This article on the Shakespeare Authorship Question has been written according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as they pertain to alternative theory and minority view articles. The article conforms to Wikipedia's 5 Pillars of fundamental principals.[a]
Notes on terminology*
*Due to a lack of standardized spelling in the Elizabethan era,[b] the name known today as 'Shakespeare' was spelled numerous ways in the historical records, some of the most well known being Shakspere, Shake-speare and Shakespeare.
Within this article -
*when the name is spelled Shakspere, using the spelling which appeared on his baptismal record and several of his putative signatures, the article will be referring to the gentleman named William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, to whom authorship is traditionally credited.
*when the name is written Shakespeare or Shake-speare, as spelled on many quartos and in the first folio, the article will be referring to the writer responsible for creating the plays and poems in question (regardless of the candidate).
*Due to a lack of standardized spelling in the Elizabethan era,[b] the name known today as 'Shakespeare' was spelled numerous ways in the historical records, some of the most well known being Shakspere, Shake-speare and Shakespeare.
Within this article -
*when the name is spelled Shakspere, using the spelling which appeared on his baptismal record and several of his putative signatures, the article will be referring to the gentleman named William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, to whom authorship is traditionally credited.
*when the name is written Shakespeare or Shake-speare, as spelled on many quartos and in the first folio, the article will be referring to the writer responsible for creating the plays and poems in question (regardless of the candidate).
5 - Major Candidates
Oxford, the leading alternative since 1920's.
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
Since the early 1920s, the leading alternative authorship candidate has been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain of England. Oxford followed his grandfather and father in sponsoring companies of actors, and he also patronised companies of musicians, tumblers, and performing animals.[1] Oxford was an important courtier poet,[2] praised as such and as a playwright by George Puttenham and Francis Meres, who included him in a list of the "best for comedy amongst us". Examples of his poetry but none of his theatrical works survive.[3]
Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage. Between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works were dedicated to him, including works by Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday.[4] In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first Blackfriars Theatre and gave it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated it for a season under Oxford's patronage.[5]
Oxfordians believe certain literary allusions indicate that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day - publishing both anonymously and pseudonymously through-out most of his adult lifetime.[6] They also note considerable amounts of circumstantial evidence connecting Oxford to the London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. Oxfordians also stress his family connections including the publishers of Shakespeare's First Folio, his relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and Shakespeare's patron, the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his private tutors and education, and his wide-ranging travels through the locations of Shakespeare's plays in France and Italy.[7]
The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; perceived parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon;[8] and the discovery of numerous marked passages in Oxford's Bible that appear in some form in Shakespeare's plays.[9]
J. Thomas Looney, an English schoolteacher, was the first to lay out a comprehensive case for Oxford's authorship, identifying personality characteristics in Shakespeare's works—especially Hamlet—that painted the author as an eccentric aristocratic poet, a drama and sporting enthusiast with a classical education who had travelled extensively to Italy.[10] He discerned close affinities between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices, which led him to identify Oxford as the author.[11] After his Shakespeare Identified was published in 1920, Oxford rapidly replaced Bacon as the most popular alternative candidate.[12]
Oxford's use of the "Shakespeare" pen name is attributed to the stigma of print, a convention that aristocratic authors could not take credit for writing commercial plays for the public stage.[13] Another motivation given is the politically explosive "Prince Tudor theory" that the youthful Oxford was Queen Elizabeth's lover; according to this theory, Oxford dedicated Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and the Sonnets to their son, England's rightful Tudor Prince, Henry Wriothesley, who was brought up as the 3rd Earl of Southampton.[14]
Oxfordians say that the dedication to the sonnets published in 1609 implies that the author was dead prior to their publication and that 1604 (the year of Oxford's death) was the year regular publication of "newly corrected" and "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.[15] Consequently, they date most of the plays earlier than the standard chronology and say that the plays which show evidence of revision and collaboration were left unfinished by Oxford and completed by other playwrights after his death.[16]
