
the  obstacles  thrown  in  the  way  of  a  young  man's  " 
wish  to  travel — appears  again  in  "  Hamlet."    Laertes 
applies  for  the  king's  permission  to  go  abroad,  and  the 
king  asks,  "  Have  you  your  father's  leave  ?     What 
says  Polonius  ?  "    To  which  Polonius  replies  : 

"  He  hath,  my  lord,  wrung  from  me  my  slow  leave 
By  laboursome  petition,  and  at  last 
Upon  his  will  I  seal'd  my  hard  consent  : 
I  do  beesech  you,  give  him  leave  to  go." 

Then  there  is  the  king  and  queen's  opposition  to 
Hamlet's  wish  to  go  to  Wittenberg,  and  the  false 
reasons  assigned  : 

King  : 

"  It  is  most  retrograde  to  our  desire  ; 

And  we  beseech  you,  bend  you  to  remain 
Here  in  the  cheer  and  comfort  of  our  eye, 
Our  chief est  courtier,  cousin,  and  our  son." 

Again  we  notice  that  it  is  Polonius  who  is  chiefly 
opposed  to  his  son's  travelling,  exactly  as  Burleigh 
raised  his  own  opposition  into  a  settled  maxim  of 
policy  : 

' '  Suffer  not  thy  sons  to  cross  the  Alps  ....  and 
if  by  travel  they  get  a  few  broken  languages  they  shall 
profit  them  nothing  more  than  to  have  one  meat  served  up 
in  divers  dishes." 

(Burleigh 's  maxims — Martin  A.  S.  Hume.) 

^Resuming  the  story  of  De  Vere's  early  manhood,  we 
find  that  in  the  year  following  his  abortive  attempt 


268 


SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 


Visit  to 
Italy. 


Shakespeare 
and  travel. 
"  Two 
Gentlemen." 


to  travel  he  was  at  last  granted  permission  to  go  abroad. 
How  important  a  matter  this  was  to  him  may  be 
judged  by  the  fact  that  it  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  ambition 
of  his  life  "  ;  yet  by  this  time  he  was  twenty-five  and 
a  half  years  old,  and  inferior  men  had  enjoyed  the 
privilege  whilst  in  their  teens.  Even  at  this  age  he 
had  only  been  able  to  wring  the  concession  from 
Elizabeth  by  means  of  entreaties  ;  and,  considering 
the  favour  and  indulgence  that  the  Queen  showed  to 
him  both  before  and  after  this,  it  appears  as  if  the 
concession  had  at  last  been  gained  in  spite  of  the 
covert  opposition  of  his  father-in-law.  In  view  of 
all  this  the  speech  of  Polonius's  just  quoted  is  of 
extraordinary  significance.  In  October  1575,  then,  he 
reached  Venice,  having  travelled  by  way  of  Milan. 

Our  present  business  being  to  trace  in  the  works  of 
Shakespeare  indications  of  the  life  and  circumstances 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  we  ought  not  to  leave  this 
question  of  foreign  travel  without  drawing  attention 
to  the  play  of  Shakespeare's  in  which  this  subject 
comes  in  for  special  treatment,  namely,  "  The  Two 
Gentlemen  of  Verona."  The  date  usually  assigned  to 
this  work  is  1590-92  ;  that  is  to  say  it  is  recognized  as 
being  amongst  the  first  of  Shakespeare's  dramas, 
although  it  was  not  published  until  it  appeared  in  the 
Folio  edition  of  1623.  Now  we  find  that  a  play  whose 
title  is  suggestive  of  this  one  was  being  acted  by  the 
company  of  Antony  Munday,  who  more  than  ten 
years  before  the  date  assigned  to  this  drama,  acknow- 
ledged himself  the  servant  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  As 
Munday's  play,  "  The  Two  Italian  Gentlemen,"  may 
have  formed  the  basis  for  Shakespeare's  work,  it  is 
not  improbable  that  the  latter  was,  in  fact,  the  first 
play  of  Shakespeare's  and  may,  if  we  assume  the 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE     269 

De  Vere  authorship,  have  been  begun  shortly  after 
his  return  from  Italy.  It  is  worth  remarking,  too, 
that  in  it  the  scene  moves  from  Verona  to  Milan, 
a  town  specially  mentioned  in  the  slight  record  of 
Oxford's  travels.  We  have  had  occasion,  moreover, 
to  point  out  already  a  very  striking  parallel  between 
the  early  work  of  De  Vere  and  the  discussion  on  love 
with  which  this  particular  play  opens. 

On  the  subject  of  travel  we  have  first  of  all  Valentine's 
statement  that  "  Home-keeping  youth  have  ever 
homely  wits,"  followed  by  his  urging  Proteus, 

"rather 

To  see  the  wonders  of  the  world  abroad, 
Than,  living  dully  sluggardised  at  home, 
Wear  out  thy  youth  with  shapeless  idleness." 

This  is  followed  in  Act  III  by  Panthino's  taxing  the 
father  of  Proteus  with  having  suffered  him, 

' '  to  spend  his  youth  at  home, 
While  other  men  of  slender  reputation 
Put  forth  their  sons  to  seek  preferment  out." 

He  therefore  proceeds  to  "  importune  "  him, 

"  To  let  him  spend  his  time  no  more  at  home, 
Which  would  be  great  impeachment  to  his  age, 
In  having  known  no  travel  in  his  youth." 

To  this  the  father  of  Proteus  replies  : 

"  I  have  considered  well  his  loss  of  time, 
And  how  he  cannot  be  a  perfect  man, 
Not  being  tried  and  tutor 'd  in  the  world." 

On  the  one  hand  we  cannot  ascribe  these  lines  to 
a  man  indifferent  to  foreign  travel,  and  on  the  other 
hand  it  is  difficult  to  think  of  them  as  being  written 
by  one  who  had  found  the  way  to  foreign  travel  readily 
open  t»  him;  Everything  points  to  the  writer  being 


27o         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

one  who  had  chafed  at  "  living  dully,  sluggardised  at 
home,"  and  who  had  had  to  fight  to  get  himself  "  tried 
and  tutor'd  in  the  world  "  ;  whilst  "  men  of  slender 
reputation  "  had  been  freely  accorded  the  advantages 

which  had  been  denied  to  himself. 
Occupations.       Before  leaving  the  play  of  «  The  Two  Gentlemen  of 

Verona,"  we  notice  that  the  passage  just  quoted  is 
followed  by  another  which  touches  a  point  already 
mentioned  elsewhere  : 

"  'Twere  good,  I  think,  your  lordship  sent  him  thither  : 

(to  the  royal  court) 

There  shall  he  practise  tilts  and  tournaments, 
Hear  sweet  discourse,  converse  with  noblemen, 
And  be  in  eye  of  every  exercise 
Worthy  his  youth  and  nobleness  of  birth." 

Associate  this  with  Edward  de  Vere  and  again  we 
have  a  case  in  which  comment  is  superfluous.  To 
think  of  the  passage  coming  from  a  writer  of  lower  or 
middle  class  origin  demands  considerable  credulity. 
Every  word  bespeaks  the  special  interests  of  De  Vere, 
and  pulsates  with  that  excessive  respect  for  high  birth 
which  is  common  to  De  Vere  and  "  Shakespeare." 
Oxford  »  -pj^  recor(js  gjve  no  indication  as  to  how  his  time 
was  spent  in  Italy.  This  could  only  be  learnt  accurately 
from  himself,  and  as  a  large  reserve  and  secretiveness 
in  respect  to  his  doings  seem  to  have  been  characteristic 
of  him  throughout,  we  can  only  surmise  what  his 
occupation  would  be  during  the  six  months  of  his 
stay.  Considering,  however,  the  literary  and  dramatic 
movement  in  Italy  at  the  time,  his  own  particular  bent, 
and  the  course  his  life  took  after  his  return  to  England, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  his  chief  interest  whilst 
in  that  country.  He  would  be  much  more  likely  to  be 
found  cultivating  the  acquaintance  of  those  literary 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    271 

and  play-acting  people  of  whom  his  father-in-law 
would  disapprove,  than  mixing  in  the  political  and 
diplomatic  circles  that  the  great  minister  would  consider 
proper  to  an  eminent  English  nobleman. 

As  an  illustration  of  a  principle  and  method  upon  Baptista 
which  much  stress  has  been  laid  throughout  these 
researches  we  would  draw  attention  to  a  detail  in 
connection  with  Oxford's  Italian  tour  which,  though 
slight  in  itself,  adds  much  to  that  sense  of  verisimilitude 
that  has  followed  the  investigations  at  each  step. 
Whilst  looking  up  references  to  Oxford  in  the  published 
Hatfield  manuscripts  we  noticed  the  record  of  a  letter 
he  had  addressed  to  Burleigh  from  Italy.  It  is  but 
a  brief  note  concerned  solely  with  the  fact  that  he  had 
borrowed  five  hundred  crowns  from  some  one  named 
Baptista  Nigrone,  and  requesting  Burleigh  to  raise 
the  money  by  the  sale  of  some  of  his  lands — a  method 
of  raising  money  which  appears  more  than  once  in 
the  pages  of  "  Shakespeare." 

As  some  discussion  has  taken  place  over  Shakespeare's 
use  of  the  name  "  Baptista,"  its  presence  in  this  note  of 
Oxford's  naturally  arrested  attention,  and  the  thought 
inmediately  presented  itself  that  if  Oxford  were 
actually  the  writer  of  the  play  in  which  Baptista,  the 
rich  gentleman  of  Padua,  appears  ("  The  Taming  of 
the  Shrew ")  we  should  expect  to  find  "  crowns  " 
introduced  into  the  drama  in  some  marked  way,  and 
probably  in  association  with  Baptista  Minola  himself. 
And  this  is  so.  As  a  matter  of  fact  these  particular 
coins  are  much  more  to  the  front  here  than  in  any 
other  of  Shakespeare's  Italian  plays.  They  are 
mentioned  no  less  than  six  times  whilst  "  ducats  "  are 
only  twice  mentioned.  On  the  other  hand,  in  "  The 
Comedy  of  Errors,"  for  example,  "  ducats "  are 


272         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

mentioned  ten  times  and  "  crowns  "  not  at  all.  "  The 
Merchant  of  Venice,"  which  also  contains  no  mention 
of  "  crowns  "  but  abundant  references  to  "  ducats  "is, 
for  special  reasons,  unsuitable  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison. What  is  more  to  the  point  than  the  actual 
number  of  references  in  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew," 
is  the  fact  that  the  crowns  of  the  wealthy  Baptista  are 
specially  in  evidence,  and  enter  as  an  important 
element  into  the  plot.  Oxford,  it  appears  from  a 
letter  sent  home  by  an  attendant,  spent  some  time 
in  Padua  itself,  and  seems  to  have  been  involved  in 
riotous  proceedings  there  :  not  at  all  unlikely  in  the 
creator  of  the  character  "  Petruchio." 

It  may  be  worth  while  adding  that  we  even  find  a 
suggestion  of  Baptist a's  surname,  "  Minola,"  in  another 
Italian,  Benedict  Spinola,  whose  name  also  appears 
in  connection  with  this  tour.  Burleigh,  it  seems, 
received  from  him  a  notification  of  Oxford's  arrival 
in  Italy.  Benedick  in  "  Much  Ado  "  is  a  nobleman, 
also  of  Padua,  and  these  are  the  only  two  gentlemen  of 
Padua  to  be  found  in  Shakespeare's  plays.  It  must 
further  be  pointed  out  that  the  names  "  Baptista 
Nig  rone  "  and  "  Benedict  Spinola  "  are  not  selected 
from  amongst  a  number  of  others,  but  are  two  out  of 
the  three  Italian  names  with  which  we  have  met  in 
connection  with  the  Italian  tour  ;  and  to  find  that,  in 
combination,  they  almost  furnish  the  identical  name 
of  Shakespeare's  "  Baptista  Minola,"  will  be  admitted 
by  the  most  sceptical  as  at  any  rate  interesting. 
Certainly  such  discoveries  as  that  of  the  place  occupied 
by  Baptista's  "  crowns,"  agreeing  with  the  conclusions 
of  mere  a  priori  reasoning,  have  added,  as  can  be 
easily  imagined,  no  small  spice  of  excitement  to  our 
researches, 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    273 

After  spending  about  six  months  in  Italy  Oxford  Oxford  and 
travelled  back  as  far  as  Paris,  and  from  a  letter  which 
he  wrote  there,  addressed  to  Burleigh,  it  appears  that 
he  purposed  making  an  extended  tour  embracing 
Spain  on  the  one  hand,  and  south-eastern  Europe, 
Greece  and  Constantinople,  on  the  other.  At  this  point 
we  approach  a  great  crisis  in  his  life  which,  when  his 
biography  comes  to  be  written,  will  require  much 
patient  research,  and  the  most  careful  weighing  of 
facts,  before  a  straight  story  can  be  made  of  it  or  the 
events  placed  in  a  clear  light.  From  the  documents 
preserved  in  the  Hatfield  manuscripts,  however, 
certain  facts  specially  relevant  to  our  argument  already 
stand  out  boldly  and  distinctly.  The  first  is  that  he 
expresses  a  warm  regard  for  his  wife.  The  second  is 
that  a  responsible  servant  of  his,  his  receiver,  had 
succeeded  in  insinuating  into  his  mind  suspicions  of 
some  kind  respecting  Lady  Oxford.  The  third  is  that 
her  father,  for  some  reason  or  other,  recalled  Oxford 
to  England,  thus  upsetting  his  project  of  extended 
travel.  The  fourth  is  that  on  his  return  he  treated  his 
wife  in  a  way  quite  inexplicable  to  her,  refusing  to  see 
her ;  whilst  she,  for  her  part,  showed  an  earnest 
desire  to  appease  him.  The  fifth  is  that  reports  un- 
favourable to  Lady  Oxford's  reputation  gained  cur- 
rency. And  the  sixth  is  that  there  seems  to  have  been 
no  shadow  of  justification  for  these  reports. 

It  hardly  needs  pointing  out  that  we  have  here 
a  great  many  of  the  outstanding  external  conditions 
of  Shakespeare's  celebrated  tragedy  of  jealousy  in 
connubial  life  :  "  Othello."  Brabantio,  the  father-in- 
law  of  Othello  was,  like  Oxford's  father-in-law,  the 
chief  minister  of  state  and  a  great  potentate,  having 
"  in  his  effect  a  voice  potential  as  double  as  the  duke's." 

18 


274         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Othello  himself,  like  Oxford,  was  one  who  took  his 
stand  firmly  and  somewhat  ostentatiously  upon  the 
.  rights  and  privileges  of  high  birth  : 

"  I  fetch  my  life  and  being 
From  men  of  royal  siege,  and  my  demerits 
May  speak  unbonneted  to  as  proud  a  fortune 
As  this  that  I  have  reached." 

Desdemona  is  represented  as  one  who,  in  the  words 
of  her  father,  "  was  half  the  wooer,"  just  as  Anne 
Cecil  is  represented  in  the  contemporary  letter  already 
quoted  ;  whilst  a  similar  youthfulness  combined  with  a 
premature  development  along  certain  lines  is  expressed 
in  the  lines  : 

"  She  that  so  young  could  give  out  such  a  seeming, 
To  seal  her  father's  eyes." 

lago,  the  arch-insinuator  of  suspicion,  is  Othello's 
own  "  ancient,"  and  occupies  a  position  analogous  to 
Oxford's  "  receiver,"  who  had  dropped  the  poison  of 
suspicion  into  his  master's  mind.  lago's  reiterated 
advice,  "  Put  money  in  thy  purse,"  is  redolent  of  the 
special  functions  of  Oxford's  receiver  :  a  suggestion 
repeated  in  lago's  well-known  speech  "  Who  steals 
my  purse  steals  trash."  So  the  four  central  figures  in 
this  connubial  tragedy  of  real  life,  Burleigh,  Oxford, 
Lady  Oxford,  and  Oxford's  receiver,  are  exactly 
represented  in  Shakespeare's  great  domestic  tragedy  by 
Brabantio,  Othello,  Desdemona,  and  lago. 

Othello's  To  this  correspondence  in  personnel  must  be  added 

an  even  more  remarkable  correspondence  in  the  two- 
fold character  of  the  cause  of  rupture.  Before  alighting 
upon  this  letter  of  Oxford's  and  the  memoranda  of 
Burleigh's  dealing  with  the  crisis,  we  had  supposed  that 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    275 

the  whole  ground  of  the  trouble  between  him  and  his 
wife  was  his  being  recalled  to  England  by  her  father  ; 
she  having  been  a  party  to  the  recall.  The  perception 
that  there  was  yet  another  cause,  suggestive  of  Othello's 
principal  motive,  altered  the  entire  aspect  of  things  ; 
and  this,  along  with  the  presence  in  both  cases  of  the 
subordinate  motive — the  recall  by  the  lady's  father- 
brought  the  two  cases  immediately  into  line  with  one 
another ;  the  whole  complex  situation  finding  its 
expression  in  Desdemona's  pathetic  and  puzzled 
appeal  to  Othello  : 

' '  Why  do  you  weep  ? 

Am  I  the  motives  of  these  tears,  my  lord  ? 
If  haply  you  my  father  do  suspect, 
An  instrument  of  this  your  calling  back, 
Lay  not  the  blame  on  me." 

It  is  worth  while  remarking  that  Othello  was  called 
back  from  Cyprus  :  the  very  part  of  the  world  which 
Oxford  was  prevented  from  visiting  by  his  recall ;  and 
that  he  was  called  back  to  Venice,  the  city  which 
Oxford  had  just  left. 

In  the  light  of  what  we  now  know  of  the  trouble  A  striking 
between  Lord  and  Lady  Oxford,  let  the  reader  go  parallel, 
carefully  over  the  first  two  scenes  of  Act  IV  in 
"  Othello,"  noticing  the  intermingling  of  the  two 
elements  of  mistrust  insinuated  by  a  subordinate,  and 
the  "  commanding  home  "  of  Othello.  A  sense  of 
identity — with  due  allowance  for  the  difference  between 
actualities  and  the  poet's  dramatization — will,  we 
believe,  be  irresistible.  We  shall,  therefore,  finish  off 
this  particular  argument  by  placing  together  a  sentence 
taken  from  a  letter  written  by  Oxford  to  Burleigh  in 
which  he  virtually  closes  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
and  a  sentence  which  "  Shakespeare  "  introduces  by 


276         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

the  mouth  of  a  subordinate  character  into  the  closing 
part  of  this  particular  episode  : 

Oxford  : 

"Neither  will  he  (Oxford)  trouble  his  life  any  more 
with  such  troubles  and  molestations  as  he  has  endured, 
nor  to  please  his  lordship  (Burleigh)  discontent  himself." 

"  Shakespeare  "  (in  "  Othello  ") : 

"  I  will  indeed  no  longer  endure  it,  nor  am  I  yet  per- 
suaded to  put  up  in  peace  what  already  I  have  foolishly 
suffered." 

Parallel  passages  in  published  writings  may  only  be 
instances  of  plagiarism  or  unconscious  memory.  In 
this  case,  however,  the  passage  published  reproduces 
a  sentence  of  a  private  letter  not  made  public  until 
centuries  had  elapsed.  This  is  all  that  seems  necessary 
from  the  point  of  view  of  this  particular  argument  ; 
and  so  conclusive  does  it  appear  that  we  are  almost 
inclined  to  question  the  utility  of  accumulating  further 
evidence.  The  letter  from  which  we  have  quoted,  we 
remark,  contains  also  a  familiar  Shakespearean  innuendo 
respecting  parentage.  It  also  expresses  a  continued 
regard  for  his  wife ;  resenting  Burleigh's  so  handling 
the  matter  as  to  have  made  her  "  the  fable  of  the 
world  and  raising  open  suspicions  to  her  disgrace." 

What  Burleigh's  ubiquitous  informers  may  have 
Domestic  reported  leading  to  Oxford's  recall  does  not  appear 
to  be  known.  Certain  it  is  that  even  from  Italy 
Burleigh's  agents  had  been  forwarding  reports  the 
truth  of  which  was  denied  by  an  Italian  attendant  on 
Oxford.  At  any  rate  Oxford  himself  on  his  return 
refused,  in  a  most  decided  manner,  to  meet  his  wife. 
"  Until  he  can  better  satisfy  himself  concerning  certain 
mislikings,"  he  says,  "  he  is  not  determined  to  accom- 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE   277 

pany  her."  Whether  he  suspected  her  of  being  a 
party  to  espio'nage  practised  upon  him  or  to  attempts 
at  domination  over  him,  or  whether  there  were  indeed 
other  hidden  matters  of  a  graver  nature  we  cannot  say. 
It  may  not  be  without  significance,  however,  that 
later  on  we  find  one  of  those  spying  agents  of  Burleigh's, 
Geoffrey  Pent  on,  a  continental  traveller  and  a  linguist, 
dedicating  to  Lady  Oxford  a  translation  he  had  made. 

The  cryptic  explanation  of  his  conduct  which  we 
have  just  quoted  seems  to  have  been  the  only  one 
which  Oxford  would  vouchsafe — to  Burleigh  at  any 
rate.  Burleigh  complains  of  Oxford's  taciturnity  in 
the  matter:  that  he  would  only  reply,  "  /  have  an- 
swered you  " — which  is  strikingly  suggestive  of  Shylock's 
laconic  expression  "Are  you  answered  ?  One  account 
suggests  that  the  attitude  he  assumed  on  his  arrival 
was  a  sudden  and  erratic  change.  If  this  be  correct  it 
is  certainly  suggestive  of  that  lightning-like  change 
one  notices  in  Hamlet's  bearing  towards  Ophelia,  when 
he  detects  that  she  is  allowing  herself  to  be  made  the 
tool  of  her  father  in  spying  upon  Hamlet  himself 
(Act  III,  scene  i). 

As  usual  the  matter  is  reported  as  reflecting  discredit 
upon  Oxford.  It  was  an  instance  merely  of  bad 
behaviour  towards  his  wife.  One  writer,  however, 
states  that  Oxford  had  at  least  offered  the  explanation 
that  his  wife  was  allowing  herself  to  be  influenced  by 
her  parents  against  himself.  And  this  is  a  reasonable 
explanation  of  the  only  charge  that  Oxford  makes 
against  her,  at  a  time  when  he  makes  other  charges 
against  Burleigh's  administration  of  his  affairs.  Lady 
Oxford's  father  had  undoubtedly  treated  her  husband 
badly,  and  if  she  did  not  hotly  resent  and  repudiate 
her  father's  actions  she  must  be  reckoned  as  being 


278         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

on  his  side.  It  was  one  of  those  simple  cases  in  which 
there  was  no  midway  course  possible,  and  in  which  it 
was  impossible  for  her  husband  to  mistake  the  side 
on  which  she  stood. 

Oxford's  Oxford  had  at  any  rate  come  home  with  his  mind 

y'  fully  made  up  to  have  done  once  and  for  all  with 
Burleigh's  domination.  That  he  had  borne  with  it  at 
all  seems  to  suggest  that  there  had  been  about  his 
personality  something  of  that  mildness  of  manner 
which  dominating  men  are  apt  to  mistake  for  weakness, 
a  supposition  to  which  the  only  portrait  we  have  seen 
of  him,  taken  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  seems  to  lend 
support .  Certainly  his  poetry  testifies  to  an  affectionate- 
ness  that  might  easily  be  so  misconstructed.  When 
such  men  are  at  last  driven  to  strike,  their  blows  have 
frequently  a  fierceness  that  comes  as  a  surprise  and  a 
shock  to  their  adversaries  :  and  Oxford's  poetry  does 
indeed  display  a  capacity  for  fierce  outbursts.  We 
suspect  that  something  of  this  kind  happened  in  the 
present  instance.  Burleigh  had  adopted  a  policy  in 
relation  to  Oxford  that  the  latter  was  not  prepared 
to  tolerate  any  longer.  Anne,  during  the  five  years  of 
married  life,  had  passed  from  girlhood  into  womanhood. 
Her  father  had  created  a  situation  in  which  she  must 
choose  definitely  between  father  and  husband.  The 
unravelling  of  the  facts  and  their  proper  interpretation 
must,  however,  form  matter  for  future  investigations. 
Most  writers  agree  that  much  of  Oxford's  sub- 
sequent conduct  was  dictated  by  a  determination 
to  revenge  himself  on  Burleigh  for  some  reason  or 
other ;  and  that  his  plans  of  revenge  included  the 
squandering  of  his  own  estates,  and  separation  from 
his  wife.  Castle  Hedingham  in  Essex  which  Oxford 
had  made  over  to  Burleigh,  we  are  told  in  local  histories, 


EARLY  MANHOOD  IF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    279 

was  almost  razed  completely,  by  Oxford's  orders,  as 
part  of  his  plan  of  revenge.  How  he  could  have  razed 
a  castle  which  was  no  longer  his  own  we  do  not  pretend 
to  explain  :  we  merely  repeat  in  this  matter  what  is 
recorded.  The  following  two  stanzas  from  one  of  his 
early  poems  are,  however,  of  special  interest  in  this 
connection  :— 

"  I  am  no  sot  to  suffer  such  abuse, 

As  doth  bereave  my  heart  of  his  delight ; 
Nor  will  I  frame  myself  to  such  as  use, 

With  calm  consent  to  suffer  such  despite. 
No  quiet  sleep  shall  once  possess  mine  eye, 
Till  wit  have  wrought  his  will  on  injury. 

My  heart  shall  fail  and  hand  shall  lose  his  force, 
But  some  device  shall  pay  Despite  his  due  ; 

And  fury  shall  consume  my  careful  corse, 
Or  raze  the  ground  whereon  my  sorrow  grew. 

Lo,  thus  in  rage  of  ruthful  mind  refus'd, 

I  rest  revenged  on  whom  I  am  abus'd." 

The  old  records  suggest  a  political  motive — the 
imprisonment  and  execution  of  his  kinsman  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk — for  Oxford's  scheme  of  revenge.  If, 
however,  we  may  connect  it  with  these  verses,  as  we 
reasonably  may,  it  is  evident  that  the  motive  was  much 
more  directly  personal  to  himself.  If,  moreover,  we 
connect  it  with  these  political  matters  the  time  is 
carried  back  to  the  year  1572  :  the  year  immediately 
following  his  marriage.  The  disentangling  of  events 
and  dates  in  these  matters  we  do  not  feel  to  be  suffi- 
ciently pressing  to  demand  the  arrest  of  our  present 
argument. 

Without  waiting,  therefore,  for  these  obscurities  to  be 
cleared  up,  we  may  introduce  now  what  has  been  the 
most  remarkable  piece  of  evidence  met  with  in  the 


280 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


A  sensa- 
tional 
discovery. 


The  Climax 
to  "  All's 
Well." 


whole  course  of  our  investigations  :  a  discovery  made 
a  considerable  time  after  this  work  had  been  virtually 
completed  and  indeed  after  it  had  already  passed  into 
other  hands.  This  evidence  is  concerned  with  the 
play,  "  All's  Well  "  ;  the  striking  parallelism  between 
the  principal  personage  in  the  drama  and  the  Earl  of 
Oxford  having  led  us  to  adopt  it  as  the  chief  support 
of  our  argument  at  the  particular  stage  with  which 
we  are  now  occupied.  This  argument  was  carried 
forward  to  its  present  stage  at  the  time  when  our 
discovery  was  announced  to  the  librarian  of  the 
British  Museum.  What  we  have  now  to  state  was  not 
discovered  until  some  months  later. 

In  tracing  the  parallelism  between  Bertram  and 
Oxford  we  confined  our  attention  to  the  incidentals  of 
the  play,  in  the  belief  that  the  central  idea  of  the 
plot — the  entrapping  of  Bertram  into  marital  relation- 
ships with  his  own  wife,  in  order  that  she  might  bear 
him  a  child  unknown  to  himself — was  wholly  derived 
from  Boccaccio's  story  of  Bertram.  The  discovery, 
therefore,  of  the  following  passage  in  Wright's  "  History 
of  Essex  "  furnishes  a  piece  of  evidence  so  totally  un- 
expected, and  forms  so  sensational  a  climax  to  an 
already  surprising  resemblance  that,  on  first  noticing 
it,  we  had  some  difficulty  in  trusting  our  own  eyes. 
We  would  willingly  be  spared  the  penning  of 
such  matter :  its  importance  as  evidence  does  not, 
however,  permit  of  this.  Speaking  of  the  rupture 
between  the  Earl  of  Oxford  and  his  wife,  Wright  tells 
us  that,  "  He  (Oxford)  forsook  his  lady's  bed,  (but) 
the  father  of  Lady  Anne  by  stratagem,  contrived  that 
her  husband  should  unknowingly  sleep  with  her, 
believing  her  to  be  another  woman,  and  she  bore  a 
son  to  him  in  consequence  of  this  meeting  "  (Wright's 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    281 

"  History  of  Essex,"  vol.  I,  p.  517).    The  only  son  of 
the  Lady  Anne,  we  may  mention,  died  in  infancy. 

Thus  even  in  the  most  extraordinary  feature  of  this 
play  ;  a  feature  which  hardly  one  person  in  a  million 
would  for  a  moment  have  suspected  of  being  anything 
else  but  an  extravagant  invention,  the  records  of  Oxford 
are  at  one  with  the  representation  of  Bertram.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  we  should  believe  the  story  to  be 
true,  for  no  authority  for  it  is  vouchsafed.  A  memoran- 
dum in  the  Hatfield  manuscripts  to  the  effect  that 
Burleigh  laid  before  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  and  others 
some  private  matter  respecting  this  domestic  rupture 
may,  however,  have  had  reference  to  this.  The  point 
which  matters  is  that  this  extraordinary  story  should 
be  circulated  in  reference  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford ;  making 
it  quite  clear  that  either  Oxford  was  the  actual 
prototype  of  Bertram,  in  which  case  false  as  well  as 
true  stoiies  of  the  Earl  might  be  worked  into  the  play, 
or  he  was  supposed  to  be  the  prototype  and  was  saddled 
with  the  story  in  consequence.  In  any  case,  the 
connection  between  the  two  is  now  as  complete  as 
accumulated  evidence  can  make  it.  We  hesitate  to 
make  reflections  upon  prospective  dissentients;  but 
we  feel  entitled  to  assert  that  the  man  who  does  not 
now  acknowledge  a  connection  of  some  sort,  between 
Edward  de  Vere  and  Bertram  in  "All's  Well,"  has  not 
the  proper  faculty  for  weighing  evidence. 

Having  thus  raised  the  peculiar  situation,  represented 
in  the  play,  in  relation  to  our  problem,  we  notice 
something    analogous    repeated    in    the    relationship  Angeloand 
between  Angelo  and  Mariana  in  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  Manana- 
along  with  the  fact  that  Angelo  specifies  a  period  of 
"  five  years  "  between  the  making  of  the  marriage 
arrangement  and  the  special  episode  (V,  i)  :  the  exact 


282         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

period  between  the  date  of  Oxford's  marriage  and  the 
particular  time  with  which  we  are  now  dealing  (1571- 
1576).  Angelo  also  remarks  :— 

"  I  do  perceive 

These  poor  informal  women  are  no  more 
But  instruments  of  some  more  mightier  member 
That  sets  them  on.     Let  me  have  way,  my  lord, 
To  find  this  practice  out." 

With  such  possibilities  of  discovery  lying  in  the  play 
of  "  All's  Well,"  it  is  not  surprising  that  after  having 
first  of  all  appeared  under  the  title  of  "  Love's  Labour's 
Won,"  it  should  have  disappeared  for  a  full  generation, 
and  then,  when  the  Earl  of  Oxford  had  been  dead  for 
nearly  twenty  years,  reappeared  under  a  new  name. 
"  Measure  for  Measure  "  is  also  one  of  the  plays  not 
published  until  1623,  although  it  had  been  played  in 
1604. 

Burleigh  The  one  thing  that  stands  out  clearly  from  all  these 

reputation18  events  *s  an  unmistakable  antagonism  between 
Oxford  and  Burleigh,  over  which  Burleigh  especially 
tries  to  throw  a  cloak  of  benevolence.  His  next  move 
is  somewhat  astute  :  he  seems  to  have  given  it  out 
that  the  Earl  had  been  enticed  away  "  by  lewd  persons." 
There  is  no  suggestion,  however,  that  Anne  had  left 
Oxford,  or  that  Burleigh  had  sought  to  separate  them 
because  of  dissoluteness  on  the  Earl's  part.  The 
facts  all  point  unquestionably  in  the  opposite  direction  : 
for  it  was  he  who  exerted  all  his  influence  to  bring 
about  a  rapprochement  when  the  mischief  had  been 
done.  There  was,  therefore,  no  question  of  protecting 
a  daughter  against  a  profligate  husband ;  and  if  his 
charges  against  Oxford  were  well  founded  it  is  upon 
the  character  of  Burleigh  himself  that  they  react 
most  disastrously.  For  it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    283 

a  more  despicable  character  than  that  of  a  father 
exerting  himself  to  throw  back  his  daughter  into  the 
arms  of  her  dissolute  husband  when  she  had  been 
delivered  from  him  by  his  own  voluntary  act.  The 
probability  is  that  Burleigh  himself  did  not  believe 
his  own  accusations,  and  that  they  were  a  mere  ruse 
de  guerre  on  the  part  of  an  unscrupulous  and  crafty 
fighter.  Had  he  believed  his  own  story  he  ought  rather 
to  have  rejoiced  at  the  turn  things  had  taken. 

The  real  root  of  much  of  the  trouble,  it  is  easy  to 
see,  was  the  control  that  Burleigh  attempted  to  exercise 
over  Oxford's  movements  ;  the  purely  negative  and 
restrictive  control  of  a  man  whose  exercise  of  power, 
even  in  the  greatest  affairs  of  state,  was  always  governed 
by  considerations  of  himself,  his  family,  his  own  policy 
and  his  instruments.  To  a  man  of  Oxford's  spirit  the 
position  must  have  been  irksome  in  the  extreme  ;  and 
when  we  find  the  fact  of  his  being  held  in  leading 
strings  pointedly  alluded  to  in  a  poem  of  Edmund 
Spenser's,  it  must  have  been  specially  galling.  If,  then, 
Oxford  succeeded  in  making  himself  a  thorn  in  the 
flesh  of  his  dominating  relative,  we  shall  probably 
agree  that  the  astute  minister  had  at  last  met  his 
match  and  got  hardly  more  than  he  deserved.  Lady 
Oxford's  fault  was  probably  no  worse  than  that  of 
having  weakly  succumbed  to  a  masterful  father,  or 
rather  two  masterful  parents.  Ophelia's  weakness, 
then,  in  permitting  herself  to  be  made  her  father's 
tool  in  intruding  upon  Hamlet,  certainly  suggests  her 
as  a  possible  dramatic  analogue  to  the  unfortunate 
Lady  Oxford. 

One  is  always  upon  uncertain  ground  in  attempting 
to  lay  bare  the  facts  which  have  lain  behind  the 
effusions  of  poets.  A  note  recurs  in  more  than  one 


284         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Oxford's  poem  of  De  Vere's  which  seems  to  point  to  this  trouble 
I0n8t  between  himself  and  his  wife.  From  the  dates  given 
we  judge  them  to  belong  to  this  particular  time  of 
crisis  in  his  life  ;  and  if  the  reference  is  actually  to  the 
breach  between  them,  it  would  seem  that,  notwith- 
standing the  course  he  had  been  obliged  to  take,  there 
had  been  awakened  in  him  an  intense  affection  for  his 
wife.  This  is  certainly  the  peculiar  situation  repre- 
sented in  the  poems :  affection  of  the  poet  for  one 
who  had  formerly  sought  him  but  who  had  become 
in  some  way  at  variance  with  him.  We  give  two 
stanzas  from  separate  poems  on  this  theme  : 

"  O  cruel  hap  and  hard  estate 

That  forceth  me  to  love  my  foe  ; 
Accursed  be  so  foul  a  fate, 

My  choice  for  to  prefix  it  so. 
So  long  to  fight  with  secret  sore, 
And  find  no  secret  salve  therefor." 

"  Betray  thy  grief  thy  woeful  heart  with  speed  ; 

Resign  thy  voice  to  her  that  caused  thee  woe  ; 
With  irksome  cries  bewail  thy  late  done  deed, 

For  she  thou  lov'st  is  sure  thy  mortal  foe. 
And  help  for  thee  there  is  none  sure, 
But  still  in  pain  thou  must  endure." 

(As  we  shall  have  to  refer  to  this  stanza  in  dealing 
with  the  question  of  "  Spenser's  Willie "  we  ask 
the  reader  to  keep  it  in  mind.) 

These  two  poems,  both  published  when  Oxford  was 
but  twenty-six  years  old,  are  certainly  suggestive  of 
Bertram's  reference  to  Helena  as  one  "  whom  since  I 
have  lost  have  loved."  In  the  play  of  "All's  Well," 
everything  works  out  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  In 
real  life  things  do  not  always  so  work  out,  and  though 
Oxford  and  his  wife  were  ultimately,  in  some  sort, 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE    285 

reconciled,  we  are  assured  that  henceforth  the  relation- 
ship between  them  was  not  altogether  cordial. 

Whatever  view  may  be  taken  of  Burleigh's  character,  Kicking  over 
and  of  the  antagonism  between  him  and  Oxford,  every  the  traces- 
record  testifies  unmistakably  to  the  former's  wish  to 
exercise  an  unwarrantable  ascendancy  over  the  move- 
ments of  the  latter.  Had  Oxford  been  an  adventurer 
and  a  needy  supplicant  for  court  favour  like  Raleigh, 
or  one  desirous  of  political  and  diplomatic  advancement 
like  Sidney,  Burleigh's  methods  for  holding  him  in 
subjection  might  have  succeeded  permanently.  At 
this  time,  however,  there  was  nothing  in  the  shape  of 
wealth  or  social  eminence,  which  others  sought  that 
was  not  already  his  ;  and  ambitions  after  military 
or  naval  glory,  such  as  could  only  be  realized  through 
the  co-operation  of  those  in  power,  he  seems  definitely 
to  have  abandoned  after  his  return  from  Italy.  Hence- 
forward his  powers  and  interests  seem  to  have  been 
concentrated  in  literature  and  drama.  Many  of  the 
poems  from  which  we  have  quoted  seem  to  have  been 
published,  and  some  of  them  evidently  written,  just 
about  this  time.  His  letter  to  Bedingfield,  so  completely 
free  from  any  suggestion  of  personal  unhappiness,  was, 
in  fact,  written  just  at  this  time.  In  view  of  the  whole 
of  the  circumstances,  then,  it  seems  quite  safe  to  say 
that  he  returned  from  Italy,  being  then  close  on 
twenty-six  years  of  age,  with  his  mind  finally  deter- 
mined on  a  literary  and  dramatic  career.  In  this  he  was 
in  no  way  dependent  upon  the  authorities,  and  viewing 
the  attitude  of  his  powerful  relative  as  a  sheer  im- 
pertinence he  was  at  liberty  to  set  him  at  defiance. 

The  path  he  had  chosen  was  one,  however,  in  which 
he  might  expect  to  meet  with  still  greater  hostility 
from  Burleigh ;  though  now  the  hostility  would  be 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Oxford  more  or  less  baffled  and  impotent.    His  plans  not  being 

way."*  confided  to  those  with  whom  he  was  in  direct  personal 
contact,  would  involve  a  good  deal  of  reserve  on  his 
side,  permit  a  similar  amount  of  misconstruction  on 
theirs,  and  afford  free  scope  for  efforts  at  working  the 
situation  to  his  discredit.  This,  it  appears,  is  just  what 
did  happen. 

The  reference  in  Shakespeare's  sonnets  to  a  time  of 
special  crisis  when  "he  took  his  way"  has  already 
been  mentioned.  Amongst  the  things  which  he  kept 
"  to  his  own  use  "  "  under  truest  bars  "  we  may  reckon 
the  manuscripts  at  which  he  was  working.*  From  a 
remark  in  one  of  Oxford's  letters  (Hatfield  MSS.)  it 
appears  that  he  was  accustomed  to  take  with  him, 
when  going  into  the  country,  important  papers  secured 
in  a  small  desk.  His  secret  treasures  would,  no  doubt, 
include  also  those  Italian  plays  and  other  important 
documents  which  we  now  know  were  freely  used  by 
the  great  dramatist  in  the  composition  of  his  works. 
That  De  Vere  would  bring  back  such  things  from 
Italy  it  is  impossible  to  doubt.  The  number  and 
expensiveness  of  the  articles  he  brought  home  from 
his  Italian  tour  is  dwelt  upon  at  length,  and  in  much 
detail,  in  the  account  from  which  many  of  our  facts 
are  taken.  It  is  almost  absurd  to  suppose  that  he 
brought  back  all  these  goods  and  omitted  to  bring 
with  him  just  those  things  that  touched  his  own 
keenest  interest  most  directly.  And  it  would  be  just 
such  literary  treasures  that,  as  Shakespeare,  he  would 
guard : 

"  That  to  his  use  they  might  unused  stay 

From  hands  of  falsehood  in  sure  wards  of  trust." 

:  Amongst  complaints  formulated  against  his  father-in-law  and 
wife.  Oxford  states  that  he  had  been  refused  possession  of 
some  of  his  own  writings.  (Hat.  M.S.S.) 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE     287 

The  fulfilment  of  the  purpose  we  suppose  him  to  Burieigh's 


have  set  himself,  involved  his  throwing  himself  into  3  ( 

those  literary  and  dramatic  circles  whose  character 
has  been  already  described.  This  is  what  we  suppose 
Burleigh  to  refer  to  in  speaking  of  his  being  enticed 
away  by  "  lewd  persons."  It  is  remarkable,  however, 
that,  although  we  have  an  abundance  of  such  general 
accusations  against  him,  we  have  not  been  able  to 
discover,  up  to  the  present,  a  single  authoritative  case 
in  which  his  name  appears  in  a  discreditable  personal 
connection  ;  notwithstanding  the  fact  that,  through 
the  records  of  those  times,  the  evidence  of  such  affairs 
in  the  lives  of  eminent  people  is  only  too  frequent 
and  unmistakable. 

Of  all  the  artifices  by  which  an  older  man  may  seek 
to  maintain  an  ascendancy  over  a  younger  one,  there 
is  hardly  any  more  contemptible  than  that  of  playing 
upon  his  regard  for  reputation  and  good  name  ;  and 
Burleigh,  in  attempting  to  apply  this  method  in 
bringing  pressure  to  bear  upon  Oxford,  was  only 
employing  one  of  his  recognized  stratagems.  In  this 
matter  we  are  again  able  to  present  the  testimony  of 
no  less  a  witness  than  the  poet  Edmund  Spenser. 
The  following  passage  taken  from  his  poem,  "  Mother 
Hubbard's  Tale,"  Dean  Church  assures  us,  is  generally 
accepted  as  referring  to  Burleigh  :  — 

'  '  No  practice  sly 

No  counterpoint  of  cunning  policy, 
No  reach,  no  breach,  that  might  him  profit  bring 
But  he  the  same  did  to  his  purpose  wring. 

*  *  * 
He  no  account  made  of  nobility. 

*  *  * 

All  these  through  feigned  crimes  he  thrust  adown 
Or  made  them  dwell  in  darkness  of  disgrace." 


288 


SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Burleigh 's 
"  cunning 
policy." 


Freedom. 


The  last  part  of  the  quotation  might  almost  be 
supposed  to  have  direct  reference  to  Burleigh's  special 
treatment  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  himself;  whilst  the 
character  of  trickster,  which  Spenser  fixes  upon 
Elizabeth's  great  minister,  certainly  meets  us  at  more 
than  one  point  in  his  dealings  with  his  son-in-law. 
Indeed  it  appears  almost  as  if  it  were  a  character  in 
which  he  himself  gloried,  as  the  following  story  which 
we  quote  from  Macaulay  shows  :— 

"  When  he  (Burleigh)  was  studying  the  law  at 
Gray's  Inn  he  lost  all  his  furniture  and  books  at  the 
gaming  table  to  one  of  his  friends.  He  accordingly 
bored  a  hole  in  the  wall  which  separated  his  chambers 
from  those  of  his  associate,  and  at  midnight  bellowed 
through  the  passage  threats  of  damnation  and  calls 
to  repentance  in  the  ears  of  the  victorious  gambler, 
who  lay  sweating  with  fear  all  night,  and  refunded  his 
winnings  on  his  knees  next  day.  '  Many  other  the 
like  merry  jests,'  says  his  old  biographer,  '  I  have 
heard  him  tell.'  '  One  who  thus  gloried  almost 
childishly  in  his  own  low  cunning  was  not  the  kind 
of  man  to  stick  at  any  "  practice  sly,  or  counterpoint 
of  cunning  policy,"  that  he  could  "  to  his  own  purpose 
wring."  Edward  de  Vere  was  certainly  "  made  to 
dwell  in  darkness  of  disgrace  "  ;  and  no  sane  reading 
of  Shakespeare's  sonnets  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
"  Shakespeare  "  was  one  who  suffered  in  the  same 
way,  whilst  no  trace  of  contemporary  disrepute  has 
been  pointed  out  respecting  the  Stratford  Shakspere. 

Even  if  Burleigh  had  good  reasons  for  believing  that 
what  he  was  urging  against  Oxford  was  true,  it  seems 
clear  that  the  opportunist  minister  who  "  winketh  at 
these  love  affairs  "  was  merely  striking  at  his  son-in- 
law's  reputation  as  part  of  his  usual  cunning.  That  the 


EARLY  MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERE   289 

attack  upon  De  Vere's  good  name  had  not  only  suc- 
ceeded in  injuring  him,  but  had  cut  him  to  the  quick, 
is  evident  from  the  poem  on  the  loss  of  his  good  name. 
That  the  plan  did  not  succeed  either  in  bringing  him 
into  subjection  or  in  diverting  him  from  his  purpose  is 
equally  clear.  Indeed,  it  looks  as  if,  though  at  great 
cost  to  himself,  Oxford  had  in  a  measure  got  the 
whip  hand  over  Burleigh  :  possibly  the  only  man  who 
was  ever  able  to  do  this.  From  this  time  forward  his 
leading  interests  were  literary  and  dramatic.  He 
became  "  the  best  of  the  courtier  poets  of  the  early 
days  of  Queen  Elizabeth,"  and  in  drama  "  amongst 
the  best  in  comedy  "  ;  yet  the  only  surviving  poems 
known  are  a  few  fragments  belonging  mainly  to  his 
youth  and  early  manhood,  whilst  of  the  fruits  of  the 
dramatic  activity  that  filled  the  period  of  his  life  with 
which  we  are  now  to  deal  no  single  example  is  supposed 
to  be  extant- — every  line  is  supposed  to  have  perished  : 
"  lost  or  worn  out." 


CHAPTER   XI 

EDWARD  DE  VERE — MIDDLE  PERIOD  :     DRAMATIC 
FOREGROUND 


BEFORE  entering  upon  a  consideration  of  those  dramatic 
enterprises  which  occupied  an  important  part  of  the 
middle  period  of  Oxford's  life,  which  we  place,  in  a 
general  way,  between  1576  and  1590,  that  is  to  say  from 
the  age  of  twenty-six  to  forty,  we  shall  dispose  first  of 
all  of  some  personal  matters,  which  we  are  able  to 
link  on  to  the  Italian  tour  and  which  furnish  corrobora- 
tive evidence  of  his  identity  with  Shakespeare.  His 
stay  in  Italy,  it  has  already  been  pointed  out,  had  so 
marked  an  influence  over  him  as  to  affect  his  dress 
and  manners  and  cause  him  to  be  lampooned  as  an 
"  Italionated  Englishman  "  ;  the  same  writer  holding 
him  up  to  ridicule  as  "  a  passing  singular  odd  man." 
Gabriel $&  The  writer  in  question  was  none  other  than  Gabriel 
Harvey,  the  friend  of  Edmund  Spenser,  who,  it  has 
been  affirmed,  almost  succeeded  in  leading  Spenser's 
genius  astray.  The  Dictionary  of  National  Biography 
gives  us  a  very  careful  study  of  this  curious  and  learned 
pedant  ;  and  if  we  assume  that  the  writer  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  was  acquainted  with  him  personally, 
we  can  quite  imagine  from  this  account  that  the 
dramatist  had  him  in  mind  in  the  writing  of  "  Love's 
Labour's  Lost."  We  have  first  of  all  Berowne's 

290 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  291 

speech  on  studious  plodders  (I,  i)  which  is  simply 
portraiture  of  Harvey,  even  to  the  touch  about 

"These  earthly  godfathers  of  heaven's  lights." 

For  Harvey  was,  amongst  other  things,  a  dabbler  in 
astrology.  Again  in  Act  IV,  3,  we  have  a  return  to 
the  same  antagonism  to  studious  plodding  in  the 
remark  that 

"  Universal  plodding  poisons  up 
The  nimble  spirit  in  the  arteries." 

The  whole  spirit  of  the  play  is  hostile  to  that  merely 
bookish  learnedness  which  is  typified  by  scholars  like 
Gabriel  Harvey.  A  living  specimen  of  the  scholarly 
pedant  is  presented  in  the  character  of  Holofernes, 
and  so  realistic  is  the  representation  that  it  has  been 
very  naturally  supposed  that  Shakespeare  had  some 
contemporary  in  mind  as  the  prototype  of  this  eccentric 
pedant.  Had  the  name  and  personality  of  Gabriel 
Harvey  been  previously  associated  in  any  way  with 
Shakespeare,  the  problem  of  Holofernes'  identification 
would  not  have  remained  unsolved  for  any  length  of 
time.  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  know  much  of  Gabriel  Harvey,  and 
therefore  the  prototype  of  Holofernes  has  remained 
in  doubt,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  resemblance 
was  recognized  by  Dean  Church  ("  Life  of  Spenser," 
p.  18).  There  is,  of  course,  no  correspondence  between 
Holofernes  in  the  play  and  the  scriptural,  or  rather 
apocryphal  character  of  the  same  name,  who  was 
decapitated  by  Judith.  The  name  is  therefore  selected 
evidently  for  some  other  reason.  That  reason  becomes 
apparent  the  moment  we  put  side  by  side  with  the 
name  of  Holofernes  that  of  Hobbinol,  the  name  under 
which  Gabriel  Harvey  appears  in  Spenser's  works. 


292         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

For  Hobbinol,  the  name  used  by  Spenser,  is  generally 
recognized  as  a  rough  anagram  made  from  the  name  of 
Gabriel  Harvey,  whilst  Holofernes  is  but  another 
anagram  composed  of  Spenser's  Hobbinol  further 
strengthened  by  the  characteristic  letter  "  r,"  taken 
from  both  Gabriel  and  Harvey  and  an  "  f,"  suggestive 
of  the  "  v  "  in  Harvey.  The  choice  of  an  out-of-the-way 
name  as  an  anagram  instead  of  the  invention  of  a 
new  one  is  characteristic  of  the  more  subtle  genius 
of  Shakespeare. 

Harvey**"1  **'  ^en>  we  are  justified  in  connecting  Holofernes 
with  Gabriel  Harvey  it  becomes  impossible  to  avoid 
connecting  the  writer  of  the  play  with  the  Earl  of 
Oxford.  For  this  reason  :  Oxford,  as  Harvey  admitted, 
had  extended  his  customary  munificence  to  this 
scholar  when  the  latter  was  a  poor  student  at  the 
university  ;  and  Harvey,  on  an  important  occasion, 
had  addressed  complimentary  verses  to  his  benefactor. 
Then  behind  Oxford's  back  he  had  circulated  privately 
satirical  verses,  supposed  to  be  ridiculing  the  man 
whom  he  had  complimented  publicly.  Now,  turning 
to  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  we  find,  first  of  all,  a 
speech  of  Holofernes'  which  bears  some  resem- 
blance to  the  verses  in  which  he  had  ridiculed  Oxford 
(the  speech  introduced  by  the  latin  phrase  "  Novi 
hominem,"  Act  V,  i).  Then,  in  the  by-play  of  the 
second  scene  in  the  same  act — and  this  is  really  the 
important  point — Holofernes  is  assigned  the  role  of 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  and  by  a  turn  that  is  given  to  the 
dialogue  he  is  made  to  appear  as  "  Judas  Iscariot," 
the  "  kissing  traitor."  On  being  twitted  on  the  point 
he  shows  resentment  as  though  there  was  in  it  an 
allusion  to  himself.  The  ingenious  way  in  which  a 
part  played  by  an  actor  is  turned  into  a  personal 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  293 

attack  upon  himself  is  suggestive  of  a  covert  personal 
application ;  and  therefore,  if  it  is  not  a  direct  con- 
firmation of  our  theory,  it  certainly  constitutes  another 
of  the  series  of  surprising  coincidences  which  have 
appeared  at  every  stage  of  our  investigation. 

Under  the  old  hypothesis  of  the  authorship  of  Oxford  and 
Shakespeare's  works  it  has  been  frequently  remarked 
that  there  is  no  character  in  the  plays  that  can  be 
identified  with  the  author  himself.  If,  however,  we 
assume  the  De  Vere  authorship  we  may  at  once 
identify  the  author  with  the  character  of  Berowne 
(Biron,  in  some  editions).  For  it  is  he  who  mocks 
Holof ernes  as  the  "  kissing  traitor."  The  play  as  a 
whole  is  a  satire  upon  the  various  affectations  of  the 
times :  Holofernes  representing  learned  affectation, 
Don  Armado  representing  Euphuism,  Boyet  repre- 
senting the  affectations  of  courtesy.  Now  the  satirist 
in  the  play  is  Berowne,  so  that  he  personates  the  spirit 
of  the  play  as  a  whole,  in  other  words  he  represents  the 
writer,  and  is  indeed  the  very  life  and  soul  of  the 
drama,  his  biting  mockery  being  something  of  a  terror 
to  his  companions. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice,  therefore,  that  Sir  Sidney 
Lee  connects  Rosaline  who  is  loved  by  Berowne  with 
the  "  dark  lady  "  referred  to  in  the  sonnets  as  being 
loved  by  Shakespeare  ;  and  Mr.  Frank  Harris  makes 
the  same  connection,  thus  identifying  Berowne  with 
the  author  of  the  play.  The  latter  writer,  though 
never  swerving  from  the  Stratfordian  view,  has  done 
much  to  destroy  the  old  notion  that  there  is  no  character 
in  the  plays  who  can  be  identified  with  Shakespeare. 
He  nevertheless  asserts  that  Shakespeare  usually 
represents  himself  as  a  lord  or  a  king.  If,  then,  we 
can  accept  Berowne  as  the  dramatist's  representation 


294 


SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 


Love's 

Labour's 

Lost. 


Philip 
Sidney  and 
Boyet. 


of  himself  under  one  aspect,  we  see  at  once  how  much 
more  accurately  he  represents  the  Earl  of  Oxford  than 
he  does  the  Stratford  man.  "  This  mad-cap  Lord 
Berowne,"  "  a  man  replete  with  mocks,  full  of 
comparisons  and  wounding  flouts  which  he  on  all 
estates  will  execute,"  is  just  what  we  have  in  a  few  of 
the  glimpses  we  get  of  Oxford's  dealings  with  the  people 
about  the  court.  All  that  merciless  mockery,  wliich 
Berowne  does  not  hesitate  to  turn  upon  himself,  mixed 
with  depth  of  feeling  and  strong  intelligence,  and  his 
irrepressible  fun  tinged  with  "  musing  sadness,"  marks 
him  both  as  a  dramatic  representation  of  the  Earl  of 
Oxford,  and,  in  part  at  any  rate,  a  dramatic  self- 
revelation  of  "  Shakespeare." 

We  take  this  play  to  be  largely  representative  of 
himself  during  the  years  in  which,  whilst  still  to  be 
found  at  court,  he  was  mainly  occupied  with  literature 
and  drama,  and  was  earning  for  himself  the  title  of  "  the 
best  in  comedy."  Whether  he  succeeded  at  last,  as 
Rosaline  had  urged  Berowne  "To  weed  this  wormwood 
from  his  fruitful  brain,"  we  will  not  venture  to  say. 
Certain  it  is  that  amongst  the  courtiers  of  the  time  he 
appears  to  have  had  a  reputation  for  stinging  jibes, 
of  which  both  Sidney  and  Raleigh  seem  to  have  come 
in  for  their  share. 

The  quarrel  with  Sidney,  in  which  he  stung  his  ad- 
versary with  the  single  word  "  puppy,"  is  one  of  the 
few  details  recorded  of  his  life  about  the  court  in  the 
early  years  of  this  period.  The  story  of  the  quarrel 
is  variously  told,  differing  in  so  much  as  this,  that  one 
account  speaks  of  Sidney  playing  tennis  when  Oxford 
intruded,  whilst  another  records  that  Oxford  was 
playing  when  Sidney  strolled  in.  In  whichever  way 
the  story  is  told  it  must  needs  be  so  as  to  reflect 


SIR    PHILIP    SIDNEY.   FROM   THE  MINIATURE   BY    ISAAC   Oi  IVER 
AT  WINDSOR  CASTI  E.      COPYRIGHT  OF  His  MAJESTY  THE  KING. 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  295 

discredit  upon  Oxford  and  credit  upon  his  antagonist. 
The  chief  contemporary  authority  for  the  details, 
however,  appears  to  be  Fulke  Greville,  and  when  it 
is  remembered  that  Greville  was  the  life-long  friend 
of  Sidney,  and  that  when  he  died,  as  Lord  Brooke,  he 
left  instructions  that  this  friendship  should  be  recorded 
upon  his  tombstone,  we  can  hardly  regard  him  as  an 
impartial  authority. 

One    particular    of    this    antagonism    is,    however,  ••  were  I  a 
relevant  to  our  present  enquiry  and  must  be  narrated.  kmg> 
Oxford  had  written  some  lines  (again  the  familiar  six- 
lined  stanza)  which  are  spoken  of  by  two  writers  as 
specially  "  melancholy."     They  may  be  so,  but  they 
are  certainly  not  more  melancholy  than  many  passages 
in  "  Shakespeare's  "  sonnets,  and  are  quite  in  harmony 
with  that  substratum  of  melancholy  which  has  been 
traced  in  the  Shakespeare  plays. 

Oxford's  stanza  : 

"  Were  I  a  king  I  might  command  content, 
Were  I  obscure  unknown  would  be  my  cares, 
And  were  I  dead  no  thoughts  should  me  torment, 
Nor  words,  nor  wrongs,  nor  love,  nor  hate,  nor  fears. 
A  doubtful  choice  of  three  things  one  to  crave, 
A  kingdom  or  a  cottage  or  a  grave." 

Melancholy  or  not,  the  Shakespeare  student  will 
have  no  difficulty  in  recognizing  in  this  single  stanza 
several  marks  of  the  master  craftsman. 

To  this  Sidney  had  replied  in  the  following  verse — 
which  the  same  two  writers,  curiously  enough,  refer 
to  in  identical  terms,  as  being  a  sensible  reply  : — 

"  Wert  thou  a  king,  yet  not  command  content, 
Since  empire  none  thy  mind  could  yet  suffice, 
Wert  thou  obscure,  still  cares  would  thee  torment  ; 
But  wert  thou  dead  all  care  and  sorrow  dies. 
An  easy  choice  of  three  things  one  to  crave, 
No  kingdom  nor  a  cottage  but  a  grave." 


296         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

These  two  stanzas  form  an  important  part  of  another 
argument,  to  be  treated  later,  and,  therefore,  should 
be  kept  in  mind. 
The  tennis-         it  will  be  observed  that  the  "  sensible  reply  "  contains 

court 

quarrel.  no  really  inventive  composition.  It  is  a  mere  school- 
boy parody,  formed  by  twisting  the  words  and  phrases 
of  the  original  stanza  into  an  affront.  Had  it  been  an 
inventive  composition  it  would  have  contained  more 
matter  than  Sidney  ever  compressed  into  an  equal 
space.  Between  two  intimate  friends  it  might  have 
been  tolerated  as  a  harmless  piece  of  banter.  Between 
two  antagonists  it  lacked  even  the  justification  of 
original  wit.  And  if,  as  one  writer  suggests,  this 
matter  led  up  to  the  tennis-court  quarrel,  considering 
the  whole  of  the  circumstances,  including  age  and 
personal  relationships,  Oxford's  retort  of  "  puppy  " 
was  possibly  less  outrageous,  and  certainly  more 
original  than  Sidney's  verse  had  been.  Sidney's  uncle, 
Leicester,  upon  whose  inflenuce  at  court  the  young  man 
(then  twenty-four  years  old)  largely  depended,  admits 
having  to  "  bear  a  hand  over  him  as  a  forward  young 
man,"  so  that  one  less  interested  in  him  might  be 
expected  to  express  the  same  idea  more  emphatically. 
The  personal  attack,  it  must  be  observed,  had,  in  this 
instance  at  any  rate,  come  first  from  Sidney.  As  in 
other  cases  one  gets  the  impression  of  Oxford  not 
being  a  man  given  to  initiating  quarrels,  but  capable 
of  being  roused,  and  when  attacked,  striking  back  with 
unmistakable  vigour. 

The  story  of  the  tennis-court  quarrel  is  one  of  the 
few  particulars  about  Oxford  that  have  become 
current .  Indeed,  one  very  interesting  history  of  English 
literature  mentions  the  incident,  and  ignores  the 
fact  that  the  earl  was  at  all  concerned  with  literature. 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERB  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD   297 

Now,  considering  the  prominence  given  to  this  story, 
it  almost  appears  as  if  "  Shakespeare,"  in  "  Hamlet," 
had  intended  to  furnish  a  clue  to  his  identity  when 
he  represents  Polonius  dragging  in  a  reference  to  young 
men  "  falling  out  at  tennis." 

If  our  identification  of  Oxford  and  Harvey  with  Sidney's 
Berowne  and  Holofernes  be  accepted,  an  interesting  affectatlon- 
point  for  future  investigation  will  be  the  identification 
of  other  contemporaries  with  other  characters  in  the 
play ;  and  in  view  of  Oxford's  relationship  with 
Sidney  we  shall  probably  be  justified  in  regarding 
Boyet  as  a  satirised  representation  of  Philip  Sidney ; 
not,  of  course,  the  Philip  Sidney  that  tradition  has 
preserved,  but  Sidney  as  Oxford  saw  him.  For,  com- 
pared with  the  genius  of  Shakespeare,  no  competent 
judge  would  hesitate  to  pronounce  Sidney  a  medio- 
crity. If  to  this  we  add  Dean  Church's  admission  that 
"  Sidney  was  not  without  his  full  share  of  that 
affectation  which  was  then  thought  refinement,"  it 
is  not  difficult  to  connect  him  with  Boyet,  the  ladies' 
man,  whom  Berowne  satirizes  in  Act  V,  Scene  2  : 

"Why  this  is  he 

That  kiss'd  away  his  hand  in  courtesy  ; 
This  is  the  ape  of  form,  monsieur  the  nice, 
That,  when  he  plays  at  tables,  chides  the  dice 
In  honourable  terms  ;    nay,  he  can  sing 
A  mean  most  meanly  ;    and,  in  ushering, 
Mend  him  who  can  :    the  ladies  call  him  sweet. 
The  stairs  as  he  treads  on  them  kiss  his  feet. 
This  is  the  flower  that  smiles  on  every  one, 
To  show  his  teeth  as  white  as  whale's  bone  ; 
And  consciences  that  will  not  die  in  debt, 
Pay  him  the  due  of  honey-tongued  Boyet." 

The  last  two  lines  are  somewhat  puzzling  apart  from 
any  special  application.  Applied  to  Sidney,  however, 
they  become  very  pointed  from  the  fact  that  he  died 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Sidney's 
debts. 


Sidney's 
plagiarism. 


so  deeply  in  debt  as  to  delay  his  public  funeral  ;  his 
creditors  being  unwilling  to  accept  the  arrangements 
proposed  to  them.  The  difficulties  were  only  over- 
come by  his  father-in-law  Walsingham,  who  had  a 
special  political  interest  in  the  public  funeral,  ad- 
vancing £6,000. 

When,  moreover,  we  find  Sidney  presenting  at  a 
pastoral  show  at  Wilton  a  dialogue,  which  is  obvious 
plagiarism  from  Spenser  and  De  Vere,  we  can  under- 
stand Berowne  saying  of  Boyet,  in  the  lines  immediately 
preceding  those  quoted  : 

"  This  fellow  pecks  up  wit  as  pigeons  pease, 
And  utters  it  again  when  God  doth  please." 

We  give  a  sentence  or  two  by  way  of  illustration  : 

Spenser  (S  hep  tier d' s  Calender — August). 

Will  :  Be  thy  bagpipes  run  far  out  of  frame  ? 

Or  lovest  thou,  or  be  thy  younglings  miswent  ? 

Sidney  (Dialogue  between  ttto  shepherds). 

Will  :    What  ?    Is  thy  bagpipe  broke  or  are  thy  lambs 
miswent  ? 

De  Vere  (Dialogue  on  Desire) : 

What  fruits  have  lovers  for  their  pains  ? 

Their  ladies,  if  they  true  remain, 

A  good  reward  for  true  desire. 

What  was  thy  meat  and  daily  food  ? 

What  hadst  thou  then  to  drink  ? 

Unfeigned  lover's  tears. 

Sidney  (Shepherd's  Dialogue) : 

What  wages  mayest  thou  have  ? 

Her  heavenly  looks  which  more  and  more 

Do  give  me  cause  to  crave. 

What  food  is  that  she  gives  ? 

Tear's  drink,  sorrow's  meat. 

Sidney's  whole  poem  is,  in  fact,  little  more  than 
the  dishing-up  of  ideas  and  expressions  from  the  two 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  299 

poems.  If,  in  addition  to  this,  the  reader  will  turn 
back  to  the  stanza  of  De  Vere's  beginning  "  I  am  not 
as  I  seem  to  be,"  noticing  especially  the  reference  in  it 
to  Hannibal,  he  will  be  able  to  detect  more  "  pigeon's 
pease  "  in  the  following  verse  of  Sidney's  : 

"  As  for  my  mirth,  how  could  I  be  but  glad, 
Whilst  that  methought  I  justly  made  my  boast 
That  only  I  the  only  mistress  had  ? 
But  now,  if  e'er  my  face  with  joy  be  clad 
Think  Hannibal  did  laugh  when  Carthage  lost." 

A  certain  degree  of  rivalry  between  artists,  in  any 
department  of  art,  may  be  quite  consistent  with  mutual 
respect.  But  when  one  happens  to  be  "a  forward 
young  man  "  guilty  of  petty  pilfering  from  his  rival, 
one  can  understand  the  rival's  point  of  view  when  he 
protests  : — 

"  He  is  wit's  pedlar,  and  retails  his  wares 

At  wakes  and  wassails,  meetings,  markets,  fairs, 
And  we  that  sell  by  gross,  the  Lord  doth  know 
Have  not  the  grace  to  grace  it  with  such  show." 

(L.  L.  L.  Act  V,  Scene  2.) 

The  second  line  of  this  quotation  is  especially  in- 
teresting in  view  of  the  occasion  of  Sidney's  plagiarism 
mentioned  above  (The  Wilton  Show).  In  support  of 
our  contention  that  plagiarism  was  characteristic  of 
Sidney,  we  are  able  to  offer  the  testimony  of  Sir  Sidney 
Lee,  who  remarks  that  "  Petrarch,  Ronsard  and 
Desportes  inspired  the  majority  of  Sidney's  efforts,  and 
his  addresses  to  abstractions  like  sleep,  the  moon,  his 
muse,  grief  or  lust  are  almost  verbatim  translations 
from  the  French."  Altogether,  it  is  evident  that  Oxford 
was  not  without  some  justification  for  the  use  of  the 
one  word  of  his,  "  the  comparison  and  wounding  flout," 


joo         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

which  has  passed  into  literary  history.  It  would  almost 
appear  as  though  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost  "  contained 
a  direct  allusion  to  the  incident.  For,  after  a  passage 
of  arms  between  Berowne  and  Boyet  we  have  the 
following  :— 

Margaret  : 

The  last  is  Berowne,  the  merry  mad-cap  lord, 
Not  a  word  with  him  but  a  jest. 

Boyet  : 

And  every  jest  but  a  word. 

Princess  : 

It  was  well  done  of  you  to  take  him  at  his  word. 

Sir  Thomas  Before  leaving  this  question  of  "  Boyet  "  we  wish 
to  offer  an  interesting  observation  upon  the  name  itself. 
We  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  other  use  of  the 
word.  If,  however,  we  replace  "  Boy  "  by  its  old 
equivalent  "  Knave  "  we  get  the  name  of  one  who  was 
possibly  the  most  pronounced  foe  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
namely  Sir  Thomas  Knyvet ;  the  word  is  variously 
spelt,  like  most  names  in  those  days,  but  the  etymo- 
logical connection  is  obvious.  The  feud  between  the 
two  men  and  their  retainers  was  of  the  same  bitter 
and  persistent  character  that  we  have  represented  in 
"  Romeo  and  Juliet  "  between  the  Montagues  and  the 
Capulets.  Fighting  took  place  between  them  in  the 
open  streets  and  lives  were  lost.  A  duel  was  fought 
between  Oxford  and  Sir  Thomas  Knyvet  and 
both  were  wounded  :  Oxford  seriously.  It  is  possible, 
therefore,  that,  quite  in  keeping  with  dramatic  and 
poetic  work  of  the  type  of  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost," 
Boyet  is  a  composite  character  formed  from  Oxford's 
outstanding  antagonists,  Sir  Philip  Sidney  and  Sir 
Thomas  Knyvet. 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  301 

We  have  been  trying  to  show  that  the  plays  of 
Shakespeare  contain  possible  pen  portraits  of  men 
with  whom  the  Earl  of  Oxford  had  dealings,  repre- 
senting them,  not  as  tradition  has  preserved  them,  but 
as  they  stood  in  relation  to  Oxford  himself.  It  is  no 
necessary  part  of  our  argument  that  these  identifications 
should  be  fully  accepted.  They  bear  rather  on  a  branch 
of  Shakespearean  study  that  must  receive  a  special 
development  once  our  main  thesis  is  adopted.  Mean- 
while they  assist  in  the  work  of  giving  to  the  plays 
those  touches  of  personality  which  up  to  the  present 
have  been  lacking,  and  which,  in  the  mass,  must  go 
far  to  support  or  break  down  any  attempt  at  identi- 
fying the  author. 

It  was  during  the  period  of  Oxford's  life  with  which  Eccentricity, 
we  are  now  dealing  that  he  appears  to  have  made  for 
himself  a  reputation  for  eccentricity.  Such  eccentricity 
may  have  been  partly  natural.  His  reputation  in  this 
particular  would,  however,  most  certainly  receive 
considerable  addition  from  the  mode  of  life  he  adopted 
as  the  necessary  means  of  fulfilling  his  vocation.  It  is 
possible,  too,  that  finding  it  served  as  a  mask  to  have 
his  way  of  living  attributed  to  eccentricity,  and  that 
it  protected  him  against  annoyance  and  interference, 
he  worked  the  matter  systematically,  as  Hamlet  did. 
The  eccentricity  and  levity  which  he  evidently  showed 
in  certain  court  cirlces,  including  doubtless  the  members 
of  the  Burleigh  faction,  was  probably  not  only  a 
disguise,  but  also  an  expression  of  contempt  for  those 
towards  whom  he  adopted  the  manner.  In  those 
literary  and  dramatic  relationships  which  mattered 
most  to  him  his  bearing  was  evidently  of  a  different 
kind,  for  there  he  is  spoken  of  as  "a  most  noble  and 
learned  gentleman."  It  is  possible,  too,  that  he  may 


302         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

not  have  succeeded  altogether  in  throwing  dust  in 
the  eyes  of  Burleigh  ;  for  we  find  the  latter  admitting 
that  "  his  lordship  hath  more  capacity  than  a  stranger 
to  him  might  think." 
.,  This  dual  attitude  towards  others  is  more  than  once 

in     Shake- 
speare."        illustrated  in  the  works  of  Shakespeare.     The  most 

prominent  illustration  is,  of  course,  that  of  Hamlet. 
We  find  something,  too,  of  this  double  personality  in 
the  character  of  the  "  mad-cap  Lord  Berowne  "  and 
we  have  it  exactly  described  in  the  case  of  Brutus  in 
"  Lucrece  "  : 

"  He  with  the  Romans  was  esteemed  so, 
As  silly-jeering  idiots  are  with  kings, 
For  sportive  words  and  uttering  foolish  things. 
But  now  he  throws  that  shallow  habit  by, 
Wherein  deep  policy  did  him  disguise  ; 
And  arm'd  his  long  hid  wits  advisedly." 

The  same  note  appears  again  in  his  presentation  of 
Prince  Hal,  or  Henry  V,  whose 

"  vanities 

Were  but  the  outside  of  the  Roman  Brutus 
Covering  discretion  with  a  coat  of  folly  "     (II,  4) 

and  who  "  obscured  his  contemplation  under  the  veil 
of  wildness." 

In  the  case  of  Edgar  in  "  King  Lear  "  we  have  the 
most  pronounced  development  of  the  idea.  Here  we 
have  the  carrying  out  of  a  definite  purpose  by  means 
of  a  simulation  of  complete  madness ;  a  purpose 
which 

"  taught  him  to  shift 

Into  a  madman's  rags,  to  assume  a  semblance 
That  very  dogs  disdained." 

The  conception  was  evidently  quite  a  dominant  one 
in  the  mind  of  the  dramatist,  and  that  it  was  charac- 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERB  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  303 

teristic  of  himself,  whoever  he  may  have  been,  is  made 
quite  clear  in  the  oft  quoted  passage  in  the  Sonnets  : 

"  Alas  'tis  true  I  have  gone  here  and  there 
And  made  myself  a  motley  to  the  view, 
Gored  mine  own  thoughts,  sold  cheap  what  is  most  dear . ' ' 

There  is  nothing  suggestive  of  enigma  in  these  lines, 
and  therefore,  only  their  obvious  meaning  should  be 
attached  to  them.  "  Shakespeare,"  as  the  great 
leader  of  true  realism — quite  a  different  thing  from 
the  modern  enormity  which  calls  itself  by  that  name 
— is  entitled  to  be  read  literally  when  he  speaks  directly 
and  seriously  of  himself  ;  and  therefore,  when  he  tells 
us,  in  so  many  words,  that  he  had  acted  the  mounte- 
bank in  some  form,  we  may  take  it  that  he  had  actually 
done  so.  To  think  of  him  as  a  man  who  "  brought  to 
the  practical  affairs  of  life  a  wonderfully  sane  and 
sober  judgment,"  meaning  thereby  that  he  was  a 
practical  steady-headed  man  of  business  with  a  keen 
eye  for  the  "  main  chance,"  is  to  place  his  personality 
in  direct  contradiction  to  all  that  the  sonnets  reveal 
of  him.  Let  any  one  read  these  sonnets  so  full  of 
personal  pain,  then  turn  to  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost," 
much  of  which  was  evidently  being  penned  at  the 
very  time  when  many  of  the  sonnets  were  being  written, 
and  he  will  feel  that  he  is  in  the  presence  of  an  extra- 
ordinary personality,  capable  of  great  extremes  in 
thought  and  conduct,  the  very  antithesis  of  the  model 
citizen  that  "  Shakespeare  "  is  supposed  to  have  been. 

How  suggestive  is  all  this  of  De  Vere's  lines  :  Duality  in 

1.  "I  most  in  mirth  most  pensive  sad."  Oxford. 

2.  "  Thus  contraries  be  used,  I  find, 

Of  wise,  to  cloak  the  covert  mind." 

3.  "  So  I  the  pleasant  grape  have  pulled  from  the  vine, 

And    yet   I   languish    in    great  thirst  while    others 
drink  the  wine." 


304         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Every  word  of  these  sentences  reveals  a  man  hiding 
the  soreness  of  his  own  nature  under  a  mask  of  levity 
whilst  adding  to  the  world's  store  of  joy  and  merri- 
ment. 

We  feel  justified  in  assuming,  therefore,  that  the 
impression  of  himself  which  he  set  up  in  official  circles 
was  largely  such  as  he  intended  to  establish,  and 
that  not  the  least  part  of  the  satisfaction  he  derived 
from  his  success  in  the  matter  was  in  the  thought  of 
fooling  Burleigh  and  others  about  the  court.  It 
hardly  needs  pointing  out  how  true  all  this  is  of 
Hamlet,  and  how  Hamlet's  attitude  towards  Polonius, 
Rosencrantz,  Guilderstern  and  the  other  courtiers 
might  be  taken  as  a  developed  and  idealized  representa- 
tion of  Oxford's  dealings  with  men  like  Burleigh, 
Raleigh,  Greville  and  Hatton. 

"  Shake-  As  a  last  remark  upon  this  point  we  would  draw 

J^"  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  his  work  "  The  Man 

characters.      Shakespeare  "  Mr.  Frank  Harris  rejects  entirely  the 

idea  that  Shakespeare  cannot  be  identified  with  any 

of    his    characters ;     and,    though    approaching    the 

question  from  a  totally  different  standpoint  and  with 

other  purposes,  selects  amongst  the  most  outstanding 

examples  of  self-representation  several  of  the  cases 

we  have  just  cited.     From  this  work  we  quote  the 

following   passages  : — 

"  In  Hamlet  Shakespeare  has  discovered  too  much  of 
himself."  He  makes  "  Brutus  an  idealized  portrait 
of  himself."  "  Edgar  is  peculiarly  Shakespeare's 
mouthpiece."  "  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that 
Shakespeare  identified  himself  as  far  as  he  could  with 
Henry  V." 

In  every  one  of  these  cases,  as  has  already  been 
remarked,  we  have  men  hiding  a  superior  nature 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :   MIDDLE  PERIOD  305 

under  a  veil  of  folly.  There  is  probably  an  element 
of  confusion  between  the  two  men  named  "Brutus," 
appearing  with  an  inteival  of  five  hundred  years  in 
"  Lucrece  "  and  "  Julius  Caesar  "  respectively.  But 
Shakespeare's  linking  of  Prince  Hal  with  the  Biutus 
who  pretended  to  be  insane  and  swore  to  avenge 
the  death  of  Lucrece  furnishes  all  the  connection 
needed. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  attempt  to  refute  his  reputed  "  Vulgar 
dissoluteness  during  those  years  of  active  association  scandal- 
with  dramatic  companies.  It  has  already  been 
remarked,  however,  that,  had  his  conduct  been  quite 
irreproachable  in  other  respects,  the  absenting  of 
himself  from  his  normal  social  and  domestic  circles, 
which  was  partly  a  necessary  condition  of  the  enter- 
prise he  had  in  hand,  and  the  known  character  of  those 
with  whom  he  had  to  associate,  so  frankly  stated  in 
the  passage  we  have  quoted  from  Dean  Church,  would 
have  afforded  ample  foundations  on  which  antagonists 
might  build  for  him  such  a  reputation.  When  we 
consider  further  the  special  character  of  Burleigh,  so 
aptly  described  in  the  passage  we  have  quoted  from 
Spenser's  "  Mother  Hubbard's  Tale,"  we  may  rest 
assured  that  the  most  would  be  made  of  these  things  to 
Oxford's  discredit.  Whatever  his  private  character 
may  have  been,  a  reputation  for  dissoluteness  was 
almost  inevitable  under  the  circumstances.  It  will 
be  perfectly  safe  to  say,  therefore,  that  he  was  no 
worse,  but  probably  very  much  better,  than  he  has 
been  portrayed.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  Shake- 
speare sonnets  themselves  clearly  admit  departures 
from  recognized  canons  of  rectitude,  on  the  part  of 
their  writer,  we  are  not  concerned  here  to  claim  for 
De  Vere  a  higher  moral  elevation  than  belongs  to 

20 


306       "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Shakespeare.  At  the  same  time,  if  we  regard  these 
sonnets  as  the  product  of  Oxford's  pen,  we  shall  be 
able  to  clear  his  reputation  of  much  of  the  slander 
that  has  hitherto  been  in  undisputed  possession. 


II 
Dramatic  QUJ-  chief  concern  at  this  stage  is  with  his  dramatic 

activities  . 

activities.  How  soon  after  his  return  from  Italy  these 
were  begun  we  cannot  say ;  but  the  fact  that  he 
appears  almost  immediately  to  have  adopted  the 
practice  of  absenting  himself  from  domestic  and 
court  life,  and  of  sharing  the  Bohemian  life  of  literary 
men  and  play-actors,  suggests  that  he  was  not  long 
in  beginning  his  dramatic  apprenticeship.  Then, 
from  this  time  up  to  about  the  year  1590,  which  we 
take  as  marking  in  a  general  way  the  beginning  of 
the  Shakespearean  output,  his  life  was  largely  of 
this  Bohemian  and  dramatic  character.  Future 
research  will  probably  furnish  fuller  details  and  dates 
of  Edward  de  Vere's  connection  with  the  stage ; 
sufficient  has,  however,  already  been  established  to 
show  that  by  the  year  1580  he  was  already  deeply 
committed. 

From  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers  we  learn  that 
in  1580  the  heads  of  the  Cambridge  University  wrote 
to  Burleigh  objecting  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford's  servants 
"  showing  their  cunning  "  in  certain  plays  which  they 
had  already  performed  before  the  Queen.  By  1584 
he  had  a  company  of  players  touring  regularly  in  the 
provinces,  and  from  this  year  until  1587  his  company 
was  established  in  London,  occupying  a  foremost 
place  in  the  dramatic  world. 

In  connection  with  his  tours  in  the  provinces  it 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  307 

is  worth  while  remarking  that  in  1584,  that  is  to  say 
just  before  settling  in  London,  his  company  paid  a 
visit  to  Stratford-on-Avon.  William  Shakspere  was 
by  this  time  twenty  years  of  age  and  had  been  married 
for  two  years.  There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  guessing 
respecting  the  date  at  which  William  Shakspere  left 
Stratford-on-Avon,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  it 
may  have  been  connected  with  the  visit  of  the  ''  Oxford 
Boys."  As  it  is  the  birth  of  twins,  early  in  1585, 
which  furnishes  the  data  from  which  the  time  of  his 
leaving  Stratford  has  been  inferred,  the  latter  half  of 
1584  may  indeed  have  been  the  actual  time. 

However  these  things  may  be,  the  fact  is  that,  Oxford  as 
whether  in  the  country  or  the  metropolis,  it  appears  to    ram' 
have  been  quite  recognized  that  the  Earl  of  Oxford 
had  a  hand  in  the  composition  of  some  of  the  plays 
that  his  company  was  staging,  whilst  others  were 
substantially  his  own. 

The  year  1580,  which  gives  us  the  earliest  evidence  Anthony 
of  his  being  directly  implicated  in   dramatic  work,  Munday 
connects  him  also  with  a  writer  of  poetry  and  drama, 
and  the  manager  of  a  theatrical  company,   called 
Anthony  Munday ;    and  as  this  connection  is  of  a 
most   important   and  interesting   character  it   must 
be  treated  at  some  length. 

One  peculiar  fact  about  Munday  has  been  the 
attributing  to  him  both  of  dramatic  and  poetic 
compositions  of  a  superior  order,  which  competent 
authorities  now  assert  could  not  have  been  written 
by  him.  In  order  to  establish  this  point  we  must 
first  deal  with  matters  which  take  us  past  the"  period 
of  time  with  which  we  are  now  dealing.  In  the  year 
1600  there  was  published  an  important  poetical 
anthology  called  "  England's  Helicon,"  containing, 


308         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

amongst  others,  the  poems  of  ''  Shepherd  Tony," 
whose  identity  has  been  one  of  the  much-discussed 
problems  of  Elizabethan  literature.  Some  writers 
have  inclined  to  the  idea  that  Anthony  Munday  was 
"  Shepherd  Tony  "  ;  and  in  a  modern  anthology  one 
of  the  best  of  the  poems  of  Shepherd  Tony,  "  Beauty 
sat  bathing  by  a  spring,"  is  ascribed  to  Anthony 
Munday  :  as  if  no  doubt  existed  on  the  point.  Now 
Munday  has,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  published  a  volume 
of  his  own  poetry,  "  A  Banquet  of  Dainty  Conceits  "  ; 
and  of  this  the  modern  editor  of  "  England's  Helicon," 
Mr.  A.  H.  Bullen  (1887),  says  : 

"  Intrinsically  the  poems  have  little  interest  ;  but 
the  collection  is  on  that  account  important,  as  afford- 
ing excellent  proof  that  Anthony  Munday  was  not 
the  Shepherd  Tony  of  '  England's  Helicon.'  Munday 
was  an  inferior  writer." 

He  then  gives  a  passage  of  ten  lines  from  Munday's 
poems  and  adds  :  "  Very  thin  gruel  this,  and  there 
are  eight  more  stanzas.  After  reading  these  '  Dainty 
Conceits  '  I  shall  stubbornly  refuse  to  believe  that 
Munday  could  have  written  any  of  the  poems  attributed 
in  '  England's  Helicon'  to  the  Shepherd  Tony." 
Munday  We  now  revert  to  the  period  proper  to  this  chapter, 

others' work,  the  years  approaching  1580,  in  which  De  Vere  was 
serving,  as  it  were,  the  first  term  of  his  dramatic 
apprenticeship,  and  we  ask  for  a  very  careful  attention 
to  the  following  passages  taken  from  the  Cambridge 
History  of  English  Literature,  vol.  5,  chapter  10 : 

"  Anthony  Munday  ...  a  hewer  and  trimmer  of 
plays." 

"  Of  the  lesser  Elizabethan  dramatists  Munday  is 
the  most  considerable,  interesting  and  typical." 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  309 
"  These  plays  of  Munday  (have)  no  genius  in  them." 

"  A  translation  from  the  Italian  may  be  given  as 
the  beginning  of  Monday's  work.  (It  is)  a  comedy 
of  Two  Italian  Gentleman  .  .  .  Victoria's  song  at 
her  window  and  Fedele's  answer  are  of  real  poetic 
charm,  and  Fedele's  denunciation  of  woman's  fickle- 
ness is  exactly  in  the  strain  as  it  is  in  the  metre  of  the 
rhyming  rhetoric  of  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost."  .  .  . 
Rhyming  alexandrines  and  fourteen  syllabled  lines 
are  generally  employed,  but  in  Fedele's  speech,  special 
seriousness  and  dignity  of  style  are  attained  by  the 
use  of  rhyming  ten-syllabled  lines  in  stanzas  of  six  lines 
(The  "  Venus  "  and  De  Vere's  "  Of  Women"  stanza) 
.  .  .  What  is  unexpected  is  the  idiomatic  English 
of  the  translation  ;  (for  Munday's)  prose  translations 
do  not  display  any  special  power  in  transforming  the 
original  into  native  English.  .  .  . 

"  Munday  in  1580  and  in  his  earliest  published  works  Munday  and 
is  anxious  to  proclaim  himself  '  servant  of  the  Earl  Oxford, 
of  Oxford'  .  .  .  The   Earl   of   Oxford's   company   of 
players  acted  in  London  between  1584  and  1587.  .  .  . 
(In  a   certain  play)   '  as  it   hath   been  sundry  times 
played  by  the  right  honourable  Earle  of  Oxenford, 
the  Lord  Great  Chamberlaine  of  England,  his  servant,' 
the  six-lined  stanza  occurs.     (Much  of  it)  might   be 
Munday's  work   (but)    he   cannot   have  written   the 
sonorous  blank  verse  of  the  historic  scenes  .  .  .  (One 
of)    Munday's   plays   is   a   humble   variation   of   the  Munday  and 
dramatic   type    of   '  A   Midsummer  Night's  Dream  '  "  shakf,- 

J  r  °  speare. 

.  .  .  And   we   find   in    (another  of  Munday's  plays) 
phrases  that  may  have  rested  in  the  mind  of  Shakespeare." 

We  feel  entitled  to  say  that  the  writer  of  these 
passages,  the  Rev.  Ronald  Bayne,  M.A.,  was  simply 


310         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

trembling  on  the  brink  of  the  discovery  we  claim  to 
have  made.  The  sentences  quoted  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  close  proximity  to  one  another  in  which 
we  have  here  placed  them.  They  do,  however,  occur 
in  the  same  chapter  of  the  same  work  and  are  all 
from  the  same  pen.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
passages  in  these  plays  of  Munday's,  which  "  could 
not  have  been  written  by  him,"  and  containing 
passages  which  might  have  "  rested  in  the  mind  of 
Shakespeare,"  would  be  necessary  to  make  the  present 
statement  complete.  They  will  need  to  be  compared 
with  Shakespeare's  work  on  the  one  hand,  and  with 
the  De  Vere  work  on  the  other.  For  the  present  we 
are  content  to  let  it  rest  upon  the  authority  quoted, 
and  ask  the  reader  to  observe  the  number  and  the 
important  character  of  the  connecting  links  which 
Anthony  Munday  thus  establishes  for  us  between 
Shakespeare  and  Edward  de  Vere.  For,  if  the 
passages  in  question  fulfil  the  description  given  by 
Mr.  Bayne,  there  seems  but  one  explanation  possible, 
in  view  of  the  whole  course  our  investigations  have 
so  far  taken,  and  that  is  that  prior  to  1580  the  Earl 
of  Oxford  was  learning  his  business  as  dramatist, 
trying  his  prentice  hand,  so  to  speak,  upon  inferior 
plays  then  current;  collaborating  with  inferior  writers, 
interpolating  passages  of  his  own  into  plays  produced 
by  his  employee  Anthony  Munday — such  passages 
as  "  might  have  rested  in  the  mind  of  Shake- 
speare." 

Munday,  As  we  are  given  one  example  of  verse  that  appears 

">Siake-and    m  a  Pky  °*  Munday's,  we  shall  reproduce  it,  along 
speare."         with    corresponding    passages    from    De    Vere    and 
Shakespeare,  notwithstanding   the   repetition   it   in- 
volves : 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  311 

1.  Munday's  play: 

"  Lo  !  here  the  common  fault  of  love,  to  follow  her  that 

flies, 
And  fly  from  her  that  makes  pursuit  with  loud  lamenting 

cries. 

Fedele  loves  Victoria,  and  she  hath  him  forgot  ; 
Virginia  likes  Fedele  best,  and  he  regards  her  not." 

2.  De  Vere's  poems  : 

"  The  more  I  followed  one,  the  more  she  fled  away, 
As  Daphne  did  full  long  ago,  Apollo's  wishful  prey. 
The  more  my  plaints  I  do  resound  the  less  she  pities  me. 
The  more  I  sought  the  less  I  found,  yet  mine  she  meant 
to  be." 

As  the  verse  in  Munday's  play  exactly  reproduces 
the  situation  of  the  lovers  in  "  A  Midsummer  Night's 
Dream,"  we  quote  the  lines  of  the  latter  play  dealing 
with  the  situation: 

3.  Shakespeare,  "M.N.D."     I.  i  (Dialogue): 
"  I  frown  upon  him,  yet  he  loves  me  still. 

0  !   that  your  frowns  would  teach  my  smiles  such 
skill. 

1  give  him  curses,  yet  he  gives  me  love. 

O  !  that  my  prayers  could  such  affection  move. 
The  more  I  hate  the  more  he  follows  me. 
The  more  I  love  the  more  he  hateth  me." 

We  are  content  to  leave  these  matters  to  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  reader  ;  and,  as  a  last  reference  to  Anthony 
Munday,  merely  point  out  the  interesting  fact  that 
the  recently  discovered  manuscript,  which  forms  the 
subject  of  Sir  E.  Maunde  Thompson's  work  on  the 
penmanship  of  William  Shakspere,  is  an  interpola- 
tion into  a  play  by  Anthony  Munday. 


Ill 

It  would  be  of  inestimable  value  if  some  of  Oxford's 
manuscripts  or  even  the  titles  of  his  plays  could  be 


312 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Agamemnon 

and 

Ulysses. 


Troilus  and 
Cressida. 


discovered.  We  should  not,  of  course,  expect  to  find 
an  exact  correspondence  between  these  titles  and 
those  of  the  Shakespeare  plays  :  but  rather  some- 
thing furnishing  connecting  clues.  Up  to  the  present 
we  have  been  able  to  discover  only  one  such  title, 
and  the  result  has  been  by  no  means  disappointing. 
In  Mrs.  Stopes's  work  on  "  Burbage  and  Shake- 
peare's  Stage  "  we  find  the  following  from  a  con- 
temporary record  (1584). 

'  The  History  of  Agamemnon  and  Ulisses  presented 
and  enacted  before  her  maiestie  by  the  Earle  of 
Oxenford  his  boyes  on  St.  John's  daie  at  night  at 
Greenwich." 

There  is,  of  course,  no  Shakespeare  play  entitled 
"  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses  "  ;  but  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  Shakespeare's  play,  "  Troilus  and  Cressida," 
from  this  point  of  view  will,  we  think,  yield  very 
interesting  results.  Without  actually  counting  words, 
we  would  be  inclined  to  say,  on  a  general  inspection, 
that  the  speeches  of  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses  account 
for  as  large,  or  maybe  a  larger,  part  of  the  drama, 
than  do  the  words  actually  spoken  by  Troilus  and 
Cressida  themselves.  This,  however,  is  not  the  most 
interesting  part  of  the  case.  Take  the  first  act,  for 
example,  and  compare  carefully  the  three  scenes  of 
which  it  is  composed.  The  first  two  scenes  will  be 
found  to  contain  a  large  proportion  of  short  sentences 
representing  free  and  rapid  dialogue,  and  also  a  fair 
admixture  of  prose.  In  this  we  have  the  work  of  the 
skilled  playwriter.  Scene  three  is  totally  different. 
Here  each  speaker  steps  forward  in  turn  and  utters  a 
lengthy  oration  all  in  blank  verse ;  prose  being 
entirely  absent.  There  is  in  it  profound  thought  and 
skilful  expression  ;  but  it  is  for  the  most  part  poetry 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  313 

pure  and  simple  rather  than  drama  :    intellect  and 
poetic  skill,  but  not  the  proper  technique  of  dialogue. 

This  marked  difference  in  point  of  technique  between  Evolution  of 
the  third  scene  and  the  first  two  scenes  is  just  the  drama- 
difference  between  the  work  of  a  poet  making  his 
early  essays  in  drama  and  the  work  of  the  practised 
dramatist.  And  this  apparently  early  Shakespeare 
drama  is  what  might  fittingly  be  called  part  of  a  play 
of  "  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses."  Agamemnon,  as 
the  king,  holds  precedence  and  leads  off  with  his 
thirty  lines  of  blank  verse,  and  Ulysses  has  by  far  the 
lion  share  of  orating  throughout  the  scene.  A  careful 
study  of  the  two  kinds  of  work  in  "  Troilus  and 
Cressida  "  will  perhaps  bring  home  to  the  reader  more 
clearly  than  anything  else  could  a  sense  of  what  took 
place  in  the  development  of  drama  in  Queen  Elizabeth's 
reign.  What  we  take  to  be  the  Earl  of  Oxford's  play 
of  "Agamemnon  and  Ulysses,"  forming  the  original 
ground- work  for  the  "  Shakespeare  "  play  of  "Troilus 
and  Cressida,"  represents  the  Elizabethan  drama  in 
an  early  simple  stage  of  its  evolution,  with  few  speakers 
and  long  speeches,  and  the  finished  play  of  "  Troilus 
and  Cressida"  the  work  of  the  same  pen  when  practice 
had  matured  his  command  over  the  resources  of  true 
dramatic  dialogue  and  a  multitude  of  dramatis  personae. 
In  the  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses  scene,  ^Eneas  is 
introduced  to  establish  a  link  with  the  Troilus  and 
Cressida  romance ;  and  then  for  the  first  time  the 
succession  of  long  speeches  is  interrupted :  and  a 
little  rapid  dialogue  takes  place. 

An  examination  of  the  play  as  a  whole  affords  a 
very  strong  presumption  that  Shakespeare's  play  of 
"  Troilus  and  Cressida  "  had  for  its  foundation  an 
earlier  play  of  simple  structure  to  which  the  name  of 


314         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  Agamemnon    and    Ulysses "    might    very    fittingly 
be  applied. 
An  We  would  now  ask  for  a  careful  reading  of  the  whole 

aristocratic         ,  ,  __,  .  T  , 

composition,   of  those  speeches  of  Ulysses  in  Act  I,  scene  3,  of  which 
we  shall  give  but  one  short  excerpt : 

"  0  !  when  degree  is  staked, 
Which  is  the  ladder  to  all  high  designs, 
The  enterprise  is  sick.    How  could  communities, 
Degrees  in  schools,  and  brotherhoods  in  cities, 
Peaceful  commerce  from  dividable  shores, 
The  primogenitive  and  due  of  birth. 
Prerogative  of  age,  croons,  sceptres,  laurels 
But  by  degree,  stand  in  authentic  place  ? 

Great  Agamemnon, 
This  chaos  when  degree  is  suffocate, 
Follows  the  choking." 

The  scene  as  a  whole  is  a  discussion  of  state  policy, 
from  the  standpoint  of  one  strongly  imbued  with 
aristocratic  conceptions,  and  conscious  of  the  decline 
of  the  feudal  order  upon  which  social  life  had  hitherto 
rested.  Make,  then,  the  Earl  of  Oxford  the  writer, 
and  Elizabeth's  court  the  audience  for  "  Shakespeare's" 
representation  of  "  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses,"  and  the 
whole  situation  becomes  much  more  intelligible  than 
if  we  try  to  make  the  Stratford  man  the  writer. 
Dying  lovers.  As  illustrating  the  correspondence  of  the  mind  of 
Oxford,  under  other  aspects,  with  the  mind  at  work 
in  "  Troilus  and  Cressida,"  we  shall  first  of  all  recall 
two  stanzas  in  the  poem  entitled,  "  What  cunning 
can  express  ?  " 


.     .     .     Each  throws  a  dart 
That  kindleth  soft  sweet  fire  : 
Within  my  sighing  heart 
Possessed  by  Desire. 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  315 

No  sweeter  life  I  try 
Than  in  her  love  to  die." 

"  This  pleasant  lily  white, 

This  taint  of  roseate  red  ; 
This  Cynthia's  silver  light, 

This  sweet  fair  Dea  spread  ; 
These  sunbeams  in  mine  eye, 
These  beauties  make  me  die." 

The  very  extravagance  of  the  terms  arrests  attention 
and  almost  provokes  criticism.  We  would  therefore 
draw  attention  to  the  following  expression  of  sentiment 
on  the  part  of  Troilus  whilst  awaiting  the  entry  of 
Cressida : 

"  I  am  giddy  ;    expectation  whirls  me  round. 
The  imaginary  relish  is  so  sweet 
That  it  enchants  my  sense:   what  will  it  be 
When  that  the  watery  palate  tastes  indeed 
Love's  thrice  repured  nectar  ?    death,  I  fear  me 
Swooning  destruction,  or  some  joy  too  fine, 
Too  subtle-potent,  tuned  too  sharp  in  sweetness, 
For  the  capacity  of  my  ruder  powers."  (III.  2.) 

The  previous  speech  of  Troilus's  in  which  occurs  oth    r 
the  line : 

1 '  Where  I  may  wallow  in  the  lily-beds.' ' 

reveals  the  working  of  the  same  imagery  as  in  Oxford's 
poem ;  and  the  song  in  the  immediately  preceding 
scene,  containing  the  couplet : 

"  These  lovers  cry, 
Oh  !  oh  !  they  die," 

shows  the  insistence  of  the  central  thought  in  a 
lighter  vein. 

A  few  lines  further  on  appears  that  dominant  note 
of  high  birth,  followed  immediately  by  the  expression  : 


316         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  Few  words  to  fair  faith,"  which  almost  reproduces 
an  expression  in  a  letter  of  Oxford's  written  at  a  later 
date  and  only  published  in  modern  times  :  "  Words 
in  faithful  minds  are  tedious." 

We  have  by  no  means  exhausted  the  connection  of 
"  Troilus  and  Cressida  "  with  the  plays,  poems  and 
life  of  Edward  de  Vere,  the  starting  point  for  which 
is  furnished  by  the  "  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses " 
play.  Enough  has  been  said,  however,  to  establish 
a  harmony  and  to  add  to  the  sum  of  these  accordances 
which  in  their  mass  and  convergence  constitute  the 
proof  of  our  theory. 


IV 

Lyiy  and  the  Mention  has  been  made  of  his  association  with  and 
Oxford  Boys.  patrcmage  of  men  of  letters.  One  such  instance  of 
literary  patronage  carries  us  to  the  next  landmark  in 
tracing  out  his  dramatic  activities.  The  object  of 
De  Vere's  benevolence  in  this  case  was  Lyly,  who 
dedicated  the  second  part  of  his  celebrated  work  to 
his  patron.  Shakespeare's  intimacy  with  Euphuism 
is  one  of  the  much  debated  points  in  connection  with 
the  authorship  problem,  the  difficulties  of  which 
disappear  almost  automatically  under  our  present 
theory.  Mr.  W.  Creizenach,  in  "  English  Drama  in 
the  age  of  Elizabeth,"  speaking  of  Lyly  and  his 
struggles  against  poverty,  says,  "  He  found  more 
effective  patronage  at  the  hands  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford, 
who  himself  practised  the  dramatic  art.  By  him 
Lyly  was  entrusted  with  the  management  of  the 
troupe  known  as  the  '  Oxford  Boys,'  which  was  under 
his  protection.  It  is  probable  that  the  players  who 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :   MIDDLE  PERIOD  317 

had  named  their  company  after  this  nobleman  publicly 
acted  the  plays  written  by  their  patron." 

In  the  same  work  occurs  also  the  following  passage : 
"  Side  by  side  with  the  poets  who  earned  their  living 
by  composing  dramas  we  may  observe  a  few  members 
of  the  higher  aristocracy  engaged  in  the  task  of  writing 
plays  for  the  popular  stage,  just  as  they  tried  their 
hands  at  other  forms  of  poetry  for  the  pure  love  of 
writing.  But  the  number  of  these  high-born  authors 
is  very  small  and  their  appearance  is  evanescent. 
Edward  Earl  of  Oxford,  known  chiefly  as  a  lyric  poet, 
is  mentioned  in  Puttenham's  '  Art  of  English  Poesie  ' 
as  having  earned,  along  with  Edwards  the  choir- 
master, the  highest  commendation  for  comedy  and 
interlude.  Meres  also  praises  him  as  being  one  of  the 
best  poets  for  comedy." 

The  contemporary  testimony  to  his  dramatic  pre- 
eminence mentioned  in  the  passage  quoted  is  of  first 
importance,  for,  although  we  have  fixed  upon  his 
lyric  work  as  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem, 
it  is  his  position  as  a  writer  of  drama  with  which  we 
are  most  directly  concerned. 

Slight,  then,  as  are  the  traces  of  his  literary  and  The  "Oxford 
dramatic  activity  during  the  fourteen  years  following  B°ys-" 
his  visit  to  Italy,  they  are  of  such  a  character  as  to 
prove  that  the  greater  part  of  the  energy  which  he 
had  sought  at  one  time  to  devote  to  military  or  naval 
enterprises  was  largely  directed  to  literature  and 
the  drama,  and  that  he  must  have  been  expending 
his  substance  lavishly  upon  these  intetests.  His 
position  amongst  the  aristocratic  patrons  of  drama 
was  evidently  quite  distinctive.  We  do  not  find 
that  any  of  the  others  were  literary  men  of  the  same 
calibre,  that  they  were  associated  so  directly  with  the 


3i8         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

plays  that  were  being  staged  by  their  companies,  or 
that  they  shared  in  an  equal  degree  the  Bohemian 
life  of  the  players  as  did  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  Nor 
are  any  of  the  others  singled  out  for  the  same  kind 
of  special  notice  in  modern  works  on  the  Elizabethan 
drama.  Although  other  companies  of  actors  are 
referred  to  as  "  Boys,"  it  is  to  Oxford's  company 
that  the  name  seems  to  have  been  most  particularly 
attached.  This  frequent  reference  to  his  company  as 
"  The  Oxford  Boys,"  is  suggestive,  too,  of  a  personal 
familiarity,  and  the  kindly  interest  of  an  employer 
in  the  needs  and  welfare  of  the  men  he  employed. 
From  every  indication  we  have  of  his  character  he 
was  not  the  man  to  keep  his  gold  "  continually 
imprisoned  in  his  bags,"  to  use  his  own  phrase,  whilst 
there  were  playwrights  or  actors  about  him  whom 
he  could  benefit.  Everything  betokens  a  relation- 
ship similar  to  that  which  had  existed  between  Hamlet 
and  his  players,  and  which  he  expresses  in  his  welcome 
to  them  on  renewing  his  intercourse  with  them  : 

"  You  are  welcome,  masters  ;  welcome  all.  I  am  glad 
to  see  thee  well.  Welcome  good  friends.  O !  my  old 
friend." 

Hamlet  as         Then  there  is  Hamlet's  admonition  to  Polonius : 

patron  of 

drama.  < «  Good  my  lord,  will  you  see  the  players  well  bestowed  ? 

Do  you  hear,  let  them  be  well  used  .  .  .  Use  them  after 
your  own  honour  and  dignity  :  the  less  they  deserve  the 
more  merit  is  in  your  bounty." 

Seeing,  moreover,  that  Oxford's  company  has 
passed  into  the  history  of  English  drama  as  the 
"  Oxford  Boys,"  what  shall  we  make  of  Hamlet  speak- 
ing of  his  company  as  "  the  boys  "  ? 

"  Do  the  boys  carry  it  away  ?  " 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  319 

More  important,  however,  are  the  instructions  and 
criticism  which  Hamlet  as  a  patron  of  playactors 
offers  to  his  company.  His  whole  attitude  is  just  such 
as  a  patron  of  Oxford's  social  position,  literary  taste, 
and  dramatic  enthusaism,  would  naturally  assume 
towards  a  company  which  he  was  not  only  patronising 
but  directing.  In  this  matter  no  quotation  of  passages 
would  suffice  for  our  purpose.  We  can  only  ask  the 
reader,  bearing  in  mind  all  we  have  been  able  to  lay 
before  him,  of  Oxford's  poetic  work,  life  and  character, 
to  read  through  the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  play 
which  treats  of  Hamlet's  dealings  with  the  players 
(Acts  II .  and  III .  s.  2) .  If  he  does  not  feel  that  we  have 
here  an  exact  representation  of  what  Oxford's  handling 
of  his  own  company  would  be,  our  own  work  in  these 
pages  must  have  been  most  imperfectly  performed. 

As    the    management    of    the    Oxford    Boys    was  Lyiy's  and 
entrusted  to  Lyly,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  writer  in  speareT" 
most  continuous  association  with  the  Earl  of  Oxford  dramas, 
during  those  years  in  which  he  was  producing  the 
plays  that  are  supposed  to  have  perished,  was  the 
author   of    "  Euphues."     Now,    it    was    precisely   in 
this  period  that  Lyly  was  himself  giving  forth  plays ; 
so  that  some  kind  of  correspondence  between  his  own 
work  and  his  master's  was  inevitable.     It  becomes, 
then,  a  question  of  some  importance,  whether  these 
plays  of  Lyiy's  link  themselves  on  in  any  distinctive 
way  with  the  plays  of  "  Shakespeare."     We  invite, 
therefore,  some  special  attention  first  of  all  to  what 
Sir  Sidney  Lee  has  to  say  on  this  point : 

"  It  was  only  to  two  of  his  (Shakespeare's)  fellow 
dramatists  that  his  indebtedness  as  a  writer  of  either 
comedy  or  tragedy  was  material  or  emphatically 
defined  "  (Lyly  and  Marlowe). 


320         "SHAKESPEARE"  IDENTIFIED 

Marlowe  was  a  younger  man,  and  the  work  from 
his  pen  (tragedy)  which  Sir  Sidney  Lee  associates  with 
Shakespeare's,  belongs  to  the  later  or  "  Shakespearean  " 
period  proper.  Lyly  is  therefore  the  only  dramatist 
of  this  earlier  or  preparatory  period  (1580-1592) 
whose  work,  in  the  opinion  of  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  fore- 
shadows the  work  of  "  Shakespeare." 

"Between  1580  and  1592  he  (Lyly)  produced  eight 
trivial  and  insubstantial  comedies,  of  which  six  were 
written  in  prose,  one  was  in  blank  verse,  and  one 
in  rhyme.  Much  of  the  dialogue  in  Shakespeare's 
comedies  from  '  Love's  Labour's  Lost '  to  '  Much 
Ado  about  Nothing '  consists  in  thrusting  and 
parrying  fantastic  conceits,  puns  and  antitheses.  This 
is  the  style  of  the  intercourse  in  which  most  of  Lyly's 
characters  exclusively  indulge.  Three-fourths  of 
Lyly's  comedies  lightly  revolve  about  topics  of 
classical  and  fairy  mythology — in  the  very  manner 
which  Shakespeare  first  brought  to  a  triumphant 
issue  in  his  '  Midsummer  Night's  Dream.'  Shake- 
speare's treatment  of  eccentric  characters  like  Don 
Armado  in  '  Love's  Labour's  Lost,'  and  his  boy 
Moth  reads  like  a  reminiscence  of  Lyly's  portrayal 
of  Sir  Topas,  a  fat  vainglorious  knight,  and  his  boy 
Epiton  in  the  comedy  of  '  Endymion,'  while  the 
watchmen  in  the  same  play  clearly  adumbrate 
Shakespeare's  Dogberry  and  Verges.  The  device  of 
masculine  disguise  for  love-sick  maidens  was 
characteristic  of  Lyly's  method  before  Shakespeare 
ventured  on  it  for  the  first  of  many  times  in  "  Two 
Lyly's  lyrics.  Gentlemen  of  Verona,"  and  the  dispersal  through 
Lyly's  comedies  of  songs  possessing  every  lyrical  charm 
is  not  the  least  interesting  of  the  many  striking  features 
which  Shakespeare's  achievements  in  comedy  seem 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  321 

to   borrow  from   Lyly's    comparatively  insignificant 
experiments." 

In  the  article  on  Lyly  which  the  same  writer 
contributes  to  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography 
he  raises  doubts  as  to  Lyly's  authorship  of  certain 
lyrics  which  appear  in  his  dramas — on  the  grounds 
of  their  superiority.  It  cannot  be  questioned,  then, 
that  Lyly  and  his  work  constitute  a  most  important 
link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  connecting  the  work  of 
"  Shakespeare  "  with  the  Earl  of  Oxford  ;  only,  under 
the  influence  of  the  Stratfordian  theory,  cause  is 
mistaken  for  effect. 


Having  presented  the  relationship  of  Lyly's  work  Literary  men 
to  that  of  "  Shakespeare  "  as  stated  by  an  eminent 
Shakespearean,  we  shall  now  give  it  as  it  appears  to 
the  leading  English  authority  on  the  work  of  John 
Lyly,  Mr.  R.  Warwick  Bond,  M.A.  ("  The  Complete 
Works  of  John  Lyly,  now  for  the  first  time  collected 
and  edited."  Clarendon  Press,  1902).  This  is  of 
such  importance  as  to  deserve  a  section  for  itself. 

"  Gabriel  Harvey  (states)  that  when  '  Euphues ' 
was  being  written,  i.e.  in  1578,  he  knew  Lyly  in  the 
Savoy.  ...  A  recommendation  from  an  influential 
friend  would  procure  easy  admission  (to  apartments 
in  the  Savoy)  for  some  temporary  period  at  least, 
of  a  needy  man  of  letters  or  university  student  .  .  . 
From  details  given  in  Mr.  W.  J.  Lof tie's  Memorials 
of  the  Savoy,  it  appears  that  various  chambers  and 
tenements  in  the  Savoy  precinct  were  customarily 
let  to  tenants,  and  in  1573  Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of 

21 


332         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Oxford,  is  over  £10  in  arrear  of  rent  to  the  Savoy  for 
two  such  tenements." 

For  what   purpose  Oxford  held  these  tenements, 
whether  for  his   own   literary   pui suits,   or   for   the 
accommodation  of  poor  men  of  letters,  is  not  known. 
So  early,  however,  as  1573,  when  he  was  but  twenty- 
three  years  of  age,  and  two  years  before  his  Italian 
tour,  he  was  evidently  associated  with  the  men  ot 
letters  in  the  Savoy,  amongst  whom  were  included 
within  the  next  few  years,  Gabriel  Harvey  and  John 
Lyly.     Burleigh's  house  in  the  Strand,  where  Oxford 
had  been  domiciled,  was  quite  near  to  the  Savoy, 
and   Oxford's   early   and   habitual   association   with 
this  particular  literary  group  hardly  admits  of  doubt. 
Lyly  receives       In  1580  Lyly  dedicates  his  work,  "  Euphues  and 
impulse  from  his  England,"  to  his  "  very  good  lord  and  master, 
Oxford.          Edward  de  Vere  Earl  of  Oxenforde  "  and  (to  resume 
our  quotation)    "  here  we  have  the  first   authentic 
indication  of  Lyly's  connection  with  Burleigh's  son- 
in-law,  a  connection  which  may  have  begun  in  the 
Savoy,  where,  as  we  saw,  Oxford  rented  two  tene- 
ments. ...  He  was  engaged  as  private  secretary  to 
the  Earl  and  admitted  to  his  confidence.     The  two  men 
were  much  of  an  age  (Oxford  was,  in  point  of  fact, 
Lyly's  senior  by  three  and  a  half  years — a  consider- 
able difference  in  early  manhood)  and  had  common 
elements  of  character  and  directions  of  taste.     From 
the  Earl  probably  it  was  that  Lyly  first  received  the 
dramatic     impulse.     None     of     Oxford's     comedies 
survive,  but  Puttenham,  writing  in  1589,  classes  him 
with  Richard  Edwards  as  deserving  the  highest  price 
(?    praise)    for   comedy    and   interlude."  .  .  .  (Then 
follow  some  particulars  respecting  the  activities  of 
"  Oxford's  Boys  ")  .  .  .  "  Suggestion,  encouragement 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VER£  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  323 

and  apparatus  thus  lay  ready  to  Lyly's  hand."  In 
another  place,  in  describing  Lyly's  educational 
advantages,  he  mentions  specially  that  of  being 
"  private  secretary  to  the  literaiy  Earl  of  Oxford." 

The  work  of  Oxford  in  drama  is  therefore  recognized 
as  having  furnished  the  generative  impulse  which 
produced  Lyly's  work  in  tnis  particular  domain. 
As  private  secietary,  in  the  confidence  of  Oxford, 
assisting  in  the  actual  staging  of  Oxford's  comedies, 
which  without  appearing  in  print  had  made  such  a 
name  that  they  are  spoken  of,  more  than  ten  years 
after  they  had  ceased  to  appear  on  the  stage,  as 
amongst  "the  best,"*  Lyly  would  naturally  he  more 
intimate  with  these  "  lost  plays  "  than  any  other 
man  except  the  author  himself.  And  as  it  was  the 
holding  of  this  office  which  led  him  to  the  composition 
of  dramas,  we  are  quite  entitled  to  say  that  it  was  the 
plays  of  Edward  de  Vere  that  furnished  Lyly's 
dramatic  education;  whilst  contact  with  his  master 
is  a  recognized  force  in  his  personal  education. 

As  to  the  relationship  of  Lyly's  dramas  to  the  work  connection 


of  "  Shakespeare,"  Mr.  Bond  quotes  on  his  title  the  *** 

'   Shcikc- 

words  of  M6zieres  :  "  Ceux  qui  ont  6te*  les  predecessors  speare's" 
des  grands  esprits  ont  contribue"  en  quelque  fafon  a  dramas- 
leur  Education,  leur  doivent  d'etre  sauve"s  de  1'oubli. 
Dante  fait  vivre  Brunetto  Latini,  Milton  du  Bartas  ; 
Shakespeare  fait  vivre  Lyly  "    This  is  the  theme  which 
runs  through  Mr.  Bond's  great  work  ;  the  justification 
almost  of  his  immense  labours  on  behalf   of  Lyly  and 
Elizabethan    literature    generally.    The    nature    and 
value  of  his  researches  can  only  be  gathered,  however, 
from  a  study  of  the  work  itself,  and  therefore  we 
shall  merely  submit  a  few  indicative  sentences:  — 
*  Meres,  1598. 


324         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  In  comedy,  Lyly  is  Shakespeare's  only  model : 
the  evidence  of  the  latter's  study  and  imitation  of  him 
is  abundant,  and  Lyly's  influence  is  of  a  far  more 
permanent  nature  than  any  exercised  on  the  great 
poet  by  any  other  writers.  It  extends  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  mechanical  style  to  the  more  important 
matters  of  structure  and  spirit  "  (Vol.  II.  p.  243). 

"  Shakespeare  imitates  Lyly's  grouping  and,  like 
him,  repeats  a  relation  or  situation  in  successive 
plays"  (II.  285). 

"  Lyly  taught  him  (Shakespeare)  something  in 
the  matter  of  unity  and  coherence  of  plot-construc- 
tion, in  the  introduction  of  songs  and  fairies"  (II.  296). 

This,  then,  is  the  situation  represented  by  the 
consenus  of  opinion  of  two  eminent  authorities.  The 
dramas  of  Edward  de  Vere  form  the  source  from 
which  sprang  Lyly's  dramatic  conceptions  and  enter- 
prises, and  Lyly's  dramas  appear  as  the  chief  model, 
in  comedy  the  only  model,  upon  which  "  Shakes- 
peare "  worked.  We  are  therefore  entitled  to  claim 
that  the  highest  orthodox  authorities,  in  the  particular 
department  of  literature  with  which  we  are  dealing, 
support  the  view  that  the  dramatic  activities  of 
Edward  de  Vere  stands  in  almost  immediate  productive 
or  causal  relationship  of  a  most  distinctive  character 
with  the  dramatic  work  of  "  Shakespeare."  Even 
if  we  are  unable  to  extract  any  further  evidence  from 
Oxford's  relationships  with  Lyly  we  shall  have  added 
another  very  important  link  in  our  chain  of  evidences. 
Lyly's  Take  now  the  following  passage  from  the  work  we 

fifve^tive-  have  Just  been  quoting  :  Lyly  was  "  the  first  regular 
ness«  English  dramatist,  the  true  inventor  and  introducer  of 

dramatic  style,  conduct  and  dialogue,  and  in  these 
respects  the  chief  master  of  Shakespeare.  There  is 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  325 

no  play  before  Lyly.  He  wrote  eight ;  and 
immediately  thereafter  England  produced  some 
hundreds — produced  that  marvel  and  pride  of  the 
greatest  literature  in  the  world,  the  Elizabethan 
Drama.  What  tne  long  infancy  of  her  stage  had 
lacked  was  an  example  of  form,  of  art  ;  and  Lyly 
gave  it.  .  .  .  Lyly  was  one  whose  immense  merits  and 
originality  were  obscured  by  the  surface-qualities,  the 
artificiality  and  tedium  of  his  style  .  .  .  (There  is) 
far  more  dramatic  credit  due  and  far  more  influence 
on  Shakespeare  attributable,  to  him  than  to  Marlowe 
or  any  other  of  those  with  whom  he  has  been 
customarily  classed  "  (Preface  vi  and  vii). 

In  the  world  of  drama,  then,  Lyly  appears  as  a  great  Lyiy'siack  of 

.  ..*....      inventive- 

inventive    genius,    to    whose    originating    impulse    is  ness. 

due  "  the  greatest  literature  in  the  world."  Contrast 
now  with  the  above  passage  the  following  comment 
upon  Lyly's  "  Euphues,"  which  appears  in  the  same 
work  : 

"  The  book  is  artificial,  divorced  from  homely 
realities.  It  is  deficient,  too,  in  characterization  and 
in  pathos  ;  but  undoubtedly  its  chief  defect  is  its 
want  of  action,  .  .  .  The  want  of  action  is  probably 
referrable  to  poverty  of  invention.  .  .  .  Poverty  of 
invention  is  discerned  in  the  parallelism  of  the  two 
parts"  (Vol.  I.  162). 

In  the  writing  of  his  novel,  then,  Lyly  shows  a 
distinct  lack  of  dramatic  power,  and  a  noticeable 
"  poverty  of  invention."  When  he  enters  his 
employer's  special  domain,  the  drama,  he  appears  as 
"  the  true  inventor  and  introducer  of  dramatic  style, 
conduct  and  dialogue." 

Only  one  conclusion,  it  would  seem,  can  be  drawn 
from  these  facts,  namely  that  the  real  inventor  of 


326         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Oxford th«  those  things,  which  "  Shakespeare  "  is  supposed  to 
innovator.  have  derived  from  Lyly,  was  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 
Whether  we  examine  the  lyric  poems  of  the  latter, 
the  vicissitudes  of  his  career,  or  the  varied  and 
disturbing  impressions  he  left  in  the  minds  of  others, 
with  all  the  mystifying  and  conflicting  personal  traits 
that  they  suggest,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  presence 
of  an  original  and  self-dependent  intellect ;  just  the 
kind  of  mind  to  possess  that  dramatic  inventiveness 
which  is  attributed  to  the  plays  but  which  is  missing 
from  the  "  Euphues "  of  Lyly.  The  inventiveness 
and  dramatic  form  and  dialogue  in  Lyly's  plays  is 
therefore  evidently  due  to  Oxford's  participation 
either  direct  or  indirect.  The  features  of  Lyly's  work 
which  relate  it  so  intimately  with  "  Shakespeare's  " 
dramas  are  such  as  an  apt  disciple  might  have  learnt 
from  a  master  of  forceful  and  original  genius :  in 
the  intellectual  substance  of  Lyly's  dramas,  as  in  his 
other  literary  work,  his  biographer  and  editor  freely 
admits  superficiality  and  tediousness.  The  con- 
ceptions, phrases,  and  dramatic  form  of  the  master's 
work  could  be  appropriated  by  the  pupil ;  its  genius 
he  could  not  appropriate  or  imitate.  As  then  Lyly's 
work,  apart  from  what  he  might  have  borrowed  from 
Oxford,  marks  him  as  an  early  type  of  that  literary 
mind  which  rapidly  catches  and  reflects  the  ideas  of 
others,  it  is  almost  certain  that  his  works  will  contain 
not  only  much  that  was  in  Oxford's  writings,  but 
also  a  great  deal  of  what  Oxford  thought  and  said 
without  committing  it  to  writing. 

As  a  kind  of  unconscious  Boswell  to  the  Earl  of 
Oxford  it  is  more  than  probable  that  even  his 
"  Euphues,"  owes  much  to  his  intercourse  with  his 
patron  ;  for  this  work  consists  mainly  of  such  talk 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  327 

and  reflections  as  a  man  of  Lyly's  type  would  gather  "  Euphues," 
together  from  the  conversation  of  the  group  of  young  ?shake*Q 
litterateurs  in  the  Savoy.  Scraps  of  ideas  gleaned  in  speare." 
this  way,  and  dressed  up  in  his  own  inflated  style, 
might  easily  pass  for  a  time  as  solid  intellectual 
matter ;  the  deficiency  of  genuine  substance  only 
being  disclosed  through  familiarity.  It  is  intetesting 
to  notice  that  Mr.  Bond  gives  us  no  less  than  nine 
pages  of  parallelisms  between  this  early  work  of 
Lyly's  and  the  plays  of  Shakespeare.  The  difference 
between  the  two  is  mainly  that  in  "  Euphues  "  the 
passages  appear  as  more  or  less  disjointed  and  ram- 
bling remarks,  whereas  in  "  Shakespeare  "  they  take 
their  places  as  parts  of  a  coherent  whole.  In  a  word, 
in  Lyly's  work  they  indicate  a  mind  that  reflects  the 
conceptions  and  imitates  the  expressions  of  others ; 
in  "  Shakespeare "  they  are  the  expression  of  an 
originating  intellect ;  and  were  it  not  for  the  difficulty 
presented  by  the  fact  that  Lyly's  work  was  published 
some  years  before  "  Shakespeare's,"  no  competent 
judge  would  have  questioned  Lyly's  great  indebtedness 
to  "  Shakespeare  "  even  in  the  writing  of  his  famous 
"  Euphues." 

It  is  no  part  of  our  argument,  but  it  is  of  some 
interest  from  the  point  of  view  of  Elizabethan  literature, 
that  as  we  get  a  glimpse  of  this  group  of  young  literary 
men  drawn  into  association  in  the  Savoy,  and  realize 
something  of  what  their  relationships  would  tend  to  be 
at  the  time  when  "  Euphues  "  was  being  written, 
one  gets  a  suggestion  that,  in  accordance  with  their 
literary  methods,  Edward  de  Vere  and  Philip  Sidney 
were  the  chief  originals  for  Lyly's  principal  characters 
of  Euphues  and  Philautus.  For  to  the  names  of  the 
men  already  given  we  are  quite  entitled  to  add  those  of 


328         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

both  Edmund  Spenser  and  Philip  Sidney ;  since  it  was 
Gabriel  Harvey  under  whose  influence  Spenser  had 
come  to  London  about  that  time,  and  it  was  he,  too, 
who  introduced  Spenser  to  Philip  Sidney.  Shortly 
afterwards  Spencer  brought  out  his  first  work  "  The 
Shepherd's  Calendar,"  dedicated  to  Sidney,  and 
containing  allusions,  as  we  believe,  to  both  Oxford 
and  Sidney.  Later,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Spenser 
addressed  an  important  dedicatory  sonnet  to  Oxford 
in  first  publishing  his  "  Fairie  Queen."  All  the  works 
we  have  just  named  are  representations,  in  varying 
degrees  of  disguise,  of  contemporary  life  and  person- 
alities ;  and  as  the  Earl  of  Oxford  and  Philip  Sidney 
were  the  outstanding  personalities  connecting  this 
group  of  litterateurs  with  the  court  life  it  was  natural 
that  Lyly's  two  chief  characters  should  assume  some 
of  their  features,  even  if  he  had  not  intended  the 
representation  at  first.  Although  Harvey,  Lyly, 
Oxford  and  Sidney  all  seem  to  have  come  to  cross 
purposes  within  the  next  few  years,  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  their  relations  were  other  than  friendly 
at  the  time  when  Lyly  was  penning  Euphues. 
"  Shake-  However  these  things  may  be,  it  is  much  more 

speare  s 

dramas  a  feasible  that  the  great  "  Shakespeare  "  poems  and 
product  dramas  should  have  owed  their  rise  to  the  interchange 
of  ideas,  and  the  stimulation  which  mind  derives 
from  contact  with  kindred  mind,  such  as  would  be 
enjoyed  by  the  young  wits  and  savants  in  the  Savoy, 
than  to  the  studies  of  an  isolated  youth  poring  over 
well-thumbed  books  in  an  uncongenial  social  atmo- 
sphere. And  if  this  social  intercourse  were  really  the 
source  of  the  Shakespeare  literature  as  we  believe 
it  to  have  been  directly,  and  Sir  Sidney  Lee  and 
Mr.  Bond  imply  that  it  was  indirectly,  we  should 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERB  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  329 

naturally  expect  to  find,  in  some  outstanding  play,  such 
a  representation  of  the  chief  figures  of  the  group  as 
Spenser,  Lyly  and  Gabriel  Harvey  were  accustomed 
to  make  of  contemporaries  in  their  own  writings. 
"  Love's  Labour's  Lost  "  is  the  play  that  we  have 
selected  in  this  connection,  and  dealt  with  in  the 
opening  pages  of  this  chapter.  That  Lyly  is  also 
represented  in  the  play  is  most  probable  ;  we  know 
too  little,  however,  of  his  personality  for  purposes  of 
identification.  The  fact  that  the  authorship  we  are 
now  urging  brings  "  Shakespeae's  "  plays  into  line 
with  the  literature  of  the  times,  as  a  dramatic 
representation  of  contemporary  events  and  person- 
alities, and  at  the  same  time  gives  the  works  a  firm 
root,  like  all  the  other  great  achievements  of  mankind, 
in  the  direct  social  intercourse  of  men  possessing 
common  tastes  and  interests,  is  not  the  least  of  the 
arguments  in  its  favour. 

If  Lyly's  works  were  produced  as  we  suppose  them  Lyrics  in 
to  have  been';  produced,  that  is  to  say,  by  a  some-  Ly*y  splays, 
what  ordinary  mind  working  upon  ideas  and  with 
apparatus  furnished  by  an  almost  transcendent 
genius,  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  marked 
discordances  and  inequalities  in  his  work,  resulting 
from  the  imperfect  blending  of  the  two  elements. 
This  is  just  the  feature  that  Lyly's  work  does  present ; 
and  in  the  matter  of  the  songs  interspersed  through 
the  plays,  there  is  such  a  superiority  to  much  of  the 
other  work  as  to  have  raised  doubts  respecting  their 
authenticity.  The  first  play  written  by  Lyly  was 
"  Campaspe,"  published  in  1584  ;  and  on  more  than 
one  occasion,  in  speaking  of  later  writings,  Mr.  Bond 
contrasts  them  with  the  superior  lyrics  in  this  first  play. 
Some  work  he  describes  as  "  a  disgrace  to  the  writer 


330         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

of  'Cupid  and  my  Campaspe.'  "  (one  of  these  lyrics). 
Speaking  again  of  a  poetical  lampoon  by  Lyly, 
entitled  "  A  Whip  for  an  Ape,"  he  asserts  that  the 
"  authorship  is  not  disputable,"  though  the  notion 
that  the  author  of  "Cupid  and  my  Campaspe"  also 
wrote  "  A  Whip  for  an  Ape  "  had  induced  him  to  regard 
the  latter  work  as  doubtful. 

This  is  not,  however,  the  most  interesting  or 
significant  fact  which  the  writer  brings  to  light  in 
respect  to  the  songs  in  Lyly's  plays.  In  the  editions 
of  these  works  published  during  the  authoi's  lifetime 
and  the  lifetime  both  of  Edward  de  Vere  and  William 
Shakspere,  the  songs  did  not  appear  ;  their  positions 
alone  being  merely  indicated  in  the  text. 

"  The  absence  of  the  whole  tnirty-two  (except  two 
merged  in  the  dialogue  of  '  The  Woman  ')  from  the 
quarto  editions  (i.e.  the  originals)  has  cast  some  doubt 
upon  Lyly's  authorship  :  but  some  of  them  seem 
too  dainty  to  be  written  by  an  unknown  hand,  there  is  a 
uniformity  of  alternative  manners  and  measures  etc." 
The  writer  then  proceeds  to  offer  possible  reasons  for 
the  omission  of  the  songs  from  the  editions  of  the 
plays  as  first  published.  The  important  fact  is  that 
these  songs  are  in  several  cases  the  best  things  the 
plays  now  contain.  For  nearly  fifty  years  some  of 
these  works  were  published  and  republished  without 
the  songs  ("  Campaspe  "  performed  at  court  in  1582, 
and  published  first  in  1584).  Then,  in  1632,  that  is 
to  say  twenty-six  years  after  Lyly's  death,  twenty- 
one  out  of  the  missing  thirty  unaccountably  re- 
appeared in  an  edition  of  Lyly's  plays  issued  by  the 
same  publishers  and  in  the  same  year  as  the  Second 
Folio  edition  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  work,  and  within 
the  lifetime  of  Oxford's  cousin,  Horatio  de  Vere,  who, 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  331 

as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show,  had  probably  been 
entrusted  with  the  task  of  preserving  and  publishing 
Oxford's  writings.  The  remaining  nine  are  still 
missing.  The  simultaneous  reappearance  of  so  many 
of  these  songs,  after  so  long  an  interval,  would  almost 
certainly  be  the  work  of  some  one  who  had  been 
carefully  preserving  the  entire  set.  The  non- 
appearance  of  the  remaining  nine  suggests  that  these 
had  already  appeared  elsewhere,  probably  in  the 
pages  of  "  Shakespeare." 

The  possible  reasons  advanced  for  the  omission  of 
all  these  lyrics  from  the  original  issue  of  the  plays  are 
such  as  might  apply  to  the  work  of  any  other  play- 
wright ;  yet  we  can  find  no  other  instances  of  sets  of 
superior  lyrics  being  omitted  from  the  original  publica- 
tion of  the  works  to  which  they  belong.  The  simplest 
hypothesis  is  that  these  lyrics  were  not  the  composi- 
tion nor  the  property  of  Lyly,  but,  like  the  lyric  work 
contributed  to  Munday's  play,  had  been  composed  by 
the  master  of  the  playwright,  the  "  best  of  the  courtier 
poets  "  of  those  days  :  and  although  Oxford  could  not 
prevent  Lyly's  rushing  into  print  with  superficial 
plays,  in  which  he  saw  his  own  developments  in  drama 
being  prematurely  exploited,  he  certainly  would  resent 
his  own  lyrics  appearing  in  them,  and  was  quite  able 
to  prevent  it  if  Lyly  had  been  disposed  to  insert  them. 

Mr.    Bond's   statement   respecting   the   quality   of  Lyric 
Lyly's  own  lyric  work  is  therefore  of  special  importance  :  3 
"  Spite  of  his  authorship  of  two  or  three  of  the  most 
graceful  songs  our  drama  can  boast — an  authorship 
which  if  still  unsusceptible  of  positive  proof  is  equally 
so  of  disproof — some  of  those  in  his  plays,  and  others 
pretty  certainly  his,  which  I  have  found  elsewhere, 
stamp  him  as  negligent,  uncritical,  or  else  inadequately 


332 


SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Oxford   the 
author  of 
Lyly's 
lyrics. 


"  Shake- 
speare's " 
and  Lyly's 
lyrics. 


practised  in  the  art ;  while  he  lacked  altogether  in 
my  judgement,  '  those  brave  translunary  things ' 
so  infinitely  beyond  technique,  so  far  above  mere 
grace  or  daintiness  of  fancy,  of  which  the  true  poet 
is  made"  (Preface  vii).  The  mere  raising  of  the 
question  of  the  authenticity  of  these  first -class  lyrics 
in  this  way,  by  one  who  adds  to  his  fine  literary  dis- 
crimination an  undoubted  admiration  for  Lyly,  affords 
strong  confirmation  of  the  theory  that  these  superior 
verses  were  either  written  by  Oxford  for  Lyly's  plays, 
or  were  modelled  by  Lyly  on  songs  written  by  Oxford. 

It  is  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  that  Oxford  was 
primarily  a  lyric  poet ;  that  during  the  years  in  which 
many  of  Lyly's  plays  were  being  written  the  two  men 
were  working  together,  writing  plays  for  the  "  Oxford 
Boys  "  ;  and  that  eight  of  the  plays  written  by  Lyly 
have  been  preserved,  whilst  the  whole  of  Oxford's 
plays  have  disappeared.  Seeing,  then,  that  Lyly 
displays  a  marked  weakness  in  lyrical  capacity,  whilst 
Oxford  is  specially  strong,  the  most  of  the  songs  would 
almost  certainly  be  the  exclusive  contribution  of  the 
latter,  to  plays  in  which  there  was  more  or  less  collabora- 
tion between  the  two  men. 

We  come  now  to  what  is  perhaps  the  most  vital 
part  of  this  particular  argument.  In  estimating 
"  Shakespeare's  "  indebtedness  to  Lyly,  on  what  we 
are  reluctantly  obliged  to  call  the  orthodox  view,  we 
should  have  to  include  his  indebtedness  to  this  lyric 
work  with  which  Lyly  has  been  only  doubtfully 
credited.  For  a  comparison  of  the  two  sets  of  lyrics 
discloses  a  marked  similarity  of  lyric  forms,  with 
something  of  the  same  rich  variety.  We  have  made 
a  careful  examination  of  the  lyrics  that  reappeared 
in  Lyly's  plays  in  1632,  and  although,  until  supported 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  333 

by  recognized  literary  authorities,  we  may  hesitate 
to  affirm  definitively  that  they  are  from  the  same 
pen  as  the  lyrics  of  "  Shakespeare,"  no  one  who 
knows  the  best  of  them  will  hesitate  to  say  that  they 
are  such  as  "  Shakespeare "  might  have  written. 
Yet  some  were  written,  though  not  published,  prior  to 
1584,  the  year  in  which  the  play  to  which  they  belong 
was  published,  and  before  William  Shakspere  is  said 
to  have  left  Stratford.  Those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  hold  that  William  Shakspere,  who  came  to  London 
and  began  to  issue  plays  about  the  year  1592,  studied 
carefully  and  modelled  his  work  upon  the  published 
dramas  of  John  Lyly,  will  find  some  difficulty  in 
explaining  how  he  could  have  modelled  his  work  upon 
lyrics  which  were  not  published  until  1632,  or  sixteen 
years  after  his  own  death. 

In  this  connection  we  shall  give  but  one  illustration 
of  the  similarity  of  "  Shakespeare's "  lyric  work 
to  the  lyrics  attributed  to  Lyly. 

Shakespeare. 
Fairies  sing  : — 

"  Pinch  him,  fairies,  mutually  ; 

Pinch  him  for  his  villany. 
Pinch  him,  and  burn  him,  and  turn  him  about, 
Till  candles  and  starlight  and  moonshine  be  out." 

("Merry  Wives,"  published  1602.) 

Lyly. 
Fairies  sing  : — 

"  Pinch  him,  pinch  him,  black  and  blue, 
Saucy  mortals  must  not  view 
What  the  Queen  of  Stars  is  doing, 
Nor  pry  into  our  fairy  wooing. 

Pinch  him  blue 

And  pinch  him  black, 

Let  him  not  lack 


334         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Sharp  nails  to  pinch  him  blue  and  red, 
Till  sleep  has  rocked  his  addle  head." 

("  Endymion."  Play  written  1585.    Song  first 
published  1632.) 

No  one  can  doubt  that  these  two  songs  were  either 
from  the  same  pen,  or  the  writer  of  one  of  them 
was  indebted  to  the  other.  The  connection  being 
established,  not  only  for  the  one  song  but  for  the 
lyric  work  as  a  whole,  a  difficult  problem,  though,  of 
course,  not  altogether  insoluble,  is  presented  to  those 
who  believe  that  William  Shakspere  in  writing  lyrics 
for  "  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,"  "  Love's  Labour's 
Lost,"  and  "  The  Merry  Wives,"  was  working  from 
a  copy  of  Lyly's  Lyrics. 

Anomalies          If  "  Shakespeare  "  wrote  both  sets,  or  if  the  writer 
disappear.      of  the  lyTics  attributed  to  Lyiy  worked  upon  "  Shake- 

speare's "  model,  then  "  Shakespeare "  must  have 
been  some  one  who  was  right  in  the  heart  of  the  literary 
life  of  London  some  years  before  William  Shakspere's 
supposed  entry  upon  his  career.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  "  Shakespeare  "  was  working  in  1602  on  the 
model  of  Lyly's  work,  he  must  have  had  private  access 
to  his  contemporary's  manuscripts,  and  have  not  only 
exploited  the  work  to  an  extraordinary  extent,  but 
slavishly  adopted  the  lyric  forms  and  mannerisms  of 
his  fellow  poet.  That  the  greatest  lyric  and  dramatic 
genius  of  the  age  should  have  so  gone  out  of  his  way 
to  follow  pedantically  a  single  writer  of  inferior  powers 
to  his  own,  even  supposing  the  whole  of  that  writer's 
work  had  been  accessible  to  him — an  almost 
extravagant  supposition — would  bespeak  a  kind  of 
infatuation  to  which  geniuses  are  not  usually  prone. 

All  these  contradictory  and  far-fetched  implications 
disappear  when  the  theory  of  authorship  we  are  now 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERK  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  335 

advocating  is  substituted.  Under  our  theory  "  Shake- 
speare/' in  the  person  of  Edward  de  Vere,  furnishes 
the  model,  and  becomes  the  initiating  force  and  leader 
in  the  poetic  and  dramatic  movement,  and  Lyly 
the  follower  and  imitator  of  "  Shakespeare."  The 
anomalies  and  "  disgraceful "  inequalities  of  Lyly's 
work  receive  for  the  first  time  a  rational  explanation, 
and  the  mystery  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  apparent  depen- 
dence upon  Lyly  entirely  disappears.  Lyly's  dramas 
are  seen  to  be,  for  the  most  part,  hasty  productions 
intended  for  immediate  performance  ;  receiving  after- 
wards such  dressing  as  a  "  superficial  and  tedious  " 
writer  was  able  to  give  them ;  but  which  had  been 
modelled  upon  work  of  a  higher  order,  and,  in  their 
first  shaping  for  the  stage,  had  had  the  advantage 
possibly  of  being  trimmed  and  enlivened  by  the  same 
hand  that  afterwards  gave  forth  the  supreme  master- 
pieces. 

The  dramas  of  "  Shakespeare,"  on  the  other  hand, 
are  seen  to  be  the  finished  literary  form  of  those 
plays  by  De  Vere  which  Lyly  knew  in  the  rough,  as 
performed  by  the  Oxford  Boys  in  the  days  of  dramatic 
pioneering,  but  which  their  author,  with  the  feeling 
and  vision  of  the  true  poet,  had  seen  were  capable 
of  being  transformed  into  something  much  greater 
and  more  worthy  of  an  enduring  existence.  At  the 
same  time  the  so-called  Lyly's  lyrics  are  seen  to  have 
been,  in  the  main,  a  contribution  made  by  Oxford 
to  the  plays  composed  by  Lyly  to  be  performed  by 
the  Oxford  Boys — lyrics  which  on  the  one  hand  he 
had  left,  maybe,  in  too  crude  a  form  for  publication, 
being  composed  originally  just  to  be  sung,  and  which 
on  the  other  hand  he  was  not  willing  should  be  made 
a  present  to  Lyly. 


336         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Composition  There  is  no  record  of  a  single  play  of  Oxford's  ever 
tion  of"  "  having  been  published,  and  the  lyrics  from  his  pen 
dramas.  published  in  his  lifetime  are  without  doubt  the  work 
of  a  man  who  was  most  reluctant  to  commit  anything 
to  print  that  had  not  been  very  carefully  revised  and 
if  possible  perfected.  With  his  artistic  striving  after 
perfection  it  was  natural  that  he  should  work  long 
and  laboriously  at  any  literary  task  he  undertook, 
and  that  in  the  process  of  transforming  his  plays 
they  should  undergo  such  changes  that  the  original 
work  of  Oxford  should  not  have  been  detected  in  the 
finished  plays  of  "  Shakespeare."  That  writers  of 
plays  should  adopt  the  practice  we  have  attributed  to 
Oxford  of  deferring  publication  is  no  mere  hypothesis 
invented  to  meet  a  difficulty.  Even  in  the  case  of 
Lyly,  with  his  evident  eagerness  for  literary  fame  and 
deficient  sense  of  literary  perfection,  the  intervals 
between  the  production  and  publication  of  plays 
were  considerable.  "  Campaspe,"  composed  about 
1579-80,  was  first  published  in  1584.  "  Gallathea," 
composed  in  1584,  was  first  published  in  1592  ;  whilst 
"  Love's  Metamorphosis,"  which  in  a  defective  form 
evidently  first  made  its  appearance  about  1584,  was 
not  put  into  its  present  form  and  published  until  1601. 
Between  the  actual  performance  of  his  plays  and 
their  ultimate  publication  there  was  usually  a  period 
of  three  or  four  years.  With  the  richer,  more  elaborate, 
more  highly  finished  and  much  more  voluminous 
work  of  "  Shakespeare,"  a  longer  interval  was  naturally 
to  be  expected ;  and  it  is  just  in  that  interval  between 
Oxford's  composition  of  his  dramas  and  the  appearance 
of  the  "  Shakespeare "  work  that  the  dramas  of 
Oxford's  private  secretary  and  coadjutor  make  their 
appearance,  having  so  striking  a  resemblance,  in 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  337 

everything  but  genius,  to  the  "  Shakespeare  "  work, 
that  the  latter  is  supposed  to  have  been  definitely 
modelled  upon  it  to  a  most  unusual  extent. 

Somewhere,  then,  about  the  year  1592  these  plays 
of  Oxford's  we  believe  began  to  appear  attributed 
to  William  Shakspere,  and  this  is  the  time  when 
Lyly's  plays  cease  to  appear  ("  The  Woman  in  the 
Moon,"  composed  1591-3).  In  1598  "  Shakespeare's" 
plays  are  first  published  with  an  author's  name.  Lyly's 
"  Woman  in  the  Moon "  had  been  published  the 
previous  year,  and  after  it  he  only  published  a  revised 
edition  of  the  old  play,  "  Love's  Metamorphosis." 
Both  in  the  matter  of  presenting  and  publishing  plays, 
the  appearance  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  work  put  a  check 
upon  Lyly's.  About  the  same  time  there  appeared 
Meres'  account  of  Elizabethan  poetry  and  drama, 
containing  names  alike  of  authors  and  titles  of  plays ; 
and,  though  he  gives  the  titles  of  "  Shakespeare's  " 
works,  and  accords  a  foremost  place  to  the  name  of 
Edward  de  Vere  as  a  playwright,  he  does  not  give  the 
title  of  a  single  play  that  Oxford  had  written. 

These  are  matters  which  belong  more  properly  to  Dramatic 
a  later  period  than  the  one  we  are  now  discussing.  con.necti°ns 
In  respect  to  Oxford's  early  dramatic  activities,  and 
the  connection  of  his  missing  comedies  with  the  work 
of  "  Shakespeare  " — for  it  is  this  early  period  with 
which  we  are  now  concerned — we  have  undoubtedly 
a  most  extraordinary  set  of  coincidences.  Two  men, 
and  two  men  only,  Anthony  Munday  and  John  Lyly, 
are  directly  and  actively  associated  with  him  in  his 
dramatic  enterprises.  Both  men  have  work  attributed 
to  them  which  is  evidently  not  theirs,  and  it  is  this 
work  which  specially  links  them  on — in  Lyly's  case 
in  a  remarkable  way — to  the  work  of  "  Shakespeare," 

22 


338 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 


Apparent 
inactivity. 


Spenser  and 
De  Vere. 


thus  forming  a  direct  bridge  between  the  "  lost  or 
worn  out  "  dramas  of  Edward  de  Vere  and  "  the 
greatest  literature  of  the  world."  Surely  this,  along 
with  all  the  other  coincidences,  is  not  merely  fortuitous. 
We  may  Bhave  laboured  unduly  these  connections  : 
their  immense  importance,  we  hope,  is  a  sufficient 
justification. 


VI 


After  the  year  1587  we  lose  distinct  traces  of  Oxford's 
dramatic  activity,  and,  in  reference  to  this,  we  must 
now  draw  attention  to  an  important  set  of  considera- 
tions in  which  the  poet  Edmund  Spenser  is  implicated. 

In  the  year  1590,  by  which  time  the  middle  period 
of  De  Vere's  life  may  be  said  to  have  closed,  when 
though  only  forty  years  of  age  he  seemed  to  have 
quite  dropped  from  public  view,  and  when  William 
Shakspere,  then  aged  twenty-six,  was  either  establish- 
ing himself,  or  being  established  by  unknown  patrons, 
in  the  dramatic  world,  Edmund  Spenser  published 
his  "Tears  of  the  Muses."  These  "are  full  of 
lamentations  over  returning  barbarism  and  ignorance, 
and  the  slight  account  made  by  those  in  power  of  the 
gifts  and  the  arts  of  the  writer,  the  poet  and  the 
dramatist  "  (Church  :  Life  of  Spenser).  In  this  poem 
occur  some  stanzas  which  Dryden  in  his  day,  and 
Charles  and  Mary  Cowden  Clarke  in  more  recent  times, 
have  appropriated  to  William  Shakspere,  but  which, 
notwithstanding  this,  have  been  more  or  less  a  puzzle 
to  literary  men  ever  since  they  were  written.  Most 
writers  on  either  Spenser  or  Shakespeare  seem  to 
feel  it  a  duty  to  say  something  about  them.  The 
matter  is  therefore  of  extreme  importance  as  a  question 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERB  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  339 

of  Elizabethan  literature  quite  apart  from  the  Shake- 
speare problem,  and  will  necessitate  a  somewhat 
exhaustive  statement.  The  following  are  the  most 
important  stanzas  in  the  set : — 

"  All  these,  and  all  that  else  the  Comic  Stage, 
With  seasoned  wit  and  goodly  pleasance  graced, 
By  which  man's  life  in  his  likest  image 
Was  limned  forth,  are  wholly  now  defaced  ; 
And  those  sweet  wits  which  wont  the  like  to  frame 
Are  now  despised  and  made  a  laughing  game. 

"  And  he  the  man  whom  Nature's  self  had  made 
To  mock  herself  and  truth  to  imitate, 
With  kindly  counter  under  Mimic  shade, 
Our  pleasant  Willie,  ah  !  is  dead  of  late. 
With  whom  all  joy  and  jolly  merriment 
Is  also  deaded  and  in  doleur  drent. 

"  But  that  same  gentle  spirit  from  whose  pen 
Large  streams  of  honey  and  sweet  nectar  flow, 
Scorning  the  boldness  of  such  base-born  men, 
Which  dare  their  follies  forth  so  rashly  throw, 
Doth  rather  choose  to  sit  in  idle  cell, 
Than  so  himself  to  mockery  to  sell." 

First  of  all  the  expression  "  dead  of  late,"  it  has  Spenser's 
been  remarked  by  others,  means,   "  not  that  he  is     Willle- 
literally  dead  but  that  he  is  in  retirement."    This 
reading  is  not  only  necessary  to  make  it  fit  in  with 
what    follows — "  to   sit   in   idle   cell " — but   is   also 
supported  by  other  passages  in  the  same  writer.    The 
reference  is  evidently  to  some  one  who,  having  been 
prominent  in  the  writing  of  poetry,  and  in  connection 
with  dramatic  comedy,  had  lately  not  been  much  in 
evidence. 

