Caption: Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke











IT IS TIME WE BRUSHED UP OUR SHAKESPEARE


The authorship of the Bard’s works has been contested for over a century

It was last year that I read that President Iajuddin Ahmed had once recommended that the complete works of Kazi Nazrul Islam (1899-1976), also known as the ‘rebel poet’ of Bengal should be kept as precious possessions in every home in Bangladesh. Some have opined that he is in reality a ‘world poet’ and not just a Bengali one.

Similar views are held regarding Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) who, like Islam, opposed British occupation of his Golden Bengal.

The British, of course, have their own poets and other writers to rival our Eastern ones, the very chief of whom is arguably William Shakespeare.

For British schoolchildren Shakespeare is regarded as more or less just another item on the academic curriculum and proficiency in one or more of his plays is usually a compulsory topic to the end of receiving a pass mark in English Literature.

That was certainly the case with me. I had to undertake a study of Twelfth Night for my English Literature ‘O’ level examination and Othello and Henry IV Part II for my English Literature ‘A’ level examination.

Perhaps it is not inappropriate to add that there was absolutely nothing original or particularly investigative about my class’ collective experience in Shakespearian studies at Rugby School during that time. The masters made us scan line after line in an oppressive routine which reduced even the most sparkling language to ennui. The end result was that the study of Shakespeare became just another rote-memorisation exercise.

Like most other ex-English Literature ‘A;’ level students who did not take the subject further I did not address Shakespeare subsequently to the school courses, apart from occasional visits to London theatres when I had spare cash in my pockets to burn and time to fill.

It was therefore with considerable surprise that I discovered in the 1980s that there has been a long-standing dispute over Shakespeare ever since the early 20th century among both scholars and the general public and that the authorship of his plays is being seriously questioned by competent authorities in the field.

The foundation of the suspicion that William Shakespeare did not actually write unaided all the plays and poetry ascribed to him is that in nearly all of those works an extremely deep understanding of life and the human condition is betrayed which does not correspond with what is known about William Shakespeare the man.

What is known of William Shakespeare (1564-1616) in his personal capacity is that he was the third child of John and Mary Shakespeare and attended Stratford Grammar School aka the King’s New Grammar School, which concentrated on teaching its pupils basic reading and writing. Although his works are studied intensively in universities all over the world, young William never went to university himself.

His early home life was prosaic. His father was no more than a fairly prosperous businessman and alderman of Stratford-upon-Avon who dabbled in tanning, leatherwork and whittawaring (apparently to do with working on white leather to produce purses, gloves and such like items).

There is no evidence available to indicate that young William ever moved in high circles during his formative years or had access to England’s directing class who would have imparted to him a knowledge of statecraft and national and international policy making. It was most probably not without justification that a rival playwright, Robert Greene, called him an ‘upstart crow’ in his play ‘A Groatsworth of Wit’ in 1589.

One of the best-known facts about all literature in its three branches – plays, poetry and prose – is that it is implicitly if not explicitly autobiographical. Both Tagore and Islam were members of fairly privileged Bengali families and their early histories permeate all their works. In the same vein, the difficult early life of Charles Dickens is reflected in his novels which draw heavily on the pecuniary situation of his father, John, with references to the Fleet prison in Little Dorrit and the workhouse system in Oliver Twist.

With the early background of William Shakespeare it would be natural to expect his literary ventures to be 16th century equivalents of our kitchen-sink soap operas with accounts of English provincial life and the day-to-day doings of small town bourgeois families. That is emphatically not the case.

In play after play and sonnet after sonnet, we find a vast understanding of human nature and the frailties of mere men and women who presume to decide the fate of nations and of continents. The viewpoint is not just ordinarily aristocratic – it is royal.

Take for example the quote every schoolchild knows from Hamlet Act IV Scene V: ‘There’s such divinity doth hedge a king, that treason can but peep to what it would …’. The penning of a non-university educated ex-grammar schoolboy who did his early socialising in Stratford-upon-Avon’s alehouses? Most would opine: probably not.

Consider then the understanding of real-life statecraft in King Lear in which we find the foolish monarch discovering late in life that extravagant promises of eternal love even from one’s nearest and dearest, arising from the lure of power, do not withstand the gruelling test of time. The scribblings of a middle-class provincial dramatist? Probably not, most would think.

Furthermore, Shakespeare’s works reveal a profound knowledge of female psychology which of course pre-dates the advent of modern experimental psychology. Consider the reaction of Lady Macbeth to the ‘news’ of Duncan’s death in Macbeth Act II Scene III: ‘Woe, alas! What, in our house?’ after she had planned and instigated her husband to assassinate his lawful sovereign. From what is known, William Shakespeare did not have very much of a love life and had wed Anne Hathaway, a woman older than himself, in a loveless marriage.
There are so many conspiracy theories regarding the works of Shakespeare that entire careers have been built upon positing alternative candidates for the true authorship of the plays and poetry. Whether or not the claim of Shakespeare himself is legitimate, the burden of proof would seem to lie on those who wish to discredit the Bard. On the other hand, it's only fair to give attention to this debate, as it has been ongoing since the 1700s.
The chief candidates for alternative authorship of some or all of the works are:
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: This contemporary of Shakespeare has been strongly advanced since the 1930s as the true author of Shakespeare's plays. A well-educated and well-travelled nobleman of Queen Elizabeth I's court, de Vere has been championed by the author Charlton Ogburn using parallels of the Earl's life with material from the plays, for instance, noting similarities between Polonius of Hamlet and the Earl's guardian, William Cecil.
Francis Bacon, philosopher and writer: Bacon has been a traditional favourite of the anti-Stratford camp, and retains a high place on the list of potential candidates. Bacon proponents point to Bacon's learning, his correspondences and memoirs (most notably, his notebook, Promus), as well as ciphers and other coincidences. Although Bacon was an undisputed man of letters, his style and expression vary greatly from that of Shakespeare's works.
Christopher Marlowe, Playwright: Marlowe would be the ultimate ghostwriter, as he was stabbed to death in a tavern brawl in 1593. However, there are those that say Marlowe really did not die; according to some, he was actually an occasional spy in the employ of the Crown. This eventually necessitated a fake death, after which Marlowe went on for an undetermined number of years penning poetry and plays under the nom de plume of Shakespeare.
The strangest of the strong candidates for authorship is Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. The sister of Sir Philip Sidney, she was one of the best-educated women in England.
The supporters of her claim to authorship say that she had the motive, means and opportunity to write the plays. At her home in Wiltshire she was the convener of a literary circle whose mission it was to elevate English Literature. She was possessed of a large library, had undergone a thorough and advanced education during her formative years, spoke foreign languages fluently and – unlike Shakespeare – moved in the highest social circles, second only to the royal court of Elizabeth I.
It is of signal interest that the first eight of Shakespeare’s plays were published anonymously. Why? Three of the eight stated on their title pages that they had been produced by Pembroke’s Men, the acting company which Mary Sidney and her husband sponsored.
Now consider. Why would William Shakespeare in his right mind write love sonnets to a younger man? Sidney herself had a younger lover, Matthew Lister. Why was the first compilation of Shakespeare’s plays dedicated to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery? Both men were Sidney’s sons.
Even Sidney’s dates point her out as a strong candidate. She was born three years before Shakespeare and died five years after his death.
In the rigid social structures of our patrial cultures there is a great lack of ambiguity and a clarity which many a Westerner might envy. We know who did what and why, in most instances in our original cultural milieu.
Despite all his homeland troubles, President Iajuddin Ahmed might be glad that he is officiating over Bangladesh and not some ambiguous Western country.

THE END