ordinary individual, often placed in extraordinary circumstances
Shakespeare lived during the Renaissance, so everyone he knew, he knew during the renaissance.
Except to the extent that Shakespeare knew that he couldn't write anything which might criticize the monarch, since people who wrote those kinds of things went to jail, the king and queen had no influence on Shakespeare's writing.
We have no reason to believe that at any time after they were married, Anne Shakespeare did not know where her husband was. In that sense, he didn't go missing; his contemporaries did not go out looking for him because they didn't know where he was. They knew. Unfortunately they did not always leave records of this so that although they knew where he was between 1585 and 1592, we do not.
Shakespeare did not follow the convention of the three unities except in rare cases (such as The Comedy of Errors). In some cases he violates these so-called rules so brashly that one must feel that if he was aware of them, he held them in utter contempt. In particular one is reminded of the way the Winter's Tale flouts the "unity of time", Pericles completely ignores the "unities of place and action" and King Lear, with its complex of subplots, makes a hash of the "unity of action". Dryden, and other late 17th and 18th century writers who worshipped the French authors who had invented these rules, criticized Shakespeare for not having anticipated them. Samuel Johnson, in his introduction to Shakespeare, said he did not know whether or not Shakespeare knew about the unities, but that he clearly knew how to write plays, and that nobody ought to give a hoot (or substitute the expression of your choice) about some arcane and artificial rules.
The arguments for a position that William Shakespeare the playwright and William Shakespeare from Stratford were not the same people fall into two categories. First is the argument that the kind of person we know Shakespeare from Stratford to have been could not have known or understood what the playwright seems to have known or understood. He was not university educated, so how could he have understood classical references? He was not a nobleman, so how could he have known about the court? He was not a woman, so how could he have understood women so well? What is going on here is that people admire Shakespeare because of his writing and then find themselves disappointed with the kind of person the Stratford Man was, and so make up the kind of person they wish he was. But in fact there are two words which completely explain how Shakespeare knew about all of these things: research and imagination. The second group of anti-Stratfordian arguments are directed at weakening the arguments why Shakespeare really was the man from Stratford. They follow the logical fallacy that demonstration that we are not 100% sure of the truth of something is proof of its falsity. For example, if there is the remotest possibility that Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien in disguise, then that is proof positive that she is such an alien. Such arguments are the staple food of conspiracy theories, are obviously false, and become only more ridiculous as they pile unlikelihood on unlikelihood. How do we know that Shakespeare the writer was from Stratford? There are a series of documents and other physical evidence which connects Shakespeare the actor, Shakespeare the writer and Shakespeare the man from Stratford. The Stratford man left money to the actor's friends. A coat of arms was given to the actor which appears on the Stratford monument. After the actor joined a theatre company, from then on that was the only company to perform the writer's plays. When the actor's company performed before the king, the writer's name is the same as the player's name. When the writer's plays are published, he is described as being from Stratford. The monument erected to the Stratford Man describes him as a writer. All of the documentary evidence we have is consistent with this conclusion. There is no evidence whatsoever that Shakespeare the writer was anyone other than the man from Stratford.
The ISBN of The Cat Who Knew Shakespeare is 0515095826.
The Cat Who Knew Shakespeare has 256 pages.
The Cat Who Knew Shakespeare was created on 1988-06-01.
Shakespeare lived during the Renaissance, so everyone he knew, he knew during the renaissance.
He wrote plays... surely you knew that?!
many many people
No Shakespeare play contains the phrase "you knew him well". Not even close. The nearest is this quotation from All's Well That Ends Well: "It were fit you knew him; lest, reposing too far in his virtue, which he hath not, he might at some great and trusty business in a main danger fail you." This snarky comment is about the rascal and coward Parolles. There are ten more places in Shakespeare's plays where the phrase "knew him" appears.
At the time of Shakespeare people did not want new stories they had never heard before, but they did like novel presentations and improved retellings of the old stories they all knew by heart. Shakespeare was very very good at taking old stories that everyone knew completely and updating and improving them.
William Shakespeare's will was mad 4 weeks before he died (coincidence) maybe he knew he was going to die maybe he commited suicide!
Shakespeare got some of his ideas from Plutarch. Plutarch was a historian, Shakespeare was an entertainer/writer. Shakespeare 's work was fiction. He was making entertainment for his audience. Plutarch was writing the facts as he knew them.
His wife who he got pregnant twice probably knew he wasn't a girl.
Usain who? If he wrote plays I never knew about it.