The Shakespeare Authorship Question, for those who haven't had the pleasure, is the name given to a wide range of theories that all propose some author other than William Shakespeare for the plays attributed to him. I'm actually amazed that this doesn't have its own subreddit, considering that Anti-Stratfordians (as they like to be called) are incredibly tenacious on other websites (turning the Wikipedia page on the SAQ into a featured article was an unholy ordeal).
When I say wide range of theories, I'm not joking. Over 50 different authors have been proposed as the 'true' author of the works of William Shakespeare. Pretty much the only thing they agree on is that the plays absolutely couldn't possibly have been written by the only person whose name has ever been attached to them. Major theories include Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward deVere (17th Earl of Oxford) and William Stanley, but this is only the briefest sampling. Sigmund Freud for example believed he was a Frenchman named Jacques Pierre.
Why do they insist that off all the possible 'candidates' the only one who can't have written the plays is William Shakespeare? Though they work hard to deny it, most reasons Anti-Stratfordians offer is rooted in an anachronistic classism. Shakespeare was too lower-class, too common, too ordinary a human to have written the sublimest works in English literature (part of the problem may well be the over praise of his works, but that is a literary, not a historical question.) Much is made, for example, of Shakespeare's signatures: Six copies have survived (along with the words 'By me' totaling 14 words in his hand, a tantalizing and frustrating sample) and of those, three are shaky - a 'barely literate scrawl' in the words of one Oxfordian (one who believes the Earl of Oxford to be the true author.) Surely it couldn't be the fact that those three signatures are from his will, written when he was dying? Likewise, much is made of the fact that he never spelled his name the same way twice. This, again, is anachronistic - many famous examples of inconsistent spellings exist, including Christopher Marlowe (whose supporters are curiously silent on this particular point) whose spelling eccentricities went as far afield as to spell his name Marley on occasion.
Another point made is that we have no record of Shakespeare being schooled. While true, hopefully we've seen enough bad history to be suspicious of these kinds of arguments from si
... keep reading on reddit ➡When did the question start? Is it a disease that causes people to question every artist, or is this question specific to Shakespeare? This is a History Question only. Please don't throw in any theories of authorship, mainstream or alternative. Added: When did the Literature Department become a part of the British Higher Education System?
So, this is something I was thinking about after reading James Shapiro's Contested Will.
My understanding of alternate authorship theories is that the premise is that Shakespeare served as a front for whoever the "actual author" is supposed to have been. I could be wrong here, but my impression is that the authorship theories aren't premised on the idea that Shakespeare decided to take credit for someone else's plays.
In Shapiro's discussion, it seems like at least with the Baconians, some of the theories envisioned a collaboration between Shakespeare and Bacon, in which Shakespeare wrote/touched up the funny bits, or something to that effect. Although even some Baconians (i.e. Mark Twain) seemed to be fairly negative towards Shakespeare, describing him as a fraud, etc.
On the Oxfordian side of things, although from what I recall, at least some earlier Oxfordians had the same kind of collaboration theory as Baconians, they seem to be a lot more negative towards Shakespeare. Among other things, Oxfordians appear to generally assume he was illiterate. And I believe the recent Oxfordian "propaganda film", Anonymous, has a very negative take on Shakespeare.
To somewhat answer my own question, I do understand that (per Shapiro), alternate authorship theories emerged because little was known of Shakespeare and things that were known (i.e. his financial dealings) were interpreted to reflect negatively on him.
I also would suspect that it is easier to believe in and promote a theory if you support the maximal version of it. So, it wouldn't be much of an"alternative authorship theory", if Shakespeare was still envisioned as having an important role.
Lastly, thinking of Cyrano de Bergerac, I guess it isn't that surprising that people would feel negatively towards the person acting as the front, even though the "actual author" consented to it.
Still, I do find the way in which deniers view Shakespeare to be intriguing...
