h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The name of Shakespeare is suffused with symbolism. Pallas Athena, Godess of Wisdom, in legends used to Shake her Speare at the Dragons of ignorance. Many learned people believe, and have done since the late nineteenth century, that this name was bought for safety at a time when treason applied to most historical subjects on the Elizabethan stage. The main candidate for authorship is the Philosopher Sir Francis Bacon, Britain's most underrated Englishman, who was well known for his remarkable language skills and inspired rhetoric. Stratfordians are always keen to keep off the subject of the Promus, Bacon's own notebook, where thousands of new words and phrases appear for the very first time in the English Language, and find themselves in the works of Shakespeare. The Stratfordian history only began with the actor David Garrick in the eighteenth century, and is literally based on no hard facts whatsoever. Will Shagspur did exist, but as he couldn't even write his own name terribly well, are we really expected to believe that this is the man who transformed the English Language from Latin?

Was William Shakespeare from Stratford upon Avon, now that can be proved, his family, father's business, marriage records, and tomb, can all be found in that fair town.
Was William Shakespeare the author of the works which have been credited to him across the years... Most probably, for although there are scholars who would have us believe that his plays are the work of any number of authors from the time, they have no more evidence, in fact they have less evidence than can be shown in the favour of the authenticity of the works.
If his name has been associated with his plays for so long, the real question should be who would profit from discrediting the story of Shakespeare. Like the conspiracy theorists who come up with bizarre and ridiculous theories for current events, surely the scholars who try to disprove Shakespeare's existence are only trying to further their own careers. In a case such as this they could just as reasonably try to convince us that Van Gogh couldn't draw, or Mozart was unable to compose.

Shakespeare was most definitely a real person, but in Elizabethan England the name was either Shagspur or Shaksper. The name Shakespeare doesn't appear in connection with the plays until after a warrant was sent out for the unknown playrights arrest by the Queen, for treasonous depictions of her ancestry on the stage. Many scholars believe that the name was bought to conceal the real writer, and was changed to encompass a symbolic meaning. The plays are, undeniably, the Shakespeare plays, but the theory that many writers worked on them, due to the conflicting styles of writing, cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, there are more clues from the period to suggest that Sir Francis Bacon was involved with them, both literary and factual, which is more than can be said for the facts about Shaksper, which can be written on a postage stamp!

Conflicting styles within Shakespeare's plays do not mean he was not the original author of the works. After all, the texts change frequently between folios, and this can be seen from the authenticated documents held at The Shakespeare Institute, and The Shakespeare Centre, in Stratford Upon Avon, England as well as other documents held elsewhere across the globe. Anyone who has studied the plays will see many similarities between their stories and those of other "classical" works. However, throughout the ages, and even today, the same stories can be retold again and again, with subtle changes to make the work the authors own. It is possible, I am sure, to argue that the works are not that of Shakespeare himself, but these theories are just that, theories. Whereas the existence of the Shakespeare name, and William Shakespeare as it is spelt within the folios themselves, can easily be proved by any examination of the folios and various deeds held by many museums and centres of learning around the world.

This is all of course true, but it is necessary to understand the meaning behind the name Shakespeare. To quote from Romeo and Juliet, "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In other words, whoever the specific writers were it is the encyclopedic wisdom and knowledge of classisism that poses serious doubts on the authorship question. It is known from research that the educational material available at Stratford during Shaksper's youth was poor, apart from some basic Latin primers. Of course, there have been remarkable human minds throughout history like Bach and Mozart. However, their musical language was based on hearing and participating in musical activity from practically the moment they were born. If the Stratfordian boy was unable to gain access to the wealth of languages re-modelled into Shakespeare's verse, how can we possibly believe that this character created such a richly complex and diverse language? True, anybody with a good brain and imagination can dream up characters and themes, but we are talking about somebody who had a remarkable knowledge of Latin, Greek, French and Italian, to put most twentieth century scholars to shame. Why so many researchers are convinced that Bacon was definitely involved with the Shakespeare plays, is due to the astounding linguistic skills he had by the age of thirteen, his love of strange and not particularly funny puns (the fool in Lear/Autolocus in the Winter's tale), and his disaproval of the "antiquated" teaching methods at Cambridge. All this from England's greatest philosopher and the first writer in world history to discuss the advancement of learning, and the scientific properties of music. All his ideas on music discussed in the Silva Silvarum are directly associated with specific musical occurences in the plays, notably at the close of A Winter's Tale.
The management of the Globe theatre include Baconites, and the work of Alfred Dodd, Peter Dawkins and Sir George Trevelyan cannot be ignored. Whatever one's personal ideas on the matter, the subject should be constantly discussed, as the pastoral myth spread by Garrick in the last decades of the eighteenth century is without foundation, altough Stratfordian scholars since this time have been happy to follow the myth.

