When you’re as much of a fan of Shakespeare as I am, you will often encounter one particular question: “who do you think wrote Shakespeare’s plays?” Said question tends to come from well-meaning but not particularly knowledgeable people who want to continue the conversation, or vaguely arrogant idiots who want to sound smarter.
However, it’s a common enough question I think it warrants a written response. So here it is: The man who wrote Shakespeare’s plays was the man named William Shakespeare, born April 23, 1564 (happy belated 461st birthday, Will!) in Stratford-upon-Avon.
You’d think this would be obvious. However, there’s a certain group of people, called “anti-Stratfordians” when one wishes to be kind and “deluded conspiracy theorists” when one wishes to be honest, who believe that William Shakespeare did not write his plays. For some reason, someone else wrote his plays, gave them to Shakespeare to be published anonymously, and now Shakespeare gets all the credit.
The origins of this theory are, frankly, classist. It stems from the idea that the middle-class son of a glove maker could not possibly be a literary genius! No, surely the works of Shakespeare must have been written by a noble, like Sir Francis Bacon or the Earl of Oxford! Never mind that he learned to read, learned Latin, and learned classics at his local grammar school. Never mind that his plays show a shocking lack of geographic knowledge (he seems to think that Vienna is in Italy, for instance) that would be embarrassing for a nobleman but not unusual for someone with only a grammar school education. Never mind that during Shakespeare’s lifetime, not one single person questioned that he wrote his own plays. Still, however, the conspiracy theorists will insist that the idea that the “man from Stratford” could have written his own plays is absurd. Why is it absurd, one must ask? Because you don’t believe an ordinary, non-rich person could be a genius? Nice. Real progressive. So not classist at all.
Considering how this conspiracy theory stems from classist bullshit, I’m incredibly tired of the Shakespeare world acting as if it holds any intellectual water. Why should we entertain people who simply refuse to believe that an ordinary man could be such a brilliant talent? This isn’t a reasonable theory, or an understandable theory, or even a smart theory. It’s just blatant bigotry dressed up in academic language, appealing to the elitists, snobs and those who just like advocating for conspiracy theories because it makes them feel important.
I doubt any of the previous paragraphs will have convinced any of the self-styled “anti-Stratfordians.” Instead, they’ll point out that Shakespeare’s plays show a remarkable knowledge of the legal system of Medieval and Early Modern England. How could Shakespeare have known about great historical events like the Battle of Agincourt? How could he have portrayed politics with such depth? Surely the man who wrote these plays must have been involved in government, or at least had an ancestor at these historic battles!
There’s a quite easy answer to all of these questions: Shakespeare got most of his information from a written source: Holinshed’s “Chronicles: A Historie of England.” Some passages from Shakespeare’s history plays, particularly Henry VI parts I, II, and III, are copied almost verbatim from Holinshed’s Chronicles. Additionally, the political system Shakespeare was discussing was that of his own time and place. If an American knows what the Civil War is, does that automatically mean one of their ancestors fought in the Civil War? Of course not! Noble birth is not a prerequisite for basic civics knowledge.
To stretch this America analogy even further, saying Shakespeare did not write his own plays is very similar to saying Lin-Manuel Miranda did not write “Hamilton.” Like Shakespeare, Miranda based his work on a history text, Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton.” Like Shakespeare, Miranda came from an ordinary background but was able to get an education that explains his ability to write, but also has a level of his own talent and genius to write at such a high level. If someone insisted Lin-Manuel Miranda couldn’t have written “Hamilton” because he’s an immigrant, lacks an Ivy League education, etc., we would rightly deride that person as a bigoted jerk. We ought to treat the anti-Stratfordians in the same manner.
Some conspiracy theorists will insist that they don’t think a nobleman wrote Shakespeare, instead, they think a woman wrote Shakespeare’s plays. They insist that a man could never write women or portray the female experience so well, as Shakespeare does in plays like “Much Ado About Nothing” and “Measure for Measure.” The woman most often mentioned by the conspiracy theorists is Aemilia Lanier née Bassano, who came from a family of musicians in the Elizabethan Court, and who is likely the “Dark Lady” of Shakespeare’s sonnets. They insist that Lanier couldn’t have published her own works because she was a woman, so needed to publish under Shakespeare’s name.
