^^^^^^ '^tH^W^^^ ^HH[ t ^^^^P^R%^ "'"- ^KJiilii^K ' r.-'-5^r^ 1/ jSi ^^^^^^^^. W^% flF"'^' • * H^^^^^^Hu. ■ ^^^'QBwB^SSESSI mms^^mm T> a> a 5 5 >. "O OS >-) 0) j: ■>-> , — ■w •Q .<« ■«l- cS M "—' •o -o 4> c W) CS < ^ 00 G •^ O T3 OJ >. M (X4 < >. _^ Ii .■^» M S W C V o -♦-' -*-» w -*-» • f^ >>oo Uk >H V IV c c w < to ta ■«-> cS w. •♦-» ii O Ci, V 3 3 O Q i^ak^ptaxt*si ^mnttfi curacy of the text is dubious, but the sentiment of the Hnes is probably authentic. The same too pessimistic sentiment of the last line is again per- ceptible in Measure for Measure (III, i, 5), and in Hamlet (I, ii, 129), and elsewhere in the two plays. An allusion in Hamlet to the critical year, 1601, occurs, perhaps, in the scene in the churchyard : By the Lord, Horatio, this three years I have taken note of it; the age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he galls his kibe. Q. 2 and Folio, V, i, i^o. If this reflection is dated in 1604, the date of the second Quarto, its unnecessary but definite specification of time dates back to the year of the exposure of the scandal, 1601. The poet says that for three years he had had occasion to notice that the age was so critical that the lower pressed on the higher orders, a limitation of time which is com- prehensible if we think that during those three years the poet had been censured for precisely that disregard of rank, or for presumption. In the preceding Quarto, the first Quarto, the phrase is: "This seven years I have noted it, " the specifica- tion of seven years being perhaps meant for any indefinite period of time, or the poet perhaps not caring then to be more precise, but it is made de- finite in the second Quarto. It is difficult to rely on the first Quarto, but the second is of primary authority. In the following incident in this scene, it is certainly a fact that the time allotted by the grave-digger for the jester, Yorick's interment, 23 years, is the age, or nearly the age, of Mary Fytton in 1601, when she was sent from the Court. This period appears in the first Quarto as "this dozen year," and in this instance also a period indefinite in the first Quarto is made definite and particular in the second. There can be no reliance on the first Quarto in such a matter of numerals, but the text of the second Quarto is fundamental ; Shakspeare seldom if ever uses words without meaning. The number of years might be an allu- sion to the day of his birth, the 23rd of April, if the 23rd is the exact date, or to something else, but if we take into consideration the immediately preceding seeming allusion to 1 601, and possibly to Mary Fytton's history in that year, the inference is not without reason, and the point has a corrob- orative value, very doubtful as the evidence is. To carry the theory a step further. Subject to the exigencies of the stage and to his dramatic genius, lago, in the next play (1604), might be a figure of his self-accusation as to, and implication in, the intrigue and its result, Othello of his heart- 64 ^i)aks;pcare'£i bonnets! break. It was, perhaps, as in Hamlet, his deep, personal interest in events which he had in mind, which gives to the play its life-likeness and ab- sorbing interest. Macbeth, in his final and darker moments, in the following play (1605), might represent his cancelled ambition, and the empti- ness of worldly glory; by these suggestions and references be it understood merely, that the springs of some of the words and delineations of these characters could be attributed to his connection with the unhappy fate of Mary Fytton. This is carrying the theory a great way, but if the ascrip- tion of his sonnets to Mary Fytton is once ad- mitted, the rest follows, as we are inclined to think, almost inevitably. A resemblance of the "Dark Lady" to "Cleopatra" (1607-8), has been ven- tured by Professor Dowden. There may be a reminiscence of the lady of the sonnets in the following passage : Whose beauty did astonish the survey Of richest eyes, whose words all ears took captive. Whose dear perfection hearts that scorned to serve Humbly called mistress. AlVs Well that Ends Well, V, Hi, 16. The last two impassioned lines go somewhat past the necessities of the play; in truth, the two lines, or rather line and a half, have nothing to do ^fjafegpeare'fi bonnets; 65 with Helena's precisely contrary experience. The poet's foredoomed love-affair with Mary Fytton, if it existed, cannot but arouse the sympathy of everyone who is cognizant of the strength of the affection, and can estimate the corresponding pain which must have attended its hapless result. The past few pages perhaps illustrate the cus- tomary weakness of reading one's own views into the works of the great dramatist, but the references will at least suggest how considerable might be the result in Shakspearean interpretation, if the hypothesis as to Mary Fytton were accepted. The interpretation of Sonnets CXVI-CXXVI and some others, the ascription of those sonnets to Lord Southampton, and their connection with the question of Shakspeare's passion for Mary Fytton, are subjects so intertwined and extensive that they cannot be taken up here; their interpretation necessarily involves the question of the relation of Shakspeare to Lord Southampton, and therefore of the sonnets as a whole which he addressed to that nobleman. The result to Shakspeare, if this view is ad- mitted, seems to have been to isolate him within himself, that is, to debar him from familiar asso- ciation with the friends whom he most enjoyed, and from all such openings for his ambition as, 5 66 ^ijafej^pearc'fii bonnets through them, the strife for position at the Court might present. This later attitude of his, some- times called that of a detached critic of the world he lived in, has been often observed. In his earlier plays this is not so. In Love's Labour s Lost he was, none more so, frankly a part of the Eliza- bethan world about him, and no substantial loss of his first, fresh enthusiasm can be observed until after Much Ado about Nothing (1598-9). His life doubtless was always single and individual, but it became with all the strength and armour of the mind, peculiar to himself. Perhaps in Measure for Measure his detachment first receives a definite expression; some lines in the scene between the Duke and the Friar (I, iii, i), might be taken as the representative portrayal of his change of spirit, as well as of garment. Twelfth Night, somewhat earHer (i 599-1 600), the last of his Comedies, received his finest finish. To sum up, in their main outline, the facts of this abstract, as far as we have gone, and our in- ferences from them, we have, at the commence- ment of the story, Rosaline, seeming perhaps as a representation drawn from life (1597), a sonnet taken from her description and written to a lady resembling her in dark complexion and character, and Mary Fytton then at Court, then others of Shakspeare's "Dark Lady" sonnets, written perhaps before 1599, those indicating some one, "my sweetest friend, " supplanting the poet in his affection, then, probably in 1599, the sonnets describing the writer as thus distressed, Past cure I am, now reason is past care, And frantic-mad with evermore unrest. Sonnet CXLVII. pleading with the lady, indicating also rejection, severance and self-questioning, then the sonnets, separate in the Quarto, to a young and successful rival, and, at the end of the story. Lord Herbert and Mary Fytton, all in about three years, from i^d 1597) when the revision of Love's Labour's Lost, and also the sonnet taken from it, were written, to mid 1600, when Mary Fytton made her great misstep. THE ARBURY PORTRAITS A view that Mary Fytton was fair of complexion, which would overthrow the theory that she was the "Dark Lady" of the sonnets, has been 68 ^ijafesfpeare'ji bonnets founded upon a double portrait, on panel, of two ladies at Arbury, in Warwickshire, and an account of the picture has been given in Lady Newdegate's Gossip from a Muniment Room, the Fytton Letters. Although the editor of the Letters, and owner or possessor of the portrait, has the advantage of an acquaintance with it, some suggestions may still be advanced upon the reproductions of that, and of a second portrait, on canvas, which accompany the book. {Frontispiece and at p. 76.) The portraits are said to be of the sisters, Anne and Mary Fytton, the double portrait being of both the sisters and the second portrait of Mary alone. While Lady Newdegate states her view as to the faces and expressions of the two ladies, though her opinion, as she very candidly admits, is not wholly free from doubt, Mr. C. G. O. Bridge- man, who adds an Appendix to the book, depends mainly upon the inscription on the double portrait, proving its accuracy by the known dates of birth of the Fytton sisters, the inscription, he tells us, stating the age Of each of the ladies accurately, at the time of painting the portrait. This accuracy does not meet the main issue, for if the inscription were a subsequent addition to the portrait, and we think that this is clearly demonstrable, it would follow the Parish register, or other record, and an The Statues of Anne {Left) and Mary Fytton (Right) in the Church of St. James, at Gawsworth agreement with the records could prove nothing but its own correctness in that respect, and not the time when it was placed upon the portrait. The identification with the two Fytton sisters is not supported by any likeness to each other of the ladies in the portraits, and it becomes wholly untenable, as to Mary, when the portraits are men- tally placed beside the faces and figures of the un- doubted statues of the two sisters in the church at Gawsworth, while the two other elements of internal evidence in the double portrait, the inscrip- tion and the Fytton pansy, on which the identifi- cation is based, prove, on examination, to be very hazy witnesses. As to the cardinal question, the appearance of the two ladies in the double portrait, we cannot see in the faces themselves any reason whatsoever for holding that the lady on the right, the alleged Mary Fytton, is the younger of the two, nor that she is the sister of the lady on the left; she seems to us to be decidedly the elder, and there is, to us, no family resemblance at all be- tween them. If the face of the so-called Mary Fytton is the face of a girl of fourteen years and a fraction, we have never seen another like instance, nor do we think it is credible that a girl of those years would be so maturely represented. She ap- pears to us, if not of quite as old a face as that 70 ^fjafesipeare's; ^onnetsi given later in Lady Newdegate's book as that of the high-bred and dignified young lady in the mag- nificent Court dress, in the second portrait, still nearer to it than to the earlier age. The absence of any family resemblance between the two ladies is confirmed more strikingly if, after comparing the lady on the right with the lady on the left, in the double portrait, we bring into the comparison also the lady in Court dress, in whom this differ- ence is accentuated. We can say deliberately that there is not a lineament or expression in these portraits which tends to show a relation other than that of mere friendship between the ladies, and that nothing suggests, in the likeness of the lady on the right in the double portrait, in face, bearing, jewels or dress, the early age of fourteen years. As to the symbolic evidence of the flowers and leaves which are given to the two ladies by the artist, it is said that two of the flowers are dis- tinguishable as pansies in the double portrait; in the photogravure they are not perfectly deter- minable. The pansy was an heraldic device of the Fyttons. If the conspicuous leaf painted on the right sleeve of the lady on the right, called Mary Fytton, is that of an holly, as Mr. Bridgeman in his careful description says it is, it modifies the signification of the pansy held by the lady as one among her other flowers. As Mr. Bridgeman is silent as to the holly, beyond merely mentioning it, no claim is made for the Fyttons of the holly as an emblem. There is also a spray, described as resembling a palm, on her left sleeve. That also is not said by Mr. Bridgeman to have any signifi- cance in respect to the Fyttons, and if the holly and the palm are considered to have a significance, as they certainly have, they seem to denote the lady as of a different family. The pansy has an heraldic intention, but its significance attached only to the admitted daughter of the Fyttons Anne, on the left, on whose ruff a pansy is painted, not at all to the other lady on the right, who merely holds a pansy as a single part of her bouquet, and probably as a compliment to a friend and hon- oured guest at Gawsworth. There is further evidence, and it is perhaps decisive, from these flowers. Mr. Bridgeman says of the lady on the left : ' ' On her ruff is painted a pansy. ' ' Mr. Tyler, who has seen the original portrait at Arbury, says that the lady on the right, the so-called Mary Fytton, has a "carnation or clove" on her ruff. Mr. Bridgeman says of her: "On her ruff is de- picted a carnation." Why not a pansy, if the flowers are thus painted as heraldic devices, and the two ladies are sisters ? The deduction from the 72 ^f)alt«peare'jf bonnets; * leaves and flowers is contrary to the theory that the lady on the right represents the younger sister, and is in favour of the view that the representation is of some friend of the family, in whose bouquet a pansy was placed, and this accords with the con- clusion derived from the faces of the ladies as to their mutual relation. To go a step further in estimating this floral evidence, both the ladies hold in their left hands flowers, the lady on the right her bouquet, and Anne holding a carnation, which is possibly linked by this floral symbolism with the carnation painted on the ruff of her companion, thus denoting again the friendly bond between them. There is an evident balance in the floral decoration, Anne having the Fytton pansy on her ruff, which flower the other lady holds in the bouquet in her left hand, that lady having a carnation on her ruff, which flower again Anne holds in her left hand. This seems rather the symbolism of friendship and not that of sisters. Mr. Bridgeman has apparently anticipated this point, for he seems to claim (p. 1 68), that the carnation was also a family flower of the Fyttons, but the evidence which he brings forward for it is curiously weak, that which he cites consisting of the recurrence of a carnation in another family portrait of Anne, taken as Lady Newdigate, long after, with an infant at Arbury; the recurrence of the carnation proves nothing of Mr. Bridgeman's contention, but only that her preference for carnations still existed, the flower occurring as an ornament, or evidence of a dis- position toward them, in many pictures of ladies. Rembrandt, for instance, to cite one out of endless examples, frequently uses a flower in this way, in his portraits of ladies, and among them the carna- tion; he twice depicts his wife, Saskia, holding one. The frontispiece, called "L'homme aux ceillets, " in a book by G. Geffroy, cited further on, is another example, and of a man. So, to take another instance, Mildred, Lady Burghley, in a portrait of her at Hatfield House, holds in her right hand a rose. It is unnecessary to cite further in- stances to prove what every one will admit. The heraldic import must have some other origin, and is not proved by the mere use of a flower in a picture. There is no heraldic significance in the custom, and not the slightest suggestion in it that a flower is especially adopted by a family. It is perhaps worth mention, though it seems very fan- ciful, that the carnation has not been given a defi- nite meaning in the language of flowers, it at most sometimes taking the place of the rose, according at least to one authority {The Floral Symbolism oj the 74 ^fjafegpeare's; bonnets! Great Masters, by Eliz. Haig, London, 1914). But the two girls might see a meaning for themselves in the arrangement of the flowers, as they were placed, and so, it is very likely, they did. The evidence from the flowers and leaves, then, in the double portrait, is distinctly contrary to the theory that the ladies in the portrait were sisters, or, both of them, members of the Fytton family. In respect to the jewels, which are described by Mr. Bridgeman, as their description does not in- clude those of Mary Fytton, with whom alone this Note is concerned, no attention need be paid to them here, except to mark that they are evidence of the wealth of the family. It might be supposed that the younger sister would have been allowed some jewel from the family jewel-box which might be recognized. Though her sister's jewels are recognized, and are connected by Mr. Bridgeman with jewels in other pictures, or with the family jewels, those of the lady on the right are not at all so connected, while they are conspicuous, espe- cially in the second portrait, and therefore they seem to have been separate from the Fytton jewels, and denote the lady as of another family. The inscription on the double portrait is : ' 'Etatis Sue 18. Anno Dom 1592. Etatis Sue 15," corre- ^fjafesipeare's! bonnets; 75 spending nearly with the ages of Anne and Mary Fytton. On examining the inscription, the first impression of the spectator is of its unusualness, the labels declaring the date of the painting and the age of each of the young women, from which, as this is a family portrait intended for continual exhibition, the age of each of these technically married but, in some degree, still free and unmar- ried girls could be told at any time, by any casual visitor, a practise contrary to the custom of English- men, and rarely found anywhere, except in the case of ladies of royal and therefore national prominence. There are some other Sixteenth century portraits at Arbury, some of which have more or less similar Latin inscriptions; all are called collectively the older portraits. Mr. Bridgeman's observations upon these Latin inscriptions are as follows : But besides these Eighteenth century inscriptions, there are on several of the older pictures Latin words and figures, giving the age of the subject of the portrait and usually also the year in which it was painted; and there seems no reason to doubt that these Latin inscriptions are, as they obviously profess to be, contemporaneous , and therefore entitled to credit . De- tails such as these could hardly have been added inno- cently by a later generation; if not contemporaneous they must be a deliberate attempt to mislead ; and even if so improbable an hypothesis could be entertained, it is difficult to believe that with this object in view 76 ^fjafegpearc'j! ^omtetJi any one would adopt so subtle a device as to give the date and age without any further clue to the name of the person depicted. . . . This picture [the double portrait], bears no Eighteenth century inscription, but at the top, in the middle, are the words "Anno dom 1 592 ," in the left corner ' ' Etatis sue 1 8 ," and in the right "Etatissue 15." Gossip from a Muniment Room; Appendix. The "subtle device" suggested in the above quotation appears to stray from what is probable. It is unnecessary to imagine anything of such a kind. To say that "there seems no reason to doubt" these inscriptions, takes for granted what is contested, and applies to all of these inscrip- tions what may not be true of them all. The period of an inscription has been occasionally a matter of debate. Most of the inscriptions on the older portraits very likely were, as Mr. Bridgeman states, contemporaneous with the portraits on which they appear, though as no further photo- gravure has been published of them, there is no evidence to guide us. It does not, however, follow that in any particular instance the resemblance of one of these portraits to the others, in bearing an inscription, cannot be set aside, and the time of the inscription be shown to be later than the date which appears upon it. Such is the case of Portrait in Court Dress, Claimed to be of Mary Fytton the double portrait. It is maintainable that a mistake in one of the persons represented in the double portrait was made by the subsequent owners of Arbury, who then added the inscription to it. The possibility of such a mistake is estab- lished beyond cavil, if any proof of it can be necessary, by the attempt made at Arbury a century later than the indicated attempt with the double portrait, that is, in the Eighteenth century, to identify the portraits generally, then forming the gallery, when many mistakes were admittedly made, one of them, as it happened, occurring in one of the two portraits now in question, called of Mary Fytton, that in Court dress, which was then labelled as, "Lady Macclesfield, 3rd daughter of Sir Edw. Fitton, Dame of Honour to Q. Eliza- beth," a lady who, as Mr. Bridgeman admits, never existed. A principle of evidence is put for- ward by Mr. Bridgeman in the course of his Appendix (p. 166), and the principle is valuable in respect to the evidence which is necessary to establish the contemporaneousness of the inscrip- tion with the double portrait, that as several of these Eighteenth century inscriptions are inaccur- ate, it would be unsafe to rely on the Eighteenth century inscriptions where they are not supported by independent evidence. The like principle holds 78 ^fjafegpcare'g B>onmtsi true of the inscription on the double portrait, that if it shall appear that there is cause for a grave doubt as to the period at which it was placed on the portrait, its contemporaneousness with the portrait cannot then be assumed, but must be established by independent evidence, a principle which should be remembered in coming to a con- clusion as to this inscription. The date, 1768, has been decided upon by Mr. Bridgeman as that of the attempted identification of the portraits at Arbury in the Eighteenth century. The time when the earlier, and also mistaken, identification of the double portrait might have taken place, and which we think certainly occurred, and when the mistake in the inscription would have followed, might be the time of the Restoration, and the fifty succeeding years, and possibly somewhat later, though hardly earlier, than that. There is no absence of a sufficient time in which a mistake in the identification of the lady on the right in the double portrait might have been made. The precedents for the form used in the Latin inscriptions at Arbury are numerous, and must be given careful consideration. A series of minia- tures by the younger Holbein, Nicholas Hilliard and others, down through the time of the first Stewart Kings, is still extant, and these artists, at times, wrote on their miniatures inscriptions which have a perfect resemblance to the inscriptions at Arbury, giving the age of the subject of the minia- ture. Holbein often placed upon his easel por- traits such inscriptions ; other artists, coming from the Continent and then painting in London, also had, on occasion, this habit. Holbein's antece- dents — he is considered usually to be the leader of the English school of miniaturists, and he was a remarkable painter of portraits — on his arrival in England in 1526, at the age of thirty-one years or over, had been of Basel and still more of the im- perial city of Augsburg, where he and his father and his father-in-law and perhaps, though doubt- fully, his grandfather, had been painters, and where he had probably placed an inscription of the kind on a portrait several years before his arrival in England. {Holbein, by Ralph N. Wornum, passim, pp. 48-99.) How far this unreticent and unnecessary habit was followed by native easel portrait painters, as it was in miniatures by Hill- iard, it is difficult now to tell, as the instances are generally inaccessible, exhibitions of old family portraits by artists of minor ability being not as common as those of the contemporary miniatures. Few of them perhaps have survived to the present day as has the double portrait ; the double portrait 80 ^ijafegpeare's; ^onncW shows little or no trace of Continental influence. There are no English artists of the Sixteenth century mentioned in the catalogue (1901), of the National Portrait Gallery in London, except one or two miniaturists; foreign influence was at that time predominant in England. Mr. Wornum ob- serves of the English artists: "Unfortunately what our own Englishmen were we do not know, but some of the respectable portraits of the period must undoubtedly have been their work" {ibid., p. 201). The same view appears in an elaborate discussion of the painters of this period in the catalogue (illustrated), of the Burlington Fine Arts Club's "Exhibition of Early English Por- traiture" (1909). A list of these painters will be found in Anecdotes of Painting in England, by Horace Walpole (Wornum's ed., London, 1849, vol. I, p. xxvii). The double portrait appears to be a wholly local, perhaps provincial production, excepting the inscription. Under what circum- stances the inscription was placed upon the double portrait at Arbury it is impossible to say positively, and perhaps it will be better to wait until we see, from a review of the more general evidence not connected with the picture, what are the probabili- ties as to its date, rather than attempt any final decision here. If the tendency of the other evi- ^f)akiptavt*si bonnets; 8i dence is to show that the double portrait does not contain a portrait of Mary Fytton, we are quite at liberty to believe that the inscription upon it was not placed upon it at the time when its date indi- cates, but rather at a later period. We should, however, first examine the accessible evidence bearing directly upon the inscription before leaving it, and see whether it may not in itself present a degree of doubt as to its contemporaneousness with the double portrait. Upon a miniature, as much less public than an easel portrait, the inscription of date and age had a something personal and familiar to recommend it, and was not so plainly open to objection as when on an easel painting, though the practise, of which Holbein's are perhaps the earliest surviving in- stances in England, has not been continued. As miniatures bearing inscriptions of this kind have been extensively exhibited, catalogued and de- scribed, and are therefore easier of access than family portraits of native origin, their inscriptions can be studied with some approximation to thor- oughness; if it appears that such an inscription as that on the double portrait was seldom used even on a miniature, that circumstance will cast a shade of doubt upon the contemporaneousness of the inscription with the double portrait. 82 ^fjafesipeare'g bonnets; Before entering upon this intricate matter, how- ever, we will pause over a distinct question, the seeming superfluity, not so much of flowers as of leaves, in the double portrait, considered as the portrait of the two Fytton sisters, that is, of the obtrusive plant and leaf emblems on the sleeves of the so-called Mary Fytton, and inquire besides whether there was anything peculiar, not to easel but to miniature art, a practise which might be fancied to be separate from the art of easel por- traits, to account for their presence. Inscriptions of date and age, unlike floral decoration, were a temporary and recent addition to the painter's art, having been in use in 1592, as far as we have noticed, about ninety-two years. On a miniature of Queen Elizabeth by Hilliard, now in the Na- tional Portrait Gallery, London, the inscription is : "Anno Dni 1572, ^tatis Suae 38." There is also a crown with the letters "E. R.," and on the left shoulder is a white rose, symbolical, no doubt, of the Virgin Queen; if the rose were originally a white and red Tudor rose it would denote the Queen's family. A considerable number of minia- tures, bearing this or a similar inscription, may be found in the collections. The inference is plain, and when reflecting upon the peculiar inscriptions on the portraits at Arbury, certainly worth ex- amination, that the inscription at Arbury followed the lettering upon some easel portrait or miniature of that type. Its resemblance to the inscription on the miniature is obvious. There can be no doubt that the inscription resembles in its terms the mul- titudinous class of inscriptions which figured upon current easel portraits and miniatures in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries, though in its appearance, the arrangement of its lettering, it being more like a separate record or label, less like a part of the picture, as inscriptions were, more or less, usually made to be, it is a little different from any inscription which the writer has happened to observe. Precedents may be found for it, but it seems unlike most of the inscriptions of its date, and this is, perhaps, an important point. It is perhaps worth more attention than the writer, who is not at present near the European galleries, can give to it. The flowers and leaves introduced into the double picture had, on the other hand, no particu- lar origin in miniature art, but in the general principles of the art of both miniatures and easel portraits. Embellishments of such a kind are introduced in miniatures, when they occur, just as in other branches of Art, to meet the personal and special conditions or wishes of the subject §4 ^ijafesipcare's! ^onntt^ represented. An examination of the principal books upon miniatures will disclose comparatively few instances in which leafage or flowers were in- troduced, and in each of those cases it is evident — as in the unique and well-known miniature of Mrs. Pemberton, represented as holding a leaf — that the flower or leaf was introduced for separate and individual reasons, as it would be in any larger painting, and not in pursuance of any fashion of embellishment peculiar to miniature art, there not being the least sign, in the great array of miniatures illustrated or described, of the existence of any special fashion of the kind. Flowers, indeed, were, for some reason, perhaps of taste, perhaps because of their excessive minuteness, or perhaps rather as the result of a preference for jewels, relatively little used in miniature, or much less than one might expect in these "pictures in little." A recent collection of miniatures, that of the late John Pierpont Morgan, has been so elaborately catalogued that statistics can be given of the use of flowers in the miniatures of the time, within the limits of that collection. The catalogue, vol. i (1906), extending generally over the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries, and listing about 175 miniatures, exhibits only about eight instances — of which two are of gold, and one is painted with golden leaves — of the use of flowers as embellish- ments of the dress or head-dress of the subject of a miniature, showing that fashion did not tend in miniature painting toward ornament by flowers. Single leaves are used hardly anywhere, hardly in any kind of painting, except in heraldry; the in- stance cited of Mrs. Pemberton's miniature is the only one we happen to have met with or can recall. In using the flowers and the leaves in the double portrait, the artist acted of his own motion and quite independently, that is to say, under the general custom of artists, and not under any par- ticular habit or tendency of miniaturists in that direction. On an easel portrait we know that flowers have been used from the beginning as ornaments, as in truth they have on miniatures, and also that this practise has not the remotest connection with the transient custom of inscrip- tions. The introduction of the leaves and flowers, then, was probably due to some special request for them by the two ladies themselves, and certainly the lady on the right has a strange variety of them for a daughter of the Fyttons, whose devices are not said to include the holly and the palm, in addition to the pansy. If it should be urged that those devices might have included all three of these 86 ^fjafegpcarc's! ^onnetJJ symbols, it can be answered that in that case the lady would be quite unnecessarily and too much marked by them, and especially so for a younger daughter. The two symbols on her sleeves, if they have any meaning at all, and a meaning they must have had for her, establish her not as Mary Fytton but almost certainly as a member of another house. They were placed there by the painter, a little awkwardly as we see, by the lady's wish, and seemingly to distinguish her family from that of the Fyttons whose pansy she carried in her bouquet. The presence of the two leaves, the holly and the palm, in the absence of any evidence to contradict their testimony, goes a great way toward proof that the lady on the right was not the younger daughter, Mary Fytton, but a distinct person, and not a member of the house of Fytton. Anne's residence at the time, and the migration of the portrait with her from her girlhood's home at Gawsworth to Arbury, will be noticed in another place. What, then, should we think of the crucial problem of the Arbury portraits, the question of the true date of the inscription on the double por- trait; whether that it was attached at the time when the portrait was painted, or that it was added at a later period ? We have seen that there is more ^f)afesfpearc*£f bonnets; 87 than one reason to doubt that the lady on the right represents a younger sister of the lady on the left, which casts of necessity the like doubt upon the date of the inscription. The inscription on the portrait is in the precise words used by miniaturists and the painters of larger portraits not only then but for more than half a century afterwards, through the first half and, to some extent, still later in the Seventeenth century. Miniatures with this inscription, though of a departed fashion, existed in relatively considerable numbers at the termination of the Seventeenth century, as did the more important easel portraits, and this style of inscription was familiar to all persons interested in them, while at Arbury itself there were several easel portraits bearing it and frequently seen by the owner. An elucidation of the evidence, impal- pable as an historical hypothesis necessarily is, may be hazarded; it can never be proved, but it still corresponds exactly with the condition in which the portraits are now found. We may infer, then, from what we have already ascertained as to the double portrait, that not only the second or single portrait, but also the double portrait was, when it was painted, without an inscription, and that in the time of the Restoration, perhaps of the Revolution or of Queen Anne, the owner of Arbury, 88 ^i}a}xfiptaxt'i ^omtetsl Sir Richard Newdigate, the honourable and patri- otic Judge, or perhaps his widow or his descendant, wishing to make permanent their understanding of the two pictures, perhaps hesitating over Mary's name already legendary and unsuited to any dis- play on a family portrait, and thinking the double portrait to be a portrait of the two sisters, chose to follow the recently disused Latin form of identify- ing portraits, which habitually left the name un- stated and a matter of inference, which already existed on the other older portraits at Arbury, and which was appropriate to a portrait of its time, and that they used it on the double portrait only, leaving the second and single portrait in Court dress wholly unlabelled, considering that to be of the same person as was the lady on the right in the double portrait, and deeming any further identifi- cation of it neither necessary nor desirable. That the second Sir Richard Newdigate, presumably a son of Judge Newdigate who died in 1678, was interested in the family genealogy in 1 686 appears from a note to Mr. Bridgeman's Appendix to Lady Newdegate's book, at page i y2. This interest may have been connected with family litigation be- tween two other branches of the Fytton descend- ants, but it existed, and shows, in the nature of Sir Richard's observation, the frequent shortness of family memory in respect to even immediate connections, if such connections were not members of the same household or of the same neighbour- hood. We disregard, of course, the inscription placed in the Eighteenth century upon the single portrait. It seems quite plain that only by some such hypothesis of a subsequent addition of the inscrip- tion, can the divergence of the inscription from the double portrait itself be explained, for the inscrip- tion, which seems to refer to the two Fytton sisters, is not confirmed in the details of the portrait, nor by the likenesses of the two ladies themselves. We should reflect, also, that there was no period in 1592, the date inscribed on the portrait, when the girls could be called accurately 18 and 15 years old respectively, as Mary's fifteenth birthday did not come until June, 1593; the mistake in the inscrip- tion would be more likely to come in a subsequent identification of the picture than at the time when it was painted. There is no noticeable difficulty in the theory that the inscription was subsequent to the portrait, that it was mistaken, and that it was placed on the portrait at the end of the Seventeenth, rather than at the end of the Sixteenth century. Perhaps an objection could be made to the selection by the 90 ^fjafesipeare'js ^onnetJS subsequent owner of a particular year, 1592, as the date for the picture. Still, an owner wishing to establish some date, as he very properly would wish to do, and we know, too, that the other older por- traits at Arbury were, for the most part, dated, might venture to approximate to it, for it cannot be far from correct in respect to Anne, who was to him the principal person in the picture. She was his respected ancestress, while the unfortunate Mary was less than no one, a blot in the family pedigree. No year, as the present writer views the picture, will reconcile the known ages of the two Fytton sisters with the apparent ages of the two girls in the double portrait, because if the date is postponed to suit Mary's likeness, it becomes too late for her sister. If he chose the year when Anne was eighteen, which corresponds well with her appearance in the portrait, he might decline to consider the supposed and unvalued Mary at all, noticing merely her mature appearance by giving her the greatest possible age consistent with the age he had first selected for Anne, and calling her fifteen instead of the fourteen and a half, or a little over, which was her age at the end of 1592. He probably would not be interested in, or curious or careful as to her, indeed the contrary rather, and would prefer to consider Anne alone, in dating the picture. Perhaps the story of Anne's Hfe-long faithfulness to her sister had some connection with the origin and strength of the belief that the lady with her in the portrait was her sister, Mary Fyt- ton. Nothing, however, is more certain in respect to this portrait than that some one erred in the inscription, and whether our attempt to explain the condition of the picture is in accordance with common probability and the frequent forgetful- ness and uncertainty of families as to old portraits, or not, the error was one which would more prob- ably be made by a subsequent owner, bent upon identifying the portrait, than by the people in- terested when the portrait was painted. The date of Anne's baptism is 6th October 1574, Mary's 24th June 1578. Mary became fifteen years of age on, or near to, June 24th, 1593, not 1592. It is contrary to the commonest experience to think that such a mistake as that would be made when a formal family portrait, as this would have been if it had been of the two sisters, was painted, and the ladies whose portraits were taken were present. Mr. Bridgeman has noticed this weakness in the inscription, as his interpretation of the inscription is too strained to be admissible for a moment, and shows how difficult he has thought a defence of the inscription in this direction to be. His understand- 92 ^t)ak£(peare'£; ^ormttfi ing of the inscription is that the figures, i8 and 15, mean that the girls were then not eighteen and fifteen years old, but in their eighteenth and fifteenth years respectively. It is a forlorn hope to ascribe to an inscription a meaning which is con- trary to common sense, the common meaning of language, and all precedent. If the painter in- tended by his inscription to convey to the reader that the ladies were in their eighteenth and fifteenth years, he wrote it in terms which, accord- ing to the customary use of language, have no relation to his intention and convey a different impression. Eighteen and fifteen mean in the in- scription what they mean in every legal document and in every common conversation, that is, the attainment of those ages. The painter did not say what Mr. Bridgeman suggests that he said. It is perhaps worth while to add also, as it brings out the error in the inscription more strikingly by showing its extent, that it is unusual to state as a lady's age one at which she has not yet arrived. Mr. Bridgeman's limitation of the time within which the inscription was so peculiarly written, to the period between June and October in 1592, makes this lapse from the common conventionality happen in the case of both sisters, that is, if the painter meant what he wrote, as we are bound to ^i^aksiptavt'si ^mntisi 93 believe that he did. If the painter added the in- scription when Mr. Bridgeman supposes him to have done so, that is, between Anne's birthday and Mary's birthday, or between October and June in 1592, both the girls' ages would be anticipated by the artist, Anne's by a little time, but Mary's by from eight and a half to twelve months, a pro- ceeding which would hardly be accepted by the families of the young ladies, and still less by them- selves. Mr. Bridgeman's explanation is: Anne Fitton was baptized at Gawsworth, 6th Octo- ber, 1574, Mary Fitton 24th June, 1578, so that, if the picture was painted between the months of June and October, 1592, their ages would exactly correspond with those given on the picture, one being then in her eighteenth, the other in her fifteenth year. Gossip from a Muniment Room. Appendix. This is a pure assumption that the painter of the portrait took an unusual course, and also one that would be ambiguous and misleading, in stating the ages of the two young ladies. The inscription is in the ordinary form, and it presumably has the ordinary meaning, and there is no reason whatever why it should be supposed that it was intended to be understood otherwise. It is impossible to follow Mr. Bridgeman when he says (p. 169), that the probability that the portrait is of two sisters is ()4 ^f)afe£fpeare*s! ^onnti^ confirmed "by the exact correspondence of the age of the younger girl as recorded on the picture, with that of Mary Fitton in 1592." It would be nearer the fact to say that this probability is much lessened by the unquestionable inaccuracy of the inscription in this respect; such correspondence, as Mr. Bridgeman terms it, is not that which is usual, nor would it be tolerable, in the record of a family portrait. Mr. Bridgeman's silence as to this view of the inscription shows the extent of his difficulty. The testimony of the inscription itself, then, is, we have reason for holding, contrary to the theory that it was a part of the picture in 1592, and this testimony is supported by the appearance of the ladies themselves in the portrait, and by several of its details. It will be admitted, on looking over the evidence collected in various parts of this Note, that the further indirect testimony, which can be brought against the contemporaneousness of the inscription with the picture, is worth much con- sideration; the evidence for it appears to be no more than its presence on the picture, and its long and unquestioned acceptance by the owners of Arbury. Before leaving this phase of the inscription, it should be observed that the legend inscribed on the portrait which forms the frontispiece of Lady Newdegate's book, stating Mary's age as 15, is not only not justified by the inscription, but that it is not supported even by Mr. Bridgeman's construc- tion of it. To enter now upon the question, whether the in- scription is found commonly on miniatures, or on family portraits, it is particularly worth consider- ing whether any artist, even a miniaturist, had he worked on the picture, would have made ascer- tainable, and at any period, and by any casual visitor, these young women's ages, through their permanent and semi-public portrait, at the time of its painting. We think it next to impossible that this should have been done, and we will examine, therefore, the record of inscription writing to de- termine whether painters, by any possibility, were in the habit of making inscriptions of this kind. The question is worth an examination, for if we should see that the inscription was, if not contrary to any consciously defined rule, at least not cus- tomary and, in practise, very unusual, that would go some distance toward proving that the inscrip- tion was a subsequent addition to the double portrait. It is true that one or both of the sisters had 96 ^taksipeare's; ^tmntti been, at the time, technically married, but, living at home, and subject only to a childhood contract of marriage, which seems in the case of the younger, if it existed, to have been disapproved and broken off, and in the case of the elder, to have not been carried out until some years after the double portrait had been painted, they should be regarded as if still free and unmarried girls, that is, for the purposes of the inscription, as in respect to their future, practically, and subject to the direction of their parents, they still remained. The records show that an inscription of the kind was but seldom placed upon miniatures, and that there is no similar and certain case, so far as we are aware, among easel portraits, excepting in royal circles. If it proves to have been exceptional upon the more familiar form of the miniature, an in- ference must arise against its contemporaneous- ness with the double portrait, and if no clear and certain instance of it appears among easel portraits, that inference must be greatly strengthened. It should be admitted, at the outset, that the ques- tion of the existence of any such rule for the por- traits of young ladies as is suggested, is not free from evident difficulty, much confusion inhering in the evidence, consisting as it does of a multitude of unrelated and independent instances, of which often no knowledge survives but what they them- selves afford. The substantial unanimity, under these difficult circumstances, of the records ex- amined is surprising, when it is considered that this was, after all, only an instinctive and habitual, and not at all an enforced rule, there being an almost entire absence from the examined records of clear and unmistakable instances similar to the double portrait, and not so frequent instances as to which a doubt will arise as to make them impor- tant through their number. In miniatures, an assured precedent for the in- scription is very rare; we have happened to find in the records, so far as we have seen them, only one which is certain; there are a few which are uncertain. There are precedents of royal minia- tures, and also of royal easel portraits, but in those cases the age of the lady might be considered to be so publicly known as to make the inscription in- different to the lady as well as of interest to the public. It is not possible, desirable as it is, to make a statement of all the evidence given by miniatures, no complete description of them existing and we will restrict ourselves, therefore, to the books at hand. An analysis of vol. i of the Morgan cata- logue of miniatures, mentioned hitherto, in which each miniature is carefully described, and as to 98 ^f)akiptaxe*9i ^onneW which exact statistics can be had, gives the follow- ing examples only of miniatures with the complete inscription of the date of the miniature and of the then age of the subject, such as that on the double portrait, and from which the age of the person represented can be at any moment told: Mary, Queen of Scots, by an unknown artist, (p. 45). Inscrip- tion: Maria Scotomm Regina, 1565, Aetat. XXIII. Lady Hunsdon, by N. Hilliard, (p. 26): Ano Dm 1576, Eais suae 25. Countess of Pembroke, by N. Hilliard, (p. 35): Ano 157 (?) Aet. 29. Earl of Sussex, by N. Hilliard (p. 39): Ano Dm 15 (?) Aetatis suae 36. Mary, Queen of Scots, by N. Hilliard, (p. 29): Anno Dom 1581, Aetatis suae (?). Lord Brooke, by Isaac Oliver, (p. 54): Ano Dm 1588, Aetatis suae 22. Gentleman, the artist unknown, (p. 73): Anno Domini 1588, Etatis suae 19. Sir H. Fanshawe, by Isaac Oliver, (p. 61) : Ano Dm 1608, Acta. 43. Anne, Queen of James I, by Isaac Oliver, (p. 59): Ano Dm 1609, Aetatis suae 28. Earl of Essex, by Isaac Oliver, (p. 52): Aetatis suae (?) 1614. Rhys Griffiths, by Isaac Oliver, (p. 56): Ano Domi 1617, Aetatis suae 55. Lady, the School of Oliver, (p. 68): 1619 (?) Aet. 28 (?). Earl of Somerset, by Peter OHver, (p. 67): Aetat. (?) A. D. 1623. Gentleman, by L. Hilliard, (p. 63): Ano Dni 1640, Aetatis suae 75 (?). Duke of Berwick, by the younger Hoskins, (p. 86): engraved inscription on the reverse, Aet. 29, 1700, No case appears in the list of a young girl whose miniature is inscribed as in the double portrait, though the system of inscribing miniatures then was at its height. As the matrimonial status of the lady in the miniature of 1619 is not known, the instance is doubtful; the numerals upon it, given by Dr. Williamson, the editor of the catalogue, are not perfectly decipherable. The age of the subject, but omitting the date of the painting, appears sometimes upon a miniature, and is less objectionable : Arnold Franz, by Holbein, (p. 7): Aet. 32. Mrs. Pemberton, by Holbein, (p. 8): Anno Etatis suae 23. The date of the miniature, but not the age of the subject, occurs often: Lady, by Levina Teerlinc, (p. 21): Ano Dm 15 (?). "La Belle Sourdis," by N. Hilliard, (p. 31): Ano Dm 1577. La Princesse de Conde, by N. Hilliard, (p. 33): 1597. To these last succeeds, in the general history of miniatures, the unended series in which the date alone of the miniature is given. Dr. George C. Williamson's History of Portrait Miniatures (1904), names a very great number of them, but they necessarily are not always described individually, as in his more limited editing of the Morgan catalogue, many being grouped, and men- tioned by name and place only, and exact statis- tics of these cannot therefore be given ; the greater loo ^\}ak^ptaxt'si ^onneW part of them, no doubt, have appeared in the ex- hibition catalogues. The general inference from them is the same as that from the Morgan collec- tion, and no certainly young and single lady, in private life, is mentioned in the book, and her miniature described, whose age is defined as in the double portrait. Instances from Dr. Williamson's book which border on relevance to the inscription on the double portrait are: The wife of Nicholas Hilliard, by him (vol. i, p. 17). An attractive miniature of his wife, more valuable through its exact labelling, with the inscription in a circle around the frame: "Alicia Brandon Nicolai Hilliardi qui propria manu depinxit uxor prima Ano Dni 1578 Aetatis suae 22," and the initials N. H. Mrs. Holland, Maid of Honour to Queen Elizabeth, by Isaac Oliver (p. 32) : Aetatis suae 27. The Elector Palatine and his family by Alexander Cooper (p. 78). A series of twelve royal minia- tures, showing the dates of painting and also the ages of the individuals. Dr. Williamson says of them that they belong to the German Emperor, and that "They are a series of circular miniatures, each set in an enamel frame and folding one over the other." He also says: "at the back of each portrait, in the same coloured enamel, is the name and age of the person whose portrait is contained in the disc, and the date (also recorded) when it was painted. ... In the centre of the series is the portrait of Frederick V., Elector Palatine, and afterwards King of Bohemia, inscribed: Frederick R. B. Aet. 36, 16 August 1632. By his side is a portrait of his wife, Elizabeth, daugh- ter of James I of England: Elizabeth R. B. Aetat. 36, 9 August 1632, the famous Queen of Hearts." The remaining miniatures of the series, all simi- larly inscribed, represented the ten children of the royal pair, four of them daughters. Of the youngest, Sophia, Aetat. 2, 14 Octobris 1633, "we have no portrait, and this is peculiarly unfortunate, as to Englishmen she is the most inter- esting of the series, for after flirting with a Portu- guese grandee, an Italian duke, a Swedish prince, and her cousin Charles of England, she married the Elector Ernest of Hanover, and became the ances- tress of the Hanoverian sovereigns, and of the dyn- asty which now occupies the throne of England." In another of Dr. Williamson's publications, How to Identify Portrait Miniatures (1904), is an illustration of two little girls, aged respectively four and five years, whose ages are inscribed, with the date of painting. The four princesses, daugh- ters of the Elector Palatine, and the miniature of Queen Elizabeth in the National Portrait Gallery, hereinabove mentioned, are excepted by the royal station of the ladies from the custom ; besides these, the instances noticed in the books so far cited of a portrait miniature of any young, unm.arried lady, giving at once the date of painting and the lady's 102 ^JjKksipeare'jS ^onnetiS age, are the uncertain case in 1619, in the Morgan collection, of an unknown lady a^ed twenty-eight, whose marriage is not stated or ascertainable, and the case just mentioned of the two little children still in their infancy. So far as the question before us can be decided from the three books referred to, the case against the inscription on the double portrait, that it was contrary to the common practice of miniaturists, and therefore still less to be expected upon an easel portrait, has little opposition, but by going further afield a few difficult miniatures have been found which it is necessary to examine. Some other books consulted are by Dr. Williamson, Dr. Pro- pert, Joshua J. Foster and Dudley Heath; some catalogues have also been examined, namely: "Early English Portrait Miniatures in the Collec- tion of the Duke of Buccleuch," Montague House (in The Studio, 191 7) ; "The Welbeck Abbey Minia- tures belonging to his Grace the Duke of Portland" (in the fourth annual volume of the Walpole So- ciety, 1914-15); Catalogue of an Exhibition of Miniatures by the Burlington Fine Arts Club (London, 1889); and the Miniature section in a catalogue of an Exhibition of Early English Por- traiture, by the same Club (London, 1909). The perhaps single, clear exception, and one to ^f)afes!peare*£f ^onnetfl( 103 which allusion has already been made, an exception unique in the books examined, to the observance that unmarried ladies, not in the royal circle, should not have their ages coupled with the date of painting and placed upon their miniatures, occurs in a list mentioned by Mr. Foster in one of his volumes. Miniature Painters, British and For- eign, vol. i, p. 34 (London, 1903), thus: "Mrs. Holland, Maid of Honour, dated 1593, Aetatis suae 26," by Nicholas Hilliard. This miniature, as it happened, was followed in the next year by one by Isaac Oliver of the same lady, with an abbreviated inscription, and made in comparison unobjectionable by the omission of the date, "Aetatis suae 27." There is no illustration or description in Mr. Foster's volume of the earlier of the two miniatures, but it is probably that illus- trated by Dr. Proper t in his History of Miniature Art (1887), on the plate facing page 58. The later miniature is illustrated by Dr. Williamson, in his History of Portrait Miniatures, Plate XH and page 32. Each is an interesting miniature. The reflection at once necessarily occurs that there may have been a mistake about the earlier inscription, as it can hardly have been placed on the miniature with the young lady's understanding or by her wish; at all events, it was not repeated on the 104 fefjafesipeare's; ^onnetia; second miniature. Unquestionably, the precedent is unlikely to attract a young lady of today, who might wish to make use of a miniature of herself among her friends. A third miniature, called of Mistress Holland, and again by Nicholas Hilliard, which, if of the same lady, was taken much later, and probably after marriage, and when she had become Lady Cope, will be found in the Morgan catalogue, vol. i, PI. XIX and p. 39; this has no inscription. To illustrate more particularly the distinction between the two classes of inscription : in the catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club of 1909, two miniatures ascribed to Holbein and of royal ladies are mentioned; one is of Queen Jane Seymour, inscribed, "An. XXV" (p. 114), and the other of Queen Katherine Parr, inscribed, "Ano. XXXH" (p. 117); neither is dated, and they are irrelevant to the double portrait, the ladies being neither unmarried nor in a private station, but they aid in illustrating the point that an inscription in the limited form placed on the second miniature of Mistress Holland, and of those of the two Queens has not the inconvenience and unfitness of the inscription placed on the earlier miniature of Mistress Holland, nor of that on the double portrait, for as the date of the miniature is omit- ted, a continuous statement is avoided of the ^fjafegpeare's; ^onneW 105 precise age at any future moment of the lady represented. In addition, a few doubtful miniatures appear in the catalogues, and they need careful and studious attention. To the catalogue of the Duke of Buc- cleuch's miniatures is annexed a catalogue of an exhibition of miniatures at the Victoria and Al- bert Museum, in which the following instances are mentioned of the miniatures of unknown ladies: "A Lady unknown, in her i8th Year. Dated 1592." By Nicholas Hilliard or Isaac Oliver. "A Lady unknown, in her 19th Year, Represented as Lu- CRETIA. Dated 1608." By Nicholas Hilliard. "A Lady unknown, in her 52ND Year. Dated 1572." By Nicholas Hilliard. These seem to be mentioned among the Welbeck Abbey miniatures, in the catalogue of that collec- tion at pages 34 and 35, without further informa- tion as to them except that the lady described as Lucretia is holding a dagger. Lucretia is men- tioned in Shakspeare's poem, then much in vogue, as the wife of Collatinus; a young spinster might take it upon herself to represent the injured lady, but the portrait is at least as likely to be of a lady who was herself married. The incident was fre- quently represented in portraits at that time. The miniature of a lady in her eighteenth year is per- io6 ^fjafesfpeare'g ^onmtsi haps that mentioned with a slight variation — there being frequently difficulty in reading the inscriptions, the date being 1572 instead of 1592 — in the Burlington Fine Arts Club's catalogue (1909) of Early English Portraiture, at page 124, the description of the miniature being otherwise the same. Let us admit them to be distinct miniatures. The instance of the lady aged fifty-two years may be disregarded, as she had passed beyond the age to which the rule applies. In the extensive catalogue of the miniatures ex- hibited by the BurHngton Fine Arts Club in 1889, is an entry on page 130: " Portrait OF A Lady. Dated 1600. Aetatis 23." No further information appears in the catalogue in respect to this miniature. The extent, therefore, of the questionable instances among miniatures, found in the books and catalogues hitherto cited, and in some slight degree contravening a presumed recognition in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth cen- turies of a reticence founded on natural sentiments, and which would at the present day be generally respected, is five, of unknown ladies aged 18, 18, 19, 23 and 28. The uncertainty as to these minia- tures deprives them of clear value as evidence; the probabilities as to them depend upon the ultimate ^fjafesfp care's; bonnets! 107 answer to the proposed question, whether there was in fact a habit of courtesy in existence in re- spect to the miniatures and larger portraits of young and unmarried ladies; if there was such a custom, then the miniatures were more probably inscribed in accordance with it, and were of young matrons. It has been said that marriage was at that period customarily earlier than it is now, and less often omitted. We will leave the question then as to these unidentified miniatures in sus- pense, to look further into the practice of the art- ists of the time ; the remarkable absence from the records of a class of identified miniatures of young ladies clearly opposing the custom is of too much weight to be negatived by a few uncertain minia- tures, doubtful as one or two of them may seem to be. Since writing the preceding pages, two further catalogues have come to our hands, and they will be noticed now separately, the "Catalogue of the Special Exhibition of Portrait Miniatures on loan at the South Kensington Museum, June, 1865," extending to 3081 examples, and the illustrated "Catalogue of a collection of Miniatures in Plum- bago, etc.," lent by Francis Wellesley, Esq., Victoria and Albert (South Kensington) Museum (London, 191 5). The latter interesting catalogue contains nothing open to question, though it has several io8 ^Jjaligpeare'g ^onneW inscriptions, but the former adds two to the num- ber of unknown young women whose miniatures bear both their ages and the date of the painting ; on the other hand, it adds no further instance to the first miniature of Mistress Holland, which ap- pears in its pages. This catalogue adds also a child of five years and a girl of six to the instances of the two little girls of four and five years old, whose miniatures were inscribed with date of painting and their ages, as already noticed. The examples of miniatures of unidentified young women are: Page 99. " Portrait of a Lady, dated Anno 1600, Aetatis 23," by an unknown artist. Page 179. "Portrait of a Lady in a Close Cap and Small Ruff. Inscribed Ano Dni 1575, Aetatis suae 25," by an unknown artist. Page 238. "Portrait of a Lady. Aetatis Suae 20. Ano Dni 1587," by an unknown artist. Of these, the first has, no doubt, been mentioned already from the Burlington Club's catalogue of 1889, but the second and third have not, and may be either the miniatures of young wives or of spin- sters. The current of the evidence is so decided, however, toward establishing the existence of the common custom as to the portraits of spinsters, as will appear to any searcher through the extensive books and catalogues, that the miniatures of this uncertain kind can be tentatively, at least, as- ^^afe£fpeare*£f ^mntti 109 sumed to be the miniatures of married ladies, or else to be exceptions to the common practice. The two children's miniatures listed in the catalogue are: Page 186. "Portrait of a Child in a Richly Quilted Dress, WITH THE Inscription: Anno Dni 1578, Aetatis 5," by Nicholas Hilliard. Page 240. "Margarita Gonzaga. Inscribed: Margarita Gonzaga, Annorum VI, XIII Maii, MDLXXI," by Paolo Veronese. The first of these is of unstated sex, but the second is of an additional little girl, whose minia- ture has been given an especially complete inscrip- tion. The inscriptions for feminine children, Hke those for ladies past the age of courtship, depart from the strictness of the convention, and indicate the limits of the customary courtesy. Such, and no more, are the difficult instances of miniatures which have been found in the books and catalogues cited. Turning from miniatures to easel or family por- traits, our search through a representative selection of the books and catalogues likely to contain evi- dence, has discovered but few cases of doubt as to the observance of the rule of courtesy to unmarried ladies, and no identified and certain infraction of it. The fashion, alike unnecessary and inconvenient no ^tjaiijipeare's; ^onmisi in practice, of inscribing on the front of a portrait the age of the person represented, commenced, as far as we have noticed, with the first year of the Sixteenth century, and continued through the cen- tury and thereafter for the greater part of the Seventeenth century; it began to fade during the Commonwealth, and died out almost wholly dur- ing the reign of Charles 11. A considerable num- ber of the existing portraits bear inscriptions of this kind, either of the age of the subject joined with the date of painting, or of the age of the sub- ject and having the date of the painting omitted. A list of the books and catalogues examined is : TEXT-BOOKS Raphael, by Crowe and Cavalcaselle. (London, 1882-5.) Titian, by the same authors. (London, 1877.) History of Painting in North Italy, by the same authors; 2d ed. (London, 1912.) Italian Painters, by G. Morelli. (London, 1892-3.) Notes on the Brera Gallery at Milan, by Charles Locke Eastlake (1883.) Notes on the Royal Gallery at Venice, by the same author. (1888.) Holbein, by Ralph N. Wornum. (London, 1867.) Anecdotes of Painting in England, by Horace Walpole; ed. R. N. Wornum. (London, 1849.) Tour of a German Artist in England, with Notices of Private Galler- ies, by Johann David Passavant. (London, 1836.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain, by Dr. Gustav Friedrich Waagen. (London, 1854.) Les Musees d'Europe; Berlin, the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, by Gustave Geflfroy, (Paris, 1910.) ^ijafesipeare's! bonnets; iii CATALOGUES The National Gallery. (London, 1899.) The National Portrait Gallery. (London, 1901.) The Burlington Fine Arts Club; Exhibition of Early English Portraiture. (London, 1909.) Musde National du Louvre. Notice des Tableaux exposes; ficoles d'ltalie, Ecoles d'Espagne, Ecoles AUemande, Fla- mande et HoUandaise, et Ecole Frangaise, par FrM6ric ViUot. (Paris, 1872.) The Louvre; Italian and Spanish Schools, by the Vte Both de Tauzia. (Paris, 1885.) Description raisonn^e des Peintures du Louvre. Tome I, ficoles fitrang^res, Italie et Espagne, par Seymour de Ricci. (Paris, 1913.) The further volumes of this catalogue if they have yet been published, have not been accessible. Exhibition by the Alsace-Lorraine Society at Paris. (Nearly 600 pictures. 1874.) The UflSzi Gallery. (Florence; C. Rigoni, 1886.) The Gallery of the Pitti Palace. (Florence; E, Chiavacci, 1875.) Siena; Accademia. (1872.) Venice; Accademia di Belli Arti. (1885.) The same Gallery, by A. Conti. (1895.) Modena; Reale Galleria Efetense. (1854.) Bologna; Reale Pinacoteca. (1883.) Milan; Palazzo di Brera, Pinacoteca. (1892.) Berlin; Konigliche Museen. (G. F. Waagen, i860.) Vienna; Gemalde der Belvedere-Galerie. (1882-6.) Dresden; Konigliche Gemalde-Galerie. (1912.) Mimich; Paintings in the Old Pinakothek; trans. J.T.Clarke. (1885.) The Complete work of Rembrandt, by Dr. WiUiekn Bode, trans. Florence Simmonds. 8 vols, fo., illustrated. (Paris, 1897- 1906.) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (1905.) The same. Loan Exhibition of Paintings by old Dutch Masters; Hudson-Fulton Exhibition. (1909.) These books record a great number of portraits of ladies, and some of their portraits bear inscrip- 112 ^i)a'kjiptatt*!i ibmnttsi tions; those inscriptions which most neariy ap- proach the inscription on the double portrait have been selected for examination, and are as follows : INSTANCES FROM TEXT-BOOKS "Titian," by Crowe and Cavalcaselle In the second volume of Crowe and Cavalcaselle's Titian, at page 68, a portrait by Titian of a ten- year-old girl is described, with its inscription of date and age. " On a tablet high up on the wall to the left "is inscribed: "Annor. X, MDXLII," and, "on the edge of a console to the right" appears "Titianus F." In respect to this inscription, the writer has seen a reproduction of the picture, and thinks that Titian made use of the inscription as an artistic accessory in carrying out his concep- tion of the portrait ; genuine inscriptions are often combined with, or made to enter into the picture, to a greater or lesser extent. There is apparently an error by the distinguished authors in their statement of the inscription. The picture is called a portrait of a daughter of Roberto Strozzi. Such a portrait of a daughter of Roberto Strozzi, exactly similar to the description given above, and in all points to what else is said eloquently of the picture by Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle is reproduced as a full-page illustration in Les Musees d' Europe, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum (Paris, 1910), by Gustave Geffroy, to face page 140, in which the age of the subject appears on the tablet as two, not ten, "Annor. II," not Annor. X, and the lesser age is established by the appearance of the child herself. When described by Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, the picture was in the Palazzo Strozzi at Florence, but it has since ap- peared in the catalogue of the ' ' Konigliche Museen zu Berlin am Lustgarten " (Berlin, W. Spemann, 1902), and it is there said of it (p. 83), "das des Tochterchens des Roberto Strozzi," and at page 93, "Bildniss einer Tochter des Roberto Strozzi aus Florenz (1542)." This date is that inscribed on the tablet in the picture, and for this reason, and the coincidence in description, it is the same pic- ture as that mentioned by Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and their statement of the age of the child is not correct. At the end of Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle's vol- umes is a list, covering 38 pages, of uncertified or spurious pictures ascribed to Titian, among which occurs, at page 447, an unauthentic por- trait of a little girl, inscribed: " Aetatis Suae 4 nel Maio. Per Titiano e fatto a Cadoro, 1518." This portrait and the preceding genuine portrait by Titian should be classed with the miniatures of the little girls of 4, 5 and 6 years old, mentioned heretofore, in which the strict convention is laid aside. ''History of Painting in North Italy'' Portrait of a nun at the Accademia in Venice. A foot- note describes the painting as: "Bust on a light ground of a nun with her left hand on her bosom, inscribed on the ground and above two escutch- eons, F. A. XLVIII A. A. XV:" If we may 8 114 ^h^h^ptavt'fi ^onnet£i attempt to interpret this inscription, it seems to mean that the portrait is of a lady in her sixteenth year (unless, perhaps, the numerals denoting her age are also contracted), and painted in 1548, but as it was connected with her taking the vows, it is hardly relevant here. (Vol. iii, p. 188.) Portrait of a lady in a red dress and with a book in her hand, standing with her elbow on a pier, and painted by Bernardino Licinio. Inscription: "1540. Die 25 Feb." The picture is merely dated, and this, as it gives no age for the lady, is not an inscription in the sense in which we use the term. (Vol. iii, p. 189.) "Italian Painters," by G. Morelli Portrait of the artist herself by a feminine artist, Sofonisba Anguissola. The portrait is said to be in the Collection of Portraits at the Uffizi in Florence, and is inscribed: "Sophonisba Anguis- sola, Cremis, Aet. Suae Ann. XX," but it has no date. A picture of the Holy Family by this lady, now in the gallery at Bergamo, is inscribed: "Sophonisba Anagussola, {sic), Adolescens, P. 1559," but is not a portrait, and does not give a definite age for the painter. (Vol. i, p. 198.) The inscription on a portrait belonging to Lady East- lake, by Cordegliaghi, is said to be: "X 1504, Andreas Cordelle Agy, discipulus johannis bel- lini pin.xit 24." (Vol. ii, p. 237.) The "24" is said to be not a statement of age but the "mono- gram" of the painter {History of Painting in North Italy, vol. i, p. 280, note) ; the picture is described by Dr. Waagen in his notices of English private ^Jjafesfpeare^s! B>ormtti 115 galleries (vol. ii, p. 265), as not a portrait but a " Marriage of St. Catherine." "Holbein" by R. N. Wornum In the large family picture of the family of Sir Thomas More, a picture not now in existence and perhaps never wholly completed, but preserved through a sketch and in several dissimilar copies, the ages and the names of the persons introduced seem to have been inscribed throughout by Holbein; the ladies in the picture were, however, either married or betrothed. Compare with this the instances of pictures of assembled families found in Anec- dotes of Painting, by Horace Walpole (infra), and in the Dresden and Berlin catalogues. No cer- tainly genuine date for Holbein's original picture appears to exist, the date, 1530, on his sketch being a later addition. (Pages 229, 235, 243.) The Berlin Museum contains a small picture of a Queen Anne, called Anne Boleyn, and perhaps by Holbein (page 269). Inscription: "Anna Regina, 1525, Anno Aetatis 22." The portrait is con- sidered to be a likeness of the royal lady, but as Anne Boleyn was not married to Henry VIII until 1532, the inscription is evidently a subse- quent addition to the portrait, resembling in this respect, as we think, the inscription on the double portrait. Moreover, its statement of the Queen's age seems more likely than that of Camden, the annalist, which differs from it. Mr. Wornum doubts the picture being a work by Holbein; it is attributed to Holbein, however, in the Museum's catalogue. ii6 ^})afe)E;peare*£( ^onnetsl ''Anecdotes of Painting,'' by Horace Walpole "In the Palace at Kensington are two daughters of Philip II of Spain, i. Isabella Clara, f^l. Phil. II. Regis Hisp. aet. ii, 1571. 2. Catherine, aet. 10." The painter was Sir Anthony More; the young ladies, even later on, as royal personages, were doubtless careless of the inscription. (Vol. i. P- I43-) A picture of an assembled family, painted by Lucas de Heere. "An elderly gentleman is at table with his wife and another lady, probably, from the resemblance, her sister. Before them are seven young children, their ages marked, which show that three of them were born at a birth . " No date for this picture is mentioned; it is said to repre- sent the family of Sir George Brooke, Lord Cob- ham, and should be classed with the portrait of the family of Sir Thomas More, just noted, and with the Hibbard, My tens, and one unnamed family-assemblage pictures, referred to further on. (Vol. i, p. 156.) A portrait of Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I, painted by Paul Van Somer. Inscription: "Anna Reg. &c., Aet. 43." Whether the portrait has a date is not stated, but, representing a royal and also married lady, it does not come within the convention. (Vol. i, p. 210.) A portrait of five of the children of Charles I, by Sir Anthony Vandyck. Inscription: "Regis Magnae Brittaniae proles. Princ. Carolus, nat. 29 May, 1630; Jac. D. Ebor. nat. 14 Oct. 1633; Princpssa Maria, nat. 4 Nov. 1631; Princip. Eliza, nat. 28 Dec. 1635; Princip. Anna, nat. 17 May, 1637; ^fjafegpeare's ^onnetfli 117 Ant. Vandyck Eq., fecit, 1637." The inscription of these dates, which were of national interest and generally known, would be indifferent to the princesses. (Vol. i, p. 331.) "Mr. Baird of Auchmedden in Aberdeenshire, has in one piece three young ladies, cousins, of the houses of Argyle, Errol and Kinnoul: Their ages, six, seven and eight, as marked on the side of the picture." It seems that this picture has no date; it was painted by George Jamesone (1586-1644), an early Scottish painter. (Vol. i, p. 349.) An assembled family portrait of " Dr. Hibbard, physi- cian, his wife, and five children. . . . Two children on the right hand were certainly added afterwards, and are much inferior to the rest. The dates were probably inserted at the same time." This portrait is by the well-known Wil- liam Dobson. The description of it is quite in- definite, but if the picture is dated, and the ages of the several children added, it is an instance of the inclination in portraits of assembled families, to state the age of every member, girls as well as boys, without regard to the later inconvenience. (Vol. ii, p. 353.) "At Wadham College, Oxford, is an excellent portrait of an old female servant of the College, inscribed : 'Mary George, Aetatis 120. Gul. Sonmans pinxit et dedit.'" (C/. vol. iii, p. 973, note.) This is not dated. If Sonmans, or Sunman, came to England in the reign of Charles II, as is here said, this is one of the latest instances of this habit of inscribing on portraits the age of the person repre- sented, here with more reason than usual. An- ii8 ^fjafesipearc'j; ^onnetjf other instance will be found, of the year 1667, at page 478. There is one of 1663 among the in- stances cited from the Louvre gallery. (Vol. ii, p. 520.) In a list of the prints by Simon de Passe, an engraver of the time of James I, occurs this instance: "Matoaca, alias Rebecca, filia potentiss. princ. Powkatavi imp. Virginiae, aet. 21, 1616," the wife of John Rolfe. This Indian princess is more widely known as Pocahontas; as she was married, the inscription of her age was according to the rule as practised. (Vol. iii, p. 866.) ^'Treasures of Art in Great Britain,'' by Dr. Waagen Gallery of the Marquis of Hertford. Portraits of Philip Le Roy, Seigneur of Ravels, and of his lady, by A. Van Dyck. Inscriptions: On the por- trait of the husband, "A. van Dyck, aetatis suae 34, Ao. 1630": On the portrait of his wife, "Aetatis suae 16. 1631." The convention was not extended to married ladies. (Vol. ii, p. 158.) Sir Charles Eastlake's gallery. Portrait of an old lady, aged 83, by Rembrandt. This picture is now in the National Gallery and is mentioned under that heading. (Vol. ii, p. 264.) Hampton Court. A portrait said to be of the father and mother of the younger Holbein, inscribed with the years of their age, 52 and 35 respectively, and the date of the painting, 1512. This portrait seems to be accepted by Mr. Wornum, in his study of Holbein, as having been painted by him at an early age, and may be taken to represent ^f)afe£(peare*s! ^omtetsi 119 married people. It is one of the earliest instances of inscription-writing, and the portrait was painted before Holbein came to England. (Vol. ii, p. 362.) Nostell Priory. The assembled family of Sir Thomas More, after Holbein. This is one of the several variant copies or completions of Holbein's lost family portrait. The ages of the various members of the family are inscribed on the picture; the ladies of the family are all either married or be- trothed; two or three servants of the household also appear, but their ages are not given in the copy, though one of them appears in the painter's original sketch of the picture, where the age of that person is given. INSTANCES FROM CATALOGUES The National Gallery {London) Paris Bordone. Vol. i, p. 56. Portrait of a lady. In- scription: "Aetatis suae Ano. XVIII. Paris, B. O." The portrait is not dated. Rembrandt van Rijn. Vol. ii, p. 124. Portrait of a lady, with white cap and ruff. Inscription: "Ae sue 83. Rembrandt ft. 1634." The lady's age takes her out of the conventional rule. The National Portrait Gallery School of Holbein. Vol. i, p. 25. Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard. Inscription: "Aetatis suae 21," An inscription, but illegible in the reproduc- 120 ^f)afe£fpeare*j! ^ormttn tion, appears on the adjoining portrait of Queen Anne Boleyn, Johannes Corvus. Vol. i, p. 30. Portrait of the Prin- cess Mary Tudor, before her accession to the throne. Inscription: "Anno Dni 1544. Ladi Mari, doughter to the most vertuous prince King Henri the Eight. The age of XXVIII yeres." National interest in the three ladies last men- tioned sufficiently explains the inscriptions; portraits of royal personages were perhaps par- ticularly subject to posthumous labels. As the catalogue is made up of illustrations of the por- traits, with only a slight description of them, the inscriptions must be gathered from the plates, but there do not seem to be any even remotely relevant to the double portrait, other than those here cited, and a miniature of Queen Elizabeth elsewhere described. The Burlington Fine Arts Club. Early English Portraiture Unidentified painter. Page 81. Portrait of an un- known lady, described thus: "Half length, three- quarters to right, fair hair parted in the middle and turned forward over the ears; black French hood; black dress lined with white fur, the sleeves puffed and slashed; both hands, folded before, hold a small book." Inscription: " Ano Dni 1551. Aetatis 34." It is said that the lady may have been a member of the Grey family. The painter's initials, H. E., may, it is said, possibly represent the painter, Haunce Eworth. In the absence of the portrait, which appears to be in the collection B>hsLk9iptsiu'si ^otmttn 121 of the Duke of Norfolk, and of which there is no reproduction in the catalogue, it is difficult to learn what was the lady's appearance, but her age, and the use of the inscription, lead to an inference that the portrait, when examined, will rather resemble that of a matron. This portrait and a few others which are doubtful will be es- pecially referred to again later on. Unknown painter. Page loi. Portrait of Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee (?) wife of Sir Anthony Lee (?). Inscription: "Etatis suae 34." This has no date; the reproduced portrait is distinctly like that of a matron. Musee du Louvre. {Fr. Villot) Philippe de Champaigne. ficoles Allemande, Fla- mande et Hollandaise, page 46. "Portrait d'une petite fille." Inscription: "Age 5 Ans 3 mois." This is not dated, and, at the child's age, would not in any event come under the rule, as it was practised. Gerard Dou. Page 62. Portrait of an invalid lady, "La femme hydropique," and her daughter, a serving maid and a doctor. Inscription: "1663. G. Dov. oud. 65 jaer." The lady, as both aged and married, does not come within the rule. Michiel-Jansz Mierevelt. Page 174. Portrait of a lady. Her description may be translated thus: The lady appears in three-quarter face to the left, wears a white cap (bonnet), adorned with lace (guipure), and a wide honeycomb ruff (fraise tuyautee), and has a golden chain about her neck. Her dress is black, the bodice orna- 122 ^f)afes;peare*2i bonnets; mented with small studs (boutons); the cuffs or sleeve-facings (hautes manchettes) are long and ornamented with lace, and she holds in her left hand gloves embroidered with strawberries, birds and butterflies. Inscription: "Aetatis su. 34. Anno 1634." There is nothing known of this lady, and her circumstances in respect to marriage are unascertainable. The portrait may be classed with that of one of the ladies of like age, the lady, perhaps of the Grey family, mentioned in the Burlington catalogue (supra), and will be re- viewed with it and some others later on. KonigUche Museen, Berlin Antony Palamedes. Page 254. Portrait of a young girl. Inscription: "Ao. 16. A. Palamed." The portrait has no date. Jacob Gerritz Cuyp. Page 254. Portrait of an old lady. Inscription: "Aetatis 68. Anno 1624. J. G. Cuyp fecit." The lady's age makes the rule inapplicable to her. Michel Janze Mierevelt. Page 256. Portrait of an old lady. Inscription: "Ao. 1650. Aetatis 82." This instance is similar to the preceding. Theodoor (Thomas?) de Keiser. Page 256. Portrait of an assembled and unidentified family. The picture shows a man, aged 48, seated at a table, his wife, aged 40, also seated, two sons, of 22 and 8 years standing, and three daughters of 19, 14 and 10 years respectively, also standing. The ages of the various persons are inscribed near them ; the picture is not dated. It may be classed ^fjafesipeare'sf ^ottnetjS 123 with the other pictures of assembled famiHes, that of the Mytens family, noticed in the Dresden Gallery (infra), and with some other like in- stances mentioned hitherto. When such a por- trait was also dated, the natural disinclination of the feminine members of the families to this pro- cedure was overruled, evidently, by the general interest in the pictures as family records. Belvedere-Galerie, Vienna Andrea del Sarto. Italian Schools, vol. i, p. 294. Portrait of an old lady in a dark dress, seated with a book. Inscription: "An Aet. LXXII." The portrait is not dated. Antonis Mor, known in England as Sir Anthony More. Schools of the Netherlands, vol. ii, p. 294. Por- trait of an unknown lady. Her description may be translated as follows : A lady of rank, her left side turned toward the viewer, stands by a table on which she rests her right hand. She wears a dark velvet dress, with a long golden key-chain which she lifts with her left hand. Her hair, combed back, is covered with a lace cap. The open collar is bordered by a small ruff. On the shoulders the short sleeves are widely puffed ; the close undersleeves, of a light material, end in ruffles at the wrists. Both hands are ornamented with rings. Dark background. Inscription: " 1575. Acta." The numerals signifying her age are missing, but the portrait itself, of which we have seen a reproduction, is of a typical matron of froni forty to fifty years old, 124 ^f^aksiptatt'si ^onnet£( Hans Burgkmair. German Schools, vol. iii, p. 41. A portrait of himself and his wife by the painter. Inscription: " Joann Burgkmair Maler LVII Alt. Anna Allerlahn. Gemael. LII Jar Alt. MDXX- VIIII. Mai. X. Tag." The Burgkmair and Hol- bein families were cotemporaries and closely associated in Augsburg; the younger Holbein's mother was, it is said, of the Burgkmair family {Holbein, by R. N. Wornum, pp. 50, 57, 80); and it was at Augsburg, probably, that he commenced to place inscriptions on portraits, this fashion having just arisen. Unknown German painter. Vol. iii, p. 74. The de- scription rendered into English, seems to be: A lady of rank, thirty-one years old, stands in three- quarter face, the left side toward the observer, with her clasped hands resting on her dress. She wears a red coat or gown extending to the ground, with broad sleeve-facings of green velvet, with which the gown is also bordered. On her breast appears gold brocade with a white inner garment which is fastened at the neck and is adorned with gold lace to which pearls are attached. A cap richly embroidered with pearls covers her hair, two dissimilar gold chains are about the neck, and at the waist a long girdle-ornament of gold pieces depends. The background shows a grey stone portal, with the inscription: "An. A. Nato XPO MDXXV. Aetatis XXXI," and above it appears a quotation from the Psalmist: "Non derelinqua me une deus meus ne discesseris a me. Psal. XXXVIII." The picture seems a memorial of some calamity, and the lady doubtless had a ^tjakgpeare'g Bxmnttsi 125 special reason for the inscription (Ps. 38, v. 21). This excepts it from the usual rule. The portrait is life-size. Whether the lady was married is unknown. The younger Holbein. Vol. iii, p. 135. Portrait of an unknown lady ("Bildniss einer Frau"). The description may be thus rendered: The twenty- eight year old lady, with round face and retrousse nose, in three-quarter face, and with her left side turned towards the observer, gazes directly before her. Over a white linen cap, under which a lock of blond hair appears, she wears a kind of yellow- ish-white cloth hood. A black bodice with a very narrow fur border half covers the breast, above which, to high on the throat, extends a thin white material. On the shoulders lies a small white wrap. On the green background is inscribed: "Etatis suae 28; Anno 1534." As the lady is described by the writer of the description as Frau, not Fraiilein, she appeared to him to perhaps resemble a matron, doubtless aiding his judg- ment by her age, while the presence of the inscrip- tion incHnes the balance of evidence in the same direction. This inscription, with some other uncertain inscriptions, will be reviewed to- gether as a class later on. We have recently seen a reproduction of this portrait, which is more attractive than the description would seem to indicate, and are inclined to think that in this case the presence of the inscription and the lady's age should, there being no other evi- dence but the interesting picture itself, control the decision. 126 ^ijafes!pcare*s{ B>ovmttsi Konigliche Gemdlde-Galerie, Dresden Unknown Dutch artist. Page 91. Portrait of an un- known lady in a white cap or hood. Inscription: "Aetatis 41; Ao. 1548." At this lady's age, her matrimonial status being wholly unknown, the inscription cannot be considered as precedent for the inscription on the double portrait. Van Dyck. Page 106. Portrait of an old lady. In- scription: "Aetatis suae 60; Anno 161 8." This may be a companion picture to one next to it in the catalogue, of an old man, and with the same inscription: "Aetatis Suae 60; Anno 1618." The inscription is irrelevant as evidence here. Portrait, page 137, by? Mytens, of David Mytens, his wife and their five children, dated 1624, and inscribed with the age of each person. The sex and ages of the children are not mentioned in the catalogue. If there are girls past infancy, the inscription was not suitable in respect to them. For some other instances of this tendency to state all the ages in the pictures of assembled families, see the portraits of the family of Sir Thomas More, and some further instances, in the preceding lists. Alte Pinakothek, Munich Hans Miilich. Page 67. Portrait of an unknown lady, dated 1542, and inscribed: "1540 zalt do wart ich 37 jar alt." The picture is a companion piece to a portrait of a man by the same artist, and dated 1540, inscribed: "Etatis sue XXXVIII." From a comparison of the ages of the persons re- ^i}Sik9iptatt*i ^onnetsi 127 presented in the two portraits, some relation, very possibly of marriage, seems to be probable. Thomas de Keyser. Page 80. Triple portrait. A young business man renders his accounts to his master. A lady holding an eyeglass sits in an armchair. Signed, "T. Keyser, 1650." In- scribed, near the lady, "Aetat. 