Oh, a pirate into puns...
*takes a moment*
Printable View
Oh, a pirate into puns...
*takes a moment*
Arrr be it because my avatar be a puny pirate?
haha! That made me really laugh now! :)
I love the new avatar by the way!
Thanks! ;)
you are welcome, cap'n. :)
arrr Be salin the seven s... er... galaxies?
:D
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
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.
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.
The first guy that claimed Shakespeare was written by 17th Earl of Oxford was named Looney. 'Nuff said.
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!!!!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardophile
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helga
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbur lim
https://sites.google.com/site/mrwhdeciphered/
you decide
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWritersWriter
"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)
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
Oh dear! :) This is really very silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
See what I mean? Prepare yourself for more of the same.
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.
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.
Of course he did.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
"since the little wit that fools have was silenced, the little foolery that wise men have makes a great show."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
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.
This is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response.
Basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzklein
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.
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...
Normally I would agree, but perhaps there is a reasonable response worth posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzklein
The Anatomy of a Good Conspiracy:
1. Start out with a Gish Gallop
Look at that, all lies. We have many copies of his signature, we have pages of Thomas Moore as well.Quote:
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 .
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
This is already being discussed in the thread 'Did Shakespeare Write the Plays?'Quote:
Originally Posted by slljhnsn80
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini