Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: In the name of all the gods?

  1. #1

    In the name of all the gods?

    An idea for those who scorn authority:

    The actual name Shakespeare holds the key to discovering the names behind the works. If someone in the past had buried clues for posterity - whether in the earth or in the texts - the keys might easily be lost. But no matter how deteriorated a manuscript or book might become, the name of the author is more likely left intact. There are many examples: names such as Geoffrey Chaucer, John Bunyan, Milton, Albert Einstein, or even the anglicized Pythagoras of Samos. And names in other tongues are just as likely to be preserved: Giambattista Marino (18 October 1569 25 March 1625) the Italian. He is known for his epic L'Adone.

    The names of authors tend to remain intact. But this seems not to be quite true for Shakespeare. What documents there are show that the name varies: Shaxper, Shakspeare and even Shagspere. But the names printed on the two large and authentic books ensured that, the final version passed down to us is Shakespeare. This writer suspects that it was not by chance. There was a good reason for the different spellings of the name. As for the first name, there was only ever one version of the first name William, except, that is, for the Latin version, written according to the law of the time. The church baptism record supposedly on 26 April 1564, has "Gulielmus filius Iohannes Shakspere" or, in English, "William son of John Shakespeare". Here we see the first alteration of the name Shakespeare.
    Why then did the name Shakespeare get this treatment: to attract attention to it. The name holds the keys to unlock lot's of hidden information, concerning those characters who were behind the name, and their relationships with each other. The first name William, is in the English tongue, and the Latin version is Gulielmus. The reason why the records show that the only alteration of William is the Latin version is almost beyond belief.

    Life in the late 16th and early 17th century must have been a bore. Compared, that is, with this age. For those who were uneducated the main anaesthetic to reality was alcohol, music and dancing. The educated were usually wealthy and spent their spare time reading, writing and riding horses. Of course the richer classes also drank, danced and enjoyed music.

    Without radio or televisions, the main reading matter was the bible. By the time the last great book bearing the name of Shakespeare was published, king James I was on the throne, and his new Authorised bible was available to those who could read, and were rich.

    As far as those people were concerned, the word of God, as set out in the bible, would remain constant. The bible would always be printed. So the bible was a good bet to place any clues to finding the truth. But where in the bible would one expect future generations to begin their searches? The problem is that the bible contains a massive amount of text. Just where would one begin? Where would the first clue be likely to be revealed?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15

    The name....

    Quote Originally Posted by mike thomas View Post
    An idea for those who scorn authority:

    The actual name Shakespeare holds the key to discovering the names behind the works. If someone in the past had buried clues for posterity - whether in the earth or in the texts - the keys might easily be lost. But no matter how deteriorated a manuscript or book might become, the name of the author is more likely left intact. There are many examples: names such as Geoffrey Chaucer, John Bunyan, Milton, Albert Einstein, or even the anglicized Pythagoras of Samos. And names in other tongues are just as likely to be preserved: Giambattista Marino (18 October 1569 25 March 1625) the Italian. He is known for his epic L'Adone.

    The names of authors tend to remain intact. But this seems not to be quite true for Shakespeare. What documents there are show that the name varies: Shaxper, Shakspeare and even Shagspere. But the names printed on the two large and authentic books ensured that, the final version passed down to us is Shakespeare.
    This would be something to ponder if it was not a trend to have different spellings of names in Shakespearean times... Christopher Marlowe, Edward DeVere Earl of Oxford and others have various wasy of spelling their names...
    This writer suspects that it was not by chance. There was a good reason for the different spellings of the name. As for the first name, there was only ever one version of the first name William, except, that is, for the Latin version, written according to the law of the time. The church baptism record supposedly on 26 April 1564, has "Gulielmus filius Iohannes Shakspere" or, in English, "William son of John Shakespeare". Here we see the first alteration of the name Shakespeare.
    Why then did the name Shakespeare get this treatment: to attract attention to it. The name holds the keys to unlock lot's of hidden information, concerning those characters who were behind the name, and their relationships with each other. The first name William, is in the English tongue, and the Latin version is Gulielmus. The reason why the records show that the only alteration of William is the Latin version is almost beyond belief.
    The official language was Latin, it changed in that time to English...
    Life in the late 16th and early 17th century must have been a bore. Compared, that is, with this age. For those who were uneducated the main anaesthetic to reality was alcohol, music and dancing. The educated were usually wealthy and spent their spare time reading, writing and riding horses. Of course the richer classes also drank, danced and enjoyed music.
    And the large educated middle-class that you seem to forget, reading,music, writing, games, theater etc etc
    Games, theater, gossip?? And more time used to do the household chores than we need today...
    Without radio or televisions, the main reading matter was the bible. By the time the last great book bearing the name of Shakespeare was published, king James I was on the throne, and his new Authorised bible was available to those who could read, and were rich.
    And a multitude of quarto's of plays, poetry
    As far as those people were concerned, the word of God, as set out in the bible, would remain constant. The bible would always be printed. So the bible was a good bet to place any clues to finding the truth. But where in the bible would one expect future generations to begin their searches? The problem is that the bible contains a massive amount of text. Just where would one begin? Where would the first clue be likely to be revealed?
    The first clue is that a relgious book would be translated by people of religious authority.
    It could not be a single man's job, but a collaboration (it should not be about a writer but about the text).
    The text should reflect the idea of the leading (state) church....

    How this related to Shakespeare is not clear to me......

  3. #3
    Shakespearean xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lotus Land
    Posts
    144
    Mike, I'm afraid you are chasing wild geese all over the place. There is more than enough evidence for us to determine that Shakespeare is the man, the man from Stratford, the writer of the works in question. You are stretching the bounds of logic to even consider that it was not so that we can't even get to considering who else it might be.

    Quote Originally Posted by KCV16 View Post
    This would be something to ponder if it was not a trend to have different spellings of names in Shakespearean times... Christopher Marlowe, Edward DeVere Earl of Oxford and others have various wasy of spelling their names...
    Indeed. Christopher Marlowe never spelled his name that way preferring variations of 'Marley'.
    He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Shakespeare is an outdated, gossipy, bore.

Similar Threads

  1. Immortal Gods in the Iliad
    By kayj in forum The Iliad
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 12:51 AM
  2. HELP PROOFREAD: Immortal Gods in the Iliad
    By kayj in forum The Iliad
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 11:21 PM
  3. Iliad Survey.
    By Jer in forum The Iliad
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 04:25 PM
  4. A Novel that Calls for Attention
    By ~Robert~ in forum General Writing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 06:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •