VII

A CRUCIAL QUESTION

THE SIGNATURES

We have mentioned the strange fact that no writing of the actor is known to be in existence unless we accept the signatures to his will, three in number, two on a deed and mortgage, and one recently brought to light by Professor Wallace affixed to a deposition in the office of the Public Records in London, which has awakened a lively interest amongst students because his ability to write his name has been challenged. Perhaps we ought to say that Phillipps has suggested that the words, “By me," preceding the name attached to the will are those of the testator, and to mention a signature in a copy of Montaigne's "Essays" undoubtedly spurious, but accepted by some devotees because, perhaps, it is more presentable than others.

Any one unacquainted with late sixteenth and early seventeenth century script, and especially with the professional court hand, should avoid discussing the subject, and unless the present writer had had a long experience in the study of manuscripts of this period, he would leave the question of the actor's chirography undisturbed. Feeling it possible, however, to contribute toward the elucidation of the subject he ventures to discuss it.

There are four signatures of the actor which we claim to be valid, and but four. These are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, as shown opposite page 270. The documents themselves are in the handwriting of law clerks or scriveners. To these we add his spurious signatures, Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, the two last being signatures from the will which we believe to have been written with a guided hand.

66

It is noticeable that in documents Nos. 1 and 2 the word

'signed" is omitted and only the word "sealed" used, a

SEPARATE LETTERS IN THE FOUR

AUTHENTIC SIGNATURES

x, as Malone saw the preceding S.

y, as Steevens traced the S in first signature to will. z, a suggestion of its original form. Note the last S in the line, from Sadler's signature as a witness to will.

In the third a the stroke which makes it resemble the letter h was caused by a slip of the clumsy hand, as was the fourth.

fact which has raised in some minds the harrowing doubt as to the ability of the grantee and mortgagor to write his name. The fact,

too, that the name in both documents is abbreviated is suggestive.

Ex. 8y. Ez. S

Solicitors were so accustomed to have clients who could not sign their names to papers that they were constantly writing their signatures for them, usually with a mark as is done now; but a genuine signature, though abbreviated, would pass muster. The differences in the signatures of the actor has made some believe that they were not written by the same hand. Even Mr. Gervais, a

Stratfordian, makes this startling admission:

Looking at them from the point of view of character, nobody would say that they were from the same pen, and written within a short time of one another.

Gervais, however, suggests no solution for this disparity, and without explanation concludes them to be genuine signatures

of the actor. Mr. Lawrence informs us that the signatures to the deed and mortgage have been discredited by officials of the institutions where they are lodged. The writer, however, must agree with Mr. Gervais, that they are genuine, and can see no reason why he should pronounce them radically unlike.

Let us first consider the signature (No. 5) in the volume of Florio's translation of Montaigne's "Essays" of 1603, and that in the office of the Public Records.

The name in the "Essays" is written on one of the blank leaves of the volume among a number of quotations from Latin authors which are in a handwriting quite unlike that of the signature. Mr. Gervais, who has already been quoted, battles valorously for the genuineness of this signature, but, unfortunately, like everything connected with the Stratford actor, it is a fraud too glaring to receive credence. In the first place, it differs radically from the four genuine signatures, and has all the ear-marks of a none too ingenious forgery of a like character to the Ireland forgery (No.6); besides, it is imposing too great a strain upon our credulity to ask us to believe that for two centuries this book could have remained in the hands of bookmen,- for else it had perished,—and a signature, so very important and valuable as this purported to be, pass unnoticed. Phillipps is the best authority we can quote, for while an ardent lover of the "Shakespeare" Works, and a thorough believer that the Stratford actor was their author, he always acts on the presumption that it is better for his client to have even unpleasant facts affecting him fairly stated by a friend, than to have them concealed to be exposed by an enemy. Respecting this signature he says:—

It is unnecessary to say that many alleged autographs of Shakespeare have been exhibited; but forgeries of them are so numerous, and the continuity of design, which a fabricator cannot readily produce in a long document, is so easy to obtain in a mere signature, that the only safe course is to adopt none as genuine on internal evidence.

This signature did not come to light until 1780, which was after the publication by Steevens of a facsimile of the actor's autograph. Soon after its appearance Shakspere autographs began to appear, often on the fly leaves of old books, one turning up on a copy of Bacon's "Essays" forged by the Stratford rhymester Jordan, who died in 1789. Whether this is his handiwork, it is impossible, of course, to determine, but that it is a forgery there should be no doubt. Phillipps sorrowfully gives it up "with great reluctance, for it would be well to know that there exists one work, at least, which the great poet handled."

Of course forgeries of the actor's name were varied to avoid the suspicion of being copies, and the facsimile of the forged signature by Ireland is no more unlike it than the two last so-called genuine ones to the will.

Mr. Gervais has carefully transcribed the quotations which appear on the blank pages of the old volume of Montaigne, and parallelled them with passages in the "Shakespeare" Works. The present writer has already done the same, for there can be no doubt that the author of these works was a close student of Montaigne. Gervais also gives a facsimile page from Bacon's "Promus," in order, it would almost seem, to intimidate partisans of Bacon from claiming that the handwriting is his, for jotting down such quotations for future use is wonderfully suggestive of that great author. In this connection Mr. Gervais says,

Having . . . established a prima facie case, and shifted the burden of proof on to my opponents, who, I hope, will not spare me, I shall show, by a comparison of the various specimens of handwriting, that there is no reason to doubt and, in fact, every reason to believe, that the writings in the Montaigne came from the same hand that penned the five legal signatures, and, in any case, not from that of Bacon.1

Mr. Gervais permits his enthusiasm to urge him beyond the pale of safety; indeed, it is surprising that with the quota1 Francis P. Gervais, Shakespeare not Bacon, p. 4. London, 1901.

tions on the blank leaves of the Montaigne, and a page of the "Promus" before him, he could so positively declare that they were unlike, and that the quotations were in the same handwriting as the Shakspere signature which they are so

The male gasserate grape of Goox w fi 9 Restau

Si Dolor graccis breceis fr Lungen Lecces

calamitofus est animus futuri anxius-g

C8sf adso batch wtilites,

mals from, thus

millo

2 Faber est fuo quifqe for lunce

Jirgtinalis larda ish・ 603.

ALTERNATE LINES FROM BACON'S PROMUS AND MONTAIGNE'S ESSAYS. 1603.

wholly unlike. We will dismiss this signature with the simple remark that its presence greatly enhanced the pecuniary value of the book. It sold for one hundred and thirty-five pounds, and is to be classed among other forgeries of a like nature. It is noticeable, amusingly so, that since it is more like a respectable signature than others it is being frequently used by partisans of the Stratford myth in their books, and a plausible