Yyyyyyyyyyyooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikkkmyjfjy,Fitch,htcyd,Tudor,du,find,hatched that,du,to,htcyd,dug catchy,cut,cutcgjccgjckjgccjj,cjflcjgcclucugclutcjglcjgculcugcglcjlcjlgculculcluclugcutculct kjgfful gulf h h h h h h h h u y y u y y y y y y y y h y y y u u u u u u u u h h n h h h h u u u u u h h h h h
Yes, Shakespeare wrote the Elizabethan plays, because they are his writing style. If you compare the Elizabethan plays with his known works, they use the same patterns of speech. It is unlikely that anyone would have been able to mimic Shakespeare's writing as well so as to confuse people as to whether he wrote the Elizabethan plays.
Yes, I believe that Shakespeare did really write the Elizabethan plays. There has been a lot of drama surrounding many of Shakespeare's most renown works, but it is usually drummed up by critics who enjoy discrediting Shakespeare, not by actual historians. There are mountains of proof that Shakespeare was the true writer of all of the works attributed to him, and until there is solid proof otherwise, it will remain so.
Of course Shakespeare wrote the Elizabethan plays. They have all been attributed to him for the past four hundred years. If somebody else wrote those plays, their name would have surfaced at this point. Those who question the creator of such works only seek to undermine the greatness of Shakespeare and stir up trouble.
I think Shakespeare may not actually be the William Shakespeare that we have connected him to, but rather the pseudonym for multiple people. I believe that the body of his work is too immense to have been thought up of by one person alone, but rather by a few or a group of people who may have had Shakespeare elaborate or just pen it.
William Shakespeare did write all of the plays attributed to him. However, he probably had help. Fellow playwrights and thespians would have helped the bard edit his masterworks. To think that someone else did Shakespeare's work is understandable--the body of work is immense in terms of the effect his plays had on modern English. Yet one man did have the time, energy and imagination to conceive of the plays of William Shakespeare.
The name Shakespeare or Shake-spear did appear on many of the plays. But who was this person or persons? The orthodox view is that Shakespeare was the man from Stratford, who went under the name Shakspere. The problem with this attribution is there is no direct connection between him and the works from his lifetime. This connection was first made with the publication of the First Folio seven years after the death of Shakspere.
Read Diana Price. In her seminal "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography she states,
"If Shakespeare was the writer the title pages proclaim him to be, then there should be evidence of his literary career. He is the only alleged writer of any consequence from the time period who left behind no personal evidence of his career as a professional writer. His biographers must rely instead on posthumous, ambiguous, impersonal and non-literary evidence to make their case."
The stark reality is we simply do not know who wrote The Works. This is largely because most people insist on forcing their particular candidate down everyone else's throats. Whether it's the traditional story of the man from Stratford, or one of the 84 possible candidates from the period. We all need to go back to the drawing board. Admit we have no idea how these incredible works were created. And start from scratch, with an open mind. Unfortunately an open mind is the rarest thing in the universe.
A recent book on this subject, "North of Shakespeare," (which argues Thomas North was the true author) is the first one ever published on the issue that argues there were no conspiracies. The Stratford dramatist did indeed write all the works that were attributed to him while he was alive, and no one was trying to frame him for the creation of works penned by someone else. The problem is that most of the plays attributed to him during his life and within a few years of his death are not the same works that everyone believes he wrote today. If we look at the Shakespeare-era title pages without any prior assumptions, we see that he actually penned the briefer, simpler staged-adaptations of "Hamlet," "Henry V," "Richard III," etc. (the "bad quartos") – as well as a group of mediocre works like "London Prodigal," "Yorkshire Tragedy," now considered apocryphal. These latter efforts “by William Shakespeare” are unfamiliar to most people today because later scholars have correctly judged them to be so differently-styled and inferior to all the other well-known ‘Shakespearean’ works that they have removed them from the official canon. In reality, these lesser efforts are what William Shakespeare of Stratford really wrote. These inferior dramas and the rewritten, theatrical adaptations comprise the real Shakespeare canon.
What is more, Shakespeare’s contemporaries knew precisely what he wrote and frequently attributed these same lesser works to him, often deriding his close adaptation of the works of others as plagiarism. The pamphlet "Groatsworth of Wit" (1592) described Shakespeare as an "upstart" plagiarizer who was getting accolades for the works of Thomas North and others, especially singling out the play, "Henry VI, Part 3." As the orthodox and renowned scholar J Dover-Wilson wrote about this passage, the pamphlet "was accusing Shakespeare of stealing and adapting plays upon Henry VI....."
Ben Jonson made a similar comment, once complaining about the chief actor-dramatist of his time: "he would...Buy the reversion of old plays," but then "marks not whose ‘twas first: and after-times may judge it to be his…." Even after Shakespeare had died, other writers would make the same claim. In the preface to his 1687 adaptation of Shakespeare’s "Titus Andronicus," Edward Ravenscroft wrote: "I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage, that it [Titus Andronicus] was not originally [Shakespeare's]…and he only gave some master-touches to one or two of the principal characters."
Of course, we have no testimony like this involving any other author. And the reason is because the title pages were correct. The contemporary comments and the title pages agree. There were no conspiracies. And the only reason for the centuries of confusion is that in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare had died, editors included both North's original masterpieces along with Shakespeare’s staged adaptations in the "Shakespeare collection" known as the “First Folio.” It was this mass-produced book that established Shakespeare's reputation -- and when orthodox scholars later discovered the plays Shakespeare really did write, they invented conspiracies.