Jabu Khan

But history is what we have not what we create until someone finds something to fit the bill how de we no what to look for the possibilities are staggering.

Chris Weimer

Actually, it was Aristophanes (thanks Andrew!), not Euripides or Sophocles, and we also have another source - Xenophon.

And Xenophon's. And remember, they both knew Socrates and wrote immediately after him.

Where Socrates merges into Plato is a very fine distinction, and not so easily told. My own views is that the earlier stuff - Euthyphro, Apologia, Phaedrus - we see the real Socrates, but in works like the Republic or Laws, we most likely see Plato - extensive dialogue and very abstract ideas which appear differently than the rest of Socrates' persona.

Matthew certainly contains fictions in it, but certainly not seen as entirely fictitious, as I argue here and here.

Socrates doesn't quite make much sense in the Aristotelian period, nor does Jesus make sense after 70 CE. Context is a great factor.

DrDale

Exactly! That's why I asked the question regarding the historical method! How does one discover the authenticity of an historical figure? Much of what we once knew about the bible was given to us by "experts" who simply assumed the bible was historicaly accurate. When people began to uncover archeological evidence that contradicted this account what resulted was a chain reaction; people began questioning all sorts of historical accuracies regarding the bible including, but not limited to, the existence of Jesus.

Critical to these questions is the methodology used to answer them because understanding that methodology is critical regarding the integrity and consistency of that investigation. If evidence is to be discredited then the process by which it was eliminated must be applied across the board, not just selectively.


Cheers, DrDale

DrDale

How do we know Socrates wasn't just a pen name and it was really Plato all along? The same question could be asked of Shakespeare as well (being just a pen name that is).


Cheers, DrDale

andrewcriddle

IMS it is neither Sophocles nor Euripides but Aristophanes in The Clouds

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Xenophon and Aristophanes both give accounts of Socrates. And if I remember correctly, Xenophon also mentions Plato.

And don't we have birth records of Shakespeare? Or baptism records?

Chris Weimer

Bah, you're right. When given the choice of either Sophocles or Euripides, I still chose wrong. Thanks Andrew. :blush:

DrDale

Well to play the devils advocate how do we know that Xenophon and Aristophanes where also not pen names of Plato?

Have no idea, but if that is the case why then are people questioning the existence of Shakespeare?


Cheers, Eternal

Chris Weimer

A total lack of evidence?

Some people just like an argument. Other people are stupid. Still others are stupid and like to argue. And finally, some people want to make some money by selling an argument to stupid people.

mikem

Every so often, someone comes up with a new theory about Shakespeare, we get used to it in England. As for evidence of his existence: we have records pertaining to his marriage to Anne Hathaway. A special licence had to be obtained, as she was already pregnant. They had three children, Susannah, Hamnet, (who died quite young), and Judith. During his youth, Shakespeare probably toured with a group of "players", (travelling actors who made their living putting on plays at the homes of the well heeled.) There is a record of him possibly being in a party that stayed at such a house not 5 miles from where I live in Lancashire. The uncertainty arises from the different ways in which his name might have been spelt back then, but the scholarly consensus is that it was Shakespeare, and that he stayed in Lancashire for some time.

A great deal is known about his father from town records in Stratford. His father sat on the town council for many years, and had a glove making business. It is possible that he was a Catholic, which was not a safe thing to be in Elizabethan England. A copy of a popular Catholic devotional tract was found hidden in the roof during later renovations.

There are also the portfolios of his plays, ascribing authorship. There are the written records of his fellow actors, Heming, Condell, the playwright Ben Jonson. There is no doubt that Shakespeare existed. What most Shakespeare revisionists are usually trying to do is to prove that Shakespeare did not write the works ascribed to him. Utter nonsense in my view.