The Shakespiracy

The Shakespiracy

James Dye

Copyright © 2012 James Dye All rights reserved.

ISBN: 1475263805 ISBN­13: 978­1475263800

DEDICATION To Jessica Schreyer, I hope you’re not upset that I’m dedicating my book to you since my prose is not as refined as I’d like it to be. I hope it will be improved by taking your course in Modern Grammar this summer, and I will provide a better example of your teaching abilities with writing a better book next time. I hope it is not too much of a burden to read. I tried to minimize my grammatical inconsistencies as much as possible, but I’m left feeling like my writing is some kind of strange deformity like an extra limb growing out of my chest precisely where my heart is located Your student in all seriousness, James Dye

CONTENTS Acknowledgments

i

1

The Exigency

1

2

The Doubt

4

3

The Anti-Stratfordians

6

4

The Birth of Shakespeare

9

5

The Rabbit Hole of History

12

6

Shakespeare’s Marriage

15

7

Two Long Poems and the Lord of Southampton

18

8

Greene, Templarians, and George Buck

21

9

Shakespeare’s Deaths

32

10

New Place

35

11

The Playwright

37

12

The Witnesses

45

13

Contemporary Allusions

48

14

Is the Coup the Thing?

55

15

A Well Ending

57

16

Works Cited

59

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’d like to thank my classmates in the Advanced Composition Class at the University of Dubuque for helping me through a number of drafts of this book, and Professors Jessica Schreyer, who taught me the importance of the autobiographical nature of writing, Sean Benson, for putting up with my strange ratiocinations in Shakespeare class, Jim Brimeyer, for eliminating my weak verbs, and Peter Schenk, for teaching me about Elizabethan history.

i

1 THE EXIGENCY Someone once told me something may be rotten concerning the identity of Shakespeare, but I asked him what's in a name? That whom we call Shakespeare, by any other name will still look beautiful from heaven.

He responded, “What other writer never stepped out of the invisible scrim for a moment except to fearfully thank and pledge his allegiance to a Duke but instead shrouds his life in a mystery that can only be speculated upon based on scarce evidence?” I responded, “Well, many of them and everything recorded before now can be questioned if in the form of words, words, words because of the unique ability of humans to lie, create cunning forgeries, and manipulate.” Then I put on my yellow trench coat, grabbed my magnifying glass, and dark sunglasses, and, in haste, I went across the street into the library with the full intention of finding the solution to the Shakespiracy. In the library, I found a door to a room entirely dedicated to Shakespeare’s work, but the door was locked.

To solve a mystery that is thought to be solved at last and doesn’t appear at first as a mystery perplexed my soul into a pitiable state of anxiety. So, I knocked upon Shakespeare’s door to ask who is hiding in there. Is frowning Shakespeare a grinning evil­doer like none other than Beelzebub or some other fiend, a Saint sent by God in heaven, or the mortal

1

James Dye

who crept in between? Could the life of Shakespeare be staged like in the recent blockbuster film Anonymous?

2

The Shakespiracy

3

James Dye

Did Shakespeare intend his work to be used to promulgate rebellion against the monarchy? How about Shakespeare as a player in a fantastical shakes­piracy played by many people and involved with mysterious freemasonry like a Dan Brown novel? I realize I’ll never know the answers from experience because I wasn’t present to witness the sailing stone like phenomenon, but I became determined to compile evidence from during his lifetime to prove once and for all, hopefully beyond any reasonable doubt, all I could know and dream up from the evidence about the life of William Shakespeare.

A sweet looking old lady carrying a tray of cookies opened the door and walked past me. Right before the door was about to close, I ducked my hand in, and looked back down the hall to make sure no one was following me. A wall of books showed me the puzzle has already been assembled in a way that most may agree upon. Every biographer I read told the story of William Shakespeare as the man from Stratford­upon­Avon in Warwickshire England, who performed in London in The Globe Theatre, who married Anne Hathaway, and wrote many sonnets, two long poems, and 38 plays. He is revered quite a bit and everyone makes a big deal out of him.

4

The Shakespiracy

5

2 THE DOUBT If Shakespeare didn’t write the poems and plays, whoever wrote them gave up their rightful place in history perhaps humbly. But, I doubted anyone would want their life’s work attributed to someone else, especially after death when no longer a conceivable reason to lie is left living.

Undoubtedly, some claim would’ve been made before three centuries passed. Unless a few pieces slipped in here and there from other authors in the First Folio for reasons or mistakes unknown to me, as far as I can tell, based on evidence rather than speculation, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

I returned a pile of books to their home on the shelves feeling fully content.

Shakespeare authored his own poems and plays, and the truth of this should go without saying. I felt content with this conclusion but desired to look deeper because the truth may be a liar. Stars are in fact made out of plasma and not fire and the sun is still.

As I kept digging, I found many scholars and critics questioning the identity of Shakespeare and discovered many theories had arisen that attribute his works to other authors such as Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward Devere. To my surprise, the skeptics include many historic people such as Mark Twain, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin, and Walt Whitman (Wikipedia.) I found a videocassette from 1987 of the U.S. Supreme Court holding a mock trial charging Shakespeare with fraud (Blackmun) as if they, like me, have not anything better to accomplish; however, I found another tape of The Boston Bar Association holding a mock trial.

They ruled 10­4 in the Bard of Avon’s favor. My head was spinning.

With much enthusiasm, I said out loud to the books in the Shakespearen study, “I intend to get to the bottom of you, great shakes­ piracy scene, to discover the truth wherever it may lead me, for as Shakespeare wrote, “Truth is truth; to the end of reckoning.” Every library

6

The Shakespiracy

in the city became a possible crime scene, and I hoped the apparent facts of these matters did not make me a liar through fabrications as many exist.

Maybe some Machiavellian authority filled the libraries with books to cover the truth with lies to either cast a shadow of doubt on a great man or to hide the light of the matter with darkness as he was never an intended or invited player but thrust himself upon the scenes and stage. My heart almost stopped.

I paced back and forth through the gigantic room full of books that were mocking my ignorance of their contents. Then I thought quietly to myself for 10 minutes about how Shakespeare unquestionably understands the doubt I’m having because I drew the same ideas from reading his work in which the characters are often disguised. What if Shakespeare is Edward Devere, Edward Devere is Francis Bacon, Francis Bacon is Edward Dyer, and Edward Dyer is Queen Elizabeth! The possibilities are endless.

Maybe Shakespeare snuck as to appear purposefully mysterious so that someone somewhere sometime would be sitting around wondering this for centuries on end, discussing and arguing with himself at immense lengths to no avail? Since a supposed mystery agitates me somewhat, I desired to pluck it from Shakespeare’s heart, but the process left me feeling a bit like Bernardo trying to play Hamlet’s flute. The only thing clearly true, Shakespeare is someone, a person, full of love. That narrows down the possibilities quite a bit.

7

3 THE ANTI-STRATFORDIANS Just as I was about to give up hope, and find the lady with the tray of cookies, consumed by mystery and swirling clouds of doubt. I spotted a copy of Mark Twain’s “Is Shakespeare Dead?” sticking out from behind a dusty tome entitled Cartae Shakespearean.