There’s just one tiny little flaw in this argument: Aemilia Lanier published works under her own name. In fact, she’s the first woman to publish under her own name in English. Her book of poems, “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum,” while a bit Jesus-y for my tastes, is still an incredible accomplishment – much cooler than being the secret author of Shakespeare’s works! If the conspiracy theorists are as feminist as they claim, why are they completely ignoring this remarkable accomplishment? Well, it’s probably because it weakens their theory. Along with going completely against the idea that Lanier was unable to publish at all, her poems are also stylistically distinct from Shakespeare’s work. Lanier has her own poetic voice. She was a writer in her own right. And we know that Shakespeare knew her, so perhaps some of their conversations influenced Shakespeare’s work, but Lanier certainly did not write it herself.
I think both the “Shakespeare was a nobleman” and “Shakespeare was a woman” camps are suffering from the same error of judgement: the idea that people are only capable of writing about their own experiences. Shakespeare wrote about nobles so he has to be a noble. Shakespeare wrote about women so he has to be a woman. Et cetera. This idea is not just inaccurate, but it’s deeply insulting to the artists’ imagination. Just because you lack the imagination to see beyond your own nose and can’t imagine any life or experience beyond your own doesn’t mean that everyone does! Shakespeare was an artistic genius, and one of the prerequisites for that is a phenomenal imagination. Shakespeare also wrote about fairies, spirits and Greek gods. Does this mean Shakespeare had to have been a fairy/spirit/Greek god as well?
The most ridiculous theory of all is the one that says that Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of Shakespeare’s and probably the second most famous Early Modern English playwright, faked his own death and continued to write Shakespeare’s plays. There are so many things wrong with this idea. Firstly, like Lanier, Marlowe’s works are stylistically distinct from Shakespeare’s. Some of Shakespeare’s early works resemble Marlowe’s, but that is likely because Marlowe was an established, successful playwright when Shakespeare was breaking into the scene. God forbid an up-and-coming artist imitate the styles of the already successful! Shakespeare’s literary style has a clear evolution, while Marlowe’s more over-the-top style remains much more consistent. Also, as I previously mentioned, Marlowe was more successful than Shakespeare during his life. Why would you publish under a different name when you’re the bigger name? And why would you fake your own death? This is the most conspiracy-ish of all the conspiracy theories. The people who believe in it will not be persuaded by logic, because they have none. I wish the Shakespeare community would call this theory what it is: utterly stupid.
Along with all the conspiracy arguments making no sense, the plays of William Shakespeare very much align with the life of one William Shakespeare. They start being written and performed when Shakespeare leaves home for the big city. They stop being written when Shakespeare dies. Twice, a character named “William” appears in Shakespeare’s work. One is a country bumpkin, and one is a Windsor boy learning his Latin. It seems as if Shakespeare himself was aware of and enjoyed poking fun at his unconventional background as a writer. When Shakespeare’s daughters, Susannah and Judith, were getting married, Shakespeare’s works became preoccupied with themes of fathers, daughters, and the changing of generations. And remember the William who learned his Latin I mentioned earlier? He comes from a play called “The Merry Wives of Windsor,” a play that the conspiracy theorists love to ignore, because it’s a spoof on a middle class English town like the one Shakespeare grew up in. Anyone could have the requisite knowledge to write about the English nobility. But only someone with Shakespeare’s background could have written “The Merry Wives of Windsor.” Think of it as a “Hamilton”/”In The Heights” comparison. Sure, anyone who read Chernow’s book could have the historical knowledge for “Hamilton,” but it’s Lin-Manuel Miranda’s background that allowed him to write “In the Heights.” Likewise, anyone could have learned English history from Holinshed’s Chronicles, but only someone with Shakespeare’s background could have written “The Merry Wives of Windsor.”
To conclude, the argument that Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays is idiotic. I’m sick and tired of people acting as if it is a legitimate take. Why don’t you add flat earth and the British monarchs are really lizards to your list of legitimate takes while you’re at it? The idea that Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays is an unacademic, bigoted and entirely false one. The man who wrote the works of William Shakespeare was the man named William Shakespeare. And that’s that.
