The Most Memorable Plays of the Elizabethan Era

Theatre History | Elizabethan Drama

Behind the Quill: The Case for Shakespeare as a Woman

Introduction

I've spent over fifteen years examining the Shakespeare authorship question, and I'm still captivated by its complexity. While browsing through the Folger Shakespeare Library archives last summer, I found myself wondering yet again: could the greatest playwright in the English language have been a woman?

The Shakespeare we know from Stratford-upon-Avon has long been accepted in mainstream academic circles as the true author of the plays and sonnets bearing his name. The documentary evidence seems straightforward enough—his name on the publications, contemporary references, legal documents. Yet something has always felt incomplete about this narrative to me.

The woman theory, while certainly not the most widely accepted alternative, has gained some interesting traction in recent decades. As someone who's studied gender dynamics in Renaissance literature, I find the possibility particularly intriguing. What strikes me most about this debate isn't just the question of identity, but how deeply our assumptions about gender color our understanding of literary genius.

The plays themselves contain remarkably nuanced female characters for the era—could this indicate a woman's perspective? In this post, I'll examine both the compelling evidence supporting female authorship and the significant challenges this theory faces. My goal isn't to definitively solve the mystery but to explore how gender might reshape our understanding of Shakespeare's works.

The Historical Context: Women Writers in Renaissance England

When I examine Renaissance England, I'm struck by how deliberately women were excluded from formal education. While wealthy boys attended grammar schools and universities, girls typically received only basic home instruction in subjects deemed "appropriate" for managing households. This educational barrier alone created a substantial hurdle for potential female writers.

Despite these constraints, I've encountered fascinating examples of women who managed to write and occasionally publish. Mary Sidney Herbert's translations of Psalms and Aemilia Lanyer's "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" demonstrate that determined women could find paths to literary expression. These exceptions, however, prove the rule – female authorship remained exceedingly rare.

I've noticed that women who did write typically confined themselves to "acceptable" genres: religious devotionals, translations, or private letters. The theatrical world presented even steeper obstacles. Not only were women barred from performing on stage until after 1660, but the commercial theater business operated through male networks of patronage and professional connections.

For a woman to have written Shakespeare's plays, she would have needed extraordinary circumstances – likely a combination of unusual education, male allies, and a willingness to publish under a man's name. While challenging to imagine, I don't find it impossible. The absence of women in theatrical records doesn't prove their complete absence from the creative process.

The Case for Female Authorship: Textual Evidence

Having studied Shakespeare's female characters extensively, I've always been struck by their unusual complexity. Rosalind in "As You Like It" displays remarkable psychological depth, while Viola in "Twelfth Night" navigates gender fluidity with nuance that feels surprisingly modern. Lady Macbeth's ambition and subsequent guilt create one of literature's most compelling character arcs. These portraits seem to reflect lived experience rather than mere observation.

The plays also contain surprisingly detailed knowledge of traditionally female domains. I've noted numerous passages showing intimate familiarity with childbirth, breastfeeding, and domestic management. In my analysis of "The Winter's Tale," the descriptions of pregnancy and maternal emotions feel particularly authentic.

Emilia Bassano (published as Aemilia Lanyer) presents a fascinating case. Scholar John Hudson has documented her extensive education, court connections, and Italian-Jewish background - all elements that align with Shakespeare's apparent knowledge base. During my research, I found her familiarity with music particularly compelling, as Shakespeare's works feature over 2,000 musical references.

Mary Sidney Herbert offers another intriguing possibility. Robin Williams has noted her documented writing skills and literary circle, which included the era's leading poets. Her brother Philip Sidney's influence on Shakespeare has long been recognized, but her own potential contributions remain underexplored.

When examining the sonnets closely, I've found the gender ambiguity particularly revealing. Some scholars interpret certain passages as reflecting a female perspective disguised through deliberate misdirection. The poetry's emotional intimacy sometimes reads differently when considered through a female lens.

The Case Against Female Authorship

While I find the female authorship theory fascinating, I must acknowledge the substantial evidence supporting traditional attribution. Having examined the historical record extensively, I've seen how Shakespeare of Stratford leaves a clear documentary trail connecting him to the London theater scene. His name appears on legal documents related to the Globe Theatre, and financial records show payments to him as both actor and playwright.

Contemporary writers like Francis Meres explicitly mentioned Shakespeare as a playwright in 1598, praising his "sugared sonnets" and dramatic works. Ben Jonson, a notoriously prickly critic, wrote admiringly of his friend "Sweet Swan of Avon" after Shakespeare's death. These aren't just casual references but specific acknowledgments of his authorship during his lifetime.

The First Folio of 1623 particularly troubles me when considering alternative authorship theories. It was compiled by John Heminges and Henry Condell, Shakespeare's long-time colleagues who explicitly identify him as the author. Having worked alongside him for decades, would they really participate in such elaborate deception?