6 z," and, near one of the men, "Aetat. z 6." The lady's age is not stated, or perhaps is in a cipher. The mutual meaning of the inscriptions is obscure. Gerard Douffet. Page 175. Companion portraits of a merchant and his wife, dated 161 7, and the ages inscribed, that of the merchant, 51, and of his wife, 57. This is quite irrelevant. "The Complete Work of Rembrandt'^ Vol. ii, No. 89. Portrait of Cornelia Pronck. In- scription: "Rembrandt f. 1633. Aet. 33." A companion picture of the husband of this lady adjoins it, and the instance is therefore irrelevant. Vol. ii, No. 106. Portrait of a woman of eighty-three. Vide supra, catalogue of the National Gallery, London. Vol. ii, No. 115. Portrait of a young woman of eigh- teen. Inscription: "Ae. sue. 18. Rembrandt f. 1634." We have to say of this portrait that it is not our ideal of a young lady of eighteen. The history of the portrait is not now ascertainable, and there is nothing to show that the young woman was unmarried. The countenance is dis- tinctly unattractive; the general preface to the volume, which is usually commendatory, com- 128 B>f)ak^pesixt*si ^onneW ments upon it adversely. As the inscription would be exceptional for an unmarried girl, as the young woman does not appear in the portrait as the dis- tinctive type of an unmarried lady, as she may have been married, and as this would be the soli- tary instance in Rembrandt's work of such an inscription on the portrait of a young and un- married woman, it cannot be affirmed that this is an exception to the rule of courtesy. This por- trait will be referred to later on with a few other uncertain instances. Vol. iii, No. 224. An old lady in an armchair. In- scription: "Rembrandt fc. 1635, Aet. sue 70, 24." The meaning of "24" is not at all clear. The "monogram" of Cordegliaghi, "24," in an in- stance from Morelli's Italian Painters, seems to resemble it. The lady is, from her age, beyond the intention of the convention. Vol. iv. No. 278. An old lady with her hands clasped. Inscription: "Rembrandt f. 1640. Aet. suae 87." This portrait cannot be considered within the convention. Vol. vi. No. 454. Portrait of a lady seated in a chair and looking at a parrot. Inscription: "Catrina Hoogsaet, oud 50 jaer, Rembrandt, 1657." In the Introduction, this lady is said, we know not on what authority, to be an old spinster. If she should be considered unmarried, her age still places her beyond the meaning of the convention. Vol. viii. No. 560. A woman holding a hymn-book. Inscription: "Rt Van Ryn, 1632. Aet. 39." As the lady's matrimonial situation is unknown, her age and the presence of the inscription lead us to S>f)afe£(peare'£f i^ormtii 129 infer that she was married. This portrait is one of the few doubtful instances to be summed up later on. Precise statistics of Rembrandt's practice in respect to inscriptions may be taken from his work, and are as follows: His pictures number 595, of which 133 are portraits of ladies. Of these last, the complete inscription of both date of painting and age of the subject is placed on 7, the age alone of the lady is given on none, the date of painting alone is given on 74, and on 52 there is no inscription; we pay no attention to the pres- ence or absence of the signature of the artist, as it has no bearing upon the matter before us. An Appendix to the Edition, giving 21 lost and addi- tional pictures known only through engravings, does not give the inscriptions on the originals, and therefore is wholly omitted from our analysis. Among the 133 portraits of ladies, if we try to select from them the portraits of ladies who in our best judgment are more probably young and marriageable — though we have generally no information as to whether they were or were not married, and no definable rule at all to go by in selecting them — we may perhaps select 41, of which there are none whose inscriptions give the lady's age only, 19 whose inscriptions give the date of the portrait only, and 21 which bear no inscription. There is but one of the 41 , that of the lady aged 18 and mentioned in the above list, which has the inscription of age, and that por- trait has the full inscription of both date and age, and thus proves to be exceptional in its inscription 9 130 fefjafeJ^pcare'g ^onnetsl as it seems to be throughout. The remainder of the 133 portraits of ladies are either portraits of older ladies or of ladies known to be married, or otherwise unavailable. The tendency in Rem- brandt's portraits of ladies is not, therefore, to- ward giving their ages. The only instances out of 133 portraits of ladies in which he did give them are the seven described ^t length in the above list, and he probably had special reasons in each of these cases for so doing. Metropolitan Museum, N. F., Loan Exhibition Frans Hals. Portrait of Vrouw Bodolphe. Inscrip- tion: "Aetat. suae 73. Ano 1643. F. H." This lady was probably the wife of Heer Bodolphe, whose portrait, also by Frans Hals, adjoins this and has the same inscription, they being of the same age. (Page 134.) Frans Hals. Portrait of Dorothea Berck. Inscrip- tion: "Aetat. suae 51. Ano 1644. F. H." The lady is said to have been the wife of the much younger man whose portrait adjoins hers. (Page 140.) Neither of these portraits is relevant to the double portrait. As many of the books and catalogues above listed contained no inscriptions which were prece- dents for, or conveyed any necessary information relative to that on the double portrait, they were not again referred to, though inscriptions occur in all of them. In the instances cited, the evidence which does not affirmatively sustain the position taken in this Note, as to the inscriptions upon the portraits of young and unmarried ladies, can be called generally accidental rather than intentional, and is not more than should be expected in a sub- ject of this kind. The instances gathered from the books in the preceding lists are much diversified, and the reader might expect that there would in- evitably be something among them which would militate against the rule, but he will find on ex- amination that there is no portrait which certainly opposes it, and that, while there are a few uncer- tain instances, they are not numerous enough to have importance as opposing evidence. These doubtful inscriptions have been already com- mented upon in passing through the lists, but we will assemble them for examination together They are upon portraits of ladies of marriageable age, but of whose circumstances, whether matrons and permitting the inscription, or young and un- married ladies and not permitting it, nothing fur- ther is known, namely: The portrait of a lady, in the Burlington catalogue, perhaps of the Grey family, aged thirty-four, a lady, in the Louvre gallery, aged thirty-four, the lady in the Belvedere gallery, Vienna, aged twenty-eight, Rembrandt's 132 ^fjafejspeare'g ^onnetg ambiguous portrait of a young woman aged eigh- teen, and perhaps his portrait of a lady holding a hymn-book, aged thirty-nine; the last two in- stances appear in the preceding list from Dr. Bode's complete edition of Rembrandt. These cases are essentially uncertain, but, as they are so remark- ably few in number, it is much more probable that they conformed to the general tendency, observ- able in the practice of artists, to exclude such inscriptions from the portraits of young and un- married ladies, than that they were exceptions to it. The objection, that is, that these cases might be possibly exceptions to the practice, is less probable than it is to suppose the practice to have been generally recognized in these cases also, and the ladies to have been matrons, there being no other evidence as to the fact. In the case of the lady aged eighteen, the evidence of the picture it- self, which is reproduced by Dr. Bode, tends, when supported by the uncertainty as to the lady's marriage, and by the singularity of the inscription in Rembrandt's work, to show that this was not a genuine exception to the rule. A distinguishable group of portraits, though hardly needing recapitu- lation, is made by those of the More, Brooke, Hibbard, one unnamed, and Mytens families of children, with their parents, where the customary ^fjalisfpeare's! ^onneW 133 courtesy was evidently disregarded in the desire to make a complete register of the assembled fam- ily. A third class of exceptional portraits, those of ladies who were also royal personages, has been repeatedly explained. The easel portraits assem- bled in the lists, and they are all that were observed as needing mention in the books and catalogues cited, will be found to give, in no instance, a clear precedent for the inscription on the double portrait. We have, to speak figuratively, cast a net over these books and catalogues, both of miniatures and of easel portraits, and the returns, in the shape of inscriptions of the sort to which that on the double portrait belongs, have been very scanty. Consider- ing that painters were, then, as they are now, at liberty to write their inscriptions as their discre- tion, or the interest of their employers, guided them, the paucity of the returns is certainly strik- ing. It may be said that among all the instances collected in this essay, the only certain and com- plete precedent for, or rather example of, the in- scription on the double portrait, is on a miniature, that of Mistress Holland, which, as it happened, was replaced by the lady in the next year. Sur- prising as it may be to believers in the enormous progress of our time over what has been before, the fact remains that the wishes of young women, 134 ^fjafegpeare's! Bxmmti in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries, were regarded by painters in this matter, as is indicated by the all but non-appearance in the record ex- amined of any portrait or miniature definitely infringing the rule. It was an unwritten law, the law of young women's wishes. The ages of all classes of people were described on their portraits by painters with the utmost freedom, but as to young girls they recognized a difference. In the full tide of inscription-writing on portraits, the convention of reserve as to the ages of young ladies was generally respected, the evidence of the family portraits examined placing the point beyond a reasonable doubt, unless further and opposing evidence can be found, which, in any considerable or noticeable amount, will not, as we think, prob- ably be discovered. The seven uncertain miniatures, which we left with a decision upon them in suspense, until an examination of the record of the easel portraits should show more fully what was the tendency of artists in this direction, if they are tested by the general tendency of painters, which is certainly sufficiently apparent in the larger portraits, must be allowed to have been probably the miniatures of married ladies, or else to have been unusual ex- ceptions to a considerate and proper practice. ^l)afe£;peare*£( ^onnctjf 135 It can scarcely be doubted that the painter of the double portrait, if he added the inscription, went beyond the custom of artists, and took upon himself to place upon the portrait an inscription which was altogether unusual. As the reader has noticed, the collections consulted are only repre- sentative of the galleries, large and small, and the evidence is not perfect, as no examination could be exhaustive, and none such has been attempted. Other collections may contain instances of diffi- culty, but unless they should prove unexpectedly numerous and important, they could not justify a denial of the existence and recognition then, in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries, of the natural reserve which has been referred to. The reader will find it possible with merely the evidence pro- duced, we think, to decide as to this aspect of the Arbury portraits, the disregard in the double por- trait of the usual courtesy to young ladies, and as to the inference, therefore, that the inscription was not cotemporary with but subsequent to the portrait. It should be said in passing that this argument is not without precedents; one will be found in Morelli's Italian Painters, above cited (vol. ii, p. 40), where there is a discussion whether an inscription on a painting of the Madonna by Palma Vecchio is cotemporaneous with the paint- 136 ^tiafesipeare'sf ^onneW ing or a later addition, and this is held to affect Palma's position in history; the date of an in- scription has not unfrequently been questioned. As we have not seen the other older portraits at Arbury, even in photogravure, and know of their Latin labels only from Mr, Bridgeman's Appendix to Lady Newdegate's book, we are quite in the dark as to the precise lettering of those inscrip- tions, though it is understood that on several of those pictures the ages of the subjects of the por- traits, and usually with them the dates of painting, are represented, nor do we know how many por- traits are so marked, nor what are their dates and general appearance, nor whether they are of men or of women, nor whether the artists were of for- eign or of native origin, but it is not expected that evidence from them will materially affect the evi- dence given by the double portrait, nor that as to its inscription. It is possible that in one or more of the older portraits, and not in a miniature, may be found the model from which the inscription on the double portrait was taken, and identification of it would perhaps be practicable and certainly inter- esting; an identification of it might be made, possibly, through the spelling. The inscription which would be unconventional when the picture was painted would be natural ^fjalifiipeare's! ^onnet£f 137 and proper a century later. If Mary Fytton was the "Dark Lady," and the evidence that she was comes to the verge of proof, it is certainly obvious that the Latin inscription on the double portrait can not have been placed on it when the portrait was painted, as the portrait, necessarily in that case, would not contain her likeness. An older portrait was taken, probably, as a model in select- ing the critical inscription at Arbury, but the evi- dence which can be found in the picture itself and in the inscription, the inconsistent minor details of the portrait, and the inconsistency with the in- scription both of the evident age of the lady on the right in the portrait, and of the actual age of her supposed original, Mary Fytton, and the improba- bility that the artist would make publicly calcul- able the ages of the two young girls, leads to the belief that this happened, not when the portrait was painted, but long after the two young ladies were represented together in the double picture. Leaving the inscription, we return to the por- trait itself. The second portrait given to us in the Fytton Letters is like a replica in Court dress of the lady on the right in the double portrait, and has the same original. Some difference can certainly be found in the ages of the two faces, but it is not 138 ^fjafegpcarc's; ^onntti enough to be at all material. The character of the face of the lady upon the right in the double por- trait is anything but that which we associate with the rash and passionate type to which Mary Fyt- ton belonged, and her distinct air of high reserve is accentuated in the second, or Court, picture. This difficulty has been felt by Lady Newdegate, who expresses very clearly and frankly a doubt of her position, by saying as to this second picture: The expression has changed, under the schooling of a Court life, to one of almost studied demureness, lead- ing one to suspect a vein of subtlety beneath ; or is it because we know her history that we discern so much ? Gossip from a Muniment Room, 2d ed., p. 27. The doubt as to this lady's expression and char- acter which has been felt by Lady Newdegate will be felt by nearly all other persons who study the pictures. The inclination to regard her picture as important in Shakspearean evidences has influ- enced Lady Newdegate, and, besides, she could support her identification of the portrait by a study, perhaps not sufficiently thorough, of the inscription. It is worth mention as to this second portrait that Mr. Bridgeman admits (p. 173), "the striking resemblance, especially about the mouth and chin, to the younger girl in the double por- ^Jjafejfpcare'jf ^onnetsf 139 trait." These two portraits at Arbury are not, however, the only representations of Mary Fytton. Far different are the challenging, provoking face and form, which are undoubtedly a representation of Mary Fytton, of the statue in the church at Gawsworth. It is, as it kneels there today, a pathetic figure, with a slightly mutinous expres- sion, and assuredly with the face of a woman of quick wit. The countenance in the Arbury por- traits seems, in comparison, order-loving, conven- tional, regulated, and wholly different in type, or so, at least, it has appeared to the writer of these pages. The statue is one of a group in a sepulchral monument on the north side of the chancel in the church of St. James. This church was formerly, in Mary Fytton's lifetime, splendidly and elabo- rately decorated, inside and out, with the shields of arms and, in the stained glass windows, the kneel- ing figures, of many generations of Fyttons and others. (EsLVwaker's East Cheshire, vol., ii, p. 575.) It is noteworthy that the effigy of Mary Fytton bears a marked family resemblance to that of her sister beside her, which the lady on the right in the double portrait does not bear to the lady painted with her. The statue of Anne resembles her por- traits; the statue of Mary does not resemble the portraits attributed to her. Lady Newdegate, also, 140 ^Ijafesipeare's; bonnets; speaks of the lady in the second, or Court, por- trait as giving the impression of a "tall, slight figure" {Gossip from a Muniment Room, ist ed., p. 25), and this is true, but the statue of Mary at Gawsworth is not of that kind, but is of a decided figure of moderate height, and, indeed, does in no respect resemble the lady in the portraits. The thinness of figure is also noticeable in the lady on the right in the double portrait. The evidence of the statue is wholly contrary to the identification of her in the portraits at Arbury. The two portraits at Arbury present the only difficult objection, to the theory, so far as we have noticed, that Mary Fytton was the original of the "Dark Lady." The evidence in support of that position, however, especially the statue at Gaws- worth, is too strong and cumulative to be cancelled by family portraits which are, as a whole, of a very uncertain history. As it is said by Lady Newde- gate, the correspondence as to Mary Fytton was kept locked up, even from the immediate family, for nearly three hundred years. What is more nat- ural than that, through changes of ownership, and the very usual family forgetfulness, knowledge of the portrait should have become inaccurate, and that it should have been attributed to Mary Fyt- ton because of its appearance in connection and on ^fiafegpeare'jf ^oxmtisi 141 the same panel with that of the elder sister ? When the portrait was seventy-five or a hundred years old the legend of Mary Fytton might easily lead to an attribution of it to her. In an article in The Theatre for December, 1897, the late Dr. F. J. Furnivall refers to Lady Newdegate's generous contribution to our knowledge of Mary Fytton, and alludes to still another portrait at Arbury, which is incorrectly labelled, as follows : She has not given a photogravure of the third por- trait, on wood, at Arbury, with the inscription:" Coun- tess of Stamford, 2nd daughter of Sir Edward Fitton, Knt.," which she showed Mr. Tyler and me, in 1891, as one of Mary Fitton, and which is like enough to the other two portraits of Mary to be one of the same per- son, though it no doubt is that of Miss Mildred Maxey, who sent it to the first Lady Anne Newdigate [Mary's sister] at Arbury: "I have, sweete sister lefte my pecter at my broth- er's loging for you. I think it not worth the trobbel in having it com downe, for it should have bine drane in a canfis [canvas], and this is a horde [board, panel]; but if my brother Cooke had bine in the tone [town] , I wold [have] taken order with him for it ; but I know if you do send to him, he will send it you in a case." If Lady Newdegate, Mr. Tyler and I were right in accepting this portrait as Mary Fitton's in 1891, and Lady N. is right in changing her mind and saying now that it is Mildred Maxey's, may we not believe that all three portraits are those of Miss Maxey? Mr. Tyler has no doubt that they are. The Mildred por- i42 ^fjafegpeare'jf ^onnttsi trait is certainly like, though not quite the same as, those claimed as Mary Fitton's; it is of a fair, red-and- white girl, with brown hair like Mary's and, too, with her dark, blue-grey eyes. Moreover, the hair of Mary's statue in Gawsworth Church seems once to have been coloured black; the colour can only be seen now in the interstices of the coils of hair, but assuredly it looks black. One cannot accept as conclusive the evidence of the Arbury portraits supposed to be those of Mary Fitton. Dr. Furnivall meant to say Miss Cooke, not Miss Maxey. "Mildred (Cooke) Lady Maxey," as Lady Newdegate describes her for us, was own cousin to Sir Robert Cecil, the celebrated Secretary of State, whose mother was Lady Burghley, also Mildred, "the Lady Mildreda," daughter of the scholarly wSir Anthony Cooke, of Gidea Hall, Essex. The quotation illustrates in an amusing way the uncertainty which surrounds the pictures at Ar- bury, and how little reliance can be placed upon them as historical evidence. The unreliable Eigh- teenth century inscription again connects the third picture with Mary Fytton by calling it "2nd daughter of Sir Edward Fitton, Knt.," but also calling it, "Countess of Stamford." Mr. Bridgeman observes that at Arbury, Anne "would be within a drive of Hartshill, near Ather- stone, then the residence of Mildred's father, William Cooke, second son of Sir Anthony Cooke." Atherstone lies 5^2 miles N. N. W. from Arbury Hall, on a fairly direct road, Hartshill being be- tween the two, and three miles distant from Arbury Hall, according to the English Ordnance Map, if the roads then were as those of today. Mr. Bridge- man further says of this (p. 170) : "I may observe in passing that I can find no evidence that Lady Newdigate was even acquainted with Mildred Cooke till after 1596, about which year the former came to live at Arbury." Mr. Bridgeman does not remember that Anne's was a childhood marriage, and occurred when she was twelve years old, in 1587 (p. 3), the year after that in which Arbury was purchased by the Newdigate family (p. 2). This is some evidence, stronger or weaker, but still evidence, that Anne was acquainted with her young husband's neighbours, in whom she had an approaching though still future interest, for surely some of them might visit her. The evidence, such as it is, is in plain view. Mr. Bridgeman further says (p. 172), that Lady Maxey and also Lady Grey were "on terms of intimacy with Lady Newdigate," and among the number of ladies who familiarly addressed her in their correspondence as "sister." He inclines, however (p. 173), to accept the third picture as one of Lady Grey, on the basis 144 ^fjafefifpeare'g ^otmets; of the Eighteenth century inscription on the por- trait, which, with the error usual in the Eighteenth century inscriptions, refers to the Grey-Stamford family, and he depends upon the mentioning of a portrait of that lady in Lady Newdigate's Will. But Miss Mildred's letter certainly shows that a portrait of her was to be sent to Arbury, and with- out considering the degree of resemblance which the third portrait is said to bear to the double por- trait and the second portrait, we can at the least say that there is no preponderant evidence as to it in either the one direction or in the other. An aunt of Mildred Cooke, also Mildred Cooke, was the wife of the Lord High Treasurer, the illus- trious Lord Burghley, and the mother of Sir Robert Cecil; another aunt, Anne Cooke, was the wife of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Sir Nicholas Bacon, and mother of Anthony and Francis Bacon. As Mildred Cooke was so highly connected, it is by no means improbable that she should have been the lady in the second portrait, the lady in the magni- ficent Court dress. She would, then, be the lady painted with Anne in the double portrait. This is nothing but a surmise, but it accords with the por- trait both in this respect and in her age, nineteen, and also in her situation as a very near neighbour of Anne's in the latter's future home at Arbury. ^ftafe£fpeare*)S ^ovmttsi 145 It is a question for students of the portraits of Queen Elizabeth's days, whether her face, in its expression of reserved intellectuaHty, has not a certain degree of family resemblance to that of Sir Robert Cecil. Certainly it is not in the least like that of Anne Fytton, either in the double portrait or in that lady's other likenesses, and it is assuredly in the second portrait, that of a lady of great dis- tinction. A comparison with the features of her aunt, Lady Burghley, and of Sir Robert Cecil, her cousin, however, does not show any marked re- semblance, the long, pointed chin and compressed lips characteristic of them not being distinctly marked in Mildred's face; she still may have resembled her mother's family in this. Lady Burghley's portrait gives the impression of a tall, slight figure such as Mildred's, that is, such as the figure of the lady in the second portrait. The holly and the palm, devices, either badges or charges, sketched on the sleeves of the lady on the right in the double portrait, it seems not possible now to connect with Mildred Cooke's family in any of its known branches, nor has any evidence been found through these emblems identifying the lady on the right in any particular. The quarter- ings of Miss Mildred's aunt and namesake. Lady Burghley's, shield of arms are said to be : i . Cooke ; 10 146 ^fjafesipeare'jss ^onntt^ 2. Malpas; 3. Machyn; 4. Belknap; 5. Boteler; 6. Sudeley; 7. Mountford; (Historical Mono- graph, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, by the Rev'd Augustus Jessop and others, with portraits of the Cecils, p. 98), but whether any of these families or others in the ancestry of Anne Fytton's friend and future neighbour. Miss Mildred, used the palm or holly as either a badge or charge is an elusive ques- tion. They do not appear as charges in the blazon- ing of the arms of these families in Burke's ylrmona/ Bearings, but they might be badges, and there- fore less formal and more easily transmissible. Though Mildred Cooke's mother, if an heiress, could transmit them as armorial bearings, and could indifferently transmit them as badges, sup- posing her to have a right, her name and family are not stated in any book examined by us. The palm and holly have been used quite frequently in heraldry; we have gathered a little unconnected and apparently unconnectable evidence as to them. A John le Bouteller is mentioned among the Nor- mans in the first Crusade on a roll in the Library of Bayeux Cathedral. There were several families of this or of a derivative name in England, among them the one quartered in Lady Burghley's shield. A Ralph Boteler appears among the Crusaders in the second Crusade {The English Crusaders, by ^ijafegpeare^s! ^onncts^ 147 J. C. Dansey , London, 1 849, ?) . Their descendants, some of them, might perhaps use the palm as a badge. The palm several times occurs on escutch- eons or crests. A Christopher Cooke of Aires- ford, Hants, in the last century, had, as a part of his crest, a wreath, not of holly but of laurel, a differ- ent leaf. (William Berry, Encyclopaedia Heraldica, vol. ii, London, 1828.) The evidence is scanty, nothing. But it has not been suggested by Mr. Bridgeman or by Lady Newdegate, who have ac- cess to some at least of the family records, that these emblems were ever used by the Fyttons indeed, they say little of them; their presence on the dress of the lady on the right in the double portrait makes it particularly improbable to claim her as a daughter of the Fyttons, and especially as a younger daughter. The question is yet open for elucidation, and the decisive evidence of the palm and holly must be left here uninterpreted. A list of Lady Anne Newdigate's feminine cor- respondents and friends would be of advantage in this search, and might perhaps be given to the public. Two other of her most intimate friends, who might perhaps have been represented in the double portrait, and not Mistress Mildred Cooke, are, first, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Neville, 148 ^fjafesfpeare'g ^onnctjf Lord Abergavenny, and wife of Sir John Grey, of Groby. Groby is in Leicestershire, ^}4 miles from Leicester, and distant, in a direct Hne, sixteen miles northeast from Arbury. "The Manor was the birthplace of Lady Jane Grey (i 537-1 554), who was Queen of England for thirteen days." {Bar- tholomew's Gazetteer, 1893.) The other of the two ladies was also Elizabeth, and was the wife of Sir John Ashburnham and daughter of Sir Thomas Beaumont. Sir Thomas, who married an heiress, had two residences, one at Stoughton Grange, Leicestershire, and the other, where he resided at times, at Bedworth, which lies two miles southeast from Arbury, two and a half miles by road. Anne is mentioned in her correspondence as visiting there, and seems to have been on most friendly terms with the family. At least seven families have at some time borne holly leaves on their es- cutcheons, but to connect them with the friends of Anne Fytton requires fortunate research, viz., Worthington, Woodward, Weston, Aernest, Hussey , Hollingworth, and Moody or Mody. (Glover's Ordinary of Arms, Appendix to Edmondson, vol. i; Aubrey's Wiltshire, Part i, p. 25.) Badges were usually painted or embroidered on banners, liver- ies of soldiers, followers and retainers, etc.; they were distinct from and independent of the coat ^tafejfpeare'ji bonnet j; 149 armour. Badges were greatly in vogue in England from the reign of King Edward I until that of Queen Elizabeth, when they fell into disuse. (J. Edmondson, A Complete Body of Heraldry, vol. i, p. 189, London, 1780.) The holly was the badge of Clan Drummond, we are told. The Scottish coat of Irvine of Drum bears holly leaves. (J. Woodward, Treatise on Heraldry, vol. i, p. 337.) The evidence amounts to nothing. An inquiry at the College of Arms, London, as to Miss Mildred Cooke, Lady Grey and Lady Ashburnham, has had the following courteous answer: The mother of Mildred Cooke was Frances Grey, daughter of John Grey, brother of the Duke of Suffolk. I do not think either holly or palm fit in with this Mil- dred. Her descent was roughly as follows: I. Philip Cooke, married Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Henry Belknape. IL Sir John Cooke, married Alice, daughter and heiress of Sir William Saunders of Ban- bury. IIL Sir Anthony Cooke, married Anne Fitz- William. IV. William Cooke, married Frances Grey. V. Mildred Cooke. It is difficult to speak with cer- tainty about badges. Not all families bore them, nor is it certain that all are recorded as in the case of Arms, though many are. The arms and crest of the Maxeys were talbots' heads. I know of no badge. The Greys, of course, did not bear either holly or palm. The Fitz- Williams bore a trefoil as a badge. It could hardly be mistaken for holly, I should think. The Saunders bore elephants' heads in their arms and crest. The Bel- 150 ^f)afes;peare*s; bonnets: knapes bore a lizard as a badge. I cannot see how either holly or palm could come in here. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Beaumont, and wife of Sir John Ashburnham, seems to me to present more possibilities. The crest of the Ashburnhams was an ash tree out of a coronet, and the Beaumonts are said to have born a badge of a broom cod (though I cannot trace here any definite authority for it). The broom cod has somewhat the semblance of palm, and if the holly might, perchance, be ash, the identifica- tion seems possible, though I think it must be taken with reserve. The Beaumonts had a Plantagenet de- scent, which may have accounted for their use of the broom, if a fact. I cannot find any record of either holly or palm used as a badge at that period, nor can I trace the descent of any of the three ladies you name, so far as I have been able to find them from our rec- ords, to any family who bore either holly or palm in their arms, certainly as regards direct descent; of course the female descent of every family spreads indefinitely, and it would be impossible even in a life- time to trace all the ramifications of all the females. But taking the more immediate descent, and the probability that the badges (if they be such), refer to the male descent, or at most to an immediate female ancestor, I think the suggestion I have given affords the only possible clue out of the three ladies whose names you give me to work on; but I repeat that you cannot regard the matter as absolutely proved, even if the badges, when examined, can be read into the pro- posed form. It cannot be put higher than conjecture, with a reasonable possibility, taking into considera- tion all the circumstances. ^fjafesfpearc's! ^onnetJS 151 Mr. Bridgeman observes that Mildred (Cooke), Lady Maxey, could not have been painted on the double portrait because she "was baptized at Rom- ford in September, 1573, so that in 1592 [the date painted on the double portrait] she would have been in her nineteenth not her fifteenth year," thus not according with the age, fifteen, given to the subject of the portrait by the inscription, but if the maker of the inscription thought that her portrait was that of Mary Fytton the argument is beside the question. Her greater age than Anne's accords with the appearance of the faces of the two ladies in the double portrait. Mr. Bridgeman makes a point of the "a priori probability" that if two girls are painted together they are related; a probability, it is conceded, but not a certainty. Two young women, if intimate friends, might be represented in a picture together. If Mildred Cooke, Anne's future neighbour, or any other in- timate friend, was visiting Anne at Gawsworth, Anne might think it proper to be represented in a picture with her. Lady Ashburnham and many other ladies ad- dressed Anne as "Sister," as was the fashion of the time {Gossip from a Muniment Room, the Fytton Letters, ist ed.,pp. 50, 124, 135; Meas. for Meas., I, iv, 47; M. N. Dream, III, ii, 199) ; another of her 152 ^i)aksiptavt*si ^onneti "intimate" friends was Margaret, Lady Hoby, daughter of Lord Hunsdon; she had a large ac- quaintance among her own sex, one among them of general interest being the unfortunate Lady Arabella Stuart, of the blood royal, later a victim of State policy. The evidence inclines to the theory, furthermore, that she was one of the young ladies who are contented with and fond of their girl friends, as she did not leave her father's house for that of her young husband, to whom she had been married in childhood, until she was twenty- one or twenty- two years old. One of Anne's characteristics, therefore, seems to have been her disposition to friendships with other ladies, and this strengthens the probability that the lady painted in the portrait with her was one of her many friends instead of her sister, Mary Fytton. Moreover, Mary, in her girlhood, did not live at Arbury, in Warwickshire, whither her sister did not go until after the picture had been painted. Mary lived at her father's house, at Gawsworth, in Cheshire, and as the picture was doubtless taken by Anne to her husband's house, at Arbury, when she entered upon her married life there, no inference can be made from its appearing on the walls of Arbury to the effect that it is a portrait of Mary; if it was a portrait of one of Anne's girl friends, it ^fjafejfpeare's; ^omtetBi 153 would inevitably go with her to Arbury ; as Mary did not live at Arbury but at Gawsworth, the ab- sence of any portrait of her at Arbury does not call for an explanation. Looking at the particular circumstances of the case, if there had been ever any portraits of Mary Fytton, of the larger and ceremonial kind, at Arbury, they might and un- questionably would have been banished from the family gallery and put out of sight, and this would also make it rather more probable that the por- traits which are there today, especially the second and single portrait in Court dress, are not of her. There is no compelling reason apparent for regard- ing the double portrait as a portrait of two sisters excepting the inscription alone, and when the very considerable evidence, both within and dehors the portrait, and opposing the inference that the in- scription was cotemporary with the portrait, is considered, our conclusion as to the inscription appears to be not only sound, but to resemble also that reached as to the other elements of the por- trait, the conclusion that the picture did not repre- sent the two sisters, and besides, the evident dis- agreement between the inscription, which refers to the Fytton sisters, and the portrait, which does not bear the inscription out at all, shows of itself that the inscription was later than the portrait, 154 ^fjafegpearc's; ^ormttfi and also mistaken as to one of the ladies repre- sented. Lady Anne Newdigate's bequest to one of her daughters, Lettice, of "my tablet with my sister picture in it," as the phrase appears in her Will, is, at the present time, indefinite in its description, but Mr. Bridgeman presses the point a little. As she speaks of "my" picture, she so distinguished it from the others which her late husband. Sir John, had doubtless made a disposition of by his Will, they ordinarily following the estate to the heir. It is very likely that the "tablet" in question was some combination, a fanciful article, akin to the "gownes, petticoats, Jewells" and other valuables, possibly the paraphernalia, not mentioned for us in further detail in the quotation from the Will in the Fytton Letters, and which were divided among the five children, probably a miniature, and the subject of a special bequest. Various similar, in- deed almost identical, instances of the use of the word "tablet" in connection with miniatures, will be found in the mention of the accounts of George Heriot (he is remembered in The Fortunes of Nigel), of Edinburgh, goldsmith to James I and his Queen, in the Morgan Catalogue of Miniatures, vol. i, p. 52. Lady Newdigate speaks as though there were but one object to which her words could be ^fjafesfpearc'g ^onneW 155 applied. A miniature of Queen Elizabeth is said to have been "mounted in a box." (Williamson's History of Portrait Miniatures, vol. i, p. 12.) Another of Sir Kenelm Digby and Lady Digby (1633), "is set in gold, richly inlaid with flowers in enamel, and shuts like a book." {Ibid., p. 30.) It is certainly possible that the "tablet with my sister picture in it" was something of this kind. But it is plain that Lady Newdigate would not usually have a power of disposition over the easel portraits, and that the "tablet" therefore stood on a different footing from them, and was accurately described in the clause in her Will. The bequest, then, was of a portrait of Mary, but not a part of the gallery at Arbury ; this portrait, whose existence is known only through this refer- ence to it in the Will, must have perished through neglect or indifference, or through accident, or have been lost to sight in some way, as otherwise it would have been a bar to the mistake made in later years in respect to Mary's likeness in the double portrait. The customary fate of old por- traits is described by Dr. Propert, in his History of Miniature Art, p. 41, quoting Horace Walpole. Horace Walpole's paragraph on "the gradual de- cay and removal of family pictures " is a vivid one, and is especially applicable to portraits or minia- 156 ^fjafegpeare'fii ^onneW tures which have no family value to recommend them. {Anecdotes of Painting, Wornum's ed., vol. ii, p. 656.) A miniature valued as little as Mary's was likely to be, after her sister's death, or a combination of portrait and "tablet," would have no kindly fate ; it might have been taken back by Mary after Lettice' death in 1625, unmarried, and after Anne's death in 161 8, and have disap- peared or have been neglected or ruined in many ways. Mr. Tyler's investigations have shown that the monumental effigies of the Fytton family, in Gaws- worth Church, Cheshire, representing the Fytton family, among them Lady Fytton, seated and leaning her head on her hand, her daughter, Anne, and her second daughter, Mar^' Fytton, both kneeling, are statues coloured originally to re- semble life, in which opinion Mr. Bridgeman seems to concur. Mr. Tyler declares that Mary Fytton 's statue has, or had, black hair and eyes as has the lady of the sonnets. Mr. Bridgeman, who takes a different view, says: "I do not dispute the fact that, so far as any traces of colouring remain on the monument, Mary Fitton's hair and complexion appear to be distinctly darker than they are shown in the pictures," but he ascribes this colour to "the dust and grime of centuries," a statement which is positively traversed by Mr. Tyler, and in which he is to some extent, as we have seen, followed by Dr. Furnivall. The statue is, beyond doubt, authentic. The spectator clearly recognizes in this effigy the clever and forward type of lady to which Mary Fytton belonged ; the statues, as they were coloured, were certainly intended, at least, to be semblances of the originals. The sculptor succeeded in his attempted semblance of Anne, as we can see by comparing that statue with her portraits. The portraits called Mary Fytton's at Arbury, in Warwickshire, have blue-grey eyes and brown hair, and show that Mary Fytton was not the origi- nal of the " Dark Lady." But that they are like- nesses of Mary Fytton is well contested by Mr, Tyler, and an attempt in the same direction is made in these pages. Her sister, Anne, in the double portrait, according to Lady Newdegate, "has dark hair and eyes and arched eyebrows." There are three other portraits, which appear to give the same record of her, at Arbury. The controversy appears in Lady Newdegate' s Gossip from a Muniment Room, the Fytton Letters, 2d ed., London, 1898, with an Appendix by Mr. C. G. O. Bridgeman, and in Mr. Tyler's The Herbert- Fytton Theory: a Reply, London, 1898, with a photograph of the statues at Gawsworth, and in his 158 ^j)aypeare*fi; ^onnctsi edition of the sonnets. Plays upon Mary Fytton's story are: "Shakspeare and his Love," by Frank Harris, with an introduction (London, 1910); "The Dark Lady of the Sonnets," by G. Bernard Shaw, published in a book with " Misalliance" and "Fanny's First Play," and with observations upon the Arbury portraits (Brentano, New York, 1914); and "Mary, Mary," by George Gordon (C. C. Baldwin), in a book entitled Airy Nothings, or What You Will (New York, 191 7). If we were to indite a play on the subject of this Note, we might be led to introduce a scene in which the poet, on one of his visits to Warwickshire called on Mary at Arbury in 1602, a final visit, — in the absence of theNewdigates — and we would bring them before the double portrait, and saying of it : S. Who is that with your sister? M. That is a relative of the Cecils, Mildred Cooke, she was, a great friend of my sister's, married now. S. No doubt it is much valued by Mrs. Newdigate. M. Not for the artist. S. Who was he? M. Some one staying at. Macclesfield, I think; I for- get his name. They did it on impulse, but Anne thinks the world of it now. S. The world does not insure portraits that stay unlabelled. ^i)afe£^peare*fl; ^omtetsi 159 M. I believe there is a paper on its back with the names, but it must be ten years old now, and I do not know if the paper is there. It is improbable that any such incident ever took place, and perhaps we violate the best can- ons of historical play-writing in suggesting it, but if it can bring before the reader more clearly our theories as to this portrait, and its origin, it will have fulfilled its purpose. Arbury, in the Eigh- teenth-Nineteenth Century, is described as "Che- verel Manor" in Mr. GilfiVs Love Story; Sir Roger Newdigate, the identifier of the portraits of 1768, is Sir Christopher Cheverel ; the novelist was born on the estate. MISCELLANEOUS POINTS Mistress Mary Fytton seems, in 1598 or 1599, to have become, perhaps, one of the subscribers to an undertaking by one of the members of Shak- speare's Company to dance the Morris from Lon- don to Norwich; at all events, she was selected by him for the dedication of the book in which he re- i6o ^fjafesfpeare'fi! bonnets; counted this memorable exploit. The book is William Kempe's Nine dales Wonder, Performed in a daunce from London to Norwich (London, 1600), dedicated: To the True Ennobled Lady, and his most bountifull Mistris, Mistris Anne Fitton, Mayde of Honour to the most sacred Mayde, Royall Queene Elizabeth. This is a merry book. Kempe is remembered in Shakspearean annals as, at that time, the Clown, jig-maker, and player of Low Comedy parts in the Lord Chamberlain's, that is, Shak- speare's Company. His book tells us: On "the first mundaye in Lent," 1599, 1 "began frolickly to foote it from the right honorable the Lord Mayor's of London towards the right Worshipfull (and truely bountifull) Master Mayor's of Norwich," covering the distance, about one hundred miles, in nine days, not continuously. The reader will be interested to know that his route lay through Rom- ford, Chelmsford, Braintree, Sudbury, Bury St. Edmunds, Thetford and Hingham, and that he was attended sometimes by hundreds of people, some dancers among them volunteering to put on the bells as Morris dancers (II Hen. VI, III, i, 366), and join him in his very rapid forward dance to pipe and tabor. He describes the journey in ample §^f)a!k9ipttivt*si B>ormttfi i6i detail. His "Epistle Dedicatorie" concludes as follows : But, in a word, your poore servant offers the truth of his progresse and profit to your honorable view: receive it, I beseech you, such as it is, rude and plaine, for I know your pure judgement lookes as soone to see beauty in a Blackamoore, or hear smooth speech from a Stammerer, as to finde anything but blunt mirth in a Morrice dauncer, especially such a one as Will Kemp, that hath spent his life in mad Jigges and merry jestes. Three reasons moove mee to make pub- lik this journey: one to reprove lying fooles I never knew; the other to comend loving friends, which by the way I daily found; the third to shew my duety to your honorable selfe, whose favours (among other bountifull friends) makes me (dispight of this sad world) judge my hart Corke and my heeles feathers, so that me thinkes I could flye to Rome (at least hop to Rome, as the old Proverbe is) with a morter on my head. In which light conceite I lowly begge pardon and leave, for my Tabrer strikes his huntsup, I must to Norwich: Imagine, noble Mistris, I am now setting from my Lord Mayor's, the houre about seaven, the morning gloomy, the company many, my hart merry. Your worthy Ladiships most unworthy servant William Kemp. As to the reference to a "Blackamoore," which has been made a matter of question, a reference which certainly should not occur in an address to IX 1 62 ^fiafejfpeare^g bonnets; a brunette, or to a lady of so dark a complexion as the identifiers of Mary Fytton with the "Dark Lady" think her to have had, as Kempe stated her name incorrectly in his dedication to her of the book, seeming to have confounded her name with that of her sister, of whom, also, he knew little, as that lady was then married, and had changed her family name, it may be properly inferred that his knowledge of her was distant, and only that of the generality of actors, and it is probable, there- fore, that he never thought at all of her complexion, when writing his book. While the names of ladies of position are often discussed, their complexions are far less heard of by the public. The book is evidence that Mistress Fytton was a name particu- larly known to Shakspeare's Company, whether through her portrayal as Rosaline, not long before, in Love's Labour's Lost, or because of her rumoured interest in their fellow-actor, Shakspeare, or through her general prominence, or in some other manner, the reader can consider from the evidence we have as to her life. Her selection among the other subscribers or contributors, or, if they are not implied by his words, and they certainly seem to be so, the selection of herself merely, to receive the dedication, indicates a preference of her, and by a member of Shakspeare's Company. If it were true ^ijafejfpeare'ji ^onnet£; 163 that there was that which made rumours of her run through the membership of the Company, the whispers of "lying fooles, " after the pubHcation of The Passionate Pilgrim, for instance, in the year before Kempe pubhshed his account of his trip, Kempe's allusion — as it is hard to assign limits to what so inveterate a jester might say — might be merely his unrestrainable habit of speech put in writing. But such an interpretation appears quite unnecessary. The word " Blackamoore " is an allusion used in the merry vein in which the book is written, and therefore had no personal intention, and his mistaking her baptismal name, and the conventional style of his more direct address to her, with his free manner of speech otherwise, indicate that his knowledge of her was distant and impersonal, and that he merely blundered in his characteristically outspoken address. Blacka- moors were still few in the days of Queen Elizabeth, alluded to as evidences of the outlying world of dis- covery and adventure, and this, of course, was the motive for Kempe's careless reference to them. Mary Fytton's sister was, as we know, Anne, but not Anne Fitton, as she had been married long before, by contract for thirteen, actually for about four or five years, and at that time, of course, was addressed by her husband's name, Newdigate, and 1 64 ^fjafesipeare's; bonnets; particularly in matters of form, such as this dedica- tion ; she was never a Maid of Honour, though from time to time she must have come to London, where her father had a house, and to the Court, and thus had been heard of by Kempe sufficiently to con- fuse her name with her sister's. She was assuredly of a dark complexion. The book, then, is evidence that Shakspeare's Company had heard of this Maid of Honour somewhat more than of the others, but very questionable evidence as to Mary's complexion. The book is clear evidence that Kempe had no personal acquaintance with her sister, Mrs. Newdigate, for when he alluded in his book to a Blackamoor, he could not have thought of her complexion. He might have known of Mary's complexion and not of her sister's, we ad- mit, but it is no less true that his knowledge of neither was accurate in respect to their names. While it is plain that there was an innuendo in his words, the best inference from the book, and from what little we know of him, and of his and of most other common actors' probable relations with the Court, is that he was not thinking about the lady's complexion at all when he wrote them, and that the references to a Blackamoor and to a Stammerer were only the studied expression in his writing of the tested and proved witticisms with ^tiafejfpeare'si ^otmeW 165 which he was wont to entertain his audiences, at times, in the theatres. A sonnet suitable for private reading only, and whose existence is all but positive proof that this series of sonnets was never intended by Shakspeare for publication, has been, with some reason, said to bear upon the question at issue, whether the "Dark Lady" was Mary Fytton. Shakspeare speaks, in the intimate sonnet, CLI, of a "triumph of love," and of her as his "triumphant prize," which would agree with an intrigue with a person- age of the Court, and it seems to be probable that he cites her name as if in fault, "thy name," i. e., Fitton. Mr. Tyler has discussed this matter in his edition of the sonnets, pp. 82, 313, referring to Cymbeline, IV, i, 6. In Ormerod's History of Cheshire (2d ed., London, 1882, vol. iii, p. 550), in speaking of the ruins of the old Hall of the Fyt- tons at Gawsworth, the author says : Over the door of the old hall is a carved representa- tion of the coat of Fitton, with sixteen quarterings, with a motto in a garter introducing the words fit ONUS LEVE in allusion to the name. A Latin inscription under the sculpture records that it was made at Galway in Ireland, ' * Galviae in 1 66 ^fjafesfpeare'sf ^onnet£i Hibernia," in 1570 for Sir Edward Fyton, Lord President of the Council for Connaught and Tho- mond. He was also the "Treasurer at Wars, Vice- Treasurer and General Receiver" for Ireland, and he was paternal grandfather to Mary Fytton. Mr. J. A. Froude in his History of England (vol. x, p. 515), mentions him in a picturesque and character- istic circumstance. Sir Edward was one of the energetic and notable men of his day. There is a fine brass to him, mentioning also his wife and fifteen children, in St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dub- lin. (Ormerod, loc. cit.; Murray's Handbook for Ireland.) The allusion in the motto was perhaps to the duties of his office in Ireland, that is, that he was fit for them, and they a light burden, or, as a friend suggests, to whom the problem was put, that he was fit for his position, and his rule a light burden on Ireland. Literally it is : The burden is made light. Curious passages, playing on the word, occur in Love's Labour's Lost, IV, i, 131, 145, and see Twelfth Night, III, i, 21. On the Fytton monument in the church at Gaws- worth is a tablet with verses, concluding thus : Here's the blest man, his wife the fruitfull vine, The children th' olive plants, a gracefull line, Whose soule's and body's virtues sentence them FiTTONs, to weare a heavenly diadem. ^fjafejfpeare'jf ^onnetj^ 167 The punctuation and capitals are as given by Dr. Ormerod. The meaning of the last line is, of course, that the family were fit ones to wear the diadem. The reference is to the family of the first baronet. Sir Edward, Mary's brother, who had twelve children. Perhaps the name Mary gave to her horse, "Grey Fitton," which was kept for her in 1598 at the Queen's stables, was another instance of this play upon the name. (Cal. Salis. MSS., Part 8, p. 417.) There seems to be no reason to doubt that the name was punned on at times, and per- haps habitually, by the family, which would ex- plain Shakspeare's words, "thy name." Sir Edward Fytton, the father of Mary Fytton and son of the Sir Edward Fytton first mentioned, was also greatly interested in Ireland as patentee of 11,515 acres in Munster (the reader will be inter- ested to observe that there is a curious reference to Ireland, in connection with verse-writing to a lady, in As You Like It, III, ii, 187; Hamlet also, without necessity, invokes St. Patrick as witness to the trouble about him, I, v, 136), and he is said to have held office for some years as Lord President of Munster. (Earwaker's East Cheshire, vol. ii, p. 555.) He appears to have been a Member of ParHament; he was Mayor of Macclesfield in 1 68 fef)afejfpeare*£{ feonneW Cheshire ( 1 599- 1 602 ) . Gaws worth .where was the family residence, is a village about three miles S. W. of Macclesfield. It is said, however, that he was disappointed in not succeeding his father as Vice-Treasurer of Ireland; he seems not to have been so stirring a man. Sonnet CXLII criticises the lady of the sonnets, and perhaps refers in part to the circumstances upon which CLII, 1-4, is based. Line 8 of CXLII, if compared with his general portrait of the lady, and with CXL, 9-14, can best be taken with much reserve, and as pointing partly, perhaps, to the lady's indifferent treatment of her marriage en- gagements, and chiefly to her lover's family. The poet's disposition seems to have been toward jealous and severe utterances, as in CXXXVII, 6, which rather refers to a common inclination toward all men, or, more precisely, to his "over-partial looks" as having been placed in competition with those of others, than to anything more serious. The same undue reproach is found in his violent words in CXLVII, 14, in all probability not as yet quite justified, and in the jealous censures of CXXXI, 13, and CXLVIII, 14. From the point of view of an interpretation of the sonnets as if addressed to Mary Fytton, there is no doubt that §bf)akiptaxt*9i ^tmmti 169 the poet was too severe, but also that he had cause for his reproaches, for he was not the only one who questioned the lady's conduct, as we shall see further on. In The Passionate Pilgrim (No. i), occurs a variant or draught of CXXXVIII, containing the following quatrain : But wherefore says my love that she is young ? And wherefore say not I that I am old? O, love's best habit is a soothing tongue, And age, in love, loves not to have years told. The first line has been changed in the later ver- sion of the Quarto, as follows : But wherefore says she not she is unjust ? And wherefore say not I that I am old? O, love's best habit is in seeming trust. And age, in love, loves not to have years told. The phrase "that she is young," which has some- times been thought to show that the "Dark Lady" was past her youth, can be understood when we remember that Mary Fytton became twenty years old in June, 1598, the year in which the sonnet was probably written, Shakspeare himself being at the time thirty-four, and the line therefore can be taken as a gentle reminder of the interesting cir- 170 ^f)a'kiptaxt*i ^mntti cumstance. The lady's lack of explicitness in the version in The Passionate Pilgrim, is as to her age; in the version in the Quarto it is turned as to his age exclusively, the original statement referring to her age having been changed, it may be, because of its publication in The Passionate Pilgrim, or, per- haps, independently of that publication, through general principles of reserve. Lord Herbert prob- ably came to Court in June, 1598, and therefore about at the date of this sonnet, which was accord- ingly one of the earlier of the series, and unaffected by his influence, as was CLI, and this is confirmed by both its manner and its matter. The sonnets to the "Dark Lady" are strange sonnets for so great a man, but they will seem to be so only until their author's mind, the direct habit of speaking of the day, and the involved circum- stances of the case, are taken into account. It is most unlikely that they were published on his initiative, or that they were circulated in MS. at all. They are easy to censure, and yet there breathes through them a spirit of self-reproach that in part redeems them, and redeems their writer from the imputation, if any should attempt to bring it, of moral indifference. The moral struggle, which is so plainly evident, raises them far above ^tafejipeare's; bonnets; 171 the mere verses of animal passion of which there were many in the days of the EngHsh Renaissance, but from which class of writing they are widely separated. More and more enamoured, and un- able for more than one reason to marry, he was for a time overborne by his passion, and these sonnets are a record of his romance and of his regret, a record of regret basing itself on facts, and coming, as we may think, in true Shakspearean manner, to an unshakable conclusion. No man who has studied the bright row of Shakspeare's heroines, from Juliet to Perdita, Miranda and Imogene, can understand him as other than a respecter of womanhood. As to Antony and Cleopatra, if any one of his plays is his masterpiece, in respect to his general ability, it is this. The first scene, in which he moves with ease in a gigantic power, the passage where Cleopatra makes Antony a mock reverence — "I'll seem the fool I am not; Antony will be himself." — is written in a very great style; you cannot match it, in that respect, in Othello or in Hamlet. It is true that we cannot sympathize with Antony as we can with Othello or Hamlet, still less with Cleopatra, but for consummate mastery in tragedy, this play bears the palm. The man who can understand and read the last part of this drama 172 ^Ijafesfpeare'g bonnets; and not be affected by it, does not live, or, if he lives, we do not envy him. A possible prototype for Cleopatra is perhaps to be found in the lady addressed in the following sonnet : O, from what power hast thou this powerful might With insufficiency my heart to sway? To make me give the lie to my true sight, And swear that brightness doth not grace the day ? Whence hast thou this becoming of things ill, That in the very refuse of thy deeds There is such strength and warrantise of skill, That, in my mind, thy worst all best exceeds? Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor. With others thou shouldst not abhor my state: If thy unworthiness raised love in me. More worthy I to be beloved of thee. Sonnet CL. Mary Fytton, in her appearance in her statue, in what we know of her life, and, as far as our knowledge extends, and it is considerable, in her characteristics, closely resembles this lady and in no way differs from her, unless we rely upon the incorrectly inscribed portrait claimed to be of her at Arbury. Sir William Knollys, Mary's lover, as we shall see further on, would have approved of every word in this sonnet as a description of her. In looking at the statue, the words arise in the memory, "Where's my serpent of old Nile?" for the type is there, permanent in stone. The play might be called "Cleopatra," for she is by far the leading character in the play. If we entertain the speculation that Antony's ruin by Cleopatra should find its origin in Shakspeare's ruin at Court by Mary Fytton, we base conjecture on conjecture, and a speculation, though not wholly devoid of basis, it must remain. Several identifications of the lady of the sonnets, other than with Mary Fytton, have been made recently, for instance, with Mrs. Davenant of Oxford, Mrs. Field of London, a Moorish hostess in Southwark, or the goddess Fortuna, and there is always in the background the theory that we have no record or remembrance of her at all. Serious evidence to support any one of these identifications seems not yet to have been put forward. It is not surprising that it should be difficult to identify the lady to whom the "Dark Lady" sonnets were ad- dressed. After three centuries, or after only a few years had passed, a love-affair or intrigue, which did not result in marriage, and which was kept from public attention, would not usually leave many traces. Beyond the sonnets themselves, which were not intended for circulation, the record consists only of scattered fragments of evidence, 174 ^fjafesipeare'jf B>onntii and these must be studied together if we would have any probable theory as to who the lady was. Sonnet CLII, the last sonnet of the "Dark Lady" series, as they appear in the Quarto, has in its third line a statement which is apparently in- applicable to a young, unmarried woman. In loving thee thou know'st I am forsworn, But thou art twice forsworn, to me love swearing; In act thy bed-vow broke, and new faith torn, In vowing new hate after new love bearing. But why of two oaths' breach do I accuse thee, When I break twenty! I am perjured most; For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee, And all my honest faith in thee is lost. The answer to this difficulty is a strong confirma- tion of the theory that Mary Fytton was the lady so unmeasuredly reproached. The words seem to be an allusion to Mary Fytton's exact status in respect to her marriage engagements at the mo- ment. She had on her hands, as the records seem to show, two existing engagements to marry. In Lord Salisbury's Calendar of Manuscripts occurs a letter written by Sir Edward Fytton, Mary's father, to Sir Robert Cecil, the Secretary of State, asking his intervention in a question arisen between Sir Edward and the Vice-Treasurer of Ireland. It seems from the letter that a marriage portion for Mary had at some time been lodged with Sir Henry Wallop, the then Vice-Treasurer, and that its return was now requested, but that the request had been evaded by Sir Henry Wallop's son and suc- cessor in office, Henry Wallop, on the ground that Sir Edward's or Mary's acquittance would not be sufficient. It may be taken that the Vice-Treas- urer feared that the once intended bridegroom might still come forward and press his claim for it. Mary, very likely, had been married, as was her sister, Anne, in childhood, and the match after- wards disapproved and put aside. The letter, in the abbreviated but substantially complete form in which it has been given to the public, reads {Hist. MSS. Com., Salis. MSS., Part 10, p. 18) : Good Mr. Secretary, help my daughter to her por- tion, which has been so long in Sir Henry Wallop's hands. If you would send for Mr. Wallop and ask whether he has not good discharge for the same and such as Mr. Treasurer, his father, himself desired, you would see his evasions; without this my poor daughter will be much hindered; wherefore I commend her cause to your protection. Gawsworth, Jan. zg \i6oo\. The letter appears in its original form in Mr. Tyler's edition of the sonnets (p. 86), with the date, January 29, 1599, and the original letter is so en- 176 ^fjafegpcare's; ^orntets; dorsed, but the endorsement meant, at the time when it was made, and as it would be written at present, January 29, 1600. As Sir Henry Wallop, long time Vice-Treasurer, died in office, April 14, 1599, and was directly succeeded in office by his son, Henry Wallop, and as this change in office is referred to in the letter, the date of the letter, as endorsed, must be January 29, 1 599-1 600, that is, January 29, 1600, according to our present system for the commencement of the year. The letter is dated by Sir Edward only January 29th. His omission of the year is not very material, however, as the following, second, letter is fully dated in 1600. As the sonnet in question was probably written in or just before 1599, the year in which Sonnet CXLIV was published, this engagement or marriage, when the sonnet was written, was still in existence, and the bridegroom probably still living, for a difficulty could in 1600 be made, as appears by the letter, about cancelling the financial ar- rangement. This still pending matrimonial en- gagement may then account for the poet's bitter and angry reproof, "In act thy bed- vow broke." It seems clear that the phrase, ' ' In act thy bed-vow broke," implies a limitation, and this qualification of the broken vow corresponds with Mary's situa- tion, for while the vow was broken in act, it was ^})afes!peare*s; ^onnetjl 177 still broken in respect to an inchoate and incom- plete childhood's contract only, which had not attained the full estate of marriage, and also could be put aside and broken off if it proved desirable to do so. There is a further letter in Lord Salisbury's collection from Sir Edward Fytton to Sir Robert Cecil, of August 5, 1600, in which the negotiation or the dispute as to the dowry is described prob- ably as in course of settlement {ibid., p. 265) : I find by my daughter how much I am maligned by some of whom I have far better deserved; . . . if I prove not innocent of all devices, gain or deceits, even so far as my dearest have thought me too friendly with them that deal now thus with me, let me be disgraced. But I account myself most happy to be heard before your Honours, . . . My daughter in her love writes she wishes my present attendance to purge myself; but I hold it more fit to be sure to meet my accuser face to face, where I hope my innocency shall free me, and therefore I will stay until I may know your pleasure whether I shall come until my adversary be present. I have sent up my bills, wherein Sir Henry Wallop stands in debt to me in £1200, which I have assigned to my daughter Mary, and by direction have sent them into Ireland, there to have them viewed and allowed by the Commissioners lately there, to the end they might have all their dues, as is by your Honours or- dered. I now beseech you to stand good to her, and further that Sir Henry Wallop may give her her due. Gawsworth, 5 August, 1600. 13 Henry Wallop seems to have been recently- knighted ; he was probably one among the numer- ous knights made by Essex during the Irish cam- paign of 1599 (Chamberlain's Letters, Camden So- ciety, notes, pp. 5 and 60) ; that he was called "Mr. Wallop" in the letter of January 29, 1600, was per- haps an oversight of Sir Edward's. What was the final termination of the dispute has not been brought to light — it was probably settled out of Court in the succeeding year of public scandal — but it is abundantly clear that there was a matri- monial entanglement of Mary's which might ac- count for one of the broken oaths of the sonnet. An explanation of the second oath-breach re- ferred to in the sonnet is made possible for us by Lady Newdegate's publication of the letters of the Fytton family, the letters written to Anne (Fytton), Lady Newdigate, the sister of Mary. The young lady's permitted, but scarcely permissible, rela- tion to her quasi-parental, married admirer, Sir William Knollys — which is touched on further on in this Note — being considered, it is only necessary to admit, and it seems quite clear, that she, before the sonnet was written, had more or less pledged herself to him, to interpret the phrase in the sonnet, "and new faith torn," as meaning this second engagement, which the poet charged her with hav- ^f)afes;peare*sf bonnets! 