Will the real Will Shakespeare please step forward?

[Blondin]

I just came across this little news item:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/en_nm/arts_shakespeare_debate_dc

Yet another "real" Shakespeare expose. James and Rubinstein - the Sibrel and Hoagland of literature.

[kookbreaker]

This says it all:


One of the chief reasons given by James and Rubinstein for doubting Shakespeare's authorship is his lack of formal education and familiarity with the ways of the court.

"It is snobbery, basically," Thompson told Reuters. "People think you would have to have a university education at least to write as he does."


Someday I am going to transcribe an article I have that tears the 'true shakespeare' arguement to shreds.

Its Byron's fault: After he did his poetic stuff in the 19th century, every Victorian snot was convinced that decent historical poets had to be educated, upper-class, and tormented. The idea that a mere son of a glovemaker was able to write this wonderful stuff was abhorrent to them. So they played with lucicrous Cryptographic games (counting the words per page in a technique that makes the Bible Code look logical) until they found the hidden messages they wanted.

"Others wrote Shakespeare's stuff" people are actually revisionists trying to rewrite history to suit their modern tastes.

[Mercutio]

Hmph.

The Atlantic Monthly published a piece a decade or so ago in which Shakespeare's language was analyzed statistically. No, not "decoding", like this article, but looking at frequencies of little-used words. The hypothesis was that if Shakespeare, the actor, was also Shakespeare, the playwright, the vocabulary of the parts he was currently playing would influence what he was currently writing. Relatively rare words that were found in his current role should be more prevalent in the plays written at the time. Using what was known about which role he played, and when he wrote the various plays, that pattern was indeed found. (I love that it was not data-mining, but a falsifiable hypothesis being investigated!) In cases where we did not know what roles Shaky was playing, this method used in reverse allows us to hazard a pretty good guess as to which role he played. This is more speculative, but if new information comes forward about previously unknown parts he played, it could further support, or undermine, the hypothesis. As is...the data suggest that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays.

[Soapy Sam]

Is this still going on?

I find that my reaction to what Kipling once described as "This rancid Baconian heresy" is - who cares who wrote it? It's good stuff anyway.

[bruto]

I recently read a book called Will in the World, by Stephen Greenblatt, which seems to do a pretty good job of knocking off that "couldn't have done it for lack of education" argument, giving convincing details of the sort of education Shakespeare had, which accords rather well with the Shakespeare we know from the plays - not a classical scholar (remember Jonson's quip of "small Latin and less Greek"), but well educated and read in the literature commonly available at the time, and certainly well enough educated to open the door for whatever literary self-improvement he was interested in later. Shakespeare's family were well off, landowners, and politically well connected. His father was quite ambitious and at least for a while upwardly mobile. Anyway, I thought it did a pretty good job of detailing the sources of Shakespeare's material and the path of his growth as an author. That doesn't of course prove that he was who he was supposed to be, but affirms that it is reasonable to believe he was.

To believe that Shakespeare was someone else requires not only snobbery and a certain obliviousness to the actual opportunities that would have been available to a person of his status, but also requires that a great number of his contemporaries, friends, rivals and business associates (Note, for example, that that Ben Jonson quote above comes from a very impassioned memorial poem to Shakespeare by one of his greatest contemporaries) were in on a conspiracy which would seem not to have been of any advantage to them.

[hgc]

I recently read a book called Will in the World, by Stephen Greenblatt, which seems to do a pretty good job of knocking off that "couldn't have done it for lack of education" argument, giving convincing details of the sort of education Shakespeare had, which accords rather well with the Shakespeare we know from the plays - not a classical scholar (remember Jonson's quip of "small Latin and less Greek"), but well educated and read in the literature commonly available at the time, and certainly well enough educated to open the door for whatever literary self-improvement he was interested in later. Shakespeare's family were well off, landowners, and politically well connected. His father was quite ambitious and at least for a while upwardly mobile. Anyway, I thought it did a pretty good job of detailing the sources of Shakespeare's material and the path of his growth as an author. That doesn't of course prove that he was who he was supposed to be, but affirms that it is reasonable to believe he was.

