A Stratfordian Attack on the Mainstream Theory<\/i><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
—<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Simplest of Theories<\/b><\/p>\n Progress in science depends on two basic procedures : duplication and\u00a0falsification. Unable to duplicate its findings in independent research,\u00a0Literature Studies has proved itself a failure on the first count (see The Art of Text Interpretation<\/a><\/i>). And the Shakespeare authorship\u00a0discussion indicates a failure on the second.\u00a0Much in Shakespeare\u2019s life seems to deny his authorship, and in\u00a0consequence other names have been proposed. Quite a lot of names\u00a0actually, and, as a result, the authorship discussion concerns a longlist of\u00a0One-and-Only-Bards of epic proportions. And what should that indicate, if\u00a0not the consistent omission of those obligate attempts to prove theories\u00a0wrong before publication? Most theories indeed originate from research by\u00a0zealous amateurs, and, in the wake of their ill advized publication, many an\u00a0outstanding scholar is wasting valuable time on refuting them. To the\u00a0inevitable result that<\/p>\n “we have had theory after theory proposed as the answer … and there is\u00a0still no single explanation which satisfies everyone … The whole point\u00a0about the puzzle is its ultimate insolubility.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The quotation is perhaps not entirely to the point (being already misplaced\u00a0before it ever went to press), but it does not seem out of context either.\u00a0And for the situation it describes, science has invented Ockham\u2019s Razor ;\u00a0the blade to cut the number of competing theories to size :<\/p>\n if two theories explain the facts equally well, the simpler theory prevails.<\/p>\n The simplest of theories is the one that credits William Shakespeare from\u00a0Stratford for the books on his name. In consequence the supporters of\u00a0the respective rival theories may be somewhat reluctant to use this\u00a0razor, as it seems to come down on scientific harakiri to many a\u00a0contestant. Well, it doesn\u2019t. Ockham\u2019s Razor is not designed to judge\u00a0theories on contents. It only makes a blind choice between two equally\u00a0qualified applicants for a single vacancy. And because simplicity is no\u00a0achievement in itself, a complicated theory, in order to prevail, only needs\u00a0to explain the facts a little better than its simpler rivals.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, all competing theories have by now their dedicated\u00a0supporters, who are entrenched in fixed opinions. When it comes to judging\u00a0theories on quality, little is therefore to be expected from the impact the\u00a0verdict is going to make on the losers. Which leaves only one approach\u00a0open to break the deadlock : proving the majority of the competing\u00a0theories fundamentally wrong.<\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n To Wrong a Theory<\/b><\/p>\n The method is to work top down. And to have a go at the mainstream\u00a0theory first. As mentioned, the man from Stratford has his weaknesses\u00a0as a contestant. Those weaknesses, however, stem from lack of\u00a0documented facts, and it is not done to exploit them as fatal flaws.\u00a0Fundamentally wrong the mainstream theory can only be in its very\u00a0foundation : and fundamental to this theory is the fact that Shakespeare\u00a0was not just an actor within the Burbage company, but its regular\u00a0playwright as well.<\/p>\n This theory therefore effectively states that Burbage\u2019s regular\u00a0playwright invented characters which he intended to play himself. And if he\u00a0did, how hard can it be to identify them?\u00a0A failure to do so would therefore eliminate Shakespeare at the instant\u00a0from the contest. And initiate an unbiassed search for the real source of\u00a0his plays.<\/p>\n According to Greene\u2019s 1592 A Groat\u2019s Worth of Wit <\/i>Shakespeare was a\u00a0Iohannis Factotem<\/i> (technical assistant) who called himself an actor. Two\u00a0years later he had reached a prominence within the company that enabled\u00a0him to become a shareholder. And in 1598 Shakespeare had the lead in Ben\u00a0Jonson\u2019s Every Man in his Humour<\/i>. From which either follows that\u00a0Shakespeare was an exceptionally gifted actor, or that the sources are\u00a0unreliable.<\/p>\n When and why Shakespeare joined the Burbage company is mere\u00a0speculation, but if Greene has his facts right, he must have caught the\u00a0theatre bug in 1587, at the age of twenty-three, when five theatre\u00a0companies visited Stratford in quick succession. Having joined The Earl of<\/i>\u00a0Leicester\u2019s Men<\/i> that summer at their stay in Stratford, he would have had\u00a0just a decade to rise through the ranks from backstage dogsbody to star\u00a0actor.<\/p>\n An unlikely achievement. But, in all his sneering, Greene has no reason to\u00a0lie about a rival playwright\u2019s career. And when he describes Shakespeare\u00a0as a would-be actor just two years before he gets the principal player\u2019s\u00a0privilege of a share in the company, the dogsbody may have deserved it on\u00a0some other merit than on his acting skills alone. If so, the source of his\u00a01598 lead in Every man in his Humour<\/i> is suspect : the First Folio of Ben\u00a0Jonson\u2019s plays. A source that fails to name the actual part, but merely\u00a0places Shakespeare\u2019s name at the head of the list of principal actors.\u00a0Jonson seems to have been a close friend, and his First Folio was published\u00a0within a year after Shakespeare\u2019s death. Therefore the possibility of a tribute\u00a0cannot be ruled out.<\/p>\n In accordance, we are looking for characters who are designed for a\u00a0performer of modest skills. And by an aspiring backstager who seized his\u00a0opportunity to write a play in the autumn of 1588, when Burbage went\u00a0temporarily out of business. Leaving his dogsbody unemployed for a couple\u00a0of months, untill the late Earl of Leicester\u2019s theatre company was ready\u00a0to restart as The Lord Strange\u2019s Men<\/i>.<\/p>\n Titus Andronicus<\/i> is the clumsiest piece of drama in the entire\u00a0Shakespeare canon, and cannot be expected to be finetuned to the acting\u00a0skills of anybody, let alone of its author. Yet it shows a remarkable sample\u00a0of writing to the actor, as Young Lucius seems to have been intended for a\u00a0boy player of different ages ; a small kid in some scenes, and a rather\u00a0maturely acting teenager in others.<\/p>\n The 1624 First Folio edition presents the play as performed in 1594 ; as\u00a0only a revised copy explains why Burbage would have parted from the\u00a0precious original manuscript. Which most likely went that very year to\u00a0press as the new production\u2019s merchandise. This revision gives young\u00a0Lucius three scenes as a small boy, and two as a skilled performer. Thus\u00a0dividing the character along the golden ratio into parts for boys of the\u00a0respective ages of Hamnet and Edmund Shakespeare.<\/p>\n This is mere conjecture and proves nothing. Yet, when it comes to the\u00a0nature of Shakespeare\u2019s alleged love for his boy players the scenario is\u00a0not completely implausible.<\/p>\n After Titus Andronicus<\/i> came the Henry VI cycle. If Shakespeare made his\u00a0stage debut in those three plays, then as a young nobleman. This because\u00a0his contemporaries describe him as courteous and well mannered. And his lack of trained skills and stage experience would have restricted him to\u00a0such a r\u00f4le if he was to reach professional standards. The part of King\u00a0Henry himself now springs automatically to mind.<\/p>\n The first lines of the King in 2 Henry VI<\/i> open with the initial capitals S.\u00a0W. The king\u2019s eulogy by Gloucester, immediality after his dying words in 3\u00a0Henry VI<\/i>, reverses these opening initials : W. S. Rather surprisingly in fact,\u00a0because in these two lines Gloucester expects a reversal of the proper\u00a0order.<\/p>\n In Richard III<\/i>, this same performer would be perfectly casted for the minor\u00a0part of Richmond : underlining in his likeness to the late King the legitimacy\u00a0of this last surviving heir to the Lancastrian claim to the throne : Henry of\u00a0Richmond descended through his mother from an illigitimate half brother\u00a0of Henry IV. Who had personally provided for the 1407 Act of Parliament\u00a0that expelled this branch of his family from succession.<\/p>\n The cycle\u2019s opening play should obviously predate the sequel, which\u00a0seems to have been on stage somewhere in the years 1590 – 92. But oddly\u00a0enough 1 King Henry VI <\/i>is supposed to be the \u2018new play of Harey vj\u2019 that\u00a0had its first of sixteen performances on 3 March 1592. \u00a0This places the production in time between 2 & 3 Henry VI<\/i> and Richard<\/i>\u00a0III<\/i>. Which is exactly where it should be, if a playwright would have taken the\u00a0age of his favourite boy players into consideration.<\/p>\n 1 Henry VI\u00a0<\/i> covers the first three decades of the King\u2019s life, and when\u00a0he makes his first entrance at the opening of Act Three (1427), he is just\u00a0five.\u00a0 In consequence, it is a minor part, and can be performed by a rather\u00a0young boy actor (27 lines, 10 as his longest uninterrupted sequence).\u00a0Preferably one who looks much akin to the adult in the opening scene of\u00a0Act Four (1431 – 1442). If an adult, that is. Shakespeare may still have\u00a0had a boy player in mind, because, despite the King\u2019s demanding speech of\u00a0forty uninterrupted lines, the scene ends with Exeter regretting that\u00a0\u2018scepters are in children\u2019s hands\u2019.<\/p>\n Act Five opens and closes with the King\u2019s third and fourth stage\u00a0appearances. In 1438 and in 1444 respectively. Easier to play than his\u00a0second appearance, these scenes definitely feature an adult Henry,\u00a0because he is principally on stage to discuss candidates for his marriage.<\/p>\n Suggestive the evidence may be, but still far from conclusive. We\u00a0therefore have to try a different approach. And to assume that a part\u00a0tailored to Shakespeare\u2019s own specifics is one that rules the play. And\u00a0what would Romeo\u00a0 & Juliet <\/i>be without a Prince to set the points of\u00a0destiny in a small, yet important part?\u00a0This prince\u2019s counterpart in the earlier Comedy of Errors<\/i> is Duke\u00a0Solinus, but a really fascinating version is the Lord in the induction of The Taming of the <\/i>Shrew<\/i> : the part is completely superfluous, but without him, there is no\u00a0play to perform.<\/p>\n This suggests to look for parts in which the author has laid something\u00a0of himself. And if we reverse the search options, we find a choice of\u00a0characters who could have sat for the picture of a playwright :<\/p>\n According to Trewin\u2019s Pocket Companion to Shakespeare\u2019s Plays designed\u00a0for Burbage\u2019s specialist on Welsh characters. On that base also to be\u00a0identified as :<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n But in the latter play more likely to have been on stage to receive his\u00a0applause as<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Impossible to double with Chorus, Fluellen is also out of Shakespeare\u2019s\u00a0character. Which leaves the identification as parson Evans on rather weak\u00a0ground. Even when acknowledged as a perfect fit.<\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n A master of deception, like Bacon, would have assigned these poets to his front man in order to make him look genuine. But in three cases the\u00a0resemblance goes far beyond deception. And Orsino opens Twelfth-Night\u00a0<\/i>with an inside-out version of Sonnet 99 ; Fair Youth included. A link no\u00a0audience could have appreciated for some ten years to come.<\/p>\n The last doubt that Burbage\u2019s regular playwright wrote parts for his\u00a0own use, is taken away with the opening scene of Hamlet<\/i>\u00a0:<\/p>\n Say, what is Horatio there? \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/i>Hor. : A peece of him.<\/i><\/p>\n This same Horatio ends his contribution to the play with a promise to tell\u00a0his audience the complete tale of Hamlet. And Horatio, of course, refers to Horace ; a renowned poet.<\/p>\n I rest my case with the conclusion that already at this stage the\u00a0Mainstream Theory has passed the test with flying colours.<\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The other contestants\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n With the playwright firmly placed within the Burbage company, most\u00a0contestants are now running for co-authorship at best. With the obligation\u00a0of keeping in close touch with a theatre celebrity, this hypothetical co-worker\u2019s involvement with Shakespeare\u2019s plays would have soon been an\u00a0open secret. The absolute silence of the contemporary sources on his\u00a0existence is therefore tale-telling. If he was there, he must have been\u00a0extremely anxious about discovery. Posthumous discovery even. He also\u00a0must have been as cunning as Bacon to remain invisible. Who, incidentally,\u00a0is one of only two plausible contestant : not many of them come with a\u00a0compelling reason for remaining invisible at all costs. The playwright\u2019s\u00a0involvement in the Essex Rebellion (1601 ; see The Art of RVW<\/em> 3) is one,\u00a0but it does not apply untill the autumn of 1599. Bacon however, was\u00a0devious by nature, and needed no reason for invisibility but the pleasure of\u00a0showing off as a master of deception.