Was the Bard really the Bard?

Ashland Daily Tidings ^ | September 28, 2005 | Jennifer Margulis

[Recon Dad]

The quality of scholarship is often strained. It droppeth as a gentle rain from yon cur upon the place beneath.
It is twice regurgitated as garbage in and garbage out.

(somebody (?) did it better the first time)

[sphinx]

I've been reading and studying this stuff longer than the author of this tripe has been alive.

I've never paid the matter much attention but tend to lean, largely from inertia, toward the Stratfordians. But I've always wondered: did de Vere publish much under his own name and, if so, how does the language -- the vocabulary, sentence structure, phrasing, etc. -- line up with that of "Shakespeare." I thought there were computer programs that could compare two texts (of reasonable length) and estimate the probability that they were written by the same person.

[Fairview]

I thought there were computer programs that could compare two texts (of reasonable length) and estimate the probability that they were written by the same person.

There are. And they have been very successful in making attributions and solving literary mysteries. One of these programs demonstrated that Christopher Marlowe made some contributions to some of the "iffy" works in the Shakespeare canon that scholars have been arguing about for years but did not contribute to any of the principal, widely-accepted plays and poetry. If the supporters of de Vere are confident, they'll submit his works to this type of analysis as well.

Personally, I think the subject is fascinating, and I'd love to know who the real author of the Shakespeare plays was. I can't believe it was an uneducated, untravelled guy from a two-bit village who left not a single book, manuscript, or paper in his will. But the mystery is endlessly enchanting, isn't it?

[SlayerOfBunnies]

May I recommend the Thursday Next series (_The Eyre_Affair_ etc.) by Jasper Fforde. It's got it all - vampires, militant Baconians and radical Marlowevians, etc.

[righttackle44]

Actually, I think the writer of Shakespeare's works were little green men from Mars. My source is George Noory's Coast To Coast AM program.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Why did Freud not think that Shakespeare was written by him, anybody know?

[SpringheelJack]

Why did Freud not think that Shakespeare was written by him, anybody know?

He read a book by Thomas Looney advocating Oxford's authorship that he was really taken with. Why, though, continues to baffle his biographers.

[SpringheelJack]

One of these programs demonstrated that Christopher Marlowe made some contributions to some of the "iffy" works in the Shakespeare canon that scholars have been arguing about for years but did not contribute to any of the principal, widely-accepted plays and poetry.

Few think that Christopher Marlowe had anything to do with the works in the Shakespeare canon, except as influence. I do know that not one program has "demonstrated" Marlowe's hand in any of these plays. At best, it could only provide compelling evidence, but I don't think even that much has been done. The most widely accepted contributors to the Shakespeare canon are John Fletcher (in "Henry VIII" and "The Two Noble Kinsmen"), George Wilkins (first two acts of "Pericles"), and Thomas Nashe (first act of "Henry VI, part 1").

I can't believe it was an uneducated, untravelled guy from a two-bit village who left not a single book, manuscript, or paper in his will.

And how do you know Shakespeare was uneducated and untravelled? As for the will, we have other wills from fourteen different playwrights of the time, and only three mention books. Sir Francis Bacon never mentioned books in his will either. It just doesn't mean anything.