We have now examined all of the prominent theories on the Shakespeare authorship question so, before we bring this part of the book to a close and you can cast your own judgement on the matter in hand, we must pay due consideration to the man himself. After all, Shakespeare is the person largely acknowledged by most of the world to be the real, sole genius behind the plays so there must be a strong, factual case behind him. Well, you would be wrong to assume that the evidence to support William Shakespeare as the author of the plays is conclusive or provides any concrete certainty in this matter. In defending Shakespeare against the Anti-Stratfordian arguments, critics and historians alike can only refute the new theories and arguments against him rather than build any substantial, evidential case in favour of the immortal bard. This is largely because of a significant lack of evidence, a common theme we have picked up on throughout this book and largely the reason for the lack of conviction in many of the theories.
As Bill Bryson puts it, Anti-Stratfordian arguments are full of "sweeping misstatements" and are largely based upon "manipulative scholarship". Whether you agree with this angle, I do not know, but one must partially concede that nearly all of the theories that I have submitted to you have held flaws through a lack of credible evidence (some of which verges on the bizarre), therefore, supporting Bryson's attitude. Rather than scrutinising the limited sources that are available, I believe the question that must be asked and evaluated is: what reason do we have to doubt the fact that Shakespeare is the author of his plays? The generally consensus among 21st century historians and critics is that there is no such reason, however, there are several key authorities that still think there is cause to doubt. For instance, in 2002 an article in the New York Times asserted that Shakespeare 'never owned a book', arguing, that because of this, he could never have written the plays. This is a definite example of what Bryson calls a misstatement and manipulation of the facts. Of course, the author is right in saying that there is no evidence to suggest that Shakespeare owned a book but that doesn't mean that he did not! We never can be one hundred percent certain of any of Shakespeare's possessions just as we are not one hundred percent certain that what the Shakespeare's Birthplace Trust label as Shakespeare's birthplace is the precise building in which he was born. This is exactly the same for any person, notable or otherwise, in the Elizabethan era and before, including many of the authorship candidates, unless an inventory of their possessions was taken during their lifetime, we cannot be certain of what anybody owned or indeed did read.
A similar sentiment crops up where theorists say that Shakespeare was never recorded to have written anything. This can quite easily be rebutted by a rare piece of evidence in Shakespeare's favour. Between 1604 and 1605, William Shakespeare appears in the Master of Revel's Accounts. This document, a primary source, is a list of the plays performed before King James I and their authors with Shakespeare's name appearing at least seven times in the course of one year. Now, if that is not evidence of Shakespeare writing plays, I don't know what is! Surely this argument is far more applicable to the likes of Bacon, Oxford and Rutland for whom there is no evidence of any of them ever having attempted to write a play, let alone one of the scale, complexity and popularity that Shakespeare purportedly had written.
Another factor which supports Shakespeare's establishment as the author of his plays is the many acknowledgements made to him by his contemporaries, successful authors of the same period. An example is in the preface to John Webster's "The White Devil" where he proclaims that Shakespeare "is [was] the greatest writer of the age".
Reverting back to the original argument, quite simply, Shakespeare is named as the author of the first folio and several earlier quarto editions of the individual plays by Heminges and Condell along with Francis Meres - what reason is there for us to doubt this in the twenty first century. Jonathan Bates asserts that 'virtually nobody' whilst Shakespeare was alive and for at least two hundred years after his death produced any evidence to the contrary or made any substantial claims against the bard, so why start to? Surely, if any of the theories had any grounds or feasibility, the family of the proposed candidate or the contemporaries of William Shakespeare would have come forward in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, when the popularity of the plays boomed, with direct, conclusive evidence?
To address some of the issues raised earlier in the book, many of the theories revolve around the fact that Shakespeare, was not university educated, so did not have the sufficient international and political knowledge to produce the plays. Along with the fact that we now Shakespeare did have an education in his early years at King Edward VI School in Stratford, it comes as some comfort to pro-Stratfordians that the author of a similar period, Ben Jonson, did not go to university either yet nobody doubts his authorship. Like Shakespeare, Ben Jonson was able to produce intellectual and critically acclaimed pieces such as 'Volpone' and 'The Alchemist' which have survived the test of time showing that one does not require a University education to produce great work and be recognised as a great writer,
For many critics, historians and devotees of Shakespeare, the key to really understanding and knowing that Shakespeare wrote the plays lies in his home town of Stratford Upon Avon. For a true appreciator of his work, it is clear that the plays were written there, in the heart of England, constructed and inspired by the rolling countryside, rural traditions and sleepy country lanes of Warwickshire. I urge any doubters or, conversely, any Shakespeare enthusiasts to make the pilgrimage to Stratford, if possible, I am very lucky to have it a just around the corner from where I live, but every time I go I find it strangely magical to feel the connection between the plays and the man who wrote them whilst walking in his footsteps around such a beautiful town. Though there is nothing concrete to allow doubters to be converted to pro-Stratfordians other than the house in which he supposedly was born, and other properties with which he was connected, there are two textual references which come to mind which serve as examples of how Shakespeare surely was influenced by his home town and the surrounding county of Warwickshire. One of the defining features of Stratford is its footbridge which spans the River Avon (see the picture at the start of the chapter) and it is likely that Shakespeare would have walked over this bridge when it was first built. The line said by Don Pedro in 'Much Ado About Nothing':
"What needs the bridge much broader than the flood?"
This could indeed refer to the bridge in Stratford as, around the time the play was written, the architect of the bridge, Sir Hugh Clopton, received a lot of criticism for his design of the bridge. As you can see today, the Clopton's design included eighteen arches, which people considered to be rather ostentatious, unnecessary for a bridge which was only to reach over what was then a narrow stream. Thus, we see an almost definite influence from Shakespeare's home town within a single line of one of his plays. Another textual reference which supposedly is influenced by Stratford can be found in Hamlet, specifically the line:
"There is a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will."
A friend of the late Shakespearean actor Donald Sinden, was watching some farm workers 'layering' a hedge whilst he was in Stratford, performing at the RSC. Sinden recalls that the farm workers would cut the side-shoots off a sapling by slicing it halfway through its base and bending it sideways, staking it down so that next year, the hedge would grow vertically. The actor was impressed by what seemed a highly technical, traditional method of maintaining a hedge. Intrigued to know more he asked the two labourers if they always worked as a team when performing this task. One of the labourers replied:
"Ay. I shape their ends and he rough hews them."
Compare this to the quote from Hamlet and one can see how the traditional agricultural methods of Warwickshire, and the old names for such methods, influenced Shakespeare, a young man from Warwickshire with agricultural heritage.
To conclude this chapter, ask yourself: what has there been to cast sufficient doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship since his death in 1616? The answer? Very little!
If you enjoyed this chapter, please consider giving it a vote. Many thanks, M.R.W