Did Shakespeare write the plays?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not being dragged into this again, no way, crazy.

[Emil Miller]

When I opened this thread, it was not with the intention of playing devil's advocate but merely to ask for members' responses to the London Evening Standard's article about the authenticity of Shakespeare's plays.
The response has been broadly in line with what I expected, but it is interesting that it corresponds to the kind of Pavlovian reaction that usually occurs when any sacred cow is threatened with the knackers yard. The virility of the response would seem to reveal more about the respondants, who are certain beyond any possible, or even probable, doubt than the question itself.
As a lesson in human psychology, it would have been of interest to either Shakespeare or the Earl of Oxford; whomsoever wrote the plays.

[Virgil]

This subject has been aired before on the forum but, in the light of the below mentioned report in the Evening Standard yesterday, would members care to comment ?

Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi

Two leading Shakespearean actors have joined the doubters who believe the bard did not write the plays.

Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, also former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, believe his works were written by an aristocrat. They made the claims during a debate at Brunel University. Today is Shakespeare's birthday and also the day he died.

Both actors are among a group of 1,400 people who signed a "declaration of reasonable doubt" into the works. Sir Derek said he was "99.9 per cent certain" the actual author of the plays and sonnets was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

The group says the case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life.

Rylance said: "With the man from Stratford [Shakespeare] we don't know how he gathered the life experience and book learning that's very, very apparent in the work attributed to him."

Oxford was well educated and travelled widely.

I don't know Mark Rylance (I'm not up on actors) and I do respect Jacobi a lot, but I don't think either of them are scholars. Scholars have looked at this to exhaustion and concluded by the writing stye and the biographical evidence available that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon is the sole writer (except for a couple of plays that were identified as co-written) of the body of work by the playwright named Shakespeare. Scholars who specialize in writing styles can show that it is a single author that the body of work belongs to him, and there is enough biographical data to pinpoint the person. Look, a playwright is a little different than a novelist or even a poet. There tends to be an informal collaboration between the actors and the author. I'm sure someone in the Shakespeare company may have pointed out that this action or that approach may not correspond with reality that helped the author. But the writing of the words and the adjustments made are clearly Shakespeare.

Why do these doubters always seem to come out of the woodwork around Willy's birthday.

[Wilde woman]

I had a tutor at a college prep school whom I deeply respected. I think he went to Columbia University. Then, one day out of the blue, he went on a huge Shakespeare rant, claiming that any "serious" Shakespeare scholars knows the plays were not written by him. Or at least, not all by him. I was dumbfounded to say the least, and that was the moment I lost a great deal of respect for him.

I'm no expert on Shakespeare and I know there is a lot we don't know about the man...but I would hope that 400 years of scholarship would have the competence to attribute the plays to their correct author. I would understand if someone doubted the authenticity of one or two of his poems...but to come out and simply deny that the man wrote any of those great works...that just smacks of folly.

Besides, if Ben Jonson says Shakespeare wrote those plays, I believe him.

[wessexgirl]

I vaugely remember watching a video on this and part of the argument being that the famous portrait of Shakespeare proves that Shakespeare himself could not have written the stories as it is half a picture reversed and put together (look at the location of the stripe on each sleeve). That's getting pretty silly about the whole matter.

I think I saw that, if it's the one I'm thinking of....the one where the portrait is revealed as ........dudududadadada (big drum roll there ), none other than Queen Elizabeth 1. Apparently she knocked out these works of genius while simultaneously ruling the country, and no-one had any idea!!!

[Janine]

Shakespeare didn't write those plays......yeah right....excuse me while I just wave at the flying pigs hurtling past my window!!!

Shakespeare wrote them, and I'll fight anyone who says differently .

Seriously though, this is a real bugbear of mine. No-one questioned that he wrote them until 200 years after his death, and what's the name of the man who started it all, but Looney?

Ben Johnson knew him, was his friend, and said of him, "he was not of an age, but for all time", so he knew he was something special. All this rubbish about not knowing enough about the man from Stratford is just hogwash. So he signed his name different ways, so what? He wasn't alone. He never went to University, so he couldn't possibly have enough education to write how he did.....hmmph, a grammar school education at that time would have been very good on the classics. It's pure snobbery. He must have been an aristocrat....a commoner couldn't write like that

All of these daft theories reject the presence of genius. Why can't someone from his backgound be touched by that?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that he didn't write them. Any serious Shakespeare scholar would laugh the suggestion off. Conspiracy theories are fun, but this one is absolutely, certainly, 100%, gold-plated, no-questions-asked, barking mad. I'm surprised at Jacobi, who is a very great actor, I've seen him on stage as Richard 111, and as Thomas a Becket, and how he can put his name to this sham whilst making his living from the Bard's great words is outrageous. He may come to regret his rashness.

Great post, wessexgirl and I totally agree. I read about the contraversy long ago on the internet. You can't believe everything you read on Wiki either.

I agree with this post too. Good job both of you!