To believe that Shakespeare was someone else requires not only snobbery and a certain obliviousness to the actual opportunities that would have been available to a person of his status, but also requires that a great number of his contemporaries, friends, rivals and business associates (Note, for example, that that Ben Jonson quote above comes from a very impassioned memorial poem to Shakespeare by one of his greatest contemporaries) were in on a conspiracy which would seem not to have been of any advantage to them.Even if the opportunity to become so worldly and sophisticated were not available generally to a person of Shakespeare's circumstances, the author of this stuff was obviously a rare genius whose capabilities outstripped normal productive possibilities. I think that such a person could have risen from even lower circumstances to achieve such things.

[bruto]

Even if the opportunity to become so worldly and sophisticated were not available generally to a person of Shakespeare's circumstances, the author of this stuff was obviously a rare genius whose capabilities outstripped normal productive possibilities. I think that such a person could have risen from even lower circumstances to achieve such things.

Hear hear.

[ruach1]

Even if the opportunity to become so worldly and sophisticated were not available generally to a person of Shakespeare's circumstances, the author of this stuff was obviously a rare genius whose capabilities outstripped normal productive possibilities.

Hear, hear, again!

The true authoship of the First Folio question pales in comparison to the overall magnificence and edifying quality of this unparalled collection of English literature/drama.

That being said, if you have the time, search the Larry King Live transcripts at cnn.com. There was an American on the show (darn, I wish I could remember his name...) who searched through all the pertinent archives in England on William Shakespeare, aka "The Great Shakemaster." He said that from what he saw, William Shakespeare the historical figure (as possibly distinct from The Great Shakemaster) was a small-minded and petty person who sued over very minor matters and was equally petty in other areas of his life. He concluded that such a man did not have the character (ih) to write such celestial poetry and encapsulate such universal themes.

Watching and hearing this was like receiving a donkey kick to the stomach. :( Then I thought about how the human race has benefitted from the Renaissnce writer, and the pain quickly subsided. :)

[ceptimus]

The works weren't written by William Shakespeare, but by a different person of the same name.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who is Shakespeare? :confused:

[Batman Jr.]

This says it all:



Someday I am going to transcribe an article I have that tears the 'true shakespeare' arguement to shreds.

Its Byron's fault: After he did his poetic stuff in the 19th century, every Victorian snot was convinced that decent historical poets had to be educated, upper-class, and tormented. The idea that a mere son of a glovemaker was able to write this wonderful stuff was abhorrent to them. So they played with lucicrous Cryptographic games (counting the words per page in a technique that makes the Bible Code look logical) until they found the hidden messages they wanted.

"Others wrote Shakespeare's stuff" people are actually revisionists trying to rewrite history to suit their modern tastes.
People also forget that George Bernard Shaw, who is considered by some to be the greatest figure in English literature since Shakespeare, dropped out of high school. Cases of exceptional autodidacts abound throughout history; I don't know why these people find it so difficult to stomach the distinct and plausible possibility that Shakespeare was largely self-taught.

[SezMe]

Hmph.
You're Bill's sock. This is the extent of what we can trust out of you on this subject. :)

[Darat]

Hear, hear, again!

The true authoship of the First Folio question pales in comparison to the overall magnificence and edifying quality of this unparalled collection of English literature/drama.

That being said, if you have the time, search the Larry King Live transcripts at cnn.com. There was an American on the show (darn, I wish I could remember his name...) who searched through all the pertinent archives in England on William Shakespeare, aka "The Great Shakemaster." He said that from what he saw, William Shakespeare the historical figure (as possibly distinct from The Great Shakemaster) was a small-minded and petty person who sued over very minor matters and was equally petty in other areas of his life. He concluded that such a man did not have the character (ih) to write such celestial poetry and encapsulate such universal themes.

Watching and hearing this was like receiving a donkey kick to the stomach. :( Then I thought about how the human race has benefitted from the Renaissnce writer, and the pain quickly subsided. :)

Well compared to Newton he seems a nice chap and Newton managed to deal with some very universal themes! Seriously what a strange idea that someone can't be a genius and still be human.

[ruach1]

What if William Shakespeare (or author of the First Folio) believed in God?

