Shakespeare authorship
Mythbuster (Talk | contribs) (→Some arguments against anti-Stratfordianism: added fact tags to some highly questionable statements.) |
Mythbuster (Talk | contribs) (→Some arguments against anti-Stratfordianism: formatting) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* In claiming that "orthodox scholars" refuse to acknowledge the possibility that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, anti-Stratfordians set up a [[straw man]]. In actuality, scholars do not claim that there is no room for doubt, but rather understand that "authorial identity" meant something entirely different (if it meant anything at all) in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. {{fact}} | * In claiming that "orthodox scholars" refuse to acknowledge the possibility that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, anti-Stratfordians set up a [[straw man]]. In actuality, scholars do not claim that there is no room for doubt, but rather understand that "authorial identity" meant something entirely different (if it meant anything at all) in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. {{fact}} | ||
| − | Anti-Stratfordian arguments often rest on the assumption that "writing" then meant the same thing as "writing" now. Today, an author is an individual creator, writing from his or her "personal experience," encoding secrets in characters' stories, working alone, hoping to someday receive royalty checks. In Early Modern English culture, plays were "wrought" by actors, theater managers, and writers working in tandem, at a time before copyright could be assigned to individual authors. The argument that one individual wrote another individual's plays falls into the not even wrong category when we're talking 16th and 17th century drama. In other words, anti-Stratfordians don't acknowledge the simple fact that the past was different from the present.{{fact}} | + | * Anti-Stratfordian arguments often rest on the assumption that "writing" then meant the same thing as "writing" now. Today, an author is an individual creator, writing from his or her "personal experience," encoding secrets in characters' stories, working alone, hoping to someday receive royalty checks. In Early Modern English culture, plays were "wrought" by actors, theater managers, and writers working in tandem, at a time before copyright could be assigned to individual authors. The argument that one individual wrote another individual's plays falls into the not even wrong category when we're talking 16th and 17th century drama. In other words, anti-Stratfordians don't acknowledge the simple fact that the past was different from the present.{{fact}} |
| − | And guess what? Stuffy old "orthodox scholars" ''do'' make (evidence-based, non-pseudohistorical) authorship arguments! <ref>http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article2843935.ece</ref> | + | * And guess what? Stuffy old "orthodox scholars" ''do'' make (evidence-based, non-pseudohistorical) authorship arguments! <ref>http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article2843935.ece</ref> |
* Whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays, anti-Stratfordians claim, must have gone to college, because obviously, anyone with the knowledge of language, philosophy, literature, mathematics, astronomy, etc. reflected in the plays must have attended college. The big problem here is that before the 18th century, a university education typically meant that a man had specialized in law, theology, or medicine, and didn't have the "well-rounded" education we associate with liberal arts colleges of the present day.<ref>McCrea, Scott. ''The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question''. Westport: Prager, 2005.</ref> A university-educated man was viewed as a specialist so focused on one area that he lacked a wide range of knowledge. | * Whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays, anti-Stratfordians claim, must have gone to college, because obviously, anyone with the knowledge of language, philosophy, literature, mathematics, astronomy, etc. reflected in the plays must have attended college. The big problem here is that before the 18th century, a university education typically meant that a man had specialized in law, theology, or medicine, and didn't have the "well-rounded" education we associate with liberal arts colleges of the present day.<ref>McCrea, Scott. ''The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question''. Westport: Prager, 2005.</ref> A university-educated man was viewed as a specialist so focused on one area that he lacked a wide range of knowledge. | ||
Revision as of 04:10, 25 June 2008
On the one hand, Anti-Stratfordianism, or the Shakespeare authorship controversy, is a piece of pseudohistory that verges on a conspiracy theory. On the other, it is a valid reaction to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the historical attribution of the works of Shakespeare to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
Stratfordians (those who support the historical attribution) see a significant resemblance between arguments put forth by "anti-Stratfordians" and proponents of intelligent design.[1] However, many doubters, and some scholars would argue the opposite - that the historical attribution is based on strictly circumstantial evidence,[2] and those using accusations of intelligent design are themselves guilty of denialism. Doubters also note that while arguments for Intelligent Design have repeatedly been shown to be empirically false, and have no support among scientists, arguments of non-Stratfordians are empirically-based, and have a great deal of support among scholars -- especially those in empirically-based fields like history, psychology and anthropology. They also cite the New York Times, which conducted a survey of Shakespeare professors at a random sample of U.S. colleges and universities in April 2007, and found that 17% answered "yes" or "possible" when asked if there was good reason to question whether Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays.[3]
So while a controversial theory about 16th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the issue in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge both intelligent design and denialism. Numerous writers, including Mark Twain, Henry James, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman, have made statements expressing their doubts about the Stratford man's actual authorship.[4]
Contents |
Authorship candidates
- Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford: probably the most popular candidate.[5] The "Oxfordian theory" (i.e. "Oxford wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare") was first proposed in 1920 by J. Thomas Looney (pronounced Loh-ney, but still). Oxford plays the role that the Christian God plays in intelligent design: when they say "teach the controversy," they usually mean "suggest that this guy's behind the whole thing."
- Francis Bacon: first proposed by Delia Bacon (no relation; she was just fascinated by their shared surname) in the mid-19th century. Delia's obsession with Shakespearean authorship appears to have been a symptom of severe mental illness.
- Other possibilities: Christopher Marlowe, Queen Elizabeth I, Miguel Crollalanza (a Sicilian guy whose last name means "Shakes spear").[6]
Some arguments against anti-Stratfordianism
- In claiming that "orthodox scholars" refuse to acknowledge the possibility that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, anti-Stratfordians set up a straw man. In actuality, scholars do not claim that there is no room for doubt, but rather understand that "authorial identity" meant something entirely different (if it meant anything at all) in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.[citation needed]
- Anti-Stratfordian arguments often rest on the assumption that "writing" then meant the same thing as "writing" now. Today, an author is an individual creator, writing from his or her "personal experience," encoding secrets in characters' stories, working alone, hoping to someday receive royalty checks. In Early Modern English culture, plays were "wrought" by actors, theater managers, and writers working in tandem, at a time before copyright could be assigned to individual authors. The argument that one individual wrote another individual's plays falls into the not even wrong category when we're talking 16th and 17th century drama. In other words, anti-Stratfordians don't acknowledge the simple fact that the past was different from the present.[citation needed]
- And guess what? Stuffy old "orthodox scholars" do make (evidence-based, non-pseudohistorical) authorship arguments! [7]
- Whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays, anti-Stratfordians claim, must have gone to college, because obviously, anyone with the knowledge of language, philosophy, literature, mathematics, astronomy, etc. reflected in the plays must have attended college. The big problem here is that before the 18th century, a university education typically meant that a man had specialized in law, theology, or medicine, and didn't have the "well-rounded" education we associate with liberal arts colleges of the present day.[8] A university-educated man was viewed as a specialist so focused on one area that he lacked a wide range of knowledge.
- Despite the fact that Marlowe's father was a shoemaker and Jonson and Middleton's fathers were bricklayers, anti-Stratfordians argue that the guy who wrote Shakespeare's plays couldn't have been the son of a glovemaker.
- They say "orthodox scholars" don't account for the lack of evidence. Right - all we have are baptismal records, a marriage license, will (which references the Blackfriars' theater, theater managers, and the guys who would eventually compile the First Folio), documents concerning William Shakespeare of Stratford's buying and selling of property, actors' lists, audience reports, several years' worth of the Lord Chamberlain's records, five signatures, and an inventory of the Globe theatre.
- And, of course, there's the argumentum ad verecundiam: see the Authorship Coalition's laundry list of actors, doctors, lawyers, and judges who thought that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare.
Some arguments against Shaksper of Stratford
- Every bit of "evidence" supports the idea that the Stratford man was (at most) an ACTOR, but not a PLAYWRIGHT.
- To believe in the Stratford man is to believe that one can come out of the womb able to translate foreign languages. (But, apparently, GENIUS explains everything).
- Contemporary records imply that the Stratford man published the work of other writers and put his own name on it. (But hey, that IS creative!).[9]
- Baptismal records, a marriage license, a will (that mentions no plays, or shares in the theatre he supposedly owned), buying and selling of property, a few scribbled signatures, etc., etc., prove that a man/actor existed, but not that he ever wrote a single word.[10] (Although it appears he wasn't much of an actor as absolutely no parts he played have ever been verified, and no acclaim was ever recorded by contemporary audiences, actors or critics.)
See also
- Pseudohistory
- Wikipedia article on Shakespeare Authorship Question
Footnotes
- ↑ Lesser, Zachary. "Mystic Ciphers: Shakespeare and Intelligent Design. American Literary History 19(2007): 350-56.
- ↑ http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
- ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html?pagewanted=print
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_Theory#Notable_Anti-Stratfordians]]
- ↑ H.N. Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principle Theories Concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays, 2005, Routledge, pages=48, 72, 124, isbn = 0415352908
- ↑ "Shakespeare's Ancestry." National Public Radio. Apr 15, 2000. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1072976
- ↑ http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article2843935.ece
- ↑ McCrea, Scott. The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question. Westport: Prager, 2005.
- ↑ Mark Anderson, 2005, Shakespeare By Another Name, introduction pg xxxvi, ISBN 1-592-40103-1
- ↑ Charlton Ogburn, 1988, The Mystery of William Shakespeare, pages 35-37