Shakespeare's Allonym 1

The earliest evidence we have of the Shakespeare allonym came to light in August 1592. Four writers met up at a banquet. Two of those who attended are known from documentary evidence dating from that time. They were Robert Greene and Tom Nashe. This came to light because Greene died on 3rd September, and an enemy of his, Gabriel Harvey, wrote of his death in a derogatory manner (Foure Letters). This so incensed Nashe that he responded in a pamphlet published under the title of Strange News.

Nashe's outrage is instructive, because he introduces the third person at the banquet; someone to whom he gives the pseudonym, Will Monox. Quite clearly, Harvey is meant to recognize this person. Moreover, this person's status in society must have been such as to make Harvey aware that Robert Greene had been dining with someone of distinction. For Nashe's purpose was to defend Greene by elevating his circumstances before he died. Mention of Will. Monox was therefore, at the same time, a reprimand to Harvey.

The name Will. Monox is, in fact, a simple anagram for the Earl of Oxford. Oxon. is the Latin abbreviation for Oxonia, which in English translates as Oxen(en)ford, (O.E.D.). Will is the abbreviated form of William and M. was the usual designation for Master. [Will. Monox = M. Will. Oxon.] At this point, it is perhaps necessary to point out that the Earl of Oxford had for much of his life mixed with the literary set, many of whom were of a bohemian nature, and this had earned him frequent rebukes from his former guardian and father-in-law, Lord Burleigh, who referred to them as "his lewd friends". The inference to be drawn is therefore surely obvious. His high-born status would not allow any underlings the intimate address of Edward, but on the other hand he wished to enjoy the freedom of their comradeship without the formalities of title. The affectionate name of Will or even Willy was the compromise. Further evidence for this can be found in Spenser's Teares of the Muses, written during Oxford's withdrawal from London and the literary scene. In his poem, Spenser several times comments upon an absent writer of known repute whom he addresses by the sobriquet, Willy, and who is apparently of noble birth.

And he the man, whome Nature selfe had made
To mock her selfe, and Truth to imitate
With kindly counter under mimick shade
Our pleasant Willy, ah is dead of late
With whome all joy and jolly merriment
Is also deaded, and in dolour drent...

But that same gentle Spirit, from whose pen
Large streams of honnie and sweet Nectar flowe,
Scorning the boldness of such base-borne men
Which dare their follies forth so rashly throwe;
Doth rather choose to sit in idle Cell
Than to himselfe to mockerie to sell.

On the right is Queen Elizabeth together with
"Will. Monox and his great dagger"
aka The Earl of Oxford and the Sword of State. Windsor Castle is in the background.

On the left are the verses written by
Edmund Spenser that refer to the
high born "Willy" during his absence from London prior to 1592. It was on Oxford's return that he gave the famous banquet that proved fatal to Greene.

N.B. Spenser's reference to Willy is much too early (1591) to have been intended for Stratford's Willy, apart from which, Warwickshire Will was in no position to be scornful of those base-born. Moreover, there is also Sonnet 136 to be considered. After much punning on the word 'will', Shakespeare ends the sonnet with the words "for my name is Will." This is as much a humorous confirmation of his nickname as it is of William Shakespeare's authorship. It therefore proves neither. But, note Nashe's reference to Will Monox's "great dagger". This is an extra clue thrown at Harvey so that he would recognize it as a reference to the Sword of State, and this would leave him in no doubt that Nashe was referring to Oxford. For it was the Earl's duty, as Lord Great Chamberlain of England, to walk before the Queen during official ceremonies, carrying the Sword of State.

The fourth person to attend the banquet seems to have been Christopher Marlowe. Identification only came later when he belligerently confronted the publisher, Henry Chettle, concerning remarks that had been written about him and his atheistic leaning. It was also within this publication, Greene's Groats-worth of Wit, that the first mention of a name akin to Shakespeare's is to be found. It occurs within an address made to "those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plays."

This address, according to Chettle, represented Greene's dying words. Nashe did not believe it, and called it a "scald, trivial, lying pamphlet." Marlowe, it would appear, also took umbrage at the personal references in the book that had been made to his atheism: a view, incidentally, that he had shared with Greene. For it is generally agreed that it was he who called upon Chettle to leave the little publisher in no doubt as to the anger this pamphlet had caused. In fact, Marlowe's visit so frightened Chettle that he later confessed to never wanting to meet the man again. From this, it is quite clear that Marlowe also believed the pamphlet was a lying and inventive interpretation of the publisher's, presumably written to cash in on Greene's hell-raiser reputation, and show him as a repentant sinner.

Henry Chettle described the other visit he had, following publication of Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, in much more glowing and, even, apologetic terms:–

It is time to look at what has occurred, and elicit further likely truths wherever possible. Oxford, who had been absent from London for several years, (Willy's absence was also noted to by Spenser in his Teares of the Muses) invited Nashe, Marlowe and Greene to join him for a celebratory meal, and to exchange news. It would seem that it was at this banquet that Oxford first announced that he was planning to use the name of a theatrical worker named William Shaxpere, recently arrived from Warwickshire, in order to publish his poetry and to present his plays in public. Greene made notes shortly after the meeting, but for what purpose can no longer be established. He then fell ill, and died shortly afterwards. It is known that Chettle scoured the dead man's personal effects looking for unpublished manuscripts which he could use. It was then that he found the notes Greene had made after the banquet, but by his own admission, he was unable to read much of what had been scribbled down. Also, by his admission, he altered or edited parts of what he was able to read. In little more than a fortnight, Chettle had assembled a small book, or pamphlet, based upon 'his interpretation' of the notes he had found, and it was this that he entered for publication in the Stationers Register, under Greene's name.

In the passage quoted above, and which can only have been describing Shakespeare, Chettle admitted to not having spared the man. In fact, he conceded, that he had never before heard of this person except through Greene's notes. Yet, despite this, he paraphrases one of Shakespeare's plays: Henry VI (3); [i-iv] - "O tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide!"

The play mentioned by Chettle is part of a tetralogy - Henry VI Parts (1), (2) and (3), to which Richard III was added. For Henry VI Part (3) to be sufficiently familiar as to be quoted from in the Autumn of 1592 implies that it was, by then, well known. Yet, Chettle says he had never heard of Shakespeare before September 1592. The problem this poses for conventional belief; that is, those who unquestioningly devote themselves to the Stratford myth, is one of time scale. There are so many plays by Shakespeare that it is difficult to know where to start when trying to place them in chronological order. This tetralogy is sometimes referred to as his first work, and the date of composition is set between 1590 and 1592. In reality, it is not reasonable to suppose that any author, however gifted, would commence their writing career with such a monumental work. There is also the embarrassing fact that Titus Andronicus, which is so different in style, and which is also claimed to be Shakespeare's first play, was written at the same time. Added to this, there are other plays, such as Love's Labour's Lost, The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, King John, all contending to be among Shakespeare's earliest plays. There is also The Merry Wives of Windsor for which there exists overwhelming evidence in support of this play having been written in 1592. Yet, Chettle had never heard of Shakespeare, and he was not only a publisher, but also a writer with the status of being the benefactor of Robert Greene's final work

Even more to the point, both Henry Chettle and Anthony Munday had, during that same period of time, 1592-93, been working together on a play called Sir Thomas More. This play has since been alleged by many authorities to have been a work put together by several playwrights, and to contain verse by William Shakespeare. Some even claim that the writing is in Shakespeare's own hand. Is that not truly remarkable? Henry Chettle had never heard of Shakespeare in 1592, and yet, there he was working on a play in 1592— the same year that he published Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit—without any knowledge that it also contained a considerable piece of dialogue by Shakespeare: the same man his pamphlet had ridiculed! And how does the world of scholarship respond to this blatant contradiction? Where there's doubt, leave it out; the contradiction is never referred to.

The problems posed above are easily cleared up by accepting that Shakespeare was the Earl of Oxford's allonym, which he had set up in 1592, with William Shaxpere's connivance. It was this that became a topic of conversation at the banquet to which he had invited Greene, Marlowe and Nashe. Chettle, quite unwittingly, almost scuppered the plan by publishing his defamatory remarks made against a man he called Shake-scene. This forced Oxford, together with some of his gentlemen friends (Chettle referred to them as "divers of worship"), to immediately repair the damage, and give Shakespeare a good report. The outcome was Chettle's apology, which he published in Kind Harts Dreame a month of two later.

The involvement of 'Shakespeare' in the rumpus that followed Greene's Groats-worth of Witt has often led to confusion among those devoted to the poet's supposed Stratford origins. To their mind, Greene dined with three of his literary acquaintances. Oxford was certainly not included, and even Nashe is sometimes omitted. In the days following this meeting, Greene fell ill, and died shortly afterwards. But, while still on his deathbed, he wrote to his three fellow diners, warning them to beware of Shakespeare (see above). It is at this point confusion enters. For Chettle admits that two of those defamed by his published remarks went to see him. Marlowe, he later came to fear and detest. The other, he found to be totally agreeable in every respect. A subtle transfer of identities has therefore suddenly occurred. Shakespeare has now become identified as one of the three diners who ate with Greene, and who was therefore subsequently addressed by the dying man; and it would seem, like Marlowe had done, he too called upon Chettle to protest. Yet, how is this possible? Greene, writing to warn Shakespeare to beware of someone he calls Shake-scene?

In fact, Chettle's attempt to unravel Greene's notes, and to compose from them a readable account of this literary figure's dying thoughts, contain an inference that Shakespeare—this new arrival on the scene— was only pretending to be a writer. Examine again that sentence which Chettle published from notes written by Greene: – "there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you:" Now consider the definition of the verb 'suppose' as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and which was in use during the 16th and 17th centuries.

In this context, Shakespeare "supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse". That is to say, he 'feigns' or 'pretends' he is able to write verse, for this is how the O.E.D. defines the word in use during that time. And, to reinforce this conclusion, there is still further the reference made by Greene to one of Aesop's Fables.

The moral of the story does not concern us, it is the reference to the fable quoted in the Groatsworth of Wit, which is the issue. Chettle has been attempting to understand Robert Greene's scribbled jottings, and in the process has reached the conclusion that Greene thought Shakespeare to be: "an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers," who is only pretending; i.e., "supposes" to write "blanke verse". Oxford's concern at reading this must have been immediate and obvious. For it laid bare the carefully prepared plans he had made to promote his allonym as the true author of the work he was planning to publish (i.e., Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece). Chettle had naively given the game away before it had even begun by informing his readers that this newcomer, Shakespeare, derisorily referred to as Shakes-scene, was only pretending to write blank verse. That was precisely what Oxford did not want the public to know. He was therefore compelled to respond, and this he did by persuading Chettle to revise his opinion. Whether or not it was he, suitably disguised as Shaxpere, who called upon the publisher and charmed him into a change of opinion, or another who had been employed by Oxford to accomplish the same result, must remain unknown. But Chettle's subsequent comments do make it plain that others were also engaged in restoring the Shakespeare allonym in the public eye, for the publisher refers to these as: "divers of worship [who] have reported his uprightness of dealing... and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art." Obtaining references of the caliber suggested by Chettle's remarks would have been comparatively easy for Oxford to have arranged, but next to impossible for the son of a market trader from the provinces, especially in the class-ridden society of Tudor England. The plan worked, for Chettle soon afterwards publicly retracted his comments about the man identified as Shakespeare, Oxford was back on track , and in the following year Venus and Adonis was published under the name of William Shakespeare with the young Earl of Southampton playing the part of his patron.

Attention now turns towards the identity of the man who was Oxford's allonym. Born in 1564, William Shaxpere, for this was how his name was both pronounced, and often spelled in his home town of Stratford upon Avon, came to prominence only after his arrival in London at the age of about 25 or 26. Before then, nothing of consequence is known about this person, even though whole battalions of researchers have combed the Stratford and London archives in an attempt to discover something of literary significance, however small. But, after many decades of fruitless searching, they found nothing.

The information that follows therefore refers to Shaxpere at a point halfway through his life. It was collected for the lawyer, Nicholas Rowe, who was to become England's Poet Laureate, and the first biographer of William Shakespeare. Rowe had sent his actor friend, Thomas Betterton, with a commission to seek for material regarding the life of Shakespeare, so that this could be pieced together to give some account of his background. During his many enquiries, Betterton met Sir William Davenant, the son of the inn-keeper at the Corn Market in Oxford, halfway between London and Stratford. Apparently, this was where Shaxpere regularly lodged when commuting between London and Stratford. The following passage is one of the reports given to Betterton.

By 1592, it appears that Shaxpere had extended his business interests to the inside of the theatre. For he is reported to have made himself useful to the actors in a number of ways; firstly, as a prompter's attendant and then as a general factotum – a jack of all trades. (Recall that this was the same description that appeared in the Chettle/Greene publication: "and beeing an absolute Iohannes fac totum," that is, 'a jack of all trades'). It is therefore of some significance to discover that two independent sources have described Shakespeare by using the same phrase. And both those sources knew, personally, the man to whom they were referring.

It was probably at The Theatre in Shoreditch, which was often used by Alleyn, and where it seems that Shaxpere was also employed as a prompter's assistant, that Oxford came into contact with this man who was to become his allonym. Presumably, Oxford was already on the lookout for someone to fill this role. Shaxpere's provincial background, which meant he was previously unknown in London, his youthful eagerness to please, his intelligence and natural wit, were sufficient recommendations for Oxford to proceed with his plans to publish some earlier poems. The name Shaxpere, no doubt, suggested the literary conversion to Shake-speare, and this was put into effect at the first opportunity. No one could have realized at the time that what had begun as a simple expedient to get a nobleman's work published surreptitiously would have such widespread and intellectually devastating consequences. Yet, as the Shakespeare Story slowly unfolded, that is what occurred.