insist upon their members adopting any one special form of the name. It would seem, therefore, that as regards the pronunciation and spelling of his name, the poet himself differed from the more educated persons of his day, inasmuch as he was more inclined to adopt the Stratford provincialism. There are two ways very different, it is true-of accounting for this cir cumstance, and we shall here give preference to the one which corresponds best with the idea we have formed of the poet's character. It may be thought that Shakespeare did not waste much thought upon such a trifling matter as the orthography of names, and that with the indifference of genius he made use of the form that came most readily to his pen, and that this as a rule was the provincial form to which he had from early youth been accustomed. In direct opposition to this interpretation, however, it may be assumed that the poet did attach some importance to the spelling of his name, and that he intentionally made use of the form not generally in vogue. Proper names with the appellative form and meaning have never been considered pleasing, or at least aristocratic; and hence persons bearing names of this kind have always endea voured by means of slight orthographical alterations to convert them into genuine surnames, and thus at the same time make them more aristocratic in the In this appearance. name Shepherd has been converted into Sheppard, Young into Yonge, Collier into Collyer, Cook into Cooke, White into Whyte, Green into Greene, Smith into Smyth or Smythe, and numerous other instances. Poets especially have very frequently indulged in these fancies. William Davenant changed his name into D'Avenant after having been knighted, and exposed himself to the ridicule of his contemporaries on account of this aristocratic whim. Bishop Percy's name (the editor of the "Reliques ") was in reality Piercy, but, in accordance with a genealogy drawn up by himself, he wished to prove himself of royal descent and a scion of the famous house of Percy; his wife's name also, in the inscription on her tombstone, he had changed from Gutteridge to Goodriche. Charlotte Brontë (Currer Bell) signed herself Bronti, whereas on her own tombstone and those of the other members of the family the name is given in its generally recognized form. 1 See The Athenæum, Nov. 16, 1867, p. 651. way There was less occasion for an alteration in her name than in the other cases, as it was a good-sounding name, in fact, it is thought to be an abbreviation of the Irish Bronterre.' Lord Byron, too, as is well known, altered the pronunciation of his name from the customary and usual form by invariably pronouncing it as a word of one syllable with the y short. It seems not at all unlikely that Shakespeare may have acted. somewhat in a similar way as regards his name, and have endeavoured to give it a more uncommon appearance; that he was not altogether free from aristocratic inclinations is proved by the repeated application for a grant of arms. He may very possibly have been induced to alter the pronunciation of his name on account of the jokes played with it, and which may at times have annoyed him; in the provincial shortening of the first syllable he may have found a welcome handle for freeing the name of its appellative meaning. On this supposi tion, therefore, the form "Shakspere" would offer the greater degree of inward probability for the poet's own way of spelling his name, as it differed most from the appellative form customary in his day. The noun "spear occurs eight times in Shakespeare's plays, and is invariably spelt "speare" in the first folio. The spelling" Shakspere" therefore differs in two points from the appellative form, "Shakspeare" only in one. Be this as it may, the conclusion arrived at is that there are only two forms to choose between: "Shakspere" and Shakespeare." The first is the provincial form, and possibly the form used by the poet, no matter at what date or for what reason he adopted it; still, it should not be forgotten that on the title-page of the two works which were published under his own supervision we find the name "Shakespeare." The second form of the name is the one generally adopted by the poet's more enlightened contemporaries, and is moreover the one upon which we can depend with incomparably greater certainty than in the case of the other. The decision, therefore, cannot be difficult. 'Harriet Martineau, Biographical Sketches, 2nd ed. (London, 1869), p. 360. TH 'HE features of Shakespeare's face are so well known that they can be recognized at once, however inartistic or diffe rent the portraits may be. And yet his portraits present greater differences than are met with in any other case; for, apart from the usual differences-due to the change of expression which varies with age, and due also to the conception formed by the artist in Shakespeare's case the differences are the result of a peculiar circumstance. The fact is, there does not exist any absolutely authentic portrait of him of any artistic value-any portrait that might serve as an authentic original for subsequent copies-and hence in most of the later portraits of the poet artists have made too free use of their ! imaginations. This may, at first sight, appear a somewhat unwarranted or exaggerated statement; it might be askedHave we not got Shakespeare's bust on his monument at Stratford ? Have we not got the engraving on the title-page of the first folio? Have we not got the famous and oftencopied Chandos portrait, not to speak of the numerous other likenesses of the poet? True, we do possess all these portraits, and every admirer of Shakespeare must esteem it a blessing that time has hitherto dealt sparingly with these precious mementos; for deep in the human heart is implanted a desire to behold great and renowned men, face to face if possible, and if not, to have their likenesses to be able to contemplate their features, in order, as it were, to have a direct reflex of their mind and heart. For not only do we in beholding the countenance obtain a better understanding of their life and work, but we feel at the same time drawn closer to them, and, so to say, brought directly within the circle of their personal acquaintance. What admirer of Shakespeare, accordingly, does not derive pleasure from a faithful and good portrait of the poet? And may it not perhaps be cruel to disturb the pleasure thus enjoyed? Truth, however, is the magis amica, and her existence cannot be ignored. Shakespeare's portraits have repeatedly been the subject of learned and artistic inquiries, and a glance at the result of these inquiries will justify the verdict that not one of these portraits can claim to combine the two merits of being unquestionably genuine and, at the same time, an artistic work; indeed, it would almost seem as if the one merit appeared in the same proportion as the other disappeared.' Let us begin with the Stratford bust, which, as we know from the eulogy on Shakespeare by Leonard Digges, must have been erected before 1623 (probably even before 1622), and which, therefore, offers a safe starting point. This monument, with the bust, proves that the first thought of Shakespeare's relatives after his death was to erect-it may be said-a -a grand tombstone to his memory, one worthy of the The principal materials for the subject is contained in the following four works (all illustrated) -1. James Boaden, An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Various Pictures and Prints which from the Decease of the Poet have been offered to the Public as Portraits of Shakspeare, Lond., 1824. 2. Abraham Wivell, Historical Account of all the Portraits of Shakespeare, &c., Lond., 1827. A large supplement to this work appeared during the same year. 3. J. Hain Friswell, Life Portraits of William Shakspeare, &c., Lond., 1864. 4. J. Parker Norris, The Portraits of Shakespeare, Philadelphia, 1885. A very complete, not to say too complete a work, and handsomely got-up. The best of these works is unquestionably that by Boaden, even as regards the illustrations; his work paved the way for the others. Wivell quotes largely from Boaden, but as a rule his book is bad in style, unmethodical, uncritical, and, in fact, accomplishes nothing. Hain Friswell's chief merit is the elegant appearance presented by his book; he is frequently careless, and cannot in any way be compared to Boaden as regards thoroughness and critical judgment, 2 The lines of Leonard Digges are: Shakespeare, at length thy pious fellows give The world thy works; thy works, by which outlive When brass and marble fade, shall make thee look Compare Remarks on the Monumental Bust of Shakspeare, at Stratfordupon-Avon, by John Britton, Lond., 1816 (privately printed); Abraham Wivell, An Historical Account of the Monumental Bust of William Shakespeare, &c., Lond., 1827; Shakespeare's Bust at Stratford-upon-Avon, by the Rev. Wm. Harness, in The Shakespeare Society's Papers, ii. 9 f.; Gabriel Harrison, The Stratford Bust of Wm. Shakespeare, and a Critical Enquiry into its Authenticity and Artistic Merits, illustrated with two Photographic Views, Front, and Profile, Brooklyn, 1865, 4to., p. 13 (worthless, as the two photographs were not taken from the original, but from a plastercast; the Critical Enquiry" is of very little value). renowned poet and of the esteem in which he was held by his fellow-citizens. Yet what means could the family adopt for carrying out their wishes? The small and poor little town of Stratford could not boast of any sculptor capable of undertaking any such work. England altogether was very far behindhand in every species of artistic work, and even London possessed no English artists of any eminence. We find that in London painting and sculpture were almost exclusively in the hands of foreigners, and more especially of the Dutch. Among these Dutchmen was one Gerard Johnson (in Dutch Jansen), whose chief occupation was the manufacture of tombstones; these were objects of much greater importance in those days than they are now, as people are no longer buried in churches. Gerard Johnson was a native of Amsterdam and twenty-six years of age when he settled in London-it is not known exactly when. He is expressly termed a "tombmaker," and employed in his workshop "four journeymen, two apprentices, and one Englishman "(!!). What was more natural, therefore, than that Shakespeare's relatives-represented, doubtless, by his own son-in-law-should have applied to this industrious manufacturer, who probably enjoyed the reputation of being a proficient member of his craft. Gerard Johnson had already a connection in Stratford, for it was he who, in 1614, made the tombstone of John Combe, Shakespeare's friend. Combe's monument, which represents a recumbent figure carved in stone, had to be erected within one year of his death, in accordance with the instructions of his will. It seems reasonable to assume that Johnson may have personally superintended the placing of this monument in the church, and that on this occasion he may have made Shakespeare's personal acquaintance. Or, if this is considered unlikely, Johnson may, at all events, have met Shakespeare in London on some previous occasion, at the theatre or elsewhere. If we imagine ourselves in Dr. Hall's position, nothing seems more likely under the circumstances than that he should have written to G. Johnson and have requested him to come 1 We know that the monuments erected to the memory of Shakespeare and of Combe were made by Gerard Johnson, from Dugdale's Life, Diary, and Correspondence, by Wm. Hamper (Lond., 1827), p. 99. Halliwell conjectures-with a view to making the dates correspond better--that Shakespeare's monument may have been made by a son of Gerard Johnson. See Dyce, The Works of Shakespeare (3rd ed.), i. 120. 1 |