Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Firstly, there's no more and no less reason to believe that Marlowe was Bacon, Dekker was Oxford and Johnson was Raleigh than there is that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare. There's no 'mystery' about Shakespeare unless you actively try and make it.
I don't think this is quite right. There are definitely 'questions' about certain things.
Now, if those questions get answered then all is hunky-dory...if they do not - and if the self-appointed (or otherwise) 'authorities' act 'shadily' then you have the germ of a 'Conspiracy Theory' and of course, nutters will be attracted.
In this case though there is something there and to brand all people interested in this area alongside the nutters who are also there is foolish. Some of the world's greatest intellects have been doubters on this issue and do not see 'no problems' as you seem to; Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Umberto Eco and Freud all spring immediately to mind.
Well, there's all the... what shall we call it? Ah, evidence.
That's the word. On the manuscript question, how much of Marlowe, Dekker or Johnson's autograph script remains, Segovius?
Ah...the evidence. Still waiting to see that and perhaps we can debate it...
Manuscripts: that is true, there is no evidence of these but two points; 1) they were not accused of plagiarism and 2) they were not Shakespeare.
It is similar to Jesus - you could say that there is no evidence of him and no evidence of another teacher called Balthazar Barrabas but the two are not an equivalence because one is claimed to be extraordinary. So it is with Shakespeare but I concede your point; lack of evidence is no evidence and certainly not proof.
Fortunately my argument does not centre on this.
So I say that Shakespeare wrote Dekker and Johnson wrote Marlowe. It's a conspiracy!
Well, you can say that! I fully support you! You may even be right......my personal opinion is that there was a Shakespeare 'group' of which several people were members (including the actor and including De Vere but not the usual suspects such as Bacon) so why not?
The signatures on the wills are disputed.
What you have to realize about scholars is that some of them are insane. They are not necessarily interested in truth; if it were proved that (say) someone else wrote some of the works then then reputations would be ruined and 'experts' would looks like fools. This is what they are fighting against.
My first Professor at London University refused to let me write a thesis on a certain topic because he had written a book arguing the opposite. He may have been right or wrong, certainly he knew much more than me so probably he was right - that is not the point; they are defending turf.
You need to bear that in mind in this area...it is not like science where proof is all. Or should be.
Sorry. And it's more than we have for Christopher Marlowe, incidentally.
Well, some say Marlowe Shakespeare so their argument (not mine) would be that this is not surprising.
We know that William Shakespeare the player and playwright was from Stratford, We know that the same man was a player and part-owner of the Globe. We know that the same man had his name on texts printed in his life-time (the Sonnets, the Phoenix... and there's also the 'Parnassus' text.
We don't know that they were the same man. We know that it was the same name. That is the whole crux of the debate...
Incidentally.....we have documentary proof that Shakespeare was claimed to be dead in a legal petition of 1615:
1. Actor John Heminges' daughter, Thomasina, married William Ostler, one of
the actors of the King's men. He died in 1614 leaving shares
in the leases of the Globe and Blackfriars theatres to Thomasina.
She was unable to obtain possession of the shares from her
father and filed suit against him. Her petition, dated 1615,
(cut quoted Latin)
If you have no Latin then you may want to obtain a translation
for yourself. The gist of it is that Thomasina refers to
"Richard and Cuthbert Burbadge, gentlemen of London, and to
Willelmo Shakespeare, Augustino Phillips and Thomas Pope of
London, dead gentlemen." The Latin case indicates long dead,
whereas Willelmo Kempe, in the next line, is referred to as " a
gentleman from London recently deceased."
As the researcher in the linked post says:
On the basis of this unrefuted legal document, there must have
been two William Shakespeares; one who had had shares in the Globe
and was dead by 1608 at the latest, and one who was still alive
and well in Stratford in 1615.
The link also has another very impressive point re a collection of de Vere's poetry which contain Shakespeare attributed works. There has also been a recent discovery of de Vere's personal Bible which has many annotations and outlines of plots which appear in later Shakespeare works.
And you want some references? Er... OK.
I got those of a web-site. Yeah, I'm lazy, but I'm spending time I could be arguing with creationists on defending one of my heroes.
Well, I have some piquant views on the evolution issue also but let's not digress....
And "Don't Talk To Me About Heroes - Most Of These Men Seem Like Serfs"
Incidentally, there's also Shakespeare's coat of arms, which he spent a long time trying to achieve recognition for. Ben Johnson took the piss of Shakespeare because of it. NUL SANZ DROIT, it was if I remember my Burgess. Johnson was taking the piss out of a pretentious bumpkin in 'Every Man...' and satirised it: 'NOT WITHOUT MUSTARD'.
Yes, I love the Coat of Arms issue: a person who would act in that way seems to me to be petty, materialistic, snobbish, class-obsessed and in essence a prototype of today's Conservative wingers.
In short, a man incapable of the psychological insight and emotional depth, not to mention the political critique, of the writer of the works attributed to him.
It's like saying that someone with the identical character and intellectual insight of George Bush wrote the Magna Carta, the Dhamapada and Plato's Republic.
Jonson often criticized Shakespeare on both an artistic and personal level - although he never mentioned him by name until long after his death; he is clearly mocking an idiot.
I put it to you that Jonson would not have found the greatest writer of all time a figure suitable for lampooning and the fact that he had cause to do so is suggestive.
Seriously. Shakespeare was Shakespeare. It's a total, utter non-starter, a conspiracy for the sake of a conspiracy, a cover up of nothing.
Perhaps you are right.
But your opinion is just that; an opinion. It is not based on logic, I sense there is something deeper here. Perhaps you have some unpleasant interaction in the distant past with someone wearing a tin-foil hat? I sense betrayal.
Or maybe you just read too much James Randi.
It doesn't matter if he was thought of a plagiarist. People thought he was. So what? He still wrote the plays and poems (and how do you explain the sonnet that capitalises the word 'WILL' throughout? IT WAS WRITTEN BY A MAN CALLED WILLIAM) and they are still brilliant.
The anti-Stratford argument would be (is) that this is to underline the fact that he is posing as 'will'. Surely you cannot be arguing that Fred Jones posing as Will Shakespeare would sign his name 'Fred Jones'?
Please don't tell me that.
And Ben Johnson may have criticised his style, I don't know. But I do that Ben Johnson, who I love, was a brutal, jealous bricklayer and a rival of Shakespeare's, and if he criticised his style all it means is... he criticised the style of a poet and playwright called William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon who wrote plays, lived on Bankside, owned a theatre in Southwark and married a women called Anne Hathaway, who he referenced in his plays and poems, and had a kid called Hamnet who died five years before he wrote the play 'Hamlet'.
Well, there's another chestnut.
The Parish register for Shakespeare's marriage is a (possibly) anomalous element as it records a licence for:
Wm Shaxpere to marry Anne Whately of Temple Grafton on 27th November 1582
as well as one for:
William Shagspere to marry Anne Hathaway of Stratford on 28th November.
Why should he not have a child called Hamnet? The argument is not that the actor never knew the playwrite but rather that they were in collusion and essentially business partners.
Shakespeare was Shakespeare, Marlowe was Marlowe, Bacon was Bacon and Walter Raleigh was from Devon.
Well, we are all legion aren't we? And as someone once remarked 'a rose by any other name'.....
I was not really christened Segovius for example and I'm pretty sure you were not the leader of the Ismaili Hash'ashin community at Alamut. It's confusing.
I didn't see your post. I was writing my second one. If you don't believe the moonlandings happened, say it proudly and boldy. Maybe someone else can take you up on that.
Maybe you still haven't seen it judging by that statement.......or are you trying to portray my opinion as other than I claim it to be...I hope not....that would be upsetting......
Having said that though...perhaps it is time for a close look at some moon shot pics.....