.* On the title page Here I might close my case; but a few words more may be requisite in regard to some other presumed specimens of Shakspere's handwriting. I would certainly not go so far as Malone, in asserting, that if any other original letter or MS. of his should be discovered, his name would appear as just written ;* but I think any variation would afford reasonable cause for suspicion. Since I commenced this paper, I have discovered that two other volumes claim the honour of containing Shakspere's autograph, not manufactured by Ire land. The first of these is a copy of Warner's Albion's England, 4to. 1612, which was bought at Steevens's sale in 1800, by Mr. Heber, and which is now in the British Museum. is "William Shakspeare his booke;" and it will be evident to any one who takes the trouble of comparing it with the similar notorious forgeries of Ireland on a copy of Holland's translation of Pliny, folio, 1601, and on Bartholomeus de Proprietatibus Rerum, Thomas Berthelet, [1535], fol. in Sir Joseph Banks's library, that they all three are traced by the same hand. Whether Steevens had any hand in Ireland's fabrications, is a discussion foreign to my purpose; but I do not think it very improbable. The second claimant is a copy of Bacon's Advancement of Learning, 1605. In 1829 it was in the possession of Mr. Thomas Fisher, of the East India House, and is described as being "filled with MS. notes. It bears in limine the same signature as in Warner's work, and a fac-simile of it is given by Nichols, in his Autographs. From an inspection of * 66 Inquiry," p. 120. this (for I have not seen the volume itself), I should unhesitatingly say, that the signature is a modern fabrication; and subsequent inquiry has placed the fact beyond all question.* Only one document remains to be noticed, the genuineness of which, if established, would make even the autograph of Florio to "vail its bonnet." I allude to the copy of verses existing at Bridgewater House, signed "W. Sh.," and printed by Mr. Collier, in his "New Particulars regarding the Works of Shakespeare." As far as the internal evidence goes, I do not see any reasonable objection against them; but, as no fac-simile has yet appeared of the original, it is impossible at present to offer any further remark. Mr. Collier urges their claim very modestly and fairly; but, as the paper may itself be a transcript of verses composed by Shakspere, some additional evidence is required, in regard to the hand-writing, &c. to enable any critic, in matters of this kind, to form an opinion. I remain, my dear Sir, FREDERIC MADDEN. John Gage, Esq., Director, A. S. &c. &c. &c. * See Wheler's Guide to Stratford-upon-Avon, 12mo. 1834, p. 143, where mention is made of a forgery of Shakspere's name, executed by John Jordan, author of a local poem called "Welcombe Hills," which has recently been ascertained to be the one referred to in the text. ADDITIONAL NOTE. SINCE the preceding letter was printed as a portion of the Archæologia, I have been favored with a letter from the Rev. Joseph Hunter, in which he suggests, that the passage in Montaigne was taken by Shakspere from the work while yet circulated in MS. some years previous to the first edition of 1603. But admitting the fact, (which will probably be considered more at large in Mr. Hunter's forthcoming work, intitled, “New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakspere,") it does not at all affect the proprietorship of the volume, or the authenticity of the signature. In reference also to the poem printed by Mr. Collier, and supposed to be signed "W. Sh." Mr. Hunter clearly proves that we should read " W. Sk.,” and that the author is not William Shakspere, but Sir William Skipwith, specimens of whose verses may be found in Nichols's Leicestershire, vol. ii. p. 367, and MS. Lansdowne, 207, F. I have only to add, in conclusion, that the volume which belonged to Mr. Fisher, supposed to contain Shakspere's autograph, was sold at Evans's, 1st June, 1837; and as I then had an opportunity of examining it, my previous conviction of its falsity was confirmed by ocular evidence. 11th April, 1838. F. M. |