Kellett on a Shakespeare

[Dominic Hughes]

The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection blog is once again pushing "Anthony
Kellett's 'William Shakespeare, Businessman - Forgotten Genius,' one
of this blog's most popular posts (and which has generated/provoked
many reader comments), a post the blogsite deems "worth repeating."

Therefore, I'll take the opportunity and deem my humble attempt at
criticism of the article worthy of repeating [if only because it
contains a reference to one of the funniest Monty Python sketches].
In looking through this response it appears I left quite a bit on the
table. If I can find the time I just might expand the response.

Let's look at Mr. Kellett's article.
1.
He starts with a long passage about Dalton Trumbo, who was one of the
Hollywood Ten who was blacklisted during the Red Scare period, and
wrote later numerous screenplays under various pseudonyms. Mr.
Kellett writes, "...if it were not for a timely intervention, we may
still not know the truth [about Trumbo's authorship of the scripts]
and scholars would simply hold up the posters and film reviews with a
condescending grin to all those that questioned these "undoubted
facts."

These condescending remarks, and the description of the Trumbo
scenario, meant to show that Stratfordians are condescending and have
no real evidence, actually goes to support the Stratfordian position.
Just as in Trumbo's case, the Stratfordians have more than
posters(title pages) and film reviews -- they have actual witnesses
who came forward to testify to the fact that Shakespeare of Stratford
wrote the works attributed to him. Mr. Kellett presumes to know
Shakespeare better than the contemporaries who vouched for him, such
as Jonson, Heminge and Condell, Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges [Digges
widowed mother married Thomas Russell, Shakespeare's friend and one of
the overseers of his will], James Mabbe, Heywood, and Beaumont.

2.
Mr. Kellett says:
***"I am of the opinion that it is time someone sung the praises of
the Stratford merchant by looking at the life we know he had, rather
than the starry-eyed, romantic intellectualizing we are normally fed."

Mr. Kellett then proceeds to completely ignore the life we know that
Shakespeare led as an actor in the Chamberlain's and King's Men acting
companies, and as a shareholder in the acting company. I have just
started reading 'Shakespeare the Player', by John Southworth...but I'm
sure that all of the research that Southworth has put into his book is
just "starry-eyed intellectualizing," as opposed to the speculation
that there was a faked death and a concealed poet, etc.

Mr. Kellett continues:
***"Shakespeare of Stratford did not write Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet or
the plethora of other works ascribed to him. He was a trader, an
opportunist and an entrepeneur."

You might expect Mr. Kellett to come up with some evidence to support
this claim, but you would be sadly mistaken. He next launches into a
long discussion of John Shakespeare's activities, and the "lessons"
that WOULD have been learned by young William Shakespeare. He also
deploys some poor strawmen to defend his position, such as the
following:

***"Anti-Stratfordians are often labeled snobs for suggesting someone
of William’s background could not have the skill-set required to write
the plays. I find it somewhat amusing that these accusers are
oblivious to their condescension towards the skills of the
entrepreneur. It is assumed, when discussing the learning of the
university wits, that their abilities were honed from years of
dedicated study, an opinion with which I concur. However, when it
comes to trading tithes, grains, wool, land etc., it seems to be
dismissed as something anyone can choose to participate in on a
whim."

Will Mr. Kellett cite any examples of this alleged "condescension"?
No.

Another strawman:

***"William, we are asked to believe, was a commodity dealer, property
investor and moneylender in his spare time; presumably it was an
impulsive decision, displaying the same blas=E9 attitude with which
he(for no apparent reason and with no prior display of aptitude)
deigned to write plays and compete with the greatest literary minds in
England."

Who, besides Mr. Kellett, is proposing that Shakespeare's occupation
was as a commodity dealer, property investor and moneylender?
Commodity dealer? As far as the management of his properties back in
Stratford, while Shakespeare was involved in the operation of an
acting company and theater in London, that task could quite easily
have been handled by Mrs. Shakespeare (as Germaine Greer contends in
her recent book, 'Shakespeare's Wife'), or by other family members, or
by a manager. Mr. Kellett's skewed perspective does not allow him to
consider these options. Property investor? Shakespeare purchased some
properties – that hardly makes him a property investor or justifies
any argument that the demands on his time from buying some property
would be too great to leave enough time for him to pursue acting and
writing. There is no evidence that Shakespeare was the 16th century
equivalent of Donald Trump. Moneylender? Shakespeare made a couple
of loans that we know of and Mr. Kellett wants to turn him into a
"loan shark". Simply ridiculous.

3.
Mr. Kellett writes:
***"William, we are told, was removed from school at 13 (I will not
argue the point of school attendance, for the purpose of this article)
and worked, in glove production, alongside his father. He was educated
in the ways of business, buying raw materials and selling product on
to customers. Equally important, William was learning a trade that
might give him his opportunities in life."

Unless Mr. Kellett is woefully uninformed, he surely knows that this
particular story is not accepted as factual. If he does know that,
and he uses it anyway, isn't his purpose quite obvious? Why does he
ignore the equally speculative story that Shakespeare served as a
schoolmaster in the country. I suppose that wouldn't serve his
purpose.

4.
***"William was married at age 18 and had a daughter shortly after his
19th birthday. He now had more reason to safeguard his future
financial security and started looking for the opportunities to take
advantage of his knowledge. This may have presented itself in
1587(when it appears William was still residing in Stratford) with the
visit of the Queen’s Men (one man short due to a fatal duel some days
before in Thame). Perhaps William had some acting experience at this
time or maybe the Queen’s Men just needed anyone to fill the less-
demanding roles now vacant, as their previous, more experienced
incumbent was required to replace William Knell (the recently
deceased). Perhaps his ability to work leather (and sew presumably)
would have been useful to a travelling theatre company to maintain its
costumes, so he could fulfill a dual role. The specifics we may never
know; but we do know William was probably in London connected to the
theatre world by about 1593 or thereabouts."

This is interesting. Mr. Kellett almost brings himself to "looking at
the life we know he [Shakespeare] had," but he just can't take that
final step, because to do so would upset his little applecart. The
undisputed evidence that we do know shows that Shakespeare was an
actor in London and that he was the author of the works attributed to
him. Mr. Kettle fails to ever even address that evidence.

Kellett mentions the year 1953, but his speculations don’t account for
'Venus and Adonis', entered into the Stationer’s Register on April
18,1593, and published later that same year by William Shakespeare’s
contemporary from Stratford, Richard Field (actual evidence). Isn’t it
amazing that Field appears never to have questioned whether or not his
townsman had the ability to create such a poem, much less actually
wrote it?

Kellett doesn't account for 'Rape of Lucrece', entered into the
Stationers' Register on May 9, 1594, and published later that year, in
a quarto printed (again) by Richard Field, this time with a much more
familiar dedication to the Earl (more evidence of the life that
Shakespeare had). Would a commoner such as Shakespeare feel safe in
dedicating such works, poems that he knew were not hisown, to Henry
Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton? Seems like arather risky
endeavor for a person like the risk-averse individual that Kellett
describes. Would Field have been worried about printing it?

Were these poems "just lying around, begging to be exploited" (AS
Kellet claims the plays were)?

His speculations don’t account for The Sonnets either, some of which
were being circulated among his friends prior to 1598.

“As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagorus, so
thesweet, witty soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous & honey-
tonguedShakespeare, witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his
sugaredsonnets among his private friends…”

Were these sonnets also "just lying around, begging to be exploited"?

5.
***"Let us pause here to consider this man’s position. He knows (from
bitter experience) that he must accumulate some wealth. He has
learned, from his new associates, of the wealth of company
shareholders such as Burbage and Alleyn. William would have noted that
actors shared the assets - not writers. Playwrights were poorly paid
and relied on the patronage of benevolent aristocrats for their day-to-
day living. Moreover, when one considers the time involved in
producing the sophisticated works being created by the university
wits, the hourly rate would have been very unappealing to a business-
minded, budding-entrepreneur like William."

Kellett presumes to know the mind of William Shakespeare, a man dead
and buried for 400 years.

6.
***"Plays were predominantly fodder for the masses and, as we shall
see, William was not so keen to ingratiate himself to them."

Shakespeare didn't write the plays that were attributed to him because
he was a snob who disliked the masses. Brilliant argumentation.

7.
***"However, it would not have gone unnoticed that, though little was
paid for plays by producers, few seemed to be publishing these plays
for general consumption. If we were to believe the picture painted by
The Arte of English Poesie, any self-respecting intellectual (with
aristocratic connections) would have baulked at the idea of selling
theatre plays to the masses."

So? Does Kellett ever produce any actual evidence that the hesitancy
of gentlemen to publish works under their names (as expressed in The
Arte of English Poesie) has any connection to the Shakespeare works.
The answer is no.

