2. Core Evidence: William Shakspere/Shakespeare

The core evidence falls into five categories:

• Evidence for the existence of William Shakspere
• Evidence that he was a businessman/broker
• Evidence that he was a theatre shareholder
• Evidence that he was an actor
• Evidence that he was a writer

Certain terms pertaining to evidence are worth defining, as they will be used to assess the evidence that has been marshalled by both sides in the authorship debate.

Extant

This term serves as a reminder that the evidence we have is only partial; after four hundred years, much has been lost or destroyed. We can only speculate about what no longer exists, but sound argument can only be made from what has survived. Where an argument is not supported by evidence, it must be flagged as a supposition or assumption. However, there are some complications: see Absence of Evidence.

Unambiguous

All evidence – even that in legal documents – is open to interpretation. Consider, for example, the number of scholarly interpretations of Shakspere’s will, in which he bequeathes to his wife the ‘second best bed’. However, what is unarguable is that he bequeathed the second best bed to his wife. In John Davies’ epigram 159 to Mr Will: Shake-speare, however, what is being communicated is unclear: the text itself (and not just the motivation behind it) is open to multiple interpretations, and therefore ambiguous. According to William Empson, we have ambiguity when ‘alternative views might be taken without sheer misreading’.

Contemporaneous

Evidence from the subject’s lifetime has higher evidentiary value than posthumous evidence. Posthumous evidence is certainly important – we cannot ignore, for example, Shakspere’s funeral monument, which appears to both depict and reference him as a writer. However, historians would expect posthumous evidence to be supported by, or tally with, evidence from when he was alive.

Personal

Personal testimony is evidence that either:

• demonstrates the writer knew the subject personally, or
• is produced by a writer documented to have known the subject personally.

Impersonal evidence is written ‘about’ or ‘to’ the subject but with no demonstrable personal connection. In Shakespeare studies, a personal connection has often been inferred from such evidence, but in the absence of documented personal connections such evidence only attests to awareness of a writer of that name, not physical acquaintance with him. In modern terms, anyone can write ‘John Le Carré writes brilliant thrillers’. That doesn’t mean they are personally acquainted with the author, or are aware that John Le Carré is a pen name, the writer’s real name being David Cornwell. For obvious reasons, personal evidence has a higher evidentiary value than impersonal evidence: the distinction is the best way to show that a reference to someone as a writer is based on direct and not hearsay evidence. The different evidentiary value of personal and impersonal testimony is widely recognised by historians. It is a strong feature of the authorship debate in its current form that orthodox Shakespeare scholars refuse to recognise any distinction between personal and impersonal testimony.

2.1 Evidence: Existence

The following records attest the existence of an individual whose name was William Shakspere (or a close variant of this name) who was born, married and died in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England.

2.2 Evidence: Financial and Business Dealings

The following records attest to the business dealings of an individual called William Shakspere (or a close variant of this name), in both Stratford-upon-Avon and London. Theatre-specific business dealings are excluded, being dealt with in the next section.

2.3 Evidence: Theatre Shareholder

The following section covers evidence supporting the idea that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon was a shareholder in the theatre company The Lord Chamberlain’s Men (later The King’s Men) and in The Globe Theatre. Since this evidence requires some discussion, it is not presented in tabular form.

• A Payment to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men on 15 March 1595 for performances during Christmas 1594 is to ‘William Kempe, William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyne’. This is the first time the name William Shakespeare appears in the historical record in a theatrical context.

We assume this is William Shakspere of Stratford because of the later evidence that links him to Augustine Phillips, Richard Burbage, John Heminges and Henry Condell of the King’s Men. It seems likely that those listed are shareholders of the company. All three are later shareholders of The Globe.

• In late autumn 1596 a surety of the peace is taken out against ‘William Shakspere’, Francis Langley and two women. Langley was the owner of The Swan Theatre.

This documents a man named William Shakspere in the company of a theatre owner. It is evidence someone of this name moved in these circles though not evidence he was a shareholder himself. We cannot know for sure it was William Shakspere of Stratford.

• On 21 Feb 1599 the Globe’s lease was drawn up (no longer extant). According to King’s Men shareholders John Heminges and Henry Condell, testifying twenty years later, ‘William Shakspeare’ was one of five members of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men to own a tenth share. Cuthbert and Richard Burbage owned the other half of the lease.

The original document being missing, this evidence is posthumous, but we have no reason to suspect the testimony given in 1619 is inaccurate. This supports William Shakspere as a Globe leaseholder therefore probable theatre company shareholder.

