William Shakespeare: A Question of Authorship - Research Paper Example

William Shakespeare: A Question hip Many scholars believe that Shakespeare’s plays and poems are not written byShakespeare himself; rather someone else has written and published those unparallel popular literary works in Shakespeare’s name. A careful review of the discourses on Shakespeare’s authorship will necessarily find out more than 70 candidates, including William Stanley, Francis Bacon, Edward De Vere, Christopher Marlowe, of the authorship of Shakespearean literary canon. Among these authorship candidates Edward of Oxford appears to be the most powerful. Innumerous books, articles and research papers have been published purporting this stance that “Shakespeare of Stanford-upon-Avon” who is publicly known to have written those poems and plays is not the real author. Rather, according to the Anti-Standfordian scholars, the real author or authors of Shakespearean literary canon “for some reason did not want or could not accept public credit.” (Greenwood 34) These contra-Shakespeare authors claim that “Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was the author of these plays and poems.” (Kathman and Ross, pars. 2) On the contrary, usually majority of the scholars believe that William Shakespeare, “the glover's son from Stratford-upon-Avon” is the true author of Shakespearean literary canon. These pro-Shakespearean scholars find that “the Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing” (Kathman and Ross, pars. 2). But it is also true that there is not even any single concrete evidence that shows that Shakespeare did not write those literary works, as Seletesky et al notes, “The arguments of many Anti-Stratfordians are simply based on a subjective impression of Shakespeare’s work” (1). Here the anti-Stratfordians’ logic is as fallacious as following: “if any object does not show enough evidence of existence, it does not exist.” (Greenwood 34) In the heart of pro-Oxfordian claim there lies the belief that pro-Shakespearean scholars are prone to be misguided by the face-values of the cover-page of a book as the proof of authorship. Often they dare to find the trace of conspiracy on the pro-Shakespearean scholars’ side to “to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the attention of the general public” (Kathman and Ross, pars. 1). Anti-Startfordians scholars tend to defy Shakespeare’s authorship on several grounds such as Shakespeare's background, his education, lack of documentary support and the concerns about Shakespeare’s death. These authors argue that Shakespeare’s background was not eligible enough to nourish a genius that could delve deep into the psychology of a character of royal breed. Born in Stratford-upon-Avon Shakespeare maintained his estate throughout his theatrical career in London. The fact that his parents would sign any ownership documents with marks shows that his parents were illiterate. Also there is no evidence that can prove that his family members including his two daughters were literate. Referring this illiterate background and socio-cultural backwardness of Shakespeare’s hometown, Anti-Stratfordians comment that Shakespeare’s background status was not rich enough to depict the court politics, royal etiquettes, courtesy, aristocratic culture and after all the royal environment in his works. Moreover, the psychology of the true author of Shakespearean literature does not match with Shakespeare’s poor background. Standing on this ground, the anti-Stratfordians claim that the intellect that commonly depict the commoners as unruly mobs cannot be nourished by Shakespeare’s background, as Seletesky et al notes, “The work attributed to Shakespeare shows a knowledge of geography, foreign lanugage, politics, and an immense vocabulary that many find inconsistent with what’s known about about Shakespeare’s education.” (1) On the other hand, Pro-Stratfordian scholars refute such claim on the ground that interpreting a literary genius in terms of an author’s background is not reliable. Refuting this claim that one can write only about which he has experienced they says that innumerous authors would lose their authorship, if they were judged from such perspective. In a book review “Shakespeare: The Question of Authorship”, referring to James Shapiro’s pro-Stratfordian stance, Jeremy McCarter comments, “Once you assume that Shakespeare could write only about things he experienced firsthand, the absence of certain pursuits from his spotty biographical record — falconry and seamanship, for instance — seems to disqualify him as the author.” (pars. 3) Shapiro himself addresses anti-Stratfordians’ emphasis on the aristocracy of the true author of the Shakespearean literatures from the hypothesis that “someone less committed to treating all sides fairly, could be an instrument of vicious satire: he turns the skeptics’ arguments against them” (McCarter pars. 4). Though the anti-Stratfordians claim that Shakespeare as an ordinary man could not depict the aristocratic aura permeated with the deep perception of life, such claim remain primarily subjective assumption of those authors who believed that a writer can write about only he experience. It is subjective because there is no evidence in support it. Further, the anti-Stratfordian cannot provide any concrete proof that Shakespeare could not experience the aristocratic lifestyle when he would work as an actor in the Globe Theater. David Kathman, a pro-Stratfordian, argues that the aristocratic royal atmosphere that Shakespeare depicts in his early plays were fraught with errors. Indeed, these are the errors that one can commit because of his lack of hand-on experience of it; but the erred Shakespearean version of aristocratic aura was quite enough to allow the author to delve deep into surprising perception of life. In this regard, Kathman says Shakespeare made numerous mistakes in the depiction of court life in the plays, and that his "court" households often bear a much closer relationship to a typical middle-class household than they do to an actual Tudor noble household…. the accuracy of his depiction of noble households increased in the later plays, as though the author had gained knowledge and experience (by whatever means). (Kathman 3) The debate on whether Shakespeare is the true author of Shakespearean works, will perpetually be engendered by some documentary and textual evidences offered by the anti-Stratfordians. For example, the discrepancy between Shakespeare’s name in his signature and in the cover-page of his play is interpreted as the pseudonym of someone else other than Shakespeare of Stratford. Shakespeare’s name on the cover-page appeared hyphenated on the earlier version of his plays. A school of Anti-Stratfordians claim that such hyphenated name was used as a pseudonym, whereas other school believed that the hyphen was used to make a difference between the theater actor Shakespeare and the pseudonym of the real author. Moreover referring to breviographs style of Shakespeare’s surviving signatures, as the anti-Stratfordians claim, proved that he did not have any formal education; therefore, he could write barely. There is no concrete evidence that he attended any school, as John Orloff says, “We all know Shakespeare famously only attended grammar school. But there is no record whatsoever of Shakespeare ever having attended any school.” (pars. 3) Anti-Stratfordians further indicates to the lack of evidences to prove the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford. They claim that almost all of the documentary evidences proved his career as an actor and trader in theatrical properties. Even in his death will and posterity, Shakespeare did not mention any of his writings or of the 18 unpublished plays. Though the lack of documentary and textual evidences in support of Shakespeare’s (of Stratford) authorship will remain obscure and mysterious, the arguments on behalf of Shakespeare’s authorship are not less important. A significant number of his contemporaries mentioned him as both an actor and a playwright in their during Shakespeare’s lifetime. Among those contemporaries, after Shakespeare’s death in 1616, Ben Jonson most clearly acknowledged him as the author in his tribute, “To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He Hath Left Us” which was published five years after Shakespeare’s death. Hugh Holland and Leonard Digges, two of Shakespeare’s contemporary poets also acknowledged his as the author in their eulogies, “Upon the Lines and Life of the Famous Scenic Poet, Master William Shakespeare” and “To the Memory of the Deceased Author, Master W. Shakespeare” (Greenwood 67). Ben Johnson, a playwright of well-known background, attests Shakespeare of Stratford as a play, an actor and a poem in his eulogy as following: “Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were / To see thee in our waters yet appear, / And make those flights upon the banks of Thames, / That so did take Eliza, and our James!” (Jonson 2). Hence, anti-Stratfordians’ claim seems to be as the fallacious as “argumentum ex silentio”, or “argument from silence” (Greenwood 67). Works Cited Greenwood, George. The Shakespeare Problem Restated. London: John Lane. 1908 Jonson, Ben. “To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare.” Poetry Foundation. 1623. Web. 24 November 2012. Kathman, David. “Were Shakespeare's Plays Written by an Aristocrat?” shakespeareauthorship.com. n.d. Web. 24 November 2012. Kathman, David and Ross, Terry. “The Shakespeare Authorship Page.” shakespeareauthorship.com. n.d. Web. 24 November 2012. McCarter, Jeremy. “Shakespeare: The Question of Authorship.” The New York Times. 29 April 2010. Web. 24 November 2012. Orloff, John. “The Shakespeare Authorship Question.” The Huffington Post. 27 October 2010. Web. 24 November 2012. Selesky, Oleg., Huang, Tiger. & Henderson, William. “The Shakespeare Authorship Question.” Dartmouth College.12 December 2007. Web. 24 November 2012. Read More