William Shakespeare: The Biblical Bard?

Given that his works contain more biblical references than any of his Elizabethan contemporaries does this mean that Shakespeare was a “biblical bard”?

By: Ringo Bones

Legend has it that a decade after his death, the authors of the King James Bible had reached a consensus that Shakespeare could have single-handedly written an English language version of the Holy Bible twenty years before King James issued such edict.  And when they’ve found out that Shakespeare’s works contain more biblical references than any of his Elizabethan contemporaries, had they’ve pondered too, that Shakespeare could be a “biblical bard”?

It could be said that a certain philosophy of life is implicit in Shakespeare’s plays. It was, in the main, an unconscious philosophy. He has been called, indeed, the least moral of writers because he had no moral lesson to proclaim, no sense of what is called “poetic justice”. Cordelia dies in her father’s arms for no other reason than that she was the captive of a strong and ruthless man. Such – Shakespeare seems to have thought – was the way of the world; it was for him to declare that way as it was, not as he thought, perhaps, it should be. A man or a woman’s life on earth was a mystery to Shakespeare, and “the rest is silence.”

Taken as a whole – his works and what of his contemporaries have thought of him – Shakespeare had neither the faith of the Catholic in the doctrine of the Church nor the Puritan’s assurance of individual salvation. Yet his unconscious philosophy was firmly based on Christian ethics, on charity that endures all things, on the brotherhood of man that implies tolerance and readiness to pardon. The Deadly Sins of Catholic theology were no mere abstractions to Shakespeare, but active forces working for destruction, and against these it was man’s task to contend to the uttermost. Shakespeare was no fatalist to accept passive endurance of evil; again and again he urges that man’s powers and virtues were given to him not to waste in idleness, but to shine like torches giving light to others. And when the inevitable end comes, man should meet it calmly.

It is not a comfortable philosophy; Shakespeare is not one of those who sit at ease in Zion. Yet it is a wholesome and “manly” one. Shakespeare – the Elizabethan dramatist – has still a word to say in behalf of Christian Civilization.

Shakespeare’s Coriolanus: A Farewell To Tragedy?

Of all his tragic chronicle / biographical plays, is Shakespeare’s Coriolanus the bard’s “farewell” to the tragedy play format?

By: Ringo Bones 

Recent studies by scholars have shown that William Shakespeare’s “ruthlessness” as a businessman who profited from famine and hardship was largely influenced by his tragic chronicle / biographical play Coriolanus. After he finished most of his plays, Shakespeare returned to Warwickshire where he had a lot of land planted with corn and barley crops and hoarded the season’s harvests where he managed to manipulate and cornered the then existing grain market during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.  

The bard’s “complex character” was evident on his action as an “illegal food hoarder” 400 years ago who sold grain at inflated prices during famine was recently uncovered by researchers back in 2013. And it seems that this particular play very much influenced Shakespeare as a “shrewd” businessman. And sometimes I also wonder if Shakespeare had read Sun Tsu’s The Art of War.  

To most Stratfordian scholars, William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus are founded on Sir Thomas North’s English translation of Plutarch’s Lives, a fact of which may indicate that the wearied poet felt the need of a source he could follow closely without having to rack his brains in invention. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus – composed between 1608 and 1609 – is a more firmly built play of the most of his “biographical tragedies”. After the civic riots and pitched battles of the first act, recalling the technique of the chronicle plays, Shakespeare concentrates upon the character and fate of the protagonist. And this fate is, perhaps, more rigidly determined by character than elsewhere in Shakespeare. Coriolanus might be called Shakespeare’s farewell to tragedy; the tragic temper, the sympathetic hero and the poetic expression of the tragic theme seem fainter and less effective here than in the earlier and greater plays. 

Does William Shakespeare Have A Low Opinion of King Richard III?

With the recent archeological discovery of King Richard III’s skeletal remains in a Leicester car park, should we reevaluate Shakespeare’s impression of King Richard III? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Even though he was killed in battle back in 1485, the recent archeological discovery and confirmation of King Richard III’s skeletal remains that were found buried under a Leicester car park became one of the major news stories of February 4, 2013. This could well be the catalyst to reassess everyone’s Stratfordian view of the life and reign of King Richard III. And could it also revise Shakespeare’s view of the much maligned historical monarch? 

For over 400 years, the reputation of King Richard III – according to the great bard William Shakespeare – has been a subject of acrimonious debate by historians. As the king of England during the closing years of the Wars of the Roses, even the most neutral and non-Stratfordianly partisan historical research has not been able to solve the question of Richard III’s guilt or innocence of the murder of the princes – i.e. Edward V and Richard, sons of Edward IV – but has established that the character and other crimes of Richard III as shown in the play represent an exuberant dramatizing of Tudor distortions and fabrications. 

Contrary to Shakespeare, Richard III was not so much as a “hunch-backed toad” with a withered arm and crippled leg, but an attractive, though rather frail, prince who was the leading general of the kingdom and next to his brother Edward IV, was the most successful warrior in Europe. Rather than stepping himself in crime and plots during Edward IV’s reign he was, in fact, a loyal and indefatigable supporter of his brother’s government. 

The true historically accurate King Richard III could well be a stark contrast in comparison to the early chronicle play by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s Richard III is closer to the example of Marlowe in many respects, than any other of the great bard’s plays. It carries on the story of the Wars of the Roses from the point where Shakespeare had dropped it in the last act of 3 King Henry VI. 

On the recently found skeletal remains of King Richard III, it shows a rather malformed skeletal spine of a hunchbacked person – one of the aspects that Shakespeare didn’t dissemble about Richard III. Even though the nearly 600-year-old skeletal remains can only tell us so much using current analytical techniques, many of us will still be left asking – was the real life King Richard III way more fascinating than the great bard William Shakespeare portrayed him to be? 

Did William Shakespeare Use Marijuana?

Most of us today may doubt if the great English bard ever used it for legitimate medicinal purposes, but is there any proof that William Shakespeare ever used marijuana? 

By: Ringo Bones 

There had been some anecdotal evidence floating around since the 16^th Century that William Shakespeare already used marijuana on a recreational basis a number of years before his marriage to Anne Hathaway of Stratford back in November 28, 1582. Well there’s even “rumors” that the 420 / April 20 global fraternity of marijuana users chose 420 / April 20 as an “auspicious date” because William Shakespeare’s true date of birth was believed to be on April 20, 1564. But the question now is: Are there any proof that William Shakespeare used marijuana for recreational and/or creativity enhancing purposes? 

Used and disposed of marijuana smoking paraphernalia – that looks and are made of 16^th Century materials – were recently dug up (back in 2011) in the gardens of Shakespeare’s childhood home at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire and on the New Place – the house with a matching large garden which Shakespeare purchased and renovated back in 1597 in Stratford from the money he earned from his literary and live dramatic works. Even though whether or not the great English bard actually used these discarded glass-made marijuana smoking paraphernalia will probably never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, radiocarbon dating test results have shown that they date from Shakespeare’s time. And they contain significant amounts of delta-9 tetra hydro cannabinol residue confirming that they are actually used for marijuana smoking purposes; which might explain the somewhat quirky and gripping nature of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 

Was William Shakespeare A Fraud?

With the latest Hollywood movie questioning whether the great English bard William Shakespeare even wrote his greatest literary works, is it now high-time to separate the fact from the fiction of who really is William Shakespeare?

By: Ringo Bones

As the move Anonymous – directed by Roland Emmerich – hit the theaters back in September 2, 2011, tenured Shakespearean scholars and university professors are up in arms over the historical accuracy and authenticity of the latest Hollywood “polemic” of their Golden Goose, but is there a shred of truth that Shakespeare might not be the real author of his works?

