• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How did Shakespeare come to know so much?

No. Broadly...

The true author, wishing to remain anonymous, enjoys a career as the playwright "Shakespeare", named as an "in-joke" after a similarly-sounding roughneck actor in the troup.

OK, as I have mentioned several times. Whoever wrote the plays had to be familiar with the players in the company. Which means you are claiming that an actor wished to remain anonymous.

That fails out of the gate.
 
Has anyone noticed that the name on the last will and testament is "William Shakespeare?" If, as Gyronaut contends, there was not Shakespeare in Stratford, what was he doing writing a will, and whose stuff was he leaving?

e.t.a. It seems more now like Shackspeare, but even transcriptions of the will differ on how they spell it. In any case, its not Shaxper. It appears Shakespeare signed his name in many different spellings, and we can never be entirely sure which was correct. But if the spelling on one document is used as evidence that another document comes from a different person, then there are a whole army of Shakespeares out there, since he seems rarely to have used the same spelling twice.

The signatures on the will are usually rendered as

Shackspere,
Shakspere, and
Shakspear

Of the six extant signatures from the Stratford Man's lifetime [and there is no other literary output whatsoever], none are signed "Shakespeare".

But I've already conceded names/spelling don't matter

Nakamoto/Nakamoto

same unusual name/unusual spelling

Different guy, and a hoax (probably)
 
Last edited:
OK, as I have mentioned several times. Whoever wrote the plays had to be familiar with the players in the company. Which means you are claiming that an actor wished to remain anonymous.

That fails out of the gate.

Nope. [Or only half-right]

What do you know about late-Elizabethan England?

The Aristocracy?

The Players and Actors, in particular those who put on "Shakespeare's" Plays?

The Question of the Age that dare not be voiced?
 
Nope. [Or only half-right]

What do you know about late-Elizabethan England?

The Aristocracy?

The Players and Actors, in particular those who put on "Shakespeare's" Plays?

The Question of the Age that dare not be voiced?

I know that plays were put on by companies. These companies had set groups of actors who would, like any modern actor, have strengths and weaknesses. Over long periods of time members would leave and new members would join. But whatever the company had the playwright would need to construct his play based around what his cast could do. This is not something one could mail in from his Lordship's manor house.

Aristocrats sometimes dabbled in writing 'Masques' which were much more mundane and generic in both their roles as well as their production. They don't even come close to resembling the level of actor skill matching you find in Shakespeare (where you even see the types of roles change as actors left and joined the company).
 
It is known Shakespeare had a younger brother known as 'Edmund'. An 'Edward Shakespeare, player' lies buried in Southwark Cathedral and it seems likely this was William Shakespeare's brother.

One thing I have noticed about conspiracy theories is their core concept of denial. They deny key facts. Step one: plant doubt.

Many authors and playwrights use pen names, it doesn't detract from their body of work. If Shakespeare was just someone's pen name, who cares? However, we do know Shakespeare had a family in Stratford-Upon-Avon and it seems likely this is indeed the name he chose to use - his own.
 
I know that plays were put on by companies. These companies had set groups of actors who would, like any modern actor, have strengths and weaknesses. Over long periods of time members would leave and new members would join. But whatever the company had the playwright would need to construct his play based around what his cast could do. This is not something one could mail in from his Lordship's manor house.

Aristocrats sometimes dabbled in writing 'Masques' which were much more mundane and generic in both their roles as well as their production. They don't even come close to resembling the level of actor skill matching you find in Shakespeare (where you even see the types of roles change as actors left and joined the company).

The Companies were sponsored/controlled/financed by members of the Aristocracy. They were under an aristocrat's patronage.

However, the Stage was considered "bawdy". The open-air audiences of the ordinary people were often padded with the cut-purse and the common whore.

Approval of a performance was often voiced in ribald, foul-mouthed cries. Disapproval... in the aerial launching of rotten vegetables, even human excrement, at the Players.

The Aristocracy could never be seen to be writing for - never mind profiting from - such a spectacle. Hence, any aristo with artistic leanings had to remain anonymous - and careful. Any public performances of their work must remain strictly anonymous, passed-off as the work of one of the lower-orders. This was known among the aristos as the "stigma of print"...

Secondly

The Question of the Age was the Succession Crisis. Who was to succeed the aging, ailing Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, by Grace of God, Queen of England?

Be careful how you answer, if you wish to keep your head firmly on your shoulders in all weathers!
Or avoid the question altogether, if you know what's good and convenient.

But England's arch-enemies, France and Spain, were certainly thinking, and plotting....to return England to Catholicism. They had several candidates in mind to succeed Elizabeth....
 
Last edited:
The Companies were sponsored/controlled/financed by members of the Aristocracy. They were under an aristocrat's patronage.

However, the Stage was considered "bawdy". The open-air audiences of the ordinary people were often padded with the cut-purse and the common whore.

Approval of a performance was often voiced in ribald, foul-mouthed cries. Disapproval... in the aerial launching of rotten vegetables, even human excrement, at the Players.

The Aristocracy could never be seen to be writing for - never mind profiting from - such a spectacle. Hence, any aristo with artistic leanings had to remain anonymous - and careful. Any public performances of their work must remain strictly anonymous, passed-off as the work of one of the lower-orders. This was known among the aristos as the "stigma of print"...

And?


Secondly

The Question of the Age was the Succession Crisis. Who was to succeed the aging, ailing Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, by Grace of God, Queen of England?

Be careful how you answer, if you wish to keep your head firmly on your shoulders in all weathers!
Or avoid the question altogether, if you know what's good and convenient.

But England's arch-enemies, France and Spain, were certainly thinking, and plotting....to return England to Catholicism. They had several candidates in mind to succeed Elizabeth....


And?
 
The Companies were sponsored/controlled/financed by members of the Aristocracy. They were under an aristocrat's patronage.

However, the Stage was considered "bawdy". The open-air audiences of the ordinary people were often padded with the cut-purse and the common whore.

Approval of a performance was often voiced in ribald, foul-mouthed cries. Disapproval... in the aerial launching of rotten vegetables, even human excrement, at the Players.

The Aristocracy could never be seen to be writing for - never mind profiting from - such a spectacle. Hence, any aristo with artistic leanings had to remain anonymous - and careful. Any public performances of their work must remain strictly anonymous, passed-off as the work of one of the lower-orders. This was known among the aristos as the "stigma of print"...

Secondly

The Question of the Age was the Succession Crisis. Who was to succeed the aging, ailing Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, by Grace of God, Queen of England?

Be careful how you answer, if you wish to keep your head firmly on your shoulders in all weathers!
Or avoid the question altogether, if you know what's good and convenient.

But England's arch-enemies, France and Spain, were certainly thinking, and plotting....to return England to Catholicism. They had several candidates in mind to succeed Elizabeth....

You're long on inference and speculation, and short on evidence.
 
Gyronaut, how did you even find this thread? How did you even find this forum? The thread's been dormant since 2013, but within six hours of someone necroing it, you're johnny on the spot like you've been preparing for this day since... well, since 2013 at least.

What exactly is the deal here?

Google doesn't know about this thread. DDG doesn't know about this thread. But somehow you had it on speed dial. Are you Stratford Man in disguise?
 
Last edited:
Just a little background on the febrile atmosphere that "Shakespeare" - whoever he was - was operating in....
 
Just a little background on the febrile atmosphere that "Shakespeare" - whoever he was - was operating in....

Just say what you mean already. Stop pussyfooting around and tell us your theory. Explain who, exactly, you think wrote the works and stop playing games. Its getting tiresome.
 
Gyronaut, how did you even find this thread? How did you even find this forum? The thread's been dormant since 2013, but within six hours of someone necroing it, you're johnny on the spot like you've been preparing for this day since... well, since 2013 at least.

What exactly is the deal here?

Google doesn't know about this thread. DDG doesn't know about this thread. But somehow you had it on speed dial. Are you Stratford Man in disguise?

Maybe he spent 15 years studying this? :boxedin::boxedin::boxedin:
 
Last edited:
I've been to Stratford. Met the dude himself and hoisted a few lagers (actually ales) with him. Once he was lubed up he wrote a play for me on a bar napkin so I can vouch that he is quite literate. (I sold it for quite a tidy sum and told the publisher it was written by someone named Henry Miller) Anne had to send a couple of their spawn with a wheelbarrow to cart him home once he was legless. They said it is really hard on him having to constantly prove his literacy so he drinks, a lot. That's why his friends call him Shakey, that subsequently somehow became Shakespeare (his actual surname is Willoughby but no one remembers that).

And, for the record, he really does know a lot of stuff. While he was still relatively sober he explained to me why tigers have stripes, and how to make rocket fuel from cow dung. He was just starting in on multiverse cosmology when the booze got the better of him.

A fascinating man really, and honest as the day is long. People really should stop making up lies about him.
 
Just say what you mean already. Stop pussyfooting around and tell us your theory. Explain who, exactly, you think wrote the works and stop playing games. Its getting tiresome.

Well, it's 0228 here in the UK.

I like to give background first.
Evidence next.
Conclusion last.

So... tune in tomorrow.
 
Close.

He was heir-presumptive to the English throne. Lord Strange, later known as Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby.

He was certainly the most wealthy and potentially powerful man in England, known informally as the "King of Lancashire"

He was suspected of being murdered in 1594, as a "move" in the Succession Crisis.

He was the first patron of a troupe that performed "Shakespeare's" plays.

He was succeeded by his brother, William Stanley.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom