|
A Credo For Rational Anti-Stratfordians
Rational anti-Stratfordians are united in their understanding of both human
nature and the nature of a literary hoax. They can and do cite numerous examples
of similar charades, some solved, some not, including the plays of Terence, the
letters of Plato and the Federalist Papers.
They understand writers will, from time to time, and for various reasons,
attribute their works to others and that they will use misleading
advertisements, prefaces or epistles placed in these works, or elsewhere, to
actualize the dissimulation.
The book of Mormon and the Bible are equally worthwhile examples, since both
claim, solely on internal evidence, and in stark distinction to contemporary
accounts, to be inspired by, what "Mark Twain" called, the Deity.
Anti-Stratfordians do not find it peculiar that fellow travelers will have
assisted an Author with such a project whether for intellectual, philosophic,
spiritual or, even, monetary reasons. Indeed it seems likely some (dupes and
coney catchers) will have provided aid and comfort without knowing precisely
what they were doing and for whom.
Nor do rational Anti-Stratfordians find it remarkable, that these named and
unnamed co-conspirators will have risked their own lives to serve in these
projects.
At that same time, for example, the Marprelate conspirators, had successfully
fought a long term pamphlet war, against the English church and state, without
being caught, unless we suppose that John Greenwood and John Penry, both of whom
were hanged in the spring of 1592/3, were Marprelate. Greenwood and Marlowe, we
recall, were at Cambridge together, where they both, very likely, received
instruction in how to wage such "unorthodox" Protestant warfare.
Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, for example, dramatizes how a person may lose
his immortal soul, even when offered redemption, simply because one might cling
to the Catholic notion that one could only be saved by deeds, as opposed to
grace. Shakespeare’s plays, as opposed to the actor’s background, are
profoundly Protestant in this respect.
Among the named conspirators must be counted Southampton, Pembroke and
Blount, who published many of these remarkable plays. Indeed Blount, who was,
according to his address to Marlowe’s translation of _Hero and Leander,_
Marlowe’s literary executor, can easily be linked to a similar conspiracy of
silence devised to protect the name of a diplomatic translator who Blount calls
his "friend" and who was "anxious" to do both Southampton
and William Herbert, Lord Pembroke, "good service." All three
principles must have know the name of the translator, yet none were willing to
divulge it, since he was, apparently, either an exile or a persona non grata.
That Marlowe knew all three of these powerful and influential men and that he
was, in 1600, either an exile or a "persona non grata" seems, in light
of the historical record, which records him alive in 1602, quite possible.
For hundreds of years reasonable people have doubted the First Folio's
advertisements attributing the plays of William Shakespeare to the actor of
similar name.
Their leaders includes such greats as Emerson and Twain and, in English
academic circles, may have included Frederic Boas and Tucker Brook, both of whom
were never satisfied with the tenuous, if not contradictory, link between the
turbulent life of the author of the Sonnets and what Boas called the actor’s
"placid" life in Stratford and London.
The grounds for rational doubt are simple, straight forward and numerous: 1)
the biographic facts relating to the actor's life are not the sort of facts that
constitute the necessary life of the Author, particularly so if the Sonnets were
his; 2) his lack of mention or, rather, connection ,as the Author to these
works, during his lifetime, is equally inconsistent with his alleged authorship,
as evidenced so thoroughly by Diana Price in her new book _An Unauthorized
Life_; 3) his immunity from prosecution as the Author of Richard II, and
other similarly seditious materials, including Rape of Lucrece, remains
suspicious and inexplicable; 5) the continuation of his works after his death,
particularly the revising of works already published prior to his death, such as
Richard II and Othello, is truly remarkable; 6) the appearance,
writ large, within his works of advanced education, classical readings, liftings
from foreign languages, travels and intellectual and political friendships is
baffling within the framework of the rustic, economically pressed Stratfordian;
7) the Kentish focus of the English works and their detailed grasp of local
color, along with the lack of a similar Warwickshire background, is also
curious; 8) the lack of any certain immature, juvenile or late works is also an
issue of real concern; and 9) the appearance within his works of diplomatic
materials and their focus on diplomatic events, as evidenced by Hamlet,
Measure for Measure and several similar plays, is equally difficult to
reconcile with the life of the rustic and unprivileged actor, who finds no
mention within these circles and could not have commanded access to what were
then highly privileged sources of diplomatic intelligence.
