The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-12-14
-sIIAIxTcs= PEARE.

LONDON DoOkseuer rs Offering for sale a
volume which It Is claimed is shakcspeare's own
prayer-book. Mr. Toumin Smith gives to the
london Times the following account of the
relc-
"a man living at Whtchurch North Shrop.
Shire picked up last spring for few pence three
old books, Of which one was this prayer-hook
The brother of Mr.. Partridge, bookseller az Wei.
lington, Shropshire happening to be in Whit
church at the end Of Nav and il being known
that he sometimes bought old editions of the
prayer-booki this copy was offered 10 him. and
he gave eighteen pence for IL. Neither seller nor
buyer had any notion that there was anything
OF interest in the book, beyond the fact of its
being an old blaCk-letter copy. But when Mr..
ytf&aTtridge, of Wellington, looked through the
book, he found in 1t the name of William Shake
speare twice repeated. A third repetition of the
= name he was not aware Of till myself pointed it
out to him.
wishing to be better able to Judge of the
genuineness of 80 remarkable relic, myself
went to Wellington on the Goth of September last,
and spent some time in personally examining the
book with the aid of glass (an essential means
in such cases., this being the same that always
use in examining ancient records and writings.
81 found that the book is a very small one,
Z nearly square, about three inches and half in
Its greatest length and an inch and three-quarters
thick, printed in black letter, with several leaves
lost AZ the beginning The date of the prayer
book is 1896; that OF the psalms which form part
Of the volume, is 1894.
"At the end of the prayer. book itself is the sig
fession of the Christian Fayth which is at the
end Of the volume, is the signature, w. Shake
speare, and underneath this signature is the date,
1000 BY the aid of the glass l found plain
traces of another signature, in what seemed the
same hand, on the inside OF the right hand cover.
In different hand, in different part of the book,
+. is the signature M Shakespeare On the inside
of the left hand cover is some writing almost
illegible, but of which the words 'Stratford-on-
Avon are clearly traceable There is no erasure
ON any of the leaves on which any Of these sigma
lures occur. There is an erasure on another leaf;
but this cannot affect the question.
at will probably not be useful to state the facts
in more detail than this. l add a few words as to
the probabilities of genuneness.
THAT this book, if genuine should have re-
mained so long undiscovered, and be now dis
" covered at last on the borders of Wales, is not
surprising. We may expect other books belong
Ing 10 Shakespeare TO be yet found. The comma
niCation between Warwickshire and Wales was,
In past centuries, very frequent. One Of the old
crosses in Birmingham was called welsh Cross
and find statement in the manuscript Certih-
Gates of Colleges of the first year of Edward VI,
now in the Record Office that the non-mainte-
nance of two bridges in birmingham 10 likely to
be "a great noysaunce to the Kings Maiesties
subjects passing to and from the mOnarchies Of
Wales When the volume, at the dispersal of
the effects of Shakespeare thus got into the bor-
ders Of Wales, it would be pretty to lie for
gotten in corner, at least after the time when
The fern of the prayer-book contained in 1t
ceased to be the enc in use for this edition Ia
rare one) is not it must be remembered, the form
of the Common Prayer-book now sanctioned by
/, law.
"The writing of these signatures is not denti-
cal with that OF any known signature of Shake
speare. But the character of the writing is the
same and the differences are strong proofs of
genuineness, instead Of the contrary. forger,
or mere imitator, would not have made differences
OF the sort that are here actually found. 1t
must be borne in mind that there is a difference
of sixteen years between the date found under
the signature in this book and the date of Shake
speare's will.
81 forbear to enter into the further points
which have considered as to the probabilities of
genuineness. certainly will not youch for that
genuineness; but the matter is now certain to
L undergo discussion At present it appears to me
that the best judgment points to considering this
90 be the yeritable 'own prayer-boOk' of him
whom, as WarwiCkshireman myself, may in
double sense call our William Shakespeare.
"IouLMrN SMITH"
THE SPELLING OF sHAKEsPEARE's NAME.
Mr.. Toulmin Smith also sends to the London
Times the following disquistioa -
"Much of the supposed uncertainty which ex-
lists has arisen out OF the caprice of some editors
who seem to have taken the same liberties with
the poets signature as they have taken with the
text of his writings. For example, Shakespeare
put two dedications TO his poems each signed by
himself, addressed to Lord Southampton. Here
we might expect that all editions would certainly
agree. On the contrary, in three editions on my
own shelves, one gives these signatures as VIII
liam Shakespeare, the second as 'Wil. Shake
SPEAR the third as w. Shakspearer Of course
Shakespeare wrote only one of these, the other
two are pure invention.
"Ben JOnson sanctions Shakespeare when
eraisiHg the portrait by Droeshout, in the 1923
edition, But ii is beyond question that Shake
speare himself wrote shakespeare in signing his
will although curiously enough, the same will
contains the name spelled, by the scriYener, on
Its face and endorsements, in two other ways
namely Shakespeare and 'Shackspere.' The
alleged 'Shakspere autograph in the 'FlorlO
Montaigne' (eyen If this is the right reading of
Sthat signature, which is very doubtful cannot be
accepted as true instance, inasmuch as the au-
thentcity of that alleged autograph is TO say the
y least, quite uncertain. The internal evidence is
much against its authenticity external evidence
of its authenticity there is none. Those best ac-
customed TO critical tests of authenticity will not
readily accept the signature as genuine. It Is
more TO the point that the inscription on Shake
Bpeares own monument in Stratford Church
spells theI name ii is done in the will, 'Shak-
speaTe but the spelngs are dliierentIfrom this,
and from each other, in the two inscriptions pre-
served by Dugdale, as those recording the deaths
OF Shakespeare's wifeland of Shakespeares dRugh-
ter, Mrs. Hall. The autographs in shakespeare s
own prayer book confirm the spelling used in
the will. 1t follows that as Shakespeare was the
shape in which the poet himself unquestiOnably
spelled the name, this must be taken TO be the
correct spelling.
"On the other hand, it must be remembered
that uniformity of spelling is often found not to
have been formerly used, even in proper names.
Thus, to take three other Warwickshire names of
men Of property and position, / have found the
four spellings, Rawley' 'Rawlegh.' 'Ralegh,
and Raleigh, for one mani Pretty 'Pretie,
'PTaty,' and 'Prauye' for another; and the name
of so important person as the Well-known min
iAter of Henry VIII, Dudley, Lord Iisle, is