SHAKESPEARE'S SIGNATURE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 805, 30 April 1910, Page 9

SHAKESPEARE'S SIGNATURE.

- Supplementing the' article in tho March number of "Harper's Magazine," ."Shakespeare as a Man among Men" (writes Dr. Charles W. Wallace in the '-'Westminster Gazette") "I may add a word with reference to the spelling and pronunciation of his name. For a century the orthography has been a perennial subject of debate. The wholo question should bo referred for settlement to the contemporary pronunciation and tho calligraphic means of .phonetic representation, a central-point which, has not generally; been ''takeninto account in discussions of Shakespeare's handwriting. . The new signature may contribute its quota of aid in. the solution. .'.. To those not familiar with . manuscript of Shakespeare's time.it is difficult to understand a system of spelling which, at. first sight, seems systemless. We have so. standardised and, stereotyped our modern spelling, and arc so accustomed to regarding as ignorant anyone who varies from accepted standards, that we are inclined at once to call the.irregular orthography of three centuries ago likewisa.ignorant. • But a scientific analysis; on the basis of phonetic representation-would.[show, that their modes'of were not' more : ignorant nor less r ignorant ; than our ■ own. or■ these...of. the.- ■ Anglo-Saxons, ithejr ancestors'." The'.'art'of printing and the, training of eye! and ear had ■not yet brought the world, under tho ■rule of- uniformity of. sound representations. Scribes attempted mainly to represent the ; oral utterances by characters that, when pronounced, seemed true records of the-sounds of the voice. That is, they, as all Teutonic,.races for centuries had done, spelled phonetically. Since oho sound or a combination otf ; sounds was represented sometimes by two or more characters or set's of characters, there existed the forms of spelling that strike, us now as systemless or "ignorant," but which were, after all, a constant attempt at correct representation of the voice. For examplo, to different ears, and sometimes to the same ear, "i" and "y,'f "ai"'and "ei," ."ai" and "eirc," "er;" "ere," "ear," and "eare," represented respectively the same sound or sounds. So we have in those old manuscripts, s'.'-jh variant representations of identical utterances as "is" and "ys," "i/" and "yf,"' "raigne" and 1 "reigno," : I,'said," "sayd," ... [Isaith,",, t'saithe," "'sayth, "saythe,'** w, ''saieth,'" "■ "say- ! eth"; "their,", "theire," "ther," .".there," "thear,"- "tlieare," and so on indeiiuitcly. A glance.through. Shakespeare's deposition, for example, written by two different clerks, will show a number of such/ variants jn phonetic representation. Even in" a manuscript written entirely by one hand you rarely find uniformity." • Every searcher of documents will tell you, for example, that ho has often found such a simple word as "is" spelled'id a single line as both "is" and "ys." :., ' -In the matter of proper names; we have not'even now perfect uniformity. We still meet with "Smith," "Smithe," "Smyth," v e tp. I have known an American University girl to begin her .first semester as' "May," and soon evolve into "Mae" or "Maie." In Shakespeare's time, people spelled proper names even . less uniformly than now: . Philip Henslowe's name, for example, is spelled by him and others some score of ways. The name "Shakespeare" also occurs in a variety of phonetic forms—as-"Shakespeare," "Shakspere," "Shaksper," ."Shaxper," and soon. The most'common contemporary spelling was the one now generally followed,. "Shakespeare." .-"'-.■ .In spelling .the poet's, name, some wrote the first part _"Shakei;' others - 'Shak," {both of which'.'forms : .propurly represented the—same:''sound' of tho ■ voice," just-:as■'■ W€'--n6w' find' in ."tako" and,;,"taking.'-' /.- The; last .part of the /name was;.swelled ."speare,"..' "spear," ; ?-'.'spere," "sper,",'all forms : were only, graphic ' representations of one set of sounds. .Those who wrote "Shax" simply combined the k-sound of the first part with trie ; "s" of tho second part into '.'%" a form of-con-traction equivalent to ,"ks." This brings us to the forms and signs of contraction, which were then' in such common use as'to make the page-pre-sent the appearance sometimes—especiallyl, in Latin documents —of combined longhand and shorthand. We still write "Mr.," "Dr.," "St.," and a few others. But we have- ceased to use mpsi of the contractions and their signs then so common. For example, we no longer- write "othr" for. "other," "poseion" with a stroke over-the top for "possession." "p'tend" for "pretend," "p'forme," as in the seventh line of Shakespeare's third answer, for "perform;" "pmissed," as in the first lino of his-fourth answer, for/"promised," "thr," for "their," "sp," with a stroke through.the:stem:of,the\p, for "spear." In Shakespeare's time, and long before, but gradually less and less since, certain marks. or signs of contraction meant'regularly certain sounds, just as tho letters they stood for did. For example, a . little : cursive mark running back over a letter, as in "p'tend," where the apostrophe is inserted, meant "re."-But a bowl on the front of the stem of "p" made that character represent "pro," and a "p" with a stroke, through the lower part of the stem represented "per:" It is extremely, interesting to see these contractions and signs used even in proper names. By comparing Shakespeare's six signatures, it will he seen that he spelled his name out in full in only those three subscriptions written in the solemn and deliberate hour of perfecting his will. The name on tho first sheet of the will reads "Shakspere," on the second the same, and oii .' the third "Shakspeare." "Shak" was the representation he used in all six for the pronunciatien of the first part of his name, which was the exact equivalent, in sound to the representation "Shake" used by us now; by the clerk, of the court in the deposition, and by contemporary publishers and scribes. It is the last part of the name in three signatures that presents shortened forms. If you examine the purchase-deed signature,. you observe the name finishes with "spe," and a cursive, mark .running hack over the "e." This cursive is one of the signs used by a!) scribes of the period to represent the sound we recognise in "re," making the signature, thou, road ■ "Shaks-

pere." The signature to the mort-gage-deed finishes with "spe," and a mark just above the "c" slightly different froin the other, but very" commonly used by scribes then likewise for "re." So that the signature, too, reads "Shakspere." Tho eminent Shakespearian scholar, Edmund Malone,.! who first printed this last signal ture, 1790, originally interpreted the cursive mark as an" "a." He thought tho poet lacked ioom for the full signature, and "so wrote as. far as he could on the narrow- strip of skin, then put an "a" above. He was satisfied, therefore, - that the full form was "Shakspeare." Later, in 1796, Malone saw ho had misinterpreted this "amnion "re" cursive. The new signature offers another form of shortening. In printing it I allowed it to stand doubtfully as "Shaks."-, You will observe on examining it that the final nourish after the "k" has a short turn at tho top, with a rapid down-stroke to tho left, finishing with a round turn at the bottom and a long, swift cross-sweep of tho pen to the stop. If that .final character stood alone' as an initial anyone familiar with old records would at once say it was a "]>," with a stroke through the stem for "per" or ."par," as in "p.formie"' in the . seventh lino of Shakespeare's third answer, or in ,"p,te" (for "part") in the second lino of the fifth answer, and in other words as I have pointed out in other depositions. But the signature shows no "s" in front of that flourish; To read it "per" would, make the namo "Shakper." Since all men then tried to make the letters of. a word represent the sounds of tho voice, that interpretation cannot bo quite correct. Moreover, we have five other evidences from Shakespeare himself, and universal testimony of the contemporaries who wrote his name, that it was pronounced with"a sibilant "s" in the middle. The interpretation "Shaks" is also open to objection, even though one of his friends, Abraham Sturley, wrote his namei"Shak." There are three sorts of "s's"''used'by contemporary scnb«s. One, a final, letter with an up-turn, standing for modern "s," was exactly tho same as German final ] s. other, standing for our final es, finished with a down-turn, and looks like a modern "e" with the down-stroko run straight on below the toe, as, tor example,-, in "poundes" in the .fiKn line of Shakespeare's fourth answer. The' third .was a long '%" always used initially and medially, as shown, in "saythe," "househould," and_ numerous other words in the deposition. It generally resembles a modern script "f," stopped short at the bottom without an up-turn. . But often, especially in the medial position in signatures, it has the appearance of a long, sweeping figure S, similar to ,the flourished' character after the -'-W: in this now signa- ' "what, ; then does this finishing character represent? Clearly the Shak is the phonetic representation of _tne first part of the name. Can this final character, containing /features of long medial "s". and , tho contraction ot "per," represent, either niore_or less than the rest of-the name? There is, of course, 1 the barest possibility that, in attemtping an "s" thevunfamiliar clerk's pen in the hand of Shakespeare caught in the. paper and made that blot on the "k." But it seems unlikely for'there is no evidence of a stroke, either above or. below, that could represent any portion of an a. .It there were, as everyone would be glad to find, : it would be settled on sight that this, final character stand's for "per."- Such a contraction is-quite common in proper names, and is occasionallv found in signatures—as Cowper, Roper, Semper, etc. But, as tho signature stands, it appears likely, that this rapidly finished sign'of contraction, even though without precedent, may represent simply the sound of the voice ■in -pronouncing the unaccented syllable: "sper," whiclrTrtight indifter■ently be spelled thus, or ,"spere,?'_ or' "spear," or "speare," without modification of the prommciation. •. Tho spelling , '.'Shakespeare" _ or "Shakspere," orany other of that time, should pot cause debate. Scribes then had their ways of. representing the sounds of the voice; we have ours. To insist on any. one .form simply.because Sliakesp&are himself used that form, or because someone else used it, is to disregard modern modes of phonetic representation and to substitute for them modes of the past, without concern as to whether they correctly represent the utterance of the voice to-day or not. After'till, the general. public sense shows. the broader view. We have stereotyped .the form most common inShal;espe3re's own. day as.a preferred spelling mainly because it most nearly represents to us tho pronunciation that we give.the name.-. One other item—touching Shakespeare!s. possible :. residence in St. Helen's, Bishopsga::e—should here be noticed.:. Mr. M. S. Ginseppi.. of the Public Record Office, who supnlicd the main data for publication in that matter "a few years ago, 'has kindlv called my attention to tho fact that the Bishop of Winchester owned no lands in Sussex, /and that the record in the Pipe Roll 'of 1599 concerning "William Shakespeare, of St. Helen's, with, the note of reference to the Bishop, of Winchester against it, must therefore refer only, to Surrey, and, more closely still, to Southwark. This beinc tho case, it looks probable that the Shakespeare, there named was, after all, the Poet, and that ho answered in the Surrey-Sussex residuum, not because ho was a resident ;in Southwark, but because of his ownership of property there, at the Globe Theatre. It seems auite possible, therefore, that, his residence with the Mountjoys in St. Olave, Silver Street, /began with his removal from St. Helen's, Bishopsgate. But we need more documentary evidence yet before venturing a positive conclusion.