IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Giving psychics the business | Main | Darklore Volume 3 »

Comments

"Will Shakespeare, growing up in an illiterate household in a farming town with a one-room schoolhouse and virtually no books in English available to him other than the Bible, is not likely to have mastered the sophisticated language on display in even the earliest "Shakespearean" plays."

Or the hard-to-master form of the sonnets. Intense drill-work and practice-attempts were required for that.

So, how could Mozart develop his abilities so early in life?
Neither was he any nobleman. Not needed, considering all evidence there is for reincarnation..
Will from Stratford upon Avon may have had all the experience he needed from the king's court and abroad in previous lives. Artistically gifted people are among those most likely to have some psychic gifts, like perhaps intuition and awareness of earlier incarnations.

I'm not an English Scholar, but I did teach 7th - 10th grade Literature for a number of years. When I first read you Oxfordian theory I was very convinced, but the more I hear the arguments I'm beginning to accept them. I doubt the plays will be any less enjoyable to see performed (I detest the reading of plays in class).

OOPS, that should read your Oxfordian theory
and I wasn't very convinced.

So, how could Mozart develop his abilities so early in life?

Genius is certainly a large factor in Shakespeare's achievement, but raw, untutored genius did not supply his detailed experience of courtly life, his first-hand knowledge of falconry, his fluency in multiple languages (including Latin, French, and Italian, and possibly Spanish and Greek), his recollections of Continental travel, his legal training, etc., etc.

Musical genius is rather different from literary genius. A child prodigy may compose a symphony at age ten, but no one, no matter how gifted, is going to write War and Peace at that age. Writing War and Peace requires not just an intuitive feel for words but also a long experience of life and acquaintance with a wide variety of people.

Will from Stratford upon Avon may have had all the experience he needed from the king's court and abroad in previous lives.

I guess it's possible to picture him as a sort of Stratfordian Patience Worth, but I find the Oxford theory more plausible.

Edward C. Randall, a lawyer who spent 22 years investigating the direct voice mediumship of Emily French wrote - Robert C. Ingersoll, well known to me in the afterlife, speaking on this subject said:

“Let me give the most remarkable illustration of spirit suggestion — the immortal Shakespeare. Neither of his parents could read or write. He grew up in a small village among ignorant people, on the banks of the Avon. There was nothing in the peaceful, quiet landscape on which he looked, nothing in the low hills, the undulating fields, nothing in the lazy flowing stream to excite the imagination. Nothing in his early life calculated to sow the seeds of subtlest and sublimest thought. There was nothing in his education or lack of education to account for what he did. It is supposed that he attended school in his home village, but of that there is no proof. He went to London when young, and within a few years became interested in Black Friars Theater, where he was actor, dramatist, and manager. He was never engaged in a business counted reputable in that day. Socially he occupied a position below servants. The law described hin as a “sturdy vagabond.” He died at 52.

“How such a man could produce the works which he did has been the wonder of all time. Not satisfied that one with such limited advantages could possibly have written the masterpieces of literature, it has been by some contended that Bacon was the author of all Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies.

“It is a fact to be noted that in none of this man’s plays is there any mention of his contemporaries. He made reference to no king, queen, poet, author, sailor, soldier, statesman, or priest of his own period. He lived in an age of great deeds, in the time of religious wars, in the days of the Armada, the Edict of Nantes, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the victory of Lepanto, the assassination of Henry III of France, and the execution of Mary Stuart; yet he did not mention a single incident of his day and time.

“The brain that conceived “Timon of Athens” was a Greek in the days of Pericles and familiar with the tragedies of that country. The mind that dictated "Julius Caesar” was an inhabitant of the Eternal City when Caesar led his legions in the field. The author of “Lear” was a Pagan; of “Romeo and Juliet” an Italian who knew the ecstasies of love. The author of those plays must have been a physician for, he shows a knowledge of medicine and the symptoms of disease; a musician, for in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” he uses every musical term known to his contemporaries. He was a lawyer, for he was acquainted with the forms and expressions used by that profession. He was a botanist because he named nearly all known plants. He was an astronomer and a naturalist and wrote intelligently upon the stars and natural science. He was a sailor or he could not have written “The Tempest.” He was a savage and trod the forest’s silent depths. He knew all crimes, all regrets, all virtues, and their rewards. He knew the unspoken thoughts, desires, and ways of beasts. He lived all lives. His brain was a sea on which the waves touch all the shores of experience. He was the wonder of his time and of ours.

“Was it possible for any man of his education and experience to conceive the things which he did? All the Shakespearean works were, beyond a doubt, the product of his pen, but the conceptions, the plays, the tragedies were the work of many brains, given Shakespeare by spirit suggestion. He was but the sensitive instrument through which a group of learned and distinguished scholars, inhabitants of many lands when in earth-life, gave to posterity the sublime masterpieces of the Bard of Avon.”

Randall added that “the writings of Swedenborg were produced in the same way. Sardou wrote by spirit suggestion, and as a fact many of the best works of so-called great men have been in part the action of the minds of those beyond our earthly plane, who, working in conjunction with man, do something for the uplift of the human race.”

It is a fact to be noted that in none of this man’s plays is there any mention of his contemporaries. He made reference to no king, queen, poet, author, sailor, soldier, statesman, or priest of his own period.... he did not mention a single incident of his day and time.

It was illegal at that time to portray a living monarch on the stage; that's why no Elizabethan-Jacobean dramatist wrote about contemporary politics. Moreover, England in that era was a police state, in which "seditious" writers were jailed and tortured*, so for the most part it was prohibitively dangerous to write about current affairs. Those who did write on those subjects (in pamphlets, never in plays) used pseudonyms or published anonymously - at great risk.

However, Shakespeare does make reference to the Earl of Essex in Henry V. Essex had just left on an expedition to put down an Irish rebellion, and the narrator of the play anticipates his successful return. (In reality, the expedition turned out to be a failure, so we cannot count precognition among Shakespeare's gifts.)

Henry VIII, which was probably a collaborative effort between Shakespeare and John Fletcher, ends with the birth of Elizabeth, the future queen. (She was deceased by then, which is why it was permitted to depict her onstage.)

There are also many veiled allusions to current events throughout the Shakespearean corpus. See Clare Asquith's Shadowplay.

The mind that dictated "Julius Caesar” was an inhabitant of the Eternal City when Caesar led his legions in the field.

If so, why does Julius Caesar contain a reference to a clock striking midnight? There were no mechanical clocks in Caesar's day. One would think an ancient Roman would know this.

It's stuff like this that sometimes makes me doubtful of the spirit hypothesis.

---

* From Wikipedia:

On 11 May 1593 the Privy Council ordered the arrest of the authors of "divers lewd and mutinous libels" which had been posted around London. The next day, [playwright Thomas] Kyd was among those arrested; he would later believe that he had been the victim of an informer. His lodgings were searched and instead of evidence of the "libels" there was found an Arianist tract, described by an investigator as "vile heretical conceits denying the eternal deity of Jesus Christ found amongst the papers of Thos. Kydd (sic), prisoner ... which he affirmeth he had from C. Marley (sic)". It is believed that Kyd was tortured brutally to obtain this information. [Playwright Christopher] Marlowe was summoned by the Privy Council ... and, while waiting for a decision on his case, was killed in an incident involving known government agents.

Kyd was eventually released but was not accepted back into his lord's service. Believing he was under suspicion of atheism himself, he wrote to the Lord Keeper, Sir John Puckering, protesting his innocence, but his efforts to clear his name were apparently fruitless. The last we hear from the playwright is the publication of Cornelia early in 1594. In the dedication to the Countess of Sussex he alludes to the "bitter times and privy broken passions" he had endured. Kyd died later that year, and was buried on 15 August in London. He was only 35 years of age.

Ben Jonson was also jailed for sedition after the performance of his play The Isle of Dogs, while the co-author, Thomas Nash, had to flee London.

I forgot to mention that Shakespeare clearly relied on popular history texts, such as Holinshed's Chronicles, when doing research for his plays. He frequently reproduces errors made by these historians.

He also borrowed copiously from Plutarch's Lives. In Antony and Cleopatra he includes a very close paraphrase of Plutarch's famous description of Cleopatra's barge.

