Having read some, I think Shakespeareans are too harsh in calling it shit probably as an overcorrection against those who claim de Vere to be the bard.
His poetry isn't bad, but I do think it's noticeably different from Shakespeare.
There's supposed evidence that Shakespeare had intimate knowledge of israeli wisdom texts which requires either being raised israeli or spending ridiculous amounts of time investigating Judaism. Supposed quotations throughout his plays and stuff like that.
Jews were literally banned from settling in England since the days of Edward Longshanks until the victorious parliamentarians lifted that ban as thanks for being financed by them in the civil war.
Also it's in no way unexpected that the guy who did research for his Shylock charakter would be well informed on judaism.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>did research for his Shylock charakter
Proof? I don't doubt it but I'm just wondering if there's anything more to it than just the accuracy of the play.
>victorious parliamentarians lifted that ban as thanks for being financed by them in the civil war
That's not true, it's mostly a myth. Yes, Cromwell had good economic relations with Dutch israelites, and he possibly unofficially let the already resident israelites (they were in hiding) build an unofficial synagogue. But certainly no more than this. If the Cavaliers were so le heckin based and redpilled why'd they not do anything in the restoration period?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Maybe, y'know, they were busy trying to consolidate while being on incredibly thin ice?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>on incredibly thin ice
Not at all, the Parliament was utterly spineless and the king was untouchable on his return.
Using the historical critical method, we can say the plays were written anonymously decades after it is commonly thought:
- Shakespeare is not mentioned in the body of the texts
- Shakespeare was not a noble. He couldn't possibly understand the court culture
- There was nothing in the English language like the Shakespearean plays in the years of the supposed plays
- Some of his plays have very different styles, you can't really say the same man has written Midsummer's and Hamlet.
What happens is that there were different communities who have written different plays.
The Historical community, the Drama community and the Comedy community
Why not? The next dozen pages all mention him anyway
1 month ago
Anonymous
He doesn't say in the text: >I, William Shakespeare will now tell the tale of a Prince in Norway
1 month ago
Anonymous
None of Shakespeare's playwriting contemporaries ever alleged the first folio had works that weren't written by him. He was a popular playwright whose plays were performed for royalty. It just doesn't add up.
Do you even first folio? That is the text in question. There are hundreds of copies, all with the preface and introduction explaining who wrote the contents. Most are stored in highly secure controlled environments
1 month ago
Anonymous
It could be that those stories were created by many different bards with many different traditions and later were printed together in this collection of tales.
I have seen similar claims about the Homeric poems.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Except that we know many of Shakespeare's personal friends and what they thought of him, what they wrote about him, and what they thought of his writing. Seriously, doubting his authorship is the most moronic possible thing you could think if you've actually read the history from then.
1 month ago
Anonymous
What if they all conspired to create a myth? How do you know there were also not people saying this about Homer?
"Homer was a blind bard, great guy"
1 month ago
Anonymous
>What if they all conspired to create a myth?
Why would you ever think that is a better explanation. Rather than them... not doing that
1 month ago
Anonymous
conspiracy theories are a drug to some people
they get off on things not being as they seem
None of Shakespeare's playwriting contemporaries ever alleged the first folio had works that weren't written by him. He was a popular playwright whose plays were performed for royalty. It just doesn't add up.
It is the year 3300 AD. Maybe there were contemporaries who opposed it, but they were lost to history.
In fact, about 250 years after the last Shakespearean play, doubt over his authorship started appearing.
None of Shakespeare's playwriting contemporaries ever alleged the first folio had works that weren't written by him. He was a popular playwright whose plays were performed for royalty. It just doesn't add up.
You can't seriously say these were written by the same person: >FIRST WITCH. >When shall we three meet again? >In thunder, lightning, or in rain? >SECOND WITCH. >When the hurlyburly’s done, >When the battle’s lost and won. >THIRD WITCH. >That will be ere the set of sun. >FIRST WITCH. >Where the place? >SECOND WITCH. >Upon the heath. >THIRD WITCH. >There to meet with Macbeth.
From the Ur-Shakespeare text and >I ain't comin' a talk good 'bout Caesar, I here tuh bury him. Feel? Y'all know how it go. Bad some folks do gets stickin' round after dey gone, but de good stuff get buried wid'm. Da'ss messed up. >Now, Brutus... he say Caesar'wz all 'bout dat power. If da'wz true, i'wz some messed up power. Dude wept when po' folks be cryin. Dat ain't soun'n' like no power trippin'uh me. Brutus say he was ambitious, and Brutus be stand-up guy y'all. I ain't diss 'im. But I'ma tell it like I see it. Y'all loved Caesar, and fuh good reason. Why y'all ain't grievin' 'bout him now? Y'all be lookin' LOST, like y'all minds dun gone wanderd off. >Gimme a minute... see ma heart heavy wih Caesar righ' now. But I gotta speak my piece. Brutus an' 'em all, dey say dey done kill him outta LOVE fuh Rome. Aight. F'sho. But dey ain't the only ones lovin' Rome, nah? Caesar brought dat GOOD-good back from 'em battles, made awhz pockets fat. Dat sound like alotta love t'me! >Brutus gon' talk some more, an I'm gon let'im; but y'all listen close. See'f what he sayin' make any kinda sense after what I done tell ya. Caesar wa'n't no saint, but he'wz one of us, he cared 'bout Rome y'all. Don't let dat fancy talk fool y'all. Y'alls a gotta decide. You think Brutus'wz right wih all that?
From Anonymous Source-L.
31st century scholars agree that there were at least fourteen sources for the Shakespearean texts, and that if Shakespeare existed, he may be responsible for maybe one or two plays.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Have you heard of the new theory that Shakespeare was actually a character created by a man named Harold Bloom? That for years, no one knew who wrote the plays until Bloom invented a single author and named him Shakespeare?
1 month ago
Anonymous
That was debunked by the Rayquanda-Shakespeare Theory, which indicates that Harold Bloom may have lifted most of his texts from "Rayquanda Shatisha Brown," an ancient playwright estimated to have lived betweeen 2100-2300 A.D.
William Shakespeare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Occam's razor says he's William Shakspere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford
lol
What's the official poetry under his name like? Is it anywhere near as good as Shakes'?
Having read some, I think Shakespeareans are too harsh in calling it shit probably as an overcorrection against those who claim de Vere to be the bard.
His poetry isn't bad, but I do think it's noticeably different from Shakespeare.
Francis Bacon
Impossible. He was born in 1909
Dude's looking a bit fruity.
he's just French
Just a regular punk
>hebrew on the left
what did the author of this collage mean by this
There's supposed evidence that Shakespeare had intimate knowledge of israeli wisdom texts which requires either being raised israeli or spending ridiculous amounts of time investigating Judaism. Supposed quotations throughout his plays and stuff like that.
Maybe he simply was a virulent antisemite.
Being an aristocrat in 16th century England kind of guarantees that.
Too bad he's a feminist cuck.
Jews were literally banned from settling in England since the days of Edward Longshanks until the victorious parliamentarians lifted that ban as thanks for being financed by them in the civil war.
Also it's in no way unexpected that the guy who did research for his Shylock charakter would be well informed on judaism.
>did research for his Shylock charakter
Proof? I don't doubt it but I'm just wondering if there's anything more to it than just the accuracy of the play.
>victorious parliamentarians lifted that ban as thanks for being financed by them in the civil war
That's not true, it's mostly a myth. Yes, Cromwell had good economic relations with Dutch israelites, and he possibly unofficially let the already resident israelites (they were in hiding) build an unofficial synagogue. But certainly no more than this. If the Cavaliers were so le heckin based and redpilled why'd they not do anything in the restoration period?
Maybe, y'know, they were busy trying to consolidate while being on incredibly thin ice?
>on incredibly thin ice
Not at all, the Parliament was utterly spineless and the king was untouchable on his return.
He was a good writer. Milton mogs him thoughbeit.
/his/
HE WAS THE MERCHANT OF VENICE ALL ALONG.
a homie wit a fricked upp yee yee ass hairline
Using the historical critical method, we can say the plays were written anonymously decades after it is commonly thought:
- Shakespeare is not mentioned in the body of the texts
- Shakespeare was not a noble. He couldn't possibly understand the court culture
- There was nothing in the English language like the Shakespearean plays in the years of the supposed plays
- Some of his plays have very different styles, you can't really say the same man has written Midsummer's and Hamlet.
What happens is that there were different communities who have written different plays.
The Historical community, the Drama community and the Comedy community
t. Some German researcher in 3300 AD.
>Shakespeare is not mentioned in the body of the texts
He is though, right on page one along with his picture
That's not considered in the body of the text.
Why not? The next dozen pages all mention him anyway
He doesn't say in the text:
>I, William Shakespeare will now tell the tale of a Prince in Norway
Do you even first folio? That is the text in question. There are hundreds of copies, all with the preface and introduction explaining who wrote the contents. Most are stored in highly secure controlled environments
It could be that those stories were created by many different bards with many different traditions and later were printed together in this collection of tales.
I have seen similar claims about the Homeric poems.
Except that we know many of Shakespeare's personal friends and what they thought of him, what they wrote about him, and what they thought of his writing. Seriously, doubting his authorship is the most moronic possible thing you could think if you've actually read the history from then.
What if they all conspired to create a myth? How do you know there were also not people saying this about Homer?
"Homer was a blind bard, great guy"
>What if they all conspired to create a myth?
Why would you ever think that is a better explanation. Rather than them... not doing that
conspiracy theories are a drug to some people
they get off on things not being as they seem
None of Shakespeare's playwriting contemporaries ever alleged the first folio had works that weren't written by him. He was a popular playwright whose plays were performed for royalty. It just doesn't add up.
It is the year 3300 AD. Maybe there were contemporaries who opposed it, but they were lost to history.
In fact, about 250 years after the last Shakespearean play, doubt over his authorship started appearing.
You can't seriously say these were written by the same person:
>FIRST WITCH.
>When shall we three meet again?
>In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
>SECOND WITCH.
>When the hurlyburly’s done,
>When the battle’s lost and won.
>THIRD WITCH.
>That will be ere the set of sun.
>FIRST WITCH.
>Where the place?
>SECOND WITCH.
>Upon the heath.
>THIRD WITCH.
>There to meet with Macbeth.
From the Ur-Shakespeare text and
>I ain't comin' a talk good 'bout Caesar, I here tuh bury him. Feel? Y'all know how it go. Bad some folks do gets stickin' round after dey gone, but de good stuff get buried wid'm. Da'ss messed up.
>Now, Brutus... he say Caesar'wz all 'bout dat power. If da'wz true, i'wz some messed up power. Dude wept when po' folks be cryin. Dat ain't soun'n' like no power trippin'uh me. Brutus say he was ambitious, and Brutus be stand-up guy y'all. I ain't diss 'im. But I'ma tell it like I see it. Y'all loved Caesar, and fuh good reason. Why y'all ain't grievin' 'bout him now? Y'all be lookin' LOST, like y'all minds dun gone wanderd off.
>Gimme a minute... see ma heart heavy wih Caesar righ' now. But I gotta speak my piece. Brutus an' 'em all, dey say dey done kill him outta LOVE fuh Rome. Aight. F'sho. But dey ain't the only ones lovin' Rome, nah? Caesar brought dat GOOD-good back from 'em battles, made awhz pockets fat. Dat sound like alotta love t'me!
>Brutus gon' talk some more, an I'm gon let'im; but y'all listen close. See'f what he sayin' make any kinda sense after what I done tell ya. Caesar wa'n't no saint, but he'wz one of us, he cared 'bout Rome y'all. Don't let dat fancy talk fool y'all. Y'alls a gotta decide. You think Brutus'wz right wih all that?
From Anonymous Source-L.
31st century scholars agree that there were at least fourteen sources for the Shakespearean texts, and that if Shakespeare existed, he may be responsible for maybe one or two plays.
Have you heard of the new theory that Shakespeare was actually a character created by a man named Harold Bloom? That for years, no one knew who wrote the plays until Bloom invented a single author and named him Shakespeare?
That was debunked by the Rayquanda-Shakespeare Theory, which indicates that Harold Bloom may have lifted most of his texts from "Rayquanda Shatisha Brown," an ancient playwright estimated to have lived betweeen 2100-2300 A.D.
>- Shakespeare was not a noble. He couldn't possibly understand the court culture
This has been debunked.
Shakespeare's plays are rightfully praised but Marlowe's Dido has my heart.
Son of peasants, know about human behavior, european politics, write great lyrics.?
Nah. I put my money on F. Bacon
>Son of peasants
Debunked
the greatest writer who ever lived
Ambitious catholic boy with a very unhappy marriage.
that's Bill Shakespeare