47 thoughts on “More Like Shakesbeer, Amiright?”

1. As Irving waltzed through Stratford “under the wizard influence of Shakespeare,” he viewed his surroundings in a romanticized nature. Influenced by the poetic tales and eloquent phrases which had become so stemmed in this physical location, he characterized his surroundings within the scope of such poetic fantasies. However, he soon realized that he “had been surrounded with fancied beings; with mere airy nothings, conjured up by poetic power; yet which, to me, had all the charm of reality.” The thrilling experience was only made so by the idea that Shakespeare and all his works resided in this singular place, automatically making it appear much more fascinating than the quite regular actuality of it. Without Shakespeare, it would be an average town. This literary fantasy land is perhaps the intention of such a conspiracy. If, Shakespeare was in fact a hoax, then it is possible the true writer(s) longed to create an idealized, omnipotent poetic figure that would live long after their deaths. Thus, discovering that Shakespeare was actually a hoax, and that his works were crafted by some unknown entity, would destroy generations of praise for the mythical language creature he is illustrated as. If his works were written by multiple sources, it would ruin the image of a singular master mind. I think this mystery adds to his works just as the idea of the Da Vinci Code contributes another layer to the Mona Lisa, adding to its intriguing multifaceted nature. I believe at this point Shakespeare’s works have acquired enough prestige that they would remain popular if it was verified that he had nothing to do with his plays. The fantastical poetry image may have contributed to his rise to fame, though it would no longer be necessary at this point given how accredited, researched, and famous he is.

   LikeLike

   1. Great comment, Emma – especially relevant when I think about all of Shakespeare’s references to immortalizing oneself through art in his plays and sonnets, not to mention the epitaph Irving references from his gravestone:

      “Good friend for Jesus’ sake forbeare
      To dig the dust enclosed here.
      Blessed be he that spares these stones,
      And cursed be he that moves my bones.”

      Despite repeated attempts for various motives throughout the years, these ominous last words of Shakespeare have restricted even the most persistent scholars from excavating the grave site.

      The world does need its heroes, but it also also loves a good conspiracy. In any case, Shakespeare, whosoever he may be, got his wish in the end: we’re still talking about him at least as much today as we were in the 16th century!

      LikeLike

   2. I agree that the idea of Shakespeare being a hoax would definitely point towards the true writers wanting to create an idealized and near-immortal figure to carry their messages and writing posthumously. If Shakespeare were to be a collaborative effort amongst many writers, this motivation would make the most sense. By combining their unique talents and writings, the creators would be able to form a body of writing more diverse and outstanding than ever seen in history. However, I don’t think that Shakespeare being a hoax would really take away anything from the legitimacy of the writings produced under his name. Schools do not require Shakespeare in their curriculum just because it’s cool that he wrote so many good poems and plays. Rather, schools teach Shakespeare because the writings are beautifully composed and offer multiple points of teaching and opportunities for learning. Sure, Shakespeare’s personal legacy may be slightly tarnished, but the quality of his plays will not be. The quality of art often stands independent from the artist’s. With all of this, I don’t really think it matters if Shakespeare was real or not. Irving states he is “ever willing to be deceived, where the deceit is pleasant and costs nothing.” There’s no real benefit or cost to knowing if Shakespeare was, in fact, a singular identity or the amalgamation of many different writers. His writing will continue to influence literature and pop culture as it has done for the past 400 years. People would still refer to the plays as his, even with the subdued knowledge that Shakespeare might only be an alias.

      LikeLike

2. When people think of some of the best writers to ever live, the first, and almost always the most popular writer in the world is Shakespeare. A man immortalized in the writing world. In order to believe the “fabricated conspiracy”, one must find the motivation in deep places of darkness. The motivation for such a conspiracy could be derived from a number of things. “Stratford on Avon” argues that Shakespeare was merely a pawn used as a sort of scapegoat for political uprisings during his time, “For Shakespeare, even in his
   caricature, makes Justice Shallow importunate in this respect, as
   witness his pressing instances to Falstaff.” He was the perfect candidate for them.
   They needed a face for the play rights so the citizens and political parties would not deem these writes as political motives, but for laughter during uneasy times.
   If Shakespeare did not write these play writes, it changes things drastically. There no longer is a face to the writing. It would denounce him as not only a writer, but a person too. Why would we as a society study a random man who just so happened to be the face of some of the greatest stories ever told? It would not make sense.
   I believe that no matter what course is taken, this will denounce from Shakespeare’s legacy. It will because scholars would likely see him as more of a lover of beer than lover of writing.
   If it came out that Shakespeare was not even apart of his writings, why would we study him? The works themselves should be studied, but that does not mean the author, or lack thereof an author needs to be studied. If he did not write the plays, 20 years from now, children in school would not even know his name.

   LikeLike

3. Irving takes the time to describe the surroundings of where Shakespeare grew up and wrote his poems. He describes an experience when he arrives. Irving explains “The words of sweet Shakespeare were just passing through my mind as the clock struck midnight from the tower of the church in which he lies buried”. There almost appears to be a mocking tone when he writes “Sweet Shakespeare” hinting at the fact that he believes Shakespeare is a hoax. The reasoning for the alias could be several things, but the most likely is remembrance without reputation.

   The writer’s alias will live well past the life of the writer. The writer could have wanted to be remembered for something other than his work, so he used an alias rather than his own name. He could see what others think of the writing without hurting his own reputation. If people love it, the name will be remembered for generations. If not, it will be forgotten, and his reputation is not harmed. Meanwhile, he is free to go about building his own name’s reputation. The two are independent of each other.

   Knowing that he is faked would deter readers, but the mystery itself draws attention to his work. If a writer uses an alias in present day, then reveals them self as the true writer, it draws attention to the work, and they become more popular. If there is discussion as to whether a writer is real, it gets some sort of media coverage and their work generally becomes more popular as a result.

   In this case, I think that Shakespeare’s name will still be taught, but not in the way we learn about him now. He will be referenced as the name that the true writer used to publish plays, not as a genius playwriter himself. This, in turn, will result in Shakespeare being much less popular

   LikeLike

4. The motives for fabricating the conspiracy that Shakespeare is not the real deal could be rooted in small town minded people. Like many small towns, the locals in Stratford-upon-Avon could be angry that people are coming to their town to see Shakespeare related attractions. Stereotypically, this could be true because many natives to small towns are not huge fans of outsiders. This conclusion can be drawn from Irving’s description of a conversion with a local man. He wrote “I soon discovered that he looked upon her mansion with an evil eye, as a rival to the poet’s tomb; the latter having comparatively but few visitors.” The mystery surround Shakespeare adds to his body of work. It allows more interpretations of his works due to some of them having unknown origins and/or backstories as well as adding a degree of mystery to his works that is appealing to many. Not knowing if Shakespeare is who we think he is contributes to the popularity of his works. I think that Shakespeare would become even more well known for pulling off the biggest scam of the last few centuries. If he ended up not being the “real deal” he would have been able to convince generations of people that dozens of literary masterpieces were his. While he would continue to be popular, he would be popular as the man who was associated with the plays and poems and despite the suspicions of many, took people are extremely long time to figure out his true contributions to the works. Therefore, while still using his works in schools, teachers would have to include a history lesson about how Shakespeare is no longer the sole name associated with his works.

   LikeLike

5. I think that there is very little to gain by lying about who wrote Shakespeare’s works. Irving discusses that while in the village, the sexton “looked upon her
   mansion with an evil eye, as a rival to the poet’s tomb; the latter
   having comparatively but few visitors”. A women managed what she claimed to be Shakespeare’s family home. Outside of maybe getting more visitors to the location you manage, the benefit seems trivial since there is no copyright on his works and so thus anyone can sell things relating to them. If it was discovered that he was not in fact the author, I think that status would become his new association in relation to the works. Certainly, I don’t think of some conspiracy when I think of his works, as I doubt most people do. So thus I feel that there is very little added, or subtracted from the value of his works by there being some mystery. If Shakespeare is really the author of all the works he is associated with, which I would say he is, it can be hard to verify many of the details regarding his life as, like Irving says “mere pebbles make the stream of truth
   diverge into different channels even at the fountain head”. The truth sometimes must be cobbled together by many different streams in order to get a story. Truly though, even if the conspiracy is true, little benefit is to be had for any party. Little as mentioned above is to be added to his works. At most, mystery surrounding his inspirations for some works make them interesting, and open to interpretation. As far as his whole canon of works go though, little changes in my view, and I am sure in the view of many others.

   LikeLike

6. I do not believe that “Shakespeare’s” works would be nearly as popular if from the very beginning, they were known to be written by different authors. The writings that fall under the umbrella of Shakespeare, while there are a few that deserve recognition, would, in my opinion, be largely neglected if they were not in fact written by the great man. Now if it came out quite recently that he had nothing to do with the plays, I do think that they would be as, if not more, popular than they are now. The mystery surrounding his body of work adds to it from a scholar’s point of view, however I think that the general public is unaware of any kind of controversy and it would neither add nor subtract from their opinions of his plays. It really matters very little in the end who wrote the plays. They are still published, after all. The difference lies in how well known they are. Having a singular author for so many great plays is an oddity and we credit him with having a rather large influence over even the language we speak. As for motives, I see no good ones for the possible others that may have actually wrote the plays. But like the woman in England, there are those in the present day that stand to profit in some way from keeping Shakespeare as the sole great author.

   LikeLike

7. The mystery surrounding Shakespeare’s work is almost as tantalizing as the work itself. The myth of Shakespeare could be motivated by cultural or monetary means, and if true it is very likely to have been a combination of both. Any great group achievement holds more credit if done by only one person, and this is where the credibility of the multiple authors theory comes from. Any lone piece could be identified independently as a good poet, but the idea of one man creating it all signifies a literary savant. Centralizing all of the work under one author and name also makes it more significant economically. Its difficult to gain popularity and therefore money from a limited range of works but the collection allegedly penned by Shakespeare speaks to people of many different backgrounds, therefore creating a wide fan base even if it was post-mortem. He would not have been as popular if the plays were not penned by him, however most of the plays would not be as popular either. By uniting them all under the Shakespeare name, they shared the spotlight which might not have happened otherwise. That being said, the significance of the works does not bear as strong of a relationship to the author as some people claim. If Shakespeare never touched Romeo and Juliet, the piece would carry just as strong of a heartbreak. The story of Macbeth maintains its ominous tone regardless of the name printed on the cover. Shakespeare’s name convinces modern readers to give his works the benefit of the doubt whilst reading. This action helps the poem or play live on, regardless of who originally wrote it.

   LikeLike

8. I believe Shakespeare’s plays could have been written by some other person that was not Shakespeare or several people. The latter reason seems more probably and could be why Shakespeare’s writing is so profound and timeless. This would help explain the complexity and fascination of his work. To me, this would take away some legitimacy from Shakespeare’s name, as well as from his work. In “Stratford on Avon” Washington Irving visits where Shakespeare lived and is buried. Irving expresses his belief that it does not make a difference if Shakespeare really wrote his plays or not. Irving says, “What is it to us, whether these stories be true or false, so long as we can persuade ourselves into the belief of them, and enjoy all the charm of the reality?” To merely enjoy Shakespeare’s work, this is true. Knowing if it was written by Shakespeare himself or by someone else does not make a difference. The difference appears when studying Shakespeare’s work. How can one really appreciate the legacy of Shakespeare if his work was not original? There is a difference between art created by several people and art created by one person. Part of the reason Shakespeare is appreciated so much is because he is one man who was able to create plays that are still prevalent almost 400 years later. If people knew Shakespeare was not really written by Shakespeare, his work would still be studied as it is a part of history, but it would not be as prevalent as it is today.

   LikeLike

9. Shakespeare is one of the most studied playwrights in history. His contribution to literature and the English language is profound. Through all this, there is some debate as to the legitimacy of Shakespeare’s work, and many seem to wonder if he did write it all by himself. While the answer to this question is unknown, Irving seems to have supported the theory that Shakespeare is the sole playwright when he states, “Stratford lost an indifferent woolcomber, and the world gained an immortal poet.” He then justifies that Shakespeare was so great a writer because of his experiences and scenery of where he grew up. This mystery about Shakespeare only adds to the significance of his works. The mystery of the true origins of his works allows them to be open to interpretation from many points of view. If the works were written by multiple people, then it only allows for multiple interpretations of the work to be made. If it was, in fact, written by a single author, then it also adds to the magnificence of his work as he had the ability to write such a vast amount of works with so many interpretations associated with them. This adds on to what makes Shakespeare so timeless, and why it is still being studied today. Regardless of if the mystery adds to Shakespeare or not, I think that his works would not be as popular if it came to be known that he did not write all his plays. I think people are most impressed with Shakespeare because of his plethora of works, that all supposedly came from a single author. If it were found that he did not write everything, people would be less impressed by the works, and would likely view the works as solid pieces of literature, but nothing out that goes above and beyond what could be expected from literature.

   LikeLike

10. Despite the efforts to say that Shakespeare did not write his won plays, he still goes down as one of he most well renowned poets of the 16th century. If it can be truly discovered that Shakespeare was not merely behind his works, then that would have a lasting effect on his legacy and the way we talk about him today. Irving describes the time he visited Shakespeare’s birthplace by saying “I had been surrounded by fancied beings; with mere airy nothings, conjured up by poetic power; yet which, to me, had all the charm of reality.” It seems that Shakespeare had a lot of influences surrounding him to be a poet from the beginning, and Shakespeare brought life to that place at the same time. I feel that the reason for poets to claim Shakespeare of being a hoax is because they want their works to be a symbol of history in the way that Shakespeare’s were. If Shakespeare were a hoax, it would be foolish of us to study his works from as early as our first years of high school. It would definitely detract from his body of work because we would be learning about something that was not written by the man that we believe. We learn about Shakespeare because of the style of writing and the messages that his plays have to offer. He is a pioneer in his field of poetry that some poets try and emulate. Believing that he had nothing to do with his plays would be foolish thinking. His works will continue to be studying for many years to come.

    LikeLike

11. I believe that whether or not Shakespeare is the real deal does not add or detract from his work. While people think of his plays as something a mastermind created and there is a sense of awe around his writings because of the beautiful writing and the many discussion points in each piece of writing, I think we would still be talking about them just as much if they were composed of multiple authors. People do not teach or discuss Shakespeare just because of who wrote it, instead they focus on what is being said and what can be learned from the writing itself. This makes me believe that just because more than one person contributed to Shakespeare does not mean that it would be any less popular than it currently is. I think that the mystery surrounding Shakespeare enhances his work because it gives people more to talk about. Many times when people analyze writings, they look into the author and learn their background in hopes of learning the reason that the particular writing was written. If there is a mystery surrounding the author of the work, there will be more discussion about the reason for the writing and a debate on whether or not knowing who the author is adds to the work being discussed. I think this debate will cause there to be more interest in Shakespeare than there already is and add to his popularity. I believe that no matter who wrote the plays and how many conspiracy theories come out about who Shakespeare was and what he wrote, his plays will always remain popular and will continue to be discussed as much, if not more, than they already are.

    LikeLike

    1. I totally agree. Why does it matter who wrote the works if they do not want credit for them in the first place? It shouldn’t. The point is to appreciate the masterpieces that are Shakespeare’s works for what they are – regardless of what he is. Shakespeare is an idea, a thought, a style, and a pioneer, regardless of his human form. I like your point about the mysteries surrounding the works if we do not know anything about who wrote the works. This could lead to even more in-depth analysis of the works in the long run. In the end, Shakespeare’s role in “his” works is meaningless compared to the impact that they have had on the world.

       LikeLike

12. Agreeing with CDT MacDonald, Washington Irving exhibits the awe that many readers go through when observing William Shakespeare. Washington Irving becomes sucked into the “wizard influence of Shakespeare” while at Shakespeare’s birthplace. He had been starstruck, noticing the mystical nature surrounding the house, as “swans were sailing majestically upon its bosom.” He was stuck with the fantasy of Shakespeare. He was on the grounds of this extortionary poet, and was so excited that “it was a long time before [he] could prevail upon myself to leave the place”. The mystery of Shakespeare produces a stirring feeling in our stomachs, just like any other mystery. This mystery of Shakespeare does not detract his work but ultimately makes his work more attractive to read. When reading a piece of his work, the reader is adding onto its mystery, attempting to make a judgment for their own. No one knows who Shakespeare really is, and that is what makes his work so powerful. Since many people read him, his ideas come to light, therefore making his work more significant. However, if it came out that Shakespeare was a hoax today, I believe that it would not matter, as his ideas have already been mesmerized. His ideas have been engraved in us since the 1800s, so changing our mindset would be difficult. If he was a hoax, instead of focusing on his ideas, we would focus on works that help identify who he really was. Furthermore, Shakespeare would still be read and adored one way or the other.

    LikeLike

13. If Shakespeare was just a drunk actor and not actually this brilliant playwright that the world believes him to be then the attention as well as the way, we look at him would be different. I am positive that he would not get as much attention from the English societies because what importance does an actor have regarding literature. However, his importance in the theatre would remain the same, if not increase because he would be an amazing Victorian actor performed some of the most famous plays in history. This addresses the last question, “do you think Shakespeare would be as popular if he had nothing to do with the plays?” In my opinion, I do believe he would be less popular because when I think of Shakespeare I think of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Richard III, etc. And if he was no associated with these plays, especially as their writer, because he has always been taught in English class and if he is no longer important to English history then I do not think I would know who he is. Lastly, I think people would make conspiracies such as this because it removes some of the fame of Shakespeare and attacks the life of Shakespeare. After reading the essay by Irvin, I will admit that Shakespeare and his life do sound relatively fake because of the way Irvin describes him. It is unrealistic to walk around a house and see the inspiration for multiple stories, so in this aspect, I can understand the critics. But, for the sake of what I have learned my entire life, I do believe that Shakespeare is the real deal because his plays do not appear to me be written by the Earl of Oxford. They seem to be written by someone who cares, someone who is passionate, someone who is William Shakespeare.

    LikeLike

14. Shakespeare is Shakespeare, whether he is one person writing numerous plays, or many individuals writing under a pen name. I do not think there would be a big difference if Shakespeare was discovered to be fake, as in not actually Shakespeare but many authors or the Earl of Oxford’s pen name. He has contributed so much to the literary world that it would be hard to near impossible to discredit all his work. I think regardless of who Shakespeare is, his works will still hold literary merit and will still be renown. I think that if it came out that Shakespeare had absolutely nothing to do with the plays his popularity would decline and there would be much controversy. I think that the plays written would still be popular, its just his own popularity would decrease and not the works itself. I think the mystery around Shakespeare adds onto his work. His works, such as his play were probably edited by the actors when they performed them in order to better fit their acts. All these little additions and changes caused many variation of the same work, so this may add onto the myths of Shakespeare. This is part of the mystery to Shakespeare, and it adds onto his works by literally changing his original work. When many words and phrases came from the mind of Shakespeare, I believe it would be hard to completely discredit Shakespeare from his works if it did come out that he was fake.

    LikeLike

15. Possibly the most influential writer in history, William Shakespeare is revered for his wide body of masterful works. His plays have been critiqued and reviewed for hundreds of years; the tiniest details illuminated under spotlights. The man himself, however, still holds on to his mystique. There has been constant debate over whether William Shakespeare was who we think he is. Theories say that he could have been an actor fronting for another secret writer or group of writers. Some think this is an important question to answer; that its resolution has far reaching implications for the scope of literature. I would argue that it makes no difference if it was truly William Shakespeare penning the plays. When we think of how much Shakespeare has influenced literature, it’s always through his works. The stories and their artful crafting have influenced countless generations of writers and poets. Even if it wasn’t truly Shakespeare, or if it was many people, the works maintain the same impact they have had on those who adore them. The plays would be equally famous without William Shakespeare as their head. The only difference might be that the plays sit next to each other on the shelves instead of in the same book. It is a waste of time to try and figure out where exactly the stories came from because, either way, they’re here and they’re not going anywhere. I can guarantee that, if there is a mystery writer out there who secretly penned all of these works, they don’t care if they get credit. Whoever wrote these stories is dead now—the works, though, remain.

    LikeLike

16. Irving’s “STRATFORD ON AVON” inspects both phycological and historical questions around academia’s widespread credulity surrounding the romanticism of Shakespeare. To establish credibility, Irving first claims, “I am always of easy faith in such matters, and am ever willing to be deceived, where the deceit is pleasant and costs nothing. I am therefore a ready believer in relics, legends, and local anecdotes of goblins and great men.” This claim suggests that Irving has no special interest motivation to question Shakespeare’s legitimacy. He is simply an avid student enthused by this new puzzle. In Irving’s travel through the hallowed ground of literary greatness, he is first alarmed by the normalcy of Stratford. Irving questions: What is so significant about an unremarkable place if its only distinguishing factor is the birth and death of a man 200 years ago? Some townspeople even question the legitimacy of the historic claims to fame. Irving introduces evidence ranging from accounts of Shakespeare’s drunken habits to Stratford’s enchantment and interest in maintaining his legacy. However, Irving interestingly includes this question: “What is it to us, whether these stories be true or false, so long as we can persuade ourselves into the belief of them, and enjoy all the charm of the reality?” Shakespeare’s academic significance comes from the literary prowess displayed by an artist’s distinct skill; it doesn’t much matter who that artist is. Furthermore, the enchantment with art is only increased by controversy.

    LikeLike

17. William Shakespeare is one of the most popular English literature writers in the world. He is the author of well known “Romeo and Juliet,” “Hamlet,” or “Macbeth.” He was famous during the life but his fame grew mainly after his death. For many years he has been accused of appropriation of other people’s works. However, I believe that Shakespeare created this conspiracy theory to gain popularity. Mystery surrounding Shakespeare adds secrecy and thus popularity to his legacy. Which is proved by the Irving essay. “I am always of easy faith in such matters […] I am therefore a ready believer in relicts […] and great men.” However, if it was not Shakespeare who was the creator of these works, it means that he was a very efficient manipulator, which would be confirmed by the fact that to this day there is no evidence for a hoax. However, if it was proved that it was a hoax, the demand and sale of “non-Shakespeare” would increase significantly. For some time the world media would be interested in it, but then only people dealing with literature would pay attention to it. When it comes to works, I think that regardless of the author, they would remain recognized as the most outstanding works of English and world literature. Regardless of whether Shakespeare was the creator of such works as “Rome and Juliet,” his name will remain known, either as a great author or as a great cheater.

    LikeLike

18. It is almost impossible, whenever someone thinks of famous poets, to not think of Shakespeare. However, Romeo and Juliet were not one of Shakespeare’s original ideas. The play, Romeo and Juliet, was based on a Greco-Roman myth of Pyramus and Thisbe. Pyramus and Thisbe were two lovers who were forbidden to wed because of their parent’s rivalry, so they communicated through a crack in a wall. The story plot Romeo and Juliet are the same as Pyramus and Thisbe. This evidence can support the argument that Shakespeare was not the real deal. Shakespeare was not original in the independent thought of many of his famous works. However, many people can concur with most scholars who claim and believe that Shakespeare is the “real deal” because of the great quality of Shakespeare’s works, whether they be his original independent thought or not. In my readings of Washington Irving’s essay, “Stratford on Avon”, my interpretation was that Irving was saying that the originality of Shakespeare’s works did not matter. Irvin claims that what mattered the most was the enjoyment and pleasure of the quality of the poems and for what they are worth as he states, “What is it to us, whether these stories be true or false, so long as we can persuade ourselves into the belief of them, and enjoy all the charm of the reality?” (4). Shakespeare provided entertainment that many people enjoy for the substance of his works and the complex thought and various interpretations that can be drawn from reading them.

    LikeLike

19. I believe that it is only somewhat important who Shakespeare was. If he were just a drunken actor I believe that the people of the time would begin to find “flaws” in his plays in order to rationalize the idea of him being the famous playwright. Another way in this would play out is the people may end up attributing his work to someone else and eventually he would lose credibility. However, I believe that as time were to pass on his works would still be as appreciated as it now because I believe that if he were just a drunk many would find his character to be even more interesting than they do now. I believe that his character is just as important as his plays in many ways because the mystery that surrounds him has led to strong discussions of who the mastermind behind these famous plays really is. I believe that if it were to come out that Shakespeare had nothing to do with his plays people would still be interested in the plays because regardless of who wrote them they are some of the most well known and famous plays ever written. The one who wrote them however, is sought in order to help interpret the meaning of the poems. Additionally, if it did come out that he did not write his plays I believe that it would help brings his plays in the spotlight and lead to a search of who wrote them.

    LikeLike

20. It does not matter if Shakespeare was a real person or not. The magnitude of his work would not change, and the impact would not be any different. The works of Shakespeare have already affected so many parts of the English language that it is irrelevant if he is real or not. No one fantasized Shakespeare because of the person he was, instead he was admired because of his poetic skills. One must still respect the mastery of the English language produced in Shakespeare’s works regardless if many different people wrote it. Even hundreds of years later, who Shakespeare was or what he did outside of his poetic career does not affect the way we read his poems. When people think of Shakespeare they think of his poems, not where he lived or what his life was like. When analyzing a poem linguists study the words of the poem and not who the author is until supplemental analysis is needed. Without even knowing who Shakespeare was as a person, one can analyze his work and still appreciate the pure mastery of the language. However, the whole image of Shakespeare would be undercut by the discovery that he was a hoax. The impact on the past would not be undone; however, in the future no one could read his works without the shadow of conspiracy. Overall, whether Shakespeare was real or not is trivial this far after he lived, but it would still impact the overall view that people hold about his works.

    LikeLike

21. Given the circumstances that surround the success of Shakespeare, I would propose that Shakespeare did write the plays, even if they borrowed heavily from others. I think the main result of attempting to creating such ideas, mainly arise out of a lack of a definite manner to check the originality of the work. As the time of Shakespeare lacked citations and antiplagiarism that so often, we use to protect the concept of intellectual work. It is through this that the idea that Shakespeare did not create this work on his own is allowed the necessary space to establish itself. Ultimately, I think given the time that Shakespeare has had to establish himself in the lexicon of English literature, even if Shakespeare being a fraud was proven to be true, it would be little in terms of effect, providing to only make a fraction of the effect originality intended, as very few, in my estimation would purposeful change how they think about literature to accommodate for this. Overall, I would say that because of the impact of Shakespeare’s literature, his history and individual circumstance would have little effect on how others view his work as the two can easily be viewed separately. The lack of information even now that surrounds Shakespeare despite his importance, I think does add to his work in the sense as his history cannot be referenced in understanding his work, only our estimations of what the work means to us can suffice as there is no way to check in a sense.

    LikeLike

22. I believe Shakespeare is the real deal. Although I hate reading Shakespeare, he undoubtedly has had one of the largest lasting impacts in both literature and the performing arts. Every person who has even the basic level of high school education has heard of him. In fact, they have probably even read some of his works. One thing is for sure, their life has been influenced by Shakespeare in some way, shape, or form. So often, movies, drama performances, and books are written off the basis of something Shakespearean. For instance, movies like Gnomeo and Juliet, Warm Bodies, and even Lion King are arguably works that have descended from Shakespeare. Personally, I would have to agree with most scholars that Shakespeare is one of the greatest of all time in the literary world. I do believe that any attempt to prove this conspiracy is based off insufficient evidence. I don’t think it is possible for all his famous works to be penned by several different authors. It just doesn’t make sense. I do believe that this conspiracy would detract from his work, but his work is already so blown up that it would not have any true effect on his current popularity. I also believe if the idea came out that Shakespeare had nothing to do with his plays that he would still be just as popular. Over history he has gained way too much popularity and liking that it would be impossible to take all of it away without literally going back in time and stopping the explosion of popularity in the distant past.

    LikeLike

23. Whether or not Shakespeare was the real writer, it would not have a significant impact on the popularity of the plays. The content of the plays is so rich and irreplaceable that it has stood the test of time as popular plays. If Shakespeare is not the real author, then one reason that the “real” writer would falsify the author is to use him as a safety. If they were not sure that their plays or writing were going to be successful, they would not want the failure to be associated with their name, so they used another one as a way to be able to start again. This conspiracy definitely makes his work more interesting and lets you view the plays from a different perspective. If Shakespeare actually did not have anything to do with the plays, then he would lose a lot of his popularity. He would no longer be seen as a brilliant writer, but rather as a fraud. He would become infamous instead of being famous. If he did not write the plays, then he would not have any contribution to the great works of art and literature. Without a contribution, there is no display of skill or talent or any brilliance. The only thing he would be known as is the fake author of those great plays. Overall, the popularity of Shakespeare’s name is dependent on the credibility of his authorship. However, this would not have a major effect on the adoration of his plays.

    LikeLike

24. Since the 1800s, people have considered the possibility that the famous works of Shakespeare that defined theater, poetry, and the English language itself were written by somebody else. This is a conspiracy that has never been proven, because it is most likely that Shakespeare himself did indeed write all his own works. Washington Irving wrote an essay that presents a romanticized view of Shakespeare, shown from the perspective of a person who is visiting his childhood home and grave site. This romanticized image gives us insight into why a conspiracy like this would be created. Shakespeare has a massive base of fans and critics, so scandal or conspiracy regarding authorship would cause a large disruption. The difference the truth makes in this situation is that the great influence of Shakespeare’s works could not be defined by a single man. The fame of Stratford-upon-Avon described by Irving would not exist, nor would the fame of the Globe theater. The fame would be replaced with mystery and drama if we believed that somebody else, or several others wrote the famous works. For example, in the movie Anonymous, an entire dramatic plot was created upon the basis that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays, but allowed Shakespeare the credit because it was not correct socially for a man of his position to be writing plays. Some people like the drama of this mystery almost as much as the works themselves. If it were proven that somebody else wrote all the plays, they would become even more popular. Part of literature is understanding the author’s intent. If the author changes, it opens up a new frontier of analysis to be done. More people will seek to understand the plays, or debate those who do not accept the truth.

    LikeLike

25. Even if Shakespeare isn’t who we believe he is I don’t think it would change the impact of the writings “he” has made. Most people would cry out for the correct author to be given their due diligence and for their name to be put on the plays and other works of art. However the impact has still been made and people would continue to reference the writings and analyze them. I also think that they mystery surrounding his body of work provides new insight and allows people to look at it from a different perspective as well as to search other works for inspiration of his work. Mainly I think the mystery allows us to make connections we previously might have over looked and gives people a reason to delve into old records to find the original source. I think Shakespeare would still be just as popular even if it came out that he had nothing to do with his plays because once again it adds into the idea of searching for who was the original writer while adding infamy to Shakespeare’s name and reputation. This would also once again give people a reason to revisit and re-criticize his work while searching for possibly a more in-depth meaning to the writing since it would not be completely connected to him. It would give us a new avenue of approach to analyze the writing, plays, and poetry.

    LikeLike

26. A possible motive for fabricating a conspiracy could lead back to fame. Someone who is able to prove that one of the greatest playwrights actually plagiarized someone else’s work would be one remembered. If Shakespeare is not who we believe he is, then there is a feeling of betrayal to those whom loved him. It would be similar to a child’s mom telling them they were adopted when they’re 60. He or she grew up believing in a lie. The mystery adds to his work due to curiosity. When someone is curious it has been proven that they will think more on it and dwell in the contemplation’s of the mind. I think if it was revealed that Shakespeare had absolutely nothing to do with the plays, he would be remembered for the greatest trickster in history. He would have been able to fool multitudes of scholars in believing that he was the original author of his work. Shakespeare would probably be even more popular if it came out that he had nothing to do with what he wrote. The lines that are beautifully written and thoughtfully composed would lose all legitimacy. He would not be known for his writings, rather how he was able to fool generations upon generations through his fabricated pieces. All in all, as much as the work of Shakespeare is loved and endeared, finding out something is fake drastically changes the importance something or someone once had.

    LikeLike

27. Everybody loves a good conspiracy, and almost every historical figure has some conspiracy tide to them, but could Shakespeare all together be a fake? I believe the mystery behind this conspiracy adds to the wonder and fame of Shakespeare. No can realistically argue that Shakespeare’s work is not brilliant and revolutionary, so the next best argument is the validity of the work itself, instead of attacking the work people attack the man. But I believe if this conspiracy were to be true then the value of Shakespeare work would take a drastic fall and the importance behind his work would lose its luster. But there is the chance that the masses would not care if his work was not his, like the case of Meek Mill and Drake when the accusation that Drake has a ghost rider was publicized most people id not care they just appreciated his work. If Shakespeare had nothing to do with his plays, he would still be popular because his name is attached to the work and he is the figurehead that is associated with it. The real motive behind this kind of attack are most likely jealous in my opinion, but the brilliance of Shakespeare was able to withstand this test. In Shakespeare’s Sonnet 60, he reveals how worried he is that his work will not stand the test of time and that he will lose his value, which sounds to me like someone who truly care about there work and not a fraud.

    LikeLike

28. The works of William Shakespeare have had an impact on the English language and culture unequaled by any other writer. The conspiratorial accusations that Shakespeare may not have written his own plays places do detract from the idea of Shakespeare as a whole, by which I mean Shakespeare as a subject often receiving entire blocks of instruction in educational institutions. However, regardless of the authorship of the countless literary masterpieces penned by the author, the quality or writing and the impact on English culture are immeasurable and still merit study. I feel that the popularity of many of his works, particularly the lesser known works, would drastically fall. Part of this Shakespearean identity is the idea that, “he was brought up to his father’s craft of wool-combing” (Irving 3). The idea that a poor, working class child could go on to create among the most treasured masterpieces in all of literary history remains inspiring an is likely a major reason that his works have remained so popular through the years. Throughout the study of history, stories of underdogs overcoming great challenges often become important areas of study for casual learners. Andrew Carnegie overcoming being a poor Scottish immigrant, the fledgling United States taking on the largest empire in the world, and a poor workers son creating the foundation for modern English literature are but a handful of these topics which gain so much adoration from learners because everyone can relate to trying to overcome adversity. In my opinion, the mystery of the authorship of William Shakespeare’s birth takes away from the whole point of studying Shakespeare. The idea that it might have actually been some rich lord writing these masterpieces instead of a lower class man by birth detract from the idea that anyone can be responsible for the great changes in history.

    LikeLike

29. The motivations for discrediting someone as influential as William Shakespeare are actually many. It would be naive to think that Shakespeare is the only playwright of his time so it would be safe to assume that many others who also worked in the arts would be overshadowed by his works. It’s only natural that you would want to be able to have the same opportunity to express your works but if the people and even the monarchy are supporting one artist then of course it could become hard to even gain interest. If it is really true that Shakespeare is not who he is portrayed in history and English today, it could perpetuate a noticeable conversation on first of all who his really behind the multitude of works by Shakespeare and what does it change about our perceptions of his works. In all honesty, the conspiracy if anything just brings more attention to Shakespeare’s works in general increasing the amount of people analyzing for themselves to look for discrepancies. This does not really detract from his work but in a way it bolsters the narrative that most Shakespearean plays often have with raunchy concepts that pushed the boundaries both in his time and even nowadays. If though it was brought to light that Shakespeare was not the mastermind behind his works, I do not think it would take really anything away from his popularity in the masses. The man is an immortalized figure in English history and that is not something that can be so easily wiped from not only text but the minds that his works affected.

    LikeLike

30. Shakespeare’s influence remains important to society today. The idea that Shakespeare is not believed to be a single writer is an interesting conspiracy that may affect people’s view of his plays and art. As presented in Irving’s text going to the land said to be the home of the famous Shakespeare is a special experience filled with history and possible muses for Shakespeare. The connection between a simple environment and Shakespeare causes Irving to feel that everything “is associated with the idea of Shakspeare. Every old cottage that I saw”. Irving being able to connect Shakespeare to everything he encounters in this town makes this exploration meaningful and powerful, although on a surface-level appears to be a typical town, the added enhancement Shakespeare has on this town could be one motive for fabricating his existence. If Shakespeare was not one identity there could not be one sole story that explains this artists life, but multiple stories that may not even connect. . This could decrease the impact on this town or the specialty of this writing. Shakespeare is obviously important to this town as his remains are kept guarded and untouched Another motive could be the author solely wanted their work to be appreciated no matter what their background. The mystery from Shakespeare adds to his body of work. This is because people continue to pay attention to these works for more than one reason. I think the lens which Shakespeare’s writings are viewed through presently would be different if the identity was different. I think the artwork could be representative of an even a wider population. I am in agreement with Austin Widner. I think if today it was found that he had nothing to o with the plays they would remain important. This is because people would be intrigued to determine why multiple artists, or a different person hid their identity. I too believe the artwork would still possess the attributes that made it great.

    LikeLike

31. It is impossible to say with certainty whether the works of Shakespeare were genuine or a hoax. Today, we are too far removed from the time period. Potential motives behind such a hoax are clearer. In the era of Shakespeare, society was very hierarchical. It is reasonable to say that there were writers that lived during this time that were very accomplished, yet unable to achieve notoriety due to their social status. Shakespeare was born into a family that was in an elevated status within the community. He was afforded the opportunity to go to school and to build a reputation. It is probable that he had connections that a talented, yet poor writer would not share. If such a writer were clever enough, it is conceivable that they might be able to persuade Shakespeare to use their work. By this logic, Shakespeare could have been an instrument through which the true author lived through vicariously. Although unlikely, the logic behind this theory is somewhat compelling. It is a fun thing to consider that Shakespeare, perhaps the greatest poet to ever live, did not write his own plays or poetry. By this reasoning the answer to the mystery behind the authorship of Shakespeare is not the center of the fascination surrounding the conspiracy. Therefore, I do not believe that an affirmation of his illegitimacy would detract from his body of work. It does not matter if Shakespeare is who we think he is. The fun lies in the conspiracy itself.

    LikeLike

32. It is definitely a possibility that Shakespeare isn’t actually a person but a made-up name. I do think the rumors that he is not real do not really lend themselves to him becoming as famous as he has. The conspiracy of only really adds to all the work that he has made over the years, because of the idea that a random person devoted their life to something and then didn’t want to take credit for it and people to only know it through what he has to say. It reminds me of the reading in that no one can confirm or deny what happened to Mr. Crane, the same goes for Shakespeare no one can prove or deny he is the author of the poems. Somethings are better left a secret and this is one of those. It requires people to look at the works of the author for more than just meaning but for a deep understanding of how the writings might connect or give insight into the author’s life. Personally, I do think that finding out that Shakespeare had nothing to do with the things he said he wrote would definitely leave a sour taste in people’s mouths. No one would necessarily do anything about it but I do think his popularity would go down. People don’t like being lied to and especially if they have a strong connection to something and then some of the reasons they formed those connections are invalidated it makes you question not only the initial connection but yourself as well.

