Author of Shakespeare's Plays

[Michael]

Over the years, there has been a fair bit of controversy over the question of William Shakespeare actually writing the famous plays attributed to him.

Personally, I'm certainly no expert or particularly partisan about this issue. I've read a couple of books on the topic though and several articles as well - I do find the question interesting.

As for alternative authors, I think that Christopher Marlowe fits the bill fairly well - he clearly has the means, the opportunity and the motive for publishing plays under the name of another man. Marlowe was also a scholar of ancient Greek plays, active in high level court politics (allegedly a spy working for Elizabethan court) and also spent many years living in northern Italy - precisely the neighborhood of several of the plays.

Here's a couple of wiki links if you are interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlovian_theory

So what do you think? Was William Shakespeare the author of the famous plays and poems attributed to him?

[Lily]

I'm on the fence. I've read some about the controversy, but honestly, I'm on the fence. I'll have to speak with my friend, Andy. He's a Shakespeare scholar, a tenured professor of Literature and head of the English Dept. He's been teaching for 30-plus years. I'm sure he has an opinion.

[Michael]

I'm on the fence. I've read some about the controversy, but honestly, I'm on the fence. I'll have to speak with my friend, Andy. He's a Shakespeare scholar, a tenured professor of Literature and head of the English Dept. He's been teaching for 30-plus years. I'm sure he has an opinion.

I find the fact that Shakespeare had no Greek, no university education or traveled outside of England to be highly suspicious for the author of Shakespeare's plays (who clearly knew Greek, was well educated and a well traveled fellow).

On this basis, I'm rather inclined to think that Shakespeare was just a front man - England's Terance as it were (reference to a Roman actor who was popularly alleged to be the playwright of plays he didn't write).

[Zarquon]

The funny thing is that the person called 'Shakespeare' needn't have existed for us to enjoy his work; though of course for academic purposes it would be great to identify the man who added such richness to the English language, and to better understand the 'backstory'/context of the plays, and whatever connection they bear to events of the period.
I don't have any favorites among the candidates, perhaps because I didn't even know that the controversy was this serious before reading the thread!

The only controversy regarding Shakespeare I have heard about in the media is the one pertaining to his sexual orientation:shrug:.
As if that would substantially change our reading of his works, I mean a lover is a lover isn't it?

[Michael]

The funny thing is that the person called 'Shakespeare' needn't have existed for us to enjoy his work; though of course for academic purposes it would be great to identify the man who added such richness to the English language, and to better understand the 'backstory'/context of the plays, and whatever connection they bear to events of the period.
This is probably true. Homer is very mysterious to the history books - he may perhaps be only the guy who wrote down the story. The author of the Epic of Gilagamesh is even more mysteriously unknown.

But that certainly doesn't decrease our appreciation for these great works of art.

I don't have any favorites among the candidates, perhaps because I didn't even know that the controversy was this serious before reading the thread!

The only controversy regarding Shakespeare I have heard about in the media is the one pertaining to his sexual orientation:shrug:.
As if that would substantially change our reading of his works, I mean a lover is a lover isn't it?
Oddly enough, that's one controversy I've never heard much about! :shrug:

For me, Shakespeare is highly significant to the field of political theory as he is, in my opinion, perhaps the second 'truly modern' thinker (second to Niccolo Machiavelli in time sequence). The politics of Shakespeare is evidence of a particularly and brilliantly modern sensibility - strikingly unusual for his day and age.

[The Drunk Guy]

For me, Shakespeare is highly significant to the field of political theory as he is, in my opinion, perhaps the second 'truly modern' thinker (second to Niccolo Machiavelli in time sequence). The politics of Shakespeare is evidence of a particularly and brilliantly modern sensibility - strikingly unusual for his day and age.
I agree. His stories are more true and intimate than even today's political films. One has to watch crime dramas with fictitious characters to come close to exposing Shakespeare's level of motivation.

I think that perhaps he had a collaborator to aide with plotting, timing, character development, etc... Of course, I voted that the evidence is inconclusive. If I have to be skeptical that the Bush's are leading us into a New World Order, then I should be consistent and doubt this conspiracy with even less evidence. ;)

[The Drunk Girl]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Enough said? ;)

[Michael]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Enough said? ;)
Alternatively...

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts...

[The Drunk Girl]

Alternatively...

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts...


There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

[Michael]

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say! :D

(one of my all time favorite Shakespearean lines!)

Here's another...

Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

[Americano]

Over the years, there has been a fair bit of controversy over the question of William Shakespeare actually writing the famous plays attributed to him.

Personally, I'm certainly no expert or particularly partisan about this issue. I've read a couple of books on the topic though and several articles as well - I do find the question interesting.

As for alternative authors, I think that Christopher Marlowe fits the bill fairly well - he clearly has the means, the opportunity and the motive for publishing plays under the name of another man. Marlowe was also a scholar of ancient Greek plays, active in high level court politics (allegedly a spy working for Elizabethan court) and also spent many years living in northern Italy - precisely the neighborhood of several of the plays.

Here's a couple of wiki links if you are interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlovian_theory

So what do you think? Was William Shakespeare the author of the famous plays and poems attributed to him?

I have no opinion on your conclusion, but I know in the fiction world it's very common for successful writers to have skilled, unknown writers flesh-out their plots, sometimes with credit given and most often not. I don't see why that couldn't extend into other subjects, now and in the past.

[Michael]

I have no opinion on your conclusion, but I know in the fiction world it's very common for successful writers to have skilled, unknown writers flesh-out their plots, sometimes with credit given and most often not. I don't see why that couldn't extend into other subjects, now and in the past.
The quality (and consistency) of Shakespeare's work suggests that no mere flunkies were involved at any part of the writing. That's first class work in every line and that's not the product of amateurs.

Indeed, this 'controversy' comes from the fact that William Shakespeare appears to the history books as nothing more than an uneducated provincial rube, better known for being the son of a wool merchant than anything else.

How that fellow was able to produce so many works of literary genius is principal reason that there is a controversy at all.

[The Drunk Guy]

The quality (and consistency) of Shakespeare's work suggests that no mere flunkies were involved at any part of the writing. That's first class work in every line and that's not the product of amateurs.

Indeed, this 'controversy' comes from the fact that William Shakespeare appears to the history books as nothing more than an uneducated provincial rube, better known for being the son of a wool merchant than anything else.

How that fellow was able to produce so many works of literary genius is principal reason that there is a controversy at all.
Uneducated rube that can write...who am I trying to think of.....

Oh yeah!
http://sporeflections.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/627887871.jpg

[Michael]

Uneducated rube that can write...who am I trying to think of.....

Oh yeah!
Okay, I have to ask... who is this?

[Americano]

Stephen King?

[Sucre]

I say : why is it important who wrote the plays ?

Are the plays important or the life of an indiviudal ?

[The Drunk Guy]

I say : why is it important who wrote the plays ?

Are the plays important or the life of an indiviudal ?
Agreed. I'll never meet Shakespeare nor the fellow who wrote the works under his guise, so it doesn't particularly matter. Would The Tempest by Tiny Tim by any less The Tempest?

And that is Stephen King. His works are often childish and rely on the bizarre and grotesque rather than pacing and plotting. Just a modern example of what a commoner can accomplish with an overactive imagination.

[Michael]

I say : why is it important who wrote the plays ?
It isn't.

But is rather interesting.

Are the plays important or the life of an indiviudal ?
Tricky question. Hard to compare the two in either a general case or in a particular case.

Suffice it to say that the issue is significant because literary analysis tends to rely quite heavily upon biography of the author in the interpretation of literary works.

[Michael]

Agreed. I'll never meet Shakespeare nor the fellow who wrote the works under his guise, so it doesn't particularly matter. Would The Tempest by Tiny Tim by any less The Tempest?
As Drunk Girl already noted, a rose by any other name would still smell sweet (even though I don't think roses smell sweet at all!).

And that is Stephen King. His works are often childish and rely on the bizarre and grotesque rather than pacing and plotting. Just a modern example of what a commoner can accomplish with an overactive imagination.
A very successful novelist with a brilliant imagination, but as a 'great writer' he seems to fall rather short.

I always find that his writing style seems very pedestrian - like he writes out the story and then goes through adding various colorful adverbs and adjectives to every verb and noun in every sentence to liven it up.

Btw, calling someone "uneducated" in a 21st century context is entirely different than calling someone "uneducated" in a 16th century context. The former is likely to be literate, the latter, quite unlikely.

[The Drunk Guy]

As Drunk Girl already noted, a rose by any other name would still smell sweet (even though I don't think roses smell sweet at all!).Agreed: roses smell like rotten good-smelling flowers. So that settles it? Roses aren't sweet and who gives a fuck about Shakespeare, right? :angel:


Btw, calling someone "uneducated" in a 21st century context is entirely different than calling someone "uneducated" in a 16th century context. The former is likely to be literate, the latter, quite unlikely.
I think that's a relative thing, though. Uneducated middle-classmen in the 16th century, I feel, would be comparable to modern high school dropouts. Although they never attended university, per se, they often learned the basics needed in their particular paternal trade. Also, Quentin Tarantino dropped out of middle school (and you can really tell that he sucked at history if you watch Inglorious Basterds), yet he is still considered an artistic genius. Perhaps he just had a natural knack for iambic pentameter.

And what did the universities have to offer then? Mathematics, philosophy, foreign and ancient languages, and perhaps a smidge of poetry? Experts then would look like middle-management today. I agree that there would have been a vast difference between the properly educated and the socially trained, but artistic genius rarely follows strict guidelines.

[Michael]

I think that's a relative thing, though. Uneducated middle-classmen in the 16th century, I feel, would be comparable to modern high school dropouts. Although they never attended university, per se, they often learned the basics needed in their particular paternal trade. Also, Quentin Tarantino dropped out of middle school (and you can really tell that he sucked at history if you watch Inglorious Basterds), yet he is still considered an artistic genius. Perhaps he just had a natural knack for iambic pentameter.
I didn't know that Tarantino had a knack for iambic pentameter. :ummm:

That might (perhaps) explain why Tarantino makes horrific low-brow movies that celebrate violence, blood and gore. :shrug:

And what did the universities have to offer then? Mathematics, philosophy, foreign and ancient languages, and perhaps a smidge of poetry? Experts then would look like middle-management today. I agree that there would have been a vast difference between the properly educated and the socially trained, but artistic genius rarely follows strict guidelines.
Theology and latin and that's pretty much it. None of the other stuff.

I disagree about your assessment of 16th century 'education' (and modern education). Public schools are a relatively modern phenomena. The literacy rate (basic ability to read/write) was a quarter of the adult population at most at that time.

Source (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~wesmith/214materials.html)

However, those that were university educated in the 17th century, were probably far more accomplished than equivelent levels of modern education. We give out BA's to idiots now. They certainly didn't do that in the 17th century!

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that one has to be university educated to be an accomplished writer. I think that argument goes nowhere. Shakespeare had no Greek or Latin and that seems like strong evidence that he's not the true author of the plays attributed to his name.

[The Drunk Guy]

I didn't know that Tarantino had a knack for iambic pentameter. :ummm:

That might (perhaps) explain why Tarantino makes horrific low-brow movies that celebrate violence, blood and gore. :shrug:Sorry. I often write while thinking of the tonal implications of speech.

I agree that Tarantino doesn't make these wonderful movies everyone likes to say he does, but he gets a lot of accolades and can be entertaining. Watching one of his films is still better and more thought provoking than the latest action blockbuster.


Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that one has to be university educated to be an accomplished writer. I think that argument goes nowhere. Shakespeare had no Greek or Latin and that seems like strong evidence that he's not the true author of the plays attributed to his name.
I thought the universities were a bit more accomplished by that point, but I was just guessing.

And one doesn't have to know Greek or Latin to write it. I'm sure, with his celebrity, he could have asked any scholar to assist him. Perhaps even the folks who translated the KJV! ;)

[Michael]

Sorry. I often write while thinking of the tonal implications of speech.

I agree that Tarantino doesn't make these wonderful movies everyone likes to say he does, but he gets a lot of accolades and can be entertaining. Watching one of his films is still better and more thought provoking than the latest action blockbuster.
No need for apologies. I just like being contrarian and attacking pop-culture icons like Tarantino and Stephen King. ;)

That doesn't make me elitist - I am contemptuous of elitist icons too!

I agree that they are both extremely popular and successful artists. I just don't consider either to be 'great artists'.

I thought the universities were a bit more accomplished by that point, but I was just guessing.
Sorry, I forgot to add Philosophy (aka "natural philosophy" which at that time, included the whole field of science and mathematics).

As far as I know, the only doctorates being given out in the 17th century were Theology and Philosophy only.

And one doesn't have to know Greek or Latin to write it. I'm sure, with his celebrity, he could have asked any scholar to assist him. Perhaps even the folks who translated the KJV! ;)
Shakespeare's plays predate the KJV (King James VI/I follows after Elizabeth the Great who was a contemporary of Shakespeare).

And if Shakespeare was known to be collaborating with some scholar, the history books would likely take note of that.

My point about the Greek/Latin is that Shakespeare's plays clearly are 'inspired' by the classical Greek originals. It defies believability that Shakespeare's plays just happened accidentially to end up looking like they were directly inspired by Greek original plays.

It is to be noted that English translations of the ancient Greek plays were only becoming available in English at the time of Shakespeare's writing. How did Shakespeare become so intimately familiar with these ancient Greek plays written in a language he didn't know?

Btw, Christopher Marlowe just happened to be an expert on classical Greek plays and translations thereof... just sayin'. ;)

[Donkey]

I am far from learned in the subject, but I've heard that some of Shakespeare's work was probably done by him, some was his writing on ripped off material (Hamlet), and some stuff is straight up accredited to him without him having been at all involved.

I also remember, barely, someone telling me about a certain act or scene in one of the Shakespeare plays that was not written by whoever wrote the rest of it because, well, it sucks. Macbeth maybe.

[Lasher]

Some say that Shakespeare was aided by Sir Francis Bacon.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Bacon&action=edit&section=18)] Bacon and Shakespeare

Main articles: Baconian theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory) and Bacon's cipher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_cipher)
The Baconian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Sir Francis Bacon wrote the plays conventionally attributed to William Shakespeare.
The mainstream view is that William Shakespeare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare) of Stratford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratford-upon-Avon), an actor in the Lord Chamberlain's Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain%27s_Men) (later the King's Men), wrote the poems and plays that bear his name. The Baconians, however, hold that scholars are so focused on the details of Shakespeare's life that they neglect to investigate the many facts that they see as connecting Bacon to the Shakespearean work.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Baconpoet.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baconpoet.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baconpoet.gif)
Sir Francis Bacon's letter to John Davies, "so desiring you to be good to concealed poets."


The main Baconian evidence is founded on the presentation of a motive for concealment, the circumstances surrounding the first known performance of The Comedy of Errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_of_Errors), the proximity of Bacon to the William Strachey letter upon which many scholars think The Tempest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tempest) was based, perceived allusions in the plays to Bacon's legal acquaintances, the many supposed parallels with the plays of Bacon's published work and entries in the Promus (his private wastebook), Bacon's interest in civil histories, and ostensible autobiographical allusions in the plays. Because Bacon had first-hand knowledge of government cipher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher) methods, most Baconians see it as feasible that he left his signature somewhere in the Shakespearean work.
Supporters of the standard view, often referred to as "Stratfordian" or "Mainstream", dispute all contentions in favour of Bacon, and criticize Bacon's poetry as not being comparable in quality with that of Shakespeare.

[Michael]

Here's more fuel for the fire...

Computer program proves Shakespeare didn't work alone, researchers claim

The 400-year-old mystery of whether William Shakespeare was the author of an unattributed play about Edward III may have been solved by a computer program designed to detect plagiarism.

Sir Brian Vickers, an authority on Shakespeare at the Institute of English Studies at the University of London, believes that a comparison of phrases used in The Reign of King Edward III with Shakespeare’s early works proves conclusively that the Bard wrote the play in collaboration with Thomas Kyd, one of the most popular playwrights of his day.

The professor used software called Pl@giarism, developed by the University of Maastricht to detect cheating students, to compare language used in Edward III — published anonymously in 1596, when Shakespeare was 32 — with other plays of the period.

He discovered that playwrights often use the same patterns of speech, meaning that they have a linguistic fingerprint. The program identifies phrases of three words or more in an author’s known work and searches for them in unattributed plays. In tests where authors are known to be different, there are up to 20 matches because some phrases are in common usage. When Edward III was tested against Shakespeare’s works published before 1596 there were 200 matches.

Source (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/article6870086.ece)

As an added bonus, guess who Thomas Kyd actually spent most of his time working and collaborating with? Christopher Marlowe. There is of course no evidence that William Shakespeare ever met Kyd. :shrug:

As they say, the plot thickens!

[Margot]

One of my favorite theories (besides the one that says the dude I share a birthday with, Shakespeare himself, wrote the plays) is the Queen Elizabeth wrote them.

She was brilliant and had a better education than pretty much any other English speaker around. Also, she had the reason to blame it on another person: woman, be womanly!

I mostly just like it because it is fun, and also because Marlowe bored me, Kyd bored me, Sidney annoyed the shit out of me (and bored me), but Lizzie just happens to be awesome.

One of my professors last year (mostly for a lark), gave us an article about how the real author of Shakespeare's plays was Queen Elizabeth's illegitimate son with (I think, but I can't completely remember) Dudley. Someone obviously missed the "simplest is bestest" memo.

[Michael]

One of my favorite theories (besides the one that says the dude I share a birthday with, Shakespeare himself, wrote the plays) is the Queen Elizabeth wrote them.

She was brilliant and had a better education than pretty much any other English speaker around. Also, she had the reason to blame it on another person: woman, be womanly!

I mostly just like it because it is fun, and also because Marlowe bored me, Kyd bored me, Sidney annoyed the shit out of me (and bored me), but Lizzie just happens to be awesome.

One of my professors last year (mostly for a lark), gave us an article about how the real author of Shakespeare's plays was Queen Elizabeth's illegitimate son with (I think, but I can't completely remember) Dudley. Someone obviously missed the "simplest is bestest" memo.

Not Dudley (aka Earl of Essex), but de Vere (aka Earl of Oxford).

Source (http://www.oxfordinstitutepress.com/files/Oxford_Midas_Press_Release.pdf)

[Margot]

Not Dudley (aka Earl of Essex), but de Vere (aka Earl of Oxford).

Source (http://www.oxfordinstitutepress.com/files/Oxford_Midas_Press_Release.pdf)

Damn!

You have no idea how much I wanted Lizzie/Dudders to happen.

[Michael]

Damn!

You have no idea how much I wanted Lizzie/Dudders to happen.

You have no idea how much I loath Dudley/Essex. ;)

Dudley/Essex represents everything that was ugly about 16th century aristocracy.

(Elizabeth represents everything that was good about it)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

It has never been claimed that Shakespeare invented his own stories, just that he wrote the scripts in play form to stories or histories that were available in England in book form (remember, the printing press had been around for a good century). He also added his own original philosophies to the plays.
So I don't agree that it would have been necessary for him to travel around to write his plays. Let's face it, even today the people who know about other countries are the people who read about them. The people who travel to them get drunk, disrespect local traditions, look for pubs where they can see their own soap operas and smash up football stadia ;)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

PS: Michael, I really cannot see how you think he was clearly well travelled. He ascribes a port to Milan and never once mentions canals in The Merchant of Venice.

[Michael]

It has never been claimed that Shakespeare invented his own stories, just that he wrote the scripts in play form to stories or histories that were available in England in book form (remember, the printing press had been around for a good century). He also added his own original philosophies to the plays.
So I don't agree that it would have been necessary for him to travel around to write his plays. Let's face it, even today the people who know about other countries are the people who read about them. The people who travel to them get drunk, disrespect local traditions, look for pubs where they can see their own soap operas and smash up football stadia ;)

You are correct that all of Shakespeare's plays are not original and are essentially adapted from ancient Greek originals.

The point there is that Shakespeare did not study Greek and the English language translations only appeared in England during Shakespeare's lifetime. Interestingly enough, Christopher Marlow is credited with being one of the earliest scholars to translate these ancient Greek plays into English and publish them.

The question is, how did Shakespeare become so proficient with ancient Greek plays before they were available in English translation?

PS: Michael, I really cannot see how you think he was clearly well travelled. He ascribes a port to Milan and never once mentions canals in The Merchant of Venice.
Either you are mis-reading something I wrote, or I was unclear in what I wrote. To the best of my knowledge, William Shakespeare never left England in his entire life. That is one of the key arguments that is raised against Shakespeare since several plays are set in Northern Italy (with lots of accurate local details).

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Michael, I wasn't clear. My point is that I don't know why you think WHOEVER wrote the plays MUST have been well-travelled, when geographical errors occur. So I think we it is plausible that someone who stayed in England all his life may have written them...

...PROVIDED...

...the stories were avaiable in English. You say they weren't, or at least that theyw were translated TO English, during his lifetime.

Are you sure about this?? Are you sure that Plutarch's histories, etc. weren't available in English until Shakespeare's lifetime???

[Donkey]

Michael, I wasn't clear. My point is that I don't know why you think WHOEVER wrote the plays MUST have been well-travelled, when geographical errors occur. So I think we it is plausible that someone who stayed in England all his life may have written them...

...PROVIDED...

...the stories were avaiable in English. You say they weren't, or at least that theyw were translated TO English, during his lifetime.

Are you sure about this?? Are you sure that Plutarch's histories, etc. weren't available in English until Shakespeare's lifestyle???

I think we could say that some of his plays may have been written by him, and others not. I.e. a play that has very accurate details about obscure places in Italy not necessarily written by the same person that gives Milan a port. :)

[Michael]

Michael, I wasn't clear. My point is that I don't know why you think WHOEVER wrote the plays MUST have been well-travelled, when geographical errors occur. So I think we it is plausible that someone who stayed in England all his life may have written them...

...PROVIDED...

...the stories were avaiable in English. You say they weren't, or at least that theyw were translated TO English, during his lifetime.

Are you sure about this?? Are you sure that Plutarch's histories, etc. weren't available in English until Shakespeare's lifetime???
Latin translations of Plutarch and a whole lot of other stuff was available beginning in the late 15th century. It is the Greek plays that we are focusing specifically on and they were relatively late in arriving in English - arriving contemporary with Shakespeare, not before.

Shakespeare himself had no Greek and very little Latin.