Who Wrote Shake-speare's Works?

William Stanley, Earl of Derby

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/
This site makes a rather strong case for derby as one of the authors of the Shake-speare plays. (The site considers him the only author, but the size of the vocabulary displayed in the works argues against it--more than 20,000 words, when the next closest genius--Milton, the author of Paradise Lost--has a vocabulary of 10,000 words, and the 3rd largest is some 8,000.)

The Evidence

There are some very nice arguments on the Stanley pages

• William Stanley went by the name "Will"
• His initials are "W.S." (an early manuscript has those initials for the author--and only the initials)
• He grew up in an acting family, that was also nobility (he was a potential heir to the throne)
• He and his family was known for their genius
• He's the only candidate to be born earlier than, and die older than, the Stratfordian (Shakspur), so he's the only for whom the timeline fits naturally.
• He did indeed study at Gray's Inn. (that links him with others that are an important part of the picture)
• He traveled abroad as part of his early studies, which cannot be said for the next best candidate, De Vere. (especially significant for the early plays)
• There is some very interesting handwriting analysis that deserves deeper examination.

The Need for Anonymity

The major question for any author candidate, of course, is "Why did he have to hide his name?" Here, the Stanley pages are right on the button:

Regarding the subject matter, the plays of Shake-speare served as effective
propaganda for the powers that were. Such propaganda would naturally be
more effective if the audience thought it had been written by "one of them",
rather than by someone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Also:

Regarding a noble playwright, any written works would be necessarily private
affairs, not intended for, and even prohibited from, public display, at least in
their author's name. The prohibition was from the aristocracy itself, which could
not tolerate such a "common" labor from one of its own.

So while the nobility could and did put on plays for themselves (in court), putting them on in public required distancing themselves from their works. And that is one argument for the notion of propaganda--otherwise, why the need to have them performed in public?

On the other hand, it is also possible that money was a motive. Both De Vere and Stanley were strapped for cash, with expensive lifestyles to maintain.

Open Questions

One weakness in the Stanley pages is the lack of a "skills accounting"--a list of things he knew enough to write about, and when he learned them. Shake-speare was so used to subjects like falconry and sailing that he used them as analogies for other activities--something that only happens as a result of deep familiarity with a subject.

Stanley's legal knowledge would come from Gray's Inn, and we can take falconry as a given, since it was such a popular sport among the nobility. But it's not clear when he spent enough time at sea to pick up his knowledge of sailing. (He did as a child, but he writes with an adult's mastery of the techniques and terminology of the sea.)

It could be that the relevant information is simply omitted from the summary presented at that site. Or it could be that we have to look elsewhere for at least some of the skills displayed in the plays--a factor which argues for the multiple-author theory, discussed below.

The Stanley pages place the publication of the first folio at a time when the authors are in danger of being reduced to anonymity by a Catholic king. But the dedications read like an homage to the recently deceased. So either the author(s) were mourning the loss of their previous lifestyle and activities (somewhat hard to imagine), or else the real author died about that time. It's a subject that the Stanley pages do not adequately address.

Other Options

Even with the strong evidence for Stanley, there are three possibilities that need further examination: De Vere, multiple authors, and Marlowe.

Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford (poems, at least one play)

There is very good evidence that De Vere authored the poems. But his fans have to strain a bit to make an argument for the plays. I think it makes a lot of sense to consider at least two authors, one for each major body of works. (Although different authors for different types of plays may make sense, as well.)

One of the strongest arguments for De Vere as author of the poems is the way he encoded his name in the byline of one book: Our _Ever_-Living Poet (E. Ver). That sort of thing happens frequently enough to give Oxfordian arguments a lot of backing.

There is also one play that goes out of its way to include the English translation for every word starting with "Ver" in the Italian dictionary--a good indication that he was signaling himself as the author of that play, at least.

Note that this suggestion has a significant impact on the vocabulary analysis. If they are not considered as one body of work, then the size of the vocabulary is undoubtedly reduced. (There are some very similar turns of phrase, but those could be explained by proximity, exposure to each others' works, and/or friendly collaboration--getting ideas from someone close, as opposed to actually working together on a project.)

Multiple Authors

There is a strong possibility--even a probability--of multiple authors.

De Vere and others were friends who studied law together at Gray's College. In the later years, especially, the writing may well have been orchestrated by the head of the clandestine services (Walsingham ), who Marlowe worked for. They could simply have been taking advantage of the nom de plume De Vere created when he published the poems.

The idea that the plays were "propaganda" fits right into the multiple-author theme. Once you take that step, its a natural next step to envision a clever ringmaster who wields the "hand unseen"--a phrase that either Walsinham was famous for, or Machiavelli (his role model) was known for.

The William Stanley site provides further evidence of close ties:

"In 1595, he married Elizabeth de Vere, daughter of Edward de Vere"

That site also puts forth the hypothesis that he may have worked over plays originally written by others. It's a credible hypothesis, but one that most certainly counts as "multiple authorship" every bit as much as some sort of organized collaboration, which would have been harder to arrange.

Also, like every other argument for a particular candidate, the Stanley pages give stupendously deep arguments for some of the plays--while being suspiciously silent about the rest.

Every candidate, it seems, has an undeniable claim to some of the works. The only possible conclusion--the one that remains after all other possibilities are eliminated--is that there were multiple authors.

Note: It was Conan Doyle's most famous character, Sherlock Holmes, who said:
"When you've eliminated every other hypothesis, whichever remains--no matter how
unlikely --must be the truth.

And although the Stanley site tries to derisively dismiss the multiple-author theory, it adds yet another indication of it's truth: He writes about a play based in Denmark that was revised and corrected after one of the major candidates returned from that country--a clear indication that folks were talking and sharing information, possibly editing each others' works, but clearly having input into them.

Christopher Marlowe

The mystery surrounding Marlowe's death doesn't have much impact on the authorship question, actually. But it does have major implications for the other theories.

Because Marlowe's writing style is so much plainer, without the embellishments and clever turns of phrase, I don't take him seriously as the final author--although he may have been a contributor.

BUT.. from the splendid analysis at this site, it's pretty clear that Marlowe is buried in "Shakespeare's" tomb:
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/epitaph.htm

The straightforward inscriptions reproduced at the Stanley site contrast nicely with the cryptic inscription on Shake-speare's monument--one that literally challenges you to solve it, and which can be reasonably interpreted as saying: "Read, if you can, who is buried here".

Significant, too, is the fact that on the actual gravestone, there is only a bit of really bad doggerel, and no name! The only part of the gravestone inscription that contains any name at all is the line: "For Jesus' sake forebear..." The word Jesus (Christ), together with the monument line: "Far More ("Mor", "Mar") than cost ("lay"), leads to a splendid conclusion that the person buried there is Christopher Marlowe (Morlay).

But if that is true, it must also be true that Shake-speare" was a nom de plume, rather than a real person--which is pretty much beyond question, at this point. But it also implies that Marlowe must have been still alive, instead of being deceased as originally reported. (As for Marlowe's supposed "death", the PBS special on him did a great job of exposing that hoax. This page at the Marlowe site gives a good summary of the evidence that his death was faked: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/recknyng.htm)

I therefore surmise that when he died, his friends buried him as the famous author he was, encoding his name in the marker to protect themselves from questions.

As for motive, there are some plausible reasons for that choice of burial:

1. Marlowe had been cheated out of his fame by his need to avoid the Star Chamber,
   so burying him as a famous author was his due.
    
2. If there was only one author who wrote the plays, that author was dead,
   and the time to retire the pseudonym was long overdue.
    
3. Or, if a cadre of writers was responsible for the plays, Marlowe was the last
   and the only one in need of a name to be buried under, so he got it.

So, while Marlowe most likely did not write the plays, it's pretty clear that he is buried under Shake-speare's name--a clear indication that "Shake-speare" was not a real person.

What about the Town Burgher--William Shakspur?

As for Shakspur, the claim that he was the author of the works is ridiculous on the face of it:

• There is no other writing of any kind.

  The only evidence of his writing other than the plays are 3 very crude signatures on a marriage certificate, a law suit for some paltry sum like 35 shillings, and his will. There are no letters, no drafts, no other writing samples of any kind.

  That's ridiculous, because writers write. For every word we publish, we write a thousand that never see the light of day. We write letters. We write half-finished essays. We try our hand at different kinds of writing until we find out what we're good at. All writers share that trait. Whether good writers or bad writers, it makes no difference-- writing is like breathing. It's something you just do.

  But somehow, the Stratfordians would have us a believe that this singlular genius--alone among all humanity in history--wrote nothing but finished, published works. Riiight...

• When he died, he possessed not one book.

  Preposterous. Books are the most valuable things a writer has. Over my lifetime, I've collected thousands, and never willingly parted with any of them. I read voraciously in school (anything but textbooks), and spent my allowance on books, even though it meant I would be skipping a few meals. This, too, is trait that all writers share. Writers become writers as a result of their voracious appetite for reading. That's where they learn the phrases that come so naturally to them when they're writing.

• He never educated his daughter.

  He didn't even provide for her education in his will. That is simply not the act of a man who values literacy, and who wants his daughter to move confidently in literary society. It's the act of a man who places no value at all on literacy.

• At his death, the world was silent

  When Shakspur died, there was not so much as a peep from anyone. Very unusual, at a time when everyone wrote paeons to each other, lavishily singing their praises. Something like 9 years later, the first folio came out, with dedications appropriate for a recent death--a sure sign that someone else was being honored.