speaking a volume in a line,-one of those touches peculiar to the hand of a great master, and so conspicuous in the works of Shakespeare.

But, although I am assured in my own mind that there are no interpolations of characters and speeches, I do not feel equally satisfied that the entire text has in all cases come down to us, many of the plays appearing to be printed from what are technically called cuts, that is to say, with those parts omitted which were left out in representation, and hence the obscurities and perplexities of the text that sometimes encounter us. The discussion of this point, however, requires a long and patient investigation, and is a subject worthy the employment of a superior pen. I will only call attention to the fact, that several of the plays are in extent more than a third, as compared with the others, and that among those short ones we find Pericles, to which Mr. Collier in his recently published Farther Particulars regarding the works of Shakespeare has successfully retrieved several lines from a contemporaneous prose narrative founded on the play.

Another point, as appears to me, may be elucidated by the early editions, I mean the pronunciation, if not the orthography, of the poet's name. In all the early 4tos. with two exceptions, the name is spelt Shakespeare. The two exceptions are, Love's Labour Lost, 1598, in which it is Shakespere, and the first edition of Lear, 1608, in which it stands Shakspeare, a hyphen being placed between the syllables, as is also the case in several other of these early editions. In the writings of his contemporaries, those who speak of him always spell the name Shakespeare, and as several of these, as Jonson, Drayton, Meres, and John Davies of Hereford, were his personal friends, we may rest confidently assured that his name was pronounced by himself Shakespeare, howsoever he may have written it, since we know from every day experience that names whose orthography we are unacquainted with are set down by us from the pronunciation.

I would suggest that in all future controversy on this much disputed point the only reference be to the

will, until some other unquestionable document be discovered. Of the two deeds so often referred to as being discovered by Mr. Albany Wallis, nothing is now known; and after what has come to our knowledge respecting the deplorable ignorance of most of the literati of this country during the latter part of the last century in all matters of palæography, little reliance can be placed in their critical skill, whatever credit may be due to their integrity. I have only further to add, that I yesterday again inspected the will, in company with the Rev. A. Dyce, and that, after a most patient and minute examination of the signatures attached to that document by the aid of a powerful magnifying glass, we both felt perfectly convinced that it is written, in each instance, Shakspeare, the contested a in the second syllable being, in fact, as clear and well defined as any letter therein.

Yours, &c. THOS. RODD.

MR. URBAN,

British Museum, Feb. 15.

IN consequence of the papers which have appeared in the last two numbers of your Magazine, on the subject of the orthography of Shakspere's name, I am induced to offer a few supplementary remarks. I might, indeed, be content to let the question rest based on the arguments advanced by Mr. Bruce; but some would then, perhaps, think I was either indifferent to the result, or doubtful of the validity of the cause I have engaged in. Neither is the case. The point at issue seems to me to be reducible to this brief proposition :

1st, Ought we to be guided by the variable authority of the press and the small wit of some pointless puns? or,

2dly, Shall we adopt the unvarying evidence furnished to us by the hand of the Dramatic Bard himself?

Mr. Hunter tells us, that the rule should be "the usage of persons of cultivation." But what rule is this, at a period when we are assured by the same writer that the utmost indifference existed in regard to it? Even in our own times whose authority are we to follow in the observance of such a rule? With the exception of half a dozen persons, all the world wrote

Shakspeare, until the "Observations" on his autograph appeared; and I find Mr. Hunter himself (unless the printer has here, too, played the part of corrector),at one time writing Shakspeare* and at another Shakespear, although he now contends that neither is correct! In fact, when I undertook, at the request of my friend Mr. Barnwell, to write the remarks on Shakspere's copy of Montaigne, it was chiefly against the popular form of Shakspeare those remarks were directed; for I never anticipated that Mr. D'Israeli's loyal pen would so suddenly have been seized in vindication of what he calls "the genuine name." But this flourish of the quill, even by so distinguished a writer as the author of the Curiosities of Literature, will certainly not be sufficient to set aside the poet's own signatures; and with all the respect I bear to "such men as Collier, Dyce, and Hunter, I doubt not that Shakspere will maintain its ground against all comers. But Mr. Hunter cries out it is unsightly! To my eye, I confess, the unsightliness lies in the superabundant vowels. Surely the simple Saxon spere is entitled to as much respect as the speare of the 14th century? Supposing our great dramatic bard were to burst his cerements, and again, in the presence of these critics, were to trace his name S,h,a,k,s,p,e,r,e, would Mr. Hunter be hardy enough to tell him it was unsightly, or Mr. D'Israeli contemptuously reproach him with the " barbaric curt shock "of so honoured an autograph? I can scarcely believe it.

But let us revert to two other cases in point, the names of Ralegh and Burghley. The insufficiency of the rule appealed to by Mr. Hunter is in the first instance evident, and even Mr. D'Israeli owns he is "uncertain how to write it." He does, nevertheless, write it Rawleigh; whereas Collier, Hunter, Lodge, and a host of

* Who wrote Cavendish's Life of Wolsey? in Singer's edit. of the Life, 8vo. Lond. 1825, p. xxxi. and Life of Sir Thomas More, etc. edited by the Rev. Jos. Hunter, 8vo. Lond. 1828, p. 251, n. † Advertisement appended to Three Catalogues, etc. 8vo. Lond. 1838.

Curios. of Lit. vol. iii. p. 221, ed. 1817. There is no later edition in the British Museum.

inferior authors write it Raleigh. Both parties may refer to precedent or usage, and how are we then to decide? Most unquestionably by recurring to his own autograph. This is, however, said to vary also, and probably might, at an early period of life; but in all the original letters I have ever seen, and I take the liberty of adding, by far the largest portion that exists, the name is uniformly spelt Ralegh. It is therefore, according to my argument, on the justest grounds, that Cayley, the editor of the Life of Sir Walter, published in 4to. 1805, returns to the autographical form of Ralegh; a form, I am rejoiced to observe, which has been followed in the Oxford reprint of his works in 1829. Is this unsightly? Is this barbaric?

Again, in the case of Burghley. The form to be met with in every work, I believe, till within the last twenty years, was Burleigh, and Mr. D'Israeli and Mr. Dyce (not to mention many others) have sanctioned it by their usage. Mr. Hunter, however, and Mr. Collier-deserting here the Shakespeare band had seen too many genuine autographs of Elizabeth's great statesman not to know that he himself invariably wrote Burghley, and they judiciously adopt the genuine form. Will Mr. Hunter in this instance set up the usage of persons of cultivation against the autograph of the individual? If so, I must beg to refer him to the fac-simile of a warrant prefixed to the second volume of Wright's Queen Elizabeth and her Times, 8vo. 1838, where we find the name has been written by the clerk in the popular form of Burleigh, but the Lord Treasurer has struck his pen through the obnoxious orthography, and inscribed above Burghley. Now I maintain that on the authority of this single document, all the variations made by all the printers and punsters (could they pun on such a name) from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the present time, might fearlessly be set at nought.

Yours, &c. F. MADDEN. P. S. As I am in much perplexity how to write the name of the great Reformer of Lutterworth, one of the earliest translators of the Bible into our vernacular tongue, and as the usage of persons of cultivation only tends to confuse me, I should feel exceedingly

I HAVE read with considerable interest what has been lately written on the subject of the proper mode of spelling Shakspeare's name; and, being of opinion that Mr. Bruce has by no means settled the question, though he has discussed it very pleasantly, I have to beg that you will give insertion to the following remarks on the same subject.

To persons who have never considered the matter, it may seem the height of presumption in any one to persevere in spelling Shakspeare's name as I spell it, after the discovery of a beautiful autograph of the poet, in which the name is clearly written Shakspere. I feel persuaded, however, that there is no impropriety, much less presumption, in the case; but, on the contrary, that the impropriety, and certainly the inconsistency, rests with those who omit the letter a in the second syllable.

A few preliminary words are due to Mr. Bruce. He has very satisfactorily disposed of some of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of the received orthography of the poet's name; but, on a reconsideration of the matter, it will be perceived that not one of the arguments with which he has dealt so successfully is of any real weight or value in deciding the question at issue. I will briefly follow him: 1. Whether one word sounds prettier than another is absolutely quite foreign to the point; (to say nothing of the identity, as far as the ear is concerned, of spere, spear, and speare.) 2. No argument as to the orthography of a name can of course be derived from the arms; since it may very reasonably be suspected that the herald whose duty it was to invent a coat-of-arms for John, the poet's father, having no traditional bearings to guide him, was driven to the not uncommon expedient of seeking a meaning in the name itself. 3. The spelling casually adopted by printers in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth

and King James, is clearly no sufficient authority. 4. Equally valueless in deciding the question of orthography must the usage of punsters be confessed to be. But, further than this, I cannot go with Mr. Bruce. There remains another argument, which does affect the question; or rather, which sets the question at rest; and with this argument, in my humble opinion, Mr. Bruce has dealt less successfully. What that argument is, I will immediately state.

The syllogism on which those who advocate the adoption of Shakspere proceed, is evidently this. The poet invariably wrote himself "Shakspere ;"-names are to be spelt as their owners invariably spelt them; therefore, "Shakspeare" is to be spelt Shakspere: and this would be all very well, and very conclusive, if it were true; but it is not true. The premises are unsound from which the conclusion is drawn. In the first place, there is no proof that Shakspeare invariably spelt his name Shakspere, as I will presently more fully explain; and in the second place, we do not spell names as their owners invariably spelt them. For the moment, however, we will concede the first point; and assume for the sake of argument that Shakspeare did, on all occasions, write himself Shakspere.

What,

I say then, we do not spell old names as their owners spelt them. We never inquire how they were spelt by their owners. We spell them, as our fathers spelt them: and give ourselves no further concern on the subject. Nay, when well-educated men, and general usage, and, above all, when carefully printed books have established any mode of orthography, we hold it to be affected, and pedantic, and so forth, to depart from precedent, and introduce an innovation. for instance, would be thought of a person who chose to spell Sir William Cecil, Cecill. Yet did Queen Elizabeth's prime minister invariably adopt that mode of orthography. Again, Sir John Mason invariably spelt his name Masone; Lords Cromwell and Montague, write Crumwell and Mountague; Sir William Pickering, Pykeryng; Anthony Wingfield, Wyngfeld; Sir John Mordaunt, Mordante; while the Earls of Pembroke, Leicester, Shrews

Sir

bury, &c. &c. were Penbroke, Leycester, Shrewesbury, and so on. These men, be it observed, were not obscure, or illiterate. They were privy counsellors, prime ministers, and ambassadors; and Cecil, in particular, was extremely nice on the subject of orthography. I abstain from citing poets and players, Shakspeare's friend Burbage for example, the Garrick of his day, who wrote himself as nobody writes him, Burbadg; and the poet Daniel, who wrote himself Danyel. The preceding catalogue might be swelled out to an amazing extent; but I am drawing upon the stores of my memory, instead of rummaging among MSS. What are we to do when a man spelt his name two different ways, as Dryden and Raleigh did? What is to be done, when, as in the noble family of Grey, one member wrote himself Grey, another Gray, and a third Graye. I do not ask the question because I am in want of an answer. We all know what is to be done on such occasions; and indeed on every occasion, when a doubt is entertained as to the right way of spelling a proper name, we adopt that mode of orthography which has been sanctioned by the practice of the majority of cultivated, well-educated persons. Now the universal voice of "all Europe and a part of Asia" is in favour of an a in the second syllable of Shakspeare's

name.

I suspect, and cannot suppose that I err in suspecting, that Mr. Bruce, and those who entertain the same opinion as himself, must henceforth adopt one of the three following courses: 1st, return to Shakspeare, which is of two hundred and fifty years standing; or, 2dly, stick to Shakspere, in defiance of consistency; or, 3dly, be consistent, and revolutionize the whole system of orthography of proper names. The third would be an impracticable, besides a very disagreeable alternative; the second cannot be adopted without manifest inconsistency. I therefore beg leave to recommend the first alternative.

Here I might leave off; but I cannot conclude this letter without requesting those gentlemen who feel interested in the question to bear in mind the following circumstances: 1. We have, or to speak more correctly we had, six GENT. MAG. VOL. XIII.

autographs of Shakspeare. Three of these, (now considerably damaged,) are attached to the same document,his will, executed in March, 1616. Two proceeded from his pen in March, 1613; and the autograph in the British Museum, which has no date, is the sixth. Now, it is manifest that the three signatures consecutively subscribed to the three pages of the poet's will, are entitled to only one vote on the present occasion. The two next autographs have disappeared! but one of them exhibited a contraction, thus, Shaksper; and the other was still more unsatisfactory, for it was not even Shaksper; it was Shakspe, with some little stroke or letter over the e. Malone thought that this little letter was an a, but when he wanted to verify the fact, the document was lost! Nobody can feel more concerned than I feel at the scarcity of the poet's writing, and the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence we possess on the subject of his autograph; but, to the best of my belief, the facts are as I have stated them. And, let me ask, what kind of proof have we here that it was the invariable practice of the poet to write his name Shakspere? We do not possess, as far as we know, a single scratch of his pen during the whole of his theatrical career: namely, from about 1585 to 1613. In other words there exists no proof whatsoever of the asserted uniformity of his practice in this particular during the first fortynine years of his life!!!

2. But there does exist,-not absolute proof indeed, but evidence of a very high order, that Shakspeare was not uniform in his mode of spelling his own name: for, in 1593, he published a poem, "the first heir of his invention;" and, in 1594, his second poem appeared. Both poems were preceded by an "Epistle dedicatory;" both epistles were addressed to the same nobleman; both are subscribed by the poet; and in both instances his name is printed WILLIAM SHAKESPEAre. am prepared to make every allowance for the inaccuracy of printers and publishers; but I cannot suppose, I will not be persuaded, that on two separate occasions, after the interval of a year, such exemplary consistency in error, such marvellous aptitude at misapprehension, should have been manifested

2 M

I

by any printer whatsoever. It has never yet been doubted that the two dedications to which I allude, were written by Shakspeare himself; nor do I see the slightest grounds for supposing that he was not their author. I feel confident that no one will wish to impeach the authenticity of these two interesting little compositions; and are we not to presume that they were printed from the poet's own MS.? If so, why should we give the printer credit for such gratuitous ingenuity as to suppose that he took the trouble to insert two vowels into a name which may be very easily read, written, and pronounced without either? I do confidently believe that Shakspeare signed the dedications in question Shakespeare. Not much reliance, it is true, could have been placed in a single specimen; but we have two; and if the poet objected to the printer's method of spelling his name in the first instance, would he not have remonstrated when the same poem came to a second edition? or have cautioned the pub. lisher of his second poem against the mistake which had been made by the publisher of his former work?

3. The discovery of a single autograph proof that the poet spelt his name Shakespeare, as there is such good reason to believe that he did spell it in the two printed documents just cited, would destroy the only argument (unsound as it is) which has been adduced in favour of spelling it Shakspere.

4. There was no "coxcombry and affectation" in the practice of Shakspeare's age of spelling the same name in two different ways; and Mr. Bruce is too learned an antiquary to suppose that such was the case. The truth is, men were wholly indifferent about the

matter.

5. It is true that the parish-clerk spelt the name of the poet's family in the parish-register Shakspere, twentyseven times out of thirty; but, Shakspeare's beloved daughter, and her husband, Dr. Hall, who certainly raised the monument to the bard (being his executors) and who may be safely presumed to have known at least as much about the matter as the parish. clerk, spelt his name on his monument as I spell it, SHAKSPEARE. If her immortal father had ever hinted his dislike to this mode of orthography, I

feel persuaded that it would not have been adopted. This was in 1616. In 1623 died the poet's wife; and her name is spelt on her tomb Shakespeare, and we meet with the same orthography of the name on the tomb of Dr. Hall in 1635, and that of his wife (Shakspeare's daughter) in 1649.

6. His friends, the players, who associated with him daily, shared his fortunes, and knew his autograph better than anybody, and who must therefore be regarded as some slight authority, in the first edition of his plays, printed seven years after his death, call him " Mr. William Shakespeare."

7. It must be confessed to be rather an odd thing that the printers of the sonnets, the poems, and the old quarto plays, should have been, as it were, in league together on all occasions to mis-spell the name of Shakspeare; that no stray printer's devil should, by any chance on any stray title page, have once blundered it into "Shakspere," during the poet's own lifetime.

8. Still more odd must it be admitted to be, that into this league or conspiracy should have fallen all Shakespeare's contemporaries and friends,— Jonson, Camden, Dugdale,-every one in short who knew him, and may be supposed to have corresponded with him, or seen letters of his; and that the ranks of the disaffected who had determined to "filch from" the poet his "good name," should have been swelled out by notaries, lawyers, and lawyers' clerks; critics, and biographers; heralds, poets, and players; to say nothing of the " 'gentlemen of the press," ancient and modern, who, by a strange instinct, a fatality which there is no accounting for, one and all, seem to have kept themselves aloof from the orthography which is now advocated so strenuously.

9th, and lastly. It must be confessed to be the oddest thing of all, that five autographs, which, it is maintained, all agree in one mode of orthography, and that mode Shakspere, should have been for so many years before the public, and never before have suggested the controversy, which has sprung up within the last few years, or rather months, on the discovery of a sixth! It is declared that the three signatures to his will, and the two signatures