'(...., -. AUG 14 1946 SE~lTLE. W~SMING TQt The Shakespeare Fellowship 11,1as founded in Landon in 1922 under the pre..ruiency of Sir George Greenwood. VOL. vn APRIL, 1946 NO. 2 Another Stratf ordian Aids the Oxford Cause B'Y Louis P. Bi:NEZET~ M.A., Pd.D. ''WE ARE NOT QUITE certain of the identity of the story of Shakspere•s attendance at the Strat­ espeare's father; we are by no means certain ford Grammar School, and pointing out that Au­ !he identity of his wife •. we do not know when brey's story of his having been a country school­ began his dramatic car~r; we know the actual master "is entirely unsupported," gives a table of of the first production of very few of his the authenticated facts of William's life which oc­ , let alone that of their composition. Almost cupies ju.et two-thirds of .a printed page. Accept­ e commonly received stuJf of his Hf e story ing the Stratford man's career as an actor, on the s and patches of traJition if not positive basis of tbe Countess· oi ~outhampton's question­ work. We do not know whether he ever went able post-dated entry 1 in the muddled accounts of school. The early journey to London is first her late husband, he says that the rest of Shak­ of a hundred years after date. The deer steal• spere's life in London has to be plentifully inter• reason for it is probably twenty years later. spersed with "doubtleM" or "probably" or "may crystallization of the!le and other traditions in have" to pass muster... But the nature of com­ e's biography took place a hundred and forty­ mentators," says Dr. Saintsbury, "abhors a vac• , years after the poet's supposed birth. uum/' This vacuum has to be filled up with a "ser• "l'o huk back; it is not certain, although it is ies of conjectures about Shakspere's novitiate as ble1 that the 'Shake-scene' in Greene's out• actor and playwright" and by "the application of is Shakspere. 'Shake•scene' is not so very hypothetical hermeneutics to the Sonnets." ore unlikely a term of abuse for an actor Professor Saintsbury continues: "The first is ion' or •tub-thumper' for a minister. And guessw·ork pure and unadulterated, or, to speak le's supposed apology is absolutely, and, it with more correctness, adulteration without any dseem, studiously anonymous." purity. , .. We do not knaw that Shakspere ever &!countering the above· quotation by chance, personally knew a single one of the 'university think that he had run upon the writings wits/ The ·Greene reference, taken at its fullest erackbrained anti-Stratfordian in the "lun• possible, is, distinctly, against personal knowledge. fringe" of English scholarship. The Chettle reference, from its obvious and defi• k is a mock, then, to be told that it is taken nite disclaimer of personal knowledge, strengthens the great Cambridge History of English lit• the c:ounter•evidence."' , and that it is from the pen of the famous Excepting his family and business associates, gt Saintsbury, M.A., LL.D .• of Merton Col­ Oxford; later Professor of English Litera­ 1. Mary Brown, Dowager Countess of Southampton, ~ the University of Edinburgh. mother of the 3rd Ear! of Southampton, and ,1t tht: time shocks are to come; for Dr. Saintsbury, she made out the voucher li,iting "Willm Shakespear.:" as ~r~ one of the "servants to the Lord Chamblcync;• (1595} g that there is only :supposition lo support widow of Sir Thomas Heneage, 18 QUARTERLY says Saintsbury, the only two persons with whom sons at Elizabeth's court who are named in prop­ we can connect him are Ben Jonson and Lord erly sponsored Shakespeare publications, South• Southampton. Readers of the QUARTERLY do not ampton, to whom the two great poems are dedi­ have to he reminded of the strange story of Jon­ cated, and the Herbert brothers, to whom the First son's envious remarks about the Shakespeare Folio is dedicated; and that the only person in all works, followed by a complete about-face in 1623 Engla,ul who wa.s closely connected with all three when he suddenly conceived nothing but love and was Edward De Vere. For one of the Herherts admiration for the man. Also we remember the married one of his daughters, while the other fruitless thirteen-year search made through the brother and Southampton were at one time en, papers of the Southampton family by Mrs. C. C. gaged to marry the remaining daughters. If, as Stopes for the faintest hint that any one of them most of the critics have decided, Southampton is ever heard of the Stratford man. the one to whom the first seventeen sonnets were Coming back to Dr. Saintsbury; after confess­ written, and Southampton from 1590 to '92 was ing that all attempts to identify members of the being strongly urged to marry Elizabeth de Vere, Stratford man's family and friends (in Stratford') let us think of the interest in this match which the with any characters in the plays have failed, he girPs father had. A widower, without a legitimate says: son, head of a five hundred year-old house, which "It may, however, be fully admitted that the will "fall into decay" unless one of the daughters Sonnets stand in a very di!Terent category from produces an heir, he has a vital stake in the wed­ that of the plays. Not only does the poet speak ding negotiations. With this situation in mind, let ex professo from his heart, ... but there is no us reread the first seventeen sonnets. To our astou• poetry of this kind which approaches Shake­ ishment, we find "Shakespeare" impersonating tlu speare's Sonnets in apparent vehemence and in• Earl of Oxford. He pleads the cause of the noblt'­ tensity of feeling. There is even hardly any which man with "vehemence and intensity of feeling," 81 mingles, with the expression of that feeling, so Saintshury has said. He begs Southampton to mar• many concrete hints, suggesting so broadly a whole ry, if only for love of the writer, he begs him lo romance of personal experience, as they do. How get a son, he cajoles him, he puts pressure upon are we to take all this?" him, he scolds him for self-love. If the Earl had After confessing that debates over the Dramatis been sitting at his elbow as he wrote, "Shak­ Personae of the Sonnets have "occupied a not small s peare" could not have done a better job for Ult library of discussion," he admits that all the Shake• house of Oxford. speare scholars are helpless in trying to explain Dr. Saintsbury confesses that he cannot sol¥e them, and wagers that many more people than the problem. He asks, helplessly, "Who was 1hr would confess it "have inclined to Hallam's cur• friend, Southampton, Pembroke or another?" aad ious but courageous wish that Shakespeare 'had "Who was the lady? Mary Fitton ( who seems to never written them.' But he did write them," says have been a love of Pembroke, but who was fair,. 0 Saintsbury, and, in so many words, asks, What are not dark), or somebody else? When the criti11 we going to do about it? get to speculating and supposing on the Sonndf The answer, as members of the Fellowship know, "we have, obviously, passed into cloudland." is to be found in the story of the Earl of Oxford's · In his comments c,n the plays, Dr. SaintsbUl'f stormy personal life, as illustrated in the Sonnets, makes one point which is very significant. He lillt · and interpreted by Mr. Looney, Canon Rendall, the eleven plays which Meres in 1598 attribul!I and especially hy Mr. Barrell. Dr. Saintsbury says to Shakespeare's pen, and calls attention to the that all commentators admit that the "Fair Youth" surprising output that this represents for a lllll, was a "person of quality." It does not seem to sur• who "during four years unquestionably and, !t­ prise him that an actor should reprove a young yond reasonable doubt, for a good deal lon~et. nobleman for "self-love" and adding to his bless• had been busily employed in acting." He says tbi 1 ings "a curse, being fond on praise, which makes "so large a bulk as this, greater than the wholt your praises worse." theatre of some considerable dramatists, mui To digress for a moment, in order to drive home have taken no short time to write." He admits tbi 1 a point already made by others in the columns of it is all the more noteworthy because Meres bit the QUARTERLY, it· is strange that commentators failed to include several whole plays, such as tlat have not pointed out that there are just three per• Henry VI series, besides parts of others. ,AP It IL, l 9 4 6 19 Here we must remind Dr. Saintsbury that Hens­ outsmarting its "grand possessors,'' at the same lowe records productions of Ham let, Henry JI, time warning the reading public that very soon, "king lea:re," "seaser" and "the taming of a when such Shakespeare manuscripts were no long· Shrowe" four years before Meres published his er to be begged, borrowed or stolen, a ''new Eng• list;· that Hotson has proved that The Merry Wives lish inquisition" would hunt for them in vain. and Twelfth Night were played in 1596 and '97; We may note in this connection that our genius, and that Cairncross shows in his Problem of Ham• in order, evidently, to have plenty of leisure for let that Othello, Pericle.;, Macbeth and both parts land speculations, brewing and suing, has washed of Henry /JI had been acted in the early 1590's.