Was Richard Field a Clot?
Shakespeare's reference to the printer of "the first heir of my invention"
Richard Field was born in 1561, three years before William Shakespeare, and grew up in Stratford-upon-Avon. The town at this point had 1500-2000 inhabitants, so it’s likely that the two youths would have known each other. In 1579, Field took up an apprenticeship with a printing firm in London. When Field’s father died in 1592, William’s father, John Shakespeare, was one of the local officials who appraised his inventory. And in 1593, Richard Field printed Venus and Adonis, the first publication to bear the name William Shakespeare. Many orthodox scholars find this good evidence for the Stratford man’s authorship. They also point out that in the play Cymbeline, Shakespeare includes a reference to Richard Field.
Cymbeline was first published in the First Folio of 1623, so our clues as to when it was written are limited. Conventional (Stratfordian) dating has it written between 1608 and 1610, with 1610 preferred because of the investiture of Prince Henry (Stuart) as Prince of Wales in that year and the play’s partly Welsh setting. But there are other strong Welsh connections for Shakespeare. It’s worth noting that the only commendatory poem that “Shake-speare” (to be accurate) provided — now known as ‘The Phoenix and the Turtle’ (1601) — was in a volume dedicated to a Welsh knight, Sir John Salusbury.
His invention (and the first heir of)
Non-Stratfordians, considering “William Shakespeare” a pseudonym, have to consider Field’s involvement in that pseudonym’s creation, considering that the boy he knew in Stratford became a shareholder in the company who put on the plays. With respect to Field’s Stratford contact, it undoubtedly becomes “his” name on the plays, even if it did not begin as such.
As far as I can see, there are two viable theories.
One, that Richard Field (with or without the input of the author) suggested the name of his boyhood acquaintance as suitably literary (especially with the “Athena” associations of “Shake-speare”). Subsequently, the man himself, visiting London on a trading mission (e.g. while lodging with the Worshipful Company of Leather Sellers), becomes aware that “his” name is on a pamphlet (either Venus or the Rape of Lucrece) printed by someone he knows and visits Field at his shop (the address of which was given on the title page). After asking some pertinent questions and suspecting skulduggery, he does a deal for his silence, e.g. a share in The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, which was set up in 1594.
Two, that Richard Field was the person responsible for organising from the outset the business arrangement whereby the author of the erotic poem Venus and Adonis could publish their work anonymously under the name of Field’s Stratford acquaintance William Shakespeare (similar to the “front” arrangements for blacklisted screenwriters under McCarthyism).
Either way, Field has to be involved in some way. He is the link back to Stratford, and it is too much to expect this to be a coincidence. The Cymbeline reference actually backs up this idea, under proper scrutiny.
Richard Field in Cymbeline
The reference to Richard Field comes when Innogen is found with the beheaded corpse of Cloten, which she mistakenly thinks to be the dead body of her husband, Posthumus, because Cloten has borrowed his clothes. When asked the identity of the person she is mourning, she cannot say her husband, because she is in disguise as a boy (Fidele), so she invents the name of a nobleman: ‘Richard du Champ’ (‘Richard Field’ in French).
Thus play depicts Cloten being designated ‘Richard Field’. The author makes them, for a short while, one and the same. What is the meaning? Where is the joke?
Cloten is an unusual name.1 It is Dutch for testicles. When we say “bollocks” in England we mean “rubbish” (e.g. “That’s bollocks”) and it isn’t applied to people, probably because it’s a plural. But generally, in English slang, referring to anyone by a word that signifies genitalia (male or female) is an insult. This genital appellation is akin to calling Richard Field a prick. Surely that’s no way to treat the childhood contact who helped you become a published author for the first time? Under the Stratfordian paradigm, this reference starts to look problematic.
Is there another reading? We might consider how the original stage directions may have looked. In modern versions, Cloten is referred to throughout the text of the play as ‘CLOT.’ Thus, in an alternative reading, the author makes Richard Field a clot (idiot). Again, if the Stratford man is the author, he is still not very happy with his “childhood friend”.
Note that whether Shakespeare is calling Richard Field an idiot or something more offensive, the plot associates the insult with mistaken identity. Could Richard Field be the chief reason why it is widely believed that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon authored the plays and poems published under his name? Could Field be the ‘seed’ of the Shakespeare authorship problem? The Cymbeline reference can be read as indicating yes; and that the author wasn’t too pleased about that.
Arden Series 3 Cymbeline hypothesises that “The character’s name comes from Cloten, King of Cornwall, one who lacked so much power during his reign that he was content to divide his kingdom among four kinsmen, bringing a temporary end to Brute’s ancestral line. Cloten’s son Mulmutius Dunwallow reconsolidated it, becoming the first to wear a crow of gold and identify himself as a King of Briton, a detail referred to in 3.1.58-61 (Geoffrey, History, 2.34; Holinshed, I, Desc. 117; I, Hist. 15).” Thanks to Peter Nockolds.
Thanks for this interesting essay. In some of his Spanish publications, Richard Field referred to himself as Ricardo del Campo. So why is he called the French version, Richard du Champ? I think we overlook the woman in the room. The publishing house was owned/run by Jacqueline Vautrollier, before she married Richard. She was a French Huguenot. She may well have called her husband, Richard du Champ. She was buried at St Anne's church in Blackfriars on the 9th March, 1611. Soon after, Simon Forman recorded a performance of Cymbeline (between April and Sept 1611). I suspect 'Shakespeare' may have added, at the last minute, this subtle memorial to Field's wife in the person of Innogen.
Recently read Cymbeline for the first time, part of my personal Shakespearean renaissance inspired by my new interest in the authorship question. It is a wonderful play of a mature Shakespeare at the height of his creativity. The Richard Du Champ reference, of course, meant nothing to me, so your explanation of the Richard Field, Stratford, Du Champ, Clot, Cloten connections is fascinating.
Yet another play where death is a great disguiser, and btw, where specifically the disguise involves things being done to the head (removing it, shaving it) as part of the misidentification. I was wondering if you or anyone else has looked for other plays of the era by other authors where misidentification of a corpse is a plot feature. Shakespeare certainly seemed to like to use it.