Did Shakespeare write the plays?

[Emil Miller]

This subject has been aired before on the forum but, in the light of the below mentioned report in the Evening Standard yesterday, would members care to comment ?

Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi

Two leading Shakespearean actors have joined the doubters who believe the bard did not write the plays.

Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, also former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, believe his works were written by an aristocrat. They made the claims during a debate at Brunel University. Today is Shakespeare's birthday and also the day he died.

Both actors are among a group of 1,400 people who signed a "declaration of reasonable doubt" into the works. Sir Derek said he was "99.9 per cent certain" the actual author of the plays and sonnets was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

The group says the case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life.

Rylance said: "With the man from Stratford [Shakespeare] we don't know how he gathered the life experience and book learning that's very, very apparent in the work attributed to him."

Oxford was well educated and travelled widely.

[Lokasenna]

I never much cared for Rylance, though I do like Derek Jacobi, which therefore rather surprises me.

Regardless, the vast majority of academic thinking is against them. I really fail to see why people cannot accept that Shakespeare wrote the plays; plenty of historical evidence bares this out, whatever the declaration says.

If the Earl of Oxford had written it, then why have a big conspiracy? Why would one of the greatest literary geniuses the world has ever produced choose a random man from Stratford as booby? Surely he could have worked under a pseudonym without needing a front-man?

The Declaration's website is a joke - I don't know if that came across in your article Brian, but not only does it mention de Vere, but also suggests Marlowe, Bacon and Mary Sidney. Also, there list of "celebrity" doubters is very spurious - people who are quoted as merely marvelling at the mysterious life of Shakespeare are listed as adherents to the Declaration's cause, as are those who merely hypothesize what it would be like if he hadn't written them.

Hmm... that was a longer post than I intended... I'll stop ranting now...:lol:

[Emil Miller]

I am not taking sides here, because I simply do not know the truth of the matter but according to Wickipedia, there are some impressive names among those supporting the Earl of Oxford as is shown in the list below.


Notable Oxfordians include Sigmund Freud, diplomat and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Paul Nitze, Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, columnist Joseph Sobran, former British judge Christmas Humphreys, biographer and historian David McCullough, as well as actors Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud, Michael York, Jeremy Irons, Mark Rylance (former Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre) and Sir Derek Jacobi, who supports the "group theory" with Oxford as the lead writer.[13]

[mortalterror]

I am not taking sides here, because I simply do not know the truth of the matter but according to Wickipedia, there are some impressive names among those supporting the Earl of Oxford as is shown in the list below.

But did you check Wikipedia's sample poetry for the Earl of Oxford? It's not very good and it's not very Shakespearean. It's one of those things I can't help but shake my head at. Likewise, when people offer Bacon or Marlowe as candidates, it makes me think they haven't read either. All of these men have unique voices and if you read enough of them, you ought to be able to tell them apart, without looking at a title page.

[JBI]

It's merely the English class system refusing to accept that someone not coming from the top bracket could have done something incredible. We know for an almost certain fact that Ben Jonson came from a poor background. Why is it such a stretch to accept Shakespeare? I know why - because people are elitists, and think only rich people can produce art like that. In other words, a great actor has now committed his name to the list of other elitists who believe in the "superiority" of the upper class intellect. It isn't surprising, given that England has a long history of the dominance of the "upper class" in the arts, and has a thoroughly ingrained class system, that perhaps only in the last few years has started to crumble. There is very little we know about Shakespeare, and there is even less linking him to other people. Yeah right, next we'll hear that his wife wrote all the tragedies, and brother the comedies. Quite simply, even smart people stoop to folly on this question, but even so, there is no proof, no point to even thinking of the theories as real scholarship, and no point even asking the question. We know next to nothing about Shakespeare as a person. What does it really matter if he was poor or not, his plays are essentially all we have to go by, in terms of understanding the dramatist, and even they tell us nothing. Just accept that he lived and died, and read the plays, instead of all this bickering over stupidity as the English class system tries to defend itself against proof that poor people actually, *gasp*, can write good literature.

[Cicero]

I love these conspiracy theories :D

Aliens build the pyramids, the freemasons were responsible for the French Revolution, the moonlanding was a fake, the CIA and not Bin Laden bombed the WTC... Shakespeare didn't write his plays...

All these theories are so convincing in themselves that they don't need any scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claims :lol:

But to be serious: I cannot believe how any reasonable person, let alone Derek Jacobi who should know better, can seriously think that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and come up with such crude theories concerning the "real" authorship of the dramas... unless some new and convincing evidence to the contrary turns up (for instance a letter in which Oxford describes how he wrote Romeo and Juliet...).

[Emil Miller]

We know next to nothing about Shakespeare as a person. What does it really matter if he was poor or not, his plays are essentially all we have to go by, in terms of understanding the dramatist, and even they tell us nothing.

If this is true, then isn't there a possibilty that he didn't write them ?

[wessexgirl]

Shakespeare didn't write those plays......yeah right....excuse me while I just wave at the flying pigs hurtling past my window!!!

Shakespeare wrote them, and I'll fight anyone who says differently :p.

Seriously though, this is a real bugbear of mine. No-one questioned that he wrote them until 200 years after his death, and what's the name of the man who started it all, but Looney?

Ben Johnson knew him, was his friend, and said of him, "he was not of an age, but for all time", so he knew he was something special. All this rubbish about not knowing enough about the man from Stratford is just hogwash. So he signed his name different ways, so what? He wasn't alone. He never went to University, so he couldn't possibly have enough education to write how he did.....hmmph, a grammar school education at that time would have been very good on the classics. :rolleyes: It's pure snobbery. He must have been an aristocrat....a commoner couldn't write like that :rage:

All of these daft theories reject the presence of genius. Why can't someone from his backgound be touched by that?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that he didn't write them. Any serious Shakespeare scholar would laugh the suggestion off. Conspiracy theories are fun, but this one is absolutely, certainly, 100%, gold-plated, no-questions-asked, barking mad. I'm surprised at Jacobi, who is a very great actor, I've seen him on stage as Richard 111, and as Thomas a Becket, and how he can put his name to this sham whilst making his living from the Bard's great words is outrageous. He may come to regret his rashness.

[Dark Lady]

All these theories are so convincing in themselves that they don't need any scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claims :lol:

That made me laugh! Thanks Cicero.

Would submit a longer comment about the actual topic but I don't really have time for the long rant I would probably produce! All I'll ask is why do people go to such lengths to come up with ridiculous answers to questions that never had any reason to be asked in the first place?

[wessexgirl]

That made me laugh! Thanks Cicero.

Would submit a longer comment about the actual topic but I don't really have time for the long rant I would probably produce! All I'll ask is why do people go to such lengths to come up with ridiculous answers to questions that never had any reason to be asked in the first place?

Quite. I'm assuming from your moniker that you're a fan of the Bard too?

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=wessexgirl;710007]Shakespeare wrote them, and I'll fight anyone who says differently.

Then you will have to fight some pretty heavyweight authorities on Shakespeare such as Sir John Gielgud and Orson Welles if Wickipedia are to be believed.

[wessexgirl]

[QUOTE=wessexgirl;710007]Shakespeare wrote them, and I'll fight anyone who says differently.

Then you will have to fight some pretty heavyweight authorities on Shakespeare such as Sir John Gielgud and Orson Welles if Wickipedia are to be believed.

Bring them on, I think I would win, what with them being dead and all that :lol:.

I know that lots of people have questioned this, but I think serious Shakespeare scholars know their stuff, and I wouldn't use Wikipedia in a serious argument. I did some work on this subject a while ago, so I know that there are "big" names on the side of the doubters, but it still doesn't make it plausible.

[Stargazer86]

How funny...I was actually going to start a thread on this today.

I've kind of always been on the Edward DeVere side for several reasons. When I'm off work I'll elaborate more.

However, even valid arguments for DeVere, Bacon etc seem to get a little conspiracy theory at times, even to the point of being ridiculous. I vaugely remember watching a video on this and part of the argument being that the famous portrait of Shakespeare proves that Shakespeare himself could not have written the stories as it is half a picture reversed and put together (look at the location of the stripe on each sleeve). That's getting pretty silly about the whole matter.

Part of me likes to think that the traditional story of Shakespeare and his writtings is true. It makes the writings more impressive to think that this man from humble upbringing and limited education produced such masterpieces (and was so prolific)

I find this subject exceedingly interesting and plan to revisit this thread in the near future...

[Lokasenna]

Ben Johnson knew him, was his friend, and said of him, "he was not of an age, but for all time", so he knew he was something special. All this rubbish about not knowing enough about the man from Stratford is just hogwash. So he signed his name different ways, so what? He wasn't alone. He never went to University, so he couldn't possibly have enough education to write how he did.....hmmph, a grammar school education at that time would have been very good on the classics. :rolleyes: It's pure snobbery. He must have been an aristocrat....a commoner couldn't write like that :rage:

All of these daft theories reject the presence of genius. Why can't someone from his backgound be touched by that?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that he didn't write them. Any serious Shakespeare scholar would laugh the suggestion off.

Nicely said. His grammar school education would have been excellent; this is historically proven. And he wasn't exactly from a poor background - his father was a successful businessman and alderman, and his maternal grandfather was a great landowner.

Anyway, saying that only an aristocrat could write from the point of view of the aristocracy is patently absurd. It would be like saying that J K Rowling couldn't have really written Harry Potter because she isn't a wizard - balderdash!

[Dark Lady]

I'm assuming from your moniker that you're a fan of the Bard too?

I think that's the first time anyone has actually commented on it (although, being a literature website, many people here have allusions to various writers as their monikers so probably not surprising). Big fan. Haven't read all of his surviving works yet because I simply haven't had time but I intend to after I finish uni (only a few weeks left!). I can still vividly remember the first time I read any Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet back in first year of secondary school; mainly because I'd seen the Baz Luhrmann film and loved it. I owe a lot to that film!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not being dragged into this again, no way, crazy.

[Emil Miller]

When I opened this thread, it was not with the intention of playing devil's advocate but merely to ask for members' responses to the London Evening Standard's article about the authenticity of Shakespeare's plays.
The response has been broadly in line with what I expected, but it is interesting that it corresponds to the kind of Pavlovian reaction that usually occurs when any sacred cow is threatened with the knackers yard. The virility of the response would seem to reveal more about the respondants, who are certain beyond any possible, or even probable, doubt than the question itself.
As a lesson in human psychology, it would have been of interest to either Shakespeare or the Earl of Oxford; whomsoever wrote the plays.

[Virgil]

This subject has been aired before on the forum but, in the light of the below mentioned report in the Evening Standard yesterday, would members care to comment ?

Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi

Two leading Shakespearean actors have joined the doubters who believe the bard did not write the plays.

Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, also former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, believe his works were written by an aristocrat. They made the claims during a debate at Brunel University. Today is Shakespeare's birthday and also the day he died.

Both actors are among a group of 1,400 people who signed a "declaration of reasonable doubt" into the works. Sir Derek said he was "99.9 per cent certain" the actual author of the plays and sonnets was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

The group says the case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life.

Rylance said: "With the man from Stratford [Shakespeare] we don't know how he gathered the life experience and book learning that's very, very apparent in the work attributed to him."

Oxford was well educated and travelled widely.
I don't know Mark Rylance (I'm not up on actors) and I do respect Jacobi a lot, but I don't think either of them are scholars. Scholars have looked at this to exhaustion and concluded by the writing stye and the biographical evidence available that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon is the sole writer (except for a couple of plays that were identified as co-written) of the body of work by the playwright named Shakespeare. Scholars who specialize in writing styles can show that it is a single author that the body of work belongs to him, and there is enough biographical data to pinpoint the person. Look, a playwright is a little different than a novelist or even a poet. There tends to be an informal collaboration between the actors and the author. I'm sure someone in the Shakespeare company may have pointed out that this action or that approach may not correspond with reality that helped the author. But the writing of the words and the adjustments made are clearly Shakespeare.

Why do these doubters always seem to come out of the woodwork around Willy's birthday. :D

[Wilde woman]

I had a tutor at a college prep school whom I deeply respected. I think he went to Columbia University. Then, one day out of the blue, he went on a huge Shakespeare rant, claiming that any "serious" Shakespeare scholars knows the plays were not written by him. Or at least, not all by him. I was dumbfounded to say the least, and that was the moment I lost a great deal of respect for him.

I'm no expert on Shakespeare and I know there is a lot we don't know about the man...but I would hope that 400 years of scholarship would have the competence to attribute the plays to their correct author. I would understand if someone doubted the authenticity of one or two of his poems...but to come out and simply deny that the man wrote any of those great works...that just smacks of folly.

Besides, if Ben Jonson says Shakespeare wrote those plays, I believe him.

[wessexgirl]

I vaugely remember watching a video on this and part of the argument being that the famous portrait of Shakespeare proves that Shakespeare himself could not have written the stories as it is half a picture reversed and put together (look at the location of the stripe on each sleeve). That's getting pretty silly about the whole matter.


I think I saw that, if it's the one I'm thinking of....the one where the portrait is revealed as ........dudududadadada (big drum roll there :lol:), none other than Queen Elizabeth 1. Apparently she knocked out these works of genius while simultaneously ruling the country, and no-one had any idea!!! :rolleyes:

[Janine]

Shakespeare didn't write those plays......yeah right....excuse me while I just wave at the flying pigs hurtling past my window!!!

Shakespeare wrote them, and I'll fight anyone who says differently :p.

Seriously though, this is a real bugbear of mine. No-one questioned that he wrote them until 200 years after his death, and what's the name of the man who started it all, but Looney?

Ben Johnson knew him, was his friend, and said of him, "he was not of an age, but for all time", so he knew he was something special. All this rubbish about not knowing enough about the man from Stratford is just hogwash. So he signed his name different ways, so what? He wasn't alone. He never went to University, so he couldn't possibly have enough education to write how he did.....hmmph, a grammar school education at that time would have been very good on the classics. :rolleyes: It's pure snobbery. He must have been an aristocrat....a commoner couldn't write like that :rage:

All of these daft theories reject the presence of genius. Why can't someone from his backgound be touched by that?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that he didn't write them. Any serious Shakespeare scholar would laugh the suggestion off. Conspiracy theories are fun, but this one is absolutely, certainly, 100%, gold-plated, no-questions-asked, barking mad. I'm surprised at Jacobi, who is a very great actor, I've seen him on stage as Richard 111, and as Thomas a Becket, and how he can put his name to this sham whilst making his living from the Bard's great words is outrageous. He may come to regret his rashness.

Great post, wessexgirl and I totally agree. I read about the contraversy long ago on the internet. You can't believe everything you read on Wiki either.

I agree with this post too. Good job both of you!

Quote by Cicero


I love these conspiracy theories

Aliens build the pyramids, the freemasons were responsible for the French Revolution, the moonlanding was a fake, the CIA and not Bin Laden bombed the WTC... Shakespeare didn't write his plays...

All these theories are so convincing in themselves that they don't need any scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claims

But to be serious: I cannot believe how any reasonable person, let alone Derek Jacobi who should know better, can seriously think that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and come up with such crude theories concerning the "real" authorship of the dramas... unless some new and convincing evidence to the contrary turns up (for instance a letter in which Oxford describes how he wrote Romeo and Juliet...).

Personally, I am shocked to see Sir Derek Jacobi on that list. Are you sure that is not a mistake?

[Stargazer86]

I think I saw that, if it's the one I'm thinking of....the one where the portrait is revealed as ........dudududadadada (big drum roll there :lol:), none other than Queen Elizabeth 1. Apparently she knocked out these works of genius while simultaneously ruling the country, and no-one had any idea!!! :rolleyes:


:lol: I didn't realize it was supposed to be a portrait of Queen Elizabeth! That's hysterical! And it's things like that that really discount the credibility of those making the argument for DeVere or Bacon or whomever else.
Queen Elizabeth is one of my very favorite historical figures...truely an amazing woman, but I would not go so far as to give her credit for writing Shakespeare's plays!! But where, I wonder, does the facial hair come in? :eek:

Though, as I mentioned in a previous post, I am still somewhat on board with the Oxfordians

[Lokasenna]

I had a tutor at a college prep school whom I deeply respected. I think he went to Columbia University. Then, one day out of the blue, he went on a huge Shakespeare rant, claiming that any "serious" Shakespeare scholars knows the plays were not written by him. Or at least, not all by him. I was dumbfounded to say the least, and that was the moment I lost a great deal of respect for him.

To be fair, we know that some of the plays were co-authored - Titus Andronicus springs to mind, though there are others that have temporarily escaped me. However, the really important ones (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Henry V e.t.c...) we are almost sure are entirely by one man.

[Emil Miller]

However, the really important ones (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Henry V e.t.c...) we are almost sure are entirely by one man.

Quite likely, but can we be absolutely certain who that man is? Or is it based on the balance of probability?

[wessexgirl]

Quite likely, but can we be absolutely certain who that man is? Or is it based on the balance of probability?

We can be certain. It's fact, not probability. He was known and acknowledged as the author at the time.


http://shakespeareauthorship.com/#how



Conclusion
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the historical record tells us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Just the conclusion for those who haven't got time to read through the EVIDENCE).

[Emil Miller]

We can be certain. It's fact, not probability. He was known and acknowledged as the author at the time.


http://shakespeareauthorship.com/#how



Conclusion
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the historical record tells us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Just the conclusion for those who haven't got time to read through the EVIDENCE).

And yet, despite all the "evidence", some acknowledged authorities on the plays still harbour doubts as to the author. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the vigourous proclamations of the pro Shakepeare faction, yet it seems to have had little effect in producing a universal consensus.
In the absence of categorical proof, it seems unlikely that the doubts surrounding the authorship of the plays will be dispelled.

[Lokasenna]

One of my tutor's favourite maxims goes thus:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Just because we don't know a huge amount about Shakespeare does not mean there is a big conspiracy about it...

[wessexgirl]

And yet, despite all the "evidence", some acknowledged authorities on the plays still harbour doubts as to the author. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the vigourous proclamations of the pro Shakepeare faction, yet it seems to have had little effect in producing a universal consensus.
In the absence of categorical proof, it seems unlikely that the doubts surrounding the authorship of the plays will be dispelled.

There is no "absence of categorical proof". The proof is there. What would you call "categorical proof" short of time-travelling back to Elizabethan London and watching the man himself write them?

The so-called "doubters" are, I'm sure, fully aware of the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

[Emil Miller]

There is no "absence of categorical proof". The proof is there. What would you call "categorical proof" short of time-travelling back to Elizabethan London and watching the man himself write them?

The so-called "doubters" are, I'm sure, fully aware of the evidence, but choose to ignore it.


According to my dictionary the word categorical has four slightly different connotations but I was using it to mean "absolute" proof. If such proof were possible to establish, as opposed to the belief of those who claim it, then there would be no cause to question the authorship of the plays.
My own thoughts on the issue are that, as the general consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, I will continue to think of him as the author but, in the absence of universal agreement, I do not rule out the possibility that he didn't.

[wessexgirl]

According to my dictionary the word categorical has four slightly different connotations but I was using it to mean "absolute" proof. If such proof were possible to establish, as opposed to the belief of those who claim it, then there would be no cause to question the authorship of the plays.


My own thoughts on the issue are that, as the general consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, I will continue to think of him as the author but, in the absence of universal agreement, I do not rule out the possibility that he didn't.

It is possible to establish, the proof is there, it's not just a belief. Any historian and scholar worth their salt deals in facts and proof.


So do you not rule out the possibility that the moon landing was faked, that martians built the pyramids, or any other barmy idea, coming from a handful of deluded people? Because they choose to propose some nutty theories which means that reputable sources are undermined, you see that as leading to doubt, and the absence of universal agreement?

[Emil Miller]

It is possible to establish, the proof is there, it's not just a belief. Any historian and scholar worth their salt deals in facts and proof.


So do you not rule out the possibility that the moon landing was faked, that martians built the pyramids, or any other barmy idea, coming from a handful of deluded people? Because they choose to propose some nutty theories which means that reputable sources are undermined, you see that as leading to doubt, and the absence of universal agreement?


I do not rule out the possibilty that the moon landings were faked and have said so on another thread relating to it. On the question of martians building the pyramids there is, unlike Shakepeare's plays, no body of reputable people who support the theory and also no newsreel footage such as that which has called into question the veracity of the moon landings.
There was a time when if anyone had cast doubt that the earth was flat they would have been accused of being one of a handful of deluded people.

[xman]

Indeed a great deal is known about the man from Stratford. What is not known is how he felt about politics or religion. His characterizations are so good that his personal opinions cannot be discerned behind his characters.

He became a gentleman born by the late 1600's his family was that well connected in the realm. Also, he was rich, STINKIN' rich by 1697 as anyone who has visited New Place can attest.

For a complete debunking of Edward De Vere's claim to authorship, I gleefully direct all interested parties to Irvin Leigh Matus' excellent book Shakespeare: In Fact which puts the matter quite completely to bed.

X

PS Just shut up about the moon hoax idea. It makes you look silly about everything else you say too.

[AllanAlbert]

"Shake-Speare" wrote the plays but not William Shakspeare of Stratford - who many believe to be Shake-Speare. It's clear now that "Shake-Speare" had extensive legal training, which Will Shakspere of Stratford did not have. So he couldn't have written the plays. So the real Shaks-Speare had to have been someone else. Francis Bacon best fits the available evidence. See this article:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/Law/index.htm

And see additional evidence here (that supports Francis Bacon as the author):

http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=54&sid=2ec1ff70a83270c8af164e0f3e534d73

No one has yet even attempted to counter this evidence. If the link doesn't work just go to the www.playshakespeare.com and then to the forum and authorship topic.

[wessexgirl]

"Shake-Speare" wrote the plays but not William Shakspeare of Stratford - who many believe to be Shake-Speare. It's clear now that "Shake-Speare" had extensive legal training, which Will Shakspere of Stratford did not have. So he couldn't have written the plays. So the real Shaks-Speare had to have been someone else. Francis Bacon best fits the available evidence. See this article:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/Law/index.htm

And see additional evidence here (that supports Francis Bacon as the author):

http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=54&sid=2ec1ff70a83270c8af164e0f3e534d73

No one has yet even attempted to counter this evidence. If the link doesn't work just go to the www.playshakespeare.com and then to the forum and authorship topic.


What evidence? William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. The evidence is there. All of the "evidence" about possible contenders has been demolished, Bacon included.

[jocky]

This subject has been aired before on the forum but, in the light of the below mentioned report in the Evening Standard yesterday, would members care to comment ?

Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi

Two leading Shakespearean actors have joined the doubters who believe the bard did not write the plays.

Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, also former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, believe his works were written by an aristocrat. They made the claims during a debate at Brunel University. Today is Shakespeare's birthday and also the day he died.

Both actors are among a group of 1,400 people who signed a "declaration of reasonable doubt" into the works. Sir Derek said he was "99.9 per cent certain" the actual author of the plays and sonnets was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

The group says the case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life.

Rylance said: "With the man from Stratford [Shakespeare] we don't know how he gathered the life experience and book learning that's very, very apparent in the work attributed to him."

Oxford was well educated and travelled widely.

Good discussion but riddled with class issues. There has always been fundamental doubts over the Shakespeare authenticity. Are we implying that Shakespeare could not be the author of his own plays, as he was not aristocratic enough? James the Sixth of Scotland wrote about Witchcraft, Tobacco, Kingship, Theology etc etc, but no one ever accused him of being a literary giant. As Sir Thomas Moore remarked the ' Nobility of England would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount ' The point that seems to be at issue here is did Shakespeare have access to the historical records? Yes, yes,yes. Do you honestly believe that Elizabeth would let some dumb Earl record history? Enjoyable debate though.

[xman]

... There has always been fundamental doubts over the Shakespeare authenticity. ...
No. Only since the nineteenth century.


...It's clear now that "Shake-Speare" had extensive legal training, which Will Shakspere of Stratford did not have. So he couldn't have written the plays. ...
Even though he may have lived with his lawyer patron for several years during the plague? Even though he was clearly a skilled scribe?
Please refute all of this first:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
http://home.att.net/~mleary/positive.htm

[prendrelemick]

[QUOTE=AllanAlbert;750962]"Shake-Speare" wrote the plays but not William Shakspeare of Stratford - who many believe to be Shake-Speare. It's clear now that "Shake-Speare" had extensive legal training, which Will Shakspere of Stratford did not have. So he couldn't have written the plays. So the real Shaks-Speare had to have been someone else.[quote]


Erm, except that William Shakespeare of Stratford named Henry Condell and John Hemminge in his will, you Know Hemminge and Condell, fellow actors who published the First folio of Shakespeare the playwright's plays.

[jocky]

No. Only since the nineteenth century.


]

Which kind of reinforces my point, if Shakespeare's contemporaries were content to accept that he wrote the plays then that is good enough for me. Rylance, Olivier etc may have had their doubts, but they were and are actors, not playwrights. The argument seems to me to boil down to this, did Shakespeare have the knowledge to write about high affairs of state ? Unequivocably yes.

[jocky]

One could , of course , throw this discussion in reverse. If Will was middle class what would he know about the lower orders? The gravedigger from Hamlet, and Lancelot Gobbo resonate with me as realistic characters. Bushy, Bagot and Greene strike as much of a chord with me as Richard 11. No, Kit Marlowe, Raleigh, James VI etc did not write the plays, an extremely intelligent man in a challenging age from Stratford did.

[AllanAlbert]

Reply to jocky: Only Stratfordians seem to be the ones that claim that Baconians and Oxfordians (among others) believe that W.S. of Stratford couldn't have been the author because he wasn't aristocratic enough. It's one of their straw man arguments. Class is not an argument by us.

Reply to xman: been there, done that, for the most part. See "Shakspere Evidence Reviewed" at
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-shakespeare&lgnF=y
more will be added there over time.
Also, fundamental doubts about the authorship existed in Shakespeare's time. This isn't disputed by Stratfordians that have studied the evidence. This is also covered in either the link above or the topic "Authorship Controversy 2".

Reply to prendrelemick: see the above forum.

Reply to jocky: It's not such a simple argument of knowledge of high affairs of state. I can just come back with - it comes down to this - Does the evidence support the assertion that the author was a highly trained lawyer? Yes it does. No one has refuted this evidence. And anyone you think has hasn't as has been shown.

Reply to jocky: the gravedigger scene is one where expert legal knowledge is evident. Bacon had it. William of Stratford didn't.

Still after nearly 9 months of posting evidence not a single Stratfordian has made a dent in Baconian theory.

[jocky]

Reply to jocky: Only Stratfordians seem to be the ones that claim that Baconians and Oxfordians (among others) believe that W.S. of Stratford couldn't have been the author because he wasn't aristocratic enough. It's one of their straw man arguments. Class is not an argument by us.

Reply to xman: been there, done that, for the most part. See "Shakspere Evidence Reviewed" at
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-shakespeare&lgnF=y


Reply to jocky: It's not such a simple argument of knowledge of high affairs of state. I can just come back with - it comes down to this - Does the evidence support the assertion that the author was a highly trained lawyer? Yes it does. No one has refuted this evidence. And anyone you think has hasn't as has been shown.

Reply to jocky: the gravedigger scene is one where expert legal knowledge is evident. Bacon had it. William of Stratford didn't.



I take your point in the sense that this argument will go on ad infinitum as it is hard to prove that some no mark from Stratford wrote the plays. This is my take on it. Expert legal knowledge is a non starter as nearly every member of the landed gentry of the day, high or low born, was involved in litigation in one form or another and had an understanding of legal matters. James VI, and even Elizabeth 1, to a lesser extent, were happy to acknowledge their authorship of literary works. But this is the clincher for me, no contemporary of the age argues that Will did not write the plays. The great diarists of the age, Aubrey, Pepys, and I forget the other one, do not even hint at it. Lets face it, if happy Sam had an inkling he would have screamed it from the rooftops. So the conspiracy theories will go on as no one can disprove them. For me, I am content that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon was the author.

[xman]

... this argument will go on ad infinitum as it is hard to prove that some no mark from Stratford wrote the plays.
Except for the obvious evidence that he did. I guess you can lead a horse to water ...

[jocky]

He became a gentleman born by the late 1600's his family was that well connected in the realm. Also, he was rich, STINKIN' rich by 1697 as anyone who has visited New Place can attest.



X

PS Just shut up about the moon hoax idea. It makes you look silly about everything else you say too.
Well that would have came as a great surprise to Will as by 1697 he had been dead for decades. There is nothing wrong with being an obnoxious git but it helps if you get your facts right. What was that about leading a horse to water?

[xman]

Well that would have came as a great surprise to Will as by 1697 he had been dead for decades. There is nothing wrong with being an obnoxious git but it helps if you get your facts right. What was that about leading a horse to water?
Ad Hominem *FAIL*
But, yes, you caught my mistake. It should have been 1597.
The water's fine.

[jocky]

Ad Hominem *FAIL*
But, yes, you caught my mistake. It should have been 1597.
The water's fine.

Yes, but I never threw the baby out with the bathwater. If you check my posts carefully, you will find I have never subscribed to anything other than Shakespeare being the author of the plays. You put your argument well, but you can be rude to those who disagree, and come to think about it those who dont. I have my issues with Brian Bean but his arguments are always powerful and well reasoned and I think you will find he agrees with you as well. Ad Hominem should only be applied to those who disagree with a proposition and use simple errors to refute the whole thesis. Just argue your point and dont get personal or you will get it back in spades.

[xman]

Yes, but I never threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I never said you did. I only quibbled with one of the finer points (how long the debate has raged) and intended to support your other comment with additions (horse to water reference to authorship deniers) . I am frequently curt and that can be misunderstood and off putting and for that I apologise. I understand well that we see this argument from the same side. :)

[jocky]

I never said you did. I only quibbled with one of the finer points (how long the debate has raged) and intended to support your other comment with additions (horse to water reference to authorship deniers) . I am frequently curt and that can be misunderstood and off putting and for that I apologise. I understand well that we see this argument from the same side. :)

' why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply ' Cheers Xman :)

[Brasil]

Romeo and Juliet
Came from the story of Matteo Bandello, written in 1554, based on the story of Luigi Da Porto, written in 1524. Shakespeare’s version was written between 1591 and 1595, 41 years after Bandello’s.

Much Ado About Nothing and Twelfth Night
Shakespeare based on the French translation of the romances by Matteo Bandello.

Othello, the Moor of Venice and Measure for Measure
The plays were directly inspired by the work of Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Giraldi.

The Comedy of Errors
Like many works of Shakespeare that have their origins in classical texts, this is no exception and is built from the Menecmos or The Twins, by the Roman comedy writer Plautus.

All's Well That Ends Well
Based on the story 3,9 from the Decameron by Boccaccio

Antony and Cleópatra
Plutarch, Greek historian, wrote the biographie of Cleopatra. Étienne Jodelle, French dramatist, wrote "Captive Cleopatra" in 1553. The Shakespeare's play date of 1607.

Hamlet
Saxo Grammaticus, Danish historian of the century 13th, wrote Vita Amleth, which is part of the Gesta Danorum. The text contains many parallels with Shakespeare's Hamlet. Latter, François de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques translated and embellished the work of Saxo, and introduced an element which, of course, Shakespeare would later use: the hero's melancholy.


If you don't believe, make your researches.

P.S. It's not just inspirational sources. Read anyone of them and you will see that the stories are the same. Shakespeare just made addaptations for the theatre.

[atiguhya padma]

Given that we know very little about Shakespeare as a person, it strikes me that the question needs to be asked: what do you need to know about someone to conclude that a play was written by them?

I think, as someone said on this thread before, if De Vere's accepted writing appears much inferior to that in the folio, then that's a pretty strong argument against him. it seems to me that comparisons of the accepted works of proposed candidates against the accepted works of Shakespeare is one of the best ways to judge.

[xman]

Thanks Brasil. You have given accepted inspirational sources for six plays. Can you please give us the sources for the other 30+ please so that we may come to an informed conclusion.

[Paulclem]

It's not as if Shakespeare wouldn't have had the opportunity to see plays from a young age, and perhaps become enamoured of them. The Coventry Mystery plays were regularly performed in the streets of Coventry a few miles from Stratford. They were very popular and were watched by royal figures such as Elizabeth I.

http://www.coventryps.org/chs/academics/english/eng11ap/documents/coventry_mystery.pdf

Elizabeth I also visited Lord Dudley at nearby kenilworth castle, where he hosted lavish entertainment for the Queen. It is likely that a prosperous man such as Shakespeare's father would have taken his son to see the celebrations, which have been linked to A MIidsummer Night's Dream. Of course it is speculation, but it seems likely given the family's status.

http://www.celcat.com/kworth/castle.html

These ideas are also described in the book Will in the World
by Stephen Greenblatt

http://www.amazon.com/Will-World-How-Shakespeare-Became/dp/0393050572

[LitNetIsGreat]

Shakespeare did not write the plays. There is new compelling evidence that this guy did:

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

I'm sure that when you click on the link above you will agree that Shakespeare or (Shake-speare, i.e. pen, catch the double meaning) is a fraud. If you require more information you should read the page turner by Dan Brun, The Shagspeare Cod, I think you will find that the elite governments have been holding back secret soceity information in conspiracy for centuries.

Thank you.

[Paulclem]

Shakespeare did not write the plays. There is new compelling evidence that this guy did:

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

I'm sure that when you click on the link above you will agree that Shakespeare or (Shake-speare, i.e. pen, catch the double meaning) is a fraud. If you require more information you should read the page turner by Dan Brun, The Shagspeare Cod, I think you will find that the elite governments have been holding back secret soceity information in conspiracy for centuries.

Thank you.

That's really played out his reputation. I'm convinced. It's got everything - a king, tragedy, jealousy, love, costumes, the stage. There's no denying.

[kelby_lake]

Romeo and Juliet
Came from the story of Matteo Bandello, written in 1554, based on the story of Luigi Da Porto, written in 1524. Shakespeare’s version was written between 1591 and 1595, 41 years after Bandello’s.

Much Ado About Nothing and Twelfth Night
Shakespeare based on the French translation of the romances by Matteo Bandello.

Othello, the Moor of Venice and Measure for Measure
The plays were directly inspired by the work of Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Giraldi.

The Comedy of Errors
Like many works of Shakespeare that have their origins in classical texts, this is no exception and is built from the Menecmos or The Twins, by the Roman comedy writer Plautus.

All's Well That Ends Well
Based on the story 3,9 from the Decameron by Boccaccio

Antony and Cleópatra
Plutarch, Greek historian, wrote the biographie of Cleopatra. Étienne Jodelle, French dramatist, wrote "Captive Cleopatra" in 1553. The Shakespeare's play date of 1607.

Hamlet
Saxo Grammaticus, Danish historian of the century 13th, wrote Vita Amleth, which is part of the Gesta Danorum. The text contains many parallels with Shakespeare's Hamlet. Latter, François de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques translated and embellished the work of Saxo, and introduced an element which, of course, Shakespeare would later use: the hero's melancholy.


If you don't believe, make your researches.

P.S. It's not just inspirational sources. Read anyone of them and you will see that the stories are the same. Shakespeare just made addaptations for the theatre.

Loads of playwrights use the same stories. And he did a bit more than just adapt them.

[xman]

Loads of playwrights use the same stories. And he did a bit more than just adapt them.
He rebuilt them. He made them better ... stronger ... faster!

[Scheherazade]

He rebuilt them. He made them better ... stronger ... faster!So, we could say that he was the Bill Gates or Steve Job of play-writing!

:p

[atiguhya padma]

A lot of the information in the plays set on foreign soil is incorrect in terms of both geographical and cultural detail, which suggests that the writer of the plays was not widely travelled nor that widely read. Also, although detail is taken from some classical and more contemporary sources, from what I have read, the information in the plays does not suggest that the writer would have had easy and continuous access to an extensive library, unlike De Vere.

[Beewulf]

Shakespeare did not write the plays. There is new compelling evidence that this guy did:

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

Well, I'm convinced, although I had no idea that Shakespeare sported such lush sideburns. Also, he's taller than I imagined.

[Warwick]

Post #1 states: "The group says the case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life."

So let me get this straight - In the time period between Shakespeare's death and the first folio, someone decides that the author of this body of work is a certain William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon...now this is just 7 years not 70 or 700 years later. Right then...everyone who knows this upstart Shakespeare are all down the pub. "'ave you read that first folio by Bill? You could 'ave knocked me down wiv a feather, I didn't know he could write like that, stroll on he had me fooled, I thought he was just a simple glover. I bet good Queen Bess wasn't taken in when he put on the plays for 'er What?" So this Shakespeare ain't just sticking his moniker on a poem or two, but on at least 37 plays...and nobody noticed at the time??? Oh come on! I know what's coming,...there's no proof that Queen Elizabeth 1, ever met Shakespeare. Well she did...If you don't believe me, just ask Judi Dench :nod:

[Brasil]

Before the Roman occupation (latin culture) english language was very poor. Abstract words (philosophical and theological concepts) didn't exist yet in english. Abstract words, concepts and thoughts from Greek-Roman world entered into english during the occupation and the christianization of England.

During the middle-ages, Rome, Florence, Venice, Genoa, Naples, Provence, Castile and León were were the sons of classical culture. They translated classical archetypes (from classical heritage) into a medieval context.

Portugal was the first European centralized country. They went to the sea make discoveries (new commercial routes). The Lusiads (by Camões) tells its history.

After so many wars, English people were poor and sad. They wanted for fun and a reason for smile.

Shakespeare translated some of the best texts from the middle-ages, from italian and french (languages and cultures directly influenced by the classical knowledge) to english (a practical and simple language). Shakespeare translated it in a practical and popular way, he built a spetacle, very popular at that time: the theatre. That because English people couldn't read. For his public, the plays were new, exciting, charming... He became popular.

He did a great work, but not new. His work was taken from the medieval italian and french texts (classical, but translated to medieval context). He simplified even more the texts and they became popular (among people without studies). Shakespeare is a kind of "best-seller". He discovered the formula of success: love, passion, treason, tragedie, death. On another hand, he discovered how to joy his public: make them laugh (comedies). Shakespeare is good, however, he is not as complex as the Greeks. Greek theatre was for the citiziens (a well-educated people). Shakespeare's plays was for the english people. He is not as great as Homer, Dante, Camões or Cervantes. Shakespeare stole great italian texts, that were based on classical stories, simplified it and made a big success among popular taste.

But I have to say. It's a great job! Shakespeare was great making classical becoming popular (easier to understand) and he made it in a simple language (english, the easiest grammar of Earth).

[kelby_lake]

Before the Roman occupation (latin culture) english language was very poor. Abstract words (philosophical and theological concepts) didn't exist yet in english. Abstract words, concepts and thoughts from Greek-Roman world entered into english during the occupation and the christianization of England.

During the middle-ages, Rome, Florence, Venice, Genoa, Naples, Provence, Castile and León were were the sons of classical culture. They translated classical archetypes (from classical heritage) into a medieval context.

Portugal was the first European centralized country. They went to the sea make discoveries (new commercial routes). The Lusiads (by Camões) tells its history.

After so many wars, English people were poor and sad. They wanted for fun and a reason for smile.

Shakespeare translated some of the best texts from the middle-ages, from italian and french (languages and cultures directly influenced by the classical knowledge) to english (a practical and simple language). Shakespeare translated it in a practical and popular way, he built a spetacle, very popular at that time: the theatre. That because English people couldn't read. For his public, the plays were new, exciting, charming... He became popular.

He did a great work, but not new. His work was taken from the medieval italian and french texts (classical, but translated to medieval context). He simplified even more the texts and they became popular (among people without studies). Shakespeare is a kind of "best-seller". He discovered the formula of success: love, passion, treason, tragedie, death. On another hand, he discovered how to joy his public: make them laugh (comedies). Shakespeare is good, however, he is not as complex as the Greeks. Greek theatre was for the citiziens (a well-educated people). Shakespeare's plays was for the english people. He is not as great as Homer, Dante, Camões or Cervantes. Shakespeare stole great italian texts, that were based on classical stories, simplified it and made a big success among popular taste.

But I have to say. It's a great job! Shakespeare was great making classical becoming popular (easier to understand) and he made it in a simple language (english, the easiest grammar of Earth).

English is actually one of the hardest languages for grammar and Shakespeare's grammar is not the sort that we'd use today.

Are the anachronisms in the plays deliberate? For example, a clock strikes in Julius Caesar.

[Brasil]

English grammar today is easier than that one at the time of Shakespeare.

Greek, latin, german and romance languages are more complex. Language determines thought. The most complex grammar, most complex thought.

No english speaker can understand the complexity of Divine Comedy without understanding Dante's language. I tried to read it in italian (a bilingual version, italian/portuguese) and I studied the critics of Dante.

All critics agree: Dante's thought can't be translated to another language (even another romance language, but in english the text lost is bigger).


Another example is Machado de Assis (1839 - 1908). Look the time he wrote. All critics and professors agree: Machado de Assis can't be classified in any Literary School of 19th century.

Actually, Machados' work has all characteristics of postmodernism:
- Formal experimentation;
- Concern with the present;
- Hyper-realism;
- Fragmentation of the text (not chronological);
- Stream of consciousness (narrator reflects and speaks to the reader);
- Fantastic realism (a little);
- Hedonism (a few characters);
- The cult of superficiality (some characters);
- Lack of commitment to moral rules (some characters);
- Questioning the story.
And one additional element: a fine irony, very subtle.

(It would take a long time to explain. It's not so simple like this).
But the point is: Some Brazilian students in university level can read Shakespeare in english and understand it easier than they understand Machado in portuguese.
In addition, portuguese has "mesóclise", "voz passiva sintética", genres and other things that english doesn't have.

[xman]

After so many wars, English people were poor and sad. They wanted for fun and a reason for smile.
Your hypothesis is a bad one. You assume a hundred generations of misery leading up to Elizabethan drama. While misery was common in these times, it was no more true for England than elsewhere. Indeed because of its geographic isolation as an island it suffered less conquest than most parts of mainland Europe.


Shakespeare translated some of the best texts from the middle-ages, from italian and french (languages and cultures directly influenced by the classical knowledge) to english (a practical and simple language).
Again you are reaching a little. Shakespeare also used many English sources although you omit this. And English is no easy language to understand. With Norman, Saxon and many other influences over the years it grew to accommodate several forms including different words, spelling, conjugations and syntax from Latin, French and German mainly. By the time Shakespeare was using it it was richer and more complex than any of those individually. Shakespeare himself uses over 30,000 different words (http://biomet.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/3/435) whereas the average English speaker has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words. Indeed, by some estimates he introduced as many as 1,700 into the language for the very first time and many of these words and phrases are now household words, including incidentally 'household words'.

Latin is far simpler than Shakespeare's English which is essentially our English and largely so because of him.

[Brasil]

... and syntax from Latin, French and German mainly.

I cant say for sure, but I think the syntax came from Low-German only.
Latin and French contribution was only vocabulary.

Now look some examples.
Morphology
Verbs:
I speak, he speaks, we speak, they speak
Eu falo, ele fala, nós falamos, eles falam

Genres:
The cat (english has no genre)
O gato (male), a gata (female)

Syntax:

Give-me, Don't give me, You would give me (noun always after verb)
Dê-me (ênclise)
Não me dê... (próclise)
Dar-me-ia (mesóclise)

[Davy Gam]

Shakespeare did write the Henry VI plays, but all the others were written by Ianto Pugh. Who? Well Ianto Pugh was a Welsh stand-up comic from Llanffunny who went to London to seek his fortune. There he met Will Shakespeare who, at that time, was suffering from writer`s block and Ianto, being the nice guy he was helps him out and produces such master works as "Alls Well In Taffs Well", "MacBethan", "Romeo & Blodwyn" and "The Coracle of Errors".

Don`t worry, this is not the posting of a lunatic, but it`s to inform you of a new play that may tickle your fancy, "Taffy Shakespeare" by Francis Hardy that opens at Swansea`s Grand Theatre on August 24th before touring. It`s a great comedy where historical fact flies out of the window. Google it to find out more

[shakeyourspeare]

I think Shakespeare did write the plays. Most of my knowledge is about Shakespeare's poetry.

The bit of evidence I'd like to give is that early on in Shakespeare's career he did started off writing long poems such as Venus and Adonis. But soon in I think 1599 he acquired a stake in the Globe theatre company and from then on he stopped writing poems and wrote many more plays, because it was much more profitable for him to do so.

In the end he only wrote 4 poems and 31 plays, and he wrote a lot more plays much more frequently after he acquired a stake in the globe theatre company, so it makes sense

[Hawkman]

I think Shakespeare did write the plays. Most of my knowledge is about Shakespeare's poetry.

In the end he only wrote 4 poems and 31 plays, and he wrote a lot more plays much more frequently after he acquired a stake in the globe theatre company, so it makes sense

Only 4 poems; what are all those sonnety things then? :devil:

[aoveran]

Personally, I think it's a lot of speculation .... No matter who the public figure is, there will always be theories that cast doubt on the "facts" as we know them to be in our textbooks. It seems you can find proof for almost anything, and that's the case now as much as several hundred years ago.

So was Shakespeare the real author? Maybe. Was he not the real author? Maybe. Who knows? All that matters in my mind is that we have some pretty kick-*** plays and sonnets and poems to read. And whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote them won't prevent me from enjoying them in the least.

[Thespian1975]

The fact that his friends and fellow actors got together and published the folio after Shakespeare had died and put his name on the cover is a big clue.
But as said above, it doesn't matter who shakespeare was. The play's the thing

[AllanAlbert]

Actually, we can't be sure that everyone whose name is on the First Folio wrote what is attributed to him. For instance, the evidence suggests that it was Ben Jonson who most likely wrote the parts attributed to Heminges and Condell. Ben Jonson is not known for sure to have been a close friend of William Shakspere, but certainly he knew him. On the other hand it is known that Jonson was a close friend of Francis Bacon and had worked with him on some of his publications and was working with him at the time Jonson helped with the publishing of the Shakespeare First Folio. There's a great deal of evidence, even many proofs, that show that Bacon was the actual author of the Shakespeare works. You won't find anyone who disputes this evidence. You can only find disputes of some of the bad evidence put out by some early Baconians of nearly a century ago or more. You can examine much of this good evidence here:
http://bacon-shakespeare-evidence.blogspot.com/
or here:
http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/authorship-debate-and-apocrypha

[wessexgirl]

Actually, we can't be sure that everyone whose name is on the First Folio wrote what is attributed to him. For instance, the evidence suggests that it was Ben Jonson who most likely wrote the parts attributed to Heminges and Condell. Ben Jonson is not known for sure to have been a close friend of William Shakspere, but certainly he knew him. On the other hand it is known that Jonson was a close friend of Francis Bacon and had worked with him on some of his publications and was working with him at the time Jonson helped with the publishing of the Shakespeare First Folio. There's a great deal of evidence, even many proofs, that show that Bacon was the actual author of the Shakespeare works. You won't find anyone who disputes this evidence. You can only find disputes of some of the bad evidence put out by some early Baconians of nearly a century ago or more. You can examine much of this good evidence here:
http://bacon-shakespeare-evidence.blogspot.com/
or here:
http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/authorship-debate-and-apocrypha

Just one word C***! That's a whopper of a lie, which is outrageous in its cheek. It seems to be founded on the (paraphrased) statement by Hitler (or was it Goebbels?) that if you're gonna tell a lie tell a big one. Hmm, centuries of scholarship dismissed with two lines about no-one disputing that Bacon was the author. RUBBISH.

[Emil Miller]

Just one word C***! That's a whopper of a lie, which is outrageous in its cheek. It seems to be founded on the (paraphrased) statement by Hitler (or was it Goebbels?) that if you're gonna tell a lie tell a big one. Hmm, centuries of scholarship dismissed with two lines about no-one disputing that Bacon was the author. RUBBISH.

Hi Wessex, how did I know that I would find you here? That's some paraphrase and I'm pretty sure there's no German equivalent for 'gonna'.
Here is what Hitler actually said in Mein Kampf where he attacks those who, as he put it, lied about Ludendorff being responsible for losing the war.

For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

[xman]

Oh stop it AllanAlbert, you're killing me. :rofl::rofl::rofl:


... Ben Jonson is not known for sure to have been a close friend of William Shakspere, but certainly he knew him.
Except for the fact that they both wrote for the same company and engaged in a friendly rivalry through their works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Theatres) and that Johnson wrote the dedication in the folio. Here is a painting attributed to the Dutch master Karel van Mander showing the two men in a (non-literal) game of chess, created for the coronation ceremonies of King James I.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/10/Mander.jpg/733px-Mander.jpg

It would seem that universally at the time of their living, everyone knew of the relationship the two men had.

re. Bacon: You shouldn't swallow that stuff. http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

:beatdeadhorse5:

[Emil Miller]

Oh stop it AllanAlbert, you're killing me. :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Except for the fact that they both wrote for the same company and engaged in a friendly rivalry through their works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Theatres) and that Johnson wrote the dedication in the folio. Here is a painting attributed to the Dutch master Karel van Mander showing the two men in a (non-literal) game of chess, created for the coronation ceremonies of King James I.

It would seem that universally at the time of their living, everyone knew of the relationship the two men had.

re. Bacon: You shouldn't swallow that stuff. http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

:beatdeadhorse5:


It's amusing that, however often the dead horse is beaten, it simply won't lie down.

[wessexgirl]

Hi Wessex, how did I know that I would find you here? That's some paraphrase and I'm pretty sure there's no German equivalent for 'gonna'.
Here is what Hitler actually said in Mein Kampf where he attacks those who, as he put it, lied about Ludendorff being responsible for losing the war.

For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Actually, that's not the quote I was thinking of. It was Goebbels who said
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". The "gonna" was purely my phrasing, I wasn't quoting the speech verbatim, as I think I stated by saying it was paraphrased. Anyway, you know my thoughts on the matter, as you imply by your opening line, and I stand by what I say, the proposition that Shakespeare didn't write the plays is garbage, pure and simple.

[AllanAlbert]

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence. The shakespeareauthorship website has nothing contrary to the Baconian evidence I've sited. It mostly deals with the Stratfordian argument which cherry-picks it's evidence and then shows only a one-sided interpretation of the evidence it presents. Most of the rest is anti-Oxfordian arguments and then links to other sites that don't present the best evidence, especially for Baconian theory. In any case, the Stratfordian theory is losing just as the earth-centered universe theory lost despite all the attacks on heretics by its religious (and "scholarly" cough, cough) authorities.
Regarding the "friendly rivalry" between Jonson and Shakespeare--if you had actually read what the wikipedia said regarding the "War of the Theatres" it reads "The resulting controversy, which unfolded between 1599 and 1602, involved the playwright Ben Jonson on one side, and his rivals John Marston and Thomas Dekker (with Thomas Middleton as an ancillary combatant) on the other. The role Shakespeare played in the conflict, if any, has long been a topic of dispute among scholars."
Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.
Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."

Better luck next time.

[Emil Miller]

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence. The shakespeareauthorship website has nothing contrary to the Baconian evidence I've sited. It mostly deals with the Stratfordian argument which cherry-picks it's evidence and then shows only a one-sided interpretation of the evidence it presents. Most of the rest is anti-Oxfordian arguments and then links to other sites that don't present the best evidence, especially for Baconian theory. In any case, the Stratfordian theory is losing just as the earth-centered universe theory lost despite all the attacks on heretics by its religious (and "scholarly" cough, cough) authorities.
Regarding the "friendly rivalry" between Jonson and Shakespeare--if you had actually read what the wikipedia said regarding the "War of the Theatres" it reads "The resulting controversy, which unfolded between 1599 and 1602, involved the playwright Ben Jonson on one side, and his rivals John Marston and Thomas Dekker (with Thomas Middleton as an ancillary combatant) on the other. The role Shakespeare played in the conflict, if any, has long been a topic of dispute among scholars."
Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.
Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."

Better luck next time.

You first visited this thread on 17.7.2009 so you must be aware that no matter who you or anyone else submits as an alternative to Shakespeare, there will be people who not only dispute such submissions but will actually take it as a personal affront. I am not of their number, as I set up the thread in the first instance, but until verifiable proof of another author is produced, you will, unfortunately, be wasting your time.

[xman]

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence.
I believe you are suffering from a confirmation bias.


Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.
There is no reason to believe otherwise. NO evidence from the period has ever come forward to suggest that the plays were written by anyone other than the man from Stratford. Use Occams razor here.



Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."
I agree. It can only be speculation I'm afraid. Someone prized it enough to try and steal it the last time it was moved however and it has been in hiding since. No scholar has been able to examine it in many years.


Better luck next time.
Luck has nothing to do with it. It's about evidence and not speculation.

[AllanAlbert]

Emil, thanks for the comments. The non-Stratfordians are gaining ground. This site is one of the least active on this topic so it doesn't represent what's happening elsewhere. The Stratfordians just don't have enough good evidence to end the debate, and they refuse to encourage scholars to look at evidence related to the authorship question out of fear that their theory will be found wanting. As of May of this year there were 725 individuals with advanced degrees – 312 doctorates and 413 master’s degrees that have signed a declaration of doubt on the authorship question. A total of 354 of them (18%) indicated that they are current or former college/university faculty members. As more educated people actually take the time to examine the alternate authorship evidence then the more that list of doubters grows. But the conformists still are out there in force discouraging the public from looking at both sides of the evidence and arguments and thinking for themselves. So there's still a lot of work to do. Changing the beliefs of the masses often takes a great deal of time and effort. But it does happen eventually.

xman:
"I believe you are suffering from a confirmation bias."

Ok. That's what the non-Stratfordians say about the Stratfordians. The difference is that we lay out the evidence that counters the Stratfordian view. And so far there's been no response to it.


"There is no reason to believe otherwise. NO evidence from the period has ever come forward to suggest that the plays were written by anyone other than the man from Stratford. Use Occams razor here."

False. There's a great deal of reason to believe otherwise. And the evidence and reasons are easily publicly available. There absolutely IS evidence from the period to suggest that the plays were written by Francis Bacon. And that evidence is easily publicly available for anyone to examine. Occams razor favors the Baconian viewpoint.
from Wikipedia:
The razor's claim that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. The procedure to test this hypothesis would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. The validity of Occam's razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use). Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true.

So the authorship evidence is more complex than the simpler Stratfordian theory. But being simpler doesn't make it more accurate or true. So those that have taken the time and trouble to examine the complex evidence have found the simple orthodox theory weak, and other theories better. The same happened with the Copernican Revolution at the time that it seemed so obvious that the Earth was the center of the universe.

"Luck has nothing to do with it. It's about evidence and not speculation."
Agreed. It's about evidence and logical analysis. We've done that beyond what the Stratfordians have and this evidence and analysis is easily publicly available for anyone to examine.

[Emil Miller]

Emil, thanks for the comments. The non-Stratfordians are gaining ground. This site is one of the least active on this topic so it doesn't represent what's happening elsewhere. The Stratfordians just don't have enough good evidence to end the debate, and they refuse to encourage scholars to look at evidence related to the authorship question out of fear that their theory will be found wanting. As of May of this year there were 725 individuals with advanced degrees – 312 doctorates and 413 master’s degrees that have signed a declaration of doubt on the authorship question. A total of 354 of them (18%) indicated that they are current or former college/university faculty members. As more educated people actually take the time to examine the alternate authorship evidence then the more that list of doubters grows. But the conformists still are out there in force discouraging the public from looking at both sides of the evidence and arguments and thinking for themselves. So there's still a lot of work to do. Changing the beliefs of the masses often takes a great deal of time and effort. But it does happen eventually.

While I reiterate my belief that William Shakespeare probably was the author, unlike some contributors, I am prepared to allow for the possibility that he might not have been, given that we know comparatively little about him. I would take issue with you on Shakespeare's lack of legal knowledge. In writing my first book Pro Bono Publico, I had need to find out a good deal about English law, as one of the main characters is a leading lawyer who rises to become Lord Chief Justice. I was able to find out all I needed to know by consulting various books and the Law Society, I don't think Shakespeare would have had a great problem in this regard.
Another difficulty that the Baconians have to deal with is the counter claim by the Oxfordians. It would seem that the Earl of Oxford's supporters are also numerous and equally determined to establish him as the rightful author.

[xman]

Allan, I could supply a point by point refutation of your last post but suffice it to to say that you are incorrect on all your points. (Are you prepared to discover for yourself how? if not, why not? and if not well then you support that ...) Now I am convinced you suffer from a confirmation bias. You can lead a horse to water ...

:beatdeadhorse5:

[AllanAlbert]

While I reiterate my belief that William Shakespeare probably was the author, unlike some contributors, I am prepared to allow for the possibility that he might not have been, given that we know comparatively little about him. I would take issue with you on Shakespeare's lack of legal knowledge. In writing my first book Pro Bono Publico, I had need to find out a good deal about English law, as one of the main characters is a leading lawyer who rises to become Lord Chief Justice. I was able to find out all I needed to know by consulting various books and the Law Society, I don't think Shakespeare would have had a great problem in this regard.
Another difficulty that the Baconians have to deal with is the counter claim by the Oxfordians. It would seem that the Earl of Oxford's supporters are also numerous and equally determined to establish him as the rightful author.

Emil,
Shakespeare's legal knowledge, and the Stratfordian stance on it, has been examined by a Baconian legal expert and an Oxfordian teacher of law, independently of each other, and they have both provided much evidence showing that it would be VERY unlikely for a non-legally trained person to have written the Shakespeare works. You can say that they're biased but you still need to refute their evidence.

The Earl of Oxford's supporters are much more numerous than the Baconians because the early Baconians got overconfident and produced some poor evidence which was shown to be very faulty, and this collapsed much of their momentum. Their theory has been revamped with new research by some well-trained scholarly Baconians and now is making a comeback. Hardly any Oxfordians, if any, (and of course none of the Stratfordians) have examined the new Baconian evidence. I'm looking forward to seeing their movie 'Anonymous' . I've liked all the trailers that have come out. I'm even going to a sneak preview of it tomorrow at an Oxfordian authorship conference (where a staunch Stratfordian (Alan Nelson) has been invited back to argue for the Strats).


Allan, I could supply a point by point refutation of your last post but suffice it to to say that you are incorrect on all your points. (Are you prepared to discover for yourself how? if not, why not? and if not well then you support that ...) Now I am convinced you suffer from a confirmation bias. You can lead a horse to water ...

:beatdeadhorse5:

xman,
I've posted refutations of pretty much all the key Stratfordian evidence. So please show how it's in error. Also, I've posted several hundred pieces of Baconian evidence on Stratfordian websites that has been viewed some 60,000 times and still not one Stratfordian has tried to challenge it. So please you be the first to refute this evidence.

[Arrowni]

Who cares if Shakespeare wrote his plays? He's bad enough as it is.

[Emil Miller]

Who cares if Shakespeare wrote his plays? He's bad enough as it is.

There are a great many people who care about the authorship of the plays. You are entitled to your view of Shakespeare but others are equally entitled to theirs.

[Arrowni]

I actually find the debate interesting to a fundamental level, because I care deeply about works with multiple authors -very often overlooked by mainstream author-inclined analysis-. Shakespeare can only gain from not writing all his plays, from a certain point of view.

Objectively I don't think it would change how the plays are read, which is the part I find disappointing.

But I agree the argument it's interesting to a point, that's what inclined me to chime in with such a "trollish" comment. But your answer was too polite and respectful.


Shame on you!

[Emil Miller]

I actually find the debate interesting to a fundamental level, because I care deeply about works with multiple authors -very often overlooked by mainstream author-inclined analysis-. Shakespeare can only gain from not writing all his plays, from a certain point of view.

Objectively I don't think it would change how the plays are read, which is the part I find disappointing.

But I agree the argument it's interesting to a point, that's what inclined me to chime in with such a "trollish" comment. But your answer was too polite and respectful.


Shame on you!

What I wrote is just a plain statement of fact, it wasn't intended to be polite or otherwise. I would add that there has been increased trolling on these forums in recent times and I'm surprised that the moderators haven't reacted to it. There has also been an increase in childish personal attacks between certain members which has rendered LitNet less of an interesting site than when I first joined. If you bother to read this thread from the beginning you will see some good examples. People shouldn't take themselves so seriously.

[Arrowni]

Well, to be fair, statements of facts and neutrality isn't the thing that literary people like the most about speech.

[AllanAlbert]

Just a followup note on the movie Anonymous that I saw last night at the Oxfordian conference. I won't describe any of the plot - you'll be reading a great deal about it soon I'm sure. I will say though that it's an idealized portrayal of the Oxfordian theory and definitely not like a documentary. Aside from the portrayal of the Earl of Oxford as the real Shakespeare, the film takes many historical liberties. But, as director Emmerich pointed out, that's what film makers and story writers do. I didn't have any problem with any of that and enjoyed the movie overall (even though there wasn't any hint in it anywhere of even the existence of Francis Bacon, who was friends with the earls of Essex and Southampton, cousin of Oxford, and advisor to Elizabeth). I'm sure many conservative Stratfordians will hate the movie, just as religious conservatives hate any depiction of their religion differently than how they believe it. This is similar to how many political conservatives in the US hated the movie Avatar because they felt (they read) that the movie promoted a liberal agenda. And they wouldn't even go see the movie because of this! And I even went to this event with a Baconian friend and he hated it because he feels it will detract from the truth of Bacon as the true author! I don't think the movie will win an Academy award but overall it seemed pretty well done. But again, I'm not that harsh a critic as I tend to see what good I can in about any movie, especially ones regarding Shakespeare. A historian there was on a panel discussion after the movie and he said he hoped that it will help bring a 'spirit of inquiry' into the authorship question. Arch Stratfordian Prof. Alan Nelson was there and he complained about a scene at the end of the movie with Ben Jonson. Personally, I would never take a movie as a substitute for historical evidence and logical argument. So it will be fun sitting on the sidelines (this time) and watching the Strats and Oxfordians talk past each other.

[xman]

xman,
I've posted refutations of pretty much all the key Stratfordian evidence. So please show how it's in error. Also, I've posted several hundred pieces of Baconian evidence on Stratfordian websites that has been viewed some 60,000 times and still not one Stratfordian has tried to challenge it. So please you be the first to refute this evidence.
Now I begin to understand your error a little better. You believe that the stylometric and circumstantial 'evidence' you are interpreting (with confirmation bias) to be as relevant and indeed as strong as actual evidence such as, say a fingerprint (not the story about a fingerprint) or a signature (not the promise of one). The onus is on you to show that it couldn't have been this man in Stratford, not to interpret his art to say what you see on it.

[KCV16]

I find the arguments why not William Shakespeare could not have been the writer always smells like snobbery....
People are saying they favor someone else over William himself because of...
- illiterate son of a glover!!
- less knowledge than X on matters concerning geography/legal/nautical/court life/etc

But...
No records of anybody attending that school in Stratford exist, did noobody go? Including those Stratfordians of those days accepted by Oxford university??
His father was elected (by his fellow townspeople) as mayor., City council members could put their sons in school for free....
The plays show an icredible lack of knowledge on Italy (Milan has a sea port??, waiting for the tide in the Mediterranean, a sail maker at the foot of the Alps??)
Court life....
A king going to the kitchen to talk to the cook??
A king having to fetch his own clothes??

What about the Stratfordian dialect words for all lot of nature references..

The whole conspiracy rests on keeping the identity of the courtier secret yet many Oxfordians say look at what happens in the plays it is his life in there.... not a very good tactic to keep your identity hidden if you wirte of your life for plays to be performed in court or in public.
BTW why would he give his best plays to a company that was in a fierce rivalry over the popularity in court and in the streets of London??

And as for Marlowe he died too soon...
Bacon?? Didn't he have too much work as it was already??

No I think that William Shakespeare kept his eyes and ears wide open, picked up any plot he could in reading old books, listening to court gossip.

He wrote for his company, the roles were tailor-made for his fellow actors, his wife was a strong woman (reason for his strong female roles??? She was running the Stratford house for all those years alone, making all kinds of legal and financial decisions in his name) while Will was a lodger in London for most of the time, did not buy a house there untill later in his life, and acted, wrote plays, managing the theater to pay the bills.
His name appeared on plays submitted to the censor, his rivals and fellows all knew those plays were his.

As for the hyphenation... I read that in that the name was hyphenated and not-hyphenated on different editions of the same publication during his lifetime.... so it was not a deliberate hyphenation on the writer's part but a typesetters initiative.
BTW more names of people have been hyphenated in print in that time, Fitzgeoffrey, Oldcastle, Munday, Waldegrave... all very real people

[Theunderground]

All i will say it that shakespeare was a lyrical genius,with a great understanding of the human condition and how to express this condition. But,i thinks his works are entertainment and ethical possibilities primarily,not 'truth'.

[KCV16]

Emil,
Shakespeare's legal knowledge, and the Stratfordian stance on it, has been examined by a Baconian legal expert and an Oxfordian teacher of law, independently of each other, and they have both provided much evidence showing that it would be VERY unlikely for a non-legally trained person to have written the Shakespeare works. You can say that they're biased but you still need to refute their evidence.
Have you read Clarkson and Warren's The Law of Property in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama, and also the recent book Kill All the Lawyers?
These are 2 writers that say that the knowledge is not all that impressive.
There's also J. M. Robertson's The Baconian Heresy, which reached the same conclusion 85 years ago.
Are you going to read those and refute their arguments or are you going to ignore them....
An Oxfordian has a website devoted to the arguments on law http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=22


xman,
I've posted refutations of pretty much all the key Stratfordian evidence. So please show how it's in error. Also, I've posted several hundred pieces of Baconian evidence on Stratfordian websites that has been viewed some 60,000 times and still not one Stratfordian has tried to challenge it. So please you be the first to refute this evidence.
So no reply means no refute??
Did you look for the counter arguments already posted on the websites before posting your arguments?? Are you sure your arguments are so new that they could not been refuted in the past?

You seem to be thinking that saying your arguments have no refute means that they must be right, I have no idea how your arguments line up against the arguments of others....
I have yet to find a strong argument against William Shakespeare that will convince me of any conspiracy, for any of the 50+ candidates put forward.
I am not unwilling to change my mind but I am only going to ddo that if someone puts ALL the evidence pro and contra on the table and not ignore half of it.
I have read the pro-Bacon legal knowledge and the contra-Bacon legal knowledge and concluded that there are too many legal mistakes (bad legal mistakes) to warrant a great legal mind having to have written those... unless of course the legal mind had to have made the mistakes to hide his identity, but that would take the argument in faovr of Bacon into the undecided...... back to the one that has his name written on the covers of all those publlications both during his lifetime and after..

[joelavine]

Perhaps Shakespeare did not write his works, but I find specious the argument that an author must have enjoyed an aristocrat's formal education and travel in order to have devoted himself to the learning necessary to have produced works of astounding erudition.

If that were the case, perhaps we should also doubt that Chaucer, da Vinci, Erasmus, Luther, Marlowe and Cervantes were responsible for their works.

[KCV16]

Perhaps Shakespeare did not write his works, but I find specious the argument that an author must have enjoyed an aristocrat's formal education and travel in order to have devoted himself to the learning necessary to have produced works of astounding erudition.

If that were the case, perhaps we should also doubt that Chaucer, da Vinci, Erasmus, Luther, Marlowe and Cervantes were also responsible for their works.Right, no good can come from ordinary people... Einstein could never have thought up any of the theories he did...

[AllanAlbert]

Now I begin to understand your error a little better. You believe that the stylometric and circumstantial 'evidence' you are interpreting (with confirmation bias) to be as relevant and indeed as strong as actual evidence such as, say a fingerprint (not the story about a fingerprint) or a signature (not the promise of one). The onus is on you to show that it couldn't have been this man in Stratford, not to interpret his art to say what you see on it.

No. It's a matter of where the preponderance of the evidence lies based on unbiased expert judgment. It shouldn't be a matter of "We have more power because we have more followers."

[KCV16]

No. It's a matter of where the preponderance of the evidence lies based on unbiased expert judgment. It shouldn't be a matter of "We have more power because we have more followers."
It should be a matter of how strong the evidence is.
How irrefutable the conclusion, one person can make the difference, if his/her arguments are strong enough.

[AllanAlbert]

It should be a matter of how strong the evidence is.
How irrefutable the conclusion, one person can make the difference, if his/her arguments are strong enough.

That sounds good to me. What the (I guess they/we are called) "anti-stratfordians" would like to see is a panel of 'experts' in various fields, that can look at all the available evidence. Discuss it. Throw some out. Examine some in greater detail. And then perhaps suggest further research on some pieces of evidence. Or perhaps even render a judgement, or a vote, for a candidate based on the strongest evidence. Or something along these lines. The feeling is that there's enough evidence and educated opinion that casts doubt on the traditional authorship attribution. And so this justifies the question itself becoming a legitimate subject of debate and research. I don't really think we'll be changing any opinions on any of these web comment areas or forums. There's just too much evidence and argument to review.


Have you read Clarkson and Warren's The Law of Property in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama, and also the recent book Kill All the Lawyers?
These are 2 writers that say that the knowledge is not all that impressive.
There's also J. M. Robertson's The Baconian Heresy, which reached the same conclusion 85 years ago.
Are you going to read those and refute their arguments or are you going to ignore them....
An Oxfordian has a website devoted to the arguments on law http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=22

So no reply means no refute??
Did you look for the counter arguments already posted on the websites before posting your arguments?? Are you sure your arguments are so new that they could not been refuted in the past?

You seem to be thinking that saying your arguments have no refute means that they must be right, I have no idea how your arguments line up against the arguments of others....
I have yet to find a strong argument against William Shakespeare that will convince me of any conspiracy, for any of the 50+ candidates put forward.
I am not unwilling to change my mind but I am only going to ddo that if someone puts ALL the evidence pro and contra on the table and not ignore half of it.
I have read the pro-Bacon legal knowledge and the contra-Bacon legal knowledge and concluded that there are too many legal mistakes (bad legal mistakes) to warrant a great legal mind having to have written those... unless of course the legal mind had to have made the mistakes to hide his identity, but that would take the argument in faovr of Bacon into the undecided...... back to the one that has his name written on the covers of all those publlications both during his lifetime and after..

I overlooked this earlier post. So to answer: Clarkson and Warren's The Law of Property... has been reviewed by (in 1989 as I recall) by an expert Lawyer as well as by a teacher of legal writing. Their reviews were independent of each other and both showed the flaws in Clarkson and Warren and brought new legal evidence to bear. As far as I can tell this newer evidence on Shakespeare's law has not been faulted, and shows that Shakespeare, whoever it was, was very likely formally trained in law. Much of J. M. Robertson's work has also been faulted. You need to read N.B.Cockburn's 'The Bacon Shakespeare Question'
I've reviewed much of the Stratfordian evidence and keep up on it nearly every day. Every once in a while I come across an argument I haven't see before but never anything forbidding. I don't say that because I haven't seen refutations to my arguments that therefore they must be right. I just haven't seen them yet to judge. And so far there haven't been any Stratfordians that seem willing to take them on. So currently they seem to best the opposition. And most aren't my arguments personally. I mostly collect what I think are the best and that are suitable for a forum website. Some are too complex for the medium though. Barry Clarke has written several articles for journals that argue that Shakespeare could not have written The Tempest, Comedy or Errors, or Third Night. You might want to search for his book for some of his writings.

[KCV16]

Barry Clarke has written several articles for journals that argue that Shakespeare could not have written The Tempest, Comedy or Errors, or Third Night. You might want to search for his book for some of his writings.
I read parts of his book The Shakespeare puzzle.
A few things jumped from the pages immediately for me...
The NMS....
There were 2 boxes with a number of papers and a sort of index, which was not written by Bacon (from the book), after reading the chapter 3 times I could not find any reason to assume that the box had belonged to Bacon.
It seems like someone (perhaps that Nevill that is on the top left corner) was collecting all kinds of documents and put an index in the boxes to see what was in which box.
The conclusion that Bacon knew of Shakespeare at the end of the chapter is not substantiated, yet repeated at the end as a conclusive ....

The writer on Shakespeare...
He does everything to seperate the Stratford from the actor from the writer that he overlooks some very simple things.
The difference between printed and written names, that many people had their name hyphened in print, and that there was no standard way to write a name.
The mark as sign of illiteracy is shaky considering known literate people (of whom letters remain) signed with a mark....
The story of Dowdall (p 44 on the pdf) is odd since William was not a son of a butcher so any reference about a son of a butcher are not about William Shakespeare.. or does he know something he doesn't print....
The connection between Stratford man and the actor are strong, his will is one...and the reference to Shakespeare in London as gentleman after his father died and he got the title...
He refers to the actor as being listed as Shakespeare and Shake-speare in the same sentence, so.....

The Jonson line- had he blotted out thousand- yeah if I were to praise a man for writing quickly and without many errors, I might hear that line from a competing author as badmouthing, more like if only he did...

The praise of Bacon as the mark of our language... I do not find that a problem, Bacon was more a writer/philosopher and Shakespeare an entertainer, both good at what they did but legacy wise.... Bacon wins according to Jonson.

That the works of Shakespeare would be considered plagarism in these days of copyright is completely right, but there was no such protection in those days.
He took other plots he read or heard of and rewrote/combined them in such a way that they became more witty more dramatic etc etc, that is the genius of Shakespeare he could MAKE a story not necessarily invent one.

The Tempest
If the play was performed at court in front of men of whom at least some knew that nobody outside a small group (not including the playwrite) was supposed to know, why did nobody question where the info came from...
If Bacon knew that Shakespeare was not supposed to know why write the play for court, that does not make sense...

Comedy of errors:
That is a slightly confusing chapter, way way to many sidebars etc.
It made me think that there could be a better way to explain, more precise and that makes my mind wander away from the writer's intent..
It is a pity that no names were recorded for the what the Chamberlain's men performed for the queen, she would probably not be amused with old plays, one of them was love's labour's lost the other one.... comedy of errors
So...
What if....Shakespeare wrote it to play for the Queen and his patron got the text to perform at the inns .. his patron was member of the Inns, the connection is easily made.

But....
My main resistance to the Baconian theory is cyphering.... the book you mention has a lot of it as well.... based on typesetting of the first folio amongst others (typesetting was in the early days of printing more a printer's initiative than a writer's) and some highly humourous take the last letter of the first word on a line except..... and substitute.....
That is when the idea totally looses credibility, I am sorry.
Like the Oxford idea that he wanted to remain anonymous but laces the plays with his private life.....

The main problem i have with most pen-name ideas is why why why not just anonymous. Or a more generic name Jack London, or something like that.
Involving an aspiring writer/actor and hoping the man will never even drop a hint....


BTW I assumed you meant Twelfth night with the third night, but I could not find it, which play are you referring to??

[AllanAlbert]

Regarding the NMS: The 'index' is not of items in each box nor is it in Nevill's hand. The handwriting appears to be in one of Bacon's secretary's hand. Nevill may have been given a copy of a bundle of manuscripts from Bacon or he may have acquired it elsewhere. The other items in the boxes are not relevant. They just seemed to have been put in boxes when the house occupants were recovering from the fire mentioned. The important points are that on the 'index' of items of the bundle of manuscripts were known writings of Bacon along with known Shakespeare works and this index is dated to a time when no Shakespeare play had been published with the name of William Shakespeare on it, or any variant of that name. They were published anonymously. There were the two long poems that were published with the name William Shakespeare, but no plays at that time. So one question was how did this secretary of Bacon seem to know that William Shakespeare was the playwright of such plays as Richard II or Richard III? And why was he so obsessed with the name that he would write it over and over many times or write variants of it many times along with the name of Francis Bacon and in the context of the phrases "By Mr. Francis Bacon' as well as "Your William Shakespeare'? And why do not Shakespeare scholars acknowledge the existence of this historical document? These are some of the questions about this document, though there's more to it.

He is separating the Stratford man from the actor from the writer just to keep various arguments straight. This is because most Stratfordian writers just assume that all mentions of Shakespeare are to the man from Stratford or the actor, when they are often to the writer, who may not be the actor man from Stratford.

Re Dowdall: Here Clarke is merely reporting what others have said. He's not claiming it as a fact. He's showing how scholars like Schoenbaum pick and choose what hearsay evidence they prefer and ignoring heresay evidence that they don't prefer. I don't think that Clarke or probably any other Baconians, or many Oxfordians would argue that the man from Stratford became somewhat of an actor in London. Though there are debates in how much acting he actually did.

Clarke wrote: "By 1602, Shake-speare had written over 20 plays so one wonders why Shakspere did not present himself as a dramatist". He does not say that the Stratford man/actor was the writer Shake-speare.

Clarke doesn't fault Shake-speare the author for taking plots from other writers. That's common knowledge. Both Shake-speare, the writer, and Bacon are known from taking other's ideas and rewriting them in more attractive ways.

The Tempest: Just because it was played at court does not mean that those at court realized that the play was partly based on the Virginia company's expedition to America. Same answer for the second point. The play and the Virginia company report weren't connected until sometime later, maybe a few centuries later.

Comedy of Errors: The sidebars, etc. are because he's documenting everything. This is unlike many Stratfordian writers that just expect readers to believe what they're told without documentation. Clarke writes mainly for scholarly readers, and that writing is more difficult to follow. Plays for Gray's Inn were written by Inn members, so Shakspere would not be one of the writers. There's no documentary evidence that Shakspeare had a patron, even that of Southampton. Stratfordians have just been assuming these connections.

Cyphers: There have been many bad ciphers offered in the past, and these were rightly criticized. But there are many good ciphers that haven't been faulted. And the one cipher expert 'Friedman' that criticized many of the old Baconian ciphers was reported to have said that he was wrong to have dismissed all ciphers. And since then another cipher expert has faulted Friedman's work. Also, Clarke is an expert at puzzles. He has written puzzle books and created them for MENSA. If you're going to criticize an expert you better have much better evidence that just a personal opinion. For instance, if you claim that the typesetting wasn't consistent, then you're in essence claiming that some remarkable coincidences were purely by chance. But that itself can strain credulity when the odds against chance are extremely high.

Pen name: One of the arguments of using a pen-name like, or the same as, that of a real person, is that with just 'anonymous' then the authorities or whoever could come investigating who the true author is. Or with a generic name where no one is identified with it, then there could still be investigations. But with a real person's name, there's less like investigations and the person can just be kept an eye on. In reality, we'll never know why Bacon chose to use a real person's name likeness.

Yes, I meant Twelfth Night. Sometimes I don't review what I post, like I won't this time either.

By the way, the legal arguments are all on-line. One doesn't need to get a hold of the book mentioned earlier.

[Emil Miller]

That sounds good to me. What the (I guess they/we are called) "anti-stratfordians" would like to see is a panel of 'experts' in various fields, that can look at all the available evidence. Discuss it. Throw some out. Examine some in greater detail. And then perhaps suggest further research on some pieces of evidence. Or perhaps even render a judgement, or a vote, for a candidate based on the strongest evidence. Or something along these lines. The feeling is that there's enough evidence and educated opinion that casts doubt on the traditional authorship attribution. And so this justifies the question itself becoming a legitimate subject of debate and research. I don't really think we'll be changing any opinions on any of these web comment areas or forums. There's just too much evidence and argument to review.

A panel of experts would be useful in assessing the available evidence but would they arrive at a genuine conclusion? I would think it difficult to find a body of people who were not already biased one way or the other, such is the hold that this question has over those who have even a passing interest in the subject. Even if they proclaimed their disinterest, how would we know that they weren't manipulating the evidence in favour of their undeclared candidate. There are long-standing reputations at stake and the panel would probably be influenced by this also.

[KCV16]

Regarding the NMS: The 'index' is not of items in each box nor is it in Nevill's hand. The handwriting appears to be in one of Bacon's secretary's hand. Nevill may have been given a copy of a bundle of manuscripts from Bacon or he may have acquired it elsewhere.The index is of the NMS itself within one of the boxes, you are right I mistyped that, but if you were to read NMS instead of box you get m argument.
You have knowledge on that NMS writer I never saw, where does the knowledge of the scribe of Bacon having written it.
And that does still not explain why the name Nevill is on the top LEFT of the index...

The important points are that on the 'index' of items of the bundle of manuscripts were known writings of Bacon along with known Shakespeare works and this index is dated to a time when no Shakespeare play had been published with the name of William Shakespeare on it, or any variant of that name. They were published anonymously. There were the two long poems that were published with the name William Shakespeare, but no plays at that time.Your dating of the NMS is of....?
The best guess I can make is before 1603 and by that time there were 13 plays published with Shakespeare's name on it.
If you were to take the oldest entry is from 1580, so it is obviously a compilation of all kinds of documents by somebody... Nevill??

So one question was how did this secretary of Bacon seem to know that William Shakespeare was the playwright of such plays as Richard II or Richard III? And why was he so obsessed with the name that he would write it over and over many times or write variants of it many times along with the name of Francis Bacon and in the context of the phrases "By Mr. Francis Bacon' as well as "Your William Shakespeare'? I am not a mindreader but I suspect that Bacon in his attempt to keep things secret would not have his scribe be so obviously looking for a pen-name on a paper he decided to keep all his life... in other words if you want to keep a secret do not put it in writing so obviously....
And the index was an attempt to make 2 column but they made an absolute mess of it.

And why do not Shakespeare scholars acknowledge the existence of this historical document? These are some of the questions about this document, though there's more to it. Maybe not on the internet but in other publications, I do not know
But since I have not seen any proof, that could be their reason too, a bad one I know, but that does not mean that you have won by default, or that these arguments have them running for the hills.

He is separating the Stratford man from the actor from the writer just to keep various arguments straight. This is because most Stratfordian writers just assume that all mentions of Shakespeare are to the man from Stratford or the actor, when they are often to the writer, who may not be the actor man from Stratford. So a William Shakespere from Stratford leaves and years later a William Shakespeare buy the second biggest house in Stratford is a coincidence, the same as the appearance of gentleman after the name William Shakespeare the actor when the Strattford man gets the title after his father died is coincidence? And the same name is used for the part-owner of the Globe theater, and all the plays were written for the company that performed at the Globe... the upstart crow, jack of all trades is also a reference that people regarded the player to be the same as the author.


Re Dowdall: Here Clarke is merely reporting what others have said. He's not claiming it as a fact. He's showing how scholars like Schoenbaum pick and choose what hearsay evidence they prefer and ignoring heresay evidence that they don't prefer. I don't think that Clarke or probably any other Baconians, or many Oxfordians would argue that the man from Stratford became somewhat of an actor in London. Though there are debates in how much acting he actually did. Oh hang on you are saying that Shakespeare from Stratford is indeed the actor....


Clarke wrote: "By 1602, Shake-speare had written over 20 plays so one wonders why Shakspere did not present himself as a dramatist". He does not say that the Stratford man/actor was the writer Shake-speare.Is this in the reference to the man saying that some people should not be called gentlemen, like that actor....


Clarke doesn't fault Shake-speare the author for taking plots from other writers. That's common knowledge. Both Shake-speare, the writer, and Bacon are known from taking other's ideas and rewriting them in more attractive ways.So Bacon was not the genius he is thought to be?? Which Bacon documents are you refering to his Henry VII from1622? or his philosophies...


The Tempest: Just because it was played at court does not mean that those at court realized that the play was partly based on the Virginia company's expedition to America. Same answer for the second point. The play and the Virginia company report weren't connected until sometime later, maybe a few centuries later.Seriously it is one of the arguments of the Baconinan theory... Shakespeare could never have known those details therefor Bacon wrote them... if it is so obvious now only by comparing the 2 why do you think the Jacobians were not so smart.


Comedy of Errors: The sidebars, etc. are because he's documenting everything. This is unlike many Stratfordian writers that just expect readers to believe what they're told without documentation. Clarke writes mainly for scholarly readers, and that writing is more difficult to follow. Plays for Gray's Inn were written by Inn members, so Shakspere would not be one of the writers. No the sidebars are in such an order that they are confusing, if only he would make the argument and follow it or preceed it with the rest,not part argument, sidebar,sidebar,sidebar, two paragraphs argument, sidebar,sidebar, sidebar, etc etc... There are these things callednotes at the end of the chapter or book too...

There's no documentary evidence that Shakspeare had a patron, even that of Southampton. Stratfordians have just been assuming these connections.So the dedication to Southampton was a fraud as well.... or was he in on the secret too....

Cyphers: There have been many bad ciphers offered in the past, and these were rightly criticized. But there are many good ciphers that haven't been faulted. And the one cipher expert 'Friedman' that criticized many of the old Baconian ciphers was reported to have said that he was wrong to have dismissed all ciphers. And since then another cipher expert has faulted Friedman's work. Also, Clarke is an expert at puzzles. He has written puzzle books and created them for MENSA. If you're going to criticize an expert you better have much better evidence that just a personal opinion.[quote]I was saying that if you have to resort to the kind of cyphering I described you loose credibility, has a known Baconian cipher been found that decodes Shakespeare?? Because you can let any cipher loose on any document and find something as long as there is enough text. That is it basically why do you need to invent new ciphers not use the ones Bacon used.
[quote]For instance, if you claim that the typesetting wasn't consistent, then you're in essence claiming that some remarkable coincidences were purely by chance. But that itself can strain credulity when the odds against chance are extremely high.Type-setters were the ones that choose the typeface in the early days of printing, it is also found that different folio's have different typesettings, nothing to worry about for anybody BUt sipher seekers.


Pen name: One of the arguments of using a pen-name like, or the same as, that of a real person, is that with just 'anonymous' then the authorities or whoever could come investigating who the true author is. Or with a generic name where no one is identified with it, then there could still be investigations. But with a real person's name, there's less like investigations and the person can just be kept an eye on. In reality, we'll never know why Bacon chose to use a real person's name likeness.Or even if he did...


Yes, I meant Twelfth Night. Sometimes I don't review what I post, like I won't this time either. I suspected that but I could not find his reference to the Twelfth night either


By the way, the legal arguments are all on-line. One doesn't need to get a hold of the book mentioned earlier.I had a lovely discussion on the deal between Claudio and Shylock how Claudio got out of that contract would make any contract invalid..
I do not think that any lawyer would be stupid enough to write that...

The legal language of Shakespeare was not all that outrageous compared to other contemporary writers, so were they all university graduates in law or is there a trend to be detected.... did all those other legal arguers look into those writers as well??
Webster, Dekker, Heywood, Ben Jonson they used legal terms too, by the dozens... and for a man of whom we have a number of court documents he came in contact with the law no dunbt..

[xman]

Sometimes I don't review what I post, like I won't this time either.
This is why you fail.

You likely don't research what you read either which is why it's easy to follow a string of half truths to an erroneous conclusion.

[prendrelemick]

The whole problem, all the outpourings of paper, time and effort, stems from a few interllectuals who can't believe that Will wasn't one of them.

[Theunderground]

This. Though maybe there is some bacon involved?

[Emil Miller]

The whole problem, all the outpourings of paper, time and effort, stems from a few interllectuals who can't believe that Will wasn't one of them.

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.

George W Bush. :smilewinkgrin:

[Emil Miller]

More interviews with the director of a film brining this theory to light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WRTs_WmYUI&feature=related

Looking at your videos there are two things that come to mind. The first is that Shakespeare wasn't uneducated as is stated in the first video. He was educated to a standard that today would be considered a good education.
The second thing that strikes me is why would anyone trust a film made by a man whose previous efforts have been sci-fi nonsense aimed at the juvenile market? It is interesting to note that Mr Emmerich is a campaigner for lesbian and gay rights, which leads me to suspect that his motives for attacking an establishment sacred cow may be rooted in his own insecurities rather than in a genuine desire to show that the Earl of Oxford wrote the the plays.

[KCV16]

In response to the original post, it was indeed highly unlikely Shakespeare was the author of anything, and in fact the Earl was. Recent debates can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtqKfLdaV1E&feature=related
That clip makes for all the arguments that the movie is telling lies in order to explain the Essex rebellion....

the other clip oh my ...
Lies...
Fraud...
Dangerous to kids.... (why, a common man should not be able to rise to fame??)
Search for truth where truth cannot find a forum .... (and they call Stratfordians religous zealots...)

It still baffles me that the anti-strats are basing all their ideas on the simple starting point that a common man could not have written such stories... a common man could not have risen to that kind of fame....
If anybody should be honored for the plays that were published under the name William Sakespeare it must NOT be William Shakespeare of Stratford, son of a glover-who-became-mayor, NOT the actor/theater owner, but a nobleman of high stature, who had politics in mind in every sentence he wrote...

And they call the Stratfordians (who think a common man with enough books and imagination could do it) elitists....

The ultimate rags to richess story challenged for the sake of always suspect a conspiracy if the vast majority believes something to be true...

[Nigel Spencer]

Indeed, when you act and delve into the physicality of Shakespeare, you cannot miss the feeling of a single presence and genius. One thing is for sure, the plays could NOT have been written by a closet Italian! Scandinavian would have been closer, but even then...really!

[My2cents]

The evidence that a grammar school educated country boy couldn't possibly have written the incredibly complex and precision-knowledge-rich body of work, which are the plays, is very persuasive. I wouldn't rule it out.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Get ready for this conversation to explode with the release of the movie Anonymous.

[kasie]

The evidence that a grammar school educated country boy couldn't possibly have written the incredibly complex and precision-knowledge-rich body of work, which are the plays, is very persuasive. I wouldn't rule it out.

Why??? Nobody stays a callow teenager all their life (I hope!). Education is an on-going process - it's called Experience. And people do go on reading all their life beyond school, as well.

Oh dear, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this ridiculous argument.

[Emil Miller]

The evidence that a grammar school educated country boy couldn't possibly have written the incredibly complex and precision-knowledge-rich body of work, which are the plays, is very persuasive. I wouldn't rule it out.

Ah but you shouldn't have doubts about what a majority have automatically accepted for centuries. Think Galileo.

[My2cents]

Why??? Nobody stays a callow teenager all their life (I hope!). Education is an on-going process - it's called Experience. And people do go on reading all their life beyond school, as well.

Oh dear, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this ridiculous argument.

Illiteracy for commoners of Will's lot was the norm. His father, John was illiterate, as was Judith, Shakespeare's youngest daughter, and most deduce that Susanna, Will's favorite child, was illiterate as well. The thinking is, how likely is it that the children of the greatest English literary artist would be illiterate? But that's just scratching the surface. The plays abound with a knowledge of things that could not have been known with the precision the writer demonstrates with a mere grammar school education or rubbing shoulders with the aristocratic elite. Those things--such as falconry--had to be part of writer's life, i.e. he had to have lived and known them first hand to have described the process with such accuracy and precision.

[kasie]

Quite likely - girls were not on the whole formally educated in those days and Father was (probably) away in London for much of the time they were growing up. There are large areas of Shakespeare's life that are not known - how do you know he did not spend time in an aristocratic household? The activities going on could have been absorbed by a young man with a lively curiosity and an enquiring mind.

[My2cents]

Quite likely - girls were not on the whole formally educated in those days and Father was (probably) away in London for much of the time they were growing up. There are large areas of Shakespeare's life that are not known - how do you know he did not spend time in an aristocratic household? The activities going on could have been absorbed by a young man with a lively curiosity and an enquiring mind.

No one's disputing whether an intelligent and an enquiring mind could acquire an understanding of privileged, aristocratic pursuits. The point is that the understanding of those pursuits are so precisely and exquisitely expressed that the writer who wrote them couldn't have been a mere dabbler in those pursuits--pursuits which include astronomy, ornithology, botany, hunting, archery,horsemanship, and royal tennis, among others.

[wessexgirl]

No one's disputing whether an intelligent and an enquiring mind could acquire an understanding of privileged, aristocratic pursuits. The point is that the understanding of those pursuits are so precisely and exquisitely expressed that the writer who wrote them couldn't have been a mere dabbler in those pursuits--pursuits which include astronomy, ornithology, botany, hunting, archery,horsemanship, and royal tennis, among others.

This is nonsense. Like Kasie I thought I wouldn't engage anymore with this but it makes me so mad that such utter rubbish is allowed to pass for truth. So Shakespeare is supposed to be an expert in all those things? Did Marlowe have to sell his soul to the devil in order to know what he was writing about in Dr Faustus? Where's the room for the creative imagination? And as for only having a mere grammar school education, that shows a real misunderstanding of what such an education involved at that time.

Is it really possible that anyone could hide a conspiracy of such great magnitude that all this nonsense would need in order to succeed? It's a ridiculous theory, and is fanned by snobbery pure and simple. No-one questioned Shakespeare's authorship at the time, Ben Jonson amongst others knew him well, and it's only those who wish to make a name for themselves that would consider giving it any credence, for instance the director of Anonymous. If I see one more person connected to the film parroting these ridiculous notions, I will spontaneously combust. I know they have to plug their film, but really, they do themselves no favours at all, and risk alienating many viewers like myself who will most certainly not be going to see this, or anything else they get involved in in the future if they don't make it clear that it's basically nonsense, and NOT TRUE!

[My2cents]

So Shakespeare is supposed to be an expert in all those things? Did Marlowe have to sell his soul to the devil in order to know what he was writing about in Dr Faustus? Where's the room for the creative imagination? And as for only having a mere grammar school education, that shows a real misunderstanding of what such an education involved at that time.
[/B]


There's an entire book devoted to birds that Shakespeare mentions in his works; namely James Edmund Harting's The Birds of Shakespeare. That should tell you that Shakespeare's knowledge of birds was formidable, that it wasn't something any one just could just pick up by osmosis or by exercising one's imagination. It was firmly rooted in knowledge of the highest order, the accumulated knowledge of painstakingly observed and recorded science.

Of botany, there's


for though the camomile, the more it is trodden on, the faster it grows,
[yet] youth, the more it is wasted, the sooner it wears

and


On her left breast
A mole cinque-spotted, like the crimson drops
I' th' bottom of a cowslip.

which I've personally found extraordinary. Which is to say that they are specific, science based knowledge applied to create drama of incomparable artistry.

You should keep an open mind. It's not either/or. A compelling argument can be made for either case and the chances are we'll never know.

[kasie]

Birds? Flowers? He was a country lad! Two hops and a skip and you're out of Stratford and into the Warwickshire countryside. Even I know a cowslip has dark red spots inside the flower and that's from peering into the flowers growing on a bank at the bottom of my grandfather's garden, grangpa who loved the flowers may even have pointed them out to me, but I haven't the talent/inspiration/sheer genius to use that knowledge to paint a word picture of a skin blemish.

[My2cents]

Birds? Flowers? He was a country lad! Two hops and a skip and you're out of Stratford and into the Warwickshire countryside. Even I know a cowslip has dark red spots inside the flower and that's from peering into the flowers growing on a bank at the bottom of my grandfather's garden, grangpa who loved the flowers may even have pointed them out to me, but I haven't the talent/inspiration/sheer genius to use that knowledge to paint a word picture of a skin blemish.

I'm no country lad, much less a botanist, so that image/knowledge is utterly new to me and startingly extraordinary. There a bunch of images I could've quoted that (probably) neither of us would know offhand, highly specialized language and terminology dealing with horsemanship, falconry, astronomy, royal tennis, etc. But what would be the point? Pass them off as my superior knowledge on the subject when all I've really done is read up a little on the subject? But going back to the flower images, I made a point of quoting them to show that when Shakespeare writes about the things of the world, there's nothing fanciful or made-up about them. They're firmly rooted in observed facts or science. But what the heck, here's another image or two which show that Shakespeare, whoever he was, knew about things, that no commoner would have such a easy, expert understanding of.


Boyet: Full merrily/ Hath this brave manage, this career, been run.
Berowne: Lo! he is tilting straight.

On second thought, just one for now.

[kasie]

I can't see why a boy from a country market town should not have known about horsemanship, falconry or jousting. Stratford is not far from Kenilworth or Warwick: during Shakespeare's boyhood, the Queen was entertained with 'princely pursuits' at both castles. Why should he not have listened in to eye-witness accounts, got into conversations with falconers, grooms, attendants who described the Royal entertainments? His father was Mayor of Stratford, the family would have had contacts with all sorts of people from the surrounding towns and establishments. As you say, one should keep an open mind, not least putting the man into the context of his time and place, not assume that it was then as it is now or as nineteenth century readers assumed it was.

[My2cents]

I suppose the premise of my argument boils down this: To write about the world, you have to know the world. It's true that writers are like sponges and pick up a fact here, a truth there, and if need be immerse themselves in exhaustive research to lend their art a verisimililtude. I would argue, however, that all of that is mere decor and ornamention, that the essence of any work of art is the artist's impressions, memories, and/or experiences which are shaped by the life he lives. To know ABOUT horsemanship, falconry, and jousting is hardly the same thing as actively pursuing them. It's arguable that Ben Jonson wrote verse as affecting and beautiful as any that Shakespeare wrote but no one would even remotely suggest that Jonson stands toe-to-toe with Shakespeare artistically. In other words, literary art is much more than turning out beautifully polished and trimmed sentences with bits of facts gleaned, stolen, and/or scavenged stuck in to give it the stamp of authority, which with Jonson backfired in writing about hunting deer, which he lifted out of a manual.

[kasie]

I suppose the premise of my argument boils down this: To write about the world, you have to know the world...

So let me see if I understand you here - you are saying that in order to write about anything, a writer needs personal experience of that subject? Perhaps therefore I should be wary of the next invitation to tea from my friend who writes rather gruesome murder mystery stories?

[My2cents]

So let me see if I understand you here - you are saying that in order to write about anything, a writer needs personal experience of that subject? Perhaps therefore I should be wary of the next invitation to tea from my friend who writes rather gruesome murder mystery stories?

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[KCV16]

To know ABOUT horsemanship, falconry, and jousting is hardly the same thing as actively pursuing them.
First off those that pursue falconry or jousting as an example might not be able to write about it in a captivating literary way, it is like many professors are not good teachers because they know too much about the subject to explain it.

There are immense amounts of authors that have never experienced what they wrote about.
People never coming nearer to a battlefield than reading about it have written believable books on soldiers at war.
It is not needed to experience something to write about it.

[kelby_lake]

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

I disagree. If Shakespeare's plays had dull unimaginative settings, a straightforward plot, and realistic storylines, however nice the verse or prose, they'd become obscure. Shakespeare is successful because he is both populist and artistic, and a discerning reader would understand that instead of trying to fashion him into an elitest wordsmith.

[MarkBastable]

This....


for though the camomile, the more it is trodden on, the faster it grows,


...would have been common knowledge in Shakespeare's time. It's the reason camomile lawns were so popular, and remain pretty frequent in old houses in southern England. I - for instance - a grammar school boy of modest urban background knew that about camomile before I encountered it in Shakespeare (at grammar school).

And anyone who's lived in the countryside knows what a cowslip looks like. You don't need to be a botanist.

Really, I'd say that anyone who says that all this knowledge is evidence that Shakespeare didn't write the plays knows very little about how writers work.

As a matter of interest, which part of this is making the point for you?

Boyet: Full merrily/ Hath this brave manage, this career, been run.
Berowne: Lo! he is tilting straight.

[My2cents]

First off those that pursue falconry or jousting as an example might not be able to write about it in a captivating literary way, it is like many professors are not good teachers because they know too much about the subject to explain it.

There are immense amounts of authors that have never experienced what they wrote about.
People never coming nearer to a battlefield than reading about it have written believable books on soldiers at war.
It is not needed to experience something to write about it.

It isn't that Shakespeare wrote about falconry, horsemanship, botany, etc per se, it's that he demonstrated his knowledge of those subjects and more (the list is very extensive) to be second nature (not something idly picked up) in the way he incorporated his knowledge of them in his metaphors.

[My2cents]

This....


for though the camomile, the more it is trodden on, the faster it grows,


...would have been common knowledge in Shakespeare's time. It's the reason camomile lawns were so popular, and remain pretty frequent in old houses in southern England. I - for instance - a grammar school boy of modest urban background knew that about camomile before I encountered it in Shakespeare (at grammar school).

And anyone who's lived in the countryside knows what a cowslip looks like. You don't need to be a botanist.

Really, I'd say that anyone who says that all this knowledge is evidence that Shakespeare didn't write the plays knows very little about how writers work.

As a matter of interest, which part of this is making the point for you?

Boyet: Full merrily/ Hath this brave manage, this career, been run.
Berowne: Lo! he is tilting straight.

As I pointed out, the stuff on botany is what I personally found enlightening.

The Boyet, Berowne exchange is a discussion of wooing a lover in equestrian terms, which I would never have known if it wasn't pointed out to me.

So how do writers work? It was my impression that everything a fiction writer needs to know is in his head and that whatever he wants to embellish it with can be supplemented with research, meaning if it's not already in his head it can't be made piecemeal from scratch with research.

[My2cents]

I disagree. If Shakespeare's plays had dull unimaginative settings, a straightforward plot, and realistic storylines, however nice the verse or prose, they'd become obscure. Shakespeare is successful because he is both populist and artistic, and a discerning reader would understand that instead of trying to fashion him into an elitest wordsmith.

No one's making him out to be an elitist wordsmith. It's an inference drawn from evidence, nothing more nothing less.

Of course, the exciting plots and exotic settings add to the plays, but appreciation of the plays go far beyond them.

[kelby_lake]

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

You don't think that the above implies what I said?

[My2cents]

You don't think that the above implies what I said?

What?

[mike thomas]

This subject goes with the post mmmjess made yesterday.

No such person called Shakespeare had anything to do with the "works" unless a body was robbed of his identity. It is true to say that there are some rough documents which seem to suggest a real person. There is the little matter of the brides names, and two farmers carrying a huge sum of cash (£40) to pay off the church authorities (the head of whom gets a plum job in Cambridge the year following the so-called wedding). There is also a small matter of no name ona certain tomb, and directly overhead, a so-called monument which gets the name wrong (it's spelled Shakspeare), no excuse really, when the name is spelled with the e in the 'First Folio'.

There are too many points which tempt curiosity. I think there were altogether thirty two persons involved with the whole thing. Queen Bess was at the top, supported by John Dee, Bacon, and even Essex (who was never executed). King James was never involved.

The plays were evolved by each person taking on the parts of the actors , and posting letters to each other in a kind of long-distance game, and the resultant papers were knocked into shape by Ben Jonson and Kit marlowe, to name just a few. The whole thing took many years to reach it's final state. That's the way I see it anyway.

The thing is far too complex for the average mind to fully grasp, simply because there are many very different strands interwoven to make the whole thing work.

Even if one were to provide concrete evidence, it would be almost impossible to convince most parties, simply because of the intellectual prowess demanded of the disbeliever. Plus the fact that in those times they had a completely different mindset.

Regards

[Emil Miller]

This subject goes with the post mmmjess made yesterday.

No such person called Shakespeare had anything to do with the "works" unless a body was robbed of his identity. It is true to say that there are some rough documents which seem to suggest a real person. There is the little matter of the brides names, and two farmers carrying a huge sum of cash (£40) to pay off the church authorities (the head of whom gets a plum job in Cambridge the year following the so-called wedding). There is also a small matter of no name ona certain tomb, and directly overhead, a so-called monument which gets the name wrong (it's spelled Shakspeare), no excuse really, when the name is spelled with the e in the 'First Folio'.

There are too many points which tempt curiosity. I think there were altogether thirty two persons involved with the whole thing. Queen Bess was at the top, supported by John Dee, Bacon, and even Essex (who was never executed). King James was never involved.

The plays were evolved by each person taking on the parts of the actors , and posting letters to each other in a kind of long-distance game, and the resultant papers were knocked into shape by Ben Jonson and Kit marlowe, to name just a few. The whole thing took many years to reach it's final state. That's the way I see it anyway.

The thing is far too complex for the average mind to fully grasp, simply because there are many very different strands interwoven to make the whole thing work.

Even if one were to provide concrete evidence, it would be almost impossible to convince most parties, simply because of the intellectual prowess demanded of the disbeliever. Plus the fact that in those times they had a completely different mindset.

Regards

Wikipedia extract:

Devereux's conviction for treason meant that the earldom of Essex was forfeit, and his son did not inherit the title. However, after the Queen's death, King James I reinstated the earldom in favour of the disinherited son, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex.

So if Essex wasn't executed, why did King James reinstate the earldom?

[mike thomas]

Wikipedia extract:

Devereux's conviction for treason meant that the earldom of Essex was forfeit, and his son did not inherit the title. However, after the Queen's death, King James I reinstated the earldom in favour of the disinherited son, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex.

So if Essex wasn't executed, why did King James reinstate the earldom?

Because Essex wasn't dead - but Bess was.

[Emil Miller]

Because Essex wasn't dead - but Bess was.

Obviously, but where was Essex during the time of his supposed demise and how could King James restore an earldom that was still in place?

[kelby_lake]

What?

Your comment implies that Shakespeare's worth is in his language and trifling things like a plot or story are secondary, and that readers who disagree aren't discerning readers like yourself. Shakespeare fitted his language to the story. His language is admired because it is dramatic, powerful, and suits the character, not because he can turn out some pretty phrases. Shakespeare certainly had a way with words but he used it to enhance his plays, as opposed to it being the only interesting thing about the plays.

[My2cents]

Your comment implies that Shakespeare's worth is in his language and trifling things like a plot or story are secondary, and that readers who disagree aren't discerning readers like yourself. Shakespeare fitted his language to the story. His language is admired because it is dramatic, powerful, and suits the character, not because he can turn out some pretty phrases. Shakespeare certainly had a way with words but he used it to enhance his plays, as opposed to it being the only interesting thing about the plays.

The exciting stories and exotic locales are like the initial hook of the plays. You want the largest audience possible, so you have something to appeal to everyone. Nothing wrong with that. But the plays are what they are because of the incredibly complex thoughts and emotions that Shakespeare has his characters convey. And there's a great deal of those thoughts and emotions which require careful study. And none but the most discerning of readers will either have the intellectual background to perceive those complex thoughts and emotions without any aid or will have the curiosity and the motivation to delve and find out for himself just what exactly the poet meant by this and that.

[wessexgirl]

This subject goes with the post mmmjess made yesterday.

No such person called Shakespeare had anything to do with the "works" unless a body was robbed of his identity. It is true to say that there are some rough documents which seem to suggest a real person. There is the little matter of the brides names, and two farmers carrying a huge sum of cash (£40) to pay off the church authorities (the head of whom gets a plum job in Cambridge the year following the so-called wedding). There is also a small matter of no name ona certain tomb, and directly overhead, a so-called monument which gets the name wrong (it's spelled Shakspeare), no excuse really, when the name is spelled with the e in the 'First Folio'.

There are too many points which tempt curiosity. I think there were altogether thirty two persons involved with the whole thing. Queen Bess was at the top, supported by John Dee, Bacon, and even Essex (who was never executed). King James was never involved.The plays were evolved by each person taking on the parts of the actors , and posting letters to each other in a kind of long-distance game, and the resultant papers were knocked into shape by Ben Jonson and Kit marlowe, to name just a few. The whole thing took many years to reach it's final state. That's the way I see it anyway.

The thing is far too complex for the average mind to fully grasp, simply because there are many very different strands interwoven to make the whole thing work.

Even if one were to provide concrete evidence, it would be almost impossible to convince most parties, simply because of the intellectual prowess demanded of the disbeliever. Plus the fact that in those times they had a completely different mindset.

Regards

:eek2: Are you for real? :rofl:

Where's your evidence? As if a conspiracy of such magnitude could possibly succeed! I think Queen Elizabeth probably had more things to be worrying about than being part of a massive cover up for a playwright, like running the country. And where do you get the idea that Essex was never executed? I think someone is having a joke at our expense here, winding up the Stratfordians like myself to watch them spin frantically out of control in defence of the great man. Nice job Mike, (it's not April is it?) :biggrin5:

[mike thomas]

Apologies all round.

It was not the intention to cause offence, I know how deeply feelings are re the subject of WS. Rather akin to devout religion. But as some poet once said: "blind affection does not advance the truth".

Keep the staus quo - truth can sometimes hurt.

[MarkBastable]

truth can sometimes hurt.

And nonsense can sometimes irritate.

[Emil Miller]

Apologies all round.

It was not the intention to cause offence, I know how deeply feelings are re the subject of WS. Rather akin to devout religion. But as some poet once said: "blind affection does not advance the truth".

Keep the staus quo - truth can sometimes hurt.

Thanks for diplomatically omitting the rest:

Or blinde Affection, which doth ne're advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance ;