Shakespeare did NOT exist. Your schools lied to all of you.

reply to post by Kandinsky


I urge you to produce any shred of proof that Shaksper wrote anything but his will and that ridiculous piece for his effigy.

When he died he was meticulous about dispensing in detail his worldly goods and household items. Nowhere was even a single book given away that can be proved, and in the early 1600's books were the greatest treasure a man possed and spoke volumes about his educational background and intellectual abundance.

William of Stratford upon his death had not one manuscript, piece of paper, note, letter or correspondence, no personal sonnets to his wife or daughters, nothing to identify him as one of the greatest geniuses of the English Language.

I just read the resume of Bacon's life in Wikipedia and I don't think the man who lived Bacon's life could have written Shakespeare's plays. It's a little hard to come up with equivalents, but it's like imagining that someone who was a combination of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, Carl Sagan, the scientist, and name a hard working Washington lobbyist, also writing the films of Stephen Spielberg.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

Could you supply the direct link to David Ikes piece about this? I would like to see the date it was written, seems the links I used for the debate are broken, wonder if we have over run their servers? Lol, a stretch I know but if only 10% of our site was taking a look, we could shut them down... Hopefully they will be back up.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I just read the resume of Bacon's life in Wikipedia and I don't think the man who lived Bacon's life could have written Shakespeare's plays. It's a little hard to come up with equivalents, but it's like imagining that someone who was a combination of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, Carl Sagan, the scientist, and name a hard working Washington lobbyist, also writing the films of Stephen Spielberg.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

The concept of a polymath is nothing new to history. Heard of Leonardo da Vinci? It's not such a great shock that one ultra-talented individual could be responsible for great advancements in multiple fields. Do some research, MANY such people in history exist.

Here read the biography of Leibniz, famous polymath who is credited with the invention of Calculus and the binary system that powers computers and yet is also amongst the most influential philosophers of all time, up there with Kant and Decartes, in the top 3 of most famous/influential rationalist philosophers of all time.
As I said, the idea of polymaths is nothing new. Extraordinary people do exist, and if you research you'll find there's many more apart from Leibniz, Bacon, and da Vinci.

edit for link: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 25-2-2009 by rufusdrak]

reply to post by rufusdrak

I've heard of polymaths, but we are talking about a different thing. An imagined polymath who is in the first rank in two divergent disciplines.

Bacon also doing Shakespeare would be more like Leonardo also doing Michelangelo. It's a bigger stretch than the example of Leonardo demonstrates.

In addition, I think that a lot of Bacon's activities were quite antithetical to the spirit and intention of Shakespeare's plays. In short I think that Bacon was not close to being a Shakespearean. He was an animal of a different stripe.

Shaksper was raised in a small village of only 1400 homes, he had a basic education and never traveled outside his village, the works of Shakespeare were not written by someone with a great imagination, they were written by someone that had experience in the literary world, someone highly educated and that had traveled extensively and was privy to the inner workings of law, military operations, the high courts and aristocratic life styles.

Nowhere in literary history did anyone simply arrive on the scene with the talent and ability not to mention real life experience that could write about things they could not have possibly know.

It would be an insult to all great writers to think that they did not have a humble beginning and work their way up towards an advanced ability. The theory of Shaksper simply does not hold water when you begin to scratch the surface of the story.

I read somewhere, cant remember where just now that it is even possible that Shaksper after leaving his wife and daughters alone in Stratford moved 4 days ride away to London to become an actor, it was during his beginnings that he worked as a waiter and it was during that time he was approached to be a front man for a high Noble who needed an outlet for his plays and sonnets which would have been seen as treasonous coming from someone on the inside, it would have made him blackballed for giving away secrets of courts and of the inner truths of court life.

For many of the plays and sonnets to have been written in a fashion by a lower caste would simply be coincidence. Also the theaters themselves were often located in the red light districts and seedy neighborhoods, inappropriate for a Nobleman to be seen hanging out in. Also the theaters and the acting companies were notorious as hotbeds of anarchy.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Anyway... regarding Shakespeare's identity, and Stratford's tourist industry aside, I'm not sure it really matters that much. The literature itself is all that really matters.

Agreed on the tourist industry after the fact as they obviously did nothing to celebrate the man as anything but an indebted businessman at the time of his death.

But think of how the snobbish Shakespearean actors and directors will see this if it is changed! For Shakespeare to have been written by a lower caste has a different passion than if written by a Nobleman. Yes the works will remain eternal, but the take on it will be completely different.

You are familiar with the 17th Earl of Oxfords Bible right? The bible Of Edward de Vere?

Originally posted by antar
during that time he was approached to be a front man for a high Noble who needed an outlet for his plays and sonnets which would have been seen as treasonous coming from someone on the inside, it would have made him blackballed for giving away secrets of courts and of the inner truths of court life.

The notion of what could or could not be known by someone in the Elizabethan era is shaky ground. Some people find it hard to believe that a person of Shakespeare's backround could have written the plays. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could have written those plays, but they were written.

I think it is likely that they were written by someone with a poetic gift who had access to people with information, not by someone who had to go through the process of acquiring that information as part of a separate career.

I think it is highly likely that English courtiers like Bacon or Oxford would approach a dramatist like Shakespeare and give him material to insert in his dramas, perhaps even to rewrite and buff up for them, so that when they attended a command performance with the Queen they could slyly let it be known that this or that passage came from their own pen or that this or that anecdote had been planted by them in the play as a favor to the Queen or some other high personage.

People like Shakespeare and other artists of the time owed everything to the aristocratic class and lived in great fear of falling out of favor, losing patronage or even losing their lives for some fault.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

I have always hated Shakespeare. I hated studying his works in school and cannot think of anything I learned from them except how boring the stories were and how pretentious everybody was who wanted me to study him.

GIVE ME MARK TWAIN ANY DAY! Or that Marcinko guy who writes the "Rogue Warrior" stuff.

[edit on 2-25-2009 by groingrinder]

[edit on 2-25-2009 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by groingrinder
I have always hated Shakespeare.

When I was young, I hated green peppers, especially cooked ones. Later in life I learned that they had their uses and grew to like them in certain things.

Mark Twain is great.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Then you are in great company! Mark Twain himself was a great proponent for finding the true authorship of Shakespeare. He did not believe it was the Stratford man at all.

reply to post by antar

Shakespeare is an odd author in more ways than one. He had a huge vocabulary. Most people get by in life on a day to day basis with a vocabulary between 5 and 10 thousand words. Some authors have vocabularies in the range of 20-25 thousand words. Shakespeare's vocabulary is in excess of 40 thousand words!

The large vocabulary is a disturbing fact that could lead one to conclude that more than one person was involved in the authorship of the plays. It might be definitive proof of it.

I'm not sure if there have been studies of the vocabularies of Bacon for instance or Oxford. Such a study might be revealing, not only as it relates to the size of the vocabulary but as to content of the vocabulary. I'm writing off the top of my head here but I would be willing to venture that there must certainly be original coinages in Shakespeare's vocabulary.

The plays have a consistent style and an evolving world view. That speaks to a single author in my view, but of course a committee gave the King James Bible a consistent style as well. Did a committee write the plays? I have a hard time with that notion because the plays are so intimate and personal in so many ways. I think if people contributed to them it would have been more along the line of what I outlined in an earlier post.

If you read the slavish sorts of dedication prefaces that artists of the period wrote to their aristocratic patrons, you will realize the dimensions of the power the patrons wielded in that society. A playwright like Shakespeare, especially a glittering talent, would be sought after by his patrons to make the patron look good and would refuse a patron nothing, and certainly would not hesitate to follow any suggestion as to plot or content that a patron might supply.

I've seen some of Edward de Vere's poetry (I would call it verse.) and it is nice but insipid, lacking the poetic word magic we associate with Shakespeare. No matter where the ideas and stories of the plays came from, there was a poetic genius involved in the mix. I think it was a nobody named William Shakespeare.



[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

I've heard of polymaths, but we are talking about a different thing. An imagined polymath who is in the first rank in two divergent disciplines.

Bacon also doing Shakespeare would be more like Leonardo also doing Michelangelo. It's a bigger stretch than the example of Leonardo demonstrates.

In addition, I think that a lot of Bacon's activities were quite antithetical to the spirit and intention of Shakespeare's plays. In short I think that Bacon was not close to being a Shakespearean. He was an animal of a different stripe.

