One Giant Chart That Ends The Shakespeare Wars:

All the Relevant Shakespeare Documents (and Their Various Explanations) Are Listed

There is no dispute about the documented facts surrounding the Shakespeare Authorship Question—only the interpretation of those facts.

We can even list all the contemporaneous documents that state William Shakespeare wrote some particular work in a single table. And I do just that in the table below.

And, as we shall see, there is nothing at all fishy about these documents, nothing remarkable. Yes, it’s true, we don’t have any personal manuscripts or letters from Shakespeare himself, but we also don’t have any such manuscripts or letters from Christopher Marlowe, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene, Thomas Watson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Kyd, and most other playwrights of the era. So while the table exclusively lists title pages and contemporaneous comments as its documented evidence, that is how the authorship of the vast majority of all historical texts is determined. Indeed, it essentially never strikes anyone to question the veracity of title pages with other writers—and, as I have shown here …

The Absolutely True, Indisputable, and Definitive History of the Shakespeare-Authorship Controversy

… no one would have questioned Shakespeare’s authorship if it weren’t for the fact that Stanley Austin Dunham’s biographical treatment of Shakespeare repeatedly stressed he almost always adapted old plays.

Moreover, whenever Shakespeare scholars ever debate anti-Stratfordians (those who contend Shakespeare of Stratford didn’t write Shakespeare), they make this same point about title pages, placing them at the top of the list of proofs that Shakespeare wrote the plays. They also stress this is essentially how we know most anyone wrote anything—at least from the past.

• In William Murphy's scalding attack on anti-Stratfordianism (published on PBS), he starts his argument by noting that of 15 plays published "during Shakespeare's lifetime, fourteen of these bear his name on the title pages." He notes, correctly, that this "is the same kind of evidence we use to determine what Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, or Dante, or George Washington."

• In a Forbes article critical of the Oxfordian film, Anonymous, Alex Knapp’s very first proof is: "Shakespeare's name is on the plays and poems attributed to him."

• In Oxfraud's The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare, at the top of their list of documented facts confirming Shakespeare's authorship is "1. Title Pages. William Shakespeare’s name is listed as author on the title page or dedications of numerous plays and poems published from 1593 (Venus and Adonis) onwards."

• In Tom Reedy’s and David Kathman's "How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,” their list of facts begins: "1. The Name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems."

As Oxfraud correctly states about such documented statements: “This conclusion admits only one hypothesis. Shakespeare of Stratford is the author. It may be overcome, but only if there is contrary factual evidence that serves to rebut the conclusion. Supposition, speculation and guesswork are not acceptable.” Exactly.

Yet it appears these scholars have a remarkable tolerance for cognitive dissonance. For despite this understandable touting of the significance of title pages, Shakespeare scholars still contend that the majority of title pages that carried Shakespeare’s name while he was alive (and up till 1621) were fraudulent. That is, they claim that no fewer than twelve plays “by William Shakespeare” are the result of shadowy conspiracies to fool the public. These allegedly pseudo-Shakespearean plays are categorized as either “bad quartos” or “apocryphal plays:”

Scholars posit two different types of conspiracy theories to explain these title pages:

• Orthodox Explanation for the “bad quartos”: Conventional scholars blame the lesser adaptations on a system of conspiracies. Supposedly, various groups of unknown anonymous actors working within the Stratford dramatist’s theater companies rewrote these plays, perhaps from memory, and then secretly sold them to corrupt publishers and printers who placed Shakespeare’s name on the title pages and printed them without authority.

• Explanation for the “apocryphal plays”: Conventional scholars assume that printers and publishers pirated these plays. Specifically, they suppose the printers and publishers secretly obtained them from one or more of Shakespeare’s fellow actors (as the apocryphal plays were all performed by Shakespeare’s theater companies) and then published them without authority, falsely placing Shakespeare’s name on the title pages to fool prospective readers into thinking Shakespeare wrote them.

In my debate with classicist Philip Womack, he pushed the orthodox view above that apocryphal plays and bad quartos were all the result of some form of piracy. And I responded with something like the following:

Can you not tell how anti-Strafordian you sound here? You think the majority of plays attributed to William Shakespeare while he was alive and up till 1621 are fraudulent and the result of corruption (this is counting all apocryphal plays and bad quartos) despite the fact that:

1. Shakespeare never protested about his name falsely being used.

2. Shakespeare and company, who performed all these plays, never complained about their illicit procurement and unauthorized publication.

3. No one else ever mentioned it at the time or for decades afterward.

4. The real authors of the apocryphal plays never demanded proper credit.

5. None of the dozens of printers or publishers were ever punished for it.

6. These nefarious printers and publishers ended up pulling off a ruse that fooled the world for a century—as scholars, editors, etc. were still referring to "Yorkshire Tragedy" and "London Prodigal" as Shakespeare's into the 18th century.

7. No other playwright of the Shakespeare era was similarly victimized. In fact, no other living writer in all of English history had a similar misattribution occur to him just once—let alone twelve times!

Expanding on the last point above, there is no known case in history in which an English printer or publisher has ever purposefully misattributed a single work (like a play, essay, or novel) to a single, living author whom they knew had nothing to do with the work. Why is that? Well, because the printer and publisher would know that the credited author would complain—and so too would the wronged author whose work had been stolen and assigned to someone else. In fact, as I have shown, there may not be an indisputable example of such a deliberate misattribution occurring to a dead author either.²

There’s just no rational reason to doubt Shakespeare’s authorship of the quartos attributed to him—and no one at the time, or for even a century afterward, ever doubted those title pages either.

