Shakespeare did NOT write Shakespeare. (Mark Twain: "Is Shakespeare Dead?")

[Delight]

Alexander Waugh (grandson of Evelyn Waugh) is a researcher and this IMO is a fascinating discussion... there has been an ONGOING esoteric secret manipulation of culture.

PROOF Shakespeare Was A RESET ALIAS - Alexander Waugh

Antistratfordian Oxfordian theory: Edward De Vere was indeed Shakespeare.
Alexander Waugh channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHN7...

Video: The Incalculable Genius of John Dee: https://youtu.be/U-PWR7-0Hp4

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eojojh04Rzs

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this thread with a most excellent and concise interview of author Elizabeth Winkler by Chris Hedges of The Real News Network, who clearly knows a lot about the subject. (And so does Elizabeth Winkler!)

For anyone who's new to this topic, this is just 30 minutes long and covers almost the entire series of key questions — including how come so many scholars just will not look at the issue of who actually wrote this huge body of inspired work.

The video title is Was Shakespeare a woman? — but that's clickbait, as the conversation is about FAR more than that. Only Bacon and Marlowe are discussed as possible authors, and only in the last few minutes of the video.

And whether 'Shakespeare was a woman' isn't addressed at all. Elizabeth Winkler's book is called Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature, but that title is largely clickbait too.

For who the author really was (or the authors really were!), there's a ton of material in this Avalon thread. Some might find it academic and arcane, but the whole subject says a LOT about how human nature interferes to obstruct real scholarship — and science, too.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TmcpGENoRzs

[Bruce G Charlton]

I have only dipped-into this issue - but I usually drop-out when I realize that so many commenters don't realize how much better a writer/ poet "Shakespeare" (whoever he was) was, than anybody else alive at the time (or before, or since).

By my evaluation; there is nobody known, ever, who could have written the stuff attributed-to Shakespeare - on the basis of what we have of other writers.

If it wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford who wrote the stuff, then it surely wasn't some other writer/ poet of the era, nor any combination of writers. We are dealing with a genius whose work is beyond that of other geniuses. I think that assumption must form the basis of discussion!

This seems to me the key fact about the business; in other words, unless that fact is acknowledged - I see no reason to pay attention to the discussion.

[Satori]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
I have only dipped-into this issue - but I usually drop-out when I realize that so many commenters don't realize how much better a writer/ poet "Shakespeare" (whoever he was) was, than anybody else alive at the time (or before, or since).

By my evaluation; there is nobody known, ever, who could have written the stuff attributed-to Shakespeare - on the basis of what we have of other writers.

If it wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford who wrote the stuff, then it surely wasn't some other writer/ poet of the era, nor any combination of writers. We are dealing with a genius whose work is beyond that of other geniuses. I think that assumption must form the basis of discussion!

This seems to me the key fact about the business; in other words, unless that fact is acknowledged - I see no reason to pay attention to the discussion.

The “Shakespeare” from New Place, Stratford, was William Shakspere. That is not a misspelling. Pronounced shack-spear.

For my money, “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym or nom de plume used by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. See, e.g., Shakespeare Identified, by J. Thomas Looney and the video in post 61 above. I have and have read Looney’s book. I’m no scholar on the subject, but Looney makes a very convincing case for why de Vere was Shakespeare and why Shakspere was not.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Satori (here)
For my money, “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym or nom de plume used by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. See, e.g., Shakespeare Identified, by J. Thomas Looney and the video in post 61 above. I have and have read Looney’s book. I’m no scholar on the subject, but Looney makes a very convincing case for why de Vere was Shakespeare and why Shakspere was not.

I'm far from a scholar in this area either, but to my lay ear the case for de Vere is fairly persuasive. (But it seems it has to be possible there may have been some other authors as well, even if they merely revised some material.)

This is a compelling half-hour video laying out a small mountain of evidence suggesting that Shakespeare = de Vere. Whatever one's views, it's surely very interesting. Looney's 1920 book is referenced in some detail.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zoEqxVeV_ho

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
If it wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford who wrote the sonnets and plays, then it surely wasn't some other writer/ poet of the era, nor any combination of writers. We are dealing with a genius whose work is beyond that of other geniuses.

Bruce, many thanks — I can't possibly disagree about the level of genius involved. It does kind of boggle the mind. (I do think we should start a thread on the nature of genius, btw, and its rarity in the modern world.)

In the video I posted to which you replied, Elizabeth Winkler makes the point that 'Sratfordians' (the name given to those who hold that Shakspere from Stratford was the author) kind of wave their hands about the authorship issue and treat it as if it was some kind of mysterious but important historical text, like the Rosetta Stone, the real author forever lost in time. And therefore, the Stratfordians continue, let's focus only on the wonderful works of genius themselves and nothing else at all.

If it wasn't any well-known historical figure (de Vere, Marlowe, Bacon, or any of the others who have been proposed), then it's surely still a compelling detective story to try to discover what unknown person really did write all this marvelous work.

[Bill Ryan]

More on this. I didn't know of Elizabeth Winkler before, so I started to look for more information. Below is another 30-minute interview, in which she sparkles with humor, articulacy and intelligence. I was impressed.

She's far more interested in the phenomenon of what's become a kind of religion-which-must-not-be-challenged (and what it's like to be a heretical journalist asking questions which are taboo), than trying to make a case for any particular author, whether a woman or not. Asking if Shakespeare was a woman was just how she started her journey, so that question has become a kind of brand with which she's associated and identified.

And many Avalon readers, even if they have little curiosity about Shakespeare, might be really interested in the experience of a very smart mainstream journalist who accidentally strays into the minefield of taboo questions which are fiercely protected by academic orthodoxy. There are lessons here.

(Her excellent 2019 Atlantic article, attracting a sudden storm of controversy which shocked her, is here, and her book is here. I'm going to read it.)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4kN09LfI2NQ

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
I have only dipped-into this issue - but I usually drop-out when I realize that so many commenters don't realize how much better a writer/ poet "Shakespeare" (whoever he was) was, than anybody else alive at the time (or before, or since).

By my evaluation; there is nobody known, ever, who could have written the stuff attributed-to Shakespeare - on the basis of what we have of other writers.

If it wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford who wrote the stuff, then it surely wasn't some other writer/ poet of the era, nor any combination of writers. We are dealing with a genius whose work is beyond that of other geniuses. I think that assumption must form the basis of discussion!

This seems to me the key fact about the business; in other words, unless that fact is acknowledged - I see no reason to pay attention to the discussion.

Any language is worth its greatest poet. Any poet is worth his/her best poem.

All best poems of any greatest poets are equally good.

There are no yardsticks to measure the works of geniuses.

[Matthew]

The Shakespeare plays were spicy and there are too many. My best frame of reference isn't that it was this guy, or that guy, but it was many collaborating. Then this jumps out at me: there's a drinking house/or club, or clicky group, hosted by Shakespeare with actor/theatre buddies and they get drunk because they love beer and good company, with famous theater personalities of the time attending, and they have great banter together which is politically and/or socially spicy, somewhat taboo, but its so funny they're all playing ideas off each other as banter does, getting spicier and more smart-ass, and they have each other in hysterics. It's so much fun but a little too naughty which really propels the group. There are plays in that drunken banter and they can't help themselves but write them into plays, and see what they can get away with, playing off each other, whoever is in attendance. They might have highbrow careers in other fields so this set of plays that evolved from spicy banter is too hot for them so its published with a level of indirection. Then many of those hugely talented people mentioned could contribute, and possible many more. They are all suspects for a reason. I don't know what I'm talking about, but this idea jumps out at me more than trying to fit it into a frame of reference involving one single person. Thinking aloud. Sorry about the big paragraph but this idea is a pure fantasy and doesn't deserve good formatting.

[jaybee]

Posted by jaybee (here)
.
from Bill's post above...

The name (frequently hyphenated) was entirely based on the spear always held by Athena, the Greek Goddess of Wisdom.

When she shook her spear, the light of knowledge flashed forth, and all the darkness of ignorance fled.

This is a very fascinating subject - I watched this last night and although it's long - it held me from beginning to end - (with a little break in the middle to prevent eye strain )

I don't want to say too much about it to spoil any surprises - I don't think it's been posted in the thread before...

I was pretty much mind blown -

Let's put it like this.... together with the Bible what other books would it be impossible to get rid of completely because they are so widely disseminated ( in Western culture)....

Just on the practicalities I think the body of work is just too big for one man to have produced - and the fact that there are no manuscripts that survived is telling...

I live just a few miles away from Stratford and I wonder why it was picked to be the birthplace of Shakespeare - (if it was just picked which seems highly likely)..perhaps because it is geographically the centre of England - I think the centre is attributed to Henley-in-Arden now but it depends on how it's calculated and it's in the same general area (Warwickshire) in those days perhaps Stratford was considered to be nearest the centre....

enjoy

Cracking The Shakespeare Code (2017) Full Documentary Movie.... {2:04:36}

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XpJzi3Junuc

Hmmm don't know why the above video disappeared - but anyway.... here it is again in 3 parts...

Cracking the Shakespeare Code: The Seven Steps to Mercy - Part 1 | Free Documentary History(50:18)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3XSx72gF0NQ

14 Jul 2021
This is the amazing story of Petter Amundsen, a Norwegian organist, who believes he has deciphered a secret code hidden in Shakespeare’s first folio. The code reveals a treasure map where mythical objects are hidden. We follow Amundsen and Dr. Robert Crumpton, a sceptical historian, on their quest to discover the truth. This first episode examines the codes to be found in Shakespeare’s plays and questions who really wrote them.

In this three part series, we learn how the map functions and about the codes often hidden in Renaissance art. We discover who might have wanted to hide the treasure and how they did it and journey across the world to a tiny island in Nova Scotia in search of the treasure.

The other 2 parts...

Cracking the Shakespeare Code: The Seven Steps to Mercy - Part 2

Cracking the Shakespeare Code: The Seven Steps to Mercy - Part 3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It's a long time since I watched this documentary and in the last three years I've watched a LOT of stuff on the subject - I can't remember all the details of this particular documentary so will watch it all again very soon - I happened to see that the video was missing in my post when I was going through this thread again just now... the subject about the authorship of the Shakespeare Plays is VERY intriguing - addictive even - I've spent many happy hours getting deeper into the topic....

And it's a topic that goes deeper than deep - it will be interesting revisiting the above documentary having gone on a long journey into the subject -

Edward de Vere17th Earl of Oxford has to be the leading contender as the true author, IMO....if he didn't write every single word of it himself he was the main historical character pulling it all together... writing and/or directing the whole 'project' (plays and sonnets) there's loads of fascinating research work on the subject and at times it meanders into serious political areas --- for example there is some strong speculation that he and Queen Elizabeth the First may have had a secret child together - and there is also speculation that Edward de Vere was a big part of translating and creating the King James version of the Bible -

It's a huge and fascinating subject .... all of it....there always seems to be more to learn - its a bottomless pit of information and research...

[161803398]

I found the Complete Works of William Shakespeare in the Irish Literature section at a bookstore in Dublin.

[Satori]

Posted by Matthew (here)
The Shakespeare plays were spicy and there are too many. My best frame of reference isn't that it was this guy, or that guy, but it was many collaborating. Then this jumps out at me: there's a drinking house/or club, or clicky group, hosted by Shakespeare with actor/theatre buddies and they get drunk because they love beer and good company, with famous theater personalities of the time attending, and they have great banter together which is politically and/or socially spicy, somewhat taboo, but its so funny they're all playing ideas off each other as banter does, getting spicier and more smart-ass, and they have each other in hysterics. It's so much fun but a little too naughty which really propels the group. There are plays in that drunken banter and they can't help themselves but write them into plays, and see what they can get away with, playing off each other, whoever is in attendance. They might have highbrow careers in other fields so this set of plays that evolved from spicy banter is too hot for them so its published with a level of indirection. Then many of those hugely talented people mentioned could contribute, and possible many more. They are all suspects for a reason. I don't know what I'm talking about, but this idea jumps out at me more than trying to fit it into a frame of reference involving one single person. Thinking aloud. Sorry about the big paragraph but this idea is a pure fantasy and doesn't deserve good formatting.

That’s how SNL skits are developed. Why not Shakespeare?

[Tintin]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.
Hello, Folks: this is another conspiracy, a most interesting one that some of you may not have heard about.

Many, many, MANY researchers, historians, authors, actors and actresses profoundly suspect (and many of them are 100% certain) that William Shakespeare (the simple, everyman guy from Stratford-on-Avon) did not write the works famously attributed to him.


