StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The debate revolves around a couple of issues. Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education. The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

But as the Yahoo! article points out, Shakespeare detractors are in fairly good company; Mark Twain, Orson Welles, and Charlie Chaplin are among the skeptics that believe we have the true playwright of so many works wrong. Although to me personally, attaching a few famous names to something doesn’t make it more or less credible. Just look at the number of celebrities today who attach their names to some of the whacky causes they believe in.

Honestly, unless new physical evidence comes to light, I don’t know that we will ever resolve this issue. The pro-Shakespeare camp will continue to rally around the Bard and those who are in favor of a different author, for whatever reason, will continue to raise doubts. The debate is likely to continue in such circles for the foreseeable future!

What do all of you think about the Shakespeare debate? Did someone else write those plays? Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

Read the Yahoo! article here:
Coalition aims to expose Shakespeare

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays.

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

Honestly, unless new physical evidence comes to light, I don’t know that we will ever resolve this issue. The pro-Shakespeare camp will continue to rally around the Bard and those who are in favor of a different author, for whatever reason, will continue to raise doubts.

Akkleptos wrote:1) Is it true that most of the important works by Shakespeare were plagiarised (as in the modern meaning of the word, because we are talking about a time when plagiarism wasn't as demonised as it is today, and when it was harder to find out whether a play had been copied off somebody else's work), and if so, what does that mean in regards to the Bard's status as the English language's foremost master playwright?

Akkleptos wrote:2) What is it that makes Shakespeare such a praised genius? I could mention his insight into human nature, his contributions to the English language, the sheer beauty in his use of vocabulary and rhythm... But I'm no expert, and I have next to no academic resources on this matter (and the previous one) other than what my weak google-fu can muster.

Twigler wrote:Sorry, but for question two I'd suggest watching lots of plays to build up your own opinion or just avoid the topic. If you're going to answer question two by parroting what we're throwing over the fence at you, I think you're not going to last very long in any serious discussion. I personally like the clever word play, hidden meanings, and layers, and the way anyone these days can still watch a 400 year old play and enjoy it. The man knew his audience extremely well I think. And how many writers these days can do both comedy and drama?

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Probably the biggest issue is the fact that the Bard was born into an illiterate family and himself did not receive a higher formal education.

As the son of an alderman, he would have attended grammar school and would have attended lessons at the local parish church. This would include learning Latin, grammar, rhetoric, and reading the Bible. While there is no evidence that he attended university, that does not preclude self-education. A contemporary of Shakespeare's, Ben Jonson, was a thoroughly self-educated dramatist would became court poet for King James I (he received little formal education and worked, initially, as a bricklayer).

The second issue is that there is simply no documentation that supports Shakespeare himself writing all those plays – not to mention no original manuscript in Shakespeare’s own handwriting existing (that we know of).

IIRC, there is plenty of testimony from contemporaries of Shakespeare, including actors, other dramatists, and historians, that support his authorship. Not to mention his grave monument in Stratford. That's pretty hard to dismiss.

I have read a lot of Shakespeare over the last few years. All the professors I’ve had who talked about this debate have pretty much dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory", and I tend to agree with them. One professor points out much of the arguments against Shakespeare lay on his lack of a higher education, whereas Christopher Marlowe, for example, would be what we consider college educated. Marlowe is often named as the author who really wrote all of those plays. But as my professor points out, such an argument has its foundation in pitting the upper class (Marlowe) against the lower class (Shakespeare).

Most serious scholars consider it a conspiracy theory. There is evidence that supports his authorship, whereas the evidence against it is all either circumstantial or just straight-up bullshit.

The only theory that these professors would even think about believing in is that of the group theory – several people collaborated to write the plays. Of course, Shakespeare himself would have to be at the center of any such group.

That is possible, of course. His must have played a significant role, however, to get a monument statue on his death.