Shakespeare

WinstonSmith

Don't know if anybody has come across this, but I found it interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/5995083/Tomb-search-could-end-riddle-of-Shakespeares-true-identity.html

Tomb search could end riddle of Shakespeare's true identity
A sarcophagus in an English parish church could solve the centuries-old literary debate over who really wrote the plays of William Shakespeare.


By David Harrison
Published: 7:45AM BST 09 Aug 2009
Shakespeare's life is shrouded in mystery Photo: PA

Parishioners at St Mary's church in Warwick have sought permission to examine the contents of the 17th monument built by Fulke Greville, a writer and contemporary of Shakespeare who some believe is the true author of several of the Bard's works.

In an echo of the blockbuster book and film, The Da Vinci Code, the search has been prompted by the discovery by an historian of clues in Greville's writings which suggest he had several manuscripts buried there, including a copy of Antony and Cleopatra.

Related Articles
The Sunday Telegraph Shakespeare Survey
Title Deed
Carol Ann Duffy - the new Poet Laureate
Two Books on Isaiah Berlin: review
Labour's apocalypse will expose the lazy mediocrity of the Churches
US Elections: Simon Schama waves goodbye to the politics of pettiness

A radar scan of the sarcophagus has already indicated the presence inside of three "box like" shapes. The searchers believe these could contain documents and a further examination is now being proposed which they hope will finally prove the link between Greville and Shakespeare.

The initial search, using ground penetrating radar, was approved by the parochial church council and the diocesan council. The team now wants to use an endoscope – a tiny video camera on a long thin tube – to be inserted into the monument to test his claims.

The work would be supervised by Professor Warwick Rodwell, consultant archaeologist to Westminster Abbey, who is keen for the project to go ahead.

Experts said that any manuscripts inside might have disintegrated over the years but could have survived if they are, for example, in "lead-lined boxes", which were common at the time.

The parochial council also wants the sarcophagus to be opened because it believes that any new evidence will bring extra visitors and save the church, the foundations of which date back 900 years, from bankruptcy.

"St Mary's is a beautiful church but is in desperate financial straits," a spokesman said. "Any manuscripts that are found would safeguard its future."

However, the diocesan advisory committee and the Church Buildings Council are resisting the new search, on "ethical grounds" and a final decision could now be taken by the diocese's consistory court.

The search has been prompted by the work of the historian AWL Saunders. He believes there are several clues suggesting Greville, who is a distant ancestor, is responsible for writing a number of Shakespeare's works.

Greville was an eminent dramatist and poet himself, as well as a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I and Chancellor of the Exchequer under James I.

Analysis of the biographical details of his life and the style of his known writings show a very close match to those of Shakespeare, suggesting they could be the same person.

They lived in the same street, had the same friends – including Christopher Marlowe and Francis Bacon – and enemies and were member of the same literary circles. Greville also said in his writing that he was "the Master of Shakespeare".

Mr Saunders has also analysed Greville's work, The Life of Sidney, about his friend Sir Philip Sidney, another prominent courtier, and found what he claims to be clear hints that he wrote Antony and Cleopatra and that he had it and other works, including a biography of Queen Elizabeth, placed in the sarcophagus.

In his book, Greville wrote that he had written the play and had given it "a much more honourable sepulture, than it could ever have deserved" – which Mr Saunders believes is a reference to his ornate sarcophagus. Greville himself was buried in the crypt below the monument.

Greville also wrote to those asking why he had not written a story of Queen Elizabeth's life: "Let him receive this answer from a dead man, because I am confident that no flesh breathing – by seeing what is done – shall have occasion to ask that question whilst I am living."

This is another hint from beyond the grave, according to Mr Saunders, that Greville had buried important documents.

Mr Saunders said: "Fulke spent the equivalent of £300,000 today on a marble sarcophagus at St Mary's. No man would build something like that and leave it empty. There is definitely something down there and we want to find out what it is."

In another intriguing link, Mr Saunders said that Greville was involved with the Rosicrucian (Rose Cross) Order, a secret society of mystics which existed in England in the 16th and 17th centuries.

One of three swords originally on the tomb in St Mary's church and now in Warwick castle appears to have the Rosicrucian symbol.

Many eminent Shakespearean scholars agree that the author of The Tempest has a deep knowledge of Rosicrucian philosophy.

In 1990 a study by the University of California and Los Angeles compared the scripts of Shakespeare to contemporary Elizabethan writers and Greville was the only one it did rule out as the author of the bard's plays.

The authorship of Shakespeare's oeuvre has been debated since the mid-19th century.

Many argue that the works attributed to him display an understanding of law, history and mathematics which a mere commoner from an illiterate household in Warwickshire could not have had.

The bard's detailed will, in which he notably left his wife "my second best bed with the furniture", fails to refer to any theatrical legacy.

Debates about authorship of the works are recorded as early as the 18th century but began in earnest in the mid-19th century.

Candidates put up by those convinced that William Shakespeare was just a pen-name include Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon and the Elizabethan nobleman Edward de Vere.

Shakespeare experts were intrigued by Mr Saunders' claims. Professor Kate McLuskie, the director of the Shakespeare Institute, said: "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."

Dr William Leahy, who runs the MA programme in Shakespeare authorship studies at Brunel University, said: "We have had tombs dug up in the past and nothing was found, but we can't make a judgement until the tests have been carried out."

