Was Shakespeare really Shakespeare?

The Shakespeare controversy has once more been raised. I’m referring to the claims that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, England, did not write the plays attributed to him.

This a far less serious—even fun—conspiracy theory than many others today, such as claims that 9/11 was an inside job, or that a new world order is being organized by shadowy international figures, or that governments are hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitation to earth. For one thing, it probably doesn’t matter much to classical theatre-goers or students forced to study those Elizabethan plays who really wrote them.

But a look at this apparent controversy does demonstrate some of the
factors involved in all such conspiracy theories. (And it is a conspiracy theory, as many people must have conspired to hide the true identity
of the plays’ author, if the claims are true.)

The latest resurgence of interest in the authorship question comes about
because a prominent group of individuals, calling itself the Shakespeare
Authorship Coalition, has issued a “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare”. (Isn’t that a splendidly skeptical and fair-sounding title?). They are pressing for major research into what they call a “taboo subject” in academia.

Now, as you may know from my previous articles on skeptical issues, I think it is quite possible Shakespeare did not write the plays published
under his name—in the sense that almost anything is possible and I am
willing to consider alternatives. There is some small room for doubt.

But the evidence favouring anyone else as author is far slighter than that favouring the Stratfordian (that is, William Shakespeare himself). Laughably so.

But let’s be open-minded and consider the latest evidence of the anti-
Stratfordians. The coalition has a website, www.doubtaboutwill.com, where it presents its case and invites supporters to sign the declaration and, as I check it at the time of this writing, it has an impressive list of names attached.

But who are all these scholars pressing the case? Some of them do indicate their credentials. As I start reading the signatories from the top I find many are affiliated with universities, though most do not seem to be in positions associated with expertise on historical or literary matters. An investment analyst, a former professor of neurology, a librarian at Oxford, a professor of radiology, a retired ROTC commandante, and so on. Quite a few people also list their credentials as "skeptics" or authors of anti-Stratfordian books, or as heads of organizations supporting other contenders. My favourite is the self-described “8th Marquess of Exeter, 17th Earl of Exeter, 18th Baron Burghley”. There are on the list a few professors of literature, who might be considered experts. But they are swamped by people who seem, judging by their comments, to be enthusiasts.

But that’s okay. Everyone has the right to an opinion and we can’t judge a proposition entirely by those who sign on to support it. When we look at the list of “notable signatories” and the group’s board of directors, we fare a little better. Famed classical actor Derek Jacobi is most noteworthy. Also prominent is Mark Rylance, former artistic director of Shakespeare’s
Globe Theatre. And I count one professor of history and four professors of
English or comparative literature, among a much greater number of academics with standing in library science, public health, education, medicine, theatre, law and psychology.

I’m struck by the parallel to paranormal and alt-med causes in which academics with expertise in one field are trotted out to support claims in areas in which they have little, if any, qualifications.

It also seems that every conspiracy theory is able to come up with a list
of prominent names to support its cause, whether or not those individuals have any inside information. The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition also lists some “past doubters”, including Orson Welles, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, William James, Charlie Chaplin and Sigmund Freud. Again I am struck by the fact that few, if any, of these did any major research into the issue apart from reading a book or two by anti-Stratfordians. Even as listed on the site, some make poor supporters, indicating in their own words that they just wonder about the issue.

But let’s not be petty. With the list of current names, such as it is, the
Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, has got our attention. We’ll bear in mind that the great majority of respected figures who are knowledgeable in the field discount those claims, but we’ll move on to consider their arguments and evidence. It is not inconceivable that the majority of experts could be wrong.

I apologize that much of what I’ll say next I’ve already said in previous
articles on the subject. But, as with paranormal issues, the claims keep
getting made despite previous debunkings, requiring the answers to be
repeated—eternally it seems.

The coalition wants to have the “taboo” issue of Shakespearean authorship opened to study, not seeming to realize that‚ far from being taboo, the topic has been studied to death for a century now. They raise the same points that have already been raised and answered:

• To wit, they claim there is no evidence Shakespeare of Stratford was literate or received an education that would have allowed him to become a writer of some sophistication. At another point, they claim Shakespeare could hardly write his own name.

But, on the contrary, it has been well established that Shakespeare received the same grammar school education as other young Stratfordites, including exposure to what were considered classics of history and literature at the time.

• The coalition answers that this education could not have given him the "extensive knowledge of law, philosophy, classical literature, ancient and modern history, mathematics, astronomy, art, music, medicine, horticulture, heraldry, military and naval terminology and tactics...." and more that is shown in his works.

The first answer to this is that writers, especially those of genius, are typically very quick studies, able to pick up terminology and odds bits of knowledge to present the impression of familiarity with other fields in their works. Take even the average potboiling best-seller on the market today: do you think the author was formally trained in medicine, espionage techniques, Alpine mountaineering, weaponry, international business, etc.

The second answer is that the textbooks of the school in Stratford where Shakespeare is thought to have attended did indeed teach the classical stories (a lot of Ovid, for example) that were later used in Shakespeare’s poems and plays.

The third answer is that in most fields Shakespeare doesn’t really show such amazing knowledge in his work. In my own philosophy studies I’ve never cited a philosophical argument found in Shakespeare’s works, nor do I expect military commanders to study his plays for insights into battlefield strategy. He really does not show expert insight in these fields. Rather he shows a smattering of knowledge that any generalist may acquire—and a keen ability to pick out intriguing tidbits, as befits a popular writer.

• How could such a commoner have shown intimate familiarity with royal court life in his plays? Or with foreign countries like Italy? The coalition’s declaration asks, "How did he become so familiar with all things Italian that even obscure details in these plays are accurate?"

But he didn’t show such intimate familiarity with these matters. And he wasn’t so accurate. Is there really such deep insight into how the court of Henry IV operated in the two plays covering that reign? Rather there’s deep insight into family relationships and into how people deal with responsibility and guilt, all of which are placed in the popular court setting. But I don’t see any privileged information about the royal family. Historians seem to agree that his writing did not accurately portray court life or history.

In fact, he shows in those plays a greater familiarity with lower-class life. Witness his lively treatment of the criminal activity and drunken carousing of the rascally Falstaff and the errant Hal and their wenches in the pubs—something that is difficult to see pulled off by the aristocrats like the Earls of Oxford and Derby, who are put forward as contenders to have written the plays.

As for Italy, Shakespeare made mistakes about that country in his plays that could be evidence that he didn’t know it firsthand—such as when he placed the landlocked city of Milan near the sea! In any case, this was the period of the Italian-centred Renaissance, during which information about that country and its culture was widely available and lapped up in England. There is no information in the Shakespearean canon that was not commonly available in London, England.

• Shakespeare’s will "contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentions no books, plays, poems, or literary effects of any kind."

Why would it? Legal documents are hardly the place for poetic imagery. The theatre company had the rights to his plays, so he couldn’t have left them to anyone.

Then there's my favourite argument from the declaration:

• Shakespeare's six known signatures are “shaky, inconsistent” and reveal he “experienced difficulty signing his name”.

This is my favourite because my own signature is also terribly written, inconcistent and seldom appearing the same twice. So is this evidence that I’m not really me? Or just that I’m bad at handwriting, especially when it comes to something hastily scrawled.

The coalition makes many more charges, all of which are easily answered
in my opinion without having to discard Stratfordian authorship. The group is clever though not to put forward an alternative, although many of its individual supporters do present their own contenders for the bard’s title.

And here’s the biggest failing of the anti-Stratfordians: none of the alternatives stand up to scrutiny. In the first place, there is zero positive
evidence for their authorships. Not a single play carries any of their
names as playwright. No critical comments of the time connect their names with the works. No other writers refer to them in that way. No memoirs exist to confess the hoax. No disputed plays exist in their handwriting (which is held against Shakespeare but seems not to be important when assessing the alternatives).

On the other hand, on William Shakespeare’s side, we know of at least twenty-three times that William Shakespeare’s name appeared in documents as a writer or playwright during his lifetime. His work was several times attacked, parodied and discussed with his name being referred to as author. His name appeared as author on fourteen of the fifteen plays published during his lifetime, as well as appearing seven years after his death on a collection of thirty-six plays published by his colleagues (the famous First Folio, whose official name was Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories and Tragedies).

The first Folio also offers a prefacing poem “To the Reader” by England’s
poet laureate Ben Jonson commending the works to readers, referring to Shakespeare by name. Three other writers also presented eulogies to Shakespeare. In the 20 years after his death Shakespeare was remembered in print by at least 12 poets and playwrights.

So, during his lifetime and for many years afterwards, Shakespeare was
widely recognized as author of the works while not a breath of suspicion
fell upon any other candidate.

Also you might notice that, although thousands of websites deny the Stratfordian position, they offer a bewildering variety of alternative theories. Nearly 100 putative authors of the Shakespearean canon are put forward: Edward de Vere (the Earl of Oxford), scientist Francis Bacon, William Stanley (Earl of Derby), writer Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, and even Queen Elizabeth I, among them.

The coalition as a whole stays out of the debate among these contenders, but you have to wonder how much credibility can we give any one alternative theory when a dozen others seem to fit just as easily?

Which is, actually, not very easily. The facts often have to be twisted
quite a bit to fit some of the contenders. Sometimes we are asked to make additional speculative leaps to make them match.

For example, the case for Christopher Marlowe is hurt by the troublesome fact that he was killed in 1593, just as Shakespeare’s career was taking off. No problem for diehard Marlovians though: they just postulate that Marlowe faked his death in 1593 and went to Italy where he continued to write.

The leading contender these days, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford,
is known to have died in 1604, despite Shakespeare’s plays being dated up to at least 1611. For Oxfordians, the response to this difficulty is to presume that all the literary researchers are wrong about the dating and that the Shakespearean canon ended in 1604.

Does this methodology sound familiar to ghostbusting, ESP-busting, UFO-busting skeptics? We’ve found so many times that when people believe strongly in something that is not supported by the simplest facts, they will create more complicated scenarios to accommodate their beliefs. This is natural. Long-held beliefs are difficult to give up.

A funny thing sometimes also happens when people fight for their seemingly discredited beliefs against all comers. As they create more complicated rationalizations, they come to believe more strongly.

We may ask how it could be that during Shakespeare’s lifetime and for years afterwards, not a single person seems to have revealed a scrap of information about this incredible hoax. Think of how many people must have been involved, either actively as observers: Shakespeare of Stratford, his family, his friends, his fellow actors, his colleagues, plus the real author’s family, his fellow writers, his patrons, his publishers....

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people must have at least known about it and yet not a single one squealed, even a tiny bit — not even after the man’s death. Which just goes to show what a really brilliant and all-encompassing conspiracy it must have been. One that is perpetuated to this day by close-minded academics, the conspiracists might think.

Sure, the academic majority could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first
time. It is possible the Shakespearean plays were not written by the man
from Stratford. But to judge by the evidence available, the Stratfordian hypothesis is by far the more likely one.

Or, to stretch out the usual joke: Shakespeare’s plays were written by someone with the same name, from the same town and with the same
genius.

Win free books in Editor Eric's Great Literature Contest

© Copyright 2007–2011 Eric McMillan. All rights reserved.