Why Did William Shakespeare Controversy?
Everything was quiet, too quiet. As the two opposing sides face one another in the battle field, you can hear the wind howling in agony. This war has gone on for centuries and nobody knows when it will end. For as long as the truth isn’t revealed, no one is willing to back out. This is the scene that comes into my mind as I try to personify the two opposing sides of the Shakespeare controversy. For years now, the Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians fought. And their reason of fighting, the identity of William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare, also known as the “Bard of Avon” or the “Swan of Avon”, was one of the greatest writers the world has ever known. Scarcity of information about him makes it hard to talk about the early stages of his
…show more content…
life. What is sure is that he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon to an alderman named John Shakespeare and a local landed heiress named Mary Arden at around April of 1564. Being the son of a public official, Shakespeare most likely attended the King’s New School. No records of him entering a university was ever found and so most assumes that he did not enter in any university in his time (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”). At 18 years old, Shakespeare started out his own family with a woman named Anne Hathaway. They were blessed with three children, Susanna and the twins Judith and Hamnet. Unfortunately, Hamnet died at the age of 11 because of an unknown cause. After the birth of the twins in 1585 William Shakespeare’s “lost years” occurred. No traces of him were found for seven years. By 1592, Shakespeare was said to have started working as an actor and playwright in London. This was where the magic happened; the stages of London became the witness on the birth of William Shakespeare, one of the greatest writers the world has ever known. (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”) Shakespeare definitely left a mark in the face of history. His works continue to awe both readers and audiences all around the world for over 400 years now. Of course, his popularity did not come instantly. Though he was a respected poet and playwright during his time, it was in the 19th century that his works reached the height of popularity that it is now accepting. Beginning with the Romantic period of the early 1800s and continuing through the Victorian period, acclaim and reverence for William Shakespeare and his work reached its height (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”). During this period of time, the term “Bardolatry” was coined by George Bernard Shaw in 1901. The term refers to the excessive worship of William Shakespeare. Bardolatry has its origins in the mid-18th century, when Samuel Johnson referred to Shakespeare 's work as "a map of life". In 1769 Shakespearean actor David Garrick read out a poem culminating with the words " 'tis he, 'tis he, / The God of our idolatry" as they unveiled a statue of Shakespeare in Stratford upon Avon (Wikipedia, “Bardolatry”). During the beginning of the 19th century, Bardolatry was already in full swing. Many writers from that time treated Shakespeare like a god. Shakespeare was celebrated as an unschooled supreme genius and had been raised to the statute of a secular god and many Victorian writers treated Shakespeare 's works as a secular equivalent to the Bible. However, there were others who felt uneasy because of the vast difference between Shakespeare’s god-like reputation and his somewhat stodgy life. And so the theory questioning Shakespeare’s identity was born (Wikipedia, “History of the Shakespeare…”).
The idea of this theory first came from two comic fantasies from the 18th century, “An Essay Against Too Much Reading” by Matthew Concanen and “The Life and Adventures of Common Sense” by Herbert Lawrence. In the first book, the author attacks Shakespeare’s lack of background and suggests that Shakespeare probably has “one of those chuckle-pated Historians for his particular Associate…or he might have starvd upon his History.” Concanen tells us that he had this from “one of his (Shakespeare’s) intimate Acquaintance.” While in the second book, Shakespeare appeared as one of the characters. In one of the scenes of the book, Shakespeare was said to be casting “his Eye upon a common place Book, in which was contained, an Infinite Variety of Modes and Forms, to express all the different Sentiments of the human Mind, together with Rules for their Combinations and Connections upon every Subject or Occasion that might Occur in Dramatic Writing…” (“History of Doubt…”). Both of the books did not really help in promoting the question on the authorship of works attributed to Shakespeare because of their comedic nature. During the 19th century, the speculations on Shakespeare’s identity took a serious turn. Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the first few who voiced out his serious doubt against Shakespeare, said “The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse: Other admirable men had led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast.” (qtd. in “past doubters”). Soon enough, many others started to voice out their doubts too. As the controversy grew bigger, other kinds of questions were formed in the minds of many.
If it wasn’t Shakespeare then who was it? Is he someone we know? If so, then what was the reason he hid his identity? And so, the crazy search for the ”real” Shakespeare began. In the process many names of plausible Shakespeare surfaced, names like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William Stanley, and many more. During the early 19th century, one of the newest candidates caught the eye of many notable advocates, one of which was Sigmund Freud, his name was Edward de Vere (Wikipedia, “History of the Shakespeare…”). Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, had everything that anti-Stratfordians were looking for. Having been kept as a ward of Queen Elizabeth, de Vere would surely have had culminated a vast amount of knowledge in literature, language, sciences, and, of course, hobbies and norms inside the royal court. Having studied law at Gray’s Inn, he also had a vast knowledge of the governing laws during their period of time. All of these were needed if you were to write one of Shakespeare’s plays (“A short life of …show more content…
Edward…”). Also, de Vere had the reputation of being an exceptional writer. Many known writers and scholars of his time praised his written works. Gabriel Harvey, a Cambridge scholar, praised him as a prolific poet and as one whose "countenance shakes speares" which anti-Stratfordians believed to be a word play that hints that he was Shakespeare. Edward de Vere was also named as "best for comedy" in Francis Meres ' Palladis Tamia (“A short life of Edward…”). Unfortunately for de Vere, what gave him the wings to fly took his freedom away as a price. De Vere’s father in law, William Cecil, deemed the world of theatre as lowly and didn’t deem it appropriate for anyone who is a part of the royal court to be involved in such kinds of activities. And so, anti-Stratfordians thought of this as the reason why de Vere didn’t publish under his own name (“The Shakespeare Mystery”) But even though almost everything in de Vere’s life pointed to him as the real author one thing didn’t. Edward de Vere died of an unknown cause in 1604 but some of Shakespeare’s plays were written way after his death (“A short life of Edward…”). Even though anti-Stratfordians insist that the plays written after de Vere’s death were more of his unpublished works, Stratfordians point out that these plays contained events that happened after de Vere’s death so it was impossible for him to have written these works (“Stratfordian Argument…”). No matter what anti-Stratfordians might say, Stratfordians still sees flaws in each and every candidate the other side presents. Stratfordians believe that Shakespeare is being singled out because of his great popularity. They point out that even though other writers in Shakespeare’s period had the same background as Shakespeare, they were not accused of having a different identity. Also, they find it difficult to believe that the supposedly hidden identity of Shakespeare would have been hidden for such a long time (“Stratfordian Argument…”). The theory of Shakespeare being just a front man would mean that Shakespeare agreed to serve some high ranking man because writing plays was below the dignity of a great man in their society.
Shakespeare 's friends in the acting company would have also agreed to lie on his behalf and publicize the plays as by Shakespeare. Persons who knew Shakespeare well, like Ben Jonson, would have also went along with the make believe, writing verses that praise Shakespeare after his death in 1613. Shakespeare 's colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell, who supervised the publication of all of Shakespeare’s plays in a Folio volume in 1616, would have went along with the lie. All of these people had to be either deceived by the presumed cover up or, in many cases, accessories to the biggest lie of the century (“Stratfordian
Argument…”). They also find it weird that some one, for example de Vere, would have kept his mouth shut after his works have gained so much popularity even in the court. They say that if he did write the plays then why not tell at least one of his friends and why didn’t he say something even when he was nearing his death (“Stratfordian Argument…”).
As time passes by, the battle between Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians intensify. With the new technology in their arsenal and the web as their new battle field, the fight is as intense as ever. Websites dedicated to this topic have been put up, documentaries, movies, articles and many more have been produced, and the race to finding the truth continues to rage on. When one thinks of it, the topic of uncovering some writer’s identity might be deemed insignificant. So why are so many people fascinated about this topic? Well, I think the charm of this theory is that it offers something that piques the interest of many. One can create so many scenarios in accordance to this and almost all of them would be interesting. It makes the mind wander into different personas, worlds, and periods. The persons involved would also have contributed a lot to its popularity. Imagine if this conspiracy didn’t feature Shakespeare, it most probably wouldn’t have gained the popularity that it has today. As for the question on the identity of Shakespeare, well, I think that that question would be left unanswered for a few more centuries or so. Until none of the two opposing sides find strong evidence, the argument would most probably carry on. And honestly, I don’t thing that it’s a bad thing. When I first heard about this theory I was compelled to read and research more about Shakespeare, his works, his life, his era, I wanted to find out everything about him. In the process, I guess you could say that I fell in love. I fell in love over and over and over again as I read his works. Actually, if you asked me a year or even just a month ago what my view on this topic was, my answer would most probably have been “I am definitely sure that the William Shakespeare from Stratford upon Avon was not the man who wrote these plays…” but while writing this paper I suddenly realized something. I don’t care. I don’t care if it was Shakespeare or Marlowe or Bacon or de Vere or any one else, because no matter what happens Hamlet would still say “to be or not to be”, Romeo would still be a fool for fighting his wife’s cousin right after they got married, and I would still get chills as I read through the gore of Titus Andronicus. Right now, what matters to me is the work and not the man behind it and it this may sound weird but I’m fine just by knowing that a long time ago there lived a man of great talent that produced some of the greatest gifts humanity has ever received.
Work Cited:
"A short life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." the De Vere Society website, The De Vere Society, 2007. Web. 15 August 2013. < www.deveresociety.co.uk/OxfordBiography.html>
“Bardolatry”. Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.
"History of Doubt Surrounding the Authorship of Shakespeare 's Work." shakespeare-oxford.com. Shakespeare-Oxford Society, 1995. Web. 13 October 2013. .
“History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question” Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.
"Past Doubters". doubtaboutwill.org. The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, 10 September 2007. Web. 15 August 2013. .
“Stratfordian Argument: An Update”. pbs.org. WGBH Educational foundation, April 1996. Web. 13 October 2013.
"The Shakespeare Mystery part 1 of 4". Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 04 July 2012. Web. 20 August 2013. .
"William Shakespeare.” The Biography Channel website. A+E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.
life. What is sure is that he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon to an alderman named John Shakespeare and a local landed heiress named Mary Arden at around April of 1564. Being the son of a public official, Shakespeare most likely attended the King’s New School. No records of him entering a university was ever found and so most assumes that he did not enter in any university in his time (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”). At 18 years old, Shakespeare started out his own family with a woman named Anne Hathaway. They were blessed with three children, Susanna and the twins Judith and Hamnet. Unfortunately, Hamnet died at the age of 11 because of an unknown cause. After the birth of the twins in 1585 William Shakespeare’s “lost years” occurred. No traces of him were found for seven years. By 1592, Shakespeare was said to have started working as an actor and playwright in London. This was where the magic happened; the stages of London became the witness on the birth of William Shakespeare, one of the greatest writers the world has ever known. (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”) Shakespeare definitely left a mark in the face of history. His works continue to awe both readers and audiences all around the world for over 400 years now. Of course, his popularity did not come instantly. Though he was a respected poet and playwright during his time, it was in the 19th century that his works reached the height of popularity that it is now accepting. Beginning with the Romantic period of the early 1800s and continuing through the Victorian period, acclaim and reverence for William Shakespeare and his work reached its height (Biography Channel, “William Shakespeare”). During this period of time, the term “Bardolatry” was coined by George Bernard Shaw in 1901. The term refers to the excessive worship of William Shakespeare. Bardolatry has its origins in the mid-18th century, when Samuel Johnson referred to Shakespeare 's work as "a map of life". In 1769 Shakespearean actor David Garrick read out a poem culminating with the words " 'tis he, 'tis he, / The God of our idolatry" as they unveiled a statue of Shakespeare in Stratford upon Avon (Wikipedia, “Bardolatry”). During the beginning of the 19th century, Bardolatry was already in full swing. Many writers from that time treated Shakespeare like a god. Shakespeare was celebrated as an unschooled supreme genius and had been raised to the statute of a secular god and many Victorian writers treated Shakespeare 's works as a secular equivalent to the Bible. However, there were others who felt uneasy because of the vast difference between Shakespeare’s god-like reputation and his somewhat stodgy life. And so the theory questioning Shakespeare’s identity was born (Wikipedia, “History of the Shakespeare…”).
The idea of this theory first came from two comic fantasies from the 18th century, “An Essay Against Too Much Reading” by Matthew Concanen and “The Life and Adventures of Common Sense” by Herbert Lawrence. In the first book, the author attacks Shakespeare’s lack of background and suggests that Shakespeare probably has “one of those chuckle-pated Historians for his particular Associate…or he might have starvd upon his History.” Concanen tells us that he had this from “one of his (Shakespeare’s) intimate Acquaintance.” While in the second book, Shakespeare appeared as one of the characters. In one of the scenes of the book, Shakespeare was said to be casting “his Eye upon a common place Book, in which was contained, an Infinite Variety of Modes and Forms, to express all the different Sentiments of the human Mind, together with Rules for their Combinations and Connections upon every Subject or Occasion that might Occur in Dramatic Writing…” (“History of Doubt…”). Both of the books did not really help in promoting the question on the authorship of works attributed to Shakespeare because of their comedic nature. During the 19th century, the speculations on Shakespeare’s identity took a serious turn. Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the first few who voiced out his serious doubt against Shakespeare, said “The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse: Other admirable men had led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this man in wide contrast.” (qtd. in “past doubters”). Soon enough, many others started to voice out their doubts too. As the controversy grew bigger, other kinds of questions were formed in the minds of many.
If it wasn’t Shakespeare then who was it? Is he someone we know? If so, then what was the reason he hid his identity? And so, the crazy search for the ”real” Shakespeare began. In the process many names of plausible Shakespeare surfaced, names like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William Stanley, and many more. During the early 19th century, one of the newest candidates caught the eye of many notable advocates, one of which was Sigmund Freud, his name was Edward de Vere (Wikipedia, “History of the Shakespeare…”). Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, had everything that anti-Stratfordians were looking for. Having been kept as a ward of Queen Elizabeth, de Vere would surely have had culminated a vast amount of knowledge in literature, language, sciences, and, of course, hobbies and norms inside the royal court. Having studied law at Gray’s Inn, he also had a vast knowledge of the governing laws during their period of time. All of these were needed if you were to write one of Shakespeare’s plays (“A short life of …show more content…
Edward…”). Also, de Vere had the reputation of being an exceptional writer. Many known writers and scholars of his time praised his written works. Gabriel Harvey, a Cambridge scholar, praised him as a prolific poet and as one whose "countenance shakes speares" which anti-Stratfordians believed to be a word play that hints that he was Shakespeare. Edward de Vere was also named as "best for comedy" in Francis Meres ' Palladis Tamia (“A short life of Edward…”). Unfortunately for de Vere, what gave him the wings to fly took his freedom away as a price. De Vere’s father in law, William Cecil, deemed the world of theatre as lowly and didn’t deem it appropriate for anyone who is a part of the royal court to be involved in such kinds of activities. And so, anti-Stratfordians thought of this as the reason why de Vere didn’t publish under his own name (“The Shakespeare Mystery”) But even though almost everything in de Vere’s life pointed to him as the real author one thing didn’t. Edward de Vere died of an unknown cause in 1604 but some of Shakespeare’s plays were written way after his death (“A short life of Edward…”). Even though anti-Stratfordians insist that the plays written after de Vere’s death were more of his unpublished works, Stratfordians point out that these plays contained events that happened after de Vere’s death so it was impossible for him to have written these works (“Stratfordian Argument…”). No matter what anti-Stratfordians might say, Stratfordians still sees flaws in each and every candidate the other side presents. Stratfordians believe that Shakespeare is being singled out because of his great popularity. They point out that even though other writers in Shakespeare’s period had the same background as Shakespeare, they were not accused of having a different identity. Also, they find it difficult to believe that the supposedly hidden identity of Shakespeare would have been hidden for such a long time (“Stratfordian Argument…”). The theory of Shakespeare being just a front man would mean that Shakespeare agreed to serve some high ranking man because writing plays was below the dignity of a great man in their society.
Shakespeare 's friends in the acting company would have also agreed to lie on his behalf and publicize the plays as by Shakespeare. Persons who knew Shakespeare well, like Ben Jonson, would have also went along with the make believe, writing verses that praise Shakespeare after his death in 1613. Shakespeare 's colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell, who supervised the publication of all of Shakespeare’s plays in a Folio volume in 1616, would have went along with the lie. All of these people had to be either deceived by the presumed cover up or, in many cases, accessories to the biggest lie of the century (“Stratfordian
Argument…”). They also find it weird that some one, for example de Vere, would have kept his mouth shut after his works have gained so much popularity even in the court. They say that if he did write the plays then why not tell at least one of his friends and why didn’t he say something even when he was nearing his death (“Stratfordian Argument…”).
As time passes by, the battle between Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians intensify. With the new technology in their arsenal and the web as their new battle field, the fight is as intense as ever. Websites dedicated to this topic have been put up, documentaries, movies, articles and many more have been produced, and the race to finding the truth continues to rage on. When one thinks of it, the topic of uncovering some writer’s identity might be deemed insignificant. So why are so many people fascinated about this topic? Well, I think the charm of this theory is that it offers something that piques the interest of many. One can create so many scenarios in accordance to this and almost all of them would be interesting. It makes the mind wander into different personas, worlds, and periods. The persons involved would also have contributed a lot to its popularity. Imagine if this conspiracy didn’t feature Shakespeare, it most probably wouldn’t have gained the popularity that it has today. As for the question on the identity of Shakespeare, well, I think that that question would be left unanswered for a few more centuries or so. Until none of the two opposing sides find strong evidence, the argument would most probably carry on. And honestly, I don’t thing that it’s a bad thing. When I first heard about this theory I was compelled to read and research more about Shakespeare, his works, his life, his era, I wanted to find out everything about him. In the process, I guess you could say that I fell in love. I fell in love over and over and over again as I read his works. Actually, if you asked me a year or even just a month ago what my view on this topic was, my answer would most probably have been “I am definitely sure that the William Shakespeare from Stratford upon Avon was not the man who wrote these plays…” but while writing this paper I suddenly realized something. I don’t care. I don’t care if it was Shakespeare or Marlowe or Bacon or de Vere or any one else, because no matter what happens Hamlet would still say “to be or not to be”, Romeo would still be a fool for fighting his wife’s cousin right after they got married, and I would still get chills as I read through the gore of Titus Andronicus. Right now, what matters to me is the work and not the man behind it and it this may sound weird but I’m fine just by knowing that a long time ago there lived a man of great talent that produced some of the greatest gifts humanity has ever received.
Work Cited:
"A short life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." the De Vere Society website, The De Vere Society, 2007. Web. 15 August 2013. < www.deveresociety.co.uk/OxfordBiography.html>
“Bardolatry”. Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.
"History of Doubt Surrounding the Authorship of Shakespeare 's Work." shakespeare-oxford.com. Shakespeare-Oxford Society, 1995. Web. 13 October 2013. .
“History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question” Wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.
"Past Doubters". doubtaboutwill.org. The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, 10 September 2007. Web. 15 August 2013. .
“Stratfordian Argument: An Update”. pbs.org. WGBH Educational foundation, April 1996. Web. 13 October 2013.
"The Shakespeare Mystery part 1 of 4". Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 04 July 2012. Web. 20 August 2013. .
"William Shakespeare.” The Biography Channel website. A+E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 13 October 2013.