Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars

Rogues Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars
Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars

A brief introduction to key points and background within the Shakespeare Authorship Mystery Brian Jarvis 2003
I declare my viewpoint: SHAKSPERE was and is Shakespeare, but its not so simple. Read on, theres more than meets the eye. And please dont tag me Stratfordian or heretic. This essay is offered to those coming to this greatest of Detective Stories for the first time. Each heading is really a kind of essay, so there is a repeat of some viewpoints though in different words. If I have an aim, as a layman, it is to help newcomers with this intriguing Question and Mystery, and overall to pass on the good word: read Shakespeare, see and hear Shakespeare We are all players in the theatre of Self
Fair, kind and true is all my argument Sonnet 105
Brian Jarvis
Page 1
06/08/2003
Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars

Title It refers to the Vagrancy Act of 1572 which demanded that, among others, Players in Enterludes be under the protection and patronage of a baron or other honourable personage. The Elizabethan Age saw the emergence of the English Golden Age of literary achievement. The medieval religious performances gave way to the rise of modern Theatre... but the talented troupes of players that arose to break with the past and create professionalism were held in low esteem.
CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Introduction: eulogies to greatness Barriers and Access to specific knowledge Search for identity The questions arise Your choice of beliefs Candidates for Shakespeare Elizabethans and theatre Shaksperes early years, Lost Years Does genius need to display ego? Summing up: which theory?
When all the breathers of this world are dead, you still shall live Sonnet 81
Brian Jarvis
Page 2
06/08/2003
1. Introduction: eulogies to greatness

Thirty-two eulogies were printed and published about Sir Francis Bacon when he died in 1626, ten years after Shakespeare. The death of Shakespeare was apparently marked by a resounding silence. Sir Francis, the Baron Verulam, probably deserved every word of praise. King James Lord Chancellor was known throughout Europe as a great and original mind, even a genius, though posterity sees error in quite a few of his choicest scientific reasonings. Shakespeare, today, is renowned around the world as the great dramatic poet and a playmaker genius whose 36 plays (created over possibly a 27 year period; several more arguably attributed to him also) are now deservedly translated into more than 40 languages. No other nation has produced such a phenomenon. He is accepted as timeless and as universal, not for an age but for all time. The greatness and the legacy speak for themselves: comedy and humour, tragedy and pain, history and stirring declamations, refinement and bawdiness, universality and evil, stupidity and sensitive perceptiveness ... and all played and depicted on the static, scenery-less stage. Each play has its own universe, its own pervading atmosphere, each one different to another is one London teachers insight into his Works. One theatre author of today believes that his flexibility of mind and the marvellous many-sided nature of his creative imagination is well displayed in the Canons 12 contrasting themes, wide divergences of mood, and the writing achievement over such a short period of time. Though in honest appraisal, the equally knowledgeable in theatre and the literary world will murmur that not every part of every play is perfect, far from it; in fact, a Shakespeare text today is an unstable, contrived product having been through many intermediaries, with many departures from the masters original first performance manuscript. The intriguing question is: just who might he have collaborated with, especially in the early years (say 1585 -1595). Yet that silence, lack of public recognition at his Shakespeares death, irks some people enormously. However, it was not a complete silence. Nor was it unusual. True, far from the repute given poets, the Theatres players and the emerging dramatists were still widely regarded as persons of dubious standing and grovellers on the stage as the literary hierarchy had it. The talented aristocracy, close to the royal Court, could not have written and published freely - poetry as Art, yes, but not be seen among the newly-emerging play-makers, some of whom were respectably universityeducated. There were many of talent in private chambers that encloistered are... but to write and publish, on politics, rule, state secrets? The Secret Service which emerged also, with its supposed, hidden Department of Propaganda, would have imposed itself with control and censorship. Progress was made in breaking down this not poetry culture in 1616, with Ben Jonsons rather egocentric and bold printing and publication of his own Works, a mixture of play and poetry (this initiative helped towards recognition of some kind for all those working within the newly-professional Theatre, besides countering Jonsons non-university background). (Some things then havent changed today: shout loud and the world listens speedily after Jonsons death in 1637, his collected poems were published and he was buried in Westminster Abbey; Shakespeare had to wait till 1740 for his statue there.)
Brian Jarvis Page 3 06/08/2003
There WERE eulogic mentions for departed playmakers, in Shakespeares time, but in MANUSCRIPT not printed form. Only nobility, knights and churchmen were eulogised IN PRINT during Elizabethan and Jacobean times. However, what explanation is there for the virtual silence in eulogies on the death of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford in 1604 and for his unmarked grave in Hackney? He was said in his time to be a great poet and sometime playmaker, today as with Bacon, promoted enthusiastically as the hidden writer of Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare in fact was well memorialised in manuscript over the seven years until the First Folio was printed in 1623, and many times more in the next decades. Posterity sees him, Shakspere the Stratford-upon-Avon man, as the poet inspired and playmaker supreme with little overall to criticise in his Works, the Shakespeare canon. The plays, as one scholar notes, cover a dozen different types: classical and historical dramas, revenge drama, elaborate and sophisticated, comedy-in-intent, comedy-drama, the bitter-comedies, comedy-tragedy, the openly farcical, the light fantastic, lively romantic, dramatic romances, romantic tragedy and tragedy. They were shot through with his fathomless abundance of verbal and metaphorical invention. Shakspere/Shakespeare would have agreed that a witty conceit is oftentimes a conveyor of a truth not so well (otherwise) ferried over Francis Bacon Many knowledgeable assign greatness to Shakespeares final period, when he wrote romance-resolution or romance-reconciliation plays, beyond or avoiding tragedy. These are seen as unique dramatic-designs, synthesizing in masterly fashion many elements masque, tableaux, mime and music, full of dramatic daring. Outstandingly different, Tolstoy hammered the great Lear as a complete absence of aesthetic feeling, unnatural events and unnatural speeches, unnecessary verbose absurdities and as having nothing in common with art and poetry. He praised Homer for works of artistic, poetic originality. Yet a later author found Lear to be a great and a tragic vision of humanity. Equally notable even fascinating are Shakespeares 154 Sonnets and the two dramatic narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. They reward reading after reading, and more is said later. The First Folio, and the facade on The Folger Shakespeare Library, counsels us His Wit can no more be hid than it could be lost Read him therefore and again and again. But the exact authorship of that Wit IS in question. In quite a few plays, knowledgeable critics do find fault, but this is as nothing to the charge: that he did not actually write all the plays. The extreme question is: did he, Shakspere, the man of Stratford-upon-Avon, actually write any of them? More to the point, why does the First Folio include 10,000 words never heard or known about before? They were in 15 or more plays emerging fresh into the strong sunlight of publication. They had never been registered, in the Stationers Register. Whose was ownership besides the Worlds? How did they apparently remain, unowned? To a company, they would have been valuable financial assets. It is a considerable Mystery in itself, in some ways as great as the leading Mystery.
The questions, the unease, about precise authorship arose because there is no undoubted proof, only circumspection and the circumstantial. The number of official records that apparently refer to Shakspere as Shakespeare is disappointingly small, admits one Stratfordian (pro-Shakspere as Shakespeare). The heretics (anti-Stratfordians) go further, believing there are no documents relating Shakspere to Shakespeare. People have found it almost impossible to believe that one man, from modest home and no documented path of universal education, could even if a genius - have achieved what his name is given to. Shakespeare may well have written his best lines by the dim light of Nature as a middle-period contemporary of his said. He is also mentioned in a survey of that time as among the most pregnant wits of our times. He appeared blessed with a natural innate Grace. But he had a knowledge dimension to uncover, virtually unaided in his early days. He had passion his passion in the plays and poetry includes every mental condition, every tone, from indifference, familiar mirth, wildest rage, despair. He was also a master of words and his use communicated meaning, and that passion. Today we all suffer from imprecicity of words; we use them, often indiscriminately; as a result we are attenuated, lost from the fineness of words, the thorough, logical and precise explanations of things, the actual meaning of words word-mongering as explained in Bacons Idols of the Tribe. Jonson, very close to Bacon, later, agreed. Shaksperes potential may well have attracted support which encouraged, enhanced, sustained his progress according to many this came from the young Earl of Southampton and the young Francis Bacon, as patrons and benefactors. Today, a modest start in life is no insurmountable barrier to man and woman achieving great things by natural effort and will, allied to opportunity, even if they cannot attain genius. Then, Shakespeare needed that intellectual power arising after supernatural, spiritual inspiration to produce his outcome inexplicable, as one attempt at describing the fusion of natural genius with human will.
Brian Jarvis
Page 5
06/08/2003
2. Barriers and Access to specific knowledge

Leaving aside seeming metaphysical and mystical analysis, the particular building blocks of this BARRIER, to the belief that he did uncover and make use of in unrivalled fashion the higher knowledge dimension, are: * that Shaxpere/Shakespere/ Shakspere had a modest Stratford background and an incomplete grammar school education (probably until the age of 15, but it could have ended at 13) * that he had no known further education ie University and in the classic subjects; and there were just a few libraries available as an aid to his expanding consciousness * that there is no evidence of his early apprenticeship and growth in experience of the burgeoning Elizabethan professional theatre, locally, or in London before 1592 (except his youthful attendance in Stratford during performances by four-five touring Companies of players) * that there is displayed in all his Works an impressive (and unexpected) learning; this covers some 25 or more areas of specific expertise and understanding; two very different examples might be Law and legal terminology, and falconry, each with its particular, even strange and specialised word and phrase structure * that his vocabulary was exceptionally large, anything from 15,000 to 21,000 words, as displayed in his Works (the differences in totals given by many authorities are due to leaving out or including inflectional forms, dialect, jargon, some new words) * Elizabethan England was a world where people sang, talked, breathed language and words, says a leading actor today; but Shakespeares mastery of words is outstanding, emphasised by the fact and I havent counted - that he is calculated to have used 7,000 of his words only once * that, taking the lower calculation of 15,000 words, this was way beyond the vocabulary of the parish labourer of his time (300 words), the educated thinkers and scholars, selective and accurate (4-6,000 words); Milton (8000 - and he invented many new words himself); and highly educated and precisely-verbal humans with remarkable eloquency up to 9,000 words * that, while obviously he loved and thought about words (as did Bacon), he also generated them, some 1,500 to 2,000 new words are within the Works. Some say he HAD to, as a way of succinct expression of what was needed AND in order to adroitly avoid giving insult or affront to the strict Elizabethan Court censorship and Secret Service environment (His brilliance then is our gain today: we use so many Shakespeare words and phrases...without knowing their origin; your latest modern glossary offers explanation of 10,000 words found in Shakespeare) * that the specific areas of technical knowledge and the manipulative flexibility shown in the (mostly excellent) construction in 36 plays (and poetry) suggest a writer who knew everything needed for and about playmaking
* Its all due, say some, to an almost unbelievable combination of awareness, perceptivity, innate and emotional intelligence, brilliant memory, and snatching up and interpreting all of lifes experiences * that one man, lauded as playmaker and poet, could achieve such obvious continuous growth in emotional intelligence even intellect, and in humanist and spiritual expansion (as witnessed in the arguable-dated early works as compared with the later period)
And then, we are asked to take as proof of his ACCESS to that knowledge dimension, the following * that when he wrote the plays, he so obviously was writing FOR the stage and rowdy, appreciative audience as he knew it, and NOT the ephemeral of posteritys fame; and the plays even now are so ALIVE and communicating. Though then there was virtually no scenery, perhaps a tree or two; one raised balcony to act from, curtains for entrance and exit, and few props as were effective, occasionally a note of music. There was no closedown between scenes and acts; until the Blackfriars Theatre few of the plays then had scenes or acts - As You Like It had an Actus primus and a Scaena prima but this was rare and may have been added by following editors Today scenery enhances stage environment and performance... but room for audience imagination now as then is necessary, the intangible unmanifest ingredient.... freed for use by the masterly touch: Can this cockpit hold .... The vasty fields of France?.... (opening of Henry V at the Globe) * that the effectiveness, with which his Works engage our minds and imaginations, ranging over the whole of human life, from grossest to finest, is universally powerful and transformational * that the canon reflects a breadth and depth in Self-consciousness, creative imagination, and remarkable understanding of human psychology (exemplified supremely, for sake of argument, in some 150 or more key and unforgettable characters out of 1,200 in the canon) * that his mastery in depiction of our archetypes of consciousness in our individual attributes, skills, strengths, failures, awareness of and obedience and the reverse to good and evil denotes access by the playmaker to a higher level of consciousness, beyond the human norm and into an area we would appreciate as genius * that he was able to demonstrate such all-encompassing awareness of humanist and higher knowledge, Being and loving that his Works are infused with assured psychological judgement (giving facility in characterisation) and both temporal and spiritual wisdom * that though in the Works there is rarely specific reference to God, there is to gods and the higher worlds, guiding us to the value of our inner Self as universal and true: not preached about but left to our individual awareness, perceptions and understanding ...such harmony in immortal souls... but whilst this muddy vesture of decay doth grossly clothe it in, we cannot hear it (Merchant of Venice)
Brian Jarvis
Page 7
06/08/2003
Summing up on barrier-and-access, he (even SHE is one possible source) displayed an accuracy, insight and understanding about which specialists find more to praise than to criticize, most unexpected in that the range of subjects found in the plays is so comprehensive, seemingly unbelievably large: Theatre and players, the Royal court and the court of Navarre Mind, manners and expressions of aristocrats The sports and pastimes of aristocracy, the wealthy and of the country hunting, horses, falconry, angling, archery, tennis Statesmanship, statecraft and the Secret intelligence service Classical literature and Bible scholarship History of England and Scotland, and of Europe, and Heraldry Travel in France, Italy and Spain, Denmark court and customs Languages classical and languages of his time Law and legal terms, Philosophy and esoteric philosophy Nature and the animal kingdom Medicine and natural history Mythology, folklore and the supernatural Military personnel and life, Seamanship and navigation New World exploration Horticulture and garden design Mathematics, astrology and astronomy Music and its terms, Sculpture and painting University of Cambridge terminology Welsh people and Wales the Printing press, and Freemasonary TODAY we have access to vast Libraries built up and lovingly tended since say the 1700s. We also have a GLOBAL library the Internet opening up our access in spectacular manner. It is sad that the most valuable libraries of Belvoir Castle (Midlands) and Wilton House (Wiltshire) available in Shakespeares day were damaged by fire in the mid-17th century and their pre- and early-Elizabethan books lost (Shaksperes possible visits unproven, but what if ...?) Shakspere due to his modest family beginnings and local environment could have had access to few libraries of note. The Vicar Bretchgirdle of Stratford died when Shakspere was one. His library was passed on locally, and who is to say the young Shakspere did not benefit? Richard Field and Richard Quiney, Stratford contemporaries, built up libraries, usually kept locked. It is possible he had support of one or more people of influence in his teens in broadening, deepening his understanding and further education. A budding genius, say between 13-20 he may well have been. Yet it is hard to argue that even geniuses can spring full-grown and effective, by natural talent alone, into the demanding worlds of poesy or the new playmaking; such understanding that Shakespeare brought to his Works (25 or more areas of apparent expert knowledge) must surely be earned by firming up the foundation?
Brian Jarvis
Page 8
06/08/2003
Leonardo learned much at Verrochios studio from the age of 15 and then under the Pollaiolo brothers. A constant reader, brilliant, but a difficult student, Einstein was in his teens before he found focus under sympathetic guidance of teachers in a Zurich school. A contemporary literary genius to Shakespeare, Lope de Vega of Spain, is said to have written poetry at five and plays at 10. He remains unheralded because few of his plays extant have been translated into English. Born of humble origins, he was described as a monster of Nature and prolific... his output was vast, believed way beyond 500 plays. He lived from 1562 to 1635 and unlike Shakespeare he left behind much of a literary and personal life history. He remained untranslated, as his countrys star declined while Englands and Shakespeares shone brightly. Shakspere at 18 was married, with child; one of the first and few facts we know. Was his understanding of love fostered there at home in Stratford with wife Anne? Or was his enforced marriage (Susanna was born six months later) a source of pain in relationship and beginnings of his study of love, indifference, emotions power to torture, the minds power to offer the path to freedom or for imprisonment? Whence his beginning was his phenomenon rooted in his keen observance of the natural world around him, in Stratford ? For instance, there are 200 natural world references in the plays, from horticulture plants and seasons, flowers and flowering to weeds and insects, the flight of a bird. And his references to and knowledge of Nature is exceptional, yet understandable as nature and knowledge was all around, waiting to be harvested by awareness, just as later his perceptions led to his glorious invention of the human. (However, yet some complain, in three instances, he knew not the ways of nightingales, bees and weasels, giving wrong references to their activities). But how do we explain his legal terminology (although almost every man-in-the-street was then fascinated by law and litigation)? his seamanship (five references to shipwrecks?) his understanding of Courtly manners and decorum (even in Continental countries?)... The Detective Mystery proceeds...
Brian Jarvis
Page 9
06/08/2003
3. The search for identity

