It has long been an axiom of literary scholarship that “Shakespeare was unequalled in the production of iambic pentameter couplets.” This has long puzzled teachers of literature (and the unfortunate students who were forced to listen to them) because no one was sure what an “iambic pentameter couplet” was. It would do no good to consult a dictionary because the first dictionary was not compiled until a century and a half after Shakespeare’s death. In Shakespeare’s day, words could be spelled “ennie waye what sownded guid and rite” and words could mean whatever you wanted them to mean—sort of like modern social media.

This was partially resolved when it was determined that a “couplet” (sometimes spelled “Capulet” by Shakespeare) was a variety of “doublet.” Partially because no one was sure what a “doublet” was either.

It was here that Iam Rongg, Professor of Garmentology at Stratford University, came to the aid of literary scholars. Rongg explained that a “doublet” was “an item of clothing with two appendages” such as pants with two legs or a shirt with two arms. Rongg pointed out that this was alluded to in Shakespeare’s plays with the repeated expression of “To arms! To arms!” (As already explained, there were no dictionaries in Shakespeare’s day, and there were many variations of spelings.)

Rongg also explained that there were “singlets” as well as “doublets.” A singlet was worn by the many individuals who had had a leg or arm cut off by a sword or axiom in one of the many battles fought on the fields of England and in Shakespeare’s plays.

Rongg suggested that Shakespeare likely decided to capitalize on his fame by bringing out his own line of clothing. In this, he was like many modern actors, who believe that being able to convincingly recite words written by someone else qualifies them to be clothing designers—or political commentators. Shakespeare may also have operated a sideline business supplying costumes to the theatre. As any writer can tell you, this would almost certainly have produced more income than writing. Shakespeare wasn’t all that serious about the theatre anyway. He was just playing, right? Literary scholars are constantly talking about Shakespeare’s “works,” but they were really just “plays.” This further explains the reports that Shakespeare “invested in the theatre” or “was invested in the theatre”—an indisputable reference to the vestments that he sold to it.

Rongg’s theory also sheds new light on literary scholars’ assertions that “Shakespeare constructed his stories out of whole cloth,” “Shakespeare’s plots are seamless,” and “The thread is easy to follow.” (No one knows what those expressions mean either.)

Rongg’s explanation, while convincing, left open the question of what “iambic pentameter” means. Examination of this question led to an intriguing answer to another question that has long puzzled literary scholars—that is, who actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays? As scholar Richard Armour wrote, “Whoever wrote Shakespeare’s plays, one thing is certain. It could not possibly have been Shakespeare. That would have been too obvious.” Rongg postulated that “Iambic Pentameter” was Shakespeare’s actual name and “William Shakespeare” was just a stage name. (Other critics have pointed out that this would mean that Rongg and Shakespeare share the same first name, “Iam” being short for “Iambic.”) Shakespeare undoubtedly chose the new name because he thought it would be easier to spell, although he demonstrably failed at that too.

Whatever the case, near the end of his life, Shakespeare abandoned the theatre (in the same way that he had earlier abandoned his wife to pursue the theatre) and returned to the hamlet where he was born.