Was William Shakespeare a Jewish woman in disguise?

[Poll_Blind]

From The Forward, via Haaretz:

Amateur Shakespearologist John Hudson is not the first to question whether the actor William Shakespeare was actually the author of the body of work we've come to know as his, but Hudson is the first to suggest that the true author was a Jewish woman named Amelia Bassano Lanier.

Of Italian descent, Bassano lived in England as a Marrano and has heretofore been known only as the first woman to publish a book of poetry ("Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" in 1611) and as a candidate for "the dark lady" referred to in the sonnets.

Hudson is the first to argue that she's the true author of those sonnets. He is so convinced of Bassano's authorship that he formed a theater company, The Dark Lady Players, to bring out, through performance, the true meanings of the plays as, he argues, Bassano intended them.

The theory rests largely on the circumstances of Bassano's life, which Hudson contends match, much better than William Shakespeare's did, the content of "Shakespeare's" work. But Hudson has also identified technical similarities between the language used in Bassano's known poetry and that used in "Shakespeare's" verse. And he has located clues in the text - recently noted Jewish allegories and the statistically significant appearance of Amelia Bassano Lanier's various names in the plays - that he says point to her as the only convincing candidate for the author of Shakespeare's work.

--snip--

PB

[PCIntern]

1. Einstein, Freud, Shakespeare, Mark Spitz...

I mean, what can you say?

:rofl:

[Bucky]

57. Also Jerry Seinfeld. And Goldberg! My God! I mean G-d!

Plus I've always had my suspicions about Isaac Newton.

[hughee99]

2. Oy Vey!

[gatorboy]

3. Shakespearologist....

:rofl:

[Poll_Blind]

11. Correction! "-Amateur- Shakespearologist...."

  I'm hoping for an Art Bell interview on this...

"Macbeth: The Hollow Earth Implications"

PB

[Javaman]

16. it's all much to do about nothing...

sorry, couldn't resist. LOL

[Snarkturian Clone]

47. Reminds me of when they interview "experts" on documentaries or talk shows

and the title under their name will say "Sexologist" or "Bluejeans Enthusiast" or "Banana Historian".

[spanone]

4. no he was a palestinian cross dresser

[Jackpine Radical]

6. OMG, I was gonna post almost exactly that.

Scary.

[spanone]

8. great minds?

or....

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Well, certainly not mediocre ones,

or everyone would be doing it.

There are other alternatives besides greatness, though. Heh.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What intrigues me among other factors about this theory are two things:

1. How a Jew during the times of Tudor could freely integrate into commercial and political worlds in order to reflect the profound insight found in Shakespeare's plays.

2. How a woman could have received such a literary education and have become a prolific writer/playwright during that era.

[LibertyLover]

12. Well educated women were known in the Tudor period

Elizabeth I is the first example I can mention. Lady Jane Grey is another. Mary Stuart another. All were exceptionally well educated and wrote and translated works in other languages into English. Lady Jane was fluent in 6 or 7 languages, including Greek and Latin, Elizabeth 4 or 5 if I remember correctly. Even Mary Tudor, Elizabeth's half sister, was well educated. Admittedly these were upper class women, but even members of the gentry, the female members of the Paston family for example, and Bess of Hardwicke (who through good marriages eventually ended up a countess) were well educated. While I don't agree with his conclusion, the theory is interesting. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about Jewish life in Tudor period to offer any suggestions to your first question, although one of Elizabeth's doctors was a Portuguese Jew named Dr. Lopez. He was arrested, tried and convicted of trying to poison her, although Elizabeth appears to have been troubled by his conviction and allowed his widow to keep his estate pretty much intact, rather than it being forfeit to the crown.

[EFerrari]

21. True, but women weren't common in the theater companies

until later. That's why The Roaring Girl was such a hit -- it had the novelty of a woman player. And that was all the way to 1611.

[LibertyLover]

28. True that. It wasn't until the Restoration and Charles II that women

were used in the theater as actresses to, well, play women's roles in England. Apparently Charles II insisted. I wonder if he was influenced by Continental theater? Oddly enough, women were allowed to act in theater productions in Spain in the late 16th century onward, starting with religious passion plays and then branching out into secular productions. The Catholic Church was not amused, insisting that actresses were immoral and nothing more than prostitutes, although in reality many of the women in early Spanish theater were the wives or daughter of the shareholders, so probably not many prostitutes among them. Many of the women in Restoration theater did the wonderfully scandalous thing of playing a "breeches" part - i.e. a woman dressed as man.

[EFerrari]

30. It's funny that in England, they couldn't figure out which was a faster way to damnation

- having boys\men wear women's clothes or putting women on stage. lol

The English preferred cross dressing, the Spanish preferred risking actual women. The Stuarts were closer to Europe than Elizabeth ever was, that's for sure (the Spanish kept trying to kill her, iirc) especially via some of their Catholic wives & moms.

[LibertyLover]

31. And doctors -

Towards the end of her life, Elizabeth's physician was one Dr. Lopez, a Portuguese Jew who had converted to Christianity. He was quite the image of the society medical person according to some things I've read. Anyway, he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed for plotting to poison Elizabeth for the Spanish. Elizabeth, while signing his warrant for execution, apparently was not totally convinced of his culpibility because she allowed his widow to retain his estate, rather than forfeiting it to the crown as a trator was supposed to.

[EFerrari]

32. I remember him. But, what I meant was, the Stuarts had Catholic

and European ties via their moms and marriages so, it's not surprising that they went with women at some point. :)

[LibertyLover]

41. Ahh, I get you - yes, the Stuarts did have a remarkable fondness

for women, absent James I (VI of Scotland) of course.:7

[EFerrari]

48. Charles I also seems to have had only a formal relationship

with his legal wife. I don't know much about the next generation. :)

[LibertyLover]

52. From some biographies I've read on Charles I

he and Henrietta Marie (a French princess) had a good marriage, although apparently the first 3 years were rocky. Charles II loved the ladies. Boy oh boy did Charlie II love the ladies. He had an ok relationship with his wife Catherine, a Portuguese princess, and did his best not to hurt her too badly with his amours, but they were too very different people and when she was not able to carry a child to term (Charles had a number of born-out-of-marriage children that he acknowledged) they drifted apart. James II married twice, first to Anne Hyde, daughter of Charles II's chief minister, which believe it or not ticked her father off no end, and then to Mary of Modena. Anne gave birth to two girls, Mary (of William and Mary fame) and Anne, James' only legitimate children. James also had a few mistresses - Arabella Churchill, the older sister of John Churchill, was one. They had 4 children together. Anne, James II's daughter, had intense friendships with Sarah Churchill, the 1st duchess of Marlborough, and Abagail Masham and some biographers have claimed Anne was bi-sexual or lesbian. She was married to George, a prince of Denmark, and had 18 pregnancies, 13 ending in miscarriages or stillbirths and 5 live births. Only one of those, a son lived much past infancy and he died when he was 10 or 11.

[EFerrari]

55. Now I remember! James' lover turned to Charles before he married HM.

It was pretty open and something of a scandal. That's why those early years were "rocky" -- there was a power struggle going on around that young couple. This little menage was played out in the masques popular then at Court, which is how I ran across this bit of gossip.

[LibertyLover]

56. You're right - I had forgotten

George Villiars, the Duke of Buckingham if memory serves. At one point he and Charles went to Spain to take a look at one of the infantas as a potential wife for Charles. Apparently their friendship was not a selling point for the Spanish and that's when Charlie I began to look at Henrietta Marie. Gods, the things one manages to dredge up from the memory. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

59. "Thanks for the memories."

:rofl:

[Indenturedebtor]

14. Well I'm not really buying this theory but

1) With enough money, even nobles want to be your buddy, and England was a fair bit more progressive than most other countries by then. As for insight, there weren't really any peoples more travelled and acculturated than the Jews at this time. As a matter of fact Jews were routinely consulted when one wanted to found a city, create a new weapon, a castle, etc... because they had seen how many other peoples of the world made it work. Furthermore Jewish guides often accompanied ambassadors, and made the flow of money between countries possible - to move money from London to Milan, I write a letter to my cousin in Milan and tell him to give it to you, and I owe him one. He's my cousin and a fellow Jew so he does it. That was the foundation for liquid money heh.

2) This is well after the invention of the printing press.

[King Coal]

7. Nope, I don't think so, but I have heard that Shakespeare and

Cervantes were the same man. Some people believe that because the died on the same day, even though different calendars were in use. Hope this helps. LOL!

[jeanruss]

10. frances bacon

Many books have been written making the case that Frances Bacon was the true auther of these famous works. He also is shown to have been the writer Cervantes. There is no proof that Cervantes even existed. They explain that political tensions between England and Spain necessitated the alias. Richard Bucke's book, "Cosmic Consciousness" makes the case for why this is so. It's very interesting to read.

[Iggo]

13. So Shakespear, Bacon and Cervantes...

...are all the same person? And a Jewish woman, to boot?

My head hurts.

[noonwitch]

15. William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him

Some people just can't believe that one man, who was from a humble backround, wrote such amazing things.

John Lennon couldn't read music. Bob Dylan is from Duluth. Alice Walker and Harper Lee grew up in the rural south. Yet all these people have produced works that have influenced our culture in ways no one looking at their backrounds would have guessed.

[librechik]

29. We think Marlowe far the better candidate to share the nom-de-plume Shagspeare

if such a thing as a non-Shakespeare author exists. Fascinating thought though.

[EFerrari]

35. So, what do you think happened after Marlowe dies?

Curious. :)

[librechik]

36. they hired a different ghost. Shakespeare was just the name they stuck on

for plays from the Globe, no matter who wrote them. They did lose a bit of spark near the end.

Just a theory. I don't think there's enough evidence to make strong claims on any side of this controversy. Someday, perhaps, we will find a diary or something with the truth.

[EFerrari]

40. Most people in Shakespeare studies don't consider this to be a controversy

but it's fun hearing what the theories are. :)

What a loss that Marlowe died so young. I forced myself to read everything staged in London from about 1592 until 1610. And, man, there were some pretty AWFUL plays out there, lol! Marlowe stands out, head and shoulders, with only a very small handful of others.

[bean fidhleir]

17. The classism in all this is alternately funny and sickening

You'd think people would be too embarrassed to reveal such overtly ignorant, classist bias.

[XemaSab]

20. Class would not be an issue if it wasn't an issue

To wit, if the lower classes were not routinely deprived of food, health care, housing, and education, then there would be no bias and no classist prejudice.

To be a peasant, for the last, oh, 10,000+ years, meant little or no education. It's therefore reasonable to ask how someone from the lower class gained access to all the background information necessary to write these plays.

[EFerrari]

22. Shakespeare wasn't from the lower class, though.

His dad was a middle class businessman and a successful one until he became an alcoholic.

[XemaSab]

24. Did they really have a "middle class" then?

My impression is that the business class was sort of the "upper lower" class. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

26. There was an emerging middle class -- that's one reason that period

is so fascinating. The rules were all changing. Remember, this was one of the longest and most stable periods of prosperity in English history.

[LucyParsons]

18. Haha, wow! I'm one of her descendants!

Seriously.

I've read all up on the musical Lanier family since I found out I'm related to them.

[Peace Patriot]

19. I'm not familiar with this author or his evidence, but I am familiar with the controversy.

The thing that has struck me the most about prior investigators/authors, who propose various candidates for the real Shakespeare, is that they don't understand the core quality of a writer who uses language the way Shakespeare does, and that is the quality of being a "fly on the wall." In order to use language the way Shakespeare does, he (or she) had to SHUT THE FUCK UP and LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE--all the time, like a sponge. He (or she) was the wallflower in the corner of the pub, LISTENING to the English language BEING BORN.

So notions that Shakespeare had to have been more flamboyant (i.e., like Christopher Marlow), or better known in royal circles (i.e., higher born and more sociable--several candidates), or--and this one baffles me--was MANY people (all sorts of high-born, flamboyant people writing various plays)--are based on a very faulty presumption, that Shakespeare could not have been born a genius of a particular type--a genius of language, that is, a LISTENER--and was damned lucky to have been born, a) when the English language was being born, and b) when the London stage was being born, as the outlet for his genius.

He was nothing. He was nobody. He was an EAR. He was a SPONGE. He was a "fly on the wall." He HEARD it all--a language as yet without dictionaries, created by the COMMON PEOPLE, in the streets, who were just then melding together the odd elements of which the English language is composed: Ancient Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Danish, German, dollops of French, Latin book-learning and various strains of Keltic lyricism and storytelling, plus new literacy in the middle class and book availability (he clearly consulted books for some of his basic storylines). As a "fly on the wall"--the particular genius needed to ABSORB this extraordinary moment in the history of language, and turn it into something--he eludes the chroniclers of "great people" who typically get their autobiographies written into history. And only after he had BECOME the best playwright of his age (and perhaps the greatest writer who ever lived) did he concern himself with his legacy, and, for instance, applied for a "coat of arms" for his family (likely to please his father).

This is how I see the Shakespeare "mystery." It is not a mystery. The QUALITY that Shakespeare had to have, to write as he did, was ANONYMITY. He had to have been a man (or woman) who tended to "disappear" in a crowd.

I am VERY FAMILIAR with all of Shakepeare's works, plays and sonnets. This is what I sense about them. Someone who spent his life energy gadding about London society in that era, drinking and fighting, showing off, leaving flamboyant legends about himself, gabbing away--talking all the time (as Londoners did--they were all into the feast of language)--parading in fancy clothes, conquering the world (British Empire being born), etc., etc., could not have written these plays. The person who wrote the plays put all of his energy into LISTENING.

I think it's POSSIBLE that SOMEONE other than the personage known as William Shakespeare wrote them--that is, that the writer of the plays (and sonnets--for they were written by the same person) had a hidden identity, for some reason (i.e., Wm. Shakespeare is a nom de plume), although the OTHER quality of the plays--their genius STAGING--supports his identity as a theatrical player (stage hand, actor, director, producer, writer), very familiar with all aspects of stage production. One of the most interesting aspects of Shakespeare's given biography is that he was NOT a great actor himself--and is only known to have played the ghost in "Hamlet" (a mere voice and/or visage). This enhances my theory--that he did not have the quality of projecting a persona into the world (essential for actors), but was, rather--as I said--a sponge. He ABSORBED personas, and was highly gifted at then re-creating them on paper by means of what they SAY. (His characters are all "what they say"--they create themselves with words.)

My thesis--that Shakespeare was very likely the kind of person who "disappears" in a roomful of people--has points that favor a women, and points that do not. A women of that era may well have required a non de plume--especially as to the theater (where all the actors were men or boys--it was considered a disreputable profession for women). Could a woman have been anonymously participating--hiding her sex? Yeah, it's possible. But, on the other hand, she would have had difficulty being a "fly on the wall" in a pub, for instance, or in the street. Possibly as a Jewish woman (this OP), she had less status, and could mingle more. OR, she dressed like a man, and went out and about, absorbing London language. It is not impossible. And it's also interesting as to the sensibility in the plays, which are famous for revealing ALL VIEWPOINTS--for getting into the skin of women (creating REAL women), of ordinary soldiers, of guards at the gates, of gravekeepers, of servants, of nurses, of messengers, of innkeepers, of witches on the bog, of faeries in the forest, of EVERYBODY. Shakespeare takes NO ONE FOR GRANTED. Everyone has a point a view, motives, and independent lives they are living outside the main plot. This is, indeed, one of the great glories of Shakespeare. Could a woman have seen all of these things in people--and have had perhaps more native empathy with all kinds of people--than a man of that era? It's plausible. And a Jewish woman (member of a race against which there was great bigotry) might also have had life experiences that honed her empathy with all people. And this notion is especially compelling when you think of Shakespeare's truly amazing women characters--who are equal to men in complexity, in depth, and in the revealing poetry of their words. Shakespeare's women are an astonishing creative production, given the times.

Yes, it's possible. But could--or would--a Jewish woman have created Shylock? Shylock is Shakespeare's ONLY failure of empathy--really the only character in Shakespeare that seems designed to make the audience hiss with bigotry. Shakespeare doesn't even do this to his famous black character--Othello--who, although he commits a great crime, is treated as noble and tragic. Shylock is not noble and tragic--he is venal, greedy and vengeful. Shakespeare does what he can to at least give Shylock a point of view, and understandable motives--and great speeches! Shylock is an unforgettable character. But Shakespeare really can't get past his and his audience's bigotry. If Shakespeare was a Jewish woman, perhaps she was a self-hating Jew. Or, perhaps she THOUGHT she was doing her race a good turn by presenting a blackguard, greedy Jew with understandable motives. (Shylock uses society's prejudice against him as justification for his greed.)

Plausible, yes. I'll have to read the arguments and evidence for it. Shylock is rather an impediment (to use a word). Could he have been the creation of a Jewish woman? Maybe. And if my main theory, as to the kind of person that Shakespeare needed to be, to write the plays, is true, perhaps she was enough of a "sponge" to have absorbed that society's viewpoint on Jews, in a way that made her own identity irrelevant. That is, she wasn't a Jew when she wrote "Merchant of Venice." She was just a "sponge."

[XemaSab]

23. Or maybe she wrote Shylock as a "Stepin Fetchit" or similar caricature

where the point was to portray a racist caricature as a means of exploding the stereotype. :shrug:

Good post, BTW.

[EFerrari]

25. Had Shakespeare been a woman, big mouth Ben Jonson would have

disclosed it and written about it and tried to leverage the information or, it would appear in Ben Jonson's Conversations with William Drummond, which Drummond compiled. Jonson was a lovely gossip. :)

[Peace Patriot]

42. Yup, that is another impediment to theories that Shakespeare was someone other

than the person of the given biography--as if Shakespeare's London, the gabbiest, gossipiest, most story-loving, tale-telling city in history--the place where the notion of free speech was reborn in western society (because free speech was so much fun)--could have concealed such a secret, that Shakespeare was someone else (a woman or man). Too many conspirators would be needed, for one thing. Why would they keep it secret, after he supposedly died, is another (it makes no sense). And Ben Jonson (gossip extraordinaire) is a third. Really, that's one of the pluses to the Queen Elizabeth theory--that only protection of her memory seems adequate motive for the secrecy. (The theater was an iffy enough profession for men; for a woman, a theatrical profession = harlot.) This motive (for such an elaborate conspiracy) doesn't exist, with regard to any other candidate, including the Jewish woman of the OP. Why keep her identity secret? Or anyone else's? Why go to all that trouble? But the late dead "Faerie Queen," yeah, that could be a motive. Even Jonson might have zipped his lip about that (although he probably would have hinted at it all over the place). I don't buy that theory, as I said. But it's the only one that makes sense, as to motive for silence.

Side note: Shakespeare as "fly-on-the-wall," as "sponge," as wallflower in a corner of the pub, LISTENING, absorbing, and sneaking out, to avoid meeting people and having to put on a persona, and highing it back to his shanty to hastily scribble it all down--the most probable truth about William Shakespeare--lay like a dormant egg, some day to be hatched as the greatest movie ever made about an artistic genius. He was nobody. He had no self. But as "sponge" in the midst of the birth of a language, and (god knows, genius) shaper of tales, he became EVERYBODY.

[Peace Patriot]

33. Other theories: The only one I like is that Queen Elizabeth I was Shakespeare.

And not for any snobbish, royalist reasons (that Shakespeare had to have been high born), but rather for the opposite, that Queen Elizabeth, like her dad, was as much a raucous "lowlife" as she was "noble." They were probably both spawned by vigorous (and poetic) Keltic peasants. Elizabeth could as well have been a fishwife street barker, or colorful innkeeper, as a queen. She was a VERY COMPLEX--many-sided--woman. Also, she didn't punish Shakespeare's company for "Richard II." If ever they should have all been hung, it was on that occasion, when this play legitimized the Plantaganet line, and was part of a conspiracy against her throne. People were drawn and quartered for far less, in that era. Could she have written it herself (given its politics)? Yes! She was possibly that complex (and possibly infused with what Keats called "negative capability"--the ability to see things the OTHER way, to see the inside out of things), OR, as her own conspiracy to root out the coup plotters. She LOVED the theater with a passion. She gave it her patronage--and was especially favorable to Shakespeare's company, who had official status as a royal company, and put on many plays and pageants at court. She was no dainty, vulnerable princess or queen. She was more like Boadicea--the Keltic warrior queen. I like this theory viscerally. It has something...don't know quite how to put it. It makes much more sense to me, emotionally, than that the "real" Shakespeare was Francis Bacon (too dull! too academic! just doesn't have the free-for-all LANGUAGE that was being born!), or Christopher Marlowe (unsubtle writer, more in the bloody "Spanish tragedy" mode--and much too busy getting into brawls), or any of the other candidates.

How could Elizabeth have acquired the STREET LANGUAGE of the plays--the genius of language? By donning drag and going about among her people, anonymously. I would not put it past her, at all. How could she have gained the staging genius? More problematic. And I don't just mean how to stage things--where actors stand or move, or what props to use, etc.--I mean the staging built into the plays (what character or actor to focus upon, what action to show, what action to report on, the inherent genius of storytelling projected upon a stage). How could she have acquired that skill, as a play writer, which seems to require intimate knowledge of how drama works ON STAGE? Well, she was "on stage" much of her life, as queen--and certainly was part of, and witnessed, many plays and pageants. She could even have dressed in drag and gotten some first-hand experience of the stage. But this is the weakness in this theory--and I don't really believe this theory. It's just fun, that's all. It makes a crazy kind of sense.

I think it's much more likely that Shakespeare was a nobody--a sponge, who drank up the amazing language of the era, had the genius to utilize it--to shape it to his purpose--and happily discovered the London stage, which became his metaphor for reality.

[EFerrari]

39. She dies too early, as does Marlowe, although I agree with

everything you've written about her. A person in her position and with her smarts would have no problem with language and so on.

Also agree about being a sponge. He was also an amazing synthesizer of stories. He could squeeze a source like nobody else that I have read in that period.

There are things, though, that indicate SH was SH. When he dies, for example, he is mourned by his peers in the theater community - in eleagic verse that is heartfelt enough to make you weep, not just formal exercises. London wasn't a huge place. Players in the two companies knew each other, lampooned each other and even hung out sometimes. When one of them passes, the community responds. The Privy Council decided to limit theatrical companies in town to only two at some point -- in the 1590s or so -- so the community was smaller and more tightly knit than when SH first shows up in London. He, the guy, was obviously liked and missed.

[Peace Patriot]

45. I think the Marlowe theory was that he dies (in some Tudor version of a CIA

black op), and is reborn (secret identity--"witness protection" program?) as William Shakespeare (har-har). And this accounts for all the weirdness in the official record. Some such. I don't remember it all. But the flaw in this theory is that Marlowe is simply NOT the writer that Shakespeare is. He does not have the ear; he does not have the subtlety. He has flash--his plays are stagy and flashy--and not without merit (as you pointed out, compared to other writers of the era), but he does not have Shakespeare's incredible range (understanding of all types of people), language genius (unparalleled), and stamina and persistence. "Flash in the pan" Marlowe. DEEP Shakespeare, who worries over the SLIGHTEST details, and turns characters inside out, trying to reveal their inmost substance. But it's mainly aural. You just can't HEAR Shakespeare in Marlowe. It's not there.

As for Elizabeth, I think she's included in a theory that there was a cabal of writers. So her death might not end the cabal. But the cabal theory is complete bullshit, again based mostly on the EAR. The same person wrote all the plays (and the sonnets). I've never analyzed why I think this is true. It may be possible to prove it, by analysis of use of the language and vocabulary. But why bother? It's so obvious. A "committee" could not have written this canon. And individual members of some cabal of geniuses could not have reiterated the sounds and sensibilities that are so evident from play to play. They are not the works of different people; and they are not the works of a group.

I'm not sure if anyone has put forward the theory that Elizabeth was the sole writer. It may just be something I was playing with, in my own head (after reading about the cabal theory). And if it's true, then she would have had to write the later plays earlier (before she died), which doesn't feel right, as to the themes that the writer takes up, as he (or she) ages. As I said, I don't believe this theory. It's just...interesting (much more interesting than Francis Bacon)--and is maybe more a product of how Elizabeth interacted with her era, than any sort of plausible assertion. She, like Shakespeare, mirrored that age--in all of its astonishing creativity, ferment and color. It was a renaissance like no other, very peculiar to England. And she was a queen like no other, very peculiar to England. And, of course, Shakespeare was a writer like no other, and exceedingly peculiar to England, and the state of the English language at the time (and the state of the theater). They seem like kindred spirits--Queen Elizabeth and William Shakespeare. And they were. That's probably all there is to this theory.

[EFerrari]

46. Marlowe wasn't Shakespeare although he was also brilliant.

The case for Elizabeth writing or even co-writing the later plays sort of falls apart when you consider that the later plays have New World references that just hadn't happened while she lived.

It was an amazing time. Things we take for granted like privacy was more or less invented during that time. Literally. The late Elizabethans invented the English bedroom. Before that, no walls separated family life in that way.

They also invented state control of the theater -- censorship of scripts and who could be form a company and how, and where plays could be mounted. The venues for theater went from being anywhere to only being allowed in private homes and two public venues! For all their playfulness, there was a hard, wide authoritarian streak to them. Against which both Elizabeth and Shakespeare survived and thrived. They were, imho, surely kindred spirits. :)

[spoony]

49. Shylock is the first thing I thought of

upon reading the OP. It seems truly ubelievable to think she'd have created him, but your theory is an interesting possible way around that obstacle.

[EFerrari]

27. Hudson is a little bit kooky.

"John Hudson: I don't think this is a hoax. It is a stratagem she used to get her work published, as many other women have done, by having their work published under a man's name. In Elizabethan London, women could not write original literature at all, let alone plays, so this was her only option."


What about the Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia? She wrote that with her brother and kept working on it after he died. What about Elizabeth's poetry? What about Lady Mary Wroth? She wrote in just about every form, including plays. What about the autobiographies -- lots of women wrote autobiographies. Women were writing all over the place. :shrug:

[supernova]

34. It's really fun to see these pop up

every once in a while. It's like people just can't quite beleive that one word genius like Will Shakespeare could have created so rich a body of work ... on his own, on a middle class education, sans university.

Possible, but I'm not convinced. What WS did have was an ear for what sold and what made not merely good or passible, but great, even epic theatre. Don't forget, he was considered more like the Stephen Speilberg of his day, not THE Lion of the English Language Canon (TM).

[HuffleClaw]

37. "You haven't really heard Shakespeare until you've heard it in the original Klingon" n/t

[Peace Patriot]

43. Har-har! Or until you've seen Data play Henry V! nt

[EFerrari]

44. I saw that movie the night of the day of my oral exams.

I thought I was so tired that I was hallucinating.

:rofl:

[Sequoia]

38. Your little cat....

Looks like my Tiki who's up in heaven now. I sure miss her. Her eyes looked blue in the sun.

[Posteritatis]

50. No, *I'M* Spartacus! (nt)

[Aristus]

51. No. William Shakespeare was William Shakespeare. Every other argument is bullshit.

Puh-leeze, people! :eyes:

[MilesColtrane]

53. To be or not to be...you want I should ask a different question?

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Yeah, he was also DeViers right?

The one thing most of these authorship theories have in common is a disdain for those outside of nobility and wealth. The argument is always that only the rich have genius. The argument is made by those who do not bother to compare the education at the time that the historical Shaekepeare would have gotten to what some mid level noble would get. They guess the wrong one as superior, based on class bias. Tell me how many works of great art have been made by the very rich in say, the last 50 years?

Maybe Will was Will or an ensemble or some other figure. I really do not care who wrote the plays. The writer is long gone. The play's the thing. But I tend to ignore all of the theories that begin with 'only a noble could do this' for that is simply not the case.

Those who enjoy this sort of thing might have fun with a novel called 'Chasing Shakespeare' by Sarah Smith. It is entertaining and not at all academic. Big fun read for those that consider authorshop of antique plays to be a subject for pop culture! I really enjoyed it. For those who don't know anything about these authorship questions, the book could be an entertaining primer, if that is of interest.

[Bucky]

58. Here's a sample of Ms Lanyer's poetry

To the Ladie Lucie, Coun-
tesse of Bedford.*

Me thinkes I see faire Virtue readie stand,
T'unlocke the closet of your louely breast,
Holding the key of Knowledge in her hand,
Key of that Cabbine where your selfe doth rest,
To let him in, by whom her youth was blest:

The true-loue of your soule, your hearts delight,
Fairer than all the world in your cleare sight.

He that descended from celestiall glory,
To taste of our infirmities and sorrowes,
Whose heauenly wisdom read the earthly storie
Of fraile Humanity, which his godhead borrows:
Loe here he coms all stucke with pale deaths arrows:

In whose most pretious wounds your soule may reade
Saluation, while he (dying Lord) doth bleed.

You whose cleare Iudgement farre exceeds my skil,
Vouchsafe to entertaine this dying louer,
The Ocean of true grace, whose streames doe fill
All those with Ioy, that can his loue recouer;
About this blessed Arke bright Angels houer:

Where your faire sould may sure and safely rest,
When he is sweetly seated in your brest.

There may your thoughts as seruants to your heart,
Giue true attendance on this louely guest,
While he doth to that blessed bowre impart
Flowres of fresh comforts, decke that bed of rest,
With such rich beauties as may make it blest:

And you in whom all raritie is found,
May be with his eternall glory crownd.

*(title sic)
Sonnets are tough to write, and she does okay with it. But it ain't Shakespeare.

[EFerrari]

60. Lucy was a love object of many poets, including naughty and nice Donne.

She must have been a hottie. :)