The verdict is in: Shakespeare a fraud!

Don’t get too excited. The "verdict" in question is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who, according to this Wall Street Journal article, says Shakespeare didn’t write all those plays and poems after all:

Justice Stevens, who dropped out of graduate study in English to join the Navy in 1941, is an Oxfordian — that is, he believes the works ascribed to William Shakespeare actually were written by the 17th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

This old argument is nothing new, even on this blog, where I wrote this post a while back that garnered some interesting comments (worth your time to read!).

The argument that Shakespeare didn’t write any of those plays is based on the idea that he was from a lower class family, did not have the right schooling, etc. In other words, it’s typical class warfare. But Shakespearean scholars and academics alike have pretty much debunked that myth. The fact that this same argument is coming from Justice Stevens, isn’t that surprising according to this article from the NY Daily News:

Like most of those who espouse such foolishness, Justice Stevens’ arguments rely essentially on a kind of snobbish thinking one does not want to acknowledge in a Supreme Court Justice. It assumes writers of genius must be "our kind of people," not a bumpkin from Stratford.

p>Of course, people like Justice Steven will never come right out and say Shakespeare didn’t write all those works. Shakespearean conspiracy theorists typically use other ways to make their point. The WSJ article has a quote from Justice Stevens that proves this point:

"Where are the books? You can’t be a scholar of that depth and not have any books in your home," Justice Stevens says. "He never had any correspondence with his contemporaries, he never was shown to be present at any major event — the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence that he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt."

This argument that Justice Stevens gives fails because it assumes that the literary world Shakespeare lived in was similar to our own. During his time Shakespeare was never considered a scholar. He was a playwright, an actor, a shareholder in the theater company – in other words, Shakespeare was a working man.

And the argument Justice Stevens gives about there not being any letters Shakespeare wrote to contemporaries is just crazy. Did it ever occur to him that letters might not have survived the last 400 years? Shakespeare was not the literary icon during his day that he is now. Yes, his plays were famous, but he wasn’t. Anyone receiving a letter from him would have little impetus to save and preserve any letter that Shakespeare wrote.

The rebuttals I’m giving are also echoed in the Daily News article. There’s also hundreds, if not thousands, of books devoted to this subject. So it’s not worth it for me to reinvent the wheel and pick apart every argument people like Justice Stevens makes.

Justice Stevens should stick to U.S. law and leave Shakespearean scholarship, well, to the scholars.

What’s my own theory about Shakespeare? I think he did write all those plays and poems. He might have had the help of those he worked with, but I think the works are basically his.

What’s your theory? Did Shakespeare write all those plays, or should credit go to someone else? Give us your opinion in the comments.

Related posts

• Was Shakespeare a fraud?
• Happy Birthday Shakespeare!
• Classics deemed boring – turned away!
• Good job RIAA on winning a $1.9 million verdict against a single mother
• Don’t Blame Literature for Violence

Read More: Author News, Classic Literature, Literary News