Mark Twain argues in “Is Shakespeare Dead” that Shakespeare couldn’t have written Shakespeare because he, familiar with court proceedings, without mistake, lived as a common man from Stratford and never traveled. He says such knowledge of the “infinitely divided star­dust” of the trade requires the writer to have personal experience from professors with mustaches and knowledge of law proceedings that the Stratford Shakespeare is not demonstrated to possess.

However, I reply, a writer gains empirical knowledge about the world from reading books and observing places and events. He may have worked and collaborated with others that did possess the knowledge, attended law school, sat in on court proceedings, or plagiarized. He could have even traveled. It’s not an impossible feat as huge gaps remain where it’s improvable where he went or what he’s working on at any given moment in his life. For God’s sake man, not knowing if someone did something is not evidence of them never having done it, but only evidence of not knowing whether or not they did.

An infinite number of unknowns means infinite possibilities might arise, but Shakespeare proves that he possesses the knowledge he demonstrates by weaving it into his tales. The burden of proof rests upon the imagination because Shakespeare, as mysterious as his mysteries, decided to leave questions unanswered for imaginative reasons. Furthermore, I cannot reason that since Stratfordians cannot prove how Shakespeare came to know something that means x candidate who they can prove to have known something, Francis Bacon, Edward Devere, Dyer etc. is the other person.

8

The Shakespiracy

There was no reply from Mr. Twain however, but I continued to argue with myself again with twain as a silent ghostly mediator. Then I shouted, “William Shakespeare, a man, exists and existed; for this, of this much, there can be no doubt!” yet I collapsed into a defeated pile on a comfy chair in the corner of the library room where I found a bowl of peppermints. I have no idea where these mints came from, but they existed.

“Shakespeare is not dead Mr. Twain. He’s not” I said before returning home in my yellow trench coat with a pocket full of mints. I knew no one would ever know who took them, not even the most astute historiographer, unless I wrote it down, and there’s s still a question of my truthfulness. It’s quite possible the mints never existed. Only I know.

Later that night, I lay awake in bed in silk pajamas with imprints of every planet in the Milky Way, and I could almost see the entire universe in the dark and with my eyes closed. I was thinking if the calendar went by the death of William Shakespeare, we are in year 396 ASD (After Shakespeare’s Death.) I remembered most of his work appeared to have been published many years after death after I had flipped through a copy of The First Folio. I knew he came from a time when most people could not read or write to make note of his passing through the world, and freedom of expression was restricted under absolute monarchies making it difficult for people to speak their mind. If you said something that offended the wrong person, you could be hung during this time. I gulped. I imagined

9

James Dye

people, Mark Twain included, may have used other names when publishing literature or others would publish them anonymously, especially women, to avoid possible repercussions from a world ruled by figurative Orcs instead of figurative Hobbits.

Shakespeare left many unanswered questions for me to unearth. It was like trying to tackle the Similarion if a Similarion were a six headed hydra.

I began to sweat profusely, yet Mark Twain compared the scarcity of biographical information about Shakespeare to the tiny amount known about Satan, the one guy in the Bible who is supposedly going to sift me like wheat. How odd that a mountain of assumptions are built upon a few known facts? Our limitless imaginations can span a single fact across the universe! He said something like that to me as I was slipping into dreaming. “Look further into the rabbit­hole of history to find the answers to these questions.” He said as he furled his mustache. Filled with a spark of inspiration, I understand my job as a researcher is to question reality, and for tomorrow, this is the question. Did Shakespeare from Stratford exist or not?

I fell asleep that night and had a dream where Shakespeare rap battled Tupac Shakur, but they were both holograms, and when I went up to get Shakespeare’s and Tupac’s autograph, they disappeared together, and I woke up, hungry for a toaster strudel

10

4 THE BIRTH OF SHAKESPEARE The next day, I set out again, in my yellow trench coat and wielding a ridiculously large magnifying glass and a notebook with a sweet Intel i7 quad­core processor. I almost forgot my dark sunglasses. Then I searched the entire library with an actual fine tooth comb. I found a letter addressed to Shakespeare and tucked it into my back pocket, and a book entitled The Works of William Shakespeare, and so forth until I had a pile of books I could barely see over. I plopped them onto a round desk at the back of the third floor next to an unusable piano. As a piano’s purpose is to play music, I was unnerved by an object restricted from performing its purpose in existence, and I moved to the other side of the library.

I opened a copy of The Works of Shakespeare. On the first page, I found the first primary source of evidence for Shakespeare’s existence.

Eureka! I’m embarrassed to admit to exclaiming, and I glanced around to make sure I hadn’t drawn any unneeded attention.

It appeared in the parish baptism records in Stratford­upon­Avon, Warwickshire, England. Unfortunately, I discovered Joan Shakespeare was baptized on September 15, 1558, and Margareta Shakespeare was baptized on December 2, 1562, but they both show burial entries in the Stratford records before their brother William was born. So, he came into the world as an only child. But, this facsimile of the parish baptism record does show that one William Shakespeare, baptized on April 26, 1564, came into the world nonetheless (Chambers 1). I wonder how Anti­Stratfordian theorists account for the Church and public records from his birth­place?

11

James Dye

Then it dawned on me. Perhaps, the entries in the Stationer’s Hall, such as his family’s baptism records, were forged by inconceivably cunning priests in a conspiracy involving the Pope and using Shakespeare to cognitively infiltrate Great Britain and crush the Anglican Church. All kidding aside, I thought the possibility of fabricated evidence conceivably could be set upon most anything in question, and I knew a number of forgeries, like those of Collier, had been weeded out by intelligent­minded individuals (Ingleby xiii).

Though, how could I speculate as such without evidence and at the same time ignore sound evidence that hasn’t been proven to be falsified? It does not follow and so, I deduced from this piece of history, enshrined at the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford­upon­Avon, William Shakespeare came into the world a few days prior to his baptism on April 26.

To know the exact date of his birth requires a leap of faith and gives Shakespeare the attributes of a prophet. Throughout history, the saints were recorded every time to have died on the same date of their birth phenomenally. The evidence of such has been collected and placed in The Bible. That would give a whole new meaning to a birthday because a person sent by God oddly dies the day they’re born. Since he was recorded to have died on April 23, 1616, I imagine that he, like a saint, was born on the same date that he died unless of course the baptism records are falsified, but that again requires proof to be accepted as fact. To say otherwise would be put into question every piece of historical evidence of anything else that ever happened. A logical person should not deny evidence because he or she wants to believe the contrary, especially when the evidence is opposed to circumstantial evidence or speculation.

The exact date that he was born doesn’t serve as important to the argument but detracts from the fact that a man named William Shakespeare was born. The fact that Stratfordians only prove the day of his baptism but not the exact day that he was born doesn’t prove anything one way or the 12

The Shakespiracy

other, and so the argument is made of straw. The same way that theologians cannot prove that Jesus Christ was born on December 25 th doesn’t prove that He didn’t exist either but that certain things accepted upon in history require faith in what has been accepted unless another form of evidence offers proof otherwise. However, others have suggested the man from Stratford relates only in name to a ghost author’s pseudonym, so I pressed onward through mist and fog.

Some people think Shakespeare has been purposefully portrayed as wearing a mask in this drawing of him from The First Folio.

13

5 THE RABBIT HOLE OF HISTORY I kept flipping through pages of history despite numerous paper cuts and despite a young woman had sat down next to me, and she was incessantly clicking her pen. From perusing the entries in a dusty tome, I found that in the first ten years of Shakespeare’s life, he gained two brothers and two sisters. The Stratford record contains entries for the baptism of Gilbert Shakespeare on October 13, 1566, Joan Shakespeare on April 15, 1569, Anna Shakespeare on September 28, 1571, and on March 11, 1573, John Shakespeare inherited his seventh child Richard.

Then I found a record, in the public offices of Stratford, which shows the location where Shakespeare lived, in the form of a fine that was levied on his father, John Shakespeare, for the purchase of two houses on Henley Street.

Daniel Henry Lambert notes in Cartae Shakespearean this western house is assigned “by tradition” as Shakespeare’s home.

14

The Shakespiracy

According to public office records, John Shakespeare used the other house as a wool shop until he later converted the abode into an inn, “The Swan and Maidenhead” (Lambert 2).

15

James Dye

Another fine was levied against John Shakespeare for the mortgage of his home to Edmund Lambert in 1579 (Lambert 3).

The Stratford register also marks the death of his 8­year­old sister Anne in 1579 and the birth his youngest brother Edmund in 1580.

So, now, Shakespeare, a brother to eight siblings, lost three of them already by the time he was 16.

Call everything else in between an unsolved mystery, for it remains unclear why someone who wrote so much wrote so little about himself, in fact, nothing unless I read between the lines of his literature, but only uncertain ideas are drawn there since so many ideas are borrowed from everywhere. In the least, I can draw from this that Shakespeare did not possess the qualities of an egotistical, self­centered nobleman and a member of the aristocracy.

16

The Shakespiracy

6 SHAKESPEARE’S MARRIAGE Two years later, 18 years after his birth, on a document marked November, 1582, Shakespeare’s name appeared in a historical record twenty­one miles away from Stratford­upon­Avon in John Whitgift’s, the Worcester Diocesan’s registry, recording a marriage between “William Shaxpere” and “Anne Whately of Temple Grafton” (Gray 21).

The following day, a marriage bond issued between “Willm Shagspere” and “Anne Hathwey” by the same bishop provides further evidence of holy matrimony. Fulke Sandells and John Rychardson signed the marriage bond as witnesses to the event (Lambert 4).

17

James Dye

The obvious discrepancy between Shakespeare marrying Anne Hathwey and Anne Whatley brings some degree of doubt. However, a typographical error offers the easiest explanation. It may be possible as well to speculate that the shakespirators made a glaringly obvious mistake in their corruption of history, but such cynical doubt only confuses the issue further. I find the truth most often lies in the easiest explanation. The diocese likely recorded the name by ear and then corrected the mistake in the marriage license. Joseph William Gray wrote an entire book on the subject in 1905 titled “Shakespeare’s Marriage,” to dissuade the erroneous ratiocinations brought forth by Anti­Stratfordians upon the discovery of the marriage license.

However, the reason for skepticism became clear to me because no other evidence of Shakespeare’s life could I discover about his whereabouts between the day of his baptism and the day of his wedding.

So, in turn, the great man had become like a criminal wanted for questioning, but I realized the same skepticism could be said about anyone else that existed at that time aside for other historic characters in the noble class. Shakespeare had not written anything notable yet. By studying the atmosphere that he grew up in, scholars are able to put forth the general idea of what it would be like for him to grow up in Stratford­upon­Avon, but the actual details remain a mystery. Until much later, nearer to his death, no one had any idea how big his fame would grow, for no one appears as a prophet to friends, family members, and neighbors in their hometown. Even the greatest people seem ordinary in person, and as I say, Shakespeare lived an extra ordinary life.

For some reason that I cannot arrive at with certainty, Shakespeare and Anne wanted to be married immediately. The marriage license shows that they avoided the custom, Crying the Banns, He received permission from Bishop John Whitgift to skip the procedure. Normally, in England, the Church requires a couple to repeat their marriage announcement in the Church on three separate holy days to give time for protest (Knight). I deduce from this that Shakespeare may have married without the consent of his father or perhaps Shakespeare simply felt the banns wasted of time.

I found another reason for the hasty marriage in the Stratford Records.

6 months after their marriage, the parish recorded another baptism marking

18

The Shakespiracy

the birth of Susanna, daughter to William Shakespeare (Lambert 5).

Perhaps, since Anne was pregnant before they were married, they wanted to be married before the pregnancy was discovered because of the social mores of England concerning premarital sexual relations. I think I can safely assume the daughter was not born prematurely. However, no matter how many times I read the marriage license, the question remains unanswered because the reason for skipping the banns was not stated, but, in the least, the document clearly shows that a man named William Shakespeare married, at the age of 18, a 26­year­old pregnant woman named Anne Hathaway.

In February of the following year, 1584, the Stratford record of baptisms show that Shakespeare became the father of fraternal twins, Hamnet and Judeth bringing the total number of his children to three, quite a handful for a burgeoning writer.

I imagine during this time Shakespeare lived happily as a father of three and a proud husband. Though considering the amount of work that he created, as well his work as an actor and prolific playwright in London, he may have spent great deals of time away from his family, or he may have took them with him. Unfortunately, because of scarce records, “may­have” and “might­have­been” must suffice as opposed to knowing the objective truth of the matter.

19

James Dye

An artist's rendition of Shakespeare reading to his family.

20

7 TWO LONG POEMS AND THE LORD OF SOUTHAMPTON In 1594, his first poem, visibly published, Venus and Adonis, dealt with the subject of love. The bubonic plague ravaged England in 1593 and may have added to the darker parts. The story involves a woman seducing a young man, but he dies in a hunting accident before the affair. This may relate to Shakespeare’s young and hasty marriage to his 26­year­old, pregnant wife Anne Hathaway. Shakespeare adapted Venus and Adonis from Ovid’s Metamorphosis.

The title page shows the poem was printed by Richard Field in London “to be sold at the sign of the white Greyhound in Paules Church­yard (Shakespeare 2).

21

James Dye

Interestingly, Shakespeare included this dedication page to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton and Baron of Tichfield.

Shakespeare worried the poem might offend the Earl and vows to “take advantage of all idle houres, I have honoured you with some graver labour.” The graver labor came in the form of the Rape of Lucrece, also printed by Richard Field, later that year.

till

22

The Shakespiracy

On the Rape of Lucrece’s dedication page, Shakespeare declares his undying love for Henry Wriothesley:

Shakespeare tells him, “What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours” (2). Furthermore, I found on a letter dated October 11th, 1599, Rowland White told Sir Robert Sidney, “My Lord Southampton and Lord Rutland come not to the court: the one doth but very seldom. They pass away the time in London merely in going to plays every day” (Devereux 86).

Shakespeare likely met the Earl of Southhampton there in London and may have been commissioned to write the two poems for him, liking his work. Shakespeare befriended Henry, but their relationship looks more intimate considering the language they use (See Willobie and his Avisa and an essay on its interpretation).

23

8 GREENE, THE TEMPLARIANS, AND GEORGE BUCK It may also be proven that Shakespeare was an active playwright and actor by 1594. Two years prior to the publication of Venus and Adonis, he received his first published criticism in Robert Greene’s Groats­worth of Writ. The pamphlet begins by stating that even though Robert Greene once said “there is no God,” God has spoken to him, and he felt that God would punish his enemies for their follies as he laid writing a diatribe against atheists and Shakespeare’s company.

If wofull experience may moue you (Gentlemen) to beware, or vnheard of wretchednes intreate you to take heed: I doubt not but you wil looke backe with sorrow on your time past, and indeuour with repentance to spend that which is to come. Wonder not, (for with thee wil I first begin) thou famous "racer of Tragedians, that Greene, who hath said with thee (like the foole in his heart) There is no God, shoulde now giue glorie vnto his greatnes: for penetrating is his power, his hand lyes heauie vpon me, hee hath spoken vnto mee with a voice of thunder, and I have felt he is a God that can punish enemies. (Greene) Mr. Greene appears to have been upset with “peasant” “new comers” who were imitating the works of others and not giving credit where credit was owed, and he asks whether they had studied Machiavellian, deceptive policies.

24

The Shakespiracy

Why should thy excellent wit, his gift, bee so blinded, that thou shouldst giue no glorie to the giuer? Is it pestilent Machiuilian pollicy that thou hast studied? (Greene)

Their works are called by Greene “confused mockeries” because, in his opinion, they extrapolated the entirety of mankind in a short time by plagiarizing, like “apes,” Greene himself, his colleagues, and the many writers who came before them.

O peeuish follie! What are his rules but meere confused mockeries, able to extirpate in small time the generation of mankind. For if Sic volo, sic iubeo, hold in those that are able to commaund: and it it be lawfull Fas & nefas to do any thing that is beneficiall: only Tyrants should possesse the earth, and they striuing to exceed in tyrannie, should each to other be a slaughter man; till the mightiest outliuing all, one stroke were lefte for Death, that in one age mans life should end. The brocher of this Diabolicall Atheisme is dead, and in his life had neuer the felicitie hee aymed at: but as he began in craft; liued in feare, and ended in despaire. Quam inscrutabilia sunt Dei iudicia?

This murder of many brethren, had his conscience seared like Caine: this betrayer of him that gaue his life for him, inherited the portion of Iudas: this Apostata perished as ill as Iulian: and wilt thou my friend be his disciple? Looke but to me, by him perswaded to that libertie, and thou shalt find it an infernall bondage. I knowe the least of my demerits merit this miserable death, but wilfull striuing against knowne truth, exceedeth all the terrors of my soule. Defer not (with me) till this last point of extremitie; for little knowst thou how in the end thou shalt be visited.

With thee I ioyne yong Iuuenall, that byting Satyrist, that lastly with mee together writ a Comedie. Sweet boy, might I aduise thee, be aduisde, and get not many enemies by bitter wordes: inueigh against vaine men, for thou canst do it, no man better, no man so well: thou hast a libertie to reprooue all, and name none; for one being spoken to, all are offended; none being blamed no man is iniured. Stop shallow water still running, it will rage, or tread on a worme and it

25

James Dye

will turne: then blame not Schollers vexed with sharpe lines, if they reproue thy too much liberty of reproofe.

And thou no lesse deseruing than the oher two, in some things rarer, in nothing inferiour; driuen (as my selfe) to extreme shiftes, a litle haue I to say to thee: and were it not an idolatrous oth, I would sweare by sweet S. George, thou art vnworthy better hap, sith thou dependest on so meane a stay. Base minded men all three of you, if by my miserie you be not warnd: for vnto none of you (like mee) sought those burres to cleaue: those Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange, that I, to whom they all haue beene beholding: is it not like that you, to whome they all haue beene beholding, shall (were yee in that case as I am now) bee both at once of them forsaken? (Greene) In what seems like an elitist, jealous, rage, Mr. Greene goes on tell his readers not to trust Shakespeare, “for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tigers heart wrapped in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum (“jack of all trades”) is in his own conceit the only Shake­scene in a country.”

Yes trust them not: for there is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able ti bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey. O that I might intreat your rare wits to be imploied in more profitable courses: & let those Apes imitate your past excellence, and neuer more acquaint them with your admired inuentions. (Greene) Tiger’s heart wrapped in a Players hide” alludes to a line in Shakespeare’s play, Henry IV Part 3. That, and the “shake­scene” appellation solidifies Greene is referring to Shakespeare as the self­ centered man in these lines. Apparently, Greene considers Shakespeare a peasant, and he goes on to apologize to his peers that they have to deal with such “a rude groom” and “painted monsters.”

26

The Shakespiracy

I knowe the best husband of you all will neuer proue an Vsurer, and the kindest of them all will neuer proue a kind nurse: yet whilest you may, seeke you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such rare wits, should be subject to the pleasure of such rude groomes.

In this I might insert two more, that both haue writ against these buckram Gentlemen: but lette their owne workes serue to witnesse against their owne wickednesse, it they perseuere to maintaine any more such peasants. For other new-commers, I leaue them to the mercie of these painted monsters, who (I doubt not) will driue the best minded to despise them: for the rest, it skils not though they make a ieast at them.

But now returne I againe to you three, knowing my miserie is to you no newes: and let mee hartily intreat you to be warned by my harms.

Delight not (as I haue done) in irreligious oathes; for from the blasphemers house, a curse shall not depart. Despise drunkennes, which wasteth the wit, and maketh men all equall vnto beasts. Flie lust, as the deathsman of the soule, and defile not the Temple of the holy Ghost. Abhorre those Epicures, whose loose life hath made religion lothsome to your eares: and when they sooth you with tearms of Maistership, remember Robert Greene, whome they haue often so flattered, perishes now for want of comfort. Remember Gentlemen, your liues are like so many lighted Tapers, that are with care deliuered to all of you to maintaine: these with wind-puff wrath may be extinguisht, which drunkennes put out, which negligence let fall: for mans time is not of it selfe so short, but it is more shortened by sinne. The fire of my light is now at the last snuffe, and for want of wherewith to sustaine it, there is no substance lefte for life to feede on. Trust not then (I beseech ye) to such weake staies: for they are as changeable in minde, as in many attyres. Wel, my hand is tyrde, and I am forst to leaue where I would begin: for a whole booke cannot containe their wrongs, which I am forst to knit vp in some few lines of words.

Desirous that you should liue, though himselfe be dying: Robert Greene.

27

James Dye

Ironically, Shakespeare has since rose among the ranks of the great, and as time has told, he surpassed Greene so much that Greene is remembered for what he wrote, with his last dying breath in misery, despair, and anguish. The man who felt wronged by Shakespeare ironically provided one of the few surviving accounts that someone knew him well enough to be offended.

In December of 1592, Henry Chettle issued an apology in “Kind­ Hearts Dream” to “one or two” of the playwrights that Robert Greene offended in Groats­worth of Wit.

28

The Shakespiracy

29

James Dye

30

The Shakespiracy

The document strengthens Greene’s allusion to Shakespeare as a legitimate primary source that supports the position that Shakespeare worked as an active playwright by this time. The document also reveals Nash as one of the other people thought to be associated with Greene’s pamphlet.

31

James Dye

What occurred to cause Henry Chettle to beg for pardon remains a mystery to me, but it did seem of great importance to him to disassociate himself with the pamphlet, perhaps because his reputation was at stake or he genuinely felt sorry. In the following year, Nash apologized as well in

32

The Shakespiracy

Pierce of Pennilesse, denied all involvement, and called Groats­worth of Wit a “scald, trivial, lying, pamphlet” (Nash 153).

On December 28, Innocent’s Day, in 1594, Shakespeare’s company was mentioned again in a negative fashion again after they performed for 33

James Dye

“Templarians” of the Inner Circle in Gray’s Inn. This account wasn’t printed until almost one­hundred­years later in 1688. However, a record of a payment for their performance was located in the manuscript accounts of the treasurer of the chamber “To Willm Kempe, To Wilm Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, servants to the Lord Chamberlain” (Lambert 25).

Francis Bacon is assumed to be the author because of similarities in writing, but cannot be proven since writers often borrow from each other and hope no one finds the source of their creativity (no plagiarism or copyright laws during Shakespeare’s time.) The unknown author called it a “Night of Errors” and lamented “There were great Disorders and Misdemeanors, by Hurly­burlies, Crowds, Errors, Confusions, vain Representations and Shews, to the utter Discredit of our State and Policy…

Throngs and Tumults, Crowds and Outrages, to disturb our whole Proceedings. And Lastly, that he had foisted a Company of base and common Fellows, to make up our Disorders with a Play of Errors” (Gesta Grayorum 23): When the Ambaflador was placed, as afbrefaid, and that there was fomething to be performed for the Delight of the Beholders, there arofe fuch a difordered Tumult and Crowd upon the Stage, that there was no Opportunity to effect that which was intended : There came fo great a number ofwormipful Perfonages upon the Stage, that might not be difplaced ; and Gentlewomen, whofe Sex did privilege them from 34

The Shakespiracy

Violence, that when the. Prince and his Officers had in vain, a good while, expected and endeavoured a Reformation, at length there was no hope of Redrefs for that prefent. The Lord Ambaflador and his Train thought that they were not fb kindly entertained, as was before expected, and thereupon would not flayany longer at that time, but, in a fort, difcontented and difpleafed. After their Departure the Throngs and Tumults did fbmewhat ceafe, although fb much of them continued, as was able to difbrder and confound any good Inventions whatfoever. In regard whereof, as alfb for that the Sports intended were efpecially for the gracing of the Templarians^ it was thought good not to offer any thing of Account, faving Dancing and Revelling with Gentlewomen; and after fuch Sports, a Comedy of Errors (like to Plautus his Menechmus) was played by the Players. So that Night was begun, and continued to the end, in nothing but Confuflon and Errors; whereupon, h was ever afterwards called,The Night of Errors.

This mifchanceful Accident fbrting fo ill, to the great prejudice ofthe refl of our Proceedings, was a great Difcouragement and Difparagement to our whole State ; yet it gave occafion to the Lawyers of the Prince's Council, the next Night, after Revels, to read a Commiffion of Oyer and Terminer, directed to certain Noble­men and Lords of His Highnefs's Council, and others, that they mould enquire, or caufe Enquiry to be madeoffome great Diforders and Abufesfes lately done and committed within His Highnefs's Dominions of Purpoole, efpecially by Sorceries and Inchantments ; and namely, of a great Witchcraft ufed the Night before, whereby there were great Diforders and Mifdemeanours, by Hurly­burlies, Crowds, Errors, Confufions, vain Reprefentations and Shews, to the utter Difcredit of our State and Policy.

The next Night upon this Occafion, we preferred Judgments thick and threefold, which were read publickly by the Clerk ofthe Crown, being all againfl a Sorcerer or Conjurer that was fuppofed to be the Caufe of that confufed Inconvenience. Therein was contained, How he had caufed the Stage to be built, and Scaffolds to be reared to the top of the Houfe, to increafe Expectation. Alfb how he had caufed divers Ladies and Gentlewomen, and others of good Condition, to be invited to our Sports; alfb our dearefl Friend, the State of Templaria, to be difgraced, and difappointed of their kind Entertainment, deferved and intended. Alfo that he caufed Throngs and Tumults, Crowds and Outrages, to difturb our whole Proceedings.

And Laflly, that he had foifted a Company of bafe and common Fellows, to make up our Diforders with a Play of Errors and Confufions ;

35

James Dye

and that that Night had gained to us Difcredit, and it felf a Nick­name of Errors. All which were againft the Crown and Dignity of our Sovereign Lord, the Prince of Purpoole. (Gesta Grayorum 22­23) So far, Shakespeare seems to be performing wondrously by shaking up the theater scene in England enough to elicit some humorously pompous sounding upsets to nobles because they still saw him and his company as inferior, common fellows, but in this case, his critics serve as a witness to the shake­scene.

36

9 SHAKESPEARE’S DEATHS On August 11 of 1596 Hamnet, Shakespeare’s only son, died for unknown reasons. I found little to no information concerning this besides an entry in the Stationer’s Hall listing his burial.

I imagine Shakespeare was filled with grief as most any father would be filled with grief if he lost his only son. Death during this time happened often though because of plagues and generally poor living conditions.

Perhaps Shakespeare drew dark inspiration from this in the play Hamlet as writers tend to draw strongly from personal experiences. The accuracy of his conveyances suggests this, as the stories that he wove seem to be drawn deeply not only from external impressions but also from within as if he is debating with himself throughout the works about abstract, metaphysical concepts like death, honor, love, and the intricacies of the human psyche.

Given the powerful nature of his mind, the greatness of the man, and the emphasis he put on father figures continually throughout his plays, Shakespeare must have performed his duty as a father with the same care I’d expect an honest man to perhaps more so than he put into his work.

Maybe he wore dark clothes for an unhealthy amount of time after Hamnet

37

James Dye

died like the black garbs Hamlet wore after his father, the King, died.

Such things remain possible, but it may be reasoning erroneously to draw information about the man from his work considering the misconceptions that might be drawn. He may have been detached from it in order to write as a theatrical mastermind. I can’t imagine how much greater he could write screenplays today given our technology and the freedom of expression.

His father died in this same year on September 8, 1601; the Stratford Register records John Shakespeare’s burial (Lambert 41).

The many deaths may account for the increasingly darker material he produced and the greater emphasis on tragedies.

38

The Shakespiracy

In 1616, the parish Church makes its last record of William Shakespeare marking his burial on April 25. Shakespeare’s death was followed by a civil war that may explain for the lack documents as well. In 1905, Daniel Henry Lambert, formerly a member of Shakespeare Societies in London and New York, noted in Cartae Shakespearean that the silence occurred because of “a sad decadence in the drama… antagonistic to literary talent and growth, which prevailed until the succession to the throne was established on a firm basis, and men’s minds were able to dedicate themselves to the arts of literary advancement.” That seems plausible to me since a great number of things require a great amount of time to be fully discovered and recognized.

39

10 NEW PLACE I discovered, in 1597, Shakespeare saved enough money, from writing, performing, and publishing his poems and plays, to purchase an estate called New Place in Stratford­upon­Avon.

George Vertue drew this picture of New Place when he visited Stratford-upon-Avon in 1737.

