Shakespeare: First Folio Image Examined
October 5, 2021
G.D.O'Bradovich III
In your opinion: Why is Shakespeare a great writer?
Yours Truly
He is easier to decipher then Chaucer?
Apprentice Sarah Louise
Yours Truly
He is easier to decipher then Chaucer?
Apprentice Sarah Louise
1
Apprentice Sarah Louise clarified that she enjoys his comedies, as "[t]here is some wit to his writing" and "[a]lmost every one of his plays has some central conflict that involves stupidity on the part of a main character. There is always a false indictment, manipulation, and or misunderstanding by someone in the plays. He seems to like to wallow in the idiocy of aristocrats".
Apprentice Sarah Louise touches upon, in our opinion, the central issue or challenge of determining the extent of Shakespeare's greatness, as his works must be deciphered; one must be successful in "understanding, interpreting, or identifying" all aspects of his works. Few researchers will have the time to familiarize themselves with subjects the mentioned in the plays, such as astronomy, astrology, mythology, law, history; not to mention the wordplay that is obscure to all but the most erudite reader.
In Speech 101, the student learns that for successful communication, one must present the same information in various ways to different audiences. We ask: Who is the intended or more likely audience for these plays? Is it the working class of the late 16th and early 17th century, as we were taught in high school, or Mensa members and Nobel laureates?
In conclusion to this part, we cannot reconcile the lowbrow patrons in attendance at the Globe Theatre as witnesses to the greatest plays in the English language anymore than we can image rural Appalachia lauding Mozart's operatic masterpieces. Of course, in Don Giovanni, there is "manipulation" [the first scene of the opera], "misunderstanding" [most of the second act], and wallowing "in the idiocy of aristocrats".
Apprentice Sarah Louise touches upon, in our opinion, the central issue or challenge of determining the extent of Shakespeare's greatness, as his works must be deciphered; one must be successful in "understanding, interpreting, or identifying" all aspects of his works. Few researchers will have the time to familiarize themselves with subjects the mentioned in the plays, such as astronomy, astrology, mythology, law, history; not to mention the wordplay that is obscure to all but the most erudite reader.
In Speech 101, the student learns that for successful communication, one must present the same information in various ways to different audiences. We ask: Who is the intended or more likely audience for these plays? Is it the working class of the late 16th and early 17th century, as we were taught in high school, or Mensa members and Nobel laureates?
In conclusion to this part, we cannot reconcile the lowbrow patrons in attendance at the Globe Theatre as witnesses to the greatest plays in the English language anymore than we can image rural Appalachia lauding Mozart's operatic masterpieces. Of course, in Don Giovanni, there is "manipulation" [the first scene of the opera], "misunderstanding" [most of the second act], and wallowing "in the idiocy of aristocrats".
The question of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays was not disputed until the 1850s, less than a decade after the first biography of Shakespeare [William Shakspere : a biography, 1843, Charles Knight, 544 pgs. The spelling of Shakespeare did not become the standard until the 20th century]. We suspect that the initial readers of this biography were startled by the lack of facts regarding Shakespeare's life and, thus, the controversy of the authorship of Shakespeare began.
Our interest in the question of the authorship of Shakespeare began with our reading of Mark Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" [1909. 149 pgs.]. The following paragraph from the final chapter is the primary reason we question the official version of Shakespeare's authorship:
Our interest in the question of the authorship of Shakespeare began with our reading of Mark Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" [1909. 149 pgs.]. The following paragraph from the final chapter is the primary reason we question the official version of Shakespeare's authorship:
Isn’t it odd, when you think of it: that you may list all the celebrated Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen of modern times, clear back to the first Tudors— a list containing five hundred names, shall we say?—and you can go to the histories, biographies and cyclopedias and learn the particulars of the lives of every one of them.
Every one of them except one—the most famous, the most renowned—by far the most illustrious of them all—Shakespeare!
You can get the details of the lives of all the celebrated ecclesiastics in the list; all the celebrated tragedians, comedians, singers, dancers, orators, judges, lawyers, poets, dramatists, historians, biographers, editors, inventors, reformers, statesmen, generals, admirals, discoverers, prize-fighters, murderers, pirates, conspirators, horse-jockeys, bunco-steerers, misers, swindlers, explorers, adventurers by land and sea, bankers, financiers, astronomers, naturalists, Claimants, impostors, chemists, biologists, geologists, philologists, college presidents and professors, architects, engineers, painters, sculptors, politicians, agitators, rebels, revolutionists, patriots, demagogues, clowns, cooks, freaks, philosophers, burglars, highwaymen, journalists, physicians, surgeons—you can get the life-histories of all of them but one.
Just one—the most extraordinary and the most celebrated of them all—Shakespeare!
We begin our inquiry into whether or not there was conspiracy by examining the depiction of Shakespeare from the first folio [1623 AD]. All the information is from the video "The "Impossible Doublet" in the Droeshout engraving of William Shakespeare" on the DoubtAboutWill YouTube webpage.
The left side of the garment tapers towards the waist [in yellow]. Click on the image to enlarge.
The right side of the garment does not taper, but expands towards the waist [in yellow]. This is the back of the left half of the garment. Click on the image to enlarge.
We encounter a problem with Shakespeare on the first page of the first page of the folio.
The sides of the collar are also different [in yellow]. Click on the image to enlarge.
The sides of the collar are also different [in yellow]. Click on the image to enlarge.
Finally, it is suggested that the subject is wearing a mask [in yellow]. Click on the images to enlarge.
Conspire is defined as "(of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result".
A conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
"Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law..." -Black's Law Dictionary
Martin Droeshout signed his engraving of an impossible garment. Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard are the publishers.
From the above facts , we can state that there is no Shakespeare conspiracy regarding the First Folio. However, it can be said that the Frist Folio might be a hoax or a " humorous or malicious deception", where 'deception" is the action of deceiving someone.
A conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
"Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law..." -Black's Law Dictionary
Martin Droeshout signed his engraving of an impossible garment. Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard are the publishers.
From the above facts , we can state that there is no Shakespeare conspiracy regarding the First Folio. However, it can be said that the Frist Folio might be a hoax or a " humorous or malicious deception", where 'deception" is the action of deceiving someone.