The workes of Beniamin Ionson

319 views
Skip to first unread message

marco

unread,
Aug 10, 2016, 5:20:08 PM8/10/16
to
[more on this document at link below]

Shakespeare’s name occurs in two earlier cast lists, both printed in the Ben Jonson First Folio of 1616, as shown here. Jonson, a far more active self-promoter than Shakespeare, published his own Workes, entered in the Stationers Register on January 20, some three months before Shakespeare’s death in April 1616. Jonson’s publication includes nine plays, with a cast list for each play, along with poems and masques.

More informative than the single list in the Shakespeare First Folio, Jonson’s cast lists not only associate actors with particular plays, but supply the year of the first performance of each play, and identify the playing company. Unfortunately, actors’ names are not associated with particular roles, as in modern playbills, leaving theater historians to speculate on who played what part.


The first cast list is for Every Man In his Humor (p. 72):

This Comoedie was first Acted, in the yeere 1598.
By the then L. Chamberlayne his Servants.
The principall Comœdians were.

William Shakespeare Richard Burbage
Augustine Philips John Hemings
Henry Condell Thomas Pope
William Slye Christopher Beeston
William Kempe John Duke


The second cast-list containing Shakespeare’s name is for Jonson’s Sejanus (p. 438):

This Tragœdie was first acted, in the yeere 1603.
By the Kings Maiesties Servants.

The principall Tragœdians were,

Richard Burbage William Shake-Speare
Augustine Philips John Hemings
William Sly Henry Condell
John Lowin Alexander Cooke


[from shakespearedocumented.org

http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/works-benjamin-jonson-shakespeare-included-two-cast-lists

marc

ArtNea...@germanymail.com

unread,
Aug 11, 2016, 2:10:56 PM8/11/16
to
Art N

laraine

unread,
Aug 15, 2016, 2:21:03 PM8/15/16
to
So he's Shakespeare in the first list (Every Man In his Humour), and
Shake-Speare in the second list (Sejanus).

C.


marco

unread,
Aug 15, 2016, 3:09:48 PM8/15/16
to
i know who Shakespeare is - but i wonder who this Shake-speare is..?

marc

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 15, 2016, 4:12:48 PM8/15/16
to
The co-author of the play!
Wiki says...
Sejanus His Fall was performed at court in 1603, and at the Globe Theatre in 1604. The latter performance was a failure. According to Jonson, an unnamed co-author "had good share" in the version of the play as it was "acted on the public stage".

The use of the hyphen indicates a co-author. as we know from the Sonnets. Jonson got around naming the other person by splitting Shakespeare's name. The fact that he did that in one of his own books, points to the fact that it was Ben Jonson, who had published the Sonnets. Though he wasn't the co-author of them. In Jonson's intro to them he hints that the other person is now dead. And since the Sonnets tell you with all the hints in them that Elizabeth is the person, she was the co-author of the Sonnets with William Shakespeare.

marco

unread,
Aug 15, 2016, 4:28:22 PM8/15/16
to
fantastic!

But for bragging and telling...fantastical lies: Othello: II, i

That it alone is high fantastical. Twelfth Night: I, i

Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven Measure for Measure: II, ii

Words are a very fantastical banquet... Much Ado About Nothing: II, iii

Mad and fantastic execution, Toilus and Cressida: V, v

It was a mad fantastical trick of him to steal from Measure for Measure: III, ii

fantastical; too, too vain, too too vain: but we Love's Labour's Lost: V, ii

By thinking on fantastic summer's heat? King Richard II: I, iii


William Shakespear, gentleman




Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 16, 2016, 11:04:04 PM8/16/16
to
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
>
> So he's Shakespeare in the first list (Every Man In his Humour), and
> Shake-Speare in the second list (Sejanus).

From my anti-Stratfordian point of view, I'd say Jonson's First Folio was intended to lend support to the list of actors in Shakespeare's First Folio, which in turn lends support to the fake Last Will and Testament of Shakspere, this being the vital link to the London theater. Note that the two spellings, Shakespeare and Shake-speare (or Shake-Speare?), match what we see on the cover of Shakespeare's quartos, thereby implying that the actor and the playwright were one and the same.

I think I read somewhere that some five hundred copies of Shakespeare's First Folio were printed. How many copies of Jonson's First Folio were printed and how many copies are still extant? I would like to hear that at least fifty copies (just 10% of the Shakespeare number) were printed or that half a dozen copies are still extant to believe that Jonson's First Folio was really printed in 1616. By my thinking, there was no motive to print a lot of copies of Jonson's First Folio: they only needed a handful of well-placed copies to support all the nonsense.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 7:00:55 AM8/17/16
to
Since Jonson brought out his book before Shakespeare's death then it could not have possibly been linked to support the 1623 volume at all. I would have thought that by 1623 all of the Jonson books would have been printed, long since.
Let's get clear on one thing it was Jonson who wanted Shakespeare to live on and he clearly wanted to make certain that everyone knew about William Shakespeare of Stratford.
To me Ben's folio shows it was him that invented the use of a hyphen on Shakespeare's name. He does this to show that Shakespeare was working on any such publication with another person. In the Jonson book, it's clear that Ben himself and Shakespeare wrote the play together. In the Sonnets, which clearly were authorised by Jonson, Ben knew they were joint works, but he dare not name Elizabeth, so he splits the name.
I wouldn't be surprised if any play or publication that uses "Shakes-speare" was published under the guidance of Ben Jonson. And always means that two writers are involved, one being William Shakespeare of Stratford, of course.

Mutton if you can't see this, then the only "nonsense" is the stuff that is floating around your head.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 18, 2016, 12:59:35 AM8/18/16
to
Marco,

If you wish to claim that Ben Jonson's First Folio (1616) supports the candidacy of Shakspere, you should do the following:

1. Provide evidence, with a few examples, that it was normal and commonplace to include in the publication of a play in that epoch a list of actors (Hemings, Condell) in addition to, or in place of, a list of characters (Romeo, Juliet).

2. Provide evidence that Jonson's First Folio was printed in a large enough quantity as to constitute a commercially viable print-for-profit venture.

Otherwise, Jonson's First Folio simply joins the registry entries as nothing more than backdated support for Shakspere, likely printed around the same as Shakespeare's First Folio.

I await your reply.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2016, 6:53:30 AM8/18/16
to
On Thursday, 18 August 2016 05:59:35 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> If you wish to claim that Ben Jonson's First Folio (1616) supports the candidacy of Shakspere, you should do the following:
>
> 1. Provide evidence, with a few examples, that it was normal and commonplace to include in the publication of a play in that epoch a list of actors (Hemings, Condell) in addition to, or in place of, a list of characters (Romeo, Juliet).
>
> 2. Provide evidence that Jonson's First Folio was printed in a large enough quantity as to constitute a commercially viable print-for-profit venture.

Why? Many books are printed for sheer vanity. If you can get someone to pay for them to be published it doesn't matter about profit! It's the 16th Century, publishers were not Rupert Murdoch types!
>
> Otherwise, Jonson's First Folio simply joins the registry entries as nothing more than backdated support for Shakspere, likely printed around the same as Shakespeare's First Folio.
>
> I await your reply.

Marco doesn't need to prove anything. YOU NEED TO DISPROVE them.

I will say one thing. Not every publication went into the Stationers Register. For example the Passionate Pilgrim carries a date of 1599. But Peter Zenner a supporter of the Marlowe claim, got Kate Welch of the Shakespeare Institute to check the Stationer's records for the publication. It was not there. The reason was that it was published after 1603. For if you look at it there are references to someone who had died and of course the same "Roses" and "pearls" features seen in the Sonnets. The printer was William Jaggard and of course by putting an earlier date on them would make money from it, plus it broke same new rules about printing books. But the earlier date, would mean these rules didn't apply. However Peter Zenner correctly concluded that since it wasn't published in 1599, as it would have been in the Register! He could not enter it in when it was printed. Not with the date of 1599 on it. Therefore it was not entered at all.
Presumably to enter a anything in the Stationer's register you had to have a copy of it to show them. As the above situation suggests. So when the book of Jonson was entered there was at least one copy to see. In January 1616! So that probably means that the book was in production at that time. And not in 1623.

ArtNea...@germanymail.com

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 3:50:17 PM8/20/16
to
Art N

marco

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 6:30:13 PM8/21/16
to
.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 10:46:28 PM8/21/16
to
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:53:30 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Presumably to enter a anything in the Stationer's register you had to have a copy of it to show them. As the above situation suggests. So when the book of Jonson was entered there was at least one copy to see. In January 1616! So that probably means that the book was in production at that time. And not in 1623.

You raise a fascinating point. Indeed, it does seem that the Stationers Register should have wanted to not merely see a copy of the work, but to be given a copy of the work to retain. How else could they resolve ownership disputes? If not to resolve potential conflicts over rights, why would anyone bother to register their work at all? If all that was provided to the Register was the title, then the registrant could change the name of any work to the registered name and claim he owned it.

I think I read somewhere that Shakespeare's long poems and a few plays were registered before they were printed. Are you claiming that the Stationers Register had sight of Shakespeare's original manuscripts? I doubt it.

Note that I am not suggesting that Jonson did not write his First Folio or anything like that. I am only challenging the authenticity of a single page, the page that lists Shakespeare, Burbage, Hemings, Condell as actors, the same actors listed in "The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes" of Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623 (performing in all thirty-six plays one must wonder how he found the time for land speculating, wool dealing, grain dealing, and money lending not to mention researching and writing the plays) and the names of the three co-actors are found in Shakspere's Last Will and Testament.

And so it would seem that the conspirators, thinking that they would be unable to get away with forging Shakspere's name into the attendance records at Cambridge or Oxford, decided to make him an actor instead. Thus, those two lists of actors that include Shakespeare's name are a deliberate fabrication.

To prove that these lists are not a forgery, all you need to do is to convince us that it was normal procedure, with the publication of a play or plays, to include "The Names of the Principall Actors" in addition to, or in place of,
a "Drammatis Personae" (list of characters). Please provide us with an example of a published list of actors from that epoch that does not include the name of Shakespeare.

BTW, expert opinion says that it takes, even for a genius, roughly six months to write a play of Shakespearean quality. That converts, for thirty-six plays, into eighteen years of full-time work. Doesn't leave Shakspere with a lot of time for pimping, does it?

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 8:16:30 AM8/22/16
to
On Monday, 22 August 2016 03:46:28 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> You raise a fascinating point. Indeed, it does seem that the Stationers Register should have wanted to not merely see a copy of the work, but to be given a copy of the work to retain. How else could they resolve ownership disputes? If not to resolve potential conflicts over rights, why would anyone bother to register their work at all? If all that was provided to the Register was the title, then the registrant could change the name of any work to the registered name and claim he owned it.

The Stationers’ Register was a record book maintained by the Stationers' Company of London. The company is a trade guild given a royal charter in 1557 to regulate the various professions associated with the publishing industry, including printers, bookbinders, booksellers, and publishers.

" The Company's charter gave it the right to seize illicit editions and bar the publication of unlicensed books."

Sufficient to act as deterrent I would have thought? Though several publications were not registered.
>
> I think I read somewhere that Shakespeare's long poems and a few plays were registered before they were printed. Are you claiming that the Stationers Register had sight of Shakespeare's original manuscripts? I doubt it.
We have no record of what they took as proof so maybe they did see a manuscript?
>
> Note that I am not suggesting that Jonson did not write his First Folio or anything like that.
That makes a change!!!

I am only challenging the authenticity of a single page,
Oh!.. so a forged page in a book that is essentially correct? Screwball ideas start up again...
the page that lists Shakespeare, Burbage, Hemings, Condell as actors, the same actors...
However each play carries the names of the actors and some appear on some of the plays and Shakespeare is one that doesn't always appear!

...listed in "The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes" of Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623...

Shakespeare appears in all of the plays in the first folio, he doesn't in Ben Jonson works...
(performing in all thirty-six plays one must wonder how he found the time for land speculating, wool dealing, grain dealing, and money lending not to mention researching and writing the plays) and the names of the three co-actors are found in Shakespere's Last Will and Testament.

Very easily I would have thought since the plays were written before 1588.
>
> And so it would seem that the conspirators, thinking that they would be unable to get away with forging Shakespeare's name into the attendance records at Cambridge or Oxford, decided to make him an actor instead. Thus, those two lists of actors that include Shakespeare's name are a deliberate fabrication.

Really! You seem to think that they could get away with doing everything else. Marlowe for example got his degree from class privilege. He was rarely there, acting in the plays of Shakespeare. He was not a spy, by the way...
Shakespeare plays take the piss out of University and education, since you don't read them, you might have missed that. Shakespeare like me takes the piss out of University students and professors. You have to when they can't spot that Queen Elizabeth was what most people would call a dumb blonde. Imagine modern politicians trying to make sense of the Queen if she had been just like Marilyn Monroe!!
>
> To prove that these lists are not a forgery, all you need to do is to convince "US" that it was normal procedure, with the publication of a play or plays, to include "The Names of the Principall Actors" in addition to, or in place of,

Convince who?

It was not normal to publish a play at all. There are loads of entries in Henslowe diary that were NEVER published.

> a "Drammatis Personae" (list of characters). Please provide us with an example of a published list of actors from that epoch that does not include the name of Shakespeare.

Jonson's book does that on several plays.
>
> BTW, expert opinion says that it takes, even for a genius, roughly six months to write a play of Shakespearean quality. That converts, for thirty-six plays, into eighteen years of full-time work. Doesn't leave Shakespeare with a lot of time for pimping, does it?

Insults again...

Who are these experts? Did they ever write anything?
I would conclude that six months is bullshit. It takes as long as it takes to do anything. You can't set a time limit on it.
Walter Gibson, creator of the Shadow, famously wrote nearly 1.7 million words in a single year at the height of his output.
Matt Forbeck wrote a full novel — 91,000 words — in two weeks!

I believe that Shakespeare turned out about 600 plays during the period 1581 to 1588, with far fewer after that date and hardly any after 1603. Most his known output were reissued, with just a few changes in the 1590's.

Shakespeare and his team had to produce that many to keep the Queen entertained and the public. The population being so small. You could not do repeats unless you wanted things thrown at you.
You might consider a Shakespeare play to be a product of a genius, but Robert Green didn't.
The small amount of plays that we do have of Shakespeare are a fragment of his work. The rest lost or destroyed, take your pick.
We therefore have very few of the plays to look at. The ones that were crap didn't get published.



Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 1:25:19 PM8/22/16
to
The reason why Shakspere of Stratford could not have been an actor is the same reason why he could not have been a playwright, namely, overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was illiterate. You seem to be unaware of anti-Stratfordian arguments against the literacy of Shakspere, so I will summarize of few of them here:

1. There is no academic record that he ever attended any school or university so much as for a single day, and this in an epoch in which it was normal for academic institutions to maintain attendance records. No professor has ever claimed to have taught him and no one has ever claimed to have been his fellow student.

2. There is no historical record that he ever owned a book, bought a book, or borrowed a book in his life.

3. While his plays put into evidence the readership of dozens if not hundreds of books, searches throughout Stratford and Warwickshire for the remains of his library have failed to turn up so much as a single book.

4. In addition, there is no secondary evidence of literacy such as ownership of a writing desk, nor are there other signs of a man of culture such as ownership of musical instruments.

5. Both his parents are known to have been illiterate making it unlikely that he grew up in a household full of books that could nurture his literary talents.

6. At least one of his daughters signed her name with an X and is deemed to have been illiterate. So far, no historical record of any other accomplished playwright, in any country or in any epoch, with illiterate children has come to light.

7. No manuscript, letter or memo written in his hand has ever been found. While it is possible that his own papers were destroyed, it cannot explain why no recipient of his manuscripts or letters wished to retain them. It was customary for scholarly people to retain received letters in those days and many collections of letters have been published.

8. His six surviving signatures are so crude, even inconsistent in spelling, that they can be said to reflect the scribble of a young child rather than a man of letters. In that epoch it was customary for men of letters to devise an elegant signature and use it consistently. Shakspere might have been ill at the time of his Last Will and Testament, but this cannot explain the other three signatures which are equally bad.

9. His gravestone says "Read if thou canst", insinuating that he could not read.

10. His gravestone goes on to say "all that he hath writt, leaves living art, but page, to serve his witt." In other words, all of his theatrical writing (living art) is reflected on the page displayed in his monument. But that page is blank, that is, he wrote nothing.

Thus, being unable to read and learn any dialogues, Shakspere of Stratford could not have been an actor and it follows that the two pages from Jonson's First Folio and the one page from Shakspere's First Folio all claiming that he was actor have to be a fabrication.

BTW, you claim that Jonson's First Folio was registered in January 1616 but a registry entry dated January 1616 would reflect January 1617 on our calendar. The difference is significant since Shakspere died in April 1616. So, which is it, January 1616 or January 1617?

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:29:12 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, 22 August 2016 18:25:19 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> The reason why Shakspere of Stratford could not have been an actor is the same reason why he could not have been a playwright, namely, overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was illiterate. You seem to be unaware of anti-Stratfordian arguments against the literacy of Shakspere, so I will summarize of few of them here:

I am fully aware of Anti-Stratfordian arguments. They like yours are based on a belief that somebody from a background other than University or Aristocratic background could not have written the plays. They also follow the Stratfordian lines of Shakespearean history. I have made it clear several times that is a false route to take.
> 1. There is no academic record that he ever attended any school or university so much as for a single day, and this in an epoch in which it was normal for academic institutions to maintain attendance records. No professor has ever claimed to have taught him and no one has ever claimed to have been his fellow student.

There are no school records for Stratford at all for anybody. So if there no records for anyone we do NOT know who Shakespeare school chums were. We do know that one of the printers came from Stratford, therefore He would have known Shakespeare. Stratford's population at that time was not great so everyone knew everyone. He does not to be a university person to write these plays. As I said previous he attacks such places.
I assume you went to University and it seems to have turned your mind to scrambled egg!

>
> 2. There is no historical record that he ever owned a book, bought a book, or borrowed a book in his life.

Ask why? I don't think you will any evidence of people buying a book or borrowing books at that time, unless they were filthy rich. The records of him owning books were probably destroyed in the inventory to the will, which went up in flames along with loads of others in 1666. Assuming he didn't destroy them himself.
>
> 3. While his plays put into evidence the readership of dozens if not hundreds of books, searches throughout Stratford and Warwickshire for the remains of his library have failed to turn up so much as a single book.
>
See above...

> 4. In addition, there is no secondary evidence of literacy such as ownership of a writing desk, nor are there other signs of a man of culture such as ownership of musical instruments.
>
Again see above...
> 5. Both his parents are known to have been illiterate making it unlikely that he grew up in a household full of books that could nurture his literary talents.
>
Back to his parents again. Old argument does not wash.

> 6. At least one of his daughters signed her name with an X and is deemed to have been illiterate. So far, no historical record of any other accomplished playwright, in any country or in any epoch, with illiterate children has come to light.

