Учебное пособие 4 unit I. The renaissance 1485-1649

OXFORDIAN VERSION
For a long time, Bacon was the leading candidate of the anti-
Shakespearens, but Edward de Vere, the 17
th
Earl of Oxford, is now the most
popular nominee. He was proposed by an English professor J.T. Looney who
published his book “Shakespeare identified in Edward de Vere, the 17
th
Earl
of Oxford in 1920.
2
Oxfordian version is presented in the monograph of Ch.
Ogburn “The Mysterious Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality”
3
.
Professor J. T. Looney tried to argue the identity of Edward de Vere, the
17
th
Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) and William Shakespeare. Loony stressed
that the contemporaries of Edward de Vere had drawn attention to the Earls
literary achievements, his poetry and comedies. But the lack of rationality in
this hypothesis is worthy of special mention: there is little evidence that
Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford were one and the same person because
the date of the death of Edward de Vere is 1604 while the most
Shakespeare’s works were created later. In spite of these facts many non-
Shakespearian scholars adhered to this opinion in the 20
th
century. In 1987 –
1988 the admirers of Oxfordian concept arranged in Washington and London
so called judicial examination ( procedures or games) in connection with the
authorship of Shakespearian works ostensibly belonging to the Earl of
Oxford. These games drew the attention of the English audience to
Shakespearian question despite the judges did not admit the evidences of the
Earl’s attorneys.
In 1950 the hypothesis “Shakespeare is the pen-name of the playwright
Christopher Marlowe” was widespread. The dramatist Marlowe was killed in
1593, nevertheless the American literary scholar Calvin Gofman supposed
another person was murdered and Christopher Marlowe was hiding and
writing under the pen-name of Shakespeare. Calvin Gofman even had made
excavations of the grave of Marlowe seeking for manuscripts of “Marlowe-
Shakespeare”, but did not find any evidences.
1 Bacon D.S. The Philosophy of the plays of Shakespeare. N.Y. 1856
2 Loony J. T. Shakespeare identified in Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. New York. 1920
3 Ogburn Ch. The Mysterious Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. New York. 1984

---

77
In the 20
th
century “claimants” (“pretenders”) to the role of Shakespeare
were Earl of Essex, King James, Robert Cessil…about 50 personalities.
There existed so called groop-hypotheses: Bacon, Earl of Oxford and Earl of
Ruthland (1925), seven persons in the mask of Shakespeare: Marlowe,
Bacon, Derby, Mary-Sidney-Pembruck, Sir Walter Raleigh, Earl of Ruthland
and Earl of Oxford and others. The adherents of the groop authorship refered
to unusually rich and wide volume of vocabulary in Shakespearian works,
they believe in different plays one can feel different styles, so called “another
hand”. The adherents of different non-Stratfordian directions attacked the
supporters of traditional Stratfordian biography, they believe, that the
merchant from Sfratford could not be the author of great works.
There are adherents of non-Stratfordian concepts among Russian literary
scholars. M. Litvinova believes that the two right-hand sleeves in the
Shakespearian portrait by Martin Droushaut on the title page of the Great
Folio are the symbols of the two “writing hands” belonging to the
philosopher Francis Bacon and Rogers Manners, the fifth Earl of Ruthland.
Litvinova refers to the version by John Mitchel who supposed that “at the
centre of all poets and mysteries was Francis Bacon”. In the Russian
Shakespearian scholarship the tendency prevails to consider two persons in
the role of the Great Bard – the philosopher Francis Bacon and the poet Earl
of Ruthland. So, I. Gililov presents the analysis of Shakespeare’s poem “The
Phoenix and the Turtle” which helped him to find out the unique water marks
on the pages of Chester’s book where the poem was first published.
Analyzing these watermarks Gililov made a thorough scrutiny of two
copies of the poem from the British library and the Folger Library dated 1601
and 1611 correspondently. The conclusion is that the dating was a deliberate
mystification, both copies were printed not earlier than the second half of
1612 , after the death of Earl of Ruthland and his wife Elizabeth Sidney (the
daughter of Philip Sydney). I. Gililov believes that the prototypes of the
Turtle and his she –friend were the Earl of Ruthland and Elizabeth Sydney ,
an unusual couple connected by the ties of fictitious marriage and platonic
love. Their almost simultaneous deaths were mourned by Jonson, Chapman
and Marson. It is worth mentioning that in the Russian translations of I. A.
Kanshin the title of the poem was rendered wrong –«Феникс и голубка»