Furthermore, some of his plays were based on contemporary books or poems by other authors. The Web site "Shakespeare's Sources" observes:

As his only source for As You Like It, Shakespeare used Rosalynde: Euphues Golden Legacie, a novel written by Thomas Lodge, published in 1590. An introductory remark in Lodge's text is "If you like it, so", and this may account for Shakespeare's choice of title. Rosalynde is a pastoral romance, itself based on an earlier poem, The Coke's Tale of Gamelyn ...

This will probably mark me as a complete philistine but are shakespeare's works really any better than greek and roman plays several hundred years earlier?

are Shakespeare's works really any better than Greek and Roman plays several hundred years earlier?

You could make a case that the best Greek tragedies, like Oedipus Rex and The Trojan Women, are the equal of Shakespeare's best works.

Personally, I think Shakespeare outdoes the ancients because of his more subtle grasp of psychology. But a scholar specializing in Sophocles or Euripides might disagree.

I can't evaluate the ancient Greek plays in terms of their use of language, because I can't read ancient Greek. If I can judge by translations, the Greek authors were less "romantic" in their style, less prone to exaggerated metaphors and highly colorful descriptions. They were also more minimalist in their approach; they preferred understatement, while Shakespeare thrived on excess. Whether the Greeks' more reserved style is a plus or a minus is a matter of taste.

As for Roman playwrights, I don't know of any who could be compared to Shakespeare. In general, the Romans copied the Greeks, and while comic playwrights like Plautus could be somewhat innovative, none of them reached the heights of literary achievement. As for tragedy, the Romans do not seem to have excelled at it. The most famous tragic Roman playwright is probably Seneca, and his works (though influential on Shakespeare, especially on Titus Andronicus) are a long step below Macbeth and King Lear.

That's very interesting thank you Michael.

Michael

"If so, why does Julius Caesar contain a reference to a clock striking midnight? There were no mechanical clocks in Caesar's day. One would think an ancient Roman would know this. It's stuff like this that sometimes makes me doubtful of the spirit hypothesis."

I don't think the communicator or Randall was suggesting that the plays were written by spirit entities. The article written by Randall suggested that many writers, musicians, artists etc are influenced by those from the Afterlife and quoted an extract from a communication from Ingersoll which simply suggested that Shakespeare was heavily spirit-inspired.

The article ... simply suggested that Shakespeare was heavily spirit-inspired.

I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

The communicator is incorrect, though, when he says that Shakespeare's plays don't reference topical issues. Love's Labours Lost, to give one example, is so crammed with topical allusions that it is indecipherable without extensive footnotes.

I think it's quite possible that the author of the Shakespearean works was "inspired" in some way by discarnate entities, and that such inspiration is pretty common among sensitive, creative people (artists, writers, scientists, etc.).

"I forgot to mention that Shakespeare clearly relied on popular history texts, such as Holinshed's Chronicles, when doing research for his plays. He frequently reproduces errors made by these historians."

This begs the question in my mind, did a poor actor have access to these kinds of resources? Wouldn't an aristocratic gentleman have a much more extensive library or access to a University's library in order to use them as research?

I think this supports the premise that Shakespeare was only Oxford's beard.

“The article written by Randall suggested that many writers, musicians, artists etc are influenced by those from the Afterlife and quoted an extract from a communication from Ingersoll which simply suggested that Shakespeare was heavily spirit-inspired.”

The spirits book by alan kardec states that most great works and inventions are inspired by “spirits” from the other side. These spirits in kardec’s book state that during our sleep we actually communicate with these spirits often on a nightly basis.

I have for some time wondered if we as humans don’t need some kind of R and R in the spirit world during our sleep to keep our sanity in this physical world. After all without sleep our minds tends to go insane. Many consider sleep deprivation torture.

I am not sure if we need some kind of R&R in the Spirit World but we certainly need to be away from othe physical body to allow it be recharged and rested.

Many people are only about 12-18 inches above the physical body during sleep while others may travel into other dimensions without difficulty as long as they are attached via the silver cord to their physical bodies.

"Many people are only about 12-18 inches above the physical body during sleep while others may travel into other dimensions without difficulty as long as they are attached via the silver cord to their physical bodies."

Sorry for going offtopic a bit but the question begs to be asked.

During out of body experiences when sleeping does your spirit literally seperate?

I've had many such experiences and though they are wayy more lucid,they just seem like a really vivid dream.

