Questions & Answers
Philip Herbert, Mary's younger son
One of the Dedicatees of the First Folio
Questions and Answers
Questions and Answers
The First Folio / Shakspere as "play-broker" / Davies epigram
Why didn’t the editors of the First Folio—not wanting to reveal the true identity of the Author—simply use the penname, “Shakespeare,” without attributing the name to some personage?
In other words, why did they (Herbert and Jonson, who oversaw the production of the First Folio) put forth the effort to prop up a “straw man,” in the personage of Shakspere of Stratford, only so they could then pin the name upon him? Why not just leave true Author's identity a mystery and unknown? (Well, it was never openly stated that Shakespere of Stratford was the Author, though it could be argued that some of the prefatory material in the First Folio clearly suggested it). Quite simply, if they used the name “Shakespeare,” without linking that name to a real person, however tenuous, then everyone would be a suspect. The Author could be anyone—including the true Author. So, to preserve the anonymity of the Author, they needed to pin the name on someone—and who better than an uneventful businessman-actor, long dead, who had some link to the London theater? And this misattribution could be made to stick because William Shakspere of Stratford had a name which was similar to that of “Willliam Shakespeare”—even though it was distinctively different in both pronunciation and spelling. (The similarity would have been about the same as that between the names "Peter Jensen" and "Peter Jonson.")
You see, using the pen name Shakespeare—without associating that name with a person—would have exposed the penname as a penname, and may have directed inquiries in the direction of the true Author (since her two sons where the patrons of the First Folio). So, the use of a “straw man,” long dead and forgotten, was perhaps the best way to keep hidden the true identity of the Author.
Now, Ben Jonson was an honest man—he was inclined to satire, covert operations, and misdirection, but not outright lying. So, although he and William Herbert put forth this sham character, in the form of Shakspere of Stratford--with the intention to misdirect the masses and keep the Author's penname hidden--Jonson never stated that the Author was Shakspere of Stratford. It was vaguely insinuated in some of the prefatory material (attributed to Hemings and Condell)—and this might have lead the imprecise reader to assume that the Author was Shakspere of Stratford—but he was never identified as being the Author. Jonson—in light of suggestion made in the prefatory material, that Shakspere, the businessman-actor from Stratford, was the Author—took pains in his eulogy to refute all possibilities that this could have been the case. (His poem accompanying the engraving also dispels the notion that the picture presented had any resemblance to the true image of the Author; and the fact that the engraving does not depict a real person, but presents a mask-like face, further weakens the affinity between the name “Shakespeare” and a real person from Stratford). Quite simply, the blunt reader might leave with the impression that Shakspere of Stratford—whose caricature we see in the First Folio—was the true Author, while a more discriminating reader would easily see that Shakspere of Stratford was not, nor could not have been, the Author.
What tells us that Hemings and Condell where not the true editors?
They were not capable of editing the plays nor writing the prefatory material. To insure this, Jonson put in several classical allusions in the dedication, something which could only have been written by someone versed in Latin and Latin texts. Hemings and Condell did not know Latin, nor were they accomplished writers, capable of editing the plays. William Herbert, who paid for the publication, knew every major writer of the age and could have had any number of people, of proven efficiency, edit the material. Yet, he picked two unknowns, neither of whom had ever written anything worth reading.
Most scholars agree that Ben Jonson edited the First Folio, and wrote all of the prefatory material attributed to Hemings and Condell, and that Hemings and Condell were “puppet” editors, or editors by name. Had Hemings and Condell been the true editors, and the ones who collected and safeguarded the plays, why was no mention of this directive was made in Shakspere’s will? Also, new plays fetched a good sum, and competitive theaters were always on the look out for new plays. So, if Hemings and Condell had in their possession and dozen or more “Shakespeare originals” why hadn’t these businessmen produced the plays or sold them for a nice profit? Why would they have held onto the plays for so many years and wait to have them published—which was not a profitable venture? Why, for that matter—having seen William Shakspere of Stratford diligently sue various people who owed him a few pounds—had Shakspere not sold his plays (at five pounds a piece) or had them produced in his own theater for a handsome profit after having written them? Why had he spent so much time writing the plays only to let all that potential profit go to waste?
Was Shakspere a play-broker as some suggest? Or, worse yet, did he “obtain” the plays of the true author and simply put his name on them?
The thesis that he stole the plays and then put his name on them is flawed in several respects. First, he did not put his name on them. His name was “Shakspere” or “Shakspur” or “Shaxbere,”
He was known and William Shakspur. The name on the plays was “Shakespeare,” or “Shake-speare.” It is an entirely different name. The other problem with this idea is that is assumes that William Shakspere of Stratford was associated with the authorship of the plays during the time he was alive. In all likelihood, the first time that William Shakspere of Stratford was associated with the plays, and “assumed” to be the Author, was in 1623 when the First Folio was published. Up till that time, no one linked William Shakspere with the plays. Certainly those who knew him personally knew that he was not the playwright, for none had even seen him writing a play. (He spent most of his time in business pursuits, as his primary concern, it seems, was to make money and establish himself in Stratford as an important person). Only years after his death was Shakspere of Stratford “put forth” as “William Shakespeare.”
Being that the name “William Shakspere” was similar to “William Shakespeare,”—and being that Shakspere was involved in the theater business—and being that no person ever stepped forward as the real Shakespeare--Shakspere of Stratford may have been given the nickname, “Shakespeare,” as a kind of jest; and, accordingly, sometime later, the vague spelling of his name may have morphed from “Shakspere” to “Shakespeare.” We know that Shakspere of Stratford was very concerned with status and reputation, and that is one reason why he applied for a family coat of arms, and petitioned for the rank of “gentleman.” Thus, it is possible, wanting to gain more status for himself, he increasingly changed the spelling of his name from “Shaxbere” or “Shakspur” to “Shakespeare.”
How did this common anti-Stratfordian notion that Shakspere was a play-thief emerge?
It seems to have emerged from a misinterpretation of an epigram written by John Davies of Haverford. One of his epigrams, published in 1610, was entitled, “To our English Terence, Mr. Will: Shake-speare.” (The placement of the colon, and not a period, after “Mr. Will,” may suggest that “Shake-speare” is another name for “Mr. Will”; had a period been placed after Mr. Will, it would suggest a simple abbreviation of William.”)
People arguing against William Shakspere of Stratford seized upon the notion that Terence stole plays and put his name on them—thus indicating that Davies was putting forth the notion that William Shakspere of Stratford was stealing the plays of the true Author, and simply putting his name on them. This theory is flawed in numerous ways. The flaw I want to point out, which we already mentioned, is that William Shakspere of Stratford was never associated with the plays, nor assumed to be the playwright, during his lifetime—so the suggestion that he stole plays, and put his name on them, would not make sense to anyone reading the epigram at the time. And, again, his name was “Shakspere” not “Shakespeare”—and certainly not “Shake-speare,” which is not a real name, but a clear indication of a pen name.
So, if this were the case, why would Davies write an epigram about William Shakspere of Stratford? And why—out of the blue, in 1910—would Davies write such an epigram? Did it reflect anything current, anything that would be understood, as a “folly” by those who read it? And this concoction that Terence stole plays and put his name on them is a convenient fiction. During the time that the epigram was written, Terence was generally held as a great playwright who skillfully adapted plays, just as Shakespeare, the true Author, had done. He did not steal plays but brought them to life with great skill. In addition, Davies’s epigram is placed within a section of his collection where he is praising and honoring great personages. So, by all accounts, this poem, and its link to the great playwright Terence, was meant to be something positive.
Epigrams 155-163, from Davies’s The Scourge of Folly, 1610
155: To my worthily-disposed friend Mr. Sam. Daniell.
156: To my well-accomplish’d friend Mr. Ben. Johnson.
157: To my much esteemed Mr. Inego Jones, our English Zeuxis and Vitruvious
[Zeuxis—an ancient Greek painter; Vetruvius—an ancient Roman architect]
158: To my worthy kinde friend Mr. Isacke Simonds.
159: To our English Terence Mr. Will: Shake-speare.
160: To his most constant, though unknowne friend: No-body.
161: To my neere-deere wel-knowne friend: Some-body.
162: To my much regarded and approved good friend Thomas Marbery Esquire.
163: To my right deer friend approved for such, John Panton Equire.
I will admit my error with respect to my original interpretation of this poem. Jumping on the anti-Stratfordian bandwagon, I assumed that this was an unflattering poem written about William Shakspere of Stratford, a person who stole plays and put his name on them. Yet, however much I tried, things just did not fit. Some time later I came to the conclusion that this poem was not written about William Shakspere of Stratford but about William Herbert, or “Mr. Will.” And this epigram was written right after the publication of “Shakespeare’s Sonnet”—which, for those in the know, involved William Herbert, or“Mr. W.H.” to whom the sonnets were dedicated.
Thus, it seems, that Davies’s epigram was addressed to “Mr. Will,” William Herbert, and should be interpreted from that position. Some may argue that William Herbert held the rank of Lord not “Mr.” and so the term “Mr. Will” could not apply to him; however, Herbert was playfully addressed as “Mr. Will” because that was the mis-title used for him in the dedication of sonnets).
John Davies
Coming full circle, we find that John Davies was familiar with the sonnets, the authors of the sonnets—and acting as a calligrapher for the Sidneys, may have had direct access to Lady Wroth's sonnets. It was in this context, that he wrote his cryptic and oft misinterpreted poem, to “Mr. Will.” In all of this, there was not one thought about William Shakspere of Stratford and no one, in the know, who read Davies’s poem ever associated it with the man from Stratford. Shakspere was, at that time, completely out of the loop. The Davies poem should be interpreted in this context, as addressed to “Mr. Will” who is “Mr. W.H.,” William Herbert, the only begetter of “Shake-speare’s Sonnets.”
Herbert was well aware that the epigram was about him, and Davies knew that Herbert knew it, and so Davies (who was friendly to the Sidney family and William Herbert) took pains not to offend Herbert, nor to reveal him as “Mr. Will.” Why did Davies write the epigram at all? Perhaps he felt that something needed to be written about the folly of the sonnet episode and its illicit publication. William Herbert wanted to distance himself from the sonnets as every section involved a very private matter and posed an embarrassment. (And Herbert as a powerful man, and later as Lord Chamberlain, was successful in a near hermetic repression of the sonnets). The sonnets he wrote as a lustful youth, the sonnets urging him to marry Fitton, the sonnets from Mary Wroth (giving details of their stormy relationship), the railing poem which told of how he seduced and betrayed Mary Fitton, all contained material he did not want revealed.
Thus, from the content, publication date, and positive placement of the epigram (and its proximity to those favorably disposed to both Davies and Herbert) we can surmise that: a) the poem is addressed to William Herbert, or “Mr. Will”, b) Davies’s reference to Terence is something positive, c) As Herbert did not want to be associated with the sonnets, and wanted to “keep things under wraps,” Davies was keen not to mention his name, nor include anything in the epigram by which he could be positively identified—however, Davies mentioned enough so that those who were “in the loop” would understand that it was addressed to Herbert, d) Davies’s careful use of the spelling “Shake-speare,” as opposed to “Shakespeare,” clearly indicted that he was using it as a pen name, and not in reference to a real person, e) the epigram was a response to the illicit and damaging publication of “Shake-speare’s Sonnets,” in 1609, which implicated William Herbert, “Mr. W. H.” as the “only begetter” of the sonnets.
Can you give us a brief interpretation of Davies’s poem?
You must understand that William Herbert was a pretty powerful man. He did not want the sonnets published—and when he discovered that they were published, he blocked them by putting pressure on the publishers and booksellers. Davies’s poem suggests that the publishers and booksellers were hit with some kind of sanctions which did not allow them to sell or distribute the book. Thus, the printers were stuck with a lot of books which they could not move. The last two lines of the epigram are addressed to the opportunistic, yet unethical, publishers.
And honesty thou sow’st, which they do reape;
So, to increase their Stocke which they do keepe.
Davies writes that the sonnets were an honest revealing of the heart (which would include Herbert’s poems to the “dark lady” and Wroth’s poems to Herbert) which the publishers tried to exploit for profit—to increase their stock, their profit, or their stock of books—which now they must keep (for they are not allowed to sell them).
Had’st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport:
This may refer to Herbert having acted out the parts of a king, on stage, or his playing the part of a king (or leader) in the various court factions. The various rivalries between court factions could be seen as “sport.” The word “King” is not italicized which indicates that it is not meant to be a direct reference to James or a named King. However, if we do interpret this line literally, it could refer to Herbert playing with some of the parts of King James, in sport—which reminds us of the time when he famously kissed King James on the face (or lips) at the King’s coronation.
Thou hadst bin a companion for a King:
Herbert, of course, was one of the closest companions to King James. He held the canopy at James’s coronation and the King died in his arms.The word King, in italics, suggests a proper name—King James—rather than a generic term (as is found in the previous and subsequent lines).
And, beene a King among the meaner sort.
Herbert himself was a “King among the meaner sort” which means that he was the head of a court faction, the “meaner sort” referring to the mean-spirited rivalry which took place amongst the various court factions. A negative, and unlikely reading, of “a King among the meaner sort” could be a reference to Herbert’s reputation as a womanizer; he was a King among “the meaner sort”—those who mistreated woman. This, however, is unlikely since Davies’s intent was to make this poem positive.)
Some others raile.
This refers to the railing against Herbert found in, A Lover’s Complaint. Davies complements Herbert by saying that he did not rail in return, nor seek revenge, but attended to the matter with skill and wit. What Herbert did was to completely repress the sonnets, such that “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” were all but dead for some 150 years thereafter.
As mentioned, my first interpretation of the epigram was made under the assumption that it was addressed to William Shakespeare of Stratford. To give you some idea of how words can be “spun” in the direction you want—even if your fundamental assumption is totally wrong—I will provide a few lines of mistaken interpretation:
Had’st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport:
Had you not played some kingly part in jest—such as the time when you claimed yourself to be playing the part of ‘William the Conqueror’ who came before Richard II, played by Burbage? [This refers to a famous incident related by Manningham, in 1602].
Thou hadst bin a companion for a King:
You had been a companion for a King, such as King Henry, a ‘companion’ in the sense that a) you acted the part of a King, in a “Shakespeare” play, b) you, as a member of the King’s Men, acted in front of King James.
And, beene a King among the meaner sort :
You were the leader of a bunch of ruffians and loan sharks, which is the way you made all your money. [In this regard, someone filed a petition with the courts (what might be interpreted as a restraining order) against Shakespeare (and some of his fellow extortionists), in fear of his own life.]
And honesty thou sow’st which they do reape :
And what you call “honesty”—which is really dishonesty—thou sowest (in the form of the plays you put on, at your theater, in your name—stolen from others) which they (yourself and your fellow shareholders) do reap (in profits). [Honesty is set in italics, which implies that the word should be emphasized and carry the opposite meaning, i.e., dishonesty.]
I think you get the idea. With such cryptic verse, we can take the same words and have them apply to anyone. I gave a small example of how this can be done with Davies’s epigram, but we find this same method used throughout the Authorship Debate, and especially with Jonson’s eulogy. It seems that any line can be made to fit to virtually anyone.
Thoughts and Theories on the Authorship Question
“Conceiv’d out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism—personifying in unparallel’d ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering sprit of ruthless and gigantic caste, with its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation)—only one of the “wolfish earls” so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born knower and descendent, would seem to be the true author of these amazing works.” … “I am firm against Shaksper—I mean the Avon man, the actor.”
(Walt Whitman, The Critic, 1884)
On reason why I get discouraged when addressing the Authorship Question, is that no matter what interpretation you come up with, no matter how feasible, there will be at least ten people who will cite evidence refuting what you have said. So, there is never any real conclusion, nor answer, just the formation of different camps which then argue against each other. I have come to see this Question in terms of consciousness, and the level of consciousness on which a person is operating. At this time, there will always be different camps, different interpretations of the same evidence, because people are operating at different levels of consciousness. So, all we have, at this time, are theories—and here is yet another theory: when the consciousness of those looking into this question begins to operate on a higher level I believe that everyone will be more unified in their opinion. Certainly, at this point, we can say that the Stratfordian level of consciousness—i.e., those who doggedly hold that William Shakspere of Stratford was the Author, despite all the evidence to the contrary—is pretty low. (I am not saying that their intellectual capacity is low only the level of consciousness in which that intelligence is applied). The level of consciousness of the anti-Stratfordians—those who hold that Shakspere of Stratford was not, nor could not have been, the Author—may be somewhat higher but most camps are still hampered by tunnel vision and convenient distortions of the evidence. I find little or no solid evidence in support of Bacon, de Vere, or Neville, and I wonder about why their advocates are so adamant in their claims. And, of course, they will look at me and wonder why I support Mary Sidney. So, in the end, all we have are a bunch of opinions, with everyone arguing with each other--which is not very satisfying. (Some people have taken offense at my theory, stating that they were 'sorry' that they had not yet reached the level of my consciousness: such a response is, yet again, another indication of what I am talking about.)
Why is there even an Authorship Question? More specifically, given all the evidence against him—and the lack of any real evidence for him—why are so many scholars and educated people so adamant that this most unlikely man from Stratford was the Author of the Shakespeare plays?
I often wonder about that myself. If a person reads all the material, and is able to enter the milieu of the time, and looks at all the different scenarios, it becomes very clear that Shakspere of Stratford was not the Author. A careful look at Jonson’s eulogy, and what he wrote for Hemings and Condell (in the prefatory material of the First Folio) is a pretty clear indication that Shakspere of Stratford was not, nor could not have been, the Author. That is my opinion, and my conclusion, anyway. It seems that most people, even supposed scholars, do not take the time to read the material, or staunchly resist reading it with an open mind, and therefore they bar themselves from the truth assessment of the material.
I think this thing comes down to a matter of consciousness and the general state of consciousness which still places too much importance on names. I think it may take a few hundred years, when consciousness has expanded, before people come to generally accept that Shakspere was not the true Author. (Fred Faulkes puts forth the notion that the Phoenix rises every 500 years; and so we have about a hundred years before the next resurrection). However, to many people, right now, the truth seems pretty obvious. For instance, when I look at the book by Stephen Greenblatt, Will in the World, it reads to me as pure fiction, pure fabrication (but most people regard it as a true, scholarly account). Most of the work by the anti-Stratfordians also falls into the category or imaginative fiction: the anti-Stratfordians have taken great pains to dismiss Shakspere of Stratford as the true Author (which they have done quite well), but they have created a void which they are not able to fill—and in their attempts to fill this void they engage in the same kind of hopeful and fanciful fabrication as the Stratfordians. Again, there is universal agreement (among the anti-Strats) that Shakspere of Stratford did not write the plays but no agreement as to who did. So, although I am an anti-Stratfordian of sorts, I am at odds with everyone who defends, and does somersaults to try and convince themselves, that the Earl of Oxford, or Bacon, or Neville, was the Author.
What about the position of neutrality that some anti-Stratfordian scholars take, not backing any particular candidate, but only promoting the position that Shakspere of Stratford did not write the plays?
The position is somewhat unsatisfactory—it’s like knowing where a treasure is not but not knowing where it is. However, without any clear or satisfactory indication as to the true Author—and nothing much can be found in the major camps of Oxford, Bacon, and Neville—an honest scholar would find him or herself in this position of unfulfilled neutrality. Such an anti-Stratfordian scholar, holding that Shakspere of Stratford was not the true author, might also hold that Oxford was not the true Author, even though he might have had a few more qualifications. I was in this uncomfortable position of neutrality, where the jury was not even assembled, until I came across the evidence in support of Mary Sidney. Though nothing short of a manuscript written in the Author’s hand would be definitive, from all the given evidence, I can say with some certainty that Mary Sidney is the “most likely Author.” Thus, as a working hypothesis, or as a default position for every undecided anti-Stratfordian, Mary Sidney should be on the top of the list of possible Authors.
What evidence are you relying on, in support of Mary Sidney?
First, I rely upon the standard evidence which links Mary Sidney’s life experience, formal education, aristocratic upbringing, and her direct link to various characters in the plays. This evidence, as suggested, is not convincing, since it can apply to virtually all aristocratic candidates, yet Mary Sidney seems a more perfect match to the plays than any other candidate. Robin Williams makes an excellent case for this in her book, Sweet Swan of Avon. Next I rely upon the evidence that links Mary Sidney to Jonson’s Eulogy. Almost every line references her, either directly or indirectly. When applying this same test to the other candidates (which includes Shakspere of Stratford) we find very few, if any of the lines of Jonson’s eulogy is relevant. Third, I am using a brilliant system of cognitive typing, which indicates the cognitive type of the Author from an analysis of the main characters in the plays. This system can only narrow down the field, indicating a certain type of cognitive pattern—which several of the candidates can share—however, among the major candidates, the cognitive pattern found in the Shakespeare plays is only held by Mary Sidney. This evidence can only be appreciated by a handful of people and is not accessible to mainstream scholars. However, anyone who endeavors to learn this system, and apply it to the plays of Shakespeare, might become more certain that Mary Sidney was the Author, and more doubtful about Shakspere, Oxford, or Neville.
If we look at Mary Sidney's earlier works, and hold that she was the primary author of the "Shakespeare Plays," we see that she is a much better playwright than a poet. Even the poems that are found in the plays are somewhat lacking when compared to the rest of the verse. So, we have a disconnect here. I am under the opine that Mary Sidney was a gifted writer, very exacting in her verse, but not a "Shakespeare." Maybe she was a brilliant playwright and a not so brilliant a poet. But more than likely--and this is what hopelessly confuses the issue--she did not write the plays alone. In his eulogy, Jonson suggests that the Author received help. The plays have a consistent feel and voice, and therefore we must conclude that there was one primary, or overseeing, or finalizing author. However, there is nothing to suggest that Mary Sidney (nor any of the other major candidates, including Shaksper) had the talent or wherewithal to write the plays alone. (Certainly the image of a "quick-study" Shakespeare, alone in his room, quickly knocking out plays to met public demand, should be wholly dismissed). But also, the image of Mary Sidney, alone in her study, writing the plays in secret, is not wholly believable. However, Mary Sidney, being the Grande Dame of Wilton House, and being surrounded by the most gifted writers of the age, was in a perfect position to be at the helm of a playwriting endeavor. This does not mean that the plays were written as part of a group effort, or by committee, only that Mary Sidney received significant help with the plays, especially in terms of story-line, ideas, research, and perhaps early construction. (It is also likely that some of the plays in the collection may have been conceived and written by others, and later revised, and made into a "Shakespeare" play by Mary.) She, above all, was a wordsmith; she liked putting together word combinations and creating new words. She liked bringing things to perfection. So, she would have spent more time in perfecting the plays, and the verse, and less time with the grunt work which was needed, especially in preparation of the historical plays. Thus, in the end, we can say that Mary Sidney was "the primary" author of the "Shakespeare plays" but not their sole author.
Stratford Bust and Memorial Structure
Are there any other issues related to the Authorship Question, besides Jonson’s Eulogy, that you find especially telling?
There are several, but since we are on the subject of statues, I think the circumstances surrounding the original Shakespeare memorial structure in Stratford might provide something useful. The common opinion, diligently held by both Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike, is that all is as it seems—that the memorial was constructed for William Shakspere between 1616 and 1623, which is the date between his death and the publication of the First Folio. (Dugdale wrote in his diary that the structure was made by “one Gerard Johnson,” who died in 1611—but this is quickly explained away by the assertion that Dugdale was referring to Johnson the Younger, not Johnson himself.) My original thought was that the structure was constructed after 1623, as a result of it being mentioned in the First Folio—and that it was constructed for the faithful from London, who were streaming into Stratford to see the ‘monument’ of their Poet and finding nothing. Thus, there was no structure in Stratford in 1623; and Digge’s reference to “thy Stratford Moniment’ must have been to some other, then-existing monument in Stratford—and the most likely monument would have been the massive stone structure of Old Sarum, in Stratford-sub-Castle (bordering Mary Sidney’s Wilton Estate). The problem with this idea is that the structure is amiss (both in its original form and as it rests today); had the memorial structure been constructed after 1623, commissioned by the faithful coming from London, in honor of their venerable poet, it would not have sported a man holding a sack. So, it appears that there was an existing structure in Stratford-on-Avon, in 1623, and that Digges’s line was meant to refer to that structure; his line, however, is sufficiently vague and imprecise: it could refer to both the 'monument' in Stratford-on-Avon (though the structure could not truly be called a ‘monument’) and to Old Sarum, near Stratford-sub-Castle.
All said, it seems that the original memorial structure in Stratford was initially constructed for John Shakspere, by his son William Shakspere, sometime between 1602 and 1611. I believe that the inscription found on the original structure (to John Shakspere), which was then modified to fit William Shakspere, may have originally been the floor stone covering John Shakspere's grave and later used for the structure. A comparison between the size of the inscription stone on the memorial and the typical size of a floor stone (if there is one) might prove useful. (Where, might I ask, is John Shakspere's grave?) This theory explains why the engraving on the front of the structure says that “Shakspeare” was “with in this monument” and that his name “doth deck this tomb”: when the slab was a stone on the floor of Trinity Church, in Stratford, the body of John Shakespere did lie within and it was a tomb. That cannot be said about the original memorial structure which never contained a body and was never a tomb. Continuing our story, some time around 1621, when there was a need for William Shakspere to have some kind of memorial, the “Shakspeare” memorial was "brought to life" and morphed from John Shakspere to William Shakspere. This was accomplished by a few strokes of the chisel, by the simple addition of two Latin lines, two English lines (to the already-existing four-line poem), and a death date of 1616. This expanded inscription positively linked the structure to “Shakespeare the Author”—by the Latin verse—and William Shakspere of Stratford (and not his father), by the day and year of his death. The bust of the “John Shakspere,” holding a sack of wool (or, as some surmise, a sack of grain) went unchanged.
One more thing to note is this regards: court records indicate that John Shakspere was a large-scale trader in wool (which was illegal); and he was also a usurer. He seemed to have amassed a small fortune from these illicit business practices. For instance, in 1576 his estimated net worth was £400; on his coat of arms application, made in 1596, he listed his net worth as £500. Many scholars claim that this was a false exaggeration (to give more weight to his application) but it now appears that the statement was accurate. Thus, John Shakespeare was a wealthy "gentleman"--wealthy enough to pay for his own memorial (which proudly displayed his newly obtained family coat of arms). The mystery of how William Shakspere came upon so much money in the early 1600s may not be such a mystery after all--he inherited it from his father.
It is likely that William Herbert and Ben Jonson were behind this scheme to morph the memorial structure as part of an overall plan to help keep the true Author’s identity a secret. Jonson probably wrote the Latin verse, praising the Author, and also the two additional English lines—which have the Jonsonian style of seeming to praise the Stratford man while, at the same time, suggesting that he was not the true Author.
In sum, if the memorial was originally that of John Shakspere, it tells us that no memorial was constructed for William Shakspere after his death—which suggests a person of very little significance. (He left no provision for such a structure in his will, so it remains unclear as to who would have paid for this honorarium.) It also tells us that someone took the time to create this rouse, to put forth some kind of farce, where the greatest writer of the age is holding a sack of barley, and where the last two English lines seem to suggest that William Shakspere of Stratford had not written a single page of worthy verse (or if he did write anything, it was on the level of a ‘page’ and far short of work of the true "Shakespeare," who was a peerless master poet). I don’t know if chisels leave a ‘signature’—which might be discovered through microscopic examination—but if they do, such an exam might reveal that the original four English lines (which are the first four lines) were made by a different chisel, and at a different time, than the two Latin lines, the last two English lines, and the death date lines.
Does it not seem odd that one of the main pillars of the Stratfordian case is Digges's reference to 'thy Stratford Moniment"?--especially when this structure in Stratford is not, by any account, a 'Moniment" (or "Monument"); when it does not contain a body "with in the monument" and is not a "tomb"; when the original bust was not even that of William Shakspere (but that of his father); and when the last lines of the engraving suggest that William Shakspere was not the true Author, and that "all he hath writ" falls far short of anything written by the true "Shakespeare"?
[See the article at the end of this Section for more details]
Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians
The Stratfordians, all in support of a single candidate, are not weakened and dissipated like the anti-Stratfordians, who back different candidate and who are often a war with each other. Certainly, if everyone were behind a single candidate, this would bolster their case. Do you feel that your work, along with that of Robin Williams, Fred Faulkes, and others, will eventually lead all the anti-Stratfordians to back a single candidate?
Probably not. Not at this time. People still enjoy arguing in favor of one candidate over the other. As in any field, many people are fully invested in one candidate, they have based their lives upon the support of that candidate. Their whole identity, and sense of self, is based upon their belief in that candidate. So, they are not ready or able to make a change. As is the case with any paradigm, the old guard will have to die out—which will allow a new generation can look afresh at all the evidence—before the paradigm can shift. So, over time, a clear, anti-Stratfordians candidate may emerge. I think it will be Mary Sidney, but only time will tell. Nothing can really shift until the universities allow it, until they begin to teach it, until some English departments are bold enough (or allowed by the status quo of their university) to offer an alternative point of view. This will take time. The old guard will have to die out.
Bear in mind that I am a Stratfordian. I am one of the few anti-Stratfordian Stratfordians; that is, I believe that the primary Author of the Shakespeare Plays was from Stratford—Stratford-sub-Castle (which was the town bordering Mary Sidney's primary residence, Wilton House) and not Stratford-on-Avon (which was the primary residence of William Shakspere, a theatre-related businessman). So, I am an Stratfordian. I am waiting for a national Shakespeare theatre to be built in Stratford, the Stratford of the true Author.
I sometimes get discouraged by this whole thing, because there is no consensus. No matter how eloquently you argue in favor of one candidate, there will always be people who disagree with you and who will find an equally plausible (at least to themselves) counter-argument. So, all you can do is articulate the truth, and present the evidence as you see it, and let the chips fall as they may. I’m not invested in trying to change anyone’s mind; I am only presenting the truth as I have come to see it. The truth that appears before me now, based on the available evidence, is that Mary Sidney was the primary Author of the Shakespeare plays.
Oftentimes, when bringing up the Authorship Question, a person will proudly (or cleverly) tell me that they don’t care who wrote the plays—they just enjoy them for what they are. Well, why bother investigating anything? My point, and the point upon which most anti-Stratfordians agree, is that if we know the true identity of the Author we may gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of the plays and perhaps ourselves.
Looking back, how did you become involved with the Authorship Question?
You don’t have to look back very far. My interest in Shakespeare began a few years ago (in 2004). Prior to that time, I was completely ignorant of all things Shakespeare—my only knowledge came from having read one or two plays in high school, and having seen Zepherelli’s version of Romeo and Juliet shortly after it came out. My background had been in the translation of spiritual texts, including the Chinese text, the Tao Te Ching, the Persian poetry of Jalaluddin Rumi, and various Sanskrit texts. It was during this time that I began ‘rendering’ the Greek play, “Prometheus Bound” into modern English—and by ‘rendering’ I mean extracting the meaning of the text from several existing translations and then coming up with my own version. Finding this process rather painless—and with results that I was pleased with—I had the idea of applying the same method to Shakespeare and ‘rendering’ the Early English (used in the 1600s) into the Modern English of today. So, having no knowledge of Shakespeare, I ordered some research material of plays that I had heard of—and my research material included texts from “Shakespeare Made Easy” and “No Fear Shakespeare” which offer a side-by-side text which explains—but makes no attempt to translate or render—the original text. The first material that arrived was A Midsummer’s Night Dream. Not knowing anything about the text, I began to render it into modern English—reading the plot as I went along. Six days later I had a Modern English version that could be understood by any high school student. It was during that time that a friend told me about The Merchant of Venice. For reasons not entirely known to me I decided that this play needed my rectification and ‘rendering’ and so I ordered all the source material. This play provided a greater challenge than A Midsummer’s Night Dream because not only did the actual words need to be ‘translated’ but the context of the play itself needed to be translated from a context that was understood by an Elizabethan audience to one which could be recognized by a modern audience.
The way I have come to ‘render’ ancient texts—whose meaning cannot be extracted by a mere translation of the words but through accessing the ‘spirit’ of its author—is to deeply meditate upon the words and try to arrive at the place—or state of consciousness—that gave rise to the words, the state the author must have been in to write such words. The state was the cause and the written words could be seen as the effect. I used this same method when rendering The Merchant of Venice, especially in places where the text was not clear. I would not term this as some kind of mystical state, but more a state of increased intuition—and, in this state, certain things began to emerge.
As I began to delve into the text, and access ‘the spirit of the author,” a nagging feeling of disconnectedness began to arise. I had been a student of various personality typing systems—including the brilliant system of Cognitive Type (or “Character Type”) devised by Alvaro Lopez-Watermann. Using my own intuitive insight, combined with my rudimentary knowledge of Cognitive Types, I could not understand how someone of Shakspere’s Type (according to Lopez-Watermann’s system) could have written the text. None of the main characters seemed to display the same kind of Type (or cognitive pattern) as the known pattern of Shakspere of Stratford. Specifically, Shakspere is Type 9, and all the main characters seemed to display Type 3. (According to the theory of Cognitive Types, everything a person writes bears the imprint of his Type, or cognitive style; thus, accordingly, every main character of a play would display the same Cognitive Type as that of the play’s author).
So, without knowing anything about there being an Authorship Question I came to the sense that Shakspere of Stratford did not, nor could not have written, the play. Only sometime later did I discover the Authorship Debate, and the anti-Stratfordian position--and how little evidence there is in support of William Shakspere as the Author--which confirmed what I already felt to be the case. I was convinced that Shakspere of Stratford did not write the plays but nothing I found with respect to any of the authorship candidates (such as Oxford or Bacon) convinced me of who did write the plays. It was only when I came upon the theory about Mary Sidney was the Author (and then discovered that her Type was the only one, of all the major authorship candidates, which matched the Type displayed by the main characters of the plays) that I adopted the position that Mary Sidney was the Author, or "the most likely Author," (or the "primary Author") of the Shakespeare plays.
__________________________________________________________________