Shakespeare: a literary war?

 I am pretty sure we all are aware of who William Shakespeare was. But are we aware of Shakespeare the dissension?

He was an English playwright, poet and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s greatest dramatist. No arguments there. His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, 2 long narrative poems and a few other verses, now that is where certain literary minds have differences in opinion.

One side of the literature world claims that Shakespeare did not write some of his best works. They are known as the anti-Stratfordians (name derived from the fact that he was born and raised in Stratford, Warwickshire). While the other side of this world argues that strong evidence exists that the work in fact is authored by William Shakespeare. Interesting, is it not?

I am a fanatic of conspiracy theories and deep uncovered secrets of literature have me immediately hooked on to it.

Among the millions of could bes and maybes this particular theory is by far the most accepted and probably the most popular. Maybe the fact that this speculation puts Shakespeare in a relatively good light is one of the main reasons for it to be vastly talked about.

The theory states that William Shakespeare was just a face, a name added to works that were not his because the real author/authors did not or could not accept the credit due to their position in the society (race, colour, gender, identity etc).

The most popular speculated real authors behind Shakespeare’s work were Sir Francis Bacon, Edward De Vere, Christopher Marlowe and William Stanley.

The hypothesis gained attention around the nineteenth century. This theory was widely believed because Shakespeare’s linguistics skills, mainly his metaphorical, flowery, profound language did not match his relatively humble roots. Although, I personally think that this reason is completely absurd and extremely judgmental. A human being continuously evolves, grows and learns. A person’s background or strata of the society does not relate to how much knowledge they can acquire, it is related to one’s willpower and abilities.

Also considering the fact that William Shakespeare came from a poverty stricken household and that the speculated authors behind the works were from richer households how is it that William Shakespeare was preferred as the one to take credit and not the relatively richer people for social reasons?

Did Shakespeare presumably take the credit because the real authors would not or because they could not? Was something more sinister at play or are we just reading too much into this and the bard of Avon does not deserve any of this?

Some great literature minds also believe that behind Shakespeare’s work could have been a woman. Since those times were quite different and a successful woman meant a “not so ideal woman”, maybe she was unable to take credit. Then she either gave William Shakespeare the credit voluntarily or she was not even aware and by the time she was, it was of no use, no one would believe her.

The Atlantic had published an article ‘Was Shakespeare a woman?’ an article by Elizabeth Wrinkler. In this piece, she speculates that maybe the aristocratic poetess Emilia Bassano could have been this mysterious woman.

And what makes this kind of plausible is the famous Charlie Chaplin speculations. He was adamant that the true author behind Shakespeare’s work had an “aristocratic attitude” which Emilia Bassano in fact did possess.

However, Wrinkler does mention in her article that the writing styles of Bassano and Shakespeare are very different. But that did not silence the question, was Shakespeare a woman? Was he the true author behind great works like the Macbeth and the Hamlet?

An excerpt from Elizabeth’s article in The Atlantic really does make you wonder, makes you question.

I was reminded of all the remarkable female friendships, too: Beatrice and Hero’s allegiance; Emilia’s devotion to her mistress, Desdemona; Paulina’s brave loyalty to Hermione in The Winter’s Tale; and plenty more. (“Let’s consult together against this greasy knight,” resolve the merry wives of Windsor, revenging themselves on Falstaff.) These intimate female alliances are fresh inventions—they don’t exist in the literary sources from which many of the plays are drawn. And when the plays lean on historical sources (Plutarch, for instance), they feminize them, portraying legendary male figures through the eyes of mothers, wives, and lovers. “Why was Shakespeare able to see the woman’s position, write entirely as if he were a woman, in a way that none of the other playwrights of the age were able to?” 

The ‘Shakespeare authorship question’ conspiracy gained momentum because Henry James stated, “I am haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world.”

Have you ever wondered why William Shakespeare’s personal life has never been a hot topic of discussion? Or apart from certain worldwide known facts why his personal life is not that researched? Well, the sources for sure are limited. The records of his personal life are slim to none. Anti-Stratfordians consider this fact as substantial evidence to back up their accusations.

His father John Shakespeare was a Glover (glove maker) who married Mary Arden, both signed their names with a mark and those are the only evidences of their writings, questioning their literacy. His two daughters, Susanna and Judith are also not considered as literate. Two signatures by Susanna do not look as if done by a practiced hand and Judith signed a document with a mark. His works often show sympathetic tones towards people from the upward high class society of those times whereas commoners are mostly ridiculed, this could mean that he has a soft corner for a certain social class. The fact that Shakespeare’s work often show literate, educated, well-educated women implies that he was considered to be literate in that era. And therein lays the contradiction.

There are no surviving manuscripts or letters by Shakespeare, however a few, six unless I am mistaken, signatures exist to this day. In these signatures Shakespeare spells his surname differently as compared to how he spells it in his published work, leaving people to wonder whether the person who wrote the books was Shakespeare at all. But since the signatures are kind of dodgy it could also mean that the signatures do not belong to him and are forged.

No matter what Shakespeare’s authorship question continues to wedge a war between two groups of literary minds and celebrities.

To this day we ponder over the question, who was William Shakespeare?

And I continue to hope for better, unquestionable answers to this question in the future.

-Sahishnuta Rajadhyaksha