Was Shakespeare a fraud?

[Akkleptos]

First off, mods are invited to relocate the topic as they see fit. I just selected History because I thought the people with access to the best sources to clarify this would be precisely the ones on the History forum.

Link

I know, this is not new, but there are quite a few people out there willing to dispute the playwright's merits.

Now, it is my understanding that there could be reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the author of the works we now ascribe to Shakespeare, that's subtopic 1.

What i just can't get through my head is why some of the same people would dismiss this work, regardless of who wrote it, as "shit". Now, if such a comment came from some illiterate country bumpkin I would be inclined to understand it, but a person with a major in Literature? That would be subtopic 2.

From the link, one of the very few sources i could find googling up "Is Shakespeare a fraud" and similar searches. My google-fu is admittedly weak.I was hoping someone here would be able to enlighten me a bit. Thanks.

The debate revolves around a couple of issues. Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education. The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

But as the Yahoo! article points out, Shakespeare detractors are in fairly good company; Mark Twain, Orson Welles, and Charlie Chaplin are among the skeptics that believe we have the true playwright of so many works wrong. Although to me personally, attaching a few famous names to something doesn’t make it more or less credible. Just look at the number of celebrities today who attach their names to some of the whacky causes they believe in.

Honestly, unless new physical evidence comes to light, I don’t know that we will ever resolve this issue. The pro-Shakespeare camp will continue to rally around the Bard and those who are in favor of a different author, for whatever reason, will continue to raise doubts. The debate is likely to continue in such circles for the foreseeable future!

What do all of you think about the Shakespeare debate? Did someone else write those plays? Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

Read the Yahoo! article here:
Coalition aims to expose Shakespeare

[Samuel]

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

Aren't there other plays with similar themes from around that time? It isn't incredible if he was good at taking raw ideas and turning them into the refined products that became classics. It isn't like he wasn't intelligent.

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

So? Do we expect to find conclusive evidence for playrights and their creations? Was theater looked down upon and unlikely to get such a treatment in the first place?

[Twigler]

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

How so? I recall from the tour I got in Shakespeareville (i.e. Stradford upon Avon) that his father was an Alderman and that this position came with free education for the children. So while his parents were illiterate, he very likely wasn't and was at grammar school from his 7th to his 14th at least (it is theoretically possible that his parents didn't use the free education option because there is no proof that he actually attended school, but it would be highly unlikely).

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

Likewise there is no documentation supporting that others wrote those plays, nor other proof in that direction.

Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays.

Marlowe was dead when a lot of these plays were written. Unless you're going straight for a double whammy of conspiracy theories and claim that he faked his death and continued to write as Shakespeare. I don't buy that one, but it's a different story.

[Thanas]

Some scholars also consider Edward de Vere to be a logical choice, but there is no evidence either way, just a number of coincidences.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

As the son of an alderman, he would have attended grammar school and would have attended lessons at the local parish church. This would include learning Latin, grammar, rhetoric, and reading the Bible. While there is no evidence that he attended university, that does not preclude self-education. A contemporary of Shakespeare's, Ben Jonson, was a thoroughly self-educated dramatist would became court poet for King James I (he received little formal education and worked, initially, as a bricklayer).

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

IIRC, there is plenty of testimony from contemporaries of Shakespeare, including actors, other dramatists, and historians, that support his authorship. Not to mention his grave monument in Stratford. That's pretty hard to dismiss.

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

Most serious scholars consider it a conspiracy theory. There is evidence that supports his authorship, whereas the evidence against it is all either circumstantial or just straight-up bullshit.

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

That is possible, of course. His must have played a significant role, however, to get a monument statue on his death.

Honestly, unless new physical evidence comes to light, I don’t know that we will ever resolve this issue. The pro-Shakespeare camp will continue to rally around the Bard and those who are in favor of a different author, for whatever reason, will continue to raise doubts.

This is an idiotic ending. He paints it as though it were merely a matter of opinion, and that some people are "rallying around the Bard" and some aren't arbitrarily. It is a scholarly issue, which this guy clearly doesn't understand.

[Akkleptos]

Okay, so we have compromised with this person who dismisses most of Shakespeare's work as blatant plagiarism down to this:

That, while certainly in many cases the Bard did use pre-existent works ranging from old legends to previous plays written by others (her position; though I'm not sure enough, it would require a lot of especialised research to verify), it is also true that Shakespeare's merit would have been turning such pre-existent works into plays that are considered some of the most beautiful examples of English literature (my position; although she claims not to understand why most critics, experts -and pretty much anyone who is familiar enough with Shakespeare- hold his works in such high praise- since she admittedly can't see the inherent beauty of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets.)

So, my question now is twofold:

1) Is it true that most of the important works by Shakespeare were plagiarised (as in the modern meaning of the word, because we are talking about a time when plagiarism wasn't as demonised as it is today, and when it was harder to find out whether a play had been copied off somebody else's work), and if so, what does that mean in regards to the Bard's status as the English language's foremost master playwright?

2) What is it that makes Shakespeare such a praised genius? I could mention his insight into human nature, his contributions to the English language, the sheer beauty in his use of vocabulary and rhythm... But I'm no expert, and I have next to no academic resources on this matter (and the previous one) other than what my weak google-fu can muster.

EDIT: Bear in mind this is a native English-speaker with a major in Spanish literature we're talking about. She's supposed to understand the reasons why Shakespeare is considered "the grand literary figure of the Western world", right?

[Ziggy Stardust]

1) Is it true that most of the important works by Shakespeare were plagiarised (as in the modern meaning of the word, because we are talking about a time when plagiarism wasn't as demonised as it is today, and when it was harder to find out whether a play had been copied off somebody else's work), and if so, what does that mean in regards to the Bard's status as the English language's foremost master playwright?

It really depends on how you define plagiarism to be honest. When it comes to art, the application of the word is much looser than it is in academic settings. When it comes right down to it, you can call many famous writers plagiarists, because they incorporate elements of previous work into their own. Now, when it comes to Shakespeare, there is certainly no evidence that any of his works are entirely plagiarized from another writer. He didn't steal someone's manuscript and print it under his own name. That said, his works do have elements that are almost word for word from older sources. Chaucer, Plutarch, Ovid, and dozens of others. But it's a stretch to call that plagiarism, without also condemning virtually all works of literature. Hell, is Hemingway a plagiarist because the title of For Whom the Bell Tolls is taken from John Donne?

2) What is it that makes Shakespeare such a praised genius? I could mention his insight into human nature, his contributions to the English language, the sheer beauty in his use of vocabulary and rhythm... But I'm no expert, and I have next to no academic resources on this matter (and the previous one) other than what my weak google-fu can muster.

There are so many things to say. Wikipedia actually has a very nice article specifically on Shakespeare's influence on language and literature.

[Twigler]

Sorry, but for question two I'd suggest watching lots of plays to build up your own opinion or just avoid the topic. If you're going to answer question two by parroting what we're throwing over the fence at you, I think you're not going to last very long in any serious discussion. I personally like the clever word play, hidden meanings, and layers, and the way anyone these days can still watch a 400 year old play and enjoy it. The man knew his audience extremely well I think. And how many writers these days can do both comedy and drama?
But personally I prefer Marlowe as a playwright. Hardly anyone ever shows his plays because... "well it's fine if you want a classic play, as long as it's Shakespeare", which is a great disservice to the man.

I'll take on question one because it's interesting to investigate, but since she's going against the accepted opinion, I'd normally say the burden of proof is on her side. Let her prove what plays were ripped off. I assume we're talking about the plays here, not so much the poetry btw.

Copyright issues - firstly you need to establish at what point you can call a play plagiarised. It sounds to me like hers is a bit "unusual" to say the least. Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" is of course based on previous works. T.H. White's version was completely inspired by Malory's books. Are these plagiarising some poor unnamed minstrel who first wrote down the story? Bullshit. They write their own interpretation.

Likewise for Shakespeare's plays. So a lot of them are based on fairly contemporary Italian poetry or stories, or some other work, but he based them on the originals. He didn't exactly grab an Italian play, a translator and, hey presto, that's Romeo and Juliet done.

