Shakespeare

[Anonymous]

As the Bard's birthday is almost here, just thought I'd ask who you all think he really was.

Facts, theories, thoughts and hey nonny nonnies here.

 

[stu neville]

I think he was Shakespeare.

Why would Bacon, a playwright himself, not want to take credit for the greatest dramatic canon of all time?

Answer: he bleedin would, if he'd have written it.

Not Marlowe, dead before some of the best stuff was written (besides, Marlowe had his own distinctive manner of writing, and would have also taken credit if the stuff was his anyway).

Committee? No, too consistent for that.

Nah, it was Shakespeare.

Hey Nonny Nonny! (Baldrick! Call the police!)

 

[Anonymous]

Shakespeare? What the semi literate actor?

The biography, as promoted by the Stratford tourist industry, is almost entirely guessed or invented. All that rubbish about him being at the Grammar school there etc. His initials carved in a desk. HA HA. And all that stuff about how he was abroad touring europe and fighting foreign wars whilst simultaneously leading a group of actors in London. Bonkers. You might as well visit Robin Hood's birth place. Or King Arthur's.

Shakespeare is a composite. Annoys me how people assume he is an historical character for whom proper evidence exists.

In my opinion the historical and literary conspiracists have many good points to make. Unfortunately I think that some of their conclusions are, frankly, wild.

But then I would say that since my grandfather is a Baconian and I was brought up on this story.

My grandfather - at a slightly wild but ultimately interesting American Bacon site

 

[stu neville]

Shakespeare? What the semi literate actor?

And all that stuff about how he was abroad touring europe and fighting foreign wars whilst simultaneously leading a group of actors in London. Bonkers. You might as well visit Robin Hood's birth place. Or King Arthur's.

In my opinion the historical and literary conspiracists have many good points to make. Unfortunately I think that some of their conclusions are, frankly, wild.

But then I would say that since my grandfather is a Baconian and I was brought up on this story.

My grandfather - at a slightly wild but ultimately interesting American Bacon site

I completely agree that the bit about him fighting abroad is pretty wild: from what I can gather he never left these shores (people may have confused him with Marlowe, who was a spy and definitely crossed the channel on a number of occasions).

As for being semi-literate, no proof exists that this was the case: conversely, the vast canon of works would suggest that he was extremely literate. As the case for the prosecution tends to hinge on this fact, that he was semi-literate and therefore the works were by someone else, it depends on who you believe.

And you can't compare him to Arthur or Robin Hood: whatever the status of works attributed to him, he certainly did exist, unequivocally.

Simon, can you condense the Bacon hypothesis so we can open it to further debate?

 

[Anonymous]

It can be confirmed however that his daughter was illiterate. The greatest playright ever couldn't find time to teach his duaghter to read and write? I beleive he was semi-illiterate. One piece of handwrighting we definatly know his his is on his will and its completely different to the handwriting to write the plays.

 

[Anonymous]

Simon, can you condense the Bacon hypothesis so we can open it to further debate?

Sadly - I don't think I can. I'll go mad and my head will implode. Also - I can't really represent the Baconian case since I don't have an adequate grasp of the details. Also - I don't believe all of it myself. Baconians don't even always agree with each other. Like all conspiracists. Some are way way out there at the distant edges of reality.

These are the bits which I understand and agree with:

1. The historical evidence for Shakespeare is very sparce. Simply that there was a merchant's son with a similar name. No evidence of any education. Was an actor. May have married. Died. The rest is made up and guessed. Part of the merry-old-England myth which we associate with Elizabethan england. Part of the myth of England.

2. The plays and sonnets are political, complex and extra ordinary. Most contain lines and ideas which appear to be directly quoted from Bacon's various works.

The US site I have referenced - whilst being annoyingly Californian - does contain much good stuff. I don't think it represents the case particularly well. But start there if you are interested.

 

[marion]

There is a programme on BBC4 about this soon , unless I missed it...

 

[stu neville]

It can be confirmed however that his daughter was illiterate. The greatest playright ever couldn't find time to teach his duaghter to read and write? I beleive he was semi-illiterate. One piece of handwrighting we definatly know his his is on his will and its completely different to the handwriting to write the plays.

Yes, but a lot of people, especially women, were illiterate during the middle ages - the only people who learnt to read and write generally were people who had to do so, and equal ops wasn't exactly the rage in those days.

Universal education didn't become a reality in tis country til the Victorian age.

As for the handwriting thing, he would only ever had written the very first copy: as thius was pre-Caxton, every other copy would have been just that - copied by a hired scribe.

 

[Anonymous]

Er - it wasn't pre Caxton. Caxton was born nearly 200 years before Shakespeare is said to have been born.

There are no hand written folios in public existence.

Gutenberg invented printing in 1450s.

Nor was it the "middle ages" when the plays and sonnets were written.

 

[Anonymous]

There is indeed a programme about this. BBC4 Tuesday 23rd at 9pm. If I could get BBC4, I'd watch it (it's my BBC? My ar*e, I can't watch half the shows all of a sudden).

The programme argues the case for Marlowe faking his own death, fleeing to Europe and sending plays back to his mate Will in Stratford.

Personally, I think Shakespeare wrote pretty much all that was attributed to him. Why can't someone from a small town be a genius? Do you have to be born in London with a silver spoon in your gob to be ahead of your time?

There was a great documentary about music on last year. Someone was talking about Louis Armstrong (who was a penniless orphan living on the street before discovering his gift for music, as I recall). The guy said that Louis Armstrong was a genius first and everything else second. I think that sentiment applies here.

Just my humble opinion, like.

 

[stu neville]

Er - it wasn't pre Caxton. Caxton was born nearly 200 years before Shakespeare is said to have been born.

There are no hand written folios in public existence.

Gutenberg invented printing in 1450s.

Nor was the the "middle ages" when the plays and sonnets were written.

I stand corrected.

 

[marion]

There is indeed a programme about this. BBC4 Tuesday 23rd at 9pm. If I could get BBC4, I'd watch it (it's my BBC? My ar*e, I can't watch half the shows all of a sudden).

The programme argues the case for Marlowe faking his own death, fleeing to Europe and sending plays back to his mate Will in Stratford.

I'll tape it if anyone is interested-I could send it to them .

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever one ends up believing or not about the Shakespeare authorship ... all will agree that it is certainly a fascinating era. Lots of good stuff to read. Deeply shady politics and the establishment of the English state etc. Deeply Fortean.

The Marlowe programme should be very interesting.

Incidentally - many Baconians also believe that the same author also wrote most of the works attributed to Cervantes. Some argue that Don Quixote was actually translated from English into Spanish.

 

[Anonymous]

Certainly is a fascinating era. The status of the wealthy Catholic familes alone bred a thriving political (and religious) underground at the time. Not to mention the usual shenanigans of the Court.

I remember that programme with your grandfather was on - it was really interesting.

Wonder if people will be arguing over the authorship of Beatles songs and the like in centuries to come?

 

[Anonymous]

Wonder if people will be arguing over the authorship of Beatles songs and the like in centuries to come?

Well, of course, the Beatles songs were all written by Bacon. My own analysis of 'Abbey Road' has revealed that every track contains a reference to the fact that Paul is actually the bastard son of our own Elizabeth 2 and Jack Kennedy's father. Ciphers within ciphers.

I remember that programme with your grandfather was on - it was really interesting.

He has actually been in various programmes. The best two were on Radio 4 - made by the same bloke who also did a very memorable and very odd programme about ghostly noises in old WW2 aircraft. The guy that made the programmes ended convinced (I think) and became a semi convert. Last time I met him he was writing a book about the ciphers.

Boke (Bokie sometimes .. his name is Bokenham) never came across well on TV. He always wanted to tell everything - and, of course, there was never enough time. A more sympathetic editor would have concentrated on a specic detail. Now he is very elderly and finds language difficult. His arguments are complicated and not particularly easy to digest since they relate to his thorough knowledge of ancient Latin and Greek texts.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

The mysteries surrounding Shakespeare's authorship of the
canon attributed to him are fascinating but they really should
not be attempted by anyone who is not reasonably well
acquainted with the plays themselves and the literary scene
of the time.

The Baconian heresy seems to have found many adherents
in those who could not bear to think that the National bard
was not a Lord Chancellor, at the very least.

Many of the supposed clues to a concealed authorship are
based on ambiguities in the received texts and in the
inscription on the tomb etc. Since ambiguity was the
Elizabethan norm, the possibilities are endless.

We are mercifully short of biographical details about the
man who was Shakespeare. Good! We know very little about
Domenico Scarlatti or Henry Purcell come to that. Whoever
they were, they would probably be happy to know their works
rather than their laundry-lists had survived.

As for the Beatles, their oeuvre has already been reassigned!

see http://www.btinternet.com/~j.b.w/ador.htm

 

[stu neville]

Er - it wasn't pre Caxton. Caxton was born nearly 200 years before Shakespeare is said to have been born.

There are no hand written folios in public existence.

Gutenberg invented printing in 1450s.

Nor was it the "middle ages" when the plays and sonnets were written.

All that having been said, the authorship thing still remains open to debate.

And I still think Shakespeare wrote the works of Shakespeare. I've read most of them, studied several of them, actually been in one or two of them, and for my money were written by the same chap.

Despite my utter incompetetnce regading dates (yes, hands up to that one - I'm into Eng Lit, not History - and me a trainee teacher, god help the youth of tomorrow, etc) stylistically, they're from the same source, IMHO.

And, as I said earlier, if someone else had written them, they'd have surely wanted to take credit for them: it's not as if they're seditious or anything: they all tow the Elizabethan political line, eg Richard III was a crippled little evil git, etc.

And, finally, when was the Middle Ages? Was it Norman to Plantagenet, or Norman to Civil war? If the latter, they were written in the MIddle Ages.

Stu "doesn't know when Caxton was around and oddly proud of it" Neville.

 

[Anonymous]

And, finally, when was the Middle Ages? Was it Norman to Plantagenet, or Norman to Civil war? If the latter, they were written in the MIddle Ages.

I was taught at school that 500 - 1500 was the Middle Ages. I remember a long horizontal chart on the wall with all the different periods marked. I never thought to question that.

I wonder who defined the various ages - which are applied, at least, to much of europe and not just Britain.

 

[FelixAntonius]

I seem to remember that Mr W.S's play Henry VIII was supposed to hve been finished by Beaumot or Fletcher, (I can nolonger remember which one). After Mr W.S. developed writers block.

The Globe Theatre, was burnt down by a fire started by a cannon fired during the performance of that play and I can almost see Mr W.S. saying: "Look, I can't finish this play, do try & do it for me & try to make it go with a bang!!!!!!!!!"

 

[marion]

I think the Middle Ages ended with the dissolution of the monastries ? A little post the start of the Tudor dynasty but a better milestone I would say .
Page three of the Mirror has a Shakespeare article , showing a portrait of who they claim to be Earl of Southampton dressed as a woman , a good friend of Shakespeare now thought to be his 'fair youth' he wrote sonnets to . Big 'out Shakespeare' thing going on there !

 

[brianellwood]

The suggestion seems to be that another more erudite gentleman ( or even gentlemen ) wrote the works. Any idea why this clever chap included the several anachronisms, such as a clock striking in the town square before clocks were invented etc. If poor old Will was not so clever then they're understandable. There are similar things in "the tempest." Surely our better educated and widely travelled contenders did not deliberately write these in? ( room for more conspiracy here )

 

[rynner2]

It's been said that if old Will were alive today he'd be writing scripts for TV. Now scriptwriters get their ideas from real life, novels, events on the news, etc, and no doubt Will did the same.

He had to keep churning the stuff out for a public that, then as now, liked novelty, so he freely lifted his plots from history books and no doubt spiced them up with other bits and pieces he'd read, which may well have included chunks of Bacon.

And a lot of things that get attributed to one writer are actually things that were 'in the air' or 'the fashion' at the time - everyone was saying it - but history tends to remember only the writer whose work used it first or became most famous.

Case Closed? Knowing you lot, No!

 

[stu neville]

And a lot of things that get attributed to one writer are actually things that were 'in the air' or 'the fashion' at the time - everyone was saying it - but history tends to remember only the writer whose work used it first or became most famous.

Case Closed? Knowing you lot, No!

It is as far as I'm concerned. But then, it always was...

 

[Anonymous]

a good friend of Shakespeare now thought to be his 'fair youth' he wrote sonnets to

Isn't the 'fair youth' of the sonnet cycle symbolic rather than literal? Surely the personification of an ideal. An ideal which is not realised. The other recuring sonnet character is 'the dark lady'. They taunt each other - sometimes attracting sometimes repelling - two parts of a whole. But the power of love and humanity is, nevertheless, confirmed.

'Venus and Adonis' is also dedicated to The Earl of Southampton. Just because something is dedicated to someone - I can see no reason why it should be actually about him.

Anyhow - the Mirror story is here. Funny to see part of a 500 years old poem in the Mirror.

The Guardian has the same story here - where you can also click to view the image and Observer item in .pdf format.

 

[rynner2]

This article's about a guy who says Marlowe.

Hoffman believed Marlowe continued writing plays for the rest of his life, sending them to London, where the real Will Shakespeare served as front man. Hoffman spent the last 30 years of his life trying to prove the theory.

He pried open Walsingham's tomb in a vain search for manuscripts. He met and worked with Wraight, the single-minded scold, now deceased, who appears repeatedly in the film. He even left his estate - upward of 750,000 pounds (

Hoffman believed Marlowe continued writing plays for the rest of his life, sending them to London, where the real Will Shakespeare served as front man. Hoffman spent the last 30 years of his life trying to prove the theory.

He pried open Walsingham's tomb in a vain search for manuscripts. He met and worked with Wraight, the single-minded scold, now deceased, who appears repeatedly in the film. He even left his estate - upward of 750,000 pounds ($1.2 million) - to the Kings School in Canterbury, to be claimed by anyone who succeeds where he could not. It's the largest literary prize in the world.

.2 million) - to the Kings School in Canterbury, to be claimed by anyone who succeeds where he could not. It's the largest literary prize in the world.

Hmmm, there's money in it, eh..?

 

[Anonymous]

Quite tough to say - the plays have been edited & mucked about with quite a bit over the centuries. It's also difficult to differentiate plagiarism from influence from incorrect authorship.

For choice's sake, I'm going to go with old Wild Bill - just seems natural. And, if he wasn't clever enough to have written them, he was clever enough to get credit for them.

 

[Anonymous]

Why Not Billy S. ?

Yep! After all, whoever originally wrote those plays and sonnets was definitely a genius. So is it so unusual that he should have come from lowly origins? I can think of several poets, composers and writers whose work is truly brilliant and yet they started out at the bottom of the social ladder. Even his friend, Ben Jonson, had a poor start in life. His stepfather was a bricklayer. The players were by and large rascals, gallow birds and punks, let's not forget!

Bacon was far to busy inventing a thoroughgoing philosophy of modern science and hard headed lawyer t'boot.

Marlowe had a vicious streak to his work, that might just be apparent in Shakespere's early histories and tragedies. But, this would more likely be collaboration, or plagiarism by the young Bard.

My main 'proof' though, for Shakespear, deserving the credit, is that perhaps someone with a good ear for and love of the English language, spoken and sung, but no great formal education in the classics, might make a far better playwright than even Marlowe.

Shakespeare's upbringing comes up again and again in his work, especially in the comedies. Such tales of witches, faeries, country dancing, folk traditions and simple balladic stories came from by the farmhouse hearth and not from the halls of academe.

 

[Anonymous]

Incase anyone's intrested: Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is on channel 4 at 12:35. All 4 hours of it.

 

[MrRING]

I think that people who have trouble with Shakesphere's authorship are people who can't believe there isn't more proof of some kind of formal education, and are thus trying to come up with every reason why Shakesphere didn't write them.

But, think about this - how erudite are Frank Zappa's lyrics and artistry, & how he weaved in comentary about the events of his day, all the while without much education but his own self-driven studies?

 

[Anonymous]

I think it was Shakes. As for the illiterate arguement, it doesn't make sense. All actors would have to be literate, they recieved their lines (and only their lines) written on scrolls, so they could memorize them.