/lit/ - Literature

>>17125711
What!! last time I checked, his 37 plays are available in Elizabethan.

>>17125711
That review might have been from a different publisher, amazon combines reviews for a bunch of random versions

>>17125846
The one Amazon labels as a top contributor specifies the Penguin edition. Another one that states that it modernizes the english, which is the top one, couldn't be found anywhere else except on the Penguin Edition
>>17125820
Do you have a specific Edition you recommend?

>>17126129
Dang it. I thought you'd get the joke.

>>17126154
Sorry about that

>>17126129
What's wrong with modernized spelling? Most shakespeare is the same unless your reading a first folio version

>>17126202
It doesn't have the same feel to it

>>17126191
Well he's one of the suspected ghostwriters for spear-shaker. I personally believe so, along with 17th Earl of Oxford (slightly).

>>17126232
even though shakespeare is identified by even fucking computers as having a distinct individual style? you think someone just came up with a fictional play-wright that was only mildly famous in his day? that ben jonson attested to a fake person for lulz?

>>17126263
>NOOOOOO YOU CANT HAVE ALTERNATE THEORIES
What is it about alternative candidates that automatically just brings people into a rage?

>>17126263
I get that it is a conspiracy theory. Unironically I got my MA thesis on it. Literally the past 2 years I almost lost my shit just to convince the board that the authorship question should be open for debate academically and not be considered as a conspiracy theory, as a conclusion. Imagine if I actually told em I believe that he really didn't write jack lol.

>>17125711
>they modernize the language apparently
They probably don't and you're a dumb fuck who can't tell apart orthography from actual language.

>>17126298
Projecting much?
Also, if you believe in it, it's not a theory anymore.

>>17126331
what evidence suggests he didn't write anything?

>>17126298
because it's an outrageous lie. imagine defending idiotic slander because it personally offends you that it might be total horse-shit.

>>17126331
OK, so then what is your explanation for Ben Jonson's allusions to Shakespeare? Did Ben Jonson not only allude to someone who didn't exist; but also somehow got this fake persona credited in a play he wrote and performed on stage?

>>17126343
>imagine a 2 years research to discredit "the greatest playwright of all time"dumbed down to fit a 4chan post

>>17126362
Did your 2 year research somehow discredit and disprove Shakespeare's last will? The various references to Shakespeare all with different variations in tax records and the like?

If you look at only the literary work; sure, one can twist the data until it screams - but how can you discredit non-literary references to his existence?

>>17126347
Jonson doesn't stand out as much as Marlowe, Bacon and De Vere. And at some point I started to think what if there wasn't 1 ghostwriter but all combined. It turned out this theory has been looked into already (by The Oxfordian Society), and which makes more sense to me at this point.

>>17126424
that makes it even worse; so a cadre of 3 separate writers somehow got together; made up a man attested to in tax records and other historical errata; and somehow all managed to create a persona where they never deviated from the style over a 20-30 year period of writing?

it's so improbable I'm not sure why you even bothered.

here's another one for you; when Shakespeare and his troupe were honored before King James I; did someone bribe them to add a fictitious persona in this procession?

>>17126331
Sounds like a prestigious uni. My profs would laugh at me and tell me to fuck off if I came up with such a theme unironically. Because it's not even literature per se, it is more of a historical problem, you need historical sources and methods, as well as philological analysis of the texts, i.e. the rawest sort of work, that a dumb American is guaranteed not to be capable of.

>>17126392
Interseting that you mentionned non literary documents. I had a chapter specifically where I pointed out the lack of reciepts, family letters(the greatest literary figure ironically left no correspendance), manuscripts and I can't forget the great rant about that poorly-written will of course (in which he is concerned about his fucking bed and no mention of his "literary legacy"whatsoever). I didn't go too far to mention the theories who claimed he wasn't even literate viewing all documented legacy his contemporaries left at the time, a bit too much.

>>17126488
>Philology
Its Linguistics that does authorship attribution, retard.

>>17126332
>They probably don't and you're a dumb fuck who can't tell apart orthography from actual language.
Why are you acting like a jerk if you haven't even read the said Penguin Edition yourself?

>>17126442
Well the whole authorshop question who do you think is behind it? Personally I believe the royale court wanted to create a legend. A literary prophet who will outlive his times. The only way to do it was to gather up all Elizabethan genius playwrights at the time and take that secret with them to the grave.
>+400years later
It worked, we are here discussing it. I don't see why someone would be offended by this lol

>>17126504
>family letters(the greatest literary figure ironically left no correspendance)

because he had most of his fame posthumously; ben jonson was the star of his day. moreover, shakespeare's daughters lived and died without leaving behind direct descendants (I believe the children had passed away); it does not boggle belief that correspondence of a semi-obscure playwright would be lost

> (in which he is concerned about his fucking bed and no mention of his "literary legacy"whatsoever).

it was a custom of the time to leave behind the bed to their significant others; as for concern about literary legacy; the only thing Shakespeare ever published in his time was his poetry (in 1609, he died in 1616 or thereabouts) and two or so plays.

to me, it seems to me that Shakespeare was a (very real) professional playwright who only ventured to publish poetry and a few (two; love labour's lost and henry the V - I believe) plays quite gingerly.

>>17126593
>Personally I believe the royale court wanted to create a legend. A literary prophet who will outlive his times. The only way to do it was to gather up all Elizabethan genius playwrights at the time and take that secret with them to the grave.

They already had John Donne and Geoffrey Chaucer; seems a bit fantastic that Queen Elizabeth and King James would be worried about literary legacy in the midst of political intrigues.

I'm also not convinced they managed to get Ben Jonson (secret catholic) in on a royal plot by the protestant royalty.

>>17126622
Why you keep bringing Jonson back? I'm sure I mentionned Marlowe, de Vere and Bacon.

>>17126622
>seems a bit fantastic that they would be worried about literary legacy in the midst of political intrigues
You were quite impressive keeping up from the start, until you got caught slippin' about the queen right there. I'm even pretty sure the whole cover up was her idea.

>>17126527
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philology
>A related study method known as higher criticism studies the authorship, date, and provenance of text to place such text in historical context.

>>17126540
It is this one - https://www.amazon.com/Christopher-Marlowe-Complete-Plays/dp/0140436332
Now let's check the preview of the book:
https://read.amazon.com/litb/B002RI9LMQ?f=1&l=en_US&r=dfda5bcc&ref_=litb_m
Does that text look modernised to you, language-wise?
I'm acting like a jerk because I think that most posters here shouldn't be so uninformed as to think that Penguin publishes modernised texts, or that Amazon reviews are that reliable.

>>17126593
Yeah, the Shakespeare "project" was so ingenious that they published the works irregularly and shoddily during his life, barely compiled his complete works years after his death, and worst of all picked the least regarded form of literature at the time, also the worst for long-term transmission.
>the royale court wanted to create a legend. A literary prophet who will outlive his times. The only way to do it was to gather up all Elizabethan genius playwrights at the time and take that secret with them to the grave.
Believe it or not, but people in the past did not all act as if they fell out of a bad novel for women. Go write some fanfiction instead of pretending you care about historical facts.

>>17126750
Whose manlet is this?

>>17125711
This edition--cambridge, edited by Bowers--has the original spelling.

>>17126750
>I'm acting like a jerk because I think that most posters here shouldn't be so uninformed as to think that Penguin publishes modernised texts, or that Amazon reviews are that reliable.
It's a good thing I double checked isn't it? I am genuinely thankful for your input though. It's always good to hear from another source. And you seem passionate about it which is always a good indication in my book