Over the years, the Shakespeare authorship argument has moved from one candidate to another, starting with Bacon in the late 19th century, then to Marlowe (1895), then to Oxford (1920). Perhaps due to a gradual weakening of the Stratford scenario, today almost anyone in the 16th century who left evidence of travels to France or Italy, or published something, or was ever mentioned in some connection with the London Stage has a book, or at least a website, where he or she is touted as the real Shakespeare. Hopefully this is simply a phase in the long slow turn away from the Stratford myth, first conjured up by Ben Jonson for the King’s Men in 1623.
As it stands at the moment, there are six candidates who have inspired at least one book, some several (William hundreds, Bacon and Oxford dozens), and whose credentials are currently being furiously hashed over online and in print. Just going by what I get from google alerts, blogs and comments, book reviews, etc., I’d say that Oxford remains in the lead with Bacon second, Marlowe third, and trailing but still with some interest, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, Emilia Bassano Lanier, and William Stanley, 6th earl of Derby.
Of all the advocates for these six candidates, I know of none but myself who’s advocating for all of them, not as Shakespeare, but as co-founders of the English Literary Renaissiance (the ELR). It’s been my view for some time now that all of them (minus Derby and plus Philip Sidney) belong in this pantheon of heroes . All (but Derby) wrote their own stuff in their own particular styles. What’s caused so much confusion and misunderstanding is that three of them, Oxford, Bacon, and Mary Sidney, published some or most of what they wrote under other names.
As for the group theory, i.e., that all of these gifted writers had a hand in some or all of Shakespeare’s plays, what genius level creator would, or even could, share the agonies and ecstasies of creation, particularly at the subliminal level at which these masterpieces operate? Elizabethans were fond of the metaphor that compared the creation of a work of literature to a mother bearing a child. Like all mothers, literary mothers need support (editors, publishers, and agents today; in Shakespeare’s time: secretaries, printers, and patrons), but as with the mothers of human offspring, the creation and polishing of a great writer’s mental offspring always was and always will be a solitary experience, inseminated by a muse perhaps, but developed in secret collaboration with no one but the writer’s own soul.
Nevertheless, it’s true that other hands are evident in some of Shakespeare’s plays, particularly the weaker ones. For instance, I tend to accept Brian Vickers’s argument in his Shakespeare Co-author that George Peele was responsible for some of Titus Andronicus. That is, I agree with his view of the fact of composition, not with his scenario (the two working together as contemporaries, brilliant young William dividing up the acts with the by then quite mature Peele, which begs the question of who at that point was in charge? It’s just as easy to see Oxford in the mid-80s, bored with providing the Court with material, giving Peele one of his old plays to rewrite.
Vickers’s use of the term “co-author” suggests the kind of collaboration shared by Gilbert and Sullivan or Rogers and Hammerstein. Although I respect his ear and his conclusion that there are two hands at work on these lesser plays, since he refuses to acknowledge the anti-Stratfordian thesis that covers were used on title pages, he doesn’t deal with the possibility that Wilkins, a leading member of the no biography group, was a name used by an upmarket Jacobean who felt it necessary to hide his (or her) identity. (I am equally suspicious of John Fletcher.) And because Vickers refuses to consider the Oxfordian thesis, with its corollary of weak early versions rewritten during Oxford’s mature “Shakespeare” period, he can’t deal with the likelihood that the “other hand,” the one that doesn’t “sound like” Shakespeare, was was in fact Shakespeare’s own juvenile effort, later turned over to Peele, Oxford having lost interest in it.
Finally, once Oxford was dead, the acting companies , eager to capitalize as much as possible on anything he ever wrote, had some of his earliest plays revised by Jacobeans. The King’s Men had Two Noble Kinsmen revised, possibly by Fletcher (as claimed), while Philip Henslowe had The Spanish Tragedy revised by Ben Jonson. And, as trained scholars have shown, editors did make changes of various sorts to the plays before the First Folio was published in 1623. But while those who were most likely to have had a hand in editing Oxford’s plays were themselves members of this group of artists (I propose Mary Sidney and Francis Bacon), the sum total of their editing could never have approached a level that could be considered co-authoring.
