A Writer In Disquise

Shakespeare does not exist!

Amanda

Mrs. Hart

Research Paper

7 May 2010

A Writer in Disguise

   Why would a famous writer like Shakespeare want to hide their identity? There are many other candidates that fit Shakespeare. The grave of William Shakespeare proves that he could not have written these magnificent pieces of writing. There is no hard evidence proving that he ever existed. Nobody knows Shakespeare’s date of birth, because it is unknown. He lacked in his education, for he only went to grammar school for four years. Shakespeare’s family never even referred to him as a play writer. Among all things, William Shakespeare did not exist, because there are other possible candidates, no real hard evidence that Shakespeare existed, and the back ground does not fit. 
    First off, there are other candidates that could possibly be Shakespeare. One possible candidate would be Queen Elizabeth, for she was a very noble woman of her time and back then woman were not able to write poetry. One quote states, “In the case of Queen Elizabeth, the argument is that it is improper for a woman to write poetry, and therefore she served as a patron for Shakespeare in order to ghost-write his works”(Wheeler). Women were also more concerned about others opinions, such as appearances and outlooks. This article states, “It arises because communication is much more important for the survival of a woman than it is for a man”(Sloan). It is possible Queen Elizabeth hid her identity so she would not have to face her fears of other peoples criticism. Another possible candidate would be De Vere, because he was dated to be around at the time of Shakespeare’s works. Sloan clearly states, “The speaker in the sonnets was a middle-aged man obsessed with his own mortality, yet Shakespeare was in his thirties when he “supposedly” wrote them”(Sloan). If De Vere was really around at this time then he could very well be the writer of these magnificent pieces. De Vere would also have been about the right age to have authored one of the Sonnets. Another article states, “Oxfordians date the Sonnets between 1593 and 1603; since de Vere died in 1604; he would have been about the right age”(Sloan). De Vere could very well be Shakespeare, because there is evidence that he was around during the time of the Sonnets. One does not truly know for sure who exactly wrote Shakespeare’s work, but between Queen Elizabeth and De Vere its obvious one of them did.
    Second of all, there is no real hard evidence proving that Shakespeare ever existed. On his birth certificate there are six signatures and his name was not spelled Shakespeare. Hill clearly states, “On Shakespeare’s birth certificate his name is spelled “Shaksper,” and six signatures undisputed to be authentic are all spelled differently”(Hill). If this is true then Shakespeare is just another writer in disguise, for his name is spelled differently. Also, the signatures on his birth certificate are written terribly, which makes those of his family more illiterate than those of other noble writers. Another quote states, “Moreover, those six signatures are written in a horrible, virtually illegible scribble-one appearing much closer to that of an illiterate than to that of the most renowned writer ever”(Hill). Shakespeare was just as illiterate as his family, so he could not have been able to write such advanced plays. There were also other written accounts proving that he did not exist, for no one every remembered seeing him. Sloan states, ”Not one document exists giving evidence of anyone ever seeing him”(Sloan). If not one document exist then nor does he, for there are no documents to prove he did. Plus there are no originals that have survived, which makes it easier to say that he did not exist. This quote says, “Originals of none of his manuscripts have survived”(Sloan). If there is no record of information stating Shakespeare wrote these plays then it must have been another writer hiding their identity. It is hard to believe that he ever existed, because there is no hard evidence in proving he did, and none of his pieces survived, which is odd for he was supposedly quite famous.
     Finally, Shakespeare’s background does not fit. It is funny that one believes Shakespeare was this famous writer, because his family never referred to him as one. One quote says, “Not even his own family ever referred to him as a famous playwright”(Sloan). Shakespeare’s family referred to him as more of a gentleman, because that is what he truly wanted to be. Also, how can a man such as Shakespeare be able to write such magnificent pieces of writing when he only went to grammar school for four years? Another quote clearly states, “His plays have a depth and magnitude so great that only a university-educated man of high status could have”(Sloan). It is not possible that Shakespeare wrote all these pieces of writing, for it would have been too advanced for him. A man who has lacked in education would not have the knowledge to write such advanced pieces of work. There is not enough background information to prove that Shakespeare was the real author of these extraordinary pieces of literature.
    To sum it all up, Shakespeare did not exist, because there are other possible candidates, no real hard evidence, and the background information does not fit. There are so many candidates that could be the real Shakespeare, but De Vere and Queen Elizabeth are the most likely to be the real Shakespeare. Also, there is very little hard evidence in proving that he even existed, for his date of birth is unknown and the signatures on his birth certificate are illiterate. There is not enough background information on his life to prove that he ever even existed or not. Shakespeare’s family was very illiterate and never referred to him as a play writer, but a gentleman. Shakespeare lacked in his education, for he only went to grammar school for four years. It is hard to believe that Shakespeare could very well be just another writer in disguise. One will never truly know if he ever existed or not for Shakespeare was the only one who truly knew.

Author's Note

This is my research paper on Shakespeare. Tell me what you think, please! I have a works cited page, just didnt put it on here.

Reviews

[Pareidolia]

One thing that I would caution you about is how you propose your argument. A good research paper begins with a thesis, is bolstered by an analysis of several specific(and cited) facts, and ends with a surefire conclusion. And while you have the start of a GREAT research paper, I feel like you could do so much more with this topic.
Throughout your paper, you recycle a few facts- some of which are speculation, such as what experts make of Shakespeare's signatures- and analyze them. It's really difficult to write about what we DON'T know about Shakespeare for an entire essay- because we know so little! Why not instead focus on the evidence that supports different authors, like the ones that you mentioned: Queen Elizabeth and the Earl, Edward de Vere? I feel like it would be much easier to show just how much overwhelming evidence there is for an author other than Shakespeare rather than to show just how little we know about Shakespeare himself.
Here's a link that I think will help: http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/authorship/authorship.htm

Good luck- this is a huge, huge topic to cover in one paper!

[Mauricio Montoya]

I’m not good at story so there’s not much I can say other than it’s a gift and I’ve read a lot of your writes so I know you got what it takes, God bless you and keep on writing.

[Jessica Mai]

I never really thought about that! Guess i don't know much about Shakespeare! You made valid points and this kept me interested. But the font was pretty hard to read.

[deeps]

I like this, i think it's wonderful
full of info and detail. Very well written.
I Like what you have gathered here.

[MissWordSmith]

Ok. Manda, first I will say that this WAS well-written, but there are some places where you wrote unnecessary silly stuff for which you might get a lower grade.

For example..
" Nobody knows Shakespeare’s date of birth, because it is unknown."
Come on Manda, THINK! You are saying the same thing twice, with no proof to back it up in the sentence. I mean, do I have to say anything? Just read the sentence!


"One possible candidate would be Queen Elizabeth, for she was a very noble woman of her time and back then woman were not able to write poetry."

So what? She was noble, okay. Does that mean she necessarily wanted to write poetry? I mean to say, that even if it WAS her, you're not making your point CLEAR enough.

You keep making points, without giving reason for what you are saying .


"To sum it all up, Shakespeare did not exist, because there are other possible candidates, no real hard evidence, and the background information does not fit."

Shakespeare did not exist because there are other possible candidates? Is that really something you want to be saying now?
"No real hard evidence.." specify WHAT evidence you are talking about.
"Background information does not fit" Elaborate that sentence.

These last few sentences are important, because they are in the end, what is left in the reader's mind most clearly.

Last of all, in this article I kept reading "Shakespeare did not exist because.. Shakespeare did not exist.... "

If that is what you believe, then to end it off on..
"To sum it all up, Shakespeare did not exist, because there are other possible candidates, no real hard evidence, and the background information does not fit."

Weakens your argument. Though the topic is debatable, you are putting forward YOUR outlook. You cannot give up in the last sentence. In fact, in the last sentence, you should AMPLIFY why exactly he does not exist.

Anyway Manda, hope I helped. Just re read aloud, and listen while you're reading. Think over each line carefully. Make sure not to DEBATE with YOURSELF during the piece.

I know this will be a great paper, just focus a little more. With all the advice you're getting here, hardly anything could go wrong.

Toodles!

[Senseless whatever]

Not sure of the grade level this is for.
Rethink the opening, research papers have an opening that leads. Your first paragraph reads like an abstract which is separate from the actual article or paper. If you are presenting this way that would be fine (cover page, abstract, next page starts paper)
i would suggest doing away with starters like , "first of all" and the like. Start each section with the main topic and fill in the facts with references if needed. this would vary if you are using MLA or APA format again depending on the grade level and requirements set by the teacher.
Overall you have a lot of good information here and it is put together well.

[Zeitgeist Manifesto]

You raised many arguments here. It's a hot topic, but I honestly don't want a definite answer. I admire the mysterious savant that wrote so wonderfully.

The one thing that could be countered in your paper is that many writers don't hand over their works to their loved ones. Many of us here don't have relatives reading our work and some of our friends here are even anonymous. The average person that is not a writer would totally overlook that point..so build a defense for it. lol

Honestly, I think your paper was well thought out and your research shows.

You wrote a wonderful theory...but the one thing I would change is the direct confirmations that Shakespeare did not exist. Your evidence should only support your beliefs. Einstein did a wonderful job of writing theories. Even though he was a genius, his writings still show an attitude that is willing to learn. He made it clear that he was trying to find an explanation to an unknown. IMO this makes a paper more influential.

The scientific community is the worst in this area. Two scientists with great arguments will debate about a theoretical matter as if they are right. Discussing the beliefs is one thing...but claiming theory to be truth can make one look arrogant. (no offense)

In a theory..just give the meat, bread and cheese....and let the reader choose whether or not they wish to make a sandwich.

You did a wonderful job. I respect the work that went into this project.

[Dressed in Poetry]

First, I just have to say that I disagree. There is ample evidence that Shakespeare existed and wrote the works attributed to him. He does not have a birth certificate, but that was not uncommon; instead, look to his baptism as evidence. Names are commonly spelled different ways; remember that Shakespeare was writing and lived in a different time period, where spellings are different. The first 200 years after he lived, no one questioned that he wrote what he did; and surely, if anyone would be able to question it, it would be them. I feel that it is just speculation, and that it doesn't actually matter if the writer was the same William Shakespeare that we admire today - the works are still brilliant. But then, I am a follower of Foucault.

That being said, I think your paper is well-written despite my disagreements with it. The major thing that I would change is your use of things like "to sum it all up." Those are completely unnecessary and take away from your argument, because we can tell that it is a conclusion.

As far as content, I would personally prefer some sort of counter-argument to your articles (like the things that I mentioned) to show that you do at least recognize that the vast majority of literary scholars dismiss the "is Shakespeare really Shakespeare?" debate. You can still take your side, of course, but giving some ground to the opposition actually strengths arguments - because you are recognizing them, not ignoring them, and then still saying that you disagree. But then, I am obviously biased to the side opposite of yours.

Please do not take this as me bashing your paper; quite the contrary, I enjoy this argument. However, I am a student in English literature who has studied Shakespeare extensively, and I have gotten to the point where I very much dislike this debate. It seems like a "so what?" point. Even if Shakespeare was a pen-name, the plays and sonnets are still powerful. I would include something that answers that question in your essay. A motive is a very strong thing to have - so try to answer the question "so what if Shakespeare was someone else?" I think that would make your paper extremely strong.

[James Watts]

This was well composed and informational, as well as debatable. Shakespeare could have been a pen name. The education part is debatable because even in those times he the man could been self-taught. There are other well known authors in history were the same. As for his family, they may have been poorly educated commoners, but it wouldn't mean that he was. Education doesn't always start or end with schools and universities. The other information you have, though, does suggest that something isn't quite right and raises tons of questions. The name Shakespeare, if you look at it, looks and reads like a fictional name. Excellent work.

[Wolfe Greytome]

Not bad,but there are things you could improve upon. You are very repetitious and you tend to to lump facts into large and unwieldy sentences.

Now for the positive:
You have a lot of information which, though it could have been presented better, clearly supports your stance.