Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Fowles by Anthony Fowles October 22, 2001

Every few years I find myself revisiting Literature's all time, Number One mystery: who wrote 'Shakespeare'? I don't do this with any passionate axe to grind. Indeed, for years I resolutely avoided all the 'lunatic fringe' theories circling the wagon train of orthodox Shakespearean studies. We have the plays, I thought, and that's everything. It doesn't enhance 'Gatsby' one whit to know Fitzgerald was a Mid-Westerner, a Princeton alumnus, an alcoholic and married Zelda. That's all we need this side of Paradise and all the rest is gossip. But gossip is fun. Eventually, taking a shine to the nobly eccentric arguments of Charlton Ogburn that 'Shakespeare' had been written by the Earl of Oxford, I bought the gentleman from Atlanta's book. Then, months later, I found myself reading the case of another theorist that William Stanley, Earl of Derby, was the 'onlie begetter'. In time I brought home the Bacon theory. And then, pretty inevitably, the argument citing Christopher Marlowe as the main man. All these alternative scenarios have two things in common. They pre-suppose that the 'real' author needed a (Woody Allen-style) 'front' - somebody to give them cover. In the case of the aristocrats the argument runs that the Elizabethan theater was considered so low-life that no gentleman could be seen dirtying his hands on it. I don't buy this. Elizabeth loved that theater and ordered command performances to be staged at court. Most of her courtiers dabbled in poetry. The Lord Chancellor supervised the professional stage companies. The only possible reason why someone close to the throne might need to use this character actor from the provinces as a front is the thin one that a play might be held guilty of spreading seditious sentiments. In Derby's case this just about sticks. He had rather a good, legitimate claim on the English throne (he is an ancestor of the late Princess of Wales) and perhaps decided that the best way to keep his head was to keep it low. But if his front were to be charged with treason in his stead, how long would it have taken the rack to establish the true author's identity? The second premise common to alternative scenarios is that, essentially, William Shakespeare was a country boy incapable of writing out a laundry list. And here, it must be said, there is a disconcertingly impressive stack of what might be called circumstantial non-evidence. No absolutely identifiable reference to Shakespeare as a writer exists that was first made during his lifetime. There is off-stage showbiz talk dropping the names of a swathe of lesser playwrights but of the age's box-office favorite - zilch. Further: Shakespeare didn't put in a public appearance on a title page until he was thirty - well into Elizabethan middle age. When he retired to his hometown, nobody batted an eyelid. No conquering hero was hailed. The man who had numbered his monarch among his fans went back to a resounding silence. This much is agreed fact. But the respective 'anti' and 'pro' man from Stratford camps often confuse the issue for the casual rubber-necker by flatly disagreeing over the little raw data that exists. The matter of Shakespeare's literary I.Q. is a case in point. Stratford boasted an excellent "High" school (it still exists). But did young William attend it? There is no written record. The orthodox say that as the son of a leading City Hall official he unquestionably did. But, if so, since we know Shakespeare never went to college, what were the school's academic standards? The detractors argue its syllabus was a joke. The supporters - and with considerable chapter and verse evidence - state that on the Humanities side its standards were around today's college sophomore level. Then again - take the case of Marlowe's death in a dockside barroom brawl. This took place in 1593 when Marlowe, an exact contemporary of Shakespeare, was twenty-nine. 'Shakespeare's' first work to appear before the world was the poem 'Venus and Adonis', published just three months after the killing. Marlowe, an established star for several years, had already published 'Hero and Leander'. Aha! Certainly some kind of fix was in on this one. Marlowe was gay, and outspoken atheist and involved in the double agent, triple-crossing world of Elizabethan espionage. None of these were thought to be good career moves. At the time of his demise he was only out if jail because bailed on a charge that could well involve torture and burning at the stake. This, remember, a man knowing where all kinds of bodies were buried. The other three men in the bar with were all - it's documented - government agents. The theory goes that a patsy was found and murdered (the killer walked free on a self-defence plea within weeks) and Marlowe smuggled out of the country. Although writing like a Coney Island barker, Calvin Hoffman long ago argued this case plausibly. Except…. All of the facts can be interpreted still more simply. If Marlowe was a liability to himself and others, Plan A must be to silence him once and for all. But then in 'As You Like It', written later, there is a clear-cut reference to the killing and a country bumpkin named, yes, William. So… The orthodox camp counter-claims that in 'music' and style Marlowe's early plays are utterly different from those of the mature Shakespeare. This is demonstrably true. But it's also true of the 'music' and style we find in early Shakespeare…. Derby attracts support in part because he made a huge tour of half the then known world that took in such places as Navarre, Venice and, gulp,Elsinore. Where various plays introduce topical references to such places, they are eerily exact. But Derby was a great patron of the theater. And any writer can do research. Derby was also a contemporary of Shakespeare: but Oxford was a generation older, dying before, by conventional dating, half the Shakespearean canon was written. Charlton Ogburn stands himself and the record on end to get round this one. But Oxford and Derby were friends and even shared a London house. Now, just suppose… It is supposition. We will never know. And, to repeat, it doesn't matter. The plays are the thing and we have them. My own sneaking theory? Well…I suspect the plays we have in the First Folio of 1623 contain work by more than one hand. The age, after all, abounds in instances of the lesser playwrights doubling, even trebling up, and the extreme range of Shakespearean styles ('Loves Labours Lost', say, to 'Troilus and Cressida') is better accounted for, to my way of thinking, by there being 'sundrie begetters' rather than the maturing of technique. I'm copping out, I guess, but right now I'm rather preoccupied on a whole new ball game of a thriller. ........"The name's Marlowe. Kit Marlowe. Rumor - killed in a bar in Deptford, England, 1593. Fact - killed in a bar in Valetta, Malta, 1616. Or alive and well and living in Blackheath. Well, old habits die hard."

Llamagraphics supposes that Anthony Fowles is possibly Shakespeare, and at the very least a regular contributor to the Meadow. He is a reknowned author of books about soccer written with Garry Nelson, including Left Foot Forward. He has written numerous screen plays and novels, including Dupe Negative and Double Feature. His latest novel, Favorite Son, written with Jean Blake White, will be published in the Spring of 2002 by Greenwich Exchange Publishing. Favorite Son is the somewhat naughty updated story of Jocasta and Oedipus.

This page is brought to you by Llamagraphics, Inc. Creators of Life Balance™ Software for Palm OS, Macintosh and Windows. Legal Stuff