The Newsaic, home to FootnoteTV, Footnote Fahrenheit, and more

By Stephen Lee

	Footnote Comics: The Sandman Written by Neil Gaiman. Art by Various. Published by DC/Vertigo Comics. What is this comic about? : The Endless are seven siblings that embody the fundamental natures of reality. They are Destiny, Death, Dream, Desire, Despair, Delirium, and a seventh brother who has abandoned his responsibilities. Known by many names and faces, Dream was held prisoner for most of the 20th century but escapes and then resumes his duties as lord of his realm, the Dreaming. The series is not entirely linear; the overarching storyline is about Dream coming to terms with the mistakes of his past and the limitations of his own personality, but individual stories look at Dream as well as individual dreamers in the past and present. William Shakespeare, the Emperor of San Francisco, Lucifer, and the gods of many pantheons appear at times. Recommended Reading : The entire Sandman series is collected in a series of graphic novels and Neil Gaiman still occasionally writes additional stories such as The Dream Hunters (1999) and Endless Nights (2003). I recommend starting with Dream Country or Fables and Reflections; these are collections of great short stories that also provide tantalizing glimpses of the world that Gaiman created. As for the overarching storyline, it begins with the first two graphic novels (Preludes & Nocturnes and Doll's House), but I think Gaiman really got going with Season of Mists, in which Dream goes to Hell to free the lover he condemned there thousands of years earlier, and Lucifer exacts revenge on Dream for an earlier affront. For more information, visit DC/Vertigo Comics or Neil Gaiman's own website. Topics :   The Shakespeare Authorship Question Panel from Issue #75: William Shakspere/Shakespeare. All art copyright DC Comics. The Shakespeare Authorship Question (last updated March 12, 2003) (back to top) The way that Neil Gaiman depicted William Shakespeare in the Sandman comic-book series provides an innovative solution to the long-running debate over whether Shakespeare really was the author of the plays and poems attributed to him. For centuries, some have questioned Shakespeare's authorship because they don't see how such a man as he could have written so many great plays and sonnets. They obviously don't realize that he made a bargain with the embodiment of dreams. Shakespeare appears in three different issues of Sandman : #13 (collected in Doll's House), #19 (collected in Dream Country) and #75 (collected in The Wake). Gaiman places Shakespeare's first two appearances during the so-called "lost" years when Shakespeare had left Stratford-upon -Avon and was still establishing himself in London (the 1998 movie Shakespeare in Love co-written by Tom Stoppard did the same). Nothing in these stories necessarily contradicts the little that is known about Shakespeare's life in these years, so why not? And Gaiman seems to have constructed the final issue of Sandman with an eye towards some of the best evidence that the writer known as Shakespeare was in fact the man with the same name. This is why Ben Jonson appears and this is why Shakespeare specifically says he got the inspiration for The Tempest from some news he heard of a shipwreck in the Bermudas. This is probably also why Shakespeare concedes to Jonson that he writes too fast and concedes to Dream that he stole some material; these concessions help explain how Shakespeare could have written so much given the constraints on his time and education. The Debate The entire authorship debate stems from the dearth of information about William Shakespeare beyond some basic biographical facts that highlight his life as a businessman far more than as a writer. Some say the void seems mysterious only by modern biographical standards, but others say it is the first sign of a broad conspiracy. Mark Twain wrote that Shakespeare was one of "the best-known unknown persons that have ever drawn breath upon the planet" and that you can learn "nothing [about Shakspere] that even remotely indicates that he was ever anything more than a distinctly commonplace person … There are many reasons why … but there is one that is worth all the rest of the reasons put together, and is abundantly sufficient all by itself – he hadn't any history to record." (emphasis in original) Was the man from Stratford-upon-Avon actually the writer of the works attributed to William Shakespeare? Or was he simply a failed actor and moderately successful businessman who acted as the public front for a conspiracy to hide the true writer's identity? Those who scoff at these questions are generally considered Stratfordians, and those who do question Shakespeare's identity are considered anti-Stratfordians. Stratfordians generally dismiss the entire debate as irrelevant and as a distraction from the works themselves, but it nonetheless has drawn the interest of many over the years. Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, and so many others over the years have weighed in (both Twain and Freud were anti-Stratfordians). Three Justices of the United States Supreme Court even oversaw a mock argument on the question in 1987; they decided ultimately that the anti-Stratfordians had not yet proven their case, but did acknowledge that they may someday get enough evidence to do so. And if one does doubt this initial premise, then new questions arise : who did write the works attributed to Shakespeare, how did this anonymous writer publish them under Shakespeare's name, and why? Some of the more popular candidates have been Francis Bacon, Edware de Vere, and Christopher Marlowe. For the sake of clarity, I've adopted for the rest of this article the convention of referring to the man from Stratford-upon-Avon as "Shakspere," which is how his name was commonly written in his hometown, and to the writer (whoever he was) as "Shakespeare." Biography So what do we really know about the life of William Shakspere, traditionally seen as William Shakespeare? William Shakspere was born in April 1564 to farmer-class parents in Stratford-upon-Avon. He probably attended the Straford Grammar School, though some dispute this. In 1582, when he was 18, he married Anne Hathaway, a local woman eight years older; within six months, their first child, a daughter named Susanna, was born. Twins Hamnet and Judith followed in 1585. He then left Stratford for London, apparently abandoning his family. Little is known of Shakspere's first few years in London, but he appears in some scattered records as an actor in the 1590s, appearing before the queen once in 1595. He seems to have run in rough circles in those years, and a writ for his arrest was issued in November 1596. A few months earlier, his son Hamnet died back in Stratford at the age of 11. Shakspere bought land in Stratford in 1597 and continued to accumulate money and reputation. His name, spelled usually as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare," began appearing on the title pages of plays in 1598, though he continued to pursue a business career through these years. He returned to Stratford sometime around the age of 40. He died on April 23, 1616 at the age of 52. His daughters Susanna and Judith lived on to have children, but none of his grandchildren bore children of their own. The "lost" years from 1585 to 1595 are wide open for speculation, especially since the order in which the plays were written is not entirely clear and manuscripts do not survive. This is where a lot of fictional works come in. Neil Gaiman appropriately places Shakspere/Shakespeare's first two appearances in Sandman during the "lost" years from the late 1580s to the early 1590s. Shakspere/Shakespeare first meets Dream in a tavern and strikes their bargain sometime in 1589 (the date is extrapolated from the reference in #30, when Dream reminds Lady Johanna Constantine that he met her five years before 1794, which would mean regular meetings with Hob Gadling every century in the year ending '89, and from Shakspere/Shakespeare's comment in #75 that he made the deal when he was 25 years old). He then has his acting troupe perform A Midsummer Night's Dream for the departing elves in early May 1593 (three weeks after Marlowe's death that year and three years before Hamnet's death in 1596). Nothing that is known about Shakspere's life necessarily contradicts these stories, and the stories help establish how Shakspere could have become the writer that he is now seen as. Similarly, the movie Shakespeare in Love takes place in May 1593 (again, the rough date is established by the reference to Marlowe's death), it shows Shakespeare as an actor and writer, and it is not necessarily contradicted by anything that is absolutely known about the writer. The Case for Shakspere No manuscripts and only a handful of Shakspere's signatures survive, arguably not enough to establish a definitive link between the man and the works. Accordingly, probably the strongest evidence that Shakspere was in fact Shakespeare comes from the first collection of Shakespeare's plays. This First Folio was published posthumously in 1623, seven years after Shakspere's death, but it establishes definite connections between the two men. First, the Folio included a drawing of Shakspere as Shakespeare. Second, it included a eulogy by Ben Jonson in which Jonson praised Shakespeare as "the sweet swan of Avon," as well as "the soul of the age! The applause! delight! the wonder of our stage!" Credible contemporaries thus recognized Shakspere as Shakespeare. That, many say, is good enough evidence to render this entire debate moot. Anti-Stratfordians thus must somehow explain away the First Folio and Ben Jonson if their doubts about Shakspere are to survive. They question why Shakspere did not oversee the production of the First Folio himself, wondering why a writer would not try to preserve his works. They question the publishers' motives and Jonson's involvement, and they look for hidden meanings in Jonson's eulogy. Whether they do so successfully is debatable. The Case against Shakspere Moving past the First Folio, anti-Stratfordians going back to Twain and even further look to Shakspere's own life for signs that he could not have been the author Shakespeare. They say that Shakspere lacked the education to write his plays, that it is not clear that Shakspere could even write, that Shakspere lacked the time to write, and that Shakspere was not held in regard by the literary or theatre community. For example : Shakspere left behind a record as a businessman that seems inconsistent with the life one would expect of a noted author. He was litigious and he was cheap. After his death, he was memorialized in his hometown chapel initially not as a writer but as a businessman dealing with grains; this was later changed to fit the image one would expect of a writer. And would such a businessman not bother trying to capitalize more on perhaps his greatest investment, the works in his name, unless there was some reason he could not? Shakspere's family life seems inconsistent with the life one would expect of a great writer. His daughters, for example, were illiterate. Moreover, it is not entirely clear that Shakspere himself could write; he left behind only a handful of signatures which arguably showed a lack of familiarity with the act of writing. Shakspere's death was a non-event for the literary and theatre communities in London and even for the local community in Stratford-upon-Avon. This strikes anti-Stratfordians as evidence that everyone in the know was well aware that Shakspere was not Shakespeare, but scholars have pointed out that Shakespeare was no longer part of the literary or theatre community by the time of his death, since he had left London for Stratford-upon-Avon years before. Shakspere would have been more consistent with and protective of the use of his name had he been a real writer, some argue. The man from Stratford's name was commonly written in Stratford-upon-Avon as Shakspere, it was spelled Shagspere and Shaxpere on his marriage licenses, and the name on his monument in Stratford is Shakspeare. But the name on almost all the plays and poems is spelled Shakespeare or Shake-speare. Some say the hyphen suggests a pseudonym, and some say that a true writer would have been more careful with the spelling of his name throughout his life. Could Shakspere the businessman and father have had the time or education to write so many plays covering so many different topics? Shakespeare's plays cover too wide a range for someone like Shakspere, some say. Stratfordians, however, argue that Shakspere was either a genius or, alternatively, that he was not. The works of Shakespeare borrow from other plays and contain many factual, historical and legal mistakes; Shakspere need not have had an aristocratic background or a wide formal education to write his works. In making their case, anti-Stratfordians also point to the lack of solid facts linking Shakspere to Shakespeare. They point out that the order of the plays is not definitively established, and that the plays could thus have been written by someone else at different times; the Tempest is generally considered the last play because some scholars believe it was inspired by a shipwreck in the Bermudas in 1609, but this is not necessarily solid evidence. They also point out that no manuscripts survive. Other Candidates But if Shakspere wasn't Shakespeare, then who was? The list of various candidates is long, and some have suggested that Shakespeare was actually the front not just for an individual but for a group of writers. Some of the most popular individual candidates are : Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Once the most popular candidate due to his background and extensive education, Bacon is seen as less likely nowadays, in no small part because Bacon's writing style is seen as not poetic and very different from Shakespeare's. Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550-1604). An aristocratic lawyer whose life arguably parallels that of Hamlet, Edward de Vere is perhaps the most popular modern candidate because he fits what one might expect of Shakespeare. Even Freud was convinced. Some say that de Vere would have used Shakespeare as his front in order to hide the embarrassment that may have come from a nobleman writing popular literature, but others scoff at this theory and point out other embarrassing details about de Vere's life. Some of the most prominent proponents of this theory include Thomas J. Looney and Charles J. Ogburn. Sir Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593). Marlowe is the only professional playwright among the leading candidates, and proponents of this theory argue that Marlowe faked his death in 1593 and then wrote plays while in exile. Notwithstanding Gaiman's and Tom Stoppard's contributions to the landscape, the debate goes on and probably will go on for many more years to come. Twain believed that William Shakspere would eventually be knocked off his perch but he still thought the process would take centuries. "Disbelief in him cannot come swiftly, disbelief in a healthy and deeply-loved tar baby has never been known to disintegrate swiftly, it is a very slow process," he wrote. Sources: John Michell, Who wrote Shakespeare? (Thames & Hudson Ltd., London, 1996). Irvin Leigh Matus, Shakespeare, in fact (Continuum, 1999). Richard F. Whalen, Shakespeare – who was he? : The Oxford challenge to the Bard of Avon (Praeger Publishers, 1994). Mark Twain, 1601, and Is Shakespeare Dead? (Oxford University Pres, 1996). The Atlantic Monthly has articles on the subject on-line here. PBS's Frontline has aired two specials on the question and has resources on the question on-line here. James Lardner, The Authorship Question, New Yorker, April 11, 1988.			Marvel * Alias * Daredevil * Truth * The Ultimates * Ultimate X-Men * X-Men * X-Statix DC/Wildstorm * Batman * Green Lantern * Superman * Wildcats 3.0 Vertigo * Sandman * Y : The Last Man Other * CrossGen * Eagle * Queen & Country * Supernatural Law * Three Strikes All art is copyright their respective owners. Footnote Comics is a service mark of Stephen Lee. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee.
	DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained. This page is part of Footnote Comics. Copyright (c) 2003 Stephen Lee, except for cover and panel art which are copyright of their respective owners. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Footnote Comics and Mirror Law are service marks of Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. More information here.