The recent rise in Anti-Stratfordian theories—like Graham Phillips’ claim that there were “two William Shakespeares,” one an actor-playwright in London and the other a wealthy grain merchant in Stratford—is less about new knowledge and more a social phenomenon. It exemplifies a recurring ideological pattern: some middle-class groups refusing to accept that England's greatest writer came from their perceived lower social classes. As the document rightly observes, this is “simply a new coat of paint on a very old piece of class snobbery.”
The continued existence of these theories isn’t backed by
evidence—there is none—but by the social anxieties of their supporters. The
anti-Stratfordian movement started in the late Victorian era, a time when the
bourgeoisie, having achieved its historic rise, became fearful of the social
forces that had helped it reach power. The idea that a glover’s son from a
small provincial town could have authored Hamlet or King Lear was unacceptable
to a class increasingly focused on controlling cultural boundaries and
shielding “high culture” from the masses.
The Historical Record and the Bourgeois Artist
The evidence supporting Shakespeare of Stratford as the
author of the works is strong and has been affirmed by numerous scholars over
time. The dedications of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, signed
“William Shakespeare,” are written in a modest tone typical of a commoner
addressing a noble sponsor—an unlikely style for an aristocrat like the Earl of
Oxford. Furthermore, Ben Jonson’s tribute in the First Folio refers to him as
the “Sweet Swan of Avon,” with no associations to any aristocratic estate or
London riverbank. Additionally, the plays reference events after 1604, the year
of Oxford's death, such as the 1609 Bermuda shipwreck that inspired The
Tempest.
However, anti-Stratfordians are not genuinely investigating
history; instead, they are erasing it. Their argument rests on a completely
ahistorical assumption: that someone who bought property, lent money, or traded
grain could not also be a playwright. This idea is incorrect. Shakespeare was a
shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a part-owner of the Globe, and a
savvy investor. He was not a starving artist living a bohemian lifestyle but a
prosperous bourgeois during a time when the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary
class. To deny this is to deny the social conditions that made Shakespeare
possible.
The Class Roots of Anti‑Stratfordianism
The anti-Stratfordian tendency fundamentally reflects a
class bias. Jonathan Bate noted that this movement arose as the Victorian
middle classes grew more sensitive to perceived threats from lower social
groups. Christmas Humphreys, an Oxfordian, candidly expressed this sentiment by
calling it “offensive” to credit a “petty-minded tradesman” as the playwright.
The quoted statement highlights this bias clearly: the disdain is obvious, and
the underlying ideology is unmistakable. This is not genuine scholarship but
merely class prejudice disguised as scholarly pursuit.
The “two Shakespeares” theory is just the latest effort to
justify this bias by creating unnecessary divisions. It offers no real
explanation. It fails to resolve any contradictions. Its only purpose is to
uphold the idea that genius must be aristocratic, that culture belongs to the
elite, and that the greatest works of human imagination could not have been
written by someone who also knew the cost of barley.
Why These Theories Persist
The real question isn't about who authored the plays but
rather why some people doubt that Shakespeare did. The answer is tied to the
social role of anti-Stratfordianism. These theories reveal a deep-seated
hostility towards the notion that human creativity is universal, meaning that
artistic brilliance isn't limited to individuals of noble birth or privileged
education.
Shakespeare’s greatness is tied to the historical context of
his era: the ascent of the bourgeoisie, the decline of feudal stability, and
the emergence of new intellectual and emotional perspectives. The Elizabethan
stage reflected this societal upheaval and a world in flux. His background in
the “middling sort" and his deep ties to early modern England’s complex,
evolving society enabled him to understand and depict human life
comprehensively.
Denying Shakespeare’s authorship is dismissing this history.
It also dismisses the revolutionary nature of the bourgeois era and the ability
of ordinary individuals to produce extraordinary art.
The Political Meaning of the Attack on Shakespeare
Ultimately, the anti-Stratfordian myth challenges the
democratic and egalitarian values reflected in Shakespeare’s life and work. It
aims to reassert a feudal view of culture, suggesting that true genius belongs
only to the elite. This reactionary idea seeks to deny the historical fact that
the greatest English writer was the son of a tradesman. That a ‘petty-minded
tradesman’ could have written Hamlet and King Lear is not a problem to be
explained away by conspiracy theories—it is a fact to be celebrated.” Indeed.
Shakespeare’s life exemplifies humanity's creative potential. The
anti-Stratfordian movement, in all its forms, reveals the insecurity and
decline of a ruling class that no longer trusts in that potential..