He was a man of his times.

He wrote as if he did. ("Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and god-like reason to fust in us unused." IV, 4, 36-39)

How does one reconcile a superior mind believing in God?

[SezMe]

How does one reconcile a superior mind believing in God?
Define "God".

[bruto]

Well compared to Newton he seems a nice chap and Newton managed to deal with some very universal themes! Seriously what a strange idea that someone can't be a genius and still be human.

Plenty of geniuses seem to be a little irascible, or eccentric. Anyway, although Shakespeare was litigious, and may seem to us now as petty in his pursuit of things such as a proper coat of arms, that doesn't necessarily show him as a petty man even in his personal life in the context of his time, which was one of considerable political and religious turmoil and in which matters we might consider minor with regard to social standing, connections, preferments and property could be very important for one's career, family, and even survival. Add to this that his family had suffered some pretty nasty reverses, and you might as easily see him as a sharp and ambitious businessman, looking out for his family and his troupe. He may well not have been a "nice guy," but he stayed in business and out of the Tower for a long time and managed to retire in some comfort before he died, so maybe he just did what he had to.

[ruach1]

Define "God".

Now

I tried to delete this disrespectful wisecrack

[SezMe]

..... and??

[ruach1]

Define "God".

Since you are a Graduate Poster and I am simply a new blood, I won't ask you to say please. :)

Well to begin with, the word define comes into English from the Latin meaning: to set set down limits upon, set down ends. Ergo (boy the cheap Latin refs. just keep coming...) using the word and concept of define may not be the best way to go in responding to what I think you're asking.

I have said this before, I believe that in the search for or understanding of God, we should try and primarily use an aspect of our psyche other than the intellect. For example, if one goes into the Louvre and sees the Venus DeMilo, one doesn't (normally) appreciate the statue by using pi to calculate the total area of both her breasts. That would be, well, wrong for a better word. Rather, one uses one's sense of art, beauty, creation, and the like to appreciate the classical statue.

In a similar vein, using definitions and pi or what not to define God, in my oppinion, just isn't the way to go in the search for or understanding of God. Rather, we should use another aspect of the psyche other than the intellect. What might that aspect of our psyche be? The only thing I can think of at this time is that it is the inner part of the inner being that loves at its most profound level--not love for self pleasure or survival, not love for romance or procreation--but love as the utmost action in and for the utmost reality available to the human race.

Yet as the poverty of language prohibits us from achieving a full definition, still we must talk and write about God--that is, if we are so inclined.

In Judeo-Christian theology, God revealed God's self to Moses and the ancient Hebrews. In Exodus chapter three, the author refers to God as saying: "I AM WHO AM." Some theologians have concluded that God revealed God's self as BEING. God wasn't in the mountain, in the air, in the water, in the clouds. Rather, God revealed God's self as BEING itself. Additionally, the name for God, YAHWEH is a derivative of the Hebrew word, hayah or 'to be.' Thus, in J-C theology, we can begin with our understanding of God as 'what' God is: BEING (ie Spirit).

The nature of BEING or God can be described with the word aseity. Aseity means having no limitations, and here is where the poverty of language comes into play. How can we describe aseity with language being that our minds are limited and that the very nature of language is to set down limits upon a subject(s) for the sake of communication? So therefore, in a conversation on God, we must, as the Chinese aphorism goes, not mistake the moon for the finger that is pointing at it.

Yet if we are so inclined, we can use words to help us consider God to be BEING with no limitations unto that BEINGNESS (whether God is limited in not being able to make a square circle or red blue in the physical world is a matter for another conversation...). In such considertion, imagine yourself (because you have 'being' as well) to have no limitations: no end, no beginning, no flesh, no worries, no forgetfulness, no deadlines, and so on--this may be a help in the understanding of God--if you imagine and not intellectualize. (Just my oppinion here)

Additionally, Christians believe that God somehow entered our space/time as the person commonly known as Jesus (the) Christ. The reasons staunch monotheistic Jews believed a man to be God was that they 'saw' him have power over nature, power over death, power over evil, power to forgive sins (and make people actually believe it), and power to spontaneously create matter--power they attributed only to God. With such power, with such authoritative teachings and authoritative teaching posture, and with a loving presence and personality that led him to an excrutiating, redemptive self-sacrifice and made at least one man want to lay his head on his chest during conversation, his followers eventually concluded he was Emmanuel--'God for us' incarnate.

Finally, Christians consider God, BEING, the Christ, to have the essential nature of Love. God is BEING with no limitations. God is Jesus (the) Christ-- God incarnate. God is Spiritual Love without limitations. And where the Spirit of Love is that proceeds from the person and personality of Christ, there is God also--as Holy Spirit--Spiritual Love. :)

[ruach1]

Define "God".

Since you are a Graduate Poster and I am simply a new blood, I won't ask you to say please. :)

Well to begin with, the word define comes into English from the Latin meaning: to set set down limits upon, set down ends.[I] Ergo (boy the cheap Latin refs. just keep coming...) using the word and concept of define may not be the best way to go in responding to what I think you're asking.

I have said this before, I believe that in the search for or understanding of God, we should try and primarily use an aspect of our psyche other than the intellect. For example, if one goes into the Louvre and sees the Venus DeMilo, one doesn't (normally) appreciate the statue by using pi to calculate the total area of both her breasts. That would be, well, wrong for a better word. Rather, one uses one's sense of art, beauty, creation, and the like to appreciate the classical statue.

In a similar vein, using definitions and pi to define God, in my oppinion, just isn't the way to go in the search for or understanding of God. Rather, we should use another aspect of the psyche other than the intellect. What might that aspect of our psyche be? The only thing I can think of at this time is that it is the inner part of the inner being that loves at its most profound level--not love for self pleasure or survival, not love for romance or procreation--but love as the utmost action in and for the utmost reality available to the human race.

Yet as the poverty of language prohibits us from achieving a full definition, still we must talk and write about God--that is, if we are so inclined.

In Judeo-Christian theology, God revealed God's self to Moses and the ancient Hebrews. In Exodus chapter three, the author refers to God as saying: "I AM WHO AM." Some theologians have concluded that God revealed God's self as BEING. God wasn't in the mountain, in the air, in the water, in the clouds. Rather, God revealed God's self as BEING itself. Additionally, the name for God, YAHWEH is a derivative of the Hebrew word, hayah or 'to be.' Thus, in J-C theology, we can begin with our understanding of God as 'what' God is: BEING (ie Spirit).

The nature of BEING or God can be described with the word aseity. Aseity means having no limitations, and here is where the poverty of language comes into play. How can we describe aseity with language being that our minds are limited and that the very nature of language is to set down limits upon a subject(s) for the sake of communication? So therefore, in a conversation on God, we must, as the Chinese aphorism goes, not mistake the moon for the finger that is pointing at it.

Yet if we are so inclined, we can use words to help us consider God to be BEING with no limitations unto that BEINGNESS (whether God is limited in not being able to make a square circle or red blue in the physical world is a matter for another conversation...). In such considertion, [I]imagine yourself (because you have 'being' as well) to have no limitations: no end, no beginning, no flesh, no worries, no forgetfulness, no deadlines, and so on--this may be a help in the understanding of God--if you imagine and not intellectualize. (Just my oppinion here)

Additionally, Christians believe that God somehow entered our space/time as the person commonly known as Jesus (the) Christ. The reasons staunch monotheistic Jews believed a man to be God was that they 'saw' him have power over nature, power over death, power over evil, power to forgive sins (and make people actually believe it), and power to spontaneously create matter--power they attributed only to God. With such power, with such authoritative teachings and authoritative teaching posture, and with a loving presence and personality that led him to an excrutiating, redemptive self-sacrifice and made at least one man want to lay his head on his chest during conversation, his followers eventually concluded he was Emmanuel--'God for us' incarnate.

Finally, Christians consider God, BEING, the Christ, to have the essential nature of Love. God is BEING with no limitations. God is Jesus (the) Christ-- God incarnate. God is Spiritual Love without limitations. And where the Spirit of Love is that proceeds from the person and personality of Christ, there is God also--as Holy Spirit--Spiritual Love. :)

[Czarzy]

Since you are a Graduate Poster and I am simply a new blood, I won't ask you to say please. :)

Well to begin with, the word define comes into English from the Latin meaning: to set set down limits upon, set down ends.[I] Ergo (boy the cheap Latin refs. just keep coming...) using the word and concept of define may not be the best way to go in responding to what I think you're asking.

I have said this before, I believe that in the search for or understanding of God, we should try and primarily use an aspect of our psyche other than the intellect. For example, if one goes into the Louvre and sees the Venus DeMilo, one doesn't (normally) appreciate the statue by using pi to calculate the total area of both her breasts. That would be, well, wrong for a better word. Rather, one uses one's sense of art, beauty, creation, and the like to appreciate the classical statue.

In a similar vein, using definitions and pi to define God, in my oppinion, just isn't the way to go in the search for or understanding of God. Rather, we should use another aspect of the psyche other than the intellect. What might that aspect of our psyche be? The only thing I can think of at this time is that it is the inner part of the inner being that loves at its most profound level--not love for self pleasure or survival, not love for romance or procreation--but love as the utmost action in and for the utmost reality available to the human race.

Yet as the poverty of language prohibits us from achieving a full definition, still we must talk and write about God--that is, if we are so inclined.

In Judeo-Christian theology, God revealed God's self to Moses and the ancient Hebrews. In Exodus chapter three, the author refers to God as saying: "I AM WHO AM." Some theologians have concluded that God revealed God's self as BEING. God wasn't in the mountain, in the air, in the water, in the clouds. Rather, God revealed God's self as BEING itself. Additionally, the name for God, YAHWEH is a derivative of the Hebrew word, hayah or 'to be.' Thus, in J-C theology, we can begin with our understanding of God as 'what' God is: BEING (ie Spirit).

The nature of BEING or God can be described with the word aseity. Aseity means having no limitations, and here is where the poverty of language comes into play. How can we describe aseity with language being that our minds are limited and that the very nature of language is to set down limits upon a subject(s) for the sake of communication? So therefore, in a conversation on God, we must, as the Chinese aphorism goes, not mistake the moon for the finger that is pointing at it.

Yet if we are so inclined, we can use words to help us consider God to be BEING with no limitations unto that BEINGNESS (whether God is limited in not being able to make a square circle or red blue in the physical world is a matter for another conversation...). In such considertion, [I]imagine yourself (because you have 'being' as well) to have no limitations: no end, no beginning, no flesh, no worries, no forgetfulness, no deadlines, and so on--this may be a help in the understanding of God--if you imagine and not intellectualize. (Just my oppinion here)

Additionally, Christians believe that God somehow entered our space/time as the person commonly known as Jesus (the) Christ. The reasons staunch monotheistic Jews believed a man to be God was that they 'saw' him have power over nature, power over death, power over evil, power to forgive sins (and make people actually believe it), and power to spontaneously create matter--power they attributed only to God. With such power, with such authoritative teachings and authoritative teaching posture, and with a loving presence and personality that led him to an excrutiating, redemptive self-sacrifice and made at least one man want to lay his head on his chest during conversation, his followers eventually concluded he was Emmanuel--'God for us' incarnate.

Finally, Christians consider God, BEING, the Christ, to have the essential nature of Love. God is BEING with no limitations. God is Jesus (the) Christ-- God incarnate. God is Spiritual Love without limitations. And where the Spirit of Love is that proceeds from the person and personality of Christ, there is God also--as Holy Spirit--Spiritual Love. :)


Glad you could get that off your chest.

Now, what elucidation or opinion do you have that is relevant to the topic of this thread?


Mine is opinion: conspiracy theories are mind-candy: intriguing, but are not the most parsimonious inference of conclusion due to evidence.

A human being can try to objectively imagine the heights and depths of human actions and their results and yet still act in his own life in ways that seem ultimately petty to others but that are advantageous to his own immediate survival and comforts.

All people who, in retrospect, produced opi that others can both empathize with and take inspiration from, had to deal with mundane issues in their own lives. That they dealt with them in the best manner they thought of at the time, as we all should do, does not detract from the result of their more objective works.

Yes, a cadre of playwrites could have decided to write some works not under their own names but under a common pseudonym. For what purpose would they have done so? To provide a conundrum for future generations? How altruistic of them!

Not the most logical explanation for the evidence.

[ruach1]

Czarzy
Now, what elucidation or opinion do you have that is relevant to the topic of this thread?
Good point. I tried to create a new thread with the "Shakespeare believing in God" idea, and I found I couldn't do it the way I thought. Then it just went on...

No intention to hijack here, just a mistake.
(If you would like to school me on thread starting, I'd appreciate it :confused: )

My oppinion has something to do with the first paragraph of my first post.

[ruach1]

Oh, so that's how... :)

Just didn't see it before...

[SezMe]

Since you are a Graduate Poster and I am simply a new blood, I won't ask you to say please. :)

....snip....
Finally, Christians consider God, BEING, the Christ, to have the essential nature of Love. God is BEING with no limitations. God is Jesus (the) Christ-- God incarnate. God is Spiritual Love without limitations. And where the Spirit of Love is that proceeds from the person and personality of Christ, there is God also--as Holy Spirit--Spiritual Love. :)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I didn't read it twice. :)

Rank hath no privlidge around this joint. We're all in the deep end of the pool.

I think Joseph Campbell said what you are saying when he said something like, "Myths are what we talk about what we cannot talk about."

But looking at your last paragraph and taking a such a broad, spiritual definition (oops, wrong word) meaning for god, then, coming back to the your post that started this, I see no reason why highly intellectual people, such as scientists, cannot subscribe to such a notion of god.

ETA: That Campbell quote is all effed up, but it's too late to dig it up. I think you know what he was saying.

[ruach1]

SezMe I think Joseph Campbell said what you are saying when he said something like, "Myths are what we talk about what we cannot talk about."

But looking at your last paragraph and taking a such a broad, spiritual definition (oops, wrong word) meaning for god, then, coming back to the your post that started this, I see no reason why highly intellectual people, such as scientists, cannot subscribe to such a notion of god.

ETA: That Campbell quote is all effed up, but it's too late to dig it up. I think you know what he was saying.

Myths confer to the human soul certain realities which logic and intellection cannot. This is a standard Campbellian stance, and I think it to be a universal wisdom which, I think, could ameliorate some of the "head banging against wall" I see on the Forums concerng the God issue. (I couldn't dig up the exact quote either...)

Here's one I did dig up: "...myth is the secret opening through which the inexhastible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation." "Hero with a Thousand Faces" p.3

In the God issue, I believe that in the Christ, we have such an opening through which flows one of the "inexhaustible enrgies of the cosmos," the Love of God (ie Holy Spirit). If we could somehow access this energy without lowering our standards for critical thinking, I believe we might really be on to something great. :)

[bruto]

SezMe
Myths confer to the human soul certain realities which logic and intellection cannot. This is a standard Campbellian stance, and I think it to be a universal wisdom which, I think, could ameliorate some of the "head banging against wall" I see on the Forums concerng the God issue. (I couldn't dig up the exact quote either...)

Here's one I did dig up: "...myth is the secret opening through which the inexhastible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation." "Hero with a Thousand Faces" p.3

In the God issue, I believe that in the Christ, we have such an opening through which flows one of the "inexhaustible enrgies of the cosmos," the Love of God (ie Holy Spirit). If we could somehow access this energy without lowering our standards for critical thinking, I believe we might really be on to something great. :)


An interesting perspective. I think whatever truth myths carry is usually considered to be allegorical. I don't think, for example, that Campbell believed in a historical Marduk or Thor. Most Christians would be reluctant to take that view of Christ (not that it bothers me).

[ruach1]

An interesting perspective. I think whatever truth myths carry is usually considered to be allegorical. I don't think, for example, that Campbell believed in a historical Marduk or Thor. Most Christians would be reluctant to take that view of Christ (not that it bothers me).

Thanks Bruto. Allegorical, historical whichever--if its truth, if its energy, I'll take it. The stronger, brighter, and more edifying the better. :)

(not that dark truths don't have a place) :boxedin: