More Folio And Other Stuff
John Heminges[1] and Henry Condell[2]
Born in 1566, Heminges was two years Shakespeare’s junior, Condell, twelve; both were actors. Like Shakespeare both ended their acting careers in the King’s Men. Heminges, as early as 1593, perhaps earlier, got his start in the theatre business as part of another acting troupe, the Lord Strange’s Men; in 1594, he joined the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and continued on with them when they became the King’s Men in 1603. Condell, similarly, was part of the Lord Strange’s Men then the Lord Chamberlain’s Men; he too culminated his acting days as part of the King’s Men.
There is no denying Shakespeare, Heminges and Condell held each other in some measure of esteem and trusted each other fully. That their trust and friendship ran deep can be evidenced by the fact Shakespeare named Heminges as a trustee for a property Shakespeare bought in Blackfriars in 1613.[3] In his will, Shakespeare bequeathed money to Heminges and Condell in order to buy mourning rings.
Perhaps Heminges’s and Condell’s crowing achievement – for them – and their crowning achievement – for history – can be viewed as the care, pain and dedication they endured in collecting Shakespeare’s plays and publishing them in one volume in 1623 – seven years after Shakespeare’s 1616 death: Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies., i.e., the Folio. History will forever be grateful and in the unpayable debt to Heminges and Condell for combining forces to collect, compile and edit Shakespeare’s works into one volume.
Heminges and Condell wrote two introductory pieces for the Folio; one is its Dedication and the other an Address To The Readers, a marketing pitch. It is the Dedication that employs some interesting language.
While not a sub-discipline unique to Shakespearean studies, the scholarship around book Dedications at-large is an important part of the research of the larger work it dedicates. As will become clear in short order, Dedications in 17th century England went beyond just positively publicly acknowledging the dedicatee; book dedications were nothing short of flattering, exaggerated hyperbole directed to the dedicatee. This was normal.
Heminges and Condell dedicated the Folio to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke who was, at the time of publication, the Lord Chamberlain of the King’s Household and his brother Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, a member of the King’s Bedchamber; both were knights in The Most Noble Order of the Garter. These dedicatee brothers, William and Philip, were powerful courtiers and close to the King. The reason why Heminges and Condell decided to dedicate the Folio to the Herbert brothers will not be dissected here; that rabbit-hole, already inhabited by other researchers, has been explored and still has much excavation to be done. Be that as it may, the Dedication to the Herberts likely rests more on their relationship to Heminges and Condell rather than the brothers’ relationship to Shakespeare.
The Dedication to the Herberts is reproduced in full now now with curious parts excerpted and analysed below:
TO THE MOST NOBLE AND INCOMPARABLE PAIRE OF BRETHREN WILLIAM, EARLE OF PEMBROKE, &c., LORD CHAMERLAINE TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, AND PHILIP, EARLE OF MONTGOMERY, &c., GENTLEMAN OF HIS MAJESTIES BEDCHAMBER; BOTH KNIGHTS OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER AND OUR SINGULAR GOOD LORDS.
Right Honourable,
Whilst we studie to be thankful in our particular, for the many favors we have received from your L.L. we are falne upon the ill fortune, to mingle two the most diverse things that can bee, feare, and rashnesse; rashnesse in the enterprize, and feare of the successe. For, when we valew the places your H.H. sustaine, we cannot but know their dignity greater, then to descend to the reading of these trifles: and, while we name them trifles, we have depriv’d our selves of the defence of our Dedication. But since your L.L. have beene pleas’d to thinke these trifles some-thing, heeretofore; and have prosequuted both them, and their Authour living, with so much favour: we hope, that (they out-living him, and he not having the fate, common with some, to be exequutor to his owne writings) you will use the like indulgence toward them, you have done unto their parent. There is a great difference, whether any Booke choose his Patrones, or finde them: This hath done both. For, so much were your L.L. likings of the severall parts, when they were acted, as before they were published, the Volume ask’d to be yours. We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead, to procure his Orphanes, Guardians; without ambition either of selfe-profit, or fame: onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our S H A K E S P E A R E , by humble offer of his playes, to your most noble patronage. Wherein, as we have justly observed, no man to come neere your L.L. but with a kind of religious addresse; it hath bin the height of our care, who are the Presenters, to make the present worthy of your H.H. by the perfection. But, there we must also crave our abilities to be considerd, my Lords. We cannot go beyond our owne powers. Country hands reach foorth milke, creame, fruites, or what they have: and many Nations (we have heard) that had not gummes & incense, obtained their requests with a leavened Cake. It was no fault to approach their Gods, by what meanes they could: And the most, though meanest, of things are made more precious, when they are dedicated to Temples. In that name therefore, we most humbly consecrate to your H.H. these remaines of your servant Shakespeare; that what delight is in them, may be ever your L.L. the reputation his, & the faults ours, if any be committed, by a payre so carefull to shew their gratitude both to the living, and the dead, as is.
Your Lordshippes most bounden, John Heminge. Henry Condell.[4]
A most excellent Dedication! Over-the-top, but not too over-the-top. Flattery, abounds; fawning, with dignity. Just the right amount of courtly language exhorting admiration to, and lavishing warranted bestowments on, their Lordships. With zero hint of self-importance and no false-posturing and without seeking self-advancement other than what a Dedication might normally befall the dedicators, Heminges and Condell seem to have hit the nail on the head. It is written in keeping with the times.
The Dedication on the whole speaks highly of Shakespeare’s plays and reminds the two Herbert brothers they enjoyed the plays when they saw them performed live so, it follows, the dedicators hope the brothers enjoy them as written in the Folio. Partial excerpts have caught the re-focused attention of the Project.
Right Honourable,
Whilst we studie to be thankful in our particular, for the many
favors we have received from your L.L. we are falne upon the
ill fortune, to mingle two of the most diverse things that can bee, feare,
and rashnesse; rashnesse in the enterprize, and feare of the successe.
For, when we valew the places your H.H. sustaine, we cannot but know
their dignity greater, then to descend to the reading of these trifles:
Excellent fawning wording to include in your Dedication: we are falne upon the ill fortune, to mingle two of the most diverse things that can bee, feare and rashnesse; rashnesse in the enterprise, and feare of the successe.
But, is this phrase really speaking to the fact Heminges and Condell have fallen upon ill fortune which gives rise to rashness and fear: the rashnesse in the enterprize and feare of the successe? Heminges and Condell give a great flattering reason why it is rash to assemble Shakespeare’s works: the rashnesse can be equated with Heminges and Condell being so bold and rash as to presume their Lordships would actually stoop to read such a trifling enterprise. But what of feare of the successe? What about the meaning when the whole phrase is read as one? Even taking into consideration typical fawning wording of dedications of the era, these words are interesting. Why would Heminges and Condell fear the success of a compiled work dedicated to the brothers? One might think they would be afeared of a flop. Were they using double-speak? These words – rashnesse in the enterprise, and feare of the successe – read as if they might be describing something else. To a T.
It was really nice Heminges and Condell saw fit to consecrate Shakespeare’s remains to their Lordships:
…we most humbly
consecrate to your H.H. these remaines of your servant Shakespeare;
Heminges and Condell are, on the one hand, equating Shakespeare’s remains to his plays. Consecrate, in this case, would likely mean ‘to dedicate religiously.’ Therefore, Heminges and Condell are ensuring their offering of Shakespeare’s remains – his plays – are offered in a religious fashion. Because possibly, on the off-chance, his remains, his physical-bodily-remains, weren’t religiously consecrated prior? But they are now, because Shakespeare’s play-remains are being offered to their Lordships in a religious fashion? It’s an interesting metaphor. Were Shakespeare’s bodily-remains of the desecrated, polluted sort, prior?
There are hints in other parts of Heminges’s and Condell’s Dedication that speak to religious-based themes which might point to a bit of double-speak being writ. What of the possibility there might be other reasons why Heminges and Condell had to reassure the dedicatees the remaines were not profane? Was there a reason their Lordships might view Shakespeare’s plays as desecrated, unworthy, unless Heminges and Condell offered them up in a religious fashion?
All of this deconstruction would not be necessary if there were contemporaneous comments about Shakespeare’s death, funeral and burial. But, of course, all matters concerning his death were couched in silence; nothing was writ. Had there been contemporaneous comment about Shakespeare’s death it is possible Heminges’s and Condell’s Dedication might have been worded differently.
The Project realizes some of the wording Heminges and Condell employed isn’t as clear as Digges’s wording and therefore, notwithstanding some of their language is curious, it could interpreted various ways – unlike Digges’s unmistakable language.
Wits Recreation
Another weird, cryptic composition comes from Wits Recreation – a 1640 compilation of poems. The author and the exact date of this particular poem is unknown; knowing the date of composition, and author, could assist tremendously. Even without knowing the author and date, it’s still worth a look.
Shake-speare we must be silent in thy praise,
‘Cause our encomion’s will but blast thy Bayes,
Which envy could not,- that thou didst so well;
Let thine own histories prove thy Chronicle.
The Project gives full marks to the anonymous author for acknowledging the silence sickness that afflicted commentary about Shakespeare’s death; good for him or her. At least someone is acknowledging it. As for the overall meaning, again, it’s repeating the common theme of so many elegists when they say Shakespeare’s works will provide him his own monument, prove his chronicle. But, it’s actually saying much more than that, if you listen.
After reading and understanding all the lines together, it’s apparent it was writ sometime after 1616. When it talks of ‘praise’ does the author mean, generally, praise for Shakespeare as a playwright while he was alive? This doesn’t seem likely; Shakespeare was praised during his lifetime, much; people weren’t silent then. It is therefore likely the reference to praise is post-death praise, or lack of it.
And the author is stating we – people post-1616 – must be silent in thy praise. That’s somewhat odd. Why? Why must people be silent and not praise Shakespeare after his death? Unless, of course, there was a reason to be silent. There was the silence sickness going around at the time about the cause of death. But, why silence for thy praise? Which is commenting on a fact. Then, ingeniously, the author tries to give a reason for the silence. It’s because if they were not silent their effusive praise would blast the baye laurel wreath from Shakespeare’s head, which is obviously not to be taken literally but to be taken as metaphorical poetic creation. And then more metaphoric, not literal, allusions follow when the author says all the envy – malicious words – could not, in fact, dislodge Shakespeare’s laurel wreath. That is to say, even though hurtful words cast towards you could not dislodge your wreath our effusive praise would – which is why admirers must be silent.
It’s clear the author wants to justify the reason – using nifty allusions – why people must be silent in Shakespeare’s praise. But would people, in reality, have to stay silent and not praise Shakespeare? It certainly wouldn’t be because there would be so much praise that Shakespeare’s wreath would be blasted from his head. He was praised while he was alive. While it could be the author is making the whole thing up and is just using the first line as a means to further the overall argument, that interpretation seems strained, forced, contorted. No, there appears to be a clever, underlying meaning in the first line: Shake-speare we must be silent in thy praise. Because it is likely this short poem was written post-1616, it would have been unwise for someone to immediately praise Shakespeare after his death if his death occurred under irregular circumstances.
Elegic Themes
In all the elegies, in all the post-death poems about Shakespeare there are two over-arching themes: 1) he really won’t be thought of as dead as long as his plays and works are still alive and around to be read and 2) those plays and works will serve as Shakespeare’s monument and/or his tomb and to heck with real monuments and stone grave-markers. It is the second of these themes that warrant a differently-focused review. Briefly, a quick examination of two elegists show the theme: Jonson and his 1623 Folio elegy and Milton’s 1632 Second Folio elegy. Basse’s unpublished poem – as of 1623 – will also join the analysis. Portions of Jonson’s and Milton’s elegies are as follows:
Jonson, 1623:
My Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye
A little further, to make thee a roome :
Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe,
Milton, 1632:
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour’d Bones,
The labour of an age in piled Stones,
Or that his hallow’d reliques should be hid
Under a stary pointing Pyramid?
Dear son of Memory, great heir of Fame,
What need’st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Basse, 1633:
William Basse, English poet (c.1583-1653), wrote a great poem after Shakespeare’s death about where Shakespeare’s burial should have taken place. The poem was circulating in rough manuscript form, i.e., on loose paper, prior to 1623, but as far as is known its earliest publication date is 1633 notwithstanding it fairly clear Jonson clearly uses some of Basses’s original ideas for his own 1623 Folio elegy.[5] Jonson in his 1623 Folio elegy riffs on Basse’s poem and sort of commandeers Basse’s original idea of where Shakespeare should be buried; but then Jonson comes up with a reason why Shakespeare should not be buried where Basse suggests, i.e., Westminster Abbey. Basse’s poem is included due to the fact he was likely the first poet to highlight the fact Shakespeare is not buried in Westminster Abbey, alongside other greats; rather, he’s alone in Stratford. It goes like this:
On Mr. Wm Shakespeare
he dyed in Aprill 1616
Renowned Spencer, lye a thought more nye
To learned Chaucer & rare Beaumont lye
A little neerer Spencer to make roome
For Shakespeare in your threefold fowerfold Tombe
To lodge all fowre in one bed make a shift
Untill Doomesdaye, for hardly will a fift
Betwixt this day and that by Fate be slayne
ffor whom your Curtaines may be drawn againe.
If your precendency in death doth barre
A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
Under this carved marble of thine own
Sleepe rare Tragedian, Shakespeare sleep alone
Thy unmolested peace, unshared Cave
Possesse as Lord not Tenant of thy Grave
That unto us and others it may be
Honor hereafter to be layde by thee.
Wm Basse.[6]
Jonson, Milton and Basse are commenting, one way or another, on two specific facts: Shakespeare has no full-on tomb, grand grave-stone, piled stones or a pyramid and he’s not buried beside other greatness in Westminster Abbey. Factually, they are correct. These verses illustrate Shakespeare has no grand, full Christian tomb – whether in London or Stratford – and are correct in stating so. Was there a reason for this? Might there be a religious-related reason for the lesser burial-marker, the ‘flat stone’, Digges wrote about? Some of the elegists think he deserves to be in Westminster Abbey or in the very least deserves a grand tomb of sorts. They then come up with the various reasons why Shakespeare never received one. Viewed with a slightly different gloss, the paltry Stratford, almost non-existent grave-marker, unmarked as to name and dates, certainly fits other possibilities with no contortions necessary. Shakespeare’s funerary-object oddities can be explained by either his indifferent, not-caring preference[7] or the result of a partial Christian burial due to other reasons or both.
JMS, 1632:
The undated work of the anonymous JMS author in 1632’s Second Folio takes a slightly different view of things. A portion of it reads thusly:
blow ope the Iron Gates
Of Death and Lethe, where (confused) lie
Great heaps of ruinous Mortality.
In that deep duskie dungeon to discern
A Royal Ghost from Churles.
This author, JMS, whoever they are, alludes to a mass burial where great heaps of confused ruinous mortality lie. And in that heap of bones in the dungeon a royal ghost can be discerned from churls. This author is not commenting on Shakespeare’s lack of a tomb, but rather, is commenting on a mass grave; i.e., a profane burial, lacking Christian assent. JMS is not saying Shakespeare was buried in a heap but rather just alluding to a mass burial generally where a royal ghost can be discerned from rougher peasants. The Project is currently doing more research on this passage and JMS – whoever he was.
The investigation can’t stop at the Folio; more from the historical record must be re-visited. Heading back to Stratford might be a good idea – starting with two people who knew Shakespeare intimately: John Hall and Thomas Greene.
[1] General biographical information on John Heminges, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online edition: Edmond, Mary (2004)): ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-12890. Accessed 15 November 2023.
[2] General biographical information on Henry Condell, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online edition: Edmond, Mary (2004)): ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-6055. Accessed 15 November 2023.
[3] Heminges, John (bap. 1566, d. 1630), editor of Shakespeare’s first folio Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (oxforddnb.com) Accessed 09 December 2023.
[4] Works, xxvi.
[5] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/manuscript-copy-william-basses-elegy-william-shakespeare Accessed 29 December 2023.
[6] Unpublished as of 1623. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/manuscript-copy-william-basses-elegy-william-shakespeare Accessed 29 December 2023.
[7] A conclusion which the Project reaches after analysing Shakespeare’s death accoutrements: see the webpage Holy Trinity Church.