History 3152: British History Since the 17th Century

I think in some sense it does matter who wrote the plays and in some sense it does not matter at all. I think it matters because the person who wrote the plays deserves the credit warranted to the author of some of the most famous stories and plays ever created. However on the other hand I also do not think that it matters simply because the world has the plays and the stories to enjoy. Just because we do not know the author does not take away from the experience of seeing Hamlet, or Romeo and Juliet, or the Taming of the Shrew. Something else I would like to mention that I just think is interesting but does not have any relevence to our discussion of who wrote Shakespeare's plays is what I learned in Archaeology class a couple of years ago. We were told that there was an Archaeologist who excavated Bill Shakespeare's yard and found evidence of drug use and all sorts of stuff of scandal from when Shakespeare was living there. I just found that kind of inetersting but not really that relevent to this conversation.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government appears to argue that monarchy can be traced back to the state of nature. Locke uses the example of the household which resembles a monarchy. In the the household there is a hierarchy with master and servant. However, Locke contends that a monarchy is not a proper civil society. The reason for this is because in the state of nature all men are free and have a right to property. To Locke, property is more than land but also labor and life. Man consents to government only if government will protect his property and provide justice. In an absolute monarchy property can be invaded by the will or order of a monarch without the possibility justice. When such as action is in violation with the law of nature man will withdraw his consent of government. Locke's arguement is validated by the challenges the British monarchy witnessed in controlling the Scots. When the Scot's land became threatened by the monarchy they rebelled and withdrew their consent.

I dont think it matters who the "real" Shakespeare is because his plays are a collaborative effort anyways. For example, Shakespeare didnt write the plots he just stole them from other people and cultures (Macbeth from the Scots, Romeo and Juliet from the Italians, etc). The prose is the quintessence of the greatness of Shakepeare, but diction and metaphors are easily plagerized. Whoever wrote the plays was not a solitary hermit who had countless epiphanies for plots of plays but rather an active member of society, possibly associated with the world of theater. Also, interest in theater in America falls short of the popularity that movies like Snakes on a Plane recieves. This is pathetic, but if the common people want to believe that one genius wrote that prose and go to see his plays t be immersed in his romantic poetry, revealing that actually there were more people involved takes away some of the magic; everybody likes the underdog uneducated peasant playwrite. And in response to the comments involving the excavation of drug use, a lot of religous leaders and philosophers used drugs, often opiates, when preaching or debating. They used to pass glasses of spiked beverages around to the audience so the audience would see visions also. Drugs have had more of an impact on history than we give them credit for; without cocaine and its addictive powers, we wouldnt have coca-cola. Not that that is a huge travesty, but the world would be different and a little less connected (coca-cola is the second most reconized word around the world; ok is first). No I am not promoting drug abuse nor am I saying that the author of the plays was an addict but I agree with Hobbes that people are selfish and drugs are a selfish habit.

Yes it matters who wrote the famous writings most commonly attributed to shakespeare. First of all it would call into serious question the credibility of historians to correctly link people to events. but also it is important because the works attributed to shakespeare are so famouse. I would have to say based on the evidence shakespeare did write the famous works attributed to him. furthermore no author or mere mortal could possibly write such works without taking credit for them. Basically human ego is always so big that everyone feels they have to take credit for their own work. all you have to do is study human nature to realize that if their was a serious dispute over who wrote romeo and juliet it would have been settled back then. or at least their would be historical evidence of this. a similar charge exists about truman capote writing to kill a mocking bird. although this novel dosent display any of capotes classic writing style.

As a teacher of mine pointed out to me not too long ago, ask yourself this. Think of all of the movies that you've seen in your lifetime, whether it be ten or ten-thousand, and, off the top of your head, name ten screenwriters. Most people won't be able to name one. We don't care about who wrote the movie, and the same applied to Shakespeare's time. No one cared about who wrote his plays, and yet, here we are discussing this over 400 years later. Do you think that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were asking themselves about the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey. Just as we will most likely never know who Homer was, or who da Vinci's Mona Lisa was, we will most likely never know, for a fact, who wrote the poems and plays attributed to said William Shakespeare. But it is still important to dig into these questions, because, as the Oxfordian website's introduction explains, the search for the truth should be enough motivation in and of itself. As we are learning and reading in our history class now of the new way of thinking or reasoning, these great learned men decided to question the age-old axioms that were established before them in order to seek a better understanding of the truth and how it applies to the world around them. The truth is essential especially concerning matters of History, and this is why it is important.

