Why not Shaksper?

Back again after a too long hiatus.

Why not just accept William Shaksper is the poet/playwright? Because he doesn't fit the profile needed to be the famed author. This fact was recognized by many famous people; Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Leslie Howard, Derek Jacobi, Jeremy Irons, Supreme Court judges, scholars, and more and more since. I recently read a paper by Dr. Micael Delahoyde, Washington State University who quotes from J. Thomas Looney who felt the Stratford myth seemed worse than unsatisfactory. Looney gave a list of traits that had to have been associated with the true author; "recognition of his genius, eccentricity, sensibility, unconventionality, inadequately appreciated, literary recognition, enthusiasm of theater, recognition of his lyric poetry, a superior classical education, feudal connections, aristocratic, connections with Lancastrian supporters, enthusiasm for Italian culture, enthusiasm for aristocratic sport (e.g. falconry), musicality, financial improvidence, ambivalence about women, ambivalence about Catholicism."

There is no factual evidence William Shakespeare’s background would give him any of the above criteria for authorship. He was the son of an illiterate provincial butcher/glove maker with only a basic grammar school education that ended at the age of 13. He married Anne Hathaway at the age of 18 (she was 26) and five months later his daughter Suzanne was born. A year or so later he wife had twins. Shortly after, (Sometime in the 1580’s, he deserted his family to go to London. In London it is reported he held the horses for theater goers,and eventually began acting in a few plays.

There are additional reason why famous and learned men still doubt the possibility of Shakespeare authorship, but the purpose of this blog is to show, if not Shaksper, why not consider a woman. See next post.

Basis for discussion

The Shakespeare authorship question is one that has caught the attention of many famous people: Sigmund freud, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, just to name a few. The reason is clear, there is no factual evidence Wm. Shaksper's background would give him the criteria for authorship. He only had a basic grammar school education that ended at the age of 13. His father, wife and daughters were all illiterate. When Shaksper arrived in London in 1588, some plays, later contributed to Shakespeare, had already been performed. The only logical argument is the the similarity of names.

Many names have been bandied about, among them include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Sir Henry Neville, but the most popular candidate with the strongest credentials is Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford; however, he died too soon (1604) when new plays were still being introduced as late as 1613.

The purpose of this blog is to start a conversation to offer the theory the rightful author could be a woman. Even though the women of that era were not allowed to received an education, there were high-born women who were tudored along side of their brothers. It is difficult to come up with a female candidate because there was so little printed about women 400 years ago, but that still does not eliminate the possibility. Afterall, who had the most to lose if discovered? The most logical answer is a woman. She would have needed a front - who better than an struggling actor. One doesn't have far to look to serioiusly consider a woman because of the strong feminist leanings in many of the plays. Would it not seem more likely a woman would write roles complimentary to women? I would invite students and scholars of Shakespeare to offer support or debunk my theory...