REWRITING SHAKESPEARE?
OH NO ... YET ANOTHER FILM TWISTS THE TALE

Movie makers have quite a reputation for bending, or even ignoring, historical facts in favour of controversy and selling a new story. It's naturally good business for the box office as there's nothing like a good conspiracy theory to get people talking.  The latest film about William Shakespeare certainly fits this pattern.

While 'Anonymous' has been released to mixed reviews there is even greater concern that it presents Shakespeare as a fraud who was nothing more than a puppet for the Earl of Oxford.  The problem is that the film presents its storyline in such an authoritative way that it is likely to confuse and twist history.

A good example of this phenomenon is the film U-571 which is set during World War II. It tells the story of how American sailors captured a secret encryption machine called Enigma that the Third Reich was using to send their top secret signals. The film could be perceived as being based on a true story - which it was in a way. The trick is in the word 'based' - which is a devious little term. The truth is that the U-571 was actually sunk. It was U-110 that was captured and boarded. The Enigma machine was actually discovered by the British Royal Navy. Is this really important? Well ... yes it is if you are in any way concerned about truth and historical accuracy. The discovery of the Enigma machine was a huge breakthrough and an important British achievement but, thanks to the film, vast numbers of people, especially those who've never read a history book, may now believe that that it was the Americans who deserve the credit. Of course there's nothing wrong with fictional stories - they're great fun - so long as people don't confuse them with the truth.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes"
Mark Twain (1835-1910) One of the original doubters
... who should have listened to his own advice.

These activities were part of a campaign by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to tackle the film’s conspiracy theory that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was a barely literate front-man for the Earl of Oxford. 

Dr Paul Edmondson, Head of Knowledge and Research at the charity was quoted as saying:

“This film flies in the face of a mass of historical fact, but there is still a risk that people who have never questioned the authorship of Shakespeare’s works could be hoodwinked.  Shakespeare is at the core of England’s cultural and historical DNA, and he is certainly our most famous export.   Today’s activity barely scratches the surface, but we hope it will remind people of the enormous legacy we owe to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon Avon.  Where better to start a conversation about the true author than in the pubs and streets that bear his name.”

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust also took the conversation online with a website, featuring the voices of HRH The Prince of Wales and Anonymous director Roland Emmerich, as well as 60 authors, actors and scholars answering the big questions about Shakespeare in 60 seconds each. 

Conspiracy theorists often point to Shakespeare's signature as proof that  he didn't write the works attributed to him.  They claim it's a barely literate scrawl and proof that the Bard could hardly write. The reality is that graphologists (hand writing experts) will tell you that highly intelligent and creative people often have appalling handwriting.  It's all to do with the brain working faster than the hand can keep pace.  Just look at the average handwriting of a doctor or a science graduate.

Another claim is that Shakespeare isn't mentioned as a famous playwright in the diary of his son-in-law.  If this is true and not merely a distortion of the facts then it is curious but not exceptional.  Perhaps the diarist didn't like his father-in-law, perhaps the diary is more of a personal journal, maybe he didn't consider writers to be of high worth.  Critics will say that the use of probably and maybe are weak arguments but it's the use of probably and maybe that are also the foundations of the conspiracy theories. The truth is that while one person may have omitted to mention his achievements there is a significant other material that did.  Without a mainstream media to depend on for their news the Elizabethans were notorious gossips.  It's simply inconceivable that Shakespeare could have pulled off a fraud on such a grand scale.

As with any work of brilliance created a long time ago there is a certain amount of devilment in debating the what ifs.  The key reasons why certain people doubt that Shakespeare was the author of these famous works are shaky at best. They are:

Other than a few signatures there are no examples of any letters, poems or creative works written in Shakespeare's own handwriting.

The matter of Shakespeare's scrawl of a signature has already been shown to be irrelevant.  As to the lack of written works this is not as surprising as some critics suggest.  Firstly, paper was valuable during the Elizabethan period and may have been recycled by soaking, mulching and re-pressing - particularly if it had become worn through use.  Secondly, simply because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it never existed.  That would be like convicting a person solely on a lack of evidence. It's just fallacious. In 1832 some stonemasons who were working on Rushton Hall in Northamptonshire discovered a cache of papers dating back hundreds of years.  Some of these documents linked Francis Tresham  to the 'Guy Fawkes'  Gunpowder Plot of the 5th of November 1605.  Still, most of the papers were just working records and administrative documents.  Why were they hidden?  Papers get lost, filed away, hidden in walls, recycled and even deliberately destroyed.  This isn't evidence - it's speculation.

His legal will makes no reference to his works, plays, poems or musical instruments. It does mention his second best bed which he left to Anne Hathaway his wife.

Again, a lack of evidence is not proof.  A simple reason why they weren't mentioned in the will is because he had already made arrangements for them.  They were artistic works which may have had far less value than a real bed - especially during a historical period where the concept of copyright was still in its infancy. Many people have speculated that Shakespeare left Anne Hathaway 'his second best bed" because she was unimportant.  In reality, the opposite is likely to be true.  The best bed was often kept for guests and it would have been the second best bed that he shared with Anne.  So, in truth,  he gave her the bed that had the most sentimental value.  The will does not mention the best bed at all.  If the will could ignore an expensive item like the very best bed then it would be trivial matter to overlook his writings.  It is a huge mistake to judge people who lived hundreds of years ago by the same values that are used by society today.

The material in his plays demonstrates a knowledge far greater and more worldly than Shakespeare could have possibly experienced.

This has to be the most spurious claim. London was one of the 'great' cities of the world during the Elizabethan period.  London was brimming over with foreign travellers and immigrants all of whom would have had very detailed firsthand knowledge of the places about which Shakespeare has written. Writers research their material using whatever sources are available and there would have been plenty for Shakespeare. There is also the matter of the lost years.  At least 14 years of Shakespeare's life are undocumented - critics overlook this period but the fact is that Shakespeare could have travelled or even been the assistant of a high ranking nobleman. He may have spent time in Italy which would explain his familiarity with the region and its prevalence in his works. Historians just don't know.

The first reference to Shakespeare as the author only appeared in the First Folio Testimony some seven years after his death .

What does this actually mean?  Perhaps it means exactly what it says.  These are the works of William Shakespeare.  It could have easily taken years to collect together all the material.  Perhaps there were legal issues surrounding ownership that had to be resolved.  Some may have already belonged to others - hence no mention of them in the will - and had to be purchased. It has also been claimed that the comments of Heminges and Condell sound like a sales pitch.  Is this relevant? Both men were actors and would have been given to flowery language and both men supported the works.  Even today the blurb on the back of any modern novel tends to boost the reputation of the author.

The comments made in answer to the questions above are not meant to be scholarly or even complete but hopefully demonstrate that a lack of evidence is not the same as proof and that for every question there is a potential answer.

The historical record regarding William Shakespeare is incomplete.  Hopefully more documents will be discovered that reveal the truth but in the meantime it's important to avoid the temptation of filling the void with speculation. One thing is certain - the plays and poems of Shakespeare were the work of a genius and were hugely popular.  What is really surprising is not the lack of evidence that Shakespeare wrote them ... but the lack of evidence that anyone else tried to claim credit for them.

The most likely truth is that Shakespeare wrote the works of Shakespeare.  The film Anonymous may well be entertaining, well crafted and even intriguing but it's a work of fiction and audiences need to know it's not even based on probably ... at best it's based on a maybe.

On Friday 28th October 2011 Dr Edmondson and Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, will publish a free e-book, Shakespeare Bites Back, (www.shakespearebitesback.com) which sets out the evidence for Shakespeare as the true author of the plays which bear his name.