Shakespeare and Me: The Man or the Myth?

The Earl of Rutland

The next Anti-Stratfordian theorist was the Belgian socialist, politician, teaches and writer Celestin Demblon (pictured below) who, in 1908, submitted the fifth Earl of Rutland, Roger Manners, as the 'real' Shakespeare. The basis of this claim revolves around the then Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley. Demblon claimed that as Rutland and Southampton purportedly had a very close relationship (we are unable to speculate further on the extremity of this union), Rutland must be the legitimate writer of the plays. Why does a close relationship between two Elizabethan nobles mean that one of them, therefore, must have written the works of Shakespeare, I hear you ask? Well, the answer to this lies in the body of work in question. Firstly, Rutland, like Bacon, had the suitable background, education etc. to support the content of the plays. However, what singles Rutland out over the many other English nobles of the period is the fact that Shakespeare's 'Venus and Adonis' is dedicated to Rutland's dear friend Southampton (with whom, to our knowledge, Shakespeare had no such relationship).

The second clue Demblon uncovered involved the elusive, mysterious male recipient of the first 126 of Shakespeare's sonnets. Historically, we are unaware of to whom Shakespeare wrote the first 126 sonnets but there has been speculation, raising questions of him or whosoever wrote the plays being homosexual or Shakespeare writing a female's narrative. Demblon claimed that the man to whom these sonnets are direct is in fact Southampton and because of their documented close relationship, the speaker/writer must be Rutland. Is there any substantial gravity to this part of the theory or is it mere speculation? Did Shakespeare dedicate Venus and Adonis to Southampton out of admiration and write the sonnets to another unknown male OR was it in fact Rutland who was responsible for it all, writing and dedicating as a sign of his intimacy with Southampton?

The spiral of coincidence continues with further discoveries made by Demblon in his quest for the true identity of the playwright. Demblon, after trawling through vast records, chanced upon the evidence that Rutland took a tour of Italy in 1596. Why is this significant? Many of the plays are set in the towns and cities that Rutland visited on his tour of Italy (i.e. 'Romeo and Juliet' - Verona, 'The Taming of the Shrew' - Padua, 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona' - Verona, 'The Merchant of Venice' - Venice, 'Much Ado About Nothing' - Messina, 'Titus Andronicus' - Rome, 'Othello' - Venice, 'Julius Caesar' - Rome, 'Coriolanus' - Rome, 'The Winter's Tale' - Sicilia). After the tour, did Rutland write the plays inspired by his visits to these gems of Italy?

Another very interesting discovery made by Demblon can be traced also to Italy, Padua in fact, in the city's University. Knowing that Rutland studies for a time at the University, Demblon searched their alumni records and archives for any clues relating to the Shakespearean authorship question. It was in these records that he found two students who were studying at around the same time as Rutland and were likely to have known of him and he of them. Their names? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. For those of you unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters which appear in 'Hamlet'. The question to be asked here is: Did Rutland meet Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Padua and use them/ their names as inspiration for the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in 'Hamlet'? Some theorists take this 'evidence' with a pinch of salt as the character's names were popular Dutch names at the time but nevertheless, what a strange coincidence!

The key to unlocking the truth regarding Rutland as the 'real ' Shakespeare is the order in which the plays were written. Nobody knows the true, chronological order of the plays as the first folio of thirty six plays was not published for public consumption until 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death. Though eighteen unofficial Quarto editions were published, by playgoers who would in the audience at one of the productions and write as quickly as they could in shorthand or by the actors who would try their best to remember all of the liens and write them down, 'Shakespeare' (if it was he) and his company of actors did not want to publish the plays, wanting them t be exclusively performed by their company at their theatre to avoid the danger of another, rival theatre company (e.g. The Admiral's Men) stealing their audiences and ultimately their material. This is why we are largely unsure of the order of the plays but we do know 'The Tempest' was written in the early 1600's, which features at the beginning of Hemminges and Condell's first folio thus making it clear that it certainly doesn't appear in the correct order in the first official publication.

So, how does this relate to our friend the Earl of Rutland? If we knew the order of the plays we would be able establish whether Rutland was indeed inspired to write by his tour of Italy. If such titles as 'Romeo and Juliet' or 'The Merchant of Venice' were written after 1596 (when Rutland left for Italy) then perhaps Demblon's theory would have more credibility than one immediately observes.

What causes many historians to experience doubt is the sense of bizarre coincidence that pervades the theory. As said previously, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were common Dutch names so therefore, even William Shakespeare would have known it as such and so may have decided that setting Hamlet in Denmark required common Dutch names which an audience could identify as such. In addition to this, many young English men in the Elizabethan era would go on what was called a 'Grand Tour' of Europe, largely Italy, when they came of age. Is it not just as likely that any other rich English noble would have done the same as Rutland thus making it just as likely for Bacon, Oxford or maybe even William Shakespeare himself (though this is unlikely due to his financial background) to have gone to Italy and to have been inspired to write the plays set in such a beautiful country?

Demblon was not the only theorist in favour of Rutland. The German literary critic Karl Bleibtreu added, what he considered to be, another supporting factor towards the theory. Bleibtreu pointed out that Rutland was married to the daughter of the famous Elizabethan poet Sir Philip Sydney, could it be possible that they collaborated on the plays? Careful examination of the dates around this period would supposedly dash this theory as Rutland would have been merely sixteen years old when the first play was published! However, we must remember that marriage at such a young age was not unusual during the period, Juliet is a mere fourteen year old when she married Romeo, and could Rutland have not been a child genius as Beethoven and Mozart were?

And so... you have heard all of the evidence for Rutland as authorship candidate. Was he responsible for the works of Shakespeare or are Demblon's findings just mere coincidence? What do you think? (Do let me know in the comments section below, I await your response!)

An early portrait of Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton who is so central to Demblon's theory.

If you enjoyed this chapter, please consider giving it a vote. Many thanks, M.R.W