Who Wrote Shakespeare?

[Steerpike]

This is just for fun. A brief story and BBC video relating to arguments for and against William Shakespeare as the author of the works appearing under his name.

You can vote for your choice at the bottom. Edward de Vere is in the lead as the "real" author He was the Earl of Oxford, and there is an excellent book about him called Shakespeare by Another Name.

Did Shakespeare write his plays? - The English Blog | The English Blog

 

[Shockley]

I actually got super pissed the first time I had this idea pitched to me. It smacks of classism.

 

[FatCat]

There's a theory running around the interwebs that Nicholas Cage is a vampire. Apparently there's a portrait of an American Civil War soldier that looks kinda like him, and another historical snapshot (can't remember what). Therefor, due to the amazingness of Nicholas Cage and his epic work in cinema, I say he was the real Shakespeare. This is a conclusion formulated by impeccable logic and anyone who disagrees with me wets the bed.

 

[Steerpike]

I actually got super pissed the first time I had this idea pitched to me. It smacks of classism.

This, to me, is a bizarre reaction. I'm not sure why anyone would become angered over the idea. As for the classism charge, are you suggesting, for example, that someone writing such a book now is so personally invested in the class structure of Elizabethan England that it has motivated them to write such a book? Or that they have 'classist' feeling themselves and feel that trying to recast the role of individuals their respective classes in England some four hundred years ago is going to validate their current beliefs? Seems absurd, sorry.

As for Shakespeare By Another Name, whether you have any inclination whatsoever to accept the argument the author is making, it is actually a very interesting good and an engaging biography of one Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

 

[Shockley]

It was how the argument was phrased that pissed me off, not the claim itself. In essence, they said this: "Of course Shakespeare didn't right those plays, he was a peasant and had no formal education."

So that was my introduction. Never mind that Shakespeare was of the gentry and had a quality education for the time, I didn't like the idea that someone couldn't be self-taught and I didn't like the idea that only the nobility had the skill to write quality plays and poems. I know there are some legitimate questions (though I think they could all be settled with a little bit of research), but that was how the idea was first presented and it has stained my view of the debate.

 

[Steerpike]

It was how the argument was phrased that pissed me off, not the claim itself. In essence, they said this: "Of course Shakespeare didn't right those plays, he was a peasant and had no formal education."

So that was my introduction. Never mind that Shakespeare was of the gentry and had a quality education for the time, I didn't like the idea that someone couldn't be self-taught and I didn't like the idea that only the nobility had the skill to write quality plays and poems. I know there are some legitimate questions (though I think they could all be settled with a little bit of research), but that was how the idea was first presented and it has stained my view of the debate.

I see. I don't find the argument that Shakespeare couldn't have written them to be compelling either. The book I mentioned presents an interesting argument, thought, tracking de Vere's life and the events in it, places he went, etc. I'm not sold on it but it was a good read.

 

[Shockley]

I'll have to check it out.

One of the stronger arguments that Shakespeare wrote the plays is that he uses language that was distinct, at that time, to Warwickshire. We've (as in you and I) lost easy access to this evidence since the plays popularized those phrases across the English speaking world, but at the time it was remarked upon and we know what a few of those terms were.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

It's also important to keep in mind that just because the statement "Shakespeare couldn't have written those plays" is false, it doesn't follow that therefore Shakespeare must have written those plays. I'm firmly in the "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays" camp, insofar as I care, which isn't very much. At this point I doubt any of the value of the plays would lessen if we did find out that they were in fact written by someone else.

 

[Ravana]

I always believed that Shakespeare's plays weren't written by William Shakespeare, but by another man with the same name.

Could he have written them? Certainly. First off, his "background" in the various subjects he "couldn't have known about" was far stronger than my background on elves or warp drives; oddly enough, I've had no difficulty writing about either. Second, given the far more limited knowledge base of the era, it was easier to know a bit of everything… was indeed possible to "know everything," to the contemporary state of knowledge, something that is not possible today. Third, much of that knowledge would have been available simply from working in theatre itself, picked up from those already there—I've never seen it claimed that nobody could have written plays, which is prima facie only marginally more ludicrous than saying Shakespeare couldn't have—and the accumulated knowledge base might easily have exceeded what was taught in the universities of the day. Which leads to fourth: a lot of his plays weren't written "by him"—initially; they were adapted from other works, especially in Italian (or were plagiarized, depending on viewpoint, though the practice of adapting works with minimal or no changes was commonplace in his time).

Does this mean he wrote all of the ones attributed to him? No. Probably not provable, one way or the other… apart from the circumstantial but rather telling fact that no one from his time period claimed any of them. Nor, indeed, did anybody from that period even make the weaker claim that Shakespeare didn't write them, regardless of whether or not some other name got asserted in his place. The first appearance of the claim dates to more than two centuries after Shakespeare's death.

Nor, for that matter, was it necessary for him to have "written" any of them, for those who like to maintain his illiteracy: he could as easily have dictated them… probably did, if he wanted anybody to be able to read the manuscripts.

For a rundown of some of the more interesting (in one sense or another) claims:

Christopher Marlowe had been dead since 1593; had he been responsible for Shakespeare's plays, he would have had to have written 30 other plays—remarkable for a man who died when he was 29, and had only been known as an author for six years—in addition to the seven plays he is known to have (one of which is itself attributed as being co-authored with Thomas Nashe when it first appeared in print the year after Marlowe's death)… and yet not presented any of them. Still, Mozart did pretty well with only six more years of life, so this alone isn't decisive. More telling is that seven plays attributed to Shakespeare had already been produced by the time of Marlowe's death: any account favoring him would demand an answer to why these did not appear with his name on them.

Ben Jonson knew Shakespeare since at least 1598, and wrote a dedicatory poem for the First Folio: had he been the author of any of those plays, he had the golden opportunity to let the world know. Neither is it easy to understand why he would have put some works out under his own name, but not others. Which argument applies equally well to the sixteen other playwrights who have been identified as possible authors.

Similar considerations apply to others involved in the theatre, such as Richard Burbage, who acted the title roles in the first productions of such plays as King Lear, Othello, and Hamlet… among a great many others, far from all of them Shakespeare plays.

Francis Bacon's writing career began no later than 1584—five years before Shakespeare's plays began to appear—and continued until his death in 1626—thirteen years after the last play attributed to Shakespeare appeared, ten years after he died and three years after the First Folio was published. None of which is conclusive. On the other hand, if Bacon were their author, he was a master of style, as the two read nothing alike. Bacon was not noted for his ventures into literature: mostly he confined himself to law, religion, politics, philosophy and every science known to his age. If one can properly call that "confined." Think ol' Will seemed to know a lot about diverse fields? This man's scope was positively frightening.* He had 62 works published during his lifetime, 29 more posthumously. He also served in public office for 40 of those years. When he found time to do science—he invented what is now known as the "scientific method," and died as a result of performing an empirical experiment—is anybody's guess. (Admittedly, most of this public service was in the not terribly demanding House of Commons. Still.…) Considering he espoused numerous controversial political views during his time in public life, I can't imagine he would have felt the slightest concern about anyone's opinions of his being a playwright on the side; he is known to have written speeches for inclusion in masques, which would tend to support that view.

Sir Walter Raleigh: the biggest disqualifiers here are that, on the one hand, he spent the better part of the first half of Shakespeare's career out of the country—though I suppose all those voyages on the high seas would have given him plenty of time to write; on the other, his whereabouts from 1603 to 1616 were extremely well-known—the Tower of London—during which imprisonment he certainly had time to write, since a large body of work survives from this period… compared to very little from prior to that time.

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: most people's favorite candidate… why escapes me. Perhaps the best argument against his candidacy is that it was first put forth by a man named Looney. The second best is that Freud apparently believed him. The third best is that Oxford has also been credited by various of his proponents with writing the works of Edmund Spenser, Philip Sidney, Christopher Marlowe (!), George Gascoigne, John Lyly, George Peele, and Arthur Golding, among others. (Sidney, Lyly and Peele have all been proposed as "real" Shakespeares themselves.) Plus the King James Bible. Anyone imagining that meaningful stylistic similarities—in some cases, any stylistic similarity—might be found among that list cannot possibly be familiar with the works. Also, Oxford had poems in print since 1572 (a particularly noteworthy observation, since far fewer people argue about Shakespeare's poetry… though if they're to at all be consistent, they ought to), and was praised as a playwright in publications from 1589 and 1598. Which does a fair amount of violence to the notion of a courtier using an alias to avoid being identified. Especially where the poetry is concerned. If that's not enough, in the second of these citations Oxford's name appears along with Shakespeare's… both of them being praised for their comedies. Sadly, as none of Oxford's plays have survived, direct comparison is not possible. He died in 1604.

For the full fruit-loops version, be aware it's been proposed by some of the same people that not only did Oxford publish the plays under an assumed name, but that there was also an actual "William Shakespeare," this being a pseudonym for someone else… Oxford's bastard son by Elizabeth I. Leaving aside that Elizabeth was born in 1533, Oxford in 1550, and Shakespeare some time around 1564 (his baptism; actual date of birth unknown)—which would have made Oxford a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old seducer of a thirty- or thirty-one-year-old who'd already been on the throne for five years and therefore unlikely to be able to conceal a pregnancy from the entire bloody world and all history. (Not even Freud could swallow that bit… amazingly, considering the material he's best remembered for.) But don't confuse them with details: their minds are made up.

If that isn't quite insane enough, some have suggested instead that Bacon was both the real Shakespeare and the bastard of Oxford and Elizabeth I. He was born in 1561. You do the math.

Less responsibly identified candidates include, among several dozen other possibilities, Miguel de Cervantes, Sir Thomas More, Thomas Wolsey, Mary Stuart (that is, Mary Queen of Scots), Elizabeth Tudor (that is, Queen Elizabeth I), James Stuart (that is, King James I), the Rosicrucians (an unavoidable inclusion in any conspiracy theory) and the Jesuits. I really wish I were making all that up; it would bode well for my chance of future bestseller status. Dates of death, where applicable, range from 1535 to 1674.

Perhaps the best of the worst is Sir John Bernard… the husband of Shakespeare's granddaughter: he was born in 1605. Talk about prodigies.…

So, yeah, I'm kind of on the academic bandwagon which, after decades of increasingly exacting analysis, has elected to maintain the status quo.

•

*The first sentence of my signature is a Bacon quote.

 

[Steerpike]

For those interested, I found the book to be enjoyable, even if I wasn't convinced of the author's premise:

Amazon.com: Shakespeare By Another Name: A Biography Of Edward De Vere, Earl Of Oxford, The Man Who Was Shakespeare (9781592401031): Mark Anderson: Books

You'll note from the Amazon "reviews" that this topic inflames passions in people on both sides.

 

[Shockley]

Could he have written them? Certainly. First off, his "background" in the various subjects he "couldn't have known about" was far stronger than my background on elves or warp drives; oddly enough, I've had no difficulty writing about either. Second, given the far more limited knowledge base of the era, it was easier to know a bit of everything… was indeed possible to "know everything," to the contemporary state of knowledge, something that is not possible today. Third, much of that knowledge would have been available simply from working in theatre itself, picked up from those already there—I've never seen it claimed that nobody could have written plays, which is prima facie only marginally more ludicrous than saying Shakespeare couldn't have—and the accumulated knowledge base might easily have exceeded what was taught in the universities of the day.

One of the things that always caught me on this argument is that Shakespeare is more wrong than he is right. His characterizations, titles, roles, etc. are, 99% of the time, completely inaccurate as to what we know of the people he depicts.

Take, for instance, his depiction of Richard III. Not only does he depict Richard III as a deformed cripple, he depicts him fleeing for his life at the end of Bosworth Field - the real Richard III was not crippled, had two perfectly good hands and his death was incredibly heroic: He charged the Tudor ranks, cut through Henry Tudor's bodyguard and was pursuing Henry himself when he was surrounded by his *own* men and stabbed to death. The age is even wrong - Richard III was far too young for half of the scenes he participates in (I(f you mix the time-frames, a nine year old Richard killed Henry VI and Edward of Westminster, seduced the latter's wife and then delivered one of the better orations in Shakespeare ('Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer...')).

So he didn't have a real breadth of knowledge - he just made things up for the benefit of story.

 

[Steerpike]

One of the things that always caught me on this argument is that Shakespeare is more wrong than he is right. His characterizations, titles, roles, etc. are, 99% of the time, completely inaccurate as to what we know of the people he depicts.

Take, for instance, his depiction of Richard III. Not only does he depict Richard III as a deformed cripple, he depicts him fleeing for his life at the end of Bosworth Field - the real Richard III was not crippled, had two perfectly good hands and his death was incredibly heroic: He charged the Tudor ranks, cut through Henry Tudor's bodyguard and was pursuing Henry himself when he was surrounded by his *own* men and stabbed to death.

Isn't he just playing to the Tudors due to Elizabeth's reign?

 

[Shockley]

Isn't he just playing to the Tudors due to Elizabeth's reign?

Indeed, though those problems occur in every single one of his plays.

 

[Ravana]

One of the things that always caught me on this argument is that Shakespeare is more wrong than he is right. His characterizations, titles, roles, etc. are, 99% of the time, completely inaccurate as to what we know of the people he depicts.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration.…

On the other hand, he once gave Bohemia a coastline.

Yes, he was playing to a Tudor audience. That he took this into account–in the biggest way–is yet another indicator of his lack of need to "hide" his authorship: if you're sucking up to the bosses, wouldn't you want them to know you were? In any event, he was definitely producing "dramatic presentations," even in his "histories": "poetic license" with a vengeance. Literally a vengeance, in the case of his depiction of the House of York.

Yes, too, he was often wrong even where he was demonstrating "specialized knowledge." One of the most commonly cited objections to his authorship is his portrayal of courts of law. How could he know what went on in the courts if he'd never been trained as a lawyer? Okaaay… here's a hint: anybody could sit in a courtroom and watch the proceedings: they were open to the public. (I've done this myself.) Here's another: he didn't have to know how courts operated; all he needed was to know someone who did know how courts operated–or who thought they knew. Here's the kicker: in many cases, his portrayal of how courts operated is less than completely accurate… which means that it's likely his "knowledge" came largely from unreliable secondhand sources–viz., other theatre people, other plays he was drawing upon–possibly supplemented by attending courts a few times to pick up some goodies.

This isn't Tudor English courtroom procedure: this is Judge Judy. x5 [SUP]cherry on top[/SUP]

In other words, his "specialized" knowledge–rather, lack thereof–is a better argument in favor of a dramatist with limited formal education than it is for just about any of the alternate candidates put forward… since nearly all of them ought to have known better. Yes, they could have exaggerated, condensed, conflated, excerpted, misrepresented, artistically interpreted, changed names to protect the innocent, or outright dumbed down their specialized knowledge in writing these… but no one claims this. The claim is always that the knowledge shows Shakespeare couldn't have written his works because he didn't know enough–which does not work if someone who did know enough would have had to deliberately introduce inaccuracies to account for all the things that are wrong in the plays.

 

[Shockley]

I don't think it's fair to say that Shakespeare had a 'limited' formal education, at least for the time. He attended school as a child and received rather vigorous lessons in Latin and the Latin classics, as can be understood by his cribbing of stories from Ovid. That's above average, substantially above average, for the time.

As to lawyers, that's an easy leap. Ben Jonson had attended Westminster School (the same institute that would produce John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and Edward Gibbon, so quality guaranteed), so it seems likely that he had received some schooling in the law. The third of their triad, Marlowe, had gone through Cambridge, so he might have also had some background with the law. Even if they didn't have that direct knowledge, it seems likely they would have known lawyers (especially since they were all members of the gentry).

That said, you're correct - his knowledge is off.

 

[Ravana]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no documentary evidence Shakespeare received any schooling–though that's hardly surprising, as there is very little documentary evidence of any given pupil attending English grammar schools, though a great many must have. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the only pieces of documentary evidence we have for his life before theatre are his baptism and wedding notifications.

He need hardly have attended school to have cribbed stories from Ovid: these might have come from any source he had contact with, and most were well-established within the theatre community long before he entered it. In other words, the same rationale used to motivate what knowledge (and/or misconceptions) he had about the legal profession can easily be applied to anything else he might have "learned." (Note too that legal education has long been separate from other coursework at colleges and universities: in England at the time, most legal education took place following leaving college. For comparison, Francis Bacon–who was a lawyer–went to college at age 12, was out by age 15, then received his legal training at Gray's Inn. Oddly enough, his "limited" education in other fields has not caused anyone to question his authorship of the multitude and variety of works his name is attached to.)

To take a contrary position, just for the sake of discussion: the few "authenticated" signatures we have from him vary widely in quality, and, while they could have all been written by the same hand and share certain similarities, they also have notable differences. These might have been the product of changes over his lifetime; they might equally have been the product of other hands doing the writing–and even if he did execute them all himself, they might have been the only things he ever wrote himself. The third page of his will, for instance, looks far more likely to have been written by a professional secretary, or even one of the witnesses–look in particular at the fourth witness signature–than by the man who signed the name "Shakespeare." Even his first name appears to have been executed by a different hand here.

Nor was coming from the gentry any reliable indicator of learning or even literacy: all surviving evidence indicates that both Shakespeare's parents and his children never learned so much as to sign their names.

That having been said: yes, I suspect he did attend the local free grammar school… at any rate can't think of any conceivable reason he wouldn't have in his circumstances. Even that says nothing of the quality of education he received there ("standardized curriculum" notwithstanding–and simply having rote-learned Latin is insufficient explanation for the majority of his work), what kind of student he was, or how long he remained. That he did not advance beyond grammar school is not even in dispute, as far as I'm aware. So whether or not you want to describe this as "limited" would depend on what you take "limited" to mean in this case. Saying his formal education wasn't limited "for his time" is at best a dubious qualification, as the claim normally advanced isn't that his education was better or worse than the average–all those common laborers who never had the opportunity to receive any formal education at all–only that it was not sufficient to explain why he was so extraordinarily far above average.

But, as we've both pointed out, he wasn't necessarily as "extraordinary" as he is seen in hindsight; nor was (or is) it impossible for some individuals to be "self-made." More probably, his level of formal education is simply irrelevant: no matter how much he had, he considerably exceeded it. Otherwise, there would have been thousands of him–all those others throughout history for whom we can establish receiving the best educations their times could offer.