It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New insights on the Shakespeare conspiracy

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:09 PM
CNN posted the article about a man writing a book proposing that Shakespeare is indeed the author of all the works ascribed to Shakespeare.

I know that some people around here have strong feelings that some other person is the true author. I want to know what you guys think?

What I don't get is why the true author i.e Bacon, Raleigh, Marlowe ghost write these plays. Why would they conceal their writings. Why let Shakespeare get all the credit, fame, and women

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Threadfall]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:41 PM
Probably the same reason that the Bible doesn't say "written by Francis Bacon" either. Those behind the scenes usually don't take credit. That's for the ones they shoot at.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Threadfall
Shakespeare is possibly laughing his dead ass off right now. To think that the latest 'conspiracy' suggests he wrote his own plays and sonnets is surreal. The greatest writer we've ever known was William Shakespeare and he came from Stratford.

I posted a thread about the discovery of three mystery objects in his grave...

In an echo of the blockbuster book and film, The Da Vinci Code, the search has been prompted by the discovery by an historian of clues in Greville's writings which suggest he had several manuscripts buried there, including a copy of Antony and Cleopatra. A radar scan of the sarcophagus has already indicated the presence inside of three "box like" shapes. The searchers believe these could contain documents and a further examination is now being proposed which they hope will finally prove the link between Greville and Shakespeare.
What secrets are these?

The thread died and the grave still hasn't been explored....The Mystery of Shakespeare's Tomb

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:16 PM
I have read some things about this now, and the thing that seems the most logical so far to me is that it could have been a group of writers, since there are (if I recall correctly) over 2500 new words added to the dictionary thanks to the writings.

If Shakespeare really wrote everything himself he is without a doubt the greatest writer in British literature.

But this forum is for people who question almost everything so I am curious if these theories will ever be put to rest.


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
I don't understand the source of the conspiracy; why was this even questioned in the first place. Do some people think that Shakespeare is not even a real person?! I bet some do. I'd like to hear more opinions from you guys come on!
I'd like to think that there was some kind of conspiracy , but I think Shakespeare's works are truly his. But I'm definitely receptive to alternative theories. They're just fun to ponder.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Threadfall

My copy of Shakespeare has got a long article by the old actor Henry Irving criticising the Bacon theory. Amongst other things, he points out that the plays are soaked in the kind of metaphors (including, but not limited to "All the world's a stage") which would only have been written by somebody who positively lived and breathed the theatre on a 24-hours a day basis. A professional actor, in other words. Obviously Bacon was not a professional actor.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:42 PM
It's possible that Edward de Vere was the one that wrote some of his plays. Ogburn makes a very strong case on it.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:34 PM
The book secrets of all ages has a compelling arguement that Shakespeare is Sir Francis Bacon. There is alot of evidence showing shakespere had little schooling as was at best semi literate. Both their portraits are EXACTLY THE SAME with diffreny wigs. In the book its superimposed. Pretty convincing as Ive never seen another case of it anywhere.

Actually a good case could be made that Bacon wasnt human as his likeness and personality has also been ascribed to Albert Pike among others. How can one man have so,many varied identities stretching over a 200+ year period. Vampire? Satan? Lol?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Grey Magic
I have read some things about this now, and the thing that seems the most logical so far to me is that it could have been a group of writers, since there are (if I recall correctly) over 2500 new words added to the dictionary thanks to the writings.

I've read everything Shakespeare has written, I had to for a class my senior year at college. Without a doubt, the vast majority of it was written by a single hand. When you are familiar enough with Shakespeare, it becomes very easy to know that it is him you are reading, even if you aren't specifically familiar with the text. There is no way it was written by a committee - there was a single creative force behind these works.

It's well known that he did collaborate on some of his works, and suspected in some others. A list of these from Wikepedia:

* Cardenio, a lost play; contemporary reports say that Shakespeare collaborated on it with John Fletcher. [1]
* Henry VI, part 1: possibly the work of a team of playwrights, whose identities we can only guess at. Some scholars argue that Shakespeare wrote less than 20% of the text.
* Henry VIII: generally considered a collaboration between Shakespeare and John Fletcher.
* Macbeth: Thomas Middleton may have revised this tragedy as it appears in the First Folio in 1615 to incorporate extra musical sequences.
* Measure for Measure: may have undergone a light revision by Thomas Middleton at some point after its original composition. As Macbeth, the only source is that of the First Folio
* Pericles Prince of Tyre: may include the work of George Wilkins, either as collaborator, reviser, or revisee. [2]
* Timon of Athens: may result from collaboration between Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton which might explain its incoherent plot and unusually cynical tone. [3]
* Titus Andronicus: may be a collaboration with, or revision of, George Peele. [4]
* The Two Noble Kinsmen, published in quarto in 1654 and attributed to John Fletcher and William Shakespeare on the title page; each playwright appears to have written about half of the text. It is excluded from the first folio. [5] [6]

If Shakespeare really wrote everything himself he is without a doubt the greatest writer in British literature.

He is without a doubt the greatest writer in the history of the English language, and most would probably contend he's among the top five finalists for greatest writer ever in ANY language. Russians will tell you it's Dostoevsky, the French will say Victor Hugo. Classicists will say either Homer or Virgil, the Italians have Dante and the Spanish speakers, Cervantes.

In addition to all the words he created, he's as influential for the sayings and phrases he invented, so many of which have become second nature to us in our vernacular. We usually have no idea we're quoting Shakespeare almost on a daily basis. I remember one girl in my college class who didn't understand this and complained about all of the cliche phrases Shakespeare had packed into one particular play, whereupon both the teacher and half the class informed her that Shakespeare was the one who invented all of those phrases for that very play we'd just read.

Here's a nice list of both phrases and words he invented. It's just stunning how many of them we use in everyday speech.

Even though I'm a skeptic, by nature - and I do believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare, the guy born in Stratford - I sometimes can't help but wonder if the reason for his genius wasn't somehow supernatural. Call it being touched by a "divine" or "angelic" power, if yo want, I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I generally believe in, except when I read the likes of Shakespeare...or Melville's "Moby-Dick," the only thing I've ever read that's on the same level, IMO. At the very least Shakespeare was superhuman, if you ask me - we're talking an I.Q. that had to be well into the 200's, IMO.

And for you fellow Shakespearephiles (or Dr. Who or Star Trek fans), PBS will be airing the David Tennent/Patrick Stewart version of "Hamlet" this Wed. at 8:00 PM EST in the States. It got tons of great reviews when they performed it on the London stage last year.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by LifeInDeath

In my opinion, one way to detect the presence of other writers is rhyming.
I'm sure Shakespeare reserves his rhyming couplets for the moment when he sends an actor off-stage. Anything longer and elsewhere is probably another hand.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by LifeInDeath

Even though I'm a skeptic, by nature - and I do believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare, the guy born in Stratford - I sometimes can't help but wonder if the reason for his genius wasn't somehow supernatural. Call it being touched by a "divine" or "angelic" power, if yo want, I don't know.

I wonder too. In every age we have a handful of people who add to the richness of following generations. They aren't always recognised in their own times. Touched by the 'divine' or a physiology that is 'exactly abnormal' enough to be creative? They always come to represent the essence of ideas other people had...the old 'standing on the shoulders of giants.' In Shakespeare's case...not so much 'giants' as contemporary writers. Although the plots are often found elsewhere, his way with words is often profound.

He's quoted in psychology books as representing the first literary example of clinical depression (Hamlet 'this too sullied flesh'). Get's all existential in Macbeth...'life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury..signifying nothing.' Comedy gold in Richard III. I could go about some of the Sonnets and R&J or Lear, but who cares?! I love the dude.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:55 AM
The crucial matter is why would someone, if not Shakespeare, write such magnificent works anonymously?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:07 AM

There are many notable anti-Stratfordians. Everyone should read the book, ''The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Man and the Myth'' (1984) by Charlton Ogburn. Volumes of facts and logic that just leaves no doubt that it was Edward de Vere.

I believe the Shakespeare of Stratford was a farmer or grain harvester. His 6 known signatures are just too horrible to believe it was the same hands that wrote those great plays.

If the truth was found out, the tourist destination at Stratford would be out of business and it would be a huge embarrassment in the history of literature.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:25 PM
Shakespeare encoded his name in Psalm 46 of the King James Version of 1611. See the next link and the RED text in the picture.

Luther also choosed Psalm 46.
Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”) is based on Psalm 46.

Copy/Paste the next Luther text "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" to above link of Francis Bacon his ciphers and click on calculate. The result is 304.
Day 304 is October 31 (Luther day and Halloween day)

[edit on 27-4-2010 by hawk123]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Supernatural

There are many notable anti-Stratfordians. Everyone should read the book, ''The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Man and the Myth'' (1984) by Charlton Ogburn. Volumes of facts and logic that just leaves no doubt that it was Edward de Vere.

I believe the Shakespeare of Stratford was a farmer or grain harvester. His 6 known signatures are just too horrible to believe it was the same hands that wrote those great plays.

If the truth was found out, the tourist destination at Stratford would be out of business and it would be a huge embarrassment in the history of literature.

Since you read the book, could you please tell me why a farmer was given credit for the monumental works? And why would this de Vere allow all the credit and prestige go to someone else?

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Threadfall
Since you read the book, could you please tell me why a farmer was given credit for the monumental works? And why would this de Vere allow all the credit and prestige go to someone else?

The theory goes that de Vere use a front for his writing because he was too high a noble to have his name sullied by involving himself in something so common and potentially scandal-ridden as the theater. Remember, at the time actors were considered little better than whores by many. De Vere was one of the very highest nobles in England, and I think at one point something like 5th in line to the Throne.

As I said, I don't believe any of the alternate theories of Shakespeare's authorship, but that's how this one goes.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:18 PM
The whole desire to claim that Shakespeare works were too advanced for a mere ordinary man to write is just typical of the whole elitist crowd. As if average people don't tell good stories.

The reality is closer that only an average guy hob nobbing around the theater and living on the lamb could have came up with such colorful stories.

It is just the same the way U.S. academics dismiss Twain and Steinbeck as regionalists, while reaping praise upon far less talented authors who just happened to come from the same academic circles.

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 01:31 PM

Some of the most WIERD issues around 'Wm. Shaxberd' include firstly, the (at least !) 12 different spellings of his name (Shakespeare, Shakspeare, Shackesper, Shagspere, Shagsber, Shaxber, Shaxberd, Shaxperd, Shagsberd, Shaxpere, Shaxper, Shaxpeare, Shaxpeere, etc.) and the fact that his own daughter Judith - born at Stratford Upon Avon - was totally illiterate (she signed her name with an X since she could not read nor write).

Very strange (to say the least) for a (single?) individual with such a MASSIVE Vocabulary to have an illiterate daughter - the average Londoner (c. 1595) had a working English vocabulary of 3,500 words; an Oxford don/professor (c. 1595) had an average working (i.e. activee) vocabulary of up to c. 9,500 words - whereas the plays attributed to 'Wm Shaxberd' the actor from Stratford upon Avon shows an English vocabulary of a stunning 21,500 words !!!!

The Actor-Farmer from Stratford upon Avon had to leave his local Grammar school at 14 years of age when his Stratford-Mayor-father (elected 1568) filed for bankruptcy ten years later...where did he get so many words?

Moreover, his various and sundry 'messy' signatures on various legal documents (allegedly by the same hand?) shows either a man who has had a stroke (or suffering from delerium tremens alcoholic withdrawal symptoms) or a man who was not used to handling a quill pen professionally the way the author of the plays certainly must have been able to do.

To describe his various childish signatures as 'Shaky' would be a gross understatement - unless he did it on purpose to provide a pun on his name ('shake' - speare).

Moreover it was the actor-farmer's friend Ben Jonson who said once 'Shaxper was in greate payine wenn ask'd to wryte' - evidence of the pain in the hands following a stroke?

Things that make you REALLY go 'hmmmmmm' !!!!

