/lit/ - Literature

Who?

>>13735622
Look into it more. Sir Henry Neville was the one who wrote many of the most important soliloquies, which Shakespeare pretty much stole from. Neville also left some cryptic hints he was being plagiarized, which has been cracked recently.

>>13735622
Also, your post is retarded. Imagine if I was a lawyer and showed up in court to defend/advocate for my client. What if I told the judge “look I lost my notes and research on the case but I’m right”. The judge would look at me like the brainlet I’d be in that scenario in the same way I’m looking at you for the brainlet you are. Shakespeare’s body of works is so massive that even if he plagiarized it doesn’t matter. His poetic genius is still blinding.

And in case you weren’t aware, your thoughts are not your own. There’s this strange idea that thinking occurs in a vacuum. For the most part, thinking doesn’t get much done because it is a passive activity by nature. Unless you are way ahead of the curve, as in prophetic or incredibly original and imaginative, your ideas have been bested before and they’ll be bested again. Shakespeare was a great, and to get there first he had to be the best.

Now fuck off.

>>13735647
>even if he plagiarized it doesn’t matter
You are a fucking retard who lacks all integrity. Shakespeare plagiarized MANY of his soliloquies and much more from Sir Henry Neville, and he even left cryptic hints in the text that have been recently cracked.
You think and talk like a Jew. I would not even call you a European.
>Shakespeare was a great, and to get there first he had to be the best.
He was plagiarist scum. You think like an utter idiot. Yes, writers influence one another, but that does not give justification for plagiarism.

>>13735647
>Now fuck off.
You fuck off by taking a bullet to your head, you fucking defender of plagiarists. You are spiritually a Jew. Jews LOVE plagiarizing (e.g., Bob Dylan).

>>13735662
You have presented no evidence of his plagiarism. Your case was dead from the start. Find me evidence and I’ll listen intead of standing on your soapbox and shoving cucumbers in your ass while throat singing.

>>13735701
Let me find my notes again. I gave some sources to start off with because I thought you were intelligent enough to follow the trail of evidence. Turns out, I will have to do your work for you. Regardless, new evidence is arising that Shakespeare definitely plagiarized Neville. Let me get it for you, Jew.

>>13735619
was "he" trans?

>>13735619
you're a nigger OP

>>13735619
i don't think it was plagiarism, more like a pseudonym that was selected by the parties involved

>>13735707
>present argument
>Incoherently lays out “evidence”
>expects me to help you justify your argument

Why in the world should someone else do your work, commie?

Fuck off, John. Shill your shit elsewhere

>>13735622
He wrote Moby-Dick

>>13735701
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:67naSq6am90J:www.creativepsychotherapy.info/my-shakespeare-neville-research/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"In 2018, Leyland and Goding used the same setting but included the hyphens from the original text (not included by either Rollet or James), to reveal additional text. In addition, they argue that there are many instances where the grid co-ordinates of a key letter in the Dedication may be paired with the number of a sonnet, such that the sonnet illuminates the encrypted text. They also claim that the Dedication code is very similar to the distinctive diplomatic codes used by Neville himself – both rely on grids of paired letters and numbers.[20]"
Leyland, James; Goding, James (2018). Who Will Believe my Verse? The Code in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing. ISBN 192558867X.

Also, Shakespeare didn't even have a library whereas Neville did:
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/looking-shakespeares-library

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/books/plagiarism-software-unveils-a-new-source-for-11-of-shakespeares-plays.html
how would shakespeare get hold of an obscure manuscript by a minor figure in the court of queen elizabeth ?

whereas it is quite conceivable that other ambassador, sir henry neville could.

>>13735720
There's a lot of evidence, especially from 2018, which shows Shakespeare plagiarized Neville. I can go on and on posting information from my friend who researched Shakespeare. Now slit your throat and go to hell.

>>13735769
I own hell. I’m the first one people report to when they slit their throats. See you soon, John.

>>13735757
So basically there’s no substantial evidence

>>13735784
>>13735719
>>13735715
>>13735713
>>13735701
Check here:
>>13735757

>>13735769
who cares tho ?
Shakespeare is not that great. overrated as fuck.

>>13735794
There's a lot of substantial evidence, such the code theory being expanded, especially in 2018. I can go on and on giving sources. The first link I gave is one of the better ones. I had better links in the past, but I have to find them again.

>>13735805
Sir Henry Neville was a genius. I don't accept Shakespeare's name being attached to the sonnets or plays.

>>13735801
I agree in thinking Neville was the primary author, but why are you so set on plagiarism? I'm >>13735719 btw

>>13735853
Why would you ask such a question? If you had moral integrity, you would realize why plagiarism is bad. If you are White, then you are supposed to be a man of moral integrity who values Truth above all else. Do not stoop down to the level of Jews like Bob Dylan. Anyways, I think the evidence is definitive now, but a final book should be written that puts everything together. Afterwards, future publications of Shakespeare should be changed to Neville. Moreover, I have a friend who is highly literate who looks very similar to Neville. I would never plagiarize my friend, ofc, and the idea of someone plagiarizing him disgusts me.

