Shakespeare’s Blood And His Body Of Work

Today’s Perfect Romance guest post is from Michigan author and former educator Peg Herring, who writes mystery/suspense novels — including the critically acclaimed Simon & Elizabeth (Tudor) Mysteries. Here, she gets our blood pumping with a discussion of one of history’s greatest controversies: whether William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays and poetry attributed to his name!

Several years ago, I started researching a novel I called Shakespeare’s Blood. Not scholarly or particularly realistic, it’s a suspenseful chase across Britain, involving a young American who discovers secrets about Shakespeare and has to escape a killer who wants to possess those secrets. Her life is complicated by the fact that several attractive men want to “help” her, but she doesn’t know which of them is trustworthy. She will die if she chooses unwisely. Though the book isn’t factual, I did want to be as truthful as possible about Shakespeare’s times. Therefore, I read a lot about him. My story presents what I think is an intriguing scenario to cover the blank spaces in our knowledge of the Bard. And it was a lot of fun to write.

Recently a new movie called Anonymous was released. Though (full disclosure here!) I have not seen it, its premise is clear from the trailer: of the works attributed to him, Shakespeare wrote not a word. The movie is not the first to propose this idea, nor will it be the last. Some insist that Shakespeare cannot be the author we think we know. The argument is this: a kid from Stratford couldn’t have been that good. Mark Twain claimed that a minimally educated man from a small, provincial town could never have written such brilliant stuff. (Hmmm. A writer with minimal education from a sleepy town in the American South said that?)

So who do these people say really wrote Shakespeare? One early theory claimed it was Francis Bacon, the famous scientist. Those who posited the idea weren’t always reliable, however. One claimed secret evidence she wouldn’t share. Others supported their claims with information gleaned from séances. And one’s enthusiastic claim was weakened by the fact that her name was Delia Bacon. Others argue that a committee wrote the plays: This stuff is too good for one man to have produced; it was done by a talented group that hid behind a false identity, fearing royal disapproval. The problem with this theory is that drama is not computer science. Group work results in Saturday Night Live, not Hamlet. A team of such brilliance that remained together and focused for twenty years is hard to believe.

The most popular idea the Not-Shakespeare claimants present is that a writer of eminent reputation wanted or needed to remain anonymous. The story goes that this person wrote the plays and gave them to an obscure actor to present. Names dropped are Edward de Vere, Ben Johnson, Christopher Marlowe, Sir Walter Raleigh, and…wait for it…Queen Elizabeth I. Why would such a talented person hide his/her name from admiring fans? Some argue that it was “improper” for nobles to write, which is ridiculous. Many Elizabethan nobles wrote poetry and plays and even performed them in entertainments at Court. The other argument, that it was politically dangerous, doesn’t apply to all the works. Wouldn’t the real author want to get credit for the “safe” plays, at the very least? Ben Johnson and Christopher Marlowe had their own careers. It’s unlikely they would give away income-producing work as popular as Shakespeare’s plays were. Raleigh was a busy world traveler. Elizabeth was kind of busy, too, fighting off the Spanish Armada and all. Nothing she did was private, so how did she sneak in all that writing time? And de Vere? Does it matter that he was dead before the last few plays were written? (By the way, de Vere’s poetry survives. It isn’t very good.)

Face it: Shakespeare was a brilliant man who listened, observed, and created. He made mistakes, which Isaac Asimov argues lends credence to the fact that the man from Stratford is The Bard of Avon. For example, in Julius Caesar, a clock chimes as Brutus and the boys plot Caesar’s death. A guy who never traveled, a guy with an eighth-grade education, might not realize that the Romans didn’t have clocks; no matter how wonderful his use of language and grasp of characterization. It’s kind of cute, when you think about it.

Here’s what I (and the serious Shakespeare scholars) believe: Shakespeare began as a small-time actor. After a few years, he wrote a play and showed it to his fellows, who liked and consequently staged it. He wrote more plays, rising in his field and ending up a prosperous businessman with a string of popular works to his credit. No one from his time doubted he was who he said he was. It was only a couple of hundred years later that the idea arose that the writer had to be of higher birth, a claim born of nothing more than upper-class snobbery.

I know it’s fun to play with the idea of Not-Shakespeare. My idea, at least in my own view, is more fun. In Shakespeare’s Blood, I offer an intriguing explanation for the questions concerning Shakespeare without impugning the reputation of the greatest writer the English language has ever known.

 

Visit Peg Herring’s Web site at http://pegherring.com. If her view of Shakespeare interests you, Shakespeare’s Blood is available in e-book form for Kindle, Nook, and other e-readers.