Comments:New doubt over Shakespeare's authorship
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
- Hmm, I never really thought about it, but this makes sense. They may have "invented" Shakespeare as a kind of romantic character. A poor English man who becomes famous for "writing" play or some such... Rogutaan 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's highly possible that much of the canon was not written by 'Shakespeare'. Given that records of the plays, performance dates etc is so sketchy I think that plays could have easily been misattributed by accident OR on purpose. To give an example of just how sketchy; several plays have been lost entirely and there are some which are often claimed to be forgotten Shakespeare plays but they don't know because no evidence exists either way. That makes no difference to the quality of the plays though, so lets not lose sleep over it. Shane.Bell 07:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Malcom X stated, in his autobiography, his belief that King James was it (or, rather, him).
There was a good documentary in the US on PBS about the Marlovian theory --Jerome Potts 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's incredible to think that someone as famous and noteworthy as Shakespeare may not be who everyone thinks he was.