    LikeLike

33. Washington Irving recognizes that the tales of Shakespeare may all be a scam, but he admits that he is, “ever willing to be deceived, where the deceit is pleasant and costs nothing,” (4). In this statement he reveals that while the tales may be false, there is no harm done in believing in them, only a positive outcome of people experiencing Shakespeare’s writing with a sense of awe at his talent, despite the validity of his claims to be the author. He speaks about how human nature consists of “foibles and prejudices (pg.17)” but he concludes that a fable like that of Shakespeare is better left as it is because it only acts as a motivating and empowering image. His legacy acts to “guide the literary pilgrim (pg. 17)” therefore, it is better than reality. The mystery itself does not add or subtract from his body of work, but the tale of Shakespeare’s legacy definitely enhances the literary experience because it gives the reader a sense of experiencing greatness. That being said, if Shakespeare came out as not the creator of the plays, the literary world would lose one of its greatest role models and influencers. This would have no positive effect on the literary world, only a negative effect, which explains Irving’s willingness to accept the tales. His tales being deemed as false would not enhance his plays, it would only cast an overshadow of distrust and skepticism upon them. For these reason and as supported by Irving, Shakespeare’s legacy should remain unchallenged as to protect the works of literature themselves and to maintain a figure that many readers and writters look up to.

    LikeLike

34. Why would one attempt to tear down Shakespeare’s legacy with conspiracies? Such motives seem dubious; however, it is easier to destroy than to build something for oneself. Perhaps in an attempt to build a writing career for oneself, Shakespeare’s critics use their writing to slander his. This is most often seen in the media where there are far more libelous stories than uplifting ones. I have no doubt that this same ordeal existed from Shakespeare’s time to today. John D. Rockefeller said it best, “It is one thing to stand on the comfortable ground of placid inaction and put forth words of cynical wisdom, and another to plunge into the work itself and through strenuous experience earn the right to express strong conclusions.” The same can be said of Shakespeare’s critics and doubters. They will never be able to achieve the legacy Shakespeare achieved in poetry, plays, and acting. So instead they seek to tear down what Shakespeare built. Putting the critics aside, it makes no difference whether or not everything attributed to Shakespeare was written by him. “Shakespeare’s” works are meant to be enjoyed. Therefore, there is no point in debating whether it was truly his or not. It does no good to get caught up in semantics of who the author is—especially for work written over for hundred years ago. Irving explains it best when he writes, “What is it to us, whether these stories be true or false, so long as we can persuade ourselves into the belief of them, and enjoy all the charm of the reality?” Debating Shakespeare’s true authorship is pointless. Let us instead accept that his authorship cannot be fully proven—or disproven and appreciate his contribution to literature.

    LikeLike

35. In my opinion, discovering his works were written by another author would have minimal impact. Shakespeare could arguably be one of the most influential authors of the last 400 years, and “his” works have been performed and read all over the world. There probably isn’t a single person in our class who hasn’t read at least one of his plays in school. I have read many. That being said, everyone knows Shakespeare’s name because of his works and they are what explicitly define his identity. The idea that Shakespeare didn’t write all or even any of the plays, poems, etc that are in his name doesn’t impact the quality of those works. On the other hand, it does make sense to me how a lot of Shakespeare’s prestige and influence has resulted form the large numbers of works he has produced. I think a fair simile could compare Shakespeare to more modern artists like The Beatles. A single work by either artist, either a play or a song could stand out as a hit for a while. What gives the artists immortality is that they didn’t stop after a single hit, they kept producing high quality work. The artists are then remembered for their work as a collective set, and not just for one good song or play. Through this perspective, the name Shakespeare is important just to associate all of the works together. In conclusion, I think that Shakespeare as the author is not as important as that all of the works were written by a single person. Would we be studying Richard III right now if it hadn’t been written by the man who also wrote Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Midsummer’s Night Dream, and Hamlet to name a few?

    LikeLike

36. It is possible that all the work surrounding Shakespeare could have been created by multiple authors and not just one man. I agree with Emma Macdonald’s comment that a possible motive for fabricating this conspiracy about Shakespeare was that the author’s who contributed wanted to create literature that would be admired and studied long after they were gone. By creating a literal figure of one man, he is seen as a genius and the collection of works is seen as one of the best in history. Believing that one man could create such sophisticated and admirable work that is read and performed hundred of years later is empowering to writers and those who study literature. I think that society as a whole would be bitter towards the idea that Shakespeare was a hoax if the idea was proven to be true because believing that one man could create such influential works of literature is inspiring alone and if that aspect was taken away it would be heartbreaking in a sense. Although there would be some disappointment if the conspiracy was proven true, I do not believe it would detract anything from his body of work. Whether Shakespeare is one man or a group of writers, it does not diminish the fact that what Shakespeare created has lived on until now and for generations to come. The principles and techniques used in his writings are those that are studied by scholars, read by students, and his plays are performed and admired by many till this day. Even if he is not who he says he is, this does not change the facts about his work.

    LikeLike

37. I believe that the mythos of Shakespeare is better if we believe that he was one man even if he was the earl o oxford. The idea that a single man created all of the works of Shakespeare makes Shakespeare all that more interesting, he is a goal that modern artists can strive towards and admire for his artistic merits, and him being the Earl of Oxford would only make this achievement more meritorious as it had to be done in utter secret. If Shakespeare were to be found to be several different people it would detract from the idea of the achievements of Shakespeare and would instead just be a collection of loosely associated plays. That being said though I doubt that a revelation that the plays were written by “Francis Bacon (and others)” would have much of an impact on those who are only passingly interested in the dramas as most people don’t really care that much but for those who are interested in the history of English drama and literature the idea that shakespeare was multiple people would be an incredible dissapointment. That being said I don’t think that it would etract from individual plays however.

    LikeLike

38. The mystery behind the identity of Shakespeare adds to the allure of his work. Whether or not the plays were written by one man does not factor into the quality of the Shakespeare literature. The famous plays that are taught from middle school to graduate school are considered essential tools in proper education of literature and English. There could be motives to the fabrication of a conspiracy that discredits Shakespeare, and they could revolve around the idea of creating mystery to preserve the relevance of the historic literature. Although many would argue that Shakespeare writing is already engrained in society and education, it is possible that the conspiracy was created to encourage further research and inspection into all of Shakespeare’s work. Alternatively, there could be a valid argument based on a claim supported by evidence. If it was discovered that Shakespeare is not who we believe he is, there would definitely be a spike in interest and inspection of Shakespeare work and there would be countless theories about the real author or authors. The hunt for the real genius would be huge. All the work would also become slightly less impressive if the reality was that one man was not responsible for such an accomplishment. If it were proven that Shakespeare’s writing was purely authentic, it is possible that the loss of some of the mystery causes some novelty to be lost as well. The man that Washington Irving deifies would not have the notoriety and popularity if it came out that he had nothing to do with the plays, because most people cannot hear his name and not think of Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet. Irving says, “…his age at the time of his decease- fifty-three years; an untimely death for the world: for what fruit might not have been expected from the golden autumn of such a mind,” on the sixth page of “Stratford on Avon,” which just shows the level of notoriety that the name Shakespeare carries.

