William Shakespeare could not, unaided, have produced the immortal

Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?

Ancient epics inside the Library of Alexandria that were collected from the Sumerians and all the ancient civilizations that spread by trade routes. They were possibly brought by the survivors into europe and rediscovered.

File: Claudius_(M.A.N._Madrid)_01.jpg (2MB, 1546x2660px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1546x2660px

>>12616
Shakespeare criticism is by and large an index of things not worth saying about Shakespeare.

He has a massive vocabulary, a command of differing high and low styles, and most importantly there's no biography we have that could "explain" his work away. In other words, he's still a mystery in a way that Dante (who did meet Beatrice and wrote from that inspiration) or Joyce (who did meet Nora and immortalized the day she first gave him a handjob) are not. Because we figure, oh Dante or Joyce did it for a girl they loved and lost or didn't lose, or whatever.

Hence, the authorship debate. Freud thought the plays were written by the Earl of Oxford. Walt Whitman and Mark Twain believed the Bacon theory. HELEN FUCKING KELLER believed the plays were written by Francis Bacon. (See the new book by Shapiro, "Contested Will", if you doubt me.)

You want to know my theory?

One English writer gets to be the most famous writer of all time. His name? Shakespeare (or so they say).

Meanwhile, 400+ years earlier, the only Englishman ever to be elected Pope gets elected as Pope. He promptly uses his powers to give Ireland to the King of England, which says a lot about the Papacy and about Irish Catholics. What was his name?

Well, Pope Adrian IV. The only English Pope. Look it up. His real name was Breakspeare.

Obviously Shakespeare was some kind of pen name. Obviously there is a conspiracy. I just find it hilarious that it's only within the past 10 years or so that people have started to suggest (based on the "Shake-shafte" found in a Catholic recusant household during Shakespeare's lost years) that Shakespeare might have been Catholic. DUH. Joyce noticed this, Antony Burgess noticed this, they both knew about Shakespeare / Breakspeare. They just had better things to write than more fapping over the supposedly greatest writer of all time.

Pic related: It's Hamlet's Uncle, the Roman who conquered Britannia and was deified there.

>>12616
Lots of Shakespeare history is ambiguous which is why these theories thrive but there is no worthwhile Shakespeare scholar who attributes his writing to any other known man.

Shakespeare was educated in English and Latin and read Virgil extensively. He was very well educated. He was also successful in business which indicates some level of ingenuity.

The quartos that survived, while not source texts, are very close.

Marlowe did not write Shakespeare's plays and this is evident just by reading Marlowe.

>>12833
>HELEN FUCKING KELLER
lol

>>12616
Thomas Middleton wrote them, then to throw everyone off his trail he wrote deliberately terrible plays under his own name.

>>12833
Hey Pynchon

>>12833
Why are you reposting this old bullshit from /lit/?

>>12616
if he was illiterate maybe he just dictated the material to someone else

>>14102
>reposting this old bullshit from /lit/?

This is venerable old copypasta though. Enjoy the pungent taste.

>>12616
>He did not possess the necessary literary culture

He didn't have to. There are these things called horses, and these other things called buggies that people travel with.

There are these other things called printing presses

People use these to travel to and fro and sell books about other cutlures

>>12616
JEWS DID SHAKESPEARE

>>12616
>Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate
And this was out of the ordinary for most women in centuries past how?

>>14294
>dropped context
If this guy wrote the plays bearing his name how would he have permitted his own daughter to reach womanhood and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous? It makes no sense.

>>14396
different times mang

>>14564
Which other famous writers from the same time period had illiterate children?

>>14396
>It makes no sense.

What the fuck was she supposed to read?


1. The English populace never really began learning to read English until the King James Version of the Bible came out. For most centuries, that's how English speakers began learning to read. Even my great-grandfather first learned to read because his school master taught him out of hte KJV.

2. You ask, how could people survive? I've been to Shakespeare's house. His father would hang a pair of gloves out of the widow, so people knew where to buy gloves, that's how.

3. Shakespeare's plays were meant to be spoken, not read

4. They only sound really fancy because the way the language back then worked

5. Shakespeare didn't have to know a whole lot. He could just read a book and write.
For example, did you know about The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet? It's an Italian poem written 2 years before Shakespeare was born. It eventually made its way to England and became the source behind the play.

>>12616
This is the worst kind of ahistorical nonsense. All of the information in his plays he could've absorbed easily in his life, shakespeare revisionism always stems from the same things: elitism, not being able to accept someone of his birth writing all those great works, and the love of conspiracy and the doubting of genius.

>>14762
>What the fuck was she supposed to read?
the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous

>>14980
Which weren't meant to be read, but meant to be spoken.

Probably a group project with much of the court involved, from the real Bill to 07 John Dee and Bacon and de Vere to even Lizzy herself. Explains the large vocabulary as well.

>>15086
What does your dad do?

Read "Hidden Meanings in English" as it goes over Bacon, Dee, Shakespeare the KJV and how modern English was formed. Be warned its completely nuts but if you can divine that sort of thing well it's fun

I was just reading 'Immortals Of Literature: William Shakespeare & His Plays' By Charles Haines. This passage stood out to me:

>"Whereas today an evening at the theatre is usually considered a dignified and refined activity, theatre-going in Elizabethan London was felt by many people to be rather wicked and sinful."

That led me reflect on whether there are any examples of significant art movements, styles and forms that emerged with the status of high-culture to begin with. The examples of innovation that we look back on as canonical works now, are led by an Avant-Garde. This French word represents the leading attack of an army on a battlefield. Being the first individual to attack an army necessarily implies a kind of kamikaze attitude, which in the context of artistic creation, is used to signify an experimentalist approach to ideas. In order to have added large swathes to the English language, Shakespeare was subverting the established modes of communication. It's nearly impossible for us to see him as a low-brow edge-lord now since as English speakers, we are embedded in the influence of this creation.

>He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him.

Maybe because the school didn't teach William Shakespeare's plays. ;^)