SHAKE-SPEARE’S BIRTHDATE

This essay is a short extract from the author's book "Fourscore of April : A 'Shake-Speare' Enigma" by John Barton, New Plymouth, New Zealand, 2001; ISBN 0-473-08222-5, which is publication number nine of the Trustees of the Dalberton Library and one of a series devoted to Shakesperean studies.

The book attempts to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that:-

1) A certain passage in "The Winter's Tale" usually considered burlesque, has in fact a cogent and meaningful interpretation.

2) The unknown birthdate of William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon is in fact 19th April 1564 and not 23rd as usually - from sentiment- supposed.

3) This Stratford man was not the author of the plays and sonnets attributed to "William Shake-Speare".

The chapters following discuss the date of birth of William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon. Concerning the authorship of the ‘Works’ we now call Shakespeare’s, no assumption is made that he was this man.

Many candidates for authorship have been proposed, some relatively absurd, many deserving serious study - the matter has never been satisfactorily resolved, far less proven, and the only tenable scholastic position is that we simply don’t know.

The fact that the Stratfordian theory is by far the most widely held is rather irrelevant, since it comprises so many people who accept what they have been taught with little interest or inquiry. Yet it began in 1623, seven years after the man’s death. As an actor, this Stratford man is named in contemporary records as Shakespeare (1595) and Shakspere; and on documents not relating to that career, as Shaxpere, Shagspere (both in 1582), and Shackespere (1588). On the few title-pages of the works, the author is Shakespeare (1593), Shakespere (1593 and 1594), Shake-speare (1594), and Shakspere (1595). It seems likely that the first part of the name rhymed with ‘shake’ for the author, and with ‘shack’ for the Stratford man. And that it was, since sometimes hyphenated, an author’s pen-name. At all events, the surname was common in Warwickshire in the 16th century, as the biographer Sir Sidney Lee points out. And, as a a playwright, seems to have been unknown to contemporary historians such as William Camden.

This article seeks to establish that the Stratford claimant, or frontman, may have been known to some other ( true author) to the extent of insertions being embedded in the plays in reference to him. 

 FORGERY

It is well-known that the critical line in Shakespeare’s will referring to the actors Richard Burbage, John Heminges, and Henry Condell, was added after the will was drawn up. Perhaps no other author has suffered the fame of so many forgeries; signatures added to books, by John Payne Collier; over-painted and artificially aged portraits; and important genuine documents tampered with by Halliwell-Phillipps. Many of these forgeries date from early last century, others are much older.

Sir Sidney Lee lists many of those known at the time when he wrote his ‘Life of Shakespeare’. A large work, inflated from a few very meagre known facts, by continual use of phrases such as ‘though records are lost, there can be no reason to doubt that this is where young William received his education’, and ‘it has been conjectured that he tried his hand at school-teaching, but that is a mere guess’. The same is true for many 16th century English authors; the ideas of copyright and even authorship were then germinaL For various legal and commercial reasons, details on title-pages, on which we so depend today, were falsified. The first edition of a book was often called, say, the third, to promote sales; publishers put the names of popular authors on titles, after their death, for the same reason. Both Oxford and Shaksper were dead in 1623, when the first folio was printed. Printing places were falsified if there was danger of prosecution, often imaginary or continental. There is nothing startling about 'conspiracy theories' - they were the order of the day; almost nothing on l6th century titles can be trusted absolutely. 'It is hard to resist the belief that some courtier supplied Shakespeare with the material for a caricature' [of Malvolio; is it so unthinkable that he was himself a nobleman, and got it firsthand?]. 'But there is nothing better than 18th century hearsay for this' [the legend that he earned a living in London holding horses outside a playhouse]. The truth is, so embarrassingly little is known, that assumption has hardened into fact.
 Personal opinion has been allowed to distort scholarship; the very time-scale of the plays has been tailored to fit the Stratfordian entity. And not without difficulty, like Cinderella's slipper - which incidentally was originally fur not glass; the mistranslation occurred via the French 'verre', glass.

 The result is more or less impressive, but leaves massive unstated flaws. Shaksper's parents, for example, were illiterate; and his children inherited no books. His daughter Judith could not sign her name, but made a mark. His own signature is scarcely in a literary hand; and so variable that it is now considered the notarial signature of his lawyers - leaving not one word of his existing. No letters from him to anyone survive, and only one to him - a business transaction.