莎士比亚: the authorship question

入得谷来,祸福自求。
Post Reply
atiti
Posts: 254
Joined: 2004-12-25 1:01

莎士比亚: the authorship question

Post by atiti » 2005-03-08 11:49

关于莎士比亚戏剧的作者是不是莎士比亚的争论我一直没太大兴趣,所以也许下面的这一段是人人都知道的,不过我是第一次看见,觉着怪好玩儿的,所以给拷过来。来源是Introduction to English 366:Studies in Shakespeare.老先生是教英文的,显然挚爱莎士比亚,关于authorship question,给了下面这一段其实真正的作者是培根的证据 “as a sample of the nature of the debate”:
Defenders of Francis Bacon make much of a long nonsense Latin word which appears in Love's Labour's Lost: honorificabilitudinitatibus. This, so the argument goes, is an anagram for the Latin expression: hi ludi F. Bacon nati tuiti orbi ("these plays, born from F. Bacon, are preserved for the world"). To this argument the Stratfordians reply with the title of the play written shortly after Love's Labour's Lost, in the original spelling, Much Adoe About Nothing which can be unpacked to read, "Bacon? O naught due to him."
有人觉着没受过什么高等教育的莎士比亚写出那些戏剧跟诗歌是不可能的,反过来有人觉着还不够:lol:
These sorts of arguments are on par with the famous "proof" that Shakespeare must have written the King James Version of the Bible. The evidence is as follows: in Psalm 46, the 46th word from the start is "shake" and the 46th word from the end is "spear." And the King James Version was published in the year Shakespeare was 46. Quod erat demonstrandum. The interesting question about such proofs, of course, is not that they establish anything about the authorship question but that anyone could spend time coming up with them.

Post Reply