Ok – this issue is a
real bugbear with me – the main crux of the matter seems to be that
people don't believe that a tanner's son from Stratford could be
capable of writing such beautiful works. Sorry but that's like saying
a butcher's son can't become the second most powerful man in Tudor England
(see Cardinal Wolsey) or that a greengrocer's daughter can't become the first female prime minister
(see Thatcher).
Also, despite what many
people think, Shakespeare was educated and could write (how else
would we have the 6 surviving signatures of his) and ultimately all
you need to write is a writing tool and a writing surface.
To
get down to it, the main alternatives suggested by the
conspiracy theorists include:
1) Christopher Marlowe
– it is theorised that he passed off his works to the young man
from Stratford after his espionage activities forced him to fake his
own death. Excuse me? This is not James Bond. Marlowe was killed,
tragic and unfortunate but all the same plain and simple. Shakespeare
may have known and certainly would have heard of him but take credit
for his work? Even if Marlowe had faked his death, what's to stop his
associates producing later work as 'newly discovered'?
2) Earl of Oxford –
who is vehemently proposed as the true author of Shakespeare's works
to the point that his main advocate cannot even begin to comprehend
how anyone could consider anything else. Well I could and here's why
– Oxford died in 1604 – that is 7 years before The Tempest
(Shakespeare's final play) was written – this is either an
extremely clever trick that all modern magicians could learn from or
it is in fact proof of the absurdity of this suggestion.
3) Bacon – a noted
scientist and writer who travelled to many of the places mentioned in
Shakespeare's works. Aside from the question of if he had plenty of
works to his own name why exactly would he pass any to another, the
fact that he travelled, rather than providing proof of his
authorship, in fact counters it as there are several (geographical)
mistakes made in Shakespeare's works which someone who had been to
those countries would not have made.
(There is an additional
theory that the longest word in Shakespeare's works –
honorificabilitudinitatibus - when rearranged spells out a latin
phrase which translates as “These
plays, F. Bacon’s offspring, are preserved for the world”
- what a lovely COINCIDENCE. Please – play word games if you wish
but don't for one moment suggest that they provide conclusive proof
to doubt the validity of Shakespeare's authorship).
Now I'm not claiming
that Shakespeare was a genius (I'll leave that to the BBC) or that he
was entirely original (see the tragedy of Romeus and Juliet), I just
resent the doubt placed on Shakespeare's authorship of his own works.
Finally, for
me, the deciding point in the debate – the one that completely
dismisses all other possibilities is that during his lifetime
EVERYONE SAID SHAKESPEARE WROTE THEM – particularly his friends
like Ben Jonson - but also his rivals. The first doubter of
Shakespeare's authorship didn't appear until over 100 years after
Shakespeare's death(!) which to me kind of suggests that there wasn't
ever a question to be asked in the first place.
So overall I think it
makes for a nice conspiracy theory but on closer inspection doesn't
hold water for one second and in fact is little more than a spurious
and highly insulting attempt/blight on Shakespeare's name and
achievements.
So let's stop casting
aspersions on him and HIS works and start returning to him the credit
and acclaim he has rightly earned.
Well done, Will. Well
done.
This if course only a
brief summary of the main aspects of the case but those interested in
the points above would be well advised to look into the matter and
form your own conclusions.
