Firstly, in late Elizabethan/early Jacobean England many London playwrights collaborated and indeed there is much converging evidence to suggest that Shakespeare worked with some of his colleagues in producing a few of his plays (e.g. John Fletcher, Thomas Middleton). For more information I would advise you and other readers to read the Wikipedia article linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_collaborations. This is not in the least controversial but it is, however, a far cry from the conspiracy theory that you (and sadly many others) advance, i.e. that Shakespeare was “fronting” for another writer.

Secondly, ALL of Shakespeare’s plays (with the sole exception of A Midsummer Night’s Dream) are based on other extant works. Again, I would advise you to read the wonderful Wikipedia article on this topic as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_plays#Source_material_of_the_plays. You seem to believe that because Shakespeare sourced his plays from historical chronicles and indeed other plays (Plautus, King Leir, the Ur-Hamlet) it therefore follows that he didn’t write the plays attributed to him. This is a complete non-sequitur.

Lastly, the supposition that it is somehow impossible for a man from a relatively humble background and who possessed little formal education to write convincing portrayals of nobility and court life, to adapt works of high art, and indeed to write great poetry, is patently absurd and supremely condescending. Like all conspiracy theories, this one is driven by a lack of information. I don’t mean that to suggest that you are ignorant, I mean that it is precisely because there is a dearth of biographical information about the Bard that these bogus “theories” as you call them (surely the colloquial usage of that term) flourish. The lack of information and the centrality of this work to the canon leads, understandably, to a degree of incredulity about the man who made it.

But it’s one thing to express amazement at how uncanny this accomplishment is and another thing entirely to conclude (from no actual evidence whatsoever) that he didn’t write the plays.

King John, for instance was already written in much the same style, form, and plot structure by a French author two years before Shakespeare wrote his. Some passages are even word-perfect identical.

The Merchant of Venice clearly takes most of its story line from Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta (written years before Shakespeare’s). Again, some passages are strikingly similar.

And Hamlet-surely you know that this play was being produced (using much better verse, I might add) by another company in England long before Shakespeare’s was produced. (Though I will concede that there is evidence to suggest that Shakespeare sold this script to two theatres.)

Also, generally-being that Shakespeare came from a humble, uneducated background (and remained much in the same class for the whole of his life) how is it that he should have been able to gain such full knowledge of law, the inner-workings of the clergy, not to mention courtly and estate matters? Along those same lines-how is it that Shakespeare’s ‘fame’ was not recognised until a substantial amount of time after his death.

Though this is clearly nothing more than a theory, I find it a worthy one. I believe the theatre troupe responsible for binding together ‘Shakespeare’s’ quarto and folio simply used his name as a front for binding these many works together. Not all of these works have the same voice-so to me this is more evidence pointing to a diverse set of authors. Not only that, but the body of ‘Shakespeare’s’ work is one to be rivalled even by modern successfully play-writes, much less those of Shakespeare’s time who had not the use of the technologies of the day in crafting their works.

Just a little something to think about before you say so assuredly that these theories about Shakespeare are ‘totally unfounded.’