I think it's more using it as a "What-if?" then actually trying to prove a conspiracy. Like how Indiana Jones has the Nazis finding crazy artifacts, it's not saying they did, it's using it as a premise. That said, I haven't seen it, so maybe I'm wrong.
I'm not going to see it in theatres, but given that the film's producers are trying to distribute teaching materials to classrooms [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/17/anonymous-hollywood-s-shakespeare-authorship-controversy.html], I have a hunch their intentions are not to present a what-if scenario.
As I mentioned there is no evidence that Shakepeare was illiterate, there is little evidence that he was literate granted but as his dad was the town mayor (or nearest modern) equivilent and his town had a very reputable grammar school Logic would dictate that he was there.
Also your memory is incorrect that his will was the only thing he signed, he wasnt prolific but he pops up on legal documents, there a writ and his marriage certificate. There not much but it does roughly tell us where he was
The most telling evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets was that if is it a conspiracy no-one knew about it during his entire life. Heminges and Condell from his acting troupe put his folio together and attributed it to him. Greene mocked him as a young upstart while attributing on of the Henry Plays to him and Ben Jonson talked about him in his private diaries 10 years after his death.
Only 220-250 plays from the entire era survive and precious little documentation of any kind, the remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that we have as much info as we do not that we have so little.
Even in Elizabethan times, it would be very impressive for one guy (one guy, who had a number of enemies and detractors, who would have jumped on the slightest whiff of a scandal) to get away with taking credit for over two hundred pieces of other people's work... and still get away with it for over a hundred years after his death and the deaths of everyone else the plays and sonnets and poems have ever been attributed to by these crackpots.
Rage from Shakespearean scholars? How utterly surprising.
So long as the film's well made, I don't really care how realistic the premise is. Plus, Shakespeare murdered my cat and his father smelled of elderberries. *still bitter about English GCSE lessons*
Technically, Shakespeare would still have written a few plays under this theory, since a few plays were released after De Vere's death.
Also, the main argument isn't that Shakespeare was too illiterate to write the plays, but that Shakespeare's plays carry on the traditions of and borrow heavily from quite a few Greek and Roman playwrites that someone who never went to University (Shakespeare) would likely know nothing about.
Also, several of Shakespeare's plays are set in Italy. Shakespeare never went to Italy, but De Vere lived there for a few years.
I'm not saying the Oxfordian Theory is true, just that it shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
I never even heard of this film, but I'd be taught on the Theory, and there are so many possible authors to some, not necessarily all, of Shakespeare's works, ranging from Christopher Marlowe (Was genuinely a spy, and his death could have been faked to hide him) to DeVere, Francis Bacon, or even Queen Elizabeth herself. Ofcourse, they're just theories, but the main sticking point is that there is no historical evidence that Shakespeare had any education above the most basic level, or that he ever left Britain.
How did he have the knowledge of literary styles, or of Italy and Europe in general? How was he knowledgeable of ancient myths and legends of far off lands?
I'm no proponent of the theory, and there are many more reasons for the Theory, but I always remember these points. And its a nice conspiracy to think about, instead of JFK, or 9/11, or the Masonic Order, or any other sinister idea.
Fuck...this has made me look back on that Dr Who ep when Shakespeare et al defeat the witches by quoting Harry Potter, and wishing this movie was more like that.
I never even heard of this film, but I'd be taught on the Theory, and there are so many possible authors to some, not necessarily all of them, ranging from Christopher Marlowe (Was genuinely a spy, and his death could have been faked to hide him) to DeVere, Francis Bacon, or even Queen Elizabeth herself. Ofcourse, they're just theories, but the main sticking point is that there is no historical evidence that Shakespeare had any education above the most basic level, or that he ever left Britain.
How did he have the knowledge of literary styles, or of Italy and Europe in general? How was he knowledgeable of ancient myths and legends of far off lands?
I'm no proponent of the theory, and there are many more reasons for the Theory, but I always remember these points. And its a nice conspiracy to think about, instead of JFK, or 9/11, or the Masonic Order, or any other sinister idea.
Sounds like you had a similar class to the one I took.
Only 220-250 plays from the entire era survive and precious little documentation of any kind, the remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that we have as much info as we do not that we have so little.
Sure, asking for actual manuscripts is a bit much from that era, but know what we do have? A full copy of William Shakespeare's will, which I have actually read. He gets into fine details for who inherits what (such as his "second-best bed" going to his wife, etc.), and makes NO mention of anything involving theater whatsoever. Now, that's hardly enough to base a massive conspiracy theory over, but it seems fishy as hell to me.
Be sure you brush up on actual history, since apparently this movie has:
-- Marlowe getting murdered in 1599, not 1593 (and by Shakespeare in Southwark, not Ingram Frizer in Deptford);
-- The Globe burning down in 1604, not 1613;
-- The wrong play being performed for the rebellion of the Earl of Essex (Richard III instead of Richard II)
The whole Oxfordian theory aside (and how I wish everyone could put it aside, because it's very, very silly), these are actual historical documented facts the movie gets wrong, so you're better off getting your information from a more reliable source.
I haven't seen it and probably won't, but from an academic stand point (from my lecturer specifically, the guy running my university's Shakespeare related subjects) it received a facepalm. I figure it's less that it's rage and more annoyance because movies like this have a tendency to misdirect the masses. My experience with Shakespeare has been with delving into his texts, I can't comment much on the history of it.
I do think certain posts in this thread ignore the idea that Shakespeare could have and likely did collaborate with other people, and it's fairly certain he did base many of his texts off other works. This is only shocking if you think that the general narrative is all that makes Shakespeare as revered as he is.
Oh, he did, absolutely. It's more definite in his later career--he wrote Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher--but there's a pretty convincing case to be made (by a hundred-odd years of stylometry studies) that he either collaborated with or revised earlier pieces by contemporaries of his towards the beginning of his career. The first act of Titus Andronicus pretty much screams George Peele, for instance.
it's fairly certain he did base many of his texts off other works
Unquestionable, really. There are only a few plays where Shakespeare's direct sources can't be identified and he's thought to have come up with the story on his own (e.g., A Midsummer Night's Dream), but for the most part, he reworked stories from other authors. For instance, most of his history plays were based on Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles, which was first published in 1577. Another source of his is a 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Compared Together, and the borrowing is especially evident in one passage of Antony and Cleopatra where one character describes Cleopatra on her river barge:
DOMITIUS ENOBARBUS
I will tell you.
The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne,
Burn'd on the water: the poop was beaten gold;
Purple the sails, and so perfumed that
The winds were love-sick with them; the oars were silver,
Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made
The water which they beat to follow faster,
As amorous of their strokes. For her own person,
It beggar'd all description: she did lie
In her pavilion--cloth-of-gold of tissue--
O'er-picturing that Venus where we see
The fancy outwork nature: on each side her
Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids,
With divers-colour'd fans, whose wind did seem
To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool,
And what they undid did.
[...] she came sailing up the river Cydnus, in a barge with gilded stern and outspread sails of purple, while oars of silver beat time to the music of flutes and fifes and harps. She herself lay all along under a canopy of cloth of gold, dressed as Venus in a picture, and beautiful young boys, like painted Cupids, stood on each side to fan her.
The whole thing reeks of feudal romanticism to me.
The idea that the British Elizabethan upper classes were glorious demigods of fantastic intelligence and cultivation is a slightly motivated assumption which doesn't really bear up when you look at any elite group of the late medieval period.
Are we to assume that Martin Luther couldn't have been an architect of the reformation because he was a merchants son and thus wouldn't have had the vision or intelligence? Shall we assume that Galileo must have been standing in for a nobleman because his father was a professional musician and not landed gentry? On a more immediate and comparative level, shall we assume that Christopher Marlowe (one of shakespeare's contemporaries) had a ghost writer because he was the son of a Shoemaker?
The real social drama of this period is not an elite tale of aristocrats and their petty conflicts, but the increasing influence and social mobility of the middle classes to which Shakespeare belonged, a trend which has never really stopped. I can sort of understand an American desire to eradicate those middle classes and replace it with a simple word of glorious haves and scrubby have-nots because that's easier to digest, but it's also ignoring a key part of the story of modern British (and consequentially American) society.
We all know Shakespeare collaborated and copied and took crib notes. We all know the narrative of this lone genius years ahead of his time is bollocks. But really it's just as relevant (and probably far more true) to say that an aristocrat would never have the social awareness to write these things as it is to say that a middle class man would never have the intelligence or vision.
Also, the main argument isn't that Shakespeare was too illiterate to write the plays, but that Shakespeare's plays carry on the traditions of and borrow heavily from quite a few Greek and Roman playwrites that someone who never went to University (Shakespeare) would likely know nothing about.
Which is also ridiculous, given that the Greek and Roman plays had no shortage of producers still putting them on in the Elizabethan theatre.
How did he have the knowledge of literary styles, or of Italy and Europe in general? How was he knowledgeable of ancient myths and legends of far off lands?
Gee, perhaps through reading and watching other people's works on the topic? He based most of his material on work from different sources.
Yojoo said:
Sure, asking for actual manuscripts is a bit much from that era, but know what we do have? A full copy of William Shakespeare's will, which I have actually read. He gets into fine details for who inherits what (such as his "second-best bed" going to his wife, etc.), and makes NO mention of anything involving theater whatsoever. Now, that's hardly enough to base a massive conspiracy theory over, but it seems fishy as hell to me.
Um, what was he supposed to have written about the theatre in his will? He didn't personally own the Globe theatre, and by default his plays would have been passed to his company. What was there for his estate to dispose of?
One would think that you, of all people, would jump on the most insulting facet of the conspiracy theory: It is entirely based on the malicious lie that only the born-wealthy and private-school-educated can create great works of art, and individual achievement potential is determined by social class.
That is literally the ONLY "evidence" offered by most proponents of the theory.
It's a travesty that the one movie that portrays the Elizabethan theatre as the Mos Eisley-esque realm of hedonism and dirty secrets that it was has to be a movie that further trumps up this question... and one that will doubtlessly be pointed to as gospel by the new crop of nutcases.
Now I want to make a historical drama about Delia Bacon (the sad, insane woman who started this whole thing) and the historical fallout, documenting the true idiocy of the theory, and how it has been selfishly motivated all the way. We know more about Shakespeare's biography and history than pretty much any other non-royal figure of the era.
From Bob's description the movie sounds halfway enjoyable, with all the backroom royal politics and backstabbing, and as a student of History its might be worth the look...If the other half of the movie wasnt complete nonsense.
The very idea that Shakespeare didnt write his own plays is so absurd I cant belive I wrote it. Not once in school(and believe me we did alot of Shaskespeare) was this Earl of Oxford even mentioned, not even in history. Surely if he made any significant contribution he would be in the history books somewhere. I had never even heard this ridiculous theroy till this movie came out.
The movies makers say its "speculative fiction" but when the people making it take this crap to heart and promote this insanity, it goes beyond speculative.
It happens more often than we like to think; modern historians, bored of having nothing to research that hasn't already been read and written on, turn to hurling modern cynicsm at famous historical figures. Who was gay, who didn't actually create what they're famous for, who was it that wasn't laughing at me - it was God?
Technically, Shakespeare would still have written a few plays under this theory, since a few plays were released after De Vere's death.
Also, the main argument isn't that Shakespeare was too illiterate to write the plays, but that Shakespeare's plays carry on the traditions of and borrow heavily from quite a few Greek and Roman playwrites that someone who never went to University (Shakespeare) would likely know nothing about.
Except that the printing press, having been around for almost 200 years by this point, changed all that & did so much faster & more profoundly than many people seem to think. The idea of "high" & "low" cultures existing as completely separate entities until the 20th century is a concept that has been debunked by cultural historians & is only really propagated today by cultural snobs who resent the idea of engaging with those they view as beneath them socially.
Also, several of Shakespeare's plays are set in Italy. Shakespeare never went to Italy, but De Vere lived there for a few years.
I've never been to Australia, but could still set a play in Sydney. To pick on that is to miss entirely the point of why plays get set in locations other than the playwrights back yard. Italy is often used in Shakespeare's plays as an alternative to setting the play in the past because at the time Sedition could get your head cut off, so using the various feuding city states & families of Italy as allegory for figures & events in England was a way to dodge the axe.
It's also worth noting that Shakespeare's plays don't appear out of a vacuum. He was clearly influenced by the works of others &, indeed, can be seen to have not been a consistently brilliant playwright when his plays are viewed chronologically. One only has to look at how simplistic & flawed early plays like Two Gents of Verona appears when compared to his later masterpieces to see he wasn't born with a golden quill. Equally, it is clear Shakespeare was not above drawing heavily from other sources when writing his plays. Romeo & Juliet, for example, is effectively a dramatization of a poem written by Arther Brooke [http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/romeo/BrookeIndex.html].
I'm not saying the Oxfordian Theory is true, just that it shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
Oh, he did, absolutely. It's more definite in his later career--he wrote Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher--but there's a pretty convincing case to be made (by a hundred-odd years of stylometry studies) that he either collaborated with or revised earlier pieces by contemporaries of his towards the beginning of his career. The first act of Titus Andronicus pretty much screams George Peele, for instance.
it's fairly certain he did base many of his texts off other works
Unquestionable, really. There are only a few plays where Shakespeare's direct sources can't be identified and he's thought to have come up with the story on his own (e.g., A Midsummer Night's Dream), but for the most part, he reworked stories from other authors. For instance, most of his history plays were based on Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles, which was first published in 1577. Another source of his is a 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Compared Together, and the borrowing is especially evident in one passage of Antony and Cleopatra where one character describes Cleopatra on her river barge:
DOMITIUS ENOBARBUS
I will tell you.
The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne,
Burn'd on the water: the poop was beaten gold;
Purple the sails, and so perfumed that
The winds were love-sick with them; the oars were silver,
Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made
The water which they beat to follow faster,
As amorous of their strokes. For her own person,
It beggar'd all description: she did lie
In her pavilion--cloth-of-gold of tissue--
O'er-picturing that Venus where we see
The fancy outwork nature: on each side her
Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids,
With divers-colour'd fans, whose wind did seem
To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool,
And what they undid did.
[...] she came sailing up the river Cydnus, in a barge with gilded stern and outspread sails of purple, while oars of silver beat time to the music of flutes and fifes and harps. She herself lay all along under a canopy of cloth of gold, dressed as Venus in a picture, and beautiful young boys, like painted Cupids, stood on each side to fan her.
I trust the facts, I'm just hesitant to claim them in a public forum without being able to justify them with adequate knowledge of the historical evidence. Thank you for doing it for me. : )
Art is by its nature aristocratic; and critics and historians are notoriously unable to separate the artist from the art, which is why the myth that 'high' art is produced only by 'high' people continues to endure. There is an extra level of irony in Anonymous being directed by Roland Emmerich, as critics are finding themselves in a position where they must grudgingly admit that a peddler of populist entertainment might actually have made a semi-intelligent film.
There is an extra level of irony in Anonymous being directed by Roland Emmerich, as critics are finding themselves in a position where they must grudgingly admit that a peddler of populist entertainment might actually have made a semi-intelligent film.
Michael Bay is the exception here, he has never made anything remotely semi-intelligent.
So they are making movies based off he said/she said conspiracies? You have to give them points for originality there I guess. Still, there are far "meatier" conspiracies out there more worthy of attention.
Didn't nobles of the time, or anytime for that matter, like to take credit for things that weren't theirs? To clarify, in the way some mothers take all the credit for their daughter's achievements. In this case some noble commissions a play, its the greatest thing since sliced bread and suddenly the noble is all "That's my play, I'm responsible that!" and voila, his social standing (and that of his family) suddenly goes up a few notches.
A conspiracy theory yeah, but it has about as much truth or substance to the one this movie is based upon.
It's too bad that the movie that praises Shakespeare's work doesn't actually credit Shakespeare as the one who did it.
Seriously, though, at this point, no amount of conspiracy theorization is ever going to make everyone believe that Shakespeare didn't write what he wrote, so we might as well just let the legend live on.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