    LikeLike

39. Today, it would be extremely difficult to disregard our current beliefs about Shakespeare and form new ones primarily because new supporting evidence stating otherwise would have to appear. Personally, I do not see that happening, and I think it would be too hard. Also, I do not personally see much purpose behind trying to prove that Shakespeare was not who we believe he actually was. Modern poetry and English literature have been influenced greatly by what we consider to be Shakespeare’s plays and works. If it was proven that Shakespeare had nothing to do with him plays, that permanent influence would still be there today, but perhaps not many years ago when he was solidified as a literary great. Also, if it was found that Shakespeare’s works were not actually written by him, it would not matter that much in regard to our present time because he has influenced the majority of our writing culture. If it was proven hundreds of years ago that he wasn’t a real person or that did not write his great literary works that we know of today, then his name would not be common, and no one today would know about him or teach is works.

    LikeLike

40. When someone is as successful as Shakespeare in any aspect of life, human nature causes people to be skeptical. In my view, skepticism of Shakespeare has grown over time as more and more people refuse to believe that one man is capable of the level of achievement he rose to. I also believe that questioning the integrity of Shakespeare can only detract from his bodies of work. However, I do not believe that these conspiracy theories will become popular enough to do any actual damage to his overall reputation. Shakespeare is so well known among all cultures that attempts to discredit him would have minimal effects. For the population studying his work in the present day, it would make no difference to discover that Shakespeare is not who we thought he was. For example, his most famous works like Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet would not change. Aside from other people attempting to receive recognition for the work, the actual bodies of work would not be affected at all. Shakespeare would still be just as popular as he is today if any of the conspiracies against him were proved to be true. A more modern example of a somewhat similar situation is Michael Jackson. Recently he was accused of multiple cases of sexual assault. While these are very serious allegations that should be taken seriously, the fact of the matter is that the outcome of the cases will do little to tarnish Jackson’s reputation. Years into the future, the legacy he created with his music will be the only thing that most people remember. People like William Shakespeare and Michael Jackson are so well-known among all cultures that their legacies will live on for centuries to come, no matter what new revelations come about involving them as people or artists.

    LikeLike

41. The very identity of Avon is based upon Shakespeare’s existence, and many of the nearby towns would not have been famous if not for Shakespeare. Personally, I do not think that it would make any difference if Shakespeare is who we believe he is, as he does not have a direct impact on most people’s lives. Even in the context of literature, I do not believe it would have a serious impact as conspiracy theories about his identity (or identities) have existed for a long time. The mystery surrounding Shakespeare definitely makes it more intriguing than reading a work by a known author, as he has had so many “famous” works. I think that Shakespeare would continue to be popular even if he had nothing to do with the plays, as he is very ingrained into literature.

    LikeLike

42. I believe that there was no conspiracy involved with Shakespeare. Such a story could have certainly been fabricated out of jealousy by his peers. It may have simply been an attack on his character because he was getting to famous and taking the spotlight away from anyone else. If Shakespeare was a front, it seems reasonable that as soon as the works took off the true creator would take credit, this is human nature. If we truly study Shakespeare because of the quality if work, not his name, it makes no difference who wrote the pieces we attribute to him. The mystery behind this can only add to his body of work, as they say today “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” If suddenly a discovery were made that proved Shakespeare was nothing but a soak who acted here and there, we wouldn’t stop studying these plays and sonnets. Realistically, Shakespeare is already such a big part of studying literature from high school through grad school, if Francis Bacon was found to be the true author to the works professors would not jump to change their syllabus’s. It does not take a famous name to produce good art, and we shouldn’t give credit to art just because someone we know created it. We study Shakespeare because it is quality literature that molded everything which came after it.

    LikeLike

43. Shakespeare’s legacy is only made more memorable by the lore and mystery surrounding his legitimacy. For the author of so many plays with magic, ghosts and larger than life characters, it is only fitting that his legacy is larger than life and even exaggerated to the point that people question if he even existed. He has become in a way the very essence of his plays and has become one of his larger than life characters that captivated his audience in the way that he captivates history and literature and theatre enthusiasts. I don’t think that the questionable authorship or even if he wasn’t the legitimate author would affect the legitimacy of the body of work/art itself. The work itself no matter who is identified as its author is art that has enchanted its audience and as Irving Washington reflects, “I could not but reflect on the singular gift of the poet; to be able thus to spread the magic of his mind over the very face of nature; to give to things and places a charm and character not their own, and to turn this “working-day world” into a perfect fairy land,” (Washington 16). Washington reflects that this enchantment is due to the author’s gift, however it does not matter the identity of the author because the work is complete and its gift to the world has already been given. However, having an identity of the author whether it is accurate or not allows history to pile their admiration and thanks onto a single person making them feel as if they are giving credit where credit is due and celebrating humanity’s ability to create works of unparalleled art.

    LikeLike

44. I think the principle benefit such a conspiracy could have for someone would be satisfaction for revenge–or at any rate, something along those lines of trying to undermine Shakespeare’s legacy. Regarding my basis for this qualm, I have nothing that is empirical. But this is not where I wish to invest my full attention. I don’t think that Shakespeare’s persona is imperative to the success of his plays. For example, I am aware there are debates challenging the ownership of The Iliad and The Odyssey to Homer, as well as various books of the Christian Bible to their self-titled authors. Personally, I have never thought the value of a work of art (in this case, plays and books) stems solely from its creator. I think having an interesting author like Shakespeare simply adds to the strange attraction some may feel toward his works, but I also think that his works were successful mainly because they were excellent works! Same goes for Homer’s books, biblical texts, and more. I’ve always believed primary value is found in the content of art, not necessarily the creator. With this being said, I think Shakespeare’s plays would still be immensely popular if it was indeed discovered, beyond dispute, that Shakespeare’s plays were written by someone else. And my reason for believing this is because I think Shakespeare’s plays are wonderful works of art, regardless of the author, and I think his plays have already had such an immense impact on literature and art that it cannot possibly be detracted. It may be possible to undermine the excellence of Shakespeare himself, but the works attributed to his name have already made a permanent mark on history.

    LikeLike

Comments are now closed.