Why Shakespeare WAS Shakespeare

by Stanley Wells

Why Shakespeare Was Shakespeare offers both a vivid account of the life of William Shakespeare and a vigorous rebuttal to those who claim his plays and poems were written by someone else. In this fascinating exploration, the renowned Shakespeare editor and critic Stanley Wells explains when these ‘deniers’ first emerged and who they are today. He looks at the reasons for their belief that Shakespeare wasn’t the author Shakespeare we know and love, and examines the claims made for others -- The Earl of Oxford and Christopher Marlowe are the usual suspects, though over the years a bewildering array of candidates has been proposed. Ultimately, Wells concludes, Shakespeare the Stratford-born man of historical fact and Shakespeare the greatest writer in English were undoubtedly one and the same. Stanley Wells, CBE, FRSL, has devoted a lifetime to the study of Shakespeare. Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Professor Emeritus of Shakespeare Studies in the University of Birmingham, and Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, he is General Editor of both the Oxford and the Penguin editions of the works. He has written widely about Shakespeare and his contemporaries. His books include Shakespeare For All Time (Macmillan), Shakespeare & Co. (Penguin), Shakespeare, Sex, and Love (Oxford University Press), and (co-edited with Paul Edmondson) Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (Cambridge University Press).

Genres: Shakespeare, Nonfiction

57 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 4, 2014

About the author

Stanley William Wells, CBE, is a Shakespeare scholar and Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Reviews

[Ron Charles]

How many geologists must keep arguing that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye?

Pity the Shakespeare scholars. For more than a century now, they’ve been distracted from actual scholarship by zany arguments that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon did not write the plays we attribute to him.

All of this flared up (again) a few years ago when Roland Emmerich released a silly costume drama called “Anonymous,” which posited that Edward de Vere was the true (secret) author of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” et al.

When the movie came out, I spoke to Michael Witmore, director of the Folger Library, and he assured me....

Read the rest at The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/s...

[Alex Sarll]

Hilariously intemperate counterblast to the various snobs, cranks and idiots who attempt to find alternate authors for the Bard's plays. Given most of them are working on some variant of ad hominem ('But he was just a grammar school oik from the Midlands! He was in *trade*!'), Wells is happy to respond in kind. The details of the first two proponents he can find for the "heresy" (a good word for it, ditto "nonsense") sum their kind up - a pathological prude with no understanding of the period or the work, followed by an outright loon who ended up in an asylum and should really have got there considerably sooner. Alas, while obviously correct overall, Wells' own work is not flawless. There are little repetitions, and one baffling reference to turtles as pachyderms which suggests that, like his opponents', Wells' scholarship is not quite as wide-ranging as he thinks. More damaging is his seeming failure to deal with the heresy's exact ramifications. He demonstrates conclusively (not that you can ever convince the real tinfoil-hatters) that Shakespeare was acknowledged at the time as the author of the work. But he doesn't really contend with the possibility that Marlowe (or whoever) faked their own death and surreptitiously used Will as an intermediary. True, to some extent you're arguing with the tide here; explode that and they'll just find some new WTC7 of the Renaissance stage. But there are such huge differences in the style and philosophy of Kit and Will that a page or two could bolster that case for those who might be seduced but have not yet strayed from the path of righteousness. Without even directly addressing the authorship issue, Cabell did this bit perfectly in Beyond Life. But then, I happen to think Cabell did a lot of things perfectly in Beyond Life. Wells may not quite be on that level, but this is still a rousing defence of the true faith.

[Ed]

Stanley Wells is 86 years old. He has edited two "collected works" of Shakespeare, has published hundreds of scholarly papers and may have written more books about Shakespeare than have I have read. However there may be times when Stanley Wells wishes he had taken his degree at University College London in physics or chemistry. Because as the big kahuna of everything about the Bard he seems to be the guy who answers those odd people--people with money, degrees and some academic accomplishments--who insist that the only real important issue is discovering who actually wrote the plays and poems that are credited to Shakespeare.

I won't bother with the various theories put forth: Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), Francis Bacon and my favorite for sheer wacky chutzpah, Christopher Marlowe (faked his death, moved to the Netherlands, etc.). Wells may feel sometimes that in a materialistic science you don't have to prove the fundamentals every few years. Force = mass x acceleration remains true; the second law of thermodynamics doesn't get reversed. But occasionally Wells (and a few others) have to write books like "Why Shakespeare WAS Shakespeare" to put things right.

My favorite anti-Stradford theory, by the way is that the plays and poems weren't written my the historical person we call William Shakespeare but by another person with the same name who lived at the same time and in the same places and knew all the same people.

[Phil Webster]

We live in an age of fake news and conspiracy theories. But, in this excellent (and often amusing) book, Shakespeare expert Stanley Wells shows that this is not a new phenomenon. The ridiculous conspiracy theory which claims that William Shakespeare did not really write the Shakespeare plays and poems dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century. Today, sadly, even the great “I, Claudius” actor, Derek Jacobi, is spouting this nonsense.

A lot of the case put forward by the “Shakespeare deniers” rests on elitism and snobbery. Shakespeare was born a commoner, but he received a very good grammar school education. However, that is not enough for those who think that someone talented enough to write such brilliant stuff must have been an aristocrat and/or university-educated.

Wells shows that, although there are things we do not know about Shakespeare, we certainly know enough to show that he DID write what is attributed to him. The evidence is conclusive.

Unfortunately, people who latch on to conspiracy theories are not interested in evidence. For example, the Trump supporters who believe that Biden stole the election from Trump are blind to the true facts: they believe what they WANT to believe.

Of course, the illusions of Trump supporters are more dangerous than those of Shakespeare deniers, so a better parallel might be those followers of the conspiracy theory which claims that Charles Darwin stole the credit for the theory of evolution by natural selection from Alfred Russel Wallace.

Wallace certainly deserves credit for coming up with the theory independently from Darwin. But there is written evidence that Darwin had developed his theory long before he published “On the Origin of Species” and long before Wallace had his brainwave. In fact, Wallace himself stated that “...the idea occurred to Darwin in October 1838, nearly twenty years earlier than to myself (in February 1858); and that during the whole of that twenty years he had been laboriously collecting evidence...”

But clear-cut evidence like this will not convince those who are wearing blinkers. Similarly, blinkered Shakespeare deniers will not want to be convinced by Wells.

In arguing against conspiracy theories, I am not saying that we should unquestioningly accept the dominant ideas of our times. When our rulers and politicians, as well as the media, are constantly being caught out in lies and distortions, it’s not surprising that many people doubt the established view on many topics. And I myself agree with Karl Marx’s view that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas."

But while challenging a dominant ideology is a good thing, following conspiracy theories (especially political ones, which usually come from the extreme right) is a diversion, and can be dangerous as well as unjust.

To challenge established ideas, critics need to come up with convincing EVIDENCE, and the “evidence” produced by the Shakespeare deniers is comprehensively shot down by Wells in this book. The contortions that the deniers often go through to justify their arguments is laughable. Wells also produces lots of evidence to show that the Stratford Shakespeare really WAS the Shakespeare who wrote the plays. For me, the short section on the First Folio alone is enough for Wells to win the argument hands down.

PS: After reading my review, a friend of mine has pointed out that, in addition to the points I have made, there is another possible factor motivating the deniers. Apparently, Jonathan Bate argues in his book “The Genius of Shakespeare” that it is the result of Shakespeare being built up into a such a “genius” figure: this makes some people want to knock him down. This same motivation could also apply to many of those who are drawn to the anti-Darwin conspiracy theory which I have mentioned above.

[Glenn Hopp]

I had five different Shakespeare professors in school (undergrad and grad), and all of them thought that maintaining that someone else wrote the plays and poems is comparable to heading off to Graceland this weekend and expecting to run into Elvis. There is just no evidence that another person wrote any of Shakespeare. This is an enjoyable book by an excellent writer and scholar. He omits mentioning for some reason that the author who in 1920 first suggested in print that Edward de Vere was the author of Shakespeare’s writings was actually named Thomas Looney.

[Guy Priel]

Very interesting read about Shakespeare. So many conspiracy theories and unknowns. This book put a real face to Shakespeare.

[Justin Tai Sen Choy]

Stanley Wells is a brilliant historian

[Leigh]

Reading some short stories on Kindle before Unlimited runs out, interesting stuff!

[Chris Lilly]

Meat and potatoes dismantling of the claims that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, with a slightly weary cast:"Really? I have to go through this again?"

But he does have to go through this again, because the world is full of pillocks, including fine actors called Mark, and if you were in any doubt, this booklet should persuade you. But if you weren't, then read something else. Something by Stanley Wells, perhaps, because he writes damn fine crit.

[Jon]

Brisk review of the reasons why Shakespeare denial is nuts (same reason every other conspiracy theory is nuts, really). Wells doesn't address one of the mainsprings of denialism, though: Shakespeare's overblown reputation. Bardolatry is responsible for much denialism, I think; the thinking being that if WS really is The Greatest Genius in the Whole World Ever than his works should have been written by somebody more impressive.

[Polly Clarke]

I like an uncomplicated life and this confirms to me that Shakespeare was a great guy. I particularly like Stanley Well's rejection of the stereotypes that go on today and the examples of mis information that is retold and told again. Let's just enjoy the plays shall we!

[Susanna]

I didn't really need convincing that Shakespeare was Shakespeare but Stanley Wells covers a lot of ground in a short piece and demolishes the arguments of the anti-Stratfordians.

[Clint]

Very nicely done.

[Kevin J. Bouffard]

Worthy effort

Wells marshals many strong arguments in a brief book. I've never believed Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him, and I still don't.

[Lys]

3.5. definitely a nice overview. I learned quite a bit. to be fair though, I didn't doubt.

[Ric]

An author with a will to show Will was Will.