DOCSLIB.ORG

GON/4* Founded 1886 a J*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GON/4* Founded 1886 a J* p VOL. XLIX. No. 166 PRICE 10/- POST FREE : GON/4* Founded 1886 A j* June, 1966 A CONTENTS Editorial 1 Times Literary Supplement Correspondence 11 r *! Obituaries ... 16 The Stratford Tragi-Comedy 19 Shakespeare Dethroned 42 Odd Numbers 108 Bacon’s Reputation ... 123 - Correspondence 139 Shakespeare Quatercentenary Report © Published Periodically LONDON: Published by The Francis Bacon Society Incorporated at Canonbury Tower, Islington, London, N.l, and printed by Lightbowns Ltd., 72 Union Street, Ryde, Isle of Wight. I THE FRANCIS BACON SOCIETY ■ (incorporated) ; Among the Objects for which the Society is established, as expressed in the Memorandum of Association, are the following: 1. To encourage for the benefit of the public, the study of the works of Francis Bacon as philosopher, statesman and poet; also his character, genius and life; his influence on his own and succeeding times, and the tendencies and results ; of his writing. 2. To encourage for the benefit of the public, the general study of the evidence in favour of Francis Bacon’s authorship of the plays commonly ascribed to Shakespeare, and to investigate his connection with other works of the Eliza­ : bethan period. Officers and Council: :■ Hon. President: . Comdr. Martin Pares, R.N. Past Hon. Presidents: . Capt. B. Alexander, m.r.i. Edward D. Johnson, Esq. ; Miss T. Durnino-Lawrence Mrs. Arnold J. C. Stuart l Hon. Vice-Presidents: ) Wilfred Woodward, Esq. Thomas Wright, Esq. Council: ; Noel Fermor, Esq., Chairman T. D. Bokenham, Esq., Vice-Chairman Comdr. Martin Pares, R.N. Nigel Hardy, Esq. J. D. Maconachie, Esq. A. D. Searl, Esq. C. J. Hemingway, Esq. Wilfred Woodward, Esq. Thomas Wright, Esq. Mrs. D. Brameld, Secretary: Canonbury Tower, Islington, London, N.l Hon. Treasurer: T. D. Bokenham, Esq. The subscription for membership is two guineas payable on election and on the first day of each succeeding January. Members receive a copy of each issue of BACONIANA, without further payment, and are entitled to vote at the Annual General Meetings. Members would assist the Society greatly by forwarding additional donations when possible, and by recommending friends for election. Those members who prefer to remit their subscriptions in American currency, are requested to send S6.25c. / 1 i 1 : f : i A Poster Printed in America in 1942. With grateful acknowledgements to the American Red Cross and Mrs. Maria Manley Hall (See Editorial Page 7) BACONIANA VOL. XLIX (80th Year) No. 166 JUNE, 1966 It should be clearly understood that Baconiana is a medium for the discussion of subjects connected with the Objects of the Society, but the Council docs not necessarily endorse opinions expressed by contributors or correspondents. EDITORIAL It is a ridiculous thing and fit for a satire to persons of judgment to see what shifts these formalists have . Essay. Of Seeming Wise. We present in this issue our record of the pseudo-Shakespeare Qualercentenary of 1964, which is a record of conflicting editorial views, and letters to the national Press. These do not so much provide a brief for the Baconian case, as a clear refutation, argumentum ad rem, of almost every point raised in support of the Stratford legend. One of the most interesting articles in this record is 44 The Stratford Tragi-comedy ” compiled by Francis Carr, Editor of Past and Future. Francis Carr entered the lists in 1962 as Chairman of the 44 Shakespeare Action Committee,” which was founded with the object of making the Shakespeare Quatercentenary an effective year of progress and research on the life and works of the Bard. This Committee is not officially connected with the Francis Bacon Society, although our President is a member. Other founder members arc: Ronald Duncan, the well known dramatist and poet; Christmas Humphreys, Q.C., President of the Shakespeare Authorship Society; Calvin Hoffman, representing the Marlovian theory; and Professor William Main representing Shakespearean orthodoxy. All members of the Committee, orthodox and heretic alike, were united in a genuine desire to spare no pains in the search for the truth. To maintain that there is no authorship problem is hardly reasonable. A recent and completely orthodox biographical sketch 1 2 EDITORIAL of Shakespeare by Norman T. Carrington, M.A.,* begins with these words: “Surprisingly little is known of the life of our greatest dramatist It is the contention of the “Shakespeare Action Committee ’’ that there is much more that ought to be known, and we congratulate Norman Carrington on his candour. The chief obstructionist to free and unfettered research—as our readers will see from what follows—is the Birthplace Trust. Hence the Tragi-comcdy! In widely circulating