The

explanation and corroboration from other sources. subject belongs to the biography of the poet, and forms a considerable portion of the ground there traversed. A very

ample consideration of it will be found in the article Shakespeare," in the ninth edition of the Ency. Brit. The writer of that article accepts the position that Justice Shallow, not only in this play, but in 2 Henry IV., is Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, the owner of the coat of arms containing the heraldic luces, referred to at the commencement of Merry Wives. The tradition is supplied in the first instance by Rowe, Shakespeare's earliest biographer. Rowe says (1709): "He had, by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill company, and, among them, some that made a frequent practice of deerstealing, engaged him with them more than once in robbing a park that belonged to Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford. For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely." Rowe goes on to say that he (Shakespeare) made a ballad upon Lucy, which is lost, and that further prosecution obliged him to shelter himself in London. Independent testimony of these occurrences comes from Archdeacon Davies of Gloucestershire, late in the seventeenth century, who embellishes them with "frequent whippings," and other probably imaginary details.

Rowe's story, in some of its particulars with regard to the park from whence the deer were said to be stolen, is demonstrably incorrect; but it is almost certain that the tradition is founded upon fact. This is Dowden's view, and Sidney Lee speaks of " the incident revealed by the tradition." "The substantial facts in the story are" (says

the writer in Ency. Brit.) "that Shakespeare in his youth was fond of woodland sport, and that in one of his hunting adventures he came into collision with one of Sir Thomas Lucy's keepers, and fell under the severe ban of that local potentate," who is described as combining "aristocratic pride and narrowness with the harshness and severity of the Puritan temper." The writer of this article has imported a tinge of personal bitterness into the matter which certainly formed no part of Shakespeare's method. Sidney Lee assigns the poaching episode to about the year 1585.

For the allusions to the deer-stealing episode, and to the coat of arms containing the luces, see the first scene of the play, and my notes, where further information about the Lucy family is given.

The whole position is a very curious one, and in spite of all that has been written, there is more to be said. If we had no tradition, what should we make of the coat of arms passage? It would be utterly unmeaning. On the other hand, if we had not that passage, I doubt if any one so inclined could be prevented from rejecting the whole tradition. I do not think any one should be so inclined, for it would be very uncivil to Rowe, to Dennis, and to Archdeacon Davies. The probability of the truth of the tradition, however, appears to me to hinge upon the passages in Merry Wives. The character of Sir Thomas Lucy, an important public man, is well known, and neither it nor his personal history bears the smallest resemblance to those of Justice Shallow in 2 Henry IV. To make the latter the original of Justice Shallow, as many commentators endeavour to do, is an impossibility. As Mr. Daniel says, "there is no recognisable likeness between them." On the other hand, it

is equally impossible to dissociate Lucy from the luce and deer-stealing episodes in Merry Wives once we are supplied with the tradition. My view is that Shakespeare upon receiving the command to exhibit Falstaff in love (with possibly a suggestion of his reformation thrown in) transported all his machinery down to Windsor, as a pleasing scene to the Queen, perhaps also a suggested one, for the play. The country surroundings are developed. Windsor Forest and its legends are made use of, and the dramatist recalls his own bitter experiences in that kind. The opportunity is too good to be lost, and he pays back an old grudge in a most good-humoured way, upon Sir Thomas Lucy. Shallow is merely the weapon used for this passing gibe, which is hardly even malicious, but was very likely unpalatable. After it is over we go back to our old friend, the foolish justice, and that is all about it. There is nothing personal probably in Justice Shallow, except this episode. He represents in Henry IV. a vain, emptyheaded, self-sufficient man, inordinately proud of his judicial importance. It is quite possible such men may still be found, but they were certainly to be met with in Shakespeare's time. They represent a class in dramatic literature, just as Dogberry represents the silliness of the lower grade of the representatives of law and order. Plenty of these could be named, and when Ben Jonson represents his "wise justice of the peace meditant" in Bartholomew Fair he indulged in similar character-drawing. The corrupt judge of an earlier date was a more serious matter.

I should not have dwelt upon this, were it not for an article in the Fortnightly Review (February 1903) to which Dr. Dowden kindly drew my attention. It is written by

C

one who has evidently an intimate knowledge of the Lucy family side of the question, to disprove and repel the connection between Sir Thomas and Justice Shallow. The views of the writer are in a large measure undoubtedly true, but there is no new fact advanced that has any bearing upon the question of the identity of Justice Shallow as he appears at Windsor (circa 1598) with Lucy. Observe that Shallow in Merry Wives is important, largely because of his former history, and on account of this opening Lucy episode-otherwise he is a kindly, inoffensive old man. The writer, however, lays stress upon one or two points, basing the argument upon them indeed, when endeavouring to remove Sir Thomas from the scene, which must be held to be erroneous. It is conceded by every one that Shakespeare would not have indulged in this satire were the object of it dead, as Sir Thomas Lucy was in 1600. Therefore, the writer says, because the allusions to the luces do not appear in the Quarto of 1602, Shakespeare cannot have meant to refer to him, since these allusions appear for the first time in the later Folio, and supposes them to be a later insertion, referring to I know not what. But the omission of anything from that imperfect text, especially when a block is wholly omitted with no replacement, is of no sufficient moment to argue upon. The Folio text is the only one that can be used for such a purpose, and it is the parent text of the illegitimate Quarto. There is much of interest in the article with reference to Justice Shallow, and had I ever intended to identify him of Henry IV. with the knight of Charlecote, it would have probably shaken my opinion. One final remark, however, occurs to me, which the writer does not make. May

not the luce and louse episode have been purposely omitted from the Quarto, that is to say, from the enactment of the play from which the Quarto was pirated, on account of the recent death of the person to whom it was known to relate? If there is any weight to be attached to the circumstance, I imagine that is the way the argument works out, and it is, if anything, a proof the passage did refer to him. The almost exactly suitable date strengthens that view. Another odd coincidence occurs to me, to which Ritson would have perhaps attached weight (but I do not). When Shallow says (III. i. 56), "I have lived four score years and upward," Ritson believed, from our knowledge of Shallow in 2 Henry IV., that this should read, "three score year and upwards." And I now learn that the age of Sir Thomas Lucy in 1598 was 66! See Ritson's note in Steevens' Shakespeare, where he shows that Shallow should be somewhere about this age at the end of 2 Henry IV.

Shakespeare made use of Shallow as a stalking-horse, from behind which he aims a dart at Lucy, a successful one, since it seems to rankle still, but if my view be taken, it was innocuous-stinging perhaps, but barbless. But the stalking-horse is not necessarily identified with Lucy, and this is where the view held by so many critics seems to be erroneous, and to throw the whole matter into difficulties. When the dramatists poke fun at Lyly's Euphues (see an example quoted in note at "polecat," IV. i.) or at Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, they do not identify the speakers with Lyly or with Kyd. The practice was a common one, and does not in the least involve the necessity of a whole personage, like Dekker's Horace (ie. Ben Jonson), being pilloried upon the stage.