>^,.„ 
 
 A^v- 
 
 ...,v^% . 
 
 '*^ ._Ti- -' 
 
 
 i \ ' - f , 'Ik i*^^ A 
 
 r A. 
 
 
 <y^\ 
 
 rm. 
 
 
PR 
 
 e^/y^^. 
 
 &it 
 
 
 /^/-/■fiffjrr. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR 2900.S51 
 
 C.3 
 
 New lamps or old?A few additional words 
 
 3 1924 013 150 143 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013150143 
 
^£to f amps dx ®lb? 
 
 A FEW ADDITIONAL WORDS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE MOMENTOUS QUESTION 
 
 Respecting the E and the A 
 
 IN THE NAME OF 
 
 4Dtir ^utional Jramattj^t. 
 
 SMCOSD EDITION. 
 
 It is said that his surname was Quixada or Quesada, for, in ihis 
 paiticulac, tile antfaois who have inentiooed the subject do not a£re<^ 
 There are, however, veiy probable reasons for conjecturing that he was 
 called Quizana. But this is of little iinpainance to our story. Let it. 
 snffice that, in narrating, we do not swerve a jot from &e truth. — The 
 Life and Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha. 
 
 BRIGHTON : 
 Printed by Messrs. Fleet and Bishop. 
 
 1880. 
 
^ Qd.'^Mk 
 
 dMJuk 
 
 ctL ^ 4 ^ (M^. 
 
 -Kfjr 
 
£it\D %mv& ox ®Ii) ? 
 
 A FEW ADDITIONAL WORDS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE MOMENTOUS QUESTION 
 
 Respecting the E and the A 
 
 IN THE NAME OF 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 It is said that his sumame was Quisada or Qaesada, for, in this 
 particular, the authors who have mentioned the sabject do not agree. 
 There are, however, very probable reasons for conjecturing that he was 
 called Quixana. But this is of little importance to our stoiy. Let it 
 suffice that, in narrating, we do not swerve a jot fiom the truth. — The 
 Lift and Adventures of Don Quixote de la Uancha, 
 
 BRIGHTON : 
 Printed by Messrs. Fleet and Bishop. 
 
 i88o. 
 
President White 
 
 %VEO^ 
 
nsroTE. 
 
 The subject of our early nominal orthography, discussed 
 in the following pages, has elicited so wide an interest, apart 
 from the individual question, that I have been induced to 
 reprint the pamphlet with a fe\y additions and corrections. 
 
 The special case which has occasioned this investigation 
 may thus be briefly epitomized. There having been no 
 standard for the spelling of names in the time of Shake- 
 speare, it follows, of course, that one form of signature was 
 then as correct, or as incorrect, as another, that it was no 
 authority for a printed orthography, and that the election of 
 an uniform mode can be left to modem usage. In selecting, 
 in the case of Shakespeare, the longest form, we are guided 
 by the probability, almost the certainty, founded on the 
 dedications to the fust poems, that the great dramatist him- 
 self, had he lived to have superintended the publication of 
 an edition of his works, would have adopted in that edition 
 the orthography of his name which was sanctioned by his 
 intimate friends and colleagues when they edited the folio 
 of 1623, the complete form, Shakespeare, accepted with a 
 singular unanimity by Ben Jonson and other contemporaries. 
 
 J. O. HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS. 
 
 Hollingbury Copse, 
 Brighton, 
 
 3rd April, 1880. 
 
A FEW WORDS, &c. 
 
 A FEW weeks ago, under the impression that 
 it would be as well, if it were possible, that 
 there should be uniformity in the printed 
 orthography of the name of our national 
 dramatist, I ventured to issue a little ten- 
 tative pamphlet on the subject. The ques- 
 tion was obviously an excessively trivial one 
 in itself, and the idea of its discussion, 
 had it referred to any but the greatest 
 of England's sons, would have been posi- 
 tively ludicrous. No one would have imagined 
 that such an enquiry could have raised 
 the smallest of storms in the minutest 
 of teapots. Nevertheless, the few pages al- 
 luded to created in their way quite a little 
 hubbub. Besides an excellent leading article 
 in one of the prominent London dailies, there 
 were a score of other notices showing the in- 
 terest a resuscitation of an old difficulty had 
 excited. One writer, indeed, in a letter in the 
 Daily News of December the 20th, was posi- 
 tively stimulated to compare the reluctance to 
 adopt the shorter form of the poet's name with 
 the fearful gbstruction of " Toryism" " to every- 
 
thing that is correct and proper. From the ex- 
 pressions used by the individual in question it 
 maybe inferred that, in his opinion, the Tories, 
 having done their best to prevent the intro- 
 duction of Free Trade and the Reform Bill, are 
 now completing their iniquities by spelling the 
 name of the great dramatist in the way in 
 •which he himself printed it in the first editions 
 of his own poems ; that the vagabonds who 
 write Shakespeare are bucolic and pig-headed 
 Conservatives, and that the angels who prefer 
 Shakspere are advanced and enlightened Radi- 
 cals. As if to crown this edifice of bluster, in 
 another journal I was personally battered 
 merely because I had had the audacity to ad- 
 vocate the retention of the e and the a. When 
 Bedreddin Hassan was told that his life was to 
 be forfeited for omitting to add pepper to the 
 cream-tart, he could hardly have been more 
 astonished than myself at this funny, display 
 of gratuitous irritability, 
 
 In contrast to those who take such a vital 
 interest in the suppression of the e and the a 
 that they allow their little feelings to run away 
 with them in the face of opposition, there are 
 ■ others who ridicule the idea; of the matter being 
 worth discussion at all. The latter view is well 
 put in the Echo of Deceniber the 4th in allusion 
 
to my parnphlet,-^" he adopts Shakespeare, 
 with which nobody can quarrel ; — indeed, no- 
 body would quarrel with him if he spelt the 
 name backwards ; — it is of more importance to 
 read Shakespeare's works, and, above all, to 
 understand and profit by them, than to give 
 reasons for putting in or leaving out an x in his 
 name." Certainly, for ourselves and to our- 
 selves the immortal text is all-sufficient, and the 
 elucidation of that text is the only really good 
 use of Shakespearean criticism, but surely there 
 is a respect due to the memory of the greatest 
 name in our literature. It is not courteous to 
 that memory to speak as if it were of no sort 
 of consequence whether we alluded to the great 
 poet as William Shakespeare or as Tony 
 Lumpkin. With due deference, therefore, to 
 the opinion of our reverberating contemporary, 
 I shall endeavour to follow the lead of my 
 adverse critics in treating the subject as one of 
 the most serious and weighty enquiries of the 
 present day, as, in short, the great problem of 
 all, the momentous question whether we are to 
 discard or retain the e and the a in the spelling 
 of the name of our national dramatist. My 
 chief fear is that the enquiry into this important 
 mystery may not be approached with the com- 
 plete solemnity due to an investigation of such 
 
8 
 
 paramount gravity ; but it shall at all events be 
 treated fairly and dispassionately. 
 
