Has the identity of "William Shake-speare" been suppressed for over four centuries?

Belz... said:
...

Perhaps you could provide us with a more solid defense of said theory, rather than calling those who are requiring said argument an insipid plethora of names?
Click to expand...

Can I use this for the name of my rock band?
 
kookbreaker said:
You realize standardized spelling is a modern invention, yes?

By your standard, the state of Pennsylvania doesn't exist since its spelled with only two 'n's on the Liberty Bell.

For a more amusing takedown of Oxfordian silliness, have a like at Kyle Kallgren's review of Anonymous.



"But how can Falcon if not posh!"
Click to expand...


BTW Roland Emmerich has a film on the battle of Midway coming out in November. I ma sure it will be as historically accurate as his previous historical films...….:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi

It is interesting how the Oxfordians, in the world of Anti Starfordian nuttiness, have pretty much beaten out the Baconians for attention.
 
dudalb said:
BTW Roland Emmerich has a film on the battle of Midway coming out in November. I ma sure it will be as historically accurate as his previous historical films...….:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi

It is interesting how the Oxfordians, in the world of Anti Starfordian nuttiness, have pretty much beaten out the Baconians for attention.
Click to expand...

I equate Oxfordians to the Space-Beam 9/11 crowd, while the Baconites are 'merely' nanothermite conspiracists.
 
smartcooky said:
Was it....

Ay, let her rot, and perish and be damned
tonight, for she shall not live. No, my heart is turned
to stone. I strike it, and it hurts my hand. O, the
world hath not a sweeter creature! She might lie by
an emperor's side and command him tasks

???
Click to expand...


Nope : Look to her, <new boyfriend's name>, if thou hast eyes to see.
She has deceived her father, and may thee!

Wasn't too worried about the incongruity of dropping in her side piece's name but keeping 'her father'. And to clarify, yes I actually did yell that line at her during the fight. Surprised myself that I was actually able to get the entire line out at all without collapsing into a singularity of pomposity.
 
Last edited:
Joe Random said:
Nope : Look to her, <new boyfriend's name>, if thou hast eyes to see.
She has deceived her father, and may thee!

Wasn't too worried about the incongruity of dropping in her side piece's name but keeping 'her father'. And to clarify, yes I actually did yell that line at her during the fight. Surprised myself that I was actually able to get the entire line out at all without collapsing into a singularity of pomposity.
Click to expand...

Can I use this for the name of my rock band?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, to be fair, tourist money ain't peanuts. Just wait till the tourists get wind of the idea there's a monster in Loch Ness.

Yes, yes, but before all you knee-jerk so-called skeptics shoot the idea down, bear in mind that you have only just heard of the idea of a "Loch Ness Monster" whereas I have been researching this for fifteen years and can confidently assert that the notion that there isn't a monster there is utterly preposterous. So before you go making yourselves look ridiculous, just look at the unassailable pile of evidence that there's most definitely something there. Etc.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention about how we all consider ourselves "informed" after an hour or two of googling. It's truly pathetic.
 
kookbreaker said:
Then came Lord Byron.

Lord Byron and his works ended up redefining what a poet was. No longer was it merely some guy penning it up on the 2nd floor while his grain sales down below are putting food on the table. Now your poet had to be independently wealthy, but more important he had to be noble, flawed and tortured.
Click to expand...

You forgot the bear. The noble, flawed, and tortured poet has to have a pet bear.

(When he was up at Oxford, Byron found out he wasn't allowed to keep pet dogs in college. But they didn't say anything about pet bears.)

:blackcat:
 
The Atheist said:
Must be a year ending in a 9 - this seems to have popped up every decade for roughly 300 years.

I think that after the Noah, Moses and Jesus fairytales, it's the oldest urban myth in existence.
Click to expand...

I think the Trojan War with Gods participating in it is older
 
kookbreaker said:
Partly correct, but it isn't automatically snobbery that is what leads this. Snobbery about aristocratic trappings is used as (very flawed) evidence against Shakespeare.

No, what it is is an attempt to fit Shakespeare into what had, relatively recently, defined a poet.

You see, in Shakespeare's era, he was considered a Playwright. That's a fanciful title if one were to call oneself that today if you wrote "Starlight Express", but in the day it was merely a mundane job title: One who manufactures plays, not terribly different than a Cartwright or Wheelwright.

And that's pretty much how all poets and authors tended to be in that day. Craftsmen not looked upon as any different as any other.

Then came Lord Byron.

Lord Byron and his works ended up redefining what a poet was. No longer was it merely some guy penning it up on the 2nd floor while his grain sales down below are putting food on the table. Now your poet had to be independently wealthy, but more important he had to be noble, flawed and tortured.

So here's this son of a glovemaker producing some of the most referenced works in the English language, and in the late 19th century (and early 20th century) and he just does not fit with their Byronic Ideal.

So another candidate must be found. And we wind our merry way down the list of candidates. Francis Bacon was always the favorite until recently, since he wasn't inconveniently dead when a large number of the plays were written. But in recent years Oxfordians have come out of the woodwork thanks to a lousy movie that thinks Marlow couldn't write in Iambic Pentameter.

If you need proof, look no further than the OP where he refers to Oxford as "a flawed and even tortured genius", filling that Byronic checklist nicely once you note the Earldom at the head of his name.
Click to expand...
Probably the best analogue to Shakespeare today would be a TV series writer. Churning out material to be put on to entertain the masses.
 
Ok, the hypothetical smoking gun document is found, it is utterly clear which person or persons wrote the works.

Besides a few guys in a small musty library somewhere in England jumping up and cheering, and others scrambling to disprove it, what does it all change?

Still the same works and the same history behind it all. What is the big prize?
 
8enotto said:
Ok, the hypothetical smoking gun document is found, it is utterly clear which person or persons wrote the works.

Besides a few guys in a small musty library somewhere in England jumping up and cheering, and others scrambling to disprove it, what does it all change?

Still the same works and the same history behind it all. What is the big prize?
Click to expand...

TOTAL. INTERNET. WIN!
 
8enotto said:
Ok, the hypothetical smoking gun document is found, it is utterly clear which person or persons wrote the works.

Besides a few guys in a small musty library somewhere in England jumping up and cheering, and others scrambling to disprove it, what does it all change?

Still the same works and the same history behind it all. What is the big prize?
Click to expand...

You wrote your own answer.
 
You forgot the bear. The noble, flawed, and tortured poet has to have a pet bear.

(When he was up at Oxford, Byron found out he wasn't allowed to keep pet dogs in college. But they didn't say anything about pet bears.)
Click to expand...


Ah, that explains that scene in The Winter's Tale. I always thought it was there in order for a penny-pinching playwright/theatre owner to get a bit more mileage out of that bear costume the company bought...
 
In your opinion, which book gives the best introduction, to someone wishing to learn more about the truth of the matter? Which book gives the strongest foundation, for advocates of the claim. Which online resources would you recommend to those interested in honest inquiry?
Click to expand...


Shapiro's Contested Will is a good introduction to various It-had-to-be-somebody-else theories: the Earl of Oxford is a relative latecomer, having replaced Francis Bacon as a favorite alternative author by the late 20th century. Pretty much the same arguments with a different person.


My favorite general book on Shakespeare is "Shakespeare", by Peter Ackroyd, in which the author shows how the mechanics of putting on popular plays in the late 16th century are reflected in Shakespeare's works. Shapiro's A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare discusses contemporary allusions in several of the plays written c. 1599.
 
Retrograde said:
Shapiro's Contested Will is a good introduction to various It-had-to-be-somebody-else theories: the Earl of Oxford is a relative latecomer, having replaced Francis Bacon as a favorite alternative author by the late 20th century. Pretty much the same arguments with a different person.
Click to expand...

It didn't help that one of the first people to put this forward was named Thomas Looney.

I've often said that science fiction is "of its time". Sometimes it may be behind it. In Connie Willis's "Ado" (1988), with its satire of the tyranny of triggering words, the one student who demands and gets alternative authorship is a Baconian, which as everyone is noting is sooo five minutes ago.

:blackcat:
 
Retrograde said:
Shapiro's Contested Will is a good introduction to various It-had-to-be-somebody-else theories: the Earl of Oxford is a relative latecomer, having replaced Francis Bacon as a favorite alternative author by the late 20th century. Pretty much the same arguments with a different person.
Click to expand...

Which always confused me as Bacon at least died after all of Shakespeare's works were completed. Wheras with Oxford you have to do backflips and contortions to explain how plays written after his death were actually written earlier, or conveniently become 'inferior' plays in their eyes to satisfy the narrative.


My favorite general book on Shakespeare is "Shakespeare", by Peter Ackroyd, in which the author shows how the mechanics of putting on popular plays in the late 16th century are reflected in Shakespeare's works. Shapiro's A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare discusses contemporary allusions in several of the plays written c. 1599.
Click to expand...


And those mechanics are not something you can just 'mail in' from the Lordships house. Another detail that Anti-Stratfordians gloss over.
 
kookbreaker said:
Retrograde said:
Shapiro's Contested Will is a good introduction to various It-had-to-be-somebody-else theories: the Earl of Oxford is a relative latecomer, having replaced Francis Bacon as a favorite alternative author by the late 20th century. Pretty much the same arguments with a different person.
Click to expand...

Which always confused me as Bacon at least died after all of Shakespeare's works were completed. Wheras with Oxford you have to do backflips and contortions to explain how plays written after his death were actually written earlier, or conveniently become 'inferior' plays in their eyes to satisfy the narrative.
Click to expand...
I think certain aspects of the Baconian theory started to seem questionable. In particular, the Baconian theory came to rest pretty heavily on ciphers, and the ciphers got well and truly debunked by cryptanalysts William and Elizebeth Friedman in The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (1954). Not that people don't still look for ciphers and codes, but that method was somewhat discredited, at least for a while.


kookbreaker said:
Retrograde said:
My favorite general book on Shakespeare is "Shakespeare", by Peter Ackroyd, in which the author shows how the mechanics of putting on popular plays in the late 16th century are reflected in Shakespeare's works. Shapiro's A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare discusses contemporary allusions in several of the plays written c. 1599.
Click to expand...


And those mechanics are not something you can just 'mail in' from the Lordships house. Another detail that Anti-Stratfordians gloss over.
Click to expand...
As Shapiro and others have noted, whoever wrote the plays was also very familiar with the personnel of the Lord Chamberlain's/King's Men, almost as if the author was an actor, shareholder, and principle playwright of said company. The main comic role switched from a buffoonish clown to a wise fool right around the time Will Kemp left and was replaced by Robert Armin. Whoever wrote Henry IV Part 1 knew that one of the boy actors was capable of singing in Welsh. In some plays, an actor's name appears in place of a character's name. The name of one hired man appears in a couple of plays. His roles were small. Mainly, he was there for the other characters to comment on his thinness. As you say, the author had the kind of intimate knowledge of the company and playhouses that Bacon and Oxford were unlikely to possess, not to mention Marlowe, a-moldering in his grave.
 
8enotto said:
Ok, the hypothetical smoking gun document is found, it is utterly clear which person or persons wrote the works.

Besides a few guys in a small musty library somewhere in England jumping up and cheering, and others scrambling to disprove it, what does it all change?

Still the same works and the same history behind it all. What is the big prize?
Click to expand...

Well, that is an interesting thing. I was, as a kid, constrained to study some shakespeare. Although it was suppose to be awesome, I found his witterings to be almost juvenile in their lack of sophistication.

To me shakespear has always been an overblown, poor quality pulp fiction source of his era. Tolkien was far more poetic than shakspeer ever was. An his writings were intentionally done as opposed to the immortal tard.

Now, this begs a question. Why is it that the navel gazing fraternit promote shokspur as a type of paragon for eng.lit? Beats me. He was never any more that the pop.lit of his time. An early blogger if you will. He has no value beyond that.
 
This makes sense to me. I found his R and J a sort of early English telenovela with all the key items to interest the masses, not too nice about the upper classes. Then the teacher gave us a choice of more Will Shakespeare or something we never heard of, the second choice was unanimously chosen.
Wisconsin farmkids didn't appreciate culture apparently.

I have read Kant, Dante's divine comedy in full, and the entire Mission Earth series. And despite each being a difficult read ( each for its own reasons ) I could finish.
I couldn't finish R and J, used a cliffs notes to fake it and made innovative errors to hide it from a well prepared lit teacher.

We were warned she could spot it, and damn, she really could.
 
8enotto said:
Ok, the hypothetical smoking gun document is found, it is utterly clear which person or persons wrote the works.

Besides a few guys in a small musty library somewhere in England jumping up and cheering, and others scrambling to disprove it, what does it all change?

Still the same works and the same history behind it all. What is the big prize?
Click to expand...

It's the classic joke about academia: the fights are so bitter because the stakes are so small.
 
Still wondering how I might be able to make some money by believing that Shakespeare wrote his own plays. Is that going to come up again any time soon, or am I turning blue here for no reason?
 
abaddon said:
Now, this begs a question. Why is it that the navel gazing fraternit promote shokspur as a type of paragon for eng.lit? Beats me. He was never any more that the pop.lit of his time. An early blogger if you will. He has no value beyond that.
Click to expand...

Trailer for Upstart Crow last week (released when the A Level results came out) covers some of this (hope I got the YouTube link right)
 
WayneK said:
So you agree that his claim is wrong? It's a trivial point but it's one of the few factual claims he's made so far that can be checked for accuracy. That's why I was interested.
Click to expand...

Yes. The statement that "the Stratford man's name was never spelled with the second vowel, as in Shakespeare" is demonstrably false.
 
Lucian said:
I think certain aspects of the Baconian theory started to seem questionable. In particular, the Baconian theory came to rest pretty heavily on ciphers, and the ciphers got well and truly debunked by cryptanalysts William and Elizebeth Friedman in The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (1954). Not that people don't still look for ciphers and codes, but that method was somewhat discredited, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ciphers thing got ludicrous when they were counting the number of times a word appeared on a page, not addressing the fact that the plays were not printed formally until years after they were written and played, and that the number of times a word appears could change depending on the size of the tome the play was in.

Ignatius Donnelly was hilarious in his almost 1000 page tome on the matter when he counted spoken words in a page until he reached the word 'Bacon', then divided that word count by the page number and amazed himself that it was a round number, declared the odds of that to be 1 in 900 (the actual odds were 1 in 62). Donally also wanted Bacon to be credited for Marlow's works along with others.
 
Brainster said:
It's the classic joke about academia: the fights are so bitter because the stakes are so small.
Click to expand...

The stakes are small, but when you let people re-write history to fit their preconceived notions on the small things, soon someone will be doing it for the larger ones.
 
8enotto said:
I have read Kant, Dante's divine comedy in full, and the entire Mission Earth series. And despite each being a difficult read ( each for its own reasons ) I could finish.
I couldn't finish R and J, used a cliffs notes to fake it and made innovative errors to hide it from a well prepared lit teacher.
Click to expand...


But it's a play. The exposition is not always in the text but in the way the actors deliver the text. The printed text of a play is limitted just as a music score is to one of my meager musical talent. I skim the plays to find references, check my memory, compare to the movies etc. I read his sonnets for pleasure.



Near the start Ian McKellen "the more I perform the plays the more sure I am" Also gratuitous chance to link to a great performance
 
I recall an english teacher tried hard to get us to bite on sonnets and possibly appreciate them. The same teacher that loved poetry and couldn't get too many of us to love that.

But I was probably doodling and daydreaming most of that segment. I can't recall ever writing a poem or reading a sonnet. I wasn't the only thick headed kid there either.

I read a lot of the non fiction stuff then but the old classic list eluded me.
 
Well, that is an interesting thing. I was, as a kid, constrained to study some shakespeare. Although it was suppose to be awesome, I found his witterings to be almost juvenile in their lack of sophistication.
Click to expand...


I find Shakespeare hard to read. His plays were written over 400 years ago, and the language has changed a lot in that time (e.g., he uses "thou" and "you" very deliberately to mirror the classical French usage of "tu" and "vous", but if you're not used to this it's easy to miss a lot of subtleties.) Aside from grammar and vocabulary, there are references to things we don't get today. And as for juvenile - well, theatre was only about a generation old when he was writing. What's now cliche was new then.



I'm trying to see all Shakespeare's plays performed: a half-way decent performance makes all the difference, but there are still a lot of WTF??? moments (such as the King of Navarre and his court disguising themselves as Muscovites in Love's Labour's Lost). You can see hints of the commercialism in some plays - Henry IV Part 2 is essentially Henry IV Part 1 with 20% more Falstaff (and at the end Will promises that the character will appear in the sequel, Henry V - he knew what the crowd wanted. Too bad they had a falling out and the actor left the company). But the underlying human nature hasn't changed much since them: why else would Trumpites have protested a 2017 production of Julius Caesar that they though showed their hero as a dictator?
 
Retrograde said:
And as for juvenile - well, theatre was only about a generation old when he was writing. What's now cliche was new then.
Click to expand...
Theatre actually dates back many centuries before Shakespeare. What may have been relatively new was the way in which it was performed.
 
8enotto said:
Isn't actually reading anything Shakespeare now just a HS or college required reading selection?

We have copies of five of his works in the house library from people that had to read it in college. Nobody here reads them, we can't sell them and won't toss them.
A teacher cleaning his house gave me two copies of Romeo and Juliet.
Once the homework is done they are clutter.
Click to expand...

Don't toss them. Read them. They're really very good, and much more fun to read for no good reason than they ever were for school.
 
Retrograde said:
he uses "thou" and "you" very deliberately to mirror the classical French usage of "tu" and "vous",
Click to expand...


It's not to mirror French. That was common usage and I still hear it occasionally here.


eta: It's common enough that other Yorkshire folk refer to some Sheffielders as "dee-dars" because they pronouce "thee" as "dee" etc.
 
Last edited:
8enotto said:
I recall an english teacher tried hard to get us to bite on sonnets and possibly appreciate them. The same teacher that loved poetry and couldn't get too many of us to love that.

But I was probably doodling and daydreaming most of that segment. I can't recall ever writing a poem or reading a sonnet. I wasn't the only thick headed kid there either.

I read a lot of the non fiction stuff then but the old classic list eluded me.
Click to expand...

8enotto, I really like much of what you say and I think you're a fine mechanic, but......pistols at dawn!
 
So, I just kind of skimmed the thread so maybe this has been answered but:

1. What was/is the motive for hiding the true identity of the person who wrote Shakespeare's play's?

2. What is the motive of those who deny it was Shakespeare? Most other conspiracist motives are relatively obvious. Denying some random nut can change history by killing a famous or powerful person, denying that the NAZI's really were that bad, not admitting that your sacred text is actually wrong about a lot of things. Who cares if it wasn't actually a guy named Shakespeare and why do they care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom