did Shakespeare really exist ?

[mmmjess]

undefined

theres something phoney about shakespeare

did this guy ever really exist ? or is he like Robin Hood a creation o f history.

all those poems all those plays and yet

what have we actulally got in manuscript ?

absolutely nothing

the only physical writing we have of shakespeare is his signiture on a will

that is all .

shakespeare the name .... the shaker of the spear

in greek myth athena was the shaker of the spear she was also the patron of literature

so even the name shakespeare looks like a bit of a historical creation.

maybe the plays are just a mass of historical work from the elixabethan age written b y many different authors ..... collected together and presented under the pseudenem william shakespeare.... maybe there was some genius who collected all this work and unified it into a whole.

a bit like Malory who served long years in prison and spent his time writing Morte dArthur which is obviously derived from numerous sources but his wonderful writing give s it a unity and a power

[mono]

Others have suspected the same, that Shakespeare's works could only prove as a collection of many authors, including Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Francis Bacon, John Donne, and Edward de Vere (who, ironically, had the nickname "spear-shaker"). I have little doubt whether William Shakespeare actually existed, but I often also wonder if he wrote all of the poetry and plays himself.
I try not to worry and toil over the subject too much. The works exist and deserve the admiration they receive, and if there subsists some conspiracy, perhaps it seems meant to remain hidden. Good luck!

[Helga]

in churchbooks you can find his name. I have no doubts about the fact that he was real but many people think he didn't write all these plays, but I want to believe he did all of them.

[Scheherazade]

I do believe that Shakespeare lived and wrote all the works for which he is given credit for... But I also believe that he did not hesitate or mind 'borrowing' ideas and inspiration from others' works... He was a good story teller and had a way with words even if he did not have the imagination to come up with everything on his own.

[simon]

He's real, as in he existed according to the average terms of a person physical existence in the material world. As for producing great plays, he may have done that, did he do it by himself, invent all those new innovative words? He could have nad like otheres ahve already expressed writing and reading not being as widespread it is easier to "borrow" ideas from others creative minds. But then what author or creator isn't borrowing from what surrounds htem, that's what creating something new is, out of what you have something incredible is born. Does it really matter if he existed or not or wrote all those works with the sole voice of his imagination?

[atiguhya padma]

I was reading an article only this weekend on the plays of Shakespeare, in which it was claimed that few serious scholars nowadays question that WS was really the man from Stratford who made his name in the London playhouses. In fact, it was claimed inthis article, that nobody had questioned WS's identity during his lifetime, with many claiming to have known him, people as acclaimed as Ben Jonson for instance. If WS wasn't who history claims he was, then, this author asserts, it would be the greatest conspiracy of all time.

[Stanislaw]

I do believe that Shakespeare lived and wrote all the works for which he is given credit for... But I also believe that he did not hesitate or mind 'borrowing' ideas and inspiration from others' works... He was a good story teller and had a way with words even if he did not have the imagination to come up with everything on his own.

indeed ther are similarities that are amzing between some of his works and earlier playwrites.

[Scheherazade]

Yes but those similarities don't make him any less worthy of praise in my humble eyes...

[Stanislaw]

I suppose, he was pretty cool, but he did plagerise.

[Scheherazade]

ideas yes but i doubt if he copied word by word. One of the things which makes him great is his ability to tell a story and he had a way with words; which is why probably the plays werent so popular when they were written by others.

[Stanislaw]

Oh I admit that he was a master craftsmen of the english language however, I am merely stating that the stories or concepts were not original, just translated and modified by shakespeare.

[Scheherazade]

I think we would have been an interesting character to know. :)

[Bongitybongbong]

most likely the only thing he did write was the poem on his grave

[Scheherazade]

Well since he was dead, he cant have written that poem :p

[Stanislaw]

unless he was a zombie! :banana:

[Scheherazade]

OK, now are we discussing whether Shakespeare was a zombie? :rolleyes:

[Jester]

oh probably..... but i remember doing a statistical case study about one peice of work they were trying to find out if it was shakespeare's i dont remember the result but it could be resaoned that since each author has a unique style we can assume that using some math we could find out if the works were written by one guy or many... but on another note the pices could have been rewritten by one guy from other works of art.

[Stanislaw]

OK, now are we discussing whether Shakespeare was a zombie? :rolleyes:

well its psooible isnt it??

just kidding.

anyways, jesters last comment makes sense, one guy just rewriting/scribing the collected works of many persons.

[BSturdy]

There was a theory that it was Ben Jonson (the zombie)

[Scheherazade]

I remember reading something about that too. I.e., Shakespeare was actually Ben Johnson. Maybe an alterego? Or he suffered from MPD?

[BSturdy]

I get a big bang out of Shakespeare but I don't really enjoy reading him/her/them/??? as much as hearing/watching a performance - however actors are such lovies (swanky), or is Catcher getting to me?

Sorry I can't remember much more about it - but I wasn't totally convinced. I think there was some stuff (guff) about a computer analysing the occurence of words in their works. I think that the problem with these things is that people are often too keen to prove their hypothesis (scrawny faggy b*rstards)

[Stanislaw]

Well people will look for evidence that supports their theory and allows them to gain face... no one intentionally goes out looking to make a fool of themselves.

[BSturdy]

Agreed, pole, take me with a large pinch of salt today (aaah)

[Scheherazade]

I get a big bang out of Shakespeare but I don't really enjoy reading him/her/them/??? as much as hearing/watching a performance - however actors are such lovies (swanky), or is Catcher getting to me?



I love reading Shakespeare but I have to admit that I have not been lucky enough to watch a real performance (only once actually, and in another language as well). I enjoyed watching most of the movies I watched but I do know that I understand and appreciate them better if I read :rolleyes:

[Scheherazade]

Well people will look for evidence that supports their theory and allows them to gain face... no one intentionally goes out looking to make a fool of themselves.

You are right, Stan. Many researchers cannot help being biased when it comes to their own research and theory. Human nature?


BSturdy,
only today we are supposed to be taking you with a large pinch of salt? :p

[Stanislaw]

Personally I prefeer the salt lick beside my computer. ;)

[Scheherazade]

Frankly, I would prefer other things with a pinch of salt instead of BSturdy;such as Tequila :D

[Stanislaw]

salt with tequila?

[Scheherazade]

salt with tequila?

Mai oui! Salt and lime! :cool:

[Stanislaw]

does it tast good?

[Scheherazade]

You have to find it for yourself! :D

[Stanislaw]

ye not be tricken me to drink some kind of poison now??;)

[Scheherazade]

a pirate like yourself wouldnt be tricked so easily, would he? ;)

[Stanislaw]

Suppose not considering I am a wise pirate! ;)

[Scheherazade]

Know thyself, eh? :p

[Stanislaw]

ofcourse, tis an important rule. :D

[Scheherazade]

I wish everyone realised that :)

[Stanislaw]

But unfortunatly, a great many people, don't even know their name... ;)

[Scheherazade]

*wonders and ponders*
*wanders*

[Stanislaw]

wndering the aimless void of the literature forum searching for truth.
^
l
l
Was deliberate, could be either ;)

[Scheherazade]

Oh, a pirate into puns...
*takes a moment*

[Stanislaw]

Arrr be it because my avatar be a puny pirate?

