Shakespeare digression

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Shakespeare digression

Helandhighwater wrote:Shakespeare's plays are well written and entertaining fluff for the times often. Good though. But historically often a little beholden to the reigning monarch, although probably more accurate than some history at the time. There are better play writers than Shakespeare, but in his time he was quite something I am sure you will agree?

Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:Shakespeare's plays are well written and entertaining fluff for the times often. Good though. But historically often a little beholden to the reigning monarch, although probably more accurate than some history at the time. There are better play writers than Shakespeare, but in his time he was quite something I am sure you will agree?

Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.

Was it the Illuminati? Or do you actually have any proof of this that isn't just a conspiracy theory?
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.

"

Helandhighwater
Philosopher

Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

Helandhighwater wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:Shakespeare's plays are well written and entertaining fluff for the times often. Good though. But historically often a little beholden to the reigning monarch, although probably more accurate than some history at the time. There are better play writers than Shakespeare, but in his time he was quite something I am sure you will agree?

Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.

Was it the Illuminati?

Seeing how the illuminati didn't come into existence until 2 centuries later, no.

Maybe you should stop pretending to be an idiot. Just a suggestion.

Or do you actually have any proof of this that isn't just a conspiracy theory?

Do you have any proof that Shakespeare wrote the plays, for example are there any manuscripts of his plays, in his handwriting, from the time he was supposed to have written them?
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Or do you actually have any proof of this that isn't just a conspiracy theory?

Do you have any proof that Shakespeare wrote the plays, for example are there any manuscripts of his plays, in his handwriting, from the time he was supposed to have written them?

That's what they want you to believe since Adam left the Garden of Eden the Illuminati have been controlling your thoughts.

I don't require any proof. You contended he didn't it behoves you first to show why he didn't then I can come back with proof he did.

You are kidding right, in the time they were written copyists copied the plays, his original manuscripts no longer existing are hardly evidence that he did not write them, any more than any book in the Bible is not hand written by some author, so hence we can dispute they wrote them. That's a bad argument, you bad, bad man.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2 ... -examined/

Interesting post... Worth a look.

Maybe you should stop pretending to be an idiot. Just a suggestion.

That's a nice insult. See he is not calling me an idiot directly, although he is implying I am. But has used the clever tactic of saying I am not. Like.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.

"

Helandhighwater
Philosopher

Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

Helandhighwater wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:Do you have any proof that Shakespeare wrote the plays, for example are there any manuscripts of his plays, in his handwriting, from the time he was supposed to have written them?

That's what they want you to believe since Adam left the Garden of Eden the Illuminati have been controlling your thoughts.

I repeat: Maybe you should stop pretending to be an idiot. Just a suggestion.

I don't require any proof. You contended he didn't it behoves you first to show why he didn't then I can come back with proof he did.

I can't positively prove a negative claim. Nonetheless, the total lack of evidence that there even was a William Shakespeare from Stratford who was a major playwright in London in that period is good enough for me.

You are kidding right, in the time they were written copyists copied the plays, his original manuscripts no longer existing are hardly evidence that he did not write them, any more than any book in the Bible is not hand written by some author, so hence we can dispute they wrote them. That's a bad argument, you bad, bad man.

The Bible was written around 1500 years earlier. Quite a lot changed in that stretch of time. We have contemporary records of Shakespeare's marriage but not of any of his plays. That is to say, even the copies your correctly suggest would be the things to look for cannot be found. So perhaps I was overextending the argument, but it is basically a good argument. You can't actually present any primary evidence that there was a William Shakespeare writing and putting on famous plays at that time.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/10/did-shakespeare-really-write-his-plays-a-few-theories-examined/

Interesting post... Worth a look.

And herein lies the problem with this sort of discussion, that people tend to leap in and try to fill the gap left by 'there was no playwright named William Shakespeare' with some simple alternative. Same with 9/11 or whatever other official myth you might pick.

Maybe you should stop pretending to be an idiot. Just a suggestion.

That's a nice insult. See he is not calling me an idiot directly, although he is implying I am. But has used the clever tactic of saying I am not. Like.

