Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship
The Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship proposes that Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the English philosopher, scientist, and statesman, was the true author of the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare. This theory stands in stark contrast to the orthodox Shakespearean authorship question, which asserts that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is indeed the author. The Baconian theory, like other alternative Shakespearean authorship theories, suggests that the man from Stratford was merely a front or a pseudonym for a more intellectually and socially prominent figure.
Origins and Development
The seeds of the Baconian theory were sown in the mid-18th century, but it gained significant traction in the mid-19th century. Early proponents, such as Delia Bacon (no relation to Francis Bacon), a writer and educator, began to articulate the idea that the literary genius of Shakespeare could not possibly have originated from a man of humble origins with limited formal education. Delia Bacon, in her book The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded (1857), argued that the plays were too profound, too knowledgeable, and too sophisticated to have been penned by the Stratfordian actor. She posited that they were written by a group of educated men, with Francis Bacon at the helm, who used Shakespeare's name for political and social expediency.
The theory was further popularized by figures like Ignatius Donnelly, an American politician and writer, whose book The Great Cryptogram (1888) claimed to have discovered a cipher hidden within the plays that proved Bacon's authorship. Donnelly’s work, while often dismissed by mainstream scholars, resonated with a public intrigued by conspiracy and hidden meanings. He meticulously detailed perceived parallels between Bacon’s known writings and the Shakespearean works, focusing on vocabulary, philosophical themes, and historical knowledge. Donnelly’s method involved searching for specific patterns and codes within the text, believing that Bacon, a master of rhetoric and logic, would have deliberately embedded such messages.
The Baconian movement continued through the early 20th century, with organizations like the Bacon Society being formed to promote the theory. These societies often published journals and held meetings, fostering a dedicated community of believers. While the fervor may have subsided somewhat, the core arguments of the Baconian theory persist, finding new adherents and reinterpretations even today.
Arguments for Baconian Authorship
Proponents of the Baconian theory marshal a variety of arguments, often focusing on perceived discrepancies between the biographical details of William Shakespeare and the content of the plays and poems. These arguments can be broadly categorized as follows:
1. Education and Knowledge
A cornerstone of the Baconian argument is the claim that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon lacked the requisite education and life experience to have written the works attributed to him. They point to the Stratfordian's relatively modest background, the limited surviving evidence of his schooling, and the absence of surviving manuscripts in his hand. In contrast, Francis Bacon was a legal prodigy, a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a man who moved in the highest circles of English society and politics. Baconians argue that the plays demonstrate an encyclopedic knowledge of law, philosophy, history, foreign languages, courtly life, and the natural sciences, all areas in which Bacon was demonstrably learned. They suggest that only someone with Bacon's extensive education and broad experience could have possessed such a wide-ranging and profound understanding of the world depicted in the plays. For instance, the intricate legal terminology found in plays like The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure is cited as evidence of an author with deep legal expertise, a characteristic more fitting for Bacon, a barrister and Solicitor General, than the Stratford actor.
2. Vocabulary and Style
Baconians often highlight the vast vocabulary present in the Shakespearean canon, noting the sheer number of unique words and the sophisticated linguistic dexterity displayed. They argue that Shakespeare's vocabulary far exceeds that of his contemporaries and that it aligns more closely with the known writings and vocabulary of Francis Bacon. Statistical analyses of word usage, sentence structure, and grammatical constructions are frequently employed to demonstrate stylistic similarities between Bacon's prose and Shakespeare's verse. The complexity and intellectual rigor of Shakespeare's language, they contend, are more characteristic of Bacon’s philosophical writings than of the presumed capabilities of the Stratford man.
3. Philosophical and Political Themes
The plays are rich with complex philosophical and political ideas, exploring themes of justice, power, governance, and the human condition. Baconians argue that these themes reflect the intellectual preoccupations and political insights of Francis Bacon, who was deeply involved in the political affairs of his time and a significant figure in the development of early modern philosophy. The nuanced understanding of statecraft and the introspective explorations of human nature in plays like Hamlet and King Lear are seen as manifestations of Bacon's own intellectual and political experiences. They suggest that the author of the plays possessed an intimate understanding of the English court and its machinations, an understanding Bacon himself had.
4. Literary Allusions and Concealed Messages
A significant part of the Baconian argument rests on the idea that Francis Bacon, a statesman and a man concerned with his public image and legacy, would have employed pseudonymity for his literary endeavors. This could have been to avoid the perceived stigma of being a playwright in an era when theatre was not always held in high esteem, or to discreetly express controversial political or philosophical ideas. The search for ciphers and codes within the Shakespearean texts, pioneered by Donnelly, is a key element here. These alleged hidden messages are interpreted as direct communications from Bacon, revealing his authorship and sometimes conveying secret historical or philosophical information. The complexity and sheer number of these supposed ciphers are presented as proof of Bacon's deliberate concealment.
5. Biographical Discrepancies
Baconians point to what they perceive as a lack of substantial biographical evidence connecting William Shakespeare of Stratford to the authorship of the plays. They highlight the scarcity of personal documents, the nature of the surviving records (which primarily relate to his business dealings and legal affairs), and the absence of contemporary accounts that definitively link him to the creative process of writing the plays. Conversely, they find ample evidence of Francis Bacon's intellectual prowess, his extensive writings, and his access to the circles that would have been familiar with the themes and settings of the plays. The perceived disconnect between the man from Stratford and the literary giant is presented as a compelling reason to seek an alternative author.
Criticisms and Counterarguments
The Baconian theory has been overwhelmingly rejected by Shakespearean scholars and literary historians. The criticisms leveled against it are numerous and often severe:
1. Lack of Direct Evidence
The most significant criticism is the complete absence of any contemporary evidence suggesting Francis Bacon's authorship. No letters, diaries, or official documents from Bacon's time allude to him as the author of the Shakespearean works. Conversely, there is a substantial body of contemporary evidence—including title pages of quartos and folios, contemporary allusions by writers like Ben Jonson, and legal documents—that directly attribute the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. The First Folio of 1623, the most comprehensive collection of Shakespeare's plays, explicitly names William Shakespeare as the author, with commendatory verses from prominent literary figures of the time.
2. The Cipher Argument
The cipher theories, particularly those proposed by Donnelly, have been widely discredited. Critics argue that conspiracy theorists can find patterns and intended meanings in virtually any text if they search hard enough and employ sufficiently flexible methods. Mathematical and statistical analyses have shown that Donnelly's methods were flawed and that the "codes" he claimed to find could arise by chance or through deliberate manipulation of the text. Many scholars view the cipher evidence as anachronistic and a product of wishful thinking rather than genuine discovery.
3. Misinterpretation of Shakespeare's Life and Education
Baconians often underestimate the educational opportunities available to someone of Shakespeare's background in Elizabethan England. While formal university education was rare, grammar schools provided a solid grounding in Latin and classical literature, which would have been sufficient for a budding playwright. Furthermore, Shakespeare's career as an actor and theatre manager would have provided him with unparalleled exposure to various aspects of society, language, and human behavior, directly informing his writing. His access to books and travel, though not as extensive as Bacon's, was likely more than sufficient for the creative needs of a playwright.
4. Stylistic Similarities vs. Authorship Proof
While proponents of the Baconian theory point to stylistic similarities, critics argue that these are not unique to Bacon. Many educated writers of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras shared similar vocabularies and intellectual interests. Literary stylometry, the statistical analysis of literary style, has generally failed to provide compelling evidence for Bacon's authorship. In fact, some studies have indicated stylistic differences between Bacon's known works and Shakespeare's plays that argue against a single author. The idea that vocabulary and thematic concerns could only belong to one individual is seen as overly simplistic.
5. The "Comedy of Errors" Argument
One of the more pointed criticisms is that the Baconian theory itself is a kind of intellectual "comedy of errors," born from a snobbish disbelief that a man of common birth could achieve such literary greatness. Scholars argue that this perspective is rooted in class prejudice and a failure to appreciate the genius of William Shakespeare as an individual, rather than a collective or a front. The very existence of such elaborate theories is seen by some as an insult to Shakespeare's actual achievements.
6. The Nature of Genius
The Baconian theory often presupposes a particular, perhaps modern, conception of genius as requiring a specific type of formal education and social standing. Critics argue that genius is often characterized by originality, imagination, and an ability to synthesize diverse experiences, qualities that are demonstrably present in Shakespeare's works, regardless of his precise biography. The plays themselves are the strongest evidence of his authorship, displaying a unique combination of poetic power, dramatic insight, and human empathy that is difficult to attribute to anyone else.
Conclusion
The Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship, while persistent in certain circles, remains a fringe theory unsupported by credible historical evidence. The overwhelming consensus among literary scholars and historians is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works attributed to him. The arguments for Bacon's authorship rely on speculative interpretations, discredited cipher methods, and a misrepresentation of the historical context and biographical evidence. While the debate may continue to fascinate some, the orthodox view, grounded in contemporary documentation and scholarly consensus, stands as the most plausible explanation for the authorship of the world's greatest literary canon. The enduring appeal of alternative authorship theories speaks more to our fascination with mystery and conspiracy than to any demonstrable flaw in the established attribution.