Why would any
rational, open-minded analyst reject Shakespeare's authorship?
The actor and shareholder, Shakespeare, whose
company was based in London, is clearly identified with William from
Stratford. His authorship is attested by a mass of cohering
documentary evidence and contemporary witnesses. Conversely, there
is no evidence of any contemporary suspicion that he was not a
genuinely prolific and successful writer.
His father was a local big-shot, who aspired to, and was subsequently awarded, a prestigious family coat-of-arms. He was entitled to
have young William educated free-of-charge at the King's New School
in Stratford-upon-Avon. Such grammar schools
left 14 year-olds with an intensive training in literacy, English,
Latin and the classics, at least equivalent to that of a modern
university graduate - as demonstrated by surviving curricula and by
other accomplished authors of the time, who, like Shakespeare,
received no university education. In fact, Shakespeare's background is one rather typical for playwrights of the period - as brought out in this blog.
Genius is far more likely to spring from that
99% of a population represented by its plebs than from the 1% of its
patricians. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Petrarch, Copernicus,
Erasmus and most of the intellectual giants of the Renaissance were
commoners. Leonardo never attended university; nor did Ben Jonson, Shakespeare's eminent professional contemporary.
The background knowledge demonstrated in
Shakespeare's plays - including its flaws - can best be explained by
a countryside upbringing, a metropolitan working environment, an
access to relevant, available writings and imitation (or even
lifting from the works of others, as was common practice).
The probability that works by other writers
share common authorship with the plays of Shakespeare's First Folio
is shown by statistical analysis to be vanishingly low.
The analysis - unrefuted despite some aggressive opposition since
1994 - puts astronomical statistical distances between the works of
Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon etc and the combination of objectively
measurable authorship traits manifested in the Folio.
The biography
in Shakespeare's Sonnets allows no other author of that work, which
also affirms his authorship of Venus &
Adonis, his genius as a wordsmith and the
breadth of his access to literature.
The sheer variety of alternative author theories
undermines the anti-Stratfordian cause, since it points to endemic
selective presentation of data. If one is allowed to emphasize the
correspondences, and to play down or ignore the discrepancies, it is
easy to show that Michelangelo's David must be the statue of a
gorilla.
Each one of the many alternative author theories
depends on far greater unsubstantiated assumption and is beset with
serious weaknesses. Occam would have run out of strops, so
great would have been the demands on his razor. The
Stratfordian's case remains unmatched for credibility, despite
determined assault for more than one hundred years.
It is unnecessary to
develop most of the above arguments on this website. The non-statistical
issues are well supported in many works, eg: the short e-book,
Shakespeare
Bites Back, Shapiro's Contested Will,
Gibson's The Shakespeare Claimants
and the website, http://shakespeareauthorship.com.
The statistical analysis of authorship traits was carried out under
the direction of Professors Elliott and Valenza. It may be assessed
at a number of pages on the website of Claremont McKenna College -
for example: Oxford
by Numbers.
However, Authorship
conspiracy theorists do have some justification for their notion that
Shakespeare was involved in a form of cover-up. He is associated with
several oddities of evidence (listed, amongst others not so odd, in Probate of Will). These are cited - albeit selectively - in promoting one or
other of the Alternative Author theories. Some of these issues are
not well explained by orthodoxy and it is only through the efforts of
the Sceptics that such matters have either been identified or given a
good airing.
Ironically, as it turns out, the oddities,
together with the biography in Shakespeare's Sonnets actually reinforce the case for the
Stratfordian, since his is the only one which reconciles all
the evidence. By way of illustration, and for the remaining
answers to questions posed in Probate of Will
, follow these links:
The Venus & Adonis Allusions Who was Hall's Labeo & Jonson's Poet-ape?
What triggered the aspersions of Nashe, Harvey & the Parnassus playwright(s)?
Why do Shakespeare's plays mimic the life of Edward de Vere?
Marlowe's Reckoning
The connections with Francis Bacon
The Stratford Monument Why did Shakspere call himself Shakespeare?
Commentary: Input or queries are welcome, via Contact.
|