It sounds like a job for this team...
-PJ
Posted on 11/02/2005 7:30:05 PM PST by SpringheelJack
It sounds like a job for this team...
-PJ
I am totally convinced that the Duke of Buckingham DID administer a questionable physic to James I. This is the article of his impeachment generally dismissed as nuts. Let's dig him up!
Thanks for the useful summary of the question of authorship. It's easy to call the doubters "cranks," but they have some powerful arguments, particularly for Oxford. If I were going to dig up any bodies I'd start with his, not that of the guy who didn't leave even a pen to anybody in his will.
They tried to dig up Beethoven's body, but when they got down there, he told them, "Don't bother me, I'm decomposing."
Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. It was another man with the same name.
Yes, Pope Formosus (891-896), who was dug up some months after his death, tried and found guilty, and then his corpse was thrown into the Tiber (but later retrieved and reburied). The whole farce backfired on Pope Stephen VII (VI) who perpetrated it.
That's funny, seeing as there is literally not one shred of evidence that Shakespeare was somebody's fake name.
If I were going to dig up any bodies I'd start with his, not that of the guy who didn't leave even a pen to anybody in his will.
We have wills from fourteen other playwrights besides Shakespeare. Only three mention books. People who put forth this lack of detail like it means anything just show their ignorance of the period. http://shakespeareauthorship.com/shaxwill.html
You toss off schoolyard argument, such as "you're ignorant!" and "you're a crank!" and you expect to be taken seriously on a forum like FR? Come now, give us rational argument or pipe down.
And as for "Sir Thomas More," tell us more about that Shakespeare authorship, and what became of the other authors.
After they prove it, Shakespeare's son-in-law's body must be exhumed to stand trial.. Maybe we could exhume Johnnie Cochrane to represent him.
I already shot down your will comment with facts you can verify, and I'm still waiting to hear the "powerful arguments" for Oxford's authorship that you alluded to. My guess is that you'll avoid bringing them up again, as here.
And as for "Sir Thomas More," tell us more about that Shakespeare authorship, and what became of the other authors.
Consensus right now is that the other hands in it were Anthony Munday, Henry Chettle, Thomas Heywood, and Thomas Dekker. The arguments for Shakespeare's authorship of the Ill May Day scene are based on style, a unique spelling of one word paralleled only in a couple of his quartos, and consistency of the handwriting with his known signatures.
We are on different frequencies, Jack. I have not even taken a position on the authorship, yet you are reflexively attacking me and thus trying to maneuver me into taking one.
Anyone with internet access can explore the authorship question and the powerful arguments I referred to. I haven't the time or inclination to enlighten anyone on this issue; I mentioned the arguments in order to encourage others to investigate.
When I do write to instruct, I get paid for it very well. Furthermore, your tone is obnoxious, and I don't engage in discussions on that level at any price.
You may have the last word. Noblesse oblige. ;)
They could always behead him like Oliver Cromwell.
You know what they found on Beethoven's piano bench after he died?
...His last movement!
Whatever, Graymatter. You claimed there are "powerful arguments" for Oxford's candidacy and I'd be delighted to know what you think they are. I'm well familiar with the huddled mass of tin foil out there claiming Shakespeare was somebody else, and I know perfectly well that there is no evidence for any of it, which is why I ask. Maybe you have some new discovery.
When I do write to instruct, I get paid for it very well. Furthermore, your tone is obnoxious, and I don't engage in discussions on that level at any price.
What's obnoxious are people trying to steal credit for another man's lifetime of achievements and give it to someone else, without a single piece of evidence to warrant it.
Of all these various crackpot theories about the true authorship of Shakespeare's plays, there one thing I never got; a convincing reason as to why someone would want Shakespeare take credit for their work. It would have been possible to submit plays anonymously if they didn't want to be associated with the theatre or whatever.
I don't even think that much would be necessary. Several nobles wrote plays that were just meant to be read. Sir Fulke Greville, the Countess of Pembroke, and the Earl of Stirling are three I can instantly think of.
Yeah, there's really no credible reason why someone would not take credit for Shakespeare's plays.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.