Omn the question of the spelling of names, I found these interesting facts in a study called ‘Shakespeare Before Shakespeare', by Glyn Parry and Cathryn Enis (2020, OUP), which I think contains an interesting sidelight on the spelling of the name Shakespeare. It concerns John Shakespeare’s persecution by the informer Langrake for supposed wool brogging and usury. Pages 101 to 106: in 1569, John Shakespeare was in good standing in Stratford - he was on a jury as ‘Shackspere’. By 1572, John ‘Shaxspere’ was accused of buying wool in bulk During that year, in pursuit of the claims, the Exchequer issued a writ against Johannem (accusative) Shakespeare. 1574, John ‘Shakspere’ is summoned to appear: the sheriff replied that he had seized “Shakespere’. In 1575 the next writ names John ‘Shakyspere’ for wool dealing. A duplicate had to be issued later for ‘Shakispere’.
The book shows that ‘Shakespeare’ was one of the possible spellings of John S., and therefore presumably of W.S. in everyday life.
I've seen the Earl of Leicester spell his name 7 or 8 different ways over 2 pages. I think it's time we put the spelling and hyphen arguments to bed. They have no bearing on the authorship question and suggestions that they in some way denote a pseudonym have been conclusively shown to be false. For me William Shakespeare is the least interesting aspect of the SAQ.
Agreed, on the name question. I find the research done by Doubters often interesting and informative; but William Shakespeare is still my focus. Doubters find incompatibility between the Stratford man's supposed bighrahy and his works. They stick with the biography and throw out the man. I stick with the man and throw out much of the biography, which is very poorly attested.
Omn the question of the spelling of names, I found these interesting facts in a study called ‘Shakespeare Before Shakespeare', by Glyn Parry and Cathryn Enis (2020, OUP), which I think contains an interesting sidelight on the spelling of the name Shakespeare. It concerns John Shakespeare’s persecution by the informer Langrake for supposed wool brogging and usury. Pages 101 to 106: in 1569, John Shakespeare was in good standing in Stratford - he was on a jury as ‘Shackspere’. By 1572, John ‘Shaxspere’ was accused of buying wool in bulk During that year, in pursuit of the claims, the Exchequer issued a writ against Johannem (accusative) Shakespeare. 1574, John ‘Shakspere’ is summoned to appear: the sheriff replied that he had seized “Shakespere’. In 1575 the next writ names John ‘Shakyspere’ for wool dealing. A duplicate had to be issued later for ‘Shakispere’.
The book shows that ‘Shakespeare’ was one of the possible spellings of John S., and therefore presumably of W.S. in everyday life.
I've seen the Earl of Leicester spell his name 7 or 8 different ways over 2 pages. I think it's time we put the spelling and hyphen arguments to bed. They have no bearing on the authorship question and suggestions that they in some way denote a pseudonym have been conclusively shown to be false. For me William Shakespeare is the least interesting aspect of the SAQ.
Agreed, on the name question. I find the research done by Doubters often interesting and informative; but William Shakespeare is still my focus. Doubters find incompatibility between the Stratford man's supposed bighrahy and his works. They stick with the biography and throw out the man. I stick with the man and throw out much of the biography, which is very poorly attested.