Given the recent release of a certain Anonymous movie, I thought I would post the research paper that I wrote about the authorship of Shakespeare earlier this year for my Writing 123 class. Fair warning, this is a long paper, but I am proud of my work. I have not seen the movie. My work is copyrighted.
Sleuthing Shakespeare
In 1990, a music band named Milli Vanilli won a Grammy award. Later, it was discovered that the two leads did not actually sing on the winning album. A controversy ensued and the Grammy was taken back. A huge backlash occurred in the music community with these two purported artists and neither man successfully worked in the music industry again (Huey 1). Another type of artistic controversy, almost five hundred years in the making, is brewing. The fallout from this dispute, if proven true, could rock the artistic community to its core. Many unique and well known individuals, such as a renowned psychologist, a Supreme Court Justice, an acclaimed actor, a noted poet, and a classical American author have all expressed opinions in this unsettled subject. What Sigmund Freud, John Paul Stevens, Derek Jacobi, Walt Whitman, and Mark Twain have all stated is their doubt of the authorship of William Shakespeare (Shahan). It appears that “the greatest playwright not of his age alone but of all time” may not have even written a single letter of his plays (Greenblatt 11). If he didn’t write the 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and two narrative poems, then who did? Many theories abound. The luminaries mentioned above all have a favorite candidate for who the ‘real’ Shakespeare could have been.
Admittedly, the doubts surrounding William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon as a writer exist because all the evidence for him as an author is circumstantial. The proof that he was a writer came about after his death. It was Shakespeare’s closest associates who put his eloquent work in one place to be published for the entire world. This corroboration, called the First Folio, helps the case for Shakespeare and demonstrates that many of his contemporaries did not question his ability or authorship. There are no contemporaries in Shakespeare’s time who attempted to claim anyone else as the author. There is other evidence supporting Shakespeare as well.
For those who insist Shakespeare was the author, there exists concrete evidence that he was a real person and not simply a ghost name. In Professor S. Schoenbaum’s book, Shakespeare’s Lives, historic records prove that Shakespeare was an actor, playwright and shareholder for The Globe, the theater company in which he worked (16). Also, documents exist that list him and Richard Burbage “as tenants of The Globe” (17). His very existence does seem to discredit the other theory. Why would a purported genius use a living person’s name for a pen name? The answer is unclear and can only be speculated. Despite these speculations, there are many archives that prove William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was a living entity of the sixteenth century. The first record of Shakespeare is found in the parish registers of Holy Trinity which show his baptism was the 26th of April in 1564 and his parents were John Shakespeare and Mary Arden (Schoenbaum 7). There is also evidence of William’s marriage and his death in 1616. One issue against Shakespeare is that his father, John Shakespeare, cites his occupation as a glover, in other words, a glove maker (In Search of Shakespeare).
That William Shakespeare started out as a country bumpkin and son of a glover, seems to cause two reactions. He is either cheered for rising from the bottom or his is leered at because he was a son of a glove maker. It appears that many of those who doubt Shakespeare dwell on his lack of social position. People seem to judge Shakespeare based on his proletariat status at birth, instead of what he was purported to become: a genius.
This genius is the influence for many institutions here in the United States. For example, Ashland, Oregon is home to one of the most revered repertory theatre companies in America. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival has performed Shakespeare’s complete canon
three times since 1935 (
osfashland.org). Besides Ashland, there are other festivals and theaters dedicated to Shakespeare throughout the United States. Some of America’s most acclaimed are Shakespeare in Central Park in New York City, The Colorado Shakespeare Festival, Utah Shakespeare Festival, and The Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital.
Also, in Washington D.C. is The Folger Shakespeare Library “home to the world’s largest and finest collection of Shakespeare materials” (Beckman). Included in some of these materials are the writings of such notable authors as Harold Bloom, C.S. Lewis, and Northrop Frye. Another book in this collection is by Isaac Asimov, an acclaimed scientist. He wrote Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare in which he states, “William Shakespeare, [is] a man who is certainly the supreme writer through all the history of English literature and who, in the opinion of many, is the greatest writer who ever lived-in any language” (xi). He continues, “Shakespeare has said so many things supremely well that we are forever finding ourselves thinking in his terms” (xi). Shakespeare is an important part of American society, as evidenced by all these institutions.
Since Shakespeare’s works are ubiquitous in the literary world, it is not surprising that people are curious about his life. This exploring of his past leads to where the controversy begins. Professor George McMichael from Riverside State College and Professor Edgar M. Allen from Chico State College declare that, “The controversy over who was Shakespeare exists because many people have felt that the works themselves indicate one kind of individual -a genius- whereas the facts actually known about William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon suggest someone entirely different” (1). The biggest problem with this speculation is why the question of authorship was brought up in the first place. It has been assumed, due to many eighteenth century
ideas, that all fiction is autobiographical (Shapiro 263). Looking for the author within the work seems to be a modern phenomenon and not one to which the authors or audiences of the sixteenth century subscribed.
In the twenty first century, many still look for the author within the work. Unfortunately, this makes it is difficult for William Shakespeare, the son of a glove maker, to be seen as a genius. The three men most suggested to supersede him have seemingly better pedigrees for genius than the man from Stratford. Francis Bacon at one point was the Lord Chancellor of England. Christopher Marlowe was a playwright who attended Cambridge before he started his career. Edward de Vere was the 17th Earl of Oxford. Although, William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon has the most claims upon the works attributed to him, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere are the most popular candidates for being the author of the oeuvre.
Kermit the Frog wants to know if Francis Bacon wrote William Shakespeare. On episode seven of The Muppet Show, Kermit the Frog is seen getting increasingly agitated as he tried to wrangle Florence Henderson and some of the Muppets into answering, “Was William Shakespeare, in fact, Bacon?”(The Muppet Show). Kermit is not alone in his musings. Indeed, there are many who think that Sir Francis Bacon was the ghostwriter of William Shakespeare.
In 1857, Delia Bacon published her book, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded which “popularized the authorship controversy as nothing before had” (McMichael 63). Delia Bacon believed that Shakespeare was not educated enough to write the plays and also thought that “the personality of the author” shined through, especially in The Tempest and concluded that Prospero “was much like that of the serene, learned, bookish Francis Bacon” (Shapiro 109). Later this esteemed lady literally tried to dig up evidence from Shakespeare’s grave in Stratford upon Avon, but only made it as far as the graveyard. It is speculated that she was frightened off by supposed ghosts but evidence does prove that she did not shovel a speck of dirt (110). However, it appears she had become so obsessed with this topic that she tried to prove her authorship theory in order to prove her own academic worth and later “drift[ed] into insanity” (110;88). Delia Bacon also alluded to a cipher establishing that Bacon was Shakespeare but she never produced it (99). Interestingly though, a cipher shows up in a writing called Bacon is Shake-speare by Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence. He says that “Love’s Labour’s Lost [sic]” was the first play that had the name “W. Shakespeare” attached to it and that Francis Bacon had another work issued at the same time in which he hid a message, so he could claim authorship later (91). He states that the longest word in all the plays, “honorificabilitudinitatibus,” which is found in Love’s Labor’s Lost, is revealed to hide a “correct Latin hexameter” that when translated states that, “These plays F. Bacon’s offspring are preserved for the world” (97). Sir Edwin does not end there; in a later scene of the same play he uses the cipher on the First Folio edition. Using Latin again, it states in answer to a question, “Ba corn-u fool” to “indicate Bacon’s name” (104). Furthermore, other supposed ciphers were put forth by at least three other well educated men: William Stone Booth, Ignatius Donnelly, and Orville Ward Owen (Shapiro117-123).
Alternately, the ciphered evidence was shown to be inconsistent and others were able to make or find ciphers that said whatever they wanted them to say; even claiming that Francis Bacon was not the author of Shakespeare’s work. In relation to that extremely extended word, it was not first introduced in Love’s Labor’s Lost, but existed at least a hundred years earlier. In The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, by William F. Friedman and Elizebeth[sic] S. Friedman they surmise, “It could scarcely be claimed that a writer some hundred years or so before either Bacon or Shakespeare was born invented the word specifically to conceal messages” (106). Surprisingly, they also note that Sir Durning-Lawrence admitted that from such a large word anyone can “obtain very numerous words and phrases” (107).
With evidence such as ciphers, it is no surprise that the next candidate as author is Christopher Marlowe. He was an ultimate espionage agent and the only known playwright in the bunch. His credentials: aristocrat, law expert, went to Cambridge, and a known spy for the English Government. As such, he allegedly had much inspiration to draw upon. Additionally, Marlowe wrote Dr. Faustus and The Jew of Malt indicating he was indeed a playwright.
Marlovians point out that Marlowe’s writings have similarities to Shakespeare’s. Marlowe’s poem Hero and Lyander is comparable to Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis (Schoenbaum 447). This appears to indicate that Marlowe could have rewritten his poem and republished it under a different name. Likewise, another poem found after Marlowe’s death titled Gorgon may be a reference to Athena who ‘shakes a spear’ making it seemingly apparent that Marlowe equals Shakespeare (Barber 89). However, while some see similarities, Marlowe’s plays and themes are actually decidedly different from those of Shakespeare and are not as reverenced as the canon. “Criticism of Christianity, for example, appears in all biographical documents as the most absorbing interest of his [Marlowe’s] life” (McMichael 115). This is evident in every single play that Marlowe claims by his own name, but does not appear in all the plays Shakespeare wrote.
The ultimate problem lies in the fact that Christopher Marlowe is said to have been “killed with a dagger thrust in 1593” (Niederkorn 3). The testimony of many witnesses would need to be questioned if one wanted to believe that Marlowe was Shakespeare because at least three men witnessed his death and three others his burial (In search of Shakespeare). However, this does not deter Marlovians who faithfully believe his death was faked and that Marlowe “escaped to Italy and sent plays back, with Shakespeare as his agent” (Niederkorn 4). The Murder of the Man Who Was Shakespeare by Calvin Hoffman, an American Theatre press agent instigated a “real surge of interest in Marlowe as Shakespeare” (McMichael 102). Hoffman’s book used Marlowe’s murder as a catalyst that set his research in motion. He claims that Christopher Marlowe did not die in 1593, and thus Marlowe was able to use Shakespeare as a pen name for many years. Hoffman presents thirty pages of in depth parallels between Marlowe and Shakespeare (Niederkorn 4).
Another person with parallels with Shakespeare is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. As an Earl and member of the bourgeois, he is automatically credited with more than enough background and as an authority on many subjects. J. Thomas Looney was the first to suggest officially that de Vere was the author of Shakespeare. Here is a man, he proposes, who had “classical education, sympathy for the House of Lancaster in the War of the Roses, Roman Catholic leanings, aristocratic point of view, literary tastes, a love-hate attitude toward women, knowledge of Italy, and interest in drama, music, and sports” (Niederkorn 2). These are all things that the real Shakespeare had to have known about and were evident in Shakespeare’s work.
In the introduction of “Shakespeare” By Another Name, Mark Anderson points out that Edward De Vere had many real life instances that coincided with incidents in Shakespeare’s plays. Anderson states that Oxford had life experiences similar to at least fourteen of the 37 plays; this number is arrived at by comparing characters in these plays to people in Oxford’s life. However, Anderson admits later that four of his examples actually show that Queen Elizabeth was the inspiration and not de Vere (Anderson xxvii).
Immediately one of the same problems was found with de Vere as was found with Marlowe. He died in June of 1604 and ten of Shakespeare’s plays are dated after that (Niederkorn 1). This, of course, hasn’t deterred Oxfordians because they say that the dating is wrong. “ ‘The Complete Pelican Shakespeare’, edited by Alfred Herbage, . . .[sic] gives date ranges for the plays, placing only two unquestionably after 1604”(Niederkorn 1). Oxfordians then point out that there is other evidence that the chronology of those two plays is wrong and the original evidence for the time of arrangement is wrong. This pseudo-evidence would then make it possible for de Vere to have written the complete works; just rewrite history and pick and choose sources of authority. More evidence of de Vere’s life is supposedly uncovered in the Bible that belongs to the Oxford family, and said to be Edward de Vere’s. There are several passages marked in his Bible that are referenced in Shakespeare’s works. Dr. Roger A. Stritmatter, says in an appendix, that when he started to study works on “Shakespeare’s biblical references” that “one by one, I began to tick off a growing list of verses marked in the de Vere Bible which these scholars had identified as influential on Shakespeare” (Niederkorn 3).
As for the Bible evidence, many people of that time could have had the same verses marked in their Bibles. Ironically, Isaac Asimov stated that, “So important are Shakespeare’s works that only the Bible can compare with them in their influence upon our language and thought” (Asimov xi). Indeed, the Bible has been influential on many individuals, possibly including Shakespeare, Oxford and Bacon. It is even possible that the Bible influenced Marlowe’s problem with Christianity.
The problem with all the evidence supporting the usurpers of Shakespeare is that it is circumstantial. Much of the information is inferred through someone’s interpretation of various events or instances in the life of each man compared with events written about in the canon. Any attempt to prove who the author was by the content of the plays only leads one down a slippery slope. That Francis Bacon is seen as a Prospero type character does not establish that he wrote Shakespeare. Otherwise, one could argue that a teenage girl resembles Juliet, and as such a teenage girl must have written the canon. The only thing that evidence proves is that Shakespeare’s plays showed an amazing ability to inspire and portray the human condition but left no hard facts within the work itself. Absolute historical documentation that Bacon, Marlowe or de Vere was Shakespeare does not exist.
Documentation, however, does prove that two of the authorship candidates, Marlowe and de Vere, died before all the plays had been written. As for Bacon and the ciphers, they are decidedly irrelevant. Firstly, Shakespeare and Bacon did not invent that particularly long word in which the supposed key to the cipher was found; Shakespeare just made it famous. Secondly, one can find many ‘hidden’ messages in elongated words. In any event, the main problem with Francis Bacon’s candidacy is that it is based on opinion and not authenticated facts. Moreover, if the main problem with Shakespeare of Stratford is that he does not fit the image of a genius; then neither does Bacon, Marlowe or de Vere. It would seem that if any of these three men were the author and genius, a way would have been found to definitively ensure that they got credit for their magnum opus and not leave it to be credited to the son of a glover. The facts supporting anyone other than William Shakespeare as author have been found to be lacking.
Notwithstanding this lack of support, some suggest that the authorship question should be taught in schools. But, without a smoking gun proving undeniably that Shakespeare was not the author, nothing needs to change. The only reward is more questions and no solid answers. Moreover, it appears that nothing has changed. Derek Jacobi, and others who doubt the authorship have not stopped performing, teaching, or enjoying Shakespeare’s work. The conjecture has only been a distraction from what can be learned about humanity in the oeuvre of Shakespeare. None of the speculation has detracted from the beauty and the power of the language of the playwright known as The Bard.
The fact is Shakespeare is the most supremely famous and celebrated playwright ever. In the end, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet or does it? The Oregon Bacon Festival, Oregon Marlowe Festival, or perhaps the Edward de Vere Festival might be good names for a theater company. No, none of those have the same ring as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. It appears evident that Shakespeare or, at the very least, his contemporaries wanted the author of the canon to be known as William Shakespeare or there would be another name on the works.
The names Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward de Vere are all attached to very interesting men and are inexorably linked to many luminaries who doubt the authorship. Despite this, William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon is still Shakespeare and will continue to be. A realization that writings of Shakespeare’s time were not always autobiographical would do wonders in squelching the claims of doubters. His works still inspire and influence all of humanity especially those of a lower station. In my own life, I have been able to understand myself better psychologically in studying Shakespeare and found inspiration in his works. So, finally to Shakespeare; thanks for making things interesting and inspiring the imagination and even a controversy or two.
Works Consulted
Anderson, Mark. Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare. New York: Gotham, 2005. Print.
Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare. First ed. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970. xi-xii. 2 vols. Print.
Barber, Rosalind. "Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593." Critical Survey 21.2 (2009): 83-110.Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 17 May 2011.
Beckman, Katharine. "About Us-Folger Shakespeare Library." Folger Shakespeare Library. 04 Mar. 2005. Web. 16 May 2011. <http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=2881>.
Bennett, H.S., A.C. Bradley, R. David, H Granville-Barker, and C.S. Lewis. Studies in Shakespeare. First ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Print.
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Print.
Durning-Lawrence, Edwin, and Francis Bacon. "10-11." Bacon Is Shakespeare: Together with a Reprint of Bacon's Promus of Formularies and Elegancies. London: John McBride, 1910. 84-143. Print.
Friedman, William Frederick., and Elizabeth S. Friedman. 1962. The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined. Cambridge University Press, 1957. 106-12. Print.
Frye, Northrop. Northrop Frye on Shakespeare. United States: Yale University Press, 1986. Print.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.
Huey, Steve. "Milli Vanilli." AllMusic. All Media Guide, LLC, n.d. Web. 28 May 2011. <http://www.allmusic.com/artist/milli-vanilli-p4917/biography>.
In Search of Shakespeare. By Michael Wood. Dir. Sally Thomas. Perf. Michael Wood. MayaVision International and PBS, 2004. DVD.
McMichael, George L., and Edgar M. Glenn. Shakespeare and His Rivals; a Casebook on the Authorship Controversy. New York: Odyssey, 1962. Print.
Niederkorn, William S. "Theater; A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare Didn't, Who Did?" The New York Times 10 Feb. 2002. The New York Times. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/theater/theater-a-historic-whodunit-if-shakespeare-didn-t-who-did.html>.
Osfashland.org. Oregon Shakespeare Festival, n.d. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://www.osfashland.org/about/>.
Schoenbaum, S. (Samuel). Shakespeare's Lives. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Print.
Shahan, John M. "List of Notable Signatories | Shakespeare Authorship Coalition at DoubtAboutWill.org." Doubt About Will. Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, Apr. 2007. Web. 16 May 2011. <http://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories>.
Shapiro, James S. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.
The Muppet Show: Season One. Episode 7. Dir. Jim Henson. Perf. Jim Henson, Frank Oz. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.
Wilson, Richard. "Our Bending Author": Shakespeare Takes a Bow." Shakespeare Studies 36. (2008): 67-79. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 17 May 2011.
Winchcombe, George, and Bernard Winchcombe. Shakespeare's Ghost-writer(s), Esher (Surrey): Dr. M. Lancet, 1968. Print.
