Hamlet
discussion
Is it true that Bacon is the real Shakespeare?
message 1:
by
Eatbooks
(new)
Mar 27, 2012 08:45PM
My friend is doing a great deal of researching about Shakespeare's real identity. I am just wondering if it deserves an attention. Do you know anything about this? He says that in England they already believe that Bacon is really the genius behind all these sonnets and plays. He also added that Miguel de Cervantes that author of Don Quixote is also not existing or did not exist.. and it is Bacon he himself who was behind all these masterpieces.I will be very much happy to hear something from all of you.
reply
|
flag
NO. An excellent read your friend might find interesting is Shakespeare: A Lecture by Robert Ingersoll.
Denise wrote: "NO. An excellent read your friend might find interesting is Shakespeare: A Lecture by Robert Ingersoll."okay , I'll tell him as soon as possible. he gets fascinated with that idea. he is currently reading a book about this issue, that it was bacon and there's no Shakespeare.
Read Bacon and read Shakespeare. They are not written in the same style/voice at all.
First, to answer your question, Bacon did NOT write the Shakespeare plays. In my humble opinion, these conspiracy theories are all silly, but if I had to choose one, I would say Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays (and like I said, this is only if I had to subscribe to one of the theories).Secondly, it's ridiculous to say that Cervantes did not exist! I thought for sure that these theories ended with Shakespeare; not that they extended into other areas of literature!
No. The longstanding joke among Shakespeare scholars is that his works were not written by him, but by another author of the same name. :D
Eatbooks wrote: "He says that in England they already believe that Bacon is really the genius behind all these sonnets and plays."I've yet to hear that conspiracy theory floating around - and we English definitely don't all believe that, sorry.
The closest person that could come to being named as Shakespeare is Marlowe and even that's still just another theory.
I personally cannot see the problem with accepting William Shakespeare existed and wrote his own works.
Almost every famous person alive at that time has been accused of being the real Shakespeare.I've heard Elizabeth 1st, a bunch of other members of British government from that time, and (my personal favorite) Christopher Marlowe, who apparently faked his own death and then continued to write plays under the pen-name, Shakespeare.
I personally don't much care if Shakespeare was real or not, the plays he wrote are good and well worth reading, no matter WHO wrote them.
I remember reading something once where the author analyzed the use of regional terms and colloquialisms to determine that Shakespeare authored his own works. There were some nonstandard terms for herbs and flowers and the like which matched the region where Shakespeare grew up, and which were not terms a born Londoner like Bacon would have even known, much less used.
I think it's fair to say that most British people think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare plays. however,given the collaborative nature of theatre writing, at the time, there may have been other hands involved in the writing, from time to time, and often in the earlier plays.The Bacon theory is a bit old hat - the current one is that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays. Despite the fact that Oxford was dead before King Lear was written.
These theories seem to be based upon a snobbery that started in the Elizabethan times that because Shakespeare did not go to University, he was being presumptuous in his ambition to write. Shakespeare's education, however, would no doubt have equipped him to start to write and his education in the theatre as an actor, would again have developed his abilities and nurtured his genius.
Rick wrote: "I think it's fair to say that most British people think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare plays. however,given the collaborative nature of theatre writing, at the time, there may have been other h..."Yes--well put. For a more detailed case, read "Will In The World."
People will probably always continue to believe that Shakespeare's works were written by someone else until we dig up the man and ask him ourselves. I usually hate to recommend movies to avid readers, but watch "Anonymous" for an interesting take. Enjoy the works, and be grateful that SOMEBODY wrote them.
Your friend is saying Bacon was the real brains behind Shakespeare and Cervantes and neither men really existed? It's an interesting argument and I would love to hear the proof of it, but as a genuine idea it is really not plausible.For one, Bacon and Shakespeare both produced voluminous amounts of work that would have been beyond any one man. And considering the gulf between them, there's no way that such a man could be that prolific and varied.
Adding Cervantes to that mix just complicates matter further. Bacon and Shakespeare were contemporaries who both lived in Elizabethan England, but Cervantes was a Spanish noble. What did he do? Travel back and forth? Or construct some ruse to make it seem like such a man existed in Spain?
Also, how does he account for their deaths? It is true that Shakespeare and Cervantes both died in 1616, so is he suggesting he retired them both as personas in the same year and went to live for another ten years as himself?
Of course, those are just common sense arguments. I'm a historian and a English lit teacher so I know that there is really no evidence to support the contention that Shakespeare wasn't the genius behind his own work. It's merely a quasi-conspiracy theory that is based on grey areas and the lack of comprehensive records at the time.
Historians love to do this, mainly because its a way of having fun with ambiguity and lack of extensive documentation. But in the end, the only real argument they have is "you can't prove it DIDN'T happen this way." But that's not proof.
There are even those who used to suggest that Shakespeare was gay, but the proof there is simply a bunch of letters and Sonnets that he wrote to a man that speaks of love, but these were a matter of public record and platonic love between men was a common sentiment back then. That doesn't prove that an elicit love affair existed at all! It was just an attempt to be edgy by some avant-garde intellectuals that some people chose to believe.
People in England do not believe that Bacon wrote the plays. Bacon is best served cooked to a crisp between two slices of bread. Shakespeare is best served in the theatre.
Martin wrote: "People in England do not believe that Bacon wrote the plays. Bacon is best served cooked to a crisp between two slices of bread. Shakespeare is best served in the theatre."Excellent reply ... had me in stitches and dealt with the suggestion with the contempt it deserves. Love my Shakespeare and the weekend is not complete without a bacon butty!
Martin wrote: "People in England do not believe that Bacon wrote the plays. Bacon is best served cooked to a crisp between two slices of bread. Shakespeare is best served in the theatre."ohhhh that's funny
Martin wrote: "People in England do not believe that Bacon wrote the plays. Bacon is best served cooked to a crisp between two slices of bread. Shakespeare is best served in the theatre."Excellent! I laughed out loud, and in a library, no less!
Love 'Martin''s comment! The short answer to the question is 'No' The longer answer would involve actually reading Bacon and Shakespeare and comparing style, content, language, tone etc. The same goes for Marlowe, Oxford and anyone else, mainly Americans dig up. The author is, however, almost irrelevant Shakespeare is a body of work, which is considered by many including myself as the greatest body of work written in the English Language. Whether the author was bald, uneducated, gay or heterosexual does not change the genius of the work.
Speaking of Bacon, I first heard of this Shakespearean authorship question while taking a semester abroad in England. Evidently, it was started in the 19th century by American woman named -- are you ready for this? -- Delia Bacon, who believed Shakespeare's oeuvre was produced by a cartel of geniuses, including Francis Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh and others, possibly including Edmund Spenser. She went so far as trying to have Shakespeare's bones disinterred, although what that would have proven, I'm still not sure.
Moogie wrote: "Love 'Martin''s comment! The short answer to the question is 'No' The longer answer would involve actually reading Bacon and Shakespeare and comparing style, content, language, tone etc. The same g..."Shit, I forgot that there are some who say Marlowe produces Shakespeare's work as well. And while I don't entirely agree that the author is irrelevant, you do make a very good point. The real legacy is the body of work, which is why is it so often assailed as false or falsely attributed.
I'm not sure if it's a tendency where people feel the need undermine something or someone just because they are venerated, or just the constant desire to reinterpret the past. On the flip side, there are those who argue that Stalin, Hitler and Tojo are all victims of conspiracies and were in fact good men. There are those who claim that America's separation between church and state is a misrepresentation by liberals, and that McCarthy was a noble man who was torn down by self-interested leftists.
In short, we seem to love to rehabilitate the monsters as well as smear the gods.
Much more evidence proving that Christopher Marlowe had his death staged and escaped to write Shakespeare's works. Don't know if I truly agree with the idea, it is the best known connection/theory that I have researched and heard of. Earl of Oxford? Bacon? None really hold up as much as Marlowe.
Matthew really enjoyed your reply and I agree the author is not totally irrelevant but I wanted to really empathise the work. I think you are correct that people like to reinterpret history according to the tastes and fears of the day. 'David' the theories concerning Marlowe do not contain evidence, they are of the seriously 'conspiracy theory' type. If you haven't already read 'Faustus' you should and compare to Hamlet or one of the history plays and see what you think. There were most likely other 'helpers' in the works of Shakespeare they were probably members of his troupe of players.
Oh sweet Jesus, not this crap again.
Chloe wrote: "Oh sweet Jesus, not this crap again."I'm afraid so. The literary world is filled with conspiracy theories, much like the world of history. At least no one has suggested that Jesus wrote the Merchant of Venice... yet!
I would recommend "Contested Will," by (my awesome Shakespeare prof) Shapiro. He gives the histories behind the Bacon and Earl of Oxford theories and then argues for Shakespeare authorship. One of the most compelling arguments was that many of the characters were written for actors Shakespeare worked with. In some of the manuscripts, the actor's name is even substituted for the character's name. Only someone very familiar with an actor would envision that person in the part so vividly that they switch the names.
Impossible to know for sure since we did not live in those times. We cannot even see through deception in our time, what makes us think we'll see through deceit in times past? There is a lot to suggest that Bacon may have been the true author of works attributed to Shakespeare. I can go on and on about that, but ultimately you have to do your own research and come up with your own conclusions. I'll leave you with one hint. Did you know that Bacon's nickname as a child was Hamlet, which means "little ham," or "bacon?"http://larosenoire1984.blogspot.com/2...
There is another theory on Shakespeare's true identity, saying that he is Italian in origin.(Sicilian to be more accurate) You might wanna check "Shakespeare era Italiano" by Martino Iuvara. I sincerely do not believe in the whole Bacon theory, it is just a well-thought fiction. The mystery however seems to remain unsolved, I guess Shakespeare would love it though, as a fan of mistaken identity.
Matthew, true. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that through my readings Marlowe seems to be the best one with literary chops to possibly sit in for Shakespeare--even if it would have taken a group of individuals stagging his death and helping him flee England. The documentary 'Much Ado About Something' and the book The Man Who Was Shakespeare by Calvin Hoffman seem to be the most interesting and influential. I was fortunate enough to borrow the book off of an old professor I had while finishing my English Literature degree--b/c the book is ridiculously expensive & difficult to attain. Honestly, I don't really buy into the whole conspiracy idea; however, Marlowe seems to be the best match for William's writing.
Lady Jane wrote: "Impossible to know for sure since we did not live in those times. We cannot even see through deception in our time, what makes us think we'll see through deceit in times past? There is a lot to sug..."There is a lot, you say? Like what? As a historian and English teacher, I have yet to see any evidence to that effect. Not challenging you, I would just like to know what the argument for this case is.
P.S. If the story of Bacon's nickname as a child is held as proof, I would say this argument is really reaching. I assume that's just a funny tidbit, but just in case...
Rick wrote: "I think it's fair to say that most British people think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare plays. however,given the collaborative nature of theatre writing, at the time, there may have been other h..."I think you hit the nail on the head! The most likely explanation is that Shakespeare wrote the plays, perhaps in collaboration with others. Whoever wrote them, they have their merit, but I find it odd sometimes to try to force something into a conspiracy or untruth or farfetched notion, when understanding it for what it is enriches my experience of the texts and works. I know some people enjoy the imaginative possibility of seeing how a theory could be supported, but if it's not something I logically believe to be true, why seek false information or false applications? For myself, as both an English teacher and writer, I do greater service to my understanding of the plays when I try to see them in their actual context and that means embracing the most logical theory - that they were most likely written by Shakespeare and then looking to history for the truths of the influences on his writing and life. I want to experience the sonnets and plays for the richness they truly offer by gaining a genuine understanding of the life of Shakespeare. It can be beneficial to study the public figures, culture and other writers of his time, for sure, but I am all for accuracy.
Fine, I'll admit it. I wrote them all. Bacon, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Hubbard. They were all my pen names. Since I was there, I can guarantee that this actually happened, and everyone can stop arguing about it.
I'm a big fan of your works, C.C.
I collaborated on Cervantes and Bacon. Please share the accolades, C.C.
☯Emily wrote: "I collaborated on Cervantes and Bacon. Please share the accolades, C.C."Fine, you can have 20% of the accolades, but since you were supposed to be the silent partner, you still get none of the royalties.
I have never understood this debate about Shakespeare's identity. And I understand even less why some people are truly obsessed about the subject. What does it matter? Call him Shakespeare, call him Bacon, call him John Smith... the fact is that he really existed, he really whote the best literature ever, he really was an awsome poet and person. Is a name SO important?
Nobody really knows. There are a lot of opinions on this and a lot of people think different things. But I agree with Ana that it really doesn't matter a whole lot who wrote them. But just know that nobody knows.
yes it is true, read erlend loe & petter amundsen's book. My book 'de waarheid over Don Quixote' tells exactly the same story. Bacon write with his 'good pens' the Don Quixote story, including the Avellaneda. He tells a huge secret in these 3 booksm the same as in de Shakespeare lays: the place where the Holy Grail, the Arc, is hidden. jettie van den boom
Bill wrote: "No. The longstanding joke among Shakespeare scholars is that his works were not written by him, but by another author of the same name. :D"Yes, at University this was a fave prof joke :)
I found that a lot of the conspiracy theorists, concerning whether Shakespeare is actually The Bard of Avon, are not English - mainly from The U.S. although, there are some Earl of Oxford theories over here. It isn't Bacon their way of writing is so very different, and Christopher Marlowe was dead in Deptford before many of Shakespeare's plays appeared in the second Quarto. Even the question is dubious as Shakespeare's plays were his re-write of well known stories. It wasn't considered plagiarism then but a compliment to the original author. :D
Izzy wrote: "I found that a lot of the conspiracy theorists, concerning whether Shakespeare is actually The Bard of Avon, are not English - mainly from The U.S. although, there are some Earl of Oxford theories ..."Yes. Marlowe died even before Will started to make his mark in London. I have heard it said (by some learned scholars) that Shakespeare's work is actually so peppered with references to Stratford, and colloquial Warwickshire expressions, that it would be impossible for Oxford or the others to have written it. Also I think some of the characters he created were a bit inconceivable to courtiers or members of the upper classes.
Christine wrote: "Izzy wrote: "I found that a lot of the conspiracy theorists, concerning whether Shakespeare is actually The Bard of Avon, are not English - mainly from The U.S. although, there are some Earl of Oxf..."Yes!
Jettie wrote: "yes it is true, read erlend loe & petter amundsen's book. My book 'de waarheid over Don Quixote' tells exactly the same story. Bacon write with his 'good pens' the Don Quixote story, including the ..." Where are you from, Jettie? Mars? Neptune? Or another galaxy altogether?
Ana wrote: "Jettie wrote: "yes it is true, read erlend loe & petter amundsen's book. My book 'de waarheid over Don Quixote' tells exactly the same story. Bacon write with his 'good pens' the Don Quixote story,..."Lol I'm so glad you said this Ana
Great, your comment, but if you have never read my book, what are you talking about? Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain. iIm a little goddess, Jettie H. van den Boom from Holland
Jettie wrote: "Great, your comment, but if you have never read my book, what are you talking about? Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain. iIm a little goddess, Jettie H. van den Boom from Holland"They don't need to read your book to respond to the content of your comments. Which, quite frankly, as a bit worrisome. You wrote a book that alleges that Bacon wrote Don Quixote with secret messages, like the location of the Grail and the Ark? That's some great fiction, but hardly scholarship. And this latest one, you seem to be alleging that you are a goddess fighting stupidity? Yeah, guess again!
Also, Amundsen and Loe's book is hardly an reliable study on Shakespeare or Bacon. It alleges that there are "hidden ciphers" in Shakespeare's work that conceal hidden messages. And of course, they're making a documentary about his theories. Hidden messages, stenography, secret societies and hidden treasure. Yet another DaVinci Code-like conspiracy to entertain the naive and the gullible.
Eatbooks wrote: "My friend is doing a great deal of researching about Shakespeare's real identity. I am just wondering if it deserves an attention. Do you know anything about this? He says that in England they alre..."They're publicity stunts to bump up revenues in the cottage industries that are Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. Don't get distracted. Read the novel, read the plays. The rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
