# William Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228 "2019-04-08T16:37:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/81 "2019-04-09T06:42:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s it. That’s the “supernova.” It’s literally a guy saying, “When that star over there was in the same place last night, we saw a ghost.” > > The “discovery of Mars’ retrograde orbit” is harder to place, partially because its not clear what the authors are talking about. Mars doesn’t have a retrograde orbit. It appears that it does from Earth, because heliocentrism, but that was something people had known for thousands of years. Presumably they mean “the discovery of the explanation for Mars’ retrograde orbit,” but I can’t find anything supporting that claim. There’s a bit in in _Henry VI_ where he describes Mars’ orbit as a mystery, and there’s a couple places where he explicitly calls the Earth the center of the solar system, including later in the same play where he supposedly knew so much about supernovas. There’s also the passage I quoted in [post 49](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21580873&postcount=49), which talks about the sun moving; I doubt that Shakespeare was describing the sun orbiting the center of our galaxy. (Incidentally, that’s from _Hamlet_, not _Much Ado About Nothing_, as I originally indicated. My bad. It’s Hamlet’s love letter to Ophelia, which Polonius reads aloud.) ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/82 "2019-04-09T06:44:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Thanks for this, **bonzer**! It’s very useful. I _do_ remember you mentioning Hall; I do NOT remember that quote. It’s possible you posted it in a follow-up, after I had become disgusted with all the insults and hostility directed against me and had abandoned the thread. > > The point about Hall was just a step in a larger point which your post does nothing to refute. Can you confirm that no contemporary relative or in-law of Shakespeare ever produced a document or deposition suggesting they knew their relative was a famous poet/playwright? I know this post was not directed towards me but does the inscription on Shakespeare’s funerary monument count as a ‘document’? I see no reason why Shakespeare’s family would liken him to Virgil and Socrates and specifically praise his ‘writt’ & ‘art’ if they merely viewed him as a successful small businessman. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/83 "2019-04-09T11:26:02Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > … does the inscription on Shakespeare’s funerary monument count as a ‘document’? I see no reason why Shakespeare’s family would liken him to Virgil and Socrates and specifically praise his ‘writt’ & ‘art’ if they merely viewed him as a successful small businessman. The monument and its inscription are somewhat mysterious. [This page seems to try to take an even-handed view](https://medium.com/the-history-buff/the-mystery-of-the-stratford-monument-f495b0effaa6), mentions some of the oddities — e.g. that the bust first showed a wool merchant, not a penman — and would answer your question (with the sentence I’ve underlined below) _if we could trust it_. (Can we? Is there a cite for the claim that the family didn’t commission, build or pay for the Monument?) > [@](#): > > there is no record of who commissioned or paid for the Monument, or who built it. **All that is known is that it was not the Shakespeare family** nor the Stratford-upon-Avon corporation. Neither do we know who raised the plaque or who composed the epitaph. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/84 "2019-04-09T11:51:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > This little factoid shows how impertinent so much of the criticism is! > > First of all, Sigismund of Luxembourg (1368 - 1437) became King of Hungary and Croatia in 1387 and King of Bohemia in 1419. After that date, IIRC, _ **the Kings of Bohemia and Hungary were always the same person** _ (whenever both titles existed). And yes, [as seen here](https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151/euro1519.GIF) Hungary controlled much of the former Serbian Empire for many years, including Shakespeare’s time. (Mark Anderson writes that Hungary had a seacoast from 1575 to 1609; I find it hard to Google the best maps.) From the late 15th century until the 19th, the Kings of Navarre were also Kings of France or of Castille and Aragon, depending on which side you take and which exact year you’re looking at. And yet, despite France, Castille and Aragon all having sea coasts during that period, Navarre does not. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/85 "2019-04-09T11:55:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But it’s also true that Edward de Vere’s [crest](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gV3Jiqh5L2c/Vn-qvrI3GJI/AAAAAAAAAoY/49ACnqfHN8c/s320/Pic%2BOxford%2527s%2Bemblem.jpg) was a lion shaking a spear. So de Vere can also claim a close connection to the name Shake-speare. This is something else we’ve done before. To repeat what I previously pointed out to you, in 2006 the Oxford Shakespeare Society dropped the crest of the lion brandishing a broken spear as the logo of its newsletter on realising that the idea that it had ever been Oxford’s crest was based on a series of misunderstandings. [https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SOSNL\_2006\_3.pdf](https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SOSNL_2006_3.pdf) (pp. 1, 17-20). > [@septimus](#): > > For example, Will. Monox may have been used at least once as a pseudonym for Oxford. The Monoux family, some of whom were called William, were a reasonably prominent gentry family whose wealth derived from the late Mayor of both Bristol and London, [George Monoux](http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/monoux-george-1465-1544). But then again, if you think that Oxford was going around using the names of real people as pseudonyms, that’s hardly going to convince you that you’re almost certainly wrong. > [@septimus](#): > > I’m not sure why King James would have found the secret important but his peculiar behavior on the day of Oxford’s death hints at some weird mystery, whether that mystery has anything to do with the authorship or not. Not much of ‘weird mystery’ when the source on which that is based, i.e. the Venetian ambassador, believed that Southampton had been arrested for plotting to kill some of the King’s Scottish courtiers. This is even less mysterious when one remembers that James VI and I was, with very good reason, always panicky about his own safety. Also, Southampton had in recent weeks been one of the leading opponents in Parliament of James’s pet project for a union between Scotland and England. That the accusations against Southampton were almost certainly invented still doesn’t mean that one need look beyond that immediate political context for a sufficient explanation. > [@](#): > > there is no record of who commissioned or paid for the Monument, or who built it. All that is known is that it was not the Shakespeare family nor the Stratford-upon-Avon corporation. Neither do we know who raised the plaque or who composed the epitaph. That’s just nonsense. Since there is no record of who commissioned or paid for the monument, we don’t know that it was not the family. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/86 "2019-04-09T11:58:44Z")
> [@erysichthon](#): > > You’re playing games with us, **septimus**. You tell us to read a paper, we read it, then you tell us that the real answer is somewhere else. You’re trying to send us on a scavenger hunt. Stop playing silly games and show us your evidence. If it exists, you ought to be able to summmarize it here. SORRY - YOUR CONVINCING ARGUMENT IS IN ANOTHER CASTLE > [@septimus](#): > > Yes. Oxford was in need of a pen name, and might have chanced upon Will Shakespeare (who reminded him of the “Thy Will Shakes Spears” compliment once paid to him by a friend). I imagine he said “Aha!” and invited the young Stratfordian for a pint of ale! “Might have chanced” and “I imagine”, you say. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/87 "2019-04-09T12:05:49Z")
So I did what you asked, Septimus, and read THE SEVEN PAGES. And I looked for the arguments most surprising - “strongest” as you say. The SEVEN PAGES are well ititled: it’s indeed a bunch of curious coincidences. The two most startling to me are the “Gentleman of many crowns” part, and the thing about the publishing rights of “Merchaunt of Venyce”. I can come up with a number of explanations other than OMG! that Shakespeare was really this dude “bound by a single letter” Oxford. In the end it is _just_ “a few curiosities” I also regret now having read it. The way the arguments for Oxford are presented there and here in this thread are strongly reminiscent of any other CT, and that is a rabbit hole I have no desire to dive into. For the record, I couldn’t give a shit who “actually” wrote Hamlet. I don’t think it’s inconceivable Shakespeare ws a pen name. But absent proof, Occam woud suggest Stratford wrote (most of) it. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/88 "2019-04-09T12:07:40Z")
Oh, that crest? That ain’t a lion shaking a spear. That’s a lion displaying a broken lance it obviously took from whomever meant it harm. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/89 "2019-04-09T12:48:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Oh my. Let me repeat my post from the other thread, but with some added emphasis. Note, by the way, that if Oxford were the author he probably had some collaborators. > > _ **Again, the challenge is not to find the weakest “anti-Stratford” claims, those which are easily debunked. The challenge is to look at the real evidence that intrigues serious scholars.** _ > > Please re-read the above paragraph until you see clearly the point it makes. > > The case for Oxford and against the man from Stratford is too involved to summarize in just 7 pages, but some have tried. **[This is one such effort.](http://www.cu-portland.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/CAS-SARC-Oxford%20and%20Shakespeare.pdf)** > > Here are three websites which discuss the controversy in much detail: > [https://hankwhittemore.com/](https://hankwhittemore.com/) > [Who Wrote Shakespeare? Shakespeare Authorship 101 | Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship](https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/discover-shakespeare/) > [https://doubtaboutwill.org](https://doubtaboutwill.org) > Note that these are websites, not webpages. You’ll need some clicking to find the best arguments. > > If you get bored of clicking without finding anything of interest, that’s fine. As I said, it’s a fascinating topic to discuss, but I will avoid masochism! 