• mtb

    once seen a docu about this, suggesting it might have been sir francis bacon and not shakespeare indeed. 

  • mtb

    once seen a docu about this, suggesting it might have been sir francis bacon and not shakespeare indeed. 

    • guest

      kevin bacon’s ancestors…nice!

  • guest

    kevin bacon’s ancestors…nice!

  • C.R.C.

    Six Degrees Of Sir Francis Bacon

  • C.R.C.

    Six Degrees Of Sir Francis Bacon

  • Sangproductions183

    How is this Hollywood running out of ideas??? Oxfordian Theory has been around for almost 100 years, why not do a film about it? It hasn’t been done before, its interesting, and its controversial… how the hell is this not the premise for a good movie?

    Oh, sorry, maybe we should just demand more buddy-cop movies and chic-lit adaptions.

  • Sangproductions183

    How is this Hollywood running out of ideas??? Oxfordian Theory has been around for almost 100 years, why not do a film about it? It hasn’t been done before, its interesting, and its controversial… how the hell is this not the premise for a good movie?

    Oh, sorry, maybe we should just demand more buddy-cop movies and chic-lit adaptions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

      Because it’s a retarded theory to begin with, and they’re just going to make it worse first by making every bozo you talk to think that Shakespeare is an asshole who took credit someone else’s works, and second by making the theory Hollywood-ified. At the end of the day, it will be a sack of shit calling itself a movie, but a very persuasive sack of shit for anyone who likes to be edgy without actually reading up on the facts.

      • Sangproductions183

        Try reading up on both sides of the debate, as opposed to the one you simply desire to side with, and then call the ‘theory’ retarded. There are holes in Shakespeare’s supposed work that you could drive a fucking train through. Jesus, don’t any of you people read ANY history at all?

        • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

          I’m not saying it’s a retarded theory because it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s a retarded theory because it’s pointless. Specifically, I am talking about the theories that say Shakespeare wrote none of his works, not the theories that say he wrote some and not others. The second kind of theory, that Shakespeare wrote some of his works and not others, is valid, and probably true, in my opinion. The kind of theory that he wrote none of his works, however, which is what this movie is proposing, from what I gather, is what I am calling retarded. Outside of his works, the person “William Shakespeare” hardly exists. While this might seem to be an argument that he did not write the works attributed to him, it is actually a statement that the name “William Shakespeare” signifies the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, and that is all the name means or can mean. Therefore, to say that William Shakespeare did not write these works is like saying that a bachelor cannot be unmarried. It is, in short, definitionally retarded. Either one person wrote all the works, or multiple people wrote the works. If it is one person, than, by definition, that one person is William Shakespeare–which might be a pseudonym.

          I also have specific reasons for disagreeing with the Oxford theory, reasons which I won’t get into here. In fact, I find your treatment of the issue rather disturbing. You seem to hold the opinion that anyone who read and understand history and the debate will agree with the Oxford theory, and those who do not are only reading up on the side they desire to side with. Therefore, you assume that I have no reasons for believing that the Oxford theory is retarded, and that I have not read up on “both” sides of the debate (there are actually many sides to the debate–”both”makes it seem like there are just those who support complete Shakespearean authorship, and those who support completely non-Shakespearean authorship. This is a false dichotomy, as I and many others fall into neither camp).

          So, in conclusion, use the two fucking brain cells God gave you before posting assumptions on the internet.

          • Questopher11

            The sad part that both of you are truly failing to realize is that it wont change anything……The debate is just that …a DEBATE…..we will still CONTINUE to teach his works as HIS works and NOT may be some of them were his and some were not….regardless of how often Hollywood tries to make their OWN renditions of controversial FACTS skewered to fit an entertaining and PROFITABLE movie    we as a BEING will continue to ride with the majority or what we were taught……It didnt work with OSWALD and it wont work here …..but at least we know that Hollywood is still producing movies that will gain MONETARY compensation from the like of people ………ummmmmmmmmmmmm…like you 2   

      • Brnmar

        “Shakespeare is an asshole who took credit for someone else’s works.” That says it all.

