Nobody in those days could spell in the sense we understand it, not even printers and publishers or even nobles. And the style of handwriting they used is difficult to read at the best of times. It is true that the only sample of Shakespeare's handwriting we have is a number of signatures, in which his name is spelled differently and the handwriting difficult to read. But this is not surprising, really.
---
We have only six examples of Shakespeare's handwriting, and all of them are signatures. Unlike people nowadays, people back then did not sign their name so often that they had a standard signature. All of the signatures are spelled differently and the handwriting is not so great. But they show that the person who wrote them could write and had been trained to do it. In particular, the form of the capital "S" and the small "h" are typical of the handwriting style called "secretary hand" which could only have been learned in school.
We don't have many samples of Shakespeare's handwriting. What we have is his signature a number of times on legal documents. It's awful. Google Image "Shakespeare Signature" if you don't believe me.
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.
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.
Tolstoy
The two could not have met; Richard died eighty years before Shakespeare was born. Therefore Shakespeare could not have based his opinions on personal knowledge. The historians he relied upon had good reason to badmouth Richard, since they were all writing in the reign of his successor, who had an extremely dodgy claim to the throne. It was the politically correct thing to do during the reign of the Tudors to make Richard out as bad as possible, and that's what Shakespeare did.
No
The correct spelling is "awful" (very bad, terrible).
That is the correct spelling of the adverb "terribly" (horribly, or colloquially very).
We don't have many samples of Shakespeare's handwriting. What we have is his signature a number of times on legal documents. It's awful. Google Image "Shakespeare Signature" if you don't believe me.
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.
Awful, horrible, and bad.
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).
Awful
awful
yes very bad very bad awful just awful
awful
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.