Quote by Cicero

I love these conspiracy theories

Aliens build the pyramids, the freemasons were responsible for the French Revolution, the moonlanding was a fake, the CIA and not Bin Laden bombed the WTC... Shakespeare didn't write his plays...

All these theories are so convincing in themselves that they don't need any scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claims

But to be serious: I cannot believe how any reasonable person, let alone Derek Jacobi who should know better, can seriously think that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and come up with such crude theories concerning the "real" authorship of the dramas... unless some new and convincing evidence to the contrary turns up (for instance a letter in which Oxford describes how he wrote Romeo and Juliet...).

Personally, I am shocked to see Sir Derek Jacobi on that list. Are you sure that is not a mistake?

[Stargazer86]

I think I saw that, if it's the one I'm thinking of....the one where the portrait is revealed as ........dudududadadada (big drum roll there ), none other than Queen Elizabeth 1. Apparently she knocked out these works of genius while simultaneously ruling the country, and no-one had any idea!!!

I didn't realize it was supposed to be a portrait of Queen Elizabeth! That's hysterical! And it's things like that that really discount the credibility of those making the argument for DeVere or Bacon or whomever else.
Queen Elizabeth is one of my very favorite historical figures...truely an amazing woman, but I would not go so far as to give her credit for writing Shakespeare's plays!! But where, I wonder, does the facial hair come in?

Though, as I mentioned in a previous post, I am still somewhat on board with the Oxfordians

[Lokasenna]

I had a tutor at a college prep school whom I deeply respected. I think he went to Columbia University. Then, one day out of the blue, he went on a huge Shakespeare rant, claiming that any "serious" Shakespeare scholars knows the plays were not written by him. Or at least, not all by him. I was dumbfounded to say the least, and that was the moment I lost a great deal of respect for him.

To be fair, we know that some of the plays were co-authored - Titus Andronicus springs to mind, though there are others that have temporarily escaped me. However, the really important ones (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Henry V e.t.c...) we are almost sure are entirely by one man.

[Emil Miller]

However, the really important ones (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Henry V e.t.c...) we are almost sure are entirely by one man.

Quite likely, but can we be absolutely certain who that man is? Or is it based on the balance of probability?

[wessexgirl]

Quite likely, but can we be absolutely certain who that man is? Or is it based on the balance of probability?

We can be certain. It's fact, not probability. He was known and acknowledged as the author at the time.


http://shakespeareauthorship.com/#how



Conclusion
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the historical record tells us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Just the conclusion for those who haven't got time to read through the EVIDENCE).

[Emil Miller]

We can be certain. It's fact, not probability. He was known and acknowledged as the author at the time.


http://shakespeareauthorship.com/#how



Conclusion
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the historical record tells us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Just the conclusion for those who haven't got time to read through the EVIDENCE).

And yet, despite all the "evidence", some acknowledged authorities on the plays still harbour doubts as to the author. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the vigourous proclamations of the pro Shakepeare faction, yet it seems to have had little effect in producing a universal consensus.
In the absence of categorical proof, it seems unlikely that the doubts surrounding the authorship of the plays will be dispelled.

[Lokasenna]

One of my tutor's favourite maxims goes thus:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Just because we don't know a huge amount about Shakespeare does not mean there is a big conspiracy about it...

[wessexgirl]

And yet, despite all the "evidence", some acknowledged authorities on the plays still harbour doubts as to the author. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the vigourous proclamations of the pro Shakepeare faction, yet it seems to have had little effect in producing a universal consensus.
In the absence of categorical proof, it seems unlikely that the doubts surrounding the authorship of the plays will be dispelled.

There is no "absence of categorical proof". The proof is there. What would you call "categorical proof" short of time-travelling back to Elizabethan London and watching the man himself write them?

The so-called "doubters" are, I'm sure, fully aware of the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

[Emil Miller]

There is no "absence of categorical proof". The proof is there. What would you call "categorical proof" short of time-travelling back to Elizabethan London and watching the man himself write them?

The so-called "doubters" are, I'm sure, fully aware of the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

According to my dictionary the word categorical has four slightly different connotations but I was using it to mean "absolute" proof. If such proof were possible to establish, as opposed to the belief of those who claim it, then there would be no cause to question the authorship of the plays.
My own thoughts on the issue are that, as the general consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, I will continue to think of him as the author but, in the absence of universal agreement, I do not rule out the possibility that he didn't.

[wessexgirl]

According to my dictionary the word categorical has four slightly different connotations but I was using it to mean "absolute" proof. If such proof were possible to establish, as opposed to the belief of those who claim it, then there would be no cause to question the authorship of the plays.


My own thoughts on the issue are that, as the general consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, I will continue to think of him as the author but, in the absence of universal agreement, I do not rule out the possibility that he didn't.

It is possible to establish, the proof is there, it's not just a belief. Any historian and scholar worth their salt deals in facts and proof.


So do you not rule out the possibility that the moon landing was faked, that martians built the pyramids, or any other barmy idea, coming from a handful of deluded people? Because they choose to propose some nutty theories which means that reputable sources are undermined, you see that as leading to doubt, and the absence of universal agreement?