Ergo, the theory that each of the 'plays' were co-authored by at least TWO (but probably more) authors by several stages of 'additions, deletions and revisions' by various poets - this at least would account for the immense active vocabulary in the plays attributed to 'Shaxberd...'

There is an interesting working theory that the historical 'farmer-actor' from Stratford (a Wm Shaxberd) only contributed the PROSE COMIC speech-sections to various plays by other playwrights e.g. Henry IV part 1 and Henry IV part 2 (and the Merry Wives of Windsor etc.) see the low-comic character of. say, Fall +Staff (cf: =Shake + Speare) whose speeches placed into his mouth represent often a rural Warwickshire accent and 'a Midlands-farmer's vocabulary' which typical rural English-Midlands farmers used c. 1595.

In other words, the actor-farmer from Stratford upon Avon in Warwickshire may have ONLY added comic relief speeches to the Plays which were drafted by others (more educated?) in order to provide 'the groundlings' at the Globe and Blackfriar's Theatre with some of their OWN type of entertainment (after all, the 1 peenny groundlings comprised a little over half the house i.e. 1000 persons at the lower levels of a full-house at e.g. the Globe theatre (of which the actor was 1/9th owner-inveestor - the Globe (which we can glean from the receipts/account books which partly survive to this day) seems to have held a full house of c.1,950 persons) - which suggests that there WAS an attempt for the original author(s) of the plays to HIDE behind the actor Shaxberd in order to 'more freely' express unorthodox (and sometimes heretical) ideas.

Also, the stone 'Shakspeare' EPITAPH in Stratford's Trinity Church is pure doggerel - unless it was meant to be an elaborate CODE - certainly not worthy of 'the Bard' by any stretch - why is that?


Morever the 'curiously-blank-and-dull-witted-face' on the 'stupid' statue of 'Shakspeare' overlooking the actual Stone Epitaph in the Church at Stratford originally had his hands holding a Bag of Grain (i.e. wheat/corn) and NOT holding a Quill - it was only in the 18th century did another sculptor change the monumeent to add a quill feather into his hand and adapt the grain bag as a kind of weird writing surface (people do not normally write with pen and ink on grain-bags) - in fact we have an engraving of what the original monument looked like (the print-copy was made in the 1660s) which shows the farmer-actor from Stratford holding a grain bag, not the quill/desk.

Ben Jonson (who like the actor from Stratford never attended University, and the two habitually got drunk together when in company on Sec-Wine and other intoxicants) used to say of the actor 'Bill Shaxberd' that he 'had smalle Latin and lesse Greke' - in other words not formally educated.

This is NOT the case of the author of the Plays (or large sections of them) which show 'inside' knowledge of Cambridge University Student idioms - to say nothing of the e.g. well-travelled 'inside knowledge' of the nobility-manners and 'lingo' of the inner circles of the French Court c. 1600.

Here are only SOME of the playwrights whose partial contributions to some of the Plays (attributed to 'William Shakespeare' in the First Folio Edition of his Complete Works in 1623) are fairly well known

Arthur Munday (drafted a booke-play called Sir Thomas More which hand D seems to be Wm Shaxberd's)

George Poole (provided 65% of Titus Andronicus)

John Fletcher- 1579 - 1625 (who composed at last 1/2 of the play, Henry VIII, as well as 50% of The Two Noble Kinsmen, and a play called Cardenio, which also contained contributions by a 'Wm Shaxberd')

Thomas Middleton (M.A. Oxon.) - 1580 - 1627 (Composed 1/2 of Measure for Measure, nearly 2/3 of Timon of Athens, and small snatchets of songs used in MacBeth for the Weird Sisters (=e.g. the 2 Songs from his Play called The Wytche), and also contributed to some speeches in Henry VIII) worked for the King's Men (1604-1611)
Francis Beaumont (seems to have contributed some speeches for Henry VIII)

Sir Thomas North, b. 1535 (involved with long poetical-prose drafts for Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, Timon of Athens and Coriolanus which later hands 'adapted' for the Stage)

George Wilkins (contributed speeches for Pericles, Prince of Tyre)

And at least a dozen other poet-author-playwrights, including of course, Eduard de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (died in 1604, and whose Coat of Arms shows a 'Lyonne shaking a Speare') who was the one who seems to have written most of 'Shakespeare's Sonnets' to another man (de Vere was homosexual, although married off by force !) which appeared in print in 1609 - the strangely-worded 'Dedication' of which seems to suggest strongly that the Poet ('Shakespeare') is already long-dead by the time of its publication ('Happinesse and That Eternitie Promis'd by our Ever-Living Poet") - as well as the actual title 'Shakespeare's Sonnets' (suggesting that he cannot write any more, i.e. since he is dead) as opposed to a more common dedication by someone who was still alive and COULD write more...e.g. 'Sonnets by Shakespeare' etc.

In other words, there is something ' Rotten in ye State of ' Wm Shaxberd's life v. his (alleged) work !!

edit on 9-8-2011 by Sigismundus because: 'shaking' cccommputerr keeeyboard issuesss-- and I don't even drink !

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

So Shakespeare had sloppy handwriting when signing documents is proof he couldn't tell a story? That his days as a playwright might have been filled with lots of drinking an cavorting, and probably had considerable dislike of legal documents, only goes to support the idea that this would have been the person most likely to write the incredible works credited to him.

The vast majority of great writers and artists have came from the common masses, most wealthy people seem to lack healthy imaginations. The idea that an intelligent man who went to school until the age of 14, wouldn't be able to write is absurd. What about Dickens? Was he also a pen name from some royal?

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Hi Poet1B -

I am very familiar with the 'Stratford actor made good' theories out there in the wild when it comes to the oeuvre of the Warwickshire actor-farmer 'William Shagsberd' but there are a number of tough and very un-answered questions that need to be addressed (or at least very closely looked at) by persons who think they have this issue solved by a single idea, that the Stratford actor wrote everything contained in the 1st Folio (1623)

Certainly 'genius and money' do not always necessarily go together, as history has shown - but education and access to education (and Experts) always plays a part in genius - or even, as in the case of Wolfgang Mozart, many hot-house-plant type growing years of hard study via extensive 'private tutoring' by competent experts in the field - as well as wide and extensive travel-concertising years abroad to (and contact with) the larger courts of Europe)

Persons who had noble-inner-circle' contact seem to have left their fingerprints in several of the Plays attributed to the actor-farmer from Stratford (e.g. of the courtly gossip of France and many other anomalies we detect in many of the Plays, e.g. the use of Cambridge Undergraduate Jargon) required to produce the 'impossibly high' literary content 'plays' attributed to 'William Shakespeare' with its massive and complex vocabulary of over 21,000 words seems incredible for a Stratford actor-farmer-businessman who never ever attended University (even the most renowned Oxford & Cambridge dons c. 1595 had an active working vocabulary of roughly 9,500 words !) whose very own daughter (Judith) could not read nor even sign her own name - the poor deprived child had to use an X on her marriage Contract - seems to indicate that we are dealing with the use of a 'front man' for perhaps several more educated personages.

I am quite content to ascribe specifcially most of the Prose-Comic Sections inserted into many of the more literary Plays, e.g. Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 with its uproarious introduction of the (wholly fictional and lower-middle class 'groundling-pleasing') character of 'Jack Falstaff' - who 'speaks with a clearly rural-Warwickshire accent-dialect (moreover, with the character name 'Fall- + Staff' I certainly do detect some kind of 'play on words' with the name 'Shake + Speare') to the actor-farmer from Stratford upon Avon a.k.a. 'William Shaxberd' - but the 'style of utterance' does not match the style of utterance elsewhere displayed in the Plays attributed to him in the 1623 1st Folio

Naturally, character dialogue will be written much differently for different characters of different class levels - and since e.g. Henry IV (parts 1/2) both require an obviously different and 'lower class / rural' vocabulary for the character of Jack Fallstaff it would seem natural for any playwright to turn to a ham-actor from the country at hand with some 'witte' to write speeches for him that could be 'easily inserted' (see Hamlet's players who are given brand new scenes at the last minute (i.e. the day before) to 'insert' for the production within the Play itself)

We note that the character of 'Jack Fallstaff' was later called 'Sir John' Fallstaff, which again echoes the Warwickshire actor's own life (Wm Shaxberd was the eldest son of the later-bankrupt mayor of Stratford) - we see Wm. Shaxberd's application for elevation to the title of 'GentleMan' with his own Coat of Arms, despite numerous application-rejections from the local County Council - all with the message written at the top, crossed out and written over twice more - with different pens, viz. Non - Sans Droict, lit, 'Rejected, Without Merit' written at the top of the Application, and cleverly adapted by the apparently cynical applicant to 'non-sans droit, 'not-without-right').

