Numbers in bold brackets [] indicate original page numbers.
The Stratfordian View
V
[39] We come now to William Shakspere's middle period. Sandwiched in between two inglorious Stratford periods, what are the actual facts of his London career in reference to the works, which have made him famous? It is not as an actor, nor as a stage or theatre manager - the latter being a purely hypothetical vocation - nor even as a writer of plays for the contemporary stage, but as the author of literary works that he has won renown. As such, Sir Sidney Lee assures us that he had no hand in the publication of any of the plays attributed to him, but "uncomplainingly submitted to the wholesale piracy of his plays and the ascription to him of books by other hands." The absence of all participation in the publication of plays which, as literature, have immortalized his name, is certainly a huge gap in his literary records to begin with.
Again, although it has been found necessary to ascribe the first composition of plays to the years 1590-1592 - otherwise time could not have been found for their production - the first of the series was not published until 1597, nor any with "Shakespeare's" name attached until 1598. Before that time, however, New Place, Stratford, had become William Shakspere's established residence.
"There is no doubt that New Place (Stratford) was henceforward (from 1597) to be accepted as his established residence. Early in the following year, on February the 4th, 1598, he is returned as the holder of ten quarters of corn in the Chapel Street ward, that in which the newly-acquired property was situated, and in future indentures he is never described as a Londoner, but always as William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon." (Halliwell-Phillipps.)
Thenceforward his land, property and tithes purchases, [40] along with the fact that in 1604 he takes legal action to enforce payment of a debt for malt which he had been supplying for some months past, are circumstances much more suggestive of permanent residence in Stratford, with an occasional visit maybe to London, than of permanent residence in London, with occasional trips to Stratford. The duration of this middle period is therefore most uncertain. Even on the assumption that he was the author of the plays, authorities differ by at least eight years respecting the date at which it closed (1604-1612); and when the date furnished by that assumption is rejected, as it must be in an enquiry like the present, the margin of uncertainty becomes considerably enlarged. The absence of definite information respecting the limits of this London period is certainly another serious omission from the records.
"Of the incidents of his life in London," Professor Sir Walter Raleigh tells us, "nothing is known." He lodged at one time in Bishopsgate and, later on, in Southwark. We know this, not because lords and ladies in their coaches drove up to the door of the famous man, nor because of anything else which could be called a personal "incident," but because he was a defaultant taxpayer (for two amounts of 5s. and 13s. 4d. respectively) for whom the authorities were searching in 1598, ignorant of the fact that he had moved, some years before, from Bishopsgate to Southwark. Evidently, then, he was not at that time living in the public eye and mixing freely in dramatic and literary circles. Sir Sidney Lee tells us that Shakspere "with great magnanimity, ultimately paid" the money. If the claimant had been a private individual there might have been generosity in paying an account which could not legally be enforced; but it is not easy to associate "magnanimity" with the paying of taxes. We must suppose then that either the money was due or was paid to save trouble. If the money were due then William Shakspere had been trying to defraud: if the money were not due one is a little curious to know what [41] special inconveniences could have arisen from his contesting the claim. Every record we have of him proves that he was not the kind of man to submit 'to an illegal exaction without very substantial reasons. The point is a small one by itself: in connection with the general mysteriousness of his London movements, however, it has its proper significance.
The absence of precise information respecting the actual location, period and form of his, established residence in London is yet another of the great gaps in the record.
From the time when he was described as William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon (1597) there is no proof that he was anywhere domiciled in London, whilst the proofs of his domiciliation in Stratford from this time forward are irrefutable and continuous. Clearly our conceptions of his residency in London are in need of complete revision. It would appear that an attempt has been made to construct a London career for him out of materials furnished by the meagre particulars known of his actual life combined with the necessities of the assumed authorship, and from this material it has not been possible to form a consistent picture. In order to bring out this fact more clearly we shall place together two sentences from Halliwell-Phillipps's "Outlines."
"It was not till the year 1597 that Shakespeare's public reputation as a dramatist was sufficiently established for the booksellers to be anxious to secure the copyright of his plays."
"In the spring of this year (1597) the poet made his first investment in realty by the purchase of New Place. . . . (which) was henceforward to be accepted as his residence."
We are consequently faced with this peculiar situation that what has been regarded as the period of his highest fame in London began at the same time as his formal retirement to Stratford; and whilst there is undoubted mystery connected with his [42] place or places of abode in London, there is none connected with his residence in Stratford. A curious fact in this connection is that the only letter that is known to have been addressed to him in the whole course of his life was one from a native of Stratford addressed to him in London, which appears amongst the records of the Stratford Corporation, and which "was no doubt forwarded by hand (to Shakspere whilst in London) otherwise the locality of residence would have been added" (Halliwell-Phillipps). Evidently his fellow townsmen who wished to communicate with him in London were unaware of his residence there; and the fact that this letter was discovered amongst the archives of the Stratford Corporation suggests that it had never reached the addressee. It also permits of the alternative supposition, already mentioned, that having received it he was nevertheless unable to read it (notwithstanding the superior quality of its penmanship) and was obliged to forward it to his lawyer in Stratford, who resided in Shakspere's house there. At all events the only letter known to have been addressed to him in the whole course of his life adds to the mysteriousness of his lodging in London.
Altogether our efforts to come to close grips with the period of his greatest fame, on the solid ground of authenticated fact, have yielded most unsatisfactory results. We have no positive knowledge of his being in London before 1592: the year of Greene's attack, in which he is accused of beautifying himself in the feathers of others, along with an innuendo suggesting that he was an uncultivated man, a "rude groome" and a "usurer." And we have no record of actual residence in London after 1596, when "according to a memorandum by Alleyn he lodged near the Bear Garden in Southwark." This is precisely the time at which his father, who resided at Stratford, acting, it is generally agreed, upon William Shakspere's initiative, made his first attempt to obtain a coat of arms on false pretences. The following year saw his purchase of New Place, Stratford, and as, in [43] the next year, he is returned as one of the largest holder's of corn in Stratford, everything points to this being the actual time at which he established himself in his native town - if we may so dignify the Stratford of that day. The definitely assured London period appears then to be shrinking from twenty to a mere matter of four years (1592-1596), during which there is not a single record of his personal activities beyond the appearance of his name in a list of actors, but evidently much mystery as to his actual whereabouts. The literary references to the poems we shall treat separately. It was in this period that "Venus" and "Lucrece" appeared (1593 and 1594 respectively), and it was in this period that the great man who was supposed to have produced these famous poems eluded the vigilance of the tax gatherer.
"The Bishopsgate levy of October, 1596, as well as that of 1598 is now shown to have been based on an assessment made as early as 1593 or 1594. Payment was obviously sought at the later dates in ignorance of the fact that Shakespeare (i.e. Shakspere) had by that time left St. Helens (Bishopsgate) long since for South London" (Sir Sidney Lee). According to modern Stratfordians he lived in London as a famous man for sixteen years after this (1596-1612) without betraying his settled place of residence.
In 1597 the publication of the plays begins in real earnest. In 1598 they begin to appear with "Shakespeare's" name attached. From then till 1604 was the period of full flood of publication during William Shakspere's lifetime: and this great period of "Shakespearean" publication (1597-1604) corresponds exactly with William Shakspere's busiest period in Stratford. In 1597 he began the business, connected with the purchase of New Place. Complications ensued, and the purchase was not completed till 1602. "In 1598 he procured stone for the repair of the house, and before 1602 had planted a fruit orchard." (S. L.) In 1597 his father and mother, "doubtless under their son's [44] guidance," began a lawsuit "for the recovery of the mortgaged estate of Asbies in Wilmcote . . . (which) dragged on for some years." (S. L.) "Between 1597 and 1599 (he was) rebuilding the house, stocking the barns with grain, and conducting various legal proceedings." (S. L.) In 1601 his father died and he took over his father's property. On May 1, 1602, he purchased 107 acres of arable land. In September, 1602, "and Walter Getley transferred to the poet a cottage and garden which were situated at Chapel Lane opposite the lower grounds of New Place." "As early as 1598 Abraham Sturley had suggested that Shakespeare (William Shakspere) should purchase the tithes of Stratford." In 1605 he completed the purchase of "an unexpired term of these tithes." "In July, 1604, in the local court at Stratford he sued Philip Rogers whom he had supplied since the preceding March malt to the value of £1 19s. 10od. and on June 25 lent 2s. in cash."
In a personal record from which so much is missing we may justly assume that what we know of his dealings in Stratford forms only a small part of his activities there. Consequently, to the contention that this man was the author and directing genius of the magnificent stream of dramatic literature which in those very years was bursting upon London, the business record we have just presented would in almost any court in the land be deemed to have proved an alibi. The general character of these business transactions, even to such touches as lending the trifling sun of 2s. to a person to whom he was selling malt, is all suggestive of his own continuous day to day contact with the details of his Stratford business affairs: whilst the single money transaction which connects him with London during these years, the recovery of a debt of £7 from John Clayton in 1600, might easily be the result of a short visit to the metropolis, or merely the work of an agent. The licenses granted in 1603 to the company of actors in which "Shakespeare's" name appears would not necessitate his presence; and the fact [45] that his name as it appears in these documents is spelt "S-h-a-k-e-s-p-e-a-r-e" (i.e. the same as in the printed editions of the plays), whilst this spelling is not that of his own signatures, nor of some of the important Stratford documents, bears out the suggestion that these matters were arranged by the same person as was responsible for the publication of the plays; although, as we have already pointed out, William Shakspere had no hand in that publication. Moreover, these licenses were not for immediate use, but for "when the plague shall decrease." As, further, his name occurs second, it is clear that he was not the directing head of the company of players.
Whilst, then, everything about William Shakspere's records suggests that he was settled permanently at Stratford during the important years of the publication of the plays, everything about the plays themselves betokens an author living at the time in intimate touch with the theatrical and literary life of London. So strong is the presumption in favour of this latter fact that no writer of any school has yet ventured to suggest the contrary. In attributing the authorship to William Shakspere it has been imperative to assume a settled residence in London during these fateful years. The utmost that could be allowed was an occasional journey to Stratford; and this notwithstanding the mysteriousness of his whereabouts and doings in London, the fact of his always being described as "of Stratford," never "of London," and the large amount and special character of his Stratford business affairs.
If, then, William Shakspere, the reputed author of the works, was not sent off to Stratford to be out of the way at the time when the literary public was being interested in the plays, he has certainly contrived matters so as to make it appear that such was the case, and thus to justify the strongest suspicion, on this ground alone, that the famous dramas were not of his composing.
It is from a consideration of the manner of publication that Sir Sidney Lee concludes that William Shakspere [46] had no part in the work. On the other hand we arrive at precisely the same conclusion from a consideration of the circumstances of his life: in the present instance on the grounds of what we are entitled to claim as an alibi. It is certainly interesting that two totally different sets of considerations should lead to precisely the same conclusion, although approached from two different standpoints and with different intentions; leaving but little room for doubt as to the soundness of the common conclusion. Whilst then we agree that William Shakspere had no hand in the publication of this literature, to maintain that its actual author, if living, in no way shared in any part of the work, is the kind of belief which practical men in touch with life would hardly acknowledge without serious misgiving.