OXFORD, ENGLAND - Anyone who has ever read a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel or watched an Alfred Hitchcock movie knows that our British cousins enjoy a good mystery. So it should come as no surprise that some Brits are joining forces with a group of Americans to reprise an old mystery, one that explores the enigmatic nature of genius itself.
What I refer to is the efforts of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition to raise doubt about the authorship of William Shakespeare. British academics, actors and even the former director of the Royal Shakespeare Theater have signed the Coalition's "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" that questions Shakespeare's identity. In doing so, this trans-Atlantic group joins such past luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickens, Sigmund Freud and Sir John Gielgud in doubting whether Shakespeare actually wrote the works that famously bear his name.
Like all true skeptics, these most recent Shakespeare doubters do not claim to categorically prove their assertions. They do not definitively disprove Shakespeare's authorship. Nor do they establish that another writer, such as my new local favorite, the Earl of Oxford, authored these works. Thus, they offer no dramatic climax solving this mystery, no final act revelation that the butler did it. Instead, they seek to create reasonable doubt about whether Shakespeare wrote the works traditionally credited to him.
They ask why there is no conclusive evidence of Shakespeare's authorship during his lifetime, or proof that he ever obtained a patronage, let alone received payment for his works. They also inquire why there are only non-literary documents pertaining to Shakespeare, such as the bequest of a "second best bed" to his wife, a legacy that prosaically does not even mention his plays and poems. Admittedly, there are no smoking guns in these arguments, no "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" facts. Indeed, Shakespeare's bequest to his wife might be proof positive of his wickedly funny genius.
Still, one does join the Shakespeare doubters in wondering how a commoner from an illiterate family in the then-provincial town of Stratford could write what many regard as the greatest literature in the English language. This mystery is compounded by the doubter's assertion that Shakespeare did not have a university education or access to the books necessary to become an autodidact of such astonishing erudition. In short, it beggars the imagination to suppose that the extraordinary sophistication of Shakespeare's works somehow arose from the ordinary intellectual circumstances of his life.
Naturally, there are many who disagree with Shakespeare's doubters. In fact, the books written on this subject probably could fill a small library. Importantly, though, there are also skeptics of another sort who question why any of this matters. Some say that we will never be free of the literary hegemony of dead white males unless Shakespeare is relegated to the dustbin of history. Others assert that Shakespeare lacks currency in an age of text messaging when utilitarian abbreviations such as "lol" or "bff" render the beauty and grammar of Elizabethan English a charming, if difficult to understand, anachronism. And still others claim that the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works lacks intellectual interest, since authorial intent is irrelevant in literary analysis.
However, the controversy regarding Shakespeare's authorship has proved remarkably resilient to marginalization in this or any manner. One reason why is that it appeals to our enduring fascination with genius. While we can recognize genius in others, understanding its mysterious laws of inspiration is quite a different matter. Just as we cannot know the agony and euphoria of romantic love without having been in love, it seems that genius is an impenetrable mystery for all but the lucky few who are geniuses. So, when we look at the life of Shakespeare, we may peer at a veil that our ordinary intelligence can wonder about but never see behind.
Thus, some doubt whether a man of ordinary circumstances such as Shakespeare could be a genius because they scoff at the idea that genius can overcome human limitations. However, was it any more improbable for Shakespeare to be a genius than it was for Beethoven to write the Ninth Symphony while deaf or for Mozart to compose musical masterpieces as a child?
Perhaps the nature of genius lies precisely in its ability to overcome normal human limitations. If so, the implausibility of Shakespeare's authorship might confirm, rather than refute, his genius. The enduring mystery of the nature of genius should enliven our appreciation of Shakespeare, whether or not he actually wrote the works attributed to him.
Lindsey Meyers '09 is sleuthin' it up with our British cousins.
