Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 22:10:14 GMT
"the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks." Oh really? Actually, the plays do nothing of the sort. Sure, they tended to be about people in the upper class, but so did a lot of other stories written by normal people. "So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life." Mark Twain Yes, we can, because common sense dictates it. It's the simplest solution to The Authorship Question, because making any of the alternatives a remote possibility, you need several moving parts. The more moving parts a machine has, the more likely it is to fail. The more conspirators there are, the more likely the secret is to get out. Everything about his plays has the symptoms of being written by a guy just doing his job. He was a Populist. He specifically wrote things he knew would be popular with a wide audience, which included the middle and lowers classes. His plays had "Yo Momma!" jokes them, for crying out loud! And if you read them in chronological order, you actually see how the man improved his trade with each successive play (especially his tragedies). The Anti-Stratfordian argument also tends to ignore his duds, like Titus Andronicus. Or the fact Romeo and Juliet isn't really all that good of a tragedy. The first two acts of Romeo and Juliet play like a typical comedy, and then take a sudden dark turn and follow the standard tragedy formula of the time 'til it's end. The sudden shift in tone doesn't mesh well with the rest of the original play. Shakespeare didn't really nail the art of writing tragedy until he wrote Hamlet.
|
|