Doubt Of Shakespeare

’s Authorship Of His Plays Essay, Research Paper

Doubt of Shakespeare’s Authorship of His Plays

Over the years, various persons have expressed doubt as to the

authorship of William Shakespeare. These doubts are as old as his plays.

American author, Henry James once said, “I am haunted by the conviction that the

divine William is the biggest and the most successful fraud ever practiced on a

patient world. (Hoffman 27) On the other hand, author Calvin Hoffman was

convinced that Shakespeare was “the author of the most magnificent English

dramatic prose and poetry ever written. (Hoffman 27) But, he reiterated this

belief nineteen years later, stating, “They are magnificent! Only, William

Shakespeare of Stratford-on- Avon never wrote the plays and poems.” (Hoffman 27)

Crime, guilt, fraud, exile, hate, deceit, and murder are all woven into

this shroud of authorship that hides the identity of the world’s most renowned

writer. Cranks have proposed over fifty candidates for authorship, from Queen

Elizabeth to the Jesiuts.

Although many doubt that William Shakespeare ever wrote the works

attributed to him, some still resort to pro-Shakespearean arguments. John

Drinkwater, author and believer, felt that the flowers, banks, brooks, pastures,

and woodlands of Shakespeare’s boyhood home, Stratford, were all transfigured in

his plays by his wonderful verse, but yet they still remained the scenes to

which he was bred. Drinkwater believed too, that not only in Shakespeare’s

humble folk, shepherds, gardeners, and serving men, but also in his princes and

kings, he reflected the humanity with which he was familiar in Stratford. The

knowledge and wisdom he acquired directly from his own enviroment was quite true

to life. Drinkwater also said that mere book- knowledge in Shakespeare’s works

was usually incorrect because he used knowledge outside the range of his own

experiences, with a “grand audacity.”

It is true that William Shakespeare attended grammar school in Stratford,

and tha he acquired some competence in Latin and gained a limited knowledge of

English history. There was a period of time in his life referred to as his

“dark years,” and this period of time may have been subjected to influences

making for high culture.

Records say too, that Shakespeare left Stratford in 1585 and went on the

stage in 1590. During this time he could have attended Cambridge or worked in a

lawyer’s office, apparently remaining about one year with the court. This left

one year in which he might have traveled to France and Italy, which would

account for certain knowledge revealed in his works. Perhaps Shakespeare’s

plays are too scholarly to have been written by a man without a degree, but that,

some believe can be explained by the fact that the plays looked learned to

people of later generations who did not use classical allusion as a part of

their common speech. Others believe that the depth of learning in the plays

seems impossible for a man of Shakespeare’s position, but when the overwhelming

power of the plays is considered, the learning in them seems trivial. Little is

known of Shakespeare today. But, this lack of information about Shakespeare’s

life can be attributed to the fact that his era was not one of biography, casual

letter writing , or journalism. What was said about Shakespeare was unwritten.

Stratfordians, or those who believe that Shakespeare did indeed write

the works attributed to him, began with a preconceived idea that he wrote the

plays, and then they tried to make facts and circumstances fit their case, some

say . To account for innumeralbe instances where Shakespeare exhibited such

wide knowledge, Stratfordians say that Shakespeare pumped anyone he could for

information. However, others feel that pumping friends for local color could

help with broad knowledge, but really could not enable him to convey the

atmosphere of a country or to add small, rather insignificant details which

could only come from the pen of a writer who had actually experienced them.

Many feel that since Shakespeare’s greatness was not widely proclaimed

and because none of his original manuscripts survived, is evidence that the

latter was destroyed to conceal the author’s identity. And too, once a play was

printed, the manuscript possessed no value, so the paper, which was costly and

needed for practical purposes was used, leaving no single manuscript in

Shakespeare’s handwriting.

Anti-Shakespeare arguments begin with the point that no public or

private mention of Shakespeare as a man, poet, or dramatist was made at his

death. In Elizabethean convention too, the elegiac poem was a true work of

respect, yet there was none found for William Shakespeare. How could he then be

the foremost figure in English literature? From all indications found, during

1585 to 1593, Shakespeare’s most creative years, he was never referred to by

anyone, personally or professionally. From birth to death, no evidence, outside

of his name appearing in the title pages of the nine First Quartos, has been

found to attest that Shakespeare was a writer or poet. Many details in his

plays could have been acquired only by personal experiences, yet no Shakespeare

was mentioned in the cast of any play during his lifetime. It is pure

speculation that some say that he was an actor.

Another argument is that only nobles or those associated with nobility

could have written such noble thoughts and described the aristocratic character.

How could somone of Shakespeare’s status write Hamlet? Therefore, some say that

the world in which Shakespeare evidently was not at home, must have been the

world to which he belonged.

In addition, familiarity with languages, literature, law, politics,

history, geography, and court life found in Shakespeare’s writings, are all

inconceivable for a commoner. Shakespeare never attended a University and was

not highly cultured. Yet, whoever wrote the plays must have been highly

cultured. Some think he may not have been able to even write. Also, it was

doubtful if his wife and children could write. His own barely legible signature,

attached only to his will and some business deals, with sixteen variations of

handwriting ,was odd for a literary genius. Self-education was impossible since

he probably owned no books. In his will, no mention of any books was made, and

books were valuable enough to be mentioned.

Before death, Shakespeare composed his own epitaph:

Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare

To digg the dust encloased heare;

Blest be the man that spares these stones

And curste be he who moves my bones. (Sykes 60)

Why would a poet and playwright who wrote so brilliantly have no higher

sentiments for his own epitaph?

Now, just who could have written the works attributed to William

Shakespeare? That Christopher Marlowe was really Shakespeare has been given much

credence among many literary people. Marlowe was educated and awarded

scholarships. This proves he was able to produce great works.

Another theory came from Calvin Hoffman, who long ago said that on May

29,1593, Marlowe, previously arrested for atheism, was charged with treason.

His homosexual friend, Thomas Walsingham, foresaw doom for his lover and made a

plan. Marlowe was to be the victim of a fake murder, allowing charges against