On the other hand what he did do, together with pretty much all contemporary playwrights, is use sections from existing plays and adapted them for his own. If your friend has something against that, I think she can pretty much forget about ever liking any plays from that time since it was common practise.

[Akkleptos]

Sorry, but for question two I'd suggest watching lots of plays to build up your own opinion or just avoid the topic. If you're going to answer question two by parroting what we're throwing over the fence at you, I think you're not going to last very long in any serious discussion. I personally like the clever word play, hidden meanings, and layers, and the way anyone these days can still watch a 400 year old play and enjoy it. The man knew his audience extremely well I think. And how many writers these days can do both comedy and drama?

Look, I know my Shakespeare just fine, alright? I just wanted some insight on historical research that can only be come by through some subscription-barred search engines, the kind that are available to college students, looking for more "technical" reasons to support the Bard's cause. Other than that, I am perfectly able to discuss the quality of Shakespeare's work on my own.

Oh, and yes, the onus is on her.

[Twigler]

Smashing. I couldn't figure that out from your post.

Harold Bloom is probably one of Shakespeare's strongest defenders, but he's not without controversy. He has been accused of swinging too far towards the other side in his quest against the nay-sayers. Still, "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human" is an interesting read as long as you keep that in mind, and it will certainly give you plenty of ammo.

Standard disclaimer - I'm not a literature student or expert, nor will I ever be. The subject grabbed my attention in college and I liked reading 16th century books at that time as well.

[The Dark]

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

As the son of an alderman, he would have attended grammar school and would have attended lessons at the local parish church. This would include learning Latin, grammar, rhetoric, and reading the Bible. While there is no evidence that he attended university, that does not preclude self-education. A contemporary of Shakespeare's, Ben Jonson, was a thoroughly self-educated dramatist would became court poet for King James I (he received little formal education and worked, initially, as a bricklayer).

He most likely attended King's New School, since that was less than half a mile from the Shakespeare home. The curriculum at the grammar schools of the period also included the classics. And to be perfectly honest, most of the plots Shakespeare uses could have come from the classics. The styles were different, since the Elizabethan theatre wasn't Greek theatre, but the basic plots could have come from Greek comedy or tragedy. His errors in referring to the classics (having Greeks in the Trojan War refer to Plato, confusing Delphi with Delos and referring to it as Delphos) are also suggestive of someone that didn't go to university - he had learned them as a child, but hadn't thoroughly studied them as Marlowe or Derby or Oxford would have.

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

IIRC, there is plenty of testimony from contemporaries of Shakespeare, including actors, other dramatists, and historians, that support his authorship. Not to mention his grave monument in Stratford. That's pretty hard to dismiss.

To be fair, the grave monument only references him as a writer, and not specifically as a playwright. That said, I believe that Ben Johnson at least does claim that Shakespeare was the author of plays.

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

Most serious scholars consider it a conspiracy theory. There is evidence that supports his authorship, whereas the evidence against it is all either circumstantial or just straight-up bullshit.

Marlowe was killed before Two Gentlemen of Verona and all the later plays were performed. Henry V makes reference to Essex's Irish campaign of 1599, six years after Marlowe was stabbed. Any Marlowe theory would have to either assume that his death was faked or be a group theory.

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

That is possible, of course. His must have played a significant role, however, to get a monument statue on his death.

He is known to have collaborated with other authors, albeit rarely - Edward III was probably a collaboration with Kyd, and Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen were collaborations with Fletcher, as was the lost play Cardenio. There also tended to be a lot of post-performance revision, which happened on Timon of Athens and Pericles, Prince of Tyre, as well as possibly being done by Shakespeare on Munday and Chettle's Sir Thomas More.

[Boogyondown]

Perhaps these things don't make him a fraud, but more highlight his genius as he was able to overcome all these things.
It's not that he had to be a fraud, but more that he was so great he still achieved everything he did.

It's like the school teachers say, these stories have endured hundreds of years, he must have been doing something right lol!

[Thanas]

Please read the rules regarding thread necromancy. Your post had no relevant new information, so it was a pure necro.

Please do not do it again.