It would appear that there could be two sides to the question of whether or not it matters who wrote Shakespeare. To a regular reader or a theater attendee it does not matter much who wrote it. It is a great literary work and it will really not change our opinions of it if a rich guy or a poor guy wrote it. Romeo and Juliet will stay the same, the story will not change.
On the other hand, it matters very much who wrote Shakespeare, from an academic and historical point of view. To know who really stands behind the name will not only give credit where credit is due but also it will give us more information about the social and economical environment of that time. Just like behind the name of George Sand stood Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin someone could be standing behind the name of William Shakespeare.

I haven also taken the course offered here at the Univeristy called "The Mysterious William Shakespeare." The course is fascinating, I had never realized there is this huge arguement over the authorship of Shakepeare's Plays and Sonnets. I believe from the evidence that I have seen Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford is the true author. I agree with what someone is a previous blog mentioned, this arguement should not even matter because whomever the author, is stole or borrowed the ideas and stories. We shouldn't even care who the author is, we should appreciate what the plays, stories, and sonnets have given us. The texts give us an understanding of the culture and government of the time.

Personally, as a double major (English/history) I do not believe that the identity of the author of the plays we say are by Shakespeare matters. Personally, I consider them to be social/political commentary. The fact that we know it was a pro-monarch Englishman is good enough. Whether it was a philosopher/scientist or a noble or the son of a commoner doesn't matter a whit to me. The commentary on the nature of man and the political situations in some of the historical plays stands alone. The biography of the author doesn't matter at all.

I believe that it does matter who wrote Shakespeare's plays because it is important and helpful for us to learn about our society's past to help us learn about the future. This being said, i question the validity of who Shakespeare really is. I agree with what someone said where it is natural for human beings to take credit for good work, but little do we know. Maybe at the time that Shakespeare's plays were written, the stories might seem too risque or unrealistic, and the author might not want to take credit for it, in fear of unacceptance from his peers. I think that Americans like to think the author of Shakespeare is a poor lower class man of whom has a great mind with creative ideas and great love stories. We as americans like to believe in fairy tales and because so, we are more convinced that the real Shakespeare is someone not of common background. If the author of the plays were some rich poet or writer from a higher class family, people would not pay as much attention because it is too common for people with higher education to come up with good work.

Speaking on a purely personal level, I think the Shakespeare authorship question is important because I'm sick of studying Shakespeare in a vacuum. This has been the case in nearly all of my Shakespeare classes: I silently struggle my way through the plays and sonnets, the literary aspects are studied, memorized, the professor teaches us the "genius" of Shakespeare, and when the semester ends the works are tucked aside in the Shakespeare bin, untouchable, unchangeable, glaring the name SHAKESPEARE like they one day appeared out of thin air, the droppings of some unseen bird.

I'm not saying I don't like Shakespeare, but what I find is that the more I learn about Elizabethan culture, the Elizabethan language, the more I come to appreciate Shakespeare. The jokes suddenly become funny, the stories sad, and the wit cunning. And I become more curious.

Why were these plays so popular and potent in their day? What autobiographical elements exist in Shakespeare's work? What real life incidences gave birth to the inspiration for these works? Who, then, was Shakespeare? The answer can only help further my understanding of the subtleties at work in Shakespeare's plays.

The identity of the writer does not matter as much as the context of the time. Chris is correct in mentioning that the plays are categorized as if they are completely separate from all the events of the period. Many times, historical ideas are presented as indisputable truth when they are merely pieced toghether from the evidence. It is interesting to have this time to question the validity of Shakespeare's authorship. I have no doubt that Shakespeare's plays were ghostwritten at least in small part. It is clear that the plays were written from a pro-monarchy perspective, and Shakespeare was likely the kind of person who, despite his faults, was not afraid to make his opinion known. Even in modern times, people collaborate and use a single author's name as a front; therefore it does not seem as though Shakespeare pirated other people's work.

I don't think that it does matter who wrote Shakespeare. It was not so much who wrote the plays and other works, it was the ideas behind the plays that made them works so important. It would not matter who wrote them, all that matters is they were written and their influence on Literature is one of the most important in history. It would not matter who wrote them it only matters that they were written.

Is Shakespeare's authenticity a good thing to call into question? Personally, I think not. To me, it does not matter much who wrote them. However, I think it is worthwhile to take into account that perhaps he didn't write all those plays. I know that it is very likely that his plays were a collaborative effort, and that a lot of plays attributed to him were probably not his at all. But what does it matter to me? Why must we obsess about the identity of the author when the plays can be enjoyed with or without the name of Shakespeare attached to them? I am not saying he did write them, nor am I saying he didn't. I don't care. Though, it is important to take into account the possibilities.

However, that is merely my personal feeling to the situtation. If other people feel motivated to uncover the truth, I won't try to stop them. Nor will I ridicule them.

I'll finish with a question. Who made "Star Wars?" Sure, George Lucas' name is attached to it, and he did have a lot of creative input. But what of the directors (the original trilogy were not all written and directed by George Lucas)? The artists and set designers? And what about all of the elements that were lifted from earlier films by Ford and Kurosawa?

Who wrote Macbeth?

No, I really don't believe that it matters who wrote the works attributed to "William Shakespeare." The name "Shakespeare" is only just that: a name. I believe that he, whoever he may be, put it best when he wrote in Romeo & Juliet, "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." That is, whether the works were written by a butcher's son or by a member of the aristocracy, the works still retain their brilliance.

I think the question of if Shakespeare was the sole, true author only matters to a certain extent. I think when studying the background and history that surrounds the author, the main aspects we need to know are the date they were written and the type of society that the author lived in. We know these things and knowing the true author could a bit more light on the subject, by changing it from a poor, genius to someone more likely, however in any case I personally will appreciate the plays just the same.The stories that are told and the way they are presented are what matters to me. If absolute proof was discovered that Shakespeare was not responsible for writing the plays that are attributed to him, it would not effect the way in which I think about his plays. They would remain as entertaining, enjoyable, and important to me if the were written by William Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or someone else entirely. The name and face of the author would just change. I am not saying that it is not important to investigate and question the authorship, I just think personally that the are important works and the content they contain should be first and foremost what is appreciated and the identity of the author should come second.

I honestly can't understand why anyone taking a history class would say that Shakespeare's authorship "doesn't matter". I mean, we're not talking about some obscure nobility in some obscure corner of Southmounthamptonwarwickshire here. We're talking about possibly the GREATEST AUTHOR OF ALL TIME, people, and that claim isn't even hyperbole. This guy matters to English-speaking histories as much as anyone else you can possibly mention. If you don't think that's important, then you probably don't think history is a valid field of study, period. Oh well, current events are always more intellectually engaging anyways. (Bennifer and K-Fed, anyone?)

And I know that I said Shakespeare authored Shakespeare in class, but the above URLs have made me see the light, as it were. Those plays MUST have been authored by Bacon, or Oxford, or Marlowe, ANYONE who's rich and formally educated. After all, if we attribute Shakespeare's plays to the grammar-school educated son of a disgraced, closet-papist glover, what's next? Attributing the formation of Christianity to a hairy, raggedy-looking Jewish carpenter, and NOT to the Son of Almighty God? The reasonable mind shudders at the notion.

No, speaking as poor trailer-trash I know that people like us are not capable of such things, unlike people born wealthy. Innovation and intelligence are above my station, as they were for that talentless hack-pretender "Shaksper". If I was meant for greatness, I'd be at Harvard or Yale or OXFORD right now, on my rich parents' tab.

Sigh.

If only I were born to a political dynasty in Kennebunkport, Maine and had a daddy for a president, then I would really be smart.

Double sigh.

Excuse me, I spoke above my place, I'm sorry. Better I go prepare for my life of obscurity. I hear Kinko's is hiring. Wonder if they offer a retirement package?

In one way, yes, it does matter who wrote Shakespeare's plays because they offer scholars and historians insights into life during the period. Also, who the author was matters as to how the plays are interpreted. But in another way I do not believe it matters who the author was or their background because no matter what the plays have contributed greatly to the art of literature.

To echo some of the above comments, I will agree that yes, it does matter that William Shakespeare created and wrote his body of work. If it was someone else, why would Shakespeare get the credit? Is there some reason to ghost-write these plays? Is this some precursor to the movie "The Producers" where they TRY to create a bomb and it backfires? The works speak for themselves. They are timeless classics. That is not in dispute. However, when dealing with conspiracy theories (to bring this back to a certain American Noble family from Kennebunkport, Maine) we have to look at why. It's not enough to have someone to point to and say "He did it". What does Bacon have to gain by attaching Shakespeares name instead of his own?

Does it matter who wrote Shakespeare? Yes and No. Yes, to those who devote their lives to studying his life story and his motivations for writing as he did. No, to those who read his classic works. No to those who appreciate "Shakespearian literature." It's a style - it was given a name because this individual was thought to have written these works. Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not. It only matters to those who feel they need to find the absolute answer - i.e. researchers or devoted "fans." Personally, I love his works and could sit down for hours on end reading his timeless tragedies and comedies that have a hidden meaning interpreted by different people in different ways. I think everyone can benefit from Shakespeare's works and I don't think it matters in the slightest whether or not he ACTUALLY wrote them.

I was talking to my dad about this Shakespeare business over the weekend and had to say something. He is reading a book by Bennet where this topic is discussed heavily. The mysteries surrounding Shakespeare's life lend credibility to the fact that he may not be the author of "his" works. However, we know nothing factual or concrete of Socrates and many people base their lives around his teachings. If because of the word/anagram honorificabilitudinitatibus, people are going to create controversey over the author of the most famous plays in existance, our world might as well be done and over. If it doesn't matter who wrote these plays, then why not simply apprecciate them for what they contribute to our lives and methods of thinking. If the question of authorship does in fact matter, we should accept Shakespeare as the author as we have more proof that he wrote his works than evidence towards someone else being the author (such as Bacon).

Having read through the posts already up on this topic and not really knowing much about the evidence for or against Bacon or De Vere or Shakespeare, I have to wonder if it does make much difference. I was talking about this with a couple of friends of mine over the weekend: one said it didn't matter at all and one said it could make a vary big difference to some people. I think it depends, like one of the other posts mentions, on what you value about the works. If your main interest in them is literary, it really can't matter. Even if we assume Shakespeare is the author, we don't know what he might have wanted people of his time let alone our time to get out of them - he's not here to ask. If he wasn't the author, that person isn't here to ask either so we interepret and take from them what WE need to. If the value you place on the works is more historical, it might make more of a difference. You may be more interested in the author than the work. People who might be most affected by whether or not Shakespeare is the author, would be his descendants if he has any. To them it could make a huge difference. Knowing you are descended from someone who wrote such incredible works would mean something completely different than knowing you are descended from a butcher's son.

It seems that the mystery of Shakespeare's plays will remain unsolved. There is evidence for and against theories that the plays were written by Bacon. In my opinion, it is fairly insignificant who wrote the plays. They are widely recognized for their poetry and romantic plots regardless of who wrote them. The people who are Shakespeare fans are merely fans of the writing, not the man himself (seeing as he is long gone). As far as giving credit to the correct author, it seems like a mute point. He is not around to reap the benefits of the success of the plays. I think that the mystery of the author of the plays adds to their allure in fact. To me, it makes no difference whether Shakespeare was the real author.

For me, there are two ways to look at the importance Shakespeare's so called authorship. One of these ways is Historical, the other is Social.
In the histroical context, the best way to look at these works is at face value: they are great pieces of art, that many people throughout the world are able to enjoy. In this way, the authorship of the play is really unimportant. After all, as long as the reader/viewer gets all of the emotional content out of the works, then does it really matter who wrote it?
In the other context, social, it does matter who really wrote the works. For me the best way to visualize this situation in the context is to pretend that I wrote them. Would I want society to remeber me throughout history as a famous writer and poet? Of course the answer would be 'yes.'
Now for my personal thoughts. Since I am not a history or english major, this class is the first in which I ever encountered this authorship scandal. Let's assume for a moment that Bacon really did write all of these works (including the honorificabilitudinitatibus anagram). Would he hand these over to Shakespeare knowingly? (If he did infact write them, he must've known Shakespeare would get the credit, or he wouldn'tve put in the anagram). If this is true, then it must not matter as Bacon didn't care and handed them over or Shakespear took them, and Bacon still gets partial credit from the anagram.
Then again, the anagram could just a be a coincidence, and this is all much ado about nothing.
Personally, I don't care who really was the author - they are good works no matter who the author is.

No, because they are mostly a bunch of plays and stories. All for entertainment. Who ever wrote these stories did not write them for any real historical reasons, just to entertain the rich and royalty at that time period. If we were to compare these plays to the movies produced from years past, mostly everyone remembers the movie itself, not the writer of the movies or plays. People go to these plays to be entertained, not to see how great the writer was. So it really doesn't matter who wrote all those plays. Maybe there are some edvidence that Bacon did write them, no one wills stop reading them because Shakespeare didnt actually write them. Of course they will continue to read and act out these plays. So it really doesnt matter who did write these plays.