Part Two - Jonson and Shakespeare

The orthodox were wont to appeal to Messrs. Heminge and Condell as though it were blas­ phemous to doubt the truth of any word they have said. Now this bubble has been pricked, and soon, perhaps, it may dawn upon the critics that " Jonson's testimony " with regard to the Shake­ spearean Folio and its supposed author is not of much greater value. He knew that not all the plays included in the Folio were written by [22] "Shakespeare"; he knew well enough that they were not printed from the "true originals"; he knew that the statement about the "unblotted manuscripts" was mere fudge. * It is not necessary to condemn him and the players as guilty of dishonesty in the same measure as we should do if we tried them by the standard of the present day, for we should remember that such aberration from the path of strict veracity was, as Mr. Dugdale Sykes truly says, looked upon as a more or less venial offence in those times when literary mystifications of this sort were of common occurrence, and when plays, and other works, were frequently published in the names of writers who were not really the authors thereof.

And now, in 1623, all "Shakespeare's" plays were to be published in collected form, "Truely set forth, according to their first ORIGINALL," [23] as the second title-page of the Folio informs the reader. But alas, they were far from being all Shakespearean work, and many of them far from being "set forth according to their first original." Jonson, however, was employed to give the volume a good send-off, not only by writing the prefaces, and making himself responsible for the statements therein contained, together with those on the two title-pages, but also by the exercise of his poetical genius. He accordingly wrote the very remarkable lines which face the paralysing Droeshout engraving and also the long eulogy signed by his name prefixed to the Folio.

Now, what was the state of the case, as I conceive it to have been? I conceive that the name of "Shakespeare," first given to the public on the dedicatory page of Venus and Adonis, in 1593, had been adopted as a convenient mask-name. ** That many subsequently wrote under that name besides the real " Shakespeare," whoever he was; is a simple matter of fact, and also that they did so unrebuked and unrestrained, without let or hindrance. I conceive that several men of high position, but, more especially one man of high position and of supreme genius, wrote plays under that name. I conceive that Shakspere, [24] the actor-manager, who was probably himself able to "bumbast out a blank verse," acted as "honest broker" for these plays. *** He received them, and put them on the stage if he thought fit to do so, and they became, presumably, the property of the Company. They became "Shakespeare's" plays, and the authorship, about which there was no questioning—for who cared a twopenny button-top about the authorship at that date? **** —was, I take it, generally attributed to him, though, as a fact, it must have been known that, whether he or somebody else were the real "Shakespeare," many of these plays were not "Shakespearean" at all. But this was a matter in which but few people took any interest in those days.

Now, some six-and-twenty years ago Frances E. Willard wrote in the Arena Magazine (Boston, Mass., 1893): "It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Lord Bacon and a number of other brilliant thinkers of the Elizabethan era, who were nobles, and who, owing to the position of the stage, would not care to have their names associated with the drama, composed or moulded the plays." This fairly well expresses my own view, with the qualification that I make no assumption whatever [25] with regard to the "Baconian" hypothesis. I would rather say, "it seems perfectly reasonable to me" that some men of high position, and especially one great man of transcendant ability, wrote dramas under the mask-name of "Shake­speare"—a name which had been already adopted by the author of Venus and Adonis—which were confided to the actor-manager to be put upon the stage. If anybody asks why they should think it necessary to conceal their identity, I need do no more than advise him to study the social history of the Elizabethan age. "The period of the Tudors," writes E. A. Petherick, in his preface to Edwin Johnson's Rise of English Culture, "was not only a time of severe repression and of harsh government, but also a time when free speech was impossible. Able men could only dissemble and speak in allegory. The plays of Shakespeare and of other writers are doubtless a reflection of the period; the names but a disguise—the play-writers merely the spokesmen of those who would have been sent to the Tower and the Block if they had expressed their opinions openly." This may be an exaggerated statement, but quite apart from any fear of punishment, to write dramas for the players was considered altogether below the dignity of a noble, or any man of high position in the community. However innocent might be the work, it brought him into ridicule and contempt, and might prove an insuperable obstacle to his advancement in the State. Even to publish poetry in his own name was unworthy of a man of high position. † In these circumstances [26] it was but natural that men in high place, who had in mind, it might be, to instruct and improve, as well as to entertain, the public, through the medium of the drama, should do so under the disguise of a pen-name; and "Shakespeare," or, as it was so often written on title-pages, "Shake-speare," formed an excellent pen-name.

But now the time had come when these "Shakespearean" plays—those of them which appeared to the editor, or editors, of the Folio to be most worthy of publication—were to be collected and republished (such as had already been published), and with them were to be given to the world sixteen dramas which had never seen the light in print before, including such masterpieces of literature as Twelfth Night, As You Like It, A Winter's Tale, Julius Caesar, Macbeth and Cymbeline. These now, seven years after William Shakspere's death, were to be rescued from that oblivion to which the actor-author (if, indeed, he was the author of them) was, apparently, quite content that they should be consigned.

And now Jonson was to write a poetical panegyric which should commend the Folio to the reading public, and give it a good send-off. And right well he did it, and fully does the world now recognise that he did not exaggerate by one jot or tittle the eulogy of that "Shakespeare" whose writings he held up to the admiration of all readers, as such

    "As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much."

The plays, I repeat, were the plays of the actor-manager; they were, it would seem, the property of his Company; they were "Shakespeare's" plays, and the authorship was, we may suppose, generally [27] ascribed to him, so far as anyone ever concerned himself about the authorship. It was, then, for Jonson to eulogize "Shakespeare," and for the general public "Shakespeare" would, I imagine, be Shakspere of Stratford, the actor-manager. †† The true Shakespeare's real name could not be revealed, but some ostensible author there must be. Why, then, disturb the accepted legend? So Shakespeare would for the general public be the "Swan of Avon," as he appears in Jonson's poem.

But here the indignant critic will doubtless interpose. "What! Jonson wrote thus, though knowing all the facts. Then, according to you, Jonson was a liar!" Whereat we of the "heretical" persuasion can afford to smile. For we see no reason to suppose that Jonson might not have taken the course we attribute to him, and considered himself quite justified in so doing.

Nearly three hundred years sever us from the publication of the Folio, and, as I have already said, we know that at that date very much less strict views were commonly held as to the obligations of literary integrity. Literary deceptions— "frauds" we might perhaps call them at the present day—were constantly perpetrated. Works were not infrequently attributed by their authors to other writers, who were, in fact, guiltless of any responsibility for them. Moreover, nobody at that date could foresee that the authorship of the Shakespearean plays would be a matter of such transcendant importance as it has now become. Not having met Jonson in the flesh, and not knowing what his views may have been with regard to these literary deceptions, or by what constraining influences his action may have been [28] governed, but knowing something concerning the practice of the times in this connexion, I see nothing unreasonable in believing that he acted as I have suggested, and I should no more think of calling him "a liar" on that account than I should think of branding Sir Walter Scott with that opprobrious epithet because he denied point­blank the authorship of the Waverley Novels. We know that he considered himself justified in so doing, and we doubt not that Jonson also considered himself justified in what he did.

So much, then, for Jonson's famous panegyric, which probably did more for the sale of the Folio than even his equally famous suggestio falsi (in the Preface "To the Great Variety of Readers"), to the effect that all the plays therein included were now published "perfect of their limbes" and "absolute in their numbers," ††† as the poet conceived them. What now of the allusion to Shakespeare in his Discoveries? Here Jonson, writing late in life, apparently some time between 1630 and 1637, records in glowing terms the high personal regard in which he held Shakespeare the man. "I loved the man and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any." But he goes on to say of him that he was such a voluble talker that at times it was necessary to "closure" him. He had to be "stopped." Like Haterius, who had such a deplorable rapidity of utterance, "sufflaminandus erat," †††† i.e., the brake had to be applied. "His wit was in his own [29] power, would that the rule of it had been so too," says Jonson. "Nevertheless," adds Ben, "he redeemed his vices with his virtues."

Now, is it credible that Jonson was here speaking of the man whom he had so eulogized some ten or twelve years before; the "soul of the age," the man whom he believed to have been the author of Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth, and all those wondrous plays of which he had spoken with such glowing admiration some thirteen years before? If he was speaking of the player only, knowing that the author—who was "not of an age but for all time"—was a different person, there is nothing extraordinary in this carping, though, as we may believe, quite just criticism which has so much perturbed and astonished those who assume that he is alluding in such shabby and disparaging terms to the "sweet Swan of Avon." Or must we assume that he was in his dotage when he so wrote? ‡ [30]

But, it will be objected, Jonson speaks of the players as saying of Shakespeare that "he never blotted out a line," and writes of them as com­ mending "their friend" by that "wherein he most faulted." Jonson, therefore, identifies player and poet. And this, no doubt, will be conclusive for those who find it impossible to believe that Jonson knew all the facts of the case, but felt bound in 1630-6, as he had been in 1623, not to reveal them to the world. But what of the "unblotted manuscripts?" Are we really to believe that player Shakspere wrote Hamlet (e.g.) currente calamo, and "never blotted out a line?" No more preposterous suggestion was ever made, even in Shakespearean controversy. No; if the players really said of Shakespeare that he "never blotted out a line" (or that they had "scarse received from him a blot in his papers ") and if the statement was true, so far as their experience went, it shows that the players had received from the author fair copies only, and here is a piece of evidence which the sceptics may well pray in aid. For if the real "Shakespeare" was "a concealed poet" he would, naturally, have had fair copies of his dramas made for him, and these would have been set before the players. As R. L. Stevenson wrote long ago, "We hear of Shakespeare and his clean manuscript; but in the face of the evidence of the style itself and of the various editions of Hamlet this merely proves that Messrs. Heminge and Condell were unacquainted with the common enough phenomenon called a fair copy. He who would recast a tragedy already given to the world, must frequently and earnestly have revised details in the study." (Men and Books, p. 149). But let the reader glance at [31] Shakspere's signatures, and ask himself if it is possible to conceive that the Shakespearean dramas were not only written by the man who so wrote, but written without a blot! No; if the anti­ Stratfordian case seems improbable here, surely the "orthodox" case is more improbable still, so improbable indeed, as to be incredible. And of two improbabilities, if such there be, it is wise to choose the less. ‡‡

___________

* Very much the same thing was said about Fletcher by Moseley in his introduction to the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio, viz.: that what he wrote was "free from interlining" and that he "never writ any one thing twice." The saying appears to have become a cliché. Moreover, what of Jonson's statement in his eulogium prefixed to the Folio to the effect that Shakespeare was wont to "strike the second heat upon the Muses anvil," in order to fashion his "well-turned and true-filed lines"? This means, of course, that, instead of writing currente calamo and leaving "scarse a blot" on his papers (an absurd idea on the face of it), he carefully revised his plays. It follows, therefore, that when these plays were handed to the players (if ever they were so handed) either the manuscripts must have shown many a blotted line, or the players received "fair copies." If we adopt the first alternative the statement of the writer of the Folio preface was untrue; if we adopt the second the hypothesis of the fair copies is vindicated. Some critics, however, who cling tenaciously to the idea of the "unblotted manuscripts" would have us reject Jonson's testimony as to Shakespeare's patient revising. Jonson, in fact, is to be taken as an unimpeachable witness of truth when it suits these critics so to take him, but to be summarily dismissed as untrustworthy when his testimony does not square with their theories. In any case, then, Jonson's evidence is discredited. back

** In its hyphenated form the name "Shake-speare," which so often appears, was an excellent pseudonym. But why on earth should player Shakspere wish to appear as "Shake-speare?" A man of the name of Northcliffe (e.g.) does not usually desire to publish under the name of "North-Cliffe." Nor if his name happens to be Sheepshanks does he give his writings to the public in the name of "Sheep-Shanks." Nor does Mr. Ramsbottom feel any call to write in the name of "Rams-Bottom." "Shake-speare" was a good "mask-name," et voila tout. As old Thomas Fuller says, the name has a warlike sound, "Hasti-vibrans," or "Shake-speare," and as Jonson writes, it is a name under which the author

    "Seems to shake a lance
    As brandish'd in the eyes of ignorance." back

*** If Jonson in his Poet-Ape Epigram referred to Shakspere, as seems to be almost certain, he considered him as, at that time, concerned in the "brokage" of other men's writings. See below, at p. 27. As to the term "actor-manager," see Note B at p. 45. back

**** In earlier times, no doubt, people didn't trouble at all about the author of a play. It was the play 'presented by the Earle of Leicester's servantes,' 'by the children of Pawles,' 'by the children of the chapel,' 'by the Lord Admiral's servantes,' 'by the Lord Chamberleynes' servantes,' or by 'Her Majesties' servantes.' We have much the same thing nowadays, when a ' producer' advertises his new pieces as if they were his own invention; and when we have phrases like 'the new Gaiety piece,' 'the new Kingsway play,' etc."—Mr. Ernest Law in the Times Literary Supplement, Dec. 30, 1920. xxx back

† This was so even at a much later time. The learned Selden (e.g.) writes, "'Tis ridiculous for a Lord to print verses; 'tis well enough to make them to please himself, but to make them publick is foolish."—TableTalk, under title "Poetry." back

†† But see Note B at p. 45. back

††† As already mentioned, this is a classical, and quite Jonsonian expression. Like certain other expressions in the Epistle Dedi­catory, evidential of the Jonsonian authorship, it is taken from Pliny; "fiber numeris omnibus absolutus" (Ep. 9, 38). Not much like poor Heminge and Condell, I apprehend! back

†††† The word sufflaminare means to check or repress in speaking. See Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 387, and the passages from Seneca and Ménage there cited. back

‡ Jonson says, "Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him, 'Caesar, thou dost me wrong.' He replied, ' Caesar did never wrong but with just cause,' and such like, which were ridiculous." Can this he a reference to Shakespeare the dramatist? "He said in the person of Caesar" in answer to "one speaking to hint!" He said something in persona Caesaris! Would one so speak of a dramatist with reference to something he had written? Does it not rather indicate something said on the stage by an actor, as Pope long ago suggested? And "he fell" into things which excited laughter. Does this suggest that Jonson was criticising the considered writing of a dramatist? Surely it rather suggests the actor. It is true that Jonson, in the Induction to his Staple of News (1625), makes "Prologus," say, "Cry you mercy, you never did wrong but with just cause," but this does not prove that the words were in Shakespeare's play. It is more likely that Jonson only heard them at the theatre (or heard of them as spoken at the theatre), as Gifford thought. Can this be Jonson's deliberate criticism of the immortal bard whom he had lauded to the skies in 1623? Or is he speaking of the actor, and not the author? (As to Jonson's quotation, "Caesar did never wrong," etc., I would refer the reader to Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 390 and following). As to Jonson's borrowing from Seneca, see p. 59. back

‡‡ See further on Jonson's Discoveries, Note C at p. 56. back