Postscriptum.
Most fortunately before going to press we were able to see at the Record
Office, Chancery Lane, London, the revealing documents recently
discovered by Dr. Wallace and described by him in an article published
in the March number of _Harper's Monthly Magazine_, under the title of
"New Shakespeare Discoveries." The documents found by Dr. Wallace are
extremely valuable and important. They tell us a few real facts about
the Householder of Stratford-upon-Avon, and they effectually once and
for all dispose of the idea that the Stratford man was the Poet and
Dramatist,--the greatest genius of all the ages.
In the first place they prove beyond the possibility of cavil or question
that "Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," was totally
unable to write even so much as any portion of his own name. It is true
that the Answers to the Interrogatories which are given by "William
Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," are marked at the
bottom "Wilm Shaxpr," but this is written by the lawyer or law clerk, in
fact "dashed in" by the ready pen of an extremely rapid writer. A full
size photographic facsimile of this "so-called" signature, with a
portion of the document above it, is given in Plate 38, Page 164, and on
the opposite page, in Plate 39, is shewn also in full size facsimile the
real signature of Daniell Nicholas with a portion of the document, which
he signed, above it.
In order that the reader may be able more easily to read the law writing
we give on page 167, in modern type, the portion of the document
photographed above the name Wilm Shaxp'r, and on the same page a modern
type transcript of the document above the signature of Daniell Nicholas.
Any expert in handwriting will at once perceive that "Wilm Shaxp'r" is
written by the same hand that wrote the lower portion of Shakespeare's
Answers to Interrogatories, and by the same hand that wrote the other
set of Answers to Interrogatories which are signed very neatly by
"Daniell Nicholas."
The words "Daughter Marye" occur in the portion photographed of both
documents, and are evidently written by the same law writer, and can be
seen in Plate 38, Page 164, just above the "Wilm Shaxp'r," and in Plate
39, Page 165, upon the fifth line from the top. The name of
"Shakespeare" also occurs several times in the "Answers to
Interrogatories." One instance occurs in Plate 39, Page 165, eight lines
above the name of Daniell Nicholas, and if the reader compares it with
the "Wilm Shaxp'r" on Plate 38, Page 164, it will be at once seen that
both writings are by the same hand.
[Illustration: Plate XXXVIII Full Size Facsimile of part of
"Shakespeare's Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr.
Wallace in the British Records Office.]
[Illustration: Plate XXXIX. Full Size Facsimile of part of Daniell
Nicholas' "Answers to the Interrogatories," Discovered by Dr. Wallace in
British Record Office.]
portion
What c'tayne he
. . . . . .
. plt twoe hundered pounds
decease. But sayth that
his house. And they had amo
about their marriadge w'ch
nized. And more he can
ponnt saythe he can saye
of the same Interro for
cessaries of houshould stuffe
his daughter Marye
WILM SHAXPR
TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXVIII.
* * * * *
Interr this depnnt sayth
that the deft did beare
ted him well when he
by him the said Shakespeare
his daughter Marye
that purpose sent him
swade the plt to the
solempnised uppon pmise of
nnt. And more he can
this deponnt sayth
is deponnt to goe wth
DANIELL NICHOLAS.
TYPE FACSIMILE OF PLATE XXXIX.
Answers to Interrogatories are required to be signed by the deponents.
In the case of "Johane Johnsone," who could not write her name, the
depositions are signed with a very neat cross which was her mark. In the
case of "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who
was also unable to write his name, they are signed with a dot which
might quite easily be mistaken for an accidental blot. Our readers will
see this mark, which is not a blot but a purposely made mark, just under
"Wilm Shaxp'r."
Dr. Wallace reads the "so-called" signature as Willm Shaks, but the
Christian name is written quite clearly Wilm. And we should have
supposed that any one possessing even the smallest acquaintance with the
law writing of the period must have known that the scroll which looks
like a flourish at the end of the surname is not and cannot be an "s,"
but is most certainly without any possibility of question a "p," and
that the dash through the "p" is the usual and accepted abbreviation for
words ending in "per," or "peare," etc.[12]
Then how ought we, nay how arewe, compelled to read the so-called
signature? The capital S is quite clear, so also is the "h," then the
next mass of strokes all go to make up simply the letter "a." Then we
come to the blotted letter,
[Illustration: Plate XL. FACSIMILES OF LAW CLERKS' WRITING OF THE NAME
"SHAKESPEARE," FROM HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS' "OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF
SHAKESPEARE," VOL. 2, 1889.]
this is not and cannot be "kes" or "ks" because in the law writing of
the period every letter "s" (excepting "s" at the end of a word) was
written as a very long letter. This may readily be seen in the word
Shakespeare which occurs in Plate 39 on the eighth line above the
signature of Daniell Nicholas. What then is this blotted letter if it is
not kes or ks? The answer is quite plain, it is an "X," and a careful
examination under a very strong magnifying glass will satisfy the
student that it is without possibility of question correctly described
as an "X."[13] Yes, the lawclerk marked the Stratford Gentleman's
"Answers to Interrogatories" with the name "Wilm Shaxp'r." Does there
exist a Stratfordian who will contend that William Shakespeare, of
Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, if he had been able to write any portion
of his name would have marked his depositions Wilm Shaxp'r? Does there
exist any man who will venture to contend that the great Dramatist, the
author of the Immortal plays, would or could have so signed his name? We
trow not; indeed, such an abbreviation would be impossible in a legal
document in a Court of Law where depositions are required to be signed
in full.
