Book Review:
by Professor R. John Leigh
Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays
2015, published by McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina
In Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare, Mark Bradbeer and John Casson provide
further evidence to corroborate the hypothesis – first developed by Brenda James and William
Rubinstein in their 2005 book “The Truth Will Out” – that Henry Neville was the real writer of
the works attributed to Shakespeare. This book is a well researched, scholarly contribution, but
is also an engaging read, packed with new information that will fascinate anyone with an open
mind who is interested in the Shakespeare authorship debate.
Drawing on the historical record and sources that were available to Henry Neville, Bradbeer and
Casson build a case that the writer of the history plays deliberately distorted both the selection of
individuals appearing in the plays and aspects of the historical narrative in such a way to place
the Neville family in a favorable light. They also point out how Shakespeare’s history plays
were political statements aimed at alerting the audience to contemporary events. Thus, spymaster
Francis Walsingham (who knew both Neville and Christopher Marlowe) formed his own acting
company probably to promote a view of history consistent with the notion that Elizabeth was the
rightful monarch, something disputed, for example, by followers of Mary Queen of Scots. It
follows that comparing the selection of the dramatis personae with the individuals who are
historically recorded as playing significant roles, divergence of the plays’ plots from recorded
history, and editorial changes in the play between successive quartos and the First Folio all
provide clues to their authorship.
The historical record documents how the descendants of Ralph Neville (1364-1425), first earl of
Westmoreland, played prominent roles during reigns extending from King John to Henry VIII.
Thus, one challenge for the authors is to show how the writer of each of the history plays
deviated from this record – distinguishing their findings from what might be called a “false
positive result” – consequent on the substantial number of Neville family members that
populated this span of history. Their approach is to examine the plays in the order of the kings’
reigns rather than the order in which the plays are currently thought to have been written. They
systematically identify characters present in the historical record that have been marginalized or
promoted in the plays and use these findings to corroborate their hypothesis. For example, the
bastard Falconbridge (historically the illegitimate son of William Neville) is a made the
illegitimate son of Richard I and a hero in King John (Sir Henry Neville, himself, may have been
born before his parents were legally married). In contrast, Ralph Neville (1456-1499), the third
Earl of Westmoreland, who fought with Richard III at Bosworth Field and could therefore be
seen in a negative light, is absent from the play.
To buttress their carefully discussed historical evidence, Bradbeer and Casson also draw on
probable sources used by Sir Henry Neville in writing the plays, including his handwritten copy
of Leicester’s Commonwealth, Milles’ A Catalogue of Honor, and Holinshed’s Chronicles
(which Neville’s father-in-law, Henry Killigrew had edited in 1587). In his prior book, Much
Ado About Noting, Dr. Casson had pointed out the relevance of marginal notes made by Neville,
especially in his copy of Leicester’s Commonwealth, to the plays attributed to Shakespeare. In
addition, attention is given to the selection of words in the plays and their relevance to Sir Henry
Neville; for example cannons anachronistically appear in King John and could be related to
Neville’s taking over the Gresham ordnance business.
Another line of evidence provided by the authors involves analyses of words used by Sir Henry
Neville in his letters or speeches and their appearance in contemporaneous plays. For example,
during the period when Henry V was thought to have been written, Neville was English
ambassador to France, and wrote frequent letters to “Mr. Secretary Cecyll” in which he used rare
words that Shakespeare used in that play. Bradbeer and Casson extend this approach in what is
perhaps the most exciting chapter of the book, focusing on the statement made by Sir Henry
Neville in his own defense at his trial in March 1601 for being involved in the failed Essex
rebellion. The authors compare this statement with the text of Hamlet, identifying words
common to both – individual, pairs, and phrases of three words, as well as rare words. They
identify 426/1,379 words of the speech that are shared by the play, but acknowledge that this
finding, as well as the occurrence of rare words, could just be coincidence. They then strengthen
their case by conducting a “control experiment” in which they compare the text of Hamlet with
words occurring in four letters by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (currently a popular
alternative candidate for authorship of the plays), all written in 1601. Compared with Neville, De
Vere’s letters showed about half as many words in common with Hamlet, and less words
occurring together. The authors’ findings justify their call for further computer-aided analysis of
the vocabulary of Neville to compare it with that of the Shakespeare canon.
In sum, Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare provides a wealth of new documentary
evidence in support of this candidate. It is a fascinating book that will prompt further research
and excite anyone interested in the Shakespeare authorship debate.
R. John Leigh, M.D., F.R.C.P.
Blair-Daroff Emeritus Professor of Neurology
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio, USA