Certainly the writer of the Plays - at least as they appeared in print in 1623 in the so-called First Folio - had much Latin and a higher education in ancient and modern languages, which does not fit the actor farmer from Stratford - as Ben Jonson (his infamous 'drynkynge Fellowe') said of him that the actor-producer Shaxberd 'himself had smalle Latine and even Lesse Greke' or that he 'was in greate payne' when asked to write anything down on paper (of course it is very possible that the actor that Ben Jonson actually drank with suffered from the effects of a stroke, or arthritis etc.)

At any rate, the 'handwriting' which is now labelled 'D' in the 'Booke of Sir Thomas More' (c. 1592) which is thought to be in the handwriting of the Stratford actor William Shaxberd (though not conclusively proved yet) shows not a bit of the kind of polished literary skill (besides the bad grammar school spelling and letter-formations !) required to compose a 'Hamlet' or a 'Lear' - although it could be argued that this was an early attempt of 'Shaxberd' to write speeches to be inserted into a play already penned by someone else and in need of 're-editing'...

If we did have the drafted 'foule' papers in our possession, i.e. original papers, for e.g. Macbeth we could see at a glance how many hands were involved and possibly who wrote what sections - Shaxberd seems to have written the silly-comic-prose 'After-Midnight Bang Bang Bang, Open the Door' scene with its Wacky Warwickshire Door-man to please the groundlings - but how much of e.g. the 'If 'Twere Done, When Tis Done, then 'Twere well...' Speech in Act I scene 7 (to give ONLY a very smal &l random example !) was actually penned by an uneducated narrow-minded rural businiessmen / actor who abandoned his wife back home, and routinely hoarded wheat during famines and sued his neighbours for paltry sums as little as what in to-day's money in America is USD $90.00 is anyone's guess.

I have no doubt that the 'Wm Shaxberd'. the Stratford farmer-actor/part theatre owner had his own brand of comic genius and sharpened 'witte' (that is, in his own rural Warwickshire kind of way, as we see in many of the comic scenes or low-comedy lines in the Plays), but as for the actor 'Shaxberd' writing the contents of the plays himself (in an era c. 1575-1615 when plays were routinely produced by theatre owners with the help of several different hands if only for the sake of expediency -

NB: (More than 40 DIFFERENT plays were being produced EACH year being (on average) between 1590 and 1610 - which brings to mind the assembly-line-Hollywood studio-system grist-mill way of writing/making films c. 1920-1970 with most 'screenplays' being the actual work of several persons. many of whom went 'un-credited', i.e. anonymously were hired to patch up a script - e.g. take a quick look at e.g. the formation of the maze of shooting scripts for The Wizard of Oz in 1938 - with no less than 13 different writer-contributors who were obliged by producers to re-write the original script some 13 times under TWO different directors by the time it hit the screen !)

Computerised studies of the plays (in close-comparison with other plays of the period) show that whole sections of plays soley attributed to 'Shakepeare' were lifted whole cloth (e.g. the Chants of the Wierd Sisters in MacBeth which was unabashedly stolen from an earlier play entitled "The Wytcches' by Henry Fuselli etc. - so by definition we are not dealing with 'sole-authorship' by any stretch but what seem to be several stages of adaptations over time - possibly differing between different productions of the same 'play' - with series of additions and deletions as the times demanded...and playwrights in those days were in business to make money, not necessarily just 'art' for posterity !!

edit on 10-8-2011 by Sigismundus because: Shake-ing Handwritttting on a shakey compppputter keyyybbbbboard !

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in