Virtual Classroom | Fellowship Home |Essays 2002

 

Shakespeare-- The Man and the Myth

By Gary J. Livicari
Grade 12
Loyola Academy
August 24, 2002

 

Literary academia has thoroughly examined every aspect of "William Shakespeare," the man and the mastery. Yet, the identity of this man, whose work changed the identity of modern literature, remains a mystery to this day. Although a strong intellectual establishment adamantly defends the traditionally accepted Stratford- on-Avon story , compelling evidence illustrates a different explanation. In fact, a history of doubt has existed since the Seventeenth century; doubt that has lead many to believe that the name "Shakespeare" may only be an alias.

The Stratfordian camp dismisses such claims as absurd and an arrogant dissatisfaction with literary history. However, many renowned literary scholars of the past two centuries have joined in this dissent and quest for the truth. Men such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, who, referring to the authorship question, said "I cannot marry the life to the work" (Sobran 10). Henry James, the master of American prose fiction, was "haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world"(Sobran 10).

The controversial "Father of modem psychology," Sigmund Freud, stated "the man of Stratford seems to have nothing at all to justify his claim, whereas Oxford has almost everything" (Sobran 10). The list goes further to include such notables as Derek Jacobi, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, David McCullough, and Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Kenneth Branagh and four Supreme Court justices. These names, along with many societies dedicated to deciphering the authorship question, reveal that the Stratfordian account may be a theory in crisis.

Still, if not Stratford, who? As Dr. Freud alluded to above, it seems plausible that the genuine Shakespearean author might possibly be Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. It is through de Vere's intellectual ability to write literature of revolutionary magnitude and his life meticulously revealed in the play, Hamlet that he may be the man behind the pseudonym "William Shakespeare."

As will be shown, the Stratford man's apparent inability to produce literature on the Shakespearean level raises doubt about his candidacy as the author. Furthermore, de Vere ' s story is a tragic one. As an earl and a royal favorite amid the unforgiving Elizabethan age, de Vere was forbidden to write plays for the common theater. Such an occupation was considered an insult to the Queen and beneath his own personal dignity . Sadly, he was forced into adopting a pen name -one that would ultimately conceal his genius from the modem world and, inadvertently, lend it to another man. De Vere's voice was silenced nearly 450 years ago, yet the authenticity of his story still haunts us today. Oxford's story, as revealed in the great works of Shakespeare, begs for further scrutiny. Just as Hamlet asked Horatio to "tell my story" (Act 5 sc 2) so too is our obligation today.

Ben Jonson a poet, dramatist and contemporary of "Shakespeare," once remarked that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time" (Looney 88). William Shakespeare, whoever he was, fulfilled this prophesy and revolutionized the usage and capacity of the English language. Shakespearean literature is among the most avidly read in the world. It is a true living textbook to the depths of human psychology. Shakespeare is to poetry and playwriting what Mozart is to classical music and what Michelangelo is to art. These artistic masters are rare in their intellectuality. Mozart wrote complex musical compositions at age 5 and Michelangelo left home at age 11 to study sculpture with some of the most prominent artists of the age. It is no wonder, then, looking at the prodigious backgrounds of such men that they went on to careers of unsurpassed mastery. Furthermore, various European writers, many of whom lead mysterious lives, can be tied to their work based on scant though substantial biographic information. As author Joe Sobran averred:

We don't know much about most of Shakespeare's contemporaries either, but nobody doubts that Marlowe, Spenser, and Jonson wrote the works ascribed to them. Even from the meager records and rumors that we have, Marlowe sounds like just the sort of man who would write Marlowe' s works. The same may be said of Spenser and Jonson. (10)

However, the Stratford man is not so easily reflected in his art.
Beyond business and parish documents very little is known about the Stratford man that would link him to literature of any kind, much less Shakespearean works. In fact, the question ofhis literacy is debatable. The Stratford man did not leave behind one, single piece of original composition, other then six scrawled signatures. These barely decipherable scratches present the obvious question of Stratford' s literacy. Furthermore, the signatures are not those of Stratford' s schoolboy days, but those of his mature years (the earliest signature has been dated to the year 1612). According to the widely accepted Stratfordian story, the man would have been 48 years old and in the midst of crafting some of his greatest plays- Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Tempest. Undoubtedly, these works would have demanded persistent academic attention, yet it appears their alleged author struggled with basic penmanship.

In addition, the supposed "father of the English language" had no appreciation or interest for books. A wide array of bibliographic sources exists in Shakespearean plays. The author extensively cited the Bible (Geneva translation), Holinshed's Chronicles, Plutarch's Lives, as well as many stories of Ovid and Geoffrey Chaucer (Sobran 25). Yet, as Professor T. W. Baldwin concluded, "we have absolutely no conclusive external proof, that he [the Stratford man] ever owned a book of any kind" (Ogbum 10). Professor Baldwin has written a two-volume book discussing the subject of Shakespeare's education and it is regarded as "the ultimate on the subject" (Ogburn 35).

Assuming Baldwin is correct, how then was the Stratford man able to gain such extensive knowledge of outside literature and incorporate it into his plays? How was he able to mold the English language in such a way that could only be the result of a lifetime dedicated to extensive literary interests? Obviously, this is a paradox. Not only was the man disinterested in books, it appears he was unconcerned with receiving an education. An elementary school was located in Stratford on A von during the supposed author's lifetime. Disturbingly, there is no record the man ever attended the school. Then again, there would not have been much pressure from his family to pursue an education. According to author Richard Whalen,

John Shakespeare [Will Shakespeare's father] was a leather worker and glove maker and for a time was alderman of Stratford. John signed his name with a mark, as did several other town officials. Scholars generally conclude that he was probably illiterate, not unusual at that time and in a town of fifteen hundred people. (8)

Charlton Ogburn confirms this conclusion and goes onto say, "Shakespeare of Stratford's parents, siblings, wife and daughters were illiterate except that one daughter, like her father, could sign her name" (10). Assuming that he did possess the knowledge needed to write the Shakespearean plays, it appears that the man from Stratford had little concern for the preservation ofhis work. According to Stratfordian biographers, the man spent the final five years of his life in Stratford. One may think that the greatest writer of all time would have left some indication of his life's endeavors. Scores of authors, from Aristotle to Thoreau have left vestiges of their craft. However, the Stratford man again broke the rules. Joe Sobran speaks on the troubling absence of publications in Stratford's life: "His biographers believe that Shakespeare spent at least the last five years of his life in Stratford; yet in all those years he didn't leave one single clue he was the author William Shakespeare." (28) Clearly, the Stratford man showed little concern for his legacy.

His contemporaries also thought him to be irrelevant. The Elizabethan age was known for its bombastic eulogies. Upon the Stratford man's death in 1616 no one in the literary world seemed to notice. Stratford's unmentioned death was not characteristic of one who was supposedly a great playwright and sonneteer. Francis Beaumont died only a month before the Stratford man and received a host of eulogies. Lesser literary figures, such as Ben Jonson and Edmund Spenser received similar praise at their death. The Stratford man, however, was an exception. The severe lack of elegiac praise at his death lead many to question the Shakespearean clain1. In fact, Professor Diana Price raised this question in her book, Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography:

The silence surrounding the death of Will Shakspere [ a.k.a. the man from Stratford] appears to go beyond indifference and almost amounts to a rejection of the idea that he was anyone of any literary consequence. The silence stands in stark contrast to the encomiums delivered upon the death of other writers and theater figures.
(17)

The vast range of knowledge needed to compose the Shakespearean canon was lacking from the life of the Stratford man. Scholars have repeatedly recognized the superior scholarship necessary to write the plays of William Shakespeare. The author would have had an extensive understanding of English law, medicine, and royal court life. For instance, Alfred Hart of the University of Melbourne identified the scope of Shakespeare's vocabulary: "Shakespeare has a vocabulary of 17,677 words, twice the size of John Milton's" (Ogburn 18). Lord Chief Justice John Campbell of England spoke on Shakespeare's fluency in law proceedings: "Shakespeare had a deep technical knowledge of the law and an easy familiarity with some of the most abstruse proceedings in English jurisprudence" (Ogburn 19).

In addition to this rare knowledge, Shakespeare was many years ahead of science in hypothesizing about the circulation of the blood and the existence of gravity (Ogburn 22). The plays also show comprehensive familiarity with Italy and France that could only be the result of extensive travel in these countries. Charlton Ogburn said it best: "He [Shakespeare] can only have been the best educated man of his generation" (18).

In stark contrast, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, possessed the necessary education and background to fit the role of William Shakespeare. As a ward of William Cecil Lord Burghley, Prime Minister to Queen Elizabeth I, de Vere received the best education of the age. Oxford's usual school day included dancing, French, Latin, writing, fencing, cosmography, exercise with his pen, and common prayers. Edward de Vere's scholarly aptitude was so evident at an early age that he attended Queens' College at the age of nine. He went on to receive his degree from St. John's College at age 14 and won praise for exceptional scholarship from his tutor and uncle, Arthur Golding, who remarked:

How earnest a desire your honor hath naturally grafted in you to read, peruse and communicate with others as well the history of ancient times, and things done tong ago-- also the present state of things in our day, and not without a certain pregnancy of wit and ripeness of understanding. (Ogburn 31 )

This was the beginning of a lifetime ofpraise devoted to Oxford, for thirty-three books and works of music are known to have been dedicated to him (Sobran 112). The praise Oxford received for his early literary work is no less impressive. As a junior in college, Oxford, wrote a 1,100 word Latin preface to the Latin translation Il Cortegiano, by Castiglione (Ogburn 35). The brilliance of the work led Gabriel Harvey to label it "more polished than the writings of Castiglione himself" (Ogburn 35). Unlike the Stratford man, Oxford showed a deep interest in scholarly activity. This may be a hereditary factor, for his uncle, Earl Henry Howard, was one of the leading courts poets of the day and the creator of what has become known as Shakespearean and English blank verse. The poetic form is seen in many of Oxford' s early writings, yet it is rare in the English verse of the 16th century. Similar six- line pentameter stanzas seen in Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare's debut piece, are evident in these early Oxfordian compositions. Furthermore, Oxford can be easily connected to the extended bibliographic references in the Shakespearean canon. Records show that Oxford, at the age of sixteen, invested much of his fortune in literature. Among his purchases were many of the books frequently cited in Shakespearean plays -Chaucer, Plutarch (French version), Cicero, Plato, Ovid, and the Bible. Surely this is the sort of personal library one might expect to find behind the greatest literary mind of all time.

