Shakespear is Shakespear....

[headscratcher4]

Some musings on the subject....

I’ve been reading a book about the so-called “authorship” controversy surrounding Shakespeare. There seem to be a lot of intelligent people who, for a variety of reasons, would put aside Shakespeare of Stratford in favor of either Bacon or, more popularly today, Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford.

I’m no Shakespeare scholar, but the fact that many plays were apparently written after Oxford’s 1604 death doesn’t seem to stop the claims made on his behalf. Indeed, to get to Oxford, you seemingly have to posit not only plays written before his death and rolled out after his death, but also an immense conspiracy of silence and active mis-information.

Again, not being a scholar, I find myself quite offended by what I can only call an elitist view that only an “aristocrat” like Oxford could, ultimately, write genius plays. The son of a glover from Stratford, a commoner with only limited education, can’t have the experience of the world necessary to generate the depth of feeling, art, beauty, history, what-have-you needed to be a great playwright. Additionally, so often the foundation for dismissal of Shakespeare of Stratford as the playwright seems to rest on a disgust that what we do know of the personal life of Stratford Shakespeare is that he was very interested in making money and doing business, and that when he retired a reasonably wealthy man from his background, he apparently stopped writing and being “artistic” altogether.

In short, I’m lead back to elitist prejudice. Only someone who didn’t want to make money could write beautiful plays and sonnets, apparently.

But it seems to me that so much of this elitism of the Oxfordians, especially, fails to take into full account the real circumstances of Stratford Shakespeare and the world he lived in. The claim that he wouldn’t have known enough about state craft, geography, poetry, language, law, etc. that are all exhibited in the plays seems to assume, IMO, that an smart commoner on the make couldn’t absorb information or rise on his own merit.

Not only is this, it seems to me, belied by stories of men like Thomas Cromwell under Henry VIII, it also apparently forgets that the world that Shakespeare and Oxford lived in wasn’t really that big.

For example, London in the time of Shakespeare, was a city of about 200,000 people – the size of, say, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Stratford Shakespeare was a actor/player/theatrical troop shareholder who would have not only interfaced with members of the aristocracy frequently at court where he clearly performed often, but in the city and at their private residence, etc. Why/how wouldn’t a smart man on the make listen to the conversations he heard? How could he not absorb the currents of the day, the stories of overseas adventures and places and wars?

I am also reminded of Lincoln, in this country. Born in the backwoods, barely educated yet through force of his own, educated himself and raised himself to not only be a great political leader but a good writer and – inspite of his patriotic sense of public service – someone quite interested in making money. No one thinks that Lincoln wasn’t Lincoln even though his origins are somewhat sketchy and there are gaps in his life’s narrative. We honor Lincoln as an example of a self-made man. Why should Stratford Shakespeare not be accorded the same sort of benefit of the doubt?

Any way – are you an Oxfordian or a partisan of Shakespeare? Why?

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm of the opinion that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. There is no reason the son of an alderman and an affluent landowner's daughter, whose education in Latin and the classics was mandated by English law, could not have known the various facts and ideas which are recorded in the plays attributed to him.

There is only a small minority of scholars who argue the attribution of Shakespeare's plays to Shakespeare, and their grounds for doing so often seem illogical and spurious to my mind.

 

[Lucian]

I'm of the opinion that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. There is no reason the son of an alderman and an affluent landowner's daughter, whose education in Latin and the classics was mandated by English law, could not have known the various facts and ideas which are recorded in the plays attributed to him.

There is only a small minority of scholars who argue the attribution of Shakespeare's plays to Shakespeare, and their grounds for doing so often seem illogical and spurious to my mind.

Minor quibble: the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars accept that several plays are collaborations.

I've wittered on about the Shakespeare-Didn't-Write-Shakespeare business before, and I've been thinking about it recently. I've been considering why bad arguments can seem compelling, and I keep coming back to an episode of Frontline on the Shakespeare Mystery that I'd seen years ago. It was shockingly bad and biased towards the Oxford position, but I could see why certain points might seem convincing to some people--even educated people--who have read some Shakespeare, but don't really know that much about the time period or Early Modern English verse. Since most of these points were allowed to pass unquestioned in the episode, viewers might be left thinking they have greater validity than they do.

There is an awful lot of snobbery to the anti-Shakespeare arguments. A lot of "the author shows great expertise in X; Shakespeare couldn't have known that much about X." If you consider all the things "X" has been over the years, though, you can only conclude that the author must have been a super-intelligent alien.

Along with the snobbery, there are appeals to authority (lists of eminent people who have doubted Shakespeare's authorship) and arguments from ignorance (we don't have autograph copies of his plays; where are his books? there are no school records).

As for actual evidence in favor of a given candidate, the method seems to involve taking something out of context and making it fit some aspect of the candidate's biography. For instance, while Oxfordians (and Baconians and Marlovians) point out supposed puns and word play that they claim reveal the true author (Sonnet 76: "Every word doth almost tell my name"--E. Ver[e]) and have "Bible-Coded" Shakespeare's works, I haven't seen any explanation for the unambiguous puns on the name "Will" in several poems, esp. Sonnets 135 and 136, which ends, "And then thou lov'st me for my name is Will."

And, of course, there are poems attributed to Bacon and Oxford. Do they match Shakespeare's style? Stylistic discussions may seem subjective, but certain idiosyncrasies can be and have been quantified. For instance, Shakespeare used enjambment more than any other poet of his time; he preferred certain verb forms that were falling out of use (hath, doth, etc.); he often used the relative pronoun "who(m)" when referring to inanimate objects. I haven't really studied Bacon's and Oxford's works, but I suspect that they do not match. The Frontline episode includes one of Oxford's poems. It's in iambic hexameter and every single line contains alliteration. In one line 6 of the 7 major stresses alliterate. Not typical of Shakespeare.

Poetically, Marlowe is the most appealing candidate, but since he died in 1593, you would have to believe that he faked his death, and that just doesn't seem feasible.

 

[headscratcher4]

I am struck by the Oxfodian conclusion/notion that Stratford Shakespeare couldn't have learned of many of the things he wrote about just by hanging around the right people. Kings, Dukes, lords, etc. while powerful, were not distant people always protected behind walls and in castles. They went about in the world and in London, as did players like Shakespeare. They mingled. The population of London was not so great that the best actors and players were not mixing with the aritstocracy -- not too unlike today. Shakespeare didn't have to visit Verona to write Romeo and Juliet or Venice to write the Merchant of Venice. As a businessman -- and he was a businessman, not unlike much of today's entertainment establishment, in it for the living as much as the art -- he would have experienced court and worked with lawyers and advocates so he would have had access to lawyers and their jargon. I just don't get why some 3rd rate aristocrat (and Oxford was not a particularly interesting or brilliant person) should be more appealing than a hard-scrabble, work your way to wealth artist/writer/businessman.

 

[RobRoy]

Poetically, Marlowe is the most appealing candidate, but since he died in 1593, you would have to believe that he faked his death, and that just doesn't seem feasible.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't that be feasible?

 

[TraneWreck]

In the introduction to a Shakespeare anthology I read the most convincing argument that he was the fellow from Stratford. They catalogued the evidence, including a number of signatures and other writings I didn't know about. I don't remember the argument in its entirety, it's been a while, but I was convinced at the time. If I can find it (in some box somewhere from some move), I'll try to reproduce the fundamentals.

 

[Vortigern99]

I am struck by the Oxfordian conclusion/notion that Stratford Shakespeare couldn't have learned of many of the things he wrote about just by hanging around the right people. Kings, Dukes, lords, etc. while powerful, were not distant people always protected behind walls and in castles. They went about in the world and in London, as did players like Shakespeare. They mingled. The population of London was not so great that the best actors and players were not mixing with the aristocracy -- not too unlike today.

You're exaggerating beyond the bounds of what is supportable or rational. Kings and dukes did not "mingle" with the lower classes in Elizabethan England.

That said, I agree with your general proposition that Shakespeare, the son of an town alderman who was not without a certain wealth and prestige, could have derived his knowledge of the aristocracy either from close observation of them and/or from his compulsory Classical education.

 

[headscratcher4]

Indeed...I may have over stated "mingling"...but Stratford Shakespeare was just the sort of person who would have had access to those personages, similarly rising men like Thomas Cromwell, etc. My point wasn't that it was one vast open society, but rather that the circles weren't as closed as is sometimes asserted, there was a class of new men (merchants) on the rise. Artists/players were at court as well as in theaters, etc. That Shakespeare could be experienced of the aristocracy -- whether by education, having worked for them, performed for them, etc. -- is clearly within the realm of the possible.

Your point is a fair one, your average land-bound peasant wasn't going to get too close to Court...but one of the owners of the "Kings' Men" acting company probably could.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yes, I agree with those clarifications.

 

[Lucian]

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't that be feasible?

Well, there was a body and an inquest, so it would involve some sort of conspiracy. Now granted, there was a lot of conspiring going on in Elizabethan England, and Marlowe seems to have been involved in it in some way. He had reason to fake his death: he was in a big steaming pile of trouble when he died. I actually find it rather hard to believe that he could have stayed out of trouble for so long after his "death." Also, considering the trouble he was in, I imagine it would have been dangerous to participate in the hoax by, say, taking credit for a supposedly dead man's work.

Another problem with the Marlovian theory is that you have to explain away the plays Shakespeare wrote during Marlowe's lifetime. Marlowe was the better known playwright, but Shakespeare was known as well, a bit of a rising star. So, did Shakespeare stop writing after Marlowe's supposed death, or was Marlowe, for some reason, writing under two different names early in his career?

 

[NotJesus]

This is a useful [pro-Shakespeare-as-Shakespeare] site for anyone who would like to read up on the authorship issue.

 

[Lucian]

In the introduction to a Shakespeare anthology I read the most convincing argument that he was the fellow from Stratford. They catalogued the evidence, including a number of signatures and other writings I didn't know about. I don't remember the argument in its entirety, it's been a while, but I was convinced at the time. If I can find it (in some box somewhere from some move), I'll try to reproduce the fundamentals.

The "other writings" probably include portions of the play Sir Thomas More. The original play, by Anthony Munday, Henry Chettle and possibly someone else (Thomas Dekker?) was on a touchy subject, and the censor requested changes. The play may then have been abandoned when the plague closed the theatres. Some time later, the authors decided to revise it for performance. Several people contributed to the revision. Certain sections are attributed to Shakespeare by most scholars, and some portions (Hand D) are probably in his hand.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is a useful [pro-Shakespeare-as-Shakespeare] site for anyone who would like to read up on the authorship issue.

This is linked to from the site provided by Evil-Jesus.

http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html

It contains the evidence I remember reading. I find it quite convincing.

 

[RobRoy]

Well, there was a body and an inquest, so it would involve some sort of conspiracy.

How big would it have had to be in order for him to pull it off?

Now granted, there was a lot of conspiring going on in Elizabethan England, and Marlowe seems to have been involved in it in some way. He had reason to fake his death: he was in a big steaming pile of trouble when he died. I actually find it rather hard to believe that he could have stayed out of trouble for so long after his "death." Also, considering the trouble he was in, I imagine it would have been dangerous to participate in the hoax by, say, taking credit for a supposedly dead man's work.

There is that. I know some of Marlowe’s history so if he had, likely he would have found himself in a similar situation before too long.

Another problem with the Marlovian theory is that you have to explain away the plays Shakespeare wrote during Marlowe's lifetime. Marlowe was the better known playwright, but Shakespeare was known as well, a bit of a rising star. So, did Shakespeare stop writing after Marlowe's supposed death, or was Marlowe, for some reason, writing under two different names early in his career?

Oh, sorry. I wasn’t trying to make a case for Marlowe-as-Shakespeare. I was just curious about how hard it would have been for him to fake his own death. I found that aspect interesting.

 

[kookbreaker]

Again, not being a scholar, I find myself quite offended by what I can only call an elitist view that only an “aristocrat” like Oxford could, ultimately, write genius plays. The son of a glover from Stratford, a commoner with only limited education, can’t have the experience of the world necessary to generate the depth of feeling, art, beauty, history, what-have-you needed to be a great playwright. Additionally, so often the foundation for dismissal of Shakespeare of Stratford as the playwright seems to rest on a disgust that what we do know of the personal life of Stratford Shakespeare is that he was very interested in making money and doing business, and that when he retired a reasonably wealthy man from his background, he apparently stopped writing and being “artistic” altogether.

You can blame Lord Byron for all of this. After him the common perception of a poet was to be Noble, Charismatic, and tortured. William had not these properties so the Anti-Stratfordians started making their case for other, more noble authors. Their tactics in the late 19th century included Numerology, Cryptography, Elitism, and other worthless 'evidence'. The worst was Delia Bacon who got permission to open Shakespeares grave after claiming it contained absolute proof . She lost her nerve and died a madwoman.

 

[Lucian]

How big would it have had to be in order for him to pull it off?



There is that. I know some of Marlowe’s history so if he had, likely he would have found himself in a similar situation before too long.



Oh, sorry. I wasn’t trying to make a case for Marlowe-as-Shakespeare. I was just curious about how hard it would have been for him to fake his own death. I found that aspect interesting.

I honestly don't know how many people would have needed to be in on it. I haven't really looked into the details that much. The other day, though, I happened upon a Marlovian site (no memory of what it was now) that mentioned a man had recently been hanged for heresy/atheism (in the older sense), and the conspirators could have used that body. The problem is that hanging usually leaves signs, and I'm sure the inquest mentions a wound above the eye, so the people involved in the inquest would have had to have been in on it (or really dumb).

Oh, and I realize you weren't making an argument for Marlowe's authorship; it's just that his death is such a big stumbling block that people sometimes forget that that's not the only problem.

 

[Lucian]

You can blame Lord Byron for all of this. After him the common perception of a poet was to be Noble, Charismatic, and tortured. William had not these properties so the Anti-Stratfordians started making their case for other, more noble authors. Their tactics in the late 19th century included Numerology, Cryptography, Elitism, and other worthless 'evidence'. The worst was Delia Bacon who got permission to open Shakespeares grave after claiming it contained absolute proof . She lost her nerve and died a madwoman.

You know, people keep coming back to the idea that there's some evidence in Shakespeare's grave or behind his memorial in the same church. I've never understood that. If Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, why the hell would the manuscripts of the plays (or other evidence) be hidden in his monument?

 

[Moss]

Too many James Bond or Sherlock Holmes movies?
I found the Oxfordian theory interesting. But it is indeed a leap to suggest a patron of the arts (and as that de Vere is actually pretty important) acted as a playwright by proxy.
What I think is interesting is that Shakespear seems to have taken published material (especially Italian works) as source for his poetry and plays. Which at this point has become a lot more available and affordable due to the printing press. So I don't think there is much need to explain the author's knowledge exclusively via travels and such.
And then there is the fact that he didn't write in a vacuum. There were a lot of other plays written at the time and contemporaries such as Marlowe contributed to the pool of ideas and details available to a playwright. Do any of you know of a publication that compares the plot of Shakespear's works with plays by his contemporaries?
I could be wrong on this, but I think another possible source of knowledge and detail in the taverns of London could have been the mercenaries fighting on the continent and privateers that acted as a sort of in between between nobility and commoner. They certainly had the fighting, warring, whoring and voyaging experience.

 

[TheAnachronism]

Searching for Shakespeare edited by Tanya Cooper is really a great resource for information about Shakespeare's life, education, and Elizabethan society in general. I highly recommend it. What is interesting to me is that Shakespeare's education was quite a fine one--one rich in Latin classics and "good literature," despite the fact that many Shakespeare revisionists make him out to be an ill-educated nobody who hadn't even the slightest ability to make a reference to well-known classical literature.

 

[kookbreaker]

You know, people keep coming back to the idea that there's some evidence in Shakespeare's grave or behind his memorial in the same church. I've never understood that. If Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, why the hell would the manuscripts of the plays (or other evidence) be hidden in his monument?

It may pre-date his 'books', but I'd call this some kind of Dan Brown thing. Everyone thinks that every tomb holds a hidden secret, and every statue in Europe that is pointing has to be pointing at something important to the Illuminati, and so on.