Poll: William Shakespeare, did he exist?
- Thread starter silver wolf009
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's some idea that Shakespeare was actually philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (the theory is called "Bacon's cipher" or "Baconian theory").
But seeing as playwrites actually directed plays as well (and often still do), I can't imagine Sir Francis Bacon turning up to rehearsals and no one somehow noticing.
But seeing as playwrites actually directed plays as well (and often still do), I can't imagine Sir Francis Bacon turning up to rehearsals and no one somehow noticing.
Well we know when he was baptized, and a little bit about his life. No real Biographical works. There are only two pictures of the guy. One was painted after he was dead. But as far as did he live, of course he did! Hard to make plays if you never existed.El Poncho said:
Shakespeare was real, there's quite a paper trail, he was incorporated, involved in court cases, bought houses etc. His existence is well established and beyond refute. That he wrote his own work is beyond reasonable refute. He was well recognized by other writers of the time, and famously criticized for immorality and pandering by some contemporary literary critics (men with a reason to out him if there was any doubt he actually wrote his plays). He was well known in his own day, and well known as distinctive (his "own honey-toned phrase", in the words of one author).
All conspiracy theories involve a generous portion of gullibility and insanity, but the conspiracy theories are especially pathetic re: this topic. They are mostly all based, IMO, on a desire to see history in a particular light. Those with a feminist bent would like it if the most famous author in English Lit were a woman....hence the Queen as WS (not enough to rule a country, I guess). Those with an elitist bent call for Bacon, because no random dude from a small town could possibly crank out some of the greatest prose and poetry in our language. It clearly took a genius like Bacon....except that it didn't, and there is not a shred of evidence. Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford) has been put forward (only a nobleman could have done it....except de Vere was functionally illiterate, and could barely sign his own name). Johnson and Chapman have been suggested, but they were both successful writers in their own right, and had no need to set up such an elaborate ruse....plus, there is no evidence for either.
The only sense in which the theorists have a point is that Shakespeare never sold a book. All of his writings are cobbled together from his play scripts, notes and letters and heavily edited, and it all took place after his death. Nothing remains of Shakespeare's original work, only copies. So, in a sense, the real writers of Shakespeare's works are the legion of editors who pieced his (often conflicting) writings together into a cohesive whole.
All conspiracy theories involve a generous portion of gullibility and insanity, but the conspiracy theories are especially pathetic re: this topic. They are mostly all based, IMO, on a desire to see history in a particular light. Those with a feminist bent would like it if the most famous author in English Lit were a woman....hence the Queen as WS (not enough to rule a country, I guess). Those with an elitist bent call for Bacon, because no random dude from a small town could possibly crank out some of the greatest prose and poetry in our language. It clearly took a genius like Bacon....except that it didn't, and there is not a shred of evidence. Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford) has been put forward (only a nobleman could have done it....except de Vere was functionally illiterate, and could barely sign his own name). Johnson and Chapman have been suggested, but they were both successful writers in their own right, and had no need to set up such an elaborate ruse....plus, there is no evidence for either.
The only sense in which the theorists have a point is that Shakespeare never sold a book. All of his writings are cobbled together from his play scripts, notes and letters and heavily edited, and it all took place after his death. Nothing remains of Shakespeare's original work, only copies. So, in a sense, the real writers of Shakespeare's works are the legion of editors who pieced his (often conflicting) writings together into a cohesive whole.
" Women weren't thought fondly of in this primitive time so she crated a loophole in which she could write as much as she wanted. "
Couple points:
1: It's Queen Elizabeth I
2: Not thought fondly of? She was the fricking QUEEN! The state of Virginia is named after her! She was the most powerful person in the country! She stopped the Spanish Armada and colonized North America! If she wanted to write something (you know, in her spare time from ruling an empire) who was going to stop her?
3: Shakespeare wrote most of his famous work after her death in 1603. His famous company of actors was "The King's Men", so named because they had a patent from King James, her successor.
4: While far more rare than men, there were quite a few female writers prior to and at this time. Talented female writers had been writing poetry, novels and plays in the great courts of Europe since the thirteenth century.
5: If Shakespeare was a front for publishing, he was a shitty one, because he never published anything. His plays were written to be performed, and were never distributed in his lifetime.
Couple points:
1: It's Queen Elizabeth I
2: Not thought fondly of? She was the fricking QUEEN! The state of Virginia is named after her! She was the most powerful person in the country! She stopped the Spanish Armada and colonized North America! If she wanted to write something (you know, in her spare time from ruling an empire) who was going to stop her?
3: Shakespeare wrote most of his famous work after her death in 1603. His famous company of actors was "The King's Men", so named because they had a patent from King James, her successor.
4: While far more rare than men, there were quite a few female writers prior to and at this time. Talented female writers had been writing poetry, novels and plays in the great courts of Europe since the thirteenth century.
5: If Shakespeare was a front for publishing, he was a shitty one, because he never published anything. His plays were written to be performed, and were never distributed in his lifetime.
Okey... I know I am gonna get in trouble for this one...
Has anyone seen the documentary "Sweet swan of Avon"?
There is this norwegian guy who believes he has found a series of codes in the works of shakespeare.
I know, right?
But wait... It gets better...
He (The mans name is Petter Amundsen) believes that there is compelling evidence within the code system that Shakespeare was in fact written by Francis Bacon!
Bear with me...
The series of codes leads, according to Amundsen, to a treasure map, also in code and also hidden in the works of shakespeare. Amundsen believes that the map leads to the original shakespeare manuscripts preserved in mercury.
The thing is: Amundsens work is pretty solid and at the end of the documentary I honestly did not know what to think. He could not produce the ultimate evidence, namely the treasure at the end of the map, but that was only because the spot was on private land and the landowners would not let him dig!
Check it out at least, and please understand that I am extremely skeptical to this sort of thing but Amundsen almost had me convinced.
http://www.travelexplorations.com/sweet-swan-of-avon-the-shakespeare-treasure-documentary-on-tv-nrk-8-december-2009.4663189-17545.html
Has anyone seen the documentary "Sweet swan of Avon"?
There is this norwegian guy who believes he has found a series of codes in the works of shakespeare.
I know, right?
But wait... It gets better...
He (The mans name is Petter Amundsen) believes that there is compelling evidence within the code system that Shakespeare was in fact written by Francis Bacon!
Bear with me...
The series of codes leads, according to Amundsen, to a treasure map, also in code and also hidden in the works of shakespeare. Amundsen believes that the map leads to the original shakespeare manuscripts preserved in mercury.
The thing is: Amundsens work is pretty solid and at the end of the documentary I honestly did not know what to think. He could not produce the ultimate evidence, namely the treasure at the end of the map, but that was only because the spot was on private land and the landowners would not let him dig!
Check it out at least, and please understand that I am extremely skeptical to this sort of thing but Amundsen almost had me convinced.
http://www.travelexplorations.com/sweet-swan-of-avon-the-shakespeare-treasure-documentary-on-tv-nrk-8-december-2009.4663189-17545.html
I would have liked a "Who cares, I hated his work whether he exist or not and it made my high school life even more miserable then it already was" option. :/
Not true in the least. Legal records alone tell us a fair bit about the man. Off the top of my head, his baptism and marriage license are on file. He is listed as parent on the baptismal records of his children. He is listed as a partner in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, an acting company (later renamed to The Kings Men) on the royal charter granted to teh company. He was involved in dozens of court cases, both as litigator and witness, and the records are still available. He bought houses and the deeds are still on file. He bought stocks and bonds (or the seventeenth century equivalent) and that paperwork survives. This is just a sample, there's literally thousands of documents outlining the man's life. We know as much about WS as we do about anyone who lived in his day, barring, perhaps, heads of state. Add the legal records to the writings of other men and women on him (letters, literary criticism, etc.) and we get a pretty good picture.LWS666 said:
What you meant to say was that there was next to nothing that YOU know for sure. Two minutes with Wikipedia (or, god forbid, a book) could have alleviated your ignorance.
I love the internet, particularly for the idiots who try to have fun by starting a pointless argument. Obviously he was real. If he wasn't or it was just an alias, we wouldn't know his birthplace, his parents' names, and other personal information like that.
First off: He's not known by all of humanity. Not even just by name. He's known in western society but I can guarentee you that only a small part actually knows the plays and other stuff he wrote.
Now we got that out of the way, let me just say that that theory is bullshit.
Now we got that out of the way, let me just say that that theory is bullshit.