What I am advocating is a group theory, not for the creation of Shakespeare, but for the creation of the English Fourth Estate, including the London Stage and the English periodical press, and the start to the long tradition of English literature, the outpouring of poetry and novels for which the English have been lauded ever since. Each of these six writers created their own canons, some under their own names, some under the names of proxies. Of these six, four are now the leading candidates for authorship of the Shakespeare canon. The fifth, Philip Sidney, would certainly be on that list had he not died too early (and too publicly) to be included. (Derby was not a writer; had he been, we’d have evidence of it.) There is a seventh, Sir Walter Raleigh, who’s got to be considered for his great literary gifts, but the fog that surrounds so many of the works of this period is still too thick around him to see clearly where he fits in.
Putting the pieces together, what I see is a group of artists, much like the the 19th-century group that created the first important style in painting that can be considered modern art, the French Impressionists, a group of painters of very differing styles, more or less forced to band together to show their work when they were rejected by the Royal Academy. Much like our ELR crew, the basic group consisted of five men and one woman (Monet, Renoir, Pissaro, Sisley, Degas and Berthe Morisot).
No revolution, whether cultural or political, can succeed without a handful of energetic (reckless?) individuals in positions to make things happen, and it seems that six is often the magic number. Sometimes they work together, sometimes they just arrive at the same place at the same time. Think of the six original members of the Austin High gang in the twenties, the early six in the Bebop of the forties (Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Ray Brown, Milt Jackson, Kenny Clarke, John Lewis), the Beatles in the sixties (four plus the ghosts of Brian Epstein and Pete Best), the six members of Monty Python in the seventies. At other times they arrive one after the other, with periods of overlap, like the big three of the Italian Literary Renaissance: Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, or the big three of 17th-century French drama: Corneille, Moliere, and Racine.
There are other such groups, usually with a large fringe of lesser doers (makers, as they were known then, from the Greek poirein) and their fans, linked not only by the styles they adopted, but also by their relationships with each other. Artists, scientists, engineers, cooks––all creators make the best critics and most stimulating rivals for each other. Gifted writers not only make the most discriminating audiences for each other, they are good at reevaluating their predecessors, as did Alexander Pope in his time and Coleridge in his, for Shakespeare.
The leader of this particular group of makers, and the oldest, was the Earl of Oxford. The two who had the most influence on his style during his pre-Shakespeare years, and he on theirs, were Philip Sidney, his junior by four years, and Christopher Marlowe, his junior by fourteen years. Oxford had a huge influence on Francis Bacon’s style, as we see from Bacon’s notebook Promus, but his style was not similarly influenced by Bacon, who was of a very different mind. Mary and Emilia were both too young to influence his style, though they certainly influenced his later female characters, most notably Mary as Olivia and Portia; Emilia as Emilia (in Othello), Kate in Shrew, and most completely, Cleopatra.
8 thoughts on “The Top Six Candidates”
I’m thinking that George Martin was more than just a session player for the Beatles, but maybe that’s just what he was.
My question is whether you can describe the limits that a writer of the time could have achieved based on economic status. That is, we know a rope-maker’s son can go to Uni and excel at Latin. But we have no evidence that such a person could do that and not be humourless and/or clueless.
One could imagine that De Vere could have easily become a good writer, but only because everything else he did was so disastrous, he was compelled to become a great writer. There was one thing he could do better than anyone else, and that made it worthwhile for him to continue to improve.
Perhaps my question should be, which writer made the most out of modest circumstances and what did his writing lack that only good tutors, a good library, hours of leisure to read, and compelling life events would have provided?
“I’m thinking that George Martin was more than just a session player for the Beatles, but maybe that’s just what he was.”
