William or not William, that is ......

Ever wondered how a man who is said to have quit school by the age of 12 or 14 managed to write the greatest lines of English literature?

How someone born into a family of modest means wrote plays which required detailed geographical and political knowledge and advanced skills in reading Latin, Greek, French, Spanish and Italian sources and knowledgeable about Court politics?
How such a great man seems to have taken little notice when he was alive?
How come no manuscrips in Shakespeare’s hand have ever been found. No letters. No books or archives….

The mystery about Shakespeare becomes striking when you realize how little is actually known about him.

Well, there have been rumors before of course that Old Bill was not really William… and there have been hypotheses but the topic is so taboo in the academic circles that no serious conclusive research had been done. This time, a couple of scholars have come up with a theory that has the merit of addressing the issue intelligently, it seems. Shakespeare, they claim in The Truth Will Out : Unmasking the Real Shakespeare, was the ‘front man’ for Sir Henry Neville, an educated nobleman far more suited to the role of literary genius - a diplomat too close to the Platangenets and to the political circles to admit he wrote such controversial plays.

The theory is appealing. On the one hand, they seem to make a good case, supported by no less than Mark Rylance, artistic director of the Globe, who suggests in The Times that the fingering of Neville as the true author may prove to be a “historic” step.

If the plays had not been attributed to Shakespeare after his death, said Rylance, “he would be the last person you would imagine able to write such matter”.

On the other hand, more investigations should probably be undertaken as in this time and age, we should all be very careful with anything even remotely resembling a conspiracy theory.

But at least it has the merit of challenging years of painstaking study — not to mention academic reputations — of revered scholars. The Times also published the reaction of Peter Ackroyd, the historian and novelist, who wrote a 546-page biography of Shakespeare (that does not even mention Neville in the index). Not surprisingly, Ackroyd said

“I don’t want to know the evidence,” he huffed last week when asked about the possibility of Neville being the real wizard of the word. “William Shakespeare is William Shakespeare.”

Mmm… A very good illustration of those revered open-minded scholars!

Whatever the truth may be, you may start trying to make your own mind by reading what here, here , here or here. There is also an interview of one of the researchers available here.