• On 16 May 1599 Sir Thomas Brend’s inventory describes the new Globe Theatre (in Latin) as ‘occupied by William Shakespeare and others’, presumably as leaseholders.
• A deed for the Globe dated 7/10 October 1601 names ‘Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare gentleman’, presumably as leaseholders.

The name William Shakespeare (or close variant) on these legal documents supports the idea William Shakspere was a shareholder and perhaps a business manager of the company. The structure of the lease suggests Richard Burbage is representing one half (him and his brother), and William Shakspere the other (him and four other shareholders of the company).

• On 17/18 May 1603, warrants for letters patent list ‘William Shakespeare’ as one of the named members of the company.
• On 19 May 1603, a royal patent makes the Lord Chamberlain’s Men the King’s Men, and William Shakespeare is second listed, along with other shareholding and acting members.
• On 15 March 1604, the Master of the Wardrobe’s record lists ‘William Shakespeare’ as one of the ‘Players’ given scarlet cloth to be worn for the King’s Royal Procession through London.

‘Players’ are all members of the King’s Men.

• On 4 May 1605, the will of Augustine Phillips of the King’s Men gives a bequest to ‘my fellow william Shakespeare’.
• On 9 Oct 1615, Thomasina Ostler sues her father John Heminges over shares in the Globe and Blackfriars theatres. ‘Willelmo Shakespeare/Shakspeare’ is mentioned as having been a shareholder in both when the leases were first arranged.
• Shakspere’s will, dated 25 March 1616 contains an interlineation (added line) that reads ‘and to my fellowes John Hemynges, Richard Brubage, and Henry Cundell, xxvj.s. viij.d. a peece to buy them ringes John Heminges, Richard Burbage and Henry Condell were all shareholders in the King’s Men.

CONCLUSION

That William Shakspere of Stratford was a shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and subsequently the King’s Men is well-supported by extant primary source evidence.

2.4 Evidence: Actor

The following section covers evidence supporting the idea that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon was an actor. The idea became popular posthumously, but is not well-supported by contemporaneous evidence. Therefore each piece of evidence will be critically examined.

2.4.1 Payment to Lord Chamberlain’s Men

EVIDENCE

• A Payment to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men on 15 March 1595 for performances on 26 and 27 December 1594 is to ‘William Kempe, William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyne’.
• This is the first time the name William Shakespeare appears in the historical record in a theatrical context.

ARGUMENT

• The other two members named, William Kemp and Richard Burbage, were both actors.
• This document demonstrates that Shakspere was a prominent member of this acting company.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The document demonstrates that Shakspere was a shareholder of the company (as were Kemp and Burbage), but it is not evidence that he was an actor.
• Had he been a prominent actor, there is no doubt there would be corroborating evidence to this effect, but there is not, which is why most scholars only argue for him taking only small parts.
• His prominence on this document therefore cannot be explained by his being an actor, only by his being a shareholder on equal terms with Richard Burbage and Will Kemp.

2.4.2 John Manningham’s Diary |

EVIDENCE

• John Manningham’s diary of 13 March 1602 records an anecdote he heard from ‘Mr Curle’ regarding Richard Burbage (in his capacity as an actor) and William Shakespeare.
• John Manningham knew Thomas Greene, who would move to Stratford the following year, move in with the Shaksperes subsequently, and in 1614-5 referred to William Shakspere as his ‘cousin’.¹¹
• Greene knew William Shakspere’s Richard Quiney (a friend of Shakspere’s, according to Quiney’s letter), helping him represent the Stratford Corporation in 1601.
• He described a performance of Twelfth Night in the Middle Temple Hall on February 2, 1602.

ARGUMENT

• The anecdote places someone called ‘William Shakespeare’ in the theatre alongside actor Richard Burbage.
• Therefore it supports the idea that William Shakspere of Stratford was an actor.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• Nothing in the anecdote suggests William Shakespeare was an actor.
• Richard III was one of the first plays published under the name William Shakespeare (1598) which might explain why a story about Richard Burbage playing Richard III involves someone called Shakespeare.
• The anecdote appears to be a joke and as such very likely invented.
• Having been heard from ‘Mr Curle’, it cannot be accorded an evidential status beyond hearsay.
• John Manningham’s Diary was discovered by John Payne Collier, the notorious forger. Like all documents to have passed through Collier’s hands, it must be treated with caution.

2.4.3 Shakespear The Player By Garter |

EVIDENCE

• In 1602, York Herald Peter Brooke lodged a complaint against the recent grant of arms to people he considered inappropriate. One of these was John Shakspere, William’s father.
• On a document associated with his complaint, the Shakspere crest is accompanied by the words ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’.

