this can possibly be more than mere speculation, since Spenser certainly left no annotation explanatory of the passage, and it does not identify itself as a reference to Shakespeare," vide "Shakespearean Myth," p. 147, note. Since the ancient Aetion was a physician, the verse might refer to Thomas Lodge, the well-known poet, or it would appropriately refer to Michael Drayton, whose muse was full of "high thought's invention"; whose name, that of the archangel, like his muse, did sound heroically and who was known among all his contemporaries as the gentle Shepherd Rowland.

Robert Tofte, translator of Ariosto's Satires, speaks of Drayton as "not unworthily bearing the name of the chief archangel (Michael) singing after his soul-ravishing "manner." As early as 1593 Drayton had published "Idea," the "Shepherd's Garland," fashioned in nine eclogues, and "Rowland's Sacrifice to the Muses."

It is because no men of his time corresponded with Shaksper that there has been a straining on the part of the Shaksper advocates to fit contemporary verses to their idol.

An analysis of Collier's argument will plainly reveal its utter absurdity and ridiculousness.

He starts out by averring that the earliest known allusion to Shaksper as a dramatist is contained in Spenser's "Tears of the Muses." In the very next sentence he admits that Shaksper's surname is not mentioned at all. He then declares that there can be no hesitation in applying what Spenser wrote to Shaksper, while in the very next sentence he admits not only that there has been hesitation but also that the application of the passage to Shaksper has been very much contested. A little farther

on, he declares that he supposes and believes that Shaksper was before 1591 only rising into notice as a writer for the stage, and then in order to fit Shaksper to the Willy of the poet, as one not actually dead but sleeping or quiescent in idle cell, and rejecting his belief just before expressed, he avers that Willy was only dead as far as regarded the admirable dramatic talents he had already displayed"talents which had enabled him even before 1591 to outstrip all living rivalry." Summarized, the advocate says that Shaksper is known to have been alluded to, then that Shaksper is not named and therefore not known as the person alluded to. No one, he avers, hesitates to apply the passage to Shaksper. In the very next line he declares that very many deny its application to Shaksper. The advocate believes that when Spenser wrote the poem, Shaksper was only rising into notice as a writer for the stage. He also believes that Shaksper's talents, when Spenser wrote the poem, were so great that he outstripped all other dramatists and poets. In one sentence he makes an assertion. In the next he denies what he asserted, and this he does three times in succession.

The only mischief caused by such partisan recklessness is that when the biographer of the much-lauded Shaksper comes along who has no time or inclination to examine into the facts, he accepts the conjectures and assertions of such writers as Collier as facts, and palms them off as facts on the unsuspecting public.

CHAPTER XI.

DANIEL'S LETTER TO EGERTON DOES NOT
REFER TO SHAKSPER.

"A snapper-up of unconsidered trifles."

-The Winter's Tale, iv, 3.

Collier, in the first volume of his book entitled "Shakespeare's Complete Works," at page 70, undertakes to prove, first, that Shaksper is referred to in à letter from the poet and dramatist, Samuel Daniel, to Sir Thomas Egerton, the original of which is preserved at Bridgewater House, and, secondly, that the letter shows that Shaksper endeavored to procure, in 1603, the office of Master of the Queen's Revels. Collier goes so far as to say that one paragraph in it refers expressly to Shaksper, though not by name. Verplanck, in his edition of the plays, hesitates to follow and endorse Collier in his broad statement and candidly admits that the letter might be so construed as to apply to Michael Drayton. If now the letter or any paragraph of it refers expressly to William Shaksper, as Collier and the Shaksperites assert, then there is an end of controversy, for Daniel was a just and truthful man, and if the letter speaks of Shaksper as "the author of plays now daily presented on the public stages of London," the argument for Shaksper's ability to compose and write poems and plays is unanswerable. I will insert the letter here in its entirety, and I am confident that after a careful perusal of it, the unprejudiced reader will agree with me, first, that there is no reference whatever in the letter

to Shaksper or to any one else except Michael Drayton, and secondly, that at the very time when Daniel wrote the letter, Drayton was the author of the plays referred to in the letter as presented daily on the public stages of London, and also that he, Drayton, was then an actor in the King's Company of comedians and an applicant also for the position of Master of the Queen's Revels. Daniel's letter, which I give in full, reads as follows:

"To the right honorable

SIR THOMAS EGERTON, Knight,

Lord-Keeper of the Great Seale of England.

"I will not indeavour, Right honorable, to thanke you in words for this new great and unlookt for favor shown unto me, where by I am bound to you forever, and hope one day with true heart and simple skill to prove that I am not unmindful. Most earnestly do I wish I could praise as your Honor has known to deserve, for then should I, like my master Spenser, whose memory your Honor cherisheth, leave behind me some worthy work to be treasured by posterity. What my poor muse could perform in haste is here set down, and though it be far below what other poets and better pens have written, it cometh from a grateful heart and therefore may be accepted. I shall now be able to live free from those cares and troubles that hitherto have been my continual and wearisome companions.

"But a little time is past since I was called upon to thank your honor for my brother's advancement, and now I thank you for my own; which double kindness will always receive double gratefulness at both our hands. I can not but know that I am less deserving than some

that sued by other of the nobility unto her Majesty for this boon; if Mr. Drayton, my good friend had been chosen, I should not have murmured, for sure I am that he would have filled it most excellently; but it seemeth to mine humble judgment that one who is the author of plays now daily presented on the public stages of London, and the possessor of no small gains, and moreover himself an actor in the King's company of Comedians, could not with reason pretend to be Mr. of the Queenes Ma'ties revels, for as much as he would sometimes be asked to approve and allow of his own writings. Therefore he and more of like quality can not be justly disappointed because through your honor's gracious interposition, the chance was haply mine.

"I owe this and all else to your honor, and if ever I have time and ability to finish any noble undertaking, as God grant one day I shall, the work will rather be your honor's than mine. God maketh a poet, but his creation would be in vain, if patrons did not make him to live. Your Honor hath ever shown yourself the friend of desert, and pity it were if this should be the first exception to the rule. It shall not be while my poor wit and strength do remain to me, though the verses which I now send, be indeed no proof of mine ability. I only intreat your Honor to accept the same, the rather as an earnest of good will than as an example of my good deed. In all things I am your Honor's most bounden in duty and observance. SAMUEL DANIEL."

As I interpret the letter, Daniel intimates that others had applied for the place of Master of the Revels through advocates of the nobility class; and that if his friend