Sonnets As Retelling of Ovid's Fable of Narcissus

Sidney Lubow's interpretation of the Sonnets:

The poet decided to create a set of Sonnets telling the story of Ovid's fable of Narcissus, as if the poet were Narcissus, himself, talking to his own mirror.

In order to create the person in the mirror, he creates his clone--he calls it a son to be born, to love--just as Nemesis, the goddess of revenge created the clone for Narcissus to see and love. (In Sonnets 1 to 17 he creates this clone, and born in the 18th sonnet's couplet.)

In order to create the equivalent of Echo in Ovid's tale, the bard wrote the poem "A Lover's Complaint", which introduced the woman you call the dark lady, the Muse of tragedy, Melpomene. Why her? Well Echo could not speak normally, because she was punished by Jove's wife, Juno, for helping Jove in his amorous affairs with other women. ALC is therefore narrated by that 'fickle Maid', the Muse, that she fell in love with the teenage boy who did not yet start to shave. She was seduced by him and she loved him till he died. But spitefully out for revenge.

In the last stanza she goes off into the Sonnets and enters at Sonnet 21 as 'that Muse.' She disappears in Sonnet 26 through an 'embassage' and tells the poet that she is leaving (to do her spiteful work).

She woos away the son/clone/boy/man he loved in the mirror after several travel sonnets and this destroys the poet, who cannot see him any longer. this destroys the poet through many following sonnets wherein he actually wishes he were dead, a fate he already knows is his, being true to Ovid. He keeps thinking of the Muse as the cause of his rejection by the man he gave his heart to, and vice-versa, in many sonnets. Until about Sonnet 126, a strange thing happens, the Muse returns indicated by a set of parentheses, immediately followed by Sonnet 127, a 'black' dark beauty' with a false borrowed face, the Muse haunting him. In sonnet 131.11 he finally realizes what she has done, she put his face on her own neck. This is done to make him realize that self-love is not so loveable to him any longer. She has given him 'eyes to blindness' in Sonnet 152 which he realizes too late.

The last two Sonnets are unfortunately ones that say that his self-love was fatal and the very last one is a repeat that is the voice of the son/clone/man/love who was speechless throughout the Sonnets, saying " water cools not love, as a matter of fact, "loves fire heats water."

Both go off into "The Phoenix and Turtle", the funeral of the two lovebirds to which all the birds are invited, including the Crow of S.70.4, the dark lady, the treble-dated Muse of tragedy.

He wrote all the Sonnets in his teen years, through college and lots of other stuff, as "A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres", with poetry naming the Flowre, Narcissus.

An Open-Minded Reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets

An open-minded reading of the Shakespeare Sonnets—without any imposition of assumed authorship—suggests:

1. Sonnets 1-16 were written by an older person trying to persuade a young man, in his/her family, to marry and have children;
2. Sonnet 17 was written by a young woman trying to persuade a young man to marry and have children. 
3. Sonnets 18-126 were written in the context of love between a young woman and a young man, both of aristocratic upbringing.

Meanwhile, Sonnets 127-154, addressed to a “dark lady”, are the "early invention of a young courtier, trying his best to seduce a somewhat available woman—not the lusty and misplaced attempts of a common, middle-aged man trying to have sex with a noble woman."

SOURCE: Shakespeare's Sonnets and the Authorship Question--Mary Sidney Wroth

"On Poet Ape" by Ben Jonson (circa1612)

Poor POET-APE, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit,
From brokage is become so bold a thief,
As we, the robbed, leave rage, and pity it.
At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the reversion of old plays; now grown
To a little wealth, and credit in the scene,
He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own.
And, told of this, he slights it.
Tut, such crimes
The sluggish gaping auditor devours;
He marks not whose 'twas first: and after-times
May judge it to be his, as well as ours.
Fool, as if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece?

The Shakespeare Fellowship Responds to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust recently released Shakespeare Beyond Doubt to prove William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare. But, while over 70 documents exist about Shakspere from his lifetime . .

1. none identifies him as a writer of any kind, by anyone during his life or immediately after his death
2. none shows he was ever paid for writing
3. no manuscript of a poem or play in his hand survives
4. no letter in his hand survives
5. no evidence indicates he ever owned a book

The First Folio, published seven years after his death, was the first document that appears to connect 'William Shakespeare' with Shakspere.

The monument to Shaksper in the Trinity Church in Stratford now shows a writer with a quill pen in his hand--but it's not the one erected in the early 1600s. A sketch of the original shows a man with a drooping moustache holding a wool or grain sack--but no pen, no paper, no writing surface.

SEE MORE: The Shakespeare Fellowship Responds to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt

Establishment Rattled?

'The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust . . book of some 20 academic essays . . sets out to prove definitively that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him. Shakespeare Beyond Doubt marks a radical development in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, for it is the first time that the "establishment" has felt the need to acknowledge its existence and importance.

One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning Shakespeare and concludes that the case for Shakespeare writing all of the works attributed to him is quite weak. . . Price does not argue for an alternative author but rather shows how the case for Shakespeare is built on mis-readings, mythologising and, often wilful deception.

Of the many contemporary records that exist naming Shakespeare, none call him a writer. A couple show he was an actor and he was certainly involved with the Globe Theatre financially, but the vast majority show him to have been a businessman, moneylender and property investor. Perhaps Price's most important achievement is to show that evidence of a "writing life" exists for all of Shakespeare's contemporaries in the form of manuscripts, letters or payment records, but that nothing exists for Shakespeare other than reviews and posthumous praise. Shakespeare is uniquely absent from the records as a writer.'

FROM: 'I receive hate mail for questioning the authorship of Shakespeare plays: On William Shakespeare's birthday, the establishment wants authorship questions to be put 'beyond doubt'. Is it rattled?' by William Leahy in The Guardian on April 23, 2013.

Major Doubters

Controversy Films documented the 2010 Ashland Authorship Conference for the forthcoming documentary NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH, including interviews with Paul Nicholson, Director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and Michael Cecil, Eighteenth Baron Burghley, descendant of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, whom Shakespeare scholars agree was the model for Polonius in Hamlet.

All That Is Known

'As all that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakespeare is – that he was born at Stratford upon Avon – married and had children there – went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays – returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried – I must confess my readiness to combat every unfounded supposition respecting the particular occurrences of his life.'

George Steevens

Review of Shapiro

Here is a history of the Shakespearean authorship question worth reading:

• The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Claimants to Authorship, and Their Champions and Detractors by Warren Hope

If you want to know how the documentary evidence for Mr. Shakspere of Stratford looks compared to that for his contemporaries, this is good:

• Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem by Diana Price

If you are reading for something a little more daring, I recommend:

• Shakespeare Suppressed: The Uncensored Truth About Shakespeare and His Works by K. Chiljan
• Shakespeare By Another Name by Mark K. Anderson
• I Come to Bury Shaksper by Steve Steinburg

The latest documentary on the authorship question, also very highly recommended, is:

• Last Will. & Testament directed by Lisa and Laura Wilson

FROM: 'Sloppy, Dishonest, and Prejudicial', Roger Langston's April 5, 2013 review of Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (Paperback).

'Another Side to Shakespeare'

'There was another side to Shakespeare besides the brilliant playwright - as a ruthless businessman who did all he could to avoid taxes, maximise profits at others' expense and exploit the vulnerable - while also writing plays about their plight to entertain them.'

Dr. Jayne Archer, Aberystwyth University, co-author of study that discovered . .

'By combining both illegal and legal activities, Shakespeare was able to retire in 1613 as the largest property owner in his home town, Stratford-upon-Avon. His profits - minus a few fines for illegal hoarding and tax evasion - meant he had a working life of just 24 years.'

SOURCE: 'Shakespeare was a tax-evading food hoarder, study claims', by Sam Marsden in The Telegraph; March 31, 2013.

Richard III Remains Identified

'My kingdom for a horse!'

LONDON — A team of archaeologists confirmed that ancient remains found under a parking lot belong to long-lost King Richard III. Details of the findings were released hours after DNA tests came in. The 500-year-old remains were discovered five months ago, using ancient maps and records to uncover the ruins of the old friary where Richard III was laid to rest.

The verification came after scientific tests were used to match DNA samples taken from Canadian-born Michael Ibsen, a direct descendant of Anne of York, Richard’s elder sister. Richard III’s grave, which was found underneath the Leicester site in the remains of Greyfriars friary, had been lost during the religious reforms of Henry VIII.

Richard, the last king of England to fall on the battlefield--and the last of the Plantagenets to rule England--was slain in the 1485 Battle of Bosworth Field while defending his crown against the raiding upstart, Henry VII, first of the Tudors. This one the last major battle of the Wars of the Roses. He was famously depicted in Shakespeare’s “Richard III” crying out before his death: “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”

The skeleton indicated a personage who was well-nourished, who had suffered cranial trauma during battle, and who exhibited curvature of the spine — all signs that pointed to Richard III. Trauma analysis of the skeleton found 10 battle wounds, eight on the skull and two on the body, which were inflicted around the time of death. Many of the wounds provided evidence of “post-mortem humiliation injuries,” exacted on Richard III after death by his adversaries.

FROM: ‘Beyond reasonable doubt,’ bones are the remains of England’s King Richard III by Eliza Mackintosh; February 4, 2013.

"Dark Lady" and Shakespeare: Amelia Bassano Lanier (1569-1645)

John Hudson of the Shakespeare Institute at the University of Birmingham suggests Amelia Bassano Lanier was the author of an underlying religious allegory in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and perhaps of the play itself.¹Hudson expounds:

"The example I use is that of the Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria. In order that his name might be known, the architect Sostratus had his name carved on the stone base, then covered over with a piece of plaster with a dedication to the king. In time the plaster fell away, revealing the architect’s name. Amelia’s strategy was to leave behind a preposterous case for William Shakespeare, which has now fallen away, revealing the true creator who is now at last visible."²

A production of the play by The Dark Lady Players in New York in 2007 was based on the thesis by John Hudson.³

In summer 2008, Michael Posner concluded, in a review of the theory in the Canadian arts journal Queen's Quarterly, that "the case for Amelia Bassano Lanier is as plausible as Shakespeare’s and more plausible than many others."⁴ Posner's 2010 article in Reform Judaism argued that Lanier was very likely the author of all or most of Shakespeare's plays, and asserts that she was Jewish.⁵

The Shakespearean Authorship Trust, founded in 1922 "to seek, and if possible establish, the truth concerning the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays and poems," added the name of Amelia Bassano Lanier to the list of Shakespeare authorship candidates in April 2007.⁶

SEE ALSO: "In Search of Shakespeare: Emilia Lanier (the Dark Lady?)" a PBS broadcast.

---

1. Amini, Daniela, "Kosher bard Could Shakespeare’s plays have been written by the ‘Dark Lady,’ a Jewish woman of Venetian-Moroccan ancestry? John Hudson thinks so"; New Jersey Jewish News, February 28, 2008.
2. Honig Friedman, Rebecca, "Was the Bard a Beard? A Scholar Argues That Shakespeare Was a Jewish Woman", The Jewish Daily Forward; May 30, 2008.
3. The Dark Lady Players Presents Midsummer Night's Dream Wednesday, March 28, 2007 through Sunday, April 01, 2007, SmartTix.
4. Posner, Michael, "Rethinking Shakespeare", The Queen's Quarterly, vol. 115, no. 2 (2008) 1-15.
5. Posner, Michael, "Unmasking Shakespeare", Reform Judaism; Summer 2010.
6. "Other Candidates", The Shakespearean Authorship Trust.

Walter Raleigh Wrote Shakespeare?

Could plays attributed to William Shakespeare actually have been written by a group led by Francis Bacon, with Walter Raleigh as the main writer? That's a possibility posited in 1845 by Delia Bacon, the first notable writer to put forth a comprehensive alternative theory of Shakespeare authorship.

Bacon argues the purpose of this arrangement was to advance a political and philosophical system without publicly assuming responsibility for such.¹

First claim of sole authorship . . 

Australian George S. Caldwell first claimed Raleigh's sole authorship in 1877 with his pamphlet "Is Sir Walter Raleigh the Author of Shakespeare's Plays and Sonnets?" U.S. senator and historian Albert J. Beveridge supported Raleigh's case in a speech presented in the mid-1890s.

Definitive claim . .

In 1914, Shakspere and Sir Walter Ralegh made U.S. author Henry Pemberton, Jr.'s "definitive claim" to Raleigh authorship of Shakespeare works.²

His book³ presented "evidence" that had led him to "connect the name of the great Ralegh with the Shakspere plays and poems,"⁴ evidence that he believed consisted "in a series of topical allusions in these works" that "refer directly to Sir Walter's career, and are substantiated by the known facts in his biography."

To Pemberton, Raleigh had "written into his dramas his character and attainments," portraying "therein his environment and, to a considerable degree, his life-story as a courtier, statesman, mariner, discoverer, and prisoner in the Tower."⁵

Careful study . .

Sir Walter Raleigh (c. 1552–1618)

Beginning in 1905 with "a careful study of the Shakspere plays and poems", Pemberton was determined "to be restricted by no preconceived theory of authorship", letting the evidence instead take him where it might. As he states in his preface:

"If the evidence showed William Shakspere to be the author, well and good. If it showed Francis Bacon to be the author, again well and good. And if it indicated someone other than these as author — still well and good."

This "method of inquiry", what he called an "inductive study of the works in question", he had been accustomed to "in the study of physical sciences" involving . .

". . the proposition that the investigation should be entirely neutral towards so-called authority, that it should be pursued without any regard for the antiquity of that authority, or the conservative interests supporting it."

---

1. Churchill, Reginald Charles (1958). Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written by Others. London: Max Reinhardt.
2. "Who Really Wrote Shakespeare's Plays? Sir Walter Raleigh - About the controversy over who really wrote Shakespeare's plays, supporters and arguments for and against Sir Walter Raleigh" reprinted from "The People's Almanac" by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace; 1975-1981.
3. Remainder of title: "EDITED AFTER THE AUTHOR'S DEATH BY SUSAN LOVERING PEMBERTON FROM AN UNFINISHED MANUSCRIPT, WITH KINDLY REVISION BY HER HUSBAND'S FRIEND CARROLL SMYTH"
4. Ralegh is considered the proper spelling of his surname by many.
5. Pemberton, Jr., Henry, Shakspere and Sir Walter Ralegh: Including Also Several Essays Previously Published in The New Shakspeareana; 1914; J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and London.

In Search of Shakespeare's Plays: Fulke Greville's Tomb

Fulke Greville Tomb

Parishioners at Collegiate Church of Saint Mary in Warwick, England sought permission to examine contents of a monument built by Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke (1554-1628)—prompted by indications in his writings of manuscripts buried there, including possibly a copy of Antony and Cleopatra.

A radar scan of the sarcophagus, approved by church council, reportedly indicated three "box like" shapes inside.^1,2 Subsequent use of an endoscope "would be supervised by Professor Warwick Rodwell, consultant archaeologist to Westminster Abbey."³

As professor James Stevens Curl of Cambridge University, regarded as the U.K.'s "leading expert on this period of British architecture", stated at the outset of the investigation:

There can be no other explanation for the sheer grandeur of the monument other than that there is something very special there. Until we look inside we cannot know for sure what it is. What is absolutely certain is that the size, cost and magnificence of the monument are intended to speak to us. There are plenty of clues about what it might be, and they suggest this is an incredibly exciting find.¹

University of Birmingham Professor Kate McLuskie, director of the Shakespeare Institute stated: "If they did find a manuscript, that would be wonderful since we have no manuscript of any of Shakespeare's plays. It would keep the Shakespeare industry going for years."⁴

The push to research the contents of the tomb apparently originated with The Master of Shakespeare (2007) by A. W. L. Saunders, a book supporting Greville as the author of the works generally attributed to Shakespeare, the academic (and intellectual) underpinnings of which have been questioned.⁵

---

1. A murdered spy and coded messages from beyond the grave... Will opening this tomb prove Shakespeare didn't write his plays? by Richard Price, Daily Mail; 11 February 2010.
2. He reportedly spent the equivalent of £300,000 on his monument, but his body was placed in the crypt below the church.
3. Chancellor Stephen Eyre of the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Coventry granted permission February 2010 for the examination, stipulating the work be carried out in subsequent months.
4. Tomb search could end riddle of Shakespeare's true identity by David Harrison, The Telegraph; 09 Aug 2009.
5. Shahan re: Greville, Shakespeare Oxford Society — Online News, Shakespeare Oxford Society.

Shakespeare's "Master": Fulke Greville (1554 – 1628)

Greville

Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke, desired to be known "to posterity under no other notion than of Shakespeare's and Ben Jonson's Master," according to David Lloyd in his 1670 The states-men and favourites of England since the reformation.^1,2

The source of this "Master" statement was not Greville directly, but English poet and playwright William Davenant—rumored godson, or even biological son, of Shakespeare—supposedly speaking of Greville.³

The Davenant parentage rumors, in turn, may have originated with the Samuel Butler quote: "It seemed to him that he writ with the very same spirit that Shakespeare [did], and seemed content enough to be called his son."⁴

What the "Master" statement might mean, or why Shakespeare and Jonson would be mentioned together in this context, is open to question.

The title of The Master of Shakespeare (2007) by A. W. L. Saunders, a book supporting the proposition that Fulke Greville was the author of the works generally attributed to William Shakespeare,⁵ seems to derive indirectly from the David Lloyd reference.

Fulke Greville as Shakespeare

The U.K.-based Shakespearean Authorship Trust—established in 1922 to "seek, and if possible establish, the truth concerning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays and poems"⁶—includes Greville in its list of potential authors.⁷

Greville ranked tenth in a top-ten list of "the most notable possible authors of the works of Shakespeare" determined by TopTenz.net in September 2011.⁸ Included in the list were other lesser-known authorship candidates: Henry Neville, Mary Sidney Herbert, William Stanley, Roger Manners, and Emilia Lanier. They also included a group theory of authorship in their ranking. Topping the list were the better-known candidates: Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, and Edward de Vere.⁹

Commenting on Thom Gunn's 2009 The Selected Poems of Fulke Greville, Robert Pinsky, Slate Magazine Poetry Editor and Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress (United States Poet Laureate) 1997-2000, noted: "Greville is probably the greatest poet unknown to many readers. The force of his imagination, his driven intelligence and his eruptive cadences, merits comparison with Donne, Herbert and Shakespeare."¹⁰

SEE ALSO: Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, 1554-1628: A Critical Biography by Joan Rees; University of California Press, 1971 - 238 pp.

---

1. full title: The states-men and favourites of England since the reformation : their prudence and policies, successes and miscarriages, advancements and falls; during the reigns of King Henry VIII. King Edward VI. Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth King James. King Charles I (William and Mary Wolf Law Library)
2. Fulke Greville (1554-1628), Biography, Poetry Foundation.
3. "Greville's claim to be 'the master of Shakespeare'", Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke; Master of Shakespeare, September 14, 2007.
4. "Biography of Sir William Davenant", PoemHunter.com.
5. Saunders, A. W. L, The Master of Shakespeare, WorldCat Identities, 2007; 416 pp.
6. History/Mission, The Shakespeare Authorship Trust.
7. Other Candidates, The Shakespearean Authorship Trust.
8. prompted by the upcoming release of Anonymous, a major motion picture on the Shakespeare authorship question.
9. Andrews, Evan, "Top 10 Possible Authors For The Works of Shakespeare", TopTenz.net; September 2, 2011.
10. The Selected Poems of Fulke Greville, edited with an introduction by Thom Gunn (and afterword by Bradin Cormack), The University of Chicago Press, 1969, 2009; 184 pp.

