Transcribed from the 1891 Chatto & Windus edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org CITATION AND EXAMINATION OF William Shakspeare EUSEBY TREEN JOSEPH CARNABY AND SILAS GOUGH CLERK BEFORE THE WORSHIPFUL SIR THOMAS LUCY KNIGHT TOUCHING DEER-STEELING _On the Nineteenth Day of September in the Year of Grace 1582_ NOW FIRST PUBLISHED FROM ORIGINAL PAPERS TO WHICH IS ADDED A Conference of Master Edmund Spenser A GENTLEMAN OF NOTE WITH THE EARL OF ESSEX TOUCHING THE STATE OF IRELAND A.D. 1595 BY WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR London CHATTO & WINDUS, PICCADILLY 1891 EDITOR’S PREFACE. “IT was an ancestor of my husband who _brought out_ the famous Shakspeare.” These words were really spoken, and were repeated in conversation as most ridiculous. Certainly such was very far from the lady’s intention; and who knows to what extent they are true? The frolic of Shakspeare in deer-stealing was the cause of his _Hegira_; and his connection with players in London was the cause of his writing plays. Had he remained in his native town, his ambition had never been excited by the applause of the intellectual, the popular, and the powerful, which, after all, was hardly sufficient to excite it. He wrote from the same motive as he acted,—to earn his daily bread. He felt his own powers; but he cared little for making them felt by others more than served his wants. The malignant may doubt, or pretend to doubt, the authenticity of the _Examination_ here published. Let us, who are not malignant, be cautious of adding anything to the noisome mass of incredulity that surrounds us; let us avoid the crying sin of our age, in which the “Memoirs of a Parish Clerk,” edited as they were by a pious and learned dignitary of the Established Church, are questioned in regard to their genuineness; and even the privileges of Parliament are inadequate to cover from the foulest imputation—the imputation of having exercised his inventive faculties—the elegant and accomplished editor of Eugene Aram’s apprehension, trial, and defence. Indeed, there is little of real history, excepting in romances. Some of these are strictly true to nature; while histories in general give a distorted view of her, and rarely a faithful record either of momentous or of common events. Examinations taken from the mouth are surely the most trustworthy. Whoever doubts it may be convinced by Ephraim Barnett.