Hi,
I would like to share my views on the ongoing debate whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon holds the real authorship of Shakespearean works and if not, the most possible candidate who used William Shakespeare's name as a cover-up.
Many scholars do not believe that the William Shakespeare who lived in Stratford-upon Avon was not the real author of Shakespeare's plays. They base their claims on the fact that Stratford was not a very educated place, so someone from that town would not be able to write so beautifully. They also claimed that a playwright would never use his real name to produce his works, because he would receive a social stigma from his peers. Therefore, someone must have used William Shakespeare, a commoner from Stratford, to cover up as the author of all the plays. Some scholars have also went on to analyse "Hamlet", and took certain letters in the sentence "The funerall baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." and formed an anagram of "FR. BACONI NATI", which was Latin for "Fr. Bacon made me". This showed that the real Shakespeare was probably from Baconian School, which was famous for its cryptography and anagrams. Therefore, many scholars suggest that Sir Francis Bacon was the actual writer of all the Shakespearean works. Others have also suggested Queen Elizabeth and Edward de Vere, because they are also educated and have written fair bits of poetry themselves.
However, in my opinion, I think that we should not dig so deep into the matter and that William Shakespeare really holds the real authorship for all his works. Anyway, some of the arguments that the scholars present are not very valid. For example, the phrase "FR. BACONI NATI" is not very correct in terms of phrasing and should be "FR. BACONUS ME FECIT". Furthermore, scholars have no evidence to prove that writers really receive a social stigma from their peers if they use their real name to write their plays. Queen Elizabeth also writes poetry under her own name. Therefore, it is still highly possible that William Shakespeare is the most likely candidate to holds the real authorship for Shakespearean works.
In conclusion, I think that this matter will never be resolved until concrete archaeological evidence can be presented. I really do not think that this issue is such a big deal because we already have the Shakespearean works, so why spend time arguing about the real author when we can just appreciate the craftsmanship of the author. No matter who the real author is, I would like to thank him, or her, for bringing such beautiful pieces of works into our world of literature right now.
Nathanael
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Nathanael,
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot more evidence that Shakespeare might not have been a playwright than just him coming from Stratford-upon-Avon or playwrights having a social stigma. For instance, in his home county he was known as a businessman. Also, surviving signatures from him are written like those of an illiterate man, as well as the suspicious fact that there are no manuscripts of Shakespearan plays that are written in his own handwriting, and there are also no such manuscripts mentioned in his will or found in his house. Also, one monument put up in a church in Stratford-upon-Avon to 15 years after his death show him with his hand resting on a sack. However, the most damning thing is that his style of writing is nearly identical to another playwright, Christopher Marlowe, who was killed 15 years before his death. Furthermore, Marlowe was murdered in a baroom brawl, he was accused of having written heratical and blasphemious things, and he had friends in high positions. It quite seems like in order to save his life, he faked his death, but sent his plays to Shakespeare to be played, right? However, Shakespeare could easily be an illiterate but brilliant storyteller, a person who wanted to write plays but could not, so he copied the style of his idols and got others to take his dictation, which would just as easily explain everything that we mentioned. However, as you say, it cannot be proved without evidence, so we have to wait .
Regards,
Jian Shern
Hi Jian Shern,
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing me with more information on this topic. Wow! It seems like this debate is more furious than I thought. I think that your stand is also quite valid, but only time will tell who the real author of Shakespearean works is. Anyway, back to my main point, no matter who the author is, the works do not change. So we should not bother about this issue and instead continue to appreciate the works our ancestors have left behind.
Nathanael
Hi Nat,
ReplyDeleteI am not here to provide even more evidence for or against the case, but I am here to say that this debate, in my opinion, is insignificant. Why should we debate over whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the real William Shakespeare? So what if we uncover evidence that Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe is the real McCoy? Will it change the literature written? Will we be able to do anything against William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon? I think not. The beautiful pieces of literature would remain unchanged, and the fact is that no matter who the real author of the plays were, the most important thing is for us to be able to enjoy and appreciate these plays. It really doesn't matter who actually wrote these plays, but rather, the quality of these plays. Do we judge a piece of writing based on the writer? No, we judge a piece of writing based on the standard of THAT piece of writing. If we judge it based on the author or composer, then that would definitely be biased judging.
In conclusion, I feel that there is no need for this debate. As what Nathanael has mentioned, we should not waste our time and efforts debating over mere conspiracy theories? Instead, why not we learn to appreciate the incredible works that the people of the past have left behind? I believe that this is a better use of our time, instead of squabbling over the real playwright.
Cheers,
Roystan