ARGUMENT

• This demonstrates that Peter Brooke, the York Herald, knew William Shakspere to be an actor.
• Though the arms were offically granted to John Shakspere, who was not a ‘player’, it is clear that the herald is aware that the person who is pushing (and presumably paying) for the arms to be granted - his son - is a player.
• For those who consider spelling to be relevent, note that this ‘player’s name is spelt ‘Shakespeare’.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The reference may be to Edmund Shakspere.
  • There is no forename on this document.
  • William Shakspere was not referred to as ‘a player’ in any official records: not on his deposition and not on his death certificate. His brother Edmond, however, was - he is referred to as ‘Edmond Shakespeare a player’ on his burial record.
  • No-one knows which Shakspere brother pushed for the grant of arms, or which Shakspere brother is being referenced by Peter Brooke.

OR

• Peter Brooke assumed William Shakspere to be a player because he was a sharer in the playing company (and most sharers were also actors). This does not mean that William Shakspere acted. It is entirely possible he held a share in the playing company in a purely business capacity.

2.4.4 King’s Men Licence

EVIDENCE

• On 19 May 1603 the Lord Chamberlain’s Men were licensed as the King’s Men.
• The document lists members of the company as ‘Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillipes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly’.

ARGUMENT

• This document demonstrates that Shakspere was a prominent member of this acting company.
• His prominence is indicated by his being listed second, behind Lawrence Fletcher, who was the king’s favourite actor, having acted for King James in Scotland.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The document demonstrates that Shakspere was a shareholder of the company (as were the others who are named), but it is not evidence that he was an actor.
• Had he been a prominent actor, there is no doubt there would be corroborating evidence to this effect, but there is not, which is why most scholars only argue for him taking only small parts.
• His prominence on this document therefore cannot be explained by his being an actor.
• It is more likely that he is listed second after the king’s favourite because his name was associated by this time with the plays that James was known to enjoy.

2.4.5 ‘Players’ of 1604

EVIDENCE

• On 15 March 1604, the Master of the Wardrobe’s record lists ‘William Shakespeare’ as one of the ‘Players’ given scarlet cloth to be worn for the King’s Royal Procession through London.

ARGUMENT

• ‘William Shakespeare’ is listed first of the ‘Players’.
• All the others listed as ‘Players’ are known to have been actors.
• William Shakspere of Stratford was a documented shareholder of the company along with others on this list.
• This document clearly identifies William Shakspere of Stratford as an actor.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The primary position of ‘William Shakespeare’ at the top of this list reflects the fame of the author of that name, whose plays the company performed.

2.4.6 Will of Augustine Phillips

EVIDENCE

• The will of Augustine Phillips was executed on 5 May 1605 and proved on 16 May 1605.
• It bequeaths ‘to my Fellowe william Shakespeare a Thirty shillings peece in gould, To my Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould… To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould’.

ARGUMENT

• Henry Condell, Lawrence Fletcher and Robert Armyne – the other people Phillips calls his ‘Fellowes’ – were actors.
• Therefore the first ‘Fellowe’ in the list, ‘William Shakespeare’, was also an actor.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The term ‘Fellowe’ is simply an indication of shareholder status; all of those named were fellow shareholders in the King’s men.

2.4.7 John Davies of Hereford’s Epigram

• In his collection of epigrams, The Scourge of Folly (1610), John Davies of Hereford included an epigram addressed to ‘Mr Will. Shake-speare, our English Terence’.
• It begins:

ARGUMENT

• Davies’ reference to Will playing ‘some kingly parts in sport’ is a reference to his acting.¹²

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• This epigram is extremely cryptic. There are a number of non-Stratfordian interpretations. See counter-arguments in Part 2 and arguments in Part 3 relating to this epigram.
• There are several other interpretations of playing ‘some kingly parts in sport’ (varying candidate to candidate) which are just as valid as the orthodox interpretation of this line.
• In addition, all of Shakespeare’s kings are major roles. There is no evidence that he took major roles (such as kings) and most scholars do not believe he did.

2.4.8 Cast Lists of 1616

EVIDENCE

Cast lists first published in November 1616 in Ben Jonson’s Works name: * ‘Will Shakespeare’ (top left) under ‘principal Comoedians’ in the 1598 production of Every Man In His Humour. * ‘Will Shake-Speare’ (top right) under ‘principal Tragoedians’ in the 1603 production of Sejanus his Fall.

