For centuries, many around the world have loved Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets. Most who lived to witness his performances did not challenge his abilities; they only cared for his capacity to write intriguing fiction. Decades after his death, presumptions arose to challenge Shakespeare’s identity and authorship. Claims he was not the kind of man able to produce great writing emerged for different reasons. Since the first conjectures, many scholars and historians give their opinions on the Shakespeare authorship controversy, and contribute names of several candidates who may have been the real Shakespeare. Their affirmations, however, hold little to no truth and have proven difficult to justify. Claims commonly made against Shakespeare’s identity contain inadequate evidence to support such arguments.
Many who do not believe William Shakespeare wrote the works associated with him consider Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, a fair contender. Mabillard reviews reasons why some are on Oxford’s side, and concludes, “There is a solid body of evidence to show a real person named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him and… [n]o Elizabethan documents support the claim that Shakespeare’s plays and poems were written by someone else…” (Mabillard). According to this article, no evidence suggests another used a
…show more content…
Established by his records and accounts, Shakespeare was a playwright, actor, and businessman, all feasible amid his time. Common assertions such as those against his education and upbringing do not suffice for an argument, as the time lacked such files. Shakespeare’s works remain accurate, while claims which theorize him a fraud based on his background are mere speculation. Historians need supplementary information on his youth and the early career to make such an assumption. Otherwise, he is truly