A contested Will: Reflections on Shakespeare -- and what he wrote, or didn't
Brian Sweeney
William Shakespeare died 395 years ago, on April 23. That much we know.
Yet a vigorous debate continues to rage as to the true identity of the author of the Shakespearian plays and sonnets, a debate that has gone to the highest court of the land.
A Wall Street Journal article noted that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens rendered his verdict that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the bard of Avon was not William Shakespeare and that the works ascribed to William Shakespeare were actually written by the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
Newly found Shakespeare painting
Remarkably, in rare agreement with his ideological counterpart, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia concurred with Stevens. Stevens was also enjoined in the decision by the late Harry Blackman. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was always a swing vote on the court, stayed true to form with her nuanced opinion that Shakespeare did not write the Shakespeare plays but also did not render an opinion as to who did.
Shakespeare's Court
The Supreme Court on the likely author of Shakespeare's plays:
|
Active Justices |
|
|
Roberts, Chief Justice |
No comment. |
|
Stevens |
Oxford |
|
Scalia |
Oxford |
|
Kennedy |
Stratford |
|
Souter |
"No idea." |
|
Thomas |
No comment. |
|
Ginsburg |
"No informed views."* |
|
Breyer |
Stratford |
|
Alito |
No comment. |
*Justice Ginsburg suggests research into alternate candidate, Florio.
|
Retired Justices |
|
|
O'Connor |
Not Stratford |
|
Blackmun* |
Oxford |
|
Brennan* |
Stratford |
*Deceased
Traditional Stratfordians (those who believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare) paint the anti-Stratfordians as fringe flat-earth-society types. Yet, in addition to Supreme Court justices, authorship doubters are an impressive lot. They included such prominent figures as Mark Twain, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin, Walt Whitman, Helen Keller, Tyrone Guthrie, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Orson Welles, Charles Dickens, Leslie Howard, William James and prominent Shakesperean actors Derek Jacobi, Jeremy Irons, Michael York and the late John Gielgud as well as Mark Rylance, the past artistic director the Shakespeare Globe Theater.
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt
A group called The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition has organized a campaign addressing the authorship question and has developed a Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare. It is worth checking out.
So what's up with Will? Doubters point to much circumstantial evidence suggesting that our boy Will just didn't have the training, experience and gravitas to write the Shakespeare canon. They cite:
• Shakespeare had very limited life experience outside the backwater hamlet of Stratford-upon-Avon.
• His will did not mention a play, a poem, an unfinished literary work, a scrap of manuscript of any kind, including the 18 plays unpublished at the time of his death. However, he did leave to his wife, and this is a quote from his will, "his second best bed."
• There was no public mourning or recognition of the death of the greatest playwright in all of human history — not a word.
• His parents and many siblings were all illiterate.
• There are only six known signatures of Shakespeare (none of them are spelled the same) and there are no other specimens of his penmanship in existence.
• There is no recorded education or personal library.
As Mark Twain wrote in "Is Shakespeare Dead?": "So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on Avon never wrote a play in his life ... never wrote a letter to anybody in his life ... and he received only one letter during his life."
If Shakespeare was not Shakespeare, who then, pray tell, was Shakespeare?
Christopher Marlowe
Four major candidates
More than 70 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespeare work, including Mary Sidney, a remarkable literary figure from England's flowering renaissance.
However, four major candidates have emerged as the most likely authors.
The camps include philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon; poet, spy Christopher Marlowe; Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford; and William Stanley, Earl of Darby (who married the eldest daughter of de Vere). All groups argue that their candidate had the intellect; the university training; the personal knowledge and experience in the European courts — particularly Elizabeth's; knew many languages; and, in short, had the stuff to actually write the works of Shakespeare.
Then there is the "group theory," in which most often Francis Bacon — English philosopher, statesman, author, father of the scientific method, who served both as attorney general and lord chancellor of England — is suggested as the producer/director/publisher of the plays (although de Vere has also been mentioned as the leader).
In various tracts, it is mentioned that Bacon "rang the bell that called the wits together" and oversaw a studio, a guild, a scrivenery of "good pens." Bacon is the only one of all the candidates who lived during the entire period of the writing and publishing of all the plays and sonnets. Some Baconians believe that Francis and the Earl of Essex were actually the illegitimate sons of the Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Lord Leicester.
'Anonymous'
Ah, the drama only increases with filmmaker Roland Emmerich's expected Sept. 30, 2011, release of "Anonymous," a film staring Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave. It portrays not Bacon, but Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth who becomes the queen's lover as an adult and with her sires his own half-brother/son.
Oh, my, this plot doth thicken. The high court of public opinion doesn't seem to want to let this debate go away, does it?
Here's a sonnet written in the Shakespearean tradition (14 lines — 3 quatrains and a couplet; 10 syllables per line; rhyming pattern is: ab ab; cd cd; ef ef; gg) that sums up this controversy.
A Contested Will
Oh Will, dear Will, we seemed to know thee not.
And where in Avon learn thou all of this?
Amongst the merchants and the common lot?
No books or written tomes, what did we miss?
Of Greek and Latin; Italy and France,
Of courts and law and much philosophy,
Of politics, Cambridge, and the Queen's rants,
And the initiate's sacred mysteries.
And yet your will said nothing of your pen.
And nothing comes from nothing, you agree?
You were a hit, exactly for what then?
An actor, merchant? Ok, we'll concede.
This is the long and short of it, we say,
You Will, are not the Will we know today.
Copyright ©Brian Sweeney
And here's another — in celebration of Shakespeare's contribution to our present day English language (with quotes from the Bard in italics).
Shakespeare: Yesterday, Today -- Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow
Did Huxley first a brave new world create?
Elgar and his pomp and circumstance?
Invictus the first master of their fates?
A lean and hungry look, a James Dean glance.
Tho’ the plays the thing, Broadway did not spawn
A hit, a very palpable hit.
If music be the food of love play on,
Tis brevity that is the soul of wit.
Hollywood – such improbable fiction;
A piece of work -- Hilton, Lohan, Spears.
All these with such a vaulting ambition;
This false culture would bring Shakespeare to tears.
Then there’s: a sorry sight, a pound of flesh,
Short shrift, hob nob, full circle, dancing days,
Fair play, lie low, in stitches, bated breath,
Forgone conclusion: All the world’s a stage.
Knock, knock, who’s there? Will Shakespeare is that you?
Nope, t’was another to his own Self was true.
Copyright © Brian Sweeney
Stillwater resident Brian Sweeney is an unrepentant Bardophile, who leans just a tich toward supporting the group theory. Sweeney has also taught on-line classes on the authorship question.
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
-
15 comments
Comments (15)
There are a few errors in your post. Charles Dickens never doubted Shakespeare of Stratford was the author. The anti-Stratfordians use a quote from a Dickens letter to argue Dickens had doubts: "it is a Great Comfort, to my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows."
Dickes is saying that he appreciated that there was little known about the life of Shakespeare of Stratford, because that makes people concentrate on the works, rather than the man. They don't dig up the skull to study it. Furthermore, in the periodical "All The Year Round" which was mostly written by Dickens, and edited entirely by Dickens, there is an article clearly stating that the man from Stratford was the poet. Orson Welles once said something that indicated he thought Oxford wrote the works, but in "THIS IS ORSON WELLES" he clearly states Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works. There is nothing to indicate Leslie Howard was an Oxfordian, except for the fact that he starred and produced a film called Pimpernel Smith. In that film, whenever the central character says he thinks Oxford wrote the works, but he only says this when he is speaking to Nazis. Generally, the character tries to convince the Nazis that he is a harmless fool.
It is absolutely untrue that Shakespeare's siblings were all illiterate. One of his brothers was an actor. It's unbelieveable that an actor would be illiterate. Even the rude mechanicals in Midsummer Night's Dream could act.
As to records of education, there are no more records for Ben Jonson's education than there are for Shakespeare's - and Jonson wrote more learned plays.
There's more, but I don't have time to post it now.
Mr. Nathan is incorrect is saying no records exist of Ben Jonson's education. He is correct in stating that Leslie Howard merely played the part of an eccentric Oxfordian. He should not be listed as such. I would like Mr. Nathan to address the position of Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud and Samual Clemens in this debate. I doubt that he'd like to. Even the "great" Sam Schoenbaum, in his 100 page diatribe against heretical idiots omits Whitman's words on the subject. Sam takes the time to psychoanalyze both Clemens and Freud, with complete confidence, and with no sense of irony. Facts are facts: There is zero proof he did or did not attend grammar school. There is no record of him traveling with "his company of players" even though municipal records exist. We know in 1609 his sonnets came out without a dedication page by the "ever-living poet". I wonder if Mr. Nathan has any examples of living people referred to as "ever-living"? I think not. No wonder the 1st edition was suppressed, with only 15 copies existing. Edward de Vere was dead, and Will Shaksper was not. A litigator, yet unmoved by the unsolicited publication of his most intimate poems. How odd?
Fine article, by the way. It does contain one small error. The sole letter addressed to Mr. Shaksper of Stratford, one in which he asks for a loan, devoid of anything literary in fact or spirit, was not delivered.
In response to Ed Boswell, I grant that unlike Charles Dickens, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud and Samuel Clemens were actual doubters of Shakespeare's authorship. However, that's called an argument from authority. It isn't evidence of anything except that these persons doubted Shakespeare of Stratford was the author. The same is true of the Supreme Court Justices. None of them are experts on Elizabethan playwrights. If they or anyone else has arguments to make as to authorship, we can debate those, but the fact that some particular individuals doubt Shakespeare's authorship means very little.
As to Ben Jonson's education, if you have actual records of Ben Jonson's schooling, I wish you would present the evidence, as no one else seems to be aware of it.
As to records of Shakespeare traveling with "his company of players" - there may be no records of his traveling, but his name is listed in King James' charter for the King's Men. He is listed as an actor both in the first folio of Shakespeare's plays and in the folio of Jonson's plays.
As to the publication of the Sonnets, the dedication isn't very clearly worded, but it is quite possible the reference to "Ever-Living Poet" is a reference to God, rather than to the author of the sonnets. As to the Oxfordian theory, I thought Oxford's authorship was supposed to be a secret. Why would the publisher reveal that the author was dead while William Shakespeare was still alive?
We have no evidence that the publication of the sonnets was suppressed, or that the author did not approve the publication. That's just theory.
Often quoted is Whitman's comment in his November Boughs (1888) regarding William Shakespeare's historical plays:
Kindly note that Walt Whitman, the "poet of the common man" had great powers of premonition. He actually predicted a figure fitting Lincoln's description becoming President prior to Lincoln's arrival on the national scene. Here's what he said about Shake-speare's History plays:
Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism -personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, with its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) -only one of the "wolfish earls" so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works -works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded literature.
If Mr. Nathan is hanging his hat on the dedication to the first folio being a reference to God being the "ever-living poet", then God bless him for such blind faith. It's not the first pretzel move by believers in the Stratford myth.
JONSON'S EDUCATION: A Stratfordian, A Mr. Wright, minimizing the worth of an education states: "Even learned Ben Jonson, who could spout Latin and Greek at the drop of his pint pot, got all his schooling at Westminster, supplemented by a spell of bricklaying, his stepfather's trade"
In truth,
"His step-father was, it is true, a master bricklayer, but "he provided his stepson with the foundations of a good education: we read. Young Ben went first to a private school in St. Martin's lane and later at Westminster studied under one of the foremost Elizabethan scholars, William Camden, of whom he wrote: Camden, most revered head, to whom I owe
All that I am in arts, and all that I know"
from page 280 charlton ogburn jr. "the mysterious william shakespeare 1984
Entrenched Stratfordians try to say more is known about Shakespeare the person from Stratford, than any other literary figure from the period. This is an outrageous untruth. They mention the lack of info. on Spenser, w/o mentioning his entire life's work was burned in Scotland. Stratfordians try to say a grammar school education of the 16th century exceeds that of a modern day university education. How embarrassing for us!!! In fact, no proof exists of him attending or not attending Grammar shcool. A point in his favor is admittance was free to the son of an alderman. A strong point against him ever ever going to grammar school was the requirement that he read and write before acceptance. Both of William Shaksper's parents were illiterate, and signed their names with a mark. How a 7 or 8 y.o. boy coming from an illiterate household learned how to both read and write is another Stratford mystery.
Suppression of the Sonnets: Evidence is mostly circumstantial. We know that the poet published a very popular epic poem, Venus and Adonis, that went thru quite a few printings. Yet his sonnets were published and quickly disappeared, not being reprinted until 1640, with gender changes in order to mitigate the homoerotic poems directed between males. Why would such a popular poet have only 15 copies remaining of his sonnets? Why would a commoner write such intimate poems to a young Earl? How could he, knowing the caste code of the period? We know that the Earl of Oxford's daughter was tentatively engaged to the teen-aged Earl at the point of the "procreation sonnets" were penned. So Shake-speare is beseeching a lovely young man to marry and procreate. Pretty ballsy of a money lender/actor from the provinces, does not not think? If one transposes the Earl of Oxford, then "the ever-living poet" is exactly that. We have a person who actually carried the canopy for the Queen, who was tanned by antiquity past 40 years, who had a reason to beseech Southampton to marry his daughter, who was a motley to the view, having squandered his fortune and good name, and who was close enough to the Queen to write poems about her. Compare that with a 29 y.o. money lender writing poems to a 20 y.o. Earl in an attempt to get him to have children. Or better yet, that the Sonnets were actually meaningless, made up off the top of Will's head, signifying nothing. Imagine the most gutwrenching, heartfelt poetry of all time being made up as a "literary exercise", and you're a true Stratfordian Myth believer!!!
correction:Dedication with reference to "the ever-living poet" is to the Sonnets of 1609, not the first folio. My error, in haste. Kindly forgive me.
I can't say it better than you, Ed. Great to see you here too. And Brian Sweeney - it's great to know your out there standing up for Edward de Vere. Best Wishes to you. Ben August
I'm still waiting for Ed Boswell to show us records of Jonson's schooling. It was said after Jonson's death that he was educated by Camden. (Note: No one said it was a University education.) People said after Shakespeare's death that he attended the Stratford grammar school. But there are no RECORDS of education for either of them.
As for Walt Whitman, this is just more argument from authority. Why should I believe Whitman? He was a great poet, but he was no historian if he thought the views of the plays reflected feudalism. You can find arguments for any belief in Shakespeare. That's one of the great things about the plays, but you also find great arguments for equality - notably in "All's Well That Ends Well," "Cymbeline" and "Winter's Tale." There really isn't the upper class bias permeating the plays that the Oxfordians think there is.
As for the statement that the Sonnets are addressed to an Earl, that's another Oxfordian myth. It is never stated in any of the Sonnets what the class of the fair youth is. On the other hand, the author says his name is Will, he says he has worn motley, and he seems to make a pun on the name "Ann Hathaway" in the worst sonnet, which only has eight syllables to a line and seems a youthful work compared with the others.
Ben Jonson
"Camden, most revered head, to whom I owe
All that I am in arts, and all that I know"
==============================================
That's not good enough for you, Mr. Nathan? You actually expect me to show you his scholastic records, as if I have them in a drawer at home?
================================================ I find it encouraging to see such gymnastics from you. You lower the bar for your candidate, and raise them to the roof for Oxfordians.
Before you can claim the Stratford Man as a giant of literature, you'll have to move past the crabbed signatures, and find me the original manuscripts with his name and address on them. You'll have to provide the world with a single shred of evidence that the man from Stratford could write a complete sentence. You claim that before an english dictionary even existed, and before public libraries existed, your man was memorizing classics in their original language, and coining new words from foreign languages by the thousands. Do you think I'd be an Oxfordian if Shaksper had both John Lyly and Anthony Munday on his personal payroll as secretaries? The debate would end right there. Or if anyone was ever even RUMORED to have received a letter from this great man? Or if a single retired schoolteacher or priest rightly claimed to have been his mentor? Or if his parents could read and write? Or if he'd traveled to Italy, or been eulogized for being the man you claim him to be?
Step outside your own needs here, Mr. Nathan, and consider how essentially clueless our species is. 98% of Germans thought Poland started the Second World War. To this day, people think Saddam had something to do with 911, 45% of Republicans think they faked Obama's birth, and alot of people still cling to the belief that a moneylender/minor player coined Shakspeare in his spare time, sans an education or the experiences crucial to being able to write the WS canon. If you think creative people simply make up great literature off the tops of their heads, I can only conclude you're a trusting soul, devoid of the ability to decipher this most fascinating subject with an open mind. Is it possible for you to read the biography of de Vere by Mark Anderson without predetermined thoughts? I dare you!!!!
If, as you say, the Earl of Southampton is not an element in the sonnets, kindly explain why he's listed by Stratfordians, (without a single shred of evidence) as "Shakespeare's Patron"?
Why do emiment Stratfordian scholars so often favor the fair youth as being Southampton? Are they mentally deficient? Do they suffer from cognitive dementia, as Oxfordians do?
Do the same Stratfordians who believe Hamlet to be a portrayal of Oxford's inlaws suffer as well?
If Polonius was not Oxford's father in law, and Ophelia, Anne Cecil, who were they portrayals of? Nobody? Stratford neighbors Hamnet and Judith?
In order to understand a controversial subject, one must be open to arguments from both sides. I think, Mr. Nathan, that you should learn about the 17th Earl of Oxford. I've taken the time to read pursuasive arguments from your entrenched position, some of them quite convincing. But from what I know of the creative process, and of the probability of someone simply making up literature of the quality of the WS canon, I can't buy into your position. I think it is static, elitist (Whitman was a good poet, but why should I listen to him?) and overly defensive. It shows rigidity, and a lack of curiosity into some extremely perplexing Stratfordian problems. I offer you a quote from Jonson on his esteem for having learned from Camden, and you demand I show you copies of Jonson's education. If evidence is that hard for me to prove, how can you stand by such a miserable set of facts surrounding Stratford Shake-speare. (any idea why they would hyphonate the name? Were there shakes and speares in Warwickshire?) We know numerous pen-names used hyphons, what a coincidence!!!! As to the reference to the name Will, that issue is dealt with in Shakespeare by Another Name. Spenser wrote poems using detailing the rivalry between Oxford and Sidney. Oxford's identifiable character is named Will. Read up on it, buy the book. Give me your address and I'll give you a copy. ALL THE BEST, boswell
Glad to have provided the stage for such lively debate.
Regards,
Brian
Amazing conversation - makes me want to get out my Shakespeare again. By the way, Minnesota author Arthur Phillips is reviewed in Sunday's Pioneer Press for his "witty, touching, intricate new novel about a play the Bard supposedly wrote." That fictional debate would fit right in here.