>>13735619
Why would he not have his name in his own plays, then?

>>13735882
yikes

>>13735886
He was able to put some codes into his sonnets that indicated he was the writer. In 2018, more evidence came out it came from Neville.
>>13735895
Take that Pepe and shove it up your ass, Spiritual Jew.

ALSO, on a somewhat relevant and interesting note, new evidence came out Van Gogh was killed. He did not commit suicide.

>>13735910
>In 2018, more evidence came out it came from Neville.
more evidence came indicating it was written by Neville*

>>13735910
>He was able to put some codes into his sonnets that indicated he was the writer. In 2018, more evidence came out it came from Neville.
yea, but why would he do that? it seems too elaborate and nonsensical.

>>13735910
>Take that Pepe and shove it up your ass, Spiritual Jew.
Jews are the Chadsen ones. Deal with it, faggot.

>>13735882
Read my initial post again, your letting emotion cloud your judgement. What I asked was why are you so intent on claiming that Shakespeare stole the plays, rather than as i think, Neville and those he was involved with chose the name of Shakespeare as a pseudonym

>>13735935
There is more substantial evidence too, some of which I gave here. I could give even more even:
>>13735757
Anyways, there were a number of reasons he could have done that. Neville lived a busy life, and authorship may have worked differently back then.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:67naSq6am90J:www.creativepsychotherapy.info/my-shakespeare-neville-research/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

>>13735948
Shakespeare did exist, and the code theory has been refined/evolved a bit last year. This means Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville. It's kind of analogous to what Bob Dylan did.

>>13735981
>. It's kind of analogous to what Bob Dylan did.
?

>>13736000
Bob Dylan was a noted plagiarist, and he was very unabashed about it. I had a very good article on it which I lost:
""
Talking to Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone in 2012, Dylan responded to the allegation of plagiarism, including his use of Henry Timrod's verse in his album Modern Times,[273] by saying that it was "part of the tradition."
""

>>13735981
I agree Shakespeare did exist as an actual person, and this person's name was used on the works. But what evidence is there that he stole it, and not just used by Neville and the others as name for the works

>>13736004
isn't the tradition of folk music the fact that you take stuff from other folk artists and make your versions?

>>13735971
>There is more substantial evidence too, some of which I gave here. I could give even more even:
I won't read some Amazon book. Just tell me why would he do that.

>>13736007
1. You agreed both Neville and Shakespeare existed.
2. You agreed that Neville was the primary author given the evidence given.
3. However, you argue that Shakespeare was used as an actual pseudonym?

No, this doesn't not follow. Neville lived a busy life, but he left code in his writings that indicated original authorship and more. Unlike Shakespeare, Neville had an actual library and was very well-read in political matters too.

The most obvious deduction is Shakespeare plagiarized Neville. If you look into the books and elsewhere, they explain how Shakespeare could have possibly done this, though I have to ask my friend again. He was connected to Neville somehow through familial connections from what I remember.

>>13735619
Dude who even gives a fuck I interpret the name shakespeare to give credit to whoever it was the wrote whatever art people slap the shaekspeare name on. Even if shakes did write it all himself he did it thanks to the influence and help of at least a half dozen people

>>13736035
>Neville lived a busy life, but he left code in his writings that indicated original authorship and more.
But why? was he ashamed? was he forced to? did he sell his work? I don't get it.

>>13736012
This sounds like pilpul or obscurantism to me. There is a difference between being influenced versus plagiarism.
>>13736018
He had connections to Neville through some familial connection, which I must check up on again. He did it for fame/recognition. Unlike Neville, Shakespeare didn't even have a library, but he could see the value in Neville's works to plagiarize.

A lot of history is based on misconceptions. For example, Van Gogh never committed suicide. He was killed.

>>13736040
We have enough evidence it was Neville now, so we should take away the name Shakespeare and change it to Neville. Moreover, we should put Neville's face instead of Shakespeare.
>>13736045
He most likely just wanted recognition because he could see the talent in Neville's works. I will have to verify with my friend again, but suffice to say, we have enough evidence Neville was the real writer and that Shakespeare plagiarized him. Like I've said, Van Gogh never committed suicide, he was killed. A lot of history is based on misconceptions.

>>13736047
>This sounds like pilpul or obscurantism to me. There is a difference between being influenced versus plagiarism.
that's how folk music started, just versions of popular songs

>>13736054
But what do you mean by "Shakespeare plagiarized him"? You mean Neville actually published his own works? I don't see actual evidence. Mere conspiracy masturbation without purpose.

>>13736059
Again, there's a difference between stealing actual content versus being influenced by it. I am not in the mood for your pilpul-like rhetoric. Bob Dylan was a noted and unabashed plagiarist. His agent would frequently take the works from people's queries and share it directly with Dylan, who pretty much copied it wholeheartedly.

If you are a White man, you are supposed to live with moral integrity. Give credit where it is due. Shakespeare plagiarized Neville, so Neville deserves the credit for those plays and sonnets. Likewise, Bob Dylan was a plagiarist hack, and he most certainly did not deserve a Nobel Prize.

>>13736072
Neville shared his own works with Shakespeare via a familial connection or acquaintance of sorts. Shakespeare pretty much copied many of his works into sonnets and more. Again, I am tired of repeating myself to a Spiritual Jew.

>>13736083
>If you are a White man, you are supposed to live with moral integrity. Give credit where it is due. Shakespeare plagiarized Neville, so Neville deserves the credit for those plays and sonnets. Likewise, Bob Dylan was a plagiarist hack, and he most certainly did not deserve a Nobel Prize.
Why do you keep repeating that like it's the truth? All you have is some speculative theory.

>>13736090
So Shakespeare cucked the Neville faggot?? LMAO based Willy

>>13736092
Since last year, the evidence has been accumulating that Neville was the real author of Shakespeare's works. There is also a lot of other substantial evidence that shows how this was done.
>speculative theory
It's not speculative anymore. We now know that Van Gogh was actually killed. He never committed suicide. Soon we will acknowledge how Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville.

>>13736103
You genuinely deserve to die.

>>13736090
You have it twisted. I am this “Spiritual Jew” you’re reffering to. That anon is just picking up the line of questioning where I left off. He too will get tired of trying to reason with a conspiracy tard.

Bring some hard evidence to the table and organize it concisely and as clearly as possible. If Shakespeare really plagiarized, it shouldn’t take a book to prove.

>>13736090
So let me get this straight, are you telling me Shakespeare stole and published 39 plays and 154 sonnets over the course of decades without the plagiarized fuck ever even publishing anything??

>>13736115
>conspiracy tard
I am not a conspiracy tard, you dumb faggot. Even last year new evidence came out supporting this theory.
>organize it concisely
That would take a lot of work.
>If Shakespeare really plagiarized, it shouldn’t take a book to prove.
Why not? The evidence proceeds this way: 1) the cracked code in the sonnets that point to Neville; 2) the supposed connections between Shakespeare and Neville (i.e., they interacted via some means that is explored); 3) the weird discrepancies of how Shakespeare didn't even own a library, have any connections to royalty, and etc; Shakespeare was a literal philistine whereas Neville was not. 4) and so forth.

You have some ulterior purposes in not accepting my line of reasoning or looking into it further. Like I've said, we now know that Van Gogh was killed and never committed suicide. Likewise, it will become common knowledge that Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville in a few years.

If I were majoring in literature, I would focus on this avenue and probably write a book bringing all evidence to light. Granted, others are probably doing it right now, given the recent evidence in 2018 and more.

>>13735622
Someone who could never even remotely approach the poetic powers of Shakespeare

>>13736122
Well, like I've said, Bob Dylan plagiarized and won the Nobel Prize.
Anyways, Sir Henry Neville was a very busy man and authorship worked differently back then. He did leave hints in his sonnets though. Regardless, Neville was always well-off and may have not cared much to go through the hassle, not sure.

Regardless, Shakespeare was a plagiarist of Sir Henry Neville.

>>13736140
Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville. This is beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point. Moreover, Shakespeare didn't even own a fucking library, travel, or anything. He was just a plagiarist of the real genius, Neville. Now fuck off, cunt.

>>13735757
Except we have testimony from personal friends, baptismal records, handwriting, etc

>>13735619
Why would he name of of his children like the man who allegedly plagiarized him? Something doesn't quite fit.

>>13736115
>>13736134
Also, what's interesting is that the way Sir Henry Neville traveled kind of conforms to the releases of the plays, like Hamlet. Neville did travel to places like Denmark and elsewhere.

>>13736145
>Shakespeare didn't even own a fucking library, travel, or anything.
You don't have to do any of that in order to be a writer.

>>13736134
>Shakespeare was a philistine
Which is why his work is filled with philistine phrases, in addition to the poetic masterpieces.

>>13736143
>Regardless, Shakespeare was a plagiarist of Sir Henry Neville.
of which you have no conclusive proof

>>13736145
Show me 5 lines by neville comparable to “O mistress mine where are you roaming”

>>13736169
I think you mean "Sir Henry Neville's works". The authorship of those works belong to Neville, not Shakespeare.
>>13736168
The point is Neville did go to places like Denmark and more, and he did own a library whereas Shakespeare didn't. This is more circumstantial evidence to add to the pile. We have harder evidence like the code and much more too like I've referenced. Stop being a brainlet and understand that the authorship of these works belongs to Neville. Even in 2018 we got more evidence.

