Contested Will (44 page)

The literature on the Shakespeare authorship controversy is vast. A full accounting, if it were even possible, would multiply the length of this book several times over. What follows, then, is a guide limited to the specific sources I have drawn on in print, manuscript and electronic form, so that anyone interested can retrace or follow up on my research.

For those seeking an overview of the controversy, there are a number of fine surveys, all of which I have found helpful and reliable: R. C. Churchill,
Shakespeare and His Betters
(London, 1958); H. N. Gibson,
The Shakespeare
Claimants
(London, 1962); Warren Hope and Kim R. Holston,
The
Shakespeare Controversy
(Jefferson, North Carolina, 1992); and John F. Michell,
Who Wrote Shakespeare?
(London, 1996). See, too, William Leahy, ed.,
Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship
Question
(London, 2010). For early bibliographies of the controversy, see W. H. Wyman,
Bibliography of the Bacon–Shakespeare Controversy
(Cincinnati, 1884), and Joseph S. Galland's dissertation,
Digesta Anti-Shakespeareana
(Evanston, Illinois, 1949).

Those interested in the strongest arguments in favour of Shakespeare's authorship should consult Irvin Matus,
Shakespeare, in Fact
(New York, 1994) and Scott McCrea,
The Case for Shakespeare
(Westport, Conn., 2005). The best scholarly account remains S. Schoenbaum,
Shakespeare's Lives
(Oxford, 1970), extensively revised in 1991. Particularly recommended, and to which I am deeply indebted, are discussions of the authorship controversy that appear in F. E. Halliday,
The Cult of Shakespeare
(London, 1957), Marjorie Garber,
Shakespeare's Ghost Writers
(New York, 1987), Gary Taylor,
Reinventing Shakespeare
(New York, 1989), Harold Love,
Attributing
Authorship
(Cambridge, 2002) and especially Jonathan Bate,
The Genius of
Shakespeare
(London, 1997). Those seeking a point-by-point defence of Shakespeare's authorship should consult the website of David Kathman and Terry Ross, www.shakespeareauthorship.com, as well as Alan Nelson's: socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/authorsh.html.

Literature in support of alternative candidates – both print and digital – dwarfs that defending Shakespeare's claim. A few of the titles that I have
found most useful are, in chronological order: George Greenwood,
The
Shakespeare Problem Restated
(London, 1908); Gilbert Slater,
Seven
Shakespeares
(London, 1931); Calvin Hoffman,
The Murder of the Man Who
Was Shakespeare
(London, 1955); Charlton Ogburn, Jr,
The Mysterious William
Shakespeare
(New York, 1984); Richard Whalen,
Shakespeare, Who Was He?
(Westport, Conn., 1994); Joseph Sobran,
Alias Shakespeare
(New York, 1997); Diana Price,
Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography
(Westport, Conn., 2001); Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein,
The Truth Will Out: Unmasking
the Real Shakespeare
(New York, 2006); Mark Anderson, ‘
Shakespeare' by
Another Name
(New York, 2005); and Brian McClinton,
The Shakespeare
Conspiracies
(Belfast, 2007). I'll refer to others as occasion demands. Those in search of a full array of arguments that challenge Shakespeare's claim and bolster those of other candidates have a host of online alternatives to choose from, the best of which include the ‘Shakespearean Authorship Trust' (www.shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org.uk); ‘Francis Bacon's New Advancement of Learning' (www.sirbacon.org); the ‘Shakespeare Fellowship' (www.shakespearefellowship.org); the ‘Shakespeare Oxford Society' (www.shakespeare-oxford.com); the ‘Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection' (marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com); and the ‘De Vere Society' (www.deveresociety.co.uk).

When referring to specific facts about William Shakespeare's life in these pages, my sources, unless otherwise specified, are E. K. Chambers,
William
Shakespeare: Facts and Problems
, 2 vols (Oxford, 1930), S. Schoenbaum,
William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life
(Oxford, 1975) and S. Schoenbaum,
William Shakespeare: Records and Images
(London, 1981). I have also made extensive use of the
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
throughout. Unless I'm quoting the exact title of a book or article or need to quote the original spelling for a specific reason I have modernised spelling and punctuation. Quotations from the plays and poems are taken from
The Complete
Works of Shakespeare
, ed. David Bevington, updated 4th edn (New York, 1997).

Cowell's lectures, which have never been published, are quoted from the manuscript in the Durning-Lawrence collection housed in Senate House Library, University of London, Durning-Lawrence Library, MS 294.
Some
Reflections on the Life of William Shakespeare. A Paper Read before the Ipswich
Philosophic Society by James Corton Cowell, February 7, 1805
[And a second paper, April 1805].

I have singled out a few of the many notable sceptics; James, Freud, Keller and Twain are discussed at length in chapters that follow. For Charlie Chaplin, see his
My Auto-Biograph
(New York, 1964), where he writes ‘I can hardly think it was the Stratford boy. Whoever wrote them had an aristocratic attitude.' Malcolm X relates in
The Autobiography of Malcolm X
(New York, 1965), that 

According to Orson Welles, ‘I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don't agree, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away' (quoted in Kenneth Tynan,
Persona Grata
[London, 1953]). Sir Derek Jacobi said that he was ‘“99.9 per cent certain” the actual author of the plays and sonnets was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford' (
Evening Standard
, 23 April 2009). For Elise Broach's young adult novel, see
Shakespeare's Secret
(New York, 2005).

For the suggestion that there is a conspiracy at work in the Shakespeare industry, see, for example, Charlton Ogburn, who writes that to ‘prevent the unthinkable must be the primary concern of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust', and adds that the Trust draws on a handsome budget, and that the National Endowment for the Humanities, Mellon and Guggenheim foundations contribute to the orthodox Shakespeare cause as well. He also writes: ‘Of much greater importance, I feel sure, is the professional, economic, and psychological investment in Shakespeare orthodoxy by academicians on both sides of the ocean,' and goes on to speak of the ‘diabolical elements' in the case ‘which make it exceedingly difficult for such authorities to divest themselves of their ties to him' (Ogburn,
The Mysterious William
Shakespeare
).

For the discovery of the Cowell manuscript, see Allardyce Nicoll, ‘The First Baconian',
Times Literary Supplement
, 25 February 1932. The wonderfully named William Jaggard pointed out in a letter to the
TLS
that Cowell placed Wilmot's residence in ‘Barton-on-the-Heath', which he describes visiting ‘six miles north of Stratford-on Avon' when in fact it is ‘sixteen miles due south' (3 March 1932). The only previous effort I know of to examine the Cowell manuscript is described in Nathan Baca's report of Daniel Wright's unpublished research on Cowell and his suspicion that the document may
be a forgery, in
Shakespeare Matters
2 (Summer 2003). For more on the Durning-Lawrence collection, see K. E. Attar, ‘Sir Edward Durning-Lawrence: A Baconian and His Books',
The Library
5 (September 2004), pp. 294–315; K. E. Attar, ‘From Private to Public: The Durning-Lawrence Library at the University of London', in
The Private Library
, 5th ser., vol. 10 (Autumn 2007), pp. 137–56; and Alexander Gordon,
Memoir of Lady Durning-Lawrence
(Privately printed, 1930). The forger (or forgers) clearly incorporated arguments set forth in Sidney Lee, ‘A New Study of
Love's Labour's Lost', Gentleman's Magazine
(October 1880). For the receipt for the Cowell manuscript, see Senate House Library, University of London, DLL/1/10, which contains a half-sheet, perhaps eight by four inches, on which is written: ‘Cowell M.S.S.
£
8 = 8 – 0 Lady Durning-Lawrence holds the Receipts.' The half-sheet offers no date or any other information about where it came from, from whom it was purchased or where these receipts are. There's a hole in the top right corner suggesting that something may have been attached.

For the earliest published claims that Shakespeare lent money or hoarded grain, see R. B. Wheler,
History and Antiquities of Stratford
-
upon-Avon
(Stratford, 1806); and vol. 1 of John Payne Collier,
The Works of William
Shakespeare
(London, 1844). For the letter from Richard Quiney to Shakespeare, see Alan Stewart,
Shakespeare's Letters
(Oxford, 2008).

For more on Serres, see Olivia Wilmot Serres,
The Life of the Author of the
Letters of Junius, the Rev. James Wilmot
(London, 1813); her entry in the
Dictionary of National Biography
; Bram Stoker,
Famous Imposters
(London, 1910); and Mary L. Pendered and Justinian Mallett,
Princess or Pretender?
The Strange Story of Olivia Wilmot Serres
(London, 1939).

For facts about Shakespeare (and when specific documents were discovered by scholars) see Chambers,
William Shakespeare
, and Schoenbaum,
William
Shakespeare: A Documentary Life
as well as his
William Shakespeare: Records
and Images
. For an overview of early modern diaries and biographies, see William Matthews, British Diaries:
An Annotated Bibliography of British
Diaries Written between 1442 and 1942
(Berkeley, 1950), and Donald A. Stauffer,
English Biography before 1700
(Cambridge, Mass., 1930). Malone made his plea to search more widely for documents about Shakespeare in
Gentleman's Magazine
65 (1795). See too, Sir James Prior,
Life of Edmond
Malone, Editor of Shakespeare
(London, 1860).

The Ireland story has been especially well documented. I have drawn on the following contemporary accounts: Samuel Ireland,
Miscellaneous Papers
and Legal Instruments under the Head and Seal of William Shakspeare
(London, 1796); James Boaden,
A Letter to George Steevens, Esq. Containing a
Critical Examination of the Papers of Shakespeare
(London, 1796); Edmond Malone,
An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and
Legal Instruments … Attributed to Shakespeare
(London, 1796); Samuel Ireland,
Mr Ireland's Vindication of His Conduct, Respecting the Publication of
the Supposed Shakspeare MSS
(London, 1796); William-Henry Ireland,
An
Authentic Account of the Shaksperian Manuscripts
(London, 1796); Francis Webb,
Shakespeare's Manuscripts, in the Possession of Mr Ireland, Examined
(London, 1796); Samuel Ireland,
An Investigation of Mr Malone's Claim to the
Character of Scholar, or Critic, Being an Examination of His Inquiry into the
Authenticity of the Shakspeare Manuscripts, &c., by Samuel Ireland
(London, 1797); George Chalmers,
An Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare-Papers
(London, 1797); George Chalmers,
A Supplemental Apology for the Believers
in the Shakspeare-Papers
(London, 1799); George Chalmers,
An Appendix to
the Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Suppositious Shakespeare-
Papers
(London, 1800); William-Henry Ireland,
The Confessions of William
Henry Ireland
(London, 1805); and William-Henry Ireland,
Vortigern: An
Historical Play with an Original Preface
(London, 1832).

I have also drawn on the following modern accounts: Clement M. Ingleby,
The Shakespeare Fabrications
(London, 1859); Bernard Grebanier,
The Great Shakespeare Forgery
(New York, 1965); S. Schoenbaum, ‘The Ireland Forgeries: An Unpublished Contemporary Account',
Shakespeare
and Others
(Washington DC, 1985), pp. 144–53; Jeffrey Kahan's excellent
Reforging Shakespeare: The Story of a Theatrical Scandal
(London, 1998); Paul Baines,
The House of Forgery in Eighteenth-Century Britain
(Brookfield, Vermont, 1999); Patricia Pierce,
The Great Shakespeare Fraud: The Strange,
True Story of William-Henry Ireland
(Phoenix Mill, 2004); and Tom Lockwood, ‘Manuscript, Print and the Authentic Shakespeare: The Ireland Forgeries Again',
Shakespeare Survey
59 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 108–23. Finally, for what the small number of surviving early modern dramatic manuscripts looked like, see William Long, ‘Precious Few: English Manuscript Playbooks', in
A Companion to Shakespeare
, ed. David Scott Kastan (Oxford, 1999), pp. 414–33, and Grace Ioppolo,
Dramatists and Their Manuscripts in
the Age of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton and Heywood
(London, 2006).