974). Research has found that there is proof to back up either side of the argument, “but what Shakespeare tell us of himself in his plays and sonnets, of his background, interests and character, is altogetherdifferent from Shaksper as he appears on the record,”Charlton Ogburn stated in his article about thecontroversy. The characters he considers to be his best work are undoubtedly of royalty. Shaksper on the other hand was nearly illiterate. There is no record of anyone having met, seen or talked to a man he identified at Shakespeare the writer. Even the Earl of Southampton never met him despite all of the letters and dedication of sonnets and poems. On the other hand, it appears that the Earl bought Shaksper’s cooperation the pretend to be Shakespeare for one thousand pounds (Ogburn 1974). Out of all the evidence for each argument, the strongest piece ofevidence shows that Shakespeare’s plays were written too early to be credited to Shaksper and were the work of an older man. There can be no doubt that Shakespeare compounds two very different men.The next controversy deals not with Shakespeare’s life or works but of a young man who forged some of Shakespeare’s work. In 1795, an eighteen year old named William Henry Ireland was able to fool people into believing he held some of Shakespeare’s original works and writings (Keevak 167-89). These included legal deeds, promissory notes, letters to and from Shakespeare, and a “lost” tragedy called Vortigern. People actually believed that these were Shakespeare’s documents, even the educated public and some of the leading scholars and critics of the day. William Henry was mainly driven by his desire to please his father, Samuel Ireland. He was trying to make himself be seen as the next young bard and every as a true descendent of Shakespeare artistically and genealogically (Keevak 167-89). After Vortigern was laughed of...
