Рет қаралды 15,982
Stratfordians rely heavily on two key claims. First and perhaps most familiar is the “ample evidence” claim: that plenty of evidence, during and soon after the lifetime of Shakspere of Stratford, supports his authorship of the works of “Shakespeare.” But orthodox scholars sometimes concede there really isn’t much evidence for that (almost none before his death in 1616).
The second (and more central) Stratfordian claim is the oft-heard meme that “nobody ever doubted” the Stratford man’s authorship during his time or long afterward. A common version of this “no early doubts” claim is that no doubts whatsoever were expressed until the 1850s (though most scholars admit at least a few public doubts during the 17th and 18th centuries).
Early doubts (especially pre-1616) are absolutely crucial to the Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ). Even most authorship doubters have not yet fully appreciated how extensive and substantial the early doubts actually were. They date back to at least 1592 (possibly earlier) and include around two dozen pieces of documentary evidence (mostly published) from more than a dozen writers of the time.
No connection between the “Shakespeare” works and Stratford was published until 1623 (seven years after Shakspere’s death). Shakspere’s authorship is not clearly supported by any surviving evidence dating before 1623. Even in 1623, the connection was only elliptically and ambiguously suggested by the First Folio. Thus, published authorship doubts actually predate the first suggestion of the Stratfordian authorship theory itself, by more than thirty years!
It is difficult to overstate the importance of these early authorship doubts. They are potentially devastating to the dominant attitude of modern academics who dismiss the SAQ as basically anachronistic, a “romantic” notion contingent on modern cultural preoccupations, “conspiracy theories,” or a tendency to “question authority.” If modern academics and the general public can be forced to confront these early doubts, it would become far more difficult (perhaps impossible) to marginalize the SAQ, to quarantine it in time. On the contrary, authorship doubts would emerge as the persistent reality they truly are: an authentic and integral part of the very time and culture that produced the works of “Shakespeare” in the first place.
This talk was presented on October 14, 2017, at the SOF Annual Conference in Chicago.
For more on the Shakespeare Authorship Question, visit ShakespeareOxfordFellowship.org.
Bryan H. Wildenthal is Professor of Law Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law (San Diego). He earned his A.B. (with honors) and J.D. (with distinction) at Stanford University, and served as an editor of the Stanford Law Review. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law in Spring 2021. He taught law full-time for 26 years (1994-2020) and is the author of a college textbook on Native American sovereignty and numerous articles in leading law reviews (including one cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 and 2019). His legal scholarship focuses on constitutional law and history, American Indian law (Native American rights and sovereignty), and LGBT rights.
Supplemental note by Professor Wildenthal: I would like to correct a minor factual mistake (which I don’t think has any impact on the “early doubts” issue). About 30 minutes into the video, while briefly discussing the 1640 edition of the Sonnets published by John Benson, I followed the longtime conventional wisdom in suggesting that Benson extensively “bowdlerized” the Sonnets by changing pronouns to cover up their homoerotic aspect. In fact, as I am grateful to Martin Hyatt for pointing out to me, Margreta de Grazia showed in a brilliant article that this aspect of the Benson edition has been greatly exaggerated and misunderstood. (“The Scandal of Shakespeare’s Sonnets,” Shakespeare Survey 46 (1994), pp. 35-49, reprinted in James Schiffer, ed., Shakespeare’s Sonnets: Critical Essays (Garland, 1999), pp. 89-112.) As Mr. Hyatt also helpfully noted, it appears I may have been mistaken in echoing a suggestion I had heard that Benson’s name may have been a pseudonymous spoof on Ben Jonson’s; apparently there is some evidence there was a real publisher by that name. Another minor thing: around minute 24, I discussed the 1605 reference to "the late English Ovid" as appearing in a letter; it actually appeared in a published pamphlet (strengthening my point).