The Illuminated Donkey

Shakespeare and the Snobs. Reader Capt J.M. Heinrichs weighs in with his views on the continuing Shakespeare authorship discussion, focussing on the Stratford gentleman’s formal education, or lack thereof.

• Will Shakespeare was not educated. Granted his origins in life probably precluded him from an Oxbridge education, but what is the evidence that he was illiterate for the time? Where might he have acquired literacy? Was our definition of literacy necessary for him to write his plays? Was knowledge of the classics unavailable to the "uneducated"?
• Why is lack of verifiable (in 2002 terms) educational status a requirement for Shakespeare's opus? There are a large number of literate, educated persons in today's world who cannot approach Will's genius, even in their dreams. Pick one.
• A blinding flash of inspiration, followed by diligent digging for proofs of that flash is less convincing than an inspirational flash which pulls together the previously collected data.

This seems to be the main impression that a lot of people have about the authorship debate, that it’s mostly a question of academic snobs refusing to accept that a man without a formalized, establishment-accepted education could possibly have created such a remarkable body of work. It is true that the alternative author is invariably a man (or men) of proper, noble lineage and upbringing, as though the position of history’s greatest writer was one that could only be applied to by men with the right job requirements. Gail Kern Paster summarized the perceived snobbish origin of the anti-Stratfordians in her essay Harper’s fascinating, highly recommended roundtable in its April 1999 issue.

For much worse than professional disclaimers of interest in Shakespeare's life is the ugly social denial at the heart of the Oxfordian pursuit. To deny the life of William Shakespeare its central accomplishment […] requires not only a massive conspiracy on the part of a generation of Elizabethan theater professionals, courtiers, and kings but a ferociously snobbish and ultimately anachronistic celebration of birthright privilege. It is almost always the case that proposed authors of the plays are scions of famous families, aristocrats. The anti-Stratfordian position is a summary judgment about the curse of provincial origins and barbarian rusticity, one that radically underestimates the classical rigors of Tudor public education and overestimates the scope of aristocratic learning. It is pernicious doctrine.

There is much to be said for this backlash against perceived class prejudice, but the centuries of doubt are built upon much more than an underestimation of the public school system. As I wrote to Capt. Heinrichs, the education issue isn’t simply a matter of nitpicking the one weak link in an otherwise airtight case, but rather yet another brick in the wall separating the gentleman from Stratford from the works of Shakespeare (and how’s that for some fine metaphor-mixing). As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I am probably care too much about, especially considering that it ultimately doesn’t matter one whit.