<\/p>\n The other plausible co-author is Christopher Marlowe. Who is still in his\u00a0own right a challenger for the title One & Only Bard. Officially declared\u00a0dead in May 1593, Marlowe could in theory have continued his career under\u00a0a false identity. As a player within the Burbage company even, because the\u00a0shady Samuel Crosse cannot be ruled out as his alias. In particular not,\u00a0because his name refers to two biblical persons who contributed\u00a0more to the Scriptures after death than when still alive. And after he left\u00a0the company, his place was taken by the equally shady Lawrence Fletcher (d. 1608),\u00a0who seems to have been in Her Majesty\u2019s Secret Service.<\/span><\/p>\n He therefore can take Shakespeare\u2019s place in the falsification attempt\u00a0as performed, without making much difference to the result. In his case\u00a0only a careful comparison on stylistic details can decide on his claim to\u00a0authorship. And in case he survives such a thorough falsification attempt,\u00a0the only possible co-author is Francis Bacon. A matter of eliminating all\u00a0candidates from the longlist, who had no need to know about the\u00a0continuation of Marlowe\u2019s career <\/span>as a playwright<\/span> in her majesty\u2019s secret\u00a0service.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In short : if the falsification procedure has produced a reliable result,\u00a0Francis Bacon is not just a possibility on co-authorship. He is the only\u00a0possibility. And in both his character and political background he makes\u00a0the perfect match to the hypothetical properties of such a co-author.<\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n The Last of the Longlist<\/b><\/p>\n Nominated for the honourable title of The One & Only Bard are :<\/p>\n Nominated for the honourable title of The One & Only Bard\u2019s Equal is :<\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n to next chapter<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014<\/span><\/p>\n \u2014<\/span><\/p>\n Due to a barrage of spam, the comment option had to be disabled.<\/p>\n Serious reply\u2019s will be copied to this page from the link below<\/p>\n enter a comment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Stratfordian Attack on the Mainstream Theory — Edward de Vere\u00a0 Nicholas Breton\u00a0 Aemelia Bassano-Lanier\u00a0 Roger Manners\u00a0 Fulke Greville \u00a0George Peele\u00a0 Thomas Nashe\u00a0 John Lyly\u00a0 William Stanley\u00a0 Edmund Spencer\u00a0 Christopher\u00a0Marlowe\u00a0 Henry Constable\u00a0 Richard Barnfield\u00a0 Daniel Defoe\u00a0 Edward Dyer\u00a0 Henry … Continue reading Edward de Vere\u00a0 Nicholas Breton\u00a0 Aemelia Bassano-Lanier\u00a0 Roger Manners\u00a0 Fulke Greville \u00a0George Peele\u00a0 Thomas Nashe\u00a0 John Lyly\u00a0 William Stanley\u00a0 Edmund Spencer\u00a0 Christopher\u00a0Marlowe\u00a0 Henry Constable\u00a0 Richard Barnfield\u00a0 Daniel Defoe\u00a0 Edward Dyer\u00a0 Henry Neville \u00a0Francis Bacon\u00a0 Gabriel Harvey\u00a0 John Webster\u00a0 Thomas Lodge\u00a0 Mary Herbert-Sidney\u00a0 Michael\u00a0Drayton\u00a0 William Nugent\u00a0 Edmund Campion\u00a0 Thomas Kyd\u00a0 Elizabeth Tudor\u00a0 George Chapman \u00a0Thomas Dekker\u00a0 John Florio\u00a0 Robert Greene\u00a0 Thomas Heywood\u00a0 James Stuart\u00a0 Abraham\u00a0Fraunce\u00a0 Samuel Daniel\u00a0 Walter Raleigh\u00a0 Thomas Watson\u00a0 Ben Jonson<\/h5>\n
<\/i>—<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n
\n
The part of Young Lucius is almost mute in scenes 3 ; 2 (two lines), 4 ; 3 (mute)\u00a0and 5 ; 3 (four lines). While rather eloquent in 4 ; 1 and 4 ; 2 (25 & 13 lines), asides\u00a0included. Of these scenes, 3 ; 2 is not in the original 1593 production as represented by the\u00a01594 Quarto edition ; a joint venture by three companies in their struggle to survive the\u00a0great plague ban<\/span>.<\/em><\/span><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Because of young Lucius, the (new) play from the 1594 quarto edition seems to have been\u00a0a revision. And because it makes no sense to revise a play when a sudden opportunity for\u00a0performance presents itself, this revision dates back to the last regular production. Which obviously\u00a0also was the first production, and the play in question can only have been revised because of initial\u00a0rejection.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
Being by 1594 still a new play for London, <\/span><\/em>Titus Andronicus<\/span> had been produced during the plague\u00a0ban. Which, after all, was during 1592 and 1593 never expected to keep the theatres closed for\u00a0more than yet another month.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
Interestingly, the boy player whose debut in a speaking part the play was probably meant to be in\u00a01588, celebrated his thirteenth birthday on, or close to, the first of May 1593. And he has thirteen\u00a0lines in scene 4 ; 2, while 4 ; 1 has thirteen of the boy\u2019s twenty-five lines in an uninterrupted\u00a0sequence. Isn\u2019t it curious ?\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
His fourteenth line ends on \u2018my youth\u2019. This is line 9 of the thirteen-sequence, and that is pretty close to this section’s Golden Ratio. The next line that bears significance to the Golden Ratio is no. 21 :\u00a0\u2018If I were a man\u2019\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
His twentieth line \u2018My mother gave it me\u2019 is the scene\u2019s line 44 : with Mary Shakespeare\u2019s date of\u00a0birth estimated as ca. 1537, this line number comes rather close to her age when she gave birth to\u00a0Edmund.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
In my reconstruction of R & J, the leading lady\u2019s fourteen year old performer has, by\u00a0means of a rather shocking scene, already been identified as the acting Romeo\u2019s kid brother.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\u00a0In which respect I Henry VI is yet another remarkable sample of writing to the actor :\u00a0Queen Margaret is evidently designed for the same boy player as Joan La Pucelle. Which\u00a0latter part is evidently most suited for a player who has grown too old to convince as a\u00a0woman. And in 1 Henry VI it is very much the same for Margaret, who enters Shakespeare\u2019s\u00a0version of History as a prisoner of war.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
What a dramatic impact would this History in retrospect make, if, seconds after her\u00a0defeat, the Scourge of England would re-enter the stage as the previous play\u2019s She-wolf of\u00a0France? Doubling Margaret with La Pucelle within a single play, however, is because of\u00a0those few seconds downright impossible. Which suggests twin actors. Born ca. 1574 the\u00a0Jeffes brothers were at the time of exactly the right age to have convinced as the spectre like\u00a0Prophetes of Doom from Richard III (1593), as the Nemesis Queen from 3 Henry VI, and as\u00a0the Beauty Queen who finds her way to rule Henry\u2019s court as easily as La Pucelle charmed\u00a0herself into the Dauphin\u2019s.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
2 & 3 Henry VI\u00a0 are in turn designed as a twin production (1591 – 92). And were\u00a0actually staged by two separate companies, as to enable the audience throughout the season to\u00a0see both parts in quick succession. As a leading part to be played by the same actor in both\u00a0productions, Margaret increasingly dominates the stage, and grows in Part Two out of a boy\u00a0player\u2019s reach : and straight into the combined reach of a double act.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
The Play is not exactly dated, but comes in any case a couple of years\u00a0before the Sonnets were first mentioned to circulate amongst\u00a0Shakespeare\u2019s friends (1598). If the identification is correct, Oberon may\u00a0have marked the early beginnings of the cycle.\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
A slapstick character, and apart from his profession more in the line of\u00a0newcomer Robert Armin. When doubled with another part, the\u00a0performance would certainly benefit from a single actor for Cinna the poet\u00a0and Cinna the conspirator. But doubling with Julius Caesar himself would be\u00a0downright brilliant in its dramatic effect. And if the company\u2019s regular\u00a0playwright ever wrote a title\u00a0role for an average player, he did so at this\u00a0occasion.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\n