Tags
Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, J. Thomas Looney, James Shapiro, Mark Twain, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Shakespeare authorship controversy, William Shakespeare
“First, my fear; then, my curtsy; last my speech. My fear is your displeasure. My curtsy, my duty. And my speech, to beg your pardons.” …but who wrote these lines? Ay, there’s the rub!
Title: Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, by James Shapiro
Completed: February 29, 2012 (#15)
Recommendation: Thorough and definitive: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
Those skeptical of the “Man from Stratford” come in two varieties (and I do not mean “Baconians” and “Oxfordians”):
The first variety is smaller and comprises various offended geniuses who cannot support the notion that the son of a Stratford glover who, gasp, dabbled in a little grain speculation on the side and, gasp, even sued defaulting debtors on occasion could possibly merit mention alongside Homer as Western civilization’s greatest bard. Into this category fall the likes of Mark Twain (to an absurd degree that demeans his own literary achievements), Henry James (to a milder and more circumspect degree), and Freud (to an all-consuming degree, as one might expect), as well as some lesser lights, such as Helen Keller.
The other variety–let us refer to them as the garden variety–is composed primarily of what one might euphemistically term “conspiracists.” A more apt description is “crackpots.” By way of example: Delia Bacon (1811-1859)–founder of the Baconian school, non-relation of Francis Bacon, and author of the modestly entitled The Advancement of Learning to Its True Sphere as Propounded by Francis Bacon and Other Writers of the Globe School, Including the Part of Sir Walter Raleigh–was well and truly unhinged, insane in the clinical sense.
Simply stated, her thesis ran as follows:
- Francis Bacon was quite a man of letters, a genius really.
- His Instauratio magna was a work of genius, the very sort of thing that one imagines a genius would produce.
- It’s unlikely that two geniuses occupied this earth at precisely the same historical time and place.
- The author of the Instauratio magna must therefore have been the same person as the author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
- Q.E.D.: As the night followeth the day, the missing fourth part of the Instauratio magna is the Collected Works of You-Know-Who.
- To wit: Bacon is Shakespeare.
Let us not forget the acrostic ciphers encoded into the plays that establish this ironclad thesis beyond a shadow of a doubt. (For those who desire a more nuanced and less dismissive summary than the above, please conduct your search off A Superfluous Man‘s premises in one of the darker corners of the Internet’s febrile imagination. Or better yet, consult Mr. Shapiro’s book, which is more charitable and measured in its criticism than this reviewer has been.)
Exeunt Baconians.
There matters (convincingly?) lay until one J. Thomas Looney (1870-1944), mirabile dictu, appeared on the scene with his Oxfordian theory, namely that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the plays. This is the currently reigning theory among Shakespeare skeptics and is by far the best represented on conspiracist websites.
But wouldn’t it require a rather widespread conspiracy of the Elizabethan court, press, theater scene, and readership to have maintained Oxford’s anonymity for so long, you ask? Deeper down the rabbit hole we go:
Despite objections, the Prince Tudor theory [i.e., that Oxford was Queen Elizabeth's lover] gained adherents, especially in America. It was perhaps inevitable that the theory gave way to an even bolder one, known in Oxfordian circles as Prince Tudor, Part II. According to its proponents, Oxford was not only Elizabeth’s lover but her son as well. The man who impregnated the fourteen-year-old future queen was probably her own stepfather, Thomas Seymour. So it was incest, and incest upon incest when Oxford later slept with his royal mother and conceived Southampton. There is more: Southampton was only the last of the virgin queen’s children; by then she had already given birth to the Earl of Essex as well as Mary Sidney and Robert Cecil.
The Reader’s guess is as good as A Superfluous Man‘s as to how this theory is germane to the authorship controversy, but it figures quite prominently in the recent Hollywood movie, Anonymous.
Both the Baconian and Oxfordian theories share a common thread: It is simply inconceivable to adherents of these schools that a man such as Shakespeare–lacking the means, education, and courtly experience of Tudor and Stuart era aristocrats–could have conjured up the language and setting of the plays. Surely no one of such a prosaic biography could have written such poetry! And so the skeptics go in search of someone with a more fitting biography.
Twain was a proponent of this view. As any schoolchild knows, his Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is celebrated for its drawn-from-life, minutely accurate portrayals of American dialects as Huck travels down the Mississippi. Twain, as Shapiro documents, was wedded to the idea that one can only write convincingly that which one knows from direct experience, and Twain knew the South. To Twain, Shakespeare’s command of legal terminology is the coup de grâce to the Man from Stratford’s candidacy:
‘Shakespeare couldn’t have written Shakespeare’s works, for the reason that the man who wrote them was limitlessly familiar with the laws and the law courts.’ Ealer replied that Shakespeare could have learned about the law from books, at which point Twain ‘got him to read again the passage from Shakespeare with the interlardings.’ Ealer was forced to concede that ‘books couldn’t teach a student a bewildering multitude of pilot-phrases so thoroughly and perfectly that he could talk them off in book and play or conversation and make no mistake that a pilot would not immediately discover.’ Twain thought his argument irrefutable: ‘a man can’t handle glibly and easily and comfortably and successfully the argot of a trade at which he had not personally served.’
Extrapolating from this argument, the author of the plays must not only have been familiar with the law, but also with other aristocratic pursuits and tastes of the time. Shakespeare names hundreds of plants and flowers in his work? He must have had deep knowledge of botany. Shakespeare mentions falconry? Well, he must have run in hunting circles.
It scarcely need be mentioned that due to his familiarity with the mores of Moors, Romans, Egyptians, Italians, Jews, Frenchmen, fairies, witches, ghosts, sorcerers, and whatever Puck is, Shakespeare must have been all of these, plus a King, too, and Caesar! Both rich and poor, he understood the minds of women as only a woman could do. Enter Sigmund Freud, to add a layer of biographical prurience as only he could do: Just like Hamlet, “Shakespeare” must have had the hots for his mother (or was it that he hated his father)?
Mr. Shapiro is unassailably correct in his conclusion regarding all this biographical speculation:
[M]ost disheartening about the claim that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the life experience to have written the plays is that it diminishes the very thing that makes him so exceptional: his imagination.
Quite so.
Who are Twain, James, Freud, Keller, Malcom X, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles–let alone Delia Bacon or Mr. Looney–to set bounds on what the greatest genius of the English language could or could not have imagined, whoever he may have been?
After surveying the arguments of Shakespeare skeptics, Mr. Shapiro concludes his book with a devastating dismantlement of the anti-Stratford factions. A Superfluous Man will not steal Mr. Shapiro’s thunder, as this is a book that will put paid to any doubts the Reader may have had as to the plays’ authorship.
And indeed, even if one feels compelled to reject William Shakespeare’s claim to glory, can we not find a more creditable candidate to unseat the Impostor of Stratford than Edward de Vere?
This Earl of Oxford, making of his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a fart, at which he was so abashed and ashamed that he went to travel seven years. On his return the Queen welcomed him home, and said, ‘My lord, I had forgot the fart.’
Your review of the book was completely general, no fact whatsoever pertaining to the question, plus a bunch of ad hominem sneers to convince even a saint you know nothing and have no reasoning process. The persistent interest in the authorship of the Shakespeare canon has nothing to do with snobbish deprecations about a small-town burgher. It has to do with a body of work that entirely reflects the manner, philosophy, education, travels, temperament, recreations, and religious beliefs of an Elizabethan aristocrat, who was intimately familiar and did not hesitate to lampoon the most powerful people in England, including the Queen and her First Secretary. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the posthumous attribution of the works to someone who could not write was a planned ruse to remove the embarrassment of a high noble (also a poetic and dramatic genius) telling all on his class. But you flash Shapiro’s idiotic shields of CONSPIRACY! and IMAGINATION! It is not conspiracy hunting after all the elements are evident, it is an investigation from that point. Imagination means nothing if not anchored to human experience and feeling. No writer reveals everything but no writer conceals everything either, and presents authentic art. Back in your cage with Shapiro and prepare to bark more as time brings forth more good scholarship on the question. Or surprise me and read something. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy (Richard P. Roe) would be a good simple start. He proved whoever wrote the works knew Italy as only a resident could. Stick that in your theory. Crackpot.
Dear Sir:
Thank you very much for your spirited comment. I will certainly keep your recommendation of Mr. Roe’s book in mind, although for the moment, Prof. Shapiro has satisfied my curiosity on the question.
Sincerely yours,
A Superfluous Man
Perhaps in a another moment you might discover Prof. Shapiro is the Rush Limbaugh of the authorship question. Shapiro offers ad hominem attacks and dismissive slurs but nothing to actually build a case for Shakesper, his man. And unfortunately playing every dirty trick dismissively, he states that everyone else is obsessive, crazy and unbalance… ergo shakesper must be Shakespeare. A bit like “if the glove don’t fit, you must aquit”. Oh well.. you did call yourself “superfulous”.
Madam:
Thank you very much for your comment. I am astounded at the reception this post on Shakespeare has received–the authorship question clearly touches a nerve in the Internet community.
Happy to consider recommendations, if you have any books or articles to recommend on the subject.
Sincerely yours,
A Superfluous Man
You didn’t get the memo? JFK and Bigfoot are old hat. Even “9-11 was an inside job” and Obama’s birth certificate have become passe.
Next time, try reviewing a book about why returning to the gold standard is a horrible idea, or how Bid Laden was definitely killed. These are the cutting edge conspiracy theories guaranteed to draw internet crazies out of the digital woodwork.
But I’m being hyperbolic – cheryl seems perfectly reasonable, and the Shakespeare question is legitimate. To prove I’m not immune, the annotations in de Vere’s bible have always been the most compelling evidence for me.
Good luck navigating the waters of anonymous online commenting,
CC
Before you fob off any candidate for the authorship you should put aside the offense you have taken to heart at the idea of a man with limited means and access could have written the works.
You should define what the Bard’s works were. Can his canon be defined by the contents of the First Folio? This is problematic in light of the various authors acknowledged as having written the poems included in the Passionate Pilgram. To consider the authorship of the plays, is to contend with the mainstream theorists postulations of varios collaborative.
By being so off-hand with your dismissal of Francis Bacon you have missed an important consideration that can be equally applied to Edward de Vere and William Stanley. There is contemporary evidence, to their time, that they wrote great plays in the case of de Vere and Stanley and Francis Bacon’s pitch letters for his proposed history of England have survived. Where are these great plays and what happened to Francis Bacon’s history of
England?
The primary evidence linking any author to the entire Shake-spear canon has not come to light. To ascribe the works to Shakspere is to ignore the implications of Halliwell-Phillips “New Lamps for Old” articles where he demonstrates the meticulous desire the author demonstrated inthe spelling of his name, “SHAKE-SPEARE” on each of several publications of his works during his lifetime. It seems the author(s) was/were consciously distancing the works from the Stratford Shakspere’s, Shakspeer’s, Shakspear’s and Shaxpere’s.
A Bee,
If I understand you correctly, you find the pseudonymous-appearing appellation Shake-speare reason to doubt that the Stratford figure wrote plays at all, and also you find it compelling that de Vere and Derby wrote great plays that have gone missing. There is also uncertainty that the First Folio adequately identifies Stratford Shakspere as the author. In general I support your doubts. Shapiro, the author of the book under review, pooh-poohs any doubts and confidently supports claims on Shakspere’s behalf, for which there is no evidence.
One must cut through the thicket of assumptions with the question, what are the facts? Oxfordians seem more willing to do this, since they have nothing to lose in the bargain, which is far from the case with supporters of the Stratfordian dead-end. If your candidate could not write, came from illiterate parents, raised illiterate daughters, and failed to support the skill of literacy for his grand-child, the initial evidence indicates there is a gross mistake in citing him as the greatest writer in English literature.
As for the Bacon argument towards being the mysterious author, his style, interests, and occupations did not seem to be literary or poetical, but rather governmental and legal, if not philosophical. I would submit that the First Folio was an intentionally ambiguous document to indirectly suggest Stratford Shakspere while saying nothing direct, which would seem to be the easiest course. Moreover, there are numerous covert indications to the contrary. The Sweet Swan of Avon for instance takes up the totem animal of the Pembrokes, whose estate was near the Avon, extols the swans on the Thames, and does not indicate swans at Stratford-upon-Avon. This leads me, after some study, to believe that the First Folio was a ruse, engineered by Lord Chamberlain of Revels William Herbert, using only his employees or allies in the writing. Herbert was Lord Oxford’s in-law; his brother married Oxford’s daughter Susan.
The crux of my meaning is that the question should be approached with an open mind. When the necessary primary evidence does surface to ascribe the works to the correct author the by-product of the search, the politics engulfing each endeavour, will show itself an interesting mirror of humanity.
It appears to most Oxfordians that this “necessary primary evidence” is already in sight [the First Folio an artifice, the Shakespeare Monument a fraud, the actor reference in the Stratford will an inter-lineation]. “The politics enfulfing each endeavour” has already shown “itself an interesting mirror of humanity.” That is, absolute denial of evidence contrary to the status quo. Which gives one every suspicion the Stratford narrative has become a customary Truth, a belief such as that the sun rises in the East, and not that the earth rotates toward the ever-present sun. Thus modern Shakespeare scholarship does not easily bow to investigation and analysis. It likes its story well enough.
Dear Sir,
Unlike the editorial diatribe, your answers are moderate and gracious. There is hope this can come to a good end. I would recommend from simplest to most scholarly:
1) Four Essays on the Shakespeare Authorship Question by Mike A’Dair, 110 pp, terse but faces all issues and has recommendations for further study; 2) Roe’s The Shakespeare Guide to Italy. 309 pp. A beautiful book with thorough scholarship by a remarkable and heroic man; 3) Shakespeare By Another Name by Mark K. Anderson. An exhaustive study of the life and times in easy to read style, 419 pp and 150 pages of footnotes and reading suggestions; I Come to Bury Shaksper by Steven McClarran. 508 pp. The only complete bibliographic study of the prevailing theory, with full rebuttal including sources; Shakespeare Suppressed by Katherine Chiljan, 448 pp. The best Oxfordian book of this generation, with pivotal new research, aimed at the academic establishment, simply written. My website’s Shakespeare Papers section has Elizabethan music to go with prose on the topic for the beginner, e.g., short essays written from 2006 to the present.
The subject is well worth some time. That the works of the core literary mind of the modern age were falsely attributed as a hoax to make smooth sailing for the Jacobean reign is outrageous and wrong in every way. Worse yet that it has been carried on, generation upon generation, to become a sacred paradigm.
William Ray
wjray.net
Pingback: A plague on both your houses (and ours, too) « A Superfluous Man
It’s easy to disprove if Shakespeare was the secret identity of Francis Bacon — all you need to do is find out if anyone ever saw the two of them in a room together.
What, no reference to the Christopher Marlowe theory? That’s by far my favorite: the talented spy faking his own death to pursue his true passion. The timing lines up well, too, and explains the curious absence of early Shakespeare works. It also nicely fits how Marlowe’s works were getting better and better and then, bam, right after Marlowe “dies” Shakespeare appears on the scene writing at just the level Marlowe had finally achieved. It also explains why Shakespeare didn’t leave behind much of a legacy of educated children or collaborators or students or the like: he was a man living in hiding, and could only take the “Shakespeare” identity so far.
I really don’t care if there’s an academic consensus for it, nor if a careful analysis would tip me towards another theory. There’s no compelling proof it’s false and I prefer it as a story.
Minor trivia note: Justice Stevens is an Oxfordian, Justices Kennedy and Breyer think Will was Will, and the rest of the Supremes have remained mum on the topic.
Marlowe was subversive — wrote of ambitious outliers — my theory is Kit leaked state secrets on stage — still traces in Faustus — my theory also supposes the Oxford wrote the epilogue of Faustus for Marlowe (try replacing the names for the hypothetical ‘original’) as Marlowe’s epitaph … Marlowe may have been on to deVere (as Elizabeth’s bastard) and was teasing the establishment a la second city or that was the week that was — from the stage, until some info looked perilous —
Marlowe center of gravity and understanding of character differs so much from that of the Bard, no way could Kit have written the first folio
I’m just waiting for someone to claim that the moon landings are fake. That theory has about as much validity.
Dear Sir,
As an off-the-cuff remark, very understandable. As a defensible position on the facts, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Since childhood we have been told a literary “genius” came out of nowhere, no background, total mystery, boom, the Shakespeare canon, then, oh I’m tired, back to Stratford at the height of his career to return to suing for coins. It is all a sham, and sufficient facts and investigation are tracing out the truth.
Thanks to the blogger for allowing these exchanges on an important topic in European literature and history. Just as the Stratford Shakespeare construct was/is a myth, so was/is the mythology of the Virgin Queen. The real genius and the real Elizabeth knew each other intimately, and constitutes much of the reason for diverting history into fable. It is a legitimate historical question to study, not a kooky joke.
William Ray
Well that is the standard hateful answer to this authorship issue. Just humiliate the posters and they’ll be embarrassed and go away. Nice for those bullies who think this sort of thing is just their style of fun. But in the final analysis there is actually very little factual information to support the case for the man from Stratford as the author of the works of Shakespeare. Sure it’s been promoted as such for ages. But that doesn’t mean it’s true. It just mean’s that sheep are easier to lead then foxes.
Oh please. The initial post–as well as the book it reviews–does a fine job of undermining what can best be described as the educated man’s conspiracy theory. But the underlying basis for the conspiracy is precisely the same as those who claim the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s simply not possible that we possessed the technology to travel to the moon in 1969. No way a group of foreign terrorists could pull off such a complex operation as 9/11 under the nose of American intelligence. And it is impossible that this unknown man from an unimportant backwater created the greatest works in the English language. Well, in reality, not only are all of them possible, but all of them in fact happened.
But this whole debate misses a more important point. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who wrote Shakespeare anymore than it matters who wrote Homer. The works speak for themselves. Stop wasting your time and energy.
Excuse me? My time is… well, just that… mine to serve as I please. What monarchy or diety do you believe you represent when you tell me what to do with my time? If I was bored, I’d take offense of this mindless drivel. But alas… I do have a life, and it’s worth more than arguing with someone who has no clue what logical fallacy is about! And on that note… tah tah!
Actually, your particular logical fallacy is a species of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Glad to clear that up for you.
Then I shouldn’t need to tell you, I mean apparently you want us to know that you know it all, baby! So surely you know where your argument fell into the category of fallacy, right? Thanks for clearing that up for us!
good to know we won’t see that silly argument brought up again on this group! Generally we don’t come across people who are so willing to be so honest and vulnerable about themselves in public. Good show old boy, good show!
Mr. Brett J. Talley,
Arguing down a factual question by use of analogy is the poorest method to establish fact. Zero facts achieved. The author of Contested Will, James Shapiro, uses that method in spades, because the facts contradict his position. And your rejoinder, “It doesn’t matter who wrote Shakespeare anymore than it matters who wrote Homer,” is faulty. Does it matter that the heretofore supreme literary figure in European culture, Shakspere of Stratford, is a lie–and that the true author was successfully eradicated from that culture’s history? Does it matter that Elizabethan official history is peddled as Gloriana, when the completely accessible facts are otherwise? You can teach your children that way, but not me. I think it does matter for us to seek the truth and unmask falsehood. The way out of your denial is knowledge. A representative list of books was included above. But stay cool, blind, and stupid if that is your shoe-size.
William Ray
wjray.net
No you miss the point. I’m not arguing from analogy (which is a very effective method of argumentation, mind you). That Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is an historical fact. No, through my analogy I am placing Shakespeare deniers in the same camp as other deniers. That you manifest the same neuroses is undeniable. Your initial “comment” on the original post is little more than an ad hominem screed. Your “argument” consists mainly of “I can’t imagine how x could be true, thus it is not true. Q.E.D.” You then decry anyone who disagrees with you as mentally incompetent. I await only the use of the term “sheeple” to complete the ensemble.
Now, I don’t know if you regularly read this blog or if you simple troll the internet, ready to strike whenever anyone questions your worldview (also a hallmark of deniers). But what I find distasteful (and the reason for this series of posts) is your attitude and general demeanor. You certainly are not stupid (deniers rarely are). You’re just arrogant.
Oh.. and there was such hope! And here we are “begging the question” again. How sad. Oh well… this too shall pass.
Dear Sir,
The cauldron should not call the kettle black. Analogy means nothing in a court of law or a study of fact. If it has any effect in argumentation, it is only sophistically persuasive, not an advance in knowledge. Tend to your neurosis, if that is an issue, and I to mine. The external truth is separate and available. I adverted to it with the following statement, which to this point you cannot countermand:
“[The Shakespeare authorship issue] has to do with a body of work that entirely reflects the manner, philosophy, education, travels, temperament, recreations, and religious beliefs of an Elizabethan aristocrat, who was intimately familiar and did not hesitate to lampoon the most powerful people in England, including the Queen and her First Secretary. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the posthumous attribution of the works to someone who could not write was a planned ruse to remove the embarrassment of a high noble (also a poetic and dramatic genius) telling all on his class.”
The recommended books and many more pursue this logical path of inquiry. The aristocrat has been identified, and it was found he paid a full price in status, pain, and future recognition for his devotion to art. Shakspere’s name was simply co-opted posthumously in the ploy to transfer attribution to a harmless cipher. And we believed it from our forebears, who also took it on faith.
My apologies to Cheryl, who had justifiable hopes of a more substantive discussion.
William Ray
I am reminded of the archaeologists who, upon discovering Great Zimbabwe, concluded that a White civilization must have existed in the heart of Africa, as no native tribes could have accomplished such wonders.
The statement to which you cling is a classic example of the oldest and simplest of logical fallacies–your mind cannot conceive it; thus, it must not be so. No facts support your view, and no serious scholars advance it. Faulty syllogisms in the face of mountains of evidence prove little.
Alas, I too have fallen afoul of one of the oldest pieces of wisdom–”Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
And I quote Herman Melville: “How marvelous familiar is a fool.” As an author, doubted the proffered Stratford myth as did Emerson, Whitman, James, Joyce, Clemens, Keller, Bismarck, Chaplin, Freud, and numerous scholars, legal minds, and artists. I cannot conceive of Shakspere of Stratford writing the Shakespeare canon, simply because there is no evidence whatsoever that he could write, (beyond an unintelligible scrawl), that he was interested in writing, that his parents wrote, that his daughters wrote, that he provided for his grand-child to write, that he supported the local grammar school so others could write, that anyone including his own family regarded him as a writer, or that upon his death anyone remarked upon his career as a writer. The greatest of his era, if Shakspere equalled Shakespeare. These known facts, contrary to your assertion that no facts support my view, call into question your own. Shakspere signed no writing, bequeathed no writing, sent no writing, or to our knowledge received no writing from writers. The smug crowd of believers, like yourself, who disregard available fact in favor of ‘customary truth’ are those living under an illusion or thoughtless assumption. Replace your sneer with ten minutes of information from any of the sources suggested and I bet money it will weaken. Then you should have an exciting awakening ahead of you, that there really was a magnificent and tormented soul who sweated blood to honor his calling, and that the burgher Shakspere who willed his wife a bed in order to avoid the default one-third widow’s share was just a burgher from Stratford.
Gasp. I think this reviewer just declared himself a proud member of the closet minority that still clings to the cradle of useless knowledge as if it’s useful. There is plenty of evidence advanced in various journals and books starting more than 25 years ago that clearly identifies the bard of Avon a hoax and nothing but a small time thug.
Pingback: Omnibus Review « A Superfluous Man