Basic Research

Basic research to lay the foundation for an effective investigation into the authorship of Shakespeare works involves:

• Establishing the attribution history of the works, including the . .

1. performance, registration, printing, and publication
2. title(s) presented under
3. author names, with exact spellings¹ (or lack thereof where printed anonymously)

• Establishing general range of consistency in author name spellings of the time when their works are attributed in performance, printing, and publishing.²
• Determining amount of documentary evidence generally observed with authors of the time, e.g., drafts, manuscripts, letters, journal entries, etc.
• Cataloguing sources of the works, e.g., real-life, historical, literary.³
• Cataloguing other works printed or published anonymously during the authorship era(s)⁴ in question, especially those with similar style, substance, and titling.
• Cataloguing important references for the overall research effort.⁵

Research might be presented in tables or charts laying out a detailed history of each work that captures these elements and makes proper references to establish the results readably for a journal article or presentation to a group (example table). An historical overview of significant events before, during, and after the authorship era--e.g., political, military, royal, literary, international--would provide a useful backdrop for interpreting the works, as well as theorizing as to their authorship (though it might not be considered 'basic research').

---

1. accounting for variations precisely. Example: 'An entry in a 1604 Revels Office account notes that on November 1 of that year a play entitled "The Moor of Venis" by "Shaxberd" was performed at the Banqueting House at Whitehall.' (source)
2. to use as baseline when comparing variations in anonymous and named attributions of Shakespeare works.
3. to use as baseline when comparing with evidence for authorship of Shakespeare works.
4. and before and after for comprehensiveness and to establish context.
5. online links to full, readable sources; where not available, creation of/submission for such; physical locations in repositories/libraries.

'Inductive Study'

"In 1905, I began a careful study of the Shakspere plays and poems with the determination to permit myself to be restricted by no preconceived theory of authorship. If the evidence showed William Shakspere to be the author, well and good. If it showed Francis Bacon to be the author, again well and good. And if it indicated some one other than these as author--still well and good. The inductive study of the works in question has been my only guide. To this method of inquiry I have been accustomed in the study of physical sciences. It involves the proposition that the investigation should be entirely neutral towards so-called authority, that it should be be pursued without any regard for the antiquity of that authority, or the conservative interests supporting it."

Henry Pemberton, Jr. in his preface to
Shakspere and Sir Walter Ralegh: Including Also Several Essays Previously Published in The New Shakspeareana (1914)

Alternative Hypotheses

Taking a statistical analysis approach to the Shakespeare authorship question, a null hypothesis must be disproved by an alternative hypothesis--also known as "maintained hypothesis" or "research hypothesis"--designed to negate it. An example of such an alternative hypothesis might be . .

EXAMPLE:

• H₁: The works generally attributed to "William Shakespeare" were mainly written by Mary Sidney Herbert, with the Sonnets partially written her--and by her son William Herbert and his paramour, Mary Fitton.¹

This alternative hypothesis would need to be tested against the null hypothesis using a statistical hypothesis test. Statistically establishing that the p-value² is high enough³ likely involves documentary evidence in what's known as a "paper trail" comprising . .

"the successive drafts and revisions of (the author's) writings; his diaries, letters, and autobiographical fragments; the letters and reminiscences of members of his family and his friends; legal records such as affidavits, deeds, and wills."⁴

Other ways of establishing documentary evidence might also include paintings, statues, grave markers, etc.⁵

Though one example of such hard evidence should prove enough--if nothing contradicts it in support of the null hypothesis--more would likely be needed given the contentious nature of this authorship debate (and the chance of forged evidence emerging).

