It's just going to drive you mad, Mark! The not knowing, yea or nay! Somewhere, buried deep, there just might be a piece of evidence that throws light on this maddening conundrum, but until then all views, from whatever source, are valid. I, for one, applaud your statement that everyone is entitled to their views.
Rylance has given the matter great thought and done some homework. For him it doesnt compute and It doesnt for me as well. I'd like to believe Shakespeare wrote the plays but I cant . The man and his work connot be reconciled. I give him credit for being a shrewd businessman but a playwright and poet? Sorry.
Consider for a moment "Venus" was a portrayal of the "Virgin Queen". "Adonis"? One of her favorites, perhaps? Ben Jonson was in the employ of the Earl of Pembroke whose brother, Montgomery, was married to Edward de Vere's youngest daughter. I think, after the Isle of Dogs debacle, Jonson might have done as he was told.
Great point. For me the common 'anxiety of print' argument has been always been slightly exaggerated and based on insubstantial evidence from the period itself. While the aristocracy were not known for being playwrights, the very idea of the playwright as a profession was a new one at the time and as such I think these people are looking at the facts through the prism of a much later conception of what it means to be middle-class.
I think too much is made of the Stratford man's lack of higher learning. If leaving school at an early age - let alone missing out on university - is an impediment to brilliant writing, then the less said about Charles Dickens, George Bernard Shaw and Tom Stoppard the better.
***** Yes, that is a strong argument. We can't rule out the possibility that the young Shakespeare, during "the missing years" somehow had access to a private library, though. But we may never know.
John Osman He didn't need access to a private library as there was an open air book market in St. Paul's where all of the London publishers sold the latest quartos, pamphlets, travelogues, etc. This is was the printed way of getting news in this time. While certainly access to books and translations was more widespread in the 19th century someone Shakespeare's means and proximity to the London publishing industry had no impediment to getting volumes.
You have the wrong earl. Earl Hernry died in 1601. William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, died in 1630. He's the one who employed Jonson. His younger brother, Phillip, married Susan Vere six months after her father died. Seven Shake-Spear plays were performed during the festivities.Susan and her new husband performed in a Jonson masque. "Honest Ben" was a satirist. His dedications were written for the First Folio. No one eulogized the Stratford man following his death.
tbh I think that particular family link is slightly tenuous. Also, the Earl of Pembroke died in 1601, de Vere in 1604 meaning Jonson would have to spend another 12 years of Shakespeare's lifetime to fuel the conspiracy unchecked,we know Jonson was prone to rivalries with his contemporaries- he would have been delighted to share the news that Will was not who he claimed, and if the De Vere theory were true then Jonsons dedications following Shakespeares death become very mysterious indeed
They say Shakespeare was motivated by money. But surely their is more chance of his financial transactions surviving, that other documents. Did Homer write The Illiad?
First, we dont know that Shakespeare even went to grammar school. The assumption is that he did because there was a quite good school in the town. We also dont know what he did during his missing years. Even if he learned romance languages, how did he come by all his forms of learning as showcased in the plays-such as courtly manners and law? What doesnt ad up is how a writer and playwright-obvously amna who used other sources and boks-had none at the time of his death? Doesnt add up.
"OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET" The author of the Sonnets had to be dead in 1609, when they were published, in order to be referred to as "ever-living." The phrase never referred to a living person, with the exception of God. This rules out Shakspere, Bacon, Derby, Neville, everybody but De Vere. And Shakespeare himself references the fact that Marlowe had died earlier (the "reckoning"), so it can't be Marlowe. Watch the UA-cam videos of Alexander Waugh and Alan Green, which prove conclusively that the name DE VERE is encoded in cipher texts in the Dedication page of the Sonnets, in the Stratford Monument, and in the Gravestone Marker, all of them 'signed' by John Dee ["DEE"], Elizabeth's master cryptographer. The case for De Vere has been PROVED.
Stigma of print, for one. If Oxford was the author he may have been ordered (because of the swipes at the Court) or chosen to remain anonymous because of the scandals, the loss of his good name.
Couldn't Shakespeare have got his Latin and Greek from Grammar school, and his knowledge of Romance languages and Italian customs travelling Europe during his missing years ? Perhaps not, he had a wife to keep, didn't he? If he were carefree a single, he'd have gone to university. It seems like a bit of a mystery to me.
What caused me to be skeptical about Shakespeare was reading Henry V and the French phrases and I was convinced that a man of that era to know French and other languages had to be worldly at least-traveling a bit. Even if the writer didn't have an university education, this man had to be learned and I don't see any indication of that in Shakespeare's life.
The Al Show Shakespeare rented rooms with a French speaking family known as the Montjoys for which he testified at a lawsuit hearing between members of that family. Aside from this there were intro to French language books available in the book sellers. London then as now is a cosmopolitan city, exactly how hard for Shakespeare to either find a French speaker or work from a dictionary that translated French to English. You don't have to travel to write a couple of scenes in French.
Steve Bari No doubt that London is a cosmopolitan city but the French in Henry V was the first point of skepticism for me not the whole argument. The disparity between Shakespeare as a businessman and his supposed work as a playwright and just the lack of any other materials other than the first folio makes me at least err on the side of skepticism.
His business was the theater, that is where he drew his investment capital from. His fellow actor businessmen Augustine Philips, Richard Burbage and Henry Condell all speculated in real estate. Condell is the real overachiever out of the bunch where he was a member of the London grocer's guild taking on at least 10 apprentices over 40 years and being an active church warden. So his active theater life didn't get in the way of these other activities there shouldn't be any reason why other business interests would get in the way for Shakespeare. Also, he wasn't in Stratford for most of the working year and most of the extra business was back there, so oversaw them in his absence. The most obvious answer - his wife. Wives acted in their husband's behalf as Philip Henslowe notes in his diary. So some of the business dealings on record have been initiated or overseen by his wife. The First Folio is not the only mention of Shakespeare as a writer. There are at least 6 mentions of Shakespeare as an author in his lifetime and directly tied to the King's Men such as the 1605 Revels Account by King James and the listing of Francis Meres. Since there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to indicate that this name was a pen name used by one or a group of people but that of a real person tied to the company that produced them, they are one in the same. Apply the same doubtful eye to how this would be a pen name and the logistics make that crumble faster than a house of cards.
Steve Bari Actually his business wasn't the theater, he worked in the theater before getting into business back in Stratford. Theater has never been a perfectly stable business anyway and so it makes sense for Shakespeare not only to go into another line of business but to also get what he could financially out of it-the fact for example that he was hoarding grain. I also noted that there was a lack of materials attributed to his name never said his name wasn't mentioned. The skepticism about Shakespeare is not that he wasn't involved in theater-clearly he was-but over the fact that he could have written the plays. As to the plays, the reality is there simply isnt enough to say definitively he is the author. It is assumed he wrote the plays because the first folio contains his name. It isn't a terrible or illogical assumption just one devoid of supporting evidence.
His name was on financial transactions and deeds for the theater company from 1594 till after he died. He didn't just fo it for a couple of years and left. As my previous post indicated his other business partners did the same thing. They did the theater and had other business interests. To say there is no supporting evidence is just plain false. 1604 Revel's account and 1598 Francis Meres note several Chamberlain's men plays and say Shakespeare was the poet who wrote them. This along with John Webster naming Shakespeare as a writer in his intro to The White Devil and Thomas Heywood in his apology for actors. The name Shakespeare as a writer associated with plays and company that the Stratford Shakespeare owned.
Sorry I don't see how these sporadic interactions between De Vere's family and the name of Shakespeare are evidence for anything beyond mutual affiliations and interests. Fair enough if you can't reconcile the life of Shak-spear to the works- I can't reconcile the plays to the life of any individual, upper class or lower, obv your entitled to an opinion, but there is more than enough evidence from 1600-50 to suppose that the Stratford man wrote most of the text in the plays attributed to him.
so this actor is saying "I can't understand how Shakespeare acquired all that learning in order to be able to write the plays", which gtherefore means he can't be the author. this is arrant nonsense.
Would an anti-Stratfordian like to tell me why Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrese were published under the name of Shakespeare? Poems were not looked down upon as the plays were, nor were these poems political. I see no valid reason as to why the poems would be published under a false name.
I would've thought that studying the language and style of a writer is very important. In police work they have 'forensic graphology' where an expert will, say. examine the wording of a typed suicide note to see if it's genuine. New Testament scholars compare the language and style of different biblical writers. I'd have thought 'Shakespeare's' plays are by no known author, if they're not by William Shakespeare. Just a thought...
Ben Jonson would have been the first man to out Shakespeare as an impostor. The fact that he never did is enough to convince me that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him with some collaboration from other playwrights (perhaps more collaboration than we realise).
I actually wrote all of the Shakespeare plays by copying them down from a collected works and sending them back through time using my beautiful time travelling toilet duck. She's a splendid duck and can travel into both the past and the future as well as leaving the toilet so clean you could eat your dinner off it. So long as it's not meat balls.
It's just going to drive you mad, Mark! The not knowing, yea or nay! Somewhere, buried deep, there just might be a piece of evidence that throws light on this maddening conundrum, but until then all views, from whatever source, are valid. I, for one, applaud your statement that everyone is entitled to their views.
Rylance has given the matter great thought and done some homework.
For him it doesnt compute and It doesnt for me as well.
I'd like to believe Shakespeare wrote the plays but I cant .
The man and his work connot be reconciled.
I give him credit for being a shrewd businessman but a playwright and poet?
Sorry.
Consider for a moment "Venus" was a portrayal of the "Virgin Queen". "Adonis"? One of her favorites, perhaps?
Ben Jonson was in the employ of the Earl of Pembroke whose brother, Montgomery, was married to Edward de Vere's youngest daughter. I think, after the Isle of Dogs debacle, Jonson might have done as he was told.
Great point. For me the common 'anxiety of print' argument has been always been slightly exaggerated and based on insubstantial evidence from the period itself. While the aristocracy were not known for being playwrights, the very idea of the playwright as a profession was a new one at the time and as such I think these people are looking at the facts through the prism of a much later conception of what it means to be middle-class.
I think too much is made of the Stratford man's lack of higher learning. If leaving school at an early age - let alone missing out on university - is an impediment to brilliant writing, then the less said about Charles Dickens, George Bernard Shaw and Tom Stoppard the better.
***** Yes, that is a strong argument. We can't rule out the possibility that the young Shakespeare, during "the missing years" somehow had access to a private library, though. But we may never know.
John Osman He didn't need access to a private library as there was an open air book market in St. Paul's where all of the London publishers sold the latest quartos, pamphlets, travelogues, etc. This is was the printed way of getting news in this time. While certainly access to books and translations was more widespread in the 19th century someone Shakespeare's means and proximity to the London publishing industry had no impediment to getting volumes.
You have the wrong earl. Earl Hernry died in 1601. William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, died in 1630. He's the one who employed Jonson. His younger brother, Phillip, married Susan Vere six months after her father died. Seven Shake-Spear plays were performed during the festivities.Susan and her new husband performed in a Jonson masque.
"Honest Ben" was a satirist. His dedications were written for the First Folio. No one eulogized the Stratford man following his death.
tbh I think that particular family link is slightly tenuous. Also, the Earl of Pembroke died in 1601, de Vere in 1604 meaning Jonson would have to spend another 12 years of Shakespeare's lifetime to fuel the conspiracy unchecked,we know Jonson was prone to rivalries with his contemporaries- he would have been delighted to share the news that Will was not who he claimed, and if the De Vere theory were true then Jonsons dedications following Shakespeares death become very mysterious indeed
They say Shakespeare was motivated by money. But surely their is more chance of his financial transactions surviving, that other documents.
Did Homer write The Illiad?
You need to do more reading.
First, we dont know that Shakespeare even went to grammar school.
The assumption is that he did because there was a quite good school in the town.
We also dont know what he did during his missing years.
Even if he learned romance languages, how did he come by all his forms of learning as showcased in the plays-such as courtly manners and law?
What doesnt ad up is how a writer and playwright-obvously amna who used other sources and boks-had none at the time of his death?
Doesnt add up.
"OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET" The author of the Sonnets had to be dead in 1609, when they were published, in order to be referred to as "ever-living." The phrase never referred to a living person, with the exception of God. This rules out Shakspere, Bacon, Derby, Neville, everybody but De Vere. And Shakespeare himself references the fact that Marlowe had died earlier (the "reckoning"), so it can't be Marlowe. Watch the UA-cam videos of Alexander Waugh and Alan Green, which prove conclusively that the name DE VERE is encoded in cipher texts in the Dedication page of the Sonnets, in the Stratford Monument, and in the Gravestone Marker, all of them 'signed' by John Dee ["DEE"], Elizabeth's master cryptographer. The case for De Vere has been PROVED.
Stigma of print, for one. If Oxford was the author he may have been ordered (because of the swipes at the Court) or chosen to remain anonymous because of the scandals, the loss of his good name.
Couldn't Shakespeare have got his Latin and Greek from Grammar school, and his knowledge of Romance languages and Italian customs travelling Europe during his missing years ? Perhaps not, he had a wife to keep, didn't he? If he were carefree a single, he'd have gone to university. It seems like a bit of a mystery to me.
What caused me to be skeptical about Shakespeare was reading Henry V and the French phrases and I was convinced that a man of that era to know French and other languages had to be worldly at least-traveling a bit.
Even if the writer didn't have an university education, this man had to be learned and I don't see any indication of that in Shakespeare's life.
The Al Show Shakespeare rented rooms with a French speaking family known as the Montjoys for which he testified at a lawsuit hearing between members of that family. Aside from this there were intro to French language books available in the book sellers. London then as now is a cosmopolitan city, exactly how hard for Shakespeare to either find a French speaker or work from a dictionary that translated French to English. You don't have to travel to write a couple of scenes in French.
Steve Bari
No doubt that London is a cosmopolitan city but the French in Henry V was the first point of skepticism for me not the whole argument. The disparity between Shakespeare as a businessman and his supposed work as a playwright and just the lack of any other materials other than the first folio makes me at least err on the side of skepticism.
His business was the theater, that is where he drew his investment capital from. His fellow actor businessmen Augustine Philips, Richard Burbage and Henry Condell all speculated in real estate. Condell is the real overachiever out of the bunch where he was a member of the London grocer's guild taking on at least 10 apprentices over 40 years and being an active church warden. So his active theater life didn't get in the way of these other activities there shouldn't be any reason why other business interests would get in the way for Shakespeare. Also, he wasn't in Stratford for most of the working year and most of the extra business was back there, so oversaw them in his absence. The most obvious answer - his wife. Wives acted in their husband's behalf as Philip Henslowe notes in his diary. So some of the business dealings on record have been initiated or overseen by his wife.
The First Folio is not the only mention of Shakespeare as a writer. There are at least 6 mentions of Shakespeare as an author in his lifetime and directly tied to the King's Men such as the 1605 Revels Account by King James and the listing of Francis Meres. Since there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to indicate that this name was a pen name used by one or a group of people but that of a real person tied to the company that produced them, they are one in the same.
Apply the same doubtful eye to how this would be a pen name and the logistics make that crumble faster than a house of cards.
Steve Bari
Actually his business wasn't the theater, he worked in the theater before getting into business back in Stratford.
Theater has never been a perfectly stable business anyway and so it makes sense for Shakespeare not only to go into another line of business but to also get what he could financially out of it-the fact for example that he was hoarding grain.
I also noted that there was a lack of materials attributed to his name never said his name wasn't mentioned.
The skepticism about Shakespeare is not that he wasn't involved in theater-clearly he was-but over the fact that he could have written the plays. As to the plays, the reality is there simply isnt enough to say definitively he is the author. It is assumed he wrote the plays because the first folio contains his name. It isn't a terrible or illogical assumption just one devoid of supporting evidence.
His name was on financial transactions and deeds for the theater company from 1594 till after he died. He didn't just fo it for a couple of years and left. As my previous post indicated his other business partners did the same thing. They did the theater and had other business interests. To say there is no supporting evidence is just plain false. 1604 Revel's account and 1598 Francis Meres note several Chamberlain's men plays and say Shakespeare was the poet who wrote them. This along with John Webster naming Shakespeare as a writer in his intro to The White Devil and Thomas Heywood in his apology for actors. The name Shakespeare as a writer associated with plays and company that the Stratford Shakespeare owned.
Sorry I don't see how these sporadic interactions between De Vere's family and the name of Shakespeare are evidence for anything beyond mutual affiliations and interests. Fair enough if you can't reconcile the life of Shak-spear to the works- I can't reconcile the plays to the life of any individual, upper class or lower, obv your entitled to an opinion, but there is more than enough evidence from 1600-50 to suppose that the Stratford man wrote most of the text in the plays attributed to him.
so this actor is saying "I can't understand how Shakespeare acquired all that learning in order to be able to write the plays", which gtherefore means he can't be the author. this is arrant nonsense.
Would an anti-Stratfordian like to tell me why Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrese were published under the name of Shakespeare? Poems were not looked down upon as the plays were, nor were these poems political. I see no valid reason as to why the poems would be published under a false name.
I would've thought that studying the language and style of a writer is very important. In police work they have 'forensic graphology' where an expert will, say. examine the wording of a typed suicide note to see if it's genuine. New Testament scholars compare the language and style of different biblical writers. I'd have thought 'Shakespeare's' plays are by no known author, if they're not by William Shakespeare. Just a thought...
Ben Jonson would have been the first man to out Shakespeare as an impostor. The fact that he never did is enough to convince me that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him with some collaboration from other playwrights (perhaps more collaboration than we realise).
I actually wrote all of the Shakespeare plays by copying them down from a collected works and sending them back through time using my beautiful time travelling toilet duck. She's a splendid duck and can travel into both the past and the future as well as leaving the toilet so clean you could eat your dinner off it. So long as it's not meat balls.
Judi once said to me "Well somebody wrote the plays and i call him Shakespeare."