A 400-year-old Shakespeare mystery has gotten a major shake-up.
In a paper published in the journal Shakespeare on April 24 — the day after the Bard’s 461st birthday, if you happened to have candles and an extremely large cake on hand — Professor Matthew Steggle, Chair in Early Modern English Literature at University of Bristol, presented research that finds potential significance in the scraps of a letter first discovered in 1978.
Incredibly, the letter scraps were found by accident inside a nearly 1,000-page religious tome housed in the library of the U.K.’s Hereford Cathedral.
The letter appears to have been addressed to “Good Mrs Shakspaire” concerning an apprentice named John Butts (or Butte) and the young man’s interactions with her husband. As well, the letter says that the Shakespaires had lived on Trinity Lane, a street that still exists today in London. If this, in fact, turns out to be true about the Shakespeares, it’s a biographical nugget that has never previously been known and places them living together in London during the period when he wrote “Hamlet,” “Twelfth Night,” and other plays.
The life story of William Shakespeare, as it’s usually told, is that he left Stratford-upon-Avon to make his name in the London theaters. It’s been thought that his wife, Anne Hathaway, stayed behind with their children, separated from him for unknown lengths of time until he returned to spend the last few years of his life in retirement. Then, upon his death, he left her “my second best bed with the furniture,” which scholars still puzzle over whether it’s a loving gesture (as it could refer to their shared marriage bed) or a final snub.
Amazingly, the correspondence wasn’t saved for its historical importance; it was essentially used as scrap paper, as Steggle writes in “The Shakspaires Of Trinity Lane: A Possible Shakespeare Life-Record”: “The two strips of the letter were used by the binders as ‘guards’, or padding to prevent the text block from chafing against the binding they were fitting to it, so the binders evidently regarded these strips as waste paper.”
The book’s publisher was Shakespeare’s Stratford neighbor Richard Field, who was also the playwright’s first printer.
Why wasn’t the 1978 discovery by librarian F.C. Morgan taken more seriously at the time? Steggle explains: “That Morgan did not do more with this discovery is understandable. He had recently celebrated his hundredth birthday, and in fact was dead by the time this note appeared in print. It was a late and startling highlight in a long career spent in English history.”
Steggle’s research was done for his forthcoming book, “William Shakespeare and the Early Modern World,” and throughout his piece, he is careful not to overstate the findings and suggest areas where it might be bolstered or challenged. Steggle answered questions via email about the letter and his research.
Q. How did you find the significance of this piece of letter?
I’m writing a Shakespeare biography, and found the document referenced briefly in one or two places, but nobody actually seemed to know anything about it. Then when I obtained photos of the two fragments, I thought, you could do things with this, especially with modern information technology that previous generations of scholars didn’t have access to.
Q. If true, what might it mean?
There’s this prevailing narrative that the Shakespeares’ marriage was very much an arms-length affair, with the wife as a distant encumbrance while he lived an exciting life in the city – the kind of thing you see in “Shakespeare in Love.” This suggests an alternative scenario in which they are living together, at least a bit, in London, with Anne involved in William’s social networks and financial affairs.
Q. Might there be other scraps to search for?
Yes! It shows that new discoveries are still possible in 17th-century manuscript material, particularly in binding waste. In particular, as I say in the article, it makes one passionately curious about other books, printed like this one by Shakespeare’s associate Richard Field, which might still be in their original bindings.
Q. Is there anything else about this that you’d like to say?
Only that this is part of a number of recent bits of work which are starting to reassess the Shakespeare womenfolk — in particular, the work of Katherine Scheil on other aspects of Anne Hathaway’s life. For a long time it was assumed that they were all illiterate yokels, and maybe that’s a simplification.
Q. Could this explain why there isn’t much original Shakespeare writing or paperwork?
Funnily enough, I’d argue that actually there’s quite a decent paper trail for Shakespeare, by the standards of his day. There are dozens of, individually perhaps rather dry, documents collected on the fabulous site Shakespeare Documented: tax records, law cases, to say nothing of the numerous documents around his professional career. Those are the kinds of things that survive, by and large, whereas more personal papers almost invariably disappear. I’ve spent 20 years looking in archives for people whose lives are only known from half a dozen grubby bits of paper, and William Shakespeare is actually quite lavishly documented in comparison to many of them.