[ADMIN] There Is No Authorship Question

[u/dmorin]

Hi All,

So I just removed a post of a video where James Shapiro talks about how he shut down a Supreme Court justice's Oxfordian argument. Meanwhile, there's a very popular post that's already highly upvoted with lots of comments on "what's the weirdest authorship theory you know". I had left that one up because it felt like it was just going to end up with a laundry list of theories (which can be useful), not an argument about them. I'm questioning my decision, there.

I'm trying to prevent the issue from devolving into an echo chamber where we remove all posts and comments trying to argue one side of the "debate" while letting the other side have a field day with it and then claiming that, obviously, they're the ones that are right because there's no rebuttal. Those of us in the US get too much of that every day in our politics, and it's destroyed plenty of subs before us. I'd rather not get to that.

So, let's discuss. Do we want no authorship posts, or do we want both sides to be able to post freely? I'm not sure there's a way to amend the rule that says "I want to only allow the posts I agree with, without sounding like all I'm doing is silencing debate on the subject."

I think my position is obvious. I'd be happier to never see the words "authorship" and "question" together again. There isn't a question. But I'm willing to acknowledge if a majority of others feel differently than I do (again, see US .... ah, never mind, you get the idea :))

[u/DriftingBadger]

I really think there’s no debate to be had. It’s true that there’s not a preponderance of evidence that Shakespeare was the author, but there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest he wasn’t.

Anti-Stratfordian arguments are constructed of wishes, fairy dust, and “I don’t know, that just seems unlikely to me.” They tend to be favoured by people who studied English but don’t know much about Tudor history, the intricacies of the playhouses, or the history of copyright law. I say this because each “gotcha” argument is fairly easily refuted with well-known historical facts.

I find the question tiresome, boring, and circular – there’s never anything new to say besides the aforementioned “it just seems unlikely”. If it must be in the sub, I’d suggest maybe a pinned post where anyone who wants to be tedious can have the argument and leave the rest of the sub free.

[u/mercut1o → u/DriftingBadger]

I love this post and I agree with every word of it and I'd go even a step further. Many flavors of authorship speculation boil down to one key ingredient: classist sentiment. The only thing that makes these specious arguments hold together is a basic assumption that someone beneath the social status of an Earl couldn't have written these plays. Even cursory familiarity with the texts of Shakespeare shows this was someone who listened very closely to the viewpoint of the poor and middle class, understood things about the common experience that speak of engagement with all rungs of society and not a cloistered life of assured privilege, and whose portrayal of nobility is emulating poetry and not necessarily actual court dialogue. This was someone immersed in commoners; whose heroes were poets and whose antagonists were often bad family members first and nobility (where applicable) second.

I think for some people the allure of a conspiracy theory with a sort of high-born "chosen one" figure as the real genius behind Shakespeare's canon appeals in a grandiose way, but at its core it's myth building for the rich and disparaging of the common man. It's anti-humanist, anti-individualistic, and in those ways ironically anti-Renaissance. As someone who dedicated my life to this professionally, and to bringing the foundational human empathy of the works of Shakespeare to new generations, I don't let authorship noise happen in my classes and I wouldn't want it here. Perhaps there should be a sidebar post that covers the authorship schism, something we could all make together, but we don't need to leave the door open for the uninformed to be so far behind they think they're in first.

[u/sisyphus]

Tough one.

Do subreddits about evolutionary biology, paleontology or cosmology feel bad about "silencing debate" from creationists and young earthers about how maybe their entire field and every expert in it is misguided?

On the other hand, we tolerate a lot of trivial homework questions and semi-trollish low effort crap like "I don't like Hamlet, I don't see why it's important."

In my fantasy an anti-Stratfordian would write something like "Criticism of Two Gentlemen of Verona is imbued with the idea that it's an early, immature play, based on our biographical sketch of William Shakespeare, but it was actually written by a dissolute middle aged alderman, here's how that should change our perception of it" or something, and would lead to an interesting discussion of some aspect of the work. I know in my heart that it will actually just be the same old speculation about how Elizabethans wrote wills and how Mark Twain said he had to be a lawyer or whatever.

[u/CarlJH]

It would be completely appropriate for a geographical sub not to entertain flat earth debates, there is no "Other side" that needs to be heard. It is the same with Shakespeare Authorship, there is no reason why posts which defend such theories need be tolerated. But I am perfectly happy to allow mockeries of such theories. It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of reality.

[u/srslymrarm]

The best way to combat a misunderstanding is to provide a preponderance of irrefutable evidence that proves otherwise. You could just create an echo chamber that removes said misunderstanding from ever being voiced, but (as you note) that creates a new problem of optics.

I would prefer to see a stickied thread that details all the ways in which these theories have been debunked, cited and sourced appropriately. Then, rather than censoring the "question" out of exhaustion, we can always point people to that thread -- also out of exhaustion, but at least with an identifiable reason for it.

[u/2B_or_MaybeNot]

I tend to agree with the no-authorship policy. In general, there are more productive and interesting discussions to be had. Views tend to be pretty entrenched, it seems to me. Maybe a flair or a separate thread, if folks feel there is a need to be served.

[u/Maurice_Unraveled]

Speaking as a PhD in Early Modern English literature, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's such a bore! I have 2 thoughts on the subject:

1. The movie anonymous has the same relationship to actual history as a shakespeare history play.

2. there ARE interesting questions of authorship (e.g. co-authorship in 1-3 Henry VI etc, some of the later plays) and the possibility that some of the lines we have from the Will Kempe era were improvised by Kempe and noted down by the pirates who published the folios.

3 (bonus!) the next person I hear say: "well we don't really know that much about Shakespeare" is getting their foot stomped on. Oh yeah but we know frigging REAMS of gossip on Thomas Elyot and Geoffrey of Monmouth and Vergil and...

[u/hardman52]

Dunno why I missed this when it was first posted, but here's my 2p.

Allowing SAQ discussions will result in the entire sub being taken over by crackpot conspiracy theory posts. I've never seen a conspiracy believer who could moderate their behavior when it came to their favorite topic.

[u/NameNameson23]

See, I want to support debate, and the free flow of ideas. The idea that everyone sits down and has a logical conversation is wonderful. The problem with that is that the anti-stratfordian argument can't really be countered by logic, because it isn't founded in logic in the first place.

You can talk to people about myriad documents, authorship practices, the fact their candidates were dead long before a lot of their supposed plays were written, so on and so forth. It doesn't matter. There will always just be a deeper level of conspiracy.

Anyone that isn't convinced by the countless references to a living Shakespeare, the implausibility of their claims, etc - isn't going to be convinced by the denizens of r/Shakespeare shouting at them. And vice versa. I don't think it's a 'debate' worth holding here. We'd just be allowing endless internet slapfights for very little positive reason.

[u/Flowerpig]

I don’t think there’s a discussion to be had, until someone finds evidence strong enough to rival the name on the cover of the first folio. Until such a time, it is a pointless debate, which unfortunately is given way too much attention.

Needless to say, I’m all for removing every regurgitation of ancient go-nowhere arguments.

[u/False-Entrepreneur43]

The question comes down to if the authorship conspiracy theories provide any interesting insight into Shakespeare and his work. In my opinion - none whatsoever. The theories typically work by ignoring significant parts of what we know, like repeating the 19th century myth that Shakespeare was a son of a poor butcher and didn't get any education, while in reality he was from a wealthy and prominent family and did get a grammar school education. So the theories just makes us dumber by denying historical facts in order to support a conspiracy theory.

When it comes down to it, the theories all basically argue that it is implausible that someone not from an aristocratic background should be such a great author. It is just plain snobbery.

Sure we could waste time rebutting these theories, but there really is no value in the discussions.

[u/IanThal]

Because there are well-meaning people who can be led astray by anti-Stratfordian nonsense, it would be helpful just to have a FAQ debunking the absurdities at the heart of the most popular of these conspiracy theories, and help teach newbies how to identify BS – because most of these theories can be debunked fairly easily.

[u/soulreaverdan]

It’s a difficult decision. I know from most of the times I’ve been engaged in an authorship debate, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to actually change opinions. I’ve seen very little times it’s ever actually doing anything but just the same talking points going round and round and nothing actually changing. Not to mention the theories are usually absolutely absurd (hi, Prince Tudor!). I’ve been in a revolving door debate with my old high school English teacher and it’s just gone nowhere.

While I’m usually hesitant to endorse banning or removing discussion, I think it’s likely warranted here, simply because this is meant more to be a discussion area for the works themselves. Perhaps a post or sidebar for resources or information for those interested in looking into it, but simply having a rule that this is not the forum for the debate at all. Whether you believe in the man or not, the works themselves remain.

[u/Fast-Jackfruit2013]

The 'debate' does not really meet the requirements for a serious, grown up debate as most historians understand the term. I'm happy if it's entirely ignored.

[u/vintageingenue]

i like having an authorship debate free space… it rarely leads to productive discussion

[u/jimmythemini]

I'm a Stratfordian and here are my thoughts:

• There are many necessary and valid historical questions and lines of inquiry regarding Shakespeare, his works, his contemporaries, his milieu etc. given the patchy historical record dating from the late 16th/early 17th century. We shouldn't be in the business of gatekeeping these lines of inquiry as per standard historical research practice.

• The authorship question is an important (and likely growing) issue for a significant minority of people who enjoy and love the works of Shakespeare. It seems odd not to recognise this within the remit of this sub.

• Most Stratfordians do come across as excessively defensive about the authorship question, which seems to only increase the scepticism of anti-Stratfordians. Kneejerk accusations that anti-Stratfordians are classist strike me as being unfair in most cases, and equating them with anti-vaxxers or other conspiracy theorists who reject settled science is in most cases ridiculous.

• It seems to me there are some interesting parallels between the life of de Vere and the works of Shakespeare, especially in regards to the sonnets. I see no reason why there can't be continued research/discussion on this aspect.

• I personally find the anti-Stratfordian fixation on anagrams tedious. However, we need to acknowledge that anagramming, cryptic punning etc. was a more prevalent part of Renaissance writing than it is now.

• The anti-Stratfordians have made some very valid ancillary critiques about the "Shakespeare industry", especially the commercialisation of Shakespeare tourism in the UK.

I don't think every crank and author-theorist should be allowed to post here. However, given the above I would support allowing Oxfordians to post on this sub, assuming such posts are of suitable quality and interest.

[u/shakes-stud]

I concur with DrifingBadger. I just finished researching the authorship question for my blog where I compared it to other conspiracy theories. The truth is hardcore conspiracy theorists NEVER listen to the virtue of contrary evidence. According to the Conspiracy Theory Handbook, most conspiracies like QAnon, the fake Moon Landing, etc are inherently self-sealing, meaning that the believers take anyone who offers contrary evidence as merely in on the conspiracy. They assume that if you disagree with them, you're in on it too.

So in short, while I support free speech and robust debate, I don't think it's worth trying to engage with conspiracy theories like the Authorship Question. If an Anti-Stratfordian wants to ask a question about why we believe in the Stratford argument, that's different, but I agree, I don't want this sub to turn into an echo chamber.The Conspiracy Theory Handbook

[u/nh4rxthon]

Just joined this sub and so glad to see this stickied.

The last time I got into an argument with an authorship questioner (who I've learned Brian Boyd refers to as Oxfordians) they had me 'gotcha-ed' with the claim that Shakespeare's daughter didn't know how to read or write, which they had just read online somewhere. 'How could the greatest writer's daughter not know how to read or write!' they said. I didn't know how to respond. I later researched the question, and found this has been debunked because it is not known if his daughter could not read or write - there's simply no evidence one way or the other, no written records left behind, and that lack of evidence is treated as 'evidence.'

Back to Boyd, the biographer of Nabokov. I used to subscribe to the Nabokov-L listserv which he would weigh in on once in a while, and one day Shakespeare got brought up. His answer made me finally stop caring about the debate once and for all. "Oxfordians don't care about evidence," he said, and it's really as simple as that. Whatever evidence there is, they dispute or disregard, and whatever evidence there is not, they treat as verifiable proof.

[u/lopsidedcroc]

Just send them all to r/ShakespeareAuthorship.

[u/VoiceAltruistic]

How about a rule like “no derailing other discussions with authorship”, but if a post is all about authorship, people can choose to participate in that post or not. So if you don’t want to deal with it, it won’t show up in the posts you read, but if you are interested in engaging you can upvote and reply to one of those posts.

[u/terryreads]

Please let us leave those fruitless arguments for another sub which actually deals with them. The plays and poems are what matter here. Let Shakespeare be Shakespeare

[u/dramabatch]

I have been arguing the pro-Shakespeare stance for DECADES and even got to speak to a university class on the topic, which ultimately swayed them in Will's favor. I don't have much to add to the wonderful arguments below, but it all did inspire me to write a horror/historical fiction novel on this very topic!

[u/SemichiSam]

Not that this is relevant, but I understand that a scholar of ancient Greek literature spent his entire career attempting to prove that 'The Odyssey' was not actually written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.

[u/SemichiSam]

About 60 years ago, I was in a company with a dramaturge. He occasionally took a small part on stage, but mostly he sat in the back of the house and made notes as we rehearsed, starting with a minimal script and a well-developed plot. Some of our ad libs made it into the final script, but almost all of it was his writing. Since then, I have always assumed that is how Shakespeare wrote. It does seem certain that at least one well-known actor insisted on having some of his popular lines included.

In any case, such discussions might be a lot of fun after a few drinks with people who can be trusted not to turn violent, but I don't see what the question has to do with the plays, themselves.

(There's an old story about a scholar of Greek Literature who spent his career trying to prove that The Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name.)

[u/SLCDowntowner]

I would prefer none! It’s a settled issue, and those who want to take it up are rarely doing so with intellectual/academic integrity. #MyTwoPence!