What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare?

by Kathleen van Schaijik

Last month my parents sent me a copy of Joseph Sobran’s new book, Alias Shakespeare, defending the thesis that the real author of Shakespeare’s works was Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. I read it in practically one sitting. It was riveting, and (to my mind at least) completely convincing—more than convincing. He made the accepted theory look ludicrous. The reader is left amazed that so pitifully few and slender pieces of “evidence” in favor of the authorship of the actor William Shakspere could, beaverdam-like, have held back such an overwhelming flood of probabilities in favor of Oxford for over three hundred years.

Part of the explanation, according to Sobran, is that Shakespearean scholarship, almost from the outset, has been bound up with the anti-aristocracy, egalitarian ideology of the post-enlightenment period. (We were so enamored of the idea that a regular, middle class guy could have been the greatest literary genius of all time, that we failed to investigate whether it was really the case.) Another reason has been the unwillingness of the public to admit the likelihood that the greatest sonnets in the English language were inspired by a homosexual passion.

Stated so starkly in abstract thesis-form like that, the idea is no doubt a stunning blow to many devotees of Shakespeare, but I for one find it consoling in the concrete.

As a student of philosophy with a particular interest in the nature of love (my senior thesis at FUS was on the nature of love in Shakespeare’s Othello, and I am currently writing a book on Christian courtship) I have found Shakespeare’s plays an endlessly rich source of wisdom and insight. The sonnets, on the other hand, have been disappointing. More than once, looking for inspiration, or for help in expressing some elusive aspect of the mystery of conjugal love, I have turned to his sonnets, and come away virtually empty-handed (feeling, I might add, a little confused and conflicted about it. Was I missing something? This was Shakespeare.)

The experience is completely different reading, for instance, Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnets from the Portuguese. I can’t judge the relative literary merit of the two sets of poems—I remain perfectly ready to believe the experts who say Shakespeare’s are superior—but, for someone “looking for love,” every one of EBB’s drips gold. All the truest aspects of a pure romance are beautifully and marvelously revealed in them: the life-giving, salvific power of love; how it ennobles the soul; the bliss it engenders; its rootedness in and directedness toward the deepest selfhood of the person; its bodily expression; its goodness; its living reciprocity; the unity it creates between the lovers; its gift character; the joy and awe and humility and gratitude and courage it inspires in the beloved, and so on. Consider just these few lines from number VIII:

“What can I give thee back, O liberal
And princely giver, who hast brought the gold
And purple of thine heart, unstained, untold,
And laid them on the outside of the wall
For such as I to take or leave withal,
In unexpected largesse?...”

The major themes of Shakespeare’s sonnets are completely different, and less inspiring. One is the physical beauty of his “lovely boy” and the regretableness of its inevitable passing. Another is the repeated unfaithfulness of both the poet and his beloved. The sonnets speak much of jealousy, doubt, betrayal, self-loathing, torment, deception and bitter disappointment. Here are a few lines from number XCV:

“How sweet and lovely dost thou make the shame
Which, like a canker in the fragrant rose,
Doth spot the beauty of thy budding name!
O, in what sweets dost thou thy sins inclose!
....O, what a mansion have those vices got
Which for their habitation chose out thee…”

I do not mean to suggest (never mind contend) that Shakespeare’s sonnets are not surpassingly great poems. I only say a Christian need not be depressed or scandalized if it turns out to be true that they were inspired mainly by a disordered, same-sex passion.

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Bad attitudes toward childbearing contribute to the pro-abortion cause, Anne Schmiesing The link between contraception and the Ezzo parenting method, Dan and Kay Cummins The Challenge of Ephesians 5:21-33, Alicia Hernon The gospel and disarmament, Sr. Mary O'Connor Everyone’s a poet, JMS Winner of the third annual Concourse Grand Prize, the editors A thought about what might be behind the household problem, Martha L. Blandford Student Life’s image tarnished by failure to respond to criticism, Susan C. Fischer They’re ba-a-ack, Justine Schmiesing Last words (for now), Kathleen van Schaijik A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers, Kathleen van Schaijik Catholic teaching on capital punishment, Kathleen van Schaijik A final thought on the household issue, Kathleen van Schaijik What is our mission, really?, Kathleen van Schaijik What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare?, Kathleen van Schaijik Clinton’s sorry legacy, Kathleen van Schaijik Evolution, Kathleen van Schaijik Intimidated? Please don’t be., Kathleen van Schaijik A gift for the graduates of ‘98, Kathleen van Schaijik A point of policy, Kathleen van Schaijik A point of principle, Kathleen van Schaijik A word of thanks, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same topic: shakespeare

Same author

I,1 NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education? I,3 Orthodox not paradox I,4 How does a university evangelize? I,4 NFP and connaturality I,5 Thomism and intellectual freedom I,7 Keeping our worship in step with ‘what the Spirit is saying’ to FUS II,1 Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist? II,1 The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia II,2 The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention II,3 When old ideas are breaking up II,4 Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to critics II,9 Why ‘charismatic spirituality’ belongs at the heart of our communal life III,1 What is the University Concourse? III,1 How not to help households III,3 Silence betokens ... What? III,4 The freedom of stricture III,5 What were households meant to be? III,5 Different degrees of authority IV,1 Love Never Leaves IV,2 Faith and Reason IV,5 A different perspective on the modesty question IV,6 Strangers to the world V,1 New face, same spirit V,3 The ‘Stratford man’ and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all V,4 Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength V,6 Branching out through Christus Magister V,6 Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare V,7 A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship VI,1 The evil of exorcising judgement VII,1 Jump Start VII,1 Abusing NFP VII,1 It’s not the Vatican, it’s the laity III,6 Last words (for now) III,6 A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers III,6 Catholic teaching on capital punishment III,6 A final thought on the household issue III,6 What is our mission, really? III,6 What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare? III,6 Clinton’s sorry legacy III,6 Evolution III,6 Intimidated? Please don’t be. III,6 A gift for the graduates of ‘98 III,6 A point of policy III,6 A point of principle III,6 A word of thanks IV,7 Happy & sad IV,7 Oxford gaining on Shakspere IV,7 Of private and collegiate morality IV,7 Newman, education and context IV,7 Witnesses to Faith in the face of death IV,7 Viva the class of ‘99! IV,7 A prize winning physicist out of his depth IV,7 A positive psychology IV,7 How to become a leader IV,7 Campus politics IV,7 Thanksgiving V,8 Fr. Michael’s achievement V,8 Charity may be severe V,8 On the other side of the same coin V,8 The Weimar Republicans V,8 Drawing out an analogy V,8 Beware of economic Puritanism V,8 How to support the Concourse by buying books V,8 Shakespeare debate update V,8 What the education debate is and isn’t about V,8 Dear Class of 2000 V,8 Thanksgiving