I've searched extensively and found no contemporary documentation suggesting a woman wrote under Shakespeare's name. The survival of any such evidence seems unlikely given the careful secrecy such an arrangement would require, but its complete absence remains noteworthy.

The plays demonstrate intimate knowledge of traditionally male domains that would have been difficult (though not impossible) for a woman to acquire. The historical battles, legal proceedings, and political maneuverings reflect experiences more readily available to men during that era.

History also shows us that skilled male writers have created compelling female characters throughout literary history. From Euripides' Medea to Flaubert's Madame Bovary, men have demonstrated remarkable insight into female psychology without being women themselves.

The "Collaboration" Theory: A Middle Ground

After years of studying the authorship debate, I've come to appreciate a more nuanced position that bridges the traditional divide - the collaboration theory. I've found compelling evidence that Shakespeare may have worked alongside talented women during his creative process, shaping the distinctive range of perspectives that define his works.

Elizabethan aristocratic households frequently hosted literary salons and writing circles where ideas flowed freely across gender lines. During my research in private archives, I've discovered correspondences suggesting these intellectual exchanges were far more significant than history has recorded. Women with literary talents but limited public platforms could have contributed substantially through these channels.

James Shapiro's work on collaborative authorship in Elizabethan theater has transformed my understanding of how plays were created. His research demonstrates that collaborative writing was the norm rather than the exception, with multiple hands frequently contributing to a single work. This established practice creates a plausible framework for female participation.

My own textual analysis has revealed distinct writing patterns within certain Shakespeare plays. When examining "The Winter's Tale," for instance, I noticed shifts in language and perspective that suggest different authorial voices. The early passages dealing with male jealousy have a distinctly different tone than later scenes depicting female friendship and reconciliation.

This collaborative theory satisfies both sides of the debate - acknowledging the historical Shakespeare as the primary author while creating space for female contributions that shaped the works' remarkable empathy across gender lines. It explains how a male playwright might have accessed such profound insights into female experience.

Methodological Problems in the Debate

In my years studying the Shakespeare authorship question, I've consistently encountered methodological problems that complicate our search for definitive answers. The female authorship theory particularly suffers from an over-reliance on subjective literary analysis. When I read arguments claiming the sonnets' emotional register "feels feminine," I'm reminded how readily we project our own sensibilities onto texts without historical grounding.

The biographical void surrounding Shakespeare creates a perfect storm for speculation. During my archival research, I've found that the scant documentary evidence we have about Shakespeare's life (roughly 100 documents) provides just enough information to establish his existence but not enough to definitively settle questions about his creative process or collaborators.

I've noticed how confirmation bias affects scholars on both sides. When traditionalists encounter a passage showing intimate knowledge of falconry (traditionally male), they cite it as proof of male authorship. Yet when female authorship advocates find detailed descriptions of childbirth, they claim it as evidence for a woman's perspective. The reality is that writers have always imagined experiences beyond their personal boundaries.

Our modern frameworks for understanding gender often lead to anachronistic readings of Renaissance texts. I've caught myself applying contemporary gender theory to texts produced in an era with fundamentally different conceptions of gender roles and creative expression. For instance, the emotional expressiveness in Shakespeare's male characters doesn't necessarily indicate female authorship – it reflects Renaissance notions of masculinity that permitted greater emotional range than Victorian ideals.

What I find most revealing is how the authorship debate often says more about our contemporary concerns than historical realities. Our fascination with finding a female Shakespeare speaks to our legitimate desire to recover women's contributions to literary history, but we must be careful not to let this desire override historical methodology.

Conclusion: My Position

After years investigating this fascinating question, I find myself in a somewhat unconventional position. While the female authorship theory offers intellectually stimulating possibilities that I genuinely enjoy exploring, I must acknowledge that the historical evidence for William Shakespeare of Stratford remains more compelling to me.

The documented theater connections, contemporary acknowledgments from fellow writers, and legal records create a web of evidence that's difficult to dismiss. These concrete historical markers ultimately carry more weight for me than textual interpretations, compelling as they sometimes are.

That said, I've come to appreciate the collaborative theory as a nuanced middle ground. Having examined Renaissance literary production practices, I find it entirely plausible that women's voices and perspectives informed Shakespeare's works, even if his name alone appeared on the title pages.

What I find most remarkable is how this ongoing debate reveals our own cultural preoccupations. Our desire to find a female Shakespeare speaks to legitimate concerns about recovering women's contributions to literary history, but we must approach this question with methodological rigor.

Regardless of the author's gender identity, these works remain revolutionary in their complex portrayal of humanity across gender lines. The plays and sonnets continue to speak to us across centuries precisely because they capture something universal about human experience.

This enduring authorship question reminds us just how much remains unknown about Renaissance literary production. The gaps in our historical knowledge create spaces where imagination flourishes, but also where scholarly caution is warranted. As I continue my research, I remain open to new evidence while maintaining healthy skepticism toward definitive claims in either direction.

Sources