To be or not to be, that is the question. Although the original quotation from Hamlet was

not about the author himself, instead it was a written story by an author. Scholars ask

the question on the same premise. Was the man William Shakespeare truly the author of all

these astonishing, spellbound works, such as the infamous Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, or

was the name simply a pseudonym for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, or another.

Because of Shakespeares provincial background, records found, and unreliable sources,

authenticity of his writings has left a controversy for scholars and curious members of

society to debate.

Many scholars find the work probably not to have come from a man of William Shakespeare's

background. Being the son of a glove-maker, the man Shakespeare is not known to have an

enriched knowledge in anything in particular. Looking at the dialect from the plays, it

is hard to see where Shakespeare could pick up that kind of slang. He uses soldier slang,

which is, in the time period of his life, something you would only learn from experience.

With the knowledge of Shakespeare to have never been involved in any military duties, it

is clearly seen a mystery. The only evidence that stands for where he could have learned

his writing skills was at his grammar school. A low class school where Shakespeare could

have learned language and literature may be the only school he ever attended. It is possible

that a he could learn such brilliant dialogue and imagery, but is it likely? Could a plain

society full of different classes teach a genius, or did that genius teach the society?

With only a will in Shakespeare's name, and evidence that he was an actor, it is too far

of a stretch for him to be recognized as the world's most famous writer with no hard evidence

that proves him worthy to be the playwright. In his will and other signatures found in

documents, William Shakespeare signs his name 6 different ways. How could a man of such

high intelligence spell his own name wrong? This is a question that all who are involved

in this controversy ask. It may mean that he, in fact, is a man of the common, but yet his

name is used as a pseudonym for a very charitable man. The will of the man William

Shakespeare consists of every small detail he owned, yet there is no mention of any plays,

poems, and so on. Even a man of a very charitable cause would most likely leave his best

gift to the world in his will, the private heirloom for his family. This is thought of as a

very strange twist to this already windy path. Society may just unconsciously think that

Shakespeare was the playwright as we all may think he may be,

but where is there proof?

With the only evidence looked at, the mystery of probably the greatest writer of all time

remains a mystery because of the people who are left as witnesses. People such as Al Rowse

are only believers from faith, or other, and cannot account for such an expense. The

scholars are left with something that they have no control over: the past. They are digging

and digging for long lost evidence or just something that could answer this curious and

pain-staking mystery. Was a man such as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford really that

humble as to give a man, of his knowledge, nonexistent, the power that he should of got

for the rest of all time? It is hard to believe, but then again it is a pretty close match.

This is going to be left as is unless a new technology comes in to save the day. Is the

faith in our hearts enough to keep the rhythm of the iambic pentameter belonging to the

man, William Shakespeare?