In the past we would say that you cannot account for genius. But genius would have needed access to many books and much paper from a very young age to pull this off, So we can’t extrapolate back from the modern era.
The reality is that Edward De Vere was a gifted poet and held the purse strings to sponsor playwriting.
Starting point WORDSWORTH
If you start off like Wordsworth, you are working with dramatists all the time, your brother in law is Francis Bacon (a genius of the highest order) and you are bundled up with English and Venetian spooks…..
And on top of that if Christopher Marlowe’s alleged death was faked and he is a driving force in the early days……
You can see how in our example this WORDSWORTH….. who always gets the last draft, could have become a fine dramatist himself. But also could have integrated all this other talent to be a cut above what was possible for normal humans.
DeVere must have been involved. But to ascribe all the plays and poems to him is completely absurd. If there was a single siting of Marlowe after his death I’d be open ot that possibility. I think he was killed because he wasn’t playing nice. The hoax was a big deal. I suspect he wanted bigger bucks or was becoming thought of as generally unreliable. The evidence for Bacon’s involvement as ring leader and chief writer is beyond dispute- to be detailed in my next essay. Or listen to https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-10-all-the-evidence-you-need-to-know-that/id1567752130?i=1000620836406
These things take time. It was the job of De Vere to catalyse the product. But if you are strip mining your genius brother-in-law for input, is it any wonder that the outcome has more layers to it than might normally be expected in the human realm?
Should we really presume to divine what percentage to ascribe to each individual? I think the best we could do is outline a process. These plays like Hamlet and Macbeth. Well one imagines that Bacon looms large. But how might you divide credit with this sort of thing?
I would never ascribe everything to De Vere. If you are convincing you will be convincing me that Francis came up with the raw diamonds and Team De Vere probably polished the diamonds.
One thing that always fascinated me is the third hit man in Macbeth. It was theorised that he was one of the witches. But if you are spook adjacent you will know that the local King might hire two ruffians. But if you are Venice and you want the job done you will always send your own guy in to make sure of things.
I go over Macbeth in some detail. Freemason’s think that the execution of Banquo is an obvious reference to the ritual of the Third Degree and the murder of Hiram Abiff
I am having a great time listening to your podcasts. I can’t watch Othello or King Lear again or else I will be thrown into depression for weeks. I was absolutely fascinated by your take on Romeo and Juliet since I saw it as kind of weak early Shakespeare but you make it sound like there are all these horrifying elements one might expect from Rosemary’s Baby and the Omen.
And certainly you have me convinced that Bacons role is so much bigger than merely being De Vere’s genius brother in law.
These days if Falstsaff isn’t in it I will procrastinate on seeing it again for straight mood reasons. If you have any podcasts that deal with Falstaff that would be cool to listen to them. He seems kind of un-Shakespearean. A bad fellow but somehow anti-nihilistic. Puts one in a good mood.
For me the question has been why would Bacon write under a nomdeplum? Shakespeare the name could hold a clue....a spear shaker someone who disseminates the truth. I was lucky enough to have been given the book "The marriage of Elizabeth Tudor" by Alfred Dodd. Published around 1940.
The book gives the secret of Francis's parentage and his background. After this book the author wrote " The Personal life story of Sir Francis Bacon"
With out a doubt he bought the rights to use the Shakespeare name. Francis Bacon's work points the way to personal salvation through our own integrity in my opinion. Enjoying your substack!
The signatures are such a joke. To think that somebody who wrote so much, could be so cack handed and inconsistent is ridiculous. Farcical. The most disturbing aspect is that anybody could believe this scrawler could have written the entirety of Shakespeare’s oeuvre.
Unless of course he dictated the whole lot to Siri.
It wasn't his first will and testament. Both my grandparents had beautiful penmanship and their signatures looked like that at the end. Not saying the rest isn't hinky.
So, what you're basically saying is that there is no evidence of Shakespeare's literary activity except for the fact that he was consistently identified in contemporary evidence as the author of the single greatest literary oeuvre in the history of the English language.
The evidence you speak of is mostly self referential. That didnt stop me fromI taking it at face value for years.
It isnt easy trying to convince people that there is much more to the story and they have to be receptive and have a certain mindset to even consider it. Most people won't give it a fair shake. Its academic conditioning.
I suggest people take a deep dive themselves and ask if this makes sense.
It doesnt.
For me, I have already seen the other side of that realization that "Shakespeare" was most likely not the author we commonly speak of. The project most likely helped form the infosec techniques of the modern spook state. The authorship is no longer a curiosity for me, I want to know why all of this was done. This does not take away from its literary brilliance, but shows a layering which really sets it apart from almost everything else.
Actually he was never identified while alive as a writer on a personal level. Not ONE letter or diary entry. His writing was talked about but rarely. But that was just his name. There is no other evidence other than his name on the plays. He was a front man.
If you have any evidence anyone talked to him about writing or literature please let me know. Diana Price destroyed that marginal argument years ago. No. Real. Evidence. He. Wrote. Anything. He was a real estate dude. A grain dealer. A part time actor and a part -theater owner. PLENTY evidence for THAT
His name on the plays IS the evidence. Irrefutable, positive evidence of authorship. You have no evidence whatsoever of anyone else writing the plays. None. Zero. Show me a copy of Hamlet with Christopher Marlowe listed as the author and I'll take your argument seriously.
> His name on the plays IS the evidence. Irrefutable, positive evidence of authorship.
This is crazy-talk.
It would imply, among other things, that:
(a) every author who is just a "pen name" is a real person.
(b) anybody publishing what a ghostwriter wrote for them under their name (very common today, too many to mention) is themselves the writer.
(c) anybody used as a literary or artistic front for someone else, is the actual author/artist (like Margaret Keane's paintings, who were signed and presented as her husbands work for decades, or Émile Ajar who was found to be the pen-name of writer Romain Gary, who even had his cousins pretend to be "Ajar" in public appearances)
"but for those we know the actual case"
Yes. The crazy talk is implying there can't be others for which we don't know the actual case, even though all evidence aside from their name on the books points to them being very unlikely to be the authors...
I get it: All evidence that he wrote the plays is not evidence. All the no evidence you don't have that someone else wrote the plays is irrefutable proof. Nicely done.
> All evidence that he wrote the plays is not evidence
No: all evidence that he wrote the plays is just the fact that his name is on the published works (which is also the case for every front or ghostwritten work).
No corroborating evidence exists (like it trivially does for writers and playwrites from antiquity to Shakespeare's era), and all actual biographical evidence points to the contrary or to it being very unlikely.
Produce one piece of evidence, one single shred, that somebody else wrote the plays. A name in a ledger. A book cover. Something. Then I’ll entertain your theory. Please do so if you can.
It appears that you did not read the article. I said, the ONLY evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays is that his name is on the plays. Major Shakespeare scholars admit that that is a fact. For most people, generally those who are not making money from the scam, that is just not enough evidence. The gap between his life and the lives shown in the plays is WAY too large. Thus, most of need more evidence that he could have done it, because it does not make any sense at all that he did. But, there is no other evidence! Just the First Folio, which is clearly a joke and a hoax.
Shakespeare was a front man. They used his name. I’m not saying the plays are not brilliant. They are amazing. But they were made with an ulterior motive. They are not art for art’s sake. The mystery of a nobody from nowhere writing them gives them an allure they would otherwise lack.
Why not? It's quite easy to use the name of another to make "art for art’s sake" too. E.g. if you want to hide your artistic work because it would be considered unbefitting of a nobleman to write such plays or poems. Or because you're a woman, and it would be even more scandalous. Or because you consider it beneath your actual work as a scientist or something.
Very interesting read, wonder if it'll ever be solved or just be one of those things. So St Trinians 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold could be onto something?
My best hypothesis would be that “Bacon” (et al) worked and wrote with the protection and patronage of the reigning Queen, Elizabeth I. How else could this have been financed, kept secret, and disseminated so widely? It would explain a lot, including the very pro-monarchical ethos of “Shakespeare’s” work at a particularly turbulent time in British political history.
100%! Eliza Regina was all in. Quite a few had to have been in on it- certainly Walsingham and Cecil and a few key others. All of the Chamberlain's Men. Essex. It was a state secret. Why betray it? For what purpose? To get drawn and quartered for treason? They were all having fun and getting paid. I think Christopher Marlowe either wanted more money or threatened to squeal or something...they made short work of him. I also think they poisoned Stratford Will in 1616. The rumor was he died after a night of heavy drinking with Ben Jonson and Michael Drayton. At any rate the First Folio could not have come out with him still alive. Yes the work is very power, pro monarch as especiall pro-Tudor! You must see The Lost King - feature film - if you haven't already. Brilliant. True story. The farcical dark excess of Richard the Third proves the thesis of Shakespeare as ultra sophisticated propaganda. It's brilliantly on display in the film. . https://www.comedy.co.uk/film/the-lost-king/
"In 1594 a record was made of the baptism as William Shakspere (note spelling of his last name) dated April 26th 1594. Subtract a few days and April 23rd, the feast of Saint George the patron saint of England, became Shakespeare’s official birth date."
This is so full of it, and old news at that. For one thing, Bacon was truly evil. For another, you make no mention the persecution of Catholicism in England, and the sacking of the monasteries, with many sources proving that Shakespeare was Catholic (as many of his immediate family). Finally, it makes no difference whatsoever who or why they were written. Like any literature, it lives on own merits. His plays are brilliant enough to live on stages before audiences for hundreds of years.
Bacon was diabolical. The plays are diabolical. The evidence in the plays for the writer being Catholic is non-existent- a figment of someone's imagination. Run run away. Maybe doofus Stratford Will's family was Catholic, but he did not write the plays. Let them live as literature, fine, but let's stop pretending they are a benefit to humanity. Au contraire. Who wrote them is a very important question. The answer changes everything. Everything.
And as to the handwriting, just recently a real letter written by Shakespeare to his wife and remarkably with her response has been validated. Perfectly normal Elizabethan handwriting.
Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Reminded me to always seek out the other side of the story. I’m left with the impression that there is compelling evidence on both sides, but the orthodox view remains prevalent for good reasons.
“All but a few academic Shakespeare scholars reject the arguments for Bacon authorship, as well as those for all other alternative authors.”
And this:
“As far back as 1879, a New York Herald scribe bemoaned the waste of "considerable blank ammunition [...] in this ridiculous war between the Baconians and the Shakespearians",[57] while Richard Garnett made the common objection that Bacon was far too busy with his own work to have had time to create the entire canon of another writer too, declaring that "Baconians talk as if Bacon had nothing to do but to write his play at his chambers and send it to his factotum, Shakespeare, at the other end of the town."
I’m answering that question in detail in my next essay. Bacon was essentially relatively unemployed until 1607 after finishing law school in 1582. He was virtually free from, 1582 until 1607, mas o menos, the years scholars agree most of the plays were written. (Except Oxfordians 🤣) It was a grpup effort but the evidence for Bacon as head of the project is overwhelming and has grown exponentially since 1879. it’s astonishing and undeniable. Collating much of it now. Foul Deeds Will Rise. One of the best books on Bacon: https://archive.org/details/mysteryoffrancis00smeduoft
The question isn’t whether Shakespeare was Shakespeare. The question is whether any single person of the time or of any time could produce what is attributed to him. And yet it’s even more inconceivable that such a body of work could’ve been produced by many people.
That’s the fundamental mystery. And it trivializes this entire debate.
Idk, when I was in high school I rewrote a bunch of othello and memorized it instead of paying close attention during a bunch of my classes because the Iago-like jerk playing Iago in the play I was in kept screwing up pretty bad and also I hated him. Not that I’m shakespeare but I did pretty well. All in iambic pentameter and wove in the plot more or less properly. I did well enough to realize that yes, someone way better than me could totally write all this stuff, especially if you practiced all the time—I started thinking in Iambic pentameter. Especially if the language was more familiar to them and they were pretty smart, ocd, and observant. Idk about a bunch of this alchemy stuff mentioned in the post, but I will say that the more you know of anything, the easier it is to weave all sorts of stuff together, and if you have a good memory, all the moreso because you can hold more of your work in your head as youre writing it. An actor would necessarily be pretty great at memorizing things, and a great one would have an astounding amount of mental RAM. The reason that most actors you run across are not particularly inspiring individuals or intellects is that the trade attracts emotionally unstable narcissists and most people dont actually want to be around people like that.
Agreed, however, whether a committee wrote it all or one guy, youre still dealing with infinity. Is it easier to believe that 5 people achieved that or only one? Dealing with infinity is pretty darn weird. I dont have answers, only wonderings.
That’s funny. And yes. We get what we focus on. The better the focus the more you get. Plays and poetry were the language of the day. Impossible for us to imagine how soaked everyone then was in them. That’s how Michelangelo happened. He was born breathing marble dust made by masters. He went past them all. Then came Bernini. Forget about it. Those sculptures are so impossible they don’t exist. The difference is Bacon had ulterior political mind control motives at a new level. The motives are still being decoded. It took 300 years to see the now obvious propaganda of the history plays. He wrote on at least four levels at a time. Insane genius. He prophesied the future because he created it.
Well the work is there and someone wrote it and scholars have traced all of the sources (almost all) to Roman, Greek and Italian and French poets and playwrights. Or early English like Chaucer. it wasn't magic at all. It was of all intentional and deliberate and had an ulterior motive. Almost all of it. It comes form a deep understandng of the human pstche and art and anguage and theater. The sonnets reman mysterious. It is not art for art's sake. At all. It's art for a purpose. It's clearly obviously, yet brilliant, prophanda when talking the history plays. The writer was super educated artist/philosopher cult leader. A lot of the plays are not as good as we are told the are. They've developed a mystique. But on the other hand they are amazing at what they hide while telling a story.
Can’t wait to read this bad boy and leave comments.
In the past we would say that you cannot account for genius. But genius would have needed access to many books and much paper from a very young age to pull this off, So we can’t extrapolate back from the modern era.
The reality is that Edward De Vere was a gifted poet and held the purse strings to sponsor playwriting.
Starting point WORDSWORTH
If you start off like Wordsworth, you are working with dramatists all the time, your brother in law is Francis Bacon (a genius of the highest order) and you are bundled up with English and Venetian spooks…..
And on top of that if Christopher Marlowe’s alleged death was faked and he is a driving force in the early days……
You can see how in our example this WORDSWORTH….. who always gets the last draft, could have become a fine dramatist himself. But also could have integrated all this other talent to be a cut above what was possible for normal humans.
DeVere must have been involved. But to ascribe all the plays and poems to him is completely absurd. If there was a single siting of Marlowe after his death I’d be open ot that possibility. I think he was killed because he wasn’t playing nice. The hoax was a big deal. I suspect he wanted bigger bucks or was becoming thought of as generally unreliable. The evidence for Bacon’s involvement as ring leader and chief writer is beyond dispute- to be detailed in my next essay. Or listen to https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-10-all-the-evidence-you-need-to-know-that/id1567752130?i=1000620836406
These things take time. It was the job of De Vere to catalyse the product. But if you are strip mining your genius brother-in-law for input, is it any wonder that the outcome has more layers to it than might normally be expected in the human realm?
Should we really presume to divine what percentage to ascribe to each individual? I think the best we could do is outline a process. These plays like Hamlet and Macbeth. Well one imagines that Bacon looms large. But how might you divide credit with this sort of thing?
Will check out that podcast this very weekend thanks.
I would never ascribe everything to De Vere. If you are convincing you will be convincing me that Francis came up with the raw diamonds and Team De Vere probably polished the diamonds.
One thing that always fascinated me is the third hit man in Macbeth. It was theorised that he was one of the witches. But if you are spook adjacent you will know that the local King might hire two ruffians. But if you are Venice and you want the job done you will always send your own guy in to make sure of things.
I go over Macbeth in some detail. Freemason’s think that the execution of Banquo is an obvious reference to the ritual of the Third Degree and the murder of Hiram Abiff
https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-4-of-in-93998325
https://thehiddenlifeisbest.com/post/masonic-symbolism-in-macbeth
Fly Fleance Flee. My teacher was trying to make me say this in grand fashion, when I was trying keep my midsection tight and sword fight in sane mode.
hahahah!
I am having a great time listening to your podcasts. I can’t watch Othello or King Lear again or else I will be thrown into depression for weeks. I was absolutely fascinated by your take on Romeo and Juliet since I saw it as kind of weak early Shakespeare but you make it sound like there are all these horrifying elements one might expect from Rosemary’s Baby and the Omen.
And certainly you have me convinced that Bacons role is so much bigger than merely being De Vere’s genius brother in law.
These days if Falstsaff isn’t in it I will procrastinate on seeing it again for straight mood reasons. If you have any podcasts that deal with Falstaff that would be cool to listen to them. He seems kind of un-Shakespearean. A bad fellow but somehow anti-nihilistic. Puts one in a good mood.
For me the question has been why would Bacon write under a nomdeplum? Shakespeare the name could hold a clue....a spear shaker someone who disseminates the truth. I was lucky enough to have been given the book "The marriage of Elizabeth Tudor" by Alfred Dodd. Published around 1940.
The book gives the secret of Francis's parentage and his background. After this book the author wrote " The Personal life story of Sir Francis Bacon"
With out a doubt he bought the rights to use the Shakespeare name. Francis Bacon's work points the way to personal salvation through our own integrity in my opinion. Enjoying your substack!
Great article Robert, thank you. It's disturbing just how persistent a well crafted lie can be. Does the truth really always come out? I wonder.
The signatures are such a joke. To think that somebody who wrote so much, could be so cack handed and inconsistent is ridiculous. Farcical. The most disturbing aspect is that anybody could believe this scrawler could have written the entirety of Shakespeare’s oeuvre.
Unless of course he dictated the whole lot to Siri.
It wasn't his first will and testament. Both my grandparents had beautiful penmanship and their signatures looked like that at the end. Not saying the rest isn't hinky.
So, what you're basically saying is that there is no evidence of Shakespeare's literary activity except for the fact that he was consistently identified in contemporary evidence as the author of the single greatest literary oeuvre in the history of the English language.
You do see the contradiction there, no?
The evidence you speak of is mostly self referential. That didnt stop me fromI taking it at face value for years.
It isnt easy trying to convince people that there is much more to the story and they have to be receptive and have a certain mindset to even consider it. Most people won't give it a fair shake. Its academic conditioning.
I suggest people take a deep dive themselves and ask if this makes sense.
It doesnt.
For me, I have already seen the other side of that realization that "Shakespeare" was most likely not the author we commonly speak of. The project most likely helped form the infosec techniques of the modern spook state. The authorship is no longer a curiosity for me, I want to know why all of this was done. This does not take away from its literary brilliance, but shows a layering which really sets it apart from almost everything else.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's quite mad.
Fair enough. I feel the same the other way around.
Actually he was never identified while alive as a writer on a personal level. Not ONE letter or diary entry. His writing was talked about but rarely. But that was just his name. There is no other evidence other than his name on the plays. He was a front man.
If you have any evidence anyone talked to him about writing or literature please let me know. Diana Price destroyed that marginal argument years ago. No. Real. Evidence. He. Wrote. Anything. He was a real estate dude. A grain dealer. A part time actor and a part -theater owner. PLENTY evidence for THAT
scholar Diana Price discusses actual evidence:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQNWpo1PSs&pp=ygUXZGlhbmEgcHJpY2Ugc2hha2VzcGVhcmU%3D
His name on the plays IS the evidence. Irrefutable, positive evidence of authorship. You have no evidence whatsoever of anyone else writing the plays. None. Zero. Show me a copy of Hamlet with Christopher Marlowe listed as the author and I'll take your argument seriously.
> His name on the plays IS the evidence. Irrefutable, positive evidence of authorship.
This is crazy-talk.
It would imply, among other things, that:
(a) every author who is just a "pen name" is a real person.
(b) anybody publishing what a ghostwriter wrote for them under their name (very common today, too many to mention) is themselves the writer.
(c) anybody used as a literary or artistic front for someone else, is the actual author/artist (like Margaret Keane's paintings, who were signed and presented as her husbands work for decades, or Émile Ajar who was found to be the pen-name of writer Romain Gary, who even had his cousins pretend to be "Ajar" in public appearances)
"but for those we know the actual case"
Yes. The crazy talk is implying there can't be others for which we don't know the actual case, even though all evidence aside from their name on the books points to them being very unlikely to be the authors...
I get it: All evidence that he wrote the plays is not evidence. All the no evidence you don't have that someone else wrote the plays is irrefutable proof. Nicely done.
> I get it
Nope, you clearly don't...
> All evidence that he wrote the plays is not evidence
No: all evidence that he wrote the plays is just the fact that his name is on the published works (which is also the case for every front or ghostwritten work).
No corroborating evidence exists (like it trivially does for writers and playwrites from antiquity to Shakespeare's era), and all actual biographical evidence points to the contrary or to it being very unlikely.
Produce one piece of evidence, one single shred, that somebody else wrote the plays. A name in a ledger. A book cover. Something. Then I’ll entertain your theory. Please do so if you can.
It appears that you did not read the article. I said, the ONLY evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays is that his name is on the plays. Major Shakespeare scholars admit that that is a fact. For most people, generally those who are not making money from the scam, that is just not enough evidence. The gap between his life and the lives shown in the plays is WAY too large. Thus, most of need more evidence that he could have done it, because it does not make any sense at all that he did. But, there is no other evidence! Just the First Folio, which is clearly a joke and a hoax.
"the ONLY evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays is that his name is on the plays"
You do realize what you just said there, right?
Shakespeare was a front man. They used his name. I’m not saying the plays are not brilliant. They are amazing. But they were made with an ulterior motive. They are not art for art’s sake. The mystery of a nobody from nowhere writing them gives them an allure they would otherwise lack.
> They are not art for art’s sake.
Why not? It's quite easy to use the name of another to make "art for art’s sake" too. E.g. if you want to hide your artistic work because it would be considered unbefitting of a nobleman to write such plays or poems. Or because you're a woman, and it would be even more scandalous. Or because you consider it beneath your actual work as a scientist or something.
Very interesting read, wonder if it'll ever be solved or just be one of those things. So St Trinians 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold could be onto something?
My best hypothesis would be that “Bacon” (et al) worked and wrote with the protection and patronage of the reigning Queen, Elizabeth I. How else could this have been financed, kept secret, and disseminated so widely? It would explain a lot, including the very pro-monarchical ethos of “Shakespeare’s” work at a particularly turbulent time in British political history.
100%! Eliza Regina was all in. Quite a few had to have been in on it- certainly Walsingham and Cecil and a few key others. All of the Chamberlain's Men. Essex. It was a state secret. Why betray it? For what purpose? To get drawn and quartered for treason? They were all having fun and getting paid. I think Christopher Marlowe either wanted more money or threatened to squeal or something...they made short work of him. I also think they poisoned Stratford Will in 1616. The rumor was he died after a night of heavy drinking with Ben Jonson and Michael Drayton. At any rate the First Folio could not have come out with him still alive. Yes the work is very power, pro monarch as especiall pro-Tudor! You must see The Lost King - feature film - if you haven't already. Brilliant. True story. The farcical dark excess of Richard the Third proves the thesis of Shakespeare as ultra sophisticated propaganda. It's brilliantly on display in the film. . https://www.comedy.co.uk/film/the-lost-king/
Certainly will check it out. Thank you!
"In 1594 a record was made of the baptism as William Shakspere (note spelling of his last name) dated April 26th 1594. Subtract a few days and April 23rd, the feast of Saint George the patron saint of England, became Shakespeare’s official birth date."
Surely that date is wrong.
It’s 1564.
This is so full of it, and old news at that. For one thing, Bacon was truly evil. For another, you make no mention the persecution of Catholicism in England, and the sacking of the monasteries, with many sources proving that Shakespeare was Catholic (as many of his immediate family). Finally, it makes no difference whatsoever who or why they were written. Like any literature, it lives on own merits. His plays are brilliant enough to live on stages before audiences for hundreds of years.
Bacon was diabolical. The plays are diabolical. The evidence in the plays for the writer being Catholic is non-existent- a figment of someone's imagination. Run run away. Maybe doofus Stratford Will's family was Catholic, but he did not write the plays. Let them live as literature, fine, but let's stop pretending they are a benefit to humanity. Au contraire. Who wrote them is a very important question. The answer changes everything. Everything.
There is no point in trying to continued disputation here. You are convinced yourself.
But for the benefit of others, here is an easy reference detailing the many pro-authorship arguments. This has been going on for hundreds of years.
