Shakespeare authorship

On the one hand, the Shakespeare authorship controversy, also known as "Anti-Stratfordianism", verges on a conspiracy theory. On the other, it is a valid reaction to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the historical attribution of the works of "Shakespeare" to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. On the third hand, who cares, we have the plays, right? This, of course, leaves the sound of one hand clapping.

Stratfordians (those who support the historical attribution) argue that most scholars and academics see no reason to challenge traditional beliefs and often refuse to acknowledge that the debate even exists. However, authorship doubters cite the New York Times, which conducted a survey of Shakespeare professors at a random sample of U.S. colleges and universities in April 2007, and found that 17% answered "yes" or "possible" when asked if there was good reason to question whether Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays.

So while a controversial theory about 16th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the issue in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge both sides of a controversial question. An interesting aside to the debate is the fact that numerous writers, including Mark Twain, Henry James, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman, have made statements expressing their doubts about the historical attribution.

"A country bumpkin like Shakespeare could not have possibly written such magnificent works"—Mark Twain, with tongue deeply in cheek. "So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life"—Twain again, getting right to the point.

Shake-speare as pseudonym

Title page of Shake-speares Sonnets, showing use of hyphenated name, thought by some researchers to denote a pseudonym.

According to literary historians Taylor and Mosher, "In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Golden Age of pseudonyms, almost every writer used a pseudonym at some time in his career". In this regard, many anti-Stratfordians question the hyphen that often appeared in the name "Shake-speare", which they believe indicated the use of such a pseudonym. Examples of oft-hyphenated names include Tom Tell-truth, Martin Mar-prelate (who pamphleteered against church "prelates") and Cuthbert Curry-nave, who "curried" his "knavish" enemies.

Authorship candidates

• Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford: probably the most popular candidate. The "Oxfordian theory" (i.e. "Oxford wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare") was first proposed in 1920 by J. Thomas Looney (pronounced Loh-ney, but still).

• Francis Bacon: first proposed by Delia Bacon (no relation; she was just fascinated by their shared surname) in the mid-19th century. Stratfordians argue that Delia's obsession with Shakespearean authorship appears to have been a symptom of severe mental illness.

• Other possibilities: Christopher Marlowe, Queen Elizabeth I, Miguel Crollalanza (a Sicilian guy whose last name means "Shakes spear").

Some arguments for anti-Stratfordianism

• Every bit of "evidence" supports the idea that the Stratford man was (at most) an actor, but not a playwright.

• To believe in the "Stratford man" is to believe that one can come out of the womb able to translate foreign languages. (But, apparently, genius explains everything).

• Contemporary records imply that the "Stratford man" published the work of other writers and put his own name on it. (But hey, that is creative!). It should be noted that this is still a contemporary practice.

• Baptismal records, a marriage license, a will (that mentions no plays, or shares in the theatre he supposedly owned), buying and selling of property, a few scribbled signatures, etc., prove that a man/actor existed, but not that he ever wrote a single word. (Although it appears he wasn't much of an actor, as absolutely no parts he played have ever been verified, and no acclaim was ever recorded by contemporary audiences, actors or critics.)

• There are some seventy extant documents that relate to Shakespeare of Stratford - yet none of them have any connection to his supposed literary career.

• Virtually all the plays are set among the upper classes, and are seemingly written from their point of view. His upper class characters are fully drawn and have more than a touch of realism that has often been commented on. On the other hand, his lower class characters are almost always thinly drawn characitures with names such as Bullcalf, Bottom, Wart, Shadow, etc.. They appear as simpletons when solo or in small groups, but when seen in large groups, are portrayed as an angry or dangerous mob - a distinctly upper class viewpoint.

• Some researchers believe that contemporary documents imply the actual playwright was dead by 1604, the year continuous publication of new Shakespeare plays "mysteriously stopped", and various scholars have asserted that The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII, Macbeth, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra, so-called "later plays", were composed no later than 1604. Researchers cite SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS, 1609, which appeared with "our ever-living Poet" on the title page, words typically used eulogizing someone who has died, yet become immortal, and note that the words "ever-living" rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive(Shakespeare himself used the phrase in this context in Henry VI, part 1 (IV, iii, 51-2) describing the dead Henry V as "[t]hat ever-living man of memory"). Researchers also cite one contemporary document that strongly implies that Shakespeare, the Globe shareholder, was dead prior to 1616, when Shakespeare of Stratford actually died.

Some arguments against anti-Stratfordianism

• In claiming that "orthodox scholars" refuse to acknowledge the possibility that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, anti-Stratfordians set up a straw man. In actuality, scholars do not claim that there is no room for doubt,^{[citation needed]} but rather understand that "authorial identity" meant something entirely different (if it meant anything at all) in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.

• Anti-Stratfordian arguments often rest on the assumption that "writing" then meant the same thing as "writing" now. Today, an author is an individual creator, writing from his or her "personal experience," encoding secrets in characters' stories, working alone, hoping to someday receive royalty checks. In Early Modern English culture, plays were "wrought" by actors, theater managers, and writers working in tandem, at a time before copyright could be assigned to individual authors. The argument that one individual wrote another individual's plays falls into the not even wrong category when we're talking 16th and 17th century drama. In other words, anti-Stratfordians don't acknowledge the simple fact that the past was different from the present.^{[citation needed]}

• And guess what? Stuffy old "orthodox scholars" do make (evidence-based, non-pseudohistorical) authorship arguments!

• Whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays, anti-Stratfordians claim, must have gone to college, because obviously, anyone with the knowledge of language, philosophy, literature, mathematics, astronomy, etc. reflected in the plays must have attended college. The big problem here is that before the 18th century, a university education typically meant that a man had specialized in law, theology, or medicine, and didn't have the "well-rounded" education we associate with liberal arts colleges of the present day. A university-educated man was viewed as a specialist so focused on one area that he lacked a wide range of knowledge.^{[citation needed]}(Although it should be noted that Jonson, Marlowe and Middleton did attend university).

• Despite the fact that Marlowe's father was a shoemaker and Jonson and Middleton's fathers were bricklayers, anti-Stratfordians argue that the guy who wrote Shakespeare's plays couldn't have been the uneducated son of a glovemaker.^{[citation needed]}

• They say "orthodox scholars" don't account for the lack of evidence. Right - all we have are baptismal records, a marriage license, will (which references the Blackfriars' theater, theater managers, and the guys who would eventually compile the First Folio), documents concerning William Shakespeare of Stratford's buying and selling of property, actors' lists, audience reports, several years' worth of the Lord Chamberlain's records, five signatures, and an inventory of the Globe theatre. (It should be noted that none of these documents identify Shakespeare of Stratford as a playwright.)

• And, of course, there's the argumentum ad verecundiam: see the Authorship Coalition's laundry list of actors, doctors, lawyers, and judges who thought that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare.

• It's just fucking NUTS!!!

See also

• Pseudohistory
• Wikipedia article on Shakespeare Authorship Question