Bryan H. Wildenthal - Early Shakespeare Authorship Doubts: Debunking the Central Stratfordian Claim
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Stratfordians rely heavily on two key claims. First and perhaps most familiar is the “ample evidence” claim: that plenty of evidence, during and soon after the lifetime of Shakspere of Stratford, supports his authorship of the works of “Shakespeare.” But orthodox scholars sometimes concede there really isn’t much evidence for that (almost none before his death in 1616).
The second (and more central) Stratfordian claim is the oft-heard meme that “nobody ever doubted” the Stratford man’s authorship during his time or long afterward. A common version of this “no early doubts” claim is that no doubts whatsoever were expressed until the 1850s (though most scholars admit at least a few public doubts during the 17th and 18th centuries).
Early doubts (especially pre-1616) are absolutely crucial to the Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ). Even most authorship doubters have not yet fully appreciated how extensive and substantial the early doubts actually were. They date back to at least 1592 (possibly earlier) and include around two dozen pieces of documentary evidence (mostly published) from more than a dozen writers of the time.
No connection between the “Shakespeare” works and Stratford was published until 1623 (seven years after Shakspere’s death). Shakspere’s authorship is not clearly supported by any surviving evidence dating before 1623. Even in 1623, the connection was only elliptically and ambiguously suggested by the First Folio. Thus, published authorship doubts actually predate the first suggestion of the Stratfordian authorship theory itself, by more than thirty years!
It is difficult to overstate the importance of these early authorship doubts. They are potentially devastating to the dominant attitude of modern academics who dismiss the SAQ as basically anachronistic, a “romantic” notion contingent on modern cultural preoccupations, “conspiracy theories,” or a tendency to “question authority.” If modern academics and the general public can be forced to confront these early doubts, it would become far more difficult (perhaps impossible) to marginalize the SAQ, to quarantine it in time. On the contrary, authorship doubts would emerge as the persistent reality they truly are: an authentic and integral part of the very time and culture that produced the works of “Shakespeare” in the first place.
This talk was presented on October 14, 2017, at the SOF Annual Conference in Chicago.
For more on the Shakespeare Authorship Question, visit ShakespeareOxfordFellowship.org.
Bryan H. Wildenthal is Professor of Law Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law (San Diego). He earned his A.B. (with honors) and J.D. (with distinction) at Stanford University, and served as an editor of the Stanford Law Review. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law in Spring 2021. He taught law full-time for 26 years (1994-2020) and is the author of a college textbook on Native American sovereignty and numerous articles in leading law reviews (including one cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 and 2019). His legal scholarship focuses on constitutional law and history, American Indian law (Native American rights and sovereignty), and LGBT rights.
Supplemental note by Professor Wildenthal: I would like to correct a minor factual mistake (which I don’t think has any impact on the “early doubts” issue). About 30 minutes into the video, while briefly discussing the 1640 edition of the Sonnets published by John Benson, I followed the longtime conventional wisdom in suggesting that Benson extensively “bowdlerized” the Sonnets by changing pronouns to cover up their homoerotic aspect. In fact, as I am grateful to Martin Hyatt for pointing out to me, Margreta de Grazia showed in a brilliant article that this aspect of the Benson edition has been greatly exaggerated and misunderstood. (“The Scandal of Shakespeare’s Sonnets,” Shakespeare Survey 46 (1994), pp. 35-49, reprinted in James Schiffer, ed., Shakespeare’s Sonnets: Critical Essays (Garland, 1999), pp. 89-112.) As Mr. Hyatt also helpfully noted, it appears I may have been mistaken in echoing a suggestion I had heard that Benson’s name may have been a pseudonymous spoof on Ben Jonson’s; apparently there is some evidence there was a real publisher by that name. Another minor thing: around minute 24, I discussed the 1605 reference to "the late English Ovid" as appearing in a letter; it actually appeared in a published pamphlet (strengthening my point). 
Развлечения
Sadly, this does little to lay to rest for good the Stratford myth. Those who still believe it generally ignore concrete evidence and stick to their alleged facts.
Thank you for posting these lectures.
Thank you for watching! I appreciate it!
Funnily enough, I’ve never read Shakespeare before! Yet, from watching this video and some others, I’m finding this theory very interesting. It’s not a “conspiracy theory” that takes one or two little pieces of info and says “what if...”, rather there seems to be a large body of very reasonable evidence. I’m curious, what do you believe the role of the Stratford man was? Do you believe he simply had a similar name and history later confused him with the pen name of the author, or do you believe he was an active participant in posing as THE Shakespeare?
It's a conspiracy theory. Oxford was dead for a third of Shakespeare's writing career. The 12 plays Shakespeare composed while Oxford decomposed are dated by sources or events that occurred after the Earl died. I'll paste a handout I recently wrote for my students that debunks 5 basic beliefs of the conspirators. (I'm an English professor.) Since you've never read or seen a Shakespeare play, be sure to check out "Much Ado About Nothing" now available for free on youtube (link below). It's a comedy and a great place to begin.
..........................................................................
The conspiracy theory that someone of noble birth must've written Shakespeare's poems and plays has been around since 1850: 85+ socially superior Shakespeares have been proposed, and 0 evidence has been uncovered, not so much as a smoking quill.
CONSPIRACY BELIEF 1: No commoner could've written Shakespeare's plays; he'd lack both the education and knowledge of court life.
• FACT: A father's social status doesn't determine his child's talents.
• FACT: As mayor, John Shakespeare's son could attend Stratford's rigorous school for free, where he'd learn to read (in Latin) the very classics that Shakespeare mined his entire career as sources for his plays about the courts of England, Egypt, and Rome [1].
• FACT: Shakespeare didn't go to university. Neither did the great playwright Ben Jonson. Neither did the 17th Earl of Oxford, who spent 5 months at Cambridge, didn't earn a BA, and had an "honorary" MA "bestowed" upon him.
CONSPIRACY BELIEF 2: Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the "secret" author of the plays. He either gave his life's work to Shakespeare or paid Shakespeare to act in a hoax that outlasted even de Vere's life because (a) he wanted to avoid the "scandal" of being a gentleman playwright or (b) the palace forced him to do so.
• FACT: Oxford wrote comedies that the acting company he patronized, Oxford's Men, performed for paying audiences, and William Cecil, who knew better than most just how much Oxford needed money, wrote letters from the palace trying to drum up business [2].
• FACT: Oxford was dead for a full third of Shakespeare's career. Shakespeare composed 12 of 38 plays while de Vere decomposed in Hackney.
CONSPIRACY BELIEF 3: There's no evidence from Shakespeare's lifetime that he wrote poems and plays, and while no one's uncovered evidence showing Oxford wrote the plays, clues in the plays reveal him to be the “true” author.
• FACT: Nearly 500 documents from Shakespeare's lifetime, attesting to his life and work, can be viewed on the website "Shakespeare Documented," hosted by the National Archives, the British Library, & other leading research institutions [3].
• FACT: Outside his family, only 7 letters referencing Oxford can be found in the vast archives of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, "none of them containing a smidgeon of evidence linking him to the works of Shakespeare," according to a researcher who'd been bit by the Oxford bug. He concluded, "This research discovered significantly fewer references to Edward de Vere than Oxfordians might postulate for their literary giant of the Elizabethan Golden Age of Language and Literature" [4].
• FACT: Advocates for all 85+ socially superior secret Shakespeares believe clues in the plays reveal their guy (or gal) was the “true” author.
CONSPIRACY BELIEF 4: Comparing Shakespeare's signatures with Oxford's letters proves Shakespeare probably couldn't write more than his own name.
• FACT: Shakespeare's handwritten 4-page "refugee speech" for "Sir Thomas More" is posted on the British Library's website [5,6].
• FACT: Shakespeare wrote in the same handwriting style as Elizabethan professionals and university graduates ("secretary hand"). De Vere wrote in the "italian hand" preferred by some courtiers [7].
• FACT: English didn't have standardized spelling (including of surnames) when the men lived. People spelled words the way they heard and spoke them. That's 1 way we know de Vere didn't write Shakespeare's plays. The men came from different parts of England and spoke in different accents [8]. Take just 4 examples:
a) Shakespeare always spelled de Vere's ancestors' title as "Oxford"; de Vere spelled it "Oxenford." This isn't a mere variation in spelling. Shakespeare said the word as a trochee (stressed syllable followed by an unstressed: OX-ford); de Vere said his name as a dactyl (stressed syllable followed by 2 unstressed syllables): OX-en-ford.
b) Oxenford spelled "you, you're, yours" as "yow, yowre, yowres" (890 times in his surviving letters). Shakespeare always spelled "you" as "you."
c) For "could, should, would," Oxenford wrote "cowld, showld(e), wowld(e)," spellings found nowhere in Shakespeare.
d) Shakespeare always writes "where" and "there." Oxenford writes "whear(e)" and "thear(e)" (whearypon=whereupon, thearof=thereof, thearwythe=therewith).
CONSPIRACY BELIEF 5: De Vere wrote the plays in secret.
• FACT: Shakespeare collaborated with Fletcher, Middleton, Kyd, Dekker, Nashe, Peele, Munday, Wilkins, possibly Marlowe, and more [9]. How could de Vere have worked with all those men and not have anyone even suspect he was the "true" author until Looney came up with the idea in 1920?
• FACT: Shakespeare wrote for a specific company of actors for 24 years, and their talents are imprinted in the work. He wrote completely differently for lead comic actors Kempe & Armin. He wrote for specific stages: plays for the outdoor Globe differ from plays for Blackfriars or court. He knew just how long 1 set of actors needed to remain on stage to give others time to change costumes. He revised "As You Like It" at the last minute when his lead boy actor's voice suddenly started changing [10]. How would Oxford know any of that?
Oxfordians accuse English professors (like me) of being "closed minded." The fact is, we're informed.
Sources
1. "Shakespeare Bites Back," Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.
www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/blogs/shakespeare-bites-back/
2. Alan H. Nelson, biographical sketch of Edward de Vere. www.leadbetter.cc/nelson/oxposit.html
3. Shakespeare Documented. shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/
4. Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D., "Searching for the Oxfordian 'Smoking Gun' in Elizabethan Letters." Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/searching-elizabethan-letters/
5. William Shakespeare, 4-page handwritten manuscript for "Sir Thomas More." www.bl.uk/collection-items/shakespeares-handwriting-in-the-book-of-sir-thomas-more/
6. Ian McKellen reads Shakespeare's refugee speech from "Sir Thomas More." ruclips.net/video/AjEAeOshUGQ/видео.html&ab_channel=Canongate
7. "Shakespeare's Handwriting," Wikipedia.
8. "Inked Out--Oxford's hand." oxfraud.com/HND-spellbound
9. "Shakespeare's Collaboration," Wikipedia.
10. See free ebook in note 1. Also see Branagh's "Much Ado about Nothing" for free on youtube! It's a lively romp with an all-star cast & a perfect place to begin if you've never seen Shakespeare on stage or film. ruclips.net/video/7vtBsKPokHs/видео.html&ab_channel=RUclipsMovies
Your screed is completely (intentionally?) misrepresenting the authorship question and your “facts” are largely false (Hand D has no basis in fact, and neither does your dating of the plays).
What purpose does your straw man argument serve?
The man from Stratford might well have been involved, and there's a possibility he might have written the plays himself. However most Stratfordians defend him with a religious fervour and desire to belittle anyone who questions the matter, so it's necessary to sift all the facts on both sides of the argument with an open mind. "Who Wrote Shakespeare" by Joh Mitchell considers all the possible candidates (including Shakspere of Stratford) in an even-handed way without forcing any conclusion on the reader.
@@floatingholmes Does anyone know what "screed" this commenter is referring to? I found this comment baffling. It doesn't actually seem to reply to anything "alcazar123456" wrote (and certainly not to anything I said in my 2017 lecture recorded here). Maybe it was actually intended as a reply to the comment by "MrMartibobs" below in the comments thread? I certainly agree the "Hand D" theory (that the manuscript of a play about Sir Thomas More can be connected to Shakspere of Stratford's six shaky alleged signatures) lacks any reasonable basis in fact or logic. It's utterly preposterous, in fact.
And by the way, thank you for watching! I appreciate it!
Just bought the book
Thank you! Please let me know what you think of it.
What`s about Bastian Conrad in his book "Christopher Marlowe - Der wahre Shakespeare" on Page 651 (Paperback buch&media 2011) that Marlowe has to pay money involved with his imprisonment in 1604 !!! in London? There is written:
"Committed by my Lo: Chief Justice Christopher Marlowe, alias Mathews, a seminarie preist oweth for 7 weeks and two daies ( my insertion: it means from 3.August till 23.September 1604 !!!! ) being close prisoner at rate of 14s the week 5li 2s. For washing 2s 4d -- 5li 4s 4d."
"Christopher," "Marlowe," and "Mathews" were fairly common names. Hey, I'm a great admirer of Marlowe, very intrigued by him as a writer in his own right ... but Marlovian Shakespeare authorship theorists have a difficult task to overcome the documentary and circumstantial evidence that the poor guy didn't survive 1593. Given the powerful people who clearly wanted him dead, it would have been quite a miracle if he somehow escaped. Not surprisingly, no one's ever turned up convincing evidence he did. Leave aside the fact that, even if he did live past 1593, he (like Shakspere of Stratford and many other authorship candidates) was born too late to fit with the apparent timeline of when several "Shakespeare" plays were evidently first written. See Ramon Jimenez's important work.
Great video!
Thank you!
Here is the stanza from 'L'envoi to Narcissus'
Adon deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserved to,
Loves delight on him to gaze,
And had not love her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I have heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should have bene of our rime,
The onely object and the star.
Adonis is 'deafly masking through.'
Not Edward de Vere.
Adonis.
Geddit?
why purple robes?
Traditionally, Adonis was the product of the incestuous love Smyrna (Myrrha) entertained for her own father, the Syrian king Theias.
That makes Adonis royalty. Therefore he cold wear purple.
You're missing the mark here. Even orthodox scholars concede that "Adon" was used as a veiled way to reference the AUTHOR of the poem. This was very common (to refer to an author by the name of a key character or work).
It's now well beyond doubt - but:
1) Why are even most doubters still so reluctant to utter the word "woman" or "women" in their well-researched arguments?
2) Related Question: why on earth do doubters accept the still blinkered, implicitly male/de Vere "Oxfordian" nomenclature - as in the emphatically male Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere?
- Amelia Bassono and even Mary Sidney could just as likely have been either the sole authors or members of an - at least - semi-secret play-writing sabre-rattling Spear-Shaking salon or syndicate!
3) ..and women had one major - but likewise rarely-mentioned - additional reason to want or need to hide behind a pseudonym(collective or singular): they were forbidden from writing plays!!
They would have had no choice but to hide behind a male pseudonym to avoid suffering the punishments and harassment that the likes of Ben Johnson had to endure. And the consequences of being "outed" as a female playwright might well have been even worse than what Ben Johnson had to suffer for merely being a deviant or mischievous male playwright.
Paul G
Robert Greene accused Shakespeare of plagiarism in 1592, calling him an "upstart crow."
Thank you for this comment. Yes, the 1592 pamphlet purportedly by "Greene" (it has its own authorship issue) can be read to imply that Shakespeare was a plagiarist and thus I discuss it in my book as an example of the many early published doubts. I am now persuaded by arguments of other scholars (endorsed by Elizabeth Winkler's recent book) that not only was Chettle's reply not directed to the "Upstart Crow," and not only was the Upstart Crow not Shakspere of Stratford but rather Edward Alleyn (a theory I endorsed in my 2019 book), but the reference to "Shake-scene" does not even relate to Shakespeare at all. I now think it is simply another reference to Alleyn (who "shook the stage" himself, also noting that "shake" was then and still is a slang term for "theft," as in "shakedown," and thus a "Shake-scene" might simply be a "scene stealer").
When the "Greene" pamphlet was published in 1592, the play Henry VI (from which the "tiger's heart in a player's hide" line is paraphrased) had not even been published, and was only published anonymously (under a different title) a few years later. Few people if any in 1592 would have had any reason to recognize it as having any connection with anyone named "Shake" anything.
But the "tiger's heart" line would very likely have been associated with Edward Alleyn, as it's known he was a leading actor in the company that probably performed that very play during 1592. Furthermore, he very likely played the leading character who utters that very "tiger's heart" line! Alleyn was a far more famous actor during that time than "Shakespeare" ever was.
The Greene 1592 reference is all about Alleyn and provides no evidence whatsoever of Shakspere of Stratford. We have no evidence until 1594-95 that he had joined the Lord Chamberlain's Men or had even arrived in London.
Shakespeare (I mean the Stratford man who wrote the plays) certainly WAS plagiarist. His use of Plutarch in Anthony and Cleopatra is so blatant that you can match it line for line. This is not news. I looked at it when I was at University 30 years ago. The same is true of Holinhshed.
So ... yes he wrote the plays.
Yes, he was something of a plagiarist. You present a false dichotomy, you see.
You can be both a plagiarist and the author of the plays. In fact we know for a fact that the author of the plays was as light-fingered as the Artful Dodger when it came to nicking stuff.
Having said all that ...
The Groatsworth is definitely not an expression of early doubt.
The unwitting testimony of this piece is:
"Yes, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and he's a common little man and a plagiarist."
I'd agree with all that.
What a very talented, common little man. What a shameless but talented plagiarist.
Well done William Shakespeare, that talented man from Stratford upon Avon.
Talented Plagiarist is an Oxymoron. Perhaps you are too.
Holinshed and De Vere were close enough that Holinshed was picked for the jury that acquitted De Vere.
Perhaps Holinshed was just another front for Shakespeare - that would explain the plagiarism.