While it is not difficult to reconcile the rustic’s life with his
illiterate and/or ill lettered Stratford family, it remains nearly unfathomable
that the Author’s daughters would have endured unlettered in a household where
the world’s greatest dramatic canon was being written, if Stanley Wells, chair
of the Stratford Trust, is correct, on a near daily basis. There are several
compelling reasons for this" first the connection between dramatic plays
and the spoken and written word is much more direct and obvious than it is in
other areas of literary endeavor and children exposed to such a context are
almost certain to learn to read and write even without formal instruction. The
second reason is equally compelling, while it is true that women were less well
off educationally speaking than males during this period of English history, it
is not true that they were less well off in literate households, where they
competed with and generally exceeded their males siblings in such maters.
Perhaps, most importantly, the Author’s opinion on the education of women,
particularly of daughters, as evidence throughout his plays, was entirely
favorable, "modern" and liberal. So the poor literate standing of his
own daughters, daughters who failed to protect his books, his letters, his
manuscripts and his assorted papers, is most remarkable.
The first recorded doubter was Queen Elizabeth I, likely the best informed
woman of her age. She appears to have suspected Marlowe the author of Richard
II. Quoted by her jurist, the Kentishman, Sir William Lambarde, in a
high rage, during the aftermath of the Essex Rebellion, where Richard II
had been enacted for the purpose of fomenting the coup, she ranted, "I am
Richard II. know ye not that? He that will forget God, will also forget his
benefactors; this tragedy was played 40tie times in open streets and
houses."
The Queen’s use of the "future" tense, for an action that took
place in the near past is, somewhat confusing, I suspect, particularly to modern
speakers and readers of English and may be supposed an idiomatic use of either
"the past perfect" or "future perfect" tense. (Or it may
record the Queen’s attempt to philosophize about human character via
generalization.)
In any event, it seems certain the person in question, i.e., the Author, had
forgotten (past tense) God and was only suspected (future tense) of being about
to "forget his benefactors," or precisely the opposite of the Essex
case.
It is, thus, not likely that the Queen was alluding to Essex, as often
claimed by Stratfordians, for Essex had very clearly forgotten his benefactors
(and the Queen) and was only _suspected_ of being "about to forget"
God, a charge he easily defended himself against and which was not, thus, long
forwarded by the prosecution during his trial.
We can be certain of this because Coke, who had overseen Bacon’s
prosecution of Essex, remembered to remark, before King James I, during Ralegh’s
subsequent trial, "Essex died the child of God, and God honoured him at his
death," whereas Ralegh was going to perish a doubting Thomas. (184, _The
Great Lucifer_."
On the other hand, the Queen’s quoted remark easily and _exclusively_ fits
the playwright Christopher Marlowe, who was widely suspected of having forgotten
God, and, in fact, had been arrested for heresy and atheism on a warrant issued
by the Privy Council on 18 May 1593, after his former roommate Thomas Kyd had
been tortured in an attempt to produce capital evidence against Marlowe. Indeed
Marlowe was rumored to be, on the eve of his official death, 31 May 1593, about
to "forget" his benefactors, i.e., the Queen, and to be in route to
the King of Scots. Diplomatic historians now know Marlowe was poised to act
officially, as the proxy (or projector, as Nicholl will call him) for his
master, Lord Burghley, ostensively, on the issue of the so called "Spanish
Blanks," before James VI, then King of Scots, and, thus, was not, as Kyd,
and Marlowe’s detractors, believed, about to go to Scotland as a traitor or as
an expatiate.
Marlowe remains the only playwright so accused, and thus, so far as is known,
the _lone_ possible suspect for the Queen’s fulmination. This chapter of
English history is so embarrassing or damaging to Stratfordianism that it is
routinely ignored by historians and biographers of the period, as evidenced by
its total lack of mention in the recent biography of Bacon, Hostage to
Fortune.
We need merely to consider that, during the aftermath of the Essex Rebellion,
the only player to have been interrogated over the use of Richard II, was
Shakespeare’s fellow actor, Augustine Phillips. Clearly had the Queen, her
domestic junta, or, even, poor Augustine Phillips, considered William Shakspere,
the actor, the author of _Richard II_ , he would have promptly joined Dr. John
Hayward in Newgate prison. Hayward, who was then supposed the author of Richard
II’s historical source, Henry IIII, soon received a life sentence for his troubles and
would have died in his acrimonious and plague ridden prison along with Southampton
(who was imprisoned in the Tower of London) had they not both been freed by a
grateful King James, a year or two later.