Emmerich’s opus sure casts a worm of doubt over what all of us accept as the history’s official view of Shakespeare. According to the movie and indeed some few iconoclastic schools of thought is that the true author of William Shakespeare’s most beloved literary works was none other than Edward de Vere The Earl of Oxford and seen by history as the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I . And there was indeed a credible shred of historical evidence that Edward de Vere really wrote the literary works that most of us attribute to Shakespeare, and the Earl of Oxford was even aided and abetted by Dr. Samuel Johnson, the inventor of the modern definitive English dictionary.

A growing number of historians now start to believe that Edward de Vere, The Earl of Oxford, could indeed have been the true author of Shakespeare’s works because William Shakespeare did not possess the requisite life experience to write those works given that Shakespeare is – according to the Earl of Oxford’s believers - only a second-rate actor who could not have amassed enough wealth to travel in person to Italy to witness the turbulent romance of Romeo and Juliet and the dealings of the Merchant of Venice among other things.

According to Edward de Vere’s “fans”, the only probable reason why the Earl of Oxford had allowed William Shakespeare to become the “author” of his brilliant literary works is that during much of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Earl of oxford was actively involved in a plot to overthrow the queen and sees that the only possible way for his brilliant literary works to be published and enjoyed by folks across merry old England is by assigning all of it as the work of the stage actor named William Shakespeare. Unfortunately, tenured Shakespearean scholars and college professors seem to perceive the idea as mere “Hollywood Hokum”.

Did Modern English Started with William Shakespeare?

His works were credited as the starting point of the Modern English era, but does William Shakespeare truly deserve as the benchmark of the start of Modern English?


By: Vanessa Uy


It is now widely accepted that Beowulf is the definitive benchmark that defined the time period of the Old English era, while Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is a prime example of a Middle English work of literature. And Edmund Spenser’s the Faerie Queene is acknowledge by some scholars the last great work of the Middle English period. While William Shakespeare’s works – acknowledge by some as the beginning of the Modern English period – has it’s share of detractors professing to facts supporting that Shakespeare’s works can’t truly be defined as Modern English. But first, a brief definition on what constitutes Old, Middle, and Modern English.

Webster’s dictionary defines Old English as the language of the English people from the time of the earliest documents in the 7th Century to about 1100, or any form of English of any period before Modern English. While Middle English is defined as the English in manuscripts of the 12th to 15th Centuries – also often defined as the transition period between Old English and Modern English. While Modern English is defined as a form of English having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of the English language.

The controversy whether the literary works of William Shakespeare can truly be described as belonging to the Modern English era was put forth by scholars who based their evidence of the contrary via archival first drafts of Shakespeare’s works. Noting that Shakespeare more often than not lacked a consistent spelling of some oft used English words. Even citing that Shakespeare spelled these words according to his creative whim. Which will do him no favors for the literate scholars and scribes at the time trying to record his literary works for posterity.

Scholars who subscribe to this point of view – or school of thought – ascribe the true origin of Modern English to Dr. Samuel Johnson, the author of the first definitive English dictionary. Dr. Samuel Johnson might as well be as good a candidate for being credited for the invention of Modern English, because of his authorship of the first truly definitive English dictionary. Which means that from that point on there now exist benchmarks and ground-rules on how to properly spell English words in accordance to a well-defined set of rules. Rather than spelling them according to whomever bard-come-lately’s creative whim. Sadly, the “creative molestation” of the now formalized Modern English language didn’t end with William Shakespeare’s whimsical, idiosyncratic and sometimes deliberate misspellings.

Should Shakespeare’s Works Be Translated To Other Languages?

Given that many non-native English speakers around the world have learned the Queen’s English through the works of William Shakespeare, should his works be translated to other languages?


By: Vanessa Uy


To me at least, I think the literary works of William Shakespeare should be left in their original English language – make that Modern English version. Given that they are often used by everyone around the world since Britain ruled the high seas as a way to learn the Queen’s English before US President Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, which recently gained popularity as an English language learning aid. And yet it seems like Shakespeare has even gained global dominance once his literary works were translated into other languages, especially into those languages that are very different in comparison to Romance and / or Latin-based languages.

One of the noted contemporary translators of Shakespeare’s literary works into German is Frank Günther. According to Günther, one of the secrets of becoming one of the best critically acclaimed translators of Shakespeare’s literary works into the German language is by not resorting into anachronism – i.e. one should avoid using words and phrases that came way after the time of Shakespeare when translating his works. Phrases like “letting off steam” or it’s equivalent in other languages should not be used when translating the literary works of Shakespeare because the phrase only came into existence during the Victorian-era Industrial Revolution of Great Britain. Which is way after our English Bard’s regular stints at the Globe Theater back in Queen Elizabeth I ’s Golden Age.

Even though various “contemporized” versions of Shakespeare’s works recently became box-office blockbusters, even though they are not to my taste. Like that version of Romeo and Juliet that starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes – what will Hollywood think up next, a contemporary Othello based on Congolese Warlord Laurent N’Kunda? Most “hard-core Shakespeareans” always have reservations on this concept even though they are a very good moneymaker and had helped spread the popularity of William Shakespeare’s literary works around the world. Given the upside of an “Anachronistic Shakespeare”, should we nonetheless embrace every effort to make that great English bard William Shakespeare and his works not only popular, but remain relevant in the 21st Century?

Did the Inquisition Hate William Shakespeare?

Given that his creative vision and philosophy could at times be at odds with the dogma endorsed by the Inquisition, did this Pan-European religious bureaucracy ever hated William Shakespeare?


By: Vanessa Uy


Current findings by notable Shakespearean scholars show that he could only have wrote some of his plays – especially Romeo and Juliet – if he had seen Venice first hand. But given that William Shakespeare had free access to these notable Italian cities, does this mean that our conjecture that the Inquisition and even the Holy Catholic Church is on to him and hates his works is dead in the water?

Though documents proving the disdain of both the Inquisition and the Holy Catholic Church on William Shakespeare and all that he stands for is about as common as hen’s teeth. There is still plenty – from our own post-September 11 early 21st Century perspective – of reasons on why The Vatican and the Inquisition has plenty to worry about this Renaissance era English bard. Barring the fact that both The Vatican and the Inquisitions have other greater concerns to tackle that pose a clear and present danger to their grip on power over much of Europe. Like that sodomite painter Michaelangelo Caravaggio, the Italian polymath Galileo flirting with the Copernican view of the universe, and even Queen Elizabeth I not wanting a return to Papist loyalty. Which does deserve the use of their secret Vatican / Papal Police apparatus.

The premise behind Romeo and Juliet and the story’s salient theme of “Romantic Love” could have easily tripped alarm bells and red flags of Europe’s most powerful arbiter of morality at the time – namely the Holy Catholic Church. Especially when viewed through the eyes of prevailing societal morays of the supposedly enlightened ways of Renaissance-era Italy. But still, no documents exist on whether The Vatican and the Inquisition ever scrutinized the works of William Shakespeare that made him a candidate to be burned alive at the steak like Giordano Bruno.

But if history were used as a guide, maybe our creative world-weary English bard simply got lucky. Maybe William Shakespeare was lucky enough to fall under the protection of Queen Elizabeth I ’s “Golden Age” which got him insulated against the reach of both the Inquisition and The Vatican. That’s why we in the 21st Century still love Shakespeare for the characters that he created and their philosophy that is deemed way too radical for Renaissance era Catholic Church. That’s why William Shakespeare and his works never seem to become out of date. Even in the fictitious 23rd Century world of Star Trek, the brilliant works of Shakespeare still provide recreation to Captain Jean-Luc Piccard on the Starship Enterprise.