Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare? As a young man reading my way through the Old Testament, I told an older and wiser Catholic friend of mine that I wasn't convinced that some of the biblical figures existed or that events happened as presented. His response was basically that the Jewish faith and therefore the Catholic Faith are based on those figures and events. The Jewish people of the biblical era believed in Moses and the Exodus, like we believe in George Washington and the Revolutionary War. It's a simple argument, but it made an impression on me. I'm careful in questioning traditional beliefs. That stated, in 2014 I came across the No Fear Shakespeare book series. In these books, the plays and sonnets are published in the original language on one side of the page and on the other side of the page there is a modern translation. I read only the modern translation. For the record, I read the entire series. I loved many of the plays. I could finally follow them. I highly recommend the series of books. Shortly afterwards, I read Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time by Joseph Sobran. I had been familiar with his book for a while at that point. Now deceased, Sobran was a faithful Catholic, a writer for National Review and an acknowledged, though unofficial, Shakespeare expert. Sobran contended that Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays and sonnets that are attributed to Shakespeare. I had a hard time following his arguments and at the end of the main body of book, I didn't know what to think. However, then I read the appendix. Sobran published some of Oxford’s extant poems and letters in which sentences and phrases appear nearly word for word in Shakespeare’s plays. There are literally hundreds of examples. It simply can't be a coincidence. That mentioned, perhaps because I could not follow Sobran’s timeline and exact thesis, I withheld my opinion and just let it percolate in my head. Approximately two years later I read The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome by Joseph Pearce. Essentially, what Pearce puts forth is that Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic living in Anglican Elizabethan and later King James’ England. It was dangerous to be a Catholic in England during that era. Under the wrong circumstances it could bring a treason charge punishable by death. Catholics were forced to practice their faith secretly. With regard to the writings, Pearce believes Shakespeare is the author of what has been attributed to him. As was the case with Sobran, I found Pearce's argument hard to follow. To be fair, any Shakespeare authorship argument is hard to follow. From what I did follow, and what I now know, I think there's a reasonably good chance Shakespeare was Catholic or at least had Catholic leanings. Apparently, the local 17th century Anglican Bishop was of the opinion that Shakespeare died a Catholic. From the little we know of Shakespeare’s life, I'm not sure he was much of a Catholic in practice. Nor does the possibility of his being Catholic necessarily mean that he wrote the plays and sonnets. Also, his rather mild treatment of Henry VIII and at times harsh treatment of St. Joan of Arc would need some explaining. That stated, if Shakespeare was Catholic, it does help explain why some scholars see some evidence of Catholicism in his plays. I think, however, England had been Catholic for 1000 years at the point of the English Reformation (the 1530s). The culture was infused with Catholicism. Despite the Reformation, that fact was not going to disappear overnight. Therefore, when someone looks back 400+ years later and sees evidence of Catholicism in Shakespeare’s plays, I don’t think they should be surprised. Nor do I think they should jump to the conclusion that Shakespeare was a Catholic. Pearce did not jump to his conclusions. Still, to quote a line from Aristotle about Plato, “I like you Joseph, but I like the truth better.” My next Shakespeare authorship insight came while watching a TV show on the Broadway hit musical Hamilton. An entertainment critic compared Hamilton, creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, to Shakespeare in that they both came from humble backgrounds and were both able to portray high society in an intelligent, creative manner that appealed to all classes of people, particularly the average Joe and Jane. At the time, I thought that might be an answer to a prayer I made to God to help me find the truth to the authorship question. That said, I still couldn't get out of my head all those similarities between Oxford’s poems/letters and Shakespearean dialogues. In 2019, I came across a book by Bertram Fields on Queen Elizabeth. I loved the book. Fields is a well-known, ninety-year-old Hollywood entertainment lawyer. I was impressed by how balanced and how thoroughly he presented the Queen. Having learned he wrote a book on the Shakespeare authorship question, I decided to purchase the book. It is called Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare. I don't recommend the book unless you are seriously interested in the subject. It's at times an easy read and at other times a difficult one. You really need to think through his arguments. Fields examines the issue from every angle and weighs the evidence like a fair minded judge. One reason people question Shakespearean authorship is because of how below radar he lived during his actual life. We know very little about the events of his life. We know he was married and had children. Although he appears to be a gracious man in the plays and sonnets, in real life he seems to have been spiteful and involved in petty lawsuits. For instance, in his will he left his wife “his second best bed.” It could be a joke (he did write comedies) but based on how much time they spent apart, it doesn't seem to be. Strangely, there is no mention of the plays or any theater related financial interests in the will. One child was apparently illiterate as an adult which seems odd if Shakespeare was a playwright and poet. Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Based on when we believe Shakespeare’s plays were performed, he should have been well known at that point. Condolences at her passing came from practically all the famous writers in England, yet we have no record of one from Shakespeare. To be fair, that could make sense if he was Catholic. In 1605, a list of great men from Stratford was complied with no mention of The Bard. In 1612, King James’s son Henry died. Again, condolences poured in from virtually every writer in the country. Yet again, there's no record of Shakespeare doing so. Perhaps he was a Catholic or perhaps he knew it wouldn't mean much to the King because of his lack of status. When Shakespeare died in 1616, there was no mention of his death by anyone, not even fellow actors and writers. In 1622, a list of the greatest Elizabethan Era poets was published. The Earl of Oxford was considered the greatest. Shakespeare didn't even make the list. So what was going on? It is likely that nobody in the know thought Shakespeare was the true author of the plays and sonnets. I believe, with Bertram Fields, that Oxford basically wrote the plays. Along the way, both before and after Oxford’s death in 1604, other people tinkered with them. What was Oxford's motive for concealing his identity? In a nutshell, it would have been unseemly [OR would have seemed unrefined] to write for the public theater and would have posed a risk to his reputation, especially if his plays flopped. Also, it could have been politically dangerous for an aristocrat to write for the public theater. In turn, Shakespeare, a savvy and talented theater veteran, was paid by Oxford to touch them up and present them as his own. Perhaps Shakespeare paid Oxford or relied on him to supply him with written work for his plays. Shakespeare edited them and molded them for public consumption. Some of the plays he put aside for later revision, even after the death of Oxford. In all likelihood, Shakespeare was working on other productions at the time. Fields believes that after Oxford's death in 1604, his son-in-law William Stanley, The Earl of Derby, knowing of Oxford's arrangement with Shakespeare, consulted with Francis Bacon, the English philosopher and statesman. Stanley found out that Bacon knew of the arrangement and advised that it should continue. He believes Oxford had previously asked Bacon to read and comment on certain plays which is why some people suspect Bacon to be the true author of Shakespeare’s plays. Also, after Oxford's death, Stanley took plays to Thomas Middleton, George Wilkins and John Fletcher to review and revise. Note well, that some Shakespearean experts see these men’s footprints in “Shakespeare’s” plays. The history, language, familiarity with military and legal affairs, lofty ideas and seemingly intimate knowledge of aristocratic life and continental Europe is credited to Oxford. Unlike Shakespeare, we know Oxford was thoroughly exposed to these subjects. The low brow humor, some of the editing and some of the charm is credited to Shakespeare. Oxford also weaved in lines and ideas from Christopher Marlowe’s plays before and after Marlowe’s death, which is why some people also suspect him of being “Shakespeare.” It's also fairly clear “Shakespeare” was assisted at least once by the playwright George Peele. What brought the conspiracy to new heights was after Oxford died in 1604 the sonnets were unexpectedly published in 1609. The Oxford family panicked because of some apparently same-sex love poetry within the sonnets. Whether it was or not is a debated point. In all likelihood it was so on some level. Although married, Oxford while alive had been accused by a family member of being gay. Shakespeare, who according to Fields, was a known womanizer and really couldn't care less what people thought at that point, took yet another payment. However, this time it was from the family to conceal Oxford’s identity. Let me be clear, this is just Fields’ theory based on what he has determined to be the facts. There is evidence that the Earl of Oxford’s family built a monument to Shakespeare in his hometown to cement the idea he was the playwright and poet. However, Stratford was too remote of a town to influence public opinion. They needed to make a bigger splash. After consultation with Bacon, the Oxford family decided to make a financial arrangement with British playwright Ben Johnson to publish “Shakespeare’s” plays. It was an interesting choice, because Ben Johnson had years earlier mocked the quality of a couple of “Shakespearean” plays. He did so and made some additions and revisions to them himself. For example, a poem by Leonard Digges was included in the Folio. From the time the First Folio was published in 1623 we begin to see praise for Shakespeare. In the centuries to come with the rise of French literature and theater alongside the centuries’ old antagonism between the two countries, the English made Shakespeare a national treasure and exported him throughout their “empire upon which the sun never sets.” Shakespeare became untouchable. At this point, I don't know if anyone is still reading this bulletin article! I wrote this as much for myself as for you. I wanted to work out what I have read into an article. I hope you found it thought-provoking. To me it's a reminder that sometimes the truth is more complicated than traditional beliefs. And sometimes it's not. I could have fallen for a high brow conspiracy theory. Either way, facing an intellectual challenge is how the mind develops, how understanding takes on more complexity and nuance. That stated, as a 100% Irish-American Catholic, whose ancestors lived under harsh English rule, I point out in a cheeky manner to leave it to England to give us a divided fading European Christendom, rapacious usurious modern capitalism, state sponsored international piracy, two world wars, legalized political murder (I'm thinking about the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots by her cousin Queen Elizabeth)*, Boy George and the Spice Girls to pull off the greatest literary hoax in history. * One of G.K. Chesterton’s greatest lines was his comment on Mary’s beheading: “Her only crime was that she was healthy”.