Concluding remarks from:
"IN RE SHAKESPEARE: THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE ON TRIAL"
by William Brennan, Justice,
Supreme Court of the United States.
The debate about the authorship of these plays, and indeed as well the sonnets, I think, derives from a perception of the plays as reflecting a vast knowledge in a number of areas--law, medicine, philosophy, geography, and so forth --and a belief that William Shakespeare of Stratford could never possibly have been exposed to the education and experiences necessary to produce these models of learning and erudition. Both of these impressions are, I think, inaccurate. For one thing, the plays, brilliant,witty, and poetic as they undoubtedly undeniably are, nevertheless are not factually perfect --they contain a number of errors, amusingly documented by various scholars.
For example, Bohemia is given a seacoast in A Winter's Tale. Characters in Two Gentlemen of Verona board ship at Verona for passage toMilan. Cleopatra wears a corset and plays billiards. Hector quotes Aristotle. Hamlet attends a yet-to-be-founded university. There are clocks in Ancient Rome and gunpowder in the time of King John. Edgar, although a contemporary of pre-Roman King Lear, is familiar with Bedlam, the hospital for the insane in Shakespeare's London. And there are other inaccuracies. And as for Shakespeare's supposed expertise in the law, Elizabethan legal experts point out that when he uses legal terms in theplays, they are in fact such terms as he himself would have encountered, it seems to me, in his own basic dealings --the deeds and titles to land, and so forth. Or in his sources,because he did consult sources --notably, I guess, Hollinshed's Chronicles of England that was published in 1577.
Well, if the plays aren't as perfect as the Oxfordians suggest, the historical William Shakespeare was not such an ignorant butcher's boy as has been made out. While Shakespeare's wife, Ann Hathaway, and his younger daughter Judith may well have been illiterate, I guess most women in those days were not given educations. Yet, Susanna was not illiterate, nor was his father, John Shakespeare, although it has been maintained that the man couldn't even signhis own name. In fact, he was a member of the Burrough Council and fairly prominent in local affairs at Stratford. Now, if he signed certain documents with his mark rather than with his signature, so did most people in those days. As for Shakespeare himself, there is every reason to believe that he attended the excellent local grammar school in Stratford, where several of the teachers had Oxford degrees, and that he received a fine education and classical training there.
Now, we have, sadly, only I think six examples of Shakespeare's signature, and it isargued that those signatures are written in such a shaky and illegible, illiterate hand that they certainly bespeak no particular education. And yet, it may well be that they are written in a very fine example of the so-called "Secretary method" of writing, which to be sure does look somewhat strange to our Twentieth Century eyes, but a Sixteenth Century scholar would probably think our writing, at least mine, looks barbarous and untutored.
The theory that Shakespeare's plays were actually written by the 17th Earl of Oxford was first put forward only as recently as 1920, as I understand it. And it strikes me that theory is essentially a conspiracy theory: the Earl of Oxford, for various complicated reasons, could not be publicly recognized as the author of the plays, so he hid under the name of William Shaksper or Shak-spere, an actor with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which was, of course, the playing company that put on several, or performed, these plays. Well, the Stratfordians believe that this actor and William Shakespeare of Stratford were the same man, and for that reason, the author.
Oxfordians, on the other hand, say it was only a cover up. Well, I think the burden was on the Oxfordians to prove that Oxford was indeed the author of the plays, and it wasn't enough to prove that Shakespeare of Stratford was not. To prevail in this moot court, as the case was presented, it had to be that Oxford's case was proved by clear and convincing evidence. It may be that, even applying the ordinary preponderance of evidence standard the case was not proved, as I saw it.
Unfortunately, too --and this is the principal reason that I have concluded that the case was not proved-- several of the more important plays actually surfaced after Oxford's death in 1604. Now, there is no proof, to me at least, that I thought was essential, that any of these plays which surfaced after 1604 had been written by Oxford before 1604. What evidence there is to suggest that they were written by Oxford before 1604 is, at least in my judgment, inadequate to establish that in fact they were. And that, for me, is sufficient reason to say that the case has not been proved for Oxford. It must he apparent that, if a single one of the plays that surfaced after 1604 was not written by Oxford before his death, then I think the whole case collapses. It may well be that if there were other opportunities, more could be proved that has been submitted on behalf of Oxford to this moot court.
So my conclusion is that Oxford did not prove that he was the author of the plays. And so, I feel that the 200 years that elapsed after Shakespeare's death before any doubt was cast on whether or not he was the author, leaves the issue about where we started.