Shaksper

There's no proof AIs exist

Reminder that there's 0 real proof that you ever existed

Theres no proof proof exists

cogito ergo sum

Prove it

Then don't believe it I guess. The plays and shit are still transcendant-tier

You can't prove to me that you think

He published the sonnets. Hence the infamous dedication 'for W.H'. He also published Venus and Adonis, and the Rape of Lucrece. Ben Jonson knew him well and wrote about him and his plays. Furthermore, Meres' Palladis Tamia (published in 1598) lists several of Shakespeare's poems and early plays. Contrary to popular opinion we know quite a lot about the authorship of the plays. The only ones who don't are the people like you.

Attached: unimpressed.jpg (340x340, 75K)

lenguage exists to communicate, the fact that you think in articulated words and not only in abstracts is enough prove of an external world

Kafka wrote all Shakespeare plays and sonnets but told Max Brod to publish then under a pseudonym.

The only evidence that connects William Shakspear of Stratford to the plays is the Folio. All the others works were published under 'Shakespeare". Am I wrong?

Poor Poet-Ape, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e’en the frippery of wit,
From brokage is become so bold a thief,
As we, the robb’d, leave rage, and pity it.
At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the reversion of old plays; now grown
To a little wealth, and credit in the scene,
He takes up all, makes each man’s wit his own:
And, told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes
The sluggish gaping auditor devours;
He marks not whose ‘twas first: and after-times
May judge it to be his, as well as ours.
Fool! as if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece?

Literally no proof any of you exist and I'm not completely alone in this world and you're all figments of my imagination

youtube.com/watch?v=cJ72Ew1ujlk

I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn'd) hee never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who choose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted. And to justifie mine owne candor, (for I lov'd the man, and doe honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any.) Hee was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature: had an excellent Phantsie; brave notions, and gentle expressions: wherein hee flow'd with that facility, that sometime it was necessary he should be stop'd: Sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many times hee fell into those things, could not escape laughter: As when hee said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him; Cæsar thou dost me wrong. Hee replyed: Cæsar did never wrong, but with just cause: and such like; which were ridiculous. But hee redeemed his vices, with his vertues. There was ever more in him to be praysed, then to be pardoned.

Faggots like Keir Cuckler are the biggest meme one could think of. They constantly accuse scholars to only uphold the orthodox view because of the money from the "stratford industry" while they themselves leave out no possibility whatsoever to wring the last cent out of the authorship """question""".

>Whoa guys pay to see me performing a monologue that Twain, a guy who new little of Shakespeare, wrote a hundred years ago and whose content has long been made obsolete by decades of scholarship! It is totally because i am so funny and i want to shed light on this debate that the stratford mafia wants you not to know about! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that my PhD is worthless and i cant get the job in academia that i of course absolutely deserve, and that i have no other choice to grab any straw i can to make a quick buck

The spelling variation isn't relevant. If you read the folios themselves there are a bunch of words that are spelled in a variety of different ways, even in the same play. Spelling hadn't been standardized at that point

Because the terminology and references used in Shakespeare's plays weren't available to peasants, they make a very good case that Shakespeare had to be someone with access to a library and his diction matches that of someone from higher education.

Dialect between the rich and the poor was very different and talent has nothing to do with it, if you don't have access to obscure information and court formalities you can't write accurately about them on a large scale. There's no way to know with certainty, but if Shakespeare was the country boy everyone thought he was he must have had personal a connection to someone very rich for some time before he started writing.

Its irrelevant who wrote it, we just attach his name to it

Google is telling me Anne Hathaway is his spouse. Is this true?

The actress is pictured. He was married to someone with the same name though

how can anyone over any age not believe he was actually black? for fuck sake, his name is SHAKE SPEAR!

i know a guy named Al. so get fucked prooffag

Prove it

Wait, they taught me in high school the current consensus that “Shakespeare” is a collection of writers who published under the same name. Is that BS?

Yes.

kek, anti-stratfordianism is a fringe movement full of wackos and sure as fuck does not reflect scholarly consensus. i guess your hs teacher learned all he knew from dodgy websites.

>This is what young people are now being taught
Why can't we all just enjoy the plays without a conspiracy theory about how they were written?

Attached: 1520670413075.jpg (552x514, 27K)

>A decade ago, I would introduce my Graduate Shakespeare seminar (never my Undergraduate) by solemnly assuring the somewhat resentful students that all of Shakespeare, and not just the sonnets, had been written by Lucy Negro, Elizabethan England’s most celebrated East Indian whore. Stone-faced (as best I could), I assured my graduate students that all their anxieties were to be set aside, since the lustful and brilliant Lucy Negro actually had composed the plays and sonnets. Thus they could abandon their political reservations and read ‘Shakespeare’ with assured correctness, since Lucy Negro was, by definition, multicultural, feminist, and post-colonial. And also, I told them, we could set aside the covens of Oxfordians, Marlovians, and Baconians in the name of the defrauded Lucy Negro.

What did Bloom mean by this?

Attached: 24214505752_7e8729961c_z.jpg (640x480, 112K)

He wasn't a peasant, just middle class. His dad sent him to a grammar school where he learned to read English and Latin. The reason Shakespeare shows such a wide knowledge of things is because he was a voracious reader.