[Scheherazade]

haha! That made me really laugh now! :)

I love the new avatar by the way!

[Stanislaw]

Thanks! ;)

[Scheherazade]

you are welcome, cap'n. :)

[Stanislaw]

arrr Be salin the seven s... er... galaxies?

:D

[Wiseguy666]

William Shakespeare did exsist and yes he only had his own signature on his will...spelt differently everytime...but its there....however proof shows that he had no education....was never registered at the local schools...could not speak any other lauguages..no royal blood...son of a glove maker...married some slut he knocked up.....made no mention of his sonneets or plays or poems in his will...and finally....only acted.

now there is the very similar wrightings of edward de vere 17th Earl of oxford who was aliive at the right time wrote simmilar poems until he was 32 was well known for them and suddenly stopped (what type of crazy person does that) then suddenly some glove makers son starts having "his" poems published..... although Edward de vere died just before some of the plays were published a sonnet or poem did say something about holding onto things untill after death so your name shall be remembered through all time. Edward also spoke many languages had friends who could translate the greek stuff for julius caesar and he had royal blood in him he knew what was going on in the palace. so i leave it to you yes shakespeare existed but did he do much in his life, you decide

[Midas]

To me, the brilliance of Shakespeare is in his philosophy, and understanding of human behaviour. There is depth of understanding, and his sonnet in which he desribes the true meaning of love is the most diminutive with which I have yet been acquainted. It ecapsulates every facet of this often misused, and maligned, word.

But this philosophy runs all through his works.

Every writer, and composer, and artist, has to be influenced to some extent by others. Our brains are receivers, as well as transmitters. Tales and myths have been handed down through the centuries ever since man developed communication.

There is a continuity, a rythm, and a unity that flows through all Shakespeares writings that tells you these are no collection of assorted authors. Also, we know from records the man lived, and also not all that long ago. We have many writings and records from that period. Had he been a fraudster, a plagierist, he might have got away with one - but not so many without contemporary exposure.

They also say that there are only a handful of plots from which every story is derived. The plot, therefore is not so important. It is the final presentation that makes it what it is - junk, or a masterpiece.

I have seen someone make a pigs meal from the best fillet steak, and another
a culinary delight from hamburger meat.

[el01ks]

It's probably true that he didn't come up with the plots for any of the plays though, they are all based on different sources. If that's plagiarism, then there are an awful lot of plagiarists on the loose now - there has been so much written that it must be impossible to come up with an original plot.

As for him being just an actor - how better to learn to understand what people like to see on stage? It seems the perfect beginning for a playwright.

[bardophile]

The first guy that claimed Shakespeare was written by 17th Earl of Oxford was named Looney. 'Nuff said.

[NDL]

Have any of you you guys actually researched in depth the theatre history of Shakespeare's time, or is all this just speculation? It would be a good place to start. There has been plenty of linguistic analysis to show the plays known as Shakespeare's were written by one person, and that that person was not Kit Marlowe. Contemporary evidence shows he was an important figure in the theatre, and there is also a good deal of anecdotal evidence. In any case, does it really matter? Personally, I don't give a monkey's if the whole lot was written by Muffin the Mule. It's great stuff!!!!!

[Redzeppelin]

The first guy that claimed Shakespeare was written by 17th Earl of Oxford was named Looney. 'Nuff said.

Not quite. I just finished a book entitled Shakespeare By Another Name by Mark Anderson, and it has all but convinced this "Stratfordian" that Edward de Vere may very well be Shakespeare. It pains me to say this, but Anderson's book was relentless in its detail and convincing in argument. Check it out.

[wilbur lim]

Inevitably William Shakespeare exist!
If he had not exist,why would there be a portrait of him??? Another definition is that the plays which it is written is originally from Shakespeare.

[AWritersWriter]

I highly doubt this issue will be suddenly resolved on a forum board if it hasn't before by historians etc

I always assumed he didn't write his own Plays. Even if you can prove they were written by one person that can be retorted as simply as: The same group of people were always present as they wrote the plays. Writers can mimic each others style. That's nothing new. What about collaborative work? Can we always tell where one writer begins and the other ends?

For a person with no education to have written what the finished product is now is extremely debatable. How many peasants have written masterpieces? I do believe that a man by that name existed what I doubt is the fact he has written what's attributed to him.

In the end nothing will ever be proven. Especially if it hasn't already. All we can do is enjoy the works and relish in their magnificence.

[mike thomas]

in churchbooks you can find his name. I have no doubts about the fact that he was real but many people think he didn't write all these plays, but I want to believe he did all of them.


In those times it was easy for someone powerfull to have anything they wanted entered into a church register. Don't forget, they used torture.

The Bishop of Worcester got a really great job at Westminister cathedral one year after so-called shakespeare was allowed to be 'married'. (the laws concerning the bans were bent somewhat, anhd a bond of £40 had to be paid to cover the Bishops arse,m as he was in the firing line) Not only that, but there are two ceremonies in two days, William Shakespeare to someone called Annam Whateley:

Anno Domini 1582...Novembris...27 die eiusdem mensis. Item eodem die supradicto emanavit Licentia inter Wm Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton.

The next day, the episcopal register records a marriage bond granted to one Wm Shakespeare and another woman. Anne Hathwey:

Noverint universi per praesentes nos Fulconem Sandells de Stratford in comitatu Warwici agricolam et Johannem Rychardson ibidem agricolam, teneri et firmiter obligari Ricardo Cosin generoso et Roberto Warmstry notario publico in quadraginta libris bonae et legalis monetae Angliae solvend. eisdem Ricardoet Roberto haered. execut. et assignat. suis ad quam quidem solucionem bene et fideliter faciend. obligamus nos et utrumque nostrum per se pro toto et in solid. haered. executor. et administrator. nostros firmiter per praesentes sigillis nostris sigillat. Dat. 28 die Novem. Anno regni dominae nostrae Eliz. Dei gratia Angliae Franc. et Hiberniae Reginae fidei defensor &c.25.2 The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter there shall not appear any lawful let or impediment by reason of any precontract, consanguinity, affinity or by any other lawful means whatsoever, but that William Shagspere on the one party and Anne Hathwey of Stratford in the diocese of Worcester, maiden, may lawfully solemnize matrimony together, and in the same afterwards remain and continue like man and wife according unto the laws in that behalf provided...

Notice There is no record of a William Shakespeare (however its spelled) actually marrying Anne Hathaway.

There's lots of iffy stuff surroundind the name Shakespeare.

Think of this: William Shakespeare is believed to have married Anne Hathaway, but the register says Annam Whateley. The bond is paid for a marriage (of which there is no record) between William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway.

Anne Hathaway dies before WS, and a neat brass plate on her 'grave' states

"Heere lyeth interred the body of Anne wife of William Shakespeare"

But here maiden name has gone. So is it Anne Hathaway or Anne Whately?

Why just Anne?

And When Shakespeare 'dies' we cannot find any name at all on that gravestone.

The thing gets weider and weirder as investigations proceed.


Of course the names are fabrications.

regards

[mike thomas]

Inevitably William Shakespeare exist!
If he had not exist,why would there be a portrait of him??? Another definition is that the plays which it is written is originally from Shakespeare.

It is said that a 15 year-old apprentice engraver called Martin Droeshout did the famous portrait. The name MARTIN DROESHOUT is written in tiny letters under the portrait proper. It makes an annagram:

https://sites.google.com/site/mrwhdeciphered/

you decide

[mike thomas]

I highly doubt this issue will be suddenly resolved on a forum board if it hasn't before by historians etc

I always assumed he didn't write his own Plays. Even if you can prove they were written by one person that can be retorted as simply as: The same group of people were always present as they wrote the plays. Writers can mimic each others style. That's nothing new. What about collaborative work? Can we always tell where one writer begins and the other ends?

For a person with no education to have written what the finished product is now is extremely debatable. How many peasants have written masterpieces? I do believe that a man by that name existed what I doubt is the fact he has written what's attributed to him.

In the end nothing will ever be proven. Especially if it hasn't already. All we can do is enjoy the works and relish in their magnificence.


"In the end nothing will ever be proven. Especially if it hasn't already" ?

Can you prove your statement to be true? What proof do you need?

The first time ever that anyone dared challenge the 'Shakespearian' authorship was over 150 years ago, by a Baconian. Someone who suspected the hand of Sir Francis Bacon as being involved. Since then, (much, much later) others have got aboard the bandwagon, a few other candidates have been put forward, the most popular currently being Edward de Vere, also called Oxford.

I ask this simple question: if the Baconian theory had never been expounded, would any other challenge have been made?

Moreover, what was it that first caused the Baconian theory to come into being?

I personally am of the belief that the basic stuff came originally from Robert Dudley and Elizabeth Tudor, in the form of letters between lovers. Over many years, the pair played games with words and riddles, often involving the services of John Dee and Francis Bacon's father, Sir Nicholas Bacon, the lord keeper of the great seal. The word games got very involved, and were expanded to include various othyers, and eventually they were woven into plays and poems by various wordsmiths. Some characters were from the courts of other nations, thus we find very detailed knowledge. The whole thing was paid for by Dudley.

Later, Francis and his brother Anthony, aided by poets Marlowe Johnson and Davies, set about engineering the manuscripts, fake marriages and fake characters such as Shakespeare, towards the publication of two books: Shakespeares Sonnets and Mr. Willaim Shakespeares Comedies Histories and Tragedies. The next best thing to immortality is a well-read book.

regards.



Tragedies & Comedies are made of one Alphabet
(Bacon)

[Emil Miller]

As you are probably aware, the authenticity of Shakespeare's works periodically come up for discussion on this forum and makes for interesting reading. However, you must also be aware that in doubting the existence of Shakespeare, you are inviting the opprobrium of those who believe in the man and his works as a Moslem believes in Mohammed.

[mike thomas]

As you are probably aware, the authenticity of Shakespeare's works periodically come up for discussion on this forum and makes for interesting reading. However, you must also be aware that in doubting the existence of Shakespeare, you are inviting the opprobrium of those who believe in the man and his works as a Moslem believes in Mohammed.

Is that some kind of threat or what?

[Emil Miller]

Is that some kind of threat or what?

Not at all, I only intended to show that there are those whose mind is closed on the issue; as I found out when I dared to suggest that there was a possibility that Shakespeare might not have been the author of the plays.

[Lokasenna]

It is said that a 15 year-old apprentice engraver called Martin Droeshout did the famous portrait. The name MARTIN DROESHOUT is written in tiny letters under the portrait proper. It makes an annagram:

https://sites.google.com/site/mrwhdeciphered/

you decide

Most conspiracy theories make me smile, but that web link really cracked me up. Even by the usual standards of the tin-foil hat brigade, that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel.:smilielol5:

[Silas Thorne]

https://sites.google.com/site/mrwhdeciphered/

you decide

Oh dear! :) This is really very silly.

[Emil Miller]

As you are probably aware, the authenticity of Shakespeare's works periodically come up for discussion on this forum and makes for interesting reading. However, you must also be aware that in doubting the existence of Shakespeare, you are inviting the opprobrium of those who believe in the man and his works as a Moslem believes in Mohammed.


See what I mean? Prepare yourself for more of the same.

[Silas Thorne]

Hi Brian Bean:
I don't think there's any problem, in itself, in questioning the existence of Shakespeare based on some evidence, and I'm not a Shakespearean scholar, but I do think the claims on that website are rather silly and based on rather tenous grounds. I'm wondering if you looked at that website yourself.

[Emil Miller]

Yes I did look at the site and don't attach any credence to it, but mike thomas (sic) doesn't yea or nay it one way or the other. Also, I don't buy into the fact that the inscription 'Anne wife of William Shakespeare' is relevant because, presumably, she would have taken her husband's name and it wasn't necessary emphasise it by using 'Shakespeare' twice.
As I have mentioned before on the forum, I think that Shakespeare did write the works ascribed to him but there is obviously a question mark hanging over their authenticity and to refuse to acknowledge it is the sign of a closed mind.

[muhsin]

Of course he did.

[mike thomas]

Yes I did look at the site and don't attach any credence to it, but mike thomas (sic) doesn't yea or nay it one way or the other. Also, I don't buy into the fact that the inscription 'Anne wife of William Shakespeare' is relevant because, presumably, she would have taken her husband's name and it wasn't necessary emphasise it by using 'Shakespeare' twice.
As I have mentioned before on the forum, I think that Shakespeare did write the works ascribed to him but there is obviously a question mark hanging over their authenticity and to refuse to acknowledge it is the sign of a closed mind.

It's not the lack of the name Shakespeare, but her maiden name. Only once is Hathwey mentioned, and that is in connection with a legal bond. There is no document to say she married anyone. There is documentation which indicates another woman named as the wife to be.

Names mixed up from the start, and one not even written on a gravestone, then we read Juliet going on about names (in fact the whole play is really about names), surely this hints at something a bit fishy.

I notice no argument as to Droeshout meaning "devil wood" in Dutch.


Most conspiracy theories make me smile, but that web link really cracked me up. Even by the usual standards of the tin-foil hat brigade, that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel.:smilielol5:


"since the little wit that fools have was silenced, the little foolery that wise men have makes a great show."

[Lokasenna]

I notice no argument as to Droeshout meaning "devil wood" in Dutch.


My parents' accountant is called Philip Devilwood. It's not exactly a common surname, but it is knocking about. In fact, the name Devilwood (or presumably its Dutch equivalent) is only thing that isn't certifiably insane about the webpage.

[mike thomas]

Hi Brian Bean:
I don't think there's any problem, in itself, in questioning the existence of Shakespeare based on some evidence, and I'm not a Shakespearean scholar, but I do think the claims on that website are rather silly and based on rather tenous grounds. I'm wondering if you looked at that website yourself.


Silly maybe, but tenuous grounds? why tenuous? As for evidence, if you had really understood what it is that your eyes are seeing, the evidence is quite apparent, in my opinion at least. Show another such example anywhere in English literature of such a grotesque image purporting to be the author. There is no other example. Can anyone explain why it is that the big collar shown in the famous image was used by captains in the army, so how come a playwright called "gentle Shakespeare" is shown in the attire of a warrior.

Silly? I'll tell you what is silly: scholars trying to bend the Sonnets to their way of thinking. Take that word in line 14, sonnet 69: SOLYE, how they have tried to make it into something which they can understand. Solve, soil, no can do, so it must be yet another 'error'.

Maybe it means the 3rd and 4th letters L and Y are transposed, thus we read SOYLE. (The sum of the numerical values of L and Y is 34). The two letters sound like LIE, which is exectly what the so-called execution of Essex was, one big lie.

The sonnets 68 and 69 give the answer: (Yes, they are written in pairs)

The numerical value of the name ESSEX is 68, Robert was his name, Herb Robert, or Death-come-quickly, or Stinking Robert are three old names of the same plant.

Sonnet 68 line 7 : To liue a second life on second head,
Line 12 begins Robbing

Sonnet 69 informs:

To thy faire flower ad the rancke smell of weeds,
But why thy odor matcheth not thy show,
The solye is this, that thou doest common grow.


Herb Robert: a common weed which smells a bit.

Silly maybe, but why not argue the case if you have the intellect?

[mike thomas]

My parents' accountant is called Philip Devilwood. It's not exactly a common surname, but it is knocking about. In fact, the name Devilwood (or presumably its Dutch equivalent) is only thing that isn't certifiably insane about the webpage.


Your parents' accountant so-called portrait is not engraved on the opening page of shakespeares 'first folio', where, as I have demonstrated, between two inverted Greek crosses is the image of a beast - a goat.

I explained that the letter T was 19th in the old alphabet, and those two letters are the 19th counted left and right, over the head of the 'portrait'. How random is that?

Your parents' accountant is Philip, not Martin, therefore you have not really understood the point: MARTIN: RAM IN T, get it? a ram, and T?

This, together with the name devil wood, I think is not repeatable anywhere else. If you have any knowledge of literature of that period, you might consider a play in which a devil in a wood in the form of a ram is portrayed.

As for being certifiably insane, it is written clearly in the Sonnets to look in a glass, and another face appeares. A face which can 'unbless some mother" explain if you can.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it sea.

[Lokasenna]

According to Wikipedia, there were in fact two engravers in London at the time named Martin Droeshout (a father and son, as it happens). Although we don't know which of the two did this engraving, they are both established historical figures, and we have other works surving by them.

As for the 'hidden' drawing of the ram, I really don't think it's there. Ben Jonson, in his introductory poem to the First Folio, says that the portrait is a very good likeness of Shakespeare - any percieved hidden image is likely just a coincidence. Whenever you take a small sample of an image and refelct it on itself, you're going to have odd things appear.

As for 'T' being the 19th letter of the alphabet at that time, that is simply nonsense. I assume you're thinking of the time before the letters 'j' and 'u' were introduced, but after the archaic letters (eths, thorns, ashes etc.) had been dropped. Well, 'j' and 'u' were introduced into the alphabet around the middle of the 16th century, almost 100 years before the publication of the First Folio. By the time that engraving was made, 't' was most definitely not the 19th letter of the English alphabet. By the early 17th century, the alphabet was exactly what we have now.

[mike thomas]

According to Wikipedia, there were in fact two engravers in London at the time named Martin Droeshout (a father and son, as it happens). Although we don't know which of the two did this engraving, they are both established historical figures, and we have other works surving by them.

As for the 'hidden' drawing of the ram, I really don't think it's there. Ben Jonson, in his introductory poem to the First Folio, says that the portrait is a very good likeness of Shakespeare - any percieved hidden image is likely just a coincidence. Whenever you take a small sample of an image and refelct it on itself, you're going to have odd things appear.

As for 'T' being the 19th letter of the alphabet at that time, that is simply nonsense. I assume you're thinking of the time before the letters 'j' and 'u' were introduced, but after the archaic letters (eths, thorns, ashes etc.) had been dropped. Well, 'j' and 'u' were introduced into the alphabet around the middle of the 16th century, almost 100 years before the publication of the First Folio. By the time that engraving was made, 't' was most definitely not the 19th letter of the English alphabet. By the early 17th century, the alphabet was exactly what we have now.


You say "they are both established historical figures", and that "we have
other works surving by them" but that's not the case. Yes, two Droeshouts: an uncle and (it is said) a nephew. Many scholars agree it must have been the younger, a fifteen year old, and not the uncle who carried out the work,
because it seems to be of such a poor quality. It is believed that the
younger's father was an engraver like the uncle, so that makes three Droeshout' engravers. But as nothing is known of the younger, other than the name and the suspicion (because of the poor quality of the work) that he was the engraver, there is not a jot of evidence to show that such a person ever lived. The portrait is in truth the labour of a highly skilled artist. Get a magnification of any part you like: the detail is astonishing. No young
apprentice ever laid a hand on the thing, it took a master.

The Folio image is not the result of an engraved wood block, rather it is the
result of a copper engraving. The facing text "To the reader" gives the game
away in the line "As well in brass" where the name brass meant not just the
alloy we now call brass, but also pure copper. The so-called 'signature' in the bottom left corner of the work is a skillful bit of engraving, which a reasonable magnifying glass will verify.

You don't see any hidden ram in the portrait, that's fair enough. Then you say that the fact of the letter count of 19 coinciding with the same letter value is "simply nonesense" then you go on to state when the J and U were inserted into the alphabet, and by doing so (if your facts were correct) cancel the letter count of 19, because T would then be 20th in the "modern" abc. Previous to that, you mention Ben Jonson's words as to likeness, but I notice you use J in his name rather than I, which is how it is printed at the foot of his dedication, Ben: Ionson, is what is printed there, not Ben: Jonson. If, as you claim, the letters J and U were already added to the alphabet, then how come all the printers involved didn't use the new J and U? Why do we see IVLIETand not JULIET in the First Folio title? And what about IVLIVS CAESAR?

You cite Ionson, and I must assume you are referring to his text which has the title "To the memory of my beloued, The AVTHOR, MR. VVILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: AND what he hath left vs." A dedicatory text which is written as if there was neither J nor U as yet in the alphabet. It is a fact that Jonson (modernized) mentions alphabets in his own works, moreover, as letters were his building bricks, I would imagine that he would be quite happy to use the more modern abc.

You say the two letters j and u "were introduced into the alphabet around the middle of the 16th century, almost 100 years before the publication of the First Folio. "Perhaps you might mention where you found this useful
information. As far as I am aware, the criss-cross row alphabet, and therefore school abc primers, called horn-books, lacked those two letters until at least after 1623. I mention these names because they are used in 'Shakespeare',

When I read the great texts, I cannot help feeling there's an underlying
strata of hints and faint clues, all of which seem to cry out, dig deeper.
As an example, consider the dedicatory text mentioned above signed by Ben
Ionson:-

Line 1 mentions the name Shakespeare, enclosing it in brackets.

"To draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name"

This line has a total of 8 words.

The whole dedicatory text has altogether a total of 80 lines.

Divide 80 by the 8 from line 1, and we have 10.

Line 10, first two words are : "The truth"

Line 8 says: "Which, when it sounds at best, but echo's right".

Line 2 mentions "thy Booke", and this echoes the first text of the Folio, where the last line also mentions "his Booke". What book does this mean? There was only one book which had the name Shakespeare on the front, and that's the Sonnets.

We are told famously in line 31 that Shakespeare had "small Latine" and lesse
Greeke" If we put sounds (line 8) with small Latin, we derive sone which is a small part of Latin for sound: sonere.

