Finding Shakespeare

Was William Shakespeare the author of his own works, or was he merely someone else's pseudonym?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies, Urban Legends

Skeptoid #280
October 18, 2011
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare
Artwork: Mitsuko Stoddard
© Skeptoid Media, Inc.

As any historical text on the subject will tell you, William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in England, probably in 1564, and died in his hometown in 1616. He married and raised three children, and had a successful career in theater in London; so successful, in fact, that he was memorialized in effigy in the cathedral in Stratford-upon-Avon and even in London's own Westminster Abbey. The reason for this success is what you'll find in virtually any literary history: that Shakespeare is widely considered to be the finest playwright who ever lived, in any language, in any era. The "Bard of Avon", as he came to be known during his life, overcame his ordinary middle-class station and relative lack of formal education to compete with the finest noble playwrights of the day, and eventually trumped them all.

His is a fine story itself; a tale of great personal accomplishment, where talent and perseverance won out over the snobby, high-class competitors in the Elizabethan court. And during his life, few denied him the credit he was due.

But as we see so often with many of the subjects we cover on Skeptoid, an event that is unremarkable at the time it occurs is often magnified and misrepresented decades (or centuries) later into an extraordinary mystery, by people who weren't there and have no first hand knowledge. After his death, Shakespeare's fame only grew (though he was not yet considered as great as he now is), and continued to grow for well over a century. In fact it wasn't until the late 1800s, generations after Shakespeare died, that a few fringe authors began raising the spectre of doubt over whether the Bard was indeed the author of the works attributed to him; or whether he was perhaps only the public face of the true author whose identity remains a secret.

The theories are many and varied. In some, an aristocrat is said to have written Shakespeare's works under a pseudonym because it was inappropriate for men of their rank to engage in commercial writing endeavors. In others, more educated authors are believed to have written the works because of the many references to high society and the royal court that they believe Shakespeare, who was of the merchant class, would not have known about. Still others raise the possibility that Shakespeare the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon may have simply coincidentally have had the same name as Shakespeare the author.

But the principal pieces of evidence against William Shakespeare are in three parts: First, that there is evidence he was illiterate. Second, that there are gaps in his documented history as a real living person. And third, the questions of his education and social status.

Shakespeare's presumed illiteracy is supported by scant evidence. There are only seven surviving signatures of his, and oddly, some are spelled differently from one another, and all appear to be nearly illegible scrawls. No signatures at all survive from Shakespeare's parents or from two of his children, except for marks used in place of signatures on legal documents. Marks were typically used by the illiterate. But all this is evidence of is that he was at least as literate as anyone in his family. The style of handwriting common in Shakespeare's time, known as secretary hand, often incorporated breviograms, shortened forms of words. Whether the various spellings of Shakespeare's signatures were breviograms or the result of either illiteracy or simple laziness, can't be known. It does not prove that Shakespeare the man was different from Shakespeare the author.

Shakespeare the man also left no correspondence. However, it turns out that this is the rule with authors of the day, not the exception. There are no original documents at all left by Christopher Marlowe, for one example, who was arguably even more famous than Shakespeare at the time. Not only is there a lack of documents by him, there is a lack of documents about him; where he went, what he did. Most scholars agree that this is not terribly unexpected. In his day he was a playwright and actor in London, a city where there were many playwrights and actors. Shakespeare's fame largely came in later centuries; during his lifetime, he was no more expected to have his activities documented than anyone else. Marlowe is well documented largely because he was often in trouble with the law and was also murdered. Their contemporary Ben Jonson's history is well known, as he was employed by royals and was the first playwright to receive an annual salary from the crown. Like most of his contemporaries, Shakespeare's private life appears to have been relatively unremarkable.

The four main nominees put forth by the anti-Stratfordians — those who doubt William Shakespeare's authorship — are Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, William Stanley the 6th Earl of Derby, and Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford. Let's take a quick look at each. We won't go into great detail, because none of these are taken seriously by the overwhelming number of Shakespeare academics, but feel free to look more deeply into each on your own.

Marlovian theory states that the famous playwright Christopher Marlowe faked his own murder in 1593, and then wrote Shakespeare's plays. The timing works out pretty well to support this, but that's about all. Though there are questions about Marlowe's death, there's no credible evidence that he didn't actually die. Supporters have often claimed that the style of writing between the two men is too similar to be coincidental. There's little doubt that Marlowe was one of Shakespeare's main influences, but we'll talk more about the style similarities in a moment.

Baconian theory claims that the eminent Sir Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works under a pseudonym to protect his reputation as a man of high standing. Throughout the 1800s, Bacon was the leading candidate among the anti-Stratfordians, many of whom claimed to find codes and ciphers within Shakespeare's works, wherein Bacon was trying to drop hints of his true identity. But searches for such clues are really just ex post facto rationalizations, and have never held up to serious scrutiny.

Derbyite theory points to the 6th Earl of Derby as the ringleader of a group of authors who collaborated to produce Shakespeare's works. The best evidence for this theory is no better than some of Shakespeare's plays seemed to parallel events in Derby's life; and the only suggestion for a motive that I've found is that Derby's family was a possible claimant to the English throne, so he felt it best to avoid politics and devote himself to cultural pursuits. Beyond a few nineteenth and early twentieth century authors, few have taken Derbyite theory seriously.

This brings us to the claim that has survived all the others: Oxfordian theory, promoting Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author. It was first proposed some 300 years after Shakespeare's death, by authors noting circumstantial evidence, such as the Oxfords' association with the theater and wealthy patrons. Some did speak well of de Vere's skill at poetry, but others have pointed out that reviewers might well be expected to give exaggerated praise to wealthy and respected men. Oxfordian theory has survived long enough that the 2011 movie Anonymous gives it as fact, much in the way that Amadeus promoted the untrue legend that Salieri murdered Mozart. It's well known that de Vere's family did participate in the publication of Shakespeare's works after his death, called the First Folio. But as evidence, this is only as convincing as suggesting that Stephen King's publisher must be the true author of his books. There's no evidence; only a supposition.

And this is really the best way to encompass all of the evidence that someone other than Shakespeare wrote his works: supposition. Logically, it's the same as 9/11 conspiracy theories. Look at some event or relationship a certain way, and it's always possible to find some circumstance to be consistent with just about any invented theory you like. But "consistent with" does not mean "evidence of".

There was one lesson that, in particular, has always stuck with me from my days studying screenwriting at UCLA. I don't know the actual quote or its source, but the story told by one of my instructors was that composing a play is like building a Frankenstein monster. He can teach you all the anatomy; what connects to what, how to implant the brain, how all the pieces go together, what are all the dramatic elements of a good story. But the one thing he can't teach is the bolt of lightning that makes it all come to life. That lightning is the native genius of the author. You either have it or you don't. There are composers who study their entire lives and go to the best schools, but they will never be Mozart. Edward de Vere may have gone to Oxford and Cambridge and have been as well practiced as any poet on the planet, and William Shakespeare may have come from a small town with only a basic public education; but that spark of lightning was born to one and not to the other. Study and practice can improve your work, but it cannot create true genius. The work attributed to William Shakespeare is the product of true genius, not the product of education and social rank.

But let us not speculate. It turns out that technology finally did evolve to the point where we've been able to conclusively exclude all of these nominees, Edward de Vere the Earl of Oxford included, as having written Shakespeare's works. Computational stylistics is a branch of computer science in which a "literary fingerprint" can be determined for any author, based on computational analysis of his writing. As detailed in their 2009 book, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, professors Arthur Kinney and Hugh Craig proved during their 2006 research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst that Shakespeare was the author of his own works, and nobody else. These computational techniques also made it possible to determine which plays influenced which later authors, and many other subtleties that escape conventional study of the texts. Hollywood movies to the contrary, we now know for a fact that neither de Vere of Oxford nor anyone else deserves credit for William Shakespeare's life's work.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

And neither was the Bard of Avon likely to take such charges lightly. A stone slab covers his remains at the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon, and on it is carved the following warning:

Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare,
To digg the dvst encloased heare.
Bleste be ye man yt spares thes stones,
And cvrst be he yt moves my bones.

Brian Dunning

© 2011 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Callahan, P. "Computerized Analysis Helps Researchers Define Shakespeare's Work Using "Literary Fingerprint"." Office of News and Media Relations. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 27 Sep. 2006. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <>

Joyrich, R. "Shakespeare Oxford Society." Dedicated to Researching and Honoring the True Bard. Shakespeare Oxford Society, 31 Dec. 1996. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <>

Kinney, A., Craig, H. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

McCrea, S. The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question. Westport: Praeger, 2004.

McMichael, G., Glenn, E. Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy. New York: Odyssey Press, 1962.

Nicholl, C. "Yes, Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare." The Times Literary Supplement. 20 Dec. 2010, Number 5586: 3-4.

Shermer, M. "Skeptic's Take on the Life and Argued Works of Shakespeare." Scientific American. Scientific American, Inc., 31 Jul. 2009. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Finding Shakespeare." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 18 Oct 2011. Web. 4 Sep 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 59 comments

The idea that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and that it was part of some conspiracy to hide some other author or authors is so completely ridiculous that I am genuinely shocked this site would give the slightest time or space to such bullshit.

But then I have seen some of the other dross it has bothered to debunk.

It is all fired by the lowly fuel of highborn snobs who refuse to accept that a common schoolboy could grow up to be England's greatest poet.

Todd Stuart Phillips, New York City
September 21, 2012 10:23pm

While I am usually very skeptical of most conspiracy theories I can't help but give this one a second look. It is worth noting that the only actual documents of shakespeare's own hand are business documents. His work also displayed a knowledge of the inner workings of the court as well as cultures outside of his native England that would be hard to obtain without some first hand experience.

While I understand that this is not evidence in and of itself to support the theory, it does beg for some explanation. There is some nuance to the Oxfordian theory that Brian did not examine (I'm sure due to constraints of time, etc) but nonetheless are worthwhile and interesting to look more deeply into.

I am also somewhat troubled by the "automatic dismissal" of ANY conspiracy. I can assure you that I am a skeptic by any fair measure. But the default position of debunking versus illuminating does not assist in the persuit of the truth.

Even so, it makes for an interesting story. Trying to piece together the truth for scant evidence...

Al Weaver, Markham, Ontario
October 30, 2012 8:55am

I agree with Todd that what drives the 'Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare' movement is little more than snobbery. We know there was an actor and later theatre owner by the name of Shakespeare who nobody in his day questioned as being author of the plays. There was, however, a good deal of vitriol aimed at him by rivals who thought him too low-bred. But genius will out I suppose.
Incidentally, I've never quite understood why someone who regularly put on plays at court is meant to have no knowledge of court life, while the Earls of Oxford or Derby could be so familiar with the doings of Bottom the Weaver.

Harpo, Buenos Aires
December 13, 2012 5:54pm

In Shakespeare's day, spelling was not yet codified. Today dictionaries provide standardized spelling of every word, but such was not the case then. It was common for the same word to be spelled differently even by the same author in the same book.

Thus there is nothing unusual or incongruous in the fact that Shakespeare spelled his own name in a variety of ways.

I pity people who have nothing better to do than to argue that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare. Why do they even care? Do they imagine some sort of government conspiracy? Sheesh!

I do think he was better educated than some might suggest. Self-educated, perhaps, but the author of that poetry and those plays was clearly a very well-read person. You don't write like that without reading a very great deal, and that in itself constitutes a fine education.

Daniel, Spokane, WA
January 1, 2013 11:47am

The Authorship question is not elitist at all. I grew up in the suburbs of Boston, went to public high school and wanted to believe in Shakespeare as author but it is precisely the evidence that makes it impossible for me to accept. As an actor I have spent my life reading plays, poetry, novels, etc. One thing any actor worth their salt will tell you is that every great author has a very distinct voice. With that in mind, I encourage you to read any of de Vere's letters and if you are any good at discerning a voice from the written word, you will hear the Bard. Read Marlowe, Bacon, Stanley or anyone else and you will not. That was the most revelatory moment for me...reading de Vere. And where is William in all of this? Nothing in his hand? Nothing? I beg to differ from the writer of this article. I take some offense to it in fact. He has lazily and blithely swept this aside, comparing it to 9/11 conspiracy theory, clearly not understanding how much I and others who do believe this to be true not only love Shakespeare's words but also find his fraudulence heartbreaking. Nothing would make me happier than to say William Shakespeare wrote his plays but alas, he did not...he could not. I believe in genius. I also believe in facts. I do not believe in the impossible. It is impossible to imbibe 5 languages, the law, specific knowledge of geography, cultures, religions, literature and on and on... without access to the knowledge base. Self taught? Impossible. Snobby? No. Just real.

Michael Chiklis, Los Angeles
March 20, 2013 12:50pm

No other candidate for the authorship has Shakespeare's unity of person and history and available evidence that ascribes him to the works that have his name on it. No other. The Shakespeare haters wants you to buy into the illusion that there should be a debate about this, which is like saying we should still be debating whether the earth is flat, whether President Obama was born in the US, or whether climate change is happening. This Skep is the most concise and eloquent apology for Shakespeare. It's so true it's musical. Thank you.

Jed Serrano, San Francisco
July 5, 2013 1:59pm

William Shaksper (Shakesper, Shakespeare) was a middle-class boy from Stratford, son of a glover and former Lord Mayor, who made his living as a Theatre Shareholder and a dramatist. His life is fairly well-documented, given the times. There is no mystery about him except what fools agape for wonders try to produce. I speak as an academic specialist on Elizabethan Literature.

Rob Horne, Colombo, SL
September 23, 2013 3:36pm

Superb episode, but one amendment.

Dunning writes that during Shakespeare's life time "few denied [Shakespeare] the credit he was due."

Actually, NO ONE in Shakespeare's life time (and the one after) denied the credit he was due.

Serrano, San Francisco
July 18, 2014 3:30pm

Check this out:


Jim Ferris, California
August 1, 2014 8:42am

This is not skepticism. It is just recycled prejudice. Please try reading some books on the subject before your next blog. Mark Anderson's *Shakespeare By Another Name* is an excellent place to start. If that doesn't hit you look a bolt of lightening, then you are immune from instruction.

Dr. Stritmatter, Baltimore, MD
September 1, 2015 12:52pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

Sir Franklin's Cannibals
Skeptoid #482, Sep 1 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
Captain Kidd's Treasure
Skeptoid #481, Aug 25 2015
Read | Listen (12:07)
The Nazi of Nanking
Skeptoid #480, Aug 18 2015
Read | Listen (13:49)
Skeptoid #479, Aug 11 2015
Read | Listen (14:28)
Listener Feedback: Natural History
Skeptoid #478, Aug 4 2015
Read | Listen (11:36)
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
The Death of Rasputin
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Water Woo of Masaru Emoto
Read | Listen
#4 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#5 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#6 -
The Braxton County Monster
Read | Listen
#7 -
Read | Listen
#8 -
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.