Numbers in bold brackets [] indicate original page numbers.
The Stratfordian View
IX
It remains now only to examine the data upon which rests the theory of William Shakspere being an eminent London actor. Neither as a writer of plays for the stage nor as an author of works for the press is it possible to account for his wealth. In the former capacity his income would not be a handsome one; and in the latter capacity, seeing that he took no part and held no rights, he would depend upon good-will gratuities from publishers. As an actor, we have seen, no single record of his appearance in the provinces has been discovered. It is as a London actor, therefore, [57] that he must have made his wealth, if that wealth had nothing mysterious about it. Here, then, are the records of his career.
Halliwell-Phillipps "had the pleasure of discovering some years ago in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber" the following entry: "To William Kempe, William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, servants to the Lord Chamberlaine, upon the councelles warrant dated at Whitehall xv. to Marcij, 1594, for twoe several comedies or enterludes showed by them before her Majestie in Christmas tyme laste paste viz. upon St. Stephens daye and innocentes daye . . . in all £20." Mrs. Stopes, however, in her work on "Burbage and Shakespeare," furnishes the interesting information that this "account (was) drawn up after date by Mary Countess of Southampton, after the decease of her second husband Sir Thomas Henneage, who had left his accounts rather in a muddle." And Sir Sidney Lee points out that "neither plays nor parts are named." We may also point out that whereas according to the last named authority Kemp was "the chief comedian of the day and Richard Burbage the greatest tragic actor," no record exists to tell us and no one has yet ventured to guess what William Shakspere was as an actor. Since, then, no part is assigned to him in this record, it is possible, even accepting it as being in proper order as an official document, that he received the money as the supposed author of the "comedies or enterludes." And this, although occurring three years before the opening of the period of his fame (1597) is the only thing that can be called an official record of active participation in the performances of the Lord Chamberlain's Company, afterwards called the King's Players, and erroneously spoken of as Shakespeare's company: the company of which he is supposed to have been one of the leading lights.
The "orthodoxy" of Mrs. Stopes, like that of Halliwell-Phillipps, is beyond suspicion, and she has performed in respect to William Shakspere's London career something [58] analogous to what Halliwell-Phillipps has done for his work in the provinces, and with a not altogether dissimilar result. In note xxviii. of the book just mentioned she records "The performances of the Burbage Company at Court for 80 years"; the record consisting mainly of a catalogue of brief items of payments made by the Treasurer of the Chamber for actual performances of plays, and occupying seventeen pages of her work. Over four pages are taken up with entries referring to performances of the company from 1597 to the death of William Shakspere in 1616. Separate entries occur for the years 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, and 1616. It will thus be seen that only the year 1602 is missing from these records. The names of the actors mentioned are Heminge, Burbage, Cowley, Bryan and Pope; elsewhere these official accounts mention the actor Augustine Phillipps, but not once does the name of William Shakspere occur in all these accounts.
There is a danger that in multiplying evidences and opening up discussions on side issues the full force of some particular facts may be lost. We would urge, therefore, that the reader allow his mind to dwell at length on one fact, namely, that the whole of the municipal records of the acting companies are silent with regard to William Shakspere, and the whole of the Treasurer of the Chamber's records, with the one irregular exception of an account made up by a strange hand after date, are equally silent respecting him: even the irregular entry referring to a date (1594) several years before the period of his fame; so that both are absolutely silent respecting him during his great period. If the reader still persists in believing that William Shakspere was a well-known figure on the stage, or a prominent member of the Lord Chamberlain's company of actors, or in any way much in evidence in connection with the doings of that company, we would [59] respectfully suggest that his time could be more profitably spent than in reading the remainder of these pages.
Following up the investigations by means of the same work, we find that the Lord Chamberlain's books "supply much information concerning plays and players. Unfortunately they are, missing for the most important years of Shakespearean history." Twice in the course of her work does Mrs. Stopes refer to the unfortunate disappearance of the Lord Chamberlain's books. In the light of all the other mysterious silences regarding William Shakspere, and the total disappearance of the "Shakespeare" manuscripts, so carefully guarded during the years preceding the publication of the First Folio, the disappearance of the Lord Chamberlain's books, recording the transactions of his department for the greatest period in its history, hardly looks like pure accident. More than one contemporary forgery in respect to Shakespeare records is admitted by most authorities, a well-known one being the 1611 reference to "The Tempest," so that suspicion is quite justifiable. The one volume of these records that has been preserved records nothing of any acting engagement of William Shakspere's, but merely his receiving, along with others, a grant of cloth in preparation for the coronation procession. Whilst stating that "many believe . . . that the players did not go on that procession," Mrs. Stopes argues in favour of their being there; but adds: "it is true the grant of cloth was not in itself an invitation to the coronation." It is therefore no evidence that he was present. Similarly the appearance of his name in the list of members of the company licensed in 1603 for prospective activity as the King's players furnishes no proof of his recognition as a prominent actor, and leaves us ignorant of the plays in which he may have participated, the roles which he performed, or the manner of his acting. All that we have of an official nature during this period are therefore two appearances of his name in general non-informative lists quite consistent with [60] the theory that during the most important years of what is supposed to have been his great London period he was not in constant personal touch with the business of the company.
Of non-official acting records - we again give the facts in the words of Sir Sidney Lee - "Shakespeare's name stands first on the list of those who took part in the original performance of Ben Jonson's 'Every Man in his Humour'" (1598 - the year in which Jonson, having been imprisoned for killing Gabriel Spenser, was liberated, apparently as a result of influential intervention). "In the original edition of Jonson's 'Seianus' (1605) the actors' names are arranged in two columns, and Shakespeare's name heads the second column. . . . But here again the part allotted to each actor is not stated." Nor is it mentioned that this list was only published two years after the performance (1603).
These two appearances of his name are the only things that might be called records of his acting during the whole period of his fame; the first at its beginning, and the second, according to several authorities, at its close. ("There is no doubt he never meant to return to London except for business visits after 1604": National Encyclopedia). We know neither what parts he played, nor how he played them; but the one thing we do know is that they had nothing to do with the great "Shakespeare" plays. There is not a single record during the whole of his life of his ever appearing in a play of "Shakespeare's"; whilst the writer responsible for the appearance of his name in 'these instances is the same as lent the sanction of his name to the deliberate inaccuracies of the First Folio. It is worth while noticing that although Jonson gives a foremost place to the name of "Shakespeare" in these lists, when Jonson's "Every Man out of his Humour" was played by the Lord Chamberlain's company, the whole of the company, with one notable exception, had parts assigned to them. That [61] one exception was Shakspere, who does not appear at all in the cast. (See the collected works of Jonson.)
Other striking absences of William Shakspere's name in connection with this particular company remain to be noticed. The company became implicated in the "Essex Rebellion," and Augustine Phillipps, one of the members, had to present himself for examination in connection with it. His statement, made on oath and formally attested with his signature, involves a play of "Shakespeare's" Richard (II). William Shakspere himself was, however, quite out of the business. He was not called upon, and his name was not even mentioned in connection with the play, which is spoken of as "so old and so long out I of use."
Again in August, 1604, the company was appointed to attend on the Spanish Ambassador at Somerset House and were paid for their services; "Augustine Phillipps and John Hemynges for th' allowance of themselves and tenne of their fellows . . . for the space of 18 dayes (receiving) £21 12s." We again notice the absence of the name of one whom we have been taught to regard as the chief personality in the company.
The modern Stratfordian postpones Shakspere's retirement to Stratford to the year 1612 or 1613. In 1612 the company was engaged in litigation, and the names of "John Hemings, Richard Burbage and Henry Condall" appear in connection with it, but there is no mention of Shakspere.
On the installation of Prince Henry as Prince of Wales the services of the company were enlisted and the names of Anthony Munday, Richard Burbage, and John Rice occur in the official records, the first as writer and the last two as actors; but no mention is made of the great writer-actor William Shakspere.
In 1613 the Globe Theatre, the supposed scene of William Shakspere's great triumphs, was burnt to the ground, and a contemporary poet sang of the event in verses that commemorate Anthony Munday, Richard Burbage, [62] Henry Condell, and the father of John Heminge, but without ever a backward glance at the retiring or retired William Shakspere whose name has immortalized the name of the building.
After such a contemporary record the appearance of his name, in the 1623 folio edition, seven years after his death, at the head of the list of "the principall actors in all these plays," confirms the bogus character of the whole of the editorial pretensions of that work. With such a send-off, it is remarkable that subsequent tradition has done so little for him. More than eighty years, later Rowe in his Life of Shakspere (1709) assigns but one role to the "principall actor in all these plays": namely the Ghost in Hamlet. This tradition, though quite unreliable - seeing that the whole body of Shakespearean tradition is mixed with much that is now known to be untrue - is nevertheless interesting: for the role of the Ghost in Hamlet is just such as a third rate man about the 'theatre might have been trained to perform upon occasion. The discussion of the shifting sands of Shakespearean tradition hardly comes within the province of this work. It is interesting to note, however, that Mrs. Stopes, flatly refuses to believe the body of Shakespeare traditions, for the very substantial reason that they arose at too late a period after the events. How little of solid biographical fact remains when mere tradition is discounted, the general reader, who simply interests himself in the plays, is seldom aware.
It is possible that we may have omitted the discussion of some contemporary reference which others might consider important. Enough, however, has been said to show that William Shakspere's connection with the Lord Chamberlain's company was of a distinctly anomalous character. On the one hand there are distinct traces of an effort to give him a marked prominence in respect to the constitution and operations of the company, and on the other hand a total absence of the inevitable concomitants of such a [63] prominence. What others, using him as an instrument of their purposes, were able to do with his name, is done; what could only be brought about by the force of his own genius is lacking. Outside the formal lists of names no single contemporary that we know of records an event or impression of him as an actor during all the years of his literary fame. It may safely be said, therefore, that neither in the provinces nor in London did the public who were buying and reading "Shakespeare's" plays know much about William Shakspere the actor. Even the objectionable anecdote which represents Burbage in the dramatic role of Richard the Third does not imply dramatic functions of any kind for Shakspere, but represents him as a silent listener, not necessarily one living in the public eye: a person whom some one in the outside public might have thought of as implicated in the inner workings of the company. In the face of so pronounced a silence in respect to him, why should there have been these two efforts of Jonson's to thrust his name forward as an actor in a way which neither the records of the Lord Chamberlain's company nor the constitution of the cast for his own play "Every Man out of his Humour" warranted? And how does it happen, in view of the total silence of the records of the Lord Chamberlain's company during all the years, both before and after, that his name was inserted twice in one year (1603) in the business formalities of the company? In a word, how does it happen that we have the name occupying an artificial eminence in two connections and nothing else to correspond? The most natural answer is, of course, that false claims were being made for him fitting in exactly with the admitted false pretensions of the First Folio in which the same party, Ben Jonson, was implicated. In the matter of motives, however, we again put in a plea for Jonson that he is entitled to the same indulgence as has been freely accorded to Heminge and Condell, although he probably was deeper in the secret than they were.