ARGUMENT

• These cast lists are a true record of the casts of the productions thirteen and eighteen years earlier.
• William Shakspere of Stratford is the referent.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• This evidence is posthumous.
  • By normal historical methods, a piece of posthumous evidence not corroborated by contemporaneous evidence has a lower evidentiary value (secondary evidence) than evidence produced during the person’s lifetime (primary evidence).
  • There is no record of the original casts of these 1598 and 1603 productions dating from the time of those productions. Jonson’s cast lists were published 13-18 years later.
• This evidence is suspect:
  • No modern scholars argue that William Shakespeare was a principal actor of any sort. If he acted, it was in minor roles. Jonson’s listing him at the top of a cast of ‘principal’ actors in these productions is therefore untrue. One must ask what purpose it serves, if not the truth.
  • The insertion of a hyphen in the name on the ‘Tragoedian’ list raises questions - see Hyphenation.
  • The hyphenation of one name and not the other can be taken to indicate he is referring to two different people. In a non-Stratfordian reading, one (the hyphenated pseudonymous author) principally tragic, the other (the non-hyphenated front man) principally comic.
  • Ben Jonson, the age’s great satirist, wrote a number of conflicting and enigmatic things about Shakespeare, and this piece of evidence must be considered in the context of all the Jonson evidence.

2.4.9 Cast List of 1623

EVIDENCE

Cast list first published in November 1623 in Shakespeare’s First Folio has ‘William Shakespeare’ heading a list of twenty-six ‘Principall Actors in all these Playes’.

ARGUMENT

• These cast lists are verifiable (acting) members of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (later The King’s Men) acting company.
• William Shakspere of Stratford is the referent.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• It is widely accepted that Ben Jonson was editor of the First Folio and arranged the prefatory material. For Jonson’s unique relationship to authorship question issues see Ben Jonson and Ben Jonson anomalies.
• It is possible that William Shakspere of Stratford was a ‘principle actor’ only in the sense that he was a successful front for the real author of these works, and that this is the purpose of both this and the Ben Jonson cast lists.

2.4.10 Sharers Papers 1635

EVIDENCE

• A letter from Cuthbert Burbage and Richard Burbage’s widow Winifred petitioning the Earl of Pembroke (then Lord Chamberlain) for a greater slice of the profits from the Globe and Blackfriars theatres names ‘Shakspeare’ as a player:

ARGUMENT

• Though posthumous, this is personal testimony: Cuthbert Burbage and Winifred Burbage were in a position to know William Shakspere personally.
• This piece of evidence, together with others, suggests William Shakspere of Stratford was an actor.¹³

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• The term ‘players’ might mean ‘members of the playing company’.
• Heminges and Condell, though they certainly acted, were named in a business capacity.
• In this instance, though he is referred to as a ‘player’, ‘Shakespeare’ is named in a business capacity too.

2.4.11 Summary

Unless it can be corroborated that non-playing shareholders were ever referred to has ‘players’, the 1604 Players list is a reliable primary source document supporting the idea that William Shakspere the theatre shareholder was also an actor in his company, and personal testimony given posthumously (in the 1635 Sharers Papers) also support his being a ‘player’.

However, three cast lists that position him as a principal actor are not corroborated by appropriate evidence, and most scholars believe he only took minor roles. Two of these lists – possibly all three – were published at the instigation of Ben Jonson. Given that most scholars (rightly, given the lack of corroboration) believe the man named only took minor roles, it is therefore worth considering in what respect either the theatre shareholder or author was a ‘principal actor’, a ‘principal tragedian’ or a ‘principal comedian’, and the reasons he might have been listed thus.

Many other documents used to support the idea he was an actor are reliable evidence of his being a shareholder, but the prominence of his name, when set against the lack of contemporaneous support for his taking major roles, suggests that prominence derives from the fame and success of the plays with which it had become associated.

2.5 Evidence: Writer

EVIDENCE

That there was a writer whose works were published under the name ‘William Shakespeare’ is not in dispute. The name appears within Shakspere of Stratford’s lifetime on numerous plays and poems, and other writers referred to works by William Shakespeare.

ARGUMENT

• William Shakspere of Stratford is documented as a share-holder of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, later the King’s Men, a part-owner of the Globe Theatre and of the Blackfriars theatre.
• The plays associated with the name William Shakespeare are exclusively associated with the company of which he was a share-holder.
• Therefore he is the author of the plays (and poems) published under the name William Shakespeare.
• This argument is explored fully in Part 2 ‘Stratfordian Arguments’.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

• There is no unambiguous contemporaneous personal testimony supporting the idea that these plays were written by William Shakspere of Stratford and not merely published under his name.
• There is also contemporaneous evidence that can be argued to support the idea that he was not the writer of these plays and poems.
• This argument is explored fully in Part 3 ‘Non-Stratfordian Arguments’.