Shakespere would be a gamer


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Zeugma wrote:
... lived in London meant he had access to people from all over Europe, not just native Londoners. You wouldn't have to leave London to hear Italian or French...

Yah it was practically a global village. You got me. I'm convinced.


Nah, I bet Shakespeare would end up saddled with a hack&slash table where everyone would give him funny looks for acting his character, and they'd constantly rib him for not contributing to the table's DPS, telling him he doesn't pull his weight. =P

The Exchange

I'm not arguing for or against either side, I'm just pointing out that whoever "Shakespeare" was (or were), part of that talent came from listening very attentively. Yes, literature of the day is linked to the Shakespeare plays, implying someone who read extensively, but I feel that people tend to undervalue oral culture. It's not as though the actors actually were the syphilitic morons the reformers portrayed them as.

Sovereign Court

Quote:
The onus is on Stratfordians to find proof that Will authored these works and that proof has not been furnished. Proof must conform to accepted historical methodologies, and as far as I can find: all of the anecdotes linking Will to the writing are not up to historical snuff.

No. That is not how arguments work. The onus is on the antiStrafordians to come up with a plausible explanation for why and how Shakespeare is not the author of the Shakespearian plays, despite being explicitly named as the author of those plays, most notably in the First Folio. (Where, incidentally, Ben Jonson refers to Shakespeare as the 'Sweet Swan of Avon', clearly referring to his birth town of Straford upon Avon.)

A question. Is there any evidence that would satisfy you that Shakespeare was infact the author of the Shakespearian plays? Beyond the masses of evidence you so readily reject, that is?


Saern wrote:

.

Unless, and this is a serious query, I'm being dense and misinterpreting the point of your posts?

I am serious.

Children learned from hornbooks, not from latin classics. These books did not contain the learning needed to write the early works. Did they have a latin book to read? Yes, the Bible. Over and over and over again, between thrashings.

Half the population lived at subsistence level.

Only the gentry bought books.

Shakespeare's father was a glovemaker who failed to pay several debts. His time as bailiff was not a glorious one.


Uzzy wrote:
A question. Is there any evidence that would satisfy you that Shakespeare was infact the author of the Shakespearian plays? Beyond the masses of evidence you so readily reject, that is?

No need to be snippy.

I would accept the same kind of evidence as I have about all the other authors at the time.

I am not rejecting masses of evidence. Please, you are talking to someone that spent years becoming informed about this debate, not to a troll.


I'm sure there is a historian in here who can back me up on this:

If I make a historical assertion the onus is on me to provide evidence to back it up.

One of the most interesting things about studying history today is that the standards of validity used have changed a great deal, and some things that were thought to be gospel truth are no longer sustained by evidence that once held them up beyond scrutiny.

So, that said, please don't cast me as some crazy who is running around disbelieving something that is obviously proven. My reading list comes from both sides of the authorship debate and even the well informed Stratfordians are now accustomed to carefully identifying their suppositions.


Uzzy wrote:
... 'Sweet Swan of Avon'...

This phrase could also denote the Earl of Oxford or the Countess of Pembroke.

Sovereign Court

No, you are rejecting the most painfully obvious evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays, which is that he's named as the author in the First Folio! Both Ben Jonson and Leonard Diggs specifically link Shakespeare to Stratford upon Avon, and later visitors to Stratford frequently mentioned that it was the birthplace of the famous William Shakespeare. He didn't get famous for shearing sheep, you know. He got famous for creating the greatest works of literature in the English language, and probably all languages.

No answer has ever been given which defeats this evidence, save for fanciful theories that require massive conspiracies and ignorance of hard facts. Antistrafordians seem intent on engaging in classist theories which start with picturing what the author 'must have been like'. Which is, of course, starting with a conclusion.

Further, just because you've spent years researching this nonsense doesn't mean you're right. People have spent years researching perpetual motion and other flights of fancy. Doesn't stop them being wrong.

The Exchange

I'm not saying that "Shakespeare" was William Shakespeare, or even one person (I've read several essays arguing for multiple authors). All I'm saying is that whoever "wrote" those plays had a good ear and obviously liked actors. The (oft-conflicting) folios support that much. Just because lots of Elizabethans/Jacobians had a low opinion of actors doesn't mean they had to have a low opinion of themselves, or were incapable of their own playmaking.


Uzzy wrote:
No, you are rejecting the most painfully obvious evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays, which is that he's named as the author in the First Folio! Both Ben Jonson and Leonard Diggs specifically link Shakespeare to Stratford upon Avon, and later visitors to Stratford frequently mentioned that it was the birthplace of the famous William Shakespeare. He didn't get famous for shearing sheep, you know. He got famous for creating the greatest works of literature in the English language, and probably all languages.

Please point me toward the evidence that shows

(1)Will was famous in his lifetime.
(2)Someone credited him with the works during his lifetime.

Jonson's reference is not "specific".

Diggs's preface to the folio is evidence? He says that William Shakespeare is the author. Can you show me that he makes this assertion on anything other than heresay?

Sovereign Court

Kruelaid wrote:
Uzzy wrote:
... 'Sweet Swan of Avon'...
This phrase could also denote the Earl of Oxford or the Countess of Pembroke.

Yes, the Earl of Oxford did once own an estate on the river Avon. Which he sold. 43 years before the First Folio was published. Oh, and there's no evidence he actually lived there.

I guess Jonson could have been referring to him with those lines. Bit of a stretch though, don't you think?

As for the Mary Sidney one, that's new on me. Perhaps you could explain how the 'Sweet Swan of Avon' refers to her?


Zeugma wrote:
I'm not saying that "Shakespeare" was William Shakespeare, or even one person (I've read several essays arguing for multiple authors). All I'm saying is that whoever "wrote" those plays had a good ear and obviously liked actors. The (oft-conflicting) folios support that much. Just because lots of Elizabethans/Jacobians had a low opinion of actors doesn't mean they had to have a low opinion of themselves, or were incapable of their own playmaking.

Agreed.

Have you ever noticed that in the plays the lower class characters are caricatures while the upper class characters seem so real? It confounds me. Man those guys are funny, though.

What really gets me is how the women of the upper classes, struggling so for their inches of power and respect, seem so amazingly human.


Uzzy wrote:


As for the Mary Sidney one, that's new on me. Perhaps you could explain how the 'Sweet Swan of Avon' refers to her?

I'm off to lunch. It's been a blast.

Sovereign Court

I will quote from Francis Meres's book, Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury, first published in 1598 (When Shakespeare was alive, of course), which states the following. The original language is kept, so that one cannot be accused of distorting anything. But I'm sure you can understand it easily.

"As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras : so the sweet wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous & honytongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private frinds, &c.

As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines : so Shakespeare among y' English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witnes his Ge'tleme' of Verona, his Errors, his Love labors lost, his Love labours wonne, his Midsummer night dreame, & his Merchant of Venice : for Tragedy his Richard the 2. Richard the 3. Henry the 4. King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo and Juliet.

As Epius Stolo said, that the Muses would speake with Plautus tongue, if they would speak Latin : so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakespeares fine filed phrase, if they would speake English."

Seems like praise for Shakespeare during his lifetime, and someone crediting him with many of his famous works. Thank you, and good night!

Source

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:


Have you ever noticed that in the plays the lower class characters are caricatures while the upper class characters seem so real? It confounds me. Man those guys are funny, though.

I'd say there are exceptions to this principle of caricature, and they're used to great effect. Eg: Emilia, the Fool, Falstaff. They are more than caricatures because they often do more than just serve the plot. The low characters don't always stop at service; they get some terriffic lines and thoughts, not all of which are funny, and some of which are profound. Sometimes (rarely) they even get to speak in verse.

Kruelaid wrote:


What really gets me is how the women of the upper classes, struggling so for their inches of power and respect, seem so amazingly human.

I agree with you, up to a point. I've never found Lady Macbeth quite human or convincing. She's fairly one dimensional. But she is an exception. And she is still tons of fun to read.


Uzzy wrote:


Source

That is indeed a good one.

It would be a crazy thing though, if someone was using Shakespeare as nickname or a nom de plume. Okay, maybe not so crazy.

Hasti Vibrans.


Zeugma wrote:
...

Ok you got me. I'm slipping.

If Will was the author who wrote the character of Portia though, but left his daughter illiterate, I just don't know what I would do. The very thought tortures my love of the works into drooling submission. That alone is enough to keep me steadfast in my denial.

The Exchange

LOL. I'm a big defender of the groundlings and players, because of a Jr. High production of "Midsummer Night's Dream" - I played Starveling the Tailor. I got what, two or three lines, tops?


Whoa...illiterate?!

That's just a claim that cannot be made based on variant spelling. If you read Milton, Hooker, and similar authors, who are without any doubt among the most highly educated men of their day, you run into the exact same thing: spelling variations of the like that modern readers are not used to. The only reason you don't see them is because you read nice, cleaned-up editions for the general audience. But when you work with critical scholarly editions, standardized spelling goes out the window. It is a recent invention in English, and it has nothing to do with literacy in earlier times.


Uzzy wrote:


Yes, the Earl of Oxford did once own an estate on the river Avon. Which he sold. 43 years before the First Folio was published.

As I recall this, he was dispossessed of this property. He didn't sell it. Can't deny the date though, don't remember.

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:


If Will was the author who wrote the character of Portia though, but left his daughter illiterate, I just don't know what I would do. The very thought tortures my love of the works into drooling submission. That alone is enough to keep me steadfast in my denial.

That is very troubling. But there is a lot of precedent for successful men denying education to their daughters. I'm a "fan" of Yeats' poetry, but he wrote "A Prayer for my Daughter," which, if not outright mysoginist, still has an incredibly narrow-minded view of his daughter's future, in 1921! If this was still a common attitude in the first part of the 20th century, imagine the outcry (against a playwright who could be censored for any reason whatever, and was perhaps an actor himself) for educating his middle-class daughter in the early 1600s.


And as for hearsay (probably more accurately, testimony, an absolutely indispensable source for knowledge in all parts of life, but especially the past), it's like saying most of what we know about Julius Caesar is based on hearsay. Probable assemblage of evidence, cumulative case argumentation, inference to the best explanation--I'm pretty confident that these are going to yield the traditional Shakespeare, as little as we know of him outside his works. When the authorship is not questioned for what, 150 years, it seems like the onus is on the anti-Stratfordians.

But maybe all of this belongs in a Oxonian thread, not in the "W.S. would be a Gamer" thread.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
... But when you work with critical scholarly editions, standardized spelling goes out the window. It is a recent invention in English, and it has nothing to do with literacy in earlier times.

Yes I realize that spelling conventions were sketchy at best.

For me though, that isn't the hard part of getting through scholarly editions of guys like Milton. It's the endless sentences that killed me. By the time I had to teach it though I'd read it 20 or 30 times and the trouble just sort of cleared up.

I'm talking about spelling his name, though. Did Milton spell his name differently every time he wrote it? How about Jonson?

Sure, calling him illiterate is uncool and I shall cease. Sorry to upset everyone.

After all, we know for a fact that he was literate enough to write his name differently on each of 3(?) occasions, am I right?

Maybe 'barely literate' would be more accurate.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
...

Caesar = Will. No comparison. Great hyperbole, you get a gold star for employing an excellent rhetorical device.

The accounts of Caesar's achievements come from sources so numerous it's laughable to begin counting them. Sources that are well known, that claim to make an objective record... and so on and so on, yadda yadda yadda.

With Will there are no veracious accounts of his achievements for what, 60 years? The first folio certainly is not an historical account.

Interesting that we have Caesar's letters, isn't it? Amazing. Hey can you find some of Will's letters for me, I mean really he must of written tonnes of them, am I right? Hehe. All in fun, brother.

Sorry if you think I'm threadcrapping. I made a comment. People reckoned I was a kook, so I obliged and did the crazy dance for them. I respect you, I love your posts, and I'm pretty sure if we were sitting around with a jug of beer this would be all laughs. Or whatever you drink - I'd buy you one for just giving my madness a read.

This controversy is the greatest thing to happen to Shakespeare studies EVER, if you asked me, because:

(1) It has forced more people to REALLY start reading carefully. In particular, it has stopped profs from going endlessly on and on with the Will Shakespeare historical-biographical analysis that has stopped so many students from actually reading the words in the last few centuries.
(2) Publicity.

And hopefully, people will pop in on this thread and actually look around and decide for themselves.

The Exchange

I've never been in the school that sees Shakespeare as a complete progressive on women's rights. "His" views change from play to play. I read "Taming of the Shrew" and "Merry Wives of Windsor" as forward thinking in that they address the silencing of women in the context of a comedy, where "misrule" is ended and everything's mended. But Aristophanes' "Trojan Women" can be read like that, too. His crossdressing can be looked at the same way (both Shakespeare and Aristophanes). Does it anticipate our own attitudes? Yes and no. I think we read more into it, because we want to see ourselves, like Oscar Wilde wrote.


Zeugma wrote:
I've never been in the school that sees Shakespeare as a complete progressive on women's rights...

Such a school does not exist, although I think you can find professors who do think he was a "complete progressive" by the standards of his time.

Personally I don't think he's a complete progressive. I do think that (and I bet you agree) his flexibility in taking different approaches on women evidences that he is not a complete conservative and at the very least sees some women with completely progressive eyes.

For anyone alarmed by this leap, I say the above in a literary sense - it is my impression - neither fact nor history.


Dammit. Now I really have to work.

The Exchange

I agree, there is a broad range of interpretation in the plays. The plays are very "flexible" (is that a good word to describe it?).

The Exchange

Finally making a post relevant to the thread title:
Flexible? Rogue. Oh Willy Shakes'd definitely be a rogue! With Max DEX!
I mean, come on, look at him! He even has a pointy beard! He could hide his lock-picks in it!
And he'd max out Disguise, so that over 4 centuries later, commoners and experts still wouldn't be sure it was him, and would ask "who was that Willy Shakes guy, anyway?"


I'm cool with that.

All in all this is my sentiment on the matter:

Were there primary sources (like we have Caesar's letters) that show Will to be the author the matter would rest. There are none.

Were Stratfordians to admit that the case for Will rests on suppositions I would not get excited.

Like I said though: nothing in this day and age could be better for Shakespeare that this controversy.


He was too busy writing to play.

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:
He was too busy writing to play.

That thought makes me too sad. That means he'd be like the DMs who spend all their time building their campaign world and hand you reams of back-story and you never really get around to playing the game.

Sovereign Court

Kruelaid wrote:
Uzzy wrote:


Source

That is indeed a good one.

It would be a crazy thing though, if someone was using Shakespeare as nickname or a nom de plume. Okay, maybe not so crazy.

Hasti Vibrans.

Except that, you know, there are many sources linking the Shakespeare that lived in Stratford upon Avon to the Shakespeare who acted in the various companies who performed Shakespeare's plays, owned shares in the Globe Theatre and, funnily enough, wrote the Shakespearian plays. You choose to deny them in favour of a conspiracy of silence. No Elizabethan mentioned any hint of suspicion about Shakespeare being a pseudonym.

Yes, it might be a more interesting story, but there's a hint there. It's just a story, with no basis in fact. To put it forward as an alternative historical theory is offensive to history, literature and logic.


Uzzy wrote:


Except that, you know, there are many sources linking the Shakespeare that lived in Stratford upon Avon to the Shakespeare who acted in the various companies who performed Shakespeare's plays, owned shares in the Globe Theatre and, funnily enough, wrote the Shakespearian plays. You choose to deny them in favour of a conspiracy.... To put it forward as an alternative historical theory is offensive to history, literature and logic.

I never tire of offending history, literature, and logic. As for you, I would ask you to unhand truth please, she's having a wee trouble breathing.

Yes, Will of Avon is the same so-so actor who worked in London, never denied it although you can stuff straw where you please, it matters not to me. No, there is no evidence to prove Will was the guy writing the plays, you're just repeating stuff a great many people have supposed. Yes, another man, who was known to write both great poetry and plays (plays and poetry that went missing), did have 'spear shaker' as a nickname - it's a fact. No I have no evidence that this person wrote the plays either, so I don't waste my breath on it. Yes, one of Will's contemporaries did hint that Will of Avon was just posing as a playwright, as follows:

There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that, with his 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum, in his conceit the only shake-scene in a country.

-Robert Greene
Groatsworth of Wit (1592)

Look it up yourself to see how people are reading it.

As I bid you adieu for the night I give to you the ONE poem that we do know for ABSOLUTE fact to be written by Will of Avon. This one is authentic Will of Avon, Uzzy - and sit you down because THIS IS REAL LITERATURE. The one for sure PRIMARY SOURCE that we have to attest to the mind blowing literary skill of William Shaksper of Stratford on Avon.

Good Friend, for Jesus' sake forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be ye man that spares these stones,
And cursed be he that moves my bones.

-William Shakespeare
Engraved on his tomb.

Yes, from the same author *cough, cough* as Hamlet and the sonnets. *cough*

As you clearly are in possession of the kind of incisive literary faculties to which I can only bear offense, I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.


Kruelaid wrote:

As you clearly are in possession of the kind of incisive literary faculties to which I can only bear offense, I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Yes, how dare he not write a final literary masterpiece as great as any other and engrave it on his tomb, as well as leaving us ironclad evidence he did what everyone thinks he did. Like, I don't know, a letter saying "I wrote the plays with my name on them." But wait, that could be suspect! What about letters from friends saying "He wrote the plays with his name on them"? But wait, they are also supect! What about DNA evidence on a quill with distinctive ink stains linking it to an original hand-written copy of several of the plays he wrote? Oh, but how do we now he actually held the pen?

You are aware that you seem to be as set in your opinions as the Stratfordians, an observation which your prior tone seemed to cast as an accusation? I do believe the plays we know as Shakespear's were written by William Shakespear from Stratford-Upon-Avon. That being said, I'm willing to entertain some discussion of the point for academic and intellectual furtherment. To point to a little ditty he wrote on his tomb and say "The person who wrote this couldn't possibly have written King Lear!" seems more than a bit of a stretch, however. So does the claim that Shakespear was an illiterate peasant. His father's position as a glovemaker and bailiff may not have made him royalty, but it did place him in the middle-class. Shakespear would have attended a grammar school and been taught literacy.

As for Robert Greene, perhaps I'm just being a mindless sheep repeating what I've been told, but I've always found the traditional explanation acceptable. I.e., Robert Greene was part of the "establishment" who got huffy when Shakespear showed up and started writing plays as good and better than theirs, all without a college education.

Baa.


Saern wrote:


....leaving us ironclad evidence he did what everyone thinks he did....

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Even one the most skilled biographers of William from Stratford concedes that all we have of actual historical record are property transactions, a marriage license bond, christening records, cast lists, tax bills , petty legal affidavits, payments for services, and "an interesting last will and testament, but no immediately obvious clues to unravel the great mystery of such immense creative power." [page 12, Will in the World, by Stephen Greenblatt]

I'm not knocking him at all, his book was superb and I have just started reading it again because I'm feeling the cuts in here are a little thin and I'd like something with meat on it. Whatever, the point is that this Harvard professor of Shakespeare and the editor of The Norton Shakespeare can't find ironclad evidence. He writes that he aims to "tread the shadowy paths that lead from the life he lived into the literature he created".

So, Saern, where are you getting this "ironclad" evidence. I really would like to read it?

Saern wrote:


As for Robert Greene, perhaps I'm just being a mindless sheep repeating what I've been told, but I've always found the traditional explanation acceptable...

So in other words (please correct me if I'm worng) we're going to dismiss the words that Greene wrote because Greene was a college graduate who naturally could not abide a glovemaker's son writing beautifully? That seems rather lazy, although I give you that Greene was a hack. So am I. Personally, I like to actually look at the words he wrote. Also, there was a known writer at the time with no college education who was NOT decried with an accusation of falsely presenting himself. I can't remember his name. If it turns up I'll let you know.


Saern wrote:
Yes, how dare he not write a final literary masterpiece as great as any other and engrave it on his tomb, as well as leaving us ironclad evidence he did what everyone thinks he did. Like, I don't know, a letter saying "I wrote the plays with my name on them." But wait, that could be suspect! What about letters from friends saying "He wrote the plays with his name on them"? But wait, they are also supect! What about DNA evidence on a quill with distinctive ink stains linking it to an original hand-written copy of several of the plays he wrote? Oh, but how do we now he actually held the pen?

Argument ad absurdum. That is not a nice thing to do to your adversary's argument, it's already been done in this thread, and the wrost thing of all it is intellectually dishonest.


Kruelaid wrote:
So, Saern, where are you getting this "ironclad" evidence. I really would like to read it?

And I do not think my post says what you think it says.

I wasn't saying Shakespeare left us ironclad proof. I was responding to your implication that just because you don't think the verse on his tomb measures up to Hamlet, it somehow helps disprove Shakespear as the author of said Hamlet. That struck me as preposterous, so I responded in kind. I was not saying there was ironclad evidence, but merely wondering wether, if that evidence was found, it would change the argument or be torn to bits and dismissed like the other evidence which we do have? Like I said, I'm all for discussing whether or not there was a Shakespear as we know him. But what evidence would actually suffice to convince you that the traditional Shakespear truly was; or would hoops be added for jumping through so as to try disproving it?

Spoiler:
Actually, that's not it at all. I was in truth linking Shakespear to the innovative warships of the American Civil War, the ironclads. Shakespear was so awesome, he could reach forward in time and leave evidence of himself on them. That's why no one has found that evidence yet, it's in the last place they'd look for it! :)


My bad then and my apologies for missing the point of your introductory sentence. I suppose the ad absurdum really irritated me and colored my read.

As I have said before (you missed it) the same kind of evidence we have for other writers of his time would be more than sufficient for me and it's fair for anyone to expect this - I think that stands as a reasonable reply in lieu of my rant above.


Walks through thread whistling

Sovereign Court

Kruelaid keeps speaking of the 'proof' that exists of other authors of the period having written their works. Well, sadly, he's misrepresenting the proof that does actually exist. Prove Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine.

Here's the thing. There is more proof that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare then there is of other contemporary writers. Antistratfordians ignore that in their classist pursuit to deny that a 'commoner' could have written the greatest works of literature ever. Evidence from the time includes Francis Mere's book, the First Folio, Ben Jonson's dedication. (I mean, Ben Jonson only acted with Shakespeare, and was a close friend. Not like he'd know anything). Funnily enough, as Shakespeare was an actor, he'd have to be.. literate. In order to read the plays, and you know, make changes to them.

The idea that Shakespeare was a pseudonym for DeVere falls down in a few key places too. Firstly, why would DeVere pick a pseudonym of a man ALREADY WORKING IN THE THEATRE. That'd be like John Grisham using Stephen King as a pseudonym. Secondly, if he did this to avoid wrath being directed upon him by people in high up places, why wasn't Shakespeare subjected to any 'wrath'? On the contrary, he was well liked in royal circles. Thirdly, the Tempest was inspired by events that occurred in 1609, five years after DeVere's death in 1604. Given DeVere's reputation as a bit of a joker in literary circles at the time, I don't think he had the ability to see into the future. Let alone write the Tragedies.

Couple of things on the inscription on the gravestone. You're assuming that Shakespeare wrote it, and that he did with his full mental capacities intact. Who's to say he didn't scribble it down a few days before he died, when, you know, he might have had other things on his mind? Or that the guy who made the gravestone created it, thinking a nice poetic message would suit the Bard of Avon.

Seriously, use Occam's Razor sometime.


Kruelaid wrote:
My bad then and my apologies for missing the point of your introductory sentence.

No problem. I have faith in your prior statement that if this conversation was to be held face-to-face over drinks, there'd be laughs, which was really the spirit in which I wrote the post. Just chalk it up to a difference of opinions, each academically arguable.


Of course, Kruelaid is still nuts, but I agree. ;)


Wanders through, does the Mashed Potato, exits Stage Left ..


There he is, get him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Run screaming after the mendicant


Saern wrote:
Just chalk it up to a difference of opinions, each academically arguable.

Exactly. And all the anti-Stradfordians are really treading on (*cough* ... "offending") are 300 years of people passing around thin evidence as gospel truth.

I'd like to say that if you guys read this book (be fair to me Mairkurion, I posted one for Pembroke and one for Will of Avon) you would not think me so mad, because it is sound in methodology, and analysis, more so than the books about Will of Avon and the Countess of Pembroke that I've posted previously, and just perhaps you might not think me so crazy. Nothing ironclad, though, just a hell of a lot of circumstantial, statistical, and literary parallels.


Edward De Vere wrote:
Wanders through, does the Mashed Potato, exits Stage Left ..

<golf clap>

"Bravo, that was a splendid performance would you not say so?"


Uzzy wrote:

Seriously, use Occam's Razor sometime.

Exactly. And by the way, Occam's razor does not mean "believe something just because a couple of people say something is true." "Tamburlaine" is the object of a great many suppositions. When I covered Marlowe briefly during my first year in lit my professor was up front about them. Got enough strawmen yet?

Look, I am a little weary of your approach. I posted my sources, including one that backs you, and he can't find the evidence either and concedes this in his introduction.

I'm not an ass. I'm not in here to piss anyone off. But I'm not going to let a Stratfordian come in here and pad the historical record.

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Shakespere would be a gamer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.