first appeared as an author there is a current of usage, and if you will, of testimony, unbroken or nearly so until we approach the times in which we ourselves have lived. It is this concurrence of the whole community, which constitutes the usage, the authority to which in questions of this kind I apprehend we ought to defer. Sir F. Madden a little misunderstands what I mean by usage. I shall go into the point no further than to say that when I spoke of usage as the great authority in questions of orthography, I meant that great Jus et Norma which determines not this only but all questions of verbal propriety, the consent of the cultivated portions of society, which consent is not disturbed by the accident of there being a few persons who, like a celebrated lawyer, with his autority, shall make themselves in some point exceptions.

Having thus shewn that when first the name was presented to the public in the pages of a printed book it appeared in the form Shakespeare, and that this was under the eye of the poet himself, who, in another work, persisted in presenting the name in the same orthography, and that therefore we have what surely is an authority which on a first view at least ought to be commanding; I next observe, that in every book printed during the poet's life-time, whether his own single plays, in the publication of any or all of which he may or may not have had any concern, or the writings of contemporary poets, the name, if it occur, with scarcely an exception, is printed Shakespeare, and NEVER Shakspere. This is surely a strong reason why we should so print it, unless there is some very commanding reason indeed to determine us to the other practice; and especially when it is considered that the persons so printing it were, many of them, his own friends, and all those whose practice is justly to be esteemed the practice or usage of the cultivated persons of the time. Who shall say that Jonson, or Jonson's master, Camden, during all their lives mis-wrote the name of the friend at least of one of them? Ought not their testimony, or rather the usage by them, when it is supported by the usage of numberless other writers

of the time, to leave without excuse those who would depart from the poet's own printed authority?

Go then next to the generation who succeeded him, or rather to other persons whose testimony comes after the poet's death. Have we Shakspere on the monuments at Stratford? The name is Shakespeare, except on the monument of the poet himself, where it is Shakspeare. When Heminge and Condell published the collection of the plays, they were the plays of Mr. William Shakespeare. In the second edition the orthography is the same, and so in the third and fourth. When Milton wrote the verses on Shakespeare, his orthography is the same, and it is clear that he meant the name to be so pronounced :

"What! needs my Shakespeare for his honoured bones

The labour of an age in piled stones," &c.

From this time for more than a century onwards, there was, I believe, a uniform practice of writing Shakespeare, with or without the final e, but Shakspere, I conceive, is never to be found; and it so continued till the time of the commentators of the last age, to whom it became known that in the parish register of Stratford, in the records of the corporation of that town, and in other written evidence, the name appeared in a great variety of orthographical forms, which is indeed the case ; and it being found that in the majority of these forms the first syllable wanted the e, and that sometimes the form Shaxpere was found, from whence it was inferred that the pronunciation of the first syllable was as that orthography suggests, the e was struck out, and accordingly in Reed's, Malone's, and other editions, the name of the author appears in the form Shakspeare.

The very diversity in which the name presented itself when seen in written documents, ought to have convinced them that written documents of that age are not the kind of authority to which an appeal in questions of this kind is to be made. Every person acquainted with the manuscript of the Elizabethan period knows that there is extreme licentiousness and want of uniformity in the orthography, and

especially in proper names. A set of documents has lately passed through my hands of the sixteenth year of Elizabeth, in which the name of a Yorkshire esquire is written in five several forms, Thurgarlande, Thurgerlande, Thurgerland, Thurgland, and Thrugland. This diversity shews that they were committing themselves to a very insufficient authority, and it would have been, I conceive, to the credit of the critics of that age if they had discerned the unsuitableness of the word written as a guide, especially when placed in opposition to the word printed. They should also have remembered that there are two modes of pronouncing many words, surnames amongst the number, that of the vulgar and that of the cultivated, and that it was most probable that the writings at Stratford presented what was the pronunciation of the vulgar, Shaxpere, while the printed books of the author presented the name as pronounced by the author and his friends of the better sort. If it had also occurred to them to look at the poetry in which the word occurs, they would have seen at once that the Stratford pronunciation and the Stratford orthography never could have been that by which Shakespeare was known or could wish to be known. Read only the verses of Ben Jonson, or those written in noble rivalry of them, signed by the unappropriated letters, J.M.S. Could these writers mean that the name should be pronounced as the new orthography suggests, and as the modern critics intended who first struck out the e from the first syllable? Or read this couplet of Digges, and see if it is possible that he can have intended to have the word either written or pronounced Shakspere,

"But why do I dead Shakespeare's praise recite,

Some second Shakespeare must of Shakespeare write."