Here are the facts, for anyone who may not be aware:

• Shakespeare never traveled outside of England, and never learned any other language.
• He had no university education, and may not even have attended school.
• He may actually have been unable to read or write: his parents, wife, and children were all illiterate.
• Not one letter from him has ever been found, and no trace remains of any of the original manuscripts.
• In his will, he never mentions a single book or play, and appears never to have owned any books at all.
• Stratford is not mentioned once in any of his works.
• When he died, there was no celebration of the man at the time, at all.
• The only thing in his writing is a handful of wobbly signatures, that mis-spell his own name, and it seems he actually may even have had trouble holding a pen.
• Meanwhile, his plays and sonnets show a most extremely intelligent, literate, sophisticated, well-connected, well-traveled, and highly educated author, who had a massive vocabulary of 26,000 words (most people use 2,000, even today), understood Italian, French, Latin and Greek, history, medicine, law, falconry, the ways of the Royal high court, and who had clearly traveled in Italy and knew it well.

Go figure.

The most likely candidates for who really wrote the plays are (in order, maybe)

1. Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
2. Christopher Marlowe.
3. Francis Bacon.
   (many others have been proposed, too, and every one of them is more likely to have written Shakespeare than Shakespeare. )

Great fun revisiting this thread, and the facts listed above are, I'd be very certain, indisputable.

A 26,000 word vocabulary absolutely rules out one writer being responsible: I've been as certain as I can for quite some time that this really was a collective exercise, astounding in its breadth and symbolism, and meaning, with input most likely from both male and female writers of the time, and as has been mentioned really was an esoteric reset; a reimagining and reinvention of the language to export around the globe, and the resultant exertion of influence: a kind of New Language World Order which eventually all strata of society were to gain access.

I have little doubt that the names mentioned above really did contribute.

If a relatively small group of men in the late 19th century - Rhodes et-al - could shape the entire 20th century in their image, then I rather imagine it was based on some model/practice beforehand, by men of a like-mind

Francis Bacon may well have been the Director of Operations - Editor-in-Chief.



(For Bacon, see also Peter Dawkins)

[Tintin]

More on Francis Bacon here. I challenge the one writer hypothesis on the simple grounds that that is to stretch the notion of polymathism to a point that it will inevitably break; that it is fanciful, and perhaps an affront to the Divine creator - or word (Logos), and therefore, ill-logical, the Divine creator being, I would propose, the only true polymath.

***********************

Extracted from, https://sirbacon.org/knightmp.htm

WILL SHAKSPER OF STRATFORD

The claim that the Stratford legend is well-documented is a two-edged sword. In some ways the actor's uninspiring life story is too well documented. The truth is that the "documented" allusions to Shakespeare fall into two distinct categories, and need to be classified accordingly. Concrete allusions to the family affairs and business activities of the actor and money-lender are quite distinct from the more fanciful allusions to the writer of the drama. Having assumed that Will Shaksper wrote the Plays, the orthodox infer--against all the evidence--that the actor was the kind of man which the Plays themselves show that the author must have been. But the inference is necessitated only by the assumption. To claim all the eulogies intended for the author of the plays as being intended for Will Shaksper of Stratford is, clearly, to beg the whole question of the author's identity.

Shakespearean orthodoxy has become a secular creed; the wildest statements are often made in support of it and the most dubious and counterfeit relics are accepted and worshipped by the credulous. The same historical inaccuracy is employed to denounce a rival theory. It is said, with great ignorance, that Francis Bacon had no interest in the theatre; yet we find him writing masques and revels at Gray's Inn, organizing them in middle life, writing a profound study on the ethics of the theatre, the uses and abuses of "stage-plays", and commending the acting profession as a form of personal training. It is also alleged, with tedious repetition, that Bacon possessed no poetical gifts. Yet Ben Jonson compared him to Homer and Virgil, and Shelley regarded him not only as a poet, but as the greatest philosopher-poet since Plato.*

It is unfortunate that Will Shaksper seems not to have corresponded with anyone. He is not, of course, the only Elizabethan dramatist of whom this can be said, but one would have expected a great writer, who had possessed himself of the highest culture of the age in which he lived, to have taken some interest in contemporary affairs and in other great writers. Most of the writers and dramatists of that day were University men. Spenser, Watson, Harvey, Bacon, Marlowe, Nash and Greene went to Cambridge. Lyly, Lodge, Peele, *Bodley and others went to Oxford. Ben Jonson was educated at Westminster School; Lord Oxford had private tutors and later studied at Gray's Inn.

*************

(Tintin note:*Bodley, after whom the Bodleian Library in Oxford is named was an intelligence agent/officer (modern equivalent of MI-6) whose work would often take him abroad.)

**************

More, here:

The Promus of Formularies and Elegancies, is now in the British Museum. Bacon's handwriting is shown here in half scale facsimile. Note the date. Many of Bacon's "gags" appeared verbatim or closely paralleled in Shake-speare, at a later date.

The Promus

[jaybee]

Posted by Tintin (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.

{snipped}

The most likely candidates for who really wrote the plays are (in order, maybe)

1. Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
2. Christopher Marlowe.
3. Francis Bacon.
   (many others have been proposed, too, and every one of them is more likely to have written Shakespeare than Shakespeare. )

Great fun revisiting this thread, and the facts listed above are, I'd be very certain, indisputable.

A 26,000 word vocabulary absolutely rules out one writer being responsible: I've been as certain as I can for quite some time that this really was a collective exercise, astounding in its breadth and symbolism, and meaning, with input most likely from both male and female writers of the time, and as has been mentioned really was an esoteric reset; a reimagining and reinvention of the language to export around the globe, and the resultant exertion of influence: a kind of New Language World Order which eventually all strata of society were to gain access.

I have little doubt that the names mentioned above really did contribute.

You said..."Great fun revisiting this thread......."..............yes the whole Shakespeare Authorship question is like a 400 year old Soap Opera isn't it... .... larger than life characters - twists and turns in dramatic plot lines - arguments - mystery - intrigue - (etc...)

I enjoy the 'Blue Boar Tavern' discussions and this one has a good old gossip about Marlowe and Bacon -

Marlowe, a creative adventurous young man .... and spy...who may (or may not) have met a sticky end stabbed through the eye in a dispute about settling a bill in a tavern...

Bacon... an enthusiastic Big Thinking professor type - aspiring scientist who through lack of funding then went to make a name for himself as a lawyer...


The video is a presentation by the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship so they are all basically in the 'data strongly points to Edward de Vere'... camp.... (or a collaboration where de Vere is the dominant character -) but who knows Bacon and Marlowe could have been dominant players in the real life drama as well.... the whole endevour - the Plays and Sonnets and involvement in the production of the King James Bible....was a HUGE project - more than likely with a hidden agenda + involving secret codes and cyphers and whatnot ............ as a Block Buster Soap Opera it has it all....


Christopher Marlowe and Francis Bacon: Who Are Those Guys? at the Blue Boar Tavern(1:01:24)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8NIhPE_74ao

20 Jun 2024
Who Are Those Guys: Marlowe and Bacon, and Was One of Them Shakespeare?

Blue Boar Tavern regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, Phoebe Nir and special guest bartender Tom Woosnam discuss two more fascinating Elizabethan personalities as part of the series “Who Are Those Guys?”

Playwright and spy Christopher Marlowe lived large swaths of his life deeply hidden in the shadows. His dissolute reputation as a “rakehell” was matched only by his shining reputation as one of the greatest dramatists in Elizabethan London. His mysterious and violent death in 1593 has raised questions ever since.

Francis Bacon, philosopher, lawyer and statesman, is considered today to be one of the founders of the scientific method of inquiry. He climbed to the height of political power under King James but suffered an irretrievable fall from grace in 1621.

Get to know these accomplished men, both who have been put forth by their supporters as the hidden face behind the pseudonym “William Shakespeare.”

[Michel Leclerc]

Exceedingly interesting. I miss the Italian lady scholar as a potential writer.. (Nonetheless I may be forgiven my conviction that the author of the Sonnets was a man.. ..and that the author of the plays was the author of the Sonnets...)..

Bill (thank you for bringing up this vast subject!), I would like to ask you: what did/do you mean when calling “Shake-speare”'s endeavour “an esoteric reset”? Could you elaborate that statement a little?

[Michel Leclerc]

Sorry Bill, sorry Tintin.

I have just understood that this statement was yours, Tintin.

Could you develop your thought a little? "Esoteric”, yes, I would say, as all great art is.. but then: "reset" – ?