Shakespeare was Italian, from Messina.

[Ultimo]

Michelagnolo Florio was the real identity of William Shakespeare (Guglielmo Crollalanza from Messina).



Do you know it ? ;)

[JBI]

Yes, and Dante was a French merchant named Jean d'Aquitaine. Seriously, why even bother?

[Ultimo]

There are all the evidences you need.
The theory is based on the detailed knowledge of Italy shown in the plays, on the istruction that shown in the plays (very hard to abmit for a glover's son!) and others biographic elements (as the name William Shakespeare that is the english translation of Guglielmo Crollalanza).

If you want can watch this video (Sorry for you, it's in italian the original language of Shakespeare/Crollalanza!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoYlnccGvic&feature=related

[JBI]

How does Crollalanza become Shakespeare.

Parlo un po, ma non capisco questa stupidità. Perché creda, quando non é abbastanza evidenza?

What proof is there, besides a bunch of names of cities - Shakespeare's plays hardly even approach Italian culture, let alone understand it.

[Ultimo]

Michelangelo Florio wrote a dialectal comedy “Tantu trafficu ppi nenti”, many years ago of “Much about to do” (lecteral traduction of "Tantu trafficu ppi nenti") that is the same!

[Ultimo]

Crolla or Scrolla is the italian word for Shake
Lanza is the medieval for Lancia that is the italian word for Speare.


How does Crollalanza become Shakespeare.

Parlo un po, ma non capisco questa stupidità. Perché creda, quando non é abbastanza evidenza?


There're many other evidences, exspecially biograpichs elements.

[Dori]

This reminds me of an instance where someone on Facebook tried claiming that Barack Obama was V from V for Vendetta. :lol:

[Lokasenna]

Utter balderdash.

[Ultimo]

It's not too amazing if Shakespeare was an italian, noble writer, of '500.

It's amazing if a glover's son wrote "Antonio e Cleopatra", "Il Mercante di Venezia", etc.


What english licterature producted in '500-'600 ?
Nothing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Really, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding Shakespeare and none of them are plausible.

[Ultimo]

Is very plausible that he was a son of a glover, that left the school at 10, that he knew italian geographics places, uses and histories he never viewed or heard..... :lol:
Really, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding Shakespeare and none of them are plausible.

[chrismythoi]

is there an implication in the theory that shakespeare had detailed knowledge of things that a glover would not?
the plays are hardly detailed and certainly not accurate in their beckgrounds. eg. everyone in europe knew the jews were kept in ghettos. thats what ghettos were.

[Ultimo]

Your is not a deep analisys...
is there an implication in the theory that shakespeare had detailed knowledge of things that a glover would not?
the plays are hardly detailed and certainly not accurate in their beckgrounds. eg. everyone in europe knew the jews were kept in ghettos. thats what ghettos were.

Shakespeare/Crollalanza wrote about places like Messina (birthplace of Crollalanza), Verona and many others, not big, italian places, impossible to know for his times.

All places that a semi-analphabetical man of Stratford-upon Avon never knew.

[Ultimo]

The father of Michelagnelo Florio Crollalanza was jewish.
everyone in europe knew the jews were kept in ghettos.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is very plausible that he was a son of a glover, that left the school at 10, that he knew italian geographics places, uses and histories he never viewed or heard..... :lol:

Shakespeare was well grounded in classical grammar and literature, especially his beloved Ovid, from a fairly respectable local school. The fact that he was a "son of a glover" does not mean anything other than the fact that his father was a glover! Talent, aptitude or genius does not solely belong to the upper classes, not then or now.

[chrismythoi]

Your is not a deep analisys...

Shakespeare/Crollalanza wrote about places like Messina (birthplace of Crollalanza), Verona and many others, not big, italian places, impossible to know for his times.

All places that a semi-analphabetical man of Stratford-upon Avon never knew.

i thought at that time they were famous ports for trade? do u mean semi-literate? i think you are underestimating common knowledge which is always far greater than what is read in school classes

[Ultimo]

No-one William Shakespeare appears in the registers of Stratford's Schools...why ?

The originals, autographed, plays of Shakespear's never founded ? Why ?

Why in the register of a Club of Straford (that Shakespeare frequented) appears the name "Michelangelo Florio" and not "William Shakespeare"?....


Shakespeare was well grounded in classical grammar and literature, especially his beloved Ovid, from a fairly respectable local school.

Michelagnolo Florio Crollalanza gradueted in the University of Messina, travelled around Italy (Roma, Padova, Venezia, Verona) Greece, Denmark... (:idea: ) and others places.

[Ultimo]

In the "Merchant of Venice" result references and calls of the venecians laws that only who lived or visited the city was able to know.
i thought at that time they were famous ports for trade? do u mean semi-literate? i think you are underestimating common knowledge which is always far greater than what is read in school classes

The same discourse we can do about others contained of others plays...


A question : but if Shakespears were italian what is the problem?

It's a wound on the english proud? ;)

[JBI]

No, the point is the evidence is against you, and if you read The Merchant of Venice, you would note that a) the pound of flesh tradition is sourced elsewhere, and b) he didn't actually know Venetian law, proven by the forced conversion, which is nowhere to be found in Venetian law.

The point is, it is safe to say that linguistically, those texts are English, and very heavily English, making it seem that the author, if not a native speaker, was most necessarily amongst the most proficient speakers of the language of his time. Secondly, biography makes no difference - the texts are 16th-17th century documents, and written in English, which proves he is an English creation regardless. It's the texts that matter, and any quibbling over the authorship is mere stupidity. No real scholar actually would agree with any "new identity". The whole identity question is actually regarded by any credible Shakespeare scholar as one to stay away from, given that it is considered better to address what we do know about Shakespeare, that is, his plays and poems, rather than speculating about biography.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Really I should know better...


No-one William Shakespeare appears in the registers of Stratford's Schools...why ?

The originals, autographed, plays of Shakespear's never founded ? Why ?

Why in the register of a Club of Straford (that Shakespeare frequented) appears the name "Michelangelo Florio" and not "William Shakespeare"?....

Inaccurate as evidence, 400+ year old school records missing, would you expect to find them? You would find it hard to find evidence of my school records, does that make me Italian? As much as I love Italy, no.

Plays never originally meant to be read, no copyright over ownership of plays so very few ever produced. Let me know if you do find an original autographed first edition of Hamlet, I'll buy it off you for a few quid and sell it on again for millions.

Again are you going to submit a register from a club from 400+ years as proof that Shakespeare didn't exist? Really, are you goint to write the next instalment of The Da Vinci Code?



Michelagnolo Florio Crollalanza gradueted in the University of Messina, travelled around Italy (Roma, Padova, Venezia, Verona) Greece, Denmark... (:idea: ) and others places.

Good for him, hope he had a good holiday.


A question : but if Shakespears were italian what is the problem?

It's a wound on the english proud?

In the end nothing matters but the words on the page, but as much as you seem to want to claim Shakespeare as your own I'm afraid he'll always be English. You'll just have to make do with Dante, but didn't you hear Dante was really John Smith from Barnsley, he's English too!:lol:

[Niamh]

The point is, it is safe to say that linguistically, those texts are English, and very heavily English, making it seem that the author, if not a native speaker, was most necessarily amongst the most proficient speakers of the language of his time. Secondly, biography makes no difference - the texts are 16th-17th century documents, and written in English, which proves he is an English creation regardless. It's the texts that matter, and any quibbling over the authorship is mere stupidity. No real scholar actually would agree with any "new identity". The whole identity question is actually regarded by any credible Shakespeare scholar as one to stay away from, given that it is considered better to address what we do know about Shakespeare, that is, his plays and poems, rather than speculating about biography.

I 100% agree with you.
Besides, If he wasnt english, than where did he get his extensive knowledge of english history and monarchs? :p

[Ultimo]

The historical, documented, biography of Michelagnolo Florio Crollalanza.

Michelagnolo borned in Messina 23 april 1564, was the son of Giovanni Florio (medic from Palermo) and the noble-woman Guglielma Crollalanza.
At 16 gratueted at "Gimnasium" in latin, greek and history.
Very young wrote a dialectical play “Tantu trafficu ppi nenti” that appears 50 years after as "Much about to do".

He left Messina because his father was persecuted by the Holy Inquisition (he was jewish and calvinist).

He went first in Valtellina and then in Milan, Padova, Verona, Faenza and Venezia.
At 21 anni Michelangelo started his personal “travel around the world”: he went first in Athen (where teached) then in Denmark, Austria, France, Spain.
At the end of travel Michelangelo lived in Venezia but, after his father killed (and after the death of his beloved girl Giulietta) he saved himself escaping in London.
Here Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza turned identity and became William Shakespeare, taking his name (William appunto) maybe by the male traduction of mother's name "Guglielma Crollalanza" became "William Shakespeare".
Faithfully translated.

From here, he started to wrote plays with the help of his english wife (married at 28) for translation.

[Niamh]

nope. doesnt fit.

[chrismythoi]

Secondly, biography makes no difference - the texts are 16th-17th century documents, and written in English, which proves he is an English creation regardless.

hmm an interesting point. so interesting that i will start a new thread in its honour in general literature part of t'forum.

[Ultimo]

Yet, is fitter than them the ridicolous history of the Stratford's glover :lol:
nope. doesnt fit.

[Ultimo]

By the local citizens and by local library.

Besides, If he wasnt english, than where did he get his extensive knowledge of english history and monarchs? :p

Elementary, Dear Watson ;)

[Ultimo]

It's a sensation, but seems that the sample hypothesisthe Shakespeare was the italian Crollalanza...upset yourself....

Centuries of false certainties, of historical mistifications, SHAKE fearfully....:lol:

In the end nothing matters but the words on the page, but as much as you seem to want to claim Shakespeare as your own I'm afraid he'll always be English.

[Ultimo]

Men, to you they remain : Jack the Ripper, The Beatles, Victoria Beckam and Mister Bean.

[Niamh]

By the local citizens and by local library.


Ah so you would also then surely admit that it would be possible for an english man to study histories of Italy in the same way?
And so what if he was the son of a glover. Just because he didnt come from a middle class family doesnt mean he wasnt intelligent, and doesnt mean its not impossible that he could become a playwright. Sean O'Casey was born and raised in the slums of Dublin and spent his whole life as a labourer. He wrote some really famous plays. Does that also mean they werent written by him because its not possible for a poor man from the slums to be a writer?

[Ultimo]

My friend, you compare the histories of the English monarchs (avalaible by any local library or verbal tradition) at the informations or details about the laws, foreshortenings, or costumes of cities very far and distant like Verona or Messina (for example)?
Ah so you would also then surely admit that it would be possible for an english man to study histories of Italy in the same way?
And so what if he was the son of a glover. Just because he didnt come from a middle class family doesnt mean he wasnt intelligent, and doesnt mean its not impossible that he could become a playwright. Sean O'Casey was born and raised in the slums of Dublin and spent his whole life as a labourer. He wrote some really famous plays. Does that also mean they werent written by him because its not possible for a poor man from the slums to be a writer? I'm the daughter of a plummer and I write. Does that mean i shouldnt be entitled to?

[joseph90ie]

Yeah, I imagine him as being sound and salty, wearing hard brown leather jackets and going by the name Bill Shakes - like Bill Sykes (the Oliver Reed one), but with a cheerful disposition and a how'dye do in his step. Joseph Fiennes did an imaginative job of him - I liked that energetic version: though the only problem is that it allowed me to think of Shakes as the gym-type - who knows, maybe he was, though I'd say the wooden gyms in those days stank. Because doesn't J. Fiennes remind you of the gym-type, of the good sort, not the muscle bound sort?

[Ultimo]

Parla italiano o latino, non comprendo fino in fondo i linguaggi barbari.
Yeah, I imagine him as being sound and salty, wearing hard brown leather jackets and going by the name Bill Shakes - like Bill Sykes (the Oliver Reed one), but with a cheerful disposition and a how'dye do in his step. Joseph Fiennes did an imaginative job of him - I liked that energetic version: though the only problem is that it allowed me to think of Shakes as the gym-type - who knows, maybe he was, though I'd say the wooden gyms in those days stank. Because doesn't J. Fiennes remind you of the gym-type, of the good sort, not the muscle bound sort?

Quando i miei avi (Ovidio, Orazio, Catullo) insegnavano al mondo la letteratura i tuoi avi inseguivano castori nelle foreste della vostra isola, col viso pitturato di blu.

Spero tu abbia afferrato il concetto.

[Ultimo]

Salvatore Schillaci scored a great goal against Ireland...

Do you remember, my friend ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4pRNv87mDY

{EDIT}

And Schillaci played with Messina Football Club the same city of Crollalanza!:D

[Niamh]

My friend, you compare the histories of the English monarchs (avalaible by any local library or verbal tradition) at the informations or details about the laws, foreshortenings, or costumes of cities very far and distant like Verona or Messina (for example)?

Ultimo, just for the record, during the Elizabethan period, the fashions etc of europe were influential even in England. Italian dances etc became very fashionable in the Elizabethan court. People did travel extensively during this period, and many traveled from the UK to Italy. It is quite possible that shakespeare learnt the "laws" and "traditions" of italian cities from those that visited them which would also explain why they arent 100% accurate and some what obsured.
Just because he wrote plays based in Italy does not mean he was really italian. He wrote plays based in greece also. Surely that would not make him greek? Hamlet is based in Denmark. But above all else, a lot of his plays were set and based in Britain. His Historical Plays were English, some of his tragedies where set in britain and so were a handful of his comedies.

Now i'm going to put on my Moderator hat and say a couple of things.

Please refrain from posting in another language, especially if you know another member will not know what you are saying.
stick to discussing the point of the thread and Please do not insult each other.

[Ultimo]

As tells the documented biography of Crollalanza, he travelled and visited Greek and Denmark too.

An English man of '500 knew Messina and Verona ?


Just because he wrote plays based in Italy does not mean he was really italian. He wrote plays based in greece also. Surely that would not make him greek? Hamlet is based in Denmark. But above all else, the majority of his plays were set and based in Britain.