What do the afterlife and the dreamworld have to do with eachother?They seem to cross over in one sort of way but I can't find the missing link.

This begs the question in my mind, did a poor actor have access to these kinds of resources? Wouldn't an aristocratic gentleman have a much more extensive library or access to a University's library in order to use them as research?

I think it's quite possible that the author of the Shakespearean works was "inspired" in some way by discarnate entities

I recall reading that Shakespeare went to Stratford Grammar School, where he would have learned the classics. I also understood that he was au fait with the London gossip as an adult. Adding a good memory and obvious genius, do we need to look any further? Except that such genius itself is suggestive that he is tapping into something - perhaps his own previous experience packets.

“I am not sure if we need some kind of R&R in the Spirit World but we certainly need to be away from othe physical body to allow it be recharged and rested.”

I suspect that the mind needs recharged and rested. I have read that after a difficult life or prolonged illness we often rest on the other side for long periods of time. Long being relative of course as time is a different phenomenon on the other side. Maybe it is what some call our vehicle of vitality that needs recharged or even some rest. I suspect there is a lot going on during our sleep that we do not remember.

“What do the afterlife and the dreamworld have to do with eachother?They seem to cross over in one sort of way but I can't find the missing link.”

Not sure I understand the question but some may call this missing link the perispirit and others may be calling this so called missing link the vehicle of vitality. It appears that they believe that this vehicle of vitality allows the spirit to animate the physical body. In my writings I keep it simple and just write about spirit, soul, and ego. But that approach may not fully explain the complexity of the causal correlation of these three aspects of expression.

Some in their travels in their out of body experiences travel to other states that would seem to stretch the silver cord a bit.

I have read that after a difficult life or prolonged illness we often rest on the other side for long periods of time.

William, after I came back from my NDE, I spent a lot of time in the hospital. I had incredible dreams, almost as vivid as the NDE itself. I spent time with my Grandmother and did many things not possible for me to do back in the ICU of the hospital. In my dreams I could walk, and I wasn’t in pain. Those dreams not only sustained me through a very difficult recovery, but they actually made that time a very positive and happy experience. It was hard to come back to this world, because it was so much nicer in that other place. The ICU didn’t seem as real to me as those dreams were.

Of course, I did come back. I can’t prove what I experienced was anything more than dreams. All I can say is that what I experienced made everything OK for me when I did finally return.

Sandy your statements are common comments from people that experience NDE's.

these experiences could have also been what many term visitations from the other side.

NDE's tend to have some common elements such as a tunnel effect, bright light, etc.

not wanting to return to this physical world is also a common effect of an NDE.

William, I did have an NDE at the time of the accident, but these dreams occurred afterwards. The really vivid dreams were everyday experiences for at least 2 months after the accident. Then they started occurring less and less frequently as I became more involved in this world. I still get them occasionally.

Bryan A asked: "During out of body experiences when sleeping does your spirit literally seperate?"

You are a spirit teporarily inhabiting a physical body which you leave during sleep but remain attached by an etheric cord aka the silver cord because it is bluey-grey in colour.

*temporarily*

“Then they started occurring less and less frequently as I became more involved in this world”

From my point of view at this time if you can remember those dreams as if they happened 5 minutes ago they may be what many call a visitation. If they are like most dreams that we tend to forget sometimes within minutes of waking up then they may be just that dreams. Of course do we really understand dreams?

My series of three dreams that some call a visitation I was able to remember them like they just occurred minutes ago for about 15 years before they started to lose some of their content. I still remember them but it is harder now to relive the profound feelings of that dream or visitation or whatever.

What I learned from that dream during my life review was that compassion, acceptance, and understanding are little understood by most of us in this physical world. What most call compassion in this world is really in the sympathy or empathy realm of understanding.

Ben, some responses:

"I recall reading that Shakespeare went to Stratford Grammar School.."
There is actually no evidence of this at all - there are no record of any kind. It's a circle of assumptions - the Stratford boy would have been allowed to go to the school, and IF HE WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE THE PLAYS it must have been where he learned the classics alluded to in them. There is actually at least circumstantial evidence that the Stratford man was illiterate. For example, there were no books listed in his very detailed will and the existing signatures hardly seem fluent. His daughter was known to be illiterate.

"..where he would have learned the classics..."
See above. But more importantly, where would he have learned details of heraldry, falconry, law, Italy, etc.? These were areas of knowledge pretty much limited to the aristocracy. Where too would he have learned (and dared) of Lord Burghley and his private advice satire as Polonius's speech in Hamlet?

"...I also understood that he was au fait with the London gossip as an adult..."
Again, this is circular reasoning - the man who wrote the plays must have been up on London gossip so if the Stratford man wrote the plays he must have been up on London gossip...In fact, Shakespeare is notably ABSENT from London gossip. The "upstart crow" reference is often pointed to as evidence of the young Shakespeare's involvement in the London scene, but it has been demolished in a number of places, most notably by Joseph Sorbon in Alias Shakespeare. But the key points are the the upstart crow references is clearly about an actor, not a playwright. And there is no contemporary account that equates the upstart crow with Shakespeare. For the lack of evidence of the Stratford man's mark on literary London, see Diana Price's book.

"...Adding a good memory and obvious genius, do we need to look any further?..."
Well, yes you do. Even genius has specific character. Take two contemporary novels set in New Jersey - Phillip Roth's American Pastoral and Richard Ford's The Sportswriter. Both are set in Jersey suburbs and both are about the disillusion romanticism there and no one in a million years would mistake Roth for Ford or Ford for Roth. You would never mistake Dreiser's Sister Carrie for Henry James' Portrait of a Lady or either for Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence. Genius, paranormally derived or otherwise, is at least reflected through specific circumstances, prejudices, assumptions, frames of references.

The more one learns about Oxford, the more one sees his world everywhere in Shakespeare...and the more farfetched the Stratford candidacy becomes

You make a good case, Tony!

Speaking of Shakespeare and the authorship controversy, here's an excellent blog by Mark Anderson, author of "Shakespeare" By Another Name. Among other things, Anderson does an excellent job of demolishing the recent claim that a new portrait of the Bard had been discovered.

"So, how could Mozart develop his abilities so early in life?"

Mozart's life supports the Oxfordian case. Mozart was raised in a musical family. His father saw his genius and taught him music from an early age. Mozart's musical life reflects these early years of musical investment (see Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" for some fascinating info along these lines.)

Oxford also was raised with players and a literary education. In fact he spent much of his youth living in the homes containing a couple of England's most amazing libraries: that of Sir Thomas Smith, and of course William Cecil.

Also, it didn't hurt that Mozart was Bach in his previous life; nor that Edward de Vere was Chaucer and Dante.

Here's a worthwhile-looking reply to Oxfordian arguments.

Overall I certainly don't know enough to take a firm stance on the issue; I accept the mainstream position mostly by default. But I will say that I have not been convinced by the general argument that the man of Stratford could not plausibly have achieved what he is supposed to have done. Kathman mentions Ben Johnson as a counterexample; I'll mention Noël Coward. Shakespeare would apparently have been about 30 by the time Love's Labours Lost was written; by that age Coward had written some fairly sophisticated comedy for the stage. And his plays demonstrated a pitch-perfect grasp of aristocratic manners and lifestyles, despite the fact that Coward was a song-and-dance kid from a straitened background with little formal education. Not too surprising, because actors are often famously good social chameleons. A successful actor, a social climber of increasing wealth, and a world-class literary talent - someone like that could be well expected to learn about the aristocracy, and a great many other things, through widespread reading and personal contact. (And as a playwright Shakespeare would have to be able to do kings and dukes if he wanted to write history or tragedy, and he would have been well aware of that.) A young man with drive, exceptional talent and a decent grammar-school education would have a good chance of filling in the rest if he spent his twenties in and around Elizabethan London.

As to skill with verse, Rimbaud apparently didn't read much more than the Bible until he was twelve, but was writing excellent verse in Latin and French by the time he was fifteen. Assuming that the man of Stratford got into Stratford Grammar in his teens - and indeed had the natural talent necessary for anyone to write the plays and sonnets - then it's hardly surprising that he would be writing mature verse by 1590 or so.

Shakespeare's fear of the mob isn't surprising either. Whatever about his literacy, John Shakespeare - successful craftsman with a big house and surely servants, onetime alderman and borough constable - was well above the social level where you would expect to find many people sympathetic to peasant revolts or John Ball-like ideas.

The comments to this entry are closed.