New Place
We’ve now considered two different cases concerning archeology and its relationship with literary and stage history. In the first case, the Rose, we need to integrate the archeology into our understanding of the history. In the second, the Curtain, we need to evaluate whether the archeology actually provides relevant evidence. Let’s take a brief look at a case that lies somewhere in between.
The recent excavations of Shakespeare’s New Place home in Stratford have yielded many interesting results. New Place was indeed an imposing house, “mansion” would be the better term. It had ten fireplaces and perhaps 20 rooms. It probably was the largest residence in Stratford, and its operation required a staff of servants. It occupied a large lot at the very center of Stratford. Shakespeare bought the property in 1597. Soon thereafter, apparently, New Place was substantially remodeled. As originally configured when it was built around 1483, its main street front housed a row of shops. The shops were eliminated in the renovation, replaced by a large hall for the house.
Assuming that the archeologists have the timing right, these excavations reveal some significant things about Shakespeare. Most importantly, he had become quite wealthy. He could afford to buy his own mansion, to have it renovated, and to pay the servants needed to maintain it. He could forego rents paid by the shopkeepers who formerly had occupied part of the building. Shakespeare had made business investments in London, and they no doubt yielded him additional income. But we may reasonably conclude that sharerships in the Lord Chamberlain’s Company were exceedingly remunerative.
On the other hand, there are some things that the archeology does not reveal. We can see what Shakespeare did. We can’t know why he did it. There has long been a school of thought saying that Shakespeare bought New Place with the idea that he would one day abandon the wicked metropolis and retire to his beloved Stratford. I suppose that the archeology will encourage such romantic reveries. But the written records show that even after he basically stopped writing plays, Shakespeare never fully retired to Stratford. He remained in London at least some of the time, attending to business and legal matters.
There’s another explanation for Shakespeare’s purchase and renovation of New Place. Call it the Seagull Effect. Seagulls standing in a line at the shore arrange themselves according to size, largest to smallest. When a new seagull flies down and joins the line, it inserts itself into its proper place, and the smaller birds move down a space. When a new seagull larger than all the rest joins the group, it doesn’t just add a place at the top of the line. No, it takes the place of the previous largest bird, and all the birds that were in the line move down a space. As the archeologists have noted, New Place declared its new owner’s “wealth and status.”
Several stories survive concerning Shakespeare’s humiliating adolescence in Stratford. They were collected some hundred years later. Rowe tells us, for example, that Shakespeare was removed from the town’s school on account of his father’s reduced circumstances. Whether these stories are true or not, the contemporary records clearly show that Shakespeare’s father had been a prosperous and successful merchant, one of the town’s most important citizens. About the time Shakespeare reached age 12, however, his father fell into serious financial difficulties. Little imagination is required here. A proud and precocious boy was, at the very moment when children become most self-conscious, humbled, demoted from his former high status, humiliated by his fellows.
So perhaps Shakespeare’s purchase and renovation of New Place, and his probable eviction of its shopkeepers, represented something other than a sentimental attachment to Stratford. Perhaps he wanted to show the people of Stratford just who was the town’s most successful son.