Actual Author of Shakespeare's Works

[quddusaliquddus]

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Of course- no hard feelings 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]

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

P.S. To HonestRoseWater: My suggestion that Elizabeth wrote the plays was not to be taken seriously. It was just an excercize...

I know :)

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

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

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[FrancisWilliamShakes]

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

 

[FrancisWilliamShakes]

Thank you for that.
I stumbled upon this thread by serendipity and I am trying to get my mind wrapped around this issue: If it were dangerous to use his real name, then would not using Will Shakper's name place him in jeopardy, as well? Why use the name William Shakespeare and not John Doe or Jane Smith? Was it just a coincidence that there was an actor named William Shakespeare or did the two have some sort of (financial) arrangement?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thank you for that.
I stumbled upon this thread by serendipity and I am trying to get my mind wrapped around this issue:

There is no issue. William Shakespeare wrote the works of William Shakespeare. This Francis Bacon thing is a tedious excercize in confirmation bias. Francis Bacon says so:

confirmation bias
Address:http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html


What's your thing? Actor or playwrite?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

New evidence

Here is some new evidence. I went to the library to get a copy of Hamlet. This is what was on the title page:

------------------------------
The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

by William Shakespeare
------------------------------

Pretty much lays this one to rest.

 

[FrancisWilliamShakes]

You would probably be interested in a bridge I have for sale - right next to some very picturesque swampland.

 

[Jim KQKnave]

The small number of correspondences between the language
of Bacon and the language of Shakespeare are due to the influence
of Shakespeare on Bacon's translators, as Bacon wrote most of
his work in Latin. Shakespeare was Shakespeare, not Bacon, Marlowe,
Rasputin...

Jim

The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

 

[Chi Meson]

It's aliiive!

 

[arildno]

It's aliiive!

Indeed. And here's a few immortal words about death. And life:

"And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings"

 

[mathwonk]

actually i wrote several of them myself.

much ado about something, loves labors temporarily mislaid, a midsummers night senior moment, and hambone - prince of west tennessee.

then this low life actor revised them, improving them only slightly and takes ALL the credit.

 

[arildno]

actually i wrote several of them myself.

much ado about something, loves labors temporarily mislaid, a midsummers night senior moment, and hambone - prince of west tennessee.

then this low life actor revised them, improving them only slightly and takes ALL the credit.

Your versions are a lot better than his.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I wrote West Side story, but Shakespeare so ripped it off

 

[drmetablog]

Some facts about the so-called authorship question

It's bogus, no more credible to Shakespeareans than flat-earthism is to physicists. Try this: http://scrolling.blogs.com/drmetablog/2007/03/authorship.html

 

[Chi Meson]

The thread that wouldn't die!

 

[lisab]

It's a living dead thread!