Why do some people doubt that Shakespeare wrote his plays?

The authorship question asks whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. It was first raised in the middle of the 19th century, when admiration for Shakespeare had become widespread. Doubters point to the thin personal record and his humble origins. Nearly all academic Shakespeareans and literary historians reject the idea and treat it as a fringe theory, though a small but visible group of supporters continues to press it. [1]

Some aspects of Shakespeare's life, particularly his humble origins and relative obscurity while alive, seemed to doubters incompatible with his poetic eminence. Those who question his authorship argue that the works show broad learning, knowledge of foreign languages and geography, and familiarity with the court and politics. They note that the surviving data about the man are mostly mundane: baptism, marriage and death records, tax records, debt lawsuits and property deals. No document attests that he was educated or owned books, and no personal letters or literary manuscripts certainly written by him survive. More than 80 alternative candidates have been proposed, the most popular being Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe and William Stanley, Earl of Derby. [1] [2]

Scholars who defend the traditional view rely on direct documentary evidence: title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and testimony from poets, historians, players and playwrights who worked with him. They also cite modern stylometric studies. They say these sources converge, and that they are the same kinds of evidence used to credit works to other authors of the period. Gaps in the record are explained by the low survival rate of documents from the time. They also note that Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe came from similar backgrounds, that no contemporary is known to have expressed doubt, and that the question was not raised during his lifetime or for centuries after. No comparable direct evidence exists for any other candidate. [1]

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust likewise says there is strong evidence that Stratford, his family and his neighbours remembered him as a great writer. [3]

Skeptics, such as the authors of a 2019 paper in SAGE Open, argue that no contemporaneous literary evidence, such as correspondence, a patron relationship or a death notice, links the Stratford man to the plays. They say this matters because 24 peer writers each left a literary paper trail. They add that a name on a title page does not by itself prove authorship, and that nobles could not respectably write for the stage, so the name might have been a pen name or a front. They also argue that stylometry can identify authors statistically. [4]

Mainstream scholars answer that biographical readings of literature are unreliable for attributing authorship. They say the skeptics' accumulation of circumstantial evidence, such as resemblances between the works and a candidate's life, literary parallels and supposed hidden codes, is not the standard method. They see no reason to suspect a pseudonym or front. Skeptics' stylometry claims are themselves contested even among specialists; for example, Marlowe is credited as a coauthor of the Henry VI plays in the New Oxford Edition, though not all authorities agree. This is a finding about collaboration with Shakespeare's name still attached, not a case for replacing him. The view held by nearly all specialists is that the Stratford man was the author. [1] [4]

Both sides accept that some evidence is missing. A scholarly companion to the New Oxford Shakespeare notes that no manuscripts of his undisputed works in his own handwriting survive, and that there is no completely reliable early definition of his canon. Defenders reply that information is also sketchy for many other playwrights of the time. [5] [1]