A Note on the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

I submitted the following as a comment on this story but it hasn’t appeared on the page yet, and anyway it’s a point worth making separately:

I have no view as to whether the plays are by de Vere or by W.S. But I think we should distinguish between those arguments for de Vere that are worth taking seriously (such as the similarity of passages in the plays and poems to earlier, unpublished writings of de Vere) and those arguments for de Vere that are not worth taking seriously (such as that no mere commoner like W.S. could possibly have been cultured enough to write the plays, that only an aristocrat could have done so). The first argument is striking (though not necessarily decisive) evidence; the second argument is mere class prejudice, easily counterexampled.

3 Responses to A Note on the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

  1. Bob Kaercher March 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    I was a theater major in college, and this controversy was discussed heatedly among us theater students.

    I never understood why, but it always seemed there were people who were absolutely adamant that de Vere just had to be the real author, and those who wouldn’t even remotely entertain the idea. Of course, these discussions usually took place in social settings rife with alcohol and various mind-altering substances, so perhaps that had an effect on people’s reasoning on the matter. I rather agree with your own statement.

    There was also much discussion of a theory claiming that Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe were one and the same.

    BTW, I added one more comment for you and ELT under the “Walter Block Replies” post.

    What…? What was…? Do I hear a groan???

  2. Administrator March 26, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    Marlowe is certainly a more plausible choice than Francis Bacon, who used to be the favourite candidate. Marlowe’s style seems to me quite a bit sparer than Shakespeare’s, though — and his outlook bleaker.

  3. Clyde Adams III March 29, 2008 at 7:53 pm #

    “that no mere commoner like W.S. could possibly have been cultured enough to write the plays, that only an aristocrat could have done so”

    Has anyone ever actually made this argument? I think it’s just a manufactured strawman.

    There is a serious argument that specific internal evidence in the works (attitude, word and metaphor choice) tends to indicate the author was an aristocrat. See for example _Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography_ by Diana Price (http://shakespeare-authorship.com/).

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes