Ben Jonson and Shakespeare

In speaking of William Shakspere as "actor-manager" I have followed the "orthodox" hypothesis, but there appears to be very little evidence to show that he really occupied that position; in fact there seems to be no little doubt with regard to his position on the stage generally. In the spring of 1597 he purchased New Place at Stratford-on-Avon, and, says HalliwellPhillipps, "there is no doubt that New Place was hence forward to be accepted as his established residence." Early in the following year, on February 4th, 1598, corn being then at an unprecedented and almost famine price at Stratford-on-Avon, he is returned as the holder of ten quarters in the Chapel Street Ward, that in which the newly acquired property was situated, and in none of the indentures is he described as a Londoner, but always as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon, in the County of Warwick, gentleman." (H.P. Vol. I., p. 122, 6th Edn.) There is evidence, as Halliwell-Phillipps also tells us, that at this time he was taking great interest in the maintenance and improvement of his grounds, orchards, etc. "Thenceforward his land, property and tithes purchases, 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 may be to London, than of permanent residence in London, with occasional trips to Stratford. . . . 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." *

"Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke," adds Mr. Looney, "in the Life of Shakspere, published along with their edition of his plays, date his retirement to Stratford [46] 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)." (Ibid., p. 424.)

We are told that Shakspere lodged at one time in Bishopgate, and, later on, in Southwark, "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." (Ibid., p. 58). According to Sir Sidney Lee, Shakspere became liable for an aggregate sum of £2 13s. 4d. for each of three subsidies, but "the col lectors of taxes in the City of London worked sluggishly. For three years they put no pressure on the [alleged] dramatist, and Shakespeare left Bishopsgate without discharging the debt. Soon afterwards, however, the Bishopsgate officials traced him to his new Southwark lodging." (Life, 1915, p. 274). But here we are met by the assertion of another eminent Shakespearean authority, viz.: Professor C. W. Wallace, of the "New Shakespeare Discoveries," who tells us there is ample evidence of a negative sort, that Shakespeare never had residence in Southwark!" (Harper's Magazine, March, 1910, p. 505). "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" This conflict of opinion but further illustrates the fact of the mystery which sur rounds the question of Shakspere's residences while in London .

And now we are confronted with the dates of the Shakespearean drama. "It was not till the year 1597," [47] says Halliwell-Phillipps, "that Shakespeare's public reputation as a dramatist was sufficiently established for the booksellers to be anxious to secure the copyright of his plays." (Vol. I., p. 134). In 1598 his name appears for the first time on the title page of a play, viz.: Love's Labour's Lost, where the author's name is given— for that one occasion only—as " W. Shakespere," and subsequently in the same year, on the title pages of Richard II. and Richard III., the author appears as "William Shake-speare." "We are consequently faced," writes Mr. J. T. Looney, "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 place or places of abode in London, there is none connected with his residence in Stratford. A curious fact in this con nection is that the only letter that is known to have been addressed to him in the whole course of his life was 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' (HalliwellPhillipps). 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" (p. 59). "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 life time: 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. Compli cations 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.' [48] (S.L.) In 1597 his father and mother 'doubtless under their son's guidance' began a law-suit 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 pur chased 107 acres of arable land. In September, 1602, ' one Walter Gatley 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 with malt to the value of k1 19s. 10d., 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 sum 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." So writes Mr. Looney, with more to the same effect, and, in connexion with his argument, we must remember that a journey from London to Stratford and back was a very different thing in Shakspere's time than what it is now, and, indeed, from what it was some hundred years later than [49] Shakspere was lodging with one Montjoy, a "tire-maker" (i.e., wig-maker) in "Muggle Streete" (i.e., Monkwell Street) near Wood Street, Cheapside, for in the case of Bellott v. Montjoy, which was heard in the Court of Requests in 1612, there is a deposition signed, according to Professor Wallace, who discovered the documents at the Record Office, "Willm Shaks," but according to Sir E. Maude Thompson, "Willm Shakp," ** wherein the witness is described as "William Shakes peare," (not of London, be it remarked, but) "of Stratford-upon-Avon in the Countye of Warwicke, gentleman" (but not either as actor or dramatist!) from which, and other depositions, it appears that "Will" was, in fact, lodging at that time with the worthy "tire-maker," and lent his good offices to persuade Montjoy's apprentice Bellott to solicit the hand of the said Montjoy's daughter Mary in holy matrimony; whereupon the enthusiastic Professor Wallace at once jumps to the conclusion that "here at the corner of Muggell and Silver Streets Shakespeare was living when he wrote some of his greatest plays—Henry V., Much Ado, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Troilus and Cressida, Macbeth, Measure for Measure, Othello"! About this he tells us there can be no possible doubt whatever! But as this is the same Professor who also informed us that Shakspere "honors his host by raising him in the play [Henry V.] to the dignity of a French Herald under his own name of Montjoy," in blissful ignorance of the fact that "Montjoy, King-at-Arms" was the official name of a French Herald, who, as Holinshed (whose history the Professor had apparently either not read or forgotten) tells us, was conspicuous at the time of the battle of Agincourt, and as, moreover, there is no evidence whatever for the above wild assertion, we may be content to dismiss such futilities with a smile, and pass on to more serious considerations. ***

I will here leave this vexed question of Shakspere's residence in London. Much more might be said, but [50] I think enough has already been said to give us pause when we are asked to accept the statement that at one and the same period he was transacting all this business at Stratford, and composing all these marvellous plays, and performing the duties of "actor-manager" at a London theatre. To us, however, who entertain no doubt whatever that player Shakspere of Stratford was not the author of the plays and poems of "Shakespeare," there appears to be no impossibility in the hypothesis that the player occupied the position of manager of the theatre with which he was connected, more especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence whatever to show that any important roles were at any time assigned to him in the Shakespearean, or any other plays.

"There was not a single company of actors in Shakespeare's time," says Halliwell-Phillipps, "which did not make professional visits through nearly all the English counties, and in the hope of discovering traces of his footsteps during his provincial tours" this writer tells us that he has personally examined the records of no less than forty-six important towns in all parts of the country, "but in no single instance," says he, "have I found in any municipal record a notice of the poet himself." **** Later investigations, including the archives of some five and twenty additional cities, have proved equally fruitless, yet, writes Sir Sidney Lee, indulging once more in his favourite adverb, "Shakespeare may be credited with faithfully fulfilling all his professional functions, and some of the references to travel in his sonnets were doubtless reminiscences of early acting tours"! The records of Edinburgh have been searched but again with negative results. There is no evidence whatever that Shakspere was ever north of the Tweed. With regard to performances in London, the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, showing payments made for performances of The Burbage Company for the years 1597-1616 (except for the year 1602 the record of which is missing) have been scrutinized. Here we find mention of Heminge, Burbage, Cowley, Bryan, Pope and Augustine Phillipps, but not once does the [51] name of William Shakspere occur in all these accounts. As to the Lord Chamberlain's books, which, as Mrs. Stopes writes, "supply much information concerning plays and players," the documents, as she adds, "unfortunately are missing for the most important years of Shakespearean history." "In the light of all the other mysterious silences regarding William Shakspere," says Mr. Looney, "and the total disappearance of :the 'Shakespeare' manuscripts, so carefully guarded during the years preceding the publication of the First Folio [viz.: the seven years which elapsed between Shak spere's death and that publication], the disappearance of the Lord Chamberlain's books, recording the trans actions of his department for the greatest period in its history, hardly looks like pure accident." Be this as it may, the loss is certainly very remarkable and most unfortunate. An entry has, however, been discovered in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber to the following effect;—"To William Kempe, William Shakespeare, and Richarde Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyne, upon the Councelles warrant dated at Whitehall XV. to Marcij, 1594, for twoe severall comedies or enterludes shewed by them before her Majestie in Christmas tyme laste paste, viz.: upon St. Stephen's daye and Innocentes daye . . . in all xx. li." (H.P. Vol. I., p. 109). A foolish attempt has been made to make "Stratfordian" capital out of this, because the entry in qustion is said to have been pre pared by the Countess of Southampton, to whose son "Shakespeare" had dedicated his two poems. As a fact, however, the entry referred to occurs in a roll of the Pipe Office "declared accounts," which contains the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber from September, 1579, to July, 1596. These accounts were engrossed year by year by one of the Clerks in the Pipe Office , and signed by the Accountant in each year, or period of years. Now in 1594 Sir Thomas Heneage was Treasurer of the Queen's Chamber, and in May of that year he married Mary, widow of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, but he died in October of the following year, and it seems that no "declared accounts" [52] had at that date been rendered since September, 1592. The Queen, therefore, issued her warrant to the Countess as widow and executrix of the late Treasurer, com manding her to render the account, which she duly did from September 29th, 1592, to November 30th, 1595. The entry in question therefore had no doubt, been prepared by one of the clerks in the office of the Treasurer of the Chamber, and was thus sent in to the Pipe Office by the Countess, according to the Queen's command. She was thus only formally connected with the account, and further than this there appears to have been no connexion whatever between her and Shakspere of Stratford. In all probability she never even saw the entry in question. † All that appears, therefore, from this entry, is that "William Shakespeare," with Kempe and Burbage, about March, 1594, received payment of £ 20 in all for two comedies or interludes "showed" by them "at the preceding Christmas", though what these comedies or interludes were, and what part in them was assigned to "William Shakespeare" we are not informed. He might have acted as prompter or stage-manager for all we know. "And this," writes Mr. Looney, "although occurring three years before the opening of the period of his [i.e., 'Shakespeare's'] fame, 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.

Jonson inserts the name of Shakespeare in the castes of his plays, Every Man in his Humour, and Sejanus, but no mention is made of the parts played by him. "We know," says Mr. Looney, "neither what pits 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.' . . . It is worth while noticing that although Jonson gives a foremost place to the name of [53] 'Shakespeare' in these lists [viz.: of his plays above-mentioned] 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 one exception was Shakspere, who does not appear at all in the cast.'' ††

All that Sir Sidney Lee can say, after mentioning a number of plays which Shakspere and his colleagues are said to have produced before the sovereign in Shakspere's lifetime, is "It may be presumed that in all these dramas some role was allotted to him!" In the list of actors prefixed to the Folio of 1623, in the preparation and publication of which Jonson took such a large part, the name of "William Shakespeare" stands first, as in the circumstances, we should expect that it would. But what parts did he play? Rowe in his "Life of William Shakspear," published some ninety-three years after Shakspere's death, says, "though I have inquired I could never meet with any further account of him this way [viz.: as an actor] than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet "!

All we can say, then, is that Shakspere was one of "those deserving men," whom the Burbages, in their petition to the Lord Chamberlain, in 1635, say they joined to themselves as "partners in the profits" of the Globe; those "men players" whom they placed at the Black Friars. (Ante, p. 34.) Whether or not he acted as "Manager" of either theatre we really do not know. We only know that his name in its literary form of "Shakespeare," or "Shake-Speare" was lent or appropriated to cover the authorship of a great number of plays which were published under that name. It seems not unreasonable to suppose that he acted as a "broker of plays"—as I have already sug gested—on behalf of the theatres with which he was connected. It is curious that we find him in 1613, but three years before his death, after all the great [54] Shakespearean works had been written, and when, if he were in truth "the great dramatist" he must have been at the zenith of his fame, employed with Dick Burbage at Belvoir to work at the Earl of Rutland's new "device," or "impreso," for which each of them received the sum of 44s.!

Mr. Looney has summarized the results of his exam ination of the middle or London period of William Shakspere's career, which, omitting three or four of them, are as follows:

He was purely passive in respect to all the publications which took place under his name.

There is the greatest uncertainty respecting the duration of his sojourn in London and the strongest probability that he was actually resident at Stratford whilst the plays were being published. [For "published" we might, perhaps, substitute "performed."]

Nothing is known of his doings in London, and there is much mystery concerning his place of residence there.

Only after 1598, the date when plays were first printed with "Shakespeare's" name, are there any contemporary references to him as a dramatist.

The public knew "Shakespeare" in print, but knew nothing of the personality of William Shakspere.

He has left no letter or trace of personal intercourse with any London contemporary or public man. The only letter known to have been sent to him was concerned solely with the borrowing of money.

Although the company with which his name is associated toured frequently and widely in the provinces, and much has been recorded of their doings, no municipal archive, so far as is known, contains a single reference to him.

There is no contemporary record of his ever appearing in a "Shakespeare" play. The only plays with which as an actor his name was associated during his lifetime are two of Ben Jonson's plays.

The accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber show only one irregular reference to him, three years before the period of his [i.e., of "Shakespeare's"] greatest fame, and none at all during or after that period.

[55] The Lord Chamberlain's Books, which would have [i.e. which ought to have] furnished the fullest records of his doings during these years, are, like the "Shakespeare" manuscripts, missing.

His name is missing from the following records of the Lord Chamberlain's company in which other actor's names appear.

(1) The cast of Jonson's "Every Man out of his Humour," in which all the other members of the Company appear.

(2) The record of proceedings respecting the Essex Rebellion and the Company. [i.e., with regard to the performance of Richard II.]

(3) The Company's attendance on the Spanish Ambassador in 1604. [See my Is there a Shakespeare Problem? p. 483.]

(4) The Company's litigation in 1612. [See Mrs. Stope's "Burbage and the Shakespeare Stage." pp. 106-107.]

(5) The Company's participation in the installation of the Prince of Wales.

(6) References to the burning of the Globe Theatre. Further, even rumour and tradition assign him only an insignificant role as an actor.

Note B - The Term "Actor-Manager"