Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Little is known of Shakespeare's personal life, and some anti-Stratfordians take this as circumstantial evidence against his authorship. [37] Further, the lack of biographical information has sometimes been taken as an indication of an organised attempt by government officials to expunge all traces of Shakespeare, including perhaps his school records, to conceal the true author's identity.
Independent filmmaker Alicia Maksimova released in 2016 a documentary film Was Shakespeare English?, [3] covering this topic, which lacks scholarly support. This story has become known in Italy, but is much less well known elsewhere. Its central notion is that the name "Shakespeare" is an anglicised translation of an Italian immigrant's surname.
In 1920, John Thomas Looney, an English school-teacher, published "Shakespeare" Identified, proposing a new candidate for the authorship in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The theory gained several notable advocates, including Sigmund Freud .
Mainstream Shakespeare scholars maintain that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable for attributing authorship, [10] and that the convergence of documentary evidence for Shakespeare's authorship—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians and official records—is the same as that for any other author ...
The convergence of documentary evidence of the type used by academics for authorial attribution – title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records – sufficiently establishes Shakespeare's authorship for the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians, [6] and no such ...
The Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship holds that the Elizabethan poet and playwright Christopher Marlowe was the main author of the poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Further, the theory says Marlowe did not die in Deptford on 30 May 1593, as the historical records state, but that his death was faked.
A revised English version, appearing the following year, [53] did receive critical attention from a published authority on alternative Shakespeare theories, who, after paraphrasing its contents, dismissed it as not so much an hypothesis as much as an expression of the author's faith in the conspiracy theory he embraces uncritically. [l]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more