Selects: Did Shakespeare really write all that stuff? | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW

1. The Enduring Shakespeare Authorship Debate

The question of whether William Shakespeare truly authored all his works has persisted since the mid-1800s, fueled by a perceived lack of definitive biographical documentation and the extraordinary breadth of knowledge displayed in the plays. While some dismiss these doubts as elitism, others argue that the evidence supporting Shakespeare's sole authorship is not as robust as commonly believed, leaving the debate open.

Significance (High): This debate challenges the very foundation of literary history, forcing a re-examination of genius, authorship, and the nature of historical evidence. It raises profound questions about how we attribute cultural achievements and the role of social class in our understanding of artistic merit.

Sources in support: Josh (Host), Chuck (Host)

Neutral sources: Robert Greene (Contemporary writer), Elizabeth Winkler (Author)

2. Shakespeare's Life: Stratford to London

William Shakespeare was a real person from Stratford-upon-Avon, likely educated until age 13, and later became involved in London's theater scene as an actor and producer. While documentary evidence of his life exists, including property records and legal documents, there's a notable absence of direct records detailing his work as a writer, which fuels authorship skepticism.

Significance (Medium): Understanding Shakespeare's documented life provides a baseline for the authorship debate. The existence of a 'lost years' period and the nature of Elizabethan record-keeping leave room for speculation, but the lack of direct evidence of his writing career remains a central point of contention.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Neutral sources: Josh (Host)

3. The 'Upstart Crow' and Early Doubts

A 1592 pamphlet by Robert Greene, referring to an 'upstart crow' beautified with borrowed feathers, is often cited by anti-Shakespearean theorists as early evidence of plagiarism or imposture. However, proponents argue Greene was merely mocking a common actor for dabbling in playwriting, a more esteemed profession at the time, suggesting the quote reflects professional jealousy rather than proof of authorship theft.

Significance (Medium): This early critique highlights the contentious nature of the theater world and provides a focal point for interpreting historical reactions to Shakespeare's rise. The ambiguity of Greene's insult allows it to be wielded by both sides of the authorship debate, underscoring the reliance on interpretation rather than concrete fact.

Sources in support: Robert Greene (Contemporary writer)

Sources against: Josh (Host), Chuck (Host)

4. The Curious Case of the Will and Missing Manuscripts

Shakespeare's will, written shortly before his death in 1616, notably omits any mention of manuscripts, books, or literary possessions, a stark contrast to the wills of other contemporary writers. This absence, coupled with the loss of his family line and personal effects, is seen by some as suspicious, while others attribute it to the era's record-keeping practices and the unfortunate historical circumstances of his estate's dispersal.

Significance (High): The will's contents, or lack thereof, serve as a significant piece of circumstantial evidence in the authorship debate. It forces an examination of what constitutes 'proof' in historical contexts and how the passage of time and loss of records can obscure even the most famous figures.

Sources in support: Elizabeth Winkler (Author)

Sources against: Josh (Host), Chuck (Host)

5. Elitism and the Genius Argument

A core argument against Shakespeare's authorship, often termed 'elitism,' questions how a man of his background and limited formal education could possess such profound knowledge of diverse subjects, languages, and human nature. Proponents of this view suggest the plays' brilliance implies a more educated or experienced author, while detractors argue this perspective underestimates the power of natural talent, imagination, and the potential for learning during his 'lost years.'

Significance (High): This argument probes the very nature of genius and creativity, questioning whether extraordinary literary output is solely attributable to formal education and privileged background. It forces a confrontation with societal biases and the romanticized notion of the artist.

Sources in support: Josh (Host), Chuck (Host)

Neutral sources: Elizabeth Winkler (Author)

6. The Enduring Shakespeare Authorship Debate

The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon truly authored the works attributed to him has persisted for nearly two centuries, fueled by perceived discrepancies between the man's background and the profound genius of his writings. This debate questions the very foundation of literary history.

