Snarkattack

>office furniture in Bulgaria
doesn’t generally associate the great hallmarks of English literature with hot, juicy gossip or tales of intrigue, deception and rebellion. It sounds more like the plot of a Shakespearian play. To my mind, one could view the Shakespearian authorship question in precisely these terms. In order for the non-academic world to understand the relevance of this mystery (and its ongoing lack of resolution) to not just English literature and the language, but to other world literatures too.

It might be a fanciful idea but try to imagine it from the following point of view – this requires that you are open to the notion that the man known as William Shakespeare is not the author of the plays we’ve come to identify him with.

For all our knowledge and technological advancements, we still cannot confirm the true identity of one of the seminal figures in English literature. Indeed, we have a name, a body of work attached to that name, but there is a lot of doubt as to how the named person could have produced such work given his social standing in the Elizabethan reign. Does this strike you as odd? It should: one normally believes that it is beneficial to have one’s name attached to one’s work and to be identified as the rightful producer.

William Shakespeare of Stratford was the son of an illiterate man, who was skilled in trades but rose to prosperity as is evidenced by his being briefly active in his local council. Given that William’s father was forced to relinquish this position, it is very unlikely that he could have ensured his son got the sort of education that would allow him to produce works of the valour that is currently attributed to him. It is possible that William attended the local grammar school, but very unlikely that he went on to further – necessary study. He eventually went to London and became an actor for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men

So, it is at this point that the authorship plot thickens. What if the true author of the works we generally attribute to Shakespeare did not wish his or her identity to be known? What reasons would inspire an author to do this? Brenda James, enlisting the help of Professor W. D. Rubinstein, devoted time and energy to try and come up with definitive answers to these questions, even though in certain academic circles this was not always approved of. The fruit of her research is this book, in which she poses that the actual author of the works attributed to Shakespeare was in fact Sir Henry Neville, an English courtier and sometime diplomat.

However, Sir Henry Neville is not the first person thought to have been the true author of Shakespeare’s work. James and Rubinstein do address this and give a cursory glance as to why some of the more illustrious candidates (such as Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, and Sir Francis Bacon) should be ignored.

In order to examine why Shakespeare’s work should be rightfully attributed to Sir Neville, it is necessary to also examine Sir Neville’s life and ancestry in great detail. The Truth Will Out most definitely does this in keeping with the highest academic standards. Research is thorough and presented in a manner that engages the reader’s interest. There are, however, some issues with the arguments given in order that we accept Neville as the ‘true’ Shakespeare. The main one is that there is a heavy reliance upon the correlation between life events of Neville’s and of the actual artistic output produced. To boil this down to its basest level, the authors at times suggest that when Neville’s life is rosy, this corresponds roughly to the dates of the Shakespearian comedies being written and premiered.

This is a work of academic research and criticism and may be heavy-going for the non-academic reader. It does presuppose a fair amount of knowledge of Shakespearian literary history but in fairness it is intended for an academic audience. The ‘lay’ reader may need to bear that in mind whilst reading, but should not at all be discouraged by this fact.

After having read this book, I cannot honestly say whether I fully accept Neville as the author of Shakespeare’s work because it relies too much on the assumption that Neville’s output was almost solely determined by his personal and professional circumstances. There is some excellent evidence presented – that Neville had access to other literary sources quoted as well as possessing the degree of learning needed to write such work. Anyone with an interest in the Shakespearian authorship question is heartily encouraged to read this absorbing, informative book. No doubt, it has contributed to the debate by forcing the literary community to accept that there is now a new possible author to the Bard’s work.