, 1864-12-17

| any OF the leaves on which any OF these sig
natures occur. There is an erasure on anoth-
ut will probably not be useful to statethe
facts in more detail than this. ! add few
words Is to the probabilities Of genuIneness.
| "Ihat this book, if genuine, should hare
remained go long undistMbed, and be now
discovered at last on the borders Of Wales, is
| not surprising. We may expect other books
| The communication between Warwick
tn1ies tnfs anu very S ffeqasnt. @ bao 6s, Seo Of
the o!d crosses in Birmingham was
| called tWelsh Cross" and I find statement
| in the mnuuscript Certificates Of Colleges Of
the first year Of Edward VI, now in the Re
cord office, that the non-maintenauce Of two
| bridges in Birmingham Is likely to be q great
noysaunce to the Kings MaIesties subjects
passing to and from the marches Of Wales
When the volume, at the dispersal Of the ef-
iects Of Shakespeare. thus got into the bor-
deEz Of Wales, it would be pretty sure to, lie
forgotten In u corner, at least after the time
when the form Of the prayer book Contained
in it ccast.- to be the one in use; for this edi-
tion q rare ono) is not. It must be remem-
bered, the form Of the Common Praycr-book
nov sapctionedby law.
."The writing Of these signatures is, not
Identical with that Of any known signatures
of Shakespeare. But the character Of the
writing Is the same and the differences are
strong proofs Of gcnuincness, instead Of the
contrary. forger, or mere imitator, would
not have made differences Of the sort that are
hero actually found. It must be borne In
mind that there is difference Of sixteen years
between the date found under the signature
in this book and the date OF. Shakspcarc's
will. .-0.
81 forbear to enter into the further points
which have considered Is to the probabii-
ties Of genuinencss; but the u1atter Is now
in INV y1fyHr /
appears to me that the best Judgment, points
to considering this to be the ycritable sown
prayer book of him whom, asa Warwickshire
man myse1f, I mny in double sense CALI our
William Shakespeare.
"TouLanN SMITH"
TIE SPELLING OF snAKspEAnES NAME.
Mr.. Toulmin Smith also sends to the Lon
don 1lmes the following disquistion:
"Much Of the supposed uncertainty which
exists has arisen out of the caprice Of some
editors, who seem to hnye taken the snme1ib-
critics with the poets signature as they hare
taken With the trxt Of his writings. For ex-
ample, Shakespeare put two dedicatious to bis
poems, each signed BY himself, addressed to
that all editions wonld certainly agree. On
the contrary, in three editions On my own
shelves, one gives these signatures as VIII
liam Shakespeare the second as Will Shake
spcase,' the third as ". Shakespeare OF
COURSE Shakespeare wrote only one Of these,
the other two nre pure inventions.
"Bcn Jonson sanctions Shakespeare, when
pralsing the portrait By Drocshout, In the
1G23 edition. But it is beyond question that
Shakespeare himself wrote Shakespeare in
signing his will although curiously enough,
the game will contains the name spelled, by
the scriyencr, on its face and endorsements,
in two other ways--nnmely, tShackspeare'
and 'shackspcre.' The alleged 'shakspere'
autograph ID the Florio Montaigne {even If
this Is the right reading Of that signature.
which is 1crJ doubtful, y cannot be accepted
ns true instance, lnasmnch o. the authen-
ticity Of that alleged autogtaph Is, to say the
is much against Its authenticity; external
evidence Of its authenticity there il none.
Those best accustomed to critical tests OF au-
thenticity, will not readily accept that signa-
turc as genuine. It is more to the point that
the inscription on Shakspeare's own MONT
ment in stratford Church, spells the name as
spellings are different from this, and from
each other, In the two Inscriptions preserved
by Dugdale, ns those recording the death Of
Shakspea1e's wife aud of Shakspeayc's
daughter, Mrs. Hall. The autographs in
'shakspeare's own prayer book' confirm the
spelling used in the viii. It follows that as
Shakespeare was the shape in which the poet
himself unqncstlonAbly spelled the maine,
this must be taken TO be the correct spelling.
"On the other hand, Il must be remembered
that uniformity Of spelling Ia often found not
10 have been formerly used, even IN proper
names. Thus, to take three other Warwick
SHIRE names Of men Of property aud position,
] have found the four spelliugs sRawley,'
Rawlegh,'' 'Raleggh,' and Raleigh for one
man; Prcty,' pretie,' 'Praty,' and 'Prnttye'
for another; and the name Of 80 important a
person as the well known minister of Henry
VIII, Dudley, Lord Lisle,' is spelled, In one
document now bulorc me, In the two other
ways, 'Lysle' and Lisley.'
The falnily Ea,nc Of Shakespeare is still ex-
direct deseendants Of The % poet. It is spelled m cd
sometimes Shakespeare and sometimes
'shakespear.' In the older directories Of the
present CENTURY the hitter Of these spellings
is usual In Inter ones the former of them,
though not exclusive, has become the more
usual"