Education in Shakespeare's time was as you say, limited, after all, being in Stratford, so close to the scholars of Oxford, it would be hard pressed to see how any education could have existed at all. Education in Shakespeare's time was as you say, limited, after all, being in Stratford, so close to the scholars of Oxford, it would be hard pressed to see how any education could have existed at all. But seriously, feel free to visit the school where Shakespeare was taught, it is open to the public during summer months. If you base Shakespeare's improbablity on the educational facilities of the time, forget examples from the world of music, go back further to ancient Greece, and Rome, can we believe a word from the Bible, or any of the great philosophers.
I'm afraid to say my views though might be open to a little bias. I have lived near Stratford all my life, and have seen many of the folios in storage, as well as visited the school, the various properties, and many of the other resources available. I must admit though, that if you were to do the same, most people would find the tangible evidence quite compelling.

Having visited Stratford myself, and seen all the relevant material, there is still not sufficient evidence to connect the Stratford lad with the plays. If all the evidence at Stratford is so fullproof, why do ALL Stratfordian scholars keep quiet on the subjects of the Northumberland manuscript, (a leaf of paper found in an original folio, with a writer of the period experimenting with varying ways of signing the words William Shakespeare AND other authors!) and Bacon's Promus, where literally thousands of new words appear for the first time based on Latin,Greek,Italian and French. Bring these up in conversation and they turn a queezy colour, as the fundament of their own careers and livelihoods is threatened. I have a facsimilie of the first Folio in front of me (Ha,Ha!!!), and can testify to many instances of Elizabethan number codes (and these were used by the Secret Service at the time), which include word puns and point to a hidden writer. The famous Droushout engraving, which is no more than a face on a misshapen body with no kneck, also symbolises a hidden writer, due to the fact that the left arm is reversed and the face is a mask. The accompanying verse reads as follows.
This figure, that thou seest here put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-do the life:
O, could he but have drawn his wit
As well in brass, as he hath hid
His Face; the Print would then surpass
All, that was ever writ in Brass.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his book.
Supposedly by Ben Johnson, the initials BI stand for Temple Science, and how strange to find the lines "he hath hid his face" at the beginning of the greatest encyclopedea of life and experience in world history. Rather than an ode of praise to the writer, which was common in other folios of the period, here we are thrown a puzzle, and with a basic knowledge of number code and capital letter code, it is amazing what can be discovered in the folio! Of course, the Stratfordians will disprove the existence of these codes, but considering they claim to be historians, they should know better, as there were many cypher manuals available throughout Europe at the time! We forget, in our literal age, that symbolism, hidden meanings and cyphers were a cultural part of literary, artistic and musical life. And anyway, this is all so much more interesting than the Stratfordians!!!!!! (I love Stratford myself, so no personal offence intended!)

Looks like we will have to agree to differ then. Looks like we will have to agree to differ then. Unfortunately, for all my love of plot and intrigue I have found the counter-claims against Shakespeare always remind me of a rather poorly written X-Files plot (is there any other kind?) Where word sequences and single mysterious sheets of paper are waved at confounded critics.
In my humble opinion the question shouldn't be who, or when, or where, but why... Why after several centuries do the plays still draw an audience from around the world to the theatres of Stratford and London, and everywhere else around the globe. The name assosciated with these works is that of William Shakespeare an actor, writer, poet, and some would also say spy (would that explain your codes?) who was born in a small market town in the heart of England.
Whether he is the author or no, it is his name which has graced the works for the past centuries, so surely it, and he should be allowed to rest in peace.
On another tangent, have you never heard of fans, and copy-cat instances both within the world of art, and crime... That would explain any 'fake' signatures in strange books from up north...
And for number codes in texts, take any book off your bookshelf, and you will find it quite easy to make any number of mysterious and disturbing messages by picking letters and words at a variety of number combinations. Try it and you'll find a conspiracy theory in every newspaper headline...

Dream Big

If the conspiracy theories are as convincing as a bad X-files script, why are those who have made a living out of dubious eighteenth century research so frightened of believing anything that might challenge their books? Even if you are unable to see through the veil of bad scholarship, there are so many leads to the fact that Bacon was involved with the plays, and in fact financed the printing of them, amongst other works (Bacon's family crest appears again and again on fronticepieces), that Alfred Dodd devoted an entire and meaty hardback to his life and work, that upset the so called learned men of the 1950's. There is no denying that the works are the Shakespeare plays, and were designed to be. But if the Stratford lad who never left England was the sole writer, how can we explain connections with the courts of Europe that are echoed in specific detail in Love's Labour's Lost? Like so many myths behind famous people, (like the stormy day of Mozart's funeral, pedalled in the film Amadeus, when the weather records that day showed sunshine!), the ones concerning the Stratford lad greatly appeal to our humanity, as is perfectly natural. All of us enjoy the "genius from a small town" concept, the boy with a basic knowledge who transformed the English Language single-handedly. But this pastoral fantasia does no justice to the rich genesis of the flowering of the greatest era in English History, the plays aside. The fact that the Bible had many authors, that Sondheim and Bernstein collaborated on West Side Story, that comics provide material for other comedians, none of this bothers us. But where culturally sophisticated matters are concerned, scholars are always happy to follow the bleeding obvious, whatever the consequences. This is true in all the arts, but the myths surrounding Shakespeare are so embedded into the psyche of our country, that people are not interested in discovering a story that is far more telling, both biographically and spiritually. What a pity.

If the conspiracy theories are as convincing as a bad X-files script, why are those who have made a living out of dubious eighteenth century research so frightened of believing anything that might challenge their books? Even if you are unable to see through the veil of bad scholarship, there are so many leads to the fact that Bacon was involved with the plays, and in fact financed the printing of them, amongst other works (Bacon's family crest appears again and again on fronticepieces), that Alfred Dodd devoted an entire and meaty hardback to his life and work, upsetting the so called learned men of the 1950's. There is no denying that the works are the Shakespeare plays, and were designed to be. But if the Stratford lad who never left England was the sole writer, how can we explain connections with the courts of Europe that are echoed in specific detail in Love's Labour's Lost? Like so many myths behind famous people, (like the stormy day of Mozart's funeral, pedalled in the film Amadeus, when the weather records that day showed sunshine!), the ones concerning the Stratford lad greatly appeal to our humanity, as is perfectly natural. All of us enjoy the "genius from a small town" concept, the boy with a basic knowledge who transformed the English Language single-handedly. But this pastoral fantasia does no justice to the rich genesis of the flowering of the greatest era in English History, the plays aside. The fact that the Bible had many authors, that Sondheim and Bernstein collaborated on West Side Story, that comics provide material for other comedians, none of this bothers us. But where culturally sophisticated matters are concerned, scholars are always happy to follow the bleeding obvious, whatever the consequences. This is true in all the arts, but the myths surrounding Shakespeare are so embedded into the psyche of our country, that people are not interested in discovering a story that is far more telling, both biographically and spiritually. What a pity.