The old comedies are full of the practice of the usurer-so notorious as to acquire him the name of the brown paper merchant- of stipulating to make his advances partly in money and partly in goods, which goods were sometimes little more than packages of brown paper.

The practice is alluded to in 1st Henry IV., and there we have even the word brown. It is dragged into the wild and senseless talk of the Prince to Francis (ii, 4), the drawer: "Your brown bastard is your only wear." In act i, scene 2, we have a commodity of warm slaves; and in act ii, scene 4, again, we have "nothing but papers, my Lord." It would be curious to find how often commodity — brown — paper appear together in the same vicinity in the different Plays; but I have not the time or space to pursue the subject.

I will conclude this chapter by remarking that it adds very much to our knowledge of Shakspere, his character and appearance. It tells us he was gross and coarse in his nature and his life; that he was not devoid, however, of a certain ready wit; a glutton in his diet and fond of the bottle. That he had many of the characteristics of Falstaff, and that he was the model from which the characters of Sir John and Sir Tobie were drawn. It also tells us that Bacon was assisted, to some extent, in the construction of the Plays by his brother Anthony. It tells us further that before Shakspere's health was broken down by his evil courses he acted the part of Falstaff on the stage. It also tells us that the Plays drew great crowds of delighted people, and greatly enriched all concerned in their production. And this is confirmed from historical sources. Nash records that in a short space of about three months, in the summer of 1592, the play of Henry VI. was witnessed by "ten thousand spectators at least;" and we are told that Romeo and Juliet, in 1596, "took the metropolis by storm.' And this chapter further confirms the tradition of Elizabeth's admiration of the character of the fat knight; and it gives us further the enthusiastic admiration of the German Minister. And beyond all this it tells us that Shakspere had enriched himself by usurious practices, corroborating the evidence of the numerous suits brought by him against different parties to recover money loaned, and the fact that the only letter extant addressed to him was touching a loan of money.

2

Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, p. 64.

2 Ibid., p. 85.

NOTE. The numbering in column 2 of page 78 in the fac-simile is slightly wrong; each number below the 51st should be moved backwards one. The error is due to the fact that the word almost, line 7, enclosed in the bracket sentence of eleven words, is not counted in as part of the bracket sentence, but as part of the text; hence the first word, should, after the bracket sentence, is the 52d word instead of the 51st, and all the succeeding numbers in the column have to be moved backward to correspond. THE PUBLISHERS.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SWEET ANN HATHAWAY.

One woman is fair; yet I am well: another is wise; yet I am well: another virtuous; yet I am well: but till all graces be in one woman, one woman shall not come in my grace.

W

Much Ado, iii, 2.

E pass to another part of our story: the history of Shakspere's marriage.

I have already quoted one or two lines as to his rabbit-hunting. The Bishop of Worcester says:

338-30-308-31 (79:1)-277-162-115-49 (76:1)- 66 338-30-308-50-258-50-208-162-46-2 h col.:

44

Then we are told how he annoyed Sir Thomas Lucy, ful man."

an upright and worship

283

338-30-308-50-258-162-96-32-64-2 b col.= 62 338-30-308-50-258-162-96. 518-96-422+1=423 338-30-308-49-259-162-97+186 (81:1)=

And observe how cunningly that word deer, spelled deere, is concealed in the triple-hyphenated word, heart-deere-Harry. It is not spelled dear, as it is elsewhere, but deere. See deare Lord, end scene 1, act iii, p. 86, Folio. Deare was one thing -and deere another, and here the Cipher required deere.

316-161-155-57-98-61 (80:2)—37—4 b & h (61)= 33

Observe that rabbit occurs but four times in all the thousand pages of the Plays, and but once in this play, and hunting is found but fifteen times in all the Plays, and but once in this play. And here is another evidence of the Cipher in the Plays: rascally is found in but six plays out of thirty-seven; and it is found once in The Merry Wives, where Shakspere's story is talked about in Cipher, and four times in this play, where he is also dealt with. That is to say, rascally appears but eleven times in all the Plays, and five of these are where Shakspere is spoken of in the Cipher narrative! This illustrates that all words are not found on all pages, but that each subject begets its own vocabulary.

The reader will observe here that every word grows out of 308 (338-30-308), and that in every case but one the 308 is modified by deducting 162 from it; that is to say, by carrying the 308 to the end of scene third (78:1) and counting upwards; while in the case of the one exception referred to, we commence to count one word further down, to-wit: from the beginning of scene fourth, instead of from the end of scene third. And every one of these 308 minus 162 or 163 is carried again through the last fragment of scene fourth, containing 31 words, or 32 if we count from the first word of the next scene (act ii, scene 1) inclusive.

And he will observe that the modifications are made by 49, 162, 31 or 32, and 57 or 58. Now 49 is the first fragment of scene 3, and 162 is the last fragment of scene 3; and 31 or 32 represents the last fragment of scene 4; and 57 or 58, the first fragment of scene 2, act ii; and 308 put through these changes yields the remarkable sentence above given.

And then comes the story of his trouble with Ann Hathaway. Here we have the name:

Here it will be observed Ann hath a are all derived from 338-200=138; these came from the fragment of 79:1 below the end of the second subdivision of the column, to the bottom of the column (318+200=518, number of words on page); while the last word comes from the fraction above the first word of that same subdivision to the top of the column. And we will see that same number 277 yielding a great many other significant words, as 277, 78:1, twenty (Ann was twenty-five); and up 79:2, less I hyphen, it is she, etc.

And it seems she was a widow and her legal name was Whatley, but she was generally called by her maiden name. And here we have it again:

338-32 (79:1)-306-30-276—5 b (32)—271+162-433

And there is a long narrative here about Ann and her troubles. By the same root-number 338, modified by deducting the 226 & h in 167, as heretofore, we have another reference to her:

Observe the adroitness with which the same Ann, or, as it is disguised, An (430, 78:1), is made to do double duty once by the root-number 338, and then by the modified root-number 338-22 b & h=316, both counts falling on the same word from the same starting-point. And the same is true of the word a (125, 78:2). And she was a widow!

In the Consistory Court at Worcester, in the marriage register, there is an entry in these terms: "1582, Nov. 27, William Shaxpere and Anne Whately of Temple Grafton." The next day, November 28, 1582, a bond is given to the Bishop of Worcester to hold him harmless for “licensing,” etc., the marriage of William Shagspere and Anne Hathwey. The Shakspereolators have always ignored the license entry; and although there was no record of a license to Shakspere to wed Ann Hathaway, they would have none of the Whately woman. And Knight even goes so far as to give us a picture of the old church at Hampton Lucy,' and would have us believe that Shakspere and the "sweet Anne" were married in it, although there is not a shred of evidence to sustain the belief; and we have a delightful rural picture of the "ribands, rosemary and bay," the roundels," the "wheaten garlands,” the “bride cup" and the bridal banquet; all constructed, as most of the Shakspere biography has been, out of the vivid imagination of the writer, who sought, in this way, from the beggarly materials afforded him, to create a man that would fit into the requirements of the Plays.

Halliwell-Phillipps is said, in an article in the London Telegraph,' to be of the opinion that Ann Hathaway never lived in the Hathaway cottage; that is, that she was not a daughter of Richard Hathaway, alias Gardner, of Stratford, who died in 1582. Mr. Rolfe concurs in this view. Richard Hathaway's will names seven children, and Anne was not one of them. The London Telegraph says:

It is deplorable to have doubts started as to whether the Shakespeare Museum contains a single genuine relic; whether Anne Hathaway's cottage is not, after all, a simple fraud; and Mary Arden's farm a disreputably unhistorical building. . . . But will they care to go to the shrine of the great poet if a cloud of doubt surrounds some of its most cherished monuments? If everything at Stratford were shown as being only doubtfully connected with the Bard? For example, instead of the guide-post pointing the way to Anne Hathaway's cottage, it might be sadly truthful to say, "To the reputed cottage of Anne Hathaway.' Mary Arden's farmhouse ought to be ticketed as an uncertain building, and Shakespeare's tomb in the church would have to be pointed out as the tomb "either of Shakespeare or somebody else. "

A. Hall, in a letter to the London Athenæum, 1886, suggests that Richard Hathaway, alias Gardner, may have married a widow named Whately, from Temple Grafton, and that she might have taken the name of Hathaway as his stepdaughter.

But here in the Cipher is the explanation of the mystery: Ann had been married to one Whatley; and when the bride herself gave her name, Nov. 27, 1582, for the marriage license, she gave it correctly, and she was married by that name; but the next day, when her farmer friends were called upon to furnish the bond to indemnify the Bishop, they gave the lawyer who drew the bond the name by which, in the careless fashion of such people, she was generally known.

1 Biography, p. 223.

2 Literary World, Boston, Jan. 23, 1885, p. 30.

2 Shakspeariana, Sept., 1886, pp. 430, 431.