Shakespeare a Fraud?

I find the essay gives a plausable theory. However, it misses some fundamental references to underwrite the claims. Nice... but true ?

Oh my....I so badly wish to argue the merits of your essay with you but, sileas has done that so very well already. Yes, well written though the hammering of "He had no formal education" and "a mere country boy" give this essay a more personal feel to it rather than the detached argument point of view it should have.


I must add this though, Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus", he most lucrative play though least popular today, is the only play that has reasonably supported claims of having been completed by someone other than Shakespeare. Look it up if you really are interested, I'll not belabor the point.

Execellent conclusion, used several sources, and provided many examples. Introduction was a bit too direct, but it was closely related to the topic.

First of all, have you actually READ any of Shakespeares works in any great detail? It appears to me, through your obvious lack of knowledge, that you have only read chapter summaries on Sparknotes and the one book of criticism on whose theory you base your entire argument.


You are actually asserting here that no works of any great value, no masterpieces, could ever come from any human being that has not had at the very least a university education. Mozart, for example, composed his first major symphony at the age of 4!


Secondly, if you had actually read any Shakepearean plays you would realise that Shakepeare does not have any understanding of Law. He does not need to since he deals with the problems of human nature in his work, not matters of Law. The most probable reason for him to set his plays in the courts of the upper classes is because he was writing for a living. It was his job, and his job was to entertain an audience. This audience is made up of all classes. The upper classes were essentially more important (money) to please, therefore his plays would have to relate to the upper classes in order to keep them interested. It was just the custom. No one in Renaissance England wrote about people in the slums of London. They (unfortunately) just werent thought of as important enough to write about.


He also does not claim to know about other countries customs in any great detail. He doesnt claim to. Note how mostly, all the people in Italy have English customs. The reason very few plays are set in English courtrooms or palaces is simply to avoid being accused of treason. Corruption is a strong and ongoing theme in Shakepearean plays and to suggest that it took part in an English courtroom, or palace, would basically be suggesting that corruption took place in Queen Elizabeths monarchy, or in English Courts. To suggest that, particularly when Queen Elizabeth herself was occasionaly in attendance at the theatre, would be very risky indeed, and not at all worth his while.


Many of Shakepeares plots and storylines are taken from other sources - its just intertextuality. All artists borrow off of each other - thats how humans progress. Its the way Shakespeare put everything together - his shrewd insight into human nature, his wit and his ingenuity in writing is what makes his works still thought of as masterpieces almost 600 years on.


I don\'t want to diss your essay or anything, I thought is was well written, I just think you are very very wrong, and to make the assertion that Shakespeare was a fraud, you should really have researched a lot more.