It was not the practice to teach daughters anything. Women back then were seen very different to those of today. Lots of men were unhappy that a Queen was on the throne. Of course she showed them different. It's likely that Shakespeare just didn't have time for his kids if he was in Stratford. Alcoholic fathers don't generally make good parents.

> 7. No manuscript, letter or memo written in his hand has ever been found. While it is possible that his own papers were destroyed, it cannot explain why no recipient of his manuscripts or letters wished to retain them. It was customary for scholarly people to retain received letters in those days and many collections of letters have been published.

Manuscripts generally don't last. Unless they were done on parchment, but that was very expensive compared to paper so wasn't used. Paper will last about 200 years at the most. I have a theory that they are hidden somewhere. But it's likely Shakespeare had a big bonfire of most of his papers and books after Ben Jonson had the Sonnets published in 1609.
>
> 8. His six surviving signatures are so crude, even inconsistent in spelling, that they can be said to reflect the scribble of a young child rather than a man of letters. In that epoch it was customary for men of letters to devise an elegant signature and use it consistently. Shakspere might have been ill at the time of his Last Will and Testament, but this cannot explain the other three signatures which are equally bad.

Alcoholism explains all the signatures. Most writers and actors suffer from it. It's still common in writers and Actors today. In the end his "Sweet" Sherry drinking addiction killed him. Liver failure. As described by a later vicar of Stratford and the story of his death was used by Ben Jonson in the play The Devil is An Ass which came out shortly after Shakespeare's death.

> 9. His gravestone says "Read if thou canst", insinuating that he could not read.

His gravestone reads only the curse.
The other stuff added in 1623 was done for the visitors that would be expected to come to Stratford to see the grave of Shakespeare. It simply refers to the fact that most of the population could not read Latin. Which features on them.
> 10. His gravestone goes on to say "all that he hath writt, leaves living art, but page, to serve his witt." In other words, all of his theatrical writing (living art) is reflected on the page displayed in his monument. But that page is blank, that is, he wrote nothing.
I do not agree with that interpretation.

> Thus, being unable to read and learn any dialogues, Shakspere of Stratford could not have been an actor and it follows that the two pages from Jonson's First Folio and the one page from Shakspere's First Folio all claiming that he was actor have to be a fabrication.

Jonson claims that Shakespeare worked with him writing one of Jonson's plays. That's why he hyphenates Shakespeare's name in the list of actors.
Since Shakespeare was sent a letter, albeit about his business dealings, then it means that Shakespeare could read. You don't send letters to somebody who can't read. And the letter was from someone who knew him well. Shakespeare's signs his name too! So he can read and write.

> BTW, you claim that Jonson's First Folio was registered in January 1616 but a registry entry dated January 1616 would reflect January 1617 on our calendar. The difference is significant since Shakspere died in April 1616. So, which is it, January 1616 or January 1617?

The Stationers register used the same date system as the Burial register. There is no confusion of dates. The register entered it January of 1616 and Shakespeare was buried on the 23 April. Actually wouldn't have Shakespeare been buried in 1617 in the modern dating system? And the Stationer's register would still be 1616. Since the year change was in April, not January back then. Just like the UK tax year! Which they did not change because it would mess up the finances!!

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:47:05 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:16:30 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Monday, 22 August 2016 03:46:28 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> >
> > BTW, expert opinion says that it takes, even for a genius, roughly six months to write a play of Shakespearean quality. That converts, for thirty-six plays, into eighteen years of full-time work. Doesn't leave Shakespeare with a lot of time for pimping, does it?
>
> Insults again...

The supposition that Shakspere was a pimp comes from a 1594 poem called Willobie His Avisa, which has led some (me not included) to conclude that Shakspere procured women for the Earl of Southampton.

Even without pimping, Shakspere looks fully occupied with his more firmly established activities: land dealing, grain dealing, wool dealing, and money lending. In London, we have to add theater management (one must assume all of the handful of shareholders were actively engaged in the running the show) and the career of a full-time actor which itself was quite time-consuming requiring rehearsal every morning and performances every afternoon. Let's not forget that we also have to take into account travel time between London and Stratford, and pub socializing time which, according to the Stratfordians, is how William learned everything he needed to know about Italy, English law, and many other matters.

To the question "How long did it take for Shakespeare to write his plays?", Yahoo! Answers gives the following as the BEST answer: "It took Shakespeare fifteen months to write a play and Romeo and Juliet took him two years." So, with only thirty-six plays in his First Folio, he could have gotten it all done in just 45 years!

Honestly, you can't imagine how ridiculous and absurd you Stratfordians sound. If everything you say about Shakspere of Stratford is true, there is no realistic chance at all that he could have found the time to write the Shakespearean canon.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 1:45:37 PM8/23/16
to
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 04:47:05 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:16:30 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 August 2016 03:46:28 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, expert opinion says that it takes, even for a genius, roughly six months to write a play of Shakespearean quality. That converts, for thirty-six plays, into eighteen years of full-time work. Doesn't leave Shakespeare with a lot of time for pimping, does it?
> >
>
> To the question "How long did it take for Shakespeare to write his plays?", Yahoo! Answers gives the following as the BEST answer: "It took Shakespeare fifteen months to write a play and Romeo and Juliet took him two years." So, with only thirty-six plays in his First Folio, he could have gotten it all done in just 45 years!

Yahoo answers!!! Really Mutton is that the best you can come up with?
Novels are far more complicated than a play and as I said before a REAL WRITER produced a 91,000 word one in two weeks. Most of Romeo and Juilet is based on the early life of Queen Elizabeth, others on his own experiences with her. Some people don't understand writing at all, especially those who go on Yahoo answers. They are just school kids wanting to complete an essay set by a teacher. Stupid people teachers. They haven't realised that teaching kids past the age of 12 is causing massive social damage to the world. A school is a day jail for kids that's all. You learn nothing going to one. Apart from learning how to cause social problems for yourself and other people.
Did it take a month to write all the stories for today's Times Newspaper?
Frame you argument on those lines.
>
> Honestly, you can't imagine how ridiculous and absurd you Stratfordians sound. If everything you say about Shakspere of Stratford is true, there is no realistic chance at all that he could have found the time to write the Shakespearean canon.

I am not a Stratfordian, since they don't except the Sonnets were partially written by Queen Elizabeth.
Assumptions incorrect again.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 3:59:36 PM8/23/16
to
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 1:45:37 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 04:47:05 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> >
> > To the question "How long did it take for Shakespeare to write his plays?", Yahoo! Answers gives the following as the BEST answer: "It took Shakespeare fifteen months to write a play and Romeo and Juliet took him two years." So, with only thirty-six plays in his First Folio, he could have gotten it all done in just 45 years!
>
> Yahoo answers!!! Really Mutton is that the best you can come up with?

Well, it was a lot easier to give you Yahoo! Answers than to try to track down that Youtube video that fully explains why it took Shakespeare about six months to write one of his plays. But even at six months, rather than fifteen months, that still leaves eighteen years of full-time play writing work that Shakspere needs to squeeze into his already very busy schedule. Not likely. For sure, Stratfordianism does not hold up under serious scrutiny. So there.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 8:12:22 PM8/23/16
to
You keep missing the point. It DID not take months to write a play! It would have taken no more than a month. Once the idea of the play was established, it was then brained stormed amongst the people who performed in the play. It was performed then written down.
I will take you through it.
First there are no auditions for the play, like in the movie Shakespeare In Love. If for example it says in the play a 14-year-old female from Italy. It was played by a 14 year old female from Italy. There are some parts were it says a chap comes on banging a drum. Well that's Tarleton! The parts are written around the people. Not the other way around. In this respect a Shakespeare play is different from a modern play. The rest of the production is a bit like some USA comedies were they have writers doing the lines. But in this case the writers are also the actors. This way you avoid writer's block. And you can produce things at speed. Plus you get round the problem of the ALL KNOWING single writer. I'm remember reading in the book about Shakespeare In Italy, that the Jewish stuff is not made up. It's factual do to small details. So there is no way any of the candidates for the writers of the plays could know that, including Shakespeare. But if you have a Jewish actor playing the part, then he would know precisely, especially if he came from Italy!
Of course that doesn't mean a Shakespeare play should carry several names on it. You would not expect a modern movie to carry the names of everyone who contributed to it on the film poster. So they just put for example Steven Spielberg, or James Cameron's Titanic. Of course we don't know what happens after the play is finished. Perhaps like the cast list on the movies, the company showed themselves and someone said their name and part(s).
You can even see "outakes" left in for laughs. In one of History plays an actor trips up and the others joke about it. It was clearly left in.
With this method you can produce a play quickly. And that is what they needed to do. Very short runs for the production. Regardless of popularity. Maybe 8 to 12 plays a year. Reduced down due to bad weather and times when they were not allowed to perform, religion etc. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the produced 50 plays a year.
All in all between 1581 and 1588 Shakespeare did at least 90 plays. But I reckon he did a hell of lot more say 350!

marco

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 10:45:47 PM8/23/16
to
.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 11:19:44 PM8/23/16
to
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:12:22 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> All in all between 1581 and 1588 Shakespeare did at least 90 plays. But I reckon he did a hell of lot more say 350!

The amount of time it took Shakespeare to write one of his plays is an important matter as it certainly looks like Shakspere of Stratford did not have a lot of spare time on his hands granted that he was engaged in so many extraneous activities. It could be helpful to get the opinion of contemporary playwrights, theatrical producers and literary agents on how long it takes to write a top-notch play. In all probability, someone has already talked to them about this. Perhaps Laraine would like to check it out for us. She' s an excellent researcher.

Anyone, of course, can write a lot of gibberish quickly but Shakespeare's plays are known for their high quality and psychological depth. Length is another factor and I hear that some of Shakespeare's plays are longer than normal, that it could take up to five hours to perform a play like Hamlet in full. Still another factor to consider is that most of Shakespeare's plays have foreign settings, thereby requiring historical, geographic, cultural and linguistic research otherwise not needed by many run-of-the-mill playwrights.

It is quite interesting that most of the plays were unpublished at the time of Shakspere's death in 1616. One reason could be that a lot of them were still being written. Stratfordians view registrations and performances as proof of completion prior to Shakspere's retirement in 1613, but that is based solely on title, and there can be no guarantee that these are the same plays that appeared in the First Folio of 1623.

Indeed, the numerical disarray preceding page 109 of the Tragedies section of the First Folio strongly suggests that a play was freshly completed, or that a play underwent substantial additions or deletions, at the last minute, that is, after the printing process had already begun. They simply did not want to re-number and re-print the bulk of the tragedies already printed.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 10:31:33 AM8/24/16
to
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 04:19:44 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:12:22 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >
> > All in all between 1581 and 1588 Shakespeare did at least 90 plays. But I reckon he did a hell of lot more say 350!
>
> The amount of time it took Shakespeare to write one of his plays is an important matter as it certainly looks like Shakspere of Stratford did not have a lot of spare time on his hands granted that he was engaged in so many extraneous activities. It could be helpful to get the opinion of contemporary playwrights, theatrical producers and literary agents on how long it takes to write a top-notch play. In all probability, someone has already talked to them about this. Perhaps Laraine would like to check it out for us. She' s an excellent researcher.

As opposed to you that is!
How long does it take depends on how they were written. I have explained already how the plays were done. Somebody from a modern prospective will not be able to help you, because they are done generally like the modern method a solo writer, which is what Stratfordians claim. However the problem with that is it's not fast enough. Plus you have the problem that all the candidates for the writer of the plays have, the amount of knowledge in them outweighs the knowledge of one man. So the person, knows the law, the wool trade, royal connection, Italy, medical and so many trades and experiences. So you finish up with a jack of all trades, plus a Royal, middle class, poor, Jewish, Italian, French, Greek, man who also is a woman!!!
No candidates fit that description at all.

>
> Anyone, of course, can write a lot of gibberish quickly

I think you are really good at that....

but Shakespeare's plays are known for their high quality and psychological depth. Length is another factor and I hear that some of Shakespeare's plays are longer than normal, that it could take up to five hours to perform a play like Hamlet in full.

Actually if performed in O.P. the plays length reduces considerably.

Still another factor to consider is that most of Shakespeare's plays have foreign settings, thereby requiring historical, geographic, cultural and linguistic research otherwise not needed by many run-of-the-mill playwrights.

Exactly like I said above. Easy if you have people from those backgrounds on the play. However Shakespeare was very quick to pick up languages. You only need to read Jonson's account of his death to see that. He was spouting Greek and other languages as he died.
>
> It is quite interesting that most of the plays were unpublished at the time of Shakspere's death in 1616. One reason could be that a lot of them were still being written. Stratfordians view registrations and performances as proof of completion prior to Shakspere's retirement in 1613, but that is based solely on title, and there can be no guarantee that these are the same plays that appeared in the First Folio of 1623.

The Stratfordian dating system is messed up due to the fact that they have assumed that Shakespeare's plays all date after 1589, due to Holinshed. In fact ALL the plays in the works of 1623 date before 1589. And came into being between 1581 and 1589.
People did not retire back then. It's likely that Shakespeare gave up acting in 1613, but his motives for doing that are unknown.
>
> Indeed, the numerical disarray preceding page 109 of the Tragedies section of the First Folio strongly suggests that a play was freshly completed, or that a play underwent substantial additions or deletions, at the last minute, that is, after the printing process had already begun. They simply did not want to re-number and re-print the bulk of the tragedies already printed.

The order of the plays in the first folio in the listing is interesting. For example why were certain plays are the top and others at the bottom of the contents lists of the three sections?
There are a few possibilities. First Alphabetical. Seconded popularity. Third random. Fourth in order they were played or written.
Well I think you can rule out one and two. The third option is what Stratfordians assume. But I believe that were done in the 4th Way. It makes sense on the history plays. You wouldn't do Henry VIII, then follow it with Richard III, would you? So that shows the first plays in the two other sections are the earliest plays.
Of course we have no idea of the order in the second folio, since the new plays were simply added on to the others.
But I think the people who put out the first book knew the order of the plays and that is why they put them in that order.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 11:10:11 AM8/25/16
to
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 10:31:33 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Of course we have no idea of the order in the second folio, since the new plays were simply added on to the others.
> But I think the people who put out the first book knew the order of the plays and that is why they put them in that order.

It looks like you got confused again. Additional plays were added to the Third Folio of 1665, not to the Second Folio of 1632. The Second Folio is the same as the First Folio but with more than a thousand revisions made by one of the original authors. The Second Folio, therefore, is the true final work of Shakespeare and it would be universally recognized as such except for the obstruction of the Stratfordians who irrationally believe the author died in 1616.

I just did a Google Images search on "play quartos of the 16th century” and pretty much only Shakespeare's quartos showed up. What's this, none of the other playwrights of the epoch wanted to get rich by printing and selling their plays? Granted that some two dozen printers and publishers rushed in to produce Shakespeare's quartos, one must imagine that these books were selling like hotcakes, which makes it all the more mysterious why the other playwrights didn't want to join in. Surely, unlike today, people back then were far more interested in reading the script than seeing the play performed, right?

Do you have any 16th or early 17th century book reviews of Shakespeare's quartos to show me? Do you have any letters from that epoch, written by anybody, praising or recommending Shakespeare's quartos? I'd bet all you have to show me is Meres, brother-in-a-law of one of the real authors, so his account could hardly be worth the paper it's printed on.

Pending radiocarbon dating, there can be no certainty on when the quartos were actually printed, but they are unlikely to have circulated among the public in any quantity during Shakspere's lifetime. This explains why, when Shakspere died in 1616, no one noticed and no one wrote him an eulogy: No one had ever heard of him.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 12:45:04 PM8/25/16
to
On Thursday, 25 August 2016 16:10:11 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> I just did a Google Images search on "play quartos of the 16th century” and pretty much only Shakespeare's quartos showed up. What's this, none of the other playwrights of the epoch wanted to get rich by printing and selling their plays? Granted that some two dozen printers and publishers rushed in to produce Shakespeare's quartos, one must imagine that these books were selling like hotcakes, which makes it all the more mysterious why the other playwrights didn't want to join in. Surely, unlike today, people back then were far more interested in reading the script than seeing the play performed, right?

No. Most of the population could not have read a Shakespeare play. The printed books would have been expensive to all but the upper and middle class.
The author's submitting work would NOT make much money even if it sold like hot cakes! As they just got a fee for them, a one off fee.
It still happens today. The sex pistols A&M version of God Save The Queen fetches many thousands of pounds when sold on E-Bay. But all the people who made the record would get is the few shillings it was sold for back in 1976.
>
Actually I think Ben Jonson was behind some of the printing of the plays. He wanted to ensure Shakespeare of Stratford was known, whereas William didn't.
>
> Pending radiocarbon dating, there can be no certainty on when the quartos were actually printed, but they are unlikely to have circulated among the public in any quantity during Shakspere's lifetime. This explains why, when Shakspere died in 1616, no one noticed and no one wrote him an eulogy: No one had ever heard of him.
It's one explanation, but it doesn't fit any known facts.
We do know for example that printing can occur after the death of the author. Since the title page of An Apologie for Poetrie by Phillip Sidney was printed 1595. But of course Sidney died in 1586.
This means that the text was in Manuscript. Interestingly he hints at Shakespeare plays in the book. Which means Sidney saw several Shakespeare plays. But according to Stratfordian thinking he couldn't have! As they all date after 1590. That shows you that the Shakespeare plays have been around for a long time before any where finally printed. In other words like films today they made the money at the box office first, before going to video formats. Or in Shakespeare's day the printed quarto's.

laraine

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 1:06:28 PM8/25/16
to
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:19:44 PM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:12:22 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >
> > All in all between 1581 and 1588 Shakespeare did at least 90 plays. But I reckon he did a hell of lot more say 350!
>
> The amount of time it took Shakespeare to write one of his plays is an important matter as it certainly looks like Shakspere of Stratford did not have a lot of spare time on his hands granted that he was engaged in so many extraneous activities. It could be helpful to get the opinion of contemporary playwrights, theatrical producers and literary agents on how long it takes to write a top-notch play. In all probability, someone has already talked to them about this. Perhaps Laraine would like to check it out for us. She' s an excellent researcher.

I don't work in contemporary theater, but I think some
here or on other groups do.

In any case, I would think writers vary greatly in their ability
to produce quantities of works... it's partly the whim of the Muse,
too don't you think..., experience, ability in writing poetry,
vocabulary and ideas, state of personality, motivation,
familiarity with acting, plotting, and the stage, etc.

Pretty much agreed, IINM, that S likely wrote about 2 plays a year
for most of his career, sometimes 1, sometimes more probably.

I'm not sure how much help he had in Stratford with business
and other matters. Let's not forget about his brother Gilbert, who
could write, or Richard, who apparently remained in that area. We
might get some info. as marco posts more documents. I get the
impression the family and extended family was involved with the
hat business.

And what was S doing during the lost years....

>
> Anyone, of course, can write a lot of gibberish quickly but Shakespeare's plays are known for their high quality and psychological depth. Length is another factor and I hear that some of Shakespeare's plays are longer than normal, that it could take up to five hours to perform a play like Hamlet in full. Still another factor to consider is that most of Shakespeare's plays have foreign settings, thereby requiring historical, geographic, cultural and linguistic research otherwise not needed by many run-of-the-mill playwrights.

The Globe recently did a staged reading of Jonson's "Every Man Out of
his Humour", and I believe it was nearly as long as Hamlet. I suspect
much of the history S learned was from the sources he read.

C.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 5:27:58 PM8/25/16
to
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
>
> In any case, I would think writers vary greatly in their ability
> to produce quantities of works... it's partly the whim of the Muse,
> too don't you think..., experience, ability in writing poetry,
> vocabulary and ideas, state of personality, motivation,
> familiarity with acting, plotting, and the stage, etc.
>
> Pretty much agreed, IINM, that S likely wrote about 2 plays a year
> for most of his career, sometimes 1, sometimes more probably.

Thanks, Laraine, for your input on this matter.

IMO, if someone (John Florio) were to read all those Italian and other foreign-language books to create the characters and an outline of the plot, and then if another person (Will Derby) were to do the writing, it should be possible to produce a Shakespearean play in less than six months. However, we see signs that the authors were perfectionists, constantly revising their work, sometimes even returning to a play years later to make improvements. It seems likely that a few of the plays were freshly written between 1616 (death of Shakspere) and 1623 (First Folio) and that revision work continued until 1632 (Second Folio). Florio died in 1625 and Derby in 1642.

> I'm not sure how much help he had in Stratford with business
> and other matters. Let's not forget about his brother Gilbert, who
> could write, or Richard, who apparently remained in that area. We
> might get some info. as marco posts more documents. I get the
> impression the family and extended family was involved with the
> hat business.

As already noted in another thread, the parish records of Stratford for the 16th century were actually written in the 17th century. In circumstances where Shakspere did not write the works of Shakespeare, there would have been motive to falsify the Stratford records regarding the Shakspere family.

Note that all history books and encyclopedia articles are written by biased Stratfordians, which explains why Gilbert Shakspere (per baptismal record) is recorded as Gilbert Shakespeare. Stratfordians justify this by arguing that spelling was irregular in those days, but that is not quite true. Spelling was irregular only when there were different ways for writing the same sound. But sounds that rhyme with "Shake" or "Shache" are quite distinct from sounds that rhyme with "Shak", "Shack" or "Shax". As far as I am aware, the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in either the genuine or the falsified records of Stratford. These are different people.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 9:27:20 PM8/25/16
to
On Thursday, 25 August 2016 18:06:28 UTC+1, laraine wrote:
> I don't work in contemporary theater, but I think some
> here or on other groups do.

Shakespeare DID NOT WORK in contemporary theatre. HE worked in theatre of 400 years ago. It's NOT THE SAME.
>
> In any case, I would think writers vary greatly in their ability
> to produce quantities of works...

It depends on how fast they write for one thing. How clever they are. Shakespeare had a writing speed about 60% faster than the average person. From what I can tell he had a very high IQ level too. He would have been a terrible pupil in his short time at school. But he would have picked what they taught faster than any of the other kids.

it's partly the whim of the Muse,
> too don't you think..., experience, ability in writing poetry,
> vocabulary and ideas, state of personality, motivation,
> familiarity with acting, plotting, and the stage, etc.

AND NOT FORGETTING GETTING PISSED...
>
> Pretty much agreed, IINM, that S likely wrote about 2 plays a year
> for most of his career, sometimes 1, sometimes more probably.

That's completely a load of BOLLOCKS.
The Tempest, Two Gentlemen and Merry Wives all date to 1582. Measure, Errors Much Ado, Loves Labour, Midsommer, Merchant, As You Like, Shrew. All date to 1586. That's just some of the comedies in the works..

> I'm not sure how much help he had in Stratford with business
> and other matters. Let's not forget about his brother Gilbert, who
> could write, or Richard, who apparently remained in that area. We
> might get some info. as marco posts more documents. I get the
> impression the family and extended family was involved with the
> hat business.

Yes you can see him in several hats which look the same. One where's he's depicted in a painting where Robert Dudley is dancing with Queen Elizabeth.
>
> And what was S doing during the lost years....

Writing plays and performing them. There are no "lost years" he was discovered as a young boy by Queen Elizabeth. As was Christopher Marlowe, but when she offered to send him to University like she did with Marlowe. He said he had enough of schools. And told her about that nasty Catholic teacher at Stratford School, who was saying that Elizabeth shouldn't be Queen, so he had enough of that. I wonder what happened to that Stratford teacher?
William Cecil found him interesting to. Especially when he told about all those catholic households around the Stratford area. Then there was that nasty relation of Shakespeare. William enjoyed watching him die.
> >
> The Globe recently did a staged reading of Jonson's "Every Man Out of
> his Humour", and I believe it was nearly as long as Hamlet. I suspect
> much of the history S learned was from the sources he read.

I have seen Shakespeare productions. They always get things wrong and if they don't do them in O.P. they are not funny and take twice as long.
>

marco

unread,
Aug 26, 2016, 9:52:17 AM8/26/16
to
.

laraine

unread,
Aug 26, 2016, 9:19:55 PM8/26/16
to
Wasn't someone suggesting that in the EM pronunciation, the
difference between Shak and Shake was less than it is today...
Try saying them both with certain kinds of British accents , and you
can get them to sound pretty similar. I could be wrong about that in EM.

In any case, Gilbert does sign an original document, a 1610 deed,
using the Shakespeare surname with the extra e.

http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/gilbert-shakespeare-william-shakespeare-s-younger-brother-witnesses-stratford

It can be magnified twice.

Perhaps when S became an actor, he adopted a show name,
and maybe Gilbert became aware of that and imitated it.
Or it could have been a spelling variation.

C.

marco

unread,
Aug 26, 2016, 11:53:13 PM8/26/16
to
good work

marc

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 27, 2016, 10:32:34 AM8/27/16
to
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 9:19:55 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
>
> Wasn't someone suggesting that in the EM pronunciation, the
> difference between Shak and Shake was less than it is today...
> Try saying them both with certain kinds of British accents , and you
> can get them to sound pretty similar. I could be wrong about that in EM.

The pronunciation distinction between "Shake" and "Shak" is similar to the pronunciation distinction between "hate" and "hat". In which English dialect are you claiming that these words cannot be distinguished one from the other? I sure hope you haven't been reading Stratfordian propaganda, have you?

> In any case, Gilbert does sign an original document, a 1610 deed,
> using the Shakespeare surname with the extra e.
>
> http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/gilbert-shakespeare-william-shakespeare-s-younger-brother-witnesses-stratford
>
> It can be magnified twice.

I was aware of rare (very rare) insertion of the "e", which is why I specified that the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in Stratford. It was quite clever of them to make "Gilbert Shakesper" the last two words of the entire document, to make sure the Stratfordians couldn't miss it, don't you think?

> Perhaps when S became an actor, he adopted a show name,
> and maybe Gilbert became aware of that and imitated it.
> Or it could have been a spelling variation.

"Perhaps", "maybe" and "could have been" are staple words of Stratfordian vocabulary. Not very helpful.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 27, 2016, 11:58:01 AM8/27/16
to
On Saturday, 27 August 2016 15:32:34 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> "Perhaps", "maybe" and "could have been" are staple words of Stratfordian vocabulary. Not very helpful.

Your obsession with spelling is just that YOUR.

You should take a look at a George Talbot letter. One of the most trusted people connected with Elizabeth and writes often to Cecil. He couldn't spell for nuts!

"Historians" not Stratfordians, never try to prove anything with spelling till after 1900. Simply because it was NOT fixed before then and proper education standards not applied. The first UK census filled in by the people themselves was not till 1911. Because they couldn't allow the people to fill it in before.
If you put a Shakespeare play in a word processor the spelling thing goes berserk.
The one I use on hear doesn't even recognise "Stratfordians".
So is the fact we keep using is it an error or a forgery, as it would be under your crazy ideas Mutton?


Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 27, 2016, 11:49:35 PM8/27/16
to
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:58:01 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Your obsession with spelling is just that YOUR.
>
> You should take a look at a George Talbot letter. One of the most trusted people connected with Elizabeth and writes often to Cecil. He couldn't spell for nuts!

As I recall, not very long ago, somewhere in this forum, you claimed to be in possession of vast audio libraries of English exactly as it was spoken in the 16th century. Do the words "hate" and "hat" sound alike?

I have no problem reading the original texts. The English in the 16th century were in fact extremely consistent in the way they spelled words: they spelled them precisely as they were pronounced. The problem is with English, a language that, unlike Spanish for example, has different ways of recording the same sound. Once I even saw the same author spell the same word in three different ways on the same page! But all three were pronounced the same and all were equally intelligible.

The pronunciation distinctions between "Shakspere" (or "Shacksper" or "Shaxper") and "Shakespeare" are a real problem for the Stratfordians, but not big enough a problem to bring down their candidate, so I am not eager to pursue the matter.

marco

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 9:41:34 AM8/28/16
to
.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 2:12:34 PM8/28/16
to
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 04:49:35 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> As I recall, not very long ago, somewhere in this forum, you claimed to be in possession of vast audio libraries of English exactly as it was spoken in the 16th century. Do the words "hate" and "hat" sound alike?
>
You get access to the library of sounds by purchasing the book on OP by David Crystal. In the book it looks to me like they dropped the "h" on both words.
I seem to recall that dropping the "h" sound was viewed in more recent times as being a bad trait. Especially the working class.

> I have no problem reading the original texts. The English in the 16th century were in fact extremely consistent in the way they spelled words: they spelled them precisely as they were pronounced. The problem is with English, a language that, unlike Spanish for example, has different ways of recording the same sound. Once I even saw the same author spell the same word in three different ways on the same page! But all three were pronounced the same and all were equally intelligible.
>
The book does say you can work backwards to find the OP version of the word using spelling. However it also says that the printers and typesetters fixed the spelling. However not all the same!
The first folio has very random spellings in it and errors in it too.
Your statement about spelling how it sounded is probably more true for handwritten material and not so much for printed works.
> The pronunciation distinctions between "Shakspere" (or "Shacksper" or "Shaxper") and "Shakespeare" are a real problem for the Stratfordians, but not big enough a problem to bring down their candidate, so I am not eager to pursue the matter.

Again you can say the name several different way. But it could be spelled like Shakespeare and sound like "Shaxper" depending on how fast it is said and the vocal tone.

You do know like many surnames, that the origin is often rude. And Mr Shakespeare might be a wanker! Someone might have wanted to use that for comic effect.

My favourite name is found in the West Riding Poll Tax returns for 1379. One Robert Clevecunt. People would say he's a right clever cunt! And so the name stuck.
Second has to be the miller called Shitface!
The place name Shatterford. Was really first called Shitterford. Because people would crap at the ford in the river!

marco

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 2:55:44 PM8/28/16
to
.

laraine

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 5:52:44 PM8/28/16
to
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:32:34 AM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 9:19:55 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't someone suggesting that in the EM pronunciation, the
> > difference between Shak and Shake was less than it is today...
> > Try saying them both with certain kinds of British accents , and you
> > can get them to sound pretty similar. I could be wrong about that in EM.
>
> The pronunciation distinction between "Shake" and "Shak" is similar to the pronunciation distinction between "hate" and "hat". In which English dialect are you claiming that these words cannot be distinguished one from the other? I sure hope you haven't been reading Stratfordian propaganda, have you?

Stratospherians.... The Birthplace education programs seem interesting...

I'm getting ahead of myself with the EM, but I think Graham might have
answered your question.

In modern English, 'shak' might sound like 'shack',
but some English speakers might say it with a sound like 'ah' rather
than 'baa', I believe.


>
> > In any case, Gilbert does sign an original document, a 1610 deed,
> > using the Shakespeare surname with the extra e.
> >
> > http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/gilbert-shakespeare-william-shakespeare-s-younger-brother-witnesses-stratford
> >
> > It can be magnified twice.
>
> I was aware of rare (very rare) insertion of the "e", which is why I specified that the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in Stratford. It was quite clever of them to make "Gilbert Shakesper" the last two words of the entire document, to make sure the Stratfordians couldn't miss it, don't you think?

If they planned to forge it, why not sign it 'Gilbert Shakespeare'
or 'Gilbert Shakespear'...

Diana Price has a list of all the William Shakespeare references.
I will look at those some more, but I see one from Stratford :
'Willielmim Shakespeare' purchases New Place in 1597.

We should also locate any John S. references, and search for the
other family members as well.

>
> > Perhaps when S became an actor, he adopted a show name,
> > and maybe Gilbert became aware of that and imitated it.
> > Or it could have been a spelling variation.
>
> "Perhaps", "maybe" and "could have been" are staple words of Stratfordian vocabulary. Not very helpful.

I feel it's a good idea to share "maybe"'s, just as you have
been doing, to get a better idea of what might have happened
and why. Plus someone might do real research on it someday, or
else write fiction.

C.



laraine

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 5:56:01 PM8/28/16
to
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:27:58 PM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
....
>
> As already noted in another thread, the parish records of Stratford for the 16th century were actually written in the 17th century.

I've been taking your word on this, and I notice that Graham agrees
with you that it was copied, but where did you two read or hear about
such? I've not run across anything obvious that said it.

Medieval manuscripts still exist, so why shouldn't we have documents
from the Renaissance?

C.

laraine

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 6:05:01 PM8/28/16
to
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:32:34 AM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
da, have you?
>
> > In any case, Gilbert does sign an original document, a 1610 deed,
> > using the Shakespeare surname with the extra e.
> >
> > http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/gilbert-shakespeare-william-shakespeare-s-younger-brother-witnesses-stratford
> >
> > It can be magnified twice.
>
> I was aware of rare (very rare) insertion of the "e", which is why I specified that the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in Stratford.

If William Shakespeare is the name of an actor in London,
and actors can read, then we can conclude that the actor
William Shakespeare could read. And there were actors
at that time who wrote plays.

I imagine that is how he was linked to the S authorship
originally.

C.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 8:53:10 PM8/28/16
to
Many parish register(s) were originally written on a paper format. The Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift instructed that all such registers should be copied into a book made of parchment. This was done sometime around 1600 in Statford. All the previous entries were copied into the book. The vicar did this and the church wardens witnessed it. They signed every page. They were instructed to check that the entries were a correct record by the Archbishop of Canterbury and sign to say so. You can bet they did a good job of it as John Whitgift was the kind of man the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. It was part of his strict record keeping that we have Shakespeare's first marriage to Anna Whatley. As Whitgift was the Bishop of Worcester at that time. And you don't become Archbishop of Canterbury by turning a blind eye to bad vicars or keeping bad records or having mistakes in them.
Morten thinks it would have taken a long time to do these records. But the parish register entries didn't start till about 1558 and there are not that many entries each year. I think it would have taken a week at most, but more likely a couple of days. Any event registered in 1600 or after was done direct into the register and so Shakespeare's death was entered by the person who put him in the ground!

Parchment documents do last a long time. But they were generally done for legal documents. Paper documents do not last. This is why the Whitgift wanted them transferred to a parchment book. They wanted them to last a very long time and they knew a paper book would not last.
The history of parish registers is a fascinating subject. But the fact we can still see them is really down to chance rather than design. All you needed was for some vicar to chop them up, neglect them or sell them off and the records would be lost forever.
And sadly that is the case with lots of registers!

Had they not copied the earlier register, we would not even know when Shakespeare was baptised. But other information is missing from the records. For example the marriage to Anne Hathaway is not recorded. The first marriage to Whately is an early form of bishops transcript. Invented by Whitgift. The second marriage document to Hathaway is actually a bond which covers John Whitgift, from any blame if it turns out the marriage to Shakespeare was illegal. Showing how Whitgift did everything by the book. Shakespeare didn't marry her on the 28th the date of the document. The marriage should have recorded in a parish register, but it is not in the Stratford register or any other that is known. However like I said if he did it in another church were the register has been lost or destroyed, then it will not be found.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 11:13:22 PM8/28/16
to
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 5:52:44 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:32:34 AM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> >
> > I was aware of rare (very rare) insertion of the "e", which is why I specified that the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in Stratford. It was quite clever of them to make "Gilbert Shakesper" the last two words of the entire document, to make sure the Stratfordians couldn't miss it, don't you think?
>
> If they planned to forge it, why not sign it 'Gilbert Shakespeare'
> or 'Gilbert Shakespear'...

It would seem that, since "Shakspere" and "Shakespeare" are different words, they were forced to be consistent, using "Shakspere" and variants for Stratford and reserving "Shakespeare" for the London end of the conspiracy.

Wasn’t it you who pointed me to Edmund Shakespeare’s death in London? Like Gilbert’s signature, Edmund’s death was the last item on the page, once again so that the Stratfordians couldn’t miss it.

> We should also locate any John S. references, and search for the
> other family members as well.

A Stratfordian source has something interesting to say about John S:

"These records [Holy Trinity Church records] chronicle the most crucial events – birth, marriage,death – in the family of John Shakespeare [father of S] and his descendants. Normally one might expect such records, limited to the bare citation of names and dates, to be straightforward enough, but a special problem bedevilled the earliest authorities who consulted the parish books. For a second John Shakespeare, contemporary with ours, has left his trail in the registers, as well as in other Stratford documents."

Pure confusion, by design.

> I feel it's a good idea to share "maybe"'s, just as you have
> been doing, to get a better idea of what might have happened
> and why. Plus someone might do real research on it someday, or
> else write fiction.

I’m not into fiction. I find the real story of the Shakespeare conspiracy to be more exciting than anything that can be imagined.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 29, 2016, 1:02:12 AM8/29/16
to
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:27:58 PM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> ....
> >
> > As already noted in another thread, the parish records of Stratford for the 16th century were actually written in the 17th century.
>
> I've been taking your word on this, and I notice that Graham agrees
> with you that it was copied, but where did you two read or hear about
> such? I've not run across anything obvious that said it.

"Although dated 1564 [S’s baptism], the entry, and all other entries before September 16, 1600, are in the hand of a professional copyist who transferred them from an earlier register that no longer survives, in compliance with a 1598 regulation that parish authorities should acquire new parchment registers and copy all existing entries into it."

I’m citing this from a very prestigious Stratfordian website that Marco refers to almost every other day. The anti-Stratfordians also have a lot to say about the Stratford records though, usually without convincing evidence, they tend to claim or insinuate that these records are a forgery.

> Medieval manuscripts still exist, so why shouldn't we have documents
> from the Renaissance?

Medieval manuscripts were usually written on parchment (made from animal skin) which tends to last longer than manuscripts written on paper (made from plant debris). But plenty of paper documents and books (including Shakespearean books) are still extant today, so paper can last, but generally not as long as parchment.

