It does not seem to have occurred to more than two of my predecessors, Staunton and Adams, to investigate whether the original version of the will, based upon a rough draft, or the revised version of it was signed by the testator, nor when (if ever) the revisions were made. If the ink in which the interlineations and additions (bequests to his wife, Heminge, Condell, Burbage) are made differs from that of the rest of the document, the present form of the will is a revision. If these additions are in the same ink in which the witnesses' and the testator's names are written, the revision was done at the time of the signing of the document. Ordinary facsimiles are of no value for such a study.23

That the will as we have it is a revised version and that the first page was wholly re-written seem to follow beyond a reasonable doubt from the following considerations:

The first page contains only very few corrections and interlineations, and these, with the exception of one phrase (and the insertion of certain words-" the house" and "the stock "”—which could have been omitted only inadvertently), are of no consequence. The regnal year is correctly stated to be the fourteenth, though according to the original date (January 25th) it should have been called the thirteenth year of the reign of King James, a correction which would indicate that the scrivener was automatically copying the heading of the original draft.

The interlineation of the significant words "in discharge of her Marriage porcon" would indicate that this page was written after February 10th, 1616, the date of Judith's unfortunate marriage to Thomas Quiney, and while the recently wedded couple were being

23 A fairly good facsimile of the poet's will was published in vol. 24 of the Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, Weimar, 1889. In 1864 Mr. J. H. Friswell published a photographic reproduction of the will which was said to be so fine that not the best microscopist could discover the slightest difference between it and the original, but this is practically inaccessible to the general reader. Mr. Greenwood informs us that the Friswell photograph "shows very clearly how carefully the draft had been prepared, notwithstanding [!] the interlineations." Some of Sir George's readers may need to be told that a photograph of any document can show only how it was written; i. e., whether it had been "carefully prepared " as to its appearance, but not as to its contents. Facsimiles of Shakspere's will may also be found in Mr. Yeatman's pamphlet (op. cit.), in The Autographic Mirror and in Mr. Staunton's Memorials.

threatened with excommunication by the Bishop's Consistory Court at Worcester for having been married during Lent without first obtaining a license therefor. That Shakspere had his new son-inlaw (whom he gave only a conditional bequest) in mind is indicated by the words "sonne in L[aw]" 24 (crossed out) in the ninth line of the first page.

But the most convincing proof that page 1 is not the original draft is to be found in the fact that near the top of page 2, just after the bequest to the three Hart boys, are three erased lines"to be sett out for her wthin one Yeare after my Deceas by my executors / wth thaduise & Direccoñs of my overseers for her best profitt vntill her- / Marriage & then the same wth the increase thereof to be paied vnto / her "-lines which, of course, do not relate to the bequest to the boys. Nor can they possibly relate to the provision at the foot of the first page which defines the devise of "the house wth thapprtennces in Stratford " to Mrs. Joan Hart. It is evident, therefore, that the bottom of the original first page and the top of the second page dealt with a bequest to Judith prior to her marriage (cf. the words "vntill her Marriage" in the erased matter) and that the will was originally drawn prior to February 10th. A grievous change in the father's attitude to his daughter between the first drafting of the will in January and the following March seems to be clearly indicated by the fact that in the earlier version Judith was bequeathed all his "Plate." Near the top of page 2 we read: "Itm I gyve & bequeath vnto her All my Plate that I now have att the Date of this my will." But this was altered by striking out the word "her" and substituting, in an interlineation, the words: "the saied Elizabeth Hall,” and inserting the parenthetical phrase "(except my brod silver & gilt bole)" after the word "Plate."

A study of recent photographs of the will seems to warrant the conclusion that the interlineations were all made with the same pen and ink with which the will was subscribed. It would follow, therefore, that the will was revised and corrected on that eventful March 25th, 1616.

24 It is almost incredible, but none the less a fact, that with but very few exceptions, almost every previous commentator or biographer read these words as "" sonne and," though there is no difficulty in deciphering them.

We are therefore warranted in assuming that what happened was this: In January Shakspere instructed his attorney concerning the provisions of his will; two weeks later his younger daughter, then thirty-two years old, married somewhat irregularly and brought upon herself the risk of excommunication (a penalty which was actually inflicted shortly after her father's death); in all probability mainly because of this marriage the poet decided to revise his will; part of the original first page was copied as it was, and the rest, dealing almost solely with Judith, was altered to meet the new conditions and the testator's state of mind at that time; the second page of the will was permitted to remain as it was after the original lines relating to Judith had been erased and two new lines inserted at the very top to connect with the bottom line of the revised version of the first page. Further confirmation of this hypothesis seems to be the fact that the writing at the bottom of page 1 is much smaller and closer and more crowded than on pages 2 and 3. Whereas the scrivener had averaged nine lines of writing to three inches on pages 2 and 3, at the bottom of page 1 he wrote twelve lines to three inches, and he made his letters and connecting strokes so much smaller that he averaged sixteen words to a line (instead of twelve). The matter is so crowded as to indicate clearly that the scrivener knew he had to get a good deal more on the page than would go there if he wrote in his usual hand.

That this will was not a "very " carefully drawn document and that haste played an important rôle in its preparation are strikingly borne out by a study of the bequests to Judith, as might have been expected if our theory of this document is correct. The first bequest to her provides that within one year of the testator's decease she shall have £100. "in discharge of her Marriage porcon" and £50. more on giving her sister Susanna Hall a certain release. Then the will goes on to provide that she shall be paid another £150. if she or any issue of her body be alive three years after the date of the will. During these three years she or her issue were to receive interest at the then legal rate of 10%. If she died without issue before the expiration of the specified period, this bequest was to be disposed of as follows: £100. to Elizabeth Hall and £50. to Joan Hart and her children.

But/," continues the will,—in a long and complicated provision which almost all commentators have fought shy of "if my saied

Daughter Judith be lyving att thend of the saied three Yeares or anie yssue of her bodye . . . the /saied Hundred & ffyftie poundes to be sett out by my executors & overseers for the best benefitt of her & her / issue & the stock not to be paied vnto her soe long as she shalbe marryed & Covert Baron/ [by my executors & overseers] but my will ys that she shall have the consideracon / yearelie paied vnto her during her lief & after her deceas the saied stock and consideracoñ to be paied to her children if she have Anie & if not to her / executors or assignes she lyving the saied terme after my deceas Provided that if / such husbond as she shall att thend of the saied three Yeares be marryed vnto or attanie / after Doe sufficientlie Assure vnto her & thissue of her bodie landes Awnswereable to /the porcoñ by this my will gyven vnto her & to be adiudged soe by my executors or /& overseers then my will ys that the said Cl1i shalbe paid to such husbond as shall make such assurance to his owne vse ".

One need not do more than to familiarize himself with the above quoted bequest to note a number of very serious ambiguities and obscurities, such as an experienced lawyer like Francis Collins would not have been guilty of in ordinary circumstances.

It seems to be fairly clear that the testator's original intention on that March 25th was to let Judith have the second £150. after the expiration of three years. This appears from the fact that the will expressly provides that she is to be paid interest at the legal rate in the interim. But even while the scrivener was penning the bequest, Shakspere changed his mind and decided that his daughter was not to have the principal ("the stock ") at any time, probably because according to the law of the day her money would be the property of her husband. Notwithstanding this change of intention, the original wording was not erased, even though according to the amended bequest his executors were not to invest the money until after the expiration of three years, and she might consequently be deprived of interest during that period-clearly an absurd arrangement-unless we make the violent assumption that the money was already tied up in an investment which would terminate three years after the poet's death.25 It is also apparent that in the bequest

25 Sir Sidney Lee (op. cit., p. 488) is clearly wrong in saying that according to this will £150. was "to be paid to her if alive three years after

quoted above three years after the date of the will is treated as being coincident or synonymous with three years "after my deceas." Though in such a case the courts would probably rule that the testator meant three years after his decease, a careful lawyer would not ordinarily have allowed such conflicting designations to stand. The matter might have proved a source of expensive litigation. It is not inconceivable that Judith's husband might have been able to claim the £150. three years after the will was subscribed, but, owing to a sudden reverse of fortune, e. g., by fire or loss in business, not three years after the poet's death.

The language of this bequest is very vague. Unless the word "Provided" is given the unusual meaning of "and it is furthermore provided," the bequest cannot be interpreted at all.

The interpretation of the ambiguous word "Answerable" might be the decisive factor in determining whether Judith's husband would ever get the £150. thus conditionally bequeathed him. If the word means 66 equivalent to," he would have to be the owner or lessee of lands worth the equivalent of the "porcon" left to Judith; if it appropriate to" or "commensurate with," the executors

means

the date of the will." Professor Adams makes the same mistake. The Rev. T. A. Gurney recently made the erroneous statement (in The Contemporary Review for December 1925) that this £150. was to be paid to Elizabeth Hall if she survived the testator by three years. Frederick G. Fleay mistakenly says (A Chronicle History, 1886, p. 71) that "Judith's marriage portion was to have been £100. on condition of her husband's settling on her £150. in land." Hamilton W. Mabie went even wider of the mark when he said (William Shakespeare, 1901, p. 398) that the poet left Judith " a small property on Chapel Lane and money to an amount equal to about eight thousand dollars in current values, and certain pieces of plate." George Brandes (William Shakespeare, 1898, II, 408) erroneously says: "Judith receives £150. ready money and £150. more after the lapse of three years, under certain conditions." Dr. Karl Elze, who predicted (William Shakespeare, 1888, p. 509) that the will would probably "ever remain an insolvable enigma," also misinterpreted the bequest to Judith. And Mr. Frank Harris's lecherous, extravagant, and snobbish Shakspere a Shakspere that no more corresponds to the Shakspere of history than Harris's statement (The Man Shakespeare, 1909, p. 377) of the bequest to Judith corresponds to the truth-leaves to his younger daughter "the tenement in Chapel Lane, £150. in money, and another £150. to be paid if she was alive three years after the date of the will." No tenement was devised to Judith, and she was under no circumstances to get the second £150.