• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

the shakespeare (or shagsper) conspiracy

Basilio

Thinker
Basilio
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
Ok, as a diversion from the wonderful world of free fall,CD, and holographic planes, Would someone like to discuss the mother of all conspiracy theorys:
That Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays/poetry attributed to him; he was a provincal hick with out the knowledge of law, geograpy, latin, fill in the blank, and so it had to be produced by Mr. (or Lord) X, becuase the internal evidence is so overwhelming.

Where I stand: modified Stratfordian, that is, He for the most part, or with one or two of his fellow playwrights or actors, colaboratively wrote the plays. Plenty of sources about, and many errors have been found in his supposed "infalible" knowledge of various disciplines. No great lords, earls, or dukes, who had to write under a nome de plume lest they incur the wrath of the court (for non-existant reasons).

Thoughts?
 
Well if he were alive today, would he be called William Shakeuzi?

TAM;)
 
No serious scholar of Elizabethan literature does anything but laugh at the various "theories" about who really wrote Shakespear's plays. That other theater people might have had a hand in them is a given but this whole idea that Bacon or some other court figure wrote the plays is silly.
 
Basilio said:
Ok, as a diversion from the wonderful world of free fall,CD, and holographic planes, Would someone like to discuss the mother of all conspiracy theorys:
That Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays/poetry attributed to him; he was a provincal hick with out the knowledge of law, geograpy, latin, fill in the blank, and so it had to be produced by Mr. (or Lord) X, becuase the internal evidence is so overwhelming.

Where I stand: modified Stratfordian, that is, He for the most part, or with one or two of his fellow playwrights or actors, colaboratively wrote the plays. Plenty of sources about, and many errors have been found in his supposed "infalible" knowledge of various disciplines. No great lords, earls, or dukes, who had to write under a nome de plume lest they incur the wrath of the court (for non-existant reasons).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Man this was one of the biggest discussions in the Shakespeare classes we had in Grad school (acting concentration here). Not only from students but a few of our professors were into the theories about other people writing the plays. The most popular was the Duke of Oxford writing the plays.

We put on a production of William Gibson's A Cry for Players (a play about the life of Shakespeare before he left Stratford on Avon to act/write/become the object of snooty people's affection) and during the talkbacks for this show, without a doubt the number one question was "Did Shakespeare really write these plays?"

As for myself I have to agree with you. I simply haven't seen any solid evidence that anyone else wrote the plays.
 
I'm not promoting any particular theory, but I once saw one of "his" plays performed, and at the end, the curtains dropped at near freefall.
 
Well, the hick Shakespeare's will includes mention of actors from London.

This is by no means proof that he authored the plays but if he was just a shill for someone else he must have really liked Burbage, Heminges, and Condell's acting to mention them in the interlineation.

I have not yet seen compelling proof that anyone but Shakespeare was responsible for his works.

We need a Bacon-ist to speak forward and give us something to work with. :)
 
Last edited:
The most popular was the Duke of Oxford writing the plays.
Click to expand...

And he used the name Shakespeare because The Oxford Edition of Oxford sounded too pretentious (I'd give credit to whomever I stole that from if I could remember)

I just finished Peter Ackroyd's Shakespeare: The Biography. I recommend it: since not all that much is known about Shakespeare, the author spends a lot of time talking about town and country life of the era, and how common Warwickshire words and references crop up all over Will's plays. He seems to have collaborated a lot more than I thought - or plagarized, if you will.
 
Well, the Globe did have two mysterious fires, but yet when i visited it this year there were fire extinguishers and fire alarms everywhere how could a file happen in a place like that LOL!!!
Also, over the site of the Rose theater, they built a GOVERNMENT BUILDING, one that deals with fire safety, coincidence?
And, ever noticed anything abbot Shylock? I'm Just Asking Questions here...

________________
there is, so far as I can see no evidence whatsoever that the person we know as Shakespeare (what little we do know of him) did not write his plays.

One of the interesting things about the Shakespeare CTs is how they are a product of the English class system, the Romantics went to great lengths to show that Shakespeare as uneducated, working class etc, as this played into their ideology. later "scholars" took them at their word, and then deduced that no working class uneducated man could possibly have written the played of Shakespeare, so it must have been someone at court.
 
I dallied with deVere for a while, but reading books like Will and the Word and A Year in the Life have completely cured me of alternate theories of authorship. For as little as we actually know about him, it's amazing what can be put together.

The thing for me is that there is no reason to involve the man from Stratford in the juicy business deals that he found himself in unless he was an active contributor to the group. There was no room for deadwood in these companies. If Will Kempe couldn't be kept on, the dude playing Hamlet's father just didn't rate that kind of payday, especially after the earl of Oxford had died.
 
This Is a Wonderful Diversion

Yes, even I need a break from the infamous "theory."

First, Shakespeare produced the plays and sonnets in roughly 12 years, after which he retired, dying a few years later.

This is a huge body of work to produce in such a short amount of time. Perhaps the greatest 16 months in any artistic career is when he produced Othello, Hamlet, Lear, and MacBeth.

This is just one of the many reasons people believe that one man is not responsible for all of the work. Certainly, the language, vocabulary and structure in the early work cannot compare to what he ends with.

The usual suspects who might have contributed are Thomas Kyd (who wrote The Spanish Tragedy, the source of Hamlet) Christopher Marlowe, or Ben Johnson.

Because Shakespeare's life is so difficult to study, due to a lack of biographical information, I tend to agree with the great critic Harold Bloom who said, "it does not matter who wrote Hamlet, only that someone wrote Hamlet."
 
Will in the World, published a few years ago, by Steven Greenblatt, is an excellent study of London at the tme of Shakespeare.
 
Was Hamlet named after Shakespeare's son Hamnet, who died at an early age (11?), and this is why Shakespeare allegedly played the ghost in the original production of the play?
 
One of the interesting things about the Shakespeare CTs is how they are a product of the English class system, the Romantics went to great lengths to show that Shakespeare as uneducated, working class etc, as this played into their ideology. later "scholars" took them at their word, and then deduced that no working class uneducated man could possibly have written the played of Shakespeare, so it must have been someone at court.
Click to expand...

Actually, he was fairly well educated for his time, attending a local grammar school where he studied Latin, among other things, including the classics. Not Oxbridge, but not unlettered either. His father was a local official.

Want some conspiracy fodder? His family, particularly on his mother's side, were believed to have been ardent Catholics, a faith out of favor at the time. Some of his relatives and "former" associates may have been at least peripherally involved in the Gunpowder Plot. Applying Troofer logic, he's as good as guilty himself!
 
Apollo20 said:
Was Hamlet named after Shakespeare's son Hamnet, who died at an early age (11?), and this is why Shakespeare allegedly played the ghost in the original production of the play?
Click to expand...


Correct and correct.

Shakespeare tended to act in his own productions, and as the Ghost, he is interestingly placing himself as Hamlet's father, as he was Hamnet's father.

The name, Hamnet, dates back to a real Danish prince, 14th C I think.

The source for the plot of Hamlet, as I said above, is from Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy.

In only two plays does Shakespeare invent the plot.
 
Do you really think that Hamlet could have been written by a man with a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan?

Oops, sorry, wrong thread...
 
Does this mean, since Shakespeare did not really "create" Hamlet, that the old saying "Hamlet's father was Shakespeare's son" is stricly not true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom