To plagiarize or not to plagiarize, that is the question. William Shakespeare is one of the most renowned writers in history. His works give deep insight into the mind of a skilled author and a top notch plagiarist. Over the course of a few centuries, theories have been formed that either Shakespeare used other writers’ work without permission or that the name William Shakespeare is just a cover name for a “dead” famous author. Either theory’s evidence can show why both points are veiled accusations.

The first topic of interest is the claim that William was never the true writer, as he stole the opposing people’s works and called them his own masterpieces. During the time period William allegedfully penned his plays, no one really held concern nor was interested where the writer acquired his ingenuity. This would help aid Shakespeare to get away with having similar pieces as another author. Opposing sides may state that William sought out inspiration from other pieces, not daring to take credit for works he did not manufacture. Though that claim may try to give William Shakespeare a speck of innocence, it cannot deny that William was heavily influenced by the pieces. Recently, researchers have discovered and compared two pieces, one by William Shakespeare and the other by George North. “In the Duke of Gloucester’s opening monologue, and a passage from Discourse for example, the scholars and their software found that each contained ‘a tight juxtaposition of the same eighth terms: glass, proportion, fair, feature, deformed, world, shadows, nature.’ The words occurred within 77 words in ‘Discourse’ and with in 92 in ‘Richard III’- running them through a searchable database of more than 60,000 early English books, no other work contained the same eight words in passages up to 200 words” (Flood 5). It seems that William Shakespeare truly found a spark of interest in George's piece, enough to show similar vocabulary. Still remaining a mystery, evidence can point us to where the truth lays.

However, other scholars believe that Shakespeare was a “pen name” as in an author published and produced work under that specific name. “The long, and by now daily familiar list of supposedly true authors of Shakespeare's plays includes Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of Derby, and even Queen Elizabeth, but the only name that makes sense is that of Christopher Marlowe” (Hornby 2). History has gifted the present ability to analyze plays from Shakespeare and Marlowe and it has shown their writing styles have many similarities. Though many critics may show their side when they try to make the feeble claim that Marlowe died before penning Shakespeare's plays. “The only problem is that the unfortunate fellow was stabbed to death in the eye, in a tavern brawl in 1593 at the age of 29, before he could have written most of Shakespeare's plays, including all the great ones” (Hornby 2). Has any of the many believers in that quotes considered the fact that people were out to kill Marlowe, so a solution would be to fake his own death? “Around the time of Marlowe’s apparent death, the name William Shakespeare appeared in print for the first time, attached to a New York venus and Adonis, described by its author as ‘the first heir of my invention’” (Hornby 7). Is it not intriguing to hear about William Shakespeare’s sudden appearance, following the acclaimed demise of one of the most famous playwrights of the century?

Following suit with the proposition that Shakespeare is a pen name, gives us the motivation to seek further into the realm of the 15th century. “On the other hand nothing in his life has anything to do with anything literary. The scholar who says that almost nothing is known about him is looking for his life as a writer, but finds almost nothing” (Whalem 7). Why would a world-wide, prominent playwright such as Shakespeare shy away from the spotlight of boasting about his extraordinary plays and pieces in his biography? Unless, the creation of the astounding segments did not lay in Shakespeare's hands, but in another’s. In the eyes of the rival, one might seek to attack that the true author, if be one, has never been revealed. However, it will be nearly impossible to find who was the culprit. What we do know is that Shakespeare was not consistent. Scientists analyzed six documents that William owned, “The spellings on all six documents differ. On A and C he didn’t complete the word, as though perhaps, he couldn’t recall how it ended” (Politic Worm 1). Surely there must be a reasonable explanation for having six completly different signatures: other people wrote them. Maybe Shakespeare is not as innocent as formerly thought?

Although, the mystery can be manipulated in many ways, the evidence can push William Shakespeare into the category of possible plagiarist. Whether or not he was a plagiarist or he was just a pen name is just a few of the possible theories. You would think there would be more behind William, but maybe that's why he was so secretive in his biography, to hide the truth.With that you may answer the one important question. William Shakespeare… an original, profound, inspiration, the plagiarist of the century, or the disguise of a playwright?