Shakespeare was Italian, from Messina.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

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

:lol:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

Good Morning,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

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

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

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beewulf

Good Morning,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

The proof is not conclusive,

---

Yes it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

if it were then no controversy would exist.

---

True. None does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.

---

Fallacy! Appeal to authority *fail*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

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


Yes it is.


True. None does.


Fallacy! Appeal to authority *fail*

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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

---

Ad hominem *fail*

sticks and stones

Any evidence yet?

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

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

.

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

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

Posts containing such remarks will be deleted.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

---

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

To Manichaean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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