Shakespeare's Mystery Identity - Research Paper Example

?Regardless of their nature, conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, engaging. If it were not for the fact that conspiracy theories and alternate views of history were not engaging and interesting, individuals would not integrate with a belief in them. However, even though a litany of different conspiracy theories exist with respect to the way in which the world exists and what has taken place in the past, a thread of commonality exists between almost all of these conspiracy theories; namely, the dearth of evidence that exists to back them up. One of the more engaging conspiracy theories that exists within literature, and the analysis thereof, is the theory that William Shakespeare was not the sole author of all of the work so that are attributed to him. This theory has many different variants; however, the most popular denotes the fact that William Shakespeare was merely a pseudonym through which different individuals published the work so that it now so commonly and widely been attributed to William Shakespeare (Keller 121). As a function of analyzing this particular conspiracy theory and judging whether or not the evidence that exists in favor of it merits a consideration for whether or not Shakespeare in fact was the sole author of all of the works that have been attributed to him, this particular analysis will review this argument and attempt to weigh the evidence; as well as coming to a firm understanding of the topic in question. Accordingly, the basic structure of the debate which will be related below will exist of evidence for and against sole authorship and the reality of the individual “William Shakespeare” (Zhang 84). The first and most common point of interest that those who do not believe William Shakespeare was an individual capable of such works of poetic symbolism and colorful language point to is the fact that the William Shakespeare that exists in recorded history did not possess a formal education. As such, individuals who approach the issue from this particular standpoint Harold the fact that even though William Shakespeare could have been self educated, his overall level of understanding for the English language, unique symbolism, philosophical interpretation, religious overtones, and a firm grasp of history is extraordinarily unlikely for an individual that was not of “high birth”. Although it is true that William Shakespeare inherited and “Honorable” title from his father, this title in and of itself was rather low as compared to the level of education and knowledge that Shakespeare possessed (Kingsley-Smith 158). It must be understood that within the current era, it is quite possible for an individual of low status and low birth to integrate with high levels of education and better themselves in an effective manner. However, within Shakespeare’s time, low birth was akin to a sentence of austerity and relative hardship. As the middle class did not firmly exist within the United Kingdom until the 17th century, it is unlikely that an individual of relatively humble birth could’ve integrated with such a high level of education from such an early age. Another definitive argument that is pointed she was with respect to the fact that William Shakespeare was intimately aware of the affairs of European court. What is meant by this is that each and every oil house that existed within Europe, during and before Shakespeare’s lifetime, operated within a given set of defined and traditional guidelines. As such, a familiarity with the way in which British court operated and the Royal decisions were made upon the throne did not extend universally to the way in which French affairs of court, Danish affairs of court, or Italian affairs of court were delineated. As such, beyond merely a great depth in education, Shakespeare was uniquely and seemingly intimately aware of the way in which affairs of court were conducted; blending one to believe that the individual who was ultimately responsible many of Shakespeare’s works was in fact a royal or an esteemed individual with access to the royal court.Accordingly, the command of the English language, in conjunction with a level of poetic prose that to this day is appreciated by scholar and student alike, does not lend credence to the idea that Shakespeare was a commoner that merely was well read and able to better himself through his own efforts in education. It should further be noted that even though the printing press was invented prior to Shakespeare’s birth, this invention in and of itself was relatively new. As such, the degree and extent to which Shakespeare could have had access to a litany of different printed books and materials, at relatively low cost, is highly debatable and unlikely. As such, the overall access to printed material and the means by which Shakespeare could better himself could only be maximized if it is understood that Shakespeare was in fact a pseudonym for an individual, or group of individuals, that were learned and esteem; having access to a great litany of different text upon history, philosophy, religion and other subjects. Another point of “proof” that individuals who do not believe Shakespeare was a solitary individual of lowly birth point to is the fact that Shakespeare himself did not sign his name with the same spelling that was attributed to him on the title pages of his works. For instance, the title pages of the works of William Shakespeare appear not only in the form that is so readily come to be recognized, they also appear hyphenated as “Shake-Speare” and/or “Shak-spear” (Kastan 43). This differential, although perhaps insignificant, as fuel to the fire for those that believes that William Shakespeare was not in fact a solitary individual that tend all of the many works that were attributed to him. Those that advocate for the fact that William Shakespeare was not a solitary individual it was in fact a pseudonym or group of individuals that right and attribute their works to this false name advocate the fact that the differential in spelling helps to indicate the fact that not one, not to, but in fact a group of individuals were responsible for many of the works that have now been attributed to William Shakespeare. Moreover, further credence is added to this particular belief due to the fact that the few known surviving signatures that are firmly attributed to “William Shakespeare”, outside of the signatures on the documents to the respective plays and works of prose, point to the fact that the signature in spelling is markedly different. Another cogent fact that is oftentimes represented by anti-Stratfordians (those individuals who do not believe that William Shakespeare was in fact the author of the works that are attributed to him) point to the fact that there is inherent lack of documentary evidence attesting to the fact that William Shakespeare was a writer. Of all the information that is thus far been discussed, it is perhaps this one aspect of “evidence” that the individuals who doubt William Shakespeare’s authorship can point to as the most damning proof (Gross 41). Even though it was not common for individuals to keep many records during the period of Shakespeare’s own life, there exists many primary documents that indicate that William Shakespeare, according to the government and Township that he was registered, was in fact not a writer, playwright, or author of any sort; rather, his occupation is listed as a real estate investor and prospector. Although it is of course possible that William Shakespeare did not want to list his role as an author during the early years of his life; expecting that this would somehow negatively impact his ability to gain credit and be respected within society, during the later years of his life, this representation with had been a net benefit to Shakespeare. As such, it is somewhat troublesome and worrisome that there exists no direct documentary proof of any sort that William Shakespeare listed and author, a writer, or a playwright within any of the descriptions of the era. Further “evidence” that is provided by anti-Stratfordians is the belief that clues regarding Shakespeare’s true identity are evidenced within many of the plays and stories that are attributed to him. Of all of the conspiracy theories that exist with respect to the fact that Shakespeare was not be sole author of the works attributed to him, this particular theory is perhaps the most unsubstantiated and possibly ridiculous (Erne 34). As such, individuals who espouse this particular approach point to the fact that references and coded ambiguities and messages exist within Shakespeare’s plays that help to denote his true identity. As no secondary or primary sources exist that help to shed a further level of light upon this particular theory, it must be dismissed out of hand due to the fact that it has a complete lack of existing evidence. A final point that is referenced for those individuals that believe that Shakespeare was not indicative of a single true individual but rather indicative of a group of riders that utilize this name to represent their own works within the era is the belief that Shakespeare’s death is perhaps the greatest proof that he was not in fact the true author of the works that are attributed to him. Evidence for this can be seen with regards the fact that in Shakespeare’s own obituary, the language is mundane and unlike the lofty heights of English prose that were represented during his career. Although it is of course expected that Shakespeare did not in fact write his own obituary, is further shocking to know that there is in fact no mention of the points, papers, or works that he is responsible for within the delineation of his will. Oftentimes, when a notable author or poet passes on, one of the first items that is discussed is with regards to the ownership and rights to the existing documents, memoirs, and uncompleted works that were never finished by the author. However, the simple fact that Shakespeare’s passing was almost unobserved at the time and the obituary did not reference any of the information regarding the literary career that spanned several decades and become so widely popular throughout the United Kingdom helps to shed a level of credence to the belief that Shakespeare himself was in fact not the author of many of the works that had thus far been attributed to him. Whereas the first portion of this brief analysis has been concentric upon questioning whether or not William Shakespeare was in fact the solitary author of the works that were attributed to him, the second portion of this analysis will seek to provide a level of reinforcement with regards to the belief that Shakespeare was in fact the sole author of the works that have been attributed to him. The first argument, and indeed perhaps the most compelling, that exists with respect to this particular approach is the fact that even though many conspiracy theories exist concerning Shakespeare’s origins and the possible individuals who could have written these works in his name, is the fact that there exists no direct primary evidence that definitively says that Shakespeare did not author these works. As with any form of documentary analysis and evidence consideration, the reader must necessarily assume that due to the fact that there is a lack of direct evidence that definitively state that William Shakespeare was not in fact the author of the works that are attributed to him, it must therefore be assumed that he is. In the absence of confirmed and reputable fact, conjecture and conspiracy cannot be accepted as proof that the wildly unexpected and absurd is in fact true. Another consideration that must be made, that flies in the face of the existing conspiracy that has thus far been related, is with regards the fact that the question of Shakespearean authorship did not arise during the lifetime of William Shakespeare. Instead, the question of authorship arose nearly 200 years after his death. Accordingly, rather than assuming that there was some type of conspiracy to hide the true identity/identities of the individuals responsible for Shakespeare’s work, the reader should instead integrate with an understanding for the fact that if there was in fact evidence and reasonable suspicion to believe that Shakespeare was in fact not the author of the works that are attributed to him, this question would likely have, during his own lifetime and cause individuals to be suspicious and track down the evidence that could have confirmed this belief. However, this fact, in conjunction with the complete and total lack of evidence pointing to the multiple author theory, helps the reader to come to the understanding of the fact that no such evidence and questions existed then or now. From the information that is thus far been presented, it can definitively be noted that even though the conspiracy concerning Shakespeare’s authorship is intriguing, a total lack of substantiating evidence exists that could help to confirm it. As such, unless a powerful revelation from a primary source is brought to life, it is highly unlikely that the approach and expectation of Shakespeare’s works will change anytime in the future. In short, even though it can be dismissed that the conspiracies that have been prevented are capable of engendering a coherent argument, it must also be appreciated that the belief that “truth is stranger than fiction” is an inherent human condition that encourages people to integrate with wild conspiracies rather than accepting the truth that oftentimes exists right before their own eyes and is merely ignored. Works Cited Erne, Lukas. "Reconsidering Shakespearean Authorship." Shakespeare Studies 36.(2008): 26-36. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Gross, John. "Denying Shakespeare." Commentary 129.3 (2010): 38-44. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Kastan, David Scott. "To Think These Trifles Some-Thing": Shakespearean Playbooks And The Claims Of Authorship."Shakespeare Studies 36.(2008): 37-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Kingsely-Smith, Jane E. "Shakespearean Authorship In Popular British Cinema." Literature Film Quarterly 30.3 (2002): 158.Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Keller, Wolfram R. "Shakespearean Medievalism." European Journal Of English Studies 15.2 (2011): 129-142. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Zhang, Katherine T., and Zhang Zhiyi. "Shakespearean Sonnets Versus Shakespearean Canon." Journal Of Quantitative Linguistics 17.2 (2010): 81-93. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Read More