10 reasons

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 17308
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

The Astronomy of Shakespeare

Post by bystander » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:20 pm

Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Woozle effect

Post by neufer » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:43 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect wrote:
<<Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation, or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and nonfacts become urban myths and factoids. Woozle effect is a term coined by Beverly Houghton in 1979. It describes a pattern of bias seen within social sciences and which is identified as leading to multiple errors in individual and public perception, academia, policy making and government. A woozle is also a claim made about research which is not supported by original findings. Woozle is the name of an imaginary character in the A.A. Milne book, Winnie-the-Pooh, published 1926. In chapter three, "In Which Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle", Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet start following tracks left in snow believing they are the tracks of a Woozle. The tracks keep multiplying. Christopher Robin then explains that they have been following their own tracks around a tree.

A woozle effect, or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and non-facts become urban myths and factoids. The creation of woozles is often linked to the changing of language from qualified ("it may", "it might", "it could") to absolute form ("it is") firming up language and introducing ideas and views not held by an original author or supported by evidence. Selection of data and design of research instruments to gather raw data are linked to the creation of the Woozle effect on many fields of study.

The woozle effect is seen as an example of confirmation bias and linked to belief perseverance. Due to the nature of social sciences, where empirical evidence can be based more upon subjects' experiential report than absolute measure, there can be a tendency for researchers to align evidence with expectation. Social sciences are also seen as more likely to align with contemporary views and ideals of social justice, leading to bias towards those ideals and use of evidence to prove them. Woozles have also been linked to groupthink, where social conformity within a group's accepted paradigm leads to the simplification, alteration and even deliberate ignoring of data which does not support the groupthink.

The terms woozle and woozle effect are most frequently cited and used in the field of interpersonal violence (IPV) and domestic violence. Other academic papers and publications have used the woozle as a motif and to show the presence of the woozle effect in many areas, such as school management, nursing and gerentology, developmental psychology and public sector - governmental decision making.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:50 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:45 pm

After reading through these posts about "10 Reason..." I feel like the guy on the blanket in the "Powers of Ten" video and the rest of you are out in the local group of galaxies. But the best thing about this site is we all can post despite what little we know and present our views none the less.

I'm curious about why it matters? I know much less about Shakespeare than I do about astronomy and that might put my astronomy somewhere in the breathable regions of the atmosphere in my comparison. For all I know, some person or group may have randomly chosen the actual person Shakespeare as a pen-person to receive the credit for this wonderful body on literature. Arguing whether it was him or another seems a bit trivial but, never-the-less, interesting and mind provoking.

One thing is for sure. Art will never be mistaken as a fictitious person. All who read through your many posts will know you as a truly amazing person of knowledge and will wonder how you keep up with all the interesting items you leave to educate and amuse us. Thanks so very much. :!: Ron
Make Mars not Wars

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: 10 reasons

Post by rstevenson » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:23 am

No Ron, I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. Shakespeare was one humble playwright, while Art is a committee, obviously.

Rob

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:56 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
I'm curious about why it matters? I know much less about Shakespeare than I do about astronomy and that might put my astronomy somewhere in the breathable regions of the atmosphere in my comparison. For all I know, some person or group may have randomly chosen the actual person Shakespeare as a pen-person to receive the credit for this wonderful body on literature. Arguing whether it was him or another seems a bit trivial but, never-the-less, interesting and mind provoking.
And there is certainly nothing wrong with something being interesting & mind provoking.
My goal is to make all my posts (i.e., both the serious & non-serious) as interesting & mind provoking as possible.

As for why it matters:
  • 1) Truth & free expression are fundamentally important (especially in academia).

    2) History & legend must be separated as much as possible.

    3) Having a bisexual nobleman (or noblewoman) as Shake-speare is probably much less "off-putting"
    to most people these days than having a uneducated flawed commoner as Shake-speare.

    4) One can never fully appreciate literature until one understands where the author is coming from.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Appreciating a rose on many different levels
One can appreciate Shake-speare on may different levels just as Richard Feynman can appreciate a rose on many different levels:

1) One can attend a Shake-speare play and simply let the energy of the actors and the beauty of the language wash over one.

