The Discovery of John Milton's Shakespeare First Folio

On 9 September 2019, Jason Scott-Warren made an unassuming blog post titled simply "Milton’s Shakespeare?" and made this equally nonchalant post on Twitter:

He had read Claire M. L. Bourne's chapter in Early Modern English Marginalia. She offers a very interesting analysis of the marginal notes in the Philadelphia Free Library's First Folio. Her piece includes lots of photos of the annotations, and Scott-Warren noticed that they looked like John Milton's handwriting.

When I read his blog post I was immediately convinced. Not only does he show how the handwriting is similar, he demonstrates how the annotator of the First Folio cites books in precisely the same way as John Milton. Also, this is not a random connection. Milton wrote a poem for the 1632 Second Folio (the name "John Milton" below was written in by hand, it was published anonymously):

Very quickly people on Twitter started posting other samples of Milton's handwriting and they were a very close match for the samples included in Bourne's article. Look at these two examples I put together combining the original article with Twitter posts:

According to the update on his blog on 11 September 2019, Milton specialists agree (and everyone agrees on how he undersold this incredible discovery):

I’ve received a very positive response from several distinguished Miltonists who are confident that this identification is correct–and have been roundly rebuked for understating the significance of the discovery. 

One Possible Theory on the Annotations

One interesting possibility is that these annotations and corrections might not have been just for Milton's personal use. He might have been preparing edits for another edition of Shakespeare's works. The marked passages might have been intended to be printed with commonplace marks, a common practice at the time to note especially important passages that readers might want to copy down into their personal commonplace books. [As of 4 October 2019, I doubt this is the case.]

The poem Milton wrote for the Second Folio was his first published writing. We still don't really know how he was connected with that publication. This new discovery suggests he had a much stronger personal connection with the works of Shakespeare than previously known. Tracing the early reception to the works of Shakespeare will likely be key in solving the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Milton's Broader Connections

Milton had a close connection with the Egerton Family, who are known to have had Shakespeare's quartos and a First Folio in their library. Their house in Ashridge is especially of interest since Henry Neville owned property there, and the Neville family was in the same social and political circles as the Egertons. Henry Neville references Ashridge in this 1600 letter to Thomas Windebank:

And ever hereafter my motto shall be fie upon honor that brings no profit. When I come home I will become a hermit in Ashridge or somewhere in the forest, and do penance for the faults I commit here.

The grandson, Henry Neville, author of the Isle of Pines, was also a literary contemporary of Milton. So that's another area of possible interest.

What Lessons Does This Teach Us

What is the main lesson of this discovery? That there is a tremendous amount yet to be discovered! Even though this First Folio had been described in detail in published surveys of First Folios, and even though it has been sitting in a library in Philadelphia for decades, the connection to Milton is just a few days old.

As more library collections are digitized, we can expect more discoveries like this. It's a very exciting time to be involved in this kind of research.

My Discovery of Neville's Library and Shakespeare Research

I'd like to explain why my discovery of the 1780 catalog of books from Billingbear is such an important milestone in Shakespeare authorship research. You can see my blog post describing the main Shakespeare sources listed in the catalog as well as one focused on politics and political philosophy.

Source Texts are a Key Issue in Shakespeare Authorship Research

Scholars have carefully identified the source texts that must have been  used in the creation of the works of Shakespeare. Those sources include many books in Latin, Italian and French that had not  been translated into English in Shakespeare's time. No plausible explanation has ever been offered of how William Shakespeare might have acquired the language skills to read those books.

In addition,  even though Shakespeare was wealthy, no evidence has ever been found of him owning any books at all. This is in contrast to contemporaries like Ben Jonson or John Donne who left behind large libraries. Since the works of Shakespeare demonstrate familiarity with such a wide variety of literature, this is a glaring anomaly. Perhaps more than anything else, this incongruity has given rise to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

How the Billingbear Book List Matches Shakespeare's Known Sources

There is a truly extraordinary correspondence between known Shakespeare sources and the Billingbear book list. Most striking of all is Cinthio's Gli Hecatommithi, a text that wasn't commonly read in England at the time but was the source of both Othello and Measure for Measure. Other important texts include Boccaccio's Decameron, Chaucer's Works, the Latin source text for Hamlet, Orlando Furioso, and many other works of history and philosophy that have been identified as likely sources for Shakespeare.

It's not just the major sources that are listed. The list includes many books on Italian history and politics that align very closely with the topics of Shakespeare's Italian plays. In almost every respect, this is the library you would expect from the author of the works of Shakespeare.

Dating the Source Texts to Henry Neville

Almost all of the source texts were printed in 1581 or before. This is extremely strong evidence that they were, in fact, owned by Henry Neville. Neville traveled in Italy around 1579-81. For example, Gli Hecatommithi and Orlando Furioso are both 1580 printings. So it is very likely that he purchased books during his travels and shipped them home to England.

Some of the volumes are currently at Audley End, but most are not. It may very well be possible to locate some of these volumes to inspect them to offer further confirmation of Neville's ownership.

A New Chapter in Shakespeare Authorship Research

This is the most powerful documentary evidence ever demonstrated for a Shakespeare Authorship Candidate. It is also important for Shakespeare research. Up until now, research into Shakespeare's sources has always been limited to analyzing the plays and poems for clues. Now, we can analyze this book catalog and see how and when the books were incorporated into or referenced by Shakespeare's works.

Questions Answered:

How did you discover the book catalog?

I've known about the catalog since December 2018. In March I ordered copies of 5 out of the 44 pages of the catalog, but it wasn't until August 27, 2019 that I was able to visit the Berkshire Record Office in person and see the entire catalog.

Did previous Neville researchers examine the catalog?

As far as I can tell, no. Neville researchers have examined the books at Audley End, and so have seen some of the books listed in the catalog. But many of the most important Shakespeare sources are not at Audley End; they are only listed in the catalog.

If the books aren't at Audley End, where are they?

I don't know. Locating all of the books in the catalog is an important next step. It should provide many additional clues to how Henry Neville wrote the works of Shakespeare.

Could someone much later have tried to recreate Shakespeare's library?

Many of the books in the catalog are directly connected to Henry Neville. The dates also are very early. If someone in the 1700s wanted to recreate Shakespeare's library, there would be no need to acquire pre-1580 books. Henry Neville, however, was travelling in Europe in 1580-81 so it makes sense for the title to date to that era.

Anything is possible, but it seems more likely that the early books were simply purchased by Henry Neville at the time. The Neville family lived continuously at Billingbear from Neville's life and there are many books in the library we can identify as certainly belonging to Henry Neville.

Henry Neville's Library, Political Philosophy, and Shakespeare

Henry Neville's deep and abiding interest in good governance and political philosophy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for his authorship of the works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays touch on these themes over and over again, from the Henry VI plays to Coriolanus. There is a vast literature on -- and endless speculation about -- which books of political philosophy Shakespeare might have read.

My discovery of Henry Neville's Book Catalog offers us an entirely new way to examine Shakespeare sources. Instead of just looking at the plays and poems and trying to guess which sources might have been consulted, now we can look at a library of books and see which correspond with the ideas expressed in Shakespeare's works.

I want to highlight three entries in the library catalog, all of which have dependently been identified as possible Shakespeare sources: Machiavelli's The Prince, Jean Bodin's Les Six livres de la République (The Six Books of the Republic)  and Giovanni Botero's Della ragion di Stato (The Reason of State).

Machiavelli's The Prince

Henry Neville had a 1551 edition of The Prince, here is the USTC Entry.

Here is the title page for a very similar edition you can view online at Google Books:

Shakespeare specifically references Machiavelli in three plays, so whoever wrote the works of Shakespeare was familiar with Machiavelli from at least 1591, if not earlier:

Alencon! that notorious Machiavel!
It dies, an if it had a thousand lives. - Henry VI, Part I, 5.4

Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school. - Henry VI, Part III, 3.2

Peace, I say! hear mine host of the Garter. Am I
politic? am I subtle? am I a Machiavel? - Merry Wives of Windsor, 3.1

There is a vast literature on Shakespeare and Machiavelli. Here is an article from the British Library on Machiavelli and Richard III. Hugh Grady's Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne deals with these issues in-depth. Here is evidence from Richard II showing Shakespeare likely read Machiavelli. I could offer dozens more references.

Jean Bodin's The Six Books of the Republic

Henry Neville had a 1579 copy of Jean Bodin's Les six livres de la republique, here is the USTC Entry.

You can view a likely similar, 1580 edition on Google Books:

For discussion of Shakespeare's response to Bodin, see Campana's The Child’s Two Bodies: Shakespeare, Sovereignty, and the End of Succession, Lopez's Trespass and Forgiveness in William Shakespeare’s King Lear. DiMatteo's Shakespeare and the Public Discourse of Sovereignty: “Reason of State” in Hamlet, and Hadfield's Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics.

These references to Bodin take on a new meaning if we consider the possibility that the author of the works of Shakespeare owned a copy of The Six Books of the Republic. This is why Shakespeare Authorship Research is so important for Shakespeare scholarship.

Giovanni Botero's The Reason of State

Henry Neville had a 1589 copy of Botero's The Reason of State. Here is the USTC Entry.

You can view this 1589 edition on Archive.org.

See the Oxford Handbook of the Age of Shakespeare for a discussion of this book and Shakespeare. This article by Bragantini suggests that Measure for Measure may demonstrates a first-hand knowledge of Botero.

Summary

The discovery of this library catalog opens up many new possibilities for Shakespeare research. Up until now, it has been assumed that the author of the works of Shakespeare could not read Italian and French. Now we have strong evidence that not only could he read Italian and French, there are specific books that he likely read. This creates a whole new line of research in Shakespeare studies and validates the many scholars who have already noticed strong correspondences between Shakespeare and these works.