Longtime readers of this blog know that I sometimes take a break from our usual psi-related content to write about another outré topic, the Shakespeare authorship controversy.
I won't reprise my reasons for disbelieving the standard story about the prodigy from Stratford, who overcame the handicap of an illiterate household and a meager education in a one-room schoolhouse to become the most polished writer in history, conversant with aristocratic pursuits like falconry and bowls, knowledgeable about court intrigues and political machinations, and able to write without penalty 0n forbidden topics such as the deposition of a king.
But I will add one piece of evidence that came to my attention recently, which, along with other, similar writings from the period, shows that "Shakespeare" or, as it was often printed, "Shake-spear," was known to be a pseudonym. In 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, the pamphleteer Henry Chettle composed this verse criticizing a noted poet for remaining silent:
Nor doth the silver tongued Melicert
Drop from his honeyed muse one sable tear
To mourn her death that graced his desert
And to his lays opened her Royal ear.
Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth,
And sing her Rape, done by that Tarquin, Death.
The verse, which appears in Englandes Mourning Garment, contains a clear reference to Shakespeare in the final line, pointing to Shakespeare's narrative poem The Rape of Lucrece. The author of Lucrece, addressed as "Shepherd" (a common term for poets), is identified only as Melicert. The reference is to Robert Greene's 1589 novel (or "prose romance") Menaphon, in which Melicertus, a gentleman, disguises himself as a shepherd in order to enter and win a poetry competition. In other words, he conceals his identity and rank in order to practice the art of poetry.
The book where I learned of Chettle's little jibe is Henry Neville Was Shakespeare: The Evidence, by John Casson and William D. Rubinstein (the Melicert quote is on page 142). It's one of several books to come out in the last few years advancing the case for Henry Neville, a courtier and politician of the Elizabethan-Jacobian eras, as the author of Shakespeare's works. Although I've long been partial to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the best candidate, I have to say that the case for Neville is worth considering.
Casson and Rubinstein focus largely on the books from Neville's personal library, many of which still exist and have been annotated by hand. Relying on comparisons of the handwriting in the margins with the handwriting in Neville's extent letters, they make the case that most of the marginalia were written by Neville himself. They go on to point out parallels between the highlighted passages and material in Shakespeare's plays.
Another line of argument involves comparing the use of highly unusual words and phrases in Neville's correspondence and in Shakespeare's writings. Some of these words and word combinations were used by no other writers in that era, according to a comprehensive database search.
One advantage of the Neville hypothesis is that his lifespan neatly dovetails with the generally accepted dates of writing and publication for the plays. The Oxford hypothesis, on the other hand, is complicated by the fact that Oxford died in 1604, and, according to the conventional wisdom, many of Shakespeare's plays were written later. Oxfordians counter that the dating of the plays is uncertain and that the "later" plays may actually have been written much earlier. All we know for sure is the date of first publication or first known performance, and it's possible that the first known performance was actually a revival of an old play - not an uncommon practice for the acting companies of the time, who needed a steady supply of material. In support of this, they point to Ben Jonson's characterization of the late play Pericles as a "moldy tale," which they take to mean "old," though the description might simply refer to the play's old-fashioned subject matter.
Oxfordians also dispute the claim that any post-1604 sources or political events inspired the later plays. In particular, they take issue with the argument that Macbeth is heavily informed by the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, or that The Tempest is based in part on the so-called Strachey letter, a privately circulated 1610 missive describing a shipwreck in the Bermudas.
Some of these points are more convincing than others. Personally, I think the 1604 date of Oxford's death is a stumbling block to his candidacy, and that Macbeth, King Lear, and The Tempest almost certainly include material that can be dated later. The stumbling block is not necessarily fatal; perhaps this post-1604 material was added by some other playwright (it's generally accepted that portions of Macbeth were written by Thomas Middleton), but all in all, there's a quality of special pleading in these arguments.
Incidentally, as Casson and Rubinstein point out, it's unlikely that William of Stratford would ever have seen the Strachey letter, access to which was restricted to shareholders in the Virginia Company, which sponsored the Bermuda expedition. Henry Neville, on the other hand, was a director of the Virginia Company.
The biggest weakness of the Nevillian hypothesis is that there's relatively little evidence for Neville's interest in poetry and theater. There is some evidence: the famed Northumberland manuscript, whose cover page lists the titles of two Shakespeare plays and the attribution "William Shakespeare," was owned by Neville, who may have written those notes himself (this at a time when Shakespeare had not been publicly identified as a playwright). Both Neville's father and grandfather participated in plays at the royal court, and his father helped establish the first Blackfriars Theatre (an outdoor playhouse, not the later indoor Blackfriars where some of Shakespeare's works were acted). A 1599 poem addressed to Neville, written in Latin, refers to "the kindly company of Muses who sing through you, granting you various arts: the refined Thalia [Muse of Comedy] giving you the eloquence to pour forth what You Will."* Neville was a friend of Ben Jonson and of Beaumont and Fletcher, and all of them were members of the Mermaid Club. He was also a friend of the poet Sir Philip Sidney, whose work influenced Shakespeare, and his closest friend may have been the Earl of Southampton, the dedicatee of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.
Still, unlike Oxford, Neville was not a literary patron; he published no poetry under his name or initials (one brief unpublished poem, an amusing trifle, survives); he wrote no introductions to published books; he did not surround himself with writers or host the kind of literary salon that Oxford established; and he was never celebrated as a poet or playwright in his lifetime. Oxford, conversely, was counted as leading the list of "the best for Comedy amongst us" by Francis Meres in a noted pamphlet, though it's possible that his placement on the list owed more to his rank than to his talent.
Furthermore, certain books known to have been essential to Shakespeare are no longer part of Neville's collection, notably Plutarch's Lives, which was used extensively as a source for the Roman plays and is even paraphrased in parts of Antony and Cleopatra. Of course, it's possible that Plutarch and other volumes were once part of the collection and simply disappeared into other people's hands over the last 400 years.
I'm sufficiently intrigued by the Neville hypothesis to have ordered a second book on the subject and to have investigated a couple of relevant websites. One of them is Ken Feinstein's blog, which includes information on a catalog of Neville's books that includes titles missing from the extant collection (it's unclear to me if Plutarch is among them), and another is James Leyland and James Goding's blog, which, among other things, covers the Melicert reference discussed above.
A common objection to any question of Shakespeare's authorship is that the doubters are almost never credentialed Shakespearean scholars. That is true in this case. John Casson is a retired psychotherapist. William D. Rubinstein is a professor of history who taught at the University of Wales and Deakin University (Australia), and who currently serves as adjunct professor at Monash University. On the other hand, many prominent persons arguing the case for the orthodox position also are not credentialed scholars in this field. David Kathman, who maintains a website arguing that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare," is "a Chartered Financial Analyst who makes [his] living as a mutual fund analyst," yet his arguments are routinely quoted as authoritative. (He does have a Ph.D. in linguistics, but it's not clear that this is more relevant than Rubinstein's status as a history professor.)
Orthodox scholars will sometimes point out that anti-Stratfordians don't publish in recognized academic journals, but this is a Catch-22, since those journals make it a policy not to consider anti-Stratfordian submissions. (Similarly, mainstream publications refuse to accept any parapsychology articles "on principle"; parapsychologists are then criticized for not publishing in those journals.)
Do I think Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to be convinced. The one thing I remain certain of is that William Shakspere (as he spelled it, when he remembered to add the final "e") of rural Stratford, whose parents, wife, and grown daughters were illiterate, who as far as we know owned no books, and whose handwriting survives only in a few rudimentary, barely legible signatures ... is not the author of the world's greatest literature.
----
*The words "what You Will" probably don't refer to the play of that name, which was written later, but the capitalization of Velles, Latin for you will, arguably suggests a pun on the name Will. The Latin quae velles can also be translated "what you wish," "what you like," or "what you command," but according to an 1861 Latin-English lexicon, the Latin verb volo has these definitions: 1) "to be willing, to will"; 2) "to command, to ordain, to determine"; 3) "to wish, to desire"; 4) "to mean, to denote, to signify." So "will" is the principal definition.
Michael, isn't it possible Shakespeare was an automatic-writing medium, much like Pearl Curran, who produced works compared with Shakespeare's under the name Patience Worth? Remember that Curran had no more than an eighth-grade education and had no real worldly experiences approaching those she penned. I'm sure Amos will have some thoughts on this.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | September 17, 2019 at 08:23 PM
I guess anything's possible, but there’s no indication that the Stratford man could even handle a pen competently, or that he had the slightest interest in occult practices (which in that era were illegal and highly dangerous — King James had a particular horror of witches, a term that would certainly include mediums). All signs point to William of Stratford as a hard-nosed, spiteful pragmatist who hoarded grain in a famine, pursued debtors for trivial sums, and left his long-suffering wife their second-best bed in his will.
The only manuscript possibly written by the author known as Shakespeare (a scene from a play written by multiple authors) shows signs of considerable rewriting, with lines struck out and new lines written above (by the same hand). This is not what would be expected in automatic writing. The Shakespeare plays contain many topical references, unlike the books attributed to Patience Worth. Shakespeare's plays and sonnets show clear signs of personal growth, setbacks, illness (probably including venereal disease), and a brooding sense of his own mortality — again, probably not what we’d expect from scripts generated across the veil. Shakespeare’s general view of death is that it is "the undiscovered country," to be dreaded because it is unknown and unknowable (despite the occasional testimony of ghosts in the plays).
So Will Shaksper the channeler doesn’t work for me. Incidentally, Pearl Curran once claimed to channel Shakespeare the author, but the verse she produced was of decidedly sub-Bard standards. The same is true of all other mediumistic communications ascribed to the sweet Swan of Avon, as far as I know. 🙂
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 18, 2019 at 03:47 AM
Michael,
You're probably right. I was just throwing it out as a somewhat remote possibility. Incidentally, for whatever it is worth (probably not much) in his 1917 book, "Spirit Intercourse: Its Theory and Practice," James Hewat McKenzie states that information derived from spirit sources holds that Shakespeare was a medium and received the works from Euripides, the Greek tragedian, and that Francis Bacon collaborated with Shakespeare in the endeavor. McKenzie does not provide any information as to the spirit sources or the medium through whom these alleged spirits communicated, nor does he explain how Bacon collaborated with Shakespeare. Thus, his explanation is hardly evidential or convincing.
If there actually was "collaboration," my guess is that it was something like that involved in the Glastonbury Scripts, i.e., Frederick Bligh Bond placing his hand on top of the medium's hand to provide the so-called sympathetic link.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | September 18, 2019 at 04:09 AM
Actually, Pearl Curran never suggested that she channeled Shakespeare. Pearl and Patience (with the help of one or two others) wrote a play about the very young Shakespeare during his "lost years' called "The Elizabethan Mask". The writings of Patience Worth were hers and no one else's. In that play, Patience tried to mimic the writing style of Shakespeare. It may be that she did not equal Shakespeare's writing but I would challenge any writer to do as well as Patience did and I don't know why we would expect her to equal the bard anyway.
I do think that Pearl Curran is an example of someone with little education or world travel who wrote about places and customs which she had no opportunity or experience to know about. While Shakespeare may have had a troop of players to contribute around him, Pearl Curran and Patience Worth wrote their novels and poems generally without any assistance from anyone. - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | September 18, 2019 at 08:52 AM
Sorry for the mistake about Pearl Curran. I remembered you (AOD) quoting some verse she channeled that was intended as Shakespearean. This must have been from the novel you mentioned.
I agree that Pearl Curran/Patience Worth was a remarkable figure. On one occasion she was challenged to produce an acrostic poem in which the verses started with the letters of the alphabet in sequence. This is very hard to do, but she did it on the spot, and the poem is quite good!
Michael Tymn, I suspect the info about Bacon collaborating with a mediumistic Shakespeare came from the medium's subconscious. The Baconian theory of authorship, little regarded today, was popular at that time.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 18, 2019 at 12:53 PM
Michael, when you say that the Baconian theory of authorship "was popular at the time," what time are you referring to? Shakespeare's time or 1917? If the latter, how do we know that the Baconian theory didn't begin with McKenzie's book?
Consideration should also be given to the case of Rosemary Brown, a widowed London housewife who, beginning in 1964, purportedly received compositions from the spirits of many great composers, including Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, Chopin, Bach, and Debussy. Although Brown had taken some piano lessons, she had no real talent and was unacquainted with the technicalities of writing notes. Mediumistic since her childhood, Brown received a message from Liszt via automatic writing in which he said that a group of composers from the spirit world would be using her to dictate new compositions through her by means of automatic writing. “You have sufficient training for our purposes,” Liszt told her. “Had you been given a really full musical education it would have been no help to us at all.” He further explained that a full musical background would have been an impediment to them as she would have had too many theories and ideas of her own that they might not have been able to overcome.
Applying Liszt’s explanation to Shakespeare and Bacon, we might conclude that Euripides required a less-educated mind than that of Bacon in order to get his words through without distortion, and Shakespeare filled the bill. Just a theory that I wouldn't bet on.
One other point: I understand that playwrighting was considered beneath the dignity of the elite class in those days and that many of them were arrested for satire and treason. That might explain why Bacon didn't want to take any credit for himself.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | September 18, 2019 at 04:28 PM
Michael I always enjoy it when you go off on an excursion into Shakespeare lore. There are a couple of very good exchanges of ideas in your archives about the Shakespeare identity problem. Now might be a good time to read over them again or for the first time if one has not read them before.
It could be that William Shakspear, using a stage name Shakespeare, was a Producer/Director of plays, who produced entertainment to bring people into the alehouse to buy some ale, trinkets and favors from whoever might be selling. It probably was like it is today where Producers/Directors of movies, TV shows and plays gain some notoriety and the movie, television show or play becomes known under their name. We might remember some of the actors but who remembers the numerous writers who wrote the scripts for shows put on by say, "Roseanne", Norman Lear, David O. Selznick, Cecil B. DeMille or Alfred Hitchcock? In four or five hundred years the names of the writers will be lost in the collective memory of the culture in which they lived. and the shows, if remembered at all will probably be remembered as a production of the famous producers not the many writers. I think in Shakespeare's time, it probably was no different. So I would agree with you that "Shakespeare' probably was not the primary writer of plays produced under his name. Maybe many writers under contract wrote the Shakespeare materials. - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | September 18, 2019 at 06:53 PM
Someone skilled at accessing "unconscious" information in a trance state might be able to shed light on this mystery.
Verifying this with physical evidence -- handwriting, libraries, records of life details, etc. -- is another question and might not be possible, while information obtained in this manner is always open to question, for multiple reasons.
It's a question of some interest to me as my investigations into "past lives" years ago revealed an Elizabethan life experience.
Of course there's no way to prove something like this, despite the excellent work of several researchers in this area -- what they've obtained is highly suggestive of "reincarnation" in multiple specific cases. That may be quite convincing for those open to such ideas but is still not proof -- other explanations can always be offered.
Over many years I've known and encountered others associated with that Elizabethan self, but that knowledge has always been entirely subjective and, again, unprovable.
It might be quite an "adventure in consciousness" to sit in the same room with all of these people and for the entire group to focus on this particular mystery in a relaxed, mind quieted state -- who knows what might be hidden in their collective "unconscious" minds?
Meanwhile, William Shakespeare himself certainly knew, consciously, at least part of the answer to this mystery; if he was not the author (given what's been written about shared authorship) he would have certainly known that and more than likely the identity of an author or authors who used his name.
Therefore, another possible approach would be to "get in touch" with Shakespeare, or a version of him alive in our time -- if one exists -- or his "greater self."
Again, proving any information acquired in this way might not be possible, but the effort would certainly be fun and rewarding.
I've often imagined approaching the mystery of "Arturo" -- King Arthur -- in the same way, knowing that it's possible there never was such a man, although _someone_ defeated the Saxons in the Battle of Badon, many centuries before the creation of the myth so many are familiar with.
I wonder, Michael, whether you might have experienced a life in Elizabethan times; being attracted to the mystery of the authorship of the plays can be one telltale sign. Note, too, the idea that some of those we are associated with in our present lives are often those we were associated with in "previous" lifetimes -- this has great relevance to such questions in terms of subjective "knowing."
(The idea of "serial" reincarnation -- one lifetime after another, like the days of the week -- is not the only version or explanation; there are those who suggest something along the lines of "simultaneous" lives, consistent with certain ideas regarding the nature of time and reality.)
Posted by: Bill Ingle | September 18, 2019 at 07:56 PM
MP: I was impressed by the discovery about a year ago by the author of "North Of Shakespeare" of a pamphlet by North foreshadowing much Shakespearian material. What do you think?
Posted by: Roger Knights | September 18, 2019 at 08:34 PM
//Michael, when you say that the Baconian theory of authorship "was popular at the time," what time are you referring to? Shakespeare's time or 1917? If the latter, how do we know that the Baconian theory didn't begin with McKenzie's book?//
The theory originated in the mid-1800s, promoted by a certain Delia Bacon (no relation to Francis).This was long after Shakespeare’s death, of course, but prior to McKenzie. Though never academically respectable, the idea gained quite a few followers among the educated general public, including Richard Maurice Bucke, who simply assumes that Shakespeare was Bacon in his 1901 book Cosmic Consciousness. Baconism later fell out of favor, being largely supplanted (among authorship doubters) by the theory that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, wrote the works. Bacon as the Bard has few supporters today. See this Wikipedia entry for details:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship
//I wonder, Michael, whether you might have experienced a life in Elizabethan times; being attracted to the mystery of the authorship of the plays can be one telltale sign.//
Maybe I was Shakespeare! If so, I’ve declined rather sadly in terms of both talent and success. 😕
Actually, if I was any Elizabethan writer, I was probably Thomas Nashe, a short, irritating little gadfly. Yeah, that sounds about right ...
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 18, 2019 at 08:58 PM
//I was impressed by the discovery about a year ago by the author of "North Of Shakespeare" of a pamphlet by North foreshadowing much Shakespearian material. What do you think?//
Shakespeare paraphrases North's translation of Plutarch in parts of Antony and Cleopatra, and clearly admired North's work. But even the author of "North of Shakespeare" seems to have backed away from his original assertion that North was Shakespeare. Now (if I understand him correctly) his position is only that North influenced Shakespeare — which is not a controversial opinion.
I was sufficiently interested in the (original) North theory to read North's translation of The Moral Philosophy of Doni, but although it's an entertaining book, it didn’t seem very Shakespearean to me.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 18, 2019 at 09:05 PM
Michael: "Maybe I was Shakespeare! If so, I’ve declined rather sadly in terms of both talent and success...Actually, if I was any Elizabethan writer, I was probably Thomas Nashe, a short, irritating little gadfly. Yeah, that sounds about right."
Hmm. Nashe was a clever writer but tended to get into printed jousting matches with other writers, a bit like certain Twitter personalities today, attracting attention to himself. Suppose, instead, that you were Sir Henry Neville?
Let me contact Bess Throckmorton. She may know someone, or someone who knows someone, with some inside knowledge or who may at least have a very good idea of things owing to their existence in that time and place.
Posted by: Bill Ingle | September 20, 2019 at 07:29 PM
Bill, as I’m sure you know, I was kidding about Thomas Nashe. 🙂
With my luck, I was probably Thomas Kyd, who was tortured after heretical documents were found in his flat. He implicated Christopher Marlowe, who ended up dying under ambiguous circumstances shortly before he faced a Star Chamber hearing that might have led to his own imprisonment and torture.
Elizabethan England was not quite the merry old place it's made out to be.
P.S. I’m kydding ... er, kidding ... about being Thomas Kyd, too.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 21, 2019 at 03:29 AM
Michael: "Elizabethan England was not quite the merry old place it's made out to be."
It certainly had its dark side and dark personalities, while, as the way to "get ahead" necessarily involved the Court, any number of frequently vicious and sometimes deadly rivalries, often encouraged by various players.