That there can be six (or three) originators is hardly a law, just an interesting observation. There’s always a ring of secondary players around the originators, some accompanying them, some coming later, who some might choose over others. There are a lot of other names in early Bebop. And often the true originators don’t make it into the history books. Da Vinci and Palladio are given credit for certain developments that should go to Brunelleschi.
“My question is whether you can describe the limits that a writer of the time could have achieved based on economic status. That is, we know a rope-maker’s son can go to Uni and excel at Latin. But we have no evidence that such a person could do that and not be humourless and/or clueless.”
Do you refer to Gabriel Harvey? What both Harvey and Ben Jonson lacked was the sprezzatura, the witty nonchalance that was so admired by the Renaissance. This was (and still is) a thing that no amount of study could provide, that must have derived then largely from the protections that peers enjoyed (they couldn’t be arrested for debt, they could only be arrested and tried for treason, tradesman could not refuse to serve them based on fear of not getting paid, etc.), a sense of relaxed ease even in the jaws of death. We still admire the witty wisecrack made under pressure. Tony on NCIS, born to privilege, is given the trait by his writers. Even when privilege itself is lost, such traits can remain. Neither Bacon nor Sidney were peers, but both were treated as though they were in childhood and youth, and both show it in their writing, where Marlowe for instance does not.
“One could imagine that De Vere could have easily become a good writer, but only because everything else he did was so disastrous, he was compelled to become a great writer. There was one thing he could do better than anyone else, and that made it worthwhile for him to continue to improve.”
Yes, absolutely. Though less because of disasters that he caused or that befell him (these have been magnified by historians thirsty for scapegoats) than by the very thing that made it possible for him to create theater in the teeth of the Protestant revolution. Born with the kind of status and privilege that left him with nothing to strive for at Court, he saw his writing as a way of passing the time until he got the kind of military command that had always been the prerogative of his class and his forbears. When it became clear in 1585-’88 that this was never going to happen, he had nowhere to turn but to that world of literature, Homer, Euripedes, Ovid, Plutarch, Chaucer, that had been his escape since boyhood. That’s when the years of experimenting ended and Shakespeare was born.
“Perhaps my question should be, which writer made the most out of modest circumstances and what did his writing lack that only good tutors, a good library, hours of leisure to read, and compelling life events would have provided?”
I love your comments
I’ve dabbled quite a long time in this
area – you’ve cleared up a lot of troublesome loose ends and brought new insights to bear on what is often
murky and scattered
So I am loathe to quibble but I respect the overarching aim of your work not
to respectfully point out that leaving
Thelonious Monk out of your six bebop
jazz musicians is a fundamental error
there may be others as well – but
Monk cannot be left out of this equation
Of course. And of course there were more than six, just as there were more than six impressionist painters. But I was making a point. Perhaps the point should be that it takes at least six to make a revolution. Or that the true point should be that it always takes more than one––that to know the truth about the English Literary Renaissance we have to cast a wider net with the Authorship Question than just Shakespeare.
‘Oxford had a huge influence on Francis Bacon’s style, as we see from Bacon’s notebook Promus, but his style was not similarly influenced by Bacon, who was of a very different mind.’
What influence? Please could you explain your meaning.
The PROMUS are Bacon’s personal diaries, not just entries in note books.
Susan, I’ll keep your question in mind in the months to come as I finally begin to deal with the important question of where Bacon fits in the Shakespeare story, something that’s too complicated to deal with at all comprehensively when so many other matters are demanding my attention. As for Promus, its 19th century publisher states on the title page that it was Bacon’s “Private Notes, circ. 1594, hitherto unpublished.” If that’s not strictly true, I will be happy to modify my wording once I have the time. Meanwhile, I’m glad to see that somebody cares.
Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Opera, it looks fine but when opening
in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted
to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific
Thanks. Sorry about the browser issues. Not sure what I can do. I gave up on Explorer years ago; it seemed like it was falling behind the more recent browsers. Now I use Safari, Firefox and Chrome.