User:NightFlare/Shakespeare

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Anti-Stratfordianism, or the Shakespeare authorship "controversy," is a piece of pseudohistorical crap that reeks of conspiracy theory. Of course, the only thing more unbelievable is to actually believe that the Stratford dude wrote the works attributed to him. On a more serious note, there appears to be a significant resemblance between arguments put forth by "anti-Stratfordians" and proponents of intelligent design [1]. In fact, the Authorship Coalition, the group behind the recent "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare," requests that schools 'teach the controversy.' So while a crackpot theory (believed by everyone from Mark Twain to Walt Whitman) about 16th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the noncontroversy in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge intelligent design and denialist pseudohistories. Then again, to believe in the Stratford man, one has to believe in miracles, and that everything your teachers ever taught was correct.

Contents

[edit] Authorship candidates

  • Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford: probably the most popular candidate. 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). Eddie 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 nonpossibilities: Christopher Marlowe, Queen Elizabeth I, Miguel Crollalanza (Sicilian guy whose last name means "Shakes spear" [2]).

[edit] Why anti-Stratfordianism is crap (abridged)

  • 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.

- 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.

- And guess what? Stuffy old "orthodox scholars" DO make (evidence-based, non-pseudohistorical) authorship arguments! [3] But then again... many do not!

  • 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. Big problem here: pre-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. [4] 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 list of actors, doctors, lawyers, and judges who thought that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare.

[edit] Why believing in the historical attribution to the Stratford man is crap (abridged)

  • Every bit of "evidence" supports the idea that the Stratford man was an ACTOR, not a PLAYWRIGHT.
  • To beleive 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!).
  • 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. (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.)

[edit] External links

Wikipedia


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support