Shakespeare and Me: The Man or the Myth?

What's in a name?

So, what is wrong with the candidates proposed thus far, other than a lack of hard evidence and a sense of coincidence? Well, in the early twentieth century Abel Lefranc, an eminent French literary historian, developed the ideas of James H Greenstreet (who proposed a new candidate in the 1890s) and spoke out against the theories proposed thus far, proclaiming that there was no evidence that Rutland and Oxford had ever picked up a quill, let alone written one of the greatest canons of work known to man! He also, most importantly, highlighted another very interesting and relevant point. Sonnet 135 clearly refers to it's author by name:

"Let no unkind, no fair beseeches kill,
Think all but one, and me in that one 'Will'"

Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere nor Roger Marnes were named Will and there is no evidence to suggest that Will was a nick name or alias of any of theirs.

Abel Lefranc (pictured above), the next Anti-Stratfordian theorist.

Rather than proclaiming William Shakespeare as the legitimate author on this basis, Lefranc opted for proposing an alternative candidate: William 'Will' Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (pictured at the top of this chapter) Like the other candidates, Stanley had the adequate education and background to allow him to write the plays as well as having travelled all over Europe where, like Rutland, he may have gained some inspiration. As well as the fact that his name was 'Will' and so matched the identity of the narrator in Sonnet 135, Lefranc also relied on a number of secret letters as evidence to support his theory. He managed to unearth some secret correspondence written by George Fenner, a reputed Catholic secret agent, which describes Stanley as a "hitherto unknown noble writer of Elizabethan comedies." This may serve to add some credit to Lefranc's theory but the question that must be asked is why are there no other records of Stanley as a notable playwright, why is there no other trace of his work or writings? We know that Bacon wrote essays and poems, as did Oxford so we know that they may be in the least competent to write a play of Shakespearean quality but we have no evidence that our friend Stanley wrote anything substantial or of any merit.

However, this is not all of the evidence in favour of William Stanley. Lefranc asserts that as Stanley's French was very good, the use of French language in 'Henry V' is therefore explained along with the nuances within the Court of Naavre in 'Love's Labour's Lost'. Furthermore, it is also believed that as Stanley was married to Elizabeth de Vere he was therefore related to William Cecil (Elizabeth I's right hand man) who is widely accepted to have been the inspiration for Polonius in 'Hamlet'. Did Cecil's relative, Stanley, observe him at close, familial quarters and is him as inspiration?

Lefranc also ascertained that Stanley ran and performed in his own theatre company named 'Derby's Men', was it in fact from this troupe that the works which we all know and love emerged?

The final, concluding piece of evidence required a degree of explanation and relates to 'Shakespeare's' Sonnets. The Dark Lady Sonnets, as opposed to the Fair Youth sonnets, are distinguishable by the fact that they are largely directed to a woman with dark hair and skin (often presumed to be Italian or Hispanic in origin). These are sonnets 127 to 154 and generally explore the narrator's infatuation with 'The Dark Lady' as well as distinguishing the poet's exploration of sexual love as opposed to spiritual love which is ever present in the earlier 'Fair Youth' sonnets. There has been much speculation by historians and literary enthusiasts alike as to the true identity of the Dark Lady with candidates including notable Elizabethan women such as Elizabeth Wriothesley and Emilia Lanier. In relation to the theory at hand, Lefranc proposed that the identity of the Dark Lady was in fact one Mary Fitton, Maid of Honour to Elizabeth I. Mary Fitton was notable in that she had many love affairs with countless Elizabethan noblemen, though no evidence exists of a affair between Stanley and Mary Fitton, Lefranc claims that some intimacy or infatuation between them may have been likely thus prompting Stanley to write the sonnets to and for her, signing his name Will in Sonnet 135 and 136.

Mary Fitton (pictured above) was proposed, by Lefranc, as Stanley's mistress and therefore his inspiration for 'The Dark Lady' in the sonnets.

Without wishing to burst Lefranc's metaphorical bubble but new evidence has emerged as to the identity of the Dark Lady. Since the mid twentieth century historians have suspected that the woman was really, the Italian, Emilia Bassino. Now, in the twenty first century, a painting has been stumbled across in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London which is suspected to be of Emilia. The miniature portrait by Hillard matches the description of the lady vividly portrayed in the sonnets more than any other candidate, certainly more that Mary Fitton's whose hair was fairer than the sonnets describe and lacked the Italian background which they imply. What's more, Emilia Bassino had involvements with Shakespeare's acting company, making it far more likely that they fell in love and thus it was William Shakespeare who wrote the sonnets  in adoration of her.

Emilia Bassino (pictured above) is widely accepted as the real Dark Lady from Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Is this new piece of evidence, along with that fact that Mary Fitton does not once refer to Stanley in her autobiography, all too much for this theory to have a place amongst the stronger candidates? What do you think? Could Stanley have written the plays, after all he does partially fit the identity of 'Will' in the sonnets where it is obvious that other candidates do not? Do let me know your thoughts and opinions on this theory in the comments section below, I am very interested to hear them!

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