I read in Wikipedia that the first successful paper mill in England began operations in 1588, so it is unclear what the original Stratford records for 1558 to 1588 were written on. The order to copy and presumably destroy original records is curious. Though paper records (if that is what they were) would not last forever, they should certainly last for a few generations, likely to be sufficient for the purpose they serve and, of course, if desired, they could always be copied at the time that they began to fade.

One can only wonder if the order to copy was merely a pretext to rewrite the history of Stratford, giving rise to the great William? And by ordering them to be copied on to parchment they certainly made sure that these records would continue to con the Stratfordians well into the 21st century.

Were the records for all the parishes of England copied on to fresh parchment at that time? Are the records for all the parishes of England for the 16th century now found written in a single hand like Stratford? If so, it would quell suspicions of a Stratford forgery. Can someone check this out for three or four towns? We need someone to look at those records directly: merely assuming that everyone complied with an alleged regulation is not helpful.


marco

unread,
Aug 29, 2016, 9:53:13 AM8/29/16
to
.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 29, 2016, 11:58:36 AM8/29/16
to
On Monday, 29 August 2016 06:02:12 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> "Although dated 1564 [S’s baptism], the entry, and all other entries before September 16, 1600, are in the hand of a professional copyist who transferred them from an earlier register that no longer survives, in compliance with a 1598 regulation that parish authorities should acquire new parchment registers and copy all existing entries into it."
They don't look like they are in the hand of a "professional copyist" to me! I would say they were done in one of the Churchwardens who signed each page below.
>
> I’m citing this from a very prestigious Stratfordian website that Marco refers to almost every other day. The anti-Stratfordians also have a lot to say about the Stratford records though, usually without convincing evidence, they tend to claim or insinuate that these records are a forgery.

Most of the anti-Stratfordians are a bit like you, with little knowledge of parish registers history. Some of the Stratfordians are not much better. As they failed to make a connection with the Bishop of Worcester register and NOT attaching any importance to the fact that the man became the Archbishop of Canterbury. One historian called Nicholas Fogg in a history book on Stratford did note the Whitgift "had a strict ecclesiastical regime". But even Fogg didn't make the connection that Whitgift was recording old records from other parishes in his registers for the sake of strict record keeping. And the current "Marco's source" thing still uses the term an error for the Temple Grafton entry of marriage. How likely is that in a man who keeps excellent records?
>
> > Medieval manuscripts still exist, so why shouldn't we have documents
> > from the Renaissance?
>
> Medieval manuscripts were usually written on parchment (made from animal skin) which tends to last longer than manuscripts written on paper (made from plant debris). But plenty of paper documents and books (including Shakespearean books) are still extant today, so paper can last, but generally not as long as parchment.

That's true, but what causes the attack on paper is grease and acids present on people's hands. You must have got a well read book with the side is dirty or yellow or a mess.
But a parish register would be handled more than a book, written on and left in exposed church property. Whereas a collector of books would keep them safe and in a library. It would simple get attacked by the acid in hands more then what a book would do and as result become a mess that someone will chuck out.
>
> I read in Wikipedia that the first successful paper mill in England began operations in 1588, so it is unclear what the original Stratford records for 1558 to 1588 were written on.
Heard of the Rag and Bone man? He collected rags for the paper making industry that had been around since the middle ages. You put rotten rags in water and gum into water and bashed it with huge hammers operated by water mills. The same method as wool production. The fulling mills! A white pulp was produced. It was then laid out in thin layers on a metal screen to drain. You then put it on a large screw press to get the rest of the water out. Then dry it out.
Paper was much cheaper than parchment. You needed 300 skins to make one bible!

The order to copy and presumably destroy original records is curious. Though paper records (if that is what they were) would not last forever, they should certainly last for a few generations, likely to be sufficient for the purpose they serve and, of course, if desired, they could always be copied at the time that they began to fade.

The issue of parish register abuse was raised in the Elizabethan Parliament in 1562. As with most politicians they decided to put a fine (money) on missed entries. To be checked by the bishop of course. But it was also recognised that paper registers were not lasting at all. As paper was still expensive, not as much as parchment, the old register was probably sold off. There is no record of them saying it should be destroyed as far as I know. In some case it might have been left in the parish chest.
>
> One can only wonder if the order to copy was merely a pretext to rewrite the history of Stratford, giving rise to the great William? And by ordering them to be copied on to parchment they certainly made sure that these records would continue to con the Stratfordians well into the 21st century.

The history of the parish register is to record EVERYONE from that time for future generations. Like so much legislation, even in our times. It probably started with a good idea, which was then spotted by someone in charge and rolled out nationally. In this case a certain parish recording the events into a book. The person that picked up on this was Thomas Cromwell and after being handed the power of the church from Henry VIII, in 1538 he told every parish to keep a book like that. However thinks to the political and religious problems most Parish Registers don't start till 1558.
>
> Were the records for all the parishes of England copied on to fresh parchment at that time?
The answer is yes. Unless the parish was rich enough or decided to use a parchment book in the first place.

Are the records for all the parishes of England for the 16th century now found written in a single hand like Stratford?

The Stratford one is not in a single hand. Even the modern printed books point out that certain entries are in a different hand.
Considering it had to be done in a few days, it would be logical to use one person. Perhaps the vicar asked for a volunteer, or said to one of his clerks you have a good hand and write quickly, you do it.

If so, it would quell suspicions of a Stratford forgery.

Why? If the parish register was copied in a day or two, one person could easily do that. I know what you are thinking that it took a long time to copy the old register. But the new entries start within a few days of the old one and follow on. So it just didn't take the amount you are thinking of to copy the old paper register.

Can someone check this out for three or four towns? We need someone to look at those records directly: merely assuming that everyone complied with an alleged regulation is not helpful.

Complete waste of time. Especially as you would still say the records are faked.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 29, 2016, 1:01:59 PM8/29/16
to
Somewhere around here you recommended that I read a book about parish registers that was written in the 19th century, and I just checked it out. Although that book makes no mention of the Stratford register, the author does claim to have seen parish registers that were transcribed into the same handwriting for the entire 16th century. Consequently, the Stratford register cannot be deemed to be fake (containing false entries relating to the Shakspere family) solely on the basis of the singular handwriting.

marco

unread,
Aug 30, 2016, 9:59:37 AM8/30/16
to
.

laraine

unread,
Aug 30, 2016, 10:09:36 PM8/30/16
to
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:13:22 PM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 5:52:44 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:32:34 AM UTC-5, Morten St. George wrote:
> > >
> > > I was aware of rare (very rare) insertion of the "e", which is why I specified that the precise spelling "Shakespeare" is nowhere to be found in Stratford. It was quite clever of them to make "Gilbert Shakesper" the last two words of the entire document, to make sure the Stratfordians couldn't miss it, don't you think?
> >
> > If they planned to forge it, why not sign it 'Gilbert Shakespeare'
> > or 'Gilbert Shakespear'...
>
> It would seem that, since "Shakspere" and "Shakespeare" are different words, they were forced to be consistent, using "Shakspere" and variants for Stratford and reserving "Shakespeare" for the London end of the conspiracy.

And yet 'Shake..' was used in this Stratford signature.
(When I get a chance, I'll start a thread on Diana Price's info. about
some of this. )

I'll focus on S's brothers right now/

I'm not sure we're transcribing the end of Gilbert's signature correctly,
but in any case, I assume it is expected that those signatures would
appear at the end of such a document. And there are only two lines of
signatures, it seems.

If someone had added the line faking G's signature there,
we would have to believe that originally Richard Wylling (of
the previous line) was the only person who was witnessing for W. Shakespeare.
Why would Wylling (who is basically unknown, BTW) have done that?
Wouldn't we expect someone of the family to do it, or even two people...

>
> Wasn’t it you who pointed me to Edmund Shakespeare’s death in London? Like Gilbert’s signature, Edmund’s death was the last item on the page, once again so that the Stratfordians couldn’t miss it.

Well, take a look at the entry for Edmund's burial:
http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/file/p92sav3001

Other than the fact that it is on the last line, do you detect
anything that would make you think that the last line was added
later?

>
> > We should also locate any John S. references, and search for the
> > other family members as well.
>
> A Stratfordian source has something interesting to say about John S:
>
> "These records [Holy Trinity Church records] chronicle the most crucial events – birth, marriage,death – in the family of John Shakespeare [father of S] and his descendants. Normally one might expect such records, limited to the bare citation of names and dates, to be straightforward enough, but a special problem bedevilled the earliest authorities who consulted the parish books. For a second John Shakespeare, contemporary with ours, has left his trail in the registers, as well as in other Stratford documents."

Without any documents to look at, even online, it's pretty hard
to begin to comment on that, but thanks for the info.

C.

laraine

unread,
Aug 30, 2016, 10:33:46 PM8/30/16
to
Thanks, Graham (I almost said Gil for Gilbert!) and Morten, for the
information... Maybe someday the church itself will have some statements
about it online too.

C.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 31, 2016, 4:23:22 AM8/31/16
to
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:09:36 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
>
> I'm not sure we're transcribing the end of Gilbert's signature correctly,

I too have doubts, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't end with "speare".

> but in any case, I assume it is expected that those signatures would
> appear at the end of such a document. And there are only two lines of
> signatures, it seems.
>
> If someone had added the line faking G's signature there,
> we would have to believe that originally Richard Wylling (of
> the previous line) was the only person who was witnessing for W. Shakespeare.
> Why would Wylling (who is basically unknown, BTW) have done that?
> Wouldn't we expect someone of the family to do it, or even two people...

I was thinking that the entire document might have been rewritten, replacing the original second signature with Gilbert's signature. It is equally true that Gilbert could have been the first to sign, but then it would be harder for the Stratfordians to spot his name. It would be helpful to see more documents of same type to check that they end in exactly the same way, with nothing below witness signatures.

> Well, take a look at the entry for Edmund's burial:
> http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/file/p92sav3001
>
> Other than the fact that it is on the last line, do you detect
> anything that would make you think that the last line was added
> later?

After the Gilbert affair, I no longer suspect that the same clerk was pressured into adding Edmund's death at a later date. It looks to me like the entire page was written in a single setting, with Edmund's name placed at the end for emphasis, so that the Stratfordians couldn't miss it. Of course, it would be helpful if we could inspect the surrounding pages for similar handwriting consistency. One might expect that burials would be entered as and when they occur, with slight variations in handwriting over the course of a month.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 31, 2016, 8:29:55 AM8/31/16
to
On Wednesday, 31 August 2016 09:23:22 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:09:36 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure we're transcribing the end of Gilbert's signature correctly,
>
> I too have doubts, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't end with "speare".
>
> > but in any case, I assume it is expected that those signatures would
> > appear at the end of such a document. And there are only two lines of
> > signatures, it seems.
> >
> > If someone had added the line faking G's signature there,
> > we would have to believe that originally Richard Wylling (of
> > the previous line) was the only person who was witnessing for W. Shakespeare.
> > Why would Wylling (who is basically unknown, BTW) have done that?
> > Wouldn't we expect someone of the family to do it, or even two people...
>
> I was thinking that the entire document might have been rewritten, replacing the original second signature with Gilbert's signature. It is equally true that Gilbert could have been the first to sign, but then it would be harder for the Stratfordians to spot his name. It would be helpful to see more documents of same type to check that they end in exactly the same way, with nothing below witness signatures.

The witness signatures looked rushed and they all used the same pen and ink, though clearly the writing styles vary as each person writes different from the other. The end of the Shakespeare is badly distorted and clashes with other signatures, so it can't be certain that it is "speare" or what.

>
> > Well, take a look at the entry for Edmund's burial:
> > http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/file/p92sav3001
> >
> > Other than the fact that it is on the last line, do you detect
> > anything that would make you think that the last line was added
> > later?
>
> After the Gilbert affair, I no longer suspect that the same clerk was pressured into adding Edmund's death at a later date. It looks to me like the entire page was written in a single setting, with Edmund's name placed at the end for emphasis, so that the Stratfordians couldn't miss it. Of course, it would be helpful if we could inspect the surrounding pages for similar handwriting consistency. One might expect that burials would be entered as and when they occur, with slight variations in handwriting over the course of a month.

Again your lack of knowledge on parish register history comes into play. The vicar who whoever he appointed to do the register, but mostly it was the vicar, was instructed in the rules to do the registers on a Sunday. Not when then they felt like it, or on the day the event took place.
This vicar has clearly taken his time to lay them out neatly. When they were done I think you need to look at the days of the week. If you look carefully some are lined up and the next batch are on a different alignment, and so on with the next batch. So he did them before the next lined up batch occurs.
Not having a calendar for that year I can't say them where done each Sunday or if the vicar stuck to that day. But I don't think he added them on the day they were buried.

marco

unread,
Aug 31, 2016, 10:06:25 AM8/31/16
to
.

Morten St. George

unread,
Aug 31, 2016, 1:34:39 PM8/31/16
to
Let me clarify something: William Shakspere of Stratford is rejected as author of the plays for his lack of education, lack of contact with royal courts and royal lifestyle, lack of access to books, lack of expected correspondence, lack of time to study and write, lack of foreign travel, et cetera, not because of the likely forgery of the Gilbert and Edmund documents.

Gilbert Shakesper's signature would not have come under suspicion if he had signed his name as Shaksper or Shakspere (without the midde "e") like everyone else in the Shakspere family, and would be questioned less strongly if he had not been the last person to sign that document.

Edmund Shakespeare's burial record would not have come under suspicion if he had been designated as anything other than as a "player" or if he had not been the very last person to die in 1607.

Recall that there is external evidence for rejecting the authenticity of William's Last Will and Testament, which in turn brings all documents supporting his candidacy into question.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Aug 31, 2016, 6:48:44 PM8/31/16
to
On Wednesday, 31 August 2016 18:34:39 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
>
> Let me clarify something: William Shakspere of Stratford is rejected

Let me clarify something William Shakspere is NOT rejected at all.

as author of the plays for his lack of education, lack of contact with royal courts and royal lifestyle, lack of access to books, lack of expected correspondence, lack of time to study and write, lack of foreign travel, et cetera,
All of which can be proved that he had...

not because of the likely forgery of the Gilbert and Edmund documents.

Only YOU claim they are forgeries. Nobody else doubts the documents, because they go on evidence not circumstantial evidence that you come up with.

Without ANY kind of evidence they were forged the assumption that it is even "likely" is a flawed one.
>
> Gilbert Shakesper's signature would not have come under suspicion if he had signed his name as Shaksper or Shakspere (without the midde "e") like everyone else in the Shakspere family, and would be questioned less strongly if he had not been the last person to sign that document.

EVERYONE ELSE IN THE FAMILY. A family that you claim is illiterate! They can sign their name so they are NOT illiterate. Are you meaning the registers where not one of the family has signed the name at all, but you say it's spelt wrong. You who spelled Catalogue wrong!
By the way I don't claim to be good at English spelling. In fact very few people are. But I like to think I got in from the illiterate Wallum Shuksepred, carried on in a past life memory.
Gilbert was not the last person to sign it. There's another chap signs it straight after him, on the same line.
>
> Edmund Shakespeare's burial record would not have come under suspicion if he had been designated as anything other than as a "player" or if he had not been the very last person to die in 1607.

Why for Christ sakes is that even in important? Somebody has to be the last person to die every year.
>
> Recall that there is external evidence for rejecting the authenticity of William's Last Will and Testament, which in turn brings all documents supporting his candidacy into question.

No there isn't. The will of Shakespeare underwent extensive test recently. There was NOTHING in the least suspicious about it, otherwise it would have been a major news story.
Again you and your forgery ideas!!!!

LET'S FACE THE FACTS MUTTON... YOU ARE A RAVING LOONY...

Morten St. George

unread,
Sep 1, 2016, 12:56:03 AM9/1/16
to
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:48:44 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> LET'S FACE THE FACTS MUTTON... YOU ARE A RAVING LOONY...

Actually, I do admit that this forum has driven me crazy. Prior to participating here, I firmly believed that William Shakespeare was their chosen pen name and that they later attributed authorship to William Shakspere of Stratford on the basis of name similarity. But I no longer believe that. I now believe that prior to Shakspere's death in 1616, the name "William Shakespeare" never existed either as a playwright or as a pen name. Both the pen name and attribution to Shakspere were simultaneously created after 1616.

Pre-1616 evidence for a playwright called William Shakespeare is meager: some two dozen quartos (many of which copy earlier quartos that give no author name on the title page), one stationers' register book, one Meres (brother-in-law) book, one Jonson (friend) comment and a few other items, all in all not enough evidence to stand beyond the possibility of deliberate fabrication by powerful and determined conspirators.

Meanwhile, Fulke Greville (poet, dramatist, Recorder of Stratford) has never heard of William Shakespeare, Richard Byfield (author who grew up in Stratford) has never heard of him, and Philip Henslowe (author of an extensive theatrical diary) has never heard of him. Many others in the know, like Sir Walter Raleigh, have never heard of him. When Shakspere dies in 1616, no one writes him an eulogy. No one has ever corresponded with him. Prior to 1616, no one claims to have known him.

graham.a...@btinternet.com

unread,
Sep 1, 2016, 10:27:12 AM9/1/16
to
So what you are saying in your above statement is that you are CRAZY and that you have now developed more lunatic ideas, even though you have been talking to a person who has sensibly given you an explanation, which DOES fit the known facts about Shakespeare!
But of course Ben Jonson knew Shakespeare and he acted in his play dated 1598. Jonson then later adds that he was from Stratford.
In 1603 there is a reference to Wilton House and the fact that Shakespeare was there and mention's Raleigh too.
Gabriel Harvey mentions Shakespeare in 1598. John Manningham mentions him in 1602. And there are many more stories. There are even stories around the villages around Stratford, mostly about his drinking ability.
Then there's his third marriage.
We also have genetic evidence of Shakespeare looking like the images of the paintings and bust in Stratford. Due to the fact that he fathered the Royal Children of James the first. And many other aristocratic families too. The image of Shakespeare's mother, which is thought by some to be his wife, also matches the bust and images of Shakespeare. The image of his mother also is dressed in the style of a woman of an earlier period. Not one contempory with Shakespeare.
Finally Shakespeare of Stratford financial assets are too large for just general business dealings. And we know he held property in London. He also is picked up in legal records in London and was confirmed as coming from Stratford in them.
All in all the records which are so varied PROVE that William Shakespeare was a real person and that he did come from Stratford. Because they are so varied COULD not have been forged faked or any silly ideas you might come up.
To fake William Shakespeare to that extent would require massive amounts of people in different fields and areas that it just couldn't be kept a secret. And for what purpose? To hide a bunch of prophecies in some well written plays?
Prophecies that could have been published anyway, as Nostradamus did.
You would have to be crazy to believe any of it. But as you say YOU ARE NUTS. And the more you say the more crazy you get.

Morten St. George

unread,
Sep 1, 2016, 2:38:32 PM9/1/16