Shakespeare, in Fact [Hardcover]

Irvin Leigh Matus (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 1994 | ISBN-10: 0826406246 | ISBN-13: 978-0826406248 | Edition: 1ST

A large amount of dispute has existed over the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. This text on the authorship issue presents a record of Shakespeare and "Shakespearean" works in relation to comparable figures of the day, allowing readers to judge for themselves.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Written with wit and panache, this erudite tome dismantles the arguments of those who claim that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote his plays. The current frontrunner in the Bard authorship sweepstakes is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), a minor court poet, actor and producer. Matus ( Shakespeare: The Living Record ) soundly thrashes the Oxfordians, puncturing holes in their theory that de Vere wrote the plays. Matus demonstrates that Shakespeare's contemporaries gave little indication that they thought of the Bard as the greatest playwright of his age; only during the 18th-century, when editors corrected real or perceived flaws in the works, did his reputation soar, the author maintains. This closely argued study should help put to rest the authorship controversy. Illustrated. First serial to the Atlantic Monthly.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

The last significant study of who actually wrote the Shakespeare plays was Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984); Ogburn's candidate was Edward de Vere, a courtier to Elizabeth I. Matus presents a number of refutations to Ogburn's arguments, battling, in general, over the same ground--there's the question of whether or not the writer's name (or pseudonym) was spelled Shakspere, or whether any but a nobleman could acquire the worldliness that enriches the plays. Determining dates of composition is also crucial. Both Matus and Ogburn deploy a welter of references to the playwright and to the Elizabethan stage; but what they refer to is fragmentary evidence, and missing parts must be inferred. Matus spent six years compiling his details, impressively obsessive enough. Even so, he must resort to pure speculation at times--for instance, regarding the "lost years" of Shakespeare (the name, rather than the man) before the first printed appearance in 1592. But books about Shakespeare's identity always circulate; if you have Ogburn, you can safely add Matus. Gilbert Taylor

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Continuum Intl Pub Group (Sd); 1ST edition (July 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0826406246
• ISBN-13: 978-0826406248
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #727,627 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

28 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent case against Oxfordianism, May 18, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Shakespeare, in Fact (Hardcover)

Irvin Matus's Shakespeare, IN FACT

Reviewed by Thomas A. Pendleton

The Shakespeare Newsletter, Summer 1994

The authorship controversy -- which nowadays is tantamount to saying the Oxfordian hypothesis -- is not often seriously investigated by Shakespeare scholars. There are a number of reasons why, with sheer cowardice and fear of being found out and losing tenure relatively low on the list. Almost all Shakespeareans, I expect, are aware that claims for any rival author are based on assertions and inferences about Shakespeare's biography, his inadequate education, the absence of his manuscripts, the plays' erudition, aristocratic bias, knowledge of Italian geography, and so on; assertions and inferences that are untenable and have been shown to be untenable. Most libraries can supply the Shakespearean with some older, but very useful, treatments of the subject, notably Frank W. Wadsworth's graceful and cogent survey, The Poacher from Stratford, and Milward Martin's energetically argued Was Shakespeare Shakespeare?. And probably nearer to hand is Shakespeare's Lives, which reviews the controversy in a longish section called "Deviations." For most Shakespeareans most of the time, Schoenbaum sufficeth.

A number of other considerations militate against the Shakespearean's engaging the topic. Public debates and moot courts, favorite venues for proponents of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, are far more compatible to categorical pronouncements than to the laborious establishment of detail, context, and interpretation required to counter them, not to mention doing so with enough panache to win the approval of a non-specialist audience. Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that even to engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it countenance it does not warrant. And, of course, any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say or write will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise.

Perhaps the mos! t daunting consideration for the scholar who intends to seriously examine this claim is the volume and nature of the research that will be demanded. To begin with, he must become completely familiar with the nearly 900 pages of Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare, the authorized version of Oxfordianism, and then proceed to test at least a wide sampling of random claims of other adherents. He will continually be faced with the prospect of dealing with gratuitous assertions as if they were serious scholarly conclusions, and the necessity of demonstrating such assertions to be incoherent in the appropriate context, or based on incomplete or selective evidence, or logically faulty, or some combination thereof. The research required will be extremely demanding, much of it in quite recondite areas where very few have boldly gone before. He probably ought also to curb his natural temptation to say snide things when refuting especially preposterous claims.

As remarkable as it sounds, Irvin Leigh Matus, in his Shakespeare, IN FACT (New York: Continuum, 1994), has managed to perform all of these tasks, even the last. (Well, he's pretty restrained, anyhow.) Matus notes with some sympathy "The great frustration of the Oxfordians... that academic Shakespeareans do not pay attention to their scholarship nor address their questions." He adds, "It is also their great fortune," which he then proceeds to demonstrate.

To the best of my knowledge, no previous Shakespeare scholar has engaged so much of what Oxfordians have presented as evidence for their positions, or has done so as thoroughly. Matus gives not just fair, but even patient, hearing; and in many instances where a less forbearing respondent might give a short answer, he explores and explains in further detail.

Among such instances is the claim that Ben Jonson's "Sweet swan of Avon" actually refers to the Earl, whose manor at Bilton was on the Avon river and presumably frequented by swans. It might be thought ! sufficient to observe that the phrase is a direct address in a poem directly addressed "To My Beloved Mr. William Shakespeare," and that the epithet's reference to Shakespeare is, quite superfluously, confirmed in the dedication of the Beaumont and Fletcher folio (of which, more later). Matus, however, performs the supererogatory work of tracking down the history of the Bilton estate. It eventuates that Oxford leased it out in 1574, sold it in 1581, and never regained possession. This particular sweet swan had flown off 42 years before Jonson's poem.

The orthodox claim that The Tempest relies on the Bermuda pamphlets of 1610 cannot be allowed by de Vere's proponents, whose man died in 1604. Other and earlier accounts have been proposed, notably the 1592 shipwreck, off Bermuda, of the Edward Bonaventure, a ship supposed to be connected with Oxford, perhaps even to be the vessel he commanded against the Armada. Matus gives the short answer -- consult Bullough's standard work on the sources for the parallels to William Strachey's 1610 letter on behalf of the Virginia Company -- but he also resurrects the history of the ship. He demonstrates that Oxford's only connection was to consider buying it in 1581, it fought in the Armada campaign under other command, and neither of the two supposed eye-witnesses described its wreck for the very good reason that neither was on board.

The engraving of the Stratford Monument in William Dugdale's 1656 Antiquities of Warwickshire is a favorite artifact for Oxfordians. The picture differs in a number of respects from the monument we know; notably, it lacks the quill and paper which the figure of Shakespeare now holds. Proceeding from this, it is supposed that these items were added when the monument was restored in 1748, probably to enhance its literary aura for the tourist trade; the cushion on which the figure now seems to write is accordingly assumed to originally have been a bag of grain, appropriate to Shakespeare's local reputation as a malt jobber. Pre! vious commentators have been content to cite the letter of Joseph Greene, the local schoolmaster and curate in 1748, to the effect that the restoration was committed only to preserving the original design; that a number of Dugdale's plates are similarly in error is also frequently stated. Matus cites Greene, and more importantly, he too denies Dugdale's reliability -- but not just at the level of assertion. He provides a couple of comparable examples of Dugdale's inaccuracy -- the Clopton and Carew tombs in Holy Trinity Church -- and clinches his argument with the instance of the effigy on the Beauchamp tomb in Warwick. As with the Stratford Monument, here we have existing statuary inaccurately portrayed in the Antiquities, we have the record of an intervening restoration begun in 1674, and, in greater detail, we have records of the restoration that seem to insist that no alterations were introduced. We also know who planned and supervised the restoration: none other than William Dugdale.

Shakespeare, IN FACT is continually generous in treating such claims with a respect appropriate to far more firmly based conclusions by providing abundant materials to refute them. It also strikes me as remarkable restraint, perhaps even mansuetude, that the book never mentions any of the most hirsute of Oxfordian suppositions: that the Earl of Southampton was the illegitimate son of Vere and Queen Elizabeth, for instance; or that Ben Jonson murdered Shakespeare.

18 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Penultimate Word, August 4, 2001

By 

E. T. Veal (Chicago, Illinois USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Shakespeare, In Fact (Paperback)

The review posted below by David Kathman succinctly summarizes the content of this scholarly polemic against the absurdities of the literary "Oxford Movement". I just wish to note that the 1999 paperback edition is a straight reprint of the 1994 hardbound. Therefore, while it addresses the orthodox Looney-Ogburn-Whalen school of anti-Stratfordianism, there is nothing about more recent mutations. Readers who want to keep up to date on the controversy should take a look at Professor Kathman's Shakespeare Authorship Web site, which discusses virtually all of the Oxfordian arguments and links to such interesting material as a complete edition of the Earl of Oxford's extant letters, which may prove disillusioning to those who cherish an image of the earl as a polymathic genius.

Even though it does not swat the very latest fantasies of Authorship Cultism, "Shakespeare, In Fact" is both entertaining and useful. Reading it will leave one better informed about not only the narrow question of who wrote Shakespeare but also the broader context of the Elizabethan stage and Renaissance literature.

18 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The author's remarks regard an existing review, December 1, 2004

By 

Irvin L. Matus (Washington DC) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Shakespeare, in Fact (Hardcover)

I am writing in regarding to the following "review" of SHAKESPEARE, IN FACT by Irvin Leigh Matus posted on Amazon.com:

----------------------------------

0 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

Nice try, Irv, April 23, 2003

Reviewer: A reader

You know, the Stratfordians change punctuation of 400-year-old documents in order to further their cause. This author can't be trusted. It's a book for those who want their myths propped up, not demolished. Nice going, Mr. Matus.

----------------------------------

I happen to be Irvin Leigh Matus - that Irvin Leigh Matus (just to make sure I am not confused with the untold other Irvin Leigh Matuses). I will here note this letter is not intended for publication on the Amazon website, or anywhere else.

I feel some temptation to let this review remain online. I share Samuel Johnson's faith in the "common sense" of "common readers," which is justified by their unanimous rejection of this posting. I imagine with pleasure that its author may visit it from time to time to learn it has captured little interest and been judged to have no value. The results, however, do not negate the intentions of this "reviewer" or the substance of the review. Further, the small number who took the trouble to enter their negative opinion of the review undoubtedly do not reflect the far larger number who saw it and did not give their opinion, some of whom may have come away with a negative disposition toward the reliability of the book and its author.

The only thing in my book that might be the candidate for his/her review is a lawsuit written in Latin, which is discussed on pages 39-40 of my book, in which I give a full account of its interpretation. It so happens, aware that the Latin used in legal documents was different from the classical Latin as it was then taught, I spent ten months seeking someone with expertise in these documents. The punctuation was not, as charged, changed - the document is in fact unpunctuated - and the punctuation added was supplied to me in written form by the scholar mentioned (who is not a Shakespearean but an expert in wills, deeds, lawsuits and similar documents; he requested anonymity after giving the information to me because he didn't wish to be hounded by the controversialists - which the review in question justifies).

If this is indeed the item in question, perhaps Anonymous doubts the honesty of my claim that I consulted an experienced, respected archival scholar (page 40). I was in fact directed to him by the then rare books librarian of the Library of Congress' Law Library, and I still have the scholar's handwritten notes with his signature, which include his request that I "not cite this as a communication from me."

Two things need to be noted about the content of Anonymous' charge. First, by not identifying the specific item at issue, it could be anything in my book. It is the rule of controversialist scholarship, the error rate of which hovers around 100 percent, that a single flaw in a work of orthodox scholarship, whether perceived or actual - or fabricated - is sufficient in their eyes to cast doubt upon the accuracy and authenticity of the entire work. Second, Anonymous' primary purpose is clearly to impugn both my standards of scholarship and my integrity as a scholar.

It should be noted that in the ten years since the publication of my book, it has been reviewed and commented upon by scores of Shakespeareans and Oxfordians (many more of the latter) and this review is the only instance I know of in which my integrity has been attacked or I have been accused of falsifying facts. This is also the first time I have openly responded to a criticism of my book.

To the point, even without the foregoing, I am surprised that Amazon.com would publish an unspecific charge of falsified data by someone unwilling to give either his/her name or email address. Whereas I understand that it may not be feasible to research the accuracy and authenticity of what reviewers say, the form and content of this review should have raised caution flags. Circulating such blind remarks invites all kinds and all degrees of false charges.

This is especially significant because I suspect that more people may get opinion about a book from Amazon.com reviews than any other source. As you must be aware of Amazon.com's influence on the perception of a book, it should be especially wary of posting a review that contains statements that attack an author and his work anonymously. Nor should an allegation of scholarly malfeasance be put online that does not mention the specific item in which it is alleged to occur. There is, however, a compelling reason for not publishing such things on a website, which is that the publisher can be held accountable. Laws against libel do not stop at the portals of the Internet. Perhaps a still more compelling reason from Amazon's point of view is that it discourages sales of books, which authors don't much like either.

I therefore request that this review be removed from the Amazon.com website.

With my thanks for your attention,

Irvin Leigh Matus