# Did they ever resolve the theory that Francis Bacon wrote the Shakespeare plays? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 5, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003 "2011-11-05T22:54:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/161 "2011-11-13T19:03:26Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [li] My understanding is that many of Oxford’s poems were written in the 1560’s by the teen-aged Edward. The poems and plays were mostly written beginning in the 1590’s. We all certainly agree that the Shakespeare Author, whoever he was, was a unique genius. Is it farfetched to imagine that such a genius, writing poems as a lark in his teens, then making it is his life’s work at age 40, could have improved his skills enough to defeat such a statistical test?[/li] I’ll address this point. It is impossible from everything we know of authors in general and the person who composed the latter works in particular to believe that those two bodies of work were the same person. In addition, stylometric tests conclusively disprove it. Any theory that depends on Oxford mysteriously being a second-rater and a genius is suspect from the beginning and fails immediately upon expert examination. This is positive evidence, not the negative evidence you keep needing to rely upon. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/162 "2011-11-13T22:38:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Oxford famously got a 1000-pound per annum allowance from the Queen. Coincidence? This was a lot of money, perhaps the largest “salary” (if that is what it was) in England, as attested by Elizabeth herself quoted as saying “Even Great Oxford gets not that much” when someone asked for even more. (Judged by this comment and if she’s being quoted accurately…) The only person who isn’t quoting accurately is you. The comment was made by James I, not Elizabeth, and what he wrote was, ‘Great Oxford when his state was whole ruined got no more of the late Queen’. > **[Cecil Papers: Miscellaneous 1604 | British History Online](https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-cecil-papers/vol16/pp393-468)** Not for the first time, you’re asserting as firm fact things you’re only half-remembering. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/163 "2011-11-13T23:36:59Z")
Thank you, septimus, for laying out some arguments straight-forward so we can all get on the same page. It was rather difficult to put a handle on what you were actually arguing when all we got was scrambled snippets and continued references to a “fart” that only entered _this_ conversation through your continued beratement of it. I have yet to see anything about a fart that wasn’t written by you. Let me acknowledge up front I am coming into this conversation with almost no knowledge of the topic. I am aware there is a body of work that is attributed to William Shakespeare, that he was supposedly from Stratford upon Avon, that he was an actor in London and helped form the Globe theater. I do not really know the dates well. I am almost completely ignorant about the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere (having only learned about him in this topic, just enough to put those two names together). So forgive me if I ask you for basics. Now let’s look at some of your arguments. > [@septimus](#): > > Much is known of Edward de Vere. He was already a well known writer, Wait right there. You just stated he was a well-known writer. How can this be reconciled with your premise that he requires having a frontman, that he is not able to publicly claim ownership of the later plays and sonnets? If he is already well-known as a writer, then what would be lost by continuing to be known as a writer? This detail needs to be addressed in much greater detail, because right now you are simultaneously arguing that it would have been unthinkable for him to be acknowledged as a writer, and yet he was praised and acknowledged as a writer. Color me confused. > [@](#): > > … had gotten himself in a variety of trouble (manslaughter, offending the Queen, bringing a lad back from Italy for immoral purposes, squandering his fortune). About this time he retires to pursue his writing. He had secretaries (e.g. Lyly), son(s)-in-law (e.g. Stanley), who were themselves accomplished writers. It seems likely he was cooperating with Her Majesty to promote the theater. He sponsered “Oxford’s Boys” while “Chamberlain’s Men” put on Shakespeare’s plays – but don’t forget that Edward de Vere was the hereditary 18th Great Chamberlain of England. More of the same. Retired to concentrate on his writing, and yet cannot acknowledge his writing. Please reconcile. > [@](#): > > It is alleged that the praise “Thy Will Shakes Spears” (or its Latin equivalent) had been directed at Oxford at a court dinner. Cite, please? > [@](#): > > That he chanced upon the man from Stratford, thought “Wow!” to himself about the name, and then celebrated by devising the Front man hoax seems far from impossible. “Far from impossible” is a different standard than “reasonably likely”. > [@](#): > > The sonnets entreating Southampton to marry were written at the same time Oxford was trying hard to get him as son-in-law. Glance at Wikipedia for a recent portrait of Southampton seeing how girlish he looked when young, and relate this to sonnets. Perhaps this is an effort for the proponent of the claim? [quote] [ul] [li]The writings were a team effort, with others than Oxford teaching Oxford, practicing with him, editing his verses, etc.[/li][li]The team was a two-man partnership. I will call them Oxford and the Collaborator, without further clarification. [/li][/quote] [/ul]Either of these premises makes Oxford a lesser player in the exchange. The “genius and creativity” of Shakespeare is left as much to the additions of the other contributors as to Oxford. While this may allow some room for Oxford to be involved, it hampers the claim that the works of Shakespeare’s are really not Shakespeare’s. Also, there is the problem that there is even less evidence for this claim than either claim that WS wrote his own works, or Oxford did it by himself. The rule of parsimony makes this dis-creditable without something more. [QUOTE] [ul] [li]My understanding is that many of Oxford’s poems were written in the 1560’s by the teen-aged Edward. The poems and plays were mostly written beginning in the 1590’s. We all certainly agree that the Shakespeare Author, whoever he was, was a unique genius. Is it farfetched to imagine that such a genius, writing poems as a lark in his teens, then making it is his life’s work at age 40, could have improved his skills enough to defeat such a statistical test?[/li][/QUOTE] [/ul]Doubtful. The things that the statistical tests use is not the kind of thing affected by mere improvement of skill. I am certainly not an expert on it, and perhaps someone with more knowledge could contribute here, but as I understand it the analysis looks at things like turn of phrase, sentence construction, framing of thoughts, etc. Of course, an example comparing known works from the same author at different time periods/ages and showing how the models can’t figure it out would be probative. But merely asserting the case won’t get you very far. > [@](#): > > Oxford, like Shakespeare, was an avid word creator – many new words earlier attributed to Shakespeare have been found in Oxford’s work. There are several metaphors (and morphological forms) present in each body. A cite here would be nice. > [@](#): > > I note that the chronology of the plays is disputed. In an Oxford plus Collaborater hypothesis, the 2nd writer did some work after 1604. Because of the age gap between true Author and Front man, in a hoax scenario it would be logical to withhold some work for later publication. There are at least 2 sonnets which, if read as Oxford addressing his front man / pen-name, can be read as discussing this effect! Granted, that has some plausibility to it. Oxford wrote or drafted works, his collaborator took them and edited, reworked, improved, whatever. Some of the works were incomplete, and the collaborator put more into them than the earlier ones. Whatever. Maybe even held back a few explicitly to continue the hoax. Can you point out the specific sonnets? > [@](#): > > **Why would there be a hoax anyway?** > > Unfortunately, I can’t answer this either. That the taboo against noble poets and playwrights revealing their work was strict is very clear (despite Stratfordian mumblings) but I think it had gone beyond this. As previously stated, this claim needs a lot more support. We have plenty of evidence that being a writer was acceptable - Oxford was even noted as such. Please justify the claim there is a taboo, and justify why the taboo allows Oxford to acknowledge being a playwrite without acknowledging which plays he wrote. > [@](#): > > Some of the plays had political content. (Recall, e.g. that Richard II was performed the day before the arrests of Essex and Southampton.) That Elizabeth (advised by Walsingham?) had decreed the Authorship to be a state secret does not seem impossible. Recall that the publisher of Green’s Groatsworth published a retraction, implying high authority. Elaborate for the uninformed. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\*Would not the hoaxster and his accomplices have left some cryptic clues? \*\* \*\* Why would they leave clues? Wasn’t the intent to create a hoax? What if they created a hoax, and did so well enough that they actually succeeded? Then what? > [@](#): > > The sonnets are almost autobiographical if by Oxford, yet puzzling when related to Stratford. In the earlier thread, which started when I posted several of the puzzling sonnets, no comment was ever offered about any particular sonnet, yet they were ruled off-limits for discussion of author’s identity. If that’s the ruling, fine; but obviously a case will suffer. I was not involved in previous conversations. Specifics should be cited. > [@](#): > > Do Field-written or -remembered documents exist? If there was a hoax, it seems probable that hoaxster Shakespere coopted a few friends to aid in the hoax. Remember Franklin’s adage: “Two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.” I don’t think that sentiment is particularly not understood prior to Franklin. Coopting a friend into your hoax is giving your friend leverage over you. No? What if there’s a falling out? What if Oxford doesn’t want anyone else involved, because they’d reveal his role and blow the whole thing? This seems to work in favor of the Oxford claim. > [@](#): > > The poems Oxford wrote as a teenager, and the plays and sonnets he wrote in middle age should be treated separately, no? Why? I will grant you there may be a reason why a man could get away with writing poetry as a lad that as an adult would get him looked down upon as a dillitante or a fool or whatever. I grant you that he could have structured his later hoax because of his exposure or near exposure from his youth, prompting him to seek a better cover. Of course, that assumes that anonymity is required, which you have not proven. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/164 "2011-11-14T02:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Remember Franklin’s adage: “Two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.” I don’t think that sentiment is particularly not understood prior to Franklin. Oh, I’d say it’s _definitely_ understood prior to Franklin 🙂 > [@William Shakespeare](#): > > **Aaron:** But say, again: how many saw the child? > **Nurse:** Cornelia the midwife, and myself; > And no one else but the deliver’d empress. > **Aaron:** The empress, the midwife, and yourself: > Two may keep counsel when the third’s away. > Go to the empress; tell her this I said. > _He kills the nurse._ ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/165 "2011-11-14T04:13:44Z")
Something that is easily lost because of Septimus’ arguments is that there are not two sides to this issue. He insists on making the issue black and white: if Shakespeare is not the author then Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, must be. This is artful sleight of hand, but denies reality. It’s exactly as meaningful as presenting the argument that if Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy then the Mafia must have. There are dozens of candidates for the “Real Shakespeare.” Why? People like reading them. Conspiracy theories sell like crazy. Dozens of books about the completely idiotic delusion that the Mayans predicted that the world will end in 2012 are selling like crazy, several even ending up on the bestseller list. A few authors have debunked it, but who’s going to buy them? Everybody sane knows the theory is crazy. Why spend money for a whole book to tell us that? To refute the “arguments” made by people who are either insane or deliberately trying to make a buck on the gullible? Few ordinary readers are going to bother. Creating fake Shakespeares is an industry. A book offering a candidate will sell. This has been true since the 19th century. Dozens, literally dozens, of alternate candidates have been proposed. Queen Elizabeth has been named many times. If you believe this… And yet there have probably been more unlikely names dropped. It never ends. The “anti-Stratfordians” can’t settle on any one alternate candidate. Two major reasons. The major one is that since Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare there is no positive evidence for anyone else. Putting together coincidences, suppositions, and bad history will allow you to put forth a case but it can’t refute anything. The Oxfordians can’t refute the Baconians and vice versa. All they can do is rail against Shakespeare. The second is the obvious one that you can’t make money selling someone else’s theory. Go for your own candidate at all costs. Since 1922, a group, now named the [Shakespeare Authorship Trust](http://www.shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org.uk/pages/whoweare.htm) has kept this nonsense alive. Of course they have never proved a thing in 83 years, yet there are a repository for all the silliness. They [report that](http://www.shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org.uk/pages/candidates.htm): > [@](#): > > Recent calculations suggest that there are more than 66 individual candidates. > > These eight candidates are perhaps the most-well known: > > Francis Bacon, Viscount St Alban, (1561- 1626) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (?1550- ?1604) Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (1576- 1612) Christopher Marlowe (1564- ?1593) Sir Henry Neville (1562- 1615) Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561- 1621) William Shakspere (1564- 1616) William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (1561- 1642). There is also a group theory relating to the authorship of the plays. 66 candidates! Eight of them major! (IF you include that silly reference to some name named Shakspere.] But wait, there’s more! There’s a group theory - it’s like an Agatha Christie novel: they all did it! And there are minor candidates. And they have books about them too! Whenever you see Septimus asking questions (just as in all those conspiracy theory threads: I’m not saying anything - I’m just asking questions), ask yourself whether any of them refute William Stanley. Or Mary Sidney Herbert. Or Queen Elizabeth. Just don’t for a second make the mistake of allowing the discussion to become one of two equal sides, with William Shakespeare against Edward de Vere. It’s not. It never has been. This is “teach the controversy” all over, and the opponents have as much scientific credibility as the Creationists. That’s the only reason why this silly dispute has any traction. It continues to be crucial to expose the vast gulf between lifelong expert professionals who truly know their fields and amateur cranks who have beliefs that they want brought into schools. That’s a fight worth fighting. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/166 "2011-11-14T04:36:43Z")
“Teach the controversy” indeed. What is scary is that the makers of the movie “Anonymous” were not happy by making just a movie, there were also lesson plans made so this can be thought in schools! [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/hollywood-dishonors-the-bard.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/hollywood-dishonors-the-bard.html) > [@](#): > > ROLAND EMMERICH’S film “Anonymous,” which opens next week, “presents a compelling portrait of Edward de Vere as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays.” That’s according to the lesson plans that Sony Pictures has been distributing to literature and history teachers in the hope of convincing students that Shakespeare was a fraud. A documentary by First Folio Pictures (of which Mr. Emmerich is president) will also be part of this campaign. > Related > > So much for “Hey, it’s just a movie!” > [@](#): > > De Vere is clear in the film about his objectives: “all art is political … otherwise it is just decoration.” Sony Pictures’ study guide is keen to reinforce this reductive view of what the plays are about, encouraging students to search Shakespeare’s works for “messages that may have been included as propaganda and considered seditious.” A more fitting title for the film might have been “Triumph of the Earl.” > > In offering this portrait of the artist, “Anonymous” weds Looney’s class-obsessed arguments to the political motives supplied by later de Vere advocates, who claimed that de Vere was Elizabeth’s illegitimate son and therefore the rightful heir to the English throne. By bringing this unsubstantiated version of history to the screen, a lot of facts — theatrical and political — are trampled. > > Supporters of de Vere’s candidacy who have awaited this film with excitement may come to regret it, for “Anonymous” shows, quite devastatingly, how high a price they must pay to unseat Shakespeare. Why anyone is drawn to de Vere’s cause is the real mystery, one not so easily solved as who was the true author of Shakespeare’s plays. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/167 "2011-11-14T04:44:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is scary is that the makers of the movie “Anonymous” were not happy by making just a movie, there were also lesson plans made so this can be thought in schools! Not to excuse the bullshit and bad history, but it’s really just marketing for the movie. I wouldn’t get too wound up over it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/168 "2011-11-14T04:59:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Not to excuse the bullshit and bad history, but it’s really just marketing for the movie. I wouldn’t get too wound up over it. Marketing _to literature and history teachers_? If I was Sony I would want my money back from those marketers! 🙂 But really, that is not just marketing, but also an attempt to “teach the controversy”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/169 "2011-11-14T05:01:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Marketing _to literature and history teachers_? If I was Sony I would want my money back from those marketers! 🙂 The idea, I presume, is that they announce the lesson plans and then the media covers the fact that they’re offering lesson plans. Which they did. If the plans convince anyone to see the movie that would be a bonus. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/170 "2011-11-14T05:10:02Z")
Unfortunately I did check the reach of it, there are teaching resources that already are recommending this trash: > **[YMI Classroom - Learn More About Our Free Online Lesson Plans](https://ymiclassroom.com/)** > > YMI classroom provides teachers with online lesson plans from preschool to kindergarten to college. Download our themed lesson plans now. > [@](#): > > CLICK HERE > to download the Anonymous > educational program :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/171 "2011-11-15T01:46:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > **Some plays were written when Oxford was dead** > > I note that the chronology of the plays is disputed. In an Oxford plus Collaborater hypothesis, the 2nd writer did some work after 1604. Because of the age gap between true Author and Front man, in a hoax scenario it would be logical to withhold some work for later publication. There are at least 2 sonnets which, if read as Oxford addressing his front man / pen-name, can be read as discussing this effect! The problem isn’t just that some of the plays came out after Oxford’s death, but that some of them are about events that happened after Oxford’s death. So at the least he’s going to need a collaborator who can perfectly and undetectably mimic the literary style of the greatest ever writer in the English language. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/172 "2011-11-24T20:02:58Z")
So I was driven into the rabbit hole with this one also… I was checking the recent Shakespeare webinar (that included Stephen Fry) and there was a very disturbing part on it regarding some questionable educational institutions making money from this [del]trash[/del] controversy. Warning, one hour long, and they did not close the tool bar 🙂 : [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFBrB27afg) The interesting bit regarding how this idea of Shakespeare not being the author is just like other conspiracies is here: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFBrB27afg) The anti-Shakespearean responses slide then shows a classic conspiracy tactic of getting “experts” to sign a declaration claiming that the consensus by the real experts is incorrect, and then we get to see the few academic centers that profit form educating people into the conspiracy. As Paul Edmondson, Stanley Wells and even Stephen Fry noticed, there is no intellectual justification by Brunel University in England and The Concordia University in Oregon to profit from this idea. :sigh: What is it with Oregon and conspiracies? It is interesting to notice that one big element that climate change deniers use is also coming from Oregon, the infamous Oregon petition: > **[How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on...](https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm)** > > \The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.\ So for all that still insist that the anti-shakespearean position is not based on a conspiracy or denial of the facts, you need to get out of the rabbit hole and check what the experts really say: [http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-bites-back-free-book](http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-bites-back-free-book) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/173 "2011-11-24T20:18:20Z")
The best evidence is that some guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. There is a lot of evidence to ignore to come to another conclusion supported by no evidence at all. But in the spirit of fun, I think that the real author was Elizabeth I, who as the Virgin Queen would not have been allowed to write such bawdy fun nonsense. Check out some of her writing some time. She was an excellent writer. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/174 "2011-11-24T20:58:09Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > But in the spirit of fun, I think that the real author was Elizabeth I, who as the Virgin Queen would not have been allowed to write such bawdy fun nonsense. Check out some of her writing some time. She was an excellent writer. Right: so, in 1603 Her Majesty pretended to die, so that her cousin James VI of Scotland could inherit her throne, and she could retire to some secret place, where no one would recognise the late Queen of England, and she could go on writing the plays in peace. No, I don’t think there are any possible holes in that theory. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/175 "2011-11-24T21:30:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Unfortunately I did check the reach of it, there are teaching resources that already are recommending this trash: > > [http://www.ymiclassroom.com/](http://www.ymiclassroom.com/) > > :smack: That’s depressing. I’ve added [Contested Will](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contested-Will-Who-Wrote-Shakespeare/dp/0571235778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322170081&sr=8-1) by James Shapiro to my Amazon wishlist, hopefully someone will bite for Christmas. I found his previous book, 1599, very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/176 "2011-11-25T05:31:55Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Right: so, in 1603 Her Majesty pretended to die, so that her cousin James VI of Scotland could inherit her throne, and she could retire to some secret place, where no one would recognise the late Queen of England, and she could go on writing the plays in peace. No, I don’t think there are any possible holes in that theory. Hey, it’s less preposterous than De Vere who died about the same time. I’m going to go with she had them written, finished and delivered to her beard, but the company was already putting on other plays. But seriously, Shakespeare wrote the plays. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/177 "2011-11-26T23:44:47Z")
Disclaimer: I do not think there is any literary importance to question of whether the glover’s son wrote the plays that bear his name. However, I do find this position a bit disingenuous: > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think you left out the fact that, despite this guy’s use of a patsy, de Vere still gets publicly called a playwright in fawning terms by his peers, AND that some folks list him as a playwright under his name (and not his patsy’s name), AND that the king cares so little about the hoax that when de Vere dies he goes ahead and commemorates the occasion with de Vere’s plays written under the patsy’s name. > > It makes no sense whatsoever. IANAH, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that while a person of noble birth might devise a few gentle trifles for the private enjoyment of the court, allowing his name to be publicly bandied about by the groundlings would be frowned upon. Now, how that might translate into a 400 year old case of mistaken identity is another story. But I don’t think it makes no sense whatsoever that de Vere might not want his name associated with _ **publicly performed** _ plays - unless an historian can set me straight on this point? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/178 "2011-11-27T00:01:07Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Disclaimer: I do not think there is any literary importance to question of whether the glover’s son wrote the plays that bear his name. > > However, I do find this position a bit disingenuous: Seriously? Your best explanation for your disagreement with me on this point is that I’m **lying** to you? Are you shitting me? If you think I’m being disingenuous, then obviously there’s no reason for you even to talk with me. If you want to talk with me like a grownup, though, and not accuse me of dishonesty just because of a disagreement, lemme know. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/179 "2011-11-27T00:36:06Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > That’s depressing. I’ve added [Contested Will](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contested-Will-Who-Wrote-Shakespeare/dp/0571235778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322170081&sr=8-1) by James Shapiro to my Amazon wishlist, hopefully someone will bite for Christmas. I found his previous book, 1599, very interesting. You may be disappointed. I haven’t entered this thread, because I consider the subject far too stupid to discuss, but I did skim it today and found **Little Nemo** claiming (in post #46) that Shapiro’s book Contested Will makes a pro-conspiracy argument. In fact, Professor Shapiro’s well-researched book makes a very sound and strong case for Shakespeare being the author of the plays and poems. In fact every single professor of literature who teaches Shakespeare that I have met argues the same, though not all so skillfully as Shapiro. I wonder if **Little Nemo** has read the book he’s citing as evidence for his position. This BTW is the single strongest argument I can find for non-experts in Shakespearean literature: if there were a plausible argument to be made showing that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare, some ambitious Ph. D. student seeking to land a tenure-track job (a very competitive undertaking these days) would write his dissertation on the subject, and his well-researched, logical argument would certainly get published, and Shakespeare scholars all over the world would have to admit that it had some merit, and he would be an academic super-star. The fact that this clear pathway to academic stardom hasn’t been successfully tried by any of thousands of ambitious Ph. D. candidates suggests to me that it is a complete dead end, a total loser of an argument. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003/180 "2011-11-27T00:42:32Z")
And if you’re wondering, Shapiro gives a thorough report on all the false-Shakespeare identifications over the past 400 years, tracing them out in admirable detail, and his concluding chapters make for a complete positive identification of the author of the works as the butcher’s boy, the actor, the Stradfordian etc. named William Shakespeare. That \*\*Little Nemo \*\*could cite this book as an anti-Shakespeare work suggests that he either didn’t read it or didn’t finish it. Most likely, the former, as Shapiro’s ridicule of the ridiculous Oxford/Vere arguments crops up fairly early, though it doesn’t get really dispositive until close to the end. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-they-ever-resolve-the-theory-that-francis-bacon-wrote-the-shakespeare-plays/602003.md?page=10)