      • Katrin Reichert

        Why is it retarded? Have you ever looked at evidence speaking against the man from Stratford? 
        It doesn’t matter which side you believe in, but what matters are people with such level of ignorance as yourself, who blindly deny that there is a problem. We don’t know – and probably never will know – what really happened, but it drives me mad to hear people like yourself so close-minded and incapable of considering all sides. Have you seen the movie? Who do you think you are to call it a sack of shit without having watched it. Maybe it is, but I’m not one to judge prior watching it. Self-righteous and arrogant is what I call that!

  • Okarin

    a group against unofficial copying making a movie about plagiarism

  • Okarin

    a group against unofficial copying making a movie about plagiarism

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I like it…a popular literary debate made into film…worse things happen in Hollywood every day…mostly involving talking animals or CGI robots.

    Besides…I favor DeVere…whose travel in Europe that can be observed by record…includes most of the key sites of Shakespeare’s plays…especially the Italian dramas…whereas there is no record of William Shakespeare ever gallivanting about Europe…he was common born and not blessed with resources…so for a patron to funnel plays to him (which was customary at the time to avoid the shame of nobility writing public theatre) is not just reasonable…its actually likely.

    • Iloveshakespeare

      This is patent nonsense. Uneducated and common born Englishmen had been visiting Italy for hundreds of years. Either as visitors to the church of Rome or as mercenaries. Travelling English players toured Europe from the mid-1580′s up until the 1640′s. They reached places as far away as Denmark and Bohemia. They could easily have reported whether or not there had been a sea coast at some point, or described the castle at Elsinore.  Mobility of movement and travel depended on money and desire. Shakespeare was a free man with nothing to stop him. If he accepted the plays funnel like as you suggest, prove it. Of course you can”t. Nor any other nobleman or woman who, for shame, did the same. It is, like your theory, conjecture. If bulls had tits…

      • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

        I think you may not have grasped the meaning of the word conjecture. When you refer to periodic pilgrimages and travel by the less wealthy in general which must be assumed to have happened without any literal evidence or record of same…you are offering a conjecture about the man from Stratford…much like finding anything that resembles proof of his involvement beyond a signature (one of which was inexplicably signed  X,). Beyond this…all is conjecture regarding Shakespeare.

        Edward DeVere’s travel, however, is a matter of record. This isn’t a nail in the coffin or a smoking gun…and I know it…the difference is that my conjecture is admitted…yours is just insanely clung to despite not a single fact bearing it up. A lot like ‘the world is flat’…because it’s always been flat and the burden of proof is upon whomever claims otherwise.

        • Iloveshakespeare

          Conjecture, n. formation of opinion without sufficient grounds, guessing, esp. in textual criticism ie of a reading that is not in the text.

          The latin con- with and jacere- throwing gives it away. So what he travelled to Italy, where the record shows that your man spent time in brothels in Venice. Of course it shows more but nothing that accords with him ever having written one word of Sh”s works. THAT is all conjecture. He also wrote in a letter to Cecil that he was happy to leave Italy and never see it again. 

          So you missed the point that I was offering an alternative to your one true solution. It’s a favourite tool of Oxenfordians. Belittle my argument and intelligence and equate it with something ridiculous like flat earthers. You stated:
          there is no record of William Shakespeare ever gallivanting about
          Europe…he was common born and not blessed with resources.

          To which I replied that common born and less resourceful travellers certainly did travel. Which is your implication that if you have money you can travel, if you don’t it’s highly unlikely. A snobbish attitude I’m sorry to say. Rather silly too when you remember that 3 crusades took a whole bunch of ignoramuses to the promised land walking and plundering their way across Europe and Asia minor. Of course that was centuries before this big conspiracy.

          Plus I’m not saying that Shakespeare did travel or that I am insanely clinging to anything. (favourite authorship tactic again btw. Me: stubbornly holding on to orthodox viewpoint, You: enlightened and free from the chains. Or Me: not read enough about Oxenforde or the history of the time, You: erudite and informed on much that isn’t or could ever be part of the historical record. Or Me: calling the kettle black, You: stop bullying me you indecent prole).

          My point is, was, and shall be, that Shakespeare had enough opportunity to learn about Italy and Europe, without necessarily having to have travelled there. Admitting also that we don’t know whether he did or not. You can now reply that Oxenforde and his genius suffered so much, just to forget a farte. Gotta love Aubrey and his gossip.

          Anyway the authorship question albeit a minor literary debate is irrelevant to understanding the works of Shakespeare. And don”t me any guff about how it all makes more sense if you believe Oxenforde wrote them.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Sensitive much? I recommend coming to the table with more than empty ‘theoretical possibilities’ and acting like they stand as more than that. I take no position other than that De Vere might make a good candidate because of his passion for literature and theatre and his documented travel. You come back with a high handed assertion that old Will must have de facto been a world traveler, since if it is theoretically possible (and I admit it is that…just highly unlikely) it must therefore have taken place…despite there being no canonical evidence of any kind…and you’re upset that you got dismissed as an idiot?

            Sorry champ…I didn’t make you look stupid…you did that for me. I accept that I’m dealing in supposition…but I’m actually dealing with less of it than the average Stratfordian, so I’m okay with that.

            Likewise you make a patently false assertion about my absolutism on the subject. Note the terms I’ve used “I favor”…and such. I repeatedly leave open the possibility of other alternatives…because I know my personal suspicions aren’t ironclad facts. I have no one true way…but you clearly do…and any assertion that offends your orthodoxy is subject to attack…and not very skillful attack at that. I’d say that you were an embarrassment to Stratfordians…but the truth is you’re pretty par for the course as they go…all smoke and no fire…sound and fury, signifying nothing.

            You are right about one thing…none of this detracts in any way from the excellence of the surviving works. Whoever wrote those words…they created something immortal and enduring.

          • Iloveshakespeare

            But VoxMagi. We do have evidence and prima facie proof that he wrote the plays and poems. Your insinuation that he couldn”t have travelled is at point. The thing I”m right about is all that matters. Go ahead and be superior to the evidence, which really is all that defines Stratfordians.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            I would never dispute the existence of a man by the name of William Shakespeare, who by all accounts was a professional and credited playwright and worked with actors on the road over a period of several decades. All of this…is borne up completely by the hodgepodge of accounts, testimonies and scraps of old contracts. None of it is really subject to question…

            …except the matter of authorship. Mr Shakespeare apparently produced a body of work that became the greatest works of Western literature by a wide margin…and then left little behind to suggest that he was involved in more than editing material for the stage. If some find that curious…its because it is. There is no doubt regarding his involvement…only regarding his authorship.

            There is no smoking gun. For all I know, one of his friends might have been entrusted with his letters and unfinished works at the time of his death…and then lost them in a housefire…which would explain a lot, but failing that…its also reasonable to suspect that someone else might have been the source of the material, which was then competently edited for the stage by Shakespeare himself. There’s a keen difference between what scans well as poetry…and what rolls from the tongue and resonates upon the ears appropriately. An actor grasps more of whats required in such a case than a poet…and so collaboration is not unheard of, unusual, or even out of the ordinary.

            That said…400+ years is a long time. Even what we consider certain is subject to possible misguided trust of incomplete evidence left behind before anyone living was there. We draw our inferences from what we can salvage…but there isn’t much to go on…and extreme confidence in the accuracy of history is usually presumption heaped upon naivete. By the time anyone realized that Shakespeare’s plays were the centerpiece of all of Western literature…the trail was already cold, everyone involved was dead, and only the occasional testimonial remained…the rest had to be assumed as factual…which, sadly, is true of 99.9% of history. No one knows its being made until its already happened…and the illuminating details are lost.

          • Iloveshakespeare

            I agree with the spirit of your reply Vox Magi. And that the paper trail for Sh of Stratford is woefully inconclusive on specific details.You write:
            William Shakespeare, who by all accounts was a professional and credited playwright and worked with actors on the
            road over a period of several decades.

            This would indicate and implicate then a circle of colleagues and friends, ALL of whom must be liars if I am to accept an alternative author. The idea that all the writers and actors lived in fear and awe of Oxenforde”s (or whoever”s) supposed reach and ability to destroy their lives and livelihood if they say anything is preposterous and unhuman.

            The candidate Anonymous sets forth was a complete bastard in his life and hated by his family and on all levels of society. The Stratford man receives only praise and love from his friends” comments about him. Those are the snippets of evidence we have. Who would you have the author? The Shakespeare I read cares about people.

            The role of editing material for the stage doesn”t jibe with what we know of the nature of writing and acting for the stage in the period. There was much collaboration and actors were also playwrights. eg Jonson and Heywood both wrote and acted.  The vital illuminating factoids are missing from this body of historical evidence which we both know had no stature. Sir Richard Baker a direct contemporary wrote in his chronicle of Kings that:

            After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of
            Stage-players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserve
            remembring, and Roscius the Comedian is recorded in History with such
            commendation, it may be allowed us to do the like with some of our
            Nation. Richard Bourbidge [Burbage] and Edward Allen, two such actors as
            no age must ever look to see the like: and, to make their Comedies
            compleat, Richard Tarleton, who for the part called the Clowns Part,
            never had his match, never will have. For Writers of Playes, and such as
            had been Players themselves, William Shakespeare and Benjamin Johnson,
            have specially left their Names recommended to posterity.

            Yes that was printed in 1640 or so but Baker was born in 1568. That makes him closer in age to Sh than Ben Jonson. Neither party of Startfordians or Authorship uses this quote much. But I”ll take Baker”s word over the ghosts.,
             

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I like it…a popular literary debate made into film…worse things happen in Hollywood every day…mostly involving talking animals or CGI robots.

    Besides…I favor DeVere…whose travel in Europe that can be observed by record…includes most of the key sites of Shakespeare’s plays…especially the Italian dramas…whereas there is no record of William Shakespeare ever gallivanting about Europe…he was common born and not blessed with resources…so for a patron to funnel plays to him (which was customary at the time to avoid the shame of nobility writing public theatre) is not just reasonable…its actually likely.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

    Because it’s a retarded theory to begin with, and they’re just going to make it worse first by making every bozo you talk to think that Shakespeare is an asshole who took credit someone else’s works, and second by making the theory Hollywood-ified. At the end of the day, it will be a sack of shit calling itself a movie, but a very persuasive sack of shit for anyone who likes to be edgy without actually reading up on the facts.

  • Sangproductions183

    Try reading up on both sides of the debate, as opposed to the one you simply desire to side with, and then call the ‘theory’ retarded. There are holes in Shakespeare’s supposed work that you could drive a fucking train through. Jesus, don’t any of you people read ANY history at all?

  • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

    I’m not saying it’s a retarded theory because it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s a retarded theory because it’s pointless. Specifically, I am talking about the theories that say Shakespeare wrote none of his works, not the theories that say he wrote some and not others. The second kind of theory, that Shakespeare wrote some of his works and not others, is valid, and probably true, in my opinion. The kind of theory that he wrote none of his works, however, which is what this movie is proposing, from what I gather, is what I am calling retarded. Outside of his works, the person “William Shakespeare” hardly exists. While this might seem to be an argument that he did not write the works attributed to him, it is actually a statement that the name “William Shakespeare” signifies the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, and that is all the name means or can mean. Therefore, to say that William Shakespeare did not write these works is like saying that a bachelor cannot be unmarried. It is, in short, definitionally retarded. Either one person wrote all the works, or multiple people wrote the works. If it is one person, than, by definition, that one person is William Shakespeare–which might be a pseudonym.

    I also have specific reasons for disagreeing with the Oxford theory, reasons which I won’t get into here. In fact, I find your treatment of the issue rather disturbing. You seem to hold the opinion that anyone who read and understand history and the debate will agree with the Oxford theory, and those who do not are only reading up on the side they desire to side with. Therefore, you assume that I have no reasons for believing that the Oxford theory is retarded, and that I have not read up on “both” sides of the debate (there are actually many sides to the debate–”both”makes it seem like there are just those who support complete Shakespearean authorship, and those who support completely non-Shakespearean authorship. This is a false dichotomy, as I and many others fall into neither camp).

    So, in conclusion, use the two fucking brain cells God gave you before posting assumptions on the internet.

  • Anonymous

    “Shakespeare is an asshole who took credit for someone else’s works.” That says it all.

  • Anonymous

    “Shakespeare is an asshole who took credit for someone else’s works.” That says it all.

  • DeepCough

    Anyone ever come to the conclusion that maybe the name “William Shakespeare” is a pen name?

  • DeepCough

    Anyone ever come to the conclusion that maybe the name “William Shakespeare” is a pen name?

  • Iloveshakespeare

    This is patent nonsense. Uneducated and common born Englishmen had been visiting Italy for hundreds of years. Either as visitors to the church of Rome or as mercenaries. Travelling English players toured Europe from the mid-1580′s up until the 1640′s. They reached places as far away as Denmark and Bohemia. They could easily have reported whether or not there had been a sea coast at some point, or described the castle at Elsinore.  Mobility of movement and travel depended on money and desire. Shakespeare was a free man with nothing to stop him. If he accepted the plays funnel like as you suggest, prove it. Of course you can”t. Nor any other nobleman or woman who, for shame, did the same. It is, like your theory, conjecture. If bulls had tits…

  • Iloveshakespeare

    This is patent nonsense. Uneducated and common born Englishmen had been visiting Italy for hundreds of years. Either as visitors to the church of Rome or as mercenaries. Travelling English players toured Europe from the mid-1580′s up until the 1640′s. They reached places as far away as Denmark and Bohemia. They could easily have reported whether or not there had been a sea coast at some point, or described the castle at Elsinore.  Mobility of movement and travel depended on money and desire. Shakespeare was a free man with nothing to stop him. If he accepted the plays funnel like as you suggest, prove it. Of course you can”t. Nor any other nobleman or woman who, for shame, did the same. It is, like your theory, conjecture. If bulls had tits…

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I think you may not have grasped the meaning of the word conjecture. When you refer to periodic pilgrimages and travel by the less wealthy in general which must be assumed to have happened without any literal evidence or record of same…you are offering a conjecture about the man from Stratford…much like finding anything that resembles proof of his involvement beyond a signature (one of which was inexplicably signed  X,). Beyond this…all is conjecture regarding Shakespeare.

    Edward DeVere’s travel, however, is a matter of record. This isn’t a nail in the coffin or a smoking gun…and I know it…the difference is that my conjecture is admitted…yours is just insanely clung to despite not a single fact bearing it up. A lot like ‘the world is flat’…because it’s always been flat and the burden of proof is upon whomever claims otherwise.

  • Iloveshakespeare

    Conjecture, n. formation of opinion without sufficient grounds, guessing, esp. in textual criticism ie of a reading that is not in the text.

    The latin con- with and jacere- throwing gives it away. So what he travelled to Italy, where the record shows that your man spent time in brothels in Venice. Of course it shows more but nothing that accords with him ever having written one word of Sh”s works. THAT is all conjecture. He also wrote in a letter to Cecil that he was happy to leave Italy and never see it again. 

    So you missed the point that I was offering an alternative to your one true solution. It’s a favourite tool of Oxenfordians. Belittle my argument and intelligence and equate it with something ridiculous like flat earthers. You stated:
    there is no record of William Shakespeare ever gallivanting about
    Europe…he was common born and not blessed with resources.

    To which I replied that common born and less resourceful travellers certainly did travel. Which is your implication that if you have money you can travel, if you don’t it’s highly unlikely. A snobbish attitude I’m sorry to say. Rather silly too when you remember that 3 crusades took a whole bunch of ignoramuses to the promised land walking and plundering their way across Europe and Asia minor. Of course that was centuries before this big conspiracy.

    Plus I’m not saying that Shakespeare did travel or that I am insanely clinging to anything. (favourite authorship tactic again btw. Me: stubbornly holding on to orthodox viewpoint, You: enlightened and free from the chains. Or Me: not read enough about Oxenforde or the history of the time, You: erudite and informed on much that isn’t or could ever be part of the historical record. Or Me: calling the kettle black, You: stop bullying me you indecent prole).

    My point is, was, and shall be, that Shakespeare had enough opportunity to learn about Italy and Europe, without necessarily having to have travelled there. Admitting also that we don’t know whether he did or not. You can now reply that Oxenforde and his genius suffered so much, just to forget a farte. Gotta love Aubrey and his gossip.

    Anyway the authorship question albeit a minor literary debate is irrelevant to understanding the works of Shakespeare. And don”t me any guff about how it all makes more sense if you believe Oxenforde wrote them.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Sensitive much? I recommend coming to the table with more than empty ‘theoretical possibilities’ and acting like they stand as more than that. I take no position other than that De Vere might make a good candidate because of his passion for literature and theatre and his documented travel. You come back with a high handed assertion that old Will must have de facto been a world traveler, since if it is theoretically possible (and I admit it is that…just highly unlikely) it must therefore have taken place…despite there being no canonical evidence of any kind…and you’re upset that you got dismissed as an idiot?

    Sorry champ…I didn’t make you look stupid…you did that for me. I accept that I’m dealing in supposition…but I’m actually dealing with less of it than the average Stratfordian, so I’m okay with that.

    You are right about one thing…none of this detracts in any way from the excellence of the surviving works. Whoever wrote those words…they created something immortal and enduring.

  • Iloveshakespeare

    But VoxMagi. We do have evidence and prima facie proof that he wrote the plays and poems. Your insinuation that he couldn”t have travelled is at point. The thing I”m right about is all that matters. Go ahead and be superior to the evidence, which really is all that defines Stratfordians.

  • Adam983

    Current evidence cannot establish the true author with certainty, but it can cast serious doubt on Shakespeare, otherwise known as the man from Stratford, as being the author. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=91 There you will find the top 10 reasons to suspect that William Shakespeare was a pen name.

    • Iloveshakespeare

      Those top ten reasons are specious and arbitrary and totally ignore the historical record, evidence, and proofs that exist. That”s the only way they can cast serious doubt on Shakespeare.

    • RAW3913

      hey people, why does it even matter? who cares if he wrote them or not because you know what? THOSE PEOPLE ALL DIED A LONG TIME AGO AND THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK . its not as if we will ever really know what happened. and besides, we have the works that were written by SOMEONE. and they are pretty damn good. so why not enjoy them and stop arguing? if shakespeare wrote the works his name is on then good for him. if not, well then good someone did. did you know his cousin was a rich well known person? whos to say his cousin didnt take him along to other countries so he could see what he wrote about? and if he didnt write it well then perhaps the person who did was his cousin (whixh would explain why shakespeare acted in the plays) relax and enjoy it, not analyse it to the point where no one wants anything to do with it anymore.

  • Anonymous

    Current evidence cannot establish the true author with certainty, but it can cast serious doubt on Shakespeare, otherwise known as the man from Stratford, as being the author. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=91 There you will find the top 10 reasons to suspect that William Shakespeare was a pen name.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    Hey!  Teach the controversy!  According to John Rambo, the US government is hiding the fact that thousands of US soldiers are being held in Vietnam to this day.  An entire well-funded movement, with a flag and everything has been going strong since opening day, complete with official respect from every President since Reagan.

    IN other news, Christopher Columbus not only discovered America, but was a really nice guy who didn’t commit genocide or anything.  Same for good ol’ George Washington.  Joan of Ark was a twenty-seven year old hottie who led the sexiest battle in French history.  And Queen Christina was VERY close to her beloved steed.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    Hey!  Teach the controversy!  According to John Rambo, the US government is hiding the fact that thousands of US soldiers are being held in Vietnam to this day.  An entire well-funded movement, with a flag and everything has been going strong since opening day, complete with official respect from every President since Reagan.

    IN other news, Christopher Columbus not only discovered America, but was a really nice guy who didn’t commit genocide or anything.  Same for good ol’ George Washington.  Joan of Ark was a twenty-seven year old hottie who led the sexiest battle in French history.  And Queen Christina was VERY close to her beloved steed.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I would never dispute the existence of a man by the name of William Shakespeare, who by all accounts was a professional and credited playwright and worked with actors on the road over a period of several decades. All of this…is borne up completely by the hodgepodge of accounts, testimonies and scraps of old contracts. None of it is really subject to question…

    …except the matter of authorship. Mr Shakespeare apparently produced a body of work that became the greatest works of Western literature by a wide margin…and then left little behind to suggest that he was involved in more than editing material for the stage. If some find that curious…its because it is. There is no doubt regarding his involvement…only regarding his authorship.

    There is no smoking gun. For all I know, one of his friends might have been entrusted with his letters and unfinished works at the time of his death…and then lost them in a housefire…which would explain a lot, but failing that…its also reasonable to suspect that someone else might have been the source of the material, which was then competently edited for the stage by Shakespeare himself. There’s a keen difference between what scans well as poetry…and what rolls from the tongue and resonates upon the ears appropriately. An actor grasps more of whats required in such a case than a poet…and so collaboration is not unheard of, unusual, or even out of the ordinary.

