worthily." With that the cardinal,
taking a good advisement among them, at the last, quoth he, "Me
seemeth the gentleman with the black beard should be even he." And
with that he arose out of his chair, and offered the same to the
gentleman in the black beard, with his cap in his hand. The person to
whom he offered then his chair was Sir Edward Neville, a comely
knight of goodly personage, that much more resembled the king's
person in that mask, than any other. The king, hearing and perceiving
the cardinal so deceived in his estimation and choice, could not
forbear laughing; but plucked down his visor, and Master Neville's
also, and dashed out with such a pleasant countenance and cheer, that
all noble estates there assembled, seeing the king to be there
amongst them, rejoiced very much.

If Shakespeare could be so true to the actualities, why should not we seek
to realise the scene so vividly described by the chronicler and the
dramatist?

In my notes and conclusions on "Henry VIII. and his Court," I have been
largely indebted to the guidance of the following books:--

Ernest Law's "History of Hampton Court"; Strickland's "Queens of England";
Taunton's "Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer"; and Cavendish's "Life of
Wolsey."

AN APOLOGY AND A FOOTNOTE

Here I am tempted to hark back to the modern manner of producing
Shakespeare, and to say a few words in extenuation of those methods, which
have been assailed in a recent article with almost equal brilliancy and
vehemence.

The writer tells us that there are two different kinds of plays, the
realistic and the symbolic. Shakespeare's plays, we are assured, belong to
the latter category. "The scenery," it is insisted, "not only may, but
should be imperfect." This seems an extraordinary doctrine, for if it be
right that a play should be imperfectly mounted, it follows that it should
be imperfectly acted, and further that it should be imperfectly written.
The modern methods, we are assured, employed in the production of
Shakespeare, do not properly illustrate the play, but are merely made for
vulgar display, with the result of crushing the author and obscuring his
meaning. In this assertion, I venture to think that our critic is
mistaken; I claim that not the least important mission of the modern
theatre is to give to the public representations of history which shall be
at once an education and a deligh