Delia accomplished nothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question
And as to the handwriting, just recently a real letter written by Shakespeare to his wife and remarkably with her response has been validated. Perfectly normal Elizabethan handwriting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygregz439o
Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Reminded me to always seek out the other side of the story. I’m left with the impression that there is compelling evidence on both sides, but the orthodox view remains prevalent for good reasons.
Appreciate your openness and honesty.
Again with a balanced view:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship
To quote:
“All but a few academic Shakespeare scholars reject the arguments for Bacon authorship, as well as those for all other alternative authors.”
And this:
“As far back as 1879, a New York Herald scribe bemoaned the waste of "considerable blank ammunition [...] in this ridiculous war between the Baconians and the Shakespearians",[57] while Richard Garnett made the common objection that Bacon was far too busy with his own work to have had time to create the entire canon of another writer too, declaring that "Baconians talk as if Bacon had nothing to do but to write his play at his chambers and send it to his factotum, Shakespeare, at the other end of the town."
I’m answering that question in detail in my next essay. Bacon was essentially relatively unemployed until 1607 after finishing law school in 1582. He was virtually free from, 1582 until 1607, mas o menos, the years scholars agree most of the plays were written. (Except Oxfordians 🤣) It was a grpup effort but the evidence for Bacon as head of the project is overwhelming and has grown exponentially since 1879. it’s astonishing and undeniable. Collating much of it now. Foul Deeds Will Rise. One of the best books on Bacon: https://archive.org/details/mysteryoffrancis00smeduoft
Do you mean 1564 (not 1594) for Shakespeare’s birth/baptism?
The question isn’t whether Shakespeare was Shakespeare. The question is whether any single person of the time or of any time could produce what is attributed to him. And yet it’s even more inconceivable that such a body of work could’ve been produced by many people.
That’s the fundamental mystery. And it trivializes this entire debate.
Idk, when I was in high school I rewrote a bunch of othello and memorized it instead of paying close attention during a bunch of my classes because the Iago-like jerk playing Iago in the play I was in kept screwing up pretty bad and also I hated him. Not that I’m shakespeare but I did pretty well. All in iambic pentameter and wove in the plot more or less properly. I did well enough to realize that yes, someone way better than me could totally write all this stuff, especially if you practiced all the time—I started thinking in Iambic pentameter. Especially if the language was more familiar to them and they were pretty smart, ocd, and observant. Idk about a bunch of this alchemy stuff mentioned in the post, but I will say that the more you know of anything, the easier it is to weave all sorts of stuff together, and if you have a good memory, all the moreso because you can hold more of your work in your head as youre writing it. An actor would necessarily be pretty great at memorizing things, and a great one would have an astounding amount of mental RAM. The reason that most actors you run across are not particularly inspiring individuals or intellects is that the trade attracts emotionally unstable narcissists and most people dont actually want to be around people like that.
The difference between what you did and producing the First Folio is basically the seemingly infinite depth of Shakespeare’s genius.
Agreed, however, whether a committee wrote it all or one guy, youre still dealing with infinity. Is it easier to believe that 5 people achieved that or only one? Dealing with infinity is pretty darn weird. I dont have answers, only wonderings.
That’s funny. And yes. We get what we focus on. The better the focus the more you get. Plays and poetry were the language of the day. Impossible for us to imagine how soaked everyone then was in them. That’s how Michelangelo happened. He was born breathing marble dust made by masters. He went past them all. Then came Bernini. Forget about it. Those sculptures are so impossible they don’t exist. The difference is Bacon had ulterior political mind control motives at a new level. The motives are still being decoded. It took 300 years to see the now obvious propaganda of the history plays. He wrote on at least four levels at a time. Insane genius. He prophesied the future because he created it.
Well the work is there and someone wrote it and scholars have traced all of the sources (almost all) to Roman, Greek and Italian and French poets and playwrights. Or early English like Chaucer. it wasn't magic at all. It was of all intentional and deliberate and had an ulterior motive. Almost all of it. It comes form a deep understandng of the human pstche and art and anguage and theater. The sonnets reman mysterious. It is not art for art's sake. At all. It's art for a purpose. It's clearly obviously, yet brilliant, prophanda when talking the history plays. The writer was super educated artist/philosopher cult leader. A lot of the plays are not as good as we are told the are. They've developed a mystique. But on the other hand they are amazing at what they hide while telling a story.