Information not found in orthodox biographies

books:


	• Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem (Contributions in Drama and Theatre ... Diana Price Greenwood Press, 2000 - 376 pages average customer review:based on 16 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Information not found in orthodox biographies

I have been a Shakespeare fan for some time, but am relatively new to the question of who actually wrote the plays. I found this book an ideal beginning place for those also interested, for in providing uncomfortable documentary evidence that traditional scholarship typically ignores, it pushed me farther along in my suspicion that, whoever wrote the works of Shakespeare, it was not the man from Stratford.

In very readable terms Price shows that there is indeed enormous room to doubt the traditional attribution of the plays. Rather than try to influence potential readers with only my opinions, I will let the book speak for itself by mentioning a few items which most impressed me, in the hope that this will convey the tone of the book as a whole:

Traditional scholars express disbelief at the suggestion that the Stratfordian was a "front man" for a high-born anonymous author: "Why use an actual person? Why not just a false name?" However, Price renders this objection moot by quoting the Elizabethan Robert Greene, who wrote of poets who "for their calling and gravity, being loath to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Battillus to set his name to their verses." (Battillus was an ancient who put his name to the works of Virgil.) Thus, Price provides proof that in Elizabethan England front men WERE employed by anonymous authors to protect their reputations. Whether scholars want to believe it or not, it was done.

Traditional scholars also protest that no one doubted Shakespeare's authorship during his lifetime. Price again quotes contemporary records to prove this another falsehood. Apparently the mystery surrounding the Shakespeare authorship dates back to the 1590's, for even as the works were printed some readers took the name "Shakespeare" to be a pseudonym for (variously) Francis Bacon, Samuel Daniel, and Edward Dyer.

Traditional scholarship's claim that the actor Shakspere was also a writer is founded on an ambiguous passage about a "Shake-scene" from the 1592 pamphlet "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit." (Aside from this passage, they have *nothing* dating from Shakspere's life which clearly states that he was "Shakespeare.") However -- and for the first time that I've ever seen -- Price places the "Shake-scene" passage *within the context of the pamphlet as a whole*. I was shocked to learn that the whole first section of "Groatsworth" -- never mentioned by orthodox scholars -- deals with a seemingly autobiographical account of how Greene was misused and cheated by a greedy, moneylending actor who brokered plays and took credit for others' writings. Why have we never been told this in traditional biographies?! The description of the actor tallies exactly with the picture we get of the Stratfordian's character from his later business activities.

(Price also shows that, despite scholars' claim that the "Shake-scene" passage represents Greene's envy that a mere actor should show success at playwrighting, that is apparently not how Elizabethans interpreted it. She quotes the one Elizabethan allusion we have to the passage -- and its author took the "Shake-scene" passage as representing an unethical moneylending actor who takes credit for others' writings.)

Similarly, Price shows how traditional scholarship -- for no good reason -- rejects some records related to Shakspere, but accepts others on far weaker grounds. For example, Shakspere's first recorded activity in London is a 1592 document which shows him lending 7 pounds (a large sum of money then). Most biographers, if they mention it at all, reject this record as referring to "another Shakspere" -- even though it is perfectly congruent with Shakspere's later known moneylending activities. Apparently the only reason this record is rejected is that this *fact* about Shakspere's early London activity does not match scholars' *beliefs* about his supposed early writing career.

Similarly, Price brings to light contradictions in the historical record which orthodox scholars gloss over. For example, biographers claim that during the Christmas season of 1597 Shakspere was fulfilling professional commitments by performing at Court with his theater company. (As it is documented that the company indeed did. It was their most important engagement.) They also acknowledge that the records show that Shakspere was regularly in Stratford, engaged in business. However, what they fail to mention is that the documents indicate Shakspere was doing mundane business in Stratford *at exactly the same time* that he was supposedly performing at Court as a key member of "his company." Price shows how traditional biographies typically deal with these incompatible records: by placing them in different chapters, apparently in the hope that no one will notice the obvious conflict in timing.

And much more ...

From what I have seen, this book has been a great embarrassment to traditional scholarship, for it clearly demonstrates how weak much of that scholarship has been, based on assumptions taken as fact, unquestioned received wisdom, and circular logic. And since Price quotes only orthodox sources, she shows how orthodoxy has painted *itself* into a number of mutually incompatible corners. Orthodox scholars seem to be becoming increasingly defensive and hysterical as popular interest in the authorship question, and doubts about the Stratfordian, continue to grow. A typical response appears on Price's website and comes from the authors of the Shakespeare Authorship Web Site: "[We] have both been far too busy with more important matters to write up a comprehensive response to Price (doing exciting real scholarship is somehow much more fulfilling than refuting pseudo-scholarship)."

Apparently it is easier for orthodox scholars to resort to name-calling and bluster than to squarely address these tough questions for which they have no answers. This is an essential book for any open-minded Shakespeare fan.

for more information click here

Important Work from Price

Price: "If we had the sort of evidence for Shakespeare that we have for his colleagues--that is, straightforward, contemporaneous, and *personal* literary records for the man who allegedly wrote Shakespeare's plays--there would be no authorship debate."

for more information click here

Good overview of the questions, but......

I'm not a scholar, but I found the book interesting in its scrutiny of the "facts" pertaining to Stratford's Shakspere.

But to me it falls flat in refuting the First Folio evidence.

And if Elizabethan noblemen were that disdainful of playwriting and thought poetry frivolous, why didn't this supposed "real" Shakespeare turn his creativity to accepted norms?

Or if he was so brilliant as to be above those norms, why didn't he just use his own name and buck the system?

Or why not just make up a name instead of attaching the authorship to a real "front man?" If I were the author of those plays, I might hide my real name, but it would drive me nuts to see them attributed to the Merchant of Stratford.

And what about Ben Jonson's complicity in the conspiracy? I would think the production of a large book like the Folio was a big expensive undertaking--why would people who knew the truth fill it with lies? Why not just leave the introductory stuff mentioning Stratford and Avon out?

But the book is definitely worth reading, as are the associated websites.

for more information click here

It is all getting a lot more interesting!

Having read a number of similar books I am coming to the conclusion that Queen Elizabeth had at least three children - Oxford, Neville and Southampton. They all had curly red hair! And had strong Neville and Cecil connections.

Cecil placed Elizabeth's first child, who was probably born when she was only 15. He was the only "Oxford" son, the Oxford heir. She may have been raped. The chap was executed - was he called Seymour? He had wanted to marry her. When she became queen Cecil was from the beginning her top advisor and enforcer - which he remained to the end of his life. Oxford was given the best education. He ended up marrying Cecils daughter. Elizabeth made Cecil a Baron at this point - her son marrying his daughter.

She had Neville in 1563 or 1564. He is an only child. The Neville heir. He too gets the best education possible in Merton, Oxford. Another Neville, who also went to Merton, was the first english translator of Seneca's Oedipus - about 10 years before Neville went to Oxford. When he leaves Oxford he does the European tour, as Oxford did - but he spends 4 years away - living in all the places that turn up in Shakespeares plays - Venice, Verona etc.

Four years is a long time - maybe he needed that length of time to be persuaded - to come to realise - that it was in his own best interest - and his country's - to keep quiet about his birth mother. Maybe the secret was broken to him when he was abroad. Families CAN keep these kinds of secrets - I only discovered that my own brother had a different father when I was 26!

He met Tito Brahe - how do you spell his name - in Vienna. He learns 5 languages - Greek, Latin, French, Spanish and Italian. When he comes back within a few months he visits the places in Macbeth. He becomes an MP and chooses his own wife. Through his mother he inherits a place south of London that 16 archbishops of Canterbury had lived in - together with an armaments factory producing the very latest spec cannons from iron. He chooses his own wife - a Killigrew - whose father has a house in London in the middle of all the theatres, where Neville spends half his time. Half the Killigrew decendants end up as playwrights or theatre managers.

Neville is related to the Cecils, and to Francis Bacon - and distantly to Will Shakspere from Stratford.

Elizabeth has Southampton in 1573 when she is 40. Again he is an only boy. The Southampton heir. At some point in his upbringing he is forced to live in the Cecil household - for 3 years? Later he infuriates Queen Elizabeth by NOT marrying Cecils grand daughter.

Towards the end of her reign Elizabeth refuses to name a successor. Neville and Southampton join Essex in trying to depose her, but are found out. On the eve of the rebellion the play Richard II is put on in 40 taverns around London.

The plotters are all sentenced to death. Francis Bacon is the lawyer on Elizabeths side. I think by this time Cecil I has died and his son Cecil II has taken over his position. As chief controller, spymaster etc.

Stangely Southampton and Neville are the only two not put to death. There is a fantastic portrait of Southampton (3rd Earl) in the Tower with his cat - one of my favorites. You can find it on Google images. Elizabeth clearly did not want to put her sons to death.

So there you have it. They are all connected - Henry VIII, Elizabeth, Oxford, Neville, Southampton, Cecil, Bacon. Imagine being Neville, an only child, and discovering that you are the son of Elizabeth - and then to discover that you have an extraordinary younger brother in Southampton - good reason for the extraordinary sonnets.

Imagine being in the Tower under sentence of death - that is when Hamlet was written - To be or not to be. Neville had 10 or 11 children who survived into adulthood - an extraordinary achievement - but they were all brought up outside London, between Henley and Windsor - the adjoining property owner had his marriage featured in the Merry Wives of Windsor. A bit at the beginning of Hamlet reads like a goodbye letter to his children.

Later in his career Neville becomes speaker of the House of Commons - do I remember correctly? Anyway, with Bacon, in about 1610, he tries his best to persuade James I to change the way the state was funded - from feudal to parliamentary - they fail - and it takes the Civil War to sort that out. He sets up the second London Virginia company - that essentially becomes the good old USA. In about 1613 he sets up a company to bring clean water into London - a complete artificial river many miles long - I passed it yesterday while walking through a park - I saw a plaque saying it was built in 1613 to bring water from Hertfordshire.

By the way a direct male descendant of Neville was killed trying to avenge the murder of his brother by Macbeth!

It was not too cool not to have a male heir in those days - read Pepys - it was a real problem. Elizabeth's children solved the problem for three families. She was known to be highly sexed. There were no contraceptives in those days - what would she have done if she became pregnant? Killed her own child? She had some serious aversion therapy in her youth - her father executing her mother etc.

You have a jolly good reason for keeping your queen a "virgin". All those around her would have lost power had a husband turned up. Cecil had very good reasons for remaining in control his WHOLE life - once she became queen - he could have blackmailed her. She had good reason to keep him there - he protected her.

Cecil controlled everything. There was very powerful state censorship at that time. Both the writer Shakespeare and the actor manager Shakspere were in interesting positions - and Cecil and Neville each had to tolerate one another - to an extent.

The secrecy surrounding all this was pretty total - the whole state - international relations - depended on the lie. And when Cecil died - his son took over. Who continued to control things when James took over. Why?

Neville probably edited the King James Bible - look up the King James version of psalm 46 - 46 words down is "shake", 46 words up from the bottom is "spear".

Neville was very fat - like his grandfather Henry VIII. His nickname in real life was Falstaff. The first line of Ben Jonson's dedicatory poem to Shakespeare in the First Folio is
"To draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name".
Which can be written thus
"To draw no NV (Shakespeare) on thy name"
NeVille sometimes signed himself NV.

Jonson spent a year or so living in Gresham college while he put together the first Folio. That is about a hundred yards from Lothbury House where Neville stayed a good part of every year - where he lived when he went to produce/watch the plays being performed. Where the manuscripts might well have been kept - the Killigrews were Cornish pirates and good at keeping secrets! Gresham college was built by Nevilles "mothers" uncle - I think. That bit of London burnt down in 1666, or was it 1667?

Anyway, I am coming to the conclusion that Oxford, Neville and Southampton were brothers - Elizabeths children, and that the protoplays, written by Oxford and his literary friends and employees, were rewritten and polished up by Neville - the whole project being supported by Elizabeth after 1586 when she started paying Oxford £1000 a year - about $1m in todays money. The history plays were important politically, as it was important to rally the nation from 1586 onwards, when war between England and Spain became a powerful possibility. As such times people bury their differences, and work together. So quite a number of the Shakespeare plays can be said to be the joint production of Elizabeth and her children.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4

As the world's greatest author, Shakespeare has attracted attention from scholars and laypersons alike. But more and more people have questioned whether the historical Shakespeare wrote the plays popularly attributed to him. While other books on the subject have argued that some other particular person, such as the Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays, this is the first book in over 80 years to comprehensively revisit the authorship question without an ideological bias, the first to introduce new evidence, and the first to undertake a systematic comparative analysis with other literary biographies. It successfully argues that "William Shakespeare" was the pen name of an aristocrat, and that William Shakespeare of Stratford was a shrewd entrepreneur, not a dramatist. Price exposes numerous logical fallacies, contradictions, and sins of omission in the traditional accounts of Shakespeare's whereabouts; his professional activities; his personality profile; the play chronology; autobiographical echoes in the plays; the dramatist's education and cultural sophistication; circumstances of publication of the plays and poetry; and the testimony of his supposed literary colleagues, such as Ben Jonson. New or previously ignored documentation is used to reconstruct Shakespeare's career as a businessman, investor, theater shareholder, real estate tycoon, commodity trader, money-lender, and actor, but not a writer. In fact, Shakespeare is the only alleged writer from his time for whom no contemporaneous literary paper trail survives.

for more information click here

hot