MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Dating Shakespeare (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Were some of Shakespeare's plays written after he died? Many of the themes seem to fit popular sentiments and concerns during the civil war period and seem prescient if written before.

Julius Ceasar
Military leader in context of a civil war sets up dictatorship and thrice refuses the crown (Cromwell also thrice refused the crown).

Macbeth
Military Leader murders a king and takes his place.

Romeo and Juliet
Lovers from opposing sides of a civil conflict.

Richard III
Military Leader defends the throne he inherited from a returning prince and rightful heir possessed of an army on the opposite side of the channel (Cromwell's son was named Richard).

Henry IV Part I and II
England divided into factions of a vicious civil war.

Those are just the plays that came immediately to mind, which take on an implicit political significance if moved just a half century forward in time.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

All those themes were available in Good Queen Bess' time, and in spades.

William Shakespeare, as a person, is surprisingly elusive. People around him seem to have got wealthy and left a notable legacy behind them. One might almost say, everyone except for Bill. For example: Edward Alleyn.

Edward "Ned" Alleyn ... was an English actor who was a major figure of the Elizabethan theatre and founder of Dulwich College and Alleyn's School ... It is said that Dulwich was built as a gesture of thanksgiving to God for Alleyn's acting ability and success in business dealings.


Business? What business?

Alleyn went into business with his father-in-law Philip Henslowe and became wealthy. He was part-owner in Henslowe's ventures, and in the end sole proprietor of several profitable playhouses, bear-pits and brothels.


Aha, my kind of business! Although, I'm not so keen on the bear-pits. Can we substitute a brewery please?

But what's this?

Alleyn is unusual among figures in 16th-century drama because a large selection of his private papers have survived. They were published in 1843 as The Alleyn Papers, edited by scholar-forger John Payne Collier. He also developed professional relationships with religious and political figures such as Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Julius Caesar.


I'm not sure whether the "professional relationship with Francis Bacon" is a fabrication (courtesy of the scholar-forger John Payne Collier). Or whether Alleyn & Bacon & Co were busy getting rich by inventing one of the greatest pieces of stagecraft in British History. i.e. the fictional Shakespeare as a front (and firebreak) in case they attracted even more right royal wrath.

How so?

Being a playwright in Elizabethan England could be a rewarding business; it could also be a very dangerous one. We're used to modern-day politics being a dirty game. In Elizabeth's time, it was also a very deadly one.

Against a background of Mary Queen of Scots, the 16 assasination attempts against Elizabeth, the Spanish Amarda, the Spanish Inquisition...

It was a period of fracton, intrigue, plot, counter-plot and sudden death, and every man who entered public life realised that he walked in the shadows of the Tower or the block. Very few escaped one or the other. What greater reason could Bacon have for secrecy? He was working out his vast project of educating the people to which the Queen had repeatedly registered her disapproval. Had the truth been known, his chance of any judicial appointment, essential in many ways to the working of his scheme, would have been irretrievably lost, apart from the fact that many had gone to execution for far less disobedience. Concealed and feigned authorship was not an unheard of thing in those days by any means. There were many ever watchful for heresies and many more for treason. The incident with the Queen concerning the play Richard II bears out that fact ... The play, Richard II, was performed —anonymously— the afternoon before Essex broke into rebellion. It was denounced by the Queen as an act of treason. Bacon, as Solicitor-Extraordinary, was commanded to seek out the author of the play that he might be put on the rack. This alone proves that the authorship was not generally known.


What a situation! London is in uproar over Essex's attempt at an armed coup d'état. The Queen has just commanded you to find the author of a play deemed to be treason. Presumably so the author could be hung, drawn and quartered as a traitor. And you are the author?

Bacon's embarrassment can be well imagined. A scapegoat had to be found, someone outside the political arena and without motive for intrigue. All the data available point to the fact that the huckster Shagsper of Stratford was cited as the author, bribed with a thousand pounds through Bacon's friend Southampton, and despatched to his home in Warwickshire. His sudden acquisition of wealth supports the story, from which undoubtedly has sprung the germ of the present day myth and Stratfordian obsession.
Ref : http://www.sirbacon.org/shakespearemyth.htm


And then there's the accounting, and the classic advise : follow the money...

Philip Henslowe, the greatest theatrical manager and producer of his day, kept a diary(which is preserved) in which he set down the sums of money paid to authors for their work. We find in this diary the names of practically all the dramatic writers of that day excepting Shakespeare, his name being entirely ignored. Neither does Shaksper, Shaxspur, or Shagsper figure anywhere in this historic list of Henslowe's.

After 1594, all plays were required to be registered before publication. Nothing was ever registered in Shakespeare's name, nor is there any trace of the actual writer with the various people who effected the registrations at Stationer's Hall. Bacon had his reasons for secrecy. Shakespeare none.


Shake-speare's Intellectual Copyright was a very valuable commodity. Why was nothing registered to maintain ownership of that copyright?

And then there are the espionage and intelligence connections...

... on the afternoon of August 11, 1582 there was an entry in Dee's journal that they met at Mortlake. Bacon was 21 years old at the time and was accompanied by a Mr. Phillipes, a top cryptographer in the employ of Sir Francis Walsingham who headed up the early days of England's secret service.


Why so secret? The proto-intelligence services were involved in a deadly game of cat & mouse. Much mentioned in the recent BBC series on Elizabeth 1st's Secret Agents. But sadly without mentioning Francis Bacon and John Dee. Would it have complicated the story too much?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
All those themes were available in Good Queen Bess' time, and in spades.


Not true.

I've just been immersing myself in British History for the past 18 months. There are even more parallels than I have mentioned.

Problem is. I'm not even convinced the British Revolution itself is real history (though I think it is).

William Shakespeare, as a person, is surprisingly elusive.


That's because the main body of his work was written by John Milton and edited by Milton's partners. I'll put money on it.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sir Julius Caesar


Sir Julius Ceasar????
Queen Elizabeth, on her way to Nonsuch Palace, paid [Sir Julius Cesear] a visit at his house at Mitcham on 12 September 1598. She spent the night of the 12th there, and dined with him the next day.
As I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction elsewhere, there was no such palace as Nunsuch. Thus this incident and likely Ceasar himself are fabrications. (I even wonder if the juxtaposition with Nunsuch is a breadcrumb left by the "historian").

Or is Julius Ceasar not quite a fabrication but a duplicate? Oliver Cromwell was also a member of parliament.

[Julius Ceasar] was Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer from 1606 to 1614. In 1607 he was appointed to the Privy Council. In 1614 he was appointed Master of the Rolls, an office which he held till his death in 1636.

Chancellor eh?

Julius Ceasar dies in 1636. I'll just add this...
In 1636 Cromwell inherited control of various properties....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Apparently Cromwell inherited his properties from his uncle.

So Julius Ceasar is uncle to Oliver Cromwell.

That makes Cromwell Octavius Augustus Caesar.


Makes you wonder....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sir Julius Caesar


Oliver Cromwell is the English Napoleon.

There was a revolution in Britain in the 17th century. They executed the king. Cromwell was its leader. The British People thrice offered him the crown and thrice he refused it.

Which is interesting. Because Will Shakespeare wrote a play about the Roman Napoleon, Julius Caesar, in which Julius was thrice offered the crown and thrice refused it. That play was written in the late 16th century.

Which is interesting. Not just because it seems to imply that Cromwell was the British Julius Caesar---decades ahead of the events---but also because there was actually a guy living in Britain during the late 16th century named Julius Caesar.

This guy was not just any guy. His name was Sir Julius Caesar. He rose to be Chancellor of the Exchequer---second only to the Queen. It was a role comparable to Prime-minister at the time.

So Sir Julius Caesar rose practically as high in government as did...well...as did Julius Caesar!

But this is interesting. Not just because Julius Caesar is a name you get to see in government only once every 2000 years, but because Sir Julius Caesar died in 1636. The reason that's interesting is because it was in 1636 that Oliver Cromwell inherited a fortune.

He inherited it from his uncle. His uncle who died in 1636.

So who was Cromwell's uncle? No one of great importance historically.

Supposedly.

Or perhaps....?

Because if Sir Julius Caesar was uncle to Oliver Cromwell, well then that would make Oliver Cromwell...

Sir Octavius Augustus Caesar.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most ingenious. Don't forget Julio César, goalkeeper, ex of this parish (QPR) and Brazil. No, I mean it, most ingenious, but why not stick to Tudor/Stuart shenanigans rather than going (for now) with the whole hogg?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Trust me. This kind of tangent is just between us crazies here. For any future book project, I'm sticking only with the Tudor period and stuff that remains in the realm of the believable (a least among the sorts of persons who would give the Flat Earth a fair hearing).

I honestly don't know what to make of what I wrote above. But I'm saving it for later.

I started researching the revolutionary periods in British History because I thought these periods likely true for the most part, and I wanted to know if I could identify when and why Tudor history had been mucked-about with. I've come away from the research with great suspicion about the accuracy of history even so late as James II.

I'm just now reading about the Glorious Revolution---which (for the moment) is my new guess for the timing of the great re-write project in Britain. But no clear motive yet.

-------------

p.s. I've got a great deal of Tudor material. Have not had time to share it because I've been so focused on finishing the Deserts book. Four and a half years now I've been at this.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

William Shakespeare, as a person, is surprisingly elusive.


That's because the main body of his work was written by John Milton and edited by Milton's partners. I'll put money on it.


Sigh.

It's much easier of you just say it was Francis Bacon who wrote it.
After he'd finished editing the King James Version of the Bible.

Psalms 46 - (God is our refuge and strength. etc)

https://www.bartleby.com/108/19/46.html

The 46th word from the beginning is ‘shake’ and the 46th word from the end is ‘spear’.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

William Shakespeare, as a person, is surprisingly elusive.


Shakespeare was/is a cult invented by David Garrick.

https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/david-garrick/

My noble epistomogie, tis enough said,
The bard was never alive, so never dead.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Same goes with Caesar....(but not invented by Garrick)
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe folks can't make up their mind about when Shakespeare died as he arguably died on St George's Day (which is a flexible date).

There you go Mr H, I keep on trying.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At least the Crazies do not rely on post facto names/nick names, dates/chronology and places. They start with a consistent explanation why ortho might be wrong. Substituting names or subtracting years, but within the existing paradigm, is also a "no no" for the crazies. For the crazies that is faux radicalism.

Of course when Coyote breaks his own guidelines, it is a legitimate attempt to engage with others, or more often, he has simply forgotten his own research programme.

Where was I?

Ah yes. Bardolatry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardolatry

Good luck Ish. Shakespeare's birth and death dates. St George. =Flexible dates, to celebrate a Jubilee for the Bard.

Wiki wrote:
The phenomenon became important in the Victorian era when many writers treated Shakespeare's works as a secular equivalent or replacement to the Bible.[8] "That King Shakespeare," the essayist Thomas Carlyle wrote in 1840, "does not he shine, in crowned sovereignty, over us all, as the noblest, gentlest, yet strongest of rallying signs; indestructible".[9][10]

The essential characteristic of bardolatry is that Shakespeare is presented as not only the greatest writer who ever lived, but also as the supreme intellect, the greatest psychologist, and the most faithful portrayer of the human condition and experience. In other words, bardolatry defines Shakespeare as the master of all human experience and of its intellectual analysis.[11]


Just telling it, as it is. It is a cult.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
The 46th word from the beginning is ‘shake’ and the 46th word from the end is ‘spear’.


I've heard this many years ago. However; when you have the entire Bible to search through, a coincidence of this nature (especially when it might have involved any historical personage) is almost certain to arise, is it not?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
Ishmael wrote:
That's because the main body of his work was written by John Milton...


It's much easier of you just say it was Francis Bacon...


I've had to revise my conclusions on this matter, as I know longer believe in John Milton---or Francis Bacon.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group