With reference to the other so-called Shakespeare's signatures we must
refer the reader to our Chapter III. which was penned before these "New
Shakespeare Discoveries" were announced. And it is perhaps desirable to
say that the dot in the "W" which appears in two of those "so-called"
signatures of Shakespeare, and also in the one just discovered, is part
of the regular method of writing a "W" in the law writing of the period.
In the Purchase Deed of the property in Blackfriars, of March 10th
1612-13, mentioned on page 38, there are in the first six lines of the
Deed seven "W's," in each of which appears a dot. And in the Mortgage
Deed of March 11th 1612-13, there are seven "W's" in the first five
lines, in each of which appears a similar dot. The above-mentioned two
Deeds are in the handwriting of different law clerks.
It may not be out of place here again to call our readers' attention to
the fact that law documents are required to be signed "in full," and
that if the very rapid and ready writer who wrote "Wilm Shaxp'r" were
indeed the Gentleman of Stratford it would have been quite easy for such
a good penman to have written his name in full; this the law writer has
not done because he did not desire to forge a signature to the document,
but desired only to indicate by an abbreviation that the dot or spot
below was the mark of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
Thus the question, whether William Shakespeare, of
Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, could or could not write his name is
for ever settled in the negative, and there is no doubt, there can be
no doubt, upon this matter.
Dr. Wallace declares "I have had no theory to defend and no hypothesis
to propose." But as a matter of fact his whole article falsely assumes
that "William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman," who is
referred to in the documents, is no other than the great Dramatist who
wrote the Immortal plays. And the writer can only express his unbounded
wonder and astonishment that even so ardent a Stratfordian as Dr.
Wallace, after studying the various documents which he discovered,
should have ventured to say:
"Shakespeare was the third witness examined.
Although, forsooth, the matter of his statements
is of no high literary quality and the manner is
lacking in imagination and style, as the Rev.
Joseph Green in 1747 complained of the will, we
feel none the less as we hear him talk that we
have for the first time met Shakespeare in the
flesh and that the acquaintance is good."
As a matter of fact none of the words of any of the deponents are their
own words, but they are the words of the lawyers who drew the Answers to
the Interrogatories. The present writer, when a pupil in the chambers of
a distinguished lawyer who afterwards became a Lord Justice, saw any
number of Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories, and even
assisted in their preparation. The last thing that any one of the pupils
thought of, was in what manner the client would desire to express his
own views. They drew the most plausible Answers they could imagine,
taking care that their words were sufficiently near to the actual facts
for the client to be able to swear to them.
The so-called signature "Wilm Shaxp'r," is written by the lawyer or law
clerk who wrote the lower part of Shakespeare's depositions, and this
same clerk also wrote the depositions above the name of another witness
who really _signs_ his own name, viz., "Daniell Nicholas." The only mark
William Shakespeare put to the document was the blot above which the
abbreviated name "Wilm Shaxp'r" was written by the lawyer or law clerk.
The documents shew that Shakespeare of Stratford occasionally "lay" in
the house in Silver Street, and Ben Jonson's words in "The Staple of
News" (Third Intermeane; Act iii.), to which Dr. Wallace refers viz.,
that "Siluer-Streete" was "a good seat for a Vsurer" are very
informing, because as we have before pointed out the Stratford man was
a cruel usurer.
Dr. Wallace's contention that Mountjoy, the wig-maker, of the corner
house in Silver Street where Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon,
Gentleman, occasionally slept, was the original of the name of the
Herald in Henry V.[14] really surpasses, in want of knowledge of History,
anything that the writer has ever previously encountered, and he is
afraid that it really is a measure of the value of Dr. Wallace's other
inferences connecting the illiterate Stratford Rustic with the great
Dramatist who "took all knowledge for his province."
Dr. Wallace's "New Shakespeare Discoveries" are really extremely
valuable and informing, and very greatly assist the statements which the
writer has made in the previous chapters, viz., that the Stratford
Householder was a mean Rustic who was totally unable to read or to
write, and was not even an actor of repute, but was a mere hanger-on at
the Theatre. Indeed, the more these important documents are examined the
clearer it will be perceived that, as Dr. Wallace points out, they shew
us that the real William Shakespeare, of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman,
was not the "Aristocrat," whom Tolstoi declares the author of the plays
to have been, but was in fact a man who resided [occasionally when he
happened to revisit London] "in a hardworking family," a man who was
familiar with hairdressers and their apprentices, a man who mixed as an
equal among tradesmen in a humble position of life, who referred to him
as "One Shakespeare." These documents prove that "One Shakespeare" was
not and could not have been the "poet and dramatist." In a word these
documents strongly confirm the fact that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.
[Illustration: Plate XLI. Facsimile of the Dedication of Powell's
"Attourney's Academy," 1630]