his compilation of Press clippings, Francis Carr was simply quoting the Press to the Press. We believe this has been effective. For instance, the last page of “Act Four ’’ is extremely illuminating. To find so keen a critic as the late Aldous Huxley, as well as three well-known publishers, willing to grant that there is a Shakespeare problem, must surely mark an advance for us, and a retreat for Stratfordian bardolatory. Francis Carr himself is not a member of our Society; but he has been a valiant knight for our cause. Following in the footsteps of Edward D. Johnson, he challenged Mr. Levi Fox, Director of the Birthplace Trust, to meet him in open debate. But, as might have been expected, Mr. Fox did not respond. We are grateful to those editors and journalists who have accorded a more generous understanding to our controversy. The demand for a tradition, where evidence is inconclusive, or where an author has deliberately covered his tracks, is fully realised. We look forward to the day when a common ground of reconciliation will be found in the interest of historical truth. Our country has often been willing to fight for a tradition, even for an exploded one. This is a sign of its strength. But the existence of a problem must surely be admitted when it clearly emerges into view, and is in fact staring us in the face. * ** ♦ Our Society’s 80th birthday occurs in the very month of writing these lines ! For it was on the 18th December, 1885, that a meeting was held in London for the purpose of considering suggestions for * Prefixed to Notes on English Texts (James Brodie Ltd.). EDITORIAL 3 the formation of a Society for the study of Francis Bacon. Those present placed on record their view that, although there were good reasons for believing that an intimate connection could be traced between Bacon and the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, “ all would be welcome to join this Society who felt themselves interested in Bacon’s life and writings.” This was to become the first Object of our Society, and remains so to-day. We have sometimes been asked by friendly orthodox scholars why our Society does not concentrate solely on Bacon himself, and give up the search for the truth about Shakespeare. There is, so they say, room and to spare for a learned Society dedicated to Baconian research as distinct from Shakespearean research. The answer, we think, is that new members frequently join us in pursuit of our first Object only. But this inevitably leads them into deeper waters, first to question and then to reject the strange idea that Bacon could have had no possible interest in the contemporary drama of his day. The present editors of Baconiana would like to record the thanks and indebtedness of our Society to those who sponsored or contributed to the first issue of Baconiana in June, 1886; namely— Mrs. Henry Pott, Mr. Alaric A. Watts, Mr. Francis Fearon, Mr. Alexander Cole, Mr. T. William Earle, Mr. Ernest Jacob, Mr. W. D. Scott-Moncrieff, Mr. Arthur Owen, and Dr. R. M. Theobald. It was unfortunate that Mr. W. H. Smith, the first English Baconian to come into the open—using this term in the modern restricted sense —was unable to accept the office of President owing to advancing years. It is a pity that the great news agency founded by his family and bearing his name, should be disinclined to remember him or his cause. His book, Bacon and Shakespeare—An inquiry touching Players, Playhouses and Play-Writers, by W. H. Smith (London, 1857) is well worth reading. This appeared in the same year as The Philosophy of the Stratfordian Plays Unfolded, by Delia Bacon, the fair New Englander to whom we also owe so much, and who has been so well commemorated in A Pioneer (1957), by Martin Parcs. 4 EDITORIAL One of our most senior members and vigorous writers, Edward D. Johnson, has just published a third edition of his well-known book The Shakespeare Illusion (London, The Mitre Press, 1965). (Price 25/-). Few Baconians have succeeded in condensing so much information into so small a space. The book is no longer a paper­ back, but bound in cloth. The third edition is revised and enlarged, and all students of our controversy should possess a copy for reference. Our brief tribute to the late Harold Bayley, which appeared in the Editorial column of Baconiana 165, made no mention of his chief Baconian book The Shakespeare Symphony (Chapman and Hall, 1906), which is now rather scarce, though available in our circulating library. This book runs to over 350 pages and, in the words of its sub-title, is an introduction to the “ ethics of the Elizabethan drama.” Mr. Bayley shows how impossible and impracticable it would have been for Francis Bacon to have main­ tained an open connection with stage players, notwithstanding his great interest in the drama, or to have allowed his name to appear on the title pages of the quarto plays.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Life Portraits Illian Si Ak Hart