We may not know Shakspere, or Shakespeare as he became, but we can explore facts and evidenced assumptions and presumptions as fairly in this age as fifty years after his death, when the identity questions slowly started to arise. There are so many hard facts missing, about the man Shaxpere, Shakespere, Shakspere even original name (the church record says Shakspere); about that early education; about the further education within the Lost Years, say at 16, 1580 to 1592; about his start in the theatre; and the general sketchiness thereafter of his years in London... The dismissal of Shakspere as author, or confirmation that he IS Shakespeare, may be argued but it does not devalue or minimize the fact that we have the marvellous 1623 First Folio and early source material still extant though, with one arguable exception, not in Shakespeares own penmanship. An expert scribe Ralph Crane was hired by publishers, after that First Folio, to prepare fresh transcripts of some of the plays whose penned versions had always been a headache to transcribe for usage (they were described impossible to work with, in any confidence). Cranes labours may have compounded validity or questions regarding what we have today, but ...how close we came, in those early days, to losing this heritage completely. The Stratfordian will return to Do not get involved in the Authorship Question it is a red herring, a waste of time. Stratfordian orthodoxy continues, Whether you read or attend a performance, you need to hear the subtle sounds of Shakespeares keen perceptions, insights and ... a still acuity in observations..... and believe he was the master craftsman, the supreme-ever in his field! Positively, the Stratfordian mind is straightforward, sensible and rather literal. There is no reason to seek answers to a problem which does not exist? Yet the Stratfordian caseby-inertia, many say, presents a hollow picture of Shakespeare, the man and genius as they claim. The Sonnets, for example, can be seen as a reflection of his life experiences and perceptions, and in particular his pain over the Youth and the Dark Lady... OR they can be a magnificent use and display of dispassionate, unattached literary imaginative powers, in all their brilliance and sophistication. We just do not know the truth, so carefully hidden is the identity of the human author. Even a Stratfordian has said, He had a career which leaves him not only without a private life but almost without a private personality. Many rational people, practical mostly and others very spiritual, have commented further... An author with Stratfordian views (he believes Shakspere wrote Shakespeare) was puzzled: There is a most extraordinary gulf between the Shakespeare of literature and the Shakespeare of history. An Oxford University scholar has written, The relationship between an artists
Brian Jarvis
Page 10
06/08/2003
biography and his writings is always a difficult subject, but with Shakespeare there can be no other writer since the invention of printing for whom we are able to demonstrate any relationship at all. A historian has said, Since Shakespeares death, in 1616, he has been subjected to the greatest battery of organised research that has ever been directed upon a single person. Armies of scholars have examined all the documents that could possibly have contained a mention of his name... with no incontrovertible proof of anything. A slight exaggeration: towards the END of the 1700s - not from Shakespeares death - a scholarly clergyman based near Stratford searched but could find neither books nor evidence of Shakespeare in the county. That was the start of the Shakespeare problem. In succinct metaphysical manner, another writer said recently that The sheer sweep and majesty of his writings reflect such extraordinary depth, scope, perception, humanity and wisdom. They give us entry into an oceanic mind and heart that seem too universal to be attributed to any one individual. Such talent or talents give us access to the universal, and does this platform not leave behind the claim of orthodoxy or heretical? We, and those of Court and refinement in the more expensive gallery seats of Shakespeares time, CAN appreciate the universal dimensions of the writings.
Conversely, a humorous anti-Stratfordian author wrote an article about Thirty Six Plays in Search of an Author !
So today, the Authorship Mystery is declared real by the anti-Stratfordians (those who believe that one starting point: A. N. Other or maybe a small collaboration of writers, wrote Shakespeare). They claim that the Stratfordians (believing vehemently in one author, or maybe, just maybe, one with a bit of collaboration) have denied, ignored, ridiculed or trivialised the subject. Yet Stratfordian laughter is not unexpected when 40 or more Elizabethans are now included in the heretic list of possible authors of/contributors to the real Shakespeare. The Stratfordian case, for one Shakespeare only, rests considerably on statements made in and inferences from the First Folio printing of 1623. (It is said that their orthodoxy in Shakespeare, as in a conventional religious or spiritual system envisioning mans dependence, or indeed Being, on a higher world, cannot permit of any revision under any circumstances). The Heretics might remind us that TRUTH contains and is beyond such man-made limitations and that a considerable international Shakespeare Industry has grown up, retaining the illusion (by inertia?) of Shakespeare the genius as sole author of the canon and the poetry.
Brian Jarvis
Page 11
06/08/2003
Rather dismissively, the Stratfordians describe their opponents as misguided, skeptics even impractical mystics; their viewpoint is firm: The burden of proof lies with those who wish to discredit the Bard. That oft dismissive tone used by the Stratfordians is summed up in Sir Sidney Lees 1898 put-down that Mark Twain was the idiosyncratic American humourist unfit to comment on literary history. Twain had published a four page anti-biography of all the KNOWN facts about Shakespeare. And had added that biographies of Shakespeare were constructed layer on layer of conjecture, supposition, inference, theory, maybe, perhaps, doubtless, and guesses... Lees biographical opus Life of Shakespeare, second edition, ran to 720 pages, and used doubtless some 61 times, raising conjecture to the level of probability. Literary psychologists, baffled, today declare it all an ideological stalemate.
Brian Jarvis
Page 12
06/08/2003
4. The questions arise

So we find that The Shakespeare Wonder is shadowed by The Shakespeare Mystery: accompanied by Cheering doubters and outraged traditionalists Shakspere was Shakespeare the natural genius, an untutored genius emerging from the people to become one of historys most brilliant figures? or was Shakspere a mere front for aristocratic talents whose identities in their time could not be openly publicised? Natural genius, or shadowy nobleman, Shakespeare appeared in a period of tumultuous change in England and its performing environment. He may have begun his playmaking in the 1580s. From 1560 onwards, the new theatre arose in England. James Burbage and family constructed the first permanent theatre, The Theatre, in 1576 in Shoreditch, north of the city walls in London. The artistic phenomenon that was Shakespeare broke upon the theatrical shore like a repeating wave, play after play emerging from the froth after 1592s landmark performance of Henry 6 Part 1 (or Part 2 the performance documentation regarding Hari or Harey or Henery the vi is ambiguous). That shoreline had already been cleaned up ready for him by the pioneering and secularising successes of * Ralph Roister Doister, believed the first new-era original English comedy, written in 1552 by Nicholas Udall, scholar tutor and headmaster; it was a play with a properly constructed plot and probably acted by the Boy-actors of Westminster * the variety and sublety offered by blank verse, developed from Italian verse form and first used in England (around 1554) by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey in his translation of Aeneid * Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton in 1561-2 were the first to use blank verse so dramatically in Gorboduc, mythical King of England, five acts in the style of Seneca (violent dramas of power, passion, murder and madness). The play was written for and performed before Elizabeth; it was then PRINTED in 1570 under his name, Sir Thomas Sackville While this may appear to weaken the conventional wisdom that aristocrats DID NOT publish openly for the new stage, it was however acceptably classical in tenor and before Francis Walsingham and the secret service became strong Shakspere, born 1564, surely saw the earlier, mediaeval-style performances as a boy; Gorboduc, perhaps seen in his youth, would have been one major influence on his lifelong style and idiom * Nathaniel Woodes The Conflict of Conscience, 1568, a wordy, emotional morality play * John Lylys novels Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit (moral prose romance, 1578), and Euphies, and his England (about flawed Englishness, 1580). Lyly was the first among the Six of the University Wits (those marked by a penetrating intelligence and cynical
humour) whose classical education and writing skills raised standards in prose and plays enormously In his playwriting, from the 1580s to 1601 (he died in 1606), he is described as more of an original in many attributes of the playmakers art than Shakespeare. His Alexander and Campaspe in 1584 was notable among the first full-length plays on secular subjects Lyly was the true lead in the first stage of popular Elizabethan drama marked by superb literary quality and his fine balance between classic precedent and romantic freedom. As with Gorboduc, Lylys works would have influenced Shakspere enormously. Lyly paved the way for the University wits * Thomas Kyd, in his The Spanish Tragedy (1587). This was the first in the new and powerful Revenge Tragedies * Kit Marlowe, with his all-conquering Tamburlaine the Great (1587), and the ambitious Doctor Faustus (1589, possibly written, manuscripted and among the cognescenti before Tamburlaine) which included Marlowes celebrated The face that launched a thousand ships; and the The Jew of Malta (1590) * by about the 1550s to 1590, some 30 comedies appeared, but the audiences welcomed the real driving force the big tragedies * Marlowe specialists have said that he was successful in writing blank verse but that even he could not keep a kind of shuttle rhythm out of his lines, a feature mastered by Shakespeare * Marlowe used blank verse, not as normal speech, but to be gorgeous and magnificent, in high sounding terms, achieving sound and fury! If Shakespeare proved more subtle, give credit to Marlowe as front-runner ie Shakespeare saw, heard Marlowe and it influenced him considerably. We might say well done, University-wit Marlowe, even more well done, non-University Shakespeare For his part, Shakespeare in his nine History Plays certainly drew much from the outlines of English Kings within Jean Froissarts Histories 15th c, Robert Fabyans New Chronicles 1516, Halls Union third edition 1550, John Foxes Book of Martyrs fourth edition 1583, and Raphael Holinsheds 1577 and 1587 Chronicles. Scholars say Shakespeare drew on the 1591 publication of The Troublesome Raigne of King John of England (anonymous) and others say Shakespeares play was the source for the book
Brian Jarvis
Page 14
06/08/2003
Many basic and unresolved questions remain of the period before Shakespeares success began, and continue into his life: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. What might he have been taught at grammar school? Was he an apprentice actor locally from mid-teens? When did his first playmaking start? Was there poetry-writing from his youth? What influences helped in his further education? Where was he in the Lost Years, say 1580 to 1592? What influences helped expansion towards his massive vocabulary, creation of new words and extraordinary, free-flowing imagination and flexible writing skills? Did a great man come to his aid during his youth? When did he meet with aristocracy ? When did he first experience Court circles? When did he arrive in London? When and how was he influenced by University wits? Are his Works really devoid of his identity, personality, ego? What powered his seemingly limitless energy (36 or more plays and poetry, and the Sonnets, and acting and business matters)? How did he become so wealthy? It intrigues... was he a well rewarded genius, and only later, a major sharer, in an exploding theatrical marketplace? Performances in the new, large theatres in London attracted audiences of 2-3,000 people, up to five times a week? OR was he a non-entity, a moderately talented servant and actor sharp and well-bribed; who then invested his own money continually and wisely?
If he left Stratford at 16 to 20 (1584), he would have had no funds. By 1597 he is able to buy the large New Place house in Stratford for 60 (at the values of his time); in 1602 he bought 100 acres of arable land locally for 320, and bought a cottage; in 1605 he invested 440 in another land deal; and in 1613 spent 140 on a house in London. In 16 years, there were investment deals, safe and bringing in financial returns, worth in his values nearly 1,000. Todays comparable value, our pound/Elizabethan pound, ranges from 156/hundreds of pounds per Elizabethan pound. A figure is bandied about, that in one of his best years, Shakespeare earned 163 (in the value of his time). That equates to 163 in1590 having todays purchasing power of 25,000; in 1613 his 163 would be worth 18,300 today. All is speculation, we know no more than this guestimation. But Shakspere, who might have been Shakespeare, was indeed a businessman as well as the theatrical genius. As he matured, from youth, he surely missed nothing of value and took in much in his theatrical and living environment; just as he missed few opportunities as a keen, careful businessman, making few errors. Steadily, he became more wealthy. Author comment: All these questions and speculations are raised, but most have no really satisfactory answer . The superabundance of opinions, theories and beliefs mushrooming today is an academics paradise! And a jungle of often fallacious arguments and circular reasoning, accidental and deliberate, is now in thick, tangled bloom. Inevitably, queries and comments will flourish about this web-site!
Brian Jarvis
Page 15
06/08/2003
An American lawyer and Shakespeare specialist said 40 years ago that scholars help us understand the language of Shakespeare and can answer literary questions but identity is both literary AND a question of evidence. The competence and validity of evidence of authorship is, perhaps, therefore, maybe, please excuse my insistence! the province of lawyers? Shakespeares own precise legal words would question much of todays evidence about his Mystery and Identity. PLEASE explore the Internet for others answers. And continue to develop your appreciation on: WHY do the Works attributed to the Bard or unknown others - have so much magic and impact on readers, listeners and viewers? Why the Works are so acceptable even today, even with some of the vocabulary antique and only uncovered with a Glossary?
Brian Jarvis
Page 16
06/08/2003
5. Your choice of beliefs

Shakspere Wrote Shakespeare * that Shakspere wrote Shakespeare: he was a genius, arising with other writing talents just after Elizabeths reign began, and as Theatre began to demonstrate a new professionalism with the passing of the old religious, constantly moralizing traditions - the Morality plays, Mystery plays and Mummers plays; and the strolling players public performances, dependent on the goodwill of the local mayor; and the rewarding but byinvitation performances for the rich and nobility. Shakspere was not alone, but one of many accomplished new poets, word-craftsmen with dramatic minds, well versed in the mores hominum, ways of mankind and in the ways of effective theatre; and that he was no Robert Greene, to sink hedonistic into dissolute death, but a practical, solid Taurean businessman who, Stratfordians believe, excelled and became rich and successful through his own literary genius and sure-touch in money matters AND his long association with the Lord Chamberlains Men.
An aristocrat wrote Shakespeare * that someone else wrote Shakespeare using Shakspere and his name, say the antiStratfordians: the aristocratic Francis Bacon, or the equally-noble Earls of Oxford, Derby, Rutland, or the very talented Countess of Pembroke? None (of the aristocracy) would wish/dare to be openly associated in Court with such disdainful activities - disfavour would harm themselves, family, reputation or advancement. Anonymity was one path, but not one that ego could easily accept. Offer it to a theatre management anonymously and, if the supply of anonymous plays continued, SOMEONE in management must have known identity. Humans love gossip and in the theatres insecurities, especially so! Secrets of this kind are not kept anonymous. And thus chosen as a front man, the mere actor/occasional writer Shakspere would gratefully act as a go-between, accept their writings, their patronage and their secret payments (and his own greater earnings, as his theatrical prosperity increased) for use of his name thus. However, against this is the fact that the rustic front-man is unlikely to be an authority figure during rehearsals and in face of actors demands for explanation/direction. It would have so easily become an open secret known in so many quarters. Shakspere as collaborator, then a patron appeared * that for a while, say from 1585, he worked as the author-beginner among the new band of professionals who arose from after 1570 - the University Wits - Lyly, Lodge, Peele, Greene, Nashe, Marlowe; and those of lesser education the grammarians: Kyd and Shakspere/Shakespeare, Chettle and the later Jonson, Decker and Fletcher. BUT collaboration, between the young Shakspere and thewits was, according to divided scholarly opinion today, surely a non-starter. He was influenced by Lyly and Peele, then Kyd and Marlowe. All these poet-playmaker-writers were toiler, factotum, poorly esteemed, poorly rewarded, whatever their education, Cambridge or Oxford, or the grammar school. Many minds may be detected in the plays attributed to Shakspere, but acceptance of HIS rising genius in his time was grudging and jealousy certain. It was - as indeed was the sub-stratum of the Elizabethan period alive, imaginative, assertive, expansionist, but also a veritable poisonous, rivalrous environment. Greene,
from 1587 and Nashe from 1589, were always envious, spiteful and vindictive, particularly in 1592 to the upstart crow, Shakspere, patronising his betters. How sad, in that Greene was inventive, a good writer, better than his subsequent reputation. Lyly and Lodge were pointedly in other directions (Lyly associated closely with the Earl of Oxford, Lodge with Peele and Greene). Peele was associated with Greene, and Marlowe was his own secret. Chettle spoke warmly on Shakespeare but the others were young on the scene. Shakspere, perhaps five years with a troupe, learning and practising his acting and playmaking, and now permanent in London, was apparently alone. A rising genius... some praise arising, but also jealousy rampant. Today theories of collaboration are fraught with opinion, theory, invention pressed into, as its own evidence, unevidenced, even imaginary.... True, an insatiable demand for new plays resulted in some serial collaboration; out of the classical past came the reworking of old plays, and new ideas and material taken up from any literary source there was no copyright. Shakspere may or may not, in his early days, have been the final author but he needed SOME help? True, he borrowed, such practices were rife and he would have been no exception, at the beginning. He borrowed from George Gascoigne, for The Taming of A Shrew, then The Shrew (the plot BiancaLucentio); Gascoignes work was based on Ariostos I Suppositi, in turn finding sources in Plautus and Terence. There is little real evidence, except the reading of the tea-leaves, truth often comes by graceful intuition. Shakspere/Shakespeare was diligent, persistent and conscientious as a reviser of his work. If we accept him as a young, developing genius, there would have been, later in his career, surely no need for collaboration except briefly with Fletcher. The success of Henry VI, 1 or 2 whatever, a total of some 10,000 attendances March to April1592, saw Shakespeare outdo Marlowes Tamburlaine. If no patron before this, there would have been one then? But, surely, before and during this enormous breakthrough, there was a hidden patron? No man is an island. If there was no one supporting collaborator, much might be due to his first patron, either financially or intellectually? And had that relationship begun earlier? The dedications on the narrative poems published in 1593 and 1994 posit that the patron might well have been Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton (there is rumour of 1,000 gift x 156 or more in todays values). Venus and Adonis received no intimation of disfavour - it was not withdrawn in ten re-printings over ten years afterwards. But, note, both my Lord Oxford and the brilliant Bacon were connected with Southampton.
Shakspere as willing conspirator and outlet * that one patron/organiser acted as the channel and hidden director for a small group of talented aristocratic writers, fearful of exposure (though often funding their own theatrical troupes!), who supplied playscripts and poetry offered to the exceptionally talented Shakspere who adjusted their efforts to meet his own imaginative and theatre standards, and incorporated all within his own plays.
Brian Jarvis
Page 18
06/08/2003
And seeming praise of him as Our English Terence is doubled-edged in that Terence, the impoverished Roman writer, was suspected of passing off works by aristocrats under his own name. Terence in fact was often used to refer to hidden Roman poets, much seeking anonymity as did Elizabethan nobles. Shakspere/Shakespeare retired a rich man continuing his cloak of anonymity. To the anti-Stratfordians, but unproven, his career had been that of a hired hack (as for the most part, film writers were in Hollywoods 1920s to 1950s). Whatever, his efforts were very well rewarded: as he had noted in his later use of For they say, if money goes before, all ways do lie open which must have been his philosophy and comfort in being able to buy the mansion New Place, Stratford after only say nine or ten years work. And echoed Bacons belief: Money is like manure, of very little use except it be spread. Later, not to be left out, Mozart said that Money, after good health, is the best thing to have.
Shakspere groomed for stardom * that Shakspere was singled out early on as a young poet and dramatic writer of superior quality; that he was educated and groomed for stardom; that he was an apprenticeship actor, during which he developed play ideas and plays; that people noticed his innate, universal wisdom; and all were brought under one over-arching aim, in which he and his mentor and financier agreed, and on which they never fell out: his talent was freely acknowledged, and he agreed to his literary consciousness being directed under an even larger, more stellar intellect than his own.... He intended to use drama to bring the world, inner and outer, upon the stage, is one modern view of intention. Imagination is the eye of the mind. It is the work of imagination to receive information from the senses, so as to present it to the reason, and then when reason has made its judgement and decision, to convey that decree to the Will, which ensures the action. This is Shakspere/Shakespeare speaking? No, it is Francis Bacon. Truth is ancient and modern. Indeed, eternal for Mankind. If either man knew of the Vedas, ancient knowledge of India, they could not have translated Minds environment better. The plays of Shakspere/Shakespeare reflect it, Bacon wrote the outline.
Brian Jarvis
Page 19
06/08/2003
6. Candidates for Shakespeare

Mark Twain said Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare but by someone else of the same name. Another humourist believes that Bacon supplied the plots, Oxford the poetry and Shakespeare the jokes! In Shakespeares canon, in his Sonnets, in his two narrative poems, say sensitive critics, it is possible to hear many voices and detect many minds. These contributions encompass many levels of knowledge from the lower and base to the higher and finest, the human, the universal, the divine. That may be just fanciful: the mechanics of mind mean we often hear what we want to hear, and one mans egos delusions are anothers arguments against. Quite a few areas of his plays contain uneven writing, poor writing, hurried writing read into all that what you may, but undoubtedly, the talent and genius that produced 36 plays in 25 or so years surely had its off-days. He was writing, maybe collaborating for the stage, for his acting troupe, and not for posterity: it must have been a pressure-cauldron what with researching and writing, memorising, acting and directing , meeting deadlines, and of course never forgetting his interests in business as he steadily gathered wealth. So many different names have been claimed serious contenders as Author of Shakespeares Works... and one critical giant in todays literary world of Shakespeareana has confessed, just a year or two ago, that after decades of study and writing and teaching, still I find the enigma insoluble. Lets explore just a few names of those whom many see as the real Shakespeare and determine why the Mystery seems as dense as ever. Francis Bacon, born into aristocracy and who eventually achieved office under Elizabeth and high office under James 1 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, another of high aristocratic line, who was well educated, poet and playmaker Christopher Marlowe, Shakespeares contemporary playwright, equally revered but who died/did not die? too early William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, was well educated and well travelled and had knowledge of literature and theatre Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland, well educated and well travelled, was young for Shakespeare? but knew court life and Denmark well Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, poetess with equal talent as patroness of many leading poets and writers (And, as an example of the other 40 as claimants, there has been, in recent years, a persuasive argument made for Sir Edward Dyer as the hidden Shakespeare. The flaw, again, as with de Vere, is that he died early, in 1607).
Brian Jarvis
Page 20
06/08/2003
Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor (b. 1561 d. 1626) aged 65.

He could well have had some guiding role over the man Shakspere and was quite capable of organising a flow of anonymous aristocratic writings for the brilliant young playmaker to turn into quality and performable plays. A lawyer of aristocratic birth, a child prodigy, of a comprehensive education, he was superbly well-connected, moving among most of the great families, and knowing everyones secrets. He loved being in the centre of intrigue and scheming and planning. Some describe Bacon was a wise and compassionate man, others seem him as cold and calculating, even a man with a dual, even split-mind, because he related all to his unshakable objectives and great, universal ideas. Friends knew him also as a warm heart, combining merry jest with silent gravity. He was naturally a schemer, capable of following two opposing courses of action and finding credit and the practical in both. (After Lord Essex had been most generous to Bacon, for many years, Bacon acted in prosecution of Essex for disloyalty to the Queen; however, the other side of that coin is that he Bacon was unaware of any planned armed rebellion 200 soldiers carrying weapons marching through London; Bacon refused to countenance that)). He was very capable of seeing truth at its rawest: Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. Truth lies beyond scientist and artist. Great men keep away from the weak passion of (human) love. In the theatre of human affairs, it is only for gods and angels to be spectators. He aimed to free the Elizabethan, Jacobean royal Courts, Universities even Europe of the Aristotelian scholasticism theology of all its medieval authority. He saw himself as inventor-to-be of rational, scientific methods and a system which would eventually disclose and bring into sight all that is most hidden and secret in the universe. He believed the way forward was that of inductive science finding proof, proof, proof before theory. It is seen today as naive science grounded on a crude, limited observation of Nature how could it be otherwise at that time? But he is credited with the breakthrough; the original thinking and analysis, and perceptions which are undeniable. Away from these obsessional viewpoints, he was host and patron to poets and writers at his house in Twickenham, mysteriously a gift from Queen Elizabeth. In matters literary, he saw himself as affected by divine inspiration and illumination. It is said that Jonson, after Shakespeares death, was a regular helper, even literary assistant to Bacon for a while (he was also served by Thomas Hobbes in his last years). Bacons Twickenham Scriptorum encouraged writers, poets, playmakers to stay and receive his counsel, AND provide an output of labours, mainly Essays, for his use. Unproven, but such could well have augmented his own flow of ideas to one Shakspere? All see Bacon the philosopher, thinker, visualiser, as a star of proven idealism and virtually universal viewpoints, of unyielding concentration on the achievement of well-considered goals, and brilliant with many talents, shining with the power of mind and marvellous persuasiveness in expression. He and Philip Sidney were both in their age particular though very different examples of Renaissance-man. Sidneys aim was to help stimulate a humanistic refined and committed Protestant patriotic aristocracy. Bacon saw his inductive method as not only a renovation of
science and philosophy, but also as the work of divine providence, part of a larger scheme, a vast unfolding, a great instauration of learning and liberation (instauration is renewal, beginning afresh). Bacons perception was identical to that described by the ancient Vedic seers, who saw the entire universe as illusion, produced by maya. Mans work involved opposites, good and evil, in seeing and becoming truth. So Bacons goals were broader, deeper and agreed assessment is that he was possibly the only genius who could have written Shakespeare, or seriously influenced the writing of the canon. Bacon was well traveled, and a very mature 31, when Shakespeare first appeared on the London scene with his apparent major breakthrough, the first performance of Henry 6 Part 1 (there is argument over this, Hari or Harey the vi : Part 1 or Part II?). At that moment, 1592, the future Lord Chancellor of England, Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans, was an MP seeking his fortune. Bacon, aristocrat, struggled for wealth and position until middle age, several times in debt, several times jailed and quickly rescued by relatives. There is no evidence that Bacon and Shakspere ever met. For several years, as Shakespeare grew in success from 1592, Bacon was reportedly in several minds as to continuing within law and politics - as nothing was seemingly opening up for him as he desired - or to pursue his literary bent and philosophy/science. He went on to achieve much in both areas, particularly in the literary field. He was finally rewarded with several Court government posts, before reaching the top of the countrys legal profession as Lord Chancellor. And eventually failing again, forced to retire some say fitted up politically but obedient to the Kings wishes because of the allegation of taking bribes (quietly acceptable to many judges in those times). Later, perhaps convenient to the Bacon reputation, a servant admitted taking bribes and swore Bacon knew nothing of this. Even Bacons defence of that failing was brilliant put and, of course, comprising two differing lines of persuasion! His earliest notes were in 1582, on The State of Christendom, after his travels. He was 32 when his Birth of Times Essay was published, in 1593. A volume of Essays (eventually there were 58), the Table of Colours of Good and Evil, and the Sacred Meditations, appeared published by 1597. His government report on The Virginia Colony was made in 1609. Other works afterwards, actual publication dates variable up to his death 1626, include The Advancement and Proficience of Learning 1605; the Instauration Magna/ Novum Organum (possibly begun in 1589); Wisdom of the Ancients 1609; Description of the Intellectual Globe, 1612; De Dignitate & Augmentis Scientiarum (Latin translation of Advancement); The New Atlantis 1623; Apothegms in 1624. There were many other works many published after his death - all helping to emphasise that this was a man so rare in knowledge... expressed in so choice and ravishing a way with words... This was a man who constantly thought in metaphors. He perceived analogies that indeed evoked superb metaphors and similes, expressed effortlessly. To Jonson, himself no mean wordsmith nor a man of humble eloquence, Bacon was an oratorical god.
Bacons poetic writings are analysed as not similar to Shakespeares. Though of great elegance, they do not seem of the same mind, in detailed emotional intelligence, as the phenomenon Shakespeares peculiarities. He among several thinkers of his time, saw the universe as a problem to be examined, meditated upon and solved, not as an externally fixed stage upon which man walked. (It reminds of Shakespeares In Natures infinite book of secrecy, a little I can read. soothsayer, Antony and Cleopatra). His Great Instauration proposed that every subject the human mind could apprehend was to be categorised and their truths established by direct observation from Nature. This is seen as, among several great aims, a founding statement at the time - for modern science. However, to attempt to see him as the full-time, complete Shakespeare might well deny his other, more realistic role: the man who achieved his own goals INCLUDING the one that might have ensured Shakspere of Stratford achieved his deserved destiny, too. He had specific goals from his youth, one aspect of one of them, in particular, is explored in this sites Summing Up: that was the Fourth Part of his Great Instauration (the regeneration of the highest educational standards and learning via a distinctly Baconian path). It was outlined, picturing what experts consider an environment of theatre and stage for completion. It was, apparently, not undertaken under Bacons name. There, in the Summing Up of this website, you may find a challenging presumption of involvement!
Additional notable points * Bacon represents elitist-intellectual approach of many anti-Stratfordians in the mystery of the Shakespeare authorship * He venerated Pallas Athena, one description of whom is Goddess of Knowledge who (and this assertion not proven) shakes her spear and causes the darkness of ignorance to retreat * His religious view was : There is no other true religion than to meditate on the Universe and give thanks to the Creator. (Einstein put his religious understanding as a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law) * Some 200 pages have been found of parallel thoughts, phrases and expressions which occur in the writings of Shakespeare and Bacon. They include studies, quotations, opinions, identical expressions, metaphors, unusual words, errors, styles and characters * His Promus or personal storehouse-workbook was particularly interesting. Its 1,500 formularies and elegancies were dated 1594/95 (on two of the pages) but conceivably jotted down by him (and transferred to the Promus later?) probably from 1584 after becoming a barrister and an M.P - and in aid of his oratory?
Brian Jarvis
Page 23
06/08/2003
* They include aphorisms, Bible texts, special phrases, forms of greeting and proverbs in Latin, English and many other languages * However, love of words bonded all Elizabethan and Jacobean writers and meant that they often developed, used similar expressions; many are in the notebooks of the poets, writers, playmakers of Shakespeares time * But the questions arise, in the face of parallel quotations, such as Bacons Be so true to thyself as thou be not false to others is so poetically philosophic as Shakespeares To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man (Polonius, Hamlet). * Yet Bacon was not a man of sporting pastimes. Shakespeare surely was, or we have to explain his country knowledge - from archery to angling, falconry to fox-hunting, a dozen different activities. So, Bacon as sole author? but one who knows not his subject? * There is a painting which depicts the death of Adonis, gored by a wild boar: the subject of the Shakespeare narrative poem Venus and Adonis. It is not in Stratford, but in St Albans, in an ancient hotel, near the home of Bacon. * Bacon was very close to his brother Anthony who was an honoured guest at the Court of Navarre (Loves Labours Lost, written approx 1589-91) and was close to the Court life, there for five-six years. He returned to London by 1591. Francis and Anthony were close and corresponded all their lives. * In the First Folio, 1623, when Bacon was alive, Heminges and Condell expressed the wish that the Author himself had lived to have set forth and overseen his own writings. As Shakespeare had died seven years previously, could Bacon have written Shakespeare and allowed this? * Or unless Shakspere was co- or often primary-playmaker and had earned his recognition, and Bacon, though in retirement, of course would not involve himself and claim anything at that time? * His answer might well have been: let sleeping dogs lie the main objective (fulfilling the need of the Fourth Part of his Great Instauration) was comfortably underway towards achievement... just how many attendances at performances of Shakespeare plays had there been 1590 1612 or to 1616? True the population of London may have been 200,000 220,000. True, Shakespeares plays were part of broad programmes of plays by different playmakers undertaken by the different troupes at different theatres. But with repeat attendances by enthusiasts, audiences in London up to 3,000 per performance, AND tours in the country ? It may not be too fanciful to claim in all several million attendances? * Yet this great universal mind had closure at times, weaknesses. Bacon as early scientist was unaware of many of the new developments of his Age - the work of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Napiers logarithms, Harveys blood circulation, Gilberts De Magnete empirical research
Brian Jarvis
Page 24
06/08/2003
* But he is credited with several firsts - the primary notion of experimentation expressly formulated and situations seen and reported with great clarity - the discovery and re-discovery of the truth * Bacon and his brother Anthony were believed by many as homosexual - the Greek vice, as it was known, something other or more than platonic love and something many see indicated in Shakespeares Sonnets. Yet a love affair, between Francis Bacon and Marguerite de Valois, is also spoken of
Brian Jarvis
Page 25
06/08/2003
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (b.1550) d. 1604 aged 54. He has for some time
presented a most interesting and challenging case to be the hidden Shakespeare. His case is put by the Oxfordians with great power, depth and persuasiveness. It is seen as a strong claim, that de Vere was the secret Shakespeare. There are two principal claims for Oxford: first the impressive cumulative effect of the parallels between Oxfords life and Shakespeares Works; second, the extent and specificity of the direct references to Oxfords life and concerns throughout the poems and plays. As with Bacons case to be the alternative Shakespeare, there have been so many incidents, aspects, references, coincidences and parallels discovered by scholars under research which point up a very strong connection Oxford-to-Shakespeare. Oxford was a high aristocrat and classically educated; he moved among the educated noble families. He was cultivated and of pronounced literary tastes, and a notable lyrical poet. He was well traveled and always fashionably dressed (not for nothing was he known as the Italian Earl after his return from the Continent). He was also a lover of music and falconry, and had many other interests; he was also a patron to many. Oxford is claimed to have mastered the majority of the accomplishments in knowledge and understanding, innate and gained from experience, that Shakespeares Works display. Nashe (not exactly friendly to Shakspere) said de Vere had one of the best, cleverest of wits in England. If you read a little of the poems accorded Oxford, there is a similarity with Shakespeares flow. However, a discerning poet has said that the emotional range, intensity and intellectual toughness of the best of Shakespeares Sonnets are not in evidence. However, for Oxfords poetry there was, some say, praise for more than thirty years. He was so versatile in exploring and developing many different metrical and stanzaic forms. Oxfords initials were found on many anthologies of poetry during Elizabeths long reign. But, perhaps more to the point, he was status-conscious, proud, sought recognition for his successes, determined to have his way, intolerant of upstarts, and would surely never have allowed another to gain credit of HIS plays or his poetry. That would have been a personal affront. Thus, the dedication to Southampton, fronting Shakespeares Venus and Adonis surely would not have been penned by de Vere as Shakespeare: to dedicate to a relative, a mere youngster... it could not have been considered! One author gathered this description: The Earl of Oxford was short in stature, ever ready to feel slighted, he was moody, rebellious, quarrelsome and dissolute. Oxford was a puzzle to his generation. Creative yes, and eccentric but, argue his supporters, the poet in him would encompass and display varied moods, fierce passions, subtle movements in mind and heart, his words sometimes seeming extraordinary and inexplicable, of knowledge and insight and understanding of which he may not speak? (Looney, pronounced Lowney, 1920). The poetic genius has more or less always been a man apart.
Brian Jarvis
Page 26
06/08/2003
Maybe true, but, reflecting on his Oxfords works, few if any specialists will agree that they suggest mysterious depths of conscious knowledge (as with the four levels of knowledge and understanding that those, of mystical philosophic and advancement in higher consciousness, see in the Works of Shakespeare). That is a rather mysterious and provocative comment, these four levels of knowledge, and not one likely to be given much consideration by todays theatre audiences just thoroughly enjoying their Shakespearean treat ! AND YET... as a modern, scholastic research enthusiast published on the web, recently, I have found de Veres candidacy difficult to drop, he turns up at every juncture in the investigation. Why is Oxfords personality and temperament important? Perhaps because there is no sign that while suffering from his many defects that he ever transcended them. The author Shakespeare abounds with universal qualities, which interpenetrate and underpin the life within the plays of Shakespeare... the quality of mercy... being nonjudgemental... showing a constant forgiveness... Late in his life, Oxford fell out with several friends, who accused him publicly of many crimes under the heading of broad, undesirable behaviour; one remembers this was a Golden Age of literary endeavours but rampant with rivalries, disputes, a heightened sense of false personal honour, very powerful jealousies and unforgiving hatreds. Though de Vere possessed infelicitous characteristics (even Shakspere/ Shakespeare has been evidenced negatively from few facts as being snobbish, pennypinching, neglectful of family, rude and unpopular), there is no reason why inherent genius prevented the Earl of Oxford from the writing of immortal dramas. However, Oxfordians on the whole still see de Vere as the ideal candidate. His story, in all its variety, and all that is known of his literary prowess, conforms to the mind and capacity and character of Shakespeare. His generosity, though questioned as overabundant, funded patronage to projects literary, religious, philosophic; to science, medicine and music. And that patronage, together with poor even inept management and fiscal judgement of his estates, both led to financial humiliation. So the cracks in the authorship edifice are there, to be seen. They can be summed up as with all the candidates - in terms of lack of incontrovertible evidence, and the fact he, de Vere, died in 1604, nine or ten plays before Shaksperes apparent retirement. Oxford, in the earlier decades, was patron to not one but possibly two troupes of players, and he held the lease of the Blackfriars Theatre, London, for a while from 1584. He and Lyly are envisaged as staging performances there of both their plays, and before the royal Court, using both his Companies, Mens and Boys. His own playwriting cannot be examined, however, as none have survived. If he wanted anonymity in his own playwriting activities, he could easily have hidden such activities under the name of one of his own players or Lyly. Why write as Shakespeare using the man Shakspere?
It is difficult to accept that many major plays by Shakespeare, performed or published AFTER that date, 1604, had in fact been written in the years before, yet not known or performed, just stored away for future usage. Oxfordians say they, the later plays, were in fact written well before de Veres death, and were brought up to performance standard and published by his followers in theatre. Supporting the group of writers theory in which Oxford was accorded leader and chief playmaker and his son-in-law Derby a contributor is the mysterious annual allowance of 1,000 a year granted Oxford by Elizabeth. It was paid out a special government fund and continued until he died, James 1 continuing it after Elizabeth was buried. Some say it was to help Oxford organise and administer a department of propaganda to maintain and raise the populaces patriotic sentiments and goodwill to the Crown. Some say that, because of his financial disasters and losses, this huge gift was to help him maintain a style according to his ancient familys high visibility and respect in Court and country. There is no evidence that there was such a specific department, or group writings under the name Shakespeare, or the bolstering up of the Oxford name. Additional notable points * The 17th Earls family history dates back to 1066 and so he represents the social-elitist stratum for theorists about the true identity of Shakespeare * Oxfords Men performed in Stratford in 1583, when Shakspere was 19 * A conspiracy of silence, over his authorship, is claimed ( ie de Vere as Shakespeare, as with Bacon as Shakespeare). It is explained in that gradually with each succeeding generation, the secret was simply forgotten * de Vere, it is said, built puns on his name, and the family motto, in the plays: he used every word he could find that would tell his name to the discerning * In several references de Vere is described as the best of the poets at Court in the early period of Elizabeths reign * Yet his poems, 25 of which survive in his name, do not equate to the great inventive harmonies of Shakespeares Sonnets, say specialists * Inference drawn from Sonnet 125 is that de Vere (Shakespeare) helped to bear and support the Queens Canopy in the Armada victory celebration * Shakespeares Sonnets 62, 73 and 138 give inference that an older man was author; Shakspere was mid-late twenties when the Sonnets, conventionally dated, were believed written *When Shakspere was but 14, writer Gabriel Harvey praised de Veres prowess in tournaments/ the family coat of arms with Thy countenance shakes a spear
* Oxfords Geneva Bible, like Bacons Promus, contains hundreds of phrases and verses highlighted, marked off 29 of which are used as Biblical allusions in the Shakespeare plays (which had 66 in all) * Hamlet offers so many parallels to Oxfords life and family history. Polonius in Hamlet is comparable to Oxfords (live) guardian, Elizabeths prime minister William Cecil, Lord Burghley. In that play, the character as did the live statesman (both) issued good advice or maxims which are incredibly similar: Polonius to son Laertes and Burghley to son Thomas * Both Hamlet and Oxford killed a man; and a terse summing up of other facts of Oxfords life is similar to that which one writer sees, and sums up, as the life of Bertram as depicted in Alls Well That Ends Well * However, would de Vere, even if facing illuminating truth about his own character, have acknowledged, and written about himself as Bertram, as once a caddish, immature young nobleman, with few saving graces, as one literary figure phrased it recently? * The Earl of Oxford married and wandered from his marriage bed; and there is rumour of at least one homosexual affair; one of his troupes was Oxfords Boys; as with Bacon, sexuality is mentioned arising out of the Sonnets * de Vere died possibly of plague, in 1604, at his palace in Hackney, and was buried in either the local churchyard, OR, suggests a later writer, in Westminster Abbey * When Oxfords wife died, nine years after her husband, it is reported that King James ordered that more than 10 Shakespeare plays be performed at Court; this is not explained.
Brian Jarvis
Page 29
06/08/2003
Christopher Marlowe, playwright, (b. 1564, the same year as Shakspere, d. 1593
just as Shakespeare materialised). Marlowe was 29 when he died, except that he didnt die and HE wrote Shakespeare thereafter. As a claim for authorship, it is described as an elaborate hoax on the part of the aristocracy. It is an extraordinary claim, based on several presumptive assertions that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare BEFORE 1593, and that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare AFTER 1593, and that Shakspere was a provincial nonentity, some-time actor and scribbler. Shakspere was not a University wit, not tutored in further education, and someone who could not possibly have gone on from 1593 to produce a further flow of plays successful and worthy of genius. And that Marlowe was a paid spy, in the governments pocket and willing pridelessly to hide away and accept this secondary, anonymous role after years of adulation! Mind you, Marlowe was the son of a humble village cobbler and his attaining University was a fine, substantial step in his education. But hardly to his personal development. He was roisterous and boisterous, blasphemer, drunk, pederast and still a lyrical dramatic genius on that dramatic side, he is often seen today as OTT (over the top). His rapid success and an either uncaring or egotistical understanding that he was indeed the real bridge between medieval and modern in Elizabethan terms and therefore very special, leader of the new wave in theatre, could have virtually unhinged anyone hence his dark delusions leading into entrapment and employment by the Elizabeth/Walsingham secret service, and all the blind often dangerous alleys that ego fascinates us into. Though some realistically today see his Works as over-rated, his life and talent were spectacular and he is the truly professional candidate in this great Detective Story. His productive, high quality imaginative work is illustrated by his Cambridge career. From there emerged Doctor Faustus, a secular and metaphysical vision of a seeker after truth selling his soul to the Devil. Questions arose why Marlowe, an atheist not believing in heaven or hell, worked so hard to depict so convincingly mans hell under the controlling limitations of divine law? It was performed in London, while he was at Cambridge. If Marlowe didnt believe in hell, and the play was not autobiographical, then the dramatic picture he painted, it was said, could be only as a result of tortured visions or a magnificent creative imagination? (Such questions were asked later, about Shakespeare, particularly with the Sonnets: actual experience or the abundant, fertile imagination of the true poet?) Remarkable poetry and dramatic power inherent in Doctor Faustus, despite an illconstructed storyline, affected the actors and well as audiences some of each even seeing devils in the place of performance. At Dulwich, goes the story, Ned Alleyn playing Faustus was so shaken he decided there and then to found a College to God... and, true to his word, later Dulwich College came into being. Then in 1587 came Marlowes Tamburlaine the Great, blazing poetry and un-coherent construction yet 200 performances in London, the people-stunning event that truly broke with the past and opened the future: it went on into that long run... influencing appreciative, and (word of mouth publicity) waiting-to-be informed/transfixed audiences... Marlowe was this atheistic gracer of tragedies, the genius, the mysterious the ultimate ghostwriter if he had lived and become Shakespeare.
But WHY write Shakespeare? It makes more sense that he contribute to his rivals expanding canon? In the glow of his (Marlowes) current successes... by offering largesse AND thus influencing more audiences? Many of Shakespeares plays and Sonnets, and even outlines of Venus, and Lucrece, might well have been completed by Shakspere from 1587-92, but slow to be staged or known. But WHY would Marlowe have written them, under alias? His own name, garlanded with provocative artistry was grand and secure - why would Marlowe have allowed them out not under HIS name before/by his death in 1593? Could it have been that Shakesperes potential attracted Marlowes jealousy? Were aristocratic names being bandied about, promising the less difficult, more attractive and witty Shakespeare favour and support? Concluding the Marlowe career... from Faustus, the The Jew of Malta, to the Massacre at Paris, his successes resounded before and during Shakespeares emergence. His last play, Edward II, was, say the modern knowledgeable, his best near perfect. He impacted on audiences ferociously, but the Works of the truly gifted Shakespeare were equally impactful and offered even greater dimensions in subtlety and sensitivity, and in spirituality (as Marlowe was an avowed, active atheist?). Whatever truth, Shakspere who followed the great literary and playmaker Marlowe would have been grateful. His early Titus Andronicus owes much to Marlowe (and Kyd). How sad, as it has been noted, that in 1593, Marlowe died with half his music and cosmography in him.
Additional notable points * Marlowe was a brilliant writer, a seasoned professional, and a tempestuous character, rather than a noble sensitive dilettante * His writing style can be analysed, on the basis of known works published. This was done and, just maybe, similarities Shakespeare-Marlowe can be attributed, ascribed to the aspirant Stratford mans admiring competitiveness * The Mendenhall system, applied to the writing of Marlowe and Shakespeare, based on a regular word-length which all writers theoretically display, demonstrated an astounding, almost EXACT match, just not found with others * In fact, when applied to Bacon-Shakespeare, the statistical test involving examination in both cases of 200,000 words, showed that Bacon used far longer word-lengths. Yet, of all these great names, Bacon had in his Promus the only working notebook extant to us * As we would say, today, not exactly space-science, but interesting, in both cases
Brian Jarvis
Page 31
06/08/2003
William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (1561-1642) was 81 when he died, and he had lived
through the Shakespeare period. He was well connected with players and theatre, at first through his brother Ferdinandos company (the Lord Stranges Men) which became his own, after the death of the 5th Earl, his brother. Yet the 6th Earls interest with players and theatre is believed from his youth, and was strengthened with involvement with the family Company on his return to this country in 1587 when 26. At 38, the Earl was reportedly busied only in penning commodities for the common players, which might explain why he apparently did not join the military campaigns in Ireland and the Low Countries, though nominated to participate, with Rutland and Southampton. This explanation, dependent on comments in one letter, is apparently supported by another venture. At 38, although having retired to administer the family estates in Lancashire, Derby is reportedly financially behind the revival of the young players Company of the Children of St Pauls, London. With the barrister-satirist John Marston and Lyly as playmakers, the venture was a success the children referred to would have been trained and of exceptional talents. (Several plays were written by the Earl of Newcastle, Lord William Percy, were performed by the young players at that time: another nobleman not hiding from identification as author though in manuscript). From the age of 21, the young Derbys travels took him abroad for five years, with tutor Richard Lloyd. It is supposed that he must have passed through, and attended the royal Court of Navarre, which features in Loves Labours Lost. That attendance at the Court is supposition, unlike Anthony Bacon who WAS a guest among the courtiers there. Derbys worldly experiences expanded with his travels through France, Spain, Italy, the Mediterranean countries, and further afield, aided both tutor and a familiarity with several languages. He had a University education at Oxford, some ten years before travelling, and legal studies which began when he was 33. He was knowledgeable particularly on the sea, seamanship and navigation. William Stanleys experience at the Elizabethan Court was plentiful: his aristocratic birth, connected to royalty, his permission by royalty to travel, his marriage in 1595 in the presence of Her Majesty and the assertion that a Shakespeare play was performed at the celebrations, with Elizabeths permission, undoubtedly. In 1601 aged 40 he became a Knight of the Garter, in 1603 a member of the Privy Council, in 1607 Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire and Cheshire, and he received King James at Lathom House in 1617. In 1617, William Stanley disbanded his familys acting company. The man Shakspere/ the poet-playwright Shakespeare had died the year before. Is Derbys relinquishing of a longheld theatrical association for any reason notable, or is the death merely a co-incidence? Derby was in his middle fifties had pressure of his duties of Court and State led to abandonment of what had been a passion? He retired into private life, in 1627 aged 66. When the facts of his life are examined, the possibility that the Earl, William Stanley, was Shakespeare, or involved in any conspiracy over authorship, is believed plausible on
many levels. The evidence is not conclusive, particularly as not a poem or play has come down the years to us. Despite his interest in theatre and players, there are only the two reports connecting him with theatre, but they are enough to engender support for the claim, particularly as its followers are scholarly and dignified and there is much circumstantial evidence available.
Additional notable points * The Earl left no poetry and plays proving literary skills. One explanation is that after his death in 1642 and in the Civil War, Cromwells soldiers besieged and burnt down Lathom House, Lancashire, the seat of the Stanley family * A family lawsuit over property began in 1594, involved the Earl and his brothers widow and lasted many years. And the legal go-between was ... Francis Bacon * In that same year, 1594, the Earl then 33, married Elizabeth de Vere who was 19 and daughter of ... Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford * The marriage took place before Elizabeth at Greenwich Palace, and it is contended that, as the afternoon start-of-celebrations, a performance of A Midsummer Nights Dream was staged (if so, no mean irony author celebrated at his wedding by his own, anonymous, play!) * In Loves Labours Lost, the King of Navarre is named Ferdinand (Derbys elder brother was Ferdinando); and the Kings Lords at Court are Biron (the live personage at Court was le Baron de Biron), Longaville (le duc de Longueville), and Dumain (le duc du Maine) * The playmaker Shakespeare was better informed on what occurred in the Court of Navarre than any outsider could have been and a (possible) presence in Navarre strengthens the image of Derby as Shakespeare, goes the claim. (It is unfortunate that Anthony Bacon, as competing source of background to Navarre, is lodged in different authorial camp AND has a group passport with those names in, too - it is in the British Museum)
Brian Jarvis
Page 33
06/08/2003
Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (1576 1612, aged 36) was too young and
unproven to be Shakespeare, is the widely-held belief. Again, to be taken seriously, he would have had to be a literary genius in 1593 at the age of 16 (when Venus and Adonis was first published). There is no evidence of this. Nor was there evidence that this future Courtier, nobleman, law student, classicist and linguist, sportsman, soldier, witness to a great storm at sea had ever involved himself in poesy, theatre or players. He was 11 when he began studies at Cambridge University and was recorded as being there for seven years until aged 18. By that date, Shakspere was 30 and had many plays completed and performed, and the Sonnets in being. It is commented that if Rutland had been Shakespeare and thus so prolific so young, how was this never witnessed or noticed? On the credit side, through his long sojourn at the University, Rutland thus knew well the Cambridge terminology found in Hamlet, supposedly a rare knowledge. He visited Denmark and Elsinore, knew and was known by the royal Court there, which as King James ambassador he visited in 1603 for a royal christening. A little on the bizarre side, as these searches for the Shakespeare Identity go, Sherlock Holmes (celebrated author Conan Doyle), was brought in to examine the case for Rutland. He said much as others: that Shakespeare was of the nobility, Courtier, classicallyeducated, spoke French and Italian, was a lawyer and so on... and he had witnessed a great storm at sea: Rutland did, during the sea crossing on returning from Denmark. Visiting the ancestral Rutland home, Belvoir Castle, Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle) pointed dramatically at the large wall painting of the young Rutland ... Shakespeare, he declaimed.
Additional notable points * The 5th Earl inherited aged 12 when his father died. He was a royal ward under Lord Burghley, but the guardianship was undertaken by ... Francis Bacon * When aged 20, Rutland went abroad travelling by which time some 14 plays, in the Shakespeare canon, were known and had been performed * In the family library, a Rutland researcher in 1900 found a cache of very old books, but more, paper records which said that the library in Shakespeares time contained a number of specific books - source books, which Shakespeare could have used in his research for the plays * At Belvoir is a ceiling fresco, a copy of Correggios Io and Jupiter, mentioned unexpectedly in The Taming of the Shrew * Rutland at 20 was at Padua University, in Italy, at the same time as students by name Rosencrantz and Guylderstern who in turn were at the royal christening in 1603 ( and were in Shakespeares Hamlet) * The Danish connection is the strongest proof in the case of Rutland as Shakespeare and as a result the Earl finds favour, realistically, as ONE of the writers in the Shakespeare writing group
* There is an even more mysterious claim: that Shakspere as Shakespeare accompanied the Rutland party to Elsinore in 1603. As with so much of this great Detective Mystery, nothing is proven.
Brian Jarvis
Page 35
06/08/2003
Mary Sidney Herbert, 2nd Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621) was aged 60 when she
died). From around 1580 she worked to make her home Wilton House in Wiltshire a leading cultural centre, which when flourishing reminded one visiting poet of the Court of Urbino in Italy. She was well educated and high-minded, and in her achievements the equal of Elizabeth, also a poet talent, who found her pleasing. The Countess, besides bringing up a family in what is described as a contented marriage, encouraged writers and poets - and occasional playmakers efforts ( though this endeavour was not held in any great literary esteem?) - in an academy environment of courtliness and piety that Shakespeare may have known, or must have known about. Wiltons archives were said to have long held Marys letter to her son, sent in 1606, saying We have the man Shakespeare here bring King James! And that Heminges received thirty pounds (a huge amount) for the Kings Mens performance of As You Like It played at Wilton. It is presumption that the man Shakspere/Shakespeare prior to all this might have visited Wilton and participated with literary contemporaries there is no proof, but that now missing letter would be a strong and acceptable indication. However, many University wits and the poet, Warwickshire-born Michael Drayton, a possible friend of Shakspere, WERE regular attenders at the Wilton seminars and workshops. Philip Sidney of course attended - breadth, flexibility, originality of his diction scarcely surpassed even by Shakespeare - as did particular luminaries Spenser and Ralegh, Kyd, Marlowe and Jonson. This group in its achievement has been described as the pride of the Golden Age. It was after her beloved brother Philip Sidneys death in 1586 (she was 25 and married nine years) that her own literary talents were more seriously expressed. This was centred on finishing and publishing his Psalms, in which he attempted divine poems. Her own verse and literary translations (not mere reproductions the aim being a true contemporary equivalent of classic originals)) were remarkable for, among other quality attributes, their intensity and vividness and technical strivings to recapture the eloquence and wisdom of the past and all her accomplishments were praised by Elizabeth. She (Mary) is said to have had a good life of the mind, even as Elizabeth, some say, had not (what heresy! treason! ... being of high mindedness was perhaps seen as above that of a bright mind?) With this particular literary slant, it seems improbable this gifted Countess needed to write any Shakespeare poetry, Psalms, fine writing was her aim? The question is whether she could have participated in (the esoteric theory of) a group of writers said to be behind Shakespeare? She could well have seen early drafts of Shaksperes Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece by 1586-1594... but probably not his sketches of the early plays (as they, Philip and Mary, poetic purists each, would surely have been off-hand, somewhat offended; Sidney felt strongly about the new stage poets who were really poet-apes).
Brian Jarvis
Page 36
06/08/2003
Additional notable points * The Countess, who wanted her son the young Earl William Herbert to marry, may well have commissioned Shakespeare to use subtle persuasion by writing Sonnets (eventually mentioning W.H) * It is no proof that The Countess approved of or liked plays, but she is said to have translated the neo-classical French play Marc-Antoine * During Marys early lifetime, women were strongly discouraged from literary activity, even any public self-assertion. As with some Shakespeare heroines, her poetic skills and her powers of creative synthesis allowed her, through say the Psalms male voices, to speak most for herself when speaking as another. * Mary Sidney Herbert was connected with Marlowe in rumourous legend anyway: Marlowe, after he died, lived secretly under a cloak of secrecy, at Wilton House, protected by the Countess.
Brian Jarvis
Page 37
06/08/2003
7. Elizabethans and theatre

As though in parallel, the English Golden Age of literature and embryo new-age playmaking arose with Elizabeths deepening authority and the nations burgeoning prosperity. Several purpose-built and permanent theatres appeared in the decades after her Accession (as mentioned previously, the first was Burbages The Theatre in Shoreditch, London, 1576) for players and playmakers attracted to these new opportunities for writers and players, and larger audiences for their works. (The first upgrading of a play-place had taken place at The Red Lion, in Stepney, east of the city, nine years earlier, 1567, three years after Shakspere was born). Hostelries provided the platform for many decades previously to The Theatre: The Red Bull, The Bull Inn, The Bell, The Boars Head, the Bell Savage and The Cross Keys. The Theatre arose because the City authority brought in the London Ordinance of 1574. So these new-style theatres burgeoned outdoors mostly south of the River Thames, out of the Citys authority. Mostly London-based, and owned and named after nobility, Companies of players constantly toured the provinces particularly when plague broke out in the Capitol. But it was in London that the new professional theatre flourished...The Theatre, The Curtain, The Rose, The Fortune, The Swan... and The Globe (made of the dismantled timbers from The Theatre). And it was an exciting, changeable, tempestuous, quarrelsome period, with great creativity, huge audiences and aristocrats (leaders of society, who naturally would not like being of the herd) paying more, for gallery seating, so as not be forced among 2-3,000 of the main crowds groundlings: the penny-knaves who for the most part were uneducated, supposedly illiterate, uncontrollable, vulgar, often drunken yet obviously-so-aware enthusiasts (besides the actual neer do wells, the thieves, pick pockets, criminals planning fraud). As the Queen, Elizabeth, indicated her interest in this new theatre (she attended incognito up- to ten plays a season), the great aristocratic indulgence of the age the creative, ornate, expansive and expensive classical Masques had a serious competitor. An English tradition, based on masqued, dumb-show openings to plays, the Masque became a performance in itself staged at great Houses; masques in fact grew in popularity among the wealthy and titled well into the Jacobean period - perhaps to counter the swelling audiences to the professional plays, which had soared in numbers to 2-3,000 by the mid-1590s. Incidentally, for years before the young Elizabeth began stabilising her reign, foreign comment (and plenty from home writers) had been on how the English suffer a grievous fault... addicted to desires for the novelties and new-fangledness of foreign delights... and measuring the goodness of any foreign thing by the distance of miles it originated from this country. This, according to many, is seen in the rise of thrill-seeking audience numbers and a fast-changing content of playmaking featuring foreign locations particularly in France, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and of course Denmark.
Brian Jarvis
Page 38
06/08/2003
The plays plots, dialogue and speeches often changed, performance by performance; with five performances a week, in afternoons, theatre life quickly became pressure-ovens, though tremendously exciting! The playmaker made numerous changes; or the leading actors, for whom Shakespeare certainly was primarily writing, and (especially) the Clowns/Fools, improvised and made changes, with which they felt comfortable... the poor old book-minder/repeater/prompter was under considerable responsibility, and probably made mistakes, passed on into posterity... So when the plays of Shakespeare were performed, or what remains that were his originals, or how they gestated towards use in the 1623 First Folio, even itself riddled with ambiguities, we cannot be sure. In the 30 years, between 1560 and 1590, more than 30 new style comedies appeared emerged in Elizabethan England, and half have survived. In the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, as a whole, some several thousand plays are said to have appeared but just as few Manuscripts are pro rata extant. (A sour note is struck by a Jacobean critics comment that only one in 40 of such plays have poetic and literary merit and as such worth keeping in a good library!) In the 1580s, country people formed most of the nations four million or so inhabitants. By 1600 London had a population of over 200,000 - changeable when decreased after sporadic plague outbreaks, enlarging again as fear died down. And an enthusiastic 10,000 to 14,000 people, over the five-afternoon performing week, went to the plays, which were staged at the growing number of professional theatres. From March to May, 1592, for instance, the audiences in any week attending the first performances of Henry VI Pt 1 (or 2) often totalled more than 10,000. As theatre crowds burgeoned, Shakespeare and other theatre playmakers realised they were writing to satisfy two audiences those of the privileged in the gallery bench seating and those the groundlings standing, moving around in the Pit. They were there also to serve the Monarch: on her request Shakespeare is said to have written in fourteen days The Merry Wives of Windsor for the Queen. She wanted to see Falstaff in love! James the King was an even more pro-active supporter than Elizabeth he saw up to 20 plays a year, most in private audience, his early support surely influencing the thoughts towards enclosed public theatre? And more plays written first for the Court became public. The indoor Blackfriars Theatre became popular, leading to the more discerning and paying more audience, perhaps the real birth of modern theatre? It did provide the opportunity for better staged effects and variety in controlled artificial lighting (as had long been possible in plays increasingly staged by nobility in their country mansions). To mention, or not to mention? There was little if no mention of Shakespeare by Philip Henslowe (the only production diaries discovered), who was the major owner/ producer in London theatre, and rival counterpart of the Burbage family, for which Shakespeare wrote. In fact there was no mention of many other important names by Henslowe, until 1596, when Shakespeare was among my Lord Chamberlain Hunsdons players. There was no mention by of Shakespeare by Ned Alleyne in his diaries; if this is true, questions arise... but answers can only be theories.
Brian Jarvis
Page 39
06/08/2003
The playmakers skills were often the brilliant surface painted in words which, as today, give an impression of erudition and great knowledge and experience of the world that is not there said a famous writer in 1970. He added, a work of art is far more than a work of scholarship; and a writer or journalist today will admit that an appearance of expertise can be prompted by good and bountiful research, careful choice and omission. In other words, greatness may well include a natural genius AND a temperament which is also very practical and pragmatic, as claimed for Shakspere/Shakespeare. And quick-witted: Shakespeare was quick-witted, as the reported Shakespeare-Jonson godson story relates. Shakespeare was godfather to a Jonson child. After the christening ceremony, Shakespeare was thinking. Jonson asked him what was the trouble. Ive determined to give him a gift of Latin spoons but I need you to translate the Latin for the child later. Shakespeare was punning on the latten alloy of the spoons AND on Jonsons great Latin learning, for the Latin on the spoons was easy. The one or several Shakespeares we see and hear in the Canon had access to depth upon depth of understanding (knowledge and the heart). There was Shakespeares measured words, sounds, and rhythms and the music which arises. They carry a magnificent hidden power in their skilful unity. And when an audience attains an infinitely acute listening, hearing and awareness....then as if by magic, Shakespeare is alive! He was the master. An English actress said a year ago, Drama can be and is used as a tool for Self-expression and freedom. This is according to our own and an authors individual understanding .... Shakespeare achieved so much, in this area, and Bacon well understood it, too. They all went to Oxford or Cambridge, the University Wits (they who had been blessed of contact with the Thespian Springs ), and they, and others, of poetic and playmaking talents also took the truth and secret of Shakespeares identity and the true gestation of his achievements to their graves.... Bacon, Oxford, Derby, Rutland, Derby, Marlowe, Jonson, Greene, Nashe, Peele, Dekker, Chapman, Ford, Webster, Heywood, Beaumont and Fletcher... Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke... and surely Elizabeth, too.
Brian Jarvis
Page 40
06/08/2003
8. Early Years, Lost Years

Shakspere might have received a good education at pre-school then Stratford Grammar School but we can only presume that he did attend, for there is no evidence, just repeated belief that he did as his father became the Queens Officer to the town. Presuming Shakspere became Shakespeare, as a boy and youth, grammar School would have fed his open and natural genius, and his prodigious memory was then the tool which his spirit, nature, mind and intellect drew upon for success in poetry and playmaking. Imagination is so incredibly rich that you have wealth there, even if nowhere else in your life. What was he taught? There are no records from the Stratford Grammar School for that period, just as Ben Jonsons stay at Westminster School was unrecorded, dependent only on his word that he did. And he did not go on to University, either. If Shakspere did become Shakespeare then his early grounding in many subjects must have occurred at that Grammar School. At another grammar school of the period, the quality of that possible grounding is undeniable, something even to be envied today. At 11 he would have met the trivium: grammar, logic and simple rhetoric; and gems of wisdom and proverbs. When 13 he might have been forced to leave, caused by his yoeman/ farmer/ merchant fathers debtridden ignominy and social embarrassment. But by then, he would have studied Lilys Latin grammar, and some Greek; and Ovids Metamorphoses, Virgils Aeneid, Lucians Dialogues. His days might have included Cicero, Caesar, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Livy, Isocrates, Apollonius, Homer, Sallust, Thucydides; there would have been practical exercises changing prose to verse, verse to prose. Truly, modern specialists say, a feast in education and just the start needed towards further self-driven learning, as university was not a practical option. However, taking the Authorship Debate to extreme, the further educated Shakespeare is supposed by some scholars today to have had a familiarity or an acquaintance with 140 authors though few were taught in his time even at universities. Few books, many books, the key to Shakspere is the life he led, Natures presentations to him, and anything that could be turned to account. The unanswered questions which follow his schooldays are: did the young Shakspere start his training in theatre at 15-16 by joining a visiting troupe? Did he find a mentor-patron before say 18-19? Stratford-upon-Avon received a dozen visits by such troupes in a decade or so as Shakspere grew from young boy at his Fathers knee to young man... the period when his father went from merchant prosperity, from high office, The Queens Officer or town High Bailiff/Mayor, to that debt-ridden shame. John Shakspere seems to have become involved in illicit and illegal wool ragging and was fined or lost considerable sums, enough to make him hide from creditors for years. His finances recovered much later with his sons help?
Brian Jarvis
Page 41
06/08/2003
Conventional wisdom has it that the young man married then went to either Lancashire, to a rich Catholic House, becoming a tutor/actor, or to London, starting, with no theatrical experience, as a stage prompt. Consider another path: that to gain his insight into matters legal, he became a young 14-15 years old assistant to either Stratford town clerk Henry Rogers, in his post 1570 to 1586; the youthful Shakspere would have known Master Rogers through his father John Shakspere, when in that influential high office. OR young Shakspere joined Walter Roche, former schoolmaster turned Stratford solicitor. However, this was a young man-literary. The scent sniffs out local Company my Lord Worcesters Players or Servants. In the troupe, just younger than Shakspere, was the formidable prodigy Edward Alleyn and the experienced leader Robert Browne, who later led other troupes on visits to the Continent. A stage-struck and bright youngster, maybe with some of his own fledgling poetry to show, might well have been taken on as apprentice at 15 or 16, or as a hireling. Under the tutelage of a senior player why not Shakspere attached to Browne? the young provincial may well have toured the Worcester, Gloucester, Coventry areas for several years. As one experienced thespian points out, with writing skills and an engaging potential, a young talent like Shakspere would have been welcome. And it would explain opportunity to progress and yet keep in touch with family, visiting Stratford by horseback regularly? Another potential handicap overcome would have been his accent coming from a small town of 1,500 inhabitants, despite his fathers eminence, before the financial fall, Williams intelligence would have pin-pointed his Warwickshire accent for treatment. In this website authors own experience, his own strong local accent was lost, naturally and painlessly, in three years by keen ear, a listening to the voice and voices, and determined practice: snobbishness is not the factor, it is seeing a need to gain access to larger circles and dissolve an impediment, that is the natural factor. Then, in 1585, when Shakspere was an experienced 21, did my Lord Worcesters Company disband? Were its main players including Shakspere - taken on by The Queen Elizabeths Men or the Company begun by Lord Howard, Her Majestys new Lord High Admiral? If so, the man from Stratford was now set on the steps to literary glory. The next step, into twenty years of fruitful partnership, would be to join my Lord Hunsdons Men/The Chamberlains Men/ The Kings Men... he paid 50, it is said, to become a sharer in My Lord Chamberlains Men. As theatre grew in the 1580s, poetry was still Art and a nobleman or gentlemans secret concern; theatrical poetry or prose was not art. I have hunted for players, juglers and such kinde of creaturs one harassed aristocrat wrote to another, about a celebration being planned. Shakspere studied and enthused over poesie, poetry. A Sonnet is a short lyrical poem or little song. The Sonnet tradition, at that time, was not fixed on realism or truth and, talented or driven, aristocrats enjoyed the pleasure of composing and invention. We presume the Shakespeare of the Sonnets possibly completed all 154 by the end of the 1590s, but they would have been passed around, in Manuscript form, for years before.
Brian Jarvis
Page 42
06/08/2003
They were not formally published till 1609 and then in a pirated version. It is also reasonable to see the young Shakspere studying the classical disciplines and writing poetry from his mid-teens, the start of his Lost Years. What was his achievement, in creation of the 154 Sonnets? The knowledgeable give these insights: Shakespeares smooth and graceful compositions abandoned in most cases Petrarchs rhythmic form and developed a contemporary version, three quatrains and a final couplet. This was in search of the music within the words. He shows consummate linguistic skills to ensure his approach, intense and economic, achieved compression and immediacy. Both Harvey and Spencer saw Shakespeare as one of the new ages flourishing metricians. We cannot know if his Sonnets, ranging from joy to melancholy to disillusion, were to illustrate an enjoyable brilliance in wordplay poetic (and in play: remember Light seeking light, doth light of light beguile a dazzling speech, in Loves Labours Lost) OR to recount real experiences, loves sufferings, hates blacknesses, lusts passions, spirits generosities... The skill was to be bold but not to over-do it: Berowne/Biron forswears taffeta-phrases, silken terms precise, and three-piled hyperboles. Shaksperes soul was, equally, troubled or ecstatic and joyful - that his Sonnets apparently show, and his achievement was to be one of the first, one of the few, in the English Renaissance times, to emphasise and explore mans Self. Certainly, in spiritual terms, some see the higher knowledge of the divine, worshipped in humility, in so many of the Sonnets. He Shakspere/Shakepeare - the English Ovid - achieved in 1593 acceptable fame in the times for his Venus and Adonis (written a year or more before). It was described as witty, Ovidian and sensuous. His The Rape of Lucrece a year later was darker, more rhetorical, making use of set pieces in his approach. It was praised, but Venus was reprinted again and again, ten times in ten years, and was very successful.
Brian Jarvis
Page 43
06/08/2003
9. Does genius need to display ego?

One definition of genius is that you leave your subject different from how you found it, therefore Newton was a genius, so was Einstein. At its best, a performance of a Shakespeare play can call up the experience of unity in an audience. It is known, in the rich quality of the glowing moment when time stands still. For so-called individual members of the audience there is a direct, pure, emotional response... and a moment of timeless, formless shared perception, the unity of Being. A justly-famed director says, Shakespeares theatre does not vulgarise the spiritual, to make it easier for common man to assimilate, nor does he reject the dirt, the ugliness, violence, absurdity, the laughter of the base existence. It does awaken an audience to an instant of deep insight into the fabric of reality. The moment cannot last, as Truth can never be defined nor grasped. A London teacher, with insight into the Bards Works, says, You realise that you are watching yourSelf, and you understand, you do not judge. She highlights the selfdevelopment path to be taken, Even Prospero is torn between his nobler reason against his fury. That is why his Works, the canon, are described as the literary Crown Jewels of western civilisation. As the human gains entry into and attains higher consciousness, genius can flower. As did Shakspere, or those who contributed or combined to pen the plays of Shakespeare. And, say some, that potential for genius already is rooted at birth in that higher consciousness? About the Golden World, Philip Sidney (The Defence of Poesy) believed the poet/writer (but almost surely, in his purist view, not the playmaker?) rose to where there was artistic freedom and joyous creativity... ranging only within the zodiac of his own wit. What do we mere mortals really know of genius? as with say (offered in one compelling modern study) Plato, Darwin, Gandhi, Einstein and of course Shakespeare! To which may we add the Buddha and Shankara from the East, and Christ from the Middle East? And there are many others, in the history of man, Im sure, East and West. Or hidden among todays scientists, good men all, exploring the Big Bang or the Steady State, or DNA, genetics and genome? and equally likely to experience great inspiration, insight or revelation as did say Brunelleschi or Copernicus in their fields? The question arises because, if the apparently self-educated (that also could be Selfeducated) Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon was the superbly-talented Shakespeare of universal-fame, then he was in his time a genius and yet sought no fame by name. He is indeed the Elizabethan invisible man. One writer recently described Shakespeares characters and plays as stepping stones to universal qualities and truths. What is the secret of the extraordinary abilities to create living archetypal characters? His answer: Shakespeare in composing has no I but the I representative. He asks if it is Shakespeares very ego-lessness that gives him access to that limitless universal I Self?
Brian Jarvis
Page 44
06/08/2003
Genius is indicated in exceptional and transcendent creative power, say dictionaries. That is the impersonal, but genius encompasses the personal, too. Someone said that a man of genius is a sublime altruist in his disregard of himself and, acidly, an atrocious egoist in his disregard of others. Another that genius will always suffer from melancholy, that state which may bring deeper appreciation of Mans suffering which the realised have always said is domination by ignorance. Shakespeares Works are infused with dulcet melancholies and his Sonnets have deep shadows on the speaker. Imagination my souls imaginary sight - underpins everything in Shakespeares Works. Is imagination (true imagination, not imaginings) enhanced by education and acute observancy during lifestyle, or does it arise purely from inspiration from a natural, unshakeable inner source each souls spirit-god ruling over character and fortune ? Information and experience are necessary for strengthening the imagination, said Babington, Lord Macaulay. He also said, Genius will not furnish a poet with a vocabulary. We might consider, too Genius is a fire that lights itself. Hazlitt said Shakspere was like the genius of humanity, changing places with all of us at his pleasure. His genius shone equally on the evil and on the good, on the wise and the foolish, the monarch and the beggar; the secrets of the grave were hardly hid from his searching glance. Renowned as essayist and dramatic critic, he also commented that the great distinction of Shakespeares genius was its virtually including the genius of all the great men of his age some kind of synthesis, with advancement gained metaphysically from all insights by his peers since say 1560-1595? It accrues intangibly, mystically in the collective consciousness. Bacon, just a few years older than Shakspere, was always a serious, precocious boy and went on to become, like Shakspere a writer of exceptional genius. Just maybe, Shakspere and Bacon, and others can only attain great heights when there is the conscious environment, the spiritual manifesting, which feeds Mens minds so that higher consciousness prevails. As it appears to have occurred with many of the great names in the previous 15th centurys Italian Renaissance. In such a realm of finer consciousness, genius flowers and one or several individuals express its benefits, its universals? And is higher consciousness the mystical, metaphysical activities of the gods, to whom men can only be supplicants? Shakspere without doubt tapped into a higher level of consciousness. This allowed his consciousness, Being and mind the energy and clarity to function most productively and universally. Another miracle is ego-lessness, which few humans ever have attained. Hazlitt saw Shakspere as the least of an egotist that it was possible to be. He was nothing in himself, but he was all that others were, or that they could become. It resounds the comment, as we have been discussing, that Genius is someone standing on the shoulders of giants! And aware of it all. We might ask rhetorically, OR even
seriously, just who was the foundational giant that Shakspere associated with and was influenced by? As with the Authorship Mystery itself, it is all part of what some would say is the Divine mystery. Truly, said the London teacher, mentioned earlier, Genius is the souls capacity to hear the voice of God. And, quoting ancient Sanskrit, she mentioned, Truth is that fine line between God and our own ego.
The quotation beneath the Heading, at the start of this essay, is by a Professor of Mathematics of today, and an observer of what follows ...
In 2001 in the USA there was news of a 12 year old child prodigy who is a brilliant mathematician, with an IQ that runs off the scale. At 14 months he could solve arithmetical problems. At kindergarten he knew the alphabet, could read books and could do simple algebra. By six he picked up faults in textbooks. He completed senior school in two years with A-plus averages. He aims for four Phds by his 18th year. His Professor of Mathematics at College is immensely impressed but says cautiously that by the definition (of genius, earlier in this essay), the boy has some way to go. Very notably, this young giant says he has dedicated his life to helping others, and believes in working through children. He set up a foundation for peace through education and has spoken in six countries and raises money by giving addresses to a variety of audiences. He is responsible, well behaved, confident and careful in speech, a mixture of early years innocence and spiritual-dimension ambition, and is balanced, with a range of interests and ordinary activities. His parents, bright, intelligent and ordinary, say he has a great deal of innate wisdom and has purity of spirit. Quoting the London teacher on the plays, and why not this gifted modern American? : They show us the human condition There is not critical judgement There is an underlying forgiveness Love pours forth and goodness triumphs Some characters, personalities survive, some vanish... all have played their parts. The note of optimism is eternal. This now-14 year old seems blessed with the makings of a truly worthwhile life from which Mankind will benefit. Is he able enough to avoid the many pitfalls often awaiting the child genius turning into man? Particularly as he is, in his time, unavoidably and unchangeably in the spotlight of this global village, of the global Media, as the man Shakspere never was.
Brian Jarvis
Page 46
06/08/2003
10. Summing up: WHICH theory ?

Shakspere was Shakespeare? Or was it Bacon, Oxford, Marlowe, Derby, Rutland, the Countess (or Dyer?) If they were not Shakespeare, were they aware of the Authors real identity? Were they involved? The truth of the Authorship Question, perhaps never to be agreed, surely lies within these projections: The Lost Years: no, not after Shaksperes married in 1582, at 18, but perhaps earlier, starting when he was 13-16 and his fathers debts began to crucify the family, debts caused by injudicious entry into illegal wool trading? When with genius half-tutored, impelled by half-education, he began writing as a maturing student, sketching out poems, maybe beginning a play arising from his studies and creative impulse: The Comedy of Errors? or The Two Gentlemen of Verona? Even if then merely sketched, the works when finished display a complexity and promise of sophistication truly worthy of young literary genius in the making. As any pro not being Shakespeare - will report: Genius arises from a light which shines, from inner rules and in focused framework; mastership begins with ever-more research and re-writing ! And True genius is the gift of always being able to FIND what has always been there (this came from a Hollywood scriptwriter seven years ago!) As a result of that early work (and WHICH of theatres original writing talents at that time would not have TRIED at 13-16?), when the chance came at 16 to join say my Lord Worcesters Men, he was able to show those writings, with their obvious imaginative and constructional promise allied to clear intelligence and sheer enthusiasm. There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. Brutus to Cassius Julius Caesar William Somersets Men (or Servants), The Worcester Players, were a small, underestimated provincial group, destined to arise, twice, perform for several decades, and vanish after Browne, Alleyn, Shakspere moved on. If he did accept Shakspere, this bright, intelligent youngster before him, his father former Mayor of Stratford, what impressed Robert Browne, chief actor and shareholder, and possibly his apprentice master ? How many rustic-based writing talents such as Shakspere had Browne experienced ? There is no indication that another young talent in Worcesters Men when Shakspere joined, the prodigious 15 or 16 year old actor Edward Alleyn, even then a sharer in the Company, had tried his hand at playmaking! How well did Shaksperes playmaking and his acting develop with the troupes visits to Gloucester and Worcester, Southampton, Coventry, Leicester, possibly Bristol, besides Stratford many times? As for no record of the young Shaksperes playmaking, during the 1580s, we remember that the Company (in which he was perhaps apprentice then hireling, and not a sharer)
OWNED the rights to all its plays. And in addition to the investment in costumes, props, primitive sets and their maintenance and replacements, the cost to the company, not playmaker, of licensing a new play rose to seven shillings as demand for good new plays grew unceasingly, and pirating became a problem, with no copyright law in being. Licensing was via the Stationers Register in London, and performance Her Majestys Master of Revels. So, his plays emerged and prospered in instant popularity, from the success of Henry VI in 1592, and his career progressed, he retired around 1612, died in 1616, and was apparently unremarked for seven years, until the First Folio in 1623. Was William Shakspere actor and the fabulously talented, accomplished actor-dramatist? Or a somewhat competent actor and a sometime occasional playmaker, and allowed to add a few lines to scripts from others? Or was he a cypher, who wrote out, in neat handwritten final copies, with no blots, the plays drafted by mysterious contributors to the Company? The historical dramas, given his name from 1592, were an amazing feat of research and imaginative writing and the suggestion now acceptable is that many of his early plays were in fact begun and sketched out, even completed 1583-1588, while research for the historical plays was being undertaken. If the true actor-playmaker, source of his wonderful Canon, then he was committed to theatre, he wrote always for his cry of players. This Johannes fac totum WAS the theatrical all-rounder the term applied to literary applications, not sweeping the stage! Later, at the Blackfriars indoor theatre, 1608-1612, few men in theatrical history were so completely bound up with the acting troupe playmaker, actor, shareholder, patent member, manager and housekeeper. That was where the most money was made, this new covered over opportunity which with higher ticket prices recorded a tremendous jump in profit compared with the Globe. He was a successful businessman. He was businesslike. He was efficient. Even ruthless? He was denounced by Greene who accused him of theatrical malpractice, plagiarising and virtually stealing other peoples writings. Stealing, borrowing, being inspired by.... his own genius bore theatrical and materialistic harvests. He was a sharer for many years in the Lord Chamberlains Men. He became wealthy by the mid-1590s. One report has arisen that he earned from several of his activities - 163 in one year (x 156 to 200 today). Even if this is accurate, how can we truly value it today? Costs and expenditures then have no comparisons with todays hugely expensive values. He may well have had researchers to pay, some collaborators to share with, but their remunerations would hardly have dented his earnings. Also, we know not what financial income a secret patron would have given him over the years. Shaksperes circle of friends encompassed theatrical colleagues and (a few?) collaborators but also dubious acquaintances, associates who had fingers in many near the knuckle business activities, entrepreneurs near to criminal. He by nature or nurture was acquainted with the dark side of business and LIFE.
Brian Jarvis
Page 48
06/08/2003
Shakspere, under the name Shakespeare, was summoned to a local court in 1596 in London, and bound over the keep the peace. It was one incident in a long running business emnity-rivalry into which he was drawn. Shaksperes demeaning involvement, as a man of commerce and master of his craft, was in support for a theatre owner who was also connected with many other areas of low-life business. Besides Shakespeare, others had their dark periods which they would have preferred to hide from: Marlowe, de Vere, even Jonson all killed a man, and escaped serious consequences. Bacon, knighted by James 1st on his accession in 1603, gave in an Essay his three degrees of this hiding and veiling of a mans self. Many literary talents in the Elizabethan and Jacobean aristocracy hid their writings, keen to be heard in theatre but ... unperformed, unheralded, and unheard. They could never openly publish plays, without damage to a mans dignity, to his reputation and thus preferment at Court; for poesy or poetry was THE form. If they wanted performance, WHO did they know, that was the question? WHO could act as a go-between? Today, traditional scholarship is weakening in the view that ALL courtier poets would not dare defy the stigma, resulting from publishing and openly printing poesie or plays 1570-1600. The understanding now is that a small number of courtier poets DID publish their work, without reputation injured; though innumerable closet dramas were regularly available with no author, that is anonymously. In the plays of Shakespeare, the sheer breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding, of feeling and passion, of imagination and poetic expression, of lightness, wit and humour, of dramatic impact with wisdom threaded throughout, all underpin argument AGAINST one man (or woman) having been sole Author. We associate Shakespeare with all that is best in the emerging Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre a new form of performance, communication, impact; and possibly a new dimension in the achievement of higher objectives such as were promoted by Francis Bacon in his Great Instauration. The age, he said, needed a regeneration of learning and new ways of working for a new age of enlightenment. This man, so rare in knowledgeand imaginative vision, saw the outline of his lifes work when 16. I have taken all knowledge to be my province, he said, breathtakingly, a decade later. Truths of the Four Parts of the new knowledge could be established by direct observation from nature. In the plays of Shakespeare, according to the London scholar/teacher, We witness virtue corrupted and overcome by vice, and vice transcended and transformed into virtue. And they are all dramas of the human soul, facing in different ways during its journey, either away from or towards Beauty, light, joy, Truth... all great works of Art speak of this... the struggle between the forces of darkness and light, and good and evil. Bacon planned that the lessons of this new understanding (of human psychology) would be taught through visible representations and through actual types and models set before
the eyes and ears. There would be a comprehensive analysis detailing the numerous types of passions and emotions and their interplays, our temperaments and minds, and what in life and through the senses influences and drives them. Bacon knew his lifes work early. Shakspere/Shakespeares genius in theatre arose early, equally directed at achievement of inner goals (which from his unbroken invisibility were not goals of fame and literary immortality, though one Sonnet did mention the word). The supporters of Bacon, and those particularly with knowledgeable of theatre, believe he actually played out his theory of the types through a variety of plays comedies, tragedies and love stories. The start might well have been the historical dramas. Bacons missing Fourth Part consisted of the plays which this brilliant patron sketched out, recruited, encouraged, organised, funded and saw to performance using in collaboration the genius of the man from Stratford. Bacon had worked on a new method for delivery of his knowledge and messages. In his teens (17, say 1577 when Shakspere was 13) he wrote, a new method must be found for quiet entry into minds so choked and overgrown. He could hardly have envisaged his Works later beguiling by art the rowdy groundlings of Theatre, or Curtain or Globe. He sought for the strongest means of inspiring Hope which will bring men to particulars, means which would both amaze and entertain, whether in what he saw as mens three main dominations of anger, fear, or of shame. Anger was the short madness of men, fear was the absence of rulership of Self, and shame was public disgrace, and alienation from the social Mother. From the beginning, says another theory, Bacon helped in the further education of the young man from Stratford, ensuring the potential of such a natural talent was fulfilled, in the achievement of writings which are capable of meanings understood of many levels. Bacon knew everyone, and had access to all. The library at Wilton? the library at Belvoir? his own school at Twickenham? Hazlitt said, The wisdom displayed in Shakespeare is equal in profoundness to the great Lord Bacons Novum Organum. Bacon, according to my understanding, placed the study of mans mind and character above all other enquiries. Who better to help and, Bacon to study? than the man Shakspere? This is all unbelievable! cry the Stratfordians. Where is this shown, recorded? Where, indeed. And where are the one hundred, two hundred FACTS we need to know, and may never know, about how the invisible man Shakspere/ Shakespeare obtained education, acting and stage expertise, his skillful, unrivalled facility with words and playmaking, and to gain insights into the social mores, personal environments and histories of his times? The agnostic eye to any camp, Stratfordian or heretical, could easily murmur, There is a natural truth running throughout Shakespeares Canon just as it is natural and valid to ask questions about a genius who emerged unbelievable and unheralded. This Baconian possibility is no more incredible than many of the half-dozen main theories posited, some extreme - such as a large conspiracy of writers in a hidden Shakespeare Group. Secrecy could never have been kept and we know nothing tangible as evidence of such a group. (Nor, in truth, for closeness between two geniuses).
Whereas both Bacon and Shakspere life-long were each secretive to their souls. That the genius Shakespere had a guiding mentor and supplier of literary ideas, plots, sparkling pictorial gems, and even half-written scripts might well challenge both Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian platforms. But it is only as challenging a proposition as that which pre-supposes ONE aristocrat as the mysterious secret writer and sole playmaker, whose hidden activities were never uncovered and his/her name identified. An academic favouring Shakspere as Shakespeare comments: In Shakespeares plays we have thought, history, exposition, philosophy, all within the round of the poet. It is as if into a mind poetical there had been poured all the matter which existed in the mind of his contemporary Bacon. Regarding Shakespeare and a mysterious long-term patron, if there was a secret it surely could only stand the test of time if both parties involved had great aims, and the temperaments to achieve those aims, to universal benefit? And were discreet, circumspect, prudent and wise in their practical activities. There is no proof that Southampton was Shakesperes primary patron, and nothing even hinting at a truth that others were supporters and intermediaries. Whereas, Bacon could, in speech and in writing, provide the talented Shakspere with an insight, a poetic sensitivity, a brilliant colouring, a word-picture pre-empting even answering unasked questions; one genius merging into the dimension of another genius, producing the amazing heights and depths - physical, mental even causal - found in a play by Shakespeare. As said before, it is hardly credible that a conventional conspiracy involving numbers of professional or aristocratic writers of the Canon would have remained a secret over many years, and certainly not into posterity! Though one conceeds, as one author puts it, seeing the past as a huge library that has burned down; and recorded history as a single line in a single book that happened to survive the fire (C S Lewis/Sobran).... with Shakspere it seems we can prove nothing in certainty. A broken timeline; but what of secrets? hiding truths to benefit all? never the aim to disclose themselves? According to Jonson, the man Shakspere he was of an open and free nature. With no secrets? But surely a man, one of higher consciousness and intent on a larger aim, can with practice hide. His secrets have value, to him, and are not to be easily disclosed. Secrets are seductive. They offer knowledge, power, belonging initiation into a world neatly divided into the knowing and the unknowing, us and them.... such secrets were not for sharing, they were a sacred trust to be protected against misuse. (Tim Sherratt, Clarence Hardy, Hist. Records of Australian Science, June 2000) Shakespeare may not have possessed Bacons cypher-nature, but there is awareness in his most still, most secret, and most grave (Hamlet on Polonius) There be three degrees of this hiding and veiling of a mans self, said Bacon.
Brian Jarvis
Page 51
06/08/2003
The first closeness, reservation and secrecy. The second dissimulation he lets fall signs and arguments that he is not that he is. Thirdly, simulation he industriously and expressly feigns and pretends to be that he is not. Bacon approved the first two. His skirts of secrecy as Shaksperes were tight. So, what might we make of TWO master craftsmen working together? Two spirits finely touched by Nature each abundantly? And an inherent if not, practised, state of secrecy? Assume the virtue.... so as to accept the stamp of nature. What a meaningful, fruitful, productive and effective output might have resulted! The Tempest, baffling, is seen as containing the mystery about the levels of consciousness and knowledge which illumine Man, depth upon depth. What an output - not merely as in one final play, The Tempest, but in a real, meaningful life and career - of two giants, spanning decades. It can only be emphasised again: both Bacon and Shakspere life-long were each secretive to their very souls.
Brian Jarvis
Page 52
06/08/2003
Whether Shakspere was Shakespeare, only Truth knows.

This web-site remembers that The Plays (are) the thing
I know when seven Justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an If as If you said so, then I said so. And they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the only peacemaker, (theres) much virtue in If Touchstone As You Like It
A Detective Mystery is for intriguing questions not for a quarrel...
If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all is mended: that you have but slumbered here, and this weak and idle theme no more yielding but a dream Robin Goodfellow A Midsummers Nights Dream
This web-site takes its leave of you...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, as I foretold you, were all spirits, and are melted into air, thin air; and like the baseless fabric of this vision ... leave not a rack behind... Prospero The Tempest
Brian Jarvis
Page 53
06/08/2003

Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rogues Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars