Sorry for my totally unenthusiastic response to what is a worn-out and weary diatribe often offered to refute the existence of a man that I myself find it hard to believe ever existed when one considers the paucity of the record.
Of course my point was not to illicit the same old tired stock response as I was only pointing out that one should at least be fair regarding two personalities whom are often disputed as to being the authors of the great works to which their names are assigned.
"Tradition tells a story that William Shakespeare did come into this world and did part from it on the same date 23rd April (St Georges Day) But some do tell it different and say that William Shakespeare was born on 6th April 1564 but this was never proved as no birth certificate was ever produced, so Shakespeare's birth date is noted to be 23rd April 1564." [
http://www.geocities.com/wanabee_you/life.html]
http://www.metroactive.com/...o/07.96/shakespeare1-96-7.html says about Shakespeare: ... three signatures in different handwriting. Six similar though far from identical portraits. No birth certificate or school records. The biggest name in English literature is also one of the greatest enigmas. The same William Shakespeare who left behind the most revered body of work in the history of the language left less physical evidence than O.J. Simpson. His will grants his wife his ‘second best’ bed, but you'll look in vain for mention of the precious manuscripts.
He lacks the background, breeding, and education to write such astounding lyrics. His plays have a depth and a magnitude so great that only a university-educated man of high status could have. As a matter of fact, his parents and daughters were probably illiterate, let alone able to send him to a university.
On Shakespeare’s birth certificate, his name is spelled ‘Shaksper,’ and six signatures undisputed to be authentic are all spelled differently. Moreover, those six signatures are written in a horrible, virtually illegible scribbleone appearing much closer to that of an illiterate than to that of the most renowned writer ever.
Shakespeare retired to Stratford in about 1613, at the pinnacle of his career. Why?
There are portraits of Shakespeare, but none that were done during his lifetime. Why was he not painted, as other authors at his time were?
His death entry in the parish registry lists him as a ‘Gent.’ Not a dramatist, not an actor, but a ‘Gent.’ Originally a sack of grain was pictured on his headstone; in 1747 (when Shakespeare was gaining popularity), the sack was replaced with a quill pen. There was not even a eulogy for him the day he died. (Epstein 277-281)
De Vere, Earl of Oxford, is regarded as the most likely of the bunch to actually be the famed author. Some of the better arguments for him include:
A peer of de Vere praised him, calling him a ‘Man whose countenance shakes spears.’
One of his coats of arms depicts a lion shaking a broken spear.
The speaker in the sonnets was a middle-aged man obsessed with his own mortality, yet Shakespeare was in his thirties when he ‘supposedly’ wrote them. Oxfordians date the Sonnets between 1593 and 1603; since de Vere died in 1604, he would have been about the right age. (Epstein 289-291)
We can go on ad nauseum whether either Jesus or Shakespeare existed or authored the copious volumes attributed to them. I really could care less regarding either. I enjoy both their contributions regardless of who wrote them.
Again my point is ... both or neither ... don't single out one as not worthy of being influencial due to the suspect nature of their historic authenticity.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 02-17-2004]
™ Version 4.2