Who Was Shakespeare? The Debate. 10 Reasons Why Shakespeare Could Not Have Written His Works

[mypalsatan]

"The Writer of the Mellenium"

Fantastic use of spell check.

[culturedfemale2]

what about mcbeth? the dudes never been to scotland before? are you gonna hold that against him? and besides fear not shakespeare! my handwriting sucks too. it doesn't take a genius to have good handwriting just a good imagination :)

[PelicanCode]

Interesting point....Shakespeare did have an unusual obsession with burial and a fear of exhumation...........maybe it was put in plce by all the "Ghost" writers....... :)

[jac4020]

Then who really cursed his grave?

[strength1622]

Reason 10 - The Italian Connection. Who's to say that Shakespeare never met or encountered Italians? And if he never encountered them personally, he was amidst the heavily stressed political atmosphere in London. I'm sure that national affairs and issues were often an important and highly discussed topic. Italy was especially a topic of importance because they were the birth of the Renaissance which greatly affected writers/inventors.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 But to have intricate knowledge of the minutiae of some of the Italian cities - especially Venice.....although there are some inconsistencies around other Italian cities, which re-enforces the possibility there may have been multiple writers....

[StaggerLee70]

@PelicanCode I think you're overestimating the knowledge of Italy shown in his works. I see no 'minutiae' at all. What are some examples?

[strength1622]

Reason 9 - A person's handwriting does not reflect their intelligence. If that were the case, many people in my generation would be S.O.L. Handwriting nowadays is atrocious. Just ask any English professor. So unless you want to condemn the majority of today's generations to stupidity, you cannot truly use this reason against Shakespeare.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 if all we have after 52 years of creative genius is 6 scrawled signatures - it begs serious questions especially if all 6 are spelt differently, 3 of which were in the same legal document,

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode Documentation isn't always kept the way it should be. My grandfather is almost completely Cherokee Indian and yet due to the records of his heritage being burnt, he is not able to be claimed by the tribe. Meanwhile, My grandmother has a significantly smaller amount of Cherokee in her blood and yet because of perfect records is able to claim it. Again, if handwriting nowadays is indicative of what it might have been like back then, I think that it is very possible.

[StaggerLee70]

@PelicanCode 6 signatures is more than we have for a whole lot of other playwrights of his time! Signatures by historical people are usually found on surviving legal or financial documents, and that's what we've got. Spelling: you say they're all spelt (is that right?) differently, but forget to say that some are just abbreviations. Tons of people spelled their names all sorts of ways. Spelling didn't really matter until printing became widespread and a dictionary was finally made.

[strength1622]

Reason 8 - Yes it is true that none of his works were officially published during his lifetime. But there were 18 unauthorized versions of his plays published throughout his lifetime. Regardless of publication, they were presented on stage with him being confirmed as the Author. Likewise, plays were required to be registered regardless. Especially before publication. All of his plays are registered and they are registered to him. The registration was an act of censorship by the gov't.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 agreed totally - the quartos were just inaccurate reflections by actors and the like of what the plays were about. Interestingly though - and I have just thought about this if Ben Johnson produced the first folio he must have had original manuscripts - strange they didn't actually get retained though.......or kept as a back up for the printing process in 1623

[TheJazzper1970]

@PelicanCode Johnson did not produce the first folio. And we dont know exactly which manuscripts were used, foul papers or a fair copy of the foul papers. That these manuscripts existed there can be no doubt. We dont know exactly when they were lost.

[strength1622]

Reason 7 - Well, let's face it, William Shakespeare whether playwright or not was definitely a "gent". Playwrights were not really regarded as much throughout early theatre history. They were usually the corrupting and worthless people that sought to amuse. So it could be a reflection of him at the time. And despite what people think, Shakespeare was not considered the world's greatest writer for a century and a half after his death.

[strength1622]

Reason 6- Being poor, he probably didn't own much. It doesn't mean that he couldn't read. It merely reflects lack of personal possessions.

[strength1622]

Reason 5- There are plenty of famous people who never had letters of correspondence found. Does this mean that they couldn't write or think? NO! Jane Austen, herself, ordered the burning of most of the letters she ever wrote. So lack of letters means nothing.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 Jane Austen, whilst a great writer has not been recognised as the greatest literary scholar ever......just seems surprising that no-one has ever received a letter from Shakespeare...and only one has ever been found to him (although it was never actually delivered (see Shakespeare Birthplace trust)

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode You're really going to insult Jane Auten??!!! Nearly every upper level English Course has at least on book penned by this wonderful writer. Her name is well-known by any person with an education beyond middle school.

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode While admittedly her works are not as well-renowned as Shakespeare's, she was also writing a different genre and in an age where literacy was beginning to be common place. He was emerging at the time of the beginning of the novel, making him the an innovativor. But does that make him better than Jane Austen? That's like saying that contemporary writers suck and are a waste of time because they will never possess the innovation displayed in Jane Austen or Charles Dicken's work.

[strength1622]

Reason 4- Missing manuscripts. Ok...but have we found them in any other person's possession from that time? NO! That's like saying, because we don't have the original copies, the stories don't exist. They came to be somehow! And Shakespeare was given the credit by his contemporaries of the time. Besides, if Shakespeare's handwriting was a poor as suggested and shown in his will, maybe he was very private with his original manuscripts reflecting some insecurities.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 Quite possibly he may have had insecurities - being a country boy in the big city......but if he was private with his manuscripts why not leave them in his will.....which alas he did not

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode Maybe he was like Austen in the sense that it was something that he did not want to share with the world. One thing we seem to forget is that Shakespeare did not die famous.  He was not famous or really well-renowned until nearly a 100 years after his death. So why would he feel compelled to give his manuscripts to someone?

[TheMrsSDC]

@strength1622 Austen as in Jane Austen, who worked hard throughout her life to have her works published?

[strength1622]

@TheMrsSDC Yes, Jane Austen ordered her sister to burn all of her personal letters. If you read some of my previous comments, I am fiercely defensive of both Austen and Shakespeare. I openly claim my adoration for her works and claim that she was on the same level as Shakespeare. For without writers like her, we wouldn't have had Dickens or Bronte. This comment was in no way meant to degrade Miss Austen. The only way that could be viewed in such a light would be to take it out of context.

[TheMrsSDC]

@strength1622 Austen's sister destroyed some of her letters after her death, which was normal at the time. Many survived. I'm not sure what you're defensive about, but I'm happy for you that you appreciate Austen. Perhaps you have read some of her many biographies? No, I do not follow your comments. My point was that Austen's work wasn't written to be kept private-- she made extensive efforts to publish her work during her lifetime and was well-received. Austen did die famous.

[strength1622]

@TheMrsSDC I never claimed that she didn't want to be published. Like I said, you should read my prior comments before making absurd claims. You can't make an argument for or against something that you have no clue about. Before attacking claims, you should spend some time researching the details. Austen was phenomenal and was a celebrated Author during her lifetime. I never denied her that. I merely claimed that there are plenty of misplaced documents both purposeful and accidental.

[TheMrsSDC]

@strength1622 Certainly I have "no clue" about you and your distinguished record of internet commentary, but I do know a fair amount about both Austen and Shakespeare. In the academic sense, as in university research and degree. Enough that I should have known to avoid engaging online crackpots on the subject. You are drastically overreacting. I'm sure you are a fierce adorer of these authors, but you do no good on the rational side of the debate with your interpersonal style.

[strength1622]

@TheMrsSDC I happen to be working on my Masters in English Literature. You know nothing about me and your comments against everything that I have said were created out of you misunderstanding my words. Yes, I am passionate. However, I am willing to see reason. I know that degrading another person's intelligence will never benefit anyone. I was attempting to clarify a discussion that I had with someone else. If you want to join a conversation, you need to understand the it first.

[strength1622]

@TheMrsSDC What I meant by bring Austen up in the original comment was to say that some people like to keep their private matters private. Shakespeare's handwriting may have been something private to him just as Austen's personal letters were kept private at her requests.

[strength1622]

Reason 3- Beyond that, Women were taught a very different education than men. True of Shakespeare's time up through the Victorian Era.

[strength1622]

Reason 3- As I said before, Shakespeare had little to do with his children. Other than fathering them. Being a "father" and a "Dad" are two very different things. Think about that one!

[strength1622]

Reason 2 con't- Education meant little at this time. It was more so used as a tool to oppress and create the mindset of submitting to authority rather than the education we receive today. Besides, in London Shakespeare would have had the opportunity to learn from other revolutionary and inventive minds that could have given him a greater education than the classical one he had received up until 14 years of age.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 but to create 2000 new words for the dictionary and have a vocabulary of 20,000 and to adapt the greek and latin classics - very hard to do from just "hearsay from others....." Of course I accept other writers would have had an influence but he is considered a great leader amongst them ...for me it doesn't stack up

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode What if he did learn and read the classics in his time in London? He would have been acting in some of the classics on stage. And plenty of people apply classics to their work in this day and age. Heck, Stephanie Meyer in "Twilight" is able to write allusions about Shakespeare, Frost and Bronte's works into her books. Btw, Shakespeare didn't always accurately apply these works. In fact, there are examples of him making mistakes that a learned scholar should not have made.

[StaggerLee70]

@PelicanCode Making up new words is nothing. We can all do that. He mostly adds affixes like, there was "majesty" already, so he made it an adjective, "majestic". It's easy. Here's one I just made now: "Pleasance". As in, "It was a nice, sunny picnic, a day of pleasance."

His vocabulary, yeah, was just insane. It's a far bit beyond any other famous writer's. But university can't account for that. Genius, circumstance, and a love of knowledge, I think.

[TheMrsSDC]

@StaggerLee70 Pleasance is already a word, and you didn't make it up. Sorry, I guess you're no Shakespeare.

[StaggerLee70]

@TheMrsSDC The existing meaning of 'pleasance' is completely different from my usage. I know I'm no Shakespeare, but you don't have to be sorry (or snarky) about it. Try having some pleasance.

[strength1622]

Reason 2- Yes, some aspects of Shakespeare's life are sketchy. This is true of many other playwrights of the time. However, nearly all academic Shakespeareans believe Shakespeare to be the one born in Stratford-upon-Avon. He was noted to have a lack of classical education by both Ben Johnson and Francis Beaumont.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 some is an understatement - there are two periods of the Lost Years, where nothing at all is known about him.....there is lots more known about edward De Vere, Francis Bacon and Marlowe....

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode Documentation is sometimes faulty. Heck, there is a significant amount of information on me while there are a few gaps in my mother's childhood records. And we're talking about the 20th century here. I'm sure that documentation was even worse back then. The men that you are talking about were raised in prominent places or in stations where information would be important and kept about them.

[strength1622]

Reason 1 - A parent's education does not reflect the child's. My mother never went to college and my father didn't until he was 30. I am currently in my junior year of college and 20. Again, a parent's education does not reflect the child's. Yes, Shakespeare's children were illiterate. But I think you should know that Shakespeare is know to have little to do with his children besides fathering them. It was believed that he spent most of his days in London apart from his family.

[PelicanCode]

@strength1622 In part you are correct - although there is substantial evidence he spent time in Stratford - especially with his own trading activities....but if he was god's gift to literature it does seem somewhat strange that he had NO influence on his kids whatsoever.......

[strength1622]

@PelicanCode Like I said, being a "dad" and a "father" are two different things. Shakespeare is known to have left his family for London. If you didn't really know your father, how much like him would you be? And what if his children didn't like him? After all, abandoning your family and carrying on with women in London was hardly something to be proud of. Maybe his kids wanted to be nothing like their father. Maybe they were content being uneducated. Kinda like Joe in Great Expectations.

[Ashiman12]

The way I look at it, even if Shakespeare didn't write those plays and poems, those plays and poems still exist, and are still great. It's the work that matters. If someone else were proven to have written it all, it wouldn't affect my love of the actual body of work.

[PelicanCode]

@Ashiman12 - absolutely agree - the quality of the works is fantastic & will always be-but it would really be interesting to complete the circle-to find out who & why no proof has ever been found- its all circumstantial - that was the challenge for me when I wrote my thriller novel The Pelican Code-how would both sides of the argument react?The passion to prove and the need to protect. eg a Washington library has 79 First folios-worth c$300m-if he didn't write them would their value rise/fall?

[deathXbyXpenguin]

How can we believe a conspiracy theorist who can't even spell "Millenium" right?

[PelicanCode]

@deathXbyXpenguin You got me there :( I noticed it myself about a week ago - I could say its part of the coded material found in my novel The Pelican Code but I think you're too smart to accept that argument- but thanks for highlighting it.

[fitzjamie1]

Coded material in Italy? Is this like the so-called Bible Code or the grasping at straws code? And what about 'the Establishment'? What greed? No one is paying royalties on his plays. They plays are there for everyone to read and see. No one makes money teaching the 'Alternate author question'. Why is one man's imagination so invalid? In a few years who, I wonder, will question Tolkien, or Rowling's authorship-'cause they were never 'There'?.

[fitzjamie1]

The argument that Shakespeare did not write his own works has been thoroughly debunked (see Bloom or 'Shakespeare'sLondon', e.g.) for a playwrite of his time there are myriad accounts of his prescence and work. As for the illiteracy and 'scrawling' -- try writing a sentance with a quill sometime. Why, really, is it so hard to grasp that a man can write? It is imagination, after all, and will.

[PelicanCode]

@fitzjamie1 There are many instances of him acting. As 4 his works they were not formally published until 7 yrs>his death.There were the quartos.But for a creative &literary genius why is there no written material of his ANYWHERE.Only ONE letter addressed to him has EVER been seen (&this wasn't even delivered). If he was such a literary genius someone, somewhere would have written to him.You'll hate my other video- that Mr S was a businessman.BTW look at Marlowe, De Vere's sigs- they flow...

[PelicanCode]

@fitzjamie1 - the argument is far from being debunked - & whilst I am not an expert at writing with a quill have a look at our article in our blog that compares the signatures of De Vere, Bacon and Marlowe-they flow & have the flourish of someone that writes regularly.Equally each of the 6 signatures of Shakespeare are ALL spelt differently - 3 in the same document !!! (his will).There is also a contemporary example of someone writing behind another persons' name - see our next video-coming soon

[DelBluenose80]

As a Graphologist, I'd like to thrown in my tuppence worth here. Upon studying the so called ''scrawled'' hand writing i deduced the following. The person who penned it was male, bearded yet slightly balding. He was born around the sixteenth century, in or around the area of Stratford in England and was mostly likely employed as a poet or playwrite. Bold strokes at the beginning of both Christian and surname indicate he lived around 50 years and wedded someone named Anne. Does this help at all?

[PelicanCode]

@DelBluenose80 - You're an astute observer and the contribution is positively received - it has got a little heated before so some levity is a welcome relief

[ChaosButterfly8]

#9 The six scrawled signatures are all hallmarks of a coffee drinker. (smile)

[ChaosButterfly8]

I think that not only was Asmodeus the true author of Shakespeare, but Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as well. ♪ ♫ ♫

Why not demon alien literature and music as well as technology?

[PelicanCode]

Keep the arguments coming - the debate is interesting ....

