Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

[Robert]

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.'

[Pcdunn]

Ha, well done, Herlock, lol... If only it was so easy for the rest of us to be so sure of the right solution to any mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amazing! Rod’s solved this one as well

He knows who wrote Shakespeare.

He knows who killed Wallace.

Just tell us who Jack The Ripper was and I’ll propose you for an O.B.E.

[RodCrosby]

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...

[Mayerling]

Cogidubnus.
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

Hi Joe,

Please to just remember what George Bernard Shaw once said of the United States and England: "Two nations divided by a single language."

Jeff

[Mayerling]

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.

Phil

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.

Jeff

[Phil H]

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).

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Ditto

And my Capra aegagrus hircus too!

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

To me there is no question: William Shakespeare of Stratford was one and the same as "William Shakespeare" the playwright.

To me neither, Phil.

To me, such 'theories' are the equivalent, say, of people who claim that Vincnt Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper - sensationalist twaddle.

Oh attention-seeking, headlin-grabbing revisionism.

It does get my goat.

[Phil H]

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.

Phil

[Sally]

Yes indeed, languages evolve - every year a whole raft of new words make it into the OED and another raft of words fade into obscurity.

The words that tend to change are those pertaining to culture - like new words 'downlink' 'defriend' etc. Words petaining to environment, human interaction - immovables basically - tend to remain pretty constant.

That's why we can (mostly) understand Shakespeare after 400 years.

And the idea of 'bastardising' English is hilarious - English isn't a 'real' language at all - it's a mish-mash of several itself; so the idea that it can be 'bastardised' is highly questionable.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Joe

No offence taken...Firstly I'm a Brit myself...and hopefully a realistic one! But be aware that many folk on here are left pond and might well look askance!

My contention would be that it's U.S.English the world is eagerly learning to speak...the British Empire obviously spread the useage initially, but it's continuation as an international language is really down to US influence!

It certainly isn't one of the simplest languages in the world...in it's irregularity of construction it's probably one of the most difficult, and persons trying to learn it as a second tongue will probably confirm this...

All the best

Dave

[Smoking Joe]

Cogidubnus.
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

[Cogidubnus]

Bastardisation?

Think that's a bit strong Joe...The simple fact is that languages evolve...it's their nature...and you don't suppose English is almost a universal tongue because it's spoken in much of Britain do you?

Moreover many of the North American usages some people imagine are "bastardisations" are in fact examples of older usages now dead in Britain...

All the best

Dave

[Smoking Joe]

Personally I find the arguments put forward suggesting Shakespeare not only wasnt the author of all the works accredited to him,but COULDNT have been ,quite convincing. Mark Twain's views on the issue are well worth reading,and its difficult to argue with his logic imo. However its not really important who the author/authors were,its the content that matters ,and the exploitation ,beauty and richness of the English language,still available for the public to enjoy despite the present day bastardisation of the language, by Americans in particular,and by everyone else in general.