but, unfortunately, we have only a very imperfect account of the material thus collected. The oral reports given by Davenant-who is said to have prided himself upon being an illegitimate son of Shakespeare's-are of no critical value, and are but little to be depended upon. John Aubrey (16261697), an industrious, but very unmethodical antiquary, is best known by his "Minutes of Lives," the manuscript of which he sent in 1680 to Anthony Wood (1632-1695), in order that Wood might make use of it for his work "Athenæ Oxoniensis"; these "Minutes contain an often-quoted passage referring to Shakespeare.' Rowe must, however, have consulted better authorities or sources, for in all essential points his biographical statements have been confirmed. Since his day, that is, during a period of some hundred and fifty years, there has been no cessation in the researches made concerning Shakespeare's life, and many a problem has been solved; but as was to be expected-while these researches gained in breadth and depth, new difficulties and new problems presented themselves. The additional knowledge was obtained from various sources, above all by the discovery of records relating to the subject, with regard to which Malone and Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, in particular, have rendered indisputable service by their unwearied investigations. It is true that forgeries have found a fruitful field here for their pernicious and ignominious machinations-and among these we may mention more especially those of Ireland, Collier, and Peter Cunning

1675; according to the Outlines, i. p. xii. (compare ii. 251), about 1690: according to Knight, William Shakspere; a Biography, p. 278, not till or after 1700. All these statements are based purely upon conjecture--the. exact year is not known.

1 Aubrey's manuscript is preserved in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. 2 William Henry Ireland, who died in 1834, carried his forgeries very far, and among other things wrote two plays, l'ortigern and Henry II., which he published in 1799 as newly discovered works of Shakespeare. Compare Authentic Account of the Shakespeare Manuscripts, by W. H. Ireland, 1796; Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments under the Hand and Seal of Wm. Shakespeare, published by Samuel Ireland (William Henry's father), 1796; Malone's Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellanous Papers, &c., 1796; G. Chalmers's Apology for the Believers of the Shakespeare Papers, 1797; The Confessions of W. H. Ireland, 1805. J. P. Collier, in his New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare (1835), and in his New Particulars, &c. (1836), and elsewhere, has published a number of records which, after careful palæographic examination, were declared to be spurious (or at least exceedingly suspicious), much like the emendations in

ham, and owing to this the utmost caution is necessary at every step. A second and no less productive source has been obtained by a careful examination of the literature of the period, whereby great light has been thrown upon Shakespeare's position as regards his contemporaries, as well as upon the date of his plays and the estimation in which they were held. A third source may be added to these, viz., critical combination, which, it is true, has called forth a terrible swarm of absolutely unfounded hypotheses; still, they have given rise to not a few inferences that have acquired such a high degree of probability that they may almost be regarded as certainties. But how deceptive even the so-called internal probabilityand the proof obtained from internal reasons-may be, is shown by a well-known anecdote of the poet Thomson. It had been inferred from evidence in his "Seasons that Thomson must have been an early riser, whereas in truth he was a late sleeper, and rarely rose until noon-it being his habit to go

his copy of the second folio. Even before they had been examined palæographically, these documents had been considered doubtful, and had been critically condemned in 1843 by Knight, Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, pp. 496-500, and in 1845 by Hunter, Illustrations, i. 67 ff. It is difficult to understand why the palæographical inquiry was deferred so long, and were it not that the notorious folio aroused suspicion anew the records might still be regarded as trustworthy. The extent of these falsifications seem not yet to have been fully revealed, and to demand still further research. Ireland's forgeries, however, have been satisfactorily settled and utterly rejected. Under these circumstances it becomes a paramount duty to be most cautious,, and hence we cannot do otherwise than distrust all of the records published by Collier, unless they have been placed beyond doubt by researches from another quarter. Although Collier has given an affidavit, yet Dr. Ingleby (A Complete View of the Shakspere Controversy, 1861,) has proved by the most acute and convincing circumstantial evidence that Collier was himself the forger; there can be no conclusive circumstantial evidence anywhere, if Dr. Ingleby's may not be regarded as such, Compare Ingleby, The Shakespeare Fabrications; or, The MS. Notes of the Perkins Folio shown to be of Recent Origin, &c., London, 1859;-Hamilton, N.E.S.A.. Inquiry into the Genuineness of the MS. Corrections, &c., London, 1860; J. P. Collier, Reply to Mr. Hamilton's "Inquiry" into the imputed Shakespeare Forgeries, London, 1860; George F. Warner, Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Muniments of Alleyn's College of God's Gift at Dulwich, published for the Governors by Longmans (1881), pp. xxxvi-xlvii. A series of eleven of such spurious documents Dyce has collected and given as an appendix to his Biography of the poet (i. 138-148); one of these (No. VII.) is, however, laid to Cunningham's account-the entries relating to Shakespeare in the latter's Extracts from the Revels at Court, &c. Compare The Athenæum, 1868, i. 863.

very late to bed.' There are laws, however, which have ruled human life for centuries, because from inner necessity they are part and parcel of human nature. Shakespeare's life, also, was necessarily affected by these laws, and according to them his marriage cannot have been a happy one.

By a methodical application of these sources of information we can form a pretty graphic picture of Shakespeare's outward life, one which may in all essential points be regarded as sufficiently approaching the historical truth; and even where we may not accomplish this, the attempt will not altogether be in vain, for it will make us more familiar with the poet's personality, the time in which he lived, and of his surroundings, as well as of his actual work. Hallam' does indeed speak rather disparagingly of the researches made concerning Shakespeare's life, and his opinion has only too frequently been re-echoed. He says: "If there was a Shakespeare of earth, as I suspect, there was also one of heaven; and it is of him that we desire to know something." This seems to us to be based upon a strange mistake. For of the heavenly Shakespeare we have the fullest report in his works, and moreover the only possible record; what more do we need, nay, what more could we wish to know of him in that sense? Then, too, it is more the duty of the æsthetic writer and artcritic to make the acquaintance of the heavenly Shakespeare, than for the philologist and biographer to do so. The Shakespeare of whom we would wish to learn something here is assuredly the earthly Shakespeare, and the earthly circumstances and conditions under which he created his heavenly works. The philological investigation and delineation of the earthly Shakespeare forms the indispensable foundation for the philosophical, aesthetic criticism by which the heavenly Shakespeare is revealed to us.

Even the poet's name-to begin with-has given rise to numerous speculations and inquiries; on the very threshold, therefore, the biographer meets with a difficulty, and up to the present day no agreement has been arrived at with regard to the way his name should be spelt. The reader will find a subsequent chapter devoted to the reasons of this disagreement and the results of the investigations that have

1 Knight, Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, p. 234; Thomson's Seasons, ed. Bolton Corney (3rd ed.), London, 1863, Longmans, p. xxxvii. 2 Introd. Lit. Eur., 4th edit., ii. 176.

