There is a sort of conspiracy theory over the authorship of the writings of William Shakespeare. To date, almost sixty different people are put forward as the true author of the works, including Sir Francis Bacon and Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford.

It has been established that there was a man from Stratford named “Shakespere” who was connected to the theatre. An ample supply of references to Shakespeare as a player and playwright establish his position in acting companies. Skeptics, however, claim that this man was paid to return home and leave his name behind for the use of the true author.

They believe that a mere commoner could never have accomplished such genius, but rather that he was a well-educated and well-traveled nobleman of Queen Elizabeth I's court, a nobleman such as Edward de Vere. The main difficulty in this theory is that de Vere seems to have died before some of the late plays were produced.

Before the de Vere camp rose into first place, the top contender for the nom-de-plum of William Shakespeare was Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon supporters believed that nobody outside of the university could have ever accomplished such genius. Bacon was unquestionably a man of letters, but his style and expression vary dramatically from that of Shakespeare's works. Plus, with the huge volume of work known to be by Bacon, it seems unlikely that he had time to produce the quality output attributed to the Bard.

Post your opinion to the identity discussion board.

Even to the most gifted speaker, reading Shakespeare out loud can pose the occasional stumbling block. Unusual turns of phrase and unfamiliar terms have given rise to two schools of thought when it comes to Shakespeare’s choice of words: Those who love it as it is and those who would translate it to modern English.

The pro-update camp claims that the language of Shakespeare's plays is full of difficulties, that it is 400 years removed from modern readers. They claim that archaic words and figurative language pose difficulties to readers today.

Elizabethan English does differ from Modern English, but the principles are generally the same, and experts say that knowing a few rules and terms will overcome most difficulties. For thousands who enjoy renaissance faires every year, this poses no obstacle, but a pleasant eccentricity.

Without a doubt, Shakespeare’s command of language was outstanding. He was a highly imaginative poet who wrote skillfully for staged performance. His vocabulary, as culled from his works, numbers upward of 17,000 words, which is over four times that of an average modern person. An impressive feat considering there were no dictionaries in his day.

The flow of the verse, the turns of phrase and word-play are what the traditionalists claim makes the plays more enjoyable. Rather than being bothered by words with unexpected and multiple meanings or special connotations, they revel in them. Figurative language unfamiliar words are to them merely signs of being creatively literate. To disturb the meter and double meanings of Shakespeare’s work with an update seems to diminish the art of his writing.

Post your opinion to the translation discussion board.