User:AD/Shakespeare authorship

Placeholder and working copy of a new version of Shakespeare authorship. Took another look at it with fresh eyes, and it's just a hot mess. Regret that I nominated it for anything, much less cover. Time to hit it hard with a full and coherent rewrite, removing the annoying "...but on the other hand" constant add-on arguments that tend to accrue.

Rewrite this

The Shakespeare authorship question, also known as "Anti-Stratfordianism", is the contention that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays traditionally attributed to him. The most common reason given is the lack of knowledge concerning Shakespeare's life, including what scholars call Shakespeare's "lost years." Anti-Stratfordians question Shakespeare's acquisition of the background or education necessary to write plays that include foreign languages, courtly maneuvering, military and nautical terminology, legal terms, and other esoteric topics. Like most conspiracy theories based on negative evidence and huddled groups of scheming insiders, Anti-Stratfordianism is very hard to disprove conclusively.

Numerous candidates and group theories have been proposed, although only a handful have received serious attention. The most prominent candidate is Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, whose possible authorship of Shakespeare's work was the subject of a 2011 movie, Anonymous.

Most scholars and academics see no reason to challenge Shakespeare's authorship, and often prefer to ignore the doubters. However, Anti-Stratfordians cite a the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors in a random sample of U.S. colleges and universities in April 2007 which found that 11% answered "possible" and 6% answered "yes," when asked if there was good reason to question whether Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays. In the same survey, 61% of those surveyed said that Anti-Stratfordianism was a "theory without convincing evidence," and 32% called it an "outright waste of time and classroom resources."

While the great majority of the academic community continues to endorse the traditional attribution, the authorship question has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic. In late 2007, Brunel University of London began offering a one-year MA program on the Shakespeare authorship question, and in 2010, Concordia University in Portland, Oregon opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, under the direction of authorship doubter Daniel Wright, a Shakespeare scholar and Concordia's professor of English.

Background
By a wide margin, the most common argument against the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is that he lacked the background necessary to write the works that have come down to us. The son of an illiterate glover, Shakespeare lived as a successful actor, but to the best of our knowledge never traveled, consorted with the nobility, or received an advanced degree. Anti-Stratfordians point to what they argue is a great familiarity with the law, foreign countries and languages, nautical terminology, and other elements that they claim should have been unknown to a player of poor background. Shakespeare, they argue, seems far too intimate with the lives and habits of the wealthy elite. He would not have been so sympathetic to the upper-class unless he was one of them.

Character
Another claim against Shakespeare is that what we know of his personal character is unpleasant and venal, in contrast to the high drama and romance of a true artist's life and temperament. This argument has fallen out of favor of late,

Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford
Oxford has remained the reigning alternate candidate for the last 90 years. 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). Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a concealed poet, and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his long-term relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his documented education and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays. The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which Oxfordians believe correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped. One complication is that many scholars believe that events that occurred after 1604 are referenced in some later Shakespearean works, although specific examples - such as a possible reference to the Gunpowder Plot in A Winter's Tale - are under dispute.

Francis Bacon
The leading candidate of the 19th century was Sir Francis Bacon, a major scientist, philosopher, courtier, diplomat, essayist, historian and successful politician, who served as Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613) and Lord Chancellor (1618). Supporters of the theory, known as Baconians, note that Bacon concluded a 1603 letter with the words "so desiring you to be good to concealed poets", which supporters consider a confession. The hypothesis itself was formally presented by William Henry Smith in 1856, and was expanded the following year by both Smith and Delia Bacon (no relation; she was just fascinated by their shared surname) in the mid-19th century. Stratfordians argue that Delia's obsession with Shakespearean authorship appears to have been a symptom of severe mental illness (which is certainly a scholarly argument!). Notable supporters of the Baconian Theory have included Ignatius L. Donnelly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Harry Stratford Caldecott.

Christopher Marlowe
This is complicated by Marlowe's death in 1593, but he might have faked his own death by convincing his enemies - present at the time of his death in a bar-room brawl and actually suspected of his murder - to lie for him. Then he escaped to live in Italy because hey why the hell not?

Queen Elizabeth I
She was perhaps unable to release works under her own name because of her position and gender, except that she did write some poems. Also, she died six years before the sea wreck that probably inspired The Tempest.

A different William Shakespeare
Who is probably super-pissed about all this.

Xenu
Maybe? Sure, why not.

Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England
Archer Taylor and Frederic J. Mosher identified the 16th and 17th centuries as the "golden age" of pseudonymous authorship and maintain that during this period “almost every writer used a pseudonym at some time during his career.” Anti-Stratfordians say that aristocratic writers used pseudonyms to write for the public because of what they assert was a prevailing "stigma of print", a social convention that ostensibly restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences - as opposed to "commercial" endeavors - at the risk of social disgrace if violated.

Anti-Stratfordian Diana Price has analyzed several examples of Elizabethan commentary on anonymous or pseudonymous publication by persons of high social status. According to Price, "there are two historical prototypes for this type of authorship fraud, that is, attributing a written work to a real person who was not the real author". Both are Roman in origin and both are mentioned by contemporary Elizabethan writers with what skeptics believe are implications that apply to the authorship of Shakespeare's plays: The Roman performer Bathyllus was known to have taken credit for verses written by Virgil, and several of the comedies of the classical playwright Terence were believed to have been written by his patrician patrons Scipio Africanus and Gaius Laelius. . In at least one instance, Elizabethan authorities raised the possibility of pseudonymous authorship: in 1599, Sir John Hayward published The First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV dedicated to Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. Queen Elizabeth and her advisers disliked the tone of the book and its dedication, and on July 11, Hayward was interrogated before the Privy Council, which was seeking "proof positive of the Earl's [sc. Essex's] long-standing design against the government" in writing a preface to Hayward's work. The Queen "argued that Hayward was pretending to be the author in order to shield 'some more mischievous' person, and that he should be racked so that he might disclose the truth".

Shake-speare as pseudonym
In this regard, many anti-Stratfordians question the hyphen that sometimes appeared in the name "Shake-speare", which they believe indicated the use of such a pseudonym. Examples of oft-hyphenated names include Tom Tell-truth, Martin Mar-prelate (who pamphleteered against church "prelates") and Cuthbert Curry-nave, who "curried" his "knavish" enemies.

Of course, "Tom Tell-truth" never pseudonymously signed a marriage license or a will. (Then again, neither did "Shake-speare")

Historical records
There are some seventy extant documents that relate to Shakespeare of Stratford - yet none of them have any connection to a literary career. 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., prove that a man/actor existed, but not that he ever wrote a single word.

Anti-Stratfordians also believe that contemporary records imply that the "Stratford man" published the work of other writers and put his own name on it. It should be noted that this is still a contemporary practice.

Diana Price acknowledges that Shakespeare's name appears on the title pages of numerous play texts, but questions the traditional implication, asking "But what if his name is on the title pages for another reason? What if he were a play broker who took credit for the works of others?" Similarly, skeptic Mark Anderson has suggested that when poet John Davies referred to Shakespeare as "our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare", he could be naming Shakespeare of Stratford as a front man, given that one tradition has it that some of Terence's plays were written by Roman nobles. Anderson also notes that "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" could imply Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers.

Diana Prices writes that "In Shakespeare's day, those who traded in used costumes were called frippers or brokers. Those who traded in plays, as in other commodities, were also brokers." Price also says that Ben Jonson used both terms in the epigram, "On Poet-Ape", written between 1595-1612, and often regarded as concerning Shakespeare:

Prices writes that "this underhand play broker was passing off other men's work as his own". Price explains further, stating "If Shakespeare was, in fact, a Battillus or "under-hand" play broker who bought manuscripts from various authors, then we might reasonably expect to find plays published over the name 'William Shakespeare'," but written by various other authors... And we do." Price says that a number of plays including The London Prodigal (1605) and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) were "published during Shakespeare of Stratford's lifetime and attributed to 'William Shakespeare' yet nobody thinks that they belong in the [Shakespearean] canon..."

Education
Shakespeare received little formal education, and so many consider it difficult to explain why he seemed to have an intimate knowledge of courtly life, the art of sailing, matters of history, the problems of rhetoric, or several languages. This is the dominant reason many provide against Shakespeare's authorship: how could one man, the son of a shoe-maker who never went to university, manage to write a Prince Harry or an Anthony?

Interestingly, though, this argument is never deployed against Ben Jonson, the son of a brick-maker with an identical amount of education who nonetheless managed to be the most popular playwright of his time and wrote the erudite The Alchemist and Volpone and went on to be the pre-eminent scholar of classics in contemporary academia. Jonson, as well as Shakespeare, is a good example of how Elizabethan educations were different than modern ones. While some playwrights, such as Marlowe, received lessons at universities, by and large higher education was seen as a form of vocational training for lawyers or doctors. It was unusual enough that someone like Robert Greene, who had an M.A., made sure to splash "Robert Greene, Maiſter of Arts" all over his title pages for Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay and Pandosto.

Viewpoint
It has been argued even before the authorship question that virtually all of Shakespeare's plays are set among the upper classes, and are seemingly written from their point of view. Anti-Stratfordians also assert that the upper-class characters are more fully fleshed, and seem to have a greater touch of realism about them, while the lower class characters are thinly drawn characitures with names such as Bullcalf, Bottom, Wart, or Shadow. In this argument, the lower classes are simpletons when solo or in small groups, but in large groups are portrayed as an angry or dangerous mob - a distinctly upper class viewpoint.

This purely subjective view is opposed by Stratfordians and even those Anti-Stratfordians who argue for another lower-class author, such as Marlowe. This opposition points to deeply complex lower-class characters, such as Falstaff (Henry IV Parts One and Two, The Merry Wives of Windsor) or sympathetic lower-class characters, such as Much Ado About Nothing's Feste. And as for the distinctly royal and rich trend of the plays' subjects, it has always been true that writers have been fascinated by the high drama of the lives of the rich and powerful from history.

Mysterious stoppage
Some researchers believe that contemporary documents imply the actual playwright was dead by 1604, the year continuous publication of new Shakespeare plays "mysteriously stopped", and various scholars have asserted that The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII, Macbeth , King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra , so-called "later plays", were composed no later than 1604. Researchers cite SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS, 1609, which appeared with "our ever-living Poet" on the title page, words typically used eulogizing someone who has died, yet become immortal, and note that the words "ever-living" rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive (Shakespeare himself used the phrase in this context in Henry VI, part 1 (IV, iii, 51-2) describing the dead Henry V as "[t]hat ever-living man of memory"). Researchers also cite one contemporary document that strongly implies that Shakespeare, the Globe shareholder, was dead prior to 1616, when Shakespeare of Stratford actually died.