2) One can read Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare to understand:
  • a) the dramatic story
    b) the time & place background
    c) the archaic language
    d) the 16th century allusions
3) One can read a plethora of books (Dewey Decimal: 822.33) about how Shake-speare reveals the nature of man.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimatedly, however, one can never fully appreciate these plays without the understanding that they were written of nobles, by nobles and for nobles and that many of the quaint cryptic remarks were inside jokes that may never be fully deciphered:
------------------------------------------------------------------
  • The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 1, Scene 1
SIMPLE: Book of Riddles! why, did you not lend it to Alice Shortcake
  • upon All-hallowmas last, a fortnight afore Michaelmas?
----------------------------------------------------------
To make any headway at this elevated level of understanding one must read anti-Stratfordian books like:

THIS STAR OF ENGLAND, "William Shakes-speare", Man of the Renaissance

Anti-Stratfordian studies can only add to our appreciation of Shakes-speare, they can never detract.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
emc
Equine Locutionist
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Canton, GA, USA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by emc » Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:54 pm

Thank you for all your posts neufer, especially this one.

What I gleaned… Don’t be satisfied with what I know.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:13 am

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
MargaritaMc
Look to the Evenstar
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Location: 28°16'7"N 16°36'20"W

Re: 10 reasons

Post by MargaritaMc » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:28 pm

WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE?
BY ERIC IDLE*
NOVEMBER 21, 2011


The New Yorker
While it is perfectly obvious to everyone that Ben Jonson wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays, it is less known that Ben Jonson’s plays were written by a teen-age girl in Sunderland, who mysteriously disappeared, leaving no trace of her existence, which is clear proof that she wrote them. The plays of Marlowe were actually written by a chambermaid named Marlene, who faked her own orgasm, and then her own death in a Deptford tavern brawl. Queen Elizabeth, who was obviously a man, conspired to have Shakespeare named as the author of his plays, because how could a man who had only a grammar-school education and spoke Latin and a little Greek possibly have written something as bad as “All’s Well That Ends Well”? It makes no sense. It was obviously an upper-class twit who wished to disguise his identity so that Vanessa Redgrave could get a job in her old age.

Many people believe that Richard III not only was a good man who would never hurt a fly but actually wrote “She Stoops to Conquer,” and that the so-called author, Oliver Goldsmith, found the play under a tree in 1773 while visiting Bosworth Field, now a multistory car park (clearly an attempt to cover up the evidence of the ruse). Oscar Wilde’s plays were written by a stable boy named Simon, though Wilde gave them both a good polish. Chaucer was written by a Frenchman on holiday, while Simone de Beauvoir wrote all of Balzac and a good deal of “Les Misérables,” despite the fact that she was not yet born when she did so. Beau Brummell wrote nearly all of Jane Austen, and two men and a cat wrote most of Charles Dickens, with the exception of “A Tale of Two Cities,” which Napoleon wrote while visiting St. Helena. Incidentally, Napoleon was not Napoleon but a man named Trevor Francis, who later turned up playing for Birmingham City.

Thomas Jefferson produced the Declaration with the aid of a ghostwriter, a woman of color named Betty Mae, who was a non-voluntary worker. “Moby-Dick” was written not by Herman Melville but by Herman Melbrooks, who wrote most of it in Yiddish on the boat over from Coney Island. “The Shorter Pepys,” a Penguin paperback, was actually written by the taller Pepys, a man named Doris Pepys, who was no relation but worked as a candle cleaner in Wapping (home of the Liar). Henry James did write all of his own works, because nobody else could be that boring, and, more significant, no one else has ever bothered to claim them.

Mere lack of evidence, of course, is no reason to denounce a theory. Look at intelligent design. The fact that it is bollocks hasn’t stopped a good many people from believing in it. Darwinism itself is only supported by tons of evidence, which is a clear indication that Darwin didn’t write his books himself. They were most likely written by Jack the Ripper, who was probably King Edward VII, since all evidence concerning this has been destroyed.

Paranoia? Of course not. It’s alternative scholarship. What’s wrong with teaching alternative theories in our schools? What are liberals so afraid of? Can’t children make up their own minds about things like killing and carrying automatic weapons on the playground? Bush was right: no child left unarmed. Why this dictatorial approach to learning, anyway? What gives teachers the right to say what things are? Who’s to say that flat-earthers are wrong? Or that the Church wasn’t right to silence Galileo, with his absurd theory (actually written by his proctologist) that the earth moves around the sun. Citing “evidence” is so snobbish and élitist. I think we all know what lawyers can do with evidence. Look at Shakespeare. Poor bloke. Wrote thirty-seven plays, none of them his. 
*( Most likely Michael Palin, really )
Just to stir the pot a little more with this Pythonesque take on the theme...
"In those rare moments of total quiet with a dark sky, I again feel the awe that struck me as a child. The feeling is utterly overwhelming as my mind races out across the stars. I feel peaceful and serene."
&mdash; Dr Debra M. Elmegreen, Fellow of the AAAS