8.
***"William, however, had no such hesitation; this would be a chance
to supplement his income. The idea that this man, at this point, sat
down and started writing plays to compete with a band of university
educated, ground-breaking visionaries is frankly barmy."

The proof offered for these two allegations? Because Mr. Kellett says
so.

9.
***"If anyone had suggested, to William, that he should study
historical texts for the next several months and write plays based on
them, he would have thought them insane. Why would he do that? He
needs money now; he wants to start accumulating the assets he needs to
secure his future."

Kellett indulges in channeling the spirit of William Shakespeare.

10.
***"With plays just lying around, begging to be exploited, it would be
a folly to consider writing new ones. Thereby, William hits on his
first masterstroke. He approaches playwrights and asks them if he can
sell their plays to other theatre companies and publishers. In
exchange for this, William would take a hefty commission and give them
money they would not otherwise have received. Authors would gladly
agree and, if they wished to be disassociated with these plays, their
names would remain either undisclosed or substituted for his (maybe by
William himself or by the publishers, as William Shakespeare would be
the only name they had available)."

Plays were "just lying around, begging to be exploited"? Since when?
Mr. Kellett has already stated that "little was paid for plays" -- are
we really expected to believe that authors of plays who were already
being paid a pittance by the theatres would now pay a "hefty
commission" to a middleman? This makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever. Authors "would gladly agree" -- that is frankly barmy.

In addition, how does Shakespeare allegedly get the rights to plays
owned by the theatre companies in order to sell them to publishers.
He's a member of the Chamberlain's Men, but, according to Kellett, he
can somehow acquire plays from other companies to sell to publishers.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Kellett offers no details as to how this was to be
done. "Money they would not otherwise have received"? How so...what
prevented them from selling their own plays to the producers? Mr.
Kellett never offers any explanation, of course, and his own example
from Henslowe's Diary reveals that the authors were selling their
works directly to the companies. Why would the authors of 'Sir John
Oldcastle" need to have a middleman (who is never mentioned in
'Henslowe's Diary' as having occupied such a position) and why would
they possibly wish their names disassociated with this play? The
'Diary of Philip Henslowe' records that the play was written by
Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Richard Hathwaye and Robert Wilson.
(An entry in Henslowe's Diary records a later payment to Drayton for a
second part to the play, which has not survived; because of this fact,
the extant play has sometimes been called Sir John Oldcastle, Part I
or 1 Sir John Oldcastle.) Not a word about Shakespeare, and yet
Kellett imagines his hovering presence somewhere in this transaction.

11.
***"We catch occasional glimpses of William’s play-brokering
activities, such as when Henslowe’s Diary records payments to a group
of writers for the play Sir John Oldcastle. It was likely William
brokered the play for the anonymous first quarto in 1600. By the
second printing (in the False Folio of 1619), it appears as by William
Shakespeare, together with other plays William had probably brokered
over the years such as A Yorkshire Tragedy, King Lear and Henry V."

If Kellett "glimpses" Shakespeare as brokering this play he is seeing
things that are not there.
Henslowe pays Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Richard Hathwaye and
Robert Wilson for the play "Sir John Oldcastle'. The play is published
anonymously in 1600. In 1619 (after Shakespeare's death) William
Jaggard published the play and attributes it to William Shakespeare.
[Jaggard did not have clear title to all of the plays involved, and
therefore he printed some of the texts with false dates and the names
of the original stationers
involved on the title pages.] Therefore, according to Kellett,
Shakespeare can be glimpsed brokering the play, and he "probably"
brokered other plays.

Is that supposed to be logical?

12.
***"Though published plays may have to sell through two or three
editions to prove profitable, perhaps publishers too saw that this
might be increasingly possible."

Perhaps. It sure doesn't appear that Kellett's Shakespeare had any
great business sense, brokering plays for smalls sums and entering
deals with publishers in which a profit might never be realized.

13.
***"William did not mention a single book in his detailed will. That
said, if I had made my millions by selling ladies underwear, I would
not necessarily find it suitable for me! Plays were simply another
commodity to William and he knew what to do with commodities."

Is Kellett aware of the fact that the inventory to Shakespeare's Last
Will has never been located, or is he intentionally trying to smear
the man with fudged "facts"?

14.
"This idea catapulted the now 29-year-old William into the big league
and enabled him to purchase a share in a theatre company, his first
major asset and a considerable income-earning asset, too."

What idea? The paltry sums realized from brokering plays for authors
(which ones by the way, and how many, since he would have had to
represent nearly all of London's literary lights in order to make any
money at all) and selling plays he didn't own to publishers -- that
barmy idea?

This all begins to sound like a Monty Python sketch: "When the
Piranhas left school they were called up but were found by an Army
Board to be too unstable even for National Service. Denied the
opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they
began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select
a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called
protection money. Four months later they started another operation
which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected
another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay
them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In
this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would
beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point."

15.
Another fine example of Kellett's "logic":
***"As with most successful traders, William was very familiar with
his "products" and knew their “unique selling points” by rote. As
such, he would be the perfect point of reference for George Buc, when
he sought information about the origins of these plays. Specifically,
when Buc wanted an author’s name, for the anonymously published George
a Greene, whom else would he turn to but the trader in anonymous
plays, William Shakespeare? Buc simply wrote (in his copy of the play)
that it was written by a minister “Teste W. Shakespea” (as testified
by W. Shakespeare)."

George Buc asked Shakespeare if he knew who had written the
anonymously published 'George a Greene'? Shakespeare told him:
"Written by ..........a minister, who acted the
pinner's part in it himself." Shakespeare was a "trader in anonymous
plays."

Is this supposed to make any logical sense?

16.
***"This was only the start and William continued to accumulate
assets, which would both generate income and re-establish the social
standing of his family directly. He purchased New Place in May 1597,
the second largest house in Stratford, and probably revelled in the
fact that it was built and occupied by Hugh Clopton (financier of
Stratford’s Clopton Bridge) and a former Mayor of the City of London.
Stratford’s largest house was occupied by John Combe, one of William’s
few identifiable friends, and a useful one at that (the only kind of
friend that would interest William). Combe was a "devilish usurer"
with whom he could discuss the extortionate interest rates they would
demand on loans to the local residents and thereby maximize returns."

Perfect..guilt by association. Kellett is oblivious to the message in
Dalton Trumbo's travails. Does this kind of base speculation qualify
as a "realistic" evaluation of the facts of Shakespeare's life?

17.
***"Having secured a share in the theatre company, William was not
required to spend all his time living and working in London and was
therefore able to devote himself to expanding his business interests
back in Stratford. He would have spent many hours developing business
relationships for dealing in grains and keeping abreast of commodity
prices to avoid the pitfalls to which his father fell foul."

"He WOULD have"? Or maybe not. More baseless speculation devoid of
any evidentiary support.

18.
***"It is sometimes assumed that William is buried in Stratford’s Holy
Trinity Church due to either his social status or even his supposed
literary achievements. In fact, the reason is that he purchased a 21-
year lease to some of the tithe privileges (formerly owned by the
Collegiate Church, based there until the Reformation) for
____(yielding ____ per annum net) in 1605. Therefore, William secured
aright to be buried there because he had a share in the revenues
andadministrative duties of the church. Even in death, William would
continue his quest for status."

Well, that does it...Shakespeare is definitively disqualified as the
author of the works because he sought status. I'm sure he probably
arranged to have that Monument erected in the church as well...the one
that identifies him as a writer.

19.
***"As mentioned earlier, William followed his father’s practice of
money lending at substantial interest rates and was not averse to
using the legal system to recover unpaid debts as they fell due. In
1604, he sued the apothecary, Rogers, for an unpaid debt. From August
1608 until June 1609, William pursued John Addenbrooke through the
courts for the sum =A36 (plus 24s damages). When Addenbrooke
absconded, William sought to recover the full amount from
Addenbrooke’s surety, the blacksmith Thomas Horneby."

So where is the evidence of exhorbitant interest rates, or of any
interest rates at all? How do these two loans and lawsuits transform
Shakespeare into a "loan shark"? Absurd. Why is it that anti-
Stratfordian arguments so often devolve into defamation of
Shakespeare?

20.
***"In the winter of 1597/98, he owned 80 bushels of grain (or 640
gallons - showing the extent of William’s Stratford-based commodity
trading within four or five years of arriving in London) which he
hoarded during a famine, appearing to have no regard for the suffering
of his fellow Stratford residents."

Well, that certainly disqualifies him from the authorship. Great
artists throughout history have always been noted for their generous
contributions to charities -- right. The 'Noate of corn and malt' of
1597 featuring Shakespeare's name also listed the names of some
seventy-four other leading townsmen, some of whom were clearly in
possession of more grain than they needed merely to feed their
families, but let's single out Shakespeare (the local schoolmaster had
more than Shakespeare -- was he a commodity trader as well, and also
immune to the suffering of his neighbors). Was there actually even a
famine...I know it was a time of bad harvests but were people in
Stratford actually starving? I've never seen the evidence for this --
does anyone have a cite?

Mr. Kellett's argument appears to be that he doesn't like what
Shakespeare did in this instance, and he can't reconcile it with his
imagined idealization of what the great artist should have been, so
Shakespeare can't possibly be the "true author" of the works.

Garbage. Malory was charged with rape...hardly the picture of
chivalry portrayed in the Morte d'Arthur. He can't possibly be the
author.

21.
***"Amusingly, we are asked to believe that this man also wrote the
sensitive, heartfelt and heart-rending plays and sonnets of the author
Shakespeare. Can you really imagine our William, aged 33, writing
Romeo and Juliet =96 a passionate love story about a girl roughly the
same age as his own daughter?"

Yes...why not?

22.
***"Moreover, we are asked to accept that William didn’t even bother
publishing more than half the plays he wrote; valuable assets were
simply left abandoned somewhere to gather dust =96 by the same man who
sold stone to the Stratford Corporation for 10d. Can these two men
really be the same person?"

Yes...why not? What does selling stone have to do with whether or not
Shakespeare's acting company chose to sell plays to publishers? We've
already seen where publishing plays was not exactly an easy road to
profit.

23.
***"When he died, William did not have a single manuscript because
assets were used to the full; and he had long since sold any rights he
may have held. He did not own a single book because they held no
interest for him. Time spent reading was time not earning money. It
was about as fruitless a pastime as writing plays; after all, what did
men like Robert Greene, Thomas Kyd or even the great Kit Marlowe get
out of it? No, William had entered the theatre world as a trader and
had shown that he could make it pay."

More nonsense: no inventory to the Will has ever been discovered. More
illogical garbage: writing plays was "fruitless" for the great authors
of the plays but somehow returned great profits for the person who
brokered them? Mr. Kellett has not shown any evidence as to how
being a play trader could make any money comparable to that earned by
William Shakespeare. Mr. Kellett's argument is ridiculous on its
face.

William entered the theatre world as an actor, a fact Mr. Kellett
seems all too eager to avoid. There is copious evidence that supports
the fact that he became an author of the works attributed to him, all
of which evidence Mr. Kellett also ignores.

24.
***"Creators of true art focus on little other than the art itself.
They have a burning desire to create, to the exclusion of all else."

How did Marlowe ever manage to fit in his work as 007? Amazing. Mr.
Kellett presumes to speak for "creators of true art" -- what are his
qualifications in this regard?

25.
***"Academics that have spent their entire lives in school have no
spare time, or inclination, to develop and build a diversified
business portfolio (even though, legitimately, they might see
themselves as intellectually superior). Yet they imagine that a hard-
nosed, multi-disciplined businessman could, and would, devote the
thousands of hours of research and practice required to become
proficient at writing dramatic blank verse. I am here to tell you that
such a supposition is wrong."

And I am here to tell you that you haven't come close to showing
anything in support of your silly suppositions.

26.
***"This is the final insult to both great playwrights and this
exceptional (albeit ruthless) entrepreneur."

More unsubstantiated slander.

27.
***"To suggest that a boy could go to school from ages 7-13,
subsequently work as a glove-maker in Stratford for maybe nine years,
and still write the detailed, historically aware and exquisitely
perceptive works of Shakespeare is, to put it mildly, disrespectful to
academics everywhere."

Nice strawman you've got there. Who is suggesting any such thing?

28.
***"Similarly, to say that the achievements of this successful
entrepreneur, starting from such a low base and culminating in such
financial success, could be achieved, in his spare time, by a prolific
writer of the most sophisticated and brilliant plays, is a huge
misapprehension (let alone a real stretch of the imagination) and I
take exception to it."

Well, when you come up with some actual evidence to support your
"exception", let me know and maybe I'll care what your opinion might
be. As long as you keep constructing strawmen (you're the only one I
know of who is saying that Shakespeare could only devote his spare
time to writing) and engaging in illogical argumentation, I can only
surmise that you are suffering from a huge misapprehension.

Dom

Postscript: I notice that the most recent post to the Marlowe-
Shakespeare Connection blog starts out as follows:

“The idea that Christopher Marlowe faked his own death and fled to the
continent, writing as ‘William Shakespeare’ in exile, has never been
the subject of serious academic research.”

That is quite an admission. LOL!