arrr Be salin the seven s... er... galaxies?
:D
Printable View
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