Anonymous: Do you think Shakespeare was a fraud?

True that both Mendel and Gates have had substantial education though non-formal for one and incomplete for the other. As with Shakespeare, the assumption that he did not at all study stemmed from these things, from what I have gathered so far: a. His parents where most probably illiterate as well, since the majority were at that time, and their marriage certificate was signed with thumbprints. b. There was no record of him attending school, although there was a grammar school about a quarter-mile from his home. c. There is also no evidence of his two daughters being literate, so it is assumed that since Shakespeare himself did not study, he didn't think he should send his girls to school. However, some scholars agree that with their social standing as a middle class family and with Shakespeare's father's position as a town official, it would have made sense that John Shakespeare would send his son to the school that was not too far away. There was no record of Shakespeare attending the said school but there are totally no surviving records of anyone who attended or taught there anyway. If his two daughters were illiterate, well in those days it's the men who went to school and the women stayed home. I guess one valid point raised by those who question Shakespeare's authorship is the fact that many of his plays are about nobility and the upper class, and the person who wrote such things which are correct up to the last detail was most probably a nobleman as well. So I guess that's why they point to Edward De Vere. The part about the plays being taught from memory and the lines being memorized by actors with nothing put on paper somehow gets me thinking about how accurate the plays we are able to read now are.

Bravo! I like your thorough assessment. I'm not really sure what the arguments for Shakespeare's authorship are aside from his lack of education. However, the arguments regarding his lack of education are a bit more legitimate than your comparisons with Mendel and Gates. Most monks were educated enough to be able to read and write, and they spent hours reading and contemplating old texts. Most monks at wealthier or more prestigious monasteries were also likely able to read Latin, if not Greek, since that's what many of the older texts were written in. Mendel may not have had a degree, but he probably studied more than the average college graduate does today! Gates did not graduate from college, but I'm sure his high school education was probably much better and more comprehensive than the education received by the majority of the population 50 years before. Indeed, his high school education might even have been equivalent to that of a Bachelor's degree in the 1930's given the different requirements in education needed in the modern economy. And certainly there were genius businessmen before him. In Shakespeare's case, it is questioned whether he even knew how to read and write! Most of the population in England was illiterate at that time, and Shakespeare's previous profession, and his father's profession, did not make reading or writing a necessary requirement. It is possible that he was a genius playwright, but did he actually write down his plays? Additionally, many plays were not copied down with scripts distributed to actors - after all, many actors couldn't read either! Some plays were devised in the playwright's head, taught to the actors from memory, and then performed with partial improvisation. Even Shakespearean historians will comment how Shakespeare's written plays were likely never, or rarely, performed as written. It is similar to how historians question whether Homer really wrote the Odyssey. After all, he was blind, so how did he write? In any case, I have come to the same conclusion as you. Unless someone holds up a long forgotten piece of concrete evidence as to otherwise, I will still regard Shakespeare as The Great Bard!

Ah, that's very interesting. It is true that he could have been self-taught or that there are simply no records of his school attendance. And I agree, it was not the norm to teach women how to read. The point about his accuracy regarding the nobility is definitely interesting though. How would one know the details of nobility so well without actually being in the nobility? I think that it really depends on the culture of the place and era in which the play was written. Some cultures stuck to whatever was written down, whereas others simply followed the spirit of the dialogue. And, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure the prevalence of literacy was certainly a factor as well. Thanks for the thought-provoking comments! They were really fun to read.

Haha, that's true. No matter what anyone says, William Shakespeare will always be known as the author of those plays and poems. Why don't you want to see it?

Because I believe there was a man , One man named William Shakespeare. And Just the thought of seeing a film where an a$$hole is forcing a guy to play Shakespeare makes me angry.

That's very true. I guess that's why there is so much debate - there just isn't enough accurate and reliable evidence to definitively say one way or the other. Although I think the basis of the movie is bogus, the evidence pointing to de Vere is just far too shaky, I too think it looks like something fun to watch. It looks very dramatic! Plus, the costumes are pretty.

I'm not sure what you mean rafiholmes. If someone or someones acted as a pseudonym for William Shakespeare, then he/she/they would have written his plays under the name William Shakespeare. I wouldn't say that there is evidence pointing to the fact that he is a fraud - I think it's more accurate to say that there is a lot of speculation due to his hazy background and the fact that many things were not recorded as accurately as they are today. There is also a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the man William Shakespeare did exist and wrote those plays.