The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
I saw an interesting program on it a few nights ago. So, who wrote the Great Bard's works? and why do you think so?
Who wrote Shakespeare?
- Thread starter The Troquelet
- Start date
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
I have heard this controversey years ago, but I have never seen anyone disprove the Bard of Avon, so i stick with him, for better or worse. 
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I don't know much about it, care to explain?
I could still vote for the monkeys, of course.
I could still vote for the monkeys, of course.
Yes, an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite number of time could eventually write all of Shakespeare's plays.
So my conclusion is that all of shakespeare's plays were sent over from the monkey-typewriter dimension
.
So my conclusion is that all of shakespeare's plays were sent over from the monkey-typewriter dimension
.
. But my answer is W. Shakespeare. It must have been him.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
I KNEW I shouldn't have added that option 
Kennelly
Starfleet Admiral
Shakespeare,because I believe my English teacher
There are such rumours about many famous authors and I ignore them
There are such rumours about many famous authors and I ignore them
Illustrious
Becoming Colonel Blimp
Of course it wasn't Shakespeare!
Everybody knows it was some other chap named Shakespeare.....
Everybody knows it was some other chap named Shakespeare.....
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Giant Radioactive Monkey
Of course W.S. wrote them.
No one else wrote it.
Of course W.S. wrote them.
No one else wrote it.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Maybe it was Shakespeare that wrote Shakespeare? I dunno!
napoleon526
Emperor
Is there any evidence that Marlowe wrote WS's works? I thought he died in a bar fight at a young age.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Lord Edward, Earl of Oxford, Seventh of that Name, and Seventh in degree from the English Crown. No I am not kidding.
J
J
ejday
King
Who wrote...
[cue "Church Lady" voice]
Who wrote Shakespeare?
Hmm...
Could it be...
Shakespeare?!?!
[/"Church Lady" voice]
You have Got to be kidding!
Oh.
[cue "Church Lady" voice]
Who wrote Shakespeare?
Hmm...
Could it be...
Shakespeare?!?!
[/"Church Lady" voice]
Lucky
Game- and Quizmaster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,304
Sir Francis Bacon! 
At least there are quite a lot of theories and even "proof" that he is actual author of some if not all of these masterpieces. I even held a small lecture about Sir Bacon several years ago in school. Maybe I can find it somewhere.
The basic gist is that when closely examing certain parts of different plays you will find hidden hints that read Bacon in one form or another. The simplest being adding the first letters of the first word in a line together.
I might go look for it later.
At least there are quite a lot of theories and even "proof" that he is actual author of some if not all of these masterpieces. I even held a small lecture about Sir Bacon several years ago in school. Maybe I can find it somewhere.
The basic gist is that when closely examing certain parts of different plays you will find hidden hints that read Bacon in one form or another. The simplest being adding the first letters of the first word in a line together.
I might go look for it later.
The Balrog
***Not Perm Banned***
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 713
Ask Hamlet. He probably knows.
Lucky
Game- and Quizmaster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,304
Hmm, couldn´t find the notes and gathered information that I was looking for. 
IIRC, they even opened his grave several times and found one or more code keys with which they could decipher the hidden message in Shakespeare´s plays.
There are quite a few cryptography sites out there that explain many of the ciphers that can be found in the works. Here is one:
http://home.att.net/~tleary/
Most of these site, as well as authors and cryptologists of earlier times, agree that the amount of these ciphers in the original texts is too big to be ascribed to chance alone.
So I´ll stay with Sir Francis Bacon.
IIRC, they even opened his grave several times and found one or more code keys with which they could decipher the hidden message in Shakespeare´s plays.
There are quite a few cryptography sites out there that explain many of the ciphers that can be found in the works. Here is one:
http://home.att.net/~tleary/
Most of these site, as well as authors and cryptologists of earlier times, agree that the amount of these ciphers in the original texts is too big to be ascribed to chance alone.
So I´ll stay with Sir Francis Bacon.
Chairman Yang
Member
I voted Shakespeare.
Theres even a theory that he smoked marijuana when writing his works, since they found pipes and residues in his home, or atleast thats what I read...
Theres even a theory that he smoked marijuana when writing his works, since they found pipes and residues in his home, or atleast thats what I read...
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Bacon did not write them. The various reasons for believing he might have, fall to word analysis. The person that wrote his letters and Shakespeare's plays ar not the same person.
Based on the same analysis the queen's cousin, and Edward, the 7th Earl Oxford, is considered by some to be a logical candidate. Most of the arguments advanced for Bacon, eg reason not to aknowledge, familiarity with court life, etc, apply as well or better to Lord Edward. Other things, like the military experience, are noticably more consistent. No one knows for certain, and the arguments will rage.
J
Based on the same analysis the queen's cousin, and Edward, the 7th Earl Oxford, is considered by some to be a logical candidate. Most of the arguments advanced for Bacon, eg reason not to aknowledge, familiarity with court life, etc, apply as well or better to Lord Edward. Other things, like the military experience, are noticably more consistent. No one knows for certain, and the arguments will rage.
J
Illustrious
Becoming Colonel Blimp
Re the Bacon "hints":
It's always dangerous to read too much into these sort of things. If you look hard enough at any large body of witing, you can find "significant" groups of letters which can "prove" that anyone you like wrote it.
Working in the opposite direction, there's the famous "proof" that Shakespeare wrote Psalm 46 because the 46th word from the beginning (in the King James version) is "shake" and the 46th word from the end is "spear".
The cryptography sites are always very bullish about their "discoveries", but most use techniques which artificially increase the number of apparent ciphers and acrostics they discover.
For example, the practice of accepting any set of letters that vaguely resembles "bacon" as a valid acrostic (their argument is that spelling would have been deliberately mangled as part of the coding process, which is of course classic circular logic) means that any claims they make for "greater than pure chance" are invalidated. To explain: if the chance of finding "bacon" is 1 in 100, then to find 10 instances might indeed be significant. BUT, if you allow any one of a dozen variant spellings, the numbers cancel out and you are back at the level of pure randomness.
The final thing to bear in mind is that these people aren't analysing the words of Shakespeare's plays in an open-minded quest to find out who wrote them; they're doing it to "prove" that Bacon wrote them. One tends to see what one wants to see....
It's always dangerous to read too much into these sort of things. If you look hard enough at any large body of witing, you can find "significant" groups of letters which can "prove" that anyone you like wrote it.
Working in the opposite direction, there's the famous "proof" that Shakespeare wrote Psalm 46 because the 46th word from the beginning (in the King James version) is "shake" and the 46th word from the end is "spear".
The cryptography sites are always very bullish about their "discoveries", but most use techniques which artificially increase the number of apparent ciphers and acrostics they discover.
For example, the practice of accepting any set of letters that vaguely resembles "bacon" as a valid acrostic (their argument is that spelling would have been deliberately mangled as part of the coding process, which is of course classic circular logic) means that any claims they make for "greater than pure chance" are invalidated. To explain: if the chance of finding "bacon" is 1 in 100, then to find 10 instances might indeed be significant. BUT, if you allow any one of a dozen variant spellings, the numbers cancel out and you are back at the level of pure randomness.
The final thing to bear in mind is that these people aren't analysing the words of Shakespeare's plays in an open-minded quest to find out who wrote them; they're doing it to "prove" that Bacon wrote them. One tends to see what one wants to see....
