top of page
Writer's pictureedhuxt

Who wrote Shakespeare’s plays? The answer shouldn’t surprise you

written by Charlotte Groombridge


If you read the title of this piece and your first thought was “Wasn’t it Shakespeare?”, then congratulations. You are capable of a level of critical thinking which often escapes the anti-Stratfordians. 


You may be forgiven for believing the ‘Anti-Stratfordian Movement’ (the name adopted by those who believe William Shakespeare was not the man who wrote Shakespeare’s great literary canon) has been around for centuries. Considering how loud and downright arrogant these claims can be, the idea of questioning Shakespeare’s authorship is actually relatively new, coming about in the 19th century and hanging around like a bad smell. 


I’ll admit, this is a volatile start to my humble blog post, but sifting through anti-Stratfordian arguments has a tendency to raise my blood pressure. And it’s not because the arguments are based on cognitive fallacies which fly far too close to conspiracy theories for my liking. No, it’s because the acceptance of these beliefs allow another, far more dangerous and insidious belief system to come to the fore. 


Intellectual snobbery. 


The main bastion of the anti-Stratfordian movement is this: Shakespeare was a lowly commoner without the education, the aristocratic breeding, or the familiarity of court life which would make him capable of writing such masterpieces. 


It sounds like an airtight argument if you ignore two compelling pieces of evidence. Firstly, it is widely accepted that Shakespeare attended his local grammar school. You know, that place where they teach you to read and write, where you learn about history and literature, where one could easily absorb all of the information necessary to knock out a half decent piece of writing.  


Secondly, are anti-Stratfordians stating that good writing belongs solely to the upper echelons of society? 


I am here to propose another, far more believable argument. Good art, truly good art, is more likely to spring from those who suffer and struggle. From those who know what it’s like to go without, to live in fear, to experience pain and oppression. And does that sound like the ruling class to you?


Take a moment to think about your favourite piece of art, be it a play, book, film, or painting. You’ll have your reasons as to why you think it’s the best, the wonderful thing about art is its subjective nature. But I can guarantee one thing about your choice is true. This work speaks to an element of human nature.  


Shakespeare understood people. In my mind, no other writer comes close to his in-depth investigations of human psychology, and that’s what makes his work timeless. It’s why we are willing to sit through 3 hour productions of Hamlet or King Lear. He elicits emotions within us because he understands us. And one does not garner that type of understanding through observing humanity from afar. Only through being an active member of society who is working, and struggling, and suffering can one truly see what it is to be human. 


Anti-Stratfordians put forward alternative writers such as Sir Francis Bacon, or the Earl of Oxford. You might as well suggest only Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Boris Johnson could write stories that modern audiences would connect with. 


The upper classes are disconnected from normal life. The messy, complicated normal life which is reflected in Shakespeare’s plays. And suggestions that Marlowe is the real author…

Well, a comparison of their work side by side should put that argument to bed. 


So, why do anti-Stratfordian theories rile me up so much? Because it is spearheaded by elitist propagandists who are trying to rob the lower classes of agency, of intellect, implying that they are both incapable of creating great work or shaping the culture of a country. 


Any anti-Strafordian can’t deny that ultimately they are snobs, or they’d be lying to themselves. They have no basis for an argument, they simply want to rob Shakespeare of credit so that they can attribute his masterpieces to their own out of touch elite social class without doing any work to actually enrich this country's cultural landscape. 


Which is very on brand for the upper classes. 


So, yes, the anti-Stratfordian theories do make my blood boil. And honestly, I hope you feel as angry as I do. 


22 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page