Numbers in bold brackets [] indicate original page numbers.
POSTHUMOUS CONSIDERATIONS
[345] "ALTHOUGH Shakespeare's powers showed no sign of exhaustion, he reverted in 1607 to his earlier habit of collaboration, and with another's aid composed Timon, of Athens, etc." SIR SIDNEY LEE.
We have seen that up to the time of the death of Edward de Vere new Shakespearean plays and printed issues of plays formerly staged were appearing at a phenomenal rate. These we have regarded as literary transformations of what had previously existed as stage plays. Our next question is whether Shakespeare's writings, as we now have them, represent a completed or an uncompleted work. Even under the old supposition of an author who spent the last years of his life in retirement from literary work this question has already been answered, and the answer given has again constituted one of the paradoxes of literature. For we are assured that the greatest genius that has appeared in English literature, when he had reached his maturity, and when there was no sign of failing powers, having lined his pockets well with money, retired from his literary labours, leaving in the hands of stage managers the manuscripts of incompleted plays, that others, at a later date, were called upon to finish. Shakespeare's work is therefore admittedly an unfinished performance.
Unfinished performances of great geniuses are not unknown in the world, but when they appear one explanation alone accounts for them — an utter inability to proceed: [346] usually death. To neither William Shakspere nor to Bacon nor to any one else whose name has been raised in this connection does such an explanation apply. In all these cases we must assume the deliberate abandonment of the work for other interests. In the case of Edward de Vere alone do we get the natural explanation that the writer was cut off in the midst of his work, leaving unpublished some plays that he may have considered finished, and others published later, either unfinished or as they had been finished by other writers.
To suppose that "Shakespeare," having attained the highest rank as a playwriter whilst still in the heyday of his powers, should, on approaching his zenith, have reverted to his earlier practice of collaboration with others — the master-hand in the craft returning to the expedients, of his prentice days — is to deny to him the possession of ordinary common sense. And to suppose that he was so indifferent to the fate of his own manuscripts as to leave them to drift amongst unknown actors, without arrangements for their preservation and publication, is to suppose him incapable of measuring their value. Yet all this is implied in the Stratfordian view, and much of it in the Baconian.
Under the De Vere theory the whole situation assumes for the first time a rational and commonsense appearance. Prevented by death from completely finishing his task, he had nevertheless been speeding up the issue of his works for some years beforehand, and had friends sufficiently in his confidence to safeguard his manuscripts and to preserve his incognito when he was gone. The admittedly unfinished character of Shakespeare's work we maintain, then, can only be rationally explained by supposing that death, and not retirement, had brought his literary activities to a close. This is the first point to be fixed in the statement of our argument from the posthumous point of view.
When we turn to examine the issue of Shakespeare's [347] works in relation to Edward de Vere's death, we find facts of a specially interesting and illuminating character. We have already indicated the tremendous outpouring attributed to the six preceding years. Let us now see what happens immediately after his death.
There are three points of view from which the dating of the plays may be regarded. First, we have the system of conjectural dating based upon the assumption that the Stratford man was the author; secondly, there are the ascertained dates of the first known publication of the plays; and thirdly, we have the recorded dates of the various early issues, including revised editions and mere reprints.
Beginning with the first, that upon which much of the argument in the last chapter is based, we find, in spite of the fact that it is largely guesswork, founded upon the very views of authorship which we are now questioning, it indicates a distinct check in the issues at the time of Oxford's death. Professor Dowden attributes but one play, "King Lear," to the year 1605, and one, "Macbeth," to the year 1606: and even this last is treated both by Sir Sidney Lee and by the compiler of the "Falstaff" Notes as very doubtful. At the same time, 1607 is chosen by the former as the year when plays again began to appear in which Shakespeare's work was mixed with that of contemporary writers. Even this hypothetical dating of the plays indicates, therefore, some radical change about the time when Edward de Vere died.
As "King Lear" and "Macbeth" are ascribed to the two years immediately following the death of Edward de Vere it has been necessary to examine somewhat closely the data from which such a conclusion has been drawn. The most of this has been brought together in the appendix to the "Variorum Shakespeare," and the point on which much of the argument is made to turn is the suggested allusions to the union of the English and Scottish crowns, contained in the plays. [348] The rest seems determined by the general scheme of finding reasonable spaces of time in the life of William Shakspere to get the work done. These allusions to the union of the crowns would be very natural to one who had occupied a foremost position at the coronation, if he happened to be trimming up these particular plays at the time: on the other hand, the general scheme of dating the works does not, as we have seen, apply to the Earl of Oxford.
The most significant fact, however, which the study of other authorities brings to light is that, instead of fixing a definite year for each of these two plays, they assign a period of three years, 1603 to 1606, during which they assert these two plays might have been written. It will thus be seen that even these two may fairly be added to the apparently amazing production of the last six or seven years of De Vere's lifetime.
Of "King Lear," the "Variorum Shakespeare" remarks that "Drake (in 'Shakespeare and his Times') thinks its production is to be attributed to 1604. . . . I think we must be content with the term of 3 years (1603-1606); no date more precise than this will probably ever gain general acceptance." The case of "Macbeth" is even more interesting. Several authorities give again the 1603-1606 period, and Grant White affirms, "I have little hesitation in referring the production to the period 1604-1606." With this in mind, the quotations given in the "Variorum Shakespeare" from Messrs. Clark and Wright (Clarendon Press Series) showing that "Macbeth" was a work of collaboration between Shakespeare and another are of great importance. The question of an arranged collaboration versus interpolation is raised, and the following conclusion arrived at:
"On the whole we incline to think that the play was interpolated after Shakespeare's death — or, at least, after he had withdrawn from all connection with the theatre."
Had the works been dissociated from the Stratford man, or rather, if they had been avowedly anonymous from [349] the first, the study of these particular plays would have justified a suspicion that their writer had died about 1604: the year of the death of Edward de Vere. This furnishes the second stage in the development of our posthumous argument.
After "King Lear" and "Macbeth" we enter upon the period which begins with "Timon of Athens" and finishes with "Henry VIII": the former, according to the passage we have quoted from Sir Sidney Lee, marking the beginning of work in which "collaboration" becomes a pronounced feature, and the latter, in which "Shakespeare" is supposed to lay down his pen, being generally recognized as largely the work of Fletcher. In this period we have great dramas that are no mere "prentice work," in which are passages and dramatic situations revealing this great genius at his highest. Yet it is in this work that we meet with deficiencies of poetic finish on the one hand, and the recognized intervention of strange pens on the other: a state of things to which we cannot imagine even a third rate writer submitting voluntarily.
With all deference to Shakespearean scholars, we are bound to say that, in respect to the work assigned to this period, wonder and praise seem to have got the better discrimination. There is so much here of "Shakespeare's" best, that there has been a fatal tendency to regard as good what is more than questionable. Even the faults of those who have been called in to finish the work, or possibly even of the author's first rough drafts, have been treated as "Shakespeare's" most advanced conceptions, and as marks of his poetic development. We would specify, in particular, the uneven versification due to additional syllables in the lines, faulty rhythm and "weak endings," which have made so much of the later so-called "blank-verse" hardly distinguishable to the ear from honest prose.
Our commentators assure us that this "rag-time" verse shows us the mighty genius bursting his fetters. The real roots of this eulogized [350] emancipation will, however, be readily perceived from a consideration of the following passages from North's Plutarch and Shakespeare's "Coriolanus" (one of these later plays), for which we are indebted to Sir Sidney Lee's work:
North's Plutarch (prose).
"I am Caius Marcus, who hath done
to thyself particularly, and to all the Voices
generally great hurt and mischief; which
I cannot deny for my surname of
Coriolanus that I bear."Shakespeare's "Coriolanus" (blank verse!)
"My name is Caius Marcus who hath done
To thee particularly, and to all the Voices.
Great hurt and mischief; thereto witness may
My surname Coriolanus."At last, then, the secret of this great literary emancipation is out. The people who were "finishing off" these later plays took straightforward prose, either from the works of others, or from rough notes collected by "Shakespeare" in preparing his dramas, and chopped it up, along with a little dressing, to make it look in print something like blank verse. That "Shakespeare," living, could have voluntarily suffered such work to go forth as his is inconceivable. The result of such a method has been the production of faulty rhythm and "weak endings," and these have been hailed by learned Shakespeareans as tokens of a great poetic liberation. On this plan even a schoolboy might conceivably give us an edition of Newton's "Principia" in blank-verse.
"Cymbeline" (another of these later plays) is also strongly marked by "weak endings" and interpolations; and both Professor Dowden and Stanton recognize in the play the participation of an inferior hand.
Of "Antony and Cleopatra," Sir Sidney Lee remarks: "The source of the tragedy is the life of Antonius in North's Plutarch. Shakespeare followed closely the historical narrative, and assimilated not merely its temper, but in the first [351] three acts, much of its phraseology." The case of "The Tempest" we reserve for special examination in the appendix.
The general stamp, then, of this later work is greatness, suggestive of unfailing powers; and defects suggestive of unfinished workmanship and the intervention of inferior pens: a combination which we claim can only be explained by the death of the dramatist.
With the Earl of Oxford substituted for William Shakspere much of the guesswork relating to the time when the plays were written ceases to have any value: what is of most consequence now is the date of actual issue. We have, therefore, compiled a list of the dates when the first printed issues of the plays appeared; and although errors may have crept in, owing to the relatively subordinate position hitherto assigned to this particular group of facts, it will presently appear that their general trend is sufficiently well marked for our purpose. "Venus" and "Lucrece" were published in 1593 and 1594 respectively: an interval of four years passed before the printing of the plays began, and even then the first of the series had not Shakespeare's name attached. The Sonnets are included in the following list because of their special importance.
THREE PERIODS OF SHAKESPEAREAN PUBLICATION AFTER " VENUS" AND "LUCRECE."
COMPILED FROM NOTES TO "POCKET FALSTAFF" EDITION.
1st Period (1597-1603).
1. Richard II.
2. Richard III.
3. Romeo and Juliet.
4. Love's Labour's Lost.
5. Henry IV, part 1.
6. Henry IV, part 2. [352]
7. Henry V.
8. Merchant of Venice.
9. Midsummer Night's Dream.
10. Much Ado About Nothing.
11. Titus Andronicus.
12. Merry Wives of Windsor (pirated).
13. Hamlet (pirated): authentic in 1604.Arrested publication (1604-16O7 inclusive).
No new publication.
2nd Period (1608-9).
1. King Lear.
2. Troilus and Cressida.
3. Pericles.
4. Sonnets.3rd Period (1622-23).
1622 Othello.
1623 (Folio Edition).All the remainder, twenty plays in all, including such well-known names as,
As You Like It.
Taming of the Shrew.
Macbeth.
Tempest.
Julius Caesar.
King John.
Twelfth Night.
Measure for Measure.
Two Gentleman of Verona.
All's Well that Ends Well.In the six years from 1597 to 1603 it will be noticed there were no less than thirteen plays of Shakespeare's printed and published for the first time. Some of these had been staged in previous years, and others were then being [353] both staged and printed for the first time. This brings us to the year before Oxford's death.
From 1603 to 1608, according to this record, no single play was printed and published for the first time. Even supposing there are mistakes and oversights in these notes, there is still a large enough margin for us to affirm confidently that the publication of Shakespeare's plays was arrested in a marked degree for several years after the death of Edward de Vere. We may add that this arrested publication is fully borne out by Professor Dowden's table, Sir Sidney Lee's account, and every other record we have seen. This gives us the third and probably the most telling of our arguments from the posthumous standpoint.
If, again, we turn to the issuing of mere reprints, entailing no literary work properly speaking, we find that after 1604 there was nothing reprinted until 1608, except the two popular plays of "Hamlet" and "Richard III," for which we might judge there would be a considerable demand: and even these were only reprinted once, namely, in 1608. It would therefore seem that all kinds of issues, including even pirated and surreptitious editions, as well as mere reprints, were definitely checked at the time of Oxford's death: a fact which should give Shakespearean scholars "furiously to think" respecting much of the so-called "pirated" work. So complete an arrest of publication at this precise moment is almost startling in its character; the slight resumption which took place after an interval of four years is not less striking.
In 1608 and 1609 there was a slight revival of Shakespearean publication involving, however, only three plays and the Sonnets. Nothing else was newly
published until "Othello" in 1622, and the Folio edition of Shakespeare in 1623, six and seven years respectively after the death of the Stratford Shakspere. Even according to the Stratfordian view, then, the most of Shakespeare's works were published [354] posthumously. In the Folio edition no less than twenty out of the thirty-seven, so called, Shakespearean plays were printed and published for the first time — so far as anything has yet been discovered. Of the three plays appearing in this temporary revival one is "Pericles," which was published in 1609; the same year as the Sonnets appeared. Now the manner of the publication of these two, "Pericles" and the "Sonnets," is as strong a confirmation as could be wished for that the dramatist himself was by this time dead. We shall take "Pericles" first, quoting again the "Falstaff" notes."Pericles" is mainly from other hands than Shakespeare's, probably those of Wilkins and Rowley. It was first printed in quarto in 1609 with the following title:
"'Pericles' . . . as it hath been divers times acted by his Majesty's servants at the Globe. . . . By William Shakspere . . ."