 Previously to opening a discussion of this 
 kind it may be well to observe that, in treating 
 a subject which involves a consideration of 
 the usages of a remote age, it is essentially 
 necessary to eliminate from our minds any 
 influence exercised by the knowledge of those 
 of our own. This is especially necessary in 
 the present instance. In these days a person's 
 signature is, in nine hundred and ninety-nine 
 cases out of a thousand, absolute evidence of 
 the acknowledged orthography of his own name 
 and of that of his family. In Shakespeare's 
 time, a person's signature, in a corresponding 
 number of cases, was no evidence at all of the 
 correct orthography of his own name or of that 
 of his relatives. 
 
 The truth of this latter position can be 
 demonstrated by hundreds of illustrations. 
 Colonel Chester, one of the best living au- 
 thorities in such matters, after mentioning the 
 numerous instances he had met with of capri- 
 cious forms of early signatures of the same 
 name in the University books at Oxford, writes, 
 — " my experience among other records has 
 been the same, and I should as soon doubt the 
 existence of Hollingbury Copse as the position 
 
you assume, that there was no settled ortho- 
 graphy of surnames in the time of Shake- 
 speare." But although the fact is acknowledged 
 by all who have carefully examined the subject, 
 a few examples should be given for the sake of 
 the many who have had no opportunity of 
 doing so. Thus, Lord Robert Dudley's sig- 
 nature was Dudley or Duddeley, and his wife's, 
 Duddley. Allen, the actor, signed his name at 
 various times, AUeyn, Aleyn, AUin, and Allen, 
 while his wife's signature appears as AUeyne. 
 Henslowe's autographs are in the forms of 
 Hensley, Henslow, and Henslowe. Samuel 
 Rowley signed himself Rouley, Rowley, and 
 Rowleye. Burbage sometimes wrote Burbadg 
 while his brother signed himself Burbadge. 
 One of the poet's sons-in-law wrote himself 
 Quyney, Quyneye, and Conoy, while his brother, 
 the curate, signed, Ouiney. His other son-in- 
 law, Dr, Hall, signed himself Hawie and Hall. 
 Alderman Sturley, of Stratford-on-Avon, signed 
 his name sometimes in that form and some- 
 times, Strelly, both forms being used in letters 
 written to the same person in the same year, 
 1 598. Sir Walter Raleigh signed both Rauley 
 and Ralegh, and Sir Philip Sidney both Sydney 
 and Sidney. An actor contemporary with Shake- 
 speare wrote himself Downton, Dowten, and 
 
10 
 
 Dowton. The signature of a sixteenth century 
 earl was Shrewsbury, that of his wife Shrowes- 
 bury. Different members of the Trevelyan 
 family sign themselves, Trevelyan, Trevilian, 
 Trevillian, Trevylyan, Trevelian, Trevylian. 
 Richard Hathaway sometimes so wrote his 
 name and sometimes Hathway. Thomas 
 Nash, who married the poet's grand-daughter, 
 signed himself both Nash and Nashe. Simon 
 Trap, curate of Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote his 
 name Trapp and Trappe. In a manuscript 
 pedigree of 1613 at the Heralds' College a 
 gentleman signs his name Payne, his nephew's 
 signature on the same day in the same manu- 
 script being Pain. Shakespeare's parents could 
 not write at all, and the only signatures of any 
 of their children known to exist are those of 
 the poet, and that of his brother Gilbert, 
 the latter signing his name Shakespere, that 
 is, with the important central e. These in- 
 stances will suffice for the demonstration of the 
 main position, that in former days there was no 
 established nominal orthography, As Sam 
 Weller observed, " it all depended upon the 
 taste and fancy of the speller^ my Lord," and it 
 would be difficult to state the usage of Shake- 
 speare's time in more forcible language. It is 
 curious that there are still to be found lingering 
 
II 
 
 traces of the old uncertainty. My old friend, Mr. 
 Joseph Clarke, F.S. A., of the Roos, Co. Essex, 
 tells me of a small tradesman in the country 
 whose signature was capriciously either Travers 
 or Travis. Upon his father, an old man, being 
 asked which was the correct form, he replied 
 that " one way was as good as the other." Pro- 
 fessor Baynes furnishes me with a still more 
 curious example in that of a Somersetshire 
 gardener who writes his name Nipcote, his 
 brother, Nitcote, while other members of the 
 family use such variations as Nepcot and Netcot. 
 It is obvious then, even to the typical school- 
 boy, that it would be unreasonable to attempt 
 to follow individual signatures in the modern 
 orthography of names of the Shakespearean 
 period. If we were to do so, we should write 
 Lord Dudley and Lady Duddley, Lord Shrews- 
 bury and Lady Shrowesbury, Thomas Ouyney 
 and the Rev. George Qiliney, Mr. Allen and 
 Mrs. Alleyne, Mr. Payne and his nephew Mr. 
 Pain, Alderman Sturley in one month and 
 Alderman Strelly in the next. Dr. Hall at one 
 period of his life and Dr. Hawle at another. 
 When mentioning the great dramatist we should 
 be at liberty to write his name in two or three 
 ways, but not in the form used ty his brother 
 Gilbert Shakespere, and ' in alluding to another 
 
12 
 
 great poet we should write Milton, but his second 
 dauq:hter must be introduced as a Millton. 
 Heywcod the epigrammatist would become 
 Heywod, Cardinal Wolsey must be Cardinal 
 Wulcy, Lords Leicester and Warwick would 
 appear as Leycester and Warwyke, Herrick 
 would be Hearick, Nichols would be trans- 
 formed into Nycowlles, and so on to any num- 
 ber of similar inconvenient variations. 
 