Unlike Hayward, who was protected by his Cambridge degrees and his status as
a "scholar," the actor would have been racked, tortured and, upon
confession, summarily executed. His method of death would have been far more
painful and protracted than Essex’s travail, which required only three blows
by his executioner to sever his head, according to William Camden, who was there
at the time, or the same cruel number required to remove Mary’s. (Though
generally unremarked upon, Essex’s rebellion had, apparently, been
deliberately orchestrated to call Mary’s execution to the fore, Richard II
having been presented on the 13th anniversary of her execution.)
Students of these public and quite gruesome executions teach us that the
"headsman" would strike so as to first sever the victim’s arms in a
deliberate effort to prolong their torment in what was rightly called "the
theater of hell."
Oxfordians know that the life of Oxford fits the hypothetical biography of
the Author much better or more closely than the life of the rustic actor: he had
an education, intellectual and political friends, he’s reported to have
written comedies and he traveled. Unfortunately he died too early to have been
responsible for any post 1616 changes. Much the same is true of Bacon and
Marlowe: both were much more qualified to have been "Shakespeare" than
the rustic actor. Indeed if Marlowe survived, as the historical records
maintain, he commands the most viable biographic "match," since his
works easily qualify as the missing early works of "Shakespeare."
Against Bacon stand his political views, which were pro-royal and monarchal, and
his date of death, also too early to have been responsible for the continued post 1630 changes to the plays and their de nova appearances, as evidenced by
Two Noble Kinsmen and the emendations to the Second Folio of 1634.
In any case, as rational anti-Stratfordians, we continue to point out that
the facts of the actor's life are not those required of the Author. The
biographic links are not present and many contradictory links, such as those
listed and discussed above, can be cited as negative evidence.
We have no quarrel with rational Stratfordians who concede all this and
simply treat their Stratfordianism as a biographic theory, linked by the ads,
proven misleading in other points, in the First Folio.
Rational Stratfordians merely urge rival claimants to bring forth similar
biographic evidence for their candidate(s) and welcome discursive debate about
who wrote these great works and what they mean.
Rational Stratfordians accept the intellectual "overburden" of the
works and their classical and neoclassical liftings, whereas, irrational
Stratfordians deny these important and, often, quite obvious parallels.
Indeed all rival candidates (and rational Stratfordians, as evidenced by
Carlie and Harold Bloom) are united in their opinions that the works are the result of the
greatest literary intelligence alive at that period. All acknowledge him as a
matchless literary, linguist genius, armed with a broad education, travels and a
first hand knowledge of foreign mores and customs and the leisure or
"dilatory" time to have produced diplomatic docudamas of this quality,
several of them _after_ 1616.
If we take as his, the 20,000 or so emendations made to the so called Perkins
copy of the Second Folio, he must have been in good health in the mid 1630s. Or
at the same time _Two Noble Kinsmen_ appeared out of the ether. This magnificent
lost play, said Shakespeare’s on its title page and argued entirely his by
stylometric studies and several scholarly opinions, entered history on the 8/18 of April
1634 or 41 years to the day from the date "Shakespeare’s" first
work, Venus and Adonis had entered on in 1593. Both works memorialize the
birthday of William Herbert who was born on the 8/18 April 1580. The Sonnets,
which bear his initials, entered on 20 May 1609, one of three Shakespearian
works, which materialized on this day in _consecutive years_, at the
hands of separate publishers. It marks Marlowe’s last official appearance
before the Privy Council. Marlowe’s play _The Jew of Malta_ appeared on
17 May 1594 or precisely one year to the day from the date of Marlowe’s final
arrest. It was not published until 1633, when it too appeared out of the ether,
addressed to Marlowe’s childhood friend and classmate from both the King’s
School and from Corpus Christie College, Cambridge, Thomas Hammon...someone
appears to have been keeping close track of important dates and people, for
Marlowe, over an astonishing period of time. Indeed Marlowe’s last known work
appeared on 8/18 April in 1654, or precisely sixty-one years from the appearance of
_Venus and Adonis_, a thoroughly Kentish poem dealing with Marlowe’s patrons,
the Sidney/Herberts. and featuring Mary Sidney Herbert, then the Countess of
Pembroke, to whom Marlowe had dedicated Latin love poems, which he attributed to
Watson, a year earlier. _The Jew of Malta_ it will be remembered first
appeared in Henslowe’s _Diary_ on 26 February 1592, Marlowe’s birthday. _Henry
IV_ would arise on that day in 1598 and be transcribed for its altered
appearance in the First Folio on that same day in 1623/3, according to the
payment of Sir Edward Dering, who lived in Pluckley, Kent, the home of Marlowe’s
mentor and professor, Thomas Harris, and whose librarian would later excitedly
sign himself "I Shakespeare" when recording his purchase
of the First Folio. (_Shakespeare Quarterly_ 1965.)
