Recently while reading through a book called “The 100” about the 100 most influential people ever, I was shocked to note that the author considered William de Vere as Shakespeare. This made me realize: Some renown scholars don’t think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s plays.
I think, given my limited research on the subject, that Shakespeare was indeed Shakespeare, and not de Vere or Francis Bacon (as other assert).
So, anyone have the Straight Dope?
(Note- this is in GD due to the usual controversy associated with it)
This tells why it is the Earl of Oxford and not William who did the writing.
It seems to me that unless you are a true scholar of the subject, it is better to accept Shakespeare and forget the speculation. However, it is good to know about it just so you won’t make a fool of yourself and say you had no idea there was a question.
The case for Oxford is flimsy at best, and based primarily on snobbery and conspiracy theory (and an overestimation of the ability of people to keep a secret). A good site for Shakespeare’s case is http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ – they’re far more well-versed in this stuff than I am.
Francis Bacon (mmmm…Bacon) was the favored candidate (for those who are into this sort of thing) for a long time – since about the eighteenth century. Oxford wasn’t suggested until the 1920s, by the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney (hence the preceding remark about the ability to keep a secret).
(That site I linked to has links to websites for some of the other “candidates,” too. Some of it is really out there. However, they omit the Brunching Shuttlecocks’ theory… ;))
Incidentally, if you bring up the question in a Shakespeare class, most of the time, the teacher will either laugh or say “Well, the plays are what really matter.” The latter answer is the wimpy way out. (It’s also what they said on the Globe tour when someone asked about it.)
Heh. Out of all the alternate-authorship theories, I have to say that my favorite is Marlowe – I believe none of it, of course, but it amuses me. Although, since the theory usually depends on the assumption that Marlowe faked his death and wrote Shakespeare’s plays afterward under a pseudonym, one must wonder why he’d have written a few of them using that name before he supposedly died? (And some of them were hugely popular – the Henry VI plays, which don’t get enough credit with scholars, and I think Titus Andronicus was also very popular in its day.)
BTW, the Salon article trots out a couple of things that often show up in this argument – that we know almost nothing about Shakespeare, and that he must have had a lot of inside knowledge of court life. Neither one is particularly true. I mean, by today’s standards we don’t have huge amounts of documentation about what he was doing where and when, but how much do we know about anyone from that time who wasn’t of noble blood? Yes, it would be nice if he’d written a detailed autobiography or something, but what can you do?
I read the salon article. I’ve also read Marlowe’s Faustus and many of Shakespeare’s plays, seen many Shakespeare movies, seen a few plays and was once Marc Antony in an eighth grade production.
I’ve also heard a number of these, it’s someone else things over the years. The only one for me that was ever plausible in the slightest was Marlowe. I’ve read a lot of Elizabethan literature, and he was the only one that wrote as well, even though many contemporary writers were quite excellent. Simply put, if someone else wrote Shakespeare’s plays, they would have to write as well, and the only contemporary who came close was Marlowe.
I haven’t read Marlowe’s other plays, but Faustus has the sophistacted character and writing of a Shakespeare play. But it really only has one character in it who is full fledged. Compare to Julius Caeser, where a number of characters are as interesting as Faustus.
I saw a documentary years ago with a renowned Oxford professor whose claim for non-Shakespearean authorship of Shakespeare was thus (IIRC): “some of these sonnets were written to a woman, while some were written to a man. Clearly one who can write with such passion to a woman could not possibly be a roaring hommo (sic).”
I too think that his identity as a nom-de-plume for someone else is dubious at least. However, that the work is unlikely to be 100% Shakespeare’s is rarely questioned: while he would have done most of the writing, much of the work was collaborative with fellow actors, and there is evidence that every single one of the folios has been considerably “improved” down the centuries.
Though if it had to be someone else, my hunch would be Bacon (my expertise is but a degree in acting - no real scholarship involved).
This sounds suspiciously like the late and not-very-much-lamented A. L. Rowse, although, if so, you’ve misremembered the quote - Rowse was fond of arguing that the author of the Sonnets was obviously not a ‘hommo’ but he was always equally sure (and he was sure about everything) that the author was Shakespeare. It should be added that Rowse was an openly non-practising homosexual. Make of that what you want.
Most orthodox Shakespeare scholars have no problem with the idea that some of the plays, particularly the early ones, are likely to have been written in collaboration with other playwrights. The question as to which plays this applies to and to who those collaborators might have been is a perennial and lively topic of debate within the orthodox camp. The best evidence for that sort of collaboration is the surviving fragment of the manuscript of Sir Thomas More, which many scholars (although by no means all) believe contains lines drafted in Shakespeare’s own hand. See the following article on the subject (from the excellent site posted above by Katisha).
Doubtless, his fellow actors did have some input into his plays, although it seems likely that this would mainly have involved cutting or rearranging what the playwrights had already drafted.
What do you mean by ‘improved’? Editors have, of course, always tinkered with the text in an attempt to iron out the undoubted misprints in the originals. That, however, is just good editorial practice and even now, when the fashion is for relatively light editorial interventions, everyone accepts that most of the accidentals (the minor imperfections which do not affect the meaning) can and should be altered. This is always done from the printed originals.
As for the Earl of Oxford, his supporters tend to keep very quiet about the fact that, until he was put forward as a candidate, the 17th Earl was best known for being the subject of Elizabeth I’s celebrated fart joke.
And some of the latest ones as well – we know he collaborated with John Fletcher on The Two Noble Kinsmen, and probably Henry VIII as well. (I think the lost play Cardenio was also supposed to have been written with Fletcher, actually.)
Incidentally, the editor of the new Arden edition of Henry VI Part 1 argues, not very persuasively IMHO, that the play was the work of several playwrights besides Shakespeare – he thinks one of them was Thomas Nashe (to whom he credits the scenes involving Joan la Pucelle).
Have newer computer techniques added anything to the debate? What about the guy who ID’d the author of Primary Colors? IIRC, he has several sucessful results under his belt - any word on Shakes?
I believe that’s the same guy who pegged the funeral elegy discovered a few years ago as being written by Shakespeare. I’m not sure if he’s done anything on the authorship question, but I’ve read that comparisons of Shakespeare’s plays and Oxford’s known poetry have yielded very few similiarities in vocabulary, structure, and so forth.
FWIW, Oxford (whose name was Edward de Vere, not William – I just noticed that in the OP) doesn’t have an entry in the Norton Anthology of English Literature…just thought I’d throw that out there. I’ve read a bit of his poetry, though – it’s no great shakes, pun absolutely intended.
Hey I waited 4 hours [like the 7th grader we all learned to hate wanted to shoot my hand up imediately and start the “ohohohing”] took all my restraint …
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) farted as he bent to kiss the hand of Queen Elizabeth I at court. He was so embarrassed that he left England and travelled for 7 years. On his return, in the words of John Aubrey:“the Queen welcomed him home and say’d ‘My Lord, I had forgot the fart’”.
Judi Dench actually referred to it on 60 minutes last night – but again does seem a little unlikely, no?
