But as the First Folio leads to resurgent interest in the writer, these two names seem to get gradually conflated. Over the next century a church memorial tomb to the prosperous Stratford grain merchant steadily gains false credence as being that of the dramatist. A "restoration" of the tomb in 1748 effects major changes (adding a quill and parchment and so forth) to support this new view, and thus the highly lucrative and romanticised Stratford/Shakespeare industry is born.
Meanwhile, unlike the prosperous Stratford property owner, the London Shakespeare is regularly in debt and lives in rented accommodation, typical of often penurious thespians. He's keeping busy, though. His troupe, the King's Men, delivers 187 performances for the king alone. Yet he has somehow also apparently found time to write 37 plays now regarded as history's paramount literary canon, 154 sonnets of equal merit, sundry other major verse works, and added a record number of new words to the English language.
These writings reflect scholarship and literary skills of the highest order, and all without leaving a single shred of personal literary evidence.
His name is appended to various literary works but, apart from a few cryptic references, no one much bothers to remark on the personal characteristics or behaviour of this apparently illustrious Shakespeare.
Compounding this surprising reticence, none of the various likenesses ascribed to him, including the First Folio engraving, has any provenance worth the name. No wonder, then, a view rapidly gained currency that Shakespeare-the-theatre-man must have been a "front", his involvement in these works only ever being as a stage producer. Some cry "conspiracy theory" or is it an attempt to find a sensible solution to a traditional scenario that simply doesn't stack up. A writer may have sought anonymity for good reasons. These were dangerous times. Pre-eminent dramatist Christopher Marlowe had recently been killed in a mysterious tavern brawl the very day before he had been due to appear before the Privy Council on charges of atheism, with the prospect of torture and a hideous death if found guilty (atheism was considered treasonous, as it questioned the divine right of kings). Many Shakespearean plays dwelt on the overthrow of monarchs.
Numerous contenders for true authorship have been proposed: Francis Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and so forth, all unfortunately problematic. But recently a highly promising candidate has emerged ... His name is Sir Henry Neville, and the wonder is that he has not featured hitherto. Neville's career as scholar, politician and diplomat provides an exact match for the background and chronological order of the Shakespeare canon, and he had good reason to conceal his authorship.
More on this gentleman in next week's penultimate thrilling instalment. But, more importantly, astute additional analysis means we will also soon finally have a credible explanation for the 400-year-old maddening conundrum of the "two" Shakespeares. You'll be able to tell your grandchildren you read about it first in the Wanganui Chronicle - New Zealand's most venerable newspaper.
