One doesn't generally associate the great hallmarks of English literature with hot, juicy gossip or tales of intrigue, deception and rebellion. It sounds more like the plot of a Shakespearian play. To my mind, one could view the Shakespearian authorship question in precisely these terms in order for the non-academic world to understand the relevance of this mystery (and its ongoing lack of resolution) to not just English literature and the language, but to other world literatures as well.
It might be a fanciful idea, but try to imagine it from the following point of view. This requires that you are open to the notion that the man known as William Shakespeare was not the author of the plays we've come to identify him with.
For all our knowledge and technological advancements, we still cannot confirm the true identity of one of the seminal figures in English literature. Indeed, we have a name, a body of work attached to that name, but there is a lot of doubt as to how the named person could have produced such work given his social standing in the Elizabethan reign. Does this strike you as odd? It should: normally one believes that it is beneficial to have one's name attached to one's work and to be identified as the rightful producer.
William Shakespeare of Stratford was the son of an illiterate man, who was skilled in trades and rose to prosperity, as is evidenced by his being briefly active in his local council. Given that William's father was forced to relinquish this position, it is very unlikely that he could have ensured his son got the sort of education that would allow him to produce works of the valour that is currently attributed to him. It is possible that William attended the local grammar school, but very unlikely that he went on to further and necessary study. He eventually went to London and became an actor for the Lord Chamberlain's Men
It is at this point that the authorship plot thickens. What if the true author of the works we generally attribute to Shakespeare did not wish his or her identity to be known? What reasons would inspire an author to do this? Brenda James, enlisting the help of Professor W. D. Rubinstein, devoted time and energy to try and come up with definitive answers to these questions, even though in certain academic circles this was not always approved of. The fruit of her research is this book, in which she poses that the actual author of the works attributed to Shakespeare was in fact Sir Henry Neville, an English courtier and sometime diplomat.
Article comments
1 - Ken
The fact that at least 20 different "authors" have been put forth over the years should tell you that it's more a matter of people selecting a champion, and then bending the "evidence" to fit their theory.
2 - Deano
I'm currently reading "Shakespeare: by Another Name" which posits the deVere, the Earl of Oxford as the "true" author of Shakespeare...but I have a hard time buying the arguments.
They seem unable to explain the common use of regional slang (terms peculiar to Warwickshire and its environs) that peppers Shakespeare's works, as well as the regular recurrance of the names of various known contemporary Stratford denizens as characters in the plays. I can understand character's based on the famous courtriers etc. but who names a character after an unknown Stratford neighbor - only someone who knew the person well.
Lastly why is it that fellow playwrites such as Jeremy Bentham acknowledged William Shakespeare as the writer? They were his friends and his contemporaries and all sharp, sage writers. Why no joking references in any of their plays about the fakery? They must have known, if someone else wrote the plays.
I suspect it is more an element of scholar competitiveness - find something new to spin around Shakespeare and nake a name for yourself in a field that has already been very well plowed.
Please note that this comment was not actually written by Deano. This is a subterfuge to protect my secret identity as the Prince of Wales....or Madonna....or somebody...I forget.
3 - Snarkattack
Ken -
Yeah, Brenda James briefly mentions that about 20 or so different authors. You most definitely have a point about 'bending evidence', I do agree.
Deano -
I'd like to learn more about the Earl of Oxford authorship story. There is definitely some truth in what you say about competitiveness - in fact this very book mentions that the Earl was chosen as the prime 'real' Shakespeare candidate for various reasons more suited to a certain group of well-to-do persons rather than in the interest of finding the true author.
I do still think it odd that we don't know more about Shakespeare and his educational background. You'd think for someone so well regarded we'd know more about his life and such.
4 - Deano
It's somewhat odd but not exceptional that the written documentation would be limited. The basic scholarship around what is definatively known about Shakespeare hasn't shifted much in the last 150 years (i.e. baptismal record, handful of legal papers, real estate documents, will etc.). He just hasn't left much of a paper trail beyond a few scraps.
I'm only about half-way through the book on Oxford but I find the author (for lack of a better term) reaching in his conclusions. There doesn't appear to be any solid evidence so far that Oxford is Shakespeare beyond the claims that particular characters from the plays were modeled after specific individuals in Oxford's life, or that certain plot lines were lifted from his own experiences.
That may change further in the book, so I'm withholding final judgement...but color me skeptical. As mentioned before, I find it probable that if Oxford was that heavily involved and writing as William Shakespeare, that Shakespeare's contemporaries would have "outed" him, at least alluded to it heavily in multiple plays as the stage was often used as a satirical venue. Players and playwrits took open potshots at each other in their dialogues and plots on a regular basis. By way of example Shakespeare has several tributes to Christopher Marlowe pop up.
Hopefully I'll be able to psot a review in a week of so when I'm finished.
Nice post by the way!
5 - Deano
Sorry - that should read improbable not probable int he above comment...
6 - Snarkattack
Thanks for the comments Deano - look forward to your review of the Oxford book!
7 - Edward Noel
En passant, Snarkattack, it is incorrect to refer to "Sir Neville". A baronet, such as Sir Henry Neville, is always referred to as Sir Firstname Lastname, not just Sir Lastname.
This is because baronetcies - the lowest-ranking English title - were awarded far more frequently than more important titles such as earldoms or dukedoms in which the actual title is different from the family name, for example, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
A baronet may, therefore, become known as Sir Barnaby Smith, because otherwise there would be hundreds of "Sir Smiths".
8 - Snarkattack
Whoops, sorry about that Edward, I know for the future. Thanks for educating me, I appreciate it!
9 - John F.X. Doherty
William Shakespeare's father John was a member of the Stratford council not briefly but for some years. He was not forced to give up his position but due to circumstances stopped attending council meetings. A replacement was not elected until ten years later. As a member of the council he enjoyed the privilege of free education for his children at the local grammar school. There is no evidence he did not avail himself of this privilege. William did not attend university but even if he had it would have done little to fit him to be a writer. English was not taught as a subject at schools or universities. The attacks on Shakespeare as the writer of the plays are fuelled by conjecture, supposition, speculation, and downright untruths. This latest book does nothing to challenge William's position.
10 - Snarkattack
Your comment, John deals with quite a few issues which I shall attempt to address.
Firstly, any information that I have given in my review was given as a direct result from the facts gleaned from the book in question. Thank you for your clarification on William Shakespeare's father's profession etc. - might I politely ask where you obtained such information? I make no claim to know better, so if your sources are indeed more accurate, then I do apologise.
Secondly, yes I am aware that English as a language was not taught at university, not as we know it now. My studies in Elizabethan literature were rudimentary enough to avail me of that knowledge.
Thirdly and lastly, I personally do not hold any definite view on who Shakespeare is, and I cannot say that it is really all that relevant. What is more relevant, at least to me, is who wrote the plays that have come to us and are labelled as the works of William Shakespeare.
I personally take the viewpoint of Ken in the very first comment. I still don't think enough information is available for me to decide on who 'my' Shakespeare is. It so happens that the authors of this book have put forth their own personal candidate, if you like, as the actual author of Shakespeare's plays.
Thanks for the comment though, you raise several excellent discussion points.