Below you will see a summary of my argument—the abstract, and a compilation of the most compelling evidence that supports my findings refined for your consumption along with supplemental materials. By no means is the data you see here a full representation of my research and I encourage you to view this article in its in entirety by visiting The Oxfordian
Author: Kimberly R. Barber, PhD.
Abstract
This study challenges the long-held assumption that the names Shakespreare and Shaksprere are inter-changeable products of inconsistent Elizabethan orthography. Through a quantitative analysis of 204 unique historical records (1556-1616), the research categorizes these records into vital, literary, and business documents to track spelling variants and their frequencies. Findings reveal a high degree of orthographic consistency within specific categories: Stratford-upon-Avon vital records show 82% consistency for the Shakspere spelling, while literary works demonstrate 84% consistancy (rising to 94% withing the Canon), for the Shakespeare spelling. Notably, the spelling Shakspere never appears in literary contexts during this time period. The naming patterns suggest a prescribed application in the spelling—and pronunciation—of each name, contradicting the modern scholarly consensus that conflates them. The study argues for a rigorous distinction between the legal identity Shakspere and the literary persona Shakespeare.