narrow lanes," and having "from his mother (a gentlewoman be it remembered by birth and breeding) derived the instincts and feelings of a true gentleman, with a taste for art and literature which tempered the bold and manly spirit inherited from his father." Really, we can but wonder that Zincke or Holder or some other of the numerous fakers of his "original" portraits did not exhibit him to us on horseback.

There is no doubt that the author of the "Shakespeare" Works was a great poet and a great philosopher; that he possessed a mind stored with all the lore of his age, lingual, biblical, legal, scientific, historical, medical, and musical; indeed, that he was in power of expression the greatest literary genius that has yet adorned the world of letters; nor is it an idle claim that there was living in London at the time the works were written, one man, and one man only, who in a large degree exemplified these requirements; a philosopher,2 a "concealed poet," to use his own words; a learned linguist,* Biblical student," lawyer, scientist,' historian, author of treatises on medicine, natural history, 10 gardens,11 music.12 This man was Francis Bacon, who took all knowledge for his province. Most of the sentiments, however, which we have quoted and we have spared the reader by selecting as few as possible to illustrate our subject — would be the grossest exaggeration if applied to the greatest genius of any age. There is no knowing to what extremes devotees of the

6

1 C. E., Shakespeare on Horseback, pp. 3-4. 1887.

2 Novum Organum. Spedding, vol. 1, pp. 129–93.

8

3 Poesy-part of Learning. Spedding, vol. vI, pp. 202-06; vol. vIII, pp. 440-44.

• De Augmentis. Spedding, vol. 1x, pp. 112–14; vol. x11, p. 137.

5 Bacon's Creed and Essay on Unity. Spedding, vol. xiv, pp. 41–57; vol. XII,

pp. 86-92.

6 Professional Works. Spedding, vol. xv.

7 De Augmentis Scientiarum. Spedding, vol. II, p. 111.

8 History of Henry VII. Spedding, vol. XI.

• Advancement of Learning. Spedding, vol. vi, pp. 236–54; vol. ix, pp. 23-47.

10 Natural History. Spedding, vol. vii, pp. 409-18; vol. x, pp. 405-18.

11 Gardens. Spedding, vol. iv, pp. 354-460.

12 Experiments in consort touching music. Spedding, vol. iv, pp. 225-98.

Stratfordian cult might have carried their efforts, had not a halt been called by Bacon's introduction to them as a claimant to the authorship of "The Greatest Birth of Time." Not only have their unwise panegyrics ceased, but since the light has been turned upon the object of their devotion, they have bent their efforts to the Sisyphean task of proving that he was deficient in the knowledge which they had hitherto ascribed to him; in fact, that it was not the result of study and intellectual training, but being the common possession of the time in which he lived he simply helped himself therefrom. It would seem that rightly to avail one's self of such a varied store would require not only a mind "saturated" with knowledge, according to Furnivall, but intellectual training of a high degree. Especially do they now disparage the classical and legal erudition displayed in the works which they formerly extolled. Doubtless, unprejudiced minds will prefer the opinions of Upton, Collins, Baynes, Lord Campbell, Justice Wilde, Judge Holmes, and other eminent scholars and jurists, to those of partisans who have shown themselves to be so untrustworthy. Of these we have less hope than of those who deck the object of their devotion with meretricious garlands, though we agree with Tolstoy that their "effort to discover in him non-existent merits, thereby destroying æsthetic and ethical understandings, is a great evil, as is every untruth.”1 1 Leo Tolstoy, Shakespeare, p. 6. New York and London, 1906.

III

THE GHOST OF HAMLET

WILLIAM SHAKSPERE OF STRATFORD

"THIS is a parlous world," says an old thinker, "because of its errors," and, unhappily, its errors outnumber its truths. Were it not for this, the above title would never have been penned, and the world would have been saved from much distracting controversy; yet an eminent philosopher tells us that there is "A law of compensation universal in its action"; and so even in controversy may we not expect it to serve a beneficent end, since many a precious truth has been picked out of the sludge of dissent?

Whatever the manner in which some have expressed their sentiments with regard to the subject we are now to consider, we can hardly exaggerate the influence which the works bearing the name "Shakespeare" have exerted on the Englishspeaking world. Had not the author of these works been born, Elizabethan literature would have been a failure; indeed, what the immensity of the loss to the literary world of to-day would have been is beyond conjecture; certainly a greater loss than if Pisistratus had failed to give the Homeric poems to Hellas, important as that act was in quickening the national spirit and uniting the Hellenic peoples. No thoughtful mind can fail to appreciate the inestimable importance of the "Shakespeare" Works to mankind; no heart, which is attuned to the love of genius but desires to become acquainted with the immortal genius who was their author. Yet, strange as it may seem, the paternity of this "Greatest Birth of Time" is in question, and the world is about equally divided upon it; many holding to the earlier faith that it belongs to the Strat

ford actor, and others to the later, that it should be ascribed to Francis Bacon. This is a question which demands careful scrutiny, a mind open to conviction, and, to reach a satisfactory conclusion, an intimate acquaintance with the two men, and with their works. We must compare their characters, satisfy ourselves whether both are competent to be the author of this prodigy, and whether it reflects the lineaments of both or either. To do this we must apply ourselves to the history of their lives, and, first, to that of the actor; in his case a narrow field which has been ably if unprofitably cultivated. Rowe, Steevens, Malone, Knight, Symmons, Halliwell-Phillipps, White, Lee, and many others whom we shall quote in the progress of our study, have labored persistently in it, and have produced results in certain respects worthy of admiration. For present purposes we will consider the biography by Knight, which forms an entire volume of his voluminous edition of the "Shakespeare" Works, who, to lend importance to his subject, which he realizes we know little about, devotes ample space at the outset to prove that he was of heroic extraction. To do this it seems necessary to connect him with some important historic event, and so he selects the "22nd of August, 1485," when "There was a battle fought for the crown of England. The battlefield was Bosworth." He then asks this question:

Was there in that victorious army of the Earl of Richmond, which Richard denounced as a company of traitors, thieves, outlaws, and runagates," an Englishman bearing the name of Chacksper, or Shakespeyre, or Schakespere, or Schakespeire, or Schakspere, or Shakespere, or Shaksper, a martial name, however spelt?

There certainly ought to have been, but old chronicles, ever so diligently searched, fail, alas! to show the name. But it ought to have been recorded, and though it was not, the name alone should be sufficient to convince the most skeptical of John Shakspere's heroic descent. Of course such a man must

have a coat of arms, and, referring to the statements made to obtain them, Knight exclaims:

Let it not be said that these statements were the rodomontades of heraldry honours bestowed for mere mercenary considerations upon any pretenders to gentle blood. There was strict inquiry if they were unworthily bestowed. Two centuries and a half ago such honours were of grave importance, and there is a solemnity of tone in these very documents.

Having satisfied himself that a coat of arms was really bestowed, he again exclaims:

And so forever after he was no more goodman Shakspere, or John Shakspere, yeoman, but Master Shakspere.1

But we will spare the reader more of these rodomontades. Sufficient has been quoted to show with what facility a biographer may dispose of important questions of genealogy, and readers confused by a plethora of verbiage.

The fact is, the first application for arms by John Shakspere in 1568-69 was fruitless. In 1596, aided by the actor, another application was made, coupled with a request for permission to impale the arms of Mary Arden, his wife. In this case a false statement of her ancestry was made, and so it was held up by the heralds for three years. In 1599, the actor having purchased New Place, another application was made requesting the recognition of the coat of arms of 1596, and the right of the grantee to impale, and the other members of his family to quarter thereon, the coat of arms of the Ardens of Wilmecote. At this the heralds again balked, realizing that this influential family would protest against it; and, finally, an Arden family residing in Cheshire was found bearing no relation to the Wilmecote Ardens. The remoteness of this family rendered interference improbable, but it might prove troublesome, and so the question of an Arden impalement was dropped. The request, however, for recognition was granted. 1 Charles Knight, William Shakspere. A Biography, pp. 3-8, New York, 1860.