Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

  • #71
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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?
 
  • #72
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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 criticize 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.

honestrosewater said:
None of those posts contains a scrap of reliable evidence.

Please explain.

honestrosewater said:
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.
 
  • #73
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
quddusaliquddus said:
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 [Italics] couldn't [/Italics] 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".
 
  • #74
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
Okay, here is an example of what I consider the difference between reliable evidence and pure speculation.

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

Les Sleeth said:
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:
jcsd said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #76
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
zoobyshoe said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #79
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #80
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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...
 
  • #82
quddusaliquddus
354
2
9? Sorry-its 12 midnight here! wats the time there?
 
  • #83
quddusaliquddus
354
2
"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
 
  • #84
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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
 
Last edited:
  • #85
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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.

1623 First Folio Ed. said:
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.

1914 Oxford Edition said:
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.
 
  • #86
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
quddusaliquddus said:
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.

quddusaliquddus said:
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
 
  • #87
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.

Yes, you are right. It's about time I responded to your pointers, therefore my next postwill deal exclusively with this-hopefully.
 
  • #88
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
quddusaliquddus said:
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.
 
  • #89
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #90
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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) ++
 
  • #91
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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:
 
  • #92
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
quddusaliquddus said:
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.
 
  • #93
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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?
 
  • #95
quddusaliquddus
354
2
honestrosewater said:
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.
 
  • #96
killerinstinct
92
0
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!
 
  • #97
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #98
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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
 
  • #99
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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.
 
  • #100
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
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
 
  • #101
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
quddusaliquddus said:
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 until 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.
 
  • #102
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
zoobyshoe said:
P.S. To HonestRoseWater: My suggestion that Elizabeth wrote the plays was not to be taken seriously. It was just an excercize...

I know :)
me said:
I realize the intention of your remarks, but I want to point out something.

And I agree with the rest of what you say.

For instance, I know a lot about castles and daily life in a castle- not because I once lived in a castle, but because I wrote a play that took place in a castle and had to do research. Calling everything a whatchmacallit or thingamajigger gets annoying after a while. Two castles that I used specifically for their "look" were (IIRC) Kilchurn castle in Scotland and another beginning with a "B", something like Beaumount, in England or Wales. I've never been to Britain- writers do research. I never dropped or thrust anything through a murder hole. Writers do research and mix fact with fiction.

I like the characterization, "A man on whom nothing was lost." And that's the kind of person I try to be. It takes one to know one :tongue2:

Inferring knowledge is a tricky business. Especially when your source is a work of fiction.

Happy thoughts
Rachel
 
  • #103
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
honestrosewater said:
I've never been to Britain- writers do research. I never dropped or thrust anything through a murder hole. Writers do research and mix fact with fiction.
Exactly. In Shakespeare's day "research" would have meant directly talking with, or at least listening to, people who had forsthand knowledge of the subject. Not with the intention of learning the subject to write a treatise about it, but only to create the impression that the characters in the play speak from direct experience.
I like the characterization, "A man on whom nothing was lost."
He was clearly an exceptionally brilliant, observant person. Bacon may also have been. That is no evidence they were one in the same. Michelangelo and Leonardo coexisted in the same time and culture without being the same person.
 
  • #104
1.Is there evidence that Will Shaksper and Francis Bacon met? Knew each other?
2.Why would Shaksper allow him to use his name? Would that not put him in jeopardy?
3.You made reference to the Shroud of Turin connection. What was that about?
 
  • #105
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,136
5
FrancisWilliamShakes said:
3.You made reference to the Shroud of Turin connection. What was that about?
I just mentioned it as an example - there's no connection that I know of.
 

Suggested for: Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

Replies
40
Views
819
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
421
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
657
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
95
Views
4K
Top