It seems as if one can’t have a conversation about the life of William Shakespeare without bringing up the theories that he was not one man from Stratford-upon-Avon, but someone else entirely. Somehow, it always comes around to the idea that Shakespeare is a pseudonym for a large group of people or one of his poetic contemporaries (most frequently, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, William Stanley, Edward de Vere, and, occasionally, Emilia Bassano). It’s viewed as a fringe theory by most, but the prevalence of these conspiracy theories over the years begs one question: why do we refuse to believe that one man from a non-noble background could create such brilliant work? And why, when these theories are nothing but speculation, have we been talking about it for four hundred years?

The one thing that separates Shakespeare from these contemporaries is his upbringing. He grew up in a commoner household, with possibly illiterate parents, and was probably educated in the King’s New School, a new system of free public education up to age 13. His life is well-documented for the period: the man Shakespeare seems to have existed. The only problem is a lack of surviving evidence (beyond his signature) that he wrote anything.

The reasons given for the supposed authors to invent an entire persona for their work vary from candidate to candidate. One might argue nobles could not release their work in print without political scrutiny. It seems that specific evidence for each theory is limited to a few bits of analysis or anagrams of Shakespeare’s lines. I would argue there is no outstanding candidate based on current evidence, but, because of William Shakespeare’s lack of documented writing or higher education, the question will remain open until more evidence is found. The ultimate question is this: do we believe in brilliance, and accept that some historical facts are lost to time, or do we seek a definitive explanation?

One might say our cultural inability to entirely accept Shakespeare’s identity is born not out of evidence, but out of a lack of understanding of genius itself. The noblemen poets are never questioned in their brilliance, but Shakespeare’s common upbringing continues to make people question his true abilities. The idea of a secret identity is irresistible to us in the face of how little we know about his life. However, the simple lack of evidence in either direction will likely leave the question open forever.

Unless anything else is discovered, my answer to the question of “Was Shakespeare Shakespeare” will always be “Does it matter?” Someone wrote dazzling work and chose to sign it as William Shakespeare. Isn’t that enough?