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.Originally Posted by jocky
Last edited by xman; 10-09-2009 at 04:31 AM.
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams
' why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply ' Cheers XmanI 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.
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.
Last edited by Brasil; 11-02-2009 at 07:21 PM.
Vitória-ES, Brasil
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.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
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.
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams
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/academ...ry_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.../dp/0393050572
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.
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!
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams
So, we could say that he was the Bill Gates or Steve Job of play-writing!
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
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.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Well, I'm convinced, although I had no idea that Shakespeare sported such lush sideburns. Also, he's taller than I imagined.
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
Last edited by Warwick; 11-05-2009 at 08:36 AM.
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).
Last edited by Brasil; 12-05-2009 at 08:36 AM.
Vitória-ES, Brasil
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
