did Shakespeare really exist ?

[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

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.

[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...eature=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...