Whilst  therefore  the  laudatory  expressions  are  such 
as  could  only  be  applied  appropriately  to  "  Shake- 
speare," the  date  of  publication  makes  it  impossible 


340         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

that  they  should  have  any  reference  to  the  man 
William  Shakspere.  At  the  same  time,  the  name 
"  Willie "  only  serves  to  deepen  the  mystery.  In 
the  year  1590  the  Stratford  man  was  only  twenty-six 
years  of  age  and  was  just  making  his  appearance  in 
the  dramatic  world.  He  had  therefore  no  great 
career  behind  him  from  which  to  retire,  whereas  the 
"  Willie  "  referred  to  in  Spenser's  poem  had  evidently 
already  held  a  prominent  position  in  the  world  of 
poetry  and  drama.  Dean  Church  in  his  Life  of  Spenser 
proposes  a  solution  the  weakness  of  which  he  himself 
fully  recognizes.  He  mentions  that  Sir  Philip  Sidney 
had  somewhere  been  spoken  of  as  "  Willie "  and 
thinks  that  the  verses  may  allude  to  him.  To  this 
theory  he  recognizes  two  very  vital  objections.  In 
the  first  place,  Sir  Philip  Sidney  had  never  attempted 
anything  in  the  dramatic  line  except  some  "  masking 
performances,"  and  to  these  the  laudatory  expressions 
would  be,  he  says,  "  an  extravagant  compliment." 
They  would,  however,  be  much  more  than  this :  a 
grotesque  distortion  of  the  English  language  would 
be  a  more  accurate  description. 

The  second  great  difficulty  of  the  theory  is  this. 
Instead  of  Sir  Philip  Sidney  being  in  retirement  in 
1590  he  had  already  been  actually  dead  for  nearly 
four  years.  This  further  difficulty,  he  thinks,  might 
be  got  over  by  supposing  that  the  work  had  been 
written  some  years  earlier  and  had  been  kept  back 
until  1590.  To  ante-date  the  work  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  make  the  stanzas  applicable  to  the  events  of 
Sidney's  life  would  throw  out  of  gear  the  whole 
sequence  of  the  production  of  Spenser's  works  and 
the  personal  allusions  they  contain,  as  well  as  the 
relation  of  his  works  to  the  events  of  his  own  life. 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :   MIDDLE  PERIOD  341 

Some  other  solution  of  the  problem  must  therefore 
be  sought. 

The  key  to  this  mystery,  we  believe,  is  to  be  found  "  The 

,       ,  c  j         ,  ..  ,     ,    .     ,,  .  ,   Shepherd's 

in  a  work  of  Spenser  s  published  in  the  early  years  of  Calender." 

the  particular  period  of  De  Vere's  life  with  which  we 
are  at  present  occupied.  In  December  1579  Spenser 
issued  his  first  considerable  work,  "  The  Shepherd's 
Calender."  Now,  to  those  who  are  not  specially 
students  of  Elizabethan  literature,  that  is  to  say  to 
the  great  mass  of  English  readers,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  rest  of  the  world,  "  The  Shepherd's  Calender " 
needs  some  little  explanation.  This  set  of  poems  is 
simply  a  series  of  burlesques  upon  prominent  men  of 
the  day,  who  appear  in  the  guise  of  "  shepherds,"  and 
who  express  themselves  under  disguises  more  or  less 
penetrable.  In  some  cases  the  names  given  to  them 
suggest  their  real  names,  in  other  cases  there  is  no 
suggestiveness  about  them  ;  in  some  cases  it  is  quite 
understood  whom  they  represent,  in  others  they 
remain  as  yet  undistinguished.  Spenser  himself 
appears  as  "  Colin  Clout,"  Gabriel  Harvey  as 
"  Hobbinol,"  Archbishop  Grindal  as  "  Algrind." 
The  formation  of  the  last  two  names  from  those  of 
their  prototypes  will  be  readily  perceived. 

Looking  over  the  names  of  the  various  "  shepherds," 
we  find  that  there  is  indeed  one  called  "  Willie."  So 
that  when  in  1590  Spenser  speaks  of  the  Willie  "  from 
whose  pen  large  streams  of  honey  and  sweet  nectar 
flow,"  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that,  in  accordance  with 
his  practice  in  other  cases,  he  was  carrying  forward 
the  same  person  as  the  one  who  had  figured  in  the 
1579  poem  under  that  name,  but  who,  in  the  mean- 
time, had  given  such  a  manifestation  of  his  powers 
that  by  the  year  1590  he  was  able  to  speak  of  him 


342         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

in  terms  which,  as  Dean  ("hurch  remarks,  "we  now- 
a  days  consider,  and  as  Dryden  in  his  day  considered, 
were  only  applicable  to  Shakespeare." 

It  has  therefore  been  a  matter  of  consideraole 
surprise  that  notwithstanding  the  great  amount  of 
attention  that  has  been  paid  by  writers  on  Elizabethan 
literature  to  the  question  of  who  it  was  that  Spenser 
meant  by  "  Willie  "  in  the  above  verses,  it  never  seems 
to  have  occurred  to  any  one  to  connect  him  with  the 
"  Willie "  who  appears  in  Spenser's  earlier  poems. 
Yet  the  very  manner  in  which  he  casually  introduces 
the  name  is  suggestive  of  an  allusion  to  his  first 
great  work.  The  question,  then,  which  concerns  us 
immediately  is  this  :  what  are  the  probabilities  that 
the  "  Willie  "  in  "  The  Shepherd's  Calender  "  was  the 
Earl  of  Oxford  ?  And  if  a  strong  case  can  be  made 
out  for  such  an  identification  we  shall  be  entitled  also 
to  claim  for  him  the  allusion  in  the  "  Tears  of  the 
Muses,"  especially  if  the  later  representation  of  "  Willie  " 
fits  in  with  the  special  circumstances  of  Oxford  at  the 
later  date.  We  shall  also  have  made  an  important 
contribution  to  the  evidence  that  Oxford  was  "  Shake- 
speare." William  Shakspere  of  Stratford,  we  point 
out  in  passing,  was  a  mere  boy  of  fourteen  at  the  time 
when  Spenser's  "  Willie  "  makes  his  appearance  in 
Elizabethan  poetry. 

A  rhyming         On   turning   to   the   poems   in    "  The   Shepherd's 
match-  Calender  "  we  find  that  "  Willie  "  figures  prominently 

in  two  of  them.  Under  the  month  of  March  his  role 
is  somewhat  subordinate  ;  but  under  the  month  of 
August  he  appears  in  what  is  probably  the  most 
widely  known  and  the  best  executed  of  the  series  ; 
having  found  its  way  into  modern  anthologies:  its 
superior  quality  suggesting  its  being  one  of  the  latest 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  343 

composed  of  the  set.  This  piece  is  neither  more  nor 
less  than  a  verse-making  contest  between  two  rival 
poets  named  "Willie  "  and  "  Perigot."  In  view,  there- 
fore, of  the  general  character  of  the  work,  its  deliberate 
representation  of  eminent  contemporaries,  taken  along 
with  the  literary  situation  at  that  time,  the  poetic 
rivalry  between  Philip  Sidney  and  the  Earl  of  Oxford, 
there  is,  to  begin  with,  something  more  than  a  mere 
presumption  that  the  two  rival  poets,  "  Willie"  and 
"  Perigot,"  were  Oxford  and  Sidney.  We  therefore 
ask  the  reader  to  recall  Oxford's  verse  beginning 
"  Were  I  a  king,"  and  Sidney's  rejoinder  "  Wert 
thou  a  king,"  already  quoted  in  this  chapter  :  verses 
which,  from  subsequent  developments,  must  have  been 
written  shortly  before  Spenser's  poem  was  published. 
Then  let  him  turn  to  this  poem  of  Spenser's  and  read 
it  with  the  other  verse -making  episode  in  mind.  It 
plunges  immediately  by  its  opening  lines  into  the 
cause  of  their  antagonism.  "  Tell  me,  Perigot  .  .  . 
wherefore  with  mine  thou  dare  thy  music  match  ?  " 
And  this  he  follows  up  with  a  further  challenge  whether 
"  in  rhymes  with  me  thou  dare  strive."  Then,  as 
if  to  put  the  matter  of  identification  beyond  doubt, 
a  third  party  called  "  Cuddy "  is  introduced  as 
arbitrator,  and  he  assumes  office  with  the  irrelevant 
remark  :  "  What  a  judge  were  Cuddy  for  a  king." 

If  any  doubt  remained  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Cuddy's 
two  shepherds  represented  Oxford  and  Philip  Sidney     verses-' 
it  ought  to  be  quite  removed  by  the  closing  part  of 
the  poem.     After  the  competition,  Cuddie  must  needs 
finish  up  with  some  "  verses  "  which  he  claims  to 
have  got  from  Colin  Clout  (Spenser) .     These  are  not 
even  doggerel.     In  the  place  of  rhymes  he  simply 
repeats  the  same  words  over  and  over  again,   and 


344         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

these,  together  with  other  words  and  phrases  that 
make  up  the  "  verses,"  form  but  a  verbal  jumble 
composed  of  characteristic  words  from  the  poems  of 
the  two  rival  writers.  To  appreciate  all  the  fun  of 
Cuddie's  lines  one's  mind  must  have  been  in  some 
measure  steeped  in  the  two  sets  of  poems. 

If,  however,  before  reading  Cuddy's  "  verses  "  the 
reader  will  turn  to  the  last  stanza  quoted  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  and  also  note  the  few  phrases  we 
subjoin  here  from  Oxford's  and  Sidney's  early  poems, 
he  may  be  able  to  enter  into  the  humour  of  Cuddy's 
"  doleful  verse." 

Oxford : 

"  The  more  my  plaints  I  do  resound 

The  less  she  pities  me." 

"  The  trickling  tears  that  fall  adown  my  cheeks." 
"  Help  ye  that  are  aye  wont  to  wail, 

Ye  howling  hounds  of  hell. 
Help  man,  help  beast,  help  birds  and  worms 
That  on  the  earth  do  toil." 

Sidney  : 

"  Thus  parting  thus  my  chiefest  part  I  part." 
"  Alas,  sweet  brooks  do  in  my  tears  augment." 
"  A  simple  soul  should  breed  so  mixed  woe." 
"  Love  .  .  .  bred  my  smart." 

"  Void,"  "  House,"  "  Bred,"  "  Nature,"  are  all 
words  which  seem  to  stand  forth  in  Sidney's  somewhat 
limited  vocabulary.  Even  in  the  competition  itself 
there  is  a  frequent  suggestion  of  the  distinctive 
expressions  of  the  two  men.  One  example  of  each 
will  suffice. 

From  a  poem  by  Sidney  : 

"  Such  are  these  two,  you  scarce  can  tell 
Which  is  the  dainter  bonny  belle." 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :   MIDDLE  PERIOD  345 

Spenser's  poem  : — 

"  I  saw  the  bouncing  bellibone 
Hey,  ho,  the  bonnibell." 

From  a  poem  by  Oxford  : — 

"  Patience  perforce  is  such  a  pinching  pain." 

Spenser's  poem  : — 

"  But  whether  in  painful  love  I  pine 
Hey,  ho,  the  pinching  pain." 

A  careful  weighing  of  this  poem  can  leave  but  little  An  old 
doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  "  Willie  "  and  "  Perigot  "  problem 

~  solved. 

with  Oxford  and  Philip  Sidney :  the  only  question 
is  whether  "  Willie "  is  Oxford  or  Sidney.  If  we 
associate  the  contest  in  Spenser's  poem  with  Sidney's 
"  matching "  of  Oxford's  verse,  as  we  may  very 
reasonably  do,  then  "  Willie  "  is  Oxford  ;  for  it  is 
Willie  who  finds  fault  with  Perigot  for  matching  his 
music  and  challenges  him  on  that  account  to  another 
matching  of  rhymes. 

This,  then,  is  the  position.  The  circumstances  of 
Oxford  fit  in  with  and  afford  a  very  strong  presump- 
tion of  his  being  the  historic  prototype  of  Spenser's 
'  Willie "  in  the  early  poem,  "  The  Shepherd's 
Calender."  Between  the  writing  of  this  poem  and 
the  writing  of  the  "  Tears  of  the  Muses "  Oxford 
had  been  engaged  in  just  those  dramatic  activities 
and  had  made  his  name  in  the  precise  department, 
Comedy,  in  which  Spenser's  "  Willie  "  had  evidently 
won  renown.  And  at  the  time  when  "  The  Tears  of 
the  Muses "  was  written,  Oxford  had  withdrawn 
apparently  from  dramatic  activity  and  was  seemingly 
"  sitting  in  idle  cell  "  precisely  as  Spenser  describes 


346         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

"  Willie  "  to  be  doing.  Are  we  to  believe  that  all 
this  is  a  series  of  meaningless  coincidences  ? 

Minor  points  in  corroboration  of  the  theory  that 
Oxford  and  Spenser's  "  Willie  "  are  one  and  the  same 
person  may  be  noticed.  The  shepherd,  "  Willie," 
in  the  other  poem  in  which  he  appears,  remarks  : 

"  Alas  !  at  home  I  have  a  sire, 
A  step  dame  eke  as  hot  as  fire 
That  duly-a-days  counts  mine  "  (sheep). 

(Day  by  day  keeps  a  close  watch  over  me  and  my 
affairs).  The  reference  to  Oxford's  domestic  position, 
to  the  surveillance  exercised  by  Burleigh,  and  to  the 
irascible  Lady  Burleigh  is  obvious.  Then  in  Spenser's 
sonnet  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  which  occupies  a 
prominent  position  amongst  those  with  which  he 
prefaces  the  "  Fairie  Queen,"  he  puts  special  emphasis 
upon  Oxford's  ancient  and  noble  lineage.  We  find 
the  same  note  reflected  in  the  verses  in  "  The  Tears 
of  the  Muses  "  referring  to  Willie,  whom  he  represents 
as  "  scorning  the  boldness  of  base-born  men."  From 
this  it  is  evident  that  "  Willie "  was  not  "  base- 
born,"  but  rather  a  man  distinguished  for  his  high 
birth. 

Spenser's  We  have  every  reason  to  believe,  then,  that  we  have 

testimony.  not  only  solved  the  long-standing  mystery  of  the 
"  Willie  "  in  "  The  Tears  of  the  Muses,"  but  have 
incidentally  secured  the  testimony  of  no  less  an 
authority  than  the  poet  Spenser,  that  the  powers  of 
Edward  de  Vere  were  recognized  to  be  such  as  to  justify 
his  being  described  in  terms  which  are  said  to  be  only 
applicable  to  Shakespeare.  The  fact  that  a  solution 
proposed  for  one  problem  furnishes  incidentally  a 
reasonable  solution  to  another  is  additional  evidence 
in  its  favour.  The  testimony  is  also  valuable  as 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  347 

showing  that,  notwithstanding  the  non-appearance  of 
work  avowedly  from  his  pen,  he  had  given  evidence, 
not  of  a  falling  off,  but  of  such  a  development  of  his 
powers  as  to  create  a  marked  impression  in  the  mind 
of  his  great  contemporary.  It  is  evidence,  too,  that 
he  had  produced  much  more  poetry  than  we  have 
under  his  own  name,  for  the  few  short  lyrics  can 
hardly  be  described  as  "  large  streams."  The  solution 
of  this  mystery  enables  us,  moreover,  to  add  another 
link  to  our  chain  of  interesting  evidence  ;  for  we  find 
that  some  important  verses  which  are  supposed  by 
several  writers  to  have  reference  to  Shakespeare  are 
found  on  examination  actually  to  refer  to  Edward  de 
Vere,  Earl  of  Oxford  ;  whilst  the  personal  description 
they  give  is  strikingly  suggestive  of  Berowne  in  "Love's 
Labour's  Lost."  Finally,  the  two  sets  of  references, 
the  one  appearing  in  1579  and  the  other  in  1590,  link 
together  the  opening  and  the  closing  phases  of  this 
middle  period  of  his  life.  The  former  presenting  him 
as  a  poet,  and  the  latter  as  a  dramatist,  together  help 
to  make  good  the  claim  we  have  made  for  him  :  that 
he  is  the  personal  embodiment  of  the  great  literary 
transition  by  which  the  lyric  poetry  of  the  earlier 
days  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  merged  into  the 
drama  of  her  later  years.  Thus  we  get  a  sense  both 
of  the  literary  unity  of  the  times,  and  of  the  great  and 
consistent  unity  of  his  own  career. 

Assuming  that  we  have  here  the  correct  interpreta-  Shakespeare 
tion  of  these  allusions,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  and  "  wiu> 
that  we  have  their  counterpart  in  the  writings  of 
"  Shakespeare."    The    two    enigmatical    sonnets    in 
which  he  plays  upon  the  word  "  will  "  finish  with 
striding  and  emphatic  sentence  : 

''For  my  najne  is  Will," 


348         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Had  these  words  been  written  by  a  man  whose  real 
name  was  William,  like  the  Stratford  man,  they  would 
have  been  as  puerile  as  anything  in  English  literature. 
Had  they  contained  a  direct  reference  to  his  nom- 
de-plume  they  would  have  been  only  slightly  better  in 
this  respect.  We  have  good  reasons,  moreover,  for 
supposing  that  the  particular  sonnets  were  written 
before  the  "  Shakespeare  "  mask  was  assumed  (1593). 
Whether  this  is  so  or  not,  the  particular  words  quoted 
point,  no  doubt,  to  some  hidden  significance.  If,  then, 
we  are  permitted  to  suppose  that  Shakespeare  was 
alluding  to  the  "  Willie  "  in  the  poems  of  the  great 
contemporary,  we  shall  have  in  these  words  nothing 
less  than  a  direct  confession  from  the  great  dramatist 
that  he  was  none  other  than  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 
"  Willie "  Before  leaving  this  point  we  must  not  overlook 

and  Sidney.    the  statement  made  by  Dean  Church  that  Sidney  had 
elsewhere  been  referred  to  as  Willie.     No  reference 
is  given,  but  we  take  it  to  be  an  allusion  to  a  poem 
which   appeared  in  Davison's  "Poetical   Rhapsody" 
(1602),    another     of     the     numerous     miscellaneous 
collections  of  poetry  in  which  much  of  the  Elizabethan 
work  has  been  preserved.     There  Sidney's  death  is 
mourned  as  the  death  of  Willie.     It  is  only  in  the 
first  edition,  however,   that  this  appears  ;    in  later 
editions  this  is  altered,  as  though  the  writer  or  editors 
had  had  their  attention  drawn  to  a  mistake — a  possible 
misreading    of    Spenser's    earliest    work — whilst    the 
following    footnote    by  the    modern  editor  appears : 
"  I  cannot  recall  any  other  poem  in  which  the  name 
Willie  is  given  to  Sidney."     Although  first  appearing 
in  1602  it  is  mentioned  that  the  poem  had  been  written 
a   long   while   ago.     Being   an   obituary   work   it   is 
natural  to  suppose  that  it  was  written  shortly  after 


MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE  :  MIDDLE  PERIOD  349 

the  death  of  Sidney  (1586).  Seeing,  then,  that  the 
writer  of  the  poem  would  at  that  time  have  only  the 
Shepherd's  Calender  to  go  upon,  the  mistake  was 
partly  excusable.  The  publication  of  "  The  Tears  of 
the  Muses  "  in  1590  would  furnish  the  grounds  for 
the  subsequent  correction  of  the  mistake  which  had 
evidently  been  overlooked  in  the  first  printing. 

At  the  time  when  "  The  Tears  of  the  Muses  "  was  "  in  idle 

cell " 
published  the  Earl  of  Oxford  did  certainly  appear  to 

be  sitting  "  in  idle  cell."  It  is  not  impossible  that 
the  poem  of  Spenser's  may  have  revived  his  literary 
activity,  or  it  may  have  been  that  he  was  even  at  the 
time  deeply  immersed  in  the  literary  work  which  was 
soon  to  burst  upon  the  country.  After  such  a  prepara- 
tion as  he  had  undergone,  we  believe  that  such  freedom 
from  practical  work,  as  is  implied  in  the  words  "  to 
sit  in  idle  cell,"  is  just  what  was  needed  for  the 
production  of  the  Shakespearean  dramas  ;  and  places 
that  production  for  the  first  time  on  a  really  rational 
basis.  It  remains,  therefore,  to  consider  the  third  or 
final  stage  of  his  career,  that  which  synchronizes 
generally  with  the  period  of  the  appearance  of  these 
works. 

In  bringing  this  chapter  to  a  close  we  would  urge 
the  extreme  importance  of  the  matter  it  contains. 
The  chapter  in  which  we  deal  with  the  lyric  poetry 
of  Edward  de  Vere,  and  this  chapter  in  which  his 
dramatic  relationships  are  examined,  must,  by  the 
nature  of  the  case,  form  the  principal  foundations  of 
our  constructive  argument. 


CHAPTER  XII 

MANHOOD  OF  DE  VERE 
(AN  INTERLUDE) 

BEFORE  entering  upon  a  consideration  of  the  third 
and  final  period  of  De  Vere's  life  it  is  necessary  to 
touch  upon  a  few  circumstances  belonging  to  the 
closing  years  of  the  second  period,  which  form  a  kind 
of  link  with  the  third  or  last  period. 

Queen  In  1587  we  get  the  last  indications  of  Oxford's 

execution        dramatic  activities.     Towards  the  end  of  the  previous 

and  sir  Philip  year  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  after  enjoying  his  knighthood 

funeral.5        for  only  three  years,  died  four  weeks  after  the  battle 

at  Zutphen  in  which  he  had  been  injured.    At  the 

time  when  Sidney  was  lying  dying  the  trial  of  Mary 

Queen  of  Scots  was  proceeding  in  England,  and  on 

the  commission  appointed  to  try  her  was  Edward  de 

Vere,  Earl  of  Oxford. 

Certain  dates  relative  to  the  two  events  just 
mentioned  must  first  be  fixed.  Mary  appeared  before 
the  commission  on  the  I4th  of  October,  1586,  and 
received  her  sentence  on  October  the  25th.  Sidney 
died  on  the  iyth  of  the  same  month  ;  that  is  to  say 
a  week  before  Mary  received  her  sentence.  Mary  was 
executed  on  the  8th  of  February,  1587,  that  is  to  say 
three  and  a  half  months  after  receiving  her  sentence, 
and  Sidney  was  buried  on  February  i6th  a  week  after 
Mary's  execution.  Roughly,  Mary's  sentence  was 
pronounced  at  the  time  of  Sidney's  death  and  her 
execution  took  place  at  the  time  of  Sidney's  funeral, 

350 


MANHOOD    OF   DE   VERB  351 

from  three  and  a  half  to  four  months  elapsing  between 
the  two  pairs  of  events. 

It  was,  of  course,  an  extraordinary  length  of  time 
to  keep  Sidney's  body  awaiting  interment.  It  is  still 
more  extraordinary  that  this  period  should  exactly 
synchronize  with  that  during  which  Elizabeth  was 
hesitating  about,  and  Burleigh  and  Walsingham 
were  urging,  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence  against 
Mary.  To  this  must  be  added  the  fact  that  the 
most  determined  and  unscrupulous  agent  in  bringing 
about  Mary's  execution  was  Sidney's  father-in-law, 
Walsingham,  and  it  was  he,  too,  who  was  most  actively 
concerned  in  arranging  for  the  elaborately  organized 
public  funeral  that  was  accorded  to  Sidney ;  the 
latter  affair  entailing  a  call  upon  his  private  purse  to 
the  extent  of  no  less  than  six  thousand  pounds,  an 
enormous  sum  in  those  days,  equivalent  to  about 
£50,000  of  our  money.  All  this  hardly  looks  like 
accidental  coincidence. 

We  draw  attention  to  these  facts  because  an 
appreciation  of  their  bearing  will  help  towards  an 
understanding  of  the  times  in  which  Oxford  lived, 
and  the  personalities  with  whom  he  had  relationships. 

Mary's  trial  and  execution  is  a  reminder  of  the  Thc 
fears  entertained  by  politicians  like  Walsingham  and  politicians. 
Burleigh  that  a  Roman  Catholic  revival  might  occur 
at  any  time  in  England,  and  that  the  accession  of  a 
Roman  Catholic  sovereign  would  mean  for  them  ruin 
and  possibly  loss  of  life.  Mary's  execution  was 
therefore  determined  on  by  them  upon  political 
grounds.  The  country  generally  could  not  be  con- 
sidered wholeheartedly  in  favour  of  this  step.  The 
only  people  who  really  wished  for  Mary's  execution 
were  the  politicians  and  the  extreme  Protestants  ; 


352        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

and  therefore  much  remained  to  be  done  after  securing 
the  sentence  before  it  could  safely  be  carried  out. 
Burleigh's  association  with  the  puritans,  his  "  brethren 
in  Christ,"  it  is  quite  understood  rested  on  grounds  of 
policy.  They  represented  a  serviceable  force,  and 
he  was  not  the  man  to  neglect  anything  that  would 
further  his  purposes.  As  the  execution  of  Mary 
had  become  a  set  purpose  with  him  and  Walsingham, 
the  puritans  and  any  party  or  circumstance,  which 
could  be  used  for  the  fostering  of  that  public  opinion 
upon  which  the  most  despotic  of  governments 
ultimately  depends,  must  needs  be  turned  to  account. 
Sidney's  Now,  apart  from  political  considerations,  Sidney's 
sudden  transformation  into  a  national  hero  is  one  of 
the  most  curious  of  historical  phenomena.  We  are 
not  urging  that  he  was  not  a  worthy  young  man. 
We  are  quite  willing  to  rest  his  case  on  the  best  that 
his  friends  have  made  out  for  him.  Let  us  gram 
that  he  was  the  perfection  of  courtesy  in  his  deport- 
ment, and  that  his  conversation  was  attractive.  Let 
us  assume  that  the  one  chivalrous  act  recorded  of  him, 
the  foregoing  of  a  drink  of  water  in  the  interests  of  a 
dying  soldier,  is  true  and  was  unparallelled  in  its 
unselfishness.  Still,  it  is  not  for  these  things  that 
people  are  accorded  elaborate  public  funerals  and 
their  deaths  lamented  as  national  calamities.  When 
it  is  asked  what  he  actually  accomplished  in  life,  we 
begin  to  wonder  at  the  great  demonstration  that  was 
organized  for  the  reception  of  his  body  in  England, 
and  later  on  for  his  interment.  Neither  in  arms  nor  in 
statesmanship  had  he  attained  such  a  pre-eminence 
as  is  usual  in  the  recipients  of  such  state  distinctions, 
whilst  his  achievements  in  literature,  had  they  been 
as  noteworthy  as  those  of  Spenser,  would  not  have 


MANHOOD    OF   DE   VERB  353 

secured  for  him  one  half  the  national  honour  that 
attended  his  obsequies.  We  are  naturally  disposed, 
therefore,  to  look  for  some  political  motive  behind  the 
public  demonstration  and  all  the  panegyrics  that 
followed  on  it. 

Now  Elizabeth's  fear  that  the  execution  of  Mary 
might  result  in  a  revulsion  of  public  feeling  against 
herself  was  so  real  as  to  cause  her  not  only  to  delay 
the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence  but  also  to  provide 
for  shuffling  the  odium  on  to  subordinate  agents  when 
the  execution  should  have  taken  place.  Burleigh 
and  Walsingham  were  therefore  not  likely  to  be  less 
sensible  of  their  danger,  and  they,  too,  took  steps 
to  secure  themselves  against  being  saddled  with  the 
chief  responsibility.  Meanwhile  a  public  opinion 
favourable  to  their  purpose  must  be  fostered  by  every 
available  artifice.  In  those  days  "  public  opinion  " 
meant  to  a  great  extent  "  London  opinion  "  and  in 
times  of  crisis  this  could  be  systematically  stimulated 
and  directed  by  spectacular  displays. 

As  Sidney  had  been  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  working 
anti-papal  policy  of  Burleigh  and  Walsingham,  a  public 
policy  including  antagonism  to  the  Guises  ;  having 
somewhat  aggressively  made  himself  the  spokesman 
of  those  who  thought  they  were  opposing  the  Queen 
at  the  time  when  she  was  diplomatically  toying  with 
the  idea  of  marriage  with  the  Duke  of  Anjou  ;  and 
as  his  life  had  been  lost  in  an  adventure  in  support  of 
the  same  anti-papal  policy,  his  death,  with  its  power 
of  sentimental  appeal,  was  a  valuable  asset  to  his 
party  which  Burleigh  and  Walsingham  could  not 
afford  to  neglect.  The  projected  execution  of  Mary 
being  part  of  the  same  policy  which  had  led  to  the 
affair  at  Zutphen,  Sidney's  death  was  capable  of  being 


354         "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

turned  to  account.  His  party  now  had  the  inestim- 
able good  fortune  of  possessing  a  martyr,  and  this 
must  needs  be  worked  for  all  it  was  worth. 

The    elaborately    organized    obsequies,    so    out    of 
proportion  to  any  recorded  achievement  of  Sidney's, 
bears  much  more  the  appearance  of  political  strategy 
than  of  merited  honour  :    the  politicians  of  any  one 
period  being  strikingly  similar  to  those  of  any  other. 
It  is  the  very  excess  of  the  demonstration  joined  to 
the  fact  that  it  did  not  come  spontaneously   from 
any  public  body  but  was  worked  up  by  interested 
individuals    that    places    the    whole    business    under 
suspicion.     We  cannot  recall  any  other  instance  in 
which  London  went  into  mourning  with  the  same 
6clat   as  it  did  for  Sidney.     The  matter  was  well 
staged     and     the     Sidney-mourning-fashion     caught 
on.     No  blame  can  attach  to  the  man  himself  for 
all  this,  but  when  we  are  asked  to  perpetuate  the 
adulation  we  shall  persist  in  asking,  What  did  he  do  to 
merit  it  all  ?     The  fame  that  he  has  enjoyed  through- 
out  history  probably   owes   much   to  the   factitious 
send-off  that  it  got  at  this  time,  and  to  the  fact  that 
the  movement  and  the  party  to  which  he  belonged 
was  then,  and  afterwards  continued,  in  the  ascendant. 
Oxford  and        Oxford,  on  the  other  hand,  with  his  strong  medieval 
affinities,    was   completely    out    of    touch    with    the 
ascendant  party,  and  his  fame  has  suffered  under  a 
corresponding    disadvantage.     Indeed    we    may    say 
that  what  he  stood  for  remained  under  a  cloud  until 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when,  through 
the  combined  influence  of  '  Shakespeare,'  Scott,  and 
Newman,  a  sense  of  what  was  admirable  and  enduring 
in  medievalism  began  to  revive. 
Protestant  sectarianism  was  as  contrary  to  his  out- 


MANHOOD    OF   DE    VERB  355 

look  upon  life  as  it  is  to  the  wide  genius  of  Shake- 
speare. On  the  other  hand  we  cannot  say  confidently 
of  Edward  de  Vere,  any  more  than  we  can  of  Shake- 
speare, that  he  was  an  orthodox  Roman  Catholic. 
With  the  exception  of  the  remark  which  we  have 
quoted  from  Green  we  cannot  discover  any  further 
evidence  of  his  connection  with  the  ancient  Church. 
It  is  much  more  likely  that  his  was  the  Catholicism 
of  a  universal  Humanity,  "  with  large  discourse 
looking  before  and  after,"  taking  into  itself  the  culture 
of  Greece  and  Rome  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
the  visions  that  belong  to  a  "  prophetic  soul  of  the 
wide  world  dreaming  on  things  to  come."  We  find 
no  trace  of  medieval  theologism  in  his  poetry,  nor 
any  religious  pietism  such  as  that  we  have  mentioned 
as  appearing  in  the  poems  of  Raleigh.  Oxford's 
attachment  was  probably  to  the  human  and  social 
sides  of  Catholicism  and  Feudalism,  which  he  saw 
crumbling  away  and  being  supplanted  by  an  un- 
bridled individualism  and  egoism. 

We  have  dwelt  at  some  length  upon  Sidney's  death  oxford  under 
and  Mary's  execution  not  only  because  Oxford's  name  a  shadow- 
and  reputation  are  mixed  up  with  Sidney's  affairs,  and 
one  of  the  few  recorded  acts  of  his  life  is  connected 
with  Mary,  but  also  because  the  relationship  we  have 
traced  between  the  celebrity  of  one  and  the  execution 
of  the  other  helps  us  to  focus  Oxford's  religious  and 
political  environment,  and  to  realize  something  of 
his  relationship  to  contemporary  parties.  These 
things  go  a  long  way  towards  accounting  for  the 
obscurity  into  which  the  names  of  Oxford  and  his 
immediate  associates  have  fallen  as  compared  with 
his  antagonists.  It  also  accounts  for  the  peculiar 
fact,  which  has  probably  struck  most  of  our  readers, 


356        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

that  we  seldom  meet  with  his  name  except  in  connec- 
tion with  opponents,  thus  giving  the  general  impression 
of  a  man  at  loggerheads  with  every  one — excepting 
in  certain  literary  and  dramatic  contacts.  This  compels 
us  to  examine  closely  the  reputations  of  rivals  and 
to  modify  any  artifical  advantages  that  they  owe  in 
this  matter  merely  to  the  turns  of  fortune.  Between 
Oxford  and  Sidney  we  see  that  there  lay  matters 
much  deeper  than  the  artistic  vanity  of  rival  poets. 
The  two  men  represented  opposing  social  tendencies, 
and  to  these  are  largely  due  the  glamour  that  has 
gathered  round  one  name  and  the  shadow  that  has 
remained  over  the  other.  At  the  time  of  the  French 
marriage  proposal,  which  Burleigh,  Sidney  and  their 
party  opposed,  Oxford  had  been  one  of  those  who 
favoured  the  project.  One  modern  writer  sees  in  this 
nothing  more  than  an  attempt  on  his  part  to  win 
royal  favour — from  all  accounts  the  last  thing  he 
was  likely  to  go  out  of  his  way  to  do.  Only  as 
we  realize  his  spontaneous  hostility  to  the  social 
and  political  tendencies  represented  by  Burleigh, 
Walsingham,  Sidney,  Raleigh  and  Fulke  Greville 
shall  we  be  able  to  judge  him  accurately  or  adjust 
ourselves  properly  to  the  Shakespeare  problem. 
"  Shake-  The  question  which  concerns  us  is  whether  Shake- 

Fiunce  and  Peare  can  De  claimed  as  representing  Oxford's  attitude 
to  contemporary  religious  and  political  movements 
or  the  attitude  taken  by  the  group  of  men  we  have 
just  named.  On  the  religious  side  we  have  already 
seen  that  their  ultra-protestant  tendencies  meet 
with  no  support  in  Shakespeare,  and  in  this 
Shakespeare  and  Oxford  are  at  one.  In  continental 
policy  the  aim  of  Burleigh  (and  Sidney)  was  to  keep 
open  the  breach  between  England  and  France. 


MANHOOD    OF   DE   VERE  357 

Oxford,  as  we  have  seen,  favoured  a  policy  of  amity 
and  alliance  between  the  two  countries.  That  this 
was  "  Shakespeare's  "  view  is  made  quite  clear  in 
the  closing  scene  of  Henry  V.  where  he  expresses  the 
wish  "  that  the  contending  kingdoms 

"  Of  France  and  England,  whose  very  shores  look  pale 
With  envy  of  each  other's  happiness, 
May  cease  their  hatred,  and  this  dear  conjunction 
Plant  neighbourhood  and  Christian-like  accord 
In  their  sweet  bosoms,  that  never  war  advance 
His  bleeding  sword  'twixt  England  and  fair  France. 

"  That  never  may  ill  office,  or  fell  jealousy 
Thrust  in  between  the  paction  of  these  kingdoms. 
That  English  may  as  French,  French  Englishmen 
Receive  each  other." 

In  international  policy,  then,  Shakespeare  and  Oxford 
are  again  at  one. 

How  differently  might  the  whole  course  of  European  Shakespeare 
history  have  unfolded  itself  if  the  policy  of  Shake-  and 

,      ,  .,    ,  .  ,      ,  ,,  ,  ,,  ,., .   .  politicians. 

speare  had  prevailed  instead  of  that  of  the  politicians 
of  his  time.  Oxford's  general  relationship  to  those 
politicians,  moreover,  is  most  clearly  reflected  in  the 
works  of  Shakespeare  where  the  very  word  "  politician  " 
is  a  term  of  derision  and  contempt. 

"  That  skull  had  a  tongue  in  it  and  could  sing  once  ; 
how  the  knave  jowls  it  to  the  ground  as  if  it  were  Cain's 
jaw-bone  that  did  the  first  murder  I  It  might  be  the  pate 
of  a  politician,  one  that  would  circumvent  God,  might  it 
not  ?  " 

("Hamlet,"   V.    i.) 

"  Get  thee  glass  eyes  ; 
And,  like  a  scurvy  politician,  seem 
To  see  the  things  thou  dost  not." 

("Lear,"  IV.  6.) 

We   can   imagine   all   his   contempt   for   Burleigh 


358        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

running  through  the  above  lines,  and  the  minister's 
pretended  attachment  to  the  growing  force  of 
puritanism,  his  "brethren  in  Christ,"  finds  a  counter- 
blast in  the  words, 

' '  Policy  I  hate  :   I  had  as  lief  be  a  Brownist  as  a  politician  ' ' 

("Twelfth  Night  ") 

an  expression  of  contempt  for  both  politicians  and 
puritans.  In  a  word,  then,  Shakespeare  represents 
the  Oxford  point  of  view  and  not  that  of  Oxford's 
antagonists. 

Queen  Mary  There  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  which  side  Oxford's 
sympathies  would  lean  during  the  trial  of  Mary ; 
and  so,  when  Burleigh,  wishing  to  furnish  himself 
with  substantial  authority  for  going  forward  with  the 
execution,  called  together  the  ten  men  upon  the 
authority  of  whose  signatures  he  proceeded,  Oxford 
was  not  one  of  the  number. 

Again,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the 
case  in  the  matter  of  Mary's  trial  and  execution  ; 
but,  as  we  read  of  her  wonderfully  brave  and  dignified 
bearing,  and  of  her  capable  and  unaided  conduct  of 
her  own  defence,  we  can  quite  believe  that  if  the 
dramatist  who  wrote  the  "  Merchant  of  Venice  " 
was  present  at  the  trial  of  the  Scottish  Queen,  with 

"ringlets,  almost  grey,  once  threads  of  living  gold," 
(H.  G.  Bell—"  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  ") 

he  had  before  him  a  worthy  model  for  the  fair  Portia, 

whose 

' '  sunny  locks 
Hung  on  her  temples  like  a  golden  fleece." 

("Merchant  of  Venice,"  Act  I,  sc.   i.) 

Of  this  trial  Martin  Hume  says,  "  Mary  defended 
herself  with  consummate  ability  before  a  tribunal 


MANHOOD    OF   DE    VERE  359 

almost  entirely  prejudiced  against  her.  She  was  Mary's 
deprived  of  legal  aid,  without  her  papers  and  in  ill  9pee 
health.  In  her  argument  with  Burleigh  she  reached 
a  point  of  touching  eloquence  which  might  have 
moved  the  hearts,  though  it  did  not  convince  the 
intellects,  of  her  august  judges."  And,  in  a  footnote, 
he  quotes  from  Burleigh's  letter  to  Davison,  "  Her 
intention  was  to  move  pity  by  long,  artificial  speeches." 
With  this  remark  of  Burleigh's  in  mind,  let  the  reader 
weigh  carefully  the  terms  of  Portia's  speech  on 
"  Mercy,"  all  turning  upon  conceptions  of  royal 
power,  with  its  symbols  the  crown  and  the  sceptre. 

' '  It  becomes  the  throned  monarch  better  than  his  crown. 
His  sceptre  shows  the  force  of  temporal  power, 
The  attribute  to  awe  and  majesty, 
Wherein  doth  sit  the  dread  and  fear  of  kings. 
But  mercy  is  above  this  sceptred  sway  ; 
It  is  enthroned  in  the  hearts  of  kings  ; 
It  is  an  attribute  to  God  Himself  ; 
And  earthly  power  doth  then  show  likest  God's 
When  mercy  seasons  justice." 

Now  let  any  one  judge  whether  this  speech  is  not 
vastly  more  appropriate  to  Mary  Queen  of  Scots 
pleading  her  own  cause  before  Burleigh,  Walsingham, 
and  indirectly  the  English  Queen,  than  to  an  Italian 
lady  pleading  to  an  old  Jew  for  the  life  of  a  merchant 
she  had  never  seen  before.  Who,  then,  could  have 
been  better  qualified  for  giving  an  idealized  and 
poetical  rendering  of  Mary's  speeches  than  "  the 
best  of  the  courtier  poets,"  who  was  a  sympathetic 
listener  to  her  pathetic  and  dignified  appeals  ? 

In  February  1587  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  was  be- 
headed, and  this  is  the  year  in  which  we  lose  traces  of 
Edward  de  Vere's  connection  with  drama.  It  was 
a  time  of  great  stress  and  excitement  in  the  country. 


360 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Shakespeare 
and  the 
Spanish 
Armada. 


Preparations 


The  fear  of  a  Spanish  invasion  lay  heavily  on  the 
nation  and  preparations  were  in  full  swing  to  meet 
the  expected  Armada.  Passing,  as  we  of  these  days 
have  done,  through  times  of  still  greater  stress,  we 
can  now  quite  see  the  allusion  to  England  prior  to 
the  coming  of  the  Armada  in  the  following  passage 
from  Hamlet : 

"Tell  me,  he  that  knows, 

Why  this  same  strict  and  most  observant  watch 
So  nightly  toils  the  subject  of  the  land  ; 
And  why  such  daily  cast  of  brazen  cannon, 
And  foreign  mart  for  implements  of  war  ; 
Why  such  impress  of  shipwrights,  whose  sore  task 
Does  not  divide  the  Sunday  from  the  week  ; 
What  might  be  toward,  that  this  sweaty  haste 
Doth  make  the  night  joint  labourer  with  the  day  ?  " 

Oxford,  like  many  others  who  were  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  policy  of  the  government,  nevertheless  put 
aside  all  differences  to  join  in  the  common  cause  of 
resisting  the  invader.  As  a  volunteer  he  was 
permitted  to  join  the  navy,  and  took  part  in  the 
great  sea  fight  that  scattered  the  Armada  and  delivered 
England  from  the  fear  of  subjugation. 

The  picture  of  Spain's  immense  war  vessels  sailing 
grandly  up  the  Channel,  flying  past  the  English  ships, 
many  of  them  but  small  traders  that  rose  and  fell 
with  each  slight  movement  of  the  sea,  is  familiar  now 
to  every  English  boy  and  girl.  It  is  worth  remarking 
then  that  the  same  play  of  Shakespeare's  which  suggests 
the  figure  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  contains  also  a 
picture  suggestive  of  the  contrast  between  the  two 
fleets. 

"  There  where  your  argosies  with  portly  sail, 
Like  signiors  and  rich  burghers  of  the  flood, 
Or,  as  it  were,  the  pageants  of  the  sea, 


MANHOOD    OF   DE   VERE  361 

Do  overpeer  the  petty  traffickers, 

That  curtsey  to  them,  do  them  reverence, 

As  they  fly  by  them  with  their  woven  wings." 

Then  as  we  remember  the  disaster  that  befel  some  The  Spanish 
of  these  huge  vessels  through  the  Spaniards'  ignorance  dlsaster- 
of  the  shoals  and  sandbanks  round  the  English  coast, 
we  can  see  the  picture  of  one  of  them,  lying  on  her 
side  with  the  top  of  her  mast  below  the  level  of  her 
hull,  in  the  lines  : 

"  I  should  not  see  the  sandy  hour-glass  run, 
But  I  should  think  of  shallows  and  of  flats, 
And  see  my  wealthy  Andrew,  dock'd  in  sand, 
Vailing  her  high-top  lower  than  her  ribs 
To  kiss  her  burial." 

.  Quite  what  position  the  Earl  of  Oxford  might  have 
occupied  on  board  ship  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  ; 
but  we  can  well  believe  that  as  an  intelligent  though 
inexperienced  seaman  he  would  find  considerable 
interest  and  occupation,  in 

"  Peering  in  maps  for  ports  and  piers  and  roads." 

The  Earl  was  not  a  seafaring  man,  nor  is  there 
anything  in  the  record  of  his  life  that  suggests  a 
special  enthusiasm  for  the  sea.  The  same  is  true 
of  "  Shakespeare  "  as  revealed  in  his  works  as  a  whole, 
whilst  the  passages  we  have  quoted  indicate  some 
slight  but  special  experiences  of  a  keen  observer,  who 
humanized  everything  on  which  his  eye  alighted  ;  not 
only  the  active  vessels  but  even  the  battered  wrecks 
seeming  to  him  to  possess  a  human  personality. 

Associated   with   Oxford's  experience    of    sea    life  Death  of 
was  the  death  of  his  wife.     During  the  month  preced- 
ing the  appearance  of  the  Armada  Lady  Oxford  died, 
June   6th,    1588.     What   this   may   have   meant   to 


362        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

De  Vere  himself  is  a  mystery  which  will  probably 
never  be  quite  solved,  and  which  mankind  would 
be  content  to  pass  over  in  silence  if  the  Earl  of  Oxford 
were  to  remain  for  all  time  no  more  than  what  has 
been  supposed  hitherto.  If,  however,  he  comes  to 
be  universally  acknowledged  as  Shakespeare,  interest 
in  the  matter  is  certain  to  be  revived,  and  we  may 
find  that  in  his  rdle  of  dramatist  he  either  answers 
our  questions  on  the  subject,  or  suggests  some  reason- 
able conjectures. 

Hamlet's  sea  experiences  we  observe  stand  in  direct 
association  with  the  death  of  Ophelia.  It  is  whilst 
he  is  away  that  she  dies.  He  returns  at  the  time  of 
her  burial,  and  after  the  graveyard  scene  resumes 
with  Horatio  the  discussion  of  his  sea  adventures. 
As,  then,  the  attitude  of  Hamlet  to  Ophelia  resembles 
in  some  particular  that  of  Oxford  to  his  wife,  we  may 
hope,  at  any  rate,  that,  as  "  Shakespeare,"  he  gives 
us  in  the  famous  graveyard  scene  a  revelation  of  the 
true  state  of  his  affections  :  a  supposition  which  even 
his  conduct  at  the  time  of  their  rupture  quite  justifies. 

The  death  of  Lady  Oxford,  and  the  subsidence  of 
the  national  excitement  in  relation  to  the  Spanish 
Armada,  following,  as  they  do,  closely  upon  the  last 
indications  we  have  of  his  theatrical  enterprises,  may 
be  taken  as  marking  the  time  at  which  he  began  "  to 
sit  in  idle  cell,"  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  period 
of  his  life. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

MANHOOD  OF  EDWARD  DE  VERB 

FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD 
(1590-1604) 

"  I  THINK  the  best  judgment  not  of  this  country  only, 
but  of  Europe  at  large,  is  slowly  pointing  to  the 
conclusion,  that  Shakespeare  is  the  chief  of  all  poets 
hitherto  ;  the  greatest  intellect  who,  in  our  recorded 
world,  has  left  record  of  himself  in  the  way  of  literature." 

THOMAS  CARLYLE,  Heroes. 

We  have  now  reached  a  stage  in  our  argument  at  Dates, 
which  the  study  of  dates  becomes  of  paramount 
importance.  Indeed,  we  are  tempted  to  think  that  the 
failure  to  appreciate  the  precise  significance  of  certain 
dates  has  gone  far  towards  preventing  an  earlier 
discovery  of  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  plays. 
We  can  quite  believe  that  other  investigators  have 
actually  thought  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  in  connection 
with  the  problem,  and  have  dismissed  the  idea  because 
of  certain  chronological  considerations,  which  may 
have  been  thought  to  stand  in  the  way,  but  which, 
if  carefully  examined,  would  have  actually  been 
found  to  support  and  confirm  the  theory.  If,  there- 
fore, in  this  and  succeeding  chapters  we  dwell  at  some 
length  on  the  question  of  dates,  it  is  because  what 
at  first  blush  might  give  rise  to  doubts,  when  correctly 
estimated  is  found  to  furnish  one  of  the  strongest 

363 


364         "SHAKESPEARE*     IDENTIFIED 

links  in  our  chain  of  argument.  When,  then,  we 
come  to  these  chronological  matters  we  ask  for  them 
a  very  close  and  patient  attention. 

Material  In  entering  upon  the  final  and,  as  we  believe,  the 

difficulties.  most  important  period  in  the  life  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
we  must  first  describe  briefly  the  position  in  which 
he  then  found  himself  in  respect  to  certain  matters  not 
directly  literary.  Although  we  have  only  the  barest 
indications  upon  which  to  work,  we  judge  that  for 
the  first  two  or  three  years  of  this  period  things  were 
not  going  well  with  him.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
the  suspension  of  his  dramatic  activities  was  due,  in 
part  at  any  rate,  to  the  exhaustion  of  his  material 
resources.  His  tendency  to  spend  lavishly  is  un- 
mistakable, and  his  play-acting  and  literary  associates 
would  provide  an  almost  unlimited  field  for  the 
exercise  of  his  generosity.  His  own  absorption  in 
these  interests  must,  moreover,  have  tended  to  place 
his  financial  affairs  at  the  mercy  of  agents,  and  to 
throw  them  into  confusion.  To  this  must  be  added 
the  almost  royal  state  which  he  seems  to  have 
maintained  in  some  respects.  For  at  one  point  we 
get  a  glimpse  of  him  travelling  en  famille  with  a 
retinue  of  twenty-eight  servants.  Suggestions  of  this 
kind  of  thing,  we  note  in  passing,  are  found  in  "  The 
Taming  of  the  Shrew,"  treated  much  more  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  master  than  of  the  servant. 
Land-gelling.  The  need  for  ready  cash  must  often  have  been 
pressing,  and  this  need  he  seems  to  have  satisfied  by 
selling  estates  "  at  ruinously  low  rates."  Like  the 
man  with  a  "  trick  of  melancholy "  mentioned  in 
"  All's  Well,"  he  sold  many  "  a  goodly  manor  for  a 
song,"  and  possibly  at  the  same  time  developed  that 
contempt  for  "  land-buyers "  expressed  by  Hamlet 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD    365 

in  the  grave-digging  scene.  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  when  lago,  who,  we  have  supposed,  represented 
Oxford's  receiver,  urges  upon  one  of  his  victims : 
"  put  money  in  thy  purse  ;  "  he  meets  immediately 
with  the  response,  "I  will  sell  my  lands."  What  Oxford's 
exact  financial  position  may  have  become  we  cannot 
say,  but  it  was  evidently  very  low,  for  we  are  told 
that,  after  Lady  Oxford's  death,  Burleigh  refused  to 
give  any  further  assistance  to  his  son-in-law.  The 
implication  is,  of  course,  that  Burleigh  had  been 
assisting  him  before  this.  No  particulars  of  such 
assistance  are  given,  and  we  may  perhaps  be  pardoned 
if  we  are  somewhat  sceptical  upon  the  matter.  In 
any  case  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  we 
depend  chiefly  upon  Burleigh's  own  account  of  these 
things.  It  is  clear,  at  any  rate,  that  although  one 
of  the  foremost  of  the  aristocracy,  and  originally  a 
man  of  great  wealth,  he  had  by  the  time  of  which  we  are 
now  treating  found  himself  in  reduced  circumstances. 

Like  Bassanio  in  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice  "  he  Second 
had  seriously 

"  disabled  (his)  estate, 

By  something  showing  a  more  swelling  port 
Than  (his)  .  .  .  means  would  grant  continuance." 

And,  like  Bassanio,  he  also,  in  some  measure,  repaired 
his  fortunes  by  marriage  with  "  a  lady  richly  left." 
Whether,  like  Portia,  she  was  "  fair,  and  fairer  than 
that  word,  of  wondrous  virtues  "  we  are  not  told  ; 
but  if  our  theory  of  the  authorship  of  the  plays  of 
Shakespeare  is  maintained,  it  is  evident  that  the 
years  he  spent  with  her  were  to  himself  years  of  great 
productivity,  whilst  their  importance  in  the  history 
of  the  world's  literature  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 
The  exact  date  of  this  marriage  is  not  given,  but 


366         "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

from  the  context  we  judge  it  to  have  taken  place  either 
at  the  end  of  1591  or  during  1592. 

As  Sir  Sidney  Lee  suggests  that  it  is  improbable 
that  any  of  Shakespeare's  plays  made  their  appear- 
ance before  1592,  we  may  take  the  marriage  of  Edward 
de  Vere  with  Elizabeth  Trentham  as  synchronizing 
with  the  advent  of  the  Shakespearean  dramas.  If, 
however,  we  take  1590  as  marking,  in  a  general  way, 
their  first  appearance,  he  would  still  have  had  two 
years  of  retirement  after  the  events  recorded  in  our 
last  chapter  by  way  of  special  preparation  for  his 
work;  whilst  if  we  take  the  year  of  his  marriage  as 
the  real  beginning  he  had  the  advantage  of  four  years 
of  retirement,  preceded  by  a  probable  ten  years, 
and  a  possible  twelve  years  of  active  association  with 
the  drama — quite  a  considerable  and  appropriate 
preparation  for  the  work  upon  which  he  was  entering. 
Seclusion.  During  part  of  the  time  immediately  preceding 

his  second  marriage  he  was  living  in  apartments  in 
London  ;  an  arrangement  suggestive  of  that  seclusion 
which  we  deem  one  of  the  essentials  for  the  production 
of  work  of  the  distinctive  character  of  Shakespeare's 
plays.  For  we  must  state  here,  what  must  be 
emphasized  later,  that  the  Shakespearean  dramas, 
as  we  have  them  now,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  plays 
written  specially  to  meet  the  demands  of  a  company 
of  actors.  They  are  stage  plays  that  have  been  converted 
into  literature.  This  we  hold  to  be  their  distinctive 
character,  demanding  in  their  author  two  distinct 
phases  of  activity,  if  not  two  completely  separate 
periods  of  life  for  their  production.  And,  for  the 
production  of  such  a  literature  as  this,  freedom  from 
distractions  is  a  most  important  condition.  The 
seclusion  of  De  Vere,  which  we  believe  Spenser  at 


this  very  time  to  have  been  lamenting  in  the  '  Tears 
of  the  Muses,'  has  all  the  appearance,  therefore,  of  a 
condition  imposed  upon  himself,  as  necessary  to  the 
fulfilment  of  his  purpose. 

Now  we  must  draw  attention  to  what  is  probably  An 
as  significant  a  fact  as  any  we  have  met.  From  the  b 
time  of  his  second  marriage  till  the  time  of  his  death 
in  1604,  the  record  we  have  of  him  is  almost  a  complete 
blank.  In  Sir  Sidney  Lee's  account  of  him  one  very 
short  paragraph  covers  the  whole  of  these  twelve 
years.  We  are  told  that  he  was  living  in  retirement : 
not,  however,  in  the  country,  but  in  London  or  its 
suburb,  Hackney,  where,  therefore,  he  would  be  in 
direct  contact  with  the  theatre  life  of  Shoreditch  and 
that  great  movement  of  dramatic  and  literary  rebirth, 
so  aptly  described  by  Dean  Church  :  but  of  which 
Spenser  in  1590  had  evidently  detected  no  promise. 
Two  public  appearances  alone  are  recorded  of  him 
during  the  whole  of  this  time.  But  as  even  these 
were  in  the  last  two  years  of  his  life  we  have  a  period 
of  ten  years  which  may  be  considered  void  of  all 
important  record  ;  and  the  two  events  recorded  of 
the  last  two  years  involve  no  appreciable  encroach- 
ment upon  his  time  and  energies. 

This  then  is  the  position.    In  1592  he  is  placed  in  A  vital 
comfortable    circumstances.     He    is    just    forty-two  synchronism- 
years  of  age  and  therefore  entering  upon  the  period 
of  the  true  maturity  of  his  powers.     He  has  behind 
him    a    poetic    and    a    dramatic   record    of    a    most 
exceptional   character.     His   poems    are   by   far   the 
most  Shakespearean  in  quality  and  form  of  any  of 
that  time.     His  dramatic  record  places  him  in  the 
forefront    of    play   writers.    Then    a    silence    of    an 
additional  twelve  years  succeeds  the  four  years  of 


368        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

apparent  idleness,  and  this  twelve  years  of  comfort  and 
seclusion  exactly  corresponds  to  the  period  of  the  amaz- 
ing outpouring  of  the  great  Shakespearean  dramas. 
Unless,  therefore,  we  are  to  imagine  the  complete 
stultification  of  every  taste  and  interest  he  had  hither- 
to shown,  he  must  have  been,  on  any  theory  of  Shake- 
spearean authorship,  one  of  the  most  interested 
spectators  of  this  culmination  of  Elizabethan  literature, 
and  he  himself  the  natural  connecting  link  between 
it  and  the  past.  Yet  never  for  one  moment  does 
he  appear  in  it  all.  His  own  record  for  these  years 
is  a  blank,  and — "  no  specimens  of  his  dramatic 
productions  survive." 

In  weighing  evidence,  in  certain  cases,  what  may 
be  called  negative  evidence  is  frequently  of  a  more 
compelling  force  than  the  more  positive  kind.  If 
such  a  dramatic  and  literary  outburst  had  had  no 
original  connection  with  De  Vere  it  must  inevitably 
have  swept  him  within  its  influence.  But  the  very 
man  who  had  the  greatest  affinities  with  this  particular 
type  of  production,  and  who,  up  to  within  a  year  or 
two  of  the  first  appearance  of  William  Shakspere,  had 
been  amongst  the  foremost  to  encourage  and  patronize 
literary  men,  is  never  once  heard  of  either  in  connec- 
tion with  William  Shakspere  or  the  Shakespearean 
drama.  So  far  as  these  momentous  happenings  in 
his  own  peculiar  domain  are  concerned,  he  might 
have  been  supposed  to  have  been  already  dead. 

We  have,  therefore,  a  most  remarkable  combination 
of  silences  ;  a  silence  as  to  his  own  occupations  during 
these  important  years,  and  a  silence  as  to  any 
manifestation  of  interest  in  a  work  which,  under  any 
circumstances,  must  have  touched  him  deeply.  We 
can  only  suppose  that  he  did  not  wish  be  be  seen  in 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD    369 

the  matter ;  and  the  only  feasible  explanation  of 
such  a  wish  is  the  theory  of  authorship  we  are  now 
urging.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  real  blank  in  his 
records,  so  far  as  any  adequate  occupation  is  concerned, 
is  one  of  sixteen  years ;  from  1588  to  1604.  This 
vast  lacuna  must  now,  we  believe,  be  filled  in  by  the 
Shakespearean  literature.  For  he,  who  was  supposed 
to  be  sitting  in  "  idle  cell,"  had  already  spoken  of 
himself,  in  an  early  lyric,  as  one, 

"  That  never  am  less  idle,  lo  ! 
Than  when  I  am  alone." 

We  would  add,  at  this  point,  certain  particulars  Residences 

cLUd 

respecting  his  domiciliation  and  life  in  or  near  theatres. 
London,  that  are  not  without  interest  in  respect  to 
our  problem.  He  resided  for  some  years  at  Canon 
Row,  Westminster,  and  this  would  put  him,  by  means 
of  the  ferry,  in  direct  touch  with  theatrical  activities 
on  Bankside  ;  and  thence,  by  an  easy  walk  with 
Newington  Butts,  the  scene  of  many  of  the 
dramatic  activities  of  the  Lord  Admiral's  company. 
This  company  is  associated  with  the  performance  of 
plays  by  Marlowe,  to  whom  "  Shakespeare  "  acknow- 
ledges indebtedness.  It  also  performed  in  the  early 
years  of  this  period  plays  bearing  titles  afterwards 
borne  by  "  Shakespeare "  plays.  The  following 
passage  from  a  letter  by  one,  Anthony  Atkinson, 
showing  us  the  Earl  of  Oxford  in  relationship  with 
the  Lord  Admiral  (Charles  Howard  of  Emngham, 
Earl  of  Nottingham :  of  Spanish  Armada  fame)  has 
some  interest  for  us  : — 

"  The  Lord  Admiral  doth  credit  Captain  Fenner, 
who  excuses  Elston  and  .  .  .  the  Earl  of  Oxenford 
sent  word  by  Cawley  that  Elston  was  a  dangerous 
24 


370        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

man."    The  events  do  not  concern  us  ;  it  is  the  mere 
fact  of  personal  dealings  which  matters. 

Oxford's  residence  at  Hackney,  the  London  suburb 
immediately  adjacent  to  Shoreditch,  then  the  scene  of 
Burbage's  theatrical  enterprises  and  the  centre  of 
the  theatrical  life  of  London,  has  already  been 
mentioned.  A  somewhat  more  interesting  detail 
concerns  Bishopsgate :  continuous  with  Shoreditch 
towards  the  south.  Although,  so  far  as  we  know, 
Oxford  never  resided  in  this  district,  we  find  him, 
in  1595,  addressing  a  letter  to  Burleigh  from  Bishops- 
gate  (Hatfield  MSS.).  Evidence  points  to  William 
Shakspere  being  resident  there  at  the  time,  and  to 
his  having  next  year  removed  to  Southwark,  which 
was  soon  to  take  the  place  of  Shoreditch  as  the 
theatrical  centre  of  London. 

Letters  and  Thus  we  see  him  moving  quite  close  to  the  "  Shake- 
cupations.  gpg^^  ••  WOrk,  but  never  in  it.  Yet,  during  these 
years,  his  letters  show  unmistakably  the  clearness 
and  vigour  of  his  intellect.  The  published  documents 
do  not  supply  the  full  text  in  all  cases,  but  little 
Shakespearean  touches  appear. 

"  Words  in  faithful  minds  are  tedious,"  is  one 
expression,  already  quoted  in  our  "  Troilus  "  argument. 
"  His  shifts  and  jugglings  are  so  gross  and  palpable," 
is  another  ;  clearly  suggestive  of  "  this  palpable  gross 
play"  in  "A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream"  (V.  i)  or 
"  such  juggling  and  such  knavery  "  in  Troilus  and 
Cressida  (II.  3).  The  letters  are,  for  the  most  part, 
formal  and  businesslike  ;  but  the  poet's  tendency  to 
express  himself  in  similes  and  metaphors  is  irrepressible. 
Not  only  is  there  abundant  evidence  of  unimpaired 
mental  power,  there  is  also  evidence  of  his  being 
closely  occupied  with  some  work.  A  letter  addressed 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  371 

to  him  by  a  member  of  another  branch  of  the  family, 
apologises,  in  a  way  which  does  not  seem  conventional, 
for  breaking  in  upon  his  occupations  ;  so  that,  what- 
ever his  pursuits  may  have  been,  he  was  not  regarded, 
by  those  who  were  in  a  position  to  know,  as  a  man 
spending  his  leisure  altogether  in  amusements  or 
in  idleness.  Yet,  there  is  no  external  evidence,  with 
one  interesting  exception,  of  his  interesting  himself  in 
dramatic  work  of  any  kind  during  these  years  ; 
though,  curiously  enough,  Meres  as  late  on  as  1598, 
when  Oxford  had  apparently  been  dead  to  the 
dramatic  world  for  ten  years,  places  his  name  at  the 
head  of  those  dramatists  who  were  "  best  for  Comedy." 

One  of  the  greatest  obstacles  to  the  acceptance  of  shake- 
our  theory  of  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  plays  spefJe'f 
will  be  a  certain  established  conception  of  the  mode  in  production, 
which  they  were  produced  and  issued  ;  a  conception 
which  arose  of  necessity  out  of  the  old  theory. 
William  Shakspere  being  but  a  young  man  at  the 
time  when  the  issue  of  the  poems  and  plays  began, 
and  having  to  write,  it  is  supposed,  in  order  to  supply 
the  immediate  needs  of  what  has  been  unwarrantably 
called  his  company  of  play-actors,  it  has  been  necessary 
to  assume  that  each  play  was  begun,  finished  and 
staged,  by  itself,  in  a  definite  period  of  time,  and 
that  no  sooner  was  this  done  in  respect  to  one  play 
than  the  next  must  be  put  in  preparation.  A  man 
with  no  accumulated  reserves,  immersed,  it  is  assumed, 
in  all  the  business  of  directing  his  company,  and 
building  up  his  own  private  fortune  at  the  same  time, 
would  be  compelled  to  finish  off,  and  have  completely 
done  with,  each  play-writing  task  just  as  it  presented 
itself.  This  he  is  supposed  to  have  accomplished  in 
a  manner  which  can  only  be  described  as  miraculous. 


372        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

And,  seeing  the  large  number  of  plays  which  are 
understood  to  have  existed  before  a  certain  date,  not 
only  could  there  be  no  intervals  for  recuperation  and 
the  freshening  of  his  conceptions  whilst  the  flood 
of  dramas  was  at  its  height,  but  there  has  been  a  real 
difficulty  in  finding  reasonable  spaces  of  time  for 
them  all  to  be  written.  Consequently,  the  supposition 
that  these  plays  were  written  by  William  Shakspere 
of  Stratford  involves  the  belief  in  a  series  of  stupendous 
creative  efforts  within  definitely  assignable  dates,  and 
this  conception  of  a  fixed  order  of  production,  with 
settled  dates  for  the  different  plays,  from  1592  on- 
ward, the  rapid  succession  of  which  betokened  a 
genius  of  almost  superhuman  fecundity,  is  bound  to 
follow  us  into  the  discussion  of  a  theory  of  authorship 
to  which  it  does  not  apply. 

Re-interpre-       All  the  mass  of  data  that  has  been  collected  with 
facts!1  much  labour  respecting  the  first  appearance  of  plays 

or  the  date  of  their  registration  or  publication,  comes 
to  have  a  totally  different  significance,  and  indeed 
loses  a  large  part  of  its  value,  when  severed  from 
the  supposed  miraculous  productivity  of  the  Stratford 
man.  Perhaps  its  chief  value  may  now  consist  in 
illustrating  the  folly  of  ever  supposing  that  so 
prodigious  an  achievement  could  have  taken  place. 
Such  a  change  in  the  personality  and  antecedents  of 
the  author  as  we  now  propose,  alters  the  significance 
of  all  that  Shakespearean  erudition  in  which  mere 
inference  has  been  passed  off  as  established  fact,  and 
demands  a  difficult  revolution  in  mental  attitude 
towards  the  question  of  the  manner  and  times  of  the 
production  of  the  work. 

What  is  necessary,  in  the  first  place,  is  to  put  aside 
all  mere  inference,  to  look  at  the  facts  that  have  been 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  373 

established  respecting  the  issuing  of  the  plays  in  the 
light  of  the  quality  and  contents  of  the  work,  and 
to  determine  whether  all  these  taken  together  are  more 
suggestive  of  an  author  working  under  William  Shak- 
spere's  or  Edward  de  Vere's  conditions  ;  whether  the 
work  is  suggestive  of  a  hasty  enforced  production 
amid  a  multiplicity  of  other  activities,  or  of  pains- 
taking concentration  of  mind  on  the  part  of  a  writer 
relieved  from  material  and  other  anxieties ;  and 
whether  it  suggests  a  writer  living  as  it  were ,"  from  hand 
to  mouth  "  in  the  production  of  his  dramas,  or  of  one 
who  began  the  issue  with  large  reserves  already  in  hand. 

In  dealing  with  the  dating  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  Dating  the 
apart  from  the  system  of  inferential  dates  that  has  Plays- 
grown  up  around  Shakespearean  study,  we  stand 
on  most  uncertain  ground.  We  have  dates  of  the 
registration  of  certain  works,  dates  of  printing  and 
publication,  dates  on  which  it  is  known  that  certain 
plays  were  performed,  and  we  have  contemporary 
lists  of  plays  that  show  us  that  certain  dramas  were 
in  existence  at  the  time  the  lists  were  compiled  ;  but 
such  a  thing  as  an  authoritative  record  of  the  actual 
writing  of  a  play  does  not  exist  so  far  as  is  yet  known. 
All  that  the  facts  bear  witness  to,  is  that  some  of  the 
works  existed  at  certain  dates  ;  though  whether  they 
had  existed  five,  ten,  or  twenty  years  before  then  is 
all  a  matter  of  conjecture — conjecture  which  may 
be  made  very  reliable  when  it  concerns  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford,  but  which  may  be  entirely 
astray  when  another  author  is  substituted.  Never- 
theless, if  we  accept  in  a  general  way  the  dates  that 
have  been  assigned,  we  find  that,  starting  with  "  Love's 
Labour's  Lost "  in  1590  or  1592  (the  early  years  of 
Oxford's  retirement)  and  finishing  with  Othello  in 


374        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

1604  (the  year  of  Oxford's  death),  we  have  in  these 
an  overwhelming  preponderance  of  the  greatest  of  the 
Shakespearean  dramas.  This  is  then  succeeded  by 
a  period  in  which  there  is  greater  uncertainty  attached 
to  the  suggested  dates,  and  a  larger  admixture  of  non- 
Shakespearean  work.  For  in  these  later  years  we 
are  assured  that  the  dramatist  had  reverted  to  an 
earlier  practice  of  collaborating  with  others. 
Rate  of  What  does  seem  clearly  established,  however,  is 

issue.  tjiat  Curing  the  period  of  what  may  be  called  the 

main  Shakespearean  flood,  two  and  sometimes  three 
plays  appeared  in  the  course  of  a  single  year,  at  the 
same  time  that  great  poems  like  "  Venus "  and 
"  Lucrece "  were  also  making  their  appearance. 
Meanwhile  revised  and  enlarged  editions  were  appear- 
ing of  plays  that  had  already  been  issued.  Sir  Sidney 
Lee's  statement  that  Shakspere  had  no  hand  in  these 
various  publishing  operations  we  accept.  The  idea 
that  the  author  had  no  hand  in  them  we  reject[entirely, 
as  almost  an  outrage  upon  common  sense.  The  two 
plays  which  are  assigned  to  the  years  immediately 
following  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere  are  "  King 
Lear "  and  "  Macbeth."  If,  then,  we  assume  that 
these  had  not  been  played  before  (by  no  means  a 
necessary  concession)  we  may  regard  them  as  being 
in  the  hands  of  the  actors  when  De  Vere  died.  Includ- 
ing them,  therefore,  in  the  main  period,  we  find  that 
according  to  Professor  Dowden's  list,  out  of  the  thirty- 
seven  dramas  attributed  to  Shakespeare  all  but  eight 
had  already  been  produced,  and  even  this  small 
residue  includes  such  works  as  "  Henry  VIII," 
"  Timon  of  Athens  "  and  "  Pericles,"  which,  in  their 
present  state,  we  might  well  imagine  the  author  was 
not  very  eager  to  send  forth. 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  375 

Upon  the  Stratf ordian  view  it  is  necessary,  of  course,  The  so-called 
to   find  spaces  for  the  writing  of  what  are  called  later  plays. 
Shakespeare's  later  plays  after  the  year  1604 ;    for 
the  whole   of   William   Shakspere's  time  before  that 
was  fully,  and  more  than  fully  occupied,  and  so  we 
have,  what  must  always  have  appeared  something  of 
an   anomaly,   the   spectacle   of   the  world's   greatest 
dramatist,  when  but  forty  years  of  age,  and  after 
producing  masterpieces  like  "  Hamlet "  and  "  Othello," 
resorting  to  a  practice  suited  only  to  his  literary 
nonage,   that   of  collaborating  with   writers   inferior 
to    himself.     No    such    necessity    attaches    to    the 
supposition  of  Edward  de  Vere  being  the  author  of 
these  later  plays.     His  work  during  the  years  1590- 
1604  would  not  consist  entirely,  or  even  chiefly,  in 
the  production  of  new  plays  for  the  stage ;    and  he 
would  be  under  no  necessity  of  working  at  a  break- 
neck pace.     In  his  case  works  issued  after  1604  might 
have  been  not  only  begun  but  actually  completed 
many  years  before  ;    and  when  we  find  that  certain 
plays,   issued   after   that   date,   were   completed  by 
other  writers,  the  situation  involves  no  such  anomaly 
as  belongs  to  the  Stratf  ordian  view :  that  a  living  writer 
of  first  rank  could  so  allow  his  own  creations  to  be 
marred.     The  staging  of  his  dramas  would  be  to  him 
only    a    secondary,    though    doubtless    a    fascinating 
consideration ;    but  he  must  have   seen  that  he  was 
doing  something  much  greater  than  supplying  con- 
temporary audiences  with  a  few  hours'  amusement. 
To  William  Shakspere  on  the  other  hand,  the  provision 
of  plays  for  his  company  of  actors  (assuming  that  he 
was  responsible  for  its  direction)  would  have  made 
it  impossible  that  he  should,  at  any  time,  be  producing 
dramas  much  in  advance  of  their  presentation  on  the 


Writing  and 
issuing. 


Rapid  issue. 


376         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

stage.  In  his  case,  therefore,  the  date  of  the  actual 
writing  of  a  play  might  be  inferred  with  considerable 
certainty  from  the  date  of  its  appearing. 

The  writer  of  these  dramas  must  have  known  that 
what  he  was  giving  to  the  world  was  destined  to  live 
primarily  as  literature,  or,  more  precisely,  as  poetry. 
He  might,  therefore,  in  pursuance  of  such  a  purpose 
have  chosen,  except  for  material  considerations,  to 
have  had  every  one  of  his  works  published  post- 
humously. This  hypothesis  enables  us  to  see  that 
in  such  work  dates  of  publication  have  no  necessary 
correspondence  with  dates  of  writing,  and  makes  us 
realize  how  completely  all  inferences  with  regard  to 
the  years  in  which  the  several  plays  were  written 
may  be  upset  by  the  substitution  of  another  author 
for  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford.  In  the  case  of 
Lyly's  plays,  for  example,  we  have  seen  that  in  some 
cases  many  years,  and  in  all  cases  a  number  of  years 
intervened  between  the  writing  and  the  publica- 
tion. 

By  way  of  illustrating  the  strange  but  inevitable 
results  of  attributing  the  works  to  the  Stratford  man, 
we  shall  take  a  particular  period  and  consider  the 
writings  assigned  to  it.  Although  the  Shakespearean 
dramas  had  been  appearing  since  1590  or  1592,  it  was 
not  until  the  year  1598  that  any  of  them  appeared 
with  Shakespeare's  name  attached  :  in  itself  a  curious 
and  suspicious  fact.  It  may  have  no  significance, 
but  we  mention  in  passing  that  this  is  the  year  of 
Burleigh's  death  and  also  the  year  following  the  death 
of  James  Burbage  who  had  staged  the  first  "  Shake- 
speare "  plays.  Oxford,  we  have  said,  died  in  1604. 
In  the  six  years  intervening  between  these  two  dates, 
according  to  Professor  Dowden's  classification  of 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  377 

Shakespeare's    plays,    William    Shakspere    wrote    all 
the  following  : — 

1.  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor. 

2.  Much  Ado  about  Nothing. 

3.  As  you  like  it. 

4.  Twelfth  Night. 

5.  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well. 

6.  Measure  for  Measure. 

7.  Troilus  and  Cressida. 

8.  Henry  IV.   (part  2). 

9.  Henry  V. 

10.  Julius  Caesar. 

11.  Hamlet. 

12.  Othello. 

Nor  had  this  followed  upon  a  period  of  rest ;  for, 
according  to  particulars  we  have  compiled  from  the 
Biographical  Notes  to  the  Falstaff  Edition  of  Shake- 
speare, during  the  preceding  year  (1597)  he  had 
written  two  new  plays  and  published  three  others  that 
had  been  previously  acted. 

In  addition  to  all  the  new  work  produced  in  these 
few  years  the  same  Notes  represent  him  as  having 
also  published  for  the  first  time  : — 

1.  The  Merchant  of  Venice. 

2.  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream. 

There  was  also  published  a  "  newly  corrected  and 
augmented"  edition  of  "Love's  Labour's  Lost";  at 
least  one  other  edition  of  "  Hamlet  "  ;  (which  was 
also  revised  and  augmented) ;  two  fresh  editions  of 
"  Henry  IV,"  part  i ;  a  second  edition  of  "  A 
Midsummer  Night's  Dream " ;  a  new  edition  of 
"  Richard  II,"  two  new  editions  of  "  Richard  III  " 
and  a  new  edition  of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet." 


378        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

A  literary  When  every  allowance  has  been  made  for  a  fair 
proportion  of  those  pirated  and  surreptitious  issues 
which  has  characterized  Shakespearean  publication, 
and  also  for  mere  reprints,  in  which  the  author  may 
have  had  no  hand,  it  will  still  be  admitted  that  the 
output  was  enormous. 

If  he  had  done  nothing  more  than  write  the  twelve  new 
plays,  even  supposing  they  had  been  mere  ephemeral 
things  intended  only  for  the  stage,  the  achievement 
would  have  been  extraordinary.  When,  however, 
we  turn  from  quantity  to  the  consideration  of  literary 
quality,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  such  an 
accomplishment  could  ever  have  been  credited.  Yet 
all  this  new  creative  work  is  supposed  to  have  been 
produced  pari  passu  with  an  extraordinary  amount 
of  other  literary  labour  in  the  issue  of  new  editions 
of  former  plays,  much  administrative  work  connected 
with  the  direction  of  the  company,  the  more  material 
occupations  of  land  and  property  speculations  and 
litigation,  entailing  much  mental  distraction  and  the 
consumption  of  time  and  energy  in  journeys  between 
London  and  Stratford.  This,  we  make  bold  to  claim, 
constitutes  a  complete  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the 
Stratfordian  theory  of  authorship. 

A  rational  It  is  much  more  reasonable,  then,  to  suppose  that 
performance.  wjiat  was  actually  happening  in  these  six  years,  was 
the  speeding  up  of  the  finishing-of!  process,  as  though 
the  writer  were  either  acting  under  a  premonition  that 
his  end  was  approaching,  or  the  time  had  now  arrived 
for  giving  to  the  world  a  literature  at  which  he  had 
been  working  during  the  whole  of  his  previous  life. 
Everything  suggests  the  rushing  out  of  supplies  from 
a  large  accumulated  stock ;  and,  therefore,  instead 
of  seeing  any  difficulty  in  the  appearing  of  other 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  379 

Shakespearean  plays  after  the  death  of  De  Vere, 
it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  that,  according  to  the  dates 
that  have  been  assigned  to  the  plays  by  the  best 
authorities,  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  purely 
Shakespearean  work  remained  to  be  presented.  (We 
are  not  now  speaking  of  its  being  actually  printed  : 
this  is  another  matter  which  must  be  discussed  later.) 
At  the  same  time,  we  are  struck  with  the  amount  of 
doubtful  and  collaborated  work  which  is  assigned  to 
the  period  subsequent  to  De  Vere's  death.  Certainly 
the  last  seven  or  eight  years  of  De  Vere's  life  are, 
according  to  the  orthodox  dating,  marked  by  an 
extraordinary  output  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  whilst 
his  death  marks  an  equally  striking  arrest  in  the 
issuing,  printing  and  reprinting  of  these  dramas. 

The  above  considerations  ought  to  prepare  us  for  Dramatic 
a  complete  break-up  of  the  seriatim  conception  of  the  Reserves- 
creation  of  the  "  Shakespeare "  dramas.  We  have 
laboured  the  point  because  of  the  difficulty  of  the 
mental  revolution  involved.  If  we  assume  an  author 
who  for  ten  or  twelve  years  had  been  actively  occupied 
with  theatre  work ;  whose  great  wealth  had  been 
spent  ungrudgingly  upon  it,  engaging  talented  and 
educated  men  to  assist  him  and  to  relieve  him  of  much 
of  the  drudgery  of  theatre  management ;  thus  leaving 
him  free  to  concentrate  his  distinctive  powers  upon 
the  literary  part  of  the  work ;  then,  with  the  literary 
capital  he  had  thus  amassed,  beginning  another  period 
of  fourteen  to  sixteen  years  of  comparative  quiet  and 
seclusion,  in  which  to  give  a  higher  finish  to  plays 
already  written,  as  well,  possibly,  as  to  produce  new 
works,  the  whole  aspect  of  the  issue  of  this  literature 
becomes  changed.  To  all  the  advantages  of  education 
and  association  with  the  highest  classes  of  society, 


380         "  SHAKESPEARE  "  IDENTIFIED 

Edward  de  Vere  was  by  this  time  able  to  bring  to 
the  task,  on  the  one  hand  these  stores  of  dramas 
which  are  supposed  to  have  perished,  and  on  the 
other  hand  the  maturity  of  his  own  mental  powers, 
as  well  as  poetic  gifts  of  a  high  order  that  had  been 
amply  exercised.  Contrasted  with  the  Stratfordian 
view  or  any  other  theory  of  authorship  yet  pro- 
pounded, the  supposition  that  Edward  de  Vere  is 
"  Shakespeare  "  places  the  appearance  of  this  literature 
for  the  first  time  within  the  category  of  natural  and 
human  achievements. 

That  "  Shakespeare  "  had  this  faculty  of  secretive- 
ness  and  reserve  in  respect  to  the  production  of  great 
masterpieces — holding  them  back  until  either  they 
were  fit  or  the  time  opportune  for  their  issue — is  no 
mere  guesswork.  He  tells  us  so  in  the  plainest  terms. 
For  he  had  already  been  putting  great  dramas  before 
the  public  when  he  published  the  poetic  masterpiece 
which  he  calls  "  the  first  heir  of  (his)  invention." 
Evidently  then,  according  to  his  own  account,  it  had 
lain  in  manuscript  for  years  before  its  appearance. 
William  Shakspere  is  supposed  to  have  produced  it 
before  he  left  Stratford,  and,  as  it  was  not  published 
until  1593,  even  he  must  be  supposed  to  have  it  by 
him  for  a  number  of  years.  And  as  "  Lucrece " 
was  published  the  following  year,  it  too,  must  have 
been  well  advanced  at  the  time  when  "  Venus " 
appeared. 

Habits  of  Everything  points  to  "  Shakespeare  "  being  given 
to  storing,  elaborating,  and  steadily  perfecting  his 
productions  before  issuing  them,  when  his  mind  was 
bent  on  producing  something  worthy  of  his  powers. 
"  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  which  is  placed  somewhere 
between  1590  and  1592,  was  not  issued  in  its  final 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  381 

form  until  1598,  and  every  line  of  it  bears  marks  of 
most  careful  and  exacting  revision.  "  Hamlet,"  too, 
there  is  evidence,  underwent  similiar  treatment. 
How  it  could  ever  have  been  believed  that  the  finished 
lines  of  Shakespeare  were  the  rapid  and  enforced 
production  of  a  man  immersed  in  many  affairs,  will 
probably  be  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  future.  Every- 
thing bespeaks  the  loving  and  leisurely  revision  of 
a  writer  free  from  all  external  pressure  ;  and  this, 
combined  with  the  amazing  rapidity  of  issue,  confirms 
the  impression  of  "  a  long  foreground  somewhere." 

Andrew  Lang,  in  his  posthumously  published  work  DC  Vere  a 
on  "Shakespeare  and  the  Great  Unknown,"  finds  Precisionist. 
an  argument  in  favour  of  the  rapidity  of  Shake- 
spearean production  in  a  comparison  with  the  literary 
output  of  Scott.  He  ought,  rather,  to  have  found 
in  Scott  a  warning  example  of  the  consequences  of 
rapid  writing  ;  and,  by  contrast  with  Scott's  verbosity, 
have  found  in  Shakespeare's  compression  a  clear 
evidence  of  the  latter's  careful  and  persistent  elabora- 
tion of  his  lines.  Now  this  tendency  to  revert  to 
his  work  in  order  to  further  improve  it,  is  typical  of 
Edward  de  Vere.  Variant  copies  of  his  small  lyrics 
are  extant,  and  these  furnish  unquestionable  proof 
that  he  was  accustomed  to  turn  back  to  poems, 
even  after  their  publication,  in  order  to  enrich  and 
perfect  them.  He  was  a  precisionist  the  very  ease  and 
lucidity  of  whose  lines  was  the  consummation  of  an 
art  which  hid  its  own  laboriousness.  His  nicety  in 
speech  and  that  careful  attention  to  details  of  personal 
dress  which  frequently  marks  the  man  who  strives 
after  exactness,  were,  indeed,  the  subject  of  Gabriel 
Harvey's  lampoon.  These  things  may  justify  us 
in  supposing  carefulness  in  a  detail  like  penmanship. 


382        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

Penmanship.  His  handwriting  is  accessible  and  this  surmise  may 
be  put  to  the  test.  Now  we  know  that  Shakespeare's 
MSS.  for  the  use  of  the  printers  were  clearly  written, 
and  a  passage  in  "  Hamlet  "  points  to  its  being  a 
detail  to  which  the  author  was  attentive.  As,  there- 
fore, there  are  some  very  strange  mysteries  connected 
with  the  Shakespearean  manuscripts,  it  is  quite 
possible  that  the  dangers  of  his  handwriting  being 
recognized  may  have  determined  their  strict  custody 
until  everything  was  printed,  and  that  then  the 
writings  themselves  were  deliberately  destroyed.  We 
shall  naturally,  therefore,  be  interested  to  know 
whether  any  of  the  interpolations  into  Anthony 
Munday's  play  seem  to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  the 
Earl  of  Oxford. 

Stage  plays  The  question  of  the  relationship  of  stage  plays  to 
literature  literature  is  one  which  touches  our  problem  very 
closely.  That  the  two  things  are  quite  distinct  in 
themselves  from  a  certain  point  of  view  is  evident  on 
the  face  of  it.  When  the  audience  in  a  theatre  wishes 
to  see  the  unravelling  of  a  plot,  with  all  its  en- 
tanglements in  external  circumstances  and  in  the 
complexities  of  human  nature,  the  elements  of  novelty, 
suspense  and  surprise  must  enter  very  largely  into 
the  performance.  This  need  of  a  continued  succession 
of  sensations  demands  a  bold  and  broad  treatment  ; 
the  deeper  effects  being  attained  not  by  the  subtleties 
of  condensed  sentences,  which  rest  but  a  moment  in 
the  mind,  but  by  the  total  and  general  impression 
conveyed  by  whole  situations. 

It  would  therefore  be  an  irrational  and  wasteful 
expenditure  of  force  to  put  into  a  play  intended 
primarily  to  meet  the  theatre-goer's  demand  for 
recreative  novelty  and  sensation,  a  large  amount 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  383 

of  carefully  elaborated  detail  and  subtlety  of  thought, 
which  could  only  be  appreciated  after  reflection  and 
long  continued  familiarity.  To  pack  with  weighty 
significance  each  syllable  of  a  work  meant  only  to 
amuse  or  to  supply  thrills  for  two  or  three  hours 
would,  moreover,  defeat  its  own  ends.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  amplified  form  of  statement,  so  necessary 
with  spoken  words  in  handling  novel  situations, 
becomes  tedious  in  printed  utterances  intended  to 
endure  and  be  pondered  over.  These  considerations 
by  no  means  exhaust  the  question  of  the  distinction 
between  mere  "stage  plays  and  dramatic  literature. 
They  are  intended  merely  to  emphasize  the  distinction 
and  are  sufficient  for  that  purpose. 

When,  therefore,  familiar  dramatic  literature  is  "  shake- 
staged,  as  it  may  very  properly  be,  it  owes  its  interest 
on  the  stage  to  entirely  different  considerations,  and 
makes  its  appeal,  if  not  to  a  different  set  of  people, 
at  any  rate  to  a  different  phase  of  their  mental 
activities  from  what  an  ordinary  stage  play  does. 
The  true  purpose  of  such  a  stage  setting  is  to  offer  an 
exposition  of  the  literature,  to  which  it  is  itself 
subordinate.  The  frequently  repeated  remark  that 
"  Shakespeare  does  not  pay  on  the  stage,"  instead  of 
being  taken  as  a  reflection  upon  the  public  taste, 
ought  to  indicate  that  there  is  some  fundamental 
difference  between  Shakespeare's  and  the  other  plays 
with  which  they  are  put  into  competition  ;  and  that 
these  great  English  dramas  are  being  viewed  in  a 
wrong  light,  and  sometimes,  possibly,  put  to  a  use  for 
which  they  are  not  altogether  suited. 

The  fact  is  that  his  matchless  lines,  crowded  with 
matter  and  intellectual  refinements,  demand  not  only 
maturity  of  mind  in  the  auditor,  but  a  willingness 


384 


SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Pre- 
eminently 
literature. 


Secondarily, 
stage-plays. 


to  turn  again  and  again  to  the  same  passages,  the 
significance  of  which  expands  with  every  enlargement 
of  life's  experiences.  This  is  one  reason  why,  in  order 
to  enjoy  fully  the  best  contents  of  a  play  of  Shake- 
speare's on  the  stage,  it  is  necessary  first  to  have  read 
it ;  and  the  more  familiar  one  is  with  it  beforehand  the 
greater  becomes  the  intellectual  enjoyment,  if  the 
play  is  at  all  capably  handled.  In  this  case  the  acting 
becomes  a  kind  of  commentary  on  the  literature  ; 
a  work  of  interpretation,  bringing  to  the  surface  and 
unfolding  its  deeper  significance.  On  the  other  hand, 
to  have  read  and  become  familiar  with  many  an 
ordinary  stage  play  before  seeing  it  would  diminish 
interest  in  the  performance.  This  implies  no  necessary 
slight  upon  these  productions,  but  is  meant  merely 
to  draw  into  clearer  light  the  radical  difference  between 
those  plays  and  the  plays  of  "  Shakespeare."  When 
writings  have  taken  the  form  and  won  the  position  of 
the  latter,  they  cease  to  be  the  special  possession  of 
play-goers  and  actors,  and  take  their  place  amongst 
the  imperishable  treasures  of  literature. 

Notwithstanding  this  fact,  it  yet  remains  true  that, 
even  as  stage-plays,  Shakespeare's  dramas  have  been 
made  to  do  yeoman  service,  and  will  no  doubt  continue 
to  do  so.  Superb  literature  though  his  masterpieces 
undoubtedly  are,  they  nevertheless  rest  upon  a 
foundation  of  real  stage  play.  And  when  this  is 
brought  into  prominence,  embellished  with  touches 
of  his  literary  workmanship,  effective  results  can 
be  secured.  It  is  almost  absurd  to  have  to  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  writing  of  even  a  very  moderate 
stage  play  demands  something  more  than  literary 
capacity.  The  production  of  such  work  is  a  highly 
technical  matter,  requiring  an  easy  familiarity  with 


all  the  mechanism  of  stage  directions,  and  the  adjust- 
ments of  "  entrances  "  and  "  exits  "  ;   and  this  would 
be  specially  so  in  those  early  days  of  dramatic  pioneering. 
Now,  it  is  the  unique  combination  of  this  technical 
and   spectacular  quality  with    their  supreme  literary 
position,   that  gives  to  Shakespeare's  writings,   one, 
at  least,  of  their  distinctive  features.     Without  unduly 
labouring  the  point  it  will  be  necessary  to  determine 
the  relationship  which  these  two  elements  bear  to 
each  other  in  his  most  finished  productions.     Here, 
however,    we   may   say   that    mankind   has    already 
settled   the   question   for   us.     For   it   is   upon   their 
merits  as  literature,  that  the  fame  and  immortality 
of  Shakespeare's  dramas   rest.     Though   the  writer's 
first  aim  may  have  been  to  produce  a  perfect  drama 
for  stage  purposes,  in  the  course  of  his  labours,  by 
dint  of  infinite  pains  and  the  nature  of  his  own  genius, 
he  produced  a  literature  which  has  overshadowed  the 
stage-play.      It  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  imagine  that 
the  relationship  of  these  two  elements  in  the  same 
work    represents    a    simultaneous    product.     And    if 
we  must  choose  between  the  theory  of  their  being 
literature   converted  into   plays,   or  plays   converted 
into  literature,  on  a  review  of  the  work  no  competent 
judge  would  hesitate  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  the 
latter   supposition. 

We  feel  justified  in  claiming  then  that  the  best  of 
the  dramas  passed  through  two  distinct  phases,  being 
originally  stage-plays — doubtless  of  a  high  literary 
quality — which  were  subsequently  transformed  into 
the  supreme  literature  of  the  nation.  We  further 
claim  that  the  man  who  had  the  capacity  to  do  this 
had  the  intelligence  to  know  exactly  what  he  was 
doing  ;  and  having  created  this  literature  he  was  not 


386        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

likely  to  have  become  so  indifferent  to  its  fate  as  he 
is  represented  by  the  Stratfordian  tradition. 
Plays  as  Keeping  in  mind  that  our  chief  purpose  at  present 

is  to  see  to  what  extent  traces  of  the  personality  and 
life  of  Edward  de  Vere  may  be  detected  in  the  work 
of  Shakespeare,  we  shall  first  summarize  the  position 
as  it  stands  from  the  literary  point  of  view  at  the 
opening  of  this  third  period.     Having  in  his  early 
years  earned  the  distinction  of  being  "  the  best  of  the 
courtier  poets  of  the  early  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth's 
reign,"   and  having  then  passed  through  a  middle 
period  occupied  largely  with  work  in  connection  with 
the  drama,  in  which  he  earned  the  further  distinction 
of  being  "among  the  best  in  comedy" — which  must 
not  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  he  had  confined 
himself  to  this  domain — he  enters  in  the  maturity 
of  his  powers  upon  a  third  period,  the  longest  of  all. 
Of  this  period  little  is  known  :    but  what  we  do 
know  is  that  the  conditions  of  his  life  at  the  time 
were  precisely  those  which  would  lead  a  poet  of  such 
powers  to  work  upon  his  stores  of  incompleted  dramas, 
giving  them  a  more  poetic  form  and  a  higher  poetic 
finish.     Are,  then,  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  such  as  to 
warrant  the  supposition  of  their  having  been  produced 
in  this  way  ?     Do  they  look  like  the  work  of  one 
whose  chief  interest  was  to  keep  a  theatre  business 
going,  or  of  one  who  was  primarily  a  poet,  not  only 
in  the  large  and  general  sense,  but  in  the  special  and 
technical  sense  of  an  artist  in  words,  making  music 
out  of  the  vocal  qualities  and  cadences  of  speech  ? 

Again,  to  ask  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  It  is 
not  only  the  number  and  quality  of  the  lyrics  scattered 
throughout  the  dramas  that  give  to  Shakespeare  his 
high  position  as  a  poet ;  it  is  the  poetry  of  the  actual 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  387 

body  of  the  dramas  themselves,  blank  verse  and 
rhyme  alike,  that  determines  his  position.  It  is 
here  that  we  have  the  poetry  which  raises  its  author 
to  honours  which  he  shares  with  Homer  and  Dante 
alone.  Several  of  the  plays  can  hardly  be  described 
otherwise  than  as  collections  of  poems  ingeniously 
woven  together ;  and,  to  conceive  of  one  such  play 
being  written  as  a  continuous  exercise,  starting  with 
the  first  scene  of  the  first  act,  and  ending  with  the 
last  "  exeunt,"  is  an  almost  impossible  supposition. 
Everything  is  much  more  suggestive  of  a  poet  creating 
his  varied  passages  out  of  the  multiplicity  of  his  own 
moods  and  experiences;  and  incorporating  these  into 
suitable  parts  of  his  different  plays :  afterwards  putting 
them  through  a  final  process  of  adjusting  the  parts, 
and  trimming  and  enriching  the  verse. 

Now  of  all  the  men  we  have  had  occasion  to  pass  The  work 
in  review  in  the  course  of  the  investigations  of  which  and  the  man' 
we  are  now  treating,  we  have  met  no  one  who  could 
be  considered  as  in  any  way  fulfilling  in  his  person 
and  external  circumstances  the  necessary  conditions 
for  performing  such  a  work  at  this  particular  time 
as  does  Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of  Oxford. 

Take  the  single  play  of  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost," 
examine  the  exquisite  workmanship  put  into  the 
versification  alone,  and  it  becomes  impossible  to 
think  of  it  as  coming  from  "  a  young  man  in  a  hurry  " 
to  make  plays  and  money.  Think  of  it  as  coming 
from  a  man  between  the  ages  of  forty  and  fifty-four, 
working  in  retirement,  leisurely,  under  no  sense  of 
pressure  or  material  necessities,  upon  work  he  had 
held  in  the  rough,  more  or  less,  for  several  years,  and 
there  immediately  arises  a  sense  of  correspondence 
between  the  workman  and  his  work.  It  is  not 


388        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

improbable  that  for  the  production  of  such  work  as 
he  aimed  at,  he  felt  the  necessity  of  seclusion,  and  a 
freedom  from  a  sense  of  working  under  the  public 
eye  ;  and  this  may  have  been  not  the  least  of  the 
motives  that  led  him  to  adopt  and  preserve  his  mask. 
Whether  this  was  so  or  not,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  during  these  years  in  which  there  was  the  largest 
outpouring  of  the  great  drama-poems,  Edward  de  Vere 
was  placed  in  circumstances  more  favourable  to  their 
production  than  any  other  man  of  the  period  of  whom 
we  have  been  able  to  learn. 

Henry  Such,  then,  are  the  activities  which  there  is  every 

Wnothesiey    reason  to  believe  filled  up  the  years  which  are  at  once 

a  personal  . 

link.  the  years  of  his  maturity  and  the  years  of  his  retire- 

ment. For  nine  years  after  his  marriage  no  public 
appearance  is  recorded  of  him  ;  and  then  the  silence 
is  broken  in  a  manner  as  significant  to  our  present 
business  as  anything  with  which  we  have  met.  As 
far  back  as  1593,  "  Shakespeare  "  had  dedicated  to 
the  Earl  of  Southampton  his  first  lengthy  poem, 
"  Venus  and  Adonis."  In  the  following  year  he  had 
repeated  the  honour  in  more  affectionate  terms  in 
issuing  his  "  Lucrece."  In  the  year  1601  there  took 
place  the  ill-fated  insurrection  under  the  Earl  of 
Essex ;  an  insurrection  which  its  leaders  stoutly 
maintained  was  aimed,  not  at  the  throne,  but  at  the 
politicians,  amongst  whom  Robert  Cecil,  son  of 
Burleigh,  was  now  prominent.  Whether  Edward  de 
Vere  approved  of  the  rising  or  not,  it  certainly 
represented  social  and  political  forces  with  which 
he  was  in  sympathy.  We  find,  then,  that  the  company 
of  actors  supposed  to  be  managed  by  William 
Shakspere,  and  occupied  largely  with  staging  Shake- 
speare's plays,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  was 


HENRY  WRIOTHESI.EY,   THIRD   EARI.  OF   SOUTHAMPTON,   FROM   A  PHOTOGRAPH 

FROM  THE  PORTRAIT   FORMERLY  IN  THE   POSSESSION  OF  THE   LATE   SIR  JAMES 

K.NOWLES,  BY  PERMISSION  OF  EMERY  WALKER    LIMITED. 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  389 

implicated    in     the    rising     through     the     Earl     of 
Southampton's  agency. 

In  order  to  stir  up  London  and  to  influence  the  Helping  the 
public  mind  in  a  direction  favourable  to  the  over-  ^Section, 
turning  of  those  in  authority,  the  company  gave 
a  performance  of  "  Richard  II,"  the  Earl  of  Southamp- 
ton subsidizing  the  players.  In  the  rising  itself 
Southampton  took  an  active  part.  Upon  its  collapse 
he  was  tried  for  treason  along  with  its  leader  Essex  ; 
and  it  was  then  that  Edward  de  Vere  emerged  from 
his  retirement  for  the  first  time  for  nine  years  to  take 
his  position  amongst  the  twenty-five  peers  who 
constituted  the  tribual  before  whom  Essex  and 
Southampton  were  to  be  tried.  It  is  certainly  a 
most  important  fact  in  connection  with  our  argument 
that  this  outstanding  action  of  Oxford's  later  years 
should  be  in  connection  with  the  one  contemporary 
that  "  Shakespeare  "  has  immortalized.  Considering 
the  direction  in  which  his  sympathies  lay,  his  coming 
forward  at  that  time  only  admits  of  one  explanation. 
The  forces  arrayed  against  the  Earl  of  Essex  were 
much  too  powerful,  and  he  suffered  the  extreme 
penalty.  Sentence  was  also  passed  on  Southampton 
but  was  commuted,  and  he  suffered  imprisonment 
until  the  end  of  the  reign — now  not  far  off.  It  is 
somewhat  curious  that  although  "Shakspere's  company  " 
had  been  implicated,  he  was  not  prosecuted  or  other- 
wise drawn  into  the  trouble  and  his  fortunes  seem 
to  have  suffered  no  setback. 

The  special  interest  of  this  is  that  it  gives  us  the  The  first 
first  suggestion  of  a  direct  personal  connection  between  connection. 
Edward  de  Vere  and  the  performance  of  Shakespeare's 
plays    through    Henry    Wriothesley,    Third    Earl    of 
Southampton ;   for  it  clearly  indicates  an  interest  on 


390        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

the  part  of  De  Vere  in  the  very  man  to  whom  "  Shake- 
speare "  had  dedicated  important  poems.  As  it 
was  only  with  difficulty  that  Wriothesley's  friends 
were  able  to  save  his  life,  it  is  possible,  therefore,  that 
he  owed  much  to  Oxford's  influence.  His  liberation 
immediately  on  the  accession  of  James  I  may  also 
have  owed  something  to  Oxford's  intervention  ;  for 
the  latter's  attitude  to  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  must 
have  had  some  weight  with  her  son,  and  his  position 
as  Great  Chamberlain,  the  functions  of  which  he 
exercised  at  James's  coronation,  would  place  him 
immediately  into  intimate  relationship  with  the  king. 
His  officiating  at  this  important  function  is  the  last 
recorded  public  appearance  of  the  subject  of  these 
pages. 

De  Vere's  As  in  investigations  of  this  kind  trifles  may  prove 
son  and  heir,  51^1^3^  >  we  mav  point  out  that  just  at  the  time 
when  "  Shakespeare  "  was  dedicating  his  great  poems 
to  Henry  Wriothesley,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  many, 
addressing  to  him  some  of  the  tenderest  sonnets  that 
one  man  ever  addressed  to  another,  Edward  de  Vere's 
only  son  was  born.  Now,  we  have  mentioned  that 
De  Vere  was  proud  of  his  descent,  and  also  that  the 
De  Veres  had  come  down  in  a  succession  of  Aubreys, 
Johns,  and  Roberts  for  centuries  almost  like  a  royal 
dynasty.  We  should  naturally  have  expected,  there- 
fore, that  he  would  have  given  to  his  only  son 
one  of  the  great  family  names.  Yet,  in  all  the 
centuries  of  the  De  Veres,  there  is  but  one  "  Henry" ; 
Henry,  the  son  of  Edward  de  Vere,  born  at  the  very 
time  when  "  Shakespeare "  was  dedicating  great 
poems  to  Henry  Wriothesley.  The  metaphor  of 
"  The  first  heir,"  which  occurs  in  the  short  dedication 
of  "  Venus  and  Adonis  "  to  Wriothesley,  would  also 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  391 

be  specially  apposite  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  ;  and  as  "  Shakespeare  "  speaks  of  Southampton 
as  the  "  godfather "  of  "  the  first  heir  of  my 
invention,"  it  would  certainly  be  interesting  to  know 
whether  Henry  Wriothesley  was  godfather  to  Oxford's 
heir,  Henry  de  Vere.  It  is  not  necessary  to  our 
argument  that  he  should  have  been,  but  if  it  be  found 
that  he  actually  held  that  position  the  inference 
would  be  obvious  and  conclusive.  We  have  dis- 
covered a  reference  to  the  baptism  as  having  taken 
place  at  Stoke  Newington,  so  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
impossible  to  find  out  who  the  sponsors  were. 

If  the  reader  will  further  examine  the  sonnets 
round  about  the  one  which  makes  reference  to  the 
"  dedication  "  he  will  probably  be  surprised  at  the 
number  of  allusions  to  childbirth. 

As  it  is  part  of  our  task  to  indicate  something  of  Contem- 

OOfcLlTV 

the  parties  and  personal  relationships  of  those  days    parties  and 

we    have    pointed    out    the    spontaneous    affinity    of  ^enmsurrec" 

Oxford    with    the    younger    Earls    of    Essex     and 

Southampton,  all  three  of  whom  having  being  royal 

wards    under    the   guardianship    of    Burleigh,   were 

most  hostile  to  the  Cecil  influence  at  Cqurt.     On  the 

other  hand,  we  have  Raleigh  along  with  Robert  Cecil 

representing  the  force  which  Essex  wished  to  oust. 

Of  Raleigh  we  must  point  out,  in  relation  to  the  Essex 

rising,  that  so  malicious  had  been  his  attitude,  both  at 

the  time  of  the  Earl's  prosecution  and  even  in  the 

moment  of  the  latter's  execution,  that  he  brought 

upon  himself  the  odium  of  the  populace.     It  appears 

that  when  Cecil  was  disposed  to  relent  in  relation  to 

Essex,  Raleigh  was  most  insistent  for  his  punishment ; 

and  when  the  unfortunate  Earl  had  won  the  Queen's 

consent  to  an  execution  in  private,  Raleigh  made  it 


392        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

his    business    ^to    be    a    spectator    of    his    enemy's 
execution. 

The  conduct  of  Francis  Bacon,  too,  had  been  even 
more  indecent  than  had  been  that  of  his  uncle 
Burleigh  towards  Somerset.  It  is  interesting  to  note, 
therefore,  that  the  fortunes  of  the  two  men  whose 
conduct  was  most  open  to  censure  in  this  matter 
suffered  complete  collapse  in  the  course  of  the  following 
reign  ;  the  publicity  of  Raleigh's  execution  being  a 
fitting  punishment  for  his  unseemly  intrusion  upon 
the  privacy  of  the  execution  of  Essex.  It  is  necessary 
to  point  out  these  things  if  we  are  to  have  a  correct 
judgment  of  the  men  with  whom  the  Earl  of  Oxford 
had  to  deal,  and  upon  the  strength  of  whose  relation- 
ships with  Oxford  most  of  the  impressions  of  him 
met  with  in  books  have  evidently  been  formed. 
Trial  of  the  Whatever  opinions  may  be  held  about  these  things, 

Earl  of  Essex  Qf  yiew  Q|  thfi  problem  of 


Shakespearean  authorship,  that  the  famous  trial  of 
the  Earl  of  Essex  assumes  quite  a  thrilling  interest. 
Standing  before  the  judges  was  the  only  living 
personality  that  "  Shakespeare  "  has  openly  connected 
with  the  issue  of  his  works,  and  towards  whom  he 
has  publicly  expressed  affection  :  Henry  Wriothesley. 
The  most  powerful  force  at  work  in  seeking  to  bring 
about  the  destruction  of  the  accused  was  the  possessor 
of  the  greatest  intellect  that  has  appeared  in  English 
philosophy  :  one  to  whom  in  modern  times  has  actually 
been  attributed  the  authorship  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
—  Francis  Bacon.  And  sitting  on  the  benches  amongst 
the  judges  was  none  other,  we  believe,  than  the  real 
"  Shakespeare  "  himself,  intent  on  saving,  if  possible, 
one  of  the  very  men  whom  Bacon  was  seeking  to  destroy. 
Some  artist  of  the  future  surely  will  find  here  a  theme 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  393 

to  fire  his  enthusiasm  and  furnish  scope  for  his  genius 
and  ambition. 

Before  leaving  the  question  of  the  rebellion  and  Bacon, 
trial  of  the  Earl  of  Essex  we  shall  barely  draw  attention  t  °" 
to  an  aspect  of  it  which  affects  a  theory  of  Shake-  °xford 
pearean  authorship  that  we  have  not  deemed  necessary 
to  discuss  at  any  length.  The  conduct  of  Francis 
Bacon  in  respect  to  the  trial  of  Essex  has  been  dis- 
cussed ad  nauseam  and  is  therefore  too  well  known 
to  need  describing.  Nor  is  it  our  business  to  enter 
into  the  ethics  of  his  action.  It  is  wholly  incredible, 
however,  that  he  could  have  been  working  secretly 
as  a  playwriter  hand  in  glove  with  the  very  dramatic 
company  that  was  implicated  in  the  rising,  and  that 
one  of  his  plays  should  have  been  employed  as  an 
instrument  in  the  business.  Again,  something  is 
known  of  the  nature  of  Bacon's  previous  friendship 
with  the  Earl  of  Essex ;  but,  however  cordial  it  may 
have  been,  it  is  quite  on  a  lower  plane  as  compared 
with  "  Shakespeare's"  feelings  towards  Southampton. 
The  terms  in  which  the  dramatist  addresses  the 
nobleman  who  was  being  tried  along  with  Essex 
are  those  of  personal  endearment,  and  we  must  hope, 
for  the  credit  of  human  nature,  that  to  all  the  treachery 
implied  in  the  idea  of  turning  upon  a  friend  whose 
insurrection  had  been  assisted  by  his  own  drama 
and  dramatic  associates  (according  to  the  Baconian 
theory)  it  was  impossible  that  he  could  have  added 
the  heartlessness  of  prosecuting  one,  his  love  for  whom 
he  had  already  immortalized  by  his  poems. 

Nor  should  we  like  to  think  that  the  very  man, 
whom  he  had  immortalized  in  this  way,  could  in  turn 
have  so  delighted  in  wounding  him  and  in  seeking  his 
downfall.  For  the  Earl  of  Southampton  was  amongst 


394        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

those  who  sought  and  ultimately  brought  about  the 
downfall  of  Lord  Bacon.  If,  to  this,  we  add  that  the 
most  of  "  Shakespeare's "  sonnets  are  supposed  to 
be  addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  and  that 
these  were  put  into  circulation  without  protest 
seven  years  after  the  trial,  at  a  time  when  the  feeling 
of  Southampton  towards  Bacon  was  very  bitter,  we 
have  as  tumbled  a  moral  situation  as  it  is  possible  to 
conceive  if  we  suppose  that  Bacon  was  "  Shakespeare." 
The  decisive  answer  to  the  Baconian  theory,  therefore, 
it  seems  to  us,  is  Henry  Wriothesley. 

Wriothes-  Moreover,    Southampton's     interest     in     William 

Shakspere  and  the  Shakespearean  plays  suffered  no 
decline  as  a  result  of  his  trial  and  imprisonment ; 
for  we  find  him  immediately  upon  his  liberation 
arranging  for  a  private  performance  of  "  Love's 
Labour's  Lost  "  for  the  entertainment  of  the  new 
Queen ;  a  most  unlikely  thing  for  him  to  have  done 
if  its  author  had  been  a  former  friend  who  had 
treacherously  sought  to  destroy  him.  On  the  other 
hand,  unless  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain — "  one  of 
the  best  in  comedy  " — who  had  recently  shown  an 
interest  both  in  Southampton  and  the  new  occupants 
of  the  throne  was  physically  incapable  of  being  present, 
it  is  safe  to  assume,  apart  from  the  special  theories 
we  are  now  advancing,  that  he  would  be  amongst  the 
select  party  of  spectators  at  the  performance  in 
Wriothesley 's  house.  A  more  striking  fact  connecting 
the  Earl  of  Southampton  directly  with  Edward  de 
Vere  and  the  work  of  "  Shakespeare,"  we  reserve 
for  the  chapter  in  which  we  shall  have  to  review 
Shakespeare's  Sonnets  in  relation  to  our  argument. 
The  mention  of  the  change  that  had  taken  place  in 
the  occupancy  of  the  English  throne  suggests  a  most 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  395 

significant    fact    in    connection    with    our    problem.  "  shake- 
When  Queen  Elizabeth  died,  the  poets  of  the  day,  spff™ " 

J      and  Queen 

who  had  loaded  her  with  most  absurd  flattery  during  Elizabeth's 
her  lifetime,  naturally  vied  with  one  another  in  doing 
honour  to  the  departed  monarch.  We  have  else- 
where remarked  that  we  have  no  single  line  of  De  Vere's 
paying  compliments  to  Elizabeth,  either  during  her 
lifetime  or  after  her  death ;  a  fact  which  arouses  no 
great  surprise.  A  similar  absence  of  any  word  of 
praise  from  the  pen  of  Shakespeare  has,  however, 
always  been  a  matter  of  considerable  surprise.  His 
silence  upon  the  subject  of  the  Queen's  death  provoked 
comment  among  his  contemporaries,  and  Chettle, 
the  personal  "  friend  "  of  William  Shakspere,  made 
a  direct  appeal  to  him  under  the  name  of  Melicert  to, 

"  Drop  from  his  honeyed  muse  one  sable  tear 
To  mourn  her  death  that  graced  her  desert." 

This  personal  intimacy  of  Chettle  and  Shakspere, 
we  remark  in  passing,  is  another  Stratfordian 
supposition,  for  which  there  is  no  sufficient  warrant ; 
and  that  Chettle's  "  Melicert  "  was  Shakspere  is  only 
another  surmise. 

The  honeyed  muse  was  at  any  rate  unresponsive, 
and  no  "  sable  tear "  appeared.  Considering  the 
whole  circumstances  of  William  Shakspere's  supposed 
rapid  rise  and  early  access  to  royal  favour,  it  is 
difficult  to  account  for  his  silence  at  such  a  time  on 
any  other  supposition  than  that  he  did  not  write 
because  he  could  not :  whilst  the  man  whose  instrument 
he  was,  was  not  disposed  to  write  verses  for  the  mere 
pleasure  of  adding  to  the  glory  of  William  Shakspere. 

In  another  connection  we  have  had  to  point  out 
that  Shakespeare's  sonnet  125  seems  to  be  pointing  to 


396        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

The  sonnets.  De  Vere's  officiating  at  Queen  Elizabeth's  funeral. 
This  may  be  taken  as  his  last  sonnet ;  for  126  is  really 
not  a  sonnet  but  a  stanza  composed  of  six  couplets, 
in  which  he  appears  to  be  addressing  a  parting  message 
to  his  young  friend.  Sonnet  127  begins  the  second 
series,  the  whole  of  which  seems  from  the  contents 
to  belong  to  about  the  same  period  as  the  early  sonnets 
of  the  first  series. 

If,  then,  we  may  take  sonnet  125  as  being  the 
Earl  of  Oxford's  expression  of  his  private  feelings 
relative  to  Queen  Elizabeth's  funeral,  we  can  quite 
understand  his  not  troubling  to  honour  her  with  any 
special  verses.  The  argument  does  not  touch  William 
Shakspere  in  the  same  way  ;  for  the  reasons  which 
lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  particular  sonnet  has 
reference  to  Elizabeth's  funeral,  only  apply  if  we 
assume  it  to  be  written  by  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  It  is 
worth  noticing,  too,  that  these  last  sonnets  seem  to 
be  touched  with  the  thought  of  approaching  death  ; 
and  when  we  find  that  De  Vere  died  on  June  24th, 
1604,  the  year  following  the  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
to  which  they  seem  to  make  reference,  the  two 
suppositions  we  have  stated  in  regard  to  them  seem 
to  be  mutually  confirmed. 

Oxford  and  The  special  sonnet  to  which  attention  has  been 
s  drawn,  if  it  does  actually  refer  to  the  part  taken  by 
the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain  at  Elizabeth's  funeral 
shows  clearly  that  the  participation  was  merely 
formal.  It  is  not  necessary  to  account  for  Oxford's 
attitude  :  the  point  is  that  the  attitude  represented 
in  the  sonnet  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  represented 
by  the  absence  of  any  line  from  Oxford's  pen  on  the 
subject  of  Elizabeth's  death,  and  a  similar  absence 
of  any  Shakespearean  utterance  on  the  same  theme. 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  397 

In  a  word,  everything  becomes  "  of  a  piece  "  as  soon 
as  the  name  and  person  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  is 
introduced. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  as  Oxford  was  out  of 
sympathy  with  the  party  in  power  at  the  time,  the 
success  of  the  Essex  rising  would,  from  some  points 
of  view,  have  been  gratifying  to  him  ;  although,  as 
a  practical  thing,  he  would  probably,  at  his  time  of 
life,  have  considered  it  rash  and  ill-advised.  The 
execution  of  Essex  which  had  done  more  than  any- 
thing else  to  injure  Elizabeth's  popularity  in  her 
closing  years  would  not  leave  him  unaffected.  If, 
further,  we  suppose  that  "  Shakespeare,"  whoever 
he  may  have  been,  retained  in  1603  the  feelings  he 
had  expressed  for  Southampton  in  1593  and  1594, 
it  is  impossible  to  think  of  him  writing  panegyrics 
on  Queen  Elizabeth  whilst  his  friend  was  being  kept 
in  prison.  Cheddle  evidently  did  not  consider  his 
"  friend,"  William  Shakspere,  sufficiently  interested 
in  the  Earl  of  Southampton  to  withold,  on  account 
of  the  imprisoned  earl,  his  "  sable  tear"  from  the  bier 
of  the  departed  Queen.  Oxford's  experience  as  a 
whole,  however,  would  indispose  him  to  join  in  any 
chorus  of  lamentation  or  of  praise. 

The  Hatfield  manuscripts,  and  the  Domestic  State 
Papers  of  the  time,  represent  him  as  making  efforts 
to  restore  the  fortunes  of  his  family  by  an  appeal  to 
Elizabeth,  on  the  strength  of  his  youth  spent  at  her 
court,  and  promises  made  to  him  which  had  encouraged 
his  early  extravagance.  The  Queen  had  replied  with 
gracious  words,  but  neither  the  special  office  for  which 
he  was  asking,  the  Presidency  of  Wales,  nor  any  other 
appointment  was  granted  to  him  ;  and  his  disappoint- 
ment with  the  Queen  is  clearly  shown.  He  certainly 


398        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

would  be  in  no  mood  for  lamentations  over  the  departed 
monarch. 

Oxford's  We  must  now  go  back  a  year  in  order  to  draw 

reappear-        attention  to  another  of  those  particulars  which  had 
ance.  passed  unobserved  until  after  the  virtual  completion 

of  our  argument.  After  fourteen  years  of  apparent 
retirement  from  dramatic  activities,  Oxford  makes  his 
appearance  once  more,  and  on  a  single  occasion,  in  the 
capacity  of  patron  of  the  drama.  It  is  a  mere  glimpse 
that  we  are  permitted  to  catch  of  him,  but  such  as  it 
is  it  has  special  relevance  to  our  present  purpose. 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  in  discussing  the  question  of 
"  Shakespeare's  "  relation  to  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern, 
Eastcheap,  tells  us  that  "  in  1602  the  Lords  of  the 
Council  gave  permission  for  the  servants  of  the  Earls 
of  Oxford  and  Worcester  to  play  at  this  tavern."  It 
is  of  some  importance,  then,  that  the  place  which  this 
tavern  occupies  in  respect  to  the  Shakespeare  dramas 
should  first  be  made  clear. 

In  current  editions  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  this 
particular  tavern  is  specified  in  the  stage  directions  as 
the  scene  of  some  of  the  escapades  of  Prince  Hal  and 
Falstaff  (Henry  IV,  parts  i  and  2).  In  the  Folio 
Editions,  however,  the  name  of  the  tavern  is  not 
given  in  the  stage  directions.  The  text  of  the  play, 
on  the  other  hand,  makes  it  clear  that  some  tavern  in 
Eastcheap  is  meant  :  Falstaff  remarking  "  Farewell : 
you  shall  find  me  in  Eastcheap  "  (I  Henry  IV.  I.  2) 
and  Prince  Hal  when  they  meet  at  the  tavern  (II.  4) 
adding,  "  I  shall  command  all  the  good  lads  in 
Eastcheap."  In  reference  to  this  matter  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  states  : 

"It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that  there  is  no 
mention  of  this  celebrated  tavern  in  any  edition 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  399 

of  Shakespeare  previous  to  the  appearance  of  The 
Theobald's  in  1733,  but  that  the  locality  is  there 
accurately  given  is  rendered  certain  by  an  allusion 
to  '  Sir  John  of  the  Boares-Head  in  Eastcheap  '  in 
Gayton's  Festivous  Notes  1654,  p.  277.  Shakespeare 
never  mentions  that  tavern  at  all,  and  the  only 
possible  allusion  to  it  is  in  the  Second  Part  of 
Henry  the  Fourth,  where  Prince  Hal  asks,  speaking 
of  Falstaff,  '  doth  the  old  boar  feed  in  the  old  frank '  ? 
A  suggestion  of  the  locality  may  also  be  possibly 
intended  in  '  Richard  II '  where  the  Prince  is 
mentioned  as  frequenting  taverns  '  that  stand  in 
narrow  lanes.'  .  .  .  There  were  numerous  other 
tenements  in  London,  including  five  taverns  in  the 
city  known  by  the  name  of  the  Boar's-Head.  .  .  . 
Curiously  enough  by  an  accidental  coincidence 
Sir  John  Fastolf  devised  to  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  a  house  so  called  in  the  borough  of 
Southwark." 

Sir  Sidney  Lee  connects  Falstaff  chiefly  with  the 
Boar's  Head  Tavern  in  Southwark,  relegating  the 
Boar's  Head,  Eastcheap,  to  a  footnote,  and  ignoring 
the  connection  of  Falstaff  with  some  tavern  in  East- 
cheap  in  the  actual  text  of  the  plays. 

Whatever  duplication  of  associations  may  have  Falstaff. 
arisen  from  the  connection  of  Falstaff  with  Sir  John 
Fastolf  of  the  Boar's  Head,  Southwark,  it  is  evident 
from  the  text  of  the  play,  the  stage-tradition  supported 
by  Gayton's  Festivous  Notes  in  1654,  and  Theobald's 
and  all  modern  editions  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  works, 
that  the  "  Boar's  Head,"  Eastcheap,  is  associated 
with  Shakespeare's  creation  of  Falstaff.  There  is 
ample  justification,  therefore,  for  Halliwell-Phillipps's 
allusion  to  Falstaff  as  "  the  renowned  hero  of  the 


400        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

Boar's  Head  Tavern,  Eastcheap,"  and  for  Sir  Walter 
Raleigh's  remark  that  "  the  Boar's  Head  in  Eastcheap 
has  been  made  famous  for  ever  by  the  patronage  of 
Falstaff  and  his  crew."  It  is  of  more  than  ordinary 
interest,  then,  to  find  the  Earl  of  Oxford  reappearing 
after  an  absence  of  fourteen  years  from  the  world 
of  drama  at  the  particular  tavern  associated  with 
Falstaff,  and  in  the  very  year  that  the  representation 
of  Falstaff  culminated  in  the  "  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor."  For  it  was  on  January  i8th,  1601-2, 
that  "  a  license  for  the  publication  of  the  play  was 
granted  "  and  "  an  imperfect  draft  was  printed  in  1602." 
What  would  we  not  give  to  know  the  title  of  the  play 
or  plays  that  the  servants  of  the  Earls  of  Oxford  and 
Worcester  performed  at  the  Boar's  Head,  Eastcheap, 
in  the  year  1602  ?  It  is  another  of  those  mysterious 
silences  that  meet  us  at  every  turn  of  the  Shakespeare 
problem. 

Oxford's  Halliwell-Phillipps  's    connection    of    Falstaff    with 

Crest  the        „  the  old  boar  „  has  alsQ  its  special  interest  to  those 

who  may  believe  that  Falstaff  is  a  work  of  self- 
caricature  on  the  part  of  "  Shakespeare."  For 
Oxford's  coat  of  arms  was  the  boar,  and  he  himself 
is  spoken  of,  in  a  letter  of  Hatton's  to  Queen  Elizabeth 
as  "  the  boar."  One  of  his  ancestors  was  killed  by 
a  wild  boar,  and  this  would  readily  suggest  to  him  the 
theme  of  his  first  great  poem.  It  may  be  worth 
mentioning  that  the  character  of  Puntarvolo,  in 
Ben  Jonson's  "  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour,"  who, 
some  Baconians  believe,  was  Jonson's  representation 
of  Bacon,  was  also  one  whose  crest  was  a  boar.  These 
things  are  at  any  rate  interesting  if  not  made  too 
much  of. 

Another  interesting  fact  belonging  to  a  much  earlier 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  401 

part  of  Oxford's  life  connects  itself  with  the  particular  A  wild 
matters  under  consideration.  The  escapades  of  Prince  a  ven 
Hal  and  his  men,  in  "  Henry  IV,"  part  i,  involve 
not  only  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern,  Eastcheap,  but  also 
that  part  of  the  road  near  Rochester  which  connects 
London  with  Canterbury.  Here  the  madcap  Prince 
and  his  associates  molest  travellers.  Now  in  1573, 
the  same  year  as  Hatton  writes  his  complaint  to  the 
Queen,  speaking  of  Oxford  as  the  "  boar,"  others 
make  complaints  about  being  molested  by  the  "  Earl 
of  Oxford's  men  "  on  the  identical  part  of  the  road — 
"  between  Rochester  and  Gravesend  " — where  Prince 
Hal  had  indulged  in  his  pranks.  Shooting  had  taken 
place,  and  everything  is  suggestive  of  a  wildness, 
similar  to  what  is  represented  in  "  Shakespeare's  " 
play  respecting  the  future  Henry  V.  The  exact 
correspondence  alike  of  locality  and  adventure  forms 
not  the  least  striking  of  the  many  coincidences  which 
our  researches  have  disclosed. 

A  special  significance  attaches  to  the  particular  year  The  I602 
in  which  Oxford  makes  his  reappearance  as  patron  of  8aP- 
drama  after  an  absence  of  fourteen  years.  In 
Chapter  I,  when  dealing  with  Stratfordianism,  we  had 
occasion  to  point  out  that  1602  is  the  only  year  of 
the  great  Shakespearean  period  in  which  the  records 
of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber  contain  no  entry  of 
payments  made  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company 
of  players.  The  company,  it  would  appear,  had 
temporarily  suspended  official  operations.  An 
examination  of  the  records  of  "  Shakespeare  "  publica- 
tion reveals  a  similar  gap.  There  was  no  new  play 
published  with  any  appearance  of  authentication ; 
the  1602  publication  of  the  "  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  " 
being,  the  authorities  state,  a  "  pirated  "  issue.  For 
26 


402        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

it  is  curious  that,  although  Stratfordians  affirm  that 
William  Shakspere  published  none  of  the  plays,  they 
nevertheless  discriminate  between  "  pirated "  and 
authorized  issues :  the  "  pirated "  being,  it  is 
presumed,  made  up  by  publishers  from  actors'  copies, 
and  not  from  complete  versions. 

With  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  apparently 
in  a  state  of  suspended  animation,  we  are  naturally 
disposed  to  ask,  what  company  of  actors  had  been 
playing  "  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  "  ?  Certainly 
the  probability  that  this  was  the  play  which  the 
servants  of  Oxford  and  Worcester  performed  that  year 
at  the  Boar's  Head  tavern  is  strengthened.  At  any 
rate  the  gap  itself  is  a  reality,  and  not  a  surmise  ; 
and  this  gap  exactly  corresponds  to  the  complete 
year  that  Henry  Wriothesley  spent  in  the  Tower  :  a 
very  fair  evidence  that  Wriothesley  had  been  acting 
as  intermediary  between  "  Shakespeare  "  and  others. 
It  is  then  in  the  exact  year  in  which  "  Shakespeare  " 
was  entirely  without  assistance  from  this  agent,  that 
the  Earl  of  Oxford  reappears  in  connection  with  the 
performance  of  some  play,  at  the  identical  tavern 
associated  with  Falstaff ;  and  publishers  get  hold  of 
actors'  copies  of  "The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor." 
Oxford  and  To  the  interesting  chain  of  evidence  presented  by 
the  Queen's  Oxford's  association  with  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern  in 

Company. 

1602  we  have  now  to  add  an  important  link.  In  the 
following  year  there  occurred  the  death  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and,  again  quoting  from  Sir  Sidney  Lee  : 
"  On  May  igth,  1603,  James  I,  very  soon  after  his 
accession,  extended  to  Shakespeare  and  other  members 
of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  a  very  marked 
and  valuable  recognition.  To  them  he  granted  under 
royal  letters  patent  a  license  freely  to  use  and  exercise 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  403 

the  art  and  faculty  of  playing  comedies,  tragedies 
(etc.)  .  .  .  The  company  was  thenceforth  styled  the 
King's  Company."  Then  in  a  footnote  he  adds, 
"  At  the  same  time  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company 
(that  is  to  say  the  company  associated  with  Oxford's 
at  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern)  was  taken  into  the  Queen's 
patronage,  and  its  members  were  known  as  the  Queen's 
servants." 

It  will,  we  believe,  be  readily  acknowledged  that, 
without  being  actually  identified  with  the  company 
that  was  staging  the  "  Shakespeare "  dramas,  the 
Earl  of  Oxford  has  now  been  brought,  through  the 
medium  of  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern  and  the  Earl  of 
Worcester's  company,  into  very  close  contact  with 
what  is  usually  styled  Shakespeare's  company.  It 
is  important  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  special 
reference  to  these  companies  in  connection  with  the 
"  Boar's  Head  "  is  not  one  selected  from  a  number, 
but  is  the  only  reference  of  its  kind  in  that  connection. 
Similarly,  it  may  be  worth  remarking  that  the  only 
dramatic  companies  in  any  way  associated  with  the 
family  records  of  William  Shakspere  at  Stratford 
were  "  The  Queen's  Company  and  the  Earl  of 
Worcester's  Company  "  of  an  earlier  date.  For,  in 
the  palmier  days  of  Shakspere's  father  "  each  (of 
these  companies)  received  from  John  Shakspere  an 
official  welcome."  This  is  the  single  piece  of  informa- 
tion that  research  has  elicited  in  any  way  connecting 
the  Shakspere  family  at  Stratford  with  the  drama 
of  Queen  Elizabeth's  day.  This  last  fact,  however,  in 
the  absence  of  fuller  particulars,  we  are  content  to 
put  in,  not  as  evidence,  but  as  an  interesting  and 
probably  accidental  coincidence. 

In  1601,  then,  Oxford  took  part  in  the  Essex  trial. 


404 


"  SHAKESPEARE  '     IDENTIFIED 


Oxford's 
death. 


Oxford's 
character 
and 
reputation. 


In  1602  he  was  associated  with  what  was  afterwards 
the  Queen's  Players  in  the  performance  of  some  un- 
known play  at  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern,  Eastcheap. 
In  1603  he  officiated  at  the  coronation  of  James.  On 
June  24th,  1604,  he  died  and  was  buried  at  Hackney 
Church.  Unfortunately  the  old  church  was  de- 
molished about  the  year  1790,  so  that  it  is  improbable 
that  the  exact  spot  where  his  remains  lie  will  ever  be 
located.  This  we  feel  to  be  a  real  national  loss.  We 
cannot  believe,  however,  that  the  English  nation  will 
acquiesce  permanently  in  the  neglect  of  the  place 
where  "  Shakespeare  "  lies  buried. 

The  year  of  Oxford's  death  (1604),  it  will  be  noticed, 
is  the  year  in  which  the  great  series  of  Shakespearean 
dramas  culminated.  "  Hamlet  "  is  assigned  to  the 
year  1602.  It  was  first  published  in  an  incomplete 
form  in  the  year  1603,  and  in  1604  was  issued  the 
drama  substantially  as  we  now  have  it.  This  point 
we  shall  have  to  discuss  more  explicitly  in  our  next 
chapter.  The  tragedy  which  is  universally  accepted 
as  the  author's  supreme  achievement  belongs,  therefore, 
to  the  year  of  Edward  de  Vere's  death  ;  and  the  last 
words  of  Hamlet — the  passage  we  quote  at  the  opening 
of  this  series  of  biographical  chapters — may  almost 
be  accepted  as  Oxford's  dying  words.  "  Othello," 
too,  has  been  assigned  to  1604  although  it  was  not 
printed  until  1622  ;  that  is  to  say,  six  years  after  the 
death  of  William  Shakspere,  the  reputed  author. 

The  actual  details  so  far  recorded  of  Oxford's  life 
are  of  the  most  meagre  description,  and  hardly  furnish 
materials  for  an  adequate  biography  ;  but  if  what  we 
are  now  contending  respecting  the  authorship  of 
Shakespeare's  works  be  finally  established  we  shall 
probably,  in  the  course  of  time,  learn  more  of  him 


FINAL  OR  SHAKESPEAREAN  PERIOD  405 

than  of  almost  any  other  man  in  history.  In  his 
case  we  shall  have  not  the  mere  externals  of  life,  which 
never  quite  show  forth  the  man,  but  the  infinitely 
varied  play  of  his  very  soul  in  the  most  masterly 
exposition  of  human  nature  that  exists  anywhere  in 
the  world's  literature.  Although  these  things  mainly 
concern  the  future,  there  is  one  thing  which  must  be 
said  at  once,  and  an  important  claim  that  must  b« 
immediately  entered  on  his  behalf. 

Many  generous  pronouncements  on  "  Shakespeare  " 
have  already  been  made  in  the  belief  that  the  Stratford 
man  was  the  actual  dramatist.  Now,  apart  from  the 
writings  practically  nothing  is  known  of  the  personality 
of  the  one  who  has  hitherto  been  credited  with  them. 
These  generous  estimates  of  "  Shakespeare,"  being 
almost  wholly  inferred  from  the  plays  he  has  left  us,  must 
in  all  honesty  be  passed  on  to  Edward  de  Vere  when 
he  is  accepted  as  the  author.  They  are  his  by  right. 
We  cannot  go  back  upon  the  judgments  that  have 
been  so  passed  upon  "  Shakespeare,"  simply  because 
it  transpires  that  the  Stratford  man  is  not  he.  By 
the  adoption  of  his  mask  the  author  of  the  plays  has 
therefore  secured  for  himself  a  judgment  stripped  of 
the  bias  of  "  vulgar  scandal."  He  has,  by  revealing 
himself  in  his  plays,  trapped  the  world,  as  it  were, 
into  passing  a  more  impartial  verdict  upon  himself 
than  would  otherwise  have  been  accorded,  and  given 
a  signal  check  to  its  tendency  to  hang  the  dog  with 
a  bad  name. 

The  references  to  him,  which  we  have  come  across 
in  the  course  of  our  investigations,  have  frequently 
taken  the  form  of  condemnatory  expressions,  altogether 
unsupported,  or  most  inadequately  tested  by  facts. 
All  these  must  now  be  subjected  to  a  searching  re  vision. 


406        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

Having  been  for  so  long  the  victim  of  "  cunning 
policy,"  he  has,  at  length,  become  entitled  to  such 
personal  appreciation  as  sober  judgment  has  pro- 
nounced upon  "  Shakespeare  "  from  a  consideration 
of  the  writings.  What  the  world  has  written  in  this 
connection  it  has  written,  and  must  be  prepared  to 
stand  by. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

POSTHUMOUS  CONSIDERATIONS 

"  ALTHOUGH  Shakespeare's  powers  showed  no  sign 
of  exhaustion,  he  reverted  in  1607  to  his  earlier  habit 
of  collaboration,  and  with  another's  aid  composed 
Timon  of  Athens,  etc." 

SIR  SIDNEY  LEE. 

We  have  seen  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  death  of  An 
Edward  de  Vere  new  Shakespearean  plays  and  printed 
issues  of  plays  formerly  staged  were  appearing  at  a 
phenomenal  rate.  These  we  have  regarded  as  literary 
transformations  of  what  had  previously  existed  as 
stage  plays.  Our  next  question  is  whether  Shake- 
speare's writings,  as  we  now  have  them,  represent 
a  completed  or  an  uncompleted  work.  Even  under 
the  old  supposition  of  an  author  who  spent  the  last 
years  of  his  life  in  retirement  from  literary  work  this 
question  has  already  been  answered,  and  the  answer 
given  has  again  constituted  one  of  the  paradoxes  of 
literature.  For  we  are  assured  that  the  greatest 
genius  that  has  appeared  in  English  literature,  when 
he  had  reached  his  maturity,  and  when  there  was  no 
sign  of  failing  powers,  having  lined  his  pockets  well 
with  money,  retired  from  his  literary  labours,  leaving 
in  the  hands  of  stage  managers  the  manuscripts  ot 
incompleted  plays,  that  others,  at  a  later  date,  were 
called  upon  to  finish.  Shakespeare's  work  is  therefore 
admittedly  an  unfinished  performance. 

Unfinished  performances  of  great  geniuses  are  not 
407 


40&         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

unknown  in  the  world,  but  when  they  appear  one 
explanation  alone  accounts  for  them — an  utter  in- 
ability to  proceed :  usually  death.  To  neither 
William  Shakspere  nor  to  Bacon  nor  to  any  one  else 
whose  name  has  been  raised  in  this  connection  does 
such  an  explanation  apply.  In  all  these  cases  we 
must  assume  the  deliberate  abandonment  of  the  work 
for  other  interests.  In  the  case  of  Edward  de  Vere 
alone  do  we  get  the  natural  explanation  that  the 
writer  was  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  his  work,  leaving 
unpublished  some  plays  that  he  may  have  considered 
finished,  and  others  published  later,  either  unfinished 
or  as  they  had  been  finished  by  other  writers. 
Geniuses  To  suppose  that  "  Shakespeare,"  having  attained 

t*16  highest  rank  as  a  play-writer  whilst  still  in  the 
heyday  of  his  powers,  should,  on  approaching  his 
zenith,  have  reverted  to  his  earlier  practice  of  collabora- 
tion with  others — the  master-hand  in  the  craft  returning 
to  the  expedients  of  his  prentice  days — is  to  deny 
to  him  the  possession  of  ordinary  common  sense. 
And  to  suppose  that  he  was  so  indifferent  to  the  fate 
of  his  own  manuscripts  as  to  leave  them  to  drift  amongst 
unknown  actors,  without  arrangements  for  their 
preservation  and  publication,  is  to  suppose  him  incap- 
able of  measuring  their  value.  Yet  all  this  is  implied  in 
the  Stratfordian  view,  and  much  of  it  in  the  Baconian. 
Under  the  De  Vere  theory  the  whole  situation 
assumes  for  the  first  time  a  rational  and  common- 
sense  appearance.  Prevented  by  death  from 
completely  finishing  his  task,  he  had  nevertheless  been 
speeding  up  the  issue  of  his  works  for  some  years 
beforehand,  and  had  friends  sufficiently  in  his  confidence 
to  safeguard  his  manuscripts  and  to  preserve  his 
incognito  when  he  was  gone.  The  admittedly  un- 


POSTHUMOUS    CONSIDERATIONS       409 

finished  character  of  Shakespeare's  work  we  maintain, 
then,  can  only  be  rationally  explained  by  supposing 
that  death,  and  not  retirement,  had  brought  his 
literary  activities  to  a  close.  This  is  the  first  point 
to  be  fixed  in  the  statement  of  our  argument  from 
the  posthumous  point  of  view. 

When  we  turn  to  examine  the  issue  of  Shakespeare's  "Fell 
works  in  relation  to  Edward  de  Vere's  death,  we  find 
facts    of    a    specially    interesting    and    illuminating  Arrest 
character.     We  have  already  indicated  the  tremendous 
outpouring  attributed  to  the  six  preceding  years.     Let 
us  now  see  what  happens  immediately  after  his  death. 

There  are  three  points  of  view  from  which  the  dating 
of  the  plays  may  be  regarded.  First,  we  have  the 
system  of  conjectural  dating  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Stratford  man  was  the  author  ;  secondly, 
there  are  the  ascertained  dates  of  the  first  known 
publication  of  the  plays  ;  and  thirdly,  we  have  the 
recorded  dates  of  the  various  early  issues,  including 
revised  editions  and  mere  reprints. 

Beginning  with  the  first,  that  upon  which  much  of 
the  argument  in  the  last  chapter  is  based,  we  find,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  it  is  largely  guesswork,  founded 
upon  the  very  views  of  authorship  which  we  are  now 
questioning,  it  indicates  a  distinct  check  in  the  issues 
at  the  time  ot  Oxford's  death.  Professor  Dowden 
attributes  but  one  play,  "  King  Lear,"  to  the  year 
1605,  and  one,  "  Macbeth,"  to  the  year  1606  :  and 
even  this  last  is  treated  both  by  Sir  Sidney  Lee  and 
by  the  compiler  of  the  "  Falstaff "  Notes  as  very 
doubtful.  At  the  same  time,  1607  is  chosen  by  the 
former  as  the  year  when  plays  again  began  to  appear 
in  which  Shakespeare's  work  was  mixed  with  that  of 
contemporary  writers.  Even  this  hypothetical  dating 


4io         "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

of  the  plays  indicates,  therefore,  some  radical  change 
about  the  time  when  Edward  de  Vere  died. 
Lear  "  and  As  "  King  Lear  "  and  "  Macbeth  "  are  ascribed  to 
Macbeth."  ^e  two  years  immediately  following  the  death  of 
Edward  de  Vere  it  has  been  been  necessary  to  examine 
somewhat  closely  the  data  from  which  such  a  conclusion 
has  been  drawn.  The  most  of  this  has  been  brought 
together  in  the  appendix  to  the  "  Variorum  Shake- 
speare," and  the  point  on  which  much  of  the  argument 
is  made  to  turn  is  the  suggested  allusions  to  the  union 
of  the  English  and  Scottish  crowns,  contained  in  the 
plays.  The  rest  seems  determined  by  the  general 
scheme  of  finding  reasonable  spaces  of  time  in  the 
life  of  William  Shakspere  to  get  the  work  done.  These 
allusions  to  the  union  of  the  crowns  would  be  very 
natural  to  one  who  had  occupied  a  foremost  position 
at  the  coronation,  if  he  happened  to  be  trimming 
up  these  particular  plays  at  the  time  :  on  the  other 
hand,  the  general  scheme  of  dating  the  works  does  not, 
as  we  have  seen,  apply  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 

The  most  significant  fact,  however,  which  the  study 
of  other  authorities  brings  to  light  is  that,  instead 
of  fixing  a  definite  year  for  each  of  these  two  plays, 
they  assign  a  period  of  three  years,  1603  to  1606, 
during  which  they  assert  these  two  plays  might  have 
been  written.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  even  these  two 
may  fairly  be  added  to  the  apparently  amazing  produc- 
tion of  the  last  six  or  seven  years  of  De  Vere's  lifetime. 
Of  "King  Lear,"  the"Variorum  Shakespeare"  remarks 
that  "  Drake  (in  '  Shakespeare  and  his  Times  ')  thinks 
its  production  is  to  be  attributed  to  1604.  ...  I  think 
we  must  be  content  with  the  term  of  3  years  (1603- 
1606)  ;  no  date  more  precise  than  this  will  probably 
ever  gain  general  acceptance."  The  case  of  "  Macbeth  " 


POSTHUMOUS  CONSIDERATIONS        411 

is  even  more  interesting.  Several  authorities  give 
again  the  1603-1606  period,  and  Grant  White  affirms, 
"  I  have  little  hesitation  in  referring  the  production 
to  the  period  1604-1605."  With  this  in  mind,  the 
quotations  given  in  the  "  Variorum  Shakespeare " 
from  Messrs.  Clark  and  Wright  (Clarendon  Press 
Series)  showing  that  "  Macbeth "  was  a  work  of 
collaboration  between  Shakespeare  and  another  are  of 
great  importance.  The  question  of  an  arranged 
collaboration  versus  interpolation  is  raised,  and  the 
following  conclusion  arrived  at : — 

"  On  the  whole  we  incline  to  think  that  the  play 
was  interpolated  after  Shakespeare's  death — or,  at 
at  least,  after  he  had  withdrawn  from  all  connection 
with  the  theatre." 

Had  the  works  been  dissociated  from  the  Stratford 
man,  or  rather,  if  they  had  been  avowedly  anonymous 
from  the  first,  the  study  of  these  particular  plays 
would  have  justified  a  suspicion  that  their  writer  had 
died  about  1604  :  the  year  of  the  death  of  Edward  de 
Vere.  This  furnishes  the  second  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  our  posthumous  argument. 

After  "  King  Lear  "  and  "  Macbeth  "  we  enter  upon  The  last 
the  period  which  begins  with  "  Timon  of  Athens  " 
and  finishes  with  "  Henry  VIII "  :  the  former, 
according  to  the  passage  we  have  quoted  from 
Sir  Sidney  Lee,  marking  the  beginning  of  work  in 
which  "  collaboration  "  becomes  a  pronounced  feature, 
and  the  latter,  in  which  "  Shakespeare  "  is  supposed 
to  lay  down  his  pen,  being  generally  recognized  as 
largely  the  work  of  Fletcher.  In  this  period  we  have 
great  dramas  that  are  no  mere  "  prentice  work,"  in 
which  are  passages  and  dramatic  situations  revealing 
this  great  genius  at  his  highest.  Yet  it  is  in  this  work 


412         "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

that  we  meet  with  deficiencies  of  poetic  finish  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  recognized  intervention  of 
strange  pens  on  the  other  :  a  state  of  things  to  which 
we  cannot  imagine  even  a  third  rate  writer  submitting 
voluntarily. 

With  all  deference  to  Shakespearean  scholars,  we 
are  bound  to  say  that,  in  respect  to  the  work  assigned 
to  this  period,  wonder  and  praise  seem  to  have  got  the 
better  of  discrimination.  There  is  so  much  here  of 
"  Shakespeare's  "  best,  that  there  has  been  a  fatal 
tendency  to  regard  as  good  what  is  more  than  question- 
able. Even  the  faults  of  those  who  have  been  called 
in  to  finish  the  work,  or  possibly  even  of  the  author's 
first  rough  drafts,  have  been  treated  as  "  Shake- 
speare's "  most  advanced  conceptions,  and  as  marks 
of  his  poetic  development.  We  would  specify,  in 
particular,  the  uneven  versification  due  to  additional 
syllables  in  the  lines,  faulty  rhythm  and  "  weak 
endings,"  which  have  made  so  much  of  the  later  so- 
called  "  blank- verse  "  hardly  distinguishable  to  the 
ear  from  honest  prose. 

Disguised  Our  commentators  assure  us  that  this  "  rag-time  " 

verse  shows  us  the  mighty  genius  bursting  his  fetters. 
The  real  roots  of  this  eulogized  emancipation  will, 
however,  be  readily  perceived  from  a  consideration 
of  the  following  passages  from  North's  Plutarch  and 
Shakespeare's  "Coriolanus"  (one  of  these  later  plays), 
for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Sir  Sidney  Lee's  work : 

North's  Plutarch  (prose). 

"  I  am  Caius  Marcus,   who  hath  done 
to  thyself  particularly,  and  to  all  the  Voices 
generally   great   hurt   and   mischief  ;     which 
I   cannot   deny   for   my   surname   of 
Coriolanus  that  I  bear." 


POSTHUMOUS    CONSIDERATIONS        413 

Shakespeare's  "Coriolanus"  (blank- verse  I) 

"  My  name  is  Caius  Marcus  who   hath  done 
To  thee  particularly,  and  to  all  the  Voices 
Great  hurt  and  mischief  ;    thereto  witness  may 
My  surname  Coriolanus." 

At  last,  then,  the  secret  of  this  great  literary 
emancipation  is  out.  The  people  who  were  "  finishing 
off "  .these  later  plays  took  straightforward  prose, 
either  from  the  works  of  others,  or  from  rough  notes 
collected  by  "  Shakespeare  "  in  preparing  his  dramas, 
and  chopped  it  up,  along  with  a  little  dressing,  to  make 
it  look  in  print  something  like  blank  verse.  That 
"  Shakespeare,"  living,  could  have  voluntarily  suffered 
such  work  to  go  forth  as  his  is  inconceivable.  The 
result  of  such  a  method  has  been  the  production  of 
faulty  rhythm  and  "  weak-endings,"  and  these  have 
been  hailed  by  learned  Shakespeareans  as  tokens  of 
a  great  poetic  liberation.  On  this  plan  even  a  school- 
boy might  conceivably  give  us  an  edition  of  Newton's 
"  Principia  "  in  blank- verse. 

"  Cymbelline "  (another  of  these  later  plays)  is 
also  strongly  marked  by  "  weak-endings "  and 
interpolations ;  and  both  Professor  Dowden  and 
Stanton  recognize  in  the  play  the  participation  of 
an  inferior  hand. 

Of  "  Anthony  and  Cleopatra,"  Sir  Sidney  Lee 
remarks  :  "  The  source  of  the  tragedy  is  the  life  of 
Antonius  in  North's  Plutarch.  Shakespeare  followed 
closely  the  historical  narrative,  and  assimilated  not 
merely  its  temper,  but  in  the  first  three  acts,  much 
of  its  phraseology."  The  case  of  "The  Tempest"  we 
reserve  for  special  examination  in  the  appendix. 

The  general  stamp,  then,  of  this  later  work  is  great- 
ness, suggestive  of  unfailing  powers ;  and  defects 


414        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

suggestive  of  unfinished  workmanship  and  the  inter- 
vention of  inferior  pens  :  a  combination  which  we 
claim  can  only  be  explained  by  the  death  of  the 
dramatist. 

Dates  of  With  the  Earl  of  Oxford  substituted  for  William 

Shakspere  much  of  the  guesswork  relating  to  the 
time  when  the  plays  were  written  ceases  to  have  any 
value  :  what  is  of  most  consequence  now  is  the  date 
of  actual  issue.  We  have,  therefore,  compiled  a  list 
of  the  dates  when  the  first  printed  issues  of  the  plays 
appeared  ;  and  although  errors  may  have  crept  in, 
owing  to  the  relatively  subordinate  position  hitherto 
assigned  to  this  particular  group  of  facts,  it  will 
presently  appear  that  their  general  trend  is  sufficiently 
well  marked  for  our  purpose.  "  Venus "  and 
"  Lucrece "  were  published  in  1593  and  1594 
respectively  :  an  interval  of  four  years  passed  before 
the  printing  of  the  plays  began,  and  even  then  the 
first  of  the  series  had  not  Shakespeare's  name  attached. 
The  Sonnets  are  included  in  the  following  list  because 
of  their  special  importance. 

Three    Periods   of    Shakespearean    Publication    after 

"Venus"    and   "Lucrece." 
Compiled  from  Notes  to  "Pocket  Falstaff  "  Edition. 

1st  Period  (1597-1603). 

1.  Richard  II. 

2.  Richard  III. 

3.  Romeo  and  Juliet. 

4.  Love's  Labour's  Lost. 

5.  Henry  IV,  part  i. 

6.  Henry  IV,  part  2. 


POSTHUMOUS    CONSIDERATIONS        415 

7.  Henry  V. 

8.  Merchant  of  Venice. 

9.  Midsummer  Night's  Dream. 

10.  Much  Ado  About  Nothing. 

11.  Titus   Andronicus. 

12.  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  (pirated). 

13.  Hamlet   (pirated)  :    authentic  in  1604. 

Arrested  publication  (1604-1607  inclusive). 

No  new  publication. 

2nd  Period  (1608-9). 

1.  King  Lear. 

2.  Troilus  and  Cressida. 

3.  Pericles. 

4.  Sonnets. 

3rd  Period  (1622-23). 

1622  Othello. 

1623  (Folio  Edition). 

All  the  remainder,  twenty  plays  in  all,   including 
such  well-known  names  as, 
As  You  Like  It. 
Taming  of  the  Shrew. 
Macbeth. 
Tempest. 
Julius  Caesar. 
King  John. 
Twelfth  Night. 
Measure  for  Measure. 
Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona. 
All's  Well  that  Ends  Well. 


416        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 


In  the  six  years  from  1597  t°  J6o3  it  will  be  noticed 
there  were  no  less  than  thirteen  plays  of  Shakespeare's 
printed  and  published  for  the  first  time.  Some  of 
these  had  been  staged  in  previous  years,  and  others 
were  then  being  both  staged  and  printed  for  the  first 
time.  This  brings  us  to  the  year  before  Oxford's 
death. 

The  1604  From  1603  to  1608,  according  to  this    record,    no 

stoppage.  single  play  was  printed  and  published  for  the  first  time. 
Even  supposing  there  are  mistakes  and  oversights 
in  these  notes,  there  is  still  a  large  enough  margin 
for  us  to  affirm  confidently  that  the  publication  of 
Shakespeare's  plays  was  arrested  in  a  marked  degree 
for  several  years  after  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere. 
We  may  add  that  this  arrested  publication  is  fully 
borne  out  by  Professor  Dowden's  table,  Sir  Sidney 
Lee's  account,  and  every  other  record  we  have  seen. 
This  gives  us  the  third  and  probably  the  most  telling 
of  our  arguments  from  the  posthumous  standpoint. 
If,  again,  we  turn  to  the  issuing  of  mere  reprints, 
entailing  no  literary  work  properly  speaking,  we 
find  that  after  1604  there  was  nothing  reprinted  until 
1608,  except  the  two  popular  plays  of  "  Hamlet  " 
and  "  Richard  III,"  for  which  we  might  judge  there 
would  be  a  considerable  demand  :  and  even  these 
were  only  reprinted  once,  namely  in  1605.  It  would 
therefore  seem  that  all  kinds  of  issues,  including  even 
pirated  and  surreptitious  editions,  as  well  as  mere 
reprints,  were  definitely  checked  at  the  time  of  Oxford's 
death  :  a  fact  which  should  give  Shakespearean 
scholars  "  furiously  to  think  "  respecting  much  of 
the  so-called  "  pirated  "  work.  So  complete  an  arrest 
of  publication  at  this  precise  moment  is  almost  start- 
ling in  its  character  ;  the  slight  resumption  which  took 


POSTHUMOUS   CONSIDERATIONS        417 

place    after    an  interval  of    four  years  is    not    less 
striking. 

In  1608  and  1609  there  was  a  slight  revival  of  Th(?  1608-9 
Shakespearean  publication  involving,  however,  only 
three  plays  and  the  Sonnets.  Nothing  else  was 
newly  published  until  "  Othello  "  in  1622,  and  the 
Folio  edition  of  Shakespeare  "in  1623 ;  six  and  seven 
years  respectively  after  the  death  of  the  Stratford 
Shakspere.  Even  according  to  the  Stratfordian  view, 
then,  the  most  of  Shakespeare's  works  were  published 
posthumously.  In  the  Folio  edition  no  less  than  twenty 
out  of  the  thirty-seven,  so  called,  Shakespearean 
plays  were  printed  and  published  for  the  first  time — 
so  far  as  anything  has  yet  been  discovered.  Of  the 
three  plays  appearing  in  this  temporary  revival  one 
is  "  Pericles,"  which  was  published  in  1609  ;  the  same 
year  as  the  Sonnets  appeared.  Now  the  manner 
of  the  publication  of  these  two,  "  Pericles  "  and  the 
"  Sonnets,"  is  as  strong  a  confirmation  as  could  be 
wished  for  that  the  dramatist  himself  was  by  this 
time  dead.  We  shall  take  "  Pericles  "  first,  quoting 
again  the  "  Falstaff "  notes. 

"  Pericles  "  is  mainly  from  other  hands  than  Shake-  "  Pericles." 
speare's,  probably  those  of  Wilkins  and  Rowley.     It  was 
first  printed  in  quarto  in  1609  with  the  following  title : — 

"  '  Pericles  '  ...  as  it  hath  been  divers  times  acted 
by  his  Majesty's  servants  at  the  Globe.  .  .  .  By 
William  Shakspere  ..." 

This  play  was  therefore  issued  with  the  full  imprimatur 
of  William  Shakspere  and  the  Globe  Theatre,  although 
it  is  mainly  from  other  hands  than  Shakespeare's. 
Contrast  this  with  the  plays  issued  during  the  life  of 
De  Vere  under  the  "  Shakespeare  "  nom-de-plume. 
They  are  ;— 
*7 


418         "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

1598  Love's  Labour's  Lost. 
1600  Henry  IV,  part  a. 

The  Merchant  of  Venice. 

A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream. 

Much  Ado  About  Nothing. 

1602  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  (pirated). 

1603  Hamlet  (curtailed  and  pirated). 

1604  Hamlet :    authorized. 

Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  plays  published 
in  1597  and  1598  without  any  author's  name  attached, 
the  important  point  to  notice  is  the  character  of  the 
plays  which  received  the  Shakespeare  imprimatur  up 
to  the  time  of  the  death  of  De  Vere.  No  one  would 
venture  to  say  of  any  one  of  these  that  it  was  "  mainly 
from  other  hands "  than  Shakespeare's,  whatever 
opinion  he  might  hold  as  to  the  quality  or  complete- 
ness of  the  play  itself.  It  is  of  interest,  too,  that 
although  "  Titus  Andronicus  "  was  published  in  the 
same  period  it  was  without  the  name  of  "  Shake- 
speare." The  natural  conclusion  is  that  when  in  1609 
"  Pericles "  was  published,  with  all  the  e"clat  of  a 
genuine  Shakespearean  play,  the  controlling  hand  of 
"  Shakespeare "  himself  had  been  removed.  Those 
who  were  directing  matters  may  have  believed  it  to 
have  been  his  :  what  is  more  probable  is  that  it  was 
they  who  had  called  in  assistance  to  finish  a  play 
which  he  had  left  unfinished. 

The  Sonnets.  Take  now  the  issue  of  the  Sonnets,  a  problem  that 
has  agitated  and  puzzled  the  literary  world  for  so  long. 
We  need  not  at  present  discuss  the  question  of  who 
W.  H.  and  T.  T.  may  have  been,  or  attempt  to  clear 
up  the  mystery  of  their  association  with  the  publication 
of  these  poems  ;  but  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  mystery 
of  the  publication  disappears  as  soon  as  we  suppose  a 


419 

posthumous  issue.  Indeed  the  dedication  to  the 
Sonnets  has  been  telling  us  for  three  hundred  years, 
in  the  plainest  of  terms,  that  the  writer  was  already 
dead.  It  may  be  a  curiosity  of  language,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  a  fact,  that  we  only  speak  of  a  man  being 
"  ever-living  "  after  he  is  actually  dead  ;  and  in  the 
dedication  of  the  Sonnets  their  author  is  referred  to 
as  "  our  ever-living  poet."  Who  then -was  this  "  ever- 
living  poet  "  ?  Surely  not  the  man  who,  to  all  appear- 
ances, had  deserted  or  was  preparing  to  desert  the 
high  interests  of  literature  and  drama  and  attend 
to  his  land  and  houses  at  Stratford,  and  who  was 
being  completely  ignored  by  those  who  were  issuing 
the  full  literary  text  of  what  were  supposed  to  be  his 
great  personal  poems.  Neither  is  it  likely  that  "  our 
ever-living  poet  "  was  at  that  moment  discharging 
the  functions  of  solicitor-general  with  his  eye  upon 
the  woolsack,  or  planning  his  "  Great  Instauration." 

To  suppose  that  a  set  of  no  less  than  one  hundred  A 
and  fifty  sonnets,-  many  of  them  of  exquisite  quality,  absurdity" 
touching  the  most  private  experiences  and  sentiments 
of  a  great  genius,  whose  work  proclaims  an  almost 
fastidious  regard  on  his  part  for  his  productions, 
could,  while  he  was  yet  alive,  have  found  their  way 
into  print,  surreptitiously,  with  strange  initials 
attached,  without  his  knowledge,  consent,  signature, 
or  immediate  and  emphatic  protest,  is  as  extravagant 
a  supposition  as  could  be  imagined.  Yet  all  this  is 
implied  in  the  Stratfordian  theory  of  authorship.  The 
only  hypothesis  that  adequately  explains  the  situation 
is  that  the  poet  himself  was  dead  and  his  manuscript 
had  passed  into  other  hands.  The  dedication  itself 
proclaims  the  fact,  and  the  simultaneous  issue  of 
"  Pericles  "  confirms  it. 


420        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

We  shall  close  the  discussion  of  these  two  publica- 
tions with  a  sentence  bearing  on  each  from  Sir  Sidney 
Lee's  Life  of  Shakespeare. 

Pericles  :  "  The  bombastic  form  of  title  shows  that 
Shakespeare  had  no  hand  in  the  publication  "  (1609). 

Sonnets :  "He  (Shakespeare)  cannot  be  credited 
with  any  responsibility  for  the  publication  of  Thorpe's 
collection  of  his  sonnets  in  1609." 

"  King  In  respect   to  the  other  two  plays  published  in 

•^Troilu^  1608-9  it  will  be  enough  to  give  the  following  quota- 
tions from  the  same  work.  "  King  Lear  "  .  .  ."  was 
defaced  by  many  gross  typographical  errors.  Some 
of  the  sheets  were  never  subjected  to  any  correction 
of  the  press.  The  publisher,  Butter,  endeavoured  to 
make  some  reparation  ...  by  issuing  a  second  quarto 
which  was  designed  to  free  the  text  of  the  most  obvious 
incoherences  of  the  first  quarto.  But  the  effort  was 
not  successful.  Uncorrected  sheets  disfigured  the 
second  quarto  little  less  conspicuously  than  the 
first." 

"  Troilus  and  Cressida  "  ..."  Exceptional  obscurity 
attaches  to  the  circumstances  of  the  publication  .  .  . 
After  a  pompous  title-page  there  was  inserted  for  the 
first  time  in  the  case  of  a  play  by  Shakespeare  that 
was  published  in  his  lifetime,  an  advertisement  or 
preface  .  .  .  the  publishers  paid  bombastic  and  high- 
flown  compliments  to  Shakespeare  .  .  .  and  defiantly 
boasted  that  the  grand  possessors  of  the  manuscript 
deprecated  its  publication."  This  is  the  particular 
play  which  we  pointed  out  in  an  earlier  chapter 
probably  contains  the  matter  of  Oxford's  early  play 
of  "  Agamemnon  and  Ulysses." 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  was  evidently  not 
even  the  holder  of  the  manuscript  in  this  instance  : 


and  certainly  the  expression  "  grand  possessors  "  is 
worth  attention.  The  point  that  matters,  however, 
is  that  neither  the  author  himself,  nor  the  owners  of 
the  authentic  manuscript,  had  anything  to  do  with 
this  particular  publication.  And  as  the  same  has  been 
shown  to  be  true  of  the  author's  relation  to  the  other 
three  issues  of  this  period,  all  four,  without  excep- 
tion, give  unmistakable  support  to  the  views  we 
are  now  advocating.  This,  then,  is  the  position. 
We  have  a  flood  of  Shakespearean  plays  being  published 
authentically  right  up  to  the  year  before  the  death 
of  Edward  de  Vere,  then  a  sudden  stop,  and  nothing 
more  published  with  any  appearance  of  proper 
authorization  for  nearly  twenty  years,  although  the 
reputed  author  was  alive  and  active  during  twelve 
of  these  years.  We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
the  simple  fact  we  have  enunciated  in  our  last  sentence 
furnishes  an  argument  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
strengthen  further. 

Decisive  as  may  appear  the  fact  we  have  just  stated  "  Hamlet.' 
there  remains  one  other  consideration  which  brings 
us  into  still  closer  contact  with  the  actual  date  of 
Oxford's  death.  It  will  be  seen  that  on  either  the 
Stratfordian  or  the  De  Vere  theory,  the  last  play 
published  with  any  appearance  of  proper  authoriza- 
tion during  Shakespeare's  lifetime  was  "  Hamlet." 
An  examination  of  the  facts  connected  with  the  printing 
of  this  play  is  therefore  of  special  importance.  We 
have  included  it  in  the  1597-1603  period  because  a 
quarto  edition  of  it  appeared  in  the  last  year  of  this 
period.  The  1603  quarto  edition,  however,  is  described 
by  Sir  Sidney  Lee  as  "a  piratical  and  carelessly 
transcribed  copy  of  Shakespeare's  first  draft  of  the  play." 
In  1604  the  Second  Quarto  edition,  he  tells  us,  was 


422        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

published    "  from    a    more    complete    and    accurate 
manuscript."     He  further  adds  : 

"  The  concluding  words  of  the  title-page  were 
intended  to  stamp  its  predecessor  as  surreptitious 
and  unauthentic.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  Second 
Quarto  was  not  a  perfect  version  of  the  play.  A  third 
version  figured  in  the  Folio  of  1623.  Here  many 
passages  not  to  be  found  in  the  quartos  appeared  for 
the  first  time,  but  a  few  others  that  appear  in  the 
quartos  are  omitted.  The  Folio  text  probably  came 
nearest  to  the  original  manuscript."  Now,  with 
an  interval  of  nearly  twenty  years  between  the  second 
and  third  versions  of  a  play  which  had  evidently  been 
subjected  to  constant  revision  and  development,  whilst 
simple  reprints  of  the  second  edition  had  appeared 
in  the  interval,  what  is  the  natural  inference  in  view 
of  the  facts  already  pointed  out  ?  Simply  that  the 
author  was  removed  by  death  whilst  actually  engaged 
upon  the  particular  play,  at  the  time  when  the  Second 
Quarto  was  published,  namely  1604,  the  exact  year 
of  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere.  We  feel  quite 
justified  in  claiming  that  '  Shakespeare,'  whoever  he 
may  have  been,  died  in  1604  almost  in  the  act  of 
revising  '  Hamlet,'  just  as  at  a  later  day  Goethe  died 
almost  in  the  act  of  finishing  his  greatest  work  '  Faust.' ' 
First  Folio.  Of  the  first  Folio  edition  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  plays 
(1623)  we  shall  again  quote  a  passage  from  Sir  Sidney 
Lee,  "  John  Heming  and  Henry  Condell  were 
nominally  responsible  for  the  venture,  but  it  seems 
to  have  been  suggested  by  a  small  syndicate  of  printers 
and  publishers  who  undertook  all  pecuniary  responsi- 
bility .  .  .  The  dedication  .  .  .  was  signed  by 
Heming  and  Condell.  .  .  .  The  same  signatures  were 
appended  to  a  succeeding  address  ...  In  both 


POSTHUMOUS   CONSIDERATIONS        423 

addresses  the  actors  made  pretension  to  a  larger 
responsibility  for  the  enterprise  than  they  really 
incurred." 

In  a  word,  they  were  being  employed  as  a  blind, 
and  their  part  was  overdone.  It  is  evident,  at  any 
rate,  that  the  initiative  did  not  come  from  the  two 
actors.  As,  therefore,  they  formed  the  only  connecting 
link  between  the  Stratford  Shakspere  and  the  publica- 
tion of  the  plays,  it  is  obvious  that  they  had  been 
brought  into  the  business  in  order  to  throw  a  veil  over 
others  who  did  not  wish  to  appear  in  it.  The  silence 
of  William  Shakspere 's  will  respecting  these  important 
manuscripts  has  already  received  attention. 

The  further  fact  that  the  plays  now  published  for 
the  first  time  were  not  from  the  curtailed  play-actor's 
copies,  such  as  had  furnished  the  text  of  several  pirated 
issues,  but  the  full  literary  text ;  in  some  instances, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  "  Hamlet,"  even  improved 
versions  of  plays  that  had  already  enjoyed  a  proper 
literary  publication,  has  also  been  considered  and 
ought  to  dispose  completely  of  the  claim  that  the 
collection  had  been  brought  together  by  actors  from 
the  stores  of  unspecified  theatre  managers,  or  fished 
up  out  of  the  lumber  rooms  behind  the  scenes.  Such 
a  view  does  not  accord  with  common  sense  and  would 
hardly  have  been  credited  in  any  other  connection. 
The  only  feasible  supposition  is  that  the  documents 
had  been  in  the  safe  keeping  of  responsible  people,  and 
that  the  death  seven  years  before  of  the  man  who  had 
formerly  served  as  a  mask  rendered  necessary  the 
"  Heming  and  Condell  "  subterfuge,  if  the  incognito 
was  to  be  preserved.  In  a  word,  the  resumption  of 
authorized  publication  after  being  arrested  for  eighteen 
or  nineteen  years  is  marked  by  the  same  elements  of 


424        "SHAKESPEARE*     IDENTIFIED 


Shakspere's 


death. 


mysteriousness  and  secrecy,  in  which  everything 
connecting  the  man  and  his  work  has  been  involved, 
and  furnishes  its  own  quota  of  evidence  that  the 
master's  hand  had  been  removed  for  very  many  years. 

Not  only  does  the  time  of  the  death  of  De  Vere 
rnark  an  arrest  in  the  publication  of  "  Shakespeare's  " 
works,  it  also  marks,  according  to  orthodox  authorities, 
some  kind  of  a  crisis  in  the  affairs  of  William  Shak- 
spere.  Charles  and  Mary  Cowden  Clarke,  in  the  Life 
of  Shakspere  published  along  with  their  edition  of 
the  plays,  date  his  retirement  to  Stratford  in  the  year 
1604  precisely.  After  pointing  out  that  in  1605  he 
is  described  as  "  William  Shakspere,  Gentleman,  of 
Stratford-on-Avon,"  they  continued  :  "  Several  things 
conduced  to  make  him  resolve  upon  ceasing  to  be  an 
actor,  and  1604  has  generally  been  considered  the 
date  when  he  did  so."  Several  other  writers,  less 
well  known,  repeat  this  date  ;  and  works  of  reference, 
written  for  the  most  part  some  years  ago,  place  his 
retirement  in  the  same  year  :  "  There  is  no  doubt 
he  never  meant  to  return  to  London,  except  for 
business  visits  after  1604"  (National  Encyclopedia). 

This  is  probably  the  most  exact  and  startling 
synchronism  furnished  by  Stratfordians.  We  have 
elsewhere  given  reasons  for  our  belief  that  his  actual 
retirement  from  London  was  much  earlier  than  this. 
The  fact  that  this  date  has  been  chosen  is  evidence, 
however,  that  Shakespearean  records  are  indicative 
of  some  crisis  at  this  precise  time.  More  recent 
authorities,  finding  it  necessary  probably  to  give  a 
date  more  in  accord  with  accepted  ideas  as  to  the 
writing  of  the  plays,  and  the  continuance  of  William 
Shakspere's  material  interests  in  London,  have  added 
eight  or  nine  years  to  this,  during  which  time  his 


POSTHUMOUS    CONSIDERATIONS        425 

forces  are  supposed  to  have  been  divided  between 
Stratford  and  London,  but  during  which  period  he 
has  left  no  traces  of  domiciliation  in  London,  and  no 
' '  incidents . "  In  either  case  the  time  of  De  Vere's  death 
corresponds  to  the  time  assigned  for  William  Shak- 
spere's  retirement,  partial  or  complete.  The  latter's 
work  in  London  was  practically  done,  and  he  could 
no  longer  remain  in  constant  contact  with  the  old 
life  without  a  danger  that  the  part  he  had  played  as 
mask  to  a  great  genius  should  be  detected. 

It  is  worth  while  noticing  that  William  Shakspere's  William 
first  purchases  of  property  extended  from  the  time 
of  the  first  publication  of  the  plays,  in  1597,  up  to  the 
year  following  De  Vere's  death,  when,  in  1605,  he 
purchased  "  for  £440  of  Ralph  Hubbard  an  unexpired 
term  "  of  the  lease  of  certain  tithes  ;  and  another 
important  purchase  is  recorded  for  1613,  the  year 
following  the  death  of  the  second  Lady  Oxford.  Not 
much  of  this  kind  of  transaction  is  recorded  of  the 
interval  between  the  two  events.  The  only  one  we 
have  found  was  in  1610,  when  he  purchased  some  land 
adjacent  to  his  estate.  This,  it  will  be  observed,  was 
in  the  year  following  the  publication  of  "  Pericles " 
and  the  Sonnets.  His  purchase  in  1613  of  property 
in  London  for  £140  was  "  his  last  investment  in  real 
estate." 

There  is  certainly  a  distinct  suggestiveness  worth 
considering  about  this  correspondence  of  dates, 
especially  as  it  is  reported  that  on  one  occasion  he 
received  a  large  sum  of  money  (£1000,  it  is  said)  from 
the  Earl  of  Southampton  for  the  express  purpose  of 
buying  property.  However  lucrative  theatre  share- 
holding may  have  been,  authorship,  at  any  rate,  was 
not  then  the  road  to  affluence  ;  whilst  an  actor,  who 


426        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

seems  not  to  have  risen  above  playing  the  Ghost  in 
"  Hamlet,"  would  hardly  be  in  enjoyment  of  the 
plums  of  his  profession. 

William  Whatever    opinions   may   be    formed    of    William 

raie  S]  Shakspere  on  other  grounds,  we  do  not  wish  to  suggest 

any  reproach  for  the  part  he  took  in  assisting  Oxford 
to  hide  his  identification  with  the  authorship  of  the 
plays.  The  former's  role  in  life  was  indeed  a  humble 
one  from  the  standpoint  of  literature,  and,  in  view 
of  the  glory  he  has  enjoyed  for  so  long,  becomes 
now  somewhat  ignominious.  Nevertheless,  whatever 
inducements  may  have  been  held  out  to  him  he  ful- 
filled his  part  loyally.  His  task  was  to  assist  a  remark- 
able but  unfortunate  man  in  the  performance  of  a 
work,  the  value  of  which  he  himself  could  probably 
not  have  estimated ;  and  though  it  will  be  the  duty 
of  Englishmen  to  see  that  the  master  is  ultimately 
put  in  possession  of  the  honours  that  have  for  so  long 
been  enjoyed  by  the  man,  it  will  be  impossible  ever 
totally  to  dissociate  from  the  work  and  personality 
of  the  great  one,  the  figure  and  name  of  his  helper. 
Such,  at  any  rate,  would  be  the  desire  of  Oxford,  if  we 
may  interpret  it  in  the  light  of  the  principle  of  noblesse 
oblige  that  shines  through  the  great  Shakespearean 
dramas.  We  may  even  suppose  that  Oxford  had 
some  hand  in  defending  William  Shakspere  from 
Greene's  attack.  Chettle's  defence  of  him  that  he 
was  "  civil  "  and  that  "  divers  of  worship  have  reported 
his  uprightness  in  dealing,  which  argues  his  honesty," 
is  distinctly  suggestive  of  some  such  intervention  on 
the  part  of  Oxford.  The  terms  of  the  defence  are 
undoubtedly  much  more  appropriate  to  a  testimonial 
to  a  faithful  servant  than  a  tribute  to  the  supreme 
genius  of  the  age. 


POSTHUMOUS   CONSIDERATION          427 

That  such  a  work  of  secrecy  could  not  have  been  Loyal 
done  without  the  loyal  co-operation  of  others  goes  epei 
without  saying.  In  order  to  maintain  our  thesis, 
however,  it  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  solve  the 
problem  of  who  his  associates  were,  or  of  how  they 
went  about  their  work.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  Henry  Wriothesley  was  one,  and  it  is  natural  to 
conclude  that  the  wife  with  whom  he  was  living  in 
evident  comfort  was  another.  We  may  venture  a 
guess,  too,  that  his  cousin,  Horatio  de  Vere,  the 
eminent  soldier,  may  have  been  a  third. 

We  should  imagine  that  Horatio  de  Vere  was  a 
man  after  Edward's  own  heart ;  and,  although  the 
former  spent  much  of  his  life  abroad,  he  was  living 
in  England  in  the  years  when  the  Shakespearean 
publication  was  resumed  (1608-9)  and  also  when  the 
1623  Folio  edition  was  published.  The  publication 
of  the  Sonnets  in  1609  and  the  plays  in  1623,  many 
of  which  would  otherwise  have  perished  precisely  as 
Oxford's  plays  are  supposed  to  have  done,  may  have 
been  the  final  discharge  of  part  of  a  solemn  trust. 
The  publication  of  the  plays  ought  indeed  to  have 
taken  place  during  the  lifetime  of  William  Shakspere, 
whose  death  probably  created  a  perplexing  situation 
for  those  entrusted  with  their  publication  ;  a  situation 
from  which,  as  we  have  seen,  they  tried  to  escape  by 
the  "  Heming  and  Condell  "  device.  Horatio  de  Vere's 
absence  from  the  country  during  the  latter  years  of 
William  Shakspere's  life  may  account  for  the  fatal 
delay.  This,  however,  is  merely  interesting  specula- 
tion and  forms  no  essential  part  of  the  argument. 

The  part  taken  by  Henry  Wriothesley  first  in 
arranging  for  a  performance  of  "  Richard  II "  in 
connection  with  the  1601  insurrection,  and  then  for 


428        "  SHAKEPSEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

Henry  a  private   performance  of  "  Love's   Labour's   Lost," 

>ley'  to  entertain  the  new  Queen  in  1603,  has  already  been 
mentioned.  So  that,  although  ten  years  had  elapsed 
since  Shakespeare  began  to  dedicate  poems  to  him, 
he  was  still  not  only  deeply  interested  in,  but  actively 
occupied  with,  the  doings  of  the  so-called  "  Shak- 
spere's  company,"  and  the  Shakespearean  plays.  In 
the  autumn  of  1599,  however,  his  theatrical  interests 
were  so  pronounced  as  to  provoke  special  remark  : 
he  is  then  reported  to  have  been  spending  much  of 
his  time  every  day  at  the  theatres.  In  view  of  the 
enterprising  temperament  he  subsequently  evinced, 
such  a  mode  of  spending  his  time  is  not  likely  to  have 
arisen  from  mere  idleness ;  it  is  much  more  likely  to 
have  been  connected  with  some  definite  purpose. 
Now,  the  following  year  was  the  most  important  year 
in  the  history  of  Shakespearean  publication  during 
the  lifetime  of  either  Edward  de  Vere  or  William 
Shakspere.  For  in  the  one  year  1600  there  were 
published  or  reprinted  no  less  than  six  plays. 

1.  Henry  IV,  part  2. 

2.  Henry  V   (probably  pirated,  however). 

3.  The  Merchant  of  Venice  (2  editions). 

4.  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  (2  editions). 

5.  Much   Ado  About   Nothing. 

6.  Titus  Andronicus. 

The  1602  In    1601    Southampton    was    imprisoned,    and    all 

suspension,  publication  of  proper  literary  versions  of  the  plays 
stopped  immediately  ;  only  the  pirated  actor's  drafts 
of  "  Hamlet  "  and  "  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  " 
appearing  during  his  imprisonment.  It  looks  as  if, 
at  that  time,  the  complete  issue  of  the  plays  had  been 
decided  upon  and  begun,  and  that  Wriothesley's 
imprisonment  had  interfered  with  the  plans.  After 


POSTHUMOUS   CONSIDERATIONS  429 

his  liberation  it  was  immediately  resumed  with  an 
authorized  version  of  "  Hamlet."  Then  De  Vere's 
death  occurred,  and  all  further  authorized  publication 
was  suspended  till  1622  and  1623.  Meanwhile 
Southampton  dropped  William  Shakspere,  and  took 
to  other  pursuits.  It  cannot  be  denied,  therefore, 
that  there  is  much  to  support  the  view  that  Henry 
Wriothesley  acted  as  intermediary  between  the  Earl 
of  Oxford  and  those  who  were  staging  and  publishing 
the  dramas.  The  fact  that  his  step-father,  Thomas 
Henneage,  was  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber,  and  there- 
fore responsible  for  the  financial  side  of  all  the  business, 
is  not  without  significance.  The  special  relationship 
between  Oxford  and  Southampton,  to  be  considered 
in  connection  with  Shakespeare's  Sonnets,  gives  to 
these  matters  a  position  of  first  importance. 

After  the  events  connected  with  Southampton's 
liberation,  including,  we  are  assured  on  the  best 
authority,  a  reference  in  one  of  Shakespeare's  sonnets, 
Sir  Sidney  Lee  informs  us  that  "  there  is  no  trace 
of  further  relations  between "  Southampton  and 
William  Shakspere.  That  is  to  say,  the  death  of 
Edward  de  Vere  is  followed  immediately  by  the  loss 
of  all  traces  of  a  personal  connection  between  William 
Shakspere  and  the  only  contemporary  whom  the  poet 
has  directly  associated  with  the  issue  of  his  works. 

With   regard    to    De    Vere's   widow,    the    second  The  second 
Lady  Oxford,  we  remark  that  she  died  in  1612,  whilst  Oxford 
1613  is  the  later  date  assigned  by  some  authorities 
for  the   final   and    complete   retirement   of    William 
Shakspere  from  the  scene  of  London  dramatic  and 
literary  life.     The  substantial  fact  upon  which  this 
conclusion  rests  is  that  there  is  a  record  of  his  presence 
in    London    in    that    year,    attending    to    business, 


430        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 


The  scries 
of  sonnets 
closes. 


Resume   of 
chapter. 


Curiously  enough  this  business  had  nothing  to  do 
with  either  dramatic  or  literary  affairs,  but  wholly 
with  the  taking  over  of  property :  "  his  last  invest- 
ment in  real  estate." 

To  these  general  posthumous  considerations  one 
remains  to  be  added.  The  particular  sonnet  which, 
according  to  Sir  Sidney  Lee  and  other  authorities, 
welcomed  Southampton's  liberation  from  prison  in 
1603,  is  one  of  the  last  of  the  series  ;  and  "  Sonnet  cvii, 
apparently  the  last  of  the  series,  makes  references 
to  events  that  took  place  in  1603 — to  Queen  Elizabeth's 
death  and  the  accession  of  James  I."  In  a  word, 
the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere  brought  to  a  close  the 
series  of  sonnets  that  "Shakespeare"  had  begun 
some  twelve  or  fourteen  years  before.  Then  for 
five  or  six  years  these  sonnets  lay,  without  a  single 
one  being  added  to  their  number,  before  the  complete 
series  was  mysteriously  given  to  the  world  by 
strangers  (1609).  And,  although  the  Stratford  man 
lived  for  yet  other  seven  years,  no  further  sonnets 
appeared  from  the  pen  of  the  greatest  sonneteer 
that  England  has  yet  produced. 

No  amount  of  harping  upon  a  point  like  this  can 
possibly  strengthen  its  significance  ;  and  the  man  who, 
viewing  it  in  conjunction  with  the  other  points  urged 
in  this  chapter,  does  not  believe  that  "  Shakespeare  " 
died  at  the  same  time  as  Edward  de  Vere  would  not  be 
persuaded  though  one  (and  only  one)  rose  from  the  dead. 

The  following  is  a  resume"  of  the  various  points 
established  in  this  chapter : 

i.  The  latest  plays  of  Shakespeare,  being  finished 
by  other  hands,  indicate  that  the  dramatist  had 
already  passed  away  at  the  time  to  which  they  are 
allocated. 


POSTHUMOUS    CONSIDERATIONS        431 

a.  The  plays  usually  ascribed  to  the  years 
immediately  following  Oxford's  death,  especially 
"  Macbeth,"  furnish  additional  testimony  that  he 
was  already  dead,  thus  making  the  death  of  the 
dramatist  synchronize  with  the  death  of  Oxford. 

3.  The  printed  issue  of  the  plays  came  to  a  sudden 
stop  at  the  time  of  Oxford's  death,  and  the  slight 
resumption  of  issues  in  1608  and  1609  furnishes  further 
corroboration  of  the  death  of  the  dramatist. 

4.  The  manner  of  the  publication  of  the  Sonnets  in 
1609  is  strongly  suggestive  of  the  death  of  their  author : 
the  dedication  seeming  to  testify  directly  to  the  fact. 

5.  Nothing  of   an  authentic  character  was  newly 
published  from  the  time  of  Oxford's  death  till  1622 
and  1623 ;   six  and  seven  years  respectively  after  the 
death  of  William  Shakspere. 

6.  The  way  in  which  the  various  issues  of  "  Hamlet  " 
appeared   affords   strong   evidence   that   the   author 
passed  away  in  1604,  almost  in  the  act  of  revising  his 
greatest  work. 

7.  The  manner  of  the  publication  of  the  First  Folio 
edition  suggests  that  Heming  and  Condell  were  being 
used  as  a  blind,  by  others  who  had  special  reasons  for 
not  being  seen  in  the  matter. 

8.  The  time  of  Oxford's  death  marks,   according 
to  orthodox  authorities,  a  crisis  and  definite  change 
in  the  circumstances  of  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford, 
and   his   partial   or  complete   withdrawal   from   the 
dramatic  life  of  London. 

9.  The  time  of  Oxford's  death  marks  the  cessation 
of    Henry     Wriothesley's     dealings     with    William 
Shakspere,  and  a  pronounced  change  in  his  interests 
and  pursuits. 


432         "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

10.  Finally,  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere,  Earl  of 
Oxford,  brings  to  a  sudden  and  complete  close  the 
series  of  sonnets  which  "  Shakespeare "  had  been 
penning  during  many  preceding  years. 

"  Every  fact  in  the  universe,"  says  one  writer, 
"  fits  in  with  every  other."  To  suppose  that  all  the 
above  considerations  are  merely  fortuitous  is  to 
suggest  that  the  very  gods  had  conspired  to  make  the 
death  of  "  Shakespeare  "  seem  to  synchronize  with  the 
death  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  in  1604.  In  other  words 
our  theory  seems  to  be  supported  by  nothing  less  than 
the  principle  of  the  universal  harmony  of  truth.  By  way 
of  comparison  we  therefore  subjoin  a  list  of  the  dates 
of  the  decease  of  the  men  whose  names  have  at  one  time 
or  another  been  brought  into  this  problem,  including  the 
special  name  we  have  had  the  honour  of  introducing. 

Edward  de  Vere  died  1604 

Roger  Manners,  Earl  of  Rutland,  died  1612 

William  Shakspere  died  1616 

Francis  Bacon  died  1626 

Wm.  Stanley,  Sixth  Earl  of  Derby,  died  1640. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  find  a  record  of  the 
death  of  any  other  literary  man  occurring  about  the 
year  1604 :  the  nearest  being  that  of  Lyly  which 
occurred  in  1606.  And  of  course  he  is  quite  out  of 
the  question  in  such  a  connection.  We  have  his  own 
plays,  and  they  furnish  all  the  evidence  needed. 
Finishing  a  We  thus  bring  to  a  close  the  series  of  chapters  in 
which  an  approximate  biographical  sequence  has  been 
attempted,  and  thus  conclude  the  longest,  most 
difficult,  and  most  decisive  part  of  the  investigations 
we  have  undertaken.  The  necessities  of  argumenta- 
tion have  frequently  involved  the  sacrifice  of  chrono- 
logical order,  and  even  the  omission  of  interesting 


POSTHUMOUS   CONSIDERATIONS       433 

details.  This  must  all  be  remedied  when  the  biography 
of  the  real  "  Shakespeare  "  comes  to  be  written.  For 
the  present  our  purpose  has  been,  in  accordance  with 
the  general  plan  of  research,  to  proceed  from  the 
work,  the  personality,  and  the  career  of  Edward  de 
Vere,  to  the  work  of  "  Shakespeare  " ;  and,  reviewing 
the  chapters  as  a  whole,  we  make  bold  to  claim  that 
the  mass  and  character  of  the  evidence  they  contain 
will,  when  duly  weighed,  ensure  the  universal  recogni- 
tion of  the  authorship  we  would  now  substitute  for 
the  old  Stratfordian  tradition. 

In  displacing  the  Stratford  Shakspere  by  the 
substitution  of  Edward  de  Vere  we,  no  doubt,  deprive 
the  thought  of  "  Shakespeare "  of  one  element  of 
attractiveness.  It  has  been  pleasant  to  think  of  the 
great  dramatist,  after  all  his  labours,  enjoying  the 
rest  and  quietness  of  his  retirement  in  a  countryside 
to  which  his  heart  had  ever  reverted  amidst  the  glory 
and  excitement  of  his  London  career.  If  we  lose  this 
suggestion  of  the  idyllic  in  the  close  of  a  great  career, 
we  replace  it,  at  any  rate,  by  a  vigorous  conception  of 
tragic  and  poetic  realism.  The  picture  of  a  great 
soul,  misunderstood,  almost  an  outcast  from  his  own 
social  sphere,  with  defects  of  nature,  to  all  appearances 
one  of  life's  colossal  failures,  toiling  on  incessantly 
at  his  great  tasks,  yet  willing  to  pass  from  life's  stage 
leaving  no  name  behind  him  but  a  discredited  one  : 
at  last  dying,  as  it  would  seem,  almost  with  the  pen 
between  his  fingers,  immense  things  accomplished, 
but  not  all  he  had  set  out  to  do  :  this,  it  seems,  will 
have  for  the  manhood  of  the  England  that  "  Shake- 
speare "  most  certainly  loved,  a  power  of  inspiration 
far  beyond  anything  contained  in  the  conception  we 
have  displaced. 
a8 


CHAPTER  XV 
POETIC  SELF-REVELATION  :   THE  SONNETS 

"  SHAKESPEARE  is  the  only  biographer  of  Shakespeare, 
and  even  he  can  tell  nothing  except  to  the  Shake- 
peare  in  us."  EMERSON. 

Autobio-  The  line  of  investigation  pursued  throughout  the 

nnfets.  greater  part  of  these  pages  has  been  to  search  for 
indirect  and  unconscious  self-expression  on  the  part 
of  "  Shakespeare."  Anything  like  deliberate  and 
complete  direct  self-disclosure  is  not  to  be  expected  : 
otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  problem  for  us 
to  solve.  There  is,  however,  between  the  two  a 
form  of  what  may  be  called  an  intentional  self- 
expression  and  self-revelation,  which  the  writer  might, 
or  might  not,  hope  would  lead  at  last  to  definite  self -dis- 
closure. Seeing,  then,  that  we  have  insisted  throughout 
on  the  distinction  between  the  poet  and  the  dramatist, 
and  that  Edward  de  Vere  began  and  ended  as  a  poet ; 
a  lyric  poet  at  the  outset,  and  in  his  last  years,  as  we 
believe,  converting  his  dramas  into  poems  :  our  first 
task  must  be  to  take  whatever  poetic  self-revelation 
"  Shakespeare  "  may  have  given  of  himself,  and  see 
to  what  extent  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  work  of  self- 
disclosure  on  the  part  of  Edward  de  Vere.  Shake- 
speare's work  of  poetic  self-expression  is,  of  course, 
the  Sonnets.  The  idea  that  these  poems  are  fantastic 
dramatic  inventions  with  mystic  meanings  we  feel 

434 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  435 

to  be  a  violation  of  all  normal  probabilities  and 
precedents.  Accepting  them,  therefore,  as  auto- 
biographical, our  next  step  must  be  to  see  how  these 
poems,  as  a  whole,  stand  related  to  the  authorship 
theory  we  are  now  advancing. 

Several  points  of  accord  between  Edward  de  Vere 
and  the  "  Shakespeare "  disclosed  in  the  Sonnets 
have  already  received  attention  in  the  course  of  our 
argument ;  these  we  shall  now  recapitulate. 

1.  It  was  from  the   Sonnets  that  we  first   of  all  Former 

references 

deduced  Shakespeare's  personal  attitude  towards  summarized, 
women :  that  curious  combination  of  intense 
affectionateness  with  want  of  faith.  All  the  passionate 
tenderness  of  his  nature  combined  with  mistrust 
runs  through  the  set  of  sonnets  addressed  to  the 
''  dark  lady  " ;  whilst  his  lack  of  faith  finds  an  additional 
expression  in  the  sonnets  addressed  to  the  young 

man,  who  is 

' '  not  acquainted 
With  shifting  change  as  is  false  woman's  fashion." 

The  same  passionate  affectionateness  finds  expression 
in  Oxford's  verse,  whilst  the  passage  just  quoted  from 
the  Sonnets  is  the  particular  theme  of  the  whole  of 
the  first  poem  of  Oxford's  we  met  with  :  that  on 
"  Women." 

2.  The  writer  of  the  Sonnets,  notwithstanding  the 
philosophic  vigour  of  the  poems,  confesses  to  having 
"  gone  here  and  there   and  made  himself  a  motley 
to  the  view  "  ;    which  is  strictly  in  accord  with  the 
"  lightheadedness  "     and    "  eccentricity  "     that    are 
attributed  to  Oxford,  along  with  the  high  testimony 
that  has  been  borne  to  the  superiority  of  his  powers 
both  by  contemporaries  and  modern   writers — thus 
affording  a  contrast  between  his  actual  capacity  and 


436        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

his  external  bearing  which  had  not  escaped  the  observa- 
tion of  Burleigh  himself. 

3.  The    Sonnets  bear    unmistakable  testimony  to 
the  fact  that  the  writer  was  one  whose  brow  was 
stamped  with  "  vulgar  scandal  "  ;   whose  good  name 
had  been  lost,  and  who,  at  the  time  of  writing  the 
sonnets   dealing   with   this   theme,   wished    that    his 
name  should  be  buried  with  his  body.     That   Edward 
de  Vere  was  a  man  fallen  into  disrepute  is  the  one  fact 
about  him  that  seems  to  have  been  grasped  by   those 
who  are  at  all  acquainted  with  him.     That  it  was  a 
matter  upon  which  he  felt  sore,  as  Shakespeare  did,  is 
shown  by  what  is  probably  one  of  the  most  powerful 
of  his  poems  ;  one  on  "  The  Loss  of  his  Good  Name." 

4.  Edward  de  Vere's  loss,  early  in  life,   of  home 
influences,  and  his  being  brought  up  at  court :  possibly, 
too,  the  Bohemian  life  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of 
his  purposes  as  a  dramatist,  all  contributed  to  produce 
the  conditions  under  which  his  "  name  received   a 
brand." 

This  finds  its  expression  in  Sonnet  in, 

1 '  O  !    for  my  sake  do  you  with  fortune  chide, 
The  guilty  goddess  of  my  harmful  deeds, 
That  did  not  better  for  my  life  provide 
Than  public  means  uhich  public  manners  breeds." 

5.  That  Shakespeare  was  one  who  was  pursuing 
a  vocation  involving,  at  the  outset,  concealment  of 
materials  from  those  with  whom  he  was  in  direct 
social  relationship  is  evident  from  Sonnet  48. 

"  How  careful  was  I  when  I  took  my  way 
Each  trifle  under  truest  bars  to  thrust." 

This  exactly  fits  in  with  the  bearing  of  Oxford's 
early  domestic  relationships  upon  his  dramatic  and 
literary  enterprises. 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  437 

6.  An  allusion  to  Oxford's  functions  as  Lord  Great 
Chamberlain   is   probably   contained  in   Sonnet   125 
beginning, 

"  Were't  aught  to  me  I  bore  the  canopy  ?  " 

7.  As  there  is  strong  evidence  to  support  our  theory 
that  Oxford  was  the  man  referred  to  by  Spenser  as 
"  our  pleasant  Willie,"  we  are  able  to  connect  with  this 
theory  the  cryptic  utterance  of  "  Shakespeare  "  in  the 
"Will"   Sonnets: 

"  For  my  name  is  Will." 

8.  In  our  chapter  on  Posthumous  Considerations 
we  have  shown  that  there  is  good  ground  for  believing 
that   "  our   ever-living   poet "   was   dead  when   the 
Sonnets  were  published  in  1609  ;    and  the  fact  that, 
after  being  penned  during  many  years,   the   series 
was  brought  to  an  abrupt  close,  as  near  as  can  be 
judged  just  before  the  death  of  Edward  de  Vere,  supports 
the  contention  that  the  writer  of  the  Sonnets,  who- 
ever he  was,  died  at  the  same  time  as  Edward  de  Vere. 

Starting  with  these  several  points  of  accord,  which 
in  their  combination  certainly  represent  a  remarkable 
set  of  coincidences,  our  next  task  must  be  to  examine 
the  general  situation  represented  in  the  Sonnets,  and 
see  to  what  extent  this,  along  with  the  details  just 
enumerated,  combine  and  form  a  consistent  unity, 
applicable  to  the  person  and  circumstances  of  Edward 
de  Vere. 

The  first  and  most  important  set  of  sonnets  is  itself  South- 
divisible  into  sections,   the  opening  section  being  a  •^n^' 
set  of  seventeen,  the  main  burden  of  which  is  to  urge  ang«i-" 
the  young  man  to  whom  they  are  addressed,  to  marry, 
in    order    to    secure    the   continuance    of    his   own 


438        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

aristocratic  family  and  the  rebirth  of  his  own  attractive 
personality  in  his  posterity. 

' '  Then  what  could  death  do  if  thou  shouldst  depart, 
Leaving  thee  living  in  posterity  ?  " 

"Thou   stick'st   not   to    conspire, 
Seeking  that  beauteous  roof  to  ruinate 
Which  to  repair  should  be  thy  chief  desire." 

' '  Who  lets  so  fair  a  house  fall  to  decay, 
Which  husbandry  in  honour  might  uphold 
Against  the  stormy  gusts  of  winter's  day  ? 

You  had  a  father  :    let  your  son  say  so." 

We  are  not  told  who  the  particular  young  man  was  ; 
but  the  general  assumption  is  that  it  was  Henry 
Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Southampton.  This  is  not  only 
a  reasonable  supposition,  but  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  it  was  any  one  else  ;  for  the  following 
reasons  : 

1.  The  personal  description  exactly  fits. 

2.  The  personal  situation  also  fits,  for  his  father 
was  dead,  his  mother  was  living,  he  was  the  only 
surviving  representative  of  his  family,  and  efforts  were 
being  made  to  get  him  to  marry  :  efforts  which  he  was 
resisting. 

3.  The  poet  addresses  him  in  the  same  terms  of 
strong  affection  as  in  the  dedication  to  "  Lucrece." 

4.  Direct  reference  is  made  to  the  dedications. 
The  fact  of  the  young  man's  father  being  dead 

and  his  mother  being  still  alive  is  made  clear  by  the 
separate  references  to  them  : 

1 '  You  had  a  father  :  let  your  son  say  so  ' ' 

and 

"  Thou  art  thy  mother's  glass  and  she,  in  thee, 
Calls  back  the  lovely  April  of  her  prime." 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  439 

Such  references  to  Southamption's  father  and  mother  The 


are  quite  befitting  a  writer  who  was  old  enough  to 


have  been  the  father  of  the  youth,  and  who  had  been  ampton. 
on  intimate  terms  with  both  parents  ;  for  Oxford's 
former  close  association  with  the  late  Earl  is  made 
quite  clear  in  the  State  Papers  dealing  with  the  catholic 
troubles  some  ten  years  before.  The  reference  to 
"  the  lovely  April  "  of  the  Countess's  "  prime  "  was 
natural  to  one  who  remembered  her  in  her  early  years  ; 
so  that  the  youth,  the  deceased  father,  the  Dowager 
Countess,  and  the  writer,  all  assume  a  very  intelligible 
relation  to  one  another  and  to  the  poems,  as  soon 
as  we  assume  the  Earl  of  Oxford  to  have  been  the  writer. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  to  fit 
William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  into  the  picture,  and 
to  think  of  him  at  the  age  of  twenty-six,  speaking 
with  such  assurance  of  intimate  knowlege  of  the 
Countess's  "  lovely  prime."  We  may  perhaps  be 
excused  for  reminding  the  reader  again  that  it 
was  the  Countess  of  Southampton  who  made  the 
entry  after  date  into  the  accounts  of  the  Treasurer  of 
the  Chamber,  of  the  only  reference  to  Shakespeare 
that  these  accounts  contain.  In  a  letter  written  later 
to  her  son  she  makes  what  has  always  been  regarded 
as  a  mysterious  allusion  to  some  one  whom  she  speaks 
of  as  "  Falstaff."  This,  again,  will  be  interesting  to 
those  who  may  think  with  Mr.  Frank  Harris  that 
Falstaff  is  "  Shakespeare's  "  caricature  of  himself 
under  particular  aspects.  We  need  not  pretend, 
however,  to  explain  Lady  Southampton's  part  in 
these  matters. 

The  identity  of  the  young  man  of  the  sonnets  with 
the  one  to  whom  the  long  poems  were  dedicated,  is 
further  attested  by  sonnets  81  and  82. 


440        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

Dedication  ' '  Your  name  from  hence  immortal  life  shall  have, 

of  Though  I,  once  dead,  to  all  the  world  must  die. 

"  Lucrece."  *  *  *  * 

Your  monument  shall  be  my  gentle  verse." 

As,  then,  the  name  of  Southampton  is  the  only  one 
which  the  poet  has  associated  with  his  verse,  not 
even  excepting  his  own,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
young  man  addressed  could  be  any  other  than  he  ; 
especially  as  the  companion  sonnet  proceeds, 

"  I  grant  thou  wert  not  married  to  my  Muse, 
And  therefore  may'st,  without  attaint,  o'erlook 
The  dedicated  words,  which  writers  use 
Of  their  fair  subject,  blessing  every  book." 

In  our  conclusion  that  these  Sonnets  were  addressed 
to  Southampton,  we  have  the  full  support  of  the 
great  majority  of  authorities  on  the  subject. 
w.  H.  and  We  desire  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible  being  drawn 
Dedication.6  m*°  tne  entanglements  of  discussing  the  dedication 
prefaced  to  Thorpe's  edition  of  the  Sonnets.  Whether 
the  letters  W.  H  are  the  transposed  initials  of  Henry 
Wriothesley  or  not,  there  are  no  traces  of  "  our  ever- 
living  poet  "  attempting  to  give  "  immortality " 
to  any  other  contemporary  ;  and  the  man  to  whom 
the  first  of  the  Sonnets  are  addressed  was  certainly  the 
"  begetter  "  of  the  first  section  in  the  sense  of  being 
their  theme  and  inspiration.  It  is  natural  to  suppose, 
therefore,  that  the  "  begetter "  referred  to  in  the 
dedication  means  the  person  to  whom  the  particular 
sonnets  are  addressed.  At  the  same  time  he  was  not 
the  "  only  begetter  "  in  this  sense,  since  others  of  these 
poems  are  just  as  certainly  addressed  to  a  "  dark 
lady."  As,  however,  this  dedication  is  without  any 
"  Shakespeare  "  authority  it  may  have  been  penned 
by  T.  T.  before  he  had  read  the  whole  series.  At  any 


POETIC    SELF-REVELATION  441 

rate,  no  conclusive  argument  can  be  drawn  from  a 
study  of  the  initials  alone. 

The  only  argument  that  really  needs  attention 
is  to  the  effect  that  the  use  of  the  letters  W.  H.  shows 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer  of  the  dedication, 
Wriothesley  was  not  the  person  to  whom  the  Sonnets 
were  addressed  ;  that,  if  concealment  was  aimed  at, 
the  transposed  initials  device  was  too  transparent  to 
have  been  used  :  whilst  if  concealment  was  not  aimed 
at,  the  initials  would  have  appeared  in  their  right  order. 
Decisive  as  this  argument  may  appear,  facts  are 
unfortunately  against  it ;  for,  in  the  publication  of 
an  important  anthology  of  the  time,  "  England's 
Helicon,"  which  contains  matter  relevant  to  our 
present  enquiry,  though  put  aside  for  the  time  being, 
the  editor  appears  as  L.  N.,  the  transposed  initials  of 
Nicholas  Ling,  the  publisher  of  "  Hamlet."  W.  H. 
may  or  may  not  therefore,  have  referred  to  Henry 
Wriothesley  ;  and,  as  we  know  nothing  of  the  writer's 
authority,  it  evidently  does  not  matter  whether  they 
do  or  do  not.  In  a  word,  the  discussion  is  perfectly 
useless,  but  will  probably  for  that  reason  continue 
to  exercise  a  strong  fascination  for  "  intellectuals." 

So  much  printer's  ink  has  already  been  wasted  over 
these  initials  that  a  little  more  will  hardly  matter. 
Seeing,  then,  that  others  have  indulged  in  guesses 
about  T.  T.,  the  favourite  theory  being  that  they  refer 
to  Thorpe  the  publisher,  we  may  perhaps  be  permitted 
to  point  out  that  the  name  of  the  father  of  Oxford's 
widow  was  Thomas  Trentham,  and  that  if  he  were 
alive  at  the  time  when  Oxford  died,  he  would  be  the 
one  to  whom  the  widow  would  naturally  turn 
for  assistance  in  straightening  out  the  affairs. 
Certainly  her  brother's  name  appears  more  than  once 


442        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

in  connection  with  the  management  of  her  son's 
estate.  Fortunately  the  question  is  not  likely  to  arise 
as  to  whether  these  initials  are  in  their  original  or 
transposed  order. 

Quite  apart,  however,  from  this  discussion  of  the 

dedication,  there  is  ample  justification  for  the  belief 

that  the  "  better-angel  "  of  the  Sonnets  was  Henry 

Wriothesley,  Third  Earl  of  Southampton. 

The  age  of        Now,  as  to  the  man  who  wrote  the  sonnets  :    for 

"  our    ever-         .     .  . 

living  poet."  this  is  really  the  most  important  point.  Throughout 
the  whole  series  he  assumes  the  attitude  of  a  matured 
man  addressing  a  youth.  Indeed,  in  one  of  the  other 
series  he  speaks  of  himself  as  being  no  "  untutor'd 
youth,"  but  that  his  "  days  are  past  the  best."  The 
following,  from  Sonnet  63  is  unmistakable  : — 

"  Against  my  love  shall  be,  as  I  am  now, 
With  Time's  injurious  hand  crush 'd  and  o'erworn  ; 
When  hours  have  drain'd  his  blood  and  fill'd  his  brow 
With  lines  and  wrinkles,   etc." 

We  may  even  detect  an  indication  of  his  approximate 
age  in  the  lines  : 

' '  When  forty  winters  shall  besiege  thy  brow, 
And  dig  deep  trenches  in  thy  beauty's  field." 

The  next  point  is  the  date  at  which  these  particular 
sonnets  were  written.  We  find  that  the  first  sonnets 
of  the  first  set  are  assigned  generally  to  about  the 
year  1590,  when  Oxford  was  just  forty  years  of  age. 
The  dedication  of  "  Venus  "  to  Wriothesley  is  dated 
1593;  and  as  the  sonnet  which  seems  to  refer  to  it 
is  number  83,  1590  may  be  accepted  as  a  reasonable 
date  for  these  seventeen  opening  sonnets.  This,  then, 
is  the  situation  represented  by  the  poems.  About 
the  year  1590  a  matured  man  "  With  Time's  injurious 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  443 

hand  crush'd  and  o'erworn,"  addressed  to  the  youthful 
Earl  of  Southampton,  then  only  about  seventeen 
years  of  age,  a  number  of  sonnets  urging  upon  him 
the  question  of  matrimony,  and  putting  in  the  specially 
aristocratic  plea  of  maintaining  the  continuance  of  his 
family's  succession. 

In  respect  to  these  facts  we  shall  first  consider  the  A 
Stratfordian  position.  In  the  year  1590,  William 
Shakspere,  the  son  of  a  Stratford  citizen,  having  become 
interested  in  theatres,  and  thereby  acquainted  with 
a  young  man  just  home  from  the  university,  and 
having  himself  by  that  time  attained  the  patriarchal 
age  of  twenty-six,  suddenly  becomes  greatly  concerned 
about  the  continuance  of  the  youth's  aristocratic 
family,  and  writes  a  set  of  exquisite  sonnets  urging 
him  to  marry.  He  also  assumes  the  bearing  and  tone 
of  a  man  of  large  and  even  painful  experience,  "  past 
his  best,"  with  chilled  blood  and  wrinkled  brow. 
We  doubt  whether  a  more  ridiculous  position  ever 
provoked  the  hilarity  of  mankind.  The  position  of 
Bacon  in  respect  to  this  matter  is  only  slightly  better  ; 
for  he,  at  that  time,  was  still  under  thirty  years  of 
age,  though,  as  one  about  the  court,  his  acquaintance 
with  Wriothesley  would  have  been  of  longer  duration 
and  probably  more  intimate. 

Most  amusing  in  connection  with  the  question  of 
the  age  of  the  poet  is  the  theory  that  Roger  Manners, 
Fifth  Earl  of  Rutland,  was  the  author  of  the  sonnets. 
For  in  1590  Roger  Manners  was  only  fourteen  years 
of  age,  and  the  entire  series  of  Shakespeare's  Sonnets 
was  brought  to  a  close  before  he  had  reached  the  age 
of  twenty-seven. 

To  get  over  the  inherent  absurdity  of  William 
Shakspere  being  the  author  of  these  poems,  far  fetched 


444        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 


South-  explanations  of  his  attitude  have  had  to  be  invented, 

Oxford"  *°  an<^  tne  personal  contents  of  the  sonnets  either  passed 
over  as  pure  enigma,  or  interpreted  in  some  extravagant 
metaphorical  sense.  The  substitution  of  De  Vere 
for  the  Stratford  man  alters  all  this,  and  makes  these 
verses  really  intelligible  and  rational  for  the  first  time 
since  they  appeared — over  three  hundred  years  ago. 
In  the  year  1590  Edward  de  Vere  was  forty  years  of 
age.  Behind  him  there  lay  a  life  marked  by  vicissitudes 
in  every  way  calculated  to  have  given  him  a  sense 
of  age  even  beyond  his  forty  years.  He  was  a  noble- 
man of  the  same  high  rank  as  Southampton  and  just 
a  generation  older.  The  question  of  the  perpetuation 
of  ancient  aristocratic  families  was  to  him  a  matter  of 
paramount  interest ;  an  interest  intensified  by  dis- 
appointment, for  although  he  had  several  daughters, 
that  dominant  desire  of  feudal  aristocrats,  a  son,  had 
been  denied  him.*  His  only  son  had  died  in  infancy 
and  he  was  at  this  time  a  widower.  The  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  youth  to  whom  the  Sonnets  were 
addressed  were  strikingly  analogous  to  his  own. 
Both  had  been  left  orphans  and  royal  wards  at  an 
early  age,  both  had  been  brought  up  under  the  same 
guardian,  both  had  the  same  kind  of  literary  tastes 
and  interests,  and  later  the  young  man  followed 
exactly  the  same  course  as  the  elder  had  done  as  a 
patron  of  literature  and  the  drama. 

Then  just  at  the  time  when  these  sonnets  were 
being  written  urging  Southampton  to  marry,  he  was 
actually  being  urged  into  a  marriage  with  a  daughter 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford;  and  this  proposed  marriage 
he  was  resisting,  although  his  mother  had  sanc- 
tioned it,  and  the  parties  on  the  other  side  were 

*  Nott :  One  authority  says  two  sons. 


An 

important 
marriage 
proposal. 


POETIC    SELF-REVELATION  445 

anxious  to  bring  it  about.  This  furnishes  the  vital 
connection  between  the  Earl  of  Southampton  and 
the  Earl  of  Oxford,  to  which  allusion  has  been  made 
in  previous  chapters.  We  shall  therefore  state  the 
fact  in  the  words  of  the  eminent  Stratfordian  authority 
to  whom  we  are  under  such  large  obligations. 

"  When  he  was  seventeen  Burleigh  offered  him  a 
wife  in  the  person  of  his  granddaughter,  Lady 
Elizabeth  Vere,  eldest  daughter  of  his  daughter  Anne 
and  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  The  Countess  Southampton 
approved  the  match.  .  .  .  Southampton  declined  to 
marry"  (Life  of  Shakespeare — Sir  Sidney  Lee). 

Now  with  this  fact  in  mind,  and  with  a  sense  of  all 
we  have  represented  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  in  these 
pages,  let  the  reader  turn  again  to  the  Sonnets, 
especially  the  first  seventeen,  and  ponder  them  care- 
fully. To  have  urged  marriage  as  a  general  and 
indefinite  proposition  upon  a  youth  of  seventeen, 
with  the  single  aim  of  securing  posterity  for  the  youth, 
would  have  had  something  fatuous  about  it.  In 
connection  with  a  definite  project  of  marriage,  from 
one  who  was  personally  interested  in  it,  the  appeal 
comes  to  have,  at  last,  an  explicable  relationship  to  fact. 

This  had  evidently  occurred  to  Judge  Webb  ;    for  judge 
in  his  work  on  "  The  Shakespeare  Mystery,"  he  got  Webb's 

J         J  support. 

so  far  as  to  attribute  these  sonnets  to  the  particular 
marriage  proposal,  and  even  to  suggest  the  idea  of 
their  being  written  by  some  one  specially  interested 
in  the  lady.  How  he  managed  to  miss  the  obvious 
inference  looks  like  another  "Shakespeare  mystery" 
in  itself.  The  Judge  surmises  that  as  Bacon  was 
nephew  to  the  lady's  grandfather,  he  might  have  felt 
sufficiently  interested  in  the  marriage  proposal  to 
have  penned  the  Sonnets  at  this  time.  His  Honour's 


446        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

Baconian  leanings  had  evidently  disturbed  his  juridical 
balance  ;  for  not  only  would  a  family  connection  like 
this  be  much  too  remote  to  call  forth  such  enthusiasm, 
but,  as  we  have  already  said,  Bacon,  at  the  time  of 
this  marriage  proposal  was  still  under  thirty  years 
of  age. 

Stratfordian  Seeing  that  we  have  quoted  a  Baconian  in  support 
of  the  idea  that  the  sonnets  sprang  from  this  particular 
marriage  proposal,  we  may  mention  the  fact  that 
Mrs.  Stopes,  as  a  Stratfordian,  supports  the  view, 
and  suggests  that  Shakspere  was  urged  to  write  the 
sonnets  by  some  one  who  was  anxious  to  bring  about 
the  marriage. 

No  man  answering  to  the  description  which  the 
writer  of  the  Sonnets  gives  of  himself  could  have 
had  better  reasons  for  the  peculiar  kind  of  interest 
expressed  in  the  poems  than  the  father  of  the  lady. 
To  find  so  reasonable  a  key,  then,  to  a  set  of  sonnets 
on  so  peculiar  a  theme  is  something  in  itself ;  and 
to  find  this  key  so  directly  connected  with  the  very 
man  whom  we  had  selected  as  the  probable  author 
of  the  poems  is  almost  disconcerting  in  its  conclusive- 
ness.  The  very  obviousness  of  it  all  makes  us  pause. 
For  the  first  time  since  they  appeared  we  feel  entitled 
to  maintain  these  seventeen  sonnets  are  raised  above 
the  absurd  and  enigmatical,  and  made  into  a  perfectly 
simple  and  intelligible  expression  of  a  legitimate 
desire.  The  older  man  who  was  urging  the  young 
one  to  think  of  sons,  a  matter  not  likely  to  interest  a 
youth  of  seventeen,  was  contemplating  his  own 
possible  posterity  in  the  shape  of  grandsons. 

If,  now,  we  turn  from  the  external  relationships 
represented  by  the  sonnets  to  the  internal  sentiments 
which  they  express,  though  we  may  not  be  able  to 


POETIC  "SELF-REVELATION  447 

bring  these  yet  within  the  bounds  of  what  we  should  Sentiment 

now  consider  normal,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  any  sonnets. 

other  set  of  circumstances  under  which  the  friendship 

of  one  man  for  another  would  fit  in  better  with  such 

expressions.     All  that  is  necessary  is  to  read  through 

the  biographies  of  these  two  men,  as  they  appear  in 

the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.     It  will  then 

be  realized  that  in  many  of  its  leading  features  the 

life  of  the  younger  man  is  a  reproduction  of  the  life 

of  the  elder.     It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  feeling  that 

Wriothesley  had  made  a  hero  of  De  Vere,  and  had 

attempted  to  model  his  life  on  that  of  his  predecessor 

as  royal  ward.     When  to  this  striking  correspondence 

in    external    circumstances    and    literary    and    other 

interests  is  added  the  intensely    affectionate  .  nature 

of  the  elder  man,  and  his  comparative  isolation  at  the 

time,    there    exist    certainly    the    most    favourable 

conditions  for  such  expressions  of  attachment  as  the 

sonnets  contain. 

With  regard  to  the  rate  of  the  output  of  these  Proposal 
sonnets,  it  would  be  absurd  to  reduce  it  to  one  of 


simple  arithmetic.  Even  works  of  poetic  genius  have  speare's  " 
nevertheless  some  relation  to  number  and  time.  If,  declines. 
then,  sonnet  82,  which  refers  to  the  dedications  of 
the  poems,  were  written  about  the  years  1593-4, 
when  the  poems  were  published,  we  get  an  average 
of  between  20  and  30  per  year  for  the  initial  rate  of 
production.  That  brings  the  first  17,  in  which  the 
writer  is  harping  largely  upon  the  one  string  of  marriage, 
well  within  the  year  which  corresponds,  so  far  as  can 
be  judged,  to  the  time  when  the  marriage  of 
Southampton  to  De  Vere's  daughter  was  under 
consideration.  Owing  to  Southampton's  decided 
opposition  the  matter  seems  to  have  been  dropped  ; 


448         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

and,  on  turning  to  the  sonnets,  we  find  that  although 
the  personal  feelings  of  the  writer  for  Southampton 
become  more  intensely  affectionate,  concern  for  the 
young  nobleman's  posterity  altogether  disappears : 
for  after  these  opening  sonnets  the  question  is  never 
again  raised.  The  writer  of  the  Sonnets,  it  would 
seem,  cared  more  about  this  particular  marriage  than 
about  Southampton's  posterity :  a  state  of  things 
which  would  have  appeared  strange  by  itself,  but 
read  in  the  light  of  Oxford's  own  personal  interest 
in  the  particular  marriage  proposal  which  fell  through, 
it  is,  of  course,  quite  intelligible. 

Before  leaving  the  question  of  this  marriage  proposal, 
seeing  that  we  have  already  introduced  the  names 
of  two  others  who  have  been  put  forward  as  candidates 
for  Shakespearean  honours,  Bacon  and  Rutland,  we 
may  perhaps  be  excused  for  referring  to  the  only  other 
whose  name,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  been  raised  in 
this  connection,  namely  William  Stanley,  Sixth  Earl 
of  Derby.  He  was  about  the  same  age  as  Bacon,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  actually  married  the  very  lady 
whom  Southampton  was  urged  to  marry.  So  that, 
if  our  theory  of  the  authorship  is  correct,  Mr. 
Greenstreet  in  England  and  M.  Lefranc  in  France, 
in  putting  forward  the  son-in-law  of  Oxford  as  the 
author,  may  be  congratulated  upon  having  come  very 
close  to  the  right  man. 

The  Derby  It  may  be  worth  while  pointing  out  that,  from 
letters  in  the  Hatfield  Manuscripts,  it  appears  that 
Oxford  interested  himself  more  in  his  daughter 
Elizabeth  than  in  either  of  the  other  two,  and  this 
marriage  with  William  Stanley,  Earl  of  Derby,  was 
a  matter  of  very  special  concern  to  him.  Seeing, 
then,  that  the  Derby  theory  arose  from  the  simple 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  449 

fact  that  in  1599  the  Earl  of  Derby  had  been  occupied 
in  "  penning  "  plays,  whilst  nothing  is  known  of  his 
composing  them,  it  is  not  an  unreasonable  supposition 
that,  as  husband  to  Oxford's  favourite  daughter,  he 
may  have  been  assisting  his  father-in-law  in  the  actual 
penning  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  plays. 

The  other  personal  relationship  with  which  these  The 
poems  Seal— "  Shakespeare  "  and  the  "  dark  lady," 
whom  he  describes  as  the  "  worser  spirit,"  and  his  mystery. 
"  female  evil  " — presents  a  problem  not  yet  solved, 
and  which  may  remain  unsolved  for  all  time.  There 
is  perhaps  no  particular  reason  why  we  should  trouble 
about  it  except  for  the  purpose  of  doing  justice  to  the 
poet.  One  thing  does,  however,  stand  out  clearly 
from  the  set  of  sonnets  (beginning  127)  namely,  that 
to  him  it  was  a  matter  of  the  heart,  of  a  most  intense 
and  sincere  character,  but  to  the  lady  a  much  more 
equivocal  affair.  Nothing  but  an  overwhelming  heart 
hunger  could  ever  have  induced  any  man  of  spirit  to 
maintain  the  attitude  described. 

Mixed  in  with  this  shorter  series  we  find  that  there  The  crossing 
are  several  sonnets  which  do  not  belong  to  it  as  a  special  seriese 
personal  series.  Nor  do  those  which  belong  properly 
to  the  set  appear  to  be  all  printed  in  the  order  in  which 
they  were  written.  If,  however,  we  take  those  which 
refer  to  the  "  dark  lady  "  episode  in  the  writer's  life, 
we  find  that  just  before  the  series  is  abruptly  ended  it 
touches  upon  matters  dealt  with  in  sonnets  40,  41, 
and  42  of  the  first  series.  In  other  words,  the  events 
dealt  with  in  the  second  series  (see  133-144)  come 
to  an  end  in  the  early  part,  possibly  the  second  year, 
of  the  first  series.  This  would  bring  us  to  the  year 
before  De  Vere's  second  marriage.  The  events  as  a 
whole,  then,  would  seem  to  belong  to  a  period  of  about 
*9 


450          "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIIED 

two  years  in  the  four  years  that  he  was  a  widower. 
The  intolerable  state  of  affairs  which  they  disclose 
could  not  go  on,  and  the  words  which  Shakespeare 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Othello,  might  be  taken  as 
an  allusion  to  his  own  personal  affairs. 

4 '  Though  that  her  jesses  were  my  dear  heart  strings 
I'd  whistle  her  off,  and  let  her  down  the  wind 
To  play  at  Fortune." 

This  is  the  passage  which  is  exactly  paralleled  by 
De  Vere  in  the  lines : 

"  Who  would  not  scorn  and  shake  them  from  the  fist 
And  let  them  fly,  fair  fools,  which  way  they  list." 

The  sudden  closing  of  the  series  is  at  any  rate 
suggestive  of  such  an  action,  and  if  we  attribute  words 
and  action  alike  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  his  marriage, 
in  the  following  year,  would  be  in  harmony  with  such 
an  act  of  self -liberation  from  discreditable  bonds. 
It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  it  is  as  "  Shake- 
speare "  not  as  Oxford  that  we  get  evidence  of  this 
regrettable  alliance.  In  spite  of  the  general  accusa- 
tions made  against  Oxford,  no  single  definite  and 
authenticated  example  is  otherwise  forthcoming. 
Peace  and  If,  now,  we  take  the  whole  of  the  short  series  as 
having  been  written  about  the  same  time  as  the  first 
forty  or  fifty  of  the  first  series,  we  may  resume  the 
examination  of  the  first  sonnets  at  this  point  with  a 
sense  of  their  now  forming  an  uninterrupted  series, 
with  no  cross  currents  from  the  other  set.  From 
this  point  onwards  neither  the  original  theme  of  the 
young  man's  marriage,  nor  any  allusion  to  the  painful 
episode  common  to  the  two  series  appears.  What 
there  is  of  a  painful  character  arises  from  personal 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  451 

retrospect,  reflection,  or  passing  moods,  rather  than 
from  contemporary  events  ;  which  is  quite  suggestive 
of  a  man  whose  stormiest  outward  experiences  were  over. 
This  corresponds  to  the  period  when  the  Shakespeare 
dramas  were  being  given  forth,  and  when  Oxford  was, 
to  all  appearances,  enjoying  his  retirement  after  his 
second  marriage. 

A  hitch  in  the  friendship  between  the  poet  and  the 
young  man  appears  about  the  time  of  the  dedication 
of  the  poems  (sonnets  80-90),  and  the  particular 
circumstances  that  may  have  lain  behind  this  and 
other  references  to  passing  events,  would,  of  course, 
be  known  only  to  the  parties  involved.  The  important 
point  is  that  all  these  appear,  if  not  explained,  at  any 
rate  explicable  for  the  first  time,  when  we  suppose 
them  to  be  written  by  the  somewhat  lonely  and 
mysterious  nobleman,  whose  known  experiences  joined 
to  those  which  the  sonnets  reveal,  represent  him  as 
one  of  the  most  pathetic  and  heroic  figures  in  the 
tragic  records  of  genius. 

As  supplementary  details  we  would  suggest  for 
consideration  the  following  from  sonnet  91. 

1 '  Some  glory  in  their  birth,  some  in  their  skill,  Supple- 

Some  in  their  wealth,  some  in  their  body's  force  ;        mentary 
Some  in  their  garments,  though  new-fangled  ill  ;  details. 

Some  in  their  hawks  and  hounds  ;  some  in  their  horse  ; 
And  every  humour  hath  his  adjunct  pleasure. 
*  *  *  * 

All  these  I  better  in  one  general  best, 
Thy  love  is  better  than  high  birth  to  me, 
Richer  than  wealth,  prouder  than  garments'  cost, 
Of  more  delight  than  hawks  or  horses  be." 

From  a  man  like  William  Shakspere  such  an 
expression  would  be  so  palpably  a  case  of  "  sour 
grapes,"  that  it  is  incredible  that  any  poet  of  intelligence 


452        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

would  make  himself  so  ridiculous.  From  a  man  in 
Oxford's  position,  who  had  had  all  of  these  things, 
and  who  had  no  doubt  gloried  in  them  all  in  turn,  the 
expression  is  lifted  above  the  childish  and  placed  in 
a  reasonable  relationship  to  facts.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  claim  that  every  word  of  this  sonnet  bespeaks 
Edward  de  Vere  as  its  author  ;  for  it  gives  us  practically 
a  symposium  of  the  outstanding  external  facts  of  his  life 
and  his  interests.  Yet  all  these  things,  the  advantages 
of  birth,  the  fame  for  skill  and  "body's  force,"  rich 
clothing,  wealth,  hawks,  hounds  and  horses,  he  had 
proved  himself  capable  of  sacrificing  to  those  interests 
that  appealed  to  his  spirit.  In  every  particular, 
then,  the  contrast  presented  by  supposing  those 
sonnets  to  have  been  written  by  the  Stratford  man 
on  the  one  hand  or  Edward  de  Vere  on  the  other, 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  which  of  the  two  mankind 
would  choose  as  the  author  if  the  decision  had  to  rest 
on  a  consideration  of  the  sonnets  alone. 

importance  The  Sonnets  stand  there  for  every  one  to  read,  and 
Sonnets.  no  arguments  could  have  the  same  value  as  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  poems  themselves  viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  actual  facts  of  the  life  and  reputation  of 
Edward  de  Vere.  Upon  all  who  wish  to  arrive  at 
the  truth  of  the  matter  we  urge  the  close  and  frequent 
reading  of  the  Sonnets.  It  is  not  necessary  to  believe 
that  all  the  first  set  were  addressed  to  the  youth  or 
all  the  second  set  to  the  "  dark  lady."  Nor  is  it 
necessary  to  solve  the  mystery  of  the  dark  lady : 
for  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  for  such  a  man  to 
pass  away  and  leave  no  insoluble  mysteries.  Some 
of  the  Sonnets  seem  to  have  no  personal  bearing  and 
others  can  hardly  be  made  applicable  to  the  two 
chief  personalities.  These  things  are  immaterial. 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  453 

Neither  is  it  necessary  to  penetrate  all  the  disguises 
which  "  Shakespeare  "  himself,  or  his  executors  after 
him,  may  have  thought  right  to  adopt  in  respect  to 
these  effusions  of  sentiment  and  their  objects.  But 
we  are  unable  to  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of  a 
reader,  who  with  the  facts  concerning  Oxford  that  we 
have  submitted,  can  become  conversant  with  these 
Sonnets  without  realizing  that  they  reflect  at  once  the 
soul  and  the  circumstances  of  "  the  best  of  the  courtier 
poets  of  the  early  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth." 

In   conclusion,    we  must    add  a   word   about   the  The  inventor 
technique  of  the  Sonnets.     Shakespeare's  rejection  of 


the   Petrarcan  sonnet  we   hold  to  have  been  sound  spearean 

.          sonnet. 

poetic  judgment,  based  upon  a  true  ear  for  the  musical 
qualities  and  acoustic  properties  of  the  English 
language.  The  Petrarcan  sonnet  has  grown  out  of 
the  distinctive  qualities  of  the  language  of  Italy, 
and  the  attempt  to  impose  its  rhyme  rules  upon  the 
English  sonnet,  involving  so  great  a  sacrifice  of  sense 
to  sound,  has  gone  far  to  produce  the  relative  poverty 
of  post-Shakespearean  sonneteering.  However  this 
may  be,  the  Shakespearean  sonnet  has  its  own 
distinctiveness,  which  bears  upon  our  subject. 

The  so-called  "  Shakespeare  sonnet,"  we  are  told 
by  William  Sharp  in  his  "  Sonnets  of  this  Century  " 
(igth),  possesses  "  a  capability  of  impressiveness 
unsurpassed  by  any  sonnet  of  Dante  or  Milton."  He 
points  out,  however,  that  when  Shakespeare  used 
this  form  of  sonnet  in  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  he  was  using  a  form  "  made  thoroughly 
ready  for  his  use  by  Daniel  and  Drayton."  Now,  as 
Daniel  was  twelve  years,  and  Drayton  thirteen  years 
younger  than  Edward  de  Vere,  and  as  the  last  named 
was  publishing  poetry  at  a  relatively  early  age,  it 


454         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

is  clear   that  his  early  lyrics  come  before  those  of 
either   of  the  other  two  men. 

Seeing,  then,  that  we  have  a  sonnet  of  Edward  de 
Vere's  which  is  obviously  an  early  production,  and 
that  this  is  in  what  we  now  call  the  Shakespearean 
form,  we  are  entitled  to  claim,  on  the  above  authority, 
that  the  actual  founder  of  the  Shakespearean  sonnet 
was  Edward  de  Vere  :  certainly  a  very  important 
contribution  to  the  evidence  we  have  been  accumulat- 
ing. The  Sonnets,  therefore,  which  are  fundamentally 
a  work  of  spiritual  self -revelation,  almost  become 
a  work  of  complete  self -disclosure.  In  submitting 
the  following  sonnet  of  Oxford's  mainly  on  account  of 
its  form  we  would  also  point  out  its  note  of  constancy  : 
a  theme  upon  wnich  many  of  "  Shakespeare's " 
sonnets  dwell. 

SONNET  BY  EDWARD  DE  VERB. 
"LOVE  THY  CHOICE." 

Who  taught  thee  first  to  sigh,  alas  !  my  heart  ? 

Who  taught  thy  tongue  the  woeful  words  of  plaint  ? 
Who  filled  your  eyes  with  tears  of  bitter  smart  ? 

Who  gave  thee  grief  and  made  thy  joys  to  faint  ? 
Who  first  did  paint  with  colours  pale  thy  face  ? 

Who  first  did  break  thy  sleeps  of  quiet  rest  ? 
Above  the  rest  in  court  who  gave  thee  grace  ? 

Who  made  thee  strive  in  honour  to  be  best  ? 
In  constant  truth  to  bide  so  firm  and  sure, 

To  scorn  the  world  regarding  but  thy  friends  ? 
With  patient  mind  each  passion  to  endure, 

In  one  desire  to  settle  to  the  end  ? 
Love  then  thy  choice  wherein  such  choice  thou  bind 
As  nought  but  death  may  ever  change  thy  mind. 

This,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  "  Shake- 
speare "  sonnet.  It  is  the  only  sonnet  in  the  collection 
of  Edward  de  Vere's  poems,  and  it  is  composed  in  the 


POETIC   SELF-REVELATION  455 

only  form  employed  by  Shakespeare,  altough  other  Oxford's 
sonneteers  were  then  experimenting  upon  other  forms.  Romeo  *" 
It  is  obviously  one  of  his  earliest  efforts,  for  it  expresses 
an  attitude  towards  woman  only  found  in  one  other 
of  his  poems,  "What  Cunning  Can  Express?" — 
an  attitude  belonging  to  the  unsullied  ideals  of  his 
youth,  which  later  on  gave  place  to  the  cynicism  or 
bitterness  of  the  De  Vere  poem  on  "  Women,"  and  of 
what  are  now  known  as  the  "  Shakespeare  Sonnets." 
From  the  point  of  view  of  evidence  of  Oxford's  identity 
with  Shakespeare  its  chief  value  lies  in  its  technique, 
which  is  most  certainly  Shakespearean.  It  does,  how- 
ever, furnish  another  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence 
which  is  worth  mentioning. 

The  first  sonnets  of  "  Shakespeare's "  to  appear 
were  those  in  "  Romeo  and  Juliet ;  "  a  play  which 
has  already  furnished  us  with  important  connections 
between  Edward  de  Vere's  poetry  and  Shakespeare. 
Now,  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  not  only  first  presents 
sonnets  on  this  model,  but  it  is  the  only  play  of  Shake- 
speare's which  expresses  seriously  the  sentiment  of  this 
sonnet  of  Edward  de  Vere's.  Shakespeare's  comedies 
treat  the  theme  of  man's  love  for  woman  in  the  spirit 
of  comedy ;  and  his  great  tragedies  like  "  Othello  " 
and  "  Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  give  us  the  vigorous 
passions  of  matured  men.  "  Romeo  and  Juliet " 
alone,  of  all  the  plays,  gives  us  seriously  the  tender, 
gentle,  idealistic  love  of  young  people.  And,  as  we 
have  already  more  than  once  pointed  out,  Juliet  was 
just  the  age  of  Oxford's  wife  at  the  time  of  their 
marriage  (about  14  years). 

With  this  sonnet  of  Oxford's  in  mind  then,  turn 
to  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  and  look  into  the  text  of 
the  play,  especially  the  parts  spoken  by,  or  in  reference 


456        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

to  Romeo  himself,  observing  the  allusions  to  sighings, 
floods  of  womanish  tears,  bitter  griefs,  broken  sleep, 
pledges  of  constancy,  and  death.  The  youthful 
Romeo  in  the  play  is  the  young  Earl  of  Oxford  as  he 
represents  himself  in  the  sonnet  before  us. 

So  much  from  the  point  of  view  of  evidence.  We 
have,  however,  another  purpose  to  achieve  in  this 
work ;  namely,  to  assist  towards  the  formation  of  a 
correct  estimate  of  Edward  de  Vere.  We  ask,  there- 
fore, for  a  careful  weighing  of  this  particular  poem 
and  the  spirit  it  reveals.  Gentle,  tender-hearted, 
supersensitive,  idealistic,  refined  almost  to  the  point 
of  femininity ;  such  is  the  young  Earl  of  Oxford  as 
he  here  reveals  himself.  And  as  in  the  light  of  such 
a  revelation  we  review  the  various  references  to  him 
in  modern  books,  we  can  only  say,  without  attempt- 
ing to  fasten  the  full  blame  anywhere,  that  he  was 
the  victim  of  a  most  adverse  fate  :  the  many  references 
to  which  throughout  the  sonnets  stand  now  explained 
for  the  first  time,  making  plain  why  a  Shakespeare 
Problem,  or  a  Shakespeare  Mystery,  has  happened 
to  have  a  place  in  the  world's  history. 

We  conclude  our  examination  of  the  sonnets  with 
a  sense  of  its  being  marked  by  the  same  feature  as 
has  manifested  itself  in  every  other  section  of  our 
investigation  :  namely,  that  it  is  not  merely  in  one 
or  two  striking  points  that  the  personality  disclosed 
coincides  with  that  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford ;  but  that 
everything  fits  in,  in  a  most  extraordinary  manner, 
the  moment  his  personality  is  introduced.  There  is 
surely  only  one  explanation  possible  for  all  this. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
DRAMATIC  SELF-REVELATION  :   HAMLET 

"  IN  Hamlet  Shakespeare  has  revealed  too  much  of 
himself."  FRANK  HARRIS. 

As  the  fame  of  Shakespeare  rests  chiefly  upon  his  shake- 
great  achievements  in  drama,  it  is  to  these  that  the  sPe^re's 

con  tern  - 

world  is  bound  to  look  for  some  special  revelation  of  poraries  in 
the  author  himself.  Such  a  revelation,  however, 
it  must  be  expected,  will  be  in  keeping  with  the 
character  of  his  genius.  Cryptograms  and  anagrams, 
though  they  may  play  a  part,  especially  the  latter,  as 
being  a  recognized  feature  of  the  literature  of  the 
times,  can  only  come  in  as  supplementary  to  some- 
thing greater  :  the  real  self -revelation  being  a  dramatic 
one. 

The  essential  objectivity  of  Shakespeare's  work, 
with  its  foundations  fixed  in  observation,  is  assurance 
enough  that  his  characters  would  be  taken  from  his 
own  experience  of  the  men  and  women  about  him. 
Mere  photographic  reproduction,  of  course,  such  a 
genius  would  not  offer  us  ;  but  actually  living  men 
and  women,  artistically  modified  and  adjusted  to  fit 
them  for  the  part  they  had  to  perform,  are  what  we 
may  be  sure  the  plays  contain.  The  fact  that  these 
have  not  been  identified  before  now  is  no  doubt  due, 
in  part,  to  such  cunning  disguises  as  we  should  naturally 
expect  from  a  mind  so  profound  and  complex.  The 
fact,  too,  that  the  active  life  of  the  reputed  author 

457 


458        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

does  not  fit  in  with  either  the  time  or  circumstances  of 
the  active  life  of  the  actual  author  has  also  tended 
to  prevent  detection.  Another  explanation  is  that 
"  Shakespeare  "  probably  saw  contemporary  events 
and  personalities  from  a  standpoint  totally  different 
from  that  taken  by  Englishmen  since  his  day.  If, 
therefore,  the  substitution  of  a  new  personality,  as 
author,  furnishes  a  point  of  view  which  enables  us 
to  identify  characters  in  the  plays,  it  will  form  a  very 
strong  argument  that  the  right  man  has  been  dis- 
covered. 

Such  a  faculty  of  observation  as  we  notice  in  him, 
leading  him  to  fix  his  attention  specially  upon  those 
whose  lives  pressed  directly  upon  his  own — inevitable 
in  one  so  sensitive  and  self-conscious  as  the  Sonnets 
reveal  him — is  certain  to  have  made  his  work  much 
more  a  record  of  his  own  personal  relationships 
than  has  hitherto  been  supposed.  His  special  domain, 
moreover,  being  the  study  of  the  human  soul,  this 
faculty  of  observation  must  have  compelled  him  to 
subject  his  own  nature  to  a  rigorous  examination  and 
analysis.  Consequently,  when  the  author  is  better 
known,  it  will  doubtless  be  found  that  his  works  are 
packed  with  delineations  and  studies  of  his  own 
spiritual  experiences.  The  working  out  of  this  depart- 
ment of  Shakespearean  enquiry  belongs  largely  to  the 
future.  Something  of  this  kind  has,  however,  already 
been  attempted  in  a  desultory  manner  in  these  pages. 
Our  present  purpose  is  somewhat  more  definite. 

The  The  long  accepted  notion  that  the  author  has  not 

given  us  a  representation  of  himself  in  his  plays  breaks 

dramas.  down  completely,  as  we  have  seen,  under  the  view 
of  authorship  put  forward  in  this  work.  Already 
attention  hai  been  drawn  to  the  case  of  Lord  Berowne 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION          459 

in  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  and  also  to  a  most  strik- 
ing parallel  between  Edward  de  Vere  and  another 
of  Shakespeare's  characters,  namely  Bertram  in  "  All's 
Well." 

Bertram,  a  young  lord  of  ancient  lineage,  of  which 
he  is  himself  proud,  having  lost  a  father  for  whom 
he  entertained  a  strong  affection,  is  brought  to  court 
by  his  mother  and  there  left  as  a  royal  ward,  to  be 
brought  up  under  royal  supervision.  As  he  grows  up 
he  asks  for  military  service  and  to  be  allowed  to  travel, 
but  is  repeatedly  refused  or  put  off.  At  last  he  goes 
away  without  permission.  Before  leaving  he  had 
been  married  to  a  young  woman  with  whom  he  had 
been  brought  up,  and  who  had  herself  been  most 
active  in  bringing  about  the  marriage.  Matrimonial 
troubles,  of  which  the  outstanding  feature  is  a  refusal 
of  cohabitation,  are  associated  with  both  his  stay 
abroad  and  his  return  home.  Such  is  the  summary  of 
a  story  we  have  told  in  fragments  elsewhere,  and  is 
as  near  to  biography,  or  autobiography  if  our  theory 
be  accepted,  as  a  dramatist  ever  permitted  himself  to  go. 
The  later  discovery,  which  we  have  fortunately  been 
able  to  incorporate  into  this  work  before  publication, 
that  the  central  incident  of  Bertram's  matrimonial 
trouble  has  a  place  in  the  records  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford, 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  his  being  the  prototype  of 
Bertram.  Still  it  is  conceivable  that  a  contemporary 
dramatist,  knowing  De  Vere's  story,  had  utilized 
parts  of  it  in  writing  the  play ;  and,  therefore,  if 
viewed  alone,  is  not  entitled  to  be  called  a  dramatic 
self -revelation. 

Properly  speaking,  it  is  the  whole  of  the  dramas 
that  constitutes  the  full  dramatic  self -revelation. 
It  is,  therefore,  as  we  approach  the  highest  triumphs  of 


460        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

The  world's  his  genius,  which  represent  the  whole,  that  his  work 
becomes  a  special  or  synoptic  self-revelation.  This, 
however,  pertains  to  the  inward  or  spiritual  life 
rather  than  to  its  external  forms.  If,  then,  to  a 
spiritual  correspondence  there  is  added  a  marked 
agreement  in  external  circumstances,  as  evidence  of 
the  personal  identity  of  the  author  such  dramatic  work 
becomes  specially  convincing.  The  question,  therefore, 
resolves  itself  into  this.  What  play  of  Shakespeare's 
holds  such  pre-eminence  that  we  are  entitled  to  regard 
it  as  a  work  of  special  self -revelation,  and  how  far 
do  its  inner  spiritual  facts,  and  the  outward  forms 
in  which  they  are  clothed,  warrant  the  assumption 
that  they  constitute  a  work  of  self-revelation  on  the 
part  of  Edward  de  Vere  ? 

On  the  first  point,  the  choice  of  play,  there  is 
fortunately  no  need  for  the  exercise  of  our  own 
individual  judgment,  nor  any  uncertainty  as  to  the 
social  verdict ;  for  the  world  at  large  has  long  since 
proclaimed  the  play  of  "  Hamlet  "  as  the  great  tour 
de  force  of  this  master  dramatist.  The  comedy  of 
"  Love's  Labour's  Lost "  undoubtedly  occupies  a 
unique  position  amongst  the  lighter  plays.  It  is 
usually  accorded  priority  in  time  ;  it  bears  unmistak- 
able evidence  of  the  most  painstaking  labour ;  and 
it  was  the  first  to  be  published  under  the  pseudonym 
of  "  Shakespeare."  The  correspondence  of  its  central 
figure,  Berowne,  with  the  Earl  of  Oxford  has  therefore 
a  special  value,  particularly  if  taken  as  supplementary 
to  the  play  of  "  Hamlet." 

The  central  figure  in  the  latter  play  occupies,  how- 
ever, a  most  exceptional  position  in  relation  to  the 
work  in  which  he  appears,  and  therefore  stands  out 
as  the  supreme  dramatic  creation  of  the  artist.  "The 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION          461 

play  of  '  Hamlet  '  with  Hamlet  left  out  "  has  become 
a  proverbial  expression  for  the  very  extreme  of 
deprivation ;  and  Sir  Sidney  Lee  assures  us  that 
"  the  total  length  of  Hamlet's  speeches  far  exceeds 
that  of  those  allotted  by  Shakespeare  to  any  others 
of  his  characters."  These,  again,  have  so  passed 
into  common  currency  as  to  justify  the  well-worn 
joke  about  the  play  being  "  full  of  quotations."  The 
play  and  the  character  of  "  Hamlet  "  may  therefore 
be  accepted  as  being  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  dramatic 
self-revelation  of  the  author,  if  such  a  revelation 
exists  anywhere. 

Great  as  is  the  mass  of  printed  matter  which  this  Hamlet  and 
particular  creation  has  already  called  forth,  probably  Destiny- 
exceeding  in  amount  what  has  been  written  about 
any  other  literary  work  of  similar  dimensions  outside 
the  Bible,  more  is  certain  to  appear  if  we  succeed 
in  making  good  our  chief  claim.  The  burden  of 
much  that  has  appeared  is  to  the  effect  that  in  Hamlet 
the  poet  meant  to  give  us  the  picture  of  a  human  soul 
struggling  with  Destiny.  We  venture  to  say  that  he 
meant  nothing  so  philosophically  abstract;  but  that 
what  he  was  actually  striving  most  consciously  and 
earnestly  to  do,  was  to  represent  himself  ;  and  he, 
like  every  other  human  being  born  into  this  world  who 
succeeds  in  keeping  his  soul  alive,  was  indeed  a  soul 
struggling  most  tragically  with  Destiny ;  refusing 
to  be  swept  along  passively  by  the  currents  into  which 
his  life  was  plunged  or  to  surrender  to  the  adverse 
forces  within  himself.  This  is  certainly  the  picture 
which  stands  out  from  that  self-presentation  of  the 
poet  contained  in  his  sonnets ;  and  the  fact  that 
the  character  of  Hamlet  has  been  denned  in  terms 
that  bring  it  into  direct  accord  with  that  poetic  self- 


462        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

revelation,  is  one  more  proof  that  the  play  is  intended 
to  be  a  special  and  direct  dramatic  self -revelation. 
It  is  this  personal  factor,  doubtless,  that  has  given 
to  the  drama  that  intense  vitality  and  realism  which 
makes  its  words  and  phrases  grip  the  mind  ;  becoming 
thus  the  instruments  by  which  mankind  at  large 
have  found  new  means  of  self-expression. 
Hamlet  is  It  is  this  fact  of  Hamlet  representing  the  dramatist 
himself  which  also  makes  him  stand  out  from  all 
Shakespeare's  characters  as  an  interpreter  of  the 
motives  of  human  actions.  Into  no  other  character 
has  the  author  put  an  equal  measure  his  own  distinctive 
powers  of  insight  into  human  nature.  Whilst  other 
personages  in  the  play  are  trying  to  penetrate  his 
mystery,  to  discover  his  purposes  and  to  read  his 
mind,  we  find  Hamlet  confusing  them  all,  and,  mean- 
while, reading  them  like  an  open  book. 

"  I  set  you  up  a  glass 
Where  you  may  see  the  inmost  part  of  you," 

he  says  to  his  mother. 

All  that  quickness  of  the  senses  which  marks  alike 
the  work  of  De  Vere  and  Shakespeare  manifests 
itself  in  the  person  of  Hamlet.  He  misses  nothing ; 
and  every  thing  he  sees  or  hears  opens  some  new 
avenue  to  the  "  inmost  parts  "  of  those  about  him. 
A  man  like  this  is  almost  foredoomed  to  a  tragic 
loneliness ;  for  even  such  a  love  as  he  shows 
towards  Ophelia  and  she  towards  him  cannot  blind 
him  to  her  want  of  honesty  in  her  dealings.  He  sees 
much  of  which  he  may  not  speak.  In  the  play  he 
can  express  himself  in  soliloquy  or  cunningly  reveal 
to  the  audience  what  is  hidden  from  the  other 
personages  in  the  drama ;  but  in  real  life  he  would 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION         463 

become  a  man  of  large  mental  reserves  and  an 
enforced  secretiveness.  Something  of  this  is  certainly 
noticeable  in  the  slight  records  we  have  of  De 
Vere :  a  trait  which  even  Burleigh  found  discon- 
certing. 

Having  decided  that  "  Hamlet  "  is  the  play  which,  DC  Vere  as 
by  its  pre-eminence,  is  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  Hamlet- 
"  Shakespeare's "  special  work  of  self -delineation, 
the  next  part  of  our  problem  is  to  see  whether  the 
revelation  it  contains  has  a  marked  and  peculiar 
applicability  to  the  case  of  Edward  de  Vere.  In 
examining  the  work  from  this  point  of  view  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  Shakespeare's  plots  are  seldom 
pure  inventions.  The  dramatist  is  obliged,  therefore, 
to  conform  in  certain  essentials  to  the  original ;  and 
it  is  to  what  he  works  into  this,  and  the  special  adapta- 
tions he  makes,  that  we  must  look  for  his  self-revelation, 
rather  than  to  the  central  idea  of  the  plot  itself. 
Naturally,  however,  his  own  definite  purposes  must 
influence  his  choice  of  plot :  though  it  must  also  be 
borne  in  mind  that  self-disguise  is  one  of  his  purposes 
as  well  as  self-expression. 

In  testing  the  parallel  we  must  substitute  first  of  Life  at 
all  the  royal  court  of  England  for  the  royal  court  of  court- 
Denmark.  For  Hamlet,  Prince  of  Denmark,  at  the 
Danish  court  we  shall  then  have  to  substitute  Edward, 
Earl  of  Oxford,  at  the  court  of  England.  Oxford, 
of  course,  was  not  a  prince  of  royal  blood  :  but  then 
there  were  no  princes  of  royal  blood  at  the  English 
court,  and  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  in  his  younger  days, 
was  the  nearest  approach  to  a  royal  prince  that  the 
English  court  could  boast.  In  the  matter  of  ancient 
lineage  and  territorial  establishment  a  descendant  of 
Aubrey  de  Vere  had  nothing  to  fear  in  comparison 


464         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

with  a  descendant  of  Owen  Tudor.  And  when  it  is 
remembered  that  noblemen  of  inferior  standing  to 
Oxford  were,  in  those  days,  contemplating  the 
possibility  of  sharing  royal  honours,  either  with 
Elizabeth  or  her  possible  successor,  the  Queen  of 
Scotland,  for  the  dramatist  to  represent  himself  as 
a  royal  prince  was  no  extravagant  self-aggrandizement. 
With  the  substitution  we  have  recommended  in  mind, 
let  the  reader  turn  again  to  "  Hamlet  "  and  read  the 
play  with  the  attention  fixed,  not  upon  the  plot,  but 
upon  the  characterization.  If  he  does  not  experience 
all  the  elation  which  comes  with  new  illumination, 
if  he  does  not  feel  that  every  line  of  Hamlet's  speeches 
pulsates  with  the  heart  and  spirit  of  Oxford,  either 
we  have  failed  to  represent  accurately,  or  he  has  failed 
to  appreciate,  the  character  and  circumstances  of  this 
remarkable  and  unfortunate  nobleman. 

We  shall  endeavour  to  indicate  elements  of 
parallelism  and  coincidence  between  the  two,  but 
nothing  can  take  the  place  of  an  attentive  and  dis- 
criminating reading  of  the  play  itself.  As,  then,  we 
have  elsewhere  urged  that  one  of  the  most  convincing 
proofs  is  to  read  the  sonnets,  so  now  we  would  also 
urge  those  who  are  interested  to  read  Hamlet.  Already, 
in  tracing  illustrations  of  the  life  and  circumstances 
of  De  Vere  in  Shakespeare's  works,  we  have  frequently 
had  to  call  attention  to  analogies  with  Hamlet, 
extending  to  details  of  private  relationships.  We 
may  therefore  shorten  our  present  task  by  asking 
the  reader  to  revert  to  those  chapters  dealing  with 
the  early  and  middle  periods  of  Oxford's  life. 

Following  upon  the  consideration  of  his  social  rank 
comes  the  central  fact  of  Hamlet's  working  out  a 
secret  purpose  under  a  mask  of  eccentricity  amounting 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         465 

almost  to  feigned  madness.  To  have  feigned  complete  Hamlet's 
madness  would  not  have  allowed  him  to  accomplish  e 
his  purpose,  and  therefore  he  assumes  just  sufficient 
insanity  as  is  necessary  to  bewilder  those  whom  he 
wishes  to  circumvent,  and  who  are  trying  to  circumvent 
him.  It  is  a  match  of  wits  in  which  the  ablest  mind 
wins  by  allowing  his  inferior  antagonists  to  suppose 
him  mentally  deficient.  Now  the  records  we  have 
of  Oxford  represent  his  eccentricity  in  his  early  and 
middle  period  as  being  of  an  extreme  character,  and 
if  we  suppose  him  to  be  Shakespeare,  we  can  quite 
believe  that  his  own  secret  purposes  were  being 
pursued  partly  under  a  mask  of  vagary. 

It  is  to  be  observed  how  frequently  Hamlet  employs  Resistance 
this  particular  stratagem  in  resisting  molestation,  interference 
especially  from  those  who  are  trying  to  penetrate  his 
secrets.  This  appears  in  his  dealings  with  Rosencrantz, 
Guildenstern,  Polonius  and  Ophelia.  Now  this 
resistance  to  interference  stands  out  clearly  at  the 
time  when  Oxford,  having  returned  from  abroad, 
is  reported  to  have  behaved  in  a  strange  manner 
towards  Lady  Oxford  ;  for,  in  addition  to  the 
taciturnity  which  he  adopted,  and  which  one  writer 
calls  "  sulkiness,"  he  says,  in  the  letter  quoted  in 
our  "  Othello "  argument,  "  neither  will  he  weary 
his  life  any  more  with  such  troubles  and  molestations 
as  he  has  endured."  Compare  especially  with  the 
spirit  expressed  in  this,  the  interesting  scene  in  which 
Rosencrantz  and  Guildenstern  are  trying  to  probe  and 
"play  upon"  Hamlet  (III.  2).  "You  would  play 
upon  me  ;  you  would  seem  to  know  my  stops  ;  you 
would  pluck  out  the  heart  of  my  mystery  ;  you  would 
sound  me  from  my  lowest  note  to  the  top  of  my 
compass.  'S  blood  !  do  you  think  I  am  easier  to  be 
3° 


466 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Comedy   in 
tragedy. 


Hamlet's 
father  and 
mother. 


played  on  than  a  pipe  ?  Though  you  can  fret  me, 
you  cannot  play  upon  me." 

That  Hamlet  is  Shakespeare's  representation  of 
himself  receives  confirmation  from  another  character- 
istic which  the  latter  shares  with  Oxford.  That 
remarkable  combination  of  tragedy  with  comedy, 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  these  words,  which  we  find 
in  Shakespeare  attains  its  highest  development  in 
the  play  of  "  Hamlet."  The  only  possible  competitor 
is  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice."  In  the  latter  we  have 
a  comedy  which  may  at  any  moment  resolve  itself 
into  an  appalling  tragedy.  In  "  Hamlet  "  we  have 
a  tragedy  which,  at  parts,  runs  perilously  near  comedy, 
and  may  at  any  moment  break  up  in  absolute  farce. 
Even  in  times  of  melancholy  and  in  the  very  thick 
of  disaster  the  wit  and  subtle  fun  of  the  hero  never 
desert  him.  Over  his  life  there  hangs  a  dark  shadow. 
Impotence,  failure  and  despondency  dog  his  steps. 
Yet,  when  things  are  at  their  worst  he  turns  rapidly 
upon  his  butts,  teasing  and  confusing  them  with  an 
evident  enjoyment  of  the  intellectual  fun  of  the  business. 
The  play  of  "  Hamlet,"  which  may  therefore,  in  this 
particular,  be  taken  as  a  compendium  of  "  Shake- 
speare's "  dramas  as  a  whole,  is  unquestionably 
symptomatic  of  the  general  mental  constitution  and 
career  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 

The  social  position  and  general  character  of  the  hero 
of  this  play  having  lent  support  to  the  theory  that 
its  author  was  Edward  de  Vere,  we  shall  find  additional 
and  even  more  surprising  corroboration  when  we 
turn  to  the  details  of  personal  relationships.  The 
driving  force  in  the  play  of  "  Hamlet  "  is,  of  course, 
father-worship  ;  the  love  and  admiration  of  a  son 
for  a  dead  father  who  had  borne  himself  in  a  manner 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION         467 

worthy  of  his  exalted  station.  Such  affection  and 
respect  is  the  spontaneous  source  of  ancestor-worship. 
Although,  therefore,  we  are  not  told  that  father- 
worship  was  a  marked  trait  in  Edward  de  Vere,  we 
have  abundant  justification  for  such  an  assumption, 
and  might  indeed  infer  it  from  the  fact  that  ancestor- 
worship  was  a  pronounced  feature  of  his  character. 

When,  however,  we  turn  to  Hamlet's  relationship 
to  his  surviving  parent  we  are  met  with  a  totally 
different  picture.  Grief  and  disappointment  at  his 
mother's  conduct  lie  at  the  root  of  all  the  tragedy  of 
his  life.  With  a  capacity  for  intense  affection,  such 
as  we  have  already  pointed  out  in  "  Shakespeare  " 
and  in  De  Vere,  Hamlet  was  incapable  of  any  real 
trust  in  womanhood.  His  faith  had  been  shattered 
by  the  inconstancy  of  his  own  mother.  This  curious 
combination  of  intense  affectionateness  with  weakness 
of  faith  in  women  is  therefore  characteristic  of  all 
three,  "Shakespeare"  (in  his  sonnets),  Hamlet,  and 
De  Vere. 

It  would  not  be  fair  to  the  memory  of  De  Vere's  Oxford  and 
mother  to  maintain,  in  the  absence  of  positive  proof, 
that  she  had  furnished  by  her  inconstancy  a  justifica- 
tion of  her  son's  mistrust.  We  may,  however,  draw 
attention  to  facts  that  might  account  for  it,  even 
if  they  did  not  justify  it.  It  has  already  been  pointed 
out  that  in  the  short  biography  of  De  Vere,  from 
which  we  have  drawn  so  freely,  no  mention  whatever 
is  made  of  his  mother,  and  one  gets  the  impression 
that  after  his  father's  death  she  had  almost  dropped 
out  of  his  life,  the  whole  of  the  circumstances  contrast- 
ing markedly  with  those  recorded  of  Southampton 
and  his  mother.  From  the  account  given  of  De  Vere's 
father,  however,  we  learn  that  his  widow  died  in 


468         "SHAKESPEARE1     IDENTIFIED 

1568,  Oxford  being  then  only  eighteen  years  of  age  ; 
and  that  sometime  in  these  early  years  of  his  life  at 
the  royal  court,  his  mother  had  married  Sir  Charles 
(or  Christopher)  Tyrell.  As,  moreover,  her  death 
occurred  at  Castle  Hedingham,  one  of  the  chief  of 
the  ancestral  homes  of  the  De  Veres,  it  looks  as  though 
Oxford's  stepfather  had  established  himself  on  the 
family  estates,  and  may  have  appeared  to  the  youth 
as  having  doubly  supplanted  his  father,  first  in  his 
mother's  affections  and  then  in  the  hereditary  domains. 
This,  of  course,  is  the  situation  represented  in  Hamlet. 
Whether,  in  addition  to  the  central  fact,  there  had 
also  been  an  unseemly  brevity  in  the  widowhood  of 
Oxford's  mother  we  cannot  tell ;  for  although  the 
precise  date  of  her  death  is  given,  the  date  of  her 
second  marriage  is  not.  We  have  spent  much  time 
in  the  search  for  this  date ;  so  far  without  result. 
It  will  be  interesting,  therefore,  to  learn  whether  or 
not  it  was  an  "  o'er  hasty  marriage,"  and  whether  as 
Hamlet  ironically  remarked, 

' '  The   funeral  baked   meats 
Did  coldly  furnish  forth  the  marriage  tables." 

Apart  from  this,  however,  there  was  sufficient  in 
the  general  situation  to  cut  very  deeply  into  the  mind 
of  an  imaginative  and  supersensitive  youth,  and  to 
have  struck  a  severe  blow  at  that  poetic  ideal  of 
feminine  constancy  which  was  natural  to  his  age  and 
temperament.  The  important  point  for  our  present 
argument  is  that  we  have  in  Oxford  the  same  moral 
trait  that  we  have  in  Hamlet,  that  we  have  parallel 
external  circumstances  tending  towards  its  production, 
and  that  these  external  circumstances  are  just  such 
as  might  lead  to  all  the  tragic  developments  which 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         469 

succeeded  in  both  instances.  Faith  in  motherhood 
being  the  fount  at  which  faith  in  womanhood  may  be 
revived  when  threatened  by  the  failure  of  other 
relationships,  the  man  who  like  Hamlet  or  Oxford 
lacks  this  faith  to  carry  him  through  crises,  can  have 
but  a  hopeless  outlook  on  the  most  vital  and 
fundamental  of  human  relationships. 

The  personal  relationship  in  the  play  which  bears  Poionius  and 
most  critically  upon  our  present  argument  is  that  Burleigh- 
of  Hamlet  with  Poionius  and  Ophelia.  The  chief 
minister  at  the  royal  court  of  Denmark  is  Poionius. 
The  chief  minister  at  the  royal  court  of  England  was 
Burleigh.  Is  the  character  of  Poionius  such  that  we 
may  identify  him  with  Burleigh  ?  Again  it  is  not  a 
question  of  whether  Poionius  is  a  correct  representa- 
tion of  Burleigh,  but  whether  he  is  a  possible 
representation  of  the  English  minister  from  the  special 
point  of  view  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  To  what  has 
already  been  said  elsewhere  in  this  connection,  it 
will  perhaps  suffice  to  quote  from  Macaulay's  essay 
on  Burleigh: 

"  To  the  last  Burleigh  was  somewhat  jocose  ;  and 
some  of  his  sportive  sayings  have  been  recorded  by 
Bacon.  They  show  much  more  shrewdness  than 
generosity,  and  are  indeed  neatly  expressed  reasons 
for  exacting  money  rigorously  and  for  keeping  it 
carefully.  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged  that 
he  was  rigorous  and  careful  for  the  public  advantage 
as  well  as  for  his  own.  To  extol  his  moral  character 
is  absurd.  It  would  be  equally  absurd  to  represent 
him  as  a  corrupt,  rapacious  and  bad  hearted  man. 
He  paid  great  attention  to  the  interest  of  the  state, 
and  great  attention  also  to  the  interest  of  his  own 
family." 


470 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Burleigh's 
character- 
sties. 


Burleigh's 
maxims. 


Hardly  any  one  will  deny  that  Macaulay's  delineation 
of  Burleigh  is  correct  portraiture  of  Polonius  ;  and, 
therefore,  if  Burleigh  appeared  thus  to  Macaulay 
after  two  and  a  half  centuries  had  done  their  purifying 
work  on  his  memory,  one  can  readily  suppose  his 
having  presented  a  similar  appearance  to  a  con- 
temporary who  had  had  no  special  reason  to  bless 
his  memory.  The  resemblance  becomes  all  the  more 
remarkable  if  we  add  to  this  description  the  spying 
proclivities  of  Denmark's  minister,  the  philosophic 
egoism  he  propounds  under  a  gloss  of  morality,  his 
opposition  to  his  son's  going  abroad,  and  his  references 
to  his  youthful  love  affair  and  to  what  he  did  "  at 
the  university."  All  these  are  strikingly  characteristic 
of  Burleigh  and  the  most  of  them  have  already  been 
adequately  dealt  with. 

Probably  the  most  conclusive  evidence  that  Polonius 
is  Burleigh  is  to  be  found  in  the  best  known  lines  which 
Shakespeare  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Denmark's 
minister — the  string  of  worldly-wise  maxims  which 
he  bestows  upon  his  son  Laertes  (Act  I.  3).  They 
are  much  too  well  known  to  require  repetition  here. 
With  these  in  mind,  however,  consider  the  maxims 
which  Burleigh  laid  down  for  his  favourite  son,  of 
which  Burleigh's  biographer  (Martin  A.  S.  Hume) 
remarks  that  though  "  these  precepts  inculcate 
moderation  and  virtue,  here  and  there  Cecil's  own 
philosophy  of  life  peeps  out."  He  then  gives 
examples : 

"  Let  thy  hospitality  be  moderate." 

"  Beware  that  thou  spendest  not  more  than  three  or 
four  parts  of  thy  revenue." 

"  Beware  of  being  surety  for  thy  best  friends  ;  he  that 
payeth  another  man's  debts  seeketh  his  own  decay." 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         471 

"With  thine  equals  be  familiar  yet  respectful." 

"  Trust  not  any  man  with  thy  life,  credit,  or  estate." 

"  Be  sure  to  keep  some  great  man  for  thy  friend." 

The  whole  method,  style,  language  and  sentiment 
are  reproduced  so  much  to  the  life  in  Polonius's  advice 
to  Laertes  that  Shakespeare  seems  hardly  to  have 
exercised  his  own  distinctive  powers  at  all  in  composing 
the  speech.  The  connection  of  the  advice  of  Polonius 
with  similar  precepts  in  Lyly's  "  Euphues  "  has  long 
been  recognized.  What  seems  hitherto  to  have 
escaped  notice  is  that  both  have  a  common  source  in 
Burleigh.  How  much  of  what  appears  in  Lyly  of 
these  precepts  was  derived  through  Oxford  it  would 
be  useless  to  discuss.  The  general  relations  of  the 
two  men  has  already  been  sufficiently  considered. 

We  take  this  opportunity  of  remarking,  what  may  The  ethics 
not  be  very  material  to  our  argument,  that  the  spirit  of  Polonius. 
of  the  closing  words  of  Polonius's  speech,  the  words 
beginning,  "  Unto  thine  own  self  be  true,"  seems  to 
us  to  be  generally  quite  misunderstood.  These  words 
bring  to  a  close  a  speech  which,  throughout,  is  a 
direct  appeal  in  every  word  to  mere  self-interest. 
Is,  then,  this  last  passage  framed  in  a  nobler  mould 
with  a  high  moral  purpose  and  an  appeal  to  lofty 
sentiment  ?  We  think  not.  The  bare  terms  in  which 
the  final  exhortation  is  cast,  stripped  of  all  ethical 
inferences  and  reinterpretations,  are  as  direct  an 
appeal  to  self-interest  as  everything  else  in  the  speech. 
They  are,  "  unto  thine  own  self ;  "  not  unto  the  best 
that  is  in  you,  nor  the  worst.  Consistently  with 
his  other  injunctions  he  closes  with  one  which 
summarizes  all,  the  real  bearing  of  which  may  perhaps 
be  best  appreciated  by  turning  it  into  modern  slang  : 


472         "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

"  Be  true  to  '  number  one.'  Make  your  own  interests 
your  guiding  principle,  and  be  faithful  to  it." 
Opportunist  This  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  cynical  egoism  of 
moraiiring.  Burleigh's  advice,  "  Beware  of  being  surety  for  thy 
best  friends  "  ;  but  "  keep  some  great  man  for  thy 
friend."  And,  of  course,  it  does  "  follow  as  the  night 
the  day  "  that  a  man  who  directs  his  life  on  this 
egoistic  principle  cannot,  truly  speaking,  be  false  to 
any  man.  A  man  cannot  be  false  to  another  unless 
he  owes  him  fidelity.  If,  therefore,  a  man  only 
acknowledges  fidelity  to  his  own  self,  nothing  that  he 
can  do  can  be  a  breach  of  fidelity  to  another.  On 
this  principle  Burleigh  was  true  to  himself  when  he 
made  use  of  the  patronage  of  Somerset ;  he  was 
still  true  to  himself,  not  false  to  Somerset,  when  he 
drew  up  the  articles  of  impeachment  against  his  former 
patron.  Bacon  was  true  to  himself  when  he  made 
use  of  the  friendship  of  Essex  ;  he  was  still  true  to 
himself,  not  false  to  Essex,  when  he  used  his  powers 
to  destroy  his  former  friend. 

This  philosophic  opportunism  was  therefore  a  very 
real  thing  in  the  political  life  of  those  days.  And 
the  fact  that  Shakespeare  puts  it  into  the  mouth  not 
of  a  moralist  but  of  a  politician,  and  as  we  believe, 
into  the  mouth  of  one  whom  he  intended  to  represent 
Burleigh,  serves  to  justify  both  the  very  literal 
interpretation  we  put  upon  these  sentences,  and  the 
identification  of  Polonius  with  Elizabeth's  chief 
minister.  Needless  to  say,  one  who  like  "  Shake- 
speare "  was  imbued  with  the  best  ideals  of  feudalism, 
with  their  altruistic  conceptions  of  duty,  social  fidelity 
and  devotion  would  never  have  put  forward  as  an 
exalted  sentiment,  any  ethical  conception  resting 
upon  a  merely  personal  and  individualist  sanction. 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         473 

For  this  admiration  of  the  moral  basis  of  feudalism 
would  enlighten  him  in  a  way  which  hardly  anything 
else  could,  respecting  the  sophistry  which  lurks 
in  every  individualist  or  self-interest  system  of 
ethics. 

The  advice  of  Polonius  to  Laertes  is  given  just  Laertes  and 
as  the  latter  is  about  to  set  out  for  Paris,  and  all  the 
instructions  of  the  former  to  the  spy  Reynaldo  have 
reference  to  the  conduct  of  Laertes  in  that  city.  The 
applicability  of  it  all  to  Burleigh's  eldest  son  Thomas 
Cecil,  afterwards  Earl  of  Exeter,  and  founder  of  the 
present  house  of  Exeter,  will  be  apparent  to  any  one 
who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  G.  Ravenscroft 
Dennis's  work  on  "  The  House  of  Cecil." 

The  tendency  towards  irregularities,  at  which 
Ophelia  hints  in  her  parting  words  to  her  brother,  is 
strongly  suggestive  of  Thomas  Cecil's  life  in  Paris  ; 
and  all  the  enquiries  which  Polonius  instructs  the  spy 
to  make  concerning  Laertes  are  redolent  of  the  private 
information  which  Burleigh  was  receiving,  through  some 
secret  channel,  of  his  son  Thomas's  life  in  the  French 
capital.  For  he  writes  to  his  son's  tutor,  Windebank, 
that  he  "  has  a  watchword  sent  him  out  of  France 
that  his  son's  being  there  shall  serve  him  to  little 
purpose,  for  that  he  spends  his  time  in  idleness." 
We  are  told  that  Thomas  Cecil  incurred  his  father's 
displeasure  by  his  "  slothfulness,"  "  extravagance," 
"  carelessness  in  dress,"  "  inordinate  love  of  unmeet 
plays,  as  dice  and  cards  "  ;  and  that  he  learnt  to 
dance  and  play  at  tennis. 

With  these  things  in  mind  let  the  reader  again  go 
carefully  over  the  advice  of  Polonius  to  Laertes,  and 
the  former's  instructions  to  Reynaldo.  He  will 
hardly  escape,  we  believe,  a  sense  of  the  identity  of 


474         "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

father  and  son,  with  Burleigh  and  his  son  Thomas 
Cecil.  One  point  in  Hamlet's  relations  with  Laertes 
strikes  one  as  peculiar  :  his  sudden  and  quite  un- 
expected expression  of  affection  : 

1 '  What  is  the  reason  that  you  use  me  thus  ? 
I  loved  you  ever." 

Now  the  fact  is  that  Thomas  Cecil  was  one  entirely 
out  of  touch  with  and  in  many  ways  quite  antagonistic 
to  Burleigh  and  his  policy.  In  spite  of  his  wildness 
in  early  life  he  is  spoken  of  as  "a  brave  and  un- 
affected man  of  action,  out  of  place  in  court,  but  with 
all  the  finest  instincts  of  a  soldier."  He  was  also 
one  of  those  who,  along  with  Oxford,  favoured  the 
Queen's  marriage  with  the  Duke  of  Alenson,  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  Burleigh.  Thomas  Cecil 
was  an  older  man  than  Oxford,  and  they  had  much 
in  common  to  form  the  basis  of  affection. 
Ophelia  It  is  impossible  therefore  to  resist  the  conclusion 

Oxford  y  t*13*  P°l°nius  is  Burleigh,  and  that  Thomas  Cecil 
formed,  in  part  at  any  rate,  the  model  for  Laertes. 
This  being  so,  it  follows  almost  as  conclusively,  that 
Hamlet  is  Oxford.  For,  although  Polonius's  daughter, 
Ophelia,  was  not  actually  Hamlet's  wife,  she  represents 
that  relationship  in  the  play.  The  royal  consent 
had  been  given  to  the  marriage,  and  it  was  through 
no  fault  either  of  herself  or  her  father  that  the  union 
did  not  take  place.  Hamlet's  bearing  towards  his 
would-be  father-in-law  is  moreover  strongly  suggestive 
of  Oxford's  bearing  towards  his  actual  father-in-law. 
What  points  of  resemblance  may  have  existed  between 
Ophelia  and  Lady  Oxford  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
We  notice,  however,  that  the  few  words  the  Queen 
speaks  respecting  Ophelia  harp  on  the  idea  of  that 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         475 

sweetness  which,  we  have  noticed,  Lady  Oxford  and 
Helena  in  "  All's  Well "  had  in  common  : 

"  Sweets  to  the  sweet :  farewell  !  I  thought  thou 
should'st  have  been  my  Hamlet's  wife  .  .  .  sweet  maid." 

Something  too,  of  that  mistrust  and  peculiar  treatment 
which  Hamlet  extended  to  Ophelia  has  already  been 
remarked  in  Oxford's  bearing  towards  his  wife,  along 
with  suggestions  of  the  ultimate  growth  of  a  similar 
affection. 

We  have  also  observed  that  the  only  accusation 
which  Oxford  was  willing  to  make  against  his  wife 
was  that  she  was  allowing  her  parents  to  interfere 
between  herself  and  him.  This  is  precisely  the  state 
of  things  to  which  Hamlet  objects  in  Ophelia.  He 
perceives  that  Polonius  is  spying  upon  him  with 
her  connivance,  and  cunningly  puts  her  to  the  test ; 
whereon  she  lies  to  him.  His  reply  is  an  intimation 
to  her  that  he  had  detected  the  lie. 

Hamlet.    Where  is  your  father  ? 
Ophelia.     At  home,  my  lord. 

Hamlet.  Let  the  doors  be  shut  on  him  that  he  may 
play  the  fool  nowhere  but  in  's  own  house. 

Hamlet's  use  of  the  double  sense  of  the  word 
"  honest  "  in  a  question  to  Ophelia — the  identical 
word  which  in  its  worse  sense  was  thrust  to  the  front 
by  Burleigh  respecting  the  rupture  between  Lord  and 
Lady  Oxford — is  not  without  significance.  Polonius, 
we  take  it,  then,  furnishes  the  key  to  the  play  of 
Hamlet.  If  Burleigh  be  Polonius,  Oxford  is  Hamlet, 
and  Hamlet  we  are  entitled  to  say  is  "  Shakespeare." 

No  feature  of  the  parallelism  between  Hamlet 
and  Oxford  is  more  to  the  point  than  that  of  their 
common  interest  in  the  drama,  and  the  form  that  their 


476 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Patron  of 
drama  and 
dramatist. 


Minor 
points. 


interest  takes.  Both  are  high-born  patrons  of 
companies  of  play-actors,  showing  an  interest  in  the 
welfare  of  their  players,  sympathetic  and  instructive 
critics  in  the  technical  aspects  of  the  craft.  They 
are  no  mere  passive  supporters  of  the  drama,  but 
actually  take  a  hand  in  modifying  and  adjusting  the 
plays,  composing  passages  to  be  interpolated,  and 
generally  supervising  all  the  activities  of  their 
companies.  Not  only  in  the  play  within  the  play, 
which  forms  so  distinctive  a  feature  of  "  Hamlet," 
but  also  before  the  period  dealt  with,  it  is  evident 
that  Hamlet  had  been  so  occupied.  In  all  this  he  is 
a  direct  representation  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  and  of 
no  one  else  in  an  equal  degree  amongst  the  other 
lordly  patrons  of  drama  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign. 
To  fully  elaborate  the  parallelism  between  Hamlet 
and  Oxford  would  demand  a  rewriting  of  almost 
everything  that  is  known  of  the  latter,  illustrated 
by  the  greater  part  of  the  text  of  the  play.  We  shall 
therefore  merely  add  to  what  has  already  been  said 
several  of  the  minor  points.  Hamlet  expresses 
his  musical  feeling  and  even  suggests  musical  skill  in 
the  "  recorder  "  scene  (III.  2).  In  the  same  scene  he 
shows  his  interest  in  Italy.  The  duelling  in  which 
he  takes  part  also  has  its  counterpart  in  the  life  of 
Oxford,  and  even  the  tragic  fate  of  Polonius  at  the 
hand  of  Hamlet  is  a  reminder  of  the  unfortunate 
death  of  one  of  Burleigh's  servants  at  the  hands  of 
Oxford.  Hamlet's  desire  to  travel  had  to  yield  to 
the  opposition  of  his  mother  and  stepfather.  His 
unrealized  ambitions  for  a  military  vocation  are 
indicated  in  the  final  scene,  and  his  actual  participation 
in  a  sea-fight  is  duly  recorded.  The  death  and  burial 
of  Ophelia  at  the  time  of  Hamlet's  sea  episode  is 


HORACE,  LORD   VERE  OF  TILBURY,  FROM  A   PHOTOGRAFH    FROM  THE   PORTRAIT 

BY   M.  J.   VAN    MlEREVEI.DT   IN   THE    NATIONAL    PORTRAIT    GALLERY.   BY   Pr.R- 

MISSION  OF  EMERY  WALKER,  LIMITED. 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION          477 

elsewhere  shown  to  be  analogous  to  Lady  Oxford's 
death  about  the  same  time  as  De  Vere's  sea  experiences. 
Suggestions  of  a  correspondence  between  minor 
characters  in  the  play  and  people  with  whom  Oxford 
had  to  do  can  easily  be  detected.  Rosencrantz, 
for  example,  might  well  be  taken  for  Oxford's 
representation  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  "  the  sancti- 
monious pirate  who  went  to  sea  with  the  ten  command- 
ments " — less  one  of  them.  If  we  are  right  in  this 
guess  we  have  a  most  subtle  touch  in  Act  III,  scene  2. 
Hamlet  instead  of  saying  "  By  these  hands,"  in 
speaking  to  Rosencrantz,  coins  an  expression  from 
the  Catechism  and  calls  his  hands  his  "  pickers 
and  stealers,"  thus  indicating  most  ingeniously 
the  combination  of  piracy  with  the  religiosity  of 
Raleigh.  Hamlet's  next  ironical  remark  that  he 
himself  "  lacks  advancement "  helps  to  bear  out 
the  identification  we  suggest. 

That  the  dramatist  had  some  definite  personality  Horatio, 
in  mind  for  the  character  of  Horatio  hardly  admits 
of  doubt.  The  curious  way  in  which  he  puts 
expressions  into  the  mouth  of  Hamlet  describing 
this  personality,  without  allowing  Horatio  any  part 
in  the  play  which  would  dramatically  unfold  his 
distinctive  qualities,  marks  the  description  as  a  purely 
personal  tribute  to  some  living  man.  Here,  however, 
it  is  the  very  exactness  of  the  correspondence  of  the 
prototype,  even  to  the  detail  of  his  actual  name,  that 
makes  us  suspect  the  accuracy  of  the  identification 
we  propose.  For  the  introduction  into  the  play  of 
Oxford's  own  cousin,  Sir  Horace  de  Vere  (or,  as  the 
older  records  give  it,  Horatio  de  Vere)  seems  only 
explicable  upon  the  assumption  that  the  dramatist 
was  then  meditating — just  before  his  death — coming 


478        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

forward  to  claim  in  his  own  name  the  honours  which 
he  had  won  by  his  work ;  or,  at  any  rate,  that  he 
had  decided  that  these  honours  should  be  claimed 
on  his  behalf  immediately  after  his  death,  and  that 
Horatio  de  Vere  had  been  entrusted  with  the  responsi- 
bility. Such  an  assumption  has  full  warrant  in  the 
last  words'  which  Hamlet  addresses  to  Horatio. 
Certainly  the  agreement  is  of  a  most  surprising 
character  and  must  not  be  neglected. 

Sir  Horace  Vere  (as  he  is  also  named},  had  followed  the 
vocation  which  had  been  denied  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  and 
in  becoming  the  foremost  soldier  of  his  day,  and  chief 
of  the  "  Fighting  Veres,"  had  maintained  the  military 
traditions  of  the  family.  This  was  the  kind  of  glory 
which  Edward  de  Vere  had  desired  to  win :  an 
ambition  which  has  left  distinct  marks  in  the  Shake- 
spearean dramas.  The  passage  in  wliich  Hamlet 
describes  the  character  of  Horatio  ought  therefore 
to  be  compared  with  what  Fuller  says  of  Horatio  de 
Vere. 

Character       Hamlet  to  Horatio  : — 

de  Vertf  *  ' '  Since  my  dear  soul  was  mistress  of  her  choice, 

And  could  of  men  distinguish,  her  election 
Hath  seal'd  thee  for  herself  ;    for  thou  hast  been 
As  one,  in  suffering  all,  that  suffers  nothing, 
A  man  that  Fortune's  buffets  and  rewards 
Hast  ta'en  with  equal  thanks  ;    and  bless 'd  are  those 
Whose  blood  and  judgment  are  so  well  commingled 
That  they  are  not  a  pipe  for  fortune's  finger 
To  sound  what  stop  she  please.     Give  me  that  man 
That  is  not  passion's  slave,  and  I  will  wear  him 
In  my  heart's  core,  ay,  in  my  heart  of  heart, 
As  I  do  thee." 

Fuller's  Worthies. 
Horatio  de  Vere  had  "  more  meekness  and  as  much 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION          479 

valour  as  his  brother  (Francis).  As  for  his  temper 
it  was  true  of  him  what  is  said  of  the  Caspian  Sea, 
that  it  doth  never  ebb  nor  flow,  observing  a 
constant  tenor  neither  elated  nor  depressed,  .  .  « 
returning  from  a  victory  (in)  silence  ...  in  retreat 
(with)  cheerfulness  of  spirit." 

Sir  Horace  Vere  was  therefore  noted  amongst  his 
contemporaries  for  the  possession  of  just  such  a 
character  and  temperament  as  Hamlet  has  ascribed 
to  Horatio,  in  terms  that  have  become  classic.  And 
as  Horatio  was  the  man  selected  by  Hamlet  to  "  tell 
his  story,"  the  theory  we  put  forward,  that  "  Shake- 
speare "  had  instructed  his  cousin  Horatio  de  Vere 
to  "  report  him  and  his  cause  aright  to  the  unsatisfied," 
is  not  without  very  substantial  grounds. 

The  religious  situation  represented  in  "  Hamlet  "  Hamlet  and 
is  peculiar.  Though  Hamlet  himself  and  his  father  hls  times- 
show  distinct  traces  of  Catholicism,  we  do  not  find 
him  in  contact  with  the  institutions  and  ministrations 
of  Catholicism,  such  as  are  represented  in  "  Measure 
for  Measure,"  and  "  Romeo  and  Juliet  "  ;  nor  do 
we  find  the  other  characters  in  the  play  exhibiting 
the  same  point  of  view.  Even  Hamlet's  most  intimate 
friend,  Horatio,  evidently  differs  from  him  in  religious 
outlook.  Hamlet's  position,  therefore,  is  very  similar 
to  that  which  an  English  nobleman  of  Catholic  leanings 
would  occupy  in  court  circles  in  the  days  of  Queen 
Elizabeth.  On  the  other  hand,  Hamlet  is  not  a  Catholic 
of  the  saintly  type.  His  frankness  with  regard  to  his 
shortcomings  is  as  clear  and  genuine  as  that  shown 
by  "  Shakespeare  "  in  the  Sonnets.  Hamlet  confesses 
"  I  could  accuse  me  of  such  things  that  it  were  better 
my  mother  had  not  borne  me,"  just  as  "  Shakespeare  " 
confesses  in  his  sonnets. 


480        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

"...  you  in  me  can  nothing  worthy  prove, 
Unless  you  would  devise  some  virtuous  lie, 
To  do  more  for  me  than  mine  own  desert, 
And  hang  more  praise  upon  deceased  I 
That  niggard  truth  would  willingly  impart. 
*  *  *  * 

For  I  am  shamed  by  that  which  I  bring  forth." 

The  applicability  of  all  this  to  Edward  de  Vere, 
so  far  as  the  records  of  him  are  concerned,  is,  un- 
happily, one  point  over  which  hangs  no  shadow  of 
doubt  and  from  which  no  dispute  is  likely  to  arise. 
Religious  Nor  is  the  religious  faith  of  Hamlet  of  the  steadfast 

orthodox  kind.  His  soliloquies  reveal  a  mind  that 
had  been  touched  by  the  kind  of  scepticism  that  was 
becoming  pronounced  in  the  literary  and  dramatic 
circles  of  the  latter  half  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign. 
This  again  is  representative  of  the  mind  of  Shakespeare 
as  shown  by  the  plays  as  a  whole  :  for  the  attenuated 
Catholicism  they  contain  could  hardly  have  come  from 
the  pen  of  one  of  the  faithful.  All  this,  too,  is  in 
accord  with  the  shadowy  indications  that  are  given 
of  Oxford's  dealings  with  religion  :  his  profession  of 
Catholicism  at  one  time,  the  accusation  of  atheism 
against  him  at  another.  Hamlet's  cry,  therefore, 
that  "  the  time  is  out  of  joint,"  points  to  something 
deeper  than  his  personal  misfortunes,  and  the  tragedy 
of  his  private  life.  They  are  much  more  like  the 
outburst  of  a  writer,  himself  suffering  from  a  keen 
sense  of  the  unsatisfactory  character  of  his  whole 
social  environment :  one  out  of  rapport  with  the  age 
in  which  he  lived  ;  an  age  of  social  and  spiritual  dis- 
ruption incapable  of  satisfying  either  his  ideals  of  social 
order  or  the  poet's  need  of  a  full,  rich  and  harmonious 
spiritual  life.  All  this  personal  dissatisfaction  that 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION         481 

the  poet  expresses  through  Hamlet  is  quite  what  was 
to  be  expected  from  one  placed  as  was  Edward  de  Vere 
in  his  relations  to  the  men  and  movements  of  his 
day. 

The  aversion  which  Hamlet  shows  towards  politicians,  Social  and 
lawyers,  and  land-buyers  has  no  real  connection  with  aversions, 
the  plot  of  the  drama  ;  it  is  evidently  then  an  expres- 
sion of  the  author's  personal  feelings  towards  the  times 
in  which  he  lived  :  to  what  he  calls  "  the  fatness  of 
those  pursy  times  " — times  which  were  glorying  in 
being  no  longer  "  priest-ridden,"  but  which,  he 
perceived,  had  only  exchanged  masters,  and  were 
becoming  politician-ridden,  lawyer-ridden  and  money- 
ridden.  These  were  indeed  precisely  the  middle  class 
forces  which  were  rising  into  power  upon  the  ruins 
of  that  very  feudalism  which  "  Shakespeare,"  on 
the  one  hand  delineates,  and  Edward  de  Vere,  on  the 
other  hand  personally  represents.  In  this  again  we 
see  Hamlet,  "  Shakespeare "  and  Edward  de  Vere 
are  entirely  at  one  in  relation  to  the  times  in  which 
the  play  was  written. 

Hamlet  laments  in  relation  to  his  time  "  O,  cursed 
spite  that  ever  I  was  born  to  set  it  right."  And  yet 
the  setting  right  has  not  been  achieved  though  three 
centuries  have  passed  away  since  "  Shakespeare " 
penned  this  lament.  Still,  if  the  new  order  for  which 
the  "  prophetic  soul "  of  "  Shakespeare  "  looked  is 
to  arise  at  last  through  a  reinterpretation,  and  applica- 
tion to  modern  problems,  of  social  principles  which 
existed  in  germ  in  medievalism,  then,  "  Shakespeare," 
in  helping  to  preserve  the  best  ideals  of  feudalism, 
will  have  been  a  most  potent  factor  in  the  solution 
of  those  social  problems  which  in  our  day  are  assuming 
threatening  proportions  throughout  the  civilized  world, 
3* 


482         "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

The  feudal  ideal  which  we  once  more  emphasize  is 
that  of  noblesse  oblige  ;  the  devotion  of  the  strong 
to  the  weak  ;  the  principle  that  all  power  of  one  man 
over  his  fellows,  whether  it  rests  upon  a  political  or 
industrial  basis,  can  only  possess  an  enduring  sanction 
so  long  as  superiors  discharge  faithfully  their  duties 
to  inferiors.  In  this  task  of  "  putting  right,"  Hamlet 
or  "  Shakespeare,"  who  we  believe  was  Edward  de 
Vere,  through  the  silent  spiritual  influences  which  have 
spread  from  his  dramas,  will  probably  have  contributed 
as  much  as  any  other  single  force. 

Political  Not  as  an  important  part  of  our  argument,  but  as 

strengthening  the  feeling  of  a  connection  between 
the  play  of  Hamlet  and  events  in  England  at  the  time 
when  it  appeared,  the  rising  of  the  citizens  of  Elsinor 
with  the  cry  "  Laertes  shall  be  king,"  is  suggestive 
of  the  rising  in  London  under  Essex,  though  it  must 
not  be  omitted  that  Thomas  Cecil,  who  in  some  respects 
resembles  Laertes,  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  putting 
down  the  Essex  rebellion.  Again  the  change,  not 
only  in  the  occupants  of  the  throne  but  also  of  dynasties 
in  Denmark,  "  the  election  lighting  on  Fortinbras," 
from  the  neighbouring  country  of  Poland,  is  suggestive 
of  a  similar  change  in  England  when,  consequent 
upon  the  royal  nomination,  England  received  the 
first  of  a  new  dynasty  from  the  neighbouring  country 
of  Scotland.  In  this  case  Fortinbras  would  be 
James  I,  and  Oxford's  officiating  at  the  coronation 
might  appear  as  an  equivalent  to  Hamlet's  dying 
vote,  "  He  has  my  dying  voice." 

For  Oxford  would  probably  be  of  those  who  expected 
from  the  son  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  more  sympathy 
with  what  his  mother  represented  than  James  actually 
showed.  A  comparison  of  the  different  editions  of 


DRAMATIC    SELF-REVELATION         483 

"  Hamlet  "  in  respect  to  these  political  matters  might 
disclose  interesting  particulars. 

In  view  of  all  that  is  known  of  Edward  de  Vere,  Hamlet's 
and  of  "  Shakespeare  "  as  revealed  in  the  Sonnets,  ying  aPPea 
no  other  words  contained  in  the  great  dramas  surpass, 
either  in  significance  in  relation  to  our  problem,  or 
in  power  of  moving  appeal,  than  the  parting  words 
which  Hamlet  addresses  to  Horatio.  The  more  they 
are  dwelt  upon  the  less  appropriate  do  they  appear 
to  the  fictitious  Hamlet,  and  the  more  do  they  sound 
like  a  real  heart-wrung  cry  from  the  dramatist  himself 
for  reparation  and  for  justice  to  his  memory.  Put 
Edward  de  Vere  quite  out  of  the  question  ;  remember 
only  that  "  Shakespeare,"  in  sonnets  written  years 
before  the  drama,  had  spoken  of  himself  as  a  man  living 
under  a  cloud  of  disrepute  beyond  anything  he  had 
merited,  desiring  for  himself  nothing  more  than  to 
pass  from  life's  scene  in  such  a  way  that  his  name 
would  drop  from  the  memory  of  man,  then  read  the 
dying  words  of  Hamlet : 

"  Had  I  but  time  as  this  fell  sergeant,  death, 
Is  strict  in  his  arrest,  0,  I  could  tell  you, — • 
But  let  it  be.     Horatio,  I  am  dead  ; 
Thou  livest  ;    report  me  and  my  cause  aright 
To  the  unsatisfied. 

O  good  Horatio,  what  a  wounded  name 
Things  standing  thus  unknown,  shall  live  behind  me  ! 
If  ever  thou  did'st  hold  me  in  thy  heart. 
Absent   thee   from   felicity   awhile, 
And  in  this  harsh  world  draw  thy  breath  in  pain, 
To  tell  my  story.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  The  rest  is  silence." 

If,  therefore,  Hamlet  may  be  regarded  as  an  indirect 
dramatic  self -revelation  of  Shakespeare,  so  evidently 
do  these  dying  words  link  themselves  on  to  explicit 


484        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 
Reparation     statements  in  his  direct  poetic   self-revelation,  that 

demanded.       ,,  ,  ,        .,,        ,    . 

they  may  be  accepted,  without  in  any  way  straining 
a  point,  as  a  dying  appeal  of  "  Shakespeare,"  whoever 
he  may  have  been,  that  his  true  story  should  be  told 
and  his  name  cleared  of  the  blemishes  that  '  vulgar 
scandal '  had  stamped  upon  it.  The  change  of  attitude 
was  justified  by  what  he  had  accomplished  in  the 
interval.  His  was  no  longer  the  record  of  a  wasted 
genius.  Sitting  apparently  "  in  idle  cell,"  he  had 
achieved  something  which  altered  the  whole  aspect 
of  his  title  to  honour.  He  had  created,  and  offered 
as  an  atonement  for  any  shortcomings  of  which  he 
had  been  guilty — and  who,  indeed,  has  not  ? — the 
most  magnificent  achievement  that  English  literature 
can  boast ;  one  of  the  three  greatest  achievements  in 
the  literature  of  the  world.  It  is  impossible  to  resist 
the  conviction,  then,  that  these  dying  words  of  Hamlet's 
were  intended  for  some  friend  of  "  Shakespeare's," 
who,  from  some  cause  or  other,  has  fallen  short  in  the 
discharge  of  the  trust  with  which  he  was  honoured  ; 
though  the  publishing  of  the  sonnets,  and  of  the 
folio  editions  of  Shakespeare,  may  have  been  a  partial 
discharge  of  this  trust. 

Although  these  things  are  applicable  to  any  "  Shake- 
speare," and  any  man  to  whom  they  will  not  apply  is, 
ipso  facto,  excluded,  it  would  appear,  from  all  claim 
or  title  in  the  matter,  it  is  to  Edward  de  Vere  alone, 
so  far  as  we  can  discover,  that  they  can  be  made 
to  apply  fully  and  directly.  When,  then,  we  find 
that  this  particular  play,  although  appearing  un- 
authentically  in  a  curtailed  form  the  previous  year, 
was  published,  much  as  we  have  it  now,  in  the  year 
of  his  death,  and  then,  although  no  further  revision 
appeared  for  eighteen  years,  an  edition  appeared 


DRAMATIC   SELF-REVELATION          485 

containing  alterations  upon  which  he  had  evidently 
been  engaged  at  the  time  of  his  death,  we  can  read 
in  these  closing  passages  of  the  play  nothing  less  than 
a  final  call  for  justice  and  for  the  honour  he  had 
merited  by  his  work. 

For  three  hundred  years  actors  have  uttered  and  A  future 
audiences  have  listened  to  these  tragic  and  pathetic 
passages,  never  dreaming  that  they  came  out  of  the 
inmost  soul  and  the  bitter  experiences  of  the  writer. 
Their  deep  personal  significance  we  claim  to  be  making 
known  now  for  the  first  time  ;  and  we  trust  that  our 
own  imperfectly  accomplished  labours  may  achieve 
something  towards  winning  that  redress  for  which 
our  great  dramatist  has  so  dramatically  appealed. 

The  whole  story  of  his  life,  as  he  may  have  wished 
it  to  be  told,  will  probably  never  be  known.  To 
reinterpret  the  known  facts  by  the  light  of  the  Shake- 
spearean literature,  in  which  work  we  have  made 
the  first  essay,  will  doubtless  yield  larger  and  truer 
results  when  others  have  taken  up  the  task.  There 
is  also  the  possibility  that  new  data  may  be  unearthed, 
and  this,  together  with  the  gathering  together  and 
unifying  of  facts  scattered  through  the  diverse  records 
of  other  men,  may  bring  to  light  the  things  "  standing 
yet  unknown  "  which  were  in  his  mind.  The  greatest 
of  the  facts  "  standing  thus  unknown  "  is  that  which 
is  now  announced,  and  its  substantiation  will  go 
further  towards  healing  his  "  wounded  name  "  than 
any  other  single  fact  that  may  in  future  be  laid 
bare. 

On  a  review  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  it  will 
hardly  be  denied  that  the  number  of  the  particulars, 
and  the  general  unity  of  the  plan,  which  bring  the 


486        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

greatest  "  Shakespeare  "  masterpiece  into  accord  with 
the  life  and  personality  of  the  man  whom  we  selected, 
on  quite  other  grounds,  as  the  probable  author  of  the 
play,  is  not  the  least  remarkable  of  the  series  of  corre- 
spondences that  have  appeared  at  every  step  of  our 
investigations. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

CHRONOLOGICAL    SUMMARY    OF    EDWARD    DE    VERB 
AND  "  SHAKESPEARE  " 

THE  biographical  parts  of  this  work  are  not 
intended  in  any  sense  as  a  biography  of  Oxford, 
nor  as  an  adequate  representation  either  of  himself 
or  of  the  different  people  whose  lives  were  mixed 
with  his.  Everything  is  treated  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  main  argument,  which  is  concerned 
primarily  with  the  identification  of  the  author  of 
Shakespeare's  plays  and  in  a  secondary  way 
with  the  correction  of  a  false  and  incomplete 
conception  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  that  has  become 
established.  In  the  statement  of  our  argument  we 
have  been  able  to  preserve  only  a  very  general  adhesion 
to  chronological  order.  Events  that  may  have  been 
separated  by  many  years  have  sometimes  had  to  be 
stated  together  owing  to  their  relation  to  some  specific 
point  of  evidence.  A  certain  amount  of  overlapping 
of  the  periods  and  much  repetition  of  facts  has  there- 
fore been  unavoidable.  As  a  necessary  corrective 
we  now  offer  the  following  summarized  statement 
of  events  in  the  order  in  which  they  occurred. 

Early  Period. 

1550.    Birth  of  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth  Earl 

of  Oxford  (April  2nd). 

1556.    Birth  of  Anne  Cecil  (December  5th). 

487 


488        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

Early  I558.     Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Period          1562.     Death  of  Oxford's  father :    Oxford  becomes 

(conttnuea).  a  rovai  war(j)  an(j  an  inmate  of  Cecil's  house 

in  The  Strand.    Arthur  Golding  (his  uncle), 
translator  of  Ovid,  becomes  his  private  tutor. 

1568.  Oxford's     mother    died     (having     previously 

married      Sir      Charles — or     Christopher — 
Tyrell.     Date  of  marriage  unknown). 

1569.  Oxford  seeks  military  service  and  is  refused. 
1571.     Cecil  becomes  Lord  Burleigh. 

Oxford  comes  of  age :     marries  Anne  Cecil. 

1573.  Arthur   Golding  enrolled   in   "  Inner  Temple 

Records." 
Hatton  writes  to  Queen  Elizabeth  of  Oxford 

(as  "  the  boar  "). 
"  Oxford's   men "    indulge   in   wild   escapade 

suggestive  of  Prince  Hal  and  his  men  on 

the  identical  road  (between  Gravesend  and 

Rochester). 
Oxford  asks    for  naval    employment   and    is 

refused. 
Oxford    has    apartments    in    the    Savoy  :     a 

literary  centre. 

1574.  Oxford  runs   away  to  the  continent   and  is 

brought  back. 

I575-     Oxford  visits  Italy  :  Milan,  Venice,  and  Padua. 

(Particulars  suggestive  of  "  Taming  of  the 

Shrew  "  and  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice  "). 

1576.     Returns     via     Paris.      Writes     from     Paris 

particulars  suggestive  of  "  Othello." 
Temporary  estrangement  from  Lady  Oxford. 
Remarkable    episode     recorded    in    Wright's 
History  of  Essex  identifying  Oxford  with 
Bertram  in  "  All's  Well." 


CHRONOLOGICAL   SUMMARY  489 

Middle  Period. 

1576.     Begins    Bohemian    association    with    literary 

men  and  play-actors. 

1576-8.     Publication  of  many  early  lyrics. 
Letter  to  Bedingfield. 
Rivalry  with  Philip  Sidney. 
1579.     Oxford's  quarrel  with  Sidney. 

Publication  of  Edmund  Spenser's  *'  Shepherd's 
Calender  "  containing  probable  reference  to 
Oxford's  rivalry  with  Sidney:  "Willie  and 
Perigot." 

1580. .  Antony  Munday,  playwright  and  theatre 
manager,  discloses  that  he  is  the  servant  of 
the  Earl  of  Oxford.  Munday 's  plays  contain 
passages  not  written  by  himself :  passages 
which  "  might  have  rested  in  the  mind  of 
Shakespeare." 
1580-4.  Oxford's  company  (The  Oxford  Boys)  tour 

in  the  provinces. 
Lyly,    Oxford's  private    secretary,    entrusted 

with  their  management. 

1584.     Oxford's    company   visits    Stratford-on-Avon. 
1584-7.     The  "  Oxford  Boys  "  established  in  London. 
They  perform  plays  written  by  Oxford. 
Oxford    Boys    perform     "  Agamemnon    and 
Ulysses." 

1586.  Trial  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots — Oxford  takes  part. 
Death  of  Sir  Philip  Sidney. 

1587.  Mary  executed. 
Sidney's  funeral. 

1588.  Death  of  Lady  Oxford. 

The  Earl  of  Oxford  takes  part  in  the  sea- 
fight  against  the  Spanish  Armada. 
Oxford  begins  his  life  of  privacy  and  retirement. 


490          "SHAKESPEARE11    IDENTIFIED 

Final  Period. 

1590.  Spenser  publishes  "  Teares  of  the  Muses  "  with 
probable  reference  to  Oxford  (as  Willie) 
"  sitting  in  idle  cell." 

Beginning   of   William   Shakspere's   career. 
Supposed  date  of  first  sonnets. 
Proposed    marriage  of    De    Vere's  daughter, 
Elizabeth,   to   Henry  Wriothesley,   Earl  of 
Southampton,   to  which   proposal  the   first 
of  the  sonnets  have  been  attributed. 
1591  or  2.     Oxford's  second  marriage  (complete  retire- 
ment). 
1592-1601.     Great  Blank  in  Oxford's  record. 

1592.  Date   assigned   to    "  Love's   Labour's   Lost." 

(containing  representations  of  contemporary 
men). 

1593.  Birth  of  Oxford's  son  Henry  (Feb.  24th). 
Dedication  of  "  Venus  "  to  Southampton. 

1594.  Dedication  of  "  Lucrece  "  to  Southampton. 
1597-1604.    Great  period  of  Shakespearean  publication. 

1597.  The  great  issue  of  Shakespeare's  plays  begins. 

1598.  The  name  "  Shakespeare  "  first  printed  on  the 

plays. 

1600.  Rush  of  Shakespearean  publications  (6  in  the 

year). 

1601.  Rising  under  the  Earl  of  Essex. 

1601.  The  Earl  of  Oxford  emerges  from  his  retire- 

ment to  take  part  in  the  trial  of  the  Earls 
of  Essex  and  Southampton. 

1602.  Date  assigned  to  "  Hamlet." 

A  notable  gap  :  Southampton  in  The  Tower  ; 
Blank  in  accounts  of  the  Treasurer  of  the 
Chamber. 


CHRONOLOGICAL   SUMMARY  491 

Oxford's  servants  play  at  the  "Boar's  Head" 

tavern. 
Pirated  edition  of  "  Merry  Wives  "  published. 

1603.  "  Hamlet  "    unauthentically    published. 
Death  of  Queen  Elizabeth — no  tribute  from 

"  Shakespeare  "  or  Oxford. 
Oxford  officiates  at  coronation  of  James  I. 
Southampton  liberated — arranges  performance 

of   "  Love's   Labour's   Lost "   for  the   new 

Queen. 
Last  of  "  Shakespeare's  "  sonnets  written. 

1604.  Authentic  publication  of  "  Hamlet." 
Date  assigned  to  "Othello." 
Death  of  Edward  de  Vere. 

Last   of   authentic   Shakespearean   issues   for 

18  years. 
William  Shakspere's  supposed  retirement    to 

Stratford   (according  to   some   Stratfordian 

authorities). 
Southampton's  connection  with  William  Shak- 

spere  ceases. 

Posthumous  Matters. 

1605-1608.     Suspension  of  Shakespearean  publication. 
1608-1609.    Slight  revival. 

Publication  of  three  plays  and  the  Sonnets, 

all  published  unauthentically. 
1612.     Second  Lady  Oxford  dies. 

Date    assigned    for    William    Shakspere's 

complete  retirement  from  London. 
1616.    Death  of  William  Shakspere. 

1622.  Separate  publication  of  "  Othello." 

1623.  The  First  Folio  "  Shakespeare  "  published. 

1624.  Death  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton. 


492        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

1632.  The  Second  Folio  Shakespeare  published. 
Publication  of  Lyly's  plays  by  the  same  firm. 
There  appears  for  the  first  time  in  these  plays 
a  set  of  excellent  lyrics  which  had  been 
omitted  from  all  previous  editions  of  Lyly's 
work. 

1635    Death  of  Sir  Horace  Vere  (April  2nd) 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
CONCLUSION 

"  WE  called  Dante  the  melodious  Priest  of  Middle  - 
Age  Catholicism.  May  we  not  call  Shakespeare  the 
still  more  melodious  Priest  of  a  true  Catholicism, 
the  Universal  Church  of  the  Future  and  of  all  times.' 

CARLYLE,  "  Heroes." 

We  may  now  bring  our  labours  to  a  close  with 
a  review  of  the  course  our  investigations  have  taken, 
and  a  summary  of  their  results.  Having  examined 
both  the  internal  and  external  conditions  of  the  old 
theory  of  Shakespearean  authorship,  we  found  that 
the  whole  presented  such  an  accumulation  and 
combination  of  anomalies  as  to  render  it  no  longer 
tenable.  We  therefore  undertook  the  solution  of 
problem  of  authorship  thus  presented. 

Beginning  with  a  characterization  of  Shakespeare 
drawn  from  a  consideration  of  his  writings,  a  character- 
ization embracing  no  less  than  eighteen  points  and 
involving  a  most  unusual  combination,  we  proceeded 
to  look  for  the  dramatist.  Using  the  form  of  the 
"  Venus  and  Adonis  "  stanza  as  a  guide,  we  selected 
one  Elizabethan  poem  in  this  form,  which  seemed 
to  bear  the  greatest  resemblance  to  Shakespeare's 
workmanship.  The  author  of  this  poem,  Edward 
de  Vere,  was  found  to  fulfil  in  all  essentials  the  delinea- 
tion of  Shakespeare  with  which  we  set  out, 

493 


494        "SHAKESPEARE'     IDENTIFIED 

We  next  found  that  competent  literary  authorities, 
in  testifying  to  the  distinctive  qualities  of  his  work, 
spoke  of  his  poems  in  terms  appropriate  to  "  Shake- 
speare." An  examination  of  his  position  in  the  history 
of  Elizabethan  poetry  showed  him  to  be  a  possible 
source  of  the  Shakespeare  literature,  whilst  an 
examination  of  his  lyrics  revealed  a  most  remarkable 
correspondence  both  in  general  qualities  and  in  impor- 
tant details  with  the  other  literary  work  which  we  now 
attribute  to  him.  Turning  next  to  the  records  of 
his  life  and  of  his  family  we  found  that  these  were 
fully  reflected  in  the  dramas  :  the  contents  of  which 
bear  pronounced  marks  of  all  the  outstanding  incidents 
and  personal  relationships  of  his  career,  whilst  the 
special  conditions  of  his  life  at  the  time  when  these 
plays  were  being  produced  were  just  such  as  accorded 
with  the  issuing  of  the  works. 

His  death,  we  found,  was  followed  by  an  immediate 
arrest  of  Shakespearean  publication,  and  by  a  number 
of  other  striking  evidences  of  the  removal  of  the  great 
dramatist,  whilst  a  temporary  revival  of  publication 
a  few  years  later  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  give 
additional  support  to  the  view  that  the  author  was 
then  dead.  Finally,  we  have  shown  that  the  sonnets 
are  now  made  intelligible  for  the  first  time  since  their 
appearance,  and  that  the  great  dramatic  tour  de  force 
of  the  author  is  nothing  less  than  an  idealized 
portraiture  of  himself. 

Summed  up  we  have  : — 

1.  The  evidences  of  the  poetry. 

2.  The  general  biographical  evidence. 

3.  The  chronological  evidence. 

4.  The  posthumous  evidence. 


CONCLUSION  495 

5.  The  special  arguments  : 

(a)  The  "  All's  Well "  argument. 

(b)  The  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost  "  argument. 

(c)  The  "  Othello  "  argument. 

(d)  The  Sonnets  argument. 

(e)  The  "  Hamlet  "  argument. 

It  is  the  perfect  harmony,  consistency  and 
convergence  of  all  the  various  lines  of  argument 
employed,  and  the  overwhelming  mass  of  coincidences 
that  they  involve,  that  give  to  our  results  the  appear- 
ance of  a  case  fully  and,  we  believe,  unimpeachably 
proven. 

We  have  by  no  means  exhausted  the  subject,  however. 
Not  only  does  much  remain  to  be  said,  but  it  may  be 
that  in  taking  so  decisive  a  step,  involving  the  re- 
adjustment of  more  than  one  long-established  con- 
ception, some  statements  have  been  made  that  later 
will  have  to  be  modified  or  withdrawn.  Working,  too, 
amongst  a  mass  of  details,  in  what  was  previously  an 
unfamiliar  domain,  it  is  possible  that  serious  errors 
have  slipped  in.  In  arguments  like  the  present, 
however,  whole  lines  of  subsidiary  evidence  may 
break  down  and  yet  leave  the  central  contention 
firmly  and  unassailably  established. 

It  would  not  in  the  least  surprise  us,  moreover,  if 
particular  items  of  evidence  much  more  conclusive 
than  any  single  argument  we  have  offered,  should 
be  forthcoming,  or  even  if  it  should  be  pointed  out 
that  we  have  blunderingly  overlooked  some  vital 
matter.  From  experience  in  the  course  of  our  enquiries 
we  have  no  fear  that  any  such  oversight  will  appreci- 
ably affect  the  validity  of  the  argument  as  a  whole. 
For  the  detection  of  oversights  hitherto  has  but 
brought  additional  strength  to  our  position ;  and 


496        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

so  frequently  has  this  occurred  in  the  past  that  it  is 
difficult  to  think  of  it  having  any  other  effect  in 
the  future.  Only  one  conclusion  then  seems  possible  ; 
namely,  that  the  problem  of  the  authorship  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  has  been  solved,  and  that  all  future 
enquiry  is  destined  to  furnish  but  an  accumulating 
support  to  the  solution  here  proposed. 

It  will  be  seen  that  only  in  a  general  way  has  it 
been  possible  to  adhere,  in  our  last  chapters,  to  the 
plan  of  investigation  outlined  at  the  start.  In  tracing 
indications  of  the  life  and  personality  of  Edward 
de  Vere  in  the  writings  of  Shakespeare,  much  of  the 
ground  mapped  out  for  separate  succeeding  stages 
of  the  enquiry  has  been  covered.  The  sixth  stage 
was  to  gather  together  "  corroborative  evidence," 
and  this  is  largely  furnished  by  the  last  two  chapters 
in  which  the  poetic  and  the  dramatic  self-revelation 
of  the  poet  are  respectively  dealt  with.  The  seventh 
stage,  to  develop  personal  connections,  if  possible, 
between  the  new  author  and  the  old  authorship, 
including  the  man  William  Shakspere,  is  covered  by 
those  biographical  chapters  which  treat  of  Arthur 
Golding,  the  translator  of  Ovid;  Anthony  Munday, 
the  playwright ;  Lyly,  Oxford's  private  secretary  and 
"  Shakespeare's  only  model  in  Comedy  "  ;  and  lastly 
Henry  Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Southampton,  to  whom 
the  Shakespeare  poems  are  dedicated,  who  is  known 
as  the  munificent  friend  of  William  Shakspere,  and  in 
whom  the  Earl  of  Oxford  manifested  a  special  interest. 

The  task  which  we  set  out  to  accomplish  has  there- 
fore been  performed  in  sufficient  accordance  with  the 
original  plan.  However  unworthy  of  so  great  a  theme 
the  manner  of  presenting  the  case  may  be,  it  is 
impossible  not  to  feel  gratified  at  the  good  fortune 


CONCLUSION  497 

that  has  attended  our  excursion  into  a  department 
that  is  not  specially  our  own.  In  the  brief  moment 
of  conscious  existence  which  lies  between  the  two 
immensities  Destiny  has  honoured  us  with  this 
particular  task,  and  though  it  may  not  be  the  work 
we  could  have  wished  to  do,  we  are  glad  to  have 
been  able  to  do  so  much. 

The  matter  must  now  pass  out  of  our  hands,  and  the 
case  must  be  tried  in  public  by  means  of  a  discussion 
in  which  expert  opinion  must  play  a  large  part  in  the 
formation  of  a  definitive  judgment.  Whether  such 
discussion  be  immediate  or  deferred,  we  have  no 
doubt  that  it  must  come  at  some  time  or  other,  and 
that,  when  it  does  come,  the  ultimate  verdict  will 
be  to  proclaim  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth  Earl 
of  Oxford,  as  the  real  author  of  the  greatest  master- 
pieces in  English  literature. 

We  venture,  therefore,  to  make  an  earnest  appeal 
first  of  all  to  the  thoughtful  sections  of  all  classes  of 
the  British  public,  and  not  merely  of  the  literary 
classes,  to  examine,  and  even  to  insist  upon  an 
authoritative  examination,  of  the  evidence  adduced. 
The  matter  belongs,  of  course,  to  the  world  at  large. 
But  England  must  bear  the  greater  part  of  the 
responsibility;  and  her  honour  is  involved  in  seeing 
that  a  question  of  the  name  and  fame  of  one  of  the 
most  illustrious  of  her  immortal  dead,  the  one  name 
which  England  has  stamped  most  unquestionably 
upon  the  intellectual  life  of  the  human  race,  is  not 
given  over  to  mere  literary  contentiousness.  We  are 
bound,  however,  to  make  a  special  appeal  to  those, 
whose  intellectual  equipment  and  opportunities  fit 
them  for  the  examination  of  the  argument,  to  approach 
the  problem  in  an  impartial  spirit.  It  will  not  be 


498        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

an  easy  thing  for  Stratfordians  or  Baconians  of  many 
years'  standing  to  admit  that  they  were  wrong,  and 
that  the  problem  has  at  last  solved  itself  in  a  way 
contrary  to  all  their  former  views.  To  sincere 
admirers  of  "  Shakespeare,"  however,  those  who 
have  caught  something  of  his  largeness  of  intellectual 
vision  and  fidelity  to  fact,  the  difficulty  of  recogniz- 
ing and  admitting  an  error  will  not  prove  insuperable, 
whilst  their  power  of  thus  aiding  in  a  great  act  of 
justice  will  be  immense. 

In  addition  to  securing  the  recognition  of  Edward 
de  Vere  as  the  author  of  Shakespeare's  works,  much 
remains  to  be  done  in  the  way  of  lifting  the  load  of 
disrepute  from  his  memory,  and  winning  for  his  name 
the  honour  that  is  his  by  right.  "  That  gentle  spirit," 
as  we  believe  Spenser  to  have  described  him  and  as 
his  own  verses  reveal  him  (according  so  well  as  the 
expression  does  with  our  "Gentle  Shakespeare"), 
has  remained  for  too  many  years  under  the  "unlifted 
shadow." 

Whatever  his  faults  may  have  been,  we  have  in  him 
a  soul  awake  at  every  point  to  all  that  touches  human 
life.  All  high  aspiration  and  endeavour  find  their 
encouragement  in  his  work,  and  no  phase  of  human 
suffering  or  weakness  but  meets  in  him  a  kindly  and 
sympathetic  treatment,  even  when  his  mockery  is 
most  trenchant.  "  The  man  whom  Nature's  self 
had  made,  to  mock  herself  and  truth  to  imitate  with 
kindly  counter  under  mimic  shade  " — the  terms  in 
which  we  have  shown  Spenser  speaks  of  De  Vere, 
and  which  so  accurately  describe  "  Shakespeare  " — 
could  be  no  profligate.  The  irregularities  to  which 
the  Shakespearean  sonnets  bear  witness  are  beyond 
question  rooted  in  sincerity  of  character  and  tender- 


CONCLUSION  499 

ness  of  heart.  We  do  not  condone  such,  but  we  are 
bound  to  draw  a  very  marked  distinction  between 
this  and  mere  dissoluteness.  All  that  Shakespeare 
has  written,  and  every  line  of  De  Vere,  bespeaks  a 
man  who,  even  in  the  lowest  depths  of  pessimism, 
and  in  his  moments  of  bitterest  cynicism,  had  kept 
alive  the  highest  faculties  of  his  mind  and  heart. 
No  man  of  persistently  loose  life  can  do  this ;  and, 
therefore,  the  establishing  of  the  identity  of  Edward 
de  Vere  with  "  Shakespeare  "  demands  the  relinquish- 
ing of  all  those  superficial  judgments  that  might  have 
been  allowed  to  pass  unchallenged  so  long  as  Edward 
de  Vere  was  supposed  to  be  a  person  of  no  particular 
moment  in  the  history  of  his  country  or  the  world. 

Until  now  the  world  has  moreover  seen  and  known 
in  him  only  the  eccentricity  and  turbulence  of  Hamlet. 
The  real  Hamlet,  tender-hearted  and  passionate, 
whose  deep  and  melancholy  soul  broods  affectionately 
upon  the  great  tragedy  of  human  life,  and  who  yet 
preserves  the  light  of  intellect  and  humour,  whose 
"  noble  heart  "  breaks  at  last  but  who  carries  on  his 
fight  to  the  last  moment  of  life,  when  the  pen,  not  the 
sword,  drops  from  his  fingers,  is  the  Hamlet  which 
we  must  now  see  in  Edward  de  Vere,  as  he  stands 
before  the  world  as  "  Shakespeare."  The  fret  and 
trouble  of  his  objective  life  in  the  Elizabethan  age 
have  hung  around  his  memory  for  over  three  hundred 
years.  All  this,  we  believe,  is  about  to  end ;  and,  the 
period  of  his  purgation  passed,  we  may  confidently 
hope  that,  entering  into  the  full  possession  of  his 
honours,  a  time  of  still  richer  spiritual  influence 
awaits  his  continued  existence  in  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  men. 

"  The  fatness  of  these  pursy  times,"  against  which 


500        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

his  whole  career  was  a  protest,  has  settled  more  than 
ever  upon  the  life  of  mankind,  and  the  culminating 
product  of  this  modern  materialism  is  the  world  war 
that  was  raging  whilst  the  most  of  these  pages  were 
being  penned — a  war  which  has  been  the  most  insane 
gamble  for  material  power  that  the  undisciplined 
instinct  of  domination  has  ever  inflicted  upon  a 
suffering  humanity  ;  threatening  the  complete  sub- 
mergence of  the  soul  of  civilized  man.  Yet  amongst 
the  projects  of  "  after  the  war  "  reconstruction  that 
were  being  set  afoot,  even  whilst  it  was  in  progress, 
materialistic  purposes  everywhere  prevailed.  In 
education,  for  example,  where  especially  spiritual 
aims  should  have  dominated,  commercial  and  industrial 
objects  were  chiefly  considered.  And  now  that  the 
conflict  is  over,  the  entire  disruption  of  social  exist- 
ence is  threatened  by  material  "  interests "  and 
antagonisms. 

Against  this  the  spirit  of  "  Shakespeare "  again 
protests.  His  "  prophetic  soul,"  still  "  dreaming  on 
things  to  come,"  points  to  a  future  in  which  the  human 
spirit,  and  its  accessory  instruments  and  institutions, 
must  become  the  supreme  concern  of  man.  The 
squandering  of  his  own  material  resources,  though 
unwise  in  itself,  was  the  soul's  reaction  against  the 
growing  Mammon  worship  of  his  day  :  and  the  fidelity 
with  which  he  represents  in  his  plays  the  chivalries 
of  feudalism  is  the  expression  of  an  affection  for  those 
social  relationships  which  minister  to  the  finer  spirit 
in  man.  He  stands,  then,  for  an  enlarged  and  enriched 
conception  of  spiritual  things :  a  conception  em- 
bracing the  entire  range  of  man's  mental  and  moral 
faculties,  from  gayest  laughter  and  subtle  playfulness 
to  profoundest  thought  and  tragic  earnestness  of 


CONCLUSION  501 

purpose.  He  stands  for  these  things,  and  he  stands 
for  their  supremacy  in  human  life,  involving  the 
subordination  of  every  other  human  concern  to  these 
spiritual  forces  and  interests. 

More  than  ever  in  the  coming  years  shall  we  need 
the  spirit  of  "  Shakespeare  "  to  assist  in  the  work 
of  holding  the  "  politician "  and  the  materialist, 
ever  manoeuvring  for  ascendancy  in  human  affairs,  to 
their  secondary  position  in  subordination  to,  and  under 
the  discipline  of,  the  spiritual  elements  of  society. 
We  cannot,  of  course,  go  back  to  "Shakespeare's" 
medisevalism,  but  we  shall  need  to  incorporate  into 
modern  life  what  was  best  in  the  social  order  and 
social  spirit  of  the  Middle  Ages.  "  The  prophetic 
soul  of  the  wide  world  "  fills  its  vision,  not  with  a 
state  of  more  intense  material  competition  and 
increased  luxury,  but  with  a  social  order  in  which 
the  human  heart  and  mind  will  have  larger  facilities 
for  expansion ;  in  which  poetry,  music,  the  drama, 
and  art  in  all  its  forms  will  throw  an  additional  charm 
over  a  life  of  human  harmony  and  mutual  helpfulness  ; 
in  which,  therefore,  "  Shakespeare,"  "  our  ever-living 
poet,"  will  be  an  intimate  personal  influence  when 
the  heroes  of  our  late  Titanic  struggle  will  be  either 
forgotten  or  will  only  appear  dimly  in  the  pages  of 
history. 

His  works  do  not,  and  can  never  supply  all  that 
the  human  soul  requires.  To  satisfy  the  deepest 
needs  of  mankind  the  Shakespearean  scriptures  must 
be  supplemented  by  the  other  great  scriptures  of 
our  race ;  and  all  together  they  will  only  meet  our 
full  demands  in  so  far  as  they  succeed  in  putting 
before  us  the  guiding  image  of  a  divine  Humanity. 
In  this  work,  however,  "  Shakespeare  "  will  always 


502        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

retain  a  foremost  place.  Speaking  no  longer  from 
behind  a  mask  or  from  under  a  pseudonym,  but  in  his 
own  honoured  name,  Edward  de  Vere,  Seventeenth 
Earl  of  Oxford,  will  ever  call  mankind  to  the  worship 
of  truth,  reality,  the  infinite  wonder  of  human  nature 
and  the  eternal  greatness  of  Man. 


APPENDIX  I 

"  THE  TEMPEST  " 

"  I  DO  not  discern  those  marks  of  long  practice  in  the 
dramatic  art  and  the  full  maturity  of  the  poet's  genius 
which  some  have  discovered  in  (The  Tempest)." 

HUNTER. 

Although,  as  was  inevitable,  difficulties  have  arisen  its  place 
in  the  course  of  our  investigations,  the  surprising 
thing  has  been  that  they  have  proved  so  few  and 
unformidable.  Up  to  the  present,  the  greatest 
obstacle  is  that  presented  by  one  play,  "  The  Tempest." 
If  we  pass  in  review  the  different  plays  of  Shakespeare, 
in  order  of  the  dates  assigned  to  them,  we  find  that 
this  one  occupies  a  very  remarkable  position.  First 
of  all,  we  notice  that  the  great  popular  comedies 
are  all  attributed  to  the  earlier  part  of  Shakespeare's 
career,  and  the  best  known  tragedies,  with  the  exception 
of  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  to  the  later  part.  These 
tragedies  culminate  in  "  Hamlet "  and  "  Othello," 
in  the  early  years  of  what  may  be  called  the  tragedy 
period,  and  taper  off  with  such  mixed  compositions 
as  the  tragedies  of  "  Coriolanus,"'"  Timon,"  "  Pericles  " 
and  "  Cymbeline."  The  great  dramatist  is  supposed 
to  have  paid  his  final  respects  to  the  dramatic  world 
he  had  adorned  for  so  many  years,  in  a  play  which 
another  man  had  been  called  in  to  finish — the  composite 
and  somewhat  inharmonious  play  of  "  Henry  VIII." 
Then  we  have  "  The  Tempest  "  sandwiched  in  between 

503 


504        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

the  group  which  contains  such  a  tragedy  as  "  Pericles  " 
and  the  nondescript  history  play  "  Henry  VIII." 

From  this  point  of  view  it  looks  like  a  play  that 
had  wandered  away  and  fallen  into  bad  company. 
Its  natural  associate,  "A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream," 
is  separated  from  it  by  almost  as  wide  an  interval 
as  the  Shakespearean  period  will  permit.  Under 
any  theory  of  authorship  this  work  occupies  an 
anomalous  position.  To  the  views  we  are  now  urging 
it  presents  a  real  and  serious  difficulty  :  the  only 
formidable  obstacle  so  far  encountered,  and  therefore 
demanding  special  attention. 

Date  of  It  will  be  noticed  that  it  is  one  of  the  twenty  plays 

printed  for  the  first  time  in  the  1623  folio  edition. 
Although  printed  then  for  the  first  time  there  is 
abundant  evidence  that  a  number  of  these  plays  were 
in  existence  many  years  before.  In  relation  to  "  The 
Tempest  "  the  only  authoritative  fact  seems  to  be 
that  a  play  of  this  name  was  amongst  those  performed 
to  celebrate  the  marriage  of  the  Princess  Elizabeth 
to  the  Elector  Frederick  in  1613.  There  existed, 
however,  a  forged  reference  to  it  connecting  it  with 
the  year  1611 ;  and  as  the  1613  reference  almost 
pushes  it  outside  the  Shakespearean  period  proper, 
the  forged  reference  seems  like  an  attempt,  for  some 
reason,  to  bring  it  more  within  the  period.  The 
circumstances  are  certainly  suspicious.  There  is  no 
record  of  its  having  been  registered,  and  no  indication 
of  its  having  been  in  print  before  1623.  Facts  like 
these,  when  connected  with  such  a  play  as  "Timon 
of  Athens,"  do  not  strike  us  as  being  at  all  remark- 
able. In  connection  with  a  stage  favourite  like 
"  The  Tempest  "  they  are  not  what  we  should  have 
expected,  whoever  the  author  of  the  play  may  have 


"THE   TEMPEST"  505 

been.  It  bears  more  heavily  upon  our  own  theories, 
however,  than  upon  the  Stratfordian  view.  It  seems 
incredible  that  it  could  have  been  written  and  staged 
in  the  early  Shakespearean  period  without  some 
trace  apppearing,  and  it  is  very  improbable  that 
such  a  play  should  have  been  written  and  allowed  to 
remain  unstaged  for  many  years,  seeing  that  the 
staging  element  in  it  is  more  pronounced  than  in  any 
other  play  attributed  to  "  Shakespeare." 

In  addition  to  all  this,  it  is  held  to  contain  traces  contem- 
of  contemporary  events  of  the  early  years  of  James  I's  porary 

j  i-      •  i»    j  iLt  j  j.  T_I.L    events  in 

reign  and  even  to  be  in  part  indebted  to  a  pamphlet  the  play, 
published  in  1610.  This  fact  by  itself  presents  no 
insurmountable  difficulty,  seeing  that  the  interpolation 
of  other  men's  work  is  quite  a  recognized  feature  of 
the  later  Shakespearean  plays ;  but,  taken  along 
with  its  more  modern  character,  and,  what  seems  to 
us  the  less  Elizabethan  quality  of  its  diction,  it 
appears  to  justify  the  assumption  that  the  work  as  a 
whole  belongs  to  the  date  to  which  it  has  been  assigned. 

We  have  endeavoured  to  present  the  case  in  respect 
to  "  The  Tempest  "  with  all  the  adverse  force  with 
which  it  bears  upon  the  theory  of  Edward  de  Vere 
being  "  Shakespeare  "  ;  and  must  confess  that  it 
appears,  at  first  blush,  as  if  "  The  Tempest  "  were 
threatening  the  shipwreck  of  all  our  hopes  and  labours 
in  the  cause  of  Shakespearean  authorship. 

The    somewhat    anomalous    position    occupied    by  Alternative 
the  play  has,  however,  already  given  rise  to  doubts  dates, 
respecting  the  accuracy  of  the  date  assigned  to  it. 
The  first  writer  of  eminence  to  raise  these  doubts  was 
Hunter,  who  is  described  in  the  "  Variorum  Shake- 
speare," as  "  one  of  the  most  learned  and  exact  of 
commentators."    He  also  has  been  the  first  to  question 


506        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

its  title  to  the  high  praise  which  it  is  fashionable  to 
lavish  upon  this  composition  :  the  words  which  we 
quote  at  the  head  of  this  chapter.  Sir  George 
Greenwood  too,  has  raised  doubts  as  to  whether  the 
masking  performance  is  from  the  hand  of  "  Shake- 
speare." 

Other  critics  and  commentators  have  given  attention 
to  the  question  of  its  date,  and  although  the  great 
majority  confirm  the  later  date  which  is  usually 
ascribed  to  it  (1610-1613),  we  furnish  now  some 
authorities  for  an  earlier  production. 

Hunter.     1596. 

Knight.     1602-1603. 

Dyce  and  Staunton.    After  1603. 

Karl  Elze.     1604. 

There  exists,  therefore,  some  Shakespearean 
authority  both  for  an  earlier  date  and  also  for  the 
intervention  of  a  strange  hand.  Nevertheless,  we 
have  not  felt  convinced  by  these  authorities ;  and 
have  therefore  been  indisposed  to  take  refuge  behind 
their  findings.  The  reader  who,  in  spite  of  the  contents 
of  this  chapter,  may  continue  to  cling  to  the  old 
estimate  of  the  play,  may  at  any  rate  find  comfort 
in  the  dates  furnished  above. 

Contrast  We  must  now  ask  the  reader,  who  we  assume  is 

wmmg  to  take  some  trouble  to  get  at  the  truth  of 
the  matter,  to  first  read  carefully  some  of  the  earlier 
comedies  like  "  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  "  A  Mid- 
summer Night's  Dream "  and  "  As  You  Like  It." 
When  he  has  read  these  works  appreciatively,  and 
has  got  a  sense,  as  it  were,  of  Shakespeare's  force  of 
intellect  and  wit,  the  packed  significance  of  his  lines, 
his  teeming  imagery,  the  fecundity  of  his  ideas  on 
everything  pertaining  to  the  multiple  forces  of  human 


"THE   TEMPEST'  507 

nature,  his  incisive  glances  into  human  motives,  his 
subtle  turns  of  expression,  the  precision  and  refinement 
of  his  distinctions,  the  easy  flow  of  his  diction,  the 
vocal  qualities  of  his  word  combinations  :  all  these 
well-known  Shakespearean  characteristics ;  let  him 
then  turn  and  read  "  The  Tempest,"  thinking  not  so 
much  of  the  broad  situations  presented  by  the  stage 
play,  but  looking  for  that  finer  literary  and  poetical 
material  that  constitute  the  true  Shakespeare  work, 
and  he  will  probably  experience  a  much  greater 
disappointment  than  he  anticipated. 

Take,  for  example,  the  second  scene  in  the  first 
act,  the  dialogue  between  Prospero  and  Miranda, 
especially  where  the  former  is  relating  his  misfortunes 
to  the  latter.  It  seems  all  right,  no  doubt,  on  a  first 
reading,  or  on  hearing  it  repeated  on  the  stage.  It 
explains  a  particular  situation  lucidly,  in  bold  outline, 
making  no  special  demands  upon  the  mind  of  the 
reader  or  hearer ;  and,  for  those  who  wish  to  push 
on  with  the  business  of  the  play  and  see  how  things 
work  out,  it  is  just  the  thing  wanted.  One  does  not, 
however,  feel  a  great  desire  to  read  it  over  again 
immediately  so  as  to  drink  more  deeply  of  its  poetic 
charm ;  nor  would  any  one  seriously  memorize  its 
phrases  for  the  purpose  of  enriching  his  own  resources 
of  expression. 

The   situation   was,    however,    eminently   suitable  Literary 
for  fine  poetic  treatment ;    yet  the  prosy  character  <luaUty' 
of  the  narration,  broken  by  Prospero's  harping  on 
the  question  of  whether  Miranda  was  attending  to 
him  or  not,  makes  one  wonder  what  there  is  in  it  to 
justify   the   attempt   at   blank   verse.     We   use   the 
word  "  attempt  "  advisedly  ;   for  a  close  examination 
of  it  will  reveal  a  larger  proportion  of  false  quantities  and 


5o8        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

non-rhythmic  lines  than  can  be  found  in  an  equal  space 
in  the  best  Shakespearean  verse.  Indeed,  through- 
out the  play  there  is  a  general  thinness,  so  far  as  first- 
class  literary  matter  and  the  figurative  language 
which  distinguishes  the  best  poetry  are  concerned. 
Our  task  is  to  ascertain  whether  what  there  is  possesses 
true  Shakespearean  characteristics. 

its  chief  Judging  this  point,  not  by  its  worst,  but  what  is 

accepted  as  its  best  passages,  we  shall  not  attempt 
to  select  what  may  appear  to  us  as  the  best,  but 
take  the  one  passage  in  "  The  Tempest "  tnat  has  been 
singled  out  for  special  notice  by  others. 

' '  These  our  actors, 
As  I  foretold  you,  were  all  spirits,  and 
Are  melted  into  air,  into  thin  air  : 
And,  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  this  vision, 
The   cloud-capp'd  towers,   the   gorgeous  palaces, 
The  solemn  temples,  the  great  globe  itself, 
Yea,  all  which  it  inherit,  shall  dissolve, 
And,  like  this  insubstantial  pageant  faded, 
Leave  not  a  rack  behind." 

If  our  ideas  of  Shakespeare's  style  have  been  formed 
from  studying  this  particular  play,  the  passage  will 
doubtless  seem  quite  Shakespearean  :  not  otherwise,, 
however.  Before  discussing  it  as  a  whole,  however, 
we  ask  the  reader  to  notice  the  word  "  and  "  at  the 
end  of  the  second  line,  as  it  connects  itself  with  an 
important  point  which  we  shall  presently  have  to 
consider.  To  what,  then,  do  these  lines  owe  their 
popularity  ?  We  know  to  what  a  speech  of  Portia's, 
or  a  meditation  of  Jacques',  or  a  soliloquy  of  Hamlet's, 
owes  its  popularity.  All  these  great  Shakespearean 
utterances  owe  their  power,  not  to  the  mere  grandilo- 
quence that  fits  them  for  perorations,  but  'to  their 
direct  appeal  to  the  human  heart  and  mind  which 


'THE   TEMPEST'  509 

form  their  own  subject  matter.  Cosmic  theories 
come  and  go,  but  the  fundamental  constitution  of 
human  nature,  the  nature  of  man's  inward  experiences, 
sufferings  and  struggles,  remains  substantially  and 
eternally  the  same.  It  is  because  Shakespeare's 
theme  is  ever  this  enduring  spiritual  matter  that 
his  influence  suffers  no  waning,  but  grows  with  the 
centuries. 

In  the  passage  we  have  just  quoted  there  is  not  a  Negative 
touch  of  Shakespeare's  special  interest.  It  is  simple  p  osoPhv- 
cosmic  philosophy,  and,  as  such,  it  is  the  most  dreary 
negativism  that  was  ever  put  into  high-sounding 
words.  Shakespeare's  soul  was  much  too  large  for 
mere  negation.  He  was  essentially  positivist.  When 
he  handled  his  own  theme  of  human  nature  he 
expounded  what  he  saw  and  felt,  always  holding  the 
subject  down  to  its  own  realities,  conditioned  by  its 
own  essential  relationships.  In  modern  terms,  he 
was  an  experimentalist ;  or,  to  use  a  clumsier,  though 
more  accurate  word,  an  experientialist.  On  the 
other  hand  he  was  no  mere  empiricist :  his  was  a 
vision  that  "  looked  before  and  after,"  a  "  prophetic 
soul  dreaming  on  things  to  come."  Recognizing  the 
limitations  of  human  vision,  his  mind  could  yet  take 
in  the  thought  of  the  great  unknown  that  stretched 
beyond  the  range  of  immediate  faculties,  but  he  filled 
it  in  with  no  mere  negative,  however  undetermined 
his  positive  may  have  been. 

' '  There  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  Horatio, 
Than  are  dreamt  of  in  your  philosophy." 

The  philosophy  of  the  passage  we  have  quoted 
from  "  The  Tempest  "  is  such  as  we  might  conceive 
Hamlet  attributing  to  Horatio,  and  not  that  of  Hamlet 


SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 


Stolen 
thunder. 


The   stuff 
of   dreams. 


himself.  Nor  do  we  believe  that  it  owes  its  popularity 
to  the  outlook  it  represents.  It  is  rather  the  awe- 
inspiring  vastness  of  the  conception  and  its  high  sound- 
ing phrases  that  have  won  for  the  passage  its  place 
in  English  rhetorical  literature.  Neither  in  theme 
nor  in  philosophy,  however,  does  it  seem  to  us  to  be 
Shakespearean. 

Even  the  terms  of  the  passage  are  not  original  to 
the  writer  of  this  much  belauded  comedy,  but  are 
clearly  suggested  by  a  passage  in  a  play  written  in 
in  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth  century  (see 
"  Variorum  Shakespeare  ").  Their  value  as  evidence 
of  Shakespearean  authorship  is  therefore  negligible. 
When,  however,  we  come  to  the  closing  sentence  of 
the  passage  we  are  assured  by  readers  of  Shakespeare 
that  here,  at  least,  we  have  the  work  of  the  master  : 

"We  are  such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  on,  and  our 
little  life  is  rounded  with  a  sleep." 

Here  we  find  ourselves  faced  with  one  of  the 
chief  difficulties  in  discussing  Shakespeare:  namely, 
dogmatic  assertion  based  upon  literary  feeling  or 
instinct,  but  offering  no  fixed  standard  of  measure- 
ment by  which  the  truth  of  the  claim  may  be  tested. 
Although,  then,  we  are  assured  that  these  words  are 
eminently  Shakespearean,  we  make  bold  to  say  that 
they  appear  to  us  as  un-Shakespearean  as  any  utterance 
with  which  "  Shakespeare  "  has  been  credited. 

When  we  read  that  "  all  the  world's  a  stage  and 
all  the  men  and  women  merely  players,"  we  feel 
that  the  writer's  mind,  in  dealing  with  life,  is  occupied 
with  clear  and  definite  conceptions,  which  he  imparts 
vividly  to  his  readers  by  the  crispness  and  precision 
of  the  terms  he  employs.  When  the  mind  of  Hamlet 


"THE   TEMPEST"  511 

works  upon  the  great  unknown,  the  "  sleep  of  death," 
and  the  possible  experiences  after  deatn,  "  what 
dreams  may  come,"  we  have  the  same  definiteness  of 
conception,  the  same  precise  relationship  of  language 
to  thought.  We  may  think  that  he  stops  short : 
that  he  might  have  given  us  more  ;  but  we  have  no 
uncertainty  respecting  the  part  he  has  given.  We 
move  with  him  in  the  plane  of  realities  alike  of  life 
and  death  :  and  when  he  deals  with  what  he  does 
not  know,  he  knows  what  it  is  he  does  not  know. 
If,  then,  this  mental  clarity,  this  definiteness  and 
precision  alike  of  thought  and  expression,  are  not 
dominant  notes  of  "  Shakespeare,"  we  must  confess 
that  our  understanding  of  his  work  has  yet  to  begin. 

Compare  now  from  this  point  of  view  the  character-  Muddled 
istic  utterances  of  Shakespeare  on  life  and  death  just  meta- 

J          physics. 

quoted  with  the  lines  previously  cited  from  "  The 
Tempest."  We  may  safely  challenge  any  one  to 
produce  another  passage  from  the  whole  of  Shake- 
speare that  will  match  with  the  latter  in  metaphysical 
vagueness.  Abandon  for  a  moment  the  practice 
of  squeezing  into  or  squeezing  out  of  these  words 
some  philosophical  significance,  and  attempt  the 
simpler  task  of  attaching  a  merely  elementary  English 
meaning  to  the  terms,  and  placing  these  meanings 
into  some  kind  of  coherent  relationship  to  one  another. 
We  are  stuff :  the  stuff  of  dreams  :  dreams  are  made 
on  (or  "  of  "  ?)  :  life  rounded  with  a  sleep — we  will  not 
say  that  Shakespeare  never  gives  us  such  "  nuts  to 
crack,"  but  we  can  say  with  full  confidence  that  they 
are  not  characteristically  Shakespearean.  So  far  as 
we  can  get  hold  of  the  general  drift  of  the  metaphors, 
it  seems  that  the  present  life  of  man  is  likened  to 
dreams  :  "  We  are  such  stuff,  etc.,"  and  that  he  brings 


512        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

his  dreams  to  an  end  by  going  to  sleep.  In  common 
with  Shakespeare  and  the  majority  of  mankind, 
however,  we  are  accustomed  to  associate  our  dreams 
with  our  actual  times  of  sleep. 

On  its  deeper  side  we  would  say  that  the  sentence 
is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  mind  of  Shakespeare. 
To  him  human  life  is  the  one  great  objective  reality. 
We  are  not  now  saying  that  he  is  right  or  wrong  in 
this  ;  but  it  is  this  objective  pressure  of  human  life 
upon  him  that  has  produced  the  immortal  dramas  ; 
whether  wholesome  or  vile  it  is  real  wholesomeness 
and  real  vileness  ;  whether  life  is  spent  in  earnest, 
or  is  merely  that  of  "  men  and  women  playing  parts," 
his  world  is  peopled  by  real  men  ;  not  dreamy  stuff. 

Whether,  then,  we  take  the  cosmic  philosophy  of 
the  whole  passage,  or  the  touch  of  human  philosophy 
with  which  it  closes,  we  maintain  that  whether  written 
by  "  Shakespeare  "  or  not,  it  is  not  Shakespearean. 
Quality  of  If  we  are  disposed  to  deny  to  the  play  the  possession 
Tempest."  of  first-class  Shakespearean  work  it  would  neverthe- 
less be  folly  to  discredit  the  good  work,  of  what  might 
be  called  the  second  class,  that  it  certainly  does 
contain.  The  times  were  prolific  of  second-rate  work, 
judged  by  the  standard  of  Shakespeare  ;  work  which, 
but  for  this  high  standard,  might  have  ranked  as 
first  class.  There  seems,  indeed,  to  be  in  the  play 
indications  of  a  real  collaboration  between  two  men, 
a  playwright  proper,  and  a  poet.  The  passage  quoted, 
and  others,  especially  the  lyrical  verse,  seem  to  be 
from  a  different  hand  from  the  one  that  wrote  the 
play  as  a  whole;  but  it  does  not  look  like  the 
unfinished  work  of  one  writer  being  finished  by 
another.  Our  present  business,  however,  is  to  see 
whether  or  not  it  is  Shakespearean. 


"THE   TEMPEST"  513 

Continuing  this  enquiry  we  shall  first  recall  certain  "  Dumb- 
criticisms  in  "Hamlet"  upon  a  class  of  play  then  noise." 
coming  into  vogue. 

' '  There  is,  sir,  an  aery  of  children,  little  eyases,  that 
cry  out  on  the  top  of  question,  and  are  most  tyranically 
clapped  for  it." 

*  *  *  * 

"...  the  groundlings  .  .  .  for  the  most  part  are 
capable  of  nothing  but  inexplicable  dumb-shows  and 
noise." 

With  these  remarks  in  mind  let  the  reader  turn 
over  the  pages  of  the  great  Shakespearean  dramas 
noticing  the  stage  directions.  For  the  most  part  these 
are  little  more  than  the  simple  expressions  "  enter," 
"  exit,"  "  aside,"  "  sleeps,"  "  rises  and  advances," 
"trumpets,"  "noise  within,"  and  such  like.  When, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  dumb-show  episode  in  the  by- 
play in  "  Hamlet,"  directions  are  necessary,  these 
are  limited  to  mere  outline,  every  particular  action 
indicated  being  an  essential  part  of  the  drama, 
and  moreover  quite  explicable.  Now,  with  Hamlet's 
special  animadversion  on  "  inexplicable  dumb-shows 
and  noise  "  in  mind,  turn  to  the  stage  directions  in 
"The  Tempest." 

"  A  tempestuous  noise  of  thunder  and  lightning  heard." 
"A  confused  noise  within."  "Thunder"  (at  intervals). 

"  Enter  Prospero,  above,  invisible.  Enter  several 
strange  Shapes,  bringing  in  a  banquet  ;  they  dance  about 
it  with  gentle  actions  and  salutations  ;  and,  inviting  the 
king,  etc.,  to  eat,  they  depart." 

Again  : — 

' '  Thunder  and  lightning.  Enter  Ariel,  like  a  harpy  ; 
claps  his  wings  upon  the  table  ;  and  with  a  quaint  device, 
the  banquet  vanishes," 

33 


5M         "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

Again  : — 

"  He  vanishe*  in  thunder  ;  then,  to  soft  music,  enter 
the  Shapes  again,  and  dance,  with  mocks  and  mows,  and 
carry  out  the  table." 

Further  on : — 

"Enter  certain  reapers,  properly  habited;  they  join 
with  the  Nymphs  in  a  graceful  dance  ;  towards  the  end 
whereof  Prospero  starts  suddenly  and  speaks  ;  after  which 
to  a  strange  hollow  and  confused  noise  they  heavily  vanish." 

And  there  is  still  more  of  this  kind  of  thing.  Yet 
it  is  supposed  that  the  very  man  who  penned  all  this 
had,  six  or  seven  years  previously,  taken  up  arms 
against  such  pantomimic  products  and  entered  into 
his  great  masterpiece  a  caveat  against  this  develop- 
ment of  "  inexplicable  dumb-shows  and  noise." 
Un-Shake-  In  the  First  Folio  only  six,  out  of  all  Shakespeare's 
details*0  plavs»  are  prefaced  with  lists  of  dramatis  personae. 
Of  these  "  The  Tempest  "  is  one,  and  "  Timon  of 
Athens,"  an  admittedly  "  collaborated "  work,  is 
another :  in  the  latter  work  it  is  done  most 
ostentatiously.  As  we  shall  find  the  singularities 
of  the  former  play  accumulate,  the  exceptional  fact 
just  narrated  should  be  kept  in  mind.  Turning  to 
the  list  in  "  The  Tempest  "  we  find  that  one  character 
is  described  as  "  drunken,"  another  as  "  honest," 
and  a  third  as  "  savage."  Although  in  another  of 
these  lists  ("  The  Two  Gentleman  ")  Thurio  is  spoken  of 
as  "  foolish,"  in  none  of  them  is  there  so  much  of  it 
as  in  the  play  we  are  considering.  The  whole  thing 
strikes  one  as  alien  to  the  spirit  of  "  Shakespeare," 
whose  method  is  naturally  to  reveal  the  character 
of  his  personae  in  the  working  of  the  plays.  It  is 
hardly  probable  that  "Shakespeare"  had  a  hand 
in  any  of  the  lists  :  they  are  editorial  work  ;  and 


'THE   TEMPEST'1  515 

the  character  they  assume  in  this  instance  helps  to 
emphasize  the  fact,  which  others  have  pointed  out, 
that  exceptional  care  was  bestowed  upon  the  editing 
of  "  The  Tempest."  The  editor  or  editors  had 
evidently  some  special  interest  in  this  particular  drama. 

Coming  now  to  the  question  of  general  workman-  Without 
ship,  we  may  take  any  other  of  the  great  Shakespearean  wlt* 
comedies,  and  examine  the  dialogue  throughout, 
particularly  that  between  young  people  of  the  opposite 
sexes.  What  strikes  us  most  is  the  constant  clash 
of  wit  and  the  subtle  teasing  that  takes  place  when- 
ever young  men  and  women  meet,  together  with  the 
playful  cross-purposes  in  which  Shakespeare's  lovers 
invariably  indulge.  There  is  nothing  like  this  in 
"  The  Tempest."  In  its  place  we  get  the  milk  and 
water  sentimentality  of  Miranda  and  Ferdinand 
unillumined  by  a  single  flash  of  intellect.  Yet 
Miranda  was  no  child  ignorant  of  life  :  a  fact  most 
evident  from  her  previous  conversation  with  her 
father.  Possibly  the  dramatist,  in  composing  this 
love  scene,  in  which  he  wished  to  represent  Miranda 
in  a  particular  light,  had  overlooked  what  he  had 
already  written  in  the  previous  scene.  Be  that  as 
it  may,  the  character  of  the  intercourse  between  these 
two  lovers  is  worth  considering.  They  meet  for  the 
first  time  and  spend  about  five  minutes  together. 
In  that  short  space  of  time  they  have  fallen  deeply 
in  love,  confessed  their  sentiments  and  arranged  their 
first  tryst,  "  half-an-hour  hence."  All  this,  of  course, 
is  due  to  Prospero's  magic.  How  interminable  that 
half-hour  must  have  seemed  to  the  young  people  ! 
And  so,  when  it  comes  to  an  end,  they  meet  again, 
in  the  presence  of  Miranda's  father,  and  listen  to  a 
lecture  from  him ;  but  when  he  leaves  them,  and 


516        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

they  are  at  last  alone  together,  for  the  first  time  as 
a  betrothed  couple,  in  the  transports  of  their  new- 
born love  they  pour  out  their  mutual  affection  in 
a  rapturous  game  of  chess.  Is  it  possible  to  conceive 
of  "  Shakespeare "  representing  thus  any  of  the 
outstanding  couples  of  his  plays,  like  Romeo  and 
Juliet,  Orlando  and  Rosalind,  Hermia  and  Lysander, 
Valentine  and  Sylvia,  Berowne  and  Rosaline,  Portia 
and  Bassanio,  or  Beatrice  and  Benedick  ?  In  all 
these  cases  the  interest  centres  in  the  play  of  dialogue : 
mind  meeting  mind ;  and  not  upon  the  play  of  lime- 
light upon  a  pretty  stage  scene. 

Coarse  fun.  Not  only  in  the  kind  of  intercourse  we  have  just 
been  discussing,  but  throughout  the  play  the  great 
Shakespearean  trait  that  we  most  miss  is  genuine 
wit,  in  the  proper  sense  of  intellectual  refinement 
and  subtlety.  The  drama  depends  for  its  interest  very 
largely  upon  the  spectacular,  and  is  probably  for 
this  reason  selected  in  modern  times  for  displaying 
the  skill  more  of  the  stage  mechanics  than  of  the 
actors.  It  has,  indeed,  been  acknowledged  by  one 
authority  that  "  there  is  no  wit  in  '  The  Tempest.' ' 
Nevertheless  its  author  was  solicitous  regarding  the 
lighter  side  of  the  play ;  and  so  when  fun  and  some 
relief  from  stage  display  is  sought,  the  play  makes 
its  appeal  to  the  grotesque  coarse  and  ludicrous, 
drawing  almost  the  whole  of  the  laughter  it  contains 
from  drunken  buffoonery.  Without  its  elaborate  stage 
effects  the  performance  would  probably  fall  very  flat ; 
and  this  fact  supports  the  theory  that  it  is  not  a  true 
Elizabethan  work,  but  belongs  to  the  period  to  which 
it  has  been  assigned,  although  such  plays  were 
evidently  coming  into  vogue  in  the  later  Elizabethan 
period. 


'THE   TEMPEST'  517 

On  the  other  hand,  to  think  of  it  as  coming  from 
the  greatest  Elizabethan  dramatist,  when  to  his  vast 
powers  had  been  added  the  mellowing  influence  of 
a  still  larger  experience,  increases  the  mysteriousness 
in  which  the  work  is  involved.  The  fact  is  that  this 
play  has  always  been  looked  at  with  the  other  dramas 
as  an  imposing  background.  Viewed  as  supplementary 
to  a  monumental  literature,  the  greatness  that  is  in 
the  other  writings  has  been  carried  forward  and  added 
to  its  account.  Separated  from  the  other  works, 
however,  it  is  seen  to  contain  much  thinner  intellectual 
stuff  than  has  been  supposed. 

The  effect  of  these  considerations  is  to  raise  the  The  Tempest 
question,   not   merely   of   whether    "  The   Tempest  "  Problem- 
contains  a  large    admixture    of    other  men's    work, 
but    the   bolder   and   more   momentous   question   of 
whether  it  is,  in  any  sense,  a  work  of  Shakespeare's. 

This  is  not  a  question  of  whether  it  is  a  good  or 
a  poor  production,  or  whether  certain  genuine  Shake- 
spearean plays  are  not  in  some  respects  inferior  to 
this  one.  The  question  is  this.  Judging  from  a 
comparison  of  the  characteristics  of  this  play  with 
the  outstanding  features  of  Shakespeare's  work, 
what  are  the  probabilities  that  it  did  not  come  from 
the  same  pen  as  the  others  ? 

We   have    already   pointed    out   that   its   position  A  play 
amongst  the  other  dramas,  from  the  point  of  view  of  aPart- 
date,  marks  it  at  once  as  a  work  quite  by  itself.     In 
other  respects,  too,  we  shall  find  that  this  is  so.     It 
is  the  only  play  staged  with  a  background  of  the  sea 
and    sea-faring    life ;    the    nearest    approach    to    it, 
curiously  enough,  being  "  Pericles."     And  it  is  the 
only  one  that  has  the  practice  of  magic  as  a  dominant 
element :    the  supernatural  agents  in  "  A  Midsummer 


5i8        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

Night's  Dream "  not  being  under  human  control 
and  direction.  This  trinity  of  singularities  constitutes 
a  sufficient  impeachment  to  begin  with.  We  must, 
however,  add  to  this  what  is  perhaps  the  strongest 
general  argument  against  it,  that  it  is  the  only  play 
attributed  to  "  Shakespeare "  which  makes  any 
attempt  at  conforming  to  the  Greek  unities.  That 
"  Shakespeare "  should  do  this  at  any  time  seems 
highly  improbable  :  it  is  contrary  to  the  free  spirit 
of  his  genius,  and  it  is  an  illustration  of  that  "  tongue- 
tying  of  art  by  authority "  which  he  explicitly 
repudiates.  To  think  of  him  submitting  to  such 
unwholesome  restriction  at  the  extreme  end  of  his 
career  would  require  some  extraordinary  explanation. 
Feudalism.  Take  the  work  now  in  its  bearing  upon  some  of  those 
points  according  to  which  we  sought  to  characterize 
"  Shakespeare  "  at  the  beginning  of  our  investigations. 
Although  it  contains  a  king  and  a  duke  no  one  can 
feel  in  reading  it  that  he  is  in  touch  with  the  social 
structure  of  a  medieval  feudalism.  Prospero,  the 
Duke  of  Milan,  represents  in  no  way  a  ducal  dignity, 
or  the  functions  of  a  dukedom.  He  is,  first  and  last, 
a  magician,  and  it  would  have  mattered  little  to  his 
part  in  the  play  if  he  had  been  originally  a  patriarchal 
deacon. 

King  Alonso  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  personage 
belonging  to  the  play.  In  certain  important  scenes 
he  is  only  required  to  stand  and  ejaculate  such 
expressions  as  "  Prithee  peace,"  or  "  Prithee  be  still." 
He  is  the  most  wooden  and  least  royal  of  all  Shake- 
speare's kings  ;  a  part  to  be  relegated  to  a  subordinate 
member  of  the  company  of  actors.  Prospero's 
brother,  Antonio,  the  usurping  duke,  is  a  very  ordinary 
stage  villain,  whom  the  writer  of  the  drama  seems 


'THE   TEMPEST'  519 

almost  to  have  forgotten  after  the  second  act,  with 
a  most  curious  result ;  for,  although  the  anti-climax 
of  the  play  consists  in  his  undoing,  his  only  part  in 
the  final  act  involving  disaster  to  his  fortunes,  is  to 
make  a  single  remark — about  fish.  This  is  neither 
feudalism  nor  "  Shakespeare." 

So  much  for  the  social  side  of  medievalism.  When  Catholicism 
we  turn  to  its  religious  aspect,  Catholicism,  a  more 
curious  situation  is  presented.  Whatever  "  Shake- 
speare's "  personal  opinions  may  have  been  in  respect 
to  religion,  there  exists  no  doubt  as  to  his  being 
thoroughly  conversant  with  the  Roman  Catholic 
standpoint  and  quite  familiar  with  its  terminology  ; 
and  all  this  he  introduces  frequently  and  appropriately 
into  his  dramas.  Now  "  The  Tempest  "  is  a  work 
dealing  with  Italian  noblemen  of  Milan  and  Naples, 
that  is  to  say,  belonging  to  a  Roman  Catholic  society, 
yet  from  the  first  word  of  the  play  to  the  last  we 
cannot  find  a  single  term  employed  suggestive  of  a 
distinctively  Catholic  conception.  At  the  same  time 
innumerable  occasions  are  presented  when  such  touches 
of  local  colouring  could  have  been  inserted,  and  when 
any  writer  having  the  material  at  command  would 
unconsciously  have  tended  to  introduce  it.  We 
need  only  cite  the  call  "  to  prayers,"  the  betrothal 
of  Ferdinand  and  Miranda,  and  the  serious  religious 
cast  given  to  some  of  Prospero's  intercourse  with 
his  daughter. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  approach  it  on  its  social 
or  its  religious  side,  we  may  say  that  the  medievalism 
which  "  Shakespeare "  has,  by  embodying  in  his 
dramas,  done  so  much  to  preserve  in  living  colours, 
is  almost,  if  not  wholly  absent  from  this  particular 
play.  We  are  entitled  to  say  that  the  man  who 


520 


"  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIE1  > 


Woman. 


Horseman- 
ship. 


wrote  it  had  neither  "  Shakespeare's  "  intimacy  with 
Catholicism  nor  his  vitalized  conception  of  what  was 
best  in  feudalism. 

Significant  results  are  again  obtained  when  we  apply 
to  "  The  Tempest  "  the  test  of  the  dramatist's  treat- 
ment of  woman.     We  shall  put  aside  that    definite 
and  peculiar  attitude  we  deduced  from  the   Sonnets, 
which   does   not   appear  in  the   best    Shakespearean 
comedies,   and   confine   our  attention  to  the  dramas. 
Here  we  find  the  most  frequent  and  varied  references 
to   the  characters,   disposition,   moods,    motives   and 
conduct  of  women.     That  he  had    observed  women 
accurately   might   be   questioned,   but    that   he   had 
observed  them  closely  and  had  a  very  great  deal  to 
say  on  the  subject  no  one  will  deny.     Consequently 
the  word  "  woman  "  is  one  most  frequently  in  use 
in  his   plays.     Now,   in   "  The   Tempest  "   the  word 
"  woman "    never    occurs    once    in    connection    with 
such  matters  as  those  to  which  we  have  just  alluded. 
It  will  perhaps  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  many  that 
the  word  only  occurs  twice  in  the  whole  play,  and 
these  are  most  formal  and  void  of  character.     Miranda 
remarks   that   she    "  no   woman's   face   remembers," 
and   Caliban  remarks   "  I  never  saw  a  woman   but 
Sycorax    my  dam   and  she."      The   three  occasions 
on  which  the  plural  is  used  are  equally  colourless. 
This  is  indeed  a  very  poor  show  for  a  work  that  is 
supposed  to  have  come  from  the  hand  of  such  an 
exponent  of  human  nature  as  "  Shakespeare." 

In  tracing  indications  of  the  life  and  character  of 
Edward  de  Vere  in  the  writings  of  "  Shakespeare  "  we 
had  occasion  to  remark  upon  the  prominence  given 
to  horses  and  horsemanship  generally.  We  find  that 
the  simple  noun  "  horse,"  leaving  out  all  compound 


"THE   TEMPEST"  521 

derivatives,  occurs  about  206  times  ;  an  average  of 
about  seven  times  in  each  of  the  36  plays.  If  we  add 
to  these  the  words  that  suggest  horse-riding,  like 
"  horseback  "  and  "horsemanship,"  the  total  reaches 
nearly  300,  not  one  of  which  occurs  in  "  The  Tempest " — 
the  only  play  attributed  to  "  Shakespeare "  of  which 
this  can  be  said. 

The  word  "  colt  "  does,  however,  occur,  and  the 
passage  is  most  instructive. 

"  Like  unback'd  colts  they  prick 'd  their  ears, 
Advanced  their  eyelids,  lifted  up  their  noses, 
As  they  smelt  music." 

We  shall  pass  no  comment  upon  these  awkward  lines, 
but  ask  the  reader  to  compare  the  passage  with  the 
following  from  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  which 
either  consciously  or  unconsciously  seems  to  have 
suggested  it. 

"  For  do  but  note  a  wild  and  wanton  herd, 
Or  race  of  youthful  and  unhandled  colts, 
Fetching  mad  bounds,  bellowing  and  neighing  loud, 
Which  is  the  hot  condition  of  their  blood, 
If  they  but  hear  perchance  a  trumpet  sound, 
Or  any  air  of  music  touch  their  ears, 
You  shall  perceive  them  make  a  mutual  stand, 
Their  savage  eyes  turn'd  to  a  modest  gaze 
By  the  sweet  power  of  music." 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  the  former  travesty 
of  the  latter  passage  was  written  by  the  same  poet 
after  he  had  added  fifteen  years  to  his  experience 
as  a  writer.  Had  the  dates  been  reversed  we  might 
have  supposed  a  development  of  the  idea  and  technical 
power.  As  they  stand,  however,  it  is  outrageous  to 
suppose  that  any  eminent  poet  could  so  mutilate  his 
own  work. 


522        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

sport.  Again,  in  the  matter  of  falconry  terms,  in  which 

the  vocabulary  of  Shakespeare  is  so  varied,  "  hawk," 
"falcon,"  "  haggard,"  "eyas,"  "  tercel,"  "  tassel-gentle," 
"  puttock,"  "  pitch,"  "  to  seel,"  "  to  prune,"  "  to  whistle 
off "  ;  none  of  these  occur  in  the  play  we  are  now 
examining.  We  find  indeed  the  same  state  of  things 
in  all  other  matters  relating  to  sport,  the  chase 
and  archery  (excepting  a  single  reference  to  Cupid's 
bow  and  arrows).  No  deer,  stag  or  pricket,  hare  or 
hound,  greyhound,  game,  slips  or  trumpet,  once 
appears.  These  are  enough  to  show  that  not  merely 
a  few  odd  terms,  any  one  or  two  of  which  might  be 
missing  from  a  true  Shakespearean  work,  but  whole 
strata  of  terms,  dealing  with  the  imagery  in  which 
the  mind  of  Shakespeare  habitually  worked,  are 
entirely  missing  from  this  play.  A  mere  layman 
may  be  excused  if  his  faith  in  the  judgment  of  Shake- 
spearean experts  grows  weak. 

Human  Shakespeare's  special  domain  being  human  nature, 

how  does  "  The  Tempest  "  stand  with  respect  to  promin- 
ent words  of  the  dramatist  in  this  domain  ?  One  of  his 
constantly  recurring  words  is  the  word  "  will,"  and  in 
Mary  Cowden  Clarke's  concordance  only  when  it  is 
used  as  a  noun  is  it  recorded.  In  this  sense  it  appears 
no  less  than  280  times,  and  out  of  these  only  once 
does  it  appear  in  "  The  Tempest,"  in  the  following 
phrase,  "  the  wills  above  "  ;  so  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  human  will,  which  meets  us  at  every  turn 
in  Shakespeare,  is  never  once  referred  to  in  this  play 
except  in  some  editions  in  which  the  noun  "  good- 
will "  has  been  broken  into  two  words.  How 
important  a  word  it  is  in  the  vocabulary  of  Shakespeare 
will  be  realized  by  any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble 
to  read  Sir  Sidney  Lee's  chapter  on  the  "  Will "  sonnets. 


'THE   TEMPEST'  523 

Take  again  so  fundamental  a  word  as  "  faith," 
which,  with  its  derivatives,  occurs  about  250  times. 
Neither  this  word,  nor  any  one  of  its  derivatives, 
"  faithful,"  "  faithfully,"  "  faithfulness,"  once  appears 
in  the  play.  Or,  again,  the  word  "duty,"  not  once 
does  it  occur,  nor  any  of  its  derivations,  "  dutiful  " 
or  "  duteous,"  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  these 
words  are  bound  up  with  the  Feudal  System,  and 
occur  about  200  times.  We  meet  with  exactly  the 
same  thing  in  reference  to  such  dominant  words  as 
"  courage  "  and  "  jealousy."  The  word  "  melancholy  " 
and  the  noun  "  desire,"  the  latter  especially  represent- 
ing a  most  persistent  idea  in  the  mind  of  "  Shake- 
speare," are  again  entirely  absent.  In  short,  many 
of  the  terms  most  essential  in  handling  those  problems 
of  human  nature  with  which  "  Shakespeare  "  deals, 
are  missing  from  the  work  which  is  supposed  to 
represent  the  matured  mind  of  the  dramatist. 

On  the  strength  of  the  last  group  of  words  alone  General 
we  should  be  quite  justified  in  rejecting  absolutely  Vocabulai7- 
any  claim  that  this  play  was  written  by  the  same 
author  as  the  great  Shakespearean  dramas.     Of  minor 
points  we  may  mention  the  absence  of  the  "  red  and 
white  "  contrast,  and,  of  course,  the   "  lily  and  the 
rose."    Indeed,  neither  lily,  rose,  nor  violet,  which 
we  take    to   be    Shakespeare's  favourite   flowers,  is 
once  mentioned. 

It  is  difficult  to  represent  how  "  The  Tempest  " 
stands  in  the  matter  of  general  vocabulary.  If, 
however,  any  Shakespearean  concordance  be  taken, 
and  a  number  of  pages  be  selected  at  random  from 
different  parts  of  the  book,  then  closely  examined, 
it  will  be  found  that  "  The  Tempest "  is  more 
frequently  absent  than  almost  any  other  play  from 


524        "  SHAKESPEARE  '     IDENTIFIED 

long  lists  of  examples  of  the  recurrence  of  words  which 
appear  in  most  of  the  other  works.  It  will  thus  be 
seen  that  it  has  probably  the  poorest,  as  well  as  the 
least  Shakespearean  vocabulary  of  them  all ;  not 
even  excepting  "  Pericles."  Moreover,  in  reading 
it  with  an  exclusive  attention  to  this  point,  one  gets 
the  impression  that  its  vocabulary  is  not  only  more 
restricted  in  range,  but  is  drawn  from  quite  a  different 
stratum  of  the  English  language.  In  addition  to  this 
there  appears  about  the  language  an  artificiality  and 
affected  archaism  suggestive  of  a  later  writer  trying 
to  compose  in  Shakespeare's  vein. 

Scansion.  After  all  the  praise  that  has  been  lavished  on  this 

particular  work  it  may  seem  presumptuous  to  question 
such  a  thing  as  the  quality  of  its  versification.  If, 
however,  a  critical  examination  be  made  of  the  text 
of  the  play,  the  large  proportion  of  bad  metre  to  be 
found  in  it  will  probably  occasion  some  surprise. 
From  first  to  last  its  blank  verse  jogs  and  jolts  in  a 
most  uncomfortable  way.  Such  false  quantities  as 
occasionally  interrupt  the  even  flow  in  the  best 
Shakespearean  verse,  so  crowd  upon  one  another  in 
"  The  Tempest  "  that  it  is  impossible  to  preserve 
for  any  length  of  time  that  sense  of  rhythmic  diction 
which  gratifies  the  sub-conscious  ear  in  the  silent 
reading  of  the  other  plays.  There  is  nothing  to  be 
gained  by  rating  the  work  below  its  true  value,  but 
we  are  bound  to  say  that  in  many  instances  the  scansion 
seems  to  us  so  wretched  that  we  suspect  the  writer 
ot  building  up  his  pentameters  by  mechanically 
counting  syllables  on  his  fingers  :  and  counting  badly. 
In  this  connection  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  draw  attention  to  the  blank  verse  of  the  first 
important  piece  of  dialogue  in  the  play  :  that  between 


"THE   TEMPEST'  525 

Prospero  and  Miranda  in  which  the  former  is  relating  "  Weak- 
the  story  of  his  misfortunes.  A  minute  inspection 
of  this  discloses  the  fact  that  much  of  it  is  not  verse 
at  all  in  the  true  sense,  but  merely  prose,  artificially 
cut  up  into  short  strips  :  precisely  as,  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  we  saw  was  actually  done  in  "  Coriolanus." 
Versification,  which  is  fundamentally  the  breaking 
up  of  utterances  into  short  pieces,  or  lines,  according 
to  some  rule,  always  implies  that,  in  a  general  way, 
the  pause  formed  by  the  end  of  the  line  corresponds 
to  a  pause,  however  slight,  in  the  spoken  utterance; 
the  exceptions  to  this  only  serving  to  emphasize  the 
rule .  When  the  connection  between  the  last  word  of  one 
line  and  the  first  word  of  the  next  is  too  close,  and  such 
connections  become  too  frequent,  the  sense  of  versifica- 
tion is  lost  and  it  becomes  merely  dismembered  prose. 
Take  then  the  two  first  lines  of  this  dialogue  : — 

"If  by  your  art,  my  dearest  father,  you  have 
Put  the  wild  waters  in  this  roar,  allay  them." 

Now,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  get  two  words  more  Auxiliary 
closely    connected    in    spoken    utterances    than    a  verbs- 
Principal  and  an  Auxiliary  Verb,  when  no  adverb 
comes  between  them,   as  in  the  case  of  this  verb, 
"  have  put."     Nor  is  this  the  only  example  of  its  kind. 
Broken  up  in  precisely  the  same  way  we  have  the  verb, 

"  had  Burnt  "  (III.  i.)  ;  "  will  Revenge  "  (III.  2.)  ; 
"  have  Incensed  "  (III.  3.)  ;  "  have  Been  "  (V.  I.)  ; 
"have  Received"  (V.  i.)  ;  "  must  Take"  (V.  i.j 

Taking  "  Hamlet  "  as  our  standard  for  measuring 
Shakespeare's  style  of  versification,  we  do  not  find 
a  single  example  of  this  defect  in  the  great  masterpiece. 

Continuing  our  examination  of  this  dialogue,  we 
ftnd,  a  few  lines  further  on,  this  passage : — 


526         "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

"  It  should  the  good  ship  so  hav«   swallow'd,    and 
The  fraughting  souls  within  her." 

Con junc-  This  "  and  "  at  the  end  of  lines  in  "  The  Tempest  " 

is  quite  a  feature  of  its  author's  style.  We  pointed 
it  out  in  the  passage  "  and  Are  melted  into  air." 
We  find  it  repeated  three  times  in  this  short  dialogue  : 

1 '  and  A  prince  of  power  ;  ' ' 
"  and  She  said  ;  " 

the  third  being  in  the  above  quotation. 
In  exactly-  the  same  way  we  have  : — 

'.'  and  My  strong  imagination  "  (II.  i.) 

"and  I'll  seek"  (III.  3.) 

"and  Harmonious  charmingly"    (IV.    i.) 

Again,  not  once  does  this  defect  appear  in  "  Hamlet." 
We  have  also  instances  of  the  conjunction  "  but  " 
placed  at  the  end  of  lines 

"  but  For  every  trifle  "  (II.  2.) 
"but  The  mistress"  (III.  x.) 
"  but  If  thou  dost  break  "  (IV.  x.) 

Nojr   does    this   defect    once   appear   in    "  Hamlet." 
Examples    also    occur    of  lines    ending    in    other 
Conjunctions,  to   which  may  be  added  Conjunctive 
Pronouns   and   Conjunctive   Adverbs  : — 

"  who  Art  ignorant  "   (I.  2.) 

1 '  that  Hath  kept  with  thy  remembrance  ' '  (I.  2.) 

"  who  To  trash  for  over  topping  "  (I.  2.) 

"that  A  noble  Neapolitan  "  (I.  2.) 

"that  I  prize  "   (I.  2.) 

"for  He's  gentle  "  (I  2.) 

"  whom  We  all  were  "  (II.  x.) 

"that  We  say  befits  "  (II.  I.) 

"which  Lie  tumbling"   (II.  2.) 

And  so  it  continues  on  to  end  of  the  play.  Yet  never 
once  does  this  form  of  intimate  connection  between 
the  end  of  one  line  and  the  beginning  of  the  next 


'THE   TEMPEST'  537 

appear  in  "  Hamlet."  How  it  is  possible  to  hold, 
in  face  of  a  comparison  of  this  kind,  that  the  versifica- 
tion of  both  plays  came  from  the  same  pen,  is  most 
difficult  to  understand. 

Another  peculiar  form  of  connection  between  the  Prepositions. 
end  of  one  line  and  the  beginning  of  the  next  is  to 
split    between    them    simple    Prepositional    phrases. 
For  example  : — 

upon  A  most  auspicious  star  "  (I.  a.) 

upon  Some  god  "  (I.  2.) 

at  Which  end  "  (II.  I.) 

of  Our  human  generation  "  (III.  3.) 

with  A  heaviness  "  (V.  I.) 

on  The  strangeness  "  (V.  i.) 

The  only  Prepositions  which  appear  at  the  end 
of  lines  in  "  Hamlet "  are  those  which  belong  to  the 
preceding  verbs,  and  do  not,  except  in  one  case, 
which  has  a  special  justification,  enter  into  the  forma- 
tion of  Prepositional  phrases. 

A  critical  and  exhaustive  examination  of  the  line  shake- 
terminations  in  the  blank  verse  of  the  plays  attributed  sPear.ea^. 

r     J  terminations 

to  "  Shakespeare  will,  we  imagine,  yield  surprising 
results.  We  have  therefore  taken  not  only  the  play 
of  "  Hamlet,"  which  we  made  our  standard  in  examin- 
ing the  blank  verse  of  "  The  Tempest,"  but  all  the 
Shakespearean  plays  which  received  a  proper  literary 
presentation  between  the  publication  of  "  Henry  IV," 
part  i,  the  first  of  the  issue  in  1597,  and  "  Hamlet  " 
(1604),  the  last  of  the  authentic  issues  prior  to  the 
First  Folio,  and  we  have  spent  some  hours  in  running 
the  eye  over  the  terminations  of  their  blank  verse. 
Not  once  have  we  found  a  line  ending  in  "  and," 
"  but,"  or  other  simple  Conjunction  or  Conjunctive 
Pronoun.  We  will  not  venture  to  say  that  such 


528        "  SHAKESPEARE  "    IDENTIFIED 

an  ending  does  not  exist  in  "  Richard  III," 
"  Richard  II,"  "  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream," 
"  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  "  The  Merchant  of  Venice," 
"  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  "  Much  Ado,"  "  Titus 
Andronicus  "  or  "  Hamlet "  ;  but  if  any  such  termina- 
tion should  happen  to  be  there  we  have  not  discovered 
it ;  and  so  extremely  rare  is  it  that  it  would  have  to  be 
ranked  with  "  Homer's  nods  "  and  "  Milton's  lapses." 
In  the  case  of  "  The  Tempest,"  however,  there  is 
no  need  to  search  for  these  endings  :  they  obtrude 
themselves  in  a  most  uncomfortable  way. 
"  Weak-  When,  however,  we  turn  to  the  plays  which  "  others 

and' strange    were  C3^G^  upon  at  a  later  date  to  finish,"  a  totally 
pens.  different  state  of  things  is  met  with.    There  is  probably 

not  one  of  these  without  several  "  and  "  and  "  but  " 
terminations.  The  play  which  comes  nearest  to 
"  The  Tempest  "  in  this  particular  we  should  imagine 
to  be  "  Cymbeline."  If  we  glance  over  it  whilst 
the  contrast  between  the  true  Shakespearean  termina- 
tions and  "  The  Tempest "  terminations  are  still 
in  mind,  we  recognize  at  once  that  the  "  Cymbeline  " 
terminations  belong  to  the  "  Tempest "  order. 
"  Ands,"  "  buts,"  and  Conjunctive  Pronouns  are  met 
with  frequently ;  and  in  versification,  at  any  rate, 
there  is  a  general  suggestion  of  similarity  in  the  two 
works.  It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  note  in  this 
play,  the  sea,  the  scene  before  a  cave,  the  thunder 
and  lightning,  and  the  dumb-show  "  mummery " 
(which  Sir  Sidney  Lee  admits  could  not  have  been 
penned  by  "  Shakespeare  "),  and  even  the  character 
of  Imogen  :  all  of  which  are  suggestive  of  the  work 
we  are  discussing. 

