Who Wrote "Shakespeare?"

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Hermit777

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Hermit777

What little I know of the Schoo of Night comes from reading Dame Margaret Yates. It sounds like you have done some deeper research.

I have indeed

Starting with Naval History to understand the thought processes. Then to Newton with particular interest into the Science & Magics of that time, the beautiful literature. These researches led to many a trivial root of the main equation or premise that leads down the rabbit hole.

The "ton" was a unit of taxation applied to wine. I would have thought it to be something more to do with convenient sizes fro shipping.



In economic history some reference is made to English smuggling. If smuggling was for centuries a normal option for an Englishman, a lot of cloak and dagger conspiracy stuff seems more likely. Does naval history have much to say about that?

Most Everything in England during the Time of Queen Elizabeth was Taxed. Why ? Because her Father Henery VIII and her sister Bloody Mary left the treasury in ruins. The former due to his excesses, the later due to neglect and the fact she was "Bat-# Crazy". So yes there was a high degree of smuggling for and against the Queen. The Queen [E.R.] even had her own Pirates to steal from the Spanish and French.

Queen Elizabeth created arguably the first modern day Spy network, (Which George Washington modeled the Culpa-ring after), it can be said that Queen Elizabeth was the first modern day Spy Master.

Tonne or Tunne :

Ton and tonne are both derived from a Germanic word in general use in the North Sea area since the
Middle Ages (cf. Old English and Old Frisian tunne, Old High German and Medieval Latin tunna,
German and French tonne) to designate a large cask, or tun.

A full tun, standing about a metre high, could easily weigh a tonne. An English tun
(an old wine cask volume measurement equivalent to 954 litres) of wine weighs roughly a tonne,
954 kg if full of water, a little less for wine.

Before metrication in the UK the unit used for most purposes was the Imperial ton of 2,240 pounds avoirdupois (usually referred to as the long ton in the US), equivalent to 1,016 kg, differing by just 1.6% from the tonne.


And yes Wine like most things was Taxed on the Dock.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Hermit777

To jump ahead a bit, I have no doubt that good Doctor Dee was an inspiration for the ludus, which in turn sparked a sort of fever among English philosopher and poets. I'm not sure whether or not they formed a formal "brotherhood," but certainly many of the names of those associated with the School of Night show influences of the Continental writings in their later works. I suppose it is possible that the School was, in effect, a seed crystal.

Does your mention of a brotherhood allude to the possibility of a team collaborating to write Shakespeare?

There was a study about IQ in which a group of professionals were given an exam to answer as if the group were a single person. The group IQ was always higher than any of the individuals. I don't remember how much higher. At least one statistical category I think. Maybe not that much. Maybe more -- twice as smart as any single person.

Yes yes studies ...

It was not a Brotherhood as stated earlier, for there were notable Women involved. NO the Plays of W.S. were not a group grope. That does not preclude the fact that W.S. was an ardent note taker and would use ideas and turns of phrases from his friends, (e.g. Northumberland or Oxford were fond of saying "As you Like it" when they gave up on an argument, and i do believe the Witches in W.S. plays may have been an idea from the dark mind of C.M.)

Where the School of Night may have applied the concept of several minds are quicker to the solution then one, may very well have been in code breaking for example. Of note the letter deciphered that cause M.R. to finally loose her head. [M.R. Mary Queen of Scotts] One should not plot to Assassinate the Queen of England your cousin while living in the Tower, [What an Oversexed Idiot].

Did the School of Night bring ideas to each other, from various societies, of course and argue them to death i would assume to weed out the best ideas. Then pollinate this information back to grow later on. But also they may have just gamed anything at the time that was interesting. Even in Modern day groups people amuse themselves after dinner with the sublime to the absurd. Case in point i was at a dinner for ah a society within a society, after dinner
our guest speaker who was also a member and very published, decided that the after dinner discussion should be about "Astrology" ARGH!!!! looking around the table at the collected Brain power and we are discussing That!
But one does what one does to fit in i guess. He noticed the look on my face and asked and i mentioned what the Adm. Thought of "Astrology", his retort was that the good Doctor was just a curmudgeon at times especially when he wrote / said that. ( I was really hoping for a discussion of AI and Robotics myself).

So even the most astute groups amuse themselves most times with silly, but it is fun. And seriously, do you really think a group like that [The school of Night] could even agree on a plot for a play? Most of that group were Closet Scientist, mathematicians, not playwrights.

But no i do not believe W.S. plays were a group grope. Anymore then Christopher "Kit" Marlowe's were.

G

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seriously ????

Sir Francis was a Lawyer. He had a very Literal and Analytical mind and regardless of various ideas, ah NO.

He had great influence at court being a steady thinker, would have made an excellent Hacker if alive today, and was quite a code-breaker, due to his twist of mind. Actually write a love story "Romeo and Juliet" i think he would have gagged to death before he completed the first scene.

Is it possible even a sound idea that W.S. had Sir Francis look over his History plays? I should think so, those Histories
were there to elevate the Monarchy. That editing would have at the very least have been prudent, since W.S. did NOT loose his head, it must have been successful. I would also submit that E.R. did some editing Herself, it would only have been prudent.

As the original poster of this thread said DJW001 : "If Bacon had written "Hamlet" he would have screamed it from the Rooftops."

G

originally posted by: Shiloh7
A very difficult one this because when what was every day knowledge plus a good dose of occult knowledge is not known to most of us Brits today, let alone people from other cultures who study him. So much of the oblique references haven't carried forward in time which is why he's so hard for most to enjoy.

It will only ever be speculation because after his death no one came forward and claimed to have written the material or claim the rights to the royalties etc - which were it their writing one would have thought they would.

There was indeed a good grasp of Occult Knowledge in that group. ( Occult = Hidden )

Why my studies picked up certain threads there in the 16th century.

Let us also not forget that Shakespeare added over 2,000 new words into the English language.

Not only a brilliant playwright but also a wordsmith.

originally posted by: alldaylong

Let us also not forget that Shakespeare added over 2,000 new words into the English language.

Not only a brilliant playwright but also a wordsmith.

Exactly

a reply to: Hermit777

Sir Francis was also a master at speaking 3 different languages with the same words through 3 different sides of his mouth.

a reply to: DJW001

Why does there have to be more than one author? Maybe it was 1 person who was a genius (think Bill Gates, Einstein, Newton. The guy didn't need university). This is a stretch but has the count of saint germain be proposed? I know I know he was born around 1690-1700 but if he was who he said he was.. maybe HE was Shakespeare after all someone who has lived for 100s even 1000s of years would probably be an amazing poet, could tell stories like no other. He could've faked his death, moved locations and went under a different name

Anyways I'm interested in historical figures such as Shakespeare, The Count of Saint Germain and even Mozart because no one really knows exactly what they looked like and are (by far) mysterious figures. Not much is known about the count.. Maybe there's a connection

a reply to: HarryPlopper18

Why does there have to be more than one author?

Time to tip my hand: records show that the Globe opened a new play every ten days. Think about that. Mounting a two hour play every ten days is the equivalent of doing a live 90 minute television show every week. The Globe kept to the same production schedule as Saturday Night Live, which means that they probably had a similar production arrangement.

There would have been a head writer, Shakespeare, perhaps, who new what creative direction he wanted to take the company in. He would find source materials through his reading of history, or by hearing about the latest funny stories coming out of Europe by having a few drinks with people like John Florio, Of course, as an artist and intellectual, Shakespeare would be aware of contemporary political and philosophical issues and choose material that would allow him to explore them.

Once he has sketched out the overall arc of the play, its characters, plots and subplots, he would divide up the work. He would reserve the most important scenes and soliloquies for himself, of course, and then have his clowns work out the comic relief. ("Knock me that door, Sirrah!" ) Others could knock out workmanlike expository dialogue, or insane bombast. (One can almost imagine Dick Burbage improvising his way as Falstaff.)

This accounts for why some scenes come off as being so uneven: the head writer starts them off then hands them along with a "Give us two minutes of bawdy to cover a costume change...."

As an example, here's a scene from "All's Well That Ends Well" where you can practically hear the gears stripping as they shift. Note how the scene starts out with a well balanced back and forth between the two characters. Between the two of them they develop a related series of puns and metaphors based on military terminology:

PAROLLES
Save you, fair queen!
HELENA
And you, monarch!
PAROLLES
No.
HELENA
And no.
PAROLLES
Are you meditating on virginity?
HELENA
Ay. You have some stain of soldier in you: let me
ask you a question. Man is enemy to virginity; how
may we barricado it against him?
PAROLLES
Keep him out.
HELENA
But he assails; and our virginity, though valiant,
in the defence yet is weak: unfold to us some
warlike resistance.
PAROLLES
There is none: man, sitting down before you, will
undermine you and blow you up.
HELENA
Bless our poor virginity from underminers and
blowers up! Is there no military policy, how
virgins might blow up men?
PAROLLES
Virginity being blown down, man will quicklier be
blown up: marry, in blowing him down again, with
the breach yourselves made, you lose your city. It
is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to
preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational
increase and there was never virgin got till
virginity was first lost. That you were made of is
metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost
may be ten times found; by being ever kept, it is
ever lost: 'tis too cold a companion; away with 't!
HELENA
I will stand for 't a little, though therefore I die a virgin.

[Screech! It's all you, Kemp! Give us a bit of bawdy. --DJW001]

PAROLLES
There's little can be said in 't; 'tis against the
rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity,
is to accuse your mothers; which is most infallible
disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin:
virginity murders itself and should be buried in
highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate
offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites,
much like a cheese; consumes itself to the very
paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach.
Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of
self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the
canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but loose
by't: out with 't! within ten year it will make
itself ten, which is a goodly increase; and the
principal itself not much the worse: away with 't!
HELENA
How might one do, sir, to lose it to her own liking?
PAROLLES
Let me see: marry, ill, to like him that ne'er it
likes. 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with
lying; the longer kept, the less worth: off with 't
while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request.
Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out
of fashion: richly suited, but unsuitable: just
like the brooch and the tooth-pick, which wear not
now. Your date is better in your pie and your
porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity,
your old virginity, is like one of our French
withered pears, it looks ill, it eats drily; marry,
'tis a withered pear; it was formerly better;
marry, yet 'tis a withered pear: will you anything with it?

shakespeare.mit.edu...

(Actors usually try to save the scene by pulling a pear out of their codpiece for emphasis, but in manyproductions this scene is cut down drastically.)

It is worth noting that Shakespeare's shorter plays generally have a higher percentage of verse, few if any subplots, and very little comic relief. These shorter plays may be denser and more intense because they are genuinely solo efforts. Similarly, the more politically charged plays (Richard II, Julius Caesar) share these characteristics, whereas his more bloated or masque-like plays are the most uneven.

Special mention should be made of some of his most bloated uneven plays of all: the last few "romances," which some scholars bluntly refer to as the " alchemical plays." It is in wild spectacles like "Pericles, Prince of Athens" (no relation to the actual historical personage) that I believe we can see the hand(s) of the School of Night.

a reply to: DJW001

Bacon may have been Eliza eth's SON I actually think iz the story...
And he was the purest genius of his time

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: HarryPlopper18

Why does there have to be more than one author?


Time to tip my hand: records show that the Globe opened a new play every ten days. Think about that. Mounting a two hour play every ten days is the equivalent of doing a live 90 minute television show every week. The Globe kept to the same production schedule as Saturday Night Live, which means that they probably had a similar production arrangement.

There would have been a head writer, Shakespeare, perhaps, who new what creative direction he wanted to take the company in. He would find source materials through his reading of history, or by hearing about the latest funny stories coming out of Europe by having a few drinks with people like John Florio, Of course, as an artist and intellectual, Shakespeare would be aware of contemporary political and philosophical issues and choose material that would allow him to explore them.

Once he has sketched out the overall arc of the play, its characters, plots and subplots, he would divide up the work. He would reserve the most important scenes and soliloquies for himself, of course, and then have his clowns work out the comic relief. ("Knock me that door, Sirrah!" ) Others could knock out workmanlike expository dialogue, or insane bombast. (One can almost imagine Dick Burbage improvising his way as Falstaff.)

This accounts for why some scenes come off as being so uneven: the head writer starts them off then hands them along with a "Give us two minutes of bawdy to cover a costume change...."

As an example, here's a scene from "All's Well That Ends Well" where you can practically hear the gears stripping as they shift. Note how the scene starts out with a well balanced back and forth between the two characters. Between the two of them they develop a related series of puns and metaphors based on military terminology:



shakespeare.mit.edu...

(Actors usually try to save the scene by pulling a pear out of their codpiece for emphasis, but in manyproductions this scene is cut down drastically.)

It is worth noting that Shakespeare's shorter plays generally have a higher percentage of verse, few if any subplots, and very little comic relief. These shorter plays may be denser and more intense because they are genuinely solo efforts. Similarly, the more politically charged plays (Richard II, Julius Caesar) share these characteristics, whereas his more bloated or masque-like plays are the most uneven.

Special mention should be made of some of his most bloated uneven plays of all: the last few "romances," which some scholars bluntly refer to as the " alchemical plays." It is in wild spectacles like "Pericles, Prince of Athens" (no relation to the actual historical personage) that I believe we can see the hand(s) of the School of Night.

OK Let's start here:

Aaron Sorkin

The West Wing & The Newsroom

The Actors: (Not in any order)

Jeff Daniels, Emily Mortimer, Olivia Munn, Sam Waterston, Rob Lowe, Allison Janney, Richard Schiff, John Spencer, Martin Sheen, Stockard Channing, Alan Alda

He did write 99% of all weekly episodes much to the chagrin of the actors. Why you say? Consider the life of an Actor.

Day 1: Arrive at studio 05:00 PST, Kraft Services 05:05, Makeup 0515 - 05:?? depending on Age, sex, and persona.

Out to set, more Kraft Services (DONUTS, Breakfast ) Don't mess up outfit or makeup.

0700 Ready for Take 1 Scene ?
OOPS! Aaron does not quite have this part of the script done green sheets on the way F*&^.

09:00 Pink sheets and green sheets arrive read read read memorize.

Then multiple takes to iron out the bugs in the script. Adlibs by some of the more experienced actors (See Above), Cut Print, move on.

The above is a para-phrased true account of life on the set of The West Wing.
They all realized this was the creative process, this was hard work but fulfilling.
Yes multiple writers may have helped but it would not have been as good,
e.g. The last season of West Wing.

I am sure there have been others, I use this example because i think Aaron Sorkin is a playwright on par with W.S. and C.M. I have never 100% agreed with Aaron Sorkin's politics or world view, but he says it well and that counts.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Ok so i have busted the idea that one could not put on a play in a week writing by yourself.

That said cough choke hack [fur balls sorry]

The economics of the Globe Theater, there were more then just W.S. plays there C.M. had plays and others, Not to mention the Dreaded Repeat, Repeats of shows is not a modern concept.

Next, of course he had some help in writing, he allowed his fellows to "try their hand" with in his outline and "Cookbook". Most notable are the speeches of some of the women in W.S. plays, I can see the hand in "As you Like it", "The Taming of the Shrew", "The Scottish Play" and "R&J" etc. Maybe Lady Pembroke and others. As i said the School of Night had it's Female contingent, of Lady's and others. I have already commented on the Histories, they would have required very careful consideration. They were written as P.R. for "The Crown" so one must be careful.

The " academical plays." I totally agree with the DJW001 they are a Mashup of individual Voices. Once you get past the "WTF" factor you can be amused.

originally posted by: BOTAL
a reply to: DJW001

Bacon may have been Eliza eth's SON I actually think iz the story...
And he was the purest genius of his time

NO & no, not his intellectual bent. did he contribute some ideas and even lines probably, either wittingly or unwittingly, did he by necessity review the Histories for "Court & Legalities" as they were then, i should think so.

Was he a genius ? That is relative, he was a member of the "School of Night" so he had something the others accepted,

But i think his genius or the idea of it, has grown over the years