Shakespeare Authorship Question in advance of the film "Anonymous"

Saturday 17th September 2011 10:06 pm

I came to this popular argument after sitting in on a talk with the actor Sir Derek Jacobi. During the talk, he was challenged on authorship and suggested a book for further reading "Shakespeare: The Unorthodox Biography" by Diana Price. I read the book and later blogged the production of a play "Shakespeare Inc." that was written by Don Fried and staged at the Rosemary Branch Theatre here in London. I wrote a poem, based on Price's book, for inclusion the show programme. After the show was staged, I left the subject alone for a while but discovering the imminent release of the film "Anonymous" this year reignited my interest in the Authorship Question. "Anonymous" dramatizes the idea that it was the Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, who was the true author of Shakespeare's plays and poems. I have since read a number of books on the subject in anticipation of the movie, both Stratfordian and Oxfordian. There was also a public debate held in June here in London, with the film's director Roland Emmerich and two academics presenting the movie and debating it's viewpoint against a group of pro-Shakespeare scholars. Although the Shakespeare side won the debate through acclamation, they didn't devote enough time to supplying evidence to support their point-of-view and spent most of their arguments just ridiculing the movie. You can see the debate for yourselves here (http://www.esu.org/news/item.asp?n=12890).

Although initially I was anti-Stratfordian, reading more exhaustively on the subject has convinced me that the evidence sparse though it is, is nevertheless in favour of William Shakspeare as the author. The book that did it for me was James Shapiro's "Contested Will". In examining the origins of this debate and analysing how writing in Elizabethan times was different than it is now, he effectively dismantles the anti-Stratfordian arguments.

A lot of poetry, plays and prose fiction from the Romantic Victorian era through to the modern day veer toward the autobiographical but this is not necessarily true of Shakespeare. He was a collaborative writer and many of his contemporaries, fellow actors and writers, had ventured outside of England and visited Italy - this is documented by David Kathman (http://shakespeareauthorship.com/italy.html) These works were not literary exercises but theatrical enterprises. Shakespeare was writing plays specifically for Elizabethan audiences and for actors in his own theatre company. This accounts for the actor's names on appearing on playscripts - the 1599 Quarto of "Romeo and Juliet" identifies the Nurse's comic sidekick Peter first as The Clown and then as Will Kemp. (Shapiro, p.261).

None of the advocates for Oxford can provide documented evidence that links him to the writing of the plays. Their arguments seem to be based almost solely on readings of the plays and attempts to parallel the plots and characters with events in De Vere's own life. While some of this is interesting, none of it is as concrete as that for William Shakespeare. Mark Anderson's book "Shakespeare by Another Name" makes a game attempt at dissecting some of the evidence that supports Shakespeare, including the Francis Meres mention of Shakespeare and Oxford as separate people (p. 306-307). But while Anderson is clearly a smart and well-read man his case, for me, was simply not strong enough.

In the monument to Shakespeare in Stratford to the countless testimonials to him by other writers during his time (including Ben Jonson), plus Shakespeare's name on the playscripts (spelling was not uniform at the time), affirm as the main author of these works. This in itself is strong enough evidence to prove his authorship. Every other theory is based purely on speculation and not very much else.

As to the movie, I am reminded of a visit to Shakespeare's Globe. Dominic Dromgoole gave a talk there and mentioned "Shakespeare in Love", describing it as "a lovely film but it was full of lies". That is really what I expect we're going to get with "Anonymous". The film-makers have stated that what they have created is fiction and have taken some liberties with the facts that have divided even Oxfordians - the suggestion that Oxford was the son and lover of Queen Elizabeth, and also the father of the Earl of Southampton. Rafe Spall has even admitted that in the movie Shakespeare, "for the story's sake, kills Marlowe"( ). I am thinking the Stratfordians should maybe push Hollywood to make "Will", which was book by Christopher Rush recounting Shakespeare's life in 1st person and has been supposedly optioned for a movie starring Ben Kingsley. In the meantime, I am looking forward to "Anonymous", as I love Shakespeare-based fiction, and if this is done with wit and verve there is no reason why it shouldn't be entertaining and early reviews seem to suggest that is so. Bring it on!