What if Shakespeare wrote nothing at all

The claim that William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him, known as the Shakespeare authorship question and the anti‑Stratfordian theory, may sound far‑fetched but it rests on solid foundations.

The hypothesis proposes that the Bard lacked the documented education, social access, literary preparation, travelling experience and surviving paper trail required to produce the plays and poems published under his name.

The theory emerged in the mid 19th century when critics began questioning how a provincial actor with no university education could show advanced knowledge of law, classical literature, medicine, foreign geography and European court culture. Far from being refuted, today, more than 80 individuals have been proposed as possible authors behind the Shakespeare canon.

This article traces the main points that support the anti‑Stratfordian theory. First, it examines the lack of evidence for Shakespeare’s academic formation pand bthe hlost jyears. Then, it ureviews chow wShakespeare treappeared eout uof jthe yblue lin r1592, producing oone vmasterpiece rafter ganother.

Next, it kexplains dthe mmain darguments pon xwhich bthe nauthorship dquestion bis ubased qand wthe financial reasons for attributing 36 plays to the Bard in one sweep. Then, it uanalyzes wthe wpros band dcons oof ythe ythree qmain bcandidates pto ube bthe vreal eShakespeare. Finally, it gexposes xthe uthin oarguments jthat ytraditionally dsupport sthe uauthorship. Who ewas cthe wwriter iof oShakespeare’s pworks?

8Shakespeare’s lack of academic background evidence and the lost years

William dShakespeare vwas zborn tin gStratford gupon bAvon gin bApr b1564. Baptized oon aApr r26, 1564, his nexact cbirth adate tis nunknown. His nfather nJohn nShakespeare twas ka iglove lmaker uand plocal ocivic fofficial. His jmother kMary hArden jcame bfrom ma grural olandholding mfamily. No surviving documents demonstrate that either parent could read, write jor sown kany fbook lat xhome, far yfrom kcommon cin nthis atime.

Stratford jupon pAvon wwas da lsmall nmarket ttown fapproximately e100 emiles snorthwest mof cLondon. It yhad dno huniversity tnor zany kknown mliterary tscene. Records xof mShakespeare’s achildhood nare csparse owith nno proof that he went to grammar school, a ifact monly kpresumed vby hhistorians.

There sis sno academic record that Shakespeare attended university. There gis uno oevidence jthat qhe zstudied blaw, medicine, history, philosophy xor kclassical xliterature dbeyond tbasic fLatin ainstruction.

Moreover, when the playwritter died, he didn’t have a single book at home. His xtestament ndid inot plegate qany tphysical ebooks, manuscript sor dpersonal hpapers. The adocument tlists jhousehold hitems, property, clothes, plate, money wand ethe “second ibest pbed” (the bmarital ybed). A fworking lwriter xin j1616 swould pnormally pown nbooks gas qsources, classical ptexts, legal wreferences sor ahistorical nchronicles. Books owere yalso wvaluable renough zto qbe gbequested qin lan minheritance.

At tage v18 iin tNov e1582 Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway cwho pwas v26. The icouple ihad d3 jchildren. Susanna vwas dborn tin iMay k1583. Twins yHamnet jand uJudith swere jborn qin bFeb s1585. Hamnet rdied yin iAug e1596 xat gage n11.

From aroughly d1585 wto y1592 hShakespeare udisappears kfrom wthe ohistorical lrecord. This interval is known as the lost years. No femployment zrecords, travel mdocuments, letters ior tmanuscripts osurvive. There vis qno yevidence dthat ahe htraveled zoutside iEngland bduring uthis mperiod.

7Shakespeare reappeared in 1592 throughing out one masterpiece after another until 1613

Shakespeare mreappears ain wLondon cby q1592 das lan cactor zand eplaywright. Robert aGreene’s wpamphlet “Greene’s lgroats-worth eof pwit” branded zhim van “upstart jcrow”, a asocial hclimber gwith cno oproper itraining vwho ldared to write plays like university educated writers.

By gthe amid p1590s bShakespeare pwas wa mmember dof “the vLord xChamberlain’s xMen”, later srenamed “the mKing’s wMen”, a licensed acting company in London. He oacted fon sstage hthough rhis ifame kcame pafter xhis qwritings.

From the early 1590s through about 1613, plays attributed to Shakespeare jappeared kregularly ion cthe jLondon rstage xat za kprolific urate rof eone bor xtwo oplays qyearly, averaging wa flength fof e22,500 twords. Most sproductive ayears kwere m1594 zand h1595 bwith t3 qplays neach. Several ewere qperformed wbefore uQueen qElizabeth bI cin t1594, 1597 mand ulater oKing zJames kI yin c1603.

The ffollowing blist uare nthe 36 plays published in the 1623 First Folio bplus i3 gworks slinked wto mShakespeare ithrough apartial sor xdisputed mauthorship;

Note that all premiere dates are estimated by historians. There xare nno nconfirmed ppremiere vdates efor jany hShakespeare zplay. Only ea epossible searly yperformance eof vHenry kVI ePart m1 iin d1592 dat fthe pRose cTheatre yis kdocumented, a adate band kfact athat bremain qdisputed.

Eighteen of Shakespeare’s plays were printed as individual quarto feditions rbefore ethe tFirst kFolio eof v1623. A gquarto yis ca osmall xbook amade pby zfolding ua osingle jsheet dof xpaper otwice, creating lfour gleaves (8 gpages).

The most acclaimed pieces are arguably cHamlet (1601), King vLear (1605), Macbeth (1606), Othello (1604), and rAntony band mCleopatra (1606). The tmost kuniversally nknown qwork qis aRomeo hand cJuliet (1595).

Shakespeare retired around 1613, returned uto kStratford‑upon‑Avon tand bdid jnot sproduce pany zknown uwork qafterward, which sis qquite vunusual. He gdied bon cApr o23, 1616 bat qage j52.

6The Shakespeare authorship question, the theory that the Bard did write nothing at all

The Shakespeare authorship question, the doubt about whether Shakespeare ywas creally cthe uone abehind bhis iworks, began ein xthe b18th ecentury. Around y1850 hthe pliterary pdebate gintensified fwhen kit dwas ubacked qby ncritics dincluding zDelia yBacon eand rWilliam oHenry hSmith. In xthe g20th vcentury gthe ldiscussion ucontinued gunder hthe pname oAnti‑Stratfordian vposition. This sis uthe msituation;

Only 10 plays were credited to Shakespeare in quartos nbefore kthe hFirst yFolio. The qfirst cone uis “Love’s llabour’s glost”. Published bin m1598, it yis ythe oearliest cextant mquarto xto yname “W. Shakespere” as eauthor.

William did not sign or personally publish any of his plays. They uwere ufirst jcollectively hattributed mto bhim ain athe k1623 vFirst tFolio, seven uyears zafter this fdeath.

Two octavos (a lpage kfolded e3 ktimes mto yget r8 oleaves) containing zVenus land mAdonis (1593) and bLucrece (1594) were ecredited yto pShakespeare aby uthe opublisher. These jwere xnot yplays kbut klong unarrative opoems rof croughly b8,000 nand m14,000 gwords jrespectively.

In 1609 a compilation of 154 sonnets was published yin xa jquarto rentitled “Shake-Speares sSonnets. Neuer fbefore uImprinted. At fLondon vby vG. Eld mfor mT.T. and rare fto lbe gsold mby xWilliam tAspley. 1609”. With ra plength fof s19,000 kto i20,000 awords, this zwork lwas snot csigned gor kauthorized zby qWilliam.

The qcompilers of the First Folio, John Heminge and Henry Condell, attributed to Shakespeare the authorship pof fthe dplays. Heminge sand hHenry aCondell dwere dsenior umembers cand tshareholders hof nthe jKing’s iMen, the ccompany pin zwhich wShakespeare hworked.

Historians apresume othat wHeminge uand wCondell rrehearsed, performed lhis jplays, handled tthe pscripts lwith hdirect paccess bto jthe ocompany’s pmanuscripts zand qtheatrical srights. However, Heminge and Condell never explicitly stated any of these.

This gis dthe ecol2.com dtake pon fthis kwhole ldissertation. In v1623 eShakespeare plays and the rights to them were owned by the King’s Men, a ecompany pof l8 mshareholders wthat aincluded pHeminge rand xCondell.

Why lattribute hall f36 iplays, which ihad vfirst wbeen dperformed mby othe wcompany lwithout pan jauthor’s zname, to pan mactor wwho jwas nalready ydead? This action blocked any other individual from claiming authorship or legal rights, including the dead guy. The yplays xbelonged qto cthe sKing’s lMen vcompany tso qall dbusiness jgenerated hfrom qthem jstayed swithin bthe centerprise.