 It is simply casual ingenuity which suggests 
 the deflection of caprice into ignorance under 
 the accusation that Shakespeare, and those 
 numerous contemporaries who varied their 
 signatures, did not know how to spell their own 
 names. Well, they didn't, for the simple. reason 
 that names in those days had not been subjected 
 to any rules of orthography, that the attain- 
 ment of what we should call orthographical 
 accuracy was at that time impossible, and it is 
 obviously improper to sneer at them for in- 
 dulging in a fanciful practice then as common 
 with the learned as with the illiterate. One of 
 the most accomplished scholars of the sixteenth 
 century signed himself either Ascham or Ask- 
 ham, and it might of course be said that he did 
 not know how to write his own name, but it 
 would be fairer to observe that there was in 
 those*, days no established orthography, no 
 
method of spelling sanctioned by usage or 
 authority either in surnames or Christian 
 names, or in the English language generally. 
 We have already seen that there was none 
 in surnames, and as to Christian names the 
 varieties are equally perplexing. Shakespeare's 
 friend and neighbour, Mr. Shawe, spelt his 
 in the following very extraordinary number 
 of ways, — Julyus, Julius, Julie, Julyne, Jule, 
 Julines, Julynes, July, Julye, Julyius and 
 Julyles. As for orthography in language either 
 in books or manuscripts of the Shakespearean 
 period, all who are familiar with such matters 
 know that the same word is frequently spelt in 
 half-a-dozen various forms in a single page. 
 
 The choice of the pronunciation of Shake- 
 speare's name is of course a question independent 
 of the form in which it should be printed. The 
 general instinct seems to be adverse to the 
 ancient orthoepy of Shaxpere, and the main 
 reason against the prudence of adopting the 
 short form is that it might encourage the name 
 to be so spoken. There can be little doubt 
 that the poet was generally called Shaxpere or 
 Shaxper in the provinces, but certainly not 
 always. In the earliest known document re- 
 specting any member of the poet's family, one 
 which refers to property at Snitterfield near 
 
H 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon, the name of his grandfather 
 is given as Shakespere, showing the first syllable 
 to be long, and in the local manuscripts in which 
 his father is continually mentioned, the name of 
 the latter is variously written, Shakspeyr, Shax- 
 spere, Shacksper, Shakspere, Shakyspere, Shake- 
 spere, Shaxpeare, Shakspeir, Shakysper, Shax- 
 pere, Shakspeare, Shackespere, Schackspere, 
 Siiakspeyre, Shaksper, and Shakespeare, without 
 the slightest notion of uniformity. The tran- 
 scriber of the parish register is the most consis- 
 tent, the majority of entries in that record being 
 Shakspere, but even there we have also the 
 forms of Shakspeer, Shaxspere, and Shakspeare. 
 The poet's intimate friends had clearly no notion 
 that they were to spell his name in any par- 
 ticular fashion. Richard Ouiney in 1598 ad- 
 dressed his celebrated letter " to my loveinge 
 good frend and countreyman Mr. Wm. Shacke- 
 spere," Alderman Sturley speaks of him in 
 the same year as Mr. Shaksper. The great dra- 
 matist's kinsman and solicitor, Thomas Greene, 
 wrote his client's name Shakspear, Shakspeare, - 
 and Shakspurre, and Mi's. and Mr. Hall, the 
 poet's daughter and son-in-law, who must have 
 known the correct orthography, had there been 
 any settled form at. the time, spell the name 
 Shakspeare in. the monumental. inscription to 
 
t5 
 
 him while it is Shakespeare in that to his wife. 
 Can anything more clearly show that nominal 
 spelling was in those days a simple matter of 
 chance or fancy ? 
 
 There were occasional and rare exceptions, 
 the most notable and illustrative being that of 
 " rare Ben," who, although he apparently did 
 not take the trouble to remonstrate with those 
 friends who wrote and printed his name Johnson, 
 appears, judging from the dozens of his signa- 
 tures in existence, to have invariably written 
 Jonson. This was probably to distinguish it 
 from the commoner name, and, to the best of my 
 belief, although I have not had the opportunity 
 of verifying the fact, the shorter form is used in 
 all his own printed dedicatory epistles. If Shake- 
 speare's case were at all similar, if we had pos- 
 sessed numerous examples of his uniform sig- 
 nature* at various periods of life, and if the name 
 in his dedications had appeared in the same 
 form, then there would have been of course an 
 end of the matter. But the facts do not bear 
 out an important similarity. In those deeply 
 interesting epistles to Lord Southampton, the 
 
 * But this in itself would go for very little. A celebrated earl 
 invariably signed himself Leycester, yet no writer, treating of 
 the Elizabethan period, would consider it necessary to introduce 
 that antiquated' orthography. 
 
only letters of the great dramatist known to 
 exist, attached to the only works we can confi- 
 dently believe to have been issued with his sanc- 
 tion, the name appears in its full proportions 
 with both the e and the a. These dedications, 
 to Venus and Adonis in 1593 and to Lucrece 
 in 1594, are to my mind absolutely conclusive 
 of the general question. 
 
 There is no good pretence for raising a doubt 
 of the generally acknowledged fact that those 
 poems were issued under Shakespeare's imme- 
 diate authority. The personal character of the 
 dedications might alone suffice to indicate that 
 this was the case. Not only was there no 
 theatrical management to interfere with the 
 copyright, as was the case with respect to most 
 if not all of his plays, and no symptoms of the 
 bookselling special interest in either of the pub- 
 lications, but both of them were printed, as Mr. 
 Payne Collier* was the first to point out, by a 
 
 * This mention of my old friend's name gives me the oppor- 
 tunity of observing that, although, as it has been recently stated, 
 I was the founder of the old Shakespeare Society, yet it was 
 entirely owing to Mr. Collier's influence and active co-operation 
 that the Society was ever established. Under his judicious and 
 genial management every variety of Shakespearean opinion re- 
 ceived friendly attention, the Society, during the thirteen years 
 (1841 to 1853) of its existence, doing good and useful work 
 quietly and amicably. Alas that it was not resuscitated on its 
 
17 
 
 native of Stratford-on-Avon and the son of one 
 of John Shakespeare's intimate friends. Every 
 circumstance, indeed, connected with the pub- 
 lication of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece 
 tends to show that they were printed under 
 the author's sanction. 
 
 Under any circumstances, it is evident that 
 Shakespeare had a voice in the matter with the 
 printer or publisher when he proceeded to dedi- 
 cate a second work to the same nobleman. Can 
 any one believe that, if the great dramatist had 
 really cared to have his name spelt without the 
 e and the a, he would have permitted the longer 
 form to remain in the second dedication ? Is it 
 not clear that, whatever phases his signature 
 may have assumed, he either wished, or, at the 
 very least, tacitly admitted that he did not dis- 
 like his name appearing as Shakespeare in his 
 own printed works ? Another piece of corrob- 
 orative evidence is at the end of a poem which 
 he contributed to Chester's Loves Martyr, 1601, 
 and which could hardly have been inserted 
 without his direct sanction. As if to place the 
 matter beyond all doubt, his name is there 
 
 original basis of common-sense criticism when my late dear 
 friend, Howard Staunton, so ardently desired and had practically 
 commenced its revival in 1872 ! Let me here gratefiilly add 
 bow much 1 personally owed in early life to Mr. Collier's kind 
 and unselfish encouragement 
 
printed with both the disputed letters and with 
 a hyphen. See the annexed facsimile of the 
 conclusion of this poem. The printed literature 
 of Shakespeare's time is all but unanimous in 
 the adoption of the longer orthography, and in 
 it there are very few instances indeed of the 
 omission of either the e or the a, while there 
 are numerous examples of the occurrence of the 
 full name with a hyphen, as in the poem just 
 mentioned and in the Sonnets, published in 
 1609, where the hyphened name is given at 
 length upwards of thirty times. It is, in fact, 
 exceedingly curious that one form of a name 
 of such easy variation"^ should have been so 
 generally adopted in print at a time when 
 there was great laxity in such matters in 
 printed books as well as in writings. Thus, 
 in the interesting collection, England's Par- 
 nassus, 1600, while the name of one poet is 
 spelt in four different ways, — Achilley, Achelly, 
 Achellye, Achely, — and rare Ben's appears both 
 as Johnson and Jhonson, that of the great 
 dramatist is uniformly printed Shakespeare in 
 upwards of forty instances in that small volume. 
 I will now proceed to a consideration of the poet's 
 five acknowledged signatures, the only examples 
 of undoubted authenticity known to exist, 
 I. Indenture of Bargain to Shakespeare 
 
19 
 
 Threnos, 
 
 BEautIe,Truth,and Ramie, 
 Grace in all iimplicitie, 
 Hexe enclofde^in cinders lie. 
 
 Peathis novithcPhanixvi^, 
 And the Turt/es\o^i\\ breH, 
 To eternitie doth rell. 
 
 Lcauin^nopoftcriti'e, 
 Twasnotthcirinfinratie, 
 It was married Chaf^itie. 
 
 Truthmay fectne,but cannot btf, 
 Beautie bragge,kuctis not ihe, 
 Truth andBeautieburiedbe. 
 
 To this vrnelctthofc repaire, 
 That arc eithcrtrueorfaire. 
 For theft dead Birds,figji a prayer. 
 
 WiUkm Shak^^j^enrtj* 
 
20 
 
 of a house in Blackfriars, lo March, 1613,* 
 the original deed being now in the Guildhall 
 Library. Here the signature is unquestionably 
 Shakspere, reading the contraction as er, and 
 considering that which follows the i? as a mere 
 flourish. Sir F. Madden, indeed, reads the last 
 syllable per and thinks that the contraction is 
 for the final e. The same result follows from 
 either theory, but the latter one would, I fancy, 
 be more likely to be correct if it had referred to 
 a document of an earlier date. The former is 
 confirmed by what is apparently a very careful 
 facsimile made by the elder Ireland soon after 
 the discovery of the indenture, his original 
 tracing being now in my possession, 
 
 2. Mortgage Deed of the same house, dated 
 II March, 161 3, now in the British Museum. 
 Here again we have a contracted form, the only 
 written letters of the second syllable being spe, 
 but the mark of contraction is different from 
 that in the previous deed, it appearing in this 
 one as if it were an a in the published facsimile 
 
 * The original indenture of conveyance to Shakespeare, dated 
 on the same day, is in my possession, and one of my choicest 
 treasures. This deed, that which -nras enrolled in Chancery, is 
 in fine and perfect condition, with the original official note of 
 enrollment on the outside. It is endorsed, — Walker et Shake- 
 speare el al. 
 
21 
 
 of 1790, and u in recent copies, in either case 
 implying, to judge from the usual meaning of 
 abbreviations of the time, that an a was one of 
 the letters of what was intended. The contrac- 
 tion is also clearly given as an a in Malone's 
 original tracing made in the year ' 1 784, and 
 although he afterwards thought " that what was 
 supposed to be that letter was only a mark of 
 abbreviation with a turn or curl at the first 
 part of it, which gave it the appearance of a 
 letter," this latter notion was a mere con- 
 jecture hazarded without the advantage of 
 another reference to the original (Inquiry, 
 1796, pp. 1 18-120), and is an opinion which 
 will not stand the test of a close examination. 
 Many years ago, the original deed now in the 
 Museum was kindly brought to my house by its 
 then owner, Mr. Troward, and my late valued 
 friend, Mr. Fairholt, took tlie greatest pains on 
 that occasion to make an accurate tracing of the 
 poet's signature. The engraving from that 
 facsimile may be seen in my folio edition of 
 Shakespeare,' vol. i., p. 209, and there the con- 
 traction is more like a than u, encouraging a 
 suspicion that the top part of thei former letter 
 has been obliterated by the handling of the 
 deed during the long period that has elapsed 
 since the autograph was first traced by Malone. 
 
22 
 
 Whether there is a probability in this suggestion 
 might perhaps be decided by the use of a 
 microscope ; but, at all events, the form of 
 Shakspere cannot in this instance be admitted 
 with anything like certainty. 
 
 The exact interpretation of this second auto- 
 graph is, however, of little moment in our en- 
 quiry, for, as it has been well observed, " the 
 contractions exhibited by these two signatures 
 neutralize their evidence," and Shakespeare 
 clearly intended by using those contractions 
 that his name should be included within the 
 narrow limits of the seal-labels. There are 
 then, as absolute evidences of the poet's usage 
 in his signatures, merely the three appended to 
 the will, and these must be examined in 
 detail, — 
 
 1. The first is now extremely indistinct, 
 having suffered from the wear and tear of the 
 manuscript. That it was originally Shakspere 
 may be safely concluded from the facsimile 
 made by Steevens in 1776. Dr. Farmer also 
 personally examined the document when it was 
 in a more perfect state, and he confirms this 
 reading in a manuscript note of his in my pos- 
 session. 
 
 2. There is more doubt about the second one, 
 the space between the / and the r apparently 
 
23 
 
 indicating the original presence of two letters, 
 which were read ea by Dr. Farmer, but, judg- 
 ing from the best facsimiles, and without a new 
 inspection of the original, it is my conviction 
 that here we should read Shakspere, the minute 
 blank between the e and the ;' being occasioned 
 by the intervention of the loop of a letter hang- 
 ing from the body of the will. Here again the 
 microscope might be of use. 
 
 3. In the last autograph the second syllable 
 appears to be speare in all the facsimiles, as it 
 does in that of Steevens made in the year 1 776, 
 and then so accepted by M alone. The latter 
 writer, indeed, afterwards changed his opinion, 
 not, however, from a second examination of the 
 original, but merely because an anonymous 
 correspondent was of opinion that " though 
 there was a superfluous stroke when the poet 
 came to write the letter r in his last signature, 
 probably from the tremor of his hand, there was 
 no a discoverable in that syllable," Inquiry, 
 1796, p. 118. The notion of the tremor of the 
 hand is simply gratuitous, the will having been 
 executed more than a month before the death of 
 the poet, and there being no evidence that 
 he was then invalided. Be this as it may, 
 the correspondent's surmise cannot invalidate 
 the authority of Steevens's own tracing in 
 
24 
 
 the original of which, still preserved, the 
 letter a is clearly exhibited, the accu- 
 racy of the facsimile being ratified by 
 the following note, — G. Steevens delineavit 
 accurante et testante Edmondo Malone, iT](>. 
 That there are two letters between the p and 
 the r seems beyond a reasonable doubt, and a 
 writer in the Gentleman's Magazine for June, 
 1789, reads speere, but surely the formation of 
 the writing supports our first interpretation. 
 But what about the first syllable of the auto- 
 graph ? A distinguished scholar has just 
 pointed out to me — and it is, as in the case of 
 the management of the ^^'g by Columbus, most 
 singularly curious so obvious a fact should 
 have escaped the notice of all others — that the 
 character following the letter k is the then well- 
 known and accepted contraction"'" for es. There 
 cannot be a doubt on this point, and there- 
 fore the poet's last signature appears in his own 
 selected literary form of Shakespeare. 
 
 Malone expatiates on the " very extraordinary 
 circumstance that a man should write his name 
 twice one way, and once another, on the same 
 
 * Mr. Hardy, Appendix to Fortieth Report on the Public 
 Records, p. 567, observes that this contraction "generally occurs 
 at the end of words." Its situation in this signature is pecuhar 
 . and difficult of explanation. 
 
25 
 
 paper," Inquiry, p. 117; but it is not certain 
 that the three signatures were written on the 
 same day. At that period, the two first would 
 not necessarily require the attendance of wit- 
 nesses, and might have been added when the 
 will was first copied ready for signing in January, 
 or at any time between then and Lady Day.* 
 On a careful examination it will be seen that the 
 last signature differs somewhat in formation from 
 the others, especially in that of the capital letter 
 W. But even supposing that all the signatures 
 were attached to the will on the same day, a 
 variation in their forms would not be more 
 extraordinary than that of Walter Roche, the 
 poet's schoolmaster, signing his name twice in 
 different ways on the same day in the same 
 document, or than Margaret Trevelyan at a later 
 period writing her own name and that of her 
 husband with different spellings in the very same 
 line, — " Margaret Trevelyan, for her husband 
 George Trevelian." Sir William Brown, who 
 signed indiscriminately in at least three different 
 ways, spells his nalhe Browne in a letter to Lord 
 Sidney, May 24th, 1604, and Broune in another 
 
 * There was so much laxity in such matters excepting in the 
 presence of witnesses at the final signature, it is not at all 
 unlikely that the day of the later month is incorrect. At all 
 events it is singular that the willshould be executed on the very 
 same day of March on which it was originally dated in January. 
 
26 
 
 letter written on the very next day to the same 
 nobleman. I possess an indenture of the year 
 1692, in which one party signs his name 
 Banckyes, his uncle Banckys, and his mother 
 Bancks, all written on the same day. A 
 little more research would no doubt produce 
 many other like examples, although the ex- 
 traordinary laxity formerly displayed by nearly 
 every one in the orthography of surnames 
 scarcely requires more confirmatory evidence. 
 This is, in fact, the whole gist of the matter, 
 that the forms of autographs were in those 
 days no reliable guides for an uniform printed 
 usage, and, as J ventured to say in my 
 other pamphlet, " to follow signatures would 
 revolutionize the whole system of early nominal 
 orthography, and lead to preposterous results." 
 
 Now, in conclusion, with a flourish of mag- 
 nanimity. If it be possible that any earnest 
 Shakespearean student, after perusing the above 
 luminous exposition, can wish to discard the 
 e and the a, he has my solemn assurance 
 that I shall not have the slightest inclination 
 either to roar him down or quarrel with him 
 on that account. On the contrary, if such 
 an individual appear and will favour me with 
 a visit, he shall be received with all the at- 
 tention due to a rara avis at my primitive and 
 
27 
 
 ornithological bungalow. Although my library 
 is small, it includes some of the choicest Shake- 
 spearean rarities in the world, and there is also 
 an unrivalled collection of drawings and engrav- 
 ings illustrative of the life of the great dramatist. 
 A mere glance over the latter will occupy a 
 summer's day. And the feast of reason shall 
 be irrigated by the flow of port, claret, or 
 madeira, and by what is not now to be seen 
 every day of the week, really old sherry. If, 
 unfortunately, he has forsworn racy potations 
 and not discovered that good sherris-sack 
 " ascends into the brain and dries there all the 
 foolish, and dull, and crudy vapours which en- 
 viron it," then are there our deep chalk wells, 
 yielding an inexhaustible supply of the pure 
 aqueous element as bright and sparkling as the 
 waves and atmosphere of Brighton herself. 
 
 J. O. HALLIWELL-PHILLirPS. 
 
 Hollingbury Copse, 
 Brighton, 
 
 January, 1880. 
 
28 
 
 NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 
 
 How shall we spell the name of Shakspere ? A pamphlet, 
 bearing the signature of. a Shaksperian expert, and the title, 
 New Lamps or Old, revives this debated point in "A Few 
 Additional Words on the Momentous Question Respecting the 
 E and the A in the Name of Our National Diamatist." The 
 writer, as is well known, defends Shakespeare against all other 
 forms, and in spile of the signatures of Shakspere himself. His 
 contention is that in Shakspere's time there was really no settled 
 orthography, and that names were frequently signed differently 
 on the same day and by the same person, Shakspere, contends 
 Mr. HaUiwell-Phillipps, did exactly what was done by his con- 
 temporaries. He used contractions and spelled his name 
 according to the whim or desire of the moment. But in the 
 works published under his supervision he adopted the full form 
 Shakespeare. Thedeeply interesting epistlesto Lord Southampton 
 have the signature with the e and the a, and are " absolutely con- 
 clusive on the general question." It is evident that the contem- 
 pories of Shakspere were as lax as Shakspere himself is alleged 
 to have been in the spelling of the name. Richard Quiney 
 wrote Shakespere, Alderman Sturley wrote Shaksper, Thomas 
 Greene spelled the name in three different ways, while in 
 Stratford Church the name on the monument is Shakspeare 
 while on the monument of the poet's wife it is Shakespeare. 
 After reading all this and a great deal more very interesting 
 evidence in favour of Shakespeare, those who have adopted 
 Shakspere will adhere to that form for the best of all reasons— 
 they have it in the poet's own handwriting in the majority of his 
 accepted signatures. Mr. Halliwell-PhiUipps maintains that it 
 would be preposterous to follow signatures when we have access 
 to a selected literary form. But this seems very like saying that 
 we must refuse evidence which brings us directly into contact 
 
29 
 
 with Shakspere personally, and rely on a form which may or 
 may not have had his deliberate sanction. When we look on 
 the signatures we see evidence supplied by Shakspere himself ; 
 when we look at the dedications of Venus and Adonis we see 
 evidence supplied by a printer.* No wonder then that some 
 of us, with all deference to a most conscientious, diligent, and 
 able scholar, prefer Shakspere. — Western Daily Press. 
 
 Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps has materially strengthened his 
 argument in favour of spelling the name of our greatest poet 
 with the additional e after ,^,— Shakespeare, in " A Few Addi- 
 tional Words on the Momentous Question respecting the E and 
 the A in the name of our National Dramatist." We quite agree 
 with him that there ought to be uniformity in this matter. It 
 is surely time we arrived at a determination concerning it. 
 Our own argument has been that while we receive the name as 
 SHake-speare in pronunciation, the poet has not used the e after 
 the k in any of his signatures remaining to us. The suggestion 
 now is that in one of the signatures to the will the character 
 following the letter k is the then well-known and accepted con- 
 traction for es. This, if established, should suffice to settle the 
 matter. The objection that will probably be taken is the in- 
 frequency of the use of that contraction anywhere but at the 
 end of a word. If, however, we remember that in some of the 
 dedications the word is divided by a hyphen, its introduction 
 before the hyphen might be accepted as probable. — The Builder. 
 
 To the antiquary there are no such things as trifles ; to the 
 Englishman everything connected with the name of Shakspere 
 is sacred. Hence it can excite no surprise to find that a viva- 
 cious controversy is now proceeding as to the proper spelling of 
 Shakspere's name. There has always been a curious want of 
 uniformity in the orthographical presentation of the surname of 
 our national dramatist. Dr. Johnson, Rowe, and other com- 
 
 * This is adroitly but not very fairly put. The balance of 
 probability is clearly in fevour of the printed form having been 
 sanctioned by the poet himself. — ^J. O. H.-P. 
 
3<5 
 
 mentators spell it Shakspeare ; Dyce and Cowden Clarke say 
 Shakespeare ; in the folio of his tvorks, brought out by his own 
 intimate associates, the form of Shakespeare is used. The 
 Stratford register contains entries of the poet's baptism and 
 death, of the baptism of his children, and the death of his son. 
 In these the name is uniformly spelled Shakspere. The quarto 
 editions of the plays, and, what is still more important, the 
 editions of the poems issued during his lifetime say Shake- 
 speare. Of manuscript evidence there is, unfortunately, very 
 little, and it is not quite consistent. There are only five 
 signatures of the poet that are beyond aU doubt authentic. 
 The signatures to the indenture of bargain and mortgage deed 
 of the house in Blackfriars are both contracted so as to get the 
 name included within the narrow limits of the seal label, and it 
 has been said that the varying " contractions exhibited by these 
 two signatures neutralise their evidence." So far as they go, 
 one appears to be Shakspere, but the other is more doubtful. 
 There remain, then, the three signatures to the will. The first 
 is admittedly Shakspere ; the space between the e and the r of 
 the second signature was read ea by Dr. Farmer, but Mr. 
 Halliwell-Phillipps is of opinion that the minute blank was 
 caused by the intervention of the loop of a letter hanging from 
 the body of the will. The third signature was given in all the 
 fac-similes as Shakspeare, though Malone afterwards thought 
 there was reason for discarding the a. Such, in brief, is the 
 body of evidence. Of late years greater favour has been given 
 to the shorter forms of Shakspere's name, and Mr. J. O. Halli- 
 well - Phillipps on recently advocating the longer form was 
 assailed by an outcry of Toryism. Undaunted by his opponents, 
 Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps returns to the charge, and in a pamphlet 
 bearing the title of Old Lamps and New sets forth his reasons 
 for desiring to retain " the e and the a in the name of our 
 national dramatist." The first matter to be remembered is that 
 in Shakspere's days there was no settled orthography of sur- 
 names. In local MSS. the name of the poet's family is given as 
 Shakspeyr, Shaxspere, Schacksper, Shakyspere, Shaxpeare, and 
 other forms, without the slightest uniformity. Mr. Halliwell- 
 
31 
 
 Phillipps lays stress upon the fact that the subscriptions to the 
 dedications of the poems is in the longest form of the name. 
 " Is it not clear," he asks, " that, whatever phases his signature 
 may have assumed, he either wished, or at least tacitly admitted, 
 that he did not dislike his name appearing as Shakespeare in 
 his own printed works ? " The same form is used at the end of 
 the poem in Chester's Love's Martyr, 1601, whilst the printed 
 literature of the time " is all but unanimous " in using it. On 
 the other hand, there is one argument not to be disdained for 
 the spelling Shakspere. It is the shortest orthography that has 
 yet been proposed, and that in a busy age is a very great recom- 
 mendation. —The Manchester Guardian. 
 
 Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps has just issued an interesting 
 little pamphlet, full of both erudition and humour, on the mode 
 of spelling the name of the national dramatist. He argues that 
 Shakespeare is the proper manner, commencing his observations 
 by amusing references to the virulence of some gentlemen of 
 the " intense " sort, who compared the reluctance to adopt the 
 shorter form of the poet's name with the fearful obstruction of 
 Toryism to everything that is correct and proper. Mr. Halliwell- 
 Phillipps proceeds to point out that in the dramatist's time a 
 person's signature was scarcely evidence at all of the correct 
 orthography of his own name or that of his relatives. He 
 instances a number of examples in which a man signed his 
 name in one way and his wife in another, and of two or 
 three forms of signature by one individual Thus, says the 
 author, one of the poet's sons-in-law wrote himself Quyney, 
 Quyneye, and Conoy, while his brother, the curate, signed Quiney, 
 His other son-in-law. Dr. Hall, signed himself Hawle and Hall. 
 Thomas Nash, who married the poet's granddaughter, signed 
 himself both Nash and Nashe. In point of fact, people in those 
 days signed their names according to taste or momentary 
 caprice. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps examines the acknowledged 
 signatures of the poet ; and dismissing those of the indenture of 
 of bargain of the house in Blackfriars and of the mortgage deed 
 of the same property as having contracted letters, and therefore 
 useless for the purposes of the inquiry, he proceeds to consider 
 
32 
 
 the three signatures affixed to the will. The first autograph he 
 pronounces to be Shakspere, the second probably the same, 
 while the third he concludes was Shakespeare, which was also 
 the printed signature affixed to the dedications of the poems. 
 The pamphlet comes to a close with a funny but highly genial 
 invitation from the accomplished and kindly old scholar, asking 
 those who disagree with him to pay him a visit at HoUingbury 
 Copse and discuss the matter amicably over some " really old 
 sherry." — Birmingham Daily Globe. 
 
 Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, the well-known Shakspearean 
 scholar and enthusiast, has written a pamphlet some thirty 
 pages long in order to settle for ever the momentous question 
 "respecting the E and the A in the name of our National 
 Dramatist." A very bright and sparkling brochure is this con- 
 troversial tract dated from HoUingbury Copse, Brighton ; but 
 its most original feature is a hospitable invitation to Shak- 
 spearean students — and they must be legion— to visit the author 
 and look over his library, containing " the choicest Shakspearean 
 rarities in the world, and an unrivalled collection of drawings 
 and engravings illustrative of the life of the great dramatist." 
 Nay, more, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps promises to entertain his 
 guests in splendid fashion. "The feast of reason," he says, 
 " shall be irrigated by the flow of port, claret, or madeira, and 
 by what is not now to be seen every day of the week, really 
 good sherry." As for the teetotallers, they are promised ' ' an 
 inexhaustible supply of the pure aqueous element from our deep 
 chalk wells." But, supposing all the Shakspearean students in 
 the United Kingdom accepted the universal invitation on the 
 same day, how long would the cellars or the wells of HoUing- 
 bury Copse hold out ? — The Illustrated London News. 
 
33 
 
 THE LIFE OF SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 Under .the title of Contributions towards a 
 Life of Shakespeare, it is possible, health, 
 strength, and inclination permitting, that I may- 
 some day commence a series of folio volumes in 
 which I should hope to fully investigate the truth 
 or probability of every recorded incident in the 
 personal and literary history of the great 
 dramatist, and to include a vast mass of cor- 
 relative information, the accumulation of many 
 years' researches, the whole to be copiously 
 illustrated with wood engravings and fac-similes. 
 Amongst the latter would be fac-similes of every 
 known contemporary document in which the 
 name of the poet appears. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe that the 
 compilation of a satisfactory life of Shakespeare 
 is an impossibility. A biography without cor- 
 respondence, without details of conversation, 
 and without any full contemporary delineations 
 of character, must necessarily be fragmentary. 
 There is, however, more to be learned respect- 
 
34 
 
 ing the history of the poet's career than many- 
 people would imagine, and some new facts and 
 much that is suggestive that have not yet been 
 published. Moreover, a new and most interest- 
 ing source of information has just unexpectedly 
 opened, and this circumstance has tended more 
 than anything else to overcome my increasing 
 reluctance to encounter the worries of publica- 
 tion. Researches, at least in my case, are not 
 energetically carried on if there is no ultimate 
 view of some use being made of the results. 
 A part of my scheme would include minute 
 details respecting the condition of Stratford- 
 on-Avon in the time of the poet, and generally, 
 as was stated when I projected a similar work 
 in 1874, to give notices of his surroundings, 
 that is to say, amongst others, of the members 
 of his family, the persons with whom he asso- 
 ciated, the books he used, the stage on which 
 he acted, the estates he purchased, the houses 
 and towns in which he resided, and the country 
 through which he travelled. The consideration 
 of these and similar topics will not be without 
 its biographical value. It will bring us nearer 
 
35 
 to a knowledge of Shakespeare's personality if 
 we can form even an approximate idea of the 
 condition of England and its people in his own 
 day, the sort of places in which he lived, how 
 he made his fortune, the occupations and social 
 positions of his relatives and friends, the nature 
 of the ancient stage, and the usages of contem- 
 porary domestic life. 
 
 The numerous traditions respecting the great 
 dramatist have never been minutely investigated. 
 It is astonishing how long personal traditions 
 lingered in the provinces before the newspaper 
 age, and any that can be traced even so far back 
 as the last century deserve careful examination. 
 There are many that are sheer inventions, others 
 extremely doubtful, but some that can be par- 
 tially authenticated. In this department of the 
 biography I have had the advantage of a close 
 friendship and numerous discussions on the 
 subject with the late R. B. Wheler and W. O. 
 Hunt, of Stratford-on-Avon, the last links of 
 the traditional period. All genuine oral tradi- 
 tions have now expired, but unfortunately a 
 considerable number of similar stories have 
 
36 
 
 been unblushingly fabricated in even recent 
 years. The assurance with which these have 
 been uttered would be amusing were it not so 
 mischievous. 
 
 Charles Dickens, in one of his hasty letters, 
 writes thus: — "The life of Shakespeare is a fine 
 mystery, and I tremble every day lest something 
 should come up." Now, if I thought that there 
 were even a remote chance of a revelation that 
 would exhibit Shakespeare in the light of one 
 who could in any fairness be termed a bad 
 man, my inquisitive researches would not be 
 continued. But there is too abundant favour- 
 able evidence of his general character to render 
 such a contingency possible. That he was wild 
 in his youth, that he sometimes drank a little 
 more wine than was good for him, and that he 
 occasionally flirted with the young ladies at the 
 Bankside more freely than Mrs. Shakespeare at 
 Stratford-on- Avon would have approved ofj may 
 be conceded by those who do not consider it 
 requisite to assume that the greatest of poets 
 must necessarily be the greatest of saints. But 
 that he deliberately would either have ruined 
 
37 
 the character of another, or betrayed the domes- 
 tic confidence of a friend or host, is too incon- 
 sistent with the contemporary' opinions of his 
 character to be at all credible. With the ex- 
 ception of a tale that is a palpable fabrication, 
 the Davenant story is the only recorded one 
 respecting Shakespeare which, if true, would 
 really involve an accusation of criminality ; but 
 so difficult is it to eradicate scandal, however 
 baseless, that the tale has been accepted as 
 truthful for many generations and by even 
 recent writers. It is, therefore, with peculiar 
 satisfaction that, after the lapse of nearly three 
 centuries, I can announce the discovery of con- 
 temporary evidences which prove decisively that 
 there is not a word of truth in the libel. 
 
 The first volume of the projected series could 
 not be completed at the earliest before the 
 Spring of next year. 
 
 I do not intend to receive subscribers' names, 
 as the work will not be so published. If it 
 ever appear, it will be obtainable only through 
 a special London agent, and the impression will 
 be extremely limited. This preliminary an- 
 
38 
 
 nouncement is made in the hope of ascertaining 
 whether there is sufficient interest taken in the 
 subject to encourage the commencement of so 
 large and costly an undertaking. 
 
 J. O. HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, 
 
 HoUingbury Copse, 
 Brighton, 
 
 3rd April, 1880. 
 
39 
 
 The foregoing letter appeared in The 
 AthencBum of April the loth, and the cor- 
 respondence it has elicited has been wholly 
 of a gratifying and encouraging character. I 
 find, however, on careful enquiry, that the 
 mode of publication therein suggested is sur- 
 rounded by insuperable difficulties, that is to 
 say, if I retain, as I desire, a perfect inde- 
 pendence of action, with freedom from all sub- 
 scription and publishing troubles. Instead, 
 therefore, of commencing a series that might 
 seem to demand continuation, I propose to 
 issue a number of small occasional volumes, 
 of various sizes and of limited impres- 
 sion, each one to be a separate work in 
 itself. Thus, there will be one volume on the 
 Davenant scandal, another on the Globe 
 Theatre, a third on the deer-stealing adven- 
 ture, another on the poet's last illness, and so 
 on. These will be submitted at intervals to 
 public auction in London, so that an intending 
 purchaser can give a commission to his book- 
 seller even for a single volume, which, as has 
 been previously observed, will in each case 
 form a distinct publication in itself. 
 
40 
 
 Letter from Colonel Chester. 
 
 London, ii May, 1880. 
 Dear Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, 
 
 Here is a crucial illustration of the axiom 
 that there was no standard of orthography for 
 surnames down to so late as the latter part of 
 the seventeenth century, I have before me the 
 old parish register of St. Albans Abbey, and it 
 appears that in February, 1680, a Mr. John 
 Wiltshire, according to modern orthography, 
 had three children baptized. The entries were 
 made by the same scribe at the same instant, 
 and yet, in three consecutive lines, he wrote 
 the surname respectively, — 
 
 Wilcksheir. 
 
 Wilcheir. 
 
 Wiltcher. 
 
 I do not think that I have ever come across 
 a more flagrant instance, and so I communicate 
 it to you. 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 Jos. L. Chester. 
 
 J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Esq. 
 

 
 ^o. ->. 
 
 4 -.;»*-■■' *i>«. 
 
 ^./% '*■ 
 
 -l^.'^" 
 
 
 > .. ^' * 
 
 *^ v 
 
 %? 
 
 **-*- '"^V.H.- 
 
 ^:<^ 
 
 
 t * ■ 
 
 i^;r. 
 
 
 V. 
 
 .-^