Contested Will

For Luke

‘I gyve unto my wief my second best bed', from Shakespeare's Will

This is a book about when and why many people began to question whether William Shakespeare wrote the plays long attributed to him, and, if he didn't write them, who did.

There's surprising consensus on the part of both sceptics and defenders of Shakespeare's authorship about when the controversy first took root. Whether you get your facts from the
Dictionary of National Biography
or Wikipedia, the earliest documented claim dates back to 1785, when James Wilmot, an Oxford-trained scholar who lived a few miles outside of Stratford-upon-Avon, began searching locally for Shakespeare's books, papers, or any indication that he had been an author – and came up empty-handed. Wilmot gradually came to the conclusion that someone else, most likely Sir Francis Bacon, had written the plays. Wilmot never published what he learned and near the end of his life burned all his papers. But before he died he spoke with a fellow researcher, a Quaker from Ipswich named James Corton Cowell, who later shared these findings with members of the Ipswich Philosophic Society.

Cowell did so in a pair of lectures delivered in 1805 that survive in a manuscript now located in the University of London's Senate House Library, in which he confesses to being ‘a renegade' to the Shakespearean ‘faith'. Cowell was converted by Wilmot's argument that ‘there is nothing in the writings of Shakespeare that does not argue the long and early training of the schoolman, the traveller, and the associate of the great and learned. Yet there is
nothing in the known life of Shakespeare that shows he had any one of the qualities.' Wilmot is credited with being the first to argue, as far back as the late eighteenth century, for an unbridgeable rift between the facts of Shakespeare's life and what the plays and poems reveal about their author's education and experience. But both Wilmot and Cowell were ahead of their time, for close to a half-century passed before the controversy resurfaced in any serious or sustained way.

Since 1850 or so, thousands of books and articles have been published urging that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays. At first, bibliographers tried to keep count of all the works inspired by the controversy. By 1884 the list ran to 255 items; by 1949, it had swelled to over 4,500. Nobody bothered trying to keep a running tally after that, and in an age of blogs, websites and online forums it's impossible to do justice to how much intellectual energy has been – and continues to be – devoted to the subject. Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the sceptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson Welles, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

It's not easy keeping track of all the candidates promoted as the true author of Shakespeare's plays and poems. The leading contenders nowadays are Edward de Vere (the Earl of Oxford) and Sir Francis Bacon. Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, the Earl of Derby and the Earl of Rutland have attracted fewer though no less ardent supporters. And over fifty others have been proposed as well – working alone or collaboratively – including Sir Walter Ralegh, John Donne, Robert Cecil, John Florio, Sir Philip Sidney, the Earl of Southampton, Queen Elizabeth and King James. A complete list is pointless, for it would soon be outdated. During the time I've been working on this book, four more names have been put forward: the poet and courtier Fulke Greville, the Irish rebel William Nugent, the poet Amelia Lanier (of Jewish descent and thought by some to be the unnamed Dark Lady of the
Sonnets) and the Elizabethan diplomat Henry Neville. New candidates will almost surely be proposed in years to come. While the chapters that follow focus on Francis Bacon and the Earl of Oxford – whose candidacies are the best documented and most consequential – it's not because I believe that their claims are necessarily stronger than any of these others. An exhaustive account of all the candidates, including those already advanced and those waiting in the wings, would be both tedious and futile, and for reasons that will soon become clear, Bacon and Oxford can be taken as representative.

Much of what has been written about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays follows the contours of a detective story, which is not all that surprising, since the authorship question and the ‘whodunnit' emerged at the same historical moment. Like all good detective fiction, the Shakespeare mystery can be solved only by determining what evidence is credible, retracing steps and avoiding false leads. My own account in the pages that follow is no different. I've spent the past twenty-five years researching and teaching Shakespeare's works at Columbia University. For some, that automatically disqualifies me from writing fairly about the controversy on the grounds that my professional investments are so great that I cannot be objective. There are a few who have gone so far as to hint at a conspiracy at work among Shakespeare professors and institutions, with scholars paid off to suppress information that would undermine Shakespeare's claim. If so, somebody forgot to put my name on the list.

My graduate-school experience taught me to be sceptical of unexamined historical claims, even ones that other Shakes peareans took on faith. I had wanted to write my doctoral dissertation on ‘Shakespeare and the Jews' but was told that since there were no Jews in Shakespeare's England there were no Jewish questions, and I should turn my attention elsewhere. I reluctantly did so, but years later, after a good deal of research, I learned that both claims were false: there was in fact a small community of Jews living in Elizabethan London and many leading English
writers at that time wrestled in their work with questions of Jewish difference (in an effort to better grasp what constituted English identity). That experience, and the book that grew out of it, taught me the value of revisiting truths universally acknowledged.

There yet remains one subject walled off from serious study by Shakespeare scholars: the authorship question. More than one fellow Shakespearean was disheartened to learn that I was committing my energies to it, as if somehow I was wasting my time and talent, or worse, at risk of going over to the dark side. I became increasingly interested in why this subject remains virtually taboo in academic circles, as well as in the consequences of this collective silence. One thing is certain: the decision by professors to all but ignore the authorship question hasn't made it disappear. If anything, more people are drawn to it than ever. And because prominent Shakespeareans – with the notable exceptions of Samuel Schoenbaum, Jonathan Bate, Marjorie Garber, Gary Taylor, Stanley Wells and Alan Nelson – have all but surrendered the field, general readers curious about the subject typically learn about it through the books and websites of those convinced that Shakespeare could never have written the plays.

This was forcefully brought home not long ago when I met a group of nine-year-olds at a local elementary school to talk about Shakespeare's poetry. When toward the end of the class I invited questions, a quiet boy on my left raised his hand and said: ‘My brother told me that Shakespeare really didn't write
Romeo and Juliet.
Is that true?' It was the kind of question I was used to hearing from undergraduates on the first day of a Shakespeare course or from audience members at popular lectures, but I hadn't expected that doubts about Shakespeare's authorship had filtered down to the fourth grade.

Not long after, at the Bank Street Bookstore, the best children's bookstore in New York City, I ran into a colleague from the history department buying a stack of books for her twelve-year-old daughter. On the top of her pile was a young adult paperback by
Elise Broach,
Shakespeare's Secret
, which I learned from those who worked at the store was a popular title. I bought a copy. It's a fascinating and fast-paced detective story about a diamond necklace that once belonged to Queen Elizabeth. The mystery of the necklace is only worked out when another mystery, concerning who wrote Shakespeare's plays, is solved.

The father of the story's young heroine is a Shakespeare scholar at the ‘Maxwell Elizabethan Documents Collection in Washington, DC' (whose ‘vaulted ceilings' and ‘long, shining wood tables' bear a striking resemblance to those of the Folger Shakespeare Library). He tells his curious daughter that there's ‘no proof of course, but there are some intriguing clues' that ‘Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford' was ‘the man who might be Shakespeare'. When she asks him why people think Oxford might have written the plays, he explains that Oxford had ‘the perfect background, really. He was clever, well-educated, well-traveled,' and ‘events of his life bear a fascinating resemblance to events in Shakespeare's plays'. He adds that ‘most academics still favor Shakespeare', though ‘over the years Oxford has emerged as a real possibility'. But it doesn't take her long to suspect that Shakespeare wasn't the author after all; by page 45, after learning that Shakespeare ‘couldn't even spell his own name', she decides: ‘Okay, so maybe he didn't write the plays.'

An unusual twist to the story is the suggestion that Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford had a clandestine relationship, which explains why Oxford couldn't claim credit for writing the plays falsely attributed to Shakespeare: ‘If there were some connection between Oxford and Elizabeth that meant the royal name would be besmirched by his ambitions as a playwright.' In the end, the secret of the necklace reveals ‘that Edward de Vere was Elizabeth's son'. More surprising still is the hint that the relationship between son and mother didn't end there, for when he came of age, Oxford ‘might have been her lover' as well.

Elise Broach provides an author's note in which she explains that the ‘case for Edward de Vere as Shakespeare is compelling',
and that while ‘there is no proof that Edward de Vere was the son of Elizabeth I, there is clear evidence of a connection between them, and the notion that he might have been either her lover or her son continues to be discussed'. As for her own views: ‘As a historian' (who did graduate work in history at Yale) ‘I don't find the evidence to be complete enough – yet – to topple the man from Stratford from his literary pedestal. But as a novelist I am more convinced.'

I put the book down relieved that the nine-year-old boy had stuck to Shakespeare's authorship and not asked me about Queen Elizabeth's incestuous love-life. The question of how schoolchildren could learn to doubt whether Shakespeare wrote the plays may have been answered, but only to be replaced by more vexing ones: What led a writer as thoughtful and well informed as Elise Broach to arrive at this solution? What underlying assumptions – about concealed identity, Elizabethan literary culture, and especially the autobiographical nature of the plays – enabled such a conception of Shakespeare's authorship to take hold? And when and why had such changes in understanding occurred?

In taking this set of questions as my subject this book departs from previous ones about the authorship controversy. These have focused almost exclusively on
what
people have claimed, that is, whether it was Shakespeare or someone else who wrote the plays. The best of these books – and there are a number of excellent ones written both by advocates and those sceptical of Shakespeare's authorship – set out well-rehearsed arguments for and against Shakespeare and his many rivals. Consulting them, or a handful of online discussion groups such as ‘The Shakespeare Fellowship' (for a pro-Oxford bias), ‘The Forest of Arden' (for a pro-Shakespeare one) and ‘Humanities. Lit. Authors. Shakespeare' (for a glimpse of how nasty things can get), will offer a sense of where the battle-lines are currently drawn, but will fail to make clear how we got to where we are now and how it may be possible to move beyond what seems like endless trench warfare.