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, as legend says, they
brought him and his family fame and wealth. However, Shakespeare, alone of all the greatest
writers in western civilization, is unique in the enigma he presents. The Shakespearean
controversy over the true authorship of the 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 his critics base their case on inconsistencies, important anomalies and even illogicalities
in the Stratford man’s credentials. The true identity of "Shakespeare" is not 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 exposed and 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 wrote the 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 have 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 the evidence
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 could have been able to attend the local grammar school. It is believed that this
is where Shaksper received the formal education that is so apparent in the plays. Despite this
assumption, there is no historical record of Shaksper's attendance at Stratford'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 remain in 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 high value on
education. What is more, all historical records point to the conclusion that 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 large variety of knowledge of law, music, foreign
languages, the classics, aristocratic manners and sport. There is no documentation which states
that William Shaksper had access to such information.

In addition to this, Shaksper’s wife and children were illiterate. This small fact in 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 pull many different varieties of life into each one.
They are still applicable in today’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 his
children to be able to read and comprehend them. Someone of this capacity would want 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 Shaksper, is the
documentation of his marriage. Records show that the day before Shaksper registered to marry
Anne Hathaway; he had registered to marry "Anna Whatley of 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 around 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 records as
having been performed.

Another point worth mentioning is that there is no reference during the lifetime of
Shaksper of Stratford which either speaks of the author of the Shakespearean works 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 Shaksper’s unspecified connection with the theatre, documentation of any career as
an actor 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 bought the second-largest house in town
for his family to live in. Shaksper had to get his wealth from somewhere, and all of the available
records show that he did so through his grain business.

The next set of records of Shaksper of Stratford appeared upon his death in 1616 in 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 by name 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 in Shaksper'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
manuscripts would have been how he amassed his wealth. Most dying men would have made
special note of such valuable piece of property in their wills, and passed them along to a friend, a
wife, or another loved one. Shaksper instead makes no mention of any sort of manuscripts in his
will, which leads most people to believe that he did not actually write them at all.

Yet another curious question raised by Shaksper's will involves his treatment of his wife.
According to his will, Shaksper only left his "second best bed" to his 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 nothing 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 a phenomenal
imagination. It seems as if he knew very little of love in his own marriage.

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, and three are from other historical
documents written earlier in his life. As it can 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 so
irregular, lacking the consistency of a man who wrote habitually. The signatures present a bit of
doubt on just how literate Shaksper actually was. It is difficult 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 a more recent addition to the tomb, having been
created in 1748 for a restoration. The original tombstone, however, depicted Shaksper holding a
large sack of grain. 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 malt and 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 literary world did not seem to weep for the death of the Stratford man, either. Although
Shakespeare'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 his 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 and died 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 mother 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.