THE
SHAKESPEARE
ALLONYM
The controversy concerning
Shakespeare's identity continues to divide
opinion ONLY because there were two
shakespeares. one was the man who
wrote the works of William
Shakespeare. The other was his allonym —
an actual person by that name who
agreed to assume the author's mantle
for a price.
PART 4 OF THE evidence
After Francis Meres had published
Palladis Tamia - Wits Treasury in 1598, Shakespeare's name was allowed to
emerge from its censored obscurity and thereby give a much needed title to the
many plays that had been published and performed anonymously during the previous
three years. Some idea of this can be ascertained from Part 3. But on
24th June 1604, Edward de Vere died at his Hackney home, aged 54, and the
problem of the allonym resurfaced. Had Shakespeare been anyone other than the
17th Earl of Oxford, Lord Great Chamberlain of England and father of the late
Lord Burghley's three granddaughters, his service to literature, the theatre,
and the entertainment his plays had provided at Court for two reigning monarchs,
would have assured him of a burial in Westminster Abbey; as it had recently done
for Edmund Spenser and would do again for Francis Beaumont and Ben Jonson when
their time came. But, for de Vere there could be no recognition without
revealing how elaborate had been the deception imposed upon the general public.
And so the real Shakespeare passed into obscurity exactly as he had predicted
would happen when he wrote: “I, once gone, to all
the world must die. / The earth can yield me but a common grave...
” (Sonnet 81). He even
alludes to the reason why this state of affairs must be: “My name be buried where my body is / And live no more to shame
nor me nor you: / For I am shamed by that which I bring forth, / And so should
you, to love things nothing worth.” (Sonnet 72). By considering these words
to have been addressed by the 17th Earl of Oxford to his acolyte, the 3rd Earl
of Southampton, the meaning makes perfect sense, as may be judged from the
following extract.
Playwrights,
especially in the increasingly Puritan world of the late 1580s, were
accounted worthless at best. For a young man of promise, a brilliant
scholar destined for [High Office] to squander his talents in this way
would not have sat well with the [governing] authorities. . . . "
(Who Killed Kit Marlowe? M.J. Trow,
p.82).
Although this excerpt was written
about Marlowe, hence the exchange of 'High Office' for 'the Church' and
'governing' for 'Cambridge'. It does explain, very accurately, the scandalous
opinions that must have surrounded de Vere because of his art. It also explains
why this nobleman had to be protected by his fellow peers from that scandal
becoming public knowledge. This was why the allonym came back into use after
1598. The authorship of his plays could then be diverted onto the lower class
figure of William Shaxpere, a man whose business acumen was perfect for the
role, and whose loyalty to the money he received ensured his unfailing
conformity to the requirements asked from him.
After Oxford's death, his
Stratford allonym continued to be thought of as the living Shakespeare, although
by then he was conveniently retired to his home town in distant Warwickshire,
where he was able to continue his life and business interests uninterrupted by
any theatrical considerations. It was also at this time that Shakespeare's plays
continued to be performed at the Globe Theatre in London, at Court, and in the
houses of the nobility. Yet, nothing during the period following de Vere's death
directly connects the Stratford man's trading activities with any of these
performances, although most biographers, out of sheer frustration, entertain
readers with surmises that are intended to cover this embarrassing
void.
It was also during this
period that several facts were to emerge, which have since become worthy of
further consideration. In 1608, Oxford's widow sold the house she had purchased
for her husband in Hackney and moved to less expensive accommodation. At
sometime during this removal, Shake-speares Sonnets fell mysteriously
into the hands of Thomas Thorpe, who subsequently published them along with an
encrypted statement to the effect that de Vere was William Shakespeare [see: The
Sonnets Dedication]. It has been surmised elsewhere that Lady Oxford's removal
from King's Place was motivated by the need for money to pay off debts
accumulated by her son, Henry. If true, then it can be further surmised that the
Sonnets, too, were sold (presumably by young Henry to local resident and
publishing agent, William Hall) to raise money. In January 1609, at
approximately the same time as the Sonnets were being prepared for print,
‘The history of Troylus and
Cressida’ was entered in the Stationers
Register. The introductory note is of some interest because it leaves no
doubt that the play had been 'liberated' from a the house of an upper class
incumbent. It begins with a most peculiar statement that strongly hints at the
name – E. Vere; this being in part composed of letters that form the
words 'ne ver and e ver.
A neuer writer, to
an euer
reader. Newes.
Eternall reader, you
have heere a new playe, neuer stal'd with the Stage, neuer clapper-clawed
with the palmes of the vulger... but thanke fortune for the scape it
hath made amongst you. Since by the grand possessors wills I beleeue you
should haue prayd for them rather than be
prayd...
The play had previously been
entered in the Stationers Register in 1602, when it was described as
having been acted by the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Judging from the comment above,
this would have been a private performance, either at Court or in the house of a
titled person, and not before the general public, since it had never before been
'applauded by the general public'.
