Shakespeare

[OscarWildebeest]

I was wondering: Has there ever been a discussion regarding whether William Shakespeare has written all the plays attributed to him? If so, kindly point me to there as I would like to contribute my two cents worth. Otherwise I would love to start world war 3 on behalf of the nay sayers.

[Calidore]

I know it's come up before, but I don't think there's been an active discussion in a while. IIRC, the most adamant arguer was a former member who was also an all-purpose conspiracy guy. His main cause was proving that Mozart, Beethoven, and other great composers never actually composed anything themselves, but were fronting for anonymous backers. He also had threads arguing moon landing conspiracies, fluoridation conspiracies, and maybe others I've forgotten. I'm pretty sure Shakespeare came up as well.

Anyway, my point is that you're much better off starting your own thread than referring to one of his.

[Emil Miller]

I was wondering: Has there ever been a discussion regarding whether William Shakespeare has written all the plays attributed to him? If so, kindly point me to there as I would like to contribute my two cents worth. Otherwise I would love to start world war 3 on behalf of the nay sayers.

Here is the thread that you are looking for; don't forget your steel helmet.


http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?43739-Did-Shakespeare-write-the-plays&highlight=Did+Shakespeare+write+the+plays

[OscarWildebeest]

I have read the first 20 replies to Emile's thread: Loads of emotion, hardly any substance. Thus- I am of the opinion that the probability of Shakespeare having written those plays is negligible, perhaps agreeing with Mark Twain: "He was a country bumpkin who could not have written those plays." Coming from someone who attended school only up to grade 4!

I base my opinion on, amongst others, the following:
1. The average person today uses approximately 5 000 different words. In Shakespeare's day one would expect this average being not much higher than 3000. Yet, depending on whom one believes, Shakespeare used between 14 and 19 000 different words.

2. We have absolutely NO proof that Shakespeare ever received formal schooling, never mind attending university. What we do know is that his dad was semi-literate, his mom illiterate, his one sister never went to school, and most of the local town council were illiterate. A great many of the plays were mere translations of other plays from Italian, Greek and Latin. Hardly an endeavour for someone unschooled.

3. A last will, in those days, was a very precise, a very exact document, with even a teaspoon listed, and a book was deemed more valuable than a firearm. Yet, in Shakespeare's last will not a single book is mentioned.

4. All the FACTS regarding Shakespeare fit on less than a single A4 page. All else IS speculation. Yet thousands upon thousands of books were written about him, with many to appear in the future.

5. What we do know (for a fact) is that he was a stage manager for a well known group of actors. One of the MOST important tasks he would have been saddled with was to write down the actors' ideas and espousements regarding plays, and to wright any alterations they wished.

Of interest is the fact that in those days a company had about 5 different plays going at any time, and most were performed in the open. To test the mettle of an actor one should see a shakespearian play performed sans any props.

[The Atheist]

I base my opinion on, amongst others, the following:
1. The average person today uses approximately 5 000 different words. In Shakespeare's day one would expect this average being not much higher than 3000. Yet, depending on whom one believes, Shakespeare used between 14 and 19 000 different words.

I think you're out by a large factor. Studies show the average English vocabulary of a non-tertiary educated speaker is somewhere in the 20,000-word range, and as a bloke involved with plays - even as a stage manager, you would expect Shakespeare to have far more than the average of the day.


2. We have absolutely NO proof that Shakespeare ever received formal schooling, never mind attending university. What we do know is that his dad was semi-literate, his mom illiterate, his one sister never went to school, and most of the local town council were illiterate. A great many of the plays were mere translations of other plays from Italian, Greek and Latin. Hardly an endeavour for someone unschooled.

Yet you agree that we know he was a stage manager. He was obviously literate, and as I trust the examples of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have taught us very recently, formal education is no barrier to success.


3. A last will, in those days, was a very precise, a very exact document, with even a teaspoon listed, and a book was deemed more valuable than a firearm. Yet, in Shakespeare's last will not a single book is mentioned.

Since they'd all been published, why would he? Maybe he didn't own any personal copies.


4. All the FACTS regarding Shakespeare fit on less than a single A4 page. All else IS speculation. Yet thousands upon thousands of books were written about him, with many to appear in the future.

About the same as Julius Caesar, then. Pretty sure Caesar did rule the known world for a while, though.


5. What we do know (for a fact) is that he was a stage manager for a well known group of actors. One of the MOST important tasks he would have been saddled with was to write down the actors' ideas and espousements regarding plays, and to wright any alterations they wished.

That would tend to go with my own theory that he was the greatest plagiarist of all time, but doesn't actually help your theory at all.

Do you have anything other than mild speculation?

For instance, are you able to propose someone else who did write the plays?

[JBI]

He grew to maturity as an actor in a vibrant climate. Ben Jonson was just as uneducated, but there is no doubt on his authenticity.

The main argument seems to be that Shakespeare could not have written such things, or some nonsense. My personal suspicion is that such arguments ignore the fact that Shakespeare was quite heavily a collage of his time period's achievements, and his real strength rests in his final growth with the poetic language he mastered as a young dramatist. IF we were to merely to read his early works, we would have quite little difficulty attributing them to the young up and coming semi-educated dramatist. But since we are mostly reading his middle-to-late period works as the great masterpieces, we could make the simple case that as some people mature in their writing throughout their career, such is true with Shakespeare, who though not in the classroom, undoubtedly could have learned literature by listening to plays, and by engaging with the society of London.

The arguments against could be employed against almost any author, and usually were applied toward early African-American authors, especially slave narrators, who were thought "unable" to figure out the skills of reading and writing.

What is more interesting is what happened to Shakespeare between his early education and his penning of early masterpieces. The general approach now is to show how he learned by copying someone like Marlowe.

[OscarWildebeest]

I have stated that the average person of today utilizes a vocabulary of 5000 words. Nowhere do I state that that is the extent of the quantity of words known to them. Then you go on to impose the same norms and values of 400 years ago on the present. Also, someone, supposedly the greatest author of all times, did not own a copy of any book, any manuscript, including any he so profusely plagiarized from? Please, there is enough speculation as it is, and I really do NOT have time for your frivolous nit picking.

And you, JBI, insinuating that Shakespeare's detractors apparently speaks nonsense, then apparently continue to impose modern day values and norms on the society of then is ridiculous. Also, Marlowe: He died at a young age, and thus, should Shakespeare have copied his works it could only have been during Shakespeare's earlier years (assuming he did, of course.)

Please, can we have FACTS that William Shakespeare did write those plays? P

[The Atheist]

Please, can we have FACTS that William Shakespeare did write those plays? P

I have a better idea - you give some FACTS as to why he didn't. You don't like the answers you were given, that is obvious, but then all you've offered yourself is second-hand speculation backed by no FACTS at all. (An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

The irony in you crying about speculative answers is quite deep in view of your purely speculative suggestions.

You do realise that questions about old Bill's authenticity are neither new nor original? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

Are you able to come up with something more interesting than regurgitation of old charges?

[OscarWildebeest]

Old Shakespeare had your number in one: "Mindless stones, full of sound and fury."

[Hawkman]

What a Boer... Don't forget to laager your wagons when camping on the LitNet velt! Anyway, everyone knows Shakespeare was a Kilngon - it must be true because Christopher Plummer said so, and he should know because he's a Thesbian of the Shakespearean persuasion :D

[Scheherazade]

Oh, please...

I have a bet running that this thread wouldn't be closed before page 3 so could you discuss some more before indulging in some manly hair-pulling, cheek-hooking and eye-poking?

PS: This is your official warning, by the way.

[prendrelemick]

I believe Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays mainly because his contemporaries believed it too. The only way nay sayers can get round this is by inventing marvellous conspiracies.

There are other reasons too - the way he mucked about with the language in an uneducated and uncouth way.
His use of common Warwickshire idioms.
No real proof AT ALL, not one single shred of evidence that he didn't.

[The Atheist]

Oh, please...

I have a bet running that this thread wouldn't be closed before page 3 so could you discuss some more before indulging in some manly hair-pulling, cheek-hooking and eye-poking?

Going by the abusive comment in Afrikaans already removed from it, I'll have a dollar on that!


His use of common Warwickshire idioms.

Yes indeed. An educated man wouldn't have tried to cut his wood with a harnsaw.

[HSPS]

Herman Melville was an autodidact, and he wrote what is considered by many to be one of the greatest, and one of the most difficult, English-language novels: Moby-Dick. This idea that those who lack formal education, and those who have modest backgrounds, are somehow barred from doing great things is snobbish and illogical at best. Moreover, formal education far from guarantees great success, as there have been (and will always be) innumerable PhDs who were not only not widely known in their lifetimes, but who were also mostly forgotten soon after they died.

Shakespeare's life is fuzzy, but that doesn't mean we should start making such assumptions as the anti-Stratfordians make.

This website has an in-depth debunking of the anti-Stratfordian claims: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/.

[AuntShecky]

(An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)



One could use that line to defend against atheism. Oh, I kid, I kid!

Seriously though, I think that those who disbelieve that Shakespeare wrote those 37 plays are somewhat elitist in their arguments. You have to take every charge of "elitism" with a grain of salt, especially these days when officials in underperforming schools use the term to deride their critics when the educators try to defend themselves by stating that schools, that "poor" or (codeword) "urban" kids can't learn, etc. along with other lame excuses. But the term "elitism" is appropriate for those who state that Shakespeare was not educated enough to write those 37 plays.

First, the little biographical information we have about Shakespeare, such as that of the prefatory material in G.B. Harrison's edition, affirms that Shakespeare's father often entertained highly-educated and worldly visitors in the family home, and that young Will undoubtedly absorbed these stimulating conversations, on a wide range of topics.

Secondly, experts in the Elizabethan Era often note the fascination with which all strata of society held for the language which at that time in history had been undergoing rapid evolutionary changes, notably in the realm of vocabulary. Not only that, bouts of wit and displays of word play formed a popular pastime, like the obsession with Twitter and Facebook which folks have today. There's no reason to believe that Shakespeare separated himself from the fad but rather fully immersed himself in it.

Additionally, the so-called controversy over Shakespearean authorship has been around for at least two centuries. Several scholars have compiled concordances which lead to the conclusion that the same person wrote Shakespeare's plays. The speculation that Sir Francis Bacon, for instance, might have written the plays, has been put the rest by a scrupulous comparison between the two writing styles.

And let's not overlook the most glaring evidence of all: the unprecedented talent.

[MorpheusSandman]

(An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)Yes it is. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/) I'd like to know who came up with that mathematically provable false aphorism. That said, in Shakespeare's authorship case, there is a tremendous absence of evidence for anyone besides Shakespeare having written the plays. All of the counter-arguments are based on elitism, arguments from incredulity, and conspiratorial speculation and violates every tenant of evidence-based historical research.

[Lokasenna]

I'm privately convinced that snobbery is driving sentiment behind all the various anti-Strafordian conspiracy theories. There are a large number of people in private and public life who are simply not willing to accept that a truly great writer who has become the totemic icon of English literature (which is not, incidentally, an entirely good thing in and of itself...), and who achieved what he achieved, could have come from the middle-classes and not have benefitted from a university education.

Whilst we know that a few of his plays were co-authored, there is not a shred of reputable proof that Shakespeare was anything other than what we have taken him to be for hundreds of years.

[MorpheusSandman]

1. The average person today uses approximately 5 000 different words. In Shakespeare's day one would expect this average being not much higher than 3000. Yet, depending on whom one believes, Shakespeare used between 14 and 19 000 different words.Why are we comparing the USAGE of words by an AVERAGE PERSON to the USAGE of words by a GENIUS AUTHOR? For a fair comparison one should compare Shakespeare's usage of words to similar authors in his day, and, as AuntShecky suggested, wordplay was a popular pastime in Shakespeare's day, so literate people would often write poems or plays as attempts to impress each other. We see something similar in the metaphysical poets and the other dramatists of the time. Shakespeare just happened to be the best at it, probably because of an innate ability to absorb the language he was exposed to both in life and in the literature of the time.


2. We have absolutely NO proof that Shakespeare ever received formal schooling, never mind attending university. What we do know is that his dad was semi-literate, his mom illiterate, his one sister never went to school, and most of the local town council were illiterate. A great many of the plays were mere translations of other plays from Italian, Greek and Latin. Hardly an endeavour for someone unschooled.To quote Mark Twain against you, "I never let schooling interfere with my education." A great many of our best authors were auto-didacts, some prodigously learned. I never had any formal schooling myself after middle school, yet I doubt you'd find anyone around here who would say I'm unlearned. Level of schooling also has little to do with quality of creative writing. The language one learns to use in school often makes for bad novels, poetry, and especially drama because drama is built around how people talk, not how they write. Shakespeare's feeling for the various levels of speech amongst different people of different social classes was extraordinary, and it's hard to imagine someone either of no education or only upper class education being aware of both ends of the spectrum. Shakespeare would be more like a Prince Hal, except instead of a prince who hung around with the lower classes, he was a middle-classer who was exposed to the upper classes. As for the translations, I don't recall that Shakespeare ever translated anything himself, but rather borrowed from authors who had already translated the works.


3. A last will, in those days, was a very precise, a very exact document, with even a teaspoon listed, and a book was deemed more valuable than a firearm. Yet, in Shakespeare's last will not a single book is mentioned.When I die I probably won't have any books either, because after reading them I usually sell them or return them to the library or loan them to others. There are more ways of reading than hoarding a personal library of dead trees.

[The Atheist]

Yes it is. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/) I'd like to know who came up with that mathematically provable false aphorism.

Nope. You should probably read your own material before posting it incorrectly. From the link: "The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation."

False evidence is no evidence at all, but if you want to continue the discussion, I suggest a new thread.

[AuntShecky]

G.B. Harrison intimates that among the activities in which Shakespeare engaged between the ages of twenty and twenty-eight, one of them was teaching in a country school. He must have had, therefore, some inkling of knowledge in order to hold employment as such. (page 4 in the General Introduction to the Harrison edition.)

Not that I'm implying that all teachers are great geniuses --especially those in our day and age--but in Elizabethan times, even a little learning could go a long way. Ben Jonson's famous line "a little Latin and less Greek" tells us that Shakespeare had been no scholar on an ivy-covered university campus, but certainly Shakespeare's wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics --history, mythology, human psychology-- abounds throughout his plays. Much of his wit and wisdom could not have been acquired solely through academia but rather by living a life rich in experience and observation. Just as I always tell you, Kids: "Keep your eyes and ears open."

[Paulclem]

Also, Stratford is not a million miles fom Coventry, which was well known for its Mystery Plays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Mystery_Plays

It's easy to speculate that Shakespeare could have received inspiration from these plays. (And been in the two pubs left from the 16th century)

The Old Windmill Inn

http://www.old-windmill-inn.co.uk/

and The Golden Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cross,_Coventry

I've just read on the link that Philip Larkin used to drink in this pub too.

[Ecurb]

In Elizabethan times, intellectual property rights were poorly defined and authors often wrote each others' works. Francis Bacon once offered to write Samuel Pepys diaries, but was turned down for the job because he could not pronounce “Pepys”. Christopher Marlowe claimed to have written Raleigh’s “History of the World”, and requested to be beheaded in Raleigh’s place. “Why should Raleigh get credit for touching his executioner’s axe and saying, ’It is a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills’,” Marlowe opined. “I say stuff that good every day, at the breakfast table. Just ask my wife.”

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”

Alexander Pope wrote the original “King Lear”, which was a musical comedy instead of a tragedy. Instead of dividing their father’s kingdom, the daughters ran away from home to perform comical songs while dressed as chipmunks. Shakespeare’s version came later, and may have been divinely inspired, like “Paradise Lost”. Divine inspiration may explain Shakespeare’s massive vocabulary, and one anonymous Fundamentalist Pastor stated, “An omniscient God could score 700 or higher on the Verbal section of the SATs. Easily.”

[qimissung]

G.B. Harrison intimates that among the activities in which Shakespeare engaged between the ages of twenty and twenty-eight, one of them was teaching in a country school. He must have had, therefore, some inkling of knowledge in order to hold employment as such. (page 4 in the General Introduction to the Harrison edition.)

Not that I'm implying that all teachers are great geniuses --especially those in our day and age--but in Elizabethan times, even a little learning could go a long way. Ben Jonson's famous line "a little Latin and less Greek" tells us that Shakespeare had been no scholar on an ivy-covered university campus, but certainly Shakespeare's wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics --history, mythology, human psychology-- abounds throughout his plays. Much of his wit and wisdom could not have been acquired solely through academia but rather by living a life rich in experience and observation. Just as I always tell you, Kids: "Keep your eyes and ears open."

Gee, thanks, Auntie. *sarcasm* No worries. I think I'm a genius anyway.

[Lykren]

In Elizabethan times, intellectual property rights were poorly defined and authors often wrote each others' works. Francis Bacon once offered to write Samuel Pepys diaries, but was turned down for the job because he could not pronounce “Pepys”. Christopher Marlowe claimed to have written Raleigh’s “History of the World”, and requested to be beheaded in Raleigh’s place. “Why should Raleigh get credit for touching his executioner’s axe and saying, ’It is a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills’,” Marlowe opined. “I say stuff that good every day, at the breakfast table. Just ask my wife.”