>a Shakespeare candidate
>not Francis Bacon
cringe

>>13736181
You say Neville was no philistine, but Shakespeare’s works are full of philistinism

>>13736181
So now every man who owned a library in Elizabethean England is a candidate for Shakespeare?? lmao

>>13736174
We have literal code that was cracked more in 2018 by literal scholars. Scholarship is growing more, and soon it will be accepted fact. Consider how we thought Van Gogh committed suicide, but now we have evidence he was killed. Stop acting like an idiot.
>>13736176
Here is a new evidence on Twelfth Night being authored by neville:
https://nevilleandshakespeare.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/twelfth-night-and-sir-henry-neville/

>>13735622
Sorry I wrote this wrong, I meant who's this Shakespeare guy

>>13736191
>>13736193
Here is a new evidence on Twelfth Night being authored by neville:
https://nevilleandshakespeare.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/twelfth-night-and-sir-henry-neville/

I recommend looking into this site more before speaking out of your asses, memelord and edgelord faggots.

>>13736184
Evidence is pointing more and more to Neville.

https://nevilleandshakespeare.wordpress.com/

>>13736181
>Denmark
The plays of Shakespeare exhibit no real knowledge of foreign places. Almost everything he writes about the manners of foreign peoples is wrong and his information for the settings of his plays comes from old Latin works (but never one unteanslated on account of his “small Latin”) and ancient myths

>>13736200
Read this:
https://nevilleandshakespeare.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/twelfth-night-and-sir-henry-neville/

A lot of Neville's travels coincide with when these plays were written:

"From these two circumstances we conclude that there is no-one better placed than Sir Henry Neville to have amended, at the very least, Twelfth Night for this celebratory performance. There is no evidence, nor likelihood, that Shakespeare could possibly have had access to this intelligence concerning Duke Orsino. Indeed, given the danger to Duke Orsino, it would seem unlikely in the extreme that Sir Henry Neville would have passed this intelligence concerning the secret visit onto anyone outside of the Privy Council."

>>13736184
Bacon was an inferior writer by comparison, he was involved though, but more as an editor of the first folio

>>13735619
Why would he name one of his children like the man who allegedly plagiarized him? Something doesn't quite fit. The kid was born in 1596 when Shakespeare had already published many of his famours works...

>>13736194
We don’t know when Twelfth Night was first performed, so there goes that piece of evidence.

>>13736227
>didn't even bother reading the article
You're wasting my time.

>>13736210
Doesn’t matter. Explain the following:
1. Why did Neville never in his life produce a single line comparsble to Shakespeare? Did he magically become a retard when he wasn’t being plagiarized?

2. Neville was educated, but the works of Shakespeare show a lack of formal education. There are no settings taken from untranslated Latin works. Only from translated ones. There is no knowledge of Greek or foreign places beyond what one could get from a book.

3. The leading man of letters of that time, Ben Jonson, knew Shakespeare personally and never denied the authenticity of Shakespeare’s work.

>>13736214
At least Bacon published something. What did this Neville cunt even published?

Cool. Get in line, faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates

>>13736235
Again, we don’t know when Twelfth Knight was first performed.

>>13736254
because that play doesn't exist, it's called Twelfth Night

>>13736253
We should start a project for a new candidate, some elaborate theory that's impossible to disprove but seems plausible

>>13736245
>1. Why did Neville never in his life produce a single line comparsble to Shakespeare?
The code kind of indicates those were his works.
>Did he magically become a retard when he wasn’t being plagiarized?
His letters of correspondence indicate an astute mind. He also had a library unlike Shakespeare and much more.
>2. Neville was educated, but the works of Shakespeare show a lack of formal education.
The sonnets of Shakespeare did have something technically marvelous about them.
>There is no knowledge of Greek or foreign places beyond what one could get from a book.
Shakespeare didn't even have a library or travel unlike Neville.
>The leading man of letters of that time, Ben Jonson, knew Shakespeare personally and never denied the authenticity of Shakespeare’s work.
Again, Shakespeare existed and did create those works THROUGH PLAGIARISM.

Goddammit, are you an idiot.

>>13736264
Nice dodge faggot, still doesn’t chsnfe the fact we dont know when it was first performed

>>13736253
New evidence is pointing more strongly to Neville.

>>13736271
That wasn't me.

>>13736269
>The code kind of indicates those were his works.
That's not solid evidence, it's only a starting point.
>His letters of correspondence indicate an astute mind.
No one asked you for an astute mind. Bacon, Jonson, Sir Edward Coke, all had astute minds. An astute mind is uncommon but not abnormal. What Shakespeare had was an abnormal poetical gift. What evidence is there of this in Neville's attributed work? If there is none, then your argument is: "He wrote well only when he gave his lines to Shakespeare."
>He also had a library unlike Shakespeare
We don't know that Shakespeare didn't. Only that he didn't at the end of his life. But there are a lot of ways that Shakespeare could have got books. He had patrons and connections among the English elite, he was a friend of England's most popular literary man, etc. Lincoln was born in the wilderness, had no personal library, and still got to read books.
>The sonnets of Shakespeare did have something technically marvelous about them.
I said education, not genius. Jefferson was better educated than Shakespeare, he was not a better writer. Lincoln was uneducated, but he still composed the Gettysburg Address.
>Again, Shakespeare existed and did create those works THROUGH PLAGIARISM.
And the leading poet of England didn't know this? He was fooled the whole time? You have no knowledge of people if you think a great writer could be sitting with a charlatan and mistake him for another great writer.

Real evidence, or gtfo

So is this the whole theory?? "We found words in a text (who would've thought!), therefore, the entire Shakespearean production belongs to this asshole"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Code_theory

>>13736291
Let me ask my scholarly friend who am I somewhat a disciple of and get back to you.

>>13736269
>The code kind of indicates those were his works.
it really doesn't LMAO

>>13736292
>when we try a million different arbitrary patters, we get a name

>>13736302
The code is a starting point, which was later refined in 2018. I asked my friend to give the best sources and short summary. I learned all of this from him. He is much more erudite and literate than I am, even though I am on a decent level.

>>13736269
you're actively proving him right you tard. if neville visited denmark that's evidence against his authorship since hamlet does not contain any knowledge of real denmark. you seem to struggle to even parse what people are saying to you.

>>13736311
What if the code is wrong? Anything you think you "find" after it would seem like it fits. It's called "apophenia".

>>13736313
Some of his plays do indicate some knowledge about weather patterns from what I remember. Twelfth Night may have been better example because Neville did take trip to the Balkans.

>>13736331
The code was expanded in 2018. Also, Twelfth Night indicates some knowledge of Balkans, and Neville did travel there.

>>13736338
> Also, Twelfth Night indicates some knowledge of Balkans, and Neville did travel there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

>>13736345
There are too many discrepancies regarding Shakespeare's life to dismiss these connections as apophenia. Moreover, I pointed out how Van Gogh was killed, and he never committed suicide as was falsely believed for over a century.

>>13736311
there is nothing to the theory but the retarded secret code and the "breakthrough" in 2018 was a book by two amateurs (a retired actor and a retired pathologist) that they could only publish through this obscure australian publisher that i'm 99% sure is a vanity press. it's just "if you take some letters from alice in wonderland you can spell jack the ripper" all over again. people "find" secret messages in old books every day. you need to stop listening to your asshole friend and start thinking for yourself because you're being duped.

>>13736392
Do not underestimate my friend. I will wait for his response and give it to you. Hopefully, the thread is still up by then. If you want, I can give a list of my friend's favorite books.

>>13736291
>Lincoln was uneducated, but he still composed the Gettysburg Address.

John Hay wrote that. And the second inaugural. It's been confirmed.

... Just have to find my notes on the subject ... be right back

>>13736405
>h-hey I’m having an argument on 4chan
>y-yea I’m l-l-losing
>can... can you tell me how to win this argument
>but they said that’s not substantial evidence
>b-but you said...

>I will not give my part of this sport for a pension of thousands to be paid from the Sophy
>Referencing Anthony Shirley receiving money from the Shah
>The True Report of Sir Anthony Shirley's Journey was not seen until around September 1600
Why is there a reference made to an event that England would have know nothing about until the late 1600 at the earliest if the play was performed at the start of the year?

>>13736432
TOP KEK

>>13736432
Again, I would not underestimate my friend. Let me wait for his response. I never really took notes or saved URLs when he went on about how Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville, but I was talking largely from memory.

>>13736348
why do you repeat this sentence about van gogh over and over again like a mantra, in response to every question? what does that even mean to you? i'm not even trying to be mean but the way you've been rewriting a handful of sentences dozens of times in this thread makes you look mentally ill. you're not actually talking to people, you're just repeating "there is strong new evidence from 2018" endlessly.

>>13736439
I will glady let you wait for his response while I enjoy some of Shakespeare's poems.

>>13736440
I did enumerate and elaborate upon my points as a defense elsewhere. Anyways, I would not underestimate my friend. Let me wait for his response. I never really took notes or saved URLs when he went on about how Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville, but I was speaking largely from memory.

>>13736432
lol

>>13736439
the fact that you didn't understand his arguments enough to repeat them to us means you were also not fit to judge whether they were sound in the first place. nobody cares about your uncle from nintendo.

>>13736467
I didn't lose. Once I get my friend's response, all of you will have no choice but to bow to me.

>>13736473
You mean your friend? Don’t tell me you’re taking your friend’s ideas and presenting them as your own... anon... there’s a word for that

>>13736471
No, I just need to get better sources to convince him and such. Anyways, I will eventually win, that much is sure. All it takes is patience.

>>13736476
Stop acting like a brainlet. There's a difference between stealing the content of someone and publishing it, claiming authorship, versus talking from memory about a topic your friend once educated you about.

>>13736463
and now you're stuck in a loop repeating this post about not underestimating your friend. when you get hungry do you eat or do you plug yourself into an electric socket? just asking.

>>13736506
I have to repeat myself because edgelords won't stop with the endless pressuring and stuff. The conversation is over until I get more sources from my friend. I already linked a bunch of other sources and spoke from memory, but I think I will form a more robust argument soon enough.

>>13736491
How do we know that Nevelle didn’t educate his friend Shakesphere? Can’t that argument be made?

>>13736476
>Don’t tell me you’re taking your friend’s ideas and presenting them as your own... anon... there’s a word for that
OP BTFO

>>13736513
Again, let me wait for my friend's response before I delve into this further.
>>13736516
Stop acting like a brainlet. There's a difference between stealing the content of someone and publishing it, claiming authorship, versus talking from memory about a topic your friend once educated you about. I almost feel like this is like Pali discourse where I have to be repetitious for a bunch of brainlets.

>>13736405
>I can give a list of my friend's favorite books.
Post them I'd be interested

>>13736522
why do you always repeat shit ad nauseam? do you have autism?

OP, are you Persian by any chance?

>>13736522

>>13736529
Because you keep going back to the same points. Let's just wait 'till my friend responds, okay?

>>13736529
OP, if you have autism I strongly recommend that you not use 4chan, all jokes aside. Go to a library and practice your social skills with kind librarians. Journal your progress so you can aim at the end of achieving the highest quality of life possible

>>13736523
http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/links/book_list.html

>>13735619
This guy literally never wrote nor published anything. All the "evidence" is circumstancial. You're seeing what you want to see.

>>13736554
>emily dickinson is very elliptical
I don’t have an image for how this remark makes me feel

>>13736598
Why don't you take his whole list into consideration instead of picking out one part and being condescending? He has good tastes.

>>13736598
Can someone photoshop Emily Dickinson as an elliptical?

>>13736554
>vladimir nabakov
>nabakov
and we're supposed to take this asshole seriuosly??

>>13736602
That was the first line
I don’t care about a man’s tastes if he doesn’t even understand why his tastes are the way they are in the first place.

>>13736611
You are very dismissive and aggressive for no reason. His tastes are pretty damn good. He has strange unorthodox manner of writing, true, but that shouldn't make you that dismissive. Just look at this whole list of recommendations.
>>13736606
Even the best minds can make minor errors. Big deal.

>>13736604
He is referring to Emily Dickinson's poems being elliptical in nature. I think that's obvious. He even gave a source about it.

>>13736622
Are you actually your friend?
Is this your list?

>>13736634
What are you planning to do? Do you want to dox him? You are quite resentful to want to do such a thing.

peak lit autistic op

>>13736644
>>13736554
>Twelfth Night by Sir Henry Neville
where do all these autists come from?

>>13735662
>You think and talk like a Jew. I would not even call you a European.
Thanks for the compliment.

>>13736656
Let me wait for his response.

>>13736432
>b-but you said...
My sides! I can hear the stutter!

>>13736663
>h-hey Andy, do you remember me from high school, bro?
>y-yea hehehe sorry about that, hey listen I'm being assblasted on 4chan, can you explain to me that retarded Shakespeare theory again?
>oh cool I'll just wait then...
>what?! it's all an elaborate joke? roger that, thanks bro

>>13736683
If you're not European, then there is no point in debating further. I only debate respectful and courteous European men of valor who value Truth. I do not waste time with memelord, edgelord faggots, which is more of an artifact of modern American culture and ZOG.

>>13736689
You’re the anon who claimed he lives in the US but hasn’t spoken with an American (outside of work) in over five years, aren’t you?

>>13736689
Truth requires evidence and proof, of which you have none. You're baselessly accusing a deceased gentleman with plagiarism and theft. For someone who professes Truth, that's pretty low.

>>13736768
My friend said people can research this more if they're interested, but I was wrong about Shakespeare plagiarizing Sir Henry Neville. To quote my friend, "Shakespeare actually didn't plagiarise neville, it was by agreement as neville had good political reasons for keeping his name off the plays." Anyways, there is plenty of material on this subject online.
My friend responded and told me to research it myself more. He's not the type to hand you everything you ask for.

>>13736923
He told you to fuck off LMAO based Andy

>>13736949
No, he genuinely encourages me in much of my endeavors, but in this regard, he encouraged me to look into it more for myself.

>>13735882
>Moreover, I have a friend who is highly literate who looks very similar to Neville. I would never plagiarize my friend, ofc, and the idea of someone plagiarizing him disgusts me.

Are you schizoid?

>>13736976
I was wrong with the accusation of plagiarism. I am done with this thread. I think there is a lot of evidence that Shakespeare, by permission, copied much of Neville's works.

>>13736986
Shakespeare could barely write his name, how could he copy anything?

>>13736986
There's no such thing as "Neville's works". All the "evidence" rests upon some faggots finding the some letters in a dedication kek

>>13735619
Who cares?

>>13737003
Well, there is still the matter of the code, especially the new expanded one in 2018. It was like Neville's signature, but Shakespeare was never plagiarizing him. It was more that Neville had political reasons to keep himself hidden, but he did sometimes add a "code", which resembled his own uncovered writings, which indicated he was the original author. He never unveiled he was the main writer due to political reasons.

>>13737048
That code is a meme. Francis Bacon is the real author http://thetruthaboutshakespeare.com/index.php/breaking-the-masonic-code-of-shake-speares-sonnets

>>13735757
Shakespeare wrote Love's Labour's Lost to be performed privately for Queen Elizabeth. Im sure he could have got hold of a manuscript from a member of her court.

>>13735619
Why does there always have to be a code or hidden meaning?? Is it so impossible that a truly gifted man just wrote a bunch of great plays that dealt with common human emotions and didn't have some grand scheme in mind.

>>13736269
n-n-n-n-neville had a librurhry

>>13736923
Never go full retard.

neville was the ONLY man in england with a LIBRARY

>>13736299
>>13736923
OHNONONONONONO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

It's well-established that "Shakespeare" was a woman, who wrote under a masculine nom de plume because of the horrendous gender biases that prevailed at the time.

She was speaking of herself in her famous line: "a tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide."

And Robert Green, who knew the truth of the matter, alluded to this in his "*tiger's* heart wrapped in a *player's* hide."

"Shakespeare's" adoption of a masculine persona was, after all, merely "play" - "hiding," if you will - by a "player," with the latter word having much the same connotation, circa Shake-scene's era, as it does in the American "ghetto" today.

>>13737208
also she was black and transexual and vegan

>>13736923
Autist gets btfo by based scholar.

Dump OP got conned by his (imaginary) friend

>>13735715
/thread

>>13737486
It’s an interesting theory

>>13736227
Read the source. Many believe the play performed that night was Twelfth Night. A lot of brash people itt are criticizing OP without even reading the sources.

>>13736004
Who the fuck cares about Bob Dylan plagiarizing after Blood on the Tracks? Guy can’t even perform coherently

166 replies. Summary?

>>13737769
OP made ridiculous claims without solid proof and got his ass handed to him. Said he was going to ask his "friend" who told him about the theory and we waited. The friend told him to go go fuck himself and to do his own research. At the end of the day he lost every argument in the thread.

>>13737784
Jeez. Sorry OP.

>it's another "somebody other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" theory

Chesterton has a passage in Heretics where he talks about the reason these theories percolate the way they do. He essentially says that many smart people don't like to consider the idea that the greatest genius in the history of English letters was some ordinary guy who came from a bumpkin town outside of London, and who had a normal life and family. Chesterton asserts that by the early 20th Century, the idea of the genius as some odd, idiosyncratic figure had already taken hold, and so the details about Shakespeare's life, which are neither odd nor idiosyncratic, became offensive. Surely this rather ordinary fellow couldn't have written these brilliant plays. So the idea that he was some secret nobleman, or some other, odder genius, began to arise.

>>13737538
This.

>>13736245
>no knowledge of foreign places
Wrong. There is good evidence “Shakespeare” knew Italy and the continent. He has some knowledge that could only have been gained by a voyage to those places.

>>13738014
Nothing that couldn't have been taken from books. He also mistakenly gave Bohemia a coast in The Winter's Tale.

this thread is proof that /pol/ makes you mentally ill

>>13738063
What's /pol/ got to do with this hilarious clusterfuck of a thread?

The fault - and indeed the benefit drawn resourcefully therefrom; oh happy retard OP to have produced such an amusing thread - lies not in /pol/ but in ourselves.

>>13737797
this basically. all the arguments against stratfordian authorship end up being arguments not about whether he wrote the plays but about whether he was rich, whether he was educated, whether he was part of an elite etc. and then you're just expected to follow the unspoken implication that a man not belonging to a rich educated elite couldn't have written the plays. like the often repeated "he didn't even have a library" observation: you're told he wasn't a wealthy book collector and this is supposed to prove he couldn't have known enough to write, let's say, julius caesar, as if the only people who could possibly be familiar with plutarch's lives 150 years after the invention of the printing press were wealthy book collectors. go over all these arguments and you'll see the same pattern of bullshit over and over again.

>>13737048
>Well, there is still the matter of the code
>It was like Neville's signature
i know this is a dead thread but i'd just like to point out that the "code" is complete horseshit that relies on arbitrarily rearranging text into grids until the letters align into "secret messages". even if you believed those were intentionally put there by the author and not a coincidence that still wouldn't prove any connection with neville since neville did not invent this type of encryption. it's derived from a cypher described in the histories of polybius, which were available in english translation in shakespeare's time. any literate person in england could have read polybius and used codes like this, including shakespeare.

>>13738097
>What's /pol/ got to do with this hilarious clusterfuck of a thread?
OP was bringing up the jews and all that every other comment.

>>13738518
not to mention other famous playwrights from era also came from similar backgrounds (Marlowe's father was a shoemaker)

>>13735619
None of Shakespeare's plots were original he adapted everything. He adapted all his content from previous works. The plots of his stories arent whats interesting its how he changes the characters

>>13739769
Lol no it isnt its hispoetry

What a bizarre thread
Op come back with your friend and btfo everyone here

>>13740158
his friend Andy told him to fuck off and rightfully so lmao

>>13740174
But in 2018,

>>13741130
what?

>>13740158
this was such a kino thread. the way the arc of op's posting sketches out this abusive relationship between gullible autist op and his friend the cruel charlatan, the way the friend's oppressive personality ends up permeating the thread indirectly through the medium of the dents it left on op's fragile mind. i wish this thread was fiction and i wish i was the one who wrote it.

>>13742045
I absolutely agree
I couldn't more subtly depict steadily-building autismal frustration if I tried

>>13736432
Someone screencap this thread as a lesson for newfags

>>13742045
Except nothing of the kind happened and his friend simply stated that Neville voluntarily gave him the work and therefore it wasn't outright plagiarism.

No one has refuted the probability that the play Twelfth Night contains references to information known only to high level diplomats. Nor Shakespeare's knowledge of public transit in Italy.

>>13742456
He could've gotten that information from certain sources. But if he was such a traveler and connoisseur then why did he give a coast to Bohemia in The Winter's Tale? Bohemia is a landlocked region. That's a rookie mistake that global man wouldn't make.

>>13735662
>cryptic hints

yea Im sure someone who was being plagiarized would leave cryptic hints instead of outright accusing the plagiarizer which would have been super easy at the time. These dumb theories about Shakespeare are flat earth tier retarded.

>>13735757
literally "play the beatles backwards it proves they are satanist" tier """""""""""""evidence""""""""""""

>>13742456
>information known only to high level diplomats
Like fucking what
Nobody expounding these theories ever has any concrete examples of things an intelligent middle class guy could never possibly have known, it's just vague generalities like this every time

>>13742642
>Like fucking what
Like that a certain Italian nobleman would be visiting England

>>13735619
kino thread
bump

>>13742456
>his friend simply stated that
his friend simply stated that he switched to believing a slightly different conspiracy theory and refused to give the promised evidence for either the old one or the new one, resulting in a 200 post thread containing dozens and dozens of assurances that "evidence is mounting" but not a single shred of that evidence, since that's all locked away behind secret urls known only to The Friend. your own shitty posting is just as worthless as op's but less entertaining.

>>13742681
are you referring to this?
http://leylandandgoding.com/twelfth_night_6_january_1601
if so then i understand why you're so adamant about never posting specifics, because the specifics are fucking retarded. the only situation in which the author of twelfth night would have needed to know secret diplomatic information about the visit of the disguised duke orsino is if the play was first performed not when we know it to have been performed but at this theoretical earlier date in 1600. the only evidence they have for this earlier performance is a supposed reference in the text of the play to a contemporary event, the reappearance of the missing king sebastian of portugal, later proven to be an impostor. the problem is that this secret reference to the king of portugal, on which the entire theory rests, isn't fucking there.

firstly, recognition scenes in which a missing relative is identified by a scar or mole have been a theatrical staple since the inception of drama in ancient greece. there's no reason to believe it's a reference to a real missing person this one time when it's a stock scene that was performed on stage literally millions of times since orestes and electra. more importantly, the reference doesn't fucking work as a reference at all. the character sebastian in the play doesn't have a mark like king sebastian, it's his father that had the mark, and it's the wrong kind of mark, a mole instead of a scar. the authors of this shit blog post try to intentionally mislead you here by quoting a description of king sebastian out of context so that it sounds like "mark or wound" could mean "mole" but in context these are obviously all battle scars:

>He hath many markes of the harquebuze on his left arme, which he receiued in the battell of Affricke. Another marke or wound vpon the head. Another vpon the right eye-brow.

and in the play:

>Viola: My father had a mole upon his brow.
>Sebastian: And so had mine.

this is not a reference at all. a guy called sebastian having a dad with a mole on his brow is not a reference to king sebastian of portugal having a battle scar on his brow. if you wanted to reference king sebastian you'd use some actually notable feature like the fuckoff huge wart on his foot or his uneven limbs or his habsburg lip, not a facial mole THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE.

and i remind you that this shit about moles is absolutely crucial to their theory. this is not a reference to king sebastian, therefore it's not a reference to his impostor appearing in 1600, therefore there's no reason why the play would need to have been written that early, therefore the reference to duke orsino could have been written once he was visiting the english court openly and not in disguise, therefore one would not need secret diplomatic knowledge to have written twelfth night, therefore there's no reason to believe henry neville wrote it. the end.

>>13735619
middleton wrote macbeth

>>13746208
kate or pippa?

>>13735619
To say Shakespeare was a plagiarist is rather misleading. He undoubtedly collaborated with others, but there was no convention for attribution in his time.

>>13735750
Heh

>>13746599
thomas middleton

>>13735619
Kino thread. I want more.

>>13735750