    That said…400+ years is a long time. Even what we consider certain is subject to possible misguided trust of incomplete evidence left behind before anyone living was there. We draw our inferences from what we can salvage…but there isn’t much to go on…and extreme confidence in the accuracy of history is usually presumption heaped upon naivete. By the time anyone realized that Shakespeare’s plays were the centerpiece of all of Western literature…the trail was already cold, everyone involved was dead, and only the occasional testimonial remained…the rest had to be assumed as factual…which, sadly, is true of 99.9% of history. No one knows its being made until its already happened…and the illuminating details are lost.

  • Iloveshakespeare

    I agree with the spirit of your reply Vox Magi. And that the paper trail for Sh of Stratford is woefully inconclusive on specific details.You write:
    William Shakespeare, who by all accounts was a professional and credited playwright and worked with actors on the
    road over a period of several decades.

    This would indicate and implicate then a circle of colleagues and friends, ALL of whom must be liars if I am to accept an alternative author. The idea that all the writers and actors lived in fear and awe of Oxenforde”s (or whoever”s) supposed reach and ability to destroy their lives and livelihood if they say anything is preposterous and unhuman.

    The candidate Anonymous sets forth was a complete bastard in his life and hated by his family and on all levels of society. The Stratford man receives only praise and love from his friends” comments about him. Those are the snippets of evidence we have. Who would you have the author? The Shakespeare I read cares about people.

    The role of editing material for the stage doesn”t jibe with what we know of the nature of writing and acting for the stage in the period. There was much collaboration and actors were also playwrights. eg Jonson and Heywood both wrote and acted.  The vital illuminating factoids are missing from this body of historical evidence which we both know had no stature. Sir Richard Baker a direct contemporary wrote in his chronicle of Kings that:

    After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of
    Stage-players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserve
    remembring, and Roscius the Comedian is recorded in History with such
    commendation, it may be allowed us to do the like with some of our
    Nation. Richard Bourbidge [Burbage] and Edward Allen, two such actors as
    no age must ever look to see the like: and, to make their Comedies
    compleat, Richard Tarleton, who for the part called the Clowns Part,
    never had his match, never will have. For Writers of Playes, and such as
    had been Players themselves, William Shakespeare and Benjamin Johnson,
    have specially left their Names recommended to posterity.

    Yes that was printed in 1640 or so but Baker was born in 1568. That makes him closer in age to Sh than Ben Jonson. Neither party of Startfordians or Authorship uses this quote much. But I”ll take Baker”s word over the ghosts.,
     

  • Iloveshakespeare

    Those top ten reasons are specious and arbitrary and totally ignore the historical record, evidence, and proofs that exist. That”s the only way they can cast serious doubt on Shakespeare.

  • WSLover

    Did William Shakespeare write all the works acredited to his name. . .I don’t know?  That is a debate between those who more informed than me in the subjuct.  I would have to do alot more reserch before I would feel comfortable to chime in on this debate.  It is a intresting question though.  My hope is that this movie will  get people talking about the possibilities instead of just accepting everything they have just seen as fact.  This has already happened serveral times with historical films.  Though some go through much to make sure there films are close to what probably happened at the end of the day they are just films.  A series of moving pictures meant to entertain, and if it is a good movie it starts a conversation.  I will be seeing this film and hoping to have something to think about when I leave and not just shaking my head in disgust after watching an historical film filled with Hollywood trash. 

  • WSLover

    Did William Shakespeare write all the works acredited to his name. . .I don’t know?  That is a debate between those who more informed than me in the subjuct.  I would have to do alot more reserch before I would feel comfortable to chime in on this debate.  It is a intresting question though.  My hope is that this movie will  get people talking about the possibilities instead of just accepting everything they have just seen as fact.  This has already happened serveral times with historical films.  Though some go through much to make sure there films are close to what probably happened at the end of the day they are just films.  A series of moving pictures meant to entertain, and if it is a good movie it starts a conversation.  I will be seeing this film and hoping to have something to think about when I leave and not just shaking my head in disgust after watching an historical film filled with Hollywood trash. 

  • Tjsmart

    And so it begins: Hollywood’s success in polarizing schools of thought and generating debate prior to the release of a movie with a premise difficult to prove and probably with so much poetic license that it will likely be quite far from reality;
    Enough conversation from the people who care but will likely not watch the movie to have fodder for the folks who care about watching a good movie and satisfying a cursory interest to find something written on the topic “on the internet” about the issue that corroborates whatever takeaway they have from the movie with arguments from both sides.
    Gotta love marketing!

  • Tjsmart

    And so it begins: Hollywood’s success in polarizing schools of thought and generating debate prior to the release of a movie with a premise difficult to prove and probably with so much poetic license that it will likely be quite far from reality;
    Enough conversation from the people who care but will likely not watch the movie to have fodder for the folks who care about watching a good movie and satisfying a cursory interest to find something written on the topic “on the internet” about the issue that corroborates whatever takeaway they have from the movie with arguments from both sides.
    Gotta love marketing!

  • RAW3913

    hey people, why does it even matter? who cares if he wrote them or not because you know what? THOSE PEOPLE ALL DIED A LONG TIME AGO AND THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK . its not as if we will ever really know what happened. and besides, we have the works that were written by SOMEONE. and they are pretty damn good. so why not enjoy them and stop arguing? if shakespeare wrote the works his name is on then good for him. if not, well then good someone did. did you know his cousin was a rich well known person? whos to say his cousin didnt take him along to other countries so he could see what he wrote about? and if he didnt write it well then perhaps the person who did was his cousin (whixh would explain why shakespeare acted in the plays) relax and enjoy it, not analyse it to the point where no one wants anything to do with it anymore.

  • RAW3913

    hey people, why does it even matter? who cares if he wrote them or not because you know what? THOSE PEOPLE ALL DIED A LONG TIME AGO AND THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK . its not as if we will ever really know what happened. and besides, we have the works that were written by SOMEONE. and they are pretty damn good. so why not enjoy them and stop arguing? if shakespeare wrote the works his name is on then good for him. if not, well then good someone did. did you know his cousin was a rich well known person? whos to say his cousin didnt take him along to other countries so he could see what he wrote about? and if he didnt write it well then perhaps the person who did was his cousin (whixh would explain why shakespeare acted in the plays) relax and enjoy it, not analyse it to the point where no one wants anything to do with it anymore.

  • RAW3913

    hey people, why does it even matter? who cares if he wrote them or not because you know what? THOSE PEOPLE ALL DIED A LONG TIME AGO AND THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK . its not as if we will ever really know what happened. and besides, we have the works that were written by SOMEONE. and they are pretty damn good. so why not enjoy them and stop arguing? if shakespeare wrote the works his name is on then good for him. if not, well then good someone did. did you know his cousin was a rich well known person? whos to say his cousin didnt take him along to other countries so he could see what he wrote about? and if he didnt write it well then perhaps the person who did was his cousin (whixh would explain why shakespeare acted in the plays) relax and enjoy it, not analyse it to the point where no one wants anything to do with it anymore.

  • Questopher11

    The sad part that both of you are truly failing to realize is that it wont change anything……The debate is just that …a DEBATE…..we will still CONTINUE to teach his works as HIS works and NOT may be some of them were his and some were not….regardless of how often Hollywood tries to make their OWN renditions of controversial FACTS skewered to fit an entertaining and PROFITABLE movie    we as a BEING will continue to ride with the majority or what we were taught……It didnt work with OSWALD and it wont work here …..but at least we know that Hollywood is still producing movies that will gain MONETARY compensation from the like of people ………ummmmmmmmmmmmm…like you 2   

  • Katrin Reichert

    Why out off ideas? I think it’s a brilliant idea for a movie. It’s controversial and a classy topic. Bitter much, dear author?

  • Katrin Reichert

    Why out off ideas? I think it’s a brilliant idea for a movie. It’s controversial and a classy topic. Bitter much, dear author?

  • Katrin Reichert

    Why is it retarded? Have you ever looked at evidence speaking against the man from Stratford? 
    It doesn’t matter which side you believe in, but what matters are people with such level of ignorance as yourself, who blindly deny that there is a problem. We don’t know – and probably never will know – what really happened, but it drives me mad to hear people like yourself so close-minded and incapable of considering all sides. Have you seen the movie? Who do you think you are to call it a sack of shit without having watched it. Maybe it is, but I’m not one to judge prior watching it. Self-righteous and arrogant is what I call that!