A luminous group of anti-Stratfordians write:
Not one play, not one poem, not one letter in Mr. Shakspere’s own hand has ever been found. He divided his time between London and Stratford, a situation conducive to correspondence. Early scholars naturally expected that at least some of his correspondence would have survived. Yet the only writings said to be in his own hand are six shaky, inconsistent signatures on legal documents, including three found on his will. If, in fact, these signatures are his, they reveal that Mr. Shakspere experienced difficulty signing his name. Some document experts doubt that even these signatures are his and suggest they were done by law clerks. One letter addressed to Mr. Shakspere survives. It requested a loan, and it was unopened and undelivered.
His detailed will, in which he famously left his wife “my second best bed with the furniture,” contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentions no books, plays, poems, or literary effects of any kind. Nor does it mention any musical instruments, despite extensive evidence of the author’s musical expertise. He did leave token bequests to three fellow actors (an interlineation, indicating it was an afterthought), but nothing to any writers. The actors’ names connect him to the theater, but nothing implies a writing career. Why no mention of Stratford’s Richard Field, who printed the poems that first made Shakespeare famous? If Mr. Shakspere was widely known as William “Shakespeare,” why spell his name otherwise in his will? Dying men are usually very aware of, and concerned about, what they are famous for. Why not this man?
Post was last modified on 23 Dec 2021 2:53 pm
Another corner building. Designed and textured. Needs an interior. #blender3d #design #aesthetics #medievalyork #mysteryplay
What have my students learned about creative nonfiction writing? During class they are collaborating on…
Two years after the release of ChatGPT, it may not be surprising that creative work…
I both like and hate that Canvas tracks the number of unmarked assignments that await…
The complex geometry on this wedge building took me all weekend. The interior walls still…
View Comments
I hope everyone can get to my Marlovian site. I have some interviews with the author of The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: A New Study of the Authorship Question (released in June 2008).
marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com
Whether a person named Shakespeare existed or not values less in comparison to the quality of literature that have been produced by that person. however, according to the legal documents the person named Shakespeare who had a connection with theater existed. when there is doubt over the signature on legal documents it is not wise to conclude with any presumption.
I think there is too much made of the anti-Stratfordian's discussion of Skakespeare-of-Avon's economic class. It appears that many feel that there is an air of elitism amongst anti-Stratfordians, that they claim that someone of Avon's class could not possibly have written them. I don't think that the fact they he came from humble beginnings has very much to do with their arguement against him, it's the fact that there is only evidence that Skakespare-upon-Avon attended King Edward IV grammar school, and this is only upon inference from other information. In addition, there is nothing in his hand but the 6 shoddy signitures. There isn't doubt about Marlowe's genius because he is documented as having attended university on scholarship and published whilst there. No one says that Marlowe's coming from very poor and humble beginnings means that he couldn't have written Faust.
This is a fascinating area of scholarship, with most modern-day scholars agreeing that William Shakespeare was not Shakespeare. The problem for all other candidates however, is finding a connection to the undisputed home or 'base' of the Bard. This is not a problem for the strongest candidate; Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke who was the Recorder of Stratford and who had residence down the road in Warwick Castle. He was a 1st class genius, a poet, sonneteer, statesman, soldier, sailor, Chancellor as well as many other profiles that the true 'Shakespeare' must possess. That is not to say that other fine men (or women) of the age did not play a part, but Greville is the only candidate to have claimed the title of 'the master of Shakespeare'. If this subject may be of interest, and for more information, see the website http://www.masterofshakespeare.com. The new book; 'The Master of Shakespeare' by A.W.L. Saunders is sure to be a hit!!
Movable Type 4
While I'm still working out the kinks, the MT upgrade seems to be working. Seton Hill University students have been blogging at this location since...
One of my teachers described the Oxfordian position thus: "Shakespeare wasn't the author of all those plays. They were written by a man named Shakespeare."
The historical identity of Shakespeare becomes very important to the critical perspective that puts authorial intent and author biography at the top of the list of things that are worth studying about literature. They are certainly important and worthwhile ways of looking at literature, but they are not the only ways.
Part of it is a scholarly love for unanswerable questions, but much of the rest, in my opinion, circles around a disbelief that a man from relatively humble beginnings could write such courtly works. The Oxfordians have a great deal of trouble embracing such a concept, despite more than a few of their number being prime examples of self-made and educated men, to the point of quibbling over whether Shakespeare's signatures are up to snuff - which would require them to classify about 95% of M.D.'s, or anyone under stress, as illiterates.
Why all the fuss? Does it really matter who wrote what has survived? Does the identity of the author change the impact the works have had on literature and literati?
I thought they were supposed to be called "Oxfordians," though "anti-Stratfordians," certainly, better reflects their rhetoric and contextual dependency.