Indeed this divides them from many non rational Stratfordians who have for
centuries claimed the Author was a rustic self educated actor and that these
works do not evidence genius as much as a peculiar kind of crass materialism,
i.e., a simple desire on the part of an actor and/or theater manager to enrich
his company with plays he had tossed together backstage, more or less between
acts, as suggested by the movie *Shakespeare in Love,* which depended, for its
dramatic action, upon a plot that involved the Shakspere not knowing he was
lifting *Romeo and Juliet* from earlier sources, wherein their fates were
already sealed.
Irrational Stratfordians are thus forced, by necessity, to suppose, as did
the writer of this movie, that Shakespeare invented his plots and parallels as
circumstances presented themselves, spurred on by economic and personal considerations.
Irrational Stratfordians believe, for example, that the Sonnets are pure fiction
and the parallels between the plays and Plato’s are "coincidental."
The similarities include precisely the same number of works, i.e., 36 and such
obvious echoes as those evidenced between Socrates and Falstaff, as noted by
Harold Bloom, Leo Strauss, Howard White and myself.
All rational anti-Stratfordians remain unified in their understanding of the
Elizabethan and Jacobean political milieu, which they acknowledge would have
precluded the survival of the Author, had his identity been known to the
authorities, who controlled the press and had the means of insuring that those
with "grotesque opinions soon had bodies to match." This fact, and
this alone, explains why the poet was "hidden."
Rational anti-Stratfordians are also keenly aware that in such societies an
"underground railroad" routinely helps individuals, particularly of
this nature, find limited personal freedom by scheming against the state. It was
risky and dangerous business, but the course of human freedom and the nature of
a repressed society assures us dissidents, almost always, find friends and
support.
Thus rational anti-Stratfordians do not find it unlikely that the Author
would have had confederates in high places or that these comrades would have
risked their lives to help, whenever and however they could, with a project of
this magnitude. A project which had been placed, in their minds, by Providence
in the hands of a man far more blessed or gifted than they.
To these silent and unnamed heroes of "Shakespeare's" works, the
world owes an inestimable debt of gratitude.
The Pembroke family, Marlowe’s first patrons, remain the most likely
suspects, along with Sir Robert Cecil, the First Earl of Salisbury, who is
featured, under that title, fifty some odd times in these remarkable works.
Cecil, Essex, Southampton, Hayward, and Marlowe were all at Cambridge together,
all were likely to have been in on the wink. Essex was at Trinity college and
would have known Marlowe’s namesake and friend, the Trinity Marlowe, who
supposedly appeared a Valladolid, there years after his death...meaning that
scholars must now choose between the two Cambridge scholars which one surfaced
at Valladolid on 20/30 May 1599 and was reported there to the Privy Council in a
dispatched from William Vaughan, dated 4/14 July from Pisa, Italy.
William Herbert, to whom the First Folio is addressed, has his initials on
the dedication of the Sonnet and was, according to Boas and Chambers, the only
candidate connected by "a single shred of tangible evidence" to the
Sonnets. Just as his mother, Mary Sidney Herbert, may easily be glimpsed as the
Pretty Boy’s mother, she is equally as easily seen as Venus, though no
Stratfordian can explain how young Shakespeare would have known her, let alone
produced, with her, an illicit son, about whom the poet would later write, was
connected to his de facto father by "a hidden shame." One that
prevented him from acknowledging the poet with "public kindness" least
he loose his titles. lands and "honor."
The actor’s litigious nature and, what Duncan-Jones is calling, his miserly
and tightfisted financial dealings, do not mesh well with the rather astonishing
fact that he overlooked the revenue from his published works and never protected
this title when his name was improperly affixed to works that were either not
his, such as _A Yorkshire Tragedy_ and, arguably, the poems, which were
not included or addressed in the First Folio, or to works which were his, but
which were published from fraudulently obtained, "maimed" and
otherwise pirated copies.
Lastly rational anti-Stratfordians understand that acolytes and true
believers defend the citadels of irrational Stratfordianism with insults and bad
faith. Indeed we relish these outbursts as outward signs that reason is, at long
last, prevailing. Rational Stratfordians have nothing to fear from us, but
irrational Stratfordians are rightly in rout, as their fear gives way to flight.
Return to John Baker's Home
Page