did Shakespeare really exist ?

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.

---

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.

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}

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Well some people will do anything to make money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike thomas

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??

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

---

????

Quote:

---

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

Now, what was her AGE?

Oh yes, 13.

---

ok

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

SW HA in that exact order.

---

WS and AS, actually...

Quote:

---

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

---

SH??

Quote:

---

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

---

I think you are talking nonsense.......

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Because other/outside sources confirm this?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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??

Quote:

---

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...

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

See if you can understand
Happy new year all

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike thomas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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

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.