The Greatest Literary Scandal Of All Time"

"The Greatest Literary Scandal of All Time"

The debate over the actuality of the authorship of Shakespearean works has been disputed for centuries. While many scholars have held beliefs that Shakespeare's works have been written by figures such as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, William Stanley, and others, the most heated debate today is between William Shakespeare and Edward DeVere, the Earl of Oxford. Each side of this debate has many followers, the Stratfordians, or those who claim Shakespeare to be the true author, and the Oxfordians who believe that true credit should go to DeVere. My paper, far from being a complete analysis of the possibilities of Shakespearean authorship, attempts to recap and rationalize the arguments of these two groups. It would be impossible to include all arguments and evidence in a paper such as this. Full books have been written on pieces of the debate that I will not even mention. Hopefully after reading this paper, however, you will have a little better understanding of the debate of authorship. As many of these "facts" are quite opinionated and may be debated, I am not going to attempt to make a conclusion as to which of these men is the author, but rather to inform and explain the many arguments on both sides of this debate in the hopes that the reader will learn a little more about the ongoing debate and form an opinion of his or her own.

In countries all over the globe the name William Shakespeare brings to mind literary genius, a man so famed for his expression and creativity that none other comes close to him in reputation. Yet for centuries, scholars, students and readers have argued a very fundamental question: whether or not the plays and poems attribute to William

Shakespeare were truly written by the man of that name or whether Shakespeare was merely a pseudonym for another figure. While the ideas of the true identity of Shakespeare have differed over the years in an almost trend-like fashion, a very popular idea has surfaced over the last century. The most prolific debate today is between the

Stratfordians, or those who claim Shakespeare to be the true author, and the Oxfordians, those who claim Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford, to be the true author.

The first question to ask in such a circumstance is why doubt exists. For instance, no scholars question the works of writers and philosophers such as Montesquieu, Hobbes, or Locke. Why then, is there any question as to who wrote Shakespeare? It would seem to most people that the name on the plays should logically be the name of the author. Stratfordians claim exactly this fact as one of their strongest arguments. The only problem with this seemingly simplistic argument lies in the spelling differences between the man named Will Shakespeare and the name written on the plays, William Shakespeare (Whalen 8). In fact, the "records of (Shakespeare's) lifetime almost always spelled his name Shakespeare" while the names on the plays were always spelled

"Shakespeare, about half the time with a hyphen which generally denoted a made up name or pseudonym" (Whalen 8). Such a slight difference may seem insignificant, but for those who doubt authorship, this is a way of questioning the very basis of Stratfordian claims that authorship is inarguable, and introducing the possibility of Shakespeare being a penname. The difference in the names of the man and the author is not, however, where the doubts end.

Will Shakespeare of Stratford was not in his lifetime praised as a great playwright, at least not in the documents available today. Known documentation reveals him as "only a businessman and real estate investor with some minor connection to the theatre" (Whalen 8). This does not seem, to the Oxfordians, sufficient evidence to explain a genius as Shakespeare. It would seem that an author as popular as Shakespeare would in fact have substantial documentation to the fact that he was involved in theatre or writing. In all the documents found mentioning Shakespeare of Avon, however, "none calls him a playwright, none of them are theatre records" (Whalen 10). One document, in the Greenes Groatsworth of Wit seems to the Stratfordians to suggest Shakespeare as an actor and playwright, but the "allusive passage" is" hotly contested by non-Stradfordians, who allege willful misreading" (Whalen 10).

Even if Shakespeare was not specifically mentioned as a playwright, it seems necessary to find more evidence before dismissing him completely. Oxfordians find this evidence is Shakespeare's death and his upbringing. Raised by illiterate parents it seems odd that a commoner such as Shakespeare would not only learn how to read and write, but also become an expert in law, court life, ancient languages, geography, music, painting, history, biblical scholarship and all the other subjects that it appears the author of Shakespeare must have known quite well. There is, in fact, no evidence that Shakespeare was even literate. "Not a scrap of writing in his hand has survived" save six signatures which are all from the last four years of his life, written in "crabbed hand" that are questionably not even written by the same writer (Whalen 17). As many doubts as the life of Shakespeare brings up, however, even more problems arise in looking at his death. Will Shakespeare died in 1616, when he was buried in an unmarked grave without even a single eulogy to his name. At the time of his death, Shakespeare's plays were "famous and popular, yet no one seemed interested in the man who was associated with them by name"(Michell 78). While this seems strange in itself, compared to deaths of other public figures of the time it seems almost unbelievable that the death of such a literary figure would go unnoticed. The indifference represented a "stark contrast to the encomiums delivered upon the deaths of other writers and theatre figures" (Whalen 16). When Ben Johnson died in 1637 the "literary world was vociferous in his praise, with an ornate ceremonial burial at Westminster abbey and a volume of collected poems published in his memory "(Michell 78). The author of the celebrated works of Shakespeare should have received at least this same treatment. Oxfordians and others who reject Shakespeare as the true author see this indifference as "rejection to the idea that he was anyone of literary consequence "(Whalen 16). It is easy to see why doubt about Shakespearean authorship arises. In just a quick glance at circumstances it becomes obvious that the Shakespeare of Avon was never proved to be an actor or a playwright and no documents associate him with the works of Shakespeare except secondary testimonies and circumstantial evidence.

So the question for doubters