Who Wrote "Shakespeare?"

I've also heard Henry Neville to be a likely candidate, but it's more likely there was a conspiracy among several contemporary figures of the time. It's more than likely Francis Bacon was a part of this group.

Norwegian freemason, and researcher, Petter Amundsen has found several, previously unknown ciphers, in Shakespeare's works. Coincidentally, these ciphers were invented by none other than Francis Bacon. These ciphers would never have been found if it wasn't an exact copy of the original scripts. There haven't been a single original work of Shakespeare found, they have mysteriously vanished, or presumably lost in a fire, and these findings were based on the FIrst Folio. So one would have to believe that these secrets were meant to be found, as "someone" had gone through the painstaking process of copying the originals to the dot.

There are also several anomalies in the First Folio that's not really supposed to be there, without them being put there by intent.

In Amundsens findings, there are several clues that point to the fact that the works were written by the Rosicrucians. A prominent member of mensa, and an expert in older ciphers from the time of Francis Bacon and Shakespeare, has found there is 1 out of several billion chances that the ciphers and codes found in Amundsens work is happenstance. I appologize, but can't remember his name at the moment.

The clues about the mystery of authorship isn't only found in the First Folio, but also at Shakespeares gravestone in the Holy Trinity Church on Stratford-Upon-Avon, and several other places. Wish I had the time to compile all this information, because it's a fascinating topic.

Petter has also found clues that point to something much bigger than the question of authorship, but that's not the topic here. I believe it has been mentioned in a thread some years ago.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Could you expand on this? I'm not familiar with Penn Leary's theory. William Shakespeare was a real person, and was baptised in Stratford-upon-Avon on 26 April 1564. I've seen the entry for myself. No one is disputing that, is there?

a reply to: DJW001

i do meant to be rude as :

one of his friends joked that Shakespeare had "little Latin and less Greek.".............................(no library or books were mentioned in his will)

you are committing a fallacy that you would dismember an apollo hoax believer for

why ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: DJW001

i do meant to be rude as :

one of his friends joked that Shakespeare had "little Latin and less Greek.".............................(no library or books were mentioned in his will)

you are committing a fallacy that you would dismember an apollo hoax believer for

why ?

I'm merely passing on the arguments that the Anti-Stratfordians make.

originally posted by: Droogie
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Could you expand on this? I'm not familiar with Penn Leary's theory. William Shakespeare was a real person, and was baptised in Stratford-upon-Avon on 26 April 1564. I've seen the entry for myself. No one is disputing that, is there?

No-one disputes that there was a man from Stratford named Shakespeare (or Shaxpere, or Shake-spear, or....) the issue is whether or not that son of a glove maker who went to London actually wrote the works attributed to him, or if he was some sort of patsy.

a reply to: DJW001

so this is an entirely rhetorical thread ?

a reply to: DJW001

In that respect it makes sense, I was a bit curious about the way MotherMayEye chose the wording of the reply is all.

I'm familiar with the theory that Shakespeare was a strawman. It's certainly very compelling.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: DJW001

so this is an entirely rhetorical thread ?

No, I'm trying to get people discussing their views on a 200 year old conspiracy theory. I have my own opinion, of course, but I want to see the discussion heat up a bit before I start to present my case.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

son of a glovemaker

What does it matter what his father profession was?

Britain's greatest artist Joseph Turner was the son of a wig maker.

a reply to: DJW001

i dont really get the questioning of it.

he was not a literary giant in his lifetime. so what?
lots of famous authors, musicians, etc etc do not really become famous until long after death.

lacked schooling? a big ass so what to this...
i dont know hoe to word it but some people just 'have it' in their chosen field. geniuses i mean.
i can think of loads of musicians especially that had no formal training or very, very little, who were self taught but masters of music/composition.
lack of schooling really dont mean #.

my opinions of course

a reply to: TinySickTears


No one during Shakespeare's life ever claimed to have been the true author of Shakespeare's works. That in itself raises suspicion as to the supposed " true author "

a reply to: TinySickTears

Your opinion is right. Most of the greatest artists/musicians are self taught. It takes free thinking to be innovative .

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness
a reply to: TinySickTears

Your opinion is right. Most of the greatest artists/musicians are self taught. It takes free thinking to be innovative .

Question: in Shakespeare's time - - - could you get your work published and produce plays without financial backing?

Isn't that a bit different then an undiscovered artist?

a reply to: DJW001

You Axed for it First a note about Oxford, I gave the 17th Earl short shrift. He was what we would call today an Amateur Astronomer, and a good inventor of household necessities. So shhhhhh 16th century Aristocrats were not supposed to have anything more then Hobbies & to help the Queen Govern in the house of Lords and at Court. He was a very good politician BTW, even by today's standards and did not loose his head either Figuratively or Literally.

Now Background: "The School of Night"

This was a rather scandalous (for the time) Bohemian group, I would say fraternity but that would be Wrong, there were Ladies involved, I use the Term Lady in it's proper manner. It is Rumored Even the Queen herself. These were individuals that were not fond of the Status Quo, and in some cases Flaunted that fact. Writers, scientists, alchemists, etc. One "Lady" was a Chemist/alchemist of some note, because she was connected at "Court" any word getting to the Queen that she might be a witch was immediately squished, to the point of neck pain if it continued.

They were the rebels of their day, thinkers and dreamers. They were all welcome at Court, which meant "Be There" when the Queen asks. If you Receive an "Engraved Invitation" you have neglected Her Majesty, and this means, you best show up and bring a Pressie or else. ( Present she liked those )

So let me drop a few names, Germaine to this Thread: ( a few names of import )

William Shakespeare
Christopher "Kit" Marlowe
Oxford
Thomas Harriot
George Chapman
Sir Walter Raleigh
The mysterious Matthew Roydon (who owns the house and servants, "The Landlord" as it were.)
Northumberland
Sir Francis Bacon

Notable Drop-ins :

Queen Elizabeth Regina
Lady Pembroke (Chemist/Alchemist)
Henry Percy (Mathemetician, Astronomer )
John Dee (Chemist/Alchemist)
Edward Kelly ( Chemist/Alchemist sort of more like Note taker and assistant Alleged speaker to Angels )


So here are the characters to our play. You can see that over many a bottle of wine and sweat, there could be a great deal of Cross Pollination of ideas, thoughts and prose.

Games like everyone write a poem for tonight's entertainment, a short story, or a debate using proper prose and Logic, critical thinking on the existence of G-d as is directed toward the Monarchy. And other barn burners.

( No Movies or TV or PS3s. The electrics bill must have been unpaid i guess. )

So the free flow of ideas is evident amoung these thinkers. Also notable in our drama is that William Shakespeare
and Christopher "Kit" Marlowe were seen in each others company quite a bit. especially at Court. I think this was a ruse to some extent, Kit was William's Beard, so that W.S. could have some uninterrupted time with the Queen without raising eyebrows. Yes very different from today.

But to read the works of Christopher "Kit" Marlowe and then W.S. well they are very different, may have traded ideas, but each wrote in their own way. Neither needs to explain their writings or justify their works, knowing they were friends is good enough. ( I have always thought the Witch's were Kit's idea, he tended to that darker streak. )

To me the only Authourship in question are the "Dark Lady Sonnets", These beautiful pieces of Unrequited Love poetry were not between W.S. and Kit or vice versa, they were W.S. and ER. At least in my heart they were i can feel the Love and Pain so evident in them.


Thus endth the writing G

originally posted by: Annee

Question: in Shakespeare's time - - - could you get your work published and produce plays without financial backing?

Isn't that a bit different then an undiscovered artist?

You most assuredly needed a sponsor. The Queen made a good one. funneled through others.

a reply to: Annee

Question: in Shakespeare's time - - - could you get your work published and produce plays without financial backing?

Thomas Kyd was an important playwright and author who lived at the same time as Shakespeare. Kyd's most famous play was titled " The Spanish Tragedy "

However little is know about Kyd. His father was a " scrivener " what we would call today a clerk. He didn't attend University and where he got the money from to produce his works, no one knows.

a reply to: Droogie

You said
I'm familiar with the theory that Shakespeare was a strawman. It's certainly very compelling.
-----------

The Queen had Command Performances for both W.S. and Kit Marlowe plays, She would not Congradulate a Pretender ever. We know what she thought of "Pretenders" THUMP!

G

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Annee

Question: in Shakespeare's time - - - could you get your work published and produce plays without financial backing?

Thomas Kyd was an important playwright and author who lived at the same time as Shakespeare. Kyd's most famous play was titled " The Spanish Tragedy "

However little is know about Kyd. His father was a " scrivener " what we would call today a clerk. He didn't attend University and where he got the money from to produce his works, no one knows.

"The School of Night" Perhaps?

originally posted by: Hermit777

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Annee

Question: in Shakespeare's time - - - could you get your work published and produce plays without financial backing?

Thomas Kyd was an important playwright and author who lived at the same time as Shakespeare. Kyd's most famous play was titled " The Spanish Tragedy "

However little is know about Kyd. His father was a " scrivener " what we would call today a clerk. He didn't attend University and where he got the money from to produce his works, no one knows.

"The School of Night"

That must be what I read about. It was years ago.

A group. Not all of upstanding character, but shared ideas and storytelling.

Being a "staid elite" had to get boring at times.

a reply to: DJW001

I accept the popular view that William Shakespeare was a bloke from Stratford. Although I can't say I've read everything he wrote, I've read most of his plays and a lot of his poems and sonnets. None of which includes information that would require an aristocratic life or an Oxford education.

It bugs me that there's even an industry debating ownership of Shakespearean works. Isn't it telling that the conspiracy guys always offer up aristocratic personages who were famous? It's identical to modern conspiracy mythology that has JFK and Marilyn Monroe murdered for knowing about aliens and Ed Teller in the midst of the Bob Lazar BS. Conspiracy-minded people have a tendency to inject famous figures into their imaginings. Out of all the educated aristocrats they can only pick the most famous?