Despite the passionate disagreements between both sides of the authorship debate, most concede that the play Hamlet is autobiographical. The poignant and surreal emotions depicted in the play cannot only be works of fiction, but seem to represent real- life tribulations, especially if the author is Edward de Vere. Shadows of Oxford's life are evident throughout the play. As a teenager de Vere endured the tragic loss of his father and the sudden remarriage of his mother. To de Vere's further dismay, this second husband was a commoner, Charles Tyrell, whose status was far beneath that of the de Vere family. The hasty marriage angered Oxford and drove him into deep despair and resentment of his mother. Such indifference for motherly love is characteristic of Shakespearean plays and, more specifically Hamlet. Hamlet's rejection of his mother's remarriage with "most wicked speed,"(Act 1 scene 2) parallels Oxford's similar despondency.
Members of Elizabethan court life are also reflected in Hamlet.

The character Polonius was thought to be a satire of William Cecil Lord Burghley, English prime minister and father-in-law of Edward de Vere. In fact this characterization was first suggested in the 19th century -- long before Oxford's name even entered the authorship debate. Burghley was known as a notorious "busy-body" and, as author Richard Whalen explains, an obsessive spy: " Burghley was well known for his spying tactics, even to the point of having spies report on his own son while the son was in Paris. Polonius has spies report on his son while the son is in Paris" (109). This kind of sly and controlling maneuvering created much bitterness between de Vere and Burghley. A similar sentiment is reflected between Hamlet and Polonius. Polonius, in the hope of understanding Hamlet's madness, enlists Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as personal spies. Hamlet becomes enraged by Polonius' dishonesty and resorts to verbal and, ultimately, physical abuse of the man. Lord

Burghley always spoke about his birth during the Diet of Worms; a convocation of church and secular leaders in the German city named Worms and presided over by the emperor. The sardonic Hamlet can only be referring to Burghley's birth when revealing the location of Polonius ' body to Claudius. He tells the king that "a certain convocation of worms" is working on Polonius, announcing, "your worm is your only emperor for diet" (Act 4 scene 4). Further mocking of Burghley is seen when Hamlet calls Polonius a fishmonger (Act 2 scene 2). This name must have originated from a law sponsored by Burghley that made Wednesday and Friday a meatless day to help the struggling English fish industry.

This intricate knowledge of Lord Burghley shows the author of Hamlet to be in close association with the man. As a lifetime ward and later son-in-law of Burghley, de Vere had this intimate information. Furthermore, de Vere's royal status and favor with Queen Elizabeth allowed him to freely satirize Burghley's behavior, without fear of punishment. Stratford, however, would not have this luxury. As a commoner, an insult to the Prime Minister could be grounds for severe punishment, even beheading.
Amidst the corruption and ruthlessness of Elizabethan England lived a lone, mysterious playwright, whose exceptional understanding of human emotions changed the course of the English language.

The work soon revealed that this was no ordinary playwright; this was no ordinary man. Through the past four centuries, history has come to know him as the great William Shakespeare of Stratford on A von. However, a deeper, more truthful conclusion lies at the heart of this controversy. Beneath the extravagant phraseology, unequivocal imagery and masterful storytelling lies Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, a man whose name was censored by an elitist society , but nonetheless shared his gift with posterity.

De Vere ' s tragic life allowed him to view the depths of the human condition and capture it in timeless verse. Furthermore, his extraordinary intellectual ability allowed him to craft literature of incomparable beauty. Though his forced anonymity hid his legacy from due credit, the tide of the authorship question seems to be turning in his favor. The inconceivable assumptions associated with the Stratfordian story leave Edward de Vere as the most probable Shakespearean author. Indeed, the authorship question may live on for a while longer, but the Oxfordian account may soon be accepted as fact. The Shakespearean plays are the final vestiges of de Vere's heartrending life and, through them he begs for our attention. They are his opus, they are his passion and divine gift to the literary world.

 

Works Consulted

Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1997.

De Vere, Rollin. A Hawk from a Handsaw: A Student's Guide to the Shakespeare Mystery. Hunting Valley, Ohio: University Press, 1993.

Price, Diana. Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography. London: Greenwood Press, 2001.

Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Realty. McLean, Virginia: EPM Publications, 1984.

Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified. New York: Kennikat Press, 1990.

Whalen, F. Richard. Shakespeare: Who Was He? London: Praeger Press, 1994.

Ogburn, Charlton. The Man Who Was Shakespeare. McLean, Virginia: EPM Publications, 1995.