---

78
instead of «Феникс и голубь».
While offering a solution of the
mysterious poem Gililov opens the
ways for solving some literary
puzzles.
Skepticism as to Shakespeare’s
authorship has arisen for a number of
reasons. Some critics have claimed
that too little is known about the man
from Stratford for him to be the
author of these great plays. But it is
important to remember that far less is
known about most other writers and
public men of the time. Other critics
have said that what is known about
Shakespeare is incompatible with the
sort of man who could have written
the works. Still others have argued
that the lack of surviving manuscripts
of the plays indicates a mystery concerning the author ’s identity. In general,
however, resistance to the notion that a glover’s son from Stratford wrote the
plays we attribute to Shakespeare comes from a form of snobbery. We know
Shakespeare did not go to university and he was not educated at court, so it
has seemed to some impossible that he could have written the wonderful
works ascribed to him.
The biography of Shakespeare that Rowe included with his edition of the
works in 1709 may have added to the skepticism. Rowe painted a very
respectable background for Shakespeare and made sweeping assumptions
from the known facts. In addition, a number of traditional although
unsubstantiated stories about Shakespeare, such as that of his deer poaching,
came to be accepted as true, and other legends accumulated. On the basis of
these, some skeptics decided that Shakespeare was an ignorant butcher’s boy
from an uncultured background who could not have written anything
significant, let alone great literary masterpieces that show intimate
knowledge of aristocratic manners. The misconceptions about Shakespeare
were compounded in the 19th century, when he acquired a reputation for vast
learning and virtual omniscience.
For a more balanced evaluation of Shakespeare’s knowledge and
education, it is necessary to take into account the facts of his background. His
native Stratford was a prosperous market town with one of the best grammar
schools in England. Shakespeare’s father held official positions, which would

---

79
indicate that he must have been an ambitious man who would hardly have
denied his son the free education to which he was entitled at the grammar
school. Most scholars familiar with the Elizabethan age believe that the
works display exactly the sort of knowledge that Shakespeare could have
obtained in the Stratford grammar school.
A number of scholars have closely studied the book-learning exhibited in
the works. They have concluded that even the mythological allusions, which
have sometimes been cited as proof of the author’s wide classical reading, are
no more numerous or obscure than those used by other writers. Moreover,
these allusions come from relatively few literary sources or popular
traditions. Nor is there evidence in the works of precise knowledge of the
scientific and philosophical trends of the day. As most modern scholars see
it, the author revealed in the works was a keenly sensitive and intelligent man
whose reading was inspired by wide curiosity, but that, unlike Sir Francis
Bacon, he was not a learned man of scientific bent.
The claim that the plays display Shakespeare’s intimate knowledge of the
customs and manners of nobility and royalty is illusory. The plays show
kings speaking in regal tones when the dramatic situation calls for emphasis
on the dignity of royalty. In other scenes, however, they speak as ordinary
human beings, in keeping with the emotional situation in which the action
places them. In any case, Shakespeare played at court many times before
Queen Elizabeth and King James and had an official position as one of
James’ servants as a member of the King’s Men. It would not, therefore, have
been difficult for him to become familiar with aristocratic life and manners.
The fact that Shakespeare’s manuscripts have vanished is not surprising
in the light of Elizabethan practices. Very few play manuscripts from the
period have survived. Plays were not considered literature, and play scripts
would not have had much value, except to the acting company. In any case,
once a playwright sold a script to an acting company, it was no longer the
author’s property. The manuscripts in the playhouse were undoubtedly
preserved for as long as they were usable, but afterward they were probably
used as scrap paper. The manuscripts supplied by Heminges and Condell for
the printing of the 18 previously unpublished plays in the First Folio would
most likely have been returned to the acting company after the book was in
print. The Second, Third, and Fourth folios are printed from the text of the
First Folio, rather than from manuscripts. When Parliament ordered the
closing of London’s playhouses in 1642, many companies sold their assets,
including play manuscripts. In addition, many manuscripts must have
perished in the great fire that swept London in 1666. Thus, it would be
unusual if the manuscripts of Shakespeare’s plays had survived.
Those who seek another author for Shakespeare’s works believe that

---

80
distinction of birth and education is a necessary qualification for writing great
literature. Ye t it is the quality of imaginative genius rather than a display of
learning that distinguishes the creator of these plays. The miracle is not that a
man of Shakespeare’s background wrote them, but that any human
imagination produced creations of such enduring power and beauty.

---

81