And so of later pocts. What would Churchill say if he knew that he could be supposed guilty of such an offence against euphony as to have written, "In the first seat, in robe of various dies, A noble wildness flashing from his eyes, Sat Shakspere."

But enough of this. The innovation, however, found favour. When I en

tered life Shakspeare was the form in which the name was usually written. Sir F. Madden, I doubt not, is quite right when he says that I have myself so printed it. In fact I have printed it in three several forms, not thinking much upon the subject till roused by the proposal of the new novelty of Shakspere, and entering myself into the company of the professed critics on this great author. But I find that, in a little work of mine printed in 1829, the name is uniformly printed Shakespeare.

It now seems to me that a stand ought to have been made against the innovation of 1780 or thereabouts. But though this, as every deviation from any established practice is sure to do, found favour with many, yet there were still a faithful few who adhered to the ancient and accustomed practice; and I beg leave to name, as in this respect particularly deserving of honour, Mr. Pickering and Mr. Rodd, in whose books the name is I think, uniformly found in the original form Shakespeare.

"But the Poet himself wrote the name Shakspere, and, therefore, we ought to do the same." This is the main argument on the other side, and, therefore, it must be fully considered.

The position which I take here is this: (1) that there is not suffi cient evidence that he did so uniformly and designedly; and, (2) that, if there were, this would not be a sufficient reason for disturbing the orthography which he used in his own printed works, which is the form in which his contemporaries exhibit the name, and which till lately had the support of the usage of all men of cultivation.

(1) There is not sufficient evidence that he did so uniformly, or in other in that carelessness about the form words that he did not indulge himself of writing the name, of which we find so many examples. There is very much force in the remark of Mr. Burgon, p. 265, that there is no proof of what was his practice in writing during the first forty-nine years of his life, and he died at fifty-two. It seems also that two of the alleged autographs of the name are not now to be produced, and when we consider what tricks have been played with Shakespeare documents, and that there are

still documents of no small importance as connected with his history, by many deemed genuine, which only wait their day, we must not too readily acquiesce in testimony to the reading of instruments which cannot be produced. Mr. Burgon suggests that the signatures to the different sheets of the Will can hardly be counted as three independent testimonies. Yet these five, together with the autograph in the Montaigne, are all the autographs of Shakespeare that are known to exist. So that the testimony of his own hand-writing, originally weak, becomes very much attenuated indeed, and cannot be thought, (at least so it seems to me,) sufficiently strong to establish an invariable practice, when against it we have to set that in his own printed works he prints the name Shakespeare.

But on the signatures to the Will more is to be said. I do not doubt that the name as written in the Montaigne at the Museum is a genuine autograph. It seems to me to speak for itself, as being of the time, and to be so like the signatures to the will, as to deserve to be regarded as the autograph of the poet. But there is no absolute proof that it is not the autograph of some other William Shakspere of the time. The sig. natures to the will cannot be disputed. They are his beyond all question. But how is it, if he was tenacious of that mode of writing his name, that he suffered the name in the body of the instrument to be written differently and did not correct it, when the corrections in the Will are so exceedingly numerous? I shall one day shew how much misread by all who have printed it, has been one clause of this wellknown document; which I am happy to say has lately been carefully and most judiciously repaired, by Mr. Musset of Doctors' Commons. But the most remarkable circumstance respecting these three autographs remains to be noticed. It is, it seems, by no means certain that the name is written Shakspere. I read in your last number, p. 262, that Mr. Rodd and Mr. Dyce, on the 3rd of February last, inspected the original will with a view to the determination of this very question, and that " after a most patient and minute examination of the

