William Shaksper: the great pretender}

8/7/2019 William Shaksper: the great pretender}

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-shaksper-the-great-pretender 1/3

William Shaksper: the great pretender.Among England’s authors, the name William Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the most well-known and treasured. His plays were very popular during his life and, aslegend says, they brought him and his family fame and wealth. However, Shakespe

are, alone of all the greatest writers in western civilization, is unique in theenigma he presents. The Shakespearean controversy over the true authorship of t

he plays has been debated for many years. Those who believe that he was the true

author rely on the word genius as a complete solution to the issue; whereas hiscritics base their case on inconsistencies, important anomalies and even illogi

calities in the Stratford man’s credentials. The true identity of "Shakespeare" isnot discussed here since most of the evidence supporting the various claimants

seems vague and fantastically unconfirmed assumptions. This enigmatic puzzle will probably not be solved unless some previously concealed documents are exposedand brought into the public eye. However, according to the historical facts at hand today, there certainly appears to be a great deal of mystery as to who wrotethe plays and sonnets of William Shakespeare. Obviously, if it could be proved

he wrote the plays and poems attributed to him, that would be the end of the matter. An examination of the few existing historical details of Shakespeare’s life raises even more questions than it provides answers. The two big problems which h

ave kept this discussion open are the mismatch between the man and the work as well as the lack of a proper written document or record showing that this merchant, and supposedly actor, did write these works. Therefore, and according to theevidence available today, it seems as if the Shaksper from Stratford upon Avon could not have possibly been the author of such remarkable masterpieces.

Historical records of Stratford

s parish show that a male child by the name of Gulielmus [French for William] Shaksper was born in 1564 to John and Mary Shaksper and was baptised on April 26th of the same year. However, no birth date was ever reported. John Shaksper was a prosperous Glover in the town of Stratford whose family lived in relative comfort for the formative years of William

s life. Because his parents were high-standing members of society, William Shaksper couldhave been able to attend the local grammar school. It is believed that this is w

here Shaksper received the formal education that is so apparent in the plays. Despite this assumption, there is no historical record of Shaksper

s attendance atStratford

s grammar school. By no means was participation compulsory, and a child’s education depended mainly on his father. As a matter of fact, it can be proved that Shaksper’s father had not been formally educated as well. Documents remainin which John Shaksper

s signature appears as a mark, indicating that he was illiterate. For this reason, it looks as though John Shaksper did not place a highvalue on education. What is more, all historical records point to the conclusionthat his son never attended school. If that was true, William was not educated

enough to have produced such masterful works. Shakespeare’s works contain a largevariety of knowledge of law, music, foreign languages, the classics, aristocratic manners and sport. There is no documentation which states that William Shakspe

r had access to such information.

In addition to this, Shaksper’s wife and children were illiterate. This small factin itself is enough to cause doubts even in the most convinced of men. Whoever

wrote the plays would have had a very complex love of literature. The plays pullmany different varieties of life into each one. They are still applicable in to

day’s life. Writing something that can go beyond time and location takes a great talent. It seems logical to think that someone with these talents would want hischildren to be able to read and comprehend them. Someone of this capacity wouldwant to teach his nearest and dearest to appreciate his works. It is incomprehensible to think he would not teach his family to read and enjoy his works.

Another confusing account, in fact, the next historical record mentioning Shaksp

er, is the documentation of his marriage. Records show that the day before Shaksper registered to marry Anne Hathaway; he had registered to marry "Anna Whatleyof Temple Grafton". The name was changed to Anne Hathaway of Stratford the next



day, and they were married suddenly. Six months into the marriage, Anne gave birth to their first child, and the reason for the rushed marriage became evident.However, it raises a puzzling question. How could the man whose plays are some of the most romantic works ever composed be the same man who nearly ran out on his pregnant lover by attempting to marry someone else, rather than owning up to his responsibility? Consequently, some detractors state that some of the plays later attributed to William Shakespeare were appearing anonymously in London aroun

d the end of the ten-year gap in the records. There is still no documented evidence, however, indicating that the Stratford Shaksper had done anything but remain in his hometown tending to his business and family. Records kept by Philip Henslowe, the owner of a London theatre, never mention Shakespeare

s name, even though the titles of many of Shakespeare

s plays were included in the same recordsas having been performed.Another point worth mentioning is that there is no reference during the lifetimeof Shaksper of Stratford which either speaks of the author of the Shakespeareanworks as having come from Stratford or speaks of the Stratford man as being an

author. Not even his family ever referred to him as a playwright. The first indication that the author of Shakespeare’s plays came from Stratford appears, vaguely, in the preliminary materials of the 1623 First Folio. Despite evidence of Shak

sper’s unspecified connection with the theatre, documentation of any career as anactor is clearly missing. For example, there is no record of any part he may have played. Contrary to all this, the 1623 Folio lists “William Shakespeare” at the head of “…the Principall Actors in all these Playes.” Since the hint that the author came from Stratford is also made here for the first time, the uncertainty of the one claim should make us doubt the other as well.

Poverty was common for most of the actors and playwrights in late sixteenth century London. Elizabethan era actors hardly made a living. The Stratford records show, however, that Shaksper made a comfortable living, especially when he boughtthe second-largest house in town for his family to live in. Shaksper had to gethis wealth from somewhere, and all of the available records show that he did sothrough his grain business.

The next set of records of Shaksper of Stratford appeared upon his death in 1616in the form of a will. This document contains many odd details that raise even

more questions about his identity as a famous actor and playwright of London fame. A rather strange fact is that Shaksper never mentions any of his writings byname on his last will. There should be masses of contemporary documents about the life of the world’s greatest writer. His manuscripts, his letters, the letters sent to him, the letters about him between others, and printed stories and pamphlets about him. But there are none of these things related to Shaksper, the man who usually lived in the village of Stratford-upon-Avon. No reference appears inShaksper

s will to any books or manuscripts. If existed, such books would have been listed under

goods & household stuff

. No one knows what happened to this beloved library on which the Shaksper of Stratford would have climbed to the highest literary summit. If Shaksper had really been a playwright, those manuscriptswould have been how he amassed his wealth. Most dying men would have made speci

al note of such valuable piece of property in their wills, and passed them alongto a friend, a wife, or another loved one. Shaksper instead makes no mention ofany sort of manuscripts in his will, which leads most people to believe that hedid not actually write them at all.

Yet another curious question raised by Shaksper

s will involves his treatment ofhis wife. According to his will, Shaksper only left his "second best bed" to hi

s wife, Anne. Apparently, the rest of his possessions went elsewhere. By law, part of his estate had to go to Anne in order to provide for her in her old age. However, it seems peculiar that Shaksper left her what basically amounts to nothi

ng of any personal value. If Shaksper was the man who was responsible for such remarkably tender sonnets and plays such as Romeo and Juliet, he must have had aphenomenal imagination. It seems as if he knew very little of love in his own ma



rriage.

The most unusual and inexplicable aspect of the will, however, are the signatures upon it. Of his six surviving signatures, three of them are from his will, andthree are from other historical documents written earlier in his life. As it ca

n be seen, all of the signatures are highly illegible, and it seems that a different person wrote each one. His half-dozen surviving signatures have themselves

aroused scepticism, not because they are barely legible but because they are soirregular, lacking the consistency of a man who wrote habitually. The signaturespresent a bit of doubt on just how literate Shaksper actually was. It is diffic

ult to believe that Shaksper could have handwritten so many plays and sonnets without being able to master a simply autograph. William Shaksper

s signatures, along with some signatures of John Shaksper survive to this day. The manuscripts of the original plays, however, have never been found. It seems strange that Shaksper

s will, along with other legal documents containing his signature, were found intact, but his manuscripts have apparently been lost forever.

Even though centuries have passed since his death, Shakespeare

s tomb is still one of the most-visited tourist attractions in all of Stratford. Next to the tomb

there is a statue, showing Shaksper holding a feather pen. This, however, is amore recent addition to the tomb, having been created in 1748 for a restoration.The original tombstone, however, depicted Shaksper holding a large sack of gra

in. As it was traditional to depict the profession in a person

s monument, it would seem that Shakespeare was not honoured as a literary figure, but as a successful dealer, which is exactly how Shaksper of Stratford made his money, in maltand grain. Again, this indicates that Shaksper of Stratford evidently had no connection at all with the literary world. There are no documents which show that he had any connection with the plays or poems. What is more, the London literaryworld did not seem to weep for the death of the Stratford man, either. AlthoughShakespeare

s contemporaries would usually publish letters of sympathy and eulogize their peers, nothing appeared in London papers after Shaksper

s death in Stratford. Even if Shakespeare had not published anything for a few years before hi

s death, his older plays were still being performed in London. It seems unbelievable that the news of his death would not have reached London if Shaksper was actually famous there.

All of the surviving documents describe Shaksper as an average citizen of Stratford who did nothing but living a normal life. It must have been very difficult to lead a double life, and if that was the case; why did he give up his fame anddied in anonymity? It is very difficult to believe that a man of little or no education could have become one of the best writers of all times. In addition to this, it is unusual the fact that he kept his family illiterate considering the social position his profession would have granted him. The vague or inexistent documents that link Shaksper to theatre are questionable, besides none of his contemporaries expressed grief for his death. What is more, everybody in his home town seemed to know him as William Shaksper, the grain merchant, not as a famous playwright. His last will never mentions any of his works. Through it, Shaksper,the author of some of the world’s most romantic plays, only leaves a bed to the m

other of his children. All in all, the lack of correspondence between man and work and the impossibility to connect him with the show business leads to a stunning conclusion; William Shaksper, "The Bard" of England’s fame, could not have written the plays and poems attributed to him.