At the same time, it was a fantastic flourishing of creative energies of all kinds, even as the "New World" was appearing, in reality and in minds. What a swirl of activity; what a cast of characters!
I'd say the era wasn't nearly as dark as that which preceded it, while concerning what transpired after the death of Elizabeth, the lowering of the curtain, I've never been a fan of King James, although some his actions could be attributed to his difficult childhood.
"P.S. I’m kydding ... er, kidding ... about being Thomas Kyd, too."
If you believe in the existence of reincarnation then you must allow for the idea that historical personages reincarnate just like everyone else, but saying "I was so and so!" (especially on-line) is a sure way to be considered a lunatic.
This means that you might certainly have an existence as an Elizabethan personality, and one that can be found in the historical record. You would more than likely be a writer in that time, as you are in this one (or more than a writer -- as you know, some of those personalities are known for their activities in many areas) although I suppose you might have been an obscure person from some small village, but I doubt that.
If you should find out, through hypnosis or by doing some exercise, meditation, etc., I recommend keeping this to yourself and/or your closest associates (they will likely have known you then), a quiet knowing. After all, we live now, in our present, no matter how interesting and/or luminous some previous edition may have been. (I do have to say, though, that any number of Elizabethan poets might have some choice words for some of our present political personalities.)
This knowledge might inspire a novel on your part, though; I'd purchase a copy.
Posted by: Bill Ingle | September 21, 2019 at 10:06 AM
Michael,
Interesting. So you would no longer consider yourself an Oxfordian?
Posted by: Matt Rouge | September 25, 2019 at 10:52 AM
I think Oxford is still a better bet than Neville, but I’m open to other options. The only candidate I reject outright is that Stratford guy. 😬
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 25, 2019 at 10:57 AM
There is a paper online that makes a good case that it was Neville who wrote the manuscript of the "hand-D" section of "Thomas More," far better than the case that it was the Stratford man who did, if by "the case" you mean absolutely no case at all.
Diana Price's book demonstrating that there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence that the Stratford man wrote any of the works attributed to him is the best book on the topic that I've read. She proved that after the most extensive search for such a record, the Stratford man is unique in those considered to be writers from his time period to have left not a single piece of evidence of that, though he left about seventy records, many of those dealing with his business activities, not one of them related to writing.
Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | September 25, 2019 at 03:05 PM
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Prescott
Michael do you still believe the Fox Sisters were genuine. RationalWiki seem to have a good point on this they quote Richard Wiseman "
"Margaretta silenced those Spiritualists who had been sceptical about her confession by appearing before a packed auditorium at the New York Academy of Music and demonstrating her remarkable ability to produce raps at will."
Posted by: Jon Donnis | September 27, 2019 at 01:37 PM
Kind off-topic ... but yes, I think the Fox sisters had real mediumistic (or possibly PK) abilities. The confession was made at a time when Margaret was an impoverished alcoholic, and she was paid a substantial sum for her appearance. I don’t believe that joint-cracking explains the thunderous raps reported by earlier investigators, or that Margaret could have fooled the investigators who closely examined her under controlled conditions. It would be interesting to see someone produce raps loud enough to shake the house (as observed in Hydesville) by cracking toes or knees.
It’s entirely possible that the sisters supplemented their abilities with trickery (a regrettably common circumstance) in order to perform on demand and to produce more commercially desirable effects, like materializations. It’s also possible that their abilities declined as they grew older, and they relied increasingly on fakery. Actually, I think both of those scenarios are very likely. Something similar arguably happened in the case of Arthur Ford. But I think the original Hydesville phenomena were genuine.
Incidentally, Margaret Fox retracted her confession soon after making it. And I’m afraid neither Richard Wiseman nor RationalWiki has much credibility to me. Cheers!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 27, 2019 at 02:46 PM
Is it me or is it a bit odd that Jon Donnis (if it is in fact him) would submit a seemingly completely irrelevant post like that? It’s puzzled me.
Posted by: Paul | October 07, 2019 at 05:43 PM
Yes, it’s odd. It may not have been Jon Donnis of the "Bad Psychics" site. It could’ve been an impersonator.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | October 07, 2019 at 10:21 PM