Shakespeare and Me: The Man or the Myth?

Drawing Conclusions: Does it really matter?

The name William Shakespeare is known the world over, his works have been the source of either great joy and adventure or of monotony, boredom and incomprehensibility but there is one matter upon which most of the world is united upon: he wrote the plays. Tying up the loose ends of this part of the book, one is entirely justified to say that each theory has its strengths and weaknesses and it is understandable why, for the last two hundred years or so, some people have been convinced that it was not 'The Man from Stratford' who wrote the plays. When weighing up the theories and candidates in terms of their credibility, it is important to remember that Shakespeare has been considered to be the author since the plays were written, it is not as though the plays had no author attributed to them, so the evidence against him surely must be overwhelming to declare, with any certainty that he did not write the plays, in favour of another person. 

On this journey, dipping into the lives of notable Elizabethans and Jacobeans, we have met theories which have altered our views on the matter along with those which verge on the ridiculous, but have any of them convinced us that their proposed author unshakably wrote the works of Shakespeare? The current academic position is predictably in the negative and I am more than inclined to agree. There is simply not enough evidence to concretely say that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays, so although one might argue that there are plausible holes in the bard's past, the logical approach would be to concede that he wrote the plays, simply on the basis that we have generally accepted him as the author for at least four hundred years.

A matter that I would like you to consider when evaluating this issue for yourself, is whether this whole authorship argument really matters? How important is it that we know, for certain, who wrote the plays other than to give credit to him (which would be of little consequence because he's dead)? Arguments and theories aside, what really matters is the work itself. When we as a society cherish a body of literature for such a long period time, who cares who wrote it, let us appreciate each play and the way they can move us to laughter and tears, to happiness and sadness; how they can transport us across the world and to mythical lands; how they introduce us to gallant princess, star-crossed lovers and evil murderers; how they can tell us about our past, our present, and our future, providing an education in human nature. As a collection, the first folio is invaluable, priceless to our collective literary heritage. Whether Shakespeare wrote the work or not is inconsequential when you focus upon the beauty of the language and the strength of the plots. Shakespeare the concept or metaphor, rather than the man, may be deemed to encompass each and every candidate put forward, along with every person to have lived in the 16th century by expressing their views, religions, societies and understanding of science and technology. As a window into the past, an example of great literature and a study in humanity the plays are priceless, we must appreciate them as such and cast our doubts aside. We all can enjoy Shakespeare: young or old, rich or poor, all over the world. Let us love Shakespeare the metaphor, let us not argue over Shakespeare the man.

Now, it is over to you to form your own opinion on the matter. As a mark for posterity and for my own personal interest, I would appreciate it if you would leave a short conclusion of your own in the comments section below, stating your opinion and why. My thanks for your support in Part 1 of this book, I look forward to writing Part 2.

If you enjoyed this chapter, please consider giving it a vote. Many thanks, M.R.W