Is Shakespeare Dead?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cover of the first edition
Cover of the first edition

Is Shakespeare Dead? is a short, semi-autobiographical work by American humorist Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain. It explores the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespearean literary canon via satire, anecdote, and extensive quotation of contemporary authors on the subject.

The original publication spans only 150 pages, and the formatting leaves roughly half of each page blank. The spine is thread bound. It was published in April of 1909 by Harper & Brothers, twelve months before Mark Twain's death.

[edit] Summary

In the book, Clemens clearly states his opinion that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the canon, and lends tentative support to the Baconians. The book opens with a scene from his early adulthood, where he was trained to be a steamboat pilot by an elder who often argued with him over the controversy.

Clemens's argument rests on the following points:

  • That little was known about Shakespeare's life, and the bulk of his biographies were based on conjecture.
  • That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found Shakespeare's plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.
  • That in contrast, Shakespeare of Stratford had never held a legal position or office, and had only been in court over petty lawsuits late in life.
  • That small towns lionize and celebrate their famous authors for generations, but this had not happened in Shakespeare's case. He described his own fame in Hannibal as a case in point.

Clemens drew parallels and analogies from the pretensions of modern religious figures and commentators on the nature of Satan. He compared the believers in Shakespeare to adherents of ersatz prophets like Mary Baker Eddy. He then went on to make flagrant attacks against their collective character, after condemning them for doing the same to the Baconites. While this hypocrisy was tongue in cheek, the tone was hardly dispassionate.