    LI F E PO RT RA I T S ” T I L L I A N S I A K H A R A HI ST O RY O F THE VAR OU RE RE ENTAT ON OF THE OET WI TH A N I S P S I S P , I N T R A T ENT TY E" A MI NAT I ON TO H E I U H I C I . 6 x 9/ B “ Y . HA N y I FR I SWE L L . ' ’ ‘ ’ ’ ’ [llzzslratm é " Pfi oto ra fis o th e most a utfiemz c Pan m z fs and wz flz ) g p f , Views "f a é C ND D NE C O . , " U ALL, OW S , T H E F F L T O N H E A D O F S B A K S P RA R F L O N D N A M P L W N O S S O N O , SO , A H L x LU DG TE L . 4 , I 1 8 64 . L O N DO N R G AY S O N A N D A \ LO P I E S , T R , R NT R , BR E A D S TR E E T H I L L THE RE SI DENT P , V C E - R E D E N T I P S I S , AND BROT HE R M EMBERS OF T HE C OMMITT EE FO R RA ISING A NAT I ONA L M EMORI A L T O P E A R E S H A K S , T HIS VOLU M E IS D EDI CAT ED BY R T HE A UT HO .
    [Show full text]
  • The Play of 'Sir Thomas More' and Shakespeare's Hand in It
    79 THE PLAY OF 'SIR THOMAS MORE' AND SHAKESPEARE'S HAND IN IT. Downloaded from I HE announcement late last year by an expert in palaeography that a holo- I graph manuscript of Shakespeare is http://library.oxfordjournals.org/ preserved in the British Museum was an event of national importance, though the Press universally ignored it. Perhaps that was characteristic of * the usual channels of information,' as we call them in satiric moments; but the omission was deplorable, even in war time. For the claim was not the shallow guesswork of at University of California, San Diego on June 5, 2015 an amateur; it was the outcome of an exhaustive study of Shakespeare's handwriting, made by so high an authority as Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.1 The work crowned with this unique distinction is a play entitled 'The Bookc of Sir Thomas Moore,' preserved in Harlcy MS. 7368. It is a thin folio, the thirteen original leaves of which have been identified as in the autograph of Anthony Munday. A mixed assortment of plays, pageants, poems, translations of romances, annals, and miscel- laneous pamphlets issued from his facile pen between 1577 and 1633. Once, and once only, a contem- porary made the mistake of placing him on a 1 ' Shakespeare's Handwriting. A Study by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.' Oxford, the Clarendon Press, 1916. See also the first Review. 80 THE PLAY OF 'SIR T. MORE' pinnacle of genius. Looking round on the the- atrical world in 1598, Francis Meres enumerated the chief English writers of comedy, and from a group which ^included Shakespeare, singled out Munday as ' our best plotter.' Even if his other Downloaded from plays afforded any justification for this extravagant eulogy, ' Sir Thomas More' would go far to in- validate it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 the OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019
    The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The Oxfordian is the peer-reviewed journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non-profit educational organization that conducts research and publication on the Early Modern period, William Shakespeare and the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. Founded in 1998, the journal offers research articles, essays and book reviews by academicians and independent scholars, and is published annually during the autumn. Writers interested in being published in The Oxfordian should review our publication guidelines at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/the-oxfordian/ Our postal mailing address is: The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship PO Box 66083 Auburndale, MA 02466 USA Queries may be directed to the editor, Gary Goldstein, at [email protected] Back issues of The Oxfordian may be obtained by writing to: [email protected] 2 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 Acknowledgements Editorial Board Justin Borrow Ramon Jiménez Don Rubin James Boyd Vanessa Lops Richard Waugaman Charles Boynton Robert Meyers Bryan Wildenthal Lucinda S. Foulke Christopher Pannell Wally Hurst Tom Regnier Editor: Gary Goldstein Proofreading: James Boyd, Charles Boynton, Vanessa Lops, Alex McNeil and Tom Regnier. Graphics Design & Image Production: Lucinda S. Foulke Permission Acknowledgements Illustrations used in this issue are in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. The article by Gary Goldstein was first published by the online journal Critical Stages (critical-stages.org) as part of a special issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in Winter 2018 (CS 18), edited by Don Rubin. It is reprinted in The Oxfordian with the permission of Critical Stages Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrets of the Droeshout Shakespeare Etching
    For every reader of the First Folio, from Sir George Greenwood and W.W. Greg to Leah Marcus, the Droeshout Portrait has been an unsolved puzzle, symbolic of the disturbing mystery, who wrote the canon of plays? Emerson considered this “the first of all literary questions.” Nor have we solved the riddle, “To the Reader”, on the facing page. Without an understanding of these blatant challenges, the most knowledgeable follower of “Shakespeare” is kept from the author and how he lived, essential to appreciating any work of art. The key that turns the lock opens the door. All Rights Reserved – Copyright © 2013 WJ Ray 1 Preface THE GEOMETRY OF THE DROESHOUT PORTRAIT I encourage the reader to print out the three graphics in order to follow this description. The Droeshout-based drawings are nominally accurate and to scale, based on the dimensions presented in S. Schoenbaum’s ‘William Shakespeare A Documentary Life’, p. 259’s photographic replica of the frontispiece of the First Folio, British Museum’s STC 22273, Oxford University Press, 1975. The Portrait depictions throughout the essay are from the Yale University Press’s facsimile First Folio, 1955 edition. It is particularly distinct and undamaged. In the essay that follows, a structure behind the extensive identification graphics is implied but not explained. The preface explains the hidden design. The Droeshout pictogram doubles as near-hominid portraiture, while fulfilling a profound act of allegiance and chivalric honor to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, by repeatedly locating his surname and title in the image. The surname identification is confirmed in Jonson’s facing poem.
    [Show full text]
  • Streatham T Th Eea Rcompany
    streatham presents in association with theatrecompany A promenade performance in and around St. Leonard’s Design: dnharvey 20, 21, 22 Sept 2018 at 7.30pm plus Matinee on 22 Sept at 3pm Doors and licensed bar open 30 minutes prior St. Leonard’s Church, Tooting Bec Gardens, Streatham, SW16 1HS. Tickets: Adults £10, Members/Concessions £8. www.streathamtheatre.org.uk 0333 666 3366 No booking fee for online booking with e-ticket Standard rate, booking fee Streatham Theatre Company presents By William Shakespeare and adapted by Liz Burton The Streatham Connection “Hamlet off the Street in the hamlet on the street…” During most of Shakespeare’s Streatham means ‘hamlet on the street’, but performing a career, Edmund Tylney (or show literally on a street is a major headache, so we’re taking Tilney) was Master of the Revels William Shakespeare’s Hamlet off the street, to our beautiful responsible for the censorship St. Leonard’s church with the audience following the action as of drama in England. it unfolds inside and outside the building. Tylney is buried Hamlet is justly one of Shakespeare’s best-known plays, with a in a tomb in powerful story and some of the most beautiful speeches and St. Leonards familiar sayings ever written in English. It is normally 3 hours and celebrated long, but our much shorter adaptation tells the story by in the Streatham linking the most famous scenes with narration and music. Window. It introduces Hamlet to people who may not have the In the film Shakespeare in Love, inclination or opportunity to see a full production, and to give Tylney’s role was played by actors who are inexperienced in acting Shakespeare a chance Streathamite Simon Callow.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer? How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 57 Number 2 Article 4 1-1-2003 Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer? How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question Thomas Regnier Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Thomas Regnier, Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer? How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question, 57 U. Miami L. Rev. 377 (2003) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol57/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer? How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare's works, for the reason that the man who wrote them was limitlessly familiar with the laws, and the law-courts, and law-proceedings, and lawyer-talk, and lawyer-ways-and if Shakespeare was possessed of the infinitely- divided star-dust that constituted this vast wealth, how did he get it, and where, and when? . [A] man can't handle glibly and easily and comfortably and successfully the argot of a trade at which he has not personally served. He will make mistakes; he will not, and can- not, get the trade-phrasings precisely and exactly right; and the moment he departs, by even a shade, from a common trade-form, the reader who has served that trade will know the writer hasn't.