Significance (High): This ongoing debate challenges established literary canons and prompts a re-examination of historical evidence and authorial intent, forcing scholars and enthusiasts to confront the possibility of a grand literary deception.

Sources in support: Josh (Host), Chuck (Host)

7. The Bust of Shakespeare: A Grainy Controversy

The bust of Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon has become a focal point of controversy, with interpretations of the effigy—particularly a puffy item at its hands—ranging from a pillow to a sack of grain. Anti-Stratfordians suggest this implies the bust depicts Shakespeare's father or mocks his supposed lack of literary skill, while proponents argue it's clearly a writing rest, a detail later clarified, though the alterations fuel conspiracy theories.

Significance (Medium): The interpretation of the bust's details, like the 'sack of grain,' serves as a visual battleground for the authorship debate, with each side twisting the evidence to fit their narrative, highlighting how even static art can become a dynamic argument.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Sources against: Josh (Host)

8. Ben Jonson's Laudatory Preface: Genuine Praise or Cover?

Ben Jonson's preface to the First Folio, calling Shakespeare the 'Swan of Avon,' is presented as evidence by pro-Stratfordians. However, anti-Stratfordians suggest Jonson, a known rival, might have been insincere or even complicit in a conspiracy, lending his reputation to cover for the true authors, a theory the hosts find unlikely.

Significance (Medium): This analysis of Jonson's preface reveals how contemporary accounts can be weaponized in historical debates, demonstrating that even seemingly straightforward praise can be dissected for hidden motives and conspiracies.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Sources against: Chuck (Host)

9. Dileia Bacon and the 'Stigma of Print' Theory

Dileia Bacon, an early doubter in the 1800s, proposed Francis Bacon as the true author, arguing that noble figures would hide their work due to the 'stigma of print' or fear of treason charges for progressive ideas. While her research methods were unconventional, her theories laid groundwork for later candidates, though the hosts question the validity of her 'evidence' and the forged documents alleged to support her.

Significance (High): Bacon's theory, though perhaps flawed in execution, ignited the modern authorship debate by suggesting plausible socio-political motivations for concealment, demonstrating how a perceived lack of direct evidence can spawn elaborate alternative narratives.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Sources against: Josh (Host)

10. The Oxfordian Theory: A Poet's Hidden Hand?

The Oxfordian theory posits Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author, citing his status as a poet, parallels between his life and Shakespeare's plays, and suspicious dedications in Shakespeare's poems. While some comparisons exist, the hosts find the evidence less compelling than for other candidates, noting de Vere's own published poetry contradicts the 'stigma of print' argument.

Significance (Medium): The Oxfordian theory, despite its proponents, illustrates the lengths to which some will go to find a 'better fit' for Shakespeare's genius, often relying on circumstantial connections and biographical readings rather than concrete textual proof.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Sources against: Chuck (Host)

11. The 'Woman Author' Hypothesis: Progressive Plays, Hidden Identity

The idea that women wrote Shakespeare's plays, unable to publish under their own names, is explored. While Shakespeare's works show progressive views on women, the hosts question if this necessitates a female author, suggesting Shakespeare himself held such views. They dismiss a viral meme about Amelia Basano, noting she was a published poet and not of African descent, but acknowledge the 'stigma of print' and potential motive for women authors remain a point of discussion.

Significance (High): This theory highlights the historical constraints placed upon women in creative fields, forcing a consideration of whether societal barriers could have necessitated the use of a male pseudonym or a male front, thereby challenging traditional notions of authorship and gender roles in literature.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Sources against: Chuck (Host)

12. Supreme Court Justices Weigh In: A Mock Trial

In 1987, a mock trial was held on C-SPAN, featuring three Supreme Court justices, to determine Shakespeare's authorship. While the justices approached it with levity, the Oxfordian proponent Charlton Ogburn Jr. sought a definitive ruling. The outcome was split, leaning in favor of Shakespeare of Stratford, underscoring the persistent, yet inconclusive, nature of the debate.

Significance (Low): The mock trial, involving high-profile legal figures, demonstrates the cultural resonance and enduring fascination with the Shakespeare authorship question, even if the proceedings were largely symbolic.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Sources against: Josh (Host)

13. Contemporary Evidence: A Rich Man, A Popular Poem

Evidence supporting Shakespeare of Stratford includes his popular poem 'Venus and Adonis,' printed by a schoolmate, Richard Field, and contemporaneous criticisms of his plays by literary critics during his lifetime. While these suggest recognition, they don't constitute definitive proof of authorship, leaving room for doubt.

Significance (Medium): These pieces of evidence, while suggestive, highlight the difficulty in definitively proving authorship centuries later, showing how contemporary recognition can be interpreted differently by proponents and skeptics alike.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Sources against: Chuck (Host)

14. Camden's Defense of Shakespeare's Arms

William Camden, described as one of England's most learned men and Ben Jonson's former schoolmaster, defended William Shakespeare's right to a coat of arms. Camden listed Shakespeare among great writers of the time in his book 'The Remains of a Greater History,' suggesting official recognition and support for his status.

Significance (Medium): This point highlights early historical validation of Shakespeare's literary standing, countering claims that he was an undeserving upstart. It suggests that prominent contemporaries acknowledged his achievements, lending weight to his authorship.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Neutral sources: Chuck (Host)

15. The Shaky Ground of Authorship Debate

The ongoing debate between pro-Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians has revealed that both sides stand on shaky ground, making the authorship question almost a matter of belief. The core issue is whether one can accept that a single man possessed such extraordinary brilliance and talent, or if that belief is simply untenable.

Significance (High): This frames the authorship debate not as a factual dispute, but as a psychological and philosophical one. It suggests that personal conviction, rather than evidence, drives adherence to either side, leaving the question perpetually unresolved.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Neutral sources: Josh (Host)

16. Cabal Theory and Payoffs

A theory suggests a cabal of nobles used William Shakespeare's name to advance political reform, paying him with family crests, money, and fame. This implies Shakespeare was a front, allowing them to use his identity as the playwright while they pursued their own agendas.

Significance (Medium): This theory posits a conspiracy, suggesting Shakespeare's fame was manufactured for political gain. It casts doubt on his personal genius by attributing the works to a hidden group, raising questions about the true origins of the plays.

Sources in support: Chuck (Host)

Neutral sources: Josh (Host)

17. Linguistic Clues and School Ties

Arguments for Shakespeare's authorship include the use of specific regional slang from his hometown and Latin phrases found in his plays that match texts known to have been used at his grammar school in Stratford. These linguistic hints are presented as clues to his identity and education.

Significance (Medium): These points serve as subtle textual evidence, suggesting a direct connection between Shakespeare's life experiences and the content of his plays. They attempt to ground the authorship in tangible details, countering the idea of a fabricated persona.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Neutral sources: Chuck (Host)

18. The Ultimate Point: Love the Plays

Despite the complexities and headaches of the authorship debate, the ultimate point is to simply love the plays for what they are. The intense focus on who wrote them can detract from appreciating their artistic merit and enduring impact on literature and culture.

Significance (Low): This serves as a concluding sentiment, urging a shift in focus from academic controversy to artistic appreciation. It suggests that the plays' value transcends the identity of their creator, promoting a more accessible engagement with Shakespeare's work.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Neutral sources: Chuck (Host)

19. Squid: Child Murdering Sea Vermin?

Stephen from Kagoshima, Japan, argues that squid are 'child murdering sea vermin' because they die after mating to prevent infanticide. He suggests this survival adaptation means squid deserve to be cooked and eaten, albeit sustainably.

Significance (Low): This listener mail injects a bizarre and darkly humorous perspective into the discussion, reframing the consumption of squid through a lens of evolutionary survival and potential 'deservingness.' It's a quirky, memorable tangent.

Sources in support: Josh (Host)

Neutral sources: Chuck (Host)