More a player than a playwright
"Leass for making" decoded
Last week’s June News Roundup referenced the marginalia in the University of Glasgow’s First Folio. This marginalia indicates that the reader knew several of the actors listed in the prefatory material. The name of William Shakespeare is accompanied by the remark “Leass for making”. Herewith, a deep dive into this phrase by SAT Trustee Julia Cleave.
This paper was first given in the form of a presentation at the Third Annual Shakespearean Authorship Trust Conference in July, 2005.
The University of Glasgow Library possesses a copy of the First Folio, bequested by William Euing in 1874.1 Three previous owners are recorded, but its provenance prior to 1780, when it was purchased by the 5th Earl of Inchiquin, is unknown. What makes this copy of particular interest is that it includes some anonymous marginalia dating from the seventeenth century. Brief comments appear at the end of some of the comedies, which indicate that the original possessor of the Folio relished his own opinions: Two Gentlemen of Verona is dismissed as starke naught, but Merry Wives is lauded as very good, light and The Tempest is pretty well.
While we don’t know who the writer was, we do have clues as to when he was writing. It is clear from his annotations to one particular page that this must have been soon after the First Folio was published in 1623. This is the page which lists: The Names of the Principall Actors in all these plays. There are 26 names in total - and comments have been written under eleven of these. For example, under both Robert Benfield and Joseph Taylor the annotator has written know, under John Lowine by eyewittnesse, under Richard Burbage by report, and under William Ostler - and a further 5 names - hearsay (or so to meaning ‘ditto’). Less certainly, under William Slye, is the remark as think (which would suggest = as far as I can recall?) and under William Ecclestone: so to a litle [sic]. Under the name John Underwood he has written so to cheife which would be consistent with this actor’s frequent appearance on the cast lists of the King’s Men.
What might have prompted the annotator to make these comments? In the case of Benfield and Taylor, the fact that the annotator knows them and wishes to record the fact seems natural and human. It’s also understandable that, writing from the perspective of the 1620s, many of the names on the list should be relatively unknown to him since, by the time the First Folio was published, the majority were dead. Nevertheless, his choice of terms: by eyewitness, by report, hearsay is scrupulous in calibrating degrees of knowing vs. uncertainty, fact vs. rumour. These are quasi-judicial terms we would normally associate with the careful evaluation of evidence, and in a context where truth is in doubt or question.2 It is as though he is seeking to reassure himself as to the veracity of this list - its reliability, its authenticity. What might have sown the seeds of doubt to prompt him to seek this reassurance? Is there a clue to this in the cryptic comment he has made concerning the role of the actor who heads the list - and who is billed on this page as both author and player - William Shakespeare?
Here we find a laconic phrase that is apparently opaque, but undoubtedly intriguing. It consists of just three words. I’ll deal with the last two first. These are: for making - at first sight, to a modern eye, their meaning evaporates in generality - making what? But in the 16th and 17th centuries, and especially within this context of the First Folio, their application is clear, specific and appropriate. As Sir Philip Sidney points out in his Apologie for Poetrie c.1580 The Greek word for ‘making’ is po(i)ein from which we get our words for poetry and poet. Poets and playwrights were referred to throughout this period as makers. George Puttenham in his Arte of English Poesie refers to the poets at court as courtly makers, while the less-polished efforts of clerks were clarkly makings. Robert Greene’s A Groatsworth of Wit (1592) includes a satirical squib on the Elizabethan theatre in the tale of Roberto, who becomes famoused for an arch-play-making poet (while ‘Shake-scene’ is attacked as merely a plagiarising upstart player!)