William Shakespeare the Greatest literary Hoax of All time

William Shakespeare the Greatest literary Hoax of All time

William Shakespeare
The name William Shakespeare is synonymous with greatness and everlasting literary legacy, who in this world is not familiar with the tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet, the enigmatic character of Hamlet, the madness of King Lear, and dozens of other memorable figures who have entered the canon of playwriting. His works have transcended their original stories and have become the subject of college theses, academy-award winning films, seemingly endless volumes of comparative criticism, and so much more. The collective feeling of Shakespeare we all have is one of reverence, respect, and love for his timeless stories.
Yet beneath the surface of the accolades, praise, and worldwide recognition is a great question that will always loom over his legacy – was Shakespeare actually a hoax? What we do know is that many, many critics actually believe he is
the greatest hoax in all of Western literature. True, the name Shakespeare and those works credited to him will
always be forever linked, and there will never be a definitive way to attribute his plays to another author.
Still, it is worth examining the legitimacy of his authorship – there are many, many convincing reasons to believe that
Shakespeare was indeed a hoax that either a single person or many people actually wrote all of the plays normally
attributed to William Shakespeare.
We examine the 10 most convincing reasons below:

1. Convincing Proof of His Illiteracy Exists
   A Definitive Text Doubting the Authenticity of Shakespeare’s Authorship, Via Amazon.com
   Shakespeare grew up in a household in the town known as Stratford-Upon-Avon, a household where no one really
   knew how to write. The family would sign official papers with a mark and not with a name, which could be an
   indication of illiteracy. Even further, in this critical and definitive text devoted to the subject of Shakespearean
   authorship, author Frank Davis is shown as proving William Shakespeare was indeed illiterate, showing that every
   single recorded and known signature of Shakespeare was completely jumbled up scribble that bared no resemblance
   to the spelling of his actual name. Do you think the greatest, most clever author of all time could have difficulty
   spelling his own name? This Doesn’t seem plausible to me.
2. No Contemporaneous Authors Acknowledged His Death
   In his lifetime, it is true that some other actors and writers acknowledged the author known as “Shakespeare.”
   However, according to Cornell Emeritus Professor Donald Hayes in his essay Social Network Theory and Shakespeare,
   it appears that no one wrote about Shakespeare at the time of his death, minus some privately circulated literary
   tributes that have since been lost. Curious, since he was a well-performed playwright back in his day. Of course, he
   had not yet achieved the immortal fame that comes along with the word “Shakespeare” today, but you would think
   that someone would have written about Shakespeare’s death. But instead, it took seven years for someone to write a
   published poem about Shakespeare’s death. How curious!
3. He Likely Had Little to No Education
   Education
   There is no documentary proof at all of Shakespeare’s education that currently exists, or if he had one, he dropped
   out around the age of 13. Although a basic grammar school existed within a mile of Shakespeare’s home, there is not
   even a single shred of remotely conclusive proof that Shakespeare himself ever attended the school. Also, there is
   not one pupil who claimed to have ever recorded the fact that they were classmates with William Shakespeare.
   What if you went to school with a famous playwright or someone of significant cultural worth – wouldn’t you tell
   others that you went to school with said person?
4. Shakespeare Could Not Have Actually Known Such Intimate Details about Italy
   Shakespeare’s Guide to Italy via Amazon.com
   Many of William Shakespeare’s plays are set in Italy, but from evidence we have of Shakespeare, there is no way he
   could have known as much as he did about Italy. Perhaps he could have traveled to Italy, but he is known for
   spending almost all of his time in England. Remember, traveling to another country was a much more cumbersome
   activity in the 17th century than it is today.
   There is a book that has proved that nearly every single Italian reference in the works of Shakespeare, including
   things as obscure as the inland waterway systems of Northern Italy described in Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen in
   Verona, is completely accurate to the T. How can a man who spent most of his time in England who was possibly
   illiterate be able to do this?
   All Evidence Points to Him Having a Career in Real Estate or Business.
   Nothing in the current lexicon of documented Shakespeare records points to him ever having a career in literature,
   but rather, real estate and business. Indeed, at the time of Shakespeare’s death, nothing in his will made any
   reference to any of his plays, books, or poems – nearly every prolific author, composer, or artist would make a
   reference to his own works and mark who will own their rights in their wills. Rather, his will talked mostly about
   where he would bequeath his property. Although there is evidence that he was involved in the theatrical scene of
   England, it has been proposed that the relationship was born out of real-estate acquisitions and business dealings.
5. His Name Is Quite Possibly a Pseudonym
   It is interesting to note that the name Shakespeare was spelled differently on a number of his original plays, and was
   sometimes hyphenated even as “Shak-Spear.” Common sense indicates that most people who write their name on a
   document consistently use the correct spelling of their own name. It is also interesting to note that hyphenated
   names in the 16th and 17th centuries were often used as pseudonyms with intended meaning in the names. Perhaps
   the combination of “Shake” and “Spear” has a decisively intentional meaning that the world has not quite picked up
   on yet.
   Also, pseudonyms were incredibly common in the 16th and 17th centuries – many authors used pseudonyms in fear
   of stigma concerning their works. It is completely possible that Shakespeare is a pseudonym for one or even multiple
   authors.
6. His Will Indicates No Interest in His Own Works or of Any Culture At All
   Certainly, Shakespeare would have mentioned something as great as Hamlet in his own will. Via Amazon.com
   In his will, William Shakespeare did not write a single word about his 18 unpublished plays, or about any single book,
   play, or poem of his for that matter. The language of the will is also purportedly uninteresting and plain, and sounds
   nothing at all like the language used in his stories. There also appears to be a complete absence of cultural interest in
   his own will, which is strange and unusual not only for a man who wrote such culturally informed literature, but also
   for a man living in his particular era, which was one defined by the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed, only one theatrical
   reference at all is made in his will, which was actually written into his will after he died, according to this famous
   biography of Shakespeare escribe, in virtuosic detail, the minutia of Italian geography and culture?
7. The Name “Shakespeare” Was Not Attached to Any Play of His Until 1598
   Until 1598, not one play of Shakespeare’s had the name “Shakespeare” appended to the plays. How curious is this, as
   William Shakespeare would have been 34 by this time, already an author of over a dozen critical plays and many
   poems. Instead, no name at all was placed onto the title page of his plays prior to 1598.
   An interesting theory is that a nobleman named Edward De Vere actually wrote all of the plays, but did not want
   attribution to his plays as he was a nobleman. Noblemen in 16th century England would have been highly stigmatized
   if they were associated with writing the type of public theater Shakespeare wrote, as opposed to “court” theater. The
   case for Edward De Vere actually makes some sense, as he was a nobleman with the resources and education of
   someone who wrote William Shakespeare’s plays.
8. His Background Is Simply Incongruent With His Literary Genius
   Photo Stratford-upon-avon England
   Many people who reject the Shakespeare alternative authorship theories enjoy the fantasy of a boy with little
   education growing up in an obscure town known for sheep distribution willing his way to becoming a literary giant. It
   sounds like the making of a true zero-to-hero story that makes for a timeless biography.
   However, the reality of the situation is that the man born as “William Shaxpere” had a background completely
   incongruent with that of a cultural and literary genius. Besides the fact he had little to no education, he grew up in a
   small market town 100 miles away from the cultural epicenter of London.
   Shakespeare’s works demonstrate exceptionally detailed and in-depth knowledge of Italian geography, royal politics,
   exotic nations, and even aristocratic sports such as falconry and even lawn-bowling. His works have almost no
   sympathy for the common man, a man such as himself and the people he grew up with; he even sometimes depicts
   the common men in his plays with disgust and ridicule. This is all extremely incompatible with man who grew up in a
   small sheep market town. Remember, news distribution in the 16th and 17th centuries was exceptionally slow, and
   books were not as easily available – a man with Shakespeare’s background would likely not be able to recount the
   details of royal life and culture so fluently without having the experience.
9. William Shakespeare Himself Never Claimed to Write Anything
   Let’s make one thing clear, a man named William Shakespeare did indeed exist. There is no question a man born with
   the name “William Shaxpere,” which can be alternatively written as “William Shakespeare,” was born in 1564 in
   Stratford-Upon-Avon, England, and died there in 1616. This man, who was well-known for money lending, business
   entrepreneurship and possibly even acting was indeed a real actual person.
   It is interesting to note that William Shakespeare himself never claimed to write any of his plays or poems. We have
   already talked about the contents of his will, and how nothing in his will makes reference to his extensive collection
   of plays and poems. However, there is no evidence outside of this will that points to the fact that William
   Shakespeare himself claimed to write a single word of his works!
   Sure, a few artists in history have not always claimed their works. Violinist Fritz Kreisler often gave credit for his
   original works to past composers. Still, most authors will claim their works even with something like a pseudonym.
   And that is exactly what the name “William Shakespeare” must be, a pseudonym, a front for another author who was
   afraid of social stigma associated with writing for the public theater in a time when playwrights and actors were not
   held in high regard. Someone like Edward De Vere, an Oxford noblemen, Christopher Marlowe, a well-educated
   playwright who could have faked his early death, or Francis Bacon, a vocal philosopher and high-ranking English
   essayist and scientist that would never wish to be associated with public theater.
   We can never know for certain if William Shakespeare wrote the works normally attributed to him, and if he didn’t,
   who exactly did, but one thing is for certain – William Shakespeare may indeed be the greatest hoax not just in the
   history of Western literature, but perhaps in all of documented record.
   Borrowed (altered and corrected by @Dajorivision) from a work by Jackson Summer entitled 10 reasons why
   Shakespeare may be the greatest hoax….