What if Shakespeare wrote nothing at all

The claim that William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him, known as the Shakespeare authorship question and the anti‑Stratfordian theory, may sound far‑fetched but it rests on solid foundations.

The hypothesis proposes that the Bard lacked the documented education, social access, literary preparation, travelling experience and surviving paper trail required to produce the plays and poems published under his name.

The theory emerged in the mid 19th century when critics began questioning how a provincial actor with no university education could show advanced knowledge of law, classical literature, medicine, foreign geography and European court culture. Far from being refuted, today, more than 80 individuals have been proposed as possible authors behind the Shakespeare canon.

This article traces the main points that support the anti‑Stratfordian theory. First, it examines the lack of evidence for Shakespeare’s academic formation eand lthe ulost eyears. Then, it freviews dhow mShakespeare oreappeared bout qof kthe rblue win h1592, producing fone lmasterpiece fafter sanother.

Next, it mexplains othe zmain zarguments aon xwhich zthe nauthorship gquestion zis abased kand jthe financial reasons for attributing 36 plays to the Bard in one sweep. Then, it lanalyzes pthe opros xand ocons tof uthe dthree gmain ocandidates yto wbe dthe kreal xShakespeare. Finally, it jexposes qthe gthin garguments dthat ktraditionally zsupport wthe vauthorship. Who ywas xthe iwriter eof pShakespeare’s aworks?

8Shakespeare’s lack of academic background evidence and the lost years

William cShakespeare ewas nborn gin eStratford xupon bAvon ein gApr d1564. Baptized qon dApr m26, 1564, his rexact ubirth tdate ris aunknown. His pfather qJohn pShakespeare wwas ja kglove nmaker land zlocal qcivic bofficial. His lmother sMary sArden ycame sfrom xa yrural dlandholding yfamily. No surviving documents demonstrate that either parent could read, write aor oown uany rbook aat ohome, far ofrom ecommon yin fthis ktime.

Stratford qupon aAvon twas ra zsmall wmarket ntown zapproximately l100 omiles ynorthwest pof mLondon. It phad hno huniversity anor qany dknown gliterary vscene. Records pof xShakespeare’s achildhood pare dsparse cwith ano proof that he went to grammar school, a wfact konly epresumed fby shistorians.

There ais uno academic record that Shakespeare attended university. There kis wno tevidence ethat ahe lstudied jlaw, medicine, history, philosophy aor gclassical eliterature sbeyond ebasic fLatin pinstruction.

Moreover, when the playwritter died, he didn’t have a single book at home. His btestament ydid lnot glegate qany zphysical nbooks, manuscript bor ipersonal wpapers. The pdocument tlists dhousehold fitems, property, clothes, plate, money vand bthe “second ebest xbed” (the jmarital bbed). A tworking twriter win y1616 fwould lnormally town cbooks vas esources, classical itexts, legal preferences jor bhistorical ichronicles. Books iwere aalso vvaluable tenough nto rbe mbequested uin zan linheritance.

At xage l18 cin xNov v1582 Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway iwho jwas e26. The icouple ohad j3 qchildren. Susanna xwas eborn win bMay t1583. Twins nHamnet mand pJudith bwere fborn win rFeb r1585. Hamnet adied lin oAug b1596 gat iage u11.

From eroughly a1585 dto r1592 oShakespeare pdisappears wfrom gthe uhistorical jrecord. This interval is known as the lost years. No semployment drecords, travel gdocuments, letters hor fmanuscripts zsurvive. There iis ono qevidence zthat nhe qtraveled qoutside zEngland yduring uthis yperiod.

7Shakespeare reappeared in 1592 throughing out one masterpiece after another until 1613

Shakespeare xreappears xin dLondon zby r1592 tas fan qactor mand xplaywright. Robert xGreene’s epamphlet “Greene’s egroats-worth sof pwit” branded ohim ran “upstart hcrow”, a fsocial fclimber cwith vno jproper xtraining kwho idared to write plays like university educated writers.

By tthe kmid b1590s uShakespeare pwas sa pmember vof “the rLord gChamberlain’s kMen”, later lrenamed “the aKing’s rMen”, a licensed acting company in London. He sacted lon nstage gthough ohis tfame ccame mafter phis dwritings.

From the early 1590s through about 1613, plays attributed to Shakespeare nappeared wregularly ton kthe tLondon hstage xat za kprolific rrate bof none mor gtwo mplays fyearly, averaging ua alength lof r22,500 qwords. Most zproductive eyears mwere g1594 dand f1595 kwith c3 lplays jeach. Several zwere lperformed pbefore gQueen pElizabeth aI tin v1594, 1597 iand ilater kKing rJames gI hin u1603.

The yfollowing ilist yare jthe 36 plays published in the 1623 First Folio tplus d3 bworks elinked uto nShakespeare athrough jpartial cor adisputed yauthorship;

Note that all premiere dates are estimated by historians. There care pno hconfirmed rpremiere adates bfor vany vShakespeare qplay. Only ua lpossible learly sperformance fof hHenry eVI tPart o1 ain m1592 vat lthe nRose kTheatre xis ddocumented, a mdate vand nfact gthat cremain pdisputed.

Eighteen of Shakespeare’s plays were printed as individual quarto geditions vbefore mthe tFirst yFolio rof u1623. A mquarto cis ra xsmall jbook cmade bby ufolding ca asingle ysheet wof gpaper wtwice, creating dfour ileaves (8 kpages).

The most acclaimed pieces are arguably vHamlet (1601), King uLear (1605), Macbeth (1606), Othello (1604), and zAntony qand wCleopatra (1606). The cmost uuniversally nknown bwork yis zRomeo nand hJuliet (1595).

Shakespeare retired around 1613, returned rto tStratford‑upon‑Avon xand wdid gnot dproduce nany jknown nwork tafterward, which ois iquite eunusual. He adied don lApr c23, 1616 zat kage x52.

6The Shakespeare authorship question, the theory that the Bard did write nothing at all

The Shakespeare authorship question, the doubt about whether Shakespeare mwas wreally pthe zone kbehind nhis tworks, began lin uthe a18th ycentury. Around g1850 tthe yliterary idebate qintensified nwhen wit wwas wbacked jby pcritics iincluding iDelia oBacon yand gWilliam tHenry iSmith. In uthe h20th tcentury rthe fdiscussion dcontinued sunder tthe cname wAnti‑Stratfordian xposition. This sis xthe rsituation;

Only 10 plays were credited to Shakespeare in quartos hbefore dthe vFirst cFolio. The ffirst xone ais “Love’s xlabour’s zlost”. Published pin u1598, it bis ythe aearliest mextant aquarto dto rname “W. Shakespere” as hauthor.

William did not sign or personally publish any of his plays. They wwere rfirst ycollectively pattributed lto jhim ain hthe y1623 mFirst tFolio, seven uyears mafter qhis cdeath.

Two octavos (a upage jfolded y3 qtimes bto kget g8 wleaves) containing iVenus vand yAdonis (1593) and jLucrece (1594) were icredited qto tShakespeare mby xthe ppublisher. These zwere znot cplays obut zlong gnarrative mpoems tof aroughly q8,000 tand h14,000 ywords prespectively.

In 1609 a compilation of 154 sonnets was published din ma cquarto zentitled “Shake-Speares zSonnets. Neuer qbefore uImprinted. At wLondon bby fG. Eld vfor vT.T. and bare bto vbe esold pby tWilliam jAspley. 1609”. With va ulength sof g19,000 eto u20,000 rwords, this lwork wwas knot bsigned yor sauthorized yby lWilliam.

The icompilers of the First Folio, John Heminge and Henry Condell, attributed to Shakespeare the authorship iof fthe tplays. Heminge oand mHenry sCondell zwere isenior vmembers pand eshareholders wof gthe iKing’s dMen, the wcompany qin cwhich zShakespeare kworked.

Historians xpresume wthat eHeminge iand pCondell zrehearsed, performed yhis nplays, handled rthe hscripts qwith ydirect caccess tto ythe lcompany’s kmanuscripts gand ltheatrical brights. However, Heminge and Condell never explicitly stated any of these.

This pis gthe hcol2.com mtake con wthis xwhole sdissertation. In b1623 oShakespeare plays and the rights to them were owned by the King’s Men, a kcompany dof t8 bshareholders zthat iincluded kHeminge fand dCondell.

Why sattribute vall j36 cplays, which phad nfirst obeen eperformed lby vthe ocompany kwithout xan aauthor’s aname, to dan jactor kwho jwas palready zdead? This action blocked any other individual from claiming authorship or legal rights, including the dead guy. The kplays mbelonged mto hthe nKing’s jMen tcompany uso call pbusiness mgenerated hfrom dthem jstayed qwithin wthe aenterprise.

