The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question

by Scott McCrea

While gaps in the biographical record for William Shakespeare continue to confound literary scholars, McCrea here concludes that he was, indeed, the playwright and poet we have always thought him to be. This literary forensics case follows the trail of evidence in the historical record and in the plays and poems themselves. It investigates the counterclaims for other authors and the suppositions that the real author of the works must have been a soldier, a scholar, a lawyer, a courtier, and a traveler to Italy. In spirited and fascinating detail, McCrea carefully takes apart the case for other authors and proves the case conclusively.

While gaps in the biographical record for William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon continue to confound literary scholars, McCrea here concludes that he was, indeed, the playwright and poet we have always thought him to be. This literary forensics case follows the trail of evidence in the historical record and in the plays and poems themselves. It investigates the counterclaims for other authors and the suppositions that the real author of the works must have been a soldier, a scholar, a lawyer, a courtier, and a traveler to Italy. In spirited and fascinating detail, McCrea carefully takes apart the case for other authors and proves the case conclusively.

Unlike other books that make the case for one or another candidate for the real Shakespeare, this book makes the case for the Bard of Avon even as it considers the alternative arguments for other authors and presents the evidence against them. Special attention is paid to the leading contender, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, but like other conspiracy theories, this one is put to rest through a detailed combing of the clues and a convincing presentation of the facts. In the end, readers will be reassured as to the identity of the real Shakespeare, who was, and is, the glover's son from Avon.

Genres: Shakespeare, History, Biography, Nonfiction

296 pages, Hardcover

First published January 30, 2005

Reviews

[Marc Pressley · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the alternate authorship section of the book is mostly focused on debunking de Vere, McCrea makes a substantially convincing case for Shakespeare's authorship. He consistently distinguishes between known facts, circumstantial evidence, and sheer speculation. If it doesn't definitively prove the case for Shakespeare--although I believe it satisfies reasonable doubt--it at the least demonstrates how convoluted the arguments must be to support candidates other than William Shakespeare.

[Cory Howell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A nice, concise refutation of the various alternate theories of Shakespearean authorship

[Jesus · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was an authorship question?

Apparently so. In the new book section of the library a month or so ago, I found a book-length biography dedicated to the hypothesis that someone who died before the Tempest was performed wrote the entirety of William Shakespeare's works. Thinking "This is some of the most bizarre nonsense I have seen in while" I picked it up. The jacket provided a list of people, including Orson Welles & Mark Twain who disputed the idea of William Shakespeare as author of the works attributed to him. Not having the desire to look deeply into an argumentum ad numerum at that moment, I put the book down.

An offhand comment from a friend of mine regarding the paucity of material -- outside of the plays & poems -- surrounding Shakespeare brought the idea back to mind. In the Shakespeare section, I found Scott McCrea's well-reasoned explanation of this taradiddle. The only reason I am not giving a 5-star review to this book is that the nature of the subject matter, a weight of evidence presented to counter several arguments, tends not to lend itself to enjoyable reading.

Basically, the tale McCrea tells is that there was a myth created around William Shakespeare after his death. Most interesting, for the study of literacy, was an anonymous Essay against too much reading. This was a pamphlet that argued "Instead of Reading he stuck close to Writing and Study without Book. How do you think reading could have assisted him in such great Thoughts?" McCrea argues that although Shakespeare's sources, for example Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, are easily discernable, this myth of a glover's son having been 'born great' became quite popular. A little more than two centuries later, the idea that William Shakespeare did not rightly 'achieve greatness' brought some people to seek another individual or group to 'have greatness thrust upon them'.

As McCrea goes through the candidates, a reader may learn much about the milieu Shakespeare lived in and themes that persist throughout the plays, i.e. bear-baiting; the Globe was located next to a ring where this was practiced. Whichever side of the Stratfordian debate you straddle on, you may find a fine finale here.

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm willing to entertain all sides, and I fully understand how ridiculous the anti-Stratfordian case may seem in the light of a reasonable day, but this book didn't convince me with an airtight demolition, although it was a delight to read and contains a great deal of sense.

[Cory Howell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is well worth reading, for anyone interested in the so-called Authorship Controversy over Shakespeare. McCrea does to the "anti-Stratfordians" exactly what Toto does to the Wizard of Oz--he pulls back the curtain, to reveal the hollowness of the anti-Shakespeare movement.

[Tom Delise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Persuasively makes the case that Shakespeare was the true author of the works attributed to him . . . as if there was any doubt excpet for snobby, uninformed conspiracy theorists.

[Donald · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent and well-written piece on the authorship question, reasonably knocking down the pins of each conspiracy theory one by one.