| Author |
|
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12429
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 6:17am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
There's also Looney's "SHAKESPEARE" IDENTIFIED, which you can read online for free...
The Ogden book, as JB mentioned, is huge. That's a long, long read. The historian David McCullough (whom I doubt anybody can seriously dismiss as a crackpot) wrote the introduction to the 1984 edition. It's about 900 pages.
The Whalen, I would think, is indeed the best short introduction to the subject matter. Compact, swiftly-moving chapters.
The Price is the most methodical. I've conversed myself with Diana Price about some issues that came up after the book was published, and she responded to them with impressively quick erudition. Her focus goes down to the details of the details and comes up without even any possible blurry view of Stratford Shaksper as the Author. It's less than half as long as the Ogburn.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 3823
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 6:28am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Thanks for the recommendations!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132234
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 6:39am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
There's also Looney's "SHAKESPEARE" IDENTIFIED, which you can read online for free...•• I didn't mention Looney's seminal work for perhaps obvious reasons. Altho his proud old family name is pronounced "Loh-ney", its spelling tends to scuttle his case the moment his name appears. Most unfortunate, but there it is. In any case, the others distill the essence of his work, and provide details uncovered since he wrote SHAKESPEARE IDENTIFIED in the 1920s.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 12:15pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I have noticed one thing - just my opinion, of course - and that is that I gravitate more towards the candidates that have perhaps a bit more than just circumstantial evidence.
Maybe it's all circumstantial evidence, given we're dealing with 400+ year old writings. I'm just saying that some theories don't have anything other than circumstantial evidence; whereas at least for DeVere and Bacon, there seems to be more solid evidence (as solid as historical theories will allow).
God, that sounds like gibberish above. Good luck to anyone who understood my badly-explained point. ;)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew Chartrand
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 12:38pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion, but this thread sent me on a Google trip to learn more. I found these links informative:
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I shall enjoy reading those, thanks. :)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132234
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 12:52pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
That first link locked me into a cycle of defaulting to the App Store. I had to clear my cookies to escape!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12429
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 1:30pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Once I read that ANONYMOUS featured the idea that De Vere was Elizabeth's son and that they had committed incest, I lost all interest in the movie. I doubt I'll ever bother with it because of that.
For myself, I have never been able to shake (pun, sorry) the predominant and preponderant impression that the Author sympathized as intimately as possible with an aristocratic frame of mind and morality. Why Stratford-born Shaksper should write that way, or perhaps even could write that way, I don't know.
QUOTE:
| “Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism — personifying in unparall'd ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic cast, its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) — only one of the 'wolfish earls' so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works — works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded history.”
-- Walt Whitman |
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Many have said that the writings reveal a person who was utterly at home with the aristocratic language/teminology.
I was a civil servant (this analogy won't work, but I'll try). I do still speak "civil servant" at times. Sure, a guy could write a work of fiction about the UK civil service, and sound convincing, but he would not sound as convincing as I would if I wrote - because I actually lived and breathed it. Another non-civil servant could write as though he were a civil servant, but it would never be as 100% authentic as mine.
And that's how some have talked abotu Shakespeare. Defenders of him have stated it wouldn't be hard to write in the way he did or assume such a role - but arguments against him state that he was far more than familiar with such terminology and language, that it was completely natural to him.
Edited by Robbie Parry on 07 September 2015 at 1:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew Chartrand
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1357
|
| Posted: 07 September 2015 at 4:02pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Sorry about that, I tested the links before posting.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 3823
|
| Posted: 08 September 2015 at 12:54am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
So far, for me, the biggest argument against the Stratford man is his background and apparent lack of finer education, and how much knowledge of science, arts, history and the inner workings of the upper classes would be required to write in-depth on the topics of Shakespeare's plays.
The NY Times article from Matthew's link dismisses those concerns as snobbery, and invokes Dickens' poor background as proof. But doesn't that argument work against itself? Shakespeare and Dickens were two very different beasts. Dickens was concerned with the social issues of his time, and naturally so. He often portrayed the upper classes with poorly hidden ridicule and disdain, sometimes bordering on caricatures.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
J W Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: 08 September 2015 at 3:26am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
(For clarity: I am perfectly happy with the attribution of Shakespeare's plays and poetry to William Shakespeare.)
There's one question that's always bothered me about all the "anti-Stratford" arguments, and was wondering whether anyone who's read more widely among these can supply the answer: it's very easy (from a modern perspective) to under-estimate Ben Jonson's stature as literary figure during his lifetime. If (say) De Vere's authorship was more or less an open secret, why would such a literary giant perpetuate the lie that Shakespeare was the author of these plays after Shakespeare's death?
Edited by J W Campbell on 08 September 2015 at 4:24am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Topic Closed)