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”

Alexander Pope wrote the original “King Lear”, which was a musical comedy instead of a tragedy. Instead of dividing their father’s kingdom, the daughters ran away from home to perform comical songs while dressed as chipmunks. Shakespeare’s version came later, and may have been divinely inspired, like “Paradise Lost”. Divine inspiration may explain Shakespeare’s massive vocabulary, and one anonymous Fundamentalist Pastor stated, “An omniscient God could score 700 or higher on the Verbal section of the SATs. Easily.”

:rofl:

[OrphanPip]

Shakespeare's background is unremarkable for a playwright or actor of the period. Many of them came from middle-class backgrounds with grammar school educations. Jonson was the son of a bricklayer, Shakespeare of a carpenter, D'Avenant of an innkeeper, Middleton another bricklayer, Marlowe's father was a cobbler (though Marlowe did study at Cambridge on a scholarship), Dekker possibly the son of a Dutch merchant, and Kyd's father was a scrivener. I can't think of any notable playwrights of the Elizabethan-Caroline period who came from the aristocracy.

Also, it is worth noting that the value of a university education was often suspect when it came to the aristocracy, degrees were conferred at the discretion of faculty who often gave them out in hopes of patronage or just because they weren't in any position to deny someone of that rank.

[The Atheist]

Or how about Geoffrey Chaucer?

Sure, he started as a page, but look at how many books he ended up writing!

[AuntShecky]

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”



This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)


Gee, thanks, Auntie. *sarcasm* No worries. I think I'm a genius anyway.


Whoops! Sorry, Ms Q! I should've said "Present company excepted."

[Ecurb]

This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)

."

That was intentional -- meant to lampoon Marlowe's and Bacon's attempts to slip minor errors into Shakespeare's plays in order to portray him as an unschooled bumpkin. Here's a note Marlowe wrote to Bacon (he always called Bacon "Frank Hamm" in a childish attempt to tease him):


Dear Frank:

Posterity may laude Shakespeare's genius. However, if we play our cartes right, they will also think him an ill-educated bumpkin. Today I wrote "forsoothe" when it should have been "forsooth". I am continuing my tactics of misusing apostrophes and overusing semicolons.

Yours Jealously,

Christopher


Shakespeare was not ignorant of Bacon's and Marlowe's tactics. Here's a note he wrote to one of his lovers whose full name has been lost in the mists of time:


Dearest Gwynneth,

I find that I have writers' block (or is it writer's block?) and am in need of the "divine inspiration" only you can provide. Can we meet tonight? Marlowe continues to annoy me with his petty ghostwriting tactics. When will he grow up? I have employed my Aunt S. as a proofreader, but, despite her diligence, she can't catch all of the "errors". Let's face it: Christopher Marlowe is a pain in the Coriolanus.

Yours Always;

W'm Sh'k'sp'r'

[AuntShecky]

ecurb, your post (#28) above is funny enough for late night tv. PS -- Does Gwynneth make W'm Sh'ksp'r' follow her far-from-delectable macrobiotic diet?

[qimissung]

This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)




Whoops! Sorry, Ms Q! I should've said "Present company excepted."

lol. S'alright, Auntie. We cool. :D

[Hawkman]

Does Gwynneth make W'm Sh'ksp'r' follow her far-from-delectable macrobiotic diet?

I think I can answer that question. Our Bill was particularly fond of a basket of deep-fried parsnips at his local, The George at Southwark. He also enjoyed washing them down with warm beer while Burbage quoted his own lines at him, at least until John Dee turned up and threatened to turn him into a toad, well, both he and Burbage actually. The full story can be read on this very website ;)

[qimissung]

Dearest Gwynneth,

I find that I have writers' block (or is it writer's block?) and am in need of the "divine inspiration" only you can provide. Can we meet tonight? Marlowe continues to annoy me with his petty ghostwriting tactics. When will he grow up? I have employed my Aunt S. as a proofreader, but, despite her diligence, she can't catch all of the "errors". Let's face it: Christopher Marlowe is a pain in the Coriolanus.

Yours Always;

W'm Sh'k'sp'r'

Thank you, ecurb. This is one of those things that's funny all day, like a piece of hard candy tucked into your cheek. It just keeps on giving.

[Ecurb]

Thanks, although I'm not sure if AuntShecky's late night TV comparison is a compliment or an insult. The "Coriolanus" pun was cribbed from Cole Porter's "Brush up Your Shakespeare" number in "Kiss me Kate". Here's a link: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/kissmekate/brushupyourshakespeare.htm

[The Atheist]

Anyone else find it not very strange Oscar hasn't come back to defend his position?

[Lokasenna]

Anyone else find it not very strange Oscar hasn't come back to defend his position?

His profile says that he is banned... not that he was particularly good at defending his position in the first place...

[Emil Miller]

It is a pity that Oscar resorted to personal insults and thereby ended his participation on LitNet. This thread's subject is of particular interest to literary minded folk, as has been shown in past submissions to LitNet, and will always be a source of entertainment for members and non-members alike. That is until someone can prove, not beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt that Shakespeare did write the plays.

[MorpheusSandman]

False evidence is no evidence at all, but if you want to continue the discussion, I suggest a new thread.Here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?78577-Absence-of-Evidence-is-Evidence-of-Absence&p=1256114#post1256114

[The Atheist]

His profile says that he is banned... not that he was particularly good at defending his position in the first place...

That is a shame. I liked the way anyone disagreeing with him was immediately not worth talking to.


It is a pity that Oscar resorted to personal insults and thereby ended his participation on LitNet. This thread's subject is of particular interest to literary minded folk, as has been shown in past submissions to LitNet, and will always be a source of entertainment for members and non-members alike. That is until someone can prove, not beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt that Shakespeare did write the plays.

Bingo!

You're absolutely right that the thread will stay alive. I quite frequently see people bumping threads from many years ago, so you can bet people will be weighing in on this issue from time to time.

( I like your Dubbya sig quote - must be the only smart thing he ever said.)

[HSPS]

That is until someone can prove, not beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt that Shakespeare did write the plays.

That really can't be done considering the nature of this case, but it's reasonable enough to assume that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. (The Stratfordian position is at least much more consistent than the anti-Stratfordian position in that we can agree on who we think wrote the plays.)

[Emil Miller]

( I like your Dubbya sig quote - must be the only smart thing he ever said.)


I imagine that Dick Cheney wrote the speech for him because here's what happened when he was left him to his own devices.

http://youtu.be/UbX35BLgJq4



That really can't be done considering the nature of this case, but it's reasonable enough to assume that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. (The Stratfordian position is at least much more consistent than the anti-Stratfordian position in that we can agree on who we think wrote the plays.)


I agree but as long there is a doubt, and one that is expressed by many influential people, speculation as to the authorship of the plays will continue.

[AuntShecky]

Thanks, although I'm not sure if AuntShecky's late night TV comparison is a compliment or an insult. The "Coriolanus" pun was cribbed from Cole Porter's "Brush up Your Shakespeare" number in "Kiss me Kate". Here's a link: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/kissmekate/brushupyourshakespeare.htm

Yeah, a compliment to your off-the-wall humor a la Craig Ferguson, but now that I think of it, the networks as well as cable are still stuck in the least common denominator mind-set and hence dismiss cerebral humorists as "too hip for the room." (Maybe I'll use that excuse next time anybody asks why I never broke through.)

[Nick Capozzoli]

To get back to the original question of whether or not Shakespeare was the author of the plays and poems published under his name, we need to ask ourselves, "who else could have written them?" Several candidates have been proposed (Marlowe, Bacon, et al.), but the problem is that the quality of Shakespeare's work is so overwhelmingly brilliant that it's difficult, to the point of impossibility, to believe that some other known Elizabethan writer could have written his stuff. I don't see anything in the works of other contemporary authors that comes anywhere near to the sustained mastery of language that we get from the collected work of Shakespeare.

I really think that much of the motivation behind the Anti-Stratfordians is a prejudicial elitist disbelief that a middle-class individual without an advanced education could be capable of such brilliant literature. Harold Bloom discussed this in an essay about Freud's Anti-Stradfordian views. In Bloom's opinion, Dr. Freud just could not accept that someone with Shakespeare's social and educational background could possibly display such great insight into the human psyche as Shakespeare did. I think that Bloom is spot on.

[Emil Miller]

I didn't consciously seek out this video, I was looking at one about the countryside around Stratford on Avon and this was listed in the side section. Apart from being very funny, it sure calls into question Shakespeare's authorship of the plays.


http://youtu.be/cJ72Ew1ujlk