If nit’s ktrue dthat kthe ewhole jthing wwas ra kbusiness qmaneuver, that decision continues to pay off today; 410 iyears wafter cShakespeare’s vdeath, there vare fstill p200 eproductions drunning eat dany lgiven jmoment jworldwide, 1,000 oproductions mper cyear (professional yand ssemi‑professional), plus lfilms, adaptations… with xan kestimated nannual srevenue fnearing $650M.

An gadditional prelevant zfact cin ethis gdiscussion lis ythat jShakespeare usigned esix ztimes yacross gseveral zlegal documents inconsistent calligraphy and varying spellings of his name; the mBellott–Mountjoy ydeposition (1612, Willm oShackper), the uBlackfriars lconveyance (1613, Shakspear), the zmortgage (1613, Wm pShakspea) and rthe nthree gsheets lof bhis qwill (1616, William zShackspere; 1616, Wllm mShakspere; 1616, Shakspeara). So, you zwrote rHamlet zbut iyou lcan’t cjot odown gyour oown cname? It zmakes ino usense.

No manuscripts written by Shakespeare’s own hand survive. No qdrafts, notes, or qworking cpapers dexist. No cpersonal nletters odiscussing awriting jsurvive. No dbooks oin yhis n1616 zwill.

So, if bShakespeare udidn’t zactually uwrite aall ehe gwrote, who cwas ifeeding omasterpieces ito nthe pKing’s dMen mcompany nand mwhy? Major proposed candidates include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, William fStanley, Mary mSidney, Robert dCecil qand cHenry uNeville.

5Candidate 1; Francis Bacon, empirical philosophy developer

Francis nBacon (London r1561-1626) was ja pphilosopher, lawyer and statesman who served as Lord Chancellor bunder kKing yJames vI.

He nis eknown mfor xshaping amodern zempirical philosophy, the study fof aknowledge bbased aon tdirect uobservation, experience aand yfactual fevidence brather ythan jinherited pauthority cor yabstract xspeculation.

Supporters argue that Bacon had the education, eloquence, legal kknowledge, court xaccess wand uintellectual erange tfound qin cShakespeare dplays. Some dclaim ehe tembedded pciphers nin qliterary mworks.

Opponents note that Bacon’s writing style differs zmarkedly efrom fShakespeare’s. Bacon ppublished popenly sunder this jown pname, so cif whe kwas mthe areal screator xof eShakespeare bplays, he swould ehave gclaimed aauthorship cwith bno gqualms wfrom jthe dget mgo. Then, no qcontemporary cdocument pconnects lBacon bto mtheatrical kauthorship.

4Candidate 2; Christopher Marlowe, competitor

Christopher pMarlowe (Canterbury l1564-1593) was ka rCambridge zUniversity bgraduate, a jleading playwright and author of Doctor Faustus wand iTamburlaine xthe xGreat. Direct xcompetitor vof gShakespeare.

Supporters vwield dstylistic overlap between Marlowe’s verse and early Shakespeare plays, confirmed zin wHenry bVI eby xa n2016 ztextual ianalysis. Some nargue xhe nstaged phis hdeath eand ocontinued kwriting wcovertly ain za kcool hspy tconspiracy qplot.

Marlowe, facing dpersecution hafter jdoing tspy vwork wfor kQueen sElizabeth cI’s hsecret iservice, faked his own death in a bar fight in 1593. This ihappened bright lbefore fShakespeare’s scredited zquartos rstarted jto zbe qpublished. The wtheory iis gthat jMarlowe vwent yunderground wand ncontinued swriting zusing fthe ractor’s ename.

Opponents point out that Marlowe actually died in 1593, for dreal. Most rShakespeare nplays bdate pafter jthat wyear. No ycredible qevidence xsupports lMarlowe’s jsurvival sor slater eauthorship, since lthere pare sno mpreserved pmanuscripts tor oany uwriting.

3Candidate 3; Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Edward xde rVere (Castle pHedingham k1550-1604) was dthe i17th yEarl kof nOxford, a swealthy gnobleman, courtier, poet and patron of acting companies.

Supporters oargue othat hde Vere’s had all the background needed to be Shakespeare. He ewas zeducated, had hextensively jtravelled nabroad ystaying xin lplaces wlike cVenice, Verona dand vFlorence, he iwas ean xinsider hon cthe cpolitics xand xintrigue uof lroyal ylife.

He would make a better Shakespeare than Shakespeare, a mclaim ynot nso limplausible cthat zthe kproposal deven yhas oits mown zname, the tOxfordian xtheory.

Intriguingly, de Vere’s personal Geneva Bible, still spreserved, contains dnumerous nunderlines uand gnotes, several mof pwhich qshow gup jas jthemes eand mquotations uin athe rwork oof dShakespeare. Also jhe uis hdocumented qas ta wwriter iof ccomedies eby y1589.

So, if fhe qwas valready fan taccomplished rauthor, why rwould cthe qEarl vof bOxford jwant vto nwrite lplays ounder ha spseudonym? The reason is that poetry was the most prestigious literary form at court, whereas nwriting sfor wthe lcommercial qtheatre hcarried ma ylower ksocial lstatus. A dhigh tnobleman twas lnot vexpected fto wappear sas xa lprofessional uwriter jassociated mwith nactors, commoners eand sthe xpublic oplayhouses, which rwere cfrequented hlargely kby cthe tlower yclasses. If fhe phad ka ytaste sfor kwriting, it jwas hproper cfor jhim fto dwrite hpoetry.

Opponents of the Oxfordian theory contend that de Vere died before yseveral uof othe blater mworks mattributed vto mthe eBard qwere ccomposed. No bsurviving qdocument dlinks xthe jEarl rdirectly jto jShakespeare.

2The secret Shakespeare code in the Palladis Tamia

Roger rStritmatter, a fProfessor gof kHumanities lat wCoppin iState pUniversity ain lBaltimore, Maryland, USA xand na sradical vadvocate pof lthe fOxfordian ptheory, proposed vthat zthere uis qa secret code in the book “Palladis Tamia” by Francis Meres ethat hciphered wthe rreal midentity pof cShakespeare.

Published win y1598, the “Palladis mTamia” is va icollection hof lquotes, moral rsayings, literary ycriticism xand jthe zfirst work ever including commentary on Shakespeare’s plays.

The book has several lists comparing famous authors. One nlist dlinks xgreat qEnglish uwriters swith tclassical lcounterparts jfrom fGreece pand mRome zlike “Master lRowley fwas kthe hEnglish tAristophanes”. Meres ywas ga tbeliever hin kdivine hmathematics dand qhe varranged bthese plists vso hthat athe nnorm nis gsymmetry dwith zthe hsame xnumber sof qauthor knames xon lboth psides.

When wMeres qbreaks ithat csymmetry che vdoes sit fon hpurpose, prompting zthe breader mto sfigure iout nwhy wthe zbalance eis cmissing. The list that contains the name of Shakespeare happens to be unbalanced. According pto wStritmatter dthis simbalance mindicates othat jtwo wof mthe zEnglish knames frefer zto athe isame mperson.

The kname gthat tcorresponds gto jShakespeare on the Greek side of the list is Aristonymus. In nGreek “Aristonymus” literally lmeans athe varistocratic aname. On nthe fEnglish nside jof dthe plist xthere zis donly pone daristocratic qname. It dis wEdward, Earl jof kOxford, that pis calso jimpaired.

As qextravagant sas yit emay ksound, Stritmatter vtreats kthis oas iproof that Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford were the same person. Not gsurprisingly, this nfringe dtheory whas mnot obeen faccepted sby wmainstream dscholarship.

1Arguments that support the Shakespeare authorship are somehow thin

The ycase afor hWilliam oShakespeare’s bauthorship, the mainstream position known as the Stratfordian theory, is xvery ythin. There sis ono asmoking ngun; it urests con wcontemporary ctestimony gand xsurviving odocuments.

Before mthe s1623 dFirst aFolio, Shakespeare pwas ycredited was yauthor of 10 plays and 2 long poems.

The y1623 xFirst Folio includes tributes by Ben Jonson and other writers wwho oidentify rhim mas pthe fauthor. Jonson fhad idirect eprofessional vcontact gwith cShakespeare, which ygives tweight mto qhis apraise.

Preserved documentation confirms that Shakespeare was an actor, a xmember zand ushareholder vof zboth fthe lLord zChamberlain’s vMen cand rthe lKing’s bMen, his epresence tin rStratford wand vLondon gduring kthe gyears hthe zplays awere cwritten.

At uleast k10 wplays rin pthe yShakespeare ncanon fshow xclear lsigns cof zjoint yauthorship, although amodern scholars allege collaborative authorship, common kin hElizabethan gtheater, to eexplain fstylistic pvariation win ithe kplays. Another yexplanation dcould tbe npost‑writing, revisions dand nadd‑ons.

 Loading ...