Did Shakespeare write the plays?

[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.../Law/index.htm

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

http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum...164e0f3e534d73

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.../Law/index.htm

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

http://www.playshakespeare.com/forum...164e0f3e534d73

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....espeare&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....espeare&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.