'Shakespeare' is the word we use to describe whatever person(s) wrote the plays. I don't care who it was. Although, I don't really accept any of these conspiracy theories - I have faith in the Stratford-man.
Hello Marvin. Thanks for your comment. I can't believe it's more than ten years since I interviewed him. He's come a long way since he was artistic director at Shakespeare's Globe. He's always good for a quote! Best wishes. Steve
I don't understand WHY someone would pass of their own work under another name (although I'm shy myself, so if I wrote I'd use a pseudonym). Was there REALLY such a stigma against being a play-write back then, like Mr. Rylance claims ? Shakespeare went to a Grammar school, but not a university. Would that be enough education for him to fill his plays with such knowledge ? And he left no books in his will. It's a bit fishy.
Authors have been choosing to write under a pseudonym forever, and for several reasons; some personal, some professional, as is the case with Stephen King. One example of a front to the real author that is quite recent, and even within the same profession, is that of Dalton Trumbo, the real screenwriter of "Roman Holiday" and Ian McLellan Hunter, his friend and colleague, who agreed to lend his name to the script. Trumbo was, at the time, blacklisted in Hollywood, yet the producers knew the quality of his work. So, they hired him anyway and had someone else pose as the author. As for the stigma, apparently, in those times, it was looked down upon for members of the nobility to write for the professional theater.
@musicaltheatergeek79 When I have encountered him he has an accent somewhere in between American and English. He was born in England and raised in America, however, he spent many years in England so I wouldn't expect him to have an American accent.
IF YOU SAW THE INTERVIEW WITH YOURSELF IF OR :they: WROTE SO MUCH ABOUT OTHER CEUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND THEIR ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE. jUST THINK THAT AS jACOBI AND rYLANCE SAID THER WAS NO NEWS ABOUT ws DEATH NEEITHER HIS DEAD BODY WAS, HOWEVER i CHOOSE TO BELIVE THAT THERE WAS A GENIUS OR MANY GENIUSES, WHOEVER THEY WERE. iWILL NEVER STOP BEING AMAZED BY HIM OR THEM., MISTERY IS PART OF LIFE.
This issue that everyone wishes to tap dance around, avoid, and deny, is that there is a nice little cottage industry in iconoclastic theory. Look, if I wrote a book titled, "Why Beethoven Wrote Beethoven: the Documentary Evidence" no one, but NO ONE would bother to read it. But if I wrote, "Who Really Wrote The Symphonies of Mozart? - An Alternative Theory Suggests That Ben Franklin Was the Actual Composer." Then! BANG! You've got a best seller. Of course, what Anti-Stratfordians depend on is a gullible, un-informed public. And boy, do they have one! In the meantime, truth is distorted and history, once again, is re-written. But yes, they sell books, give lectures, plays, talks, etc, etc. etc. They even have absurdly stupid films made by Hollywood about this nonsense. Hollywood, land of cocaine and the disdain for rational discourse.
scotty Yep the guy with no theater training and little connection to the theater is the best candidate for writing plays full of acting references, directorial subtext in the language and mundane devices to give actors time to change. the guy who knew nothing about theater is a great candidate, makes a whole lot of sense.
Steve Bari good thinking there, however let's not assume that the stratfordman was actually a seasoned professional with countless hours on a stage before an audience. There's nothing to support that. Check this out before dismissing alternatives: doubtaboutwill.org/pdfs/sbt_rebuttal.pdf
scotty Nothing to support that Stratman being a long time actor. Really? How about Ben Jonson naming him as a cast member in two shows - Sejanus as tragedian and Every Man in His Humor as a comedian. John Davies in poem reference to him playing "kingly parts in sport". His name being mentioned in King James' registry for issuing of Scarlet Cloth next to the big word of "Players". Finally, all of the payment records that list William Shakespeare for plays performed dating from 1595-1613 and his name appearing on the deeds for the Globe and Blackfriars theater next to Richard Burbage. Legal documents list him as a co-owner of theater company and buildings for two decades and references to him as an actor by two poets and the King's registry office, yeah sounds like a seasoned theater professional to me.
Steve Bari yes he may very well have been a shareholder and was well enough known as to have been ridiculed consistently by his contemporaries as a plagiarist and a fool (Every Man, Groatsworth, Parnassus) but wasn't referred to as an author of plays. Also, the stratfordman's name was spelled differently and never hyphenated. There are no contemporary references as to the author Shakespeare living in stratford there is no mention of his being a writer of any kind in his lifetime and no one ever recorded meeting William Shakespeare the author and there are no letters or writings of any kind found from him. You're not interested in reading the information I linked to in my last exchange? Much of what you're going on about is addressed in that link. For a more in-depth coverage I could recommend Diana Price's 'Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography' which goes over everything you've written about in great detail. Those references in those works you mentioned consistently show him to be a contemptible fool and not an author nor a praiseworthy actor. There is no reference to a Shakespeare acting in any major parts, only the dubious account of him acting as the Ghost in Hamlet which is a very small part and even that is questionable. And oddly he was never honored by either Elizabeth or James or even mentioned by them.
scotty You contend that William Shakespeare of Stratford was not referred to as an author of plays and you note that this is the case in “Groatsworth” and “Parnassus”. Is that correct? Because that’s NOT TRUE as they say the exact opposite. Robert Green and Henry Chettle are responsible for Groatsworth of Wit that mentions an “upstart crow beautified with our feathers that is able to bombast a blank verse as well as the best of you” and parodies a line from Henry VI, Part 3 - Tygers hart wrap’d in a players hyde vs. “a woman’s hyde” as it states in Henry VI, part 3. Greene/Chettle are saying that an actor, which we’ve established Will Shakespeare was, thinks that he is able to bombast a blank verse as well as the people Greene/Chettle are addressing which are Marlowe, Kyd and Peele. Also, they parody a recognizeable line from Henry VI, Part 3, a play written by this “upstart crow”. There is no reference to plagiarism, in fact they’re saying he is able to write “bombast a blank verse’ and wrote Henry VI, Part 3. If you accept Robert Greene and Henry Chettle are talking about William Shakespeare of Stratford then you accept that what they are saying that this person wrote Henry VI, Part 3, A PLAY. This completely contradicts what you said in that he was not referred to an author of plays. Green and Chettle are referring to someone who wrote a play. In regards to Parnassus, the students in the story are actually complementing Shakespeare. Saying they would rather read Venus and Adonis than more dry stuff geared toward old fuddy duddies. One student mentions keeping a picture of Shakespeare in his study and sleeping with a copy of Venus and Adonis under his pillow. Given the erotic nature of this work is obvious that by sleeping with it, it’s a way for the student to share in its potent affect. Again, Shakespeare is associated with writing Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet in Parnassus and the references are laudatory. So again, if you’re accepting that the references in Parnassus refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, you’re accepting that he wrote Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet because that’s is what Parnassus says. As for Every Man in His Humor, Jonson makes it quite clear that Shakespeare was an actor in this specific show as he is noted in a cast list in his complete works volume. I assume you are referring to the Soligardo reference where the clown buys a coat of arms and has the motto “Not, Without Mustard”. This appears to be a parody on “Not, Without Right” - the coat of arms belonging to William Shakespeare of Stratford. I actually think that’s a funny joke however, one has to ask the question why does Jonson single out this particular actor and not Will Kemp or Augustine Philips or any other actor? Why Shakespeare of Stratford? Could it be because he’s a writer and it’s a jab? Every man belongs to a short period in Elizabethan theater history known as the Poet’s War where writers who knew and worked with each other traded barbs with one another. Jonson himself is parodied in As You Like It as the acerbic Jaques and the dull minded oaf Ajax in Troilus and Cressida. Both of these are pronounced with a Jake in the name, a pun on Jonson that a common nickname for John is Jack. Jonson was known as being rigid in his classical approach to playwriting and a physical mountain of a man that fits the rigid Jaques and rather Hulk like Ajax respectively. So Jonson launched a joke on Shakespeare and Jonson is lampooned in two other Shakespeare plays. Sounds like a conversation between two writers. Again, if you accept the Sogliardo reference than you accept this relationship between Jonson and Shakespeare - again acknowledging he was a writer. If by singling him out as a “fool” you mean Jonson’s Poet Ape poem, there is no evidence to indicate that Jonson is talking about Shakespeare and even if he is, Jonson is referring to a known WRITER plagerizing some lines not all of their work. So the target of the Poet Ape poem is an established WRITER, and if you accept that as being about Shakespeare of Stratford, you are acknowledging he is a writer. As for the spelling of his name, you gotta be kidding me! It is well established that spelling was not standardized in this era so the variations mean nothing. If you look at Shakespeare’s birth register, marriage register, coat of arms application, and death register that is 4 different spellings of his name over the course of 50 years written by different people, not him. If you look at the payment records to the theater company that list his name, they’re written differently. This issue is non starter as spelling was not consistent in this era. These other points you make are false: George Buc, the Master of the Revels after Edmund Tilney left the post recorded a meeting with Shakespeare wanting to ask him about a play and a playwright. Regardless of what they discussed, Buc notes a meeting with Shakespeare where they discuss a play and a playwright. There are at least 6 references to Shakespeare as a writer in his lifetime, you even mentioned 2 of them Groatsworth and Parnassus. The others are the payment from the Earl of Rutland to Shakespeare and Burbage writing verses for a ceremonial shield. The 1605 revels account naming Shakespeare as the author for Measure for Measure, Comedy of Errors, Othello and Merchant of Venice, the Francis Meres listing noting Shakespeare as the author of 12 plays, John Webster, another playwright, thanking Shakespeare in his intro to The White Devil. I’ve read Diana Price and found her to be the queen of the anti-Strat double standard of where she’ll excuse any other playwright who has gaps in their records but if its William Shakespeare, forget about it, he must be scum. So sorry I don’t consider her biased writing as an objective source. I’d recommend “Shakespeare: The Evidence” by Ian Wilson as its not only a very lively read but its takes an unbiased approach to the biography. It acknowledges Stratford upon Avon as being a fraud of a town in its presentation and presents the gaps in the biography but after examining the available evidence concludes that Will Shakespeare is indeed the author.
What an engaging, intelligent, talented, temperate, gentle individual Mark Rylance is. I am full of admiration for him.
Don't you just love a mystery ?
'Shakespeare' is the word we use to describe whatever person(s) wrote the plays. I don't care who it was. Although, I don't really accept any of these conspiracy theories - I have faith in the Stratford-man.
Wow - what great thoughts on the topic. Thanks for the upload
Hello Marvin. Thanks for your comment. I can't believe it's more than ten years since I interviewed him. He's come a long way since he was artistic director at Shakespeare's Globe. He's always good for a quote! Best wishes. Steve
i MEANT IF YOU SAW THE INTERVIEW WITH SIR DEREK JACOBY AND MARK RYLANCE...
SORRY FOR MY TYPING MISTAKES.......READ BELOWW
I don't understand WHY someone would pass of their own work under another name (although I'm shy myself, so if I wrote I'd use a pseudonym). Was there REALLY such a stigma against being a play-write back then, like Mr. Rylance claims ? Shakespeare went to a Grammar school, but not a university. Would that be enough education for him to fill his plays with such knowledge ? And he left no books in his will. It's a bit fishy.
Authors have been choosing to write under a pseudonym forever, and for several reasons; some personal, some professional, as is the case with Stephen King.
One example of a front to the real author that is quite recent, and even within the same profession, is that of Dalton Trumbo, the real screenwriter of "Roman Holiday" and Ian McLellan Hunter, his friend and colleague, who agreed to lend his name to the script. Trumbo was, at the time, blacklisted in Hollywood, yet the producers knew the quality of his work. So, they hired him anyway and had someone else pose as the author.
As for the stigma, apparently, in those times, it was looked down upon for members of the nobility to write for the professional theater.
@musicaltheatergeek79 When I have encountered him he has an accent somewhere in between American and English. He was born in England and raised in America, however, he spent many years in England so I wouldn't expect him to have an American accent.
IF YOU SAW THE INTERVIEW WITH YOURSELF IF OR :they: WROTE SO MUCH ABOUT
OTHER CEUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND THEIR ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE. jUST THINK THAT AS jACOBI AND rYLANCE SAID THER WAS NO NEWS ABOUT ws DEATH NEEITHER HIS DEAD BODY WAS, HOWEVER i CHOOSE TO BELIVE THAT THERE WAS A GENIUS OR MANY GENIUSES, WHOEVER THEY WERE. iWILL NEVER STOP BEING AMAZED BY HIM OR THEM., MISTERY IS PART OF LIFE.
Why does he have an English accent here? He was raised in America. And he didn't have one when he accepted his Tony two years ago.
I have a hard time taking the opinion of man wearing a pork-pie hat seriously.
I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously, Mr. Morris.
@@rstritmatter Or the opinion of any scholar who disagrees with you, obviously. That's most of them.
One thing is clear as crystal ! The Stratford man didn´t wrote the works! I´m between Bacon (alone or with his literary group ) and Oxford !
This issue that everyone wishes to tap dance around, avoid, and deny, is that there is a nice little cottage industry in iconoclastic theory.
Look, if I wrote a book titled, "Why Beethoven Wrote Beethoven: the Documentary Evidence" no one, but NO ONE would bother to read it. But if I wrote, "Who Really Wrote The Symphonies of Mozart? - An Alternative Theory Suggests That Ben Franklin Was the Actual Composer." Then! BANG! You've got a best seller.
Of course, what Anti-Stratfordians depend on is a gullible, un-informed public. And boy, do they have one!
In the meantime, truth is distorted and history, once again, is re-written. But yes, they sell books, give lectures, plays, talks, etc, etc. etc. They even have absurdly stupid films made by Hollywood about this nonsense. Hollywood, land of cocaine and the disdain for rational discourse.
The hat and scarf really won't help with the conspiracy theorist accusations. 😂
Can't believe it's 11 years since I uploaded this. It must be at least 13 years since I filmed it.
The Stratford myth is by far the weakest, I believe Edward de Vere is the strongest candidate.
scotty Yep the guy with no theater training and little connection to the theater is the best candidate for writing plays full of acting references, directorial subtext in the language and mundane devices to give actors time to change. the guy who knew nothing about theater is a great candidate, makes a whole lot of sense.
Steve Bari
good thinking there, however let's not assume that the stratfordman was actually a seasoned professional with countless hours on a stage before an audience. There's nothing to support that. Check this out before dismissing alternatives: doubtaboutwill.org/pdfs/sbt_rebuttal.pdf
scotty Nothing to support that Stratman being a long time actor. Really? How about Ben Jonson naming him as a cast member in two shows - Sejanus as tragedian and Every Man in His Humor as a comedian. John Davies in poem reference to him playing "kingly parts in sport". His name being mentioned in King James' registry for issuing of Scarlet Cloth next to the big word of "Players". Finally, all of the payment records that list William Shakespeare for plays performed dating from 1595-1613 and his name appearing on the deeds for the Globe and Blackfriars theater next to Richard Burbage. Legal documents list him as a co-owner of theater company and buildings for two decades and references to him as an actor by two poets and the King's registry office, yeah sounds like a seasoned theater professional to me.
Steve Bari yes he may very well have been a shareholder and was well enough known as to have been ridiculed consistently by his contemporaries as a plagiarist and a fool (Every Man, Groatsworth, Parnassus) but wasn't referred to as an author of plays. Also, the stratfordman's name was spelled differently and never hyphenated. There are no contemporary references as to the author Shakespeare living in stratford there is no mention of his being a writer of any kind in his lifetime and no one ever recorded meeting William Shakespeare the author and there are no letters or writings of any kind found from him.
You're not interested in reading the information I linked to in my last exchange? Much of what you're going on about is addressed in that link. For a more in-depth coverage I could recommend Diana Price's 'Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography' which goes over everything you've written about in great detail.
Those references in those works you mentioned consistently show him to be a contemptible fool and not an author nor a praiseworthy actor.
There is no reference to a Shakespeare acting in any major parts, only the dubious account of him acting as the Ghost in Hamlet which is a very small part and even that is questionable.
And oddly he was never honored by either Elizabeth or James or even mentioned by them.
scotty
You contend that William Shakespeare of Stratford was not referred to as an author
of plays and you note that this is the case in “Groatsworth” and “Parnassus”.
Is that correct? Because that’s NOT TRUE as they say the exact opposite. Robert
Green and Henry Chettle are responsible for Groatsworth of Wit that mentions an
“upstart crow beautified with our feathers that is able to bombast a blank
verse as well as the best of you” and parodies a line from Henry VI, Part 3 -
Tygers hart wrap’d in a players hyde vs. “a woman’s hyde” as it states in Henry
VI, part 3. Greene/Chettle are saying that an actor, which we’ve established
Will Shakespeare was, thinks that he is able to bombast a blank verse as well
as the people Greene/Chettle are addressing which are Marlowe, Kyd and Peele.
Also, they parody a recognizeable line from Henry VI, Part 3, a play written by
this “upstart crow”. There is no reference to plagiarism, in fact they’re
saying he is able to write “bombast a blank verse’ and wrote Henry VI, Part 3.
If you accept Robert Greene and Henry Chettle are talking about William
Shakespeare of Stratford then you accept that what they are saying that this
person wrote Henry VI, Part 3, A PLAY. This completely contradicts what you
said in that he was not referred to an author of plays. Green and Chettle are
referring to someone who wrote a play.
In regards to Parnassus, the students in the story are actually complementing
Shakespeare. Saying they would rather read Venus and Adonis than more dry stuff
geared toward old fuddy duddies. One student mentions keeping a picture of
Shakespeare in his study and sleeping with a copy of Venus and Adonis under his
pillow. Given the erotic nature of this work is obvious that by sleeping with
it, it’s a way for the student to share in its potent affect. Again,
Shakespeare is associated with writing Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet in
Parnassus and the references are laudatory. So again, if you’re accepting that
the references in Parnassus refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, you’re
accepting that he wrote Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet because that’s is
what Parnassus says.
As for Every Man in His Humor, Jonson makes it quite clear that Shakespeare was an
actor in this specific show as he is noted in a cast list in his complete works
volume. I assume you are referring to the Soligardo reference where the clown buys
a coat of arms and has the motto “Not, Without Mustard”. This appears to be a
parody on “Not, Without Right” - the coat of arms belonging to William
Shakespeare of Stratford. I actually think that’s a funny joke however, one has
to ask the question why does Jonson single out this particular actor and not
Will Kemp or Augustine Philips or any other actor? Why Shakespeare of Stratford?
Could it be because he’s a writer and it’s a jab? Every man belongs to a short
period in Elizabethan theater history known as the Poet’s War where writers who
knew and worked with each other traded barbs with one another. Jonson himself
is parodied in As You Like It as the acerbic Jaques and the dull minded oaf
Ajax in Troilus and Cressida. Both of these are pronounced with a Jake in the
name, a pun on Jonson that a common nickname for John is Jack. Jonson was known
as being rigid in his classical approach to playwriting and a physical mountain
of a man that fits the rigid Jaques and rather Hulk like Ajax respectively. So
Jonson launched a joke on Shakespeare and Jonson is lampooned in two other Shakespeare
plays. Sounds like a conversation between two writers. Again, if you accept the
Sogliardo reference than you accept this relationship between Jonson and
Shakespeare - again acknowledging he was a writer.
If by singling him out as a “fool” you mean Jonson’s Poet Ape poem, there is no
evidence to indicate that Jonson is talking about Shakespeare and even if he
is, Jonson is referring to a known WRITER plagerizing some lines not all of
their work. So the target of the Poet Ape poem is an established WRITER, and if
you accept that as being about Shakespeare of Stratford, you are acknowledging
he is a writer.
As for the spelling of his name, you gotta be kidding me! It is well established
that spelling was not standardized in this era so the variations mean nothing.
If you look at Shakespeare’s birth register, marriage register, coat of arms
application, and death register that is 4 different spellings of his name over
the course of 50 years written by different people, not him. If you look at the
payment records to the theater company that list his name, they’re written
differently. This issue is non starter as spelling was not consistent in this
era.
These other points you make are false: George Buc, the Master of the Revels after Edmund
Tilney left the post recorded a meeting with Shakespeare wanting to ask him
about a play and a playwright. Regardless of what they discussed, Buc notes a
meeting with Shakespeare where they discuss a play and a playwright. There are
at least 6 references to Shakespeare as a writer in his lifetime, you even mentioned
2 of them Groatsworth and Parnassus. The others are the payment from the Earl
of Rutland to Shakespeare and Burbage writing verses for a ceremonial shield.
The 1605 revels account naming Shakespeare as the author for Measure for
Measure, Comedy of Errors, Othello and Merchant of Venice, the Francis Meres
listing noting Shakespeare as the author of 12 plays, John Webster, another
playwright, thanking Shakespeare in his intro to The White Devil.
I’ve read Diana Price and found her to be the queen of
the anti-Strat double standard of where she’ll excuse any other playwright who
has gaps in their records but if its William Shakespeare, forget about it, he
must be scum. So sorry I don’t consider her biased writing as an objective
source. I’d recommend “Shakespeare: The Evidence” by Ian Wilson as its not only
a very lively read but its takes an unbiased approach to the biography. It
acknowledges Stratford upon Avon as being a fraud of a town in its presentation
and presents the gaps in the biography but after examining the available
evidence concludes that Will Shakespeare is indeed the author.