Since the early 1920s, the leading alternative authorship candidate has been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain of England. Oxford followed his grandfather and father in sponsoring companies of actors, and he also patronised companies of musicians, tumblers, and performing animals.[1] Oxford was an important courtier poet,[2] praised as such and as a playwright by George Puttenham and Francis Meres, who included him in a list of the "best for comedy amongst us". Examples of his poetry but none of his theatrical works survive.[3]
Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage. Between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works were dedicated to him, including works by Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday.[4] In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first Blackfriars Theatre and gave it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated it for a season under Oxford's patronage.[5]
Oxfordians believe certain literary allusions indicate that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day - publishing both anonymously and pseudonymously through-out most of his adult lifetime.[6] They also note considerable amounts of circumstantial evidence connecting Oxford to the London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. Oxfordians also stress his family connections including the publishers of Shakespeare's First Folio, his relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and Shakespeare's patron, the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his private tutors and education, and his wide-ranging travels through the locations of Shakespeare's plays in France and Italy.[7]
The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; perceived parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon;[8] and the discovery of numerous marked passages in Oxford's Bible that appear in some form in Shakespeare's plays.[9]
J. Thomas Looney, an English schoolteacher, was the first to lay out a comprehensive case for Oxford's authorship, identifying personality characteristics in Shakespeare's works—especially Hamlet—that painted the author as an eccentric aristocratic poet, a drama and sporting enthusiast with a classical education who had travelled extensively to Italy.[10] He discerned close affinities between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices, which led him to identify Oxford as the author.[11] After his Shakespeare Identified was published in 1920, Oxford rapidly replaced Bacon as the most popular alternative candidate.[12]
Oxford's use of the "Shakespeare" pen name is attributed to the stigma of print, a convention that aristocratic authors could not take credit for writing commercial plays for the public stage.[13] Another motivation given is the politically explosive "Prince Tudor theory" that the youthful Oxford was Queen Elizabeth's lover; according to this theory, Oxford dedicated Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and the Sonnets to their son, England's rightful Tudor Prince, Henry Wriothesley, who was brought up as the 3rd Earl of Southampton.[14]
Oxfordians say that the dedication to the sonnets published in 1609 implies that the author was dead prior to their publication and that 1604 (the year of Oxford's death) was the year regular publication of "newly corrected" and "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.[15] Consequently, they date most of the plays earlier than the standard chronology and say that the plays which show evidence of revision and collaboration were left unfinished by Oxford and completed by other playwrights after his death.[16]
Bacon is often cited as a possible author
Sir Francis Bacon
The main candidate of the 19th century was Sir Francis Bacon, a major scientist, philosopher, courtier, diplomat, essayist, historian and successful politician, who served as Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613) and Lord Chancellor (1618).
Supporters of the theory, known as Baconians, note that Bacon concluded a 1603 letter with the words "so desiring you to be good to concealed poets",[17] which supporters consider a confession. The hypothesis itself was formally presented by William Henry Smith in 1856, and was expanded the following year by both Smith and Delia Bacon who posited that Bacon wrote as part of a group. Notable supporters of the Baconian Theory have included Ignatius L. Donnelly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Harry Stratford Caldecott.
As early as the 1890's Baconians began drawing attention to similarities between a great number of specific phrases and aphorisms from the plays, and those written down by Bacon in his private wastebook, the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies,[18]. They also point to Bacon's comments about being "strongly addicted to the theatre"[19] and that "play-acting" was used by the ancients "as a means of educating men's minds to virtue."[20] Baconians conclude that since he outlined both a scientific and a moral philosophy in his Advancement of Learning, but only his scientific philosophy, Novum Organum, was known to have been published, that he imparted his moral philosophy to the public by way of the Shakespeare plays (e.g. the nature of good government exemplified by Prince Hal in Henry IV, Part 2).
Baconians also believe the circumstances surrounding the first known performance of The Comedy of Errors, and the close proximity of Bacon to the William Strachey letter upon which many scholars think The Tempest was based, provide a unique connection to Bacon. Also, since Bacon had first-hand knowledge of government cipher methods,[21] most Baconians see it as feasible that he left his signature somewhere in the Shakespearean work, and numerous ciphers have been interpreted as implying that Bacon was the true author.
The main candidate of the 19th century was Sir Francis Bacon, a major scientist, philosopher, courtier, diplomat, essayist, historian and successful politician, who served as Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613) and Lord Chancellor (1618).
Supporters of the theory, known as Baconians, note that Bacon concluded a 1603 letter with the words "so desiring you to be good to concealed poets",[17] which supporters consider a confession. The hypothesis itself was formally presented by William Henry Smith in 1856, and was expanded the following year by both Smith and Delia Bacon who posited that Bacon wrote as part of a group. Notable supporters of the Baconian Theory have included Ignatius L. Donnelly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Harry Stratford Caldecott.
As early as the 1890's Baconians began drawing attention to similarities between a great number of specific phrases and aphorisms from the plays, and those written down by Bacon in his private wastebook, the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies,[18]. They also point to Bacon's comments about being "strongly addicted to the theatre"[19] and that "play-acting" was used by the ancients "as a means of educating men's minds to virtue."[20] Baconians conclude that since he outlined both a scientific and a moral philosophy in his Advancement of Learning, but only his scientific philosophy, Novum Organum, was known to have been published, that he imparted his moral philosophy to the public by way of the Shakespeare plays (e.g. the nature of good government exemplified by Prince Hal in Henry IV, Part 2).
Baconians also believe the circumstances surrounding the first known performance of The Comedy of Errors, and the close proximity of Bacon to the William Strachey letter upon which many scholars think The Tempest was based, provide a unique connection to Bacon. Also, since Bacon had first-hand knowledge of government cipher methods,[21] most Baconians see it as feasible that he left his signature somewhere in the Shakespearean work, and numerous ciphers have been interpreted as implying that Bacon was the true author.
Marlowe has always been a favorite
Christopher Marlowe
A case for the gifted young playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe was made as early as 1895 in Wilbur Gleason Zeigler's foreword to his novel, It Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries.[22] Although only two months older than Shakespeare, Marlowe is recognized by scholars as the primary influence on Shakespeare's work, the "master" to Shakespeare's "apprentice". Unlike any other authorship candidate, Marlowe is believed to have been a brilliant poet and dramatist, the true originator of "Shakespearean" blank verse drama, and the only candidate to have actually demonstrated the potential to achieve the literary heights that Shakespeare did,[23] had he not been killed at the age of 29, as the historical record shows.
Those who subscribe to this theory, called "Marlovians", believe that he didn't really die in 1593, however, and that his biographers approach his alleged death in the wrong way by trying only to discover why he was really killed, as this has resulted in considerable disagreement amongst them.[24] Marlovians argue that a better approach is to seek the most logical explanation for those particular people—given their backgrounds—to have met at that particular time and place. They conclude that it was to fake Marlowe’s death so he could escape what would have been almost certain execution after being tried on charges of subversive atheism.
If he did actually survive, they cite as evidence for his authorship of Shakespeare's works how much of an influence Marlowe was on Shakespeare, how indistinguishable their works were to start with (surprisingly so, given the differences in their levels of education and in their social and 'working' backgrounds) and how seamless was the transition from Marlowe's works to Shakespeare's immediately following the apparent death. In fact, a central plank in the Marlovian theory is that the first clear association of William Shakespeare with the works bearing his name--Venus and Adonis, the "first heir" of Shakespeare's "invention"—was registered with the Stationers' Company on 18 April 1593 with no named author, but was printed with William Shakespeare's name signed to the dedication, and on sale just 13 days after Marlowe's supposed death, when the first copy is known to have been bought.[25]
A case for the gifted young playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe was made as early as 1895 in Wilbur Gleason Zeigler's foreword to his novel, It Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries.[22] Although only two months older than Shakespeare, Marlowe is recognized by scholars as the primary influence on Shakespeare's work, the "master" to Shakespeare's "apprentice". Unlike any other authorship candidate, Marlowe is believed to have been a brilliant poet and dramatist, the true originator of "Shakespearean" blank verse drama, and the only candidate to have actually demonstrated the potential to achieve the literary heights that Shakespeare did,[23] had he not been killed at the age of 29, as the historical record shows.
Those who subscribe to this theory, called "Marlovians", believe that he didn't really die in 1593, however, and that his biographers approach his alleged death in the wrong way by trying only to discover why he was really killed, as this has resulted in considerable disagreement amongst them.[24] Marlovians argue that a better approach is to seek the most logical explanation for those particular people—given their backgrounds—to have met at that particular time and place. They conclude that it was to fake Marlowe’s death so he could escape what would have been almost certain execution after being tried on charges of subversive atheism.
If he did actually survive, they cite as evidence for his authorship of Shakespeare's works how much of an influence Marlowe was on Shakespeare, how indistinguishable their works were to start with (surprisingly so, given the differences in their levels of education and in their social and 'working' backgrounds) and how seamless was the transition from Marlowe's works to Shakespeare's immediately following the apparent death. In fact, a central plank in the Marlovian theory is that the first clear association of William Shakespeare with the works bearing his name--Venus and Adonis, the "first heir" of Shakespeare's "invention"—was registered with the Stationers' Company on 18 April 1593 with no named author, but was printed with William Shakespeare's name signed to the dedication, and on sale just 13 days after Marlowe's supposed death, when the first copy is known to have been bought.[25]
Stanley reported writing plays for the "common players".
William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
One of the chief arguments in support of Derby's candidacy is a pair of 1599 letters by the Jesuit spy George Fenner in which it is reported that Derby is "busy penning plays for the common players." Professor Abel Lefranc (1918) claimed his 1578 visit to the Court of Navarre is reflected in Love's Labour's Lost. His older brother Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby formed a group of players which evolved into the King's Men, one of the companies most associated with Shakespeare.
It has been theorized that the first production of A Midsummer Night's Dream was performed at his wedding banquet. Born in 1561, Stanley's mother was Margaret Clifford, great granddaughter of Henry VII, whose family line made Stanley an heir to the throne. He married Elizabeth de Vere, daughter of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Cecil.[26]
Elizabeth's maternal grandfather was William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, the oft-acknowledged prototype of the character of Polonius in Hamlet. In 1599 he is was reported as financing one of London's two children's drama companies, the Paul's Boys and, his playing company, Derby's Men, known for playing at the "Boar's Head" which played multiple times at court in 1600 and 1601.[27]
Derby was also closely associated with William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke and his brother Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery and later 4th Earl of Pembroke, the two dedicatees of the 1623 Shakespearean folio. Around 1628 to 1629, when Derby released his estates to his son James, who became the 7th Earl, the named trustees were Pembroke and Montgomery.
Asserting a similarity with the name "William Shakespeare", supporters of the Stanley candidacy note that Stanley's first name was William, his initials were W. S., and he was known to sign himself, "Will". Stanley is often mentioned as a leader or participant in the "group theory" of Shakespearean authorship.[28]
One of the chief arguments in support of Derby's candidacy is a pair of 1599 letters by the Jesuit spy George Fenner in which it is reported that Derby is "busy penning plays for the common players." Professor Abel Lefranc (1918) claimed his 1578 visit to the Court of Navarre is reflected in Love's Labour's Lost. His older brother Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby formed a group of players which evolved into the King's Men, one of the companies most associated with Shakespeare.
It has been theorized that the first production of A Midsummer Night's Dream was performed at his wedding banquet. Born in 1561, Stanley's mother was Margaret Clifford, great granddaughter of Henry VII, whose family line made Stanley an heir to the throne. He married Elizabeth de Vere, daughter of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Cecil.[26]
Elizabeth's maternal grandfather was William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, the oft-acknowledged prototype of the character of Polonius in Hamlet. In 1599 he is was reported as financing one of London's two children's drama companies, the Paul's Boys and, his playing company, Derby's Men, known for playing at the "Boar's Head" which played multiple times at court in 1600 and 1601.[27]
Derby was also closely associated with William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke and his brother Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery and later 4th Earl of Pembroke, the two dedicatees of the 1623 Shakespearean folio. Around 1628 to 1629, when Derby released his estates to his son James, who became the 7th Earl, the named trustees were Pembroke and Montgomery.
Asserting a similarity with the name "William Shakespeare", supporters of the Stanley candidacy note that Stanley's first name was William, his initials were W. S., and he was known to sign himself, "Will". Stanley is often mentioned as a leader or participant in the "group theory" of Shakespearean authorship.[28]
Group theory
In the 1960s, the most popular general theory was that Shakespeare's plays and poems were the work of a group rather than one individual. A group consisting of De Vere, Bacon, William Stanley, Mary Sidney, and others, has been put forward, for example.[29] In 2010, the theory was advocated by renowned actor Derek Jacobi, who told the British press, "I subscribe to the group theory. I don't think anybody could do it on their own. I think the leading light was probably de Vere, as I agree that an author writes about his own experiences, his own life and personalities."[30]
In the 1960s, the most popular general theory was that Shakespeare's plays and poems were the work of a group rather than one individual. A group consisting of De Vere, Bacon, William Stanley, Mary Sidney, and others, has been put forward, for example.[29] In 2010, the theory was advocated by renowned actor Derek Jacobi, who told the British press, "I subscribe to the group theory. I don't think anybody could do it on their own. I think the leading light was probably de Vere, as I agree that an author writes about his own experiences, his own life and personalities."[30]
Other candidates
At least seventy-five other candidates have also been proposed, although only a few have received significant support. These include the writer and literary patron Mary Sidney,[31], Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke(1554–1628), proposed in 2007 by A. W. L. Saunders, and Henry Neville, a contemporary Elizabethan English diplomat and distant relative of Shakespeare, proposed in 2005 by Brenda James and William Rubinstein, professor of history at Aberystwyth University. Other candidates include the poet Emilia Lanier (1569–1645), Sir Edward Dyer; and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (sometimes with his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of the courtier poet, Sir Philip Sidney).[32]
References
At least seventy-five other candidates have also been proposed, although only a few have received significant support. These include the writer and literary patron Mary Sidney,[31], Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke(1554–1628), proposed in 2007 by A. W. L. Saunders, and Henry Neville, a contemporary Elizabethan English diplomat and distant relative of Shakespeare, proposed in 2005 by Brenda James and William Rubinstein, professor of history at Aberystwyth University. Other candidates include the poet Emilia Lanier (1569–1645), Sir Edward Dyer; and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (sometimes with his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of the courtier poet, Sir Philip Sidney).[32]
References
- Nelson 2003, pp.13, 248.
- May, Steven W. (1991). The Elizabethan Courtier Poets: The Poems and Their Contexts. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-0749-4, pp. 53–54.
- Nelson 2003, pp. 386-7.
- May, 1980, pp. 8-9
- Smith 1964, pp. 151, 155.
- Austin, Al, and Judy Woodruff, The Shakespeare Mystery. PBS. Frontline, 1989.
- Bethell 1991, pp. 46, 47, 50, 53, 56, 58, 75. 78.
- Shapiro 2010, p214
- Strittmatter, Roger A. http://shake-speares-bible.com/dissertation/
- Schoenbaum 1991, pp. 431-432
- May, 2003, p. 222
- Wadsworth 1958, p. 121, McMichael & Glenn 1962, p. 159; Shapiro 2010, p. 239 (210)
- Bethtell 1991, p. 47
- Wadsworth 1958, p. 127
- Bethell 1991, p. 61
- Schoenbaum 1991, pp. 433-434, Shapiro 2010, p. 295 (258)
- Lambaeth MS 976, folio 4
- British LIbrary MS Harley 7017; transcription in durning-Lawrence, Edward, Bacon is Shakespeare (1910)
- Pott; Did Francis Bacon Write "Shakespeare"?,
- Bacon, Francis, Advancement of Learning 1640, Book 2, xiii
- Wadsworth, 121
- Wilbur Gleason Zeigler. It Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries (1895), Donohue, Henneberry & Co, v-xi.
- See http://www.marloweshakespeare.org/MarloweScholarship.html for selection of relevant quotations.
- A range of responses is given in Peter Farey's Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End, 2001.
- Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, (1976), p.131.
- a b http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/people/lords/william6.htm
- Gurr, Andrew. The Shakesperian Playing Companies. "My Lord Darby hath put up the playes of the children in Pawles to his great paines and charge." Gurr's source is: Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the manuscripts of Lord de L'Isle and Dudley ed. C. L. Kingsford
- McMichael, pg 154
- http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23679831-shakespeare-did-not-write-his-own-plays-claims-sir-derek-jacobi.do
- http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/jacobi.cfm Concord University Authorship Conference website
- Robin P. Williams - Sweet Swan of Avon: did a woman write Shakespeare? Wilton Press, 2006. Illustrated by John Tollett. ISBN 978-0321426406
- Ilya Gililov, Evelina Melenevskaia, Gennady Bashkov, Galina Kozlova, The Shakespeare Game: The Mystery of the Great Phoenix, Algora Publishing, 2003