*******************************************************************************************************************

Basically, I find this constant search for 'The Real Shakespeare' a direct consequence of the fact that we know so little of the man who lived and wrote the plays and poems. Society for some reason finds it hard to believe that one man was capable of such rich beauty and extravagance with something so common and monotonous (in many people's eyes (and mouths (and ears))) as language, and so it is natural for them to concoct stories about a man they do not fully understand. Surely, if a contemporary biography had been written about Shakespeare, we would not be having this debate today.

On the other hand, however, if there does turn out to be manuscripts of Anthony and Cleopatra (however unlikely a scenario it may be) in the tomb of Fulke Greville, which are examined and proven beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that the latter was the author of the said play, then will this spell an end for the name Shakespeare and open a new age in which we find that the greates playwrite in the English language is someone we can actually find quite a bit out about? It is also interesting to note that Greville was also one of the people previously thought to be the least likely to be the suppossed author of Shakespeare's plays, thus leading one to believe that the possible scenario mentioned above is indeed even more unlikely.
What are the opinions of the list on this?

BossArky

Interesting. I'm currently reading Bill Bryson's book on Shakespeare.

Debates about authorship of the works are recorded as early as the 18th century but began in earnest in the mid-19th century.

Many of the plays and stories of the time were "adaptations" of previous writings. e.g. Othello was originally an Italian piece which Shakespeare embellished.

Did he speak Italian? Where did he go during the "lost years"? To the north of England or to Italy/France?

If he didn't go roaming around Europe then he would need a translator to read/understand the plays he copied.

This type of plagiarism points to Shakespeare being just a pseudo name for someone more educated who did have linguistic skills to translate the other works.

Back in late 1500's/early 1600's playwrights would not have copies of their plays on them. They would have to sign these over to the company they performed or wrote with. This argues against the body in the church being buried with books.

malmatthews

I was riveted when I read about this in the Sunday Indo. The Telegraph report is intriguing to say the least. I read Early / Medieaval Eng. literature at TCD for a year in 1979/ 80 and it completely transformed my life. It's strange though that Marlowe was on the that course and Shakespeare was not!

I remember clearly, like a video; actually I remember in HD - walking across the cobblestones in Trinity, lights from tall, austere windows. I remember Marlowe's 'Dr Faustus' and 'Tamburlaine' tumbling through my brain and, looking at reflections of others in the windows of the slow train from Connolly station to Drogheda, I was somehow re-born.

The controversy surrounding the invasion of Grevilles's sacrophagus is interesting. Will we have any less respect for him if we discover that he was in fact the person we refer to as William Shakespeare? This is heady stuff; what if the authour Greville was using the name of Shakespeare as a pseudonym?

I spent many hours at UCG library reading FR Leavis' commentaries on Shakespeare's drama.

Whatever the authourship of the plays, whether Greville or Shakespeare or Marlowe (ok; don't get upset;they have a completely different style of writing!)
1. Is it possible that the author chose to disguise his identity?
2. His sonnets are about transience, death and the immortality of his written words?...

" When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee"
(Sonnet # XVIII).

"this" is the sonnet, ostensibly.

He certainly had faith that this sonnet would out-live himself and the love-subject of his sonnet. Firstly though he was highly poetic, 'intelligent'.
Is it possible he has left an Elizibethan time-capsule in Greville's sacrophagus?

WinstonSmith

malmatthews wrote: »

I was riveted when I read about this in the Sunday Indo. The Telegraph report is intriguing to say the least. I read Early / Medieaval Eng. literature at TCD for a year in 1979/ 80 and it completely transformed my life. It's strange though that Marlowe was on the that course and Shakespeare was not!

I remember clearly, like a video; actually I remember in HD - walking across the cobblestones in Trinity, lights from tall, austere windows. I remember Marlowe's 'Dr Faustus' and 'Tamburlaine' tumbling through my brain and, looking at reflections of others in the windows of the slow train from Connolly station to Drogheda, I was somehow re-born.

The controversy surrounding the invasion of Grevilles's sacrophagus is interesting. Will we have any less respect for him if we discover that he was in fact the person we refer to as William Shakespeare? This is heady stuff; what if the authour Greville was using the name of Shakespeare as a pseudonym?

I spent many hours at UCG library reading FR Leavis' commentaries on Shakespeare's drama.

Whatever the authourship of the plays, whether Greville or Shakespeare or Marlowe (ok; don't get upset;they have a completely different style of writing!)
1. Is it possible that the author chose to disguise his identity?
2. His sonnets are about transience, death and the immortality of his written words?...

" When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee"
(Sonnet # XVIII).

"this" is the sonnet, ostensibly.

He certainly had faith that this sonnet would out-live himself and the love-subject of his sonnet. Firstly though he was highly poetic, 'intelligent'.
Is it possible he has left an Elizibethan time-capsule in Greville's sacrophagus?

A very enlightened post, Mal; I agree with a lot of what you say. I think the major thing with this is that even if Greville were somehow found to be the author of all Shakespeare's works, I don't necessarily think it would matter so much as other poets'/dramatists' works, since they are just so capable of living and breathing on their own, without necessarily any knowledge of Shakespeare's life being required to see/read them and love them.