🙂 > > Shakespeare wrote a large number of plays set in Italy, the country which (excepting England) Oxford was most familiar with. Anti-Oxfordians contend that, had Oxford written these plays they would show much more familiarity with these Italian cities. This is a claim particularly interesting to debunk. > > The case for Oxford is MUCH stronger than most of you realize. Even if you ultimately decide that Oxford is not the author, intellectual honesty should force you to admit that the signs pointing to his authorship represent surprising coincidence. > > I’ve enlarged a link above to [a 7-page paper](http://www.cu-portland.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/CAS-SARC-Oxford%20and%20Shakespeare.pdf). If you don’t the time to review that, you’re not serious. Again, the challenge is not to find the weakest easiest-to-refute claim, but the one that gives most pause. To quote Firesign, “He say, ‘he can shout, don’t hear you.’” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/90 "2019-04-09T13:11:53Z")
OK, finally, here’s an argument you’re making: > [@](#): > > As a nobleman, it was taboo and shameful for Oxford to write plays for public performane. This is a well-attested fact, both generally in that era and as applies to Oxford specifically. The 7-page article mentions further reasons he needed to keep his identity secret. Indeed he’d “painted himself into a corner” — with the freedom of anonymity he portrayed the royal court, and contemporary politics, in ways which might be scandalous were it known a court insider wrote them. > > Publishing as “Anonymous” wouldn’t do. He was so famous as a playwright that “Anonymous” would have pointed straight at him. And so would a totally fake pen-name. He needed a front-man, a living breathing pen-name. And which you’re immediately refuting yourself. How could de Vere have been “so famous as a playwright” if it was “taboo and shameful for him to write plays for public performance”? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/91 "2019-04-09T14:21:29Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Excepting **Little Nemo** who seems open-minded and informed, there seem to be four types of thread participant: > A. Dopers with sincere interest in learning about the evidence, who have read the seven-page summary and are preparing intelligent comments. > B. Dopers with sincere interest but who expect _me_ to provide a 7-page summary. > C. Dopers who want to harass septimus. > D. Dopers who already know the answers. A - I read the 7 page summary and all of my comments are of the form of “That’s not evidence, it’s a cherry picked coincidence, a vast leap of unsupported logic, or a misrepresentation of a poorly documented detail”. It’s like nailing jello to a wall. IMO, it all boils down to the idea that Great Works must come from Great Men, not someone from low status. As an argument against well documented authorship it fails miserably. B - 7 pages is a pretty long summary. A single page with 2-3 of the best arguments would be a much better approach. As it is, there seems to be a lot of handwaving around the “poorer” points raised. If someone picks a point from the 7 pages and fully demolishes it, they don’t want to be told “Well that wasn’t an important point, how about this one?” C - The purpose of this site is Fighting Ignorance. That’s not harassment. D - Many Dopers have studied this as much or more than you have. Many learned scholars have gone through all these arguments many times, with fully supported documentation that argues for William Shakespeare being William Shakespeare. Yes, it’s a discussion, but some people really do have much more persuasive answers than anything the Oxfordians have ever presented. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/92 "2019-04-09T14:30:08Z")
Cosigning everything **Telemark** just said, including having carefully read the 7-page paper. The Oxford hypothesis is a classic unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory: any apparent coincidence is supposed to be evidence in favor of the “hoax”, whereas any evidence **against** it is explained away as illustrating how successful the “hoax” was. There’s no arguing with that kind of “reasoning”. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/93 "2019-04-09T14:45:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Thanks for reading the paper! > > You mention a coincidence that you find weak probabilistically. What was the _strongest_ coincidence, or other clue, that you noticed in the reading? > > With your “insufficient information to evaluate” are you suggesting that some of this evidence is twisted or fabricated? If so, show which clue would give you most pause IF TRUE, and I’ll try to hunt down an evidentiary cite. There’s in general no way to judge the strength of coincidences in a summary so short on context. Coincidences are bad evidence in the first place, and conspiracy theorists never accept the kind of counter evidence available for coincidences anyway. But like the name coincidence appears strong to someone unaware that Baptista and Minola are normal Italian names, they can be strengthened or weakened by knowing the context surrounding them. That’s a huge undertaking though, for very little pay off. People still believe in nonsense like the bible code, despite Brendan McKay’s work (with others) showing that you can find equivalent “codes” in Moby Dick. Since the coincidences here are much weaker and more vague than the bible codes, counter-examples are of necessity as weak and as vague, and thus as easy to dismiss. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/94 "2019-04-09T15:01:55Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Did you read the 7-page paper, **XT**? It’s already a terse summary of a few points; to summarize that summary would be absurd. > > As I’ve said, if I detect any sincere interest I’ll point out which arguments I consider most interesting. As is AFAICT nobody has even read the 7-page summary yet. > > Or they did, but didn’t find the “Baptista Minola of Padua” coincidence to be surprising. And weren’t troubled that > The traditional rebuttals to Oxfordian points tend to be amusing. The peculiar dedication _“From A never writer to an ever reader”_? That’s an “inside joke we’ll never be able to decipher.” :smack: The peculiar dedication in _Shake-speare’s Sonnets_? “W.H.” is a printer’s error for W.S and “our ever-living poet” refers to God. :smack: I skimmed it. The gist seems to be that Shakespeare was born illiterate to illiterate parents and limited access to books at an early age, while Oxford had access to all that sort of stuff. There is a bunch more attempts to make compelling connections or show disconnects that leads, without actually showing any evidence, down a logical path to a conclusion the author wants the reader to make. It reminds me of many of the Loose Change type videos, except this is obviously a written paper, but it’s a similar tactic. I have to admit, I don’t know that much about the subject…I came in mostly to see what Rick was talking about. You are obviously very passionate about this, and as I don’t know much about the subject (or, sorry, really care that much about it either), I’ll bow out. My impression with that paper, though, is it’s pretty standard CT format. Like I said, it’s like a lot of the Loose Change videos, or, maybe a better analogy is it has a Ancient Aliens or Chariots of the Gods vibe, using a lot of speculation and inference to guide the reader down a logic path to the conclusion the authors intend. I don’t know if a lot of the facts they bring up are real or not…in the Ancient Aliens shows they often play fast and loose with facts, or they twist or distort them to make a more compelling case…but from what I did see in the 7 pages, the reader has to make the same assumptions that the author wants them to in order to make the case compelling. It wasn’t that compelling to me, but that doesn’t really mean much as I’m not the target audience most likely. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/95 "2019-04-09T15:42:27Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > **I read the seven-page paper.** In fact, I read the 1991 _Atlantic_, which sparked my interest. > [@erysichthon](#): > > I read the entire paper. When I got to he last page, I scrolled down, looking for a bibliography, and found none. > [@septimus](#): > > Oh, bullshit! You haven’t even read the 7-page paper. > If there’s serious and respectful interest I’ll post some notes, but so far Zero of you have even read the brief 7-page article AFAICT. **septimus** , your “AFAICT” does not exempt you from following the rules that proscribe accusations of lying. In fact, your response to **erysichthon** is in direct reply to his quoted statement. If you choose to not provide the significant evidence for your belief, that is your privilege. However, you will stop accusing (even by implication) other posters of lying. [/Moderation] ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/96 "2019-04-09T15:51:50Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Or they did, but didn’t find the “Baptista Minola of Padua” coincidence to be surprising. And weren’t troubled that > > > [@](#): > > > > Henry Peacham, in The Compleat Gentleman [1622], praised Oxford above all other writers among the Golden Age writers during the reign of Queen Elizabeth — and his list makes no mention of any William Shakespeare. Coincidences happen. Relying on them without acknowledging that is quite weak. Regarding Peacham he is writing a book for the education of upper classes and gives a quick list of eight Elizabethan poets, at least four of them noblemen, at the end of several pages of lengthy descriptions of classical poets and earlier English poets. He doesn’t mention Shakepeare, but neither does he mention a number of other playwrights such as Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Francis Beaumont. Maybe Peacham was in fact a human being, and a bit of a snob. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/97 "2019-04-09T15:56:13Z")
> [@Reindeer\_Flotilla](#): > > The ironic thing is in a century or two there will probably be a movement pushing that Samuel Langhorne Clemens wasn’t Mark Twain. A riverboat pilot and confederate volunteer foot soldier is the father of American literature? Balderdash! 🙂 And Robert Zimmerman could not possibly be Bob Dylan. Born to hick parents in a hick town, no music training or poetry education, starts out in the uneducated folk music genre and ends up winning a Nobel Prize? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/98 "2019-04-09T16:16:01Z")
How many great artists were both to artist parents? I mean, not to point out the obvious here, but all the greatest artists will of course be born to parents of vastly less artistic skill, since by definition the greatest artists are greater than anyone else. Of course Dylan’s parents were not skilled lyricists, Van gogh’s parents weren’t painters, Michaelangelo’s parents weren’t artists and Spielberg’s parents weren’t filmmakers. Futhermore, while Shakespeare’s parents were not writers, or nobility, they weren’t dirt-eating peasants. His father was a successful businessman and local politician and his mother came from money. It would have been astounding had Shakespeare NOT gone to school; any family like his would have had their son educated. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/99 "2019-04-09T16:19:59Z")
As I said above, I’ve read a lot about authorship. Unfortunately for septimus, that means I’ve read a lot of the case for Francis Bacon, who was the prime candidate in the 20th century before the Oxford revival. Twain’s preferred candidate was Bacon, although defenders say he was satirizing the silliness of the controversy. The case for Bacon consists of… coincidences. Parallel wordings, knowledge that Bacon had, coded hints in letters, his need to hide such low-brow work. All the same stuff that is trotted out as proof for Oxford. Baconism went into full blown madness with the reams of Bible Code-like numerology it descended into, but before that the case went along the exact lines of Oxfordism. [Wiki on Twain’s essay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Shakespeare_Dead%3F): > [@](#): > > Twain’s arguments include the following points: > > [ul] > [li]That little was known about Shakespeare’s life, and the bulk of his biographies were based on conjecture.[/li][li] That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found Shakespeare’s plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.[/li][li] That in contrast, Shakespeare of Stratford had never held a legal position or office, and had only been in court over petty lawsuits late in life.[/li][li] That small towns lionize and celebrate their famous authors for generations, but this had not happened in Shakespeare’s case. He described his own fame in Hannibal as a case in point.[/li][/ul] In short, people made up their minds that Bacon was the true author and then combed through all of history trying to find something, anything that would confirm their belief. That is exactly how conspiracy theories work. Oxfordism is a low-grade conspiracy theory without a shred of positive evidence to back it up. Since we’re giving cites, I recommend that people start with the two sites GIGO buster gave, [https://shakespeareauthorship.com](https://shakespeareauthorship.com) and [https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/](https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/). Another interesting one was specifically designed to combat De Vere, [https://oxfraud.com/](https://oxfraud.com/). For some reason the links to the articles under 100 reasons don’t work for me, but there’s lots of other pages that do. If you want books, the best is [Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?](https://www.amazon.com/Contested-Will-Who-Wrote-Shakespeare-dp-1416541624/dp/1416541624/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1554826362) by James Shapiro. Shapiro is dismissed by Oxfordians because he is a genuine professor of English at Columbia and the author of many detailed books about Shakespeare and his times. Worse, although his book has a long section on the positive evidence for Shakespeare, much of the book is an examination of why people will believe anything as crazy as Shakespeare conspiracy theories. Start there. And for the sake of your sanity (and blood pressure) end there. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228/100 "2019-04-09T16:49:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The monument and its inscription are somewhat mysterious. [This page seems to try to take an even-handed view](https://medium.com/the-history-buff/the-mystery-of-the-stratford-monument-f495b0effaa6), mentions some of the oddities — e.g. that the bust first showed a wool merchant, not a penman — and would answer your question (with the sentence I’ve underlined below) _if we could trust it_. (Can we? Is there a cite for the claim that the family didn’t commission, build or pay for the Monument?) The bust did not first show Shakespeare as a wool merchant. You can see the right hand is in a position to write. The early reproductions of the bust are almost certainly wrong. Dugdale, the antiquarian, was shoddy in many of his reproductions not just the Shakespeare one. I don’t think it is known for certain that Shakespeare’s family did not commission the funerary monument. We simply don’t know who paid for it or who authored the inscription. However, we can be as good as certain his family at the very least approved of the funerary monument. If they approved of it then they approved the inscription below it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-shakespeare-wrote-shakespeare/832228.md?page=6)