I don't think you are an idiot, if I did I would have banished you to my ignore list but you're reasonably entertaining for a pseudo-fool so here we are.
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:Do you have any proof that Shakespeare wrote the plays, for example are there any manuscripts of his plays, in his handwriting, from the time he was supposed to have written them?

That's what they want you to believe since Adam left the Garden of Eden the Illuminati have been controlling your thoughts.

I repeat: Maybe you should stop pretending to be an idiot. Just a suggestion.

I don't require any proof. You contended he didn't it behoves you first to show why he didn't then I can come back with proof he did.

I can't positively prove a negative claim. Nonetheless, the total lack of evidence that there even was a William Shakespeare from Stratford who was a major playwright in London in that period is good enough for me.
we are.

An odd thing to say.
There is a huge body of evidence that WS was a real person that came from Stratford and who wrote many plays.
Your ignorance of those facts is not the same as "a total lack of evidence".

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

Hobbes Choice wrote:An odd thing to say.
There is a huge body of evidence that WS was a real person that came from Stratford and who wrote many plays.
Your ignorance of those facts is not the same as "a total lack of evidence".

Kindly present for me some of this evidence...
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:An odd thing to say.
There is a huge body of evidence that WS was a real person that came from Stratford and who wrote many plays.
Your ignorance of those facts is not the same as "a total lack of evidence".

Kindly present for me some of this evidence...

The Completely works of Shakespeare.
Various contemporary accounts, at the highest level of society, to the lowest.
The archeological evidence of The Globe Theatre.
A range of documentary evidence in his own and others hands which name him.
http://hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html
A number of textual analyses that earmark most plays as certain;y shakespearean, and others has possibly by another author.

There never has been any doubt that such a person lived, and that he came from Stratford.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

Hobbes Choice wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:An odd thing to say.
There is a huge body of evidence that WS was a real person that came from Stratford and who wrote many plays.
Your ignorance of those facts is not the same as "a total lack of evidence".

Kindly present for me some of this evidence...

The Completely works of Shakespeare.

Are you being serious? The evidence that he wrote the plays is that the plays exist?

Various contemporary accounts, at the highest level of society, to the lowest.

Cite some of them for me.

The archeological evidence of The Globe Theatre.

I did not say that the Globe Theatre didn't exist.

A range of documentary evidence in his own and others hands which name him.
http://hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html

All this proves is that there was a man, William Shakspeare. It doesn't prove he wrote those plays.

A number of textual analyses that earmark most plays as certain;y shakespearean, and others has possibly by another author.

Wow, textual analyses.

There never has been any doubt that such a person lived, and that he came from Stratford.

What proof do you have that he wrote the plays? That is what I'm disputing. This Bill Shakspeare chap existed around that time, but I've never believed that he wrote these plays.
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:
Kindly present for me some of this evidence...

The Completely works of Shakespeare.

Are you being serious? The evidence that he wrote the plays is that the plays exist?

Obviously.

Various contemporary accounts, at the highest level of society, to the lowest.

Cite some of them for me.

Look yourself. I'm not your teacher.

The archeological evidence of The Globe Theatre.

I did not say that the Globe Theatre didn't exist.

There are several accounts of his plays debuting their, with him on stage presenting them.
And it was his own Company that built it.
WHo do YOU think built it?

A range of documentary evidence in his own and others hands which name him.
http://hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html

All this proves is that there was a man, William Shakspeare. It doesn't prove he wrote those plays.

Wrong again. Some of the original manuscripts survive in the SAME and writing. And the parish birth and marriage documents match the other accounts of his life.

A number of textual analyses that earmark most plays as certain;y shakespearean, and others has possibly by another author.

Wow, textual analyses.

Yep. Better than anything you have, which is nothing.

There never has been any doubt that such a person lived, and that he came from Stratford.

What proof do you have that he wrote the plays? That is what I'm disputing. This Bill Shakspeare chap existed around that time, but I've never believed that he wrote these plays.

No you are not, you are disputing that such a person existed. You said there was a total lack of evidence that such a person existed.
It does not matter a damn if he wrote some, most or all of the plays attributed to him.
It would have taken a ridiculously intricate conspiracy to assert his existence were it not the case.
I'm not going to debate the authorship of his plays with you as you already claim ignorance of the evidence on his existence.
It would be a complete time waste chewing the fat with you.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

Hobbes Choice wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:Are you being serious? The evidence that he wrote the plays is that the plays exist?

Obviously.

So if I claim to have created the colour green and cite as my proof the fact that there is a recognised colour called 'green' then you'll just accept it?

Cite some of them for me.

Look yourself. I'm not your teacher.

So if I just claim that there are contemporary accounts of me creating the colour green but refuse to provide any then you'll just accept that?

I did not say that the Globe Theatre didn't exist.

There are several accounts of his plays debuting their, with him on stage presenting them.
And it was his own Company that built it.
WHo do YOU think built it?

That Royal theatre company that invented the Shakespeare persona. Even the official story is not that the company was 'his own', i.e. belonged to Shakespeare himself.

All this proves is that there was a man, William Shakspeare. It doesn't prove he wrote those plays.

Wrong again. Some of the original manuscripts survive in the SAME and writing. And the parish birth and marriage documents match the other accounts of his life.

Tell me, where are these manuscripts in the same hand writing? In what archive or library are they held?

Wow, textual analyses.

Yep. Better than anything you have, which is nothing.

And what I could find a few textual analyses concluding that the plays had multiple authors? What if I provided my own? After all, I've read numerous Shakespeare plays, I've acted in several and directed productions of two.

What proof do you have that he wrote the plays? That is what I'm disputing. This Bill Shakspeare chap existed around that time, but I've never believed that he wrote these plays.

No you are not, you are disputing that such a person existed. You said there was a total lack of evidence that such a person existed.

'Such a person' referring not just to William Shakespeare being a man from Stratford but that he was a famous playwright in London at the time.

It does not matter a damn if he wrote some, most or all of the plays attributed to him.

I'm saying he wrote none of them.

It would have taken a ridiculously intricate conspiracy to assert his existence were it not the case.

Kindly qualify this remark.

I'm not going to debate the authorship of his plays with you as you already claim ignorance of the evidence on his existence.
It would be a complete time waste chewing the fat with you.

Feel free to back out of this at any point. I mean, so far you've convinced nobody. But for the record there are some very Marlowe-esque passages in some Shakespeare plays so I think he was probably involved.
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:Are you being serious? The evidence that he wrote the plays is that the plays exist?

Obviously.

So if I claim to have created the colour green and cite as my proof the fact that there is a recognised colour called 'green' then you'll just accept it?

Dah, obviously not. You really love non Sequiturs don't you?
Claim: a man called Shakespeare wrote many Elizabethan play.
Evidence: ... Oh look there are millions of copies of books claiming to be authored by Shakespeare containing Elizabethan plays, and a whole bunch of contemporary publications held on record in the most prestigious library on earth, with records dating back which are 'known' to be penned by Shakespeare.

Cite some of them for me.

Look yourself. I'm not your teacher.

So if I just claim that there are contemporary accounts of me creating the colour green but refuse to provide any then you'll just accept that?
Dah, see above. And by the way there is plenty of evidence of green that predate any living person.

I did not say that the Globe Theatre didn't exist.

There are several accounts of his plays debuting their, with him on stage presenting them.
And it was his own Company that built it.
WHo do YOU think built it?

That Royal theatre company that invented the Shakespeare persona. Even the official story is not that the company was 'his own', i.e. belonged to Shakespeare himself.

No such entity.

All this proves is that there was a man, William Shakspeare. It doesn't prove he wrote those plays.

Wrong again. Some of the original manuscripts survive in the SAME and writing. And the parish birth and marriage documents match the other accounts of his life.

Tell me, where are these manuscripts in the same hand writing? In what archive or library are they held?

Wow, textual analyses.

Yep. Better than anything you have, which is nothing.

And what I could find a few textual analyses concluding that the plays had multiple authors? What if I provided my own? After all, I've read numerous Shakespeare plays, I've acted in several and directed productions of two.

What proof do you have that he wrote the plays? That is what I'm disputing. This Bill Shakspeare chap existed around that time, but I've never believed that he wrote these plays.

No you are not, you are disputing that such a person existed. You said there was a total lack of evidence that such a person existed.

'Such a person' referring not just to William Shakespeare being a man from Stratford but that he was a famous playwright in London at the time.

It does not matter a damn if he wrote some, most or all of the plays attributed to him.

I'm saying he wrote none of them.

It would have taken a ridiculously intricate conspiracy to assert his existence were it not the case.

Kindly qualify this remark.

Prove you exist!

I'm not going to debate the authorship of his plays with you as you already claim ignorance of the evidence on his existence.
It would be a complete time waste chewing the fat with you.

Feel free to back out of this at any point. I mean, so far you've convinced nobody.
An assertion for which you have no proof.
But the burden of proof is with you, not me. You are the one trying to say that S never wrote a play. That makes you the outsider, not me.
But for the record there are some very Marlowe-esque passages in some Shakespeare plays so I think he was probably involved. Who is Marlowe, what makes you think he existed? You have no proof whatever.
SHow me the evidence!

Do you realise that you are just blowing this stuff out of you £$%£. Hey I have no idea that you exist. I do not have any evidence except these silly posts, that seem like they could have been wrtiten by an automaton. In fact I have far more information that The Bard was a real play writing person who existed, that I have that you are real.QED. You don't exist. Last edited by Hobbes Choice on Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total. Hobbes Choice Philosopher Posts: 2553 Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm Re: Devil looks like Obama Hobbes Choice wrote: SIATD v2 wrote:So if I claim to have created the colour green and cite as my proof the fact that there is a recognised colour called 'green' then you'll just accept it? Dah, obviously not. You really love non Sequiturs don't you? Claim: a man called Shakespeare wrote many Elizabethan play. Evidence: ... Oh look there are millions of copies of books claiming to be authored by Shakespeare containing Elizabethan plays, and a whole bunch of contemporary publications held on record in the most prestigious library on earth, with records dating back which are 'known' to be penned by Shakespeare. I don't think the Library of Alexandria has any contemporary copies of Shakespeare plays. But I'll email them and ask. When I asked all the obvious libraries in Britain they said no. Besides which, in order to prove that any such manuscripts were written by this Bill Shakspeare from Stratford, one would have to have lengthy samples of that man's handwriting. Can you point me to such samples? So if I just claim that there are contemporary accounts of me creating the colour green but refuse to provide any then you'll just accept that? Dah, see above. And by the way there is plenty of evidence of green that predate any living person. Cite some of this abundance of evidence for me. WHo do YOU think built it? That Royal theatre company that invented the Shakespeare persona. Even the official story is not that the company was 'his own', i.e. belonged to Shakespeare himself. No such entity. WRONG. In 1594, the Queen’s Men were replaced by two newly reorganised companies, the Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. They shared a monopoly over theatre performances in London. From the British Library website: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/companies.html The Lord Chamberlain's men were in effect the Royal theatre company - they even got renamed the King's Men less than a decade later when they parachuted King James onto the throne. They built the Globe. Tell me, where are these manuscripts in the same hand writing? In what archive or library are they held? Funny that you haven't responded to this request... It would have taken a ridiculously intricate conspiracy to assert his existence were it not the case. Kindly qualify this remark. Prove you exist! Meet me face to face and I'll gladly prove it to you a dozen ways. But the burden of proof is with you, not me. You are the one trying to say that S never wrote a play. That makes you the outsider, not me. So the burden of proof lies with people who reject mythical orthodoxies? I'm looking forward to you trying to sell that one to me. Who is Marlowe, what makes you think he existed? You have no proof whatever. SHow me the evidence! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlovian_theory You can start here. Do you realise that you are just blowing this stuff out of you £$%£.
Hey I have no idea that you exist. I do not have any evidence except these silly posts, that seem like they could have been wrtiten by an automaton.
In fact I have far more information that The Bard was a real play writing person who existed, that I have that you are real.QED.
You don't exist.

And yet, you continue to talk to me as though I do exist, and refuse to present any evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of those plays. You hide behind fallacious appeals to authority and keep claiming the burden of proof is on the person questioning the orthodoxy rather than the one paying lip service to it. I ask of you: Do you realise that this debate has been going on for two centuries?

I tend to favour the interpretation that Shakespeare's works were in part predictive programming for the transition from the house of Tudor to the house of Stuart, and it is no surprise that the Royal theatre company mentioned above, once it was renamed after James Stuart, had a monopoly on the performing of the Shakespeare plays. Is this the sort of intricate conspiracy you had in mind?
It's like going to heaven and finding God smokin' crack!
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.

SIATD v2
One Man Pussy Riot

Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

SIATD v2 wrote:[
And yet, you continue to talk to me as though I do exist, and refuse to present any evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of those plays. You hide behind fallacious appeals to authority and keep claiming the burden of proof is on the person questioning the orthodoxy rather than the one paying lip service to it. I ask of you: Do you realise that this debate has been going on for two centuries?

I tend to favour the interpretation that Shakespeare's works were in part predictive programming for the transition from the house of Tudor to the house of Stuart, and it is no surprise that the Royal theatre company mentioned above, once it was renamed after James Stuart, had a monopoly on the performing of the Shakespeare plays. Is this the sort of intricate conspiracy you had in mind?

And you talk about Shakespeare as if he did. I talk to you because I know I can get completely predictable results from your processor. It give me a sense of security. And yet you claim to be human, and yet present no evidence that you are anything but a machine. You hide behind an avatar of another human, with an emotional expression as I that gave you any credibility.
But there is obviously something wrong with you processing capacity or logic circuits. First you claim there is no such person as Shakespeare, then you claim this non existent person did not write any plays then you claim he might not have written some of those plays.
When I challenge you about his existence you prove yourself to be completely ignorant of evidence that is freely available to anyone on the Internet and in the British Library. So why should I take your word that you have looked into this question more than I have??

You'll be telling me aliens have landed, next.

Now you are saying that the plays were 'predictive programming", have you ever even SEEN a Shakespearean play before? I doubt it.
Whoever wrote those plays must have has a time machine to see into the future, then?

PS. I am surprised that you mentioned the 'controversy' has only been around for 200 years. In fact doubts were only raised a good deal less that 200 years ago. The main reason for that happening is a classist one, assuming a man of humble origins could not possibly have been so brilliant.
A pretty poor start to a conspiracy theory that took over 200 years to come to light, since his death.
Last edited by Hobbes Choice on Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Devil looks like Obama

I will be splitting the topic digression off shortly, so you may continue your digression there...

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 17565
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Shakespeare digression

SIATD v2 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:Shakespeare's plays are well written and entertaining fluff for the times often. Good though. But historically often a little beholden to the reigning monarch, although probably more accurate than some history at the time. There are better play writers than Shakespeare, but in his time he was quite something I am sure you will agree?

Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.

I think they were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Shakespeare digression

Sauwelios wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:Shakespeare's plays are well written and entertaining fluff for the times often. Good though. But historically often a little beholden to the reigning monarch, although probably more accurate than some history at the time. There are better play writers than Shakespeare, but in his time he was quite something I am sure you will agree?

Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.

I think they were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

They were actually written by DEERGGLPMINGAR, the POLINMOP from planet Sertion IN Alpha Centauri.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Hobbes Choice wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
SIATD v2 wrote:Actually, no. Shakespeare never existed. Those plays were written by a consortium.

I think they were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

They were actually written by DEERGGLPMINGAR, the POLINMOP from planet Sertion IN Alpha Centauri.

You never heard of the Oxfordian theory, I take it?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Shakespeare digression

Okay here’s the thing.
There are plenty of conspiracy theories very few of which are remotely true, and few of which are based on sound evidence. Nonsense abounds about secret societies the Illuminati, - so secret that everyone knows about them.
Secrets are hard to keep. Shakespeare was a public figure that appeared on stage, and was a celebrity. It’s not as if he were a reclusive writer.
There are some serious difficulties with this one.

1) Numerous alternative schemes.
2) There was no doubt about the authorship of the plays for over 200 years.
3) Does not take account of the level of evidence that actually exists.

1 The claims against the authorship do not stem from a solid alternative. First they damn Shakespeare then they scuttle around for an alternative. There are a range of poorly constructed alternatives none of which are as strong as the orthodox account. So even if it were the basic claim were true, there would be no agreement for an alternative account. I think it would be more convincing had it started with a contemporary claim; an individual who someone had suggested.
2 It seems rather odd that no one, not a single hint that Shakey was not the author for over 200 years after his death. Not a whisper during his life, not a scrap of paper during or after his life for all that time. This alone takes some doing. When the President of the US can’t hide a couple of tapes that a handful of people knew existed. I suppose we might never know what secrets have actually lasted 200 years. But this is on the scale of Elvis Presley not singing any songs.
3 The fact is that there is a remarkably large amount of evidence for Shakey and the authorship of his plays. Far more than for any other writer of his time, or before. In fact far more than most writer, and certainly far more evidence of his life than any of the other prospective writers. Were we to take this seriously then we would have to thrown doubt on the authorship of most of the British cannon of literature.
So what is all this about?
It does not seem a co-incidence that none of this speculation happened until the mid-19thC. Shakespeare had always been a thorn in the side of the aristocracy and educated elites, and an inspiration for the emerging middle classes.
It is no surprise to me that the Victorians who felt the upward pressure from below of the emerging lower classes thought to attack this hero of the underdogs by trying to impose a more intellectual, educated and aristocratic personage.
Yet there is not the slightest reason why any of them might want to hide their own identity, and push the credit onto a grammar school boy.

The fact remains that it is quite possible that one man did not personally write every single word. But this is not unusual in the art world.
I love the sculpture of Rodin, you may know his “Thinker”, or his various versions of Victor Hugo and “The Kiss”. Copies of these sculptures (originals) exist all over the world. But even though they are correctly attributed to August Rodin he probably never even touched them himself. The fact is that he conceived them all; he supplied the materials and the workshop and he closely directed the work of his small army of trainees. Any piece of work that emerged from his studios and was signed Rodin was his responsibility and was done under his aegis.
Thus I have no trouble with the idea that some input from some of the actors happened. But a mysterious and silent partner that no one noticed for over 200 years – that is just absurd.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Sauwelios wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:I think they were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

They were actually written by DEERGGLPMINGAR, the POLINMOP from planet Sertion IN Alpha Centauri.

You never heard of the Oxfordian theory, I take it?

You take it wrong.
This is a mutli-tentacled conspiracy theory designed to discredit the lower orders, by suggestion only an aristocrat can be a genius.

Shakespeare was to the Elizabethan theatre what Richard Feynman was to 20thC science.

Hobbes Choice
Philosopher

Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Hobbes Choice wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:They were actually written by DEERGGLPMINGAR, the POLINMOP from planet Sertion IN Alpha Centauri.

You never heard of the Oxfordian theory, I take it?

You take it wrong.
This is a mutli-tentacled conspiracy theory designed to discredit the lower orders, by suggestion only an aristocrat can be a genius.

Shakespeare was to the Elizabethan theatre what Richard Feynman was to 20thC science.

Shakespeare was not merely a genius. And yes, I think he can only have been an aristocrat.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Shakespeare digression

Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1.

Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.

This is a rhyme that only works in the North Warwickshire dialect, proving that Shakespeare was from the area, and also that he was not upper class. It's not the only example either, just one of the most famous.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 2665
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Maia wrote:Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1.

Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.

This is a rhyme that only works in the North Warwickshire dialect, proving that Shakespeare was from the area, and also that he was not upper class. It's not the only example either, just one of the most famous.

Does "proof" like this take into account that the rhyme in question is spoken by a witch?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Shakespeare digression

Sauwelios wrote:
Maia wrote:Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1.

Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.

This is a rhyme that only works in the North Warwickshire dialect, proving that Shakespeare was from the area, and also that he was not upper class. It's not the only example either, just one of the most famous.

Does "proof" like this take into account that the rhyme in question is spoken by a witch?

It's a rhyme that was written by Shakespeare, in his native North Warwickshire dialect.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 2665
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Maia wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Maia wrote:Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1.

Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.

This is a rhyme that only works in the North Warwickshire dialect, proving that Shakespeare was from the area, and also that he was not upper class. It's not the only example either, just one of the most famous.

Does "proof" like this take into account that the rhyme in question is spoken by a witch?

It's a rhyme that was written by Shakespeare, in his native North Warwickshire dialect.

Not necessarily. It may have been written by someone else—a native of North Warwickshire or not—who made a witch character in his play speak in the North Warwickshire dialect...
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Next