Why have Shakespeare scholars invented such conspiracy theories? Because throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, they linked Shakespeare almost exclusively with the more polished, Northern plays of the First Folio, elevating him to the status of a literary god. (Here’s the full explanation for the origins of the First Folio.) But when early quartos resurfaced — including crude adaptations and stylistically divergent apocryphal works (the plays Shakespeare had actually written) — scholars resorted to elaborate rationalizations. Confronted with this inconvenient evidence, they didn’t reconsider their faith in the Stratford man. Instead, they doubled down.

But the fact remains: There was no wide-ranging plot to give Shakespeare false credit for The Merchant of Venice and Much Ado About Nothing as many anti-Stratfordians would believe, and there was no plot to give him false credit for True Tragedy, A Yorkshire Tragedy, Locrine, London Prodigal, Hamlet Q1, etc, as orthodox scholars would believe. These were the works attributed to Shakespeare during his lifetime; these were the works that contemporaries were referring to when they wrote about Shakespeare’s plays; these were the works that Shakespeare’s acting companies performed, and these were the works that William Shakespeare of Stratford directed, abridged, revised, organized, augmented, and hired coauthors to help craft.

And this, in turn, proves Shakespeare could not have been the original author of the masterpieces.

---

The orthodox scholars’ systematic denial of Shakespeare’s authorship for so many plays is quite a glaring theoretical defect for a group that is constantly mocking others for denying Shakespeare’s authorship. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more perfectly dealt, lay-down hand of cards for the anti-Stratfordians. All they have to do is place these cards down face up and say, “Gin.” All they have to do in debates with orthodox scholars is jiu-jitsu their case for title pages. Yes, they should respond, title pages are indeed significant indications of authorship, which is why we know Shakespeare also wrote the bad quartos and apocryphal plays, confirming he was crafting mediocre works and slap-dash, less literary, crowd-pleasing adaptations.

Yet even with this manna from heaven—even with this royal flush dealt to them straight—many anti-Stratfordians throw it all away and continue to fight against the title pages too. The problem is they have so committed to the idea that their anonymous nobleman adopted “William Shakespeare” as an allonym that they feel protective of the name. Moreover, they don’t want to accept that the title pages refer to William of Stratford as they don’t think he could write at all. Typically, anti-Stratfordians deride Shakespeare as a mere grain merchant. So while orthodox scholars deny the veracity of the majority of Shakespeare’s title pages because they think Shakespeare was too great a writer, anti-Strafordians now stubbornly deny the veracity of all of them because they don’t think he could write at all.

Thus, anti-Stratfordians adopt Orthodox conspiracy theories to explain the bad quartos and apocryphal plays to save their original conspiracy theory about Shakespeare’s authorship. So they continue to erect a teetering Jenga tower of fanciful rationalizations that will not stand. If, instead, they were to eschew all conspiracy theories and intrigue, they would win this 400-year-old war over Shakespeare. For the title pages and contemporaneous comments prove he wrote the adaptations—and that some other literary genius wrote the original masterpieces.

Here now is a list of all the documents relevant to Shakespeare and his plays.¹ (Again, I am about to discuss the origin of the poems—which will contain a few surprises.) Importantly, no documents suggest any of the accused in the table below ever committed any of the offenses of which they are accused. The peach color in the table highlights the conspiratorial excuses and rationalizations used to explain away documented facts. (The table is also included in a downloadable pdf file below if it is too difficult to read on your screen.)

As clear from the chart, for the last two centuries, essentially all Shakespeare scholars, both orthodox and heretical, have privileged imagined rationalizations—have elevated their own personal mind pictures—over what the documents clearly state.

All told, orthodox scholars assume more than a dozen people acted in more than a dozen different conspiracies (with a few acting in more than one) all working to fool the public and frame Shakespeare for inferior works—or manufacture false accusations against him:

• Corrupt Printers: Augustine Mathewes, Valentine Simmes, William Jaggard, Thomas Creede, Richard Braddock, and William White.

• Scheming Publishers: John Helme, Thomas Millington, Thomas Dewe, Thomas Pavier, Andrew Wise, Arthur Johnson, Nicholas Ling, Nathaniel Butter, William Jones, and Henry Gosson.

• Unnamed Actors: alleged players who crafted the bad quartos and followed Shakespeare from Pembroke’s Men to Lord Chamberlain’s Men to King’s Men

• The Liars: Edward Ravenscroft and Captain Goulding who invented false rumors about him adapting plays.

• The Envious: Robert Greene, Ben Jonson, and others were so consumed with jealousy, they exaggerated or invented entirely false accusations of credit-stealing against Shakespeare.

Oxfraud was correct: One needs “contrary factual evidence” to challenge unambiguous documented facts. And “supposition, speculation, and guesswork are not acceptable.” Nor are endless conspiracy theories.

Anti Stratfordian Table 4

206KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

1. After Weever’s epigram in 1599, I stop listing the few external references by contemporaries connecting Shakespeare to his plays. Since both North-supporters and orthodox scholars agree that these people are being honest and referring to William Shakespeare of Stratford, all it does is add more conspiratorial beliefs to the anti-Stratfordians. Similarly, I only include one book catalogue in the table—though a few other such catalogues also attribute the apocrypha to Shakespeare.