been made on this subject, as well as regarding Shakespeare's own autograph, and our justification of the spelling which we have adopted. As early as the fourteenth century there were Shakespeares in Warwickshire, and not long afterwards we find the family extending over the whole county and the neighbouring districts: in Warwick itself, in Stratford, Snitterfield, Wroxhall, Temple Balsall, Rowington, Packwood, Little Packington, Kenilworth, Charlecote, Coventry, Hampton, Lapworth, Nuneaton, Kington, and in many other places we have documentary evidence of their existence. This wide distribution of the name leads to the unpleasant result that we meet with several John and William Shakespeares who lived about the same time, and whom it is difficult in all cases to distinguish. The occurrence of such numerous families of the same name in one and the same county, reminds us of the Scottish clans, and leads us to assume a common origin-if not for the family-at all events for the name. "Breakespear, Shakespear, and the like," say Verstegen," "have been surnames imposed upon the first bearers of them for valour or feats of arms." Camden3 comes nearer the mark in observing that persons have frequently been named after such things as they carried; for instance, pilgrims from the palms which they brought with them on their return from Jerusalem; also Longsword, Broadspear, Fortescue, i.e. Strong-shield, and in a similar way Breakspeare, Shakespeare, Shotbolt, Wagstaff. Hunter thinks that the name Shakeshaft ought to be added to these, and, curiously enough, in the counties of Warwickshire and Worcestershire this name is particularly often meet with. Hunter quotes a passage from Zachary Bogan-likewise a writer of the seventeenth century-who maintains the name Shakespeare to be synonymous with Soldier. He says: "The custom first már, to vibrate the spear before they used it, was so constantly kept, that yxonados, and shake-speare, came at length to be an ordinary word, both in Homer and other poets, to signify a soldier."

1

Halliwell, Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare (London, 1874), p. 62; Outlines, ii. 251 seq.

Restitution of Decayed Intelligence (Antwerp, 1605), p. 294.

Remains concerning Britain (1605), p. 111.

Illustrations, i. 3.

Archeologie Atticæ, Libri III., by Francis Rous, with Additions by Zachary Bogan, Scholar of C.C.C. in Oxon, 5th ed. 1658, p. 324; Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell (1821), ii. 275.-According to Charles Mackay in

1

Hunter, it is true, fails to prove that Shakespeare was ever used in England "as a familiar word for a soldier; nevertheless, it is probable that the name was either a popular, a jocose, or a poetical appellation for the spearmen and lancers of the Duke of Warwick, and it may be of the bishops of Worcester, who served both as bodyguards and as constables. Charles W. Bardsley says that the name Shakespeare belongs to a distinct class of sobriquets that have become hereditary. The nicknames given to lower-class officials some centuries ago were invariably hits at the officious and meddlesome character of their duties." Such nicknames generally referred to the implement or badge of office, with the additional wag or shake. Thus we find shake-buckler (in Halliwell), shake-lock (as the designation of a turnkey), Waggestaff (in the Hundred Rolls), Wag-tail, Wagspere, and the still-existing Waghorn, Simon Shake-lok, Henry Shake-launce, and Hugh Shakeshaft occur in ancient records.2 In the year 1487 a student at Oxford of the name of Shakespeare changed it into Sawndare (Saunders), because he considered his name too common (Hugh Sawndare, alias dictus Shakspere, sed mutatum est istud nomen ejus, quod vile reputatem).3 Bardsley therefore comes to the conclusion that William Shakespeare was undoubtedly the descendant of some "officer of the law, or one who held service under some feudal lord." And this, as we know from documentary evidence, agrees with the fact that all the families of the name of Shakespeare belonged to the lower strata of the nation, to the yeomanry or agricultural class; only two instances have been pointed out where the families belonged to the upper ranks. In a register of the Guild of Saint Anne of Knowle,' which extends from the

The Athenæum, 1875, ii. 437, the name is said to be of Celtic origin, composed of shac or seac = dry, and spier = shanks, and ought properly to be written Schacspeir or Chaksper, as, in fact, the poet's father spelt his name. Mackay compares Sheepshank and Cruikshank.

1 Notes and Queries, July 4, 1874, p. 2.

2 Compare Bardsley, English Surnames: their Sources and Significations, 2nd ed. London, 1875, p. 461.

* George C. Broderick, Memorials of Merton College (Oxford, 1885), p. 242.

Halliwell, Life of Shakespeare, 3 ff.-At Baddesley-Clinton, not far from Knowle, is a house standing by itself, with a moat and drawbridges, called Shakespeare Hall, which is said to have belonged to an uncle of the poet's, and to have remained in the possession of the family Shakespeare up to the middle of last century.-The Athenæum, 1872, 1. 337.