179 ing contracted and then broken. The "vowing new hate" might well apply to the elderly and married lover, for it meets his pretensions exactly. The old hate, which is implied in the phrase "new hate," will mean her first dislike to his advances; the "new love bearing" will refer to the inception of her engagement to Sir William. The word "faith," it may be observed, is ciiriously accurate in its application to the relation between Mary and Sir William. Her "two oaths' breach" then would mean her breaking both her earlier and her later engagement, which were coexistent, under the stress of her attachment to the poet, as it is repre- sented in the sonnets. Lord Herbert's growing in- fluence, independently of that of Shakspeare, upon her attitude toward Sir William, her hate or her acceptance, should, however, be kept in mind in reading and interpreting the sonnet, and especially in understanding the towering passion in which Shakspeare seems to have written it. This is not inconsistent with his attitude toward Lord Herbert at other times, whose power and position he, of necessity, courted (Sonnet XLI) ; at this time he expressed his anger. Lord Herbert's connection with her attitude toward Sir William is probable, as Sir William's position appears to have improved during the future Earl's absence from Court from i8o ^f)akiptavt*i ^onmti November, 1599, to March, 1600. If this view of the sonnet is taken as accurate, there must have been such a degree of "faith" estabhshed between Mary and Sir WilHam as early as 1599, or perhaps a Httle earHer, as to give a basis for Shakspeare's charge of breach of faith, and this condition of "faith" seems to have existed, according to the passages from Sir WilHam 's letters given below. The elements do not exist for precisely dating the sonnet within a number of months ; the earlier part of 1599 seems to be the more probable time for it. A paraphrase of the third and fourth lines of the sonnet would, upon this theory of them, be : Thy bed-vow to thy still contracted husband broken in act, and thy new faith to old Sir William torn, torn in vowing to me a renewal of thy hate of him, and after bearing to him thy new love. It is true that Sir William does not, in his letters, assert in terms any contract entered into by the young lady in respect to him, but it is not probable, on the other hand, that the engagement either was, or could be, anything but a loose pledge, subjecting him to the anxiety which he seems throughout to have felt, according to his letters, and also it is not likely, in view of his position as a married man, that he would be explicit on paper as to the terms of his engagement. As to what he does write. ^fjafegpeare'g ^ottneW i8i which is more than frank as to his wishes, he refers to the advisabiHty of "crying silence," and in a letter written in a moment of happiness, he ex- presses a preference for oral communications. In the last of his letters quoted in this Note, an under- standing, such as it was, seems to be unmistakably implied, and as clearly as was allowed by his un- certain position, especially the words, "but both she and I must have patience, and that will bring peace at the last." The whole correspondence of agitations and fears should be studied, particularly Sir William's attitude of hesitation and the lady's coolness, even after the catastrophe, and also his last words, "but I am pleased since she will have it so." It cannot be doubted that there is at least some reason for the prevalent impression, as it appears in the books, that the "Dark Lady" was Mary Fytton. If, by the light of what little information we have, we can so interpret the phrases of the sonnet as to produce an exact and well-supported explanation of them, we have done all that can be done in a complex of courtship which is now so remote, and which was probably, even at the time, fully understood by very few people. It must be remembered that Lord Herbert was for less than three years at the Court of Queen 1 82 ^Ijafejfpeare'js bonnets! Elizabeth, and although he may have had in that time, besides his affair with Mary Fytton, another with an unknown lady, one in which he displaced Shakspeare, and which is recorded in the sonnets, the general probabilities are much against such a display of energy, and it would take some evidence to establish it, evidence which is not at all forth- coming. There is evidence of one lady who pursued Lord Herbert, and was pursued by him, during that time, and if Mary Fytton, who was that lady, can be connected, as she appears somewhat to be, with the lady of the sonnets, the probability that Lord Herbert and Mary Fytton are the two leading persons mentioned by Shakspeare in the "Dark Lady" sonnets is certainly very decided. THE FYTTON LETTERS A point still remains which has been already al- luded to and is of some weight, based upon the cotemporary correspondence in the Fytton Letters. Mistress Mary Fytton, on first arriving at Court as a young Maid of Honour, she was then seven- ^ijafejjpeare's! ^onnetjs 183 teen years old, was provided with a powerful friend there. Sir William KnoUys, a friend of her father's, seems to have undertaken to advise and watch over her, promising his sword in her defense ; he was prominent at the Court, a cousin once re- moved of the Queen's on her mother's side, uncle to the Earl of Essex, joint Lieutenant of Oxford- shire and Berkshire in which counties he had pos- sessions, and at that time the incumbent of the office of Comptroller of the Royal Household, later on its Treasurer, at last becoming Earl of Banbury. Sir William was fifty years old and over when he offered his services in Mary's behalf, and also a married man; his wife was Dorothy, widow of Edmund Brydges, Lord Chandos, an heiress, and older even than Sir William. His advisory office toward the young lady, however, was changed into a persevering love-suit to her, limited as it was by the continued existence of his wife, and he con- fided his passion to Mary's sister, in a series of letters, undated but paralleling Mary's career, and which, from the unusual circumstances in which they were written, and their bearing upon the controversy as to Mary Fytton, are highly interest- ing. The sister was Anne, Mrs. Newdigate, of whose husband Sir William was a connection. As having a wife of his own, his letters are, for the 1 84 ^fjafeJ^peare'jf ^onnete most part, rather general than specific, and even to this correspondent, Mary's sister, he is silent, at least in his correspondence, as to his definite proposals, the extent of their acceptance, and their appropriate provisos and limitations. He writes in one of the earlier letters: Honorable La. As God hath blessed you with en- crease, so blessed be you ever & ffreed ffrom all dys- contents, & though myself can not but be now uppon the stage & playe hys part who ys [is] cloyed with to much & yeat readye to starve ffor hunger. My eyes see what I can not attayne to, my eares heare what I doe scant beleve, & my thoughtes are caryed with con- trarye cortceipts. My hopes are myxt with dispayre & my desyres starved with expectation, but wear [were] my enjoying assured, I could willinglye endure purga- torye ffor a season to purchase my heaven at the last. But the short warning, the distemperature off my head by reason off the toothake, & your syster's going to bed without bydding me godnight, will joyne in one to be a meanes that ffor this tyme I will onlye troble you with these ffew lynes skribled in hast, and wishing you all happynes, a good delyverye off your burden, and your syster in the same case justiffyable, I leave you to God's good protectyon, myself to your dearest syster's true love, & hyr [her] to a constant resolution to love hym onlye who cannot but ever love hyr best, and thus with my best salutations I will ever remayne Your most assured ffrend, I would fayne saye brother, W. Knollys. ^fjafesipeare'ji ^onneW 185 The phrases "your sister in the same case justi- fiable," plainly referring to Mrs. Newdigate's ex- pected maternity, and afterwards, "to love him only," as also, "my ears hear what I do scant be- lieve, and my thoughts are carried with contrary conceits," are worth considerable attention, as they were evidently written early in 1598, the year when, probably in June, Lord Herbert came first to the Court. {Hist. MSS. Com., Salis., Part 8, p. 219.) Mrs. Newdigate's eldest daughter and first child was born May 7, 1598. None other was born until 1600, and in the interval letters, evidently later in the series, were written. The third letter here quoted, that referring to the suc- ceeding baptism of Mrs. Newdigate's eldest child and daughter, was written probably in May or June, 1598. If the letter containing the phrases quoted really precedes the third letter in date, as it precedes it in the order in which the letters are published in the Fytton Letters, and it appears on all accounts to be in its proper place there, it refers to occurrences not connected with Lord Herbert. The reader may compare with these expressions of Sir William's, other expressions in sonnets be- lieved by us to have been written late in 1598 and in 1599, CXII and CXIX, and addressed to Lord Southampton after his return from France. The 1 86 ^f)afes;pearc*£{ ^onnetji point has a considerable bearing upon the question at issue in this Note. Perhaps the safe deduction from this evidence, and one more cautious, if we join to it Shakspeare's condemnation: "The more I hear and see just cause of hate," CL, lo, is that Mary was unusually given to questionable and reckless flirtation, but the evidence in any case accords with Shakspeare's criticism of the "Dark Lady." Sir William's allusion to the stage has a curious aptness for the theory that Mary had been attracted by one of the comedians, as his words were written before Lord Herbert arrived at the Court, and before the poet's interest in the lady could have been interfered with by that nobleman. The lady's perhaps abrupt departure for the night, without bidding good-night to her quasi guardian and admirer, will recall to the reader the old "hate," or dislike, implied in Sonnet CLII, 4. Mary's power as an enchantress seems to be plain. "Short warning" perhaps refers to a chance con- veyer of the missive. A following letter, as they succeed each other among the Fytton Letters, is, the spelling being, for readier reading, altered into that of the present day: Honorable sister (I cannot choose but call you so; because I desire nothing more than to have it so) : Your fair written letter, and more fairly indited, ^fjafegpeare's! ^onnetjS 187 I have received and read more than once or twice, seeking to find there which so much you endea- vour to put me in hope of. It is true that Win- ter's cold is the murderer of all good fruits, in which climate I dwell, and do account it as a pur- gatory allotted to me for my many offences com- mitted against the Highest, the rather because I am more observant and devoted unto his creature than to himself, from which to be delivered, since there is no means but the devout prayers and ori- sons of my good friends, let me entreat your fair self to pierce the heavens with your earnest and best prayers to the Eff ecter and Worker of all things for my delivery, and that once I may be so happy as to feel the pleasing comfort of a delightful Summer, which I doubt not will yield me the deserved fruit of my con- stant desires, which as yet no sooner bud by the heat of the morning sun but they are blasted by an untimely frost, so as in the midst of my best comforts I see nothing but dark despair. I could complain of For- tune which led me blindly into this barren desert where I am ready to starve for want of my desired food, and of myself that would suffer my reason to be betrayed by my will in following so bHnd a guide. But to all my wounds I will apply your plaster, which is patience, a virtue I must needs confess, but having in a sort lost her force because it is forced. Continue, I earnestly entreat you, your prayer for my delivery, and your best means for my obtaining that without the which I am not myself, having already given my best part to one whose I am more than mine own. But I must cry silence, lest I speak too loud, committing this secret only to yourself, to whom as I wish all 1 88 ^f)afe£;peare'£f ^onmti happiness and your own heart's desire, so I will ever remain Your most affectionate brother, W. KnOWLESS than I WOULD. It seems that Mary had fairly fascinated her elderly suitor; the "Winter's cold" was doubtless the lady's coldness rather than his existing mar- riage, and the "frost" was a part of the same climatic misfortune. In his last sentence the suitor seems to be impressed by the necessity of keeping a certain degree of silence, considering his already married state, while his correspondent decidedly encouraged him in his suit. The words "dark despair" seem to refer to alternations of favour and chilliness, and the witticism of his signature is not equalled every day. Sir William became godfather to Anne Newdi- gate's first child in 1598, and was represented at the ceremony of baptism by Sir Christopher Blount, his brother-in-law, Sir William being not present in person. He writes in his letter of acceptance : . . . but such is my bondage to this place as I have neither liberty to please myself nor satisfy my good friends' expectation, amongst which I must account you in the foremost rank, as well for your own worthiness as for being so nearly united both in nature and love to those which I honour much, and who may ^|)afegpearc*si ^onnctsi 189 more command me than all the world besides. But my thoughts of that party I will leave to be discovered, not by this base means of pen and paper, but by myself. Accept, I pray you, of my lawful excuse for not coming myself, assuring you that I will be ever ready to per- form any friendly duty to you; I have entreated my brother. Blunt, to supply my place in making your little one a Christian soul, and give it what name it shall please you. Imagine what name I love best, and that do I nominate, but refer the choice to yourself, and if I might be as happy to'be a father as a godfather I would think myself exceeding rich, but that will never be until one of your own tribe be a party player. The position of Sir William in his love-suit was most difficult, as he was not able to propose a present marriage. His words and his manner in writing of Mary in this letter are those of an encouraged though but a prospective lover; he doubtless thought that he could arrive at an under- standing which perhaps became established, so far as, in the nature of the case, any certain assurance was possible, between this and the succeeding letter, written much later, perhaps a year and a half, or nearly so. The child, in accordance with Sir William's wish, and no doubt with Mrs. Newdi- gate's wish, was named Mary; he also advised Mrs. Newdigate as to the proper manner of the nursing of her child. He therefore seems to have 190 ^fjafejfpcare's! ^onmin stood at this time on decidedly intimate terms with the family. Notwithstanding this tendency to closer relations, however, and his tentative suc- cess, which seems to have been allowed by the lady's family, and although he may have confided to them some sort of acceptance of his proposals, still the lady would not have readily given an un- qualified acceptance, which would have at once limited and compromised her, and it is probable therefore that no positive letter to that effect was ever written by him. The succeeding letter con- tains a reference to his nephew, the Earl of Essex, and his political overthrow : Fair Gossip, I must crave pardon for my so long silence, not grown by a negligent forgetfulness of so good a friend, but forced by a distraction I have had concerning the Noble Earl of Essex, which hath made me careless to satisfy myself or my friends. I leave to you to imagine the discomforts I take hereof, when your sister is fain to blame me for my melancholy and small respect of her who, when I am myself, is the only comfort of my heart. She is now well, and hath not been troubled with the mother [hysteria] of a long time. I would God I might as lawfully make her a mother as you are; I would be near both at Arbury to shun the many griefs which this place affordeth, and she should enjoy the company of the most loving and kind sister that ever I knew. My heart is so full of sorrow at this time for my Lord of Essex being danger- ously sick before his restraint as I am scant myself. . . ^f)afe)Efpeare*s; ^otmetsi 191 The letter shows Mary at this time requiring "respect" or attentions from Sir William, who thinks her "the only comfort of my heart," and it can be surely inferred that that anomalous re- lation toward her, a quasi acceptance as a suitor was established, and had continued for some length of time. He was a conquest worth retaining, and still had no claim on her. Possibly she had found more security with Lord Herbert by favouring Sir William. When this letter was written. Lord Herbert had just left, or was about to leave, the Court. As the Earl of Essex' illness under his censure and detention began in October, 1599 {Sidney Papers, Whyte to Sidney, Oct. 25 and Nov, 4> 1599). he even proposing to make his Will, the letter was written probably not very long after- wards. Lord Herbert left the Court November 29, 1599, remaining away for three months and more. Sir William's commendation of Anne as a loving and kind sister is in keeping with what ap- pears of her in respect to Mary later in life, and his reference to hysteria will be noted, in this con- nection, with due appreciation. The allusion to his nearness to Arbury refers, of course, to his lands in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, of which counties he was then joint Lieutenant, and later on Lord Lieutenant. He writes again : 192 B>H'k&ptavt*9i bonnets! , . . The best news I can send you is that your sister is in good health and going to the Court within two or three days, though I think she could be better pleased to be with her best sister upon some conditions. Her greatest fear is that while the grass groweth the horse may starve, and she thinketh a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand, [sic] But both she and I must have patience, and that will bring peace at the last. Thus, in some haste, with my best salutations to yourself, and my kindest blessing to my daughter, I wish you your heart's desire, and will remain ever Your faithful friend and gossip W. Knollys. The references in this letter to a more or less complete understanding between Sir William and Mary are quite unmistakable. The inversion of the proverb, "A bird in the hand," etc., is notable, and much as if Mary's chase after a difficult prize, it may be thought. Lord Herbert, had been ob- served by Sir William and bluntly commented on. She maintained this pursuit, or so Sir William sus- pected, notwithstanding her acceptance of him. The reader will compare, as to Mary's attitude in this matter. Sonnet CXLIII; the parallel is, to say the least of it, striking, for the resemblance of the simile in the sonnet and in the letter suggests with much probability that it may have been common in the current talk of the time. The "feathered creature" is Lord Herbert, as we think. Lord Her- bert, when this letter was written, was most prob- ably on the eve of returning to Court. The letter and the sonnet are not cotemporary ; the sonnet probably preceded the letter by a little over a year. The proverb as to the grass growing, with the words, "Her greatest fear," refer, of course, to Sir WilHam's existing marriage, and Mary's hesi- tation as to committing her prospects in that uncertain direction. The proverb, it will be remem- bered, is mentioned by Hamlet (HI, ii, 358)- So also, by the way, Ophelia mentions pansies, the Fyttons' flower, "that's for thoughts," the next words being, "A document [instruction] in mad- ness; thoughts and remembrance fitted," the rose- mary being for remembrance (IV, v, 176). The word "fitted" has a strange pertinence here, if this theory is true. Sir WilHam's anxious sentence, "But both she and I must have patience," etc., implies, beyond a doubt, that an understanding in some degree had arisen between them, and that the delay worried him. The letter speaks of her return to Court as about to happen, which dates it almost certainly after February 21, 1600, near which date Lady Sidney paid her a visit during her illness in London, as has been noted earlier in this abstract. Sir William also seems to have known of this lU- 13 194 ^fjafesipcare'g bonnets! ness, and to have been more or less present ; it was perhaps not very severe. This would date the letter during Lord Herbert's absence from Court, and that young nobleman's illness, when Sir William's suit might advance, as the letter sug- gests that it had, and when Mary seems to have been well enough to receive him, although she had felt compelled by it to leave the Court. The under- standing, however, seems to still date back far enough, when the letter next preceding this is also read, to account for one of the two broken pledges of Sonnet CLII. The letter now commented on, from the allusion to his god-daughter, was prob- ably written before the birth of Anne's second child, May 27, 1600, while the expectation of Mary's return to Court, mentioned in the letter, probably places it rather earlier than May. We can date the letter, most probably, in early March, 1600. There are also two letters by Sir William doubting his success, and one evincing a degree of distress ; the allusion to them is all that is necessary here. How exact seems to be Shakspeare's reference to him in these lines: Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy "Will," And "Will" to boot, and "Will" in overplus; Sonnet CXXXV, i. ^^afesJpearc's! ^ormcti 195 The elderly Sir William might well be called a surplusage among Mary's lovers. In an article which appeared in the Fortnightly Review imme- diately after the publication of the Fytton Letters (Mr. William Archer in The Case against South- ampton, December, 1897, p. 819), this evidence was considered as almost conclusive that the third "William" of the sonnet "appears manifestly in the person of Sir William himself," and it appears to us also as though the point were a very strong one. The allusion exactly suits him, and as there are three men named William mentioned in the sonnet, this Sir William supplies the third, the other two being Lord William Herbert and William Shakspeare, a solution which would quiet not a few doubts as to the persons referred to in these sonnets if it could be admitted as conclusive. There is also the even stronger point that Shaks- peare and the dedicatee of Sonnets XXXV, XL, and other sonnets of the sort, were lovers of the same lady, and if Lord Herbert is accepted as the dedicatee of those sonnets, the indications, es- pecially from his character and the character and probable date of those sonnets, much favour- ing that dedication, it is all but inevitable that Mary Fytton was the lady, there being no doubt as to his relation to her. Their relation, 196 ^fjafesfpeare'g bonnets; and the central date, 1599, established by The Passionate Pilgrim, together with the other frag- mentary evidence, here noted, go very far to estab- lishing them as two of the personages in the drama of Shakspeare's sonnets. If Lord Herbert is ac- cepted, Mary Fytton must almost certainly be accepted also, and, if the lady is accepted, so must Lord Herbert with her. Further, it cannot be doubted that there is an intrinsic likeness between the passage from Love's Labour's Lost (IV, iii, 258), added for Court per- formance, probably in 1597, and Sonnet CXXVII and their concurrence in date is certainly probable also. Adding to this indication the circumstance that Mary Fytton was then at the Court, and the decided resemblance between the characters of Rosaline, of the ' ' Dark Lady" and of Mary Fytton, and also the probable allusion to Mary's name in Sonnet CLI, the probable allusion to her age in the version in The Passionate Pilgrim of Sonnet CXXXVIII, and the markedly probable allusion to her matrimonial engagements in Sonnet CLII, also the similarity of the characteristics of the "Dark Lady" of the sonnets to the description, as far as it goes, of Mary Fytton in the letters of Sir William Knollys, the nearly certain concurrence of the date of these sonnets with the date of Sir ^l)afes;peare'£{ bonnets; 197 William's letters, and his seeming appearance twice in the sonnets (CXXXV, CLII), also her certain acquaintance with and seemingly observed pursuit of Lord Herbert, the nearly certain con- currence of the date of the "Dark Lady" sonnets with the time of that acquaintance, and the prob- able allusions to him in Sonnets CXLIII, XL, XLI, CXXXIV and elsewhere, we have a chain of evi- dence which, though not rising to strict proof, is still so consistent as, taken together, to lead us to choose Mary Fytton as the all but proved original of the "Dark Lady" of Shakspeare's sonnets. The tendency of the evidence is toward the con- clusion that Mary Fytton, Rosaline and the Lady of the Sonnet, Shakspeare's love and Lord Her- bert's rejected mistress, were all the same lady, and it is clearly more probable that Mary Fyt- ton was the original of the ' ' Dark Lady " than that she was not. The reader will judge for himself, on the evidence, which is not inconsiderable, whether this uncontrollable passion of the great poet's was given to one of the most fascinating and forward ladies of the Court, or, as is less Hkely, especially when we consider the description which is given of the lady in the sonnets, to some lady less distin- guished or unknown. ^TURN TO Dil^"^^ USE ^y lU DESK FROM WHirH d^« - WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT Renewals „,a, b?ln±- f l^T/os ^^''^"^^ o-^^: t-iN8837sl0)476-l-A-32 Tr„P^°^"^ library "■"""Kg"'"-'. IC, BERKELEY LIBRARIES CD3S3122flfl UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY i