Ron Unz is finally convinced that “William Shakespeare” was not William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon. Which, to be honest, was always pretty obvious considering how unlikely it was that a near-illiterate tradesman who owned no books and never traveled outside of England could have possibly been the great Bard of English literature.
Chapter 1 devoted more than a dozen pages to a very thorough review of the actual name of the Stratford native, demonstrating that in nearly all cases it had been spelled “Shakspere” by everyone in his family across several generations, with the relatively few exceptions generally being those variants produced by clerks who misspelled it phonetically. Meanwhile, that name had never been associated with any of the plays or poems of the great literary figure.
But apparently, the growing early twentieth century challenge to Shakespearean orthodoxy by Mark Twain and others led the academic community to “kill off” Shakspere’s actual name around the time of the 1916 tercentenary of his death. As a consequence, almost all the many appearances of “Shakspere” in published articles relating to the Stratford native were henceforth replaced by “Shakespeare,” thereby partially concealing the identity problem from future generations.
The second chapter focused upon Mr. Shakspere’s six known signatures, showing these to be illegible and seemingly illiterate compared to the many signatures of other prominent literary figures of that same era. This contrast was very apparent from the numerous images displayed.
The next chapter compared the actual paper-trail of Shakespeare with that of some two dozen other contemporaneous literary figures. Ten different categories of evidence were considered, including education, correspondence, manuscripts, book ownership, and death notices. For each of these items, many or most of the other writers yielded such material, but in the case of Shakespeare—the subject of the most exhaustive research efforts—everything always came up totally blank.
Another chapter focused on examples of “the Dog That Didn’t Bark.” With the publication of his plays and poems, Shakespeare had become an enormously prominent literary figure throughout Britain, yet oddly enough nobody seemed to have ever connected him with Mr. Shakspere or the other Shakspere family members living quietly in Stratford. The essay focused upon ten individuals considered “eyewitnesses” whose extensive writings survive and who should have mentioned the great playwright who lived and died in Stratford but who said nothing at all. For example, Queen Henrietta, wife of Charles I, was enormously fond of Shakespeare’s plays and during a visit to Stratford she apparently spent a couple of nights at Shakspere’s grand former home, then owned and occupied by his daughter and her family; but although hundreds of the Queen’s letters have been collected and printed, she never referred to that visit in any special way.
Shakspere’s shrewd business dealing had established him as one of the wealthiest men in Stratford at the time of his death, but not only did his lengthy will lack any literary flourishes, there was no mention of books, nor any plans for the education of his children or grandchildren. He seemed not to have owned any pieces of furniture that might hold or contain books, nor any maps or musical instruments. All this was in very sharp contrast with the many surviving wills of other writers or playwrights.
A short chapter of a couple of pages noted that although the deaths of so many lesser literary figures were marked by an outpouring of tributes and elegies, with some of the individuals even honored with burial in Westminister Abbey, no one seemed to have taken any notice whatsoever of Shakespeare’s passing in 1616. For example, Ben Jonson was then considered close in stature, and upon his death in 1637, at least thirty-three separate elegies were published, but none at all for Shakespeare.
However, as is his wont, Unz goes even deeper. I’ve never quite understood all the arguments for the Earl of Oxford, as I’ve never felt that the author of the sonnets attributed to “William Shakespeare” was necessarily the author of the plays; they have never read as if they were to me. But Unz’s article goes even deeper than that, as the modern ability to analyze texts appears to have nailed down the actual author of the plays, as well as explained the difference between the style of the sonnets and the style of the plays.
It’s very much worth reading if you consider yourself to be an even modestly well-read individual.
UPDATE: the author of the work cited by Unz has a new post, and a new paper coming out, demonstrating that Ben Jonson and others knew the real author of Shakespeare’s plays:
In fall of this year (2025), June Schlueter and I will have an academic paper published that we do expect to make some mainstream news. The paper confirms that no fewer than three satirists identified Thomas North as the original author of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar, and Timon of Athens. An abstract to the paper reads as follows:
In this article, we discuss numerous independent proofs that Thomas Lodge, Thomas Nashe, and Ben Jonson all satirized Sir Thomas North as the well-traveled, continental, translating playwright who wrote the “Ur-Hamlet” and other source plays used by William Shakespeare. The satirists identify North as their target in ways typical of the era, including punning on North’s name, quoting his translations, and referencing personal details like his unusual travel experiences and his family manor at Harrow on the Hill. Importantly, we also report here the results of an AI program analysis that also confirms Lodge was, indeed, spoofing North.