eged erroneous form
of address in the dedication of Shakespeare's 'Sonnets'--'Mr. W. H.' for
Lord Herbert or the Earl of Pembroke--would have amounted to the offence
of defamation. And for that misdemeanour the Star Chamber, always active
in protecting the dignity of peers, would have promptly called Thorpe to
account. {410}

Of the Earl of Pembroke, and of his brother the Earl of Montgomery, it
was stated a few years later, 'from just observation,' on very pertinent
authority, that 'no men came near their lordships [in their capacity of
literary patrons], but with a kind of religious address.' These words
figure in the prefatory epistle which two actor-friends of Shakespeare
addressed to the two Earls in the posthumously issued First Folio of the
dramatist's works. Thorpe's 'kind of religious address' on seeking Lord
Pembroke's patronage for Healey's books was somewhat more unctuous than
was customary or needful. But of erring conspicuously in an opposite
direction he may, without misgiving, be pronounced innocent.

VII.--SHAKESPEARE AND THE EARL OF PEMBROKE.

With the disposal of the allegation that 'Mr. W. H.' represented the Earl
of Pembroke's youthful name, the whole theory of that earl's identity
with Shakespeare's friend collapses. Outside Thorpe's dedicatory words,
only two scraps of evidence with any title to consideration have been
adduced to show that Shakespeare was at any time or in any way associated
with Pembroke.

Shakespeare with the acting company at Wilton in 1603.

In the late autumn of 1603 James I and his Court were installed at the
Earl of Pembroke's house at Wilton for a period of two months, owing to
the prevalence of the plague in London. By order of the officers of the
royal household, the King's company of players, of which Shakespeare was
a member, gave a performance before the King at Wilton House on December
2. The actors travelled from Mortlake for the purpose, and were paid in
the ordinary manner by the treasurer of the royal household out of the
public funds. There is no positive evidence that Shakespeare attended at
Wilton with the company, but assuming, as is probable, that he did, the
Earl of Pembroke can be held no more responsible for his presence than
for his repeated presence under the same conditions at Whitehall. The
visit of the King's players to Wilton in 1603 has no bearing on the Earl
of Pembroke's alleged relations with Shakespeare. {411}

The de