Testimony of the Sonnets as to the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays and Poems Part 5

A blacksmith is said to have accosted Shakespeare with,--

Now, Mr. Shakespeare, tell me, if you can, The difference between a youth and a young man?

To which the poet immediately replied,--

Thou son of fire, with thy face like a maple, The same difference as between a scalded and a coddled apple.

An old tradition reports that being awakened after a prolonged carouse, and asked to renew the contest, he refused, saying, I have drunk with

Piping Pebworth, Dancing Marston, Haunted Hillborough, and Hungry Grafton With Dadging Exhall, Papist Wixford Beggarly Broom, and Drunken Bidford.

The lines inscribed on the slab above his grave, preventing the removal of his bones, according to the custom of that time, to the adjacent charnel-house, are as follows:

Good friend, for Jesus' sake forbeare To dig the dust enclosed heare; Bleste be the man that spare these stones, And curst be he that moves my bones.[28]

Mr. Lee gives a statement as to Shakespeare's propensity to litigation as follows[29]:

'As early as 1598 Abraham Sturley had suggested that Shakespeare should purchase the t.i.thes of Stratford. Seven years later, on July 24, 1605, he bought for 440 of Ralph Huband an unexpired term of thirty-one years of a ninety-two years' lease of a moiety of the t.i.thes of Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe. The moiety was subject to a rent of 17 to the Corporation, who were the reversionary owners on the lease's expiration, and of 5 to John Barker, the heir of a former proprietor. The investment brought Shakespeare, under the most favorable circ.u.mstances, no more than an annuity of 38; and the refusal of persons who claimed an interest in the other moiety to acknowledge the full extent of their liability to the Corporation led that body to demand from the poet payments justly due from others. After 1609 he joined with two interested persons, Richard Lane of Awston, and Thomas Greene, the town clerk of Stratford, in a suit in Chancery to determine the exact responsibilities of all the t.i.the-owners, and in 1612 they presented a bill of complaint to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, with what result is unknown. His acquisition of a part owners.h.i.+p in the t.i.thes was fruitful in legal embarra.s.sments.

_Shakespeare inherited his father's love of litigation, and stood rigorously by his rights in all his business relations._ In March, 1600, he recovered in London a debt of 7 from one John Clayton. In July, 1604, in the local court at Stratford, he sued one Philip Rogers, to whom he had supplied since the preceding March malt to the value of 1 19_s._ 10_d._, and had on June 25th lent 2_s._ in cash. Rogers paid back 6_s._, and Shakespeare sought the balance of the account, 1 15_s._ 10_d._ During 1608 and 1609 he was at law with another fellow-townsman, John Addenbroke. On February 15, 1609, Shakespeare, who was apparently represented by his solicitor and kinsman, Thomas Greene, obtained judgment from a jury against Addenbroke for the payment of 6 and 1 5_s._ costs, but Addenbroke left the town, and the triumph proved barren. Shakespeare avenged himself by proceeding against one Thomas Horneby, who had acted as the absconding debtor's bail.'

The same author gives the following statement as to his reputation for _sportive adventure_[30]:

'Hamlet, Oth.e.l.lo, and Lear were _roles_ in which he [Burbage]

gained especial renown. But Burbage and Shakespeare were popularly credited with co-operation in less solemn enterprises. They were reputed to be companions in many _sportive_ adventures. The sole anecdote of Shakespeare that is _positively known to have been recorded in his lifetime_ relates that Burbage, when playing Richard III., agreed with a lady in the audience to visit her after the performance; Shakespeare, overhearing the conversation, antic.i.p.ated the actor's visit and met Burbage on his arrival with the quip that "William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third."

Such gossip possibly deserves little more acceptance than the later story, in the same key, which credits Shakespeare with the paternity of Sir William D'Avenant. The latter was baptized at Oxford, on March 3, 1605, as the son of John D'Avenant, the landlord of the Crown Inn, where Shakespeare lodged in his journeys to and from Stratford. The story of Shakespeare's parental relation to D'Avenant was long current in Oxford, and was at times complacently accepted by the reputed son.

Shakespeare is known to have been a welcome guest at John D'Avenant's house, and another son, Robert, boasted of the kindly notice which the poet took of him as a child. It is safer to adopt the less compromising version which makes Shakespeare the G.o.dfather of the boy William instead of his father. _But the antiquity and persistence of the scandal belie the a.s.sumption that Shakespeare was known to his contemporaries as a man of scrupulous virtue._'

All the extracts I have here quoted are from writers who admit no question as to the authors.h.i.+p of the Shakespearean plays. And there is nothing which they or any biography or tradition bring to us which presents any act or characteristic at all at variance with the indications of these quotations. And it is very remarkable how strong is the concurrence of indications, from the slab above his grave, from old, musty, and otherwise forgotten records of court proceedings, and from traditions, whether from the hamlet of his birth or the city where he wrought and succeeded.

I have not quoted the lines which have been variously handed down as those which the young Shakespeare affixed to the gate of the wealthy and powerful Sir Thomas Lucy. Their authenticity is doubtful.[31] But that the boy Shakespeare, weak and helpless for such a struggle, resented his treatment and answered back with the only weapon he had, risking and enduring being driven from his home and birthplace, and kept good the grudge in the days of his success, I think cannot be doubted. The records of court proceedings, the imprecation above his grave, both indicate a man of strong will and not unaccustomed to mastery. We may reject one or another of the retorts or sallies in verse, but we must, I think, agree, that the fact that they are brought to us by recorded and very old traditions, indicates a character or repute in accordance with their implication; and especially must this be so, when we find that they agree with the indications of other evidence not in any degree in question. These various indications support each other like the bundle of sticks which together could not be broken. From them I think we learn that Shakespeare, however pleasant or attractive at times, was not a man yielding or complacent to opposition or injury; but that he was a man of fighting blood or instincts, quick in wit and repartee, apt and inclined for aggressive sally, ready to slash and lay about him in all encounters,--in short, a very Mercutio in temperament, and in the lively and constant challenges of his life.

I submit that the records we have of the life of William Shakespeare concur in indicating a man who could not have written the Sonnets under the circ.u.mstances and with the motives which they reveal.

It should not be overlooked that at the time these Sonnets were written, certainly as early as 1597 or 1598, Shakespeare was above pecuniary want, and had begun to make investments, and apparently regarded himself and was regarded as a wealthy man.[32]

Footnotes:

[24] Lee's _Shakespeare_, pp. 27-29.

[25] The italics in this and all the following quotations are my own.

[26] As I have said elsewhere, I do not contend that Shakespeare did not have a part and a large part in the production of the Shakespearean plays. My insistence is only that he was not the transcendent genius to whom we owe their wonderful and unrivalled poetry.

[27] Halliwell's _Shakespeare_, pp. 186, 187, 232, 241-245.

[28] Lee's _Shakespeare_, pp. 272, 273.

[29] Lee's _Shakespeare_, pp. 205, 206.

[30] Lee's _Shakespeare_, pp. 264-266.

[31] The different versions of those lines are printed in the appendix.

[32] Lee's _Shakespeare_, pp. 193-196.

CHAPTER V

OF THE GENERAL SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE SONNETS AS INDICATING THEIR AUTHOR

As has been said before, the Sonnets obviously have a common theme.

They celebrate his friend, his beauty, his winning and lovable qualities, leading the poet to forgive and to continue to love, even when his friend has supplanted him in the favors of his mistress. They are replete with compliment and adulation. Little side views or perspectives are introduced with a marvellous facility of invention; and yet in them all, even in the invocation to marry, in the jealousy of another poet, in the railing to or of his false mistress, is the face or thought of his friend, apparently his patron. No other poet, it seems to me, could have filled two thousand lines of poetry with thoughts to, of, or relating to one person of his own s.e.x. Who that person was critics have not agreed. But that he was a person who was somehow connected with the life-work of the poet seems beyond dispute.

Mr. Lee, speaking of the purpose of the Sonnets, at pages 125 and 126, says:

'Twenty Sonnets, which may for purposes of exposition be ent.i.tled "dedicatory" Sonnets, are addressed to one who is declared without periphrasis and without disguise to be a patron of the poet's verse (Nos. XXIII., XXVI., x.x.xII., x.x.xVII., x.x.xVIII., LXIX., LXXVII.-Lx.x.xVI., C., CI., CIII., CVI.). In one of these,--Sonnet LXXVIII.,--Shakespeare a.s.serted:

So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse And found such fair a.s.sistance in my verse As every alien pen hath got my use And _under thee their poesy disperse_.

Subsequently he regretfully pointed out how his patron's readiness to accept the homage of other poets seemed to be thrusting him from the enviable place of pre-eminence in his patron's esteem.

Shakespeare's biographer is under an obligation to attempt an identification of the persons whose relations with the poet are defined so explicitly. The problem presented by the patron is simple. Shakespeare states unequivocally that he has no patron but one.

Sing [sc. O Muse!] to the ear that doth thy lays esteem, And gives thy pen both skill and argument (C. 7-8).

For to no other pa.s.s my verses tend Than of your _graces and your gifts to tell_ (CIII. 11-12).

The Earl of Southampton, the patron of his narrative poems, is the only patron of Shakespeare that is known to biographical research. No contemporary doc.u.ment or tradition gives the faintest suggestion that Shakespeare was the friend or dependent of any other man of rank.'

This quotation has been made because it is fair and accurate, because of the high authority of the book, but princ.i.p.ally because it is the view of one who has no doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the Shakespearean plays. Research and ingenuity have been taxed to ascertain who was the unnamed and mysterious friend at whose feet are laid so many poetic wreaths, woven by such a master. All discussion has a.s.sumed that this friend was a patron, who somehow greatly aided the poet, and to whom the poet felt himself greatly indebted. And so it was at once suggested that his friend was one of the n.o.bility or peers of that age.

The Earl of Southampton (to whom by name _Venus and Adonis_ and _Lucrece_ were dedicated) has been very generally a.s.sumed to be the person intended. Lord Pembroke [William Herbert] has also been presented as the unnamed friend.

_I think the Sonnets contain internal evidence that they were not addressed to either of these peers_, AND WERE NOT ADDRESSED TO ANY ONE OF THEIR CLa.s.s.

It is very remarkable how narrow is the range of these Sonnets,--how little they say, convey or indicate as to the person to whom they were addressed. From the first seventeen Sonnets we infer that the poet understood that his friend was unmarried; a line in Sonnet III.

perhaps indicates a peculiar pride in his mother, and that it pleased him to be told that he resembled her; from a line in Sonnet XX., "A man in hue," etc., it has been inferred that his friend's beard or hair was auburn, and from Sonnets Cx.x.xV. and Cx.x.xVI. it has been inferred that his friend was familiarly called "Will," or at any rate that his name was William. Obviously he was in some way a patron or helper to our poet, and to another poet as well[33]; he superseded the poet in the favors of his mistress; he was beautiful, attractive, genial, and sunny in disposition; that he was not infrequently responsive to lascivious love is indicated.[34] We have already fully considered what the Sonnets indicate as to his age. And now I put the inquiry: Is there anything else as to the poet's friend that these two thousand lines of poetry state or indicate? With diligent search I can find in all those lines no other fact indicated or stated as to this mysterious friend or patron.