[sbrownfi]

"16 of 37 plays are connected to Italy, a place Shakespeare never visited" Again, how do you know that? There's a reason we call 1585-1592 "the lost years." NOBODY KNOWS WHERE HE WAS. Frankly, I doubt he ever went to Italy. The plays CERTAINLY betray an almost TOTAL ignorance of Italian geography, politics, or language. He betrays no knowledge of Venice's canals, puts sailors and sailmakers in the dead center of the country, and uses non italian names constantly.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi There are many minutiae of Venetian life in his plays & you are right there are also areas of inconsistency.It could be Shakespeare was not alone in his writing - different styles.It would be great if proof were found.In my eBook The Pelican Code, coming out end Oct.coded material is found in Italy if released would prove Shakespeare to be a fraud.What would the establishment do?What would believers in alternative authors do?Its a battle between vested interests (greed) and passion..

[Elibobbob]

@sbrownfi 'Rosicrucian' explains what you are missing in understaning the 'other' language of the works.

[sbrownfi]

"six scrawled signatures" Just because they're not legible to you, doesn't make them "scrawled" Elizabethan orthographyand penmanship were VERY inconsistent arts. I challenge you to read ANY handwriting of the time. Secretary hand (as it is called) is basically unreadable to almost all modern readers.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi Have a look at the signatures of Marlowe, De Vere (earl of oxford) and Francis Bacon - all in our blog - Was Shakespeare a fraud? - the Six signatures - we compare his to theirs.......have a look and by all means post another comment....

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi In my blog was Shakespeare a Fraud I have a comparative image of the signatures of De Vere, Marlowe and Bacon (the 3 leading contenders for the authorship debate-all three are very legible and flow and have flourish- you tube won't allow posting of urls so go to our blog & look at the tag cloud under signatures.In regards secretary hand you are absolutely right it is very hard to read but I would love to have seen something by Shakespeare even in Secretary hand- but there is nothing!

[sbrownfi]

"other writers of his time had their plays published' Johnson did. Marlowe didn't. some did some didn't. This is a dishonest argument.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi Marlowe did have one published Tamburlaine the Great, which was printed in 1590. Some didn't have theirs formally published - Shakespeare amongst them - quartos yes but mainly actors recollections. Not dishonest unfortunately

[sbrownfi]

"None of his plays were published until 7 years after his death" Once again, not true. Several quarto editions of a number of his plays- Hamlet, Lear, Much Ado, and others were published NAMING HIM THE AUTHOR in his life

[PelicanCode]

Respond to this video... The First Folio was the first "official" publication of Shakespeare in 1623 7 years after his death. The Quartos produced were considered more as actors recollections of the plays rather than the full plays as seen within the First Folio - Bibliographer Alfred W. Pollard named those editions Bad quartos. The folio format was generally reserved for expensive, prestigious volumes.

[sbrownfi]

His burial record calls him "William Shakespeare- Gentleman." Gentleman is an honorific, not an occupation. The burial record from the church at Stratford only listed occupations of laborers, not gentlemen.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi You definitely won't like my next video which shows why Shakespeare was a Businessman and not a creative genius........on a technical point you are right about occupation versus honorific....but if he was this unbelievable writer why did it not state it anywhere......

[sbrownfi]

His will mentions no manuscripts. It would have been odd if it had, since he didn't own them. See, you can only leave to your heirs things you actually own. The company owned them. They ALWAYS did. This was the invariable practice.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi But even the rights to the plays as a part shareholder - after all we know (fact) that he owned 12.5% of the globe theatre....

[sbrownfi]

5. Let me get this straight. We don't have any of his letters? How many letters do you suppose we have from ANYBODY in that period? Even if they had survived in London, they would have been destroyed in the Great Fire. This is an absurd argument. Once again, you are citing a lack of evidence as evidence.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi The fire of London was in 1666....he also allegedly lived in Stratford. Don't forget he lived and worked in London (as an actor - Facts support this). he was married to Anne Hathaway who lived in Stratford - how did they communicate? If he was a master of letter and the written word........there are many many examples of letters of literate educated people of the times writing letters

[likelegoz]

@PelicanCode "The fire of London was in 1666" ...and? If it were 1566 youd have something, but you prove only that it COULD have been burned in the fire. Do YOU keep all of your letters? these are the 1600's it is not like today where every little thing is kept and documented 1) the fire could have destroyed them (ex: library of alexandria) 2)they could have been thrown away or just lost in time (many things were lost in the sacking of rome and the empires fall, doesnt mean they never existed)

[likelegoz]

@PelicanCode 3) I recall learning that in WWII the germans bombed the hell out of england, as well as LONDON. More chance that they couldve been destroyed there. Im not saying your wrong or right with him being a fraud, just back up your evidence and just realize things were different back then. So many wonders and pieces of art and literature have been lost through out the ages, for any of his stuff to survive would be incredible especially if its paper, something that can easily be destroyed

[sbrownfi]

Essentially NO original manyscripts survive for Marlowe, either. Or Chaucer. Or Johnson. Or Webster. etc. Nobody thought to keep any of them. Why would they? The authors had no copyright. They had no vested economic interest in the work once written unless they published them themselves. Shakespeare didn't. He only published the major poems himself.

[sbrownfi]

4. No documentation exist that proves he wrote the plays? The master of the revels accounts of 1605 is an official govt. document. It credits Shakespeare. Thomas Meares's Palladis Tamia is a contemporary book. It credits Shakespeare. So do the 1st Folio and about a dozen quarto editions of his work. the 1st folio was published by his colleagues in the Globe, and the quartos were published in his lifetime. He published the 3 major poems under his own name in his life time. This claim is false.

[sbrownfi]

His daughters were illiterate. how do you know? Because we have no letters, books, etc. written by them? This is an argument based on a LACK of evidence, not on evidence.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi there is evidence of their marriage certificates - check out our blog was Shakespeare a fraud in thepelicancode website 

[sbrownfi]

3. He never went to college. So what? Neither did Ben Johnson or John Webster. Neither did Abraham Lincoln. Who wrote the Gettysburg address, one wonders. This is a snob's argument.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi don't have a problem with him not going to college as a standalone argument .....but combined with everything else it makes a reasonable person have reasonable doubt

[sbrownfi]

2. We have no proof of his education. No kidding. We have no records of ANY kind of primary and secondary school education of the period. Just as we have no proof of your assertion that he left school at 14.

Make up your mind. Which argument are you trying to make that he never went to school or that he left at 14? An illogical argument.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi There are no records of his schooling. Anecdotally because his father was the Alderman of Stratford he would have been offered free education for his kids. The assumption therefore is that he would have taken advantage of that perk. the only evidence we have of him leaving at 14 is in his biography produced in the early 17th Century where his biographer interviewed an actor who visited Stratford & anecdotally said WS was taken out of school by his dad who had problems in his business

[sbrownfi]

1. You claim his father was illiterate. So what if he was? it has no bearing on the abilities of his children. I guarantee that you have an ancestor somewhere who was illiterate. Besides, john Shakepeare was essentially the Mayor of Stratford, a position unlikely to have been held by an illiterate.

[PelicanCode]

@sbrownfi John Shakespeare signed documents with a glovers compass - FACT. I am sure my ancestors indeed are illiterate - but I don't claim I have a 20,000 word vocabulary or to have written 154 sonnest and 37 plays of the highest calibre - BTW the pieces of Shakepeare whoever he was are fantastic - I think we all agree on that

[ChaosButterfly8]

I personally think it was Asmodeus. ¤°.¸¸.•´ *¨ εїз

¤°.¸¸.•´ *¨¤°.¸¸.•´ *¨

¤°.¸¸.•´ *¨

[PelicanCode]

Illiteracy does inhibit the ability to write the best English prose the world has ever seen. Not denying cerativity and hardship go hand in hand but Shakespeare was not creative - look at the evidence of him suing people in court - he was a businessman not a writer - check out our authorship blog on The Pelican Code web site

[starknight97]

#1 what school have too do with it no schooling does not limit imagination. Though having schooling does as it preps you for a single role in life. A university only molds you more so. Anyone could have helped him in the words he needed. The family doe show lifestyle. Though passion would drive him too find the words and a way to express his ideas. After all writer and artist often have a harder life to give them creativity again. The no written history is a indicator.