The Baconians etc do serve a purpose though, I think.
There is a mind set, even in intelligent and otherwise practical people that (perhaps subliminally) searches for patterns, finds them and then convinces its self that this cannot be random or accidental - therefore it must be the truth. This cast of mind is, IMHO, however wrong, convinced of its own rightness.
I see that as slightly different to the clever and deliberate manipulation of facts and logic that often seems to underlay the Vincent in JtR; or the aliens/Atlanteans/someone created the first earthly civilisations. This mind set knows the contrivance that underpins all its proposals, but sets out to make money out of it (von Daniken et al).
To re-ignite the original theme of this discussion, I have delved quite deeply into the subject over recent years. To me the answer is quite clear:
* the plays and poems contain Warwickshire "dialect" words for many things and William was a Warwickshire lad;
* the works can be related closely to events in William Shakespeare's life;
* Ovid's Metamorphoses is known to have been one of Shakespeare's favorite works/sources;
* there is a copy of Hall's chronicles (a source for the History Plays) that is annotated in a hand acknowledged by experts to be Shakespeare's;
* Honigmann has shown that the "lost years" can be explained by a sojourn in Lancashire which connects William to Lord Strange (later the Earl of Derby)and his acting company;
* many activities mentioned in the plays, and the use of metaphor related to them, would have been familiar to Shakespeare - such as glove-making and butchery;
* William's catholic upbringing can be related to some of the approaches to authority etc taken in his plays;
* the so-called insights into the noble life-style can be explained readily by, at the outset his relation to the Arden family and later to his exposure to the royal court and courtiers;
* Shakespeare was alive through the time his plays appeared (which marlow, as an example, was not);
* William's acting associates published the first folio in his name - why do so if they did not know and recognise him as the author?
* disputes about different signatures/spellings of the name, simply reflect the custom of the day which did not have recognised or consistent spelling.
I reject all the complex ideas of Baconian codes (no one agrees on any) or other "games", with William as a cover for a more "noble" author, as ridiculous and impractical.
To me there is no question: William Shakespeare of Stratford was one and the same as "William Shakespeare" the playwright.
I might add one more item. A minor dramatist named Greene was apparently jealous of Shakespeare's success, and wrote a purposely misquoted line from one of the Shakespeare plays as a put down on his unnamed rival (whom he refers to as a "Shakescene". Somehow, had Bacon or the Earl of Oxford written the plays, I am sure Greene would have heard and muzzled his comments - they would not have looked tolerantly at somebody making waves about their plays, and they would have had the clout to make life unpleasant for Greene or anyone else who did just that.
I was writing a little tongue in cheek,not meaning to give offense.Ive nothing against Americans -in fact Im married to one.The bastardisation (which strictly speaking isnt bastardisation) is the modern use by the younger generation of words such as kewl, etc and written expressions on the internet pmsl-ffs- and of course "gangbanga" language(if that is the correct term)and so on and so forth.
Universal language?If it is its not because of the fact its spoken in Britain. Its because,in part ,its one of the simplest,easiest languages in the world,both in speech and script. Britains empire contributed to its spread obviously.I wasnt trying to suggest that anything that came from Britain ,must by virtue of that fact be superior .Though it probabley is.
Anyway no offence intended
Please to just remember what George Bernard Shaw once said of the United States and England: "Two nations divided by a single language."
The lad from Stratford beyond doubt DID NOT write the works attributed to "Shake-speare." [We know that non-canonical works were also published under the name "Shake-speare", in any case, and the man from Stratford did nothing to protect his "name", oddly, given he was quite prone to litigation in other matters...]
Alone amongst his "literary contemporaries" there is not one first-hand document that indicates that he wrote anything at all, while there are copious documents extant which reveal his actual activities as actor, broker, property-dealer, money-lender, tax-dodger, grain-hoarder, social-climber, etc..
The chance of him being the writer, yet leaving absolutely no paper trail, is statistically about 108,000 to 1 against...
He could barely scratch his own name, for God's sake, and his immediate family, parents, wife, children and grandchildren were illiterate.
Even in the Stratford man's lifetime - long before anyone posthumously pointed to him as the author - some people dropped heavy hints that "Shake-speare" was a nom-de-plume, a front...
I know who wrote "Shake-speare". The evidence runs through the story like a golden thread. One name, again and again, is in the foreground or the background of the content, production and publication of the plays, intimately linked to the locations mentioned in the plays, intimately linked to the characters featured in the plays, with the education, intelligence and the money to make it all happen during the course of thirty years, while remaining anonymous.
And near the end, long after the death of the man from Stratford, he came as close as possible to revealing himself to posterity...
__________________ "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Last edited by RodCrosby : 02-20-2018 at 06:16 AM.
In Liverpool, they've discovered what is purportedly an original manuscript of 'Julius Caesar.' However, experts aren't so sure, e.g. 'they could not find a heart within the beast. No heart, no heart.'