1494 words
🎭 🪶
Does the hypothesis that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the 37 (or 38) plays, the 154 sonnets and other verses that are attributed to him, hold water? Does it pass the “pub test”? The consensus of opinion is probably not, unless the pub where the “test” took place is one comprised entirely of inebriated “Shakespearephobes”. Nonetheless, whether William Shakespeare—late of Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37, that “Upstart Crow” of a country bumpkin—could or could not have written such exalted works of majestic prose and in such volume, has been the subject of much controversy and debate since the Victorian era – by scientists, by psychiatrists, by polymaths, by actors and stage directors, by assorted celebrities, by the punter in the street, and of course by literary scholars.
 |
The questioning of William Shakespeare’s literary credentials—to be or not to be the author of the greatest canon of work in the English-language world of literature—has spawned a Shakespeare “detective” industry which has conjured up, at last count, more than 80 alternate candidates, who their proposers would want the world to believe were the actual author or authors of the plays and/or poems attributed to the Bard. The great majority of these claims are ludicrously fanciful, completely bereft of even a vaguely plausible premise. We can sift out a handful of personages from the dross, contemporaries of Shakespeare whose supporters have mounted long-standing campaigns on their behalf to be recognised as the true authors of the canon and have done so with (apparent) seriousness and a degree of conviction. We will examine this “short list” below, but first let’s set out both the Stratfordian and the anti-Stratfordian positions: why WS was the sole and indisputable author of the famous texts and sonnets that bear his name, and the fundamentals of its contra-arguments from the Shakespeare deniers.
The Stratfordian view The Pro-Will camp simply points to the evidence of extant written references to the role the historical William Shakespeare performed as an actor and playwright, recognised in his day as an important player of the London theatrical scene…a member in good standing in the theatre troupe known originally as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and later as the King’s Men. Then there’s the irrefutable fact that it is Shakespeare’s name (however one spells it) that’s on the printed page of every folio and edition of the plays, not that of any of the many, would-be claimants to the authorship of the canon. The Stratford viewpoint, identifying WS as the true author and nobody else, aligns with that of almost every professional Shakespeare scholar and literary historian.
The Shakespeare “Truthers” The anti-Stratfordian view, the Shakespeare skeptics, argue that WS could not have written the great tomes of literature he is credited with…he came from a “hick” town, a commoner, his education was poor (some truthers suggest, maybe he was even illiterate), he never went to university, etc§ (‘Shakespeare Was Shakespeare’, Issac Butler, Slate, 11-May-2023, www.slate.com). Ergo, it had to be someone else with an upper class background, or perhaps a powerful literary cabal with the education and life experience, the wherewithal, to accomplish such a feat of genius. Furthermore, the Shakespeare truthers question whether the entire literary output under Shakespeare’s name could be the work of just one man? They ask how Shakespeare with just a grammar school-level education§ could be knowledgeable about so many different fields, including the law, politics, history, music, the Bible, falconry, seamanship, silk weaving, etc. and how he could know, down to small details, lands like Italy and Cyprus, without ever having travelled abroad during his lifetime?
The Oxfordian theory Perhaps the anti-Staffordian hypothesis with the greatest traction is the one that attributes authorship of the Shakespearean canon to the 17th Earl of Oxford, aka Edward de Vere. While there is an absence of any documentary evidence linking de Vere to Shakespeare’s works, the Oxfordians reject the historical record as part of a conspiracy that falsified the official record to protect the true author’s identity. Their argument relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, with two main planks to it. The first is a classist assessment. WS, the Oxfordians state, was an “middle class social climber”, lacking the requisite “aristocratic attitude” (which de Vere possessed in spades) to produce such masterly prose and poetry (‘Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship’, www.shakespeareoxford fellowship.org). The second, asserts that de Vere had political and diplomatic reasons to hide his authorship of the works – the need for anonymity as a courier to Queen Elizabeth, he had to be careful about not identifying himself, eg, the Histories dealt with politically sensitive matters, so it was necessary for de Vere to avoid any consequences to his person by using the pseudonym of the man from Stratford for the publishing of these plays, so the argument runs❇︎. Undoubtedly, part of the Oxfordian theory’s ongoing appeal is the conspiratorial element. Edward de Vere’s claim to be the real author of the canon was endorsed by Sigmund Freud.
 |
| de Vere (L) & Bacon |
The Baconian theory Another popular alternative author is Francis Bacon, man of letters, philosopher, politician and scientist. Bacon’s elevation to Shakespeare’s “ghost writer” owes much to the popularisation of the idea by 19th century American writer Delia Bacon (no relation). Proponents of Bacon’s candidacy have made similar arguments to the Oxfordians…Bacon chose Shakespeare, they affirm, as a front to avoid criticism and to facilitate his political ambitions (Bacon rose to the office of Lord Chancellor under James I). Some Baconians claim the Shakespeare plays contain vocabulary and stylistic elements in common with Bacon’s writings, and they also allege that the detailed scientific knowledge contained in Shakespeare’s texts could only be known to a practicing scientist like Bacon. Francis Bacon’s candidature counted luminaries such as Mark Twain and Frederich Nietzsch among its supporters.
 |
| Christopher Marlowe: Shakespeare “identity thief?” |
The Marlovian theory Christopher (Kit) Marlowe was an exact contemporary of WS, born the same year, and like him, was at the very apex of the playwrighting game in Britain, creating some of the outstanding dramas of the Elizabethan era. Literary scholars have detected clear parallels (eg, Jew of Malta v Romeo and Juliet balcony scenes) which reveal the considerable influence Marlow exerted on the work of WS. The most obvious drawback of Marlow’s claim to have written the Shakespearean works however is that he died in 1593 (and plays continued to be written under Shakespeare’s name for another 15–20 years). Proponents of Marlowe invoke a conspiracy theory to explain this chronological discrepancy: Marlow faked his own death so as to continue writing plays under the name of WS, although the Marlovians don’t explain to any satisfactory degree why he would do this, particularly as he already had an established name in theatre and the arts.
The Nevillean theory A more recent addition to the short list of Shakespeare authorial alternatives is Sir Henry Neville, a distant relative of WS. This theory trawls many of the same arguments as the other anti-Stratford hypotheses, circumstantial parallels with the career and life of WS; supposed cipher messages encoded within Shakespeare’s Sonnets that point to Neville; an alleged conspiracy by Ben Jonson, attributing the First Folio to WS to hide Neville’s true authorship; etc.
 |
| Anonymous woman, thought to be portrait of Emilia Lanier |
It’s significant to note that the appearance of the Shakespeare doubters in the mid-19th century coincided with the point at which the Bard of Stratford had reached the pinnacle of his fame. As Prof AJ Bate explained this convergence, “wherever there is great fame and a kind of cult, then, inevitably, heresies, alternative views, conspiracy theories tend to emerge” (Jonathan Bate, ‘The Shakespeare Authorship Question’, www.shakespeare.org.uk)
§ the conclusion that WS had an inferior education can be debated. He in fact attended a perfectly good provincial grammar school and took from it a good grounding in the classics
❇︎ the weakness of this argument is that de Vere could have simply published his literary works anonymously which was an acceptable practice at the time
