Contested
Will:
Who
Wrote
Shakespeare?
by
James
Shapiro.

























A
Book
Review
by
John
Hudson



Shapiro’s
final
conclusion
is
correct.
It
makes
“a
lot”
of
difference
who
wrote
the
plays

(pg
279)
because
that
helps
determine
how
we
read
them,
and
the
meaning
that
we

find
in
them.

Unfortunately
Shapiro
does
not
try
to
help
solve
this
important
problem,

but
just
provides
a
historical
examination
of
the
three
main
candidates
who
have
been

put
forward
in
the
past,
the
Earl
of
Oxford,
Francis
Bacon,
and
William
Shakespeare.





Shapiro
finds
it
easy
to
mock
the
proponents
of
the
alternative
candidates.
It
is
amusing

that
Looney,
the
first
supporter
of
Oxford,
belonged
previously
to
a
movement
which

sang
hymns
to
Shakespeare
and
named
one
of
the
months
of
the
year
‘Shakespeare’.
It

is
fascinating
to
learn
how
Delia
Bacon,
a
pioneer
in
recognizing
the
collaborative
and

political
nature
of
the
plays,
finally
became
crazy
and
attempted
to
dig
up
Bacon’s
and

Shakespeare’s
tombs.
It
is
a
warning
to
all
interested
in
this
question
that
one
supporter

constructed
a
Baconian
cipher
machine,
a
sort
of
random
word
generator
that
led
him

to
trawl
the
river
Severn
searching
for
sealed
lead
boxes
that
he
believed
were
at
the

bottom
of
the
river
containing
definitive
proof
of
Bacon’s
authorship.
Craziness
is

fascinating
and
sells
books.
But
leaving
the
obsessions
of
Looney
and
Delia
Bacon
aside,

were
the
questions
they
were
asking
the
right
ones?





This
is
where
Shapiro
begins
to
disappoint.
By
excluding
the
evidence
of
the
plays

themselves,
Shapiro
is
left
with
a
seemingly
convincing
case
for
Mr.
Shakespeare.
This
is

a
clever
academic
trick,
but
it
doesn’t
explain
how
Mr.
Shakespeare
could
have
written

these
plays,
how
he
had
the
skills
and
social
networks
and
knowledge
to
do
so.
Shapiro

knows
better
than
to
try
and
answer
that
question‐‐‐because
he
knows
perfectly
well

that
there
is
no
independent
evidence
of
Mr.
Shakespeare
having
any
of
those
skills.




As
17,000
literary
pseudonyms
demonstrate,
the
name
on
a
book’s
cover
is
not
always

that
of
the
true
author.
For
instance,
the
poet
John
Taylor
parodied
an
actor
who
gave

out
copies
of
a
play,
claiming
they
were
his
own
“mother
wit”,
whereas
the
“matter

came
from
a
learned
brain”
for
whom
he
was
just
a
play‐broker.
Could
this
also
apply
in


www.darkladyplayers.com




the
case
of
the
Shakespearean
plays?
The
documentary
evidence
that
Mr.
Shakespeare

was
the
author
appears
strong:
he
had
his
name
on
the
cover,
the
plays
were
written
by

someone
who
knew
the
acting
company,
he
actually
gave
the
manuscripts
to
the
actors,

and
they
and
others
assumed
he
wrote
them.
The
problem
is
the
evidence
of
the
plays

themselves,
which
are
complex
scholarly
works
reflecting
various
specialized

knowledge.
This
knowledge
is
used
in
a
way
that
is
integral
to
the
plays
and
shows
that

the
author
came
from
a
highly
musical
environment,
had
a
knowledge
of
Hebrew
and

Judaism,
very
unusual
knowledge
of
Italy
including
the
small
town
of
Bassano,
and
at

some
point
had
sufficient
exposure
to
the
work
of
a
law
office
to
be
able
to
read
the

Norman
French
law
hand.
None
of
these
correspond
to
what
is
known
of
Mr.

Shakespeare's
life
history.
Nor
is
there
any
reason
why
a
Catholic
like
Mr.
Shakespeare

should
write
plays
that
contain
such
hostile
anti‐Christian
allegorical
parodies.
So
let
me

try
and
provide
the
commentary
that
Shapiro
should
have
provided
on
some
of
the

content
of
the
plays
and
what
it
implies
about
the
author.




Unlike
plays
composed
by
working
actors,
the
Shakespearean
plays
are
extremely

scholarly.
No
working
actor
would
have
had
the
time
or
reason
to
compose
the
Folio

version
of
Hamlet
which
was
far
too
long
to
be
performed
on
stage.
The
Stratfordian

view
that
"the
plays
show
no
evidence
of
profound
book
learning"
expressed
by
Louis
B.

Wright,
former
director
of
the
Folger,
is
hardly
correct.
Only
the
top
dozen
libraries
of

the
period,
including
those
of
the
Queen
and
Lambeth
Palace,
had
more
books
than

were
used
to
compose
the
Shakespearean
plays.

Fourteen
different
Bible
translations

were
used
to
make
the
3000
Biblical
and
religious
references
identified
in
the
plays
and

Stuart
Gillespie's

Shakespeare's
Books:
A
Dictionary
of
Shakespeare's
Sources
(2001)

provides
a
500
page
examination
of
the
hundreds
of
books
that
the
playwright
used‐‐‐at

least
ten
times
more
than
the
library
of
Edward
Alleyn.
Despite
being

England’s

richest

and
most
famous
actor
and
the
founder
of
Dulwich
College,
Alleyn
admitted
that
he
had

no
knowledge
of
rhetoric,
unlike
the
author
of
the
Shakespearean
plays
who

used

almost
every
known
rhetorical
figure.


At
least
200
legal
terms
or
concepts
are
used
in
the
Shakespearean
plays,
mentioned

1600
times
and
recorded
in
Sokol
and
Sokol's
Dictionary
of
Shakespeare's
Legal

Language
(2000).

It
is
the
accuracy
and
quality
of
these
Shakespearean
usages,
that

have
led
half
a
dozen
experts
to
conclude
that
the
playwright
had
legal
experience.

However,
it
was
not
until
2003
that
Thomas
Regnier
in
The
University
of
Miami
Law

Review
pointed
out
that
the
use
of
inheritance
law
in
Hamlet
“bespeaks
a
level
of

expertise
that
is
not
consonant
with
merely
an
intelligent
amateur”
because
it
draws

upon
the
manuscript
notebooks
of
Sir
John
Dyer
“written
in
Law
French,
an
archaic
form

of
Norman‐English,
and
inscribed
in
law
hand,
a
rare
style
of
writing
used
by
law
clerks

and
few
others
even
back
then”.
Only
someone
who
could
read
law
hand
could
have

understood
them,
and
Mr.
Shakespeare
could
not
have
gained
this
knowledge
casually

by
talking
to
people
or
through
his
own
petty
lawsuits.







www.darkladyplayers.com




The
playwright
read
Italian
fluently‐‐‐nearly
a
dozen
sources
including
Cinthio,
Guarini,

Tasso,
Aretino,
Boccaccio
and
Dante
were
read
in
the
original.
Rather
oddly,
the

playwright
also
set
nearly
a
third
of
the
plays
in
Italy,
and
turned
from
the
Court
history

plays
to
writing
Italian
marriage
comedies
around
1593.
Unlike
Webster
or
Jonson,
who

also
set
plays
in
Italy,
the
Shakespearean
plays
do
not
draw
upon
books
to
describe
local

geographical
and
architectural
features.
This
suggests
the
author
was
writing
out
of

personal
experience.
Critics
used
to
think
that
the
playwright’s
references
to
a
sailmaker

in
Bergamo
and
a
waterway
at
Milan
were
errors
because
they
did
not
match

descriptions
in
English
books.
It
was
not
until
the
early
1900s
that
Sir
Edward
Sullivan,

pointed
out
that
they
were
not
derived
from
books—which
were
inaccurate‐‐
but

actually
matched
the
reality
on
the
ground
and
in
17th
century
Italian
sources.

Contrary

to
Shapiro’s
suggestion
that
the
knowledge
of
Italian
locations
could
have
been
derived

from
“a
few
choice
conversations”
with
London
informants
(pg
275),
Roger
Prior’s

recent
article

‘Shakespeare’s
Visit
to
Italy’
(2008)
demonstrates
that
the
author
must

have
visited
the
small
Italian
town
of
Bassano
and
saw
a
fresco
there.
This
is
extensively

referred
to
in
Othello
in
a
way
that
suggests
the
author
had
"first‐hand
experience
“
and

displays
knowledge
that
is
"far
more
detailed
and
vivid"
than
anything
that
could
have

been
gathered
by
“recalling
a
second
hand
account
from
an
Italian
contact”.

Despite

Shapiro’s
insistence
that
the
playwright
obtained
his
detail
through
the
use
of

imagination,
precisely
accurate
details
of
the
configuration
of
a
canal
system
or
of
a

fresco
could
hardly
have
been
achieved
simply
through
imagination.
Accurate

geographical
descriptions
by
other
English
authors,
like
Chaucer,
do
not
reflect

imagination
but
personal
experience.


It
is
also
impossible
that
through
sheer
imagination
Mr.
Shakespeare
provided
the

accurate
knowledge
of
Judaism
in
the
plays.

If
that
knowledge
appeared
incidentally

only
one
or
two
times
it
could
perhaps
have
been
derived
from
casual
conversation
with

one
of
the
hundred
Marrano
Jews
living
in
the
city.

However
it
appears
more
often
than

that
and
is
in
some
cases
essential
to
the
entire
plot.

For
instance,
Hebrew
puns
are
a

core
aspect
of
Merchant
of
Venice,
leading
S.J.
Schonfeld,
in
an
article
in
Shakespeare

Survey
(2002)
to
conclude
that
the
author
was
using
a
Hebrew
original
since

“Shakespeare
is
hardly
to
be
credited
with
any
extensive
knowledge
of
Jews
and

certainly
none
at
all
of
Hebrew”.

Similarly
in
an
article
‘The
Meaning
of
Nedar
in
A

Midsummer
Night’s
Dream’
(2007)
Altimont
showed
that
the
playwright
used
the

Mishnah
to
create
some
clever
Hebrew
wordplay
shaping
the
plot
between
Helena
and

Hermia
although
Mr.
Shakespeare
"clearly
lacked
the
wherewithal
to
use
Hebrew
so

cleverly".
Similarly
in
a
forthcoming
article
‘Shakespeare
Unmasked’
in
the
Summer

issue
of
Reform
Judaism
(2010),
Michael
Posner
shows
that
some
of
the
nonsense

language
in
All’s
Well
That
Ends
Well,
is
actually
spoken
Hebrew.



Finally,
as
shown
in
Music
in
Shakespeare;
A
Dictionary
(2005),
musicality
is
integral
to

the
plays.
As
Tommy
Ruth
Waldo
noted
in
Musical
terms
and
Rhetoric:
The
Complexity

of
Shakespeare’s
Dramatic
Style

(1974),
the
estimated
2000
musical
references
in
the

plays
makes
them
300%
more
music
intensive
than
those
of
any
other
contemporary


www.darkladyplayers.com




playwright.
These
musical
references
could
not
have
been
gathered
from
casual

conversation
but
only
from
technical
personal
knowledge
of
musicianship.
This
implies

that
the
playwright
had
access
to
a
unique
musical
community
and
knowledge
beyond

that
available
to
any
ordinary
playwright‐‐which
Mr.
Shakespeare
is
not
known
to
have

had.
Nor
did
he
have
any


known
relationship
to
the
composers
of
the
music
for
the

plays,
such
as
Robert
Johnson,
although
music
was
critical
to
the
plays’
success.



Shapiro
rightly
pays
a
lot
of
attention
to
the
fact
that
some
of
the
Shakespearean
plays

were
written
as
‘collaborations’.

If
it
could
be
shown
that
Mr.
Shakespeare
sat
in
the

same
room
and
worked
face
to
face
on
writing
lines
with
another
playwright
then
the

Stratfordian
case
would
be
easily
won.

But
the
reality
is
that
Stratfordian
scholars'

research
shows
that:
the
plot
of
Sir
Thomas
More
was
divided
into
five
sections
each

allocated
to
a
separate
author
each
of
whom
could
have
sent
in
their
contributions
by

letter.
Pericles
is
another
case
of
multiple
individual
authorship
in
which
Wilkins
wrote

the
initial
acts
which
Shakespeare
“inherited”
(Knapp)
and
completed.
Two
Noble

Kinsmen
was
written
by
Shakespeare
and
Fletcher
separately
and
then
Fletcher

combined
the
pieces
into
a
play.
Fletcher
corrects
Shakespeare’s
scenes,
and
nowhere

the
other
way
around
so
there
was
no
joint
working.

Macbeth
was
written
by

Shakespeare
and
Middleton's
songs
were
subsequently
added
into
the
manuscript.

Initial
studies
on
Henry
8
showed
that
work
was
also
divided
by
section
and
although
a

small
number
of
scholars
suggest
that
this
division
extended
to
specific
scenes,
even

that
could
have
been
achieved
without
face
to
face
collaboration.
As
for
Timon
of

Athens,
Jowett
notes

“Allowance
must
be
made
for
another
possibility
that
might
affect

any
part
of
the
text;
that
Middleton
read
all
or
parts
of
Shakespeare’s
draft
and

responded
to
it
in
his
own
writing.”
None
of
these

‘collaborations’
needed
to
have

involved
face
to
face
meetings.
Indeed
the
editor
of
the
Arden
Henry
VIII

notes
that



“the
possibility
of
active
collaboration,
in
which
both
playwrights
work
simultaneously

on
a
scene”
is
“generally
anathema
to
Shakespeareans.”
So
it
is
quite
possible
that
the

‘collaboration’
on
the
Shakespearean
plays
was
all
done
by
letter,
and
offsite
working

which
allowed
the
real
author’s
identity
to
be
concealed.



None
of
the
three
contenders
for
the
Shakespearean
authorship
described
by
Shapiro

fulfill
all
of
these
simple
objective
criteria;
a
scholarly
poet
with
interests
in
the
Bible,

experience
in
the
household‐office
of
a
lawyer,
with
close
ties
to
London’s
communities

of
Marrano
Jews,
expatriot
Italians,
expert
musicians,
and
the
company
who
performed

the
plays.

Only
one
possible
contender
meets
these
criteria‐‐‐Amelia
Bassano
Lanier‐‐

who
Shapiro
indeed
mentions
as
one
of
the
latest
new
authorship
candidates
(page
4).

However
because
he
is
looking
at
the
past
history
of
the
controversy,
instead
of
helping

to
solve
it—a
matter
on
which
Shapiro’s
scholarship
could
have
been
invaluable‐‐he

merely
presents
an
exhaustive
tracing
of
three
unconvincing
dead
ends.




John
Hudson
is
a
graduate
of
the
Shakespeare
Institute
at
the
University
of
Birmingham,
and

is
Founder
of
the
New
York
Shakespeare
ensemble,
the
Dark
Lady
Players,
who
are
currently

working
on
an
allegorical
production
called
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse.



www.darkladyplayers.com