The authorship question surrounding the works of William Shakespeare has been a subject of debate for centuries. While the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Shakespeare did indeed write his plays, there are those who hold alternative theories. This essay explores the reasons behind the belief that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays, examining arguments, quotes, and evidence put forth by skeptics and proponents of alternate authorship theories.

Lack of Documentary Evidence

One of the key arguments made by skeptics is the lack of documentary evidence directly linking Shakespeare to the plays. They argue that there are no manuscripts in Shakespeare’s handwriting, no letters or personal documents, and limited references to him as a playwright during his lifetime. This absence of concrete evidence raises questions about Shakespeare’s authorship.

For instance, Diana Price, author of “Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem” (2001), highlights this lack of evidence. She points out that there is no record from Shakespeare’s lifetime attributing the plays to him or indicating his involvement in the theatrical world. This absence of direct documentation becomes a cornerstone for skeptics to question the traditional attribution of Shakespeare as the sole author.

Discrepancies in Authorship

Another argument put forth by skeptics is the existence of discrepancies in the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays. They contend that the style, themes, and language used in the plays vary significantly, suggesting the involvement of multiple authors. These variations challenge the idea of Shakespeare as a singular genius behind all the works attributed to him.

In his book “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?” (2010), James Shapiro discusses these discrepancies. He notes that there are remarkable differences between the early plays and the late plays attributed to Shakespeare. This disparity in style and content leads skeptics to question whether one individual could have produced such a wide range of works. It opens the possibility for collaborative authorship or alternative authors altogether.

Alternative Candidates

Some skeptics propose alternative candidates as the true authors of Shakespeare’s plays, such as Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe. They argue that these individuals possessed the necessary knowledge, education, and literary skills to produce the works attributed to Shakespeare.

Prominent actor Mark Rylance, a supporter of the Oxfordian theory, states, “I believe the works of Shakespeare were written by another hand, by a person of extraordinary genius and intellectual power, and that person is Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford.” This belief in alternative candidates stems from a reevaluation of historical records and the exploration of other potential authors who had the requisite background and cultural knowledge to produce the plays.

Conclusion: While the belief that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays has gained some traction among a minority of scholars and enthusiasts, the overwhelming consensus within the academic community remains that William Shakespeare was indeed the author of his works. The lack of direct evidence and the discrepancies cited by skeptics can be explained by factors such as the loss of historical documents and the evolution of Shakespeare’s writing style over time. However, the weight of historical evidence, the cultural impact of Shakespeare’s works, and the collective knowledge of Shakespearean scholarship solidify his authorship in the literary canon.