Most Helpful Customer Reviews
45 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A possible hypothesis weakly argued., February 13, 2008
The authors argue that Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare based on two types of argument. First is alleged documentary evidence, consisting apparently of three documents. The first is the Tower Notebook dated 1602 consisting apparently of exerpts copied from documents kept in the Tower of London. The authors concentrate particularly on sections dealing with the coronation of Anne Bolyn, linking it to scenes and stage directions in Shakespeare's play Henry VIII. They pay particular attention to annotations in the Notebook that they claim might have been made by Neville. They, however, fudge completely the question of whether this is actually in Neville's handwriting or just looks like it might be Neville's hand when considered by someone who is not a handwriting expert. It is possible that the notebook actually was in Neville's possession at some time, that it was produced at Neville's instructions, and that the annotations are in Neville's hand, but these are all in the realm of possibility -- not in any way established fact, and least not by the authors. Furthermore, the play, Henry VIII, is believed to have been co-authored by John Fletcher, and appeared in the records and apparently was written in the form we now have at a time when Shakespeare -- whoever he actually was -- seems to have moved away from play-writing. Even if the above possibilities could be established, it could still be the case that Flethcher -- who knew Neville apparently -- got the information from Neville, without establishing any presumption of authorship for Neville. The second documentary source is an annoted version of Halle's chronicles which might -- or might not -- have been in Neville's possession and might -- or might not -- have been annotated by him. How relevant the annotations are to matters that Shakespeare used in his plays is not considered. Again the handwriting question is fudged. Thirdly, the enigmatic Northumberland Manuscript is supposed to establish the connection, though again the question of handwriting is not dealt with, while the significance seems to be largely in the eye of the beholder.
The other major line of argument comes from parallels from Neville's life to things in the plays and (possibly) the poems. This is in the "must have" school or argument. Shakespeare must have done certain things or had ceretain experiences. E.g. Shakespeare "must have" travelled for substantial periods in northern Italy, he "must have" had military experience, he "must have" had naval experience, he "must have" had legal training, he "must have" had access to an extensive library, etc., etc., etc. One wishes that someone would make a list of these "must have"s, so that one could easily check how many have been covered. There are many coincidences of this sort that do fit Sir Henry Neville, but they also fit any number of other Elizabethans. Of course, these "must have"s have also been used to try to flesh out "biographies" of William Shakespeare of Stratford about whom so little is really known.
The case for Neville being Shakespeare is not furthered by the authors rush to conclusion. For instance, the tower notebook, which might have been Neville's by Chapter 11 has become "Sir Henry Neville's Notebook." The straightforward telling of Neville's life is marred by repeated claims that Will Shakespeare did not have these experiences -- as far as we know.
I didn't find the reasons given for Neville's using a pseudonym very plausible. Similarly, the alleged contempory remarks that can be taken as indicating that Neville was the Shakespeare, are not very convincing, especially an attempt to interpret a passage where Ben Jonson claims that he (Jonson) is a poet to mean that Neville was a poet.
Finally, the scholarship is often poorly done -- facts are alluded to without reference to their source, and there is no bibliography or list of sources published or unpublished that were consulted.
All this doesn't mean that it is not an interesting book. I just wish that it were better done, documented more carefully and argued more cogently. It certainly didn't move Neville into the lead in my personal cogitations about who really wrote Shakespeare.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Join the party, December 1, 2009
I think you have to be a little new at the authorship question to fall in love with this book. Not that I'm an expert, just a very interested amateur. This one has about the highest proportion of "obviously"s, "undoubtedly"s and "it cannot be denied"s, etc., of anything I've read yet on the subject. The thesis is that Henry Neville wrote the plays, but the evidence is thin, and we end up with some wonderfully contorted logic.
My favorite example is on page 185 about the dedication of the sonnets, printed in 1609. The dedication is signed "T.T." and there's general agreement that T.T. was Thomas Thorpe, the book's publisher. Why isn't it signed "H.N." for Henry Neville? Because, according to The Truth Will Out, dedications are never written by publishers but by authors. So Henry Neville concealed his identity by initialing his dedication as the publisher (who never write dedications). Okay, hmm, scratch, scratch,...?
Still, I'm glad to have read this book, for questions it reminds me to keep in mind as I read about more likely possibilities.
Interestingly, John Lyly's Sapho and Phao which predates and resembles A Midsummer Night's Dream in an intriguing number of ways....Take Me With You When You Go
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
39 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
By George, I think she's got it!, October 28, 2006
This review is from: The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare (Hardcover)
For many years, I have been interested in the "authorship question." I have become quite convinced that the body of Shakespeare works could not very likely have been written by the Stratford bloke. As Dr. Peter Sammartino wrote (in 1972), that would have required "a miracle." Yet I was uneasy with the Oxfordian hypothesis, because all the identifiable works by Oxford just didn't seem to me to read like Shakespeare. Also, Oxford's dates are not right.
The book at hand may turn out to be a real landmark in the history of literature. It provides a Shakespeare candidate with the necessary education, with the necessary travel experience (completely lacking for Stratford's Shakespeare), the connections (familial and political), the personal chronology, and even a number of strongly indicative documents.
Now what will the established experts say? The ones with whom I have spoken have been disdainful, but admit that they have not bothered to follow the authorship question, assuming that it was all settled. I urge anyone interested to stand back and look at the evidence anew: forget the endless repetitions of the accepted story, and look at the facts as if you were coming upon them for the first time. This is one of those situations where it is crucial to make a clean start. Make a list, perhaps a table of the evidence. By all mean, be skeptical: but be skeptical evenly.
I think that the authorship question is a good example of the inertia which takes hold in the humanities. My own experience as a scientist leads me to think that we in the sciences are much more willing to change ideas in the face of new evidence. After all, plate tectonics was largely accepted within five years, or at most a decade. Geologists were not afraid to abandon the thinking of a professional lifetime, when new facts and interpretations came to the fore. It was an exhilarating time. Will the literary specialists be adaptable, or will they be too stodgy to change? Here we will be able to witness a good test of the academic culture.
For a layman like me, this book is a great find. It is exciting to find a treasure like this, and nobody can take away the sheer pleasure of sharing in discovery.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