signatures by the aid of a powerful magnifying glass, they 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 other therein." This announcement must have come with a kind of surprise upon the persons who have introduced this novelty into their works. If then the three signatures to the Will depose to another orthography, then there is evidence that the poet wrote his name diversely, if the name in the Montaigne be his, which I would by no means be understood to express a doubt of; and therefore there is no ground whatever for asserting that he uniformly wrote the name according as it is now contended it ought to be printed, and as a consequence no ground from any usage of his own for disturbing the long-accustomed practice.

But, (2) were there any stronger testimony than allowing it the full force which Sir. Frederick Madden, in his paper in the Archæologia, gives to it, I should still contend that there was not in this sufficient ground for disturbing the established practice. First, on account of the variety of forms in which we find the same name written, and even when written by the same person : and secondly, on account of the multitude of changes which we must now set ourselves resolutely to make in the mode of writing the names of the men of Shakespeare's period, if their own orthography, and not the usage of the cultivated and intelligent, is to be the guide.

But before entering on this part of the subject, let us state briefly the account as it stands. Taking it first on the supposition that Mr. Dyce and Mr. Rodd have been both mistaken, which is hardly possible, we have then the three signatures to the several sheets of the Will, the name in the Montaigne, and the name in the two documents not now to be produced: all it is said, Shakspere: and per contra, we have the name as printed by Shakespeare himself in two of his works. Again, suppose that Mr. Dyce and Mr. Rodd have read the Will correctly, then we have three instances in which the poet writes the name Shakspeare, in a document of

indisputable authenticity, and on the other side two signatures said to be Shakspere in two instruments which cannot now be inspected, and the name in the Montaigne. That is, there is no proof that he wrote his name uniformly, but on the contrary, proof that he indulged in that licentiousness which was the fashion of the age.

The rule which Sir F. Madden would establish is very simple, very intelligible, and on a first view seems to be a sound one. Show me how a person wrote his name, and I am bound now so to print it. But I have shown that, if this is a rule, the historical families of Grey and Dudley must at least in a very eminent member of them, appear with their names in a very different orthography to that in which we find them everywhere printed. It must no longer be Lady Jane Grey, but Lady Jane Gray or Graye, and when she becomes a wife Lady Jane Duddley. I mentioned that name as the first which occurred to me.

But

the number is great of historical personages whose names must henceforth be written differently from the form in which we have been accustomed to see them, and which their descendants use, if the rule contended for be good for anything. Sir Henry Cromwell of Hinchingbroke for instance, wrote in a formal hand Henrye Crumwell; Sir Henry Nevil of Berkshire, Henri Nevell; and Sir Edward Hastings of Leicestershire, Ed. Hastynges. The whole family of the Saint Johns, or at least the more eminent members of it, wrote the name usually Seynt John. And what shall we do with the people who took the liberty of writing the Christian name of John, Ihon, of which I have seen several instances, and among them is that of John Lilly the dramatist. But I will confine myself to printed and published autographs of men of the time. If the works of Shakespeare are to appear as The Pictorial Shakspere, so in The Pictorial History of England, consistency requires that when it reaches the reign of Elizabeth we should find Philippe Sidney, R. Leycester, Pembroke, E. Clynton, Francys Englefyld, W. Rauley, (or some other of the many orthographies,) Foulk or Fulke (for there are both,) Grevyll or Grevell, for there are

But

Mr. Bruce, p. 164, in remarking on the argument raised on the signatures of the family of Grey, states that it is of little force because the name before the time of Lady Jane was uniformly written Grey, and Lady Jane only fell into a fashion of the time peculiar to persons of elevated rank, of writing in new and somewhat fantastic orthographies. with submission I cannot find that there was ever that uniformity which is assumed in the mode of writing_this name. Long before the days of Lady Jane, it appears as Grey, Gray, Graye, Graa, and Gra. In fact, there never was a period, till the art of printing gave a degree of stability unknown before, in which there was any approach to uniformity in the orthography of proper names. The indexes to the Record books will make this manifest to every one. Again this affectation, if affectation it were, was not peculiar to persons of elevated rank. Persons of far inferior dignity to the family of Grey, and approaching nearer to the rank of the family of Shakespeare, often wrote their names in a manner very different from that which is now the universally received orthography. The Drydens of the reign of Elizabeth were Dreydens.

I trust, then, Mr. Urban, that it has now been shewn that there never has been any sufficient reason for disturbing the orthography of which the poet himself in his own printed works set the example, which was generally used among his contemporaries in their printed works, and which long continued to be the unvaried orthography of the press. I must not intrude further upon you, but I beg again to call attention to the havock which must be made of some of our finest poetry, if we are to pronounce the honoured name of Shakespeare in the manner in which both the new orthographies, Shakspeare and Shakspere, suggest, Allow me, now, to ask a question :How did this name of Shakespeare arise? That is, how has it happened that a family became thus designated? There are few names with which it can be

classed: Breakspear, Wagstaff, Shakeshaft, and Drawsword, are all which have occurred to me, and it is possible that some or all of them may not really be composed of the elements of which on a first view they appear to consist. And again, what is the earliest period at which the name is found in England? I have not succeeded in tracing it to an earlier period than the close of the fourteenth century, when I find it in Warwickshire.

The following curious allusion to the name is found in Zachary Bogan's additions to Rous's Archæologia Attica, 5th edit. 4to., 1658, p. 324: "The custom first, máλλew, to vibrate the spear before they used it, was so constantly kept, that 'Eyxéonados, a Shake-speare, came at length to be an ordinary word both in Homer and other poets to signify a soldier."

P.S.-I was not aware till I read Mr. Rodd's remark, p. 260, that I could have been supposed to have meant to intimate that he was a joint-editor of the Pictorial Shakspere with Mr. Knight. The remarks on the chronology of the plays prefixed to the play of King Henry the Fifth are said in the book itself to be a joint work of Mr. Rodd and Mr. Knight. I referred to them to shew that only a few months ago Mr. Knight had published his opinion, being supported by Mr. Rodd's, that the Tempest was a late play; while, as soon as my disquisition appears, Mr. Knight contends that to the early period to which I have referred it, Mr. Coleridge had long ago referred it in an arrangement which, from the tone in which Mr. Knight speaks of it, we must suppose that he most highly approved. Beyond this I know of no connection of Mr. Rodd's with this work, nor did I mean to intimate that there was any.

MR. URBAN,

THE orthography of SHAKSPERE is important, because it involves principles which are extensively applicable, and the proper application of which is a question of some interest. I contend for the affirmative of two propositions.

First; That a man's own mode of spelling his own name ought to be fol

lowed; except his practice, in that respect, has been continuously various, or he has departed, without good reason, from an orthography previously well-ascertained.

And second; That, as an educated man generally knows his own name, the testimony of his autograph signature is the best evidence that can be obtained.

In applying these rules to the case of Shakspere I contend for the uniformity of the poet's signature upon all the occasions that have yet been discovered. I distinguish the latter clause by italics, because it involves the main question raised by the communication of Mr. Burgon, inserted in your last Magazine. Mr. Burgon's treatment of me is very like a manoeuvre which is extremely common amongst controversialists; he mistakes my argument, refutes his own mistake, and then fancies he has obtained a victory over me. He treats me as if I were a dummy, plays my game for me, loses it, and leaves the standers-by to infer what a poor hand I am.

Mr. Burgon says,

"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."

If this were really a statement of what I wrote, I know not how I could have been sufficiently grateful to Mr. Burgon for taking the trouble to put my very imperfectly arranged arguments into such a pretty, logical form; but-fortunately for me-I can relieve myself from the burthen of so much gratitude, as well as from the stigma of having stated what "is not true."

I began my former communication by referring to the number of signatures of Shakspere known to have existed-six-and I then stated "We rest upon the continued and consistent usage of the great Bard himself, and