The "Householder of Stratford."
We have in Chapter II. printed Mr. George Hookham's list of the very
few incidents recorded concerning Shakespeare's life, but, as we have
already shewn, a great deal of the "authentic history" of the Stratford
clown has in fact been revealed to us. Ben Jonson calls the Stratford
man who had purchased a coat of arms "Sogliardo" (scum of the earth),
says he was brother to Sordido, the miser (Shakspeare was a miser),
describes him as an essential clown (that means that he was a rustic
totally unable to read and write), shews that he speaks "i' th'
straungest language," and calls Heralds "Harrots," and finally sums him
up definitely as a "Swine without a head, without braine, wit, anything
indeed, Ramping to Gentilitie." In order that there should be no
mistake as to the man who is referred to, "Sogliardo's" motto is stated
to be "Not without Mustard," Shakespeare's motto being "Not without
right" (Non sanz droict). Ben Jonson's account of the real Stratford
man is confirmed by Shakespeare's play of "As You Like it," where
Touchstone, the courtier playing clown, says, "It is meat and drinke to
me to see a clowne" (meaning an essential clown, an uneducated rustic);
yet he salutes him as "gentle," shewing that the mean fellow possesses
a coat of arms.
The Clown is born in the Forest of Ardennes (Shakespeare's mother's name
was Arden). He is rich, but only so-so rich, that is rich for a clowne
(New Place cost only £60). He says he is wise, and Touchstone mocks him
with Bacon's words, "The Foole doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a Fool." He says he has "a prettie wit" (pretty wit
is the regular orthodox phrase as applied to Shakespeare). But when
asked whether he is learned, he distinctly replies "No," which means
that he says that he cannot read one line of print. A man who could read
one line of print was at that period in the eye of the law "learned,"
and could not be hanged when convicted for the first time except for
murder. If any persons be found to dispute the fact that the reply "No"
to the question "Art thou learned?" meant in Queen Elizabeth's day "I
cannot read one line of print" such persons must be totally unacquainted
with Law literature.[9]
The play "As You Like it" confirms Ben Jonson's characterisation of
Shakespeare being "an essential clowne." Next let us turn to Ratsei's
_Ghost_ (see p. 49), which, as Mr. Sidney Lee, in his "Life of William
Shakespeare," p. 159, 1898 ed., confesses, refers to Shakespeare. Ratsei
advises the young actor to copy Shakespeare, "and to feed upon all men,
to let none feede upon thee" (meaning Shakespeare was a cruel usurer).
As we shew, page 53, Grant White says: "The pursuit of an impoverished
man for the sake of imprisoning him and depriving him both of the power
of paying his debts and supporting himself and his family, is an
incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance
and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us
to contemplate with equanimity--satisfaction is impossible."
Ratsei continues, "Let thy hand be a stranger to thy pocket" [like the
miser, Shakespeare], "thy hart slow to perform thy tongues promise"
[like the lying rascal Shakespeare], "and when thou feelest thy purse
well lined, buy thee a place of lordship in the country" [as Shakespeare
had bought New Place, Stratford] "that, growing weary of playing, thy
mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation" [as Shakespeare
obtained a coat of arms], "then thou needest care for no man, nor not
for them that before made thee prowd with speaking their words upon the
stage." This manifestly refers to two things, one that Shakespeare when
he bought New Place, quitted London and ceased to act; the other that he
continually tried to exact more and more "blackmail" from those to whom
he had sold his name.
Now we begin at last to understand what we are told by Rowe, in his
"Life of Shakespeare," published in 1709, that is, 93 years after
Shakespeare's death in 1616, when all traces of the actual man had been
of set purpose obliterated, because the time for revealing the real
authorship of the plays had not yet come. Rowe, page x., tells us:
"There is one Instance so singular in the Magnificence of this Patron of
Shakespeare's, that if I had not been assur'd that the Story was handed
down by Sir William D'Avenant, who was probably very well acquainted
with his Affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted, that my
Lord Southampton, at one time, gave him a thousand Pounds, to enable him
to go through with a Purchase which he heard he had a mind to."