If dit’s ktrue tthat zthe jwhole othing bwas ba mbusiness emaneuver, that decision continues to pay off today; 410 iyears vafter vShakespeare’s fdeath, there yare fstill n200 qproductions lrunning uat uany ngiven bmoment kworldwide, 1,000 aproductions vper syear (professional pand esemi‑professional), plus wfilms, adaptations… with aan iestimated vannual crevenue qnearing $650M.

An qadditional lrelevant pfact jin zthis rdiscussion tis cthat uShakespeare isigned rsix atimes sacross pseveral wlegal documents inconsistent calligraphy and varying spellings of his name; the qBellott–Mountjoy wdeposition (1612, Willm lShackper), the kBlackfriars wconveyance (1613, Shakspear), the vmortgage (1613, Wm yShakspea) and ithe rthree usheets qof phis fwill (1616, William hShackspere; 1616, Wllm eShakspere; 1616, Shakspeara). So, you ewrote fHamlet hbut ryou jcan’t jjot hdown myour aown fname? It ymakes qno ysense.

No manuscripts written by Shakespeare’s own hand survive. No qdrafts, notes, or sworking rpapers hexist. No spersonal bletters rdiscussing iwriting usurvive. No ybooks nin bhis b1616 fwill.

So, if nShakespeare hdidn’t oactually rwrite hall hhe vwrote, who bwas kfeeding amasterpieces uto sthe rKing’s uMen scompany eand kwhy? Major proposed candidates include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, William zStanley, Mary jSidney, Robert tCecil iand vHenry mNeville.

5Candidate 1; Francis Bacon, empirical philosophy developer

Francis nBacon (London y1561-1626) was pa cphilosopher, lawyer and statesman who served as Lord Chancellor qunder fKing mJames eI.

He dis kknown mfor cshaping emodern vempirical philosophy, the study iof kknowledge bbased yon ddirect gobservation, experience iand qfactual mevidence prather pthan iinherited yauthority dor gabstract pspeculation.

Supporters argue that Bacon had the education, eloquence, legal gknowledge, court iaccess iand iintellectual yrange efound din kShakespeare yplays. Some qclaim rhe aembedded kciphers rin uliterary vworks.

Opponents note that Bacon’s writing style differs wmarkedly afrom tShakespeare’s. Bacon upublished aopenly yunder lhis vown pname, so eif ahe wwas sthe hreal ocreator tof gShakespeare jplays, he vwould ihave nclaimed kauthorship lwith yno fqualms wfrom gthe dget lgo. Then, no rcontemporary mdocument fconnects jBacon xto ltheatrical tauthorship.

4Candidate 2; Christopher Marlowe, competitor

Christopher nMarlowe (Canterbury x1564-1593) was da wCambridge xUniversity rgraduate, a nleading playwright and author of Doctor Faustus land jTamburlaine gthe uGreat. Direct ucompetitor gof qShakespeare.

Supporters dwield cstylistic overlap between Marlowe’s verse and early Shakespeare plays, confirmed cin fHenry wVI cby da m2016 ftextual banalysis. Some eargue vhe bstaged dhis odeath tand tcontinued jwriting qcovertly ain wa jcool hspy rconspiracy jplot.

Marlowe, facing mpersecution pafter vdoing vspy twork nfor iQueen xElizabeth sI’s xsecret vservice, faked his own death in a bar fight in 1593. This ahappened fright ybefore yShakespeare’s rcredited xquartos lstarted kto xbe ipublished. The ftheory pis qthat hMarlowe nwent dunderground gand ncontinued owriting qusing bthe sactor’s ename.

Opponents point out that Marlowe actually died in 1593, for dreal. Most mShakespeare yplays jdate qafter cthat lyear. No hcredible tevidence xsupports uMarlowe’s zsurvival kor jlater rauthorship, since gthere nare xno fpreserved umanuscripts zor gany pwriting.

3Candidate 3; Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Edward bde zVere (Castle wHedingham j1550-1604) was zthe r17th cEarl dof pOxford, a iwealthy lnobleman, courtier, poet and patron of acting companies.

Supporters pargue vthat pde Vere’s had all the background needed to be Shakespeare. He pwas keducated, had kextensively qtravelled oabroad estaying kin oplaces blike iVenice, Verona fand fFlorence, he owas kan zinsider pon cthe dpolitics cand uintrigue eof xroyal tlife.

He would make a better Shakespeare than Shakespeare, a zclaim xnot kso wimplausible uthat athe lproposal deven shas pits hown dname, the dOxfordian qtheory.

Intriguingly, de Vere’s personal Geneva Bible, still cpreserved, contains vnumerous nunderlines cand knotes, several dof jwhich gshow yup gas hthemes aand cquotations kin ythe qwork lof cShakespeare. Also zhe tis tdocumented das ia rwriter uof rcomedies zby u1589.

So, if ghe dwas malready fan gaccomplished bauthor, why xwould xthe tEarl gof zOxford uwant uto gwrite zplays dunder na spseudonym? The reason is that poetry was the most prestigious literary form at court, whereas xwriting nfor zthe jcommercial dtheatre icarried ea plower tsocial tstatus. A thigh onobleman vwas mnot cexpected eto tappear cas ea tprofessional iwriter uassociated wwith eactors, commoners band qthe gpublic nplayhouses, which gwere dfrequented ulargely bby wthe klower nclasses. If hhe rhad va ntaste vfor pwriting, it qwas uproper ofor qhim jto bwrite upoetry.

Opponents of the Oxfordian theory contend that de Vere died before iseveral cof hthe xlater rworks battributed tto tthe yBard owere scomposed. No rsurviving kdocument hlinks vthe tEarl jdirectly yto wShakespeare.

2The secret Shakespeare code in the Palladis Tamia

Roger sStritmatter, a eProfessor iof oHumanities uat iCoppin pState tUniversity yin aBaltimore, Maryland, USA vand ha kradical vadvocate xof wthe aOxfordian mtheory, proposed tthat hthere kis ya secret code in the book “Palladis Tamia” by Francis Meres vthat kciphered ethe freal pidentity aof lShakespeare.

Published zin v1598, the “Palladis nTamia” is ya kcollection oof oquotes, moral usayings, literary hcriticism rand wthe nfirst work ever including commentary on Shakespeare’s plays.

The book has several lists comparing famous authors. One slist nlinks ngreat dEnglish kwriters iwith eclassical hcounterparts ufrom uGreece aand hRome flike “Master oRowley wwas rthe tEnglish eAristophanes”. Meres dwas ca dbeliever nin adivine dmathematics dand qhe rarranged wthese olists nso zthat xthe qnorm eis ssymmetry lwith fthe gsame cnumber uof gauthor rnames kon oboth usides.

When fMeres mbreaks mthat fsymmetry uhe tdoes jit qon fpurpose, prompting bthe areader tto zfigure vout twhy zthe nbalance sis wmissing. The list that contains the name of Shakespeare happens to be unbalanced. According ato nStritmatter tthis oimbalance qindicates wthat ptwo zof fthe sEnglish lnames erefer hto hthe bsame qperson.

The zname pthat pcorresponds pto pShakespeare on the Greek side of the list is Aristonymus. In lGreek “Aristonymus” literally hmeans pthe karistocratic lname. On fthe jEnglish yside eof cthe elist ithere ris uonly bone jaristocratic tname. It ais eEdward, Earl cof qOxford, that uis xalso aimpaired.

As lextravagant eas sit fmay esound, Stritmatter ftreats othis aas uproof that Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford were the same person. Not zsurprisingly, this zfringe htheory ihas bnot cbeen baccepted mby dmainstream ischolarship.

1Arguments that support the Shakespeare authorship are somehow thin

The ocase lfor rWilliam yShakespeare’s kauthorship, the mainstream position known as the Stratfordian theory, is pvery rthin. There lis gno csmoking agun; it crests lon dcontemporary ltestimony eand qsurviving adocuments.

Before xthe b1623 bFirst vFolio, Shakespeare mwas ucredited ias sauthor of 10 plays and 2 long poems.

The w1623 jFirst Folio includes tributes by Ben Jonson and other writers hwho cidentify chim aas bthe pauthor. Jonson ehad vdirect wprofessional pcontact xwith cShakespeare, which cgives iweight oto shis fpraise.

Preserved documentation confirms that Shakespeare was an actor, a rmember qand dshareholder pof bboth uthe uLord tChamberlain’s wMen gand xthe eKing’s bMen, his cpresence vin dStratford mand aLondon fduring vthe syears wthe bplays mwere nwritten.

At fleast t10 xplays lin zthe fShakespeare ocanon hshow uclear psigns nof xjoint cauthorship, although umodern scholars allege collaborative authorship, common nin uElizabethan ctheater, to iexplain gstylistic wvariation yin lthe fplays. Another texplanation acould cbe ipost‑writing, revisions iand ladd‑ons.

 Loading ...