Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works [Archive]

honestrosewater

May25-04, 03:32 PM

Ah, I was waiting for this :)

Do we agree there was someone named Shakespeare, or Shaksper- however you want to spell it, and that the records of Shakespeare's life are accurate? (Records being his will, coat of arms application, records of baptism and mariage, and so on.)

As for what you have posted, I'm sure there are several such similarities- which is why there are so many different claims to authorship.

I understand that it was customary for 'noble' people, or people of high stature (like Bacon) to write and circulate poetry, but never to publish it. Writing for money or fame was looked down upon. So this could explain a lot of those references to masks and concealed poets and such. They also could refer to the flattery and pageantry of the court. Of course, it could also explain why Bacon would have published under a pseudonym- granted.

How would you explain Greene’s comments:
"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that, with his 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum, in his conceit the only shake-scene in a country."
Robert Greene
Groatsworth of Wit (1592)
Doesn’t “tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide” and "Johannes Factotum" suggest that Shakespeare was a known player? Did Bacon disguise himself and work as a player? Or was Greene in on the trick? Or did Greene just not have any idea what he was saying?

("In the 16th century, "factotum" was often used in English as if it was a surname, paired with first names to create personalities such as "Johannes Factotum" (literally "John Do-everything"). Back then, it wasn't necessarily desirable to be called a "factotum"; the term was a synonym of "meddler" or "busybody."-http://www.42geeks.com/index.php?page=yourblog&blogger=25)

Happy thoughts
Rachel

It's been a while, but when I researched this, I was leaning toward Edward de Vere. I've changed my mind, obviously.

honestrosewater

May25-04, 04:09 PM

"It is incredible that Ben Jonson, who knew both Shakespeare and Bacon intimately, who himself dubbed Shakespeare the “swan of Avon,” and who survived Bacon for eleven years, could have died without revealing the alleged secret, at a time when there was no reason for concealing it."
-http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/l_bacontheory.html

I was looking for something like this. One must also explain away all the people who knew Shakespeare- as in dealt personally with him- and made references to him as a poet.

Shakespeare was certainly involved in the theatre in London- he was a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. People would have known "Shakespeare the player". How could someone other than "Shakespeare the player" be "Shakespeare the poet"?
Shakespeare played roles in his own plays- how does that work?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Thallium

May25-04, 04:11 PM

William Shakespeare could not write. On the one paper that has been found with his handwriting, he has written four signature on the sides, all misspelled in four different ways!

But I love Shakespeare anyway! His literature is awesome!

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 04:22 PM

Now there are so many avenues of thought I feel like exploring - it's like being a child again - sweet days in the sweet shop.

I shall start with a fair question on your views if you will. Am i right is supposing that you are agree with the orthodox authorities on the authorship of the Plays?

Dooga Blackrazor

May25-04, 04:25 PM

Shakespeare misspelling his signature could be an attribute to high intelligence. It's said that people with extremely high IQ rates often have handwriting in which the lines are parallel and the design is unique in a way that the signature can be written efficiently and quickly. I glanced over an example of this on the Internet in which two different letters were written as identical "g" like figures.

He could've been perfecting the most efficient signature he could rather than incorrectly spelling his name. Was the other sentence structure and spelling within the letter found to be misspelled as well?

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 04:32 PM

In Ben Jonson's Discoveries (1641) he gives Bacon the highest praise, and describes his writings in these peculiar words:

"He who hath filled up all numbers and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred to insolent Greece and haughty Rome....so that he may be named as the mark and acme of our language."
Bacon is here compared to Homer and Virgil in the same words that Jonson used about the author of the Shakespeare Folio in 1623:

"Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece and haughty Rome....
Sent forth.... "

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 04:34 PM

I am not worried of the spelling - as you shall see - spelling had not yet 'crytallised' in the Elezebethan times as it is now. Far from it - this fact will in another way prove to be useful in the proof of the *real authorship of the plays i.e. Sir Francis Bacon

arildno

May25-04, 04:36 PM

William Shakespeare could not write. On the one paper that has been found with his handwriting, he has written four signature on the sides, all misspelled in four different ways!

This is without any significance whatsoever, because at the time we're talking about, there existed no correct way of writing English
(Grammar was invented later)

I believe it is Ben Johnson who have written something to this effect:
"I consider any man to be boorish, if he lacks the imagination to spell a word in more than one way.."

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 04:42 PM

Why should he reveal that which is a secret? A very partial peck at a partial view of the full story.

It is amazing that Ben Jonson looked down on the works of Shakespeare publicly - and many years later would make a u-turn on his views once he got to know Sir Francis Bacon. The phrase "swan of Avon" has been most grossely misconstrued.

Has it ever struck anyone that if this phrase is to be taken at its face value, it is singularly inept as a simile? The verses of a poet are melodious,or should be. A poem may often be termed a song, and the poet himself the singer of it. Hence are poets described as sweet singers and compared to singing birds, as when Edmund Waller spoke of Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Francis Bacon as "nightingales." But what of the swan?
Is it a bird of song? Hardly!
And Jonson is not even alluding to the mythical "swan song" ; in fact a few lines lower he speaks of "those flights." He is thinking of the movements of the bird, not of its song-- and quite naturally too. Here are the lines in question :

Sweet Swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our Iames!

If we are meant to take these lines even in a partially metaphorical sense, Queen Elizabeth and King James are represented as having taken pleasure in the sight of the "Sweet Swan," thus pointing rather to an actor on the stage than to an author in his study; especially as the theatres of those days were situated close to the Thames Bank. In other words, Jonson was not so foolish as to compare the melodious verses of the author to the harsh tones of a swan. He was not thinking of the author's writings at all, and there is another explanation to the whole matter.

honestrosewater

May25-04, 05:02 PM

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html

is a nice compilation of records.

Thallium, what piece of paper?
"The will was written on 3 pages of paper and Shakespeare's signature appears 3 times, adding to the value of the document because only 3 other copies of his signature are known to survive."
-http://www.pro.gov.uk/virtualmuseum/millennium/shakespeare/will/default.htm

This contradicts what you have said. What is your source?

qudd, may I call you qudd? :) I'm not sure what the orthodox view is- can't I just play Socrates? I believe "Shakespeare the player" was "Shakespeare the poet". How could someone be one, but not the other? It would be a whopper of a deception.
Were you planning on answering my questions? ;)

Dooga, nice point. Besides, a signature is a signature- have any of you never practiced your signature or doodled on a sheet of paper? (not THAT kind of doodle :rolleyes: )

One also has to ask how much thought and effort was put into the types of records that we have. Is it fair to expect to find a poem in a legal document? Perhaps he should have expected people to question whether or not he was who he was, and taken more time to provide us with sufficient evidence.?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

EDIT- seems our posts crossed paths- this is not in response to your last post, but the post before it.

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 05:51 PM

"Were you planning on answering my questions? ;)"
I intend to 'play the game' as I observe yiou are doing when you want to "play Socrate" - everyone wants to play a part on the stage ;D

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 05:54 PM

I would like to post the following:

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/chronos.html

As a contrast-complement to your chronology.

honestrosewater

May25-04, 05:58 PM

Why should he reveal that which is a secret? A very partial peck at a partial view of the full story.

Already answered, "at a time when there was no reason for concealing it." You realize those were not my words- that was a quote which I quoted more for the 11 years part than anything else. I realize the author makes a mistake in assuming to know Jonson’s reasons.

It is amazing that Ben Jonson looked down on the works of Shakespeare publicly - and many years later would make a u-turn on his views once he got to know Sir Francis Bacon.

Or after he got to know Shakespeare, even. Is Jonson not allowed to change his mind for any reason other than Bacon?

The phrase "swan of Avon" has been most grossely misconstrued.
Has it ever struck anyone that if this phrase is to be taken at its face value, it is singularly inept as a simile? The verses of a poet are melodious,or should be. A poem may often be termed a song, and the poet himself the singer of it. Hence are poets described as sweet singers and compared to singing birds, as when Edmund Waller spoke of Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Francis Bacon as "nightingales." But what of the swan?
Is it a bird of song? Hardly!
And Jonson is not even alluding to the mythical "swan song" ; in fact a few lines lower he speaks of "those flights." He is thinking of the movements of the bird, not of its song-- and quite naturally too. Here are the lines in question :

Sweet Swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our Iames!

If we are meant to take these lines even in a partially metaphorical sense, Queen Elizabeth and King James are represented as having taken pleasure in the sight of the "Sweet Swan," thus pointing rather to an actor on the stage than to an author in his study; especially as the theatres of those days were situated close to the Thames Bank. In other words, Jonson was not so foolish as to compare the melodious verses of the author to the harsh tones of a swan. He was not thinking of the author's writings at all, and there is another explanation to the whole matter.

I feel like the judge in My Cousin Vinny:
Judge: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny: Yes sir?
Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Vinny: Thank you, your honor
Judge: Overruled.

How do you know what Jonson was thinking? Poetry is ambiguous if nothing else, and you could read several meanings into it.

My reading goes this way: Jonson is surprised to see the son of a glover from Avon, a poor player become the delight of kings and queens, the “star of poets”. Swans are gray & ugly as babies and grow to be white & beautiful.
This adds to the idea that Jonson changed his own mind about Shakespeare- not because of someone else, but because of Shakespeare himself- he says so much in this poem.

Jonson is not referring to the author’s writings? Wait, what author?

And all this means so little in comparison to the fact that Shakespeare would have had to interact with people, face-to-face. Who is the face to the name?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

P.S. yes, it is fun, isn't it? :)

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 06:02 PM

The family of William Shakspere, the actor, was grossly illiterate. His father and mother made their signatures with a cross. Of his two children, Judith, at the age of twenty-seven, was also unable to write her name; Susanna could not read her husband's manuscript, nor even identify it by sight among others. The little we know of his own youth and early manhood affords presumptive proof of the strongest kind that he was uneducated.

Nature only helped him."--Leonard Digges, 1640.

"His learning was very little."--Thomas Fuller's Worthies, 1662.

"Old Mother-wit and Nature gave Shakespeare and Fletcher all they have."

Sir John Denham, 1668.

"Shakespeare said all that Nature could impart."--Chetwood, 1684.

"Never any scholar, as our Shakespeare, if alive, would confess himself."--Winstanley, 1684.

"He was as much a stranger to French as Latin."--Gerard Langbaine, 1691.

"The clerk that showed me this church is above eighty years old. He says that this Shakespeare was formerly bound in this town to a butcher, but that he ran away from his master to London."--Letter from Dowdall, visiting Stratford, 1693.

"In him we find all arts and sciences, all moral and natural philosophy, without knowing that he ever studied them."--Dryden.

"Without any instruction either from the world or from books."--Hume's History of England, III. 110.

"The constant criticism which his contemporaries, from Greene to Ben Jonson, passed on him was that he was ignorant of language and no scholar."--Richard Simpson's School of Shakspere, II. 398.

"Where this wonderful creator gained the knowledge of human nature and experience of human motives which have presented him to posterity rather as something divine than a mere mortal artist, it is impossible to learn."--Prof. Shaw's English Literature, p. 121.

"And thou, who did'st the stars and sunbeams know,
Self-school'd, self-scann'd, self-honor'd, self-secure,
Didst stand on earth unguess'd at."

--Matthew Arnold's Sonnet to Shakespeare.

"The only author that gives ground for a very new opinion, that the philosopher and even the man of the world may be born, as well as the poet."--Alexander Pope.

"The untaught son of a Stratford yeoman."1--Richard Grant White.

P.S.
Don't tell anyone, I Love it! .... eh-hem...compose yourself man!... :D

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 06:09 PM

Looks like people might have known him as quoted above ;D

The interpretation of the Swan I will soon add. Pleeease don't argue over interpretation like that - you have just interpreted his Ben Jonson's quote in your way and then put me down for showing there are different possible interpretaions to it! You agree there is a different possible interpretation? - then your interpretation doesn't add strength to your view, does it? Now I feel like cousin vinny ....

quddusaliquddus

May25-04, 06:16 PM

I will add piece of evidence after another - there's so much that I cannot post in one go. Maybe you can do the same for evidence of the authorship by Shakespeare? ... if you have the time and inclination. Thank you

zoobyshoe

May25-04, 07:34 PM

Now is as good a time as any to reveal that I am that author of the plays of Shakespeare. Threw them together in my spare time one summer.

Evo

May25-04, 09:02 PM

Michael Wood did an excellent documentary on Shakespeare. The Sir Frances Bacon theory is interesting though. Who really knows?

Check out this link to the BBC documentary by Wood.

"The scarcity of real knowledge about William Shakespeare, especially his early years, has led to theories that he didn't exist as an individual at all, but was really another writer working under a pseudonym. Most serious historians however, regard these theories as baseless: the later years of Shakespeare's life are in fact relatively well documented, for someone of his standing."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art/shakespeare_later_01.shtml

BoulderHead

May25-04, 09:32 PM

I was going to give Zoobieshoe the benefit of the doubt, but that was before I heard William Shatner do; Hamlet, It Was a Very Good Year.

See the link provided in this thread for more;

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27645

honestrosewater

May25-04, 09:35 PM

I didn't mean to put you down in any way. My point is that there are several interpretations. And they are just that- interpretations- a very dubious business. I like mine better because I think it is supported more strongly by the rest of the poem. Of course, I have to interpret the rest of the poem, which is still debatable.

As for the quotes you give about Shakespeare's lack of formal education, the extent of his formal education says nothing much to me about Shakespeare's *knowledge*. I dropped out of school on my 16th birthday. Formally, I have an eighth grade education. Am I less knowledgeable than a typical high school freshman because I never earned a high school credit? I have continued to educate myself independently and know more than I did when I dropped out of school- an enormous amount more! :) What did he need to know, other than how to read, observe, and think?
Granted, Shakespeare didn’t have the internet, but there were books and libraries, for goodness’sake. What was to stop Shakespeare from learning on his own?
Was “Shakespeare the player” illiterate? How could he be? What would have stopped him from picking up a book or turning his eyes to the world around him?
“A witty saying proves nothing.”-Voltaire.
I don’t understand why self-education is so far-fetched a concept. Learning under your own steam and by your own inclination breeds character too, of which Shakespeare had a full store ;)
If that came off strong, it’s not from offense, but passion :)

On a less personal note, because of the difficulties in interpreting people’s words, looking for cryptic messages, and such, I would like to concentrate on the more reliable evidence.
We have
1) “man Shakespeare” -the person named in the records (see the link I gave) as the son of John Shakespeare, wife of Anne Hathaway, etc.
2) “player Shakespeare” –the person who was a player in London, member of The Chamberlain’s Men, later The King’s Men, who is named as a performer in several plays (I’ll find links for this), and who had to have interacted *in the flesh* with other people in the theatre, including the audience members, including Elizabeth and James.
3) “poet Shakespeare” –the person who is referred to as the author of the plays by his contemporaries, and given credit for them by the majority of academics ever since.

What evidence do you have to refute the simpler claim (Ockham's Razor- entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily) that all 3 Shakespeares are one and the same?

I’m also curious about who you think is buried in Shakespeare’s grave, if anyone, and whose likeness graces the First Folio. Surely you’re familiar with the bust of Shakespeare.
“The monument to Shakespeare in Holy Trinity Church , Stratford-upon-Avon, where the playwright is buried, may be a likeness. It was possibly commissioned by his son-in-law, John Hall, and Shakespeare's wife, Anne Hathaway, was still alive at the time the monument was erected (it was in place by 1623). Clearly both these people knew what Shakespeare looked like.”- http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/main/1/16

The above link links to a picture of the bust, which, together with the inscription, clearly indicates the Shakespeare memorialized there was a poet. From Digges’s poem in the First Folio (hence the date):
“Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages”

It would seem the whole country was in on the secret ;) (Do you mind me joking like that?)

Well, I guess that’s enough for now.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 02:02 AM

The link you gave us has the following disclaimer:

"What Did Shakespeare Look Like?
We don't really know.

There is no painting, drawing or sculpture that we can say with any certainty is a true likeness of Shakespeare or, indeed, that was made by anyone who knew the playwright. There are a number of pictures that, over the years, people have claimed - or willed - to be a likeness, but proof is hard to come by. In what follows you'll notice the repetition of qualifiers such as 'may be' or 'possible'"

Everyone including the 'establishment' accept the dubious nature of all the pictures/busts of Shakespeare, this does not need further comments.

The demand you put on the Baconian theory is understandably more stringent than that of your own beliefs, but this still doesn't hold in the light of evidence un-fortunately. I will show you further examples of what I mean.

The 3 points you gave shall be explained soon.

"(Do you mind me joking like that?)"

Who am I to restrain your passions?

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 02:16 AM

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 05:39 AM

honestrosewater

May26-04, 08:06 AM

The link you gave us has the following disclaimer:

"What Did Shakespeare Look Like?
We don't really know.

Yes, I have read it has been restored and such. Here is a link I found discussing the bust in more detail.
http://www.hollowaypages.com/Shakespearemonument.htm

It's been a while since I studied this, so I'm having to research this all over again.

Njorl

May26-04, 09:03 AM

Can you also account for the knowledge of distant lands like France n detailed knowledge of other places visited in those plays for which you have no proof of the Shakespeare you speak of having ever visited.
In contrast however - I shall show you that the life of the plays as wel as their contents fit in with Sir Francis Bacon's life so snugly as to arouse the suspicion of the most doubtful of critics.

Shakespeare did not need to know anything about the foreign lands of which he wrote. His plays based in foreign lands were taken from existing novelas or from chroniclers. Indeed, when he strays from his sources, he gets it wrong. This tends to support that an intelligent but untravelled man without a broad education wrote the plays.

Njorl

selfAdjoint

May26-04, 09:37 AM

"The seacoast of Bohemia".

honestrosewater

May26-04, 09:49 AM

"What evidence do you have to refute the simpler claim (Ockham's Razor- entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily) that all 3 Shakespeares are one and the same?"

It is interesting you should say that at that point - since after you had talked of the 3 of them, you should put the burden of proof on me ... :D ...then encourage me to refute the simple claim.

Okay, I should clarify some things. By evidence I mean public records and references made by his contemporaries. In the case of evidence, the references are only used to establish that there was a person named Shakespeare who was a player and/or a poet in the right place, at the right time. The rest of the reference, like that Shakespeare was uneducated or honey-tongued, is not evidence as I’m now using the term. I think this kind of evidence is more reliable than interpretations, cryptic messages, and similarities in style, ideas, or vocabulary. If you disagree, please say so. I certainly have reasons for thinking this is the most reliable, which I will gladly share, but for brevity’s sake (too late), I won’t go into them now.

I separated them into 3 categories to make it easier, since it may be the case that you accept the evidence for the man Shakespeare, but reject the poet Shakespeare evidence. I have evidence for each one: the man, the player, and the poet. I don’t know if there is sufficient evidence to directly connect all 3 because I haven’t gotten that far in my (re)research.

Do you see my point that poet Shakespeare had to be in direct physical contact with other people? If Bacon was the author, then someone would have had to pretend to be poet Shakespeare. Player Shakespeare could have done this, but this is a complication and needs to be backed by evidence.
If I can establish that there was a person named William Shakespeare who was working as a player, and there was a person named William Shakespeare who was working as a poet, and they were both working at the same time, in the same city, in the same theatres, with the same people, writing and acting in the same plays, then what is the likelihood that these were two different people?

If there is equal evidence for both Shakespeare and Bacon as the author, Shakespeare is the simpler case, since the Bacon case involves a conspiracy. I think considering evidence first is perfectly reasonable. I’m not holding my own beliefs to a lesser burden of proof; I haven’t seen any evidence that Bacon is the author.

Of course, there isn’t expected to be much evidence (as I’ve defined the term) in support of Bacon, if they were any good at keeping it a secret. This is not my problem- it’s yours ;)

Well, I will take some time and make a proper list of some evidence.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

honestrosewater

May26-04, 10:38 AM

qudd, sorry, two small points I forgot:
1) Yes, I'm sorry, refute was not the right thing to say. That whole paragraph was rather muddled. I hope I've explained the rest above. I should have asked if you rejected any of the the evidence provided.
2) The bust and Folio image are connected to man, player, and/or poet Shakespeare, by virtue of their locations, references made about them, etc. The fact that people who knew man, player, and/or poet Shakespeare were aware of and saw the bust and images is important. How accurately they depict Shakespeare is less important.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 10:44 AM

Thank you for your response.

"If Bacon was the author, then someone would have had to pretend to be poet Shakespeare."

Yes, there is view I have on this. But for the benefit of the audience I would like to deal with other points first, if you don't mind ;D

The reason for this is that I don't have common knowledge on my side - and yes, I am aware of the conspiratorial nature of the Baconians. Again, I am trying to ignore fringe elements of the ideas @ hand and concentrate on the core claims (of ourselves). There are very good reasons for the Baconian tale to involve intrigue as we cannot avoid the issue of Freemasonry and other such groups operating at that time. I stray. I will begin with the core claims of ourselves and the explanation of the person of Shakespeare.

The methodology I follow is to show that Sir Francis Bacon was the author, and only then show the holes in the character of Shakespear.

As for the interested people reading these posts - I want to say that this is no attack on the persons of Shakespeare - but rather an overdue clarification of the actual anf Great merits of the man behind the mask. Tha man who was as the forefront of the Scientific Revolution and spearheaded that future we live today.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 10:53 AM

King John
Many years ago, (see article in Baconiana, Nov. 1894) Professor Bengough made a detailed analysis and comparison of the play of King John and Bacon's History of Henry VII, with results which convinced him that the same mind was responsible for both works. I quote a few sentences from his article in Baconiana :

"parallel use of quaint words strikes one as peculiar---e.g. tickling, coop, brag, copy (noun), gall, prate, parley, cincture, under-prop." To quote every such instance we need to transcribe a large portion of the tragedy. Henry VII contains a dozen such words, of which the quaint use receives perfect illustration from as many lines scattered over the tragedy. Reversing the process of comparison, it would be difficult to hit upon any single volume containing illustrations of those twelve passages from the Play so apposite as those which we could quote from a single page of Bacon. And this is but one of fifty different items of evidence. Let us briefly sum up the details...
The twenty-two metaphors cited from both works are..... At least twelve of these metaphors are rather unusual, some very much so ; and that any short works by different authors should contain them all is beyond the doctrine of chances.... Instances are to be met with, no doubt, of popular authors with favourite words and mannerisms being imitated in a slavish way, but Francis Bacon was not just the man to do this. To any one reads the Play and History together, the supposition of conscious imitation is too absurd... but we challenge any scholar who rejects the Baconian theory to cite an example of unintentional literary coincidence in two works of equal length which shall approximate in number and exactitude to the parallelisms adduced from a single play and from one only of Bacon's works."

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 10:54 AM

Othello
In connection with the publication of Othello and Richard III we have one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Shakespeare could not possibly have been the true author .