If,  then,  the  substance  of  the  play  of  "  Cymbeline  " 
is  Shakespearean,  everything  is  suggestive  of  its  having 


"THE   TEMPEST*  529 

been  versified  by  the  writer  who  composed  "  The 
Tempest."  A  development  of  this  line  of  study  will 
probably  do  much  to  still  further  reduce  the  quantity 
of  pure  Shakespearean  literature.  In  so  far  as  the 
conceptions  and  general  wording  of  the  later  plays  are 
recognized  as  Shakespearean,  it  will  tend  to  bear  out 
a  theory  we  have  developed  in  an  earlier  chapter, 
that  these  dramas  existed  first  as  stage  plays  with  a 
larger  proportion  of  prose,  and  were  subsequently 
converted  into  poetic  literature ;  the  later  works 
having  to  receive  their  versification  from  strange 
hands.  In  the  case  of  "  Cymbeline  "  it  is  possible 
to  ascribe  the  poetic  dressing  alone  to  the  strangers. 
In  the  case  of  "  The  Tempest "  we  believe  that  the 
entire  drama  must  be  given  over  to  those  who  were 
engaged  in  finishing  off  "  Shakespeare's  "  plays. 

We  are  prepared  to  maintain,  then,  on  the  strength  Not  Shako- 
of  the  various  points  indicated,  that  "  The  Tempest  "  s*™™'s 
is  no  play  of  "  Shakespeare's."  It  is  not  the  absence 
of  an  odd  Shakespearean  characteristic,  but  the 
absence  of  so  many  dominant  marks  of  his  work,  along 
with  the  presence  of  several  features  which  are  quite 
contrary  to  his  style,  that  compels  us  to  reject  it. 
If,  therefore,  it  was  actually  put  forward  during 
William  Shakspere's  lifetime  as  a  genuine  Shake- 
spearean play,  it  furnishes  an  additional  testimony 
to  the  previous  death  of  the  dramatist,  and  what  was 
at  first  a  difficulty  thus  becomes  a  further  support 
and  confirmation  of  our  theory.  Who  the  writer  or 
writers  may  have  been,  how  the  work  came  to  find  a 
place  in  the  collected  issue  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
(the  First  Folio),  why  it  happens  to  be  accorded  the 
first  place  in  that  collection  and  is  also  edited  with 
exceptional  pains,  are,  no  doubt,  problems  of  consider- 

34 


530        "SHAKESPEARE"    IDENTIFIED 

able  interest,  which,  if  solved,  might  throw  some  light 
upon  our  own  problem.  Their  solution,  however, 
is  neither  pressing  nor  necessary,  and  therefore  may 
be  allowed  to  stand  over. 

Relation  to        We  desire,  however,  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
onr  problem.  but  for  the  theory  that  Edward  de  Vere  was  the 

writer  of  Shakespeare's  plays  we  might  never  have  been 
led  to  suspect  the  authenticity  of  "  The  Tempest." 
When,  therefore,  the  theory  of  the  De  Vere  author- 
ship suggests  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this 
play,  and  on  examination  we  find  such  an  accumula- 
tion of  evidence  that  it  is  not  Shakespeare's  work, 
the  discovery  brings  additional  support  to  the 
supposition  that  the  author  of  the  genuine  work  was 
indeed  Edward  de  Vere.  And  it  is  the  frequency 
with  which  such  examples  of  mutual  or  complementary 
corroboration  have  sprung  from  our  theory,  that  has 
given  to  that  theory  such  an  air  of  certainty. 

We  are  conscious  that  in  putting  forward  these 
views  respecting  "  The  Tempest,"  we  are  probably 
"  cutting  prejudice  against  the  grain  "  as  dangerously 
as  in  the  theory  of  authorship  we  are  advancing,  and 
also  risking  the  opening  up  of  side  issues  which  may 
divert  attention  from  the  central  theme.  This  is  why 
we  have  relegated  the  matter  to  an  appendix.  To 
those  whom  these  arguments  do  not  satisfy  we  would 
therefore,  for  the  time  being,  indicate  the  earlier  dates 
suggested  by  Hunter  and  others,  and  the  general 
theory  of  collaboration  held  respecting  "  Shake- 
speare's "  latest  productions.  Meanwhile  we  make 
it  clear  that  we  do  not  rest  upon  these  earlier  date 
theories,  and  that  the  rejection  of  "  The  Tempest  " 
must  in  our  view  be  incorporated  ultimately  into  the 
general  argument. 


APPENDIX    II 

SUPPLEMENTARY  EVIDENCE 

ONE  of  the  chief  difficulties  with  which  we  have  had  to 
contend  in  penning  the  foregoing  pages  has  been  that 
of  keeping  pace  with  the  accumulation  of  evidence  and 
placing  it  in  its  proper  connections  :  a  very  strong 
testimony  to  the  soundness  of  the  general  conclusions. 
Even  after  the  work  was  virtually  all  set  up  some  most 
interesting  evidence,  one  piece  of  which  will  probably 
crown  the  whole  structure,  came  into  our  hands.  These 
matters  we  can  only  briefly  indicate. 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  ARGUMENT 

First,  we  would  quote  the  following  passage  which 
we  had  overlooked  in  the  English  Men  of  Letters  series, 
which  gives  valuable  support  to  our  "  Posthumous  " 
argument : 

''  At  the  beginning  of  his  career  Shakespeare  made 
very  free  use  of  the  work  of  other  men.  .  .  .  Towards 
the  end  of  his  career  his  work  is  once  more  found 
mixed  with  the  work  of  other  men,  but  this  time  there 
is  generally  reason  to  suspect  that  it  is  these  others 
that  have  laid  him  under  contribution,  altering  his 
completed  plays,  or  completing  his  unfinished  work 
by  additions  of  their  own  "  ("  Shakespeare,"  by  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh,  p.  109). 

531 


532        "SHAKESPEARE"   IDENTIFIED 

II 

OXFORD'S  CREST  AND  FAMILY  MOTTO 

An  examination  of  the  De  Vere  Crest  in  "  Fairbairn's 
Crests"  (vol.  II.  plate  40,2)  and  in  the  "  De  Walden 
Library  "  (vol.  Banners,  Standards  and  Badges,  p.  257) 
discloses  the  interesting  fact  that  what  Sir  Edwin 
Durning  -  Lawrence  in  "Bacon  is  Shakespeare," 
(page  41)  had  taken  for  Bacon's  Crest,  because  it 
chanced  to  be  in  a  presentation  copy  of  the  "  Novum 
Organum,"  is  in  fact  the  De  Vere  Crest.  Several 
families  had  the  Boar  as  their  crest ;  but  the  dis- 
tinguishing mark  of  this  one  is  the  crescent  upon  the 
left  shoulder  of  the  animal  (see  "  De  Walden  Library  ") . 
This  is  peculiar  to  the  De  Vere  Crest,  and  appears  in 
Sir  Edwin  Durning-Lawrence's  illustration.  Whatever 
value  there  might  be  in  this  writer's  argument  there- 
fore belongs  to  De  Vere.  We  shall  not,  however , 
discuss  that  argument  at  present. 

The  stars  upon  the  De  Vere  banner  and  the  family 
motto  : 

"  Vero  nihil  verius  " 

— nothing  truer  than  truth — are  specially  interesting 
in  view  of  Hamlet's  poesy  to  Ophelia  : 

"  Doubt  that  the  stars  are  fire, 

Doubt  that  the  sun  doth  move, 
Doubt  truth  to  be  a  liar, 
But  never  doubt  I  love." 

This  mode  of  exaggerating  by  representing  something 
as  being  "  truer  than  truth "  comes  out  again  in 
Shakespeare's  satirizing  of  Euphuism,  where  he  repre- 


SUPPLEMENTARY  EVIDENCE          533 

sents  Don  Armado  as  using  the  terms  of  the  De  Vere 
family  motto  : 

"Thou    art  ...  truer    than    truth    itself." 

Ill 

OXFORD'S  PORTRAIT  AND  THE  DROESHOUT  ENGRAVING 

It  is  not  generally  known  that  there  is  no  Shake- 
speare portrait  before  the  Droeshout  engraving  which 
appeared  in  the  First  Folio  :  that  is  to  say,  seven  years 
after  the  death  of  the  man  it  is  supposed  to  represent ; 
and  it  is  of  a  totally  different  type  from  the  bust  of 
him  that  was  set  up  at  Stratford,  where  he  would  be 
personally  known.  Droeshout,  moreover,  was  only  a 
lad  of  fifteen  when  Shakspere  died  ;  he  would  be  only 
twelve  when  Shakspere  was  in  London  probably  for 
the  last  time,  and  was  born  only  the  year  before 
Shakspere's  supposed  retirement  in  1604.  These 
facts,  combined  with  the  peculiar  character  of 
the  portrait  he  produced,  has  made  the  question  of 
what  he  had  to  work  on  not  the  least  interesting  of 
the  many  problems  connected  with  Shakespearean 
authorship. 

It  was  not  until  a  few  months  ago  that  we  had  an 
opportunity  of  seeing  a  portrait  of  Edward  de  Vere 
in  Fairfax  Murray's  reproductions  of  the  portraits  that 
are  in  the  Duke  of  Portland's  place  at  Welbeck  Abbey, 
near  Worksop,  Nottingham. 

Certain  features  in  the  picture  immediately  suggested 
the  Droeshout  engraving ;  most  particularly  the  thin 
dark  line  which  runs  along  above  the  upper  lip,  leaving 
a  slight  space  between  this  suggestion  of  a  moustache 


534         "SHAKESPEARE'1    IDENTIFIED 

and  the  edge  of  the  lip  itself.  Since  then  we  have 
looked  over  a  large  number  of  portraits  of  the  time, 
and  have  discovered  nothing  else  similar.  In  addi- 
tion there  were  the  same  facial  proportions,  the  same 
arching  of  the  eyebrows,  the  identical  pose  (three- 
quarter  face),  the  same  direction  of  gaze,  about  an 
equal  amount  of  bust,  the  chief  difference  being  that 
one  is  turned  to  the  right  and  the  other  to  the  left : 
altogether  there  was  quite  sufficient  to  suggest  that, 
when  the  two  could  be  brought  together,  a  very  strong 
case  might  be  made  out  for  Droeshout  having  worked 
from  this  portrait  of  Edward  de  Vere,  making  modifi- 
cations according  to  instructions.  For  Oxford  was 
only  twenty-five  when  the  portrait  was  painted,  and, 
of  course,  it  was  necessary  to  represent  Shakespeare 
as  an  older  man.  This  would  explain  the  peculiar 
Tom  Pinch  like  combination  of  youthfulness  and  age 
that  is  one  of  the  puzzling  features  of  the  Droeshout 
engraving. 

We  have  now  before  us,  however,  what  may  prove 
to  be  the  most  sensational  piece  of  evidence  that  our 
investigations  have  so  far  yielded.  This  is  a  picture 
known  as  the  Graf  ton  portrait  of  Shakespeare  at  24. 
The  full  particulars  respecting  it  are  narrated  in  a  work 
on  the  subject  by  Thomas  Kay  and  published  in  1915  : 
the  chief  aim  of  the  book  being  to  show  the  connection 
between  this  and  another  portrait  from  which  the 
Droeshout  engraving  was  conceivably  made. 

Now,  until  we  can  place  an  acknowledged  portrait 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  alongside  of  it,  we  shall  defer 
saying  positively  that  this  is  actually  another  portrait 
of  him  ;  but  speaking  from  recollections  of  the  other 
we  would  say  at  first  sight  that  it  is  so.  The  eye  is  at 
once  arrested  again  by  the  thin  dark  line  on  the  upper 


SUPPLEMENTARY  EVIDENCE          535 

lip  that  we  noticed  in  Oxford's  portrait ;  there  are  all 
the  features  which  we  noticed  his  portrait  had  in 
common  with  the  Droeshout  engraving  ;  and  in  those 
points  in  which  the  older  features  of  the  Droeshout 
engraving  differed  from  Edward  de  Vere  this  one  agrees 
with  the  latter.  The  probability  that  it  is  another 
portrait  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  is  therefore  very 
strong. 

We  now  come  to  the  startling  facts.  First  of  all, 
although  the  portrait  is  that  of  a  young  man  aged 
twenty-four,  he  is  dressed  as  an  aristocrat,  and  Strat- 
fordianism  is  driven  to  invent  far-fetched  explanations. 
Again  under  the  4  of  his  age  there  had  been  a  3,  and 
again  more  explanations  have  to  be  invented.  Then, 
under  the  8  in  the  date  it  looks  again  as  if  there  had 
been  another  3,  and  authorities  are  quoted  to  contro- 
vert it.  Now  as  the  Earl  of  Oxford  would  be  twenty- 
three  in  the  year  1573  these  two  alterations  are  two  out 
of  the  three  precise  alterations  which  would  be  necessary 
to  make  the  age  and  date  in  a  portrait  of  Edward  de  Vere 
agree  with  the  particulars  for  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford. 

In  a  word  we  have  here  probably  (to  be  cautious  for 
the  present)  a  portrait  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  with 
particulars  altered  to  fit  the  Stratford  man  :  in  which 
case  our  evidence  is  about  as  complete  as  it  could  be. 
The  probability  is,  as  a  study  of  the  work  suggests, 
that  this  portrait  was  placed  before  Droeshout  as  the 
basis  for  his  engraving.  We  would  further  add  that 
the  numbers  were  probably  altered  so  that  the  engraver 
need  not  be  in  the  secret.  The  scrubbing  to  which  the 
picture  has  been  subjected  has  brought  up  the  numbers 
from  underneath.  That  same  scrubbing  has,  un- 
fortunately, obliterated  the  high  lights  on  the  nose  of 


536        "SHAKESPEARE"   IDENTIFIED 

the  portrait,  thus  altering  its  shape  and  reducing  its 
value  for  identification. 

This  enables  us  to  finish  our  argument  almost  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  original  plan,  the  seventh 
and  last  step  of  which  was  to  connect  directly  as  far 
as  possible  the  newly  accredited  with  the  formerly 
reputed  author 


Note. — The  Grafton  portrait  of  Shakespeare  has  now  been  care- 
fully compared  with  the  Welbeck  portrait  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
and  when  proper  allowances  are  made  for  evident  differences  of 
artistic  treatment  and  skill,  and  for  the  denudation  of  high 
lights  from  the  former,  as  well  as  other  disfigurements  resulting 
from  ill-usage  to  the  picture,  there  seems  abundant  justification 
for  the  point  of  view  assumed  in  the  above  argument.  In  our 
opinion  the  portrait  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford  has  more  in  common 
with  both  the  Grafton  portrait  and  the  Droeshout  engraving 
than  these  two  have  with  one  another. 


INDEX 


"  A.  W.,"  65. 

Absence  of  letters  by  W.  Shak- 

spere,  37-8,  71-2. 
Accounts   of  the  Treasurer    of 

the  Chamber,  77-9,  86. 
Activities,  dramatic,  of  de  Vere 

306-338. 
Actors'  licenses,  Shakespeare  in, 

63- 
Admiral's,    Lord,    company    of 

players,  369. 
"  Action,"  Spenser's,  73. 
Affectation  of  Sir  P.  Sidney,  297. 
"  Agamemnon     and     Ulysses  " 

Oxford's  play  of,  312,  420. 
Alen9on  (see  Anjou). 
"  All's    Well,"    223,    232,    235, 

247.  253-5,  266,  364,  377,  415, 

459,      495 »      the      argument 

from,      climax     to,      280-1 ; 

story  of  Bertram  in,  459. 
Alteration  of  numbers  in  Grafton 

portrait,  535-6. 
Ancestry  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

220-30. 
Anecdote  respecting  Shakspere, 

71  ;    of    Burbage   and    Shak- 
spere, 84,  86. 

Anjou,  Duke  of,  247,  353,  474. 
Anonymity,    motives    for,    64, 

66,   210-14. 
Anti-Stratfordian      authorities, 

24,  26  ;   difficulties,  64-68. 
"  Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  413, 

455- 

Archives,  municipal,  and  Shak- 
spere, 74,  86. 

Arguments,  convergence  of 
many,  21,  85-7,  147,  150-1, 
208,  430-32,  435-37,  493-95, 
529-30. 

Argument,  posthumous,  sum- 
mary of,  430-32,  531;  poetical, 
152-207 ;  dramatic,  306-348. 

Aristocracy  of  Shakespeare, 
121-3,  222-3,  233,  254,  270.  I 

35  537 


Arundel,    Charles,  and   Oxford, 

219. 
"  As  you  like  it,"  197,  218-9, 

377,  4i5- 

Asbies,  Shakspere's  lawsuit  re, 
61. 

Atheism,  Oxford  accused  of, 
150,  480. 

Authorities,  chiefly  Stratfordian, 
19,  20 ;  anti-Stratfordian, 
24,  26 ;  biographical,  209. 

Authorship,  importance  of,  13  j 
Merchant  of  Venice,  bearing 
upon,  14  ;  and  William  Shak- 
spere, 15  ;  dramatic,  Halli- 
well-Phillipps  on,  65. 

Autobiography  in  the  Sonnets, 
21 1-2,  434. 

Bacon,  Francis,  433;  and  Oxford, 
240 ;  and  Essex,  392,  472  ; 
death  of,  432. 

Bacon's  Crest,   532. 

Baconian  theory,  393,  432,  443. 

Bagehot,  Richard,  on  Shake- 
speare, 206. 

Baptista  Minola's  crowns,  271  ; 
Nigrone's,  271. 

Bayne,  The  Rev.  Ronald,  M.A., 
on  Antony  Munday,  308-10. 

Bearing  of  "  Merchant  of 
Venice "  upon  the  author- 
ship, 14. 

Bedingfield,  Edward  de  Vere's 
letter  to,  165-6. 

Bell,  H.  G.,  Mary  Queen  of 
Scots,  358. 

Benedict   Spinola,    272. 

Beesly's     "  Queen     Elizabeth," 

139- 

Bequests  of  William  Shakspere, 
42-6 ;  to  Heminge  and 
Condell,  42 ;  Jonson  and, 

43-4- 

Bertram  in  "  All's  Well,"  Story 
of,  280,  459. 


538 


INDEX 


B«rowne     in     "  L.L.L."     and 

Oxford,  293,  460. 
Betrothal  of  Anne  Cecil  to  Sir 

P.  Sidney.  256. 
Biographical    authorities,    209  ; 

summary,  487-92. 
Bishopsgate,    Shakspere's    resi- 
dence in,  57,  61,  370  ;  Oxford 

at,   370. 
Blackfriars    property,    deed    of 

purchase  of,  51 . 
Boar's    Head    tavern,     Oxford 

at,  398-401  ;  Southwark,  399. 
Boar  (The)  as  a  crest,  400,  532. 
Boccaccio,  233,  280. 
Bond,    M.A.,    Mr.    R.    W.,    on 

Lyly's  works,  321-35. 
Books  and  W.    Shakspere,   31, 

46 ;        Lord       Chamberlain's 

missing,  79. 

Brutus,  eccentricity  of,  302. 
Bullen,     A.     H.,     on      Antony 

Munday,   308. 
Burbage,  Mrs.   Stopes  on  death 

01,    54- 
Burbage,     Richard,     77,     87-9, 

227  ;   Company  at  Court,  78  ; 

and    Shakspere,    anecdote   of, 

84,  86. 

Burbage,  James,  376. 
Burleigh,     Lord     (see     William 

Cecil)  ;    Lady,  246,  259. 
Burns,  Robert,  215. 
Burns,    Ruskin    on,     30 ;     and 

books,  32-3  ;      education    of, 

32-3. 

Business  methods  of  Shakspere, 
14 ;  transactions  of  Shak- 
spere, 39. 

Business  of  Shakspere,   61-2. 


Cambridge,  History  of  English 
Literature,  152,  174  ;  History 
of  English  Literature  on 
A.  Munday,  308-9  ;  servants 
of  de  Vere,  play  at,  306. 

Carlyle  on  Shakespeare  as 
dramatist,  114;  on  Shake- 
peare's  feudalism,  120-1  ; 
Thomas,  159 ;  on  Shake- 
speare as  poet,  363,  493. 

Castle  Hedingham,  231,  257, 
278-9. 

Catholicism,     Shakespeare     on, 


130-1  ;  and  Edward  de  Ver«. 
140,  150,  481  ;  and  Hamlet, 
479-81  ;  and"  The  Tempest." 
519. 

Cecil,  Anne,  244,  253,  254,  255, 
256,  273-81  ;  and  Desdemona, 
274-5  ;  death  of,  361-2,  476  ; 
and  Juliet,  203,  256.  455 ; 
and  Ophelia,  474-5. 

Cecil,  Sir  Robert.  245,  388; 
de  Vere's  letter  to,  239. 

Cecil,  Thomas,  245,  261,  473 ; 
and  Essex  rebellion,  482. 

Cecil,  William,  216,  234,  251, 
3°4,  365.  376  ;  and  literary 
men,  260  ;  espionage  of,  261, 
473  ;  and  travel,  267  ; 
Spenser  on,  260,  287 ; 
Macaulay  on,  288,  469  ;  and 
Queen  Mary's  execution, 
351-9  ;  and  Polonius,  258-62, 
469-474 ;  characteristics  of, 
469-470;  maxims,  471  ;  philo- 
sophy of  life,  470-3  ;  and 
Somerset,  472. 

Cecils,  The,  and  Edward  de  Vere, 

244-5- 
Chamberlain,   Great,   220,   228- 

30.  437  :    Lord,   228-9. 
Chamberlain's,   Lord,   company 

of  actors,  74-6.  402  ;    missing 

books,  79. 
Chapter   on   Stratfordian   view, 

interpolation  of,   22. 
Character  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

M4.    H?.    153,    155.    164-5. 

172,  194,  198,  204-7,  209-13, 

222,    242,    260,    278,    326,   346- 

7,  354-6.  4°5.  433.  436, 
456.  483-5,  498-9. 

Chaucer,    191. 

Chettle  and  William  Shakspere, 
395.  426. 

Chettle's  apology,  69,  85. 

Child,  Harold  H..  152,  156. 

Church,  Dean,  life  of  Spenser, 
1 60,  287,  291  ;  on  Sidney's 
affectation,  297  ;  on  Spenser's 
"Willie,"  338-40;  on  Bur- 
leigh's  cunning,  287. 
j  Chronological  summary,  487- 

92. 
i    Clark    and    Wright,    Clarendon 

Press  on  "  Macbeth,"  411. 
i   Clarke,  Cowden,  338,  424. 


INDEX 


539 


Classical  education  of  Shake- 
speare, 117-8. 

Clayton,   John,  62. 

Climax  to  "All's  Well  " 
argument  and  Boccaccio, 
280-1. 

Close  of  career  in  London  of 
W.  Shakspere,  81. 

Coarse  fun  in  "  The  Tempest," 
516-7. 

Colin  Clout,  341,  343. 

"  Colin  Clout's  come  home,"  73. 

Collins,  Arthur,  on  Edward  de 
Vere,  157  ;  historical  recollec- 
tions, 209,  248. 

Combe,  Thomas,  44. 

Comedies  compared  with 
"  Tempest,"  506. 

"  Comedy  of  Errors,"  169,  271. 

Comedy  and  tragedy  combined, 
204-207,  466. 

Competing  solutions,  142-3,  432, 

443,   448. 

Comte,  Auguste,  Shakespeare 
a  sceptic,  131. 

Concealment,  motives  for,  65, 
210-14. 

Contemporary  notices  of  Shake- 
speare, 68-71 ;  silence  respect- 
ing Shakspere,  71-2. 

Contemporaries  and  W.  Shak- 
spere, 87-9. 

Convergence  of  many  argu- 
ments, 21,  85-7,  147,  150-1, 
208,  430-2,  435-7,  493-5. 
52973°- 

"  Coriolanus,"  177,  412,  413. 

Courthope,  W.  J.,  History  of 
Poetry,  153  ;  on  Edward  de 
Vere,  153,  156. 

Creizenach,  Shakespeare's  aristo- 
cratic views,  122 ;  on  Lyly 
and  Oxford,  316-7. 

Creighton's  "  Age  of  Elizabeth  " 
and  literature,  139. 

Crest,  Oxford's,  400,  532. 

Crests,  Fairbairn's,  532. 

"Cymbeline,"  413;  compared 
with  "  The  Tempest,"  528. 

Damask   rose   and   lily,    174-9. 

Dancing,    247. 

Daniel,    Sonnets   of,    453. 

Dante,  90,  99. 

Dark  Lady  in  the  Sonnets,  449. 


Dates  of  publication,  414-23. 
Dating  the  plays,  371-81. 
Date  of  "  The  Tempest,"  503-6. 
Davison,    Burleigh's    letter    to, 

359- 
Davison's     Poetical    Rhapsody, 

348. 

De  Vere  (see  Vere). 
Death    of    Shakspere,    39 ;     of 

Spenser,    Jonson    and    Dean 

Church  on,  54 ;     of  Burbage, 

Mrs.  Stopes  on,  54 ;   of  Anne 

Cecil,36i-2 ;  of  Oxford,4O4,43i. 
Dedication  of  "  Lucrece,"  440; 

of  Sonnets,   440-2. 
Deed  of  purchase  of  Blackfriars 

property,  51. 
Definition  of  the  Shakespearean 

problem,    94. 
Dennis,  G  Ravenscroft,  on  the 

House    of   Cecil,    209,    261  ; 

on  Thomas  Cecil,  473. 
Desdemona    and    Anne     Cecil, 

274-5- 

Desire,  Shakespeare  and  de  Vere 
on,  180-3. 

Desportes,  Sidney's  plagiarism 
from,  299. 

"  Destiny,"  Hamlet  and,  461-2. 

Devereux,  Robert,  poetry  of, 
245  (see  also  Essex  Rebellion). 

Devereux,  Walter  (istEarl),  256. 

Dictionary  of  National  Bio- 
graphy, 141-7,  209. 

Different  spellings  of  "  Shake- 
speare," 12,  63. 

Difficulties  of  anti-Stratfordian 
views,  64. 

Discovery,  34-43  ;  preparatory 
movement  towards,  20;  sen- 
sational 280-1,  459. 

Disrepute  in  the  Sonnets,  211 
(see  also  Loss  of  good  name). 

Document  in  Guildhall  library, 
52. 

Donnelly  Ignatius,  "  The  Great 
Cryptogram,"  23-5. 

Doubtfulness  of  Stratfordian 
view,  15. 

Dowden,    Prof.,    list    of    plays, 

374,  376-7,  4°9- 
Drake,  on  "  King  Lear,"  410. 
Drama  and  Shakespeare,  113-5. 
Dramas,  unpublished,  and  Shak- 

spere's  will,  40-1,  422-3. 


540 


INDEX 


Drama,  evolution  of  Eli/abethan, 
313  ;  Hamlet  as  patron  ofj 
318,  475-6. 

Dramas,  issue  of  Shakespearean, 

367-79,  4°7-23  • 
Dramatic  activities  of  de  Vere, 

306-38. 
Dramatic  authorship,  Halliwell- 

Phillipps    on,    65 ;     r61es    of 

Shakspere,  83. 
Dramatist,     Edward    de    Vere 

as.  145,  157. 
Dray  ton     at     Stratford,      43  ; 

sonnets  of,  453. 
Dreams     in     "  Hamlet "     and 

"  The  Tempest,"  510-2. 
Droeshout  engraving,   533-6. 
Dryden  on  Spenser's  "  Willie," 

338. 
Duality    in    Shakespeare,    303  ; 

in  Oxford,  302-3  ;  in  Hamlet, 

465-6. 
Dumb  shows  in  "  The  Tempest," 

5I3-4- 
Durning-Lawrence,   Shakspere's 

signatures,    49 ;     on    Bacon's 

Crest,  532. 
Dyce  on  date  of  "  The  Tempest," 

506. 

Earls  Colne,  231. 

Early  life  of  William  Shakspere, 

28-34- 

Early  life  of  Oxford,  230-52. 
Eastcheap,  Boar's  Head  tavern 

at,  398,  400. 
Eccentricity     of     Shakespeare, 

iio-n  ;  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

144,    301  ;    of    Brutus,    302  ; 

of  Hamlet,  465. 
Echo  poems,  198-200,  254. 
Echo  poem  in  Venus  and  Adonis, 

198-9. 
Echo,     The,     in    "  Romeo    and 

Juliet,"  200. 
Educated    classes,    Shakespeare 

as  the  poet  of,  30-1. 
Education  of  Shakespeare,   27, 

117-8  ;    of  Shakspere,  28-34  : 

of  Burns,  32-3 ;     of  Oxford, 

236-250. 
Edwards  the  choirmaster,  317, 

322. 

Elizabeth,    Queen,   and    Shake- 
speare, 74  ;    funeral  of,  229- 


30;  and  Oxford,  166-7,  24<>, 
235>  239-4o  >  and  Lady 
Burleigh,  259 ;  and  Hatton, 
264 ;  proposed  French 
marriage,  353-6 ;  death  of, 
and  Shakespeare,  395  ;  death 
of,  and  Oxford,  396. 

Elizabethan  poetry,  160  ;  drama, 
evolution  of,  313. 

Elze  Karl  on  date  of  "  The 
Tempest,"  506. 

Emerson  on  Walt  Whitman, 
i  oo- 1  ;  on  Shakespeare,  102, 

434- 

"  Endymion,"  Lyly's  play  of, 
320,  334. 

"  England's  Helicon,"  174,  250, 
307-8. 

English,     Shakespeare  s,     27  ; 
men  of  Letters  (Shakespeare), 
34-5,  57.  Qi-2.  236-7,  531. 

Espionage  of  Burleigh,  261. 

Essex,  Earls  of  (see  Devereux). 

Essex,  rebellion,  81,  82,  87  ;  and 
Henry  Wriothesley,  388-94  : 
rebellion  and  "  Richard  II," 
389  ;  execution  of,  391 ;  re- 
bellion and  Thomas  Cecil,  482. 

Essex,  histories  of,  209 ;  Wright's 
history  of  and  climax  to 
"All's  Well "  argument, 
280-1. 

Euphuism.   293,   532-3. 

Evolution  of  Elizabethan  drama, 

3*3- 
Exeter,    Earl    of    (see    Thomas 

Cecil). 
Exposition,  method  of,  17,  18. 

Fairbairn's  Crests,  532. 

False  stories  of  Oxford,  218. 

Father  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
230-3,  248 ;  of  Hamlet,  466. 

Features,  general,  of  Shake- 
speare, 109-19. 

Fen  ton,  Geoffrey,  277. 

Feudalism    and    Shakespeare, 
120,  481;  and  "  The  Tempest," 
518- 

Fielding,  99. 

First  folio  of  Shakespeare,  41, 
83,  415,  422-3 ;  Heminge 
and  Condell's  responsibility 
for,  42,  422-3  ;  Ben  Jonson 
and,  43. 


INDEX 


541 


Fletcher,  Laurence,  75. 

Folio,  first,  of  Shakespeare,  41, 
83,  415,  422-3  ;  second  of 
Shakespeare,  330-1,  492. 

Forgeries,  Shakespearean,  80, 
504- 

Fortune  and  Nature,  poem  on, 
196-7. 

Fortinbras  and   James   I,    482. 

Free  school  at  Stratford, 
William  Shakspere  and,  29. 

France,  Shakespeare  and,  356-7. 

French  language  and  Shake- 
speare, 27,  243  ;  and  Oxford's 
education,  242-3. 

Fuller,  Worthies'  library,  155  ; 
and  Sir  Horace  Vere,  478-9. 

Gadshill,  Oxford  at  401. 
Gayton's    "  Festivous    Notes," 

399- 
General  features  of  Shakespeare, 

109-19. 
Genius    and    the    Shakespeare 

problem,  96-100. 
Getley,  Walter,  62. 
Globe  theatre  burnt  down,  82-3, 

87. 

Good  name  (see  Loss  of). 
Goethe,  99,  422. 
Golding,  Arthur,  tutor  to  Oxford, 

230,  496  ;  and  Ovid,  236  ;  and 

law,  238. 
Good    name,    loss    of,     193-5, 

210-13,  405,  436. 
Grafton    portrait,    534-6. 
"  Great  Cryptogram,"   Ignatius 

Donnelly,  23-5. 
Greek       unities       and      "  The 

Tempest,"  518. 
Green's  Short  History  on  Oxford, 

140. 

Greene,  70,  85. 
Greene's  attack  on  Shakspere, 

60,  69,  85,  426. 
Greenstreet,    Mr.,    on    William 

Stanley,   448. 
Greenwood,  Sir  George's  work, 

indebtedness     to,      19,      20  ; 

Sir  George,  24,   102  ;    on  Ben 

Jonson,    45,    55  ;     on   mask- 
ing    performance    in     "  The 

Tempest,"    506. 
Greville,    Fulke  (Lord  Brooke), 

218,  295,  304. 
Grosart,  Dr.,  209 ;    on  Edward 


de  Vere,  154-5  ;     and  Fuller 

Worthies'      Library,      162-4, 

170-2. 
Guildhall      library,      Shakspere 

document  in,  52. 
Gunnyon,  W.,  sketch  of  Burns, 

30,   32-3- 

Hackney,  Oxford's  residence  at, 
227,  239-40,  370. 

Haggard  Hawk,  the  Poems  on, 
137-8,  173,  450. 

Hall,  Susanna,  Shakspere 's 
daughter,  40. 

Hall,  Doctor,  and  Shakspere's 
books,  46. 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  material 
supplied  by,  25  ;  Outlines, 
28 ;  on  Shakspere's  books, 
31-2 ;  on  death  of  Shak- 
spere, 39  ;  on  testamentary 
irregularities,  50 ;  on  Shak- 
spere's residence  at  Stratford, 
57 ;  on  Shakespeare  as  a 
dramatist,  59  ;  on  purchase  of 
New  Place,  59  ;  on  dramatic 
authorship,  65  ;  on  Shak- 
spere as  actor,  74 ;  on 
Treasurer  of  Chambers 
accounts,  77 ;  and  the  Boar's 
Head  tavern,  Eastcheap,  398— 
400. 

Hamlet,  71,  124,  170,  209,  232, 
247,  267,  357,  364,  377, 
381,  404,  415-6,  418,  428, 
495,  499 ;  and  secrecy,  67 ; 
as  patron  of  drama,  318-9, 
475-6 ;  sea  experiences  of, 
362  ;  publication  of,  421-2  ; 
Frank  Harris  on,  457 ; 
Shakespeare  as,  457-486 ; 
father  and  mother  of,  466-7  ; 
and  Laertes,  474 ;  and  his 
times,  479 ;  dying  appeal 
of,  483-4 ;  and  versification 
in  "  Tempest,"  525-7  ;  and 
dumb-shows,  513-4 ;  and 
the  De  Vere  motto,  532. 

Handwriting  (see  Penmanship). 

Heminge  and  Condell,  responsi- 
bility for  first  folio,  42,  422-3, 

431- 

Harris,  Frank.  "  The  Man 
Shakespeare,"  21,  183,  222, 
255,  293,  304,  439;  oil 
Hamlet,  457. 


542 


INDEX 


Harris,  Sergeant,  240. 
Harvey,  Gabriel,  290-2,  321-2, 

328.    341,    381. 
Hatfield  manuscripts,  209,  239, 

286,    370,    397. 
Hatton  and  Oxford,  264,  304. 
Hedingham  (see  Castle  Heding- 

ham). 
Helena   in    "  All's    Well  "    and 

Lady  Oxford,  253,  255. 
Henneage,    Thomas,     77,     235, 

429,   439- 
"Henry  IV,"   Parts  I  and   II, 

398-401,  414  ;    Part  II,  377, 

418,  428. 
"Henry    V,"     302,    357,     377, 

415.  428. 
"  Henry  VI."  Parts  I,  II   and 

III,    123,   224-6;     Part  III, 

189. 
"  Henry  VIII,"    102,   374,   411, 

503-4- 

Holofernes,  290-2. 
Home  life  of  Shakspere,  29. 
Homeric     poems     and     Shake- 
speare, 15,  1 6,  90. 
Horatio  and  Hamlet,  477-9. 
Horatio  de  Vere,  427,  477-9. 
Horsemanship,     248-50 ;      and 

"  The    Tempest,"    520-1. 
Hostility  between  de  Vere  and 

Burleigh,  262-289. 
Howard,      Charles,      Earl      of 

Nottingham,  369. 
Human      nature      and      "  The 

Tempest,"  522. 
Hume,    Martin,   on   The   Great 

Lord    Burleigh,    209,    358-9  ; 

on    Mary    Queen    of    Scots, 

358-9 ;          on         Burleigh's 

maxims,  470-1. 
Hunsdon,  Lord,  229. 
Hunter    on    "  The    Tempest," 

503,  505-6. 

Ignoto,  65. 

Importance  of  authorship,  13. 

Income  of  W.  Shakspere,  39, 
76-7,  425-6. 

Incredibilities  of  Stratfordian 
views,  67. 

Indebtedness  to  Sir  G.  Green- 
wood's work,  19,  20 ;  to 
Sir  Sidney  Lee's  work,  141  ; 
to  Halliwell-Phillipps's  work, 


28-9 ;      to     Frank    Harris's 

work,  304. 
Interpolation    of    Chapter    on 

Stratfordian    view,    22. 
Interrogatives,       Shakespeare's 

and  de  Vere's  use  of,  188-9. 
Inventor    of    the    Shakespeare 

sonnet,  453. 
Issue  of  Shakespearean  dramas, 

367-78. 

Italy,  Edward  de  Vere  in,  146, 
251,  268-72 ;  and  Shake- 
speare, 124. 

Jaggard,  "  Passionate  Pilgrim," 
177. 

James  I,  Coronation  of,  229 ; 
and  Fortinbras,  482. 

Jonson,  Ben,  and  the  first  folio, 
43  ;  not  mentioned  in 
Shakspere's  will,  43  ;  son 
of,  44  ;  visit  to  Shakspere, 
43-45  ;  verse  in  first  folio,  55. 

Jonson,  Ben,  70,  86,  87,  89 ; 
and  Shakspere,  84 ;  and 
"  Every  man  out  of  his 
humour,"  400. 

Judith  and  Susanna  Shakspere, 
40. 

Juliet  and  de  Vere's  childwife, 
203.  255.  455. 

"  Julius  Caesar,"  305,  377,  415. 

Kay,  Thomas,  on  Grafton 
portrait,  534-6. 

Kemp,  William,  77. 

"  King  John,"  415. 

"  King  Lear,"  302,  357,  374, 
409-10,  415,  420. 

Knight  on  date  of  "  Tempest," 
506. 

Knyvet,  Sir  Thomas,  antagon- 
ism with  Oxford,  300. 

Laertes  and  Polonius,  470  ; 
and  Thomas  Cecil,  473. 

Lancastrian  sympathies  of 
Shakespeare,  123  ;  of  Oxford, 
148. 

Lang,  Andrew,  and  Shake- 
speare's rapid  production,  381. 

Lark,  The  morning,  202. 

Last  years  of  William  Shak- 
spere at  Stratford,  35-9. 


INDEX 


543 


Later  plays  of  Shakespeare, 
407-14,  430-1,  531. 

Latin,  Shakespeare's  knowledge 
of,  27,  243 ;  and  Oxford's 
education,  242-3. 

Law  and  Shakespeare,  26-7, 
118;  and  Oxford,  238-40. 

Lawsuit  of  Shakspere  reAsbies,6i . 

Lee,  Sir  Sidney,  Heminge  and 
Condell  responsibility  for  first 
folio,  42,  422-3 ;  on  publica- 
tion of  Shakespeare's  dramas, 
56,  68,  374,  416,  420 ;  on 
Shakspere's  business  transac- 
tions, 62  ;  on  Shakspere  as 
actor,  74  ;  Life  of  William 
Shakespeare,  92  ;  on  Shake- 
speare and  drama,  115 ; 
on  Shakspere  and  money 
matters,  126 ;  on  Edward 
de  Vere,  141-2,  155,  367 ; 
on  Jaggard,  178 ;  on  Will 
and  Desire,  184  ;  on  Arthur 
Golding's  "  Ovid,"  236  ;  on 
Shakespeare's  French  and 
Latin,  243  ;  on  Sidney's 
plagiarism,  299  ;  on  Shake- 
speare and  Lyly,  319-20; 
on  Shakespeare's  later  plays, 
407,  411-13 ;  on  Pericles,  420  ; 
on  the  Sonnets,  King  Lear, 
Troilus  and  Cressida,  420 ; 
on  proposed  marriage  of 
Southampton,  445  ;  on 
mummery  in  "  Cymbeline," 
528. 

Lefranc,  Prof.,  24  ;  on  William 
Stanley,  448. 

Letter,  only,  addressed  to 
Shakspere,  59,  60 ;  to 
Bedingfield,  Edward  de 
Vere's,  165-6. 

Letters  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
239-40.  3i6,  370. 

Letters  by  W.  Shakspere, 
absence  of,  37-8,  71-2. 

Licenses,  actors',  Shakespeare 
in,  63. 

Life,  early,  of  W.  Shakspere, 
28-34  '•  °*  Oxford,  230-52. 

Lily  and  Damask  rose,    174-9. 

Literary,  experts  and  Shake- 
speare problem,  94,  95 ; 
interests  of  Shakespeare,  112, 
113  5  transition  and  Edward 


deVere,  161  ;  style  of  Edward 
de  Vere,  162-3 ;  form,  a 
peculiar,  192 ;  quality  of 
"  The  Tempest,"  507-8 ; 
men  in  the  Savoy,  321-2. 

Literature,  Cambridge  History 
of,  152,  174  ;  and  stage  plays, 
382-6. 

Living,  William  Shakspere's 
rate  of,  36. 

Lottie's  memorials  of  the  Savoy, 
321-2. 

London,  residence  in,  of  Shak- 
spere, 57  ;  residence  in,  of 
Oxford,  227,  267,  269  ; 
Oxford's  company  of  actors 
in,  306. 

Lord  Chamberlain's  company 
of  actors,  74-6  ;  books  miss- 
ing, 79,  87 ;  company  and 
the  Spanish  ambassador,  82  ; 
company  litigation,  82. 

Loss  of  good  name,  193-5,  210- 
13,  245,  282,  287-9,  305.  433, 
436,  456,  479-8o,  483-5, 
498-9. 

Love's  contrariness,  182 ; 
penalties,  184-5 ;  Labour's 
Won,  282. 

Love's  difficulties,  poems  on, 
179-82. 

"  Love's  Labour's  Lost "  and 
the  De  Vere  motto,  532-3. 

"  Love's  Labour's  Lost,"  99, 
169,  177,  206,  241-2,  290- 
301-  309,  320,  329,  373,  380, 
414,  418,  428,  459,  495. 

Lovers,    Shakespeare's,    515-6. 

"  Lucrece,"  176-7,  188-90,  302, 
3°5.  374.  38o,  414  ;  dedica- 
tion of,  440. 

Lyly,  153,  221  ;  and  the  Oxford 
Boys,  316-21  ;  and  maxims 
of  Polonius,  471  ;  and 
Shakespeare's  works,  320- 

335  ;  and  Oxford,  322-3,  335. 
Lyly's     "  Campaspe,"     329-30, 

336  ;     "  Whip   for   an   ape," 
330  ;  "  Endymion,"  320,  334  ; 
"  Gallathea,"  336  ;    "  Love's 
metamorphosis,"     336; 
"  Woman  in  the  Moon,"  337  ; 
lyrics,   320,    329-34 ;    works, 
Mr.   R.  W.   Bond,  M.A.,  on, 
321-335  5   Euphues,  315. 


544 


INDEX 


Lyric  poetry  of  Shakespeare, 
1 16-7  ;  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

152.  167. 
Lyrics  of  Lyly,  320. 

Macaulay  on  Shakespeare's 
religion,  130-1  ;  on  Burleigh, 
288,  469. 

"Macbeth,"   374,   409-11,   415, 

43r 
Magic     in     "  The     Tempest," 

517-8. 

Maledictions,  closing,  by  Shake- 
speare and  de  Vere,  190. 

"  Man  Shakespeare  "(see  Harris). 

Manners,  Roger,  213,  432,  443. 

Manuscripts  of  Shakespeare,  41. 

Manzoni,  99. 

Marlowe,  319. 

Marriage,  first,  of  Oxford,  253  ; 
second.of  Oxford,365,  449-50  ; 
of  Southampton,  proposed, 
444-8  ;  of  Oxford's  mother, 
468-9. 

Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  trial  and 
execution  of,  350,  358-9. 

Masterpieces  and  maturity,  98- 
101. 

Material  of  research  not  new, 
19 ;  supplied  by  Halliwell- 
Phillipps,  25. 

Maturity  and  masterpieces, 
98-101. 

Maxims  of  Burleigh,  470-1. 

"  Measure  for  Measure,"  264, 
281,  377.  415. 

Melancholy  of  Shakespeare  and 
de  Vere,  192-3. 

Mental  distraction  of  Shake- 
speare and  de  Vere,  186-7. 

"  Merchant  of  Venice,"  bearing 
of  upon  authorship,  14,  124, 
193,  228,  272,  358,  365,  377, 
415,  418,  428,  466;  passage 
on  music,  521. 

Meres,    Francis,    70,    141,    155, 

317.  37i 

"  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,"  333, 
377,  415,  418,  428  ;  and  the 
Boar's  Head  tavern,  400-1. 

Method  of  exposition,  17,  18 ; 
of  solution  of  Shakespeare 
problem,  103-8,  493-5,  536. 

Method,  business,  of  Shake- 
speare, 14. 


Meziires  on  Lyly  and  Shake- 
speare, 323. 

Middle  period  of  W.  Shakspere, 
56-89. 

"  Midsummer  Night's  Dream," 
169,  181-2,  309-11,  320,  370, 
377,  415,  418,  428 ;  and 
"The  Tempest,"  504. 

Milton,  99. 

Miranda,   515-6. 

Missing,  signatures  of  Shakspere, 
49 ;  books  of  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  79,  87. 

Modern  revolution,  Shakespeare 
and,  479-82  ;  times,  Shake- 
speare and,  500-2. 

Moliere,  99,  215. 

Money,  and  Shakespeare,  14, 
125-6  ;  matters  and  Edward 
de  Vere,  145  ;  difficulties  of 
Edward  de  Vere,  364-5. 

Morant,  History  of  Essex,  209. 

Mother  of  Edward  de  Vere, 
234,  467  ;  Hamlet,  462,  467. 

Motives  for  anonymity,  64-66  ; 
for  concealment,  210-4. 

Motto  of  the  De  Veres,  532. 

"  Much  Ado  about  Nothing," 
174.  377.  415.  418,  428. 

Munday,  Anthony,  251,  268, 
382,  496  ;  Oxford  and  Shake- 
speare, 307-11,  337. 

Municipal  archives  and  Shak- 
spere, 74,  86. 

Music  and  Shakespeare,  125. 

Music  passage  in  "  Merchant 
of  Venice,"  521  ;  passage  in 
"The  Tempest,"  521. 

Musical  taste  of  Edward  de 
Vere,  145. 

"  Mystery,"    Shakespeare,    90- 

2,  93 

Mysteriousness  of  Shakespeare, 
109-10. 


New  Place,  purchase  of,  60-1. 
Non-literary      occupations      of 

Shakspere,    38. 
Norfolk,  Duke  of,   279. 
North's  Plutarch  "  Coriolanus," 

4*2-3 

Note,  preliminary,  12. 
Notices,       contemporary,        of 

Shakespeare,    68-71. 


INDEX 


545 


Obituary      notice,      none       of 

Shakspere,  54. 

Occupations  of  Shakspere,  36-9. 
Ophelia    and    Hamlet,    462-5, 

532 ;      and     Lady     Oxford, 

474-5- 
"  Othello,"  173,   195,  365,  373, 

377.  404,  415.  417.  450.  495  ; 

and  de  Vere,  273-6,  455. 
"  Outlines,"        by       Halliwell- 

Phillipps,    28 
Ovid,  171. 
Oxford,   Earls  of,    220-32    (see 

Vere)  ;    and  the  Wars  of  the 

Roses,    224-6 ;     Shakespeare 

and,       225  ;        and       Great 

Chamberlains,  228. 
Oxford    Boys,    The,  207 ;    and 

Lyly,  316-21. 
Oxford,   first  Countess   of    (see 

Anne  Cecil) ;  second  Countess 

of  (see  Elizabeth  Trentham). 


Parents  of  William  Shakspere, 
29. 

Passage,  opening,  of  Shakspere 's 
will,  46. 

"  Passionate  Pilgrim,"  The,  178. 

Peculiar  literary  form,   192. 

Penmanship  of  Shakspere,  34, 
47 ;  of  Burns,  34 ;  of 
Edward  de  Vere,  382. 

Penzance,  Lord,  24,  26. 

"  Pericles,"  102,  374,  415,  417, 
418,  420. 

Period,  middle,  of  W.  Shakspere, 
56-89. 

Periods,  three,  of  Shakspere's 
life,  35,  52-3 ;  of  Shake- 
spearean publication,  414-23. 

Petrarch,  Sidney's  plagiarism 
from,  299. 

Petrarcan  sonnet  and  Shake- 
speare's, 453. 

Phillipps,  Augustine,  78,   81-2. 

Philosophy,  opportunist,  of 
Polonius,  470-2  ;  of  "  The 
Tempest,"  508-12. 

"  Phoenix'  Nest,  The,"   152. 

Pity,   desire  for,    198. 

Plagiarism  of  Sir  P.  Sidney 
298-9. 

Plays,  Ben  Jonson's,  Shakspere 
in,  80-1  ;  as  poetry,  386-8  ; 


later  plays  of  Shakespeare, 
407-14,  430-1,  531. 

Poem  on  Fortune  and  Nature, 
196-7. 

Poems,  of  Shakespeare,  publica- 
tion of,  61  ;  of  Lord  Vaux, 
169-70;  on  Love's  difficulties, 
179-83  ;  by  Edward  de  Vere, 
137-8,  168-207,  279,  284, 
295.  3".  3H.  315.  344.  3<59, 
450,  454- 

Poetry,  History  of  W.  J. 
Courthope,  153  ;  Elizabethan, 
1 60  ;  and  stage  plays,  386. 

Politicians  and  Shakespeare, 
357-8  ;  and  Hamlet,  481. 

Polonius,  257,  258,  262,  267, 
465 ;  and  Burleigh,  469-74. 

Portrait,  of  Oxford,  533  ; 
Droeshout,  of  Shakespeare, 
533  I  Grafton,  of  Shake- 
speare, 533. 

Portland,  Duke  of,  and  Oxford's 
portrait,  533. 

Posthumous  arguments,  sum- 
marized, 430-2  ;  and  Prof.  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh,  531. 

Preliminary  note,    12. 

Preparatory  movement  towards 
the  Discovery,  20. 

Preservation  of  secret,  66-7. 

Prince  Hal  at  Boar's  Head, 
Eastcheap,  398-9 ;  his  es- 
capades and  Oxford,  401. 

Problem,  the  Shakespeare,  91, 
1 02  ;  solution  required,  93  ; 
defined,  94. 

Problem  not  purely  literary,  16. 

Provincial  tours  of  Shakespeare's 
company,  74-6. 

Publication  of  Shakespeare's 
dramas,  and  W.  Shakspere, 
56 ;  dates  of,  414-23. 

Purchase  of  New  Place,  60-1. 

Purpose  of  the  Thesis,  16. 

Puttenhaiu,  141,  155,  317,  322. 

Quarrel  with  Sidney,  Oxford's, 

296. 
Queen's    company    of     actors, 

402. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter  (Professor) 
on  Stratfordian  traditions, 
34-5  ;  on  Shakspere's  London 


546 


INDEX 


life,  57  ;  and  "  English  Men 
of  Letters,"  91-2 ;  on 
A.  Gelding's  "  Ovid,"  236-7  ; 
on  Shakespeare's  later  plays, 

531- 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  73,  264, 
304  ;  and  execution  of  Essex, 

391. 

Raynolds,  44. 

Rate  of  living  of  William 
Shakspere,  36. 

Realism  in  Oxford  and  Shake- 
speare, 160-4,  171-2,  510. 

Records,  the,  of  Edward  de 
Vere,  209-19. 

Religion,  Shakespeare's,  130-1  ; 
Oxford's,  150 ;  Hamlet's, 
479-81. 

Reputation,  loss  of,  193-5  ; 
of  Edward  de  Vere,  209, 
(see  Loss  of  Good  Name). 

Research,  material  of,  not  new, 
19 ;  method  of,  103-8, 

493-5.   530. 
Residence      at      Stratford      of 

W.  Shakspere,  39  ;   at  South- 

wark   of   Shakspere,    60 ;     at 

Bishopsgate,    57,    61. 
Residences  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

227,  367,  369- 
Retirement  of  Edward  de  Vere, 

363-71- 

"  Return  from  Parnassus,"  71. 
Revolution,     Shakespeare     and 

Modern,    479-82. 
"  Richard   II "   and  the   Essex 

rebellion,    389,    427. 
"  Richard    II,"    82,    123,    169, 

193,  221-2,  249,377,  399,  414. 
"  Richard  III,"  124,  224-6,  377, 

414-6. 

Rogers,    Philip,   62. 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  127,  169,  195, 

203,  255,  300,  377,  414  ;    the 

echo  in,  200. 
Romeo  and  Juliet  and  de  Vere's 

poetry  compared,  201,  454. 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  The  morning 

lark,  202  ;  sonnets  in,  455. 
Ronsard,     Sidney's     plagiarism 

from,   299. 
R61es,  dramatic,    of    Shakspere 

83- 

Royal  Ward.  Edward  de  Vere  as, 
146. 


Ruskin  on  Shakespeare  Burns 
and  Dickens,  30 ;  on  Shake- 
speare's women,  128. 

Sadler,  Hamlett,  44. 

Savoy,  Loftie's  memorials  of, 
321-2  ;  Oxford  and  literary 
men  in  the,  321-2. 

Scepticism  regarding  Stratfor- 
dian  view,  23. 

Scepticism  (religious)  of  Shake- 
speare, 1 3 1 ;  of  Edward  deVere, 
150  ;  of  Hamlet,  480. 

School,  free,  at  Stratford, 
William  Shakspere,  and  29. 

Scott,  30,  99.  354,  381. 

Sea,  the,  in  Shakespeare's  plays, 
360-2,  517. 

Search  for  Shakespeare,  134-44. 

Second  folio  of  Shakespeare, 
330-1,  492. 

Secrecy  and  Hamlet,  67. 

Secret,  preservation  of,  66-7. 

Secret  occupations  of  Shake- 
speare, 217  ;  of  Oxford,  371. 

"  Sejanus,"   Jonson's,   81. 

Sensational     discovery,     280-1, 

459- 

"  Shakespeare,"  different  spel- 
lings of,  12,  63;  and  travel, 
14 ;  and  money,  14, 125-6  ;  and 
business,  14  ;  and  the  Homeric 
poems,  15,  16  ;  and  law,  26, 
118,  238-41;  education  of, 
27  ;  and  the  French  language, 
27  ;  his  English,  27  ;  as  the 
poet  of  the  educated  classes, 
30-1  ;  first  folio  of,  41,  83  ; 
manuscripts  of,  41  ;  Sir  G. 
Greenwood  on  Jonson's  view 
of,  55 ;  in  actors'  licenses, 
63  ;  contemporary  notices  of, 
68-71  ;  Edmund  Spenser's 
silence  respecting,  72-3  ;  and 
Queen  Elizabeth,  74  ;  in  the 
Treasurer  of  Chamber's 
accounts,  77 ;  forgeries  of, 
80  ;  "  Mystery,"  90-3. 

"  Shakespeare  "  problem,  90-2, 
93 ;  solution  required,  93  ; 
problem  and  literary  experts, 
94-5  ;  and  genius,  96-100  ; 
modernity  of,  101-2  ;  method 
of  solution  of,  103-8. 

Shakespeare,    genera]    features, 


INDEX 


547 


109-19 ;  mysteriousness  of, 
109-10  ;  eccentricity  of,  no- 
ii  ;  Byron  and  Shelley,  110- 
ii  ;  his  literary  interests, 
112-3  »  and  tne  drama, 
11 3-5;  as  lyric  poet,  116-7; 
classical  education,  117-8; 
and  feudalism,  120  ;  an 
aristocrat,  121-3  ;  and  sport, 
124-5  ;  scepticism  of,  131  ; 
and  music,  125  ;  on  woman, 
127-9  ;  on  Catholicism,  130-1 ; 
search  for,  134-44. 

Shakespeare  and  deVere's  poetry, 

173-207 ;  mental  distraction, 

186-7;   use  °f  interrogatives, 

188-9;     closing  maledictions, 

190-1 ;      melancholy,     192-3. 

Shakespeare,  and  high  birth, 
222-3  ;  duality  of,  303 ; 
Munday  and  Oxford,  307-1 1  ; 
and  Lyly,  320-335  ;  and 
Spanish  Armada,  360-1  ; 
dramas,  issue  of,  367-78, 
408-23  ;  and  Queen  Eliza- 
beth's death,  395  ;  publica- 
tion arrested,  409,  415-6 ; 
publication  revived,  417-20 ; 
second  folio,  330,  492  ;  later 
plays,  407-14,  430-1  ;  con- 
temporaries of,  in  the  plays, 
290-301,  457 ;  as  Hamlet, 
457-486 ;  in  his  dramas, 
458-61. 

Shakespeare  and  travel,  267-8  ; 
and  France,  356-7 ;  and 
politicians,  357-8. 

Shakespeare's,  poems,  publica- 
tion of,  6 1  ;  plays,  publica- 
tion of,  Sir  S.  Lee  on,  68  ; 
Lancastrian  sympathies.  123  ; 
Italian  interests,  124  ;  sonnets, 
177 ;  French  and  Latin,  241-3  ; 
method  of  production,  371-2, 
379-80. 

Shakspere,  William,  and  the 
authorship,  15,  496  ;  his  early 
life,  28-34  ;  parents  of,  29  ; 
and  the  free  school  at  Strat 
ford,  29  ;  and  books,  31,  46  ; 
last  years  at  Stratford,  35-39  ; 
absence  of  letters  by,  37-8, 
Ti-2 ;  residence  at  Strat- 
ford, 39,  56-7  ;  his  will,  39- 
50  ;  his  daughter,  40  ;  his  wil  \, 


and  the  unpublished  dramas, 
40-1,  422-3  ;  bequests  of,  to 
Heming  and  Condell,  42  ; 
missing  signatures  of ,  49 ; 
property  of,  51 ;  no  obituary, 
notice  of,  54;  his  middle  period, 
56-89 ;  and  publication  of 
Shakespeare's  dramas,  56,  378, 
380  ;  residence  in  London,  57, 
61  ;  only  letter  addressed  to, 
59-60 ;  Greene's  attack  on, 
60,  69,  426 ;  residence  in 
Southwark,  60 ;  business  of, 
61-2  ;  lawsuit  re  Asbies,  61  ; 
anecdote  respecting,  71  ; 
contemporary  silence  respect- 
ing, 71-2  ;  as  actor,  73-85, 
245  ;  his  income,  39,  76-7  ; 
in  Ben  Jonson's  plays,  80 ; 
close  of  career  in  London,  81  ; 
his  dramatic  roles,  83  ;  and 
Ben  Jonson,  42-5,  55-6,  84  ; 
and  municipal  archives,  74, 
86  ;  and  his  contemporaries, 
87-9  ;  and  the  Essex  rebel- 
lion, 389  ;  and  Chettle,  395  ; 
his  retirement,  424,  431  ; 
role  of,  426. 

Shakspere's,  day,  Stratford  in, 
29 ;  penmanship,  34,  47 ; 
three  periods,  35,  52-3  ;  rate 
of  living,  36 ;  non-literary 
occupations,  38 ;  business 
transactions,  38-9,  425,  429  ; 
income,  39,  76-7 ;  books, 
Doctor  Hall  and,  46 ;  will, 
opening  passage,  46. 

Sharp,  Wm.,  on  Shakespeare's 
sonnet,  453. 

Shepherd,  Tony,  65,  250,  308. 

"  Shepherds'  Calendar,"  169 ; 
and  Spenser's  "  Willie,"  341. 

Shooting,  248. 

Shoreditch,  theatres  at,  367. 

Sidney,  Sir  Philip,  73,  153,  160, 
179,  216,  218,  256  ;  betrothal 
to  Anne  Cecil,  256 ;  travels  of, 
265  ;  and  Boyet,  294-300  ; 
affectation  of,  297  ;  debts  of, 
297-8  ;  plagiarism  of,  298-9  ; 
and  literary  men,  327-8  ;  and 
Spensers  "  Willie,"  340-9 ; 
death  and  funeral  of,  350-6. 

Signatures  of  Shakespere,  Sir  E. 
Maunde  Thompson  on,  47-9. 


548 


INDEX 


Silence,  contemporary,  respect- 
ing W.  Shakspere,  71-2,  86. 

Six-lined  stanza,  The,  137-8, 
167,  1 68,  169. 

Solution  required  for  the 
Shakespearean  problem,  93  ; 
of  Shakespeare  problem, 
method  of,  103-8. 

Solutions,  competing,  142-3,  393, 

432,  443- 

Somerset,  Duke  of,  and  Bur- 
leigh,  472. 

Son  of  Ben  Jonson,  44. 

Sonnets,  the,  128-9,  177,  187, 
194,  198,  205,  303,  415,  417, 
420,  431,  495 ;  disrepute  in  the, 
211  ;  autobiography  in  the, 
21 1-2,  434-7;  Shakespeare's 
secret  occupations,  217  ;  and 
the  Earl  of  Southampton,  394, 
437-40 ;  dedication,  418-9, 
440-1  ;  closing  of  the  series, 
43°.  437  I  dedication  of,  440- 
2  ;  the  "  dark  lady  "  in,  449  ; 
and  Oxford's  chief  interests, 
451-2  ;  the  Shakespeare,  in- 
ventor of,  453  ;  Petrarcan 
and  Shakespeare's,  453 ;  in 
"  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  455. 

Southampton,  Mary  Countess 
of.  77.  439.  467  ;  Earl  of  (see 
Wriothesley,  H.). 

Southwark,  Shakspere's  resi- 
dence in,  60.  . 

Spanish  ambassador  and  theLord 
Chamberlain's  company.82,87; 
Armada,  Oxford  and,  360, 
476-7  ;  Armada,  Shakespeare 
and,  360-1. 

Spellings  of  "  Shakespeare," 
different,  12,  63. 

Spenser,  death  of,  Jonson  and 
Dean  Church  on,  54. 

Spenser,  Edmund,  silence  re- 
specting Shakespeare,  72-3, 
86,  87-9,  169,  291  ;  on  de 
Vere,  154,  328;  on  Burleigh, 
260,  287  ;  Sidney's  plagiarism 
from,  298  ;  Shepherd's  Calen- 
dar, 328 ;  "  Teares  of  the 
Muses,"  338-346 ;  and  Ed- 
ward de  Vere,  346. 

Spenser,  Gabriel,   80. 

Spenser's  "Action,"  73  ;  "  Wil- 
lie." 338-346,  366-7.  437. 


498;  "  Willie  "    and     Sidney, 

340-8. 
Sport,     Shakespeare's     interest 

in,   124-5  ;    Oxford's  interest 

148  ;     and    "  The    Tempest," 

522. 
St.    John,    Lord,    on    Oxford's 

marriage,  254. 
Stage     plays     and     literature. 

382-8  ;    and  poems,  386-7. 
Stanley,     William,     213,     432  ; 

marriage   with    Elizabeth   de 

Vere,  448-9  ;  Mr.   Greenstreet 

on,  448  ;   M.  Lefranc  on,  448. 
State  papers,  calendars  of,  209, 

397- 

Staunton  on  date  of  "  The 
Tempest,"  506. 

Stopes,  Mrs.,  on  death  of 
Burbage,  54  ;  on  Treasurer 
of  Chamber's  accounts,  77-9  ; 
on  Stratfordian  traditions,  83  ; 
on  "  Burbage  and  Shake- 
speare's stage,"  240,  312  ; 
on  proposed  marriage  of 
Southampton,  446. 

Stratford,  in  Shakspere's  day, 
29 ;  last  years  of  William 
Shakspere  at,  35-9 ; 

Grammar  School,  29  ;  Shak- 
spere's residence  in,  39,  56-7  ; 
Oxford's  company  of  players 
at,  307. 

Stratfordian,  view,  doubtfulness 
of,  15,  443 ;  authorities 
chiefly  used,  19,  20 ;  view, 
chapter  on,  interpolation  of, 
22  ;  view,  scepticism  regard- 
ing, 23  ;  incredibilities,  67-8. 

Sturley,    Abraham,   62. 

Summary,  biographical,  487- 
92 ;  of  evidence,  493-5. 

Susanna  and  Judith  Shakspere, 
40. 

"  Taming  of  the  Shrew,"    169, 

170-3,  244.  271,  364. 
Taxes,  Shakspere's  payment  of, 

57-8. 

"  Tempest,  The,"  413,  415  ; 
examination  of,  503-30 ; 
Hunter  on,  503,  505-6  ;  date 
of,  503-6 ;  compared  with 
other  comedies,  506-8 ; 
literary  quality  of,  507-8 ; 


INDEX 


549 


philosophy  of,  508-12  ;  and 
Hamlet,  510-1,  513 ;  versi- 
fication compared,  525-7 ; 
"  dumb-shows  and  noise," 
513-4 ;  un-Shakespearean 
details  in,  514 ;  absence 
of  wit  in,  515-7  ;  coarse 
fun  in,  516-17  ;  magic  in, 
517-8 ;  and  Greek  unities, 
518  ;  and  Feudalism,  518  ; 
and  Catholicism,  519 ;  and 
woman,  520 ;  and  horseman- 
ship, 520-1  ;  and  sport, 
522  ;  and  human  nature, 
522  ;  vocabulary  of,  523  ; 
versification  of,  524-9  ;  weak- 
endings  in,  528-9 ;  passage 
on  music  in,  521  ;  and 
"  Cymbeline  "  compared,  528. 

Testamentary  irregularities,  50. 

Theatres  at  Shoreditch,  367, 
370 ;  at  Newington  Butts, 
369  ;  at  Bankside,  369. 

Thesis,  purpose  of,   16. 

Thompson,  Sir  E.  Maunde,  and 
Shakespeare's  manuscripts, 
41,  311  ;  on  Shakspere's 
signatures,  47-9,  50. 

Three  periods  of  Shakspere's 
life,  35,  52-3. 

"  Timon  of  Athens,"  102,  374, 
411. 

"  Titus  Andronicus,"  102,  415, 
418,  428. 

Tours,  provincial,  of  Shake- 
speare's company,  74-6. 

Tragedy  and  comedy  combined, 
204-7  '•  466. 

Traditions,  Stratfordian,  Sir  W. 
Raleigh  on,  34-5 ;  Mrs.  Stopes 
on  83. 

Transitions,  business,  of  W. 
Shakspere,  39,  61-2. 

Travel  and  Shakespeare,  14, 
124,  146,  216,  251,  265-75. 

Treasurer  of  the  Chamber, 
accounts  of,  77-9,  86,  401. 

Trentham,     Elizabeth,     Second 
Countess    of    Oxford,  365-6, 
425,  429,  441. 

Trentham,  Thomas,  441. 

Trial  and    execution    of     Mary 
Queen  of  Scots,   350,   358-9. 
"  Troilus   and   Cressida,"    312, 
37°.  377.  4*5.  42°- 


"  Twelfth     Night."     358,    377. 

4i5- 
"  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona," 

184,    268,    415. 
Tyrell,     Sir     Charles,     marries 

Oxford's  mother,    468. 

University,     Edward    de    Vere 

at,    146. 
Universities,  Oxford  and,  243-4 

Vaux,  Lord,  191 ;  poems  ot, 
169-70. 

Venus  and  Adonis,  136,  177, 
198,  249,  374,  380.  388,  390, 
414  ;  Echo  poem  in,  198-9 ; 
The  morning  lark,  202. 

Vere  (de),  Edward,  poem  on 
women,  137-9  ;  religion,  140, 
150.  355.  480;  Sir  Sidney 
Lee  on,  141-2  ;  Webbe  on, 
142 ;  eccentricity  of,  144, 
301,  465  ;  musical  taste  of, 
145  ;  and  money  matters, 
145  ;  as  dramatist,  145,  157  ; 
as  Royal  Ward,  146 ;  at  the 
University,  146 ;  in  Italy, 
146,  257,  268-75  ;  interest 
in  sport,  148 ;  Lancastrian 
sympathies  of,  148,  224-8 ; 
and  woman,  149,  435 ;  as 
lyric  poet,  152,  168  ;  W.  J. 
Courthope  on,  153  ;  Edmund 
Spenser  on,  154,  346  ;  Grosart 
on,  154-5  ;  Arthur  Collins 
on,  157 ;  and  the  literary 
transition,  161  ;  literary 
style  of,  162-3 1  character 
of,  164-5,  172,  404,  etc ; 
letter  to  Bedingfield,  165-6  ; 
and  Queen  Elizabeth,  166-7  '• 

Vere  (de),  Edward,  and  Shake- 
speare on  Desire,  180-3 ; 
mental  distraction  of,  186-7  ; 
use  of  interrogatives,  188-9  ; 
closing  maledictions  of ,  190-1; 
melancholy  of,  192-3 ;  loss 
of  good  name,  193-5,  436. 

Vere  (de),  Edward,  lyric  poetry, 
comparison  with  "  Romeo 
and  Juliet,"  201,  455  ;  "  Tha 
morning  lark "  poetry,  202  ; 
his  childwife,  203 ;  records 
of,  209-19 ;  reputation  of, 


550 


INDEX 


209,  404  (see  character)  ; 
and  travel,  216,  265-76 ; 
false  stories  of,  218 ;  and 
Charles  Arundel,  219 ; 
ancestry  of,  220-30 ;  resi- 
dences of,  227,  367  ;  father 
of,  230-3,  248 ;  mother  of, 
234  ;  and  Queen  Elizabeth, 
235.  239-4o.  246;  and  law, 
238-40  ;  letter  to  Sir  Robert 
Cecil,  239 ;  and  Francis 
Bacon,  240 ;  education  of, 
236-50 ;  and  the  Universities, 
243-4 1  and  the  Cecils,  244-5  '• 
marriage  of,  253  ;  and  early 
tragedy,  262  ;  hostility  with 
Burleigh,  262-289  ;  and 
Hatton,  264 ;  and  Othello, 
273-6 ;  poems  of,  137-8, 
168-207,  279,  284,  295,  311, 

3M.  315.  344.  369,  450,  454  5 
quarrel  with  Sidney,  296 ; 
antagonism  with  Sir  T. 
Knyvet,  300 ;  duality  of, 
302-3 ;  dramatic  activities 
of,  306-38 ;  servants  of, 
at  Cambridge  and  London, 
306 ;  servants  of,  at  Stratford, 
307  ;  Munday  and  Shake- 
speare, 307-11  ;  play  of 
Agamemnon,  312  ;  letters  of, 
316,  370 ;  in  the  Savoy, 
321-2  ;  and  Lyly,  316,  321- 
35  ;  and  Spenser's  "  Willie," 
342-9 ;  and  Phillip  Sidney, 
350-6  ;  and  his  times,  354-8  ; 
and  Spanish  Armada,  360-1  ; 
retirement  of,  365-71  ; 
money  difficulties  of,  364-5  ; 
second  marriage  of,  365,  449- 
50 ;  and  issue  of  Shake- 
spearean dramas,  367-87 ;  at 
Bishopsgate,  370 ;  penman- 
ship of.  382;  and  execution 
of  Essex,  392-3  ;  and  Queen 
Elizabeth's  death,  396 ; 
and  presidency  of  Wales, 
379 ;  at  the  Boar's  Head 
tavern,  398-401 ;  and  Prince 
Hal's  escapades,  401  ;  death 
of,  404,  431  ;  burial  at 
Hackney,  404;  and  Shake- 
speare's Sonnets,  434 ;  out- 
standing interests  in  Sonnets, 
451  ;  inventor  of  Shake- 


speare  Sonnet,   453  ;  Sonnet 

by,  454  ;    and  Hamlet,  463*; 

and  life  at  court,  463-4. 
Vere      (de),      Elizabeth,      444 ; 

marriage  to  William  Stanley, 

448-9. 
Vere  (de),  John,  I2th  Earl,  148  ; 

1 3th  Earl,  148,  225-6  ;    i6th 

Earl,  230-3. 
Vere    (de),    Henry,    i8th    Earl. 

214,  390  ;    baptism  at   Stoke 

Newington,  391. 
Vere    (de),    Horatio,    427,    477, 

479- 
Vere  (de),  Robert,  and  "  Richard 

II,"  221-2. 

Veres,  The  Fighting,  478. 
Verse  by   Ben   Jonson  in   first 

folio,  55. 
Versification  in  "  The  Tempest," 

524-9  ;    in  Shakespeare's  last 

plays,  412-3. 
View,  doubtfulness  of  Stratfor- 

dian,   15. 
Visit  of   Ben  Jonson  to  Shak- 

spere,  43-5. 
Vocabulary  of  "  The  Tempest," 

523- 


Walden  (de)  Library,  532. 
Wales,   presidency   of,    Edward 

de  Vere  and,  397. 
Walsingham,      pays      Sidney's 

debts,  298,  351  ;    and  Queen 

Mary's    execution,     351-9. 
Wars   of   the    Roses,    Earls   of 

Oxford    in,    224-6. 
Weak-endings  in  Shakespeare's 

last     plays,     412-3.     528-9 ; 

in    "  The   Tempest,"  525-9  ; 
Webb,  Judge,  24  ;   on  proposed 

marriage     of     Southampton, 

445- 
Webbe,    on    Edward    de   Vere, 

142,  155- 
Welbeck        Abbey,       Oxford's 

portrait  at,  533. 
'  Were  I  a  King."  295,  343. 
White,  Grant,  on  Macbeth,  411. 
Whitman,    Walt,    Emerson   on, 

IOO-I. 

Will  (Shakspere's),  39-50 ;  and 
the  unpublished  dramas,  40-1, 
422-3. 


INDEX 


Will,  The,  sonnets,  347-8,  437. 
"  Willie,"      Spenser's,     338-49, 

437- 

Wit,  absence  of,  from  "  Tem- 
pest," 515-6. 

Woman,  Shakespeare  and,  127- 
130  ;  Oxford  and,  149-50  ; 
in  "  The  Tempest,"  520. 

Worcester's,  Earl  of,  company 
o£  players,  398,  403. 


Wright,  History  of  Essex,  209  ; 
and  climax  to  "  All's  Well  " 
argument,  280-1. 

Wriothesley,  Henry,  235,  245, 
427,  431,  496 ;  and  the 
Essex  rebellion,  388-94  ;  and 
the  Sonnets,  394,  437-40 ; 
and  Shakspere,  425  ;  theatri- 
cal interests,  428  ;  proposed 
marriage  of,  444-8. 


THE  WHITEFRIARS  PRESS,  LTD.,  LONDON  AND  TOHBRIDGE. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hllgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

iomeOaWnkMBniWljfrial  to  the  library 

from  which  It  was  borrowed.