Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Shakespeare Authorship Question


s0crates

  

5 members have voted

  1. 1. Who wrote Shakespeare?

    • The man from Stratford
      3
    • Somebody Else
      2
    • Don't know
      0


Recommended Posts

I've been doing some research about this, and I thought it might be a fun topic to discuss here. Before I chime in with my opinions, I've decided to post some information about the debate from both sides.

 

The orthodox view is that Shakespeare was the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-upon-Avon (here referred to as "Stratfordian"), the heretical view is that somebody else wrote the plays (here referred to as "Anti-Stratfordian"). I've included some videos, writings, and links characteristic of each side of the debate (beginning with the heterodox view).  

 

Please check the information out and share your opinion in the above poll.

 

 

Anti-Stratfordian

 

 

 

 

The Problematic Case for Stratford's Mr. Shakspere

 

Many people think that Mr. Shakspere (a frequent spelling of his name, used here to distinguish him from the author) claimed to have written the works. No such record exists. The case for him as the author rests largely on testimony in the First Folio collection of the plays, published in 1623, seven years after he died. However, nothing in the contemporaneous documentary evidence of his life confirms the Folio testimony. If Mr. Shakspere was the author, there should be definitive evidence of it from his lifetime. There is none. Not that there are no reasons to think that Mr. Shakspere wrote the works, but we find them inconclusive.
 
There are four main reasons to identify Mr. Shakspere of Stratford with the author William Shakespeare. First, the name “William Shakespeare” (often “Shake-speare”) appeared on the title pages of many of the poems and plays published during his lifetime. Second, Ben Jonson wrote a key phrase in the First Folio referring to the author as “Sweet Swan of Avon,” and Leonard Digges refers to “thy Stratford moniment.” Third, fellow actors Heminges and Condell, mentioned in his will, point to him as the author in the Folio. Fourth, the effigy and inscription on his Stratford monument suggest that “Shakspeare” had been a writer. These four reasons would seem to amount to a prima facie case for Mr. Shakspere (evidence sufficient to establish a presumption of fact, unless rebutted by other evidence); however, each of them is problematic.
 
1. It is not certain from the title pages that the name printed on them necessarily refers to Mr. Shakspere. Mr. Shakspere's last name was spelled numerous ways, even after many of the works had been published. The name on the works was virtually always spelled one way, “Shakespeare;” but it was often hyphenated — a rarity for English names at the time. Scholars have no definitive explanation for the hyphenated name. Mr. Shakspere's name was never hyphenated in other contexts, such as his business dealings in Stratford. On his baptismal record, even on his monument, Mr. Shakspere's name was spelled with no “e” after “k.” The same is true of its three appearances in his will, twice spelled “Shackspeare,” and once “Shakspeare.” Some think that it may have been pronounced with a short “a,” like “Shack,” as it was quite often spelled.
 
2. The First Folio testimony does point to Shakspere as the author, but should this be taken at face value? It is very unusual that the identity of such a great writer would depend so heavily on posthumous evidence. Neither Ben Jonson, nor Leonard Digges, ever wrote a personal reference to Mr. Shakspere while he lived. Not until the year Shakspere died did Jonson refer to “Shakespeare,” and then only to list him as an actor. Other than their two brief allusions, neither Jonson nor Digges offered any further identifying information — not his dates of birth and death, or names of any family members, or any revealing episode from his life. Short on individualizing facts, they gave us generalized superlatives that describe the author, not the man.
 
3. Perhaps the strongest link to Mr. Shakspere is the apparent testimony of actors Heminges and Condell. Neither of them was a writer, however, and several scholars doubt that they wrote the passages attributed to them. Some think their Folio testimony sounds like a sales pitch, urging undecided readers to purchase. Most orthodox scholars are untroubled by the lack of corroboration, limited specifics, ambiguities, puffery and unclear role of Mr. Shakspere's fellow actors. Skeptics ask why the Folio is not more straightforward, and why such a great outpouring of eulogies only occurred following seven years of silence after his death.
 
4. Yes, today the Stratford monument effigy clearly depicts a writer; but it does not look the same as the one erected in the early 1600s. A sketch by a reputable antiquarian in 1634 shows a man with a drooping moustache holding a wool or grain sack, but no pen, no paper, no writing surface as in today's monument. Records show that the monument was “repaired.” Apparently the effigy was also altered to depict a writer. The monument's strange inscription never states that Mr. Shakspere was the author William Shakespeare. For anybody living in Stratford, who may have known him, the epitaph could appear to say no such thing. It neither names, nor quotes from, any of the works; and it never mentions poetry, plays, acting or theater. Most orthodox biographers have little to say about the inscription, and some even describe it as enigmatic. Epitaphs of other writers of the time identify them clearly as writers, so why not Mr. Shakspere's epitaph?
 
Why We Say the Evidence Does Not Fit
 
If the case for Mr. Shakspere were otherwise sound, the problems in these four areas would hardly matter. Unfortunately, once one looks beyond them, one finds no contemporaneous evidence that Mr. Shakspere was even a professional writer, much less that he was the poet-playwright William Shakespeare. Further, much contemporaneous evidence that has come to light seems at odds with his having been Shakespeare. Of a few great writers, like Homer, we know nothing at all; but there is only one great writer about whom the more we learn, the less he appears to have been a writer. How can this be for England's Shakespeare?
 
Not one play, not one poem, not one letter in Mr. Shakspere's own hand has ever been found. He divided his time between London and Stratford, a situation conducive to correspondence. Early scholars naturally expected that at least some of his correspondence would have survived. Yet the only writings said to be in his own hand are six shaky, inconsistent signatures on legal documents, including three found on his will. If, in fact, these signatures are his, they reveal that Mr. Shakspere experienced difficulty signing his name. Some document experts doubt that even these signatures are his and suggest they were done by law clerks. One letter addressed to Mr. Shakspere survives. It requested a loan, and it was unopened and undelivered.
 
His detailed will, in which he famously left his wife “my second best bed with the furniture,” contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentions no books, plays, poems, or literary effects of any kind. Nor does it mention any musical instruments, despite extensive evidence of the author's musical expertise. He did leave token bequests to three fellow actors (an interlineation, indicating it was an afterthought), but nothing to any writers. The actors' names connect him to the theater, but nothing implies a writing career. Why no mention of Stratford's Richard Field, who printed the poems that first made Shakespeare famous? If Mr. Shakspere was widely known as William “Shakespeare,” why spell his name otherwise in his will? Dying men are usually very aware of, and concerned about, what they are famous for. Why not this man?
 
Mr. Shakspere grew up in an illiterate household in the remote agricultural town of Stratford-upon-Avon. There is no record that he traveled at all during his formative years, or that he ever left England. Both of his parents witnessed documents with a mark; but most surprisingly, neither of his daughters could write. One poorly-executed signature exists for his daughter, Susanna, but it only suggests a functional illiterate. His younger daughter, Judith, twice signed with a mark when witnessing a deed for a Stratford neighbor. Mr. Shakspere may have attended the Stratford grammar school, but records to confirm this do not exist. Records do survive for England's two universities at the time, but no record places him at either of them. Most orthodox scholars make no claim that he ever attended any university, inside or outside of England.
 
. . .
 

 

 

Continued at link:

 

https://doubtaboutwill.org/declaration

 

 

 

Stratfordian

 

 

 

Introduction

 
William Shakespeare was born in April, 1564, the oldest son of John Shakespeare. His father, a glover, trader, and landowner, married Mary Arden, the daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. John Shakespeare was ambitious, and he filled many municipal offices in Stratford including that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children without charge at the King's New School in Stratford. He rose by election to the position of Alderman in 1565; and in 1568 he was elected Bailiff (equivalent to mayor), and in that year he made an application to the Herald's office for a grant of arms. In his position as Bailiff he was responsible for licensing companies of actors who applied to play in the Guild Hall.
 
William Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November, 1582, and six months later their daughter, Susanna, was born. Two other children were born, the twins Hamnet and Judith, in February, 1585. Sometime after this he joined a troupe of players and made his way to London. As a member of London's leading theater company, the Lord Chamberlain's Company, he wrote plays and eventually became a sharer in the Globe theater. He was so successful that in 1596 he successfully renewed his father's application for a grant of arms, and the following year he bought and restored New Place, the second-largest house in Stratford. He also bought other real estate in Stratford and London. Shakespeare semi-retired from London life some time around 1610. He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
 
These, in bare outline, are the facts of Shakespeare's life. Antistratfordians claim that this William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays and poems that bear his name, but actually the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary playwrights. This evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually reinforcing. A strong, tight web of evidence shows that a real person named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him; that a real person named William Shakespeare was an actor in the company that produced the plays attributed to him; that the actor was the same William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon; that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was part-owner of the Globe Theater, where his acting company produced the plays attributed to him; and that those who knew the writer of the plays and poems knew that he was William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. It's true that no one single document states categorically that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear, but then no such document exists for any other playwright of the time either. The evidence is cumulative and interconnected, and taken as a whole it leaves no doubt that a single man was actor, author, and Stratford property owner. In this essay we summarize this evidence in order to illustrate the speciousness of antistratfordian claims that there is some "mystery" about the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

 

 
1. The name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems.
 
. . . 
 
2. William Shakespeare was an actor in the company that performed the plays of William Shakespeare.
 
. . . 
 
3. William Shakespeare the actor was William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
 
. . .
 
4. William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was also William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
 
. . .
 
5. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, the actor and Globe-sharer, was the playwright and poet William Shakespeare.

 

. . .

 

Conclusion
 
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the historical record tells us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
 
Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

 

 

 

More at link:

 

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's something I've researched to a limited degree, however my conclusion was always the same. I just have yet to see any good evidence that he was not the author

I think people have a problem with genius in general, especially in a place like England where the lower classes are looked at by the elite as beneath them. How could the lower classes possibly produce someone so gifted? There must be a reason

Also, the plays were truly meant to be read aloud and acted on stage, they were written down only because they had to be. Our society produces all kinds of linguistic geniuses from the lower classes... Look at popular music...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay time for me to weigh in.

 

There are a few points that make me question the Stratfordian view:

 

1. The Stratfordian Shakespeare was the child of illiterate parents and his children and grandchildren were either illiterate or barely literate. This from a man who had a vocabulary of 29,000 words?

 

2. The only samples of his handwriting that exist look like this:

 

200px-Shakespeare_sigs_collected.png

 

3. Not a single letter or manuscript of his is known to exist. Should we expect this from such a prolific writer?

 

4. Stratford is not mentioned in any of his works. Isn't it a little unusual for a writer not to reference his personal experience at all in his writing? (Imagine Mark Twain without riverboats, or Hemingway without hunters).

 

5. Shakespeare's epitaph reads: 

 

GOOD FREND FOR IESVS SAKE FORBEARE

TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED HEARE
BLESTe BE Ye MAN Yt SPARES THES STONES
AND CVRST BE HE Yt MOVES MY BONES

 

Is that trite little rhyme fitting such a witty and intelligent man?

 

6. Shakespeare demonstrated expertise in many disciplines (law, medicine, philosophy, natural science, Latin, etc.), yet there is no record of him receiving any formal education (or owning any books).

 

Now I don't know that any of this is conclusive, but it is certainly a little puzzling.  I think the Stratfordians shouldn't be so quick to scoff at the anti-Stratfordians.  There is some reason for doubt here.


It's something I've researched to a limited degree, however my conclusion was always the same. I just have yet to see any good evidence that he was not the author

I think people have a problem with genius in general, especially in a place like England where the lower classes are looked at by the elite as beneath them. How could the lower classes possibly produce someone so gifted? There must be a reason

Also, the plays were truly meant to be read aloud and acted on stage, they were written down only because they had to be. Our society produces all kinds of linguistic geniuses from the lower classes... Look at popular music...

 

I think the point about genius is a good one.  Perhaps you could compare Shakespeare to Mozart, whose brilliance is inexplicable.

 

I also think the point about elitism has merit, although I don't think you could level that charge against anti-Stratfordians like Mark Twain and Charles Dickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was a woman... somebody very tallented and passionate, but forced to take on a male persona in order to be recognized. That would make an interesting story.

I'm not ready to advance the case for another author (although I'm confident the case against the Stratford man is strong), but there are many candidates, and some of them are women.

I heard an account of a class on the authorship question where the professor divided his class into groups, assigning each of them one of the candidates (Bacon, Edward de Veer, Anne Whateley, Elizabeth, Raleigh, the Stratford man, multiple authors, etc.). Each group had to present the case for its candidate.

At the end of the class they took a vote, and the Stratford man finished 7th in the voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Th plays were spoken not written. Shakespeare should not be referred to or analyzed as a writer People call Chuck D and Flavor Flav songwriters but not what they do.

It is true that plays are a largely oral tradition. In fact actors in Shakespeare's time were often given their lines orally because they could not read them.

However I think it is silly not to think of Shakespeare as a writer for a few reasons:

1. He was also a poet (In addition to writing 38 plays he also wrote 154 sonnets and 2 long poems).

2. Many of his plays and sonnets were published posthumously, having never been performed.

3. He coined thousands of words and idioms, had a staggering vocabulary, and there is good evidence he knew multiple foreign languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...