It is very probable that Othello was virtually the same play as The Moor of Venice , produced on 1st November, 1604, before the Court, and played again as part of the marriage festivities of the Princess Elizabeth in 1613. That play was also given on the public stage. But no printed version is known prior to the quarto of 1622. This was not a pirated edition, since the publisher states that he obtained his copy from the Master of the Revels. Accordingly, this quarto is authentic, though it may have differed from the acting version. But the real difficulty is that only one year afterwards the Folio of 1623 appeared, and Othello is seen to contain some 160 new lines, besides extensive emendations, admittedly by the hand of the author. Yet the presumed author died in 1616. How is it possible to reconcile these facts with the orthodox theory? It could only be done by conjecturing, for example, that although Shakspere mentioned neither books nor manuscripts in his otherwise detailed will, this revised copy did not exist prior to 1616, and, after lying in some place of concealment for seven years after his death, was discovered by Heming or Condell or Ben Jonson and utilised for the 1623 Folio. But if Shakspere took the trouble to make all these alterations and additons to the play, why did he not also take the obvious step of either seeing that these emendations were incorporated in the play when printed, or leaving the revised copy to his executor and residuary legatee, his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall? Should it be argued that he had sold his copyright out and out and had no further legal rights in it, then why bother to make any emendations at all? It is evident that whatever conjectures of this nature are made, no reasonable story can be built up which will give a satisfactory explanation of the facts and also support the orthodox theory.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 10:55 AM

Mr. Edwin Reed wrote on the startling similarities between charcaters: Caius in Merry Wives ...

"It may astonish some of our readers to learn that this ridiculous character in the play was drawn from life. The prototype was Dr. John Caius of Cambridge University, a physician, the re-founder of Gonville Hall (which still in part bears his name), and in his relations with the students an exceedingly choleric and revengeful instructor. His true name was Kaye, but as he had been educated abroad, and was inclined to ape foreign manners, he changed his English cognomen into its Latin form, Caius, by which he was then and is now generally known."
Mr. Reed then quotes some particulars from the Dictionary of National Biography , and continues :

"To complete the likeness between the two characters, dramatic and historical, we find that Caius had an especial antipathy to Welshmen, for in the ordinances of the college founded by him, Welshmen are expressly excluded from the privileges of fellowship. It appears then--
1. That both were physicians.
2. That both came from abroad.
3. That both were phenomenally quarellsome, even to the extent of inflicting chastisement upon others with their own hands.
4. That both hated Welshmen.
Now how did William Shakspere of Stratford become acquanited with these idiosyncrasies of a Cambridge professor...? Dr. Caius died in July, 1573, at which time the reputed poet was living at Stratford, nine years old. The controversy, as it raged in Cambridge and as it is reflected in the play, was a personal one, and in the absence of newspapers or equivalent means of disseminating general information, could hardly have been beyond university circles. Francis Bacon....entered the university in April 1573, three months before Dr. Caius' death and in the height of the prevailing excitement."

In my judgement, this is another powerful piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the Baconian theory.

It is worth quoting, in addition, that curious anecdote told of Sir Nicholas Bacon, and obviously referred to in this play. A malefactor was being tried by Sir Nicholas and was about to be sentenced to death, when he appealed for mercy on the ground that Sir Nicholas and he were kindred.

"Indeed?" said the Judge, "how can that be?"
"Why, if it please your Honour, my name is Hogg and yours is Bacon.".....
"Nay," replied Sir Nicholas, "but hog cannot be bacon until it be well hanged."
In Act IV, Scene i, of Merry Wives, occurs the scene between Mistress Page, Quickly, and Evans, in which after some absurd colloquy, Quickly comes out with the remark,

"Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you."
It is likely that this family joke among the Bacons should have been known to the Stratford actor? It might have been the rounds of legal circles, but not likely in theatres. Notice that this scene does not occur in the quarto of 1602, and there was no further reprint until 1619, after Shaksper's death, and then in the 1623 Folio. This is not actual proof that the scene did not appear in the original manuscript,since the 1602 quarto is very imperfect ; but it points strongly in that direction. It would almost seem that the scene was introduced by Bacon for the purpose of dragging in this reference to the Hang-hog anecdote.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:02 AM

The following is a link to an appendix of terms that appear in Sir Francis Bacon's private notebook Promus correlated against Shakespeare's works.

http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promus.jpg

This shall prove to be very interesting ;D

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:06 AM

The Promus is by itself sufficient evidence to show that the man who wrote the Promus also wrote the "Shakespeare" Plays.

Bacon kept a private memorandum book which he called The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies which from time to time he jotted down any words, similies, phrases, proverbs or colloquialisms which he thought might come in useful in connection with his literary work, gathering them together so as to be able to draw upon them as occasion should require. The word Promus means storehouse, and Bacon's Promus contains nearly 2,000 entries in various languages such as English, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French.
The Promus which was in Bacon's own hand-writing, fortunately was preserved and is now in the British Museum. It was reproduced and published for the first time by Mrs. Henry Pott in 1883. No one, of course, knows the date when he commenced to make this collection, it may have been written during the years 1594 to 1596. Folio 85 being dated Dec. 5, 1594(This is a sample page), and Folio 4 being dated 27 Jan. 1595. The Promus was a private note book and was unknown to the public for a period of more than 200 years after it was written.
Now it is a significant fact that Bacon in the works published under his own name makes very little use of the notes he had jotted down in the Promus . What was the object of making this collection of phrases, etc.? The answer is that they were used in his dramatic works published by Bacon in the name of ''William Shakespeare.'' A great number of these entries are reproduced in the ''Shakespeare'' plays. An appendix to the book has a table illustrating the many entries which also appear in the works of Shakespeare.

Yoiu may try to get over this fact by contending that these expressions were in common use at the time, but Bacon would not be such a fool as to waste his time by making a note of anything that was commonly current. The words and expressions in the Promus occur so frequently in the ''Shakespeare'' plays that it is quite clear that the author of the Plays had seen and made use of the "Promus "and Will Shakesper could not have seen Francis Bacon's private notebook.

The most important evidence in the Promus is the word ALBADA, Spanish for good dawning (Folio 112). This expression good dawning' only appears once in English print, namely, in the play of King Lear where we find "Good dawning to thee friend," Act 2, Scene 2. This word ALBADA is in the Promus 1594-96 and King Lear was not published until 1600's.If Will Shaksper had not seen the "Promus", and as he could not read Spanish, it would mean that some friend had found this word ALBADA, meaning good dawning and told Shaksper about it, and that Shaksper then put the word into King Lear, which sounds highly improbable. A part of one of the folios in the "Promus "is devoted by Bacon to the subject of salutations such as good morrow, good soir, good matin, bon jour, good day. From this it would appear that Bacon wished to introduce these salutations into English speech. These notes were made in the Promus in 1596 and it is a remarkable co-incidence that in the following year 1597 the play of Romeo and Juliet was published containing some of these salutations, and they afterwards appeared in other "Shakespeare" plays good morrow being used 115 times; good day, I5 times; and good soir (even), 12 times. These words are found in the ''Shakespeare'' Plays and nowhere else.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:09 AM

HRW [if you dnt mind me calling u so], you have said that it has been a while since you researched Shakespeare - or at least in view of authorship. May I ask what interest you have/had in this field? ... I ask out of curiosity ...

I will await a response.

honestrosewater

May26-04, 11:17 AM

"The seacoast of Bohemia".

Or could Shakespeare have taken Greene's words,

"For it so happened that Egistus King of Sycilia, who in his youth had bin brought vp with Pandosto, desirous to shew that neither tracte of time, nor distance of place could diminish their former friendship, prouided a nauy of ships, and sailed into Bohemia to visite his old friend and companion"

to mean that Bohemia had a port (and seacoast)?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:36 AM

honestrosewater

May26-04, 11:42 AM

King John
"Instances are to be met with, no doubt, of popular authors with favourite words and mannerisms being imitated in a slavish way, but Francis Bacon was not just the man to do this."

That's quite an assertion- "Bacon was just not the man to do this."?

Anyway, Shakespeare was the man to do something like that- he copied sometimes almost word-for-word. Which was published first? If Bacon's was available to Shakespeare, it's not so surprising. Even if they don't have access to each other's work publicly (as in by being published), they still could have access to each other's work through their private circle of friends and associates. This is still similarities and speculation.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:49 AM

What of the Promus? Did Shakespeare have access to that? It seems like no-one had access to it until 200 years after Bacon's death.

And yes, he was just not the man to do this [- this being slavishly following other's works]. Shakespeare was not the man to do this as compared to the people of his time. They were not the kind of people to do this. That is what made Bacon the brilliant man he was - and to sum of us - still is. Bacon created the English language because he lived his works. Simple example - his Promus. He set out to create this work in order to have the effect it had. This is not that far fetched as you might think - he did the same for English law, Science, and every other concievable parts of Elizebethan society.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 11:57 AM

I'll leave you to it Stratfordian ;D

honestrosewater

May26-04, 12:53 PM

Othello
Yet the presumed author died in 1616. How is it possible to reconcile these facts with the orthodox theory? It could only be done by conjecturing, for example, that although Shakspere mentioned neither books nor manuscripts in his otherwise detailed will,

From Shakespeare’s will:
“All the rest of my goodes Chattels, Leases, plate, jewles and Household stuffe”
Could books and manuscripts not possibly fall into this catchall?

There are several other assumptions made in this. The most important thing the author fails to mention:

“According to the Accounts of the Masters of the Revels (published in 1842) Othello was performed in 1604. The full entry reads: 'By the King's Majesty's Players. Hallowmas Day, being the first of November, a play in the banqueting house at Whitehall called "The Moor of Venice"'. Other evidence supports the fact Shakespeare wrote the play in or before 1604. As William Rolfe explains in his book A Life of William Shakespeare:
Stokes (Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays) shows that it was written before 1606 by the fact that in the quarto of 1622 (i.1.4) we find the oath "S'blood" (God's blood), while this is omitted in the folio. This indicates that the quarto was printed from a copy made before the act of Parliament issued in 1606 against the abuse of the name of God in plays, etc. So "Zounds" and "by the mass" (in ii.3) are found in the quarto but not in the folio. (293)
Eighteen years passed before Othello was first put into print in 1622 by Thomas Walkley. Walkley's was a quarto edition, known as Q1, and it was the last Shakespearean edition of a single play before the collected edition, known as the First Folio collection by Heminge and Condell, in 1623."

The quarto is dated to before 1606- it was at least 16 years old when published. Shakespeare could have made changes to the play in the meantime, before he died. This is even more likely because Othello was one of his most popular plays and was performed several times.

honestrosewater

May26-04, 01:59 PM

Now how did William Shakspere of Stratford become acquanited with these idiosyncrasies of a Cambridge professor...?

How, indeed. How did you become familiar with them, you were not even alive then, were you?
People tell stories, and they get passed along to other people. Again, Shakespeare and Bacon were contemporaries, it does not surprise me that they would know some of the same stories. They had friends, friends tell stories to each other, especially back then when there was no tv, especially a bunch of actors and writers- stories are their business. It is not difficult for me to imagine Bacon telling his friends about this horrid professor at Cambridge.
That is still a similarity. There are lots of them, between lots of people.

“Hang-hog is latten for Bacon, I warrant you."

does not necessarily refer to that anecdote- one Bacon site said it clearly does- I heartily disagree- these things defy clarity.

Can you explain why the judge is now the mistress? Or is F. Bacon the mistress? Or is that not the point? Or is that precisely the point? :wink:

"SIR HUGH EVANS Remember, William; focative is caret.

MISTRESS (QUICKLY) And that's a good root.”

Did one of Bacon's relaitives have a carrot farm? :tongue2:

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 02:30 PM

I'll repeat what I had already posted:

"Dr. Caius died in July, 1573, at which time the reputed poet was living at Stratford, nine years old. The controversy, as it raged in Cambridge and as it is reflected in the play, was a personal one, and in the absence of newspapers or equivalent means of disseminating general information, could hardly have been beyond university circles. Francis Bacon....entered the university in April 1573, three months before Dr. Caius' death and in the height of the prevailing excitement."

Coincedence? Maybe. Coincedence? Maybe not if we add everything up. Don't you think it is possible there maybe some link?

"SIR HUGH EVANS Remember, William; focative is caret.

MISTRESS (QUICKLY) And that's a good root.”

Did one of Bacon's relaitives have a carrot farm?

