Kitabı oku: «William Shakespeare: History in an Hour»

Elizabeth I c. 1588

It makes sense that this expansion of human consciousness would not remain confined to the realms of geography and science. It would ultimately spill over into the arts, ushering in a period of hitherto unmatched creativity, which became known as the English Renaissance. Music, architecture and the visual arts would all benefit from this explosion of innovation, but by far the most important developments would be seen in the literary – and especially the dramatic – arts.

Once the preserve of the royal court and aristocratic houses, the early Elizabethan era saw the democratization of drama, which would bring plays to the masses for the first time. Initially staged in the inns and bear-baiting arenas of London’s liberties, demand for this new form of entertainment was such that a purpose-built theatre called The Red Lion (the first to be constructed in London since Roman times) was soon completed in 1567. This was followed by The Theatre in 1576 and The Curtain a year later. Soon, aspiring playwrights were flocking to London in the hope of taking advantage of this revolution in mass entertainment. Thus, the stage was set for the emergence of the greatest English dramatist of them all, William Shakespeare.

The Childhood Years

The works of William Shakespeare are, without doubt, the most studied and admired in the English language. Indeed, they have inspired such a level of acclaim that, in 1901, George Bernard Shaw came up with the term ‘bardolatry’ in an attempt to describe our collective tendency to heap acclaim on our beloved verse-maker.

Despite this, and the fact that he has been the subject of innumerable scholarly researches and biographies, we actually know surprisingly little about the man himself. In fact, William Shakespeare made only four appearances on various official records before he turned up in London in the 1580s: at the time of his birth, his marriage, and the birth of his children. This was not unusual for the time – lower levels of literacy meant that there was less emphasis on record-keeping and bureaucracy while, in many cases, those documents that did exist have subsequently been lost to the passage of time. Another reason for this paucity of biographical information lies in the fact that the fashion for diary-keeping and memoir-writing (and the reading of these writings) only began to emerge in the mid-seventeenth century, some forty years after Shakespeare’s death. And even then, no one had the foresight to record for posterity the reminiscences of his last surviving daughter, Judith, before her own demise in 1662. As a consequence, William Shakespeare remains a ghost-like presence in his own story, a shadow that remains tantalizingly opaque. The first puzzling biographical detail we encounter is the question of his date of birth.

It has long been agreed that William Shakespeare was born on or close to 23 April 1564. There is pleasing synchronicity in this, considering he died fifty-two years later on the same date. The poetic resonance of this anniversary is further amplified when one realizes that England’s national poet shares his birthday with the feast day of England’s patron saint, St George. The coincidence is certainly compelling – or it would be, if it were true. Unfortunately, much like many other aspects of Shakespeare’s life, we simply cannot be sure of the veracity of this famous birth date.

The problem can be traced to the sixteenth-century preference for recording baptismal dates instead of birth dates. The recently born William Shakespeare makes his first official appearance in the baptismal records of The Holy Trinity Church in the Warwickshire parish of Stratford-upon-Avon, on 26 April 1565. Due to high infant mortality rates, and considering the prevalent belief that a child who died unbaptized could not enter heaven, it was thought imperative to get newborns to the baptismal font as soon as possible, usually between two and four days after the birth. In Shakespeare’s case, this would put his birthday somewhere between 22 and 24 April.

But the controversy does not end there. If we adjust this date range to reflect the fact that Shakespeare was born under the Julian Calendar (the Gregorian Calendar was not introduced until 1582), we find that his birth date falls somewhere in the first week of May. So the choice of 23 April, it would seem, is completely arbitrary – and, in all likelihood, incorrect.

Luckily, there is no such uncertainty surrounding the identity of Shakespeare’s parents. His father, John Shakespeare, a maker of gloves and other soft leather goods, originally hailed from the neighbouring village of Snitterfield. He relocated to Henley Street in Stratford in 1556 or 1557, a move which coincided with his marriage to Mary Arden, the daughter of a relatively wealthy local farmer. William was the third of eight children, and the first to survive infancy. Indeed, the very fact that he lived to see his schooldays was something of an achievement – quite aside from the usual diseases like measles, smallpox and dysentery, an outbreak of plague hit Stratford when William was just three months old which carried away one fifth of the town’s population.

William Shakespeare’s birthplace, Henley Street, Stratford

Assuming his parents followed the conventions of the day, young William would have been sent to school around the age of seven. No educational records survive, but it is likely he would have attended the local grammar school, King’s New School, which accepted any boy from the town, provided he had rudimentary reading and writing skills. By this stage, Shakespeare’s father was fast becoming a respected member of the Stratford community, taking on a series of municipal jobs which would eventually see him rise to the post of chief alderman of the town. The increasing stature of the Shakespeare family makes it even more probable that King’s New School would have opened its doors to William.

Aside from its famous alumnus, King’s New School is remarkable for having a very highly paid headmaster – the records show that he drew a salary of £20 per annum, a significant sum for the time, and, it is believed, more than the remuneration received by the headmaster at Eton. This suggests that King’s New School was a decent educational establishment, and the instruction the boy received was likely to have been better than average.

The sixteenth-century curriculum was very unlike its equivalent today. The core subject was Latin, and students would have spent most of the twelve-hour school day learning to write, read and speak this ancient language. There was little or no emphasis on other subjects – history and geography were both neglected, as was English, which could account for the infuriating lack of uniformity of spelling in Elizabethan literature.

If we continue with the assumption that young Shakespeare followed the custom of the time, he would have left formal education – furnished with fluent Latin but not much else – by the age of 15. At this point, c. 1579, he disappeared from the records completely for three years. We know he did not attend university like most of his fellow playwrights; a fact which Ben Jonson highlighted when he commented, somewhat derogatorily, that Shakespeare had ‘small Latin and less Greek’. So, what was his occupation during this time? Did he remain in Stratford, or move to London? Or did he travel even further afield? Unfortunately, we have no idea, as there is little evidence to support any speculations to the contrary.

The Family Years

When we next meet William Shakespeare, he is 18 years old and (presumably) in love. It is November 1582, and he has travelled the thirty miles to the town of Worcester to apply for a marriage licence. The register lists his intended bride as one Anne Whateley, a detail which has caused no small confusion among historians, because the wife he ended up with was called Anne Hathaway. This discrepancy probably should not necessarily be taken as proof that William was fickle in his affections, casting off one Anne in favour of another in a matter of weeks. The far more likely explanation is that the clerk at Worcester simply made an error while recording the bride’s surname.

The (probably incorrect) entry in the Worcester register

The next reference to the impending nuptials can be found in the marriage bond, in which Anne Hathaway now appears correctly as herself. The existence of this document is particularly interesting. Usually, weddings could only take place after the marriage banns were read aloud at the local church on each of the three preceding Sundays. This practice allowed time for interested parties to raise objections should they have any. But a marriage bond, usually issued by the bishop and at considerable cost to the applicant, granted permission for a couple to by-pass this convoluted process and marry as soon as they wished. Given that Shakespeare paid £40 to receive this licence, it would seem that he was in quite a hurry to get himself wed. Sure enough, the nuptials took place that same month after just one reading of the banns. Six months later, Anne gave birth to the couple’s first child, a daughter called Susanna.

There has been much speculation about the nature of Shakespeare’s marriage to Anne Hathaway. It has often been attested that Shakespeare was, on account of Anne’s pregnancy, forced to marry against his will, and that the union was therefore an unhappy one. Anne’s age – at 26 she was a full eight years her husband’s senior – is also seen as significant by those who believe that the young Shakespeare was coerced into matrimony by an older woman, desperate to avoid a life of spinsterhood. Some 20 per cent of women in Elizabethan England would go to their graves without marrying, so such a proportion would have intensified competition for men. On the other hand, this also means that a 26-year-old single woman would not have been rare or any great social shame. In any case, while such an age difference was unusual for the time, neither was it unheard of.

In reality, the only thing we can know for certain about the workings of the Shakespeare–Hathaway marriage is that we know nothing for certain. While their parents appear to have been acquaintances since the 1550s, we do not know how long the couple had known each other, or if they had had a longer engagement than their hurried marriage seems to suggest. Neither do we know anything about the dispositions and personalities of husband and wife, nor have we any insight into their attitude to the institution of marriage. And while the fact that Shakespeare would ultimately spend much of their married life living and working in London is indicative of a certain mutual independence, it should not necessarily be taken as evidence of an emotional estrangement. At any rate, relations must have continued to some degree in the first years of their marriage as, in late January or early February 1585, Anne gave birth to twins, Judith and Hamnet.