1. What Are Some Of The Arguments Against Shakespeare?
Through snobbery and ignorance, the anti-Stratfordians have compiled arguments against Shakespeare, claiming that he is not the true author of his works, but when their arguments are examined, and his connections and lifestyles are studied, the claims set forth by the anti-Stratfordians are disproven and invalidated, and Shakespeare remains to be the true author of his works. William Shakespeare, born April 23rd, 1564, is one of the most well known playwrights in the English language. Having written over thirty-seven plays, his name is is extremely popular in the world of English, and is often widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. Those who rise above normal standards are always attacked in attempts to tear them
…show more content…
Although it is true that Shakespeare was not of noble position, it was far easier for the lowly to write about the nobility than for the nobility to write about the lowly. Shakespeare had extensive knowledge on both, which was highly unlikely for a person of nobility. As for the extensive knowledge and vocabulary displayed in his works, there is no proof of him attending school, which neither proves nor disproves that he was educated. He may have attended school unknown to others, or attempted to educate himself, rather than attend …show more content…
Some theorize that the “Stratford man” was a cover story for an anonymous aristocrat, or that “William Shakespeare” is a pseudonym of the real author. They often refuse to call him Shakespeare and regard him with contempt, calling him “Shaxper” or “Shagsber.” (Epstein 273-274) Even though the anti-Stratfordians have valid theories, they have been disproven over and over again. They argue that there are no remaining manuscripts or handwriting samples left from him, but the lack of manuscripts is expected from a writer of that period—even today we do not read and preserve movie scripts, and the writers of our favorite movies are often unknown to us. His background, i.e. his grammar school education, is characteristic of the other leading writers of his
Although it is true that Shakespeare was not of noble position, it was far easier for the lowly to write about the nobility than for the nobility to write about the lowly. Shakespeare had extensive knowledge on both, which was highly unlikely for a person of nobility. As for the extensive knowledge and vocabulary displayed in his works, there is no proof of him attending school, which neither proves nor disproves that he was educated. He may have attended school unknown to others, or attempted to educate himself, rather than attend …show more content…
Some theorize that the “Stratford man” was a cover story for an anonymous aristocrat, or that “William Shakespeare” is a pseudonym of the real author. They often refuse to call him Shakespeare and regard him with contempt, calling him “Shaxper” or “Shagsber.” (Epstein 273-274) Even though the anti-Stratfordians have valid theories, they have been disproven over and over again. They argue that there are no remaining manuscripts or handwriting samples left from him, but the lack of manuscripts is expected from a writer of that period—even today we do not read and preserve movie scripts, and the writers of our favorite movies are often unknown to us. His background, i.e. his grammar school education, is characteristic of the other leading writers of his