40

The Shakespiracy

The public office record shows a fine levied on William Shakespeare for the purchase of the property from a man named William Underhill.

For unknown reasons, the deed to the house didn’t survive. However, this fine and another fine levied on Shakespeare in 1602 on the estate prove that he owned the deed regardless even if I cannot discern the specifics of the transaction. Furthermore, it is included in Shakespeare’s Will, which also mentions members of his acting company. This offers proof that Shakespeare authored his own work, for Shakespeare needed to be making a considerable amount of money to afford the cost of New Place. If the Shakespeare from Stratford, a common man, could afford the cost of one of the best estates in town, and it was recorded he received payments for performing in London, how now might he look unlike THE MAN in question? I yelled, and the young woman sitting next to me in the library gave me an odd look and left.

41

James Dye

11 THE PLAYWRIGHT Shakespeare published The History of Titus of Andronicus in 1594.

The play itself does not list an author only that it was printed by John Danter to be sold by Edward White and Thomas Millington.

However, in 1623 his company included it as one of Shakespeare’s works in The First Folio. Furthermore, in 1598, Francis Mere published Palladis 42

The Shakespiracy

Tamia listing The History of Titus Andronicus as one of Shakespeare’s plays. I found no record of Shakespeare for 1595 aside for the possibility that an anonymous play titled George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield was written and published by him. The evidence of this lies in an annotation written on a man named George Buck’s copy of the play. The annotation says that the play was written by Shakespeare and that Shakespeare played the part of the Pinner as an actor. However, he also notes that someone else told him the play was written by Robert Greene (Nelson 74­83).

43

James Dye

Shakespeare’s name appeared for the first time on the title page of a published play, “Loves Labors Lost” in 1598. The title page also mentions that the play was performed before Queen Elizabeth the previous Christmas.

44

The Shakespiracy

This shows that, by this time, Shakespeare had performed his plays for the highest offices, and must have, in the last 4 years, achieved a great deal of fame in order to appear before the Queen on a sacred holiday. To

45

James Dye

rise from being considered a common peasant to entertaining the Queen of England, I imagine that he has surpassed great many leaps, bounds, and stumbling blocks to get to this point because writing with such precision, accuracy, wit, and grace requires a great amount of work.

He published a comedy called the Merry Wives of Winsor in 1601. It was recorded at the Stationer’s Hall.

46

The Shakespiracy

No doubt that work belongs to him because its main character, Falstaff from Henry IV, could not be remade by a different author because of the uniqueness of the character without some obvious discrepancies.

Furthermore, I can establish that Henry IV was written by Shakespeare for Robert Greene used lines from it in reference to Shakespeare in Groats­ worth of Wit; and his name appears on the title page recorded when Shakespeare revised it.

Furthermore, these works are included in The First Folio in 1623 by men whose trustworthiness has not been demonstrated as questionable.

47

James Dye

In 1603, Queen Elizabeth breathed her last and James I became King. According to Halliwell­Phillips a license given to Shakespeare’s company allowing them to perform throughout England is kept in the Chapter House, Privy Seal Papers.

The document also marks some of the members of Shakespeare’s company as Lawrence Fletcher, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Hemmings, Henry Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, and Richard Cowlye. King James says he authorizes them to continue putting on plays, “when the infection of the plague decreases,” not only for the entertainment of the people but also for his own entertainment.

This confirms the royalty was interested in the plays as much as the people.

The King makes mention of the company’s house, The Globe Theater, confirming the location of many of their performances (Halliwell­ Phillips 203). In 1603, they also performed 48

The Shakespiracy

Hamlet here for the first time. The title page lists Shakespeare as the author of the play as well as one of the actors (Lambert 49).

49

James Dye

50

The Shakespiracy

An account of the plays performed in royal court for a year, between 1604 and 1605, were found at the audit office by the Shakespeare Society (Lambert 53). This shows the King’s Men played fairly frequently in court.

51

James Dye

The plays within plays depicted often in court by Shakespeare in his work show he includes aspects of his own life in his writing. The authenticity of the document was brought into question however. Lambert asserts their authenticity “tallies with that of proceeding entries (Lambert 52). However, the authenticity of Camden’s “Remains of a Greater Work Concerning Britain,” published in 1605 has not been questioned to my knowledge. Camden refers to Shakespeare as “pregnant with wit… whom proceeding ages may justly admire” (8). Certainly, all the people talking about Shakespeare would ask questions about his identity if no one met the man. During his time people could walk up and touch the guy, and people remembered him for a while after his death. The authorship question never came until no one was left alive to answer questions.

52

The Shakespiracy

12 THE WITNESSES The only surviving letter ever found to be addressed to William Shakespeare came from a man named Richard Quiney. He requests that Shakespeare help him with all of the debts that he owes in London by promising that he would pay him back in full. The writer of the letter seems to know Shakespeare personally, and he refers to him as his “loving countryman” (Halliwell­ Phillips 166). If Shakespeare wasn’t the man in Stratford whom the letter was addressed to, why would someone request of him a large sum of money? The letter was found by chance since no one thought to save his mail after he died. The letter is kept by Shakespeare Birth Place Trust, and serves as another irrefutable piece of evidence that must be ignored or misplaced by the Anti­Stratfordians who seem to care only about the number of letters rather than to appreciate that at least one of them survived.

Further account of Shakespeare and his players was located in a diary written by John Manningham in 1601. In February he noted that he saw the play Twelfth Night, or What You Will, and he mentions the similarities between that play and Comedy of Errors (18).

53

James Dye

I note that because it shows he witnessed one of Shakespeare’s performances previously. In the next month an entry in his diary mentions Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage’s performance as Richard III (39).

It requires a highly improbable conspiracy to be falsified, and certainly, this isn’t the diary of a madman, and so his testimony here, never intended for public viewing, must alleviate some of the doubt concerning the identity of Shakespeare, a man so famous that if a person mentioned his name during his time, he or she became famous for it. What other proof is needed?

Well, his cousin or at least someone that calls him cousin, named Thomas Greene, wrote in his diary about Shakespeare coming to town on November 17, 1614. He said, “I went to see him and how he did.” The man was concerned with land enclosures in Stratford and Shakespeare assured him, “ they ment to enclose no further than to Gospell Bushe” (Halliwell­Phillips 218). This document shows that Shakespeare was involved with more than the theatrical world as he had a family and other concerns. He protested on his behalf because Thomas “couldn’t bear the enclosing of Welcombe” (Halliwell­Phillips 218). So, he was not only a brilliant author but also politically active on local issues at least where it concerned his family.

54

The Shakespiracy

13 CONTEMPORARY ALLUSIONS A play published by an unknown author during the early 1600’s, Pilgrimage to Parnassus, performed as early as 1598, makes allusions to Shakespeare and the Globe Theater.

She calls him a sweet poet, and the allusions also extend to the characters of the play as, later, two of the characters are named Richard Burbage, and William Kempe. The same actors were paid along with

55

James Dye

Shakespeare for their performance at Gray’s Inn. Thus, the work supports the existence of Shakespeare and his company, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The character of Gullio in the first part of the story says, "I'll worship sweet Mr. Shakespeare and to honour him will lay his Venus and Adonis under my pillow, as we read of one ­ I do not well remember his name, but I'm sure he was a king ­ slept with Homer under his bed's head" (Weaver 63). The nature of the allusions indicate that Shakespeare was thought as no small matter, as he’s beginning to be referred among the greatest authors of literature. A few lines later the character Igenioso remarks, “Mark, Romeo and Juliet! O monstrous theft.” Shakespeare was receiving allusions to his works as well as early as 1598 though I’m not sure why he would call it a monstrous theft, but since the work was satirical the unknown author may have been joking about the character Gullio stealing his lines. He may also have been aware of the material that Shakespeare borrowed to create his masterpieces.

In 1598, Francis Meres writes in “Palladia Tamia”,

Francis Mere also said of Shakespeare, “As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagorus, so the sweet, witty soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous & honey­tongued Shakespeare, witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugared sonnets among his private friends” (Gascoigne et Al 152).

From this I can deduce that Francis knew Shakespeare privately as well, for his sonnets were not yet published and are mentioned by him here many years prior to their revelation. “Palladis Tamia” also demonstrates that six years after Greene’s insulting criticism, Will was beginning to receive the respect and attention that he deserved from his contemporaries.

56

The Shakespiracy

Francis Meres goes on to say, “Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage” and he lists him among other prominent English writers from his time.

Anti­Stratfordians, strangely, are silent about this piece of evidence likely because they cannot refute it, they believe the Shakespeare referred to in these lines is a pseudonym and not the man from Stratford, or perhaps the book wasn’t found by them as they didn’t have access to the Shakespeare room like me.

In 1602, another mention of Shakespeare was made in Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia. He says that younger people enjoy Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis however that wiser people enjoy Hamlet and The Rape of Lucrece.

The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus,& Adonis: but his Lucrece,& his tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, haue it in them, to please the wiser sort. Or such poets : or better: or none.

He also quotes another writer called Sir Edward Dier directly after. He says that Edward’s work surpasses “most sonnets and cantos in print” (232­223). He also says that some of Mr. Dyer’s work has been emulated “excellently” by “flourishing metricians” like Shakespeare. A common theme has appeared concerning Shakespeare borrowing, stealing, and learning from other authors.

Another historical mention was written in 1604 by Antony Scoloker in Diaphanous, or the Passions of Love. In a letter to a King or to the reader, the writer references both Shakespeare and his play Hamlet by likening the playwright to what his own writing should be like “to come home to the 57

James Dye

vulgar's element, like friendly SHAKESPEARE'S Tragedies, where the Comedian rides, when the Tragedian stands on tiptoe. Faith, it should please all, like Prince HAMLET.”

58

The Shakespiracy

Antony addresses Shakespeare as “friendly.” The character of that induction suggests he may have known him personally or at least met him previously. The poem itself also contains an allusion to Hamlet as the character in it grew in madness (Scoloker 367).

59

James Dye

An epigram written the same year marks the passing of the Queen and the crowning of the King. It also suggests Shakespeare said “he would sing her memory until his death” (Lambert 50).

However, I haven’t located a record of Shakespeare referring to or mourning her passing and from what I can tell he may have associated himself closely with her enemies. I can also interpret the poem as a request for him to write of her since he hadn’t marked her passing and a year had passed already. Whatever the reason, it still serves as additional evidence for the cause of finding Shakespeare.

In 1610, John Hereford published The Scourge of Folly. In it he addresses Shakespeare directly at the beginning of Epigram 159.

60

The Shakespiracy

Here, the man is comparing Shakespeare to the Roman playwright Terence. That once again puts his reputation among the greats while he still lived. The poem also reports that Shakespeare has played a kingly part

61

James Dye

“in sport” and that Shakespeare has been the companion of a King as well as a King “of the meaner sort.” He praises Shakespeare further by professing that he possesses “a reigning wit.” The accuracy of that statement is confirmed considering he has since been the most popular playwright to live. He also makes mention of Shakespeare’s honesty, and suggests that others may be taking advantage of his honesty “to increase their Stocke which they do keepe” (Davies 26). That applies to the great number of books sold that portray Shakespeare as a fraud rather than the man who wrote the work attributed to him by his colleagues.

In 1612, he was mentioned again by John Webster in “The White Devil.” He tips his hat to many writers with respect and also “the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake­speare” (31). Who else could all of these writers be alluding to if not for the one and only William Shakespeare?

Finally, in 1615, Francis Beaumont wrote a remarkable verse letter to Ben Jonson directly concerning Shakespeare: Here I would let slip And from all learning keep these lines as clear As Shakespeare's best are, which our heirs shall hear Preachers apt to their auditors to show How far sometimes a mortal man may go By the dim light of Nature. (Chambers 324) The poem praises the clarity of Shakespeare’s writing and attests, once again, that people understood he would live on to be praised by their children in the future. “The dim light of nature” line suggests that the writer acknowledged that Shakespeare possessed preternatural talent as he didn’t’ come from the “learned” class of people that Anti­Stratfordians suggest he came from by nominating figures like Edward Devere or Francis Bacon. Shakespeare came up from the dirt to disprove the aristocracy’s ideas about their superiority and the inferiority of the “commoners.”

62

The Shakespiracy

14 IS THE COUP THE THING? Perhaps I should put on my madcap and speculate that the ghost author went around dressed as Shakespeare and entertained guests. Maybe Francis Meres became part of the shakes­piracy maybe even unwittingly.

These are the same what­ifs Anti­Stratfordians like Mark Twain accuse Stratfordians of using (Twain 22). The shakes­piracy requires a ludicrous amount of plotting like the conspiracy he and his players were involved in as propagandists taking part in a revolution to take control of the absolute monarchy for a hefty sum. On February 8, 1601, the Earl of Southampton used Shakespeare’s Globe Theater as a meeting place for his conspiracy overthrow the Queen known as the Essex Rebellion. He commissioned Shakespeare’s company to revive Richard II, a play that had been banned because it depicts the killing of a King.

Henry must have thought the play would help him provoke the people to rebellion the following day, and he paid Shakespeare’s company an extra sum to achieve this goal. However, he failed, and received life imprisonment (Walford et. Al 42). I find it interesting that Shakespeare was involved with this conspiracy even if only to make extra money. I wonder how the drama that ensued influenced his writing. From the dedications that Shakespeare wrote to him, he must’ve felt something terrible to see him fail and be imprisoned, and this suggests to me Shakespeare might’ve harbored resentment for Queen Elizabeth. The man he professed to love’s father was beheaded. Though I found few details of the event to give me greater insight into the matter. I wonder, is the coup the thing?

63

James Dye

Essex trial report

64

The Shakespiracy

15 A WELL ENDING So far, from what others have left behind to tell the tale of Shakespeare’s legacy, I can deduce from the primary evidence that Shakespeare was a beautiful, reverent, honest, friendly, careful, apologetic, actor, natural poet, playwright, husband, father, lover, land­owner, shaker­ upper and gentlemen born in Stratford­upon­Avon that moved to London and back again. He wrote under his own name with the utmost care and respect for others and never critical of anyone else. However, a career as an actor or a writer wasn’t considered respectable to the people during Shakespeare’s time because of religious hostility to the theater despite its usefulness to expand culture. So, he wasn’t held as high as he is held today (Halliwell­Phillips vi). That may account for the supposed scarcity of information written concerning him while he lived.

Anti­Stratfordian skeptics arise because Shakespeare’s brevity, unsurpassed, seems impossible to them. A Bible takes centuries to write by many different authors. How Shakespeare, acting on his own accord, produced so much work with each major piece like a magnum opus from the next may be answered in his borrowing from and working with other authors. Further reasons for skepticism becomes clear because no evidence of Shakespeare’s life could I discover concerning his whereabouts between the day of his baptism and the day of his wedding, and information from the day of his wedding until 1592 is lost.

However, the Anti­Stratfordian views require the so­called mainstream theory to be disassembled and reassembled by putting pieces where they seem fit while discarding the pieces that do not fit. However, Shakespeare does not know “seem.” He lives forevermore in his literature and thus exists in both name and spirit. What if tomorrow someone gave credit for my life’s work, however little, to someone else? Well, that defeats the purpose of having said or done work in the first place because most everyone wants to be remembered. At least, I want to be remembered. Maybe Shakespeare cared not for personal fame, but only wanted his works to be discovered and to speak on his behalf.

From scrutiny and doubt, new ideas and evidence emerge as people search for the truth of matters. Further proofs may always be found; enough so that a person could study the subject for the entirety of their lives and perhaps still be uncertain about every little detail. However, with 65

James Dye

a complete open mind to any possibility, I came to the conclusion that Shakespeare was written by himself with what evidence that has been found so far. Keep in mind, vast documents I could locate but unlike the imagination which can go beyond the reach of reason, I have not access to an unlimited sphere of information, so if I missed anything I apologize. I promise I conveyed the facts, sincerely, as best as I am able.

The Documents I found among public registers in Stratford­upon­ Avon and have been pored over by many scholars, such as Mr. Halliwell­ Phillips of the Shakespeare Society. With pain­staking care, for centuries, people from all over the world reach and search for any and all knowledge concerning the man. Moreover, I have seen records of allusions to him in literature while he was alive, mail, his own published writings, official records, court proceedings, and many entries at the Stationer's Hall in England, displayed publicly, provided a trail for me to find the apparent truth. Yet, Will’s famous undying will still puzzles me because he left his wife, Anne Hathaway, his “second­best bed.” Keep in mind, vast amounts of information can be located, but only the imagination may access an unlimited sphere of information and go beyond the reach of reason to tell his story.

I could provide Will’s final will and testament, which Twain complained contained no books, and a great deal of evidence arose after Shakespeare’s death, but the evidence I have found that arose while Shakespeare lived has convinced me. I understand this as a very limited record, but my intention was to convey what cannot be refuted. Without further ado, I thank the Shakespearean study and Will for his work. He will live on in our tiger hearts forever in every person that shall ever walk the earth, for he’s been translated. Shakespeare’s influence cannot be escaped, and for that he has my eternal gratitude. The rest, not silence for him but loud, serves his memory well whether in heaven, hell, nothingness, or in other words, words, words. Now, where is that lady with the cookies.

66

The Shakespiracy

15 WORKS CITED Blackmun, Harry A., et al. “Supreme Court Debates Who Wrote Shakespeare.” Washington D.C. 1987. Google Video.

Chambers, Edmund Kerchever. The Works of William Shakespeare. Vol. 1.

Philadelphia: John D. Morris and Company, 1901. 1. Print.

Chettle, Henry. Kind­heart’s dream: containing five apparitions with their invectives ... Ed. Edward Francis Rimbault. 1592. London: Reprinted for the Percy society by C. Richards, 1841. Print. Vol. 5 of Early English Poetry.

Davies, John. The Scourge of Folly. The Complete Works of John Davies of Hereford. By Clement Mansfield Ingleby. London: Nattali and Bond, 1861. N. pag. Print.

Devereux, Walter Bourchier. Lives and letters of the Devereux, earls of Essex: in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., .

London: J. Murray, 1853. Print.

Gascoigne, George, et al. Ancient critical essays upon English poets. Ed. Joseph Haslewood. London: Printed by Harding and Wright for Robert Triphook, 1815. Print.

Gesta Grayorum. Vol. 40. 1688. Oxford: Printed for the Malone society by F. Hall at the Oxford university press, 1914. Print.

Gray, Joseph William. Shakespeare’s Marriage. London: Chapman & Hall, 1905. Print.

Greene, Robert. Greene’s Groats­worth of Wit, London: Printed by N. O. for H. Bell, 1621. University of Oregon Library. Print.

Halliwell­Phillipps, James Orchard. Outlines of the life of Shakespeare.

11th ed. Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay, and Calcutta: Longmans, Green, and co, 1907. Print.

Harvey, Gabriel. Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia. Ed. G. C. Moore Smith.

Toronto: Stratford­upon­Avon : Shakespeare Head Press, 1913.

Print.

67

James Dye

Ingleby, Clement Mansfield. A complete view of the Shakspere controversy: concerning the authenticity and genuineness of manuscript matter affecting the works and biography of Shakspere. London: Nattali and Bond, 1861. Print.

Lambert, Daniel Henry. Cartae Shakespeareanae. London: George Bell and Sons, 1904. Google Book Search. Print.

Manningham, John. Diary of John Manningham, of the Middle Temple, and of Bradbourne, Kent, barrister­at­law, 1602­1603. Ed. John Bruce. N.p.: Printed by J.B. Nichols and sons, 1868. Print.

Nash, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Nashe: Notes. London: A. H. Bullen, 1908. Print.

Quiney, Richard. Letter to William Shakespeare. Oct. 1598. Letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag.

Your Icons. Web. Scoloker, Antony. “Daiphantus, or The Passions of Love, 1604.” Some Longer Elizabethan Poems. By Arthur Henry Bullen. Ed. Thomas Seccombe. Westminster: A. Constable and Co., ltd., 1903. 363­ 402. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Shakespeares Venus and Adonis: being a reproduction in facsimile of the first edition. 1593. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. N. pag. Print. ­­­. Shakespeares Lucrece: being a reproduction in facsimile of the first edition . 1594. London: Clarendon press, 1905. Print.

Southwell, Robert. The complete poems: for the first time fully collected and collated with the original and early editions and mss. ... 1595.

London: Published for private circulation, 1872. N. pag. Print.

Twain, Mark. Is Shakespeare dead? New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1909. Print.

Weaver, John. The fourth weeke, epigramme 22. The praise of Shakespeare: an English anthology. By Cecil Eldred Hughes.

Harvard University: Methuen & co., 1904. 87. Print.

68

The Shakespiracy

Unknown. The Pilgrimage to Parnassus with the Two Parts of The Return from Parnassus: Three Comedies performed in St. John’s College Cambridge A.D. MDXCVII­MDCI. Ed. William Dunn Macray.

1597­1601. The University of Michigan: Clarendon press, 1886.

Print.

Willoughby, Henry, et al. Willobie and his Avisa: with an essay towards its interpretation. 1593­94. London: Sherratt and Hughes, 1904. Print.

69

James Dye

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

As I’m an undergraduate in English at the University of Dubuque with a focus on literature, I have taken two courses studying Shakespeare and his writing. I’ve already wrote a number of essays on his work. My essay on A Midsummer Night’s Dream won NICC’s writing contest.

70