This story has been hopelessly misunderstood, because people did not
know that a large sum had to be paid to Shakespeare to obtain his
consent to allow his name to be put to the plays, and that New Place had
to be purchased for him, 1597 (the title deeds were not given to him for
five or six years later), and that he had also to be sent away from
London before "W Shakespeare's" name was attached to any play, the first
play bearing that name being, as we have already pointed out, page 89,
"Loues Labor's lost," with its very numerous revelations of authorship.
Then, almost immediately, the world is informed that eleven other plays
had been written by the same author, the list including the play of
"Richard II."
The story of the production of the play of "Richard II." is very curious
and extremely instructive. It was originally acted with the Parliament
scene, where Richard II. is made to surrender, commencing in the Folio
of 1623 with the words--
"Fetch hither Richard, that in common view he may surrender,"
continuing with a description of his deposition extending over 167 lines
to the words--
"That rise thus nimbly by a true king's fall."
This account of the deposition of a king reached Queen Elizabeth's ears;
she was furiously angry and she exclaimed: "Seest thou not that I am
Richard II."
A copy of the play without any author's name was printed in 1597,
omitting the story of the deposition of Richard II.; this was followed
by a second and probably a third reprint in 1597, with no important
alterations, but still without any author's name. Then, after the actor
had been sent away to Stratford, Shakespeare's name was put upon a
fourth reprint, dated 1598.
The story of Richard II.'s deposition was not printed in the play till
1608, five years after the death of Queen Elizabeth.[10]
This history of the trouble arising out of the production of the play of
"Richard II." explains why a name had to be found to be attached to the
plays. Who would take the risk? An actor was never "hanged," he was
often whipped, occasionally one lost his ears, but an actor of repute
would probably have refused even a large bribe. There was, however, a
grasping money-lending man, of little or no repute, that bore a name
called Shaxpur, which might be twisted into Bacon's pen-name
Shake-Speare, and that man was secured, but as long as he lived he was
continually asking for more and more money. The grant of a coat of arms
was probably part of the original bargain. At one time it seems to have
been thought easier to grant arms to his father. This, however, was
found impossible. But when in 1597 Bacon's friend Essex was Earl Marshal
and chief of the Heralds' College, and Bacon's servant Camden (whom
Bacon had assisted to prepare the "Annales"--see Spedding's "Bacon's
Works," Vol. 6, p. 351, and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 211), was installed as
Clarenceux, King-of-Arms, the grant of arms to Shakespeare was
recognised, 1599. Shakespeare must have been provisionally secured soon
after 1593, when the "Venus and Adonis" was signed with his name,
because in the next year, 1594, "The Taming of a Shrew" was printed, in
which the opening scene shews a drunken "Warwickshire" rustic
[Shakspeare was a drunken Warwickshire rustic], who is dressed up as
"My lord," for whom the play had been prepared. (In the writer's
possession there is a very curious and absolutely unique masonic
painting revealing "on the square" that the drunken tinker is
Shakspeare and the Hostess, Bacon.)
The early date at which Shakspeare had been secured explains how in
1596 an application for a grant of arms seems to have been made (we
say seems) for the date may possibly be a fraud like the rest of the
lying document.
We have referred to Shakspeare as a drunken Warwickshire rustic who
lived in the mean and dirty town of Stratford-on-Avon. There is a
tradition that Shakespeare as a very young man was one of the
Stratfordians selected to drink against "the Bidford topers," and with
his defeated friends lay all night senseless under a crab tree, that was
long known as Shakespeare's crab tree.
Shakespeare's description of the Stratford man as the drunken tinker in
"The Taming of a Shrew" shews that the actor maintained his "drunken"
character. This habit seems to have remained with him till the close of
his life, for Halliwell-Phillipps says: "It is recorded that the party
was a jovial one, and according to a somewhat late but apparently
reliable tradition when the great dramatist [Shakespeare of Stratford]
was returning to New Place in the evening, he had taken more wine than
was conducive to pedestrian accuracy. Shortly or immediately afterwards
he was seized by the lamentable fever which terminated fatally on
Friday, April 23rd."
The story of his having to leave Stratford because he got into very
bad company and became one of a gang of deer-stealers, has also very
early support.
We have already proved that Shakspeare could neither read nor write. We
must also bear in mind that the Stratford man never had any reputation
as an actor.
Rowe, p. vi., thus writes: "His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in
those Times, amongst those of the other Players, before some old
Plays,[11] but without any particular Account of what sort of Parts he
us'd to play; and tho' I have inquir'd I could never meet with any
further Account of him this way than that the top of his Performance was
the Ghost in his own Hamlet." The humblest scene-shifter could play
this character, as we shall shew later. What about being manager of a
Theatre? Shakspeare never was manager of a Theatre. What about being
master of a Shakespeare company of actors? There never existed a
Shakespeare company of actors. What about ownership of a Theatre? Dr.
Wallace, says in the _Times_ of Oct. 2nd 1909, that at the time of his
death Shakespeare owned one fourteenth of the Globe Theatre, and
one-seventh of the Blackfriars Theatre. The profit of each of these was
probably exceedingly small. The pleadings, put forth the present value
at £300 each, but as a broad rule, pleadings always used to set forth at
least ten times the actual facts. In the first case which the writer
remembers witnessing in Court, the pleadings were 100 oxen, 100 cows,
100 calves, 100 sheep, and 100 pigs, the real matter in dispute being
one cow and perhaps one calf. If we assume, therefore, that the total
capital value of the holding of W. Shakespeare in both theatres taken
together amounted to £60 in all, we shall probably, even then,
considerably over-estimate their real worth. Now having disposed of the
notion that Shakespeare was ever an important actor, was ever a manager
of a Theatre, was ever the master of a company of actors, or was ever
the owner of any Theatre, let us consider what Rowe means by the
statement that the top of his performance was the Ghost in "Hamlet."
This grotesque and absurd fable has for two hundred years been accepted
as an almost indisputable historical fact. Men of great intelligence in
other matters seem when the life of Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon is
concerned, quite prepared to refuse to exercise either judgment or
common sense, and to swallow without question any amount of preposterous
nonsense, even such as is contained in the above statement. The part of
the Ghost in the play of "Hamlet" is one of the smallest and most
insignificant possible, and can be easily played by the most ignorant
and most inexperienced of actors. All that is required is a suit of
armour with somebody inside it, to walk with his face concealed,
silently and slowly a few times across the stage. Then on his final
appearance he should say a few sentences (84 lines in the Folio, 1623),
but these can be and occasionally are spoken by some invisible speaker
in the same manner as the word "_Swear_" which is always growled out by
someone concealed beneath the stage. No one knows, and no one cares, for
no one sees who plays the part, which requires absolutely no histrionic
ability. Sir Henry Irving, usually, I believe, put two men in armour
upon the stage, in order to make the movements of the Ghost more
mysterious. What then can be the meaning of the statement that the
highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, attained was to play the
part of the Ghost in "Hamlet"? The rumour is so positive and so
persistent that it cannot be disregarded or supposed to be merely a
foolish jest or a senselessly false statement put forward for the
purpose of deceiving the public. We are compelled, therefore, to
conclude that there must be behind this fable some real meaning and some
definite purpose, and we ask ourselves; What is the purpose of this
puzzle? What can be its real meaning and intention? As usual, the Bacon
key at once solves the riddle. The moment we realise that BACON is
HAMLET, we perceive that the purpose of the rumour is to reveal to us
the fact that the highest point to which the actor, Shakespeare, of
Stratford-on-Avon, attained was to play the part of Ghost to Bacon, that
is to act as his "PSEUDONYM," or in other words, the object of the story
is to reveal to us the fact that
BACON IS SHAKESPEARE.