The continued lack of such evidence, despite an intense ongoing research from all sides of the debate, might best be used to direct (or redirect) research⁶--to different approaches and techniques, to different possible candidates, or to different research locations,⁷ e.g., geographic regions.⁸ Without any hard evidence the solution would need to pass another evidentiary standard, e.g., beyond doubt,⁹ beyond reason, beyond argument, etc.¹⁰

---

1. as discussed in Shakespeare's Sonnets and the Authorship Question: Mary Sidney Wroth.
2. the probability that the results would be as extreme as actually observed.
3. extremely different enough from the null hypothesis to negate it.
4. Richard D. Altick, The Scholar Adventurers (1966).
5. an alternative hypothesis would disprove the null hypothesis by attaching authorship to actual persons, whether the pen-name came from the author group or was used by publishers/printers for their own purposes or convenience.
6. hypotheses developed as to why no such evidence has emerged over the centuries; establishing as a contemporary baseline the existence of such with other writers of the period.
7. the lack of observational evidence of any authorship "candidates" actually penning these works might suggest they had been created out of view (such as behind bars in a jail or prison), or covertly (perhaps involved with espionage of some sort).
8. works might have been created outside, by agents of or expatriates from, England; or by citizens of other nations working outside its borders.
9. as in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells (2013).
10. An hypothesis that answers all questions is considered a "certainty" by some.

A Statistical Approach

The null hypothesis (H₀) for Shakespeare authorship research might be stated as:

H₀: The various authorship attributions, originally made to works now generally attributed to 'William Shakespeare', do not arise from any one author's name — a known person or as a pen-name, or as part of any outside organized effort — but were applied by publishers/printers for their own purposes or reasons.

In a statistical analysis of this sort, the null hypothesis does not have to be proved.

These works have been variously attributed, including:

1. anonymously¹
2. with  no first name/initial, or with 'W.' or  'William'
3. to 'Shake-speare', 'Shake-Speare', 'Shakespeare', 'Shakespear' as last name (or only name)
4. to 'W.S.'²
5. with  'Shakespeare' (or some variant) as co-author to other known author names

To establish if this degree of variation is outside the contemporary norm, similar attributions for a number of known authors from the time could be analyzed in terms of names/spellings used to establish a normal level of standardization.³

These Shakespeare-like attributions have also been made to:

1. works not generally recognized today as by Shakespeare — included in what is called the Shakespeare Apocrypha
2. works published in folios appearing after the initial two, and many years later — some of which are also included in the Shakespeare Apocrypha⁴

Choosing to assign a made-up name rather than to publish anonymously might be done as a convenience, or for a number of possible reasons, including:

1. questionable authorship, not knowing who actually wrote the works
2. theft; intention to use the works without paying actual authors⁵
3. complicated multiple authorship where who wrote what, and in what proportions, was not clear (with no clear legal outlines as to how to apportion royalties)⁶
4. agreement with author(s) who wish to disassociate themselves from their works⁷
5. deflection of possible political/legal repercussions of publication

---

1. then attributed to a name at another time.
2. One 'candidate' for authorship of Shakespeare works is named William Stanley.
3. The assumption, from a contemporary view, would be that author attributions would be more standard around an actual author's name; or, if based on a pen-name would match it closely throughout. The proposed contemporary analysis would adjust for naming differences experienced in that era.
4. The span of years, from earliest works later attributed to Shakespeare to latest works attributed by publishers/printers originally to some variant of that name, raises questions as to how one author could have written all this material in the course of his lifetime.
5. Ben Jonson's poem "On Poet-Ape" might be interpreted as confirmation of this sort of activity.
6. That the technical legalities of how to perform this would be as highly-developed as they are in today's Hollywood seems unlikely.
7. Like with the Alan Smithee attribution used in Hollywood when directors wished to disassociation themselves from a film.

Psalm 46 and Shakespeare

In the King James version of the Bible: 'The 46th word from the top of the 46th Psalm is "Shake" ("The earth doth shake."), and the 46th word from the bottom (omitting the liturgical mark "Selah") is "spear" ("God cutteth forth a spear")' according to James C. Humes.¹ Born in 1564, William Shakspere would have been 46 in 1611, when this Bible came out, but only until his birthday on April 26.

There is no evidence that Shakspere had anything to do with the translation. That this might have to do with some sort of coding system is open to question.

---

1. Humes, James C. Citizen Shakespeare: a social and political portrait, Lanham: University Press of America, 2003; p. 164.

Shakespeare as Jewish Literature