On 5/26/10 3:56 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:
> On May 25, 4:05 pm, Blair Leatherwood
> wrote:
>> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>> On May 24, 11:42 am, Joseph
DeMartino  wrote:
>>>> Do you think the newsgroups and websites devoted to...
>>>> Shakespeare are filled with fans pushing for "Hamlet
II:  The Wrath of
>>>> Fortinbras"...?
>>
>>> Actually, they are largely filled with mentally ill individuals
>>> claiming variously that:
>>>    Shakespeare didn't write his own plays (sometimes they go further to
>>> claim that their hero, whoever that is, also wrote "Don
Quixote", "The
>>> Fairy Queene", and practically everything else published in any
>>> language between 1550 and 1650. If their candidate is Francis Bacon,
>>> they sometimes go on to include "Moby Dick" -- and
"Babylon 5", too,
>>> for aught I know to the contrary. (Anyone recall the guy who was
>>> claiming online about a dozen years ago that B5 was actually being
>>> written by Harlan Ellison?)
>>>    Shakespeare was the reincarnation of Jesus. (If you think that's
>>> wacky, there's a /really/ demented fan on another group who apparently
>>> believes that Andrea Corr is the reincarnation of Jesus.)
>>>    /They/ are the reincarnation of Shakespeare.
>>>    The "inner, mystical" meaning of Shakespeare's
plays can be attained
>>> to by "meditation". (Actually /reading/ the plays is
a distraction.)
>>
>>> Of course, right now, there is also a lot of fuss over the Arden
>>> Shakespeare deciding to include Lewis Theobald's 1727 "Double
>>> Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers", on the hypothesis that Theobald
>>> based it on the since-lost "Cardenio", a play of
1613 co-authored by
>>> Shakespeare and John Fletcher, the young man who took over as head
>>> writer for the King's Men when Shakespeare retired. I happen to be a
>>> minor expert on the subject (you can read "Double
Falshood" on my
>>> website athttp://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy>), and I
am inclined
>>> to think they are right. I suppose you could see that as a variation
>>> on the demanding-a-sequel theme, if you like.
>>
>> The playShakespeare.com app I have on my iPhone includes the following
>> "additions" to the canon:
>>
>> Double Falsehood
>> Edward III
>> Sir Thomas More
>>
>> There's no indication in the app (that I've found yet) that these are
>> questionable at best.  However, it's nice to have them if for no other
>> reason than to have a few more Elizabethan plays available in the
>> library.  Useful for auditions, etc.
>
> "Double Falshood" and "Sir Thomas More" aren't on
their website,
> either -- just the iPhone app -- and they give no hint as to where
> they got the texts. I do not think, on internal evidence, that they
> got "Double Falshood" from me.
>
> But most scholars are in agreement that certain scenes of "Sir Thomas
> More" and "Edward III" are by Shakespeare. It is
obvious to anyone
> with an ear that certain scenes in E3 are by someone much more
> talented than the main playwright, and parts of "Sir Thomas More" are
> actually thought to be in Shakespeare's own hand. (We do not have
> enough samples of his writing to be directly sure, but a careful
> analysis of typos in the printed texts have led to certain conclusions
> about what his handwriting must have been like, and the "More"
> passages fit.)
>

I should have been a little clearer.  I do know that E3 and More do have 
some real connection (connexion?) to Shakespeare; my concern was that 
the app doesn't mark the difference between the collaborations and the 
solo works.

Smithsonian has a nice little article this month on William-Henry 
Ireland and "Vortigern"--I like the fact that he never really tried to 
hide the fact that it was a forgery, but it's amazing how far it got 
before the general public finally believed that it was not to be believed.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32