It would appear not, although we do not have anything in his own handwriting. Bad spelling seems to have been the order of the day back then, so there is no reason to believe that Shakespeare, who after all was from a country town and who therefore spoke English a little differently from his London friends, would have tried to conform to a standard of spelling.
It's a pity, because sometimes it leaves unclear just exactly what he intended to write. An example is the difference between Q2 and F in Hamlet's soliloquy in Act 1 Scene 2. Q2's "Oh, that this too too sallied flesh would melt" is a spelling mistake, but critics argue about what word the printer was trying to spell.
No, apparently not (although we do not have anything in his own handwriting) but in any event nobody would notice because nobody had good spelling back then. It's worth it to read the plays from the original texts to get an idea of how bad typesetters' spelling was.
There is no Shakespeare play with a character called Kerenza in it- can you check that you are spelling the name properly??
shakespeare was a very good man
It is true that there are a large number of variations on the spelling of Shakespeare's name in documents from his time: Shaksper, Shakespear, Shakspeare, Shagspear, and even Shaxberd are some of them. This is not because Shakespeare had bad spelling. It is not because he had bad handwriting either. It is certainly not because he was really a half a dozen different people. It is because nobody back then cared how someone's name was spelled. Nobody thought that a name, or any word for that matter, needed to be spelled the same way every time.You will find similar variations in the spelling of anyone's name who lived back then.
Shakespeare did not change his name. It was always William Shakespeare. Although it got spelled a lot of peculiar ways from time to time. People in his day didn't get as anal about the spelling of names as people do now.
No, apparently not (although we do not have anything in his own handwriting) but in any event nobody would notice because nobody had good spelling back then. It's worth it to read the plays from the original texts to get an idea of how bad typesetters' spelling was.
No
by spelling his name correctly.
There is no Shakespeare play with a character called Kerenza in it- can you check that you are spelling the name properly??
shakespeare was a very good man
People in Shakespeare's day had no concept of a "real name". Thus William Shakespeare's name is William Shakespeare even though the entry in the baptismal register reads "Guliemus filius Johannes Shakspere", or in English, "William the son of John Shakspere" The number of spelling variants for Shakespeare's last name is legendary, and as far as Shakespeare's contemporaries were concerned, none was more "real" than any other. Centuries of custom have hallowed the form "William Shakespeare". This is the standard spelling. You can call him "Guliemus Shakspere" if you like, but this is no more "real" than any other spelling.
the principles of good spelling system is spelling it right
It is true that there are a large number of variations on the spelling of Shakespeare's name in documents from his time: Shaksper, Shakespear, Shakspeare, Shagspear, and even Shaxberd are some of them. This is not because Shakespeare had bad spelling. It is not because he had bad handwriting either. It is certainly not because he was really a half a dozen different people. It is because nobody back then cared how someone's name was spelled. Nobody thought that a name, or any word for that matter, needed to be spelled the same way every time.You will find similar variations in the spelling of anyone's name who lived back then.
Shakespeare did not change his name. It was always William Shakespeare. Although it got spelled a lot of peculiar ways from time to time. People in his day didn't get as anal about the spelling of names as people do now.
"to be or not to be" Shakespeare . Is this a question? Why Shakespeare mentioned 'to be or not to be' should be a good thinking question! Do you agree? Why?
In Akeelah and the Bee Akeelah is good at spelling.
The spelling in the plays when they were first published was frequently different from today's standard, and not infrequently inconsistent with itself. However, we cannot be sure whose spelling that was: Shakespeare's, the person that made the copy that the printer got, or one of the several typesetters working on the book. Whoever it was, this much is for sure--people didn't sweat about bad spelling as much as they do now (or did recently--spelling standards even in things produced by big companies have slipped seriously in recent years).