This play was therefore issued with the full imprimatur of William Shakspere and the Globe Theatre, although it is mainly from other hands, than Shakespeare's. Contrast this with the plays issued during the life of De Vere under the "Shakespeare" nom-de-plume. They are:
1598 Love's Labour's Lost.
1600 Henry IV, part 2.
The Merchant of Venice.
A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Much Ado About Nothing.
1602 The Merry Wives of Windsor (pirated).
1603 Hamlet (curtailed and pirated).
1604 Hamlet: authorized.Leaving out of consideration the plays published in 1597 and 1598 without any author's name attached, the important point to notice is the character of the plays which received the Shakespeare imprimatur up to the time of the death of De Vere. No one would venture to say of any one of [355] these that it was "mainly from other hands" than Shakespeare's, whatever opinion he might hold as to the quality or completeness of the play itself. It is of interest, too, that although "Titus Andronicus" was published in the same period it was without the name of "Shakespeare." The natural conclusion is that when in 1609 "Pericles" was published, with all the éclat of a genuine Shakespearean play, the controlling hand of "Shakespeare" himself had been removed. Those who were directing matters may have believed it to have been his: what is more probable is that it was they who had called in assistance to finish a play which he had left unfinished.
Take now the issue of' the Sonnets, a problem that has agitated and puzzled the literary world for so long. We need not at present discuss the question of who W. H. and T. T. may have been, or attempt to clear up the mystery of their association with the publication of these poems; but ninety per cent of the mystery of the publication disappears as soon as we suppose a posthumous issue. Indeed the dedication to the Sonnets has been telling us for three hundred years, in the plainest of terms, that the writer was already dead. It may be a curiosity of language, but it is nevertheless a fact, that we only speak of a man being "ever-living" after he is, actually dead; and in the dedication of the Sonnets their author is referred to as "our ever-living poet." Who then was this "ever-living poet"? Surely not the man who, to all appearances, had deserted or was preparing to desert the high interests of literature and drama and attend to his land and houses at Stratford, and who was being completely ignored by those who were issuing the full literary text of what were supposed to be his great personal poems. Neither is it likely that "our ever-living poet" was at that moment discharging the functions of solicitor-general with his eye upon the woolsack, or planning his "Great Instauration."
To suppose that a set of no less than one hundred and [356] fifty sonnets, many of them of exquisite quality, touching the most private experiences and sentiments of a great genius, whose work proclaims an almost fastidious regard on his part for his productions, could, while he was yet alive, have found their way into print, surreptitiously, with strange initials attached, without his knowledge, consent, signature, or immediate and emphatic protest, is as extravagant a supposition as could be imagined. Yet all this is implied in the Stratfordian theory of authorship. The only hypothesis that adequately explains the situation is that the poet himself was dead and his manuscript had passed into other hands. The dedication itself proclaims the fact, and the simultaneous issue of "Pericles" confirms it.
We shall close the discussion of these two publications with a sentence bearing on each from Sir Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare.
Pericles: "The bombastic form of title shows that Shakespeare had no hand in the publication" (1609).
Sonnets: "He (Shakespeare) cannot be credited with any responsibility for the publication of Thorpe's collection of his sonnets in 1609."
In respect to the other two plays published in 1608-9 it will be enough to give the following quotations from the same work. "King Lear" . . ."was defaced by many gross typographical errors. Some of the sheets were never subjected to any correction of the press. The publisher, Butter, endeavoured to make some reparation . . . by issuing a second quarto which was designed to free the text of the most obvious incoherences of the first quarto. But the effort was not successful. Uncorrected sheets disfigured the second quarto little less conspicuously than the first."
"Troilus and Cressida" . . . "Exceptional obscurity attaches to the circumstances, of the publication. . . After a pompous title-page there was inserted for the first time in the case of a play by Shakespeare that was published in [357] his lifetime, an advertisement or preface . . . the publishers paid bombastic and high-flown compliments, to Shakespeare . . . and defiantly boasted that the grand possessors of the manuscript deprecated its publication." This is the particular play which we pointed out in an earlier chapter probably contains the matter of Oxford's early play of "Agamemnon and Ulysses."
William Shakspere of Stratford was evidently not even the holder of the manuscript in this instance: and certainly the expression "grand possessors" is worth attention. The point that matters, however, is that neither the author himself, nor the owners of the authentic manuscript, had anything to do with this particular publication. And as the same has been shown to be true of the author's relation to the other three issues of this period, all four, without exception, give unmistakable support to the views we are now advocating. This, then, is the position. We have a flood of Shakespearean plays being published authentically right up to the year before the death of Edward de Vere, then a sudden stop, and nothing more published with any appearance of proper authorization for nearly twenty years, although the reputed author was alive and active during twelve of these years. We have no, hesitation in saying that the simple fact we have enunciated in our last sentence furnishes an argument it is hardly possible to strengthen further.
Decisive as may appear the fact we have just stated there remains one other consideration which brings us into still closer contact with the actual date of Oxford's death. It will be seen that on either the Stratfordian or the De Vere theory, the last play published with any appearance of proper authorization during Shakespeare's lifetime was "Hamlet." An examination of the facts connected with the printing of this play is therefore of special importance. We have included it in the 1597-1603 period because a quarto edition of it appeared in the last year of this period. The 1603 quarto edition, [358] however, is described by Sir Sidney Lee as "a piratical and carelessly transcribed copy of Shakespeare's first draft of the play." In 1604 the Second Quarto edition, he tells us, was published "from a more complete and accurate manuscript." He further adds:
"The concluding words of the title-page were intended to stamp its predecessor as surreptitious and unauthentic. But it is clear that the Second Quarto was not a perfect version of the play. A third version figured in the Folio of 1623. Here many passages not to be found in the quartos appeared for the first time, but a few others that appear in the quartos are omitted. The Folio text probably came nearest to the original manuscript." Now, with an interval of nearly twenty years between the second and third versions of a play which had evidently been subjected to constant revision and development, whilst simple reprints of the second edition had appeared in the interval, what is the natural inference in view of the facts already pointed out? Simply that the author was removed by death whilst actually engaged upon the particular play, at the time when the Second Quarto was published, namely 1604, the exact year of the death of Edward de Vere. We feel quite justified in claiming that 'Shakespeare,' whoever he may have been, died in 1604 almost in the act of revising 'Hamlet,' just as at a later day Goethe died almost in the act of finishing his greatest work 'Faust.'
Of the first Folio edition of "Shakespeare's" plays (1623) we shall again quote a passage from Sir Sidney Lee, "John Heming and Henry Condell were nominally responsible for the venture, but it seems to have been suggested by a small syndicate of printers and publishers who undertook all pecuniary responsibility. . . . The dedication . . . was signed by Heming and Condell. . . . The same signatures were appended to a succeeding address. . . . In both addresses the actors made pretension to a larger responsibility for the enterprise than they really incurred."
[359] In a word, they were being employed as a blind, and their part was overdone. It is evident, at any rate, that the initiative did not come from the two actors. As, therefore, they formed the only connecting link between the Stratford Shakspere and the publication of the plays, it is obvious that they had been brought into the business in order to throw a veil over others who did not wish to appear in it. The silence of William Shakspere's will respecting these important manuscripts has already received attention.
The further fact that the plays now published for the first time were not from the curtailed play-actor's copies, such as had furnished the text of several pirated issues, but the full literary text; in some instances, as we have seen in the case of "Hamlet," even improved versions of plays that had already enjoyed a proper literary publication, has also been considered and ought to dispose completely of the claim that the collection had been brought together by actors from the stores of unspecified theatre managers, or fished up out of the lumber rooms behind the scenes. Such a view does not accord with common sense and would hardly have been credited in any other connection. The only feasible supposition is that the documents had been in the safe keeping of responsible people, and that the death seven years before of the man who had formerly served as a mask rendered necessary the "Heming and Condell" subterfuge, if the incognito was to be preserved. In a word, the resumption of authorized publication after being arrested for eighteen or nineteen years is marked by the same elements of mysteriousness and secrecy, in which everything connecting the man and his work has been involved, and furnishes its own quota of evidence that the master's hand had been removed for very many years.
Not only does the time of the death of De Vere mark an arrest in the publication of "Shakespeare's" works, it also marks, according to orthodox authorities, [360] some kind of a crisis in the affairs of William Shakspere. Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke, in the Life of Shakspere published along with their edition of the plays, date his retirement to Stratford in the year 1604 precisely. After pointing out that in 1605 he is described as "William Shakspere, Gentleman, of Stratford-on-Avon," they continued: "Several things conduced to make him resolve upon ceasing to be an actor, and 1604 has generally been considered the date when he did so." Several other writers, less well known, repeat this date; and works of reference, written for the most part some years ago, place his retirement in the same year: "There is no doubt he never meant to return to London, except for business visits, after 1604" (National Encyclopedia).
This is probably the most exact and startling synchronism furnished by Stratfordians. We have elsewhere given reasons for our belief that his actual retirement from London was much earlier than this. The fact that this date has been chosen is evidence, however, that Shakespearean records are indicative of some crisis at this precise time. More recent authorities, finding it necessary probably to give a date more in accord with accepted ideas as to the writing of the plays, and the continuance of William Shakspere's material interests in London, have added eight or nine years to this, during which time his forces are supposed to have been divided between Stratford and London, but during which period he has left no traces of domiciliation in London, and no "incidents." In either case the time of De Vere's death corresponds to the time assigned for William Shakspere's retirement, partial or complete. The latter's work in London was practically done, and he could no longer remain in constant contact with the old life without a danger that the part he had played as mask to a great genius should be detected.
It is worth while noticing that William Shakspere's first purchases of property extended from the time of the first [361] publication of the plays, in 1597, up to the year following De Vere's death, when, in 1605, he purchased "for £440 of Ralph Hubbard an unexpired term" of the lease of certain tithes; and another important purchase is recorded for 1613, the year following the death of the second Lady Oxford. Not much of this kind of transaction is recorded of the interval between the two events. The only one we have found was in 1610, when he purchased some land adjacent to his estate. This, it will be observed, was in the year following the publication of "Pericles" and the Sonnets. His purchase in 1613 of property in London for £140 was "his last investment in real estate."
There is certainly a distinct suggestiveness worth considering about this correspondence of dates, especially as it is reported that on one occasion he received large sum of money (£1000, it is said) from the Earl of Southampton for the express purpose of buying property. However lucrative theatre shareholding may have been, authorship, at any rate, was not then the road to affluence; whilst an actor, who seems not to have risen above playing the Ghost in "Hamlet," would hardly be in enjoyment of the plums of his profession.
Whatever opinions may be formed of William Shakspere on other grounds, we do not wish to suggest any reproach for the part he took in assisting Oxford to hide his identification with the authorship of the plays. The former's role in life was indeed a humble one from the standpoint of literature, and, in view of the glory he has enjoyed for so long, becomes now somewhat ignominious. Nevertheless, whatever inducements may have been held out to him he fulfilled his part loyally. His task was to assist a remarkable but unfortunate man in the performance of a work, the value of which he himself could probably not have estimated; and though it will be the duty of Englishmen to see that the master is ultimately put in possession of the honours [362] that have for so long been enjoyed by the man, it will be impossible ever totally to dissociate from the work and personality of the great one, the figure and name of his helper. Such, at any rate, would be the desire of Oxford, if we may interpret it in the light of the principle of noblesse oblige that shines through the great Shakespearean dramas. We may even suppose that Oxford had some hand in defending William Shakspere from Greene's attack. Chettle's defence of him that he was "civil" and that "divers of worship have reported his uprightness in dealing, which argues his honesty," is distinctly suggestive of some such intervention on the part of Oxford. The terms of the defence are undoubtedly much more appropriate to a testimonial to a faithful servant than a tribute to the supreme genius of the age.
That such a work of secrecy could not have been done without the loyal co-operation of others goes without saying. In order to maintain our thesis, however, it is not necessary that we should solve the problem of who his associates were, or of how they went about their work. It is reasonable to suppose that Henry Wriothesley was one, and it is natural to conclude that the wife with whom he was living in evident comfort was another. We may venture a guess, too, that his cousin, Horatio de Vere, the eminent soldier, may have been a third.
We should imagine that Horatio de Vere was a man after Edward's own heart; and, although the former spent much of his life abroad, he was living in England in the years when the Shakespearean publication was resumed, (1608-9) and also when the 1623 Folio edition was published. The publication of the Sonnets in 1609 and the plays in 1623, many of which would otherwise have perished precisely as Oxford's plays are supposed to have done, may have been the final discharge of part of a solemn trust. The publication of the plays ought indeed to have taken place during the lifetime of William Shakspere, whose [363] death probably created a perplexing situation for those entrusted with their publication; a situation from which, as we have seen, they tried to escape by the "Heming and Condell" device. Horatio de Vere's absence from the country during the latter years of William Shakspere's life may account for the fatal delay. This, however, is merely interesting speculation and forms no essential part of the argument.
The part taken by Henry Wriothesley first in arranging for a performance of "Richard II" in connection with the 1601 insurrection, and then for a private performance of "Love's Labour's Lost," to entertain the new Queen in 1603, has already been mentioned. So that, although ten years had elapsed since Shakespeare began to dedicate poems to him, he was still not only deeply interested in, but actively occupied with, the doings of the so-called "Shakspere's company," and the Shakespearean plays. In the autumn of 1599, however, his theatrical interests were so pronounced as to provoke special remark: he is then reported to have been spending much of his time every day at the theatres. In view of the enterprising temperament he subsequently evinced, such a mode of spending his time is not likely to have arisen from mere idleness; it is much more likely to have been connected with some definite purpose. Now, the following year was the most important year in the history of Shakespearean publication during the lifetime of either Edward de Vere or William Shakspere. For in the one year 1600 there were published or reprinted no less than six plays.
1. Henry IV, part 2.
2. Henry V (probably pirated, however).
3. The Merchant of Venice (2 editions).
4. A Midsummer Night's Dream (2 editions).
5. Much Ado About Nothing.
6. Titus Andronicus.In 1601 Southampton was imprisoned, and all [364] publication of proper literary versions of the plays stopped immediately; only the pirated actor's drafts, of "Hamlet" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor" appearing during his imprisonment. It looks as if, at that time, the complete issue of the plays had been decided upon and begun, and that Wriothesley's imprisonment had interfered with the plans. After his liberation it was immediately resumed with an authorized version of "Hamlet." Then De Vere's death occurred, and all further authorized publication was suspended till 1622 and 1623. Meanwhile Southampton dropped William Shakspere, and took to other pursuits. It cannot be denied, therefore, that there is much to support the view that Henry Wriothesley acted as intermediary between the Earl of Oxford and those who were staging and publishing the dramas. The fact that his, step-father, Thomas Henneage, was Treasurer of the Chamber, and therefore responsible for the financial side of all the business, is not without significance. The special relationship between Oxford and Southampton, to be considered in connection with Shakespeare's Sonnets, gives to these matters a position of first importance.
After the events connected with Southampton's liberation, including, we are assured on the best authority, a reference in one of Shakespeare's sonnets, Sir Sidney Lee informs us that "there is no trace of further relations between" Southampton and William Shakspere. That is to say, the death of Edward de Vere is followed immediately by the loss of all traces of a personal connection between William Shakspere and the only contemporary whom the poet has directly associated with the issue of his, works.
With regard to De Vere's widow, the second Lady Oxford, we remark that she died in 1612, whilst 1613 is the later date assigned by some authorities for the final and complete retirement of William Shakspere from the scene of London dramatic and literary life. The substantial fact upon which this [365] conclusion rests is that there is a record of his presence in London in that year, attending to business. Curiously enough this business had nothing to do with either dramatic or literary affairs, but wholly with the taking over of property: "his last investment in real estate."
To these general posthumous considerations one remains to be added. The particular sonnet which, according to Sir Sidney Lee and other authorities, welcomed Southampton's liberation from prison in 1603, is one of the last of the series; and "Sonnet cvii, apparently the last of the series, makes references to events that took place in 1603 — to Queen Elizabeth's death and the accession of James I." In a word, the death of Edward de Vere brought to a close the series of sonnets that "Shakespeare" had begun some twelve or fourteen years before. Then for five or six years these sonnets lay, without a single one being added to their number, before the complete series was mysteriously given to the world by strangers (1609). And, although the Stratford man lived for yet other seven years, no further sonnets appeared from the pen of the greatest sonneteer that England has yet produced.
No amount of harping upon a point like this can possibly strengthen its significance; and the man who, viewing it in conjunction with the other points urged in this chapter, does not believe that "Shakespeare" died at the same time as Edward de Vere would not be persuaded though one (and only one) rose from the dead.
The following is a resumé of the various points established in this chapter:
1. The latest plays of Shakespeare, being finished by other hands, indicate that the dramatist had already passed away at the time to which they are allocated.
2. The plays usually ascribed to the years immediately following Oxford's death, especially "Macbeth," furnish additional testimony that he was already dead, thus [366] making the death of the dramatist synchronize with the death of Oxford.
3. The printed issue of the plays came to a sudden stop at the time of Oxford's death, and the slight resumption of issues in 1608 and 1609 furnishes further corroboration of the death of the dramatist.
4. The manner of the publication of the Sonnets in 1609 is strongly suggestive of the death of their author: the dedication seeming to testify directly to the fact.
5. Nothing of an authentic character was newly published from the time of Oxford's death till 1622 and 1623; six and seven years respectively after the death of William Shakspere.
6. The way in which the various issues of "Hamlet" appeared affords strong evidence that the author passed away in 1604, almost in the act of revising his greatest work.
7. The manner of the publication of the First Folio edition suggests that Heming and Condell were being used as a blind, by others who had special reasons for not being seen in the matter.
8. The time of Oxford's death marks, according to orthodox authorities, a crisis and definite change in the circumstances of William Shakspere of Stratford, and his partial or complete withdrawal from the dramatic life of London.
9. The time of Oxford's death marks the cessation of Henry Wriothesley's dealings with William Shakspere, and a pronounced change in his interests, and pursuits.
10. Finally, the death of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, brings to a sudden and complete close the series of sonnets which "Shakespeare" had been penning during many preceding years.
"Every fact in the universe," says one writer, "fits in with every other." To suppose that all the above considerations are merely fortuitous is to suggest that the very [367] gods had conspired to make the death of "Shakespeare" seem to synchronize with the death of the Earl of Oxford in 1604. In other words our theory seems to be supported by nothing less than the principle of the universal harmony of truth. By way of comparison we therefore subjoin a list of the dates of the decease of the men whose names have at one time or another been brought into this problem, including the special name we have had the honour of introducing.
Edward de Vere died 1604.
Roger Manners, Earl of Rutland, died 1612.
William Shakspere died 1616.
Francis Bacon died 1626.
Wm. Stanley, Sixth Earl of Derby, died 1640.On the other hand, we cannot find a record of the death of any other literary man occurring about the year 1604: the nearest being that of Lyly, which occurred in 1606. And of course he is quite out of the question in such a connection. We have his own plays, and they furnish all the evidence needed.
We thus bring to a close the series of chapters in which an approximate biographical sequence has been attempted, and thus conclude the longest, most difficult, and most decisive part of the investigations we have undertaken. The necessities of argumentation have frequently involved the sacrifice of chronological order, and even the omission of interesting details. This must all be remedied when the biography of the real "Shakespeare" comes to be written. For the present our purpose has been, in accordance with the general plan of research, to proceed from the work, the personality, and the career of Edward de Vere, to the work of "Shakespeare"; and, reviewing the chapters as a whole, we make bold to claim that the mass and character of the evidence they contain will, when duly weighed, ensure the universal [368] recognition of the authorship we would now substitute for the old Stratfordian tradition.
In displacing the Stratford Shakspere by the substitution of Edward de Vere we, no doubt, deprive the thought of "Shakespeare" of one element of attractiveness. It has been pleasant to think of the great dramatist, after all his labours, enjoying the rest and quietness of his retirement in a countryside to which his heart had ever reverted amidst the glory and excitement of his London career. If we lose this suggestion of the idyllic in the close of a great career, we replace it, at any rate, by a vigorous conception of tragic and poetic realism. The picture of a great soul, misunderstood, almost an outcast from his own social sphere, with defects of nature to all appearances one of life's colossal failures, toiling on incessantly at his great tasks, yet willing to pass from life's stage leaving no name behind him but a discredited one: at last dying, as it would seem, almost with the pen between his fingers, immense things accomplished, but not all he had set out to do: this, it seems, will have for the manhood of the England that "Shakespeare" most certainly loved, a power of inspiration far beyond anything contained in the conception we have displaced.