    [Show full text]
  • Much Ado About Nothing
    SI Nov. Dec 11_SI new design masters 9/27/11 12:43 PM Page 38 Much Ado about Nothing Anti-Stratfordians start with the answer they want and work backward to the evidence—the opposite of good science and scholarship. They reverse the standards of objective inquiry, replacing them with pseudoscience and pseudohistory. ould a mere commoner have been the greatest and most admired play- wright of the English language? In- Cdeed, could a “near-illiterate” have amassed the “encyclopedic” knowledge that fills page after page of plays and poetry attrib- uted to William Shakespeare of Stratford- upon-Avon? Those known as “anti-Strat - fordians” insist the works were penned by another, one more worthy in their estima- tion, as part of an elaborate conspiracy that may even involve secret messages en- crypted in the text. Now, there are serious, scholarly questions relating to Shakespeare’s authorship, as I learned while doing graduate work at the University of Kentucky and teaching an under- graduate course, Survey of English Literature. For a chapter of my dissertation, I investigated the questioned attribution of the play Pericles to see whether it was a collaborative effort (as some scholars suspected, seeing a disparity in style be- tween the first portion, acts I and II, and the remainder) or—as I found, taking an innovative approach—entirely written by Shakespeare (see Nickell 1987, 82–108). How- ever, such literary analysis is quite different from the efforts of the anti-Stratfordians, who are mostly nonacademics and, according to one critic (Keller 2009, 1–9), “pseudo-scholars.” SI Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare and the Supernatural
    Introduction: Shakespeare and the supernatural V i c t o r i a B l a d e n a n d Ya n B r a i l o w s k y Supernatural elements constitute a signifi cant dimension of Shakespeare ’ s plays: ghosts haunt political spaces and internal psyches; witches foresee the future and disturb the present; fairies meddle with love; natural portents and dreams foreshadow events; and a magus conjures a tempest from the elements. Th ese aspects contribute to the dramatic power and intrigue of the plays, whether they are treated in performance with irony, comedic eff ect or unsettling gravity. Although Shakespeare ’ s plays were written and performed for early modern audiences, for whom the supernatural, whether sacred, demonic or folkloric, was still part of the fabric of everyday life, these supernatural elements continue to enthral us, and maintain their power to raise a range of questions in more contemporary contexts. Supernatural elements implicitly question the border between the human and the non-human, and between the visible and the unseen. Th ey also raise questions of control and agency that intersect with the exercise of power, a central focus across Shakespeare ’ s œuvre . Shakespeare drew on the supernatural in all of his dramatic genres and throughout his career, from the early histories (such as Richard III and Henry VI, Part II ) to the late romances (such as Th e Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline and Th e Tempest ), in tragedies ( Julius Caesar, Hamlet and Macbeth ) and in comedy ( A Midsummer Night’s Dream ), suggesting the importance of the supernatural in his approach to drama.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford by the Numbers: What Are the Odds That the Earl of Oxford Could Have Written Shakespeare’S Poems and Plays?
    OXFORD BY THE NUMBERS: WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT THE EARL OF OXFORD COULD HAVE WRITTEN SHAKESPEARE’S POEMS AND PLAYS? WARD E.Y. ELLIOTT AND ROBERT J. VALENZA* Alan Nelson and Steven May, the two leading Oxford documents scholars in the world, have shown that, although many documents connect William Shakspere of Stratford to Shakespeare’s poems and plays, no documents make a similar connection for Oxford. The documents, they say, support Shakespeare, not Oxford. Our internal- evidence stylometric tests provide no support for Oxford. In terms of quantifiable stylistic attributes, Oxford’s verse and Shakespeare’s verse are light years apart. The odds that either could have written the other’s work are much lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning. Several of Shakespeare’s stylistic habits did change during his writing lifetime and continued to change years after Oxford’s death. Oxfordian efforts to fix this problem by conjecturally re-dating the plays twelve years earlier have not helped his case. The re-datings are likewise ill- documented or undocumented, and even if they were substantiated, they would only make Oxford’s stylistic mismatches with early Shakespeare more glaring. Some Oxfordians now concede that Oxford differs from Shakespeare but argue that the differences are developmental, like those between a caterpillar and a butterfly. This argument is neither documented nor plausible. It asks us to believe, without supporting evidence, that at age forty-three, Oxford abruptly changed seven to nine of his previously constant writing habits to match those of Shakespeare and then froze all but four habits again into Shakespeare’s likeness for the rest of his writing days.
    [Show full text]
  • Isabel Vives, William Shakespeare's Mystery, the Theories About His
    GRAU D’ESTUDIS ANGLESOS Treball de Fi de Grau Curs 2017-2018 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S MYSTERY - THE THEORIES ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE - NOM DE L’ESTUDIANT: Isabel Vives Ginard NOM DEL TUTOR: Enric Montforte Rabascall Barcelona, 18 de juny de 2018 ABSTRACT William Shakespeare is known for being one of the most relevant writers in the history of English literature. His ability to write, his vocabulary and his knowledge of the world, among others, have made of his plays a treasure in the world’s literature of all times. His perfection in writing is precisely the reason why critics have questioned over time whether William Shakespeare was the real author of the plays attributed to him. Who was William Shakespeare? Or who was the author writing behind the name of William Shakespeare? Several Anti-Stratfordians, those who deny Shakespeare’s authorship, have suggested their candidates and have explained the reasons why they are totally plausible Shakespeares. Nonetheless, there are critics who remain faithful to the theory that William Shakespeare did exist and that the only real author of the plays attributed to him was Shakespeare himself. This paper focuses on these two points of view about William Shakespeare’s existence, trying to approach the truth about the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays. Key words: Shakespeare, authorship controversy, Anti-Stradfordians, Stratfordians RESUM William Shakespeare és conegut per ser un dels autors més rellevants de la història de la literatura anglesa. La seva habilitat en l’escriptura, el seu vocabulari i el seu coneixement del món, entre d’altres, han fet de les seves obres un tresor de la literatura universal de tots els temps.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Authorship Question 1 Shakespeare Authorship Question
    Shakespeare authorship question 1 Shakespeare authorship question The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him, and that the historical Shakespeare was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not safely take public credit.[1] Although the idea has attracted much public interest,[2] all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3] Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread.[4] Shakespeare's biography, with his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and reputation as a natural genius,[5] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] Shakespeare surrounded by (clockwise from top right): Bacon, Derby, Marlowe and Oxford, each of whom has been [7] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature, proposed as the true author. and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford.[9] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience
    [Show full text]
  • The Death and Posthumous Life of Christopher Marlowe
    Ayres Death and Posthumous Life of Christopher Marlowe 4 August 2012 Page 1 The Death and Posthumous Life of Christopher Marlowe by Robert U. Ayres Preface: How this book came about ........................ 4 Introduction ........................................................13 Part I: Before the “Death” .............................................27 Chapter 1: The authorship question: Who was William Shaksper(e)? ..............................................27 Chapter 2: The birth and early education of Christopher Marlowe ....................................57 Chapter 3: A short but necessary historical background ................................................78 Chapter 4: Canterbury, Cambridge and Reims .........91 Chapter 5: Plots and counter-plots ....................... 108 Chapter 6: Theaters, spies, and the Earl of Oxford ............................................................... 122 Chapter 7: The impersonation of Gilbert Gifford and the Babington plot 1585-88 ........................ 138 Chapter 8: The Grand Armada and prison in Paris ............................................................... 152 Chapter 9: Back home and a bit of fame ............... 164 Chapter 10: The Bloody Question; Archbishop Whitgift and the Star Chamber 1583-90 ................... 171 Chapter 11: Manwood, Martin Marprelate, and the Ayres Death and Posthumous Life of Christopher Marlowe 4 August 2012 Page 2 marron murders ........................................ 178 Chapter 12: The Stanley plot and the Flushing episode ..............................................................
    [Show full text]