Some people believe the works attributed to Shakespeare were not in fact written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. Why is this ?
The Case Against
There are three main arguments against Shakespeare of Stratford: (1) there is very little evidence about Shakespeare (2) some of the evidence doesn't seem to fit with a well-known successful playwright (3) someone with little education or knowledge of the royal court could not have written these plays.
1. Little evidence
There isn't much. There are quite a lot of brief refs (I've heard both '30' and 'over 100'), mainly references to Shakespeare as a playwright and also common legal documents such as registers of birth, marriage and death; records of lodgings; and legal cases he was involved in.
The problem is: if he was a major, famous playwright and cultural figure, shouldn't there be more ? Where are the letters, the diaries, the detailed descriptions of him as a person ? Why did no one else write about him in any detail ?
2. Curious evidence
It seems some in his family couldn't write. Is this consistent with a great writer ?
Many of his plays were not published in his lifetime. If they were so celebrated, why is this ?
In his will, he does not mention his plays or writings; and does not bequeath any books.
3. Someone with little education or knowledge of the royal court could not have written these plays.
The writer clearly knows a lot about classical stories (eg Julius Caesar), the royal court, the law, war and travel. How could someone from Stratford with little schooling know all these things ?
The Case For
The case for Shakespeare of Stratford goes like this:
All the above points can be answered. One must understand the culture of the time.
1. Most importantly, in the 1600s, people would only write biographies of royalty. They wouldn't write or research the life of other people, far less a commoner involved in the theatre (which was regarded as a low status trade).
People at the time didn't gather information about Shakespeare, because there wasn't this modern culture of biography. His family line only lasted two more generations, so there weren't descendants, which didn't help.
Also, later in the 1600s, politics become turbulent (English Civil War, Restoration) and people were preoccupied with other things. Also, while acclaimed, Shakespeare did not achieve his modern level of fame and celebrity until the 1800s.
2. In the 1600s, playwrights did not own their plays - the company did - so they could not publish them. Drama companies were reluctant to publish, because other companies could then put on the plays. (However, there were bootleg copies of Shakespeare on the market.) The Folio of Shakespeare plays published after his death was compiled by friends and admirers who recognised WS' high literary quality. (It's a sobering thought that many of his plays would otherwise have been lost.)
3. It was common not to be able to write in this days. It wasn't seen as unusual or a failing. Shakespeare may have been seen in his family as a bit of a prodigy, who had taken writing to a high level, but that wouldn't mean the others would want to write (eg if your brother or sister was a famous violin player or ski-ier, would you take up the violin or ski-ing ?)
4. He probably attended the local grammar school, where he would have learned a lot of Latin and classical stories and some theology. As an actor, he would have learned a lot of stories. Living in London, he would have encountered vibrant Renaissance learning and as a playwright would have been able to mix with cultural leaders and learn from them. Also, there are about ten 'lost years' in his late teens and early twenties where we know little of his life - who knows what he could have learned in that time ?
And so it goes. For every argument, there is a counter-argument.
Apart from evidence, there are other questions:
Motivation
What motivation could there be ? This one probably is more easily answered.
The theatre was seen as a rather low-life place, and actors had low social status. A respectable or aristocratic playwright might prefer not to be known. Equally, anonymity could give them freedom to express their views and not get into trouble. (Playwrights were often in serious trouble for libel or insurrection and - interestingly - Shakespeare is the only major playwright of his time never to have been in trouble on that account.)
Practicality
How would it have worked ? Did the playwright work in secret and have scripts delivered to the actors ? How many people would have known about the conspiracy ?
History of the Authorship Question
From 1600s to mid-1700s, everyone accepted that Shakespeare was the author.
Then, about 1780, a scholar went to Stratford, expecting to find lots of documents, and he didn't find much. This is when people started wondering if there was something strange about the case.
From the 1800s, various theories of other authors started coming forward. Several people have been suggested, but the top three are:
Francis Bacon, a leading politician and philosopher. He was learned and knew the royal court.
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He was a patron of the arts, very learned and parts of his life seem to be mirrored in some parts of the plays.
Christopher Marlowe, another successful Tudor playwright.
People with differing views tend to be called Stratfordians, Baconians, Oxfordians or Marlovians.
Various eminent persons have had doubts about Stratford authorship: Freud, Mark Twain, Henry James, Derek Jacobi, Vanessa Redgrave, Mark Rylance.
However, the majority of Shakespeare academics and actors believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare, and usually quite strongly.
Shakespeare scholars generally avoided the question for the last 100 years, dismissing it as nonsense. One consequence is that interest in alternative authorship has grown; and recently scholars have started engaging with it, mainly with the aim of firmly establishing Stratford as the author. Hence the recent book 'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt'.
Does it matter ?
Some people push the question aside, saying it doesn't matter. Others say it does matter, if (1) we care about truth (2) because it can impact on how we interpret the plays and (3) because it raises issues about how literature is written eg do you need learning and experience to write about something well ? (See Shapiro's book (below), final page.)
A final thought:
The authorship question doesn't really help with the most important personal and literary question about Shakespeare, which is: how could anyone have written these plays ?
(A good education and wide life experience does not automatically create great writing.)
They not only show literary brilliance and insight into humanity, but do so across a whole range of genres: tragedy, romance, comedy, history and poetry.
This is the central amazing genius of Shakespeare.
Reading:
'Who Wrote Shakespeare ?' by John Michell A good overview of the issues. Mitchell thinks there was some conspiracy.
'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Arguments, Controversies' by Paul Edmondson, a collection of articles arguing for Stratford.
'Contested Will' by James Shapiro. Mainly a history of the authorship question. Shapiro is pro-Stratford.
'The 100 Most Influential People in History' by Michael H Hart Chapter 31 makes the case for the Earl of Oxford.
Introductory Reading on Shakespeare
There are absolutely oodles of books on Shakespeare but these are good ones to start with:
'Shakespeare' by Bill Bryson. Short account of his life and career.
'Shakespeare for Grown-Ups: everything you need to know about the bard' by Elizabeth Foley and Beth Coates General guide to the plays.
'The Rough Guide to Shakespeare' by Andrew Dickson General guide to the plays.
'The Arden Shakespeare Miscellany' by Jane Armstrong Lots of short articles with facts about Shakespeare and his works.
More advanced:
'The Genius of Shakespeare' by Jonathan Bate. A leading scholar looks at various issues in Shakespeare.
'Shakespeare. The Poet and His Plays' by Stanley Wells. More detailed commentary on each of the plays.
'The Invention of the Human' by Harold Bloom. Commentary on each the plays. Bloom has an interesting theory that Shakespeare has played a strong role in shaping the modern view of what it means to be human. 13 September 2019
Comments