:smile:

I understand your reserve in linking the two sentences together, but you cannot ignore hundreds of these - many more convincing links between Bacon and Shakespeare. You are denying the 'necesseity' for certain clues to mean Bacon was the author. True. For all you're evidence nothing necessitates Shakespeare to be the author. You have to weigh the total evidence on both sides. Do not jumpt the gun - deny the possibilities - or attribrute evidence to be improbable on whatever grounds you feel necessery. But you can't force a conclusion from me on a signal piece of evidence ... anyway - the best is yet to come ;D

I'll let you sift through the rest.

honestrosewater

May26-04, 02:35 PM

honestrosewater

May26-04, 02:49 PM

Are you aware of the legal and scientific excerpts in the Works that an ordinary individual could not have access to? Are you also aware of the correspondence between the NEW scientific theories Sit Francis Bacon was theorising about that 'happened' to appear literally in the plays? I will post them for you if you are not aware of these.

No, thanks. Assumptions, interpretations, similarities- these things will not convince me. Of course, post them for other's sake if you like.
I would love to hear something I can accept as evidence. Like who you think pretended to be poet Shakespeare.

honestrosewater

May26-04, 03:25 PM

Coincedence? Maybe. Coincedence? Maybe not if we add everything up. Don't you think it is possible there maybe some link?

Yes, I think it’s possible. I also think it’s possible the Bible is true. But since I have so much reliable evidence to the contrary, and so little reliable evidence in the affirmative, I think it is possible, but unlikely.
Lets not confuse quantity with quality. I’m sure you can give examples all day long, but I need a certain kind of evidence to change my mind- the kind of evidence I explained earlier.

I'll look at the Promus and get back to you on this.

For all you're evidence nothing necessitates Shakespeare to be the author.

Do you reject or accept the public records in the link I provided?

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 04:34 PM

I would love to hear something I can accept as evidence. Like who you think pretended to be poet Shakespeare.

If 'Who' or 'What I think' was evidence to you - we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, thanks. Assumptions, interpretations, similarities- these things will not convince me.

Surely not. Assumptions, interpretations, and similarities are the basis of your own theories about the origin of the plays.
(If you can say anything without assumptions of any kind, or discuss history without interpretations - I'll eat my hat collection ;D)

I will further comment on you links soon, as for now I will provide more things for you to think about (Maybe a little maths will help)

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 04:55 PM

How do you explain the deep intrenchment of the Plays in Freemasonry without referral to Sir Francis Bacon? Do you have the background info on Shakespeare that explains this? How do you explain the presence of these scinetific legal etc... information within the plays?..without saying he piucked it up from sumwhere...you don't mean to say you don't know the life Shakespeare? - read on Bacon. Would you say the expressions of the Plays make it unique - amongst other things - the expressions are the most powerful presence of the Plays influence we can observe to date.

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 05:09 PM

In the play, "Love's Labour's Lost," the author puns twice in the French language--once when he use the word "capon" in the double sense of a fowl and a love letter, and again when he uses the word "paint" in the double sense of the tip of a sword and a strong French negative. If follows that the author must have had not only a knowledge of the French language, but was also a fluent French scholar. This play also contains many sentences in Latin, Spanish and Italian.
It must be remembered that Francis Bacon spent nearly three years in France in his youth after leaving Cambridge.

Label this fact all you like - can you explain how the ugly ducklin not only turned into swan but also was fluent enough to be witty with so many languages. Convinced you may not be of Bacon (yet) - are you still convinced of Shakespeare being this energetic learner of all without any resources?

In "Henry VI," Part 2, is a character, Lord Saye, a Justice, who is arrested by Cade and accused of various crimes and misdemeanours. In the Quarto Editions of 1594, 1600 and 1619 he answers his accusers in four lines, but in the First Folio of 1623 his speech is enlarged and contains the following lines:

"Justice with favour have I always done
Prayers and tears have mov'd me, gifts could never.
What have I aught exacted at your hands
But to maintain the King, the realm and you?
Large gifts have I bestow'd on learned clerks,
Because my book preferred me to the King."
-Act 4, Scene 7.
Is it a coincidence that three passages in this speech clearly apply to Francis Bacon?
1.- The judge denies that he has received gifts and been guilty of bribery. Why make this denial when he is not accused of bribery in the play? Francis Bacon, who fell from power in 1621 under charges of bribery, always strenuously denied these charges, declaring them to be false and of which subsequent history has proved him innocent.

2. -The judge states that he had sent a book of which he was author to the King and had been "preferred" on account of it.
Bacon sent a copy of his Novum Organon in 1620 to King James, who immediately afterwards created him Viscount St. Alban.

3.- The judge states that he has bestowed large gifts on persons of subordinate rank. Bacon was noted for his generosity to the same class of people, and gave large gratuities to messengers who came to him with gifts from various friends.
Note that the above additions to Lord Saye's speech were made after 1621 when Bacon was accused of bribery, and seven years after the death of Will Shaksper in 1616.

This is not coincedence - its correlation.

Your mentioning the Bible reminds me of this:

It is supposed to be a coincidence that in the 46th psalm the 46th word from the beginning is "shake," and the 46th word from the end is "speare."

In earlier editions of the Bible we find the position of these two words "shake" and "speare" to be as follows:

1535 or Coverdale Bible---56th word dwon is "shook," 47 word up "speare."
1539 or Great Bible---46th word down "shake," 48th word up "speare."
1560 or Geneva Bible--- 47th word down "shake," 44th word up "speare."
1568 or Bishop Bible--- 47th word down "shake," 48th word up "speare."
Is it a coincidence that in the 1611 Bible, the 46th word from the beginning of the 46th Psalm is "shake," and the 46th word from the end "speare?" We submit that Francis Bacon, who on an accumulation of evidence, is believed to have been responsible for the final editing of the 1611 Bible, took the opportunity, by making small verbal alterations in the 46th Psalm, of earmarking his associations as "Shakespeare" with this version of the Bible.

Even Macaulay admits that Bacon "in perceiving analogies between things which had nothing in common had no equal."

Francis Bacon expressed his intentions of reforming the English language, which, in Elizabethan times, was so uncouth that it was necessary for an educated man to express his thoughts in Latin.

Is it a coincidence that "Shakespeare" had exactly the same idea, and proceeded to carry it out by coining entirely new words derived from Latin sources and inserting them in the "Shakespeare" plays?"

The following are a few examples of brand new words coined by "Shakespeare" and used for the first time in the Shakespeare plays:

Abruption, from ab-rumpere, to break off, to terminate suddenly.
Absolute, from absolvere, to free, as from doubt
Admittance, from ad-mittere, to admit, as into Society
Affront, from ad-frontem, to meet face to face, to accost, without any feeling of hostility.
Antre, from antrum, cave.
Assubjugate, from as-subjugare, to debase.
Cadent, from cadere, to fall.
Capitulate, from capitulare, to make terms, not necessarily in surrender.
Captious, from capere, to receive.
Character, from Greek character, instrument for marking.
Circummure, from circummurare, to wall around.
Civil, from civis, citizen.
Conflux, from confluere, to flow together
Conspectuities, form conspicere, to behold
Continuate, from continuatus, enduring.
Constringed, from con-stringere, to draw together
Convent, from con-venire, to come together.
Convive, from conv-vivere, to live or feast together.
Credent, from credere, to believe.
Derogate, from derogare, to rule.
Directitude, from dirigere, to rule.
Expiate, from ex-pirari, to expire, come to an end.
Fluxive, from fluere, to flow.
Iterance, from iterare, to repeat.
Sanctuarize, from Sanctus, holy.

Francis Bacon was a profound and critical classical scholar and so was "Shakespeare," as the above examples of words coined by him clearly show.

In 1595 a book entitled Polimanteia was printed in Cambridge and signed W.C., which is considered to stand for William Clerke, who was a scholar there. The book contains a letter addressed to the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, and the Inns of Court. In the margin of the text of this letter are found the names of many persons who in the author's opinion had done honour to those institutions by their presence as students in one or more of them.

We find the word "Lucrecia" preceding the words "Sweet Shake-speare." This implies that Sweet Shake-speare, the author of Lucrece, was a member of one of these universities. No person of the name of Shakespeare was ever enrolled at any of these institutions. Sir Sidney Lee's only comment on this fact is: "In 1595 William Clerke in his Polimanteia gave all praise to Sweet Shakespeare for his Lucretia." Sir Sidney Lee, who was entirely unscupulous when dealing with "Shakespere," purposely suppresses the fact that the author of Polimanteia tells us that "Shakespeare" was a member of one of those universities, because, had he done so, he would have been asked for some evidence that Will Shaksper had attended a university, of which of course there is no evidence whatsoever. In the same way, in every edition of Lee's Life of Shakespeare, we find the statement that the present monument at Stratford was erected shortly after Shaksper's death, although Lee knew perfectly well that the present statue was erected in 1748.
It must be remembered that Polimanteia was printed one year after "Shakespeare's " Lucrece was published, and before the publication of any of the "Shakespeare" plays.
Is it a coincidence that "Shakespeare" (the author of Lucrece) and Francis Bacon were both educated at a university?

quddusaliquddus

May26-04, 06:17 PM

"Othello" chides Desdemona for losing the handkerchief he had given her as his first love token in the following words:

"There's magic in the web of it,
A Sybil that numbered in the world
The sun to course two hundred compasses,
In her prophetic fury, sew'd the work."

This passage shows us that "Shakespeare" must have been able to read Italian in the original, since the unusual phrase "prophetic fury" is taken form Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, where we find the words "furor prophetico" used in the description of a woman, sibyl-like, weaving a cloth of magic virtues.
There is no evidence that Will Shaksper could either speak or read Italian.
Is it a coincidence that Bacon in his acknowledged works makes free use of Italian literature, and quotes it in its own language?

In "The Merchant of Venice" we find the following

"This night, methinks, is but the daylight sick,
It looks a little paler: 'tis a day
Such as the day is when the sun is hid."
-Act 5, Scen 1
In Italy the light of the moon and stars is almost as yellow as the sunlight in England.
How did Will Shaksper know this if he had never been to Italy(of which there is no evidence?)
In the play "The Winter's Tale" we find the following:

"The Princesse hearing of her mother's statue, a piece many yeeres in doing, and now newly perform'd by that rare Italian Master, Julio Romano."
- Act 5, Scene 2
Here we find Guilio Romano described as a rare sculptor, but in "Shakespeare's" time Romano was known as a painter and architect only, not as a sculptor.
Vasari, however, in 1550 and again in 1568, described him as a sculptor-- on both occasions in Italian, not in English.
This means that "Shakespeare" must have studied Vasari in the original Italian, or else had actually been in Mantua and seen Romano's sculptured works.
No evidence exists that Will Shaksper could read Italian or had ever travelled abroad.
In "Shakespeare's " day there was at Venice a common ferry at two places, Fusina and Mestre--the ferries in Venice being called Traghetti.

In the play "Merchant of Venice" we find the lines:

"Unto the tranect, to the common ferry
Which trades to Venice."
-Act 3, Scene 4
The word "tranect" appears to be a misprint for "traject"; presumably the printers would not understand such an uncommon expression as "traject."
If the author of this play had not personally visited Italy, how did he know that there was such a ferry and such a boat? If he had not visited Italy, how did he know that the exact distance from Mantebello to Padua is twenty miles, for he must have done so because in this play Portia and Nerissa have to travel between these two places, and we find in the play the line:

"For we must measure twenty miles to-day."
Act 3, Scene 4.

The author of this play could not have obtained his knowledge of Venice from any description of that city published in England, because the play was written in 1600, and the first description of Venice is Coryat's dated 1611.
The author of The Taming of the Shrew must also have had a good knowledge of the Italian language, because Cambio (the name taken by Lucentio when he changes places with his servant, Tranio) means exchange.
From 1585 to 1600 Corregio's famous picture of Jupiter and Io was in the palace of the palace of the sculptor Leoni at Milan, and was constantly viewed by travellers.

In the "Introduction" to The Taming of the Shrew we find
the words :

"We'll show thee Io as she was a maid,
And how she was beguiled and surpris'd,
As lively painted as the deed was done."
which is clearly a reference to Corregio's picture at Milan.
In "Shakespeare's" time there were no guide books for the use of travellers, and he could not have gathered his knowledge of Italy from such sources. There is no evidence that Will Shaksper ever left England; on the other hand Francis Bacon spent three years travelling on the continent.

Will Shaksper is stated to have died on the 23rd April, 1616. The same year George Sandys published Journey, in which, referring to the Pontic sea, he says: "This sea is ....much annoyed with ice in the winter. The Bosphorus setteth with a strong current into Propontis."

Is it a coincidence that in the play of "Othello" in the First Folio, we find almost the same words? They read:
"Like to the Pontic sea whose icy current
.....keeps due on to the Propontic?'
Act 3, Scene 3.

These words could not have been used by Will Shaksper, who had died shortly after Sandy's book was published.
They do not appear in the play of "Othello," published in quarto in 1622 and first appeared in The First Folio of 1623.

Is it also a coincidence that the two seas east and west of the Bosphorus are mentioned under similar names both by "Shakespeare" and Bacon--Shakespeare calling them "Pontic and Propontic," and Bacon in his treatise entitled "De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris," calling them "Pontus and Propontis?"

Ben Jonson in his Discoveries, writing of Francis Bacon, says:

"He hath performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome;
and in his dedicatory verses in the First Folio of "Shakespeare" Jonson uses practically the same words, as follows :

"for the comparison of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome sent forth."
Is this a coincidence? Does it not show that these expressions were intended to refer to the same man?

In the play of "Henry VI," Part 1, is a scene (Act 3, Scene 3) in which Joan of Arc has an interview with the Duke of Burgundy, and asks him to abandon the cause of the English and join the French King.There is no historical record that this interview ever took place.

In 1780 someone in France printed a letter, dated 17th July, 1429, written by Joan of Arc to the Duke of Burgundy, and this letter contains a passionate appeal to the Duke to take precisely the identical course urged upon him in the play. It is clear that the existence of this letter was unknown in England in Shakespeare's time---if it had been it was so imporant that it would have been mentioned by Hall or Holinshed or some other English chronicler.

The letter appears also to have been unknown in France until it was discovered and printed 350 years after it was written. Is it a coincidence that somehow or other the author of "Henry VI" was acquainted with an important fact in French history that was not discovered until more than 200 years after the date of this play? Not the slightest evidence exists to show that Will Shaksper was ever in France, but the author "Shakespeare" was in France and visited the scenes made memorable in the play, and he may have personally gathered some oh his material from the French and Burgundian national archives.

In "All's Well that Ends Well" we read:
"I am St. St. Jacques' pilgrim, thither gone."
Act 3, Scene 4.

Is it a coincidence that at the time when Francis Bacon visited Orleans there was a church there dedicated to St. Jacques?

It seems doubtful whether this fact was then known in England, and the line quoted above seems to have been dragged in for some purpose, since it has no relation to the dramatic progress of the play. For "Shakespeare's" purpose one saint was as good as another, so why mention St. Jacques in particular?
"Shakespeare" was familiar with the old classical myths and legends, for in the plays there are 174 different names of the characters around which these myths cluster.

Is it a coincidence that Francis Bacon in 1609 published a book in Latin called The Wisdom of the Ancients, which analyses and explains some of the most prominent Greek and Roman myths; and is it also a coincidence that, of the 174 different names of the characters above referred to, 132 are found in Bacon's prose works; there being eighty-five of these names that are common to "Shakespeare's" and Bacon's works?

================
There are many more.
If coincidence then point to another author of the same time who had 1/10th of the number of coincedences as that between Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon - and we are not finished yet ;D

i_wish_i_was_smart

May26-04, 06:51 PM

i dont know who it is, but i dont believe its Shakespear, like you guys said Sir Bacon, how could Shakespear have the knowledge of upper class/royalty trechery, i believe it was "enter name here", Shakespear's mentor kind of deal, if you look at that mentors coat of arms you'll notice a spear held by a hand, with wigle line meaning it is shaken hence Shakespear, besides the way Shakespears writes in his plays is the way the Bourgoisie talked, not the commoner

my 2 cents

zoobyshoe

May26-04, 11:59 PM

This passage shows us that "Shakespeare" must have been able to read Italian in the original, since the unusual phrase "prophetic fury" is taken form Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, where we find the words "furor prophetico" used in the description of a woman, sibyl-like, weaving a cloth of magic virtues.
There is no evidence that Will Shaksper could either speak or read Italian.
Shakespeare was clearly fascinated with Italy and set a few of his plays there. His main source of information about Italy would have been, not from books, but from people he met who had been there. He would surely have pumped them for all the information he could get out of them, including Italian phrases and poems.

Indeed, his knowledge in general was no doubt gained this way. This is the craft of the playwrite: you don't have to know everything about a certain subject. You have to have an ear for the kind of turns of speech and vocabulary that will give a dialog the ring of verisimilitude. That's all. Shakespeare had no need to read or speak Italian. He simply had to pay attention to the kinds of things that those who did speak it said. Hearing what seemed like a witticism, he would naturally stop them and ask them to explain. In this way, he becomes conversant with puns in foreign languages usually only known to people fluent in those languages.

This is how playwrites work. They are sensitive to the flavor of conversations, and to details that give them life.
Shakespeare could create the impression of knowing a great deal he probably didn't actually know in the same way he could create the sense of what it must be like to be a King, without ever having been a King. Or a gravedigger or a scullery maid or "rude mechanical" or common soldier, or a diplomat, or whatever. Is "A Midsummer's Night's Dream" evidence that it's author was good friends with fairies and wood spirits? Of course not.

"The poet's eye
In a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from earth to heaven,
From heaven to earth,
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown
The poet's pen turns them to shapes,
And gives to airy nothing
A local habitation
And a name."

Shakespeare learned what he did know from talking to people. The rest he made up from his prodigious imagination.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 06:23 AM

"This is how playwrites work. They are sensitive to the flavor of conversations, and to details that give them life."

If this is a common occurence amongst playwrite, kindly give us examples from his period of the same thing happening. No-one obviously matches Shakespeare's genius- agreed - but a lesser playwrites must have worked along the same lines.

Right now I am not sure about the conspiratorial side of things of the Baconian Theory as it unsettles me - involves too many wierd and obscure people and organisation. What I am sure of however is that there is something to the Baconian story as I will illustrate further, hopefully

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 06:26 AM

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:08 AM

The tragedy of Hamlet was written in or about 1586, but not printed until 1603. In this first draft of the play we find a letter, written by the prince to Ophelia, in which she is told she may doubt any proposition whatever, no matter how certain it may be, but under no circumstances must she doubt the writers' love. From this letter, which is partly in verse, we quote:

"Doubt that in earth is fire,
Doubt that the stars do move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But do not doubt I love."--ii.2.
Among the certainties here specified, which Ophelia was at liberty to question before she could question the writers' love, is the doctrine of a central fire in the earth. "Doubt that in earth is fire." The belief in the existence of a mass of molten matter at the centre of the earth was then, as it is now, universal; but for some reason the author of he play changed his mind in regard to it within one year after the play was published. The second edition of Hamlet came from the press in 1604, and then the first line of the stanza, quoted above, was made to read as follows:

"Doubt that the stars are fire."
The doctrine of a central fire in the earth was thus taken out of the play some time between the appearance of the first edition in 1603 and that of the second in 1604. How can this be accounted for? was there another person known to fame in all the civilized world at that time, besides the author of Hamlet, who entertained a doubt as to the earth's interior? Yes, there was one, and perhaps one only. Francis Bacon wrote a tract, entitled Cogitationes de Natura Rerum , assigned to the latter part of 1603 or the early part of 1604. Mr. Spedding, the last and best editor of Bacon's works, thinks it was written before September, 1604. In this tract, evidently a fresh study of the subject, Bacon boldly took the ground that the earth is a cold body, cold to the core, the only cold body, as he afterwards affirmed, in the entire universe, all others, sun, planets, and stars, being of fire.

It appears, then, that Bacon adopted this new view of the earth's interior at precisely the same time that the author of Hamlet did; :smile: that is to say, according to the record, in the brief interval between the appearance of the first and that of the second editions of the drama, and, furthermore, against the otherwise unanimous opinion of the physicists throughout the world. Bacon writes:

"The heaven, from its pefect and entire heat and the extreme extension of matter, is most hot, lucid, rarefied, and moveable; whereas the earth, on the contrary, from its entire and unrefracted cold, and the extreme contraction of matter, is most cold, dark, and dense, completely immoveable.....The rigors of cold, which in winter time and in the coldest countries are exhaled into the air from the surface of the earth, are merely tepid airs and baths, compared with the nature of the primal cold shut up in the bowels thereof."--Bacon's De Principiis atque Originibus

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:09 AM

In the second edition of Hamlet, 1604, we find the tides of the ocean attributed, in acordance with popular opinion, to the influence of the moon.

"The moist star,
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands,
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse."--i. 1.
This was repeated in the third quarto, 1605; in the fourth, 1611; in the fifth or undated quarto; but in the first folio (1623), the lines were omitted. Why?

During the Christmas revels at Gray's Inn in 1594, Bacon contributed to the entertainment, among other things, a poem in blank verse, known as the Gray's Inn Masque. It is full of those references to natural philosophy in which the author took so much delight, and especially on this occasion when Queen Elizabeth was the subject, to the various forms of attraction exerted by one body upon another in the world. Of the influence of the moon, he says:

"Your rock claims kindred of the polar star,
Because it draws the needle to the north;
Yet even that star gives place to Cynthia's rays,
Whose drawing virtues govern and direct
The flots and re-flots of the Ocean."
(The masque is not in Bacon's name, but no one can read it and doubt its authorship. Bacon was the leading promoter of these revels.)

At this time, then, Bacon held to the common opinion that the moon controls the tides; but later in life, in or about 1616, he made an elaborate investigation into these phenomona, and in a treatise entitled De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris, definitely rejected the lunar theory.

" We dare not proceed so far as to assert that the motions of the sun or moon are the causes of the motions below, which correspond thereto; or that the sun and moon have a dominion or influence over these motions of the sea, though such kind of thoughts find an easy entrance into the minds of men by reason of the veneration they pay to the celesial bodies.

Whether the moon be in her increase or wane; whether she be above or under the earth; whether she be elevated higher or lower above the horizon; whether she be in the meridian or elsewhere; the ebb and flow of the sea have no correspondence with any of these phenomona."- Bacon's De Fluxu et Refluxu Maris

In every edition of Hamlet published previously to 1616, the theory is stated and approved; in every edition published after 1616, it is omitted.
:smile:
The titles are attributed to the influence of the moon in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and the 'Winter's Tale'; but both these plays were written long before the date of Bacon's change of opinion on the subject. The former we know was not revised by the author for publication in the folio; and we have no reason to believe that the latter, then printed for the first time, underwent any revision after 1616.

The same theory is stated, also, in 'King Lear' and the 'First Part of Henry IV'; but the tragedy was in existence in 1606, and the historical play considerably earlier. The 'Tempest' was written in 1613.

It should be added, however, that the spring or monthly tides were ascribed by Bacon to the influence of the moon.

The passage from ' Hamlet' has been restored to the text by modern editors.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:10 AM

In 'Hamlet', again, we have a singular doctrine in the sphere of moral philosophy, advanced by the author in his early years but subseqently withdrawn.

The prince, expostulating with his mother in the celebrated chamber-scene where Polinus was hidden behind the arras, says to her,--

"Sense, sure, you have,
Else could you not have motion." iii. 4 (1604).
The commentators can make nothing of these words. One of them suggests that for "motion" we substitute notion; another, emotion. Others still contend that the misprint is in the first part of the sentence; that "sense" must be understood to mean sensation or sensibility. Dr. Ingleby is certain that Hamlet refers to the Queen's wanton impulse. The difficulty is complicated, too, by the fact that the lines were omitted from the revised version of the play in the folio of 1623, concerning which, however, the most daring commentator has not ventured to offer a remark. But in Bacon's prose works we find not only an explanation of the passage in the quarto, but also the reason why it was excluded from the folio.

The 'Advancement of Learning' was published in 1605, one year after the quarto of ' Hamlet' containing the sentence in question appeared; but no repudiation of the old doctrine, that everything that has motion must have sense, is found in it. Indeed, Bacon seems to have had at that time a lingering opinion that the doctrine is true, even as applied to the planets, in the influence which these wanderers were then supposed to exert over the affairs of men. But in 1623 he published a new edition of the 'Advancement' in Latin, under the title of De Augmentis Scientiarum, and therein expressly declared that the doctrine is untrue; that there can be motion in inanimate bodies without sense, but with what he called a kind of perception. He said:

"Ignorance on this point drove some of the ancient philosophers to suppose that a soul is infused into all bodies without distinction; for they could not conceive how there can be motion without sense, or sense without a soul."

The Shake-speare folio with its revised version of Hamlet came out in the same year (1623); and the passage in question, having run through all previous editions of the play,-- i.e., in 1604, in 1605, in 1611, and in the undated quarto,--but now no longer harmonizing with the author's views, dropped out :smile:

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:13 AM

In Bacon's Apotheghems it is said that, "The book of deposing Richard the Second, and the coming in of Henry the Fourth, supposed to be written by Dr. Hayward, who was committed to the Tower for it, had much incensed Elizabeth, and she asked Mr. Bacon, being then of her learned counsel: Whether there were no treason contained in it? Mr. Bacon, intending to do him a pleasure, and to take off the Queen's bitterness with a jest, answered:

"No, madam, for treason I cannot deliver opinion that there is any, but very much felony." The Queen apprehending it gladly, asked: "How and wherein?" Mr. Bacon answered: "Because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus."

In an early number of Baconiana, a writer showed that whole pages of The Annals of Tacitus were used in Richard II. The play was staged in 1597, during the Essex Rebellion and before, and Bacon, at the trial of Essex makes the cryptic remark: "It is said I gave in evidence mine own tales." All these indications point to Bacon's connection with Richard II.

Mr. Henry Seymour pointed out the extraordinary fact that this play was published annonymously in the first instance, and that only when the Queen was hunting for it's author to rack him, the new edition of 1598 was issued with the name of "William Shakespeare" as author! Was this the moment to print a real author's name upon it? It plainly shows that this name was but a pseudonym, that Bacon was the concealed author, and that his knowledge of its "cribbing" from Tacitus was an unconscious admission of the fact.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:14 AM

Bacon speaks again and again of Richard II, and in a letter to the Earl of Devonshire, says:

" I remember an answer of mine in a manner which had some affinity* with my Lord's cause; which, though it grew from me, went after about in other's names; for her Majesty being mightily incensed with that book which dedicated to my Lord Essex, being a story of the first year of King Henry IV, thinking it a seditious prelude to put into the people's heads boldness and faction, said, she had an opinion there was treason in it, and asked me if I could not find any places in it that might be drawn with case of treason......... And, another time, when the Queen could not be persuaded that it was his writing whose name was to it, but that it had some more mischievous author......said with great indignation that she would have him "racked to produce his author."
================================================== ============
*the prose work of Henry IV, ascribed to John Hayward, was to all intents and purposes, the life of Richard II. Only a small portion at the end is concerned with Henry IV, the main text with Richard.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:17 AM

How do you explain this:

The "Shakespeare" Play, Timon of Athens, was never printed in quarto and, so far as is known, never produced on any stage, previously to its appearance in the First Folio of 1623. Contemporary literature gives no hint of its existence prior to 1623. The question may therefore be asked ''If this play was written by Will Shaksper, where was the manuscript during the period between Shaksper's death in 1616 and its appearance seven years afterwards in the Folio?"

If it was sent by Shaksper to Heminge and Condell, then it is remarkably strange that they did not inform the literary coterie in London that they had in their possession a brand-new play by Shaksper which had never been heard of before! If for some unknown reason they wished to keep this fact secret, then surely when they were gathering together the plays for publication in the Folio they would have been only too delighted to have informed the Reader that they were printing for the first time a Shakespeare play which had never been performed on any stage.

On the other hand, they give the reader the impression that all the plays printed in the Folio were known to the public, because in their preface

"To the Great Variety of Readers'' they state that ''these Plaies have had their triall alreadie and stood out all applause" and "before you were abused with diverse stolne and surreptitious copies."

They also say 'What he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers,'' which implies that they had received the manuscripts of the plays direct from the author's hands.

Will Shaksper having died seven years before the publication of the Folio, this must mean that Shaksper had handed over this play of Timon of Athens to Heminge and Condell in his lifetime, and if this was so it is certainly extraordinary that Heminge and Condell never mentioned this fact to anybody.

Ulrici referring to this play, writes that ''no one could have painted misanthropy with such truth and force without having experienced its bitter agony." Yet Sir Sidney Lee writes that "Shakspere's career shows an unbroken progress of prosperity and there is no support for the suggestion of a prolonged personal experience of tragic suffering."

On the other hand, the experiences of Francis Bacon after his fall from power are precisely similar to those of Timon in this play, because he suffered from the ingratitude of a great number of his so-called friends who deserted him, as witness his letters to Buckingham and King James. It must be remembered that Bacon fell from power in 1621, and the play of Timon is first heard of two years afterwards, in 1623.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:29 AM

A handwriting expert has added weight to claims that the Elizabethan author and philosopher Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Maureen Ward-Gandy claims it is "highly probable" that Bacon was the author of a recently discovered manuscript describing a scene which bears a striking similarity to one from Henry IV. She compared a copy of the handwritten document, thought to date back to the 1590s when Henry IV was written and published, with the handwriting of 30 well-known scholars and statesmen of the Elizabethan era.

Mrs. Ward-Gandy's strong belief that the handwriting is Bacon's has been hailed by Bacon supporters as a major breakthrough in proving the true authorship of the 38 plays, 150 sonnets and two long poems which bear William Shakespeare's name.

The debate over who wrote what, which has dogged literary critics for more than a century, resurfaced recently when the manuscript went on sale at Sotheby's. Comprising a single sheet of 57 neatly handwritten lines, the document was expected to fetch up to £12,000 but was unsold. It has since been returned to its secret owner.

Mrs. Ward-Gandy, who outlined her findings in a 20-page report, is a forensic document examiner, a job which often involves studying handwriting for the police and Home Office to establish fraud. She said "The shapes of the letters and style of writing in the manuscript point to the writing being that of Bacon. It is very exciting and could settle the argument once and for all that the Shakespeare plays were in fact written by Bacon."

The scene in the manuscript describes a conversation in which an innkeeper tells two thieves of "a man that lodged in our house/Last night that hath three hundred markes in gold." Similar conversations in an almost identical setting are described in Henry IV.

Francis Carr, historian and the Director of the Shakespeare Authorship Information Centre in Brighton, believes the document was a reject script for Henry IV. Mr. Carr, who dedicated 30 years to proving authorship, believes Bacon was writing under the pseudonym of William Shakespeare. "I think this is probably a breakthrough to the whole authorship mystery," he said. "It could bring the whole subject into the open again. The information we have built up pointing to Bacon could blow the whole of Stratford sky high."

From London Evening Standard, July 30, 1992
:smile:

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 07:44 AM

1587 Sir Francis Bacon assists in presenting at Gray's Inn Revels an anonymous play The Tragedy of Arthur, a reminiscence of King John, containing many extracts found in his notebook, the Promus (With The Promus alone might a brief be made for the plaintiff)

Can speculate that his Order of the Knights of the Helmet was forming with the University wits around this time?

Shake-speare a mature poet by this time :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Bacon's name is hidden throughout the original 1623 Folio of Shakespearean plays. This "B" with "Francis" and "Bacon" inserted in the scrollwork is from the first word of The Tempest, Boteswaine The story was first published in 1931 in the Cincinnati Times-Star newspaper and in the Literary Digest:

http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/litdigest.gif

http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/ctimes.gif

1624 November: The Great Shakespeare Folio of 1623 , edited by Ben Jonson, consisting of thirty-six plays, many never heard of before, is published.

honestrosewater

May27-04, 09:57 AM

If 'Who' or 'What I think' was evidence to you - we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Yes, but there was a body, a walking, talking body. Unless you deny that there had to be a face to the poet, then your case is mightily weakened if you do not have an explaination for whose face it was. I say it was player Shakespeare.

Surely not. Assumptions, interpretations, and similarities are the basis of your own theories about the origin of the plays.
(If you can say anything without assumptions of any kind, or discuss history without interpretations - I'll eat my hat collection ;D)

Yes, but this goes back to my post about the reliability of evidence. Some assumptions are reasonable- like that people had eyes and could recognize a face by looking at it.

I have barely gotten into my theories. If you would kindly answer my question. Who was Greene referring to as the "upstart crow"? That is a very straightforward question.

There are some interesting things in your posts, sure. But there are some troubling problems with them as well.

Do you reject the evidence that the 1622 Othello quarto was published from a copy at least 16 years old?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

honestrosewater

May27-04, 11:08 AM

None of those posts contains a scrap of reliable evidence.

It looks like trying to find a reliable piece of evidence in support of Bacon is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

If you have reliable evidence in support of Bacon- please share.

So far, your case is airy nothing.

The author had a local habitation and a name.

Who was the person walking the streets of London and being called William Shakespeare?

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 11:24 AM

I believe there might be a flaw in your logic. It is ok that you turn to the question of 'who was the walking-talking Shakespeare?'. It's ok that you criticise the evidence.
But its not ok that you call the evidence unreliable without saying why. It's not ok that you use the existence of a man called Shakespeare to dismiss the evidence.

You're running in circles my friend.

None of those posts contains a scrap of reliable evidence.

Please explain.

Who was the person walking the streets of London and being called William Shakespeare?

I haven't denied Shakespeare's existence. I have showed you however that all the evidence points to Sir Francis Bacon being the author of the Plays. I am also showing you the lack of information on the person by the name of Shakespeare and the improbablity of his having the basic knowledge to have written the plays.

Please show how the evidence is faulty.

Please show proof of the authorship of the plays by Shakespeare [not just the existence of a man by that name]. When you cannot do this - please show the sources of his vast knowledge - knowledge only comparable to that of Sir Francis Bacon.

Show how Bacon could not have written the plays using Shakespeare as a mask.

zoobyshoe

May27-04, 02:24 PM

Have a read of the above - post number 57. Then please look at it carefully and you will see concrete facts about the geographic knowledge - not obscure connections and generalisations like 'He jus couldn't know Italy'
As I said, all he needed to include any information about Italy in his plays was to have talked to people who'd been to Italy. The fact he seems to speak from first hand knowledge is, as I said, what all playwrites do with all situations they treat. Shakespeare did not have to be a King to write so effectively about Kings. Nor did he have to have been to Italy, or speak Italian.

Shouldn't we, by your logic, assume that Bacon, if he actually wrote these plays, must also have been secretly a Monarch to write so knowingly about the emotional details that only someone in the position of Monarch could actually experience? Was "Bacon" not really a pseudonym for "Elizabeth"? If not, why not? Why otherwise the fascination with Monarchy in these plays? Doesn't this constitute evidence, by your logic, of the hand of a Monarch behind these plays? Think about it. Isn't there a woman who dresses up to pass herself off as a man in one of "Shakespeare'"s plays? Goodness, that must be some kind of clue! Let's play connect the dots and what do we end up with? It was a secret admission by Elizabeth of the male pseudonym under which she authored the plays of "Shakespeare".

honestrosewater

May27-04, 03:29 PM

Okay, here is an example of what I consider the difference between reliable evidence and pure speculation.

In the thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27328:

Ahhhh, so that's what you meant. In that case, let's get those philosophers to the wheel.

Now, to what wheel is Les referring? I could speculate the he was referring to the wheel they used to strap people to for torturing during the middle ages. This makes sense, but is pure speculation.

Reliable evidence, however, would be the previous post in the same thread:
All philosophers should eb rounded up and made to pull a big wheel around like the one in Conan the Babarian.

That is the difference. One explanation is pure speculation, the other is reliable evidence. And, in the face of reliable evidence, I think pure speculation must be abandoned. Evidence beats speculation, IMO.

Of course, I don't *know* what was in Les's mind, so I must make an assumption. But all assumptions are not equal, and I can still make the distinction of how *reasonable* an assumption is.

More in a bit.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 03:57 PM

Ok. We can argue on what a reasonable assumption is etc ... and explore the boundaries of our definitions etc ... It will get us nowhere unless we happen to agree. Where we differ on reasonability - we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think it'd be better to stick to the specifics when possible.

Sticking to specifics means as you said looking at the evidence or of lack thereof.

Thank you for your analogy. If you can apply it to the information I have provided above - then please do so.

Very simple thing I'm saying here - if you have an objection to a piece of information above - then state your objection to it by saying what you find objectionable. If you say a piece of information is unreliable - state your reason. Surely you can't expect me to agree with your views if you don't provide reasons for them.

honestrosewater

May27-04, 03:59 PM

As I said, all he needed to include any information about Italy in his plays was to have talked to people who'd been to Italy... [entire post]

For what it's worth, I am a writer, and zoobyshoe is correct- that is how I write, it is how many writers write- though I can't speak for *all* of them- some are whackos ;)

I realize the intention of your remarks, but I want to point out something.
There were many times women dressed up as men, and not only in Shakespeare's, but in other people's plays as well- even before Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare also concealed women in darkness- several times.
In Measure for Measure:
"He persuades Isabella to feign acceptance of Angelo's offer; when the moment comes, Mariana will switch places in the dark with Isabella (the bed trick of All's Well That Ends Well being used again)."
And think also of Don John's trick with Hero and her Maid in Much Ado About Nothing.

And it's not only women.
Henry V disguises himself and talks to the soldiers in their camp before the battle.

All of these are old tricks. Sure, they could point to Elizabeth as the author. BUT that is just speculation. They could point to lots of things. For instance, that the author thought they were useful dramatic devices.

The Queen Elizabeth theory meets with the same problem- there was a face to the name. If the poet Shakespeare was not the already familiar player Shakespeare (who performed before the Queen), who was it?

BTW I too keep notes of sayings, ideas, etc. for use in my writing. And I hardly use any of them- some may spark something that gets transformed into something barely recognizable. The process of writing- especially great writing- is not so straightforward.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 04:08 PM

Ok HRW. I welcome your remarks. I guess I have been putting off on making an affirmitive statement on the existence of actor Shakespeare because I am not 100% sure of Baconian theories. I am open to new (or old ;D) opinions. I will for the moment say yes - actor Shakespeare did exist as a mask for Bacon's creative output. This is because it helps in the debate and is not because I am convinced of this - as yet anyway ;D

Hopfully this will an obstacle lifted ib our conversations

i.e.

I accept 1)the man 2) the player as having existed.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 04:13 PM

I see what zoobyshoe is trying to say. But he should really do more homework on the plays. There are some things on the play that *cannot be from a traveller's mouth. I will post a specific example below. Many things however can be explained off as having been gained from travellers/friends. But it is improbable for some information to have been gained like that - and other literary trnaslations of foreign works are impossible without knowledge and skill Bacon possessed-but also concentrated and excelled in which.

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 04:33 PM

Professor Elze gives us, some curious information regarding "Shake-speare's" knowledge of Italian art,--knowledge that could have been derived, it would seem, only from personal inspection on the spot. For instance, in the 'Winter's Tale,' "Shake-speare" tells us that the statue of Hermione was the work of Giulio Romano; he dwells upon the merits of it, and of Romano's artistic qualities as a sculptor, with discriminating and enthusiastic praise.

"There is, perhaps, no description of statuary extant so admirable for its truth and beauty."--Green's Shakespeare and the Emblem Writers, p. 108.

But who ever heard, until recently, that Romano was a sculptor? Certainly not the Shakespearean critics, for they have almost universally assumed that this great master in the art of painting, Raphael's favorite pupil and successor, simply colored in this case the work of another artist. Such coloring was then, indeed, quite in vogue. Shakspere's bust at Stratford was treated in this manner, and continued so--with red lips, brown eyes, and auburn hair--until Mr. Malone, himself a learned critic, employed a common house-painter to cover it with a coat of white paint. Other critics, such as the editor of the 'Saturday Review' and Mr. Andrew Lang, characterize this reference to Romano as one of "Shake-speare's" blunders.1

It happens, however, that Vasari, who published in 1550 a work on Italian art, and who was a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Romano, states distinctly that Romano was not only a painter, but an architect and sculptor also. The statement appears in a Latin epitaph given in the book. Vasari revised and enlarged his work for a second edition in 1568, but, curiously enough, omitted the epitaph. The first edition (which was, of course, in Italian) was never translated into a foreign tongue. It was the second edition only that became known, through translations, outside of Italy. "We now stand," says Professor Elze, "before this dilemma": Either the author of the plays had read, when he wrote the 'Winter's Tale,' a copy of Vasari in the first edition (one that had long been supplanted by another, and that has not been translated to this day), and found what nobody else found for nearly three hundred years afterwards, or he had been in Mantua and seen Romano's works.

It is hardly necessary to add that every effort to find the slightest hint of foreign travel in the life of Shakspere, though made with great persistence, has thus far signally failed.

honestrosewater

May27-04, 04:49 PM

qudd,
I welcome you comments as well :smile: And I hope any attack on a piece of evidence is not taken personally, as an attack against you.

I have provided reasons for my rejection of some of your arguments. I cannot provide specific reasons for all of them- this would take several days and isn't necessary because I have provided general reasons for why I reject them- I think most of them are pure speculation.
The handwriting analysis one is probably the best one so far, but even it has problems.Think of the Shroud of Turin- it has a similar bunch of problems.
http://sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it/en/welcome.htm

As I see it, Shakespeare the player *must* be at least the face of the true author- whoever the true author is. Whether player Shakespeare was *just a mask* is the next question.
Do you agree that player Shakespeare was the face known throughout London to be the author of the plays and poems?
In addition to his contemporaries crediting Shakespeare as the author, there are records of poems being registered under that name. I'll find the links if you want; I know The Rape of Lucrece was registered in 1594. The First Folio compilers were fellow players of Shakespeare, and they would reasonably have known the name and face of player Shakespeare. And think of all the poems and plays that were published before the FF that were credited to Shakespeare. The fact that some of them were miscredited shows how famous Shakespeare was- and could not have been a name without a face.

honestrosewater

May27-04, 06:04 PM

Give me some time to respond properly to the Romano argument- I want to make it a proper response :biggrin: should be done by 9:00 or so- I have other stuff going on too...

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 06:08 PM

9? Sorry-its 12 midnight here! wats the time there?

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 06:15 PM

"I welcome you comments as well. And I hope any attack on a piece of evidence is not taken personally, as an attack against you."

Not at all, I welcome it, infact I believe I've been asking for it :D

quddusaliquddus

May27-04, 06:44 PM

The Promus needs explanation. The changes in scientific viewpoints of the plays in exact synchronisation with that of Bacon's must be explained - and reasonably so.

The names of Francis Bacon in the lettering (an image of which i posted) needs explanation.

The knowledge of Italian-things only available to Italians e.g. italian book not translated for hundreds of years into any other European language, needs explanation. Keep in mind Bacon's extensive travels there and his expertise in the language.

I don't think the handwriting analysis is the best piece of evidence I have submitted so far. Since you are impressed by numbers and not historical associations, chronological analysis (or for that matter the little problem of the lack of knowledge on part of Shakespeare-the-actor) I will submit more numbers for you to crunch...soon :D

honestrosewater

May27-04, 08:49 PM

Okay, Romano is something I can dig my teeth into :biggrin:
And here is my rebuttal, for your consideration.

First, some information:
The book is Vasari’s “The Lives of the Artists” or “The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects” (Vite de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori Italiani). This book was well-known, even back then. It was written by request:
One evening, in Cardinal Farnese's house, probably in 1546, the bishop of Nocera spoke of the need for a literary account of famous artists. Vasari volunteered to help Paolo Giovio in the project, but when Giovio gave up the idea of writing the book, Vasari accepted the challenge.

It was in “Lives of the Artists” that Vasari coined the term Renaissance (Rinascita). It might be fruitful to find if other writers had adopted this and other terms and used them in books available to Shakespeare; over 50 years elapsed before Shakespeare wrote “Winter’s Tale”. But I hardly have that much time ;)

The Latin epitaph in question is:
Giulio died in I546 on All Saints' Day, and the following epitaph was placed on his tomb:
Romanus moriens secum tres Julius arteis Abstulit (haud mirum) quatuor
unus erat.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the epitaph as it appeared in Vasari’s book, and it was not given in the post.

My sources date The Winter’s Tale to 1610-1611. This leaves plenty of time for knowledge of both Vasari’s 1550 and 1568 editions to spread from Italy, and be available to Shakespeare, whether by word of mouth, printed references, or otherwise. Indeed, the exact date of the play is not that important, as Shakespeare wasn’t even born until 1564.

Was Vasari’s 1550 edition the ONLY way Shakespeare could have thought Giulio Romano was a sculptor? I don’t think so, here are some alternate speculations:

Many people could have seen the tombstone and provide more ways for the knowledge of it to reach Shakespeare.

The epitaph is in Latin and Shakespeare admittedly knew a little.

Shakespeare could have had another source for this knowledge.

Shakespeare could have surmised from the title, “The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects” and the inclusion of Romano in the book that Romano was a sculptor.

Shakespeare could have inferred that Romano was a sculptor from the fact that Romano was Raphael’s chief assistant.

Shakespeare could have made a mistake about the name of the sculptor. For instance, he could have confused him with another Renaissance sculptor, Gian Romano.

Gian could have been mistranslated as Giulio in something Shakespeare read.

And so on. There is yet another possibility.

Here are 2 versions of the quote, for thoroughness. To my knowledge, there was no quarto edition; the FF was its first publication.

No: The Princesse hearing of her Mothers
Statue (which is in the keeping of Paulina) a Peece many
yeeres in doing, and now newly perform'd, by that rare
Italian Master, Iulio Romano, who (had he himselfe Eter-
nitie, and could put Breath into his Worke) would be-
guile Nature of her Custome, so perfectly he is her Ape:
He so neere to Hermione, hath done Hermione, that they
say one would speake to her, and stand in hope of answer.
Thither (with all greedinesse of affection) are they gone, [3110]
and there they intend to Sup.

No; the princess hearing of her mother’s statue, which is in the keeping of Paulina—a piece many years in doing, and now newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano; who, had he himself eternity and could put breath into his work, would beguile Nature of her custom, so perfectly he is her ape: he so near to Hermione hath done Hermione that they say one would speak to her and stand in hope of answer: thither with all greediness of affection are they gone, and there they intend to sup.

Note the lines:
a piece many years in doing, and now newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano

Shakespeare says that Romano was not the original artist, but only copied the original. Romano was well-known for his 2D copies of 3D art, for his designs/plans of such works and as an architect. And so the choice of Romano as the sculptor seems like a natural choice for Shakespeare to make- whether or not Romano was known to be a sculptor.

Add to that the fact that Shakespeare was especially fond of double meanings, and the original to which he was referring could also be Hermione the person. A statue of a person being comparable to a 2D copy of a 3D piece: missing the extra dimension, the breadth, or "breath".

Happy thoughts
Rachel

P.S. It's 9:48 here.
I spent a great amount of time trying to find the quote in the 1550 edition, which I never found. The Latin epitaph says nothing about Romano being a sculptor, unless I have mistranslated it.

honestrosewater

May27-04, 09:16 PM

The Promus needs explanation. The changes in scientific viewpoints of the plays in exact synchronisation with that of Bacon's must be explained - and reasonably so.

Give me time. Besides, as I have already said, there is more reliable evidence, and I think the more reliable evidence should be considered first.

I don't think the handwriting analysis is the best piece of evidence I have submitted so far. Since you are impressed by numbers and not historical associations, chronological analysis (or for that matter the little problem of the lack of knowledge on part of Shakespeare-the-actor) I will submit more numbers for you to crunch...soon :D

The handwriting analysis is best because it is *physical* evidence, and it can possibly be connected to Bacon. Of course, there is still the problem that it is only *similar* to one of Shakespeare's works. Similarities are not reliable evidence- and they must be given their due weight.

The "lack of knowledge" is an assumption on your part. I have already explained that I think it is an unwarranted assumption. You cannot prove that Shakespeare *didn't* have access to such knowledge.
A lack of proof that he did have the knowledge is not proof that he didn't have it. And anyway, it is reasonable to assume that he *did* have access to such knowledge, as has been stated by not only myself but others as well.

I am NOT impressed by numbers. I am impressed by reliable evidence.

I think I have been fair in responding to your case, and I would like you to respond to mine.
Since you accept the existence of man, player, and poet Shakespeare. I will make the case for why man, player, and poet Shakespeare are one and the same person. And attempt to show why poet Shakespeare was not just a mask, but the true author.

I have to go now, so I'll begin my case tomorrow :wink:

Happy thoughts
Rachel

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 06:22 AM

honestrosewater

May28-04, 07:12 AM

To begin with - I understand there are different possible explanations as to these strange facts about Shakespeare's works; but you seem to be willing to accept any exaplanation no matter how unnatural they seem for a man of Shakespear'e's position from that period.

a man of Shakespeare's position?

HAMLET
'Tis well: I'll have thee speak out the rest soon.
Good my lord, will you see the players well
bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used; for
they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the
time: after your death you were better have a bad
epitaph than their ill report while you live.

LORD POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

HAMLET
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
Take them in.

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 07:59 AM

Ben Jonson:

To the Reader.
This Figure, that thou here seest put,

It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;

Wherein the Grauer had a strife

with Nature, to out-doo the life :

O, could he but haue drawne his wit

As well in brasse, as he hath hit

His face ; the Print would then surpasse

All, that vvas euer vvrit in brasse.

But, since he cannot, Reader, looke

Not on his Picture, but his Booke.

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 08:09 AM

Having looked @ previous posts I have more questions for you than before:

"But now we are to step back a little to that, which by premeditation we
passed over, lest a breach should be made in those things that were so
linked together."

-- Francis Bacon

I will return your favour of having numbered the pointers/problems
with which to deal with:

[The 'Shakespeare' referred to below is Shakespeare the actor]

1) Shakespeare's U-turns on topics e.g. scientific explanations, that
coincide with that of Bacon's U-turns

There are too many for it to attributed to chance.

2) How can Shakespeare-the-actor have detailed and thorough knowledge of
legal, scientific, linguistic, geographic, areas etc ... ?

Simple Proof
If you say 'he picked it up' please give us an example of another person
of that time who 'picked it up' - so as to prove the possibility of a
normal man (finance-wise and class-wise) to have had contact with enough
people of that rank in society or to have had access to such rare and
'live' sources of information to use.

3) Bacon's Notebook: Promus - Only Shakespeare notebook, a collection of
expressions, phrases, and sentences, too many of which appear in the
Shakespeare plays to be ignored.

4) 'HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS' (The longest word in any Shakespearean
work). Apears in Love's Labours Lost.

Its a nonsense word - with no apparent meaning.

This word is also found in the collected papers of Francis Bacon in the

British Museum, in the form of a diagram:
[arranged in a pyramid]
ho
hono
honori
honorifi
honorifica
honorificabi
honorificabili
honorificabilitu
honorificabilitudi
honorificabilitudini
honorificabilitudinita
honorificabilitudinitati
honorificabilitudinitatibus

I appears again in Bacon's The Northumberland Manuscript.

Proof
What are the chances of this happaning by accident? Answer this first
before proceeding to ask why it was done so.

[I have more to say on this in future-hopefully.]

5) Shakespeare's friends Wouldn't keep Secrets? - Timon of Athens

6) Richard II - Why new edition printed with Shakespeare's name exactly coinciding with when the Queen was after Shakespreare to 'Rack' him

7) Vocabulary - Is it a coincidence that the vocabulary of Shakespeare is

Only matched by that of Francis Bacon?

It is said that a common farm labourer uses 500 words, and educated
business man 3,000, the average novelist 5,000 and great scholars and
public men 7,000.
"Shakespeare" in his poems and plays uses 21,000, the
largest vocabulary ever possessed by any member of the human race.

Dr. Samuel Johnson (the great lexicographer): "a Dictionary of the
English language might be compiled from Bacon's works alone."

8) Northumberland Manuscript bear the names of Shakespeare and Bacon and the titles of two Shakespeare plays: Richard II & Richard III listed
under the words "by Francis William Shakespeare"

Expain:

9) Bacon's Letter to King James

[Nov 1622]

"...for my pen,if contemplative,going on with The Historie of Henry
the Eighth."
===============================
Bacon's Letter to the Duke of Buckingham

[21 February 1623]

"...Prince Charles "who, I hope, ere long will make me leave King
Henry VIII and set me on work in relation to His Majesty's adventures."
===============================
Bacon Letter to the Duke of Buckingham

[26 June 1623]

"...since you say the Prince hath not forgot his commandment
touching my history of Henry VIII."
===============================
[January 1623]

Bacon applied to the records office for the loan of archive

documents relating to the reign of Henry VIII.
===============================
[December 1623]
' The Historie of King Henry VIII' printed for the first time in the
Shakespeare First Folio.

A brief,30-line summary of Henry's reign was printed after Bacon's death
under his own name.

Coincidence?

10) ++

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 08:22 AM

Something to think about ;D

In 1607, Bacon wrote a tract in Latin called "Cogitata et Visa" which was the forerunner of the "Novum Organum." It was not printed until twenty-seven years after his death. In 1857 Spedding discovered a manuscript of this work in the Library of Queen's College, Oxford which contained passages concerning the representations of the human passions which had been suppressed in the printed edition. Bacon says it is to be by means of "visible representation" and observes:

"Nothing else can be devised that would place in a clearer light what is true and what is false, or show more plainly that what is presented is more than words."

He goes on to say that, "when these writings have been put forth and seen I do not doubt that more timid wits will shrink almost in despair from imitating them with similar productions, with other materials or on other subjects, and they will take so much delight in the specimens given that they will miss the precepts in them. Still, many persons will be led to inquire into the real meaning and highest use of these writings, and to find the key to their interpretation and thus more ardently desire, in some degree at least, to acquire the new aspect of nature which such a key will reveal. But I intend yielding neither to my own aspirations nor to the wishes of others, but keeping steadily in view the success of my undertaking, having shared these writings with some, to withhold the rest until the treatise intended for the people shall be published."

In the anonymous publication entitled Wits Recreations which appeared in 1640 but was probably written many years earlier, the following lines are to be found :

Shakespeare, we must be silent in thy praise
'Cause our encomions will but blast thy bayes,
Which envy could not.

I wonder why? :wink:

honestrosewater

May28-04, 10:30 AM

Yes, you are right. It's about time I responded to your pointers, therefore my next postwill deal exclusively with this-hopefully.

You have not done so.

You are still posting things to which I have already responded.

I cannot keep doing this.

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 10:46 AM

I didn't find anything to respond to. I am sorry.

Edit:

I will try and respond to your post #85 and the comparison with the Turin shroud.

I don't mean to cause offense - it's just that I have so many peices of information that I can/want to show you that I have lost track of your evidences. I also don't feel an urgent need to respond to your rebuttals as I have not posted the core of the evidences yet. I understand this is unfair therefore am endeveuring to respond.

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 11:09 AM

On my points i posted above:

1) U have not responded to yet.
2) You have not shown the resources we're available to the common man
3) You will respond to this in future you said
4) New evidence
5) New evidence
6) Unresponded
7) Extraordinary coincidence - no proper response as yet
8) New evidence
9) New evidence

My response
I will say that the Romano-affair has other possibilities than Bacon so I'll let you have that one (no matter how improbable).

You mentioned the Turing shroud - as I am not familiar with that story with its problems would you care to elucidate?

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 11:15 AM

You have not done so.

You are still posting things to which I have already responded.

I cannot keep doing this.

Please ignore anything I have posted again. As you can see I have posted new things aswell. I have conceded to the Vasari problem and have taken a stance on Shakespeare the actor.

killerinstinct

May28-04, 01:44 PM

It has been suggested by many people that Christopher Marlowe IS William Shakespeare. I don't believe that Shakespeare's works were written by other ppl, but it could've been true. Many interestin theories in this world!

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 02:10 PM

You're right killer instinct. I felt the same way until I had to do some reasearch on Francis Bacon for reasons unconnected to Shakespeare. When I delved into these matters I could no longer pretend to my self as I had examined all the evidence. I believe a shallow superficial look at the evidence with a fast conclusion that's right, is worse than a thorough research that gets it wrong. The first person is wrong - the second person's conclusion is only wrong.

honestrosewater

May28-04, 03:29 PM

We obviously have different ideas about what counts as reliable evidence. And it seems there is too much misunderstanding between us for me to continue the debate. I don't know what else to say. I hope everyone else has a good time. Maybe we can pick this up again sometime down the road.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

quddusaliquddus

May28-04, 03:55 PM

Ok. Hope there isn't hard feelings. Whatever the outcome of this - the least we can say that it was enjoyable - at times. I am very sorry that we couldn't get this off to a good start. I would like to say thank you anyway - for letting me have a conversation with someone else who shares the enthusiasm if not same ideas on Shakespeare. We can agreed atleast that Shakespeare was genius. Good luck with your writing.

honestrosewater

May28-04, 04:08 PM

Of course- no hard feelings :smile: I ejoyed it too.
I think I may just need a break. I haven't slept since Wednesday- a poor excuse, I know.
Maybe we can pick it up again tomorrow?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

zoobyshoe

May28-04, 07:26 PM

It is hardly necessary to add that every effort to find the slightest hint of foreign travel in the life of Shakspere, though made with great persistence, has thus far signally failed.
It is not at all clear to me why you think it impossible that Shakespeare knew someone who had been to Italy, seen the sculpture by Romano, and described it to him. Although the knowledge that Romano was a sculptor may have been lost to history untill recently, at the time, hundreds, possibly thousands of people may have been aware of his sculpture.

Likewise any poem you mention which, as far as we know, only existed in Italian, could have been translated for Will by anyone he knew who spoke Italian and thought he might enjoy it. He was a poet. Acquaintances would have constantly been bringing poems from everywhere to his attention. He would get together with people and sit and discuss poets and poetry for hours, no doubt, because all poets do this. We can infer he was an extrememly social person since he was an actor, and from his plays, which demonstrate he was conversant with people from all walks of life, and all professions, high and low. One thing I know: shy people don't act. Shakespeare was not a scholarly hermit. He was, at the very least, always out where there were people who were talking so he could listen to them, even if he wasn't conversing himself.

P.S. To HonestRoseWater: My suggestion that Elizabeth wrote the plays was not to be taken seriously. It was just an excercize to demonstrate that, given our relatively vague knowledge of the times, there are quite a few people you could decide really wrote Shakespeares plays, and start finding all kinds of interesting dots to connect that supported your "suspect". The longer you work at it, and the deeper you dig, the more dots you can find that seem to support nearly anyone. In recent times, the same thing has happened concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper. There are many good cases for quite a number of different people. There are dots everywhere.