William Shakespeare: life, works, and literary legacy

Shakespeare Authorship

The Question of Shakespeare's Authorship

There may be few authors in any genre who can make a claim to fame as can William Shakespeare. The Bard, as he is affectionately know to appreciators, is said to have been born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564, with evidence of this occasion derived from his parentage. Ironically, the most familiar name in literary history is one cast in no small amount of doubt. Today, reference to his authorship of a sweeping array of the greatest plays ever composed -- included among them Hamlet, MacBeth, Romeo and Juliet and King Lear -- will strike the mainstream population as inherent. To yet another population of academics and speculators though, there is significant cause to question his authorship. The result is nothing less than an ongoing quest to uncover the true source of authorship for these works. However, as we consider many of the arguments which have been made against Shakespeare's likely authorship of the catalogue now attributed to him, it becomes increasingly clear that this is speculation at best. The more concrete and tenable of historiographical reflections will indeed illustrate that the man known as William Shakespeare, and not the many also-rans often drawn into this discourse, is responsible for his body of work. Largely, those claims to the contrary may be said to be derived from some academic historian desires to explore alternate histories rather than from any truly compelling evidence to their reality.

Today, while the assumption of Shakespeare's authorship is labeled as the 'mainstream' theory, doubt of this assumption has been elevated in discourse over the centuries, to the extent that now it is at least necessary in an academic consideration of Shakespeare to address, discuss and, possibly, to refute these claims. Said claims derive from the argument that there is at the very base a probably cause to question Shakespeare's authorship, and to promote the argument that he was propped up as a front for an author of higher noble status and more intimate familiarity with the courts than the common-born Shakespeare seemed likely to have had. Thus, today, the field is crowded with possible candidates for this anonymous author, most notably the "suggestion that they were written, not by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, but by, for instance, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Oxford . . . And more recently Sir Henry Neville, Lady Mary Sidney, and, only today, Fulke Greville." (Wells, 1)

As we consider the numerous and, in some regard, ably supported arguments of doubt, it must be acknowledged that the vast majority of conditions held against Shakespeare are drawn circumstantially and most particularly based on an a lack of evidence as to his authorship rather than pressing evidence as to his non-authorship. Quite to this point, one of the primary conditions which had initially opened the door to this type of speculation would be the absence of available examples his signature on original manuscripts. Indeed, "no such record exists. The case for him as the author rests largely on testimony in the First Folio collection of the plays, published in 1623, seven years after he died. However, nothing in the contemporaneous documentary evidence of his life confirms the Folio testimony." (SAC, 1) To those who doubt that the man named Shakespeare from Stratford was the same man who composed the canon of plays, this suggests that the attribution of his authorship was an afterthought to the life of the actual playwright.

In addition to the absence of record on this subject, there is also an absence of definitive proof of Shakespeare's schooling beyond those initial years of grammar school that may have suggested, at the very least, that he was not an illiterate man. This distinguishes him from his upbringing as a village commoner whose father had known both business success and failure. Again, here is cause for doubt to those who make the case against Shakespeare. It is denoted that the body of his work is constituted of roughly 29,000 words, a remarkable sum compared to the 6,000 words tabulated in the King James Bible. (Wikipedia, 1) Thus, it is not simply considered in retrospect a remarkable feat that a man of this modest upbringing, whose historical documentation shows no definitive involvement at any significant level of schooling, to have commanded such a vocabulary. Indeed, it is even considered somewhat uncertain that any one individual might have been capable of a body of work of this breadth.

To this point, "it is therefore probably not surprising that there is a group theory relating to authorship of the Shakespeare plays. Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, Roger Manners and Mary Sidney Herbert have all been considered as members of groups who authored the plays." (SAT, 1) This so-called 'Group Theory' is derived of the understanding that such collaboration was frequent during the 16th and 17th centuries, and that this might have functioned as an ideal way for an author of noble birth to involve himself in the literary process without defaming his aristocratic status through involvement in commercial art.

These considerations also intercede with a set of historical indications that suggest the specific Shakespeare of Stratford to whom authorship is attributed may have been something of a scoundrel. Again, not a definitive indication that he was not also the author, questions of the reputation of this man who we know did exist have helped to cast a longer shadow on his entitlement to credit. Indeed, those known as anti-Stratfordians "have built up a consistent, albeit unflattering, portrait of the man from Stratford. On this reading of the evidence, Shakespeare was a small town boy with a modest education garnered at a rural grammar school, who could read competently but could write only with strain. He was ambitious enough to migrate from his hometown to London, where he fell in with shady characters associated with the interrelated fields of popular theater and petty crime." (Prescott, 1) Again, circumstantial evidence as it relates to his authorship, it is nonetheless part of a compelling picture drawn against the Bard.

In some regard, the questions pertaining to Shakespeare's authorship are met with stark refutation in the form of information widely available in full and visible continuity since his time. Indeed, the proof of his authorship begins with more than a few readily available documents derived directly from the time of his success. To the point, Ross & Kathman (2009) report of this evidence that "much of it comes from public sources, such as many title pages of plays and poems published in his lifetime, and references in works by other writers such as Francis Meres, who in 1598 named Shakespeare as the author of twelve plays, and John Weever, who wrote a poem addressed to Shakespeare." (Ross & Kathman, 1) These would be indications of a clear path to Shakespeare's presence at the time of some of his most famous compositions, which seem to open the conversation up to refutation of claims regarding his education. This is to say that while his authorship of certain works included here does not inherently mean that we can presume he authored those works not included, we can at least consider the likelihood that the literary talent and educational level apparent in these works should be demonstrative of a capability which his doubters will argue Shakespeare could not have had.

Still, there do exist quite a few additional sources which demonstrate Shakespeare not just to be connected to the works believed to be his, but also those which demonstrate that he did have a significant and respected role within the context of the Elizabethan era literary, dramatic and academic circles. To this point, "ther references come from manuscript sources, such as references in accounts of court performances, many entries in the Stationers' Register (a volume in which publishers and printers were required to register the works they intended to publish), a note about Hamlet by the writer Gabriel Harvey, and William Drummond's notes of his private conversations with Ben Jonson." (Ross & Kathman, 1) As to the mention of Ben Jonson, it is also considered that he was a man whose formal education was known to be limited and mostly self-directed but whose vocabulary and eloquence were sufficient to elevate him to a courtly post. As this biographical path seems largely to parallel that of Shakespeare, we can at least not that the arguments concerning his likely education are circumstantial and speculative.

Quite in fact, the bulk of such arguments rest far too heavily on factors which we may never fully resolve. Large gaps in historical records are, to say the least, not uncommon. The absence of availability of manuscripts, school records and other such documents is also to be seen as something between inevitable and unfortunate. But certainly, it is not unimpeachable.