There's actually quite a bit more question marks in this tale. The writing of the plays, and especially the sonnets, is incredibly good for what was a poor boy from obscure lineage. As you pointed out the intracacies and details in many of his works seem to indicate the author was not only extremely well-traveled but also highly educated and had a very intimate familiarity with aristocracy and the royal court system.

He was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. It was basically a sheep/wool market town. His father was a glover who admittedly married well into low-level gentry. When they wed neither could even write their own names, choosing to sign the agreement with their marks instead. Therefore, anti-Stratfordians (as they're called) emphasize this probably meant that William was brought up in an illiterate household, which would not have been uncommon in a market town in the 16th century.

As for education, there are few records surviving of the time. Based on where he lived he probably attended the King's New School in Stratford, but there is no evidence to support this. The instructors at the school would have been university educated, though. This is often used as evidence for both sides of the debate. Traditional historians say that an aspiring young pupil could have taken a keen interest in the classics and been nurtured by a well-learned teacher. Anti-Stratfordians typically say that the instructors went on to write numerous surviving works and never mentioned instructing the great playwright at an early age. Either way there's no direct evidence of either, and not even direct evidence Shakespeare attended that specific school.

In The Cambridge History of the English Language Shakespeare's vocabulary is estimated to be at least 17,000 words and probably more than 20,000 based on the works attributed to him. It is unknown how a person with likely illiterate parents and whom probably attended a basic grammar school would develop such an extensive vocabulary at that time, anti-Stratfordians claim. As no hand-written examples of Shakespeare's work survive the only examples of his handwriting we have to look at are six signatures he signed throughout his life (two are widely disputed if I remember correctly). Of these six, three abbreviate the last name in various ways and all are written in Secretary Hand (which in itself is not uncommon at all). His spelling of his own surname is wildly inconsistent between the six examples.

Anti-Strafordians then look to the work attributed to Shakespeare and see a polarizing genius who had command of the English language like none before him and few after him. Someone who exhibited detailed knowledge about English politics and royal history, foreign countries, common sports for the aristocracy like bowling, tennis, golf, the hunt and falconry. Shakespeare's works also do not paint the common man, such as himself, in a positive light, typically ignoring them all together or representing them as unruly reactionary mobs of people.

Lastly, Shakespeare's death appears circumstance to the Anti-Stratfordians because despite the passing of a famed and great poet and playwright there was no public mourning period recorded at the time. This would be uncommon for a man of renown, even a commoner. Shakespeare's will is sometimes used as evidence as well, the language being simple and lacking any literary or poetic merit. By the time of his death he had accumulated a large estate and was by all accounts fairly wealthy, but the will didn't mention a personal library of any kind, nor did it reference any of the works that he hadn't completed yet.

So that's the case that Anti-Stratfordians use to argue it was someone other than Shakespeare who wrote the works and then used him as surrogate.

However, 99% of all historians do not accept these theories. Records from the time for common people are few and far between regardless, and it's perfectly possible that a literary genius savant would take it upon themselves to learn as much as possible with no records surviving. With any figures, even kings and queens, of the time there are questions as to their history or activities that aren't answered in surviving texts.

There is absolutely no direct evidence that Shakespeare was not the author of the works. All the "evidence" against the traditional authoriship view is circumstantial at best. Some of it, like suggesting it wouldn't be possible for a child raised in an illiterate household to develop the skills and knowledge displayed in the works, is guesswork. Literary scholars apply the same methods to attribute works to Shakespeare as they do all other authors and almost all agree Shakespeare was the author.

Many contemporaries identify Shakespeare as a well-known actor of the time and at least a dozen sources refer to him as a great playwright of the time. The title pages of at least six plays refer directly to Shakespeare. After Shakespeare's father was granted a coat of arms Shakespeare went by the Gentleman's title of "Master" and there are surviving official documents referencing 'Master (abbreviated 'M' or "Mr.") Shakespere' [sic] as the author of Much Ado About Nothing and Henry IV, Part II and King Lear.

Fellow actors and playwrights of his time also frequently referred to Shakespeare as the author of his works. Many praised him and his works and no contemporary source ever questioned the authorship.

As for the actual works in question, historians point to the many historical inaccuracies in the plays as evidence that they were not written by someone with a university education (which is supported by his contemporaries referencing his lack thereof). Historians have traced at least a handful of inaccuracies in Shakespeare's works to Thersaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae which happens to contain many of the same ones and may have been used by Shakespeare as a reference. As a renown playwright he would have met and associated with influential people and gained a sound understanding of aristocratic life and royal court concepts which then were displayed in his works. Computerized analysis of Shakespeare's vocabulary and writing style showed little difference between himself and his notable contemporaries when you account for the fact that there is an inordinate amount of surviving works by Shakespeare as compared to most of his contemporaries (Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 62).

At least among historians there is no question as to the authorship debate. There are plenty of questions and inaccuracies that Anti-Stratfordians like to use as evidence for their theory, but no direct evidence has ever been found and Occam's razor seems appropriate here.

"How credible are the arguments that some one other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works we attribute to 'Shakespeare'?"

On his 400th Anniversary, it's time to stop pussyfooting around.

The answer is "Not even slightly credible".

For 150 years, groups of wild theorists have been attacking the prima facie case for Shakespeare's authorship of his work without being able to find a single item of counter evidence to support their arguments. None whatsoever.

The idea that there is something hidden is engendered by people, usually with no special training or knowledge, who claim they have detected a mismatch between the profile of the man from Stratford upon Avon and the profile of the author of the canon.

They are completely wrong in this assumption. Will's profile is a perfect match for a Bankside playwright. His education and upbringing is a perfect match to all the other Bankside playwrights. Some of these were better educated, some made many more classical references, some knew more about the law, some were more accurate about court life. But they all had one thing in common. They were all commoners. They were all professional playwrights.

Everything the so-called Doubters build out from this assumption is warped to make it fit. Look at this doubter sentence in EaglesBlitz's post. In fact, a real doubter would state this 'proposition' more strongly.

"As for education, there are few records surviving of the time. Based on where he lived he probably attended the King's New School in Stratford, but there is no evidence to support this. "

There are no records from King Edward VI in Stratford because none were kept. Doubters warp this into a the claim that Shakespeare didn't really attend and many will go on to extend this argument to claim that Shakespeare was illiterate. Even in its mildest form, as EaglesBlitz states it, the statement is dishonest about both the absence of records and the reason that there is no evidence. Yet this is only a small exercise in mendacious suggestiveness. The entire doubter universe is made of the same feeble nonsense.

Shakespeare the playwright, was honoured by his fellow parishioners with a monument; by his colleague Ben Jonson with the best poem ever written by one poet about another; by his fellow actors with a compilation of his theatrical work; and with eulogies written by his friends and fellow poets, from Leonard Digges to John Milton.

He also left three pages of manuscript in his handwriting, documents connecting him to The Globe and the King's Men, his name appears in the Stationer's Register and in court proceedings from the time describing the activities of his theatre group.

None of this evidence is misleading or ambiguous as doubters claim. And none of it has been challenged by anything other than assumption, guesswork and warped reasoning.

In fact the entire "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is no more than a case study into the minds of irrational people.

I'd like to add a quick word about the basic logic here.

--He didn't leave any letters behind.

This is begging the question--assuming that leaving letters behind is an indication of authorship.

--He was not entombed in Westminster Abbey.

I'm at a loss here to understand why anyone would think this is relevant. Yes, some great English authors have been buried there--but plenty haven't. There's no connection between a person's burial place and their writing ability.

--The plays are well-traveled; the author must have been.

First, if you want to play the game of argument from silence (as so many anti-Stratfordians do), there's no proof that Shakespeare never left England. Second, the plays are not so detailed in their local geography and culture that no one but a traveller to the countries they contain could have written them. It's much clearer that the author of the plays was well-read than well-traveled, and reading provides huge amounts of material from which the playwright could work. Third, there are also plenty of errors in geography--which might suggest that the author was not as well-traveled as good at creating the illusion of being well-traveled.

I'm with EaglesBlitz here--there's plenty of evidence for Shakespeare's authorship and no evidence against his authorship that is not strained, distorted, decontextualized, or made up.

Thanks!

kj

Hi, you may be interested in this post by /u/texpeare

• Is there any solid evidence that Shakespeare's works were written by others?

The post has been archived, so if you have followup questions for specific users, ask them here and tag the username to notify them