Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion that Shakespeare was a fraud. Commonly understated arguments are overlooked and swept under the carpet seen as false and incorrect. With nearly 150 sonnets and 40 plays to his name, many accredit Shakespeare as one of the world’s greatest writers. But many people nicknamed “Anti-Stratfordians” “argue that records of the time indicate that Shakespeare likely received only a local primary school education, did not attend university, and therefore would not have learned the languages, grammar and vast vocabulary on display in Shakespeare’s works, some 3,000 words.”[1] Others simply accept that Shakespeare had learned his extraordinary writing capabilities himself, and was just a prodigy. Contrary to this common outlook with lack of evidence to be claimed true, there is ample amounts of proof suggesting that Shakespeare was a fraud and Ben Jonson the playwright’s involvement.
Argument #1: Clearly state your argument.
Plentiful has been written about Shakespeare’s insufficient wealth, or lack of education and knowledge. In Shakespear’s plays he demonstrated extraordinary literacy skills and knowledge of advanced topics. Now, there is lots of evidence supporting the fact that Shakespeare is a fraud, but if the Warwickshire man isn’t the real deal, then who is behind all the plays supposedly made by Shakespeare? The first Folio of 1623 appeared nineteen years after Oxford’s death and seven years after Shakspere’s death. And the introductory matter, “never explicitly identifies the Warwickshire man; instead, it contains one reference to the dramatist as “sweet Swan of Avon” and a separate mention of “thy Stratford moniment,”[2]
It should also be recognized, that in the 1623 Folio, it included only his plays; prominently, it contained none of the poems nor sonnets, or any mention of Southampton, to whom the poetry had been dedicated.
Example #1: Choose a great example to explain your argument.
“Shakespeare could not have written the plays due to his lack of education, his anonymity and his supposed limited knowledge of the law, the battlefield and the court.”[1] In the play Richard III, there is a quote, “my conscience hath a thousand several tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, and every tale condemns me for a villain.”[3]
EVIDENCE (quotes, charts, graphs, pictures, or lines from article, etc)
In a biography written by Ackroyd, he talks about how Shakespeare was unable to teach his wife and kids basic literary skills among other problems involving his wealth, further reducing the chance that he got a proper education and went to university.
EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE
In explanation, Shakespeare’s problems with his wealth shows how unlikely he was to get a good education and go to university further leading to the point that he did not write his plays.
Example #2
Shakespear was a theatrical man, not a writer.
EVIDENCE
In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio of his Collected Works, Shakespeare was listed to have only “acted” in 2 of his plays (Every Man in His Humour of 1598 and Sejanus of 1603) without mentioning Shakespeare as a writer. “The identification by Jonson that year of Shakespeare an actor would be repeated in the front matter of the Folio of 1623 as “The Names of the Principals Actors in all these Places””[2]
EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE
In the works of Hank Whittemore, it is written how about Ben Jonson’s work and how Shakespeare was only to act in Jonson’s plays and not write, showing how he was nothing more than a theatrical man.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I strongly maintain that Shakespeare was a fraud and does not deserve the credit he has been accredited. But ultimately, It is important to not overlook or brush off theories with significant evidence, and rather take the time to recognize them, as they might change your perception of someone who is not who you think they are. And as Winston Churchill once said; “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”[4]