You're kind of contradicting yourself because not only did Leonardo DO Michelangelo, the other example I gave you Leibniz was FIRST RANK in two divergent disciplines as well. Did you miss the part where I said he's considered in the top 3 philosophers and one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, having had discovered 2 of the most fundamental and important mathematical disciplines in existence (amongst many other things)? I think that very much relates to Bacon being able to do "Shakespeare" while also doing Bacon.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
You're kind of contradicting yourself because not only did Leonardo DO Michelangelo,

No he didn't. Leonardo was a great artist but not in Michelangelo's class in either quality or output.

the other example I gave you Leibniz was FIRST RANK in two divergent disciplines as well.

I would argue that mathematics and philosophy are closer than philosophy of science plus law plus politics would be to writing plays in poetry.

Did you miss the part where I said he's considered in the top 3 philosophers and one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, having had discovered 2 of the most fundamental and important mathematical disciplines in existence (amongst many other things)?

No, I caught it. I'm usually a pretty thorough reader, although obviously not infallible.

I think that very much relates to Bacon being able to do "Shakespeare" while also doing Bacon.

I agree that Bacon was very talented and energetic, but I already said why I didn't think he wrote Shakespeare's plays. He was too busy and just not the type. Do you think a lawyer could have been the author of Shakespeare's plays?


[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

Pseudonym????


en.wikipedia.org...

One famous example of this is Samuel Clemens writing under the pen name Mark Twain.

Maybe the Pseudonym took on a life of it's own. The real author for what ever reason did not want to be known. It could have even been a woman author and in these days a woman author or a woman anything was unheard of. I seen a bit on TV about this a few years back and that was what some people was saying. That the real author wrote the plays using a Pseudonym or pen name if you will and it took on a life of its own. You would be surprised at the number of people that think Mark Twain was a real author. I guess will may never really know who wrote the great works of Shakespeare

reply to post by fixer1967

I don't think Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Here is a link to the preface of the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays.

shakespeare.palomar.edu...

There are some poetic tributes to the author of the plays, who is also listed as a member of the acting troupe that put the plays on. He is praised highly by people who knew him, especially by Ben Jonson, who though humbly born was highly educated and a great playwright himself.

I think these people mean what they are writing. I don't think they were conspiring to conceal the identity of a nobleman ashamed to be associated with work that was considered, even at that early time, by one who was educated well enough to know, on a par with the best ever written.

Triumph, my Britaine, thou hast one to showe,
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age, but for all time !

I normally distance myself from anything and everything David Icke related. I usually wont even justify it with a response. At first glance this sounds like more reptilian garbage. You have to admit, even amongst conspiracy theorist, he isn't exactly the most well respected guy.

With that being said, I am reserving judgment on this topic until I have a chance to conduct further research.


I do sort of question the motive behind this supposed conspiracy though. It seems to fall back on the timeless "they were leaking information and its all encoded"

And BTW to the people casually casting around the King James Bible, do a little independent research. Not just what is spoon fed you. It wasn't even the first english bible. No conspiracy here, move along.

Originally posted by enir nabu
you are 100% correct. I mistyped my headline and included the word "all" and for that I apologize. Not every school regurgitates lies.

No problem.

I think YOU take allot for face value like most people do. If that works for you then continue enjoying your life that way. I enjoy living my life this way...when I discover I've been lied to...I try to find out why. That's just me.

...

I don't dispute a man named Shakespeare existed. I am saying he didn't write the fairy tales we all read and are led to believe he wrote. Simple. Same as Jesus. A guy named Jesus existed...sure. He's just not the guy everyone thinks he was.

Again, this is something myself, and many others were taught at school - this 'great secret' you appear to be peddling was revealed to me 30 years ago in an English classroom. There was a man called William Shakespeare - evidence that he existed &c - but someone else wrote literature under the name 'William Shakespeare'.

I don't take things on "face value" and I'm not sure where you get that from. In English Literature, people are taught that texts are crammed with layers of meaning; when I did Shakespeare at school it was no different. How is that 'taking things at face value'? Somehow, because I don't accept your interpretation, I'm taking things at face value?

The information you're proffering here is second-hand in that all you're doing is collating and patching together other people's research, other people's relaying of information as 'fact'. Yes, it makes sense to you and it rings as a truth, but ultimately you're taking a lot of things as 'given' too.

Is it me or does Bacon look just like Blackadder?




...kinda

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Welfhard]