OF THE CHARACTER OF SHAKESPEARE AS RELATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
AUTHOR OF THE SONNETS
The Sonnets certainly reveal their author in an attitude of appeal,
more or less open and direct, for the love or favor of his friend. No
fervor of compliment or protestation of affection allows him to forget
or conceal this purpose. When, as is indicated by Sonnets LXXVII. to
XC., he feared that his friend was transferring his favor or patronage
to another poet, his anxiety became acute, and in that group he
compared not only his poetry, but his flattery and commendation with
that of his rival. In Sonnets XXXII. to XXXVII., portraying his grief
at his friend's unkindness, he hastens to forgive; and, as already
stated, in Sonnets XL. to XLIII. and CXXVII. to CLII., chiding his
friend for having accepted the love of his mistress, he crowns him
with poetic garlands of compliment and adulation. Smitten on one
cheek, not only does he turn the other, but he bestows kisses and
caresses on the hand that gave the blow.
All we know of the character of Shakespeare indicates that he was
neither meek and complacent, nor quick and eager in forgiving; but
that his character in those aspects was quite the reverse of the
character of the author of the Sonnets.
Mr. Lee states the effect or result of the various traditions as to
Shakespeare's poaching experiences, and his resentment of the
treatment he had received, as follows[24]:
'And his [Shakespeare's] sporting experiences passed at times
beyond orthodox limits. A poaching adventure, according to a
_credible_[25] tradition, was the immediate cause of his long
severance from his native place. "He had," wrote Rowe in 1709,
"by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill
company, and among them, some, that made a frequent practice of
deer-stealing, engaged him with them more than once in robbing a
park that belonged to Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote near
Stratford. For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, _as he
thought, somewhat too severely_; and, _in order to revenge_ that
ill-usage, he made a ballad upon him, and though this, probably
the first essay of his poetry, be lost, _yet it is said to have
been so very bitter_ that it redoubled the prosecution against
him to that degree that he was obliged to leave his business and
family in Warwickshire and shelter himself in London." The
independent testimony of Archdeacon Davies, who was vicar of
Saperton, Gloucestershire, late in the seventeenth century, is to
the effect that Shakespeare "was much given to all unluckiness in
stealing venison and rabbits, particularly from Sir Thomas Lucy,
who had him oft whipt, and sometimes imprisoned, and at last made
him fly his native county to his great advancement." The law of
Shakespeare's day (5 Eliz., cap. 21) punished deer-stealers with
three months' imprisonment and the payment of thrice the amount
of the damage done.
The tradition has been challenged on the ground that the
Charlecote deer-park was of later date than the sixteenth
century. But Sir Thomas Lucy was an extensive game-preserver, and
owned at Charlecote a warren in which a few harts or does
doubtless found an occasional home. Samuel Ireland was informed
in 1794 that Shakespeare stole the deer, not from Charlecote, but
from Fulbroke Park, a few miles off, and Ireland supplied in his
_Views on the Warwickshire Avon_, 1795, an engraving of an old
farmhouse in the hamlet of Fulbroke, where he asserted that
Shakespeare was temporarily imprisoned after his arrest. An
adjoining hovel was locally known for some years as Shakespeare's
"deer-barn," but no portion of Fulbroke Park, which included the
site of these buildings (now removed), was Lucy's property in
Elizabeth's reign, and the amended legend, which was solemnly
confided to Sir Walter Scott in 1828 by the owner of Charlecote,
seems pure invention.
The ballad which Shakespeare is reported to have fastened on the
park gates of Charlecote, does not, as Rowe acknowledged,
survive. No authenticity can be allowed the worthless lines
beginning, "A parliament member, a justice of peace," which were
represented to be Shakespeare's on the authority of an old man
who lived near Stratford and died in 1703. But _such an incident
as the tradition reveals has left a distinct impress on
Shakespearean drama. Justice Shallow is beyond doubt a
reminiscence of the owner of Charlecote._[26] According to
Archdeacon Davies of Saperton, Shakespeare's "_revenge_ was so
great" that he caricatured Lucy as "Justice Clodpate," who was
(Davies adds) represented on the stage as "a great man" and as
bearing, in allusion to Lucy's name, "three louses rampant for
his arms." Justice Shallow, Davies's "Justice Clodpate," came to
birth in the Second Part of _Henry IV._ (1598), and he is
represented in the opening scene of the _Merry Wives of Windsor_
as having come from Gloucestershire to Windsor to make a
Star-Chamber matter of a poaching raid on his estate. The "three
luces hauriant argent" were the arms borne by the Charlecote
Lucys, and the dramatist's prolonged reference in this scene to
the "dozen white luces" on Justice Shallow's "old coat" fully
establishes Shallow's identity with Lucy.
The poaching episode is best assigned to 1585, but it may be
questioned whether Shakespeare, on fleeing from Lucy's
persecution, at once sought an asylum in London.'
Halliwell gives the following traditions of Shakespeare's sharp
encounters or exchanges of wit[27]:
Mr. Ben Jonson and Mr. Wm. Shakespeare being merry at a tavern, Mr.
Jonson having begun this for his epitaph,--
Here lies Ben Jonson, that was once one,
he gives it to Mr. Shakespeare to make up, who presently writes,
Who while he lived was a slow thing
And now being dead is nothing.
Another version is:
Here lies Jonson,
Who was one's son
He had a little hair on his chin,
His name was Benjamin!
an amusing allusion to his personal appearance, as any one may see who
will turn to Ben's portrait.
_Jonson._ If but stage actors all the world displays
Where shall we find spectators of their plays?
_Shakespeare._ Little or much of what we see we do;
We are all both actors and spectators too.
Ten in the hundred lies here ingrav'd;
'Tis a hundred to ten his soul is not saved;
If any man ask, Who lies in this tomb?
Oh! oh! quoth the devil, 'tis my John-a-Combe.
Who lies in this tomb?
Hough, quoth the devil, 'tis my son, John-Combe.
The tradition is that the subject of the last six lines having died,
Shakespeare then composed an epitaph as follows:
Howe'er he lived, judge not,
John Combe shall never be forgot,
While poor hath memory, for he did gather
To make the poor his issue; he their father,
As record of his tilth and seed,
Did crown him, in his latter need.
This is said to have been composed of a brother of John-a-Combe:
Thin in beard, and thick in purse,
Never man beloved worse,
He went to the grave with many a curse,
The devil and he had both one nurse.
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 tithes of Stratford. Seven years later, on
July 24, 1605, he bought for L440 of Ralph Huband an unexpired
term of thirty-one years of a ninety-two years' lease of a moiety
of the tithes of Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and
Welcombe. The moiety was subject to a rent of L17 to the
Corporation, who were the reversionary owners on the lease's
expiration, and of L5 to John Barker, the heir of a former
proprietor. The investment brought Shakespeare, under the most
favorable circumstances, no more than an annuity of L38; 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 tithe-owners, and in 1612 they presented a bill of
complaint to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, with what result is
unknown. His acquisition of a part ownership in the tithes was
fruitful in legal embarrassments.
_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 L7 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 L1 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, L1 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 L6 and
L1 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, Othello, 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,
anticipated 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
godfather of the boy William instead of his father. _But the
antiquity and persistence of the scandal belie the assumption
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 authorship 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 circumstances 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.