Cite, please, an other english writer who based his production on foreign background...at the time of Shakespeare or after....

Do an example.

[Niamh]

Yes. Dont forget only a few centuries before hand was the crusades and Britons were going as far as israel. There is also trade. Ships from England sailing to Italy and further a feild to trade. I studied history and Archaeology. I've a good grasp on the era.

Christopher Marlowe.
Thomas Kyd

[Ultimo]

For the precision...


Please refrain from posting in another language, especially if you know another member will not know what you are saying.
stick to discussing the point of the thread and Please do not insult each other.

I don't have insult anyone.
Someone insult me. But it's not a problem.

;)

[Niamh]

That note was aimed at both of you. I was making a point before a general backlashing occured.

[Ultimo]

But Marlowe studied the classics, greeks and latins.
And his plays are ambientalize in Paris, Germany or in imaginaries scenes (Cartagine, for example).

Friendly reconstructable by a instructed man.

He not reported details of far, contemporaneus, localities of italian province.


Yes. Dont forget only a few centuries before hand was the crusades and Britons were going as far as israel. There is also trade. Ships from England sailing to Italy and further a feild to trade. I studied history and Archaeology. I've a good grasp on the era.

Christopher Marlowe.

In the '500 there was'nt Interner or Sky Tv....

[Niamh]

The classics were studied in all schools in Britain. Marlowe did go on to Uni, but Shakespeare still would have read them in his school in Stratford. Part of the curriculum.

Your question was name another english writer who based his work on forgeign ground at the same time as shakespeare. I gave you two. It is irrelevent which countries they still wrote basing works in foreign countries.

[Ultimo]

By the way, Niamh, your poems are very nice...they remember the crepuscolar poetry of Ugo Foscolo, or the decadent thematics of Eugenio Montale...do you know?

[Ultimo]

My friend, my ipothesys is founded on hystorical dates (biography of Crollalanza and others).




Your question was name another english writer who based his work on forgeign ground at the same time as shakespeare. I gave you two. It is irrelevent which countries they still wrote basing works in foreign countries.

[Niamh]

By the way, Niamh, your poems are very nice...they remember the crepuscolar poetry of Ugo Foscolo, or the decadent thematics of Eugenio Montale...do you know?

Thanks.
Ugo Foscolo? Eugenip Montale?

[Ultimo]

Eugenio Montale :

Bring me the sunflower that I may transplant it


Bring me the sunflower that I may transplant it
in my saline burned ground,
and that it might display all day to the blue expanses
of the sky the anxiety of its pale yellow face.

Things that are dark long for brightness,
the bodies exhaust themselves in a flowing
of colours: these become music. To fade away
is therefore a chance among chances.

Bring me the plant which leads
to where the blonde transparencies appear
and where life dissolves like essence;
bring me the sunflower insane with light.





Often I have encountered the evil of living

Often I have encountered the evil of living:
it was the strangled stream which gurgles,
it was the crumpling sound of the dried out
leaf, it was the horse weaty and exhausted.

The good I knew not, other than the miracle
revealed by divine Indifference:
it was the statue in the slumber
of the afternoon, and the cloud, and the high flying falcon.

[Ultimo]

Ugo Foscolo "Alla sera" (Nightfall).


Nightfall

Perhaps because you are the image

of the silence of the grave, I cherish when you come to me

o evening! Whether summer clouds

and warm winds hold you in soft embrace,



or you send restless and long shadows

from frost-filled air to the universe,

you always fall, desired by me, and the secret

pathways of my heart you gently hold.



You make me wander with my thoughts on paths

that lead to the eternal void, and all the while,

this evil time fleets by, and with it masses



of care depart, and it dissipates along with me

and while I contemplate your peace,

the warrior spirit that roars within me sleeps.

[wessexgirl]

I think you're all being had. It's not April Fools Day yet, but you're feeding the troll. Do you really think this poster is serious?

[Ultimo]

...

I think you're all being had. It's not April Fools Day yet, but you're feeding the troll. Do you really think this poster is serious?...."a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. "

[Ultimo]

By the way, also like sang the "Frankie goes to hollywood"...
I think you're all being had. It's not April Fools Day yet, but you're feeding the troll. Do you really think this poster is serious?

RELAX.... ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think you're all being had. It's not April Fools Day yet, but you're feeding the troll. Do you really think this poster is serious?

Yes I think you are right, I've had enough of this rubbish anyway.

[Virgil]

Holy smoke!!! How did this crazy thread get to four pages long in one afternoon? :lol:

[Ultimo]

Moderate yourself, please.


I've had enough of this rubbish anyway.

We are gentleman.

[Ultimo]

This thread have the typical taste of shakespearian play....
Holy smoke!!! How did this crazy thread get to four pages long in one afternoon? :lol:

...culture, tension, surreal, depth...and many readers.

Or not ?

[Niamh]

Holy smoke!!! How did this crazy thread get to four pages long in one afternoon? :lol:

I got involved thats how! :lol: Irish remember? ;) gift of the gab.

[Ultimo]

My dear friends, goodnight for this night.

The hystorical diatriba Shakespear/Crollalanza still it's opened...and I will return, soon...


Ciao a tutti dall'Italia,
Ultimo.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Moderate yourself, please.


Originally Posted by Neely
I've had enough of this rubbish anyway.

We are gentleman.

I spoke as I did because I thought you weren't serious, a troll as the other poster suggested, in other words deliberately trying to cause offence, to enflame, to provoke. If you are genuine in your claims then I apologise somewhat, but I am still out of this discussion anyway. Really your claim is so outrageous either way that it is not surprising that people think you are joking, who's to blame them?

[Brasil]

There are a lot of theories about the real identity of Shakespeare:

1- He was a noble english, Shakespeare was his pseudonym.
2- He was not only one, but a group or authors.
etc...

I personally don't belive he was Italian, but it is possible. Even he was Italian, he still represents the English literature cause that was the language he chose.

The same about Clarice Lispector, she was born in Ukraine, but she lived in Brazil and her work was all written in portuguese, so she represents the Brazilian literature.

But the reason of this speculation here I can understand:
1- Shakespeare's identity is a mystery and always will be. The events and places of his biography (the birth house, for example) are fake. Just a actrative to improve tourism.
2- The reason why some scholars belive he was italian is clear: Shakespeare (wherever he was born) did not write something original. Almost all his plays are copies of Greek-Latin myths, arabic stories or italian popular plays (Commedia della Vita, especially). The origin of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Julius Caesares, Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra, Il Mercante di Venezia is much earlier. Shakespeare translated to English what was well known in Italy. That is a fact!


Some may say he improved the plays. Some may say he made plagiarism.

But Shakespeare is still great for the theatre. That's the most important. Don't care the birth place, color of skin or nationality.

[kiki1982]

:lol::lol::lol:

:banana:

O'Leerie, O'Riley, O'Hare (?) and O'Hara
There's no-one as Irish as Barack Obama!

Obama also starts with O...

Shake is the same as 'Crolla'...

Although it is funny and the Corrigan Brothers had a great hit with their son, it is not more true than Shakespeare and Crollalanza (?).

[NisreenS]

In addition to this theory there is another saying that Shakespeare was Arab and his real name was Sheikh Jubair.

[Ultimo]

The theory about Michelagnolo Crollalanza/Shakespeare is serious, and has a wide following in the literary italian world : I speak about academic profesors, not about writers like Dan Brown....
I don't master enough English to going into specific details.

I'll dedicate to explain it when I'll have much more time.

My speech was and is serious, then a series of insults led me to defend myself.

The issue is very important, because involves national english traditions, politics issues and the credibility of English academic world, for almost 5 centuries.

The resistance is strong, but I think, the truth will come out. Would be fair also in memory of Shakespeare and for love of truth.

[Petrarch's Love]

:lol::lol::lol:Allora! Is Thomas Kyd a Spaniard now? Heaven knows where such logic could put Spenser, author of the Faerie Queene. I think I've got to give this the prize for one of the more creative "who is Shakespeare" theories I've ever heard. I had heard one where Marlowe didn't really die and went off to live in Italy, sending his manuscripts back to his actor friend from Stratford (indeed, there was a million pound prize for the person who could prove that one last I checked, so it might well be worth forging something on parchment and stashing it behind a loose brick in Verona), but this is the first I've heard of the Bard of Messina. I'm picturing this fellow in cinquecento Sicilia sitting about writing "this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England," after deciding that he should become fluent in English. This is, of course, primarily because it's the most unlikely language he can think of for an Italian to want to learn in the 1500's, but also because he's naturally completely inconspicuous and inept writing in his native tongue and yet has, not only a masterful command over writing English blank verse, but an ability to mimic a variety of dialects from all over London and various regions throughout Britain (what Italian worth his salt wouldn't naturally think of sticking a leek loving Welshman into his presentation of the Battle of Agincourt?). Then he decides to send all his manuscripts off to a theatre in London that just happens to be partly owned by an English actor whose name is an exact translation of his own...actually it might not make such a bad novel. Far more likely, of course, than the idea of a glover's son using the substantial basis in Latin he in all probability received in an Elizabethan grammar school in order to make out some Italian stories he picked up at the bookstands at St. Paul's.

P.S. When I posted the above, I had only read a bit of the thread and assumed it was at least partially tongue in cheek. In the above post Ultimo, seems quite serious, so I can only suggest, Ultimo, that you look a little more deeply into the evidence surrounding Shakespeare studies. It isn't as though we actually have no documentation at all about Shakespeare. I also don't know how well you know the original English texts of the plays, but to claim a non-native speaker wrote them is a bit like claiming that a German wrote Dante's Commedia.

[xman]

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

"Ultimo" means "the worst" in Spanish

X

[Petrarch's Love]

This is a post post script to my message above. I had a few minutes and was curious enough to watch the video link that Ultimo posted earlier, which explained what I had missed connecting before, namely that Michelangelo Florio was John Florio's father and a tutor to Lady Jane Grey. That at least sounds like a more plausible candidate than the fellow sitting in Sicilia that I was imagining above, so I can see that there's a certain level of logic to this argument that I was missing before. I still think the theory is dead wrong. I've seen a lot of different authorship theories, but really don't see any need to presume that Shakespeare was anyone other than Shakespeare. However, this is actually a rather fun one as far as "who was Shakespeare" theories go. I had heard the son, John (Giovanni) Florio proposed before as a possible Shakespeare, but anyone who's read his rhetorical style would know that's simply an impossibility. I haven't read Michelangelo Florio's works (I think I remember he wrote some sort of handbook for Italian language instruction?), but I would be very surprised if his facility with English came anywhere near what the author of Shakespeare's plays demonstrates.

[Ultimo]

In Italiano :

Prima parte
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoYlnccGvic

Seconda parte
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O3oXZFuYvM&feature=related

Terza parte
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l539xuBf0G4&feature=related


If anyone of us speak italian...

[Ultimo]

Is uncorrect


"Ultimo" means "the worst" in Spanish

X


"Ultimo" means "The Last" in Italian or Latin.

[xman]

Okay, technically the literal translation is "last", but it is used to mean "the worst" in Spanish. I don't know how Italians who are wrong about Shakespearean authorship use it.

X

[Ultimo]

I'm italian, speak italian and I don't use spanish words.

Okay, technically the literal translation is "last", but it is used to mean "the worst" in Spanish.

[JBI]

The videos are very repetitive, and the cinematography is jarring.

[Ultimo]

Next time they'll recruit Franco Zeffirelli....

[Chava]

My speech was and is serious, then a series of insults led me to defend myself.

The issue is very important, because involves national english traditions, politics issues and the credibility of English academic world, for almost 5 centuries.
The resistance is strong, but I think, the truth will come out. Would be fair also in memory of Shakespeare and for love of truth.

If your mission, seriously, is to change 5 centuries of credibility in the english world then you've got your work cut out for you, and surely you don't believe that talking to maybe, ten, people here, will change the world perception?

[Ultimo]

These ten person are not the whole world....it's a kind of thumbnail.

You know?


If your mission, seriously, is to change 5 centuries of credibility in the english world then you've got your work cut out for you, and surely you don't believe that talking to maybe, ten, people here, will change the world perception?


...I'm only breaking a little gate in the mistification's wall.

This question is creating interest, I seem...;)

[xman]

heh, mystification, right.

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html

X

[Ultimo]

The theory on the "Italian Shakespeare" is true,and a friend of mine who studies english literature confirmed it.

Ciao Alice!

[xman]

The theory on the "Italian Shakespeare" is true,and a friend of mine who studies english literature confirmed it.

Ciao Alice!
Well, you're both wrong then. My friends who are Professors of English literature confirm that so you're soooooooooooooooooo out trumped. :P

[MANICHAEAN]

Michelangelo Florio of Calvanist religion, lived part of his life evading the religious persecutions at Palermo, Messina, Venice & Verona. He later lived in Stratford and London. He was the author of many tragedies and comedies which demonstrated his familiarity with the Italian scene.
We now proceed into a part of this tale that would have done credit to the imaginative logic of Frederick Forsyth.
After constantly running away from religious persecution, he arrived in Stratford, where he was the guest of a traveling player and drunkard, who treated him as a son, above all because he reminded him of his own child, William, who had died So he begins to be affectionately known as "William".
Translate the last name of his mother's lineage from "Crolla lanza" or "scrolla la lancia" to "shake the speare" and voila; "William Shakespeare" no longer prosecutable as a runaway heretic, but forced to hold the mystery of his true identity and origins.
The tale then evolves further. The son of Michelangelo Florio, via an English mother was John Florio, known in Italian as Giovanni Florio but who in his writings assumed an English identity.This Florio had many patrons. He says that he lived some years with the Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, possibly the young man in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Whatever the case, his knowledge of the same circle as the playwright, his education, facility with a wide vocabulary and with Italian literatue would have offered him the opportunity to refine the English language through playwriting. Were Florio and the Bard one and the same? Did they forge a collaborative working relationship?
Who knows? The limited biography of Shakespeare, compared to the popularity of his theatrical work is the crux and he is often suspected of being the front for other writers.

[xman]

What a great fiction. You should write a story. It's just like the Davinci Code and that one was real popular.

[MANICHAEAN]

Xman
When this thread first broke about Shakespeare being a Sicilian, I must confess to being fascinated by the prospect. So I dug further and if you thought that my "Da Vinci" contribution was an exercise in imaginative writing, try this for size:
1. Some of the work of Michelangelo Florio (Crollalanza on the maternal side) seems to be the original version of well known work attributed to Shakespeare, such as "troppu trafficu pinnenti", that could be the original of "Much ado about Nothing". Passed from father to son?
2. Michelangelo ran away from his family and lived for a certain period in Venice, where it seems his neighbour, an African, killed his own wife over jealousy. Drawing on this inspiration he wrote a tragedy: as Shakespeare subsequently wrote "Othello"

Seriously though, I would be interested on your input regards what were the original sources of Shakespeare's early reading & how they moulded his subsequent writing.

[Abdiel]

But there are some obvious problems with the "Italian Shakespeare" theory which no one seems to be pointing out:

1) "At 16 gratueted at "Gimnasium" in latin, greek and history." If Shakespeare was Italian and consummate in the Italtian language, why does his Latin suck? Think of all the Italian plays he's written and all the Latin sentences he's used in them.... ..... ..... Um, how about Julius Caesar and all those lines of Italian.....

Furthermore, Ben Jonson, a good friend of Shakespeare, says of him,
"And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek."

Ultimo says Shakespeare was Italian and graduated in Latin and Greek. Maybe he just barely graduated because according to Ben Jonson, someone who actually knew Shakespeare (unlike any of us), says that he wasn't proficient in either language. And he's reportedly Italian.

2) If the story about Shakespeare being an Italian man who fled his nation because of religious persecution is true, then his sudden presence in England would be a cause of great talk (especially if he was of noble heritage). He couldn't have just hidden himself in England and pretended to be someone else son. Furthermore, the arrival of people from foreign lands would be a cause of more spectacle back then than today. Also, people do have accents, like Italian people. So how could Shakespeare just hide out in England without attracting any attention?

3) Shakespeare was also known by other English people. The fact that Ben Jonson was a good friend of Shakespeare and wrote an elegy on him and never once mentions his being Italian (in fact he would refute such evidence when he says Shakespeare knew barely any Latin or Greek) defies the argument that he was Italian.

Oh, and Ben Jonson was actually poking fun of his friend William by saying that Shakespeare wasn't very educated since he didn't know too much of Latin or Greek, again denying the claim that Shakespeare was Italian.

John Milton also wrote a sonnet on Shakespeare (who Milton probably saw when he was a child, since Shakespeare and Jonson liked to frequent a bar on Bread Street where I believe Milton grew up). Milton never once mentions he was Italian.

No one--not one person in England--comments on his being Italian? That's weird.....

4) If Shakespeare was Italian then why does he show such a fierce patriotism for England? All of his English plays glorify England ("This precious jewel set in the silver sea...."), and none boast of the greatness of his supposed Italian background.

5) People say he was not well educated so how could "the son of a glover" know so much about foreign lands and tongues? Well, um, from other people? Why couldn't he ask Ben Jonson, who wrote some plays for Shakespeare's acting company (Google "Shakespeare acting in Ben Jonson's plays"). The two were also friends. Was it so hard for Shakespeare to go, "Eh, buddy: I'm writing a play on Rome and was wondering if you can lend me a hand?"

And I'm sure Shakespeare had more than one friend to ask. And having an acting company or being actor and a writer, he must have met so many people, foreign and domestic, that could have added to his knowledge of the world. People back then also used to go to taverns and have fun, so he must have met foreigners back then.

And being perhaps the greatest writer of all time, is it so hard to assume that Shakespeare was a keen observer of people and their manners? This, coupled with his "high fantastical" imagination must have lent him what he needed to write what he did.

[xman]

Seriously though, I would be interested on your input regards what were the original sources of Shakespeare's early reading & how they moulded his subsequent writing.
This information can be found in any good publication of his play(s) such as Oxford, Riverside, Arden or my preferred New Cambridge editions. Shakespeare was clearly an avid reader and was well aware of many current events which influenced his plays. As for early reading, the only source of certainty and interest which come to mind is Holinshead's Chronicles of England. It seems pretty clear that Shakespeare used this source for at least some significant portion of each of his history plays. I think that this, passion for history coupled with a childhood watching Catholic morality plays (which were later banned) helped Shakespeare to pioneer the History Play format for Elizabethan audiences.

[MANICHAEAN]

Abdiel
Indulge me if I play the Devils Advocate.
1. The Chandros portrait is the firmest likeness of Shakespeare acknowledged as done from life, unlike the Droeshout engraving or the statue in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. Look at it. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?
2. Seven of the eight Shakespeare children appear to be named after close relations or family friends. The exception was William. Refer to my previous mail on the possible reason for this.
3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics.
3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?
4.How did he, as a possible Italian blend into the English scene. Easy. Look at today's second generation immigrants with South London or Scouse accents.
5. Your continued reference to Ben Johnson ignores the fact that as with so much of Shakespeare's life, little documentary evidence survives. For Ben Johnson himself, many of his most salient details remain unknown or uncertain e.g. the year and place of his birth, the identities of his parents, the number of his children. So if he knew the Bard and made reference to his love of "suppa de cotsa", then it is lost for eternity.
6. As well noted by yourself; John Milton was under age to be drinking with Will & Ben in the Bread Street Arms and anyway would have been too much of a gentleman to make politically incorrect racial comments on appearences or accents.
7. You really are on thin ice when bringing up his English patrotism. Next time you watch the Olympic Games kindly consider the fervour with which our second generation immigrant winners of gold so lovingly wrap themselves in the Union Jack.
If I have been offensive in any way in my reply, accept my apologies as it was not my intention. It just that as a writer, I love a good yarn and the prospect of a linkage between a man whose phrases rest at the very gates of heaven and an ancestor of the Godfather were too appealing to ignore.
Best regards.

[xman]

1. The Chandros portrait is the firmest likeness of Shakespeare acknowledged as done from life, unlike the Droeshout engraving or the statue in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. Look at it. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?
Yup. That's just one reason it likely ISN'T of Shakespeare. The Chandos portrait is listed as "portrait of an unknown man", yet it remains a popular image of the man. No other image shows him with and earring. The recently unveiled Sanders and Cobbe portraits are much better contenders. The Sanders even has the same eye position, lip structure and earlobe of the Droeshout. I'd say my avatar, from a Van Mander(?) panel, stands a MUCH better chance of being painted of Shakespeare during his life than the Chandos does.


3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics.
Ben was better educated than Will with a University education and was in a position to take a jab, but the grammar school education served Will just fine didn't it?

3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?
He was probably holed up with the young Henry Wriosthesley, his patron whom he wrote many sonnets and two epic poems for in this period. The Earle's tutor was the Italian John Florio and a source for some lampooning throughout Shakespeare's works. As for the Italian Renaissance effusing all over Europe, I guess we should conclude that they were all Italians. Not only did Italian Renaissance ideas spread to England, but so did the fashion, at least in the 1580's. So in the 1590's when Shakespeare was very busy, all the old clothes in the country looked Italian. Perfect for setting some plays there don't you think?

What makes more sense, to imagine that Shakespeare was somebody other than he has clearly been shown to have been from historical accounts AND legal records, to imagine he was somebody more like ourselves, maybe, Italian, maybe noble ... or simply to accept the evidence in front of us? Occam's razor states that 'the simplest explanation is most likely the truest'. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

[Emil Miller]

It always amuses me to see the indignation that any question of Shakepearean authenticity arouses. It is never agreeable to see an animal being wounded except when it's a sacred cow and "our Will" certainly fits that description. I suspect that it's less an example of outraged scholasticism but more a case of wounded pride; after all, it isn't very nice having a belief, that one has fervently supported and aired throughout one's life, called into question. I recently posted a similar claim by one of our foremost shakespearean actors that was met with much the same response.
Did an Italian immigrant, English aristocrat or some other claimant write the plays? The best anyone can say is it's improbable but, as of now, nobody can say it's impossible.

[wessexgirl]

It always amuses me to see the indignation that any question of Shakepearean authenticity arouses. It is never agreeable to see an animal being wounded except when it's a sacred cow and "our Will" certainly fits that description. I suspect that it's less an example of outraged scholasticism but more a case of wounded pride; after all, it isn't very nice having a belief, that one has fervently supported and aired throughout one's life, called into question. I recently posted a similar claim by one of our foremost shakespearean actors that was met with much the same response.
Did an Italian immigrant, English aristocrat or some other claimant write the plays? The best anyone can say is it's improbable but, as of now, nobody can say it's impossible.

Yes we can say it's impossible. Just because people choose to ignore the facts, it doesn't make it a legitimate claim to say it wasn't Shakespeare, the man from Stratford. The fact that we get annoyed with such stupidity is because it's the literary equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall when these daft theories emerge. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and la-la-la-ing loudly because they don't want to hear the truth. No matter how much evidence scholars and academics put out there, there are always those who wish to jump on the bandwagon of any barmy conspiracy theory. But I'm convinced that many of these doubters here are not really genuine but trying to stir the pot, particularly on a literay forum, just for their own amusement, in other words, trolls. Best not to feed them.

[NickAdams]

:lol:

Are we so bored by his plays that we concern ourselves with this. It's fun to speculate, but I don't care if he was from Skull Island, "The play 's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

[MANICHAEAN]

Another bush fire on Lit Net?
The last one if I remember correctly was on Harry Potter.
Disagreement on content, style or presentation by another user.
Normally starts with mild rebukes or barely murmered asides of disapproval.
Progresses: the retort courteous, the quip modest, the reply churlish, the reproof valiant, the countercheck quarrelsome, the lie with circumstance, the lie direct.
A la: "Troll, stupid, daft, barmy, not really genuine, trying to stir the pot particularly on a literary (spelt literay!) forum".
Rejoinder from the opposite party.
Battle lines formed.
The old charges regards "elitists" and not developing more indignation than you can contain are put forth.
The Adjudicator retires to his Command Centre to monitor developments & intervene at a suitable juncture regards issues of personal abuse.
Edict issued that any discussion on Shakespeare is preceded by "Serious Cat Says" warnings.

Full little knowest thou that hast not tried,
What hell it is, in suing long to bide:
To lose good days, that might be better spent;
To waste long nights in pensive discontent;
To speed today, to be put back tomorrow;
To feed on hope, to pine with fear and sorrow.

To eat thy heart through comfortless despairs:
To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to run,
To spend, to give, to want, to be undone.

[xman]

But really, you're going to beat this dead horse with stretched logic when we have all the evidence we need.
Do YOU have any actual EVIDENCE that Will was EVER around Italy?
I can give you a better story about Shakespeare abroad:
The Lord Leicester's Men, who played many times in Stratford when John Shakespeare was mayor and included Richard Burbage's father James, were in Denmark in 1588 to entertain the King. This is also when the Ur-Hamlet appears and Eric Sams has given a compelling argument that it should be looked at as Shakespeare's hand. I posit that William Shakespeare was in Denmark for that year or two. He certainly wasn't in Anne's bed and hadn't been for a few years. Touring most likely. If we dispel those fantasies not supported by any actual evidence, we can move on to truly fascinating considerations which are!

[Emil Miller]

Yes we can say it's impossible. Just because people choose to ignore the facts, it doesn't make it a legitimate claim to say it wasn't Shakespeare, the man from Stratford. The fact that we get annoyed with such stupidity is because it's the literary equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall when these daft theories emerge. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and la-la-la-ing loudly because they don't want to hear the truth. No matter how much evidence scholars and academics put out there, there are always those who wish to jump on the bandwagon of any barmy conspiracy theory. But I'm convinced that many of these doubters here are not really genuine but trying to stir the pot, particularly on a literay forum, just for their own amusement, in other words, trolls. Best not to feed them.




Modest doubt is call’d
The beacon of the wise, the tent that searches
To the bottom of the worst.
Troilus and Cressida. Act ii. Sc. 2.

[wessexgirl]

A la: "Troll, stupid, daft, barmy, not really genuine, trying to stir the pot particularly on a literary (spelt literay!) forum".


Whoops, typo there, I do know how to spell literary. I stand by what I said though.

[Emil Miller]

Whoops, typo there, I do know how to spell literary. I stand by what I said though.

Not to admit the possibility of an alternative is to show a closed mind. As you well know, the only certainties in life are birth, death and taxes; that being the case, your blanket wipe-out of any possibility that the plays could have been written by someone else is little short of arrogance

[wessexgirl]

Not to admit the possibility of an alternative is to show a closed mind. As you well know, the only certainties in life are birth, death and taxes; that being the case, your blanket wipe-out of any possibility that the plays could have been written by someone else is little short of arrogance

It's arrogance to keep going against proof. Academics and scholars have studied the topic for centuries, and know the evidence inside out and backwards. Because someone decides that they don't think it's possible a glover's son could produce such works, all that proof should be disregarded. That's arrogance.

[MANICHAEAN]

Xman
I do believe you are beginning to get it.
I'm fully cognisant that all we really know of William Shakespeare is that: he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, produced a family there, went to London, became an actor and writer, returned to Stratford, made a will, and died.

But the Denmark connection?
Now you have got my juices flowing!
The Copenhagen Code.

"The web of our life is of a mingled yarn,"
"Good and ill together".

[Emil Miller]

It's arrogance to keep going against proof. Academics and scholars have studied the topic for centuries, and know the evidence inside out and backwards. Because someone decides that they don't think it's possible a glover's son could produce such works, all that proof should be disregarded. That's arrogance.

The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.

[wessexgirl]

The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.

The proof is not conclusive only to those who wish it to be that way. Those, as I've said who close their eyes, and block their ears to it, those who want to support controversy with no legitimate reason for doing so. There's no controversy amongst those who know their subject. Those who want to cherry-pick, and dip their toe in the waters of Shakesperean scholarship, may choose to latch on to so-called "facts", but those who know their stuff can dismiss them as easily as swatting a fly.

And those who do support such theories can most certainly be dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists, whether you choose to see it as petulant or not, I choose to see it as reasonable. Do you choose to question experts in every field? Would you disregard the knowledge of someone who spends all of their working life steeped in their subject because someone comes up with a way-out theory? I don't care whether the antis have got famous names on board or not, personally I love Derek Jacobi as an actor, for example, but because he acts in Shakespeare plays, do not make the mistake of thinking he is a Shakespeare expert. As for these "eminent" Shakespeare scholars, well they are certainly not that if they buy into these ridiculous theories. Real experts know their stuff, and must be heartily sick of these attention-seeking, for want of a better word, idiots, coming out of the woodwork to stoke up the fires of controversy for no reason except their own deluded satisfaction, in trying to prove something which was never an issue at the time the plays were produced. The man from Stratford is the man, and no amount of wishing it otherwise will make it so.

[Beewulf]

The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.


The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.

Good Morning,

Although the post initiating this thread was too absurd to warrant response, I find Brian Bean's suggestion that if conclusive proof of Shakespeare's identity existed, controversy on the subject would be silenced, an entirely engaging hypothesis. Unfortunately, recent history and on-going research illustrate that Brian's hypothesis is incorrect.

News reports in the United States (my home) show that people have a remarkable ability to dismiss and misrepresent conclusive proof that challenges their deeply held beliefs--even when those beliefs have been demonstrated to be objectively false, and even when those who generated false statements publicly and unambiguously refute them. For example, while George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., now admit that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, many Americans refuse to accept that fact. Large numbers of otherwise rational Americans also believe in UFO abductions, fake moon landings, creation science, and the "fact" that President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Marxist/Nazi/homosexual/racist, and wants to kill their grandparents.

What is the reason for this massive cognitive distortion? Research by Prasad, Perrin, Bezila, Hoffman, Kindleberger, Manturuk, and Smith (2009) provides a "social psychological" explanation for the persistence of false beliefs. In their abstract, Hoffman writes:


The primary causal agent for misperception is not the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent's willingness to believe certain kinds of information. (p. 2)

Hoffman concludes that people tend to seek out and accept confirming information, regardless of its quality or objectivity, while discrediting contradictory information.

This suggests that the presence of controversy around a particular issue should not lead people to argue, ipso facto, that compelling evidence exists to support contrary opinion. Even highly educated people, doctors, lawyers, scientist, etc., are willing to suspend critical thinking in favor of "inferred justification" a pattern of fallacious reasoning in which a person begins with a strongly held belief (e.g., Shakespeare was Italian) and performs all manner of mental gymnastics to confirm it. This phenomenon also explains why a deeply religious biologist can deny evolution, or a committed Republican can deny birth records.

In other words, while the presence of smoke usually indicates fire, the presence of controversy may simply be a sign of foolishness.


Prasad, M., Perrin, A., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., et al., (2009). “There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred
Justification. Sociological Inquiry.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

We are here to discuss the ideas, not each other.

Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.

.

[Emil Miller]

There's no controversy amongst those who know their subject. Those who want to cherry-pick, and dip their toe in the waters of Shakesperean scholarship, may choose to latch on to so-called "facts", but those who know their stuff can dismiss them as easily as swatting a fly.
.

If you would like to check out the pro and anti factions on Wickipedia, you will see that cherry-picking and toe-dipping isn't confined to the anti's, some of whom certainly know their stuff, which is why they haven't been dismissed as easily as swatting a fly.


Good Morning,

Although the post initiating this thread was too absurd to warrant response, I find Brian Bean's suggestion that if conclusive proof of Shakespeare's identity existed, controversy on the subject would be silenced, an entirely engaging hypothesis. Unfortunately, recent history and on-going research illustrate that Brian's hypothesis is incorrect.

News reports in the United States (my home) show that people have a remarkable ability to dismiss and misrepresent conclusive proof that challenges their deeply held beliefs--even when those beliefs have been demonstrated to be objectively false, and even when those who generated false statements publicly and unambiguously refute them. For example, while George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., now admit that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, many Americans refuse to accept that fact. Large numbers of otherwise rational Americans also believe in UFO abductions, fake moon landings, creation science, and the "fact" that President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Marxist/Nazi/homosexual/racist, and wants to kill their grandparents.

What is the reason for this massive cognitive distortion? Research by Prasad, Perrin, Bezila, Hoffman, Kindleberger, Manturuk, and Smith (2009) provides a "social psychological" explanation for the persistence of false beliefs. In their abstract, Hoffman writes:


The primary causal agent for misperception is not the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent's willingness to believe certain kinds of information. (p. 2)

Hoffman concludes that people tend to seek out and accept confirming information, regardless of its quality or objectivity, while discrediting contradictory information.

This suggests that the presence of controversy around a particular issue should not lead people to argue, ipso facto, that compelling evidence exists to support contrary opinion. Even highly educated people, doctors, lawyers, scientist, etc., are willing to suspend critical thinking in favor of "inferred justification" a pattern of fallacious reasoning in which a person begins with a strongly held belief (e.g., Shakespeare was Italian) and performs all manner of mental gymnastics to confirm it. This phenomenon also explains why a deeply religious biologist can deny evolution, or a committed Republican can deny birth records.

In other words, while the presence of smoke usually indicates fire, the presence of controversy may simply be a sign of foolishness.


Prasad, M., Perrin, A., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., et al., (2009). “There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred
Justification. Sociological Inquiry.

It is fortuitous that the misperception referred to in the study has a direct bearing on the subject matter of this thread. In Oscar Wilde's short story The Story of Mr W.H., the protagonist believes he knows the the name of the dedicatee of Shakespeare's Sonnets and goes to great lengths to prove it, even to the extent of falsifying evidence. Similarly, in Arthur Koestler's factual book The Case of the Midwife Toad, Paul Kammerer an Austrian scientist who believed in the theory of inherited characteristics, claimed to have discovered evidence of such in a species of toad. As in Wilde's fictional tale, the evidence proved to be a falsification and, like Wilde's character, Kammerer committed suicide.
I do not, however, see anything irrational about questioning the authenticity of Shakespeare's plays where there is sufficient cause for concern. As I have said elsewhere on this thread, I think that Shakespeare probably did write the plays but I don't rule out the possibilty that he may not have done.
I prefer to keep an open mind on the issue.

[wessexgirl]

If you would like to check out the pro and anti factions on Wickipedia, you will see that cherry-picking and toe-dipping isn't confined to the anti's, some of whom certainly know their stuff, which is why they haven't been dismissed as easily as swatting a fly.

I prefer more reliable sources. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for an academic debate.

The antis have been swatted with evidence and proof. They choose not to believe it.

[Emil Miller]

I prefer more reliable sources. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for an academic debate.

The antis have been swatted with evidence and proof. They choose not to believe it.

I think we had better let the Bard speak on the antis, so if, as it would appear, you missed it first time round:

Modest doubt is call’d
The beacon of the wise, the tent that searches
To the bottom of the worst.
Troilus and Cressida. Act ii. Sc. 2.

[wessexgirl]

I think we had better let the Bard speak on the antis, so if, as it would appear, you missed it first time round:

Modest doubt is call’d
The beacon of the wise, the tent that searches
To the bottom of the worst.
Troilus and Cressida. Act ii. Sc. 2.

I didn't miss it first time round. Quoting the Bard does not change the matter we are discussing.

[xman]

True Beewulf, confirmation bias runs rampant in these things. Got to set the record straight.


The proof is not conclusive,
Yes it is.


if it were then no controversy would exist.
True. None does.


Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.
Fallacy! Appeal to authority *fail*

[Emil Miller]

I didn't miss it first time round. Quoting the Bard does not change the matter we are discussing.

Perhaps you are right. It isn't wise to place too much reliance on someone whose authenticity is so frequently called into question by some of his foremeost interpreters.

[Emil Miller]

True Beewulf, confirmation bias runs rampant in these things. Got to set the record straight.


Yes it is.


True. None does.


Fallacy! Appeal to authority *fail*



The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell

[xman]

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell
Ad hominem *fail*

sticks and stones

Any evidence yet?

[JBI]

Honestly, why do people pay attention to such stupidity - the maturity of some of the posters (I think you know who I am talking about, but seeing as how I already have 30 strikes against me, I won't get banned naming names) is completely silly. There is no evidence to suggest Shakespeare wasn't an Englishman, and in truth, there is no substantial biographical information yet available. What that means is, there is a bit of cloudiness in his biography, not that he was Italian, or somebody else - the point is, given that we know little about Shakespeare, it is only logical that we believe what we already know, rather than invent things which are completely out of this world, or attribute the works to some other thinker. It's called basic logic - you don't invent or substitute to explain what you don't know, you look for proof, and you declare things ambiguous or unclear where there is lack of evidence. There is no proof that Shakespeare wasn't English, so why bother inventing him as an Italian (or Sicilian if you will).

But I guess there always will be third rate morons arguing one way or another, to try and seem smart - the point is, what's so hard in thinking that a genius came from something other than the upper classes? Is it so difficult to conceptualize someone great from humble beginnings?

[Scheherazade]

.

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Inflammatory comments/ad hominem attacks will lead to thread closure.

Posts containing such remarks will be deleted.

.

[Emil Miller]

Honestly, why do people pay attention to such stupidity - the maturity of some of the posters (I think you know who I am talking about, but seeing as how I already have 30 strikes against me, I won't get banned naming names) is completely silly. There is no evidence to suggest Shakespeare wasn't an Englishman, and in truth, there is no substantial biographical information yet available. What that means is, there is a bit of cloudiness in his biography, not that he was Italian, or somebody else - the point is, given that we know little about Shakespeare, it is only logical that we believe what we already know, rather than invent things which are completely out of this world, or attribute the works to some other thinker. It's called basic logic - you don't invent or substitute to explain what you don't know, you look for proof, and you declare things ambiguous or unclear where there is lack of evidence. There is no proof that Shakespeare wasn't English, so why bother inventing him as an Italian (or Sicilian if you will).

But I guess there always will be third rate morons arguing one way or another, to try and seem smart - the point is, what's so hard in thinking that a genius came from something other than the upper classes? Is it so difficult to conceptualize someone great from humble beginnings?

I would suggest that one of the benefits of maturity is allowing for an alternative point of view on a subject that, as you have said, we know very little about and of whom there is no substantial biographical information yet available.

[Abdiel]

To Manichaean:

"Indulge me if I play the Devils Advocate.
1. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?"

Sure I'll indulge you, because no one's ever asked me to indulge them and I feel privileged. I'm looking at the portrait right now, and honesty I can't tell where he's from. But to say he's too dark-skinned or even more ambiguously "foreign looking" doesn't give weight to the argument that it's not Shakespeare (if it's his portrait in the first place).

Sometimes people don't look like the place they're from. But, to be more substantial, Shakespeare's heritage isn't traced back to its roots: could it be possible that one of his ancestors had some non-English blood in him which he passed onto Shakespeare and which gave him a "foreign" appearance? We don't know everything about Shakespeare, and we know even less about his ancestors and where they were from.

"3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics."

Yes, but was his education complete? Did he learn enough to actually get a true grasp on Latin and Greek?

"Oxfordians correctly point out that there is no documentary evidence of Shakespeare's schooling, thought they often neglect to add that there are no records of any student at the Stratford school before 1700."
(Source: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/school.html)

Added to this is: "Although boys normally attended grammar school until age fifteen or sixteen, Shakespeare may have been forced to leave school as early as 1577, at age 13, because of his father's financial difficulties."
(Source: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/grammarschool.html) And you can read more on his father's financial difficulties here: "http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/family.html:

Are we expecting Shakespeare to be a master of Latin and Greek by age 13? Or to know "little Latin and less Greek" because of his incomplete education?

"any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics."

I'd have to disagree with this statement because that would be expecting too much from 16 year olds. But, to ask a question: if the grammar school graduates of Shakespeare day were better versed in their studies than people who go to universities today, then what about those who went to university in Shakespeare's day? Would that make them supreme geniuses of their field, each on the level of Shakespeare in art, Newton in science, etc?

"Shakespeare's generation was demonstrably much better educated than his father's, due to extensive improvements in the schooling system (see David Cressy's Education in Tudor and Stuart England and Literacy and the Social Order for more information)."

And

"As for the grammar school proper, the curriculum of the Stratford Free School (incorporated in 1553) does not survive, but since the educational system was nationalized under Elizabeth"

(Source: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/school.html)

This would mean most children who went to grammar school (15-16 year olds) were smarter than those who hold university degrees today.

"3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?"

Read the article http://shakespeareauthorship.com/italy.html There's way too much there for me to even cut and paste, but it addresses the question of Italy and the prominence of Italian culture in England well. And remember, Titus Andronicus was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, and he seems to have had a interest in Roman culture for most of his life. Oh, and Shakespeare could have gone to Italy. I have nothing against that.

"4.How did he, as a possible Italian blend into the English scene. Easy. Look at today's second generation immigrants with South London or Scouse accents."

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. Can you please explain?

"6. As well noted by yourself; John Milton was under age to be drinking with Will & Ben in the Bread Street Arms and anyway would have been too much of a gentleman to make politically incorrect racial comments on appearences or accents."

Hah ha! I didn't say he went drinking at that age, but that he probably saw Shakespeare.

"7. You really are on thin ice when bringing up his English patrotism. Next time you watch the Olympic Games kindly consider the fervour with which our second generation immigrant winners of gold so lovingly wrap themselves in the Union Jack."

I don't think I'm on thin ice. I was saying that if Shakespeare really was an Italian immigrant, then his tremendous passion for England seems odd (especially in his early plays) if he supposedly wasn't born there. And I'm not from England.

Hey no problem. I also wanted to reply in good nature and not with malice.