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:42 pm

MargaritaMc wrote:
[b] The New Yorker [/b] wrote:WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE?
BY ERIC IDLE*
NOVEMBER 21, 2011

................................
* (Most likely Michael Palin, really.)
Just to stir the pot a little more with this Pythonesque take on the theme...
---------------------------------------------------------
Don Quixote by Cervantes - THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE

IDLE* reader: thou mayest believe me without any oath that I would this book, as it is the child of my brain, were the fairest, gayest, and clEVERest that could be imagined. But I could not counteract Nature's law that EVERything shall beget its like; and what, then, could this sterile, illtilled wit of mine beget but the story of a dry, shrivelled, whimsical offspring, full of thoughts of all sorts and such as nEVER came into any other imagination — just what might be begotten in a prison, where EVERy misery is lodged and EVERy doleful sound makes its dwelling?
--------------------------------------------------------------
* (Most likely Sarah Palin, really.)
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
MargaritaMc
Look to the Evenstar
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Location: 28°16'7"N 16°36'20"W

Re: 10 reasons

Post by MargaritaMc » Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:41 pm

:clap: :clap:
could this sterile, illtilled wit of mine beget but the story of a dry, shrivelled, whimsical offspring,
mirth.jpg
:lol2: :lol2:
"In those rare moments of total quiet with a dark sky, I again feel the awe that struck me as a child. The feeling is utterly overwhelming as my mind races out across the stars. I feel peaceful and serene."
&mdash; Dr Debra M. Elmegreen, Fellow of the AAAS

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:23 pm

Art - You picked two of my most favorite people to answer my question. As a better visual/audio learner, it is so fun to listen to the video clips of Richard Feynman to get a sense of the man he turned out to be. I often wish I could appreciate Isaac Asimov in a similar manner. Perhaps I could do two things at once; learn more about Shakespeare and Asimov by reading your recommendation. Maybe three things at once; become a better reader too. Appreciate your reply :!: Ron
Make Mars not Wars

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 17308
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

PhD: Searching for Shakespeare

Post by bystander » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:28 pm

Image Searching for Shakespeare

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:43 am

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Sir Walter Raleigh (c. 1554 – 29 October 1618)
  • The Lie
Go, Soul, the body's guest,
Upon a thankless errand;
Fear not to touch the best;
The truth shall be thy warrant:
Go, since I needs must die,
And give the world the lie.

...........................................
Tell faith it's fled the city;
Tell how the country erreth;
Tell manhood SHAKES off pity
And virtue least preferreth:
And if they do reply,
Spare not to give the lie.

So when thou hast, as I
Commanded thee, done blabbing--
Although to give the lie
Deserves no less than stabbing--
Stab at thee he that WILL,
No stab the soul can kill.

----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
MargaritaMc
Look to the Evenstar
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Location: 28°16'7"N 16°36'20"W

Re: 10 reasons

Post by MargaritaMc » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:21 pm

SONNET 135 (author?)

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy 'Will,'
And 'Will' to boot, and 'Will' in overplus;
More than enough am I that vex thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea all water, yet receives rain still
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou, being rich in 'Will,' add to thy 'Will'
One will of mine, to make thy large 'Will' more.
Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;
Think all but one, and me in that one 'Will.'
"In those rare moments of total quiet with a dark sky, I again feel the awe that struck me as a child. The feeling is utterly overwhelming as my mind races out across the stars. I feel peaceful and serene."
&mdash; Dr Debra M. Elmegreen, Fellow of the AAAS

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:53 pm

MargaritaMc wrote:
SONNET 135 (author?)

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy 'Will,'
And 'Will' to boot, and 'Will' in overplus;
More than enough am I that vex thee still,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorificabilitudinitatibus wrote:
<<Honorificabilitudinitatibus is the dative and ablative plural of the mediæval Latin word honorificabilitudinitas, which can be translated as: "the state of being able to achieve honours".

Honorificabilitudo appears in a Latin charter of 1187, and occurs as honorificabilitudinitas in 1300. Dante cites honorificabilitudinitate
as a typical example of a long word in De Vulgari Eloquentia II. vii. It also occurs in the works of Rabelais and in The Complaynt of
Scotland (1549). The year after the publication of Love's Labours Lost it is used by Thomas Nashe in his 1599 pamphlet Nashe’s Lenten Stuff:
"Physicians deafen our ears with the Honorificabilitudinitatibus of their heavenly Panacaea, their sovereign Guiacum", referring to the
exotic medicinal plant Guaiacum, the name of which was also "exotic", being the first Native American word imported into the English
language. The word also appears in Marston's Dutch Courtezan (1605)

James Joyce also used this word in his mammoth novel Ulysses, during the Scylla and Charybdis episode when Stephen Dedalus articulates his
interpretation of Hamlet:

STEPHEN (Stringendo.) He has hidden his own name, a fair name, William, in the plays, a super here, a clown there, as a painter of old Italy set his face in a dark corner of his canvas. He has REVEalED it in the sonnets where there is Will in overplus. Like John O'Gaunt his name is dear to him, as dear as the coat of arms he toadied for, on a bend sable a spear or steeled argent, honorificabilitudinitatibus, dearer than his glory of greatest shakescene in the country. What's in a name? That is what we ask ourselves in childhood when we write the name that we are told is ours. A star, a daystar, a firedrake rose at his birth. It shone by day in the heavens alone, brighter than Venus in the night, and by night it shone over delta in Cassiopeia, the recumbent constellation which is the signature of his initial among the stars. His eyes watched it, lowlying on the horizon, eastward of the bear, as he walked by the slumberous summer fields at midnight, returning from Shottery and from her arms.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Isaac Hull in the Conservator (1897):
.
___ *H[ONO](r)i(F)i[CAB]ilitudinitatibus* - Love's Labours Lost
___ *Hi ludi, tuiti sibi, F[r. BACONO] nati*

.
*These plays entrusted to themselves proceeded from Fr. Bacon*
.........................................................
Northumberland Manuscript:
.
___ *H[ONO](r)i(F)i[CAB]ilitudino*
___ *Initio hi ludi F[r. BACONO]*
---------------------------------------------------
___ Chapter 9 James Joyce's Ulysses (1922)
http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/scylla.html
.................................................
And sir William Davenant of *Oxford's mother* with her cup of
ca{n}ary f<O>r a[N]y {c}[O]ck[C]{a}n[A]ry. <B>uck Mulligan,

......................

Code: Select all

. <O> -r -a
_ [N] -y {c}
_ [O] -c -k
_ [C] {a} n
_ [A] -r -y
. <B> -u -c
-k Mulligan,

[BACONO] Skip -3
......................

Code: Select all

_ {n} -a -r -y -f
. <O> -r -a [N] y
_ {c} [O] c -k [C]
_ {a} -n [A] r -y
. <B> -u -c -k -M
- ulligan

*BacOn* Skip -5
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
MargaritaMc
Look to the Evenstar
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Location: 28°16'7"N 16°36'20"W

Re: 10 reasons

Post by MargaritaMc » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:11 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorifica ... initatibus
The word has been used by adherents of the Baconian theory—who believe Shakespeare's plays were written in steganographic cypher by Francis Bacon. In 1905 Isaac Hull Platt argued that it was an anagram for hi ludi, F. Baconis nati, tuiti orbi, Latin for "these plays, F. Bacon's offspring, are preserved for the world".[3] His argument was given wide circulation by Edwin Durning-Lawrence in 1910, complete with an absurd cryptonumerical attempt to prove it justified. [4] The anagram assumes that Bacon would have Latinized his name as "Baco" (the genitive case of which is "Baconis") rather than as "Baconus" (the genitive of which would be "Baconi"). Samuel Schoenbaum argues that Bacon would have Latinized his name as "Baconus", with genitive "Baconi".[5]

It is far from the only possible anagram. John Sladek noted in the 1970s that the word could also be anagrammatized as I, B. Ionsonii, uurit [writ] a lift'd batch, thus "proving" that Shakespeare's works were written by Ben Jonson. (The two "u"s, rendered as "v"s in the original literation, are put together to form - literally - "a double u" (w), as was common practice in Shakespeare's day.)[6][7] In 2012, a columnist writing on the English language in the Calcutta 'Telegraph', Stephen Hugh-Jones, mocked it with the deliberately anachronistic "If I built it in, is author ID Bacon?", attributing this to a derisive William Shakespeare; and counter-"proved" that Shakespeare wrote Bacon by converting the latter's famous opening phrase "What is truth, said jesting Pilate..." into "Truth? A lasting jape. Hide it. WS".
Sonnet 136
If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy Will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love, my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
Will, will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store's account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
   Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
   And then thou lovest me for my name is 'Will.'
"In those rare moments of total quiet with a dark sky, I again feel the awe that struck me as a child. The feeling is utterly overwhelming as my mind races out across the stars. I feel peaceful and serene."
&mdash; Dr Debra M. Elmegreen, Fellow of the AAAS

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:27 pm

MargaritaMc wrote:
Sonnet 136
If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy Will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love, my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
Will, will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store's account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
   Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
   And then thou lovest me for my name is 'Will.'
And give the world the lie.
.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
MargaritaMc
Look to the Evenstar
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Location: 28°16'7"N 16°36'20"W

Re: 10 reasons

Post by MargaritaMc » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:30 pm

A PS.
The story so far
Image
Possible candidates for writing "Shakespeare"
The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. Anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories—say that Shakespeare of Stratford was a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for some reason did not want or could not accept public credit. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims.

Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread. Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius, arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him. The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature, and 80 authorship candidates have been proposed,including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford.

Supporters of alternative candidates argue that theirs is the more plausible author, and that William Shakespeare lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court that they say is apparent in the works. Those Shakespeare scholars who have responded to such claims hold that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable in attributing authorship, and that the convergence of documentary evidence used to support Shakespeare's authorship—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—is the same used for all other authorial attributions of his era. No such direct evidence exists for any other candidate, and Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.

Despite the scholarly consensus, a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including prominent public figures, have questioned the conventional attribution. They work for acknowledgment of the authorship question as a legitimate field of scholarly inquiry and for acceptance of one or another of the various authorship candidates.
Margarita
"In those rare moments of total quiet with a dark sky, I again feel the awe that struck me as a child. The feeling is utterly overwhelming as my mind races out across the stars. I feel peaceful and serene."
&mdash; Dr Debra M. Elmegreen, Fellow of the AAAS

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:24 pm

MargaritaMc [b]([color=#FF00FF]CATiline ¶[/color])[/b] wrote:
Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned
during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.
Shakspere of Stratford's authorship was
NEVER even suggested during his lifetime.
(It was "suggested" but NEVER stated in the 1623 Folio.)

This Shadowe is renowned Shakespear’s :?: Soul of the age
The applause :?: delight :?: the wonder of the Stage.
Nature herself, was proud of his designs
{A}nd joy’d to wear the dressing of his lines,
{T}he learned will Confess, his works are such,
{A}s neither man, nor Muse, can praise too much.
{F}or E.VER(e) live thy fame, the world to tell,
Thy like, no age, shall E.VER(e) parallel.
- 1640

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1609: http://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anagrammata in Nomina Illustrissimorum Heroum (1603)
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/text.html
.............................................
____ *EDOUARUS VEI(e)RUS*
_____ per anagramma
____ *AURE SURDUS VI(d)EO*
.
Auribus hisce licet studio, Fortuna, susurros
PErfidiae et technas efficis esse procul,
. Attamen accipio (quae mens horrescit et auris)
. Rebus facta malis corpora surda tenus.
. Imo etiam cerno CATiline ¶ fraude propinquos
. Funere solventes {FATA} aliena suo.
.............................................
_______ *EDWARD VERE*
______ by an anagram
____ *DEAF IN MY EAR, I SEE*
.
Though by your zeal, FORTUNE, you keep perfidy's
murmurs & schemings at a distance, nonetheless I learn
(at which my mind & ear quake) that our bodies have
been deafened with respect to evil affairs. Indeed,
I perceive men who come close to CATiline ¶ in deception,
freeing other men's {FATES} by their death.
.
CATiline was the rabble-rouser suppressed by Cicero.
His name became a watchword for incendiary troublemakers.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 8939
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:52 pm

It is probably not so wise to "wake up" this thread, but... yesterday I was in Lavenham, England, which is an adorable village full of 15th and 16th century half-timbered houses. One of these wounderful buildings had the name De Vere on its front door, would you believe it? And yes, it turned out that this particular house was owned by THE De Vere family. I suggested that there might be something slightly Shakespearian about the whole thing, but our guide frowned!

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:54 pm

The guide frowned at Shakespeare :?: UH-OH :!:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 8939
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:45 pm

Here is the house. Most elegant. Note the small door cut into the large door - you can see it better here. Our guide said that this was a common thing in Lavenham. You used the smaller door for your everyday business and the large door for bringing in - if I remember correctly - donkeys laden with wool! Yes, because Lavenham was a town where wool was turned into cloth.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:09 pm

Ann wrote:Here is the house. Most elegant. Note the small door cut into the large door - you can see it better here. Our guide said that this was a common thing in Lavenham. You used the smaller door for your everyday business and the large door for bringing in - if I remember correctly - donkeys laden with wool! Yes, because Lavenham was a town where wool was turned into cloth.

Ann
I have the 3-foot wide(36inches) singular unladen donkey doors in my place. :yes: :lol2:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15216
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:33 am

Art Neuendorffer