Interesting new information. I still think Cardanus is more likely though....but there is no reason that Hamlet could not be combining both influences in "his" book?
I'm very intrigued by the oxfordian thesis and a lot of it sounds very plausible. But as long as Oxfordians do not tackle the topic of "Heminges and Condell" the Stratfordians will always have the upper hand in this debate.
If I'm not mistaken, you are referring to Shakspere's Will, and the First Folio. Heminges and Condell are mentioned in Shakspere's Will. First, the Will does not mention Heminges and Condell in connection with WRITING (or acting). It does indicate that Shakspere had a business relationship with Heminges and Condell, but the nature of the relationship is not detailed, just that the are "fellowes." Second, the mention of Heminges and Condell in the Will is suspect, because it was added AFTER the Will was signed, and perhaps even after Shakspere was dead - there appears to be some funny business going on. The Stratfordians don't mention that. The First Folio is a Work of FICTION. Everything in it is either a Play or a Poem. The entire Stratfordian Belief System is built on the assumption that the poem that is credited to Heminges and Condell is actually by Heminges and Condell (probably by Ben Jonson) and that the poem should be considered a source of historical fact despite it being a poem from a work of fiction. But without the Heminges and Condell poem there is NO Stratfordian Theory, so they cling to it with everything they have. In my experience, the quickest way to make a Stratfordian run away is to point out that everything they believe is based on a poem.
Interesting new information. I still think Cardanus is more likely though....but there is no reason that Hamlet could not be combining both influences in "his" book?
Polonius was modeled after the Polish ambassador Paul Dzialynski who was at fault with Queen Elisabeth.
shakepeare stole every plot
I'm very intrigued by the oxfordian thesis and a lot of it sounds very plausible. But as long as Oxfordians do not tackle the topic of "Heminges and Condell" the Stratfordians will always have the upper hand in this debate.
If I'm not mistaken, you are referring to Shakspere's Will, and the First Folio.
Heminges and Condell are mentioned in Shakspere's Will. First, the Will does not mention Heminges and Condell in connection with WRITING (or acting). It does indicate that Shakspere had a business relationship with Heminges and Condell, but the nature of the relationship is not detailed, just that the are "fellowes." Second, the mention of Heminges and Condell in the Will is suspect, because it was added AFTER the Will was signed, and perhaps even after Shakspere was dead - there appears to be some funny business going on. The Stratfordians don't mention that.
The First Folio is a Work of FICTION. Everything in it is either a Play or a Poem. The entire Stratfordian Belief System is built on the assumption that the poem that is credited to Heminges and Condell is actually by Heminges and Condell (probably by Ben Jonson) and that the poem should be considered a source of historical fact despite it being a poem from a work of fiction. But without the Heminges and Condell poem there is NO Stratfordian Theory, so they cling to it with everything they have. In my experience, the quickest way to make a Stratfordian run away is to point out that everything they believe is based on a poem.
Brilliant!! Left me wanting more. Thank you!
The play right had a muse of divine fire