5 ms·

They don't speculate how the lowly Shakespeare could have got access to a courtier's unpublished manuscript.

bokononon 9y ago
It's easy to work out (that Shakespeare was possibly in touch with Thomas North, or they were only one bounce apart): > Mr. McCarthy focused on Thomas North, a translator of Plutarch’s “Lives,” whom Shakespeare relied on heavily for his dramas. ... > Mr. McCarthy found a reference to the manuscript by George North, a likely cousin of Thomas...
mysterypie 9y ago
Though I'm sure you're aware of this, I'll mention for others the theory that Shakespeare was actually Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford[1], and therefore there would be no mystery about how he could have access. The commonly accepted William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon allowed his children to grow up illiterate (this is not a disputed fact); for someone who valued the English language so much, that seems unimaginable. For many reasons, I find the Edward de Vere theory[2] much more plausible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere%2C_17th_Earl_of_Oxford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere%2C_17th_Earl_of... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespear...
- jamesmiller5 9y ago
  I'm personally a fan of the Sir Francis Bacon theory, which I was introduced to from "The secret of Psalm 46"[1] while playing The Witness . [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFNbeeDILB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFNbeeDILB0
- a_olpimo 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_questio...
- pcnix 9y ago
  I was not aware there were theories about Shakespeare's identity. This is very interesting, thanks.
  - olavk 9y ago
    There are a bunch of theories. They are a kind of gentlemen-conspiracy theories. The phenomenon is basically founded in English class-snobbery: To some it is simply inconceivable that the son of a craftsman should be the greatest writer in the English language. So they concoct theories to prove the plays were actually written by some Lord or Earl or other person of better breeding and William Shakespeare, the commoner, was just a strawman or fake identity.
    - bloak 9y ago
      Oh, no, not that old chestnut: anyone who questions the Stratfordian theory is a snob and therefore wrong! John Michell's book, "Who wrote Shakespeare?", is a great read: fun and informative. He doesn't argue for a particular answer to the question (which would have made the book much less fun), but the facts that he present do rather tend to support the idea that "Shakespeare" is likely to have been a closely-knit group of writers, with the actor from Avon being their front man and probably also a contributor, though we can hardly hope to ever know what exactly he contributed. An interesting thing to ponder is why several fairly bad works were published under the "Shakespeare" name. Stratfordians say that those works weren't actually by Shakespeare (though if the contemporary attribution is not to be trusted why should we trust it in the case of the better works?) or that they were early works (even though some of them were first published later than the more famous ones). It would be great if more people could accept the idea that several people can contribute to the writing of a play, just as several people can contribute to the writing of a novel (as in many well-known cases) or a film (as in almost every case).
      - EliRivers 9y ago
        It would be great if more people could accept the idea that several people can contribute to the writing of a play I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say such a thing is impossible.
- philipwhiuk 9y ago
  Except for the fact that de Vere was dead before 12 of Shakespeare's plays were published it's a great theory ...
- rendall 9y ago
  The question of his identity has been settled. "In 1601, after his father’s death, Shakespeare the upstart returned to the college of arms to renew the family application for a coat of arms. He had made a small fortune in the theatre, and was buying property in and around Stratford. Now he set out to consolidate his reputation as a “Gentleman”. Under the rules that governed life at the court of Elizabeth I, only the Queen’s heralds could grant this wish. "It’s at this point in the story that Wolfe discovered “the smoking gun”. In the Brooke-Dethick feud, it becomes clear that “Shakespeare, Gent. from Stratford” and “Shakespeare the Player” are the same man. In other words, “the man from Stratford” is indeed the playwright. Crucially, in the long-running “authorship” debate, this has been a fiercely contested point. But Wolfe’s research nails any lingering ambiguity in which the Shakespeare deniers can take refuge." https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jan/08/sherlock-holmes-of-the-library-cracks-shakespeare-identity https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jan/08/sherlock-hol...
  - infradig 9y ago
    You are confusing Shakespeare the author of the plays with Shakespeare the actor and producer and theatre manager. No one I believe disputes the latter.
    - rendall 9y ago
      Shakespeare the author of the plays is one and the same with the actor and producer and theater manager, per the article.
  - Norumbega 9y ago
    But there are plays with Shakespeare's name on them published during Shakespeare's lifetime for which Stratfordian scholars deny authenticity (Bad Quarto of Hamlet, etc.) Showing that the gentleman from Stratford and the Shakespeare of the theater company were the same person, falsifies some alternative theories, but certainly not all - so "settled" and nailing "any lingering ambiguity" are exaggerations.
infradig 9y ago
I'm a fan of the Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare theory. Neville was also a diplomat and could well have known North. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespe...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

It's easy to work out (that Shakespeare was possibly in touch with Thomas North, or they were only one bounce apart): > Mr. McCarthy focused on Thomas North, a translator of Plutarch’s “Lives,” whom Shakespeare relied on heavily for his dramas. ... > Mr. McCarthy found a reference to the manuscript by George North, a likely cousin of Thomas...

mysterypie 9y ago

Though I'm sure you're aware of this, I'll mention for others the theory that Shakespeare was actually Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford[1], and therefore there would be no mystery about how he could have access. The commonly accepted William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon allowed his children to grow up illiterate (this is not a disputed fact); for someone who valued the English language so much, that seems unimaginable. For many reasons, I find the Edward de Vere theory[2] much more plausible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere%2C_17th_Earl_of_Oxford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere%2C_17th_Earl_of... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespear...

jamesmiller5 9y ago
I'm personally a fan of the Sir Francis Bacon theory, which I was introduced to from "The secret of Psalm 46"[1] while playing The Witness . [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFNbeeDILB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFNbeeDILB0
a_olpimo 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_questio...
pcnix 9y ago
I was not aware there were theories about Shakespeare's identity. This is very interesting, thanks.
- olavk 9y ago
  There are a bunch of theories. They are a kind of gentlemen-conspiracy theories. The phenomenon is basically founded in English class-snobbery: To some it is simply inconceivable that the son of a craftsman should be the greatest writer in the English language. So they concoct theories to prove the plays were actually written by some Lord or Earl or other person of better breeding and William Shakespeare, the commoner, was just a strawman or fake identity.
  - bloak 9y ago
    Oh, no, not that old chestnut: anyone who questions the Stratfordian theory is a snob and therefore wrong! John Michell's book, "Who wrote Shakespeare?", is a great read: fun and informative. He doesn't argue for a particular answer to the question (which would have made the book much less fun), but the facts that he present do rather tend to support the idea that "Shakespeare" is likely to have been a closely-knit group of writers, with the actor from Avon being their front man and probably also a contributor, though we can hardly hope to ever know what exactly he contributed. An interesting thing to ponder is why several fairly bad works were published under the "Shakespeare" name. Stratfordians say that those works weren't actually by Shakespeare (though if the contemporary attribution is not to be trusted why should we trust it in the case of the better works?) or that they were early works (even though some of them were first published later than the more famous ones). It would be great if more people could accept the idea that several people can contribute to the writing of a play, just as several people can contribute to the writing of a novel (as in many well-known cases) or a film (as in almost every case).
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      It would be great if more people could accept the idea that several people can contribute to the writing of a play I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say such a thing is impossible.
philipwhiuk 9y ago
Except for the fact that de Vere was dead before 12 of Shakespeare's plays were published it's a great theory ...
rendall 9y ago
The question of his identity has been settled. "In 1601, after his father’s death, Shakespeare the upstart returned to the college of arms to renew the family application for a coat of arms. He had made a small fortune in the theatre, and was buying property in and around Stratford. Now he set out to consolidate his reputation as a “Gentleman”. Under the rules that governed life at the court of Elizabeth I, only the Queen’s heralds could grant this wish. "It’s at this point in the story that Wolfe discovered “the smoking gun”. In the Brooke-Dethick feud, it becomes clear that “Shakespeare, Gent. from Stratford” and “Shakespeare the Player” are the same man. In other words, “the man from Stratford” is indeed the playwright. Crucially, in the long-running “authorship” debate, this has been a fiercely contested point. But Wolfe’s research nails any lingering ambiguity in which the Shakespeare deniers can take refuge." https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jan/08/sherlock-holmes-of-the-library-cracks-shakespeare-identity https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jan/08/sherlock-hol...
- infradig 9y ago
  You are confusing Shakespeare the author of the plays with Shakespeare the actor and producer and theatre manager. No one I believe disputes the latter.
  - rendall 9y ago
    Shakespeare the author of the plays is one and the same with the actor and producer and theater manager, per the article.
- Norumbega 9y ago
  But there are plays with Shakespeare's name on them published during Shakespeare's lifetime for which Stratfordian scholars deny authenticity (Bad Quarto of Hamlet, etc.) Showing that the gentleman from Stratford and the Shakespeare of the theater company were the same person, falsifies some alternative theories, but certainly not all - so "settled" and nailing "any lingering ambiguity" are exaggerations.

infradig 9y ago

I'm a fan of the Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare theory. Neville was also a diplomat and could well have known North. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespe...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]