|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 18, 2017 3:51:09 GMT
Morpheus: Glad you are so open to hearing both sides of the issue and thanks for sending that great article in Newsweek. I hadn't seen it before. The debate should have no affect on our ability to appreciate the greatness of Shakespeare, but I think knowing the truth about the man behind the work will allow even a greater appreciation and understanding in how the author fits into the English Renaissance.
By the way, let me know if there is a particular book or the DVD "Last Will and Testament" that you want but are unable to find and I can help. One word of caution - the Ogburn book is very much worth reading but it is 800 pages long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 2:43:33 GMT
Morpheus: Glad you are so open to hearing both sides of the issue and thanks for sending that great article in Newsweek. I hadn't seen it before. The debate should have no affect on our ability to appreciate the greatness of Shakespeare, but I think knowing the truth about the man behind the work will allow even a greater appreciation and understanding in how the author fits into the English Renaissance. By the way, let me know if there is a particular book or the DVD "Last Will and Testament" that you want but are unable to find and I can help. One word of caution - the Ogburn book is very much worth reading but it is 800 pages long. Hey Howard, been meaning to go out and watch different versions of 'King Leer' on film and do a Shakespeare movie-month during the Summer for a change, kinda stuck here on reading books on the middle ages at the moment but will come back to your list of books at a later time. If you have some absolute favorites, that would be much appreciated. I was trying to apply logic to the Shakespeare question, it has been said that Shakespeare probably began his education at the age of six or seven at the Stratford grammar school. But this of course remains unproven, so if we take a contemporary that some say rivals Shakespeare's abilities as a playwright- what would their education look like? 'Born in Canterbury, England, in 1564. Christopher Marlowe's literary career lasted less than six years, and his life only 29 years, his achievements, most notably the play The Tragicall History of Doctor Faustus, ensured his lasting legacy. Christopher Marlowe was born in Canterbury around February 26, 1564 (this was the day on which he was baptized). He went to King's School and was awarded a scholarship that enabled him to study at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, from late 1580 until 1587. Marlowe earned his bachelor of arts degree in 1584, but in 1587 the university hesitated in granting him his master's degree. Its doubts (perhaps arising from his frequent absences, or speculation that he had converted to Roman Catholicism and would soon attend college elsewhere) were set to rest, or at least dismissed, when the Privy Council sent a letter declaring that he was now working "on matters touching the benefit of his country," and he was awarded his master's degree on schedule' www.biography.com/people/christopher-marlowe-9399572
|
|
camimac
Sophomore
@camimac
Posts: 915
Likes: 355
|
Post by camimac on Apr 20, 2017 2:47:01 GMT
Yes he was talented based on all the plays that he wrote. There are theories out there that he did not write any or all of the plays attributed to him. If any of those theories are right, then he was still talented, for making so many of us think for so many years that he wrote those plays
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 20, 2017 6:06:57 GMT
Morpheus: Glad you are so open to hearing both sides of the issue and thanks for sending that great article in Newsweek. I hadn't seen it before. The debate should have no affect on our ability to appreciate the greatness of Shakespeare, but I think knowing the truth about the man behind the work will allow even a greater appreciation and understanding in how the author fits into the English Renaissance. By the way, let me know if there is a particular book or the DVD "Last Will and Testament" that you want but are unable to find and I can help. One word of caution - the Ogburn book is very much worth reading but it is 800 pages long. Hey Howard, been meaning to go out and watch different versions of 'King Leer' on film and do a Shakespeare movie-month during the Summer for a change, kinda stuck here on reading books on the middle ages at the moment but will come back to your list of books at a later time. If you have some absolute favorites, that would be much appreciated. Morpheus: I like all of the books I recommended but if you are just considering the question for the first time, I would start with "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" by Diana Price. Some of the other candidates for authorship were well educated but I don't think the case for Marlowe is very strong. As far as the education of Edward de Vere is concerned, he was placed in the home of William Cecil at a young age as a ward of the court and had access to his vast library. It was there that Sir Thomas Smith, former Vice-Chamberlain of Cambridge University, was given the task of Oxford's education. According to Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, " It was an education to which almost no one else in England at that time could have had access. Among the hundreds of books in Smith’s library were the plays of the great Greek and Roman playwrights, Euripides, Sophocles and Plautus, favorites at that time for teaching boys Greek and Latin due to the fact that their plots and characters were better suited to capture the restless attention of teenagers than the proverbs of Erasmus or the letters of Cicero." Here is her full article on Oxford's tutor and its connection to Shakespeare's plays. politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/the-big-six-candidates/oxford-and-the-english-literary-renaissance/shakespeare-smith-and-cecil/
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 20, 2017 6:41:54 GMT
Yes he was talented based on all the plays that he wrote. There are theories out there that he did not write any or all of the plays attributed to him. If any of those theories are right, then he was still talented, for making so many of us think for so many years that he wrote those plays Nice try. It's pretty murky though as to whether or not William of Stratford tried to make anyone think he was the great author. During his lifetime (1564-1616), no one publicly associated him as being the playwright and he never claimed to be. The connection was only made in the First Folio seven years after his death most likely to hide the identity of the true author.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 23:39:23 GMT
Morpheus: I like all of the books I recommended but if you are just considering the question for the first time, I would start with "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" by Diana Price. Some of the other candidates for authorship were well educated but I don't think the case for Marlowe is very strong. As far as the education of Edward de Vere is concerned, he was placed in the home of William Cecil at a young age as a ward of the court and had access to his vast library. It was there that Sir Thomas Smith, former Vice-Chamberlain of Cambridge University, was given the task of Oxford's education. According to Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, " It was an education to which almost no one else in England at that time could have had access. Among the hundreds of books in Smith’s library were the plays of the great Greek and Roman playwrights, Euripides, Sophocles and Plautus, favorites at that time for teaching boys Greek and Latin due to the fact that their plots and characters were better suited to capture the restless attention of teenagers than the proverbs of Erasmus or the letters of Cicero." Here is her full article on Oxford's tutor and its connection to Shakespeare's plays. politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/the-big-six-candidates/oxford-and-the-english-literary-renaissance/shakespeare-smith-and-cecil/Howard, yes I know, Marlowe was picked as someone that could be recognized as an equal to the abilities of Shakespeare, there is no doubt that because of his early death that he could not be Shakespeare but I have always tended to believe that Shakespeare was the general 'producer' of the plays and the works have core writers with some collaboration to them. See your article points out the obvious fact to those who are open-minded about the Authorship question the more you search for Shakespeare's connection to the works the more elusive he becomes. Is there another Literary figure who is this shady and filled with historical assumption? Look at your candidate Sir Thomas Smith, those are some serious connections and attributes, we know so much about this lesser figure and know so little about the greater one that is most strange that we so readily take the academics word for it- just because they say so. "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" by Diana Price- does look like a good place to start, thanks According to the Folger Library, there are 884,647 words in the complete works of Shakespeare, 37 plays total, 154 sonnets, it is figured that he had to write his business contracts, letters and nothing but a few scribblings of signatures exist and even those can be called into doubt, as signed by a clerk. There are no mentions of a personal library or books in his estate.
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 21, 2017 1:31:44 GMT
Morpheus: A very well reasoned and well written reply.
"
My candidate is the Earl of Oxford, not Sir Thomas Smith but I know you meant to say that. Let me know if you have any questions about the issue (there really are more questions than answers) and about how your reading is going. Thanks for your openness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 23:51:41 GMT
Morpheus: A very well reasoned and well written reply. " My candidate is the Earl of Oxford, not Sir Thomas Smith but I know you meant to say that. Let me know if you have any questions about the issue (there really are more questions than answers) and about how your reading is going. Thanks for your openness. Sorry there, the article kept mentioning Smith, must of thought that he was the Earl of Oxford. Was also looking at several diagrams of Oswald's possible bullet shots and trajectories, luckily I didn't type the 'Earl of Oswald' -LOL Still doing some more reading on potential candidates, will give you a heads up as more questions arise.
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 22, 2017 1:27:23 GMT
Morpheus: Smith was Oxford's tutor in William Cecil's house. I won't get into what Mr. Oswald did or didn't do.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 25, 2017 15:11:54 GMT
Yes he was talented based on all the plays that he wrote. There are theories out there that he did not write any or all of the plays attributed to him. If any of those theories are right, then he was still talented, for making so many of us think for so many years that he wrote those plays Nice try. It's pretty murky though as to whether or not William of Stratford tried to make anyone think he was the great author. During his lifetime (1564-1616), no one publicly associated him as being the playwright and he never claimed to be. The connection was only made in the First Folio seven years after his death most likely to hide the identity of the true author. This is not quite correct, in 1592 for instance there is a clear reference by contemporary, fellow playwright Thomas Greene, accepted by all scholars I have read, of Shakespeare "with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide [itself a quote from the Bard], supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country..." where the attack is obviously one directed at the youthful and ambitious writer.
Those who suggest Marlowe as the true author of Shakespeare's works have to contend with the fact, well, that Marlowe died some years before many of the major plays, and that the Canterbury writer's characteristic style and manner - the 'mighty line' and overreaching atheisms etc are nowhere to be found in the Bard's flexible use of blank verse and generally patriotic, royalty-pleasing output. This is not to say of course, as modern scholars have lately come to think that Marlowe did not help out the Stratfordian with some early work, e.g. H6.
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 25, 2017 17:42:20 GMT
This is not quite correct, in 1592 for instance there is a clear reference by contemporary, fellow playwright Thomas Greene, accepted by all scholars I have read, of Shakespeare "with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide [itself a quote from the Bard], supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country..." where the attack is obviously one directed at the youthful and ambitious writer.
Those who suggest Marlowe as the true author of Shakespeare's works have to contend with the fact, well, that Marlowe died some years before many of the major plays, and that the Canterbury writer's characteristic style and manner - the 'mighty line' and overreaching atheisms etc are nowhere to be found in the Bard's flexible use of blank verse and generally patriotic, royalty-pleasing output. This is not to say of course, as modern scholars have lately come to think that Marlowe did not help out the Stratfordian with some early work, e.g. H6.
FilmFlaneur - I agree with you that the case for Marlowe is weak but it does have its strong adherents. There is no evidence at all that Marlowe survived the 1593 attack and went into hiding, producing plays in the name of William Shakespeare. I do not discount this as impossible but there are many other reasons why, I believe, that Marlowe could not have been Shakespeare which I won’t go into here (I am an Oxfordian). As far as Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit is concerned, I can see why the Stratfordians have latched onto this as evidence for Shakespeare as a playwright and actor since it is the only thing they have to point to. It is, however, simply an interpretation not a fact and one in which many disagree. In 1592, the name Shakespeare had never before appeared in association with the theater or acting or authorship. There is no record of William Shakespeare being in London until 1595, three years later. If he was Shake-scene, a bigger than life actor, it is strange that no one had ever mentioned him before. All of Shakespeare's plays were published anonymously until 1598 when William Shakespeare's name first appeared on the title pages of three plays. Why would Greene think that anyone would associate the word “Shake-scene” with someone who was totally unknown? There is evidence and much support for the idea that Greene was referring to Edward Alleyn, the most famous actor of the London stage during that period. Whoever one may think the reference is directed towards, we are not dealing here with an official record or a historical fact, only conjecture. In terms of documenting his activities as a playwright there is no evidence (however murky) until the publication of the First Folio in 1623 of any association between Shakespeare the author, and Shaksper the business man and entrepreneur form Stratford. For a full discussion of differing points of view on the subject of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, I strongly invite you to read the following articles. One is from a Marlovian, the other from an Oxfordian. They are a bit long but fully worth your time and consideration. www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_03_pinksen_upstartcrowalleyn.pdfshakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/greenes-groatsworth-shakespeares-biography/
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 26, 2017 10:14:37 GMT
FilmFlaneur - I agree with you that the case for Marlowe is weak but it does have its strong adherents. There is no evidence at all that Marlowe survived the 1593 attack and went into hiding, producing plays in the name of William Shakespeare. I do not discount this as impossible but there are many other reasons why, I believe, that Marlowe could not have been Shakespeare which I won’t go into here (I am an Oxfordian). Plenty of daft ideas in this world have their strong adherents. I can't speak for the others, but the unflattering identification of Shakespeare with writing (not least since Greene references a quote from one of his plays and puns upon the name) seems a reasonable interpretation of the passage to me.
This is something of a circular, but inevitable, argument, that Shakespeare was unknown since no one mentions him, and then that no one would associate his name with an obvious reference since he was unknown. Also, just because surviving references are rare to Shakespeare as a dramatist does not mean that they did not once exist. The same point of course might also be made about your preferred candidate, De Vere, where there is no contemporary mention of his involvement with creating the Shakespeare canon at all - and in fact later supporters are often reduced to suggesting that the record was falsified to protect the identity of the 'real' author. In light of the claims made against the obvious author, this seems to be wanting one's historical cake and eating it! (Not to mention, like Marlowe, De Vere died before the end of the largely accepted Shakespearian output chronology, which makes his contribution rather difficult even for those who argue the case. I don't accept that the later plays were written before then 'tinkered with' after De Vere.) I did enjoy the film Anonymous though.
My views are not that of an expert, or definitive, of course. But I took a degree in English Literature and have read around it.
Thank you for the links.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 26, 2017 12:32:37 GMT
I hate reading Shakespeare and I'd say he was immensely talented.
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 26, 2017 14:37:05 GMT
I can't speak for the others, but the unflattering identification of Shakespeare with writing (not least since Greene references a quote from one of his plays and puns upon the name) seems a reasonable interpretation of the passage to me. The point is that it is an interpretation, reasonable or not, rather than historical fact.
Surviving references to Shakespeare from Stratford as a writer before 1623 are not only rare, they are non-existent. Surviving references to Shakespeare as a serial killer are also absent but that does not mean that they did not once exist.
There is no "obvious" author. There is only circumstantial evidence for both William and de Vere. If the evidence was so obvious, there would be no authorship debate.
Of course there is no mention of de Vere as involved with creating the Shakespeare canon since the purpose of using a pseudonym is supposed to accomplish just that. There are several oblique references, however, to the author being a person of the court.
Since there are no manuscripts, dating of Shakespeare's plays are conjecture. Dates of publication and dates of performance tell us nothing about the date of composition. Whether or not you accept the idea that the later plays were edited and completed by another writer such as Oxford's son-in-law, the Earl of Derby, it remains a possibility.
There are really no experts on the authorship question, only interpretation based on research. Stratfordian biographies are 5% fact and 95% imagination. Which books have you read from an anti-Stratfordian point of view? Did you read Ogburn, Anderson, Price, Chiljan, Steinburg? Like to hear your comments on the articles.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 26, 2017 15:32:24 GMT
Surviving references to Shakespeare from Stratford as a writer before 1623 are not only rare, they are non-existent. As already demonstrated, there is at least one, widely accepted by scholars as such, and on what I think quite reasonable grounds. It is hard to show who else is likely to be referred to in the famous 'upstart crow' passage. LOL When someone makes the argument that Shakespeare was a murderer, then I am sure this observation will be relevant lol. Only to those who wish to denounce the obvious. There are various reasons for the debate which rumbles on in certain quarters: that some are loath for instance to think that our greatest writer could be just a grammar school boy, poor or lacking in Latin and Greek, in a preference for a titled creator - which ultimately is just cultural snobbery. And the problem with both Marlowe and De Vere simply not surviving into the years of the late plays is really a major one to overcome. (Let alone not matching , in Marlowe's case, the same concerns and style and, with De Vere not even being a demonstrated dramatist, while certainly not showing the genius as poet in his directly attributable works) It's one reason, I am sure, why the Oxford idea has been rejected by nearly all academic Shakespeareans - although it is still kicked around as a novelty by enthusiasts and, apparently, Prince Charles. Of course 'most academics' can be wrong. and the popularity of an idea is not proof of its truth. But at the end of the day one has to ask one's self what is most reasonable, particularly whether heavily relying on biographical allusions, and the conspiratorial notion of a otherwise 'suppressed author', as is the case with De Vere, is sufficient to make a convincing case - as the original Looney I remember first thought back in the 20's (I have his first edition book btw). You are fully entitled to your opinions, naturally! Yes, conspiracy theories can be wonderful things, can they not? That, I feel is one attractive side of De Vere's case which brings in the supporters. Has anyone suggested that Shakespeare 'wrote' Marlowe before having to 'kill off' his alter ego for political reasons btw? The chronology is better there! Given the rough ride you give to Greene's, far less oblique, mention, it would seem strange to so readily then see gold in vaguer references elsewhere. Never the less the chronology has become reasonably firm in recent years, due to the efforts of many scholars and today there is a broad consensus. Of course a consensus can be overthrown; but you will need good reason to show why. And of course if the dating of the plays is really that loose, then why not move more of them, just as casually, past 1604, and De Vere's death? There is no doubt that the extent of collaboration in the production of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama is a vexed and tangled one (as I expect you know, recently, scholars have begun to think Marlowe contributed to parts of H6, while there is no doubt that Shakespeare at the end of his career was mixed in with others on Sir Thomas More, etc). But leaving aside the arrival of yet another titled contributor to the oeuvre, saying that De Vere contributed, rather than wrote entire works is another thing entirely. I have read Looney and one or two others (years back when studying, forget which and sorry to be so vague.) The claims, as I remember them, were largely the same - built on supposed biographical allusions, hints, possibilities and necessary conspiracies with a touch of snobbery. I also read a fair bit of those who suggested 'codes' to be found in Shakespeare, the Dan Browns of their day, in fact. It is certainly a fertile ground! Just as those coded messages fell away when clinching demonstration was asked for, none of the Shakespeare candidates of whose work I have read away from their purported writing as the bard have shown any of his style, imagination or genius, the real litmus test of likelihood for me, at least. Sorry, but that is the truth of my personal feeling. Has there been any work on comparing the vocabulary of De Vere and Shakespeare, their grammar & etc btw? This is a very fruitful field. Perhaps it has been done and is discussed in one of your links. Will have a look in due course and try and get back to you. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on Apr 26, 2017 16:44:27 GMT
It is widely accepted by Stratfordian academics and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. No one else. The articles whose links I sent are about the Greene's Groatworths of Wit discussion. Perhaps if you read the articles, then we can have a more fruitful discussion. The point of course is that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. That is why speculation is not allowed in a court of law. No one is denouncing the obvious. The point is that it is not obvious at all and, at the very least, there is reasonable doubt about the true author. Please read the following: doubtaboutwill.org/declarationNo Oxfordian to my knowledge has ever made the argument that William could not have written the plays because of his background. The point is not that a great writer could not have come from a poor or middle-class background and attended grammar school (of which there is no proof). The point is that the evidence is lacking of how William of Stratford could have acquired the overwhelming knowledge evident in the plays. The fact is that the plays are written from an aristocratic point of view. Of 37 plays, 36 are laid in royal courts and the world of the nobility. The principal characters are almost all aristocrats with the exception perhaps of Shylock and Falstaff. From all we can tell, Shakespeare fully shared the outlook of his characters, identifying fully with the courtesies, chivalries, and generosity of aristocratic life. Lower class characters in Shakespeare are almost all introduced for comic effect and given little development. Their names are indicative of their worth: Snug, Stout, Starveling, Dogberry, Simple, Mouldy, Wart, Feeble, etc. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up Marlowe since I have said that I don't think the case for his authorship is plausible. We are all familiar with "group-think." The myth of William of Stratford as the great author is deeply imbedded in the culture and any academic who goes against the grain soon finds himself or herself isolated in their departments. If you doubt that, I can cite examples. I daresay also that the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has a big investment in tourist dollars gained from the Stratford mythology. The term "conspiracy theory" is not an argument, just a pejorative epithet designed to stifle debate. Stick to the issues. I suggested the references as evidence (valid or not) that the attribution was questioned even in WS day. Stratfordian consensus about dating of the plays and poems are neatly fit into what is known (very little) about Shakespeare's biography. Read Kenneth Gilvary's book "Dating Shakespeare's Plays." Sorry, there is plenty of doubt about Shakespeare collaboration. (I won't burden you with any more links to support that, but if you wish I can include them). Do we have any evidence from any collaborators saying, yes I knew Shakespeare. We worked together on such and such a play. His personality was thus and thus. The bottom line is that during Shakespeare's lifetime, no one claimed to have met the man. We don't have any writing of de Vere extant other than some poems written in his teens and twenties. The only writing we have for William are six scrawled, barely legible signatures, each spelled differently. We have no letters either to or from, no diaries, anecdotes, or manuscripts of any kind in his pen. There are no "supposed" biographical allusions in the plays. There are 586 specific allusions to Oxford's life detailed in Steven Steinburg's book "I Come to Bury Shaksper." Check it out. All your rhetoric about conspiracies and snobbery and codes is just verbiage that doesn't address the issues raised in the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" which I linked earlier.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 27, 2017 10:45:00 GMT
It is widely accepted by Stratfordian academics and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. No one else. If by 'Stratfordian academics' you mean those who accept WS as the author of the Bard's plays make up the vast majority. Once again, I will admit that a majority can be wrong in their view and popularity is not a guarantee of validity. But something which is possible is not necessary likely. Once again, thank you for the link. However I ought to say that whenever I looked at arguments against the standard interpretation of the famous Greene passage, rejection of the standard reading tends to involve much more supposition and unnatural re-interpretation of what (to me) appears obvious references, both a Shakespeare play and the man himself through a simple pun, which is unmistakable. But I can understand the Oxfordians having to work overtime on this key piece of evidence. Have there been any groundbreaking discoveries in recent years? Given the amount of speculation which surrounds most aspects of the Oxfordians, mostly based on biographical implications somewhat optimistically drawn out, this sounds ironic to me. There is also the complete absence of any directly attributable drama by De Vere, so thank you for reminding me of such a useful principle. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I naturally wish you well with yours. Thank you for yet another link, I did open it, but even with the arguments and special pleading unfortunately I did not feel compelled to sign (for one thing it is 10 years old) ... although the presence of Charlie Chaplin and Lord Palmerston, there sold as past literary judges, was very persuasive. Actually the incipient snobbery which underlies a good deal of Oxfordian scholarship, although maybe not often explicit, I have noted when reading around the subject. It has been especially noticeable on the one or two times the controversy has aired on UK TV (although the coverage is not recommended over the literature on the subject anyway!) I allow you your opinion and so I am sure you will offer me the same. Given the needs and requirements of the time, Shakespeare's own constant concern with 'order and degree' - personified, very often, by a royalty properly justified in its claim to the throne - and the conventions of contemporary drama, none of this is surprising. Marlowe for instance wrote the substantial, and entirely characteristic E2, but one doubts he was a royal. Your observation is also rather a tenuous reason for changing an authorship. Supposing Shakespeare was an aristocrat since, well, he wrote a lot about them with some knowledge, is like saying that Max Brand ("the Shakespeare of the Western Range") must have been a cowboy, as he wrote so much and so well about them too. I am not implying you do, but he has had his supporters. And, at the very least, he shows a genius in drama and poetry which I have not discovered with De Vere. Since the case for De Vere always involves a conspiracy of sorts at some point in the story, I cannot imagine how such considerations can be avoided, sorry. So what then, do you think the actual chronology ought to be? Presumably, all written by De Vere before his death? What would be the evidence for that? I have already said that Shakespeare's collaborations and proposed collaborators is a vexed question, although there is usually some consensus on who with whom (the jointly composed text of Pericles for instance is a clear example within the canon). As I am sure you know, collaboration was common between dramatists at this time, for various reasons. Hence, it might even have been possible for De Vere, yes, to have had a hand in the work of others. But this is a long way from attributing an entire canon representing towering genius to someone who does not display it at all elsewhere. Again, while undoubtedly true, this does not necessarily mean that De Vere wrote Shakespeare. Such inferences, drawn from a bias towards an interpretation of what will always be circumstantial evidence - if evidence it is - just shows how far the Oxfordians have always to stretch to make a case. Never the less a good deal of the De Vere case rests on just such allusions, optimistically drawn out from the aristo's biography Thank you, I have that reference from you already. Now you unfortunately appear to be getting personal, which is a shame. And, it might be observed, that you haven't addressed the issue of De Vere's death date (i.e. before the late plays appeared); the lack of a corresponding 'star quality' in any of his surviving works - indeed the lack of any dramatic work of his entirely - and the need to presuppose a grand conspiracy between a company of dramatists and a aristo to make theories work lol, let alone the implication that there is has been a cabal of Stratfordians down the years, keeping the lid on things...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 27, 2017 11:13:40 GMT
Thank you; I have now perused this one at least and note its conclusion:
Where we see that the best that can be managed is to draw out (as the author sees it) 'likelihood' based around a more general character assassination, hardly a shock given that the dying Greene was clearly not well-disposed towards the new arrival. Whatever, they do not deny that the passage is about WS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:53:22 GMT
Thought that I might add an article that I found that makes some pretty good points. In Elizabethan times, Shake-spear meant to shake-a-spear. Shaking a spear is a reference to the Greek goddess of theater, Pallas-Athena, also known as the spear-shaker. This goddess is always depicted carrying a spear, hence the pen name, Shake-spear. Many plays, not credited to William Shakespeare appeared under the nom-de-plume Shake-spear, including The London Prodigal, The Second Maiden's Tragedy, The Puritan, The Widow of Watling Street, The Comedy of George a Greene, Fair Em - the Miller's daughter, The Birth of Martin, The Arraignment of Paris and The Merrie Devil of Edmonton. Since these plays are not believed to have been written by the mythical William Shakespeare, clearly at least one other writer was using the pen name Shake-spear. His Vocabulary The works attributed to Shakespeare contain one of the largest vocabularies of any single English writer. John Milton's Paradise Lost, for example has about 8,000 different words. The King James Version of the Bible, inspired by God and translated by 48 of Great Britain's greatest biblical scholars, has 12,852 different words. There are 29,066 different words in Shakespeare's Canon. There is a startling incoherence between the story of a young man, with at best a grammar-school education, wandering into London, getting involved in theatre, and then suddenly, even miraculously, possessing one of the greatest vocabularies of any individual who ever lived. A partial list of the Shakespeare doubters include Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Thomas Hardy, Oliver Wendel Holmes, Walt Whitman, Otto von Bismarck, Benjamin Disraeli, James Joyce, James Barrie, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, John Gielgud, John Galsworthy, Leslie Howard, Daphne Dumaurier, Malcolm X, Helen Keller, Derek Jacobi, US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and Henry James, who wrote, "I am haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced" The writer of Shakespeare's plays had command of not only English, but Latin, Greek, French, Italian, German, Spanish and other languages. His French in particular is not of the classroom but reflects the vulgar speech of ordinary people. There are themes and passages from classical works untranslated in Shakespeare's day. Among many examples, The Comedy of Errors was based on a Latin play by Plautus of which there was no translation. Genius however has its limitations. Historian Thomas Macaulay said: "Genius will not furnish a poet with a vocabulary; it will not teach what word exactly corresponds with his idea and will most surely convey it to others. Information and experience are necessary for strengthening the imagination." Elizabethan England was a land of brutal censorship. There was no freedom of speech. The Master of the Revels and the dreaded Star Chamber had the power to imprison and torture any writer. The playwright Thomas Kyd was essentially tortured to death. Christopher Marlowe was facing torture when he was murdered or, as some believe, staged his own murder and escaped. Playwrights Ben Jonson, Thomas Nashe, George Chapman, John Marston were all temporarily imprisoned for their writings. William Shaxper, supposedly one of the most prolific and successful of the Elizabethan playwrights, was never arrested. This fact is particularly astonishing given that the Earl of Essex sponsored a performance of his Richard II to encourage a rebellion against the Queen Elizabeth I. The Earl of Essex was arrested and executed, but Shaxper was never so much as questioned. At such an incredibly dangerous time for artists, remaining anonymous for an Elizabethan playwright would have been a wise choice. webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A1rJf8YxitIJ:http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2010_top_ten.pdf+shakespear+did+not+exist&hl=en&ct=clnk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 4:10:07 GMT
I agree.
|
|