Three years later, the Countess
of Oxford died. A curious clause that she had written into her will suggests a
possible link with her husband's allonym. She decreed that an unspecified sum of
money should be paid quarterly - “to my dombe
man”, It is surely unnecessary to
point out that William Shaxpere had remained as mute as the swans on the River
Avon concerning the literary career imposed upon him. Was his muteness referred
to in Lady Oxford's will? The precise amount of money, and to whom it was to be
paid, has been worded with obvious secrecy. For that to have happened, there
must have been a compelling reason, and a secret annuity to the man behind her
late husband's allonym provides that reason.
If we pursue this
thought, it is to lead to the very real possibility that the idea may have
occurred to Shaxpere that this annuity could be legally passed on to his own
next of kin, on the very reasonable grounds that the plays of Shakespeare were
continuing to be performed and would therefore continue to be attributed to him.
Why should he and his family not continue to benefit from this ongoing use of
his name? There was little or no prospect of this claim being tested in court,
because that would bring into the open the whole affair, and that was not what
was wanted. But, there was an obvious way those involved in paying the Oxford
annuity could avoid this happening, and the events that subsequently occurred
support this as having happened. William Shaxpere would have to be persuaded to
make a will, which could then be scrutinized by competent overseers to ensure
that it contained no reference to any money that might implicate the Countess of
Oxford's estate.
To all but the
obstinately obtuse, Shakespeare's last will and testament is an embarrassment to
scholarship, and a blot on the memory of the man promoted as the greatest
literary genius of his time. Circumstantial evidence appears to confirm that the
will was written by someone unfamiliar with Shaxpere's family circumstances, but
was employed to simply to draft a list of bequests from dictated instructions.
Francis Collins, a Warwick lawyer, who was mentioned in the will as one of the
overseers, and to whom Shakespeare also bequeathed £13–6–8, has subsequently
been made responsible by biographers for drawing up Shakespeare's will. There is
no proof that he did so.
If Collins did
prepare the will, he did a wretched job and turned out a most imperfect
document... A few of the mistakes: Collins left a blank space for
the name of Shakespeare's nephew, Thomas, when the poet couldn't recall
it. A mere query to Mrs. Anne Hathaway Shakespeare would have sufficed to
fill the gap. Collins wrote incorrectly the name of Shakespeare's close
friend Hamnet Sadler, a prominent citizen whom the lawyer certainly
knew... [Item, I give and bequeath to Hamlet Sadler...
] Hamlet was not his given name and Collins should have know better.
Collins allowed the poet to leave his granddaughter Elizabeth Hall all his
plate except a silver gilt bowl. Then, in another part of the will later
on, he let him bequeath the same plate to his daughter Susanna and her
husband, Dr. John Hall. In the first and second drafts of the will Collins
permitted Shakespeare to bypass all mention of his lifelong companion, his
wife, and then, as an afterthought, give her his second-best bed. To top
off this wretched performance, Collins or his scrivener, penned at the end
of the will: “In witness whereof I have hereunto put my seale.” Collins
was certainly aware that the poet had no seal; on a previous occasion when
a seal was required, Shakespeare had to borrow and use the seal of one
Henry Lawrence. The result of this blunder was... the word seale had
to be deleted and the word hand substituted. A final indignity from the
lawyer or his clerk was the spelling of Shakespeare's name in two
different ways in the body of the will. [“I William Shackspeare, of
Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, Gent., in perfect health and
memory, God be praised... In the left margin of sheet 1, although
now illegible, the name William Shakspere was written to identify it. At
the foot of sheet 2 the name is again written as Willm Shakspere. On sheet
3, the testament concludes with the words “By me, William
Shakspeare”]...
I have never run into
a probated (or proved) Jacobean will with so many deletions and
corrections as Shakespeare's. The will is written on three sheets of
foolscap, each sheet by a different maker and each slightly different in
size. The first sheet is 12 1/8 by 15 5/8 inches; the second is 12
½ by 15 ¾; and the third is 12 ¼ by 15 3/8
inches... Nearly all wills of the period were penned on uniform
paper of foolscap size, about 12 ½ by 16 inches. It is most unusual to
find a will on sheets of different sizes. (In Search of
Shakespeare; Charles Hamilton, p.61-3).
But even if it is
accepted that the will's main text was definitely not by Shakespeare, but
instead by someone writing on his behalf, it is still very unusual among
legal documents for its large number of alterations, substitutions and
interpolations. What seems to have begun as Januarii (Latin for
January) date at the head of the first page has been crossed out and
Martii (March), written above. As a composition by the most vivid
of writers, it is more stereotyped and lacking in personal warmth than the
wills of most of Shakespeare's fellow actors... three quarter
of the way down the first page... it becomes cramped and
close-spaced. This is followed on the second sheet by a crossing-out of
the original opening lines, which are still sufficiently legible to make
it apparent they do not follow on from the present page one, while two
quite different lines are written in above them, clearly to make a proper
sequence. (Shakespeare - The Evidence; Ian Wilson,
p.387).
Contained in the
will is a bequest of £4 that was to be shared equally among “my fellows John Hemynge Richard Burbage & Henry
Cundell”. However, this did not form
part of the will dated either January or March. Instead, it appeared as an
afterthought, and was inserted during a later scrutiny as an interlineation.
Furthermore, although the dispensation of his worldly goods covers three pages,
there is not one single reference to literature. Had it not been for the
afterthought provided by the interlineation, which gifted the princely sum of
£1–6–8 to each of three London actors, any reference to the theatre would also
have been absent.
It would also
appear that by the end of March 1616, the content of this last will and
testimony had still not met with everyone's approval, for it was never written
up as a finished document.
Shakespeare's
will... is as defective a document as ever went unchallenged in the
courts of law and literature. It contains many deletions and insertions
not authenticated by signature, initials, or final testing clause. It
shows change of mind and bequest also unauthenticated. It is apparently a
second draft, but even after the second draft was completed Shakespeare
had not made up his mind about his intentions. Its mangled condition
signifies that Shakespeare was helpless, that neither he nor the lawyer
consulted the poet's son-in-law, Dr. Hall, about the form of the document,
and that Dr. Hall took no interest in it though he was to be an executor
and was vitally interested in seeing that the will, being very much in his
wife's favour and much to the disadvantage of Judith Shakespeare, her
sister, should be valid. It appears that no other relative was in a
position to demand from the lawyer a proper document, though four hours
would have sufficed to produce one, and as Shakespeare lived about a month
after the date of the will he certainly could have signed a proper one.
According to the document the great poet was irrational and forgetful in
details, besides being unjust to his wife and unfair to his younger
daughter. Still more, the legal draftsman must have been incompetent.
(Quarterly Review 274 - ‘Is Shakespeare's Will A Forgery?’ -
Archibald Stalker).
If Shaxpere had
been forced into drawing up this will for the satisfaction of others, it would
help explain its unfinished state. The evidence seems to suggest there was a
lack of preparation on his part, particularly at being forced into making legal
decisions about his friends and family ahead of a time of his own choosing, and
this has subsequently become expressed in indecisiveness about who should
benefit from his estate. Hence the many alterations, insertions and deletions.
Yet, while his will lay dormant in its unfinished state, those imposing
upon Shaxpere the need to complete it would have grown increasingly frustrated
at the continual delay. Added to which, there was also the danger that Shaxpere
might one day enter new clauses after the will had been agreed, thus thwarting
the attempt to ensure his last testament did not contain any embarrassing
clauses. Within a matter of days from the last date on the will, William
Shaxpere lay dead. Was it really natural causes, or was it
poison?
The effect of
Shaxpere's sudden death did, however, have implications for the will. The legal
requirement was that it should be witnessed by two persons who were not
beneficiaries. However, the only will that existed was the one described above,
which was deficient in so many respects, and contained numerous unauthenticated
alterations as to suggest it might not pass unchallenged at probate. For this
reason, since none other suggests itself, no less than five people came forward
to put their names down as witnesses to the will, when in normal circumstances
only two were required, and they would normally be expected to reserve their
witnessing until the final document had been prepared. Sheer weight of numbers
to see this defective document through probate would seem to have dictated the
increased number of signatories.
Although Shaxpere's
passing was doubtless mourned by his daughters, and perhaps his wife too, it was
totally ignored by everyone else. Yet, was this not supposedly the same man
about whom Francis Meres had said: “As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy
and tragedy among the Latines, so Shakespeare among the English is the most
excellent in both kinds... ”? Apparently, it
could not have been the same man, or else why should his death have passed
unnoticed when lesser men were wept over inside England's memorial to greatness,
Westminster Abbey?
This emptiness was in
an age when the passing of noted poets called forth copious elegies from
their fellows, such as had accompanied Spenser to his tomb. Francis
Beaumont had been mourned with a similar shower on his death in the month
before Shakspere's. When Bacon died in 1626, thirty-two elegies, in Latin,
were published honouring him, and Ben Jonson's death was mourned within
six months in a whole book of verses by the leading poets of the day.
Michael Drayton, upon his passing in 1631, was honoured by a ‘funeral
procession to Westminster escorted by gentlemen of the Inns of Court and
others of note’. In the year following his burial in the Abbey a monument
to his memory was erected to his memory by the Duchess of Dorset and
verses attributed to Ben Jonson and others were contributed. Drummond
wrote a letter expressing his grief. When Richard Burbage died in 1619,
the playwright Thomas Middleton declared, “in London is not one eye dry”
and complained, “When he expires, lo! all lament the man, / But where's
the grief should follow good Queen Anne?” – who had died eleven days
earlier. Charlotte G. Stopes writes that “The city and the Stage were
clothed in gloom” and reproduces five epitaphs to the deceased actor, one
of eighty-seven lines. (The Mystery of William Shakespeare:
Charlton Ogburn).
No such acclaim was afforded
William Shaxpere. He was buried in his parish church of the Holy Trinity
attended only by members of his family accompanied, presumably, by those who had
benefited from his will. A simple ledger stone marked the grave with its four
lines of doggerel verse. It was not until seven years later that a wall monument
was erected close to the grave. The inscription on this memorial and its
peculiarities have been made the subject of a separate article, because it
appears to secretly convey a hidden sentence, encoded by Ben Jonson, to the
effect that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare. [See: The Stratford
Monument Speaks].
content
