Shakespeare: True Identity or Codename?

The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, King Lear, Othello, and countless other timeless classics have dominated the libraries of many countries for centuries. At one point in time, there was no doubt: Shakespeare was Shakespeare. However, now there are questions as to whether someone else had used as a codename or whether Shakespeare stole someone else's work and used it as his own. However, these are myths, not facts. The truth is, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

William Shakespeare, the "original" author, was baptized April 26, 1564. Because people were usually baptized three days after birth in that period, many assume that Shakespeare was born April 23, 1564. The next known occurrence in Shakespeare's life happened in 1582 when he was granted a license a license to marry. First to Anne Whateley of Temple Gracton on the 27^th of November, and to Anne Hathwey of Stratford on the 28^th of November. This huge eighteen year long gap has led many to believe that Shakespeare never really received any real formal education. This, along with other empty periods of Shakespeare's life, has led to different assumptions about what actually happened. In the end, doubts on the matter of Shakespeare's authorship erupted in the late 18^th century, early 19^th century with the development of the Bacon Theory. However, these are only assumptions and are less powerful than the facts supporting Shakespeare in the authorship mystery. One fact supporting the Stratfordian theory is that the name or some similarly written form of the name, "Shakespeare," is found on the front page of every play, sonnet, etc. that has ever been written by this mystery author. This means that unless the name was acting as a pseudonym for someone else, these compositions could only have been written by someone with the name of William Shakespeare. That fact only makes up half of the Stratfordian orthodoxy; the other main half can be found in Stratford's Holy Trinity Church. In this church lies a bust of Shakespeare that clearly "[represents] a famous poet and not a grain dealer" When the First Shakespeare Folio was published, 2 of Shakespeare's fellow actors (Heminge and Condell) both certified that the plays in the portfolio were written by Shakespeare. Not only did two fellow actors confirm his authorship, but none of the other people who ever knew him disputed his authorship of the plays. Because of the popularity of these plays, it is very likely that if Shakespeare ever copied someone else's work, some type of protest would have been made. These powerful facts give solid, non-refutable evidence that Shakespeare did indeed write Shakespeare.

At first, no one questioned whether there was the possibility of someone else to have written the works most commonly known to have been Shakespeare's. This lasted for a little longer than a century. Then, around the end of the 18^th century, doubts began to appear. This eventually led to the belief that Francis Bacon was actually the author of the works of Shakespeare. Though he remained the lead competitor for many years, more options popped up as time passed. Other options are simply redundant: Oxford (died too early), Rutland (born too early), even Queen Elizabeth (just plain stupid). Bacon, on the other hand, has remained a formidable opponent to Shakespeare for over a century now. However, no matter how believable the support of the Bacon theory might be, it can and will be shown to be flawed.

Sir Francis Bacon was born to a high-class family. There is more known about Bacon's life than Shakespeare's. For example, it is known that Bacon did receive an education at Trinity College, Cambridge. Also, at the young age of 18 years old, Bacon began to produce plays for courtly entertainments. This known education and the fact that he could write plays makes him a very strong candidate. Not only does he have the knowledge base from which such knowledgeable works could have come, but he also has previous experience from a young age of writing plays. There is also much "proof" that Bacon is actually Shakespeare. One strange thing that never occurred in Shakespeare's time is that he never acknowledged/mentioned Bacon and vice versa. Back then, they would have been two of the most brilliant people in England at the time. Therefore, Baconians believe that it is peculiar that they never mentioned one another. This, they assume, must mean that Bacon and Shakespeare aren't two different people, but rather Sir Francis Bacon using the pseudonym: William Shakespeare. Then comes their primary argument, which states that no one else in that time period could possibly have, not only the skill and ability, but also the knowledge to have written those works. Also, the phrases used in Shakespeare's works were also used in a similar form by Bacon at one point or another. One example of this can be seen in the famous play, Macbeth. As Gerald Lawrence points out the many similar expressions and metaphors seen in just one verse of Macbeth:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of record time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. (Shakespeare, Macbeth)

In this verse, Lawrence first finds a commonality in the first line: "The Spanish have a proverb, 'To-morrow, tomorrow; and when to-morrow comes, to-morrow...'" Lawrence then points out a second similarity between this and a line in one of Bacon's letters to King James: "'Let me live to serve you, else life is but the shadow of death to your Majesty's most devoted servant.'" Finally, in the last lines, the revealing of a third likeliness occurs: "'It is nothing else but words, which rather sound than signify anything'" (Lawrence). Finally, there exists an interesting coincidence found in the Authorized or King James version of the Bible. As many know, there existed a committee of forty-six members assigned to the task of translating the old Bible to this one. The committee completed this task in 1610, the year in which a then forty-six year old Shakespeare lived. As John Michell indicates, "It was observed that, in Psalm 46, the 46^th word from the beginning is 'shake' and the 46^th word from the end is 'spear'" (Michell 12). Back then, only someone of a high position could have made this change, most likely someone close to the King. At that time, Bacon acted as the Solicitor General and adviser to King James. If anyone could have affected this translation, it would have been Bacon. Though you may want to believe in these seemingly strong arguments, DON'T! The concealed flaws in this information will no longer remain so; all weaknesses in this theory shall be exposed.

First off, "[n]othing is proved by this chain of coincidences, certainly not that the works of Shakespeare were written by Francis Bacon..." as John Michell later states (Michell 13). Not only that, but an extremely knowledgeable person did not have to have written these works. In fact, in some topics, like the classics, Shakespeare "displays remarkably less classical knowledge than his average contemporary poet" (Kathman). In fact, in grammar school alone, Shakespeare would have read enough of the Latin and Greek classics to make him seem like a well-educated person in this time period. Also, the knowledge displayed by Shakespeare in legal matters equals that of other writers of that time. Besides, even if Shakespeare was not educated at a young age in these matters, "he had ample opportunity to pick up the legal knowledge displayed in the plays without formal legal education" (Kathman). Finally, the similar phrases found between Shakespeare and Bacon exists as well between Shakespeare and Oxford. Obviously, Shakespeare can't be both Oxford and Bacon. Also, similar to modern times, "writers in any era consciously or unconsciously influence each other and draw on common sources" (Kathman).

As is seen, most, if not all of the data against Shakespeare no longer hold strong. On the other hand, the data supporting Shakespeare remain intact and as supporting as ever. As you can see, this is an extremely-challenging mystery with all kinds of groups of people trading thoughts with each other on who exactly Shakespeare was. However, nearly all the candidates lack decent amounts of evidence for supporting them. On the other hand, the Shakespeare Theory contains lots of support that he did indeed wrote all the plays, sonnets, etc. that have his name on the title page.