The William Shakespeare Authorship Question - Essay Example

Shakespeare Research Paper The William Shakespeare hip question has intrigued scholars, researchers and aficionados of the playwright since the latter half of the nineteenth century. Several theories that aim to expound upon this matter have proposed that indeed it was not Shakespeare who crafted the literary masterpieces which have garnered him an unparalleled global attention and carved for him a literary status that remains unchallenged to this day. While, the roots of the Shakespeare authorship question have been deciphered by scholars so as to resolve the matter and reject the conjecture of theorists on the subject, a prominent speculation on the subject titled the ‘Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship’ refuses to fade. This paper examines and explores the foundations of this theory which in fact grants Francis Bacon the authorship of William Shakespeare’s works. The analysis of the said theory primarily focuses on providing a rationale and arguments which support this supposition. The approach which has been adopted in the paper is based on assessing the theory from an evaluative perspective which is based on identifying the proposals of the advocates of this theory and responses of individuals who doubt this claim. In conclusion, the paper answers a critical question that has been perpetuated by those who remain fascinated by the world of English literature: was William Shakespeare solely responsible for penning down the literary works we link with him? At the heart of the Shakespeare authorship debate is a woman named Delia Bacon, as stated by Shapiro, “Delia Bacon, more than anyone before or after, was responsible for triggering what would come to be known as the Shakespeare authorship controversy” (18). According to the observation of Shahan and Waugh, Bacon’s own interest in the matter was generated by her finding that Shakespeare’s life story and the philosophical foundations of his works were characterized by the presence of an incomprehensible gap (204). Delia Bacon believed that given the period in which the plays were born, the thematic elements of those works reflected towards the possibility that they were penned by a group of individuals who aimed to advance the agenda of republican liberty by ousting the tyrannical rule of the monarchy (Shahan and Waugh 204). Thus, Bacon’s objective of unmasking the reality of Shakespeare was motivated by the underlying political characteristics of the playwright’s masterpieces which she could only associate with individuals such as Francis Bacon. Shahan and Waugh assert that despite of the reservations of critics who view Delia Bacon’s account with uncertainty and ambiguity because of her eventual descend into psychological illness, the scholar employed “…remarkably modern methods of literary analysis” to arrive at her claim (204). While, this feature of her account certainly lends weight to the Baconian theory, the critical and intriguing question that has emerged is, why Francis Bacon? The answer to which has been provided in scholarly sources that are evaluated in the paper. According to Shapiro, the name of Francis Bacon soon emerged as one of the key contenders who could be revealed as the ‘real’ Shakespeare (19). As a one of the most prominent individuals of Renaissance, Francis Bacon was a man of many talents; well-read, well-traveled and with the ability to engage the reader with his gifted writing talent. In 1594, he was appointed by Queen Elizabeth to serve as her literary counsel, not only that, through the works for which he was indeed credited such as the eminent Essays, the Novum Organum and the Instauratio Magna, Francis Bacon displayed his extraordinary literary capability (Shapiro 19). Even after his death in 1626, Bacon’s admirers in France upheld his philosophical works in the highest regard, by celebrating the scientist’s life and his contribution to the establishment of social reform. Shapiro claims that a significant contribution of Bacon’s devotees in sustaining his image even after his passing is how they viewed his work as an attack on the workings of the traditional systems and institutions that survive in society to advance the interests of the elites (19). Shapiro understands that these characteristics of the man who was Francis Bacon deeply influenced and shaped Delia Bacon’s belief that the mind behind the works of Shakespeare was not him but the great Francis Bacon (19). The basis of the Baconian authorship theory essentially sheds lights on the ways through which Francis Bacon can be proved as the author of Shakespeare’s plays, because the strength, depth and profoundness of those plays cannot possibly be captured by the illiterate child of illiterate parents. When addressing the ambiguities in the theory which crowns Francis Bacon as Shakespeare, Baconians provide reason by establishing the chronological order of events in both Shakespeare’s and Bacon’s life such as the birth dates of these individuals and the year in which Bacon died (Shahan 50). According to Shahan, the critics’ argument which aims to nullify the theory that Bacon is indeed Shakespeare accepts, that the former was indeed the latter in terms of the times in which both lived and how their lives possibly coincided (50). The only criticism that the doubters of the notion are able to provide in this case is their proposal that Francis Bacon, as much as he was a man of reason and intellect could not have written the dramatic plays of Shakespeare because his writings lacked what is present in abundance in those plays – drama. To prove that this observation is invalid and unsubstantiated, the examples of narrative poems titled The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis can be provided both of which are attributable to Francis Bacon who chose only to be recognized as “Labeo” when they were published (Shahan 50). As stated previously, the crux of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship lies in highlighting the weaknesses of Shakespeare which could render it improbable that it is indeed him who is responsible for producing the profound literary works that the world associates with his name. Moreover, the theory also aims to establish the rationale through which Francis Bacon can be crowned as the author of those works. In accordance with this view, it can be identified that the theory under assessment is based on the notion of plausibility and the identification of features which make the authorship of Shakespeare implausible and the authorship of Francis Bacon as credible. In the light of this observation, Baconians and several other Shakespeare authorship theorists have also questioned about the limited intellectual capabilities of Shakespeare, he who is categorized as only semi-literate with illiterate parents. In the analysis presented by Melchior on the matter of authorship, the author postulates that following the proclamations of Delia Bacon, Joseph C. Hart further evidenced the Baconian perspectives on the true identity of Shakespeare in a book which he wrote in 1848. According to Melchior, the assertions of both Hart and Bacon are based on the employment of literary analysis which is associated with the phraseology of Shakespeare’s writings and the specialized knowledge which is reflected by their assessments. The most critical element of specialized knowledge that has been recognized by Baconians as the key to unmasking the true identity of Shakespeare as Francis Bacon is related with the use of the terms of the legal profession (Melchior). Hart and Bacon’s argument in this case essentially states, that the scope and appropriate usage of these legal terminologies has been done with such finesse in Shakespeare’s plays that only a lawyer can be linked with the use of such terms in a literary text (Melchior). In his article titled "Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer-How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question” Regnier examines the diverse opinions that have been provided by individuals belonging to distinct professions on the matter of Shakespeare’s ability to effortlessly incorporate legal terms and phrases in his plays, that too in an almost perfect contextual manner (377). Perhaps, the most outspoken skeptic of Shakespeare in this regard is Mark Twain, who claims that for a man who was not familiar with the trade of the law, the playwright’s expertise in the area surpass the knowledge of the common man, who at some point is bound to make mistakes in the use of the phrases unless he belongs to the very profession regarding which he speaks (Regnier 377). On the other hand, the refutation of Twain’s argument comes from a member of the legal profession. In his research Regnier quotes Justice John Paul Stevens who essentially believes that Shakespeare’s use of the legal terminology is in fact an act that is by no means an extraordinary or impossible feat (377). This view implies that for more than a century independent-minded and unorthodox individuals who have emerged as skeptics of Shakespeare’s authorship have used the legal facet of the theory to arrive at intriguing and fascinating conclusions to prove that the name William Shakespeare is nothing but a facade and a false identity to masquerade a highly educated revolutionary of English birth who produced magnificent plays and chose not to reveal his true self (Regnier 377). Similarly, Melchior understands that Hart and Bacon’s opinion that the depth of legal knowledge displayed in Shakespeare’s plays somehow validates that it is impossible for a common man to acquire such expertise is incorrect, because even though, legal references in Shakespeare’s plays are present in abundance their usage does not demonstrate that their user has extraordinary knowledge of the legal system. The evaluation of the literature that is available on the subject of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship is wide-ranging; however, the root of this theory can be traced back to only two individuals – Delia Bacon and Joseph C. Hart. While, the formulation of this based on the execution of modern methods of literary analysis (Shahan and Waugh 204) and phraseology (Melchior) another element which aided the formulation of this proposal is associated with the ‘crypt analytical’ theories that have been put forth by Baconians (Leahy 59). Though controversial and highly debatable, this facet of the argument has been questioned by analysts in terms of its legitimacy and authenticity yet this characteristic remains a significant part of Baconian assumptions. Nonetheless, the coded proofs of Francis Bacon’s authorship have not been proven and their integration in the analysis fails to justify the validity of the research. Another critical component of Baconian theory is that it aims to identify a character that could fit the ideal of the man who must have penned down the plays, sonnets and poems that the world attributes to William Shakespeare. The key word being ‘ideal’, this view implies that the initiators of Baconian perspectives base their argument on justifying a preconceived notion that Francis Bacon is William Shakespeare, thus it should be proved that this notion is correct. For example, in his account of why Delia Bacon outlined Francis Bacon as the real owner of Shakespeare’s works, Shapiro states that it is the legacy of Francis Bacon “…that most powerfully informs Delia Bacon’s conception of him” (19). Referring to the view that Delia Bacon established the Baconian perspective on the basis of a preconceived idea of both Bacon and Shakespeare, Wells claims that her opinion of Shakespeare was that of an “ignorant, low-bred, vulgar country fellow, who had never inhaled in all his life one breath of that social atmosphere that fills his plays” (315). The evaluation of sources that has been conducted during the course of this paper leads to the conclusion that the Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship does not validate that Francis Bacon along with other well-educated individuals such as Spenser and Raleigh wrote the great works of William Shakespeare. The theoretical basis of the Baconian perspectives is based on mere conjecture which aims to form the ‘ideal’ picture of an individual who ‘should’ have demonstrated the literary genius that Shakespeare does with his writings. Works Cited Leahy, William, ed. Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question. Continuum Collections, 2010. Melchior, Ib. Melchior A La Carte. PREMIER DIGITAL PUBLISHING, 2013. Regnier, Thomas. "Could Shakespeare Think Like a Lawyer-How Inheritance Law Issues in Hamlet May Shed Light on the Authorship Question." U. Miami L. Rev. 57 (2002): 377. Shahan , John. "Exposing an Industry in Denial: Authorship doubters respond to “60 Minutes with Shakespeare"." Doubtaboutwill.org. Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, 21 Nov 2011. Web. 26 Nov 2013. . Shahan, John, and Alexander Waugh. Beyond Doubt?, Shakespeare. Llumina Press. 2013. Shapiro, James. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?. Simon and Schuster, 2010. Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare: for all time. Oxford University Press, 2003. Read More