Now add the Greek word stenos, meaning narrow, which in English, can mean
sound (the kind of sea-water sound between two land masses *), We have
therefore obtained sone and stennos. But we need only part of this Greek word, but before we cut it up, we reverse it to reveal SONETS.

Now cut off SO, making it less Greek: NETS and add to the small Latin SON, and we have a SON and some NETS (it's all in the New Testament, boats, fishermen 153 fishes, etc. but except to point out that there are in fact 153 sonnets, and not 154, I won't bother)

Having got the word Sonnets, and having realized the number 80, we read some of the sonnet which bears that number: Sonnet 80

O how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth vse your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me toung-tide speaking of your fame.

I think this is exactly what Jonson was doing in his dedicatory wasn't he?

We note Jonson's "echo's right" because where we are heading has it's very own echo: The back of the Sonnets is 'A Lover's complaint', which tells us in the first line:

From off a hill whose concave womb reworded
A plainfull story from a sistring vale
My spirits t'attend this double voice accorded

Plainly an echo is implied.

And finally, it was line 8 which got us here, sound-wise, we might
remember that in the alphabet the letter H is the 8th, and H is the initial
letter of a famous monarch who, it is believed, wrote a sad song about a woman in sleeves coloured green: here's a few lines from Sonnet 8 (H)

Musick to heare, why hear’st thou musick sadly,
Sweets with sweets warre not, ioy delights in ioy:
Why lou’st thou that which thou receaust not gladly,
Or else receau’st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well tuned sounds,

(No J's or V's do I note.)


* Note, the rest of sonnet 80 has a definite seamanship air:

But since your worth (wide as the Ocean is)
The humble as the proudest saile doth beare,
My sawsie barke (inferior farre to his)
On your broad maine doth wilfully appeare.
Your shallowest helpe will hold me vp a floate,
Whilst he vpon your soundlesse deepe doth ride, **
Or (being wrackt) I am a worthlesse bote,
He of tall building, and of goodly pride. ***
Then if he thriue and I be cast away,
The worst was this, my loue was my decay.


** soundlesse deepe: ref Ben's sounds and echos etc.
*** He of tall building: Ben was a bricklayer (so it is written)


A parting thought:

The cutting off of the letters SO from SONETS leaves us with a question: what about the two letters SO?

Sonnet 52 begins with the word SO, and the first two lines tell us:

So am I as the rich whose blessed key,
Can bring him to his sweet vp-locked treasure,

It mentions a key. It is the only key in the sonnets. Where is it? It is not just a key, its a "blessed key", therefore, unless we are into the land of the Pharoh, it implies Christianity.

The word RICH ios an anagram of CHI R. The letters CHI spell the Greek name of the letter X. The letter R is Latin. It's equivilent in Greek is called 'rho'.

Therefore, RICH is chi rho, or, in letters XP, a blessed key, one of which is
held by St. Peter.

Another question might be: what is "his sweet vp-locked treasure" and the
answer is avilable to anyone who looks.

[hanzklein]

This is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response.

[hipsterly]

This is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response.

Basically.
Of course Shakespeare existed. Whether the works credited to him are actually his can be argued, sure. His existence, however, can't. Think about the historical figures who knew him personally.

And that conspiracy theory with the ram was probably made up by somebody with way, way too much time on their hands.

[KCV16]

There was a William Shakespeare (in whatever spelling was preferred by himself or others) born in Stratford and died there, there was a William Shakespeare in the London theater world. There was a William Shakespeare on printed poems, sonnets and plays.

In order to seperate the name that his contemporates attached to the plays/sonnets/poems most of those championing another writer (usually a courtier hiding) they need to come up with elaborate cover-ups and conspiracies, when you have turned to that you see a conspiracy in everything attached to the name Shakespeare.

The different ways of writing his name is proof that....
Overlooking that the earl of Oxford wrote his name (De Vere) in different ways as well, not mentioning that he refered to himself as Oxenford.

His knowledge of foreign countries is proof that...
Overlooking his obvious mistakes, Milan has a port?? Waiting for the tide in the Mediterranean??

He knows too much of the law....
Overlooking that his contemporates wrote about the law as well ... I remember reading somewhere that Shakespeare used twice as many legal terms as Marlowe, yet we have 37 of Shakespeare and only 6 plays of Marlowe....

Whoever was supposed tohave written Shakespeare must have had intimate knowledge of X so not a 'glover's son'
Shakespeare is said to have intimate knowledge of most everything that could have been known in that time, and not just passing knowledge but as a scholar..
Now that means that there was a man walking around who was such a genius in all fields that he would put Leonardo, Einstein, Bacon et all to shame but nobody knew.... or the man read/heard a lot and wrote about it.

Do I think William Shakespeare wrote the plays/poems/sonnets attributed to him, yes.
Does that make me closed-minded, only to those that think that if you do not agree with them you must be.
If I were to ignore any statements as silly without reading it, but I read them and think about them, see what others think and make up my mind, sofar no Baconian, Oxfordian, Marlowian idea has bee able to convince me.

Mostly because there are these questions that never get a sufficient answer for me:
- Why NOT the son of a glover (the glover who was elected in town council and to mayor)
- Why would any of the ghost writers chose a name of a real person and a rather rare one at that and not a more generic and therefor more hidden name.
- Why would any of the courtiers named as candidates leave such obvious hints on who wrote the plays if they wished to remain anonymous,if it was Marlowe (after his 'death') how did he get the info on court gossip if he was in hiding

Mostly my questions are logistic in nature, HOW did they pull of a conspiracy with nobody ever pulling the plug (not even after the deaths of all the parties) and WHY would they go through that trouble if a more simple solution was available....
And don't start me on the cyphering nonsense of the Baconians.... take the last letter of the first word on each line of X but not line Y, substitute letters A and B with D and G and scramble it all around to find!!!!! In that logic I have to confess, I am the timetraveller that took the printed Shakespeare volumes and fed it to the illiterate hack that had the right name, there are plenty clues about me in the plays/sonnets and poems...

[xman]

This is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response.
Normally I would agree, but perhaps there is a reasonable response worth posting.

The Anatomy of a Good Conspiracy:

1. Start out with a Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)

theres something phoney about shakespeare

did this guy ever really exist ? or is he like Robin Hood a creation o f history.

all those poems all those plays and yet

what have we actulally got in manuscript ?

absolutely nothing

the only physical writing we have of shakespeare is his signiture on a will

that is all .
Look at that, all lies. We have many copies of his signature, we have pages of Thomas Moore as well.
What else? Oh yes, no mention at all of the fact that the Stratford register contains actual entries about his birth (baptism actually) and death.
No mention either about the fact that we have about as much (perhaps less) hard evidence for other writers of his period primarily because the damp climate slowly destroys everything. That would be reasonable and there's no room for that in a good conspiracy, just raw emotions.

Move on to wildly erroneous suppositions without any need for evidence.

shakespeare the name .... the shaker of the spear

in greek myth athena was the shaker of the spear she was also the patron of literature

so even the name shakespeare looks like a bit of a historical creation.

maybe the plays are just a mass of historical work from the elixabethan age written b y many different authors ..... collected together and presented under the pseudenem william shakespeare.... maybe there was some genius who collected all this work and unified it into a whole.

a bit like Malory who served long years in prison and spent his time writing Morte dArthur which is obviously derived from numerous sources but his wonderful writing give s it a unity and a power

There really is no need for any other logical fallacies at all. Just lie, lie and lie again. Go ahead and make your own conspiracies using this model, but please remember to ignore or falsify all actual facts as well as any mention of Occam's Razor (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

[cafolini]

Did Shakespeare exist? Of course he existed? Did Jesus exist? Of course. Didn't Donald Duck exist?
Anything you can imagine can exist in two dimensions. All you have to do in terms of proof is believe or disbelieve. What else? Don't get entangled with thinking that disbelieving is in effect saying that he didn't exist. On the contrary, you are merely offering the possibility of his existence. You are contributing by denying what obviously exists in two dimensions in order to be denied.
Of course Shakespeare existed and exists. Now, did he occurred in the three dimensions of life? Yes, somewhere in Italy under the supervision of the Catholic church. Venice is most likely according to my research. There is no evidence of Shakespeare occurring in England. Shakespeare was used by Italy to reconstruct the old English the Normands had allowed to rot. The amount of Latin in English is not just a coincidence. About 60% give and take.
If you take into consideration the history of the English aristocracy and the roots in Alfred the Great, it's far more likely that Robin Hood occurred there in three dimensions than Shakespeare. But regardless, someone has to have written Shakespeare, and most likely several someones.

[Emil Miller]

There is evidence that he did in fact exist, but none that he wrote the plays himself. Watch debates here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WRTs_WmYUI&feature=related

This is already being discussed in the thread 'Did Shakespeare Write the Plays?'

Here is a list of the films made by the same director/ producer.

I don't think we are likely to see Shakespeare's position eroded by 'Anonymous'.

[edit] Films,Year, Title Credited as
Director Producer or
Executive Producer Writer or
Co-writer Actor

1979 Franzmann
1980 Altosax (Television film)
1984 The Noah's Ark Principle
1985 Making Contact
1987 Ghost Chase
1990 Moon 44
1991 Eye of the Storm
1992 Universal Soldier
1994 The High Crusade
1994 Stargate
1996 Independence Day
1998 Godzilla
1999 The Thirteenth Floor
2000 The Patriot
2002 Eight Legged Freaks
2004 The Day After Tomorrow
2007 Trade
2008 10,000 BC
2009 2012
2011 Anonymous

[cafolini]

This is already being discussed in the thread 'Did Shakespeare Write the Plays?'

Here is a list of the films made by the same director/ producer.

I don't think we are likely to see Shakespeare's position eroded by 'Anonymous'.

[edit] Films,Year, Title Credited as
Director Producer or
Executive Producer Writer or
Co-writer Actor

1979 Franzmann
1980 Altosax (Television film)
1984 The Noah's Ark Principle
1985 Making Contact
1987 Ghost Chase
1990 Moon 44
1991 Eye of the Storm
1992 Universal Soldier
1994 The High Crusade
1994 Stargate
1996 Independence Day
1998 Godzilla
1999 The Thirteenth Floor
2000 The Patriot
2002 Eight Legged Freaks
2004 The Day After Tomorrow
2007 Trade
2008 10,000 BC
2009 2012
2011 Anonymous

Agree. However. It'll not apply any longer but to an obsolete part of history. It's no longer and will never be again of consequential interest.

[Emil Miller]

Agree. However. It'll not apply any longer but to an obsolete part of history. It's no longer and will never be again of consequential interest.

It's impossible to have an 'obsolete part of history', and the doubts surrounding Shakespeare's authorship will always be of interest until they are dispelled one way or the other.

[cafolini]

It's impossible to have an 'obsolete part of history', and the doubts surrounding Shakespeare's authorship will always be of interest until they are dispelled one way or the other.

Of course it is impossible. That's why we have to have dynamic museums, for otherwise all kinds of freaks with their Neothis and Neothat would once more attempt to rule with some laughing stock of the past. Shakespeare in that regard is gone for keeps from the forefront although it fits in the museum as a good piece of Italian and English history. Even Monthy Python made all that could be made of it from Swamp Castle and Captain Idle.
In the museum, Shakespeare will never be dispelled one way or the other. It's like Jesus or Donald Duck if you don't like Elmer, uncle Oswald or Pluto. Lassie has better chances to get a weekend pass as we talk about animal rights and the ability of any animal to think.

[han401]

I asked the same question in my thread and it is difficult to say if he was real or not. All the conspiracy theories make good points and we know little about Shakespeare. If you want to see more topics on literary criticism, please check out my blog. Thanks!
{edit}

[LadyLuck]

I've heard this theory off an on over the years, but I'm a bit surprised that someone has gone through the trouble of creating a movie about this. Personally, I would say Shakespeare is real, but it may have been a persona assumed by a group of writers. I would have to look further, but I think it is fairly safe to say that it seems as if the sonnets were all written by the same hand, and the style and feel of the plays fees as if they came from the same write as well. There is a tone, a use of language about the plays that makes me inclined to say that yes he existed, but was he really named William Shakespeare??? I had no doubt that it was likely one person, but would a pen name be much of a surprise?

[Emil Miller]

I've heard this theory off an on over the years, but I'm a bit surprised that someone has gone through the trouble of creating a movie about this.

Well some people will do anything to make money.

[KCV16]

There is a tone, a use of language about the plays that makes me inclined to say that yes he existed, but was he really named William Shakespeare??? I had no doubt that it was likely one person, but would a pen name be much of a surprise?
Why a front man is the bigger question.
Various ideas have been floated on that why question, I will talk of tw o here:
- It was not done for a nobleman
A stigma of theater writing, but that does not explain the sonnets or the poems, or the list of nobles mentioned as comedy-writers
- Too dangerous to publish
This one is actually a reason to dismiss the claims of anybody using the name William Shakespeare as a pen-name.
If you want to be sure you will never associated with the words, make sure nobody knows you are, and the only way to do that is NOT to employ someone to front for you but make up a name and mail the plays not to one but to all companies (alternating)

[kelby_lake]

Personally, I would say Shakespeare is real, but it may have been a persona assumed by a group of writers. I would have to look further, but I think it is fairly safe to say that it seems as if the sonnets were all written by the same hand, and the style and feel of the plays fees as if they came from the same write as well.

I agree. There are recurring themes in the plays that link them all together. I'm sure Julius Caesar and Hamlet are written by the same person- both plays share a theme of politics, corruption and misrule. I think the comedies are all sufficiently similar to make it likely that they were written by one person.

[mike thomas]

My parents' accountant is called Philip Devilwood. It's not exactly a common surname, but it is knocking about. In fact, the name Devilwood (or presumably its Dutch equivalent) is only thing that isn't certifiably insane about the webpage.

Here are some basic facts:

The name Martin Droeshout is the smallest print on the "portait".
It is placed tightly in a corner. -
- One might possibly grasp the relationship to the bible comment by Paul:

to Festus and Agrippa: “This thing was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

I could point to those chapter and verse numbers, and mention another fact:

The First Folio has a "date" at the foot of the title page which is 1623, and you might notice that it is a number 13 inside a number 26, moreover, twice 13 is also 26, and as Paul's words are printed at the place where twice 26 is found, it's surely "insane" to blame coincidence.

Now back to that thing in the corner:

The phrase "the devil is in the detail" applies here: It is not generally understood but when a wood carving or engraving or even a copper engraving is made, the lines and points and everything cut into the base material is known as the 'detail ( pronounced Dee-tail ).

I will not go on further except to tell of another kind of tale: There was a man, Dwelt by a Church-yard.... his name was Iohn Dee.

The man who made the illiterate words of Iuliet's nurse so memorable:

Now, what was her AGE?

Oh yes, 13.

And what was "William's" name when he married A Hathwey?

Oh yes, 18

And where are they now? Oh yes, side by side, dead.

SW HA in that exact order.

And why that particular order? So that SH and WS can be readily realised.

And why those two combinations? I doubt if you are insane enough even to care.

[KCV16]

Here are some basic facts:

The name Martin Droeshout is the smallest print on the "portait".
It is placed tightly in a corner. -
- One might possibly grasp the relationship to the bible comment by Paul:

to Festus and Agrippa: “This thing was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).
Why this book? Why chapter 26? why verse 26??


I could point to those chapter and verse numbers, and mention another fact:

The First Folio has a "date" at the foot of the title page which is 1623, and you might notice that it is a number 13 inside a number 26, moreover, twice 13 is also 26, and as Paul's words are printed at the place where twice 26 is found, it's surely "insane" to blame coincidence.
Than you should go to a chapter and werse of 26,13 or 13,26, or 16.23...


Now back to that thing in the corner:

The phrase "the devil is in the detail" applies here: It is not generally understood but when a wood carving or engraving or even a copper engraving is made, the lines and points and everything cut into the base material is known as the 'detail ( pronounced Dee-tail ).

I will not go on further except to tell of another kind of tale: There was a man, Dwelt by a Church-yard.... his name was Iohn Dee.
????


The man who made the illiterate words of Iuliet's nurse so memorable:

Now, what was her AGE?

Oh yes, 13.
ok


And what was "William's" name when he married A Hathwey?

Oh yes, 18
Not related to 13 or 26 in any way it seems


And where are they now? Oh yes, side by side, dead.

SW HA in that exact order.
WS and AS, actually...


And why that particular order? So that SH and WS can be readily realised.
SH??


And why those two combinations? I doubt if you are insane enough even to care.
I think you are talking nonsense.......

[mike thomas]

or a ghost writer did it.

I am not at all astonished to hear some of the replies to this idea that there was no poet or playwright with that name. It reminds one of some religious meeting in Alabama during the 1900's.

What difference would it make if it wasn't the son of a glove maker? It's plain to me that no one has looked at what Elizabeth I has attached near her shoulder, in the so-called Rainbow portrait: a gloved hand set in jewels. If they had it might have been mentioned somewhere.

And all those others who go about (some making a good living) insisting that their candidate for the true author is the true One. More pseudo-religious rubbish. No good evidence has ever been produced by anyone to prove their claim is true. But those who believe in the name of the Bard, must ask themselves why it is that the same arguments are never about Chaucer, Homer, Ovid, Marlow, Dante, Leonardo da Vinci and many others, just Mr Will Shake-speare Gent. Why? What makes that name the target for those of us who enjoy searching for truths?

Why must we believe all that we are fed from the past? Because it is written that, say, Shakespeare bought the New place, doesn't mean its true. All it means is that the words were penned some good time past, and we have no idea of such a thing being true. When it is written that Elizabeth I saw Shakespeare actually acting on the stage, surely it must be true? Why would such a text exist unless it was true?

Just because a text is attached to some famous and powerful name doesn't mean it must be true. Elizabeth I was a crafty woman who planted many a red herring to thwart her enemies. What we need to question is her association with serpents: At least two portraits show a snake with the old queen. "Oh, it's a symbol of wisdom" is the usual crap reply. No idea, no imagination, there is a truth.

What was she and Robert Dudley up to? What really went on over Robert Essex? What was good queen Bess into with old John Dee? What was really happening behind closed royal doors? Did anyone really believe that the history books are truth? they are, in the main, exactly what the writers wanted posterity to believe.

So I ask you, why should we not challenge authority to get at the real story?

From where I stand the 19 letters william shake-speares are not the name of any person, but something else far more profound than is in the philosophy of most 21st Century men.

[KCV16]

or a ghost writer did it.

I am not at all astonished to hear some of the replies to this idea that there was no poet or playwright with that name. It reminds one of some religious meeting in Alabama during the 1900's.

What difference would it make if it wasn't the son of a glove maker? It's plain to me that no one has looked at what Elizabeth I has attached near her shoulder, in the so-called Rainbow portrait: a gloved hand set in jewels. If they had it might have been mentioned somewhere.

And all those others who go about (some making a good living) insisting that their candidate for the true author is the true One. More pseudo-religious rubbish. No good evidence has ever been produced by anyone to prove their claim is true. But those who believe in the name of the Bard, must ask themselves why it is that the same arguments are never about Chaucer, Homer, Ovid, Marlow, Dante, Leonardo da Vinci and many others, just Mr Will Shake-speare Gent. Why? What makes that name the target for those of us who enjoy searching for truths?

Why must we believe all that we are fed from the past? Because it is written that, say, Shakespeare bought the New place, doesn't mean its true. All it means is that the words were penned some good time past, and we have no idea of such a thing being true. When it is written that Elizabeth I saw Shakespeare actually acting on the stage, surely it must be true? Why would such a text exist unless it was true? Because other/outside sources confirm this?


Just because a text is attached to some famous and powerful name doesn't mean it must be true. Elizabeth I was a crafty woman who planted many a red herring to thwart her enemies. What we need to question is her association with serpents: At least two portraits show a snake with the old queen. "Oh, it's a symbol of wisdom" is the usual crap reply. No idea, no imagination, there is a truth.

What was she and Robert Dudley up to? What really went on over Robert Essex? What was good queen Bess into with old John Dee? What was really happening behind closed royal doors? Did anyone really believe that the history books are truth? they are, in the main, exactly what the writers wanted posterity to believe.history is written by those who win sure, but the loosers also write and those writing have bee conserved too... if they say basically the same thing, that would be a reason to believe it.


So I ask you, why should we not challenge authority to get at the real story?Challenge with what, imagination, your own history?? What is there to start with?? All we have been told is wrong, leaves the question where to start, with what alternative do you start with the enemies' gossip... which gossip to believe, the most unlike history we know off or the history that stays closer to the events as described by the powers taht were but slightly different??


From where I stand the 19 letters william shake-speares are not the name of any person, but something else far more profound than is in the philosophy of most 21st Century men.
Why not try to find out why people do think that history is wrong.... when did they start (18th century) and which part of history should be considered wrong, because some parts are considered wrong by anti-strats while others are spot-on, for sake of promoting their candidate.

Mostly I wonder why would people bother with only 1 play-writer, before he became famous...

[mike thomas]

https://sites.google.com/site/understandingbenjonson

See if you can understand
Happy new year all

[osho]

I have heard Shakespeare was not a single person. I mean all that we have in the name of Shakespeare was not written singly by him and it was just under his name and all were not his creations and there is no document to disapprove of this notion too

[MarkBastable]

https://sites.google.com/site/understandingbenjonson

See if you can understand
Happy new year all

So this whole thing starts with Ben Johnson's epitaph...

O RARE

BEN JOHNSON

..and then continues like this (unedited)....

---------------------------------------------------------------

When Ben was alive he used I not J, the sound of each letter is entirely different. I makes a Y sound as in York, but J makes a G sound as in George, but not like in Gloucester or Glorious:


Duke of Gloucester. Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house ......

........ but, as I can learn,
He hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
And from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
And says a wizard told him that by G
His issue disinherited should be;
And, for my name of George begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
These, as I learn, and such like toys as these .....

Richard III Act I, Scene 1


Remembering Ben's words about things two by two, we pluck out the four initial letters O R and B I.

(See later why J suddenly turned to I).

We have chosen four letters which form a Latin word: ORBI meaning circle, round and even world.

The first of Shakespeare's Sonnets, line 9, word 6 is WORLDS.

If we inspect the two numerals 6 and 9 we might realise that they kind of turn around - when joined as the number 69.


In fact, the letter O itself is like a ring, and in Ben's day, it was the 14th letter in the alphabet, so it is interesting to see that the same sonnet, line 14, has WORLDS a second time, along with the place where we started from. A place where the first letter is an O:


To eate the worlds due, by the graue and thee


Next, consider that the alphabet in Ben's day would have O as 14th, R as 17th, B as second, and I as the ninth. Thus we have four numbers:

14, 17, and 2 , 9.

Compare Shakespeare's Sonnet 14, word 17: OR.


It is the same as Ben's two top letters.

---------------------------------------------------------

Leaving aside for a moment the observation that you'd expect Johnson to get the Latin right (the word in Latin is orbis, plural orbes), I think the tortuousness of the pseudologic falls down at about this point...

the alphabet in Ben's day would have O as 14th, R as 17th, B as second, and I as the ninth. Thus we have four numbers:

14, 17, and 2 , 9.

Compare Shakespeare's Sonnet 14, word 17: OR.

It is the same as Ben's two top letters

I really am quite worried about whoever wrote the linked webpage.

[My2cents]

I have heard Shakespeare was not a single person. I mean all that we have in the name of Shakespeare was not written singly by him and it was just under his name and all were not his creations and there is no document to disapprove of this notion too

With respect to Shakespeare's first plays the Henry VI trilogy, the evidence that Robert Greene and John Nash (much inferior poets) had a hand in them is overwhelming.

[cacian]

I would say that Shakespeare is a made up name, like a company name let's consider
Esther Lauder...
Shake spear
I believe there are descrepencies in all of his works and therefore everything is written let say by a group of motivate people for one reason or another.

[MarkBastable]

I would say that Shakespeare is a made up name, like a company name let's consider
Esther Lauder...
Shake spear
I believe there are descrepencies in all of his works and therefore everything is written let say by a group of motivate people for one reason or another.

Sorry - what's Estee Lauder got to do with it?

[xman]

With respect to Shakespeare's first plays the Henry VI trilogy, the evidence that Robert Greene and John Nash (much inferior poets) had a hand in them is overwhelming.
You're misreading. Nash and Greene were criticising the author of those plays as an "Upstart Crow". There can be little doubt that they despised the man.

[My2cents]

You're misreading. Nash and Greene were criticising the author of those plays as an "Upstart Crow". There can be little doubt that they despised the man.

Every company in the world would go belly up if people wouldn't/couldn't collaborate because of personal animosities.

Anyway, I'll take a reputed scholar's words on this matter which is where I'm coming from.

[xman]

Every company in the world would go belly up if people wouldn't/couldn't collaborate because of personal animosities.

Anyway, I'll take a reputed scholar's words on this matter which is where I'm coming from.

What of the hundreds of other scholars who refute that position. Honestly, My2cents, everyone knows what Nash and Greene thought of Shakespeare. It isn't a mystery.

[mike thomas]

You're misreading. Nash and Greene were criticising the author of those plays as an "Upstart Crow". There can be little doubt that they despised the man.

There can be lots of doubt. How do you know the reference to 'upstart crow' doesn't mean something other than what you think?

Define an 'upstart crow' please.

[mike thomas]

So this whole thing starts with Ben Johnson's epitaph...
I really am quite worried about whoever wrote the linked webpage
O RARE

BEN JOHNSON

..and then continues like this (unedited)....

---------------------------------------------------------------

When Ben was alive he used I not J, the sound of each letter is entirely different. I makes a Y sound as in York, but J makes a G sound as in George, but not like in Gloucester or Glorious:


Duke of Gloucester. Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house ......

........ but, as I can learn,
He hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
And from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
And says a wizard told him that by G
His issue disinherited should be;
And, for my name of George begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
These, as I learn, and such like toys as these .....

Richard III Act I, Scene 1


Remembering Ben's words about things two by two, we pluck out the four initial letters O R and B I.

(See later why J suddenly turned to I).

We have chosen four letters which form a Latin word: ORBI meaning circle, round and even world.I really am quite worried about whoever wrote the linked webpage

The first of Shakespeare's Sonnets, line 9, word 6 is WORLDS.

If we inspect the two numerals 6 and 9 we might realise that they kind of turn around - when joined as the number 69.


In fact, the letter O itself is like a ring, and in Ben's day, it was the 14th letter in the alphabet, so it is interesting to see that the same sonnet, line 14, has WORLDS a second time, along with the place where we started from. A place where the first letter is an O:


To eate the worlds due, by the graue and thee


Next, consider that the alphabet in Ben's day would have O as 14th, R as 17th, B as second, and I as the ninth. Thus we have four numbers:

14, 17, and 2 , 9.

Compare Shakespeare's Sonnet 14, word 17: OR.


It is the same as Ben's two top letters.

---------------------------------------------------------

Leaving aside for a moment the observation that you'd expect Johnson to get the Latin right (the word in Latin is orbis, plural orbes), I think the tortuousness of the pseudologic falls down at about this point...

the alphabet in Ben's day would have O as 14th, R as 17th, B as second, and I as the ninth. Thus we have four numbers:

14, 17, and 2 , 9.

Compare Shakespeare's Sonnet 14, word 17: OR.

It is the same as Ben's two top letters

I really am quite worried about whoever wrote the linked webpage.


Yes I do agree with ORBI but I'm not sure you are a wind-up merchant. What do you mean by "I really am quite worried about whoever wrote the linked webpage" ?

Worried? Why so friend?

[kelby_lake]

There's enough similarities between the plays to show that it is not implausible that Shakespeare may have just been one guy.

[mike thomas]

There's enough similarities between the plays to show that it is not implausible that Shakespeare may have just been one guy.


I agree with that

[charleneednacot]

He did EXIST indefinitely. the authorship of his 36+ plays and hundreds of sonnets, poems however is the real question. I personally don't believe he was absolutely fictitious in the sense that we made him up and accredited all the works to him. I firmly believe he did in fact write all of his works, with collaborations of many playwrights. People argue because he wasn't necessarily born into aristocracy he could not have possibly lived such a life that granted him to be immersed in theatre and the intellect to write such pieces. He didn't follow suit as expected and wasn't damned to be a woodworker or leather worker or glove maker such as his father. He went to school, learned languages spoke latin, became educated and well versed and wrote his plays and it was hard for him to get into the guilds but he did eventually.